Former President and CIA director George H.W. Bush popularized the phrase 'a thousand points of light' as part of his promotion of a New World Order. First using the phrase at the 1988 Republican National Convention, it was later repeated during his inaugural address on January 20, 1989:
"I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in."
In this context, Bush's 'thousand points of light' refers to a vast network of non-governmental organizations and volunteers 'doing good' while 'spread like stars throughout the Nation'. Some believe there is a second, occult meaning behind this phrase related to Belgium's Chateaux Des Amerois (also called the "Mother of Darkness Castle"). However, even looking at the 'official' interpretation of these 'thousand points' as consisting of a vast network NGO's belies a potentially sinister motive behind Bush's agenda in giving this speech.
In 1990, Bush formed the Points of Light Foundation to help support this initiative. The foundation was later criticized "for spending only 11% of its budget on grants to volunteer organizations, while spending $22.3 million on "promotions, consultants, salaries, travel and conferences."
While we have seen such organizations grow in influence over the last few decades, the same NGO's that Bush promotes as allegedly helping to "do good" for America, have too often been caught working for the interests of the elites, as proxy organizations for the government who use their NGO status to dodge responsibility for their crimes. From private military organizations like Dyncorp, continually busted for crimes such as human trafficking, while avoiding responsibility and being rewarded with new government contracts; to think-tank groups such as John Podesta's 'Centre for American Progress' which claim to work in America's interests while pushing policies that serve George Soros, and other globalist donors at the expense of American civil liberties.
An interesting post from u/CelineHagbard on Reddit expands on some of the issues of various NGO's growing influence in shaping geopolitics and how many of these groups have been weaponized against the population as a whole.
u/CelineHagbrad wrote in a post from January 19, 2017:
"Longtime users of this sub are likely familiar with Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland. The context of that quote was a leaked phone call between Nuland (then Assistant US Sec of State) and Geoffrey Pyatt (Ambassador to Ukraine) in early 2014 and released Feb. 4, 2014, in the midst of the crisis in the Ukraine and the eventual ouster of then President of Ukraine Victor Yanukovych. Even before Yanukovych was ousted, Nuland had decided that Arseniy Yatseniuk (“Yats”) was the man the US wanted in the new government:
“I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.”
Arseniy Yatsenyuk would be made prime minister on Feb. 27, 2014. Much more could be said on the US' involvement in the the 2014 Ukraine putsch, and much has, but suffice it to say that Victoria Nuland was heavily involved in representing the US interests both before, during, and after the events of the Maidan.
Those of you with a longer memory of geopolitics might remember the name Victoria Nuland from another regime change orchestrated by the US government. In 1997, Victoria Nuland's husband Robert Kagan, along with William Kristol, co-founded and signed the Statement of Priniciples for neoconservative foreign policy think tank, the Project for a New American Century. If you're familiar with this organization, it's likely because of a report they issued in September 2000, Rebuilding America's Defenses [PDF], in which they argued for America to take a more aggressive approach to funding the military in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Specifically, they bemoaned:
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor [emphasis mine].
As we know, they ended up getting that "new Pearl Harbor" they wished for, and fellow signatories Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz ended up being the driving forces in the 2003 invasion and regime change in Iraq.
I bring all this up because if you were reading what these neocon "thought leaders" were saying in the late 90s and early 00s, you could have foreseen the direction US foreign policy ended up going for the last twenty years. It should be noted that Victoria Nuland's role in the Ukraine crisis took place under Democratic president Barack Obama. This is what we mean when we say for certain issues such as foreign policy, it doesn't matter a whole lot which team's puppet sits in the Oval Office.
Now we have Victoria Nuland, the same massively influential neocon, being made CEO of the Center for a New American Security (name sound vaguely familiar to anyone?). CNAS's mission statement is:
The Center for a New American Security (CNAS) is an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense policies. CNAS engages policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative, fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national security debate. A key part of our mission is to inform and prepare the national security leaders of today and tomorrow.
Is there a level higher than this, some shadowy cabal with names like Rockefeller and Rothschild, and even several that few of us even on this sub have ever heard of? I wouldn't doubt it for a second. But when it comes to the level where the medium-term plans are implemented (~10–30 year time scales), they don't really hide what they're doing; they broadcast it for everyone to see. Their "agenda is designed to shape the choices of leaders in the U.S. government, the private sector, and society to advance U.S. interests and strategy." They openly brag that their "work has informed key U.S. strategic choices and has been acted on by Republican and Democratic leaders in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill."
And this is also not to say that CNAS and the neocons more broadly are the only game in town. There are literally dozens if not hundreds of policy think tanks in DC and across the globe, some competing, some cooperating to an extent, that are not only shaping the policies of the US and other major powers, but are doing so publicly. Glenn Greenwald wrote about one here, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in which top neocons (including Bill Kristol and Mike Chertoff) are teaming up with prominent establishment Democratic war hawks (Laura Rosenberger, Jake Sullivan, and former acting CIA Director Mike Morrell).
This is what I mean (and I think I can speak for quite a few here) when I say that Red vs Blue is a sham and a distraction. The MSM, and to a large extent a lot of the alt media as well, act as the rodeo clowns to pull our attention away from what these groups are openly saying and advocating for. I'm not saying we could have prevented or even predicted 9/11 and the Iraq war by studying these groups in the late 90s, but that whole mess would have made a lot more sense had we be combing through these documents instead of analyzing "lock boxes" and "hanging chads" with a microscope. "Shithole" and "governement shutdown" are those buzzwords of this week, but I'd bet good money that what's coming out of these think tanks today will have a hell of a lot more relevance in 10 years than 99% of anything coming out of the MSM or the alt media this week.
Our news cycles, even and maybe especially on this sub, are measured in days or weeks if we're lucky; these players operate on years and decades. And that doesn't even get to those who think in generations and centuries."
With this context, it's worrying to see President Obama push for further censorship and control over social media in almost the exact same way that John Podesta and his Center for American Progress has advocated. The complete elimination of free speech appears to be one of the main goals of globalist think tanks, and Obama and others are being used to garner support for policies which could further chip away at our remaining freedoms. This is just one of their plans that they have been promoting out in the open. Do you agree that the alternative media needs to focus more on these out in the open plans by think-tanks like the CNAS and Podesta's CAP?
Thanks for reading, you can help me make more content by donating on Patreon:
https://www.patreon.com/realityreader
Original articles:
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7rjfkz/victoria_nuland_named_ceo_of_center_for_a_new/