The Unseen Hand - Ralph Epperson

The Trilateral Commission

On December 13, 1973, a little known governor of a small Southern state appeared on a television panel program called "What's My Line" and stumped the panel who attempted to guess who he was. No one knew him.

Yet in November, 1976, less than three years later, that same gentleman was elected President of the United States.

His name was Jimmy Carter.

The story of how Mr. Carter rose from the governorship of one of the smellier states to the highest elected office in America so quickly is the story of an organization that was created around him known as the Trilateral Commission.

In his book entitled I'll Never Lie to You, candidate Jimmy Carter told the American people:

"The people of this country know from bitter experience that we are not going to get these changes merely by shifting around the same group of insiders. The insiders have had their chance and they have not delivered. And their time has run out The time has come for the great majority of Americans . . . to have a president who will turn the government of this country inside out."

Candidate Carter was telling the American people that he would not allow the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderbergers to continue to run this country, or so one could presume by his statement. If he was elected, he would select those who were not identified as insiders, men and women who have never had the chance to run this country.

And true to his word, he selected members of a new group not previously known called the Trilateral Commission to fill important positions.

Apparently some of the minions beneath him had not read the script. Before Carter's election, his advisor Hamilton Jordan said: "If, after the inauguration (of Jimmy Carter) you find Cy Vance as Secretary of State, and Zbigniew Brzezinski as head of National Security, then I would say that we failed, and I'd quit."

But strangely enough, after the inauguration, we found these two gentlemen in exactly the positions Mr. Jordan predicted. But Mr. Jordan did not quit. It appears that Mr. Jordan was told to read the script after he made his statement. Apparently, Mr. Carter did not consider these two gentlemen to have been "insiders" who had been running the previous government, even though both were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, heavily involved in American government since its creation in 1921.

The organizational meetings of the Trilateral Commission were held on July 23 and 24, 1972, at the estate of David Rockefeller, chairman of the CFR. In fact, all eight American representatives to the founding meeting of the Commission were members of the CFR.

The other individuals present were citizens of either Japan or western European countries, (the three areas represented the "Tri-" in the Trilateral.)

The Trilateral Commission tells the curious what their purpose is. They explain: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, in fostering economic re-development and alleviating world poverty will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system."

But there are others who disagree with this stated purpose and have tried to detail what they think their exact purpose is. One of these is Senator Barry Goldwater who wrote the following in his book With No Apologies: "What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political government of the nation-states involved. As managers and creators of the system they will rule the world."

Shortly after the founding of the Commission, in the fall of 1975, the little-known Governor of Georgia was in London, England, having dinner with David Rockefeller. Exactly what the Governor of Georgia was doing in London with Rockefeller has never been told, at least satisfactorily, but there are only two alternatives. Either: 1) Jimmy Carter asked David Rockefeller to have dinner with him; or 2) David Rockefeller asked Jimmy Carter.

A careful examination of the first alternative will reveal that it is possible, but not very probable.

It is possible that Mr. Carter, desiring to become president of the United States, discovered that Mr. Rockefeller, because of his closeness with the Council on Foreign Relations and their ancillary organizations, had the power to make any one of their choosing President, and he arranged the meeting.

This is quite possible, as Mr. Rockefeller is an extremely important individual. In fact, during 1973: "David Rockefeller met with 27 heads of state, including the rulers of Russia and Red China."

This is truly incredible because David Rockefeller has neither been elected or appointed to any governmental position where he could officially represent the United States government

Author Ferdinand Lundberg, author of the book The Rockefeller Syndrome, wrote this about the Rockefeller power:

"One of the little-noticed features of the (Rockefeller) brothers is the ready entree they have to all high-level quarters, foreign and domestic

"A telephone call from David at Chase (Manhattan Bank) can unlock practically as many tightly shut top-level doors all over the world as a call from the President of the United States, perhaps more.

"This is power."

Three examples of the power that Rockefeller has might illustrate the power that Jimmy Carter might have seen prior to their London meeting.

It is known that in January, 1974, David Rockefeller, who is not a Catholic, had an audience with Pope Paul VI, the same Pope who wrote the Encyclical urging the nations of the world to form a world government. This has long been a goal of David Rockefeller and the Council on Foreign Relations, the organization of which Mr. Rockefeller was then Chairman.

Less than a month later, in February, 1974, Pope Paul recalled Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Catholic Primate of Hungary and a long time enemy of the Communist regime in Hungary. When the Cardinal reached Rome, the Pope asked him to remain silent and no longer speak out against Communism.

Were the two events connected?

Possibly the reason for these strange actions of the Pope occurred in November, 1977, when the State Department of the United States returned the Crown of St. Stephen to the Communist government of Hungary.

The Crown has an interesting history. It was given to King Stephen, the King of Hungary, in the year 1,000 by Pope Sylvester II, after the King had converted to Catholicism. It has become a national treasure of immense historic and symbolic significance to the Hungarian people.

The Hungarian people believe that the authority to rule Hungary is inherent in the crown itself ("he who holds the Crown rules Hungary.") The Crown was kept in Hungary until the Russians overran the country near the end of World War II. Before the Soviets could seize the Crown, Hungarian patriots delivered it to General George Patton, the commander of the American army near Hungary.

The Crown, along with other items of value to the Hungarian people, was brought to the United States and safeguarded by the State Department It was understood that this symbol of freedom would remain in the United States until Hungary could once again function as a constitutional government established by the Hungarian people through choice.

The Hungarian people's desire to keep the Crown out of the hands of the Communist government was betrayed by President Carter when he announced that the Crown would be returned to the Communist government in Hungary, ruled by the Communist dictator Janos Kadar, in December, 1977:

(Note: It was Janos Kadar who, as Minister of the Interior, gave the orders for Cardinal Mindszenty's arrest and subsequent torture many years before.)

And it was Cardinal Mindszenty who fervently pleaded with the American government not to release the Crown to the Kadar government It is not a coincidence that it was on the twenty-first anniversary of the anti-Communist revolt in Hungary in 1956 that President Carter announced that the Crown would be returned to Hungary and given to the Kadar government It certainly appeared as a way of expressing to the world that the United States was now giving its official blessing to the Communist government in Hungary. In addition, the timing of the announcement was intended to broadcast to the world that the American government was no longer supporting the aspirations of oppressed people around the world to be free from tyrannical Communist governments.

This action, of course, came as no shock to Cardinal Mindszenty who once charged that "the late President Eisenhower was responsible for the defeat of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters revolution in 1956." So the Cardinal was used to America's betrayal of just causes.

The second example of an unusual door opening up to David Rockefeller occurred in July, 1964, when David visited the Soviet Union and met with Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev for two and a half hours.

The meeting of these two individuals, when one is not the elected or appointed representative of his government, is indeed odd. Especially when the communists teach that any wealthy Capitalist is to be hated.

In any event, less than four months later, in October, 1964, Premier Khrushchev lost his job for no apparent reason (or at least to those who are not aware of the Conspiratorial View of History). Did the "Chairman of the Board" fire a "Branch Manager?" This is the unanswered question that certainly leads to speculation about why Khrushchev resigned.

[Illustration] from The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson


The third example of Rockefeller's enormous power was reflected in August, 1976, when visiting Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser met with Mr. Rockefeller before he met with President of the United States Gerald Ford.

The second alternative about the London meeting of Rockefeller and Carter, that Rockefeller discovered Carter, is more plausible and much more consistent with the facts.

The Trilateral Commission was the idea of Zbigniew Brzezinski, or so the public is told, who went to David Rockefeller for his assistance in creating the organization. There is some indication that Brzezinski liked Carter even before the forming of the Commission.

According to the New York Times of March 21, 1978, Brzezinski "enjoys his public role. The key to his confidence is his close relationship with Mr. Carter. The two men met for the first time four years ago [in 1974, which appears to be incorrect] when Mr. Brzezinski was executive director of the Trilateral Commission, an organization favoring closer cooperation among Western Europe, Japan and the United States, and had the foresight to ask the then obscure former Governor to join its distinguished ranks. Their initial teacher-student relationship blossomed during the campaign and appears to have grown closer still."

And again, in the New York Times Magazine of May 25, 1976, the reader is informed that "Zbig was the first guy in the Community to pay attention to Carter, talked to him, sent him his books and articles. For the better part of three years (from 1973, not 1974 as was reported above in the other New York Times article) Brzezinski (along) with Professor Richard N. Gardner of Columbia had Carter virtually to himself. . . "

Mr. Carter himself commented on this learning experience as a member of the Trilateral Commission when he wrote the following in his election year book entitled Why Not the Best: "Membership on the commission has provided me with a splendid learning opportunity, and many of the other members have helped me in my study of foreign affairs."

It is interesting that Mr. Carter admitted that he was being taught by members of the Trilateral Commission, and that he received his greatest understanding from Mr. Brzezinski, especially from his "books."

It appears that one of the things that Zbigniew taught Mr. Carter was his desire to increase the scope of government in the lives of the American people. Brzezinski had once written:

"I should like to address myself to the problem of political change. I think we accept the idea of a vast expansion in social regulation. It may take such forms as legislation for the number of children, perhaps even legislation determining the sex of children once we have choice, the regulation of weather, the regulation of leisure, and so forth."

One of the "books" written by Mr. Brzezinski that Mr. Carter might have read was a book entitled Between Two Ages, written in 1970.

A careful reading of this book reveals that Mr. Brzezinski has some rather shocking things to say about America and the rest of the world.

On page 300, for instance, Zbigniew reveals that the American people will be introduced to two new concepts in their economic life: 1) A new monetary system replacing the American dollar; and 2) A reduced standard of living in order to achieve it He wrote:

"In the economic-technological field some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position."

Brzezinski also revealed his views about the economic philosophies of Karl Marx:

"Marxism represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing of man's universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external man over the inner, passive man, and a victory of reason over belief." (page 72)

"Marxism has served as a mechanism of human progress even if its practice has often fallen short of its ideals. Teilhard de Chardin notes at one point that 'monstrous as it is, is not modern totalitarianism really the distortion of something magnificent, and thus quite near to the truth?'" (page 73)

"Marxism, disseminated on the popular level in the form of communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world." (page 83)

"Marxism provided a unique intellectual tool for understanding and harnessing the fundamental forces of our time. It supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality." (page 123)

Brzezinski theorizes that the liberal, democratic societies would support an authoritarian form of government if they were given a choice between a dictatorship and social and intellectual disorder:

"In the absence of social consensus, society's emotional and rational needs may be fused—mass media makes this easier to achieve—in the person of an individual who is seen as both preserving and making the necessary innovations in the social order." (page 118)

"Given the choice between social and intellectual disorder— and by this is not meant anything that even approaches a revolutionary situation—and authoritarian personal leadership [a dictator] it is very probable that even some present constitutional and liberal democratic societies would opt for the latter." (page 118)

He also sees a threat to liberal democracy involving:

"the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. . . . Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know-how.

"Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by the latest modem techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control." (page 252)

And then Brzezinski details his desires to move towards a world government:

"Movement toward a larger community of the developed nations . . . cannot be achieved by fusing existing states into one larger entity.

"It makes much more sense to attempt to associate existing states through a variety of indirect ties and already developing limitations on national sovereignty." (page 296)

Then he detailed the reasons for founding the Trilateral Commission:

"Movement toward such a community will in all probability require two broad and overlapping phrases. . . The first of these would involve the forging of community links among the United States, Western Europe and Japan." (page 296)

Such a loose-knit community would need a taxation power and Brzezinski has already predicted this:

"It might also eventually lead to the possibility of something along the lines of a global taxation system." (page 304)

And then he sums it all up by declaring:

"Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable." (page 308)

Brzezinski doesn't completely discount the possibility of a world government; he just theorizes that it would be easier to achieve control of the developed nauons through an association of these nations.

But Brzezinski just doesn't stop with getting the United States strangled with ties to other nations, he has also suggested that the American government should become dependent on the Soviet Union and Red China for our oil needs.

While Mr. Brzezinski was director of the Trilateral Commission, they published a report in 1977 entitled Collaboration With Communist Countries in Managing Global Problems: An Examination of the Options. It read:

"Both the U.S.S.R. and [Communist] China are exporters of energy and apparently possess substantial oil reserves. The Trilateral countries import energy, of which very little now comes from the U.S.S.R. or China. The global situation appears likely to tighten in the coming years. There are immediate advantages for the Trilateral countries in diversifying their sources of supply. Trilateral-Communist cooperation in energy may thus be feasible and desirable. This cooperation might take the form of investment by Trilateral countries in Soviet or Chinese energy production to secure energy exports from these countries."

And lastly, Brzezinski, the teacher of President Carter, does not believe in the Conspiratorial View of History:

"History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy increasingly, policy makers are overwhelmed by events and information."

[Illustration] from The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson


But the support of the presidential campaign of Jimmy Carter did not come just from members of the Trilateral Commission. He received financial support from the following, amongst others: Dean Rusk, CFR member; C. Douglas Dillon, CFR member; and Henry Luce, Time magazine's Vice President and CFR member.

In addition, Carter surrounded himself with the following members of the CFR before his election: Theodore Sorenson, W. Averill Harriman, Cyrus Vance, Richard Gardner, Paul Nitze, and Paul Wamke.

And candidate Jimmy Carter even spoke before the Chicago branch of the CFR in May, 1976, wherein he called for "a just and stable international order," the phrase of those who understand the nature of the future. It was almost as if Mr. Carter was paraded before the CFR to reveal that he was indeed one of them.

But the major support after the election came from the Trilateral Commission. As the Washington Post revealed after the election of President Jimmy Carter:

"If you like Conspiracy theories about secret plots to take over the world, you are going to love the administration of President-elect Jimmy Carter. At last count 13 Trilateralists had gone into top positions in the administration. This is extraordinary when you consider that the Trilateral Commission only has about 65 American members."

We have been told that, at the Democratic convention, after Carter received the Presidential nomination, he had not as yet made up his mind on whom he was going to select as his vice-president. The American people were told that he had narrowed his list of possible candidates down to seven men.

He selected a fellow member of the Trilateral Commission: Walter Mondale.

But even with the support of the wealthy establishment members of the CFR and some support of the media from CFR members, Jimmy Carter still spoke out against the liberal establishment: "Accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in New York, Carter denounced those 'unholy alliances that have formed between money and politics.'"

One of the interesting connections in the Trilateral Commission is the fact that the: "Majority of the important Frenchmen [who are members of the Commission], perhaps all of them, belong to the Grand Orient Lodge of Free Masonry."

But the Commission needs financial support, and it gets it from "the Ford Foundation, [which] has been its largest contributor."

But are those who are concerned about the influence and direction of the Trilateral Commission just exaggerating the danger? Should we agree with those who say that "There's certainly nothing sinister about the group."?

One who is concerned is Senator Barry Goldwater who on national television at the 1980 Republican Convention warned the nation that

"This might be the last Republican convention and, in two weeks, the last Democratic convention. There are forces working against our country. There are selfish forces working for their own interest in our country."

(Note: Was it just an inadvertent omission that CFR member Dan Rather failed to ask Senator Goldwater on nationwide television, shortly after Goldwater made his charges, what he meant by his statement?)

Goldwater went on to describe just who he thought, at least in part, these forces were. In his chapter entitled "The Non-Elected Rulers," in his book With No Apologies, the Senator wrote:

"In my view, the Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power: political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical."

There are even critics residing outside the United States. Take this comment by England's Weekly Review, about the Trilateral Commission for instance. They wrote:

"International Communism of the Moscow order has many features in common with David Rockefeller's Trilateral Commission—such as undermining the national sovereignty of the United States. It is for this reason, plus others, that one finds known Marxists supporting the goals of the new world economic order sought by the Trilateral Commission."

The economic intent of the Trilateral Commission was pointed out by Jeremiah Novak in 1977:

"The Trilateral Commission's most immediate concern is the creation of a new world monetary system to replace gold and the dollar as the international exchange with a new currency called Special Drawing Rights (SDR's.)"

The purpose of a common money was spelled out by John Foster Dulles, a CFR founder, years before. He wrote:

". . . the establishment of a common money might be vested in a body created by and responsible to the principal trading and investing peoples. This would deprive our government of exclusive control over a national money . . ."

A precursor of this common money revealed itself when six Common Market nations in Europe agreed to join in a monetary system. So the process marches on.

Now that the Trilateral Commission was in place, and their selected candidate was installed as the President of the United States, they could have the American government act in a manner that was important to the Commission. A brief review of some of the major accomplishments of the Carter administration informs the student of just what the Commission wanted from President Carter:

1. The Betrayal and Expulsion of the Shah of Iran:

A senior Iranian diplomat in Washington stated: "President Carter betrayed the Shah and helped create the vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America."

A possible motive as to why Carter did this is answered by a review of the record of the Shah in the years prior to his leaving Iran. His record as head of the Iranian government was summarized in an article that stated that:

"Under the direction of its able monarch, Iran had been transferred in a single generation from a near-feudal agricultural society to an urbanized, burgeoning, industrial, and modem country.

"His plan was to make Iran a technologically advanced, economically diversified, and self-sustaining nation so that, in the next century when the oil ran low, Iran would not go into an economic decline and return to the dark ages."

The Shah "had written into law in Iran. . . the principles of religious toleration, separation of church and state, . . . and an advisory parliament was set up to which, over the years, additional powers were granted."

In other words, the Shah had intended to structure the government in such a way that a middle class would develop in his country. And once again, just as in the economies of China, Russia and Cuba, this was not acceptable to the master planners of the world.

He had to be replaced.

One clue that this statement is correct is this comment, made in the book entitled Trilaterals Over Washington, Volume II, written by Antony Sutton and Patrick M. Wood. They have written "The Shah was induced to invest his funds (estimates range from $1/2 billion to $25 billion,) with Chase Manhattan."

The method Carter used has been partially revealed in various newspaper articles. He sent General Robert E. Huyser, Deputy Commander of U.S. Forces in Europe, to Iran. His purpose was to tell the Iranian Generals not to stage a "coup" against the impending government of the Khomeini. The Generals, loyal to the Shah, did nothing. A few hours after Khomeini took over, the Generals were shot.

These charges against President Carter were confirmed by the memoirs of the deposed Shah of Iran who wrote that "the Americans wanted me out. Certainly this is what the human rights champions in the State Department wanted."

The Shah then revealed why, in his opinion, the Carter administration truly wanted to replace him. The Shah "repeatedly argued in the memoirs that for years the great multinational oil companies, possibly in league with the U.S. government, had been subverting his rule because of his insistence that Iran get a greater share of oil revenues."

(That is a strange comment in view of the fact that the American people were told that OPEC member Iran's oil prices were set by the government of Iran, not by the multinational oil companies.)

According to a book entitled The Energy Cartel, by Norman Medvin, written in 1974, Iran has three major oil companies, the Iranian Offshore Petroleum Co., the Iranian Oil Consortium, and the Lavaan Petroleum Co.

Each company is a joint venture involving the following companies:

Name Companies involved
Iranian Offshore CFP, Petroleum Co. Atlantic Richfield, Cities Service, Superior, Kerr-McGee, Sun, National Iranian Oil Co.
Iranian Oil Consortium BP, Shell, Gulf, Mobil, Exxon, Texaco, Standard of California, CFP, Am. Independent
Lavaan Petroleum Co. Atlantic Richfield, Murphy Oil, Union Oil, National Iranian Oil Company

So now it is possible, if the Shah was right, to see which oil companies wanted to replace the Shah of Iran with the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Carter's strategy worked. The Shah of Iran left and was replaced by the Ayatollah.

Another interesting revelation about the whole Khomeini affair is the charge that the Khomeini in Iran today is not the same Khomeini that was exiled by the Shah in 1965, even though he is supposed to be. A memorandum written by an individual considered to be one of the world's best-informed international intelligence sources states:

"In its edition of June 11, 1979, on page A-2, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner carried a story which questioned the authenticity of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The article quoted a column by William Hickey in the London Express which included photographs of the Ayatollah Khomeini, which were taken while he was in France, showing that he had only 9 fingers. The middle digit of his right hand was missing.

"Recent photographs show that the present 'Ayatollah Khomeini' has 10 fingers."

In addition, Iranian Premier Amir Hoveida testified: "I know him and I can assure you he had only nine fingers. This Khomeini is an imposter."

Shortly after making that statement, Hoveida was shouted down in the court he was testifying in and pulled out of the building and shot.

Just who the new Khomeini is and why the previous one had to be replaced, was not explained. One clue to the mystery was offered by the Polish Army Intelligence Colonel, Michael Goloniewski, an expert on Soviet intelligence. He charged that the Soviets had penetrated the Shiite Moslem sect of which the Ayatollah is a member, and that the Ayatollah was a Soviet agent.

2. Support of Communist Terrorists in Southern Africa:

When Senator Barry Goldwater returned to the United States from a trip to Southern Africa, he charged the Carter Administration with basing its African policies on a "deliberate scheme with pro-Soviet overtones." Goldwater said that "everything the Carter Administration has done in Africa has played directly into the hands of the Soviet Union. These actions are so obviously subverting the strategic interests of the United States that it almost seems that someone must be following a deliberate scheme with pro-Soviet overtones." He says that the Administration is "meddling in a dangerous way in many African situations which are beyond its control. The effect is the creation of the kind of fear and confusion upon which Communism thrives and Soviet objectives are advanced."

3. Delivery of the Panama Canal to a Marxist Dictator:

During the televised debates in 1976 between President Gerald Ford and candidate Jimmy Carter, Mr. Carter explained:

"I would never give up complete or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone. But I would continue to negotiate with the Panamanians I would not relinquish the practical control of the Panama Canal Zone anytime in the forseeable future."

Perhaps the reason that Carter decided that "never" was 1977 was the growing inability of the government of Marxist Omar Torrijos to pay the interest on their growing government debt. It is very revealing that, when Torrijos seized power over Panama in 1968, its national debt was only $160 million. When it was time to acquire the Panama Canal in 1977, it was $1.4 billion.

Columnist Charles Bartlett agreed that the dictatorial Torrijos regime "has put the small nation so deeply in the red that the canal treaty has no supporters more fervent than the American bankers whose hopes for payment rest on a revival of faith in the Panamanian economy."

The Panamanian debt to the United States banks was so large that Panama had to "allocate some $47 million—which is 39 percent of its national Budget—to debt service [interest] on the massive loans. Undoubtedly the directors of the creditor U.S. banks, which include Chase Manhattan Bank, First National City Bank, Bank of America, Banker's Trust, First National Bank of Chicago, Republic National Bank of Dallas, and Treaty negotiator Sol Linowitz's Marine Midland Bank, see that the only way of getting back their money with interest is to get control of the Canal and Canal Zone from Torrijos so he can extort the money owed to the international banks from shipping fees."

It is very revealing that, under the terms of the treaty that gave the Canal to Panama, the United States paid the Panamanian government millions of dollars so that the Panamanian government would take the canal.

It is important to remember that "of the 30 or so banks that had made rather shaky loans, one-half of them had at least one Trilateral on their boards of directors. Had Panama defaulted on these loans, some major international banks would have faced financial ruin."

It is also revealing that fifteen of the sixteen senators in the U.S. Senate who had either been a member of the CFR or were currently a member, voted for the Treaty.

The American people, who according to the polls taken just before the Treaty was signed, were opposed to it by a 70 to 30 margin, remembered those Senators who had voted for the Treaty and were up for re-election in 1978 and 1980.

Twenty of these Senators were defeated.

4. Betrayal of the government of Nicaragua:

Perhaps the most glaring example of Carter's misuse of his presidential power occurred in the overthrow of the government of Nicaragua in 1979 and 1980. Congressman Lany McDonald, on September 17, 1980, laid the blame for the fall of the Nicaraguan government on President Carter (and thus onto the Trilateral Commission):

"The policies of the United States of America, the policies of this Administration, were deliberately and calculatingly designed to destroy the elected government of the people of Nicaragua and to bring the Cuban-dominated Sandinistas to power."

The elected president of Nicaragua, a West Point-trained officer, Anastasio Somoza, also came to the same conclusion as Congressman McDonald. After he left office, President Somoza wrote a book entitled Nicaragua Betrayed, in which he made the following observation:

". . . I come to one startling conclusion: There is a planned and deliberate conspiracy in the United States of America to destroy that republican form of government"

Somoza saw that this conspiracy was also responsible for the overthrow of his government, and he specifically zeroed in on President Carter:

"His put Nicaragua in the hands of the Communists."

And again: ". . . the betrayal of steadfast anti-Communist allies places Mr. Carter in the company of evil worldwide conspiratorial forces. I repeat, the treacherous course charted by Mr. Carter was not through ignorance, but by design."

President Somoza again laid the blame on the American government: ". . . when the United States assumes leadership in a conspiratorial fashion to annihilate anti-Communist nations, I believe it is my duty to speak out When I have factual evidence that the United States of America has actually aided and abetted the evil forces of Communism, I believe the people of the United States should share in such facts and incontrovertible manifestations."

For all of President Somoza's efforts to warn the American people and the remainder of the world about a truth that other nations had learned before him, that the United States government could not be trusted in preventing a Communist takeover of a friendly government, he met a violent death in an assassination in September, 1980. This murder took place just a few weeks after his book was published.

The Soviet-trained Sandinistas were now fully in command of the Nicaraguan government, and their opposition leader had been eliminated. Have they offered the Nicaraguan people a better government than the supposedly "tyrannical despot" Somoza?

One former Sandinista leader doesn't believe so. He reported:

"Nicaragua's Communist rulers have done more damage in nine months than Somoza did in ten years.

"Something like 12,000 opponents of the regime are still in jail. Hundreds of others have simply disappeared.

"Every aspect of life in Nicaragua today is being dictated by the Communists.

"Every day, the junta seizes more property. More than one million acres of farmland have already been taken over, but less than one-fifth of the land is now in use. In two months, hundreds will be starving for lack of food."

A former Major in the Nicaraguan National Guard is another who agrees. He told a congressional committee that the Sandinistas are working to encourage revolutions in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Costa Rica. He said:

"The consolidation of Central America, the allegiance of the parties in power in Mexico and Venezuela, will give access to the rich oil fields of the continent If you do not take action to neutralize this error in policy immediately, you will be fighting a war in your territory in no more than five years."

After the betrayal of Nicaragua to the Sandinistas, President Carter's administration released $75 million in aid, after the President "certified that Nicaragua's Marxist regime was not aiding Communist guerillas in El Salvador and Guatemala."

There were those in the United States who agreed with the above charges. The American Legion passed the following resolution at its 1980 national convention. The resolution demanded:

"in the best interests of our country that the Congress of the United States launch a comprehensive investigation into the Trilateral Commission and its parent organization, the Council on Foreign Relations, to determine what influence has been and is being exerted over the foreign and domestic policies of the United States."

But the real message in the actions of the United States government lies in the following statement of the former Prime Minister of England, Edward Heath, who was quoted as saying:

"We in Europe will no longer be able to expect the United States to take action in any part of the world to put right something we don't like."

In other words, America is no longer an ally of those who seek freedom for their nation against any Communist tyrant.

5. The Election of 1980:

But the final drama in the current run of the Trilateral Commission came in the presidential election of 1980, when Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale ran for re-election. They were opposed by non-member Ronald Reagan and member George Bush.

An interesting dimension to this election was added by Trilateral Commission member John Anderson, running as an independent. An article dated August 1, 1980, stated that "Anderson might quit if Carter is dumped" by the Democratic convention. In other words, the "independent candidate" was running against Jimmy Carter. It seems strange that the Trilateral Commission would allow two of their members to run against each other unless they wanted President Carter out of office. This was further illustrated when Anderson supported Mondale for the Presidency in 1984.

That possibility raises the interesting question as to why they wanted the other candidate, Ronald Reagan, in office in 1980.

Reagan didn't appear to be the early choice of the Trilateral Commission. For instance, the U.S. News and World Report magazine began mentioning the candidacy of two other members of the Trilateral Commission early in 1978.

On February 27, 1978, the magazine wrote: "In the view of the President's top political advisers, a Republican ticket of Texan George Bush [a Commission member] and Illinois Governor James Thompson [a Commission member] would provide the most formidable opposition for Carter in 1980".

And again on July 3, 1978: "Ronald Regan's backers are pinpointing Governor James Thompson [a Commission member] of Illinois as the candidate in the race for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination.

And the magazine continued the call for Commission members again in 1980, first on February 11, 1980: "George Bush's [a Commission member] sudden emergence in the Republican presidential race . . . calls for a moderate vice-presidential nominee from the west—possibly John Anderson [a Commission member] or Governor James Thompson [a Commission member], both from Illinois."

And then again on October 6, 1980: "Top Republicans already are talking about who would lead the party if Ronald Reagan loses his presidential bid. Early consensus: Representative Jack Kemp of New York [not a Commission member] for conservatives, Illinois Governor James Thompson [a Commission member] for moderates—with George Bush [a Corn mission member] appealing to yet others."

Candidate Ronald Reagan was asked whether he would allow any Trilateral Commission members in his Cabinet during the Florida primary, on March 17, 1980, and this is how he replied:

"No, I don't believe that the Trilateral Commission is a conspiratorial group, but I do think its interests are devoted to international banking, multi-national corporations, and so forth. I don't think that any administration of the U.S. government should have the top 19 positions filled by people from any one group or organization representing one viewpoint No. I would go in a different direction."

Just prior to the election, candidate Ronald Reagan was asked about who truly ran this country. He replied:

"I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government. They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives . . . . Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?"

After the election, Reagan: "assembled a 'transition team' which would later select, screen and recommend appointees for major administration posts. Of the fifty-nine people Reagan named to that team, twenty-eight were members of the CFR, ten belonged to the secret and elite Bilderberg group, and no less than ten were Trilaterals."

There was concern during the Republican convention that Reagan would appoint George Bush as his Vice-Presidential nominee. The day before he made that decision, a group of conservative activists visited Reagan to present the case for him to appoint a conservative running mate, one not connected to the elitist groups Reagan had publicly spoken out against.

Reagan didn't listen and appointed George Bush, not only a member of the Trilateral Commission, but a member of the Council of Foreign Relations as well.

Even before Reagan had officially made his decision about George Bush at the convention, and as an early indication of what was to come, Reagan lieutenants:

". . .shot down a proposed plank [to the Republican Party platform] that would have denounced the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations. Among the things Reagan's subsequent selection of Bush has accomplished is the elimination of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations as issues the Republican Party can use in the campaign."

In other words, Reagan knew that he was going to nominate George Bush as his vice-president even before the time he officially selected him, and he and his supporters didn't want the Trilateral Commission to be denounced at the convention. It was extremely important that that particular platform plank be defeated.

And it was, and Trilateral Commission member George Bush became Reagan's nominee. And the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations did not become campaign issues.

After the election, President Ronald Reagan continued his support of both the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations by appointing:

  • 64 CFR members;
  • 6 Trilateral Commission (TC) members;
  • 6 TC and CFR members; and
  • 5 former members of the TC

to positions in his administration.