THE PLAN FOR WORLD AGRICULTURE
Whatever Trilateralists may release about their objectives, common
sense suggests that any control they acquire over the daily lives of
individuals means a corresponding loss of control for the
individual. Power gained at the political center is power lost at
the periphery. If some central body makes regulations and orders,
this reduces the freedom of individuals to order their own lives. In
brief, globalism means reduction of individual freedom.
One Trilateral objective is to exaggerate world problems so that
Trilateral power to control and order a new world may be enhanced.
Such problems have been identified according to the following
. The problem should be important from a global standpoint.
. The problem should be one that can be solved by some
degree of Trilateral - Communist cooperation following
a presumed unstated objective to merge the U.S. with a
. The venture must be one that can be pursued without
undue intrusion into the internal affairs of the participating
An important problem area that fits the criteria for
selective manipulation is that of world food. Food supplies are
inadequate, people need food to live, and the technological and
financial abilities for food production are heavily within
Trilateral countries. As Triangle Paper No. 13 puts it:
Prospects are somewhat more substantial for cooperation in
the realm of increasing food production. Production increases
require both more effective domestic agricultural policies on
the part of developing countries and enlarged provision of
outside capital and technology to them for agricultural
In particular Triangle Paper 13 claims:
The prospects for cooperation are more promising with
regard to the third objective: the development of adequate food
(particularly grain) reserves. A reserve stock policy that could
keep cereal price changes within a less disruptive range than
in the recent past could make a considerable contribution not
only to restraining inflation in the developed and developing
worlds, but also to ensuring that adequate food supplies are
available to developing nations at prices that will not impose an
undue drain on foreign exchange...
In considering Trilateral targets for international food reserves
and world agriculture, we need to consider what the Trilaterals say
they want and compare it to what they really want. Fascinated by the
idea of “food power” and “contrived shortages,” the Trilaterals
intend to use food as a weapon to bring about the New World Order.
One stated objective is to create an “international system of
national food reserves” by massive manipulation of recently acquired
political power against private markets and initiatives. It is
proposed. for example:
. To keep grain prices in a “less disruptive range”
. Restrain inflation
. Ensure adequate food reserves for lesser developed
. Overcome periodic food imbalances.
Trilateral intentions for a world grain storage program are
published by the Trilateral Commission and the Brookings
Institution, headed by Trilateral Commissioner Bruce K. MacLaury.
Other Trilateralists on the Brookings Board of Trustees include
Robert V. Roosa (partner in Brown Brothers, Harriman), Lucy Wilson
Benson (presently under secretary of state for security assistance)
and Gerard C. Smith (ambassador at large for non-proliferation
matters.) In 1976 Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Philip H.
Trezise with the assistance of former Assistant Secretary of
Agriculture Carroll Brunthaver, published Rebuilding Grain Reserves:
Toward An International System. Brunthaver had previously been
involved in a conflict of sworn testimony, investigated by the
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. (See Report,
Russian Grain Transactions, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, p. 33.)
the Trezise book, the problems for multilateral agreement on grain
reserves are considered to be “formidable.” Going ahead is
“compelling” because of the following: upward moves in grain prices
have a “pervasive influence” on all food prices; they mean more
worldwide hunger; and grain stocks can be used in periods of famine.
More specifically, Trezise proposed:
. An initial reserve of sixty million tons of grain, rising to
between seventy-five and eighty million tons by 1981
. Contributions from all industrial countries, including
Argentina and South Africa
. A program cost of $6 billion plus $640 million in annual
. That stocks should be “national,” bought at 10 percent
above floor prices and sold at 10 percent below ceiling prices
. That twenty million tons be set aside for famine reserve
most Trilateral writings, Trezise includes only evidence in favor of
proposed Trilateral policy. Trilaterals typically use an ideological
procedure of gathering facts and opinion supporting their argument,
never allowing a hint of serious counter-argument. Two glaring
unstated consequences in Trezise’s book are:
1. Any such massive stockpiling will
raise the long-term price of grain, negating the objective of
2. The only way to stop the resulting inflation is through rigid
government price controls and regimented farming
The choice of food products as a means of reducing national
sovereignty is emphasized in the following paragraph:
There are several reasons why commodities are treated differently
than other products that enter into trade. Probably the most basic
reason is that commodity supplies are linked to land, tying them to
the concept of territory, over which nationstates exercise
sovereignty. As a general proposition, the demand for, and the
supply of, most commodities are rather unresponsive to changes in
price over short periods of time, so that quite sharp fluctuations
in price can be generated by fairly modest changes in overall market
conditions. Moreover, the time required to expand supplies is often
lengthy, although this property varies widely among individual
commodities. Although the value of all commodity consumption
represents no more than about ten percent of annual economic
activity in industrialized nations, and even though substitutes
exist for any particular commodity, commodities are sometimes
distinguished as “core products.” 3
The Trilateral elite, through
control of the U.S. executive branch, will-be calling the shots on a
world basis to reduce producer control and indirectly national
sovereignty. The amount of political power possessed by world grain
producers can be measured by comparing the area devoted to 1976
wheat production in Trilateral regions:
If it were possible for other countries to substantially increase
wheat production, the quickest way to do so would be to raise
government price support levels. However, except for Argentina, the
U.S. already has the lowest support levels among the thirty or so
wheat producing countries in the world.
Thus, one can see how the
U.S. has acreage, yield, and production efficiency all working for
it at the bargaining table.
THE TRILATERAL BIG STICK
This discussion of “food power” is not academic -it has major
significance for any grain trader, farmer, firm, or individual in
any way connected with grain products.
The Trilaterals propose international sanctions against any
government, private firm, or producer (in or out of an association)
interferes with Trilateral objectives. These sanctions will not be
in any principled way, but will be used pragmatically to achieve
Trilateral goals. The key to this plan and associated sanctions is
Triangle Paper 10, “Seeking a New Accommodation in World
Commodity Markets.” Therein, the concept of “contrived shortages” is
floated. A contrived shortage is any non-Trilateralist action in the
market place that interferes with Trilateral objectives. For
farmer withholding grain from the market and waiting for a higher
price, is guilty of contrived shortage. The paper further states
contrived shortages can be informal, rather than brought about by a
formal association of producers. 4
While all offenders are to be subject to effective international
investigation and action, the penalties are not to be applied
non-Trilateral developed country such as Argentina or South Africa
will be dealt harsher penalties (i.e., sanctions) than
underdeveloped Zaire or Zambia (phrased subtly as “...in the case of
non-industrialized countries, however, it is necessary to consider
this issue from a broader political perspective”).
Consequently, any informal or formal farmers group in the U.S.
protesting price levels - and such protesting will be inevitable
when Trilateral objectives surface - will be subject to penalties.
When can these individual firms and non-favored governments
anticipate Trilateral hostility? Probably under the following
. If they attempt to stabilize or move market prices to non-
Trilateral levels, . If they respond to market imperfections or
undertake any systematic withholding of supplies from the market, .
If they make any information exchange for these purposes.
Trilaterals, are well aware that market fluctuations in agriculture
are highly sensitive to supply changes, and that whoever controls
the supply controls the market. 5
In Triangle Paper 14, “Toward a
Renovated International System,” two additional and interesting
caveats relating to international grain reserves appear:
1. That the Soviet Union can benefit from fixed prices and
guaranteed sources of supply
2. That if the U.S.S.R. doesn’t
see the wisdom of joining the Trilateral plan, the Trilaterals will
go it alone.
On the other hand, the paper comments:
“We have not sought ventures that would exacerbate Sino- Soviet
rivalry. We have thus focused, for the most part, on projects that
would involve either the USSR or China, but not both. This does not
mean that cooperation with the Soviet Union and China cannot be
pursued simultaneously - only that it should not focus on the same
“The chances of Soviet or Chinese agreement are, of
course, uncertain; our assessments are tentative, based on
such limited evidence as exists. Only by seeking cooperation
can its feasibility be ascertained. 6
THE PLAN AND THE AMERICAN FARMER
A nation-wide farm strike was well underway in mid 1978, with
participating farmers from all areas of agriculture. Demonstrations
like “tractor cades” were common events covered on national T.V.
While some farmers in wintered areas were not sure if they would be
planting spring crops, others were already pressed to the wall with
bankruptcy: they had no choice but to refrain from planting as long
as prices remained relatively low.
Once again the banks were in
danger of becoming owners of real estate -farms. Since banks do not
want that responsibility, every effort is being made to support
shaky farms and ranches. Recently, the Federal Land Bank (where most
farmers have found an easy and inexpensive source of credit for
decades) announced it would not foreclose on farmers in default. The
implications of this are far reaching, especially since no one knows
just how many farmers are in serious trouble.
Big changes cannot be implemented only during periods of crisis. It
appears the Trilateralists are pushing for a major farming crisis in
U.S. within the next year or so, one that can be manipulated for
Trilateral ends. If the farming industry becomes bankrupt, the
government’s only choice will be to “institutionalize” the nation’s
food production in the same manner that Amtrak was “nationalized.”
On the other hand, if the government chooses to let prices rise to
the point where farmers can realize a profit in 1978, it will be
only with additional and far-reaching controls over the farmer.
Government-induced prosperity has always resulted in a trade-off:
Profits for Controls.
The current situation in the U.S. plays directly into Trilateral
hands. The grain or “cereal snake” will be a foregone conclusion
when the Trilaterals find themselves caught in the vice between
farmers crying for higher prices and consumers demanding lower food
prices. But, of course, it will have been a “contrived” crisis in
the first place.
How then will a national grain reserve -keyed to the international
grain plan of the Trilateral Commission affect the American farmer?
The carrot offered by the Carter administration, now under
Trilateral control, will be stable and “high” prices. Farmers,
suffering from four years of low prices, will be eager listeners.
Secretary of Agriculture Bergland (a Trilateral nominee) has vowed
“to even out the booms and busts” in agriculture. (To this, former
Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz responded, “...you’ll notice he’s
going to even out the boom first.”) In practice, the Carter grain
storage program will produce the following:
. A narrow grain price snake. The
government will support the floor of the snake, while whipped-up
consumer pressure, through a captive media, will create a lid on
the ceiling of the snake, making an ultimate government price
. More - and more - government control
If the government determines quantities produced and market prices,
then ultimately, it will decree who plants what, and where. Farmers
have yet to learn they cannot have traditional freedoms and security
at the same time.
THE PLAN IS UNDERWAY
The summer of 1977 was favorable for grain farmers, due to increased
yields and stocks. Today, worried over production and low prices,
farmers are asking for acreage cutbacks. By August 1977, Secretary
Bergland called for a 25 percent cutback in allotments. Secretary of
Treasury Blumenthal and Secretary of State Vance wanted no cutbacks:
they argued increased production was needed for the storage program.
It is not clear if this was a dispute between Trilateralists and
non-Trilateralists in the cabinet, but it is not likely. Former
Minnesota Congressman Bergland is not a Trilateral member, but he
was sponsored by Vice President Walter Mondale – and Bergland has a
longtime image to maintain of being “the farmer’s friend.”
President Carter made a contradictory decision by calling for
Congress to legislate a 20 percent acreage cutback plus adding 30 to
35 million tons of grain for the national stockpile. Carter is a
master of such paradoxes: he also wants to achieve full employment
while wiping out inflation.
TRILATERALS IN THE FAR EAST
Another effort to involve Trilateralism in world agriculture
surfaced at the October 1977 Eighth Annual Trilateral Meeting in
Bonn, Germany. In a Trilateral Task Force Report, How to Double Rice
Production in South and Southeast Asia, doubling the production of
rice (the staple food of 1.3 billion people) within 15 years is
proposed. Such a plan will cost some $54 billion and will be
financed by Trilateral governments (actually, their taxpayers), the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies (OPEC), and LDCs. The
highlights include the following:
1. Intensification of rice production -not merely increased
2. Expansion of irrigated land, requiring increased watercontrol
and irrigation systems
Increased use of agricultural machinery and fertilizers
The institutional fundamentals (i.e., transportation, financing,
land tenure systems, communications, etc.), all basic to healthy
economic expansion, are ignored in this plan. The emphasis is on
spending $54 billion on a Technologically Intensive form of
production, not normally used in the labor-intensive Far East.
reason for this is not complex:
Trilateral members heavily reflect the multinational firms who will
be supplying the needed technology, equipment, and supplies.
THE REAL TRILATERAL GOALS
The adage “Watch what governments do, not what they say,” is the
guide to Trilateral objectives.
The summer 1972 grain fiasco was also the biggest grain sale in
American history. The Soviets bought over 700 million bushels of
grain, including 440 million bushels of wheat -about 25 percent of
the total American wheat crop. The sale wiped out U.S. reserves,
disrupted shipping and grain transportation flows, created farm
product shortages and forced up food prices to American consumers.
Who initiated this program? The original directives came from Henry
Kissinger (then national security advisor to President Nixon.)
January 1972, Kissinger directed the departments of state, commerce,
and agriculture to allow the Department of Agriculture to take the
lead in negotiating grain sales to the USSR. On 14 February 1972 the
Department of Agriculture was directed to develop a “negotiating
scenario.” The subsequent negotiating team from Washington included
Secretary of Commerce Peter G. Peterson, Secretary of Agriculture
Earl Butz, Henry Kissinger, and Peter Flanigan.
Subsequent shortages and price rises were deliberately created by
Trilateralists-to-be as part of “detente” with the USSR, to the
great disadvantage of the American consumer. (See U.S. Senate,
Russian Grain Transactions” Permanent Subcommittee on
The Trilateral agriculture/food production/storage program smacks of
self-interest and manipulation. The plan will yield major beneficial
advantages for Trilateralist multinationals, who are already gearing
up for it, and it will provide “crisis management” situations for
the World Planners.
Doubling rice production in the Far East by intensive methods and
ignoring the institutional changes vital for lasting economic change
will require massive inputs of agricultural machinery and
Agricultural equipment makers without direct Trilateral connections
are cutting production, while Trilateral-connected firms are
expanding production. In general, 1977 was not a good year for
agricultural equipment manufacturers. Allis-Chalmers reported a
projected cutback of 15 percent for 1978. Wisconsin-based J.R. Case
says equipment conditions “have seriously declined” since early 1977
and predicts either flat or declining sales for 1978. In Des Moines,
a Massey-Ferguson spokesman stated that the 1978 market is “a matter
of great concern.” And the agriculture equipment division of
Chromalloy looks for a flat 1978 market. None of these firms has
direct Trilateral connections.
On the other hand, those companies with direct Trilateral
connections are following a different road. Deere & Company, the
largest maker of agricultural equipment and the fifty-second largest
firm in the U.S., is in the midst of the largest capital expansion
program in company’ history.
In 1977, Deere negotiated an agreement
with Yanmar Diesel Engine Company (Japan) to form “an engineering
company that will be jointly owned and will design future tractors
in the smaller horsepower sizes.” New basic machines will go into
production in 1978 -a crawler dozer, a crawler loader, a
four-wheeldrive loader, and a new hydraulic excavator. Existing
Deere plants are to be expanded, and new plants built overseas, with
a total expenditure in 1977-78 of $1 billion. The chairman of the
board of Deere & Company is William A. Hewitt.
Another Trilateralist, Henry B. Schacht, is chairman of the board of
Cummins Engine Company, by far the largest truck engine manufacturer
in the U.S., with 49.4 percent of the heavy-duty truck-engine
market. Large numbers of Cummins engines are used in farm equipment,
and Cummins is now “the power leader in the highest horsepower, four
wheel drive tractor market.” J. Irwin Miller, longtime
internationalist, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and
trustee of the Ford Foundation (which financed Trilateralism),
personally owns 19.4 percent (1,339,620) of the common stock of
Cummins and participates in other large blocks of stock. In
addition, Cummins former vice-president of corporate action was
recently appointed by President Carter to be under secretary of the
John Perkins is president and William A. Hewitt and Arthur M.
Wood are directors of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust
Company of Chicago. Continental Illinois and its subsidiaries are
operators in the agricultural industry worldwide. For example, the
annual report has a half-page photograph of “a central-pivot
irrigation system” financed by a subsidiary of Continental Illinois
Leasing Corporation. The firm provides agricultural management
services through Continental Agricultural Properties Management
Division, maintaining a global banking network for agricultural
John Harold Perkins is also director of the Pillsbury Company, which
in 1976 agreed with Cargill, Inc., of Minneapolis to use Cargill
port facilities to put Pillsbury into the grain export field.
(William R. Pearce is vice president of Cargill.) In early 1978, the
Memphis, Tennessee, firm of Cook Industries, ($500 million in annual
sales) sold to Pillsbury its grain merchandising assets, including
an export elevator in Louisiana, seven inland elevators, an office
network, grain inventories, and contracts. In short, Pillsbury is
now a major operator in the grain export business, whereas before
1976, its operations were limited to domestic merchandising and food
Caterpillar Tractor Company is one of the world’s largest makers of
tractors and earth-moving equipment. The following Trilateral
commissioners are directors:
Lee L. Morgan (president of
David Packard (of Hewlett-Packard;)
Robert S. Ingersoll
(formerly the chairman of Borg Warner Corporation, U.S. ambassador
to Japan, director of Atlantic Richfield, assistant secretary of
state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, deputy secretary of state,
and director of First Chicago Corporation).
All together, those agricultural equipment firms and bankers with
Trilateralist representation will do very well by the Trilateral
scheme for “internationalizing” food production. Firms outside the
magic circle, according to their own corporate forecasts for 1978,
do not anticipate any expansion in their business. Coincidence?
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER FOUR
1. “Collaboration with Communist Countries in Managing Global
Problems: An Examination of the Options,” Triangle Paper No. 13,
2. Ibid., p. 30
3. Ibid., p. 4.
4. “Seeking a New Accommodation in World Commodity Markets,”
Triangle Paper No. 10, p. 14.
5. The Carter administration has a penchant for stockpiles -$5
billion for oil, $6 billion for wheat and reexamination of the
strategic metals stockpile program -and this raises a question mark
about long-term intentions. Stockpiling of oil, wheat, and metals is
a common historical prelude to aggressive warfare. The pragmatic
logical apparatus of the Trilateralists is highlighted: they want an
oil stockpile under Project Independence and a wheat storage program
under the flag of New World Order Interdependence.
6. “Toward a Renovated International System,” Triangle Paper No. 14,
Back to Contents
THE TRILATERAL ENERGY HOAX
The Trilateralist Carter administration thumps a repetitive theme of
a major energy crisis, threatening the very survival of the U.S. The
consequences of this mighty crisis, so we are told, include:
. The dollar dilemma, brought about by our importation of
oil and the subsequent bill for these imports which
“wrecks” the U.S. balance of payments,
. The fact that the U.S. is too dependent on foreign oil in case of
national emergency, and . The depletion of U.S. oil and gas in the
Some Trilateral commissioners have entered the energy crisis
directly. For example, First Chicago Bank (Commissioners Ingersoll,
Morgan and Peterson are directors) recently placed full-page ads in
the Wall Street Journal (25 July 1978) on the energy crisis pushing
the scary line, “America can’t wait” and “energy isn’t easy to come
President Carter has announced, in the same vein, “the world is
watching the United States to see if it has the will, the resolve to
solve its energy problems and end its insatiable appetite for
imported oil.” All of which might lead you to think we really do
have an energy crisis.
In fact, Trilateral energy assertions are always couched in terms of
crises, emergencies and wrecking.” Reflect for a moment that if one
wants to manage the world, “problems” and “crises” to manage are
absolutely essential, or else the managers are out of a job: there
is nothing to manage. Can you have an energy plan without an energy
crisis? Of course not.
So let’s ask an elementary question, a silly question in the light
of Carter dogma, but we’ll pose it anyway: Is there an energy crisis
at all? The general belief is that the answer is obvious: of course
there is an energy crisis. Washington says so. The politicians say
so. The Trilateralists say so. Most of the media says so. Everyone
(almost) says so.
On the other hand, have you seen printed in any media or in any
administration statement, a list of the energy resources currently
available within the United States available today for use and
We doubt it. So let our first simplistic (common sense is always
attacked by the elite as “simplistic”) question be “how much energy
we have available in the U.S. today? And “in what form?” 1
Several basic, readily available statistics dispose of the “energy
crisis” and expose its falsity.
The United States consumes about 71 quads of energy per year. (A
quad is one quadrillion British thermal units or 1015.) There is
available today in the United States, excluding solar sources and
excluding gas and oil imports, about 150,000 quads of energy.
Put another way, this statistic means we have sufficient known
usable energy resources to last us for over two thousand years. The
type of energy we use and how we use it will, of course, change -as
the type has changed before from wood to coal and from coal to
electric power. But to say we have any absolute shortage of energy
resources is simply a false and irresponsible statement.
This elementary statistic means that the energy crisis is a phony, a
created crisis, a hoax on the American people. But if you happen to
be in the business of crisis manipulation, such an energy crisis, if
you can convince enough people of its reality, is a handy sort of
crisis to be manipulated. One can impose rationing and price
controls, plan resource uses, restrict consumption, and invent all
manner of happy little projects under the name of “solving” an
Looking at this 150,000 quads in more detail we have approximately
the following supplies available in the future:
Natural gas At least 200 years (probably
closer to 600 years)
Petroleum At least 130 years
Oil from shale At least 1,500 years
Coal At least 6,000 years
Breeder reactor inexhaustible
A Breeder reactor produces more fuel than is consumed. There is
sufficient U238 in storage for the initial one hundred years of
breeder reactor operation.
These geological estimates are conservative: Vincent McKelvey of the
U.S. Geological Survey (who was recently fired for his disclosure
publicly discussed a figure of six-hundred-year-reserves of natural
gas. Moreover, using biomass production methods, natural gas
reserves are virtually inexhaustible.
These elementary statistics must be the starting point of any
rational discussion of energy “shortages.”
SUPPRESSION OF INFORMATION
The previous information has been suppressed. Elitist discussion
assumes we have a shortage of energy. The “shortage” is mythical.
Check the indexes of the establishment press the New York Times, the
Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Christian Science
Monitor, and you will find no statistics of total energy resources.
not? Isn’t the amount of energy currently available in the ground,
essential prerequisite to any reasoned discussion of shortages and
crises? Does this absence of clearly relevant information imply
has been an attempt to create a synthetic belief structure for the
American people. 2
Has there been suppression of vital facts so that the crisis
managers may have a juicy synthetic crisis to manage? The hidden
power of elitists over the weaker and more susceptible among us was
amply demonstrated in the August 1, 1978 issue of The Ruff Times,
(Reprinted in California Mining Journal, September 1978). In Ruff
Times, Howard Ruff describes what happened when he tried to question
Vincent E. McKelvey, former head of the U.S. Geological Survey.
Earlier this year, McKelvey, a longtime bureaucrat, made the
innocent mistake of disagreeing with Carter and the administration
line about “energy crises.” McKelvey was fired because of certain
revealing statements he made in a Boston speech -that we have
sufficient domestic natural gas available to provide up to a
six-hundred-year supply (quoted in Wall Street Journa1.) 3
“When we taped the show, I had a very nervous man on my
hands...he was obviously frightened of something or somebody.”
What McKelvey had probably discovered was that anyone in the U.S. who
promotes unwelcome news for the elite receives some unwelcome
attention in return. (An IRS audit is common, or a call to visit the
boss of the institution or organization where the luckless whistle
blower may be working.)
In most national newspapers you just do not read about the gigantic
new oil and gas finds which have made a mockery of the official
party line of crisis and scarcity. For example, the following find
was apparently reported nationally only in Barrons (13 February
In August 1977 Chevron was drilling its Walter C. Parlange Well No.1
in Point Coupee Parish, Louisiana. At 21,000 feet the drill hit a
reservoir of high pressure methane and blew out. The blowout was so
intense and accompanied by such an enormous flow of steam that the
well was closed for eighteen days. The theory of Baton Rouge oil
expert Paul Hastings Jones is that the drill entered a
long-theorized geopressurized superheated water plus methane gas
If this happened, new vistas for U.S. natural gas
production are now open. The U.S. uses about 20 trillion cubic feet
of methane a year. The Louisiana geopressurized methane reserves
alone may total 3,000 trillion cubic feet, another 150-year gas
supply, and there’s much, much more out in the Gulf of Mexico all of
which information is a disaster for any political scare energy plan.
Furthermore, the long opposition of the Carter administration to
U.S. breeder reactor development contrasts with the following:
. Europe is forging ahead with breeder reactor technology. . There
has never been even one fatal accident in a commercial nuclear
reactor. (About three hundred men a year are killed in coal mines.)
This logically disposes of the anti-nuke argument.(How about some
anti-coal demonstrations at coal mines?)
. Nuclear power is cheap, much cheaper than oil and gas.
it be that total profits in a nuclear-powered world will be much
less than with oil and gas and this probability has created a vested
interest to restrict nuclear development? Could the myth of low oil
and gas reserves have been deliberately promoted so that energy
price hikes will appear acceptable to the general public? Certainly
political manipulation has taken the form of restricting some energy
forms and interfering with the supply of others:
. As we have noted, the Carter administration is against
breeder reactors, the source of low-cost ample energy;
and in August 1978 Carter agreed to breeder
development only in exchange for political support for
his natural gas bill.
. The natural gas bill continues political interference into
basically economic and technical decisions.
. Allowing the market system to develop our ample fuel resources is
never discussed in elitist energy crisis reports.
THE CRISIS CREATORS
Elitist energy reports include A Time To Choose, from the Ford
Foundation, Achieving Energy Independence, from the Committee for
Economic Development, and Energy: A Plan for Action, 1975. from the
Commission for Critical Choices for Americans.
The Ford Foundation financed the Trilateral Commission, and the Ford
Foundation contribution to energy crisis manipulation is A Time To
Choose. a plan which demands:
. A massive socialist bureaucracy to plan and control all energy
. Ultimately. a massive reduction in energy use plus income
. Price controls plus fuel allocations plus tax increases.
The Carter energy crisis is guided from the White House by the same
S. David Freeman who wrote sections of this Ford Foundation report.
Not unexpectedly. A Time To Choose unleashed a flood of criticism,
even from a member of the Ford Foundation Advisory Board, president
of Alcoa, John Harper, who described the Ford energy plan as
one”...abhorrent to me and I am sure, to most of the people in this
Similarly, the Committee for Critical Choices for Americans was
financed by the Rockefeller Foundation, with Nelson Rockefeller and
a host of Rockefeller appointees determining the energy future for
the rest of America. In principle, Energy: A Plan for Action does
not differ from the socialist interventionist principles in the Ford
WHO CONTROLS ENERGY RESOURCES?
The Rockefeller financing of Energy: A Plan for Action and its
primary association with Trilateralism through David Rockefeller
together with the Ford Foundation’s association with Trilateralism
and also with energy plans poses a basic question: Who controls
energy resources? Are these self-interested proposals? To answer
this, we need to examine two related phenomena:
a. Who controls energy
b. Are these controllers related to the Trilateral Commission and
its lock on energy policy making?
If we can identify an interlock between the energy controllers and
energy policymakers, we can reasonably presume that Trilateral
energy policy is formulated with the interests of the controllers in
The oil and gas world is dominated by seven major firms (the “seven
sisters”). A listing of controlling ownership in these major oil and
gas companies by banks with Trilateral commissioners as directors
There are highly significant Trilaterally-connected bank holdings in
the major oil companies where such holding places the bank among the
top five shareholders; that is, the Trilateralist bank has a
controlling influence. Chart 5-1 illustrates those major oil
companies with Trilateral commissioners as directors.
To this picture, we can add the direct personal shareholding
interest of the Rockefeller family in these major oil companies, in
addition to indirect interest via the above Trilaterally connected
Trilaterally connected banks dominate the boards of many of the
largest power and utility companies in the United States. It is
interesting to note that although BankAmerica Corporation is a
powerful shareholder (No. 4) in Occidental Petroleum, the bank has
done nothing to dilute the pro-Soviet policies of Armand Hammer,
(Lenin’s friend and a key capitalist) in building Soviet military
power. It is reasonable then to suppose that BankAmerica approves of
Hammer’s Soviet policies.
Other Trilaterals are influential in smaller oil companies: Kaiser
has just bought into Ashland and Roth is influential in Honolulu Oil
and Barber Oil.
More startling, we find an ominously close interlock among the
“seven sisters” major oil companies. Four of the seven majors have
Trilateral commissioners as directors: Ingersoll at Arco, David
Rockefeller and Jamieson at Exxon, David Packard at Standard Oil
of California, and Robert Roosa (creator of the disastrous Roosa
bonds) at Texaco.
The interlock among major oil firm directors is
shown in the following table:
The tight interlock among the seven majors both with each other and
the Commission makes for ready transference of Trilateral ideas and
proposals; and oil company ideas and proposals are funneled through
the TC and related “think tanks.”
A reasonable presumption is that the seven majors strongly support
Trilateralist energy policy with its anti-nuke and anti-breeder
reactor thrust. Nuclear energy is cheap and safe. Oil is relatively
costly and dirty. So the energy crisis scenario becomes readily
understandable if only as a means to increase oil company profits.
The exception to this generalization is Mobil -with no Trilateral
commissioners but with substantial Chase stock holdings. Mobil is a
vocal advocate of deregulation and the return of a market economy to
the energy sector.
Having identified a possible reason for the nature of Trilateral
energy policy, we can dispose of the superficial public relation
reasons for crisis. Does the energy crisis and the need to import
oil create a balance of payments crisis as the Carter administration
argues? There are two refutations to this:
. Europe and Japan have far, far higher import ratios for oil
and gas - and they don’t have energy and currency
. Bureaucratic regulation and energy policy in the U.S.
have restricted energy resource development, thus
artificially expanding oil/gas imports
Is there a strategic energy problem? If we continue to subsidize
Marxist regimes - yes, there will be a strategic energy problem. If
we continue to meddle in low-level crises around the world (while
ignoring the human rights horror stories, as in Cambodia) - yes,
there will be a strategic problem. But remember these international
crises stem from previous “solutions” which never worked, and one
could justifiably suspect “crisis management” scenarios as a root
cause of continuing international problems.
Do we have a “shortage” of energy resources?
No, we most emphatically do not. There is no energy crisis in
absolute terms: The crisis is a synthetic belief structure created
in order to provide a problem to be managed. In the management
process, other goals dear to the hearts of elitism will be achieved,
for example, global control and domestic resource planning.
All of which reminds us of a Trilateral retort to widespread
criticism of Trilateralism and its objectives as expressed by
European Trilateral Georges Berthoin:
One doesn’t like to feel that people have a totally false impression
of an organization one is associated with...there have been a number
of publications from the right and left that have made these charges
about undue influence. They are without foundation and I’m afraid
most of the criticism is based on ignorance of the facts...
The reader is urged to compare this official Trilateral statement
with the facts on energy resources and control presented above. One
finds the following to be true:
. “Undue influence” in energy is
more than obvious
. Trilateralism is heavily interlocked with both energy
companies and energy policy formation in the White
. Accusations of smear tactics “from left and right” are
“standard operating procedure.” They divert attention from
responsible reasoned criticism with no attachment to a
synthetic political spectrum (and we place the Trilateral Observer
in this category).
Berthoin commented further that: “...if the image was the reality
most of the European members, including myself would not like to be
members.” To which David Rockefeller is reported to have added,
“That goes for all of us.”
The truth is that the totalitarian image of Trilateralism is the
and we are long past the day when these power plays can be disguised
from the American people.
David Rockefeller, Georges Berthoin and their fellow Trilateralists
will not at least dispute one assertion from this editor: that in
these secret elitist conclaves, a perennial topic under discussion
is “how do we foster political will?” In brief, how do we get the
people (the “peasants”) to go along with authority (i.e., “We, the
elitists?”). In some future elitist meeting, Trilaterals will do
well to step back and look at themselves. Who gave the TC elected
authority to even discuss globalist plans and new world order?
authority is self-anointed. And Trilateralists are no different from
other power usurpers in history, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler. The
analogy will not impress Trilateralists because from this editor’s
observations their thought structure is utterly impervious to the
concept of individual freedom. However, and more importantly, the
analogy will not be lost on Americans at large.
ENDNOTES: CHAPTER FIVE
1. Detailed back-up data is contained in a forthcoming book by this
editor entitled Energy: The Created Crisis (Books in Focus. Inc..
160 E. 38 Street. Suite 31B, New York. N.Y. 10016).
2. The Wall Street Journal and Barrons are prominent exceptions to
this belief structure programming. Both sources have run numerous
articles and editorials with this basic energy data and draw
implications which parallel those of the Trilateral Observer.
3. Wall Street Journal. 27 April 1977.
Back to Contents