The Trilateralist Keir Starmer

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is seemingly a serving member of the Trilateral Commission. If you check out the most recent Trilateral Commission membership record it lists Starmer as a “Former Member in Public Service.”

In a recent Independent Media Alliance panel I was fortunate to have the opportunity to ask the world’s leading expert on the Trilateral Commission Patrick Wood why “former” members would be listed on the current membership list. Patrick Wood said:

Unless somebody resigns from the Commission they keep the name of a public servant in a special section below the active members. [. . .] When they get out of office they’re simply moved up the list to the regular list again. [. . .] It supposedly shields them from criticism that, well, they’re not really speaking for the Trilateral Commission. [. . .] What a sham!

Sure enough if, for example, we look at Jake Sullivan, on the 2022 membership list he was serving as the US National Security Advisor and was listed as a “former” member. Yet, on the current list he has full membership as a “recent” former member, i.e., he’s not a “former” member anymore.

I’m not sure how long Triliateralists remain “recent former” members but, if we look at the 2020 list, Ken Juster for instance was a “former” member serving as the US Ambassador to India. On the current list he has transitioned through the “recent former” designation phase to become a regular member again. So it seems the flimflam is maintained for no more than 4 years after a Trilateralist's so-called public service ceases.

Evidently, Patrick Wood is correct. His current listing as a former member indicates that Keir Starmer has not resigned from the Trilateral Commission. If we assume he is a serving Trilateralist this raises a number of very serious questions.

The Trilateral Commission—founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller—effectively promotes multipolarity. It divides the northern hemisphere into three distinct regions or poles: North American, European, and Asian Pacific. This is practically identical to the regionalised “balance of power” system envisaged by the Rhodes/Milner influenced Anglo-American Establishment prior to WWII.

This theme of regionalisation was pursued by the Rockefellers in the postwar period. In the late 1950’s they determined that the “regional approach has world-wide validity” and that they should “contribute to this [regionalisation] process by constructive action.” The Trilateral Commission was established with that objective, among others, in mind.

It is no coincidence that 1973 was also the year that the Rockefellers’ and European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD’s) global think-tank, the Club of Rome, published its report proposing a multipolar (regionalised) world titled Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System (RAM).

While the RAM report presents a computer model, that divided the world into ten “Kingdoms”—poles—The Club of Rome added a vision statement:

Our efforts in the immediate future will be concentrated on further use of the already developed [Kingdoms] model. [. . .] Implementation of the regional models in different parts of the world and their connection via a satellite communication network [will be] for the purpose of joint assessment of the long-term global future by teams from the various regions [Kingdoms or "poles"]. Implementation of the vision for the future outlined by leaders from an underdeveloped region in order to assess with the model existing obstacles and the means whereby the [multi-Kingdom or multipolar] vision might become a reality.

More recently the World Economic Forum (WEF), founded by Klaus Schwab, has argued the “most likely outcome along the globalization–no globalization continuum lies in an in-between solution: regionalization.” The global push toward regionalisation—multipolarity—has been ongoing for more than a century. It is the penultimate step prior to full-blown global governance: the ultimate objective.

Membership of the Trilateral Commission would suggest Starmer is a participant in a privately funded think-tank which exercises the Chatham House rule and deliberates on globalist policy initiatives in secret. Because it meets behind closed doors—virtual or physical—we are reliant on its published reports and released documents to piece together what those discussions entailed. It isn’t particularly difficult to do so.

The Trilateral Commission’s Task Force on Global Capitalism in Transition seeks to “chart a path” for “governments, businesses, and nonprofit institutions and [define] specific steps they can take to achieve critical common goals.”

What “specific steps” and whose “common goals”?

To this end, the Trilateral Commission promotes fifth stage capitalism:

We are now in the midst of a transition to a new fifth stage of capitalism. [. . .] Entering the fifth stage capitalism, the Trilateral countries should remake education on the scale of the reforms of the 19th and 20th centuries. [. . .] The public and private sectors will need to collaborate to leverage AI to mine insights from vast data sets available through social media, employment firms, and public sources. [. . .] Every person should live and work in a net-zero world by 2050.

Trilateralists contend this vast social engineering project can achieve the desired outcomes through the widespread adoption of fifth stage capitalism—synonymous with stakeholder capitalism—and the associated global public-private partnerships. The Trilateral Commission adds:

Public-private collaboration: Although governments will lead in developing policy, these strategies must be true “whole of society” efforts. Governments should thus also lead in convening a broad array of stakeholders. In many cases, though, other groups—industry associations, nonprofits, academia, and other research institutions—could also play an important role in establishing forums to engage stakeholders.

Stakeholder capitalism was pioneered by Klaus Schwab in the 1970s. In December 2019, Schwab wrote "What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want" where he outlined the stakeholder capitalism concept:

Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.

The legal definition of "trustee" is:

The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

The referenced “another”—implicit to stakeholder capitalism—is us, the people. We all apparently agree that private corporations should be invested with the power to administer the nation state. This is the heart of stakeholder capitalism or, as the Trilateralists put it, fifth stage capitalism.

The role and authority of the UK government, under Keir Starmer, is diminished by stakeholder capitalism. While the government supposedly leads policy development, the public-private partnership “whole of society” approach means other private stakeholders can “also” lead. Fifth stage capitalism formally shifts policy development from the public to the private sector.

In 2023, in an infamous interview with former BBC news anchor Emily Maitlis, Starmer was asked who he would prefer to engage with. Was it Davos (the globalists) or Westminster (the UK public’s allegedly democratic parliament)?

Without a moments hesitation, Starmer replied:

Davos. [. . .] Because Westminster is too constrained, it’s closed, and we’re not having meaning [. . .] Once you get out of Westminster, whether it's Davos or anywhere else, you actually engage with people who you can see working with in the future [fellow stakeholder capitalists]. [. . .] Westminster is just a tribal shouting place

It seems Starmer is not overly interested in parliamentary democracy. This is entirely in keeping with the view held by the Trilateral Commission. In its 1975 Crisis of Democracy report, The Trilateralists observed:

[. . .] democracy is only one way of constituting authority, and it is not necessarily a universally applicable one. In many situations the claims of expertise, seniority, experience, and special talents may override the claims of democracy as a way of constituting authority. [. . .] The arenas where democratic procedures are appropriate are, in short, limited. [. . .] Democracy is more of a threat to itself in the United States than it is in either Europe or Japan where there still exist residual inheritances of traditional and aristocratic values. The absence of such values in the United States produces a lack of balance in society which, in turn, leads to the swing back and forth between creedal passion and creedal passivity. [. . .] The vulnerability of democratic government in the United States thus comes not primarily from external threats, though such threats are real, nor from internal subversion from the left or the right, although both possibilities could exist, but rather from the internal dynamics of democracy itself in a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society. [. . .] We have come to recognize that there are potentially desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of political democracy.

The democratic division of the "the left or the right" and the “external threats,” purportedly posed by foreign nations, are not the most pressing risks as far as the Triliateralists are concerned. The real threat comes from "a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society." Aristocracy, in the form of authority exercised by experts—Technocracy—is preferable.

The "creedal passion and creedal passivity" of deliberative democracy—or "tribal shouting” as Starmer coins it—leads to a "lack of balance" in the system. Therefore The Limits to Growth, both economic and political, should be set in order to ensure “traditional and aristocratic values” maintain primacy because “democracy is only one way of constituting authority.”

There is no evidence suggesting the Trilateral Commission has changed its opinion. Fifth stage capitalism is a mechanism for “constituting authority” in the hands of a modern corporate aristocracy.

Regardless of whether Starmer is a serving Trilateralist or not, everything he says and everything he does is entirely in keeping with the objectives of the Trilateral Commission.

Blackrock CEO Larry Fink is definitely a serving Trilateralist and he, along with other corporate executives, were the stakeholders invited to advise the UK government’s economic growth policies at a Downing Street board meeting held in November 2024. Of course this is just the visible extent of the “partnership” between the UK government and Blackrock which controls an estimated $11.5T (trillion) in assets. Blackrock’s asset portfolio has nearly three times the monetary value of Britain’s entire annual GDP—according to the World Bank and the OECD.

The Financial Times reported that this meeting supposedly prompted Starmer’s Labour government to "overhaul British [financial] regulators” and commit to establishing “a new unit in the UK Treasury” to “co-ordinate this work across government.” It is obvious who will benefit from financial deregulation. “Growth” doesn’t mean what we think it means in the minds of Trilateralists like Fink.

The evidence clearly indicates that Starmer, alongside Fink, is also a serving member of the Trilateral Commission and did not resign from it when he became the UK’s prime minister. With regard to this apparent oversight, the Ministerial Code is very clear:

[. . .] on appointment to each new office, ministers must provide a full declaration of private interests which might be thought to give rise to a conflict with the minister’s public duties. [. . .] The list [of interests] includes affiliations with charities and non-public organisations [. . .] relevant to their ministerial portfolio or the broader work of their department. [. . .] The list includes other interests which could have relevance to a minister’s specific ministerial responsibilities and broader work in government.

Starmer’s declared interests are that he is the Honorary Vice President of the Civil Service Sports Council and an Honorary Fellow of St Edmund Hall at the University of Oxford. There is no mention of his evident affiliation with the Trilateral Commission. Indeed, any mention of his Trilateralist links, active or not, are almost completely absent from the legacy media—hardly surprising.

If he is a serving Trilateralist, Starmer’s lack of candour would not be anything new. Due to its deep links to the intelligence agencies, Starmer had a duty, both as a parliamentarian and, then, a Labour opposition cabinet member, to disclose that he had joined the Trilateral Commission—somewhere around 2017-2018. Reportedly, he did not.

Former Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesperson James Schneider, told Declassified UK:

Starmer didn’t inform us [and therefore parliament] that he was joining the Trilateral Commission while serving in the shadow cabinet. If he had, we would have put a stop to it. [. . .] Membership of the Trilateral Commission, a body dedicated to promoting corporate power, was plainly incompatible with Labour’s then-stated policies of redistributing wealth and power from the few to the many.

In all likelihood Starmer is, not was, a Trilateralist. His designation as a “former” members is perception management and he maintains close working relationships with Triliateralists like Fink. His public statements echo the Trilateralist worldview as do his government’s policy initiatives. We have no evidence to the contrary and the evidence available in public domain strongly suggests that he is currently working on behalf of the Trilateral Commission not the British people.

If so, then Starmer’s breach of the Ministerial Code is the least of our concerns. We currently have a prime minister who is committed to supporting multipolarity and, in so doing, subverting the UK to facilitate global governance; a so-called leader who embraces fifth stage capitalism; a man who wants to install a Technocracy, who believes democracy should be limited and economic and political growth engineered to enable a corporate aristocracy to rule.

None of which anyone voted for or even knew about, and all of which he either obfuscates or denies.

We have every reason and every right to ask him who he represents.