Trilaterals Over Washington (1982) – a talk by Gary Allen – audio with transcript

I listened to this talk a few days ago and thought it remarkable that George H. W. Bush was being promoted so aggressively as a presidential candidate way back in 1980:

This year they wanted to sell you George Bush, and the people weren’t buying. No matter what they did, they couldn’t defeat  Reagan with Bush. So what did they do? Since Reagan was not their boy, they’ve tried to move in around him. The first guy they got on their was Bush as the vice president.

Here in 2016 the Republicans tried their best to promote another Bush, but Jeb didn’t have what it took. [Update 9/2/2017] Though Trump came in as an outsider, he seems to be surrounding himself with plenty of insiders.


First of all, let me thank the local group for doing such an absolutely magnificent job of turning people out to hear me. When they first talked to me, I guess last May or June, and I committed to this talk, and they told me 600 and I thought well, they’re probably blowing a little smoke. Tonight I’m sort of going to play professor Allen, speaking to you at the great John Birch University. And, in a sense, that’s really what it is. It is a school. In my opinion it is the best school in the country. You don’t get any degrees or anything, and it won’t get you a raise at work. It may save your life. It can certainly give you some big hints on how to organize your own financial life.

I was educated at John Birch University. Let me give you just for those who don’t know, a little bit of background about myself. After 6 years of college I was teaching and ideologically I’d been through the whole brainwash. And on the political spectrum you would put me at about ADA liberal. I wasn’t member of the ADA, but that’s where my head was. Being an arrogant liberal, I thought that anything I didn’t know, couldn’t possibly have any importance or relevance. But a friend of mine, who I’d played football with at Stanford, and who’d been a fraternity brother of mine, and a very close friend, was the kind of guy that had a tendency to go real gung ho over whatever he happened to get into, had joined the John Birch Society. And I thought he was out of his Mesopotamian mind. And he wanted me to read some books. And I really didn’t want to read the books because, being a liberal, I already knew everything. Liberals don’t need to know anything else. They already know everything. Anything they don’t know is not really important. The only reason I did the reading was to show my friend where he was wrong. I wanted to save my friend from this horrid mistake he was making of thinking the country was in trouble.

This is about 1961 folks. Anyway, I started reading these books, and I found out there was a whole other history that they hadn’t told me about at Stanford. Oh, what a surprise. So I marched down to the Los Angeles Public Library, and looked for book reviews about these books because I wanted to see what my side had to say about what these guys were saying. Now they were pretty persuasive and a lot of these books were written by people who had been on the spot. And it frankly, it kind of shook me up. And then I started reading the book reviews and I found out that most of these books just flat were not reviewed—the experience I’ve had myself in intervening years. I know what that game’s all about now. But at the time I couldn’t understand. Why couldn’t I find reviews on these books? And the few that were reviewed, I remember one, one of my favorite books, because it was John T. Flynn’s book about Franklin D. Roosevelt, called, I think FDR the…, a book about FDR. And I just had absolutely revered FDR, from all the classes I’d had. He’d saved the country, and I was a big Roosevelt fan. And I don’t mean this, please don’t take this as blasphemy, but I would have nominated FDR for the first vacancy in the Trinity. And I read this book that gave quite a different view of FDR, so I wanted to see what the book reviews had to say about it. And the first book review, “If you want to learn anything about FDR, don’t read this book”.

You know the liberals are the real book burners. They don’t throw them in the fire; they burn books in other ways—by not reviewing them for one. All of a sudden realized, I have been conned. Six years of college and a lot it was a fraud. A lot of it was just 180 degrees away from the truth. And it made me mad. I don’t think anybody likes to think they’ve been had. Now some people, when they find out they’ve been had, either they refuse to believe it, their egos won’t accept it, or they get mad and want to do something about it. That’s how I happened to start as a student at John Birch University and eventually become a professor here. Now there’s been a lot of blood over the dam in the intervening 18 years. A lot of things have changed since those of us who sort of cut our teeth back in days of the Goldwater campaign.

Just out of curiosity, how many people in this room were deeply involved in the Goldwater campaign. That’s terrific, ‘cause that’s just, maybe 5% of the people here, or less. Well, and let me tell you how it was back in the old days folks. When you tried to tell people at that time that there was something radically wrong in this country, they didn’t know what you were talking about. They say, “Gee, we never had it so good. And what are you upset about?” At that point, because so many of the problems were, or seemed to be, a long ways away from us, you had to get people to do a considerable amount of reading just to get them to recognize the fact that we had a significant problem.

Now one thing that has happened since then, a combination of the work of the John Birch Society and other groups, and the fact that everything in the world is just deteriorating, you won’t have a hard time today convincing people there’s something wrong. They may not totally agree on what it is, or what’s causing it, but you don’t find anybody in the country today giving you this junk about ‘we never had it so good’. Today, everybody is concerned. Everybody realizes that there are major problems and they don’t seem to be going away.

Let me give you one example of how things have changed. Five years ago, the majority of people in this country, when they were polled, said that the number 1 problem is inflation, but most of them at that time felt that pretty soon the government would get a handle on it, and bring it under control. Inflation was simply a temporary aberration that we were going to have live through.

You know anybody today that thinks inflation is temporary? Hardly anybody. People now think it’s with us; people today realize that government spending has gone berserk. Within 2 years the government will be spending a trillion dollars a year. Within a couple of years, we will be spending 2 billion dollars a day. Public and private debt, if you look at it on a chart, it’s going almost straight up in the air as people try to keep up with inflation by borrowing and going further in debt. People are now starting to realize that American productivity that gave us the highest standard of the living in the world, is slipping, that taxes are out of control to pay for the out of control government, that savings are shrinking and that we have a terrible energy problem, and that our oil supply could be cut off in the morning. So for those of you who are trying to mobilize your friends to get involved, first in the university, and then to take the knowledge that you can gain in the university and put it to work.

The good news is, that people now understand there’s a problem. And as problems get worse, they start looking for solutions. Back in the middle sixties you couldn’t talk to people about solutions because they didn’t think there was a problem. The bad news, of course, is that the problems are going to get a lot worse. I think many of them radically worse. Some of them quite rapidly. And that’s when people are willing to listen. When a guy thinks he might lose his job, or that he might not be able to get into the bank to get at his bank account, or that his bond portfolio is going down the chutes. That’s when you can start talking to people, when they are upset. To that degree, Jimmy Carter has been a blessing. A lot of people tended to go to sleep under Nixon and Ford. A lot of people make the mistake of feeling that, “Gee, if there’s a Republican in the White House we’re in pretty good hands, because they’ve got pretty good sense, so I can go back to doing whatever I want to do”. And let’s face it; most people don’t want to think about this problem. They’re busy at home raising their kids. They’re busy trying to keep their business going with government bureaucrats harassing them to death, and high taxes and inflation. They’re busy on the golf course. They’re busy playing bridge. They really like to believe that things we’re talking about aren’t so.

If you’re going to talk to people you gotta understand how people are, because you’re out there selling. You’ve got a problem with a guy who has a big ego, because he doesn’t want to admit that he could have been wrong. So when you work on him you’ve got to work around his ego. Not too many people want to say, “Aw man, I was all wrong, Charlie, and you were right all along”. They’ve got a vested interest in their own past mistakes. You know that’s the situation with most liberals in this country. The liberals in this country have misunderstood communism since 1918. The liberal publications have consistently misunderstood communism—well of course some of them really didn’t. They weren’t really liberals and they didn’t really misunderstand. But I’m talking about the really honest, sincere liberal who really and truly would like to help people and thinks that this is the best way to do it. They’ve got a big ego involvement. And secondly, nobody likes to believe bad news. You know I could fill a room like this today with brand new people, and I could give a talk on the future of the economy that I absolutely guarantee you would scare the dickens out of ‘em. And a lot of ‘em, the next day they would wake up; they’d go home from here. They would be in panic, and the next day they would be looking around for the first guy at the office that would reassure them, “Aw, there’s really not that much to worry about”. That’s human nature. So we have to present our facts in a way that doesn’t rub their nose in it, and we have to try to stay away from Pavlovian responses. So, I think part of what I’m trying to tell you here tonight is think carefully about how you communicate this information with other people.

Now we’ll get into some information here to night, but really, most of the facts that you need are right up here. Subject is the Trilateral Commission. Anthony Sutten’s book, Trilaterals Over Washington is absolutely loaded with the facts. Anybody who wants to seriously communicate with other people about the Trilateral Commission should have this book, and also this one, America’s Role In The Technotronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man that David Rockefeller picked to run the Trilateral Commmission when he formed it. Hear the words out of their own mouth. Believe me, they convict themselves. In many ways, ladies and gentlemen, this is an open conspiracy. What do I mean by “open” conspiracy? They don’t really try to deny what they are up to, because they don’t have to worry that 60 Minutes is going to do a number on them. If 60 Minutes wanted to, they could take selected quotes out of this and out of other Trilateral publications. For example, here’s Trialoque, which is the official publication of the Trilateral Commission: Managing Global Problems: Avenues for Trilateral-Communist Collaboration. Well, the Trilateral Commission which was set up by David Rockefeller in 1972, aims at collaboration with the communists. And Brzezinski in his book makes it very clear that’s what it is all about: a merging of political sovereignty starting with the advanced counties of the world, and then spreading to the 3rd world countries and to the communist countries.

Now why did they set the Trilateral Commission up? Originally, the instrument that these people wanted to use to establish a world government was the United Nations, but as the United Nations grew, and every little mini country in world got in there, and all these brand new countries, some of them that had less than 100,000 population; as these countries came into the United Nations it gradually became a zoo that nobody could manipulate. It’s just out of control. So they had to set up a mechanism where they could go around the United Nations, their own organization, which they set up where the Rockefellers donated that land down in New York City where the U.N. building is built. Eighty four members of the people that got together in San Francisco in 1946 to form the United Nations. From the United States, 84 members were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the Rockefeller family’s original and primary organization to set up world government.

Now when I say Trilateral Commission or CFR, as far as I’m concerned, ladies and gentlemen, you can use the words interchangeably. There are about 80 members of the Trilateral Commission from the United States, the balance being from Western Europe, and Japan. There’s 1800 members of the Council on Foreign Relations, all American citizens. But both organizations are headed by David Rockefeller. It’s his group. He decides who gets to come in. So lately there’s been a lot of discussion of the Trilateral Commission, but as far as I’m concerned, you can use it virtually interchangeably with the CFR. About 75% of the members of the Trilateral Commission from the United States are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations.

All right, let’s go back to that word “conspiracy”. Now understand what I’m telling you about using this word is virtually heresy, because one of the major functions of the John Birch Society is to convince people there is a conspiracy. But in order to sell that concept, you’re much better off to lead people to that conclusion themselves, rather than to try to stuff it down their throats, because they’ve got a built-in gag mechanism that says, “I’ll believe anything but conspiracy”.

So you’ve got to deal…, look, what are the motivations of these people? Why would David Rockefeller want a one world government? I mean, after all, David Rockefeller is an American. Now we think of ourselves as Americans. We assume other people who live here also think in that way. But Thomas Jefferson once said, and I’m not quite quoting him accurately here, but he said in so many words, “A merchant has no country”. In other words, his home is where his wallet is, and where his assets are. And the vast majority of David Rockefeller’s assets are located outside of the United States. That’s why the Rockefeller family is so extremely interested in American foreign policy.

Why is he interested in American foreign policy? Because it affects the ownership that he and his family and his friends have with multi-national corporations around the world, the dealings with third-world countries. We’re talking about the international banking. We’re talking about the control of natural resources, of which energy is probably the primary one at this point. Now if you want to, it is possible to think of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission as simply the Rockefeller family’s private lobby. Or, a vested interest pressure group. That’s a great one to use with liberals because that’s one of their cliches. You know, you can really get these people with their own stuff if you use the words correctly, because they’re already worried about vested interests. And there is no more greater vested interest than the Rockefeller family. It is the primary lobby in the world today, through the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

Now eventually, when you look into all the aspects of this thing, you realize it goes quite a bit beyond being a lobby or a pressure group. But remember, you’ve got to talk to people where they’re at. You’re trying to talk to people that just know there’s something very wrong—that America has followed a very disastrous foreign policy whether the Republicans have been in office, or the Democrats have been in office, and the foreign policy doesn’t change. They’ll accept that. And then you can point out to them, well let’s see, when, who was the big honcho when Richard Nixon came in? Henry Kissinger.

How did Henry Kissinger get to be the absolute mainstay of foreign policy for the Nixon administration? Well, you know, you go back to, what are we talking about, 1966?, uh ’68. At the time Kissinger had received his appointment, very little was said about how Richard Nixon happened to pick Henry Kissinger. You know, you assume he didn’t just stick his finger on a name in the phone book, and say, “Here’s my secretary of state”.

Well, Time Magazine said that there was a cocktail at Clare Boothe Luce’s house. And that that was the first time Nixon had met Henry Kissinger, who had never been a Republican. Now that’s kind of interesting, because remember that one of the major character traits of Richard Nixon, that I think everybody agrees on, he was highly partisan. And we’re supposed to believe that Richard Nixon meets Henry Kissinger at this cocktail party, and there they are, sharing a martini. I’m sure they each had their own, but…and Richard Nixon is so overwhelmed by the brilliance of this fella, who nobody can understand, that he hands over to him the entire foreign policy decision making responsibility for his administration. Note, was Richard Nixon, before he became president, more renowned for his interest in foreign policy, or domestic policy? Well, he was the big anti-communist wasn’t he? Foreign policy was supposed to be his forte. And yet he hands it over to this other guy? Who’s not even a Republican? Who’s barely a citizen? Who garbles English? Where did this guy come from? Because, remember, those policies that were instituted in the Nixon administration, were not the policies that Richard Nixon had told us for years that he would put into effect if he became president. They were almost exactly the opposite.

Now, remember a year or so ago, when they were burying Nelson Rockefeller, after the had received the Megan Marshak award for distinguished services. [laughter in the room] All of a sudden it came out, these eulogies from Henry Kissinger. And it was revealed that Henry Kissinger and Nelson Rockefeller had been bosom buddies for 20 or 25 years. I defy you to go to the library, and go back to 1968, when Henry Kissinger go that appointment, and find out anything about he and his contacts with the Rockefeller family.

I can remember when I used to talk to people about the fact that there was a connection between Henry Kissinger and the Rockefellers, and they just flat would not believe you. And yet, Henry Kissinger had been on the Rockefeller family payroll for over 10 years before he was dispatched to go run foreign policy for the Nixon administration.

And you may recall that when Nelson Rockefeller was going through the hearings to become vice president of the United States, it was brought out that when he sent Henry to Washington he gave him a $50,000 gift. Now, if you or I gave a federal official $50,000, a lot of narrow-minded people would think it was a bribe [laughter in the room]. Because, remember, as Nixon’s foreign policy advisor, it was virtually impossible for Henry Kissinger to make any major decisions that did not affect the worldwide Rockefeller network of petroleum and banking. You talk about a conflict of interest. That was the biggest conflict of interest of all time.

If you and I had done something like that, they’d have put us in the “crowbar motel”. Instead, it was cited as just another one of Nelson’s philanthropic operations.

So when Henry leaves, the Republicans go out, In comes Zbigniew Brzezinski, and they just have 2 teams. They’ve got a Republican team and a Democrat team. And they switch.

I’ve told this story before, but I think there’s a lot to it. I’m going to tell you again, even though some of you have heard it. If you want to understand presidential politics in the United States, remember when you were in high school, and the race for the student body presidency. And one candidate would come up and he would make his speech before the student body. You know he’d get everybody together in an assembly, and he’d get up there and said, “My fellow students, we have big problems in this school, and we’ve got to get the school moving again. What this school needs is new leadership. And I promise you that if I’m elected student body president, there’s going to be no more homework”. [clap clap clap] “Ooh, baby, let’s go!” [mimics student body reaction].

Then the other candidate for student body president comes up, and he says, “My fellow students, we have big problems here in this school. We’ve got to get this school moving again. What this school needs is new leadership. And I promise you, that if I’m elected your new student body president, we’ll have 2-hour lunch periods”. [whistling to mimic student body reaction]. Terrific.

So for the next week the students are all in a fervor. “Who are we going to picK?”, and they’re choosing up sides. And guys break up with their girlfriends, ‘cause one is for one, and one is for the other, “And he’s so cute!!” [using girl voice]. I’ve gotta tell ya, I’ve got a teenage daughter; in fact it’s her birthday today. She’s 14. There has got to be something—I don’t know if any doctors have ever done research on this—but there has got to be something in the female mind, between puberty and age 20 that just unravels [laughter from audience]. Any my wife keeps assuring me that our daughter is better than almost all of the rest [more laughter].

So, anyway, the great day comes to select the student body president. One of these guys gets elected. But what happens to the promise about no more homework, or the 2-hour lunch periods? Well those promises are never fulfilled, are they? Why? Because being student body president of a high school is mostly an honorary and ceremonial office. Not that it is not a great honor to be the student body president of a high school. You get to stand up in front of all the students at the assemblies, and you can wave at your buddies. You get to date better looking girls. You probably get a scholarship to college. But we really know, don’t we, and the students really knew all along, that the student body president doesn’t run the high school. Who runs the high school? The principal runs the high school. He’s the guy that’s going to make the ultimate decisions.

Well, every 4 years in this country we have a student body election. [audience laughter] And we’re going to get a new student body president. And it’s better to win than to lose. But he’s not going to make all those decisions. Those decisions are going to be made by David Rockefeller who’s the principal. [laugher]

We have a 2-party system in the United States. We have the Rockedems and the Rockepubs. [laughter] And every 4 years they want you to get very excited about all of this because they don’t want you to come to the conclusion that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference. That would ruin the game. So they want you to really get your heart into it. Like, “If our guy doesn’t win, it’s all over folks”.

There are 4 slots in any administration that the Rockefellers are going to control: Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, Secretary of Defense, and Secretary of the Treasury. What are we talking about there? We’re talking about foreign policy and money. They don’t care who really is secretary of agriculture. See the guy that runs can pay off his political debts with the other top offices, but the biggies are going to go to the people who are connected with the Rockefellers.

When you leave tonight, you’re gonna be given a flyer that was put together that I think is really, overwhelming in its impact. Let me find it here and show you. I’m really jealous that I didn’t think of doing this. This guy did a great job. And it’s a flyer on the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. And down here it shows the interlock of the Council on Foreign Relations with all of the major networks, with the big banks, with the major political offices in the country. And it shows in many cases how this has gone back from one administration to the other.

I think this is a very persuasive and powerful tool to show to people. Say, “Look. Here all these people are and they’re in the same little club. And that little club doesn’t get very much publicity does it?” Very few people have ever heard of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Now let’s say that we were going to put out one of these things that shows all of the key offices, and the West Point superintendents, and allied supreme commanders, and secretaries of defense, military fellows, the arms control and disarmament agency, and these were all these hundreds of people here were members of the John Birch Society. Do you think that that would get some comment from the press?

Let’s say that all of these people were Masons or Catholics, or all of them were Italians, or all of them were Irish. If you put that many people in all of the key organizations who all have something very much in common, it would attract attention wouldn’t it? There would be commentary on it. Why isn’t there commentary on this?

Well, if you will look over on the left-hand side of this thing,  you’ll see the people from Time Magazine, the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, NBC, ABC, and other miscellaneous media. It shows you 2 things. One, if they wanted publicity, they could have it, because the president of CBS simply dials up the producer of 60 Minutes, say, “Gee, my buddies over at the Trilateral Commission and the CFR say that they’d like a little more recognition for what they’ve done. We’d like you to do a program on it”. Yes sir!

Number two, since there is this virtual blackout, we must assume they don’t want us to know about this group. Now here’s a group, like the John Birch Society, has a very definite point of view. I mean this, if you want to look at it, say, let’s assume that these people are sincere. They do have a very strong point of view. Now in the few times when there is discussion of these groups, if you’ll let me dig out some of this stuff; David Rockeller has started to defend the Trilateral Commission, which he says, calls it a “group of concerned citizens”. Yes, but what are they concerned about?

Look, if they weren’t trying to be secret. If they were just concerned citizens, and they really did have people of very diverse points of view in there, which they claim all the time, but which in reality is not true, then anybody who was sincerely interested in bettering relations among the countries of the world would be allowed to join.

Anybody that wants to join the John Birch Society can join the John Birch Society.

Now tomorrow I suggest you go home and write to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and tell them you want to join! Oh, no, that’s invitation only. And who is in charge of the invitations? David Rockefeller. Now do you think David Rockefeller invites anybody to join his organization whom he feels would be hostile to the survival and the prosperity of the Chase Manhattan Bank and Exxon? Now anybody who believes David will do that, please see me after this talk; I have a few shares in the Brooklyn Bridge left and I would love to sell them to you. [audience laughter]

This one I thought was kind of cute. This is from the August 4th to 11th 1978 of Women’s Wear Daily, and they run little squib quotes. And this one says, “The Trilateral Commission doesn’t secretly run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that”, Winston Lord, president of the Council on Foreign Relations. [audience laughter]

Well, let’s talk about the Rock Father and the gang. This book is a little hard to find these days. If you ever come across it you should add it to your library. It’s by the late Nelson Rockefeller. It’s called The Future of Federalism, and it’s based on some lectures he gave at Harvard University, in which he makes the analogy that the United States federalized and put one federal government over all of the states. And we’re to the point now in the world where we must do this for a world government. The Future of Federalism is a discussion of federalizing all of the nations of the world. And you know there’s a lot of very nice and sincere people who think that’s a great idea. They’re, “Gee, there wouldn’t be any more wars. We could take all the money we’re now spending on national defense and we could spend it on humanitarian things. A world government would be a good idea”.

Well, would it? Are most of the countries of the world promoting freedom, or are they hostile to it? You know I think one of the very important parts of my book, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, is the chapter on the philosophy of our founding fathers. And I don’t to give you a long civics lecture here, but basically, our founding father distrusted political power, because they had just spend many years fighting to get away from the political power of an omnipotent king in England. And so they they set up our government, they fractionalized political power, because they knew that was the best way to prevent a dictatorship in this country. So they divided political power up between the executive and the legislative branches, and they created a separate judicial branch. And then just to make sure, they put in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which said any power that we haven’t given to the federal government, they can’t have. Well the history of the United States, over the past 50 years has been to demolish that concept.

One of my favorite quotes is Thomas Jefferson saying, “Speak to me not of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of a constitution”. Our Constitution was designed for the people to enslave the government, because our founding fathers knew that if we didn’t enslave the government, the government would eventually enslave the people. They were very smart people and they’d studied history. And they knew about Greece and Rome and other previous civilizations.

Now liberals today tell you, “Well, we’re no longer a 16th, 17th century agrarian economy”. It is true. Thomas Jefferson never flew on a 747. And James Madison never watched a World Series on television. But has human nature changed in the last 200 years? No. And those people understood the principles of human nature.

An Englishman was to come along a few years later and say it even better. Lord Acton after he looked at the French Revolution. And he said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. We see people with Acton’s disease, the disease of the desire for power.

You know people say, “Why do the Rockefellers do these things?” Well, there’s all kinds of diseases, you know. Manias, I call them. There’s kleptomania, the people that steal; pyromania, the mania for setting fires; nymphomania, the mania for making people happy [laughter]; and there’s power mania. Now people that don’t have power mania have a hard time understanding those who do have power mania. You know throughout history though that there’s been a Ghengis Khan, and an Alexander the Great. We know about the emperors of Rome. We know about Napoleon, and Hitler and Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung; FDR. People who lusted for power over others. Now an awful lot of the misery in this world has been caused by those handful of people who had that desire for power over other people.

Now it used to be that if you had power mania, you probably became a monarch, or a general. But I believe that today, that the people who control the politicians and the generals are the ones who are more important. Those are the people called “international bankers”.

About 4 months ago there was a program on television; the Bill Moyers program on public television. I believe it was called, “A Week With David Rock…”, no, “David Rockefeller’s World”. Did anybody here happen to see that? David Rockefeller’s World? Just a handful. This was the most fantastic revelation ever to come over television. They were pretty candid about what it was all about. You would swear it was something that the John Birch Society had put on. Let me give you a couple of quotes to give you the flavor of this. Moyers asked Rockefeller what it was like to deal with a capitalist country one day and a communist dictator the next. And David replied, “Just because a country is technically called communist doesn’t mean that a capitalist institution, such as the Chase Manhattan Bank, can’t deal with them on a mutually beneficial basis. And indeed we do deal with most of the so-called communist countries of the world on a basis that has worked out very well, I think, for both of us”. For the communists and the Chase Manhattan Bank. I’ll give you an example. This is Fortune Magazine for November 1974. On the cover is a gal with this huge red flag, and inside the red flag is a truck. And the background is this gigantic factory being built. And it says here, “The U.S.S.R.’s Big Gamble At Kama River”. Well, it wasn’t the U.S.S.R’s big gamble. It was our big gamble. Let me show you, major article, it’s called “A plant that could change the shape of Soviet industry”. The Kama River project was the largest truck factory in the world. It is the most modern, most highly automated. Now the communist system is very good at things like subversion, spying, terrorism, revolution; it is an excellent system for controlling people. As a system for producing anything, it stinks! So after these guys have been in business over there for 60 years now, they still can’t build the things they need. So here comes David Rockefeller and the Chase Manhattan Bank and they put up the money on a 75-year loan and 6%. I want you to go down to the Chase Manhattan Bank tomorrow and tell them you want to borrow some money at 6% interest for 75 years, no collateral of course. You think you’ll get the loan? They say a picture’s worth a thousand words? Here on page 154, is the commissar of the factory, and he’s holding up a picture this big, modern truck. And here, intertwined, is an American flag, and a Soviet flag. The money to build this most modern truck factory in the world came 50% on money loaned by the Export/Import Bank of the Federal Government—that’s you folks—and the other 50% came from David Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank.

Now this is not a new story. One of the books for sale over here, again by my friend professor Anthony Sutten, foremost expert in the world on the transfer of American technology to the Soviet Union. It’s called, “National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union”. This is the biggest scandal of the 20th century. I got into this a little on the the radio program today when I said I don’t think Watergate was such a big deal, and he said, “Well, what do you think is a big deal?” And I said I think that the fact that American technology has built the military industrial complex of the Soviet Union is the biggest scandal of the 20th Century. Now, here we have David saying, “Yes, we’ve done it and it’s been mutually profitable for both of us”. Let me ask you a question. This country spends $140 billion a year to defend itself. From whom are we defending ourselves? Canada? Italy? No. We’re defending ourselves from the Soviet Union aren’t we? We build their military industrial complex for them, and then we spend $140 billion dollars to protect from what David Rockefeller gave them.

Now I told you earlier that we shouldn’t say extreme things because we shock people. Well I’m going to say something extreme because I that once you accept that; once you understand that. Then you know why I’d like to be on the jury at his treason trial. Rockefeller goes on to tell Bill Moyers, “When one becomes an international banker, one really has to cross the bridge as to whether you feel that it’s the role of the international banker to try to persuade other nations and other peoples to handle their affairs in a manner that is politically or economically more to our liking. I personally don’t see anything immoral or improper about dealing with people with very diverse views, even if they conduct their affairs in a way that we might find quite repugnant”. In other words, if Hitler had wanted to buy poison from David Rockefeller, David would have sold it to him.

And a little later in the program, Moyers interviews a journalist named John Dizard, and they’ve just watched this big IMF banquet. And Dizard says, “Well, this is where the real business of the meetings gets going. There’s very little or really nothing of substance that will be decided at the actual meeting of the IMF. I’d say that these people, or rather the financial system as a whole, and these people run it, place the limits, in effect, on what any sovereign nation can do”. And at the end of the reception, Moyers says, “The party’s over, and some party it was. Over 1000 guests lined up to shake David Rockefeller’s hand. On the plane the other day I asked David Rockefeller, ‘What is power?’, and he didn’t give me a very good answer. He said he really didn’t know”. [audience laughter]

Well, the answer was here tonight. Those handshakes, and when you saw it it was almost like they were coming up to kiss his ring, and Moyers later referred to David Rockefeller as the pope of international finance. Those handshakes say it all. They’re the gestures that shape the nation’s destiny, where its people will live, what they will eat, what buildings will get built, what dam’s completed, what job’s created, who gets rich and who doesn’t. In a world where money talks, this is the language in which it speaks. In other words, the bankers are more important than the politicians.

Moyers goes on to say, “Some people think that banks today are larger and more important than countries because they operate across geographical and political boundaries and that they’re becoming a new force in the world”. Later, standing in Vatican Square, Moyers says, “Men like David Rockefeller move beyond religious, political, cultural, national boundaries with great ease. And here in St. Peters Square, the heart of the Roman Catholic faith, there’s something very symbolic to me about that. The church has always transcended national, political, and cultural lines, and so its own way, does the universal church of money. It goes where it will, and the laws of no single nation can regulate it. It even has its own curia. You’ve seen some of them this week. If they don’t have a single pope, although some think David Rockefeller is, he certainly is one of the chief cardinals. Private citizen David Rockefeller, is accorded privileges of a head of state. The boundaries that separate one nations from another nation are no more real to the Rockefellers than the Equator. Multi-national companies like Chase straddle the world. Chase has over 100 branches tied with 6000 corresponding banks, doing business all over the world”. Now you understand why David Rockefeller is very interested in American foreign policy.

Let’s talk a little bit about the future. And, I hope that we don’t offend anybody, but let’s talk about the next president of the United States. His name is Ronald Reagan. And, let me interject here, that the John Birch Society really is not a political organization. They’re not going to tell anybody who to vote for and their not going to encourage you to work for anybody, except to follow the dictates of your own conscience. So speaking for myself, and not as a representative of the John Birch Society, I’m going to vote for Ronald Reagan. For one reason. I think there’s a chance he’ll defend us. But, to think that electing Ronald Reagan president of the United States is going to solve our problems is wishful thinking. And we’d all like to believe that gee if we could just elect so and so to office, then we can go back to the card games, we can go back to the golf course, and we can forget about all this depressing stuff we’re talking about here tonight.

Let me make a few points. First of all, Ronald Reagan, if and when he is elected, does not start from scratch. He inherits 40 years of fiscal mismanagement. It’s like putting a new engineer on a locomotive that’s out of control. The breaks are burned out. The new engineer’s got a real problem.

I don’t think the guy is terribly sophisticated. I’ll tell you my own assessment of Ronald Reagan is, that he thinks he is sincere, that he means well, that he understands freedom pretty well, and he understands some basic economics pretty well. But the kind of things that we are discussing here tonight, the “supra government”, he is a child when it comes to that.

Another point: when Ronald Reagan was governor of my state of California for 8 years, the speeches were terrific. The speeches even stayed good after he got elected. But the actions never came close to matching the rhetoric. State spending grew at the same rate it had grown under Pat Brown and the Democrats. He talks today, you’ve probably seen this ad on television, about Ronald Reagan the great tax reformer, and that when he took over the State of California it was badly in debt and going in debt at a million dollars a day. And he points out that when he left office, there was a 5 billion dollar surplus in the treasury.

Well, that is true, folks. But he left out a couple of key points. He raised the sales tax 50%. He put on more state income taxes, he set up withholding. And simply, the implication from the ad is that Reagan put California in a sound financial and fiscal condition by cutting spending, which he had said he would do. That was the primary emphasis of his gubernatorial election. Actually he did it by raising taxes to the point where there was enough tax money in there, they wiped out the deficit.

By nature, Ronald Reagan, contrary to the image you would get watching him on television, by nature the man is a compromiser who does not like political gut fighting. He’s not a political knife fighter. And, if a man could not resist the pressures from the liberal vested interests in the State of California, his chances of resisting them at that national level are even smaller.

You know, it’s one thing to stop a new government program from going on the books. That can be done. It’s getting programs off the books that’s tough, because once you have them on the books, they have a vested interest constituency. For one, all the government bureaucrats that are in there passing the money out; do you think they want to lose their jobs?

So go in and cut back government, which is what has to be done, gives rise to incredible opposition, which is why the Republicans always come along, oppose the expansion of government, and then when they run for presidency they say, “We’re not going to cut it back, but we will apply some sound business principles, and we will manage socialism efficiently”. And it turns out they can’t even do that.

So, when Reagan is elected, on domestic policies a lot of people are going to be very disappointed, because he’s not going to be tough. And he’s going to be faced with some awfully tough problems that have been building up for 40 years.

Next point: Ronald Reagan does not control the Federal Reserve system. Now, some of you in the audience who’ve studied this topic will understand what I said. It’s rather complicated and I’m not going to go into a great deal of detail, but the Federal Reserve really is, or can be when it wants to be,  independent. It is not just a government bureau. It’s headed by Paul Volcker of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, who received his training at the Chase Manhattan Bank.

And now, this is out of U.S. News and World Report for October 20th: “Blaming the Fed, and why it’s in hot water”[Not sure where the title ends and Gary Allen’s comments begin]. Jimmy Carter’s mad at ‘em. Jimmy Carter can’t control the Fed, and the Fed controls the money supply. And what Carter is saying, “Hey guys, you’re jobbing me! You should have waited until after the election to tighten down on the money supply!”. Well, Reagan isn’t going to be able to control that either.

My prediction is that if Carter is re-elected president of the United States, we will have a war. If Reagan is elected we’ll have a depression; probably an inflationary depression, but a depression none the less. It’s not a very good choice is it? At least in a depression you don’t get shot, although I’m afraid, tragically, in the next depression in this country there’s going to be 100 times the violence of the last depression. Because people are going to understand why the depression, and they’re just going to strike out.

But I believe that Ronald Reagan is being set up to be the next Hoover. Not J. Edgar. The other guy. You know, the guy that had the depression.

The analogy that I’ve often used is that it’s like all the past presidents have been sitting around in a circle and they’ve got this soggy, brown paper bag full of garbage, wet garbage, and they keep passing it from one to the other, going “Whew!”, and right now they’re saying, “Hey, Ronnie, hold this, would ya?”

It’s my belief that in this election, we talked earlier about the fact that what the CFR always wants is to control the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate, as they have in the majority of elections, and then whoever wins is rather inconsequential to them. They win in either case.

Their choice this time was George Bush. But these people, while they are enormously powerful, while they have tremendous influence, I don’t want to give you the idea, and you should not give others the idea, that the thing that we’re dealing with is omnipotent. They are not.

In 1976, they were able to sell the American public Jimmy Carter. It was done under very odd circumstances as you’ll recall, because of the reaction of people against Watergate. And they said, “Well, here’s a guy, he doesn’t have anything to do with Washington, and he’s going to go reform Washington. Everybody said, “Ooh! Wonderful!”.

This year they wanted to sell you George Bush, and the people weren’t buying. No matter what they did, they couldn’t defeat  Reagan with Bush. So what did they do? Since Reagan was not their boy, they’ve tried to move in around him. The first guy they got on their was Bush as the vice president.

Now let me tell you how important that is. Ever since at least 1940 when the conservative grass roots America, Republicans, were for Taft, and the Wall Street Rockefeller group was for, who was it in ’40? The barefoot boy from Wall Street? Wendell Wilkie!. Well, we went through Wilkie, and then we had Dewey, and then we had Eisenhower, and we’ve had Nelson trying to get in there. All of the CFR candidates within the liberal wing of the Republican Party as of last July had finally either been defeated or died. And at last, the Goldwater wing, the Taft wing, the Reagan wing, whatever you want to call it, the grass roots middle-class wing of the Republican Party had finally won this 40 year old war. And then we went to Detroit, and what did Reagan do? He saved their bacon by putting George Bush on the ticket, and setting him up as, obviously now, his logical successor. The import of that, folks, is devastating.

Now, the excuse was, “Well, they want to keep the liberal Republicans from defecting to Anderson”. A group of conservatives met with Reagan the day before this decision to put Bush on the ticket. People from the moral majority. Howard Phillips was the spokesman. And the pitch they made to Reagan was this: they said “Governor, we’re for ya. We’re gonna support ya. But we want to tell you why we think you should pick a conservative running mate. There are millions and millions of Americans out there, a lot of them blue collar workers, middle class people, fundamentalist Christians, ethnic Catholics, who feel no loyalty to the country club Republicans, but they’re sick and tired of seeing their country going down the drain”. And he said “Governor, FDR put together a coalition like that and the Democrats ruled the country for 20 years. You could put that coalition together and the Republicans could have 20 years in office”.

But it turned out they sold millions of potential votes for what? For a handful of liberal republicans who might have defected to Anderson.

Now we see the move around Reagan, the attempt to manipulate him. Here’s Newsweek, October 13th, 1980, last week’s Newsweek, Page 40. Here’s a picture that shows George Bush, Alexander Haig of the CFR, Reagan, and Henry Kissinger. Now this may be paranoia, but I think that’s the message. The message is, from the establishment, “Folks, he’s acceptable”. And in this week’s, the brand new Time Magazine, the lead article is on what a nasty, small, little man Carter is for the vicious things he said about Reagan, followed by an article entitled, “The Real Ronald Reagan” that, while critical in spots, is basically a flattering article to Ronald Reagan. And I hope for all the world that I’m wrong. But Reagan is going to get elected, and watch who he appoints to those 4 key spots in his administration. You will know the amount of control by the amount of offices in those that go to CFR guys. And if you see the list of people they’re talking about, the key ones are supposed to go CFR/Trilateral people.

The fact that Ronald Reagan would have his picture taken with Henry Kissinger just curdles my stomach. And I, if there is evil incarnate, it’s Henry Kissinger; the man who gave us détente, the man who gave us SALT I, the man who has made us inferior to the Soviet Union militarily. When Henry Kissinger spoke at the Republican convention in Detroit, it was set up by Henry Casey, who is the new Reagan political campaign manager. Casey is a member of the CFR. And the biggest thing that worried the Reagan people about putting Kissinger on to speak to the convention was, they were afraid that the delegates would stand up and boo Kissinger. And the Reagan people went throughout the whole audience before Kissinger was on, saying, “You’ll disgrace us in front of a 50 million people national television audience if you boo Henry Kissinger. And they got those people to very [clap clap clap] Henry and everybody cheered for him.

I was up in the press session, and I’ll tell ya, something will really tell you a lot. You look around that press section, and there were some pretty good speeches being given at the Republican Convention. And these guys from the press are sitting there looking like they practiced all week on looking bored. But when Henry Kissinger was introduced, they all stood up and clapped. They all respect Kissinger.

Now, I wanted to boo, but I thought it would be a little unprofessional to start it. Why am I voting for Reagan? Well first of all, there’s not much of a choice really. Secondly, we can hope that, whatever else he does, I guarantee you I’m not going to go out and sell my Krugerrands and my silver coins when Reagan gets elected ‘cause boy are we going to have inflation next year. I hope he will defend us. He may not. But it’s a gamble.

All right, if that office is not all that meaningful, what should we do? Ladies and gentlemen, our hope politically to save the country lies in the House of Representatives. No matter who is in the White House, if the Congress is liberal, he can’t do too much. And the more conservative the House is, the more conservative Reagan will be. I’ll promise you. He responds to those who put his feet to the fire.

Howard Phillips’ big mistake at Detroit was starting his conversation with Reagan by saying, “Governor, we’re for you no matter who you pick”. He should have said, “Governor, if you sell us down the river on this one, we think you’ll sell us down the river on the rest of the stuff. And, we’ll withhold all support and we will denounce you as having betrayed the conservative movement.

Conservatives make the mistake of trying to be the mister nice guy. This is a game of hardball, folks. And the liberals know how to play hardball. And that’s why Bush is the VP.

The hope, in now, in 1982, is in building a congressional, conservative tide that will demand that we defend ourselves, that will demand that we do not surrender our sovereignty to any world government, will demand that the decisions are not made by members of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

And that’s where you come in. First you gotta go to the university, and there’s the bookstore right over there. You know, I know it sounds like we’re just doing a big pitch to sell books here, but folks, you can’t be effective, you can’t understand what’s going on, you can’t convince others what the problem is if you won’t read. That simple. You gotta turn that damn television set off and sit down with a book. And you gotta keep current with the magazines. People who won’t read are no better off than people who can’t read. And the truth simply is not going to appear on the 11 o’clock news. That simple. That bloody simple.

I’m going to close now. I’m sorry I’ve run a little long. I try to operate on the theory that the mind can only absorb what the fanny can endure. But you must remember that I’m standing up here, and so sometimes I forget that you people have been sitting down for 2 hours now.

2 Comments on “Trilaterals Over Washington (1982) – a talk by Gary Allen – audio with transcript”

Comments are closed.