Now, when I talk about invisible governance(and I will do so more in the future), I'm using this partially as my basis. There are several key quotes that need to be brought back to the forefront here:(see the cover of the book for an explanation of these letters)
As civilization has become more complex, and as the need for invisible government has been increasingly demonstrated, the technical means have been invented and developed by which opinion may be regimented(Page 39)
Nowadays the successors of the rulers, those whose position or ability gives them power, can no longer do what they want without the approval of the masses, they find in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful in gaining that approval(Page 54)
Democracy is administered by the intelligent minority who know how to regiment and guide the masses(Page 127)
Ok, so who are the 'intelligent minorities' who are regimenting and guiding the masses? Media matters. It's all in that first story, and The DC says they have more to come. MMFA is the 'missing link' between journalism and the whitehouse, so to speak. That is, what the whitehouse wants to be said, MMFA writes it up, and the larger media is more than happy to make that the headline or story. And it's "totally invisible", in that you don't see the tentacles coming from Soros, from MMFA, or where they end up in the various media organs. Well, that is until this investigation came around. This isn't the first time we've learned about the media's role in progressive invisible governance either, who could forget the JournoList? The media have already long established themselves as a reliable part of those 'intelligent minorities' who have found 'in propaganda a tool which is increasingly powerful'.
Now, I mentioned Soros. His role cannot be overstated, given that he's already crashed several societies in the past. He's the man who broke the Bank of England. But with respect to the things he does, he "merely" comes in and takes advantage of whatever revolutionary infrastructure is already built by others. Arguably the oldest leg of what the progressives have built here is academia, and that goes back well over a century into the late 1800's. Woodrow Wilson was the head of Princeton. All of this is nothing new. But how it's done is the key:
When you try to, let’s see, improve society you affect different people and different interests differently and they are not actually commensurate. So you very often have all kinds of unintended adverse consequences. So I had to experiment. And it was a learning process. The first part was this subversive activity, disrupting repressive regimes. That was a lot of fun and that’s actually what got me hooked on this whole enterprise. Seeing what worked in one country, trying it in the other country. It was kind of what developed a matrix in fact that we had, national foundations, and then we had certain specialized activities
So if you were looking for an admission by an important modern day progressive that the use of charitable foundations is indeed how they subvert our society to their own ends, there it is. In the man's own words, they build a matrix of charitable foundations from which to launch their attacks on society. You can find another example of this, in the STORM manifesto.(Page 21, section 1998: re-emergence, paragraphs 2 and 3)