Out of the Ashes: Clash of Civilizations Could Summon New World Religion

Daniel Taylor Old Thinker News

 

Rockefeller-backed Federal Council of Churches pushed “World government”, “Universal system of money” and “Worldwide freedom of immigration” in 1942. The council was told by Dr. William Paton, co-secretary of the World Council of Churches, that “Collectivism is coming, whether we like it or not".

 

For those paying attention, there is a discernible pattern of social engineering that is directed at the major world religions, particularly Christianity.

This is undoubtedly a very complex issue, as there are numerous belief systems and nuanced views of millions of people. What we know is that globalist financed wars and revolutions have fueled illegal immigration and stoked flames of conflict all over the world.

It can be reasonably demonstrated that key globalist organizations are following a program for re-shaping the world’s religions utilizing a tried and true technique. It is a process called the Hegelian dialectic.

Here is a simplified outline of the dialectic as applied by globalist forces:

• Thesis (problem): Religions are bigoted, feed intolerance and fuel violence. “Extreme” examples from each group are held up for the world to see.

• Antithesis (reaction): “I don’t want to be politically incorrect”. Disassociation with demonized groups ensues.

• Synthesis (solution): A “middle ground” is found and a politically correct faith is formed under the banner of global government.

The establishment has encouraged and planted the seeds of “extremism” where it suits geopolitical agendas. The consequences of this manipulation are then pointed at in the ensuing dialectical battle as evidence of a just cause against against these ideas.

A little bit of history

Before we go further, it is important to point out that the establishment has a vested interest in shaping religion. This has been true for ages. Noted historian Alexis de Tocqueville warned us in 1835 when he wrote Democracy in America that the churches were already being usurped by power elites for their own agenda. He wrote,

“…sovereigns… are using the priests influence and turning it to their own exclusive profit. They are turning clergymen into functionaries and, often, servants, and they are using the clergy to reach the deepest recesses of the individual soul.”

This influence has continued to our modern times, but with what is perhaps a more sophisticated flair. The Rockefeller family, with their vast fortune garnered from the oil baron John D. Rockefeller Sr., played a major role in re-shaping the churches in modern America.

It comes as little surprise, given their long term goal of world government, that the Rockefeller family would approve of and support a societal outlook favorable to globalism. The use of religion is one method that, in Rockefeller’s eyes, looked to be a promising means of accomplishing this goal. Early programs such as the Interchurch World Movement focused on the maintenance of harmonious relations between people in America’s growing industrial society.

Later endeavors such as the World Council of Churches would trend towards being global in nature with goals moving beyond that of simply maintaining class stability in America to elimination of national sovereignty and world governance.

As documents show, multiple attempts have been made to urge the Christian churches to get behind programs for world governance. If the attempts were not initiated by the Rockefellers, significant financial support was provided to organizations sharing their vision for the world.

Read more 

The Moral Decoding of 9-11: Beyond the U.S. Criminal State, The Grand Plan for a New World Order Part I

Prof. James McMurty
Global Research

We bring to the consideration of our readers this incisive and carefully formulated analysis by Canada’s renowned philosopher Professor John McMurtry. 
The complete text published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies can be downloaded in pdf.
This article was first published by Global Research in February 2013

***

I was sceptical of the 9-11 event from the first time I saw it on television. It was on every major network within minutes. All the guilty partieswere declared before any evidence was shown.The first questions of any criminal investigation were erased.  Who had the most compelling motives for the event? Who had the means to turn two central iconic buildings in New York into a pile of steel and a cloud of dust in seconds?[i]

Other questions soon arose in the aftermath. Why was all the evidence at the crime scenes removed or confiscated?

Who was behind the continuous false information and non-stop repetition of “foreign/Arab terrorists”when no proof of guilt existed? Who was blocking all independent inquiry?

Even 11 years on these questions are still not answered.

But those immediately named guilty without any forensic proof certainly fitted the need for a plausible Enemy now that the “threat of the Soviet Union” and “communist world rule” were dead.  How else could the billion-dollar-a-day military be justified with no peace dividend amidst a corporately hollowed-out U.S. economy entering its long-term slide? While all the media and most of the people asserted the official 9-11 conspiracy theory as given fact, not all did.

A Bay Street broker with whom I was improbably discussing the event in Cuba had no problem recognising the value meaning. When I asked what he thought about the official conspiracy theory, he was frank:

“You can call it what you want, but America needs a war to pull the people together and expand into new resource rich areas. That what it has always done from Mexico on. And that is what it needs now”.  When I wondered why none in the know said so, he smirked: “It would be impolite”, adding, “It affects the entire future prosperity of America and the West”. And all the deaths? “It had to be done –far less than it could have been”. The 19 Arabs with box-cutters reducing the World Trade Center buildings to powder in a few seconds? He shrugged.

Thus everyone since 9-11 is prohibited nail-clippers on planes to confirm the absurd – including 15 of the 19 alleged hijackers being from Saudi Arabia and several apparently still alive after crashing the planes into the buildings.[ii] As for the diabolical mastermind Osama bin Laden, he is never linked by credible evidence to the crime and never claims responsibility for the strike since the videos of him are fakes. “Ground Zero” is a double entendre. All doubts are erased apriori.

Decoding the U.S. Theater of Wars and the Moral Driver Behind

One already knew that suspension of belief is the first act of fiction, and that instant culture rules the U.S. One already knew that monster technical events are America’s stock in trade. And one already knew the long history of false U.S. pretexts for war – so well established that a young strategic thinker a decade after 9-11 advises the right-wing Washington Policy Institute on how to create a crisis by deadly planned incident to make war on Iran – “it is the traditional way of getting into war for what is best in America’s interests”.[iii]

One further knew from past research that the U.S.’s strategic leadership since 1945 had been Nazi-based in information and connections and the dominant Central-European figures articulating it ever after across Democrat and Republican lineshave a common cause. For over 40 years, Henry Kissinger as Republican and Zbigniew Brzezinski as Democrat have been protégés of David Rockefeller, selected as Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group leaders, and capable of any mass-homicidal plan to advance “U.S. interests”. The banker-and-oil imperial line through David Rockefeller as paradigm case goes back to the Nazi period to John Foster Dulles (an in-law) and his brother Allen Dulles (OSS and then CIA Director), who Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg called “traitors” for their support of the Nazi regime.  The Rockefeller Foundation funded and developed German eugenics programs in the pre-war years, Standard Oil supplied oil in collaboration with I.G. Farben, and so on. [iv]

Read more

Rockefeller, Ford Foundations Behind World Social Forum (WSF). The Corporate Funding of Social Activism

Michel Chossoudovsky
Global Research 

This year the World Social Forum is being held in Montreal, regrouping committed social activists, anti-war collectives and  prominent intellectuals. 

Most of the participants are unaware that the WSF is funded by corporate foundations including Ford, Rockefeller, Tides, et al.  Much of this funding is channelled to the WSF organizers under the helm of the WSF International Council. 

This is an issue which has been raised on numerous occasions with progressive organizations and WSF activists: you cannot effectively confront neoliberalism and the New World Order elites  and expect them to finance your activities.

The World Social Forum operating under the banner of  “Another World is Possible” was founded in 2001 at its inaugural venue of Porto Alegre. Brazil.

From the outset in 2001, the WSF has been upheld as an international umbrella representing grassroots people’s organizations, committed to reversing the tide of globalization. Its stated intent is to challenge corporate capitalism and its dominant neoliberal economic agenda.

The World Social Forum at its inaugural meeting defined itself as a counter-offensive to the World Economic Forum (WEF) of business leaders and politicians which meets annually in Davos, Switzerland. The 2001 Porto Alegre WSF was held simultaneously with that of the WEF in Davos.

While  there have been many important accomplishments of the WSF, largely as a result of the commitment of grassroots activists, the core leadership of WSF  –rather than effectively confronting the New World Order elites– has  (often unwittingly) have served their corporate interests. In this process, co-optation has been achieved through the corporate funding of the WSF.

Read more

Dance to the Panama Papers 'Limited Hangout' Leak

Pepe Escobar
Telesur

Calling out around the world; time to put on your made in Ecuador Panama hat and frantically start dancing to the ultimate limited hangout leak. And if you believe in the purity of intentions of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) at the center of the leak, I've got a made in Shenzhen Panama hat to sell you (disclosure: I never was, and never will be, a member of the ICIJ).

The Washington-based ICIJ gets its cash and its "organizational procedure" via the Exceptionalistan-based, Orwellian-named Center for Public Integrity. The funds flow mostly from the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller Family Fund, the Kellogg Foundation and the George Soros-owned Open Society. Then there is Eastern Europe-based partner organization OCCRP, an even more Orwellian outfit self-styled as playing some sort of progressive, alternative media role. OCCRP is funded by Soros and USAID.

And finally there's this fictional land named Panama — a certified U.S. vassal. Absolutely nothing of real substance happens in Panama without a green light by the United States government. Or, as an international tax lawyer told me, "you have to be an idiot to stash money in Panama. You cannot flush a toilet there without the Americans knowing about it." This sets the scene for the Panama Papers leak — a massive hoard of 11.5 million documents allegedly leaked from someone inside offshore heavies Mossack Fonseca to the center-left, NATO-friendly Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper in Munich and then shared by the ICIJ with selected mainstream media partners.

Even without a smoking gun, a case can be made this alleged most massive leak ever was obtained by — what else — U.S. intel. This is the kind of stuff the NSA excels at. The NSA is able to break into virtually any database and/or archives everywhere; they steal "secrets"; and then selectively destroy/blackmail/protect assets and "enemies", according to USG interests.

That's the essence of a limited hangout sold to public opinion as a serious corruption investigation. And that's where Western corporate media enters the scene, protecting whatever 0.00000001 percent honcho is caught in the net, as well as sacrificing some disposable pawns.

So we have over 300 reporters pouring over hundreds of thousands of document/files for over an interminable year with, miraculously, no leaks whatsoever; just for a bunch of corporate mainstream media hacks to meticulously cherry pick stories and decide what is "newsworthy." Western alternative media would have investigated the data without sparing anyone; but it would be out of the question to grant them access.

What's already certain is that the full extent of the Panama leak will never be known. Even the by now exceedingly pathetic The Guardian admitted, on the record, that "much of the leaked material will remain private". Why? Because it may — inadvertently and directly — implicate a gaggle of Western 0.00000001 percent multibillionaires and corporations. All of them play the offshore casino game (although not necessarily in Panama.)

So the Panama Papers, stripped to the bone, may reveal themselves essentially as an infowar operation by the NSA — targeted mostly against "enemies" (as in the BRICS nations) and selected disposable pawns; a weaponized psyops posing as an 'activist leak', straight from the Hybrid War playbook.  

Read more

Kissinger, Eugenics And Depopulation

Before It's News

Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” 

Research on population control, preventing future births, is now being carried out secretly by biotech companies. Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a University of California microbiologist, discovered that wild corn in remote parts of Mexico is contaminated with lab altered DNA. That discovery made him a threat to the biotech industry.

Chapela was denied tenure at UC Berkeley when he reported this to the scientific community, despite the embarrassing discovery that UC Chancellor Berdahl, who was denying him tenure, was getting large cash payments – $40,000 per year – from the LAM Research Corp. in Plano, Texas.

Berdahl served as president of Texas A&M University before coming to Berkeley. During a presentation about his case, Chapela revealed that a spermicidal corn developed by a U.S. company is now being tested in Mexico. Males who unknowingly eat the corn produce non-viable sperm and are unable to reproduce.

Depopulation, also known as eugenics, is quite another thing and was proposed under the Nazis during World War II. It is the deliberate killing off of large segments of living populations and was proposed for Third World countries under President Carter’s administration by the National Security Council’s Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy.

National Security Memo 200, dated April 24, 1974, and titled “Implications of world wide population growth for U.S. security & overseas interests,” says:

“Dr. Henry Kissinger proposed in his memorandum to the NSC that “depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World.” He quoted reasons of national security, and because `(t)he U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less-developed countries … Wherever a lessening of population can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resources, supplies and to the economic interests of U.S.

Depopulation policy became the top priority under the NSC agenda, Club of Rome and U.S. policymakers like Gen. Alexander Haig, Cyrus Vance, Ed Muskie and Kissinger. According to an NSC spokesman at the time, the United States shared the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the “population crisis” is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than nuclear annihilation.In 1975, Henry Kissinger established a policy-planning group in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Population Affairs. The depopulation “GLOBAL 2000″ document for President Jimmy Carter was prepared.

It is no surprise that this policy was established under President Carter with help from Kissinger and Brzezinski – all with ties to David Rockefeller. The Bush family, the Harriman family – the Wall Street business partners of Bush in financing Hitler – and the Rockefeller family are the elite of the American eugenics movement. Even Prince Philip of Britain, a member of the Bilderberg Group, is in favor of depopulation: “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels” (Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund, quoted in “Are You Ready for Our New Age Future?” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December 1995).

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been proposing, funding and building Bio-Weapons Level 3 and Level 4 labs at many places around the U.S. even on university campuses and in densely populated urban locations. In a Bio-Weapons Level 4 facility, a single bacteria or virus is lethal. Bio-Weapons Level 4 is the highest level legally allowed in the continental U.S.

For what purpose are these labs being developed, and who will make the decisions on where bio-weapons created in these facilities will be used and on whom? More than 20 world-class microbiologists have been murdered since 2002, mostly in the U.S. and the UK. Nearly all were working on development of ethnic-specific bio-weapons (see Smart Dust, Roboflies; etc.). 

Read more

See also:  War against the Weak

Education or Domination? The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations Developing Knowledge for the Developing World

Originally posted at: The People’s Book Project.

The following is an excerpt from a chapter on the birth of the American Empire in an upcoming book by Andrew Gavin Marshall, as part of The People’s Book Project. Note: the following is still in draft form, and is not by any means a final product, but more just to serve as a sample of the information and perspectives which will be articulated throughout the entire project.

For the previous excerpt from this chapter, directly preceding this preview, see: “An Education for Empire: The Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford Foundations in the Construction of Knowledge.”

Note: the following excerpt is largely derived from information published in Richard Arnove’s “Philanthropy and Cultural Imperialism: The Foundations at Home and Abroad.”

The Rockefellers Engineer Black Education 

The education which facilitated American imperial expansion around the world was not situated within the Western imperial powers alone, but was simultaneously expanded into the ‘Global South’, those regions of the world which America and the West sought to dominate. This was a pivotal aspect of the imperial project, as it was imperative for America to rule the world, but in a fashion not so reminiscent of the previous age of empires, where domination and empire were openly acknowledged and propagated. Following the two world wars which were the result of a clash of empires, the notion of imperial domination outright was largely discredited. Therefore, the era of ‘informal empire’ came to dominate: imperialism without formal colonization. This project necessarily involved the creation and support of domestic elites in the countries which were targeted for domination.

To prop up a domestic elite which would be subservient to foreign (i.e., Western) interests, an educational system had to be constructed which would produce foreign elites that were indoctrinated with hegemonic ideology, and would thus come to see ‘cooperation’ with the West, and the opening up of their domestic resources to foreign corporations not as a capitulation to a foreign dominator, but as a necessary part of the process of ‘development’.

In the first half of the 20^th century, the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation undertook joint projects aimed at constructing an education system for black Americans in the South as well as for black Africans in several British colonies. In 1911, the Phelps-Stokes Fund was chartered with the purpose of managing “the education of Negroes both in Africa and the United States.” This restrictive educational system for black Americans had already been institutionalized, beginning with the ‘philanthropic’ endeavours of Wall Street bankers and northern industrialists and capitalists at several conferences in 1898. The education was constructed on the basis that, as one conference participant stated, “the white people are to be the leaders, to take the initiative, to have direct control in all matters pertaining to civilization and the highest interest of our beloved land. History demonstrates that the Caucasian will rule, and he ought to rule.” As one conference organizer stated:

Time has proven that [the ‘negro’] is best fitted to perform the heavy labor in the Southern states… He will willingly fill the more menial positions, and do the heavy work, at less wages, than the American white man or any foreign race… This will permit the Southern white laborer to perform the more expert labor, and to leave the fields, the mines, and the simple trades for the negro.[1]

The conferences resulted in what became known as the ‘Tuskegee educational philosophy,’ which was decided upon by 1901. Three major decisions were taken at the conferences. The first major decision was that “it was necessary that provision be made to train a Negro leadership cadre”:

Read More

Phone-hacking: US senator calls for News Corp probe

BBC News

A key US senator has called for an investigation into whether reported hacking by News Corporation targeted any US citizens.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller said the authorities should consider whether journalists working for the media giant had broken US law. He warned of "serious consequences" should that be found to be the case.

The 168-year-old News of the World shut down on Sunday after numerous accusations of phone hacking. Other papers owned by Rupert Murdoch have faced similar allegations.

Mr Rockefeller, a Democrat, was the first major voice in the US Congress to call for an investigation into the scandal, which has gripped Britain.

The BBC's Steve Kingstone in Washington says these are the first signs that the hacking story is extending across the Atlantic.

'Breach of ethics'
 

In a written statement, Mr Rockefeller said he was concerned that hacking by News Corporation journalists may have extended to American targets, including victims of the 11 September attacks.

He did not present any evidence to support that claim, but called on the authorities to look into any possible wrong-doing.

"I encourage the appropriate agencies to investigate to ensure that Americans have not had their privacy violated," he said.

"The reported hacking by News Corporation newspapers against a range of individuals - including children - is offensive and a serious breach of journalistic ethics. This raises serious questions about whether the company has broken US law," he said. Mr Murdoch's American assets include Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Post and Harper Collins publishers.

Parliamentary motion
 

In the UK, News Corporation has been under mounting pressure to scrap its bid for a full takeover of TV giant BSkyB - in which it already owns a 39.1% share - since new phone-hacking allegations about the News of the World emerged last week.

Later on Wednesday, British MPs will be asked to vote on an opposition Labour Party motion that "this House believes that it is in the public interest for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation to withdraw its bid for BSkyB".

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is also expected to make a statement to MPs on the nature of an inquiry into the hacking allegations.

Mr Murdoch has now been asked to appear in front of British MPs to answer questions on the issue, while police on Tuesday accused his newspapers of blocking their original investigations in 2006.

The Global Elite: Who are they?

 August Review

Introduction

There are two common mis­con­cep­tions held by those who are crit­ical of globalism.

The first error is that there is a very small group of people who secretly run the world with all-powerful and unre­strained dic­ta­to­rial powers. The second error is that there is a large amor­phous and secret orga­ni­za­tion that runs the world. In both cases, the use of the word “they” becomes the cul­prit for all our trou­bles, who­ever “they” might be. If taxes go up, it is “they” that did it. If the stock market goes down, “they” are to blame. Of course, nobody really knows who “they” are so a few fig­ure­heads (people or orga­ni­za­tions) are often made out to be the scapegoats.

Depending on a person’s pol­i­tics and phi­los­ophy, the scape­goats could be the U.S. Pres­i­dent, the ACLU, the Ford Foun­da­tion, or Vladimir Putin. The point is, the real power struc­ture is not cor­rectly defined, and thus escapes exposure.

These mis­con­cep­tions are under­stand­able because when things are wrong, we all have a dri­ving need to know who to blame! In some cases, elitist slight-of-hand ini­ti­ates and then per­pet­u­ates false assumptions.

This writer has never been accused of charging that all large cor­po­ra­tions are guilty of ini­ti­ating and per­pet­u­ating glob­al­iza­tion. There are many busi­nesses, including banks, who are led by moral, eth­ical and good-hearted busi­nessmen or busi­ness­women. Just because a com­pany might touch glob­alism does not mean it and its man­age­ment or employees are evil.

Every bit of thirty-five years of research indi­cates that there is a rel­a­tively small yet diverse group of global players who have been the plan­ners and insti­ga­tors behind glob­al­iza­tion for many decades. The pri­mary dri­ving force that moves this “clique” is greed; the sec­ondary force is the lust for power. In the case of the aca­d­e­mics who are key to glob­alism, a third force is pro­fes­sional recog­ni­tion and accep­tance (a subtle form of egoism and power.)

It is also impor­tant to under­stand that core glob­al­ists have full under­standing of their goals, plans and actions. They are not dimwitted, igno­rant, mis­in­formed or naive.

The global elite march in three essen­tial columns: Cor­po­rate, Polit­ical and Aca­d­emic. For the sake of clarity, these names will be used herein to refer to these three groups.

In gen­eral, the goals for glob­alism are cre­ated by Cor­po­rate. Aca­d­emic then pro­vides studies and white papers that jus­tify Corporate’s goals. Polit­ical sells Academic’s argu­ments to the public and if nec­es­sary, changes laws to accom­mo­date and facil­i­tate Cor­po­rate in get­ting what it wants.

An impor­tant ancil­lary player in glob­alism is the media, which we will call Press in this report. Press is nec­es­sary to filter Cor­po­rate, Aca­d­emic and Political’s com­mu­ni­ca­tions to the public. Press is not a fourth column, how­ever, because it’s pur­pose is merely reflec­tive. How­ever, we will see that Press is dom­i­nated by mem­bers of Cor­po­rate, Polit­ical and Aca­d­emic who sit on the var­ious boards of direc­tors of major Press organizations.

This report will attempt to iden­tify and label the core players in the glob­al­iza­tion process. The intent is to show the makeup and pat­tern of the core, not to list every person in it. Nev­er­the­less, many people will be named and their asso­ci­a­tions and con­nec­tions revealed. This is done for two reasons.

First, it will equip the reader be able to accu­rately iden­tify other core players as they are brought into focus. Sec­ondly, the reader will be able to pass over minor players who may sound like “big fish” but in fact are only pedestrians.

Orga­ni­za­tional Memberships

The old saying, “Birds of a feather, flock together” is appro­priate for the per­pe­tra­tors of glob­alism. Soci­o­log­i­cally speaking, they are like any other people group with like inter­ests: they nat­u­rally tend to form soci­eties that will help them achieve their common inter­ests. A side-benefit of fel­low­ship is mutual sup­port and encour­age­ment. Once formed, such groups tend to be self-perpetuating, at least as long as common inter­ests remain.

In modern his­tory, the pin­nacle of global dri­vers has been the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, this group is cred­ited with being the founder of the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order that has given rise to the glob­al­iza­tion we see today.

The Council on For­eign Relations

Prior to the founding of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, the Council on For­eign Rela­tions (CFR) was the most sig­nif­i­cant body of global-minded elit­ists in the United States. As far back as 1959, the CFR was explicit about a need for world government:

“The U.S. must strive to build a new inter­na­tional order… including states labeling them­selves as ‘socialist’… to main­tain and grad­u­ally increase the authority of the United Nations.”

The site for the United Nations head­quar­ters in New York was orig­i­nally donated by the Rock­e­feller family, and the CFR world archi­tects worked for many years to use the U.N. as a means to develop an image of world order. Indeed, the CFR mem­ber­ship roster has been, and still is a Who’s Who of the elitist eastern establishment.

The first problem with the CFR is that it became too large and too diverse to act as a “cut­ting edge” in global policy cre­ation. The second problem is that it’s mem­ber­ship was lim­ited to north America: What group could effect global changes without a global membership?

The CFR con­tinues to be sig­nif­i­cant in the sense that politi­cians often look to its mem­ber­ship when searching for people to fill var­ious appoint­ments in gov­ern­ment. It also con­tinues to be a policy mill through its offi­cial organ, For­eign Affairs.

While there are a sev­eral core global elit­ists in the ranks of the CFR, they rep­re­sent a very small per­centage of the total mem­ber­ship. Con­versely, there are many CFR mem­bers who are only lightly involved with glob­alism. For this reason, we do not count the CFR as being cen­tral to glob­al­iza­tion today.

The Tri­lat­eral Commission 

David Rock­e­feller rec­og­nized the short­com­ings of the CFR when he founded the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973 with Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Rock­e­feller rep­re­sented Cor­po­rate and Brzezinski rep­re­sented Academic.

Together, they chose approx­i­mately 300 mem­bers from north America, Europe and Japan, whom they viewed as being their “birds of a feather.” These mem­bers were at the pin­nacle of their pro­fes­sion, whether Cor­po­rate, Aca­d­emic, Polit­ical or Press. It is a tes­ti­mony to the influ­ence of Rock­e­feller and Brzezinski that they could get this many people to say “Yes” when they were tapped for membership.

Out of the 54 orig­inal U.S. mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Jimmy Carter was fronted to win the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion in 1976. Once inau­gu­rated, Carter brought no less than 18 fellow mem­bers of the Com­mis­sion into top-level cab­inet and gov­ern­ment agencies.

Per­haps no one has described the Tri­lat­eral oper­a­tion as suc­cinctly as vet­eran reporter Jere­miah Novak in the Chris­tian Sci­ence Mon­itor (Feb­ruary 7, 1977):

“Today a new crop of econ­o­mists, working in an orga­ni­za­tion known as the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, is on the verge of cre­ating a new inter­na­tional eco­nomic system, one designed by men as bril­liant as Keynes and White. Their names are not well known, but these modern thinkers are as impor­tant to our age as Keynes and White were to theirs.

“More­over, these econ­o­mists, like their World War II coun­ter­parts, are working closely with high gov­ern­ment offi­cials, in this case Pres­i­dent Jimmy Carter and Vice Pres­i­dent Walter Mon­dale. And what is now being dis­cussed at the highest levels of gov­ern­ment, in both the United States and abroad, is the cre­ation of a new world eco­nomic system – a system that will affect jobs in America and else­where, the prices con­sumers pay, and the freedom of indi­vid­uals, cor­po­ra­tions, and nations to enter into a truly plan­e­tary eco­nomic system. Indeed, many observers see the advent of the Carter admin­is­tra­tion and what is now being called the “Tri­lat­eral” cab­inet as the har­binger of this new era.”¹

The per­ni­cious influ­ence of the Com­mis­sion and its dom­i­nance of the U.S. Exec­u­tive branch remains unchal­lenged to this day. 

Ronald Reagan was not a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, but his Vice Pres­i­dent, George H. W. Bush, was a member. The Commission’s influ­ence was safely per­pet­u­ated into the Reagan years.

The 1988 elec­tion of George H.W. Bush to the pres­i­dency fur­ther con­sol­i­dated Tri­lat­eral influ­ence in the U.S.

In 1992, Tri­lat­eral member William Jef­ferson Clinton fol­lowed in the pres­i­dency and con­tributed greatly to the cause of globalization.

In 2000, George W. Bush assumed the pres­i­dency. While it can be demon­strated that Bush is closely aligned with and totally ded­i­cated to Tri­lat­eral goals, he is not a member of the Com­mis­sion. How­ever, Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney is a member of the Commission.

Obvi­ously, Corporate’s part­ner­ships with Polit­ical, Aca­d­emic and Press has been very suc­cessful. 

The Orig­inal Mem­ber­ship: 1973 – 1978

A short look at the first U.S. mem­ber­ship list is instruc­tive. We have taken lib­erty to orga­nize the names according to broad func­tions, which is not fully ade­quate to explain the inter­re­la­tion­ships. As one exam­ines the biogra­phies of these indi­vid­uals, one sees a “revolving door” phe­nom­enon where people rotate in and out of gov­ern­ment, busi­ness, think-tanks, etc., on a reg­ular basis. This is one sev­eral tests used to iden­tify a member of the true core of global elite.

Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Mem­ber­ship, 1973²

Banking Related
Ernest C. Arbuckle	Chairman, Wells Fargo Bank
George W. Ball	Senior Partner, Lehman Brothers
Alden W. Clausen	Pres­i­dent, Bank of America
Archibald K. Davis	Chairman, Wachovia Bank and Trust Company
*Peter G. Peterson	Chairman, Lehman Brothers
*David Rock­e­feller	Chairman, Chase Man­hattan Bank
Robert V. Roosa	Partner, Brown Brothers Har­riman & Company
Bruce K. MacLaury	Pres­i­dent, Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
John H. Perkins	Pres­i­dent, Con­ti­nental Illi­nois National Bank and Trust Company
Press Related
Doris Anderson	Editor, Chante­laine Magazine
Emmett Dedmon	Vice-President and Edi­to­rial Director, Field Enter­prises, Inc.
Hedley Donovan	Editor-in-Chief, Time, Inc.
Carl T. Rowan	Colum­nist
Arthur R. Taylor	Pres­i­dent, Columbia Broad­casting System, Inc.
Labor Related
*I. W. Abel, President	United Steel­workers of America
Leonard Wood­cock	Pres­i­dent, United Auto­mo­bile Workers
Lane Kirk­land	Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
Senate/Congress
John B. Anderson	House of Representatives
Lawton Chiles	United States Senate
Barber B. Conable, Jr.	House of Representatives
John C. Culver	United States Senate
Wilbur D. Mills	House of Representatives
Walter F. Mondale	United States Senate
William V. Roth, Jr.	United States Senate
Robert Taft Jr.	United States Senate
Other Polit­ical
James E. Carter, Jr.	Gov­ernor of Georgia
Daniel J. Evans	Gov­ernor of Washington
*William W. Scranton	Former Gov­ernor of Pennsylvania
Cor­po­rate
J. Paul Austin	Chairman, The Coca-Cola Company
W. Michael Blumenthal	Chairman, Bendix Corporation
*Patrick E. Haggerty	Chairman, Texas Instruments
William A. Hewitt	Chairman, Deere and Company
Edgar F. Kaiser	Chairman, Kaiser Indus­tries Corporation
Lee L. Morgan	Pres­i­dent, Cater­pillar Tractor Company
David Packard	Chairman, Hewlett-Packard Company
Charles W. Robinson	Pres­i­dent, Mar­cona Corporation
Arthur M. Wood	Chairman, Sears, Roe­buck & Company
William M. Roth	Roth Prop­er­ties
Aca­d­emic
David M. Abshire	Chairman, George­town Uni­ver­sity Center for Strategic and Inter­na­tional Studies
Graham Allison	Pro­fessor of Pol­i­tics, Har­vard University
Robert R. Bowie	Clarence Dillon Pro­fessor of Inter­na­tional Affairs, Har­vard University
*Harold Brown	Pres­i­dent, Cal­i­fornia Insti­tute of Technology
Richard N. Cooper	Provost and Frank Altschul Pro­fessor of Inter­na­tional Eco­nomics, Yale University
Paul W. McCracken	Edmund Ezra Day Pro­fessor of Busi­ness Admin­is­tra­tion, Uni­ver­sity of Michigan
Marina von N. Whitman	Dis­tin­guished Public Ser­vice Pro­fessor of Eco­nomics, Uni­ver­sity of Pittsburgh
Car­roll L. Wilson	Pro­fessor of Man­age­ment, Alfred P. Sloan School of Man­age­ment, MIT
Edwin O. Reischauer	Uni­ver­sity Pro­fessor, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity; former U.S. Ambas­sador to Japan
Law Firms
Warren Christo­pher	Partner, O’Melveny and Myers
William T. Coleman, Jr.	Senior Partner, Dil­worth, Paxson, Kalish, Levy & Coleman
Lloyd N. Cutler	Partner, Wilmer, Cutler, and Pickering
*Gerard C. Smith	Counsel, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering
Cyrus R. Vance	Partner, Simpson, Thacher and Bartlett
*Paul C. Warnke	Partner, Clif­ford, Warnke, Glass, McIl­wain & Finney
Asso­ci­a­tions
Lucy Wilson Benson	Pres­i­dent, League of Women Voters of the United States
Ken­neth D. Naden	Exec­u­tive Vice Pres­i­dent, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Think-Tanks
Thomas L. Hughes	Pres­i­dent, Carnegie Endow­ment for Inter­na­tional Peace
Henry D. Owen	Director, For­eign Policy Studies Pro­gram, the Brook­ings Institution
Mis­cel­la­neous
Anthony Solomon	Con­sul­tant

* Indi­cates member of Exec­u­tive Committee 

Rock­e­feller and Brzezinski’s strategy was nefar­ious, yet brilliant. 

The elec­tion of demo­crat James Earl “I will never lie to you” Carter was assured by deliv­ering the mostly demo­c­ratic labor vote. This was accom­plished by adding to the inner core: Leonard Wood­cock (UAW), I.W. Abel (United Steel­workers) and Lane Kirk­land (AFL-CIO). 

By 1977, three more labor leaders were added to the mem­ber­ship: Glenn E. Watts (Com­mu­ni­ca­tions Workers of America), Martin J. Ward (pres­i­dent of United Asso­ci­a­tion of Jour­neymen and Appren­tices), and Sol Chaikin, pres­i­dent of the Inter­na­tional Ladies Gar­ment Workers Union. 

Leonard Wood­cock served as Chief Envoy to China under Carter, and was largely respon­sible for solid­i­fying eco­nomic and polit­ical ties with Com­mu­nist China. [Editor’s note: Any reader who is or was a member of one of these unions will instantly have flashes of insight as to the enduring duplicity of labor man­age­ment — you were effec­tively “sold down the river” starting 1973 and con­tin­uing into the present.] 

Those com­mis­sioners who Carter brought into his admin­is­tra­tion (the ini­tial “steering com­mittee”, if you will) were Walter Mon­dale (Vice Pres­i­dent), Zbig­niew Brzezinski (National Secu­rity Advisor), Cyrus Vance (Sec­re­tary of State), Harold Brown (Sec­re­tary of Defense) and W. Michael Blu­men­thal (Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury,) among others.

As the Wash­ington Post 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 advisor, also a bunch of others who will make for­eign policy for America in the next four years.”³

Before Carter’s term was com­pleted, no less than 18 mem­bers (thirty per­cent of the U.S. Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship) of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion served in his admin­is­tra­tion. Coin­ci­dence? Hardly!

This article pur­posely leaves out dis­cus­sion of the non-U.S. mem­ber­ship of the Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship, which will be saved for another day. Suf­fice it to say that the Euro­pean and Japanese con­tin­gents were just as pow­erful and effec­tive in their respec­tive home coun­tries. Approx­i­mately one-third of the mem­ber­ship came from Europe and the other third from Japan. The joint mem­ber­ship met annu­ally (no press allowed) to for­mu­late policy and action plans for their respec­tive regions. Many, if not most, of their poli­cies were pub­lished in the Commission’s quar­terly journal, Trialogue.

The most damning argu­ment ever launched against the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion is the uncon­sti­tu­tional influ­ence of other gov­ern­ments and forces upon the U.S. For instance, Com­mis­sion mem­bers are not elected nor rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion of the U.S., yet they effec­tively dom­i­nated the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment. When the Com­mis­sion resolved poli­cies (behind closed-doors) with non-U.S. mem­bers, who were a mere one-third minority, could it be said that for­eign influ­ences effec­tively con­trolled U.S. policy?

These con­cerns were never addressed by Con­gress or the Judi­ciary. The Exec­u­tive branch would have nothing to address because it has been con­tin­u­ously dom­i­nated by Com­mis­sion mem­bers — who repeat­edly assured us that there was no such con­flict of interest. Of course, the answer to these ques­tions are self-evident: U.S. inter­ests, eco­nomic and polit­ical, have been subverted.

The eco­nomic sub­ver­sion of the U.S. was studied in The August Review’s America Plun­dered by the Global Elite and was likened to the plun­dering of a nation, the likes of which have not been seen in modern history.

Cur­rent Tri­lat­eral Membership

The fol­lowing list of north Amer­ican mem­bers is not exhaus­tive. These are selected because of their high vis­i­bility in posi­tions within Cor­po­rate, Polit­ical or Eco­nomic and Press. A future install­ment of The August Review will examine the entire mem­ber­ship list more care­fully and com­pletely. The pur­pose here is to show that the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion has grown, rather than declined, in strength over the years.

Keep in mind that there is no enroll­ment or appli­ca­tion process to belong to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. One is invited to join in a manner sim­ilar to a col­lege stu­dent being “tapped” for mem­ber­ship in a fra­ter­nity. Thus, the process is highly selec­tive and dis­crete. Can­di­dates are thor­oughly screened before invi­ta­tion is deliv­ered. For this reason, one can be rel­a­tively sure that anyone who is or who has ever been a member of the Com­mis­sion is in the core of the global elite. There are likely a few mem­bers who are not truly a part of the core, but for the sake of aggre­gate analysis, this is not an impor­tant issue. 

U.S. Mem­bers who have been sub­se­quently added to the Com­mis­sion over the years include, in part, the fol­lowing list.

Addi­tional Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Mem­ber­ship through 2005⁴

Banking Related
Paul Wol­fowitz	Pres­i­dent, World Bank
Paul A. Volker	Former Chairman, Wolfen­sohn & Co., Inc., New York; Fred­erick H. Schultz Pro­fessor Emer­itus, Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Policy, Princeton Uni­ver­sity; former Chairman, Board of Gov­er­nors, U.S. Fed­eral Reserve System; Hon­orary North Amer­ican Chairman and former North Amer­ican Chairman, Tri­lat­eral Commission
Alan Greenspan	Chairman of the Fed­eral Reserve, Board of Direc­tors of Bank for Inter­na­tional Settlements
Geof­frey T. Boisi	former Vice Chairman, JPMorgan Chase, New York, NY
E. Gerald Corrigan	Man­aging Director, Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York, NY; former Pres­i­dent, Fed­eral Reserve Bank of New York
Jamie Dimon	Pres­i­dent and Chief Oper­ating Officer, JPMorgan Chase, New York, NY
Roger W. Fer­guson, Jr.	Vice Chairman, Board of Gov­er­nors, Fed­eral Reserve System, Wash­ington, DC
Stanley Fis­cher	Gov­ernor of the Bank of Israel, Jerusalem; former Pres­i­dent, Cit­i­group Inter­na­tional and Vice Chairman, Cit­group, New York, NY; former First Deputy Man­aging Director, Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund
Richard W. Fisher	Pres­i­dent and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Dallas, Dallas, TX; former U.S. Deputy Trade Representative
Michael Klein	Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Global Banking, Cit­i­group Inc.; Vice Chairman, Citibank Inter­na­tional PLC; New York, NY
*Sir Deryck C. Maughan	former Vice Chairman, Cit­i­group, New York, NY
Jay Mazur	Pres­i­dent Emer­itus, UNITE (Union of Needle­trades, Indus­trial and Tex­tile Employees); Vice Chairman, Amal­ga­mated Bank of New York; and Pres­i­dent, ILGWU’s 21st Cen­tury Her­itage Foun­da­tion, New York, NY
Hugh L. McColl, Jr.	Chairman, McColl Brothers Lock­wood, Char­lotte, NC; former Chairman and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Bank of America Corporation
Robert S. McNamara	Life­time Trustee, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Wash­ington, DC; former Pres­i­dent, World Bank; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of Defense; former Pres­i­dent, Ford Motor Company.
Ken­neth Rogoff	Pro­fessor of Eco­nomics and Director, Center for Inter­na­tional Devel­op­ment, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, Cam­bridge, MA; former Chief Econ­o­mist and Director, Research Depart­ment, Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, Wash­ington, DC
John Thain	Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, New York Stock Exchange, Inc.; former Pres­i­dent and Co-Chief Oper­ating Officer, Goldman Sachs & Co., New York, NY
Lawrence H. Summers	Pres­i­dent, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, Cam­bridge, MA; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of  the Treasury
Press Related
David G. Bradley	Chairman, Atlantic Media Com­pany, Wash­ington, DC
David Gergen	Pro­fessor of Public Ser­vice, John F. Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, Cam­bridge, MA; Editor-at-Large, U.S. News and World Report
Donald E. Graham	Chairman and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, The Wash­ington Post Com­pany, Wash­ington, DC
Karen Elliott House	Senior Vice Pres­i­dent, Dow Jones & Com­pany, and Pub­lisher, The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY
Gerald M. Levin	Chief Exec­u­tive Officer Emer­itus, AOL Time Warner, Inc., New York, NY
Fareed Zakaria	Editor, Newsweek Inter­na­tional, New York, NY
Mor­timer B. Zuckerman	Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News &  World Report, New York, NY
Labor Related
Sandra Feldman	Pres­i­dent Emer­itus, Amer­ican Fed­er­a­tion of Teachers, Wash­ington, DC
John J. Sweeney	Pres­i­dent, AFL-CIO, Wash­ington, DC
Intel­li­gence Related
John M. Deutch	Insti­tute Pro­fessor, Mass­a­chu­setts Insti­tute of Tech­nology, Cam­bridge, MA; former Director of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence; former U.S. Deputy Sec­re­tary of Defense
Henry A. Kissinger	Chairman, Kissinger Asso­ciates, Inc., New York, NY; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of State; former U.S. Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent for National Secu­rity Affairs
James B. Steinberg	Vice Pres­i­dent and Director of the For­eign Policy Studies Pro­gram, The Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Deputy National Secu­rity Advisor
William H. Webster	Senior Partner, Mil­bank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Director of Cen­tral Intel­li­gence; former Director, U.S. Fed­eral Bureau of Inves­ti­ga­tion; former Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Susan Rice	Senior Fellow, Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion, Wash­ington, DC; former Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for African Affairs; former Spe­cial Assis­tant to the Pres­i­dent and Senior Director for African Affairs, National Secu­rity Council
Senate/Congress
Richard A. Gephardt	former Member (D-MO), U.S. House of Representatives
Jim Leach	Member (R-IA), U.S. House of Representatives
Charles B. Rangel	Member (D-NY), U.S. House of Representatives
John D. Rock­e­feller IV	Member (D-WV), U.S. Senate
Dianne Fein­stein	Member (D-CA), U.S. Senate
*Thomas S. Foley	Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Ambas­sador to Japan; former Speaker of the U.S. House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives (D-WA); North Amer­ican Chairman, Tri­lat­eral Commission
Other Polit­ical
George H. W. Bush	Pres­i­dent of the United States
William Jef­ferson Clinton	Pres­i­dent of the United States
Richard B. Cheney	Vice Pres­i­dent of the United States
Paula J. Dobriansky	U.S. Under Sec­re­tary of State for Global Affairs
Robert B. Zoellick	Former U.S. Deputy Sec­re­tary of State, U.S. Trade Representative
Madeleine K. Albright	Prin­cipal, The Albright Group LLC, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of State
C. Fred Bergsten	Director, Insti­tute for Inter­na­tional Eco­nomics, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury for Inter­na­tional Affairs
William T. Coleman, Jr.	Senior Partner and the Senior Coun­selor, O’Melveny & Myers, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of Transportation
Lynn Davis	Senior Polit­ical Sci­en­tist, The RAND Cor­po­ra­tion, Arlington, VA; former U.S. Under Sec­re­tary of State for Arms Con­trol and Inter­na­tional Security
Richard N. Haass	Pres­i­dent, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, New York, NY; former Director, Policy Plan­ning, U. S. Depart­ment of State; former Director of For­eign Policy Studies, The Brook­ings Institution
*Carla A. Hills	Chairman and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Hills & Com­pany, Inter­na­tional Con­sul­tants, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive; former U.S. Sec­re­tary of Housing and Urban Development
Richard Hol­brooke	Vice Chairman, Perseus LLC, New York, NY; Coun­selor, Council on For­eign Rela­tions; former U.S. Ambas­sador to the United Nations; former Vice Chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston Cor­po­ra­tion; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for Euro­pean and Cana­dian Affairs; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; and former U.S. Ambas­sador to Germany
Win­ston Lord	Co-Chairman of Over­seeers and former Co-Chairman of the Board, Inter­na­tional Rescue Com­mittee, New York, NY; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs; former U.S. Ambas­sador to China
*Joseph S. Nye, Jr.	Dis­tin­guished Ser­vice Pro­fessor at Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, John F. Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity, Cam­bridge, MA; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense for Inter­na­tional Secu­rity Affairs
Richard N. Perle	Res­i­dent Fellow, Amer­ican Enter­prise Insti­tute, Wash­ington, DC; member and former Chairman, Defense Policy Board, U.S. Depart­ment of Defense; former U.S. Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense for Inter­na­tional Secu­rity Policy
Thomas R. Pickering	Senior Vice Pres­i­dent, Inter­na­tional Rela­tions, The Boeing Com­pany, Arlington, VA; former U.S. Under Sec­re­tary of State for Polit­ical Affairs; former U.S. Ambas­sador to the Russian Fed­er­a­tion, India, Israel, El Sal­vador, Nigeria, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and the United Nations
Strobe Tal­bott	Pres­i­dent, The Brook­ings Insti­tu­tion, Wash­ington, DC; former U.S. Deputy Sec­re­tary of State
Mis­cel­la­neous
Ernesto Zedillo	Director, Yale Center for the Study of Glob­al­iza­tion, Yale Uni­ver­sity, New Haven, CT; former Pres­i­dent of Mexico [Ed . Note: not an Amer­ican citizen]
David J. O’Reilly	Chairman and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Chevron Cor­po­ra­tion, San Ramon, CA

* Indi­cates member of Exec­u­tive Com­mittee

The More Things Change, the More They Remain the Same

The occu­pa­tional makeup of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion has obvi­ously changed over time, but that only rep­re­sents the maturing of the glob­al­iza­tion process. What was needed in 1973 is not what is needed today. Still, there are some con­sis­ten­cies that are easily observed.

The most obvious con­sis­tency (and expan­sion) is the very large rep­re­sen­ta­tion by the banking cartel: two chairmen and two board mem­bers of of the Fed­eral Reserve System, two pres­i­dents of the World Bank, director of the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, and chairmen/CEO’s of sev­eral promi­nent global banks. This does not take into account any link­ages from Com­mis­sion mem­bers who are also direc­tors of com­mer­cial and invest­ment banks. Finan­cial rep­re­sen­ta­tion is not inci­dental because money is the life-blood of glob­alism. The August Review’s cov­erage in Global Banking: The Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments detailed the apex and makeup of global banking.

Through mem­ber­ship, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion dom­i­nates the exec­u­tive branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment, the Fed­eral Reserve System, and is closely aligned with the Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments, which con­trols the world’s cur­ren­cies and money supply. This is seen even without ana­lyzing the remaining two-thirds of Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship that resides out­side of the U.S.

The Insti­tute for Inter­na­tional Eco­nomics (IIE) 

The IIE is an example of a key orga­ni­za­tion in which one might iden­tify other core mem­bers of the global elite. Founded in 1981, IIE is a small policy-wonk orga­ni­za­tion with only 60 employees and an annual budget of $7 mil­lion. According to its own web site,

“The Insti­tute for Inter­na­tional Eco­nomics is a pri­vate, non­profit, non­par­tisan research insti­tu­tion devoted to the study of inter­na­tional eco­nomic policy. Since 1981 the Insti­tute has pro­vided timely, objec­tive analysis and con­crete solu­tions to key inter­na­tional eco­nomic problems.

“The Insti­tute attempts to antic­i­pate emerging issues and to be ready with prac­tical ideas to inform and shape public debate. Its audi­ence includes gov­ern­ment offi­cials and leg­is­la­tors, busi­ness and labor leaders, man­age­ment and staff at inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions, university-based scholars and their stu­dents, other research insti­tu­tions and non­govern­mental orga­ni­za­tions, the media, and the public at large. It addresses these groups both in the United States and around the world.“⁵
This would be easily over­looked unless you examine IIE’s board of direc­tors. Tri­lat­er­alist Peter G. Peterson is chairman of the board. Anthony M. Solomon is hon­orary chairman of the exec­u­tive com­mittee. Solomon is the former chairman of War­burg (USA) Inc., former pres­i­dent and CEO of the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of New York and former Under Sec­re­tary of the Trea­sury for Mon­e­tary Affairs. Solomon was listed only as “Con­sul­tant” on the 1973 Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship list.⁶

There are 12 other Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers (including David Rock­e­feller) on IIE’s board of direc­tors! Having estab­lished Tri­lat­eral influ­ence (if not total dom­i­na­tion), con­sider the fol­lowing non-Commission IIE board mem­bers who might well be can­di­dates for inclu­sion in the core of the global elite:

• Chen Yuan – Gov­ernor, China Devel­op­ment Bank; former
• Deputy Gov­ernor, Peo­ples Bank of China.

• Jacob A. Frenkel – Former gov­ernor of the Bank of Israel and former IMF eco­nomic coun­selor and director of research.

• Mau­rice R. Green­berg – Chairman, Amer­ican Inter­na­tional Group.

• David O’Reilly – Chairman and Chief Exec­u­tive Officer, Chevron­Texaco Corporation.

• James W. Owens – Chairman and CEO of Caterpillar.
• Lawrence H. Sum­mers - Pres­i­dent, Har­vard Uni­ver­sity; former Sec­re­tary of the Treasury.

These are just a few of the non-Trilateral board mem­bers, and are reviewed only to show the process by which one might iden­tify addi­tional global elite core members.

There are other orga­ni­za­tions like IIE that could stand sim­ilar analysis of pur­pose, lead­er­ship and directorship.

Con­clu­sion

As was declared in the begin­ning of this analysis, the stam­pede to glob­alism is con­ducted by a small group of indi­vid­uals with aspi­ra­tions for global dom­i­nance. It should be noted again that there are mem­bers of the global “core” who are not mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

In gen­eral, they are driven by lust for money and power. They have clearly made an end-run around the Amer­ican people in order to achieve per­sonal goals that, in many cases, are dia­met­ri­cally opposed to U.S. inter­ests. If the Amer­ican people fully under­stood the mag­ni­tude of the decep­tion and power-grab, they would imme­di­ately and totally repu­diate these indi­vid­uals and their self-serving global schemes.

In 1971, Zbig­niew Brzezinski wrote in Between Two Ages:The Tech­netronic Era, 

“…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.”⁷

Brzezinski could not have been more clear than this. Of the few people who paid atten­tion to Brzezinski pre­vi­ously, only one person needed to receive his mes­sage fully: David Rock­e­feller, chairman of Chase Man­hattan Bank and con­sum­mate glob­alist. When they teamed up to start the Tri­lat­eral Com­mi­sison in 1973, the rest, as we say, “became history.”

So, how can one deter­mine if an indi­vidual is a member of the core of the global elite? There is a good chance that such a person will be:

•  closely aligned with and accepted by many of the people already iden­ti­fied as core;
•  often family-related to other core mem­bers (i.e., the Bush family, Rock­e­feller family, etc.);
•  part of the “revolving-door” that switches them in and out of impor­tant and crit­ical posi­tions in gov­ern­ment, acad­emia and business;
•  a member (director or high-level exec­u­tive) of an orga­ni­za­tion iden­ti­fied as a core com­pany, such as J.P. Morgan Chase, Cit­i­group, Cater­pillar Tractor, etc.;
•  edu­cated at a pres­ti­gious and global-minded university;
•  belong to one or more orga­ni­za­tions that are dom­i­nated by people already iden­ti­fied as core.

This list is not com­pre­hen­sive, nor is it meant to be some sim­plistic litmus test. It is impor­tant to realize that many names being bandied about are NOT part of the core of the global elite, but rather become decoys that shift the focus away from the real elite core. Dis­cre­tion, common sense and study is required to under­stand the dif­fer­ence between the two. 

Foot­notes

1. Novak, Jere­miah, Chris­tian Sci­ence Mon­itor (Feb­ruary 7, 1977)
2. The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Mem­ber­ship List, www.trilateral.org
3. Wash­ington Post, Jan­uary 16, 1977
4. op. cit.
5. About Us, http://www.iie.com/institute/aboutiie.cfm
6. Board of Direc­tors, http://www.iie.com/institute/board.cfm
7. Brzezinski, Zbig­niew, Between Two Ages: The Tech­netronic Era, (Pen­guin Books , 1971)