THE POWER STRUCTURE
Moving up from the lower levels of the Trilateral Commission
described in the last chapter, let us now focus on the higher
echelons. Organizing and directing the overall activities of the
commission itself is a North American executive committee, with yet
another and virtually unseen power base behind it. The identity of
this Trilateral power base varies according to the observer. Most
American observers zero in on the international bank affiliation.
While constitutional conservatives focus on the Rockefeller family
and Chase Manhattan Bank as the culprits, liberal-leftists focus on
bankers in general.
A radically different interpretation is that of
the U.S. Labor party. The latter considers the Rockefeller label to
be a “cover,” that Trilateralism is a “British conspiracy” operation
to infiltrate the U. S., using Henry Kissinger as a conduit.
Unfortunately, the United States Labor party seems intent on
substituting Lyndon LaRouche, Jr., and a “dirigiste” economy for
Trilateral authoritarianism and a Trilateral-directed economy, which
will leave the average citizen no better off than he was before.
Totalitarianism under any label spells loss of freedom.
THE NORTH AMERICAN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Let’s first look at the Trilateral North American Executive
Committee and its members:
I. W. Abel: president, United Steel Workers of America; member,
Executive Committee Trilateral Commission: member, War Production
Board and War Manpower Commission, 1941-45. Election to the USW A
presidency in 1965.
Robert W. Bonner (Canadian): chairman, British Columbia Hydro.
William T. Coleman Jr.: senior partner, O’Melveny & Myers; former
secretary of transportation in the Ford administration; director of
Chase Manhattan Bank.
Robert S. Ingersoll: director of First Chicago Corporation (and
First National Bank of Chicago); Borg Warner, Kraft, Inc.;
Weyerhaeuser Company; AtlanticRichfield; Caterpillar Tractor. Also
deputy chairman of the University of Chicago Board of Trustees,
trustee of Aspen Institute of Humanistic Studies and California
Institute of Technology.
Resigned from Borg Warner to become U.S. ambassador to Japan, then
assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern affairs, then deputy
of state, Resigned March 1976. A typical example of “revolving door”
elitism and the “closed-shop” nature of U.S. decision making.
Henry Kissinger: former secretary of state, now on the International
Advisory Board of Chase Manhattan Bank.
Bruce K. MacLaury: president of Brookings Institution, formerly
president of Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and deputy under
secretary of the treasury for monetary affairs.
Henry Owen: fellow, Brookings Institution, formerly State Department
Charles W. Robinson: senior managing director of Kuhn, Loeb &
Company and former deputy secretary of state.
David Rockefeller: chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank and chairman,
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
William M. Roth: Matson Navigation, Pacific National Life Assurance
Company, Carnegie Institution, Committee for Economic Development.
William W. Scranton: former governor of Pennsylvania.
Mitchell Sharp (Canadian): former minister for external affairs.
The most startling observation is that three members of this twelve-man executive committee are Chase Manhattan people. (Rockefeller
and Coleman are directors and Kissinger is on the International
Advisory Committee.) Later we shall explore the Rockefeller-Chase
Manhattan connection in more detail -it suffices at this point to
G. William Miller (chairman, Federal Reserve Board) was also on the
Chase International Advisory Committee just before appointment to
the Fed. Other Trilaterals on the Chase Manhattan Advisory Committee
are the following:
In brief, no fewer than eight members of the governing boards of
Chase Manhattan Bank are also Trilaterals. One can certainly
question this unusual coincidence without being accused of either
paranoia or oversimplification.
The twelve executive committee members can be further grouped as
a. Two from Brookings Institution, the Carter “think tank” - MacLaury and Owen.
b. Four former ministerial-level appointees - Commissioners
Kissinger, Scranton, Sharp (Canada), and Coleman.
c. Two “revolving door” specialists - Commissioners Ingersoll and
Robinson, both former deputy Secretaries of state.
d. Two ad hoc industrialists – Commissioners Bonner and Roth.
e. One trade unionist - Commissioner Abel.
f. The founder of the Trilateral Commission, chairman of its
executive committee, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations,
and chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank - David Rockefeller.
Comparing the October 1977 executive committee to that of March 1975
we find some significant differences: four members had quit to take
highest level positions in the Carter administration:
became secretary of defense
Zbigniew Brzezinski became national
security advisor to President Carter (Brzezinski had been executive
director of the Trilateral Commission from its inception)
Gerard C. Smith became ambassador-at-large for non-proliferation
Paul C. Warnke became director of the Arms Control and
As we have noted, many other commissioners moved
into the Carter administration (including, of course, James Earl
Carter and Walter Mondale); but it is significant that no fewer than
one-third of the executive committee moved into the top security
slots in the new administration.
In brief, we can note two outstanding characteristics:
a. The Chase Manhattan Bank dominates the Trilateral
b. The Trilateral Commission dominates the U.S. executive branch. In
the words of the Washington Post (16 January 1977)
At last count, 13 Trilatera1ists had gone into top positions in the
administration, not to mention six other Tri1ateralists who are
established as policy advisers, some of whom may also get jobs. This
is extraordinary when you consider that the Trilateral Commission
only has about 65 American members.
THE TRILATERAL POWER BASE
Run your eye down the list of executive committee members. Who is
the most powerful individual among them? There is no doubt that
David Rockefeller dominates the executive committee, and thus the
commission itself. Even if we are generous (or naive) and see the
executive members as equals, then David would surely be primus inter
pares. It is, however, naive to see David Rockefeller as an
omnipotent dictator or the Rockefeller family as an all-powerful
monarchy. This is a trap for the unwary. Our world is much more
complex. We are looking at a family of families, a collective of
power holders with at least several hundred, perhaps several
thousand, members, who collectively aim to divert the world, not
just the United States, to their own collective objectives.
Let’s start at the beginning. The Trilateral Commission was David
Rockefeller’s idea and promoted with David’s funds. (Leave aside for
the time being the U.S. Labor party theory that Trilateralism uses
the Rockefellers as a “cover” for a “British conspiracy.”)
An interview with George S. Franklin, commission coordinator, by
Michael Lloyd Chadwick, editor of The Freemen Digest, published in
Provo, Utah, is the most authentic version of the founding process
which has yet surfaced. This portion of the interview follows:
MR. CHADWICK: Mr. Franklin… you were a participant
with Mr. David Rockefeller, Robert Bowie, Zbigniew
Brzezinski and Henry Owen in forming the Trilateral
Commission. Would you provide us with a brief history of how it came
MR. FRANKLIN: David Rockefeller, in the winter and
spring of 1972, gave several speeches to the Chase Bank
forums in London, Brussels, Montreal and Paris. He
recommended the establishment of an international
commission on peace and prosperity which in fact is now the
Trilateral Commission. He didn’t receive an enthusiastic response in
these meetings and he dropped the idea. He thought, If the Chase
Bank Forums don’t respond favorably to my suggestion then it’s
probably a lousy idea.”
He then went to a Bilderberger meeting. Mike Blumenthal
was there (now Treasury Secretary), and he said, You know,
I’m very disturbed...Cooperation between these three areas -
Japan, the United States and Western Europe - is really falling
apart, and I foresee all sorts of disaster for the world if this
continues. Isn’t there anything to be done about it?” David
then thought, I’ll present the idea once more,” which he did, and he
aroused great enthusiasm. The next eight speakers said that this was
a marvelous idea; by all means, somebody get it launched.
David wasn’t quite sure whether these were all his friends. He
wasn’t quite sure if they were being polite or if they really
thought it was a good idea. So he took Zbig Brzezinski back on the
plane with him. Zbig thought it was a very good idea and had done
some writing on it. Bob Bowie had done some writing on it too. When
he got back, David asked me if I would go back to Europe and talk to
some people more at leisure and see if they really thought this was
a good idea. They truly did.
David and I went to Japan in June of 1972 and he talked to a lot of
people there. They thought it was a good idea, so we had a meeting
of 13-15 people at his place in Tarrytown (ed:
It was decided to go ahead and try to organize and form it.
. There is no reason to doubt that formation came about in any other
way -at least we have no evidence that Franklin is hiding anything.
But note that the way the Trilateral Commission was founded suggests
a loose power coalition, sometimes in competition, sometimes in
cooperation, rather than a small, tight, iron-fisted conspiracy run
SOURCE OF TRILATERAL FUNDS
Where did the funding come from? The source of funds is always a
reliable clue to the source of power. Again to quote the Chadwick
In the meantime David Rockefeller and the Kettering
Foundation had provided transitional funding.
In January of 1973 Gerald Smith, Max Kohnstamn, Zbigniew Brzezinski
and George Franklin held consultations with Takeshi Watanabe and the
Japanese planning group members in Tokyo. It was during this time
period that approval of the highest political and financial circles
In February of 1973 a formal proposal was submitted to the Ford
Foundation to support the majority of the intellectual and research
projects of the Commission. The funds were also to provide for
administrative and promotional activities.
In February additional support was also obtained from
several other foundations.
What is The Kettering Foundation? There are three “Kettering
Foundations.” This citation almost certainly refers to the Charles
Kettering Foundation, Dayton, Ohio. Charles F. Kettering, the donor,
was with General Motors for twenty-seven years and held among other
positions, director-ships of Ethyl Corporation (important for
petroleum technology to Hitler pre-World War II) and Sloan-Kettering
Institute for Cancer Research (in mounting trouble over credibility
its cancer research programs). The assets on the early 1970s were
$93 million, with no grants to individuals, only to “high-risk
to “support the forces for world order and peace.” 2
Better known than the Kettering Foundation is the Ford Foundation
with McGeorge Bundy as president and among the trustees Robert S.
McNamara and J. Irwin Miller, both of whom have a long history of
promotion of globalist interventionist projects.
Once again we have evidence of a widespread and rather loose
coalition: “approval of the highest political and financial circles
was obtained,” including the trustees of maybe half a dozen
We can thus conclude that the Trilateral Commission
1. Originated with David Rockefeller
2. Was chosen by David Rockefeller and a small group of
3. Was financed in great part by David Rockefeller, the
Kettering Foundation, and the Ford Foundation.
Without being accused of hastiness or bias, one can reasonably
conclude that David Rockefeller is the power behind The Trilateral
Commission, and. presumably stands to gain most from its activities.
A mistake made by many analysts is to assume that because the
Rockefellers exercise immense corporate power and demonstrably
dominate Trilateralism and similar vehicles that they are the only
holders of such power and therefore control a “conspiracy.” Whether
there is, or is not, a conspiracy is really irrelevant. If it is a
conspiracy, it is the most open conspiracy in world history. What is
important is intention. Obviously, the trustees of the Kettering
Foundation and Ford Foundation, with immense resources at the ready
to promote “world order,” are right there with David. Analysis needs
to push further into the forest than the Rockefeller family group.
What are the practical levers of power? Political influence is not
created in a vacuum: it comes largely from financial backing. Who
provides most financial backing? Who has the power to finance or not
to finance? And who gains? In our society it is the major
institutions such as labor unions, multinational corporations
(MNCs), foundations, and international banks.
Obviously, Trilateralism was not founded by labor unions or any group of
ambitious academics. The first step in our analysis then is to
portray the links of Trilateralists with international banking and
MNCs. Such links are complex because bank interlocks are complex.
Banks are interwoven into a network, controlling the U.S. economy in
a large part through stock voting, debt holding, and interlocking
The diagram that follows is a highly simplified portrayal of this
network (for all the criss-crossing lines) based on information
released by congressional committees. It is drawn to highlight
several facets of the power base:
. There is an interlock between major banks mostly
. This interlock is measured by the stockholding rank
that one bank holds in another, Trilateral commissioners are plotted
onto the bank interlocks
. The end result is a reflection of the political financial
power network based on international banks,
identifying the location of Trilateral representatives in
Don’t be concerned about the complexity of this diagram. Focus
attention on the top one-third. The two large triangles represent
two potential financial power bases: the Rockefeller family group on
the left and the Kirby-Allegheny group on the right. Why is the
Kirby- Allegheny group important? Only because in terms of financial
power as measured by stock voting it is right up there with the
Rockefellers. Yet an interesting and fundamental comparison can be
made between the two financial groups. Note the following (reading
from the diagram):
. The Rockefellers are the Number 1 stockholder in Chase Manhattan
Corporation with 591,533 votes, while Kirby- Allegheny Corporation
(Number 3) has 300,000 votes.
(The Number 2 stockholder is California Employees
. The Rockefeller family group has no direct holdings in
Citicorp (although Chase Manhattan Corporation is
Number 11 holder with 1,001,000 votes), but Kirby-Allegheny group is Number 6 holder in Citicorp with
. The Kirby family group controls Investors Diversified Services
with interests in numerous multinationals:
Northwest Airlines; Pepsico, Inc.; Atlantic Richfield, Inc.; and so
Look at the diagram again, at the smaller black triangles which
represent Trilateral members. The Rockefeller-dominated bank
influence in the commission can now be followed precisely:
. Two Trilaterals are in the Rockefeller family group (David and
John D. Rockefeller IV, governor of West Virginia,) . The
Rockefeller family group is Number 1 shareholder in Chase Manhattan
Corporation. Six Trilaterals are on the board of Chase Manhattan
. In turn, Chase Manhattan Corporation is Number 1 stockholder in
First Chicago Corporation. Three Trilaterals are on the board of
First Chicago Corporation. (The reader can trace the other
influences from the diagram.)
. Seven Trilaterals are on the Chase International Advisory Board.
. The Kirby-Allegheny group has no Trilaterals at all.
What is the vital difference between the Rockefeller family group
and the Kirby family group? There is one all-important distinction
between the two financial groups. Rockefellers are politicized.
Kirbys are not. Rockefellers apparently subvert the political
process to gain their objectives. Kirbys apparently do not.
An interesting historical note is that (today) no families directly
control J. P. Morgan and its subsidiary, Morgan Guaranty. The
onetime fiefdom of J. P. Morgan and the Morgan family was the power
behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913 and the
power behind the throne of Woodrow Wilson. Today Number 1
stockholder in J. P. Morgan is Citibank and Number 2 stockholder is
Chase Manhattan Corporation. Moreover, J. P. Morgan controls Morgan
Guaranty which, in turn, is Number 1 stockholder in Citicorp.
What does this picture add up to? It is like a snake swallowing its
own tail, or a nest of snakes swallowing each other’s tails. The
essential point to hold in mind, however, is that a global
multinational corporation (Chase Manhattan) is in control of a power
vehicle that controls the U.S. government. In 1976 the American
voter thought he had elected Jimmy Carter; in fact, he has elected
Chase Manhattan. And the ideology of the global corporation is
entirely different from the philosophy on which the Constitution of
the United States is based. For example, Citicorp Chairman Walter
Wriston phrases it this way:
The development of the World Corporation into a truly
multinational organization has produced a group of managers
of many nationalities whose perception of the needs and wants
of the human race know no boundaries. They really believe in
One World. 3
These would-be global managers have rejected the United States. As
Richard J. Barnet comments in Global Reach:
The global corporation is the ideal instrument for
integrating the planet, the World Managers contend, because
it is the only human organization that has managed to free
itself from the bonds of nationalism. 4
The economic clout of these “World Managers” must be offset by a
tunnel vision endemic to globalists. This is not a paradox. Global
aspirations are induced by greed, the ruthless drive for profit and
power; and trampling on anyone in the way to achieve the globalist
goal is not discouraged. Their own ambitions are openly placed above
human welfare. As Wriston states:
In this dialogue, the role of the world corporation as an
agent of change may well be even more important than its
demonstrated capacity to raise living standards. 5
The illusions suffered by the global corporatists are strange
Bank of America President A. W. Clauson states:
The expansion of our consciousness to the global level
offers mankind perhaps the last real chance to build a world
order less coercive than that offered by the nation-state. 6
We have to suppose Clauson is serious and doesn’t see the humor of
this statement: large corporations are notorious for their
authoritarian structures, the Bank of America not excluded. How an
authoritarian attitude can create a “less coercive” world is beyond
Walter Wriston of Citibank offers the same illusion:
The World Corporation has become a new weight in an old balance and
must playa constructive role in moving the world toward the freer
exchange of both ideas and the means of production so that the
people of our planet may one day enjoy the fruits of a truly global
society. This is a goal worthy of us all. 7
Despite the illusions
and inconsistencies, the globalist would-be World Managers, are
getting ready for their revolution: changing corporate names to
non-American, internationally neutral titles. Some examples are
. Standard Oil of New Jersey is now EXXON neutral in almost any
language and without the geographical attachment of “New Jersey.”
. City Bank of New York, an old-time New York bank is now, under
Henry Wriston, neutral Citibank or Citicorp. . U.S. Rubber is now
. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing is now just plain 3M.
. American Metal Climax is AMAX.
We can suppose the next move will be for the budding World Managers
to neutralize their own names: Rockefeller will become “Rokafela”;
Clauson will become “Klorson.”
One of these global corporations, Caterpillar Tractor, has no fewer
than three Trilateralists (Ingersoll, Morgan and Packard) on its
board of directors; and David Rockefeller tells how he was prompted
to conceive the original Trilateral idea when he visited World
Headquarters of Caterpillar Tractor in Peoria. Illinois. Caterpillar
lives and breathes globalism. Its 1976 annual report, for instance,
has a map of the world on the front cover with the Caterpillar logo
The corporate address is “World Headquarters. Peoria. Illinois.” The
introductory pages are full of globalist gobbledygook: “world
forums,” “world-wide respect” and “positive contributions of
multinational business enterprise.”
What these World Managers do not see is that their philosophy is
pure totalitarianism, removed only infinitesimally from the Hegelian
philosophies of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. In practice, in their
corporations these globalists are ruthless authoritarians - and
impartial observers remain unconvinced that the expansion of the
budding World Managers’ corporate horizons to globalism will allow
them to understand the values of individual freedom.
TOTALITARIAN TAKEOVER OF THE U.S. EXECUTIVE
A straightforward and reasonable conclusion is that there has
apparently been a covert fascist (national socialist) takeover of
the United States government. By fascist we mean a corporate
socialist state of the type established by socialist Mussolini in
Italy in the 1920s. All forms of socialism derive from the .same
philosophical bases. Mussolini was editor of a Marxist socialist
newspaper before developing his own brand of corporate socialism
based on Marxist ideology. Corporate socialism was later promoted in
the United States by General Electric Chairman Gerard Swope and
became Roosevelt’s New Deal (i.e., “Swope’s Plan”). Herbert Hoover
described the New Deal in this way:
Among the early Roosevelt fascist measures was the
National Industry Recovery Act (NRA) of June 16, 1933. The
origins of this scheme are worth repeating. These ideas were
first suggested by Gerard Swope of the General Electric
Company...following this they were adopted by the United
States Chamber of Commerce...8
It is socialist revolution by stealth: rather than by blood in the
streets, but revolution just the same. Trilateralism is the current
operational vehicle for a corporate socialist takeover. The bitter
joke is that Roosevelt and Carter have been mainly supported by
“liberals” and “do-gooders” who would have us believe they are
horrified by fascism and corporate socialism!
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER THREE
1. Send $1.00 to Freemen Institute, 1331 South State Street, Box G,
Provo, UT 84601, for full text on the interview. Ask for vol. VI,
no. 7, 15 January 1978.
2. Trustees: Harrison Scott Brown, Norman Cousins, John Sloan
H. Gallup, Samuel B. Gould, Carroll A. Hochwalt, Frederick J.
Hoover, Robert A.
Kerr, Charles F. Kettering II, Richard D. Lombard, Walter Orr
Roberts, Howard E.
Skipper, and James M. Stewart.
3. Walter Wriston, “The World Corporation -A New Weight in an Old
Balance” (address before International Industrial Conference, San
Francisco, Ca., September 17-21, 1973), p.17. .
4. Richard J. Barnet, Global Beach: The Power of Multinational
Corporations (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1974). Barnet is an
interesting character in the
establishment lineup. Cofounder (with Marcus Raskin) of the
Institute for Policy Studies (an Establishment think-tank/action
vehicle), Barnet is pure elitist.
5. Ibid., p.16.
6. Ibid., p.56.
7. Wriston, “The World Corporation,” p.19.
8. Herbert Hoover, The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Great
Depression, 19291941 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1952), p.
420. See also Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and FDR (New York:
Arlington House, 1975).
Back to Contents