They say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here’s one for you:
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:
Here’s his view of Europe, adopted by Giscard d’Estaing:
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:
A nice, warm man to allow into your country. What sort of crises could he possibly be referring to though?
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.