One World Order and the Trilateral Commission
Over the weekend we had the good fortune to get a head’s up from Lord Christopher Moncton. If you haven’t seen that video yet, start here: http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cf Then we learned from him on Monday Maurice Strong played a vastly important roll in all this http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cn and http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cv which lead to an epiphany http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cz involving Agenda 21, which was discussed earlier here http://wp.me/pxG9Z-8X . Thursday we learned about the Club of Rome, a powerful group of people including American ex-presidents and other world leaders, top business people and other “trusted” figures, and saw a video that spelled out their agenda and how it morphed into Agenda 21. You may watch the video here http://wp.me/pxG9Z-cH Referred to in the video were two books. These books were controversial when published, but over time the authors, The Club of Rome, were able to “mainstream” them through lies, fake science, and indoctrination of our youth. I have provided free copies, as available, for you here:
Limits to Growth (”cliff notes” version – could not find full version in pdf)
Limits to Growth Revisited (30 year update)
The First World Revolution
Here is the Minority Report, paid for by our own government, and given to our Congressional Members telling them why this science is bogus. Arm yourself with the real facts. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
Here is the UN Document on Agenda 21 : http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
Here is the legislation (HR 2454) which passed in the House: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2454/show
Today, I will add this document. This is a chart from Liberty For Life detailing how insidious undue influence from these shadow organizations really are. You must print this .pdf chart and refer to it as we go through learning about what’s really going on. That is the only way you will be able to know just what we are attempting to fight.
This will illustrate the connections between The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderburg Group, showing how much they have infiltrated our government and educational institutions and just who these people are – many of whom, you already know.
Today we will highlight the Trilateral Commission and what impact it has on the decisions made in our government
From Patrick M. Wood at augustreview.com
Patrick M. Wood is a well known authority on the Trilateral Commission
Trilateral policy has been to create a “New International Economic Order” but the means to the end involved hijacking the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Starting with James Earl Carter in 1976, every successive administration has been dominated by members of the Commission — for 35 years, they have had their way with trade policy, creation of global treaties, monetary policy and the usurping or American Sovereignty. Further, Trialogue and other official writings made clear their stated goal of creating a “New International Economic Order.” President George H.W. Bush later talked openly about creating a “New World Order”, which has since become a synonymous phrase. This paper attempts to tell the rest of the story, according to official and unofficial Commission sources and other available documents….
The Trilateral Commission held their annual plenary meeting in Tokyo, Japan, in January 1977. Carter and Brzezinski obviously could not attend as they were still in the process of reorganizing the White House. They did, however, address personal letters to the meeting, which were reprinted in Trialogue, the official magazine of the Commission:
“It gives me special pleasure to send greetings to all of you gathering for the Trilateral Commission meeting in Tokyo. I have warm memories of our meeting in Tokyo some eighteen months ago, and am sorry I cannot be with you now.
“My active service on the Commission since its inception in 1973 has been a splendid experience for me, and it provided me with excellent opportunities to come to know leaders in our three regions.
“As I emphasized in my campaign, a strong partnership among us is of the greatest importance. We share economic, political and security concerns that make it logical we should seek ever-increasing cooperation and understanding. And this cooperation is essential not only for our three regions, but in the global search for a more just and equitable world order (emphasis added). I hope to see you on the occasion of your next meeting in Washington, and I look forward to receiving reports on your work in Tokyo.
Brzezinski’s letter, in a similar vein, follows:
“The Trilateral Commission has meant a great deal to me over the last few years. It has been the stimulus for intellectual creativity and a source of personal satisfaction. I have formed close ties with new friends and colleagues in all three regions, ties which I value highly and which I am sure will continue.
“I remain convinced that, on the larger architectural issues of today, collaboration among our regions is of the utmost necessity. This collaboration must be dedicated to the fashioning of a more just and equitable world order (emphasis added). This will require a prolonged process, but I think we can look forward with confidence and take some pride in the contribution which the Commission is making.
The key phrase in both letters was “more just and equitable world order.” Did this emphasis indicate that something was wrong with our present world order, that is, with national structures? Yes, according to Brzezinski, and since the present “framework” was inadequate to handle world problems, it must be done away with and supplanted with a world government.
In September 1974 Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the Brazilian newspaper Vega. “How would you define this new world order?” Brzezinski answered:
“When I speak of the present international system I am referring to relations in specific fields, most of all among the Atlantic countries; commercial, military, mutual security relations, involving the international monetary fund, NATO etc. We need to change the international system for a global system in which new, active and creative forces recently developed – should be integrated. This system needs to include Japan. Brazil, the oil producing countries, and even the USSR, to the extent which the Soviet Union is willing to participate in a global system.”
When asked if Congress would have an expanded or diminished role in the new system, Brzezinski declared “…the reality of our times is that a modern society such as the U.S. needs a central coordinating and renovating organ which cannot be made up of six hundred people.”
Brzezinski developed background for the need for a new system in his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1969). He wrote that mankind has moved through three great stages of evolution, and was in the middle of the fourth and final stage. The first stage he described as “religious,” combining a heavenly “universalism provided by the acceptance of the idea that man’s destiny is essentially in God’s hands” with an earthly “narrowness derived from massive ignorance, illiteracy, and a vision confined to the immediate environment.”
The second stage was nationalism, stressing Christian equality before the law, which “marked another giant step in the progressive redefinition of man’s nature and place in our world.” The third stage was Marxism, which, said Brzezinski, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision.” The fourth and final stage was Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era, or the ideal of rational humanism on a global scale – the result of American-Communist evolutionary transformations.
In considering our structure of governance, Brzezinski stated:
“Tension is unavoidable as man strives to assimilate the new into the framework of the old. For a time the established framework resiliently integrates the new by adapting it in a more familiar shape. But at some point the old framework becomes overloaded. The newer input can no longer be redefined into traditional forms, and eventually it asserts itself with compelling force. Today, though, the old framework of international politics – with their spheres of influence, military alliances between nation-states, the fiction of sovereignty, doctrinal conflicts arising from nineteenth century crises – is clearly no longer compatible with reality.”
One of the most important “frameworks” in the world, and especially to Americans, was the United States Constitution. It was this document that outlined the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Was our sovereignty really “fiction”? Was the U.S. vision no longer compatible with reality? Brzezinski further stated:
“The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to reexamine the nation’s formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 – the two- hundredth an anniversary of the Constitution – could serve as a suitable target date culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements… Realism, however, forces us to recognize that the necessary political innovation will not come from direct constitutional reform, desirable as that would be. The needed change is more likely to develop incrementally and less overtly…in keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institution.”
In Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era then, the “nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ” – Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1972, from book “Between Two Ages” – free pdf of book: http://tinyurl.com/yhsfo3x
“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.” Barry Goldwater, quoted from his 1979 book, With No Apologies
In 1990, Maurice Strong gave an interview to WEST magazine, where he described how he envisioned the Earth being saved:
“Each year the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Hundreds of CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather each February to attend meetings and set the economic agendas for the year ahead.
“What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principle risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment? Will they do it? Will the rich countries agree to reduce their impact on the environment? Will they agree to save the earth?
“The group’s conclusions is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilization collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Two years after making that statement, Strong laid the foundation, and helped in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol.
In another often cited quote, Strong said:
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
-Maurice Strong quoted in the September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine.
In an essay by Strong entitled Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation, he says:
“Strengthening the role the United Nations can play…will require serious examination of the need to extend into the international arena the rule of law and the principle of taxation to finance agreed actions which provide the basis for governance at the national level. But this will not come about easily. Resistance to such changes is deeply entrenched. They will come about not through the embrace of full blown world government, but as a careful and pragmatic response to compelling imperatives and the inadequacies of alternatives.”
”The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. What is needed is recognition of the reality that in so many fields, and this is particularly true of environmental issues, it is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.
Sovereignty.net illustrates the timeline toward Global Governance with clickable links and is a very good resource for learning more about what got us to this point in our history. Timeline to Global Governance http://www.sovereignty.net/timeline.html
Another good tool for learning more on this subject, is a fairly short paper which is downloadable in .pdf
Invasion of the Mind Snatchers – Nelson Hultberg
Barack Obama won the election promising “Fundamental Change”. Soon after election day, then, President-Elect Obama, addressed Global Climate Summit promising “a new chapter of American leadership on climate change.”
The annual meeting of Trilateral Commission members rotates among the three regions. It was held in Washington, D.C. in 2008, Tokyo in 2009, and is scheduled to be held in Dublin in 2010. The agendas for these meetings have addressed a wide range of issues, an indication of how broadly we see the partnership among our countries. In the past, reports on annual meetings were published as the Trialogue series. Portable Document Formats (PDFs) of those reports are posted on the Commission’s web site under Publications. Recently, papers and presentations from the annual meetings have been posted on the Commission’s web site along with the meeting agendas under Recent Activity.
At the Closing dinner the following speech was given:
THE INTELLECTUAL UNDERPINNINGS OF THE TRILATERAL PARTNERSHIP IN THE 21ST CENTURY
Chair: Yotaro Kobayashi, Pacific Asia Chairman
Speaker: Henry Kissinger (pdf 64kb/7pp), Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York, NY former U.S. Secretary of State; former U.S. Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Let me talk about the nature of the international order and the issues in relation to the international order that I see emerging and which require some global group that addresses them…. In fact, one of the consequences of the financial crisis is a certain loss of confidence in the United States across the board. Many governments and many countries had become used to the proposition that in the political world we have flights of inspiration that prove temporary. But in the economic world it had been assumed that the US model was the one that was correct and that would be permanent. The fact that this has proved not to be the case will affect the American ability to prescribe solutions in a fundamental way. I also think that the role of government in the next period, for better or worse, will be much larger and that attention will have to paid to the fundamental flaw of the globalized economic system as it existed before, which was that the economic model and the political model were out of sync with each other. The global economic model assumed that there were principles that could be applied universally and that it was self-regulating. For that reason it was not believed to be necessary to have a political safety net for the economic system. But the fact was that whenever a crisis occurred, or whenever any group felt significantly disadvantaged, they would go to the political institutions that they knew, which were the national governments. Therefore, there was an inherent discontinuity between the way economics was dealt with and the way politics would react. This has been shown by the fact that in the first round of this crisis, the solutions are attempted on a national basis—which are then coordinated—and not on a global basis….
So, all of these matters will need attention and they will need attention in a very special context. Every country that holds the views that I described, which is most of them, has two contradictory motivations. On the one hand, they want to make themselves independent of the forces that produced the crisis and, at the same time, they recognize that the solutions require a global answer…
The result will have to be the evolution of some kind of multipolar leadership of the international system. Let me now turn to that issue. The political world is in a period of fundamental change…
When I taught international politics, we dealt with the concept of sovereignty as the organizing principle of the international system, both for foreign policy and for domestic policy. But now the notion of sovereignty is under attack or in the process of change in many parts of the world. ….. Having described all of these complexities, let me leave us with a positive feeling. First, the international financial crisis can help the creation of an international political order for a negative reason. Every country is so preoccupied with its own domestic issues; no country has a great surplus of resources that it can devote to international adventures. So, if political leadership can develop, this is a good objective circumstance. Secondly, we are living in a period in which, for the first time that I know of, no major country is challenging the international system. All of the challenges to the international system come from countries that, in relation to the overall order, are relatively fringe countries or from non-state actors. So, the opportunities that we can see in developing the global patterns that are inherent in this situation are very great despite the fact that the surface knowledge is the opposite.
To all of this I think this Trilateral Commission can make a significant intellectual contribution. It can raise issues; it can define them in a long-range point of view; and it can help with one of the great needs of this period, which is that governments are so preoccupied with the immediate issues that there is sometimes no focal point for a consistent application of long-range visions. So we can raise issues, we can indicate directions, and in this way we can fulfill the vision that created the Trilateral Commission when it operated in a smaller framework and when one of its primary purposes was to bring Japan into a North Atlantic framework. Now it can help bring Asia and Russia into a coherent global framework.
Tomorrow we will learn more about the groups plotting to steal our sovereignty in the name of a fictitious monster “Climate Change”. It is not my intent to overwhelm you with information, but rather to offer you the tools you need, in a timely manner. Our time is up in December. I am hopeful our eyes will now open wide to the perils that befall us so that we are able to put a stop to the unconstitutional actions of our elected officials.