Trilateral Commission calls 2023 ‘Year One’ of new world order

Nikkei Asia, March 14, 2023

Meghan O’Sullivan, the North American chair of the Trilateral Commission, speaks in New Delhi on March 12. O’Sullivan was deputy national security adviser for Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush. (Photo by Patrick Ishiyama)  

NEW DELHI — As retired foreign ministers, ambassadors, CEOs, bankers and academics gathered at the secretive Trilateral Commission’s first global plenary meeting in India, perhaps the most influential individual sat quietly off to the side, listening.

James Baker, director of the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment, was not even on the list of participants at the Taj Palace Hotel in New Delhi. But his takeaways from the meeting could find their way into policies that shape the world.

Baker is the successor to legendary defense strategist Andrew Marshall, who headed the office for 42 years. He is responsible for providing the Secretary of Defense with an assessment of U.S. military capabilities relative to other actors 20 to 30 years down the road.

One particular speech may have caught Baker’s attention, for it captured the essence of the three-day discussion, held from Friday through Sunday. “The Biden administration is trying to convince the world that there is this titanic struggle between autocracies and democracies. I am skeptical about that,” a speaker said. Instead, the world is fragmented, with countries — including the U.S. — looking out for their self-interests, the speaker added.

The Trilateral Commission is a nongovernmental organization that seeks to deepen understanding between the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Trilateral Commission members listen to Indian Minister of External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar in New Delhi on March 12. (Photo by Patrick Ishiyama)

The speaker, who cannot be identified according to commission rules, went on: “Three decades of globalization — defined as integrated, free-market based and deflationary — has been replaced by what will be a multidecade period of globalization defined as fragmented, not-free-market-based but industrial-policy based and structurally inflationary. This year, 2023, is Year One of this new global order.”

At the core of this shift is the U.S. Instead of committing to a neoliberal, free-market economy, the U.S. government is driving the economy and key industries toward a set of objectives, such as domestic equity at home and competition with China, the speaker said.

In such a world, middle powers like India, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will carve their own paths, weighing the economic, strategic and defense interests, the speaker said.

Ironically, as the Trilateral Commission convened, Saudi Arabia and Iran agreed to normalize relations, shattering Israel’s hopes for isolating Tehran. The deal was brokered by China, with the U.S. having no role in the handshake.

Wang Yi, China’s most senior diplomat, center, presides over a closed meeting between Iran, led by Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, at right, and Saudi Arabia, led by Saudi national security adviser Musaad bin Mohammed al-Aiban, at left, in Beijing on March 11.(Xinhua via AP)

Created by philanthropist David Rockefeller in 1973, the commission sought to bring the rising economy of Japan firmly into the West. Today, the commission has expanded to include members from South Korea, India and Southeast Asia.

Fresh from overtaking China as the world’s most populous country and with a new “appetite for the world,” in the words of one participant, India was a major focus of discussions. Representatives from the country engaged in a lively debate with their Chinese counterparts.

When a former Chinese diplomat suggested that the two nations “meet halfway” over their Himalayan border problem and find a way to settle differences, an Indian government official categorically rejected how the Chinese were framing the issue.

“The Chinese side must understand, you cannot undermine peace and tranquility and then say ‘let the rest of the relationship be normal,'” the Indian official said. “You can’t have violence on the boundary and business in the hinterland. It doesn’t work.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang, left, speaks with his Indian counterpart Subrahmanyam Jaishankar during their meeting on the sidelines of the G-20 foreign ministers’ meeting in New Delhi, India on March 2. (India’s Ministry of External Affairs handout via Reuters)

But commission members expressed hope that China would play a part in ending the Ukraine war. “Whether Russia will stop the war depends on the role of China. If China decides to help Russia [evade] sanctions, if China decides to provide Russia with arms, this war can go on for very long,” one European analyst said.

Members also worried about how the war has disrupted efforts to reach net-zero emissions. “The new conflict that is perceived in many constituencies is between energy security on one hand and energy transformation on the other, following Ukraine,” a member said. “At least for the short term, some of these priorities seemed to have shifted. We need to now reorder these priorities in a way that energy transformation happens and becomes the main driver of where investments need to go.”

Another hot topic was artificial intelligence. “A poll last year found that 49% of AI researchers have said that AI poses an existential threat to humanity, almost to the level of a nuclear type of disaster in the scale of humanity,” said a member. Many in the room called for a global regulatory scheme to govern AI.

Still, participants were generally positive about the wildly popular ChatGPT and later jokingly asked the bot to write a poem about the Trilateral Commission.

Following is one example:

“In secret meetings, you plan and conspire,

To create a new order, of which you aspire.

Your goals are unclear, but some see the end,

As a world government, with you as its friend.”

Inside the Trilateral Commission: Power elites grapple with China’s rise

Trilateral appointees in US include:

* Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner

* Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice

* National Security Advisor, Gen. James L. Jones

* Deputy National Security Advisor, Thomas Donilon

* Chairman, Economic Recovery Committee, Paul Volker

* Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Dennis C. Blair

* Assistant Secretary of State, Asia & Pacific, Kurt M. Campbell

* Deputy Secretary of State, James Steinberg

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Haass

* State Department, Special Envoy, Dennis Ross

* State Department, Special Envoy, Richard Holbrooke

What mystery organisation do Sir Keir Starmer, Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein… have in common?

By  Dorset Eye, 22nd February 2020

What organisation of approximately 400 members, as of January 2020, which either includes or has included, Sir Keir Starmer, Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein (up until 2008), is a prominent force in the strategy for globalism? An organisation that many have never heard of but exercises influence across the planet?

In 1973 a group was formed that included members from Europe, North America and Japan. Over time the Japanese membership was extended to become the Pacific Asian Group, including in 2009 both Chinese and Indian members, whilst the North American group now includes Mexican membership.

‘It was launched under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic.’ (How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America)

A huge advocate of the creation of a new global order was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who later became Jimmy Carter’s (the 39th President of the USA) Security Advisor. In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Their public face was to be:

‘a policy-oriented forum that brings together leaders in their individual capacity from the worlds of business, government, academia, press and media, as well as civil society.’

However, in private something far less altruistic and sinister was taking shape. One that was entirely materialist and rejected any notion of the spiritual within humanity. One that adopted a globalist language of specific terms that sought to render all analysis of the planet in a bland binary paradigm in which they were the good and any threat to their order was bad.

Who then is this mysterious organisation with globalist ideals?

They are the TRILATERAL COMMISSION.

Forty five years is though a long time in the modern (or post modern) world we live in. Where once upon a time little may have happened now the end of the cold war and the battle for dominance has seen nation states in conflict with increasingly enlarged corporations. The entities set up to spread neo liberal economic values are now in full blown competition with neo conservatives’ and their desire to hold on to nation states with their history and traditions.

An organisation that was created to spread neo liberal free market values across the globe, therefore now finds itself having to re create its form and mission to manage the spread of nationalism, populism and protectionism all of which they vehemently oppose.

In 2019 the Commission published a report with the express aim of becoming more en vogue. The rise of Trump and other right wing neo conservative governments and parties has meant that the free market has come under attack. Neo liberalism and neo conservatism was always a contradiction (as Thatcherism and Reaganism found out) and the lurch to the political right has had a negative effect upon the ideals of the economic right. 

The Trilateral Commission has sought to reinvent its doctrine in the face of increasing suspicion, certainly of globalisation and its impacts upon nation states but also in cases in which some people have become increasingly aware of the deep state in which the Tripartite Commission, Davos, Bilderberg, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) are significant parts.

To add to their problems there are those whose behaviour could somewhat tarnish their already suspect reputations including amongst the most prominent, Jeffrey Epstein.

Birds of a feather, flock together.’ It is almost certain that some current and former members of the elitist Trilateral Commission who participated in Epstein’s follies are likely very nervous that he would ‘flip’ and expose their debauchery, if not their sexual felonies.’ This of course has now been ‘avoided’ as Jeffrey Epstein ‘officially’ took his own life in August 2019.

How does all this then reflect on Sir Keir Starmer?

Keir Starmer seems to be doing a good job at pitching himself as being on the left. Himself and his supporters claim he will “unite the party” and are clear to emphasise his so called “left wing credentials”.

You may hear that in his twenties he edited a Trotskyist magazine. Or that he was the defence barrister for the miners out on strike in 1984/5. That he stood alongside McDonalds’ workers on picket lines.

But there is one association Sir Kier Starmer and his supporters are not talking about….

The Trilateral Commission, of which Starmer is a member. Other members, as was alluded to above, include top executives of a multinational conglomerates such as AT&T and ITT. Oil companies such as Mobil and Exxon, but also the top C.E.Os of the Chase Manhattan Bank, First Chicago Corp, General Electric, TRW, Archer Daniels Midland, Pepsi, RJR Nabisco, Nissan, Toshiba, Fuji Bank and Goldman Sachs.

Trilateral membership January 2020

These perhaps aren’t the sort of people Sir Kier would see as an ideal photo opportunity, to be used in his campaign highlighting his “lefty credentials”.

What we have is Sir Keir Starmer, as part of an organisation that Holly Sklar, who edited a book on the organisation entitled “Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management”, identifies as the commission that “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks”. This means it is contrary to the interests of so called ‘non developed’ countries and workers the world over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarised.

Sklar states that the Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent… “But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” And the Commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC to persuade the Saudis to put their petrodollars into Western banks and to purchase Western arms, rather than investing in the ‘developing’ world.

We could be forgiven for thinking that the Trilateral Commission clearly isn’t on our side.
Back in the 1970s they commissioned a report “The Crisis of Democracy”. The report noted that in the 40s and 50s President Harry S. Truman was able to run America with the compliance of just a few Wall Street lawyers and executives. Back then democracy was easily managed and it wasn’t seen as a problem. Does Sir Keir really want to be part of this legacy? The management of democracy by a corporate elite? Isn’t this called something other than democracy in political parlance?

In the 1960s something had happened: a section of the masses, went from being passive to being politically active (a ‘special interest’), which was causing too much pressure on the state. Typically in the report corporate power wasn’t mentioned, therefore it wasn’t seen as a problem. But the answer to the threat of this new ‘special interest’ was to indoctrinate the young and return them to being passive and obedient. Then just like that, democracy would be fine again.

Therefore the questions must be: Why is Sir Keir Starmer, as a member of a neo liberal international commission attempting to become the leader of a political party that historically was founded to help the labour force in their conflict with the neo liberal corporations…? Why is he expressing ‘left wing’ credentials that are antonymous to the aims of the Trilateral Commission. And why having just witnessed a Labour leader achieve more votes, in the last two elections, than Tony Blair in 2005, Gordon Brown in 2010 and Ed Miliband in 2015 would it be sensible to vote for what is effectively a Tory when we next go to the polls.

As well as all of this he is a member of the same club that accepted both Henry Kissinger and Jeffrey Epstein (deceased).

This is not a skeleton he is rushing to inform the public of and it is easy to see why.

BEWARE THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION!

WASHINGTON POST, April 25, 1992

Behind closed doors (of course), they are meeting this weekend in Lisbon. Some call them “the shadow government,” “the Establishment,” the “global elite” that runs the world.

They call themselves simply … the Trilateral Commission. (Chills run up spine.)

Depending on which conspiracy theory you subscribe to — and the Trilateral Commission has found its way into many — this 19-year-old organization is anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-Christian or anti-worker, and is scheming ultimately to abolish the sovereignty of nations and establish one world government!

According to Lyndon LaRouche, fringe political candidate and convicted tax cheat, the Trilateral Commission is behind the international drug trade. A writer affiliated with the far-right Liberty Lobby says the commission is forever plotting to raise taxes on Americans, siphoning the money overseas. Evangelist Pat Robertson believes it is somehow linked to Freemasonry and the occult, that it springs “from the depth of something that is evil.”

Preposterous, say members of the Trilateral Commission. It is merely a “discussion group” on world affairs, composed of high-level corporate and public-policy types from North America, Western Europe and Japan. The commission seeks only to promote international cooperation, for the betterment of everybody. Nothing sinister.

Its annual reports and task force papers are available for the public to read. Its membership list isn’t secret. Just ask and the commission will send you stuff. Anyone who can dial directory assistance can get its New York phone number.

Still, plenty of ordinary, educated people have no idea what the Trilateral Commission is or what it does, even though its former members include George Bush and Jimmy Carter. There is a shroud of mystery around it.

The press secretary for Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign didn’t even know that Clinton is on it! (Yes, Clinton is a Trilateralist too. Coincidence? Oh read on, my wide-eyed friend.)

Now the truth can be told about the 325 people on the Trilateral Commission, and the many previous members:

They do run the world!

The thing is, it has nothing to do with belonging to the Trilateral Commission. The TC is like a club for people who run the world anyway.

Like Paul Volcker, former head of the Federal Reserve System, who is the commission’s new North American chairman. And Akio Morita, chairman and chief executive officer of Sony, the Japanese chairman. And Count Otto Lambsdorff, leader of Germany’s Free Democratic Party, the European chairman.

Who else is on it? Well, as of last April, top executives of AT&T, ITT, Xerox, Mobil, Exxon, the Chase Manhattan Bank, First Chicago Corp., General Electric, TRW, Archer Daniels Midland, PepsiCo, RJR Nabisco and Goldman Sachs (not to mention Nissan, Toshiba and Fuji Bank). And such former foreign-policy ultracrats as Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert S. McNamara and George Shultz. And five U.S. senators, including John D. Rockefeller IV (of course). And House Speaker Tom Foley. And some professors.

There is a handful of women, including Katharine Graham, chairman of The Washington Post Co. (Chills run up spine.) A few black people too. Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, for instance. But basically we’re talking about lots and lots of middle-aged white guys.

Who’s not on the Trilateral Commission? Not one professional athlete, playwright or pop star. Hey, who do you want running the world? Ted Danson?

From Right to Left Maybe because it meets behind closed doors, maybe because it’s packed with powerful international capitalists, maybe because one of its principal founders was banker David Rockefeller, whose surname reads like “666” to those who demonize the Eastern Establishment — whatever the reason, some folks just suspect the worst of the Trilateral Commission.

“These are not the types of people who get together for innocuous chitchat,” says Jim Tucker, who writes for the Spotlight, newspaper of the Washington-based Liberty Lobby.

Let us survey the thickets of anti-Trilateralism.

“With the takeover by the Trilateral Commission of the United States government, through Jimmy Carter, there was an explosion of the drug culture and related degeneracy throughout the country.”

That’s from “A Program for America,” published in 1985 by the “LaRouche Democratic Campaign.” “It is a largely unspoken reality,” the book continues, “that the bankers and the IMF {International Monetary Fund} encourage dope growing and traffic as ‘profitable free enterprise’ — for the bloodsucking bankers!”

Co-conspirators, according to LaRouche, include the British monarchy, the Soviet Union and the “Zionist Lobby.”

Three years ago, on the stage of a crowded rock-and-roll club in downtown Washington, a young black man in paramilitary garb asked a largely white audience: “Who runs this world?” After a pause, he said, “The Trilateral Commission.” That was Professor Griff, then a member of the rap group Public Enemy. In a subsequent newspaper interview, Professor Griff mentioned the commission while describing a “wicked” global Jewish conspiracy.

In his 1991 book “The New World Order,” Pat Robertson — founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network and a brief challenger for the 1988 Republican presidential nomination — writes portentously:

“A single thread runs from the White House to the State Department to the Council on Foreign Relations to the Trilateral Commission to secret societies to extreme New Agers. There must be a new world order. … There must be world government, a world police force, world courts, world banking and currency, and a world elite in charge of it all.

“I do not believe that normal men and women, if left to themselves, would spend a lifetime to form the world into a unified whole in order to control it. … No, impulses of that sort do not spring from the human heart, or for that matter from God’s heart.”

Tucker, like Robertson, challenges the Trilateralists’ “cover story” that they’re encouraging international cooperation for everyone’s betterment. “We can have trade with other nations, we can welcome their tourists, we can send food to starving children in Biafra,” he’ll tell you. “But not a U.N. flag flying over Old Glory.”

He calls himself a longtime observer of the Trilateral Commission as well as the Bilderberg Group, which since 1954 has sponsored annual off-the-record policy discussions among prominent Western Europeans and North Americans. (Unlike the TC, the Bilderberg group has no formal membership. It is run by a chairman, a steering committee and an international advisory group.) Tucker sees Trilateralists, Bilderbergers and the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations — established in 1921 and long led by David Rockefeller — as a single elite network of globalists.

Tucker has traversed the United States and Europe to be near their meeting places, he says. Once, he even crashed a Trilateral Commission meeting. “I didn’t understand it because the guy was speaking German. It was kind of dull. A few minutes later, though, I was tossed out.” With a friendly chuckle, he adds, “It’s a lot of fun being a right-winger, you know?”

Tucker also says he’s got a source inside the Bilderberg group “whose name I only know as Pipeline.” And it was Pipeline who provided Tucker with this stunning scoop in the April 20 edition of the Spotlight: Last June, Bill Clinton was “anointed” the Democratic presidential nominee by the Bilderberg group!

“I think the whole thing is rather ludicrous,” says Clinton campaign spokesman Jeff Eller. “Governor Clinton made the decision to run and wasn’t handpicked by anybody.”

Criticism of the Trilateral Commission comes from the far left as well. To Holly Sklar, who edited the 1980 anthology “Trilateralism,” the commission “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks,” which means it’s contrary to the interests of Third World countries and workers all over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarized.

The Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent,” Sklar says. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” For example, she says the commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC, persuading countries like Saudi Arabia to put their petrodollars back into Western banks, and to buy weapons from the West, instead of investing in developing countries.

“I think that their vision of world order is not a world order that is good for most people,” she says. “{It has} led very much to a system where a few people are enriched at the expense of very many.”

Global Cooperation “I certainly don’t see our purpose as one of protecting the interests of multinational corporations,” says Charles B. Heck, North American director of the Trilateral Commission. “We’re trying to think about foreign policy issues in as broad a framework as we can. I see us serving a very broad public interest.”

Heck has heard all the attacks and critiques before. In fact, he used to do a lot of radio talk shows, particularly around 1979 and 1980. “That seemed to be when the mythology was most intense.”

People had taken note of the number of former Trilateralists in the Carter administration. There was Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s national security adviser, the man considered the ideological godfather of Trilateralism. And also Walter Mondale, Cyrus Vance, Harold Brown, W. Michael Blumenthal, Andrew Young.

During the 1980 presidential campaign, Bush’s Trilateralist background is said to have disturbed Ronald Reagan’s supporters on the far right. On top of that, third-party candidate John B. Anderson was a Trilateralist too.

In Heck’s view, right-wing anti-Trilateralism has always been rooted in simple isolationism. “This country finds it difficult to be so interdependent with the rest of the world, given our history and our national traditions,” he says. “It’s a hard lesson for {Americans} to grasp.”

The idea behind creating the commission, he says, was that “the United States would never again be in such a singularly dominant position as in the immediate post-World-War-II era, and that leadership in the world would have to be shared.” Now, such matters as the ecology — a new focus of Trilateralist study — will require global cooperation, Heck says.

And that doesn’t mean one world government. Nor does it mean that the Trilateral Commission even speaks with one voice, he says. It isn’t a lobbying group.

“There are wildly overblown notions out there about what a group like this does and can do,” he says. “There aren’t lists of recommended actions {that attendees} leave with and commit themselves to implement.”

Heck, in fact, expects about half of the commission’s members to miss the Lisbon conference this weekend. We’re talking about people, he says, who tend to be busy. Among the topics to be discussed are regional trade agreements, migration and refugees issues and post-Cold-War international security.

Living Well A few working journalists are on the Trilateral Commission. And if a solid, straight-standing American journalist won’t give you the real lowdown on what’s happening behind closed doors, no one will.

“It does not run the world,” says Time magazine Editor-at-Large Strobe Talbott, who’s been a Trilateralist for at least six years. “Present company emphatically excluded, it’s made up of a number of highly influential people. The body itself does not presume some sort of unitary influence. In fact, quite the contrary. … There’s a lot of diversity.

“The proceedings I would describe as much more like a large and high-powered seminar than a parliament or a board of directors,” he says.

David Gergen, editor-at-large at U.S. News & World Report, agrees. “These things sound powerful until you go to them,” he says. “Then you find out that these are people who are genuinely interested in discussing things with each other. When private citizens can have those discussions in a frank and open way, that’s helpful.”

Invited by David Rockefeller to join the commission last year, Gergen will address the Lisbon conference, along with Talbott, on the American political scene.

Why don’t these annual Trilateral get-togethers generate much news coverage?

“Why should they?” Talbott says. “People are not coming there to make news.” (To ensure an uninhibited discussion, Trilateral Commission meetings are deemed to be “on background,” which means Gergen and Talbott can’t quote the participants.)

And how does the gathering measure up as a social event? Cocktail wieners aplenty, or what?

“I would not call the proceedings spartan,” Talbott says. After all, these are people “who know how to live well and like to live well.”

He adds, though, “these are people who don’t have to go halfway around the world for a good meal or a good bottle of wine. They come for something else, and that’s the content of the discussion.”

How the Trilateral Commission Drove a Bankers’ Coup Across America

Strategic Culture, August 12, 2019

Until recently I had believed like many that Jimmy Carter is not your typical politician. Standing out from the vast array of sellouts and establishment hacks, the ex-President has often appeared as the lone voice of reason in America’s establishment calling out the injustices of American military, the wrongs of the Zionist lobby and the self-destructive nature of the American oligarchy. Surely a man who speaks so candidly cannot be bad.

While I believe Carter probably has good intentions, I also believe that the man is likely just as clueless today as he was when he was used as a puppet by those forces now identified as the international Deep State which took over American foreign and internal policy during his 1977-1981 presidency.

Under Carter’s reign, an organization which grew out of the combined influence of the Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderberg Group took over America under the name of the Trilateral Commission which overturned the last remnants of anti-imperial impulses left over from the vision provided by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, converting America into the self-destructive basket case we have come to know it as today.

Since those Trilateral reforms were so all-encompassing and touch on issues of economic policy, the creation of foreign debt slavery, terrorist financing and green energy, it is worth conducting a brief assessment of how this happened while also looking at some of the key players that made it happen.

The Trilateral Commission takes over

While James Carter became America’s 39th president in 1977, the Trilateral Commission was actually created in 1973 under the nominal head of David Rockefeller III (president of Chase Manhattan Bank) and a coterie of international financiers and imperialistically-minded ideologues who believed religiously in the utopian doctrine of global governance under a master-slave ethic. The idea of consolidating three global zones of power (North America, Western Europe and Japan) during the height of the Cold War under a unified command structure was the motive behind the creation of this think tank at that time.

A leading figure in the Trilateral Commission who later became Carter’s National Security Advisor was named Zbigniew Brzezinski who referred to this agenda as the “Technetronic era” which he described in 1970 as an age involving “the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.” Who would these specialists represent? In his Between Two Ages, Brzezinski made it very clear: “The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state”.

Senator Barry Goldwater called out this foreign beast transforming America in his 1979 autobiography With No Apologies by saying “The Trilateralist Commission is international…(and)…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”

Another American political figure then combating this foreign virus was Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche who prophetically wrote The Trilateral Commission’s Rapid End to Democracy on August 4, 1981 stating: “The plan is to combine the collapse of the financial system of the United States and most of Western Europe with other countries to create a ‘global crisis management’ scenario on the largest and most catastrophic scales… the financial crisis is to be used to subject the United States, among other nations so treated to a dictatorship by decree of the IMF.”

Under Brzezinski’s leadership one third of the Trilateral Commission’s members were appointed to top cabinet posts under Carter. Notable members here worth mentioning include Walter Mondale (Vice President), Harold Brown (Defense Secretary), Cyrus Vance (Secretary of State), Michael Blumenthal (Treasury Secretary), James Schlesinger (Energy Czar), Paul Volcker (Fed Chairman). Just to get across the British pedigree of this group, Brzezinski and Blumenthal were not only Bilderberg members, but 2 of the 9 directors of the Council on Foreign Relations Project for the 1980s. The CFR is the Cecil Rhodes/Roundtable Group that set up in America in 1921 to advance Rhodes’ mandate to recapture America as the lost colony and re-establish a new British Empire.

The Crisis of Democracy                      

In 1975, Brzezinski’s assistant Samuel P. Huntington authored a book called Crisis of Democracy as part of the Council on Foreign Relations 1980s Project that published 33 books by 10 Task Forces in order to usher in the Technetronic era. Huntington said “we have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lacks authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices which will be necessary.”

Huntington and Brzezinski conducted a foreign affairs reform that began funding radical Islamic schools and political movements beginning with the USAID-led overthrow of the Shah of Iran and the installation of the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The US funding of Al Qaeda and the Mujahedeen was nominally done for the pragmatic reason of countering the Soviets in Afghanistan, however the real reason was to justify a “Clash of Civilizations” thesis that Huntington later published under the presumption that the major religions could have no peace unless a global Leviathan were created to impose order from above. This was a clear cut case of the Pygmalion effect to the extreme.

It is here noteworthy that the Shah, along with many leaders of the Non-Aligned movement were then engaged in a major struggle to break free of the neo-colonial debt-slavery structure under Anglo-American control by using their inalienable sovereign powers to cancel the unpayable debts while unleashing investments into scientific and technological progress using the post WWII “Japan-model”. Japan’s inspiring post-WWII leap from feudalism to an advanced scientific-industrial economy made its membership in the Trilateral Commission that much more important in the minds of the new Olympian gods who feared other developing nations would follow suite.

The Controlled Disintegration of the West

Two months after being appointed Federal Reserve Chairman, Paul Volcker gave a lecture in Warwick University London proclaiming “a controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s”.

Volcker managed this controlled disintegration by raising interest rates to 20-21.5% beginning in 1979- leaving them there until 1982 while also raising reserve requirements for Commercial banks. The effect forever crippled America’s economy with agricultural production collapsing vastly, metal-cutting machine tools collapsed by 45.5%, automobile production collapsed by 44.3% and steel production collapsed by 49.4%. During this traumatic period, small and medium enterprises were intentionally bankrupted across all sectors of the North American and European economies leaving only multinational corporations in a position to afford such interest rates. Volcker’s program paved the way for the 1981 Kemp-Roth Tax Act that opened up real estate speculation and the 1982 Garn- St. Germaine Act which de-regulated U.S. Banks and advanced the creation of universal/too-big-to-fail banking.

In that same period, third world debtors having to pay 20% interest saw their debts skyrocket by 40-70%. Leaders who resisted this program such as Pakistan’s Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, India’s Indira Gandhi, Burkina Faso’s Thomas Sankara, and Mexico’s Lopez Portillo et al. were systematically killed or overthrown.

When it became evident that an incoming President Ronald Reagan was not favorable to the Trilateral Commission/CFR agenda- pushing for bilateral meetings with Gandhi and Mexico’s Portillo in 1981 in order to assist their industrial growth policies and threatening to fire Volcker, his elimination was quickly orchestrated. After CFR/Trilateral Commission member George Bush was placed as Reagan’s VP (ousting Reagan’s friend Sen. Paul Laxalt during a Rockefeller-run media scandal), John Hinckley- an MK Ultra psych job deeply tied into the Bush family, was deployed to carry out an assassination shooting Reagan in the chest on March 30, 1981.

Reagan never recovered from this attempt and the well-intentioned but highly malleable Hollywood star became increasingly moulded by CFR-Trilateral Commission agents in spite of his tendency to allow himself to be influenced by pro-nation state figures exemplified by his endorsement of the Joint US-Soviet plan for the Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983 (later corrupted into a unilateral doctrine by Bush Sr.)

Green Depopulation

It should not be ignored that the transformation of the American economy from a pro-industrial growth open system model into a closed system Malthusian model was also an initiative of forces controlling the Trilateral Commission.

In 1974, David Rockefeller III keynoted the Club of Rome/UN World Population Conference in Bucharest stating “There is a need to revise the concept of economic growth. Particularly in recent years, the limits of growth have come into our consciousness. The depletion of resources, pollution, and the energy crisis have made all that very clear. The character and purpose of growth must be changed.”

The agenda for a “post-industrial society” driven by a green infrastructure revolution was laid out in the July 24, 1980 Global 2000 Report that called for energy conservation, population control and environmentalism as the foundation for the new economy. Later that year, the World Wildlife Fund’s Global Conservation Strategy is published paralleling the Global 2000 thesis. The WWF was headed by Prince Philip and Prince Bernhardt during this time and its vice presidents during Carter’s administration included Louis Mortimer Bloomfield whose Permindex Bureau was caught coordinating JFK’s assassination and Trilateral Commission member Maurice Strong who called for a destruction of industrial civilization in a 1990 interview.

This was not just a history lesson

What you have just read may appear on the surface to be a history report but it is much more than that. It is a future report.

It is a future report since your future is being shaped by historical forces that you need to understand if you are going to be able to choose to influence your reality in accord with those historical trajectories that are actually in harmony with the real self-interests of mankind.

The forces of progress and anti-colonialism that the Trilateral Commission sought to snuff out 40 years ago have been revived under the renewed leadership of Russia, China and a growing array of nations who want to have a future. Increasingly, nationalist forces (as confused as they may be) have arisen as an anti-technocratic movement across North America and Europe which offers nations once believed lost to the New World Order, a chance to revive their lost renaissance heritage.

The only thing standing in the way from western nations joining the Belt and Road Initiative, re-organizing the bankrupt financial system and unleashing productive credit to revive the real economy is 1) a lack of understanding of history and 2) a confused sense of the true nature of humanity, as a species above other beasts of the ecosystem- capable of constant perfectibility and creative discovery.

Anything that denies this concept humanity and natural law such as the Green New Deal should be treated as the noxious wet dream of the Volckers, Rockefellers, Brzezinskis and other Trilateral Commission zombies who had a long way to go before qualifying themselves as human.

A CAPTURE FROM EPSTEIN’S OWN WEBSITE, NOW DELETED AND ARCHIVED

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

IF YOU’RE READING THIS, YOU’RE PROBABLY TARGETED BY A GOVERNMENT OR TWO. SO I MADE SOMETHING FOR YOU.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

Elon Musk is not trolling Twitter right now, he’s trolling you.
I wonder if “Technocracy Gray” and “NPC Gray” are the same nuance.
You’ll understand if you pay close attention below.

LATER ADDAGIO TO EVERYTHING BELOW

INTRODUCING JOSHUA HALDEMAN, ELON MUSK’S GRANDFATHER WHO WROTE A PAGE OF HISTORY IN CANDA

Joshua N Haldeman, DC: the Canadian Years, 1926-1950

Authors:

Joseph C Keating

Scott Haldeman, University of California, Irvine

Dr. Scott Haldeman is a board certified Neurologist in active clinical practice in Santa Ana, California. He currently is a distinguished Professor at the University of California, the Chairman of the Research Council for the World Federation of Chiropractic and the Founder/President of World Spine Care.
Accomplished in his own right, he also happens to be the uncle of one of the worlds great innovators, Elon Musk. Read how the young Musk spent time on the Haldeman family farm in Saskatchewan. Both Scott’s father and his grandmother (Musk’s great-grandmother) were chiropractors. In fact, Almeda Haldeman became Canada’s first known chiropractor in the early 1900’s.

Source Regina Leader-Post

Abstract

Born in 1902 to the earliest chiropractor known to practice in Canada, Joshua Norman Haldeman would develop national and international stature as a political economist, provincial and national professional leader, and sportsman/adventurer.

A 1926 graduate of the Palmer School of Chiropractic, he would maintain a lifelong friendship with B.J. Palmer, and served in the late 1940s as Canada’s representative to the Board of Control of the International Chiropractors’ Association. Yet, he would also maintain strong alliances with broad-scope leaders in Canada and the United States, including the administrators of the National and Lincoln chiropractic schools.

Haldeman, who would practice chiropractic in Regina for at least 15 years, was instrumental in obtaining, and is credited with composing the wording of, Saskatchewan’s 1943 Chiropractic Act. He served on the province’s first board of examiners and the provincial society’s first executive board.

The following year Dr. Haldeman represented Saskatchewan in the deliberations organized by Walter Sturdy, D.C. that gave rise to the Dominion Council of Canadian Chiropractors, forerunner of today’s Canadian Chiropractic Association. As a member of the Dominion Council he fought for inclusion of chiropractors as commissioned officers during World War II, and participated in the formation of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, which he subsequently served as a member of the first board of directors.

Dr. Haldeman also earned a place in the political history of Canada, owing to his service as research director for Technocracy, Inc. of Canada, his national chairmanship of the Social Credit Party during the second world war, and his unsuccessful bid for the national parliament.

His vocal opposition to Communism during the war briefly landed him in jail. His 1950 relocation of his family and practice to Pretoria, South Africa would open a new page in his career: once again as professional pioneer, but also as aviator and explorer. Although he died in 1974, the values he instilled in his son, Scott Haldeman, D.C., Ph.D., M.D. continue to influence the profession.

INTRODUCING TECHNOCRACY INC. AND THEIR TRILATERAL COMMISSION CONNECTION

TECHNOCRACY INC. defines itself as “a non-profit membership organization incorporated under the laws of the State of New York. It is a Continental Organization. It is not a financial racket or a political party. Technocracy Inc. operates only on the North American Continent through the structure of its own Continental Headquarters, Area Controls, Regional Divisions, Sections, and Organizers as a self-disciplined, self-controlled organization. It has no affiliations with any other organization, movement, or association, whether in North America or elsewhere. Technocracy points out that this Continent has the natural resources, the physical equipment, and the trained personnel to produce and distribute an abundance. Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate. Technocracy declares that this Continent has a rendezvous with Destiny; that this Continent must decide between Abundance and Chaos within the next few years. Technocracy realizes that this decision must be made by a mass movement of North Americans trained and self-disciplined, capable of operating a technological mechanism of production and distribution on the Continent when the present Price System becomes impotent to operate. Technocracy Inc. is notifying every intelligent and courageous North American that his future tomorrow rests on what he does today. Technocracy offers the specifications and the blueprints of Continental physical operations for the production of abundance for every citizen.”

In their Introduction to Technocracy, published in 1933, the movement’s leaders declared that the “riff-raff” of outdated social institutions was blocking progress and politicians should be swept aside, just as alchemists and astrologers had previously given way to science. Traditional economics, obsessed with arbitrary pricing mechanisms rather than rational production, was nothing more than the “pathology of debt”.
“In contrast to the devious ways of politics, the fumbling methods of finance and business . . . we have the methods of science and technology,” the movement’s manifesto declared. “Modern common sense is now calling upon physical science and technology to extend the frontiers of their domain.”

Financial Times

“Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateral Commission embarked on a New International Economic Order based on Technocracy. Brzezinski called this the “Technetronic Era” in his 1970 book, Between Two Ages. History now reveals the original Trilateral strategy and the means by which they have carried it out” – Patrick Wood

The Trilateral Commission and Technocracy (2013 presentation)

This film below was produced by Technocracy Inc. itself, to document their so called “Operation Columbia”, or, as I call it, “The original Trucker Convoy”.
According to some sources, this operation is what landed Elon Musk’s grandfather in prison. Briefly, for no apparent reason.
We found out about the Rockefeller – Technocracy link.
This movie brings proof the movement was also backed by The Masonic Temple (as admitted at min 6:42).

Drawing direct lines from the info above to the current world order is simpler than toasting a sandwich, but if you have difficulties, use the Search Box on the main page of our website to find all the missing links, they’re all here.

I will continue to add resources and revelations here, so if you come back later, you will most likely find more value and details. However, the bottom line here won’t change: Elon Musk is just another elite silver-spoon fed baby, Bill Gates with a better PR and understanding of human psyche.

The more Technocracy propaganda you watch, the more it overlaps with the Great Reset

Technocracy 101 – self-presentation film
What is Technocracy? 1981 tv panel
Jacques Fresco explains why he left the organization
Fresco’s “Venus Project” is another precursor to Elon Musk’s “Martian Technocracy”. It’s not a coincidence.
Technocracy Origins / Replacing money with energy certificates
Carbon taxes anyone? This is why energy oligarchs like the Rockefellers loved and adopted Technocracy.
Clip from James Corbett’s documentary film “Why Big Oil Conquered the World”

 “[Musk is] like Beelzebub, popping up every time the worlds of government funding, military research and Bilderberg technocrats collide.”

James Corbett

I leave the closing word to our friend James Corbett:

<<When our good friends at DARPA hold a Robotic Challenge, Musk is there.

When the World Government Summit convenes, Musk is the star attraction.

Need someone to pimp transhumanism? Musk is only too happy to explain the potential dangers of AI, and to present his solution: We must merge with the machines so that we’re not “irrelevant” when the robots take over. (And, oh yeah, he happens to have a company that’s working on the first “neural lace” mind-machine merger technology).

Yes, wherever the globalist fat cats meet to discuss technocratic ideas for the future, it’s a safe bet that Musk will be within spitting distance. But the part of this story you may not know is that Musk’s technocratic proclivity is not just a happenstance of character; it’s in his genes. You see, Elon Musk is the grandson of Joshua Haldeman.

Never heard of Joshua Haldeman? He may not be remembered today, but he was a notable figure in his day. An American by birth, Haldeman moved to southwest Saskatchewan in 1906 at the age of four. During his eventful time in the Canadian prairies, Haldeman helped found the province’s first chiropractic association, he “waged a public health campaign against Coca-Cola,” and, depending on whether you trust the Canadian Chiropractic Association or The Financial Times, he was either the “research director” or the “party leader” of the Canadian branch of the Technocracy Party (or maybe both?).

As I’ve discussed on The Corbett Report many times now, technocracy was a movement that gained popularity in the 1930s which sought to construct a system for scientifically engineering society. In the technocrats’ vision, the world would be divided into regional units called “technates” which would be run by “technocrats”: scientists, engineers, economists and others with specialized knowledge of specific technical fields. According to this ideology, economic (and thus societal and even geopolitical) turmoil could be eliminated when consumption and production are perfectly balanced by a cadre of learned technocrats with access to total oversight of all economic data.

The idea was ludicrous. The type of technology that would have been required to properly administer this technocracy—technology for monitoring every industrial process, every product and every transaction in the economy—simply did not exist when the idea was first conceived. But that didn’t stop the technocrats, or the visionary leader of what became Technocracy, Inc., a fully-fledged movement/political party/cult complete with a uniform (a “well-tailored double-breasted suit, gray shirt, and blue necktie, with a monad insignia on the lapel”) and a mandate to salute the movement’s leader on sight.

As viewers of Why Big Oil Conquered the World will know, that leader—Howard Scott—was a charlatan, and he was quickly disgraced when it was discovered he had “padded his resume” and falsely claimed engineering credentials which he did not possess. But that didn’t stop the technocracy movement, which gained a large following in the tumultuous 1930s in the United States and Canada.

The Canadian branch of the party at least gained enough attention to be banned by the government of Canada as a subversive organization of revolutionaries who, it was feared, would attempt to overthrow the government. This caused the disillusioned Haldeman to give up on Canada altogether. He packed up his things and moved his family to South Africa, which is where his grandson, Elon Musk, was born.

This connection is not just tangential. It tells us something about Musk’s roots and his vision. And it tells us that when he is preparing “to build the Martian Technocracy” he is not using that word in a careless way. He knows exactly what it means.>>

The coming technocracy

As 2020 draws to a close, one trend among nations most severely hit by COVID-19 bears some discussion. It is that democracies are evolving into technocracies, by which I mean a form of governance where those with political power are appointed on the basis of their scientific expertise. It would be hard to deny that scientists have assumed a role in political decision making unparalleled in recent memory. The French public intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy was the first to raise the issue of medical power. He argued that the influence of doctors and scientists was predicated on several misconceptions—that progress in controlling the pandemic was not based on an accumulation of discoveries, but on a series of corrected errors; that there was no scientific consensus on what course of action to take, only a “non-stop quarrel”; and that a “doctrine of hygienics” made health an unhealthy obsession. Initially, I thought he had stretched his critique too far. Scientists didn’t create this pandemic; they didn’t ask to be the servants of political decision making. On the contrary, many who found themselves in front of television cameras looked profoundly uncomfortable. Several had had to endure wholly unfair attacks in more libertarian media. But as the response to the pandemic unfolded, it has become all too clear that the work of scientists has put a powerful constraint on political action. Presidents and prime ministers now fear to step outside the boundaries set by science. Technocracy is replacing democracy.

Technocratic governments are crisis governments. And most western democracies are in crisis and will remain in crisis for several years to come. The grip of scientists will tighten around the neck of governments. We have already seen how mathematical modelling has shaped precautionary “circuit-breaks”, regional tiering, and strategies for testing and case detection. But the reach of science goes beyond the day-to-day management of the outbreak. Tzvetan Todorov, in his 2006 book In Defence of the Enlightenment, asked what kind of intellectual and moral base should we seek to build our communal life in an age where God was dead and our utopias had collapsed. He turned to “the humanist dimension of the Enlightenment” that was based on three principles. First, autonomy—“giving priority to what individuals decide for themselves”. We should seek “total freedom to examine, question, criticise, and challenge dogmas and institutions”. Second, the end purpose of that freedom should be humanism: “Human beings had to impart meaning to their earthly lives.” And third, universality. “The demand for equality followed from the principle of universality.” Knowledge was to be a critical force in this project. And the “emancipation of knowledge paved the way for the development of science”. But science can all too easily be corrupted into scientism, which then becomes “a distortion of the Enlightenment, its enemy not its avatar”. Danger comes when political choices are equated with scientific deductions, when good is only derived from truth. At that moment, a society comes to believe that the world is completely knowable. Experts are sought not only to set political objectives, but also to formulate moral norms. At that moment, democracy is in jeopardy.

Todorov quotes the chemist and politician Antoine Lavoisier—“the true end of a government should be to increase the joy, happiness, and wellbeing of all individuals”. Will the slide towards technocracy, the increasing power of unelected scientific elites, bring better opportunities to achieve such an end? One advantage of technocracy is already clear. The worst excesses of political populism have been blunted. We have all seen how a politics based on the exploitation of discontent, disaffection, and dissatisfaction divides nations and leaves tens of thousands of citizens vulnerable to a pathogen that exploits inequality, accentuates poverty, and abuses the excluded. A technocracy is a powerful corrective force to this manipulation of the political process. But such an evolution carries dangers too. Scientists are not accountable to the publics they hope to serve. The next few years will see the crisis of COVID-19 continue in various social, economic, and political forms. Will the newly fashioned technopolitics be able to adapt to the needs of a battered citizenry? One hopes so. But with a degraded and distrusted political class, the passing of power to science could prove to be a dangerous subversion of what is left of our atrophied democratic values.

Elon Musk exposed by Greg Reese
I rest my case

FAST FORWARD TO MAY 2023:

Only a shill would pick a shill like Linda Yaccarino to run Twitter
ONLY A SHILL WOULD PICK A SHILL LIKE LINDA YACCARINO TO RUN TWITTER
READ THE LATEST UPDATES HERE

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

ICAN just got banned by Twitter for unloading another FOIA release with Fauci e-mails!
This happened like hours ago. I haven’t reviewed many of the e-mails yet. Developing story

DOWNLOAD E-MAILS

FIRST BOMBSHELL I FOUND:

PAGE 103-104

PAGE 103-104

I haven’t covered the Commission much on SILVIEW.media, for more info I recommend searching it on the Corbett Report website

SECONDLY…

PAGE 142-143

Check: VACCINE COMPANIES NEVER HAD THE VIRUS IN THEIR LABS, JUST A MEMO FROM CHINA – TOP INDUSTRY INSIDER

AND FOR MY 3RD NUMBER…

Well deserved separate post here:

MOAB! FAUCI’S E-MAILS ACCIDENTALLY VINDICATE EVEN CHEMTRAIL THEORISTS

ICAN (Informed Consent Action Network, founded by Del Bigtree) website

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous supporters. But we’re not really covering our costs so far, and we’re in dire needs to upgrade our equipment, especially for video production.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE