fufor's unregelmässige news

China's Allies: Canada & Mexico
posted 08. Aug. 2007

Trade / Invasion Routes



Maurice Strong:
"current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary which will require a vast strengthening of multilateral system including the United Nations."
1992 UN Conference on Envirement & Development

Isn´t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilisations collapse? Isn´t it our responsibility to bring about?

David Rockefeller:
"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller-family for inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as internationalists and conspiring with others to build a more integrated global political and economical structure -one world, if you will, if that´s the charge, i stand guilty, and i am proud of it."
http://tinyurl.com/27he6o

Disaster looms as 'Saddam dam' struggles to hold back the Tigris
By Patrick Cockburn in Mosul
Published: 08 August 2007

As world attention focuses on the daily slaughter in Iraq, a devastating disaster is impending in the north of the country, where the wall of a dam holding back the Tigris river north of Mosul city is in danger of imminent collapse.

"It could go at any minute," says a senior aid worker who has knowledge of the struggle by US and Iraqi engineers to save the dam. "The potential for disaster is very great."

If the dam does fail, a wall of water will sweep into Mosul, Iraq's third largest city with a population of 1.7 million, 20 miles to the south. Experts say the flood waters could destroy 70 per cent of Mosul and inflict heavy damage 190 miles downstream along the Tigris.

The dam was built between 1980 and 1984 and has long been known to be in a dangerous condition because of unstable bedrock. "The dam was constructed on a foundation of marls, soluble gypsum, anhydrite, and karstic limestone that are continuously dissolving," said specialists at the US embassy in a statement. "The dissolution creates an increased risk for dam failure."

In fact the state of the two-mile long earthfill dam, which holds back some eight billion cubic metres of water in Iraq's largest reservoir, has recently been deteriorating at ever-increasing speed. According to one source, the chance of a total and immediate failure of the dam is now believed to be "reasonably high" at current water levels and "most certain" within the next few years.

The effort to prevent the collapse of the dam is overseen by the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources. The US Army Corps of Engineers has made continual efforts to monitor the deterioration and undertake remedial action. But a US report, obtained separately from the embassy statement, says that "due to fundamental and irreversible flaws existing in the dam's foundation, the US Army Corps of Engineers believes that the safety of the Mosul Dam against a potential catastrophic failure cannot be guaranteed".

Iraq, the site of the biblical flood, is very vulnerable to inundation because it is very flat south of the Kurdish mountains. Prior to the building of dykes and other control measures in the early 20th century, there were frequent disastrous floods when snow melted in the mountains of Turkey.

The great majority of Iraqis live along the Tigris and Euphrates. If the dam does break, specialist sources say that the impact of the flood would be felt all along the Tigris river valley. This would mean heavy damage to cities such as Tikrit and Samarra and the floods could reach as far as Baghdad, home to six million people, though by then the force of the floodwaters should have dissipated.

Given that the Iraqi government has only intermittent control of this area north of the capital, which is overwhelmingly Sunni, it is unlikely it could undertake effective measures to save lives if a flood occurred.

The main method used to strengthen the foundations of the Mosul dam is pumping liquid cement into it or grouting. But a US-funded study concluded that grouting would not save the dam although it did need to be continued and enhanced "to reduce the probability of failure". An international panel of experts called in by the Ministry of Water Resources in Baghdad concluded that a limit should also be placed on the level of the water in the reservoir - that was done in April last year.

The ministry did not respond to inquiries by email and phone about the deteriorating state of the dam. "It is a time bomb waiting to go off," said the aid worker.

"Everybody knows about the threat but they have other preoccupations and, in the case of foreigners, it is now conveniently in Iraqi hands." He said that on some US communications equipment, there was a panic button to be pressed as soon as the dam began to give way. The unstable bedrock beneath the dam has been known about for a long time. The Iraqi government has been trying to patch it up for 19 years. It is not clear why the dam, known as the "Saddam Dam" prior to 2003, was built where it is, given the solubility of the rock underneath it. The fact that construction began in 1980, the first year of the Iran-Iraq war, and the reservoir began to fill only four years later, may explain why such a gross error about its site was made.

Saddam Hussein began a period of helter-skelter construction in the first years of the Iran-Iraq war to show his people the conflict would not hold back economic development. The construction boom, funded by loans from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the UAE, involved too many new projects for Iraq to monitor effectively. The dam has an installed hydroelectric capacity to produce 750MW of electricity and its other functions are flood control, the supply of water for irrigation and municipal water supply. Given the chronic shortage of electricity in Iraq there is a disinclination to reduce the amount coming from the Mosul dam or any other source.

The weakness of the dam became evident soon after it was built. The US embassy statement says: "To manage the risk, the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources has been conducting continuous grouting operations to fill voids and fractures created by the dissolution of the foundation since the 1980s."

None of the measures have proved to be enough so far, although the US government is worried enough to provide construction materials, equipment and spare parts. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation has also provided equipment for grouting over the past year.

If the dam breaks it will be deeply damaging to the Iraqi government and the US authorities in Iraq because the disasters of the past four years are already seen by Iraqis as evidence of their inability to rule Iraq effectively.
http://tinyurl.com/27gyrh

Constantin von Hoffmeister

Die Deutschen: Abschaum der Menschheit

gewidmet Ilja Ehrenburg, die groesste Inspirationsquelle fuer alle
zukuenftigen Befreier Deutschlands

endlich entlarven sich die larven
kriechen wie die maden aus dem speck
jammern und kreuchen und fleuchen
die deutschen!
das volk in der scheisse
im sumpf
im morast
immer weiter runter
bergab
die deutschen sind fette schweine
mastvieh!
die russen haben deutsche nutten gefickt
bauernschlampen und stadtschlampen
alles die gleichen blauaeugigen dirnen
die rote armee mit wodka ihre befangenheit ueberwunden
wie ansprechen dieses teutonische geschmeiss?
die deutschen hinkend nach dem kriege
ihre eigene scheisse fressend
die russen ihrer verwunderung luft gemacht
wie dumm die deutschen doch sind!
die deutschen nutten wollten nicht?
die russen als herrenrasse befahl und drang ein,
wo eindringlinge willkommen sind:
im herzen eines kalten und selbstzerstoererischen ruhmeskonstrukts,
das sich weit entfernte von einem ruhmreichen volke
ilja ehrenburg der aufpeitscher der erloeser!
rein damit und aufreissen die fassade der spiesser
der wurstfresser
der biersaeufer
der zeitungsleser
lass die maenner wuetend sein die frauen schreien weinen
es muss sein!
rein! in die scheisse, die sich deutsche mutterguete schimpft
die verlogene fassade der deutschen familie
hinein in den abfluss in die kanalisation unterhalb der brauerei
heute verrecken die scheissdeutschen
sterben aus
ilja der befreier wusste es mit gutem beispiel voranschreitend
die deutschen sind sich selbst die groesste pest
ausradieren sich selbst
die deutschen familien implodierend
kastrieren sich selbst
die deutschen maenner knechte der impotenz
das volk wegficken
die deutschen weiber sexpuppen der kanacken
aber die auslaendischen mitbuerger insgeheim befolgend
dem befehl ilja ehrenburgs:
nieder mit dem deutschen volk!
deutschland verrecke!
die auslaendischen mitbuerger brav kinder bekommend
viele kinder
als zukuenftige gauleiter eines stolzen volkes
die letzten deutschen schweine in die plackerei peitschend
der eroberungswurm durch den schleim sich vorwaerts bohrt
die dummdeutschen in seinem magen verdauend vermodernd
da kommt angerannt der fettleibige lastwagenfahrer
keuchend und schwitzend
sein rotes gesicht entsetzlich entstellt
er hat gesehen die zukunft der kinder
die zukunft seiner gegenwart
endlich in osmanischer hand
der lastwagenfahrer scheibenwischend unter fremder knute
nur abends furzt er noch das deutschlandlied



http://tinyurl.com/22vqnz

The New World Order, The Bilderberg Plan – Control Oil, Control People
Part 23
By Deanna Spingola
30 July 2007

There are arguments from both sides of the oil issue: either we are quickly running out of oil or we have adequate oil to meet our requirements for generations. Both sides offer evidence, witnesses, experts and documentation to validate their assertions. Some peak-oil projects, funded by oil companies, are highly suspect. The very credible Lindsey Williams maintains that the North Slope in Alaska has as much crude oil as Saudi Arabia. Governor Frank H. Murkowski said in 2005 that there is enough oil on the North Slope to supply the entire United States for 200 years. [1] Antony Sutton, author of Energy, the Created Crisis, is adamant that we have sufficient oil. Conversely, I have read reports which support the peak oil theory. I personally believe, after research, that “there is enough and to spare.” Doom and gloom, Chicken Little oil scarcity claims have been propagated from the beginning. A scarcity, authentic or manufactured, of any crucial commodity accomplishes the following:

1. Increases profits to those who manipulate that commodity.

2. Allows the controllers to determine availability to the “right” people.

3. In the case of energy – severely impacts lifestyle, progress and prosperity.

4. Extracts more money from an often overburdened consumer.

Henry A. Kissinger, Rockefeller’s well-compensated, multi-purpose minion and long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) said: “Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people.” [2] Michael Collon, Belgian author said: “If you want to rule the world, you need to control oil. All the oil. Anywhere.” [3]

The first very memorable “oil crisis” occurred in 1973. Nixon, obedient to his handlers, announced the demonetization of the dollar on August 15, 1971. This allowed time for the “real deciders” to plan their strategy. Eighty-four individuals, financial, corporate and political elitists, gathered at Saltsjöbaden, Sweden for the annual Bilderberg meeting. American attendee, Walter J. Levy, outlined the plan for a pending 400% increase in OPEC revenues, the exact percentage that Kissinger would demand of Saudi Arabian Shah. Their intentions were not prevention but rather a scheme on how to manage the projected abundance of oil dollars – what was later referred to by Herr Kissinger as “recycling the petrodollar flows.” The Bilderberg policy was to initiate a global oil embargo. [4]

An internal memo, dated January 8, 1973, from U.S. Bilderberg official Robert D. Murphy suggested a list of participants for the May 1973 meeting. He stated: “There will be room for only 20 Americans at Saltsjöbaden.” [5]

Those attending included Robert O. Anderson of Atlantic Richfield Oil Co., Lord Greenhill, chairman of British Petroleum, Sir Eric Roll of Siegmund G. Warburg (creator of Eurobonds), George Ball of Lehman Brothers Investment Bank, Henry Kissinger, William P. Bundy, Zbigniew Brzezinski (soon to be Carter’s national security advisor), David Rockefeller, Emilio G. Collado, Executive Vice President, Exxon Corp.; Gianni Agnelli, Otto Wolff von Amerongen and Arthur H. Dean, CFR Director (1955-72) and a partner in Rockefeller-oriented Sullivan & Cromwell. Kissinger had requested Warburg to develop the Eurobonds ten years before. [6] A very small scheming elite group, centered in New York and London, influence the economy of the entire world.

The reasons for the “oil shock” were:

1. Launch a colossal assault against world industrial growth.
2. Tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests.
3. Control the world’s oil flows, their most powerful weapon.
4. Increase the world demand for U.S. dollars. [7]

Egypt and Syria invaded Israel on October 6, 1973 which came to be known as the Yom Kippur War. This war was “secretly orchestrated” by Herr Henry Kissinger, Nixon’s national security adviser as well as Secretary of State. Kissinger effectively managed the Israeli response through his close association with Simcha Dinitz. Kissinger, “Nixon’s intelligence czar,” through privileged channels, misrepresented motives, suppressed communications, and intercepted intelligence reports ensured that the war would progress and end with his “shuttle diplomacy” as planned in May 1973 at Saltsjöbaden. The Arabs, scapegoats for the Elite, were the recipients of the world’s rage and Kissinger was the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1973. [8]

A “fortuitous coincidence” was that, with oil’s huge price increase, British Petroleum, Royal Dutch Shell and other Anglo-American oil companies were able to substantially recoup the millions they had spent in the exploration of the North Sea oilfields. Meanwhile, in Vienna, OPEC countries met and decided to raise their prices by 70% and initiated an oil embargo on all oil sales to the U.S. and the Netherlands (major oil port for Western Europe) because of the U.S. support for Israel in the Middle East War. On October 17, 1973, OPEC demanded withdrawal of Israel from Arab territories occupied since June 1967 and the restoration of the legal rights of the Palestinians. Nixon was in the midst of Watergate, orchestrated by de facto president Kissinger and assisted by Alexander Haig. [9] There are detectable reasons for Kissinger, a Rockefeller asset, to “Watergate” Nixon, a man he detested and swore he would never work for – he didn’t. [10] In addition, the Watergate fiasco distracted the masses from the grave economic situation.

Uninformed Nixon attempted to get U.S. Treasury officials to force OPEC to lower oil prices but was bluntly instructed, via a memo, that the bankers had mandated the dollar “recycling” program to accommodate the higher oil prices. Jack F. Bennett, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Monetary Affairs (until July 1974), had counseled Nixon towards his 1971 dollar demonetization decision. Bennett, at Kissinger’s direction and according to an established agreement with the Saudis to finance the U.S. government deficits, had arranged for David C. Mulford to go to Saudi Arabia to act as an “investment adviser” to SAMA. His job was to “guide the Saudi petrodollars investments to the correct banks, naturally in London and New York. The Bilderberg scheme was operating just as planned.” [11]

Led by Exxon, some oil companies had created a short supply of domestic crude oil, supported by Nixon on advice from his aids. By January 1974, oil prices had increased by 400%. In December 1974, nine powerful bankers, including David Rockefeller, approached New York mayor Abraham Beame. They made him an offer he could not refuse – unless he assigned management of the city’s vast pension funds to them – the Municipal Assistance Corporation – then their complicit media cronies would financially destroy the city. This decreased the amount of money available for roadways, bridges, hospitals, schools and the laying-off of tens of thousands of city workers in order for New York City, the biggest city in the country, to service their bank debt. Similar circumstances occurred in other parts of the world: bank collapses, grave trade deficits, unemployment, inflation, and industrial and transportation depression in the more industrial nations. In third-world countries, the consequences were even more severe. [12]

While devastating to the populace, the oil companies flourished: Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron, and Gulf. OPEC’s petrodollars were deposited into the right banks in New York and London: Chase Manhattan, Citibank, Manufacturers Hanover, Bank of America, Barclays, Lloyds and Midland Bank. [13] These events set the stage for the debt crisis of the 1980s.

The globalist decision of August 1971 to remove the dollar from a fixed, gold-backed exchange rate system generated a shift to double-digit inflation, urban decay, mounting unemployment and excessive interest rates. The Kissinger-orchestrated Middle East oil crisis of 1973-74 was designed to de-industrialize and eventually transform the United States from the world’s largest creditor nation to the world's biggest debtor nation.

A review of history further helps to reveal ruthless business patterns that have shaped current circumstances – including yet another war resulting in death and bloodshed for the benefit of the greedy, insatiable elite.

Beginning with the Civil War, the opportunistic, monopolistic John D. Rockefeller sold inflated-priced Harkness whiskey to the Federal troops. Recognizing the huge profitability in war with the right commodity, he built his first oil refinery in 1863 along the Cuyahoga River (Ohio) to accommodate the growing needs of the raging Civil War which he and others, like J. P. Morgan, had purchased their way out of for $300.

The Rothschild controlled National City Bank of Cleveland gave Rockefeller his first loan. In 1865 Rockefeller, for $72,500, bought out his partners (Henry Flagler, Samuel Andrews, Stephen V. Harkness) and price-chopped or otherwise destroyed his competitors by purchasing supporting industries such as pipelines, railroad tank cars, terminal facilities and barrel manufacturing factories. He soon incorporated the growing imperialistic Standard Oil Company in 1870 to fully exploit the growing Russian kerosene market as well as the curative “snake-oil” market in the U.S.

In what Ohio historian Christopher Eiben called “a brilliant stroke of corporate back scratching,” “Rockefeller sold shares to bankers who lent him millions and railroaders who gave him great freight deals, including rebates on rivals' shipments.” [14] “Working through the Wall Street firms of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and J. P. Morgan Co., the Rothschilds financed John D. Rockefeller so that he could create the Standard Oil Empire. They also financed the activities of Edward Harriman (railroads) and Andrew Carnegie (steel).” [15]

By 1873 Standard Oil, by hook or crook, had acquired about 80 percent of the refining capacity in Cleveland which was about one third of the U.S. total. Interestingly enough, the stock market crashed on September 18, 1873 and created a six year recession allowing Standard Oil to seize refineries in Pennsylvania's oil region, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and New York. Rockefeller controlled approximately 90% of the oil refined as well as most of the oil marketing facilities in the U.S. by 1878. [16] Ruthless Rockefeller, who detested competition, founded the first global monopoly and was supplying 90% of the world’s oil, 70% overseas. Great Britain also experienced economic depression in 1873 replete with pandemic unemployment and bankruptcies. Two years later, the Rothschilds provided a sizeable loan (£4,080,000) to enable the British government to acquire a controlling share of the Suez Canal. [17]

Rockefeller had built the world’s biggest business in Cleveland, Ohio. Standard Oil sold over “300 refining byproducts” from Vaseline to chewing gum. In 1882, he created the Standard Oil Trust, suggested by Samuel Dodd, Standard Oil’s attorney, to eviscerate and devour all of the independent oil producers and refiners both nationally (250 competitors in the U.S.) and internationally. A trust is when stockholders in a group of companies transfer their shares to a single set of trustees who control all of the companies which constitutes a monopoly. “In exchange, the stockholders received certificates entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies.” [18] Rockefeller’s “trust” became an example to other “businessmen” who embraced the “trust” concept – always at the expense of the working man. Rockefeller took his growing Goliath to Manhattan in 1883 where he “influenced urban sprawl.” [19]

Russia’s oil industry accelerated in the latter part of the 19th century due to an oil boom at the Caspian Sea town of Baku, which had opened in 1873 and at Galicia (now in Poland). The Rothschild banking family had major interests in the oil-wells of Baku, Russia. Beginning in 1875, Ludvig and Robert Nobel built an oil empire known as the Brothers Nobel, or Branobel, based on oil deposits in Baku on the Caspian Sea. [20] By 1883, Standard Oil’s imports were not as essential to the Russian market for reasons that follow. [21]

Britain’s Marcus Samuel, future founder of Shell Oil, developed tankers capable of carrying oil in cost-cutting bulk transport through the Suez Canal. The maiden voyage of the “Murex,” the first tanker, was in 1892. Remember, Great Britain had a controlling interest in the Suez Canal, thanks to the Rothschilds. Marcus and his brother also established bulk oil storage at ports in the Far East. In addition, they contracted with a Russian group, controlled by the Rothschilds, “for the long-term supply of kerosene” which put them in high-risk direct competition, abhorrent to Rockefeller, with Standard Oil. The Samuel brothers named their company The Tank Syndicate but renamed it in 1897 to the Shell Transport and Trading Company. [22]

Rockefeller and his accomplices felt that they were above the law until the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act on July 2, 1890, enacted by Congress based on their Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. It was signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison. In 1892, the Ohio Supreme Court ordered the disbanding of the Standard Oil Trust, an illegal monopoly. “Standard Oil was subsequently reorganized in 1899 as a holding company under the name of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey. That state had conveniently adopted a law that permitted a parent company to own the stock of other companies.” [23]

In 1896 Standard Oil contributed $250,000 to Republican William McKinley's presidential campaign against Democrat William Jennings Bryan, a supporter of antitrust legislation. [24] McKinley was opposed to the imperialistic, expansionist Spanish-American War. Yet, to retain office in the next election, he asked Congress to declare war against Spain in 1898. He signed the Gold Standard Act in 1900.

In September 1901, William McKinley, allegedly a Rockefeller tool, was shot by Leon Czolgosz (son of Polish immigrants), labeled as an “anarchist” although he didn’t belong to any rebel groups. Czolgosz was immediately “tried and executed by the Establishment.” The assassination was manipulated by the Establishment to subtly discredit rebellion and anyone who might justifiably dissent. The Elite, in any age, would actually prefer to prohibit dissent. It is similar to our current administration saying: “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th…” [25] and by implication – let us never tolerate conspiracy theorists.

Following the assassination, various anti-sedition and anti-conspiracy laws were passed by the Establishment. Who benefited by McKinley’s death – Teddy Roosevelt who was supported by the contending Morgan (as opposed to Rockefeller) wing of the Republican Party. Roosevelt immediately started using the anti-trust weapon to try to destroy Rockefeller's Standard Oil and Harriman's Northern Securities, both bitter enemies of the Morgan world empire. [26]

Woodrow Wilson, son of a Presbyterian minister, had the financial and political support of the Rockefellers, Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, and others in his successful 1910 bid for governor of New Jersey. They also had the love letters he wrote to Mary Peck, his mistress while he was president of Princeton (1902-1910), for which they paid $65,000. [27] Therefore he later made the perfect, morally compromised presidential candidate. The following unconstitutional acts were engineered during the administration of the obedient Rockefeller minion, Woodrow Wilson:

1913: The Sixteenth Amendment – authorized income taxes (never ratified)

The Seventeenth Amendment – direct popular election of Senators

Underwood Tariff – lowered duties

Federal Reserve Act – created the un-federal Federal Reserve System

Through the years, Standard Oil received bad press as a result of their cutthroat business practices and the muckraking reports of people like Ida Tarbell and writer/activist Upton Sinclair. Rockefeller hired Ivy Lee in 1914 as their public relations manager to clean up their image and appear philanthropic. [28] A public relations professional, with media complicity, also discredits or disgraces any national or foreign opponent.

For decades, voters merely decide to cast a vote – the actual decisions regarding candidates and the orchestrated consequences of those calculated choices are made in covert CFR committee meetings, Bilderberg assemblies, pentagon offices and corporate boardrooms. Voters ultimately suffer the extreme penalties and the elite benefactors, the “deciders” remain unscathed.

[1] Lindsey Williams - The Energy Non-Crisis - Part 1 of 8
[2] Monsanto Buys ‘Terminator’ Seeds Company by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, August 27, 2006
[3] A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl, pg. 267
[4] Ibid, pg. 130-141
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Ibid
[9] Ibid
[10] Kissinger by Gary Allen,
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/homeland/kissinger/
Accessed July 27, 2007
[11] A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl, pg. 130-141 See also The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar Recycling and International Markets
[12] A Century of War, Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order by William Engdahl, pg. 130-141
[13] Ibid
[14] The Energy Bulletin, Rockefeller and Co. turned oil into local gold by Grant Segall, Published on 11 Jun 2005 by Cleveland Plain Dealer,
http://www.energybulletin.net/7374.html
Accessed July 20, 2007
[15] Rothschild Fortune Built Rockefellers, Morgans, Etc
[16] The Dismantling of The Standard Oil Trust,
http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Accessed July 24, 2007
[17] N M Rothschild & Sons Limited,
http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/N-M-Rothschild-amp;-Sons-Limited-Company-History.html
Accessed July 23, 2007
[18] The Dismantling of The Standard Oil Trust,
http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Accessed July 24, 2007
[19] Rockefeller and Co. turned oil into local gold, June 12, 2005, By Grant Segall,
http://www.cleveland.com/energy/index.ssf?/energy/more/1.html
Accessed July 23, 2007
[20] Alfred Nobel - St. Petersburg, 1842-1863 by Birgitta Lemmel,
http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/biographical/articles/russia/
Accessed July 23, 2007
[21] At The Dawn Of The Kerosene Era by Alexander Matveichuk PhD (History), Member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, 2006,
http://www.oilru.com/or/26/464/
Accessed July 20, 2007
[22] Shell, The beginnings,
http://www.shell.com/home/content/aboutshell-en/who_we_are/our_history/the_beginnings/the_beginnings_history_of_shell_22112006.html
Accessed July 26, 2007
[23] The Dismantling of The Standard Oil Trust,
http://www.linfo.org/standardoil.html
Accessed July 24, 2007
[24] American Experience, The Rockefeller Timeline,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/timeline/index.html
Accessed July 24, 2007
[25] President Bush Speaks to United Nations, Remarks by the President, To United Nations General Assembly, U.N. Headquarters, New York, New York, November 10, 2001,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011110-3.html
Accessed July 25, 2007
[26] Investigate the Vice President First by Murray N. Rothbard,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard67.html
Accessed July 25, 2007
[27] The Greatest Story Never Told, Winston Churchill and the Crash of 1929 by Pat Riott, pg. 20
[28] John D. Rockefeller: A Photographic History by Kristin Aguilera and Keith E. Rolfe, Photographs courtesy of the Rockefeller Archive Center,
http://www.financialhistory.org/MAGAZINE/photo-history.htm
Accessed July 24, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2hu3d5

The Global Elite: Who are they?
Introduction
posted 07. Aug. 2007

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 correctely 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, missinformed 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 For Sale: The United States of America 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)
http://tinyurl.com/2oulrq

THE BUSH FAMILY AMERICA DOESN'T KNOW
By Lynn Stuter
August 7, 2007

In 1938, William Dodd, ambassador to Germany, sent President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the following message:

"A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime.... A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions."

In 1933, Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was approached by a cabal of influential American bankers and industrialists working under the umbrella of the front group, American Liberty League. Their request of Butler: that he lead a 500,000 strong force of rogue veterans in a coup against FDR and the legal American government. The intent of this cabal, already supporting the efforts of Hitler and Mussolini in Europe, was to instill a government not unlike that of Hitler and Mussolini in the United States.

Butler went along with the scheme until he was able to ascertain who the participants were. He then blew the whistle on this group before the House Committee on un-American Activities. For his efforts, Butler was ostracized and black-balled by the mainstream media; his testimony before the House Committee on un-American Activities was omitted from the record. The cabal was never brought to justice, but the coup was foiled.

Who were the American bankers and industrialists involved in this plot to overthrow the legal government of the United States? According to Wikipedia, while most of the funding came from the Du Pont family, participants included U.S. Steel, General Motors, General Foods, Standard Oil, Birdseye, Colgate, Heinz Foods, Chase National Bank, and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.

And among the participants in this coup attempt was one Prescott Bush, father of George Herbert Walker Bush, 41st president of the United States, grandfather of George W Bush, current president of the United States. Prescott Bush was not only instrumental in bringing Hitler to power in Germany, Mussolini to power in Italy, but was also plotting to overthrow the legal government of the United States and establish a fascist state here. Prescott Bush served as a Senator from Connecticut and was a partner in the prominent investment banking firm Brown Brothers Harriman.

It was from the lips of George Herbert Walker Bush that the American people heard the phrase, “New World Order.” And America watched as GHW Bush passed the reins of power to his “good friend who is like a member of the family,” William Jefferson Clinton, who then passed the reins on to George Walker Bush in what can only be termed a fraud-ridden election, re-elected for a second term in the same manner.

Under the reign of George Walker Bush, we have watched him wage war on America, the American people, and American sovereignty; we have watched him institute executive order after executive order in his pursuit of absolute power, labeling himself “the decider” while the American legislative branch does absolutely nothing to curtail his abuse of power. His actions mirror those of Hitler in his quest for power in Germany.

And just like Hitler, Bush is using fear to keep the American people supporting his un-American activities, starting with the events of September 11, 2001. And every time Bush wants something more, another threat emerges and Congress and the American people, with few exceptions, fall in step. Yet the greatest threat to the American people, American sovereignty, the American way of life sits in the White House, not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in the Middle East.

And if the reins of power are passed from George Walker Bush, which many at this point have serious doubts will happen, given Bush’s ability to wage war on the American people through terrorism and the American people’s willingness to blame the same on foreign born terrorists, that power will be passed, by corrupted balloting if necessary, to Hillary Rodham Clinton, protégé of self-avowed Marxist Saul Alinsky, who, in his book, Rules for Radicals, paid homage to Lucifer as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.” (1971; Vintage Books; dedication page) Prophetic, indeed!

This past week we saw the collapse of the 35W bridge in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Those in the know are ware that this bridge is part of the I-35 NAFTA Super Highway Corridor, bisecting the United States; providing transport on Mexican trucks of foreign cargo from the NAFTA port in Mexico through the United States to Canada and points east and west along that corridor. Later this month, Bush will meet with his Security and Prosperity Partnership counterparts from Mexico and Canada, President Felipe Calderon and Prime Minister Steven Harper, to further the dissolution of the United States, Canada and Mexico into the European Union style regional world government entity, the North American Union.

Unlike the quick disposal of the Murrah Building and the WTC complex in New York, both the targets of “terrorist activity”, the 35W bridge still lies in the water with the National Transportation Safety Board, the FBI, state and local officials mulling over the scene and promising that the reason for the failure will be found.

Remember, this is the same NTSB that did the flight simulation of the plane supposedly inbound to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, for the FBI; the simulation that when studied by pilotsfor911truth.com using the flight data recorder information provided by NTSB, found that the plane in question actually over flew the Pentagon by 300 to 400 feet! Not only this, but that the simulator as provided by NTSB showed the plane on a different inbound trajectory than the path that supposedly sheered five light poles. When questioned about these obvious anomalies, the NTSB had “no comment.” Imagine that!

In the case of the 35W bridge, government officials knew the bridge was structurally deficient; that the bridge needed work; but did nothing to correct the problems. The government can lose 2.3 trillion dollars into a black hole in the Pentagon budget, money that has never been accounted for in the six years since September 10, 2001; the government can spend trillions on an illegal and unconstitutional false flag invasion of Iraq; but the government can’t fix bridges that provide access for the average American worker until after those bridges collapse and the resulting deaths become political fodder for talking heads such as George Walker Bush. It took the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate all of 48 hours following the collapse of the 35W bridge to write, introduce and pass HR 3311, providing $250 million to rebuild the 35W bridge. What is the worth of the lives lost because of government negligence?

Will the American people ever be told the truth about why the 35W bridge collapsed or will the government, in a CYA move so typical when wrong-doing is apparent, move to cover its tracks, obfuscate the issue, and provide no real answers? One has to wonder when people like W. Gene Corley, senior vice president of CTL Group, an engineering firm, who helped investigate both the Murrah Building and the WTC, are involved. Both sights were scrubbed as quickly as possible, with no criminal investigation, leading any reasoning individual to the conclusion that the government definitely had something to hide.

Adding insult to injury in the collapse of the 35W bridge, George W Bush, on August 4, 2007, before the microphones in Minneapolis, Minnesota, quipped, “God Bless the people of this part of the world.”

True to form, King George. Or has “the decider” now become World Emperor George?

George W Bush is obviously a chip off the old block!
http://tinyurl.com/2hmqmd

The Trilateral Commission: Usurping Sovereignty
By Patrick Wood
posted 07. Aug. 2007

“President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value and invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House in April 1984”
— David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 2002 (1)

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.”2



Further, Trialogue and other official writings made clear their stated goal of creating a “New International Economic Order.” President George H.W. Bush later talked openly about creating a “New World Order”, which has since become a synonymous phrase.

This paper 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 was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and "endowment funds" and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant prognosticator of one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as "policy guidelines" for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski served as the Commission's first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The initial Commission membership was approximately three hundred, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided between academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.

The word commission was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place with a so-called private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government - an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. European and Japanese involvement indicated a world government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.

If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the "task force" assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

Brzezinski and CarterPresident James Earl 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 was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president - some said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.

Carter's running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission. (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 January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter "Man of the Year." The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to mention Carter's connection with the Commission but also stated the following:

“As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of ties to Washington and the Party Establishment - qualities that helped raise him to the White House - carry potential dangers. He does not know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the country.”3

Is this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or is it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976 - two weeks before the Time article appeared - Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members – Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown - were Trilateral Commissioners; and the other non-Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations. In addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

o C. Fred Bergsten (Under Secretary of Treasury)
o James Schlesinger (Secretary of Energy)
o Elliot Richardson (Delegate to Law of the Sea)
o Leonard Woodcock (Chief envoy to China)
o Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations)

As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen Trilaterals, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening “by chance” are beyond calculation!

Nevertheless, was there even the slightest evidence to indicate anything other than collusion? Hardly! Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the qualifications of a 1976 presidential winner in 1973:

“The Democratic candidate in 1976 will have to emphasize work, the family, religion and, increasingly, patriotism...The new conservatism will clearly not go back to laissez faire. It will be a philosophical conservatism. It will be a kind of conservative statism or managerism. There will be conservative values but a reliance on a great deal of co-determination between state and the corporations.”4

On 23 May 1976 journalist Leslie H. Gelb wrote in the not-so-conservative New York Times, "(Brzezinski) was the first guy in the Community to pay attention to Carter, to take him seriously. He spent time with Carter, talked to him, sent him books and articles, educated him."5 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."6

Although Richard Gardner was of considerable academic influence, it should be clear that Brzezinski was the "guiding light" of foreign policy in the Carter administration. Along with Commissioner Vance and a host of other Commissioners in the State Department, Brzezinski had more than continued the policies of befriending our enemies and alienating our friends. Since early 1977 we had witnessed a massive push to attain "normalized" relations with Communist China, Cuba, the USSR, Eastern European nations, Angola, etc. Conversely, we had withdrawn at least some support from Nationalist China, South Africa, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), etc. It was not just a trend - it was an epidemic. Thus, if it could be said that Brzezinski had, at least in part, contributed to current U.S. foreign and domestic policy, then we should briefly analyze exactly what he was espousing.

Needed: A More Just and Equitable World Order

The Trilateral Commission held their annual plenary meeting in Tokyo, Japan, in January 1977. Carter and Brzezinski obviously could not attend as they were still in the process of reorganizing the White House. They did, however, address personal letters to the meeting, which were reprinted in Trialogue, the official magazine of the Commission:

“It gives me special pleasure to send greetings to all of you gathering for the Trilateral Commission meeting in Tokyo. I have warm memories of our meeting in Tokyo some eighteen months ago, and am sorry I cannot be with you now.

“My active service on the Commission since its inception in 1973 has been a splendid experience for me, and it provided me with excellent opportunities to come to know leaders in our three regions.

“As I emphasized in my campaign, a strong partnership among us is of the greatest importance. We share economic, political and security concerns that make it logical we should seek ever-increasing cooperation and understanding. And this cooperation is essential not only for our three regions, but in the global search for a more just and equitable world order (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”7

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 I think we can look forward with confidence and take some pride in the contribution which the Commission is making.

“Zbigniew Brzezinski”8

The key phrase in both letters was "more just and equitable world order." Did this emphasis indicate that something was wrong with our present world order, that is, with national structures? Yes, according to Brzezinski, and since the present "framework" was inadequate to handle world problems, it must be done away with and supplanted with a 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 I speak of the present international system I am referring to relations in specific fields, most of all among the Atlantic countries; commercial, military, mutual security relations, involving the international monetary fund, NATO etc. We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active and creative forces recently developed - should be integrated. This system needs to include Japan. Brazil, the oil producing countries, and even the USSR, to the extent which the Soviet Union is willing to participate in a global system.”9

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."10

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 was in the middle of the fourth and final stage. The first stage he described 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 was 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 was Marxism, which, said Brzezinski, "represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision." The fourth and final stage was Brzezinski's Technetronic Era, or the ideal of rational humanism on a global scale - the result of American-Communist evolutionary transformations.11

In considering our structure of governance, Brzezinski stated:

“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.”12

One of the most important "frameworks" in the world, and especially to Americans, was the United States Constitution. It was this document that outlined the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Was our sovereignty really "fiction"? Was the U.S. vision no longer compatible with reality? Brzezinski further stated:

“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.”13

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."14

Brzezinski’s philosophy clearly pointed forward to Richard Gardner’s Hard Road to World Order that appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1974, where Gardner stated,

"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”15

That former approach which had produced few successes during the 1950’s and 1960’s was being traded for a velvet sledge-hammer: It would make little noise, but would still drive the spikes of globalization deep into the hearts of many different countries around the world, including the United States. Indeed, the Trilateral Commission was the chosen vehicle that finally got the necessary traction to actually create their New World Order.

Understanding the philosophy of the Trilateral Commission was and 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 was it that the Marxist regime in Angola derived the great bulk of its foreign exchange from the offshore oil operations of Gulf Oil Corporation? Why did Andrew Young insist that "Communism has never been a threat to Blacks in Africa"? Why did the U.S. funnel billions in technological aid to the Soviet Union and Communist China? Why did the U.S. apparently help its enemies while chastising its friends?

A similar and perplexing question is asked by millions of Americans today: Why do we spend trillions on the “War on Terror” around the world and yet ignore the Mexican/U.S. border and the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who freely enter the U.S. each and every month?

These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be explained in any other way: the U.S. Executive Branch (and related agencies) was not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist - it was and is, in fact, pro- Marxist. Those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini were 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.

Barry GoldwaterThis nature however, was not unknown or unknowable. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) issued a clear and precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:

“The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.”16

Unfortunately, few heard and even fewer understood.

Follow the Money, Follow the Power

What was the economic nature of the driving force within the Trilateral Commission? It was the giant multinational corporations - those with Trilateral representation - which consistently benefited from Trilateral policy and actions. Polished academics such as Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken, Henry Owen etc., served only to give "philosophical" justification to the exploitation of the world.

Don't underestimate their power or the distance they had already come by 1976. Their economic base was already established. Giants like Coca-Cola, IBM, CBS, Caterpillar Tractor, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, Deere & Company, Exxon, and others virtually dwarf whatever remains of American businesses. The market value of IBM's stock alone, for instance, was greater than the value of all the stocks on the American Stock Exchange. Chase Manhattan Bank had some fifty thousand branches or correspondent banks throughout the world. What reached our eyes and ears was highly regulated by CBS, the New York Times, Time magazine, etc.

The most important thing of all is to remember that the political coup de grace preceded the economic coup de grace. The domination of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government provided all the necessary political leverage needed to skew U.S. and global economic policies to their own benefit.

By 1977, the Trilateral Commission had notably become expert at using crises (and creating them in some instances) to manage countries toward the New World Order; yet, they found menacing backlashes from those very crises.

In the end, the biggest crisis of all was that of the American way of life. Americans never counted on such powerful and influential groups working against the Constitution and freedom, either inadvertently or purposefully, and even now, the principles that helped to build this great country are all but reduced to the sound of meaningless babblings.

Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2007

25th Anniversary of Trilateral Commission

From left: Peter Sutherland, Sadako Ogata, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker, David Rockefeller. (25th Anniversary, New York, Dec. 1, 1998. Source: Trilateral Commission)
It would have been damaging enough if the Trilateral domination of the Carter administration was merely a one-time anomaly; but it was not!

Subsequent presidential elections brought George H.W. Bush (under Reagan), William Jefferson Clinton, Albert Gore and Richard Cheney (under G. W. Bush) to power.

Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-president, or both!

It is important to note that Trilateral domination has transcended political parties: they dominated both the Republican and Democrat parties with equal aplomb.

In addition, the Administration before Carter was very friendly and useful to Trilateral doctrine as well: President Gerald Ford took the reins after President Richard Nixon resigned, and then appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Neither Ford nor Rockefeller were members of the Trilateral Commission, but Nelson was David Rockefeller’s brother and that says enough. According to Nelson Rockefeller’s memoirs, he originally introduced then-governor Jimmy Carter to David and Brzezinski.

How has the Trilateral Commission effected their goal of creating a New World Order or a New International Economic Order? They seated their own members at the top of the institutions of global trade, global banking and foreign policy.

For instance, the World Bank is one of the most critical mechanisms in the engine of globalization.17 Since the founding of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, there have been only seven World Bank presidents, all of whom were appointed by the President. Of these seven, six were pulled from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission!

o Robert McNamara (1968-1981)
o A.W. Clausen (1981-1986)
o Barber Conable (1986-1991)
o Lewis Preston (1991-1995)
o James Wolfenson (1995-2005)
o Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)
o Robert Zoellick (2007-present)

Another good evidence of domination is the position of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which is critically involved in negotiating the many international trade treaties and agreements that have been necessary to create the New International Economic Order. Since 1977, there have been ten USTR’s appointed by the President. Eight have been members of the Trilateral Commission!

o Robert S. Strauss (1977-1979)
o Reubin O'D. Askew (1979-1981)
o William E. Brock III (1981-1985)
o Clayton K. Yeutter (1985-1989)
o Carla A. Hills (1989-1993)
o Mickey Kantor (1993-1997)
o Charlene Barshefsky (1997-2001)
o Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)
o Rob Portman (2005-2006)
o Susan Schwab (2006-present)

This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter and Rob Portman were not friendly to Trilateral goals, because they clearly were.

The Secretary of State cabinet position has seen its share of Trilaterals as well: Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance (Carter), Alexander Haig (Reagan), George Shultz (Reagan), Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush), Warren Christopher (Clinton) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton) There were some Acting Secretaries of State that are also noteworthy: Philip Habib (Carter), Michael Armacost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton), Richard Cooper (Clinton).

Lastly, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has likewise been dominated by Trilaterals: Arthur Burns (1970-1978), Paul Volker (1979-1987), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006). While the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned corporation, the President “chooses” the Chairman to a perpetual appointment. The current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not a member of the Trilateral Commission, but he clearly is following the same globalist policies as his predecessors.

The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S. Executive Branch has not only continued and but has been strengthened from 1976 to the present. The pattern has been deliberate and persistent: Appoint members of the Trilateral Commission to critical positions of power so that they can carry out Trilateral policies.

The question is and has always been, do these policies originate in consensus meetings of the Trilateral Commission where two-thirds of the members are not U.S. citizens? The answer is all too obvious.

Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep criticism aside by suggesting that membership in the Trilateral Commission is incidental, and that it only demonstrates the otherwise high quality of appointees. Are we to believe that in a country of 300 million people only these 100 or so are qualified to hold such critical positions? Again, the answer is all too obvious.

Where Does the Council on Foreign Relations Fit?

While virtually all Trilateral Commission members from North America have also been members of the CFR, the reverse is certainly not true. It is easy to over-criticize the CFR because most of its members seem to fill the balance of government positions not already filled by Trilaterals.

The power structure of the Council is seen in the makeup of its board of directors: No less than 44 percent (12 out of 27) are members of the Commission! If director participation reflected only the general membership of the CFR, then only 3-4 percent of the board would be Trilaterals.18

Further, the president of the CFR is Richard N. Haass, a very prominent Trilateral member who also served as Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State from 2001-2003.
Trilateral influence can easily be seen in policy papers produced by the CFR in support of Trilateral goals.

For instance, the 2005 CFR task force report on the Future of North America was perhaps the major Trilateral policy statement on the intended creation of the North American Union. Vice-chair of the task force was Dr. Robert A. Pastor, who has emerged as the “Father of the North American Union” and has been directly involved in Trilateral operations since the 1970’s. While the CFR claimed that the task force was “independent,” careful inspection of those appointed reveal that three Trilaterals were carefully chosen to oversee the Trilateral position, one each from Mexico, Canada and the United States: Luis Rubio, Wendy K. Dobson and Carla A. Hills, respectively.19 Hills has been widely hailed as the principal architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated under President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The bottom line is that the Council on Foreign Relations, thoroughly dominated by Trilaterals, serves the interests of the Trilateral Commission, not the other way around!

EU PosterTrilateral Globalization in Europe

The content of this paper thus far suggests ties between the Trilateral Commission and the United States. This is not intended to mean that Trilaterals are not active in other countries as well. Recalling the early years of the Commission, David Rockefeller wrote in 1998,

“Back in the early Seventies, the hope for a more united EUROPE was already full-blown – thanks in many ways to the individual energies previously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliest members.” [Capitals in original]20

Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. Hegemony, the European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating the European Union. In fact, the EU's Constitution was authored by Commission member Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in 2002-2003, when he was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [For more on the EU, see European Union: Dictatorship Rising? and The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible]

The steps that led to the creation of the European Union are unsurprisingly similar to the steps being taken to create the North American Union today. As with the EU, lies, deceit and confusion are the principal tools used to keep an unsuspecting citizenry in the dark while they forge ahead without mandate, accountability or oversight. [See The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible and Toward a North American Union]

Conclusion

It is clear that the Executive Branch of the U.S. was literally hijacked in 1976 by members of the Trilateral Commission, upon the election of President Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mondale. This near-absolute domination, especially in the areas of trade, banking, economics and foreign policy, has continued unchallenged and unabated to the present.

Windfall profits have accrued to interests associated with the Trilateral Commission, but
the effect of their “New International Economic Order” on the U.S. has been nothing less than devastating. (See America Plundered by the Global Elite for a more detailed analysis)

The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.

If you are having negative sentiment against Trilateral-style globalization, you are not alone. A 2007 Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that less than 20 percent of people in six industrialized countries (including the U.S.) believe that globalization is good for their country while over 50 percent are outright negative towards it.21 (See Global Backlash Against Globalization?) While citizens around the world are feeling the pain of globalization, few understand why it is happening and hence, they have no effective strategy to counter it.

The American public has never, ever conceived that such forces would align themselves so successfully against freedom and Liberty. Yet, the evidence is clear: Steerage of America has long since fallen into the hands of an actively hostile enemy that intends to remove all vestiges of the very things that made us the greatest nation in the history of mankind.

Endnotes

1. Rockefeller, David, Memoirs (Random House, 2002), p.418
2. Trialogue, Trilateral Commission (1973)
3. Time Magazine, Jimmy Carter: Man of the Year, January 7, 1977
4. Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (1979), p. 7
5. New York Times, Jimmy Carter, Leslie Gelb, May 23, 1976
6. ibid.
7. Trialogue, Looking Back…And Forward, Trilateral Commission, 1976
8. ibid.
9. Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (1979), p. 4
10. ibid. p. 5
11. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.
12. ibid.
13. ibid.
14. ibid.
15. Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
16. Goldwater, Barry, With No Apologies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280
17. Global Banking: The World Bank, Patrick Wood, The August Review
18. Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations website
19. Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005
20. Rockefeller, David, In the Beginning…” The Trilateral Commission at 25, 1998, p.11
21. FT/Harris poll on Globalization, FT.com website
http://tinyurl.com/35vtw2

China threatens 'nuclear option' of dollar sales
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Last Updated: 9:54am BST 08/08/2007

The Chinese government has begun a concerted campaign of economic threats against the United States, hinting that it may liquidate its vast holding of US treasuries if Washington imposes trade sanctions to force a yuan revaluation.

Two officials at leading Communist Party bodies have given interviews in recent days warning - for the first time - that Beijing may use its $1.33 trillion (£658bn) of foreign reserves as a political weapon to counter pressure from the US Congress.

Shifts in Chinese policy are often announced through key think tanks and academies.

Described as China's "nuclear option" in the state media, such action could trigger a dollar crash at a time when the US currency is already breaking down through historic support levels.

It would also cause a spike in US bond yields, hammering the US housing market and perhaps tipping the economy into recession. It is estimated that China holds over $900bn in a mix of US bonds.

Xia Bin, finance chief at the Development Research Centre (which has cabinet rank), kicked off what now appears to be government policy with a comment last week that Beijing's foreign reserves should be used as a "bargaining chip" in talks with the US.

"Of course, China doesn't want any undesirable phenomenon in the global financial order," he added.

He Fan, an official at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, went even further today, letting it be known that Beijing had the power to set off a dollar collapse if it choose to do so.

"China has accumulated a large sum of US dollars. Such a big sum, of which a considerable portion is in US treasury bonds, contributes a great deal to maintaining the position of the dollar as a reserve currency. Russia, Switzerland, and several other countries have reduced the their dollar holdings.

"China is unlikely to follow suit as long as the yuan's exchange rate is stable against the dollar. The Chinese central bank will be forced to sell dollars once the yuan appreciated dramatically, which might lead to a mass depreciation of the dollar," he told China Daily.

The threats play into the presidential electoral campaign of Hillary Clinton, who has called for restrictive legislation to prevent America being "held hostage to economic decicions being made in Beijing, Shanghai, or Tokyo".

She said foreign control over 44pc of the US national debt had left America acutely vulnerable.

Simon Derrick, a currency strategist at the Bank of New York Mellon, said the comments were a message to the US Senate as Capitol Hill prepares legislation for the Autumn session.

"The words are alarming and unambiguous. This carries a clear political threat and could have very serious consequences at a time when the credit markets are already afraid of contagion from the subprime troubles," he said.

A bill drafted by a group of US senators, and backed by the Senate Finance Committee, calls for trade tariffs against Chinese goods as retaliation for alleged currency manipulation.

The yuan has appreciated 9pc against the dollar over the last two years under a crawling peg but it has failed to halt the rise of China's trade surplus, which reached $26.9bn in June.

Henry Paulson, the US Tresury Secretary, said any such sanctions would undermine American authority and "could trigger a global cycle of protectionist legislation".

Mr Paulson is a China expert from his days as head of Goldman Sachs. He has opted for a softer form of diplomacy, but appeared to win few concession from Beijing on a unscheduled trip to China last week aimed at calming the waters.
http://tinyurl.com/267s4n