CHAPTER ONE
WHAT IS THE TRILATERAL
COMMISSION?
According to each issue of the official 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.
This book attempts to tell the rest of the story, according to
official and unofficial commission sources and other available
documents.
The Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering
of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Rockefeller, chairman
of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major
multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and has long been a
central figure in the mysterious Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, has
been a professor at Columbia University and the author of several
books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the CFR.
Brzezinski served as the commission’s executive director from its
inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President
Carter as assistant to the president for national security affairs.
The word commission is puzzling since it is usually associated with
instrumentalities set up by governments. It seems out of place with
a so-called private group unless we can determine that it really is
an arm of a government -an unseen government, different from the
visible government in Washington. European and Japanese involvement
indicates a world government rather than a national government. We
would hope that the concept of a sub-rosa world government is just
wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral commissioners. The
facts, however, line up pessimistically.
If the Council on Foreign Relations can be said to be a spawning
ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral
Commission is the “task force” assembled to assault the beachheads.
Already the commission has placed its members (some of whom have
subsequently “resigned”) in the top posts the U.S. has to offer.
President Carter, the country politician who promised, “I will never
lie to you,” was chosen to join the commission by Brzezinski in
1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as
presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics,
foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon
Carter’s election, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the
president for national security matters.
Commonly, he is called the
head of the National Security Council because he answers only to the
president -some say Brzezinski holds the second most powerful
position in the U.S.
Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the
commission. (If you are trying to calculate the odds of three
virtually unknown men, out of over sixty commissioners from the
U.S., capturing the three most powerful positions in the land, don’t
bother. Your calculations will be meaningless.)
On 7 January 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley
Donovan, is a powerful Trilateral commissioner, named President
Carter “Man of the Year.” The sixteen-page article in that issue not
only failed to mention Carter’s connection with the commission but
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.
Is this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate
or is it deliberately misleading? By 25 December 1976 -two weeks
before the Time article appeared -Carter had already chosen his
cabinet. Three of his cabinet members -Vance, Blumenthal, and Brown
were Trilateral commissioners; and the other non-commission members
were not unsympathetic to commission objectives and operations. In
addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral
commissioners to top government posts. As of 25 December 1976,
therefore, there were nineteen commissioners, including Carter and
Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential
appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission
members from the United States. Try to give odds to that!
Nevertheless, is there even the slightest evidence to indicate
anything other than conspiracy? Hardly! Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled
out the qualifications of a 1976 presidential winner in 1973:
The Democratic candidate in 1976 will have to emphasize work, the
family, religion and, increasingly, patriotism...The new
conservatism will clearly not go back to laissez faire. It will be a
philosophical conservatism. It will be a kind of conservative
statism or managerism. There will be conservative values but a
reliance on a great deal of codetermination between state and the
corporations.
On 23 May 1976 journalist Leslie H. Gelb wrote in the not-soconservative
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, is now the leading
man on Carter’s foreign policy task force.”
Although Richard Gardner is of considerable academic influence, it
should be clear that Brzezinski is 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 has more than continued the policies of befriending our
enemies and alienating our friends. Since early 1977 we have
witnessed a massive push to attain “normalized” relations with
Communist China, Cuba, the USSR, Eastern European nations, Angola,
etc. Conversely, we have withdrawn at least some support from
Nationalist China, South Africa, Rhodesia, etc. It is not just a
trend -it is an epidemic. Thus, if it can be said that Brzezinski
has, at least in part, contributed to current U.S. foreign and
domestic policy, then we should briefly analyze exactly what he is
espousing.
MORE JUST AND EQUITABLE
The Trilateral Commission met 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:
It gives me special pleasure to send greetings to all of you
gathering for the Trilateral Commission meeting in Tokyo. I have
warm memories of our meeting in Tokyo some eighteen months ago, and
am sorry I cannot be with you now.
My active service on the Commission since its inception in 1973 has
been a splendid experience for me, and it provided me with excellent
opportunities to come to know leaders in our three regions.
As I emphasized in my campaign, a strong partnership among us is of
the greatest importance. We share economic, political and security
concerns that make it logical we should seek ever-increasing
cooperation and understanding. And this cooperation is essential not
only for our three regions, but in the global search for a more Just
and equitable world order (emphasis added). I hope to see you on the
occasion of your next meeting in Washington, and I look forward to
receiving reports on your work in Tokyo.” Jimmy Carter
Brzezinski’s letter, in a similar vein, follows:
The Trilateral Commission has meant a great deal to me over the last
few years. It has been the stimulus for intellectual creativity and
a source of personal satisfaction. I have formed close ties with new
friends and colleagues in all three regions, ties which I value
highly and which I am sure will continue.
I remain convinced that, on the larger architectural issues of
today, collaboration among our regions is of the utmost
necessity. This collaboration must be dedicated to the
fashioning of a more just and equitable world order
(emphasis added). This will require a prolonged process, but 1 think
we can look forward with confidence and take some pride in the
contribution which the Commission is making. Zbigniew Brzezinski
The key phrase in both letters is “more just and equitable world
order.” Does this emphasis indicate that something is wrong with our
present world order, that is, with national structures? Yes,
according to Brzezinski; and since the present “framework” is
inadequate to handle world problems, it must be done away with and
supplanted with a world government.
In September 1974 Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the
Brazilian newspaper Vega. “How would you define this new world
order?” Brzezinski answered:
When 1 speak of the present international system 1 am
referring to relations in specific fields, most of all among the
Atlantic countries; commercial, military, mutual security relations,
involving the international monetary fund, NA TO 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.”
Brzezinski developed background for the need for a new system in his
book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era
(1969). He wrote that mankind has moved through three great stages
of evolution, and is in the middle of the fourth and final stage.
-
The first stage he describes as “religious,” combining a heavenly
“universalism provided by the acceptance of the idea that man’s
destiny is essentially in God’s hands” with an earthly “narrowness
derived from massive ignorance, illiteracy, and a vision confined to
the immediate environment.”
-
The second stage is nationalism, stressing Christian equality before
the law, which “marked another giant step in the progressive
redefinition of man’s nature and place in our world.”
-
The third
stage is Marxism, which, says Brzezinski, “represents a further
vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.”
-
The fourth and final stage is Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, or the
ideal of rational humanism on a global scale -the result of
American-Communist evolutionary transformations.
In considering our present structure Brzezinski states:
Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the
framework of the old. For a time the established framework
resiliently integrates the new by adapting it in a more familiar
shape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The
newer input can no longer be redefined into traditional forms, and
eventually it asserts itself with compelling force. Today, though,
the old framework of international politics -with their spheres of
influence, military alliances between nation-states, the fiction of
sovereignty, doctrinal conflicts arising from nineteenth century
crises -is clearly no longer compatible with reality.
One of the most important “frameworks” in the world, and especially
to Americans, is the United States Constitution. It is this document
that outlined the most prosperous nation in the history of the
world. Is our sovereignty really “fiction”? Is the U.S. vision no
longer compatible with reality? Brzezinski further states:
The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a
national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal
institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 -the two-hundredth an
anniversary of the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target
date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing
arrangements...Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the
necessary political innovation will not come from direct
constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change
is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly...in
keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between
public and private institution.
In Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era then, the “nation state as a
fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the
principal creative force: International banks and multinational
corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in
advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Understanding the philosophy of and monitoring the Trilateral
commission is the only way we can reconcile the myriad of apparent
contradictions in the information filtered through to us in the
national press. For instance, how is it that the Marxist regime in
Angola derives the great bulk of its foreign exchange from the
offshore oil operations of Gulf Oil Corporation? Why does Andrew
Young insist that “Communism has never been a threat to Blacks in
Africa”? Why does the U.S. funnel billions in technological aid to
the Soviet Union and Communist China? Why does the U.S. apparently
help its enemies while chastising its friends?
These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be
explained in any other way: the U.S. Executive Branch (and related
agencies) is not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist -it is, in fact,
pro-Marxist. Those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler,
Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini are now being accepted as necessary
inevitabilities 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.
ELEMENTS OF CONTROL
This book will carefully document the economic nature of the driving
force within the Trilateral Commission. It is the giant
multinational corporations -those with Trilateral representation
-which consistently benefit from Trilateral policy and actions.
Polished academics such as Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken,
Henry Owen etc., serve only to give “philosophical” justification to
the exploitation of the world.
Don’t underestimate their power or the distance they have already
come. Their economic base is 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, is greater than the value of all the
stocks on the American Stock Exchange. Chase Manhattan Bank has some
fifty thousand branches or correspondent banks throughout the world.
What reaches our eyes and ears is highly regulated by CBS, the New
York Times, Time magazine, etc.
The most important thing of all is to remember that the political
coup de grace is over -the virtual domination of the White House.
Fortunately, these commissioners are not infallible they make
mistakes. They misjudge. They over-and under-estimate. They create
crises to manage and then find menacing backlashes from those very
crises.
“Management by crisis” has brought about the energy crisis, the
International monetary crisis, and the banking crisis. All are
clearly man-made, but all certainly threaten the creators. In the
end, the biggest crisis of all is that of the American way of life.
Americans never counted on such powerful and influential groups
working against the Constitution and freedom, either inadvertently
or purposefully, and even now, the principles that helped to build
this great country are all but reduced to the sound of meaningless
babblings.
Back to Contents
CHAPTER TWO
THE POWER STRUCTURE OF THE
TRILATERAL COMMISSION
PART I
A bare membership list of the Trilateral Commission does not
suggest its massive political and economic power nor its outstanding
scope and global ramifications. Understanding of the power base
requires analysis of its membership.
The basic Trilateral structure is a power pyramid. At the tip of the
pyramid we can identify a “financial brotherhood,” comprising
several old-line American families, the so-called American
aristocracy, controlling major New York financial installations.
Below this highest level is the executive committee for the United
States, linked to executive committees in Europe and Japan. Then
comes the Trilateral Commission itself: 109 members from North
America, 106 from Europe, and 74 from Japan.
Because these Trilaterals control the executive branch of the U.S. government,
they also control U.S. policy. Furthermore, one of their ongoing
projects is to dominate nine “core countries” in Europe and Japan,
which, by virtue of their productive ability, account for 80 percent
of world output. The “core” group will then dominate the remaining
20 percent of the world. The American multinational corporations
(MNCs) provide country by country liaison, intelligence, and
financial conduits, the sinews to bind a global New World Order to
the directions of the commission.
As the Washington Post has phrased it:
Trilateralists are not three-sided people. They are members of a
private, though not secret, international organization put together
by the wealthy banker, David Rockefeller, to stimulate the
establishment dialogue between Western Europe, Japan and the United
States.
But here is the unsettling thing about the Trilateral
Commission. The President-elect is a member. So is Vice-President-elect Walter F. Mondale. So are the new Secretaries
of State, Defense and Treasury, Cyrus R. Vance, Harold
Brown and W. Michael Blumenthal. So is Zbigniew Brzezinski,
who is a former Trilateral director and, Carter’s national
security adviser, also a bunch of others who will make foreign
policy for America in the next four years. 1
COMPOSITION OF THE POWER PYRAMID
In outline form then, the Trilateral power pyramid has five levels
and looks like this:
There are 109 North American commissioners (as of October 1977):
of these 12 are Canadian and 97 are American citizens. American
commissioners can be divided into three operational groups as
follows:
The common link among Trilateral operators is administration of
power rather than power holding. Lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats,
and trade unionists come and go in the halls of power. They retain
administrative positions only as long as they are successful in
using political power to gain political objectives. Operators do
not, by and large, create objectives -this is an important point.
One should label this group of operators “the hired hands.” As
Senator Mansfield once said of Congress, “To get along, you must go
along.” Trilateral operators are at the pinnacle of success in
“going along.”
Consequently, we find the following Establishment law firms well
represented in Trilateralism:
CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Paul C. Warnke Philip H. Trezise
CLIFFORD, WARNKE, GLASS, McILWAIN & FINNEY
Paul C. Warnke
COUDERT BROTHERS Sol M. Linowitz Richard N. Gardner
O’MELVENY & MYERS Warren Christopher William T. Coleman, Jr.
SIMPSON, THACHER & BARTLETT
Cyrus R. Vance
WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING
Gerard C. Smith Lloyd N. Cutler
PROPAGANDISTS AND TECHNICIANS
Quite distinct from the operators, although their functions often
overlap, are the propagandists (the media) and the technicians
(academicians and research controllers). These groups provide the
intellectual linkage between the power holders (we consider these
next) and the power administrators (the operators).
Technicians design the plans needed to promote and implement
objectives. They explain ideas to the public and even conceive ideas
within limits. Technicians and propagandists achieve personal
success only insofar as they have ability to conceive and promote
plans within the overall framework welcome to the power holders. A
media source distributing unwelcome news or a researcher developing
unwelcome conclusions is politely so informed -and usually takes the
hint. Trilateralist technicians are experts at “getting the
message.”
We find the following “think tanks” linked to Trilateralism:
ASPEN INSTITUTE FOR HUMANISTIC STUDIES
Maurice F. Strong Robert S. Ingersoll
BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
William T. Coleman, Jr. Henry D. Owen Gerard C. Smith C. Fred Bergsten Graham T. Allison, Jr. Philip H. Trezise Bruce K. MacLaury
CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION
Paul C. Warnke
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
Richard N. Gardner
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, CENTER FOR
STRATEGIC AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES David M. Abshire William E. Brock
William V. Roth, Jr. Gerard C. Smith
HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Graham Allison Robert R. Bowie
HOOVER INSTITUTION ON WAR, REVOLUTION AND PEACE
David Packard
HUDSON INSTITUTE
J. Paul Austin
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (MIT)
Carroll L. Wilson
MITRE CORPORATION
Lucy Wilson Benson
RAND CORPORATION
J. Paul Austin Graham Allison William T. Coleman, Jr.
WORLD WATCH INSTITUTE
C. Fred Bergsten
These “think tanks” are financed by foundations which are also
linked to Trilateralism:
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION
Cyrus R. Vance W. Michael Blumenthal Robert V. Roosa Lane Kirkland John D. Rockefeller IV
TWENTIETH CENTURY FUND RUSSELL SAGE FOUNDATION
J. Paul Austin
FORD FOUNDATION
Andrew Brimmer John Loudon
CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE
William A. Hewitt Hedley Donovan Thomas L. Hughes
BORDEN FOUNDATION Zbigniew Brzezinski
ROCKEFELLER BROTHERS FUND
David Rockefeller
ROCKEFELLER FAMILY FUND
David Rockefeller John D. Rockefeller IV
WOODRUFF FOUNDATION
J. Paul Austin
WORLD PEACE FOUNDATION
Robert B. Bowie
The following media outlets are also linked to Trilateralism:
NEW YORK TIMES Cyrus B. Vance
CBS Arthur B. Taylor Henry B. Schacht
LOS ANGELES TIMES Harold Brown
TIME. INC. Hedley Donovan
FOREIGN POLICY MAGAZINE
Samuel P. Huntington Thomas L. Hughes Richard N. Cooper Elliot L. Richardson Marina von Neumann Whitman Richard Holbrooke Zbigniew Brzezinski
FOREIGN AFFAIRS William M. Roth C. Fred Bergsten
CHICAGO SUN-TIMES
Emmett Dedmon
POWER HOLDERS
So, by elimination, we are left with a third group:
However, even the power holders are not the ultimate power base that
is an even smaller group, the American aristocracy itself. Power
holders lay down guidelines for the propagandists and the research
directors, and pass through objectives to the operators for
implementation. Remember, a Richard Nixon goes to see international
banker David Rockefeller, not the other way around. Henry Kissinger
accepted a gift of $50,000 from power holder Nelson Rockefeller, not
the other way around.
Jimmy Carter is invited to have lunch with
David Rockefeller, not the other way around. A widespread myth in
American society is that the president has completely independent
power, that he is not beholden to some power base. Indeed, the
president has power; but presidential power can in fact be applied
only within carefully framed guidelines, and this has been the case
at least since the days of President Grant.
So our Trilateral analysis looks like this:
When we look at Trilateralists in the three Trilateral areas we can
identify some differences, but these are not really of major
distinction. Academics and industrialists are equally represented
from all three areas. Media representatives and bureaucrats are more
prominent from Europe. There are more American and European
politicians than Japanese politicians. The diplomats are more likely
to be European than American or Japanese.
So let’s look more closely at these American commissioners, at names
rather than numbers.
THE TRILATERAL LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT
Nine of the American Trilateral commissioners are Establishment
lawyers, from highly influential major law firms. The “revolving
door” area between so-called public service and private gain, where
attorneys alternate between private practice and the federal
payroll, clouds more precise identification. For some reason,
probably accidental, two of the nine lawyers are partners in the
major Los Angeles law firm O’Melveny & Myers: senior partner,
William T. Coleman Jr. (also a director of David Rockefeller’s Chase
Manhattan Bank and a former secretary of transportation); and Warren
Christopher, who was a partner from 1958 to 1967 and again from 1969
until joining the present Carter administration as deputy secretary
of state.
Other attorney Trilateralists are well known in and around
the halls of power: George S. Franklin, Jr. started out in a Wall
Street law firm, soon became associated with the Rockefeller family,
and is today coordinator of the Trilateral Commission. George W.
Ball, member of the New York law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen &
Ball, was recently chairman of the international banking firm Lehman
Brothers International. Gerard C. Smith, formerly with the
Washington firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering is now
ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation matters. Lloyd N. Cutler
has also been a partner in Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering since 1962.
Cyrus R. Vance, secretary of state, was formerly partner in the
venerable firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett of New York, whose
then partners aided the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution 2 in the same way
as Cyrus Vance is today pressing the African Marxist guerrilla cause
upon Rhodesia and South Africa. It is truly extraordinary how
influential pro-Bolshevik actions in a mere handful of prestigious
law
firms can persist unpublicized and uninvestigated for over five or
six
decades. Commissioner Paul C. Warnke, presently director of the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was formerly a partner in the
firm of Clifford, Warnke, Glass. McIlwain & Finney of Washington,
D.C. In brief, Trilateral attorneys are from the major old-line
Establishment law firms.
POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
A sizeable group of twenty-seven Trilateral commissioners can be
categorized as professional politicians and professional
bureaucrats,
thus reflecting the Trilateral need to control domestic government
in order to fulfill Trilateral internationalist objectives.
President of the United States James Earl Carter, Jr., and
Vice-President Walter Frederick Mondale are longstanding
Trilateralists. Carter was brought in by David Rockefeller in 1973,
as reported in the Times (London):
Governor Jimmy Carter, the 1976 Democratic Presidential candidate,
has for reasons known only to himself professed to be an innocent
abroad, but the record is somewhat different. As Governor of
Georgia, a state aspiring to be the centre of the New South, he led
the state trade missions abroad. While in London in the autumn of
1973 he dined with another American visitor, but by no means an
innocent, Mr. David Rockefeller of Chas(J Manhattan Bank.
Mr. Rockefeller was then establishing, with the help of
Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia University,
an international study group now known as the Trilateral
Commission. He was looking for American members
outside the usual catchment area of universities,
corporation law firms and government, was impressed by
the Governor, if only because he had ventured abroad,
and invited him to join. Governor Carter, perhaps
because he was already eyeing the White House from
afar, was only too happy to accept.
In any event. five senators also are Trilateral commissioners:
-
Senator Lawton Chiles. Democrat, Florida
-
Senator Alan Cranston. Democrat. California, Senate majority
whip
-
Senator John C. Culver, Democrat. Iowa
-
Senator John C. Danforth, Republican, Missouri
-
Senator William V. Roth, Jr., Republican, Delaware
This neatly reflects the Democratic majority in the Senate. three
Democrats and two Republicans; and it is notable that the Senate
majority whip -a key Senate post -is a Trilateralist.
The following six Congressmen are Trilateralists:
-
John B. Anderson, Republican. Illinois. Chairman House Republican
Conference
-
John Brademas. Democrat, Indiana; majority whip
-
William S. Cohen. Republican. Maine
-
Barber B. Conable, Jr. Republican. New York
-
Thomas S. Foley. Democrat. Washington; chairman, House Democratic
Caucus
-
Donald M. Fraser, Democrat, Minnesota; chairman, Democratic
Conference and Americans for Democratic Action
Trilateralists also
occupy key posts in the House, i.e., chairman of the House
Republican Conference, majority whip, chairman of the Democratic
Conference, and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. In sum,
Trilaterals have a lock on the legislative process. The significance
of this lock on the legislative process is brought into focus when
we examine the political ideology of Trilateralism as expressed by
Crozier, Huntington, and Watanuki in The Crisis of Democracy.
. The democratic political system no longer has any
purpose. . The concepts of equality and individualism give
problems to authority. . The media is not sufficiently subservient to the elite.
. Democracy has to be “balanced” (Le., restricted). . The authority and power of the central government must be
increased.
Weighing these totalitarian ideas which form the political
philosophy of the commission against congressional membership in the
Trilateral Commission, the reader will be tempted to ask, were these
the political policies espoused by these politicians when elected to
office? Two present state governors are commissioners: John D.
Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and James R. Thompson of Illinois.
So are two former state governors, William W. Scranton of
Pennsylvania, and Daniel I. Evans of Washington.
Finally, there are the permanent professional bureaucrats including,
-
Elliot Lee Richardson, now ambassador-at-large with responsibility
for the UN Law of the Sea Conference (a major Trilateral objective)
-
Edwin O. Reischauer, former ambassador to Japan and reportedly close
to the Rockefeller family
-
Russell E. Train, former administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency
-
Richard Charles Holbrooke, now
assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs
-
Gerald L. Parsky, former assistant secretary of the treasury for
international affairs
-
Richard N. Gardner, now ambassador to Italy
-
George Bush former director of the Central Intelligence Agency
-
Anthony Soloman, now under-secretary of the Treasury for monetary
affairs
-
Philip H. Trezise, former assistant secretary of state for
economic affairs
-
Lucy Benson, under-secretary of state for
security assistance
We can identify twenty-seven Trilateralists now or recently in the
executive branch of the United States government and always in top
policy making positions. Just how closely this elite monopolizes top
administration jobs in Republican and Democratic administrations can
be illustrated by looking back to President Ford’s cabinet shuffle
of November 1975. Under media headlines of “sweeping changes” in the
cabinet, Ford “discarded” Secretary of Defense Schlesinger, who is
now Secretary of Energy in the Carter administration.
Ford also
installed Trilateralist Elliot Lee Richardson as Secretary of
Commerce, who is now Ambassador-at-Large in the Carter
administration and previously had been undersecretary of state in
the Nixon administration. Trilateralist George Bush was a Nixon
appointee to CIA, and David Packard, a businessman Trilateralist,
was an ardent Nixonite and formerly deputy secretary of defense.
In brief, top administration jobs -Republican and Democrat -are
being filled from a talent pool dominated by the Trilateral
Commission. This selective process of filling top Executive
Department slots with Trilateralists has been deliberate and
ruthless. Before President Carter formally took office, numerous
Trilateralists were appointed as follows:
-
Zbigniew Brzezinski -assistant to the president for national
security affairs
-
Cyrus Vance -secretary of state
-
Harold Brown -secretary of defense
-
W. Michael Blumenthal -secretary of the treasury
-
Andrew Young -ambassador to the United Nations
-
Warren Christopher -deputy secretary of state
-
Lucy Wilson Benson -under secretary of state for security
affairs
-
Richard Cooper -under secretary of state for economic
affairs
-
Richard Holbrooke -under secretary of state for East Asian
and Pacific affairs
-
W. Anthony Lake -under secretary of state for policyplanning
-
Sol Linowitz -co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty
-
Gerald Smith -ambassador-at-large for nuclear power
negotiations
-
Elliot Richardson -delegate to the Law of the Sea
Conference Richard Gardner -ambassador to Italy
-
Anthony Solomon -under secretary of the treasury for
monetary affairs
-
C. Fred Bergsten -assistant secretary of the treasury forinternational affairs
-
Paul Warnke -director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
-
Robert R. Bowie -deputy director of intelligence for national
estimates
If these appointments were from a single ethnic group, or graduates
of a single university, or residents of a single state, or even
members of a single club, the public outcry would have been
immediate and deafening. In fact, their commonality is far more
serious: Trilateralists represent a political philosophy alien to
the American tradition. The Crisis in Democracy is devoted to the
theme that the American system needs to be discarded and
totalitarian central authority substituted. Why was there no public
outcry?
Simply because media reporting was superficial and stifled,
people did and presently do not know.
TRADE UNIONS
Six prominent American trade unionists are Trilateralists (as of
October 1977.)
Three early Commissioners were
-
I. W. Abel, president United Steel
Workers of America
-
Lane Kirkland, prominent in the AFL-CIO
efforts to elect Jimmy Carter as president
-
Leonard Woodcock,
formerly president of United Auto Workers Union and more recently
chief U.S. envoy to China for the Carter administration
Three
recent
union Trilateralists are
-
Glenn E. Watts, president of Communications
Workers of America
-
Martin J. Ward, president of United Association
of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting
Industry of the U.S. and Canada
-
Sol Chaikin, president of the
International Ladies Garment Workers Union
These prominent trade
unionists need to read some modern history: a close association of
unions and big business is the hallmark of a fascist economy.
Notably,
George Meany is not a Trilateralist and has retained an outspoken
criticism of Wall Street globalists. Remember, too, that Meany has
been a persistent critic of the Wall Street construction of a
Marxist world.
While all the businessmen Trilateralists, including
such self-styled “conservatives” as David Packard, have been
outspokenly pro-Soviet when it comes to subsidizing the Soviet
military machine with American technology and aid.
THE MEDIA
Trilateralist media representation, although not large in numbers,
is highly influential. Of five media commissioners, three are
relatively insignificant: Doris Anderson, editor of Chatelaine
Magazine; Carl Rowan, columnist and Arthur R. Taylor, formerly head
of the CBS network, dismissed in October 1976.
Two media Trilaterals are highly influential:
-
Emmett Dedmon is
editorial director of the Chicago Sun-Times, published by Field
Enterprises
-
The chairman of Field Enterprises, Inc. is Marshall
Field
V. who is also a director of First National Bank of Chicago
-
Marshall Field V operates Field Enterprises under an exhaustive
agreement with his half brother “Ted.” Frederick W. Field
-
Field
ownership is significant because of Trilateral connections with the
First National Bank of Chicago
In any event Chicago Sun Times is
the sixth largest newspaper in the U.S. (daily circulation 687.000.)
Another influential media Trilateralist is Hedley Donovan,
editor-inchief of Time. member of the Council on Foreign Relations
and director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
According to the U.S. Labor Party:
Donovan played a central role in the “faking of the
President, 1976. Under his Trilateral direction, Time
functioned as a black propaganda vehicle throughout the campaign and
post-election period, painting Carter as an “outsider” with no
connections with the corrupt politics of Washington, D.C. and Wall
Street. This “image building” provided the crucial cover for the
planned vote fraud, and Time played a crucial cover-up role as
widespread evidence of the Nov. 2 fraud surfaced.
Trilateral disdain for the First Amendment is a factor working
strongly against generally sympathetic media attention. On the other
hand, Trilateralist intervention in day-to-day media operation, by
use of
the traditional telephone call, is probable, given the numerous
Trilateral
corporate directors in the media:
-
Henry B. Schacht is a director of
CBS
-
Sol Linowitz is a director of Time
-
J. Paul Austin is a
director
of Dow Jones
-
Harold Brown is a director of Times-Mirror
Corporation
-
Archibald K. Davis is a director of Media General.
Inc.
-
Peter G. Peterson is a director of Great Book Foundation and
National Education TV
-
William M. Roth is a director of Athenum
Publishers
-
Cyrus Vance is a director of the New York Times
Their presence is ominous. However, any persistent intervention to
kill or reorient stories will backfire. Most media people are
professionals rather than propagandists.
Other Trilateral influence, albeit indirect, stems from appointments
such as that of Sharon Percy Rockefeller to the Board of Directors
of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB); Sharon is the wife
of Commissioner John D. Rockefeller IV, governor of West Virginia.
The CPB “closed shop” is already under fire in the media interesting
as a minor example of the basic game plan to blur the distinction
between “public” and “private” for Trilateralist profit.
ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS
The media may be a Trilateral weak spot but its numerous links with
the academic and research world are its strong points. The
academic-research world is not only the “brains” of Trilateralism
but the suppliers of many capable operators, that is, academics
dissatisfied with the rewards of academe who search for the bright
lights and the ego-satisfaction of power manipulation.
Among the more obvious of such academics are:
-
Henry Kissinger
(Harvard)
-
Arjay Miller (Stanford, formerly Ford Motor)
-
Paul
McCracken (University of Michigan)
-
John C. Sawhill (president. New
York University)
-
Harold Brown (president, California Institute of
Technology and director of Schroders, Ltd.)
-
Hendrik S. Houthakker
(Harvard)
-
Zbigniew Brzezinski (Columbia)
-
Marina von Neumann
Whitman (Manufacturers Hanover Bank and University of Pittsburgh)
-
Gardner Ackley (Michigan)
-
David M. Abshire (Georgetown)
-
Graham T.
Allison, Jr. (Harvard)
-
Robert Bowie (now deputy director of
intelligence for National Estimates)
-
Gerald L. Curtis (Columbia)
-
Carroll L. Wilson (MIT)
Finally, and by no means least, Bruce King MacLaury, head of
Brookings Institution which provides the policy input for the Carter
administration and Thomas L. Hughes, president of the ever-present
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
CONTROL OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH BY
TRILATERALISTS
This massive infiltration of government from the top down by an
alien philosophy is typified by the National Security Council whose
four members have a statutory function to advise the President with
regard to “the integration of domestic foreign and military policies
relating to the national security.”
Its four members are all Trilateralists:
-
JIMMY CARTER
-
WALTER F. MONDALE
-
CYRUS R. VANCE
-
HAROLD BROWN
Similarly the Council on International Economic Policy, has eleven
members including three Trilateralists:
What does it all add up to? The Greek newspaper Exormisis summed it
all up even before the 1976 election:
“A new kind of fascism emerges with Carter. The oppression will not
have the form we used to know, but it will be the
“de-politicization” of all citizens in the U.S., and the generating
of all power in the executive branch, that is, the Presidency,
without the President giving any account to the Congress or anybody
else except the multi-nationals, which have financed Carter’s
campaign...The accession to power of Carter, who tries to present
himself as the protector of the poor and the weak, would mean a new
era of dictatorial policies. “
CANADIAN TRILATERALISTS
North America” for Trilateralism includes only the United States and
Canada, with a seeming distinct preference for Quebecois Canadians.
A glaring omission from the commission is Mexico -there are no
Mexican commissioners. Mexico, in spite of its enormous economic
potential, is delegated to the “rest of the world” category.
The
twelve Canadian Trilateralists as of October 1977 are divided as
follows:
Politics and Government 3
Corporations 3
Research Institutions 2
Banking 2 Trade Unions 1
Legal Establishment 1
Total 12
From the viewpoint of Canadian independence, Canadian Trilateral
membership is disturbing because it includes two members of
Parliament, Gordon Fairweather and Mitchell Sharp (former Canadian
minister of foreign “ affairs), along with the directors of three
quasi-official research institutions, Peter Dobell, Michael Kirby,
and Louis A. Desrochers (founding director of the Institute for
Research on Public Policy).
Claude Masson, head of the Division of
Planning and Research at the Department of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa, is also a Trilateralist.
In brief, there is a heavy Canadian
representation from the equivalents of Brookings Institution.
Canadian corporate representation includes
-
Robert W. Bonner (British
Columbia Hydro)
-
Maurice F. Strong (Petro Canada)
-
Jean-Luc
Pepin (director of American multinationals in Canada, Le.,
Westinghouse Canada, Ltd.
-
Collins Radio Company of Canada, Ltd.
-
Celanese Canada, Ltd.; and
others)
Finally, Canadian banking Trilateralists are Michel
Belanger, of the Montreal Stock Exchange, and Alan Hockin, formerly
with Morgan Stanley and now executive vice president of Toronto
Dominion Bank.
FORMATION OF A TRILATERAL ADMINISTRATION
The creation of a Carter administration image of anti-Establishment
arianism while simultaneously creating a Trilateral administration
is typically the deceptive operational approach taken by this
self-appointed elite. Take the first half dozen appointments and
look at their associations and allegiances. The administration was
at some pains to show a competition for posts and promoted the idea
that anti-Establishment and non-Establishment persons would be
appointed. See, for example, the Wall Street Journal on 2 December
1976 concerning the meeting of sixteen candidates in Plains,
Georgia.
The initial sequence of appointments went like this:
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 1 Bertram Lance: president of National Bank of Georgia (Atlanta) to be
director of Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This is a vital,
central post for plans to centralize the U.S. economy. Lance is not
a Trilateral and has since departed.
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 2 Cyrus Vance: Secretary of State, Trilateralist. At the time of
taking office, Vance was a partner in Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett; a
director of IBM, Pan American World Airways and Aetna Life
Insurance; a member of the Democratic party, Foreign Policy Task
Force, Council on Foreign Relations (vice-chairman of the board),
and the Trilateral Commission; and also a former deputy director of
defense.
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 3 W. Michael Blumenthal: secretary of treasury, also a Trilateralist.
Who is Blumenthal? Like Henry Kissinger, he was born in Germany and
came to the U.S. at the age of twenty-one. At the time of taking
office, he was chairman of Bendix Corporation and formerly in the
Kennedy administration as deputy for the secretary for economic
affairs, member of the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on
Foreign Affairs, and the Initiative Committee for National Economic
Planning (with Irwin Miller and Robert McNamara.)
After this third appointment, there was definite feedback in
newspapers and radio that the “liberals” felt they had been betrayed
because appointments and rumors of appointments did not include
them. The result? Jane Cahill Pfeiffer, vice president of IBM,
strongly pushed for commerce secretary as Appointment Number 4
dropped out, and the next two appointments went to big government
liberals.
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 4 Brock Adams: transportation secretary. Also a Trilateralist.
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 5 Congressman Andrew Young as ambassador to U.N. Trilateral.
APPOINTMENT NUMBER 6 Zbigniew Brzezinski: executive director of Trilateral Commission
was appointed national security adviser.
Who is Brzezinski? By
explicit statement, Trilateralists reject the Constitution and the
democratic political process; in Between Two Ages, Brzezinski
(Carter’s sixth appointment) wrote as follows:
The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the
Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal
institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 -the two hundredth
anniversary of the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target
date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing
arrangements...Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the
necessary political innovation will not come from direct
constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change
is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly...in
keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between
public and private institutions.
According to Huntington of Foreign Policy magazine, an “election
coalition” may be abandoned after political office has been
achieved; a politician does not have to keep his word to the
electorate. Jimmy Carter is a supreme example of Trilateralism in
practice. When Brzezinski refers to “develop(ing) incrementally and
less overtly” he is specifically recommending a deceptive
“salami-type” approach to abandonment of the Constitution. Perhaps
some readers may consider this to be the essence of subversion. If
so, they had better do something about it, because no one in
Congress has yet plucked up enough courage to even call for an
investigation of Trilateralism.
As individuals, Trilateralists live in a make-believe world. They
are part of the same crowd that squandered $300 billion and fifty
thousand American lives over a decade in Vietnam, then scuttled out,
tail between legs, while then Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller
forbade public discussion and investigation of the Vietnam debacle.
Have you seen a congressional investigation or public inquiry into
this, the most scandalous waste of lives and materials in American
history? Furthermore, Trilateral ambitions are greater than
Trilateral intellects. While priding themselves on an international
outlook, Trilaterals are, in fact, quite close-minded and provincial
in outlook. Their writing reflects this predictable pattern:
a.
It has limited, repetitive, and shallow themes and keywords such as “interdependence, cooperation, global.“
b.
Opportunism is presented as altruism. c.
It espouses an amoral view of human motivation. (This
author has personally heard a prominent Trilateralist call
on a select audience to take pecuniary advantage of
government handouts.)
Trilaterals represent an elite, kept afloat by sheer audacity and by
the traditionally slow reaction of citizenry in a still reasonably
free society. Unfortunately, reaction to elitism is usually
stimulated only by overt oppression.
The basic game plan of the Trilaterals? To blur the separation
between “private wealth” and “public service” for Trilateral
advantage; public wealth is to be oriented to private Trilateral
ends.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER TWO
1. Washington Post, 16 January 1977.
2. See Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution
(New York: Arlington House Publishers, 1974). 3. Times (London), 24 July 1976.
4. Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, Joji Watanuki The Crisis
of Democracy (New York: University Press, 1975). 5. U.S. Labor Party, The Trilateral Commission’s Coup d’Etat (New
York: Campaign Publications, Inc., 1977), p. 13. . 6. Exormisis, 23 July 1976.
7. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the
Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.
Back to Contents
|