INTERDEPENDENCE

I had planned to follow my last post with one on the Trilaterals in the Carter administration, but this came up Sunday and I thought it important.

Parade Magazine, Oct. 19, 2008, reports a "discussion" between Republican national-security "expert" Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski. It isn't clear who is posing the questions nor who is saying what, but here are significant excerpts.

"What is our next President's most pressing foreign-policy challenge?"

"Addressing the worldwide crisis of confidence in our leadership. The U.S. must seriously consult with its allies, not act unilaterally. The President also must credibly convey that the era of American self-indulgence is over and that we will recognize global interdependence."


Absolutely! "Our" government must place a priority on what other countries want regardless of the wishes and well-being of the American people. To make clear that our "self-indulgence" is over, the average American must be prepared to abandon his hovel for the steam grate. Of course, we cannot ask the wealthy and their political puppets to give up their mansions, country clubs, and generally profligate lifestyles. That would be inhumane.

What does "recognize global interdependence" mean? We must realize that this has a totally different meaning to the elite than it does to most of us. We tend to think in terms of the need to buy the products of another nation that we may not be able to produce as readily and to sell them that which we can manufacture more efficiently. But in those terms, we have always been "interdependent." To the elite then, interdependence must have a different meaning. It does! To them it means merging much of our national sovereignty into global agencies. It means overriding our laws and our Constitution with international laws that will best protect and further, not the interests of the American people, but of the international financiers and multi-national mega-corporations. Of course, taxing powers to support these laws and agencies in a supra-national entity will be necessary.

"A Strategy of Interdependence" by Vincent P. Rock* lays out what is (or was), ostensibly, a plan to reduce tension between the Soviet Union and the U.S. But it went beyond that. It went as far as to not so subtly attack the very concept of the nation state; that is, sovereignty:

"A flaw in both the Western alliance system and the Soviet bloc arrangements is that, while within their area of influence they attempt to curtail the chaos of the multistate system**, in regard to each other the Soviet Union and the United States have been content for relations to remain largely in a state of nature governed ultimately by force. Thus as soon as an ally has the power, it seeks to reassert its sovereignty in the brutish world of nation-states."

How's that for a rational, unbiased, intellectual argument against national sovereignty: "...the chaos of the multistate system,..." and "...the brutish world of nation-states." What would this mean if, after our government has accepted the latest push at North American "interdependence," after the United States melts into the North American Union, we seek to "reassert our sovereignty?" Will we see U.N. troops marching through our streets? Absurd? Maybe. But don't discount it too smugly.

"What should the next President do to ensure change?"

"General Scowcroft and I recommend reviving bipartisanship. The President should appoint respected people from the other party to top national-security posts."

How can we have bipartisanship when we have only one party with two faces? When Brzezinski talks of "reviving bipartisanship" does he mean "continue two-faced politics?" I do think it highly likely that no matter who is elected, McCain or Obama, "respected " will translate into CFR and/or Trilateral membership. I would not be too surprised if McCain's top foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger and Obama's top man, Brzezinski both get top level security jobs regardless of the election outcome.

A vote for Obama or McCain is a vote to keep our children in bondage. Yes! I said "keep."


*Rock's book was on the recommended reading list of the Council on Foreign Relations.

**This same attitude toward Nations within alliances is paralleled in the attitude toward the States within the United States and toward our local governments. Here the plan to eliminate our States and locals is called regionalism. There's an article on that in:

http://PhreedomPhan-lostliberty.blogspot.com

Return to TOC

The Trilateral Commission

The Trilateral Commission
Shock Troops of the Council On Foreign Relations

The Candidates of 2008 -- Brought to You by the Trilateral Commission

I pointed out in an earlier entry, America's Ruling Party, the Council On Foreign Relations has been promoting world government and pushing us in that direction for almost a century. It has done this by capturing key positions in every administration, at least since FDR.

To a large extent, the CFR has been a "think tank" developing the philosophies, goals, and strategies of the globalists and working to implement them in the United States. In 1973, CFR kingpin David Rockefeller recognized the need to promote its goals among other countries and to gain the support of their governments through influencial people in those lands. The countries and governments targeted included those of North America, Europe, and Japan. To achieve this, Rockefeller enlisted the aid of Zbigniew Brzezinski and together with Henry Owen (Brookings Institution), George S. Franklin, Robert Bowie (Foreign Policy Association, Harvard Center for International Affairs), Gerard Smith (Salt I negotiator, Rockefeller in-law), Marshall Hornblower, William Scranton (former Governor of Pennsylvania), Edwin Reischauer (Harvard), Max Kohnstamm (European Policy Centre) formed the Trilateral Commission.

Commission members are the Shock Troops for the Council on Foreign Relations. They are charged with promoting and coordinating its efforts to create a world government of the "elite," by the "elite," and for the "elite." It's assignment is to bring the three regions above closer together in areas of economic, government, and business matters in order to further the interests of the economic royalty of those areas at the expense of the people.

The First Trilateral President

In November of 1976, James Earl Carter was elected President of the United States. Carter had been widely billed in the mass media as the "conservative" or the "progressive" Georgia Democrat with no connection to the eastern liberal establishment. The truth is, Carter had been hand picked by Rockefeller and Brzezinski to be a member of the Trilateral Commission. Almost from the beginning, Brzezinski and the Trilaterals began grooming Carter for the presidency.

To prepare his first major foreign policy speech, Carter got a little help from his friends in the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. Helping Carter with his speech were: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Cooper, Richard Gardner, Henry Owen, Edwin O. Reischauer, Averell Harriman, Anthony Lake, Robert Bowie, George Ball, Cyrus Vance, Milton Katz, Abram Chayes. I've found sources confirming the TC membership of the first ten.

Trilateral Control of the 2008 Election

I plan to get into Trilateral control of our government through the Carter administration and others in subsequent posts, but I wanted to write this little background on Jimmy Carter now because of the urgency with the upcoming election. History is about to repeat itself--again!

It was Antony Sutton and Patrick Wood who first exposed the Trilaterals to the light in their book, "Trilaterals Over Washington," Copyright 1978. Now Wood has done it again in his newsletter, August Review. He has revealed the Trilateralists backing the campaigns of both candidates.

Wood identifies four Trilaterals backing each campaign:

"In Obama's case, Zbigniew Brzezinski (co-founder of the Commission in 1973) is emerging as his principal advisor on foreign policy. Ex-Fed Chairman Paul Volker has made a once-in-a-lifetime, glowing endorsement of Obama. Madelyn Albright is seen sitting next to Obama in several conferences. Shoot, even Jimmy Carter himself endorses Obama. All are top members of the Commission.

John McCain is being supported by several Trilateral Commission giants including: Henry Kissinger, George Schultz, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig. All of these are ex-Secretaries of State who issued a joint endorsement of McCain early-on in his campaign."

http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/u.s._elections/obama_and_mccain%3a_pawns_of_the_global_elite?_2008080597/

Wood is offering a free ebook copy of Trilaterals Over Washington to anyone who subscribes to his free newsletter.

Mr. Wood seems to see Obama as the annointed of the power elite. Certainly that would explain the McCain TV commercials I've seen that look like they were designed to assure Obama's election.

But it doesn't really matter. Regardless of who wins, we lose. Our government will continue to be under the control of those working to bring an end to our national sovereignty, our liberty, and our Constitution.

Wood has promised to never again vote for the lesser of two evils. I stopped some time ago when I realized that he who votes for the lesser of two evils is consciously voting for evil. I recently read an interesting view on the "evil" of this election. The writer felt that the major parties are giving us a choice of "the evil of two lessers." I liked that. I thought it very appropriate. I regret I don't remember where I read it to give credit.

Sources:
The Modern History Project
Trilaterals Over Washington
August Review

Return to TOC