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
The policy of “normalization” of relations with Communist China — in effect a program to build China technologically into a super power — was implemented by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
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 in Thailand and Malaysia (much of the “civilian technology” currently being transferred has usefulness for guerrilla warfare.)
Technocracy Recognized
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.
Brazinsky and Kissinger met with a young Obama in November 1971 and secretly recruited him into the organization and groomed him to become President. Obama disappeared to Russia until 1972 then he enrolled at Columbia.
Doug, Brazinsky? Obama was not 10 years old living in Indonesia as Barry Soetero? 2 years before Trilateral Commission was formed? Obama enters Harvard at 11 years old?
What do you think about China and Russia binding their currencies to gold, each other and to the europian SWIFT payment system. Do you think they try to gain economic freedom from the triliteral comission and is it possible they crash the dollar as world-currency, in the same way the Sovjet Union was crushed by hyper inflation 1989?
What better way to crush America, degrade it’s independence by transfering industry and technology to China, where the multinational corporations feed off of cheap labor, and a castrated US, will eventually clamor for authoritarian rule, as the Congress becomes ineffectual, poverty creeps higher, and you have change in the winds of a Constitution under fire. Bernie by the way is a graduate of The New School. If we don’t wake up, we are doomed. If it’s not too late already.
Are there any articles written on what effect(s) the Trilateral Commission, also, the Bilderberg Group are having on the most recent presidential election in the United States? For sure the news media outlets aren’t saying anything. I honestly believe there influence is having a major effect effect. However, much of what is known about their activity is secret therefore very little information will ever get out to the public till their objectives are met.
Most people don’t have a clue as to what Technocracy is or isn’t. Technocracy is simply a government based on the laws of nature, where observable cause and effect realities dictate the solutions to our most complex energy related problems. Technocracy cannot be corrupted by any form of entertainment and or political-financial interference elements because it transcends the myth of value as it seeks to free up abundant energy resources and technologies for everyone’s great benefit. Think of Technocracy as a way to serve the people without the cloak of deception that we currently use for disseminating propaganda and or… Read more »
Robert, you are a true Technocrat in the classic sense. Your ‘movement’ and ideology was hijacked from you in 1973 and developed into Sustainable Development, Green Economy. Read my book Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and face the facts.
Hello Patrick, respectfully. You’re not talking about Technocracy, you’re talking about something entirely different. You’re writing about political ideologies that are tied into financial objectives, in which case, there is no viable Technate. So why even talk about Technocracy? Communism and or Capitalism is not a Technocracy, because they are part of an ongoing clowncracy in which the private-mythically based money supply informs us as to who is valued and who is not, as reality based energy solutions that currently exist are ignored. Please don’t tie Technocracy in with communism, because Technocracy transcends any form of Alice’s political Wonderland. As… Read more »
Robert, you are not paying attention to what I have say now, said before and have written about. I have never, ever stated that Technocracy has anything to do with Communism. In fact, I always go out of my way to pointedly make clear that Technocracy is NOT Communism. Communism was anathema to Technocrats. I know what Technocracy is and have read and studied every original document in the massive archive of Technocracy at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. Furthermore, I have every book and article that was written about it since 1932. Robert, we have nothing left to… Read more »
Technocracy cannot and was never hijacked by any political-financially vested interest. This is an impossibility, sir, because the very nature of Technocracy is based on the FACTS of nature and not on any easily repudiated political opinions. The original Technocrat who I’ve concerned myself with over the years doesn’t get any credit for being a Technocrat, his name was Nikola Tesla, he preceded Howard Scott at Columbia University and his primary concern was simply to find ways to free up energy for everyone’s great benefit without any political-financial interference. M. King Hubbert, Charles Steinmetz and company actually hijacked the idea… Read more »
In 1938, Technocracy’s official magazine, The Technocrat, succinctly defined Technocracy as “…the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” What part of ‘social engineering’ do you not understand? We don’t want ‘social engineering’. We don’t want to be a ‘scientific operation’. We don’t want to hand over control of production and consumption to scientists or engineers. Hubbert did not work for Shell in 1938 when the above definition was published. The prestigious engineers and scientists at Columbia University in 1932 who organized Technocracy with… Read more »
Americans suffer from being 39th on the global literacy scale and being a society that relies more on brainwashing for social compliance rather than evidence-based logic and knowledge. It would help Americans to read about the genesis of free trade and its origins in the investment banker industry, through the eyes of non-Americans. This produces a very different picture of the world. For this and other reasons, I condensed three volumes to 60 pages, which looks at the impact of free trade and privatisation on Australia… the most similar nation to America on Earth. Visit oziz4oziz.com/ and read about what… Read more »
[…] da manipulação da Comissão Trilateral – “o bébé” de Zbigniew Brzezinski. […]
[…] previously told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” that the technocracy idea was introduced to communist China in the 1970s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist, co-founder of the […]
[…] previously told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” that the technocracy idea was introduced to communist China in the 1970s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist, co-founder of the […]
[…] previously told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” that the technocracy idea was introduced to communist China in the 1970s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist, co-founder of the […]
[…] told EpochTV’s “Crossroads” that the technocracy idea was introduced to communist China in the 1970s by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a political scientist, co-founder of the […]
[…] Likewise, almost solely responsible for China’s ascendant rise as a world power came from the impact of the Rockerfeller/ Trilateral Commission policy of 1979. The West aided the technocratic development of Communist China.More: https://www.technocracy.news/trilateral-commission-converted-china-technocracy/ […]