Chapter 11

The UN World Money System

What the Trilaterals truly intend is the creation of a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved.... As managers and creators of the system they will rule the future.¹
— Senator Barry Goldwater

The only viable way, it seems to me, to structure the international economic order for the future is to install collective leadership among the Trilateral partners — to view the three regions not as the dictators or the dominators, but as a steering committee, which must work out its own differences first in order to lead a stable and prosperous world economy.²
— C. Fred Bergsten (CFR, TC), former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

In a globalized economy, everyone needs the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. Without the IMF, the world economy would not become an idealized fantasy.... [T]he IMF is the sovereign nations' credit union...³
— David Rockefeller, Trilateral Commission Founder, longtime former chairman of both the TC and CFR

[The IMF is] in essence a socialist conception.⁴
— Hilary Marquand of the Socialist International, circa 1962-63

[A] single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy.... How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.... The key point is that monetary control ... would be in the hands of a new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of any national government....⁵
— Professor Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC), Harvard University, former U.S. Under Secretary of State

The emerging multi-polar world ...presents a better opportunity to create a world central bank with a stable international currency than at any previous time in history.⁶
— Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Mundell in the Trilateral-CFR-dominated Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1999

For a generation now these columns have preached economics from the gospel by Robert Mundell.⁷
— Lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1999

The fifth plank of the Communist Manifesto calls for "Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly." ⁸

 

It stands to reason: You can't establish the total state, the "dictatorship of the proletariat," if people are allowed the freedom to produce their own goods and services, buy and sell what they need and desire, and travel where they please when and how they please. Communism is about rationed scarcity and total regimentation. Under Communism, "the State" (i.e., the ruling oligarchy that rules in the name of "the people") controls and rations food, clothing, housing, transportation, fuel, health care, education, communications, publishing, entertainment — everything.

Monopoly control by "the State" of all money, savings, and credit is as essential to the totalitarian Communist system as its secret police, torture chambers, firing squads, and gulags. We have seen throughout the 20th century that everywhere the Communists have taken over they have religiously followed Marx's dictate in this matter.

 

The reason is simple: power, control.

 

Power to exercise total control over all human activity. Any private, independent initiative is seen as a threat to this monopoly control and, therefore, cannot be allowed.

Most people find it amazing, then, to learn that the world's premier "capitalist" bankers and financiers subscribe to the game Marxist program. For decades, led by the Rhodes-Milner-Morgan-Rockefeller-RIIA-CFR-TC cabal, in one country after another, the Insider bankers have successfully pushed for the establishment of central banks.

 

These central banks are patterned after our own Federal Reserve System, a completely Marxist operation that was foisted upon the American people by the banking trust in 1913, in one of the most gigantic deceptions in world history.*

 

* An understanding of the incredible deception involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve System will greatly help us in our current battle against the same diabolic forces that are now so hellbent on establishing an all-powerful planetary central bank. The campaign for the Federal Reserve was completely a creature of the Insider banking cartel, but the proposal was presented to the American people by the cartel's front men as the only way to protect the country against the power of the "money trust." One of the central players in this scheme was Insider Frank Vanderlip of National City Bank of New York, who later divulged his role in the conspiracy to create the Fed. Two-and-a-half decades after the event, Vanderlip explained his role as a "conspirator" (his word) at a supersecret 1910 meeting at Jekyll Island, Georgia, where the Federal Reserve plot was conceived. This very elaborate scheme, in which the Insiders financed and controlled both sides of the issue, is brilliantly revealed in G. Edward Griffin's masterful and detailed expose, The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (Appleton, Wis.: American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 1994). For a briefer treatment of the same subject, see also: None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen (Seal Beach, Cal.: Concord Press, 1971); "The Federal Reserve System: The creature of a triumphant international banking establishment" (The New American, October 27, 1986); and "The Secret Science: How the Federal Reserve creates money out of debt" (The New American, December 19, 1988).

 

While having all the appearances of being run by national governments, these central banks are, in reality, run by the private RIIA-CFR-TC banking fraternity.

Why do these "capitalists" support Marx's program? Again, the reason is simple: power, control.

 

Recall that arch-conspirator Cecil Rhodes' "simple desire" was nothing less than "the government of the world." The one-world banksters, like their Bolsheviki brethren, want to control the world. And these sup. posed "mortal enemies" have worked hand in hand throughout much of the past century to bring about this totalitarian, global control.

 

As Ford Foundation President H. Rowan Gaither (CFR) put it (see Chapter 4), he and his one-world associates were making "every effort to so alter life in the United States as to make possible a comfortable merger with the Soviet Union."¹⁰

Spearheading the Merger Spearheading this capitalist-Communist "merger" scheme for much of the past century has been one of America's wealthiest and most famous dynasties: the Rockefeller family. Microsoft mogul Bill Gates, investment wizard Warren Buffet, and dot.com upstarts have grabbed headlines in recent years as the "world's richest" tycoons, but their economic and political influence doesn't begin to compare with the global reach and power of the Rockefellers.

David Rockefeller, the current pater familias of the super-rich clan, was for many years chairman of the CFR (1970-85), chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank (formerly the Chase National Bank). Although now officially retired, he has remained actively engaged as chairman emeritus of all three institutions.¹¹

During the entire "Cold War" (and for decades before), the Rockefellers served as the primary banker for the Reds. As Congressman Louis McFadden, chairman of the House Banking Committee, noted in 1933:

Open up the books of Amtorg, the trading organization of the Soviet Government in New York, and of Gostorg, the general office of the Soviet trade organization, and of the State Bank of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and you will be staggered to see how much American money has been taken from the United States Treasury for the benefit of Russia. Find out what business has been transacted for the State bank of Soviet Russia by its correspondent, the Chase Bank of New York....¹²

"Arch-capitalist" David Rockefeller has always enjoyed immediate, privileged access to Communist countries and received the royal "red carpet" welcome from them.

 

His Chase Manhattan Bank's Moscow branch enjoys the distinctive cache of being located at "1 Karl Marx Square." In 1974, the bank even saw fit to boast of this supposed trophy address in full-page newspaper advertisements that read, in part:

"From 1 Chase Manhattan plaza to 1 Karl Marx Square, we're international money experts with a knack for making good sense out of confusing East-West trade talk."¹³

David Rockefeller also expressed pride in the fact that Chase Manhattan was the first Western bank to open for business in Communist China.

A world central bank controlling all national monetary policies and currencies — until such time as a single global currency may be established — is essential to the one-worlders' East-West merger scheme.

 

Much of their scheming, naturally, goes on secretly, behind closed doors, at the continuous and mysterious meetings of such insider circles of high-level finance as the G-7, G-22, IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, the Paris Club, the Bilderberg Group, and the World Economic Forum, as well as many smaller, informal conclaves.

However, in order to advance their conspiratorial agenda, they must telegraph many of their plans to their lower-level operatives — in sanitized language, of course. By studying the documents, reports, speeches, and published utterances of these Insiders over the past several decades it is possible to determine their game plan and their ultimate goal.

 

As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the Insiders' penultimate goal is to create regional blocs in which the nation-states will become so economically and politically interdependent and integrated that the nations are subsumed into regional super-governments (the EU, WHFTA, APEC, etc.) with regional central banks and regional currencies. Once this is done, it is small work to merge the regional entities into a single global government.

Origins of Global Aid The institutions of the current "international economic system" grew out of the 1944 Bretton Woods Conference.

 

In addition to the original World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), we now have an assortment of subsidiary institutions:

• International Development Association

• International Finance Corporation

• Asian Development Bank

• Asian Development Fund

• Inter-American Development Bank

• African Development Bank

• Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency

• Witeveen Facility.

Over the past half century, this group of institutions has devastated our planet by stealing hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers in the West to fund socialism worldwide. No Communist butcher, socialist potentate, or Third World kleptocrat has escaped the largesse of these compassionate UN bankers.

The cumulative effect of their efforts has been to subsidize bankrupt Communist regimes while saddling the poor of the developing countries with an impossible debt load. Periodically, this has meant hitting up the taxpayers of Japan and the Western countries for additional tens of billions of dollars for the IMF and WB institutions so that they can issue new "loans" to the Communist and socialist kleptocracies to make payments on their loans from the global banksters.14

Although we have mentioned U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White (CFR) previously, it is important to reemphasize his importance in the context of the Insiders' plan for a global monetary system. It was Soviet agent White who led the U.S. delegation and presided as the overall leader of the 45-nation Bretton Woods Conference. It was White — together with his inseparable "dear friend" John Maynard Keynes, the homosexual, Fabian Socialist, one-worlder — who designed the IMF.¹⁵ *

 

* Lord Keynes, who was lionized by the Insider opinion cartel as a towering intellect and the "greatest economist of our age," was, in fact, a notorious pervert and pederast. He was a member of England's infamous "Bloomsbury Group," founded by Eleanor Marx (Karl Marx's lesbian, drug-addict daughter) to mix sexual depravity, drugs, and socialist thought. He also was a member of the infamous homosexual nest of "Apostles" at Cambridge University that produced the notorious British traitors Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, and Anthony Blunt, all of whom spied for Stalin.21 It is quite likely that Keynes was himself a conscious Soviet agent. Besides his "intimate" association with many Reds, he was married to Russian ballerina Lydia Lopokova (a common ploy among the Bloomsbury set to provide respectable "cover"). The unconventional couple were among the protected few allowed to travel freely throughout Soviet Russia even during the Red Terror. Although Keynes' hagiographers and promoters rigorously censored any Public mention of his sexual deviancy or his socialist-communist connections, these were well known to most of his associates. In 1967, 21 years after Keynes' death, his perverse life was laid bare with the publication of Michael Holroyd's detailed, two-volume biography of Lytton Strachey, one of Keynes' numerous homosexual paramours.22 Keynes' political, moral, and economic subversion were thoroughly exposed in Keynes At Harvard by Zygmund Dobbs.23

On November 6, 1953, Attorney General Herbert Brownell announced:

"Harry Dexter White was a Russian spy. He smuggled secret documents to Russian agents for transmission to Moscow."¹⁶

Brownell also reported that,

"Harry Dexter White was known to be a spy by the very people who appointed him to the most sensitive and important position he ever held in Government service. The FBI became aware of White's espionage activities at an early point in his government career and from the beginning made reports on these activities to the appropriate officials in authority. But these reports did not impede White's advancement in the Administration...."¹⁷

Attorney General Brownell made it clear that, in spite of his Red record, White had received Insider clearance from the very top:

"White's spying activities for the Soviet Government were reported in detail by the FBI to the White House by means of a report delivered to President Truman through his military aide, Brig. Gen. Harry H. Vaughn."¹⁸

Comrade White was no ordinary "espionage" agent. As former Communist Whittaker Chambers observed, "Harry Dexter White's role as a Soviet agent was second in importance only to that of Alger Hiss — if, indeed, it was second."¹⁹ It was Chambers who recruited White and introduced him to Col. Boris Bykov, of Soviet military intelligence, in 1937.²⁰

In his capacity as U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White deliberately held up congressionally approved gold shipments to bolster China's currency during World War II. His purpose in doing so was either to bring down the anti-Communist Chiang Kai-shek or to force a coalition government between Chiang's Nationalists and the Communists.

 

As Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, Walter S. Robertson candidly explained at the time:

"In China, we withheld our funds at the only time, in my opinion, we had a chance to save the situation. To do what? To force the Communists in." ²⁴

Serving as technical secretary at Bretton Woods and White's right-hand man was fellow Treasury official Virginius Frank Coe, also a Soviet agent. With White's help, Coe became the first secretary of the newly created IMF, a powerful post he immediately put in the service of the world revolution.25 What is most extraordinary in all of this is not that a few clever Communists managed to penetrate the top levels of the U.S. government by "outsmarting" the "wise men" of the American Establishment.

 

That was not how it happened. Instead, it was top U.S. Insiders in our government — Dean Acheson, Robert Lovett, Averell Harriman, Nelson Rockefeller, Edward Stettinius, et al. — who repeatedly interceded to prevent exposure of the records of these Soviet agents, and to promote these traitors to even higher offices where they could increase their damage to our nation!

Fruits of Global Aid Under the leadership of White's and Coe's successors, the IMF has been subsidizing the global socialist revolution for decades.

 

Cato Institute researcher Doug Bandow pointed out in 1994:

[S]ix nations, Chile, Egypt, India, Sudan, Turkey, and Yugoslavia, had been relying on IMF aid for more than 30 years; 24 countries had been borrowers for between 20 and 29 years. And 47, almost one-third of all the states in the world, had been using IMF credit for between 10 and 19 years....

 

Since 1947, Egypt has never left the IMF dole. Yugoslavia took its first loan in 1949 and was a borrower in all but three of the succeeding 41 years.... Bangladesh, Barbados, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Pakistan, Uganda, Zaire, and Zambia all started borrowing in the early 1970s and have yet to stop two decades later.²⁶

Like domestic welfare drones, once these parasites attach themselves to the taxpayers, they never let loose.

 

With the admission in 1992 of virtually all of the "ex-Communist" countries into both the IMF and World Bank, UN officials and their international welfare lobbyists launched a sustained campaign for massive new infusions of capital, which have thus far siphoned billions into Russia and its "former" Warsaw Pact allies,²⁷ all of which boast socialist regimes run by lifelong Communists, who are now called "reformers."

None of the above should surprise us, since the IMF was designed, as we've shown, by Communists, socialists and oneworlders. The Socialist International has acknowledged that the IMF is "in essence a Socialist conception." ²⁸ Free market economist Henry Hazlitt, who stood virtually alone in exposing and opposing the IMF at its inception in 1944, clearly recognized its socialist essence.

 

Forty years later, in his book From Bretton Woods to World Inflation, he warned:

"The world cannot get back to economic sanctity until the IMF is abolished.... We will not stop the growth of world inflation and world socialism until the institutions and policies adopted to promote them have been abolished."²⁹

The warnings of this wise economist were absolutely correct in 1944. They were just as correct in 1984. And they are still correct today.

The World Bank, of course, has also played a central role in the global socialist revolution. India, one of the most pathetic socialist examples, has been the WB's biggest recipient.

 

From the bank's creation in 1946 until the late 1960s, the WB funneled billions of dollars into socialist regimes, but by today's standards, the amounts divvied out were relatively small.

"Then, in 1968, Robert McNamara became bank president and dedicated himself to continually raising loan levels," writes James Bovard in The World Bank and the Impoverishment of Nations.

 

"By 1981, when McNamara resigned, lending had increased more than 13-fold from $883 million to $12 billion. Loan levels have continued soaring: now the bank exists largely to maximize the transfer of resources to Third World governments."³⁰

Unfortunately, Bovard points out,

"the bank has greatly promoted the nationalization of Third World economies and increased political and bureaucratic control over the lives of the poorest of the poor."

Whenever the public, the press, or members of Congress raise a hue and cry over the bank's deplorable activities, he notes, WB officials go on a "rhetorical crusade in favor of the private sector."

 

But their bankrolling of revolution continues unabated.

"The bank, more than any other international institution," says Bovard, "is responsible for the Third World's rush to socialism and economic collapse." ³¹

Mr. McNamara is a former Secretary of Defense, a founding member of the ultra-leftist Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, an endorser of the UN's occult Temple of Understanding, and a big wheel in both the CFR and TC.³² His campaign to raise the WB loan levels was not something he dreamed up on his own, but reflected the collective "wisdom" of the top CFR-TC leadership. The IMF and WB have worked in close tandem with the top CFR-TC braintrusters and bankers from the beginning.

An example of this can be seen in the 1996 Annual Report of the CFR by Council Chairman Peter G. Peterson, who writes that,

"one of our most important initiatives in the recent past has been to expand our outreach to international institutions and to individuals supportive of the Council's work around the world. I am quite literally writing this letter on an airplane en route to Asia, where I will meet with leaders of the Hong Kong forum and then continue on to Beijing, where our unique and quite unprecedented 'home and home' dialogue with the Chinese People's Institute of Foreign Affairs moves into its next phase at a critical time in the U.S.-China relationship.

 

This trip was immediately preceded by an all-day discussion with our distinguished International Advisory Board, chaired by David Rockefeller, and capped off with an intensive dinner discussion with James D. Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank." ³³

This account suggests a fascinating decision-making hierarchy in international affairs. The CFR's International Advisory Board, under the direction of David Rockefeller, set the policy guidelines for U.S.-Chinese affairs; CFR Chairman Peterson was dispatched to Beijing to confer with his counterparts in the Chinese equivalent of the CFR; a few months later, Secretary of State Warren Christopher (CFR) was sent to lay the groundwork for an eventual summit between heads of state Bill Clinton (CFR) and Jiang Zemin.

 

And James Wolfensohn (CFR) gets new WB funds rolling for the joint Beijing-Insider projects.
 

Revolution Over Profits

In his 1979 book With No Apologies, Senator Barry Goldwater opined that,

"the Council on Foreign Relations and its ancillary elitist groups are indifferent to Communism. They have no ideological anchors. In their pursuit of a new world order they are prepared to deal without prejudice with a communist state, a socialist state, a democratic state, monarchy, oligarchy — it's all the same to them."³⁴

Although this cynical observation may seem, to the casual observer, an adequate explanation for the Insider-Communist symbiosis of the past few decades, it is sorely misleading. The Insiders are not "indifferent to Communism." It is not "all the same to them." Yes, they have done business with and arranged loans for democratic states, monarchies, and "right-wing" dictatorships and oligarchies, as well as socialist and Communist dictatorships. But the pattern that emerges is striking: Virtually always, they have used the leverage they have gotten through loans to undermine the non-socialist, non-Communist governments and push them into the Communist-socialist camp.

David Rockefeller returned from a visit to Communist China in 1973 (in his capacity as chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank) declaring that "the social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."³⁵ According to the most reliable estimates, Mao Tse-tung's "social experiment" had by that time involved the murder of as many as 64 million Chinese by the Communists.³⁶

In April 1974, David Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank loaned the USSR $150 million to build the world's largest truck factory near the Kama River. The first trucks out of that plant carried Soviet soldiers into Afghanistan in 1979.37 In 1982 the chairman of the CFR, TC, and Chase Manhattan expanded on his business "philosophy" during a 10-nation swing through Africa, saying that "we have found we can deal with just about any kind of government, provided they are orderly and responsible."³⁸

 

By that standard, Rockefeller would have had no trouble dealing with the "orderly and responsible" Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler. He found the Communist dictator of Zimbabwe, Robert Mugabe, to be a "very reasonable and charming person" and said that the presence of 20,000 Cuban soldiers had no "direct bearing on American business operations in Angola. Clearly it has not interfered with our own banking relations."³⁹

As head Illuminatus at Pratt House, Rockefeller has welcomed Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, and other assorted terrorists and tyrants to the CFR's prestigious headquarters. This is not just about "business" and "profit," as Senator Goldwater suggested, and as David Rockefeller's remarks above were intended to infer. This is about power.
 

Masterminding Economic Collapse

An interesting window into the mindset of these Insiders was provided in 1990 by Canadian journalist Daniel Wood, who journeyed to the sprawling southern Colorado estate of one of Canada's most renowned citizens, Maurice Strong.

 

Mr. Strong is an engaging and controversial fellow: mega-millionaire industrialist, radical environmentalist, New Age spiritualist, United Nations plutocrat, fervent one-world socialist, economic savant, global gadfly, and close pal of David Rockefeller and Mikhail Gorbachev. Mr. Wood spent a week at Strong's Baca Grande ranch interviewing this illustrious "world citizen."

During the course of Wood's visit, Strong told him of a novel he had been planning to write. It was about a group of world leaders who decided the only way to save the world was to cause the economies of the industrialized countries to collapse. Strong explained how his fictional leaders had formed a secret society and engineered a worldwide financial panic and, ultimately, the economic crash they sought.

 

Mr. Wood's account of that conversation appeared in the May 1990 issue of West magazine:

Each year, he [Strong] explains as background to the telling of the novel's plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO's, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead.

 

With this as a setting, he then says:

"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?... The group's conclusion is 'no.' The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"...

It's February. They're all at Davos. These aren't terrorists. They're world leaders.

 

They have positioned themselves in the world's commodity and stock markets. They've engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world's stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can't close. The rich countries....⁴⁰

Wood wrote that at that point the tycoon cum novelist "makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window."⁴¹

 

Pffffft! The fates of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people callously sealed with the flick of a finger — their livelihoods, life savings, jobs, businesses, homes, dreams — tossed out like a cigarette butt.

 

All for a good cause ("to save the planet"), of course.

Wood wrote:

"I sit there spellbound. This is not any storyteller talking. This is Maurice Strong. He knows these world leaders. He is, in fact, co-chairman of the Council of the World Economic Forum. He sits at the fulcrum of power. He is in a position to do it."⁴²

Perhaps more important — and what makes this amateur, would-be novelist's tale so alarming — is that, from everything we know about the eminent Mr. Strong, he is very likely inclined to do it! Maurice Strong is the archetypal global elitist — a super-wealthy collectivist of unbridled arrogance, who believes that he, and a select few others, have been chosen to run the world and refashion it according to their Utopian designs.

As Secretary-General of UNCED, the UN Earth Summit in Rio, Strong ranted against the lifestyles of "the rich countries" much like the "hero" of his novel.

 

He declared that "the United States is clearly the greatest risk" to the world's ecological health.

"In effect," Strong charged, "the United States is committing environmental aggression against the rest of the world."⁴³

In a 1991 UNCED report, Strong wrote:

"It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle-class ... involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and 'convenience' foods, ownership of motor-vehicles, numerous electric household appliances, home and workplace air conditioning ... suburban housing ... are not sustainable." Moreover, he insisted, a shift is necessary "towards lifestyles ... less geared to ... environmentally damaging consumption patterns."⁴⁴

Those are just a small sampling of Strong's eco-Stalinist tirades.

 

And remember, as Daniel Wood said, this man is in a position to carry out the "fictitious" plan he outlined. Wood was not exaggerating. Maurice Strong is an Insider's Insider. The oil and energy magnate is the former head of Dome Petroleum of Canada, Power Corporation of Canada, Ontario Hydro, and Petro Canada.

 

In 1972, he made his debut on the world stage as Secretary-General of the first UN environmental conference, held in Stockholm, Sweden. He was at the time also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the premier, longtime promoters of world government. Following the Stockholm confab, he was named to head the newly created United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).*

 

* Strong is also a mover and shaker in such Insider circles of power as the Club of Rome, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies, the World Federation of United Nations Associations, the World Economic Forum, the World Future Society, the Lindisfarne Association, Planetary Citizens, the World Wilderness Congress, the Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Trilateral Commission, the World Resources Institute, the Gorbachev Foundation, the World Bank, and the Commission on Global Governance.

In 1991, Strong teamed up with David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, to write the promotional introductions to the Trilateral Commission plan for radical global "reform" entitled Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology. This eco-socialist paean to world government, Strong claimed, "provides the most compelling economic as well as environmental case for such reform that I have read." ⁴⁵

 

One of the Trilateral "reforms" that Strong, no doubt, fancied was the proposal for,

"a new global partnership expressed in a revitalized international system in which an Earth Council, perhaps the Security Council with a broader mandate, maintains the interlocked environmental and economic security of the planet."⁴⁶

As "luck" would have it, one of the new global entities that came into being as a result of the Earth Summit was an Earth Council. One guess as to who was appointed to head it. Yes, Maurice Strong is the chairman.

Mr. Strong has remained very much in the thick of all things green and global. In 1995, he addressed the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Britain's premier one-world organization, on his progress in organizing National Councils for Sustainable Development throughout the world to lobby for Agenda 21, the UN's mammoth blueprint for global eco-socialism. He has joined the globalist glitterati at the Gorbachev Foundation's annual State of the World Forum. In 1997, he hosted the global Rio+5 Conference.

Together with Mikhail Gorbachev and other one-world luminaries, Maurice Strong has been promoting the environmental manifesto known as the "Earth Charter." This charter envisions a planetary socialist welfare state, which would, among other things, "promote the equitable distribution of wealth within nations and among nations." ⁴⁷

 

And Messrs. Strong, Gorbachev, Rockefeller, et al., will be in charge of the distribution, of course. But before they can "distribute" the world's wealth, they must first take full control of it. Which means it's really about power. That's what all wealth redistribution schemes are always really about. And, clearly, power is what Mr. Strong and his one-world confreres are after.

The creation of a global central bank, a global currency, a global tax system, and a global trading authority have been key objectives of world government advocates for decades. Centralized monetary and economic institutions of this kind would make the orchestrated world financial collapse scenario Maurice Strong envisions mere child's play. They would also facilitate the grand redistribute-the wealth schemes of the UN's bureaucrats.

 

As was evident in the previous chapter with regard to the EU and WHFTA, the one-world Insiders recognize that economic control is their sure path to political control.
 

Pooling Monetary Sovereignty

One of the Insiders' leading technicians helping to design their envisioned "new world order" is Harvard University Professor Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC). Writing in the Fall 1984 edition of the CFR journal Foreign Affairs, Cooper proposed "a radical alternative scheme" (his words) that would mean the end of America as we know it.

 

In his article entitled "A Monetary System for the Future," the Harvard don wrote:

A new Bretton Woods conference is wholly premature. But it is not premature to begin thinking about how we would like international monetary arrangements to evolve in the remainder of this century. With this in mind, I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy.⁴⁸

 

"The currency of the Bank of Issue could be practically anything," the CFR economist continued. "The key point is that monetary control — the issuance of currency and of reserve credit — would be in the hands of the new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of any national government...."⁴⁹

 

The problem, he noted, is that "a single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body...."⁵⁰

As the Washington Post put it:

"The real point is that a common currency means one common country, and all else is details to be filled in later."⁵¹

Precisely! And the CFRTCueberlords are more than willing to provide those details. Mr. Cooper realized that selling this flagrantly totalitarian idea to the public would not be an easy, overnight job.

"This one-currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future," he admitted. "But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now.... [I]t will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea." ⁵²

Overcoming objections to "a pooling of monetary sovereignty" - even with friendly nations — would be difficult under any circumstances. But how could Americans ever be expected to go along with a "radical scheme" to merge economically with Communist countries? It would be difficult, Cooper conceded, but-doable, nonetheless.

 

He wrote:

"First, it is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States.... For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values...." ⁵³

Creating Convergence Cooper and his confreres in the CFR-dominated media, think tanks, and academia went to work to create that "convergence of political values" in the public mind. A flood of articles and op-eds in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Christian Science Monitor, The Economist, etc. soon began hammering home the theme that the United States and Western Europe must help Gorbachev's "perestroika" transform the Soviet Union in the direction of "democracy" and a market economy.

 

After the purported "collapse of Communism" in 1989, they stepped up the convergence drum beat, asserting that the taxpayers of the West must provide Russia and all the nations of her "former" satellite empire more billions of dollars in credits and aid to help them make the transition to freedom and stability.

The essential point here should not be missed: The advocates of world government intend that their planned global superstate, although "initially limited," will, ultimately, exercise unlimited planetary power, a power far beyond that realized by Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.

 

Surely, if we do not stop their megalomaniacal plans, we will see them use this power in much the same way as outlined by Maurice Strong — and in ways even more brutal and horrific.
 

 

 

 

Back to Contents