The Great Reset, page 5
However, a publicly available text of the first exchange between Zbigniew Brzezinski and Deng Xiaoping on May 21, 1978, currently exists on the website of the US-China Institute. It seems that Brzezinski was so interested in normalizing the relationship with China that he didn’t mind selling out the people of Taiwan or concealing what he was doing from the American public.
Brzezinski: With respect to discussions about normalization, which we trust will begin in June, I would like to suggest that these discussions be kept confidential and that no advance publicity be issued. I think continuing such discussions in the context of confidentiality would make their success more likely and would minimize some of the political complications which, at one point or another, will be inevitable in our own country. Although my visit here is not to negotiate normalization, I would like to think of it as contributing a step forward and not a step backward. We only want to go forward, and I hope you will interpret this visit in such a fashion.
We start with the premise which we have already accepted before—that there is only one China, not one-and-a-half Chinas or two Chinas or China and Taiwan. For us there is only one China. We also believe that the three key points provide the framework for defining our basic relationship. There are certain basic difficulties that we ourselves have to overcome, but though these difficulties are for us to overcome precisely because there is a relationship between us you have to be aware of these difficulties and be sensitive to them.
The fundamental difficulty is how will the American people understand the nature of this historically transitional period in our relations with the people of Taiwan following normalization. During that historically transitional period domestic difficulties in the U.S. would be far minimized if our hope and expectation that the internal and purely domestic resolution of Chinese problems would be such that it would be peaceful and that our own hopes in this respect would not be specifically contradicted.11
One doesn’t need to be a diplomat to understand when you’re being betrayed. Brzezinski was clearly throwing Taiwan overboard in favor of China. And in return, Brzezinski seemed to be begging the Chinese not to do anything that would unduly alarm the wary American public. It seems both sides understood the bargain they were making. As one reads the account, it’s difficult to escape the feeling that Brzezinski was acting like the diplomat of a subservient nation, while China was being treated as the dominant nation, perhaps even the victor in a great war.
Brzezinski remained a friend to the leaders of the Chinese communist party all his life and when he died in June 2017 was remembered fondly in the pages of China Daily in an opinion piece titled “Brzezinski and His Insightful Wisdom Will Be Missed.” Here’s a sample of what they wrote:
The passing of Zbigniew Brzezinski last week came as a shock because a little more than a month ago he was still making public appearances and commenting on the Korean Peninsula issue. In the past week, many of my Chinese journalist friends who had interviewed him or attended his lectures recalled on WeChat Moments their fond memories of the great strategist.
For many of us, Brzezinski was a man of wisdom with a great understanding of the world and China. As the U.S. national security advisor in the Jimmy Carter administration, Brzezinski played a key role in the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and the People’s Republic of China in 1979 . . .
To my generation, Brzezinski was one of several wise US politicians known to Chinese. Others included former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and former US National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.12
When you’re eulogized by the Chinese communist party, I question when you reach the Pearly Gates if you’re going to get a good reception from Saint Peter. I don’t think you’re going to the good place with fluffy clouds and angels playing music.
More likely, you’re going to spend eternity in a much warmer climate.
Wood continued with the history of how the Technocrats, once established in government, figured out how to remain in powerful positions:
The early members of the Trilateral Commission told us repeatedly that they were not interested in a political takeover. And yet, during the Carter administration, Carter and Mondale were members, Brzezinski was a member, and at one point, every cabinet member Carter had, except for one, was a member of the Trilateral Commission. It looked like a clean sweep.
Then, on the other hand, they say they’re not interested in a political takeover. They just wanted to create a New International Economic Order.
But what we found out was that America represented the policy generating strongman of global economics. And anybody who could get their hands on the engine of economics would be able to control the entire planet. And that’s exactly what they did as time went onwards from 1976.13
The narrative of Patrick Wood conforms to the known facts about the early Trilateral Commission and China’s entry into the global economic community. These were not low-level government employees. They were the top officials in our government, and they were enacting plans they’d never discussed among the American public.
However, they had to work slowly, as they did not have the support of the voters for many of these initiatives. They would need to be present in every presidential administration going forward. As Wood detailed the various administrations:
These technocrats have represented left and right, liberal and conservative, the political labels mean nothing to them. They operated through the Reagan administration, George H.W. Bush was a member of the Trilateral Commission, then you had Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both of whom were members of the Trilateral Commission. They brought into their government many members of the Trilateral Commission. Then with George W. Bush, you had Dick Cheney, who was a powerful member of the Trilateral Commission. Then you had Obama, who was completely surrounded in his intelligence community by members of the Trilateral Commission. Completely surrounded.
The same thing happened, maybe to a lesser extent in the Trump administration, and now you have the Biden administration.14
In the interview, Wood went on to tell a curious story about Henry Kissinger simply showing up at the White House and having at least two unscheduled meetings with President Trump. This is highly irregular, as meetings are supposed to be scheduled and on the daily agenda, and yet it testifies to Kissinger’s continuing influence more than forty years after he left the White House, despite not being able to set foot in several countries around the world who have designated him a war criminal for his actions during the Vietnam War.
In what may or may not have been a coincidence, one of these times was right after Trump had fired FBI Director James Comey. As reported by Chris Cillizza of CNN:
The White House press pool was called into the Oval Office just before noon eastern time for what they expected to be a photo op between Trump and the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov since the two men were scheduled to huddle earlier today.
But it wasn’t Lavrov they found sitting with the president! It was Henry Kissinger, best known for his role as Secretary of State to President Nixon!
Reporters asked Trump about the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Trump responded, briefly, that Comey was simply “not doing a good job.” It was apparently lost on Trump that the last 16 hours had been dominated by comparisons between Nixon’s “Saturday Night Massacre”—where he jettisoned the independent counsel investigating Watergate—and Trump’s decision to part ways with Comey.15
Cillizza of CNN claimed that Kissinger’s unexpected appearance was just another example of the Trump circus, a whirlwind of incompetence, just a step or two away from disaster. And yet, given what was going on with Trump and the former FBI director, who had just been fired not twenty-four hours earlier, another interpretation, based on the decades of work by Patrick Wood, was plausible.
Trump was showing his independence by firing FBI Director Comey, and perhaps Kissinger went in to deliver a threat from the globalists. Kissinger may have thought it would be a secret meeting, but Trump turned the situation around by inviting the press in for a photo opportunity. Kissinger, well into his nineties, couldn’t quickly scurry away but instead sat in his chair looking like nothing more than a shriveled little troll as the press arrived.
Henry Kissinger and Donald Trump during Kissinger’s unexpected visit to the White House. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead; accessed on Wikimedia) Commons)
I defy you to look at that picture and come to any other conclusion.
Trump ended his term (maybe just the first?) as combative as when he entered, although he had not done much to harm the globalists or halt their march to a Technocratic state.
* * *
I asked Patrick Wood to explain how the Trilateral Commission fed into the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset, and as usual, he had a clear and concise answer:
Back in the early days of the Trilateral Commission, they were very reticent to come out and speak about their plans. They did it every once in a while, but we beat them up so badly, they decided not to come out and play anymore. They were relatively secretive about their plans and operations. Even David Rockefeller, in his memoirs, admitted that they were very secretive about their meetings and plans.
By comparison, the World Economic Forum is made up of the same type of people as the Trilateral Commission, but it has a much broader membership. You have the media, you have lawyers, politicians, and the CEOs of giant companies. It was the same kind of people you saw in the Trilateral Commission. It has a much broader membership, and a much larger one, but still the same mix of people as you saw in the Trilateral Commission.
However, the World Economic Forum is completely open about their plans. They have an extensive website with tons and tons of articles that you could get lost in. In the articles they declare exactly what their plans are. It’s also important to note that the World Economic Forum is so tightly wedded to the United Nations that it can be hard to see where the two groups differ at all.16
Woods describes the path trod by many revolutionary groups, from the communists of Russia and China, to the fascists of Italy, to the Nazis of Germany. If you know the public isn’t going to support your message, you lie about your ultimate plans. You convince the good people to surrender or stay silent as you implement your plans.
I asked Wood if it was accurate to say that Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum were using issues such as “sustainable development,” “climate change,” and “racism and gender issues” as a way to divide people, making them more vulnerable to the plans of the globalists. He agreed it was a tactic they used but said it was also a strategy to keep people from looking too closely at their plans:
The World Economic Forum is to complete the plans of the New International Economic Order and the Trilateral Commission. That’s what the Great Reset is all about. It’s been forty-five, fifty years in the making. The Great Reset is the New International Economic Order. This is Technocracy warmed over from the 1930s. It’s a resource-based system where they will control all the resources and you and I will own nothing. In fact, Klaus Schwab even says that. You can look it up.17
Sometimes your understanding of an issue depends on when you enter the conversation. If you had entered the conversation within the last ten years, you might think this all began with Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. However, you’d be sorely mistaken. If you just focused on the work of the Trilateral Commission, you look to Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the early 1970s. However, you’d fail to see the links going back to the 1930s and Columbia University. That’s why it’s often so enlightening to talk to an expert like Patrick Wood. An expert can give a deep historical perspective of an issue that you wouldn’t otherwise understand.
Probably one of the most surprising parts of my interview with Patrick Wood was when he talked about how oblivious many of the early members of the Trilateral Commission were to the unpopularity of their ideas among the public. Wood recalls:
There was a paternalistic attitude by members of the Trilateral Commission regarding the rest of the world. They figured since they were the bright ones, the ones with PhDs and that sort of stuff, that they had a leg up on everybody else in deciding what was good and what was bad. We repeatedly ran into this attitude where what they’d say is something like, “Well, what we’re doing is for everybody’s good. It’s for the global good. So, why would anybody take exception to it?”
We took exception to it, and we told them that. But they just couldn’t understand why we’d be upset about their plans to help the world. It was just crazy. I still shake my head.
This is really the heartbeat of what I call “scientism.” Scientism sets up science as a god. It’s kind of an extension of humanism in a way. It sets up science as a god that can do no wrong. And they reject any other type of moral, ethical, or Biblical restraint. It doesn’t matter. All of this is just nonsense to them.
And they believe the god of science is the only path to finding out about the nature of man and the universe. This allows them to come up with some very strange ideas about their way being the only sensible way. And everybody else, with a different idea, is a crackpot.18
I found Patrick Wood’s comments to be extremely helpful in explaining the mindset of these globalists/Technocrats. They genuinely believed what they were saying. They think the rest of us are idiots in need of being saved by them. They reject all other sources of morality, be it religious, ethical, or moral. It is accurate to call them materialists, and yet even the most ardent materialist can still live an ethical life if they respect the rights of others just as much as they respect these rights for themselves.
In some ways it’s quite sad, as one might say these globalists suffer from a “God-shaped hole” in their soul, where God used to be, and are desperately trying to fill this void with the god of scientism. They do not engage with the moral and spiritual complexities of life and thus most closely resemble a general who conducts a battle far from the front, forever blind to what’s happening at the tip of the spear, where success or failure is determined. They live an antiseptic life, devoid of joy or suffering, and pass from this world with little or no spiritual development.
The next subject I covered in my conversation with Wood was my frustration with something I couldn’t find in the writings of Klaus Schwab or the globalists. Their writings spoke abundantly of “communication, collaboration, and a common set of values” but contained little information about what happened to those who, after a period of “communication,” simply didn’t agree to their “common set of values.” I asked if Wood could point me to any sources that explained how these globalists planned to deal with dissenters. This was his response:
We can certainly see the anecdotal evidence for that with all the people who’ve been canceled, kicked out, thrown out, shamed, and in some cases, probably murdered. The pattern has been very clear. Anybody who does not agree with their narrative is in jeopardy of being removed from the scene.
It’s kind of what China does. In China, they call it “disappearing” people. They haven’t gone quite that far in the West to specifically kill somebody. But “disappearing” people is the name of the game. We see this in the medical community. For example, the Great Barrington Declaration [opposing the COVID-19 lockdowns, masking regulations, and vaccine mandates] had a couple hundred thousand signatures, with about three thousand being top scientists and medical professionals. Every one of those people was canceled by the censorship culture.
And that wasn’t by mistake. It was an intentional campaign to crush anybody who had an alternative narrative to COVID-19. And we see this all over the major media, social media, and with many large corporations who are censoring people they don’t like for one reason or another.19
I found it difficult to disagree with anything that Wood was claiming. Anybody paying attention to the media understands that, in the past several years, especially since the appearance of COVID-19, there has been nothing less than an assault on free speech. The old answer to the question of speech that people believe to be wrong is more speech to counter what is believed to be false.
The answer to bad speech is good speech and trusting people to be able to tell the difference.
This principle no longer seems to be part of the operating system of our civilization.
Instead, the motives of the speaker were attacked, usually with some of the most heinous allegations possible today, and that person was removed from the discussion on the grounds that many found the comments objectionable, or that such speech created a significant risk of public harm. If we lose free speech, we lose our ability to think and can only blindly follow the dictates of those who believe they have our best interests at heart.
One of the final questions I wanted Patrick Wood to address was something that has long bothered me. Because of our tradition of free speech in the West, as well as individual autonomy, we have a different operating system than an individual in China or Russia, which have a long history of cowering under the dictates of the latest authoritarian ruler. Although there have been suspicious deaths of dissidents in the West, I’d agree that little hard evidence has been presented to establish this as a pattern utilized by the powerful in our society.
I asked Patrick whether he agreed that in the West it would be difficult to force these changes upon us. But, if they could somehow get people to acquiesce to their plans, or remain silent, that it would greatly increase their chances of success.
