"The so-called 'migration' of populations into Europe and
America is no accident. It's part and parcel of a Trilateral Commission
plan to introduce a high degree of chaos---which of course will require
a militarized police response, to 'restore order' and remove huge
chunks of freedom in the process. All significant US policy decisions
are initiated by Trilateral members working inside and outside of
government." (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)
There are dots to connect here. They're real, and they're spectacular.
Let
me begin with a brief exchange from a 1978 interview, conducted by
reporter Jeremiah Novak. He was speaking with two American members of
the Trilateral Commission (TC), a group founded in 1973 by David
Rockefeller and his intellectual flunkey, Zbigniew Brzezinski.
NOVAK:
Yes, but why doesn't President Carter come out with it and tell the
American people that [US] economic and political power is being
coordinated by a [Trilateral Commission] committee made up of Henry Owen
and six others? After all, if [US] policy is being made on a
multinational level, the people should know.
RICHARD COOPER
[Trilateral Commission member]: President Carter and Secretary of State
Vance have constantly alluded to this in their speeches.
KARL KAISER [Trilateral Commission member]: It just hasn't become an issue.
Source:
"Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management," ed. by Holly Sklar, 1980. South End Press, Boston. Pages 192-3.
This through-the-looking-glass moment summed up the casual arrogance of Trilateral members:
of course US government policy was in the hands of Trilateralists; what else would you expect?
US
government policy most certainly covers the area of international
trade---and Cooper and Kaiser were foreshadowing blockbuster trade
treaties to come: e.g., NAFTA, GATT (which established the World Trade
Organization), CAFTA, and now, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),
which is being negotiated in secret among 12 nations responsible for a
major amount of world trade and world GDP.
Here are two key Trilateral quotes that reflect this global outlook---by which I mean a world dominated by mega-corporations:
"The
nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased
to be the principal creative force: International banks and
multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far
in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state." --- Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1969.
Brzezinski was Obama's foreign policy mentor after Obama won the Presidency in 2008.
Any
doubt on the question of Trilateral Commission goals is answered by
David Rockefeller himself, the founder of the TC, in his
Memoirs (2003):
"Some
even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best
interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as
'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one
world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am
proud of it.""Integrated global political and economic structure" means: domination of populations via giant corporations.
Here
is the payoff. The current US Trade Representative (appointed by Obama
in 2013), who is responsible for negotiating the TPP with 11 other
nations, is Michael Froman, a former member of the Trilateral
Commission. Don't let the word "former" fool you. TC members resign
when they take positions in the Executive Branch of government. And
when they serve in vital positions, such as US Trade Representative,
they aren't there by accident. They're TC operatives with a specific
agenda.
The TPP IS a major item on the Trilateral to-do list. Make no mistake about it.
~~~~
Let's move along to Monsanto, one of those mega-corporations the Trilateralists fervently favor.
From
2001 to 2008, a man named Islam Siddiqui was a staunch US lobbyist for,
and vice president of, CropLife America. Siddiqui represented
Monsanto, BASF, Bayer, Dow, DuPont, Syngenta---the biggest and most
aggressive biotech GMO corporations in the world.
On October 21,
2011, Siddiqui's new appointment (by Obama) was confirmed. He became
the federal government's Chief Agricultural Negotiator, and served in
that position until he resigned on December 12, 2013. During his
tenure, Siddiqui, Monsanto's man, was up to his ears in negotiating the
TPP.
On April 22, 2009, Siddiqui had addressed the press in a US State Dept. briefing disingenuously titled "Green Revolution":
"What
we need now in the 21st century is another revolution... you would not
do it just by conventional breeding. You need to have use of 21st
century technologies, including biotechnology, genetic [GMO]
technology... And these molecules, which are being used (inaudible),
they are state-of-the-art technologies, using molecular biology.
Especially in chemicals [pesticides], they have less harsh footprint on
the environment, they are more green, in terms of the adverse effects
and ecological effects. They are also tested more thoroughly."Siddiqui
is a disinformation pro. For example, the most widely used pesticide
in the world, deployed in conjunction with Monsanto's GMO crops, was
tested so "thoroughly" for safety that it is now declared a probable
carcinogen by the World Health Organization. You may have heard of it:
Roundup.
Siddiqui's tenure negotiating US interests in the TPP
surely favored big biotech, and all the companies who make their living
selling GMO crop-seeds and pesticides.
The predicted outcome of
the TPP vis-à-vis GMOs? It's obvious. Nations who resist the
importation of GMO food crops will be sued, in private tribunals, for
interfering with "free trade."
This is the future writ large, unless the TPP is derailed.
~~~~
Consider
the local movement in Hawaii's Maui County, where in the last election,
citizens voted to block long-standing Monsanto/Dow experimentation with
GMOs and their attendant pesticides, until an independent investigation
could assess the health effects of those reckless open-air activities.
Monsanto
immediately sued to suspend the force of the vote, successfully
obtained an injunction, and the case has been hung up in federal court
ever since.
Under the TPP, all successful local community actions
against GMOs and their pesticides, anywhere in the 12-member countries,
would be viewed per se as obstructions to free trade; and instead of
engaging in a public and messy court battle, corporations could simply
sue (or threaten to sue) the offending member country in a private
tribunal, automatically defeat the local communities, and win a cash
judgment.
Attempts to label GMOs, and previous laws allowing labeling in various countries, could be arbitrarily canceled.
~~~~
Consider
the recent astounding action of US Trade Representatives in Europe.
Using yet another disastrous trade treaty under negotiation, the TTIP
(Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), US Trade Reps
pressured the European Union (EU) to modify its stance on pesticides.
The Guardian (May 22, 2015) headline and tag says it all:
"EU
dropped pesticide laws due to US pressure over TTIP, documents show...
US trade officials pushed EU to shelve action on endocrine-disrupting
chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility to facilitate TTIP free
trade deal."Note: this repressive and criminal action
didn't even involve a treaty that had been ratified. The pressure was
all about the so-called positive economic impact the TTIP would have,
when passed, for Europe. And in the face of that money benefit, and the
threat of its removal (by ditching the TTIP negotiations), who would
dare curb the import and use of chemicals that achieve something as
"minor" as disrupting human endocrine systems and causing male
infertility and cancer?
This is the sort of judgment we can look forward to, if and when the TTP and the TTIP are ratified.
This is the face of corporate Globalism. This is the face of the Globalist Trilateral Commission.Recently,
US Senator Jeff Sessions broke the code of silence on what is in the
forbidden-to-be-disclosed TPP Treaty. His most pungent revelation
concerned "living agreements." Thus giving new meaning to the term
bait-and-switch.
Living agreements are arbitrary changes that can
be made to the treaty, by Presidential fiat, without consulting
Congress, after the treaty has been ratified.
That's right. In
other words, the treaty is the treaty until it isn't, until it's
something more, something different, something worse, something that
empowers mega-corporations to a greater degree than previously
negotiated.
Because those corporations, those Monsantos and Dows
and Syngentas, wouldn't want to miss a trick, wouldn't want to forego
suddenly realizing how they can exert even more dominance, would they?
No comments:
Post a Comment