VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Print This Article Print This Article Email This Article Email This Article

The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty

Share

By Patrick Wood

[Editor’s note: For ease of reading, all mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion appear in bold type]

“Pres­i­dent Reagan ulti­mately came to under­stand Trilateral’s value and invited the entire mem­ber­ship to a recep­tion at the White House in April 1984″
 – David Rock­e­feller, Mem­oirs, 20021


According to each issue of the offi­cial Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion quar­terly mag­a­zine Tri­a­logue:

Trilateral Commission Logo“The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was formed in 1973 by pri­vate cit­i­zens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer coop­er­a­tion among these three regions on common prob­lems. It seeks to improve public under­standing of such prob­lems, to sup­port pro­posals for han­dling them jointly, and to nur­ture habits and prac­tices of working together among these regions.2

Fur­ther, Tri­a­logue and other offi­cial writ­ings made clear their stated goal of cre­ating a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.” Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush later talked openly about cre­ating a “New World Order”, which has since become a syn­ony­mous phrase.

This paper attempts to tell the rest of the story, according to offi­cial and unof­fi­cial Com­mis­sion sources and other avail­able documents.

The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was founded by the per­sis­tent maneu­vering of David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Rock­e­feller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Man­hattan Bank, a director of many major multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions and “endow­ment funds” and had long been a cen­tral figure in the Council on For­eign Rela­tions (CFR). Brzezinski, a bril­liant prog­nos­ti­cator of one-world ide­alism, was a pro­fessor at Columbia Uni­ver­sity and the author of sev­eral books that have served as “policy guide­lines” for the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first exec­u­tive director from its incep­tion in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by Pres­i­dent Jimmy Carter as Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for National Secu­rity Affairs.

The ini­tial Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship was approx­i­mately three hun­dred, with roughly one hun­dred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Mem­ber­ship was also roughly divided between aca­d­e­mics, politi­cians and cor­po­rate mag­nates; these included inter­na­tional bankers, leaders of promi­nent labor unions and cor­po­rate direc­tors of media giants.

The word com­mis­sion was puz­zling since it is usu­ally asso­ci­ated with instru­men­tal­i­ties set up by gov­ern­ments. It seemed out of place with a so-called  pri­vate group unless we could deter­mine that it really was an arm of a gov­ern­ment — an unseen gov­ern­ment, dif­ferent from the vis­ible gov­ern­ment in Wash­ington. Euro­pean and Japanese involve­ment indi­cated a world gov­ern­ment rather than a national gov­ern­ment. We hoped that the con­cept of a sub-rosa world gov­ern­ment was just wishful thinking on the part of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioners. The facts, how­ever, lined up quite pessimistically.

If the Council on For­eign Rela­tions could be said to be a spawning ground for the con­cepts of one-world ide­alism, then the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was the “task force” assem­bled to assault the beach­heads. Already the Com­mis­sion had placed its mem­bers in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

Brzezinski and CarterPres­i­dent James Earl Carter, the country politi­cian who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Com­mis­sion by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first iden­ti­fied Carter as pres­i­den­tial timber, and sub­se­quently edu­cated him in eco­nomics, for­eign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world pol­i­tics. Upon Carter’s elec­tion, Brzezinski was appointed assis­tant to the pres­i­dent for national secu­rity mat­ters. Com­monly, he was called the head of the National Secu­rity Council because he answered only to the pres­i­dent — some said Brzezinski held the second most pow­erful posi­tion in the U.S.

Carter’s run­ning mate, Walter Mon­dale, was also a member of the Com­mis­sion. (If you are trying to cal­cu­late the odds of three vir­tu­ally unknown men, out of over sixty Com­mis­sioners from the U.S., cap­turing the three most pow­erful posi­tions in the land, don’t bother. Your cal­cu­la­tions will be meaningless.)

On Jan­uary 7, 1977 Time Mag­a­zine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a pow­erful Tri­lat­eral, named Pres­i­dent Carter “Man of the Year.” The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to men­tion Carter’s con­nec­tion with the Com­mis­sion but also stated the following:

“As he searched for Cab­inet appointees, Carter seemed at times hes­i­tant and frus­trated dis­con­cert­ingly out of char­acter. His lack of ties to Wash­ington and the Party Estab­lish­ment — qual­i­ties that helped raise him to the White House — carry poten­tial dan­gers. He does not know the Fed­eral Gov­ern­ment or the pres­sures it cre­ates. He does not really know the politi­cians whom he will need to help him run the country.“3

Is this por­trait of Carter as a polit­ical inno­cent simply inac­cu­rate or is it delib­er­ately mis­leading? By December 25, 1976 — two weeks before the Time article appeared — Carter had already chosen his cab­inet. Three of his cab­inet mem­bers — Cyrus Vance, Michael Blu­men­thal, and Harold Brown — were Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioners; and the other non-Commission mem­bers were not unsym­pa­thetic to Com­mis­sion objec­tives and oper­a­tions. In addi­tion, Carter had appointed another four­teen Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioners to top gov­ern­ment posts, including:

    • C. Fred Berg­sten (Under Sec­re­tary of Treasury)
    • James Schlesinger (Sec­re­tary of Energy)
    • Elliot Richardson (Del­e­gate to Law of the Sea)
    • Leonard Wood­cock (Chief envoy to China)
    • Andrew Young (Ambas­sador to the United Nations)

As of 25 December 1976, there­fore, there were nine­teen Tri­lat­erals, including Carter and Mon­dale, holding tremen­dous polit­ical power. These pres­i­den­tial appointees rep­re­sented almost one-third of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers from the United States. The odds of that hap­pening “by chance” are beyond calculation!

Nev­er­the­less, was there even the slightest evi­dence to indi­cate any­thing other than col­lu­sion? Hardly! Zbig­niew Brzezinski spelled out the qual­i­fi­ca­tions of a 1976 pres­i­den­tial winner in 1973:

“The Demo­c­ratic can­di­date in 1976 will have to empha­size work, the family, reli­gion and, increas­ingly, patriotism…The new con­ser­vatism will clearly not go back to laissez faire. It will be a philo­soph­ical con­ser­vatism. It will be a kind of con­ser­v­a­tive sta­tism or man­agerism. There will be con­ser­v­a­tive values but a reliance on a great deal of co-determination between state and the cor­po­ra­tions.“4

On 23 May 1976 jour­nalist Leslie H. Gelb wrote in the not-so-conservative New York Times, “(Brzezinski) was the first guy in the Com­mu­nity to pay atten­tion to Carter, to take him seri­ously. He spent time with Carter, talked to him, sent him books and arti­cles, edu­cated him.“5 Richard Gardner (also of Columbia Uni­ver­sity) joined into the “edu­ca­tional” task, and as Gelb noted, between the two of them they had Carter vir­tu­ally to them­selves. Gelb con­tinued: “While the Com­mu­nity as a whole was looking else­where, to Sen­a­tors Kennedy and Mon­dale…it paid off. Brzezinski, with Gardner, is now the leading man on Carter’s for­eign policy task force.“6

Although Richard Gardner was of con­sid­er­able aca­d­emic influ­ence, it should be clear that Brzezinski was the “guiding light” of for­eign policy in the Carter admin­is­tra­tion. Along with Com­mis­sioner Vance and a host of other Com­mis­sioners in the State Depart­ment, Brzezinski had more than con­tinued the poli­cies of befriending our ene­mies and alien­ating our friends. Since early 1977 we had wit­nessed a mas­sive push to attain “nor­mal­ized” rela­tions with Com­mu­nist China, Cuba, the USSR, Eastern Euro­pean nations, Angola, etc. Con­versely, we had with­drawn at least some sup­port from Nation­alist China, South Africa, Zim­babwe (for­merly Rhodesia), etc. It was not just a trend — it was an epi­demic. Thus, if it could be said that Brzezinski had, at least in part, con­tributed to cur­rent U.S. for­eign and domestic policy, then we should briefly ana­lyze exactly what he was espousing.

Needed: A More Just and Equi­table World Order

The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion held their annual ple­nary meeting in Tokyo, Japan, in Jan­uary 1977. Carter and Brzezinski obvi­ously could not attend as they were still in the process of reor­ga­nizing the White House. They did, how­ever, address per­sonal let­ters to the meeting, which were reprinted in Tri­a­logue, the offi­cial mag­a­zine of the Com­mis­sion:

“It gives me spe­cial plea­sure to send greet­ings to all of you gath­ering for the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion meeting in Tokyo. I have warm mem­o­ries of our meeting in Tokyo some eigh­teen months ago, and am sorry I cannot be with you now.

“My active ser­vice on the Com­mis­sion since its incep­tion in 1973 has been a splendid expe­ri­ence for me, and it pro­vided me with excel­lent oppor­tu­ni­ties to come to know leaders in our three regions.

“As I empha­sized in my cam­paign, a strong part­ner­ship among us is of the greatest impor­tance. We share eco­nomic, polit­ical and secu­rity con­cerns that make it log­ical we should seek ever-increasing coop­er­a­tion and under­standing. And this coop­er­a­tion is essen­tial not only for our three regions, but in the global search for a more just and equi­table world order (emphasis added). I hope to see you on the occa­sion of your next meeting in Wash­ington, and I look for­ward to receiving reports on your work in Tokyo.

“Jimmy Carter“7

Brzezinski’s letter, in a sim­ilar vein, follows:

“The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion has meant a great deal to me over the last few years. It has been the stim­ulus for intel­lec­tual cre­ativity and a source of per­sonal sat­is­fac­tion. I have formed close ties with new friends and col­leagues in all three regions, ties which I value highly and which I am sure will continue.

“I remain con­vinced that, on the larger archi­tec­tural issues of today, col­lab­o­ra­tion among our regions is of the utmost neces­sity. This col­lab­o­ra­tion must be ded­i­cated to the fash­ioning of a more just and equi­table world order (emphasis added). This will require a pro­longed process, but I think we can look for­ward with con­fi­dence and take some pride in the con­tri­bu­tion which the Com­mis­sion is making.

“Zbig­niew Brzezinski“8

The key phrase in both let­ters was “more just and equi­table world order.” Did this emphasis indi­cate that some­thing was wrong with our present world order, that is, with national struc­tures? Yes, according to Brzezinski, and since the present “frame­work” was inad­e­quate to handle world prob­lems, it must be done away with and sup­planted with a world government.

In Sep­tember 1974 Brzezinski was asked in an inter­view by the Brazilian news­paper Vega. “How would you define this new world order?” Brzezinski answered:

“When I speak of the present inter­na­tional system I am refer­ring to rela­tions in spe­cific fields, most of all among the Atlantic coun­tries; com­mer­cial, mil­i­tary, mutual secu­rity rela­tions, involving the inter­na­tional mon­e­tary fund, NATO etc. We need to change the inter­na­tional system for a global system in which new, active and cre­ative forces recently devel­oped — should be inte­grated. This system needs to include Japan. Brazil, the oil pro­ducing coun­tries, and even the USSR, to the extent which the Soviet Union is willing to par­tic­i­pate in a global system.“9

When asked if Con­gress would have an expanded or dimin­ished role in the new system, Brzezinski declared “…the reality of our times is that a modern society such as the U.S. needs a cen­tral coor­di­nating and ren­o­vating organ which cannot be made up of six hun­dred people.“10

Brzezinski devel­oped back­ground for the need for a new system in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era (1969). He wrote that mankind has moved through three great stages of evo­lu­tion, and was in the middle of the fourth and final stage. The first stage he described as “reli­gious,” com­bining a heav­enly “uni­ver­salism pro­vided by the accep­tance of the idea that man’s des­tiny is essen­tially in God’s hands” with an earthly “nar­row­ness derived from mas­sive igno­rance, illit­eracy, and a vision con­fined to the imme­diate environment.”

The second stage was nation­alism, stressing Chris­tian equality before the law, which “marked another giant step in the pro­gres­sive rede­f­i­n­i­tion of man’s nature and place in our world.” The third stage was Marxism, which, said Brzezinski, “rep­re­sents a fur­ther vital and cre­ative stage in the maturing of man’s uni­versal vision.” The fourth and final stage was Brzezinski’s Tech­netronic Era, or the ideal of rational humanism on a global scale — the result of American-Communist evo­lu­tionary trans­for­ma­tions.11

In con­sid­ering our struc­ture of gov­er­nance, Brzezinski stated:

‘Ten­sion is unavoid­able as man strives to assim­i­late the new into the frame­work of the old. For a time the estab­lished frame­work resiliently inte­grates the new by adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point the old frame­work becomes over­loaded. The newer input can no longer be rede­fined into tra­di­tional forms, and even­tu­ally it asserts itself with com­pelling force. Today, though, the old frame­work of inter­na­tional pol­i­tics — with their spheres of influ­ence, mil­i­tary alliances between nation-states, the fic­tion of sov­er­eignty, doc­trinal con­flicts arising from nine­teenth cen­tury crises — is clearly no longer com­pat­ible with reality.“12

One of the most impor­tant “frame­works” in the world, and espe­cially to Amer­i­cans, was the United States Con­sti­tu­tion. It was this doc­u­ment that out­lined the most pros­perous nation in the his­tory of the world. Was our sov­er­eignty really “fic­tion”? Was the U.S. vision no longer com­pat­ible with reality? Brzezinski fur­ther stated:

“The approaching two-hundredth anniver­sary of the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence could jus­tify the call for a national con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion to reex­amine the nation’s formal insti­tu­tional frame­work. Either 1976 or 1989 — the two– hun­dredth an anniver­sary of the Con­sti­tu­tion — could serve as a suit­able target date cul­mi­nating a national dia­logue on the rel­e­vance of existing arrange­ments… Realism, how­ever, forces us to rec­og­nize that the nec­es­sary polit­ical inno­va­tion will not come from direct con­sti­tu­tional reform, desir­able as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incre­men­tally and less overtly…in keeping with the Amer­ican tra­di­tion of blur­ring dis­tinc­tions between public and pri­vate insti­tu­tion.13

In Brzezinski’s Tech­netronic Era then, the “nation-state as a fun­da­mental unit of man’s orga­nized life has ceased to be the prin­cipal cre­ative force: Inter­na­tional banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are acting and plan­ning in terms that are far in advance of the polit­ical con­cepts of the nation-state.“14

Brzezinski’s phi­los­ophy clearly pointed for­ward to Richard Gardner’s Hard Road to World Order that appeared in For­eign Affairs in 1974, where Gardner stated,

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing con­fu­sion,’ to use William James’ famous descrip­tion of reality, but an end run around national sov­er­eignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accom­plish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.“15

That former approach which had pro­duced few suc­cesses during the 1950’s and 1960’s was being traded for a velvet sledge-hammer: It would make little noise, but would still drive the spikes of glob­al­iza­tion deep into the hearts of many dif­ferent coun­tries around the world, including the United States. Indeed, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was the chosen vehicle that finally got the nec­es­sary trac­tion to actu­ally create their New World Order.

Under­standing the phi­los­ophy of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was and is the only way we can rec­on­cile the myriad of apparent con­tra­dic­tions in the infor­ma­tion fil­tered through to us in the national press. For instance, how was it that the Marxist regime in Angola derived the great bulk of its for­eign exchange from the off­shore oil oper­a­tions of Gulf Oil Cor­po­ra­tion? Why did Andrew Young insist that “Com­mu­nism has never been a threat to Blacks in Africa”? Why did the U.S. funnel bil­lions in tech­no­log­ical aid to the Soviet Union and Com­mu­nist China? Why did the U.S. appar­ently help its ene­mies while chastising its friends?

A sim­ilar and per­plexing ques­tion is asked by mil­lions of Amer­i­cans today: Why do we spend tril­lions on the “War on Terror” around the world and yet ignore the Mexican/U.S. border and the tens of thou­sands of illegal aliens who freely enter the U.S. each and every month?

These ques­tions, and hun­dreds of others like them, cannot be explained in any other way: the U.S. Exec­u­tive Branch (and related agen­cies) was not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist — it was and is, in fact, pro– Marxist. Those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mus­solini were now being accepted as nec­es­sary inevitability by our elected and appointed leaders.

This hardly sug­gests the Great Amer­ican Dream. It is very doubtful that Amer­i­cans would agree with Brzezinski or the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. It is the Amer­ican public who is paying the price, suf­fering the con­se­quences, but not under­standing the true nature of the situation.

Barry GoldwaterThis nature how­ever, was not unknown or unknow­able. Sen­ator Barry Gold­water (R-AZ) issued a clear and pre­cise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:

“The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion is inter­na­tional and is intended to be the vehicle for multi­na­tional con­sol­i­da­tion of the com­mer­cial and banking inter­ests by seizing con­trol of the polit­ical gov­ern­ment of the United States. The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion rep­re­sents a skillful, coor­di­nated effort to seize con­trol and con­sol­i­date the four cen­ters of power — polit­ical, mon­e­tary, intel­lec­tual and ecclesiastical.”

Unfor­tu­nately, few heard and even fewer understood.

Follow the Money, Follow the Power

What was the eco­nomic nature of the dri­ving force within the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion? It was the giant multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions — those with Tri­lat­eral rep­re­sen­ta­tion — which con­sis­tently ben­e­fited from Tri­lat­eral policy and actions. Pol­ished aca­d­e­mics such as Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken, Henry Owen etc., served only to give “philo­soph­ical” jus­ti­fi­ca­tion to the exploita­tion of the world.

Don’t under­es­ti­mate their power or the dis­tance they had already come by 1976. Their eco­nomic base was already estab­lished. Giants like Coca-Cola, IBM, CBS, Cater­pillar Tractor, Bank of America, Chase Man­hattan Bank, Deere & Com­pany, Exxon, and others vir­tu­ally dwarf what­ever remains of Amer­ican busi­nesses. The market value of IBM’s stock alone, for instance, was greater than the value of all the stocks on the Amer­ican Stock Exchange. Chase Man­hattan Bank had some fifty thou­sand branches or cor­re­spon­dent banks throughout the world. What reached our eyes and ears was highly reg­u­lated by CBS, the New York Times, Time mag­a­zine, etc.

The most impor­tant thing of all is to remember that the polit­ical coup de grace pre­ceded the eco­nomic coup de grace. The dom­i­na­tion of the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­vided all the nec­es­sary polit­ical leverage needed to skew U.S. and global eco­nomic poli­cies to their own benefit.

By 1977, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion had notably become expert at using crises (and cre­ating them in some instances) to manage coun­tries toward the New World Order; yet, they found men­acing back­lashes from those very crises.

In the end, the biggest crisis of all was that of the Amer­ican way of life. Amer­i­cans never counted on such pow­erful and influ­en­tial groups working against the Con­sti­tu­tion and freedom, either inad­ver­tently or pur­pose­fully, and even now, the prin­ci­ples that helped to build this great country are all but reduced to the sound of mean­ing­less babblings.

Tri­lat­eral Entrench­ment: 1980 – 2007

From left: Peter Suther­land, Sadako Ogata, Zbig­niew Brzezinski, Paul Vol­cker, David Rock­e­feller. (25th Anniver­sary, New York, Dec. 1, 1998. Source: Tri­lat­eral Commission)

It would have been dam­aging enough if the Tri­lat­eral dom­i­na­tion of the Carter admin­is­tra­tion was merely a one-time anomaly; but it was not!

Sub­se­quent pres­i­den­tial elec­tions brought George H.W. Bush (under Reagan), William Jef­ferson Clinton, Albert Gore and Richard Cheney (under G. W. Bush) to power.

Thus, every Admin­is­tra­tion since Carter has had top-level Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion rep­re­sen­ta­tion through the Pres­i­dent or Vice-president, or both!

It is impor­tant to note that Tri­lat­eral dom­i­na­tion has tran­scended polit­ical par­ties: they dom­i­nated both the Repub­lican and Demo­crat par­ties with equal aplomb.

In addi­tion, the Admin­is­tra­tion before Carter was very friendly and useful to Tri­lat­eral doc­trine as well: Pres­i­dent Gerald Ford took the reins after Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon resigned, and then appointed Nelson Rock­e­feller as his Vice Pres­i­dent. Nei­ther Ford nor Rock­e­feller were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, but Nelson was David Rockefeller’s brother and that says enough. According to Nelson Rockefeller’s mem­oirs, he orig­i­nally intro­duced then-governor Jimmy Carter to David and Brzezinski.

How has the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion effected their goal of cre­ating a New World Order or a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order? They seated their own mem­bers at the top of the insti­tu­tions of global trade, global banking and for­eign policy.

For instance, the World Bank is one of the most crit­ical mech­a­nisms in the engine of glob­al­iza­tion.17 Since the founding of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973, there have been only seven World Bank pres­i­dents, all of whom were appointed by the Pres­i­dent. Of these seven, six were pulled from the ranks of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

    • Robert McNa­mara (1968 – 1981)
    • A.W. Clausen (1981 – 1986)
    • Barber Conable (1986 – 1991)
    • Lewis Pre­ston (1991 – 1995)
    • James Wolfenson (1995 – 2005)
    • Paul Wol­fowitz (2005 – 2007)
    • Robert Zoel­lick (2007-present)

Another good evi­dence of dom­i­na­tion is the posi­tion of U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive (USTR), which is crit­i­cally involved in nego­ti­ating the many inter­na­tional trade treaties and agree­ments that have been nec­es­sary to create the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order. Since 1977, there have been ten USTR’s appointed by the Pres­i­dent. Eight have been mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

    • Robert S. Strauss (1977 – 1979)
    • Reubin O’D. Askew (1979 – 1981)
    • William E. Brock III (1981 – 1985)
    • Clayton K. Yeutter (1985 – 1989)
    • Carla A. Hills (1989 – 1993)
    • Mickey Kantor (1993 – 1997)
    • Char­lene Barshefsky (1997 – 2001)
    • Robert Zoel­lick (2001 – 2005)
    • Rob Portman (2005 – 2006)
    • Susan Schwab (2006-present)

This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter and Rob Portman were not friendly to Tri­lat­eral goals, because they clearly were.

The Sec­re­tary of State cab­inet posi­tion has seen its share of Tri­lat­erals as well: Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance (Carter), Alexander Haig (Reagan), George Shultz (Reagan), Lawrence Eagle­burger (G.H.W. Bush), Warren Christo­pher (Clinton) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton) There were some Acting Sec­re­taries of State that are also note­worthy: Philip Habib (Carter), Michael Arma­cost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton), Richard Cooper (Clinton).

Lastly, it should be noted that the Fed­eral Reserve has like­wise been dom­i­nated by Tri­lat­erals: Arthur Burns (1970 – 1978), Paul Volker (1979 – 1987), Alan Greenspan (1987 – 2006). While the Fed­eral Reserve is a privately-owned cor­po­ra­tion, the Pres­i­dent “chooses” the Chairman to a per­petual appoint­ment. The cur­rent Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, but he clearly is fol­lowing the same glob­alist poli­cies as his predecessors.

The point raised here is that Tri­lat­eral dom­i­na­tion over the U.S. Exec­u­tive Branch has not only con­tinued and but has been strength­ened from 1976 to the present. The pat­tern has been delib­erate and per­sis­tent: Appoint mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion to crit­ical posi­tions of power so that they can carry out Tri­lat­eral policies.

The ques­tion is and has always been, do these poli­cies orig­i­nate in con­sensus meet­ings of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion where two-thirds of the mem­bers are not U.S. cit­i­zens? The answer is all too obvious.

Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep crit­i­cism aside by sug­gesting that mem­ber­ship in the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion is inci­dental, and that it only demon­strates the oth­er­wise high quality of appointees. Are we to believe that in a country of 300 mil­lion people only these 100 or so are qual­i­fied to hold such crit­ical posi­tions? Again, the answer is all too obvious.

Where Does the Council on For­eign Rela­tions Fit?

While vir­tu­ally all Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers from North America have also been mem­bers of the CFR, the reverse is cer­tainly not true. It is easy to over-criticize the CFR because most of its mem­bers seem to fill the bal­ance of gov­ern­ment posi­tions not already filled by Trilaterals.

The power struc­ture of the Council is seen in the makeup of its board of direc­tors: No less than 44 per­cent (12 out of 27) are mem­bers of the Com­mis­sion! If director par­tic­i­pa­tion reflected only the gen­eral mem­ber­ship of the CFR, then only 3 – 4 per­cent of the board would be Tri­lat­erals.18

Fur­ther, the pres­i­dent of the CFR is Richard N. Haass, a very promi­nent Tri­lat­eral member who also served as Director of Policy Plan­ning for the U.S. Depart­ment of State from 2001 – 2003.

Tri­lat­eral influ­ence can easily be seen in policy papers pro­duced by the CFR in sup­port of Tri­lat­eral goals.

For instance, the 2005 CFR task force report on the Future of North America was per­haps the major Tri­lat­eral policy state­ment on the intended cre­ation of the North Amer­ican Union. Vice-chair of the task force was Dr. Robert A. Pastor, who has emerged as the “Father of the North Amer­ican Union” and has been directly involved in Tri­lat­eral oper­a­tions since the 1970’s. While the CFR claimed that the task force was “inde­pen­dent,” careful inspec­tion of those appointed reveal that three Tri­lat­erals were care­fully chosen to oversee the Tri­lat­eral posi­tion, one each from Mexico, Canada and the United States: Luis Rubio, Wendy K. Dobson and Carla A. Hills, respec­tively.19 Hills has been widely hailed as the prin­cipal archi­tect of the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) that was nego­ti­ated under Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The bottom line is that the Council on For­eign Rela­tions, thor­oughly dom­i­nated by Tri­lat­erals, serves the inter­ests of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, not the other way around!

EU PosterTri­lat­eral Glob­al­iza­tion in Europe

The con­tent of this paper thus far sug­gests ties between the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and the United States. This is not intended to mean that Tri­lat­erals are not active in other coun­tries as well. Recalling the early years of the Com­mis­sion, David Rock­e­feller wrote in 1998,

“Back in the early Sev­en­ties, the hope for a more united EUROPE was already full-blown — thanks in many ways to the indi­vidual ener­gies pre­vi­ously spent by so many of the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s ear­liest mem­bers.” [Cap­i­tals in orig­inal]20

Thus, since 1973 and in par­allel with their U.S. hege­mony, the Euro­pean mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion were busy cre­ating the Euro­pean Union. In fact, the EU’s Con­sti­tu­tion was authored by Com­mis­sion member Valary Gis­card d’Estaing in 2002 – 2003, when he was Pres­i­dent of the Con­ven­tion on the Future of Europe. [For more on the EU, see Euro­pean Union: Dic­ta­tor­ship Rising? and The Glob­al­iza­tion Strategy: America and Europe in the Cru­cible]

The steps that led to the cre­ation of the Euro­pean Union are unsur­pris­ingly sim­ilar to the steps being taken to create the North Amer­ican Union today. As with the EU, lies, deceit and con­fu­sion are the prin­cipal tools used to keep an unsus­pecting cit­i­zenry in the dark while they forge ahead without man­date, account­ability or over­sight. [See The Glob­al­iza­tion Strategy: America and Europe in the Cru­cible and Toward a North Amer­ican Union]

Con­clu­sion

It is clear that the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. was lit­er­ally hijacked in 1976 by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, upon the elec­tion of Pres­i­dent Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mon­dale. This near-absolute dom­i­na­tion, espe­cially in the areas of trade, banking, eco­nomics and for­eign policy, has con­tinued unchal­lenged and unabated to the present.

Wind­fall profits have accrued to inter­ests asso­ci­ated with the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, but the effect of their “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” on the U.S. has been nothing less than dev­as­tating. (See America Plun­dered by the Global Elite for a more detailed analysis)

The philo­soph­ical under­pin­nings of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the con­cept of the nation-state and in par­tic­ular, the Con­sti­tu­tion of the United States. Thus, national sov­er­eignty must be dimin­ished and then abol­ished alto­gether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be gov­erned by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.

If you are having neg­a­tive sen­ti­ment against Trilateral-style glob­al­iza­tion, you are not alone. A 2007 Finan­cial Times/Harris poll revealed that less than 20 per­cent of people in six indus­tri­al­ized coun­tries (including the U.S.) believe that glob­al­iza­tion is good for their country while over 50 per­cent are out­right neg­a­tive towards it.21 (See Global Back­lash Against Glob­al­iza­tion?) While cit­i­zens around the world are feeling the pain of glob­al­iza­tion, few under­stand why it is hap­pening and hence, they have no effec­tive strategy to counter it.

The Amer­ican public has never, ever con­ceived that such forces would align them­selves so suc­cess­fully against freedom and lib­erty. Yet, the evi­dence is clear: Steerage of America has long since fallen into the hands of an actively hos­tile enemy that intends to remove all ves­tiges of the very things that made us the greatest nation in the his­tory of mankind.

End­notes

  1. Rock­e­feller, David, Mem­oirs (Random House, 2002), p.418
  2. Tri­a­logue, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion (1973)
  3. Time Mag­a­zine, Jimmy Carter: Man of the Year, Jan­uary 7, 1977
  4. Sutton & Wood, Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington (1979), p. 7
  5. New York Times, Jimmy Carter, Leslie Gelb, May 23, 1976
  6. ibid.
  7. Tri­a­logue, Looking Back…And For­ward, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, 1976
  8. ibid.
  9. Sutton & Wood, Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington (1979), p. 4
  10. ibid. p. 5
  11. Brzezinski, Zbig­niew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.
  12. ibid.
  13. ibid.
  14. ibid.
  15. Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (For­eign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
  16. Gold­water, Barry, With No Apolo­gies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280
  17. Global Banking: The World Bank, Patrick Wood, The August Review
  18. Board of Direc­tors, Council on For­eign Rela­tions website
  19. Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, 2005
  20. Rock­e­feller, David, In the Begin­ning: The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion at 25, 1998, p.11
  21. FT/Harris poll on Glob­al­iza­tion, FT.com website

5 Responses to “The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty”

  1. Chris says:

    Mr. Wood, I LOVE YOUR WEBSITE AND NEWSLETTERS!!!! You write the absolute truth about world affairs — which we would NEVER get from the MSM.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

Globalization of California Forum

Globalization of California

Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

News & Analysis

  • Transhumanism, Technocracy, Total Surveillance Society

    Tran­shu­manism, Tech­noc­racy and Total Sur­veil­lance Society are show­cased in this 3 hour radio pre­sen­ta­tion with Patrick Wood, Carl Teichrib and Kaye Beach. It is a good primer and helpful to bring the lis­tener to a solid basic under­standing of what it … Con­tinue reading

  • Is Trayvon Sparking a Communist Revolution?

    Are you puz­zled by the over-reaction and civil unrest over the George Zim­merman trial? Con­sider this: Com­mu­nist front groups are throwing every­thing they have at fomenting and con­tin­uing the protests for their own agenda. Many of these groups have no … Con­tinue reading

  • Risk of Global Financial Freeze-up Rising

    If you thought it couldn’t happen again, get ready: A new global finan­cial freeze-up could be straight ahead. It’s too bad that eco­nomics, trade, finance, etc., are such boring topics to most people. Well, they actu­ally are boring because they … Con­tinue reading

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

Posted in: faq

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

Posted in: faq

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

Posted in: faq

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

Posted in: faq

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

Posted in: faq

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

Posted in: faq

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

Posted in: faq