The top U.S. military officer has accused China of “theft” in cyber space, saying that cyber attacks on U.S. infrastructure or networks could be met with a conventional military response.

"China's particular niche in cyber has been theft and intellectual property," Army General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the Brookings Institution think-tank on Thursday.

The top officer said cyber attacks on the U.S. would not necessarily prompt a response in the cyber and Washington may resort to a military counterattack in air, sea, space or land

“There is an assumption out there … that a cyber attack that had destructive effects would be met by a cyber response that had destructive effects, that’s not necessarily the case. I think that what [President Barack Obama] would insist upon, actually, is that he had the options and the freedom of movement to decide what kind of response we would employ.”

He said President Barack Obama insists on having a lot of options in case of a destructive cyber attack on the U.S., adding “the response could actually be in one of the other traditional domains."

The Pentagon in April directly accused China and its military for the first time of hacking the U.S. systems. Beijing denies the allegations.

The accusation and the threat come amid the uproar in the U.S over the recent revelations by a former contractor at the National Security Agency about America’s surveillance programs across the world.

Edward Snowden also disclosed that the U.S. is tapping into Chinese mobile carriers to access customers’ text messages.

“China should set up a national information security review commission as soon as possible,” Snowden told the South China Morning Post newspaper last week.

An unsettling report prepared by the Emergencies Ministry (EMERCOM) circulating in the Kremlin today on the just completed talks between Russia and the United States in Washington D.C. says that the Obama regime has requested at least 15,000 Russian troops trained in disaster relief and “crowd functions” [i.e. riot control] be pre-positioned to respond to FEMA Region III during an unspecified “upcoming” disaster.

According to this report, this unprecedented request was made directly to Minister Vladimir Puchkov by US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Director Janet Napolitano who said these Russian troops would work “directly and jointly” with her Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of whose mission is to secure the continuity of the US government in the event of natural disasters or war.

Important to note, this report says, is that FEMA Region III, the area Russian troops are being requested for, includes Washington D.C. and the surrounding States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, “strongly suggesting” that the Obama regime has lost confidence in its own military being able to secure its survival should it be called upon to do so.

In his public statements, yesterday, regarding these matters Minister Puchkov stated, “We have decided that the US Federal Emergency Management Agency and Russia’s Emergencies Ministry will work together to develop systems to protect people and territory from cosmic impacts,” and further noted that his meeting with DHS Director Napolitano also covered other kinds of natural emergencies, such as recent years’ extreme weather in both Russia and United States.

In this EMERCOM report, however, Minister Puchkov notes that the Russian troops being requested by the Obama regime would “more than likely” be paired with US-DHS troops who last year purchased nearly 2 billion rounds of ammunition and just this past month placed and emergency order for riot gear.

As to what “upcoming disaster” the US is preparing for, this report continues, appears to be “strongly related” to last weeks assassination of American reporter MichaelHastings who was killed while attempting to reach the safety of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles, and as we had reported on in our 20 June report Top US Journalist Attempting To Reach Israeli Consulate Assassinated.

Further to be noted about Hastings assassination by the Obama regime is the continued US mainstream propaganda news cover-up of it, though many freelance reporters continue to uncover the truth, such as Jim Stone whose investigation noted that the rear portion of Hastings car was blown open and shredded with the rest of the car nicely intact, which runs counter to the “official” story that this vehicle has hit a tree.


Not mentioned in this EMERCOM report is any suggestion that Russia would comply with this request from the Obama regime, especially in light of the horrifying information being given to Russian intelligence analysts from Edward Snowden who has been labeled as the most wanted man in the world.

According to one Federal Security Services (FSB) bulletin on their continued debriefing of Snowden, and analysis of the information he has provided Russian intelligence officers, his father, Lonnie Snowden, was an officer in the US Coast Guard during the 11 September 2001 attacks on the United States who had “direct knowledge” of the true events that occurred and whom the real perpetrators were.


Being directly affected by the events of 9/11, this FSB bulletin says, Snowden “self initiated” a multi-year effort to gain access to America’s top secrets, a mission which when recently completed led him to contact various international reporters, including Hastings, whom he believed could be trusted with disseminating the information he had obtained.

Though known to us directly from our Kremlin sources as to the exact connections Snowden’s information proves regarding 9/11 and both the Bush and Obama regimes, and the even more horrific event soon to come, a June 2013Defence Advisory Notice (DA-Notice) prevents our being able to…at this time.

Likewise, and as the assassination of Hastings clearly shows, the Obama regime claims a legal right to kill anyone it so chooses without charges or trial they believe may threaten US national security, and what Snowden’s information reveals definitely falls into that category.

What can be said though, there is a critical reason billionaires all over the world have been dumping their stocks, and fast; and those who are not able to read between the lines will soon find themselves in the most dangerous situation they’ve ever encountered.

Forewarned IS forearmed.


Source: http://www.eutimes.net/2013/06/obama-requests-15000-russian-troops-for-upcoming-disaster/

Monsanto has been the topic of a lot of news lately, especially with the multi-country march that took place against Monsanto a short time ago. What can be seen as another big victory for public health, a French court found Monsanto guilty for poisoning a French Farmer. Paul Francois is a humble farmer who began experiencing neurological problems such as memory loss and headaches after being exposed to Monsanto’s Lasso weedkiller back in 2004. The decision reached 2012 for this case sets a powerful precedent that can continue to help raise awareness and dismantel the ignorance that exists around Monsanto and their products, including GMO foods.

In previous cases against the pesticide giant, farmers were unable to prove and properly link pesticide exposure to the side effects they were having. This is not the case for Francois’s, as an expert opinion was able to determine the sum of the damages incurred and verify the link the Lasso pesticide and his illnesses.

After the case ruling, Monsanto’s lawyers were contacted but they decline to comment.

Although Francois’s story is one of few positive endings, his is not the only case where people have attempted to hold Monsanto accountable for their dangerous actions. In 2011, he and other farmers formed an association to help raise awareness and go after Monsanto for the negative effects their products have on farmers. Awareness of the association grew and their claims were met by other farmers who were experiencing similar illnesses. Since 1996, the agricultural branch of the French social security system has gathered about 200 alerts per year regarding sickness related to pesticides. It is unfortunate to say that only 47 cases were even recognized in the past 10 years.

Francois, whose life was damaged by Monsanto’s products, has been successful in his quest to hold Monsanto accountable and has now set a powerful precedent for other farmers looking to do the same.

In 2007 France banned the Lasso pesticide following a European Union directive that came after the ban of the product in other nations. Another push for other countries to do the same.

One of Monsanto’s main reasons for creating the products they do is to ensure and good quality of life for people. We can observe that their pesticides are not only harming people but the practice of farming that requires pesticides is not only harmful to the earth but produces less nutritious and less bountiful crops. The argument that we need to produce more food is absurd given that alternative farming practices could be done. Monsanto is a completely unnecessary business.

The Francois case goes back to a period of intensive use of crop-protection chemicals in the European Union. The EU and its member countries have since banned a large number of substances considered dangerous.

Lasso, a pre-emergent soil-applied herbicide that has been used since the 1960s to control grasses and broadleaf weeds in farm fields, was banned in France in 2007 following an EU directive after the product had already been withdrawn in some other countries.

Though it once was a top-selling herbicide, it has gradually lost popularity, and critics say several studies have shown links to a range of health problems.

Monsanto’s Roundup is now the dominant herbicide used to kill weeds. The company markets it in conjunction with its biotech herbicide-tolerant “Roundup Ready” crops. The Roundup Ready corn, soybeans, cotton and other crops do not die when sprayed directly with the herbicide, a trait that has made them wildly popular with U.S. farmers.

But farmers are now being encouraged to use more and different kinds of chemicals again as Roundup loses its effectiveness to a rise of “super weeds” that are resistant to Roundup.

And while the risks of pesticide are a generally known and accepted hazard of farming in most places, and farmers are cautioned to take care when handling the chemicals, increased use of pesticides will only cause more harm to human health and the environment, critic say.

“The registration process does not protect against harm. Manufacturers have to be held liable for adverse impacts that occur,” said Jay Feldman, director of Beyond Pesticides, a non-profit group focused on reducing pesticide use.

France, the EU’s largest agricultural producer, is now targeting a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use between 2008 and 2018, with initial results showing a 4 percent cut in farm and non-farm use in 2008-2010.

The Francois claim may be easier to argue than others because he can pinpoint a specific incident – inhaling the Lasso when cleaning the tank of his crop sprayer – whereas fellow farmers are trying to show accumulated effects from various products.

“It’s like lying on a bed of thorns and trying to say which one cut you,” said a farmer, who has recovered from prostate cancer and asked not to be named.

The French association of crop protection companies, UIPP, says pesticides are all subject to testing and that any evidence of a cancer risk in humans leads to withdrawal of products from the market.

“I think if we had a major health problem with pesticides, we would have already known about it,” Jean-Charles Bocquet, UIPP’s managing director, said.

The social security’s farming branch this year is due to add Parkinson’s disease to its list of conditions related to pesticide use after already recognizing some cases of blood cancers and bladder and respiratory problems.

France’s health and environment safety agency (ANSES), meanwhile, is conducting a study on farmers’ health, with results expected next year.


Source: http://politicalblindspot.org/us-media-blackout-monsanto-found-guilty-of-chemical-poisoning-in-france/

Former U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger says the American media are not telling the truth about the current situation in Syria.

“In the American press it’s described as a conflict between democracy and a dictator- and the dictator is killing his own people, and we’ve got to punish him. But that’s not what’s going on,” he said during a speech at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan.

“It is now a civil war between sectarian groups,” Kissinger added.

Kissinger’s remarks come as the United States has been criticized for fomenting sectarian discord in Syria and the broader Middle East by interfering in the nations’ internal affairs and backing up insurgencies.

Elsewhere in his remarks Kissinger said “the outcome I would prefer to see” in Syria was a broken-up and balkanized country with “more or less autonomous regions.”

U.S. President Barack Obama has authorized sending weapons to foreign-backed militants in Syria, further escalating the conflict in the Arab country.

The White House earlier accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons against the militants, an allegation denied by Damascus.

Obama’s policies regarding Syria have been attacked by some American politicians.

Former Congressman Ron Paul said the Obama administration was “escalating” the war in Syria by sending weapons to the militants.

“Today we heard from President Obama that the war in Syria will be escalated. He now has agreed to send weaponry in to assist the rebels. It’s escalation, that’s a proper word, because we’ve already been involved for quite a few months. We’ve been supporting the rebels for probably the past two years, supposedly for humanitarian reasons,” he said in a statement posted on YouTube.

“But now there is going to be a much more aggressive approach and we’re going to send weapons. There is a few problems with this, first off it’s war. Second thing is presidents are not supposed to start war without permission from the people through a congressional declaration of war,” Paul argued.

The unrest in Syria erupted over two years ago and many people, including large numbers of Syrian soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the conflict. 

Damascus says the conflict is being engineered from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants fighting in Syria are foreign nationals.


Source: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/310927.html

Edward Snowden hasn’t been seen on Thursday’s flight from Moscow to Cuba and has no ticket booked out of Russia over the next three days. With no valid passport, the NSA whistleblower might be stuck in airport limbo indefinitely.

The hot pursuit of Snowden has ground to a halt four days after the former CIA technician, wanted in the US on espionage charges, flew into Moscow’s Sheremetyevo Airport from Hong Kong. 

He was not seen on the latest flight from Moscow to Havana, to which he was reportedly going to before becoming stranded in Russia, reports RT’s Irina Galushko, who is among the many journalists hunting for the whistleblower at the airport’s transit zone.

“Obviously he has to go to someplace which doesn’t require a passport and not in friendly relations with the United States. So Havana, Cuba, seems to be the most obvious choice,” she said.

He is expected to leave Russia eventually, with Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela and Ireland named among possible destinations.

Washington, which wants Snowden for leaking details of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) dragnet telephone and Internet surveillance programs, charges that there is a clear legal basis for Moscow to hand him over. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin, who confirmed that Snowden had arrived in Moscow as a transit passenger despite speculation to the contrary, rebuffed US demands on Tuesday. 

“We can only extradite any foreign citizens to such countries with which we have signed the appropriate international agreements on criminal extradition,” Putin said, adding that as Snowden had committed no crime on Russian soil, he is free to travel at will. 

"Snowden is a free person. The sooner he chooses his final destination, the better it is for him and Russia,"Putin continued. 

However, the former NSA contractor appears to be staying put, as neither him nor his WikiLeaks-affiliated legal adviser Sarah Harrison have made travel plans over the coming days. 

"They are not flying today and not over the next three days," an Aeroflot representative at the transfer desk at Sheremetyevo told Reuters. 

"They are not in the system." 

Snowden’s stopover in the transit zone at Sheremetyevo could be prolonged indefinitely, as his passport, which was annulled by the US on Saturday, leaves him without the necessary documentation with which to travel, a source reportedly connected with Snowden told Interfax. 

“Snowden’s American passport is void and he is not in possession of any other document with which he can prove his identity. For this reason, he has to stay in Sheremetyevo’s transit zone and cannot leave Russia nor buy a ticket,” the source said. 

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told RT that Snowden had been given special refugee documents by the Ecuadorian government which facilitated his travel to Russia. Still, the country's top Foreign Ministry official, Galo Galarza said on Wednesday that Ecuador has not granted Edward Snowden any refugee documents. 

"He [Snowden] does not have a document issued by Ecuador, such as a passport or a refugee card, as speculated," said Galarza, as quoted by Ecuadorian television channel CT. So now it is unclear whether the whistleblower can continue traveling at all.  

WikiLeals warned via Twitter on Wednesday that "cancelling Snowden's passport and bullying intermediary countries may keep Snowden permanently in Russia.” 


Snowden, who has applied for asylum in Ecuador, was expected to make the next leg of his journey on Monday, as he had booked two tickets to Havana, Cuba. Snowden never showed for the flight, and according to RIA-Novosti, two tickets which he later booked for a Tuesday flight to the Cuban capital were returned just hours before departure. The next flight to Havana leaves on Wednesday. 

If he ever makes it to Cuba, the next stop in his journey would be Caracas, Venezuela. President Nicolas Maduro, who coincidentally is expected in Moscow next week for an energy summit, has said Caracas would also consider an asylum request from the whistleblower. 

Although dozens of Moscow-based journalists have been staked out at the airport since Sunday, not a single image of Snowden has surfaced. 

A receptionist at the Air Express Capsule Hotel in Terminal E of Sheremetyevo Airport told RIA-Novosti that Snowden had in fact spent several hours in one of the suites, “but left a long time ago.” 

Several journalists attempted to make contact with Snowden during his stay at the hotel, but were unsuccessful, the hotel employee continued. 

It has been speculated that Snowden, who remains at an undisclosed location within the transit zone, is purposely being held up by Russian security services for interrogation. 

WikiLeaks has refuted the accusation, saying Harrison "is escorting him at all times." 

Source: http://rt.com/news/snowden-terminal-passport-stuck-265/

“Though the controlled corporate media apparatus is suppressing the story, 40 tons of GMO crops were destroyed, prompting an FBI investigation. There has been a COMPLETE MEDIA BLACKOUT, outside of local circles has dared to mention it, perhaps because government fears that if the public learns that other people are getting fighting mad (literally), they might join in, and become an actual revolution.

It was only reported locally live on KXL Radio and echoed by the Oregonian and Realfarmacy where the ONLY web mention exists, hard to find because the headline wording is carefully avoids the most likely keywords for a search.

Here’s what happened — 40 Tons of GMO Sugar Beets were set ablaze (destroyed) in Eastern Oregon, yesterday. FORTY TONS — the entire acreage of two full fields of crops IN THE GROUND were set ablaze over a THREE NIGHT PERIOD OF TIME. That means ARSON. Evidence is that 6,500 plants were destroyed BY HAND, ONE PLANT AT A TIME.

That, in turn, implies A LOT OF PEOPLE were involved: would you want to stick around once a fire was going and wait to be discovered? No, someone (many someones) probably wanted to move as quickly as possible.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A MOVEMENT, a kind of ORGANIZED REVOLT — and this is exactly the kind of retribution that many have warned was coming; when lawmakers and corporations refuse to honor the Constitution and instead engage in ‘legalized’ criminal acts such as enabled by the ‘Monsanto Protection Act.’ More than decade ago, environmental saboteurs vandalized experimental crops across the country in a revolt against high-tech agriculture. Foes of genetic engineering also struck in 2000, when members of the Earth Liberation Front, with roots in Oregon, set fire to agriculture offices at Michigan State University.

ELF’s position was that genetic engineering was “one of the many threats to the natural world as we know it.” But ELF cells normally come forward immediately to claim responsibility, because to them, its all about publicity to educate the public. Since there has been no statement about the recent arson this may have simply been Oregon Farmers who have said, ‘Enough!’ Another clue that may be the case is that this comes on the heels (two weeks) of Japan’s rejection of the entire Oregon Wheat crop for the year (a tremendous financial blow because over 80% of Oregon Wheat is exported) because ONE report said ONE field was contaminated with at least ONE GMO plant.

The rightful fear is, because of pollination processes, once you introduce a GMO crop of a given variety ANYWHERE, the wind and insects will spread its genetic contamination to non GMO fields, and thereby ruin the ENTIRE INDUSTRY for a region. In fact, Oregon farmers have tendered a multi-billion dollar class action law suite against Monsanto, joining a long list of states doing so.

Monsanto has experimented with GMO crops before they were approved in 16 states. They were supposedly all destroyed, but state after state is finding out the hard way, that Pandora’s box has been deliberately left open. But while other governments in Europe and elsewhere are passing laws to ban GMO crops, and burning entire crops themselves, in America, our government is passing laws protecting Monsanto from legal repercussions, and therefore, it seems, farmers are forced to burn the crops, themselves. This means that where in other countries, citizens are being protected from corporate crimes, in America, citizens are forced to become ‘terrorists’ to survive.

That’s how blatantly corrupt our corporate police state has become, I’m afraid.

This story was reported on by Political Blind Spot after verifying the claims we had seen circulating, and omitting those which we had heard but could not verify. Still, Monsanto public relations employees were literally paid to track down articles such as ours and try to argue that they should be taken down (we may publish these exchanges with them from official Monsanto email addresses).

In this case, both fields belonged to the same Corporate Agricultural giant known for embracing GMO, though trying to do so quietly, another reason perhaps big media has kept the story from reaching the Internet. We are talking about Syngenta. Nowhere on their US web site will you find mention of GMO, but that is exactly what the company is about. They have even lied publicly in writing on this issue with a public declaration. Yet their very corporate name shouts GMO.”

But it also raises the stakes and put lives and property at risk, and if it goes wrong, could indeed end up sparking an armed revolution, just as Putin indicated to President Obama.

Source: http://therundownlive.com/?p=2286#sthash.4JmONrK6.dpuf

Kevin Rudd has prevailed in a dramatic Labor leadership ballot, defeating Julia Gillard and paving the way for him to return to the prime ministership.

Labor caucus returning officer Chris Hayes says that Mr Rudd won the leadership ballot 57-45.

Deputy PM Wayne Swan and Senate leader Stephen Conroy, along with Joe Ludwig and Craig Emerson have all quit Cabinet following the vote.

The ballot was the third time the Labor leadership has come to a head this Parliament, after Ms Gillard overthrew Mr Rudd in 2010.

Earlier today, Ms Gillard called a leadership ballot, declaring "this is it".

She said that she would not contest the upcoming election if she lost the ballot.

More to come.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-26/rudd-prevails-over-gillard-in-leadership-ballot/4783422

Amnesty International says the U.S. must not hunt down whistleblower Edward Snowden for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations.

The organization also warned that if Snowden is extradited to the United States, he would be at risk of persecution.

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the U.S. government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International.

"It appears he is being charged by the U.S. government primarily for revealing its and other governments’ unlawful actions that violate human rights,” he added.

Snowden, who traveled from Hong Kong to Moscow, is reportedly seeking asylum in Ecuador where he would not be at risk of extradition to the U.S.

Amnesty also said that no one can be extradited while they have an asylum claim under way in any country.

"Regardless of where Snowden ends up he has the right to seek asylum. For such a claim to succeed, he must demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution. Even if such a claim failed, no country can return a person to another country where there is a substantial risk of ill-treatment,” Brown said.

“His forced transfer to the USA would put him at great risk of human rights violations and must be challenged.”

The American whistleblower is charged with conveying classified information to an unauthorized party, disclosing communications intelligence information, and theft of government property. The charges, each of which carries a potential ten year prison term.

U.S. President Barack Obama told reporters Washington is following legal channels on how to bring Snowden back to the U.S.

Obama said that his administration is working to make sure "the rule of law is observed."


Source: http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/310665.html

In an article titled "The Global Corporate Elite" in the journal International Sociology, William K. Carroll and Jean Philippe Sapinski examined the relationship between the corporate elite and the emergence of a “transnational policy-planning network,” beginning with its formation in the decades following World War II and speeding up in the 1970s with the creation of “global policy groups” and think tanks such as the World Economic Forum, in 1971, and the Trilateral Commission, in 1973, among many others.

The function of such institutions was to help mobilize and integrate the corporate elite beyond national borders, constructing a politically “organized minority.” These policy-planning organizations came to exist as “venues for discussion, strategic planning, discourse production and consensus formation on specific issues,” as well as “places where responses to crises of legitimacy are crafted,” such as managing economic, political, or environmental crises where elite interests might be threatened. These groups also often acted as “advocates for specific projects of integration, often on a regional basis.” Perhaps most importantly, the organizations “provide bridges connecting business elites to political actors (heads of states, politicians, high-ranking public servants) and elites and organic intellectuals in other fields (international organizations, military, media, academia).”

One important industry association, according to researchers Carroll and Carson in the journal Global Networks (Vol. 3, No. 1, 2003), is the International Chamber of Commerce. Launched by investment bankers in 1919, immediately following WWI, the Paris-based Chamber groups roughly 7,000 member corporations together across 130 countries, adhering to largely conservative, “free market” ideology. The “primary function” of the ICC, write Carroll and Carson, “is to institutionalize an international business perspective by providing a forum where capitalists and related professionals... can assemble and forge a common international policy framework.”

Another policy group with outsized global influence is the Bilderberg group, founded between 1952 and 1954, which provided “a context for more comprehensive international capitalist coordination and planning.” Bringing together roughly 130 elites from Western Europe and North America at annual closed meetings, “Bilderberg conferences have furnished a confidential platform for corporate, political, intellectual, military and even trade-union elites from the North Atlantic heartland to reach mutual understanding.”

As Valerie Aubourg examined in an article for the journal Intelligence and National Security (Vol. 18, No. 2, 2003), the Bilderberg meetings were organized largely at the initiative of a handful of European elites, with heavy financial backing from select American institutions including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Ford Foundation and the CIA. The meetings incorporate leadership from the most prominent national think tanks, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment and others from across the North Atlantic ‘community.’

Hugh Wilford, writing in the journal Diplomacy & Statecraft (Vol. 14, No. 3, 2003), identified major philanthropic foundations such as the Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie foundations as not only major sources of funding but also providers for much of the leadership of the Bilderberg meetings, which saw the participation of major industrial and financial firms in line with those foundations (David Rockefeller of Chase Manhattan is a good example). Bilderberg was a major force in helping to create the political, economic and strategic consensus behind constructing a common European market.

With the support of these major foundations and their leadership, the Bilderberg meetings became a powerful global tool of the elites, not only in creating the European Union but in designing the process of globalization itself. Will Hutton, a former Bilderberg member, once referred to the group as “the high priests of globalization,” and a former Bilderberg steering committee member, Denis Healey,once noted: “To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair...we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.”

The large industrial foundations have played a truly profound – and largely overlooked – role in the shaping of modern society. The ‘Robber Baron’ industrial fortunes of the late 19th century – those of Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Harriman, Vanderbilt, etc. – sought to shape a new order in which they would maintain a dominant influence throughout society. They founded major American universities (often named after themselves) such as Vanderbilt, or the University of Chicago which was founded by John D. Rockefeller.

It was through their institutions that they sought to produce new elites to manage a new society, atop of which they sat. These universities became the harbingers of modern social sciences, seeking to "reform" society to fit the needs of those who dominated it; to engage in social engineering with the purpose of social control. It was in this context that the Carnegie Corporation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and later the Ford Foundation and others were founded: as engines of social engineering. One of their principal aims was to shape the development of the social sciences – and their exportation around the world to other industrial and imperial powers like Great Britain, and beyond. The social sciences were to facilitate the “scientific management” of society, and the foundations were the patrons of "social control."

The Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford foundations were instrumental in providing funding, organization and personnel for the development of major American and international think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations, which became essential to the emergence of a dominant and entrenched U.S. business class linking academia, political, strategic, corporate and financial elites. The Rockefeller and Ford foundations in particular constructed the field of modern political science and "Area Studies" with a view to educating a class of people who would be prepared to help manage a global empire.

They were also prominent in developing the educational system for black Americans designed to keep them relegated to labor and “vocational” training. They helped found many prominent universities in Africa, Asia and Latin America to train indigenous elites with a "Western" education in the social sciences, to ensure continuity between a domestic and international elite, between core and periphery, empire and protectorate.

Another major policy planning group is the Trilateral Commission, created out of the Bilderberg meetings as a separate transnational think tank and founded by Chase Manhattan CEO (and Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations) David Rockefeller along with academic-turned-policymaker Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973. The Trilateral Commission linked the elites from Western Europe, North America and Japan (hence “trilateral”), and it now also includes members from China, India and a range of other Pacific-East Asian countries.

Consisting of a membership of roughly 350 individuals from finance, corporations, media, think tanks, foundations, academia and political circles, the Trilateral Commission (TC) has been immensely influential as a forum facilitating the development and integration of a "transnational elite." The aim of the TC was “to foster closer cooperation among these core industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.”

The most famous report issued by the Trilateral Commission in the mid-1970s suggested that due to the popular activism of the 1960s, there was a “crisis of democracy” that it defined as an “excess of democracy,” which needed to be reduced in order for “democracy to function effectively.” According to the Trilateral Commission, what was needed was increased “apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups” to counter the “crisis” being caused by “a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society.”

Moving elsewhere, the World Economic Forum, founded in 1971, convenes annually in Davos, Switzerland and was originally designed “to secure the patronage of the Commission of European Communities, as well as the encouragement of Europe’s industry associations” and “to discuss European strategy in an international marketplace.” The WEF has since expanded its membership and mandate, as Carroll and Carson noted, “organized around a highly elite core of transnational capitalists (the 'Foundation Membership') – which it currently limits to '1000 of the foremost global enterprises’.” The meetings include prominent individuals from the scientific community, academics, the media, NGOs and many other policy groups.

Another major policy planning group emerged in the mid-1990s with an increased focus on environmental issues, called the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), which “instantly became the pre-eminent business voice on the environment” with a 1997 membership of 123 top corporate executives, tasked with bringing the “voice” of big business to the process of international efforts to address environmental concerns (and thus, to secure their own interests).

Among other prominent think tanks and policy-planning boards helping to facilitate and integrate a transnational network of elites are many nation-based organizations, particularly in the United States, such as with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), among many others. The advisory boards to these organizations provide an important forum through which transnational elites may help to influence the policies of many separate nations, and most importantly, the world’s most powerful nation: the United States.

The Council on Foreign Relations, founded in 1921, refers to itself as “an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher,” with roughly 4,700 members. It is largely based in New York with affiliate offices in Washington D.C. and elsewhere. The CFR is, and has been, at the heart of the American foreign policy establishment, bringing together elites from academia, government, the media, intelligence, military, financial and corporate institutions.

The CFR worked in close cooperation with the U.S. government during World War II to design the post-War world over which America would reign supreme. The Council was active in establishing the “Grand Areas” of the American Empire, and in maintaining extensive influence over the foreign policy of the United States.

As Carroll and Carson noted, there is a prominent relationship between those individuals who sit on multiple corporate boards and those who sit on the boards of prominent national and transnational policy-planning groups, “suggesting a highly centralized corporate-policy network.”

Studying 622 corporate directors and 302 organizations (five of which were the major policy-planning groups: ICC, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, World Economic Forum and World Business Council for Sustainable Development), Carroll and Carson assessed this network of transnational elites with data leading up to 1996, and concluded: “The international network is primarily a configuration of national corporate networks, integrated for the most part through the affiliations of a few dozen individuals who either hold transnational corporate directorships or serve on two or more policy boards.”

Out of the sample of 622 individuals, they found roughly 105 individuals (94 “transnational corporate linkers” and 11 others “whose corporate affiliations are not transnational but who sit on multiple global policy boards”) making up “the most immediate structural contributions to transnational class formation.” At the “core” of this network were 17 corporate directors, primarily European and North American, largely linked by the transnational policy groups, with the Trilateral Commission as “the most centrally positioned.” This network, they noted, “is highly centralized in terms of the individuals and organizations that participate in it.”

In undertaking a follow-up study of data between 1996 and 2006, published in the journal International Sociology (Vol. 25, No. 4, 2010), Carroll and Sapinski expanded the number of policy-planning groups from five to 11, including the original five (ICC, Bilderberg, TC, WEF, and WBCSD), but adding to them the Council on Foreign Relations (through its International Advisory Board), the UN Global Compact (through its advisory board), the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), founded in 1983, the EU-Japan Business Round Table, the Transatlantic Business Dialogue, and the North American Competitiveness Council.

The results of their research found that among the corporate directors, “policy-board membership has shifted towards the transnationalists, who come to comprise a larger segment of the global corporate elite,” and that there was a growing group of elites “made up of individuals with one or more transnational policy-board affiliations.” As Carroll and Sapinski concluded:

"The corporate-policy network is highly centralized, at both the level of individuals and that of organizations. Its inner circle is a tightly interwoven ensemble of politically active business leaders; its organizational core includes the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Conference, the European Round Table of Industrialists and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, surrounded by other policy boards and by the directorates of leading industrial corporations and financial institutions based in capitalism’s core regions."

Organizations like the European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) are not think tanks, but rather, industry organizations (exclusively representing the interests and individuals of major corporations), wielding significant influence over political and social elites. As Bastiaan van Apeldoorn wrote in the journal New Political Economy (Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000), the ERT “developed into an elite platform for an emergent European transnational capitalist class from which it can formulate a common strategy and – on the basis of that strategy – seek to shape European socioeconomic governance through its privileged access to the European institutions.”

In 1983, the ERT was formed as an organization of 17 major European industrialists (which has since expanded to several dozen members), with the proclaimed objective being “to revitalize European industry and make it competitive again, and to speed up the process of unification of the European common market.” Wisse Dekker, former Chairman of the ERT, once stated: “I would consider the Round Table to be more than a lobby group as it helps to shape policies. The Round Table’s relationship with Brussels [the EU] is one of strong co-operation. It is a dialogue which often begins at a very early stage in the development of policies and directives.”

The ERT was a central institution in the re-launching of European integration from the 1980s onward, and as former European Commissioner (and former ERT member) Peter Sutherland stated, “one can argue that the whole completion of the internal market project was initiated not by governments but by the Round Table, and by members of it... And I think it played a fairly consistent role subsequently in dialoguing with the Commission on practical steps to implement market liberalization.” Sutherland also explained that the ERT and its members “have to be at the highest levels of companies and virtually all of them have unimpeded access to government leaders because of the position of their companies... So, by definition, each member of the ERT has access at the highest level to government.”

Other notable industry associations include the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), formerly called the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI), a group comprised of Canada’s top 150 CEOs who were a major force for the promotion and implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The CCCE remains one of the most influential “interest groups” in Canada.

In the United States there are prominent industry associations like the Business Council, the Business Roundtable, and the Financial Services Forum. The Business Council describes itself as “a voluntary association of business leaders whose members meet several times a year for the free exchange of ideas both among themselves and with thought leaders from many sectors.”

Likewise, the Business Roundtable describes itself as “an association of chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies with more than $7.3 trillion in annual revenues,” which believes that “businesses should play an active and effective role in the formation of public policy.”

Finally, the Financial Services Forum proclaims itself to be “a non-partisan financial and economic policy organization” which aims “to pursue policies that encourage savings and investment, promote an open and competitive global marketplace, and ensure the opportunity of people everywhere to participate fully and productively in the 21st-century global economy.”


Source: http://www.alternet.org/occupy-wall-street/elite-business-and-think-tank-attempts-control-world?paging=off