2015: M. Wood: 3-The Trilateral Commission

TECHNOCRACY RISING


The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation
by Patrick M. Wood
The dark horse of the  New World Order is not Communism, 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, 200252

First Signs of Concern

My interest in the Trilateral Commission started soon after the presidential election of Jimmy Carter53 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 find 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 latenight 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 first 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 irst 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 of icial 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.

 

Further, Trialogue and other of ficial 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 igure 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.


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 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.


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 Paci ic 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 co-determination between state and the corporations.


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.” 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.”


Although Richard Gardner was of considerable academic in luence, 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


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 con idence and take some pride in the contribution which the Commission is making. Zbigniew Brzezinski


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.


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.”


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.

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 bene ited from Trilateral policy and actions. Polished academics such as Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken, Henry Owen etc., served only to give “philosophical” justi ication 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 bene it.


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!

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. 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 Wolfenson (1995-2005)
  • Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)
  • Robert Zoellick (2007-2012)
  • Jim Yong Kim (2012-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 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)
  • Charlene 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 signi icant 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 ill the balance of government positions not already illed 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 re lected only the general membership of the CFR, then only 3-4 percent of the board would be Trilaterals.


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. 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 convinceCongress 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.

 

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.

 

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 Canada-U.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 speci ic legislative tool to accomplish a very speci ic 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 ly 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…. [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 theNAFTA 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 multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the bene its 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 af irmation 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 con irmed 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…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.

 

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 irst 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.[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 de icit 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 bene its 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. 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.

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 con licts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit opportunities for collaboration.


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 servedas 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.


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 ill this void.


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 justi ication process is complete, the same elites that suggested it in the irst 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 con idence
  • 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.

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 speci ic 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 speci ic, 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.


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.

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. 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 of icially 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.”


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 suf icient 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 irst actions as President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski’s irst acts was to appoint his protégé, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Of ice 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 bene it 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 in luence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.- Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz.


As to the final Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor himself, he states,


The reports helped the administration de ine a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the second report became U.S. policy.


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.”


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 con irmation 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 pro its 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. 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.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email