$4 Trillion in Bailouts to Federal Reserve Directors’ Banks and Businesses

Jamie Dimon, chairman and chief executive of JP Morgan Chase,  and and other Fed board members’ benefited from Fed actions. (Reuters/Keith Bedford)

 

 A report released by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has revealed the names of 18 former and current directors from Federal Reserve Banks who directly benefited from financial bailouts after the 2008 crisis. The Reserve directors worked in banks and corporations that collectively received over $4 trillion in bailout money allocated by the Federal Reserve. Essentially, action taken by the Federal Reserve overwhelmingly benefited directors of the Federal Reserve, above other beneficiaries. 

The report titled ‘Jamie Dimon Is Not Alone names the top 18 Reserve directors including Jamie Dimon who received the largest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance during the crisis.

“This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end,” Sanders said.


Senator Bernie Sanders: Fed Board Member Conflicts Detailed by GAO – Banks and Businesses:

More than $4 trillion in near zero-interest Federal Reserve loans and other financial assistance went to the banks and businesses of at least 18 current and former Federal Reserve regional bank directors in the aftermath of the 2008 financial collapse, according to Government Accountability Office records made public for the first time today by Sen. Bernie Sanders.

On the eve of Senate testimony by JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, Sanders (I-Vt.) released the detailed findings on Dimon and other Fed board members whose banks and businesses benefited from Fed actions.

A Sanders provision in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act required the Government Accountability Office to investigate potential conflicts of interest.

 The Oct. 19, 2011 report by the non-partisan investigative arm of Congress laid out the findings, but did not name names. 

Sanders today released the names.

“This report reveals the inherent conflicts of interest that exist at the Federal Reserve. At a time when small businesses could not get affordable loans to create jobs, the Fed was providing trillions in secret loans to some of the largest banks and corporations in America that were well represented on the boards of the Federal Reserve Banks. These conflicts must end,” Sanders said.

The GAO study found that allowing members of the banking industry to both elect and serve on the Federal Reserve’s board of directors creates “an appearance of a conflict of interest” and poses “reputational risks” to the Federal Reserve System.

In Dimon’s case, JPMorgan received some $391 billion of the $4 trillion in emergency Fed funds at the same time his bank was used by the Fed as a clearinghouse for emergency lending programs. In March of 2008, the Fed provided JPMorgan with $29 billion in financing to acquire Bear Stearns. 

Dimon also got the Fed to provide JPMorgan Chase with an 18-month exemption from risk-based leverage and capital requirements. And he convinced the Fed to take risky mortgage-related assets off of Bear Stearns balance sheet before JP Morgan Chase acquired the troubled investment bank.

Another high-profile conflict involved Stephen Friedman, the former chairman of the New York Fed’s board of directors. Late in 2008, the New York Fed approved an application from Goldman Sachs to become a bank holding company giving it access to cheap loans from the Federal Reserve. During that period, Friedman sat on the Goldman Sachs board. 

He also owned Goldman stock, something that was prohibited by Federal Reserve conflict of interest regulations. Although it was not publicly disclosed at the time, Friedman received a waiver from the Fed’s conflict of interest rules in late 2008. 

Unbeknownst to the Fed, Friedman continued to purchase shares in Goldman from November 2008 through January of 2009, according to the GAO.

In another case, General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was a New York Fed board member at the same time GE helped create a Commercial Paper Funding Facility during the financial crisis. The Fed later provided $16 billion in financing to GE under this emergency lending program.

Sanders on May 22 introduced legislation to prohibit banking industry and business executives from serving as directors of the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks.

by Common Dreams

ECONOMIC ARMAGEDDON….IMMINENT

 

George Soros knows something dreadful is coming. The Rockefellers know something big and bad is about to happen. That something big is the imminent collapse of all fiat, paper money currencies around the world.

In their secret Bilderberg meetings, the globalists have positively planned the exact date of our financial demise. You can even bet the next “black whatever day” will coincide with an ironic date which will make the globalists chuckle at the planned inception of next false flag event.

You remember when the globalist minions crashed planes into the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11. The globalists planed a 911 event on 9/11.  Three thousand dead means nothing to the globalists.

Nobody else but these psychopathic criminals, will be laughing when they roll out their financial collapse plan. And unfortunately, you and I do not have a seat at the table so we have no insider information to gauge when the financial collapse is coming.

Just like 1929, most of us will have the lion’s share of our liquid assets (e.g. cash) in their criminal banks when the collapse occurs. However, there are some things that we can all watch out for.

 

Timing Is Everything

Although most of us do not have insider information there are indeed some tell tale signs that we can look for what could serve as warnings as to when the collapse will occur. It is more accurate to expect the collapse to be hinged on events rather than trying to pick a date on the calendar.

First, we will soon begin to witness more controls placed on the amount of withdrawals which can be taken from ATMS and savings accounts in addition to what has already transpired. And we will witness more MF Global type of events in the coming weeks.

Expect MERS mortgage fraud to increase as the globalists will undoubtedly attempt to steal as much as they can before they collapse the economies of the world.

The attack on our pensions will intensify as we are presently witnessing in California.

The Federal Reserve will continue to buy distressed properties through printing money out of thin air at the rate of $40 billion per month.

However, the best predictor of the coming crash will coincide with the globalists cornering the majority of the gold market on this planet. 

After the globalists gain control of the gold, then we will witness a countdown to economic Armageddon in which all currencies will hyper-inflate prior to collapsing.

Then humanity will be at the mercy of people who have no sense of decency and respect for life.

The financial markets are witnessing a massive artificially contrived take-down of the prices of gold and silver to which the likes have not been seen.

Goldman Sachs Just Opened the Gates to Hell

The best proof that the globalists are manipulating the price of gold comes from,  “Goldman Sachs (who) reportedly told their clients that they recommend initiating a short COMEX gold position.”

Please remember that,

  • this is the same Goldman Sachs that shorted its stocks on 9/11
  • this is the same Goldman Sachs that placed put options on Transocean stock the morning of the Gulf oil explosion
  • this is the same Goldman Sachs that got caught shorting the housing market in advance of the housing bubble burst

Basically, when Goldman Sachs starts shorting anything, we should all become apprehensive particularly if our individual investments are anywhere in the neighborhood of the commodities being impacted by shorting.

When Goldman Sachs begins to short anything, it is time to take your money and run for the hills. That time would be now.

Why Would Goldman Sachs Dramatically Drive the Price of Gold Down?

Beside trading and bartering, if the dollar and the euro were to collapse tomorrow, what currency of exchange would the left standing? The obvious and simple answer would be primarily, gold, and secondarily, silver.

Ask yourself this question, if you knew that paper monies all around the world were to collapse, what action would represent your best option? The obvious answer would be to dramatically drive down the price of gold and silver if one had the ability to do so, and then buy as much as gold as one possibly could.

Goldman Sachs has the ability to do so by utilizing their ominous shorting strategy.

Everything Else Makes Sense

 

  • What will the people do when the proverbial poop hits the fan and American citizens are unable to get their money out of the bank?
  • When the pensions stop paying the retirees, what will many people do?
  • When the 401k’s disappear in the last great bank robbery, what will people do?

In simple terms, they will take to the streets.  

When Americans seek some measure of revenge, what will they do? It may not matter, because they will encounter a well-armed DHS equipped with newly acquired 2.2 billion rounds of ammunition and backed up by 2700+ armored personnel carriers.

There will be a catastrophic carnage in the streets of America.

These False Flag Events Don’t Fly

Now, don’t the false flag events of,

  • the Aurora Batman Shooting
  • Sandy Hook
  • and now the “terrorist attack” at the Boston Marathon,

…begin to make sense?

These events are all designed to lead to gun confiscation so that the globalist can continue to have their way with a defenseless population. Also, these events provide good theater to provide a distraction from the rampant theft of the American public.

In the upcoming days and weeks, there will be more false flag events designed to justify the seizing of our guns and to provide the pretext for martial law. 

Conclusion

Is there any hope for humanity? Can Americans preserve what is left of their financial future? The only option is to “go Iceland on the Federal Reserve.” Unless we are willing to force our government to arrest the criminals from the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs, we have no hope of stemming the financial tide which will be used to enslave us.

by Dave Hodges, 

ONE WORLD HORROR SHOW

TRIBULATION

The shroud surrounding Matthew 24:15 – 24, Revelation 13 and Daniel 11:36 – 12:2 begins to dissipate as the pronouncements of the Globalist begins to slither forth and attach themselves to unsuspecting souls.

The self ascribed “transnational capitalist class (aka: superclass)” see themselves as a separate species with superior genetic makeup and a propensity for rulership. The rest of humanity is seen as “cockroaches and useless eaters; a herd that needs to be culled (killed).”  They envision a world population of 250 – 300 million, a decline of 95% of the current population, occurring through elimination, reduction and or genocide.

The prophetic events of Scripture, while spoken thousands of years ago, will at the appropriate time come to fruition through prevailing events.  The actors performing the events may or may not be aware that their behavior is fulfilling Scripture. It is vital that those who are aware of the above pending events be ever vigilant, not caught with their guards down and thereby fall prey to the seductive environment.

The actions which will usher in the events referenced in the above text are currently in play and are occurring across the globe. There is no doubt that the above text will be fulfilled our lifetime. There is great concern however, that those who able to recognize the signs of the times,” be accurately aware and have the “veracity to stand in the gap.”

by S. Flakes

GLOBAL ELITISM…Character Traits of the Diabolical!*

 The first dangerous mistake the average person makes is the assumption that “evil” is a kind of subjective or “gray” concept. We would love to believe that all destructive and malicious behavior is merely a product of bad environment, bad upbringing, or mental psychosis. Deviance in the name of misguided “profit” or “status” is often more acceptable to the public; as long as there is a reason we can easily understand and grasp. 

What frightens the average American today is not the abhorrent action of criminality; rather, it is criminality without easily definable reason. What frightens the common citizen is the possibility that some people hurt others not because mommy and daddy “mistreated” them, or because they have a psychological deficiency that clouds their judgment, but because they fully and consciously ENJOY doing what they do. 

Our society is desperate to make excuses for the monsters of our era, perhaps because we would rather not entertain the possibility that there is a dark side to humanity as a whole, that if left unchecked, could take control in a deliberate and calculated way.

This is why the greatest crimes of our time often go ignored by the public. The idea, for instance, that international financiers and political elites would purposely create economic disparity, social chaos, and global war out of a desire for centralized power and a disturbed sense of superiority is simply too much for many to handle. 

Surely, these terrible events throughout our modern history are merely the result of random coincidence and human error… right?  Unfortunately, this is not the case. In fact, the majority of catastrophic cultural policies and tragedies can be traced directly back to a particular subset of people, who use their positions of influence for ill purpose, and knowingly engineer calamity not just for personal gain, but the gain of their “social class”.

In the Liberty Movement, we often refer to this group as “Globalists” or “Elitists”. They permeate the upper echelons of our nation, and they do indeed have a culture that is entirely separate and disparate from our own. If one studies their literature, their initiatives, and their motives, he would discover another world, driven by outlandish goals and an even more outlandish brand of religious fervor. 

Here are some of the character traits and beliefs that make these people easy to identify…


Xeno-Fascism
Global Elitists tend to see themselves as a separate breed of human being; a superior class with superior faculties, and thus, born to “rule” over the rest of us. In their writings they often espouse the teachings of Plato’s Republic, and the concept of the “Philosopher Kings”. 

They believe that some men and women are endowed with a genetic predisposition to leadership, and that the average person does not have the intelligence to determine his own destiny. They see the rest of humanity as a blank canvas, and themselves as the artists. We are to be “molded” and our social dichotomies are to be manipulated.  In reality, they are no smarter than the rest of us. 

Rather, they inherent positions of wealth and influence, and automatically assume this makes them superior. 

Their ability to mold society is derived entirely from their extensive capital and their complete lack of morality. If they were not in the top .1% of the worlds rich, they would be treated like common criminals for their behavior, but sadly, in our day and age money often buys undue respect. 

Imagine a private club of John Wayne Gacys or Charles Mansons, except with 80% of the world’s wealth at their disposal and the means to purchase good publicity and legal immunity. 

That is essentially what we are dealing with… 

“Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton.”
– Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1953) pgs. 49-50

 “Speaking of a future at most only decades away, an experimenter in intelligence control asserted, ‘I foresee a time when we shall have the means and therefore, inevitably, the temptation to manipulate the behavior and intellectual functioning of all the people through environmental and biochemical manipulation of the brain.'”
– Zbigniew Bezinski, Between Two Ages – America’s Role in the Technetronic Era – 1970

 Pursuit of Zero Conscience
 Elitists believe that conscience is a hindrance to success, instead of a worthwhile virtue. They knowingly and deliberately abandon their moral compass because they see it as an unnatural restriction, an obstacle that makes getting what they want more difficult. Conscience, however, never quite disappears in anyone. 

In order to reconcile their wretched mindset with that distant nagging sensation of guilt, they claim that their actions are,

“for the greater good of the greater number”.

They desperately want to believe that they are serving the future of mankind, and that we should “appreciate” their guiding hand, even though the things they do seem far more hateful than helpful. They would condescend to call this “tough love”.

They further attempt to avoid the fact of their own dysfunction by trying to elicit criminality in others. If they can convince the masses that morality is “relative” and that right and wrong are subject to “interpretation”, if they can convince us to ignore our own inner voices which are inborn, then their monstrosity could eventually be considered normal, even preferable.  For in a world of moral relativists, the man with a conscience becomes the criminal, the outcast, and the elites become the heroes they always wanted to believe themselves to be.  In the meantime, they will often resort to costume and theater, wrapping themselves in a particular belief system and playing the role of the “saint”. 

The mask rarely comes off until they think their position of power is assured.   

“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
– Adolf Hitler

“Do you really believe the masses will be Christian again? Nonsense! Never again. That tale is finished. No one will listen to it again. But we can hasten matters. The parsons will dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable jobs and incomes…”
– Adolf Hitler

“The tenth rule of the ethics of rules and means is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral arguments… the essence of Lenin’s speeches during this period was,

‘They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.’

And it was.”
– Saul Alinsky

(Barack Obama taught the amoral philosophies of Alinsky as an organizer in Chicago. Hilary Clinton made Alinsky the topic of her undergraduate thesis)


Promote Collectivism
 Top globalists are not necessarily collectivists themselves. In fact, they often swing far to the other end of the spectrum into an aberrant form of individualism. As discussed above, they even see conscience as a restriction on their personal freedom, and rebel against it as if rebelling against enslavement. 

What they do not grasp is that the inherent nature of conscience is a gift, one which has so far kept humanity away from the brink of total self-destruction, at least to this point. It is not a prison. Rather, it is protection from ourselves.

The elitist’s insane ideal of “pure individualism” without self discipline is a private matter they rarely discuss. In public, they constantly promote the collectivist lifestyle and admonish individualism in common people as “selfish” or “narcissistic”.

People often confuse “collectivism” with “community”. This is caused by a lack of understanding as well as a lack of experience.

  • Community is a voluntary gathering of individuals for the purpose of mutual aid. 

  • Collectivism is the gathering of people by threat of force or loss, for the purpose of consolidating power into the hands of a few. It is the act of destroying individualism in the name of “protecting the group”.

In America today, we have a disappearing sense of real community, while the “advantages” of collectivism are being sung to the rooftops by global elites.  If the population can be convinced that they are devoid of inherent qualities and characteristics, and that their environment is the totality of their existence, then they will hand over all power to anyone who promises them the best possible surroundings. That is to say, when we have no faith in our own individualism and self-responsibility, we will automatically seek protection, usually from a nanny government or dictatorship. 

This process of wrenching self determination from the populace has an ultimate end goal: World Governance and total dominance.   

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. 

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. 

Each central bank… sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world.
– Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton’

 “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”
– Strobe Talbot, President Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, 1992.


The “Noble Lie” 
Elitists are very adamant about the idea of the “noble lie”; the use of a lie to attain a “positive goal”. 
In their view, average citizens lack the capacity to understand the bigger political and social picture, and so, we must be lied to in order to make us do what is best for ourselves. Of course, their version of what is best for our culture always seems to include first and foremost what is best for them.

The noble lie is a logical fallacy of epic proportions, and I often wonder if global elitists secretly doubt its legitimacy, or if they really buy into their own tripe. If you need to lie to people in order to get them to accept your ideas, then there must be something terribly wrong with your ideas. Ideas with vitality and honesty do not need to be “sold” to the public through chicanery; the truth takes on a life of its own. 

Only destructive philosophies need a foundation of lies in order to take root.   

“We are at present working discreetly with all our might to wrest this mysterious force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the local nation states of the world. All the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands.”
– Professor Arnold Toynbee, in a June 1931 speech before the Institute for the Study of International Affairs in Copenhagen.  

 “Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have.”
– Richard Salent, former president, CBS News, Bill Clinton: Friend or Foe

Population Reduction
 One of the centerpieces of the globalist religion is the concept of population reduction. They not only see themselves as a separate species with superior genetic makeup and a propensity for rulership, they also see the rest of us as cockroaches and “useless eaters”; a herd that needs to be “culled”. The funny thing about population reductionists is that they always want OTHER people to die in order to save the planet.

 They never offer their own lives as a sacrifice for the “greater good”. This is because they assume they are “too important” (ostensibly because they think they are intelligent), while many of us are “expendable”.

Of course, overpopulation today is an oversold myth that has been debunked in many scientific circles. Population expansion is also not necessarily a bad thing. Greater population means more minds working on more problems. It drives technological advancement and forces us through the survival imperative to invent more efficient methods of production.  There are indeed advantages to growth.

In the end, though, global elites do not care about the Earth. They do not believe in population reduction because they want to reduce pollution, our so-called “carbon footprint”, save the poor endangered animals, or even to protect finite resources. They want population reduction because first, they are Eugenicists who see some people as genetically inferior to others, and second, because a culled population is easier to dominate. Again, less minds working means less problems solved, and less individuals to rock the boat when the state abuses its power.  

“A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Audubon magazine, interview with Ted Turner, 1996

 “A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men…

 The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control.

 The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
– John P. Holdren, (Top Science Adviser To Barack Obama)

 “Out of the full spectrum of human personality, one-fourth is electing to transcend… One-fourth is ready to so choose, given the example of one other… One-fourth is resistant to election. 

They are unattracted by life ever-evolving. One-fourth is destructive. They are born angry with God… They are defective seeds… There have always been defective seeds.

In the past they were permitted to die a ‘natural death’… We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow…

Now, as we approach the quantum shift from creature-human to co-creative human – the human who is an inheritor of god-like powers – the destructive one-fourth must be eliminated from the social body. We have no choice, dearly beloveds.

Fortunately you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God… The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you.

 Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. 

This is the most painful period in the history of humanity…”
– Futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard, (featured in the film ‘THRIVE’, a collectivist propaganda piece falsely presented as an attack on the elitist establishment… in other words, controlled opposition

The Source Of Our Pain
Now, globalists are not the only source of our social pain. 
We bear some responsibility. When we are not vigilant, when we deny our own ignorance and refuse to learn, when we lie to ourselves, when we cater to personal superficial desires rather than taking the future into account, we open the door for the devil, as it were.

 Evil, like conscience, resides in us all.  That said, globalists are not just terrible people in a random sense. They have constructed an entire culture of deviance. They are organized evil, and this is a problem that we must deal with soon. Good men are defined not only by their adherence to the inner voice of truth, but also their willingness to act when the truth is threatened

We must educate others, and when the time comes, put ourselves in harms way to remove the globalist ilk, before they destroy everything in a raging elitist fervor…

by Brandon Smith

BUILDING A “NEW WORLD ORDER”…UNDER A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT!*


Globalization and the New World Order

The 1990s saw the emergence of what was called the New World Order.  
This was a term that emerged in the early 1990s to describe a more unipolar world, addressing the collapse of the Soviet Union and the newfound role of the United States as the sole and unchallenged global power. The New World Order was meant to represent a new phase in the global political economy in which world authority rested in one place, and for the time, that place was to be the United States.

This era saw the continual expansion and formation of regional blocs, with the formation of the European Union, the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the WTO. The World Trade Organization was officially formed in 1995, as the successor to the General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which was formed in 1944 at the Bretton-Woods Conference.

 The WTO manages the international liberal trading order.   The first Director-General of the WTO was Peter D. Sutherland, who was previously the director general of GATT, former Attorney General of Ireland, and currently is Chairman of British Petroleum and Goldman Sachs International, as well as being special representative of the United Nations secretary-general for migrations. 

He is also a member of the board of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group, the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum, goodwill ambassador to the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, is a member of the Builderberg Group, and is European Chairman of the Trilateral Commission, and he was presented with the Robert Schuman Medal for his work on European Integration and the David Rockefeller Award of the Trilateral Commission.[1]

Clearly, the WTO was an organ of the western banking elite to be used as a tool in expanding and institutionalizing their control over world trade.

The European Superstate
  In 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed, which officially formed the European Union in 1993. In 1994, the European Monetary Institute (EMI) was formed, with the European Central Bank (ECB) being formed in 1998, and the single European currency, the Euro, debuting in 1999. In 2004, the European Constitution was to be signed by all 25-member states of the EU, which was a treaty to establish a constitution for the entire European Union.

The Constitution was a move towards:

  • creating a European superstate, creating an EU foreign minister, and with it, coordinated foreign policy, with the EU taking over the seat of Britain on the UN Security Council, representing all EU member states, forcing the nations to “actively and unreservedly” follow an EU foreign policy

  • set out the framework to create an EU defense policy, as an appendage to or separate from NATO

  • the creation of a European Justice system, with the EU defining “minimum standards in defining offences and setting sentences,” and creates common asylum and immigration policy

  • it would also hand over to the EU the power to “ensure co-ordination of economic and employment policies”

  • EU law would supercede all law of the member states, thus making the member nations relative to mere provinces within a centralized federal government system [2]

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, had stated that he feared that the concept of a stronger and more centralized European Union, as,

“the developments in the E.U. are really dangerous with regard to moving out of a free society and moving more and more toward masterminding control and regulation,” and that, “We [the Czech Republic] spent a half-century under communist eyes. We are more sensitive than some other West Europeans. We feel things, we see things, we touch things that we don’t like. For us, the European Union reminds us of COMECON [Moscow’s organization for economic control of the Soviet bloc].”

He elaborated saying that the similarity with COMECON is not ideologically based, but in its structure,

“The decisions are made not in your own country. For us who lived through the communist era, this is an issue.”[3]

The Constitution was largely written up by Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former President of the French Republic from 1974 to 1981. 

Giscard d’Estaing also happens to be a member of the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and is also a close friend of Henry Kissinger, having co-authored papers with him. In 2005, French and Dutch voters answered the referendums in their countries, in which they rejected the EU Constitution, which required total unanimity in order to pass.

 In 2007, a move was undertaken to introduce what was called the Lisbon Treaty, to be approved by all member-states. Giscard d’Estaing wrote an article for the Independent in which he stated that,

“The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content.”

He described the process of creating the Lisbon Treaty:

“It was the legal experts for the European Council who were charged with drafting the new text. They have not made any new suggestions. They have taken the original draft constitution, blown it apart into separate elements, and have then attached them, one by one, to existing treaties. The Treaty of Lisbon is thus a catalogue of amendments. It is unpenetrable for the public.”

The main difference was that the word “constitution” was removed and banished from the text.[4]

The Telegraph reported that though the Treaty dropped the word “constitution,” it remained the same in “giving the EU the trappings of a global power and cutting national sovereignty.”  

It contained plans to create an EU President, who,

“will serve a two and half year term but unlike democratic heads of state he or she will be chosen by Europe’s leaders not by voters” and “will take over key international negotiations from national heads of government.”

The Constitution’s “Foreign Minister” becomes the “High Representative,” who,

“will run a powerful EU diplomatic service and will be more important on the global and European stage than national foreign ministers.”

It sets out to create an “Interior Ministry” which will “centralise databases holding fingerprints and DNA,” and “make EU legislation on new police and surveillance powers.”

 The ability for EU nations to use vetoes will end, and the Treaty,

“includes a clause hardwiring an EU “legal personality” and ascendancy over national courts.”[5]

One country in Europe has it written into its constitution that it requires a referendum on treaties, and that country is Ireland.

 In June of 2008, the Irish went to vote on the Treaty of Lisbon, after weeks and months of being badgered by EU politicians and Eurocrats explaining that the Irish “owe” Europe a “Yes” vote because of the benefits the EU had bestowed upon Ireland. History will show, however, that the Irish don’t take kindly to being bossed around and patronized, so when they went to the polls, “No” was on their lips and on their ballots. The Irish thus rejected the Lisbon Treaty. 


North American Integration

The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1989, was signed by President George HW Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney

The FTA had devastating consequences for the people of Canada and the United States, while enriching the corporate and political elite. For example, GDP growth decreased, unemployment increased the most since the Great Depression,[6] and meanwhile, Brian Mulroney entered the corporate world, of which he now sits as a board member of Barrick Gold Corporation, as well as sitting on the International Advisory Board of the Council on Foreign Relations,[7] of which David Rockefeller remains on as Honorary Chairman.

In 1990, the private sector lobbying groups and think tanks began the promotion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to expand the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement to include Mexico. NAFTA was signed by then Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, US President George H.W. Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, in 1993, and went into effect in 1994.   It was negotiated during a time in which Mexico was undergoing liberal economic reforms, so NAFTA had the effect of cementing those reforms in an “economic constitution for North America.”[8]
David Rockefeller played a role in the push for NAFTA.

 In 1965, he had founded the Council for Latin America (CLA), which, as he wrote in a 1966 article in Foreign Affairs, was to mobilize private enterprise throughout the hemisphere “to stimulate and support economic integration.” 

The CLA, David wrote,

“provides an effective channel of cooperation between businessmen in the United States and their counterparts in the countries to the south. It also offers a means of continuing communication and consultation with the White House, the State Department and other agencies of our government.”[9]

The CLA later changed its name to the Council of the Americas (CoA) and maintains a very close relationship with the Americas Society, founded at the same time as the CLA, of which David Rockefeller remains to this day as Chairman of both organizations. 

As David wrote in his autobiography, Memoirs, in the lead up to NAFTA, the Council of the Americas sponsored a Forum of the Americas, which was attended by President George H.W. Bush, which resulted in the call for a “Western Hemisphere free trade area.”[10]

In 1993, David Rockefeller wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal, in the run up to NAFTA, in which he advocated for the signing of NAFTA as essential, describing it as a vital step on the road to fulfilling his life long work, and that,

“Everything is in place – after 500 years – to build a true “new world” in the Western Hemisphere,” and further, that “I truly don’t think that “criminal” would be too strong a word to describe an action on our part, such as rejecting Nafta, that would so seriously jeopardize all the good that has been done – and remains to be done.”[11]

In 1994, Mexico entered into a financial crisis, often referred to as the Mexican peso crisis. 

The 1980s debt crisis, instigated by the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes on international loans, caused Mexico to default on its loans. The IMF had to enter the scene with its newly created Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and reform Mexico’s economy along neoliberal economic policies.

In the late 1980s,

“the United States accounted for 73 percent of Mexico’s foreign trade,”[12] and when NAFTA came into effect in 1994, it “immediately opened US and Canadian markets to 84 percent of Mexican exports.”[13]

Mexico even became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

 The peso crisis, which began at the end of 1994, with the ascension of Mexican President Zedillo, went into 1995, and the US organized a bailout worth $52 billion.[14]

The bailout did not help the Mexican economy, as it was simply funneled into paying back loans to banks, primarily American banks, and the,

“crisis in 1995 was declared [by the IMF to be] over as soon as the banks and international lenders started to get repaid; but five years after the crisis, workers were just getting back to where they were beforehand.”[15]

In 2002, Robert Pastor, Director of the Center for North American Studies at the American University in Washington, D.C., prepared a report that he presented to the Trilateral Commission meeting of that same year. The report, A North American Community: A Modest Proposal to the Trilateral Commission, advocated a continuation of the policy of “deep integration” in North America, recommending,

“a continental plan for infrastructure and transportation, a plan for harmonizing regulatory policies, a customs union, [and] a common currency.”[16]

The report advocated the formation of a North American Community and Pastor wrote that,

“a majority of the public in all three countries is prepared to join a larger North American country.”[17]

In 2003, prior to Paul Martin becoming Prime Minister of Canada, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), formerly the BCNI, published on their website, a press release in which they, “urged Paul Martin to take the lead in forging a new vision for North America.” 

Thomas d’Aquino, CEO of the Council,

“urged that Mr. Martin champion the idea of a yearly summit of the leaders of Canada, Mexico and the United States in order to give common economic, social and security issues the priority they deserve in a continental, hemispheric and global context.”

Among the signatories to this statement were all the Vice Chairmen of the CCCE, including David Emerson, who would go on to join Martin’s Cabinet.[18]

The CCCE then launched the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative, advocating,

“redefining borders, maximizing regulatory efficiencies, negotiation of a comprehensive resource security pact, reinvigorating the North American defence alliance, and creating a new institutional framework.”[19]

The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America was then launched in 2005, composed of an alliance and joint project between the CCCE in Canada, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in the United States, and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations in Mexico.

 A press release was given on March 14, 2005, in which it said,

“The chairs and vice-chairs of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America today issued a statement calling for a North American economic and security community by 2010.”[20]

On March 23, 2005, a mere nine days following the Task Force press release, the leaders of Canada, the US, and Mexico, (Paul Martin, George W. Bush, and Vicente Fox, respectively), announced,

“the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” which constituted a course of “action into a North American framework to confront security and economic challenges.”[21]

Within two months, the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America released their final report, Building a North American Community, proposing the continuation of “deep integration” into the formation of a North American Community, that,

“applauds the announced ‘Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,’ but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.”[22]

At the 2006 meeting of the SPP, the creation of a new group was announced, called the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), made up of corporate leaders from all three countries who produce an annual report and advise the three governments on how to implement the SPP process of “deep integration”.  

The Secretariat in Canada is the CCCE, and the Secretariat of the group in the US is made up of the US Chamber of Commerce and the Council of the Americas.[23]

The Council of the Americas was founded by David Rockefeller, of which he is still Honourary Chairman, and other board members include individuals from J.P. Morgan, Merck, McDonald’s, Ford, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, General Electric, Chevron, Shell, IBM, ConocoPhillips, Citigroup, Microsoft, Pfizer, Wal-Mart, Exxon, General Motors, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse and the US Department of Treasury.[24]

The process of integration is still underway, and the formation of a North American Community is not far off, only to be followed by a North American Union, modeled on the structure of the European Union, with talk of a North American currency being formed in the future,[25] which was even proposed by Canada’s former Governor of the Bank of Canada.[26]

The New World Order in Theory

In a 1997 article of Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, Anne-Marie Slaughter discussed the theoretical foundations of the New World Order. 

Building on George HW Bush’s proclamation of a New World Order in 1991, Slaughter wrote that many saw this as,

“the promise of 1945 fulfilled, a world in which international institutions, led by the United Nations, guaranteed international peace and security with the active support of the world’s major powers.”

However, this concept, she explained, was largely infeasible, as,

“It requires a centralized rule-making authority, a hierarchy of institutions, and universal membership.”

Instead, she explains the emergence of what she called a “new medievalism” as opposed to liberal internationalism.

“Where liberal internationalists see a need for international rules and institutions to solve states’ problems, the new medievalists proclaim the end of the nation-state,” where “The result is not world government, but global governance. If government denotes the formal exercise of power by established institutions, governance denotes cooperative problem- solving by a changing and often uncertain cast.”[27]

However, Slaughter challenges the assumptions of both the liberal internationalists and the new medievalists, and states that,

“The state is not disappearing, it is disaggregating into its separate, functionally distinct parts. These parts – courts, regulatory agencies, executives, and even legislatures – are networking with their counterparts abroad, creating a dense web of relations that constitutes a new, transgovernmental order,” and that, “transgovernmentalism is rapidly becoming the most widespread and effective mode of international governance.”[28]

Slaughter was Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University from 2002-2009, is currently Director of Policy Planning for the United States Department of State, and has previously served on the board of the Council on Foreign Relations. 

Reconstructing Class Structure Under a World Government

Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, a former executive with Goldman Sachs, stated in his speech at the International Economic Forum of the Americas, that,

“Globalized product, capital, and labour markets lie at the heart of the New World Order to which we should aspire. However, the next wave of globalization needs to be more firmly grounded and its participants more responsible,” and that, “Within our economies, major stock adjustments in inventories, labour, and capital will be required.”

It is worth quoting him at length in saying:

Although global demand and trade levels appear to be approaching bottom, and inventory and labour adjustments have already been substantial, there is still more to come. Unemployment will likely rise further across the G-7, with the sharpest increases still to come in those economies with the least-flexible labour markets.  

Uncertainty over the employment outlook will weigh on consumption in most major economies for some time. The capital stock adjustment process will take longer, and global investment growth is likely to remain negative well into 2010. This will serve as a significant drag on global growth and can be expected to reduce potential growth in most major economies.[29]

In terms of labour adjustments within the New World Order, there are some important and vital factors to take into account. 

Primary among these concerns is the notion of transnational classes. Capitalism largely functions through class divides, with the ruling class owning the means of production, which, as a class, is subject to its own hierarchy over which those that control and issue currencies preside.

In Western, industrialized nations, there has been a large middle class which thrives on consumption, enriching the upper class bourgeoisie, while the lower class, (or proletariat in Marxist terms), consists of the labour class. In non-western, industrialized nations, generally referred to as the “Third World”, “developing world” or the “Global South” (consisting of Latin America, Africa, and parts of Asia), there is a greater divide in terms in class lines, where there is a ruling class, and a labour class, largely remaining vacant of a vast, educated middle class. Class structures vary from country to country and region to region.

However, in the past several decades, the reality of class structures has been undergoing drastic changes, and with this, the structure of labour has changed. In the past few decades, a concurrent class restructuring has been taking place, in which the middle classes of the world descend into debt bondage while the upper classes of the world have began a process of transnationalizing. What we have witnessed and are witnessing with recent events, is the transnationalization of class structures, and with that, labour forces. 

Social Constructivism
  A fascinating theoretical school of thought within the field of Global Political Economy is that of Social Constructivism. 

Social Constructivists argue that,

“The social and political world, including the world of international relations, is not a physical entity or material object that is outside human consciousness. Consequently, the study of international relations must focus on the ideas and beliefs that inform the actors on the international scene as well as the shared understandings between them.”

Expanding upon this idea:

The international system is not something ‘out there’ like the solar system. It does not exist on its own. It exists only as an intersubjective awareness among people; in that sense the system is constituted by ideas, not by material forces. It is a human invention or creation not of a physical or material kind but of a purely intellectual and ideational kind. It is a set of ideas, a body of thought, a system of norms, which has been arranged by certain people at a particular time and place.

Examples of socially constructed structures within the global political economy are national borders, as they have no physical line, but are rather formed by a shared understanding between various actors as to where the border is. The nation itself is a social construct, as it has no physical, over-arching form, but is made up of a litany of shared values, ideas, concepts, institutions, beliefs and symbols. 

Thus,

“If the thoughts and ideas that enter into the existence of international relations change, then the system itself will change as well, because the system consists in thoughts and ideas. That is the insight behind the oft-repeated phrase by constructivist Alexander Wendt: ‘anarchy is what states make of it’.”[30]

 Class Structure and Social Constructivism

William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris write in Science & Society Journal, that,

“One process central to capitalist globalization is transnational class formation, which has proceeded in step with the internationalization of capital and the global integration of national productive structures. Given the transnational integration of national economies, the mobility of capital and the global fragmentation and decentralization of accumulation circuits, class formation is progressively less tied to territoriality.”[31]

They argued that a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC) has emerged,

“and that this TCC is a global ruling class. It is a ruling class because it controls the levers of an emergent transnational state apparatus and of global decision making.”[32]

This class has no borders, and is composed of the technocratic, media, corporate, banking, social and political elite of the world.

As Jackson and Sorenson point out in relation to social constructivist theory,

“If ‘anarchy is what states make of it’ there is nothing inevitable or unchangeable about world politics,” and that, “The existing system is a creation of states and if states change their conceptions of who they are, what their interests are, what they want, etc. then the situation will change accordingly.”

As an example, they stated that states could decide,

“to reduce their sovereignty or even to give up their sovereignty. If that happened there would no longer be an international anarchy as we know it. Instead, there would be a brave new, non-anarchical world – perhaps one in which states were subordinate to a world government.”[33]

As Robinson and Harris explain in their essay, with the rise of the Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), there is also a rise in the apparatus of a Transnational State (TNS), which is,

“an emerging network that comprises transformed and externally integrated national states, together with the supranational economic and political forums; it has not yet acquired any centralized institutional form.”[34]

Among the economic apparatus of the TNS we see the IMF, World Bank, WTO and regional banks. On the political side we see the Group of 7, Group of 22, United Nations, OECD, and the European Union.

 This was further accelerated with the Trilateral Commission,

“which brought together transnationalized fractions of the business, political, and intellectual elite in North America, Europe, and Japan.”

Further, the World Economic Forum has made up an important part of this class, and, I might add, the Bilderberg Group. Robinson and Harris point out that,

“Studies on building a global economy and transnational management structures flowed out of think tanks, university centers, and policy planning institutes in core countries.”[35]

The TNS apparatus has been a vital principle of organization and socialization for the transnational class,

“as have world class universities, transnationally oriented think tanks, the leading bourgeois foundations, such as Harvard’s School of International Business, the Ford [and Rockefeller] and the Carnegie Foundations, [and] policy planning groups such as the Council on Foreign Relations.”

 These “elite planning groups are important forums for integrating class groups, developing new initiatives, collective strategies, policies and projects of class rule, and forging consensus and a political culture around these projects.”[36]

Robinson and Harris identify the World Economic Forum as,

“the most comprehensive transnational planning body of the TCC and the quintessential example of a truly global network binding together the TCC in a transnational civil society.”[37]

I would take issue with this, and instead propose the Bilderberg Group, of which they make no mention in their article, as THE quintessential transnational planning body of the TCC, as it is composed of the elite of the elite, totally removed from public scrutiny, and acts as “a secretive global think-tank” of the world’s 130 most powerful individuals.[38]

Many Bilderberg critics will claim that the group acts as a “secret world government” or as the organization “that makes all the key decisions for the world.” 

However, this is not the case. Bilderberg is simply the most influential planning body, sitting atop a grand hierarchy of various planning bodies and institutions, and is itself a key part of the apparatus of the formation of a Transnational State, but is not, in and of itself, a “world government.” It is a global think tank, which holds the concept of a “world government” in high regard and often works to achieve these ends, but it should not be confused with being the end it seeks.

The economic crisis is perhaps the greatest “opportunity” ever given to the TCC in re-shaping the world order according to their designs, ideals and goals. Through destruction, comes creation; and for these high-placed individuals within the TCC, destruction is itself a form of creation.

In terms of reshaping labour and class structures, the economic crisis provides the ground on which a new global class structure will be built. A major problem for the Transnational Capitalist Class and the formation of a Transnational State, or world government, is the lack of continuity in class structures and labour markets throughout the world.

 A transnational ruling class, or “Superclass” as David Rothkopf referred to it in his book of the same name (and is, himself, a member of the Superclass), has emerged. It has no borders, yet has built a general continuity and consensus of goals among its members, albeit there are differences and conflicts within the class, but they are based upon the means of achieving the stated ends, rather than on the ends itself. 

There is not dissent within the ruling class on the aims of achieving a world governing body; the dissent is in how to achieve this, and in terms of what kind of structure, theoretical and philosophical leanings, and political orientation such a government would have.

To achieve these ends, however, all classes must be transnationalized, not simply the ruling class. The ruling class is the first class to be transnationalized, because transnationalization was the goal of the ruling classes based in the powerful Western European nations, (and later in the United States), that started the process of transnationalization or internationalization. Now that there is an established “Superclass” of a transnational composition, the other classes must follow suit. 

The middle class is targeted for elimination in this sense, because most of the world has no middle class, and to fully integrate and internationalize a middle class, this would require industrialization and development in places such as Africa, and certain places in Asia and Latin America, and would represent a massive threat to the Superclass, as it would be a valve through which much of their wealth and power would escape them. 

Their goal is not to lose their wealth and power to a transnational middle class, but rather to extinguish the notion of a middle class, and transnationalize a lower, uneducated, labour oriented class, through which they will secure ultimate wealth and power.

The economic crisis serves these ends, as whatever remaining wealth the middle class holds is in the process of being eliminated, and as the crisis progresses, or rather, regresses, and accelerates, the middle classes of the world will suffer, while a great percentage of lower classes of the world, poverty-stricken even prior to the crisis, will suffer the greatest, most probably leading to a massive reduction in population levels, particularly in the “developed” or “Third World” states.

Many would take issue with such a thesis as being an objective of the Transnational Capitalist Class, as capitalism needs a large population, specifically a middle class population, in order to have a market of consumers for their products. 

Though this is true with how we presently understand the capitalist system and structure, we must also take note that capitalism, itself, is always changing and redefining itself. Through a social constructivist perspective, which I would argue, is very apt in this analysis, such a notion is not inconceivable, as if the capitalist class were to redefine capitalism itself, capitalism itself would change.

It must be addressed that there would be a great many individuals within the TCC or Superclass (Rothkopf estimates the number at 6,000 individuals within the ruling class), who would take issue with eliminating their base for profit making, however, as a total restructuring of the capitalist system and global political economy as a whole is undertaken, the TCC itself is not immune to such drastic and rapid changes itself. In fact, it would be unimaginable to think that it would remain as it currently is.

Rothkopf explains that with 6,000 members of the Superclass, that equals roughly one member of the superclass for every 1 million people in the world. As the composition, class structures, and numbers of the world population drastically alter over the next years and decades, so too will the superclass itself. It too, will be subject to a “cleansing” so to speak, in which the big players will collapse and consolidate many of the smaller players.  


The Monetary Structure of a Global Government 
A Global Currency
Following the April 2009 G20 Summit, leaders issued a communiqué which set the groundwork for the creation of a global currency to replace the US dollar as the world reserve currency. 

The communiqué stated that,

“We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.”

SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are,

“a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

As the Telegraph reported,

“the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global “quantitative easing”. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”[39]

In 1988, the Economist featured an article called “Get Ready for the Phoenix,” which said,

“THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favored by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the late twentieth century.”

The article, written in the wake of the 1987 stock market crash, stated that,

“Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018-except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.” [40]

Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve System, said in 2000, that,

“If we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense,” and a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank reaffirmed Volcker’s comment, stating that, “we might one day have a single world currency. Maybe European integration, in the same way as any other regional integration, could be seen as a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world. If and when this world will see the light of day is impossible to say. However, what I can say is that this vision seems as impossible now to most of us as a European monetary union seemed 50 years ago, when the process of European integration started.”[41]


A Central Bank of the World
Jeffrey Garten has written several articles calling for the creation of a global central bank, or a “global fed.”  Garten was former Dean of the Yale School of Management, former Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, previously served on the White House Council on International Economic Policy under the Nixon administration and on the policy planning staffs of Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance of the Ford and Carter administrations, former Managing Director at Lehman Brothers, and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

In 1998, he wrote an article for the New York Times stating that the world “needs a global central bank,” and that,

“An independent central bank with responsibility for maintaining global financial stability is the only way out. No one else can do what is needed: inject more money into the system to spur growth, reduce the sky-high debts of emerging markets, and oversee the operations of shaky financial institutions. A global central bank could provide more money to the world economy when it is rapidly losing steam.”[42]

Following the outbreak of the current financial crisis, Garten wrote an article for the Financial Times in which he called for the,

“establishment of a Global Monetary Authority to oversee markets that have become borderless.”[43]

In October of 2008, he wrote an article for Newsweek stating that,

“leaders should begin laying the groundwork for establishing a global central bank.”

He explained that,

“There was a time when the U.S. Federal Reserve played this role [as governing financial authority of the world], as the prime financial institution of the world’s most powerful economy, overseeing the one global currency. But with the growth of capital markets, the rise of currencies like the euro and the emergence of powerful players such as China, the shift of wealth to Asia and the Persian Gulf and, of course, the deep-seated problems in the American economy itself, the Fed no longer has the capability to lead single-handedly.”[44]

  Regionalism
 Building upon the model of the European Union, the world is being divided into large continental regional blocs, with regional monetary systems and governments. 

This will make up the managed blocs of a global government, and mark a significant process in the “hard road to world order,” as Richard N. Gardner called it, in which national sovereignty is eroded piece by piece. Regionalism marks the current phase of the move to the formation of a global government. Friedrich List critiqued liberal cosmopolitanism, stating that economic integration had never preceded political integration, however the elites have and are successfully challenging this notion. 

In the New World Order, economic integration is preceding political integration into a world governance structure.

The European Union began as a series of free trade agreements, became a monetary union, and is in the process of being formed into a single continental superstate. North American integration began with a series of free trade agreements, defense and security agreements, and is in the process of moving towards monetary and bureaucratic integration into a North American Community.  

A Union and North American superstate are not far in the distance. A North American currency is openly discussed and proposed by leading think tanks, billionaire investors, as well as the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The likely name of such a currency is the Amero.[45]

Meanwhile, globally, markets are heavily integrating. In 2007, it was reported that the European Union and the United States were beginning the process of transatlantic economic integration.[46]

 In 2008, it was announced that,

“Canadian and European officials say they plan to begin negotiating a massive agreement to integrate Canada’s economy with the 27 nations of the European Union,” under “deep economic integration negotiations,” and “The proposed pact would far exceed the scope of older agreements such as NAFTA.”[47]

This, essentially, is a means of integrating with the North American Community before the Community is officially formed; an act of pre-emptive integration.

In 2007, the Council on Foreign Relations journal, Foreign Affairs, ran an article titled, “The End of National Currency.” 

Discussing the volatility of national currencies, the article stated that,

“The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today’s instability.”

Further,

“Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world’s governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.”

The author states that,

“Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.”[48]

In 2008, the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was formed, “a regional body aimed at boosting economic and political integration in the region,”[49] which will “seek a common currency as part of the region’s integration efforts,” as well as a common central bank.[50]

The Gulf Cooperation Council, a regional bloc of Arab Middle Eastern governments, is pursuing economic integration in the form of a common central bank and a common currency.[51]

 Similarly, there has been much discussion of an Asian Monetary Union and East Asian economic integration, specifically being touted as a solution to the prevention of future economic crises in East Asia like that which hit it in 1997.[52]

 Integration would be modeled upon the East Asian regional block of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), and in 2008,

“ASEAN bank deputy governors and financial deputy ministers have met in Vietnam’s central Da Nang city, discussing issues on the financial and monetary integration and cooperation in the region.”[53]

Further, Africa is being organized as a regional bloc under the African Union, and is also pursuing regional economic integration, and has even set the agenda for the creation of a continental African central bank and the formation of a single African currency.[54]

In 2006, the Bank for International Settlements,

“suggested ditching many national currencies in favor of a small number of formal currency blocks based on the dollar, euro and renminbi or yen.”[55]

Constructing the Political Structure of a Global Government

Strobe Talbott, Deputy Secretary of State in the Clinton administration from 1994 to 2001, is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and is currently President of the Brookings Institution, a prominent US think tank. 

In 1992, before becoming Deputy Secretary of State, he wrote an article for Time Magazine originally titled, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” which has now, in the Time Magazine archives, been renamed “America Abroad.”  

In the article, he states that within the next 100 years,

“nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century – “citizen of the world” – will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.”

Interestingly, Talbott endorses the social constructivist perspective of nation-states and international order, stating that,

“All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and, paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has.”

He explained that empires,

“were a powerful force for obliterating natural and demographic barriers and forging connections among far-flung parts of the world,” and following that, “Empire eventually yielded to the nation-state,” and that, “The main goal driving the process of political expansion and consolidation was conquest. The big absorbed the small, the strong the weak. National might made international right. Such a world was in a more or less constant state of war.”

Talbott states that,

“perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

He continued, saying that,

“it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government. With the advent of electricity, radio and air travel, the planet has become smaller than ever, its commercial life freer, its nations more interdependent and its conflicts bloodier.”

Further,

“Each world war inspired the creation of an international organization, the League of Nations in the 1920s and the United Nations in the ’40s.”

He explained,

“The plot thickened with the heavy-breathing arrival on the scene of a new species of ideology – expansionist totalitarianism – as perpetrated by the Nazis and the Soviets. It threatened the very idea of democracy and divided the world. [Thus] The advocacy of any kind of world government became highly suspect.”

However, as Talbott points out, Soviet expansion led the way for NATO expansion, and,

“The cold war also saw the European Community pioneer the kind of regional cohesion that may pave the way for globalism.”

On top of that,

“the free world formed multilateral financial institutions that depend on member states’ willingness to give up a degree of sovereignty. The International Monetary Fund can virtually dictate fiscal policies, even including how much tax a government should levy on its citizens. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade regulates how much duty a nation can charge on imports. These organizations can be seen as the protoministries of trade, finance and development for a united world.”

In addressing crises, Talbott wrote that, “

” Globalization” has also contributed to the spread of terrorism, drug trafficking, AIDS and environmental degradation. But because those threats are more than any one nation can cope with on its own, they constitute an incentive for international cooperation.”

Thus, out of crisis, comes opportunity; out of chaos comes order.

In prescribing a solution, Talbott postulates that,

“The best mechanism for democracy, whether at the level of the multinational state or that of the planet as a whole, is not an all-powerful Leviathan or centralized superstate, but a federation, a union of separate states that allocate certain powers to a central government while retaining many others for themselves.”[56]

In a 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs, Richard N. Gardner wrote about the formation of the New World Order. Gardner, a former American ambassador to the United Nations, Italy and Spain, is also a member of the Trilateral Commission. 

In his article, The Hard Road to World Order, Gardner wrote that,

“The quest for a world structure that secures peace, advances human rights and provides the conditions for economic progress – for what is loosely called world order – has never seemed more frustrating but at the same time strangely hopeful.”[57]

He explained that,

“few people retain much confidence in the more ambitious strategies for world order that bad wide backing a generation ago – ‘world federalism,’ ‘charter review,’ and “world peace through world law’.”

Further,

“The same considerations suggest the doubtful utility of bolding a [UN] Charter review conference.”[58]

Gardner wrote,

“If instant world government, Charter review, and a greatly strengthened International Court do not provide the answers, what hope for progress is there? The answer will not satisfy those who seek simple solutions to complex problems, but it comes down essentially to this: The hope for the foreseeable future lies, not in building up a few ambitious central institutions of universal membership and general jurisdiction as was envisaged at the end of the last war, but rather in the much more decentralized, disorderly and pragmatic process of inventing or adapting institutions of limited jurisdiction and selected membership to deal with specific problems on a case-by-case basis, as the necessity for cooperation is perceived by the relevant nations.”

He then stated,

“In short, the “house of world order” will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great “booming, buzzing confusion,” to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”[59]

In the 2001 issue of Foreign Affairs, Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss wrote an article titled, “Toward Global Parliament.” 

They wrote that,

“International governance is no longer limited to such traditional fare as defining international borders, protecting diplomats, and proscribing the use of force. Many issues of global policy that directly affect citizens are now being shaped by the international system. Workers can lose their jobs as a result of decisions made at the WTO or within regional trade regimes.”[60]

In 2006, a UN report stated that,

“the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalized world.”[61]

Further,

“As with citizen groups, elite business participation in the international system is becoming institutionalized. The best example is the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In the 1980s, the WEF transformed itself from an organization devoted to humdrum management issues into a dynamic political forum. Once a year, a thousand of the world s most powerful business executives get together with another thousand of the world’s senior policymakers to participate in a week of roundtables and presentations. The WEF also provides ongoing arenas for discussion and recommendations on shaping global policy.”

They continue in explaining that,

“The Davos assembly and overlapping networks of corporate elites, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, have been successful in shaping compatible global policies. Their success has come in the expansion of international trade regimes, the modest regulation of capital markets, the dominance of neoliberal market philosophy, and the supportive collaboration of most governments, especially those of rich countries.”[62]

In explaining the purpose of a global parliament, essentially to address the “democratic deficit” created by international organizations, the authors wrote that,

“Some business leaders would certainly oppose a global parliament because it would broaden popular decision-making and likely press for transnational regulations. But others are coming to believe that the democratic deficit must be closed by some sort of stakeholder accommodation. 

After all, many members of the managerial class who were initially hostile to such reform came to realize that the New Deal – or its social-democratic equivalent in Europe – was necessary to save capitalism. Many business leaders today similarly agree that democratization is necessary to make globalization politically acceptable throughout the world.”

Essentially, its purpose would be to give globalization “grassroots acceptance and legitimacy.”[63]

David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making

As a member of that “superclass,” his writing should provide a necessary insight into the construction of this “New World Order.” 

He states that,

“In a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract.”

He wrote that, “progress will continue to be made,” however, it will be challenging, because it,

“undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty.”

He further wrote that,

“Mechanisms of global governance are more achievable in today’s environment,” and that these mechanisms “are often creative with temporary solutions to urgent problems that cannot wait for the world to embrace a bigger and more controversial idea like real global government.”[64]

Jacques Attali, founder and former President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and economic adviser to French President Nicholas Sarkozy, interviewed on EuroNews, said that, “either we’re heading towards a world government or we’re going to put national issues first.” 

The interviewer stated that the idea of world government will frighten many people, to which Attali responded,

“Indeed, that’s only to be expected, because it seems like a fantasy. But there is already global authority in many areas,” and that, “even if it’s hard to think of a European government at the moment, which is there, but very weak, Europe can at least press on its experience to the world. If they’re not capable of creating an economic framework along side a political framework, then they’re never going to do it on a global scale. And then the world economic model will break up, and we’ll be back to the Great Depression.”[65]

In December of 2008, the Financial Times published an article titled, “And Now for A World Government,” in which the author, former Bilderberg attendee, Gideon Rachman, wrote that,

“for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” and that, “A ‘world government’ would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.”

He stated that,

“it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a ‘global war on terror’.”

He wrote that the European model could “go global” and that a world government,

“could be done,” as “The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.”

He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying,

“Global governance is just a euphemism for global government,” and that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.”

However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” 

He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which,

“has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for ‘ever closer union’ have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic. ”[66]

In November of 2008, the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC), the US intelligence community’s “center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking,” released a report that it produced in collaboration with numerous think tanks, consulting firms, academic institutions and hundreds of other experts, among them are the Atlantic Council of the United States, the Wilson Center, RAND Corporation, the Brookings Institution, American Enterprise Institute, Texas A&M University, the Council on Foreign Relations and Chatham House in London.[67]

Outlining the global trends that the world will be going through up to the year 2025, the report states that the financial crisis “will require long-term efforts to establish a new international system.” 

It suggests that as the “China-model” for development becomes increasingly attractive, there may be a “decline in democratization” for emerging economies, authoritarian regimes, and “weak democracies frustrated by years of economic underperformance.” 

Further, the dollar will cease to be the global reserve currency, as there would likely be a “move away from the dollar.”[68]

Further, the dollar will become “something of a first among equals in a basket of currencies by 2025. This could occur suddenly in the wake of a crisis, or gradually with global rebalancing.”[69]

 The report elaborates on the construction of a new international system, stating that,

“By 2025, nation-states will no longer be the only – and often not the most important – actors on the world stage and the ‘international system’ will have morphed to accommodate the new reality. But the transformation will be incomplete and uneven.”

Further, it would be,

“unlikely to see an overarching, comprehensive, unitary approach to global governance. Current trends suggest that global governance in 2025 will be a patchwork of overlapping, often ad hoc and fragmented efforts, with shifting coalitions of member nations, international organizations, social movements, NGOs, philanthropic foundations, and companies.”

It also notes that,

“Most of the pressing transnational problems – including climate change, regulation of globalized financial markets, migration, failing states, crime networks, etc. – are unlikely to be effectively resolved by the actions of individual nation-states. The need for effective global governance will increase faster than existing mechanisms can respond.”[70]

The report discusses regionalism, and stated that,

“Asian regionalism would have global implications, possibly sparking or reinforcing a trend toward three trade and financial clusters that could become quasi-blocs (North America, Europe, and East Asia).”

These blocs,

“would have implications for the ability to achieve future global World Trade Organization agreements and regional clusters could compete in the setting of trans-regional product standards for IT, biotech, nanotech, intellectual property rights, and other ‘new economy’ products.”[71]

In discussing democracy and democratization, the report stated that,

“advances are likely to slow and globalization will subject many recently democratized countries to increasing social and economic pressures that could undermine liberal institutions.”

This is largely because,

“the better economic performance of many authoritarian governments could sow doubts among some about democracy as the best form of government. The surveys we consulted indicated that many East Asians put greater emphasis on good management, including increasing standards of livings, than democracy.”

Further,

“even in many well-established democracies, surveys show growing frustration with the current workings of democratic government and questioning among elites over the ability of democratic governments to take the bold actions necessary to deal rapidly and effectively with the growing number of transnational challenges.”[72]

In other words, “well established democracies,” such as those in Western Europe and North America, will, through successive crises (climate, finance, war), erode and replace their democratic systems of government with totalitarian structures that are able to “take the bold actions necessary” to deal with “transnational challenges.”

David Rockefeller wrote in his book, Memoirs, that,

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. 

Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” [73]


The Global Economic Crisis in Context

The current global economic crisis has its roots not in the Bush Administration, which is linear and diluted thinking at best, but in the systematic nature of the global capitalist system. Crisis is not separate from capital; crisis is capitalist expansion. In addressing the foundations of the economic crisis, neo-Marxist theory can help explain much of the actions and functions that led to the crisis.

In 2006, Walden Bello wrote an article for Third World Quarterly, in which he explained that,

“The crisis of globalization and over-accumulation is one of the three central crises that are currently eroding US hegemony. The other two are the over-extension of US military power and the crisis of legitimacy of liberal democracy.”

He explained that,

“Monetary manipulation, via the high interest rate regime initiated by Federal Reserve Chief Paul Volcker in the late 1980s, while directed at fighting inflation, was also geared strategically at channeling global savings to the USA to fuel economic expansion. One key consequence of this momentous move was the Third World debt crisis of the early 1980s, which ended the boom of the economies of the South and led to their resubordination to the Northern capitalist centres.”[74]

The economic foundations of the current crisis were laid in the “Clinton globalist project.” 

As Bello explained,

“The administration embraced globalisation as its ‘Grand Strategy’ – that is, its fundamental foreign policy posture towards the world.”

Further,

“The dominant position of the USA allowed the liberal faction of the US capitalist class to act as a leading edge of a transnational ruling elite in the process of formation – a transnational elite alliance that could act to promote the comprehensive interest of the international capitalist class.”[75]

Bello then explained that,

“the dominant dynamic of global capitalism during the Clinton period – one that was the source of its strength as well as its Achilles’ Heel – was not the movement of productive capital but the gyrations of finance capital.”

The dominance of finance capital was,

“a result of the declining profitability of industry brought about by the crisis of overproduction. By 1997 profits in US industry had stopped growing. Financial speculation, or what one might conceptualise as the squeezing of value from already created value, became the most dynamic source of profitability.”

This was termed “financialization,” and it had many components that composed its structure and led way for its dominance. Among these were the,

“Elimination of restrictions dating back to the 1930s that had created a Chinese Wall between investment banking and commercial banking in the USA opened up a new era of rapid consolidation in the US financial sector.”[76]

Specifically, this is in reference to the repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, put in place in 1933 in response to the actions that created the Great Depression, which undertook banking reforms, specifically those designed to limit speculation. 

In 1987, the Federal Reserve Board voted to ease regulations under Glass-Steagall, after hearing,

“proposals from Citicorp, J.P. Morgan and Bankers Trust advocating the loosening of Glass-Steagall restrictions to allow banks to handle several underwriting businesses, including commercial paper, municipal revenue bonds, and mortgage-backed securities.”  

And, “In August 1987, Alan Greenspan – formerly a director of J.P. Morgan and a proponent of banking deregulation – [became] chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.” 

In 1989, “the Fed Board approve[d] an application by J.P. Morgan, Chase Manhattan, Bankers Trust, and Citicorp to expand the Glass-Steagall loophole to include dealing in debt and equity securities in addition to municipal securities and commercial paper.” In 1990, “J.P. Morgan [became] the first bank to receive permission from the Federal Reserve to underwrite securities.”

In 1998, the House of Representatives passed,

“legislation by a vote of 214 to 213 that allow[ed] for the merging of banks, securities firms, and insurance companies into huge financial conglomerates.”

And in 1999,

“After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeal[ed] Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts.”[77]

It was in,

“the late 1990s, with the stock market surging to unimaginable heights, large banks merging with and swallowing up smaller banks, and a huge increase in banks having transnational branches, Wall Street and its many friends in congress wanted to eliminate the regulations that had been intended to protect investors and stabilize the financial system. 

Hence the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed key parts of Glass-Steagall and the Bank Holding Act and allowed commercial and investment banks to merge, to offer home mortgage loans, sell securities and stocks, and offer insurance.”[78]

One of the architects of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

 Rubin spent 26 years with Goldman Sachs before entering the Treasury. Robert Rubin worked closely with Alan Greenspan to oppose the regulation of derivatives, and was backed up by his Deputy Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers. Rubin, upon leaving the Treasury, went to work as an executive with Citigroup.[79]

 Robert Rubin is currently the Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations. Lawrence Summers was a former Chief Economist for the World Bank before being Deputy Treasury Secretary in the Clinton administration. He then became President of Harvard University, and is now Director of the White House National Economic Council in the Obama administration. 

Timothy Geithner, was former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and is also a Robert Rubin protégé.  The Clinton years saw the rise of derivatives, which are financial instruments (or contracts), the prices of which are derived from one or more underlying assets, indexes, or other items. The value of a derivative changes as the value of the underlying asset changes. They are used to hedge risks but also as instruments of speculation.

 Derivatives, “which monetized and traded risk in the exchange of a whole range of commodities,” are a key factor that led to the economic crisis.

Another cause of the crisis was,

“The creation of massive consumer credit to fuel consumption, with much of the source of this capital coming from foreign investors,” which “created a dangerous gap between the consumers’ debt and their income, opening up the possibility of consumer collapse or default that would carry away both consumers and their creditors.”

Further, the stock market’s role in driving growth played a part in paving the way for a financial crisis.

“Stock market activity drove, in particular, the so-called technology sector, creating a condition of ‘virtual capitalism’ whose dynamics were based on the expectation of future profitability rather than on current performance, which was the iron rule in the ‘real economy’.”[80]

The Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, initially created the dot-com bubble, providing liquidity for speculation into the stock market and “virtual capitalism,”[81] and when that dot-com bubble burst, as all bubbles do, Greenspan and the Fed created the housing bubble by cutting interests rates and offering more Adjustable Rate Mortgages (AMRs), with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac encouraging banks to make the high-risk loans.[82]

Speculation had proven itself to be a powerful weapon of finance capital. In the 1990s, this was first exemplified by,

“a speculative attack on the peso that had investors in panic cashing their pesos for dollars, leading to the devaluation and collapse of the Mexican economy in 1994,” and later in “East Asia in 1997. One hundred billion dollars in speculative capital flooded into the region between 1994 and 1997 as countries liberalized their capital accounts.”

This speculative money flowed into real estate and the stock market, which resulted in over-investment, and,

“Smelling crisis in the air, hedge funds and other speculators targeted the Thai baht, Korean won and other currencies, triggering a massive financial panic that led to the drastic devaluation of these currencies and laid low Asia’s tiger economies. 

In a few short weeks in the summer of 1997 some $100 billion rushed out of the Asian economies, leading to a drastic reversal of the sizzling growth that had marked those economies in the preceding decade. In less than a month, some 21 million Indonesians and one million Thais found themselves thrust under the poverty line.”[83]

This was known as the East Asian Financial Crisis.
This crisis,

“helped precipitate the Russian financial crisis in 1998, as well as financial troubles in Brazil and Argentina that contributed to the spectacular unraveling of Argentina’s economy in 2001 and 2002, when the economy that had distinguished itself as the most faithful follower of the IMF’s prescriptions of trade and financial liberalization found itself forced to declare a default on $100 billion of its $140 billion external debt.”[84]

The current crisis is not over. 

The parallels between the current crisis and the Great Depression are frightening. This trend of building speculative bubbles is reminiscent of the 1920s stock market speculation-driven bubble; built by the Federal Reserve, which eased interest rates, provided liquidity to the banks and actively encouraged speculation. Bubbles that were created then burst.

In 1932, Congressman Louis T. McFadden stated before the Congress that the Federal Reserve banks are not government agencies, but,

“are private credit monopolies which prey upon the people of the United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”[85]

Following the creation of the Fed in 1913, Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh said,

“From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”

Indeed, he was right. The current crisis, likely leading to a Great Depression, is being used as the primary means through which a global government is being constructed.

In 2007, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for a new world order in reforming the UN, World Bank, IMF and G7.[86] When the bank Bear Stearns collapsed, due to its heavy participation in the mortgage securities market, the Federal Reserve purchased the bank for JP Morgan Chase, whose CEO sits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. 

Shortly after this action, a major financial firm released a report saying that banks face a “new world order” of “consolidation and acquisitions.”[87]

In October of 2008, Gordon Brown said that we,

“must have a new Bretton Woods – building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.”

He continued in saying that,

“we must now reform the international financial system around the agreed principles of transparency, integrity, responsibility, good housekeeping and co-operation across borders.”

An article in the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown would want,

“to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”[88]

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Gordon Brown wrote that the “new Bretton Woods” should build upon the concept of “global governance.”[89] There were also calls for a “global economic policeman,” perhaps in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).[90]

 In November of 2008, it was reported that Baron David de Rothschild,

“shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”[91]

Out of the ashes of the financial crisis, a new world order will emerge in constructing a global government. 


Notes

[1] Membership, Peter Sutherland. The Trilateral Commission: October 2007: http://www.trilateral.org/membship/bios/ps.htm

[2] Daily Mail, EU Constitution – the main points. The Daily Mail: June 19, 2004: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-307249/EU-Constitution–main-points.html

[3] Time, 10 Questions For Vaclav Klaus. Time Magazine: March 13, 2005: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1037613,00.html

[4] Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, Valéry Giscard d’Estaing: The EU Treaty is the same as the Constitution. The Independent: October 30, 2007: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html

[5] Bruno Waterfield, Lisbon Treaty resurrects the defeated EU Constitution. The Telegraph: June 13, 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/2123045/EU-Treaty-Lisbon-Treaty-resurrected-defeated-EU-Constitution.html

[6] Mel Hurtig, The Vanishing Country: Is It Too Late to Save Canada? (McClelland & Stewart Ltd., 2002), page 365

[7] CFR, Brian Mulroney. About US, Leadership and Staff: International Advisory Board: http://www.cfr.org/bios/9841/brian_mulroney.html

[8] Robert O’Brien and Marc Williams, Global Political Economy: Evolution and Dynamics, 2nd ed. (Palgrave Macmillan: 2007), page 226

[9] David Rockefeller, What Private Enterprise Means to Latin America. Foreign Affairs: Vol. 44, No. 3 (April, 1966): page 411

[10] David Rockefeller, Memoirs. New York: Random House: 2002: Pages 436-437

[11] David Rockefeller, A hemisphere in the balance. The Wall Street Journal: October 1, 1993

[12] Alexander Dawson, First World Dreams: Mexico Since 1989. Fernwood Books, 2006: Pages 8-9

[13] Alexander Dawson, First World Dreams: Mexico Since 1989. Fernwood Books, 2006: Page 29

[14] Alexander Dawson, First World Dreams: Mexico Since 1989. Fernwood Books, 2006: Page 120

[15] Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents. W.W. Norton & Co.: 2003: page 121

[16] Robert Pastor, A North American Community: A Modest Proposal to the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission: Toronto, Ontario: November 1-2, 2002: http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cnas/PastorTrilateral.pdf : page 4

[17] Robert Pastor, A North American Community: A Modest Proposal to the Trilateral Commission. The Trilateral Commission: Toronto, Ontario: November 1-2, 2002: http://www.american.edu/internationalaffairs/cnas/PastorTrilateral.pdf : page 6

[18] News and Information, Paul Martin Urged to Take the Lead in Forging a New Vision for North American Cooperation. CCCE: November 5, 2003: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=38&type_id=1

[19] CCCE, North American Security and Prosperity. http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/north/north.php

[20] News and Information, Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010. CCCE: March 14, 2005: http://www.ceocouncil.ca/en/view/?document_id=395

[21] Office of the Press Secretary, Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin. The White House: March 23, 2005: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-2.html

[22] CFR, Building a North American Community. Independent Task Force on the Future of North America: May 2005: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html

[23] Issues Center, North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). US Chamber of Commerce: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/international/nacc.htm

[24] CoA, Board of Directors. The Council of the Americas: http://coa.counciloftheamericas.org/page.php?k=bod

[25] Herbert Grubel, Fix the Loonie. The Financial Post: January 18, 2008:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=245165

Herbert Grubel, The Case for the Amero. The Fraser Institute: September 1, 1999:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/publication_details.aspx?pubID=2512

Thomas Courchene and Richard Harris, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration. C.D. Howe Institute, June 1999:

http://www.cdhowe.org/display.cfm?page=research-fiscal&year=1999

Consider a Continental Currency, Jarislowsky Says. The Globe and Mail: November 23, 2007:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20071123.RDOLLAR23/TPStory/?query=%22Steven%2BChase%22b

[26] Barrie McKenna, Dodge Says Single Currency ‘Possible’. The Globe and Mail: May 21, 2007

[27] Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs: September/October, 1997: pages 183-184

[28] Anne-Marie Slaughter, The Real New World Order. Foreign Affairs: September/October, 1997: pages 184-185

[29] Mark Carney, Remarks by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada to the International Economic Forum of the Americas / Conference of Montreal. The Bank of Canada: June 11, 2009: http://www.bankofcanada.ca/en/speeches/2009/sp110609.html

[30] Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Third Edition, OUP 2006: page 162

[31] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: pages 11-12

[32] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: page 12

[33] Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, Third Edition, OUP 2006: page 258

[34] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: page 27

[35] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: page 28

[36] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: page 29

[37] William I. Robinson and Jerry Harris, Towards a Global Ruling Class? Globalization and the Transnational Capitalist Class. Science & Society, Vol. 64, No. 1, Spring 2000: page 30

[38] Glen McGregor, Secretive power brokers meeting coming to Ottawa? Ottawa Citizen: May 24, 2006: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ff614eb8-02cc-41a3-a42d-30642def1421&k=62840

[39] Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, The G20 moves the world a step closer to a global currency. The Telegraph: April 3, 2009: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/5096524/The-G20-moves-the-world-a-step-closer-to-a-global-currency.html

[40] Get ready for the phoenix. The Economist: Vol. 306: January 9, 1988: pages 9-10

[41] ECB, The euro and the dollar – new imperatives for policy co-ordination. Speeches and Interviews: September 18, 2000: http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2000/html/sp000918.en.html

[42] Jeffrey E. Garten, Needed: A Fed for the World. The New York Times: September 23, 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/23/opinion/needed-a-fed-for-the-world.html

[43] Jeffrey Garten, Global authority can fill financial vacuum. The Financial Times: September 25, 2008: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7caf543e-8b13-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html?nclick_check=1

[44] Jeffrey Garten, We Need a Bank Of the World. Newsweek: October 25, 2008: http://www.newsweek.com/id/165772

[45] Andrew Gavin Marshall, North-American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7854

[46] Commission Européenne, EU and US to sign up to transatlantic economic integration plan at Washington Summit on 30 April. UN: April 27, 2007: http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/fr/article_6987_fr.htm

[47] Andrew Coyne, The crossroads of international trade. Macleans: September 18, 2008: http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/council-of-canadians/

[48] Benn Steil, The End of National Currency. Foreign Affairs: Vol. 86, Issue 3, May/June 2007: pages 83-96

[49] BBC, South America nations found union. BBC News: May 23, 2008: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7417896.stm

[50] CNews, South American nations to seek common currency. China View: May 26, 2008: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/27/content_8260847.htm

[51] AME Info, GCC: Full steam ahead to monetary union. September 19, 2005: http://www.ameinfo.com/67925.html

John Irish, GCC Agrees on Monetary Union but Signals Delay in Common Currency. Reuters: June 10, 2008: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=6&section=0&article=110727&d=10&m=6&y=2008

Forbes, TIMELINE-Gulf single currency deadline delayed beyond 2010. Forbes: March 23, 2009: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/03/24/afx6204462.html

Agencies, ‘GCC need not rush to form single currency’. Business 24/7: March 26, 2009: http://www.business24-7.ae/articles/2009/3/pages/25032009/03262009_4e19de908b174f04bfb3c37aec2f17b3.aspx

[52] Barry Eichengreen, International Monetary Arrangements: Is There a Monetary Union in Asia’s Future? The Brookings Institution: Spring 1997: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/1997/spring_globaleconomics_eichengreen.aspx

atimes.com, After European now Asian Monetary Union? Asia Times Online: September 8, 2001: http://www.atimes.com/editor/CI08Ba01.html

ASEAN, China, Japan, SKorea, ASEAN Makes Moves for Asian Monetary Fund. Association of Southeast Asian Nations: May 6, 2005: http://www.aseansec.org/afp/115.htm

Reuven Glick, Does Europe’s Path to Monetary Union Provide Lessons for East Asia? Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco: August 12, 2005: http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2005/el2005-19.html

AFP, Asian Monetary Fund may be needed to deal with future shocks. Channel News Asia: July 2, 2007: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world_business/view/285700/1/.html

AFX News Limited, East Asia monetary union ‘feasible’ but political will lacking – ADB. Forbes: September 19, 2007: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2007/09/19/afx4133743.html

[53] Lin Li, ASEAN discusses financial, monetary integration. China View: April 2, 2008: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-04/02/content_7906391.htm

[54] Paul De Grauwe, Economics of Monetary Union. Oxford University Press, 2007: pages 109-110

Heather Milkiewicz and Paul R. Masson, Africa’s Economic Morass – Will a Common Currency Help? The Brookings Institution: July 2003: http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2003/07africa_masson.aspx

John Gahamanyi, Rwanda: African Central Bank Governors Discuss AU Financial Institutions. The New Times: August 23, 2008: http://allafrica.com/stories/200808230124.html

Eric Ombok, African Union, Nigeria Plan Accord on Central Bank. Bloomberg: March 2, 2009: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601116&sid=afoY1vOnEMLA&refer=africa

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, AFRICA IN THE QUEST FOR A COMMON CURRENCY. Republic of Kenya: March 2009: http://www.mfa.go.ke/mfacms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=346&Itemid=62

[55] Edmund Conway, UK policy blamed for soaring debt levels. The Telegraph: February 20, 2006: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2932605/UK-policy-blamed-for-soaring-debt-levels.html

[56] Strobe Talbott, America Abroad. Time Magazine: July 20, 1992: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015,00.html

[57] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order. Foreign Affairs: April, 1974: page 556

[58] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order. Foreign Affairs: April, 1974: page 557

[59] Richard N. Gardner, The Hard Road to World Order. Foreign Affairs: April, 1974: page 558

[60] Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, Toward Global Parliament. Foreign Affairs: January/February, 2001: page 213

[61] Philip Thornton, UN unveils plan to release untapped wealth of…$7 trillion (and solve the world’s problems at a stroke). The Independent: January 30, 2006: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-unveils-plan-to-release-untapped-wealth-of7-trillion-and-solve-the-worlds-problems-at-a-stroke-525173.html

[62] Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, Toward Global Parliament. Foreign Affairs: January/February, 2001: page 215

[63] Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss, Toward Global Parliament. Foreign Affairs: January/February, 2001: page 218

[64] David Rothkopf, Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World They are Making. (Toronto: Penguin Books, 2008), pages 315-316

[65] EuroNews, European Elections. Jacques Attali: the euronews interview: April 6, 2009: http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/04/jacques-attali-the-euronews-interview/

[66] Gideon Rachman, And now for a world government. The Financial Times: December 8, 2008: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7a03e5b6-c541-11dd-b516-000077b07658.html

[67] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: Acknowledgements: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[68] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 11-12: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[69] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 94: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[70] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 81: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[71] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 83: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[72] NIC, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World. The National Intelligence Council’s 2025 Project: November, 2008: pages 87: http://www.dni.gov/nic/NIC_2025_project.html

[73] David Rockefeller, Memoirs. Random House, New York, 2002: page 405

[74] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: pages 1346-1348

[75] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: pages 1348-1349

[76] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: page 1350

[77] PBS, The Long Demise of Glass-Steagall. Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

[78] Robert Buzzanco, Bring Back Glass-Steagall? History News Network: October 21, 2008: http://hnn.us/articles/55548.html

[79] PETER S. GOODMAN, Taking Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy. The New York Times: October 8, 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html?_r=1

[80] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: page 1350

[81] Bill Virgin, et. al, The Insider: Dot-com boom just another of ‘Greenspan’s Bubbles’. Seattle PI: February 10, 2008: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/350766_theinsider11.html?source=rss

[82] Richard C. Cook, They Did It On Purpose: The Housing Bubble & Its Crash were Engineered by the US Government, the Fed & Wall Street. Global Research: October 23, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10654

[83] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: pages 1351-1352

[84] Walden Bello, The Capitalist Conjuncture: Over-accumulation, Financial Crises, and the retreat from globalization. Third World Quarterly: Vol. 27, No. 8: 2006: page 1352

[85] Louis T. McFadden, Congressional Record. June 10, 1932: pages 12595-12596 http://www.scribd.com/doc/16502353/Congressional-Record-June-10-1932-Louis-T-McFadden

[86] Larry Elliott, Brown calls for overhaul of UN, World Bank and IMF. The Guardian: January 17, 2007: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jan/17/globalisation.internationalaidanddevelopment

[87] Andrea Ricci, Banks face “new world order,” consolidation: report. Reuters: March 17, 2008: http://www.reuters.com/article/innovationNews/idUSN1743541720080317

[88] Robert Winnett, Financial Crisis: Gordon Brown calls for ‘new Bretton Woods’. The Telegraph: October 13, 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3189517/Financial-Crisis-Gordon-Brown-calls-for-new-Bretton-Woods.html

[89] Gordon Brown, Out of the Ashes. The Washington Post: October 17, 2008: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603179.html

[90] Gordon Rayner, Global financial crisis: does the world need a new banking ‘policeman’? The Telegraph: October 8, 2008: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3155563/Global-financial-crisis-does-the-world-need-a-new-banking-policeman.html

[91] Rupert Wright, The first barons of banking. The National: November 6, 2008: http://www.thenational.ae/article/20081106/BUSINESS/167536298/1005

by Andrew Gavin Marshall

FINANCIAL TERRORISM…in AMERICA!

financial terrorism

Abstract – Welcome to World War III

Despite increasing personal financial hardship, most Americans remain unaware of the economic world war currently unfolding. 
An all-pervasive corporate and government propaganda campaign has effectively obscured this blatant reality. After extensive analysis, it is evident that World War III is a war between the richest one-tenth of one percent of the global population and 99.9 percent of humanity. Or, The Economic Elite Vs. The People of The United States of America [18].

 This war has been a one-sided attack thus far. However, as we have seen throughout the world in recent months, the people are beginning to fight back. The following report is a statistical analysis of the systemic economic attacks against the American people.

Introduction
The American public has sustained intensive economic attacks across broad segments of the population. 
While the attacks have been increasingly severe in scale over the past four years, they have been implemented with technocratic precision. They have been incrementally applied thus far, successfully keeping the population passive and avoiding any large-scale civilian unrest, while effectively reducing living standards for the majority of the population. 

As you will see in this report, the 55 million Americans that have been hit the hardest have thus far acquiesced due to temporary financial assistance, such as food stamps and extended unemployment benefits.  The Global Economic Elite have been much more strategic in handling the American public, as they are potentially the greatest threat to their continued consolidation of wealth, resources and power. 

National populations that are not as powerful, and on the periphery of the Economic Elite’s global empire, have been dealt with in much harsher fashion. In many smaller and less powerful countries the dramatic rise in food prices and costs of living have led to all-out revolt – Tunisia, Algeria, Albania and Egypt were among the first to rebel. While the contagion of rebellion has rapidly spread throughout Northern Africa and the Middle East, it is also spreading in a decentralized manner throughout most of the world, now threatening popular rebellion throughout Europe. Like the U.S. population, the geographically clustered European nations represent a potentially powerful countervailing force to the Economic Elite’s continued domination.

Within the United States, the technocratic suppression of the population has been extensive. Increasingly severe economic and governmental policies have systematically eroded civilian wealth, power and rights. Intensive propaganda has effectively distracted, confused, isolated, marginalized and divided the U.S. population. Despite the success of these efforts thus far, given the severe, prolonged, unsustainable and escalating level of economic suffering, outbreaks of civil unrest are inevitable. 

The U.S. population, if a critical mass is reached, represents the greatest threat to the Economic Elite. In this regard, the American people are their primary adversary. 


Part One – The Economic Devastation 
Snapshot

According to most recent Census Bureau data, from 2005-2009, average U.S. household wealth declined by 28% [19].

 This represents a loss of $27,000 per household. Currently, at least 62 million Americans, 20% [19] of U.S. households, have zero or negative net worth.  The Census figures cited above are based on statistics that have been consistently proven to be lowball estimates. The government and corporate media spread propaganda on vital economic statistics that mask the severity of our economic crisis. Deceptive inflation, unemployment, poverty and GDP measures, which cast the illusion of recovery, are easily exposed with some research and a closer look at the data. 

Throughout this report, we will explore significant examples of government economic propaganda. In several cases, the government has been forced to revise their numbers due to proven inaccuracies. The government’s “revisions” are most always for the worse, and are usually just a footnote correction that the public is rarely ever aware of. All that being said, for many statistics we are forced to use government data, as there are not any other extensive data sets available from alternative sources.   

I – Record Breaking Poverty
The Census Bureau poverty rate is a horribly flawed measurement that uses outdated methodology.  The Census measures poverty based on costs of living metrics established in 1955-56 years ago. They ignore many key factors, such as the increased costs of medical care, child care, education, transportation, and many other basic costs. They also don’t factor geographically-based costs of living. The National Academy of Science measure, which gets little if any corporate media coverage, gives a much more accurate account of poverty, as they factor in these vital cost of living variables.

The most current Census data revealed that 43.6 million Americans, 14.3% of the population, lived in poverty in 2009. While that is a staggering number that represents the highest number of American people to ever live in poverty, and a dramatic increase of four million people since 2008, it significantly under-counted the total.

Last year, in my analysis [20], extrapolating data from 2008 National Academy of Science findings, I estimated that the number of Americans living in poverty in 2009 was at least 52 million [20].

 Recently, the National Academy of Science released their latest findings, backing up my claim by revealing that 52,765,000 [21] Americans, 17.3% of the population, lived in poverty in 2009.  The poverty rate for children is even worse.

According to Census data, a total of 15.5 million [22] American children lived in poverty in 2009, which is 20% of all children. The number of children in poverty increased 28% since 2000, and jumped 10% from 2008 to 2009. Extrapolating data from the 2009 National Academy of Science poverty rate, in relation to the Census childhood poverty data, the number of American children living in poverty in 2009 is more accurately 18.8 million, which is 24%, or nearly one in four.

Other than this rapidly increasing number children who are in families that have recently fallen into poverty,

“every day in America 2,573 babies [22] are born into poverty.”

As the chart to the right shows, even with the lower Census numbers, nine major American cities have a poverty rate over 25%.

It is important to note, based on many key indicators, as you will see throughout this report, the overall poverty totals have increased since 2009. Also consider that the recent deficit reduction plan is going to cut “anti-poverty” programs that currently assist tens of millions of Americans. 

A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimates that,

“the poverty rate would double [23] without these programs.”

It is predicted that the new deficit deal will cut the funding for these programs in half [24], which, based on these estimates, would bring the total number of Americans living in poverty up to 80 million people, 26% of the population.   


II – Record Breaking Food Insecurity
For another revealing statistic, which has been quickly increasing, we can look at the number of Americans currently surviving off of food stamps. 

In 2005, 25.7 million [25] Americans needed food stamps, currently 45.8 million people [26] rely on them. As the chart to the right shows, the number of people in need of food stamps has been rapidly increasing year-over-year.

Meanwhile, Congress is cutting the funding [27] for the food stamp program at a time when the Department of Agriculture estimates that an additional 22.5 million [28] people will need them, bringing the total number of Americans in need of food assistance to a stunning 68.3 million people.    


III – Record Breaking Unemployment
While the “official” unemployment rate hovers around 9%, 14 million people, the government’s numbers are deceptively low once again.  

The only reason unemployment has stayed below 10% for the past few months is because millions of long-term unemployed, and part-time workers who are looking for full-time work, are not included in the baseline government unemployment rate. 

John Williams, from ShadowStats.com [29], has a consistently proven method of tracking unemployment that provides a much more accurate view of the overall situation. As shocking as it may sound, when you apply his SGS method, counting the total number people in need of employment, you get a current unemployment rate of 22.5%, which is an all-time record total of 34 million people currently in need of work. 

Here is how the SGS rate is calculated:

“The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. 

That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.”

On top of these shocking figures, the labor force participation rate, which measures the percentage of the total population currently working, has fallen to a 27-year low of 63.9%.

Currently, an all-time record 6.3 million [30] people have been unemployed for over six months. As the chart to the right shows, the average time it takes for a person to find a job has also just hit an all-time high of 40.4 weeks [31].

As companies continue to downsize and shift jobs overseas, unemployment is once again accelerating. Private-sector job cuts in July surged 60% to a 16-month high [32].

 When accounting for population growth within the total labor force, from December 2007 to present, we have lost 10.6 million [33] jobs.

With the implementation of state and federal budget cuts, public-sector unemployment is accelerating as well.  

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, since August 2008, state and local governments have cut 577,000 [34] jobs. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that cuts in the new deficit deal will lead to an additional 1.8 million [24] job losses.

Of the new jobs that have been added in 2010, 60% [35] of them are in low-wage fields. Since December 2007, the official unemployment rate has masked the fact that 2.8 million [35] of the news jobs created have been part-time jobs.  Breaking down the data, over the last 12 months [36], the National Employment Law Project found that well-paying jobs are rapidly decreasing, while low-paying jobs are helping to mask an increasingly dire employment crisis:

  • Lower-wage industries constituted 23% of job loss, but fully 49% of recent growth

  • Mid-wage industries constituted 36% of job loss, and 37% of recent growth

  • Higher-wage industries constituted 40% of job loss, but only 14% of recent growth


IV – Declining Income
While the cost of living from 1990-2010 increased by 67%, worker income has declined. According to the most recent available IRS data, covering the year of 2009, average income fell 6.1%, a loss of $3,516 per worker, that year alone. Average income has declined 13.7% from 2007-2009, representing a $8,588 [37] loss per worker.

The decline in worker income is due to the dramatic increase in CEO pay. CEO pay has consistently increased year-over-year since the mid-1970s. From 1975-2010, worker productivity increased 80%. Over this time frame, CEO pay and the income of the economic top 0.1% (one-tenth of one percent) of the population quadrupled [38].

 The income of the top 0.01% (one-hundredth of one percent) quintupled [38].

To understand the affect CEO pay increases have had on workers’ declining share of income on an annual basis, after analyzing 2008 tax data, leading tax reporter David Cay Johnston summed up [39] the situation with these revealing statistics:

“Had income growth from 1950 to 1980 continued at the same rate for the next 28 years, the average income of the bottom 90 percent in 2008 would have been 68 percent higher… 

That would have meant an average income for the vast majority of $52,051, or $21,110 more than actual 2008 incomes. How different America would be today if the typical family had $406 more each week…”

As shocking as that is, over the last two years, workers have lost an even higher share of income to CEOs. In the last year alone, CEO pay skyrocketed by 28% [40].

 Looking at 2009, according to a recent Dollars & Sense report [41], workers lost nearly $2 trillion in wages that year alone:

“In 2009, stock owners, bankers, brokers, hedge-fund wizards, highly paid corporate executives, corporations, and mid-ranking managers pocketed – as either income, benefits, or perks such as corporate jets – an estimated $1.91 trillion that 40 years ago would have collectively gone to non-supervisory and production workers in the form of higher wages and benefits.”

As bad as these numbers are, consider that the attack on American workers has increased significantly since 2009. From 2009 to the fourth-quarter of 2010, 88% of income growth [42] went to corporate profits (i.e. CEOs), while just 1% went to workers.

As the NY Times reported in an article entitled, “Our Banana Republic,” from 1980-2005,

“more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.”

Again, as bad as that was, since 2005 it has gotten even worse, as Zero Hedge recently reported [43], labor’s current,

“share of national income has fallen to its lowest level in modern history.”

This chart shows how workers’ percentage of income has been rapidly declining:

The bottom line, as statistics clearly demonstrate, these trends are getting worse and the attacks against us, as severe as they have been over the past four years, are dramatically escalating.


Part Two – The Economic Elite

There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class,
the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”
– Warren Buffett, Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway

V – How Much Wealth Do The Economic Elite Have?
While 68.3 million Americans struggle to get enough food to eat and wages are declining for 90% of the population, U.S. millionaire household wealth has reached an unprecedented level.  According to an extensive study by auditing and financial advisory firm Deloitte, U.S. millionaire households now have $38.6 trillion [44] in wealth. On top of the $38.6 trillion that this study reveals, they have an estimated $6.3 trillion [45] hidden in offshore accounts.  In total, U.S. millionaire households have at least $45.9 trillion in wealth, the majority of this wealth is held within the upper one-tenth of one percent of the population.

If all this isn’t obscene enough, to further demonstrate how the global economy has now been completely rigged, Deloitte’s analysis predicated, based on current trends, that U.S. millionaire households will see a 225% increase in wealth to $87.1 trillion by 2020. 

Accounting for wealth hidden in offshore accounts, they are projected to have over $100 trillion in total within the next decade. Most people cannot even comprehend how much $1 trillion is, let alone $46 trillion. One trillion is equal to 1000 billion, or $1,000,000,000,000 [46]. To put it in perspective, last year the entire cost of feeding all 40 million Americans on food stamps was $65 billion [28].

Now consider, according to the latest IRS data, only 0.076% of the population, less than one-tenth of one percent, earned over $1 million [37] in 2009.

The graph below, based on data from the Tax Policy Center, shows how much income is earned by a household at any given percentile in income distribution:

The highest bracket for annual income is $50 million or more.

 Only 74 Americans are in this elite group. The average income within this category was $91.2 million [39] in 2008. As astonishing as that is, in 2009 they averaged $518.8 million [39] each, or about $10 million per week. This means, in the depths of the recession, the richest 74 Americans increased their income by more than 5 times within this one year. These 74 people made more money than 19 million [39] workers combined. In context, overall, the richest 400 people [47] in the U.S. have as much wealth as 154 million Americans combined, that’s 50% of the entire country. 

The top economic 1% of the U.S. population now has a record 40% of all wealth [48], and have more wealth than 90% [49] of the population combined.

 

 
VI – Who Rules America? Revealing The Economic Top 0.1%
Here is an analysis [50] from an investment manager with mega-wealthy clients breaking down the economic top 0.5% of the population, recently published by William Domhoff, sociology professor and author of Who Rules America?: [51]

“Unlike those in the lower half of the top 1%, those in the top half and, particularly, top 0.1%, can often borrow for almost nothing, keep profits and production overseas, hold personal assets in tax havens, ride out down markets and economies, and influence legislation in the U.S.. 

They have access to the very best in accounting firms, tax and other attorneys, numerous consultants, private wealth managers, a network of other wealthy and powerful friends, lucrative business opportunities, and many other benefits.

Folks in the top 0.1% come from many backgrounds but it’s infrequent to meet one whose wealth wasn’t acquired through direct or indirect participation in the financial and banking industries… Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it… 

For example, in Q1 of 2011, America’s top corporations reported 31% profit growth and a 31% reduction in taxes, the latter due to profit outsourcing to low tax rate countries… The year 2010 was a record year for compensation on Wall Street, while corporate CEO compensation rose by over 30%.…

In 2010 a dozen major companies, including GE, Verizon, Boeing, Wells Fargo, and Fed Ex paid U.S. tax rates between -0.7% and -9.2%. Production, employment, profits, and taxes have all been outsourced….

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this: A highly complex and largely discrete set of laws and exemptions from laws has been put in place by those in the uppermost reaches of the U.S. financial system. It allows them to protect and increase their wealth and significantly affect the U.S. political and legislative processes.

They have real power and real wealth. Ordinary citizens in the bottom 99.9% are largely not aware of these systems, do not understand how they work, are unlikely to participate in them, and have little likelihood of entering the top 0.5%, much less the top 0.1%…

…the American dream of striking it rich is merely a well-marketed fantasy that keeps the bottom 99.5% hoping for better and prevents social and political instability. The odds of getting into that top 0.5% are very slim and the door is kept firmly shut by those within it.”

To get into the top economic 0.01% (one-hundredth of one percent) of the population, you have to have a household income of over $27 million [52] per year.

If you look at some of the central players who caused this economic crisis, you will see that they are among this Economic Elite group.

  • Former Goldman Sachs CEO and Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had already amassed at least $700 million prior to moving to the U.S. Treasury in 2006.

  • Current Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and a few other top executives at Goldman Sachs just received $111.3 million in bonuses. Blankfein just took home $24.3 million, as part of a $67.9 million bonus he was awarded.

  • Goldman’s President Gary Cohn took home $24 million, as part of a $66.9 million bonus he was awarded.

  • Goldman’s CFO David Viniar and former co-president Jon Winkelried both took home over $20 million in bonuses.

  • Citigroup CEO Vikram Pandit just took home $80 million, in what may eventually total more than $200 million in compensation and bonuses.

  • Coming in at the top of the list is JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, who just took home $90 million.

If you think people in this income level don’t control the U.S. political process, you are not paying attention. After they caused this economic crisis, they got the government to give them trillions of dollars in taxpayer support, and then, after taking our tax dollars, they gave themselves all-time record-breaking bonuses. 

2009 was an all-time record-breaking year for Wall Street executives bringing in a total of $145 billion [53]. And then, in 2010, they raised the bar even higher, breaking the all-time record set the year before by pulling in another $149 billion [54]. The audacity of it all is stunning.

Finding people more grotesquely greedy than Wall Street executives would seem to be impossible. However, health insurance CEOs are giving them a run for their money. 

As the LA Times reported: [55]

“Leaders of Cigna, Humana, UnitedHealth, WellPoint and Aetna received nearly $200 million in compensation in 2009, according to a report, while the companies sought rate increases as high as 39%….

H. Edward Hanway, former chief executive of Philadelphia-based Cigna, topped the list of high-paid executives, thanks to a retirement package worth $110.9 million. Cigna paid Hanway and his successor, David Cordani, a total of $136.3 million last year….

Ron Williams, the CEO of Hartford, Conn.-based Aetna Inc., earned nearly $18.2 million in total compensation, down from $24.4 million in 2008.”

Aetna CEO Ron Williams has recovered from his down year in 2009 by making $72 million [56] in 2010.

Given this level of obscene profiteering within the health care industry, it is not surprising that Americans pay more for medical care than any other nation in the world. In fact, Americans are forced to pay twice as much as most nations, and get lower quality care in return. 

As health insurance companies admitted, they have been reaping windfall profits because people with health insurance plans still cannot afford to go to the doctors and have stopped going unless it is an absolute emergency. 

With well over 50 million people unable to afford health insurance and the skyrocketing costs, it is not surprising that over 60% of all personal bankruptcies are the result of medical bills. In fact, 75% of the medical bankruptcies filed are from people who have health insurance.

Within this Economic Elite group, you also have the war profiteering [57] oil companies, which themselves are in large part owned by the big Wall Street banks. The biggest five oil companies, while gas prices have been skyrocketing, reaped $36 billion [58] in profit last quarter. These companies also receive an average of $6 billion [58] per year in tax subsidies.

VII – Tax Breaks For The Rich, Budget Cuts For The Rest Of Us
To further demonstrate how the mega-wealthy have seized control our political process, consider that the richest 400 Americans paid 30% of their income in taxes in 1995, but they now pay only 18% [59].   In fact, 1,470 Americans [60] earned over $1 million in 2009 and didn’t pay any taxes.

The average tax rate for millionaires was 22.4% in 2009, down from 30.4% in 1995. The average millionaire saves $136,000 [61] a year due to reduced tax rates.  Looking at the tax rate from a long-term perspective, the amount of money the richest people and most profitable corporations pay in taxes has fallen dramatically since 1955. Corporate tax accounted for 27.3% of federal revenue in 1955. In 2010, corporate tax accounted for only 8.9% [62] of federal revenue. Corporate taxes accounted for 4.3% of overall GDP in 1955, in 2010 they accounted for only 1.3% [62].

 
Part Three – The Perfect Storm Overhead

(Inequality = Debt = Austerity = Civil Unrest = Inflation + Deflation = Stagflation)

The cuts in taxes for the mega-wealthy have led to record wealth inequality and resulted in a record national deficit. Meanwhile, to make up for the deficit that the richest one-tenth of one percent of the population has created, Democrats and Republicans are committed to making draconian budget cuts to vital social services, which target the poor, middle class, elderly and sick, while handing out billions more in corporate welfare annually. (Inequality = Debt = Austerity)

Just as the government has done, to make up for tax revenue lost to the mega-wealthy, Americans have made up for the decline in income by taking on large amounts of debt as well. (Inequality = Debt)  In a severely unequal society, massive debt will always be created, thus forming a vicious cycle of increasing inequality and increasing debt, until the fragmentation of society reaches a breaking point when those in debt cannot afford to pay back their debts without starving to death. 

We are now reaching that breaking point. (Inequality = Debt = Austerity = Civil Unrest)

VIII – Debt Slavery -The Indentured Servant Has Become The Indebted Citizen
As for statistics on Americans being buried in financial debt, the indentured servant has evolved into the indebted citizen. 

As mentioned before, from 1990-2010 costs of living have increased 67%, while wages have stagnated and declined. As the national debt has reached a record $14.6 trillion, total personal debt is now over $16 trillion [63]. Consumer debt is $2.5 trillion. Credit card debt is $805 billion and student debt now exceeds $1 trillion [64].

Obviously, the more severe your debts are, the more you have to cut back in spending and the less money you have to buy new items. (Debt = Austerity)  Meanwhile, a perfect storm circles overhead as society breaks down and falls into an economic death spiral-health care, food and gas costs are skyrocketing, while income and home values are plummeting. (Inflation + Deflation = Stagflation)

Given these conditions, it is not surprising that over 250 million Americans, another record-breaking number, are currently living paycheck-to-paycheck struggling to make ends meet.

IX – Inflation
The following charts, from Advisor Perspectives, show the increase in costs of living since 2000:

As you can see, the price of basic necessities are consistently increasing, only clothing (apparel) has declined. The second chart highlights the crucial skyrocketing cost of energy:

The third chart highlights the pernicious skyrocketing cost of education:

The cost of education essentially buries a young person in a debt that they will spend a significant portion of their life attempting to get out of. Given the increasing costs of living, and the decreasing ability to make an expected income from such an expensive level of education, this young demographic will most likely live an entire life locked into spiraling levels of debt that they will never be able to get out of.

  • Propaganda Inflation
    When reporting on inflation, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has twice, since 1980, revised their methodology to mask the severity of inflation, similar to how they mask the severity of unemployment.  

    In their Consumer Price Index (CPI), which measures inflation, they have heavily discounted the measurement weight of energy, food and education-three of the most significant costs for most American households.

    To understand the significance in their revised methodology, current “official” CPI is at a 3.6% annual rate. However, if calculated the way it was before former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan altered it in 1980, it would be 11.1% [65], three times worse than officially stated.

    So while the government and the Federal Reserve claim that inflation is low, at 3.6% [66] over the past year, food prices have increased 39% [67] and U.S. gas prices have increased 34% [68] over the same time frame.

    The increase in gas cost over the past one-year masks the severity of total gas price inflation, which is currently 125% more [68] expensive since December 2008, increasing from $1.67 per gallon to $3.75.  

  • The Hidden Tax
    The Federal Reserve’s strategic policy known as Quantitative Easing (QE) has been a significant factor in the rising cost of basic necessities by deliberately stimulating inflation, while decreasing the value of the dollar. 

    Looking at their recent QE2 program, the dollar lost 7.5% [69] of its value from January 2010 through March 2010. From August 2010 through March 2010, the dollar lost 17% [69] of its value. To understand how this acts as a hidden tax, consider if you had $10,000 in the bank, over this time frame you would have lost $1700 in purchasing power. So your $10,000 would now be worth $8300. 

    At the same time, the cost of gas and food drastically increased.  

  • The Phantom Recovery
    By decreasing the value of the dollar, the Federal Reserve is also inflating the stock market by creating the impression that stock prices are rising, which, when measured in dollars, they have.   

    However, in real terms, their overall value has decreased.   

    To understand how deceptive this strategy has been in giving the appearance of a rising market, instead of measuring overall stock value in dollars, let’s look at their overall value when measured in terms of gold:  

    Dow/Gold Chart from January 1, 2003-August 8, 2011

     As investor Michael Krieger explains:  

    • “You can see from the chart above the downtrend of stock prices in real terms is completely intact and they have now hit a new low, below the previous low point in March 2009.  

      In fact, although stocks did temporarily rise in real terms from the low in 2009 for the year as a whole, they were still down 5% in real terms.  

      Then last year, stocks were 14% lower in terms of gold. Finally, despite a brief rally early in 2011, stocks in terms of gold are down 23% year-to-date.”   

  • Dollar Vs. Gold
    When comparing the value of the dollar to the value of gold, the dollar has lost a stunning 84% of its value since 2000. In 2000, gold was worth $279 per ounce, as of August 8, 2011, gold is $1,725 per ounce.   

    In fact, the dollar continues to fall in value while gold continues to rise.  

    Stagflation
    All these factors together create a perfect storm of stagflation

    As 90% of Americans experience income declines, and the value of the dollar declines, the price of necessities are rising, while the one major asset many Americans have, a house, is also declining in value. Already, thanks to declining home values, 28% of U.S. homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their home is currently worth. 

    With 10.4 million American families having lost their homes to foreclosure since 2007, Amherst Securities, a leading broker/dealer focused on mortgage-related investments, estimates that another 10.8 million [70] homes are at risk of default over the next six years. 

    This will obviously continue downward pressure on home values.


X – The Beaten Masses – Confronted With Severe Financial Hardship, Why Do Americans Remain Passive?

With an unprecedented sum of wealth, tens of trillions of dollars, held within the top one-tenth of one percent of the U.S. population, we now have the highest and most severe inequality of wealth in U.S. history. 

Not even the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age were as greedy as the modern day Economic Elite.

As famed American philosopher John Dewey once said,

“There is no such thing as the liberty or effective power of an individual, group, or class, except in relation to the liberties, the effective powers, of other individuals, groups or classes.”

In The Economic Elite Vs. The People [18], I reported on the strategic withholding of wealth from 99% of the U.S. population over the past generation. 

Since the mid-1970s, worker production and wealth creation has exploded. As the statistics throughout this report prove, the dramatic increase in wealth has been almost entirely absorbed by the economic top one-tenth of one percent of the population, with most of it going to the top one-hundredth of one percent.

If you are wondering why a critical mass of people desperately struggling to make ends meet are still not fighting back with overwhelming force and running the mega-wealthy aristocrats out of town, let’s consider two significant factors:

  1. People are so busy trying to maintain their current standard of living that their energies are consumed by holding on to the little that they have left.

  2. People have very little understanding of how much wealth has been consolidated within the top economic one-tenth of one percent.

Considering the first factor, it is obvious that people have become beaten down psychologically and financially. 

A report in the Guardian entitled, “Anxiety keeps the super-rich safe from middle-class rage,” suggests that people are so desperate to hold on to what they have that they are too busy looking down to look up:

“As psychologists will tell you, fear of loss is more powerful than the prospect of gain. The struggling middle classes look down more anxiously than they look up, particularly in recession and sluggish recovery.”

Considering the second factor, people do not understand how much wealth has been withheld from them. The average person has never personally experienced or seen the excessive wealth and luxury that the mega-rich live in. Wealth inequality has grown so extreme and the wealthy have become so far removed from average society, it is as if the rich exist in some outer stratosphere beyond the comprehension of the average person. 

As the Guardian report mentioned above also states:

“…having little daily contact with the rich and little knowledge of how they lived, they simply didn’t think about inequality much, or regard the wealthy as direct competitors for resources. 

As the sociologist Garry Runciman observed:

‘Envy is a difficult emotion to sustain across a broad social distance’…

Even now most underestimate the rewards of bankers and executives. Top pay has reached such levels that, rather like interstellar distances, what the figures mean is hard to grasp.”

In fact, the average American vastly underestimates the severe wealth disparity that we currently have.  

This survey, featured in the NY Times, reveals that Americans think our society is far more equal than it actually is:

“In a recent survey of Americans, my colleague Dan Ariely and I found that Americans drastically underestimated the level of wealth inequality in the United States. 

While recent data indicates that the richest 20 percent of Americans own 84 percent of all wealth, people estimated that this group owned just 59 percent-believing that total wealth in this country is far more evenly divided among poorer Americans.

What’s more, when we asked them how they thought wealth should be distributed, they told us they wanted an even more equitable distribution, with the richest 20 percent owning just 32 percent of the wealth. 

This was true of Democrats and Republicans, rich and poor-all groups we surveyed approved of some inequality, but their ideal was far more equal than the current level.”

Here is a chart showing the results from their survey:

The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of U.S. population is unaware of the vast wealth at hand. An entire generation of unprecedented wealth creation has been concealed from 99% of the population for over 35 years. Having never personally experienced or known of this wealth, the average American cannot comprehend what is possible if even a fraction of it was used for the betterment of society as a whole.

In fact, given modern technology and wealth, not a single American citizen should live in poverty. The statistics clearly demonstrate that we now live in a Neo-Feudal society. In comparison to the wealthiest one-tenth of one percent of the population, who are sitting on top of tens of trillions of dollars in wealth, we are modern day serfs, essentially propagandized peasants.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of Americans are struggling to get by, while tens of trillions of dollars are consolidated within a small fraction of the population, is a crime against humanity.  The day the average American fully comprehends how much wealth is consolidated within just the top one-tenth of one percent of the population, there will be a massive uprising and all the paid off politicians will be run out of town.  

The next time you are stressed out, struggling to make ends meet and pay off your debts, just think about the trillions of dollars sitting in the obscenely bloated pockets of one-tenth of one percent of the population.  The first step in overcoming your peasant status is to understand that you are indeed a peasant. This is a bitter pill to swallow and most will prefer to, as they have been conditioned to do, continue on their path of media-induced delusion, denial, apathy and ignorance.

However, I still cling to the hope that once enough people become aware of this hidden and obscured fact, we can have the non-violent revolution we so urgently need. Until then, the rich get richer as a critical mass with increasingly dire economic prospects desperately struggles to make ends meet.  

Part Four – Fascism in America
  Other than driving large segments of the American population into poverty, and pushing the majority into massive debt and a state of financial desperation, there is an ever darker side to what is unfolding today. 

The Economic Elite have turned America into a modern day fascist state. Fascism is a very powerful word which evokes many strong feelings. People may think that the term cannot be applied to modern day America.

 However, as Benito Mussolini once summed it up:

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

In the early 1900s, the Italians who invented the term fascism also described it as “stato corporativo,” meaning: the corporate state.

Very few Americans would argue the fact that corporations now control our government and have the dominant role in our society. Through a system of legalized bribery-campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door between Washington and corporations-the most power global corporations dominant the legislative and political process like never before. 

Senator Huey Long had it right when he warned:

“When fascism comes to America, it will come in the form of democracy.”

As President Franklin D. Roosevelt once described fascism:

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it comes strong than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

The most blatant modern example of this was the bailout of Wall Street, when the “too big to fail” banks got politicians to promptly hand out trillions of tax dollars in support and subsidies to the very people who caused the crisis, without any of them being held accountable.   

XI – Modern Day Slavery
Another shocking example of how far we have descended into fascism is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which is a group of corporate executives who literally write government legislation. They have gone as far as setting up a system that imprisons the poor and then puts them to work, instead of paying living wages to non-imprisoned workers. Make no mistake, this is a modern day system of slavery unfolding before our eyes.   At the leadership of ALEC and various other Economic Elite organizations, poverty has essentially become a crime. 

To demonstrate these attacks against the poor, there was $17 billion cut from public housing programs, while there was an increase of $19 billion in programs for building prisons,

“effectively making the construction of prisons the nation’s main housing program for the poor [71].”

Before laws began to be rewritten in 1980, with direct input from ALEC [72], we had a prison population of 500,000 citizens. 

After laws were rewritten to target poor inner city citizens with much more severe penalties, the U.S. prison population skyrocketed to 2.4 million people. We now have the largest prison population in the world. With only 4% of the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prison population. 

As I reported previously, in a report entitled, “American Gulag – World’s Largest Prison Complex“: [71]

“The U.S., by far, has more of its citizens in prison than any other nation on earth. China, with more than a billion citizens, doesn’t imprison as many people as the U.S., with only 308 million American citizens.

 The U.S. per capita statistics are 700 per 100,000 citizens. In comparison, China has 110 per 100,000. In the Middle East, the repressive regime in Saudi Arabia imprisons 45 per 100,000.

 U.S. per capita levels are equivalent to the darkest days of the Soviet Gulag.”


XII – The Death Toll
The dramatic increase in poverty has obviously torn many families apart and caused a devastating psychological toll, but consider the increase in deaths as a result of poverty and severe wealth inequalities. 

This is a very difficult statistic to accurately measure, but Columbia University’s School of Public Health [73] conducted an intensive examination of mortality and medical data and estimated that,

“875,000 deaths in the U.S. in 2000 could be attributed to a cluster of social factors bound up with poverty and income inequality.”

As a report by Debra Watson sums up [73] the study,

“There is no reason to believe, after a decade that has seen sustained attacks on social programs and consistently high unemployment rates, that the social mortality rate has declined. On the contrary, it has likely risen.”

Indeed, poverty and income inequality have skyrocketed since 2000.

Now, let’s consider the fact that, according to the Census Bureau, 31.1 million [74] people lived in poverty in 2000, and according to Columbia’s study 875,000 deaths came as a result. This means that 1 out of every 35.5 people living in poverty die annually as a result of their impoverishment. If you extrapolate this data to the 2009 total of 52.8 million people living in poverty, you get an estimate of 1,486,338 deaths within that year. 

Even if you use the lower poverty totals from the Census Bureau, 43.6 million people, you get an estimate of 1,228,169 deaths in 2009.    


XIII – Deliberate Systemic Attacks
The dramatic increase in economic inequality and poverty, along with the unprecedented rise in wealth within the top one-tenth of one percent of the population has not happened by mistake. It is the designed result of deliberate governmental and economic policy. 

It is the result of the richest people in the world, and the “too big to fail” banks, using the campaign finance and lobbying system to buy off politicians who implement policies designed to exploit 99.9% of the population for their financial gain. To call what is happening a “financial terrorist attack” on the United States, is not using hyperbole, it is the technical term for what is currently occurring.

Compare the million people who die annually as a result of these economic attacks, to the 2,977 that died on 9/11. As someone who lived three blocks from the World Trade Center, as tragic as 9/11 was, these economic attacks are much more severe and damaging to us as a nation, albeit a much slower and unseen death toll. 

Nonetheless, the result is of genocidal proportions. One can statistically compare the economic attacks on the U.S. to the invasion of Iraq, which some estimate as leading to one million deaths. Once again, many of those deaths came in brutal and spectacular fashion in bombing campaigns known as “shock and awe.” 

However, the death toll compares to the hidden brutality of a four-year campaign of economic “shock and awe.” Just as Iraq was invaded, the U.S. has been invaded by a global banking cartel.   As shocking as that is to realize, consider that this is happening throughout the world. 

While the U.S. poverty death rate is probably higher than in most European countries, the Federal Reserve’s economic policies [75] – along with policies from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and Bank of International settlements – have caused rioting and uprisings over skyrocketing food prices and costs of living throughout the world.   The fact of the matter, and very harsh and unfortunate reality of this crisis, is that the global economic central planners are deliberately carrying out genocidal economic policies.

As Che Guevara, a man who took on the global financial elite, once said,

“The amount of poverty and suffering required for the emergence of a Rockefeller, and the amount of depravity that the accumulation of a fortune of such magnitude entails, are left out of the picture, and it is not always possible to make the people in general see this.”

When tens of trillions of dollars deliberately flow to the top economic one-tenth of one percent of the global population, while large percentages live in poverty, you have to conclude, in technical terms, that a Neo-Feudal-Fascist state is upon us.  

The rich have never been richer, while their paid off politicians make budget cuts for the poor and middle class, and cause the cost of basic necessities to skyrocket.  

There is no need to get blood on your hands while rounding up people and putting them into concentration camps when you can do it through economic policy while sitting in a jacuzzi on a corporate jet, or in a three-piece custom-made Armani, completely detached and insulated from the world in which you plunder.

However, as what happens with all empires, greed and arrogance makes them overreach. The beaten down masses get to a point where they literally can’t live under these conditions. 

This desperation spreads throughout the population until it reaches a critical mass, then, suddenly, they rise up  [75] and the empire begins to collapse

Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Israel, (Northern Africa, the Middle East), Albania, Greece, Spain, Britain (Europe), Wisconsin…

The Economic Elite are overreaching and their empire is collapsing. The decentralized global rebellion [75] has begun… Welcome to World War III. Which side of history do you want to be on?  

As a wise old friend once said [76],

“You can’t be neutral on a moving train.”


NOTES

[18] The Economic Elite Vs. The People of The United States of America
[19] declined by 28%: http://pewsocialtrends.org/files/2011/07/SDT-Wealth-Report_7-26-11_FINAL.pdf
[20] my analysis: http://ampedstatus.org/census-bureau-poverty-rate-drastically-undercounts-severity-of-poverty-in-america/
[21] 52,765,000: http://www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/data/nas/tables/2009/web_tab4_nas_measures_historical.xls
[22] 15.5 million: http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-of-americas-2011.pdf
[23] poverty rate would double: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/public-programs-keep-millions-out-of-poverty-new-study-shows/
[24] in half: http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/united-states-of-austerity
[25] 25.7 million: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=460
[26] 45.8 million people: http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/29SNAPcurrPP.htm
[27] cutting the funding
[28] additional 22.5 million: http://www.arcamax.com/health/healthtips/s-917916-690577
[29] ShadowStats.com: http://ShadowStats.com
[30] 6.3 million: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/down-not-voices-long-term-unemployed-125453267.html
[31] 40.4 weeks: http ://www.zerohedge.com/news/average-length-unemployment-surges-new-all-time-record-404-weeks
[32] 16-month high: http://www.challengergray.com/press/PressRelease.aspx?PressUid=184
[33] 10.6 million: http ://www.zerohedge.com/news/us-economy-has-generate-256k-month-until-end-obamas-second-term
[34] 577,000: http://www.thenation.com/blog/162577/after-debt-ceiling-debacle
[35] 60%: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/how-fed-spent-2-trillion-and-exchange-we-got-650000-temp-leisure-and-retail-jobs
[36] 12 months: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/us-economy-trades-high-pa_n_827360.html
[37] $8,588: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/04/us-usa-economy-incomes-idUSTRE77302W20110804
[38] quadrupled
[39] summed up: http://www.tax.com/taxcom/taxblog.nsf/Permalink/UBEN-8AGMUZ?OpenDocument
[40] 28%: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/15/executive-pay-soars-worker-pay-stagnates_n_877519.html
[41] report: http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2011/0711cypher.html
[42] 88% of income growth: http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/30/258388/corporate-profits-recovery/
[43] recently reported: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/attention-marxists-labors-share-national-income-drops-lowest-history
[44] $38.6 trillion
[45] $6.3 trillion
[46] $1,000,000,000,000: http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html
[47] richest 400 people: http://ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2011020612/understanding-extreme-incomewealth-gap
[48] 40% of all wealth: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105?currentPage=all
[49] more wealth than 90%: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IykY6WlUIiA
[50] an analysis
[51] Who Rules America?: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0078111560
[52] $27 million: http://washingtonindependent.com/107493/americas-super-rich-continue-to-make-mind-boggling-sums
[53] $145 billion: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/01/wall_street_pay_for_2009_will.html
[54] $149 billion: http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/paywatch/ceopay.cfm
[55] reported: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/11/business/la-fi-insurance-salaries-20100811
[56] $72 million: http://blogs.courant.com/connecticut_insurance/2011/04/aetnas-former-ceo-ronald-willi.html
[57] war profiteering
[58] $36 billion
[59] only 18%
[60] 1,470 Americans: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/04/irs-incomes_n_918458.html
[61] $136,000: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/05-5
[62] 8.9%
[63] $16 trillion: http://www.usdebtclock.org/
[64] $1 trillion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/12/student-loan-debt-may-top_n_848093.html
[65] 11.1%: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/07/official-cpi-is-running-36-but-if-it.html
[66] 3.6%: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
[67] increased 39%: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/81577/icode/
[68] increased 34%
[69] lost 7.5%: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/gold-just-1-record-nominal-high-1444oz-risk-dollar-crisis-increases-day
[70] 10.8 million
[71] housing program for the poor
[72] direct input from ALEC: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/gaming_the_system.pdf
[73] Columbia University’s School of Public Health: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/jul2011/pove-j13.shtml
[74] 31.1 million
[75] Analysis of the Global Insurrection Against Neo-Liberal Economic Domination and the Coming American Rebellion – We Are Egypt
[76] once said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ehc3V1g5pm0
[77] AmpedStatus.com: http://AmpedStatus.com
[78] The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III
[79] DavidDeGraw.org: http://daviddegraw.org/
[80] donate to support our efforts here: http://ampedstatus.com/donation.php

 by David DeGraw

Seeing Through the “SMOKE AND MIRRORS”…of the Elite Conspiracy Under the Cover of the “BB, CFR, TC”!

Conspiracy Icons

The brief descriptions of the major Elite organizations, the Bilderbergs (BB), Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Trilateral Commission (TC), were intended to be brief.

The fundamental differences between these three Elite secret organizations are:

  1. The BB members are largely from Western Europe, Turkey, Greece, the Scandinavian countries, the US, and Canada.

  2. The CFR members were originally from the New York City area, but later expanded to include Washington, DC, and then the rest of the US.

  3. The TC members come from all the same above areas, but in this case the Japanese were included because of their dominance of the banking industry. (The largest banks in the world are in Japan.)

  4. The BB’s are the most secretive of the three. When they meet, they clear out all the guests, and employees in the buildings in which they are to meet, they completely debug all the rooms, bring in their own cooks, waiters, housekeepers, heavily armed security guards, etc., and do not allow “outsiders” anywhere near the meeting place just before, during, and immediately after they meet.

    In Recent meetings, the security forces were told to “shoot to kill”, if anyone tried to get near, or to break into their meetings. They claim that there are no written records taken of their discussions, but “The American Free Press” (formerly “The Spotlight”) has occasionally acquired very detailed documents that prove otherwise.

    The attendees are required to maintain complete and absolute secrecy regarding and after these deliberations. Liberty Lobby’s crack investigative reporters on “The American Free Press” have positioned a mole within the BB that somehow acquires a copy of the invitation list, and often a copy of the agenda, but have never penetrated the actual meetings (to date).

    Each time that they have met on US soil, the meetings were held on Rockefeller owned property.

The object of the formation of these organizations is to enlist key political and economic leaders around the world, in order to gain their assistance in dominating the entire world.

 

Bilderbergs (BB)

John J. McCloy (former Chairman of the CFR, and Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank) used his position as coordinator of information for the US government to build the framework of what was to become the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), created in 1941-1942 era, headed by Bill Donovan. During 1947, the OSS was rolled into a new group called the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) by the 1947 National Security Act, which made the activities of the CIA immune from all civil, and criminal laws. In 1950 General Walter Bedel Smith became Director of the CIA. The CIA helped organize, and sponsored the formation, and operation of the Bilderberg Conferences. There is little doubt that the CIA sponsored the formation of the Bilderbergs, and continue to do so, to this day.

Kai Bird’s excellent account in “The Chairman, John J. McCoy, The Making of the American Establishment”, states:

“In late 1952, Retinger went to America to try the idea out on his American contacts. Among others, he saw such old friends as Averell Harriman, David Rockefeller, and Bedel Smith, then director of the CIA. After Retinger explained his proposal, Smith said, ‘Why the hell didn’t you come to me in the first place?’

He quickly referred Retinger to C. D. Jackson, who was about to become Eisenhower’s special assistant for psychological warfare. It took a while for Jackson to organize the American wing of the group, but finally, in May 1954, the first conference was held in the Hotel de Bilderberg, a secluded hotel in Holland, near the German border.

Prince Bernhard, and Retinger drew up the list of invitees from the European countries, while Jackson controlled the American list.”

Prince Bernhard, of the Netherlands, became the first Chairman, and served in this post until scandal forced him to resign in 1974. Dr. Retinger became the first Secretary, and remained so until his death.

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 300 Independence Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20003, publishes a weekly newspaper titled “The American Free Press”. At my request, they sent me a reprint of a summary of Bilderberg information, titled Spotlight on the Bilderbergers, Irresponsible Power, published mid-June, 1975.

Page 6 of this document states:

“The Congressional Record – US Senate, April 11, 1964, states:
(Speaking) – Mr. (Jacob) Javits – Mr. President, the 13th in a series of Bilderberg meetings on international affairs, in which I participated, was held in Williamsburg, VA, on March 20, 21, and 22.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a background paper entitled ‘The Bilderberg Meetings.’

The Bilderberg Meetings
The idea of the Bilderberg meetings originated in the early fifties.

Changes had taken place on the international politician and economic scene after World War II. The countries of the Western World felt the need for closer collaboration to protect their moral and ethical values, their democratic institutions, and their independence against the growing Communist threat. The Marshall plan and NATO were examples of collective efforts of Western countries to join hands in economic and military matters after World War II.

 In the early 1950’s, a number of people on both sides of the Atlantic sought a means of bringing together leading citizens, not necessarily connected with government, for informal discussions of problems facing the Atlantic community. Such meetings, they felt, would create a better understanding of the forces, and trends affecting Western nations, in particular. They believed that direct exchanges could help to clear up differences, and misunderstandings that might weaken the West.

One of the men who saw the need for such discussions was the late (Dr.) Joseph H. (Heironymus) Retinger (as a matter of interest, the name Heironymus is literally translated to be “MEMBER OF THE OCCULT”).

In 1952, he approached His Royal Highness, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, with the suggestion of informal and unofficial meetings to discuss the problems facing the Atlantic community.

Others in Europe wholeheartedly supported the idea, and proposals were submitted to American friends to join in the undertaking. A number of Americans, including C.D. Jackson, the late General Walter Bedel Smith, and the late John Coleman, agreed to cooperate.

 The first meeting that brought Americans and Europeans together took place under the chairmanship of Prince Bernhard at the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, from May 29 to May 31, 1954.

Ever since, the meetings have been called Bilderberg meetings.

No Strict Rules of Procedure
From the outset, it was the intentions of the Bilderberg founders, and participants that no strict rules of procedure govern the meetings. Every effort was made to create a relaxed, informal atmosphere conducive to free, and frank discussions.  
 Bilderberg is in no sense a policy-making body. No conclusions are reached. There is no voting, and no resolutions are passed.  The meetings are off-the-record. Only the participants themselves may attend the meetings.

 Participants
It was obvious from the first that the success of the meetings would depend primarily on the level of the participants.
Leading figures from many fields – industry, labor, education, government, etc., are invited, who, through their special knowledge or experience, can help to further Bilderberg objectives. Representatives of governments attend in a personal, and not an official capacity. An attempt is made to include participants representing many political parties, and points of view. American participation has included Members of Congress of both parties.

Over the years, Bilderberg participants have come from the NATO countries, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, and Finland, and have included prominent individuals such as:

  • Dean Rusk

  • Christian A. Herter

  • Maurice Faure

  • Franz-Josef Strauss

  • Amitore Fanfani

  • Panayotis Pipinelis

  • Reginald Maudling

  • the late Hugh Gaitskell

  • Omer Becu

  • Guy Mollet

  • the late Michael Ross

  • Herman Abs

  • C. L. Sulzberger

  • Joseph Harsch

  • T. M. Terkelsen

Individuals with international responsibilities have also participated, among them being

  • Gen. Alfred Gruenther

  • Lord Ismay

  • Eugene Black

  • Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer

  • Paul-Henry Spaak

  • the late Per Jacobsson


The Meetings
Bilderberg meetings are held at irregular intervals, but have taken place once or twice a year since 1954. All the early conferences were held in Europe, but a meeting is now held on this side of the Atlantic every few years to provide a convenient opportunity for American, and Canadian participants to attend.”

The Spotlight reports that the Bilderberg meetings are highly secret, and are held at random times each year, and rarely at the same location, for security reasons. The responsibility for security for these meetings is in the hands of the government of the country in which the meetings are held.

They must supply military security, secret service, national and local police, and private security personnel to protect the privacy and safety of these very powerful international Elite members who are not required to conform to regulations that private citizens are subject-to, such as customs searches, visa requirements, or public notice of their meetings. When they meet, no “outsiders” are allowed in or near the building. They bring their own cooks, waiters, telephone operators, housekeepers, and bodyguards.

The Bilderberg membership is made up of Kings, Queens, Princes, Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Ambassadors, Secretaries of State, Wall Street investors, international bankers, news media executives, and wealthy industrialist. Their meetings are by “invitation only”, and no “outsiders” in the news media are allowed, except by special invitation.

However, the news media are always present at these meetings such as:

  • Peter Jennings (BB, Anchor & Senior Editor of ABC News, World News Tonight)

  • Joseph C. Harsch (BB, CFR, former Commentator for NBC, Inc.)

  • Bill D. Moyers (BB, Executive Director of Public Affairs TV, Inc., former Director of the CFR)

  • William F. Buckley, Jr. (BB, CFR, Editor-in-Chief of National Review, and host of PBS’s Firing Line)

  • Gerald Piel (BB, CFR, former Chairman of Scientific America, Inc.)

  • Henry Anatole Grunwald (BB, CFR, former Editor-in-Chief of Time, Inc.)

  • Mortimer B. Zuckerman (BB, CFR, Chairman & Editor-in-Chief of the US News, and World Report, New York Daily News, and Atlantic Monthly)

  • Robert L. Bartley (BB, CFR, TC, Vice President of the Wall Street Journal)

  • Peter Robert Kann (BB, CFR, Chairman & CEO of Dow Jones & Company, and husband of Karen E. House, CFR)

  • William Kristol (BB, Editor & Publisher of the new The Weekly Standard magazine)

  • Donald (Don) C. Cook (BB, CFR, former European Diplomatic Correspondent for the Los Angeles Times)

  • Robert Leroy Bartley (BB, CFR, TC, Vice President of the Wall Street Journal)

  • Albert J. Wohlstetter (BB, CFR, writer for the Wall Street Journal)

  • Thomas L. Friedman (BB, CFR, TC, Columnist for the New York Times)

  • the “Queen” of the Elite – (deceased) Katharine Graham (BB, CFR, TC, Owner, and Chairwoman of the Executive Committee of the Washington Post)

The 1998 meeting included Leslie Stahl, of CBS’ 60 Minutes. Even though the media moguls attend these secret meetings, they do not file reports about the Elite Bilderberg activities during their meetings.

The security measures taken by the Bilderberg Conferences are clearly illustrated in an article appearing in The Spotlight, which stated:


EXCLUSIVE TO THE SPOTLIGHT
By James P. Tucker, Jr.

SPOTLIGHT, VOLUME 24, No. 14, Page 3, April, 1999

Bilderberg is scheduled to meet June 3-6 (1999) at the Caesar Park Penha Longa in Sintra, Portugal. Sintra is a remote resort, about 40 miles from Lisbon. Information about the secret meeting was provided by an agent inside Bilderberg.

Of all the media in the world, only THE SPOTLIGHT, has tracked the Bilderbergers every year and reported on their secret meeting where vital questions and issues are decided which effect every person in the world. American and European financiers, manufacturers, media moguls and politicians meet at remote luxury resorts, allow only “loyal staff” to remain on the job, empty the establishment of all others, employ platoons of police, military and their own private security to seal themselves off. They have tried to keep the meetings secret for 45 years.

But this year following extensive SPOTLIGHT-generated publicity last year in Scotland, and earlier in Germany, Scandinavia, Georgia, and Canada, Bilderberg is taking more extreme steps, its agent confided.

Instead of closing down the Penha Longa to all outsiders one day before the meeting starts on June 2, Bilderberg has ordered the resort shut down a full 48 hours before the internationalist confab.

In addition, Bilderberg will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to reimburse the Portuguese government for deploying military forces to guard their privacy and for helicopters to seek out intruders.

All Bilderberg participants, their staff members and resort employees will wear photo identification tags that look much like state drivers’ licenses. They will have separate colors to identify the wearer as a participant, staff, or employee. A computer chip “fingerprint” will assure the identity of the card’s wearer. ‘Any intruders are to manhandled-cuffed, jailed, or if resisting or fleeing, shot,’ the agent said.

Bilderbergers are greatly disturbed over the growing public knowledge of their control of the world and of resistance to their schemes for a global government as nationalism grows around the world.

Bilderberg was instrumental in tearing down Jean-Marie Le Pen, who founded France’s National Front. The French-first party has stunned the Establishment by regularly capturing 15 percent of the vote in that nation.

Expecting recession, Bilderberg feared Le Pen and “nationalists” from other countries would interfere with their “free trade” goals as they fight to protect their domestic industries from exploitation by the global cabal.

Because Bilderberg shares common goals with the Trilateral Commission, the agenda that emerged in Washington (SPOTLIGHT, March 29, 1999) will be major topics in Portugal, too.

This includes a “Globalization summit” called for by Peter D. Sutherland, head of Goldman Sachs International. Sutherland attended the Bilderberg meeting in Scotland last May and is expected in Portugal.

Sutherland is expected to again call for “Supranational institutions to manage the global economy while denouncing nations that “cling tenaciously to their separate identities” while calling for “sharing sovereignty”

In a related topic, there could be renewed calls for the UN to be able to directly tax all people. In the past, Bilderberg has proposed a UN levy on International travel and on the oil at the wellhead, so all who travel or drive will be taxed.


The Bilderberg’s addresses are:

US
Charles W. Muller
Phone: 1-212-879-0545
American Friends of Bilderbergs, Inc.
477 Madison Ave., 6 th Floor
New York, NY 10022

Europe
Maja Banck-Polderman
Phone: 31 20 625 0252
Fax: 31 20 624 4299
Bilderberg Meetings
Amstel 216
1017 AJ Amsterdam
The Netherlands

Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Let’s start with the smoke and mirrors furnished by the CFR in several of their Annual Reports. Then we will provide the other-side-of-the-coin, as observed by quite a number of independent researchers, and writers.

The CFR’s Annual Report for July 1, 1993-June 30, 1994, page 4, states:

“The Council on Foreign Relations is a nonprofit, and nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to improving the understanding of US foreign policy, and international affairs through the exchange of ideas.

The Council was founded in 1921 shortly after the end of World War I. Several of the American participants in the Paris Peace Conference decided that it was time for more private American citizens to become familiar with the increasing international responsibilities, and obligations of the United States.

This decision led to the creation of an organization dedicated to the continuous study of US foreign policy for the benefit of both its members, and a wider audience of interested Americans.”

Now, the other side of the coin.

The New World Order, by Pat Robertson, 1991, page 66-67, states:

“This august body of ‘wise men’ has effectively dominated the making of foreign policy by the United States government since before World War II. The CFR has included virtually every key national security, and foreign policy adviser of this nation for the past seventy years.”

 “In government policy, the most visible expression of the Establishment is the Council on Foreign Relations, and its publication, Foreign Affairs. Out of some twenty-nine hundred members, at least five hundred are very powerful, another five hundred are from centers of influence, and the rest are influential in academia, the media, business, and finance, the military, or government. A few are token conservatives.”

Page 96

“According to a man who had been a member for fifteen years, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, former judge advocate general of the navy from 1956 to 1960.

‘This purpose of promoting disarmament, and submergence of US sovereignty, and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government is the only objective revealed to about 95 percent of 1,551 members [in 1975]. There are two other ulterior purposes the CFR influence is being used to promote; but it is improbable that they are known to more than 75 members, or that these purposes ever have even been identified in writing.’

The goals of the Establishment are somewhat strange, and we will discuss them in detail.

At the central core is a belief in the superiority of their own skill to form a world system in which enlightened monopolistic capitalism can bring all of the diverse currencies, banking systems, credit, manufacturing, and raw materials into one government-supervised whole, policed of course by their own world army.” (Could this be the army of the United Nations?)

Page 97

CFR membership is made up of present, and past

  • Presidents

  • Ambassadors

  • Secretaries of State

  • Wall Street investors

  • international bankers

  • foundation executives

  • Think Tank executives

  • lobbyist lawyers

  • NATO, and Pentagon military leaders

  • wealthy industrialist

  • media owners, and executives

  • university presidents, and key professors

  • select Senators, and Congressmen

  • Supreme Court Justices

  • Federal Judges

  • wealthy entrepreneurs

They hold regular secret meetings including members, and very select guests. Occasionally they will hold a public meeting, and invite the open press (including C-SPAN), in order to give the impression that they are a harmless group engaged only in social activities.

A number of people, when hearing about the CFR ask,

“If you say that the CFR is such a secret organization, why is it that we can get a copy of their annual report, which contains a list of their members? Why should I believe you when you say that they are a secret organization?”

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, states that the definition of attribute is,

“To ascribe by way of cause, inherent quality, interpretation, authorship, or classification…”

The literal translation is,

“You had better not tell the outsiders what we do, or say”.

The answer then comes from their own document, the Council on Foreign Relation’s 1992 Annual Report, where they emphatically state, in 20 different places, and in varying terms, that members better not tell:

“At all meetings, the Council’s rule of non-attribution applies. This assures participants that they may speak openly without others later attributing their statements to them in public media or forums, or knowingly transmitting them to persons who will.”

Page 21

“Like the Council, the Committees encourage candid discourse by holding their meetings on a not-for-attribution basis”.

Page 122

Article II of the by-laws states: “It is an express condition of membership in the Council, to which condition every member accedes by virtue of his or her membership, that members will observe such rules, and regulations as may be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors concerning the conduct of Council meetings or the attribution of statements made therein, and that any disclosure, public, or other action by a member in contravention thereof may be regarded by the Board of Directors in its sole discretion as grounds for termination or suspension of membership pursuant to Article I of the by-laws.”

Page 169

“Full freedom of expression is encouraged at Council meetings. Participants are assured that they may speak openly, as it is the tradition of the Council that others will not attribute or characterize their statements in public media or forums or knowingly transmit them to persons who will. All participants are expected to honor that commitment.”

Page 174

“It would not be in compliance with the reformulated Rule, however, for any meeting participant:

  1. to publish a speaker’s statement in attributed form in a newspaper;

  2. to repeat it on television or radio, or on a speaker’s platform, or in a classroom; or

  3. to go beyond a memo of limited circulation, by distributing the attributed statement in a company or government agency newspaper.

The language of the Rule also goes out of its way to make it clear that a meeting participant is forbidden knowingly to transmit the attributed statement to a newspaper reporter or other such person who is likely to publish it in a public medium.

The essence of the Rule as reformulated is simple enough: participants in Council meetings should not pass along an attributed statement in circumstances where there is substantial risk that it will promptly be widely circulated or published.”

Page 175

… “In order to encourage to the fullest a free, frank, and open exchange of ideas in Council meetings, the Board of Directors has prescribed, in addition to the Non-Attribution Rule, the following guidelines. All participants in Council meetings are expected to be familiar with, and adhere to these Guidelines. …”

“Members bringing guests should complete a “guest notice card”, and acquaint their guests with the Council’s Non-Attribution Rule governing what is said at meetings.”

Page 176

“As a condition of use, the officers of the Council shall require each user of Council records to execute a prior written commitment that he will not directly or indirectly attribute to any living person any assertion of fact or opinion based upon any Council record without first obtaining from such person his written consent thereto.”

In “A letter from the Chairman” in the 1994 Annual Report for the CFR, Peter G. Peterson states on page 7, that:

“… Members had occasion to meet in intensive off-the-record sessions with Secretary of State [Warren] Christopher, National Security Advisor [Anthony] Lake, Secretary [of State emeritus, George Pratt] Shultz, Ambassador [Mickey] Kantor, Under Secretary of the Treasury [Lawrence H.] Summers, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other ranking officials.

Next on our agenda are plans for reaching out to congressional leaders as well, an opportunity we will fashion as one component of an enhanced Washington Program.”

The CFR’s 1999 Annual Report, page 5, states their three goals:

  1. Add value by improving understanding of world affairs and by providing new ideas for US foreign policy.

  2. Transform the Council into a truly national organization to benefit from the expertise and experience of leaders nationwide.

  3. Find and nurture the next generation of foreign policy leaders and thinkers.

These are “THEIR” words, not mine. I am simply reporting these facts to you.

If this is not a secret organization, then why would they be so emphatic, and state in 20 different ways that non-attribution (or you better not tell) was so important, in their very own annual report? In addition, if you are proud of what you say, and do, then you don’t care whether it becomes public knowledge, or not.

The other side of this coin is: if you are doing something illegal, immoral, unethical, unpopular, and/or unconstitutional, you will do whatever is necessary to see that it is kept secret.

In his book, “The ANGLO-AMERICAN ESTABLISHMENT”, Dr. Carroll Quigley writes,

“One wintry afternoon in February 1891, three men were engaged in earnest conversation in London. From that conversation were to flow consequences of the greatest importance to the British Empire, and to the world as a whole. For these men were organizing a secret society that was, for more than fifty years, to be one of the most important forces in the formulation, and execution of British imperial and foreign policy.

The three men who were thus engaged were already well known in England. The leader was Cecil Rhodes, fabulously wealthy empire builder, and the most important person in South Africa. The second was William T. Stead, the famous, and probably also the most sensational, journalist of the day. The third was Reginald Baliol Brett, later known as Lord Esher, friend, and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential advisor of King Edward VII, and King George V.

The details of this important conversation will be examined later. At present we need only point out that the three drew up a plan of organization for their secret society, and a list of original members. The plan for organization provided for an inner circle, to be known as “The Society of the Elect”, and an outer circle, to be known as ‘The Association of Helpers’.

Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three’. The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead shortly after the meeting we have described.”
– Quigley, Carroll (1910-1977)

The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, 1981, pg. 3

Of the Secret Societies goals, and methods of operation Quigley writes,

“The goals which Rhodes, and Milner sought, and the methods by which they hoped to achieve them were so similar by 1902 that the two are almost indistinguishable. Both sought to unite the world, and above all the English-speaking world, in a federal structure around Britain.

Both felt that this goal could best be achieved by a secret band of men united to one another by devotion to the common cause, and by personal loyalty to one another.

Both felt that this band should pursue its goal by secret political, and economic influence behind the scenes, and by the control of journalistic, educational, and propaganda agencies… – ”

Quigley, Carroll (1910-1977)

The Anglo-American Establishment, From Rhodes to Cliveden, 1981, pg. 49

Between 1910-1915 the Secret Society evolved into an international group of coconspirators called Round Table Groups that were established in seven nations:

  1. Britain

  2. South Africa

  3. Canada

  4. New Zealand

  5. Australia

  6. India

  7. United States

(The British Round Table was actually created in England in Feb. 5, 1891. In the US it is called the Council on Foreign Relations, in England it is the Royal Institute for International Affairs  Royal Institute for International Affairs, in Canada the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, in Chile it is the Chilean Council on Foreign Relations, and so on.)

 In 1920 the Secret Society evolved into the Institutes for International Affairs, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Many of the founding fathers belonged to America’s first intelligence agency the INQUIRY.

The CFR could not accomplish their goals without complicity of the mainstream news media, which they absolutely control with an iron fist. They do this using psychological operations (PSYOPS). The Rand Corp. is one of the chief users of this technique.

This is clearly explained by the following Internet message:

“Not many people have heard of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) or know how they operate. This is not an accident, the group has purposely maintained a low profile. The CFR is a branch of an international group of coconspirators called the Round Table Group. This group has been controlling public opinion throughout the world for over 100 years.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have defined psychological operations (PSYOPS) as those that:

“include psychological warfare, and, in addition, encompass those political, military, economic, and ideological actions planned, and conducted to create in neutral or friendly foreign groups the emotions, attitudes, or behavior to support achievement of national objectives.”

Another proposal,

“develops the concept of ‘strategic psychological operations’ as aimed at influencing, and shaping decision-makers’ power to govern, or control their followers.”

The American people, are among the groups being targeted, and controlled.

“Tactics of Deception” are formalized psychological warfare techniques. “Tactics of Deception” build a psychological environment that differs from the material environment. “Tactics of deception” are used to create false reality worlds. In terms of perceptual psychology, “Tactics of Deception” provoke illusory precepts. To influence behavior the deception must follow three basic rules.

First, the deception must be “reasonable”; second there must be no simple way of checking the facts in the case; and third the use of deception should not discredit a source which may have valuable future potential.

One way to stop this group is to expose them, and their techniques to the people they are manipulating. One “Tactic of Deception” used to achieve Council on Foreign Relations aims, is to place Council members on both sides of an issue. Another “Tactic of Deception” is to use CFR control of the legal, legislative, and court systems to create the perception that laws are being followed when in fact, Lawyers, Legislators, and Justices are committing blatant illegalities to further CFR aims.

A third “Tactic of Deception” is simply to lie.”
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2807

Another excellent example of deception and cover up is the book, “The Kennedy Tapes”.

Two CFR members, Ernest R. May and Philip D. Zelikow, supposedly listened to all of President John F. Kennedy audio tapes and wrote this book quoting all of the interesting facts so as to assure the public that there were no other important statements made on these tapes that the public would care to know about.

There were to motives involved here:

(1) to print only what the Elite wanted printed about the JFK assassination

(2) to throw any other potential researchers off the trail

This was a very grueling task of listening to hundreds of hours of taped conversations.

Therefore, other researchers should just “take their word” that they had printed all of the interesting facts from these tapes. I suspect that two non-CFR researchers would have written an entirely different book.

Historian Michael Beschloss listened to the White House tapes transcribed by Lyndon Johnson during his time in office, and wrote a book, “Taking Charge: The Johnson White House Tapes, 1963-1964”.

Is it not strange that this author is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations?

As Peter Grose stated in his Council on Foreign Relations Book, Continuing the Inquiry (1996) on page 5:

“They (the British) proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.”

The headquarters for the CFR is:

The Harold Pratt House located at 58 East 68th Street

New York City, New York 10021

Oddly enough, this building is located just across the street from the Russian (former Soviet) Embassy.

Trilateral Commission (TC)

In 1973, David Rockefeller asked Zbigniew Brzezinski   to put together an organization of the top political, and business leaders from around the World.

He called this group the Trilateral Commission (TC).

According to an information sheet supplied to me by the TC, dated March 23, 1994:

“The European Community, North America (US and Canada), and Japan – the three main democratic industrialized areas of the world – are the three sides of the Trilateral Commission. The Commission’s members are about 325 distinguished citizens, with a variety of leadership responsibilities, from these three regions.

When the first triennium of the Trilateral Commission was launched in 1973, the most immediate purpose was to draw together – at a time of considerable friction among governments – the highest level unofficial group possible to look together at the common problems facing our three areas.

At a deeper level, there was a sense that the United States was no longer in such a singular leadership position as it had been in earlier post-World War II years, and that a more shared form of leadership – including Europe, and Japan in particular – would be needed for the international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years.

These purposes continue to inform the Commission’s work.

The rise of Japan, and progress of the European Community over the past twenty years – particularly in the world economy – have validated the vision of the Commission’s founders. At the same time, the end of the Cold War calls for a fresh vision of what this outward-looking partnership can accomplish in the coming years. The opportunities are remarkable, and yet, with the welcome end of the old Soviet threat, part of the ‘glue’ holding our regions together has dissolved. Helping meet that leadership challenge is at the heart of the Trilateral Commission effort.

The full Commission gathers once each year – in Lisbon in 1992, in Washington in 1993, in Tokyo in 1994.”

(In Copenhagen, Denmark in 1995.)

The above are their words. Below are words of those who see this group in a different light.

The New World Order, by Pat Robertson, 1991, Page 102, states:

“In 1970 a young Polish intellectual named  Zbigniew Brzezinskii foresaw the rising economic power of Japan, and postwar Europe. Brzezinski idealized the theories of Karl Marx. In his book,  Between Two Ages, as in subsequent writings, he argued that balance-of-power politics was out, and world-order politics was in.

The initial world order was to be a trilateral economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States. David Rockefeller funded Brzezinski, and called together an organization, named the Trilateral Commission, with Brzezinski as its first executive secretary, and director.

The stated goals of the Trilateral Commission are:

‘Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, in fostering economic redevelopment, and alleviating world poverty will improve the chances of a smooth, and peaceful evolution of the global system.'”

The Shadows of Power, by James Perloff, 1988, pages 154-156, states:

“How did the TC begin?

‘The Trilateral Commission,’ wrote Christopher Lydon in the July 1977 Atlantic, ‘was David Rockefeller’s brainchild.’ George Franklin, North American secretary of the Trilateral Commission, stated that it ‘was entirely David Rockefeller’s idea originally.’

Helping the CFR chairman develop the concept was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who laid the first stone in Foreign Affairs in 1970:

‘A new, and bolder approach is needed – creation of a community of the developed nations which can effectively address itself to the larger concerns confronting mankind. In addition to the United States, and Western Europe, Japan ought to be included … A council representing the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, with regular meetings of the heads of governments as well as some small standing machinery, would be a good start.’

That same year, Brzezinski elaborated these thoughts in his book Between Two Ages. It shows Brzezinski to be a classic CFR man – a globalist more than lenient toward Communism.

He declared that,

‘National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept’, and that ‘Marxism represents a further vital, and creative stage in the maturing of man’s universal vision. Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man, and a victory of reason over belief…’

The Trilateral Commission was formally established in 1973, and consisted of leaders in business, banking, government, and mass media from North America, Western Europe, and Japan.

David Rockefeller was founding chairman, and Brzezinski founding director of the North American branch, most of whose members were also in the CFR.

In the Wall Street Journal, David Rockefeller explained that,

‘the Trilateral Commission is, in reality, a group of concerned citizens interested in fostering greater understanding, and cooperation among international allies.’

But, it was not all so innocent according to Jeremiah Novak, who wrote in the Atlantic (July 1977):

‘The Trilateralists’ emphasis on international economics is not entirely disinterested, for the oil crisis forced many developing nations, with doubtful repayment abilities, to borrow excessively. All told, private multinational banks, particularly Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan, have loaned nearly $52 billion to developing countries.

An overhauled IMF would provide another source of credit for these nations, and would take the big private banks off the hook. This proposal is the cornerstone of the Trilateral plan.


Senator Barry Goldwater put it less mercifully. In his book With No Apologies, he termed the Commission,

‘David Rockefeller’s newest international cabal’, and said, ‘It is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial, and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States.’

Zbigniew Brzezinski showed how serious TC ambitions were in the July 1973 Foreign Affairs, stating that,

‘without closer American-European-Japanese cooperation the major problems of today cannot be effectively tackled, and… the active promotion of such trilateral cooperation must now become the central priority of US policy.’

The best way to effect this would be for a Trilateralist to soon become President. One did (Jimmy Carter)…

In 1973, Carter dined with the CFR chairman (David Rockefeller) at the latter’s Tarrytown, New York estate. Present was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was helping Rockefeller screen prospects for the Trilateral Commission.

Brzezinski later told Peter Pringle of the London Sunday Times that,

‘we were impressed that Carter had opened up trade offices for the state of Georgia in Brussels, and Tokyo. That seemed to fit perfectly into the concept of the Trilateral.’

Carter became a founding member of the (Trilateral) Commission – and his destiny became calculable.

Senator Barry Goldwater wrote:

‘David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski found Jimmy Carter to be their ideal candidate. They helped him win the nomination, and the presidency.

To accomplish this purpose, they mobilized the money power of the Wall Street bankers, the intellectual influence of the academic community – which is subservient to the wealth of the great tax-free foundations – and the media controllers represented in the membership of the CFR, and the Trilateral.’

Seven months before the Democratic nominating convention, the Gallup Poll found less than four percent of Democrats favoring Jimmy Carter for President.

But, almost overnight – like Willkie, and Eisenhower before him – he became the candidate.”

This is probably one of the very best illustrations of the great power of the Elite.

They can make or break any president or candidate for president. They made Jimmy Carter in his efforts to become president, and broke Senator Barry Goldwater in his failed attempt.

 The TC membership is made up of present, and past,

  • Presidents

  • Ambassadors

  • Secretaries of State

  • Wall Street investors

  • international bankers

  • foundation executives

  • Think Tank executives

  • lobbyist lawyers

  • NATO, and Pentagon military leaders

  • wealthy industrialist

  • media owners, and executives

  • university presidents, and key professors

  • select Senators, and Congressmen

  • wealthy entrepreneurs

They hold annual secret meetings including only members, and very select guests.

“The Trilateral Commission doesn’t run the world, the Council on Foreign Relations does that!”
by Winston Lord

Assistant Secretary of State, the U. S. State Department.

The Trilateral Commission’s US headquarters is located at:

345 East 46th Street, Suite 711
New York, NY 10017

Level of Involvement by Elite Members
Do I think that everyone who belongs to one of these secret organizations is EVIL? Absolutely NOT.

If you look at the Elite as though they were an archery target, then:

  • Center or Bulls Eye – Is made up of the Czar and the members of the Inner Circle. They are the decision makers and are therefore 100% informed and involved in the Global Union movement. David Rockefeller is the only “obvious” member of this group. We can speculate about the members of the Inner Circle, but we will probably never have these speculations confirmed.

  • Inner Ring – This group is made up of the Officers & Directors and triple members of all three Elite groups. They are probably 90% informed by the Czar and the members of the Inner Circle, and are heavily involved in the Global Union movement (see the preceding listing and following charts for these members.)

  • Center Ring – This group is made up of the leaders, implementers and double members of the three Elite Groups, and who are probably 80% informed by the Czar and the members of the Inner Circle, and are moderately involved in the Global Union movement.

  • Outer Ring – These members are included for camouflage purposes only, and are made up of many of those who belong to only the CFR. These members are aware of only about 50% or less of the goals and objectives of the Global Union movement. A large number of these people are members for ego and social reasons only, and would very likely resign immediately, when they find out what the Global Union is “really” up to.

    An example is Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., the Hollywood actor, who probably falls completely off the above target. He would be classified as true camouflage. Another example of another possible member of the Outer Ring is Ben J. Wattenberg.

    He would be in the Outer Ring if he told the absolute truth on C-SPAN, with Bryan Lamb, on August 29, 1995, when he stated,

    • “I plead guilty to being a member of the CFR, and I only pay my dues, but never, or rarely attends their meetings.”

    If he was truthful, I would place him in the Outer Ring. On the other hand, the CFR’s bylaws absolutely prohibit their members from discussing this Elite organization.

    For this reason, he could have just been complying with their bylaws, and in all reality, he may be a very active member, and really belongs in one of the inner rings.

    by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.

MIDDLE EAST…. A CAULDRON OF HORROR

middleeastskull560.jpg

 

 

As-salamu alaykum (the peace be upon you (plural) and Shalom (peace, harmony, wholeness, completeness, prosperity, welfare and tranquility) may have different nuances but both express a similar intent of goodwill. In reality, not much benevolent friendship exists in the eternal cauldron of Semitic hatred. Genetic and blood feuds have proliferated throughout history, but the foremost difference in this ongoing struggle is that the prospects of initiating a nuclear holocaust are reaching a meltdown radiation level. Human comprehension of the actual devastation from a nuclear strike, much less an all out exchange of warheads cannot be understood by playing a video game or watching a media presentation.

Up to this point in the age of atom splitting annihilation, the apprehension of obliteration kept sounder minds and self-control from pushing the button. But what restraint exists when Islamic suicide bombers or Zionist zealots who are prepared to use the “Samson Option” are in control of the weapons of mass destruction?

An assessment of NUCLEAR WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST, authored by Nick Turse cites a scholarly study. Cham Dallas who is lead author says that “the projections are the most catastrophic he’s seen in more than 30 years analyzing weapons of mass destruction and their potential effects.”

“This could be Tehran, or what’s left of it, just after an Israeli nuclear strike. Iranian cities – owing to geography, climate, building construction, and population densities  –  are particularly vulnerable to nuclear attack, according to a new study, “Nuclear War Between Israel and Iran: Lethality Beyond the Pale,” published in the journal Conflict and Health by researchers from the University of Georgia and Harvard University. It is the first publicly released scientific assessment of what a nuclear attack in the Middle East might actually mean for people in the region.

Its scenarios are staggering.  An Israeli attack on the Iranian capital of Tehran using five 500-kiloton weapons would, the study estimates, kill seven million people  –  86% of the population  –  and leave close to 800,000 wounded.  A strike with five 250-kiloton weapons would kill an estimated 5.6 million and injure 1.6 million, according to predictions made using an advanced software package designed to calculate mass casualties from a nuclear detonation.

Estimates of the civilian toll in other Iranian cities are even more horrendous.  A nuclear assault on the city of Arak, the site of a heavy water plant central to Iran’s nuclear program, would potentially kill 93% of its 424,000 residents.  Three 100-kiloton nuclear weapons hitting the Persian Gulf port of Bandar Abbas would slaughter an estimated 94% of its 468,000 citizens, leaving just 1% of the population uninjured.  A multi-weapon strike on Kermanshah, a Kurdish city with a population of 752,000, would result in an almost unfathomable 99.9% casualty rate.”

John Bosma pens this gem in The American Thinker, Thinking About the Unthinkable: An Israel-Iran Nuclear War

“The possibility of a nuclear war coming far sooner than one could have imagined under conventional wisdom worst-case scenarios. Following the US’s betrayal of Israel and its de facto detente with Iran, we cannot expect Israel to copy longstanding US doctrines of no-first-nuclear-use and preferences for conventional-weapons-only war plans. After all, both were premised (especially after the USSR’s 1991 collapse) on decades of US nuclear and conventional supremacy. If there ever were an unassailable case for a small, frighteningly vulnerable nation to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons to shock, economically paralyze, and decapitate an enemy sworn to its destruction, Israel has arrived at that circumstance.”

No wonder my fellow friends and readers that you will not see our essays appear in this pinnacle publication of Israel-First dribble. This DARPA consultant, John Bosma boasts that he draws on a 40-year background in nuclear war-gaming and strategic arms control. He sounds like the real model for the WOPR (War Operation Plan Response). Even the computer nerd Dr Stephen Falken from War Games, playing a modified Stephen Hawking role knows better. Calling his creation Joshua, is most symbolic.

At this point let’s face the substance and prospects of just who will launch a detonation. Israel still refuses to publically acknowledge their substantial cache of nukes. However, Israel Submarine Capabilities have much to thank the German made U-boats designers.

“It seems possible, therefore, that the 650mm tubes might have been designed to accommodate indigenously built, long-range Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles (SLCM). The German government has stated that it does not have information on whether Israel installed different equipment on the submarines after delivery, but former German officials have acknowledged that they assumed that Israel intended to equip the submarines with nuclear weapons.”

The insanity that is Middle East knows no bounds.

From a popular military and foreign policy publication, The National Interest, account Iran’s Master Plan to Retaliate If Israel Strikes may surprise you.

“However Iran chooses to respond to an Israeli attack on its nuclear program, Khamenei will instruct the IRGC-QF to do its work as discreetly as possible. Any overt missile attack on an American ally in the Arab world — let alone a conventional missile attack on Israel — would prompt the U.S. armed forces to scramble the fighter jets and deploy the aircraft carriers. This is not something Iran wants and a full U.S. military operation is certainly not something that they can afford to confront.

The name of the game for Iran is to maximize the damage on Israeli and U.S. interests without provoking a conventional military assault from both nations that will degrade its military capability and potentially destroy the regime.”

Ponder the last statement. Do you really believe that Iran wants to risk a nuclear retaliation response from Israel with their vastly superior military machine capacity? As reported, the US to deliver F-35 jets to Israel to maintain military edge, is just another indication that Iran may be able to bluff an Obama administration from patrolling the waters of the Persian Gulf, but can they do the same to the Likudniks? However, even the NYT Iran’s Swift Release of U.S. Sailors Hailed as a Sign of Warmer Relations cannot cover-up the absurdity of U.S. foreign policy.

Central to any analysis of deploying arms and boots into this region must confront exactly what benefit or security interest does America gain from such involvements?

Now that Rand Paul has been ushered to tweeting his presidential debate responses, you won’t be hearing any serious challenge on the uniform genuflection to the Wailing Wall.

The intrepid non-intervention, Michael Scheuer quotes George F. Kennan, the quintessential Mr. X of American foreign policy. “The United States has a fateful tie to the Israelis from which we have, in contradistinction to the Israelis, everything to lose, and nothing to gain.” George F. Kennan, Diaries, 25 April 1978.

Mr. Scheuer goes on to say in Time for America to bid a final farewell to Israel and Palestine.

“The war is occurring in a far away place that is no longer of any strategic interest to the United States because the combination of Washington’s relentless, war-causing and Islamist-motivating interventionism and Obama’s cowardly surrenderism have already given the entire region to the Islamists and ensured — thanks to Jewish-American Neocons — Israel’s ultimate doom. Therefore it matters not a lick to any but disloyal Americans whether the Israelis kill all the Palestinians, the Palestinians kill all the Israelis, or, in the best case scenari0, they mutually destroy each other. At the end of the war they all simply will be dead foreigners of whom we had no need and for whom we need not bid any teary farewells. Peoples who want to fight religious wars deserve whatever they get, and these two peoples are determined to fight their religious war until one side or the other is destroyed. Well, so be it, let us get out of it now.”

This wisdom applies to the Zionist/Sunni relationship and their ill-gotten alliance against the Shia Iranians. Since Arabs and Persians do not mix any better than Jews and Palestine’s, why should the entire globe be drawn into a kosher conflagration?

The United States has become part of a “Reign of Terror” orchestrated by a deceptive and treacherous “so called” ally. There is no need to champion or defend Iran as a Good Samaritan. Radical Islamic Terrorists are just as bad as IDF and Mossad hit squads. The underlying governmental regimes behind these warmonger belligerents have exported their regional hatred to our own shores.

With the prospects of the carnage described by Cham Dallas that could befall Tehran coming to an American city. The inevitability of a real holocaust befalls all parties because of their refusal to give up their quests for dominance. The American empire is over. Wake up to the fifth column hidden in plain sight.

 

SARTRE – January 19, 2016

GLOBALISM FREE TRADE….IMMIGRATION CONNECTION

globalism-2.jpg

 

How is your life going under the Global Empire? If you answer honestly, for non billionaires, the response must reflect disappointment if not immense distress. Middle America stands on the precipice of oblivion. While the recent past decades have shown steep declines in financial security and net wealth, the future looks much more ominous. The link between the shift to an internationalist de-industrialization economy and open border immigration has hit the United States hard. This harsh reality is routinely denied in the financial press, but the social chaos that engulfs society is largely caused by this betrayal mindset. Corporatists are waging war against the American public.

Summing up the battle lines is the quintessential voice of an America First philosophy. Pat Buchanan on Free Trade is a collection of quotations and references that should be a must read for every displaced citizen. And that group includes virtually everyone.

“Good for global business” isn’t necessarily good for US

“Global capitalists have become acolytes of global governance. They wish to see national sovereignty diminished and sanctions abolished. Where yesterday American businesses suffered damage to their good name for selling scrap iron to Japan before Pearl Harbor, today [war materiel is routinely exported] to potentially hostile nations. Once it was true that what was good the Fortune 500 was good for America. That is no longer true, and what is good for America must take precedence.”

Source: “A Republic, Not an Empire,” p.349 , Oct 9, 1999

The most puzzling malady that penetrates the “PC” culture is a fear of confronting the direct consequences of encouraging an invasion of illegal’s into the country. The disconnect that sweeps across national borders is not isolated just to the United States. Western Europe is not only in decay but is on the verge of social and economic collapse.

Demetrios Papademetriou, PhD, Director of the Migration Policy Institute, wrote in his Sep. 2005 Migration Policy Institute essay “The Global Struggle with Illegal Migration: No End in Sight”: How Are Illegal Immigration and Globalization Related?

“For nearly two decades now, capital and the market for goods, services, and workers of many types have weaved an ever more intricate web of global economic and social interdependence… No aspect of this interdependence seems to be more visible to the public of advanced industrial societies than the movement of people. And no part of that movement is proving pricklier to manage effectively, or more difficult for publics to come to terms with, than irregular (also known as unauthorized, undocumented, or illegal) migration…”

 

Dr. Papademetriou’s assumption that interdependency is the new normal may be supported with the procession of the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order”. Nonetheless, the destruction of national sovereignty is a price that no country can afford to adopt, much less pay and remain a nation. Interdependency is the death knell of traditional values, autonomous commerce and individual civil liberties. With the ringing of the bell at the NY Stock exchange, the sound of prosperity goes deaf for the populist, while globalist elites extract the last pound of flesh from an intentionally designed consolidation of a Corporatocracy economy.

The fate of the world is at stake if the forces of globalization are left to complete their total domination of monetary and financial control. It is just as important to prevent the next bipartisan arrangement to grant effective amnesty to millions of illegal foreigners, who have shown little interest to assimilate or adopt the heritage and values of our founding principles.

Warren Mass wrote over a year ago in Permanent Amnesty, Temporary Border.

“An important part of regulating legal immigration, in addition to evaluating each prospective immigrant’s ability to become a productive, law-abiding citizen, is to determine how many immigrants the United States is capable of absorbing each year, taking into consideration the impact on our nation’s economy and culture.”

If this standard needs to apply to those who apply for citizenship, by what absurd twist of logic or sanity pertains to President Obama’s intentions of issuing executive orders that are clearly unconstitutional? How insulting it is to hard press citizens, relegated to enduring impoverishment from off shoring livable wage jobs, while awarding effective amnesty to illegals.

Columnist Glenn R. Jackson review of author Kenneth Buchdahl’s book, Dismantling The American Dream: Globalization, Free Trade, immigration, Unemployment, Poverty, Debt, Foreign Dependency hits the mark.

“First and foremost it is good to see the recognition by Buchdahl of American culture as   critical to the building of the American Dream.  As Buchdahl writes the development of a culture is grounded in a unique American personality and intricate system of values and beliefs that is responsible for America’s enviable situation.  And it is that enviable situation that has contributed to creating the forces that are working rapidly, knowingly or not, to dismantle the American Dream.

Dismantling the American Dream chronicles the unintended impact of America’s pop culture belief in globalization as a force for good in our economy and the failure of leadership to recognize that belief gone awry.  America’s political leaders continued belief in free trade and give-away trade deals, in the face of the near deathblow of NAFTA to American manufacturing is but one of the delusions of globalization that Buchdahl lays bare.”

The interjection of cultural aspects may well be the missing link that escapes most chronicles on current events. Documenting the actual results from Free Trade Treaties, should in and of itself win the intellectual argument that economic destruction of Middle America has already happened. Add in the deliberate call for mass migration and social incentives to cross the border has created the latest flood in undocumented aliens.

When Democracy Now asks, Obama & McConnell Pledge Cooperation; Will Fast-Tracking Secretive TPP Trade Deal Top Their Agenda?, and presents Ralph Nader on TPP and the “Unstoppable” Left-Right Anti-Corporate Movement, one has hope that the Buchanan Brigades message is being heard.

With the celebrity coronation that the Democrats are showering on their new favorite daughter, the “Pocahontas Princess”, Elizabeth Warren’s Crusade Against Disastrous “Free Trade” Agreements, is welcomed.

An inquiry was made to NY Senator Charles E. Schumer on the TPA, Trade Priorities Act of 2014 (S.1900). His reply can be read on this link.

An alliance among anti-free trade factions from all ideological camps is necessary to stop the globalist juggernaut. Even if such a coalition could be grown, the likelihood that linkage to the need to stop illegal immigration and opposition to amnesty, would be frosty.

This brings up the opportunity to interject the appeal, WE MUST NOT SURRENDER TO IMMIGRATION AMNESTY, by Frosty Wooldridge. ““Why would any member of Congress who opposes executive amnesty provide President Obama the funds to carry it out? A Republican majority must force congressional Democrats to answer this question through their votes”.

Likewise, why would as covered in the New American essay, Republicans to Obama: We Will Give You Trade Promotion Authority, patriots want to grant “fast track” authority to a President, who is defiant to congressional constitutional separation of powers?

“Fast track authority eventually expired on April 16, 1994, and was not reauthorized by Congress until the passage of the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BPTAA) of 2002. BPTAA reinstated fast track authority renamed as “trade promotion authority” (TPA), which expired in 2007. In 2012, President Obama requested renewal of TPA/fast track authority to complete negotiations for the TPP and TTIP.”

The answer should be apparent that any support of “fast track” or for TPP is a vote bought with globalist control. If it is so obvious that such influence is at play in trade deals, why are so many confused activists not able to see through the “Open Border” fraud and act upon the best interests for American workers and families?

That taboo culture factor, covered in the Buchdahl book explains the blind spot from the Loony Left. A review of a pro immigration site, Open Borders will demonstrate a systemic disconnect from reality. Often Libertarian purists, also fall under the spell of a transcendental fantasy. To their credit, Open Borders presents the concept of CITIZENISM and provides the following its key features.

Citizenism places substantially greater weight on the rights and interests of citizens than non-citizens, though it operates within moral side-constraints. Citizenism is about current citizens, not about the people who may become citizens as a result of immigration or deportation policy. Citizenism, as conceived by its original proponent Sailer, is both about the individual ethics of voters and about the responsibilities of elected representatives. Citizenism is about loyalty, not admiration, toward one’s fellow citizens.

If you understand the destructive nature of corporatist trade agreements that only benefit transnational conglomerates, while poisoning economic commerce for Middle Americans, why would you not oppose the lunacy of unrestrictive mass migration? The imperative moral directive is to protect and defend your own nation, its traditional culture and responsible citizens.

Saving the world is a concept that resides in the sick minds of the Save the Planet Kill Yourself mindset. If they are so devoted to a globalist utopia, the influx of trespassers must be leaving their own homeland in better shape. Just how well is life south of the border doing?

 

SARTRE – November 18, 2014

GLOBAL TRADE WAR…U.S. AND E.U….AGAINST THE BRICS

 

Do not be confused…

Globalists whether Wall Street capitalists, corporatists, collectivist authoritarians or devoted internationalists, all share a common mindset – a worldwide financial system must control commerce and dictate economic activity. Under this formula, trade has little to do with free market transactions. Monopolies are the rule and real competition is fatal.

So when the financial press emphasizes the difference between the IMF-World Bank faction and the newly aligned BRICS association, the conclusion usually misses and ignores that all the players are part of a globalist cabal committed to a New World Order.

Trade wars are diversionary skirmishes performing a skit of musical chairs vying for an improved method to destroy national independence and domestic economies. The by word, interdependency has been sold as a heretical religion.

Almost a year ago an essay, The BRICS – Challengers to the Global Status Quo made the case that the BRICS economic alliance to the western financial establishment could pose as a real alternative model to the international institutions that control world trade.

However, the author Walden Bello also acknowledged the following:

“The BRICS have been among the key beneficiaries of corporate-driven globalization, owing their rise to the marriage between global capital and cheap labor that has followed the fuller integration of formerly non-capitalist or dependent capitalist countries into the global capitalist system over the last 30 years. This union was among the factors that kept up the rate of profit and raised global capitalism out of its crisis of stagnation in the 1970s and 1980s.

Make no mistake: the BRICS are capitalist regimes – albeit with large central apparatuses capable of controlling workers.”

Mr. Bello proposes that the future of the BRICS could go in two directions.

“One option is for the BRICS to become more integrated with each other and with other developing country economies, along the lines of the ‘South-South Trade’ or ‘South-South Cooperation’ strategies that have long been propounded by many progressive economists. Further integration is one of the key topics in the BRICS summits that now take place every two years.

The other solution, which the BRICS elites are not too enthusiastic about, is for the BRICS to adopt policies aimed at radically reducing income inequality and thus creating vibrant domestic markets. This would involve no less than promoting a social revolution in these countries, since powerful interest groups have congealed around the current economic regimes.”

The Asia pivot in geo-political terms feeds into the emergence of the BRICS shift in institutional evolution.

Europe’s Smart Asian Pivot provides a case to advance trade agreements that only benefit globalist elites, while sucking the very essence out of national economies.

“The E.U. must engage with Asia on at least three mutually beneficial fronts, with trade being the most important.

The trade-liberalization agreements that the E.U. has in the pipeline with Asia’s vibrant economies (including South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Vietnam, Japan, and Thailand) are more ambitious in scope than previous bilateral deals.

As large-scale regional free-trade arrangements take shape, the E.U. continues to signal unequivocal commitment to free trade through sophisticated bilateral agreements.”

The end result is more consolidation under a Chinese prototype of a corporate/state/NWO system. The robber barons of the 19th century would be filled with envy by the degree of financial mastery that has been imposed.

In keeping with the rash of trade agreements that are unremittingly being pushed on the world, Forbes reports on the Leaked TISA Documents Reveal Privacy Threat. Remember that every component of these trade agreements is designed to tighten the noose on consumers and their natural rights.

“Under the draft provisions of the latest trade deal to be leaked by Wikileaks, countries could be barred from trying to control where their citizens’ personal data is held or whether it’s accessible from outside the country.

Wikileaks has released 17 documents relating to the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), currently under negotiation between the US, the European Union and 23 other nations. These negotiating texts are supposed to remain secret for five years after TISA is finalized and brought into force. The deal, which has been under discussion behind closed doors since early 2013, is intended to remove barriers to trade in services.

It’s a sort of companion piece to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership  and the Trans-Pacific Partnership , which cover trade in goods – but potentially far bigger, with Wikileaks claiming that ‘services’ now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies.”

Read the full details in this Trade in Services Agreement.

WikiLeaks releases today 17 secret documents from the ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including,

  • Turkey
  • Mexico
  • Canada
  • Australia
  • Pakistan
  • Taiwan
  • Israel,

…which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP.

“Services” now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy.

While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership  has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ‘T-treaty trinity’. All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ‘BRICS’ countries of,

  • Brazil
  • Russia
  • India
  • China
  • South Africa

Read the full press release here.

 

Document Document Date WikiLeaks Date
TiSA Annex on Air Transport Services February 9, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Competitive Delivery Services April 16, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Domestic Regulation February 20, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Electronic Commerce February 20, 2013 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on International Maritime Transport Services February 10, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons February 13, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Professional Services February 13, 2015 June 3, 2015
TISA Annex on Telecommunications Services February 20, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Financial Services February 23, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Transparency January 23, 2015 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Transparency April 16, 2014 June 3, 2015
TiSA Annex on Financial Services April 14, 2014 June 19, 2014

 

While, service category agreements may not receive the same coverage as manufacturing, it should be noted that incorporating global regulations upon all these segments of commerce will force radical internationalist interference into every aspect of our economy.

Now if you think that BRICS nations will abide under these same standards, you must be a “true believer” in the international community. America has been sold short by brand named companies that only sell their products, produced and shipped from overseas facilities. This next example proves this point.

Nike-backed group pushes Trans-Pacific Partnership in Oregon is shameless in its disingenuous deceit.

“Faced with a backlash from members of his party’s liberal base as well as skepticism from some fiscal conservatives over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), President Barack Obama recently traveled to Nike’s world headquarters in Oregon, promising new jobs for American workers.

The shoe and apparel behemoth currently produces around 96 percent of its footwear in Southeast Asia, according to a National Journal review of the company’s SEC filings. It has been a supporter of the proposed trade deal and the fast track authority it grants the president to speed negotiations, which the company claims could help it create 10,000 new American jobs.”

Let’s get real. Nike is a prime globalist supporter that markets overpriced stylish sneakers to ignorant trendy consumers. Such an economy may work for BRICS environments, but is absolutely destructive to our country.

It might be helpful if the BRICS alliance would actually offer a constructive alternative to the IMF, WTO and World Bank system, but the linkage between the two “so called” trading systems are both dedicated to a controlled global economy. Thus, the passage of caustic international trade agreements only hastens the day of our own demise and the emergence of more foreign intrusion into our internal business.

Aspects of an actual trade war is less about competition between established and up and coming factions, then about who will become, or remain, dominate as an economic power and financial system. As long as the globalists are writing the rules and refuse to allow legitimate free enterprise to thrive, the prospects for worldwide prosperity are nil.

You should be well aware that the lack of transparency is the hallmark of international trade agreements. Likewise, the mantra of “Free Trade” policy is a pseudo version of real voodoo economics. Review the article, Right and Left Agree – TPP about Corporate Control for more in-depth information.

If a loss of financial liberty is incidental, you are entering paradise. However, if you retain even a semblance of self-respect, become vocal with your opposition on all these phony trade agreements. Without involvement the rot of this reign of terror will spread into every corner of the economy. The rightful trade war that needs to be fought is against the global corporatists.

by SARTRE, June 09, 2015, from BATR Website