TECHNOCRACY RISING
The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation
by Patrick M. Wood
The dark horse of the
New World Order is not ,
Socialism or Fascism.
It is Technocracy
CHAPTER 3
The Trilateral Commission
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, 2002 52
First Signs of Concern
My interest in the Trilateral Commission started soon after the
presidential election of Jimmy Carter 53 and Walter Mondale.
As a young financial analyst and writer, I carefully followed Carter’s
initial round of appointees to the top positions in his cabinet and other
important posts. After all, Carter had made a big campaign pitch about
being an “establishment outsider” with few contacts within the
Beltway. Who would he bring to the table? As the list of appointees
piled up, I noticed that several were members in the Trilateral
Commission, whatever that was, and my curiosity was immediately
peaked. After digging up and sifting through a list of Trilateral
Commission members, and seeing over a dozen Trilateral appointees, it
became immediately obvious that some sort of coup was underway, but
what?
It was about this time that Antony C. Sutton entered my life. We both
were attending one of the irst major gold conferences in New Orleans
where he had been invited to speak about his new book, The War on
Gold. The hotel was probably too small for the size of the conference
because every area was packed with people, including the in-hotel
coffee shop where we had to eat breakfast. By the time I arrived at the
restaurant, there were no empty tables to be found. The host told me
that if I wanted to eat, he would have to seat me anywhere he could ind
an open seat at a table. Reluctantly, I followed him to a small booth
where a complete stranger was already halfway through his meal.
I had no idea who this person was and probably didn’t care too much
because I was very hungry and anxious to get off to the first
presentation. When we introduced ourselves with small talk, I was
immediately taken by his British accent and genteel mannerisms and
found him quite easy to talk to. Within a few minutes I learned that he
was an economics professor and research fellow who had just been
forced out of The Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at
Stanford University. He was clearly shaken because academia was his
life and Stanford was his publisher; after all, they had already published
his monumental and internationally acclaimed series on the transfer of
technology from the West to the East. I later learned that when Sutton
was on a research “hunt”, he never left a single stone unturned. In fact,
his co-scholars at Hoover jokingly called him the “Hoover vacuum
cleaner” because of his voracious appetite for details.
When Sutton told me that he was forced out of Hoover by David
Packard, the president of Stanford, I immediately remembered seeing
his (Packard’s) name on the membership list of the Trilateral
Commission. Packard was also founder and chairman of Hewlett Packard. Apparently, Sutton’s professional research had begun to focus
on this group of people, many of whom he had researched in other
study projects. Like me, he also began to wonder why they were
popping up all over the Carter Administration. In any case, Packard
apparently decided to shut down the “vacuum cleaner” before he got
any further in his research.
When both of us realized that we were tracking the same group of
elitists, even if from different backgrounds, our conversation
immediately became intense. Both of us finished breakfast and were
still talking until others let us know we had the table to ourselves long
enough, but not before we shook hands on the very pressing need to
collaborate on getting out the story of the Trilateral Commission.
Within weeks we started a monthly newsletter, Trilateral Observer, in
order to release the initial results of our research as quickly and
smoothly as possible. After two years, we used this material to compile
and publish two books, Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. As
more people read our material, we began to get requests for radio and
television interviews. Before Carter’s term was completed, we had
appeared on well over 350 radio programs all over the country.
The crowning media event was my appearance on the Larry King
Show in Washington, DC, where he was a late-night host for the largest
radio network in the nation, Mutual Broadcasting. In fact, I sat across
the table from Charles Heck, who was the Executive Director of the
Trilateral Commission at the time. What was supposed to be a one-hour
point-counterpoint debate with Heck stretched into a three-hour
marathon. To Larry King’s astonishment, the switchboards were lit up
and the callers were angrily attacking Mr. Heck as he shared what the
Commission was attempting to do. Since most callers didn’t have their
facts straight, I was able to gently correct them and lay out the actual
record, with direct quotes from Trilaterals themselves and their
Trilateral publications. Although I ended up defending Heck from being
misrepresented, my factual material made him look all the worse and
the next round of callers were even more angry. When the show ended,
Larry King thanked us and shook his head, genuinely astounded, and
exclaimed, “I have never seen anything like this in my life.”
The next day, I received a frantic call from B. Dalton Booksellers
saying that they were getting calls from all over the country requesting
Trilaterals Over Washington and could I please express a couple of
review copies to them so that they could assemble their irst stocking
order. Well, I sent the books, but they never called back and an order
never materialized; in fact, upon calling several B. Dalton stores across
the country, Sutton and I heard repeatedly that the book was out of
print and the publisher was out of business. Really?
Yes, we had been blacklisted by one of the largest book selling chains
in the nation! Upon further investigation, we discovered a close
connection to a member of the Trilateral Commission sitting on the
board of directors of B. Dalton’s parent company, Dayton Hudson, which
is now Target. We also never heard another peep out of Larry King or
Mutual Broadcasting Radio.
Trilateral Basics
The idea to create the Trilateral Commission was first informally
presented to people at the elitist Bilderberg group meeting in Europe in
1972, by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They had lown
there together for just that purpose, and because they were encouraged
by so many of their elitist brethren, they returned to the U.S. and
formed the Commission in 1973.
According to each issue of the oficial Trilateral Commission quarterly
magazine Trialogue,
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.54
Further, Trialogue and other oficial 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.
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 strategist for 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 consisted of approximately three
hundred people, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan
and North America. Membership was also roughly divided among
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
for a 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. The inclusion of European and Japanese
members indicated a global 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.
It is important to note that Brzezinski and Rockefeller did not initially
seek advice from the Council on Foreign Relations but rather from the
global Bilderberg group. If the Council on Foreign Relations could be
said to be a spawning ground for many of the concepts of one-world
idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force”
assembled to assault the beachhead. Already the Commission had
placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.
President James Earl Carter, the Georgia peanut farmer turned
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, his first appointment placed Brzezinski as
assistant to the president for national security matters. More
commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council
because he answered only to the president; some rightly 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.
O
n 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 Trilateral 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.
55
Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or
was 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 total, Carter appointed no fewer than
twenty Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:
Zbigniew Brzezinski - National Security Advisor
Cyrus Vance - Secretary of State
Harold Brown - Secretary of Defense
W. Michael Blumenthal - Secretary of the Treasury
Warren Christopher - Deputy Secretary of State
Lucy Wilson Benson - Under Secretary of State
for Security
Affairs
Richard Cooper - Under Secretary of State
for Economic
Affairs
Richard Holbrooke - Under Secretary of State
for East Asian
and Pacific Affairs
Sol Linowitz - co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty
Gerald Smith - Ambassador-at-Large
for Nuclear Power
Negotiations
Elliott Richardson - Delegate to the Law of the Sea
Conference
Richard Gardner - Ambassador to Italy
Anthony Solomon - Under Secretary of
the Treasury for
Monetary Affairs
Paul Warnke - Director, Arms Control
and Disarmament
Agency
Robert R. Bowie - Deputy Director of
Intelligence For
National Estimates
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
When you include Carter and Mondale, these Commission members
represented almost one-third of the entire membership from the
United States roster.
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 codetermination between state and the corporations.56
On May 23, 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.”
57 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, was now the leading
man on Carter’s foreign policy task force.”
58 [So basically the Democrats were compromised 46 years ago by the Globalists, they were doing a real good job at it for 40 years, then 2016 happened when it appeared the death blow was about to be dealt, with 2020 apparently we as a country are on the clock again, with the democrats being as brazen as I have ever seen in my 66 years dc ]
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.
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. 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 59
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. 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.
Brzezinski 60
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 system of global governance.
In September 1974, Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the
Brazilian newspaper Veja, “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.61
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.”
62
Understanding the philosophy of the Trilateral Commission was and
is the only way to reconcile the myriad of apparent contradictions in
the information filtered through 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
“illegals” include not only Mexicans, but many other nationalities from
Central and South America and from Mideast countries.
These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be
explained in any other way: The U.S. Executive Branch was not anti Marxist or anti-Communist; it has tread on the stepping stones of
Marxism as it marched toward Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era. In other
words, 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.
This nature, however, was not unknown or unknowable. It was never
secret, per se. 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.63
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 grâce preceded the economic coup de grâce. 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 to manage countries toward the New World Order; yet,
they found menacing backlashes from those very crises that they tried
to manipulate.
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 babbling.
Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2007
It would have been damaging enough if the Trilateral domination of
the Carter administration was merely a one-time anomaly, but it was
not! [ It's ugly in 2022, I don't think either side gives a crap about saving us a nation dc]
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 hegemony has transcended
political parties; they have dominated - and continue to dominate - 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 orchestrated their goal of creating
a New International Economic Order? Most notably, 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.64 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 eight,
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 Wolfensohn (1995-2005)
Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)
Robert Zoellick (2007-2012)
Jim Yong Kim (2012-Present) [David Malpass was appointed as the 13th president in April of 2019, dc]
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 twelve USTRs appointed by the President. Nine 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)
Barshefsky (1997-2001)
Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)
Rob Portman (2005-2006)
Susan Schwab (2006-2009)
Ron Kirk (2009-2013)
Michael Froman (2013-Present)
This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter, Rob Portman and Ron Kirk were
not friendly to Trilateral goals because they clearly were, and each had significant involvement with other Trilateral members in the past.
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). Hillary Clinton (Obama) was not a Trilateral, but her
husband, William Clinton, was.
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 more recent heads of the Federal
Reserve, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yelen, are not members of the
Trilateral Commission, but they clearly followed the same globalist
policies as their predecessors.
The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S.
Executive Branch has not only continued 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 317 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 natural 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.65
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 emerged as the “Father of the North
American Union” and was directly involved in Trilateral operations
since the 1970s. 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.
66 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 and not the other way around!
Trilateral Globalization in Europe
The content of this chapter 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.67
[Capitals in original]
Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. hegemony, the
European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating
the European Union (EU). In fact, the EU’s Constitution was authored by
Commission member Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 2002-2003 when he
was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe.
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.
Case Study: NAFTA Explained
It is necessary to have a practical understanding of the methods used
by the Trilateral Commission to achieve their New International
Economic Order. To this end, our discussion must digress to the topic of
trade treaties, agreements and regulations, and exactly how they have
been used against us. As boring as that may sound, it actually provides
all the elements of a made-for-TV drama: Collusion, secrecy,
manipulation and deceit. One must use detective-like skills to grasp the
modus operandi. As you discover how the game works, you will
understand every current and future plot as well. You will also
understand why nine out twelve U.S. Trade Representatives, who lead
the trade negotiations, have all been members of the Trilateral
Commission.
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to
Congress “To regulate commerce with foreign nations.” An effective
end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince
Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With
such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties and
other trade agreements with foreign nations and then simply present
them to Congress for a straight up or down vote requiring only a simple
51 percent majority instead of 66 percent, with no amendments
possible. This again points out elite disdain for a Congress that is
elected to be representative “of the people, by the people and for the
people.”
The first so-called “Fast Track” legislation (officially known as Trade
Promotion Authority) was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year
after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year
that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under
President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. Public;
Ford had become President after the resignation of Richard Nixon. As
Vice-President, Nelson Rockefeller was, according to the Constitution,
seated as the president of the U.S. Senate.
According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that
…the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress
ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for
congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits,
requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only
20 hours of debate.68
When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered
lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate
congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. With only 20
hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public
involvement.
The Council of the Americas, founded by David Rockefeller (Nelson
Rockefeller’s brother) in 1965, played an instrumental part in the
passage of this 1974 legislation. According to Rockefeller himself,
The Council of the Americas played an integral role in the ultimately
successful effort to secure TPA (Trade Promotion Authority)… the
Council lobbied hard for the legislation. Although the vote in the
House was extremely close (215 ayes to 214 nays), the Senate passed
TPA more easily.
69
With Nelson Rockefeller presiding as President of the Senate, it is
little wonder that it passed there with ease. Nevertheless, Congress
clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as
evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it.
Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there has been a very
contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President
Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in
Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President
Bush was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002,
just in time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement
(CAFTA) and insure its passage in 2005.
It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has been used in a
small minority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for
instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and
passed normally by Congress, but only two of them were submitted
under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from
1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action:
GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the CanadaU.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation
of Fast Track up until that time.
Soon after NAFTA, Clinton used Fast Track authority to submit the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which was passed by the Senate on
December 1, 1994 and signed into law on December 8. This sweeping
treaty provided for the creation of the World Trade Organization which
has been instrumental in reforming international trade. Subsequent
annual WTO meetings typically made headlines not because of their
disastrous trade policies but because of the violent street protests
staged by activists from all over the world.
The selective use of Fast Track legislation suggests a very narrow
agenda. These trade bamboozles didn’t stand a ghost of a chance to be
passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created
as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive
task -- namely, to “fast track” the creation of the “New International
Economic Order” envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973!
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that “all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be
the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding.” Because international treaties supersede
national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of U.S.
law without resorting to a Constitutional Convention. It is a clear
example of the “end run around national sovereignty” that Richard
Gardner had called for in 1974. In this case, it was the counter-move to
the failed “frontal assault” by Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew
Brzezinski as early as 1972 when they called for a Constitutional
Convention to change the very fabric of our nation. Those suggestions
were overwhelmingly rejected by the American public as outrageous
and dangerous. In the end, Fast Track achieved that and more.
North American Free Trade Agreement
NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican
President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being
the principal architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills
were members of the Trilateral Commission!
With Bush’s first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush
desiring political credit for NAFTA, an “initialing” ceremony of NAFTA
was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992.
Although very official looking, most Americans did not understand the
difference between initialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was
not implemented and Bush did not have the authority to actually sign
such a trade agreement.
Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to
Democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar
opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA. The reason? Clinton
was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission. Immediately
after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA and
orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort.
Prior to the 1992 election, however, there was a fly in the Trilateral
ointment, namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot,
founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was
politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a
major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to
spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that
Perot gave to NAFTA.
At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a
billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who
were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who
their true enemies really were. It is a moot point today whether he was
sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a
lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.
Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally
televised campaign speeches:
If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can
move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,
hire young -- let’s assume you’ve been in business for a long time and
you’ve got a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor,
have no health care - that’s the most expensive single element in
making a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls,
and no retirement, and you didn’t care about anything but making
money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south....
70
[Emphasis added]
Perot’s message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was
unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates
with fellow candidate Albert Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot’s lunch,
not so much on the issues themselves, but on having superior debating
skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and
globally seasoned politician like Al Gore. To counter the public
relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the
NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the President
unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the country
had ever seen.
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multimillion dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of
NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin
events: “Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages.” all of which have turned
out to be empty promises.
Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to
stand with him in praise and affirmation of NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of
the four, three were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill
Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a
Commissioner, but was nevertheless a confirmed globalist insider. After
Ford’s accession to the presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated
Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s oldest brother) to ill the Vice
Presidency that Ford had just vacated.
The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper’s
Magazine publisher John MacArthur,
...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written by MIT’s
Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all
twelve living Nobel laureates in economics, and exercised in academic
logrolling that was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team
into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on September
14. ‘Dear Mr. President,’ wrote the 283 signatories...71
Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to
the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993,
Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed
that stated,
[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States
would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century.
72
Two months later, Kissinger went further:
It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order
taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the
entire Western Hemisphere. [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade
agreement, but the architecture of a new international system.73
[Emphasis added]
It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger’s hype sounds quite similar
to the Trilateral Commission’s original goal of creating a New
International Economic Order.
On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law. Under Fast Track procedures,
the house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102
Democrats voting in favor), and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38.
That Giant Sucking Sound Going South
To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one
must understand the impact of NAFTA.
NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since
1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared,
approaching $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5
million jobs, and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen
significantly.
Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA’s deleterious
effect on the U.S. economy:
When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and
trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world.
In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000
vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to
700,000 vehicles.
As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the
United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine
end, is it not, to the United States as “Auto Capital of the World”?
What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice
of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.74
Of course, this only represents the auto industry, but the same effect
has been seen in many other industries as well. Buchanan correctly
noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal. Rather, it was an
“enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American
workers and move their factories to Mexico.” Indeed, this is the very
spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to overseas locations. [Straight Truth right there dc ]
Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom,
notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really happened with
exports:
Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso
crisis have been producer goods - in particular, parts and components
sent by U.S. multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or
for further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are
reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for
inal sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States buys 80 to 90
percent of all of Mexico’s exports.75
Tonelson concludes that “the vast majority of American workers have
experienced declining living standards, not just a handful of losers.”
Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico’s
supposed benefits from NAFTA:
Much praise has been heard for the few ‘winners’ that NAFTA has
created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexican people
are the deal’s big ‘losers.’ Mexicans now face greater unemployment,
poverty, and inequality than before the agreement began in 1994.76
In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of the United
States or Mexico. Still, this was the backdrop against which the North
American Union (NAU) is being acted out. The globalization players and
their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as
disingenuous as ever.
Prelude to the North American Union
Remember that a core element of Technocracy, Inc. in the 1930s was
the continental integration of Mexico, the United States, Canada, Central
America and portions of South America to include Columbia and
Venezuela. Howard Scott never addressed the issue of how to integrate
these nations, but a solution was proposed with the creation of NAFTA.
Soon after it was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for
a “deep integration” which NAFTA could not provide by itself. His
dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American Union,
published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was released just
a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and thus
received little attention from any sector.
However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear
before the plenary session of the Trilateral Commission held in Ontario,
Canada on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on
his book. His paper, A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission,
made several recommendations:
#...the three governments should establish a North American
Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meetings by
the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the
decisions and plans.
#A second institution should emerge from combining two
bilateral legislative groups into a North American
Parliamentary Group.
#The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade
and Investment.
#The three leaders should establish a North American
Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-
Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
#The North American Commission should develop an integrated
continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
#...negotiate a Customs Union and a Common External Tariff.
Our three governments should sponsor Centers for North
American Studies in each of our countries to help the people of
all three understand the problems and the potential of North
America and begin to think of themselves as North Americans.77
Pastor’s choice of the words “Modest Proposal” were almost comical
considering that he intended to reorganize the entire North American
continent.
Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission was completely on board.
Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of
the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:
The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of
North America to examine regional integration since the
implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten
years ago.... The task force will review five spheres of policy in which
greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic
integration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory
policy; enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage
conflicts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit
opportunities for collaboration.78
Independent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three members
were chosen from the three countries. Each country was represented
by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis
Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served
as the U.S. vice-chairman. This CFR task force was unique in that it
focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not
just the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to
...identify inadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest
opportunities for deeper cooperation on areas of common interest.
Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on
U.S. policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and
Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy
recommendations for all three countries.79
Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the
Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and
integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:
Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic
futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound.
But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three
countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am
excited about the potential of this task force to help fill this void.80
Haass’ statement “there is precious little thinking available”
underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique. That is, irst decide
what you want to do, and second, assign a lock of academics to justify
your intended actions. This is the crux of academic funding by NGOs
such as the Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon,
etc. After the justification process is complete, the same elites that
suggested it in the first place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they
had no other logical choice but to play along with the “sound thinking”
of the experts.
The task force met three times, once in each country. When the
process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper
titled Building a North American Community and subtitled Report of the
Independent Task Force on the Future of North America. Even the subtitle suggests that the “future of North America” is a fait accompli
decided behind closed doors.
Some of the recommendations of the task force were:
* Adopt a common external tariff
* Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation
* Establish a common security perimeter by 2010
* Establish a North American investment fund for
infrastructure and human capital
*Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute
resolution
*An annual North American Summit meeting that would bring
the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of confidence
*Establish minister-led working groups that will be required
to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly
*Create a North American Advisory Council
*Create a North American Inter-Parliamentary Group.81
Sound familiar? It should. Many of the recommendations are verbatim
from Pastor’s “modest” presentation to the Trilateral Commission
mentioned above, or from his earlier book, Toward a North American
Union.
Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three
countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on
March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit was the creation of
the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The
joint press release stated,
We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have
met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America.
We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries
that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These
working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our
businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals.
They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to
meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous
achievement of results.
Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which,
the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the
Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will
be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances
warrant.
82
Once again, we saw Pastor’s North American Union ideology being
continued, but this time as an outcome of a summit meeting of three
heads-of-states. The question must be raised, “Who was really in charge
of this process?”
Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and
started their “working parties” to “consult with stakeholders”. In the
U.S., the “specific, measurable, and achievable goals” were only seen
indirectly by the creation of a government website billed as “Security
and Prosperity Partnership of North America”. The stakeholders are not
mentioned by name, but it was clear that they were generally
representatives of business interests of members of the Trilateral
Commission!
The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006,
in Cancun, Mexico among Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister
Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda was
summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente Fox:
We touched upon fundamental items in that meeting. First of all, we
carried out an evaluation meeting. Then we got information about the
development of programs. And then we gave the necessary
instructions for the works that should be carried out in the next period
of work... We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open
in the Free Trade Agreement. It’s going beyond the agreement, both
for prosperity and security.
83
Regulations instead of Treaties
It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits
resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a failure of
the summit process. The so-called “deeper integration” of the three
countries is being accomplished through a series of regulations and
executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and legislative
oversight.
84
In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different
working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to
security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the
Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP in the U.S. was officially placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos
M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also had SPP
components that reported to Commerce.
After two years of massive effort by investigative journalists, the
names of the SPP working group members were never discovered, nor
was the result of their work. Furthermore, Congressional oversight of
the SPP process was completely absent.
The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of
secrecy was hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist
Jerome Corsi, Word replied, “We did not want to get the contact people
of the working groups distracted by calls from the public.”
85
This paternalistic attitude is a typical elitist mentality. Their work -
whatever they have dreamed up on their own - is too important to be
distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.
This elite change of tactics must not be understated: Regulations and
Executive Orders have replaced Congressional legislation and public
debate. There is no pretense of either. This is another Gardner-style
“end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece.”
Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush administration believed
that it had accumulated sufficient power to ram the NAU down the
throat of the American People, whether they protested or not.
Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative
As mentioned earlier, Pastor was hailed as the father of the North
American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more
testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it, than
any other single U.S. academic igure. He was a tireless architect and
advocate of the NAU. Although he might seem to have been a fresh, new
name in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with
Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.
He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the
1974 CFR task force (funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations)
called the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations - aka the
Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an original
Trilateral Commissioner, Sol Linowitz, was singularly credited with the
giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter presidency. All
of the Linowitz Commission members were members of the Trilateral
Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; other members were W. Michael
Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot
Richardson and David Rockefeller.
One of Carter’s first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint
Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn,
one of Brzezinski’s first acts was to appoint his protégé, Dr. Robert A.
Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs.
Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission’s point-man to lobby for
the Canal giveaway.
To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none
other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-
month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy
became responsible for executing it.
The Trilateral Commission’s role in the Carter Administration has
been confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter
Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:
In converting its predisposition into a policy, the new administration
had the benefit of the research done by two private commissions.
Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral
Commission, which provided a conceptual framework for
collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the
full gamut of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda
and an approach to Latin America, the most important source of influence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.-
Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz.86
As to the inal Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most of
which were authored by Pastor himself, he states,
The reports helped the administration define a new relationship with
Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the
second report became U.S. policy.
87
The Security and Prosperity Partnership was quietly terminated in
August 2009 when its website was updated to say “The Security and
Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) is no longer an active
initiative. There will not be any updates to this site.”
88
Pastor’s deep involvement with Trilateral Commission members and
policies is irrefutable. In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill
Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was forcefully knocked down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) who held a
deep grudge against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the
Panama Canal in 1976.
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.
The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission have
the appearance of being pro-Marxist and pro-Socialist, but only as a
stepping stone leading to Brzezinski’s Technetronic, or Technocratic,
society. 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 International Economic Order that will be
governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal
framework.
If you are having a negative reaction 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.
89 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 resist 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.
87s
notes
52 David Rockefeller, Memoirs (Random House, 2002), p.418.
53 Note: For clarification, Trilateral Commission member names are in bold.
54 Trialogue, Trilateral Commission (1973).
55 “Jimmy Carter: Man of the Year”, Time Magazine, January 7, 1977.
56 Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (August, 1979), p. 7.
57 Leslie Gelb, “Jimmy Carter”, New York Times, May 23, 1976.
58 ibid.
59 “Looking Back ¦And Forward,” Trialogue, (Trilateral Commission, 1976)
60 ibid.
61 Veja Magazine, (Brazil, 1974).
62 ibid.
63 Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280.
64 Patrick Wood, “Global Banking: The World Bank”, The August Forecast & Review.
65 Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations, http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html.
66 “Building a North American Community”, Council on Foreign Relations, (2005).
67 David Rockefeller, In the Beginning: The Trilateral Commission at 25, (Trilateral Commission, 1998), p.11.
68 “Fast Track Talking Points”, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen (http://www.citizen.org/hot_issues/print_issue.cfm?
ID=141).
69 David Rockefeller, Memoirs, (Random House, 2011), p. 438.
70 Ross Perot, “Excerpts From Presidential Debates”, (1992).
71 John MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228.
72 Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance, Op Ed, Washington Post, May 13, 1993.
73 Henry Kissinger, Op-Ed. Los Angeles Times, July 18, 1993.
74 Patrick Buchanan, “The Fruits of NAFTA”, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006.
75 Alan Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom, (Westview Press, 2002) p. 89.
76 Miguel Pickard, “Trinational Elites Map North American Future in ‘NAFTA Plus’”, (http://www.irc-online.com).
77 Dr. Robert A. Pastor, “A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission”, Trilateral Commission , 2002.
78 “Council Joins Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Independent Task Force on the Future of America”,
(http://www.cfr.org/world/council-joins-leading-canadians-mexicans-launch-independent-task-force-future-northamerica/p7454), October 15, 2004.
79 ibid.
80 ibid.
81 “Building a North American Community”, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005.
82 “North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership, International Information Programs”, U.S.
Govt. Website.
83 Vincente Fox, “Concluding Press Conference at Cancun Summit”, March 31, 2006.
84 Pickard, p. 1
85 Jerome Corsi, “Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?”, WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
86 Dr. Robert A. Pastor, “The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle”, The Carter Center, July
1992, p. 9.
87 ibid. p. 10.
88 “The SPP is dead. Let’s keep it that way”, September 24, 2009, (http://rabble.ca/news/2009/09/spp-dead-lets-keepit-way).
89 FT/Harris poll on Globalization, (http://www.FT.com).
No comments:
Post a Comment