The Trilateral Commission and the EU – Part 3

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s one for you:

tlc 19 5 mbrs

Part 1 herePart 2 here.

Just a nice convivial TLC gathering of peace and mutual understanding [above].  Let’s look at whom each of these is:

#  Zbigniew Brzezinski [mentioned in Part 1]
#  Peter Sutherland [European Commission]
#  David Rockefeller [’nuff said]
#  Paul Volcker [chairman of the Federal Reserve under Carter]
#  Sadako Ogata [look at her sanitized CV here]

Interesting grouping, yes?  All members of the Trilateral Commission.  Now, look at the Wiki entry, in the hopes of getting an unbiased assessment and what do we find?  A section called “Conspiracy Theories”.  The instant those weasel words are trotted out, that’s the end of the argument as far as they’re concerned.  To back up the allegation that only nutcases say the TLC’s agenda is not exactly philanthropic, the Wiki article puts known divisive names in the John Birch Society and Alex Jones up front, suggesting they are the only people concerned with the group.

But you’ve just read Part 1 and Part 2 of this series and saw no references to either.  You read the exact words of the founders of the TLC themselves and subsequent words by TLC movers and shakers and you’re about to get more.

So whoever wrote the Wiki writeup is disingenuous, to say the least.  Let’s press on.  Some of the criticism gets through for a while until the video or the post is taken down.  Here is one by Italian MEP Mario Borghezio, denouncing the :

… influence of Bilderberg and Trilateral Commission in EU nominations

… this heading followed by:

This video has been removed.

Well, of course.  Here’s the TLC’s traction in Norway, for example. The TLC has some history in Europe. Immediately after the close of the Cold War, the Trilateral Commission – a private policy group comprised of American, European, and Asian counterparts – released its study, Regionalism in a Converging World, Trilateral Commission/Trilateral Papers #42, 1992. According to its Introduction:

“…regionalism need not be opposed to globalism. The world should not have to choose between one or the other. It needs to live with both. The challenge…is how to channel the forces of regionalism in directions compatible with and supportive of globalism.”

The idea is not the TLC’s – they merely parrot what is pushed by the globalists and it goes back a very long way. in 1914, the first year of The Great War (WWI), Nicholas Murray Butler – President of Columbia University and later recipient of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize – suggested [A World in Ferment: Interpretations of the War for a New World (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1918), see the section entitled “The United States of Europe,” pp.27, 31-32, 36.] that European unification and the advent of a supra-national government was needed to replace the “existing national system.”

“What will be in substance a United States of Europe, a more or less formal federation of the self-governing countries of Europe, may be the outcome of the demonstrated failure of the existing national system to adjust government to the growth of civilization…

“There is no reason why each nation in Europe should not make a place for itself in the sun of unity which I feel sure is rising there behind the war-clouds. Europe’s stupendous economic loss, which already has been appalling and will soon be incalculable, will give us an opportunity to press this argument home…

“…the time will come when each nation will deposit in a world federation some portion of its sovereignty for the general good. When this happens it will be possible to establish an international executive and an international police, both devised for the especial purpose of enforcing the decisions of the international court.”

The trick was how to achieve it and many thinktanks wrote on it, many political unifications were attempted. R.W. Keyserlingk, Fathers of Europe, Palm Publishers, 1972, pp.2-3, wrote:

“First, the political line was attempted and although this proved almost to be putting the cart before the horse, it had considerable merit for the future. It created the Council of Europe and the European Parliament…

“When the political approach revealed the insurmountable difficulties of getting down to practical working measures, Robert Shuman came up with the second possibility, economic integration; a merging of interlocking interests, the abolition of trade barriers eliminating economic competition…working out of common policies for use of the labour market…freedom of movement for workers…and a gradual strengthening of joint economic policies…”

Europe became for the rest of the world a recognized model to advance internationalism above single state interests. This reality was perceived early on by European federalists and is evident in the 1946 Hertenstein Program. The Hertenstein Programme developed out of a meeting between European and world federalists, and was hosted by the Swiss Europa Union Schweiz. The conference was held from September 15-22, 1946:

“A European Community on federal lines is a necessary and essential contribution to any world union…The members of the European Union shall transfer part of their sovereign rights – economic, political and military – to the Federation which they constitute…By showing that it can solve the problems of its destiny in a federal spirit, Europe will make its contribution to reconstruction and to the creation of a world community of peoples.”

By the 1970s, the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, and the Institute for World Order all looked to regionalism as a trump card over nationalism. For the Trilateral Commission, see their 1974 report, The Crisis of International Cooperation. For the Club of Rome, see their report, Mankind at the Turning Point. For the Institute for World Order, see their World Order Models Project report, On the Creation of a Just World Order (1975).

The Club of Rome envisioned a world zoned into ten different blocs, and acknowledged that the regional view was necessary for global development [Mihajlo Mesarovic and Eduard Pestel, Mankind at the Turning Point: The Second Report to the Club of Rome (Club of Rome/Signet, 1974/76), p.39. Jan Tinbergen (coordinator), RIO: Reshaping the International Order (Club of Rome, 1976), p.100. ] In another report released during this same time period, the Club of Rome merged the steering of world change, anti-nationalism, and regional cooperation.

“In the present international order huge power is concentrated in individualized nation-States. Seen from a world viewpoint, this must be deemed undesirable. Some of the means which could be employed to attain those objectives of vital importance to the international community can more effectively be handled by higher levels of decision-making…the achievement of some aims, such as the creation of larger markets through regional and sub-regional cooperation (collective self-reliance), would be facilitated by decision-making on a level higher than the nation-State.”

Today, global elites from both Europe and America consider regionalism to be a prime stratagem for global governance. In fact, this “new regionalism” is now embraced by a multitude of key individuals, organizations, and governmental agencies. As two United Nations University document released in 2005 state [Tânia Felício, Managing Security as a Regional Public Good: A Regional-Global Mechanism for Security (United Nations University-CRIS Occasional Paper, 2005). See the section, “Security as a Regional Public Good,” third last paragraph]:

“…regional governance is not incompatible with and does not negate global governance. On the contrary, it has the potential to strengthen global governance. The regional logic has always been inherent to the global body…”

And, Luk Van Langenhove and Ana-Cristina Costea, Inter-regionalism and the Future of Multilateralism (United Nations University – CRIS Occasional Paper, 2005), p.10. report:

“Regional integration between sovereign states…is a booming phenomenon, and, not surprisingly, it is nowadays seen as a process that, together with globalization, challenges the existing Westphalian [nation-centered] world order.”

Back to the TLC

It’s not the contention of this series of three posts to assert that the TLC alone is responsible for the current state of affairs in Europe but it certainly jollied the process along and in its recommendations, it is not out of step with the other globalist thinktanks.  It’s also vitally interested in Europe.

Robert A. Pastor, like Rumpy Pumpy in Europe, is a quiet, unassuming man, the type you’d warm to and have a drink with, except for one thing.  Here’s a summary:

tlc 20 robert a pastor

Here’s his view of Europe, adopted by Giscard d’Estaing:

tlc 21 crisis man

Pastor’s method is to take a crisis, wherever it occurs and utilize it to further the ends which hitherto had met barriers and blockages:

tlc 22 crisis

A nice, warm man to allow into your country.  What sort of crises could he possibly be referring to though?

tlc 23

As Patrick Wood, August Review dot com, said – when there is a crisis, don’t concentrate on the crisis itself – it’s just the smokescreen.  Instead, look at who makes major advances in that crisis, both financially and politically [the two are intertwined].

That’s where the true crims will be found.

H/T  Xxxl via Patrick Wood, August Review dot com

Part 1 herePart 2 here.

40 comments for “The Trilateral Commission and the EU – Part 3

  1. March 15, 2010 at 23:35

    Instead, look at who makes major advances in that crisis, both financially and politically [the two are intertwined].

    That’s where the true crims will be found.

    And in the US, the Fed gets ever more regulatory powers.

    And the military prepares to hit Iran

  2. March 16, 2010 at 09:32

    The military buildup is frightening. They want Iran hit no matter what. Now fair enough – a small nuclear device which took out the leadership and all the Imams in one go would be a nice idea, provided none of the people got hit but what is planned is far more than just a wrist slapping. Anyone remember Franz Ferdinand?

  3. March 16, 2010 at 21:40

    Great job, James. I’ve put in one place, which will post about a bit (

  4. March 17, 2010 at 12:30

    Gone to post heaven again, James.
    One minute pre this post.

  5. March 17, 2010 at 12:36

    Note in the final table.

    England, Japan, Eurozone, Switzerland all got a double dose…..

    • March 17, 2010 at 15:51

      Brief rest at my end before getting into it again.

  6. March 17, 2010 at 16:47

    No problem, Buddy….not pushin’, just sayin’ 🙂

  7. March 18, 2010 at 13:39

    Peter Sutherland has a residence in Cork, Ireland.

    For Sen Chris Dodd to be with him for such a local event would imply a personal invitation from Sutherland.

    Dodds positioning and actions in the Senate are entirely at ease with the over-riding ambitions of the Trilateral Comm. His position in the Senate is extremely enabling.

  8. March 18, 2010 at 14:23


    Not again!

    Post heaven, one minute pre this post, James.

  9. March 18, 2010 at 14:49

    Chris Dodd Is a member of the CFR!

    But he Does not appear to be a member of the TLC

    But then again, …..Sutherland is a member of both.

  10. March 18, 2010 at 14:50


    That’s another one gone to post heaven.

    One minute pre THIS post James…

    Someone should shoot the security guys!

  11. March 18, 2010 at 14:51

    That’s 2 so far James.

  12. March 18, 2010 at 14:57

    Chris Dodd in Finace committee, is like putting arsonists in charge of the fire brigade.

  13. March 18, 2010 at 23:31


  14. March 19, 2010 at 09:06

    If the US government has a budget of 3.8T$ and supposedly governs a 10T$ economy yet five commercial banks control 198 T$ of derivatives who do you think really runs the country?

  15. March 19, 2010 at 09:07

    Are my posts invisible or something?

    Am I the only one who can see them?

  16. March 19, 2010 at 09:12

    The real mitigating factor is these banks are more powerful than the government. They have the power to destroy the global financial system quicker than any nuclear conflict could. And there is no Non- Proliferation Treaty for derivatives!

    After my March 2009 article that exposed who are the massive short sellers of gold and silver the CFTC has now become totally farcical. They issue a Bank Participation report that is missing bank participation information!

    Mirror mirror, on the wall………………….

  17. March 19, 2010 at 09:19

    The CFTC has been investigating possible market manipulation in gold and silver for one year and a half. Yet the CFTC has just facilitated the anonymity of those banks who GATA has long implicated in the suppression of the price of gold and silver. What is taking so long to investigate? Is the time being spent to expose manipulation or finding ways to cover it up?

    JPMorgan Chase and HSBC are running a bucket shop. Very little metal is ever delivered on the COMEX so the market can be manipulated by anyone with large positions and deep pockets. JPM and HSBC qualify on both counts. This then
    allows them to make billions of dollars in the precious metal and gold OTC derivatives market, which is much bigger than the COMEX itself.

    HSBC is the custodian of the gold in the GLD ETF and JPMorgan is the custodian of the silver in the SLV ETF. The prospectuses of these ETF’s have omitted a “material fact” that their custodians have sold gold and silver on a massive scale and that they do not have the metal to meet those liabilities.

    There is an obvious conflict of interest. Such an omission is a criminal offence under article 10(b) of the Securities Act.

    The CFTC has the power under the CEA to suspend the membership of anyone from an exchange if they have violated the Securities Act. Will they do so?

    I will not hold my breath!

    Mirror mirror, on the wall….

  18. March 19, 2010 at 09:20

    Yup, I can see them OK.

    But are the visible to others??

  19. March 19, 2010 at 09:23


    Now they are visible.

    Thanks James.

  20. March 19, 2010 at 10:43

    Are my posts invisible or something? Am I the only one who can see them?

    They’re visible, Xxxl but they suffer from three issues:

    1. Not everyone understands the eco-speak;
    2. Few want to know what’s actually happening and with hands on ears and with eyes closed, they say there’s nothing wrong;
    3. There are so many nefarious things going on, one after the other, that people are just in shell-shock and switch off, especially to those bringing the news.

  21. March 19, 2010 at 11:32

    James, put simply, (I know you understand)

    There are perhaps 25 international banks, and (mainly) central banks of the West, working to an agenda.

    The agenda is a One World Order, or New World Order, or call it what you will.

    The outline of the NWO, the quality of life, the level of “democracy”, etc of this structure can be judged by the writings of the vocal proponents of the NWO. It is STILL being engineered by stealth because they realise that should they be discovered by a majority, the strength of opposition would derail their intentions for decades, and the vocal proponents are getting old.

    Ergo, they must use deceit, and manufactured global problems.

    There are many blogs concentrating on NWO political details, etc.
    Given the size of the financial institutions, and the fact that “Finance”, Banksters, are the prime movers towards this cause, this is an aspect that most are missing. As one of my previous quotes says, there are about 5 Wall Street banks with large enough derivative holdings to collapse the global economy. While ever scum like Dodd of the CFR occupy pivotal posts in the design of regulations, etc, should politics fail, these financial entities can accomplish their intent without political, or geo-political aid.

    I did have a link outlining Sutherlands hand in the persuading of the Irish Gov’t to push Lisbon 2, but I’ve lost it.

    There is a difference of opinion developing between Europe and the US, as to who should dominate whom, finance or politics. How deep it will go is anyones guess at the moment. Currently there is a move to exclude Wall Street from Eu bond sales, and individual countries in the EU and S E Asia are moving to exclude Wall Street. Similarly EU nations are attacking individual Wall Street banks in the courts, over fraudulent derivative sales. Unravelling it all will take time, probably time that the Globalists do not have, and certainly the global economy does not have.

    So, like it or not, finance and financial power struggles are as much a part of required knowledge as political movements, some would say more so..

    Oh, well. Sigh!

    James, I know about closed minds….. Like you I just keep lifting the veil. 🙂

  22. March 20, 2010 at 21:07

    OK, James.
    I’ll agree that folks want to hide their heads.

    So this is brief.

    Here are three links that mor or less say where we are right now.

    The first 2 relate to Iran.

    The third, if you study it, (and the author is good, I’ve read him for some time now) will scare you shitless.


    This one is quite long, it recaps from a few years ago, to where we are now, and using current happenings, says it like it is about the future. The final section is from a US standpoint, but looking at EU, and the One-Eyed-Git, moves…you can see a parallel over here!

    I just hope enough will read them.

  23. March 20, 2010 at 21:09

    Moderation again.
    One minute pre this post, James.


  24. March 20, 2010 at 21:18

    It seems obvious that the sheep are being too sheep-like and they need another poke in the eye, like 9/11, in order to take action requiring counter-military action. Another incident is needed.

    If Iran blows, and other parties take objection to US warmongering, and react, all the laws are in place…..

    Significant, I think, is that the US Press is shouting that Saudi is requesting US to act on Iran.

    This entire scenario is sickening!

  25. March 21, 2010 at 10:41

    A lot to take in. Shall take in and post soon.

  26. March 21, 2010 at 11:10

    I like the para. that explains that Obama was created to split a nation previously united against the Administration, GOP, and Bush.

    The nation/public, thus becomes dis-united, and debate becomes circular around the differences, rather than an ongoing understanding of the problems.

    In fact there is no difference between the Bush and Obama paths.

    That seems to be copied 100% over here, but few are realising that outside certain blogs!

    Be interesting to see if/when we as a nation get roped into Iran, and how it is sold….. as I say, another “event” may be needed.

    And behind the scenes, finance makes its moves….We seem to occupy a half-way point between the EU and Washington currently….time will tell. Russia and China remain opaque.

  27. March 21, 2010 at 11:13

    @xxxl – RE: your very latest link and the part on new capitalism. I have tried explaining that to people and most people just can’t or don’t want to see it.

  28. March 21, 2010 at 11:36

    I forgot to mention that right now the government is setting something in motion that will allow for public sector workers to be got rid of on the cheap or for them to be a more attractive package for privatisation.

  29. March 21, 2010 at 12:43


    Try pointing them to Fondlebums role.

    The way state funds are underwriting wind/alternative energy proposals.

    Point out the latest wheeze… the millions going to Forgemasters to buy a 15,000 tonne forge, to manufacture basic structures for home-grown nuclear reactors… (Forgemasters sits in Sheffield, a strong labour area where redundancies have been heavy of late). Currently these items that the new forge will enable are ONLY made in Japan, and there is a 5year, possibly more, waiting time. Do we really think that infrastructure, contracts, commissioning a forge of that capacity will take place overnight, and that Forgemasters will then have a verticle learning curve on the use of such?

    Thought not, ….but it may catch needed votes. We are looking long term here, and “brown outs” (electrical) will occur befor that point. The other issue is that with so much reliance being built around wind, nuclear is not the ideal back-up partner. Wind can drop in an instant, and to balance the grid an energy source that can very rapidly fire-up is needed. Nuclear is pretty much crap at that….. it being good for ongoing background base levels. The easiest source to fire up is Hydro-electricity,…..just open the gates, but of course in the main, we don’t have the topology for that, and we certainly have built no such facilities. Gas would be next, then coal, in “start up time terms”.
    (And gas leads to Iran which I linked to.)
    And this omits entirely the growing requirement for a “Smart Grid”. you can google that.
    Also there are certain “Rare Earth Metals” (google that) that need to be incorporated into the metals used in the energy transmission cables. These (almost) eliminate energy losses caused by long distance energy transmission, ….(offshore wind must be distant). Needless to say, China has almost built a global monopoly on the production of Rare Earth Metals, or Rare Earth Elements (same thing), and is using them in their transmission cables AND is building “Smart Grids” with highly fragmented generation points.

    We don’t think like that. We bail out banks, they invest for the future. They execute financial and other fraudsters, we make them personally richer. You could argue that their state control enables the aforesaid better than our “democracy”. In certain areas I would agree. It is also a very broad brush and creates problems of over heating sectors, and there are “freedom” issues.

    The problem with fascist capitalism is that our politicians are overwhelmingly inept at chosing winners. I am sure that this is in part because they take the advice of bankers, scum like the Rothschilds, who see nothing but their increased personal wealth as the objective, and historically are guaranteed to play nations of against each other.

    In classic “free markets”, where markets set interest rates, companies borrow at free market rates, from the markets, by raising debt (bonds), or selling equities, for almost all of the capital developments. Gov’t “initiatives” would be limited to very long term projects, or structural infrastructure, where payback is difficult to predict.

    The function of banks is to raise their profitability, and the easiest way is via debt, (interest) repayments. The more they can lend, the greater the profit. Long ago they realised that gov’t would be the biggest borrowers, so they got into bed with politicos/monarchs. (Indeed the BofE was set up in 1694 specifically to raise capital so the monarch/gov’t of the day could fight wars and heap the cost on the tax-payers). Such still happens. They also realised that in order to become the sole lenders, thereby squeezing out private capital, they would have to be strong enough to lower interest rates to the point where private capital would not lend. In order to bend markets in this way, they first had to corrupt politicians, and set up international structures that would allow the manipulation of global commodities, (mostly by the “futures” but increasingly via the “OTC derivatives”) and then find ways to artificially lower interest rates. In this they co-opted their slaves, the politicos, to politicize the national statistics that show this data.

    This has now been achieved. Most prices that affect global commodities/movements are now manipulated. The international banks (mostly western banks) own the IMF, the WTO, the WHO, the UN, etc. WTO rules in particular that demand the opening of financial markets in “developing nations” have aided the flows of international finance into these nations. The debt has always been created in $, or £, and the nations grew rapidly. At an agreed point, for whatever pretext, western banks would coordinate their withdrawal of capital to collapse the emerging economy, resulting in devaluation of the emerging nation’s currency. This would result in the debt owed internationally growing vastly in terms of the local currnecy, to a point where it would be unserviceable, ie a national debt default. At that point the IMF gets called in, loans are offered and economic conditions for the loan imposed. In a nutshell the country is gutted with famine, society destroyed, etc, and western finance can return to buy assets at (often) a 70% discount to previous levels. What they do not want you to know is that historically the nations that resist the IMF looting, devalue their currency, tell the foreign banks to bugger-off, are the ones that have recovered the quickest. (That is if they can avoid an engineered war/Coupe d’ Etat, and a “new gov’t” placed by/friendly to, the West). This is where Iceland sits right now. The corrupt politicos who danced with the failed banks, in some cases went to school with them, want to pay the debt and get in the IMF, the people want no part of it.

    This scenario has played out dozens of times in the last 30 years. Now, it seems, it is the turn of the western middle classes.

    Sorry for the rant, hope you learned something. I get so pissed with the situation. It need never have got to this point, and this point is the point at which there is now no way to reverse out, or at least it will be extremely painful. It has been a long time coming and with a fragment of honesty could have been turned. All we have witnessed is gross dishonesty.

    We are looking at….Oh, never mind!

    Have a good Sunday Lunch. 🙂

  30. March 21, 2010 at 13:03

    or for them to be a more attractive package for privatisation.

    Yup, this is classic.

    The politicos/nation, is so far in debt, that assets have to/will be sold.

    Anything that creates a revenue stream for the new owners is saleable because it has a discounted cash flow value.

    Not many months ago Rothschild was advising the sale of motorways to private capital, that would them “toll” all the mileage.

    It was not politically viable at that time, but in the future, sold as, “taxes or privatisation…”? Who knows!

    Now I’m gonna have my lunch.

  31. March 21, 2010 at 14:33

    Just read Jesse’s piece – very good. Will get onto all this soon.

  32. March 21, 2010 at 15:50

    Thank You, it was very interesting. I hope you enjoyed your lunch 🙂

Comments are closed.