ELITIST FRIENDS OF TRILATERALISM
We have previously discussed the power and membership of the
Trilateral Commission, and we now need to discuss the use of this
power and the influence of the Commission in a broader framework of
associated elitist institutions.
The Trilateral Commission does not
exist in a political vacuum; it co-exists with a group of
organizations which have, since about 1920, effectively taken over
political power in the United States, dominated domestic and foreign
policy and presently appears to be totally unrepresentative of
American society as a whole.
In addition to the influence of the Trilateral Commission we have:
The Council on Foreign Relations
The Foreign Policy Association
The Atlantic Council
The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans
Together with think tanks such as Brookings Institute and Hoover
Institution, these organizations constitute the source of foreign
and domestic policy making in the United States. This is where ideas
are generated, policies discussed, and subsequent reports written.
Ideas, policies and reports are subsequently considered and
discussed by all interested members of the above organizations and
sooner or later a large proportion of the proposals find their way
into executive decisions and/or Congressional legislation.
The overriding characteristic of this procedure is one of
intellectual closed-mindedness -intellectual incest might be the
best way to describe these policy creating “backwaters.”
The dismal failure to create a prosperous and peaceful world during
the decades-long era of American supremacy is obvious.
THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
Founded after World War I, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
has been for fifty years the undisputed creator of American foreign
As far back as 1959 the CFR was explicit about a need for world
“The U.S. must strive to build a new international order...
including states labeling themselves as ‘socialist’... to maintain
and gradually increase the authority of the United Nations.”1
The site for UN headquarters in New York was donated by John D.
Rockefeller, Sr., and the CFR world architects for many years tried
to use the United Nations as a means to develop an image of world
Recently the focus of world order action has shifted to the
Commission, and CFR members have complained they have lost power
and prestige. “We don’t have the cutting edge we once had. We’re not
really in the center of things,” stated one CFR member.2
The problem with the CFR is that it became too large and too diverse
to act as a “cutting edge” in policy creation. With several thousand
members and an internal policy of bringing in membership from a
diverse geographical and racial standpoint, the CFR lost its foreign
affairs expertise and prestige.
Today the political action has moved
from the CFR to the Trilateral Commission, as aptly described by
“Since the end of World War II U.S. foreign policy has been
dominated largely by the circle of influential men who belong
to New York’s Council on Foreign Relations. From Franklin
D. Roosevelt to Jimmy Carter, every President has recruited council
luminaries -its membership roll is a sort of Who’s Who of the
Eastern Establishment elite -for high level diplomatic
trouble-shooting missions or for top jobs in his Administration. But
the council is not universally admired.
Some outsiders view it as a kind of shadow government; others
dismiss it as a private club where aging foreign-policy
mandarins pontificate over tea and cookies. Both views are
exaggerated, but of late even some of the council’s elders have
grown alarmed by a sense of their organization’s waning
influence. The result has been a genteel furor within the book-lined confines of the council’s four-story headquarters on Park
THE FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION
Founded in 1918 a little before the CFR, the Foreign Policy
Association (FPA) is a tax exempt educational organization
to inform citizens on “challenges and problems of the United States
foreign policy.”4 The FPA is purely an elitist organization. Out of
fifty-six board members no fewer than twenty-nine (fifty-two percent) are
members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
However, only one FPA member, Robert R. Bowie, is a Trilateral
Commissioner, so the interlock with Trilateralism is minor.
THE ATLANTIC COUNCIL OF THE UNITED STATES
The board of directors of the Atlantic Institute is comprised as
Chairman: Kenneth Rush, former Deputy Secretary of State and
Ambassador to France and Germany.
Vice Chairman: Henry H. Fowler, partner, Goldman Sachs & Co. and
former Secretary of the Treasury.
W. Randolph Burgess, former Under Secretary of the Treasury and
Ambassador to NATO and the OEEC.
Theodore C. Achilles, former Counselor of the State Department and
Ambassador to Peru.
Harlan Cleveland, director, Aspen Program in International Affairs,
and former Ambassador to NATO.
Emilio G. Collado, former executive vice-president, Exxon
Corporation and executive director, World Bank.
Andrew J. Goodpastor, former Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
Wm. McChesney Martin, former chairman, Board of Governors, Federal
David Packard, chairman, Hewlett-Packard Company, and former Deputy
Secretary of Defense.
Eugene V. Rostow, professor of law, Yale University, and former
Under Secretary of State.
The chairman of the Atlantic Council, Kenneth Rush, was formerly of
Union Carbide Corporation. He is remembered for his actively vocal
role in aiding transfer of technology with military capabilities to
the Soviet Union. Union Carbide is part of the “revolving door”
between Washington and the New York elite.
A vice-chairman of the Atlantic Council is David Packard,a prominent
supporter of subsidization of the Soviet Union.
A comparison of the general directors of the Atlantic Council (not
on the board) compared to the Trilateral Commission is significant.
The following 11 Atlantic Council directors are also Trilateral
David Packard Vice-chairman of Atlantic Council
David M. Abshire Director, Atlantic Council
Anne Armstrong Former US Ambassador
Sol C. Chaikin Trade unionist
George Franklin, Jr. Coordinator of Trilateral Commission
Thomas L. Hughes President, Carnegie Endowment
Henry A. Kissinger Executive board of Trilateral
Winston Lord Chairman, Council on Foreign Relations
Charles W. Robinson Under Secretary of State
Robert V. Roosa Brown Brothers, Harriman
Philip H. Trezise Former Assistant Secretary of State
Marina v.N. Whitman Vice-president of General Motors
Also, George Ball is an honorary director of The Atlantic Counci1.
What are the objectives of the Atlantic Council? In its own words:
“The Atlantic Council, established seventeen years ago,
seeks to promote closer mutually advantageous ties between
Western Europe, North America, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand. The objective is greater security and more effective
harmonization of economic, monetary, energy and resource
policies for the benefit of the individual in his personal,
business, financial and other relations across national
Then comes a key phrase:
“In an increasingly interdependent world where ‘foreign’
policy is ever more closely intertwined with ‘domestic’ policies
there is a clear need for both official and private consideration
of means of dealing with problems which transcend national
Note the assumption of an “increasingly interdependent world.” By
placing “foreign” and “domestic” in quotes, Atlanticists are
way to destroy the distinction between foreign and domestic
vital step in the road to a unified world under elitist control.8
THE COMMISSION ON CRITICAL CHOICES FOR
In its own words,
“The Commission on Critical Choices for Americans is a
nationally representative, bipartisan group of 42 prominent
Americans, brought together under the chairmanship of Nelson
A. Rockefeller. Their assignment: To identify the critical choices
which will confront America as it embarks on its third century as a
nation and to determine the realistic and desirable objectives this
nation can achieve by 1985 and the year 2000. “Because of the
complexity and interdependence of issues facing the world today, the
Commission organized its work into six study panels, which emphasize
the interrelationships of the critical choices rather than studying
each one separately.
“The six study panels are:
Panel I—Energy and Its Relationship to Ecology: Economics and World
Panel II—Food, Health, World Population and Quality of Life.
Panel III—Raw Materials, Industrial Development, Capital Formation,
Employment and World Trade.
Panel IV—International Trade and Monetary Systems, Inflation and the
Relationships Among Differing Economics Systems.
Panel V—Change, National Security and Peace, and
Panel VI -Quality
of Life of Individuals and Communities in the U.S.A.”9
In brief, the Commission is a Rockefeller study group funded by a
“The Third Century Corporation, a New York not for-profit
organization, was created to finance the work of the
Commission. Since the start of its activities in the fall of 1973,
the Corporation has received contributions and pledges from
individuals and from foundations well-known for their support
of public interest activities. “10
The membership of the Commission reflects this Rockefeller
MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION ON CRITICAL
CHOICES FOR AMERICANS
Chairman -Nelson E. Rockefeller
Executive Director -Henry L. Diamond
• Gerald R. Ford
• Henry A. Kissinger
• George P. Shultz
• Mike Mansfield
• Hugh Scott
• Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr.
• John J. Rhodes
• Ivan Allen, Jr.
• Martin Anderson
• Robert O. Anderson
• William O. Baker
• Daniel J. Boorstin
• Norman E. Borlaug
• Ernest L. Boyer
• Guido Calabresi
• John S. Foster, Jr.
• Luther H. Foster
• Nancy Hanks Kissinger
• Belton Kleberg Johnson
• Clarence B. Jones
• Joseph Lane Kirkland
• John H. Knowles, M.D.
• David S. Landes
• Mary Wells Lawrence
• Sol M. Linowitz
• Ed ward J. Logue
• Clare Boothe Luce
• Paul W. McCracken
• Daniel Patrick Moynihan
• Bess Myerson
• William S. Paley
• Russell W. Peterson
• Wilson Riles
• Laurence S. Rockefeller
• William J. Ronan
• Oscar M. Ruebhausen
• Joseph C. Swidler
• Edward Teller
• Marina v.N. Whitman
• Carroll L. Wilson
• George D. Woods
Of the above members an unusual number received personal gifts from
Nelson Rockefeller and were consequently under some obligation to
the Rockefeller family. We know of the following cases:
Henry A. Kissinger. Received a $50,000.00 gift in January 1969.
Nancy Hanks. Later married to Henry A. Kissinger.
Edwin J. Logue. In 1968 received a gift of $31,389 followed by
another $145,000 of which $45,000 was repaid.
William J. Ronan. Received a gift of $75,000 in 1958 and $550,000 in
Henry L. Diamond. Executive Director of the Commission,
received a gift of $100,000 in December 1973. 11
ELITIST CONTROL OF U.S. POLICY MAKING
To identify precisely elitist control over independent policy
research organizations, we compared the membership of the Atlantic
Council, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission
and the Commission on Critical Choices for Americans to find out how
many members of one organization served with other organizations.
(the Foreign Policy Association appears to be a special case which
we will note only briefly.)
We grouped the interlocks into three categories: Quadruple, Triple
and Double Hats - depending upon his/her membership in these
The Rockefeller family is represented directly in all four
organizations, and also indirectly, as will be discussed later.
David Rockefeller is chairman of both the Trilateral Commission and
the Council on Foreign Relations.
The late Nelson Rockefeller was an
honorary director of the Atlantic Council and created the Commission
on Critical Choices for Americans. In addition, Laurence Rockefeller
served on the Commission on Critical Choices. In brief, there is
direct, at-the-top Rockefeller family participation in all four
organizations. Logically, these organizations do not reflect
American society as a whole, but presumably those interests
represented by the Rockefeller family - whatever those interests
This extraordinary influence cannot be denied except by some
intellectually dishonest mind “blank.” Those researchers and
journalists who choose to ignore this unparalleled influence over
domestic and foreign policy making need to reconsider their basic
moral position. Without doubt, the influence of the Rockefeller
family on US policy making is now and has been for many decades a
topic demanding urgent and thorough investigation.
Apart from the Rockefeller family, the most notable “quadruple hat”
is that of Henry Kissinger.
Let’s briefly look at the Kissinger-
. In 1955, Kissinger, then an obscure Harvard professor, was chosen
to head the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Objective? To develop studies
to formulate American foreign policy for the 1960’s. An ambitious
and farsighted project; however, we are unable to determine what
constitutional or moral sanction gave the Rockefeller family the
right to determine US policy.
. Nelson Rockefeller has
described Kissinger as a “close personal friend and associate
for more than eighteen years.” (1974)
. In January 1969, Kissinger resigned as a personal foreign policy
consultant to Nelson Rockefeller and became assistant to President
Nixon for national security affairs. Nelson Rockefeller presented
Kissinger with a gift of $50,000 at that time. The gift was made in
Rockefeller’s own words as a token of “my affection and
. The amount paid by Nelson Rockefeller to Kissinger
over the period 1958 to 1968 is a matter of public record.
amounts are not unsubstantial:
(The last gift was on joining President Nixon.)
The official report notes that these payments were for work “done
for the family rather than on a consulting basis through any
governmental agency.”12 In summary, quadruple hat Kissinger can
without prejudice be described as a hired intellectual servant of
the Rockefeller family.
When we come to look at triple hats, we notice at least two
interesting facts: 1) There are seven triple hats, compared to only
three quadruple hats and 2) with minor exceptions, these triple hats
have a Rockefeller or international banking association.
The triple hats that sit on the Trilateral Commission, Council on
Foreign Relations and the Atlantic Council include:
Franklin, Winston Lord, Robert Roosa, George Ball, Thomas L.
Hughes, Charles W. Robinson and Philip Trezise.
George S. Franklin was formerly coordinator of the Atlantic Council,
executive director of the Council on Foreign Relations and is
presently coordinator of the Trilateral Commission. Thus, in one
pair of hands, there is concentrated the executive power, wielded by
the secretary of a committee of three policymaking organizations.
Since the Committee on Critical Choices was a temporary
organization, there was no coordinating required and presumably no
requirement for George Franklin’s talents.
Winston Lord is president of the Council on Foreign Relations (David
Rockefeller is chairman), a director of the Atlantic Council and a
Robert Roosa is a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation and shuttles
between a partnership in Brown Brothers, Harriman (Harriman is
prominent in the military buildup of the Soviet Union through US
technology) and sub-cabinet posts in Washington.
George Ball is a partner in another international Wall Street
banking firm -Lehman Brothers -and a long time shuttler between
Washington political and banking circles.
The remaining triple hat is Marina v. Neumann Whitman, a former
professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh and recently
a vice president at General Motors.
Apart from virtually unknown Whitman, the Rockefeller interests are
the only individual interests represented on all four policy-making
We might ask how the impressive investigative powers of The
Washington Post and the New York Times managed to miss such an
obvious conflict of interest; or, for that matter, we might ask the
same question about the Conservative Digest.
When we get to double hats, the extraordinary overlap among these
organizations is identified.
No less than sixty-five percent of the
directors of the Atlantic Council are also members of the CFR,
including its chairman Kenneth Rush, a key supporter of aid to the
Soviet Union - and all seven vice-presidents except for David
Packard, who is a double hat on the Trilateral Commission and CFR.)
Out of eighty-two directors of the Atlantic Council, no fewer than
fifty-three members of the CFR and out of twenty-four honorary
directors, fourteen are also members of the CFR.
That gives us a
total of seventy-four members out of a total of one hundred fourteen
Atlantic Council directors.
The interlock that will interest most readers is that between the
traditional elitist foreign policy base (CFR) and the newer elitist
vehicle, the Trilateral Commission. The authors compared the 1977-78
CRR and the 1978 Trilateral Commission membership lists.
The highlights of the interlock are as follows:
. Out of ninety-one North American Trilateral
Commissioners, forty-eight (fifty-three percent) are
members of the CFR. (Remember this also includes
Canadian Commissioners, so the purely US figure is closer to sixty
. When we come to the category “Former Members in Public Service,”
the percentage is almost unbelievable. Of eighteen Commissioners who
served in Washington in the Carter administration, fifteen were
members of the CFR - This is eighty-three per cent!
The three Trilateral Commissioners not members of CFR but who were
in Washington are Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Lucy Wilson
Benson, who later became US Under-Secretary of State.
we can readily see the tremendous overlap in membership and control
of these important policy-making organizations.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER 5
I. Study No. Seven, quoted in Organization #11, Network of Patriotic
2. New York Times, November 21,1971, p. 2 co!. 1.
3. Angus Deming and Tony Fuller, Foreign Policy: Mandarins in
Trouble. Newsweek, March 28, 1977.
4. Whitney H. Shepardson, Early History of the Council on Foreign
Relations. p. 8.
5. See information contained in footnote number 8.
8. For further information, contact The Atlantic Council of the
United States, 1616 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006 and Report on
the Foreign Policy Association published by Doorstep Savannah, 409
East Liberty Street, Savannah, Georgia. Enclose $1.00.
9. Helen Kitchen, Africa: From Mystery To Maze. Critical Choices for
Americans, Volume XI, pp v-vi.
Back to Contents
TRILATERAL FOREIGN POLICY AND
HUMAN RIGHTS: THE CASE OF
Trilateral foreign policy as it was implemented in the Carter
administration appeared to be intent on donating American assets and
enterprises to the Marxist world as rapidly as public awareness will
allow. This observation is not limited to this author.
Vermont Royster writing in The Wall Street Journal made a new high
for that publication, which is normally subservient to Trilateral
Royster commented on the new Carter agreement with Communist China:
“The Carter administration has agreed to normalization of relations
with the People’s Republic -i.e., full diplomatic recognition -on
terms no different from those the Chinese would have welcomed at any
time since 1972.
“Moreover, we suddenly accepted the Chinese terms, previously
rejected by Presidents Nixon and Ford, not because of any new
necessity for the U.S. to normalize those relations at this time.
The U.S. could have continued the existing relationship, awkward
though it was, almost indefinitely without any injury to our
“Instead we simply accepted every condition the People’s
Republic has demanded all along, including a formal
acceptance by us, without any qualification, of the People’s
Republic claim that Taiwan is an integral part of Mainland
In short, we have one more example of the American proclivity to
think that reaching an agreement is somehow more important than
what’s in the agreement.
Moreover, this inclination toward giving everything away is seen by
Trilaterals as an imperative. Witness Zbigniew Brzezinski writing at
the time of the Communist China debacle:
“And, last but not least, we have to accommodate very
broadly with the People’s Republic of China. It represents one-fourth of humanity, and as extremely gifted and creative
segment of humanity, with whom we have many common
interests. These interests are long-term, not tactically anti-Soviet; they are much more connected with our fundamental
view of a world of diversity and not a world dominated by this
or that power. “2
THE U.S. -COMMUNIST CHINA AGREEMENT
The Carter administration agreement with Communist China, the
so-called normalization of relations, was an extraordinary treaty.
All the Chinese terms, including those rejected by Presidents Nixon
and Ford, were totally accepted in the Trilateral negotiations (the
negotiators were all Trilaterals). On the spot in Peking was Leonard
Woodcock. In Washington were Cyrus Vance and Warren Christopher
(Under Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.)
There was no pressure to make an agreement at this time from the
strategic or political viewpoint -so we must look to the
multinationals for an answer. What do they gain? Is the China treaty
a duplicate of the early 1920-30 Soviet agreement? A device to fill
multinational order books and expand the loan base of international
The United States was in an extremely strong bargaining position.
The Chinese need US technology to survive and US credits to buy
technology. They need the US as an ally against Russian intrusions
over the Chinese border and recognition by the US gives the Chinese
Communists a status they can achieve in no other way.
Yet the United States capitulated without a whimper, very much like
the Vietnamese situation when the US got sucked into a major war
without plan or purpose where some 50,000 Americans were killed. The
battlefield was abandoned at a time when America still had the
absolute capability to finish the military job. In other words, we
apparently did not know why we were in Vietnam in the first place.
When we were involved, we spent billions on war materials and even
then lacked the will to use those weapons.
In this instance and others we can find a common thread, a common
explanation. In science, the answer that most likely is true, is
answer which fits the largest number of cases or events. Is there
for Wall Street in recognizing Communist China? Was there also
in $300 billion of Vietnamese military contracts? In the same way,
there was profit in saving the Soviets and building the Soviet
Five-Year Plans in the 1930’s?
This is the simplest, most plausible answer. It fits the greatest
number of cases -and this is where Trilateralism comes in.
Trilateralism is the vehicle by which some banking interests and
multinationals carry out their policy objectives.
The Trilateral opening to Communist China also reveals a total
failure to recognize the human cost of Chinese Communism: 200
million Chinese dead in the thirty years of the Revolution. During
one particular campaign, Let a Million Flowers Bloom, Chinese
Communists lifted their restrictions on freedom of speech and
action. Many Chinese then took the bait to criticize the regime.
After a few months of freedom of speech the Chinese government
promptly arrested the dissidents and used their own words as
evidence to send them to labor camps, prisons, or to their death.
Internationalist businessmen are adept at telling each other how
nonpolitical and smart they are to ignore civil and social
conditions while concentrating on the business at hand. The profit
statement is the guide: hard-core amorality.
The dangerous illusions Trilaterals hold about Russia and China do
not therefore stem from ignorance of the facts -their actions stem
from extreme shortsightedness and amorality. An upcoming contract
for a multinational corporation has total precedence over any
nonsense about human rights. While, for example, Trilateral J. Paul
Austin3 may want to sell Coca-Cola to 800 million Chinese, Austin
seems to have little interest in what happened to tens of millions
of the less fortunate Chinese.
The outright betrayal of Taiwan in the clear, stark words of the
official agreement reads as follows:
“The government of the United States of America
acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China,
and Taiwan is part of China.”4
It is difficult to find any historical parallel where a country has
acknowledged the slaughter of 200 million people by creating an
alliance with that country. Possibly the closest parallel is
Hitler’s alliance with Stalin in 1939 after Stalin had murdered
millions of peasants and Hitler had begun to move against his
For Trilaterals, human rights are subordinate to their objective of
world control. Witness the following statement:
“...the support for human rights will have to be balanced
against other important goals of world order. Some Trilateral
conceptions of detente with the Soviet Union and other
communist states tend to conflict with a policy promoting
The drive to open up Communist China as a captive market for
globalist corporations has its parallel in the early days of the
THE HISTORICAL PARALLEL
Many of the same companies now in China (some have since changed
their names or merged with other companies) were equally responsible
for rescuing the infant and collapsing Soviet Russia in 1922. In the
early 1920’s the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The only
industrial structure was that of the Czars. Industry was dormant,
not destroyed as Soviet propagandists would have us believe. Foreign
firms, mainly American and German, came in to start up the sleeping
Czarist industry and remained to build the Five-Year Plans.
Because the Soviets had killed or dispersed the skilled engineers
and managers needed to run industry.
As Soviet Commissar Krassif
phrased the problem:
“Anyone can help pull down a house; there are but a few
who can rebuild. In Russia there happened to be far fewer than
Communist China today is in the same situation as Soviet Russia in
the 1920’s. To quote a recent statement by Chaing Ching-Kuo of
“The Chinese Communists are on the verge of collapse at
this moment. The United States’ establishment of relations with
the Communist is to help save a bandit regime that massacres
millions and millions of compatriots. Therefore, America is the
biggest sinner in history. “7
The same multinationals that built the Soviet Union into a vast
military power are now doing the same with Communist China. China
suffers from widespread electricity shortages and has had to buy
Westinghouse-engineered nuclear reactors from France. The iron and
steel industry is backward and inefficient. Planned increases are
based on use of Western technology, as were the Soviets’ in the
early 1920’s and 1930’s.
The following table illustrates how
American firms involved in the USSR -even before establishment of
diplomatic relations -have also been negotiating with Communist
China, and in some cases, like Coca-Cola, well before the
establishment of diplomatic relations.
Take the example of Boeing Aircraft (T .A. Wilson is chairman of the
board). In the 1930’s Boeing supplied technical assistance to the
growing Soviets. The Soviet I-16 fighter was patterned on the Boeing
P-26. The Soviet TU-4 four-engine bomber was a copy of the Boeing
B-29 and could only have been reproduced with US assistance. Boeing
is now selling to Communist China.
Another example is UOP (Universal Oil Products), now a subsidiary of
Signal Oil Company. In the 1930s UOP had contracts in the USSR for
construction of hydrogenation plants, which were of vital importance
for military purposes. Up to 1938 the Soviets were unable to produce
87-94 octane gasoline for aviation use. Hydrogenation plants built
by UOP converted 85 octane gasoline from the Saratov and Grozny
refineries into 95 octane avgas. Currently, UOP is one of the first
American firms in China to develop petrochemical industry -also
vital for war purposes.
Yet another example is Ingersoll-Rand which was represented in the
Soviet Union by Armand Hammer (now chairman of Occidental Petroleum
Corporation) as early as 1918. At that time Armand Hammer’s father,
Julius Hammer, was secretary of the Communist Party USA.
Ingersoll-Rand became a prime seller of technology to the USSR. In
1979, Ingersoll Rand is following the same road with Communist
Dozens of firms can be cited with similar stories. As previously
noted, US multinationals built Soviet power. This has cost the
United States hundreds of thousands of lives in Korea and Vietnam.
Now these same multinationals have begun to build Communist China.
The following table demonstrates the widespread fundamental nature
of the early Chinese contracts.
Apart from Coca-Cola, they involve
advanced technology with outright military application.
THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
Chase Manhattan was the first bank into Communist China and probably
has the most to profit from its build-up. Back in the 1920’s the
forerunner of the Chase Manhattan Bank, Chase National Bank, was
deeply involved in building the Soviets - some of this activity was
called illegal and was certainly against US official policy.
Both Chase National and Equitable Trust were the leaders in the
Soviet credit business at a time when the State Department had
specifically banned credits to Soviet Russia. Chase evaded the ban
by accepting platinum from Soviet mines and advancing credit on the
basis of these shipments. Again, this was strictly against US policy
in the 1920’s.
The president of the American-Russian Chamber of Commerce in the
1920’s was Reeve Schley, also a vice-president of Chase National.
The Chamber was a pressure group which sought to change US policy
into recognition of the USSR and open up the Russian market for some
major American firms and banks. To this end, the Chamber used known
Communists as agents; for example, a Chamber delegation to Russia in
1936 was lead by Charles Haddell Smith, previously described by the
State Department as “in the employ of the Soviets and a member of
the Soviet Peasant International.”8
Members of the Chamber in the
1920’s included many of the firms opening up the China trade today,
including Deere & Co., Westinghouse and Chase National.
THE NEW CHINA POLICY IS A TRILATERAL POLICY
Some major important
China contracts link to Trilateralists and their corporate
. The key financial backer of Jimmy Carter was Coca Cola chairman
and Trilateral Commissioner J. Paul Austin, Coca-Cola will have a
soft drink monopoly in China. Maybe the Chinese don’t yet know what
a soft drink tastes like, but 800 million Chinese are prime market
for the 21st century. Coca-Cola has been negotiating for ten years
with the Chinese, i.e. long before any public surfacing of a “new”
China policy and presumably while the Chinese aided the killing of
Americans in Vietnam.
. A consortium of US oil companies in negotiating development of
Chinese petroleum resources. These include Exxon (David Rockefeller
has dominant interests), Pennzoil, Phillips and Union Oil.
. Time magazine Man-of-the-Year was the Chinese Communist leader,
Teng Hsiao-Ping. Trilateralist Hedley Donovan was editor-in-chief of
. The first American banks into China were Chase Manhattan and the
First National Bank of Chicago.
. Japanese Trilaterals are heavily involved in construction of
Communist China - as described below.
Trilateral policy on Communist China has been spelled out clearly.
Trilateral-Chinese cooperation has been proposed in the following
areas, but not limited to them:
1. Earthquake warning
Energy: Above all, it is emphasized that China’s oil potential
can only be exploited by developing the offshore reserves on the
continental shelf. “This would probably require outside technology.
US oil companies have shown interest in investing in continental
shelf oil exploration. “9
In brief, Trilateral publications outlined
the Carter administration policies were later and still are being
JAPANESE TRILATERALS AND CHINA
Japanese members of the Trilateral Commission reflect the Japanese
establishment to an extraordinary degree. This is significant
because Japan is now in the forefront of building Communist China.
The breakdown of Japanese Trilaterals is as follows:
The previous chairman of the Japanese Trilateral Executive Committee
is Chujiro Funjino, chairman of the Mitsubishi Corporation.
Mitsubishi has contracts in China including a large contract to
modernize the Shanghai shipyards, the largest in Communist China.
Three Japanese banks are represented on the Executive Committee of
the Trilateral Commission: The president of the Bank of Tokyo,
Yusuka Kashiwagi is a former special advisor to the Minister of
Finance, Saburo Okita is president of the Overseas Economic
Cooperation Fund, and Takeshi Watanabe is chairman of Trident
International Finance, Ltd., based in Hong Kong.
Former Japanese government officials comprise more than one-third of
the executive committee: Kiichi Miyazawa is a Minister of State and
Chinese Cabinet Secretary, Ryuji Takeuchi is advisor to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs and a former ambassador to the United States and
Nobuhiko Ushiba is also a former ambassador to the United States.
Japanese trade unions have two representatives, Kazuo Oikawa, who is
president of the Japan Telecommunications workers union and Ichiro
Shioji, president of the Confederation of Japan Automobile workers
The opening up of Communist China is a vital Trilateral policy and
Japanese Trilaterals are in the forefront of the rush for contracts:
. Yoshizo Ikeda is president of Mitsui & Co., which has numerous
Chinese contracts. Mitsui Petrochemical Industries Ltd. is involved
in construction of polyethylene plants. . Seiki Tozaki is president
of Itoh & Co., which is involved in trading contracts with Communist
. Hirokichi Yoshiyama is president of Hitachi Ltd. His firm has a
$100 million contract to supply equipment for the Paoshan steelworks
and will expand the Hungchi Shipyards at Luta. . Yoshihiro Inayama
is chairman of Nippon Steel which is also aiding development of the
Communist steel industry, including a $3 billion steel plant just
1. The current China policy is Trilateral policy.
2. The 1978 agreement was complete capitulation to Chinese Communist
3. The only rational explanation for capitulation is that the power
elite is focusing more on the contracts to be won than on the
long-run strategic impact on our world.
THE CASE OF THE PANAMA CANAL
The Panama Canal Treaty handed over US property, bought and full
payment made, many decades ago. The zone was under US sovereignty
but handed over to a Marxist (Torrijos) regime.
Some 76% of America disapproved of the Panama treaties. Those
Americans who supported the Treaties are usually described as either
liberals who believe Panama is a “have not” nation more deserving of
the Canal Zone or those who wish to ignore the fact of legal US
ownership, although this ownership has been precisely documented to
In 1977, Congressman Robert K. Dornan identified a third group of
treaty supporters -what Dornan called “the fast-money type of
international banker.” Dornan demonstrated that the Panama overseas
debt required 39% of the Panamanian gross national product. Further,
the Torrijos government was far from stable and the banks
participating in this debt wanted to protect their investment.
Consequently, the Panama Canal treaties gave Torrijos a much needed
boost to keep his Marxist regime in power and keep the bank debt
Here is an excerpt from Congressman Dornan’s report to Congress:
“The most visible and known of this third type are the fast-money
type of international banker. The Torrijos dictatorship is up to its
ears in debt to banks. The debt of the Torrijos regime has now
reached such proportions that 39 percent of the Panama GNP repeat 39
percent -goes to debt servicing alone. This might not cause the
extreme consternation in the banking circles that it does if it were
a debt owed by a stable government. But the Torrijos regime is far
The dictator was nearly ousted a few years ago by an abortive coup
and there are few wagers on his staying in power long if the
treaties are rejected by the Senate. And if he is not in power, the
banks do not have much chance of getting their money.
“Some Members of Congress and Americans are aware of
the conflict of interests involved in some of the banks’ support
of the Panamanian treaties. They are aware of the Marine
Midland connection through negotiator Sol Linowitz. But there
are many other banks whose endorsement of the giveaway of
the canal may be motivated by monetary interests. Unlike
Marine Midland, they have been able to keep a lower profile.
They are not generally known to be part of the banking group
with a lucrative stake in the ratification of the treaties. “10
Dornan published a list of banks participating in the Torrijos debt
and also pointed out that Sol Linowitz, the US negotiator, was a
director of Marine Midland Bank that held part of two Panamanian
loans -thus establishing clear conflict of interest for Linowitz.
The authors examined the list of banks (thirty-one for one loan and
fourteen for another loan) publicized by Congressman Dornan and
traced the Trilateral links to these participating banks. The
results are truly astounding. There are only three hundred
Trilateral Commissioners worldwide, of which about one-third are
from Japan, one-third from Europe and one third from the United
States, i.e., about 90 from each region.
For the two Panamanian
loans cited by Congressman Dornan we found:
(1) No fewer than thirty-two Trilaterals are on the boards of the
thirty-one banks participating in the Republic of Panama $115
million 10-year Eurodollar loan issued in 1972.
(2) Also, fifteen Trilaterals were on the boards of fourteen banks
participating in the Republic of Panama $20 million floating rate
promissory note issued in 1972.
(3) These links suggest conflict of interest on a gigantic scale,
involving not only the Carter administration but the Japanese
government and less importantly some European governments.
To quote Congressman Dornan again:
“But there is a third type of pro-treaty person whose motives
should be impugned. These persons are well aware of the facts
of the 1903 treaty and the importance of the canal to the
security of the Western World. They do not endorse the treaty
out of undue love of the Panamanian people or out of
confusion—they do so out of self-interest. They have
something to gain from the giveaway of the American people’s
TRILATERAL ASSAULT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Trilateral writings on human rights is notable for its paucity. No
Trilateral Task Force Report has been devoted to the basic question
individual freedoms and survival in an age of ever-increasing
government. On the contrary, Trilateral writing has focused on the
rights and powers of governmental authority rather than the rights
of the governed.
In the arena of public discussion and political maneuvering, some
rather transparent lip service is given to human rights.
Trilateralists and the Carter administration expressed a superficial
“deep concern” for human rights and they convinced many that human
rights are a fundamental objective of Trilateralism. For example, as
proclaimed by Trilateral Warren Christopher, Deputy Under Secretary
“The major accomplishment of the [President’s human
rights] policy is that we’ve helped to create a concern all
around the world for basic human rights.”12
We have to presume that Warren Christopher and the State Department
public relations officials kept straight faces when they released
that statement. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
few examples demolish Warren Christopher’s expression of concern.
PROPERTY RIGHTS SUBORDINATED
In October 1977, President Carter signed the Soviet version of the
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Seven previous Presidents
had refused to sign the Declaration because it excludes the right to
own property. Traditional American philosophy is that without
property rights there can be no “human rights.”
RUSSIAN CHRISTIANS AND THE US EMBASSY IN
For two years a group of seven Russian Christians have been isolated
in the US Embassy in Moscow -the same State Department that Warren
Christopher says has a concern for human rights. According to
“They pray, read their Bibles, beset by fears and doubts. On
one side of the room a Russian barber loudly slurs them to
customers and on the other side through an iron grilled
window Soviet guards occasionally shout taunts. “13
Why are these Russian refugees slurred and taunted on US property?
Because US Embassy officials want them to return to the Soviets,
even though they have already been granted political asylum. Why?
Because the Carter administration found the presence of these
Russian Christians to be embarrassing. They are kept exposed to
threats and taunts to “encourage” them to return to a Soviet prison
rather than refuge in the US Embassy.
Comments Rev. Blakhoslav Hruby, director of the Research Center for
Religion and Human Rights in Closed Societies:
“It’s a real scandal...their refuge has become a prison...
although there are thousands of worse cases of human rights
violations in the world this one is particularly shameful
because these people are suffering-and for so long -in U.S.
“The fate of these gentle, courageous, but defenseless Christians
depends in a large part on how we in the West respond to their
tragic predicament. There is no place for them to turn and nowhere
for them to go. America is their last hope.
“But the embassy seems more embarrassed by their presence than
concerned. They’re being treated as expendable in the name of
so-called ‘broader’ diplomacy. But these are specific human lives
and they aren’t being treated like human beings.
“Every week, embassy officials advise them to go, and
they’re becoming terribly depressed and discouraged. Yet if
they finally give up and decide to go because they’re being
made so miserable, they’d be sent to Siberia to die of an
This was the situation in the US Embassy in Moscow while
Trilateralists Carter and Christopher pontificated to the world
about human rights. And at the beginning of the Reagan
administration, those Russian Christians still remain in captivity!
Trilateral involvement in human rights is an exercise in double
standards. Some countries are criticized, some countries are not
depending on political objectives.
The double standard on human rights necessitated by Trilateralist
objectives, was vividly demonstrated in 1978 by State Department
spokesman John Trattner. The administration decided to return the
Crown of St. Stephen to Communist Hungary after safekeeping in the
US since 1951.
At a press conference, Reed Irvine of Accuracy in
Media, Washington, D.C., pinned the administration to the wall on
the double standard with dagger-like questions:
Irvine: The State Department is very much concerned with
representative government these days. They are concerned in Rhodesia
and South Africa. Are you at all concerned with whether the
government of Hungary is representative of the people?
Trattner: Our concern about representative government around the
world does not also mean that we stand up here and make judgments
from this podium as to the question you are asking here.
Irvine: I see. Could you tell us when the last free election was
held in Hungary?
Trattner: I would have to go back and look at the history
books. I don’t really know.
Irvine: Has Janos Kadar ever submitted himself to a free
Trattner: I think what you ought to do is ask the Hungarians.
Irvine: You know that. You know he hasn’t.
Trattner: Well, then, why do you ask the question?
Irvine: I wanted to get the State Department’s view of why they
feel that this government ...
Trattner: My answer is that from this podium we are not in the habit
of making judgments on other people’s governments however much we
may have opinions about them and however much to you the answer may
be obvious, or it may be obvious to you that I know what the answer
is. On the record, up here, up here, I am not going to give an
Irvine: You don’t have opinions about representative
governments in Rhodesia and South Africa?
Trattner: No, I am not saying that at all.
Irvine: You say you are returning the crown to the Hungarian
people. You are returning it to the government, to Janos
Kadar, who obviously doesn’t represent the people, because he
has never submitted himself to an election. Therefore you are
saying, it seems to me incorrectly, that the government of Hungary
represents the people, and by this action you are indicating to
everyone in the world that this government has your approbation.
Trattner: No, I would contest that strongly. I don’t think I am
making that kind of statement at all.
Irvine: Are we getting any quid pro quo for this? Are the Hungarians
doing anything -relaxing any restraints on human rights in return
for this action?
Trattner: There are many Hungarian-Americans who have been in touch
with us who have suggested that we should seek some concessions from
the Hungarian government in return for the crown. Others in the
Hungarian-American community have told us that because of the unique
significance of the crown to all Hungarians, they feel it would be
inappropriate and disrespectful to a centuries-old tradition to
trade the crown for anything of that kind could possibly have an
equivalent or comparable significance. We agree with the latter
point of view, and recognizing that we received the crown for
safekeeping without any other conditions, we stated our willingness
to the Hungarian government to return it in the same manner.
Irvine: Could you tell us why we didn’t return it much earlier then?
Trattner: We have always said that the return of the crown would be
done in the context of an improvement in relations bilaterally, and
we feel that that point has been reached.
Irvine: Has there been some remarkable change in the last year that
would have altered...?
Trattner: Yes, I can cite you a few things... The overall record of
Hungary in implementing the Helinsinki Final Act has been among the
best in the Warsaw Pact, although its performance still falls short
of Western standards.
Irvine: How does it compare with South Africa?
Trattner: I am not in the business right now, at least, of making a
comparison with South Africa for you.
Irvine: Do they have as much freedom of the press as South Africa?
Trattner: I can’t make a comparison for you.
Irvine: Do they have any freedom of the press? Are there any free
newspapers in Hungary that are not run by the government?
Trattner: I really don’t know.
Irvine: Could you find out?
Trattner: It might be possible to find out, yes 16
For those readers who may not know the answers evaded by the State
Department, the Hungarian press is totally controlled by the
Hungarian government, and no opposition newspapers or publications
South Africa, on the other hand, has one of the most
vocal and critical presses in the world: read a few issues of the
Rand Daily Mail or the Cape Times and this point is made amply
IDI AMIN AND TRILATERALISM
Remember Idi Amin, the Ugandan leader, who systematically butchered
his own population?
Far from Trilateral protests over Amin’s butchery we find official
US government support, as reported by Jack Anderson:
“With great show of disapproval, the U.S. cut off Amin’s foreign aid
in 1973. Yet he flies around in grand style in a Grumman Gulfstream
jet that is serviced every year at the company plant in Savannah.
Georgia Page Airways, another American company, has provided flight
crews to maintain Amin’s imperial plane.
We reported last fall that still another American company, Bell
Helicopter, was training 20 police pilots at Fort Worth. They now
operate at least nine Bell helicopters, which were sent unarmed to
Uganda, but could easily have been converted into para-military
We have now learned that the 20 pilots, who hastily returned to
Uganda after our report was published, were admitted to the U.S. on
A-2 priority diplomatic visas. Confidential sources say 82 Ugandans
entered the country on diplomatic visas.
Several of them belong to Amin’s notoriously brutal State
What is the Trilateral comment? Warren Christopher merely had this
observation to Anderson’s revelations:
“A small number of Ugandan pilots are being trained by
private U.S. firms.”18
And Jimmy Carter then handed out a weak-handed slap officially,
while unofficially allowing the training of Ugandans to continue:
“We must strengthen our efforts to condemn the practices of
that government. “19
RELEVANCE OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Fall 1978 issue of Trialogue, official organ of the Trilateral
Commission, was devoted to “The Politics of Human Rights.”
A leadoff interview with Trilateral Henry Kissinger summarized the
Trilateral use of human rights as a policy subordinate to other
policies and a tool to be used to achieve overall objectives.
Kissinger expressed it this way in reply to a question:
Q. What are the merits and chances of successes of a vocal human
rights policy on the part of the U.S. Administration [sic]?
A. It has some merit for the United States to stand for its
principles: the United States should definitely do so and indeed, we
tried to do this also in the administrations with which I was
associated. However, I think that making this a vocal objective of
our foreign policy involves great dangers:
You run the risk of either showing your impotence or
producing revolutions in friendly countries, or both. .. I think
that fundamental goals of American policy, no matter how they
are defined, should be linked to other elements of interest to
the Soviets. Either a policy has relevance to other areas of
national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever. Linkage,
therefore, is synonymous with overall strategic view. It is
inherent in the real world, and if we ignore it, it is only at our
That’s it in a nutshell. “Either a policy has relevance to other
national strategy, or it has no meaning whatsoever.” In brief, human
rights have no meaning for Kissinger and his Trilateral friends
-human rights are gambling chips to be used as, and when, the
elitists see fit.
SLAVES IN COLOMBIA
Trilaterals Over Washington, Volume I, detailed the links between
some US multinationals and international banks with Trilateralism
and argued that Trilateral objectives are no more than
self-interested objectives for some MNC’s and international bankers.
Stark evidence for this argument was revealed in 1975-6 by the use
of “slave-labor-at-a-profit” by Trilateral multinationals in
Colombia, Latin America. While the slave labor system is not widely
known even among public officials in Colombia, it apparently has
Under the Colombian system of law an accused person can be kept in
prison without bail for periods which may extend up to ten years.
About 6,000 such “prisoners,” actually political detainees, work on
“prison labor projects” run by corporations, including prominent US
As the knowledge of this forced labor surfaced,
comments by both American residents and Colombian officials support
the authors’ argument on Trilateral human rights policy:
“It’s especially bad for multinationals to do this in an
underdeveloped country,” said Fernando Umana, head of Colombia’s
only public interest law firm.
Oscar A. Bradford, President of the Colombian/American
Chamber of Commerce, hadn’t heard of the practice until
1975. He commented at that time, “If I were a corporate
executive, I’d be inclined to look for something a little less
controversial. God knows there are enough other areas of
social reform in which to apply corporate efforts and
On June 20, 1975 the Wall Street Journal reported this detail:
“Now there are plans afoot to turn the entire prison
population into ‘employees’ of national and multinational
companies. This is a proposal of Action in Colombia, a nonprofit
group backed financially by 70 large Colombian and
U.S. concerns ranging from Avianca, the national airline, to
local units of Bank of America, Dow Chemical Co. and
International Business Machines Corp. So far, an Action
official says, Colombian and US businessmen have responded
‘very favorably’ to the plan, which is put forward as a program for
rehabilitation and improvement of the prisoners’ 1ot.”22
and banks who use slave labor in Colombia while trumpeting “human
rights” to an unsuspecting American public, include Trilateral
. Bank of America (Trilateralist Clausen and Wood) which is backing
Action in Colombia to turn “the entire prison population of Colombia
into employees of national and multinational companies.”23
Container Corporation of America (100% owned by Mobil Oil) has
operated a “slave labor” production line for many years. Container
Corporation is also affiliated with Marcor Inc., another Mobil
subsidiary. A Trilateralist in this group is Robert S. Ingersoll
(First Chicago Corporation), also a trustee of the Aspen Institute
for Humanistic Studies.
. Chase Manhattan owns 5.2 percent of Mobil
Oil stock, and there are six Trilaterals on the Chase board. IBM is
also cited as a supporter of Action in Colombia. Trilateralists on
the IBM board include W.T. Coleman, Jr., William W. Scranton, Harold
Brown, Carla Hills and Cyrus Vance, former Secretary of State. IBM
operates in Colombia through a 90%-owned subsidiary, IBM de Columbia
And note this:
“Few of the prisoners working for private companies have been
convicted. Rather, they are caught up in the Colombian system of
justice, in which the accused usually stays in prison until tried or
until he serves time equal to the term he would have received if
tried and convicted. Since bail is practically nonexistent, about
75% of the inmates fall into this category. Some have been jailed 8
to 10 years without a trial. “24
The slave labor program is well
described by the previously cited Fernando Umana:
“This isn’t a rehabilitation program at all, just window dressing
for what almost amounts to slave labor. “25
Only time and space
limit expansion on this theme of Trilateral antihuman rights
Trilateralism is the creation of a group of international bankers
and multinational corporations.
One should not hesitate to criticize
these bankers and multinationals for what they are -perverters of
individual freedom, and subverters of the Constitution of the United
States. But one must not mistake limited criticism of some bankers
and some multinationals for an attack on all bankers and
multinationals. It is painfully clear that most bankers and most
corporations are not in the slightest involved in the end-run
takeover of political power in the United States.
the authors have made is between most bankers and businessmen (who
operate more or less in a free enterprise system, and respect and
want this system) and a small self-perpetuating group that has
perverted the system to its own narrow and feudalistic aims.
Take a well-accepted speech by Dr. J. Kirchhoff, president of Castle
& Cook Inc., that was reprinted in Barrons.
In this speech,
Kirchhoff lists the “enemies” of capitalism but omits the most
important of these enemies - his capitalist peers who have subsidized
and nurtured the enemies of the free enterprise system. Says
“Until the mid 1950’s we had a good image. Capitalism could rest on
its own merits. We were effective and efficient. No one quarreled
with that thesis. Visible proof of its success was witnessed in a
high standard of living, political freedom and unlimited economic
opportunity. We had no specific five-year plan of action. We did not
program the lives of others. We were free to build and to create
wherever a free market existed. We were accepted or rejected based
on the quality of our performance and workmanship.
Such is not the case today: We are required to defend our
very existence to a carping melodramatic ‘elite minority’ that
produces absolutely nothing for its fellow man. Few, if any, of
this elite ever developed blisters on their hands from any
honest, productive labor. I personally refuse to accept the
principles of this minority and I refuse to accept as part of
corporate life increased government control, corporate abuse,
terrorist attacks or other pressure which are being generated by
this pseudo elite.”
Apparently some church-related groups, which also happened to be
supported by totalitarian capitalists, were attacking Castle and
“When a church related [sic] group contributes $85,000 to terrorist
revolutionaries in Rhodesia, who oppose the concept of free
elections in a multi-racial society, it forfeits any immunity from
We agree. But wait! Who are the prime supporters of
these church groups who support terrorism? None other than some of Kirchhoffs’ fellow capitalists. In fact, the speech touches on this:
“The guises frequently used are ‘The New International Economic
Order,’ ‘Alternative Economic and Social Solutions’ and ‘Economic
Democracy.’ These buzz words are palatable, at least on the surface.
They are, nonetheless, the siren songs of the Marxist ideologues who
have simple, uncomplicated goals: the destruction of the world’s
most efficient economic machine and the assumption of political
power through default. “27
Trilateral Paper No. 14 is entitled
Towards a Renovated International System and outlines a “global
strategy” for the “New International Economic Order” castigated by Kirchhoff.
Other criticism is directed at the World Council of
Churches. For example, J. Irwin Miller is chairman of the board of
Cummins Engine (Cummins has been a prominent subsidizer of the
Soviet Union) as well as a member of the central and executive
committees of the World Council of Churches. The WCC regularly votes
funds for Marxistterror groups around the world. In addition, the
president of Cummins Engine is Trilateral Henry Schacht and William
Scranton is a director.
The World Council of Churches also has a long record of financial
support from the Communist world. For example, between 1970 and 1976
East Germany contributed almost $1 million to the WCC.
Holland has contributed even more than this to “The fund to combat
racism.” In practice, of course, the fund has nothing to do with
combating racism. Black Africans were threatened with death by
WCC-subsidized Marxist groups such as SWAPO, ZANU and the Pan
African Congress: all nine black ministers in the former Rhodesian
government received death threats from WCC-supported ZANU, a black
This is well documented. Individual members of Western churches
affiliated with the WCC must take personal responsibility for this
financial support of murder.
Targeting the WCC Kirchhoff comments:
“We must overcome Western civilization’s growing sense of guilt.
There is nothing evil about profit in spite of the semantic games
played by the agitators. If it were not for profit and incentive,
the Western world would not be providing food, hard and soft goods,
technology, services, and loans to the rest of the world...
“The survival of truth and common decency are never certain, and
must be fought for constantly. We are at war, but it is a guerilla
war. It is being fought in the courtroom, the board room and the
media. The enemy is organized, discernible and has ample resources.
“Castle & Cooke does not intend, after 127 years, to forfeit
its principles to guerrillas of any political stripe. “I am
convinced that our path, rather than theirs, is the one that
offers more hope for the future, but it cannot be accomplished
in a vacuum or by one corporation. Let’s revitalize our
corporate leadership and take the offensive, in the best
tradition of American capitalism. “28
If American capitalists want public support they must first clean
house. While Mr. Kirchhoff makes good sense, he needs to name names,
point out responsibility and challenge J. Irwin Miller and his
fellow revolutionaries before calling on aid from the American
society at large.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER 6
1. Vermont Royster, Orient Express, Wall Street Journal, February
12, 1980 p. 1.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Washington Star, December 31, 1978, E4.
Paul Asutin retired as president and operating officer of Coca-Cola
on March I, 1981.
4. The Washington Post, December 24, 1978, p. 04.
5. Richard Cooper, et aI., Toward a Renovated International System,
6. New York Times, June 12, 1921, p. 2 column 3.
7. Reported by AP (Taipei, Taiwan) December 24, 1980.
8. Antony C.
Sutton, Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917 to
1930, p. 284.
9. Chihiro Hosoya et ai, Collaboration with Communist Countries in
Managing Global Problems: and Examination of the Options. .
Robert K. Dornan, Banking Interests in Panama, Congressional Record
(September 15, 1977).
12. Uneven Justice?, Wall Street Journal, May 11, 1978, p. 1.
13. George Cornell, AP Report, Arizona Republic, March 10, 1979.
16. Reed Irvine, Behind the News. Accuracy In Media (1978).
17. Jack Anderson, EI Paso Times, April 27, 1978.
20. Francois Sauzey, Henry Kissinger. Trialogue No. 19 (Fall 1978),
21. Wall Street Journal, June 20, 1975, p.l.
22. Ibid. p. I.
23. Ibid. p. 10.
24. Ibid. p. 10.
25. Ibid., p. 25.
26. Dr. J. Kirchhoff, Corporate Missionary: those who believe in
Capitalism must fight back, Barrons (February 19, 1979), p. 3.
27. Ibid., p. 3.
28. Op. cit., p. 3.
Back to Contents