It was no mistake of history that China transformed from a Communist dictatorship into a neo-authoritarian Technocracy.
In this regard, the influence of the Trilateral Commission, its members and policies on the world stage can hardly be quantified. The Commission, founded by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1973, drew membership from North America, Europe and Japan. Out of approximately 300 members, only 86 were originally from the United States, and yet they corporately devised and pushed policies that suited the entire membership, and did so under a virtual cloak of invisibility that lasts even into 2013.
Today, we reap the “benefits” of Trilateral manipulation. The European economy is trashed, Japan’s economy is still smoldering from the mid-1990’s and the U.S. is much worse off today than in the late 1960’s. But, the political systems of these countries are not much better off than their economies. The fruit of decay in the United States is painfully evident with a fractured and contentious politic that defies reconciliation on even the most minor issues.
My friends at Coalition for a Prosperous America and Economy in Crisis, among others, are working hard to offset messed-up trade policies that put American industry in the toilet over the last 30 years. As long as we have some freedom of speech left, organizations like these are a welcome voice, even if they are shouted down by the global free-trade cartel.
However, people need to know where and how this all started, and who was responsible for it. Only by understanding the genesis of globalization can modern economics, politics and social trends be understood. Can anyone say, “Pin the tail on the donkey?”
Thirty-five years ago, in the November 1978 and April 1979 issues of Trilateral Observer, Antony C. Sutton and myself wrote the following analysis on China. We warned of the disastrous effects that would result if these policies moved forward, and we thoroughly exposed the members of the Trilateral Commission who were almost solely responsible for China’s ascendent rise as a world power. That no one listened at the time is self-evident, because nothing changed and no one resisted. (For clarification, names of Trilateral Commission members are in bold type.)
Trilateral China Policy
A high ranking Administration source is reported as saying: “This was Zbig’s baby more than anyone else’s.:
From outside the White House (from a top policy maker who generally sides with Cyrus Vance):
“Zbig is really riding high now. He had the central role behind the scenes, and he was all alone in the press play. I’m told the President thinks Zbig did 99 percent of the work on China.”
More likely, however, the China policy was formulated and implemented by a Trilateralist troika: Jimmy Carter, Cyrus Vance and Brzezinski. And this policy was only a continuation of a policy begun under a “Republican” Administration, that of Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, another Trilateralist.
The heady effect that these vast policy making exercises have on these men, almost an infantile reaction, is well reported in the Washington Post on February 8, 1979 with the headline, China Policy: A Born-Again Brzezinski,describing how Brzezinski excitedly describes his meeting with Teng [aka Deng Xiaoping]:
FEBURARY 1979 — The eyes sparkle with excitement even days later. The arms erupt in sudden sweeping gestures when he talks about it. And that causes the photos — about a dozen of them — to fly out of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s hands and scatter over the floor of his office as he is speaking.
“Here’s Cy… and here I am… and there is Teng right between us.… ”
Brzezinski is talking in that quick. clipped, excited style that is his way, and he is pointing at one photo that remains in his hand while he bends to scoop up the rest, talking all the while.
“It’s amazing, when you think of it. The leader of a billion people — having dinner in my house just two hours after he arrived in this country!
“I mean, it really is rather amazing!”
Trilateralists And The China Trade
An example of the influence of a mere handful of Trilateralists in creating self-serving policies many thousands of miles from the United States, can be illustrated by a recent conference in Japan.
In early February 1979 a symposium on the China Trade was sponsored by the Japanese newspaper Nihon Keizai. The few speakers were mainly Trilateralists, and the Trilaterals agreed with one anothers’ proposals thus creating a power bloc. Reporting in the U.S., the Washington Post (February 9, 1979) cited only Trilateralist speakers.
The key Japanese speaker was Trilateralist Kiichiro Kitaura, Chairman of Numuru Securities Company, Ltd.
What were Kitaura’s proposals? They were:
- Internationalize the yen
- Consultations and cooperation between Japanese and American businessmen on ways to penetrate the Chinese market
- “Blending” Japanese and American technology
Of course, Kitaura thoroughly agreed with fellow Trilateralist Philip Trezise (from Brookings Institution) that Japan’s large current account surplus should be invested abroad and not in Japan. Trezise was backed by another American Trilateralist, Peter G. Peterson, Chairman of Lehman Brothers, Kuhn Loeb, Inc., who, like Kitaura, urged more Japanese trade.
In brief, this important conference was dominated by Trilateralist thinking, and that was the only thinking reported, yet on the surface the Trilateral link is not apparent to the lay reader.
Trilateral Buildup of Communist China
Trilaterals propose to build up Communist China. Trilateralist policy is clear cut. The West must aid the construction of Communist China: this is expressed in An Overview of East-West Relations (Triangle Paper No. 15, p. 57) as follows:
“To grant China favorable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West” adding “…there seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology.”
Triangle paper 15 also adds:
“The situation is different… where arms supplies or advanced military technologies are concerned, except for types of equipment that by their nature serve purely defensive purposes.” (p. 58)
In fact, as we shall see later, Trilateral firms have exported even advanced military technology to Communist China.
Further, as part of one world, Trilateralists see an ultimate merging of free enterprise Taiwan with the Communist mainland. Even more remarkable, the paper envisages that Communist China will return to an expansionist aggressive policy under two conditions:
- as Communist China “gets stronger,”
- if relations with the Soviets are “normalized.”
The paper adds, “already now, the activity of Communist Guerrillas in Thailand and Malaysia, linked to each other and looking to China, persists and even seem to be on the increase.” (page 59)
So far as Communist China is concerned, we may conclude that Trilaterals:
- Want to build Communist China into a military superpower,
- wish to do this with the full and clear understanding that China will likely resume its expansionist course in the Far East, and
- are willing to subsidize guerrilla activities sin Thailand and Malaysia (much of the “civilian technology” currently being transferred has usefulness for guerrilla warfare.)
The transfer of technology was a key aspect of early Trilateral policy. Admittedly, their stated goal of “fostering a New International Economic Order” was not fully understood in 1978 – 79. However, by June 2001, at least one writer for Time Magazine (connected with the Trilateral Commission, by the way) got it perfectly in Made in China: The Revenge of the Nerds: China had been converted into a Technocracy! According to the author, Kaiser Kuo:
The nerds are running the show in today’s China. In the twenty years since Deng Xiaoping’s [Ed. Note: count backward to 1978 – 79] reforms kicked in, the composition of the Chinese leadership has shifted markedly in favor of technocrats. …It’s no exaggeration to describe the current regime as a technocracy.
After the Maoist madness abated and Deng Xiaoping inaugurated the opening and reforms that began in late 1978, scientific and technical intellectuals were among the first to be rehabilitated. Realizing that they were the key to the Four Modernizations embraced by the reformers, concerted efforts were made to bring the “experts” back into the fold.
During the 1980s, technocracy as a concept was much talked about, especially in the context of so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” — the principle at the heart of the “Asian Developmental Model” that South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan had pursued with apparent success. The basic beliefs and assumptions of the technocrats were laid out quite plainly: Social and economic problems were akin to engineering problems and could be understood, addressed, and eventually solved as such.
The open hostility to religion that Beijing exhibits at times — most notably in its obsessive drive to stamp out the “evil cult” of Falun Gong — has pre-Marxist roots. Scientism underlies the post-Mao technocracy, and it is the orthodoxy against which heresies are measured. [Emphasis added]
Thus, during the 1980’s Technocracy (and scientism) took deep root not only in China, but also in South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan. Similar gains were seen in Europe during the 1990’s and in the United States since 1973. The Trilateral Commission’s utopian “New International Economic Order” is Technocracy, and China was the first modern experiment and transformation. And, why not China? Dealing with a single Communist dictator was a lot easier than dealing with a parliament, congress or senate in more democratic nations. The so-called “Neo-Authoritarianism” mentioned above is ample evidence that the champions of Technocracy knew full-well that it would be easier to transform an already authoritarian nation into authoritarianism one; in fact, as far back as 1932, original members of Technocracy, Inc. in the U.S. called for a dictatorship in the U.S. in order to implement Technocracy.
This is the rest of the story, of which I was a keen observer at the time. What I lacked in education and academic discipline was amply shored up by the consummate researcher and scholar, Antony Sutton, who was a professor of economics and a research fellow at Stanford’s prestigious Hoover Institution for War Peace and Revolution in California. Sutton is widely recognized as most detailed and prolific writer in the 20th century on the transfer of technology from the West to the East.