Thread Rating:
  • 3 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

On May 14 representatives of the Anti-Globalist Resistance met with the well-known American economist and philosopher Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, the writer Helga Zepp LaRouche, who are making a short visit to Moscow.

Lyndon LaRouche briefed them on his vision of history, which, since the 12th Century in Europe has been largely under the influence, if not the control, of banks. First it was the Venetian bankers, who subsequently resettled in Holland and established banks there, bringing Britain into their sphere as well. Then this powerful network, lightly masked as the British and Dutch monarchies, ran Europe and extended their influence, later, into the USA, intervening in world events through its agents (among whom were many figures of the French Revolution, in LaRouche's view).

Today, the world is in a very unstable situation. The world financial system is on the brink of collapse. The USA is unable to function as hegemon. The leading personalities in the government are members of the Baby-Boomer generation, brought up in a state of egoism, and divorced from tradition, by means of deliberate schemes using television and mass culture. They are unable to think about the future. But there is hope, that youth will come to take their place, and for these youth the future will again mean something.

The current situation is Europe is becoming increasingly ominous. Countries like Britain, Germany, and Belgium, which have just had elections, are becoming less and less capable of making decisions independently. As for France, where the newly elected President Nicolas Sarkozy has openly rejected the independent French policy, founded by De Gaulle, it is already clear that by doing this, he has split the nation.

LaRouche sees the rejection of monetarism as a way to overcome the crisis, along with adoption of a system of government credits to the "real economy" (continuing the ideas of F.D. Roosevelt, who overcame the Great Depression with such an approach). This requires united efforts by the USA, Russia, China, and India, which would subsequently be joined by other countries.

In conclusion, Mr. LaRouche advised not to lose hope, saying, "The world can be saved--but can we do it?"


Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The following statement was translated from the German statement by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, chairwoman of the Bueso political party:

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy has drastically worsened the world political situation. Europe threatens to go completely in the direction of the neo-cons, who are headed for World War III, and at the same time to become ungovernable due to the financial crisis.

Is all of Europe turning towards the camp of the neo-cons?

Joan of Arc would turn over in her grave. For while she heroically liberated France from the British occupation, and thus created the conditions for the development of France as the first sovereign nation-state, the French population voted May 6 for British control of the Elyse@aae. And thus, happy about the new situation in Europe, the Financial Times wrote at the beginning of the week:

``How often has there been a combination of heads of governments, which had such British instincts?''

Tony Blair, the primary architect of the war in Iraq built on lies, immediately expressed his joy about the change in France, and German Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel now expects an improvement in German-French relations--effectively under British design.

For his part, Sarkozy announced as his first objective the improvement of France's relations with the Bush Administration, and his massive rejection of President Vladimir Putin and Russia is well known. Overall, therefore, the situation in Europe has deteriorated. For in the face of the increasing tensions, which have evoked a state of ungovernability in more and more European states, it is now even less likely, that Europe will step forward with political initiatives, which could effectively counter the existential dangers, with which the world is confronted.

On the contrary, a complete assortment of people leaning to the right, who are affiliated with the Synarchist International, rushed to acclaim Sarkozy's coming to power. Thus, the arch-neocon Richard Perle expressed satisfaction in Le Figaro over the fact that France would now finally be ``liberated'' from the Gaullist obsession, to want to be different from the U.S. The friend of Pinochet and the pseudo-Democrat Felix Rohatyn expressed his gratification, that Sarkozy will now be a close confederate of the United States and NATO. Very soon, it will become evident what Sarkozy meant, when, during the election campaign, he promised a break, a ``rupture,'' with previous policy. And for starters, Sarkozy himself spent three days on the yacht of Vincent Bollore, who, as a close friend of the president of the Assicurazioni Generali, Antoine Bernheim, is affiliated with the financial interests of Lazard Freres--that banking house, which in the 1930s supported the forces friendly to Hitler. After this short vacation, rumors circulated in Paris that Bollore will buy up the first channel of the French television station TF1 from Sarkozy's friend, Martin Bouygues, and he in turn will obtain the right to buy up the nuclear energy firm Areva, which Sarkozy wants to privatize soon.

The Strategic Threat -

What does this new direction mean in strategic terms, at a time, when international oligarchical circles have launched a massive campaign against President Putin personally, and a policy of isolation against Russia? It was an aspect of this campaign to dissuade France and Germany from pursuing its earlier partnership with Russia, which now, in the case of France, is completely successful, and in the case of Germany, nearly so. At the same time, not only Putin himself, but also many other well-known Russian personalities, such as, for example, the head of the U.S.A.-Canada Institute, Sergei Rogov, are warning that the world is returning to the edge of a new Cold War, and the Damocles sword of nuclear war hangs over us. Gen. Leonid Ivashov recently warned that the U.S. has prepared nuclear strikes against Iran and wants to circumvent the resistance in Congress through a staged incident.

Last, but not least, it is clear to the traditional military in the U.S., that a military strike against Iran, in which so-called ``mini-nukes'' would be employed, would lead in all probability to a global asymmetrical war. Well-informed sources from this milieu warn that the current trip of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney into the Southwest Asian region must be seen in this connection. In this context, how is it to be assessed that in various locations in Southwest Asia and South Asia, the U.S. is demanding the right to station American troops, or of its warships to utilize the ports of these nations? And what is the real intention behind the American plans to station missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, to which Putin has responded with the suspension of the CFE (Conventional Armed Forces in Europe) Treaty? In many places the answer given is that, with all of these different elements, what is at stake is an orientation towards World War III.

While Europe, in the era of Schroeder-Chirac represented a clear counterweight to the war policy of the Anglo-American neo-cons, it now threatens, in the event of an emergency, to be involved in a world war as part of a new combination, in which Russia, China, and India, among others, would stand on the other side.

- A Crisis of Ungovernability -

However, even without this extreme sharpening of the crisis, in many European states, globalization has already produced a state of ungovernability. Thus, the recent elections in Great Britain, despite all the pretensions of London to be the world capital of the hedge funds, have shown how much the antagonisms between Scotland, where the Scottish National Party, became the strongest power, Wales, and England are splitting up the country. The Scottish National Party aims at holding a referendum on the independence of Scotland, which the future Prime Minister Gordon Brown completely rejects, and has formed an inherently unstable minority government, after negotiations with the Liberal Democratic Party collapsed.

In Belgium, the antagonisms between Flemings and Walloons are likewise unbridgeable under the present circumstances. The election of the chairman of the Radical Party in Serbia, Tomislav Nicolic, as Speaker of the Parliament, has increased the tensions on the Kosovo issue. Nicolic declared that, in an emergency, he will wage war, if the West supports the independence of Kosovo. If a government is not formed in Serbia by May 15, a new election must take place.

The situation in almost all Eastern European states is extremely unstable. In Germany, there are cracks in the Grand Coalition on so many topics, that despite the mutual love of power, it is always a question as to whether this alliance will endure for long under this stress. And in France, with increasing difficulties in the economy, Sarkozy will polarize the country still very much more than has already happened.

In fact, the political and economic situation in Europe viewed up close, is much more fragile, than that which the EU would like to present to the rest of the world. Nowhere is this clearer than in Germany, the country which once was in the vanguard of nuclear technology, and which today no longer possesses the know-how for the exit from the ban on nuclear power. While there is a renaissance in nuclear energy throughout the whole world, our rotund Environmental Minister Sigmar Gabriel sits on the leadership and blocks every rational discussion. And while there are concrete plans in dozens of countries to build the Transrapid (high speed magnetic-levitation trains) over great distances, as, for example, in Venezuela or along the Gulf Coast, Germany will presumably not be the beneficiary, rather, if anything, it will be China or Japan who will export their models. For it is questionable whether the technology of the Transrapid, subsidized by taxes, which, due to the greening of the brains of the politicians, was never built here commercially, still belongs to us at all, or whether it was not traded away long ago.

The current ungovernability in Germany becomes clear from the simple fact that in Berlin neither the Grand Coalition, nor any other combination of parties represented in the Bundestag (the lower house of parliament), is able to make the decisions, on which the political and economic survival of Germany depends. Indeed, there are by all means members of the Bundestag who know that we need nuclear energy, and that there are inherently safe forms such as the HTR; who know that the Transrapid could be one of the top export items for Germany; who know that the man-made Global Warming scare is a swindle--but who would never stick their necks out so far as to endanger their careers.

This moral quagmire and the degree of sophistry represent the greatest problem. If one observes in detail how exhausted the situation in Europe really is, it might be clear that the increasingly acute financial crash threatens to plunge the political structures completely into chaos. If one compares this desolate state with the manifold plans for the development of transportation corridors and extensive projects in Russia, India, and other parts of Asia and Ibero-America, it becomes clear that the measures proposed by Lyndon LaRouche for action by an internally transformed U.S., without the war party of Cheney, in combination with Russia, China, and India, represent the only, and final chance. Only if the realization of a new financial system in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt and a New Deal for the reconstruction of the world economy is placed on the agenda very quickly by these four nations can there be a positive solution. Intelligent individuals will stake everything on orienting Germany and the other nations of Europe towards this alternative.

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

21st Century Science & Technology's Laurence Hecht's editorial for the March 23 edition of Executive Intelligence Review, drew upon a crucially relevant historical background, that of the role of Malthusian corruption which was expressed in the spread of the 20th-Century fascism of Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and their imitators. Gore's implicitly racist utopianism in his Africa policy today, like that of those Twentieth-Century horrors, is nothing other than a modern echo of the still deeper roots of the same illness, roots which are also to be found in the ancient Delphi cult of Dionysus.

This tradition of that Delphi Apollo cult, is described by the legendary Olympian Zeus of Classical tragedian Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound. This ancient tradition has, persistently, menaced the cause of the sovereign nation-state with imperialist schemes, such as today's "globalization" scheme by former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore, Jr., and others, a scheme for replacing the sovereign nation-state by an imperial Tower of Babel. Gore, thus, represents that Sophist's tradition, traceable since as far back as today's most ancient memories of European civilization have reached. It remains impossible to understand the historic mission of the pseudo-scientific frauds of Gore today, without recognizing him, as I show here, as not only a true echo of Twentieth-Century fascism, but, also, an echo, in that specific, historical sense, of the example provided by Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.

There are deeper, unfortunately rarely considered, scientific considerations, underlying what might appear to many, as merely the crudeness of that "global warming" fraud which Gore has adopted. There is nothing accidental about this specific aspect of Gore's moral rottenness, the personal malice against mankind permeating Gore's expressed creed; but, to understand any of this, then or now, we must recognize the deep, and ancient, systemic, virtually hereditary roots of the evil which Gore perpetrates today.

Thus, what Gore represents, is one among numerous varieties of an epidemic "childhood disease of mankind," a cultural disease not of some people, but of humanity as a species. It is a "childhood disease" of the predominantly immature life of human development so far. It is only in this ancient origin of his present role, as an expression of a loathsome type of social disease, that Gore's behavior and influence can be competently understood, and the pestilence, which he carries, properly treated.

These are strong words; and they require strong proof; without them, we would have failed to grasp the awful end which threatens civilization now, and, perhaps, for generations still to come. Civilization could be doomed to the rather immediate onset of a prolonged dark age of all humanity, unless the Dionysiac evil gripping Gore's malthusian passion, is recognized for the efficiently Satanic religious qualities it represents.

*   *   *

"Is Gore already bringing the Democratic Party, once more, to something which would be, truly, far worse than another electoral defeat, this time in 2008?"

The time has come to go more far more deeply into the danger to all mankind, from what has been fairly described by relevant scientists as "the great global warming swindle." The scientists' public ridicule of former Vice-President Al Gore's hoax has already provided more than adequate demonstration of the proof that Gore's claims are entirely fraudulent. It remains for me to go into a much deeper, truly shocking implications of the political-historical side of that scientific evidence.

In the history of European science since pre-Homeric Mediterranean civilization's "dark age," each provable test of a principle of science, has usually been, as now, directly contrary to the popular Sophistry of its age, as with the prevalent opinion among most presumed experts today. A notable demonstration of the effect of underestimating this danger, had been the long-asserted authority of the neo-Aristotelean hoaxster Claudius Ptolemy's fraudulent doctrines for astronomy.

As this point was demonstrated by Pythagoreans such as Archytas, truth in physical science always lies in those principles which are demonstrated, experimentally, to be universal, like Archytas' constructive doubling of the cube.[1] As Albert Einstein emphasized, this point is typified by the succession of both Kepler's founding of a universal mode of modern European science, and Bernhard Riemann's bringing of Kepler's method, by way of Leibniz, to its needed, fuller resolution.

In such matters, public concern must be concentrated on two distinct, if functionally related propositions. In the first instance, practical attention is focused upon the issue of the intrinsic truthfulness of a discovered principle, such as Kepler's uniquely validated discovery of universal gravitation: truth for its own sake. In the second instance, society must be occupied by concern for the sometimes deadly consequences of acting contrary to such a knowable universal physical principle. Both of these types of concerns, are at stake in the matter of what has been fairly documented by actual scientific authorities, as Al Gore's "great global warming swindle." Here, in this report, I address both of these types of concerns.

By that standard which I have just identified, those so-called "scientists" who have lined up in support of former Vice-President Al Gore's blatant fraud on the subject of "global warming," have adopted what is, if anything, a fraud far worse, on every count, in respect to both method and catastrophic social consequences, than that fraud of Claudius Ptolemy which leading officials of medieval and even Seventeenth-Century Europe upheld as an inquisitional standard of truth and personal morality.

I do not exaggerate in the slightest degree. In the present case, Gore's fraud, the consequences are immediately worse than they were for any earlier hoax in the entire sweep of known ancient through modern civilization. Were Gore's swindle to become established international law, the result would be that the entire planet would now plunge quickly into a prolonged dark age, one deeper, and worse than any other known to us from historical records of the past, a dark age from which only distant future generations would probably recover, but, that only after a probably long, and deep descent of depopulation, into rivalry with whatever species of baboons, or the like, might be available for making such comparisons.

The fact that Gore, and so many others, could demand that the human species be plunged into such a new dark age, in such a manner, bespeaks a quality of criminality as bad, or even worse, in implied consequences for mankind as a whole, than Adolf Hitler's. Nonetheless, in dealing with creatures as morally rotten as Gore, we must recognize that their criminality is an outcome of a blend of bestialities, both a malice against mankind as deep as Hitler's association with his own pro-eugenicist roots of the 1920s and early 1930s, and also Gore's repeated exhibitions of a certain kind of sheer, implicitly psychotic degree of "fly hanging-open" quality of stupidity.

But, Gore Is a Sick Man

Nonetheless, despite the passion this problem requires of us, we must study a criminality like that of Gore et al., with the scientific compassion a physician might bring to the study of a patient who is a homicidal madman. The ability to muster such clinical qualities of compassion, is necessary, if we are to discover the truth of the case: as a matter of scientifically validatable principle, how could a representative of so noble a creature as mankind, descend into that morally diseased state of awful degeneracy which Gore's aggressively fraudulent ideology and its practice expresses?

Before he became U.S. President, Ronald Reagan had presented theater audiences with the relevant clinical case of the "Bonzo," a young chimpanzee, which, by nature of its species, would degenerate from a naughty, pet-like creature of its youth, like, perhaps, young Al Gore, into a kind of "King Lear," a "Bozo" among apes.

Sometimes, as in the profession of drama, it were wise to skip the temptation to stage a sequel; on that account, a more candid viewing of the continuing real-life prospects of President Ronald Reagan's "Bonzo" should warn us, that, when well-trained, captive male chimpanzees enter adolescence, or become U.S. Vice-Presidents, they cease to be fun. That fairly sums up the monkey business we witness in the case of sometime Senator and Vice-President Al Gore, Jr. Some of his adolescent classmates had the smell of this in their nostrils, when they nicknamed him "Ozymandias." Adolescent Al was trained at what Washington, D.C. would consider "the right schools," but, nonetheless, in the end, like actor Reagan's "Bonzo," it was Al's cultural roots, the ape within him, which came to the surface in his current adult, dramatic role as the "Artful Dodger" of the zinc and carbon swaps.

For reasons which are implicit in the discovery of the Noösphere, a discovery made by Russia's V.I. Vernadsky, there are almost species-like, culturally induced differences among human types, axiomatic-like differences in types of cultural breeding which are sometimes comparable in form of expression to differences in biological varieties among lower forms of animal life. In that sense of the matter, in the strictest sense of the term, Al, at bottom, underneath the affected "company manners" exterior, Gore as a specimen, is simply not a desirable sociological type, nor, at this stage in his life, probably civilizable, either.

Gore is, culturally, a sick man; he represents an infectious sickness; but the possibility of a cure, or at least an amelioration of his moral disorder, which is, after all, the crucial issue, depends upon recognizing, as scientists must, the root of the infection which defines both Gore's influence as, like syphilis, that of not only a symptomatically nasty, but also deadly social disease.

Therefore, to put Al Gore's noxious quirk into its appropriate scientific focus, it is necessary to pivot the investigation from the crucially relevant fact, that the greatest contribution to the world's science made by Russia's great Academician V.I. Vernadsky, was his defining the notion of the Noösphere as a universal physical principle. Vernadsky's discovery must be recognized as establishing a universal physical principle—a principle of the universe, that in the same sense that universal gravitation, as originally defined, uniquely, by Johannes Kepler, is not a statistical object, but a universally efficient principle underlying the existence of the universe as a whole.[2] It is that principle of discovery, which distinguishes mankind from the apes, which is our proper concern, a principle we must serve, promote, and defend against all corruption.

I explain the aforesaid connections.

1. The Human Species & Its Noösphere

The human species is unique among all known types of living creatures. This existential distinction between man and beast, is most clearly expressed by the effect of the human discovery, and use of universal physical principles. Johannes Kepler's uniquely original discovery of universal gravitation, typifies this form of action: a form of potential for action which is uniquely specific to the sovereign cognitive powers of the individual member of the human species. The effect of this quality of the human individual, is typified by the potential increase of the human population, by more than a thousand decimal orders of magnitude, from what is already the range of potential relative population-density of a species of higher ape, to the more than six billions human individuals living today.

Therefore, the significance of the work of V.I. Vernadsky on this account, is expressed in two, interdependent, but qualitatively distinct ways:

First, that the power which this unique principle expresses in the social behavior of the sovereign individual personality, is not expressed in any species of animal.

Second, that the social effect of the expression of this unique principle, is shaped by the notion of dynamics, as dynamics is expressed, in fact, by the uniquely original discoveries of Kepler, and as dynamics is defined, successively, in modern scientific practice since Kepler, chiefly by Gottfried Leibniz,[3] Bernhard Riemann, and V.I. Vernadsky.

As will be clarified, at an appropriate point below, Vernadsky's notion of dynamics, is explicitly premised on Bernhard Riemann's development of the dynamical principles of physical hypergeometry. Here, in this notion of Riemannian dynamics, lies the essential functional distinction of Vernadsky's use of the term "Noösphere" (as distinct from the mystical mish-mash of the hoaxster Teilhard de Chardin of documented"Piltdown" complicity).

The most crucial distinctions to be considered, are, in summary, the following.

1.) Vernadsky's usage of dynamics as applied to the notion of the Biosphere, appears on stage with startling simplicity and clarity, in 1935-36, in his defining the Biosphere.[4]

To wit: although living processes are composed, chemically, of elements and isotopes of the Mendeleyev Periodic Table, the harmonically ordered behavior of these components in the functional characteristics of living processes, expresses a distinct principle, of life, not otherwise present in the role of the same elements in non-living processes. Thus, living processes are bounded, dynamically, by a universal principle of life which is not expressed in non-living chemistries. Hence, Vernadsky's definition of the Biosphere.

2.) However, the issue does not end with the discovery of the principled distinction of a universal physical principle of life, a discovery comparable to Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the principle of universal harmonics called gravitation. There is a higher principle than that of the Biosphere, a principle, of the Noösphere, which, as defined by the same method of scientific investigation of matters of principle, sets the human individual absolutely apart from, and above all other expressions of life as such.

3.) That higher, parallel exception is expressed, empirically, as the absolute, qualitative distinction of human from animal behavior. Here, the discovery of universal physical (and comparable Classical-artistic) principles, such as Kepler's uniquely original discovery of the harmonics principle of universal gravitation, sets the human species apart from, and above all other forms of living processes.

In each instance, this higher principle, expressed only by human individuals and their society, is the power of discovery of man's willful power in, and over the universe, a power which defines man and woman, as Genesis 1 describes this, as set apart from, and above all other living creatures, as man and woman made equally in the likeness, in nature, and character of duties as the servant of the Creator. This is the quality of power, unique to mankind, whose existence is illustrated by the uniqueness of Kepler's discovery of that harmonic principle of universal gravitation which orders the composition of the Solar system as a whole.[5]

Thus, if evil is defined as a quality of personality which places the individual, or his beliefs, as hostile to this likeness of man and woman to the Creator, then, Al Gore is, like the late Bertrand Russell, cast in the role of a truly evil person. I mean "evil," as like that of the Olympian Zeus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound, as like the "Belshazzar" of Rembrandt and of Robert Schumann's setting of Heinrich Heine's poem, or as like the "Ozymandias" which some fellow-students recognized in the personality of Al Gore: a likeness comparable to a legendary prototype of a purely evil principle.

Wherein, then, lies the essential evil of the Delphic Zeus? Of the Delphic Dionysus whom Gore currently follows? For what alleged offense does a Satanic Zeus condemn Prometheus? For giving mankind knowledge of the use of fire for mankind's benefit (e.g., the power of nuclear fission)! Yet, "fire," nuclear and otherwise, is only typical of the issue at stake. It is not the discovery of fire which was at issue; it was man's discovered knowledge of the use of fire (and of the use of nuclear fission), which is the immediate issue of Aeschylus' drama; the issue is man's access to practical knowledge of the nature and use of, and due respect for, universal physical principles.[6]

To restate that same point more appropriately: the issue is that of man's knowledgeable access to knowledge of man's own true nature, as made in the functional image of the Creator. It is not our ability to perform tricks, parlor or otherwise, which defines mankind; what defines mankind is this knowledge of our own true nature, which is necessary to separate the quality of our conscience from that of the mere beasts. Whoever would deny us that knowledge, as the intrinsically irrational philosophical Liberalism of such followers of Paolo Sarpi's followers Hobbes, Locke, Mandeville, Quesnay, and Adam Smith do for economics, is acting as an expression of a principle of evil.

On this latter account, Aeschylus' celebrated drama, Prometheus Bound, typifies the root of the mental and moral disease characteristic of the noted neo-Malthusian perversion of Albert Gore, Jr. That meaning is typified by the ancient use of the term "the oligarchical model," the model of ancient Babylon, as the Christian Apostle John's dream references the imperial Rome of Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero, as "the Whore of Babylon," as typified, in turn, by the imperial systems of, combined, ancient Rome, Byzantium, the Venetian-Norman feudal order, and the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperial thrust associated with the legacy of Paolo Sarpi, and also Al Gore, still today.

The Oligarchical Principle

Thus, as I have just stated, above, the root of Al Gore's decadent ideology, is the doctrine under which the majority of human beings are degraded in juridical, or comparable status, to that of "human cattle," rather than what man and woman are described as being in Genesis 1. There lies the proof for the essential charge of "satanic," against ideologue Gore and his like.

This charge against Al Gore and his like, is not original to me; it is the essential issue of all known ancient, medieval, and modern European civilization since the Homeric Iliad and Odyssey. It is the core of the division of ancient Greek society, by a great struggle between the legacy of the oligarchical system of Lycurgus' Sparta, on the one side, and the humanistic standard associated with Solon of Athens and the Socratic-Platonic legacy, on the other.[7] It is the struggle for civilization, against the influences typified by that Delphi cult of Apollo associated, still today, with the Delphi traditions of Gaea, Python, Pythia, Apollo, Dionysus, and of that great fraud of modern European civilization, and with the Nazi-paradigm of Friedrich Nietzsche's Apollo-Dionysus myth, The Birth of Tragedy.[8]

The great tragedian Aeschylus puts his finger on the core of that issue, in the surviving, middle section, Prometheus Bound, of his Prometheus Trilogy. The central issue of Prometheus Bound, and, implicitly, the Prometheus Trilogy in its original entirety, is the issue between the humanistic tradition of Solon, Socrates, and Plato, and the opposing, oligarchical tradition leading into things such as Adolf Hitler, as typified by the Lycurgan code, of the Delphic Apollo cult and the related dogmas of the certifier of the Hitler dictatorship, Professor Leo Strauss' original sponsor Carl Schmitt. In fact, all of the crucial issues of the cultural and political history of European civilization, from about the Seventh Century B.C., to the present revival of the pro-fascist cult of so-called "environmentalism," are a continuing expression of the issues posed by both Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound and the work of the Pythagoreans, Socrates, Plato, et al., on the one side, and the influence of the tradition of Sophistry associated centrally with the Delphi Apollo cult, on the other.[9]

Although the term "humanist" is also misused by many contemporary currents of opinion, the essential, useful meaning of that term, we must always emphasize, within the context of globally extended modern European cultures, is identical with the implications of Genesis 1:26-31. We may put the squabbles among sundry religious factions aside. That meaning, as I employ it as an issue of physical science, here, is, that there is a fundamental line of division, a division defined by a universal physical principle, between mankind and all relatively lower forms of life. Whereas, it has become conventional, to regard that principle, that dividing-line, as a convention of "received religious belief;" the fact is, that the distinction to be made, as I do here, is founded on physical-scientific certainty, as Vernadsky's rigorous, experimental-physical principle of the Noösphere reflects that division. For us, who know of such matters, the existence of the efficient intention of a willful, all-subsuming Creator of our universe, is also a fact of a properly conceived physical science.[10]

These considerations lead our attention to two, successive statements of principle respecting human nature. The first step, especially in the U.S.A. today, is to recognize the true genius of Frederick Douglass, as against all those foolish fellows, especially among the "macho-like" behavior of some descendants of slaves, who reject Douglass's wisdom on this account.

In civilized forms of European cultural life, Classical science, as in the tradition of the methods of the Pythagoreans and Plato, as opposed to the reductionists, and Classical artistic composition, are the exemplary distinctions in practice of man from man mis-making himself, as the implicitly anti-African racist Al Gore and other reductionists do, in the image of a beast.[11] Thus, in the fight against slavery, the first step to real freedom was a quality of literacy leading to Classical modes of physical-scientific and artistic progress, as Frederick Douglass's own life and family attest to this. A man who sees himself as an oppressed beast, as Al Gore implicitly defines the Africa component of his current "Global Warming" hoax, remains a beast in his own mind. It is by freeing the mind of the feudal peasant, or slave, to be encouraged to think in terms of Classical forms of scientific and artistic knowledge, that the human individual becomes freed to assume a human identity in his or her own mind. "In his or her own mind," is a crucial matter of principle, a matter of knowing one's own true identity. Think of Frederick Douglass, as a notable example, of a self-freed slave as being like the Prometheus of Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound.[12] Contrast the policies of Frederick Douglass on this account, with the often wildly misguided, present-day opponents of Douglass on this issue of culture.

"Human culture" should be treated as having a fully legitimate, double meaning. It means, fundamentally, the progress of development of the specifically human cognitive powers of the human species; however, in opposition to all past and present efforts at the "globalization" tradition of the Biblical "Tower of Babel" (e.g., "Babble"), it also signifies the sovereignty of the experience of progress in sovereign development of the powers of each cultural branch of humanity as a whole; it must signify the interaction of specific "national" and kindred cultures with a scientifically adducible mainstream of progress in the potential relative population-density of the human species as a whole.

2. The Modern "Oligarchical Model"

The presence of systemic evil within the known civilizations of mankind, is best known to qualified historians and the like by the name of "The Oligarchical Model," the model associated with such examples as ancient Babylon and the Achaemenid empire. It is, otherwise, fairly described as "The Asian Model," against which ancient Greece fought to defend its struggling civilization against conquest from imperial forces within Asia Minor. It was when an Athens whose youth had been polluted by the Sophistry which radiated from the Delphi Gaea/Apollo/Dionysus cult, and which had corrupted a generation of young Athenians of influential families, that that generation of ancient Grecian "Baby Boomers," typified by Sophists such as Thrasymachus and Glaucon, prompted a corrupt Athens under Pericles, into a campaign of rape against other parts of Greek culture. In this fashion, Athens was self-destroyed, in large part, by the added crime of its judicial murder of Socrates, a crime perpetrated by an organization of ancient (almost Sarpian) Liberals known as "The Democratic Party of Athens."

Despite the great leadership in morals, science and statecraft provided by Plato, ancient post-Peloponnesian War Greece never regained what Athens had been before Pericles' corruption—never, to the present day![13] However, the heritage of Classical Greece of Socrates and Plato lived on, chiefly under the benefit of Christianity, to erupt gloriously in the great A.D. 1439 session of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, and the launching of the modern nation-state republic and methods of modern physical science introduced under the leadership of the greatest, most moving genius of that time, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa.

From this Renaissance came the first sovereign commonwealth states of Europe, Louis XI's France and Henry VII's England. Unfortunately, the relics of the medieval oligarchical, ultramontane system returned in a Venetian resurgence marked by the Fall of Constantinople and the subsequent events under the anti-Semitic Grand Inquisitor Tomás de Torquemada. Over the course of the following century, globally extending European civilization, inspired by the plottings of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, reached across the Atlantic and elsewhere as defined by a conflict between the commonwealth legacy of the great ecumenical Council of Florence, against the reformed Venetian oligarchical model associated with the Liberalism of Paolo Sarpi and his Anglo-Dutch Liberal followers.[14]

The developments of 1789-1815 in Europe left the world at large dominated by two contending products of English-speaking civilization, the American System of political-economy, represented, respectively, chiefly, by the U.S.A., and the opposing, Anglo-Dutch Liberal system of financier oligarchical hegemonies. This conflict within the English-speaking systems, between the legacy of the American System and the opposed Liberal systems, has been the essential pivot of world history taken as a whole, from February 1763 to the present time.

Over this interval, most notably from February 1763 to the present, the dominant cultural forces of the planet considered as a single whole, have been divided between the implicitly Anglo-Dutch Liberal system, the paramount oligarchical system of today's planet considered at large, and that system's only serious global rival thus far, the American System of political-economy as typified by names such as Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Quincy Adams. Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As I have repeatedly emphasized heretofore, the victory of the U.S.A, led by President Abraham Lincoln, in defeating the Confederacy puppet of London's Lord Palmerston, not only established the U.S.A. as an independent nation-state power in the world at large, but rallied nations of continental Eurasia, and elsewhere, as in Bismarck's Germany, Mendeleyev's Russia, and Japan, around the idea of the American System of political-economy as the alternative to the imperial global hegemony of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal monetary-financial system.

Since the 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, and, most emphatically 1865-1877, the grand politics and its related warfare within the planet as a whole have been organized around a so-called "geopolitical" conflict between the challenged supremacy of the Anglo-Dutch Liberal maritime system and the rivals of British imperialism located chiefly within the Americas and the continent of Eurasia. The special significance of this form of chronic global conflict, is that the Anglo-Dutch Liberal form of imperialist monetary-financial system, is a product of the long sweep of oligarchical rule in European affairs since the Peloponnesian War.

Consider the immediate expression of that conflict, today.

Shultz, Kissinger, & Rohatyn

For those who care to look at the evidence, the evidence is, that the design of what became the "Baby Boomer" generation, was the product of a presently continuing determination by relevant Anglo-Dutch Liberal fanatics, such as FDR-hater Felix Rohatyn and his cronies in the Pinochet coup d'etat and Operation Condor butchery, George Shultz and Henry A. Kissinger. That crime in the Southern Cone was done by them as part of their continuing commitment to ensure that no new President Franklin Roosevelt would ever appear in U.S. history again.

For precisely this reason, I have been hated, personally by the Liberal oligarchy, and increasingly so, since my celebrated, late 1971 Queen's College debate against the Congress for Cultural Freedom's advocate, Professor Abba Lerner. It is not only that I have been committed to return to the standpoint of President Franklin Roosevelt's revival of the American System of political-economy out of the rubbish-heap created by the Coolidge and Hoover Presidencies, but, as Lerner's close associate, Professor Sidney Hook, commented upon my complete defeat of Lerner in that debate, I had shown myself an "effective advocate." What my adversaries regarded as either my successes, or near-successes, prompted leading circles in the U.S.A. and abroad to regard me as dangerously competent in my profession, especially after the SDI affair; for that, to the present date, they have never forgiven me.

The witting use of the morally degenerate existentialism of such cronies of former Nazi Professor Martin Heidegger (at the Hitler period's Freiburg University) as Horkheimer, Adorno, and Arendt, and also the notorious Paris Review of John Train, Teddy Goldsmith, et al., among those deployed to conduct the mass-brainwashing project for Europe known as the Congress of Cultural Freedom (CCF), points clearly to both the intention and the method by which a certain "white collar" stratum within the generation born between 1945 and 1956, would be pre-conditioned to produce the frankly fascist quality of rioting "68ers" and "environmentalist" movement of today.

The policy used by the enemies of Franklin Roosevelt's memory, was a policy of corrupting a newborn post-war generation from, chiefly, middle-class white-collar households, in Sophist doctrines such as "information theory" and the existentialist dogma of "the authoritarian personality," to bring into being exactly what was brought into the streets of the leading cities of the U.S.A., Paris, Berlin, and elsewhere during the riotous days of 1968. Those and related facts of that period, underline the fully witting intent behind the mass-brainwashing of those dupes constituting what is known today as the "Baby Boomer" generation.

In mid-1968 I was startled into recognizing the continuing importance this, after a second campus "strike" at New York's Columbia University, in late Spring, 1968. This second campus eruption, as distinct from the first, showed itself as a recurrence of what I knew of the sociology of the pre-Hitler Berlin "trolley car" strike, during which the Communist and Nazi party had been swapping memberships, back and forth, virtually by the week. Here we saw, in Berlin then, and in the U.S. and western and central Europe during the Spring of 1968 and beyond, the specific doctrine of Nietzschean Dionysian violence of which Nazi and similar political movements and revolutions are born, such as the movements surfacing as the "anti-fa" violence in Germany today. My Summer 1968 publication, The New Left, Social Control, and Fascism, which documented my concern of late Spring and early Summer 1968, made that point.

The reference to the Mark Rudd faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) as "left-wing," or even "radical left," misses the point. As we compare the pro-violence movements spawned from places such as Hamburg during the time of the terrorist murderers among the Baader-Meinhof gang, and the right-wing spawn of the same pedigree in Saxony and Berlin today, this should remind us, as the history of the French Revolution should have done, that the key feature of the Jacobin killer-mobs of 1790s Paris was their Phrygian caps, the hallmark of the terrorism of the followers of the civilization-hating Delphi Dionysus cult.

It is what you are for, not what you might choose as a temporary target of your role within a raging mob, which defines what you really are; it is what you are being used to attempt to bring into being, whether you know what you are actually doing, or not.

Gore & the Recipe for Fascism

The danger today, is that, under the influence of the anti-Roosevelt crafting of the "white collar" Baby-Boomer generation, which was manufactured, by social-cultural programming, from the ranks of many born during 1945-1956, there emerged the core of a fascist political current, in the guise of the extremists of the following of former Vice-President Al Gore, today. Gore's ideological types, on this account, have all the same essential characteristics of those Anglo-Dutch Liberals, and their American fellow-travelers of financial capital, who created Hitler's fascism out of the environmentalist (e.g., "eugenics") cults of the 1920s and early 1930s.

This echo of the eugenics used to bring the fascist movements of the 1920s and 1930s into being, is precisely what the Gore, speaking in the name of "environmentalism," promotes as "green genocide" against black Africa today. Such was the impact of the influence of Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair, and his close accomplice Al Gore, as U.S. Vice-President, on U.S. Africa policy for Uganda, Sudan, and elsewhere, during that past period.

Contrary to the widespread myth today, the patriots who actually designed our constitutional U.S. Republic were never "leftists," never Jacobins, but republicans in the tradition of the great Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the defining of both the modern nation-state by Nicholas of Cusa, the founding of modern science by Cusa, and the founding of the first modern commonwealth republics under France's Louis XI and England's Henry VII. Our U.S. republic was unique in the respect that it led in carrying the best aspirations of the commonwealth system of nation-state republics to be planted on soil, in the Americas, at a prudent distance from the oligarchical systems which ruled Europe culturally then, and, for the greater part, still today.

In that specifically American tradition, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt's leadership saved the world from a more or less permanent Hell under the reign of the oligarchical system represented by the figure of Adolf Hitler, that despite the Harrimans and other anglophile oligarchical types descended from the tradition of the 1763 British East India Company's American Tories.[15]

So, with the death of President Franklin Roosevelt, we of the U.S.A. and western and central Europe, were destroyed afresh, as Sophistry ruined Pericles' Athens; an entire generation of our white-collar class born between 1945 and 1956, drilled in the systemic corruption by the new, anti-Franklin Roosevelt Sophistry thus expressed by the 1945-1956 brainwashing of the "white collar" generation. It was a "brainwashing" intended, by the followers of Bertrand Russell and others, to produce the still reigning "Baby Boomer" generation of 1968-2007 today. To a large degree, since 1968, that scheme of corruption of our nation has succeeded. Relative to the mid-1960s, we are a ruined, looted nation.

What Al Gore represents, in particular, is a picaresque reflection of the essence of the oligarchical model traced in our national history from traitors such as Lord Shelburne-backed crony of the British Foreign Office's Jeremy Bentham, the traitor Aaron Burr who founded the Bank of Manhattan. This connection to Gore has been shown most clearly by that, almost swamp-creature-like, self-disgraced Tennessean's "mint-julip" racist, and "environmentalist" (i.e., eugenics)" orientation, in alliance with Britain's Fabian imperial Prime Minister Tony Blair, against the black-skinned population and nations of sub-Saharan Africa.

However, it is to be emphasized, that, in Gore's case, the silliness comes less from the hooch, than the "branch water." Shades of the 1970s collusion among the clippings-service mentalities represented then by the fellow-Confederates Gore, neo-Jacobin Newt Gingrich, and the pathetic Tofflers! It might be said, that one could get Al Gore out of the swamp, but it would be much more difficult to get the swamp out of Al Gore.

If I seem to view Gore as so much rubbish, take note of the fact that everything I say on that account is true, but, also, that I am obliged to do so to put the emphasis truthfully where it belongs. Gore is essentially an intrinsically expendable, mere errand-boy, not the master. Expose Gore for the miserable creature which he is, but save your fire for the global financier circles which are the architects of the immediate fascist danger to the planet now, as financier interests of the same breed, such as Felix Rohatyn, which, like Hitler's British sponsor, the Bank of England's Montagu Norman, and the Bank for International Settlement's Hjalmar Schacht, led, among numerous other Anglo-American, Dutch, French, and other financier circles, in creating the Hitler regime. So, the hedge funds, an operation centered in the British Cayman Islands, were created today. We must take Gore fully into account for what he represents; but, we must not let him be treated as a scapegoat for the truly evil masters which he, like programmed and scripted wind-up toy, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, merely serves. This time, the financier circles like those which created Hitler must not escape the accounting for their crimes.

The essential enemy of civilization today, is the same oligarchical model which induced Classical Athens to destroy itself, in much the same way the U.S. has been already largely destroyed through fools in the U.S. government who permitted the nation to be sucked into those wars, first in Indo-China, and, now, under a mentally impaired G.W. Bush, Jr., in Southwest Asia: wars by means of which our republic was set up to be self-destroyed, as the oligarchical faction of the time of Pericles induced Athens to destroy itself in the Peloponnesian War.

This brings us to the oligarchical issue as such.

Zeus' Oligarchical Model

The oligarchical model, on which the Roman and Byzantine empires were premised, is an echo of the medieval ultramontane system run by a partnership of Venetian financiers and Norman chivalry, is also, like the Anglo-Dutch Liberal world system centered still in London today. These imperialist systems were premised on the assumption that the majority of the human population must be kept in the juridical status of either wild, or hunted cattle, rather than as persons in the sense of Genesis 1:26-31. The essential feature of this system, is not monarchy as such, but oligarchy: a code of behavior shared among allied oligarchies, an arrangement under which the majority of humanity was kept in the status of virtual brutes, either tamed drudges to be herded, or wild beasts to be hunted down.

Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound captures the essence of that system of oligarchism. Aeschylus pins the issue of law on the matter of the essential distinction of man from beast. That issue of law, is the potential of the human individual, not only the potential to discover a universal physical principle, such as the principle of fire, nuclear fission, or gravitation, but to use the knowledge of that discovered principle to mankind's advantage as a species.

The infuriated oligarch, such as the Olympian Zeus, storms: "You will discover nothing of that sort! You will do as we bid you, except as you do nothing which would be strange to the habits of your ancestors before you!" Thus, Prometheus ("forethought" = science) is the person most hated, and most feared by Zeus. Thus, we have the Simon Legrees of today, the Al Gores and others who herd a duped, half-crazed population into destroying the economy on which their own and the children's lives depend.

To be free today, especially if your skin is black, is to be freed from the tyrannical intentions of a frankly evil Al Gore.

Thus, the Olympian law of the U.S. slave-states made it the rule to murder any slave who learned to read and write, or any person who assisted the slave in learning to read and write. In opposition to that, Frederick Douglass focused directly on the essence of the slave-system, the truly human person's ability and right to discover the store of knowledge of scientific and Classical cultural knowledge for practice of earlier generations of mankind, and to develop and employ such practice for the advancement of humanity as a whole. The slave who simply rebelled physically against tyranny, might be free, temporarily, in his or her body, but not in his or her mind. To be free, it is first necessary to be human, to enjoy and express those creative powers of physical science and Classical culture which distinguish the truly free individual from the chimpanzee.

Aeschylus' Prometheus Bound thus points to the most crucial issue of what is rightly termed "natural law" in society. The discovery of a principle of "natural law" is expressed to the advantage of the human species, in the form of the ability of the human individual to make, and to employ an experimentally valid discovery of a universal physical, or comparable artistic principle, a quality of potential which is the functional distinction of men and women categorically from beasts.[16] We are speaking, therefore, of the Noösphere, a domain whose distinguishing characteristics exist entirely outside the domain of animal ecology.

Therefore, competent economic science is subsumed under the notion of what Vernadsky defines as the Noösphere. In this setting, competent economic science is expressed not as a function of monetary processes, but as a function of physical-economic processes.

However, what is crucial in all this is the notion of the ontologically infinitesimal. This is the essential distinction of man from beast, or from man driven into a state of mind and conduct like that of a beast. The typification of such an infinitesimal is Johannes Kepler's discovery of a harmonically defined universal physical principle of gravitation, as ordering the relationship of bodies within the Solar system. The center of this is the work reflected in the combination of his The New Astronomy and World Harmonics. These were works developed by Kepler on the foundations laid by Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa's De Docta Ignorantia and other relevant writings on the method of modern physical science.

However, to state the case before us now, in the relevant technical terms, I repeat what I have frequently said in earlier locations here, as matters of definitions:

To situate the relevant functions of modern physical science in respect to a science of physical economy, we rely on the complete overthrow of the entire edifice of Euclidean geometry and its outcomes, an overthrow which was implicitly accomplished by Bernhard Riemann's development of the foundations of an anti-mechanical-statistical, dynamical system of physical hypergeometry, as this is reflected in V.I. Vernadsky's development of the notion of the respective dynamics of the Biosphere and Noösphere.

By dynamics, we should understand the implicitly axiom-free, pre-Euclidean method of mathematical physics, called Sphaerics, which is associated with the Pythagoreans and other circles of Socrates and Plato. The active principle of Sphaerics, called dynamis by the Pythagoreans, was revived by Gottfried Leibniz, as dynamics (as noted above), to eradicate the folly of the mechanical-statistical method of Descartes and the empiricists generally. Leibniz's definition as carried forward by Riemann, is central to the work of Vernadsky, and is, retrospectively, as Albert Einstein indicates, the implied method of Kepler.

Keep that definition in view; I shall explain its implications as we proceed, as follows.

Begin with a focus on Kepler's discovery of universal gravitation's function as an ontological infinitesimal. This discovered principle, as elaborated for the harmonic composition of the Solar system, is a principle which, in its essential identity, efficiently encloses the universe, and therefore appears to bound that universe, implicitly, as being actually, ontologically, intrinsically finite but without external boundaries. Gravitation's pervasive efficiency is therefore expressed, in detail, ontologically, as an infinitesimal. This was the basis for Kepler's prescribed task for future mathematicians: to develop a mathematical calculus of such ontological infinitesimals. Notably, the neo-Cartesian empiricists, such as D'Alembert. Euler, and Lagrange, attempted to outlaw such infinitesimals. Implicitly, Carl F. Gauss put the infinitesimals back into the physical complex domain, in his 1799 doctoral dissertation, and Riemann made this explicit from the publication of his 1854 habilitation dissertation, onwards.

The most crucial implication of the immediately foregoing set of definitions, is that the difference between man and beast, is located ontologically in this notion of the infinitesimal as I have just described that above. All those discovered, and otherwise discoverable universally efficient physical principles, which define those characteristic modes of human action which do not exist for lower forms of life, occur in human practice as expressions of such infinitesimals.

The human discovery of such a universal physical principle has two qualitative forms of expression, and occurs either as simply a passive discovery of the existence of a principle in fact, or as a qualitative change in the form and effect of human behavior employing knowledge of that discovered principle.

The types of such universal principles are also two. They are expressed in the form of human direct physical action on nature, or in the form of Classical artistic principles of composition, as implicitly revolutionary progress in the mode of specifically social relations. The relationship between Kepler's discoveries of harmonic principles of astronomy, the harmonics of the periodic table, and so on, are one quality of relationship; the ironical relationship of Keplerian harmonic dynamics to the ground-basis of J.S. Bach's method of composition, typify the other quality. Scientific discovery informs the hand; Classical artistic composition, as in music and Classical poetry and drama, informs the human soul.

That much just stated summarily on these points, we now turn our attention to two distinct, but intertwined subject-matters. The purpose of this brief set of excursions, is to indicate the way in which the evil consequences of Gore's ideology must be foreseen, and avoided. The most crucial of these considerations is the nature of the ontologically actual infinitesimal which corresponds to a principle of the universe, both as a principle of physical-economic practice as such, and as a principle of social relations as such.
Review of James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer
Stephen Lendman

James Petras is Binghamton University, New York Professor Emeritus of Sociology whose credentials and achievements are long and impressive. He's a noted academic figure on the left and a well-respected Latin American expert. He's also a prolific author of hundreds of articles and 64 books including his latest one titled "Multinationals on Trial: Foreign Investment Matters," co-authored with Henry Veltmeyer, and subject of this review.

Henry Veltmeyer has collaborated with Petras before on previous books. They include "Globalization Unmasked," "Social Movements and State Power," "A System in Crisis" and others. He's Professor of Sociology and International Development Studies at Saint Mary's University, Canada and Universidad Autonoma de Zacatecas, Mexico. He's also Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Journal of International Development Studies and, like Petras, is a prolific author of many books and articles focused mainly on Latin American issues, globalized trade, alternative models and approaches and progressive social movements.

"Multinationals on Trial" deals with a core issue of our time - the economic power of giant corporations, their dominant role as agents and partners of imperialism, and the way they plunder developing nations. The book is a powerful indictment of unfettered "free market" capitalism and how foreign direct investment (FDI) is its main exploitive tool. Below is a detailed review of its compelling contents.

The authors state upfront how controversial corporate giants are, especially with regard to their "type of capital," how they use it operationally, and "the conditions associated with it." Specifically, the book deals with foreign direct investment (FDI) and debunks the following commonly held notions:

-- that it's "indispensable" to accessing essential financial resources;

-- that it brings with it "collateral benefits" like "technology transfers" and job creation; and

-- that overall it's a "catalyst of development" and thus an "indispensable" vehicle of growth and way for developing nations to integrate into the "new world economic order."

Rather than aiding these nations, the authors call FDI "a mechanism for empire-centred capital accumulation, a powerful lever for political control and for reordering the world economy." They offer an alternative approach in the final chapter, free from FDI imperial bondage.

Chapter 1 - Empire and Imperialism

The oldest empires go back centuries before the better known ones in ancient Rome, Persia and the one Alexander the Great built, but the authors deal only with the modern post-WW II era dominated by the US. Imperial Britain was shattered, colonialism was unraveling, Soviet Russia was devastated, and America stood alone as the world's preeminent economic, political and military superpower with every intention to keep it that way.

It did so going back to when US delegates dominated the Bretton Woods, NH UN Monetary and Financial Conference to establish a postwar international monetary system of convertible currencies, fixed exchange rates, free trade, the US dollar as the world's reserve currency linked to gold, and those of other nations fixed to the dollar. In addition, an institutional framework was designed to establish a market-based capital accumulation process that would ensure (post-war) that newly liberated colonial nations would pursue capitalist economic development beneficial to the victorious imperial powers that would soon include the Axis ones as well.

Post-war, the "US foreign policy establishment" began an unending debate on how America could stay preeminent and solidify its dominance. It began with NATO, OECD and other formal alliances with our western European partners that were "built on the foundation of the transnational corporation (as the) economic 'shock-troops' of the system." Tactics varied along the way, but the goals remained unchanged - "to enhance US hegemony and its domination of the new world order." This requires having supportive allies and the US public willing to go along with overseas adventurism like the Bush administration's foreign wars that became overreach and "a major impediment to empire building."

The authors state that wherever imperial power is projected in any form it generates diverse resistance in "every 'popular' sector of 'civil society.' " They also stress that its "omnipresence" can be a weakness, not a strength, and may lead to its impotence. This is the condition of America today under the Bush administration. Its plan for imperial dominance is in tatters, or as the authors put it, "wishful thinking or imperial hubris." It failed in the Middle East, Central Asia, Venezuela and may be unraveling in Pakistan under Musharraf's dictatorship. The country is a rogue nuclear state in unresolved turmoil that has a lot to do with deep social unrest and a very unpopular US alliance in the "war on terror."

Nonetheless, the US remains strong and resilient, and today's defeats don't spell its demise or even signal retrenchment. With its power and resources, it can blunder often as it has in the past, then rebound, and again go on the attack as its doing in Somalia, continues against Cuba, and against Hugo Chavez in Venezuela as it seeks a way to oust its Latin American nemesis despite past failed efforts.

So despite setbacks, America's imperial agenda persists, and here's how it functions:

-- through "unequal" bilateral and multilateral trade and other agreements;

-- with lots of help from willing "outside collaborators and subsidized clients;"

-- through a "divide and conquer" strategy that worked in Yugoslavia, did at first in Afghanistan (under tribal warlords) and apparently is the scheme in Iraq with the Kurdish North already separate;

-- - political destabilization, assassinations or coup d'etats to remove opposition regimes and install compliant ones; and

-- proxy or direct war as a last resort when others fail to accomplish regime change; but even conquest doesn't guarantee success as Iraq and Afghanistan prove; resistance builds, military costs mount, public support wanes, allies withdraw support and the whole effort may fail but not deter new ones at other times in other places.

Chapter 2 - Imperialisms, Old and New

The authors note that capital accumulation is the "fundamental driving force of economic growth," has been for over 100 years, and occurred in six phases:

-- capitalist industrialization in the 19th century up to around 1870;

-- the fusion of industrial and finance capital and emergence of monopolies and territorial divisions among imperial powers (the US, Europe and Japan) up to 1914;

-- imperial war, depression, Fordism-type mass production, "taming of capitalism" social reform and defeat of fascism to 1945;

-- the "golden age" of capitalist high growth, decolonization, nation-building and state-led "international development to 1973;"

-- transitional crisis and restructuring in the 1970s; and

-- the age of Washington Consensus neoliberalism, globalized trade, free market "reforms" and "neoimperialism" to the present.

The authors note that incomes across the world converged somewhat during the "golden age of capitalism" post-WW II up to 1970 after which things changed. Now after a generation under Washington Consensus neoliberalism, no such convergence exists and the Global North-South disparity keeps widening to the detriment of developing nations. North-based corporate giants have grown so huge and dominant that the largest of them represent half or more of the world's 100 largest economies. In addition, multinational corporations (MNCs) "as a global entity" account for over 90% of world trade with 30 - 40% of it being intra-firm. The authors argue that these institutions operate as "functional units and an agency of economic imperialism."

Post-WW II, the US alone held the "commanding heights" of the world economy. Compared to today, the authors cite statistics that are staggering. With 6% of world population, the US had over 59% of its developed reserves. It generated 46% of its electricity, 38% of its production, and it held half or more of world gold and currency reserves. Twenty-five years later all that changed, and by 1971 a dwindling supply of gold and growing trade deficit got Richard Nixon to close the gold window, abandon the Bretton Woods system, and let the US dollar float freely in world markets. Ever since, the greenback has been faith-based with no intrinsic value and no longer "good as gold." Since it's uncollateralized paper or fiat currency, it's strong when it's in demand but weak, like today, when it's out of favor.

During the troubled 1970s, the US manipulated exchange and interest rates to improve its export position, and in the Reagan era began a generational assault on labor that ended the long-standing practice of industry sharing productivity gains with its workers. Corporations also began relocating labor-intensive production abroad to low wage countries that in the 1980s "became a cornerstone of a new global economy." With it came foreign direct investment (FDI) with the rest of the book focusing on its harmful effects.

The authors point out that in 1970 a "triadic structure" (in the US, Europe and Japan) characterized the world economy. However, after two decades of restructuring, a different picture emerged with China and a group of newly industrialized countries in Southeast Asia becoming the most dynamic center of world growth with the US struggling to hang on to its economic dominance even while its major corporations continue to prosper because they operate worldwide.

A critical corporate issue is productivity growth and how to overcome its pronounced sluggishness. Solutions used embrace "technological conversion" that includes new production, communication and transportation technologies. It also involves an assault on labor that caused a sharp reduction in its share of national income (10% alone from 1974 - 1983). It means loss of jobs as well because businesses downsize and shift operations abroad to low wage markets where workers are usually unorganized and more easily repressed.

The authors point out that by the 1980s "a new international division of labour and a global production system were in place" in what emerged as a "new world order" of global capitalism. New governance rules were established that were embodied in the 1994-formed World Trade Organization (WTO). By 1990, Washington Consensus neoliberalism became the "new imperialism" with big demands that developing states privatize public assets, deregulate their markets and open them to allow free trade and financial flows.

Under this system, MNCs are the world capitalist system's "basic operating unit" and "key agents of US imperialism" that all too often involves the projection of military power in the form of war. Their success and profitability are vital to a healthy economy and a thriving imperial project. The authors explain that the "US state identifies the interests of corporate capital with the 'national interest,' " and it freely commits the state's resources on its behalf for that dual benefit.

Chapter 3 - Foreign Investment at Work

Until the 1980s, MNCs were constrained under host country rules. But the "new economic model" freed them to move almost at will as developing nations began opening their markets, deregulating them, and welcoming MNCs for the perceived benefits their capital and technological expertise could provide. The authors explained the process and what happened under it.

They began by noting capital flows are public and private. The former is between governments in the form of "foreign aid" gifts or most often loans from the US-dominated IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank that come with unpleasant strings. The private kind consists of three main types: foreign bank lending from commercial banks or international lending agencies, portfolio investment (PI) financial instrument purchases like stocks and bonds, and foreign direct investment (FDI) that itself comes in two forms.

FDI involves the purchase of at least 10% of a foreign business enterprise's assets. "Greenfield" FDI involves the creation of a new facility like a factory while the "Brownfield" type buys assets of existing firms through mergers or acquisitions. In Latin America in the 1990s, over half of FDI was the latter kind.

The subject of debt financing is then discussed with the authors noting at reasonable levels it's vital for enhancing growth. But not to excess that got developing countries in trouble for the past three decades. Even in the 1980s, it became clear that debt levels were so high in Latin America they made economic growth impossible. They also caused a debt crisis by mid-decade that especially affected Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.

The Global North thus needed Plan B to reduce the debt bomb to manageable proportions, avoid default and allow troubled countries to maintain their payment obligations. One measure taken was the so-called "Brady Plan," named for Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush's Treasury Secretary, Nicholas Brady. The scheme was to forgive a small part of the debt and convert the rest into Brady IOU Bonds repayable in the long term to make the burden less onerous. It worked as no heavily indebted nation defaulted, but they had to adopt fiscal discipline to do it: structural adjustment privatizations, cuts in social spending, deregulation and more. These nations also suffered zero economic growth, a sharp reduction of living standards for its working people and producers, increased social inequity and greater unemployment and poverty.

Along with burdensome debt levels, FDI has also been a repressive instrument, especially in Latin America with its investment-friendly climate. The amount of it (as well as PI) was small until the 1990s but then grew dramatically as part of a shift from debt to equity financing with the largest portion of it going to large developing countries like Brazil, Argentina and Mexico and to the eight largest ones in the world overall getting 84% of it, according to World Bank figures. China got the most attracting 22% of all FDI since 1989 while Sub-Saharan Africa got nothing except for South Africa. Post-2004, manufacturing in China, India and Mexico got the largest FDI amounts, but natural resources and especially energy are also important, and a trend toward investing in services (especially telecommunications) is growing as well.

Latin America became the most favored destination for FDI inflows in the 1990s that hit their peak in the 1997 - 2001 period because friendly regimes like Cardoso's Brazil "bent over backwards" to accomodate it, mostly through merger and acquisition privatizations. The authors review facts they call "startling" and show how the "imperial-centered neoliberal model has led to the long term, large-scale pillage of every country in Latin America." In dollar terms, it amounted to $585 billion in interest payments and profits remitted mostly to US-based MNCs. More revenue was gotten from royalty payments, shipping, insurance, other fees plus billions of illegal monetary transfers by Latin American elites to offshore accounts.

This explains the sluggish regional growth in the 1990s - 3% a year, then 0.3% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. It's because of exploitive resource transfers and capital flows large enough to have made Latin America "one of the economic pillars of the US empire." Some of the transfers are hidden, and the authors put them in two categories:

-- one-way neoliberal structured international trade with open Latin American markets for US exports and reciprocal controlled ones in the US; the formula the authors describe is to export capital to the region in the form of FDI and import raw materials in return.

-- structured capital-labor relations with workers very much on the short end; the authors note how the "organization and export of labour" is used to pillage a country's resources and transfer them north; they cite one 2003 study estimating the net gain for the US and corresponding loss to Mexico of about $29 billion a year because of migration - indirectly through repatriated maquillardora profits and directly through exported farm labor and educated Mexicans who represent 40% of the nation's migrants benefitting the US at Mexico's expense.

Chapter 4 - The Social Dimension of Foreign Investment

The authors cite the justification "development economists" give for keeping labor's share of national income low. They claim it's because economic growth depends on capital accumulation, and households have a "low capacity to save and invest" since they spend all they get. The rich, in contrast, have a high propensity to save and invest so the more income they have the greater the economic benefit. In the 1970s and 80s, this kind of reasoning led to a class war between capital and labor with wages in the US losing 10% of their value from 1974 to 1984 and in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa even more - 40% in Chile and Mexico and 50% in many other countries.

Then consider economic growth under the neoliberal economic model centered around FDI. It promised prosperity but delivered failure. After 20 years at the end of the 1990s, average per capita growth overall was cut in half from the earlier period of "state-led development." It was reduced to 1.5% from 3% in industrialized countries and in developing ones (excluding China and India) to 1.2% from 3.5%. For the poorest countries, it was even worse going from 1.9% to a negative 0.5% per year. The only exceptions were a group of eight Asian "rapidly growing countries" whose governments followed a policy of state intervention outside the neoliberal model and proved their way works best.

The authors cite data to show, aside from China and India, that the "neoliberal era of globalizing capital and neoimperialism" led to rising worldwide income inequality between richer and poorer countries and between higher and lower income classes within countries. They explained that "Of the countries with the highest indices of poverty, social exclusion, and income inequality 41 are in Africa; 10 in Asia; and six in the Americas," and per capital income in all developing regions (except South and East Asia) declined compared to industrialized OECD states. During the two decade neoliberal period, inequality between rich and poor nations nearly doubled. It proves how false the notion is that unfettered free market forces create a "trickle down" effect to the poor that lets them benefit from economic growth. Just the opposite happened and it continues.

The authors show how the "magnitude of the global income divide and associated problems is staggering" with the richest population quintile consuming 86% of all products and services and the poorest one only 1.3%. And the social inequality fallout is even worse - high unemployment, desperate poverty, malnutrition, untreated illnesses and low life expectancy with hundreds of thousands of needless daily children's deaths. And yet economists at the IMF and World Bank continue to tout the benefits of neoliberal "structural reforms" in spite of clear evidence they fail. In the pre-neoliberal 1950s, 60s and 70s, income inequality decreased overall but has increased in most countries since then. Again, the culprits are privatization, financial "liberalization," deregulation and downsizing with governments exploiting working people for capital.

Take Mexico, for example. It has 11 billionaires with combined incomes exceeding the total for the country's 40 million poorest. But the same thing is true everywhere with developing nations faring the worst. It affects 2.5 billion people in the world who are unable to meet their basic needs of food, shelter, clothing and medical care let alone education, clean water, adequate sanitation and other goods and services people in the West consider essential and take for granted.

Using Latin America as an example, the authors show how capitalists in the region sustained their profits by exploiting ordinary workers. During the neoliberal period, labor's share of national income was cut from 40% to less than 20%. Even today in countries like Venezuela (with all its social gains under Hugo Chavez since 1999) and Argentina, worker wages are still below their 1970 levels. It's because of market deregulation that give employers arbitrary power to fire workers, cut wages and hire temporary and casual labor. It's gotten bad enough to hit the middle class as well and cause a rising level of urban poor. A "new urban poor" has emerged who aren't simply "rural migrants" but include "socially excluded and downwardly mobile workers and the lower middle class (who've been fired) and have found (other) employment in the burgeoning (lower-paying, less secure) informal sector."

These people, the unemployed and "rural-to-urban migrants" constitute a reserve army of labor that keeps wages in the formal sector down and workers' bargaining power weak. Then there's the notion of "social exclusion" reflecting the condition of the poor with the authors identifying its six "major pillars:"

-- social production dispossession showing up in landlessness and rural outmigration;

-- no access to urban and rural markets or for wage employment;

-- no access to "good quality" employment;

-- reduced access to government social services;

-- no access to adequate income; and

-- no political power.

In contrast, 15 - 20% of Latin Americans enjoy a "First World" lifestyle with the authors citing their array of luxuries that are unimaginable to the poor and most middle income earners. And whatever the economic condition, they benefit from the imperial system regardless because neoliberalism works by taking from the exploited many and giving generously to the privileged few. Put another way, it's a hugely out of balance give and take, and it was set up that way despite its proponents denial.

The authors review the period when the World Bank discovered poverty and carried on its kind of three-decade war against it that was the equivalent of fighting fire by throwing fuel on it. Readers know the drill by now - governments getting out of the way and promoting unfettered free market policies, pro-growth, structural adjustments and the rest of the package favoring capital over people on the nonsensical claim they'll benefit eventually. By now Latin Americans know "manana" never comes, and even some World Bank economists like Joseph Stiglitz figured it out.

The authors sum up three decades of World Bank efforts saying we're "where we were in the 1970s and in a number of ways further back," especially with regard to greater poverty that's now hitting the middle class. Based on incontrovertible evidence, social inequality and poverty at the end of the 1990s stem from the "pro-growth, pro-poor" World Bank "imperialist policies" and the FDI regime along with deregulated, unfettered markets giving capital free reign to pillage for profit. But there's hope in the form of resistance with the authors stating "capitalist development in its neoliberal form is clearly on its last legs." For the poor of the world, it can't come soon enough.

Chapter 5 - Policy Dynamics of Foreign Investment

Here the authors examine the record of FDI since 1980 when markets were deregulated and capital flows were "liberated from control." Again they cite the notion that economic growth depends on the accumulation of capital, developing countries are deficient in it, and private multinational commercial and investment banks and MNCs will ride to the rescue with FDI. And while capital fuels growth, international trade is "one of its driving forces." Two models are considered. One gives the state an active role, and it worked during the 1940 - 1970 "golden age of capitalism" period. That's when "international development" meant per capita economic growth based on "industrialization, modernization and capitalist development."

That period came to an end in the troubled 1970s, and a "counter-revolution in development thinking and practice" took over. The scheme that became neoliberalism turned capital towards exports and induced governments to cut social benefits to raise levels of savings, productivity, profits and productive investments.

World Bank economists were tasked to create the new model that became its Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) with eight major components:

-- devalued currencies for stability;

-- privatizations;

-- capital market and trade "liberalization" meaning unfettered free market capitalism;

-- deregulation;

-- labor market "reform" meaning lower wages and loss of worker rights;

-- downsizing;

-- decentralizing policy formulation and decision-making; and

-- a free market for capital, goods and services meaning all benefits accrue to the Global North by pillaging developing nations.

Former World Bank economist and neoliberal critic, Joseph Stiglitz, called this package the "steps to hell" two years after he resigned his position in 2000. All the evidence to date proves it with the authors stating "the neoliberal model of capitalist development (is) unsustainable, (it's) both dysfunctional and politically destabilizing." Confirming data and examples are cited throughout the book, but in this chapter Mexico is featured in great detail from 1980 - 2005. It's covered under four presidents with each in his own way outdoing or at least matching the excesses of his predecessor with the people of Mexico the poorer for it.

This review can only touch on that period briefly beginning with Miguel De La Madrid (1982 - 1988) who was the first to begin reversing a state-led approach to relieve the "debt crisis" stemming from the 1976 - 1982 period of over-borrowing. It was IMF to the rescue with its usual package of "reform" measures to "liberalize" capital, encourage exports, deregulate markets, devalue the currency, and demand fiscal discipline and privatizations. De La Madrid obliged.

Next came Carlos Salinas de Gortari (1988 - 1994) who introduced a second round of structural reforms. It included over 1000 more privatizations that sold off the most important state enterprises like the banks and state telephone company, TELMEX. The international financial community loved him, but his term ended in tatters when the economy crashed in 1994.

Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de Leon (1994 - 2000) inherited the mess that broke out right after he took office. With help from a $52 billion US bailout, he responded with a "stabilization program" that included deep social spending cuts and a 43% peso devaluation that caused inflation to rise 52%, thousands of businesses to close, real wages to drop 25%, and two million people to lose jobs. Zedillo was also Mexico's first president under NAFTA that went into effect January 1, 1994. And he continued neoliberal "reforms" and even exceeded his predecessor's commitment to global capitalism.

So did Vincente Fox Quesdad (2000 - 2006) in his zeal to live up to his PAN party's rightest agenda compared to the more centrist PRI during its continuous 72 year rule. The PAN under Fox practiced fiscal conservatism and free market economics that maintained the neoliberal agenda of his predecessors even in the face of widespread opposition that constrained him from going further. The authors state that the Fox era "brought an end to a cycle of neoliberal policies." His administration failed to achieve sustainable growth and showed "the neoliberal model is economically dysfuntional and has exhausted its economic limits."

Chapter 6 - Foreign Investment and the State

The authors' dominant theme is how harmful FDI is to developing nations even as it pretends to be beneficial. Most of it is also "subsidized and risk-free" to investors, and "relies on securing monopoly profits (by buying) state enterprises (on favorable terms) and control(ing)....strategic markets." Much or most of it provides no new productive investment recipient countries need to grow, prosper and help their people.

The authors rightfully describe the process as pillage. State-owned assets are transferred to private hands, and revenues that once went to national treasuries now go to corporate coffers. Further, deals are justified on the false claim they increase competition. False. All they do is put existing enterprises under new management, and in the case of "natural monopolies" like public utilities, it allows private owners to hike prices substantially and price the country's poor out of the market, but that's just for starters.

Foreign investors make big demands, and host countries oblige - tax deferrals and exemptions, direct subsidies, infrastructure development, free or low cost land, deregulation, assumption of "transition" costs of the inevitable downsizing that follows, legal security protection through bilateral investment treaties (BITs), labor training, and more. Other schemes are in the form of Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs) and Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). And when nations balk during WTO trade talks, like in the faltering Doha Round, they're pressured to come around through bilateral deals with neighboring states.

With this kind of advantaging, local enterprises don't stand a chance, especially small ones. They nearly always lose and end up being bought, becoming a satellite supplier, or going bankrupt. Labor also loses out. Wages are frozen or cut, benefits slashed or ended, job protection ends, working conditions deteriorate, unions weakened, and inequality grows as the wealth gap widens substantially. In short, FDI works one-way - all for capital at the expense of developing economies and its workers. An alternative development strategy is needed, and it's readily available to states willing to buck the system, withstand the pressure to conform, and go another way.

Chapter 7 - Anti-Imperialism and Foreign Investment.

Here, the authors first identify the myths about foreign investment that are needed to sell this snake oil to developing states. Seven of them are briefly listed below:

-- Economic growth depends on FDI; false; in fact, FDI is attracted by economic growth;

-- FDI creates productive, competitive new enterprises; false; it mostly buys existing ones, transfers little new technology, does little or no new research, and crowds out local enterprises;

-- FDI provides links and access to foreign markets; false; it's often used to buy natural resources for export and to repatriate profits and eliminate jobs;

-- FDI provides tax revenues and hard currency earnings; false; revenues are repatriated, tax fraud abounds, and the impact on the balance of payments is negative;

-- Good financial standing and integrity of the system depends on maintaining debt payments; false; much past debt is odious and servicing it harms local economies and in the case of Argentina led to an economic collapse in 2001;

-- Developing nations need FDI for development for lack of local sources; false; most FDI is national savings borrowing to buy local enterprises; it doesn't inject new capital into economies; and

-- FDI provides an anchor for new investment; false again; the opposite is true as investors freely relocate to lower-wage countries creating a boom and bust environment when they arrive. Bottom line - FDI is poison unless used moderately and is tightly controlled.

The authors present arguments for and against FDI with the latter only considered below:

-- FDI strips states of their ability to control "investment decisions, pricing, production and future growth;"

-- FDI results in long-term capital outflows repatriated to corporate coffers;

-- FDI results in "unbalanced and overly specialized production," especially in commodity areas;

-- Tax, subsidy and other concessions to FDI deprive developing states of needed revenues;

-- FDI most often only puts existing enterprises under new management; it seldom creates new ones;

-- FDI creates "enterprise enclaves," imports technology linked to "outside production and distribution networks," and doesn't help local economies;

-- FDI often controls local banking that lets it "shape state credit and interest policy" and decide what industry sectors to favor and at what cost; and

-- With investors attracted to extractive industries and freed from regulatory constraints, environmental devastation results.

In sum - FDI endangers "national independence, popular sovereignty, and severely compromis(es)" developing states' ability to control their destiny and represent all their people. It's a "risky, costly and limiting (one-way) strategy." Developing nations need to minimize it because of its harmful economic, social and political costs.

Chapter 8 - Anti-Imperialist Regime Dynamics

Contrary to Margaret Thatcher's TINA dictum (there is no alternative), many others are better and the authors list them:

-- Reinvestment of profits into local production to stimulate a "multiplier" effect and increase local consumption;

-- Control foreign trade to retain foreign exchange earnings;

-- Invest pension funds in productive activities;

-- Create development banks for overseas workers' remittances home so funds can be used productively;

-- Place a moratorium on debt payments to stop servicing the odious portion of it:

-- Recover stolen treasury funds and property;

-- Recover unpaid taxes;

-- Establish land taxes and expropriate or buy underutilized land to be used for agrarian reform and greater agricultural productivity;

-- Liquidate overseas investments and reinvest them locally; and

-- Maximize employment and reduce underemployment.

In cases where a country's taxable resources and overseas earnings are limited, FDI can help if used moderately and constrained. Ways to do it include maximizing "strategic national ownership and control" and relying on short-term deals that include training workers and contracting with skilled advisers for whatever technical help is needed.

One successful model reviewed is WEPC - Worker-Engineer Public Control or worker-managed enterprises (WMEs). Salvador Allende used them in over 100 factories in Chile while he was in office. They attained greater productivity, higher worker motivation and achieved significant social, health and working conditions improvements while they remained in place. WEPCs aren't problem-free, however, and the main one is they're targeted by imperial states for destruction because their policies aren't corporate friendly. Nonetheless, their advantages greatly outweigh the negatives. They include:

-- Minimizing tax evasion to increase state revenues;

-- Social investment in lieu of repatriated profits;

-- Avoidance of capital flight;

-- Emphasizing long-term R & D over speculative investment;

-- Social welfare and betterment over savage capitalism; and

-- Fixed capital and upwardly mobile labor over mobile capital and fixed labor.

The authors persuasively show that FDI is a cancer. Once established, it spreads like a virus, "corrupt(ing) local officials, brib(ing) regulators (and) present(ing) a different 'role model' for state executives - one attuned to luxury living, big salaries, privileges, and, above all" a neoliberal ideological commitment. Another way is possible and vital to the health, welfare and growth of developing nations. It "puts the worker-engineer public sector-led model at the centre of development," and empirical evidence shows it works.
ANKARA - Following are the highlights from today`s Turkish daily VATAN. The Anadolu Agency is not responsible of opinions expressed or the context of the articles and does not vouch for their accuracy:

The annual Bilderberg Meeting, which gathers high level officials from the world business, politics and media circles, will be held in Istanbul this year. The main topics of the meeting are Turkey, Iran and energy issue, Vatan daily writes.

According to the daily, the 3-day meeting is an important event during which participants also determine the following year`s agenda.

According to authoritative sources, the meeting which will be held from May 31st to June 3rd in Istanbul, will mainly focus on issues such as a probable operation against Iran, energy policies and Turkey`s EU membership process.

Previously, two Bilderberg Meetings were held in Turkey, first one in 1959 in Istanbul and the other one in 1975 in Cesme town of Aegean city of Izmir.

According to Vatan, re-chosing Turkey as a venue after 32 years, can be interpreted as "a signal hinting the opening of EU`s doors to Turkey".

During last year`s meeting, Turkey-EU relations were also discussed quite intensely by the participants.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and UNDP Administrator Kemal Dervis are some of the personalities who will attend this year`s meeting.

As U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is responsible for the protection of participants, CIA agents are expected to arrive in Turkey next week in order to cooperate with Turkish officials regarding the security.


"The war is not against Bin Laden. We are the enemy"

Interview with investigator and author, Daniel Estulin, on his book, "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group", which describes an annual gathering where the European and American political elite, and the wealthiest CEOs of the world, all come together to discuss the economic and political future of humanity. Highly secretive, the press has never been allowed to attend, nor have statements ever been released on the group's conclusions or discussions. Also discussed are the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

Guns and Butter - Nov 28th 2007

Play mp3 Stream


Al Gore and David Blood, Co-Chairmen of the London-based hedge fund, Generation Investment Management, gave their view of who should rule the world, in an interview in The McKinsey Quarterly (May, 2007). The "Blood and Gore" team lived up to their names, demanding a privatized world empire to impose genocide.

"The context of business is clearly changing," Blood said, in answer to a question of what "principles govern the approach" of Blood and Gore to business. "We are now confronting the limits of our ecological system, and at the same time societal expectations are widening. On top of that, multinational businesses are oftentimes better positioned than governments to deal with some of the most complicated global challenges, such as climate change, HIV/AIDS, water scarcity, and poverty."

Recall that Gore has demanded population reduction, ending development in the third world, and sanctions on nations producing generic AIDS medicines, to name but a few genocidal policies which he wants to place under the power of "multinational businesses."

Gore singled out the slave-labor outfit Wal-Mart for praise, for their "commitment to 'green' their supply chain."

The Blood and Gore hedge fund's main business is carbon "management" and trading, referring to schemes based on coercing governments to impose caps on CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gas emissions from industry and agriculture, and then creating a speculative market in emissions allowances, undermining industrialization and technological advance. Gore was asked how he balances his "value" of "sustainability investments" and the profit motive for his hedge fund. He was unequivocal: "Our objective in innovation with this new model was to focus on the best return for our clients, full stop."

In 1942, Sir Mark Oliphant, a leading British physicist was shocked when a messenger delivered a part from his new radar technology with a warning from MI-5 Security Inspector Victor Rothschild to "tighten up your security."

A few days earlier Rothschild had visited Oliphant's Birmingham University lab, quizzed him on his research, and pocketed the three-inch diameter magnetron.

But talk about chutzpah!

Baron Rothschild himself was a Soviet agent! Before returning the magnetron, he had transmitted detailed drawings to Moscow, a fact later confirmed by his KGB handlers.

Oliphant related his part of this story in 1994 to Roland Perry, the Australian author of "The Fifth Man" (1994, Sedgwick and Jackson, 475 pp).

Between 1935 and 1963, the Soviet Union knew all of Britain's military and scientific secrets thanks to "The Cambridge Five" a spy ring that operated in M1-5, MI-6 and the Foreign Office. Western intelligence agencies were rendered ineffective and Allied secrets including the design of the atomic bomb were stolen.

The traitors were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. But there is a natural reluctance to admit that "the Fifth Man" was Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the Third Baron Rothschild, and the British head of the richest banking dynasty in the world.

In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild's identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring's handler, went on the record. Perry writes:

"According to ...Modin, Rothschild was the key to most of the Cambridge ring's penetration of British intelligence. 'He had the contacts,' Modin noted. 'He was able to introduce Burgess, Blunt and others to important figures in Intelligence such as Stewart Menzies, Dick White and Robert Vansittart in the Foreign Office...who controlled Mi-6." (p.89)

You can understand the reluctance. The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world's central bank system. Victor Rothschild's career as Soviet agent confirms that these London-based bankers plan to impose a "world government" dictatorship akin to Communism.

It adds credence to the claim they were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the Cold War and more recently the 9-11 hoax and bogus "War on Terror" to advance their world hegemony.

Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away?

Or that Communism in fact was a deception by the super rich designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of "equality" and "brotherhood"?


According to "The Fifth Man", Victor Rothschild had an IQ of 184. He was a gifted jazz pianist with an intuitive understanding of many scientific disciplines. He saw banking as a dreary affair and preferred the exciting example of his great grandfather Lionel Rothschild (1808-1879) who Benjamin D'israeli immortalized as "Sidonia" in the novel "Coningsby" (1844).

"No minister of state had such communication with secret agents and political spies as Sidonia. He held relations with all the clever outcasts of the world. The catalogue of his acquaintances in the shape of Greeks, Armenians, Moors, secret Jews, Tartars, Gypsies, wandering Poles and Carbonari, would throw a curious light on those subterranean agencies of which the world in general knows so little, but which exercise so great an influence on public events. The secret history of the world was his pastime. His great pleasure was to contrast the hidden motive, with the public pretext, of transactions." ("Coningsby" pp. 218-219)

Rothschild studied Zoology at Cambridge where Anthony Blunt recruited him for the KGB about 1936. Rothschild later joined MI-5 and was in charge of counter sabotage. He instructed the military on how to recognize and defuse bombs. Rothschild was a personal friend of Winston Churchill. Perry writes:

"The two socialized often during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years...The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command were informed." (xxviii-xxix)

Rothschild helped neutralize enemies of the Soviet Union who came to the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown up in July 1944. Sikorski had become burdensome to Stalin after he discovered the KGB had massacred 8,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods in 1940.

In 1944, Blunt, Burgess and Philby all stayed with Victor at the Rothschild mansion in Paris. Rothschild was briefly in charge of Allied intelligence in Paris and interrogated many prisoners.

After the war Rothschild spent time in the US overseeing attempts to learn the secrets of the atom bomb. Due in part to the Cambridge Five, Perry says "the Russians knew about every major intelligence operation run against them in the years 1945 to 1963." (xxxi)


Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which, I suspect, was that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. (The Illuminati represent the highest rank of Freemasonry.) He was not a lowly agent. He probably gave orders to people like Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin.

For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel. "He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow," a KGB Colonel told Perry. "Let us just say he got things done. You only did that if you reached the top. He was very persuasive." (176)

When you control the money supply, you can be very persuasive, as Americans have learned.

The super rich have more in common with each other than they have with the rest of humanity. It appears they have abandoned their natural role as leaders and benefactors of humanity, and instead conspire to enchain us. It's too bad because the only thing they don't already have is love.

The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests this is a ruling class conspiracy. According to Greg Hallett, Anthony Blunt, a fellow spy, was an illegitimate son of George V, half-brother and look-alike to Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor. Until his exposure in 1964, Blunt was Knighted and Curator of the Queen's art collection. He received immunity from prosecution in exchange for his confession.

Many believe this conspiracy is "Jewish." Certainly Zionism, Neo Conservatism and Communism (in all its forms) play an important part. But consider this: the current Lord Jacob Rothschild, the Fourth Baron Rothschild is Victor's son by his first wife Barbara Hutchinson, a non-Jew who converted. In Jewish law, Jacob Rothschild is not a Jew. He married a non-Jew, Serena Mary Dunn and has four children. Clearly organized Jewry is merely a convenient instrument of the NWO agenda.

By the way, Meyer Amschel, Victor's only son by his second marriage, also to a non-Jew, 'committed suicide' in 1996.

While Victor Rothschild pretended to "socialist ideals," the banker was a conscious traitor. Treason is the template for contemporary politics. The central banking cartel is stealthily erecting its "world governance" dictatorship while distracting us with sex and sports. Our political and cultural leaders are witting or unwitting accomplices. The banking cartel attacks our national, religious, racial and family foundations using weapons such as war (on Iraq, Iran, "Terror"), organized crime, homosexuality, pornography, feminism, mass migration and "diversity."

Clearly, we need new leaders who will stand up to the owners of the world monetary system. The destiny of humanity is at stake.

Henry Makow Ph.D.

Conspiracy theorists like myself believe modern history reflects a long-term conspiracy by an international financial elite to enslave humanity.

Like blind men examining an elephant, we attribute this conspiracy to Jews, Illuminati, Vatican, Jesuits, Freemasons, Black Nobility, and Bildersbergs etc.

The real villains are at the heart of our economic and cultural life. They are the dynastic families who own the Bank of England, the US Federal Reserve and associated cartels. They also control the World Bank and IMF and most of the world's Intelligence agencies. Their identity is secret but Rothschild is certainly one of them. The Bank of England was "nationalized" in 1946 but the power to create money remained in the same hands.

England is in fact a financial oligarchy run by the "Crown" which refers to the "City of London" not the Queen. The City of London is run by the Bank of England, a private corporation. The square-mile-large City is a sovereign state located in the heart of greater London. As the "Vatican of the financial world," the City is not subject to British law.

On the contrary, the bankers dictate to the British Parliament. In 1886, Andrew Carnegie wrote that, "six or seven men can plunge the nation into war without consulting Parliament at all." Vincent Vickers, a director of the Bank of England from 1910-1919 blamed the City for the wars of the world. ("Economic Tribulation" (1940) cited in Knuth, The Empire of the City, 1943, p 60)

The British Empire was an extension of bankers' financial interests. Indeed, all the non-white colonies (India, Hong Kong, Gibraltar) were "Crown Colonies." They belonged to the City and were not subject to British law although Englishmen were expected to conquer and pay for them.

The Bank of England assumed control of the U.S. during the T.R. Roosevelt administration (1901-1909) when its agent J.P. Morgan took over 25% of American business. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 1964)

According to the "American Almanac," the bankers are part of a network called the "Club of the Isles" which is an informal association of predominantly European-based royal households including the Queen. The Club of the Isles commands an estimated $10 trillion in assets. It lords over such corporate giants as Royal Dutch Shell, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lloyds of London, Unilever, Lonrho, Rio Tinto Zinc, and Anglo American DeBeers. It dominates the world supply of petroleum, gold, diamonds, and many other vital raw materials; and deploys these assets at the disposal of its geopolitical agenda.

Its goal: to reduce the human population from its current level of over 5 billion people to below 1 billion people within the next two to three generations; to literally ``cull the human herd'' in the interest of retaining their own global power and the feudal system upon which that power is based.

Historian Jeffrey Steinberg could be referring to the US, Canada and Australia when he writes, "England, Scotland, Wales, and, especially, Northern Ireland, are today little more than slave plantations and social engineering laboratories, serving the needs of ...the City of London...

These families constitute a financier oligarchy; they are the power behind the Windsor throne. They view themselves as the heirs to the Venetian oligarchy, which infiltrated and subverted England from the period 1509-1715, and established a new, more virulent, Anglo-Dutch-Swiss strain of the oligarchic system of imperial Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Byzantium....

The City of London dominates the world's speculative markets. A tightly interlocking group of corporations, involved in raw materials extraction, finance, insurance, transportation, and food production, controls the lion's share of the world market, and exerts virtual ``choke point'' control over world industry."

Steinberg belongs to a group of historians associated with economist Lyndon Larouche. They have traced this scourge to the migration of the Venetian mercantile oligarchy to England more than 300 years ago.

Although the Larouche historians do not say so, it appears that many members of this oligarchy were Jews. Cecil Roth writes: "The trade of Venice was overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of the Jews, the wealthiest of the mercantile class." (The History of the Jews in Venice, 1930)

As William Guy Carr points out in Pawns in the Game, both Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange were funded by Jewish bankers. The English Revolution (1649) was the first in a series of revolutions designed to give them world hegemony. The establishment of the Bank of England by William in 1694 was the next crucial step. Behind the facade, England has been a "Jewish" state for over 300 years. (pp.20-24)

The Jewish banking families made it a practice to marry their female offspring to spendthrift European aristocrats. In Jewish law, the mixed offspring of a Jewish mother is Jewish. (The male heirs marry Jews although the Victor and Jacob Rothschild are exceptions .) For example, in 1878 Hannah Rothschild married Lord Rosebery. who later became Prime Minister. In 1922 Louis Mountbatten, the uncle of Prince Philip and cousin of the Queen married the granddaughter of Jewish banker Ernest Cassel, one of the wealthiest men in the world. Winston Churchill's mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish. By the beginning of the 1900s, there were very few English aristocrat families left that hadn't intermarried with Jews. It was said that, when they visited the Continent, Europeans were surprised to see Jewish looking persons with English titles and accents.

According to L.G. Pine, the Editor of Burke's Peerage , Jews "have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual. So closely linked are the Jews and the lords that a blow against the Jews in this country would not be possible without injuring the aristocracy also." (Tales of the British Aristocracy1957, p.219.)

If they aren't Jewish by intermarriage, many European aristocrats consider themselves descendents of Biblical Hebrews. The Hapsburgs are related by marriage to the Merovingians who claim to be descendents of the Tribe of Benjamin.

In addition, many aristocrats belong to the "British Israel" Movement that believes the British soveriegn is the head of the Anglo Saxon "Lost Tribes" of Israel and that the Apocalyse will see the full reconstitution of the British Empire.

According to Barbara Aho, Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who believe in British Israelism, have a plan to place one of their bloodline on the throne of the rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem. This positioning of a false messiah whom the world will worship as Christ has been carefully planned and executed over many centuries.

According to Barry Chamish, "there would be no modern state of Israel without British Freemasonry. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry. Its goal was to establish a Jewish-Masonic state in the Turkish province of Palestine...Initially, British Jewish Masonic families like the Rothschilds and Montefiores provided the capital to build the infrastructure for the anticipated wave of immigration. However, luring the Jews to Israel was proving difficult. They, simply, liked European life too much to abandon it. So Europe was to be turned into a nightmare for the Jews."


I wasted much of my life getting a conventional education, so I feel I am beginning my education anew.

It appears that a vampire-like clique directs the world. This secretive cabal is represented by our dominant political, economic and cultural institutions. Western society has been subverted and western culture is bankrupt. Democracy is a form of social control and the mass media/ education are systems for indoctrination.

Essentially the problem boils down to whether we believe man was made in God's image and has an obligation to lift himself to a higher level of truth, beauty and justice. Naturally monopolists have no use for this and want to define reality to suit their own interests. They have taught us that God is dead and man is just a fancy animal without a divine soul. Culture today tends to deny standards, ideals and goals of any kind. Instead, we are fed an endless diet of trivia and degradation.

Certain elite Jews are an integral part of this elite neo feudal conspiracy. Throughout history they have had a symbiotic relationship with the aristocracy. But ordinary Jews like the serfs were manipulated and persecuted by their elites.

True Judaism like Islam and Christianity affirms the supremacy of God as a moral force. A real Jew, like a true Christian or Muslim cannot perform an immoral act. It's time to reaffirm our belief in God.

Create a global lending institution that weakens the economy of wealthy nations, enslaves Third World countries, and prevents those nations from rising out of their impoverished conditions. Blame that institution for creating a plethora of global financial crises over the past fifty years. Then offer a solution of consolidating all of the economies of the world into three different regions, each of which will use one type of currency.

Were that scenario to be played out in the latest issue of Mad Magazine, it might be good for a laugh or two. But when it is published by the most influential foreign policy journal in the world, it is cause for more than a little concern. Foreign Affairs is considered by many to be the "playbook" that our nation's leaders use in creating foreign policy. It unabashedly promotes the concept of "globalism," which is a softball term used to describe a utopian one world government. Regardless of the political party in power, our government has worked to implement the journal's agenda for many years.

Benn Steil, the CFR's Director of International Economics, argues that the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) practice of "lending" money to poor countries causes them to give up a portion of their sovereignty. The IMF is funded by the wealthy nations of the world, the U.S., Britain and Japan, to name a few.

However, since the dollar is the currency of choice for much of the world, the lion's share of funds in the IMF and World Bank are made up of U.S. dollars. The United States, having the fortunate position of possessing the money that the rest of the world has faith in, will then sell government bonds to foreign governments that have just borrowed from the IMF to offset the deficit spending (such as funding the IMF) that Congress approves. To use an analogy, it is like buying a suit from a tailor and then receiving that same money back the next day in the form of a loan. Because of this process, he rightly calls the dollar an absurdity supported only by blind (or stupid) faith in man's wisdom.

The logical answer from the perspective of a free marketer is for the U.S. to return to the gold standard, which is what gave the dollar a worldwide prominence in the first place. Not according to Steil, who says: "A revived gold standard is out of the question. In the nineteenth century, governments spent less than ten percent of national income in a given year. Today, they routinely spend half or more, and so they would never subordinate spending to the stringent requirements of sustaining a commodity-based monetary system."

There we have it. Since those governments have become more socialist in nature, they must be emancipated from the restraints a hard metal currency would place on them from spending us all into paradise.

What does Steil propose as an alternative solution? He writes: "Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area."

But didn't he just called the dollar an absurdity that is supported only by faith? Why the supposed turnaround? Who will control the dollar in this scenario, the IMF or the United States government? Were Steil and his cohorts honest, they could simply say, "we created the problem, now we're offering the solution ... and the American taxpayers have and will pay for both.”

Most readers of Foreign Affairs believe they are getting the "cream of the crop" when it comes to global developments. What they don't realize is that the problem to which Steil presents this preposterous solution was caused exclusively by members of the CFR. Their members have run the Federal Reserve System for decades. And it was CFR member Harry Dexter White who served as the first Executive Director for the United States at the IMF. British Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes was the mastermind behind the conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, where the IMF and World Bank came into existence in 1944.

The stated goal of the two newly created institutions was to lend money to nations who were torn apart by war or other calamities. That is exactly what they did and have done. After CFR member Richard Nixon signed an executive order abolishing the gold standard in America's currency in 1971, it gave the Fed a virtually unlimited supply of money to lend and an unlimited amount of power over the hapless nations who are suckered into borrowing.

Always remember the golden rule: "Whoever has the gold makes the rules." This solution is nothing more than a piecemeal approach to a global economy operated by the United Nations.

History shows that only when an economy uses a commodity, such as gold, to back up its currency, is it ever successful. Americans are not rich; they are incredibly broke and they don't even realize it. It is not the wisdom of men that made America great; it was the application of wisdom gleaned from thousands of years of history that made it prosperous and free.

America's role as the world's policeman and the world's welfare provider has come at a great expense to her citizens. Let's try non-intervention and sound economics and see how that works for a change.


Author Danny Estulin has managed to get hold of this year's participant

list BEFORE the event.  Please circulate it to all your National Press and

broadcast media to give them as littyle excuse as possible for ignoring

argulblty the most important global political event of the year.

This years' Bilderberg conference is the big one. If Kissinger and the

steering committee can convince the Turks, through threats and bribery, to go for the NeoCon 'regime change' agenda for Iran we can expect a further Middle Eastern bloodbath and Islamic genocide.

Let's hope and pray that the Turkish decision makers and political classes are not that stupid. For anyone planning to travel to witness the conference this year please do keep me informed over the weekend and/or use the new(ish) Bilderberg forum.

Breaking news direct from the 2007 Bilderberg conference

So here this year's Bilderbergers! Here's hoping the Turkish police will

surround the hotel and arrest all the steering group members for

questioning while the Turkish Secret Service deal with the CIA. Fingers

crossed! And well done over-safe Danny Estulin. Nuff respect for getting

the leaked participant list BEFORE the conference - this is unheard of.


George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece);

Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey);

Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK);

Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime

Minister (Portugal);

José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission


Franco Bernabé, Vice Chariman, Rothschild Europe (Italy);

Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France);

Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden);

Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium);

Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France);

Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France);

Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain);

Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK);

Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings,


Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France);

George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA);

Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey);

Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark);

John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy);

Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic

Research (USA);

Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York


Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA);

Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland);

Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA);

Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former

Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings (the Netherlands);

Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium);

Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA);

Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA);

Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (the


Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director

National Economic Council (USA);

Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany);

James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA);

Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC


Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK);

John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the


Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA);

Mustafa V. Koç, Chariman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey);

Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safek (Turkey);

Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France);

Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA);

Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA);

Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (the


Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters


William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and

Strategy, National Security Council (USA);

Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace


Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada);

Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International

Relations (France);

Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy);

Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy,

Microsoft Corporation (USA);

Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA


Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany);

Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland);

Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland);

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK);

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy);

Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public

Policy Research (USA);

Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada);

David Rockefeller (USA);

Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank,


Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA);

Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs; Member of Parliament;

Member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (Germany);

Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of Management,

DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany);

Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark);

Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs

International (Ireland);

Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy);

Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International);

John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA);

Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden);

Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor and Economics Commentator, The Financial

Times (UK);

James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA);

Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA);

Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of Management, Deutsche Post AG (USA);

Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist.

The Economist magazine on the Bilderberg Conferences

BILDERBERG takes its name from a Dutch hotel where, in the early 1950s, the first meeting took place under the aegis of Prince Bernhard. The occasion has outgrown the hotel, but the Dutch link remains. Among several European royals who attend as occasional guests, Queen Beatrix and her husband come regularly. A Dutch professor who has brokered coalition governments into existence on her behalf is one of the secretary-generals (the other, American, one lives in San Francisco), and Bilderberg's tiny secretariat sits in The Hague. The meetings now take place by informal rotation in countries of the Atlantic community.  Some 100 or more attend, by invitation of a steering committee. The meetings happen once a year, in the spring. They last 2.5 days (Thursday night until Sunday lunch) and are held in varying but always comfortable surroundings - in 1987 Lake Como, before that Gleneagles. Apart from a half-day on the golf links or sleeping off the previous night's dinner,  morning and afternoon sessions fill up the time.

A mixture of able and distinguished folk attend - a sprinkling of serving

prime and cabinet ministers, central-bank governors, defence and other

experts. They talk, often to galvanising and fascinating effect, about the main issues of the day - East-West relations, arms control, deficits, debt, the Falklands, sanctions, whatever. Their thoughts may not be repeated outside the meetings and never are. This frustrates outsiders but helps 100 great and good people be frank with each other, as does the fact that Bilderberg members are limited to people of NATO and West European countries who know how to be kind or rude to each other without causing such misunderstandings as would occur if Indians, Fijians, Africans, Chinese or Japanese were also present.

Elite and discreet, Bilderberg has inevitably been talked of in hushed

tones by conspiracy theorists over the years. It needn't be. The lists of

attenders are published, as are the agendas, and before each meeting the chairman (currently Lord Roll) holds a press conference at which few journalists bother to turn up.

Where does the money come from? Not complicated. The steering-group members raise from business the small sums necessary to keep the organising secretariat going hand-to-mouth in The Hague. Members from the host country raise enough money to pay for the hotel and conference when it takes place on their home soil (they are allowed to ask extra guests to make this money-raising easier). Participants pay their own long-haul travel, but are usually shepherded as VIPs from the nearest airport. They also pay expenses over and above the basic bill for their hotel room - the Bilderberg custom being that a whole hotel is booked for each meeting so that Bilderbergers may be alone with each other, their words, their thoughts and, these days, their security men.

When you have scaled the Bilderberg, you have arrived.


Taylan Bilgic
Turkish Daily News

Some call it "the multinational government", some call it the "elite club which shapes world policies" while others say it essentially "fixes" the world's fate. It literally breeds conspiracy theories all around the world with its secrecy, while participants say it is only a private gathering that should be respected.

Whatever it is, the mighty Bilderberg is at our door: The "high priests of globalization," as Will Hutton from The Observer once famously put it, begin their ultra-secretive annual meeting today in Istanbul. While the international media's silence gives rise to yet more conspiracy theories, the Turkish media is going nuts about it: from mass-circulation dailies to well-known weeklies, the media is Bilderberg-busy nowadays. Daily Vatan calls it "the most secretive meeting in the world," announcing: "Bilderberg in Istanbul." Weekly Aktüel says the "multinational government" is here to determine the fate of the world. It seems the hype will continue until the "high priests" end their Istanbul meeting on Sunday.

For those who have not heard about it yet, the Bilderberg Group is an "unofficial annual invitation-only conference of around 130 guests" (Wikipedia), influential, powerful figures from the realms of economy, media and politics. The name comes from their first meeting in 1954, which was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands. As the date signals, Bilderberg is a creation of the Cold War. The idea came from Joseph Retinger, who was concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe at the time. So, Bilderberg, just like other organizations like NATO, aimed at strengthening the "unity of the West" against the "communist threat."

With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the group focused on enhancing the American-led globalization. But then, the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington practically resulted in another focus, which one might call the relation between "civilizations."

Thus, after the first gathering in Istanbul (1959) and the second one in Izmir (1975), a third gathering in Turkey, widely regarded as a “bridge” between the East and the West, seems appropriate.

People that run the world:

If one aspect of Bilderberg that irks many is its secrecy, another one is the identity of its participants. Looking at the list of regular "Bilderbergers," one cannot but think that these are really "the people that run the world". Veterans like Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski are joined every year by newcomers such as former U.S. President Bill Clinton, soon-to-be-former-PM Tony Blair, NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle and countless others. Every year, the list also includes important "media people" from influential outlets such as The Financial Times, Washington Post, The Economist, The Times, Le Figaro and Die Zeit. The picture becomes complete with CEOs from the world's biggest companies such as Coca-Cola, Fiat, Suez-Tractebel, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum.

With such a mixture, conspiracy theories abound; the most famous one being the "invisible hand" theory. According to some, those who are lucky enough to attend the meetings and get a blessing from the "inner circle" witness breath-taking career leaps. An "obscure governor" from Arkansas, one year after attending the Bilderberg meeting in 1991, became the President of the United States, while Tony Blair of Britain was elected prime minister three years after his attendance in 1993. But why did Margaret Thatcher, a regular Bilderberger, lose her job as Prime Minister in 1990? The theory says that she lost the support of Bilderberg because she did not accept the transfer of British sovereignty to a "European Super State." Of course, John Major, who took the job as Prime Minister after Thatcher, was also a Bilderberger.

One may choose to believe or not, but the secrecy of the meetings – no cell phones, no getting out of the hotel during three days, no notes, no interviews – creates fertile ground for conspiracy theories. When senior representatives of media giants such as the FT, the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post attend the meetings every year and next to nothing is printed in the same papers about Bilderberg, one starts to wonder.

Dedicated journalists:

There are a few journalists who are dedicated to unveil the secret of the Bilderberg, though. People such as James P. Tucker, Daniel Estulin and Tony Gosling. The first two are in Istanbul, tracking down the participants, while Gosling, a Briton who runs the Web site, could not come to the show. His Web site gets about three million hits a month, Gosling says, and attributes this great interest to the fact that "investigative journalism is pretty much dead" elsewhere. The Bilderberg is very powerful, especially financially, he told the Turkish Daily News over the phone: "So, if they come to a decision, it is effective."

Gosling has covered the last 10 meetings, and he thinks the gathering in Istanbul is of high importance. "There is a lot of tension on the Iran-Turkey border at the moment. Iraq is also right next door. This is an area of interest for Bilderberg," he said. "[The Bilderbergers] are worried that Islamic sentiment in Turkey is not in favor of an invasion of Iran. They are here to attempt to persuade the Turkish elite and bring them on board with the neocon plan for the Middle East."

But why the secrecy? Gosling posed the same question to David Rockefeller back in 2003. "He shrugged and said it was just a private meeting," he continues. "But the world does not buy this argument. There are politicians there and they are not private people. They are people who should be held accountable."

Gosling's claim, that the main topic of Bilderberg 2007 is Iran, is a widely held opinion. Other topics are energy policies and Turkey's bid for European Union membership, according to the daily Vatan. The paper is optimistic about the last item; it says the Istanbul meeting is a signal that the EU has "inched open the door" to Turkey, basing this claim on unnamed "Bilderberg sources."

A veteran of Bilderberg:

With four separate attendances in Atlanta, Ottawa, Stockholm and Lisbon, Turkey's former Central Bank governor, Gazi Erçel, is the most informed source one can find. “There are many international meetings such as Bilderberg, which have strict rules,” he said to the TDN. As to the reason of the secrecy, he says it is a precaution to ensure that everyone talks sincerely on the topics, without the concern of being quoted.

The conspiracy theories stem from ignorance about the meetings, Erçel said, quoting Confucius: “Those who produce ideas without the knowledge are harmful. As they do not know what Bilderberg is, they believe in superstitions.”

Erçel also got his share of mention in the conspiracy theories, as some accused him of “planning the 2001 financial crisis” at one of the meetings. “These are defective claims,” he said. “Bilderberg is a high-level meeting. Everyone talks freely and very striking debates take place.”

Over the years Bilderberg meetings had important Turkish participants. Among them are Süleyman Demirel, the former president; Gazi Erçel, former Central Bank chief; Mesut Yilmaz, former Prime Minister; Selahattin Beyazit, a businessman and a "constant participant"; Mustafa Koç, the CEO of Koç Holding; former ministers Ismail Cem, Hikmet Çetin and Kemal Dervis and also some well-known journalists. Among them, Fehmi Koru from the conservative daily Yeni Safak stands out, because until last year, he had written numerous critical columns on Bilderberg. Last year, things changed and he was also invited to the meetings. Afterwards, he wrote a six-day series on Bilderberg, telling much about the environment and the participants, but certainly not much on what was discussed. Koru is invited for a second time this year, but the "jump" in his career is yet to be seen!

As the Bilderbergers gather, probably giggling among themselves about the conspiracy theories abounding, it would be appropriate to quote Alasdair Spark, an expert in conspiracy theories, who had spoken to the BBC back in June 2004: "Should not we expect that the rich and the powerful organize things in their own interests? It is called capitalism!"


(According to

Ali Babacan, Minister of Economic Affairs (Turkey)

Kemal Dervis, Administrator, UNDP (Turkey)

Mustafa V. Koç, Chairman, Koç Holding A.S. (Turkey)

Fehmi Koru, Senior Writer, Yeni Safak (Turkey)

George Alogoskoufis, Minister of Economy and Finance (Greece)

Edward Balls, Economic Secretary to the Treasury (UK)

Francisco Pinto Balsemão, Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister (Portugal)

José M. Durão Barroso, President, European Commission (Portugal/International)

Franco Bernabé, Vice Chairman, Rothschild Europe (Italy)

Nicolas Beytout, Editor-in-Chief, Le Figaro (France)

Carl Bildt, Former Prime Minister (Sweden)

Hubert Burda, Publisher and CEO, Hubert Burda Media Holding (Belgium)

Philippe Camus, CEO, EADS (France)

Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA (France)

Juan Luis Cebrian, Grupo PRISA media group (Spain)

Kenneth Clark, Member of Parliament (UK)

Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC (USA)

Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge (France)

George A. David, Chairman, Coca-Cola H.B.C. S.A. (USA)

Anders Eldrup, President, DONG A/S (Denmark)

John Elkann, Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A (Italy)

Martin S. Feldstein, President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research (USA)

Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York (USA)

Paul A. Gigot, Editor of the Editorial Page, The Wall Street Journal (USA)

Dermot Gleeson, Chairman, AIB Group (Ireland)

Donald E. Graham, Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company (USA)

Victor Halberstadt, Professor of Economics, Leiden University, (the Netherlands)

Jean-Pierre Hansen, CEO, Suez-Tractebel S.A. (Belgium)

Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations (USA)

Richard C. Holbrooke, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)

Jaap G. Hoop de Scheffer, Secretary General, NATO (the Netherlands/International)

Allan B. Hubbard, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, Director National Economic Council (USA)

Josef Joffe, Publisher-Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)

James A. Johnson, Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC (USA)

Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC (USA)

Anatole Kaletsky, Editor at Large, The Times (UK)

John Kerr of Kinlochard, Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc (the Netherlands)

Henry A. Kissinger, Chairman, Kissinger Associates (USA)

Bernard Kouchner, Minister of Foreign Affairs (France)

Henry R. Kravis, Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. (USA)

Marie-Josée Kravis, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc. (USA)

Neelie Kroes, Commissioner, European Commission (the Netherlands/International)

Ed Kronenburg, Director of the Private Office, NATO Headquarters (International)

William J. Luti, Special Assistant to the President for Defense Policy and Strategy, National Security Council (USA)

Jessica T. Mathews, President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (USA)

Frank McKenna, Ambassador to the US, member Carlyle Group (Canada)

Thierry de Montbrial, President, French Institute for International Relations (France)

Mario Monti, President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi (Italy)

Craig J. Mundie, Chief Technical Officer Advanced Strategies and Policy, Microsoft Corporation (USA)

Egil Myklebust, Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA (Norway)

Matthias Nass, Deputy Editor, Die Zeit (Germany)

Adnrzej Olechowski, Leader Civic Platform (Poland)

Jorma Ollila, Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc/Nokia (Finland)

George Osborne, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (UK)

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa, Minister of Finance (Italy)

Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (USA)

Heather Reisman, Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc. (Canada)

David Rockefeller (USA)

Matías Rodriguez Inciarte, Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander Bank, (Spain)

Dennis B. Ross, Director, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (USA)

Otto Schily, Former Minister of Interior Affairs (Germany)

Jürgen E. Schrempp, Former Chairman of the Board of management, DaimlerChrysler AG (Germany)

Tøger Seidenfaden, Executive Editor-in-Chief, Politiken (Denmark)

Peter D. Sutherland, Chairman, BP plc and Chairman, Goldman Sachs International (Ireland)

Giulio Tremonti, Vice President of the Chamber of Deputies (Italy)

Jean-Claude Trichet, Governor, European Central Bank (France/International)

John Vinocur, Senior Correspondent, International Herald Tribune (USA)

Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman, Investor AB (Sweden)

Martin H. Wolf, Associate Editor, The Financial Times (UK)

James D. Wolfensohn, Special Envoy for the Gaza Disengagement (USA)

Robert B. Zoellick, Deputy Secretary of State (USA)

Klaus Zumwinkel, Chairman of the Board of management, Deutsche Post AG (USA)

Adrian D. Wooldridge, Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

Patrick Wood

“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, 20021

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.”2

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 was founded by the persistent maneuvering of David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. 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 prognosticator of 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 was approximately three hundred, with roughly one hundred each from Europe, Japan and North America. Membership was also roughly divided between 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 with a so-called  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. European and Japanese involvement indicated a world 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.

If the Council on Foreign Relations could be said to be a spawning ground for the concepts of one-world idealism, then the Trilateral Commission was the "task force" assembled to assault the beachheads. Already the Commission had placed its members in the top posts the U.S. had to offer.

President James Earl Carter, the country 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, Brzezinski was appointed assistant to the president for national security matters. Commonly, he was called the head of the National Security Council because he answered only to the president - some 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. (If you are trying to calculate the odds of three virtually unknown men, out of over sixty Commissioners from the U.S., capturing the three most powerful positions in the land, don't bother. Your calculations will be meaningless.)

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 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.”3

Is this portrait of Carter as a political innocent simply inaccurate or is 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 addition, Carter had appointed another fourteen Trilateral Commissioners to top government posts, including:

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)

As of 25 December 1976, therefore, there were nineteen Trilaterals, including Carter and Mondale, holding tremendous political power. These presidential appointees represented almost one-third of the Trilateral Commission members from the United States. The odds of that happening “by chance” are beyond calculation!

Nevertheless, 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.”4

On 23 May 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."5 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 paid off. Brzezinski, with Gardner, is now the leading man on Carter's foreign policy task force."6

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. Thus, if it could be said that Brzezinski had, at least in part, contributed to current U.S. foreign and domestic policy, then we should briefly analyze exactly what he was espousing.

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 (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.

“Jimmy Carter”7

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.

“Zbigniew Brzezinski”8

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.”9

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."10

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.11

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.”12

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 keeping with the American tradition of blurring distinctions between public and private institution.”13

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."14

Brzezinski’s philosophy clearly pointed forward to Richard Gardner’s Hard Road to World Order that appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1974, where Gardner stated,

"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”15

That former approach which had produced few successes during the 1950’s and 1960’s was being traded for a velvet sledge-hammer: It would make little noise, but would still drive the spikes of globalization deep into the hearts of many different countries around the world, including the United States. Indeed, the Trilateral Commission was the chosen vehicle that finally got the necessary traction to actually create their New World Order.

Understanding the philosophy of the Trilateral Commission was and is the only way we can reconcile the myriad of apparent contradictions in the information filtered through to us in 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 questions, and hundreds of others like them, cannot be explained in any other way: the U.S. Executive Branch (and related agencies) was not anti-Marxist or anti-Communist - it was and is, in fact, pro- Marxist. Those ideals which led to the heinous abuses of Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mussolini were now being accepted as necessary inevitabilities 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. 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.”16

Unfortunately, few heard and even fewer understood.

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 grace preceded the economic coup de grace. 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 (and creating them in some instances) to manage countries toward the New World Order; yet, they found menacing backlashes from those very crises.

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 babblings.

Trilateral Entrenchment: 1980-2007

From left: Peter Sutherland, Sadako Ogata, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Paul Volcker, David Rockefeller. (25th Anniversary, New York, Dec. 1, 1998. Source: Trilateral Commission)

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 domination has transcended political parties: they dominated 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 effected their goal of creating a New World Order or a New International Economic Order? 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.17 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 seven, 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-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 ten USTR’s appointed by the President. Eight 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-present)

This is not to say that Clayton Yeuter and Rob Portman were not friendly to Trilateral goals, because they clearly were.

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).

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 current Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke, is not a member of the Trilateral Commission, but he clearly is following the same globalist policies as his predecessors.

The point raised here is that Trilateral domination over the U.S. Executive Branch has not only continued and 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 300 million people only these 100 or so are qualified to hold such critical positions? Again, the answer is all too obvious.

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 easy 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.18

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 has emerged as the “Father of the North American Union” and has been directly involved in Trilateral operations since the 1970’s. 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.19 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, not the other way around!

Trilateral Globalization in Europe

The content of this paper 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]20

Thus, since 1973 and in parallel with their U.S. Hegemony, the European members of the Trilateral Commission were busy creating the European Union. In fact, the EU's Constitution was authored by Commission member Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in 2002-2003, when he was President of the Convention on the Future of Europe. [For more on the EU, see European Union: Dictatorship Rising? and The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible]

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. [See The Globalization Strategy: America and Europe in the Crucible and Toward a North American Union]


It is clear that the Executive Branch of the U.S. was literally hijacked in 1976 by members of the Trilateral Commission, upon the election of President Jimmy Carter and Vice-President Walter Mondale. This near-absolute domination, especially in the areas of trade, banking, economics and foreign policy, has continued unchallenged and unabated to the present.

Windfall profits have accrued to interests associated with the Trilateral Commission, but the effect of their “New International Economic Order” on the U.S. has been nothing less than devastating. (See America Plundered by the Global Elite for a more detailed analysis)

The philosophical underpinnings of the Trilateral Commission are pro-Marxist and pro-socialist. They are solidly set against the concept of the nation-state and in particular, the Constitution of the United States. Thus, national sovereignty must be diminished and then abolished altogether in order to make way for the New World Order that will be governed by an unelected global elite with their self-created legal framework.

If you are having negative sentiment against Trilateral-style globalization, you are not alone. A 2007 Financial Times/Harris poll revealed that less than 20 percent of people in six industrialized countries (including the U.S.) believe that globalization is good for their country while over 50 percent are outright negative towards it.21 (See Global Backlash Against Globalization?) While citizens around the world are feeling the pain of globalization, few understand why it is happening and hence, they have no effective strategy to counter it.

The American public has never, ever conceived that such forces would align themselves so successfully against freedom and Liberty. Yet, the evidence is clear: Steerage of America has long since fallen into the hands of an actively hostile enemy that intends to remove all vestiges of the very things that made us the greatest nation in the history of mankind.


Rockefeller, David, Memoirs (Random House, 2002), p.418

Trialogue, Trilateral Commission (1973)

Time Magazine, Jimmy Carter: Man of the Year, January 7, 1977

Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (1979), p. 7

New York Times, Jimmy Carter, Leslie Gelb, May 23, 1976


Trialogue, Looking Back…And Forward, Trilateral Commission, 1976


Sutton & Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (1979), p. 4

ibid. p. 5

Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (New York: Viking Press, 1973), p. 246.




Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558

Goldwater, Barry, With No Apologies, (Morrow, 1979), p. 280

Global Banking: The World Bank, Patrick Wood, The August Review

Board of Directors, Council on Foreign Relations website

Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005

Rockefeller, David, In the Beginning…” The Trilateral Commission at 25, 1998, p.11

FT/Harris poll on Globalization, website

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)