Obama Doctrine: Global Elite Advance Their World Government Agenda Into National Security Strategy

The New International Order

Lucas Bowser, Contributor

Since Obama took office in 2009, political analysts and mainstream media pundits have failed to accurately identify any central ideology or grand strategy driving the administration’s policies. The government’s National Security Strategy Report has been the most likely place to find such a doctrine expressed officially, but when Obama’s administration issued their version in 2010, the mainstream media failed to bring to light the real agenda conveyed in the document.

The establishment media’s general interpretation was that the strategy represented a shift away from past policies of unilateralism, preemptive warfare, and military preeminence, towards policies of greater cooperation with international institutions. But an independent examination of the report, along with some of its guidelines now in operation, reveals that the document’s primary policy positions, while setting new precedents, are derived from an old, deep-rooted agenda for a world empire, propelled by elite finance oligarchs and global corporatists.

The document centers around the building of a new “international order” by overhauling, revitalizing and granting more authority to international institutions including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and especially the UN.Decoding the 2010 National Security Strategy

In May of 2010, during presentations introducing and summarizing the new National Security Strategy Report, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke of shaping an international order that would emphasize the role of global institutions in national security policy. While speaking at the Brookings Institution, Clinton listed this new international order as one of the government’s four central goals, saying:

Our approach is to build the diverse sources of American power at home and to shape the global system so that it is more conducive to meeting our overriding objectives: security, prosperity, the explanation and spread of our values, and a just and sustainable international order.

Obama had used similar language a few days earlier at West Point saying:

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. (and) The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…

Hearing the president speak of shaping a new international order as part of America’s National Security Strategy alarmed those in the alternative media who recognized the phrasing as a familiar reference to the Anglo-American elite’s efforts at establishing a world empire or “new world order.” The mainstream media, however, made no connections to a long-term elitist agenda, and instead framed the speech by contrasting Obama’s new strategy with those released under the Bush administration. 

The Washington Post claimed that “Obama pledged to shape a new ‘international order’ based on diplomacy and engagement” which distanced itself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive warfare. But when the document was later released, its contents proved to justify the concerns of so-called “conspiracy theorists.” Rather than simply promoting global cooperation or representing a positive new direction in policy, the strategy is instead a bold jump forward in the overarching, multi-administration-spanning agenda of global finance oligarchs to construct a world government.
The fact that this agenda has now openly emerged in America’s National Security Strategy doctrine illustrates the advanced degree to which this scheme has progressed outside public awareness, without any public discussion or debate. 

The National Security Strategy Report (NSSR) is the primary policy document, prepared by the executive branch, outlining an administration’s formulation of grand strategy for the country. According to the National Security Strategy Archive, “It is intended to be a comprehensive statement articulating the worldwide interests, goals, and objectives of the United States that are important to its security.” Involvement in the creation of the report is regarded by many policy planners as “direct access to the President’s overall agenda and thus highly desirable.” Typically its contents have been the responsibility of National Security Council staff members, but influence has been proven to come from other sources as well.

 Years after the 2002 NSSR was released, its primary author was revealed to be Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council staffer under George Bush Sr. from 1989 to 1991. Zelikow was not a member of George W. Bush’s administration at the time, but rather worked as a “consultant” to his national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. Long after the report’s publication, he was discovered to be the secret writer of its infamous preemptive (more accurately preventive) war policy, earlier formulated by Paul Wolfowitz, which came to be known as the “Bush Doctrine.” 

These reports are responsible for the implementation of long-term policy directives that can extend far into future administrations. Modern versions of the report have provided a continuity to national security policy by only being produced every four years in the middle of the presidential term, even though they are supposed to be released every year. According to the Goldwater-Nichols Act, “The President shall transmit to Congress each year a comprehensive report on the national security strategy of the United States,” in a “classified and unclassified form.” The notorious Bush NSSRs were issued in 2002 and 2006. Obama’s NSSR came in 2010 and the next NSSR will most likely be released in the middle of 2014. 

The unclassified version of the new National Security Strategy was released to the public in late May of 2010 with little controversy considering its alarming contents. (Screenshots of this report and other sources have been provided below, with added highlighting or underlining, for quick reference.) The document centers around the old and familiar narrative of modern global crises requiring global solutions in the form of a new international order. This theme is introduced in theforeword of the report and repeated throughout, with the “international order” being referenced more than 25 times in the 52-page document, including major sections and subsections devoted to it. The following screenshots from page one contain the document’s opening paragraph summarizing the report’s overview and showing the central theme of the strategy to be the creation of this new international order.

(screenshot below of NSSR’s opening paragraph of the overview on page 1)

(Screenshot below from 2010 NSSR’s overview on page 1)

CLICK EACH PARAGRAPH ABOVE TO ENLARGE

While initial use of the phrase “shape an international order” is purposefully broad, further examination of the report clarifies its language of “shape” to be synonymous with “create,” and is used in the document interchangeably with the word “build.” The report’s primary use of the term “international order” is not to generically describe the existing international system or community, but rather to denote a new world system or architecture, led by the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described it as a “new global architecture” that the administration has “begun to build” during “a new American moment” in international affairs “when our global leadership is essential, even if we must often lead in new ways.” 

The NSSR uses the term “international order” in the same way that the more controversial term “new world order” has been used in the past to describe a system of global governance centered around international institutions and organizations including the IMF, WTO, NATO, G20, the World Bank and the UN. Many high profile politicians have publicly used the phrase in relation to these institutions, as a way to signal large political changes in world affairs. 

George Bush Sr. used the “new world order” phrase repeatedly during his presidency, stressing the role of the United Nations in creating a “new world order where diverse nations are drawn together…” In 1991, while addressing the General Assembly of the UN, Bush explained that the UN could offer new life to dormant institutions of freedom, saying “These institutions play a crucial role in our quest for a new world order.” He then spoke of America’s role in the new world order, saying “We will offer friendship and leadership. And in short we seek a Pax Universalis built upon shared responsibilities and aspirations.” He urged the assembly to take the challenge seriously so that future generations could say about the men and women of the UN that they “built an era of peace and understanding” and “inaugurated a new world order, an order worth preserving for the ages.” The term seemed to fade into the background somewhat after Bush received a backlash of criticism for its excessive use. 

Similarly, former UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, another avid proponent of global governance, has used the term publicly numerous times referring to this same system of institutions. In a 2008 article out of The Independent titled “Transformed UN proposed to create ‘new world order,’” we read that “Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a ‘new world order’ and ‘global society.’” It goes on to say “He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.” 
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, devoted NATO proponent, CFR member, and former Colorado Senator, Gary Hart suggested that, because of increased support for NATO, the crisis could be used to further George Bush Sr.’s new world order agenda. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations Hart stated:

There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father…a phrase his father used I think only once, and hasn’t been used since…and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.

In 2008 he argued that:

Unless we want to lose tens of millions of people to viral pandemics, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, climate change and a whole host of other new realities, we will 'need a new international order.'

Many other global elites, influential politicians, and world leaders have referenced the term “new world order” in relation to these institutions, including billionaire financier George Soros. When asked in 2009 what kind of financial deal Obama should seek to strike while in China, Soros answered, “I think this would be the time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order.” He explains the need arising from China’s lack of “contribution” to the IMF and sees the makings of the new world order already taking place with their involvement in the G20′s current policies. 

While avoiding the controversial term “new world order,” Obama’s NSSR 2010 makes clear that the international order his administration is building is synonymous with the popular euphemism.

According to the document, this “international order” is to be created by revamping the system of international institutions founded after WWII, including the UN, NATO, IMF, and the World Bank. The new strategy aims to accomplish this transformation by “modernizing” and “engaging” these international institutions while ”strengthening” their “legitimacy and authority.” Under the section titled “Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order” the report states that the new order will be tested by its ability to “facilitate cooperation” and “generate results” using a variety of tools including sanctions, isolation, and force, to change the conduct of nations it deems to be non-compliant.

(Screenshot below from 21010 NSSR pages 12,13)

(Screenshot below from 2010 NSSR page 13)

CLICK TEXT AREAS ABOVE TO ENLARGE

Obama Doctrine In Action 

The document asserts that the administration is building a new international order by modernizing the existing international infrastructure into a new global architecture by strengthening the institutions and granting them more authority. Here we can again clarify the broad language of the report; this time with the added context of its implemented policies in the illegal Libyan War of 2011. Just as the Gulf War was considered by the establishment to be a “test” of the New World Order under George Bush Sr., the Libyan War served as a test for the new international order under Barack Obama.

In a February 2011 article titled “Libya’s Test of the New International Order” from the Brookings Institution, we read that “The current dangerous situation in Libya has become a serious test for the international community’s resolve and credibility, especially in the context of a changing Arab world. In particular, it is a test of the ability of a much heralded multipolar new world order…” Later, as if to announce to the world that the operations in Libya were a showcase for the Obama doctrine, CNN featured a segment on the Libyan War prominently titled “The New World Order” with a panel discussion between representatives of establishment think tanks including the Council On Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institution. 

With the war in Libya, the Obama administration was setting a new precedent. Just as directed by the 2010 NSSR, the UN was given more authority, in this case more than America’s own Congress, when Obama sent Speaker of the House John Boehner a letter citing authority from the United Nation’s Security Council alone as justification for military operations in Libya. Later we saw Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s citation of “international permission,” rather than permission from Congress, as the justification for military action in Syria. It was again suggested that the UN or NATO could provide the necessary “legal basis” for U.S. military action and that Congress might only be informed of the decision afterwards. 

These examples cut to the heart of the primary concerns among opponents of the new world order: that a country’s assimilation into a global government would mean the loss of its national sovereignty and the undermining of its constitution. While some proponents openly admit that world government would necessarily involve the loss of national sovereignty, many others claim that the concern is unfounded. However, we can see for ourselves in “Libya’s test of the new international order,” that one of the most significant and critical aspects of a nation state’s government, the act of waging war, is being further removed from the control and consent of the common American citizen. In this case the sovereignty of both countries was violated, as the UN was used by the establishment to disregard and supersede the US Congress while promoting and justifying the use of force by military intervention in Libya. 
The leading pretext among the propaganda used to justify the Libyan War was that of “humanitarian intervention.” This aspect of the Obama Doctrine appears to be largely drawn from the UN’s R2P doctrine or “Responsibility to Protect”which is cited in the 2010 NSSR. The “Responsibility to Protect” policy is used to disguise the imperial use of force with humanitarian rhetoric. The actual realities of the war, being anything but humanitarian, reveal the hypocritical nature of the policy’s implementation, and with all its rhetoric of cooperation with international institutions, the 2010 NSSR still retains the right to unilateral use of force. 

Obama Doctrine At Home 

While the Libyan War was a clear implementation of guidelines set in the 2010 NSSR, determining exactly what other policies from the document are being transmitted and put into action is more difficult. The document is intended to be a broad comprehensive outline of policy, so it is very vague and general to begin with. Another layer of vagueness is added due to it being an unclassified version of the strategy; not necessarily designed for the public, but rather designed to withstand public scrutiny. Add to this surreptitious composition the system’s tactic of hiding its true intentions behind euphemistic propaganda, and the document becomes rather cryptic, requiring much added context to decipher its true essence and aims. Because the controlled mainstream media often work as public relations organizations for the government and elite, the job of interpreting documents like the NSSR to determine what its implementation will entail is left to the alternative media and the general public. 

Along with R2P we can expect to see more UN programs, like Agenda 21 and Codex Alimentarius, being enforced in the US, as the elite further “strengthen” and “engage” these institutions of global governance. The rhetoric of “food security” and “sustainable development,” seen in the NSSR, is the commonly used jargon of Codex Alimentarius and Agenda 21 to hide their policies of corporate domination, population control and social engineering, in the same way that the humanitarian rhetoric of R2P is used to disguise the imperialistic use of force. Under these programs the people’s legitimate concerns for the environment and global health are co-opted and turned against them as they lose their rights to control their own property, their freedom to choose alternative and natural medicines and their access to clean, healthy foods. Obama’s Executive Order #13575, establishing the White House Rural Council in 2011, is very much in the vein of UN Agenda 21, as the government aims to seize more power over rural America and takes greater control over food and energy production. Policies like the 2010 “Food Safety Modernization Act,” featured a huge expansion of FDA power and a plan with “Recommendations on whether and how to harmonize requirements under the Codex Alimentarius.” 

When the NSSR promises to ”pursue potential ‘game changers’ for development such as new vaccines, weather-resistant seed varieties, and green energy technologies,” we can assume that big pharma and bio-tech corporations like Monsanto will be the primary beneficiaries. Along with many other examples of these policies in action, we saw in 2012, that the USDA approved field trials of Monsanto drought-resistant corn without even conducting a legitimate environmental risk analysis. 

The co-opting of the environmental movement extends to the policies surrounding climate change, a major motivation and justification behind Agenda 21. The NSSR’s section dealing with climate change states that “The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe.” Among the efforts discussed to deal with this issue the report states, “Globally, we will seek to implement and build on the Copenhagen Accord…” The section also lists as a goal that “the necessary financing is mobilized so that developing countries can adapt to climate change…” Among the many agendas behind the 2009 Copenhagen Summit, the UN’s Secretary General Ban Ki-moon openly admitted that developing a world government “structure” was one of the most important. Referring to commitments made in the Copenhagen Treaty, the Secretary General said in an interview with the L.A. Times, “We will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this.” He also wrote in an editorial for the New York Times, that a “comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal” in Copenhagen “must include an equitable global governance structure.”
In 2010 The Guardian obtained a confidential document revealing “the US government’s increasingly controversial strategy in the global UN climate talks.” Outlining the key messages the Obama administration wanted to convey in the run up to the UN climate talks later that year, the document’s number one listed objective was to “Reinforce the perception that the US is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change. This includes support for a symmetrical and legally binding treaty.” After the Copenhagen summit, the media misled the public by portraying the final agreement as a failure, while the final text of the accord accomplished its goal of establishing the framework for a global government with the ability to impose taxes for funding. 

The elite’s efforts to shape a North American Union (NAU) by combining US, Mexico, and Canada, seem to be hinted at in the NSSR’s section concerning North America. While discussing NAFTA and using the associated NAU buzzwords of security, prosperity, and partnership, the NSSR informs us that “We must change the way we think about our shared borders, in order to secure and expedite the lawful and legitimate flow of people and goods while interdicting transnational threat that threaten our open societies.”

Modeled after the EU, the NAU has been organized in stealth through trade deals, treaties, and region-level agreements like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). In 2011 Obama implemented a key initiative of the SPP by signing the declaration titled “Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness.” The continental perimeter created by the declaration partially reveals what the NSSR meant by “We must change the way we think about our shared borders.” Using the direct language of the NSSR report, the declaration’s preamble states, “we intend to pursue a perimeter approach to security, working together within, at, and away from the borders of our two countries to enhance our security and accelerate the legitimate flow of people, goods, and services between our two countries.” Obama also signed Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” in 2012, in an effort to facilitate North American integration by “harmonizing US regulations with foreign ones.” 

We might also interpret in the NSSR’s foggy language, a foreshadowing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s (NDAA) provision concerning the indefinite detention of American citizens. In the section titled “Legal Aspects of Countering Terrorism” the report states that “The increased risk of terrorism necessitates a capacity to detain and interrogate suspected violent extremists…” and “for detainees who cannot be prosecuted [...] any prolonged detention is carefully evaluated and justified.”

Although the NSSR doesn’t clarify whether American citizens would be subjected to this policy, as we saw with the NDAA, another section on page 10 dealing with the NSSR’s merging of homeland security and national security departments, points to this possibility as it states “We are now moving beyond traditional distinctions between homeland and national security. This includes a determination to prevent terrorist attacks against the American people by fully coordinating the actions that we take abroad with the actions and precautions that we take at home.” A few other possible examples of this policy in action could be; the effort to implement re-education camps domestically, the use of drones over the U.S., and more broadly the designation of the world as a battlefield by the 2012 NDAA. 

Although it is difficult to fully interpret much of the report’s murky content into actual policies observed in action, the main thrust of the strategy clearly articulates the creation of a system of global governance with increased authority being given to the international institutions. There is no adequate effort being made to address the vast corruption of these international institutions, as the administration proposes to give them a more powerful and influential role in world affairs. The NSSR casually dismisses worries of their “shortfalls,” “shortcomings“ and “imperfections” and conflates those concerns with a desire to reject them as a whole, presenting a false dichotomy of “isolationism” vs. “engagement of the institutions” (which equates to giving them more authority).
In addition to the corrupt and destructive behavior of the international institutions that make up the new international order, there are other signs indicating the type rule it would impose. The very undemocratic nature of word government’s stealth construction is a major warning sign illustrating the lack of relevance the average person will have in this system and the secrecy in which it will operate. Created without their input, consent, or awareness, the average person can expect to have no voice in a global, scientific dictatorship managed by technocrats. Another stark indicator of future life under this world government is the behavior of these institutions when they visit cities across the world to hold conferences. Scenarios resembling martial law crackdowns unfold as police dressed in full riot gear are unleashed on the citizens, whose peaceful protests are deemed “unlawful.” 

Advisors, Thinktanks, and Globalist Operatives: The Elite’s Hidden Hands Of World Government 

While the Obama Doctrine brazenly works to establish new norms and set new precedents, its program for a new international order is not actually new. It is merely the latest variation of the global elite’s agenda which has been in progress since at least as far back as the crises surrounding WWI with their efforts in “building a new world order” through the Wilson administration. After WWI, the League of Nations was being touted as a way to provide collective security in response to various crises and was considered then to be “the key to a new world order.” The ruling elite were able to influence Wilson through his “proto-national security advisor” Edward House and an advisory group House helped create called “The Inquiry.” House and the Inquiry’s attempt at building global government through the League of Nations failed due to strong American opposition, but their work continued as The Inquiry’s efforts morphed into the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). 

Functioning as the premier policy think tank of elite corporatists and finance oligarchs, the CFR would continue to push for a world government on their behalf. In the same way that the Inquiry’s post WWI planning pursued world government through the League of Nations, the CFR’s War & Peace Studies Project would provide a framework for the new world order after WWII and contribute to the creation of the United Nations. While there is no doubt that many people promoting the UN had good intentions and high hopes that it could bring world peace, imperialists represented by groups including the CFR saw it as a vehicle for world domination. 

Over time, the elite grew and expanded their networks of- intelligence agencies, foundations, secret societies, private corporations, and think tanks. The interconnected and overlapping groups including- the Trilateral Commission, Brookings Institution, Bilderberg Group, Rand Corporation, and the CFR evolved into a shadow network which hid from the public, their supreme influence over governments and corporations. These groups worked to develop policy, build consensus around those policies and implement them, as they placed their members into high level positions throughout government and corporate institutions. A slow, step by step approach helped to them to avoid opposition. 

In 1958, the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations invited the Council On Foreign Relations, the Brookings Institution and 10 other organizations to contribute research to a massive study of U.S. foreign policy. When the CFR’s report, named “Study No. 7, Basic Aims of U.S. Foreign Policy,” was released the following year it advised that the United States build “a new international order” by taking measures that included maintaining and gradually increasing the authority of the U.N. 

Using this gradual approach, the global elite incrementally pieced together elements of a world empire structure while remaining largely invisible to the general public. When major changes are made to the system, like the creation of new international institutions, they are usually introduced in the context of large catastrophes such as world wars or economic depressions. By taking advantage of existing crises or wholly manufacturing new ones, the ruling elite are able to manipulate vulnerable populations into accepting policy changes they might otherwise reject. Major crises are valued by elite world planners and social engineers as prime opportunities for the molding of world order and shaping of social structures. 
This view has been expressed repeatedly by establishment operatives such as Henry Kissinger who has had a long career advocating and forecasting a new world order. As the global elite’s archbishop of international policy, Kissinger is well versed in their philosophical staples of “opportunity from crises” and “order out of chaos.” In 2008 he evoked these concepts during a conversation about the “new world order” with Charlie Rose stressing that “there are so many problems in the world at this moment that can only be dealt with on a global basis,” and that issues like proliferation, environment, energy, and global health “necessitate a global approach.” Comparing it to the situation after the crises and chaos of WWII, when there was a “creative period” from which the United Nations and NATO emerged, he noted that when the new administration assesses the “huge crisis” it will find itself in, it might be able to use the crises to “construct an international system.” 

Kissinger had been making this specific prediction as far back as 2005, when he stated that “the beginning of a new international order” would emerge in the next four years. He reaffirmed the prediction in 2007 saying that “there is a need for a new world order” and that “at the end of this administration with all its turmoil, and at the beginning of the next, we might actually witness the creation of a new order…” So when Barack Obama emerged as the successor to the disgraced Bush administration, Kissinger immediately recognized the opportunity that the new president’s mass appeal provided the administration he eagerly anticipated to usher in the new international order. While lauding the political usefulness of Obama’s extraordinary reception around the world in a 2009 interview with CNBC’s Mark Hainse and Erin Burnett he stated that, “The president-elect is coming into office at a moment when there is upheaval in many parts of the world simultaneously…” and that “his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis.” 

Soon after, he argued in a New York times op-ed titled “The Chance for a New World Order” that the grave financial and international crises provided Obama’s administration “a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.” He wrote that amid the simultaneous economic and political crises “an international order will emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being” and that “the alternative to a new international order is chaos.” 

Kissinger’s legendary influence transcends individual administrations and political parties. David J. Rothkopf, a CFR member and author of the book Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power, wrote in a 2005 article titled “The Two Degrees of Henry Kissinger,” that within the small world of the U.S. national security community “a number of individuals have become especially influential…” and that “Nobody better personifies this influence than Henry Kissinger, the dean of modern U.S. foreign-policy professionals.”

Mitt Romney’s advisor Aaron Friedberg wrote in 2011 that Kissinger “may be the most influential figure in the making of American foreign policy since the end of World War II…” Kissinger is the ultimate case study of an operative working on behalf of the elite, influencing policy for generations, usually outside of public awareness. He is the consummate insider, having been a member of such influential societies and think tanks as the Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Aspen Institute, Bohemian Grove, and the Council on Foreign Relations. His career is filled with numerous consulting roles for government agencies, studies programs, and brain trusts like the Rand Corporation. Puppet presidents come and go, but establishment cronies like Kissinger remain lurking in the shadowy background of the national security state. 
Over the years Kissinger has remained close to centers of power through several advisory roles, serving as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State under President Richard Nixon and then continuing his position as Secretary of State under Gerald Ford. In 2006, author and journalist Bob Woodward revealed in his book, State of Denial, that Kissinger had been advising George Bush and Dick Cheney during the Iraq War. He admitted to Woodward that he had “met with Cheney every month and the president every other month since he took office.” Woodward points out that “a total of 36 hours over six years adds up to more time with the president than almost any outsider ever.” 

In a twisted display of interweaving conflicts of interest, Kissinger was initially appointed by Bush to head the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but was forced to withdraw from the position after family members of 9/11 victims requested he reveal his financial dealings with the Bin-Laden family. He was then replaced by CFR member Philip Zelikow, who was less well known but whose conflicts of interests, especially his role as the secret author of the 2002 NSSR Bush Doctrine, were just as dubious.

Later, illustrating how tight and fast the circle of revolving doors spin for connected insiders, both of these men returned to play roles in the Obama administration as The Daily Telegraph reported in 2009 that Kissinger had been sent to Russia on behalf of Barack Obama to win backing for a nuclear disarmament initiative, and Zelikow was appointed to Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board in 2011. Kissinger’s behind the scenes relationship to Obama was further revealed by Obama’s National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones in 2009. Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Jones, a former NATO Supreme Commander in Europe, stated “As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.” 

Considering that Obama’s administration is filled with and surrounded by members of the global elite’s policy think tanks like the CFR, Bilderberg, Brookings and Trilateral Commission and their political operatives like Henry Kissinger, it should be no surprise that its NSSR narrative of global crises requiring a new international order directly matches their writings. While many Americans hoped and believed they were going to see a great change with a new president from an opposing party, establishment think tank members from the Bush administration were simply replaced with different members of the same establishment think tanks in the Obama administration. In some cases members actually continued their roles from one administration to the next like former Director of Central Intelligence (under Bush Sr.) and CFR member Robert Gates who kept his job as Secretary of Defense when Obama took office. 

Whether a Republican or Democrat is put into office, the grand strategy behind the administration has been and will continue to be controlled by the oligarchs. This method of control has been developed over a long period of time to reach the extreme form it has taken today. Agent Kissinger has been promoting exactly this kind of bipartisan continuity of agenda for over 20 years. In a 1988 article he coauthored for the CFR titled, “Bipartisan Objectives for American Foreign Policy,” he stated “…we are convinced that the American national purpose must at some point be fixed. If it is redefined—or even subject to redefinition—with every change of administration in Washington, the United States risks becoming a factor of inconstancy in the world.” Noting that the “nation is on the eve of a new international era” he expressed hope that “the next president will appreciate the value of continuity in American foreign policy.”

In 2008 he revisited this concept in a speech at the Montreal Conference of the Americas. After promoting the destruction of the current system of world order based on sovereign nation states as “one of the creative acts of the current period…” he predicted a post election bipartisan effort in favor of a world order model like that of the the European Union where “European countries freely are ceding their… much of their sovereignty.” In the speech’s closing Kissinger stated, “I will tell you that however our election ends (…), a number of us in both parties have concluded that when it’s over, we are going to make an effort to bring about a bipartisan outcome, or direction of foreign policy.” 
Summary 

The public is deceived by a false choice between two sides, both dominated by the elite, who use the two-party system as a divide-and-conquer tactic, stalling the population by focusing their attention inward while the rulers accomplish their wider agenda unimpeded. While the masses are divided on wedge issues and distracted by the circus of the right vs. left paradigm, the political establishment carries out the bipartisan destruction of the economy, wages endless illegal and immoral wars, and aggressively assaults civil liberties, as they transform America into a surveilled police state resembling a hybrid fusion of popular science fiction dystopias. 

The controlled mainstream media has fed the public a synthetic reality, laced with artificial narratives and modified histories. Mind controlled and brainwashed, their behavior programmed and their thoughts prefabricated for them, the people have developed a deformed, toxic consciousness due in large part to the continuous consumption of this false reality. Hypnotised and sedated, they sleepwalk in this impaired state, through the complete destruction of their democratic republic, while the ruling elite consolidate their grip on power by secretly shaping a tyrannical, authoritarian, fascistic world government. 

The Obama Doctrine, as embodied in the 2010 NSSR, is a rejuvenated, bold effort to bring this long-term new world order agenda to fruition. The scheme has reached an advanced stage in its evolution, as it now unmasks itself in an unprecedented way, by emerging from the shadows to take front stage in America’s primary strategy publication. While the Bush Doctrine advanced imperial aggression and power, the Obama Doctrine seeks to advance and extend the scope and authority of the empire as a whole. These progressions of empire will be passed on to and carried forward by the next administration just as Obama carried forward the imperial progressions passed to him. The left hand is working with the right to strangle the globe in a straitjacket of international institutions and corporations under elite control. We haven’t even seen three full years of the 2010 NSSR in action, and whether under a new administration or not, the next NSSR, not due until 2014, won’t override the current grand strategy but rather adjust and fine tune its guidance. 

The terms “new international order” and “new world order” are nothing more than public relations buzzwords and marketing catchphrases that function as euphemisms working to portray the agenda as a modern arrangement that has something to offer the rest of the world. In reality it is a return to imperialist systems of the past, representing a return to serfdom and slavery for the masses. The modern world order system of independent sovereign nation states we have had since the Treaty of Westphalia is being abolished and replaced by a neo-feudal corporate world empire run by Anglo-American finance oligarchs and elite global corporatists. 

The Obama Doctrine is not about cooperation with international institutions nor is it merely about humanitarian intervention; it is about a world government. There is no more time for denial. American citizens and the common people of the world will have to come together like never before to address this global threat. They will have to get past the divisions of race, religion and superficial party affiliations to unite in an effort to confront this threat and take the reigns of global control from the elite and their corporations, institutions and think tanks. A grassroots globalism is needed to fight their engineered corporate globalism. This is not about a class war with battle lines drawn between the upper, middle or lower classes. It is between the dominant minority superclass vs. the masses.

Worldwide freedom is at stake and there has never been a more important time than now to resist the global elite’s tyranny by raising awareness and exposing their new world order agenda.

Lucas Bowser is an activist seeking to oppose the forces of corporatism and imperialism. His work can be found at Victorypost.com.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Be the Change! Share this using the tools below. Sharing on Reddit and Newsvine will help the most.