Talk:Trilateral Commission

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

General article discussion[edit]

In the interests of true global self-actualization, I find it necessary that the Trilateral Commission disband. CarolSeerCarolSeer (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

To be credible this article requires links to the "founding documents", minutes, descriptions of meetings and any published materials. Ffzzz (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC) The article is misleading. First, although the Trilateral Commission originally included just three regions, it is now global. Second, the main point of controversy about the organization has little to do with whether or not it is a conspiracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:37, 21 January 2003

This page needs some serious work! The article seems to put down the notion that the Trilateral Commission is involved in "shadowy" and "sinister" activities, yet it doesn't even attempt to explain what 'legitimate' goals (if any) this organization serves. To anyone interested in researching this topic, Noam Chomsky wrote some interesting comments about a report that was authored by the Trilateral Commission in the 1970's. The report was about democracy, and showed that the Trilateral Commission has an extremely hostile attitude towards democratic values and institutions, and views such values and institutions as obstacles to their objectives. This report was real and is/was publicly available, though the Trilateral Commission has since become much more secretive (undoubtedly because of the poor public image this report gave them). I forget the name of the report, but it should be fairly easy to find.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:06, 17 July 2003

While Chomsky is prone to overstatement, "extremely hostile" overstates the attitude of the Commission toward democracy, if the cited Huntington report is the basis for a judgment about the entire organization at the time. Chomsky himself quoted phrases for their reports like "a greater degree of moderation in democracy" to address an "excess of democracy" in the Sixties. He is critical of the TriLat vision of democracy, which seems to him vaguely feudal. (See [1], an analysis with perhaps fewer of the cheap shots you see in some of his recent writings.) It can be argued (and was, by Alexander Hamilton) that regulating excesses of democracy is very much what constitutional representative government is about, among other things. As for a democracy that is somewhat "feudal", I still see that here in Japan, though it's not even as strong as it was 10 years ago. It's always about what sort of accommodations have to be made for legitimizing government through some reflection of some part of public opinion. In the context of the times, and from the perspective of radical politics, it wasn't hard to imagine that groups like the Trilats were trying to design "roach hotels for revolutionaries", to find some way to reduce the influence of radical politics on public opinion and the status quo. Yakushima 09:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Can a link between the Great Depression and a rise of this trilateral commission be found? If so could we then suppose the wealth of a growing nation was redistributed amongst the 3 nations. I imagine the power of the UN was not far behind the formation of this 3lateral either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 04:10, 9 December 2004

I'm going to have to say no, because the Trilateral Commission wasn't founded until 44 years after the Great Depression started :) You might be thinking of the Council on Foreign Relations.--Gloriamarie 17:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is not very informative. What the heck does the Trilateral Commission do exactly? I got to this page through the random article button so I have no prior knowledge what the Trilateral Commission is or does, and after reading the article I know about as much I did before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:05, 30 March 2006

The organization does not do much! It's a discussion group, plain and simple, with little impact on real world events (save its major project of better involving Asia in worldwide conversations). That is why we are limiting the size of this article in accordance with the TC's actual relevance! Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Crisis of Democracy[edit]

Need I say more Zbigniew Brzezinski? Trilateral Commission on “The Crisis of Democracy”, make up your mind about it, I think it is very easy. See from this extract:

"Revitalizing Trilateral Democracies

Introduction: Troubled Democracies (without figures, tables or footnotes)

Two decades ago Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki reported to the Trilateral Commission on “The Crisis of Democracy” that, they argued, confronted the nations of Europe, North America, and Japan, Their starting point was the widespread commentary during the 1960s and 1970s that envisaged “a bleak future for democratic government”—an image of “the disintegration of civil order, the breakdown of social discipline, the debility of leaders, and the alienation of citizens. [...] 1. the surge of radical political activism that swept the West in the 1960s, beginning with campus protests in the United States about civil rights and the Vietnam War and then echoed in such far-flung and momentous episodes as the events of May 1968 in France and the “Hot Autumn” later that year in Italy; and

2. the economic upheavals triggered by the oil crisis of 1973-74 that were to engender a decade and more of higher inflation, slower growth, and worsening unemployment" ...[read more in TC's full article, the original report THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY Task Force Report #8 "Text of Introductory Chapter (without footnotes) A. THE CURRENT PESSIMISM ABOUT DEMOCRACY" New York University Press (© 1975) Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington and Joji Watanuki ISBN: 0-8147-1305-3

US Political Thought Notes on Samuel P. Huntington, Chapter III: “The United States” in The Crisis of Democracy, by Michel Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watnuki

This is a condensation and arrangement of Huntington's argument, not a commentary upon it.

Critical commentary on TC -- 12:55, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms - What a piece of triangular bull poop. Embracing porn, homosexuals, animal-human sex, cannibalistic views and calls it democracy? These non-goyish people must be really sick in the head, maybe God puked in their brains before making them. If Europe was really a democracy, why doesn't it ask its people... guys, do you really want homosexual activity to become allowed in public, please vote. Guys, do you want to go and invade Iraq so we can re-activate the Kirkuk to Israel pipeline so oil flow can be diversed from the Persian Gulf to a Israel that can tax Iraqs oil, please vote. Guys, do you want to allow demeaning credit plans to become legal via financial institutions in the form of a plastic card, please vote. Guys, do you want most of your media to become owned by a guy called Rupert who has tatooed Israel in his nuts or should we stop such information monopolies, please vote. Guys, do you want to loose your currency, culture and national values in exchange for beer, porn and stupidity so when Uncle Ziju wants to make the world one, there would be less cultural clashes as cultures would have been wiped out of the face of the earth, please vote. Guys, do you want our country, even though its developed and economically stable to keep borrowing from financial moguls so our strings are pulled by big global bankers, since we as a British nation have more debt than all of Africa put together, please vote. Guys, do you want us to invade afghanistan to find a guy called bin laden who has kidney disorder, needs dialysis 3 times a week, who magically lives in afghan mountains directing terrorist activities around the world from his telepathic internet computer and while we are hunting for him and his demolition crew who perfectly dynamited the WTC towers, lets kill a dozen civilans too so we can test our weapons, please vote if you want this. Guys, do you want a private health service, even though the national health service is extremely good, unfortunately sabotaged by non-goyish acitvities so you all have to pay for health cover on top of the enourmous taxes that are designed to ensure you won't have enough to save up, please vote. If Europe was really a democracy, and majority could decide, I guess we still would have had our traditional views, churches and intellectual entertainment, instead of the BBC post Michael Winogradski (masked surname: Grade) who managed to incrase the sex count from 11 to an amazingly 336 counts per day across the BBC channels (iow, how many times the word sex and sexual connotations are used in tv shows per day). Wow Mr. Grade/Winogradski, you sure managed to satisfy the anunaki and transform alot of British men from respectful moral men into stupid frustrated weak sexual freaks. Well done. The "crisis of democracy" is a pack of lies, which is embracing evil instead of good. Take this knowledge with you and laugh while you read it. Thank You for reading this far-- (talk) 02:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Membership List[edit]

How are the names on the membership list verified, other than having a person whose name appears on the list make known his or her membership in a public statement? patsw 15:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC) CristianChirita 21:53, 18 February 2006

Patsw, order the full list yourself from the bottom of that website. You email them, they email you the list back in a couple of days as an MS Word file. Giuliani's name is right there. =) 01:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous editor, you have just conceded that as entered, Giuliani's membership is not verified. I am under no obligation to verify the edits made by someone else. He or she must provide verification. patsw 02:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This list is way too long for one page and the membership list is barely cited. Goatstein (talk) 23:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above, I'm going to give this 2 days and then significantly pare down the membership lists. Any dissenting voices, please post! Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Began the cleanup. This will take a while as going through this long list is arduous work. Please do not revert w/o first discussion here. Any grammar and organizational help welcome. Sailingfanblues (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


I believe they have a logo of some sort, with three arrows pointing to the center. If it is real (and not just made up by some con-nut, it should be included...-- 13:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Crisis of Democracy report pdf download[edit]

A pdf download of the report " THE CRISIS OF DEMOCRACY Task Force Report #8" from the Trilateral Comission is available at the Trilateral website, at I think it would be usefull to place it in this entry, since much of the commentary about the trilateral comission is about this specific report. I would have done it myself, but: 1 - The external links section is already very big. Perhaps it would be usefull to cut a unecessary link, and place one for this pdf download? 2 - Should it be mentioned in the main article? Should a new wiki entry be created about this report?

The report is very interesting, a view into the minds of the world elite at the begining of the 70's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:13, 1 April 2006

What do they do?[edit]

What is the purpose or objectives of this organization? How often do they meet? What do they produce i.e. meeting notes or reports?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 12:29, 18 November 2006

read their book The Crisis of Democracy and the Chomsky essay that is linked to in the wiki article:—Preceding unsigned comment added by LamontCranston (talkcontribs) 105:29, 10 July 2007
I think they mean, what is the aim of the Commission? I can not tell by looking at the page. JoeHenzi 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the aim of the Commission is to act as a Global Intellectual Aristocracy. If this is true, as long as their own ethics compel them to serve the public good, they are an essential hidden element of all democracies. It is obvious that democracy only means government via propaganda, as the irrational/impressionable masses are the ones who hold power. And so if somebody doesn't steer the perceptions of the masses towards views that encourage civilization, a charismatic demagogue such as Hitler will gladly steer their views towards barbarism. Philosopher8 11:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I'm sure the masses in Nazi Germany would have said Hitler was "essential" to preserving "civilization." Don't be so narrow-sited. (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


The purpose of the geolink in the page is not clear, plus it seems to break the page design (see source).--Nicolas1981 22:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The geolink templates have been shortened. I hope it is tolerable.--SallyForth123 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories[edit]

There should at least be a mention of the various conspiracy theories involving the Trilateral Commission.Intelinside2007 04:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I first wanted to see this article to see if there was a connection between them and some really weird conspiracies. Mus640 (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I am no conspiracy theorist, but I thought it odd there was no conspiracy section. I came accross a book one time called Architects of Conspiracy, which was about the conspiracy involving the Trlateral Commission. I believe it was by the John Birch Society. J. D. Hunt (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on conspiracy theories about the Trilateral Commission since the Trilateral Commission was mentioned as a stereotypical conspiracy. I see no such mentions here except that theories exist "out there". I also see no negativity or criticism on this organization in this article. I am inclined to mark this article {{Newsrelease}} or {{Advert}}. Patcat88 (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably add something about this soon. There's a documentary I just bought that goes into a lot of detail about them. For example, Ronald Reagan said before he entered the White House that he would never choose George H.W. Bush as a member of his administration because he was a member of the Skull and Bones society at Yale. Along with that, he also said that if he was elected, he would investigate these secret societies and see what they were really up to. Of course, a few weeks after saying this, Reagan joined the Trilateral Commision and chose George Bush as his running mate. Δnnuit Cœptis 21:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I added this conspiracy theories section and slimmed down/renamed the criticism section b/c the quotes in it were beyond unimportant (who cares what a fringe representative puts forward/how is barry goldwater relevant?). It's shorter and acknowledges that the Trilateral Commission is a central piece in CT thought, but doesn't give those ideas an creedance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:37, July 15, 2011
That's clearly inappropriate. The John Birch Society's "criticism" might be moved to "conspiracies", but the other politicians listed are/were otherwise sane, and their criticism is not entirely a conspiracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that Chomsky and the others referred to are sane, their points are a bit random, they are not resources on this discussion, and their comments are not part of the main body of their research/work. So, just b/c they have made mention does not mean their mentions are worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedic setting. As of now, the quotes make the JBS/Alex Jones ideas appear to be substantive criticisms and not CTs (which they are). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced quotes[edit]

There are a lot of unsourced quotes from various unnamed "documents" and other individuals, especially in the "Activity history" section. I'm going to get rid of all of them if they can't be sourced within the next month. Matt T. (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Clearly fails NPOV with a large criticism section and virtually nothing positive. I've trimmed the criticism section some, but it is still unbalanced. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag since there has been no work on the alleged neutrality issue for 7 months and the one line argument above is not compelling in my view. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly working through this NPOV issue. I've already added one positive issue to the 'activity history' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailingfanblues (talkcontribs) 23:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Still glaring. I have just re-added an NPOV note and tried to encourage changes by more finite sectioning in the article to draw attention to the more glaring sections. Specifically the introductory summary and unsourced and illogical claims (organizations do not 'sense' anything before they are founded!) regarding the founding myth. prat (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II[edit]

It would be a good thing if anybody could explain how Pope John Paul II ended up giving a speech to the members of the Trilateral Commission. It seems a bit strange to have a bishop of Rome giving suggestions to such a materialist organization like that. [2] ADM (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bildeberg Group & Japan's Importance to its Formation[edit]

In the article on the Bilderberg Group there is a cross-reference to this article that says:

Trilateral Commission, established by David Rockefeller in 1972 after the Bilderberg Group refused to include Japan

Yet nothing in this article mentions that as any part of the reason for Rockefeller's creating the Trilateral Commission. This article implies that the Trilateral Commission was created because Rockefeller floated the idea of an International Commission of Peace and Prosperity at a Bildeberg meeting where "the idea was widely accepted, but elsewhere, it got a cold reception."

The two descriptions seem to contradict each other or at least talk past each other. This article suggests that the idea that became the Trilateral Commission was widely accepted by the Bildeberg group and that it was the "cold reception" elsewhere that is it's raison d'etre. The Bildeberg article indicates hostility (to the inclusion of Japan, not to a Peace and Prosperity Commission) by the Bildeberg group led to the creation of the Trilateral Commission. Which is it, or is there another explanation? Ileanadu (talk) 08:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Bilderberg attendees[edit]

I can't think of a policy or guideline related reason to add this to names, it seems to be just editors thinking 'I think this means something'. Dougweller (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

agreed. Sailingfanblues (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Purging Membership Section[edit]

I have gone through the supposed citations for membership, very few actual support what they purport to cite. For instance, multiple names included are tied to the obituary for Hedley Donavon--the obit itself never mentions the Trilateral Commission once. My proposal is to excise all membership logs (less those with appropriate citations to give some depth) and merely list current executive heads. The other listed committees (beyond directorships) are also meaningless--few included have wikipedia entries themselves, fewer correct citations. I am convinced that most of this misinformation was inputted by Trilateral Commission conspiracy theorists attempting to build an argument that this minor think tank controls the world and betting that no one would ever read through the page's citations. Again, I am leaving 3 days for conversation. Sailingfanblues (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with what you are doing, indeed it is required by our WP:BLP policy. And we should never use sources such as for something like this. Dougweller (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
And looking at their official site, there's a membership list, so there is absolutely no need for us to duplicate that. Maybe spell out its existence in the EL section. Dougweller (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Further Reading Section[edit]

Upon looking up the texts referred to in this section, besides the texts by actual members of the TC, the works seem to be non-reliable sources. Robert Gaylon Ross (per quick google search) is apparently a conspiracy theorist writer extraordinaire--frequently interviewed by Alex Jones. Bill Wilkerson has no google history beyond this page and his book sounds like more CT work. As I understand it, a visitor here is to find reputable sources cited and referred to. I propose dropping those suspect texts and adding for the individual visiting this page to figure out what's up with the Trilateral Commission and CTs Jonathan Kay's wonderful book on the subject (Among the Truthers). Sailingfanblues (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleting alt. revising the introduction line in criticism section?[edit]

The introduction to the criticism section of the article begins with:

"Not unlike reactions to the United Nations or other organizations created to foster international cooperation, a number of prominent thinkers and politicians have criticized the Trilateral Commission as encroaching on national sovereignty."

Is this a very suitable beginning of a section on criticism? Because it seems as if they are being equalized to the United Nations (in some respects at least, which are apparently essential enough since the section begins in such a way) which I find to be a faulty comparison since they are in many ways essentially different (Membership quota and history as two examples), and in this particular context does it come off negatively since the criticism of the Trilateral does not apply for the UN and vice versa, which also goes just as well for these unspecified 'other organizations'.

In the matter of 'fostering international cooperation', if this is the case it ought already been mentioned in preceding sections and made aware to the reader rather than having to have that restated in the criticism section conveying the feeling of a defensive bias.

These two together taken convey bias and faulty reasoning unsuitable for any -pedia, wherefore I shall omit it and instead keep the following part of the sentence i.e. "A number of prominent thinkers (...)". Since it does not contain any of the deficiencies above mentioned.

If wikipedia members find unsuitable, please reverse my action but please do justify your reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


"The group is chaired by three individuals, one from each of the regions represented. The current chairmen are former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs Joseph S. Nye, Jr. and Chief Corporate Adviser, Fuji Xerox Company, Ltd. Yotaro Kobayashi."

The article says there are three chairmen, but it names only two. Is there a third? (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been updated,they have a new chairman for Europe.-- (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


It says "citation needed" on rockefeller as the founder.

Here is a reliable source for him being the founder. I would do it myself, but I don't know hot to edit these things."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Brilliant, I've added it. Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


I don't understand how Chomsky can have critizised the organisation in the 60ies, when it started in the 70ies. Somethings wrong in that paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

He was criticising the 1975 book The Crisis of Democracy which discussed the 60s. Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Chomsky again[edit]

Why on earth would anybody take Chomsky at face value, and present this in wikipedia's voice?

Sensing a discord among the elites of the wealthy capitalist states of North America, Western Europe and Japan, the Trilateral Commission was founded to foster substantive political and economic dialogue between these elites for global planning.

This is no place for polemics. bobrayner (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. You don't consider those involved as being elite, or do you don't regard the countries as capitalist? Gob Lofa (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Sensing a discord among the elites of the wealthy ..". This is poorly written. Who is doing the "Sensing"? David Rockefellar? Or the Trilateral Commission itself? That makes no sense. Maybe the founders. But did they "sense" it, or "imagine" it. Just not good writing, although good enough for government work. GangofOne (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


As I see it, the point of labeling someone like Alex Jones as a "right wing conspiracy theorists" is to contextualize why his opinion is being included, because otherwise it's not worth mentioning. Alex Jones isn't a reliable source for statements of fact on Wikipedia, and as a political commentator he produces a boatload of drivel about everything imaginable, so the only reason to include his position is as a right wing conspiracy theorist. There needs to be a very clearly explained reason why he's being mentioned at all, and the label is one part of that process. Regardless of how anyone feels about the people mentioned in this article, comparing Alex Jones to Noam Chomsky is an extreme mismatch. The idea that they must be treated exactly the same is not productive and ignores a great deal of context in service of specific point of view. Trying to treat them as being exactly parallel will lead to false balance. Grayfell (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, either the political labels apply to all the entities that were mentioned in both of the criticism sub-sections or they don't apply to them at all. The main problem with your argument is that just because you think that Jones is a right wing conspiracy theorist and Chomsky isn't, then a comparison of Jones to Chomsky must be an extreme mismatch; it doesn't occur to you that there exist alternative comparisons to Jones and Chomsky which are equally as valid as your Jones-Chomsky comparison...and even if your comparison was valid, it still wouldn't justify the double standards of your political labels. You'll also note that what you are doing doesn't stop with Jones as you also reverted the political label for Charles Krauthammer from "political commentator" to "conservative pundit" even though his policy positions have provoked a variegated description of his political views. Flaggerton (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
In a further attempt to reach a compromise on this issue I've tagged the labels for Jones, the JBS, Krauthammer and Chomsky with the POV template. Should this compromise-building measure fail, I should note for the record that the first batch of edits which I made that initiated this dispute ([3]) between myself and Grayfell was to just get rid of these labels completely. Flaggerton (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I was trying to explain why there is no "both ways". Political labels do not need to apply to all entities. The article is quoting a joke by Charles Krauthammer in which he specifically mocks his status as a conservative boogieman. The line only makes sense if the reader understands this beforehand. The label is providing important context to assist the reader in understanding the quote. Likewise, Jones is being contextualized as a believer in the conspiracy theories around the Trilateral Commission. It definitely had occurred to me that there are alternative comparisons between Jones and Chomsky, but Wikipedia doesn't treat them as equally valid. If you don't agree, your disagreement is with WP:RS, and WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE and all of the other alphabet soup used to describe Wikipedia's core philosophy. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
It really is time for Flagggerton to stop adding inappropriate labels to persons mentioned in this article. They are essentially this person's WP:POV opinions and have been reverted by several experienced editors. It is also time to stop making comments such as "drive by reverts" regarding actions by other editors. My advice to Flaggerton is to stop edit warring now. David J Johnson (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And that comment proves why my point about your insistence on having the political labeling go both ways continues to stand. Besides the illogic of your justification of labeling Krauthammer as a "conservative" (neither the article nor Krauthammer refers to him/himself as a "conservative" and if your interpretation of how that article describes his political views is true, then the fact that Krauthammer is mocking (i.e. denying) his status as a conservative would mean that it doesn't make sense to describe him as a conservative), you haven't explained why the political labeling should not be symmetrically applied to the entities that are mentioned in both of the criticism sub-sections except for a regurgitation of your main point that because you think that Jones is bad and Chomsky is good, then Jones must be bad and Chomsky must be good, and just using the fig leaf of Wikipedia guidelines (like the claim of false balance) which my edits putatively violates to better conceal your efforts to push your POVs by giving it an extra measure of legitimacy isn't going to cut it. I previously wrote how even if your comparison between Jones and Chomsky was valid, it still wouldn't justify the double standards of your political labels and the larger point that that assertion was getting at still stands as well: the labels (for JBS and Krauthammer) would be redundant because their viewpoints are already classified as originating from the political right, and there are alternative and less-POV labels that could be used to describe JBS, Jones and Krauthammer. I'll also note that your argument about the need to contextualize Jones/Krauthammer's politics is contextualized (i.e. labelled) in a way that is not supported by the relevant sources except for the way that you want their politics to be contextualized...and could be applied as well to Chomsky's political views. Given your history of edit warring as evidenced by the inordinate number of editors who have complained on your talk page about the way that you handle your ideological disagreements, I can understand why you resort to these kind of tactics to advance this hardline position on political labeling against the entities on this article who don't share your political views, but it really help if you didn't treat this particular article (and Wikipedia generally) as a battleground. Flaggerton (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Krauthammer isn't denying being conservative, he's making fun of silliness of the conspiracy theories he's been lumped-in with. It doesn't appear that you understand the quote, which makes your claims untenable. Context matters. Inordinate? The complaints I receive seem perfectly ordinate to me, and your personal attacks against me over unrelated matters says more about you than it does about the Trilateral Commission. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)