THE PACIFIC BASIN PHENOMENON
Analysts are predicting that the 1980 Reagan presidential election
will be a boon for Western states, particularly California. These
claims are not unreasonable, for Reagan will naturally sympathize
with Western issues much more than Carter did. Conversely, Carter
clearly favored some Southern states during his administration.
But things were already shifting westward, well before Reagan and
Bush (from the Southwest) were elected. For instance Alden Clausen,
the chairman of San Francisco-based Bank of America, was appointed
by Carter (with Reagan’s tacit approval) to head the World Bank.
Another example is Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt’s invitations to
join the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations
in mid 1980.
While traditionally Westerners have stayed aloof from the Eastern
Establishment, it seems that the Eastern Establishment is moving in
on the West. Western Trilaterals, notably David Packard, George
Weyerhaeuser, Caspar Weinberger and others, have grown rapidly in
national and international prominence and influence as a result of
There is a reason for this shift in power, and as always, it is
related to economic trade and profits.
In 1979 the dollar amount of US trade with Pacific Basin countries
outstripped trade done with Atlantic nations. (This refers to the
countries that border the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,
respectively.) One major reason for this is the rapidly expanding
Japanese economy; for instance, Japan recently surpassed the US in
auto production. The boom in the electronics industry in Taiwan,
Korea and other oriental countries is also expanding every month.
To multinational elitists, the hope of the future lies in Mainland
(Communist) China, with its 800 million population and virtual slave
labor market. There is interest in selling goods and services to the
Chinese population, of course, but the potential for making goods in
China for export to the rest of the world is overwhelming. Low cost
department stores in the US are already carrying Chinese made
textile goods that are priced thirty per cent or more below any
China will be a profit bonanza for the multinationals, but a
depression for American labor forces who cannot possibly compete
with the Chinese wage market. Indeed, China proves to become the
great “equalizer” between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the world.
International interest is high also. In February 1980 Business Week
“Japanese Prime Minister Masayoshi Ohira is being urged
by some of his liberal, English-speaking advisors to take the
initiative in setting up a Pacific Community, modeled on the
European Economic Community... The Japanese, enthusiastic
about the Pacific Community idea, have set up a meeting in
Canberra, Australia, this fall to discuss the project. “1
In May 1980, one of the first steps in that direction took place
with the response of the Pacific Basin Economic Council (which met
in Australia) to a proposed think tank. On May 15, 1980, the Arizona
Republic reported the following story which was not seen elsewhere.
It quoted a prospectus of that planned think tank, the Pacific Basin
“’The Pacific Basin Institute will be a private, nonprofit research
center serving as a focal point for the business communities of
North America, South America and Asia, with special emphasis on
applied studies concerning trade, investment and economic
development in the Pacific Region.
“’PBI is strategically located in Arizona, which borders Mexico and
is the center of the most dynamic growth area in the United States.
“’The Southwestern site offers easy accessibility for Pacific Basin
leaders of business, government and education to come together in an
ideal climate with excellent resorts and meeting facilities.’
“The proposed research center is the brainchild of Mallery, who
refused to comment on the results of the trip to Australia.
“Gov. Bruce Babbitt, who said Phoenix business and government
leaders have been working intensively on the idea for a year, said
the prospects of the research center becoming a reality look
“’Arizona must get into the arena of international trade on a large
scale,’ he [Babbitt] said. ‘It must have the academic and research
capacity to underpin that kind of effort. That’s what this is all
“’The underlying philosophy behind the concept is to look at the
Pacific Basin region for data gathering and economic decision-making
in partnership with business and government,’ he said.
“The prospectus says a site for the center ‘has been donated and
sufficient financing has been committed to construct and operate the
“...The prospectus says the business activity and financial affairs
of the institute would be directed by a board of trustees made up of
45 persons ‘who hold business, government and academic positions is
throughout the Pacific region.’ “
This sounds similar to many other
elite organizations that desire to make decisions for the rest of
the world, but would be of little consequence if the people involved
were of little consequence.
The others involved with PBI were revealed in the same article:
“The Pacific Basin Economic Council, a federation of private-sector
businessmen representing 20 countries, including Canada, Japan,
China and New Zealand, met in Sydney, Australia, last week and
responded ‘very positively’ to the concept, said Larry Landry,
director of the state [Arizona] Office of Economic Planning and
“Landry, along with Phoenix lawyer Richard Mallery and Roger Lyon,
president of Valley National Bank, went to Australia last week to
gain acceptance of the proposed Pacific Basin Institute...2
principals here are Larry Landry, Richard Mallery, Roger Lyon and
Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt’s appointment to the Trilateral
Commission coincided with the announcement of PBI. Babbitt is an
old-line Arizona Democrat with direct ties to Washington. He
his degree from Harvard Law School, but only after receiving an
advanced degree in geology. He was the only public official
by Carter to the Kemeny Commission (which investigated the Three
Mile Island Incident) and later Carter named him to chair the
Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee on May 7, 1979.
As head of the Arizona Office of Economic Planning and Development
Department, Larry Landry serves directly under Babbitt. Richard
Mallery is part of Babbitt’s tight-knit “Kitchen Cabinet”, all of
whom were classmates at Harvard. Mallery is described by the March
2, 1980 Arizona Republic as,
”A partner in the prestigious Snell and
Wilmer law firm. . . shuns active involvement in the Democratic
Party. He is viewed as non-partisan, moves well in both party
circles and is more concerned about issues than party dogma.”3
A. Lyon however, reveals the most interesting back ground. Lyon is
president of Valley National Bank of Arizona, the 28th largest bank
in the country and the largest in the Rocky Mountain Region. The
largest individual shareholder in VNB is investment banker J.P.
Morgan & Co. of New York, with a whopping 4.2% of VNB’s outstanding
In late 1980, Lyon was elected to serve as chairman of the powerful
Western Regional Council, which represents “40 of the largest
corporations, banks, utilities and other businesses in the Western
States,” according to the Arizona Republic.
Lyon had this to say
about Western regional interests:
“We are different from the east...in water, clean air, our vistas,
national parks, wildernesses, recreation we have different values
and standards. We have to convince Washington and the rest of the
country of that. “4
Few asked how Lyon happened to come to Arizona.
From 1950 to 1976 (26 years), Lyon served at David Rockefeller’s
Chase Manhattan Bank in New York! Lyon is the third generation of a
banking family from New Jersey.
It would appear that Lyon has renounced the East for the sake of
Western living, but one might remember the old proverb about a
leopard changing its spots.
After analyzing the people who promoted Pacific Basin Institute
through the Australian conference, we can see a heavyweight
connection to the Trilateral elite and a typical modus operandi. PBI
will have a membership similar to the Trilateral Commission:
academics, politicians and multinational corporation “heads of
state.” Its goal appears similar as well: to foster economic
cooperation and trade.
Certainly Pacific Basin Institute is neither a copy nor replacement
of the Trilateral Commission. Far from it. More likely it is the
result of the same Trilateral policy that opened China up in the
first place. Remember, all five of the original China negotiators
(who worked in secret and included Carter), were current or former
members of the Trilateral Commission. China is exclusively a
Pacific Basin Institute is seen to be the natural extension of that
phenomenon. It is certainly something to watch in the future.
It should also be noted at this point that it was very difficult in
obtaining information regarding PBI. Governor Babbitt’s office was
totally uncooperative and gave us no information. In fact, after his
T.C. appointment was made public in 1980 by the Commission itself,
Babbitt received so much harsh criticism from Arizonans that his
staff responded to callers with “I have no personal knowledge of
that.” This is a standard dodge when a politician doesn’t want to
answer the question; they now acknowledge his membership.
Valley National Bank and Roger Lyon’s office have also been wholly
uncooperative in releasing information on PBI. When asked for a
“history sheet” on Lyon (a customary handout for top corporate
executives, his aide became defensive and refused to release any
A contact was made with the Japanese embassy in Washington, D.C.,
who acknowledged that they had information on PBI. While they had
originally agreed to send us information, after two months and two
more phone calls, nothing was received.
Finally, after contact with Richard Mallery’s office, the prospectus
for PBI was obtained. According to that report, Mallery is president
of PBI and Lyon is chairman of the board.
There is a substantial link to Stanford University: Weldon B. Gibson
is vice-chairman of the board and is executive vice president of SRI
International (Stanford Research Institute). Trilateral Arjay Miller
is a director of SRI International. Philip Habib, a senior fellow at
Hoover Institution at Stanford is vice president of PBI.
Acknowledgements and thanks were given to heavyweights like Winston
Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Robert
Macy, Jr., managing director of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb.
. The West is rapidly growing in Trilateral influence. The election
of Reagan and Bush will accelerate this trend. . As China’s
manufacturing capacity is brought on line by Trilateral
multinational corporations, America (and the rest of the world) will
be flooded with noncompetitively priced goods.
. American labor will feel the biggest brunt of this and will lose
countless jobs at the expense of Chinese slave labor.
. The Pacific
Basin Institute is the main instrument that will be used by the
Trilateral elite to coordinate the Pacific Basin and to devise and
recommend “policies” for participating countries in the Basin.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER SEVEN
1. Maryanne McNellis, Japan’s Push for a Pacific Community, Business
Week (February 25, 1980), p. 72.
2. Joel Nilsson, Pacific Region Businessmen Back Idea of State-Based
Trade Institute, Arizona Republic (May 15, 1980), p. A-I.
3. Richard Mallery: Bridge to the business community, Arizona
Republic (March 2, 1980), P. A-I.
4. J.J. Casserly, Bank Chief to Lead Regional Council, Arizona
Republic (December 6 , 1980).
Back to Contents
BACKWARD AND FORWARD
At this point we should step back and look at the Trilateral
Commission in the light of history. The Commission represents the
third attempt by the New York international banking fraternity to
create a New Economic World Order under their control.
When we look
at this third attempt within the context of history, it is clear why
the Commission (or its equivalent) will continue.
THE ORIGINS OF GLOBALISM
It was Thomas Jefferson, writer and signer of the Declaration of
Independence who first warned a newly independent America about the
powers behind the scenes of government:
“If the American people ever allowed the banks to control the
issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them
will deprive the people of all property until their children will
wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The
issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored
to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.
“I sincerely believe the banking institutions are more
dangerous to liberty than standing armies.”1
The “banking institutions” are represented today by Trilateralism.
What was true in 1790 is true in 1980.
Out of seventy-seven Trilateral Commissioners from the U.S., well
over one-half are either directors of banks, or have been directors
of the Federal Reserve System (which is owned and controlled by
private banks). We also must recall that David Rockefeller, chairman
of Chase Manhattan Bank, founded the Trilateral Commission.
To follow through on Thomas Jefferson’s prophetic warning, “the
American people” have not merely allowed “banks to control the
issuance of their currency,” but almost unbelievably they have
allowed banking interests to control the domestic and foreign
policies of the United States.
ATTEMPT #1: THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
The formal attempt to extend control of the United States to the
world was the League of Nations. The idea for the League of Nations
came from Cecil Rhodes’ Round Table groups and was proposed to
Woodrow Wilson at least as early as September 1915 by Sir Edward
Grey, a member of the Round Table, in a letter to Colonel M. House:
“Would the President propose that there should be a League of
Nations binding themselves to side against any power which broke a
What went wrong with the League of Nations? Elitists blame
the failure on Woodrow Wilson. For example, elitist academic Harlan
“The first try, the League of Nations, was the product of Woodrow
Wilson’s strong initiative and the victim of his weak follow
through: the United States wrote most of the club rules, then
decided not to join the club. In its weakened condition, it could
not survive the rise of fascism, Nazism and militarism.”3
statement is typical of elitist evasion and distortion of truth.
Cleveland makes at least the following errors:
. The League did not survive Hitler to be sure, but who financed and
nurtured Hitler? None other than key members of the Council on
Foreign Relations, the successor to the Inquiry which promoted the
League. (See Antony Sutton, Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler.) .
Cleveland does not mention that the rise of Communism was also
financed and nurtured by the same key members of the Council on
Foreign Relations. (See Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik
. It is more valid to argue that the first try at New Economic World
Order failed because the “club” saw more profit (both financially
and for the goal of New Economic World Order) in the Second World
War. This aspect of world history has to be buried because it would
highlight the amoral character of elitists.
ATTEMPT #2: THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN
In New York, July 29, 1921, the elite founded a semi-secret
organization called The Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR
evolved out of the American Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference
in 1919, which later merged with the American Branch of the British
Institute of International Affairs. This culminated with the
formation of the United Nations.
The report of the founding
committee for the CFR contained the following statement of purpose:
"Until recent years it was usual to assume that in foreign
affairs each government must think mainly, if not entirely, of
the interests of its own people. In founding the League of
Nations the allied powers have now recognized that national
policies ought to be framed with an eye to the welfare of
society at large.”4
Here we have precisely the same globalist objective to be found in
the Trilateral Commission today.
What is important is the makeup of the board of directors of the
Council on Foreign Relations during the 1920’s and 1930’s. It was
dominated, as is the Trilateral Commission, by Wall Street banking
Prominent among the early directors was Paul M. Warburg, partner in
the firm of Kuhn-Loeb and the first member appointed by Woodrow
Wilson to the Federal Reserve Board. In fact, Warburg was the brains
behind the Federal Reserve System. Warburg was also chairman of the
International Acceptance Bank, Inc. and (much less known) a director
of American I.G. Chemical Corporation which was the American branch
that had so much to do with the rise of Hitler.
In the Trilateral Commission today we find Kuhn-Loeb and the Federal
Reserve System well represented. Charles W. Robinson, former
managing director of Kuhn-Loeb, was in the Carter administration.
Links between Trilateralism and Federal Reserve System include
Arthur F. Burns, Andrew Brimmer, David Rockefeller, Paul Volcker,
Bruce K. MacLaury, Alden Clausen and Robert V. Roosa.
Another Wall Street financier on the board of the CFR was Otto H.
Kahn. Like Paul Warburg, Kahn was a former partner in the private
banking company of Kuhn-Loeb. Russell C. Leffingwell was a director
of the Council on Foreign Relations during the inter-war years. In
1919 he held the office of Secretary of the Treasury and had been in
partnership with J.P. Morgan and Company.
Another director of the CFR was Owen D. Young, chairman of General
Electric Company (which was dominated by the J.P. Morgan interests)
and the German Reparations Committee (which drew up the so-called
Young Plan). CFR director Allan W. Dulles served during the
inter-war period. During the same time, Dulles was also a director
of J. Henry Schroeder Banking Corporation and a partner in the
establishment law firm of Solomon and Cromwell. It is recorded that
the J. Henry Schroeder Banking firm was one of the key elements
behind the rise of Hitler in Germany.
Another inter-war director of the CFR was Norman H. Davis. According
to Quigley, Davis was a “non-legal agent of the Morgans.”5 He had
represented the US Treasury on the Paris Peace Delegation.
Wilson himself owed his 1913 financial backing for the Presidency to
his “classmate and life long friend.” Cleveland Hoadley Dodge was a
director of National City Bank and the Russell Sage Foundation.
The CFR exerted its major influence during the period from 1940
through the mid 1960’s, and its members reflected almost all of the
establishment leaders particularly people like Wall Street banker
J. McCloy, John Foster Dulles, Allen Dulles and so on. The high
point of the CFR undoubtedly was the creation of the United Nations.
John D. Rockefeller, Sr. donated the New York site and was
instrumental in getting the United Nations off the ground in San
Francisco in 1945. At the height of CFR powers in 1971, a dispute
over the editor of the Council’s quarterly Foreign Affairs magazine
marked the end of the second attempt for new world order.
President Bayless Manning, a former dean of the Stanford Law School,
the CFR tried to broaden its membership from a geographical, age,
racial and sexual standpoint. By the 1970’s the CFR had sixty women
and twenty-two blacks on its rolls; but these new members were not
selected as carefully as in the past and the expertise and prestige
traditionally associated with the CFR was diluted.
attempted to appoint William P. Bundy to the editorship of Foreign
Affairs, he (Manning) was eased out of the CFR presidency by David
ATTEMPT #3: TRILATERALISM
In 1973 the third attempt at new world order came under the guise of
the Trilateral Commission. It had different short-and medium-term
objectives than both the League of Nations and United Nations.
Trilateralism abandons the concept of bringing together nations into
a political world society in one giant step. Instead, it proposes to
first create regional economic groupings and then link the three
most important of these regional groupings (North America, Europe
and Japan) into a new economic world order. The discussion and
policy-making steps necessary for this objective are known as the
“Trilateral process.” Incorporation of Communist societies and the
Third World is desired but is left for a more distant date.
In brief, Trilaterals are more pragmatic than their CFR allies in
the United Nations and the League of Nations.
Even this limited Trilateral objective has major problems, not least
of which is that it requires abandonment of American independence
and national sovereignty.
It is no surprise to find Trilaterals eager to change the
Constitution into a document more malleable to their ends. Volume I
quoted Brzezinski’s statement (Between Two Ages, p. 258):
“Either 1976 or 1989 -the two-hundredth anniversary of
the Constitution -could serve as a suitable target date for
culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing
arrangements. . .”6
The Trilateral Commission’s New Economic World Order is impossible
as long as the Constitution exists in its present form. More
dictatorial powers are needed to function as revealed in an official
“If a more effective and equitable economic order is to
emerge, national policies and programs must be subject to
moderation and adjustment to take into account probable
adverse international ramifications. This can be accomplished
only if powerful domestic agencies are brought under control
and sensitized to the international consequences of their
The Trilateral Commission here proposes that our domestic policies
be subordinated to international policies.
In The Crisis of Democracy (funded and written by the Trilateral
Commission) evidence is found that Trilaterals need to restrict
Constitutional freedoms. For example, the right to free speech is
protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Yet the
following concerning freedom of the press is found:
“... it is a freedom which can be abused... the responsibility of
the press should now be increased to be commensurate with its power,
significant measures are required to restore an appropriate balance
between the press, the governments and other institutions in
society. “8 How does the Commission propose to do this?
“...beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission and the
Sherman Anti-Trust Act measures had to be taken to regulate the new
industrial centers of power and define their relations to the rest
of society. Something comparable appears to be now needed with
respect to the media.”9
Of course, monopoly of industry and commerce
is not the same as freedom of speech. The break-up of monopoly
cannot in any way be compared to restrictions on expressions of
ideas. It is a logical absurdity, yet an excellent example of
Trilateral use of non sequiturs.
THE 1980’s PROJECT
Continuation of the Trilateral Commission is almost a foregone
conclusion. The Trilateral process is simply another attempt in
almost 100 years of new world order plans.
There are subtle but important changes in Trilateralism to be noted.
Not only is the immediate objective limited to regional groupings
but the Trilateral program is carefully balanced on two key hinges:
a. That a New Economic World Order is inevitable. For example, “The
management of interdependence has become indispensable for world
order in the coming years. Its origins lie in the extraordinary
expansion of interaction between modern states and societies.”10 b.
That the objective can be attained through propaganda techniques.
this end, almost endless studies and reports are published assuming
that the New Economic World order is inevitable for the survival of
mankind. This assumption is critical because it has no basis in
It is notable that the major propaganda effort is still centered
within the Council on Foreign Relations i.e., the 1980’s Project.
But the clue to Trilateral involvement is their dominance of the CFR
Committee on Studies responsible for the 1980’s Project.
So far, the project consists of twenty-five volumes released by
McGraw-Hill. They lay down the “steering trends” to new world order
in the 1980’s. Of the ten members of the CFR Committee on Studies,
four were Trilaterals (Kissinger, Volcker, Whitman, Perkins).
chairman was Perkins. Kissinger and Volcker dominated the other
members (pedestrian academics without fame or notoriety).
TRILATERAL MONEY MANAGEMENT
No doubt by this time readers will have grasped the fundamental
observation that the Trilateral New Economic World Order is intended
for the private benefit of Trilateral Commissioners at the expense
of everyone else. This is the secret of monopoly, possibly age old,
but certainly rediscovered by the Rockefeller-Morgan financial elite
at the end of the 19th century.
Trilaterals are just following the golden rule of John D.
Rockefeller, Sr. and John Pierpoint Morgan: gain political power and
use it for financial objectives.
If this is the fundamental Trilateral rule, what can be said about
the future of our society? Specifically on monetary affairs, the
following can be projected:
. A fiat currency. This is absolutely essential for the New Economic
World Order, and must be coupled with international fiat “reserve”
. Gold will continue to be centralized into a few hands. Gold in the
hands of the many is out of the question if Trilateralism is to
succeed. As gold provides for personal economic sovereignty, it must
be retained in the hands of the elitist few and directly or
indirectly be controlled. The Treasury campaign to demonetize gold,
formerly led by Trilateral W. Michael Blumenthal, is an admission
that Trilaterals are having problems in this segment of their
Gold has been removed from our monetary system in order to remove
the shackles from “management” (manipulation) of the monetary system
for elitist objectives. This policy was begun by Franklin D.
Roosevelt in 1933 and it must not be forgotten that Roosevelt
himself, far from being a man of the people, came from the old
established banking family that created the Bank of New York in
The Repeal of the 1933 Joint Resolution by Congress in 1974 has
allowed American citizens to privately own gold, but was coupled
with a Treasury program to sell gold and depress its price. Under US
dominance, the International Monetary Fund joined in the
gold-selling campaign. These selling pressures temporarily held down
the price of gold.
Crisis management (or problem management) is an essential Trilateral
tool to build a New Economic World Order. Problems do not exist to
be solved or ameliorated. Problems exist to exasperate, knowingly or
unknowingly, in order to advance basic world order objectives.
Monetary management is no exception. Trilateralist proposals for
monetary management will not solve the questions of inflation,
federal intervention, burdensome taxation, interest rates or any
One may be justified in thinking that academic experts in the
Trilateral Commission are chosen because their “solutions” coincide
with the objectives of the power elite. An excellent example is
found in the views of Gardner Ackley who is a member of the
Commission as well as having held the position of professor of
political economy at Henry Carter University and the University of
Michigan. An interview with Ackley presents Ackley as a valuable
asset for Trilateralism.
His proposals advance New Economic World
“There are many occasions in which deficits are
appropriate and necessary. .. There are many occasions in
which deficits are unavoidable. “11
THE 1980 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
Trilateralism was heavily represented in every major political
campaign in 1980. John Anderson -running on an independent ticket
was a member of the Commission and was duly financed by many
individual fellow members. Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale both had
definite connections with the Commission.
While Ronald Reagan was not a member of the Trilateral
Commission, many of his top campaign advisors were. We want to
demonstrate how Trilateralism “covered all the bets” in the
arena, and how its resulting influence on Ronald Reagan -the victor
will all but guarantee the success of their New Economic World Order
By the time the Republican National Convention met to nominate a
candidate, Ronald Reagan had no serious rival. Excitement was high
because for the first time in a long time there was a unified party.
Senator Barry Goldwater delivered a well-cheered speech stating the
dangers of elitist influence in government -he also said that this
might be the last election America faces.
Goldwater’s recent book, With No Apologies, devotes an entire
chapter to the Trilateral Commission. Without judging his intent, we
can safely say that Goldwater well understands the Trilateral
Commission and its goals.
Goldwater’s speech was cheered but his warnings were ignored. After
the convention forcefully rejected Kissinger’s proposal for a “split
Presidency” (with Kissinger being the “other” president), it turned
right around and nominated Trilateral George Bush for Reagan’s
vice-presidential running mate.
After this, many prominent and hopeful conservatives “counseled” the
authors that Reagan was not connected to the Trilaterals and would
“use” anything or anybody he could to get elected. In the
Trilaterals’ case, it was OK because Reagan would quickly dispense
with them once he was elected.
One of the largest pro-Reagan forces in the country was Moral
Majority, a quasi-Christian political action group originally
brainstormed by Paul Weyrich in Washington. Other groups like Moral
Majority (Round Table and Christian Voice, for example) were wooed
by Reagan in typical political fashion.
After the election, millions of Americans (many of whom are
fundamental Christians) were looking to Reagan to support their
positions. But the November 24 issue of U.S. News & World Report
revealed the hard reality:
“Top officials of the Reagan team have sent a message to
the Moral Majority: ‘It isn’t your administration.’ These
advisers to the President-elect are urging him to ignore
political threats of punishment by the religious right if he does
not support their policies. “12
The article went on to say:
“Reagan’s first moves after the November 4 election
generally pleased moderate Republicans and Democrats, some
of whom feared he would follow the dictates of his most
conservative supporters. ‘Hell with them,’ Vice President-elect
George Bush declared on November 10 in Houston, referring
to right-wing groups that supported the President-elect.”13
In perspective then one must ask, “Who is going to throw whom out of
America had bought the “anti-elitist” story once more, like they did
with CFR member Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1934 and Trilateral
Jimmy Carter in 1976. The facts cannot be ignored: Reagan’s campaign
was engineered and operated by Trilaterals David Packard, George
Weyerhaeuser, Bill Brock, Anne Armstrong and Caspar Weinberger, and
a large assortment of CFR members, Reagan was personally supported
by David Rockefeller.
WILL THE REAL REAGAN PLEASE STAND UP?
On November 6, 1980, the following Reagan quote was widely reported
in the nation’s press:
“I think there is an elite in this country and they are the very
ones who run an elitist government. They want a government
by a handful of people because they don’t believe the people
themselves can run their lives...Are we going to have an elitist
government that makes decisions for peoples’ lives, or are we
going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the
people can make these decisions for themselves?”14
Reagan certainly cannot claim ignorance of the scope and influence
of the Trilateral Commission. Indeed, he has been rubbing elbows
with the Eastern elite for many years as a member of the exclusive
male-only Bohemian Grove Club in Northern California.
The San Mateo Times quoted Irving Stone, the author of The Origin
• a biographical novel of evolutionist Charles Darwin -and an ardent
evolutionist. In light of Reagan’s wooing non-evolutionists (i.e.,
the before-mentioned ‘fundamental groups) during the campaign,
Stone’s comments serves as another warning that things might not be
as they appear.
“I’ve known Ronald Reagan for 35 years. He’s a very’ warm,
personable man. But Ronnie doesn’t have the mind to make
independent judgments... he has to have a script which he will
“I’m a little frightened to have a man in the Oval Office who can’t
make independent judgments...
When he made that statement about evolution in Houston, he was
talking to a large crowd of Fundamentalists. Apparently, he wants
their votes very badly. “15
After the election, Reagan assembled a
“transition team” which would later select, screen and recommend
appointees for major administration posts. According to a
compilation by Research Publications of Phoenix, of the fifty-nine
people Reagan named to that team, twenty-eight were members of the CFR, ten belonged to the secret and elite Bilderberger group, and no
less than ten were Trilaterals.
There are two particular “brain trusts” that will fuel Reagan’s
foreign policy. The first is Stanford University’s Hoover
Institution on War, Revolution and Peace in Palo Alto, California.
The other is Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic and
International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C. Almost forty of the
total transition team had been associated with one or the other of
these “think tanks.” Reportedly, fifteen of Reagan’s advisors came
from CSIS. (Henry Kissinger is a professor at CSIS, for instance.)
The chairman of CSIS is Trilateral David M. Abshire, who also headed
Reagan’s foreign policy and defense transition staff. David Packard
is the most influential overseer at the Hoover Institution at
In short, the reader can see that regardless of good intentions or
wishful thinking, Reagan appears to be totally consumed by
Trilaterals. This is the Trilateral way of political “protection.” A
Reagan-Bush administration will result in further progress for
Trilaterals toward their New Economic WorId Order:
. Reagan will stress business and economics, and “business” is the
. The new Republican majority Senate will be very cooperative with
the administration as far as an economic policy is concerned.
. Under Democratic control, Trilateral headway was stagnating; it
has a “fresh start” with Republican control. Here we apply the
principle that a ship will not respond to rudder control unless
substantial movement is present.
Looking to the next ten years in light of the last sixty years does
not promise anything but “business as usual.” The same type of elite
groups that dominated in the 1920’s are dominating today. They are
moving forward today with no less resolve than they were then. And
prospects for their success never looked brighter.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER EIGHT
1. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
(Autobiography, correspondence, reports messages addresses and other
writings.) vol. 7, p. 685. 2. Jennings C. Wise, Woodrow Wilson:
Disciple of Revolution, p. 382.
3. Harlan Cleveland, The Third Try at World Order, p. 2.
4. Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign
Relations, p. 3.
5. Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, p. 50.
6. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the
Technetronic Era, p.258.
7. Egidio Ortona and et.al., The Problem of International
Consulations, p. 17.
8. Michael Crozier and et.al., The Crisis of Democracy, p. 18!.
9. Ibid., p. 182.
10. Richard Cooper and et.al., Toward a Renovated International
System, p. 4. 11. A Constitutional Ban On Red Ink?, U.S. News &
World Report, January 29, 1979, p.27.
12. Washington Whispers, U.S. News & World Report vol. LXXXIX No. 21
(November 24, (980), p. 20.
13. Ibid., p. 22.
14. San Jose Mercury, November 6, 1980.
15. San Mateo Times, October 16, 1980.
Back to Contents
TRILATERALISM IN EUROPE
Trilateralism, as its name suggests, is a three-sided affair:
(a) The United States
(c) Western Europe (excluding Austria, Greece, and Sweden)
This area includes eighty percent of the economic power in the
non-Communist world and is the source of virtually all of the
world’s new technology.
The basic Trilateral concept is to link the three economic power
areas in the world into a united international force. US dominance
would mean Rockefeller-Chase Manhattan dominance because
Trilateralism was created by David Rockefeller and continues to be
dominated by him.
The European segment of the Commission shares the same goals for a
New Economic World Order, but they would envision themselves as the
ultimate dominating factor (likewise for the Japanese Trilaterals).
The political gaps in Trilateral distribution are more than
noticeable. Africa is not included. Neither is the Far East, Latin
America or Australasia.
Trilaterals want to build a unified Trilateral force, then draw in
the last named areas on a piecemeal basis. Africa (apart from South
Africa) is undeveloped and contributes talk rather than power. The
Far East is a complex emerging economic force. Australasia is not
powerful in global terms.
Latin America includes some powerful countries (Brazil; Argentina
and Mexico) -yet is ignored because the Latin cultural tradition has
kept Latin leaders aware of Chase Manhattan-Rockefeller activities.
In general, Europe has a residue of gratitude for World War II,
while Latin America has a long standing cultural antipathy towards
anything smacking of international banking operators: Catholic
bankers, for instance, are bound by religious precepts to lend money
for productive purpose only. New York bankers use money and debt for
Each Trilateral area has a chairman and a deputy chairman. David
Rockefeller is North American chairman and Mitchell Sharp of Canada
is North American deputy chairman.
Europeans hold these positions for their Trilateral side:
Georges Berthoin is European chairman
Egidio Ortona is European deputy chairman
Berthoin is president of the European Movement and one time aide to
Jean Monnet, father of “One Europe.” Egidio Ortona is president of
Honeywell Information Systems, Italia, which is closely linked to
Trilateral Edson W. Spencer, president of Honeywell in the US.
The geographical distribution of Trilateralists in Europe is shown
in Table 1.
TRILATERALISM AND “ONE EUROPE”
The link between “One Europe,” or a United States of Europe and
Trilateralism is important. To move from three regional groupings to
“One World” requires that each region be cohesive and unified.
(Authors’ note: “One Europe” is an established term created by the
people associated with it. “One World” is the authors’ coinage to
compare and describe the larger concept.) This is impossible with
the current state of the United Nations. It is much more plausible
in the Trilateral process.
US-Trilateral intent is to build “One Europe” to be merged into a
global society. Oddly, this is not the view from Europe, which sees
“One Europe” as a final goal. Wall Street sees “One Europe” as a
stepping stone to One World.
When links between the European Economic Community (EEC) and
Trilaterals are described, the step by step movement towards One
World becomes apparent.
There may well be economic arguments for reducing European customs
barriers to encourage free trade. But European political
disadvantages have been obscured by more superficial economic
benefits. To avoid sinking into the Trilateral morass, Europe will
have to restrict cooperation to economic and military activities. To
extend the cooperative process into the political arena invites loss
of European sovereignty to a Trilateral global society. Traditional
French hostility towards American political moves is not altogether
So with this in mind, the coauthors feel it is
important to take a look at European Trilaterals and their links to
EEC and “One Europe.”
THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The European Economic Community currently consists of ten countries:
Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, United Kingdom and Greece. (Greece became an official
member as of January I, 1981.)
Spain and Portugal are tentatively
slated to join the EEC in 1983.
Out of ten Belgian Trilaterals, two are prominently connected with
Europeanization and two more are connected with international
Henri Simonet is foreign minister of Belgium and immediately before
that (1973-1977) was vice president of the European Economic
Jean Rey was Belgian minister for economic affairs from 1954-1958
followed by a long career at various European Community posts:
. 1958-1967, president of external relations of EEC
. 1967-1970, president of the executive committee of EEC Two
prominent Belgian Trilateral bankers include Baron Leon Lambert,
president of Groupe Bruxelles Lambert, SA, which is affiliated with
the Rothschilds, and Luc Wauters, chairman of Groupe
Almanij-Kredietbank of Brussels.
There are three Danish Trilaterals. Svend Auken is Minister. of
Labor and was a member of the Committee of Social Democrats against
EEC to 1971-72. On the other hand, Trilateral Ivar Norgaard is
Minister of Environment and was vice president of the European
Parliament in 1974. Norgaard was a member of the Danish National
Bank in 1968 but otherwise Danish Trilaterals are politicians rather
There are seven Irish Trilaterals including prominent members of
Michael O’Kennedy is the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs and a
former vice president of the Irish Council of the European Party in
the senate. Another politician, M.T.W. Robinson, is a member of the
executive committee of the European Movement. F. Boland, chairman of
IBM-Ireland and a director of the Investment Bank of Ireland, is a
former representative to the United Nations (1956-1964). The key
statement on “Political Cooperation” in the European Community was
published by an Irish Trilateral Garret FitzGerald, former foreign
minister of Ireland and current leader of the Fine Gael opposition
party. He asserts that most European political activity is not part
of the formal structure of EEC!
Political cooperation is centered in the office of the revolving
post of president of the EEC Council of Ministers. A permanent
secretariat of some 200 committees is constantly at work and meets
on a continuing basis. FitzGerald is one-time president of the EEC
Council of Ministers and claims that considerable political activity
is taking place towards “One Europe.” It is notable that according
to FitzGerald, Henry Kissinger found Europeanization too complex to
grasp: it is a groping, slow movement toward a declaration of
“...the work of political cooperation is important because it
is only through this pragmatic process of seeking on a
piecemeal basis to harmonize foreign policy that that
foundation can be laid for a European Community that can
eventually develop into a genuine federation or
The French Trilateral component is not truly French but represents
mainly the French connection to international and European
organizations plus French banking interests.
Trilateralism is totally inconsistent with a deeply held sense of
French nationalism. French Trilaterals are much further from the
cultural soul of their country than perhaps any other Trilaterals.
The three French Trilateral-European Community links are of major
significance. Raymond Barre, prime minister and Minister of France,
was formerly vice president for Economic and Social Affairs at EEC.
G. Berthoin, Trilateral European chairman, was the chief EEC
representative to the United Kingdom, and was private secretary to
the father of the One Europe concept - Jean Monnet. Robert Marjolin
was formerly vice-president of the Commission of the European
Communities and was a member of the International Advisory Committee
of the Chase Manhattan Bank.
Marjolin was for many years connected
with the EEC and the organization of the OEEC, and with Berthoin, he
forms the core link between French Trilateralism, the European
Economic Community and David Rockefeller. Why does France, the most
independent nationalistic nation in Europe - almost the world -
produce the strongest single Trilateral link to David Rockefeller?
The answer might be that the Trilateral Executive Committee
recognized the problem of French nationalism as standing in the way
of One Europe and One World; perhaps special efforts were made to
ensure a powerful French connection.
This French Trilateral triad is
backed up by numerous lesser French Trilaterals with One Europe
connections. They include R. Bonety, formerly with the EEC, Paul
Delouvrier, formerly with the European Iron and Steel Commission, a
part of EEC, and Francois Duchene, a French Trilateral residing in
England as director of the Center for Contemporary European Studies
at the University of Sussex. (This might be termed a European
Trilateral think tank on a minor scale.)
Michel Gaudet was formerly director general of the EEC legal
service. Thierry De Montbrial is director of the Institut Francais
des Relations Internationales in Paris. This is the French affiliate
to the Royal Institute of International Affairs with Trilateral
connections through Sir Andrew Shonfield. Lastly, there is Roger
Seydoux, formerly with UNESCO and UN.
Out of twenty-seven French Trilaterals we find that nine have strong
One Europe connections.
The West German team of twenty-one Trilaterals includes Count Otto
Lambsdorff, the German Minister of Economics. In general, West
German Trilaterals stress industrial and trade union connections
rather than One Europe connections.
Trade unionists include K. Hauenschild (Chemical, Paper and Pottery
Workers), E. Loderer (Metal Workers Union) and H.O. Vetter
(Federation of Trade Unions).
Industrialists with U.S. connections include Otto Wolff, a director
of EXXON and a member of the secret Bilderberger group. Bank
directors include H.K. Jannott, A. Munchmeyer and N.
No German Trilaterals have more than incidental connections with One
Europe. Even politician Trilaterals in Germany are domestically
oriented, for example, K.H. Narjes, H.J. Junghans and O. Sund. The
only major exception to this observation is Karl Kaiser, director of
the Research Institute of the German Society for Foreign Policy and
who is widely reported abroad and in West Germany.
By contrast to West Germany, Italy has a major EEC and One Europe
These Italian Trilaterals include:
. F. Bobba, in 1950, was with the Italian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs with responsibility for European integration. Later, Bobba
became director general of Economic and Financial Affairs at EEC.
. Guido Carli is a longtime member of the EEC Monetary Committee.
. Umberto Colombo is a director of the Committee for Scientific
Policy at OECD.
. G. Colonna Di Paliano has been with a variety of European
organizations since 1964, including EEC, ECSC and Euratom. He is
also a director of EXXON.
. E. Ortona is a former president of the UN Security Council and a
president of Honeywell Information Systems (Italia).
. Giovanni Agnelli is a key Trilateral, president of Fiat and on the
International Advisory committee of Chase Manhattan (Henry Kissinger
is chairman of the IAC).
Although an important member of the European Community, Luxembourg
has no Trilateral members.
With six Trilaterals, Netherlands has several connected with One
. M. Kohnstamm, a civil servant with the ECSC in the 1950’s and a
vice-president of the Action Committee of the United States of
Europe since 1956.
. J. Loudon is a member of the Atlantic Institute and Ford
Foundation, a member of the Chase Manhattan International Advisory
committee and chairman of Royal Dutch Shell.
. E. Wellenstein was with ECSC from 1953-1967 and director General
of External Relations at EEC from 1973- 1976.
With twenty-six Trilateralists, Great Britain has several with a
close connection to EEC Affairs. These include:
. R.H. Grierson, director general of Industrial and Technical
Affairs at EEC in 1973-74.
. R. Maudling, with EEC in 1958-59.
. C. O’Neill, ambassador to EEC in 1963-66 and a director of the
“Britain in Europe Campaign” 1974-75.
. Lord Harlech, chairman of the European Movement. . A.L. Williams,
deputy director of European Movement 1970- 71.
In brief then, there is (a) except in the case of West Germany, a
major connection between One Europe and Trilateralism, and (b) a
rather deep connection between Chase Manhattan and the European side
HOW EUROPE SEES THE POLITICAL PROCESS
In some ways Europeans have a
more sophisticated understanding of the realities of the world
political process than many Americans.
Yet in other ways Europeans
are quite deficient in their understanding of the political workings
of both the United States and the Soviet Union. Historically, Europe
has usually been run by elites. Populism in the American tradition
does not exist in Europe - it is more of a frontier phenomenon, in
the Jefferson-Jackson tradition. Elites are known and hardly
mysterious for Europeans. In Britain, for example, the word
“establishment” is generally accepted, if not approved, and no one
uses the label “paranoid” or “conspiratorialist” to an argument
based on acceptance of an Establishment.
For many years in the United States any talk of “elites” or
“establishment” put the speaker into the “kook” category. Europe
doesn’t have to be convinced of the existence of an elite; it is
accepted. From a European perspective, the distinction between
Republican and Democrat has always been elusive. The major American
parties are seen as merely different sides of the same coin, and the
existence of a supra-party elite is quite acceptable.
So it is easier for Europeans to accept the concept of Trilateralism
as a verifiable fact. Trilateral human rights policies are seen more
clearly in Europe as a pragmatic diplomatic tool. Consequently
Germany and France have been major supporters of South Africa,
knowing full well that the US elitist attack on South Africa has
been motivated by selfinterest, not human rights.
Where Europe is weak is in its knowledge of the details of American
While the concept is acceptable, knowledge of the details
is vague, hazy and perhaps largely unknown.
EUROPEAN BLOCKAGES TO INFORMATION
Rather ironically though, Europe has greater blocks to details of US
elitist operations than the United States.
Governments own most of
the radio and television industry this means censorship. A program
on French radio or television exposing Trilateralism and its meaning
for Europe is unthinkable; after all, an important part of the
European elite is also Trilateral. French critics such as Pierre de
Villamarest have a harder time disseminating information than
critics in the United States.
Elitism in Europe is more securely entrenched than in the US. Both
the US Constitution and American traditions frown on aristocracies
and the flowering American aristocracy that stems from Alexander
ASPEN INSTITUTE BERLIN
The implementation of the concepts of secular humanism in Europe is
being achieved through a branch of the Aspen Institute for
Humanistic Studies, Trilateralists and other elitists. (See Chapters
Two and Three.)
This is a major connection between European Trilateralism and American Trilateralism. In 1974, the Aspen
Institute Berlin was founded as “an integral part of the Aspen
Institute for Humanistic Studies” and serves as the European and
non-US funnel through which Trilateral ideas flow. In particular,
the Aspen Institute Berlin states its purpose “as a flexible and
experimental effort to articulate and to strengthen individual and
social adherence to humanistic values.”3 (Emphasis added.) In other
words, they are trying to force their values on Europe as well.
Members of the board of Aspen Institute Berlin include a host of
Trilateralists, humanists, elitists and “One Europe” advocates:
Berthoin fits all those labels. Another board member is Marion
Countess Donhoff, the publisher of Die Zeit, whose editor-in-chief
Trilateralist Theo Sommer, a participant in Henry Kissinger’s
International Seminar in 1960.
Thierry De Montbrial was at one time
affiliated with the University of California at Berkeley and is the
of books on world economy and energy policy. Richard Lowenthal,a
professor emeritus at the Free University of Berlin, has taught at
schools like University of California at Berkeley, Columbia (where
Brzezinski had planned to return in January, 1981), Harvard and
Stanford, and is an expert on foreign policy, especially in regard
to the Communist bloc.
Other non-Trilateral elitists on the board of Aspen-Berlin whom we
wish to mention are: Robert McNamara, president, World Bank; Robert
O. Anderson, chairman, Aspen Institute and Atlantic Richfield; Pehr
Gyllenhammaer, president, Volvo; Conor Cruise O’Brien,
editor-inchief, The Observer, London; Jean-Francois Revel, editor,
Additionally, we find the two most prominent German politicians of
our time on the honorary board. First, there is Willy Brandt, former
Federal Chancellor, chairman of the ruling Social Democratic Party
and chairman of the United Nations’ Independent Commission on
International Development Issues (which included Peter G. Peterson,
Henry Kissinger and Washington Post publisher Katherine Graham).
Secondly, there is Helmut Schmidt, Chancellor of the Federal
Republic of Germany, a close friend of Valery Giscard d’Estaing.
Willy Brandt, in describing the reasoning for the Aspen Institute
Berlin’s location, gave away his own lack of understanding of the
threat of the Communist bloc when he stated, “The choice of Berlin
is not accidental - we regard it as a crossroads and touchstone of
the new relationship between East and West.”
More recently, a
publication of the Aspen Institute Berlin reported, “Scholars and
public figures from the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern
Europe actively participate in the work of the Aspen Institute
Berlin.”5 Once again, we view the Trilateralist’s naiveté and
In sum, The Aspen Institute Berlin is a
European mirror image of Trilateralist thought and practice.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER NINE
1. Garret FitzGerald, “Political- Cooperation: Towards a Common
Policy”, Commission of the European Communities, European
September-October 1978, p. 18.
2. Ibid., p. 20.
3. Aspen Institute of Berlin Catalogue. p. 2.
4. Ibid., p. 2.
5. Ibid., p. 3.
Back to Contents
There is no doubt that the Trilateral Commission exists: it is not a
figment of a wild imagination as some of its supporters claim.
Further, this Commission has written policies and set objectives.
During the Carter administration, members of the Commission had the
majority of executive branch power under their control, and it
doesn’t look like much is changing under the new Reagan
At this point, it is useful to address the criticism of the
Trilateral Commission, and the counter-criticism from the Commission
David Rockefeller’s feelings about Trilateral critics have been
amply demonstrated: he views himself as the “moderate middle,” and
puts his critics on the “far right.” This same theme was used in the
November 24, 1980 issue of Forbes Magazine: Washington Bureau
Chief Jerry Flint titled his article What’s a Trilateral Commission?
captioned it “Why Marxists and Birchers love to hate the Trilateral
“On the Right radical end of the political fringe, for
example, is Patrick Wood, co-author of the book Trilaterals
Over Washington -53,000 sold, he says, who has a new expose
coming and who publishes a monthly newsletter, The Trilateral
Observer, from Scottsdale, Ariz. He warns that the Trilaterals
want to trade America’s economic independence for some kind
of new world economic order, a playground for the
multinationals, manipulating governments for their profits. “2
The article then talked about the John Birch Society (rightwing),
Laurence Shoup (a Marxist writer) and Penthouse magazine. Flint
interviewed Commission coordinator and member George Franklin
who claimed “We haven’t a single advocate of world government. . .”3
One of Flint’s concluding thoughts was “Alas, people and their
conspiracy theories are not easily parted. It is much easier to
villain than to think things through.”4
When this coauthor (Wood) was interviewed, Flint was pointedly
told that neither Sutton nor Wood advocate, teach or believe in a
“conspiracy” theory as such. This position has been expounded on
dozens of radio and TV shows all over America, and on numerous of
prestigious speaking platforms.
A conspiracy is defined by Webster’s as “a secret agreement to do
something legal or illegal.” Since the coauthors have had little
trouble in acquiring information on Trilateral activities and
positions, it can hardly be called a secret organization. Further,
who has a right to act as judge and jury to determine legality or
illegality of specific acts by members of the Trilateral Commission?
(This requires a Congressional investigation into the facts
presented in Trilaterals Over Washington.)
The Forbes article is significant for the following reasons:
. Flint ignored the reasons given for the coauthors’ refusal to be
involved with “conspiracy” tactics.
. He arbitrarily placed the authors in the “Right radical end of the
political fringe,” implied to be even to the right of the John Birch
. He did not mention Professor Antony Sutton’s name anywhere in the
article, nor the fact that he was formerly a research fellow with
Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford
University - hardly the “Right radical end” of anything!
. Ignored was The Nation’s recent article attacking the Trilateral
Commission. The Nation is one of the most prestigious liberal
publications in the country.5
. Also ignored was the suppressed criticism of the Commission
by Nobel Laureate Professor George Wald in
August 19806 - the reader may not agree with the criticism,
but certainly cannot discount the source and the
The Forbes article typifies “establishment” handling of critics of
the Commission. Responsible and researched criticism is “associated”
with various minority radical elements in the country.
Since the truth of the matter (the facts) cannot be discredited,
they attempt to discredit the critic. This is a shallow and weak
ploy, not too difficult to see through.
To be fair though, some credit can be given the Commission in
sending representatives to participate in public debates around the
with the coauthors. North American Secretary Charles Heck appeared
with Patrick Wood on the nationally broadcasted Larry King Show on
the Mutual Broadcasting System, among others. Commissioners George
Franklin and Phillip Trezise debated with Antony Sutton at different
times. George Franklin has debated with left-wing Trilateral critic
Howard Katz on an influential T.V. program in Florida.
It is the personal experience of the authors that when public
response was measured (i.e., on “call-in” radio, T.V. shows or
public speaking events), sentiment was at least 95% hostile to the
position of the Trilateral Commission and only 5% against the
position taken by the coauthors. While Commission members have no
reason to admit it, overwhelming public antipathy against the
Commission has stung deeply.
It has never been the coauthors’ intent to unfairly discredit a
person in contrast to the philosophy that person holds. People are
people but ideas differ. When facts don’t line up with a person’s
philosophy, and this discrepancy is pointed out, it is difficult for
the person to resolve the discrepancy. The reaction will most likely
be negative, ranging from ignoring the facts to lashing out at the
person(s) delivering the facts.
The coauthors readily admit that a certain amount of their own bias
shows in their writings, but this is only natural. Despite this,
these works have been used by both conservative and liberal writers
around the world. The reason is the coauthors’ integrity for
reporting facts is unquestioned, even if the reader disagrees with
the conclusions offered.
As you have read this book, you may have arrived at different
conclusions than the coauthors; in any case, you are probably
antithetic to the Trilateral Commission and to the proposed
Economic World Order. You are urged to further your information
gathering in your own community or sphere of influence. Share what
you find with others, including the coauthors.
Freedom of the press is predicated on a free interchange of ideas
and information. Any attempts to suppress either must be protested
to the limit of moral restraint.
All in all, the information in this book (and in Volume I, as well)
shows a very bleak picture of politics and the economics in the
States. Even so, it is a mistake to just abandon the field to the
gave you a thinker (your brain) that is able to discern reality from
fiction and fantasy; don’t be swayed by psychological pressure
designed to discredit what you think. Even if your thinking is
you let someone browbeat you out of your position, you will still be
wrong. Test every thing weigh, digest, chew, mull over, check,
Then stand on your findings and decisions.
Finally, the coauthors believe that once the American in the street
realizes the full implications of the Trilateral process, then Trilateralism
will receive outright rejection.
The reason is simple: Trilateralism
diametrically opposed to the US Constitution and will ultimately
require removal of the Constitution if the New Economic World Order
is to succeed.
ENDNOTES CHAPTER TEN
1. Jerry Flint, What's a Trilateral Commission?, Forbes (November
24, 1980), p. 45.
2. Ibid., p. 45. 3. Ibid., p. 46. 4. Ibid., p. 49.
The August Corporation Page 110
Back to Contents