Trilateral Commission

Rona Ambrose was a Member of the Trilateral Commission as reported in Vancouver's Georgia Straight, August 24, 2006.

Well shucks who knew. The Trilateral Commission is the public face of the those other secret societies of the corporatist ruling class like the Bilderbergers and the Davos Forum.

It is the original source for George Bush Seniors announcement of the New World Order.

Managing the International System Over the Next Ten Years: Three Essays
The Trilateral Commission (© 1997)
Bill Emmott, Koji Watanabe and Paul Wolfowitz

The 2006 annual meeting of the Trilateral Commission dealt with "Globalisation and Governance".

The Commission, which operates through three regional secretariats, coordinates task forces on a variety of pressing issues in international affairs and meets in regional groups as well as in an annual three-day plenary to discuss these studies and to share perspectives on common political, economic, and foreign policy challenges. The task force reports are published as a series called The Triangle Papers. Also, a report on the annual meeting is published each year as part of the Trialogue series. The annual meeting of Trilateral Commission members rotates among the three regions.

Holly Sklars book remains one of the best on the Trilateral Commission and it's importance in setting the agenda for Globalization, without falling into the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories that abound around ruling class institutions like these. As I wrote in my article; Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

"The Trilateral Commission is international and is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the U.S." -- attributed to Senator Barry Goldwater.

The new "trilateralism" reflects the realization that the international system now requires "a truly common management," as the Commission reports indicate. The trilateral powers must order their internal relations and face both the Russian bloc, now conceded to be beyond the reach of Grand Area planning, and the Third World. Noam Chomsky: The Carter Administration: Myth and Reality

A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." Another Commission document read: "The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods." In other words, they were promoting world government by encouraging economic interdependence among the superpowers.

The Trilateral Commission was formed in 1973, and it is widely perceived as an off-shoot of the Council On Foreign Relations. According to Christopher Lydon, writing in the July 1977 Atlantic, "The Trilateral Commission was David Rockefeller's brainchild." At the time, David Rockefeller was Chairman of the Council On Foreign Relations, having been elected to that post in 1970. David Rockefeller became the founding Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, which consists of leaders in business, banking, government and mass media from North America, Europe, and Japan invited to join by Rockefeller himself.

A related purpose of the Trilateral Commission was to promote cooperation among the industrialized countries in the face of an emerging bloc of Arab, African and Asian states which had come to dominate the General Assembly of the United Nations.

But the Trilateralists did not want to give up on the United Nations. The economic and political elites of America and Europe seek international political power in order to provide a stable investment climate, including protection against nationalization of their assets.

At the same time, the international bankers and multi- national corporations have gained much of their wealth through partnership with government. The corporate elite look to governments for lucrative contracts; taxpayer subsidized financing; and protection from competition.

The international bankers and multinational corporations have exploited two UN financial agencies in particular - the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. But they have relied on their own national governments to attempt to protect their foreign investments.

The politicians have looked to a strengthened United Nations for a different reason. Politicians seek power. Control over their own government is all too often only a beginning to their ambition. History is littered with corpses who mutely testify to the imperial ambitions and arrogance of politicians.

In 1973, the U.S. was winding down its involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnam War had proved to be a costly mistake, and had turned a majority of the American people against the idea of military intervention in other countries.

As noted, the Trilateral Commission was founded in 1973, in the midst of the Middle East oil crisis. The ostensible cause of the oil crisis was a decision by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to dramatically raise the posted price for oil, with the price hike enforced by limited production quotas for each member country.

11 Jun 1993 The Washington Times reports: "Presidential counsellor David Gergen resigned yesterday from the all-male Bohemian Club, three days after saying he would not run around naked at its annual Bohemian Grove encampment and insisting he would not quit. White House spokeswoman Dee Dee Myers announced the resignation along with Mr. Gergen's departure from 17 other interest groups, charities and public boards ranging from the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and Council on Foreign Relations."

For Canadians our concern has to be that the Trilateralists promote deep integration starting with the original Mulroney Reagan FTA followed by NAFTA evolving into a continental alliance,or North American Union, including shared monetary standards.

Canadians On the Trilateral Commission 2005 appointments

Rona Ambrose, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Maurizio Bevilacqua, Member of Parliament, Ottawa, ON

Arthur A. DeFehr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Palliser Furniture, Winnipeg, MB

André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal, QC; Deputy Chairman, Power Financial Corporation

Peter C. Dobell, Founding Director, Parliamentary Centre, Ottawa, ON

Wendy K. Dobson, Professor and Director, Institute for International Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance

Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman of Fairmont Hotels & Resorts; Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Scotiabank, Toronto, ON

*Allan E. Gotlieb, Senior Advisor, Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, ON; Chairman, Sotheby’s, Canada; former Canadian Ambassador to the United States; North American Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission

E. Peter Lougheed, Senior Partner, Bennett Jones, Barristers & Solicitors, Calgary, AB; former Premier of Alberta

Roy MacLaren, former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; former Canadian Minister of International Trade; Toronto, ON

John A. MacNaughton, former President and Chief Executive Officer, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Toronto, ON

Brian Mulroney, Senior Partner, Ogilvy Renault, Barristers and Solicitors, Montréal, QC; former Prime Minister of Canada

Hartley Richardson, President and Chief Executive Officer, James Richardson & Sons, Ltd., Winnipeg, MB

Gordon Smith, Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC; Chairman, Board of Governors, International Development Research Centre; former Canadian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister to the Economic Summit

Ronald D. Southern, Chairman, ATCO Group, Calgary, AB

Barbara Stymiest, Chief Operating Officer, RBC Financial Group, Toronto, ON

See:

Bilderberg

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy

Ruling Class



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
Rona Ambrose, Trilateral Commission, CFR, Bilderberg, Davos, Secret Societies, NWO, New World Order, Globalization, Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Bohemian Grove, Conspiracy Theories, Ruling Class, Chomsky, Carter, Bush, UN

Opinion...

The Trilateral Fortress: “Why the fall of Damascus didn’t end the Middle East’s long war”

A large poster depicting Saudi Arabia, Syria, Oman, and Lebanon leaders alongside U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is placed on a billboard to highlighting the push for diplomatic relations in Tel Aviv, Israel on June 26, 2025. [Mostafa Alkharouf – Anadolu Agency]

by Jasim Al-Azzawi

January 12, 2026 

Middle East Monitor 

The geopolitical shorthand for Iranian power used to be the “Land Bridge”—a 1,000-mile artery of influence stretching from the Zagros Mountains to the Mediterranean. In December 2024, that bridge collapsed into the rubble of the Assad regime. With rebels pouring into the capital of Damascus, Washington-Tel Aviv orthodoxy held that Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” had finally been beheaded. This was a moment of rash exuberance.

However, it became evident in January 2026 that this festive assessment was also hasty. The bridge, far from disappearing, has been replaced by something much more intense and turbulent: The Trilateral Fortress.

Without the Syrian buffer zone, the clerical regime in Tehran, the Shiite-dominated security apparatus in Baghdad, and the battle-hardened Hezbollah have merged into a survivalist bloc. This is no longer an ambitious empire trying to export the revolution. Those days are finished. This is now a transnational paramilitary operation aimed at averting the meltdown of the three remaining poles. The ‘Syrian Void’ has not removed the threat to the US and Israel—it has simply shifted the battle line to the doorsteps of Baghdad and Tehran.

The domestic mercenary shift

However, the most terrifying expression of this new reality is now taking place on Iranian streets. As the “Economic Uprising” of 2026 enters its second month, following the “12-Day War” in June 2025 and the subsequent hyperinflation, the Islamic Republic has launched a desperate strategic response. With its security factions either exhausted and potentially switching sides, the IRGC has called on its trusted allies for help in saving the regime.

Reports coming in from the entry points in Mehran and Shalamcheh point to the importation of some 850 fighters from the ranks of Hezbollah and the Iraqi militias, who have gained combat experience in the Syrian Civil War, into the restless provinces of Iran. They are placed in these areas because they have no cultural or emotional affinity with the protesters in Iran, which would otherwise cause them to hold back when the use of force becomes necessary. In the Trilateral Fortress, Hezbollah is not merely the Lebanese Border Guard but rather the Primary’ Special Forces’ node for the expertise required in suppressing urban dissent so that the Supreme Leader remains in power.

“The survival of the core now dictates the movement of the periphery; IRGC no longer seeks to guard the border, but rather the throne itself, behind a foreign shield to dull a domestic sword,” The Mercenary Pivot states in its 2026 Iranian Uprising analysis for the Institute of Middle East Security Studies.

Iraq: The brittle link

Now that Syria is out, Iraq has transformed from a transit country into the alliance’s new central treasury or “rear guard.” In turn, following the UN “Snapback” sanctions in 2025, Tehran has become entirely reliant on banking transactions in Iraq and oil-for-gas swaps to keep its economy afloat. By doing this, however, the US-Israeli alliance has created a new “Trilateral Trap” in which some of the Iranian missile and drone command offices may currently be based in Iraq’s infrastructure.

However, a key distinction must be made regarding the resilience of these three tenets. Hezbollah is a resistance movement that is impossible to beat; it has managed to resist Israeli attacks and assassinations for decades and has now become an integral part of the Lebanese landscape. Similarly, Iran has also become a seasoned player during the “Long Siege” and has managed to resist US attempts through pressure, bombings, and sanctions for almost five decades now.

The softer, more brittle component of this Trilateral Fortress is Iraq itself. Contrary to the ideological blocs in Beirut and Tehran, the Iraqi state can best be characterized as a makeshift amalgam of antagonists with hostile allegiances, dependent to the point of vulnerability on the international financial network and on the auctions of the United States dollar. This fissure has been identified by the United States, which has found itself in its midst. Special Envoy Mark Savaya has adopted the same maximalist position, declaring that 2026 marks the end of the “uncontrolled weapons” era. Savaya has remained adamant that the PMF be eliminated or neutralized.

“Iraq cannot be either a partner of the global finance system or a shelter for the people who intentionally damage that system. The year 2026 will be the final goodbye for the era of the militia; your time is up,” stated Savaya, possibly an indication that the former Iraqi military generals, ex-pilots, and military intelligence personnel dissolved by Paula Bremer are being secretly re-established by US special forces for the purpose of toppling the Iraqi government at the appropriate moment.

The myth of neutralization

The present policy of “containing” Iran by removing its regional limbs has now come to a point of diminishing returns. The fall of Damascus only managed to trap the beast. By early 2026, the trilateral bloc had instead increased its nuclear hedging and integration in response to its growing isolation. The borders between IRGC, Hezbollah, and Iraqi militias have become strictly vestigial; instead, they now act as a single organism in their defensive nature.

The US and Israel no longer find themselves dealing with a “proxy network,” let alone a nuclear-ambitious proxy alliance. The effort to isolate Iran has instead invited a degree of trilateral integration that has made traditional diplomacy seem impossible. However, this trilateral integration contains a deadly fault. The survival of this Iranian regime is now linked to a country, Iraq, that lacks the strength to withstand the full power of American economic war.

A new strategic reality

The downfall of the Assad regime was a historic blow to Iranian prestige; however, it did not shatter the ideological resistance movement but instead removed the “soft” political aspects of the alliance, leaving the “hard” radical foundation intact.

The West must realize that the “Trilateral Fortress” cannot be dismantled by old-world maps. While Hezbollah and Tehran are prepared to weather a thousand strikes, the political structure in Baghdad is likely to buckle first. Mark Savaya’s mission is clear: by forcing Iraq to choose between the dollar and the militia, the US is aiming at the triangle’s weakest point. The uprising in Iran may be the final blow from within, but the breaking of the Iraqi link is the key to dismantling the fortress from the outside.

“The Fortress is only as strong as its most brittle pillar; if Baghdad yields to the pressure of the state and the dictate of the dollar, the wall around Tehran finally crumbles,” predicts a December 2025 report by the Global Risk Intelligence, titled: The fragility of the Baghdad link: Economic pressure and the PMF.

The war for the Middle East hasn’t ended; it has simply moved home.


The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.

 

Trilateral Militarization: From Missiles to Nukes

The trilateral militarization of the US, Japan and the Philippines has officially started. From missiles to nuclearization, it could cast a dark shadow over the Philippines and Southeast Asia.

by Dan Steinbock Posted onApril 18, 2024

In the Philippines, the proponents of the trilateral alliance frame it as a response to the “threat of assertive China.” In reality, the unwarranted trilateral alliance seems to be the result of a longstanding US maritime counter-insurgency (COIN) campaign, resting on the work of the US Navy Department and other US interests.

The purpose of the campaign has been to escalate the South China Sea friction in international media to justify trilateral militarization.

In the Philippines, the concern for escalation is fairly widespread. On Friday former president Duterte warned in Chinese media that “the US is trying to provoke a war between China and the Philippines,” expressing his hope that the Philippines can change course to “resolve issues through dialogue and negotiation.”

The trilateral alliance seems to be a prelude to a massive rearmament drive that has potential to undermine and possibly collapse the expected Asian Century of peace and development.  

Nuclearization via QUAD and AUKUS              

In March 2023, US President Joe Biden held a press conference on the AUKUS partnership with UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese at Naval Base Point Loma in San Diego, California. A glimpse of the Asian future was provided by the nuclear-powered USS Missouri submarine, which was visibly in the background. It was meant to be a signal to China.

Ironically, the net effect is rising nuclearization in the South China Sea by countries that are not located in the ASEAN territories. The US-led multilateral security framework targeting China rests on the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue) between the US, Japan, Australia and India. AUKUS is more actionable. It seeks to hem in China’s moves with a nested military network, including sharing advanced military technologies like nuclear-powered submarines. The first subs will be built in the UK by late 2030s and in Australia after 2040.

In the interest of time, the US plans to forward-deploy Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines, coupled with the UK’s similar Astute-class subs, to a naval base near Perth in Western Australia, already by 2027. AUKUS is also likely to expand in 2024 or early 2025. Japan and Canada are in line to join the so-called pillar 2 section of the AUKUS agreement, while US is courting South Korea and New Zealand.

From the Chinese viewpoint, the US is expanding the AUKUS military alliance by “forming a mini-NATO in Asia, which poses unprecedented threats and challenges to the region’s prosperity and stability.” The track-record – from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine and Gaza – is not assuring.

But nuclearization takes time. Hence, the missiles.

Missiles and militarization             

As veteran political analyst Francisco Tatad writes, “Marcos sees China as the source of the danger, but he does not say why our two countries should be going to war with each other over some pieces of stone in the vast disputed sea.” Tatad asks, “Whose war must we prepare for?”

The question about “whose war” remains blurry, unlike the question “how” that war could begin. Due to the 2019 expiration of the previously banned Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, the U.S. is planning to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles in the Indo-Pacific already in 2024, thus establishing its first arsenal in the region since the end of the Cold War.

Missiles over South China Sea?

The Arleigh-Burke class guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53) launches a Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) during a live-fire test of the ship’s aegis weapons system (Pacific Ocean, June 19, 2014). Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Originally developed by the huge US defense contractor Raytheon, which has played a key role in Ukraine’s devastation, these missiles feature land-based versions of the Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) and the Tomahawk cruise missile, with ranges between 500 and 2,700 kilometers (photo right). Tomahawks in particular have been used from the Gulf War to Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Reportedly, the U.S. Army will send the intermediate-range missile units primarily to the U.S. territory of Guam, looking for more forward deployment to Asian allies in a contingency. These allies, like Philippines, are likely expected to be open to “rotational deployments in crises.”

Responding to a crisis in the Taiwan Strait or South China Sea will require missiles that can reach targets in those critical waterways or the Chinese mainland. This means an extended deployment near the “first island chain,” which stretches from Japan’s Okinawa islands to Taiwan and, yes, the Philippines.

A decade of steps toward militarization

The US Naval Department’s involvement seems to have intensified since the mid-2010s, when the late foreign secretary Albert F. del Rosario had a key role in the creation of the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), which opened the country to U.S. military, ships, and planes; for the first time since 1991. A year later, Rosario met Obama’s then-deputy secretary of state Antony Blinken in Manila, aiming at bigger bilateral commitments.

Toward deeper military alignments

(Left) Foreign Affairs Secretary del Rosario and then-Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Manila in Nov. 2015. (Center) Foreign Affairs Secretary Locsin, Jr. and INDOPACOM Commander Adm. John C. Aquilino in Aug, 2021. (Right) Gen. Romeo Brawner, Jr., Chief of Staff and Adm. Aquilino in Mar. 2024.  Source: DFA, DFA-OPCD.

President Duterte’s electoral triumph in 2016 caused a six-year breather in the ambitious plans. Militarization began to move ahead in 2021, when Admiral John C. Aquilino, Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), met foreign secretary Locsin, Jr. Adm. Aquilino welcomed bilateral progress as “a huge leap forward” and US press release described the ties as an “alliance.”

Aquilino’s calls matter. The INDOPACOM is the largest of six geographic combatant commands of the US Armed Forces. It is responsible for all U.S. military activities in the Indo-Pacific region.

But nothing was set in stone, yet. President Marcos Jr had pledged building on Duterte legacy and nurturing strong ties with both the US and China, like most ASEAN nations. But these pledges had to go. They were misaligned with the Big Defense’s plans for Manila.

In October 2022, Senator Imee Marcos, chair of Philippine foreign relations committee, still pled in Washington: “Do not make us choose between the United States and China.” But prior to the address, her younger brother, President Marcos had met President Biden and discussed “the full breadth of issues in the alliance.” Subsequently, major electoral pledges turned upside down and trilateral mobilization became an inflated response to a deflated problem.

Rightly, columnist Rigoberto Tiglao wondered why the Philippines should go to war with China, its biggest trading partner, over a dispute that “is solely over Ayungin Shoal, a permanently submerged, useless small area.”

Militarization benefited the Pentagon and the Big Defense. But what exactly did Manila get in return, except for risks?

More bases, more targets: 9, 15, or 20 sites?

In spring early 2023, President Marcos Jr. granted U.S. forces access to four new bases, in addition to five existing bases included under the expanded Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). The decision was opposed vehemently by several provinces and municipalities in the target areas. But these concerns were quickly suppressed as “unnecessary.” Even the Congress proved oddly numb about the seismic foreign policy shift, despite its huge economic and geopolitical implications.

And yet, in September, Adm. Aquilino returned to the Philippines to discuss “opportunities for increased multilateral cooperation, maritime security initiatives, and the upcoming exercise Balikatan.” The U.S. had added 63 projects for the EDCA sites on top of the previously-approved 32. These projects included multipurpose storage facilities, road networks and fuel storage, “among others.” Although the U.S. officially has only “rotational access” to the Philippines bases, it had allocated over $109 million towards infrastructure improvements at some seven EDCA locations.

Presumably, the Philippines is to serve as a logistical platform, to tie China in the South China Sea (SCS) before a potential Taiwan crisis. But more is needed. Or as Radio Free Asia reported: “The US is seeking access to more bases in the Philippines on top of nine sites already included under an expanded pact.”

Just weeks later, in a Senate hearing, Senator Robinhood Padilla addressed the presence of a US Navy Poseidon aircraft circling overhead during a resupply mission, suggesting that the US naval presence unnecessarily caused an escalation between China and the Philippines. Instead of welcoming Padilla’s comments as an opening for a democratic debate on the pros and cons of the foreign policy U-turn, the questions were hush-hushed away.

Eclipse of Southeast Asian economic engines

Until recently, Japan and the Philippines were reluctant to host new American capabilities, to avoid becoming an immediate target of the Chinese military in a crisis. As economic challenges are amounting in both countries, things are changing.

But us trilateral mobilization the only option?

While affirming the strong US-Philippines bilateral alliance in the 2022 CSIS event, senator Imee Marcos affirmed the broad US-Philippines address, but it was not exclusive with “engagement with China, including joint development, confidence-building measures, and a code of conduct in the South China Sea.” In a multipolar world, there is room for multiple power centers.

Against widespread criticism and skepticism in the ASEAN, the proponents of the trilateral militarization portray it as a pillar of “peace and stability” in the region. They live in a parallel universe. As several ASEAN leaders have warned, trilateral mobilization has potential to split Southeast Asia and bury the Asian Century. 

Dr. Dan Steinbock is an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net.

 A version of the commentary was published by China-US Focus on April 12, 2024. 

TECHNOCRACY THE NEW WORLD ORDER

Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order 


by Patrick Wood (Author) 
Format: Kindle Edition

https://tinyurl.com/yazkxzdh

In 1974, Trilateral Commission member and academic Richard Gardner wrote an article "The Hard Road to World Order" for Foreign Affairs magazine, predicting the future of the Commission's self-proclaimed New International Economic Order. Gardner spoke of an "end-run around national sovereignty", a "booming, buzzing confusion" and building it from the "bottom up" rather than attempting an "old-fashioned frontal assault."After almost 45 years, it is time to examine the record. In Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Wood traces the steps and developments that led to the United Nations' establishment of Sustainable Development as an outgrowth of historic Technocracy from the 1930s. UN programs such as 2030 Agenda, New Urban Agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement are all working together to displace Capitalism and Free Enterprise as the world's principal economic system. As a resource-based economic system, Sustainable Development intends to take control of all resources, all production and all consumption on planet earth, leaving all of its inhabitants to be micro-managed by a Scientific Dictatorship. Topics covered include the devolution of federal governments combined with the rise of global Smart Cities. Tools are examined, like ubiquitous surveillance, collaborative governance, Public-Private Partnerships, Reflexive Law, Fintech, including crypto currencies and the drive toward a cashless society. The spiritual aspect of Sustainable Development is also explored as an important component of manipulation. Looking underneath the cover of globalization, Wood shatters the false narrative of a promised Utopia and exposes the true nature of the deception used to promote this new economic order. Those elite who hate the bedrock of American liberty and its time-tested Constitution have pulled out all the stops to destroy both, and it's time for citizens to stand up to reject them. As always, Wood closes with the nature of effective resistance and the tools that can help to achieve success.

The dark horse of the New World Order is not Communism, Socialism or Fascism. It is Technocracy.

With meticulous detail and an abundance of original research, Patrick M. Wood uses Technocracy Rising to connect the dots of modern globalization in a way that has never been seen before so that the reader can clearly understand the globalization plan, its perpetrators and its intended endgame.

In the heat of the Great Depression during the 1930s, prominent scientists and engineers proposed a utopian energy-based economic system called Technocracy that would be run by those same scientists and engineers instead of elected politicians. Although this radical movement lost momentum by 1940, it regained status when it was conceptually adopted by the elitist Trilateral Commission (co-founded by Zbigniew Brzezinski and David Rockefeller) in 1973 to be become its so-called "New International Economic Order."]

https://tinyurl.com/yaq3b7u9

In the ensuing 41 years, the modern expression of Technocracy and the New International Economic Order is clearly seen in global programs such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Councils of Governments, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Total Awareness surveillance initiatives and more.

Wood contends that the only logical outcome of Technocracy is Scientific Dictatorship, as already seen in dystopian literature such as Brave New World by Aldous Huxley (1932) and Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell (1948), both of whom looked straight into the face of Technocracy when it was still in its infancy.

With over 250 footnotes, an extensive bibliography and clarity of writing style, Wood challenges the reader to new levels of insight and understanding into the clear and present danger of Technocracy, and how Americans might be able to reject it once again.

OMG HERE ARE THE SECRET PLANS OF THE NWO

     

Policy Innovations Transformative Change - Local 2030 ...

https://www.local2030.org › library › Policy-Innovations-for-Transformativ...

Oct 4, 2016 - Societies across the world are facing many complex ... Pathways to transformative change for sustainable development ... Chapter 2: New Trends and Innovations in Social Policy ... Government policies are key for upscaling, capacity building and facilitating ... the creation of carbon markets or incentives for.

HURRAH AN ORGANIZATION; TECHNOCRACY THAT BARELY EXISTS THIS GUY SAYS THEY ARE THE NEW CONSPIRACY TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD

I LOVE THIS SCIENCE FICTION STUFF AS A HERESIOLOGIST, A HERESY HAS A HERESY OPPOSING IT.

BUT OF COURSE IT ALL BEGINS WITH THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0986373923/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i2
This is the documented story of the organization and members of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a "New International Economic Order". With an small but powerful international membership hand-picked by an executive committee, Commissioners asserted undue influence over America, Japan and Europe. In 1976, Trilateral members James Earl Carter and Walter Mondale were elected to head the Executive Branch in the U.S., thus starting a 40 year hegemony over the greatest economic nation on earth. American influence and position was used to reform international trade, promote globalization and interdependence among nations. European Trilateral members were then instrumental in using the United Nations to create a doctrine of Sustainable Development and Green Economy: See Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (Wood, 2015) for details. Originally written in 1979-1980, Trilaterals Over Washington quickly became a best-seller and over the course of about two years, sold over 75,000 copies internationally. The books were very well received for excellent scholarship and original research, and even became a frequently-used textbook in political science classes at many colleges in U.S. universities. The co-author, Professor Antony C. Sutton, passed in 2002 having authored 24 books during a distinguished academic career that included UCLA and the Hoover Institution at 
Stanford University.

Since at least 1973, the engine of globalization has been the troika of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the Bank for International Settlements. Acting in concert with each other, national barriers were broken down and national assets were often raided with impunity. Biography
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.

He is the author of Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.

Wood remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development on a global scale.

An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, Wood maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.


Wood is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows around the nation. His current research builds on Trilateral Commission hegemony, focusing on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism, and how these are transforming global economics, politics and religion.

THANK FNORD 

WAIT, WHAT?!

Japan, China, and South Korea restate goal of peace and stability on Korean peninsula

The foreign ministers of Japan, South Korea and China agreed Saturday that peace on the Korean peninsula was a shared responsibility, Seoul's foreign minister said. The ministers met as US trade tariffs loom over the region, and amid concerns over North Korea's weapons tests and its deployment of troops to support Russia's war in Ukraine.


22/03/2025
By: FRANCE 24

The foreign ministers' meeting follows a rare trilateral summit in May in Seoul. © Rodrigo Reyes Marin, AFP


Japan, South Korea and China agreed Saturday that peace on the Korean peninsula was a shared responsibility, Seoul's foreign minister said, in a meeting of the three countries' top diplomats in which they pledged to promote cooperation.

The talks followed a rare trilateral summit in May in Seoul where the neighbours -- riven by historical and territorial disputes -- agreed to deepen ties and restated their goal of a denuclearised Korean peninsula.

But they come as US trade tariffs loom over the region, and as concerns mount over North Korea's weapons tests and its deployment of troops to support Russia's war against Ukraine.

"We reaffirmed that maintaining peace and stability on the Korean peninsula is a shared interest and responsibility of the three countries," South Korea's Cho Tae-yul said Saturday.


"Additionally, I stressed that illegal military cooperation between Russia and North Korea must be immediately halted," he said.

Seoul and Tokyo typically take a stronger line against North Korea than China, which remains one of Pyongyang's most important allies and economic benefactors.

Japanese Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya said he, Cho, and China's Wang Yi "had a frank exchange of views on trilateral cooperation and regional international affairs... and confirmed that we will promote future-orientated cooperation".

"The international situation has become increasingly severe, and it is no exaggeration to say that we are at a turning point in history," Iwaya said at the start of Saturday's meeting.

"In this context, it has become more important than ever to make efforts to overcome division and confrontation through dialogue and cooperation", he said.

Wang said that this year marks the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and "only by sincerely reflecting on history can we better build the future".

Strengthening cooperation will allow the countries "to jointly resist risks" as well as promote "mutual understanding" between their populations, he added.

New economic opportunities

Ukraine was also on the agenda Saturday, with Iwaya warning that unilaterally changing the status quo by force was unacceptable anywhere.

"On the situation in Ukraine, I emphasised the need for the international community to unite in calling out that any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo by force will not be tolerated anywhere in the world," he told reporters.

Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba stressed the importance of 'pragmatic diplomacy'. © Franck Robichon, AFP

Climate change, ageing populations and trade were among the broad topics officials had said would be discussed on Saturday, as well as working together on disaster relief and science and technology.

China and to a lesser extent South Korea and Japan have been hit by tariffs put in place by US President Donald Trump in recent weeks, but none of the ministers addressed the issue directly in their statements to the press.

Iwaya said the trio had "agreed to accelerate coordination for the next summit" between the countries' leaders.

The foreign minister will also hold bilateral talks with both counterparts Saturday, while Japan and China will have their first so-called "high-level economic dialogue" in six years.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi joined the trilateral talks in Tokyo © Franck ROBICHON / POOL/AFP

Patricia M. Kim, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, said that while "trilateral dialogues have been ongoing for over a decade", this round "carries heightened significance" due to the new US position.

"Their leaders are under growing pressure to diversify their options and to seek alternative economic opportunities," she told AFP.

Beijing "has been working actively to improve relations with other major and middle powers amid growing frictions with the United States", she added.

(FRANCE 24 with AFP)

 

Mexican foreign minister says trilateral trade talks will happen when 'appropriate'

By

The Canadian Press

Opens in new window

Updated: July 17, 2026 

Mexico’s Secretary of Foreign Affairs Roberto Velasco Alvarez, left, looks on as Minister of Foreign Affairs Anita Anand responds to a question during a news conference in Ottawa, Friday, July 17, 2026. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

OTTAWA — Mexico’s foreign affairs minister said Friday his government will engage in trilateral talks with the U.S. and Canada on the continental trade pact when “it’s appropriate.”

Roberto Velasco Alvarez, who was in Ottawa to meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, was asked whether Mexico would consider making a bilateral agreement with the United States that leaves Canada behind.

“The (Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement) is a trilateral agreement,” Velasco responded. “And of course I think the three countries agree that that architecture should continue.”

The Trump administration opted not to renew the trade pact, better known in Canada as CUSMA, at the start of July. Mexico and Canada had both requested a 16-year extension.

The U.S. decision triggered rolling annual reviews for up to a decade, at which point the agreement will expire if the partners can’t agree on an extension.

Prime Minister Mark Carney has received pushback over his approach to trade negotiations from some opposition Conservatives who claim that Mexico is further ahead in trade talks.

Mexico and the U.S. are set to hold their third round of official negotiations next week, but Ottawa and the Trump administration have not started similar talks.

CUSMA was negotiated during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first administration to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

There were times during the tumultuous negotiations when Mexico and the United States were talking without Canada. Ultimately, all three countries signed the agreement and called it a success.

Velasco and Anand both said there are separate issues between the three countries that need to be negotiated bilaterally.

“There are many issues that their own nature is bilateral and because of that we need to work with the United States each to resolve them,” Velasco said. “Of course, when it’s appropriate, we have trilateral conversations.”

When asked whether the increasing share of Mexico’s EV market held by Chinese electric vehicle makers has become an obstacle to negotiations, Velasco said it’s part of CUSMA talks with the United States.

Carney’s move to allow a limited number of Chinese electric vehicles into Canada in exchange for tariff relief on agriculture goods has been roundly criticized by the Trump administration. 

The continental trade agreement has shielded Canada and Mexico from many of Trump’s tariffs but industries like steel, aluminum, automobiles and cabinetry are being slammed with separate duties.

Those sector-specific duties have been a key issue for Canada’s negotiators but Trump seems unwilling to shift his stance on the tariffs.

Canada’s trade and investment relationship with Mexico and the United States is important, Anand said.

“We’ll keep working on all fronts,” she said. “We will work hard on the bilateral relationship with Canada and the United States, and we’ll also work on the trilateral relationship.”

Trump officials have discussed wide-ranging issues with Mexico that are distinct from U.S. trade irritants with Canada.

United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Wednesday the “trade deficit in Mexico really is a challenge.” He said there are issues with Mexico regarding overcapacity, subsidies, unfair trading practices and monetary policy.

Greer also said he talks to his Canadian counterparts weekly but “we just haven’t seen a lot of movement.” 

While the Canada-U.S. relationship has been rocked by Trump’s tariffs and threats of annexation, the American architect of CUSMA said he’s not worried about the trade deficit with Canada.

Robert Lighthizer, the United States trade representative during the first Trump administration, said “there’s nothing wrong with having a trade deficit with someone who’s giving you energy.”

During a panel discussion at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado Thursday, Lighthizer said he had a lot of respect for Carney, calling him a “super person.” 

While the Canada-U.S. relationship has faced strain, Lighthizer said he believes it will recover.

“I think we come out of it because the fundamentals are so good between the United States and Canada,” he said.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 17, 2026.

By Kelly Geraldine Malone in Washington, with files from Dylan Robertson in Ottawa