Whatever Trilateralists may release about their objectives, common sense suggests that any control they acquire over the daily lives of individuals means a corresponding loss of control for the individual. Power gained at the political center is power lost at the periphery. If some central body makes regulations and orders, this reduces the freedom of individuals to order their own lives. In brief, globalism means reduction of individual freedom.

One Trilateral objective is to exaggerate world problems so that Trilateral power to control and order a new world may be enhanced.

Such problems have been identified according to the following criteria:

. The problem should be important from a global standpoint.
. The problem should be one that can be solved by some degree of Trilateral - Communist cooperation following
a presumed unstated objective to merge the U.S. with a socialist structure.
. The venture must be one that can be pursued without undue intrusion into the internal affairs of the participating states. 1

An important problem area that fits the criteria for selective manipulation is that of world food. Food supplies are inadequate, people need food to live, and the technological and financial abilities for food production are heavily within Trilateral countries. As Triangle Paper No. 13 puts it:

Prospects are somewhat more substantial for cooperation in the realm of increasing food production. Production increases require both more effective domestic agricultural policies on the part of developing countries and enlarged provision of outside capital and technology to them for agricultural development. 2

In particular Triangle Paper 13 claims:

The prospects for cooperation are more promising with regard to the third objective: the development of adequate food (particularly grain) reserves. A reserve stock policy that could keep cereal price changes within a less disruptive range than in the recent past could make a considerable contribution not only to restraining inflation in the developed and developing worlds, but also to ensuring that adequate food supplies are available to developing nations at prices that will not impose an undue drain on foreign exchange...

In considering Trilateral targets for international food reserves and world agriculture, we need to consider what the Trilaterals say they want and compare it to what they really want. Fascinated by the idea of “food power” and “contrived shortages,” the Trilaterals intend to use food as a weapon to bring about the New World Order. One stated objective is to create an “international system of national food reserves” by massive manipulation of recently acquired political power against private markets and initiatives. It is proposed. for example:

. To keep grain prices in a “less disruptive range”
. Restrain inflation
. Ensure adequate food reserves for lesser developed countries (LDC’s)
. Overcome periodic food imbalances.

Trilateral intentions for a world grain storage program are published by the Trilateral Commission and the Brookings Institution, headed by Trilateral Commissioner Bruce K. MacLaury. Other Trilateralists on the Brookings Board of Trustees include Robert V. Roosa (partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman), Lucy Wilson Benson (presently under secretary of state for security assistance) and Gerard C. Smith (ambassador at large for non-proliferation matters.) In 1976 Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Philip H. Trezise with the assistance of former Assistant Secretary of Agriculture Carroll Brunthaver, published Rebuilding Grain Reserves: Toward An International System. Brunthaver had previously been involved in a conflict of sworn testimony, investigated by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (See Report, Russian Grain Transactions, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 33.)


In the Trezise book, the problems for multilateral agreement on grain reserves are considered to be “formidable.” Going ahead is “compelling” because of the following: upward moves in grain prices have a “pervasive influence” on all food prices; they mean more worldwide hunger; and grain stocks can be used in periods of famine. More specifically, Trezise proposed:

. An initial reserve of sixty million tons of grain, rising to between seventy-five and eighty million tons by 1981
. Contributions from all industrial countries, including Argentina and South Africa
. A program cost of $6 billion plus $640 million in annual storage costs
. That stocks should be “national,” bought at 10 percent above floor prices and sold at 10 percent below ceiling prices
. That twenty million tons be set aside for famine reserve

As in most Trilateral writings, Trezise includes only evidence in favor of proposed Trilateral policy. Trilaterals typically use an ideological procedure of gathering facts and opinion supporting their argument, never allowing a hint of serious counter-argument. Two glaring unstated consequences in Trezise’s book are:

1. Any such massive stockpiling will raise the long-term price of grain, negating the objective of “restraining inflation
2. The only way to stop the resulting inflation is through rigid government price controls and regimented farming

The choice of food products as a means of reducing national sovereignty is emphasized in the following paragraph:

There are several reasons why commodities are treated differently than other products that enter into trade. Probably the most basic reason is that commodity supplies are linked to land, tying them to the concept of territory, over which nationstates exercise sovereignty. As a general proposition, the demand for, and the supply of, most commodities are rather unresponsive to changes in price over short periods of time, so that quite sharp fluctuations in price can be generated by fairly modest changes in overall market conditions. Moreover, the time required to expand supplies is often lengthy, although this property varies widely among individual commodities. Although the value of all commodity consumption represents no more than about ten percent of annual economic activity in industrialized nations, and even though substitutes exist for any particular commodity, commodities are sometimes distinguished as “core products.” 3

The Trilateral elite, through control of the U.S. executive branch, will-be calling the shots on a world basis to reduce producer control and indirectly national sovereignty. The amount of political power possessed by world grain producers can be measured by comparing the area devoted to 1976 wheat production in Trilateral regions:

If it were possible for other countries to substantially increase their wheat production, the quickest way to do so would be to raise government price support levels. However, except for Argentina, the U.S. already has the lowest support levels among the thirty or so wheat producing countries in the world.


Thus, one can see how the U.S. has acreage, yield, and production efficiency all working for it at the bargaining table.




This discussion of “food power” is not academic -it has major significance for any grain trader, farmer, firm, or individual in any way connected with grain products.

The Trilaterals propose international sanctions against any government, private firm, or producer (in or out of an association) that interferes with Trilateral objectives. These sanctions will not be applied in any principled way, but will be used pragmatically to achieve Trilateral goals. The key to this plan and associated sanctions is in Triangle Paper 10, “Seeking a New Accommodation in World Commodity Markets.” Therein, the concept of “contrived shortages” is floated. A contrived shortage is any non-Trilateralist action in the market place that interferes with Trilateral objectives. For example, a farmer withholding grain from the market and waiting for a higher price, is guilty of contrived shortage. The paper further states that these contrived shortages can be informal, rather than brought about by a formal association of producers. 4

While all offenders are to be subject to effective international investigation and action, the penalties are not to be applied equally. A non-Trilateral developed country such as Argentina or South Africa will be dealt harsher penalties (i.e., sanctions) than underdeveloped Zaire or Zambia (phrased subtly as “ the case of non-industrialized countries, however, it is necessary to consider this issue from a broader political perspective”).

Consequently, any informal or formal farmers group in the U.S. protesting price levels - and such protesting will be inevitable when Trilateral objectives surface - will be subject to penalties. When can these individual firms and non-favored governments anticipate Trilateral hostility? Probably under the following conditions:

. If they attempt to stabilize or move market prices to non- Trilateral levels, . If they respond to market imperfections or undertake any systematic withholding of supplies from the market, . If they make any information exchange for these purposes. Trilaterals, are well aware that market fluctuations in agriculture are highly sensitive to supply changes, and that whoever controls the supply controls the market. 5

In Triangle Paper 14, “Toward a Renovated International System,” two additional and interesting caveats relating to international grain reserves appear:

1. That the Soviet Union can benefit from fixed prices and guaranteed sources of supply

2. That if the U.S.S.R. doesn’t see the wisdom of joining the Trilateral plan, the Trilaterals will go it alone.

On the other hand, the paper comments:

“We have not sought ventures that would exacerbate Sino- Soviet rivalry. We have thus focused, for the most part, on projects that would involve either the USSR or China, but not both. This does not mean that cooperation with the Soviet Union and China cannot be pursued simultaneously - only that it should not focus on the same projects.

“The chances of Soviet or Chinese agreement are, of course, uncertain; our assessments are tentative, based on such limited evidence as exists. Only by seeking cooperation can its feasibility be ascertained. 6



A nation-wide farm strike was well underway in mid 1978, with participating farmers from all areas of agriculture. Demonstrations like “tractor cades” were common events covered on national T.V. While some farmers in wintered areas were not sure if they would be planting spring crops, others were already pressed to the wall with bankruptcy: they had no choice but to refrain from planting as long as prices remained relatively low.


Once again the banks were in danger of becoming owners of real estate -farms. Since banks do not want that responsibility, every effort is being made to support shaky farms and ranches. Recently, the Federal Land Bank (where most farmers have found an easy and inexpensive source of credit for decades) announced it would not foreclose on farmers in default. The implications of this are far reaching, especially since no one knows just how many farmers are in serious trouble.

Big changes cannot be implemented only during periods of crisis. It appears the Trilateralists are pushing for a major farming crisis in the U.S. within the next year or so, one that can be manipulated for Trilateral ends. If the farming industry becomes bankrupt, the government’s only choice will be to “institutionalize” the nation’s food production in the same manner that Amtrak was “nationalized.” On the other hand, if the government chooses to let prices rise to the point where farmers can realize a profit in 1978, it will be only with additional and far-reaching controls over the farmer. Government-induced prosperity has always resulted in a trade-off: Profits for Controls.

The current situation in the U.S. plays directly into Trilateral hands. The grain or “cereal snake” will be a foregone conclusion when the Trilaterals find themselves caught in the vice between farmers crying for higher prices and consumers demanding lower food prices. But, of course, it will have been a “contrived” crisis in the first place.

How then will a national grain reserve -keyed to the international grain plan of the Trilateral Commission affect the American farmer?

The carrot offered by the Carter administration, now under Trilateral control, will be stable and “high” prices. Farmers, suffering from four years of low prices, will be eager listeners. Secretary of Agriculture Bergland (a Trilateral nominee) has vowed “to even out the booms and busts” in agriculture. (To this, former Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz responded, “’ll notice he’s going to even out the boom first.”) In practice, the Carter grain storage program will produce the following:

. A narrow grain price snake. The government will support the floor of the snake, while whipped-up consumer pressure, through a captive media, will create a lid on the ceiling of the snake, making an ultimate government price ceiling inevitable
. More - and more - government control

If the government determines quantities produced and market prices, then ultimately, it will decree who plants what, and where. Farmers have yet to learn they cannot have traditional freedoms and security at the same time.




The summer of 1977 was favorable for grain farmers, due to increased yields and stocks. Today, worried over production and low prices, farmers are asking for acreage cutbacks. By August 1977, Secretary Bergland called for a 25 percent cutback in allotments. Secretary of Treasury Blumenthal and Secretary of State Vance wanted no cutbacks: they argued increased production was needed for the storage program. It is not clear if this was a dispute between Trilateralists and non-Trilateralists in the cabinet, but it is not likely. Former Minnesota Congressman Bergland is not a Trilateral member, but he was sponsored by Vice President Walter Mondale – and Bergland has a longtime image to maintain of being “the farmer’s friend.”

President Carter made a contradictory decision by calling for Congress to legislate a 20 percent acreage cutback plus adding 30 to 35 million tons of grain for the national stockpile. Carter is a master of such paradoxes: he also wants to achieve full employment while wiping out inflation.




Another effort to involve Trilateralism in world agriculture surfaced at the October 1977 Eighth Annual Trilateral Meeting in Bonn, Germany. In a Trilateral Task Force Report, How to Double Rice Production in South and Southeast Asia, doubling the production of rice (the staple food of 1.3 billion people) within 15 years is proposed. Such a plan will cost some $54 billion and will be financed by Trilateral governments (actually, their taxpayers), the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC), and LDCs. The highlights include the following:

1. Intensification of rice production -not merely increased output
2. Expansion of irrigated land, requiring increased watercontrol and irrigation systems
3. Increased use of agricultural machinery and fertilizers

The institutional fundamentals (i.e., transportation, financing, land tenure systems, communications, etc.), all basic to healthy economic expansion, are ignored in this plan. The emphasis is on spending $54 billion on a Technologically Intensive form of production, not normally used in the labor-intensive Far East.


The reason for this is not complex:

Trilateral members heavily reflect the multinational firms who will be supplying the needed technology, equipment, and supplies.




The adage “Watch what governments do, not what they say,” is the guide to Trilateral objectives.

The summer 1972 grain fiasco was also the biggest grain sale in American history. The Soviets bought over 700 million bushels of grain, including 440 million bushels of wheat -about 25 percent of the total American wheat crop. The sale wiped out U.S. reserves, disrupted shipping and grain transportation flows, created farm product shortages and forced up food prices to American consumers. Who initiated this program? The original directives came from Henry Kissinger (then national security advisor to President Nixon.)


On 31 January 1972, Kissinger directed the departments of state, commerce, and agriculture to allow the Department of Agriculture to take the lead in negotiating grain sales to the USSR. On 14 February 1972 the Department of Agriculture was directed to develop a “negotiating scenario.” The subsequent negotiating team from Washington included Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz, Henry Kissinger, and Peter Flanigan.

Subsequent shortages and price rises were deliberately created by Trilateralists-to-be as part of “detente” with the USSR, to the great disadvantage of the American consumer. (See U.S. Senate, Russian Grain Transactions” Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 197375.)

The Trilateral agriculture/food production/storage program smacks of self-interest and manipulation. The plan will yield major beneficial advantages for Trilateralist multinationals, who are already gearing up for it, and it will provide “crisis management” situations for the World Planners.

Doubling rice production in the Far East by intensive methods and ignoring the institutional changes vital for lasting economic change will require massive inputs of agricultural machinery and fertilizers.

Agricultural equipment makers without direct Trilateral connections are cutting production, while Trilateral-connected firms are expanding production. In general, 1977 was not a good year for agricultural equipment manufacturers. Allis-Chalmers reported a projected cutback of 15 percent for 1978. Wisconsin-based J.R. Case says equipment conditions “have seriously declined” since early 1977 and predicts either flat or declining sales for 1978. In Des Moines, a Massey-Ferguson spokesman stated that the 1978 market is “a matter of great concern.” And the agriculture equipment division of Chromalloy looks for a flat 1978 market. None of these firms has direct Trilateral connections.

On the other hand, those companies with direct Trilateral connections are following a different road. Deere & Company, the largest maker of agricultural equipment and the fifty-second largest firm in the U.S., is in the midst of the largest capital expansion program in company’ history.


In 1977, Deere negotiated an agreement with Yanmar Diesel Engine Company (Japan) to form “an engineering company that will be jointly owned and will design future tractors in the smaller horsepower sizes.” New basic machines will go into production in 1978 -a crawler dozer, a crawler loader, a four-wheeldrive loader, and a new hydraulic excavator. Existing Deere plants are to be expanded, and new plants built overseas, with a total expenditure in 1977-78 of $1 billion. The chairman of the board of Deere & Company is William A. Hewitt.

Another Trilateralist, Henry B. Schacht, is chairman of the board of Cummins Engine Company, by far the largest truck engine manufacturer in the U.S., with 49.4 percent of the heavy-duty truck-engine market. Large numbers of Cummins engines are used in farm equipment, and Cummins is now “the power leader in the highest horsepower, four wheel drive tractor market.” J. Irwin Miller, longtime internationalist, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and trustee of the Ford Foundation (which financed Trilateralism), personally owns 19.4 percent (1,339,620) of the common stock of Cummins and participates in other large blocks of stock. In addition, Cummins former vice-president of corporate action was recently appointed by President Carter to be under secretary of the interior.

John Perkins is president and William A. Hewitt and Arthur M. Wood are directors of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago. Continental Illinois and its subsidiaries are operators in the agricultural industry worldwide. For example, the 1976 annual report has a half-page photograph of “a central-pivot irrigation system” financed by a subsidiary of Continental Illinois Leasing Corporation. The firm provides agricultural management services through Continental Agricultural Properties Management Division, maintaining a global banking network for agricultural operations.

John Harold Perkins is also director of the Pillsbury Company, which in 1976 agreed with Cargill, Inc., of Minneapolis to use Cargill port facilities to put Pillsbury into the grain export field. (William R. Pearce is vice president of Cargill.) In early 1978, the Memphis, Tennessee, firm of Cook Industries, ($500 million in annual sales) sold to Pillsbury its grain merchandising assets, including an export elevator in Louisiana, seven inland elevators, an office network, grain inventories, and contracts. In short, Pillsbury is now a major operator in the grain export business, whereas before 1976, its operations were limited to domestic merchandising and food services.

Caterpillar Tractor Company is one of the world’s largest makers of tractors and earth-moving equipment. The following Trilateral commissioners are directors:

  • Lee L. Morgan (president of Caterpillar)

  • David Packard (of Hewlett-Packard;)

  • Robert S. Ingersoll (formerly the chairman of Borg Warner Corporation, U.S. ambassador to Japan, director of Atlantic Richfield, assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, deputy secretary of state, and director of First Chicago Corporation).

All together, those agricultural equipment firms and bankers with Trilateralist representation will do very well by the Trilateral scheme for “internationalizing” food production. Firms outside the magic circle, according to their own corporate forecasts for 1978, do not anticipate any expansion in their business. Coincidence?




1. “Collaboration with Communist Countries in Managing Global Problems: An Examination of the Options,” Triangle Paper No. 13, p.2.

2. Ibid., p. 30
3. Ibid., p. 4.
4. “Seeking a New Accommodation in World Commodity Markets,” Triangle Paper No. 10, p. 14.
5. The Carter administration has a penchant for stockpiles -$5 billion for oil, $6 billion for wheat and reexamination of the strategic metals stockpile program -and this raises a question mark about long-term intentions. Stockpiling of oil, wheat, and metals is a common historical prelude to aggressive warfare. The pragmatic logical apparatus of the Trilateralists is highlighted: they want an oil stockpile under Project Independence and a wheat storage program under the flag of New World Order Interdependence.
6. “Toward a Renovated International System,” Triangle Paper No. 14, p. 2.

Back to Contents







The Trilateralist Carter administration thumps a repetitive theme of a major energy crisis, threatening the very survival of the U.S. The consequences of this mighty crisis, so we are told, include:

. The dollar dilemma, brought about by our importation of oil and the subsequent bill for these imports which “wrecks” the U.S. balance of payments,
. The fact that the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil in case of national emergency, and . The depletion of U.S. oil and gas in the ground.

Some Trilateral commissioners have entered the energy crisis directly. For example, First Chicago Bank (Commissioners Ingersoll, Morgan and Peterson are directors) recently placed full-page ads in the Wall Street Journal (25 July 1978) on the energy crisis pushing the scary line, “America can’t wait” and “energy isn’t easy to come by anymore.”

President Carter has announced, in the same vein, “the world is watching the United States to see if it has the will, the resolve to solve its energy problems and end its insatiable appetite for imported oil.” All of which might lead you to think we really do have an energy crisis.

In fact, Trilateral energy assertions are always couched in terms of crises, emergencies and wrecking.” Reflect for a moment that if one wants to manage the world, “problems” and “crises” to manage are absolutely essential, or else the managers are out of a job: there is nothing to manage. Can you have an energy plan without an energy crisis? Of course not.

So let’s ask an elementary question, a silly question in the light of Carter dogma, but we’ll pose it anyway: Is there an energy crisis at all? The general belief is that the answer is obvious: of course there is an energy crisis. Washington says so. The politicians say so. The Trilateralists say so. Most of the media says so. Everyone (almost) says so.

On the other hand, have you seen printed in any media or in any administration statement, a list of the energy resources currently available within the United States available today for use and development?

We doubt it. So let our first simplistic (common sense is always attacked by the elite as “simplistic”) question be “how much energy do we have available in the U.S. today? And “in what form?” 1

Several basic, readily available statistics dispose of the “energy crisis” and expose its falsity.

The United States consumes about 71 quads of energy per year. (A quad is one quadrillion British thermal units or 1015.) There is available today in the United States, excluding solar sources and excluding gas and oil imports, about 150,000 quads of energy.

Put another way, this statistic means we have sufficient known usable energy resources to last us for over two thousand years. The type of energy we use and how we use it will, of course, change -as the type has changed before from wood to coal and from coal to electric power. But to say we have any absolute shortage of energy resources is simply a false and irresponsible statement.

This elementary statistic means that the energy crisis is a phony, a created crisis, a hoax on the American people. But if you happen to be in the business of crisis manipulation, such an energy crisis, if you can convince enough people of its reality, is a handy sort of crisis to be manipulated. One can impose rationing and price controls, plan resource uses, restrict consumption, and invent all manner of happy little projects under the name of “solving” an energy crisis.

Looking at this 150,000 quads in more detail we have approximately the following supplies available in the future:

  • Natural gas At least 200 years (probably closer to 600 years)

  • Petroleum At least 130 years

  • Oil from shale At least 1,500 years

  • Coal At least 6,000 years

  • Breeder reactor inexhaustible resources

A Breeder reactor produces more fuel than is consumed. There is sufficient U238 in storage for the initial one hundred years of breeder reactor operation.

These geological estimates are conservative: Vincent McKelvey of the U.S. Geological Survey (who was recently fired for his disclosure publicly discussed a figure of six-hundred-year-reserves of natural gas. Moreover, using biomass production methods, natural gas reserves are virtually inexhaustible.

These elementary statistics must be the starting point of any rational discussion of energy “shortages.”




The previous information has been suppressed. Elitist discussion assumes we have a shortage of energy. The “shortage” is mythical.

Check the indexes of the establishment press the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and you will find no statistics of total energy resources. Why not? Isn’t the amount of energy currently available in the ground, an essential prerequisite to any reasoned discussion of shortages and crises? Does this absence of clearly relevant information imply there has been an attempt to create a synthetic belief structure for the American people. 2

Has there been suppression of vital facts so that the crisis managers may have a juicy synthetic crisis to manage? The hidden power of elitists over the weaker and more susceptible among us was amply demonstrated in the August 1, 1978 issue of The Ruff Times, (Reprinted in California Mining Journal, September 1978). In Ruff Times, Howard Ruff describes what happened when he tried to question Vincent E. McKelvey, former head of the U.S. Geological Survey.


Earlier this year, McKelvey, a longtime bureaucrat, made the innocent mistake of disagreeing with Carter and the administration line about “energy crises.” McKelvey was fired because of certain revealing statements he made in a Boston speech -that we have sufficient domestic natural gas available to provide up to a six-hundred-year supply (quoted in Wall Street Journa1.) 3


Wrote Ruff,

“When we taped the show, I had a very nervous man on my hands...he was obviously frightened of something or somebody.”

What McKelvey had probably discovered was that anyone in the U.S. who promotes unwelcome news for the elite receives some unwelcome attention in return. (An IRS audit is common, or a call to visit the boss of the institution or organization where the luckless whistle blower may be working.)

In most national newspapers you just do not read about the gigantic new oil and gas finds which have made a mockery of the official party line of crisis and scarcity. For example, the following find was apparently reported nationally only in Barrons (13 February 1978).

In August 1977 Chevron was drilling its Walter C. Parlange Well No.1 in Point Coupee Parish, Louisiana. At 21,000 feet the drill hit a reservoir of high pressure methane and blew out. The blowout was so intense and accompanied by such an enormous flow of steam that the well was closed for eighteen days. The theory of Baton Rouge oil expert Paul Hastings Jones is that the drill entered a long-theorized geopressurized superheated water plus methane gas reservoir.


If this happened, new vistas for U.S. natural gas production are now open. The U.S. uses about 20 trillion cubic feet of methane a year. The Louisiana geopressurized methane reserves alone may total 3,000 trillion cubic feet, another 150-year gas supply, and there’s much, much more out in the Gulf of Mexico all of which information is a disaster for any political scare energy plan.

Furthermore, the long opposition of the Carter administration to U.S. breeder reactor development contrasts with the following:

. Europe is forging ahead with breeder reactor technology. . There has never been even one fatal accident in a commercial nuclear reactor. (About three hundred men a year are killed in coal mines.) This logically disposes of the anti-nuke argument.(How about some anti-coal demonstrations at coal mines?)
. Nuclear power is cheap, much cheaper than oil and gas.

Now could it be that total profits in a nuclear-powered world will be much less than with oil and gas and this probability has created a vested interest to restrict nuclear development? Could the myth of low oil and gas reserves have been deliberately promoted so that energy price hikes will appear acceptable to the general public? Certainly political manipulation has taken the form of restricting some energy forms and interfering with the supply of others:

. As we have noted, the Carter administration is against breeder reactors, the source of low-cost ample energy; and in August 1978 Carter agreed to breeder development only in exchange for political support for his natural gas bill.
. The natural gas bill continues political interference into basically economic and technical decisions.
. Allowing the market system to develop our ample fuel resources is never discussed in elitist energy crisis reports.



Elitist energy reports include A Time To Choose, from the Ford Foundation, Achieving Energy Independence, from the Committee for Economic Development, and Energy: A Plan for Action, 1975. from the Commission for Critical Choices for Americans.

The Ford Foundation financed the Trilateral Commission, and the Ford Foundation contribution to energy crisis manipulation is A Time To Choose. a plan which demands:

. A massive socialist bureaucracy to plan and control all energy use.
. Ultimately. a massive reduction in energy use plus income redistribution.
. Price controls plus fuel allocations plus tax increases.

The Carter energy crisis is guided from the White House by the same S. David Freeman who wrote sections of this Ford Foundation report. Not unexpectedly. A Time To Choose unleashed a flood of criticism, even from a member of the Ford Foundation Advisory Board, president of Alcoa, John Harper, who described the Ford energy plan as one”...abhorrent to me and I am sure, to most of the people in this nation.”

Similarly, the Committee for Critical Choices for Americans was financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, with Nelson Rockefeller and a host of Rockefeller appointees determining the energy future for the rest of America. In principle, Energy: A Plan for Action does not differ from the socialist interventionist principles in the Ford Foundation plan.




The Rockefeller financing of Energy: A Plan for Action and its primary association with Trilateralism through David Rockefeller together with the Ford Foundation’s association with Trilateralism and also with energy plans poses a basic question: Who controls energy resources? Are these self-interested proposals? To answer this, we need to examine two related phenomena:

a. Who controls energy resources?
b. Are these controllers related to the Trilateral Commission and its lock on energy policy making?

If we can identify an interlock between the energy controllers and energy policymakers, we can reasonably presume that Trilateral energy policy is formulated with the interests of the controllers in mind.

The oil and gas world is dominated by seven major firms (the “seven sisters”). A listing of controlling ownership in these major oil and gas companies by banks with Trilateral commissioners as directors follows:

There are highly significant Trilaterally-connected bank holdings in the major oil companies where such holding places the bank among the top five shareholders; that is, the Trilateralist bank has a controlling influence. Chart 5-1 illustrates those major oil companies with Trilateral commissioners as directors.

To this picture, we can add the direct personal shareholding interest of the Rockefeller family in these major oil companies, in addition to indirect interest via the above Trilaterally connected banks:


Trilaterally connected banks dominate the boards of many of the largest power and utility companies in the United States. It is interesting to note that although BankAmerica Corporation is a powerful shareholder (No. 4) in Occidental Petroleum, the bank has done nothing to dilute the pro-Soviet policies of Armand Hammer, (Lenin’s friend and a key capitalist) in building Soviet military power. It is reasonable then to suppose that BankAmerica approves of Hammer’s Soviet policies.
Other Trilaterals are influential in smaller oil companies: Kaiser has just bought into Ashland and Roth is influential in Honolulu Oil and Barber Oil.

More startling, we find an ominously close interlock among the “seven sisters” major oil companies. Four of the seven majors have Trilateral commissioners as directors: Ingersoll at Arco, David Rockefeller and Jamieson at Exxon, David Packard at Standard Oil of California, and Robert Roosa (creator of the disastrous Roosa bonds) at Texaco.


The interlock among major oil firm directors is shown in the following table:

The tight interlock among the seven majors both with each other and the Commission makes for ready transference of Trilateral ideas and proposals; and oil company ideas and proposals are funneled through the TC and related “think tanks.”

A reasonable presumption is that the seven majors strongly support Trilateralist energy policy with its anti-nuke and anti-breeder reactor thrust. Nuclear energy is cheap and safe. Oil is relatively costly and dirty. So the energy crisis scenario becomes readily understandable if only as a means to increase oil company profits.

The exception to this generalization is Mobil -with no Trilateral commissioners but with substantial Chase stock holdings. Mobil is a vocal advocate of deregulation and the return of a market economy to the energy sector.

Having identified a possible reason for the nature of Trilateral energy policy, we can dispose of the superficial public relation reasons for crisis. Does the energy crisis and the need to import oil create a balance of payments crisis as the Carter administration argues? There are two refutations to this:

. Europe and Japan have far, far higher import ratios for oil and gas - and they don’t have energy and currency
. Bureaucratic regulation and energy policy in the U.S. have restricted energy resource development, thus artificially expanding oil/gas imports

Is there a strategic energy problem? If we continue to subsidize Marxist regimes - yes, there will be a strategic energy problem. If we continue to meddle in low-level crises around the world (while ignoring the human rights horror stories, as in Cambodia) - yes, there will be a strategic problem. But remember these international crises stem from previous “solutions” which never worked, and one could justifiably suspect “crisis management” scenarios as a root cause of continuing international problems.

Do we have a “shortage” of energy resources?

No, we most emphatically do not. There is no energy crisis in absolute terms: The crisis is a synthetic belief structure created in order to provide a problem to be managed. In the management process, other goals dear to the hearts of elitism will be achieved, for example, global control and domestic resource planning.

All of which reminds us of a Trilateral retort to widespread criticism of Trilateralism and its objectives as expressed by European Trilateral Georges Berthoin:

One doesn’t like to feel that people have a totally false impression of an organization one is associated with...there have been a number of publications from the right and left that have made these charges about undue influence. They are without foundation and I’m afraid most of the criticism is based on ignorance of the facts...

The reader is urged to compare this official Trilateral statement with the facts on energy resources and control presented above. One finds the following to be true:

. “Undue influence” in energy is more than obvious
. Trilateralism is heavily interlocked with both energy companies and energy policy formation in the White
. Accusations of smear tactics “from left and right” are “standard operating procedure.” They divert attention from responsible reasoned criticism with no attachment to a synthetic political spectrum (and we place the Trilateral Observer in this category).

Berthoin commented further that: “...if the image was the reality most of the European members, including myself would not like to be members.” To which David Rockefeller is reported to have added, “That goes for all of us.”

The truth is that the totalitarian image of Trilateralism is the reality:

and we are long past the day when these power plays can be disguised from the American people.

David Rockefeller, Georges Berthoin and their fellow Trilateralists will not at least dispute one assertion from this editor: that in these secret elitist conclaves, a perennial topic under discussion is “how do we foster political will?” In brief, how do we get the people (the “peasants”) to go along with authority (i.e., “We, the elitists?”). In some future elitist meeting, Trilaterals will do well to step back and look at themselves. Who gave the TC elected authority to even discuss globalist plans and new world order?


The authority is self-anointed. And Trilateralists are no different from other power usurpers in history, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The analogy will not impress Trilateralists because from this editor’s observations their thought structure is utterly impervious to the concept of individual freedom. However, and more importantly, the analogy will not be lost on Americans at large.




1. Detailed back-up data is contained in a forthcoming book by this editor entitled Energy: The Created Crisis (Books in Focus. Inc.. 160 E. 38 Street. Suite 31B, New York. N.Y. 10016).
2. The Wall Street Journal and Barrons are prominent exceptions to this belief structure programming. Both sources have run numerous articles and editorials with this basic energy data and draw implications which parallel those of the Trilateral Observer.
3. Wall Street Journal. 27 April 1977.

Back to Contents