The Real Story Behind the Trilateral commission

As a campaign issue during this election year, the Trilateral Commission has already had a determining influence in the New Hampshire, Florida, Alabama, and Georgia primaries, and it is coming up as a crucial issue in the Illinois primary. The Commission is a group of 300 powerful public figures from North America, Japan, and Western Europe, formed in 1973 with advice and guidance from the Council on Foreign Relations and from British aristocrats, such as the Earl of Cromer of Baring Bros., Lord Roll of S.G. Warburg & Co. and director of the Bank of England, Lord Harlech, Sir Kenneth Keith, Sir Arthur Knight, and others. One hundred and ten members of the Commission are Americans, and 27 of them have served or are now serving in the Carter administration. This includes President Carter, Vice-President Mondale, Secretary of State Vance, Secretary of Defense Brown, and others. David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger’s piggy bank, is accorded the honor of calling himself the founder of the Commission. The candidacy of George Bush is now in ruins because the candidate has been overidentified with the Trilateral Commission. John B. Anderson deserves and probably will get a sound trouncing by the voters for the same reason as Bush: his long-standing identification with the Trilateral Commission.

The electorate knows very little of substance about the Trilateral Commission, but this is compensated by the fact that it knows that President Carter was handpicked and put into office by the Commission. Therefore, not without justice, the average informed American citizen identifies the debacles and disasters of the Carter administration with the Trilateral Commission. They do not want any of it, and they do not want any other candidate close to or identified with the Commission. This year’s general election is, on a fundamental level, fought around the issue of the «Eastern Establishment’s» control over American policymaking institutions. This is true even for the Democratic Party primaries so far. The principal reason why ordinary Democrats continue to vote for Carter despite his identification with the Trilateral Commission is the fact that Kennedy, the liberal lion of the Eastern Establishment, is considered a worse evil than even the hated Trilateral Commission. The Democratic vote that goes for LaRouche, for example the 20 percent vote in the New Hampshire primary, represents the more sophisticated and intellectually tougher voters who have reached the conclusion that what is worth fighting for in this year’s presidential election is a result which will deny the liberal, antiAmerican Eastern Establishment any access whatsoever.

to the Executive of our government. Thus, despite the notoriety the Trilateral Commission has achieved so far, the real issue in the election is the liberal Eastern Establishment, and within this, the Trilateral Commission draws attention because it is, as it was meant to be, a more visible instrument of the liberal establishment, for the purpose of drawing to itself the fire of popular outrage. Right now, upward of 35 to 40 pamphlets, brochures, books, and major essays about and against the Trilateral Commission are circulating around the country, totaling millions of copies reaching and informing to varying degrees (and occasionally misinforming) the electorate. This publication is now offered to the public to place the issue of the Trilateral Commission in its proper perspective, within its proper context of the liberal Eastern Establishment, to clarify the fundamental policy issues on which the Eastern liberals pin their efforts at this time, and to identify the special «point man» role the establishment has assigned to the Commission. The liberal Eastern Establishment, for which the Trilateral Commission is a special-purpose instrumentality for a limited period of time, is a grouping of powerful families in New York, Boston, Connecticut, and elsewhere, which exercises permanent control over the nation’s major universities, investment banks, law firms, and federal civil service, and through them, over an important number of manufacturing corporations. This control per se does not necessarily have to be evil It is the purpose to which it is used, the policy to which it is used that makes it evil or good.

The Tool of the British Obligarchy

he principal use to which this social power has been used increasingly since the assassination of President McKinley and decisively since the accession to power of President Woodrow Wilson, is to control the foreign policy of the United States on behalf of the ruling aristocracy of Great Britain. The Eastern Establishment itself is not the center of ultimate power, it is an instrumentality on behalf of policies of the British oligarchy. Most Americans, upon being informed of this fact, react with incredulity, even the most committed antiliberals among them. It is however an easily proved fact. What no American will deny is that all those policies generally identified as liberal in the domestic domain, have the unmistakable stench of direct and outspoken hostility to American nationalism. This is the case for every domestic policy from the issue of school prayer, to pledging allegiance to the flag in public schools, to the issues of nuclear energy production, defense preparedness, universal military training versus the all-professional army, and so forth. This British-controlled liberal Eastern Establishment proclaims in its publications that the international order which was organized in the aftermath of the Second World War—the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and even NATO was all organized for the fundamental strategic proposition that the single most dangerous force in world affairs is nationalism, especially including American nationalism, which these supranational institutions must try to bridle, contain, erode, and finally eliminate. This liberal doctrine of unbending opposition to nationalism is an idea the British oligarchy developed in the beginning of the 20th century when the power of the British Empire began to wane. British power waned because four other major nations in the world community, namely the United States, Germany, France, and Japan, all overtook Great Britain in industrial production. Russia, with advice from American economists in the Hamilton and Carey tradition, was also beginning to threaten British industrial supremacy. This occurred in the last two decades of the 19th century. The strategists of the British Empire realized that all these nations were built up in such a short period of time because they based their economic policies upon a decidedly antiliberal economic theory, the theory of dirigism, identified with the theoretical works of Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, and also with the works of the great American economists Henry and Mathew Carey. Japan accomplished its economic miracle in the Meiji revolution by inviting and honoring American System economists; Germany was built into a major industrial power because it followed the policies of Friedrich List, the great economist who was educated in the United States under Carey and then returned to his country to organize the German customs union. It is List who is credited with coining the term «American System» of political economy. Similarly, France used the Colbert-Richelieu tradition in economic science which then inspired Alexander H a m i l t o n ‘ s ideas. The British oligarchy knew that in order to survive, it had to combat and defeat these other major nations. To do that, it had to intensify its efforts to spread its own liberal economic doctrines to combat the power of the «American System» ideas of national economy. The First World War was fought on these issues. The Treaty of Versailles was imposed because of these issues. The Second World War was started because of this ongoing unresolved conflict. And finally, the world order that was created after the Second World War around the United Nations was designed by the liberals to curb and contain the forces of nationalism. It is not true that the British oligarchy opposes only some kinds of nationalism and likes some others, depending on the nation. The perpetuation of its existence as a morally corrupt social layer depends on general opposition, in principle, to the concept of nationalism in general. That is why the British oligarchs did not bat an eyelash when they destroyed their own British economy and British industry. The principal instrument Britain has used to successfully impose its world policies during the 20th century, despite Britain’s own drastically shrinking material power, has been what we call the liberal Eastern Establishment in the United States. Before, during, and after World War I, the Eastern Establishment functioned primarily through the think tanks in its major universities, Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, and so forth. It was from Princeton, owned and run by Morgan Guaranty, a British bank, that Woodrow Wilson came. Later, foundations and institutions started to proliferate, along with more special-purpose think tanks, incorporating increasingly greater chunks of policy-formulating and policy-making functions. Throughout this period, New York’s Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has been playing the central coordinating role, functioning as the clearinghouse for the ideas and consensus of the liberal establishment. At the end of World War II, two major «blueblood» institutions were launched, the Ditchley Foundation and the Aspen Institute, both of which proclaim as their official purpose the maintenance and augmentation of the «special relationship» between the United States and Great Britain. One of the two, the Ditchley Foundation, publicly advocates dual citizenship between England and the United States, omitting to inform the unsuspecting public that England does not possess the legal category of «citizen» but that of «subject.» The membership lists of the CFR, Aspen, Ditchley and the Trilateral Commission are overlapping. Each of the organizations does not represent a different «tendency» or «faction» or even different «interests» within the liberal Eastern Establishment. Each merely represents a different function. Just as a British gentleman can belong to many clubs at the same time, his membership in «Pall Mall,» the «Boors,» the «Flakes,» and the «Nautical Club» neither adds nor subtracts from his essential character, his being, above all, a «British gentleman.» The same with the Eastern Establishment here and its different organizations.

De Gaulle greets his fellow countrymen upon the liberation of France: «The British-controlled Eastern Establishment proclaims in its publications that the international order which was organized in the aftermath of the Second World War— the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and even NATO—was all organized for the fundamental strategic proposition that the single most dangerous force in world affairs is nationalism, especially including American nationalism.»

Why the Trilateral Commission

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 for a particular purpose. The London-New York leadership over the rest of the Western Alliance was increasingly being challenged because the post World War II liberal economic system was discernibly going to pieces. France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and also American nationalist forces coalesced behind the Nixon presidency were proposing a new orientation in favor of a commitment for renewed industrial development worldwide. Such a policy would have meant industrialization of key sectors of the Third World and thus the eventual emergence of new, sound, and strong nations—a repeat of the British nightmare at the turn of the century. Such a policy would also have meant that France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Japan, with their special relations with Third World nations, would experience an industrial boom, as their economies mobilized to provide the capital goods needed by the new nations. In the beginning of 1973 the West German deutschemark had already smashed the British pound and by July-August was on its way to gaining hegemony over the ailing U.S. dollar. Then two things happened. David Rockefeller formed the Trilateral Commission and Henry Kissinger manufactured the 1973 October War in the Middle East, which ruined the oil supplies of both Western Europe and Japan. Kissinger, holding the oil weapon over the allies’ heads, forced them to go slow and relent. It took European industry three years to recover from the shock.

The Trilateral Commission, a special-purpose team born out of the emergency, is a gathering of influential individuals from North America, Europe, and Japan, all of whom share the same liberal, antinationalist philosophy of the British oligarchy and all of whom cooperate to prevent the national forces within their respective countries from exerting influence on policy. The Trilateral Commission was hastily put together for a crude hatchet job, running such out-front errands as manipulating presidential elections and circulating policy papers with such provocative ideas as «The End of Democracy,» «Zero Growth,» and so forth. It was typical that a man who enjoys the reputation of being New York’s stupidest banker, David Rockefeller, was induced and manipulated to take all the credit for the operation.

Therefore, in order to guage the stated programs and the activities of the Trilateral Commission with a measure of justice, one must first guage the current thinking and policy concerns of the New York Council on Foreign Relations, the mother entity of the Trilateral Commission, as well as the supranational grouping into which the CFR blends, the so-called Bilderberg Society in which the nobility of England meets with the Belgian and Dutch royalty, and the representatives of the House of Hapsburg.

Issued by Citizen for LaRouche, March 1980, Official Trilateral commission page


~ av Sigurd Mellqvist den 28/07/2009.

2 kommentar to “The Real Story Behind the Trilateral commission”

  1. […] The Real Story Behind the Trilateral commission « Critical Thinking By Sigurd Mellqvist David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger's piggy bank, is accorded the honor of calling himself the founder of the Commission. The candidacy of George Bush is now in ruins because the candidate has been overidentified with the Trilateral … Critical Thinking – […]

  2. […] holder på med. Som en liten digresjon kan jo nevnes at CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) og Trilateral Commission også minner svært mye om Bilderberg. På 90 tallet ble de som nevnte av CFR i det heletatt […]

Legg igjen en kommentar

Fyll inn i feltene under, eller klikk på et ikon for å logge inn:

Du kommenterer med bruk av din konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Google+ konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Twitter konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Du kommenterer med bruk av din Facebook konto. Logg ut /  Endre )


Kobler til %s

%d bloggere like this: