Trilateral Commission's New Russia Report Indicates Who the True Troublemakers Are

By Mark Anderson, THE TRUTH HOUND
www.thetruthhound.com
Stop the Presses News & Commentary

Part 1 of an Ongoing Series.
Photos courtesy of Thomas Gasser, We Are Change / Switzerland (top, closeup of Bilderberg 2015 airport-arrival list in Austria) and Next News Network (bottom graphic) from this writer's 2014 Trilateral coverage in Washington

The March 24-26, 2017 annual plenary meeting of the Trilateral Commission (TC), held in Washington this time around, came and went with many observers overlooking the TC’s ongoing studies about dealing with the Russian “threat.”

The TC’s original study of Russia emerged during its April 2014 plenary in Washington. This writer attended that gathering which, rather surprisingly, turned out to be a total exclusive.

The study, which has more “bite” than one might assume, was quietly updated sometime between after the TC’s plenary gathering in April 2016 in Rome and the 2017 plenary.

And with its next major meeting slated for the UK in early November, the TC—founded by recently-deceased globalist “bookends” David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski—is pressing ahead to continue its key role in private world governance.

So, it’s vitally important to closely examine the TC’s views on Russia, especially when considering the relentless mainstream media coverage about the “Trump-Russia” connection.

The Trilateral group’s updated Russian report is a textbook case of doublespeak masquerading as urbane, objective discourse.

Just for starters, the report states that while “the U.S. presidential campaign . . . featured a wide array of views on U.S.-Russian relations,” a return to “deep engagement between Russia and the West will not, in all likelihood, be feasible so long as Russia’s global ambitions and grand strategy remain unchanged.”

Notice the priggish premise: If Russia would simply drop its supposed “global ambitions” and “grand strategy” and straighten the f*** up, then the freedom-loving West could engage Russia and develop better relations with it.

Thus, the TC paints the West and its war machine as having no strong ambitions and certainly no major strategy. In like manner the TC passes itself off as a harmless “non-partisan” grouping of CEOs, think-tank wonks, academics and current and former government officials, who simply revel in fusing their intellects (and egos) together to advocate free trade, foreign interventionism etc., for “benign” reasons, of course.

Yet TC co-founder David Rockefeller, recall, opened the first-ever branch of Chase Manhattan Bank in Red Square in the early 1960s, during the height of the Cold War when the Soviet Union’s brutal communism was in full swing, much unlike the situation today. Rockefeller also engaged in trade and the finance of large factories with the USSR during the Cold War—factories that helped North Korea and North Vietnam kill American boys.

So, for the TC, which operates in honor of its founder, Mr. Rockefeller, to school politicians and the media about Russia’s sins and foibles is quite hypocritical.

RUSSIA & TRUMP: SO, WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Russia is far from being a citadel of freedom, good will and benevolence, yet there can be little doubt that there is a role reversal afoot whereby the U.S. is becoming the militaristic brute abroad and increasingly repressive at home like the old USSR.

Meanwhile, Russia is incrementally becoming a more just, even somewhat Christian, society, led by a shrewd and largely well regarded leader who, like him or not, is working more for Russia than for internationalists like those in the TC and their greater network of influence.

This is a reason that the corporate-controlled media, which has its share of TC and Council on Foreign Relations members working as reporters, editors, show hosts, staff and guest columnists and media consultants, won’t let go of the Trump-Russia thing: It’s because Trump— though he’s more of an elitist than his fans believe and has committed a number of ill-advised actions, like launching missiles into Syria on the basis of hearsay—is hedging on fronting for the internationalist cabal that the TC represents.

Why else was the prospect of Trump and Putin meeting and getting along well at the recent G-20 in Germany such a scare to these internationalists and their media mouthpieces? Because dialogue and détente can lead to peace, but endless cold and hot wars are where the profits are, and are what topple leaders that monopoly capitalists and central bankers find distasteful.

Sure, the Kremlin harbors plenty of corruption and intrigue, but then again, so does virtually every sizable country on earth. The bottom line is that first we have to assume that Russia is the epitome of evil, or something close to it, before we should care all that much if President Trump (or his son, associates etc.) have had communications of any real significance with Putin or any other people whose possible Russian “pedigree" carries any meaning.

BASICS OF THE TC

As many know, the world “Trilateral” refers to North America, Europe and Asia, defining the TC’s chief sphere of influence. And certainly THEY have no grand strategy, and saying they do is churlish, in bad taste. Ah, but don’t they collaborate, in terms of proposing policies, getting their government and media people to carry them out, and analyzing how such policies affect key components of the world’s political-economic system and various business strategies?

Yes . . . and given the huge amount of wealth and influence contained among TC members, there is simply no way to totally write off the TC’s meetings as relatively harmless chats among the gilded snobbery.

Indeed, the only notable difference between the TC (formed in 1973) and the older Bilderberg Group (1954) is that the painfully secretive Bilderbergers number only 140 or so per meeting where their resort hotel-of-choice is TOTALLY closed off to the public. The TC, with 500-plus core members, may close off one hotel wing or section, if that, and its website is somewhat more open about sharing studies and other information compared to Bilderberg.

PRIVATE GOVERNMENT

The TC and Bilderberg share many of the same members and goals and act something like the “House” and “Senate” of deep state-corporate “governance,” especially in terms of networking and planning for both group-gain and company/personal profit, directly or indirectly.

Accordingly, strategic “enemies” of one sort or another are needed to keep this geopolitical machine going in the direction that such Western power-brokers desire.

And that requires deep analysis—including of nations with lots of territory and natural resources, such as Russia.

MORE ON THE UPDATED REPORT ON RUSSIA

“In both Russia and the West, the debate is principally between those who favor a return to containment versus those who advocate a more 'transactional' relationship—selective engagement with selective containment. How far Russia is willing to go in mending fences with the West will depend, to a large extent, on how serious it perceives the United States to be in defending the liberal world order,” the TC update on Russia continues.

Again, the TC’s fractured fallacies are barely hidden behind pretentious prose. The main factor is this “liberal world order.” What is it?

From the meetings of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, to the Chicago group’s sibling, the Council on Foreign Relations, over to Chatham House in the UK and elsewhere in the massive network of think tanks that supply the studies (read: propaganda) for world consolidation, the supposed glories and virtues of this “liberal world order” are repeated nonstop, as if they are literally sacred gospel.

The concept refers to the “touchstone” of the “globalist” movement’s modern phase: The 1944 Bretton Woods Conference held in the waning days of World War II in Bretton Woods, N.H. in order to form the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and lay the groundwork for what became the World Trade Organization.

The outlook and philosophy of Bretton Woods, simply put, was that by forming these organizations, while rebuilding and consolidating war-ravaged Europe into an eventual super-state (the European Coal & Steel Community via several stages became the EU), a “liberal” world order would emerge, put an “end” to war and rain virtual manna upon humankind economically, even while fostering “democracy” politically.

To say that this venture failed, utterly fails to define reality. In fact, it failed fabulously.

True, one could say that Europe hasn’t seen another outright “world” war, but that’s not saying very much when you consider that while WWII was ostensibly fought to rid Europe of Nazi tyranny—though communism was willfully allowed by the U.S. and Britain to rise with a vengeance and swallow Eastern Europe—another tyrannical system(s) took over: the EU, NATO, the Eurozone, the European Central Bank, and myriad agencies tied into these main entities that have fused once-independent nations into an increasingly suffocating super-state—so stifling that about 52% of Brits voted June 23, 2016 to exit the EU in the Brexit vote.

Furthermore, wars are no longer constitutionally declared, fought and "won." Rather, countless wars and skirmishes, especially the endless boondoggles involving U.S. armed forces in the post-9/11 world, really never end. War has become a permanent fixture, with the conditions for World War III already evident and only lacking a decisive match to light the fuse. It would likely engulf much of the Mideast and at least parts of Europe.

So, while the beloved post World War II "liberal order" praised by the TC, the CFR and their brethren hasn't prevented war and instead helped make war perpetual, it also failed to deliver economic salvation.

Case in point: The Bretton Woods-born World Trade Organization has fostered the elimination of tariffs, which, when applied properly, are the fairest, most logical form of taxation since they protect domestic industry and make importers pay for entering the U.S. market, creating a revenue stream that could be used to reduce domestic taxes and still rebuild U.S. infrastructure. After all, heavy ship, rail and truck traffic exerts tremendous wear and tear on our highways, roads, ports, bridges, train track, etc. and is directly related to trade, much of it international. Why eliminate tariffs when tariff revenue is the obvious first choice for paying for infrastructure upgrades?

BUT WILL BREXIT EVER HAPPEN?

As former UK intelligence analyst Alex Thomson of “Eastern Approaches” told the UK Column News (www.ukcolumn.org) for its March 29, 2017 broadcast, the EU is a “supranational body” from which departure is no cake walk, because it’s not as if the UK is trying to depart just another international organization.

As Thomson stated, “The EU is unique in global and diplomatic institutions, in that it is not just an international organization by treaty, but it is also a supra-national body. It sits above and replaces parts of your government, by the connivance of your government, over the heads of the people. The continentals [those in the EU mainland] are starting to realize this as well.”

He added that the EU’s supra-national doctrine regarding sovereignty, “once acquired, always acquired” makes departing the EU particularly difficult, as necessary and desirable as it is. “It’s something that’s never been done before in world history,” he concluded, amid discussions on the UK Column that have factually shown why it’s highly unlikely the British government will fully leave the EU anytime soon, if at all.

The EU super-state’s bottomless bureaucracy, which not only is reluctant to let Britain leave, also disallows member states from effectively protecting their own borders, much to detriment of the social order in Sweden and other countries where unchecked, high-level influxes of migrants in short time periods is ratcheting up crime and distrust.

Meanwhile, Western-backed wars pushed mainly by the U.S. and UK, with some NATO help—either with proxies such as ISIS & and Co., or with regular troops—destroy or destabilize various Middle Eastern and North African nations, driving women, children and some very angry, often radicalized able-bodied men into Europe for just such a clash of civilizations. Only the most die-hard “coincidence theorist” would claim that this clash was unforeseen or random.

The updated TC report goes on to say:

“Prominent analysts in both Russia and the West are warning that Russia’s economic situation could unleash a domestic upheaval. Economist Anders Aslund, a member of the North America task force [of the TC], broaches the possibility of ‘another regime implosion and attempted democratization.’ ”

Furthermore: “Russian analyst Dmitri Trenin [one of the authors of the TC’s original 2014 Russian report] draws parallels to the Romanov era, arguing that Russia’s economy, in combination with other factors, could ‘trigger a collapse of not just the system, but the entire country.’”

The report continues: “Russia will need to enact significant structural reforms to stave off domestic instability. Even before the sharp decline in oil prices from $97 a barrel in 2014 to $30 [as of April 2016 the TC claims], we [the TC] assessed that trends in international trade flows and global energy markets—for example the growing [liquid natural gas market]—were changing in ways detrimental to Russia. As the ongoing European Commission competition review over Nord Stream 2 shows, calls for reform in Russia’s energy sector will be particularly demanding so long as Russian foreign policy provokes fears from its neighbors. Russia’s continued dependence on natural resource revenues could have far-reaching consequences for the ‘social contract’ that the Putin government has struck with Russian society.”

Speaking of the TC’s own Russia study unit, the report adds: “The Russian chapter’s 2014 assessment remains valid today: ‘a tangible downturn in living standards automatically delegitimizes the political course and its actors. Russia’s democratic institutions, now deformed and imitational, are not capable of making up for this deficit of legitimacy.’ ”

The TC is reluctant to mention, however, that a number of Western sanctions against Russia, especially since February 2014 when Russia “invaded” and “annexed” Crimea, are playing a major role in bringing about the very Russian economic downturn that’s happening, even while the TC and other private governance outfits make Russia’s problems sound completely internal in nature, with little in the way of external causes.

And as for “provoking fear,” perhaps the TC double-domes would like to explain how Russia interprets NATO’s virtually non-stop military exercises right at, or near, Russia’s border as anything other than highly provocative and every bit as offensive as they are “defensive.”

Author-historian Matthew Raphael Johnson, describing the hypocrisy of the Western elite, noted the following in a recent report published in American Free Press:

Imagine the Russian Army, along with the Mexican, Chinese, and Venezuelan armed forces, engaged in war games and drills in northern Mexico. Further imagine that the press in these countries is accusing the U.S. of endless crimes and even seeking to destroy their “democracies.” The identical scenario is taking place with the U.S., British, and other NATO militaries on Russia’s border in Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltics. It constitutes, obviously, a threat to Russian national security. In mid-June 2000 British, Polish, American, and Lithuanian troops engaged in war games and drills on Russia’s border. The cause? The “imminent threat” Russia poses to the world. The nature of this threat is never explained. It is said that Russia “invaded” Ukraine, yet not a single picture can be produced showing Russian forces attacking Ukraine at all. Even if Russia attacked Ukraine, why should the U.S. military get involved? The war games on the shared border of Poland, Lithuania, and Belarus are part of the Saber Strike exercise that has as its sole mission to deter the “Russian threat.” The reason Russia would invade and start World War III is never given.

And as for the TC’s reference to more liquid natural gas going to Europe, according to several Western think-tank studies, Congressional bills and documents, etc., such gas is being produced and shipped to Europe, on purpose, in order to break Europe’s dependency on Russian liquid natural gas and take away Europe’s main reason for declining to side with the U.S. regarding the Russian threat. That, in turn, helps NATO get more money out of European member nations for alliance support.

Yet, the TC’s updated report gives the impression that mere market forces (the “growing natural gas market”) are chiefly to blame. But in reality, any decline in Russian gas sales is at least partly due to interference from Western gas shipments—which amounts to economic warfare that’s part of the Western sanctions regime.

This is not to say that any nation, Russia of course included, should be regarded as wholly benign or totally trustworthy. Russia is a heavily-armed superpower. However, the U.S., as Britain was in days of yore, is clearly “the enforcer” on the world stage and moves heaven and earth to project its aggressions onto other nations and accuse them of the very aggression and encirclement of which the U.S.-NATO axis is undeniably guilty.

PART II COMING—IN THE NEXT INSTALLMENT, TO BE PUBLISHED SOON, READ ABOUT THE GLOBAL CITIES MOVEMENT & WHAT IT MEANS IN TERMS OF NEW OR MODIFIED STRATEGIES AMONG THE INTERNATIONALISTS