The only problem is that it was already decided in the constitution and the reinterpreted and overturned by the Rowe vs Wade lies (she later recanted her lies).

Also, we are being forced to pay for the murder of those unborn babies and with our tax money. That makes us an accomplice (unwilling) of the contract killing.

Pretending it’s a choice between coat hanger or contracted murder by medical “professionals” is another lying scam. The vast majority of the 60,000,000 plus murders that have taken place since it became their right would never have taken place if it weren’t encouraged by this evil conspiracy.

We must speak out against it or we will need to be prepared to answer for our assisting in their murders and the destroyed mothers who later understand what they’ve allowed when it was in their nature to protect the helpless baby counting on them.

@Daveclark5 Clearly we are in the same tribe, but also in our Constitutional Republic here on Earth, we may not ignore the law - no matter how wrong, and must allow dissent. "...render to Caesar what is Caesar's."

I hear democrat flag is so unelectable that democrats are putting republic flag to run. It gives wolf in sheep's clothing a real person to play the part.

@Krunoslav Yes, the number of RINOs in Congress is now at an all-time high.

@TimTuolomne Remidns me of a picture I saw the other day.

@Krunoslav Still having trouble getting my mind around the fact that we have arrived at that point.

@TimTuolomne My understanding is that every since Jimmy Carter, no matter who you voted for democrat or republican, the forign policy was the same and domestic one changed superficially. Trump was a surprise , an outsider from outside the system, but the rest of them.... only an illusion of democracy.

Check this out....

@TimTuolomne The Trilateral Commission

President Reagan ultimately came to understand Trilateral’s value and invited the entire membership to a reception at the White House in April 1984 - David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 200252

First Signs of Concern

My interest in the Trilateral Commission started soon after the presidential election of Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. As a young financial analyst and writer, I carefully followed Carter’s initial round of appointees to the top positions in his cabinet and other important posts. After all, Carter had made a big campaign pitch about being an “establishment outsider” with few contacts within the Beltway. Who would he bring to the table? As the list of appointees piled up, I noticed that several were members in the Trilateral Commission, whatever that was, and my curiosity was immediately peaked. After digging up and sifting through a list of Trilateral Commission members, and seeing over a dozen Trilateral appointees, it became immediately obvious that some sort of coup was underway, but what?

It was about this time that Antony C. Sutton entered my life. We both were attending one of the first major gold conferences in New Orleans where he had been invited to speak about his new book, The War on Gold. The hotel was probably too small for the size of the conference because every area was packed with people, including the in-hotel coffee shop where we had to eat breakfast. By the time I arrived at the restaurant, there were no empty tables to be found. The host told me that if I wanted to eat, he would have to seat me anywhere he could find an open seat at a table. Reluctantly, I followed him to a small booth where a complete stranger was already halfway through his meal.

I had no idea who this person was and probably didn’t care too much because I was very hungry and anxious to get off to the first presentation. When we introduced ourselves with small talk, I was immediately taken by his British accent and genteel mannerisms and found him quite easy to talk to. Within a few minutes I learned that he was an economics professor and research fellow who had just been forced out of The Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution at Stanford University. He was clearly shaken because academia was his life and Stanford was his publisher; after all, they had already published his monumental and internationally acclaimed series on the transfer of technology from the West to the East. I later learned that when Sutton was on a research “hunt”, he never left a single stone unturned. In fact, his co-scholars at Hoover jokingly called him the “Hoover vacuum cleaner” because of his voracious appetite for details.

When Sutton told me that he was forced out of Hoover by David Packard, the president of Stanford, I immediately remembered seeing his (Packard’s) name on the membership list of the Trilateral Commission. Packard was also founder and chairman of Hewlett-Packard. Apparently, Sutton’s professional research had begun to focus on this group of people, many of whom he had researched in other study projects. Like me, he also began to wonder why they were popping up all over the Carter Administration. In any case, Packard apparently decided to shut down the “vacuum cleaner” before he got any further in his research.

When both of us realized that we were tracking the same group of elitists, even if from different backgrounds, our conversation immediately became intense. Both of us finished breakfast and were still talking until others let us know we had the table to ourselves long enough, but not before we shook hands on the very pressing need to collaborate on getting out the story of the Trilateral Commission. Within weeks we started a monthly newsletter, Trilateral Observer, in order to release the initial results of our research as quickly and smoothly as possible. After two years, we used this material to compile and publish two books, Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II. As more people read our material, we began to get requests for radio and television interviews. Before Carter’s term was completed, we had appeared on well over 350 radio programs all over the country.

The crowning media event was my appearance on the Larry King Show in Washington, DC, where he was a late-night host for the largest radio network in the nation, Mutual Broadcasting. In fact, I sat across the table from Charles Heck, who was the Executive Director of the Trilateral Commission at the time. What was supposed to be a one-hour point-counterpoint debate with Heck stretched into a three-hour marathon. To Larry King’s astonishment, the switchboards were lit up and the callers were angrily attacking Mr. Heck as he shared what the Commission was attempting to do. Since most callers didn’t have their facts straight, I was able to gently correct them and lay out the actual record, with direct quotes from Trilaterals themselves and their Trilateral publications. Although I ended up defending Heck from being misrepresented, my factual material made him look all the worse and the next round of callers were even more angry. When the show ended, Larry King thanked us and shook his head, genuinely astounded, and exclaimed, “I have never seen anything like this in my life.”

The next day, I received a frantic call from B. Dalton Booksellers saying that they were getting calls from all over the country requesting Trilaterals Over Washington and could I please express a couple of review copies to them so that they could assemble their first stocking order. Well, I sent the books, but they never called back and an order never materialized; in fact, upon calling several B. Dalton stores across the country, Sutton and I heard repeatedly that the book was out of print and the publisher was out of business. Really?

Yes, we had been blacklisted by one of the largest book selling chains in the nation! Upon further investigation, we discovered a close connection to a member of the Trilateral Commission sitting on the board of directors of B. Dalton’s parent company, Dayton Hudson, which is now Target. We also never heard another peep out of Larry King or Mutual Broadcasting Radio.

@TimTuolomne Trilateral Basics

The idea to create the Trilateral Commission was first informally presented to people at the elitist Bilderberg group meeting in Europe in 1972, by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. They had flown there together for just that purpose, and because they were encouraged by so many of their elitist brethren, they returned to the U.S. and formed the Commission in 1973.

According to each issue of the official Trilateral Commission quarterly magazine Trialogue,

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973 by private citizens of Western Europe, Japan and North America to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems. It seeks to improve public understanding of such problems, to support proposals for handling them jointly, and to nurture habits and practices of working together among these regions.

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.

Rockefeller was chairman of the ultra-powerful Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of many major multinational corporations and “endowment funds” and had long been a central figure in the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Brzezinski, a brilliant strategist for one-world idealism, was a professor at Columbia University and the author of several books that have served as “policy guidelines” for the Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski served as the Commission’s first executive director from its inception in 1973 until late 1976 when he was appointed by President Jimmy Carter as Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

The initial Commission membership consisted of approximately three hundred people, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided among academics, politicians and corporate magnates; these included international bankers, leaders of prominent labor unions and corporate directors of media giants.

The word “commission” was puzzling since it is usually associated with instrumentalities set up by governments. It seemed out of place for a private group unless we could determine that it really was an arm of a government, an unseen government, different from the visible government in Washington. The inclusion of European and Japanese members indicated a global government rather than a national government. We hoped that the concept of a sub-rosa world government was just wishful thinking on the part of the Trilateral Commissioners. The facts, however, lined up quite pessimistically.

It is important to note that Brzezinski and Rockefeller did not initially seek advice from the Council on Foreign Relations but rather from the global Bilderberg group. If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for many of the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the “task force” assembled to assault the beachhead. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

President James Earl Carter, the Georgia peanut farmer turned politician who promised, “I will never lie to you,” was chosen to join the Commission by Brzezinski in 1973. It was Brzezinski, in fact, who first identified Carter as presidential timber, and subsequently educated him in economics, foreign policy, and the ins-and-outs of world politics. Upon Carter’s election, his first appointment placed Brzezinski as assistant to the president for national security matters. More commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president; some rightly said Brzezinski held the second most powerful position in the U.S.

Carter’s running mate, Walter Mondale, was also a member of the Commission.

On January 7, 1977 Time Magazine, whose editor-in-chief, Hedley Donovan was a powerful Trilateral, named President Carter “Man of the Year”. The sixteen-page article in that issue not only failed to mention Carter’s connection with the Trilateral Commission but also stated the following:

As he searched for Cabinet appointees, Carter seemed at times hesitant and frustrated disconcertingly out of character. His lack of ties to Washington and the Party Establishment - qualities that helped raise him to the White House - carry potential dangers. He does not know the Federal Government or the pressures it creates. He does not really know the politicians whom he will need to help him run the country.

Was this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or was it deliberately misleading? By December 25, 1976, two weeks before the Time article appeared, Carter had already chosen his cabinet. Three of his cabinet members, Cyrus Vance, Michael Blumenthal, and Harold Brown, were Trilateral Commissioners and the other non-Commission members were not unsympathetic to Commission objectives and operations.

In total, Carter appointed no fewer than twenty Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

Zbigniew Brzezinski - National Security Advisor
Cyrus Vance - Secretary of State
Harold Brown - Secretary of Defense
W. Michael Blumenthal - Secretary of the Treasury
Warren Christopher - Deputy Secretary of State
Lucy Wilson Benson - Under Secretary of State for Security Affairs
Richard Cooper - Under Secretary of State for Economic Affairs
Richard Holbrooke - Under Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Sol Linowitz - co-negotiator on the Panama Canal Treaty
Gerald Smith - Ambassador-at-Large for Nuclear Power Negotiations
Elliott Richardson - Delegate to the Law of the Sea Conference
Richard Gardner - Ambassador to Italy
Anthony Solomon - Under Secretary of the Treasury for Monetary Affairs
Paul Warnke - Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Robert R. Bowie - Deputy Director of Intelligence For National Estimates
C. Fred Bergsten - Under Secretary of Treasury
James Schlesinger - Secretary of Energy
Elliot Richardson - Delegate to Law of the Sea
Leonard Woodcock - Chief envoy to China
Andrew Young - Ambassador to the United Nations

When you include Carter and Mondale, these Commission members represented almost one-third of the entire membership from the United States roster.

Was there even the slightest evidence to indicate anything other than collusion? Hardly! Zbigniew Brzezinski spelled out the qualifications of a 1976 presidential winner in 1973:

The Democratic candidate in 1976 will have to emphasize work, the family, religion and, increasingly, patriotism....The new conservatism will clearly not go back to laissez faire. It will be a philosophical conservatism. It will be a kind of conservative statism or managerism. There will be conservative values but a reliance on a great deal of co-determination between state and the corporations.

On May 23, 1976 journalist Leslie H. Gelb wrote in the not-so-conservative New York Times, “[Brzezinski] was the first guy in the Community to pay attention to Carter, to take him seriously. He spent time with Carter, talked to him, sent him books and articles, educated him.” Richard Gardner (also of Columbia University) joined into the “educational” task, and as Gelb noted, between the two of them they had Carter virtually to themselves. Gelb continued: “While the Community as a whole was looking elsewhere, to Senators Kennedy and Mondale...it paid off. Brzezinski, with Gardner, was now the leading man on Carter’s foreign policy task force.”

Although Richard Gardner was of considerable academic influence, it should be clear that Brzezinski was the “guiding light” of foreign policy in the Carter administration. Along with Commissioner Vance and a host of other Commissioners in the State Department, Brzezinski had more than continued the policies of befriending our enemies and alienating our friends. Since early 1977 we had witnessed a massive push to attain “normalized” relations with Communist China, Cuba, the USSR, Eastern European nations, Angola, etc. Conversely, we had withdrawn at least some support from Nationalist China, South Africa, Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia), etc. It was not just a trend: It was an epidemic.

@TimTuolomne Needed: A More Just and Equitable World Order

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. 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.

Jimmy Carter

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. 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.

Zbigniew Brzezinski

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 system of global governance.

In September 1974, Brzezinski was asked in an interview by the Brazilian newspaper Veja, “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.”

Understanding the philosophy of the Trilateral Commission was and is the only way to reconcile the myriad of apparent contradictions in the information filtered through the national press. For instance, how was it that the Marxist regime in Angola derived the great bulk of its foreign exchange from the offshore oil operations of Gulf Oil Corporation? Why did Andrew Young insist that “Communism has never been a threat to Blacks in Africa”? Why did the U.S. funnel billions in technological aid to the Soviet Union and Communist China? Why did the U.S. apparently help its enemies while chastising its friends?

A similar and perplexing question is asked by millions of Americans today: Why do we spend trillions on the “War on Terror” around the world and yet ignore the Mexican/U.S. border and the tens of thousands of illegal aliens who freely enter the U.S. each and every month? These “illegals” include not only Mexicans, but many other nationalities from Central and South America and from Mideast countries.

These questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be explained in any other way: The U.S. Executive Branch was not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist; it has tread on the stepping stones of Marxism as it marched toward Brzezinski’s Technetronic Era. In other words, those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini were now being accepted as necessary inevitability by our elected and appointed leaders.

This hardly suggests the Great American Dream. It is very doubtful that Americans would agree with Brzezinski or the Trilateral Commission. It is the American public who is paying the price, suffering the consequences, but not understanding the true nature of the situation.

This nature, however, was not unknown or unknowable. It was never secret, per se. Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) issued a clear and precise warning in his 1979 book, With No Apologies:

The Trilateral 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 Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power - political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical.

@TimTuolomne Follow the Money, Follow the Power

What was the economic nature of the driving force within the Trilateral Commission? It was the giant multinational corporations - those with Trilateral representation - which consistently benefited from Trilateral policy and actions. Polished academics such as Brzezinski, Gardner, Allison, McCracken, Henry Owen etc., served only to give “philosophical” justification to the exploitation of the world.

Don’t underestimate their power or the distance they had already come by 1976. Their economic base was already established. Giants like Coca-Cola, IBM, CBS, Caterpillar Tractor, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, Deere & Company, Exxon, and others virtually dwarf whatever remains of American businesses. The market value of IBM’s stock alone, for instance, was greater than the value of all the stocks on the American Stock Exchange. Chase Manhattan Bank had some fifty thousand branches or correspondent banks throughout the world. What reached our eyes and ears was highly regulated by CBS, the New York Times, Time Magazine, etc.

The most important thing of all is to remember that the political coup de grâce preceded the economic coup de grâce. The domination of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government provided all the necessary political leverage needed to skew U.S. and global economic policies to their own benefit.

By 1977, the Trilateral Commission had notably become expert at using crises to manage countries toward the New World Order; yet, they found menacing backlashes from those very crises that they tried to manipulate.

In the end, the biggest crisis of all was that of the American way of life. Americans never counted on such powerful and influential groups working against the Constitution and freedom, either inadvertently or purposefully, and even now, the principles that helped to build this great country are all but reduced to the sound of meaningless babbling.

Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2007

It would have been damaging enough if the Trilateral domination of the Carter administration was merely a one-time anomaly, but it was not!

Subsequent presidential elections brought George H.W. Bush (under Reagan), William Jefferson Clinton, Albert Gore and Richard Cheney (under G. W. Bush) to power.

Thus, every Administration since Carter has had top-level Trilateral Commission representation through the President or Vice-president, or both! It is important to note that Trilateral hegemony has transcended political parties; they have dominated - and continue to dominate - both the Republican and Democrat parties with equal aplomb.

In addition, the Administration before Carter was very friendly and useful to Trilateral doctrine as well; President Gerald Ford took the reins after President Richard Nixon resigned and then appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President. Neither Ford nor Rockefeller were members of the Trilateral Commission, but Nelson was David Rockefeller’s brother and that says enough. According to Nelson Rockefeller’s memoirs, he originally introduced then-governor Jimmy Carter to David and Brzezinski.

How has the Trilateral Commission orchestrated their goal of creating a New International Economic Order? Most notably, they seated their own members at the top of the institutions of global trade, global banking and foreign policy.

For instance, the World Bank is one of the most critical mechanisms in the engine of globalization. Since the founding of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, there have been only seven World Bank presidents, all of whom were appointed by the President. Of these eight, six were pulled from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission!

Robert McNamara (1968-1981)

A.W. Clausen (1981-1986)

Barber Conable (1986-1991)

Lewis Preston (1991-1995)

James Wolfenson (1995-2005)

Paul Wolfowitz (2005-2007)

Robert Zoellick (2007-2012)

Jim Yong Kim (2012-Present)

Another good evidence of domination is the position of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which is critically involved in negotiating the many international trade treaties and agreements that have been necessary to create the New International Economic Order. Since 1977, there have been twelve USTRs appointed by the President. Nine have been members of the Trilateral Commission!

Robert S. Strauss (1977-1979)

Reubin O’D. Askew (1979-1981)

William E. Brock III (1981-1985)

Clayton K. Yeutter (1985-1989)

Carla A. Hills (1989-1993)

Mickey Kantor (1993-1997)

Charlene Barshefsky (1997-2001)

Robert Zoellick (2001-2005)

Rob Portman (2005-2006)

Susan Schwab (2006-2009)

Ron Kirk (2009-2013)

Michael Froman (2013-Present)

This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter, Rob Portman and Ron Kirk were not friendly to Trilateral goals because they clearly were, and each had significant involvement with other Trilateral members in the past.

The Secretary of State cabinet position has seen its share of Trilaterals as well: Henry Kissinger (Nixon, Ford), Cyrus Vance (Carter), Alexander Haig (Reagan), George Shultz (Reagan), Lawrence Eagleburger (G.H.W. Bush), Warren Christopher (Clinton) and Madeleine Albright (Clinton) There were some Acting Secretaries of State that are also noteworthy: Philip Habib (Carter), Michael Armacost (G.H.W. Bush), Arnold Kantor (Clinton), Richard Cooper (Clinton).

Hillary Clinton (Obama) was not a Trilateral, but her husband, William Clinton, was.

Lastly, it should be noted that the Federal Reserve has likewise been dominated by Trilaterals: Arthur Burns (1970-1978), Paul Volker (1979-1987), Alan Greenspan (1987-2006). While the Federal Reserve is a privately-owned corporation, the President “chooses” the Chairman to a perpetual appointment. The more recent heads of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke and Janet Yelen, are not members of the Trilateral Commission, but they clearly followed the same globalist policies as their predecessors.

The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S. Executive Branch has not only continued but has been strengthened from 1976 to the present. The pattern has been deliberate and persistent: Appoint members of the Trilateral Commission to critical positions of power so that they can carry out Trilateral policies.

The question is and has always been, do these policies originate in consensus meetings of the Trilateral Commission where two-thirds of the members are not U.S. citizens? The answer is all too obvious.

Trilateral-friendly defenders attempt to sweep criticism aside by suggesting that membership in the Trilateral Commission is incidental and that it only demonstrates the otherwise high quality of appointees. Are we to believe that in a country of 317 million people only these 100 or so are qualified to hold such critical positions? Again, the answer is all too obvious.

@TimTuolomne Where Does the Council on Foreign Relations Fit?

While virtually all Trilateral Commission members from North America have also been members of the CFR, the reverse is certainly not true. It is natural to over-criticize the CFR because most of its members seem to fill the balance of government positions not already filled by Trilaterals.

The power structure of the Council is seen in the makeup of its board of directors: No less than 44 percent (12 out of 27) are members of the Commission! If director participation reflected only the general membership of the CFR, then only 3-4 percent of the board would be Trilaterals.

Further, the president of the CFR is Richard N. Haass, a very prominent Trilateral member who also served as Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. Department of State from 2001-2003.

Trilateral influence can easily be seen in policy papers produced by the CFR in support of Trilateral goals.

For instance, the 2005 CFR task force report on the Future of North America was perhaps the major Trilateral policy statement on the intended creation of the North American Union. Vice-chair of the task force was Dr. Robert A. Pastor who emerged as the “Father of the North American Union” and was directly involved in Trilateral operations since the 1970s. While the CFR claimed that the task force was “independent”, careful inspection of those appointed reveal that three Trilaterals were carefully chosen to oversee the Trilateral position, one each from Mexico, Canada and the United States: Luis Rubio, Wendy K. Dobson and Carla A. Hills, respectively. Hills has been widely hailed as the principal architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated under President George H.W. Bush in 1992.

The bottom line is that the Council on Foreign Relations, thoroughly dominated by Trilaterals, serves the interests of the Trilateral Commission and not the other way around!

Trilateral Globalization in Europe

The content of this chapter thus far suggests ties between the Trilateral Commission and the United States. This is not intended to mean that Trilaterals are not active in other countries as well. Recalling the early years of the Commission, David Rockefeller wrote in 1998,

Back in the early Seventies, the hope for a more united EUROPE was already full-blown - thanks in many ways to the individual energies previously spent by so many of the Trilateral Commission’s earliest members. [Capitals in original]

Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. hegemony, the European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating the European Union (EU). In fact, the EU’s Constitution was authored by Commission member Valery Giscard d’Estaing in 2002-2003 when he was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe.

The steps that led to the creation of the European Union are unsurprisingly similar to the steps being taken to create the North American Union today. As with the EU, lies, deceit and confusion are the principal tools used to keep an unsuspecting citizenry in the dark while they forge ahead without mandate, accountability or oversight.

From the book: Technocracy rising - the Trojan horse of global transformation, 2014 by Patrick M. Wood

@Krunoslav I am grateful for this generous tutorial. I had not heard much of that, nor read much of it in anything I considered credible. The ravings of clearly disturbed people tended to give me the sense that all of that was a perceived conspiracy, and not a real one. But your quote from Brzezinski rings true, and is chilling as a truly dangerous threat to Constitutional principles. “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.”

Now I wonder if those I considered lunatics had been attacked in some way to discredit them. Clearly the Clintons have employed such tactics.

And it explains the seemingly inexplicable apathy of the GOP in defending Trump during the election.
In the end though, a group like that is nothing more than another Communist Peoples Administration, and will fail as has every one before it. Will it be more deadly than previous versions? I think maybe yes. It is mind boggling to me that well-educated people could fall for that again, given history, and fail to understand the gift that is the Constitution, given human nature. They are obviously deluded into thinking they can change human nature without the unintended consequences that will be their own undoing, and perhaps the undoing of humanity.

@TimTuolomne No problem. In that book, the author has outlined the formation of UN and sustainable development and agenda 21 goals and climate change policy and how it leads to what we have today. His website covers the up to date news around the world on this topic, but the book covers the less known background and he does use a lot of quotes from people themselves and their materials. Trilaterals actually were releasing documents about what they were doing, and most people just didn't pay attention and authors of dystopian future we are going trough today is written by many of the people mentioned, so he quotes from their books. Even today, The World Economic Forum, a kind of public front for similar policies is openly posting about their plans. Its the illegal bribes and intimidations and blackmail that is not advertised.

@TimTuolomne Another thing worth reading from same author... that religious of theirs. As it were.

The Evil Twins Of Transhumanism And TechnocracyPosted By: Patrick Wood July 11, 2021

The dots between Technocracy and Transhumanism are easily connected once its understood that both sit atop the pseudo-science religion of Scientism, which posits that science is god and scientists and engineers are its priesthood. This article provides the current framework to understand this nexus. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocracy is to the transformation of society as Transhumanism is to the transformation of the human condition of people who would live in that society.

Both are underpinned by a religious belief known as Scientism that says that science is a god and that scientists, engineers and technologists are the priesthood that translates findings into practice.
It is a fatal error to equate Scientism with science. True science explores the natural world using the time-tested scientific method of repeated experimentation and validation. By comparison, Scientism is a speculative, metaphysical worldview about the nature and reality of the universe and man’s relation to it.

Scientism refutes traditional religious views, morals and philosophy and instead looks to science as the source for personal and societal moral value.

Pat Wood - DDP Meeting 2021 Banquet

The relationship between Technocracy and Transhumanism can be seen as early as 1933 when Harold Loeb wrote Life in a Technocracy: What It Might Be Like:

“Technocracy envisages another form of domestication, a form in which man may become more than man… Technocracy is designed to develop the so-called higher faculties in every man and not to make each man resigned to the lot into which he may be born… Through breeding with specific individuals for specific purposes… A technocracy, then, should in time produce a race of men superior in quality to any now known on earth…”

Thus, Loeb saw Technocracy (the society) as producing a superior quality of man by applying advanced technology to the human condition.

The Nature Of Technocracy

Formalized in 1932 by scientists and engineers at Columbia University, the movement defined itself in a 1938 edition of its magazine, The Technocrat:

“Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population… For the first time in human history it will be done as a scientific, technical, engineering problem.”

Indeed, Technocracy was an economic system based on science and social engineering.
Technocrats were so certain that their scientific approach was so righteous that there would be no need for any political structures whatsoever:

“There will be no place for Politics, Politicians, Finance or Financiers, Rackets or Racketeers… Technocracy will distribute by means of a certificate of distribution available to every citizen from birth to death.”

Today, Technocracy is embodied in the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and the various United Nations’ manifestations of Sustainable Development: Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda, etc.

The Nature Of Transhumanism

A philosophical mainstay of modern Transhumanism, Max More, defined it in 1990 as:
“…a class of philosophies of life that seek the continuation and acceleration of the evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values.”

The means to the end is ultimately genetic engineering that takes over and speeds up evolution theory to create humanity 2.0.

Since the advent of CRISPR gene-editing technology, Transhumans have saturated universities and private corporations to modify all categories of living things, including humans.

What is preached as the preservation of biodiversity by the United Nations is really the takeover of genetic material, which was noted as early as 1994, just two years after the debut of Sustainable Development and Agenda 21 at the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janiero, Brazil.

The 1994 book, The Earth Brokers, was written by two principal participants in the Rio process who did not blindly swallow what had just happened. They noted two things about the biodiversity convention that 156 nations of the world adopted:

“The convention implicitly equates the diversity of life – animals and plants – to the diversity of genetic codes, for which read genetic resources. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate… the convention promotes biotechnology as being ‘essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.’”

Secondly, they noted that “the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity… the major concern was protection of the pharmaceutical and emerging biological industries.”

It is little wonder today that the pharmaceutical industry is producing gene therapy shots using genetically modified RNA to transform the body’s immune system. They have been working hard since 1992 to advance the technology needed to hijack the human genome and begin the transformative pathway to Humanity 2.0.

However, it is Technocracy that has used its “science of social engineering” techniques to manipulate twenty-two percent of the world’s population into willingly accepting the transhumans’ gene altering injections.

The Great Reset Embraces Both Technocracy and Transhumanism

It has been noted in many professional journals that the World Economic Forum and its founder/spokesman Klaus Schwab, are promoting both Technocracy and Transhumanism at the same time. In light of this article, this should not be surprising.

The European Academy on Religion and Society (EARS), for instance, wrote that:

“…the highly influential members of the World Economic Forum have a plan for what should come next. It is called ‘The Great Reset’, and it envisions a truly ‘transhumanist’ future for us all… Since mid-2020, the WEF has been promoting its vision for our post-coronavirus future, which they call ‘The Great Reset’. In their view, the pandemic has exposed the weaknesses of our old system, and therefore presents a perfect opportunity to ‘reset’ our world and start anew. What is striking about this plan, which the WEF has condensed into a virus-shaped mindmap, is its implicit endorsement of a philosophy called ‘transhumanism’. (emphasis added)

As initially stated, “Technocracy is to the transformation of society as Transhumanism is to the transformation of the human condition of people who would live in that society.”

In conclusion, the evil twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism, along with their underlying religion of Scientism, need to be recognized for what they are but most importantly, they must be resisted and rejected with every fiber of our being.

[technocracy.news]

@Krunoslav Interesting. As an engineer, I reject the notion that complex systems can be predictively engineered by homo sapiens 1.0, 2.0 or 10.0 without fantastic risk.

It's almost impossible to do something as complex as the Space Shuttle, and we didn't do a very good job of that. "Human Engineering" is magnitudes more complex, and probably beyond estimation today. Human Engineering compared to the Space Shuttle would make the Space Shuttle look like Tinker Toys. One magnitude of complexity beyond the Space Shuttle would have meant utter failure.

The best engineers represent that kind of capability, and soon AI will eclipse them. Without our ability to predict what will happen when it does, we are probably looking at an extinction event after that.

I think technocrats who believe otherwise are delusional.

As one among the faithful in Jesus Christ, I am looking forward to going Home and admit to being a bit blase about what happens to us here. Things that happen on Earth seem not so important compared to eternity. And I believe those worshiping Scientism are in for an awful shock when they finally realize that what I am saying is coming true. For us believers, we will be mourning for them as the finality of eternity closes in on them.

They probably are certain that I am delusional. But one look at what is happening today seems already to be convicting them.

@TimTuolomne I agree. ...though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. Or as someone said, in utopian undertaking, experience is a handicap.

"For men to plunge headlong into an undertaking of vast change, they must be intensely discontented yet not destitute, and they must have the feeling that by the possession of some potent doctrine, infallible leader or some new technique they have access to a source of irresistible power. They must also have an extravagant conception of the prospects and the potentialities of the future. Finally, they must be wholly ignorant of the difficulties involved in their vast undertaking. Experience is a handicap.

Those who would transform a nation or the world cannot do so by breeding and captaining discontent or by demonstrating the reasonableness and desirability of the intended changes or by coercing people into a new way of life. They must know how to kindle and fan an extravagant hope."

― Eric Hoffer, The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movementsa

@Krunoslav Well said. As usual.