Exactly. And by extension, then, makes you a pawn; a tool; an asset. And if you are not exposing the elite power structure (giving the fact that you are privy to it - to some degree - from the inside), then you are actively engaging toward its fulfillment. You are a conspirator, unwitting or not.

In my view, the “conspiracy” behind a “Presige Association” set-up to propagandize the “rich and powerful” would be the financiers behind the association who are in a position to set the agenda. Alternatively, it could be a secret cadre that manipulates the contributions of the rich and powerful.

My point is the accepting an invitation to join the CFR does not make you a “conspirator” though it certainly quite possibly makes you subject to conspiratorial manipulation via ideas, social pressure, etc.

I am still a bit confused by what Soros is up to. . . His intellectual mentor, Popper, was not a leftist. In fact, Popper’s philosophical ideas, epistemology, etc. lead AWAY from leftism.

I suspect Soros is simply fronting for Rockefeller/OPEC/Saudi investors in his Quantum Fund and, thus, pushing their agenda which also involves financial manipulation from which his fund will benefit via foreknowledge.

With the election of Reagan there was a broad right-wing coalition moving forward on several policy fronts. The co-ordination with John Paul II, who had turned the Church against pro-Communist “Liberation Theology” Jesuits, was key.

By the way, not all Jesuits are “Left” by any means. Father Walsh, the fouder of Jesuit Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, explicitly founded to battle Anglophile/Masonic/CFR Establishment, was quite right-wing. . . approaching even Fathers Fahey and Coughlin.

Actually, I’m not questioning that the CNP is locus of power. However, like the CFR, it is an unbrella propaganda outlet for deeper forces. In the case of the CNP the deeper forces are in the orbit of the Pope: Knights of Malta, Jesuits, etc.

CNP didn’t exist in the 70s. You are probably thinking of the 80s. Back then though, it was common knowledge and they were a bit more transparent. There are membership lists from that period too. But now they are more secretive and do not divulge even who is a part of the group.

I like the research the Collins brothers did on the subject. They stuck to the facts as much as they could uncover and just left it at that. The Secret Right video - and I have watched the whole thing since posting it - engages in speculation and veers close to propaganda. That section about the Jesuits and Bohemian Grove, for instance. First of all they actually say with a straight face that John of Nepomuk was a Jesuit; the fact is the latter Order only came almost two hundred years after Nepomuk. And then they quote from the so-called “Extreme oath of induction” of the Jesuits and - despite no proof the oath is real at all - say it is both the oath of the Knights of Malta as well as that of the Jesuits. Then after quoting the “good” parts of this “oath” - like cutting out the baby from the womb and smashing its head against the wall - they mix this in with the owl statue and insinuated it has catholic connotations and matter-factly state that this entire line of conflation proves that the Grove is a catholic-Jesuit front! Nice investigating guys! You have mad, mad skills! Am I ever impressed!

Think for yourself, the video says. Research and confirm for yourself, they admonish. How bout you do the same first and not waste my time with tripe. I’ll begin to take you seriously if - and only if - you do not insult my intelligence. This is the reason so-called conspiracy theory is derived - and rightly so. Fact is mixed with myth and propaganda and rhetoric and circular citation (conspiracy theorists quoting other conspiracy theorists as proof) and we are just expected to lap it up with ignorance.

By the way, this video discredits itself by repeating the idiotic Eustace Mullins claim that Nelson Rockefeller funded the John Birch Society by buying the Welch candy company.

Mullins was a completely unprincipled propagandist, not a researcher at all. I can’t recall when I first heard of it, but the Council for National Policy was common knowledge back in the 1970s and was/is simply and umbrella group for influencial conservatives.

The idea that the Contras shouldn’t have been supported against the Soviet allied Ortega because the Democratic Party filth in Congress passed a law against it is a howler.