{"id":31135,"date":"2019-02-14T16:45:36","date_gmt":"2019-02-14T20:45:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/?p=31135"},"modified":"2019-02-14T16:45:36","modified_gmt":"2019-02-14T20:45:36","slug":"uk-globalists-really-worried-about-rise-of-nationalism-british-word-merchants-issue-desperate-manifesto","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/?p=31135","title":{"rendered":"UK Globalists Really Worried About Rise of Nationalism, British Word Merchants Issue Desperate Manifesto"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Chatham House Chief\u2019s 11,000-Word Article Says Globalist Think Tank Network Must Unite\u2014or Lose Neo-Liberal Order<\/h1>\n

By Mark Anderson
\nStop the Presses News & Commentary<\/p>\n

The head of one of the world\u2019s oldest elite foreign policy institutions in London is calling for the world\u2019s pro-globalist think tanks to unite like never before, lest their neo-liberal world order dissolve in the populist tide that appears to be rising.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"
Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House.<\/strong>\u00a0Photo from Twitter, @RobinNiblett<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Chatham House Director Dr. Robin Niblett\u00a0wrote an 11,000-word article entitled \u201cRediscovering a Sense of Purpose: The Challenge for Western Think Tanks\u201d in Vol. 94, Issue 6 of Chatham House\u2019s journal, International Affairs.<\/a>\u00a0In it, he declared: \u201cTo devise a common work [program], do think-tanks from across the world also need to possess a common sense of purpose? . . . . After something like a hundred years of think-tank experience, the answer is yes.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chatham House, also known as the\u00a0Royal Institute of International Affairs<\/a>, is a member of the original array of gilded private institutes that arose and revolutionized the world of geo-politics in the early 20th<\/sup>\u00a0century. Other major members include the Carnegie Endowment for International Affairs (shown to have been involved in apparently treasonous activities by the Reece Committee in the 1950s), along with the Brookings Institution, and, of course, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).<\/p>\n

Echoing the grave concerns expressed during early 2018 by\u00a0CFR President Richard Haass to the International Relations Committee of the UK\u2019s House of Lords<\/a>, Dr. Niblett noted in his article that he\u2019s apprehensive about the rise of \u201cpopulist\u201d politics, the implication being that think-tanks must either modify their mission or risk becoming increasingly irrelevant\u2014possibly to the point of losing their grip on influencing government policy largely from \u201cbehind the throne,\u201d something they\u2019ve perfected ever since the eldest think tanks\u2019 early but unsuccessful efforts to push the U.S. into the League of Nations\u2014a failed forerunner of the United Nations.<\/p>\n

The deeper challenge for Western think tanks is whether they can rediscover a sense of purpose that is as fit for the 21st<\/sup>\u00a0Century as was that which mobilized their counterparts in the early 20th<\/sup>\u00a0Century,\u201d Niblett wrote, with noticeable nostalgia regarding the early days of stealthy power-brokering.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He added that, today, the world\u2019s think tanks \u201cneed to stand for certain core principles of governance that have been shown by the experience of the last hundred years to offer the best prospects for sustainable security and prosperity.\u201d<\/p>\n

Exactly whose \u201csustainable security and prosperity\u201d is at stake is never made clear, though the gilded investment class that undergirds these think tanks, and assuredly not the average citizen, is a safe bet. However, Niblett confesses that the age of the Internet, whatever its shortcomings, has generally enabled the citizenry to become better informed and therefore more skeptical of elite opinion.<\/p>\n

Niblett put it as gingerly as he could: \u201cPolicy audiences appear less interested in the outputs of think tanks if they believe that these have no public resonance beyond the expert circles in which they were developed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Therefore, he added: \u201cThink tanks have to apply a growing proportion of their resources to trying to mobilize popular engagement with their ideas. One approach has been to raise their public profile by commenting more on current policy developments, rather than analyzing their underlying drivers. The danger is that this blurs the line between think tanks and the media.\u201d<\/p>\n

What he\u2019s not saying, however, is these tax-exempt outfits have long collaborated with the news media, even to the point of media personnel speaking at, or moderating, programs produced by these institutions but never reporting objectively on them. In this manner, the think tanks\u2014lavishly funded by uber-wealthy donors, banks, defense contractors and other well-connected entities\u2014help formulate public policy with nearly nothing in the way of general publicity on how their power-centralizing ideas are massaged and implemented as public policy.<\/p>\n

Niblett evidently felt compelled to further confess that think tanks, as critics have long contended, really are a bridge between the super-rich and government and supply personnel to government itself, beyond formulating policy.<\/p>\n

In the United States, think tanks became holding pens for future appointees to presidential administrations, where they developed and honed their ideas for future policy,\u201d Niblett revealingly wrote.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He added that a 1974 Brookings Institution study resulted in the creation of the Congressional Budget Office, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 1986 helped reform the command of the U.S. military.<\/p>\n

Ah, such modesty. Authors such as James Perloff have shown\u2014via his highly respected book \u201cThe Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations and the American Decline\u201d\u2014that these think tanks played a nefarious role in defaming and subduing American \u201cisolationism\u201d\u2014which is actually non-interventionism\u2014and manipulating government policy to assure U.S. entry into World War II and, from there, laid the groundwork for America to police the world, an essential component of building world government.<\/p>\n

And while Niblett admits that the world\u2019s think tanks have at times blundered in their pursuit of globalization, and that their worldview has some \u201cinherent weaknesses,\u201d\u00a0 he remains incorrigibly confident that these think tanks, if they combine forces and arrive at a set of lasting principles with which they can re-invent themselves, can continue to short-circuit national sovereignty and real democratic impulses, which they deride as \u201cpopulism,\u201d and instead promote a false democracy as a cover for rule by an unelected oligarchy\u2014the very antithesis of democratic government. Such is the nature of their grand deception.<\/p>\n

And given the fact that Niblett is echoing and amplifying the core concerns of CFR chief Richard Haass and Chicago Council on Global Affairs President Ivo Daalder (who collaborated with the CFR\u2019s James Lindsay in an article on the same theme of elite think tanks losing power amid a populist groundswell), there is a deep validity to this trend which, precisely because it\u2019s ignored by mainline media, signals that the \u201cshadow government\u201d is genuinely having major difficulties as it tries to be more visible and yet maintain its credibility and control\u2014after decades of unbridled and largely secretive influence behind the scenes.<\/p>\n

___
\nhttps:\/\/www.thetruthhound.com\/chatham-house-chiefs-11000-word-article-says-the-globalist-think-tank-network-must-unite-or-lose-their-neo-liberal-order\/<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-31135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31135","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=31135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/31135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=31135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=31135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cosmicconvergence.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=31135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}