George Soros and Charles Koch Team up to End Infinite Warfare of the USA MIC

So, I actually mentioned this in July in an unrelated thread after I first read about it, but figured that someone else would actually bother to go original ATS and report on actual NWO style conspiracies.
At least someone mentioned David's passing, to very little notice. Wow, ATS conspiracy radar has clearly been deactivated in favor of scripted MSM topics and the lovely hate filled venom spewing it generates. Whatever though. I guess Charles had to kill his brother off in order for this join venture to be successful. or you know, David died from the officially explained reasons, he was old after all I guess. This think-tank will rival the likes of PNAC, CFR, Tri-latteral commission, and many others that used to be commonly known here, but rarely ever discussed anymore.


And to think how many people here deny they could be brainwashed and programmed! Well if you want to prove my point, I am sure there will be some Trump/AOC threads that pop-up shortly to fill with pages of venom and hate ROFL.

Return to your regularly scheduled programming if real conspiracies bore you in 2019.

Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
The Quincy Institute stands for responsible statecraft, defined as follows:

1. Responsible statecraft serves the public interest.

The foreign policy of the United States exists to secure the safety and well-being of the American people while respecting the rights and dignity of all.

Foreign policy should therefore derive from serious consideration of the public interest, accounting for the diversity of American society. It should not be driven by the preferences of a narrow elite in Washington. American foreign policy should change as American society and the world change.

2. Responsible statecraft engages the world.

The United States should engage with the world, and the essence of engagement is peaceful cooperation among peoples.

For this reason, the United States must cherish peace and pursue it through the vigorous practice of diplomacy. Building on a great achievement of the twentieth century — the liberation of most of humanity from colonial empires — the United States should welcome productive initiatives by other nations in the twenty-first century. It should not inhibit others from acting to solve common problems, reduce conflict, and provide for their own security.

3. Responsible statecraft builds a peaceful world.

The United States retains a strong interest in being a responsible and constructive member of the international community.

It should act so that others can model their conduct on its own. Therefore the United States should respect established international laws and norms, discourage irresponsible and destabilizing actions by others, and seek to coexist with competitors. The United States need not seek military supremacy in all places, at all costs, for all time.

4. Responsible statecraft abhors war.

The use of armed force, while sometimes necessary, does not constitute engagement in the world.

Force ends human life, displaces people, devastates communities, and damages the environment. In these ways, it prevents genuine engagement. Any resort to force should occur only as a last resort. The U.S. military exists to defend the people and territory of the United States, not to act as a global police force. The United States should reject preventive wars and military intervention to overthrow regimes that do not threaten the United States. Wars of these kinds not only are counterproductive; they are wrong in principle.

5. Responsible statecraft is democratic.

The American people have the right and responsibility to participate in the making of U.S. foreign policy.

They should engage in a robust and inclusive debate about America’s role in the world. Further, Congress must fulfill its duties in foreign policy, neither tolerating the usurpation of its Constitutional role by the executive nor abdicating its authority to declare war.

Queue the official representatives of the armed forces and government to chime in now and remind us all this story is irrelevant and nothing to pay attention too. You should believe it too, because well, they work for the government and participate on ATS, so their word is gospel.
darn lemmings.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The Koch’s have always been moderated playing the GOP base like fiddles for tax breaks..


They have never cared about any social issues.

The social issues are how the gop gets poor people to vote against social programs and instead vote tax breaks that they will never make enough money to have..


There is a reason the conservative side ALWAYS, in every country and in every time period has to resort to logical fallacies like slippery slope arguments to recruit people, because by definition they are never offering anything new, and nothing is perfect..


How do you convince people to stick with a broken system???

Propaganda and logical fallacies

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Wow condemnation and ridicule as a motivator to get responses.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

We have a broken system filled with corrupt people.


Turning globalist won't solve any issues because globalism would have to be authoritarian in nature to succeed.


Changing the system would just create a corrupt new system because we'd still have the same corrupt people in power.

Mankind has been at war with itself since the invention of the nation/state/kingdom. Only an extreme authoritarian one-world government could replace that and it's been attempted time and time again.


Might as well just face that our species is violent, greedy, and pretty nasty. We do have some redeeming qualities but not many.

2 cents.

Andrew J. Bacevich
President

Eli Clifton
Research Director, Democratizing Foreign Policy Program

Suzanne DiMaggio
Chairman, Board of Advisors

Meiyee Mak
Director, Business Operations
(trouble finding image, possibly not human/ET)

Executive Vice President

Stephen Wertheim
Research Director, Ending Endless War Program

I won't defend the MIC as it serves a purpose, good, bad, and ugly. However, what leads us to believe these two characters will not serve their own well defined agenda ? Reports based on fact but written with a slant in order to create opinions and steer others toward their own beliefs is what will come if it. Soros has some serious flaws in his rhetoric which leans only one way. Maybe Koch can provide an opposing voice but he has often slanted one way as well. Wish they both would keep their money and opinions to themselves, as the repeated attempts to control governments with it are getting old and tiresome

a reply to: JustJohnny

And how does the otherside attempt to gather votes ? Through promises to cure cancer, promises to forgive debts and give money we don't have to those in need who never see it because it goes in the pockets of those making the promises. A new trick popular this cycle circus is to outright give people directly money disguised as basic income which in reality results in a basic rise in prices.

I have news for us all, neither side gives two cents about social programs that don't work and cost money we don't have, the only thing they care about is donations, and getting reelected so they can get more donations. Its how we have gone from social programs provided by our communities and each other to social programs to provide a helping hand up to social programs "we deserve" because we are being mistreated by the evil people who have all the money. (See above paragraph to know exactly who "they" the evil people are) (hint: those same people making all the promises)

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Always happy to see one of your threads pop up in new.

S&F

a reply to: worldstarcountry

It seems to me that at least one important statement made about 18 minutes in was by Debar I think, the guy with no tie up in the left hand corner. He said something like ''The cost of empire may now be to expensive to make it profitable.

Profitable.

The notion that Soros and Koch are strange bedfellows is to me way overplayed. While many call Soros a socialist I don't see that as being true. He is the head of a freeking huge capitalist conglomerate. The same is true of Koch.
Both want to ensure a future for at least maintaining their wealth, if not increasing it. As both have,I suppose, shareholders to pacify it would be more to the side of increasing that wealth.

So, back to this empire thing. Empires have always been ''for profit'' enterprises. When there were a whole bunch of countries vying for market share it was the rich in each country that spearheaded the increase of that country, that empire.

But now as we venture into a single world empire, and let us not be fooled into thinking that it does not already have us by the short and curlies, this Quincy Think Tank hopes to be rid of the war fare between those older empires and work together for this new single empire. Empire for corporations before we either blow ourselves up or at least do serious damage to the international market place.

a reply to: DJMSN

Offering new new ideas...


Are those ideas always good??

Absolutely not, but one thing is for damn sure, literally by dictionary definition..


Not all the ideas that come out of the left are good ideas, but all the good ideas will come out of the left..


Conservative: uphold the traditions of the past instead of embracing large scale change..


Liberal: ignore the traditions of the past in favor of large scale change..


Since I think it is fair to say NOONE thinks our system is perfect, how else do you convince people not to change a broken system...


Propaganda and logical fallacies..


Look at ANY conflicting conspiracy theory...


Climate change..


Either all the scientists, msm , exc are in a vast conspiracy to fake climate change ....


OR

a handful of scientists are paid off to cloudy the waters and stop any regulation..



One of those is logistically possible AND there is a perfectly public paper trail between the big oil companies and the handful of scientists cloudy g the waters..



PS just to cut off obviously ridiculous counterpoint...


No one agrees about the timetable or extent of climate change... what 98% of the scientists agree on is that CO2 holds more heat than most other gases in the atmosphere and we are producing a crazy amount of CO2..

That is super easy math... the kinda math you get 97% of scientists to agree with.

a reply to: DJMSN

Oh the left cares about social programs.. is it for benevolent reasons??


I doubt it..


They care about the social programs because their voters do.. and their voters pay their bills..


With the GOP corporate interests pay their bills , not the rank and file republican..


For like the last 80 years the gop has backed the business owner, the democrats the employees..

Guess which group most accurately represents America??

a reply to: JustJohnny


There are those that wish to uphold and follow the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.


Then there are the "progressives" who desire to reinterpret the Constitution.

a reply to: JustJohnny

No one agrees about the timetable or extent of climate change... what 98% of the scientists agree on is that CO2 holds more heat than most other gases in the atmosphere and we are producing a crazy amount of CO2..

That is super easy math... the kinda math you get 97% of scientists to agree with.

Actually, 100% of scientists think that water vapor does.

As for super easy math, 41 out of 11,944 does not equal 97%.

The 41 are are the amount of scientists that agree that man is causing a difference in the climate out of 11,944.

They are .3% of the scientific community.

Super easy math, isn't it?



97 articles refuting the 97% myth

a reply to: JustJohnny

Not all the ideas that come out of the left are good ideas, but all the good ideas will come out of the left..

Can you please point out one idea the Progressive left has EVER had that has been good for America?

I'm honestly puzzled by that one.

a reply to: Lumenari

I'd be comfortable in saying that most (if not all) of progressive "ideas" have been anti-Constitutional.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Not really,
they're just becoming aware
of what awaits them.
A scintilla of guilt as well,,,maybe.

The Wrath of The Almighty hath no equal.

S&F

The CFR and the Trilateral Commission has found itself stuck in the swamp with some of its policy decisions and motivations. I do see this team up between Koch and Soros as a shot across the bow to challenge these organizations. Maybe they are just anticipating the fall out from Q's dclass and trying to get into the good books?

The charter for the Quincy institute sounds good, but as for its implementation is a wait and see.

They are not ending warfare, merely repositioning their weapons and taking aim at a new target. The 21st century will be defined by governments declaring war on its own people at the behest of a group of globalists that are beholden to no one. Look around. It has already underway. Why else do you think there is all of this strife and paranoia in the western world today despite overwhelming evidence that life at no period in the history of humankind has ever been better than it is right now?

Now commence jumping up and down and calling me names for pointing this out just as you've been programmed to do.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Thanks for bringing this one up. Probably could have foregone trying to derail your own OP by bringing up all the other stuff, but I read thru it anyway.

In principle, I agree with their principles. What it actually leads to may be another question, considering I wouldn't trust either Soros or Koch with ANYTHING.

However, even if its self-serving interests, if they do manage to adhere to those points, while helping to keep (return) the US to principles of true freedom, I'm ok with their attempt at usurpation of the behind the scenes reins. Somebody's going to do it - at least do it well and to our benefit.

a reply to: Lumenari

The interstate system, abolition, national park system, social security, welfare, free school lunches, public schools....


Every new idea by definition is a left wing idea... so every new thing we have ever implemented and kept doing because it was better than the alternative..


By definition the conservatives are always the establishment, the status quo this trying to keep things from changing in a new direction.


So by definition, long term the conservatives are always wrong... it just depends on which new idea is actually good enough to replace the previous system.

Short term conservatives can be right.. when the left proposes a bad idea that they shoot down for example.

But since I think everyone can agree we have no system that is perfect, on every single issue one day the conservatives will be wrong and some new idea out of the left will replace the old