Upcoming 50th Anniversary for Trilateral Commission, A New World Order led by Psychopathic ELite and Remaking Society in their Image
Their Image
Recently I mentioned in one of my posts how bad a year 1973 was due in part to the formation of the Trilateral Commission. This is their 50th Anniversary come July
Last month the Trilateral Commission declared 2023 “Year One” of the New World Order, 32 years after George H. W. Bush did the same. (Don’t get me started on the numbers)
1/
2/
Oh my, structurally inflationary, no free market but industrial policy based. They don’t mention who sets the policy. Fragmented sounds messy too.
3/
How about a 50 yr Anniversary Poem as a Present from ChatGPT
This was the Trilateral Commission Global Plenary Meeting in India.
James Baker, Director of Pentagons Office of Net Assessment attended.
He replaced the infamous Andrew Marshall (aka Yoda) in 2015 who held the position for 42 years
I dont know if James Baker is related to the James Baker who was 10th White House Chief of Staff and 67th United States Secretary of the Treasury under President Ronald Reagan and the 61st U.S. Secretary of State before returning as the 16th White House Chief of Staff under President George H. W. Bush
But that James Baker had a son James Baker IV who is said to be a partner at Baker Botts which is a Global law firm, so probably not. An unusually sparse wikipedia page for the ONA James Baker (not even a birth date or place of birth which raises suspicions).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baker
In any event, I digress
Days after the event the Fed announced that the Fed Now Service will begin in July including many of the largest banks and payment processors
Nice gift for the Trilateral Commissions 50th Anniversary in July
The Digital Gulag is coming folks.
For those who are unaware, the Trilateral Commission was founded in the wake of the Watergate and oil crisis of 1973. It was formed under the pretense of addressing the “crisis of democracy” and calling for a reshaping of political systems in order to form a more “stable” international order and “cooperative” relations among regions.
Alex Krainer writes:
“The commission was co-founded in July of 1973 by David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a group of American, European and Japanese bankers, public officials and academics including Alan Greenspan and Paul Volcker. It was set up to foster close cooperation among nations that constituted the three-block architecture of today’s western empire. That ‘close cooperation’ was intended as the very foundation of the empire’s ‘three block agenda,’ as formulated by the stewards of the undead British Empire.”
Its formation would be organised by Britain’s hand in America, the Council on Foreign Relations, (aka: the offspring of the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the leading think tank for the British Crown).
Project Democracy would originate out of a Trilateral Commission meeting on May 31st, 1975 in Kyoto Japan, where the Trilateral Commission’s “Task Force on the Governability of Democracies” findings were delivered.
The project was overseen by Trilateral Commission Director Zbigniew Brzezinski and its members James Schlesinger (former CIA Director) and Samuel P. Huntington.
It would mark the beginning of the end, introducing the policy, or more aptly “ideology”, for the need to instigate a “controlled disintegration of society.”
In 1975 the CFR launched a public study of global policy titled the 1980’s Project. The general theme was “controlled disintegration” of the western economies, and the report did not attempt to hide the pain its policy would bring.
The study explained that the world financial and economic system needed a complete overhaul (Great Reset) according to which key sectors such as energy, credit allocation and food would be placed under the direction of a single global administration.
Crisis of Democracy
The report observed the political state of the United States, Europe and Japan, and says that in the United States the problems of governance "stem from an excess of democracy" and thus advocates "to restore the prestige and authority of central government institution
Huntington suggests one way a democratic surge might be brought to heal -- by shifting the issue focus to economic issues (which occurred in the mid-1970s).
First, he notes that economic position taking is not as clearly related to ideological commitments. “In addition, inflation and unemployment are like crime: no one is in favor of them, and significant differences can only appear if there are significantly different alternative programs for dealing with them. Such programs, however, have been slow in materializing; hence, the salience of economic issues may give rise to generalized feelings of lack of confidence in the political system but not to dissatisfaction rooted in the failure of government to follow a particular set of policies. Such generalized alienation could, in turn, reinforce tendencies towards political passivity . . .” (84-85).
......some of the problems of the governance in the United States today stem from an excess of democracy -- an ‘excess of democracy’ in much the same sense in which David Donald used the term to refer to the consequences of the Jacksonian revolution which helped to precipitate the Civil War. Needed instead is a greater degree of moderation in democracy” (113).
This ‘moderation’ comes in two forms: reassertion of undemocratic authority and cultivation of political apathy. “First, democracy is only one way of constituting authority, and it is not necessarily a universally applicable one. In many situations the claims of expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority” (113).
He goes on to say that democratization in the sixties often “only frustrate[d] the purposes of those institutions [to which it was applied]”--a “more democratic university is not likely to be a better university” (114).
“Second, the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and noninvolvement on the part of some individuals and groups. In the past, every democratic society has had a marginal population, of greater or lesser size, which has not actively participated in politics. In itself, this marginality on the part of some groups is inherently undemocratic, but it has also been one of the factors which has enabled democracy to function effectively.” Now, with the marginal groups participating more, “the danger of overloading the political system with demands which extend its functions and undermine its authority still remains. Less marginality on the part of some groups thus needs to be replaced by more self-restraint on the part of all groups” (114).
"Democracy never lasts long," John Adams observed. "It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." That suicide is more likely to be the product of overindulgence than of any other cause. A value which is normally good in itself is not necessarily optimized when it is maximized. We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to eco- nomic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy. Democracy will have a longer life if it has a more balanced existence.” (115)
On Nov 9th, 1978, Trilateral Commission member Paul Volcker (Federal Reserve Chairman from 1979-1987) would affirm at a lecture delivered at Warwick University in England: “A controlled disintegration in the world economy is a legitimate object for the 1980s.” This is also the ideology that has shaped Milton Friedman’s “Shock Therapy”.
By the time of Jimmy Carter’s Administration, the majority of the government was being run by members of the Trilateral Commission
https://strategic-culture.org/news/2020/06/14/enemy-within-story-purge-american-intelligence/
“Indeed, the Trilateral Commission became a political issue in the 1980 with Reagan promising to have a Trilateral free administration. Of course, his Vice President was former Trilateralist and CIA Director George H. W. Bush , as was his Chief of Staff, and he kept Trilateralist Paul Volcker on as head of the Federal Reserve.
Hollywood came to the rescue by way of Barney Miller, a popular American television sitcom from the late 1970s that centered on the exploits of a cast of detectives in a New York City Police Department station house.
In one episode from 1981, a man is arrested for breaking into the offices of the Trilateral Commission because, as he explains in an impassioned speech that is bizarrely punctuated by canned laughter, "what they are really up to is a scheme to plant their own loyal members in positions of power in this country; to work to erase national boundaries and create an international community; and, in time, bring about a one world government, with David Rockefeller calling the shots!"
The man then presents his evidence of this conspiracy in the form of articles in periodicals like Conspiracy Review and Suppressed Truth Round-up. Barney Miller's sneering reaction (along with the ever-present laugh track) is enough for the viewer to understand that this burglar—and, by implication, anyone who harbours similar views about the Trilateral Commission or other globalist institutions—is a delusional criminal who deserves to be locked up for those beliefs.”
A short clip here.
From Patrick Wood
Pat has been calling out the Trilateral Commission for about 45 years. Believe it or not at one point the Trilateral Commission was in the MSM cross hairs and the subject of political debate. Back in the day when we still had the Fairness Doctrine outlets like CNN were forced to air both sides of an issue, and there were some interesting debates on shows like Cross Fire. That changed with the arrival of Fox News in 1987 and the simultaneous repeal of the Fairness Doctrine
The aim “to blur the separation between ‘private wealth’ and ‘public service’ for Trilateral advantage: public wealth is to be oriented to private Trilateral ends.” We have co-founder David Rockefeller to thank for the “cone of silence” that covered the Commission’s activities for at least the first twenty-five years of its operation.
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Professor Sutton and I began researching the early days of the Commission, which we chronicled in two books. For daring to air our findings, we were alternatively swept aside as left-wing or right-wing extremists—always leaving themselves in the moderate middle.
Our accuracy and sanity were vindicated, however, when David Rockefeller admitted in his 2002 autobiography, Memoirs:
We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. . . . It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
The “other great publications” of those early days included the Chicago Sun Times, Dow Jones, Media General, and even a TV network, CBS, headed by Arthur R. Taylor.
They essentially formed an ad hoc media cartel that decided what would be national news and what would not be national news.
Rockefeller incriminated himself and demonstrated his dark nature when he confessed in his Memoirs:
Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
In 1970, David Rockefeller was chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, then the third-largest bank in the world. With assets of $22.2 billion, it was almost in a tie with the second-largest bank, which had assets of $23.1 billion. By 2010, after it merged and became JPMorgan Chase, his bank moved into second place with $133 billion in assets.
When President Richard Nixon decoupled gold from the dollar on August 15, 1971, the dollar became a purely fiat currency. In other words, it was no longer redeemable in gold and there was nothing of value backing it up. This was a sea change event for bankers because, while gold could never become worthless, fiat currency certainly could.
The same year (1973) that the Trilateral Commission was formed, The Rockefellers Brothers Fund released a book called The Use of Land. The book was the outcome of the “Task Force on Land Use and Urban Growth” that had been started in the summer of 1972 by the Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality. This Committee was originally established by a presidential executive order in May 1969, the year Nixon entered the White House.
Nixon, who most observers considered a “Rockefeller man,” had no idea that the Rockefellers would soon toss him under the bus when the Watergate incident forced his resignation on August 9, 1974. Vice President Gerald Ford, also known as a “Rockefeller man,” assumed the presidency and then proceeded to appoint Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller’s older brother) as the new Vice President.
The Use of Land was an incredibly important though widely ignored book. It led to massive changes in land use policy in the US. It also paved the way for global land use policies that the United Nations would embed in its Sustainable Development doctrines in the 1990s.
The Rockefellers subsumed the once-legitimate environmental movement because they needed an excuse to promote changes in land use policies. Here are some quotes to that effect from The Use of Land: Laurance S. Rockefeller [David’s older brother], then chairman of the committee, saw the environmental movement as a force of great vigor and excitement which, if it were to broaden its vision and direct its energies to urban growth problems with equal commitment, could achieve impressive results.
Unlike other movements, the environmental one is here to stay. The beauty of it is, it’s the first issue that cuts across all lines – race, religion, class. Land is a very basic thing. To protect critical environmental and cultural areas, tough restrictions will have to be placed on the use of privately owned land
The land market, as it operated today, is the principal obstacle to effective protection of private open space. Governments at all levels should actively solicit open space donations and should facilitate the work of responsible private organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy.
The best regulatory mechanism so far for development review is environmental impact analysis. Citizen suits appealing from local regulatory decisions should be permitted by any local resident or civic organization in the public interest, without regard to property ownership or other financial interest.
Modern policies of land use that can be attributed to The Use of Land agenda include conservation easements, massive rezoning of urban and rural land, the splintering of property rights, taking private property by eminent domain, endless lawsuits against property owners over environmental “offenses,” and much more.
[Think you own your land and home. Think again, you only have permission to think you do]
All of these policies made it to the global stage when the United Nations produced the Agenda 21 treaty in 1992 at the UN Conference on Economic Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Agenda 21 also institutionalized the aforementioned doctrine of Sustainable Development, which is predicated on controlling all global resources in a sort of global common trust managed by the United Nations.
The net effect of changing land use policies has been to drive property out of private ownership into institutional ownership or control. This has been happening in the US and around the world for fifty years—and at an especially rapid pace in the past two or three years.
In 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski was a relatively young and obscure professor of political science at Columbia University’s School for International and Public Affairs when his new book, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, caught the eye of David Rockefeller. The book marked out the way for Rockefeller to fulfill his lust to accumulate and exercise control over the physical resources of the world.
his book title, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, actually speaks of three ages: the previous age, the current age and the future age. In 1970, the technetronic era, aka technocracy, had not yet fully blossomed, but the author was clearly predicting that it soon would.
He wrote, “[C]ontemporary America is in transition from the industrial to the technetronic age,”. and later in the book he hinted at his initial plan for how to make that transition: The approaching two-hundredth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence could justify the call for a national constitutional convention to re-examine the nation’s formal institutional framework. Either 1976 or 1989 – the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution – could serve as a suitable target date for culminating a national dialogue on the relevance of existing arrangements, the workings of the representative process, and the desirability of imitating the various European regionalization reforms and of streamlining the administrative structure.
Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages describes the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society.
Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.
Brzezinski summed up their strategy in several places in his book:
[T]he nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.
Thanks to Kissinger’s interest in developing international policies in Europe, his protégé, Schwab, had occasion to meet many U.S. policy experts. By 1971, Kissinger recruited Schwab to start the European Management Forum, renamed the World Economic Forum in 1987. In 1973, Kissinger became a key founding member of the Trilateral Commission along with David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Though never invited by Kissinger or its other members to join the Trilateral Commission, Schwab nonetheless remains an important ally in the Commission’s original and ongoing effort to create a “New International Economic Order.”
Another key Trilateral operative who never became a formal member of that august institution was Maurice Strong. Best known for being the organizer of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (aka Agenda 21) held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, Strong also served the UN as Under-Secretary-General and as Secretary-General of its Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm (1972).
As it turned out, both Strong and Schwab proved more valuable to the Trilateral Commission by having their career paths aligned with it rather than being directly associated with it. How so? I would posit that the intense relationship they each had with the United Nations’ sustainable development economic system gave them significant influence over Trilateral policy decisions.
[This is what Sustainability means according to Maurice Strong
1992-At the Rio Earth Summit Strong added, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Later that same year
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” ]
Back to Patrick
United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), commonly referred to as the Earth Summit, was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from June 3 through June 14, 1992. Its two well-known outcomes were Agenda 21 (shorthand for “the Agenda for the 21st Century”) and the doctrine of sustainable development.
UN itself recognized Trilateral Commission member Gro Harlem Brundtland as the “mother” of sustainable development, thanks to the publication of “Our Common Future.” The landmark report was the outcome of a UN sub-organization started in 1983 and known as the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
Because Brundtland was chairman of the WCED task force, that body became affectionately known as the Brundtland Commission.
Brundtland Commission Secretary-General James MacNeill, a Canadian, is credited with the actual architecture and penning of “Our Common Future.”
MacNeill was a close associate of the Trilateral Commission, having authored for it, in 1991, a key policy book titled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World’s Economy and the Earth’s Ecology. It was in Beyond Interdependence that, according to one source, MacNeill “articulated for the Trilateral Commission the policy options for sustainable development in terms of ‘shaping global bargains.’”
MacNeill’s Beyond Interdependence was published by the Trilateral Commission. Even the book’s back cover makes plain the Trilateralists’ intent:
Beyond Interdependence shows that the interlocking of the world’s economy and the earth’s ecology is the new reality of the century. Building on the Brundtland Commission’s landmark report Our Common Future, the book extends the [Trilateralist] Commission’s analysis of the issues of global change and the changing international politics of environment.
There are sixty-two Corporate representatives in the North American membership of the Trilateral Commission. Of them, fifteen, or 24 percent, are from the financial industry. They all work in asset management firms—namely, these thirteen:
Shield Street Capital
BMO Capital Markets International
Capital Strategies RBC Capital Markets
BlackRock Investment Institute BlackRock, Inc.
Graham Holding Company
Ariel Investments
O-Corp Investments
Bridgewater Associates
CFFI Ventures
The Carlyle Group
UBS Group
Some perspective: The world’s ten largest asset managers control over $44 trillion; a full seven of them are US investment companies. Within the financial industry, banks, both commercial and investment, are moderately represented on the Trilateral Commission:
Bank of America (1 member) J.P. Morgan (3 members) Goldman Sachs (3 members) Lazard Frères Bank (1 member)
Their numbers are sparse today compared with 1980. That is because within the Trilateral Commission a dramatic shift has taken place: Central banks have replaced commercial and investment banks in number of members.
Today, no less than sixteen central banks are represented on the Trilateral Commission. Naturally, they include the US Federal Reserve Bank and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). The latter, headquartered in Basel, Switzerland, is the central bank to all sixty-three central banks.
With the advent of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which threaten to control the financial system throughout the world, it stands to reason that the entire central bank system is more directly asserting its power and influence these days, both in the Trilateral Commission and elsewhere. (Note: Keep in mind that all (most) central banks are private corporations owned by big banks and not owned by the nations they serve.
Corporate is the dominant group that controls Political and Academic and that the white-hot core of Corporate is the central bankers.
The central banks represent the vast concentration of global money and possess the financial technologies (fintech) that will revolutionize the global economic and financial system.
Corporate — Trilateral Commission members are overwhelmingly related to giant global corporations—among them Boeing, Intel, Google, Lockheed Martin, Alibaba, and Xerox, to name a few.
The current Director of the Bank for International Settlements, Agustín Carstens is a virtually unheard-of central banker from Mexico, yet his decisions now influence every central bank—and indeed the financial system worldwide. We could call Carstens the chief engineer of our train. As such, he is the individual most responsible for establishing and coordinating the CBDC system, which is based on blockchain technology and will eventually be a centralized database of all transactions.
Another example of extended influence is Trilateralist Larry Fink, who presides over BlackRock’s nearly $10 trillion in assets under management and its 18,000 employees working in 85 offices in 38 countries. To say that Fink has enormous global reach is an understatement. When seeking out Corporate movers and shakers, one can comfortably look beyond membership in the Trilateral Commission.
[January 14, 2020 -just days before the Davos meeting featuring climate change, BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink published a newsletter jumping aboard the climate investing train big time.
He wrote in a closely read letter that guides numerous corporations seeking investment from some of BlackRocks $7 trillions, Climate change has become a defining factor in companiesawareness is rapidly changing, and I believe we are on the edge of a fundamental reshaping of finance. The evidence on climate risk is compelling investors to reassess core assumptions about modern finance.
Declaring that, climate risk is investment risk,. Referring to what he calls a profound reassessment of risk and asset valuesbecause capital markets pull future risk forward, we will see changes in capital allocation more quickly than we see changes to the climate itself. In the near future “ and sooner than most anticipate “tion of capital we learn. This alone should give pause for reflection. Is there another agenda here?
How will Fink and friends shift their investment flows, investment, by the way, of other peoples money, the savings of millions of us? Black Rock plans to demand that companies it invests its $7 trillion into show proof that they are green compliant by, making sustainability integral to portfolio construction and risk management; exiting investments that present a high sustainability-related risk, such as thermal coal producers; launching new investment products that screen fossil fuels; and strengthening our commitment to sustainability and transparency in our investment stewardship activities.
As part of his claim to virtue on the new green investing, Fink states that BlackRock was a founding member of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). He claims, For evaluating and reporting climate-related risks, as well as the related governance issues that are essential to managing them, the TCFD provides a valuable framework.]
Bill Gates — Gates has no direct relationship to the Trilateral Commission, but he is an influential member of Corporate. Through massive donations from his Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, he has gained enormous influence in the biotech and pharmaceuticals industries as well as in green technologies and education.
[Gates talking about the next Pandemic]
Michael Crow — Crow, perhaps an unfamiliar name to most readers, has dual roles in Corporate and Academic. He is the president of Arizona State University, a post he has held since 2002. Previously, he was a professor of Science and Technology Policy in the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University.
More importantly, however, Crow is chairman of the board of In-Q-Tel, the Central Intelligence Agency’s venture capital firm. While at ASU, Crow has transformed it into a social impact organization focusing on the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and programs. The progressive template Crow built at ASU has been adopted by hundreds of higher education centers around the world. Using Arizona taxpayer funds, he has pioneered high-tech incubator zones in the state that are friendly to startups. These startups ultimately give Crow first dibs on promising ventures for In-Q-Tel investment. In-Q-Tel has a long history of co-opting the best technology inventions for the CIA and other intelligence agencies of the federal government.
“Earning one of the first ever Minerva awards is a testament to the hard work of faculty involved with the Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict in advancing basic research approaches that have the potential to enhance the wisdom and effectiveness of U.S. policy with regard to the rest of the world,” says ASU President Michael Crow.
The Minerva Research Initiative is a new Department of Defense program. By supporting university-based basic research, the initiative is aimed at improving the Department of Defense’s intellectual capital in the social sciences and humanities. Awards are for an initial five-year period with a five year-option for renewal.
https://news.asu.edu/content/researchers-earn-inaugural-minerva-award
Peter Thiel — A self-avowed transhumanist and technocrat, Thiel has an outsized influence over a number of globalist themes. He was a co-founder of PayPal, which he since sold, and the first outside investor in Facebook, where he remains as a member of its board of directors. His very successful data mining company, Palantir, received its first injection of capital from the CIA’s venture capital company, In-Q-Tel.
[“I no longer think that freedom and democracy are compatible,” Thiel wrote in a 2009 Cato Institute essay.
https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian]
Elon Musk — A self-described transhumanist and technocrat like Thiel, Musk is a poster child for Corporate. As a serial entrepreneur, he is transforming the world to electric through Tesla, Inc. and Tesla Energy. In 2016, he co-founded Neuralink to create brain-computer interfaces. When he founded space exploration company SpaceX in 2002, Musk had hopes of eventually colonizing Mars. Since then, SpaceX has launched over 3,500 satellites to form the Starlink network of high-speed 5G access to earth dwellers. Starlink ultimately intends to launch as many as 42,000 satellites.
Jeff Bezos — Founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, Bezos is, like Musk, a poster child for Corporate. And, like Musk and Thiel, Bezos is both a technocrat and a transhumanist. Other shades of Musk: Bezos wants to conquer outer space and colonize Mars with his Blue Origin exploration company. Even more “out there”: Through his Altos Labs, Bezos seeks to master death. Klaus Schwab — Non-core. Schwab is an influential technocrat and transhumanist, but he is also an Academic. He heads the World Economic Forum, which he founded in 1971 at the suggestion of mentor and fellow Academic Henry Kissinger.
Although the WEF has many members who belong to Corporate, their biggest role is to pay Schwab’s salary. Predictably, then, all of Schwab’s efforts have been at the behest of Corporate and serve Corporate.
Yuval Noah Harari — Non-core. There is no doubt that Harari is both a technocrat and transhumanist, and he is also an Academic like Schwab. As such, Harari’s purpose in the WEF is, like that of all Academic globalists, to justify the policies and actions of Corporate globalists.
Justin Trudeau — Non-core. Put simply and starkly, Trudeau belongs to Political but is a total shill, a puppet on a string, for Corporate.
2019-Trilateral Commission . Back in the summer of 2019, they published a brochure called ‘Democracies Under Stress: Recreating the Trilateral Commission to Revitalize Our Democracies to Uphold the Rules-Based International Order‘.
Unfortunately the document has been pulled and only a shadow remains on the way back machine (front page of pdf)
At that time the newly appointed North American Chairman of the Commission, Meghan O’Sullivan (who is also on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations) said:
“We no longer live in a world where governments are the only ones that can influence the future. In fact, increasingly, we have to think about other entities as being the real engines of change, and be that corporations or universities or even individuals.....And we need to move ahead, whether or not we’re able to get our governments to agree with our prescriptions and recommendations.”
O’Sullivan has served in multiple senior policymaking roles and has advised national security officials in both Republican and Democratic administrations. She is the recipient of numerous awards for her public service, including the U.S. Defense Department’s highest honor for civilians (the Distinguished Public Service Medal) and the State Department’s Superior Honor Award (which she has received three times).
O’Sullivan is currently a member of U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken’s Foreign Policy Advisory Board. Between 2004 and 2007, she was special assistant to President George W. Bush and was Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan during the last two years of her tenure. At the National Security Council, she was responsible for formulating and overseeing the implementation of new policy directions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[She is also on the Board of Directors of Raytheon]
How the Globalists infiltrated the Military
Or is it the other way around or a bit of both.
At this point I think its fair to say that after 50 years the Globalists have taken control of the top of every institution, public (both parties and governments agencies including the Military), private (Academia, Science, NGO,s, Media, Hollywood) and Corporate (Fortune 500, Federal Reserve) not only in US but much of the World as well.
These people are psychopaths, and by virtue of their psychopathy they are spreading their psychopathy down the pyramid of power onto Main Street. Its like a Moral Cancer, eating at Society so that what was once considered Evil is now accepted as Normal
Last year I discussed some of this
Evil seems to be flourishing in a way I never imagined it to be possible. Imagine a society harming its young and old in such a fashion as it is today, all in the name of health security?
How preposterous is it that an ELite Class that harps on their being too many people to be sustainable and who have embraced Malthusian and Eugenics beliefs impose draconian public health measures that harm health while telling people its for their health, and that people believe them?
What am I missing? How did this world on which I have been on for almost 7 decades become so crazy and evil? Could it have been this way always and I have just noticed it the last 20 years?
Certainly the world was a much darker place than I imagined in my youth, but it wasn’t that dark, at least not at the level of Main Street.
Today Main Street is nothing what I remember.
Its now full of bitter and divided people who have zero tolerance for any belief but their own, and who seem afraid of their own shadow, willing to give up liberty and freedom for security and comfort.
Where did all this Evil come from? And what exactly is evil?. Not being a religious person I wont say much about Satan or Lucifer or whatever evil spirits people may believe in. To me Evil is simply a lack of empathy and morality that allows people to harm others for personal benefit.
Supposedly the part of the brain brain thought to be responsible for empathy and morality is called the right supramarginal gyrusand Anterior Cingulate Cortex
No doubt military research is being done using Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and drugs to influence empathy. Indeed studies suggest the commonly used painkiller acetaminophen may reduce empathy
Has this already been done? Something in the water, food, medicines, vaccines, etc. Perhaps the bombardment of RF/EMR that we are bathed in 24/7? Have we lost empathy and become like the psychopathic elite? This might be why so many have went along with their demonic plans.
Psychopaths tend to be low empath people. Some argue they may have empathy but are able to switch it off. In any event the dumb ones end up in jail or mental institutions.
Some of the very smart ones become the ELite. Supposedly psychopaths make up 3% of the population. Perhaps only 1/1000 is capable of being one of the elites (number pulled from my arse)
So say 0.003% of the population are psychopathic low empath elites. There are 5 billion adults . 15,000 elites. There are only 3 ,000 billionaires , but I guess the younger ones haven’t had time to accumulate so much money
But you may ask why would all or most of the elites be low empath psychopaths. IMO its because they have a competitive advantage over those who are just as smart but are limited in their actions by their empathy.
Some call it natural selection .
As a species no doubt we have evolved to become less empathic. I have noticed this trend over the last 20 years too, too fast for evolution so their may be an environmental component such as RF/EMR, toxins, vaccines, etc and/or mass psychosis due to chronic social turbulence.
Its harder to destroy people to get ahead if you have empathy. So the destroyers tend to have less of it
Over the course of history the psychopathic ELite have always made up most of the ruling class. For much of history they have needed us to fight against the other psychopathic elites.
As time marched on, the ELites formed groups with other like minded elites, taking the form of religions, secret societies, or alliances with other monarchs /leaders and fighting the other elite groups.
In the 20th century following WWII, they basically decided they cant continue fighting each other, or they themselves risked doom. Over the next 45 years they worked out their differences and met in Rio in 1992.
Agenda 21. The new enemy was us. They united against the little people . The Fourth Industrial Revolution or Fourth Turning, maybe the Fourth Reich, call it what you will
Further more, due to Technology and automation they no longer needed us as much and they imagined a Future where AI and Robotics would reduce that need exponentially.
One problem though. To accomplish their objective and depopulate and enslave the rest of us they (lets call them Big Brother) needed help from some of us, including those who may still have Empathy. How do you get someone with empathy to do evil?
Elementary my Dear Watson, you give them an ideology that requires them to do Evil for the Greater Good. The end justifies the means.
You tell them the planet is running out of resources due to overpopulation and that man is killing the planet with excess consumption that will lead to Hell on Earth and the doom of everyone on the planet due to plague, famine, flood. Ta da
Since Agenda 21 was formulated this has been driven into the minds of the young and old alike via education system, Hollywood and Media.
Psychological Warfare with weaponized memes is effective, as is waves of Terror and Fear eventually causing Menticide
The individual must sacrifice or be sacrificed for the common good. Communitarianism 101
With this ideology our Big Psychopathic Big Brothers have recruited an Army of mindless Empathic Little Brothers and Sisters whose empathy is suppressed by the Fear driven ideology that population must be reduced and living standards lowered to save the planet
These Little Brothers and Sisters are Zealots and True Believers. They kneel at the alter of their High Priests of Science and commit to rooting out the selfish individual heretics in order to Save the Children and Earths creatures
Their Hive Mind can not be changed by Reason. Menticide prevents most of them from reconsidering their beliefs, the rest and their collaborators go along for greed or self preservation.
But what motivates the ELite beyond money and power?. They are already rich beyond belief. Not being one of the elite nor knowing any of them I can only guess.
Based on my readings I believe they have their own religion or ideology. To the best of my understanding this is a blend of Transhumanism and Gnosticism, where they seek to become Gods and create a New World, making it into a Garden of Eden of a sort. They may believe they have evolved beyond Homo Sapiens to Homo+.
We are to them what Neanderthals were to our ancestors. Good for sport or fun but not useful for much in a Technological World where AI and Robotics making our labour redundant.
A Useless class good only for entertainment and experimentation and harvesting our parts (DNA, Organs, etc)
Indeed, our Little Brothers and Sisters and the collaborators will soon join the Useless Class after we are gone. They just don’t know it yet.
So thats where we are. The door was wide open to Evil and it just marched right in and took over.
The rest is a bit of a ramble and ends on a pessimistic note
Corbett also has done a good job with his 4 part series here
Our (Mis-)Leaders Are Psychopaths
They are "remorseless predators who use charm, intimidation and, if necessary, impulsive and cold-blooded violence to attain their ends."
They "ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets."
They have "no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what [they] do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members."
Am I talking about politicians? Technocrats? Billionaire "philanthrocapitalists"? Royalty? Captains of industry?
Of course I am. But I'm also talking about psychopaths.
We all know what a psychopath is, or at least we think we do. They're chainsaw-wielding, crazed serial killers, like Leatherface from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Or they're knife-wielding, crazed serial killers, like Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs. Or they're acid-spraying-lapel-flower-wearing, crazed serial killers, like The Joker from Batman.
But if that is what we think of when we think of a psychopath, we find that once again we are the Hollywood predictive programmers' victims, constructing our understanding of reality not from actual, lived experience but from fictional characters dreamt up by writers and projected on a screen.
In the real world, psychopaths are a subset of the population who lack a conscience. The full implications of this strange mental condition are not apparent to the vast majority of us who do possess a conscience and who assume that the inner life of most people is largely similar to our own.
In The Sociopath Next Door, Dr. Martha Stout, a clinical psychologist who has devoted much of her career to the subject, demonstrates what the absence of a conscience really means by inviting her readers to participate in this exercise:
Imagine—if you can—not having a conscience, none at all, no feelings of guilt or remorse no matter what you do, no limiting sense of concern for the well-being of strangers, friends, or even family members. Imagine no struggles with shame, not a single one in your whole life, no matter what kind of selfish, lazy, harmful, or immoral action you had taken. And pretend that the concept of responsibility is unknown to you, except as a burden others seem to accept without question, like gullible fools. Now add to this strange fantasy the ability to conceal from other people that your psychological makeup is radically different from theirs. Since everyone simply assumes that conscience is universal among human beings, hiding the fact that you are conscience-free is nearly effortless.
You are not held back from any of your desires by guilt or shame, and you are never confronted by others for your cold-bloodedness. The ice water in your veins is so bizarre, so completely outside of their personal experience, that they seldom even guess at your condition.
The possibilities for manipulation, deceit, violence and destruction that this condition presents should be obvious by this point. And indeed, as a number of books by psychologists and researchers studying psychopathy—from Howard Cleckley's seminal 1941 work, The Mask of Sanity, to Robert Hare's popular book, Without Conscience, to Andrew Lobaczewski's rescued-from-the-dustbin-of-history-by-an-independent-publisher opus, Political Ponerology—have repeatedly tried to warn the public over the years, psychopaths do exist, they represent something like 4% of the population, and they are responsible for much of the havoc in our society.
Nonetheless, a number of researchers have offered some data that supports the political and corporate psychopathy thesis. They include:
• Clive Boddy, a professor at Anglia Ruskin University, who argues that "[e]vidence for the existence of white-collar psychopaths comes from multiple studies which have found psychopathy among white collar populations";
• Dr. Kevin Dutton, an Oxford University psychologist who used a standard psychometric tool—the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Revised)—to score a number of current and historical political personages, finding that Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz scored relatively high on the test (along with Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein);
• Scott O. Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Emery University who led a study of the 43 US presidents up to George W. Bush. demonstrating that certain psychopathic personality traits directly correlate with political success; and
• Ryan Murphy, research associate professor at Southern Methodist University whose 2018 study concluded that Washington, D.C., had the highest prevalence of personality traits corresponding to psychopathy in the continental U.S. (and also found that the concentration of lawyers is correlated to the prevalence of psychopathy in a geographic area).
Even Robert Hare—who has coauthored one of the few empirical studies confirming a higher prevalence of psychopathic traits among corporate professionals in management training programs than in the general population—has said that he regrets spending most of his career studying psychopaths in prison rather than psychopaths in positions of political and economic power. When questioned about this regret, he noted that "serial killers ruin families" while "corporate and political and religious psychopaths ruin economies. They ruin societies."
The fact that the key positions of political, financial and corporate power in our society are dominated by psychopaths certainly helps to explain why our society is as profoundly sick as we non-psychopaths know it to be. For those who still believe that our sick society can be cured by recourse to the political process, this seems like the worst news imaginable.
. . . But it's even worse than that. These political psychopaths don't just ruin societies. They reshape societies in their own image.
Projections of the Psychopaths
In psychology, "projection" refers to the act of displacing one's own feelings onto another person. As Psychology Today explains:
The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another. For example, if someone continuously bullies and ridicules a peer about his insecurities, the bully might be projecting his own struggle with self-esteem onto the other person.
This concept of projection equips us to better understand why political psychopaths pathologize conspiracy theorists and political dissenters: they are projecting their own mental disorders onto their ideological opponents.
But the psychopath does not stop at turning an organization into a projection of his own perverted personality. Be it a business, a bank, or, in the case of a political psychopath, an entire nation, the organization under his control eventually starts to change the character and behaviour of the employees or citizens under its thumb.
The idea that psychopathic systems can make non-psychopaths act like psychopaths might, at first glance, go against our moral intuitions. Surely, we reason, people are either "good people" or "bad people." They are either psychopathic or sane. They are either the type of person who commits a terrible crime or they aren't.
As it turns out, however, our reasoning has been proven wrong by research into "secondary psychopathy." This category of psychopathy, sometimes referred to as sociopathy, is meant to differentiate primary psychopaths—those born with the "lack of conscience" and its associated neurocognitive impairments discussed by Hare, Stout and others—from secondary psychopaths, who develop psychopathic traits as a result of the environment they are functioning in.
Many experiments have been conducted over the decades researching the phenomenon of secondary psychopathy and how "good people" can be placed in situations wherein they will do "bad things," from the seemingly mundane Asch conformity experiment, which showed that people are often willing to state and even believe demonstrable lies in order to avoid breaking a group consensus, to the truly shocking Milgram experiment, which famously demonstrated that ordinary people could be induced to deliver what they believed to be potentially fatal shocks to strangers on the say-so of an authority figure.
But perhaps the most revealing experiment for the purposes of understanding secondary psychopathy is the Stanford Prison Experiment.
Led by Stanford psychology professor Philip Zimbardo, this 1971 experiment involved recruiting participants from the local community with an offer of $15 per day to participate in a "psychological study of prison life."
The recruits were then screened to eliminate anyone with psychological abnormalities, and the remaining candidates were randomly assigned as either guards or prisoners and told to prepare for two weeks of life in the basement of Stanford's psychology building, which had been converted into a makeshift prison.
The results of that experiment are, by now, infamous. Immersing the participants in the role play with realistic surprise "arrests" of the prisoners by real Palo Alto police officers, the exercise quickly descended into a study in cruelty. The prison "guards" quickly devised more and more sadistic ways to assert their authority over the "prisoners," and two of the students had to be "released" from the prison in the first days of the ordeal due to the mental distress it had placed on them. The experiment was called off after just six days, with the researchers finding that both the prisoners and guards had exhibited "pathological reactions" to the mock prison situation.
How did this happen? How did otherwise average, healthy young men descend into such barbarity in less than one week? In his book The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil, which documents that study as well as subsequent decades of research he did into the psychology of evil, Zimbardo reflects on how a system can reflect the pathologies of those who created it and how it can, in turn, influence individuals to commit evil acts: "unless we become sensitive to the real power of the System, which is invariably hidden behind a veil of secrecy, and fully understand its own set of rules and regulations, behavioral change will be transient and situational change illusory."
The true import of this lesson was felt three decades later, when the US began its detention of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The physical, psychological and sexual abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was brought to the attention of the world in April 2004, when graphic images of the abuse were first published in American media.
Once again, the public began to question how the otherwise average young American men and women who had been assigned to the prison as military police guards could have committed such incredibly sadistic acts.
1/
2/
3/
That question was answered in part by the Senate Armed Services Committee report on the Abu Ghraib abuses. The report details then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval of a request to use "aggressive interrogation techniques" on detainees, including stress positions, exploitation of detainee fears (such as fear of dogs), and waterboarding.
What most of the public do not know, however, is that the funding for the Stanford Prison Experiment came from the Office of Naval Research, which provided a grant "to study antisocial behaviour." It seems that the military psychopaths certainly did learn the lessons of that experiment—and then promptly weaponized them.
Whatever the case, although nothing in any of these experiments or research exonerates any individual from the evil deeds that they have committed, these findings do shine a light on the problem of secondary psychopathy.
How much of the madness of our society is a projection of the psychopaths who are running it?
Ruled by Madmen
At this point in our study, we have reached a conclusion as startling as it is undeniable: We are ruled by madmen and, living and working under their mad systems of control, we risk becoming mad ourselves.
Even worse, the last few years of COVID insanity have shown us that the political psychopaths are perfecting their weapons of psychological control and that a large percentage of the public are more than happy to be the enforcers of the biosecurity prison state.
In the conclusion to this series, we will examine the pathocracy that these political psychopaths have constructed and discuss how we can break free from the madhouse they are creating.
https://www.corbettreport.com/?s=Madness
Read the whole series, this is just part of part 3