Tag Archives: Banking Cartel

The Dark Past Of The Bank For International Settlements

Patrick Wood,
July 21st, 2020

Today, the BIS is getting headlines again because of its direction of central banks to go cashless. It is readily apparent that it has not lost its power and influence over the decades. For anyone wanting to understand how the world really works, this is a must-read paper. ⁃ TN Editor

Created at Bretton Woods in 1944, the World Bank has been dominated by international bankers, members of the Council on Foreign Relations and later by the  Trilateral Commission. Corruption and self-interest run amok as public funds are converted into private hands by the billions.


According to The World Bank, it is,

“a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 184 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA). Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes.” 1

High-minded words like “our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards” would lead the reader to believe that the World Bank is some benevolent and global welfare organization. Why is it then, that The World Bank joins the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization as organizations that people around the world just love to hate?

In reality, the World Bank carries its weight, along with the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements, to forcibly integrate minor countries of the world into its own brand of capitalistic democracy.

World Bank Beginnings

A sibling of the IMF, the World Bank was born out of the U.N. Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in July, 1944. The original name given to the World Bank was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and reflects its original mission: to rebuild Europe after the devastation of World War II. The name “World Bank” was not actually adopted until 1975.

Both the IBRD and the IMF were created as independent specialized agencies of the United Nations, of which they remain to this day.

The word “Development” in the IBRD name was rather insignificant at the time because most of the southern hemisphere was still under colonial rule, with each colonial master responsible for the business activities in their respective countries.

Note: It is argued by some that there was an original desire by banking elites to put an end to colonialism by restructuring investment and trade patterns in colonized countries. This paper will not deal with this issue, but it should be noted that this has been exactly what has happened, in many cases being aided by the operations of the World Bank and the IMF.

As a “reconstruction” bank, however, the World Bank was impotent. It ultimately loaned only $497(US) million for reconstruction projects. The Marshall Plan, by contrast, became the true engine of the reconstruction of Europe by loaning over $41(US) billion by 1953.

The primary architects of the World Bank were Harry Dexter White and John Maynard Keynes, both of whom are summarized Global Banking: The International Monetary Fund (see article for complete details) as follows:

“Such is the moral fiber and intellectual credentials of the creators of the IMF [and the World Bank]: One was an English ideologue economist with a markedly global bent, and the other a corrupt and high-ranking U.S. government official who was a top Soviet spy.”2

Structure of the World Bank

Today, the World Bank consists of two primary units: The already-mentioned IBRD and the International Development Association (IDA), which was created in 1960.

The IBRD lends only to governments who are credit-worthy; in other words, there is an expectation that they will repay their loans. The IDA, by contrast, only lends to governments who are not credit-worthy and are usually the poorest nations. Together, they create a “one-two” punch in global lending to any government that they are able to talk into borrowing. The U.S. currently contributes about $1 billion per year of taxpayer funds to the IDA.

Three other affiliates combine with the World Bank, to be collectively called the World Bank Group:

  • The International Finance Corporation (IFC) – Founded in 1956, lends directly to the private sector in developing counties.
  • The Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) -Founded in 1988, provides guarantees to investors in developing countries against losses caused by noncommercial risks.
  • The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) – Founded in 1966, provides international facilities for conciliation and arbitration of investment disputes.

Headquarters for the World Bank is Washington, DC. It employs approximately 7,000 in the Washington complex, and another 3,000 in 109 offices scattered throughout member countries.

IBRD funds its lending operations by selling AAA-rated bonds and other debt instruments to other banks, pension funds, insurance companies and corporations around the world. By contrast, the IDA is funded by (taxpayer) contributions from member countries. Annual levels of lending is roughly equal between IBRD and IDA. While the IFC generates its own capital in open markets, MIGA and ICSID receive the majority of their funding from the World Bank, much of which is taxpayer funded.

Ownership of the World Bank consists of voting shares held by member countries, according to size and contributions. Currently, the U.S. is the largest shareholder with 16.4 percent of total votes. The next largest voting blocks are Japan (7.9 percent) and Germany (4.5 percent). Because major decisions require an 85 percent super-majority vote, the U.S. can effectively veto any change (100% -16.4% = 83.6%).

American Hegemony

It should be noted that the United Nations is headquartered in the United States, on land originally donated to it by David Rockefeller. The Bretton Woods Conference was held in New Hampshire. Every president of the World Bank has hailed from the United States. It is no wonder that the rest of the world views the World Bank as an American operation.

There has been an unwritten but traditional rule that the World Bank president will always be an American, while the president of the IMF is European. (A recent exception to this is the current IMF president, who is Canadian).

It is instructive to review the past presidents of the World Bank, because it demonstrates which elite cabal is really in control of World Bank operations. In turn, this will point strongly to the real beneficiaries of the World Bank hegemony. The complete biographies and accomplishments of these men far exceed the available space in this report, so only a few highlights are noted.

1. Eugene Meyer. June to December, 1946. Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 1930-1933; owner of the Washington Post; Member, Council on Foreign Relations; agent of Lazard Freres, Brown Brothers, Harriman; appointed head of the War Finance Corporation during WWI by Woodrow Wilson.

2. John J. McCloy. March 1947 to April 1949. Member and chair of the Council on Foreign Relations; Chairman, Ford Foundation; Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank; lawyer whose firm was council to Chase Manhattan Bank.

3. Eugene Black. July 1949 to December 1962. Chairman, Board of Directors for the Federal Reserve System (1933-34); senior vice president of Chase Manhattan Bank; Member, Council on Foreign Relations; member of Bilderbergers; created the International Finance Corporation and the International Development Association at the World Bank.

4. George Woods. January 1963 to March 1968. Vice president of Harris, Forbes & Co.; vice president of Chase Bank; vice president of and board member of First Boston Corp. (one of the largest U.S. investment banking firms).

5. Robert Strange McNamara. April 1968 to June 1981. President and director of Ford Motor Company; Secretary of Defense in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; member of Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations and Bilderbergers; honorary council trustee of Aspen Institute. Personally negotiated China’s entrance into the World Bank.

6. A.W. Clausen. July 1981 to June 1986. President, CEO and chairman of  Bank of America; member, Trilateral Commission; member, Bretton-Woods Committee.

7. Barber B. Conable. July 1986 to August 1991. Member of U.S. House of Representatives from 1965 to 1985; member Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations; senior fellow, American Enterprise Institute; board member, New York Stock Exchange; member, Commission on Global Governance.

8. Lewis T. Preston. September 1991 to May 1995. President, CEO and chairman of J.P. Morgan & Co., and chairman of the executive committee; vice president of Morgan Guaranty Trust Co.; member and treasurer of Council on Foreign Relations; director of General Electric.

9. James D. Wolfensohn. June 1995 to 2005 Executive partner and head of the investment banking department, Salomon Brothers (New York); executive deputy chairman and managing director, Schroders Ltd. (London); director, Rockefeller Foundation; board member, Rockefeller University; honorary trustee, Brookings Institution; Director, Population Council (founded by John D. Rockefeller); member, Council on Foreign Relations.

10. Paul Wolfowitz. 2005 – present. Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005); member, Trilateral Commission; member, Council on Foreign Relations; member, Bilderbergers; director of the neocon flagship, Project for the New American Century ( PNAC); member of the elite “Vulcans” group that advised George W. Bush on foreign policy during the 2000 presidential elections (other neocon members included Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell and Richard Perle); member of and frequent speaker at Social Democrats USA (successor to the Socialist Party of America).

An important pattern emerges here. These men frame a 50-year time period stretching from 1946 to 2006. The early players have long since passed away. There was no social connection between the early and latter presidents. Yet, seven out of ten are members of the Council on Foreign Relations; four are members of the Trilateral Commission, seven have major global bank affiliations (Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, First Boston, Brown Brothers, Harriman, Salomon Brothers, Federal Reserve), and four men were directly connected to Rockefeller interests.

A detailed analysis is not required to see the pattern emerge: Global bankers (the same old crowd) and their related global proxies, have completely dominated the World Bank for its entire history. Collectively and individually, they have always operated purposefully and consistently for their own self-interested, financial gain. Why would anyone expect even one of them to act out of character (e.g., be concerned for world poverty) while directing the helm of the World Bank?

Purposes of convenience

Whatever the true purposes of the World Bank and IMF might have been, the publicly displayed purposes have changed when it was convenient and necessary.

In 1944, reconstruction of war torn countries after WW II was the important issue.

When the Bank demonstrated its impotence by loaning only a pittance of less than $500 million, it changed its pubic image by positioning itself as a check and balance to the expansion of communism. Without the World Bank to engage all of the lesser countries of the world who were susceptible to communist influence, communism might spread and ultimately threaten to end the cold war with an ugly nuclear Holocaust.

Public and legislative sentiment ultimately fizzled and the Bank was again under heavy criticism when Robert Strange McNamara was appointed president.

Poverty Reduction: Trojan Horse

As noted above, McNamara was president of the World Bank from 1968 through 1981. He was also among the original membership of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by Rockefeller and Brzezinski, and was widely considered to be a central figure in the global elite of his day.

It was McNamara who caused the focus of the World Bank to fall on poverty and poverty reduction. This has essentially remained the siren call right into the present. This was a brilliant maneuver because who would ever say they are anti-poor or pro-poverty? Any attack on the Bank would thus be viewed as an attack on poverty relief itself. From 1968 onward, the battle cry of the Bank has been “eliminate poverty.”

This is clearly seen on the About Us page of the World Bank web site, where these words are prominently displayed:

“Each institution (IBRD and IDA) plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. [emphasis added]

However, Article I of The Articles of Agreement of the IBRD, as amended on February 16, 1989, state its official Purposes as follows:

(i) To assist in the reconstruction and development of territories of members by facilitating the investment of capital for productive purposes, including the restoration of economies destroyed or disrupted by war, the reconversion of productive facilities to peacetime needs and the encouragement of the development of productive facilities and resources in less developed countries.

(ii) To promote private foreign investment by means of guarantees or participations in loans and other investments made by private investors; and when private capital is not available on reasonable terms, to supplement private investment by providing, on suitable conditions, finance for productive purposes out of its own capital, funds raised by it and its other resources.

(iii) To promote the long-range balanced growth of international trade and the maintenance of equilibrium in balances of payments by encouraging international investment for the development of the productive resources of members, thereby assisting in raising productivity, the standard of living and conditions of labor in their territories.

(iv) To arrange the loans made or guaranteed by it in relation to international loans through other channels so that the more useful and urgent projects, large and small alike, will be dealt with first.

(v) To conduct its operations with due regard to the effect of international investment on business conditions in the territories of members and, in the immediate postwar years, to assist in bringing about a smooth transition from a wartime to a peacetime economy.

The Bank shall be guided in all its decisions by the purposes set forth above.3

Note that the word “poverty” does not appear even once. The reason is clear: Whatever “business as usual” might be with the Bank, it has nothing to do with poverty or poverty reduction. Rather, the Bank is in business to loan money by stimulating borrowing demand in developing countries, with a view to increasing international trade. The primary beneficiaries of international trade are the global corporations, and the poor are actually poorer as a result.

This hypocrisy was noted even by Nobel laureate and former World Bank chief economist, Joseph Stiglitz, as late as 2002:

As far as these ‘client countries’ were concerned, it was a charade in which the politicians pretended to do something to redress the problems [of poverty] while financial interests worked to preserve as much of the status quo as they could.4
Liberalization and Structural Adjustments

When Alden Clausen (also an original member of the Trilateral Commission) took over the reins from Robert McNamara in 1981, a massive shakeup in the bank occurred. As Stiglitz noted,

“In the early 1980’s a purge occurred inside the World Bank, in its research department, which guided the Bank’s thinking and direction.”5

Clausen, a true core member of the global elite, brought in a new chief economist with radical new ideas:

“…Ann Krueger, an international trade specialist, best known for her work on ‘rent seeking’ — how special interests use tariffs and other protectionist measures to increase their incomes at the expense of others…Krueger saw government as the problem. Free markets were the solution to the problems of developing countries.“6 [emphasis added]

This was precisely the time when so-called liberalization policies and Structural Adjustments were forcefully implemented as a means of forcing countries to privatize industries. If governments were the problem, then they should turn over areas of critical infrastructure to private multinational corporations which, according to Krueger, could perform better and more efficiently than bureaucratic government bodies.

Not surprisingly, most of the career staff economists left the Bank in the early 1980s in protest over Clausen and Krueger’s policies.

How the Money Laundry Works

The mechanism and operation of Structural Adjustments, along with the tight cooperation between the IMF and the World Bank, was adequately covered in The August Review’s Global Banking: The International Monetary Fund. The following well-documented example will be the “picture worth a thousand words” in the Review’s effort to profile self-serving Bank and global corporate policies. It also demonstrates the “tag-team” approach used by the Bank and IMF in the prying open of closed markets in uncooperative countries. It’s a rather tangled story, but careful reading will produce understanding of how the “system” works.

Water Wars

In 1998, the IMF approved a loan of $138 million for Bolivia it described as designed to help the country control inflation and stabilize its domestic economy. The loan was contingent upon Bolivia’s adoption of a series of “structural reforms,” including  Privatization of “all remaining public enterprises,” including water services. Once these loans were approved, Bolivia was under intense pressure from the World Bank to ensure that no public subsidies for water existed and that all water projects would be run on a “cost recovery” basis, meaning that citizens must pay the full construction, financing, operation and maintenance costs of a water project. Because water is an essential human need and is crucial for agriculture, cost recovery pricing is unusual, even in the developed world.

In this context, Cochabamba, the third largest city in Bolivia, put its water works up for sale in late 1999.

Only one entity, a consortium led by Bechtel subsidiary Aguas del Tunari, offered a bid, and it was awarded a 40-year concession to provide water. The exact details of the negotiation were kept secret, and Bechtel claimed that the numbers within the contract are “intellectual property.” But, it later came to light that the price included the financing by Cochabamba’s citizens of a part of a huge dam construction project being undertaken by Bechtel, even though water from the Misicuni Dam Project would be 600% more expensive than alternative water sources. Cochabambans were also required to pay Bechtel a contractually guaranteed 15% profit, meaning that the people of Cochabamba were asked to pay for investments while the private sector got the profits.

Immediately upon receiving the concession, the company raised water rates by as much as 400% in some instances. These increases came in an area where the minimum wage is less than $100 a month. After the price hike, self-employed men and women were estimated to pay one quarter of their monthly earnings for water.

Immediately upon receiving the concession, the company raised water rates by as much as 400% in some instances. These increases came in an area where the minimum wage is less than $100 a month. After the price hike, self-employed men and women were estimated to pay one quarter of their monthly earnings for water.

The city’s residents were outraged. In January of 2000, a broad coalition called the Coordination for the Defense of Water and Life, or simply La Coordinadora, led by a local worker, Oscar Olivera, called for peaceful demonstrations. Cochabamba was shut down for four days by a general strike and transportation stoppage, but the demonstrations stopped once the government promised to intervene to lower water rates. However, when there were no results in February, the demonstrations started again. This time, however, demonstrators were met with tear gas and police opposition, leaving 175 injured and two youths blinded.

The threat that privatization of public services under  GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) poses to democracy were demonstrated in March 2000. La Coordinadora held an unofficial referendum, counted nearly 50,000 votes, and announced that 96% of the respondents favored the cancellation of the contract with Aguas del Tunari. They were told by the water company that there was nothing to negotiate.

On April 4, the residents of the city returned to the streets, shutting down the city. Again, they were met with police resistance, and on April 8, the government declared martial law. The Bolivian military shot a 17-year-old protester in the face, killing him. However, the protests continued, and, on April 10, the government relented, signing an accord that agreed to the demand of the protesters to reverse the water concession. The people of Cochabamba took back their water.

Unfortunately, this inspiring story didn’t simply end with the victory for the people of Cochabamba. On February 25, 2002, Bechtel filed a grievance using investor protections granted in a Bolivia-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Agreement at the World Bank, demanding a $25 million dollar payment as compensation for lost profits.7

Note: Bechtel Engineering is the largest civil engineering company in the world. It is privately owned by the Bechtel family. For many years, general counsel (and vice-president) for Bechtel was none other than original Trilateral Commission member Caspar Weinberger.

Since then, the World Bank has granted additional “poverty reduction” loans to Bolivia. Carefully read the Bank’s current (2006) assessment on Bolivia found on its web site:

“Bolivia is experiencing a time of difficulty and uncertainty. In recent months, various political and social disturbances have escalated with serious consequences, culminating in the resignation of President Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada in October 2003, and the appointment of Vice-President Carlos Mesa as President. The current administration inherits a difficult economic, political and social climate, which is compounded by long-term issues, such as profound inequality, an economy that has been adversely affected by the region’s recent economic slump, and widespread public disenchantment with corruption.”8

Political and social disturbances? Difficult economic, political and social climate? Profound inequality? Widespread disenchantment with corruption? It leaves one speechless.

So, in the case of Bolivia, we see the following in operation:

  • An IMF loan is made to Bolivia, with conditionalities
  • The World Bank steps in to enforce the conditionalities and impose structural adjustments
  • The World Bank loans “development” funds to Bolivia, and simultaneously brings in private bank consortiums to fund the various projects that Bechtel had in mind.
  • Bechtel makes a sole-source bid, and it is accepted.
  • The water project ends in total failure and Bechtel gets kicked out after extreme political pressure from consumers.
  • Bechtel files a “lost profit” claim according to a pre-negotiated “insurance guarantee” with the World Bank Group (MIGA, see above.)
  • If Bechtel wins its claim, it will be paid off with taxpayer money contributed by member countries.
  • Undoubtedly, any loans from private-sector banks that later turn sour, will be bailed-out with taxpayer funds as well.

This kind of operation is brazen stealing (albeit perhaps legally) of funds from everyone in sight: Bolivia, the city of Cochabamba, the people of Cochabamba, U.S. taxpayers. The only beneficiaries are Bechtel, the commercial banks and a few corrupt politicians who got their customary bribes and kickbacks.

A penetrating question remains to be answered: When did Bechtel first set their sights on the Bolivia deal? Did Bechtel have a role in suggesting or creating the conditionalities and Structural Adjustments specified by the World Bank in the first place? If so, there would be grounds for criminal investigation.

It is not likely that the World Bank will tell us, because of its very secretive inner workings. Even Stiglitz has noted,

“The IMF and World Bank still have disclosure standards far weaker than those of governments in democracies like the United States, or Sweden or Canada. They attempt to hide critical reports; it is only their inability to prevent leaks that often forces the eventual disclosure.”9


The World Bank has received accusations of corruption for many years. Since the Bank is an independent specialized agency of the United Nations and considering the old adage, “The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree”, this might not come as a surprise to most. The United Nations has a major and documented track record on corruption of every conceivable sort. It would be too simplistic to just leave it at that.

In May, 2004, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana), as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, kicked off the most recent inquiry into corruption related to the activities of the multilateral development banks, of which the World Bank is foremost.

The heads of the various development banks were invited to testify (voluntarily) before the Committee. According to Sen. Lugar, James Wolfensohn “declined the invitation, citing the established practice of Bank officials not to testify before the legislatures of their numerous member countries.”

Witnesses before the Committee testified that as much as $100 billion may have been lost to corruption in World Bank lending projects.

In Sen. Lugar’s opening remarks, he points out that the entire history of the World Bank is suspect, with between 5 percent and 25 percent of all lending being lost to corruption.

“But corruption remains a serious problem. Dr. Jeffrey Winters of Northwestern University, who will testify before us today, estimates that the World Bank ‘has participated mostly passively in the corruption of roughly $100 billion of its loan funds intended for development.’ Other experts estimate that between 5 percent and 25 percent of the $525 billion that the World Bank has lent since 1946 has been misused. This is equivalent to between $26 billion and $130 billion. Even if corruption is at the low end of estimates, millions of people living in poverty may have lost opportunities to improve their health, education, and economic condition.”10

One must wonder why World Bank officials have been so sloppy and careless with taxpayer dollars. Even further, one must wonder if the corruption was a necessity to achieve the underlying purposes of the Bank, that is, to create bogus and unwanted projects in order to “stimulate” trade.

Sen. Lugar continued his opening remarks,

“Corruption thwarts development efforts in many ways. Bribes can influence important bank decisions on projects and on contractors. Misuse of funds can inflate project costs, deny needed assistance to the poor, and cause projects to fail. Stolen money may prop up dictatorships and finance human rights abuses. Moreover, when developing countries lose development bank funds through corruption, the taxpayers in those poor countries are still obligated to repay the development banks. So, not only are the impoverished cheated out of development benefits, they are left to repay the resulting debts to the banks.”11

It has not been determined which Bank employees might have taken bribes in exchange for influence, but one can be sure that any deal starting with corruption only has one direction to go — down. In the end, it is helpless individuals who are left holding the bag. The incurred debts and failed projects just add to the impoverishment of already poor people.

This is not to say that charges of corruption at the World Bank are modern revelations only. In 1994, marking the 50th anniversary of its creation at Bretton Woods, South End Press released 50 Years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, edited by Kevin Danaher. The book details official Bank and IMF reports that reveal the same kind of corruption back then. In addition, it revealed different types of corruption, for instance,

“Beyond the wasted money and the environmental devastation, there was an even more sinister side to the Bank during the McNamara years: the World Bank’s predilection for increasing support to military regimes that tortured and murdered their subjects, sometimes immediately after the violent overthrow of more democratic governments. In 1979, Senator James Abourezk (D-South Dakota) denounced the bank on the Senate floor, noting that the Bank was increasing ‘loans to four newly repressive governments [Chile, Uruguay, Argentina and the Philippines] twice as fast as all others.’ He noted that 15 of the world’s most repressive governments would receive a third of all World Bank loan commitments in 1979, and that Congress and the Carter administration had cut off bilateral aid to four of the 15 — Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Ethiopia — for flagrant human rights violations. He blasted the Bank’s ‘excessive secretiveness’ and reminded his colleagues that ‘we vote the money, yet we do not know where it goes.’” 12

The text speaks for itself and needs no comment. Readers of this report will likely have a better understanding of where the money went!


This report does not pretend to be an exhaustive analysis of the World Bank. There are many facets, examples and case studies that could be explored. In fact, many critical and analytical books have been written about the World Bank. The object of this report was to show how the World Bank fits into globalization as a central member in the triad of global monetary powers: The IMF, the BIS and the World Bank.

The World Bank is likely to continue to operate despite any amount of political flack or public protest. Such is the pattern of elitist-dominated institutions. Such is the history of the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements.

It is sufficient to conclude that…

  • of the two architects of the World Bank, one was a top Soviet communist agent (Harry Dexter White) and the other was a British ideologue (John Maynard Keynes) totally dedicated to globalism (See Global Banking: The International Monetary Fundfor more details on White and Keynes)
  • From the beginning, the Bank has been dominated by international banking interests and members of the Council on Foreign Relations and later by the Trilateral Commission
  • the cry of “poverty reduction” is a sham to conceal the recycling of billions of taxpayer dollars, if not trillions, into private hands
  • the cry of “poverty reduction” defuses critics of the Bank as being anti-poor and pro-poverty
  • corruption at the World Bank goes back decades, if not all the way to the very beginning


  1. World Bank web site, About Page
  2. The August Review, Global Banking: The International Monetary Fund
  3. World Bank web site, IBRD Articles of Agreement: Article I
  4. Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents (Norton, 2002), p. 234
  5. ibid, p. 13
  6. ibid
  7. Wallach, Whose Trade Organization? (The New Press, 2004), p.125]
    • See also, Bechtel Vs. Bolivia: The Bolivian Water Revolt
    • See also, The New Yorker, letter on Leasing the Rain
    • See also, PBS, Leasing the Rain
  8. World Bank web site, Bolivia Country Brief
  9. Stiglitz, op. cit., p. 234
  10. Lugar, U.S. Senate Website, $100 billion may have been lost to World Bank Corruption, May 13, 2004
  11. ibid.
  12. Hanaher, 50 Years is Enough: The Case Against the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, (South End Press, 1994), p. 10

Deep State Desperate? Rothschilds Liquidating Royal Heirlooms In Historic Auction

Source – ZeroHedge
by Staff Writer, April 25th, 2019

[UNW Editors Note: the Rothschild family recently got out of the trust business, hinting that they may no longer be as influential on the world stage as they had been for centuries. read more HERE]

The Rothschild banking family is auctioning off furniture and artifacts which once belonged to European monarchies, according to Bloomberg, which calls the July 4th liquidation a “royal summer yard sale.” 

Members of the storied clan, whose extravagant style influenced generations of the mega-rich, consigned about 57 lots to Christie’s July 4 auction in London. The trove is estimated at about 10 million pounds ($12.9 million). –Bloomberg

“There’s something mythical about the Rothschilds that’s attached to whatever they owned,” said New York interior designer Robert Couturier. “They created their own world of taste and elegance. There’s an abandon of luxury that few other families had.” 

The ‘crown jewels’ of the collection are a pair of Flemish-made giltwood cabinets commissioned by King Philip V of Spain around the year 1713. They’re estimated to bring in 1.5 to 2.5 million pounds ($1.9 – $3.2 million US).

 Philip V cabinets (photo: Christie’s)

Also up for sale is a mahogany writing desk crafted for Marie Antoinette around 1780 by Jean Henri Riesener, whose work exemplified the “Louis XVI” style. Reisener was paid by the French Crown “with a lavishness unknown since the days of Louis XIV,” receiving some 900,000 livres between 1775 – 1784 (roughly $23 million USD) while he was also working for private clients. 

The desk may fetch as much as 1 million pounds ($1.3 million USD), according to the report. 

Jean Henri Riesener​​​​​

The lavish style is known as le gout Rothschild and became the hallmark of the American Gilded Age, influencing the Rockefellers, Astors and Vanderbilts. The family was known to buy only the best of what was on the market. After the French Revolution in 1789, many pieces from the Palace of Versailles entered their collection.  –Bloomberg

A rectangular parcel-gilt, gilt-bronze and rock-crystal casket, Venetian, circa 1600. Estimate: £100,000-150,000. Offered in Masterpieces from a Rothschild Collection on 4 July at Christie’s London

That said, the ornate aesthetic of many of the pieces has fallen somewhat out of fashion, according to the report, which notes that people pay more for a picture of the ‘Kimpsons,’ such as this one which sold for $2.6 million to a young Chinese buyer. 

UNTITLED (KIMPSONS #3), 2003 — Sold for $2.6 million on April 1, 2019

“Taste changes. Times change. Houses change,” said Couturier. “It is an era that has definitely passed.” 

That said, the Rothschild name should appeal to plenty of Christie’s clients, particularly in Europe – according to the auction house’s head of European furniture, Paul Gallois. Also interested are buyers from Russia, Asia and the Middle East. 

Another featured item is artist Jean-Honore Fragonard’s Dans les bles, which is estimated at 700,000 to 1 million pounds ($900,000 – $1.3 million USD) – though it appears to have failed to sell at Sotheby’s in 2015 for more than twice as much – as well as an 18th century sundial believed to have been commissioned by King Louis XV, estimated at 60,000 – 80,000 pounds ($77,000 – $103,000).

 Dans les bles

The Rothschilds don’t sell often, Gallois said. In 2015, Eric de Rothschild sold a pair of Rembrandt portraits to the governments of France and the Netherlands for $180 million. The collection of barons Nathaniel and Albert von Rothschild was sold by Christie’s in 1999, with a royal commode by Riesener fetching 7 million pounds. It’s now on view at Versailles, according to Christie’s. –Bloomberg

Christie’s has not disclosed which Rothschild family members are selling in July. 

“Most of the houses were filled with such splendors,” said Couturier. “They could come from any of the Rothschilds’ homes.”

Separate of the auction, the Louvre has agreed to buy Rembrandt van Rijn’s The Standard Bearer (1636) from the Rothschilds for an undisclosed sum, after France declared it to be a “national treasure.” The museum has 30 months to find the necessary funds, accordsing to The Art Newspaper

When Jacob James de Rothschild bought The Standard Bearer for £840 in 1840 at a Christie’s sale in London, it was perhaps the earliest purchase of a Rembrandt by a member of the banking family. The work was inherited by his son Edmond de Rothschild, who donated a collection of 40,000 prints and 3,000 drawings to the Louvre, including a selection of Rembrandt’s etchings and drawings, in 1935. The painting, which was previously in the collection of the English monarch King George IV, now belongs to the children of Élie de Rothschild, who died in 2007. –The Art Newspaper

Rembrandt’s The Standard Bearer (1636) Image via Wikicommons

Men Behind the Throne: The Unsettling History of Clandestine Organizations in America

As the current political information/disinformation war continues to heat up, it becomes more and more imperative for individuals to become able to exercise their own discernment. This goes for radical leftists as much as die hard Trump supporters. In the same fashion that many view the Federal Government, the mainstream media has become incompetent, conformist, and corrupt to the core. The purpose of the mass media is not to “tell it like it is” but rather to tell it how the CEO’s, board members, and shareholders want it to be told. Perhaps a look into the clandestine maneuverings of the western world’s financial elite over the last 100 years can shine some light on the lack of journalistic integrity by those who weave the mainstream narrative.

IMG by Justin Deschamps


The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril… For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.


       The preceding speech was given by John F. Kennedy just over 2 years before his untimely assassination in Dallas on May 29th, 1963, and its haunting relevance still echoes throughout the darkened halls of the American mass psyche. Back in his day, in the seemingly archaic but all too recent past, it certainly appeared to be a different world. Things were much the same as they are today; gas, coal, and oil still dominate as the U.S.’s primary energy supply, the military industrial complex was growing into the well-fed monster we know today (thanks to policies such as perpetual warfare).

    Partisan politics, to many, are about as real and honest as professional wrestling. A divisionary circus meant to repel or distract the masses while the true movers and shakers of geopolitics carry out their shadowy dealings behind the closed doors of exclusive Dutch hotels, or prestigious organizations such as the Century Association, the Links Club or D.C.’s Metropolitan Club to name a few of the myriad.

     It has been alleged and should be noted that JFK’s outspoken disapproval of clandestine affairs and secret societies may have had certain undesired effects on his health and longevity. He warned us of a “monolithic and ruthless conspiracy” alluding to “…a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.” This heavy statement delivered earnestly to the American people by a President they actually loved and trusted must have seemed to some at the time like an Orwellian nightmare made flesh.

[Authors Note: These books were incredibly helpful while researching and finding sources for this piece]
Rule by Secrecy: The Hidden History That Connects the Trilateral Commission, the Freemasons, and the Great Pyramids

Wall Street’s Think Tank: The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics, 1976-2014

Strangely enough, George Orwell (the English novelist, critic and apparent prophet who penned the acclaimed, dystopian “1984”), was actually himself alleged to be a member of one such cloak-and-dagger outfit known as the Fabian Society. The societies membership included his former teacher and fellow social seer Aldous Huxley. Huxley was responsible for penning the horrifically relevant masterpiece Brave New World, among many other notable and not always widely circulated activities. Both Orwell, Huxley, and even H.G. Wells are said to have been involved with this pro-eugenic, socialist secret society.

Aldous Huxley once gave a speech to a Berkley audience, in which he admitted that subjects he discusses in novels like Brave New World were not just fiction, but real blueprints for types of controlled and enslaved societies.

There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.(Emphasis added)”

-Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

There are certain topics and viewpoints that many fail to consider due to obscurity or the stigma that comes with even mentioning certain topics. Primarily, the fact that conspiratorial forces have furtively shaped the destiny of whole nations, and their international policies, throughout pretty much all of recorded history. Countless surreptitious organizations have cropped up and molded societies throughout the ages.

Winston Churchill had said that “History is written by the victors” (evidenced by such things as the sacking of Alexandria, the Crusades, book burning, mass censorship, etc.) If so, then who exactly is weaving our current accepted understanding of history? Is it an accurate understanding? From my personal perspective, the answer is emphatically “no”.

Marcus Garvey once said, “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” It often goes unmentioned that the collective history of our species is mired in clandestine activity and has often been subject to embellishment. America owes it’s very birth to a secretive group of colonists called the “Sons of Liberty,” fighting against other secretive organizations rooted in Europe at the time. Though America was able to break free from British rule, in time The Royal Institute of International Affairs and its members saw to it that America became that which it fought so desperately to avoid; a nation infested with and controlled by hyper-elite families, corporate conglomerates, and international banking cartels.

Historical References to Conspiratorial Power(s)

     An intentionally propagated misconception is that only “fringe conspiracy theorists” have spoken out against secret rule and hidden control in the world. The undeniable fact of the matter is that yesterday’s conspiracy theories often become today’s incontrovertible facts. In the mid-1990s, journalist Gary Webb’s claims that CIA officials conspired with drug dealers to bring crack cocaine into the United States. This was dismissed by many as a prime example of a false conspiracy theory… But the claims were true.
     The term “Conspiracy theorist” itself wasn’t popularized until the 1960’s, allegedly concocted by elements within the CIA to discredit those who dared to question the Warren Commission after the assassination of JFK. Those in the know couldn’t shake the stench of conspiracy as JFK’S death was exceptionally beneficial to members of the CFR, the Iron Mountain boys, and the Bush family in particular.

    In this section, we will take a brief look at what some extremely influential public figures have had to say on the subject throughout history, despite our modern societies aversion to the topic.

  • British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, as far back as 1856, told the House of Commons, “…it is useless to deny, because it is impossible to conceal, that a great part of Europe –the whole of France, Italy and [then fragmented] Germany– is covered with a network of secret societies…”.
  • Woodrow Wilson, who was himself intimately connected with conspiratorial powers, once wrote, “Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that somewhere there is a power so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”
  • U.S. Supreme Court justice Felix Frankfurter once revealed, “The real rulers behind Washington are invisible, and exercise their power from behind the scenes.”
  • In a letter, dated November 23rd, 1933, newly elected President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to Woodrow Wilson’s top advisor, Colonel Edward House, “The real truth of the matter is , as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” Roosevelt himself was closely connected to many prominent members of the secret societies of his day, and once remarked, “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
  • Roosevelt’s son Elliot once wrote “There are within our world perhaps a dozen organizations which shape the courses of our various destinies as rigidly as the regularly constituted governments.”
  • Former New York Mayor John F. Hylan stated in 1922, “The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over our city, state and nation… at the head of this octopus is the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as ‘international bankers’ [who] virtually run the U.S. government for their own selfish purposes.”
  • In 1973, retired Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, (who had a unique vantage point and was able to witness the control mechanisms over both intelligence and military), wrote that the United States was run by a “secret team” elaborating that, “The power of this team derives from its vast, intra-governmental undercover infrastructure and its direct relationship with great private industries, mutual funds and investment houses, universities, and the news media including foreign and domestic publishing houses… This great machine has been constructed by such able men as ‘Wild Bill’ Donovan, Clark Clifford, Walter Bedell Smith, Allen Dulles, Maxwell Taylor, McGeorge Bundy and many others, who have guided and molded it into the runway giant that it is today. It is big business, big government, big money, big pressure… all operating in self-centered, utterly self-serving security and secrecy.”
  • The renowned futurist and innovative thinker, R. Buckminster Fuller, also appears to have come to the understanding that the United States is ruled by powerful men behind the scenes. “The US is not run by its would-be ‘democratic’ government.” he wrote shortly before his death in 1983, “Nothing could be more pathetic than the role that has to be played by the president of the United States, whose power is approximately zero. Nevertheless, the news media and most over-thirty-years-of-age U.S. citizens carry on as if the President has supreme authority.”

Perhaps the most vocal and most tragic of those high ranking officials, who’ve dared to speak on or against the unspoken rulers, is America’s first Secretary of Defense James Forrestal. Around 1947, Forrestal began to voice his concerns that government officials were making consistent concessions to the Soviets. “These men are not incompetent or stupid, they are crafty and brilliant. Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity, if they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

Forrestal, was a man who was privy to many secrets and the holder of an incredibly high level of clearance. He was listed as a member of the super-secretive group known as MJ-12. He was asked to resign by then President Truman and two months later, again at the request of Truman, Forrestal entered into Bethesda Naval Hospital for a routine examination but would never return. Forrestal was found hung by the neck on a lower level of the hospital. The official story has it that Forrestal, committed suicide, but many people, then and now, do not accept this lazy conclusion. His notes and diaries were taken and held by the government for more than a year before the sanitized versions were released to the public.

In the following sections we’ll go over a wealth of compelling data. The 20th century was rich with concealed activity and semi-covert maneuverings, but in the western world there is no greater personification of the Clandestine agenda than the Council on Foreign Relations.    

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Those who dare to even mention the subject of “Secret Societies,” in our present social climate, are often besmirched and ostracized by those who have a lesser understanding of such things. The harsh and unfriendly truth is that Secret Societies exist, and have played an important role in national and international events, throughout all of recorded history.

It is arguable that the most influential of the Western secret societies is the Council on Foreign Relations (in conjunction with the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group). Though the concept of globalism did not originate with this supremely shadowy group, it does seem to be the primary bastion for Globalists in the 20th-21st century.

The council began as an outgrowth of a series of meetings conducted during World War I. Woodrow Wilson’s confidential adviser at the time, Edward Mandell House, had gathered roughly 100 of the most prominent men in the country at the time to discuss the postwar world. Originally dubbing themselves “the Inquiry” who helped to concoct Wilson’s famous “fourteen points”, a globalist statement of principles which was presented to congress in 1918.

House described himself as a Marxist socialist yet his actions more reflected Fabian socialism. He had penned a novel several years prior called Philip Dru: Administrator. It is purported that he gave a copy of this work to Woodrow Wilson to read on a trip to Bermuda. In this writing, House describes a clandestine effort in the United States with the goal of establishing a central bank, a graduated income tax, and the control of both political parties. Within two years of publication, two of these objectives if not all three had already been accomplished.

In 1919, House met with both British and American peace conference delegates, in Paris’s Majestic Hotel, on May 30th and resolved to form an “Institute of International Affairs” with  branch’s in America and England. The English branch became “the Royal Institute for International Affairs” whose goal was to guide people toward the acceptance of a one world government or Globalism. The US branch of the institute was incorporated on July 21st of that year as the Council on Foreign Relations, the name it still goes by today. It was built upon the foundation of an existing New York club comprised and created by bankers and lawyers for discussions on trade and international finance. Article II of the CFR’s bylaws stated that anyone revealing details of CFR meetings can be dropped of membership, thus making  the CFR a secret society.

Since 1945 the CFR has been headquartered in the elegant Harold Pratt House in New York City, which was donated by the Pratt family of Rockefeller Standard Oil. Characterization of the CFR as an “old boys club” is enhanced by the fact many of its members belong to upper-crust organizations like the Links Club, Century Association, the University Club, and Washington’s exclusive Metropolitan Club.

The CFR’s invitation-only membership, which was originally capped at 1,600 participants, today numbers more than 3,300 of the most influential leaders of finance, commerce, communications, and academia. Admission is an extremely discriminating and grueling process: candidates must be proposed by a current member, seconded by another member, approved by a committee, screened by a professional staff, and then finally must be approved by the Board of Directors. In an effort to adjust to the modern world, (and not appear as the group of mostly misogynistic and racist eugenicists that they ultimately were), the Council extended its membership cap so they could include a few African Americans and more than a dozen women.

Original CFR members included Colonel House, New York senator and Secretary of State Elihu Root, syndicated columnist Walter Lippmann and the brothers Allen and John Foster Dulles.   Many of those that study conspiracy will be familiar with the Dulles Brothers, John eventually served as Secretary of State and Allen eventually would serve as Director of the CIA. Founding CFR president John W. Davis, was financier J.P. Morgan’s personal Attorney, the same J.P. Morgan of Chase Bank Manhattan. Mr. Morgan was responsible for such things as the Great Depression and the ruining of Nikola Tesla. The groups Vice President, Paul Cravath, also represented Morgan properties. The councils first chairman was Russell Leffingwell, one of Morgan’s partners. Since most of the original members had connections to Morgan in one way or another it could be said that the council was heavily influenced by Morgan interests.

Funding for the CFR came from uber-elite bankers and financiers like J.P. Morgan, John D Rockefeller, Jacob Schiff, Otto Kahn, Paul Warburg and Bernard Baruch. Today funding for the CFR comes more from corporations than any particular individuals, these include General Motors, Xerox, Texaco, and Bristol-Meyers Squibb to name a few. The CFR is also currently funded by the German Marshall Fund, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation.

In a 1997 mission statement it was claimed that the council is merely “a unique membership organization and think tank that educates members and staff to serve the nation with ideas for a better and safer world,” That is, despite the fact that the council has had its hand in every major 20th century conflict across the globe. Many writers, lawyers, unaffiliated politicians, etc, believe that the CFR is nothing short of a group of power hungry businessmen bent on absolute global control through multinational business, international treaties/policy and world government. To anyone who looks at the council’s history and past its surface appearance these accusations begin to seem unquestionable.

The council offers Corporation Service, through which subscribing companies are provided a twice-a-year dinner briefing by government officials like the Treasury Secretary or the CIA director. Noted author John Kenneth Galbraith, who resigned from the CFR in 1970, has said that such off the record talks are a “Scandal” and “why should Businessmen be briefed on information that is not available to the public?” Author G. Edward Griffin agreed that initially the CFR, as a front for the British Round Table group, was originally dominated by the Morgan family but that “the Morgan group has been replaced by the Rockefeller consortium, and the role call of participating business reads like the Fortune 500.”

On the subject of the CIA, nearly every director since Allen Dulles has been a member of the CFR, including Richard Helms, William Colby, George H.W. Bush, William Webster, John Deutsch, and William Casey. Many researchers have alleged that the CIA serves as a security force not only for corporate America but for friends, relatives, and members of the CFR, though the arrangement seems to be a two way street. According to a former executive assistant to the deputy director of the CIA Victor Marchetti and State Department analyst John D. Marks, “The influential but private Council, composed of several hundred of the country’s top political, military, academic and business leaders, has long been the CIA’s principal ‘constituency’ in the American public. When the agency has needed prominent citizens to front for its proprietary companies or for other special assistance, it has often turned to Council members.”

Members of the CFR who take government positions tend to bring other members in with them. CFR member Henry Stimson became secretary of war in 1940 and brought with him fellow member John J. McCloy as assistant secretary for personnel. McCloy proceeded to bring in even more members to government over the years. McCloy has gone record saying “Whenever we needed a new man[for a government position] we just thumbed through a roll of council members and put through a call to New York.” McCloy has served as a Council chairman, chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, mentor to David Rockefeller, and as foreign policy advisor to six U.S. presidents.

The CFR was also responsible for the rise of Henry Kissinger. In 1955, Kissinger was an unknown academic who happened to attend a meeting at the Marine Corps School at Quantico hosted by Nelson Rockefeller. The meeting marked the beginning of a long friendship for the two. Kissinger was soon introduced to David Rockefeller and other prominent CFR members through whom he procured funding and entree to ranking officials of the Atomic Energy Commission, the military industrial complex, the CIA, and the State Department. Kissinger remains a force in world affairs to this day.

To better understand the Council’s relevance in more modern times let’s take a gander at The Clinton administration. According to published reports, the Clinton administration at its outset held more than 100 CFR members. Members were named ambassadors to Spain, Great Britain, Australia, Chile, Syria, South Africa, Russia, Romania, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Italy, France, Czech Republic, Poland, Nigeria, and the Philippines, and more than a dozen served in the House and in the Senate.

It is clear that the Council has considerable influence, if not outright control, over U.S.’s foreign policies for the last century, and they have often come under heavy scrutiny. Fortuitously (if not intentionally) a similar, more public group popped up and began to take some of the heat. This group was created with the Council’s blessing in the early 70’s and is referred to as the Trilateral Commission.  


The Trilateral Commission

    Both the Commission and its predecessor, the CFR, are regarded by researchers as the epitome of covert organizations that guide public policy in the most lucrative of directions for their interests. Former CFR chairman David Rockefeller, apparently in an effort to deflect attention from CFR activities, instigated the creation of a more public offshoot, and thus, the Commission was brought to life.

    The concept of this sort of diversionary tactic was first brought to Rockefeller by Zbigniew Brzezinski, then head of the  Russian Studies Department at Columbia University. In 1970, Zbigniew wrote in CFR publication Foreign Affairs that, “A new and broader approach is needed–creation of a community for developed Nations which can effectively address itself to the larger concerns confronting mankind… a council representing the United states, Western Europe and Japan, with regular meetings of the heads of government… ”. He prophetically foresaw a society “…that is shaped culturally, psychologically, socially and economically by electronics, particularly in the area of computers and communications.”

Brzezinski’s plan and proposal for a commission was first brought before the Bilderbergs in 1972, in a small Belgian town called Knokke-Heist, where the proposal was met with enthusiasm. With the blessing of the Bilderbergs and the CFR, the Trilateral Commission began to congregate on July 23-24 1972 at Kykuit, the Rockefeller Estate, in Pocantico Hills NY. Participants of the groups genesis included Rockefeller, Brzezinski, the Brookings Institution director of foreign policy studies Henry Owen, McGeorge Bundy, Robert Bowie, Bayless Manning, Karl Karstens, Guido Colonna di Paliano, Francois Duchene, Rene Foch, Max Kohnstamm, Kiichi Miyazawa, Saburo Ikita, and Tadashi Yamamoto. It is alleged that these founders were hand selected by Rockefeller and Brzezinski.

     The Commission was officially founded the following year on July 1st 1973, Brzezinski was named North American director, North American members of note included then Georgia governor Jimmy Carter, congressman (and presidential candidate) John B. Anderson, and Time Inc editor-in-chief Hedley Donovan. Foreign founding members included the late Reginald Maudling, Lord eric Roll, Economist editor Alastair Burnet, FIAT president Giovanni Agnelli, and many others, the total exclusive membership remains about 300 people.

     The Commission puts out an annual publication called Trialogue, the first of which stated that, “the Trilateral Commission was formed by Private citizens of Western Europe, the United States and Japan to foster closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems.” Some skeptics saw “closer cooperation” as “collusion” of multinational bankers and the corporate elite.

The Commission has headquarters in New York, Paris and Tokyo. An executive committee of thirty-five members administers the Commission, they meet every nine months or so, rotating between the three regions.  

Naturally, the next question is: who funds this group? Some seasoned researchers may find that the answers are not too surprising. Commission spokesmen will often stress that the group does not receive any government funding but then neglect the fact that its funding comes from tax-exempt foundations such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (surprise, surprise!). Donations also came from the Ford Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, the German Marshall Fund and corporations like Time, Bechtel, Exxon, General Motors, Wells-Fargo, and Texas Instruments.

In addition to its newsletter, the commission regularly issues a number of “Task Force Reports” or “Triangle Papers” which are publicly available as a sort of deterrent from further investigation, it is obvious to most researchers that these papers available to the public do not contain any true inner workings of the commission.

A paper entitled the Crisis of Democracy, was put out by the commission in 75’. One of the papers own authors is Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington. He avowed that America needed “a greater degree of moderation in democracy”, arguing that democratic institutions were incapable of responding to crises like the Three Mile Island nuclear accident or the Cuban refugee boat lift operation. The paper suggests that leaders with “expertise, and seniority” were needed to “override the claims of democracy.”

The above statement is more than a little frightening coming from a shadowy think tank that have clearly maintained a stranglehold over US domestic and foreign policy to further benefit their own interests. An example; three years after Huntington’s Crisis of Democracy was published, Huntington was named coordinator of security planning for Carter’s National Security Council. In this capacity, Huntington prepared Presidential Review Memorandum 32, which lead to the 1979 presidential order creating the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a civilian organization with the power to take totalitarian control over government functions in the event of a national “emergency”.

Eringer once noted that “Many of the original members of the Commission are now in positions of power where they are able to implement policy recommendations of the Commission, recommendations that they themselves have prepared on behalf of the Commission. It is for this reason that the Commission has acquired a reputation for being the Shadow Government of the West.”

Even the establishment oriented and CIA friendly Washington Post had admitted suspicion in early 77’, saying “But here is the unsettling thing about the Trilateral Commission. The President-elect (Carter) is a member, so is Vice-President-elect Walter f. Mondale. So are the new secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury… So is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was former Trilateral director and is Carter’s national security advisor, also a bunch of others who will make foreign policy for the next four years.”

Lest anyone think that the Commission was an organ of the democratic party, U.S. News & World Report in 78’ listed prominent Republicans who were members. These included Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Secretary of Transportation William Coleman, Sec. of Housing and Urban Development Carla Hills, Sec. of Commerce Peter Peterson, and Sec. of Health, Education and Welfare Casper Weinberger. Also listed were former energy administrator John Sawhill, ex-CIA director and future President George H.W. Bush, members of Congress John Anderson, William Brock, William Cohen, Barber Conable, John Danforth, Robert Taft jr., and Marina Whitman, former member of the Council of Economic Advisors.

    Provoking additional concern was President Carter’s selection of banker Paul Volcker to head Americas powerful central bank the Federal Reserve who was reportedly appointed by David Rockefeller himself. Volcker had been the North American chairman of the Trilateral Commission as well as a member of other secretive groups like the CFR and the Bilderbergs. He was eventually replaced by fellow member Alan Greenspan during the Reagan era.

    Former senator and presidential candidate Barry Goldwater echoed the fears of many when he wrote, “What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political government of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system they will (essentially) rule the world.” This criticism allegedly prompted Rockefeller defend the commission in a 1980 edition of the Wall Street Journal. “Far from being a coterie of international conspirators with designs on covertly ruling the world, the Trilateral Commission is, in reality, a group of concerned citizens interested in fostering greater understanding and cooperation among international allies…”

Despite his eloquent rebuttal and attempt at debunking what was proposed by Goldwater, criticism began to surface from the Carter administration itself. Sec. of State charged that Brzezinski was making foreign policy rather coordinating it. William Sullivan, who had served as the U.S. ambassador to Iran, accused Brzezinski of sabotaging efforts to ease relations with Iran following the departure of the Shah. “By November 78’, Brzezinski began to make his own policy and establish his own embassy in Iran.” Sullivan complained.

     United states veterans were also concerned, in 1980 the American Legion national convention passed Resolution 773, which called for a congressional investigation of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. The following year a similar resolution was approved by the Veterans of Foreign Wars(VFW).

The Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush jr, and Obama era’s were littered with the same familiar faces watching from the sidelines. The undeniable ties connecting Americas leadership with the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, as well as the fact that global banker David Rockefeller was a leading member in both groups, has prompted much anxiety in researchers from both the left and the right.

In Conclusion

     Why is this news to so many? Why aren’t folks screaming from the rooftops? While the Mass Media does not operate in secret, its internal structure and operation remains a mystery to most people including many of those who work within the industry itself, and its influence far more prevalent than the average individual would like to believe.

As an example of this, let’s take a quick look at the Clinton Administration’s transferring of nuclear technology to China, and the signing of questionable Executive Orders like adding 150 miles of international zone at the U.S. border while the nation was distracted by the hugely sensationalized Clinton sexscapades.

     “The media may not always be able to tell us what to think, but they are strikingly successful in telling us what to think about,” stated media critic Michael Parenti. The consolidation of corporate media has accelerated tremendously since the 70’s and 80’s, morphing once prestigious news organizations into little more than advertising distribution platforms with regular doses of propaganda coinciding with the agendas of the highest bidders.

    It would appear that there can be no argument regarding the reality of clandestine think tanks, cabals, secret societies, and subversive political movements. Groups like the CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bilderbergers are real and well documented, it isn’t a question of “what if” but of “how far” in regards to the extent of their control and manipulation.

    The bottom line, in this author’s humble opinion, is that any activity that is justified and honorable should be able to withstand the light of public scrutiny. When this cabal’s secrets are laid bare before the common people, then and only then will everyone be able to judge for themselves the merit of their goals, purposes, means, and ends. Until that time, which some claim is fast approaching, the diligent researcher must sift through the ceaseless barrage of information and disinformation and try to discern for themselves what’s really going on.


  • Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy: an Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press, 1975)
  • Richard J. Whalen, the Founding Father (New York: New American Library, 1964)
  • Benjamin Disraeli: Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (Palmdale CA: Omni Publications, reprint of original 1924 edition)
  • Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (New York: Doubleday, 1914)
  • Roosevelt’s letter to House: Elliot Roosevelt, ed., F.D.R His Personal Letters 1928-1945, Vol.I (New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1950)
  • Elliot Roosevelt, The Conservators (New York: Arbor House, 1983)
  • The Secret Team: L. Fletcher, Col, USAF, (Ret.), The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973)
  • USA is not run by a “democratic” government: Buckminster Fuller, Critical Path (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1981)
  • James Forrestal: Cornell Simpson, the Death of James Forrestal (Los Angeles: Western Islands, 1966)
  • Council in Soviet Press: J. Anthony Lucas, “The Council on Foreign Relations- Is It a Club? Seminar? Presidium? ‘Invisible Government’?” New York Times Magazine (November 21, 1971)
  • “New York Liberal Elite”: Peter G. Peterson, “Letter from the Chairman,” Council on Foreign Relations 1997 Annual Report
  • Barry Goldwater, With No Apologies (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1979)
  • Phyllis Schlafly and Chester Ward, Kissinger on the Couch (New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House, 1975)
  • Alvin Moscow, The Rockefeller Inheritance (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1977)
  • Victor Marchetti and John D. Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1974)
  • Robert Anton Wilson, Everything Is Under Control: Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-ups (New York: Harper-Perennial, 1998)
  • George Johnson, Architects of Fear: Conspiracy theories and Paranoia in American Politics (Los Angeles: Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc., 1983)
  • G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island (Westlake Village, CA: : American Media, 1994)
  • Gary Allen, None Dare Call it a Conspiracy (Seal Beach, CA: Concord Press, 1971)
  • Zbigniew Brzeziński, “America and Europe,” Foreign Affairs (October, 1970)
  • Zbigniew Brzeziński, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, (New York: Viking Press, 1970)
  • Robert Eringer, The Global Manipulators (Bristol, England: Pentacle Books, 1980)
  • Trialouge: A Bulletin of North American, European, and Japanese Affairs, No.16 (Winter, 1977-78)
  • Annual Report of Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Inc., 1977
  • Anthony C. Sutton and Patrick M. Wood, Trilaterals Over Washington (Scottsdale, AZ: The August Corp., 1979)
  • William Greider, “The Trilateralists are Coming! The Trilateralists are Coming!” Dallas Times Herald (February 3, 1977)
  • David Rockefeller, “Foolish Attacks on False Issues,” Wall Street Journal (April 30, 1980)
  • Michael Parenti, Inventing Reality: The Politics of the Mass Media (New York: St.Martin’s Press, 1986)

IMG Sources:

Featured Image Source 1


Featured Image Source 2


Featured Image Source 3


Featured Image Source 4


Other IMGs