by Patrick Wood
20 July 2008
“President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value and
invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House in April
— David Rockefeller, Memoirs,
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.”
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.
Trilateral Commission was founded by the persistent maneuvering of
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
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
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.
President James Earl Carter, the country politician who
"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."
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
C. Fred Bergsten (Under Secretary of Treasury)
James Schlesinger (Secretary of Energy)
Elliot Richardson (Delegate to Law of the Sea)
Leonard Woodcock (Chief envoy to China)
Andrew Young (Ambassador to the United Nations)
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
(also of Columbia University) joined into the "educational" task, and as
Gelb noted, between the two of them they had Carter virtually to themselves.
"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
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.
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
“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.
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.
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
"How would you define this new world order?"
“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).
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,
"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
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.
sovereignty really "fiction"? Was the U.S. vision no longer compatible with
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
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
Brzezinski’s philosophy clearly pointed forward to Richard Gardner’s
The Hard Road to World Order that appeared in
Foreign Affairs in 1974, where Gardner
"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
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.
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.
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.
This nature however, was not unknown or unknowable.
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
The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort
to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power:
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
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.
Bank of America
Chase Manhattan Bank
...and others virtually dwarf whatever remains of American
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
From left: Peter Sutherland, Sadako Ogata, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker,
(25th Anniversary, New York, Dec. 1, 1998. Source:
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)
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
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
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!
Robert McNamara (1968-1981)
A.W. Clausen (1981-1986)
Barber Conable (1986-1991)
Lewis Preston (1991-1995)
James Wolfenson (1995-2005)
Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)
Robert Zoellick (2007-present)
Another good evidence of domination is the position of
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
Robert S. Strauss (1977-1979)
Reubin O'D. Askew (1979-1981)
William E. Brock III (1981-1985)
Clayton K. Yeutter (1985-1989)
Carla A. Hills (1989-1993)
Mickey Kantor (1993-1997)
Charlene Barshefsky (1997-2001)
Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)
Rob Portman (2005-2006)
Susan Schwab (2006-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
Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford)
Cyrus Vance (Carter)
George Shultz (Reagan)
Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush)
Madeleine Albright (Clinton)
There were some
Acting Secretaries of State that are also noteworthy:
Lastly, it should be noted that the
Federal Reserve has likewise been
dominated by Trilaterals:
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
Hills has been widely hailed as the principal architect of the
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!
Trilateral 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.” 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
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
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
Toward a North American Union]
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
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
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
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
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.
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
7. Trialogue, Looking Back… And Forward, Trilateral Commission, 1976
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, p. 246.
15. Gardner, Richard,
The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974)
16. Goldwater, Barry, With No Apologies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280
Global Banking: The World Bank, Patrick Wood, The August Review
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,
FT/Harris poll on Globalization, FT.com website