Dishonest Money: CHAPTER 5 BUILDING a New world Order by Joseph Plummer
CHAPTER 5
BUILDING a New world Order
So far we’ve covered the game called “bailout” in some detail. We’ve shown how those engaged in “reckless banking” can turn the natural consequences of their actions into enormous profits. We’ve shown how you and I are ultimately the ones who provide those profits. But there is another kind of profit being gained at our expense.
By weakening us financially, those who control our monetary system are incrementally increasing their leverage. A wealthy, proud, and independent nation would never willingly surrender its sovereignty and ability to choose its own destiny. An economically devastated nation, chaotic and struggling to maintain social order, is another story altogether. Such a nation would be far more willing to accept help from a global body like the United Nations or IMF/ World Bank, regardless of the strings attached. And THAT is the ultimate “profit” being sought in this game. The real prize is control.
In nation after nation, these “economic warriors” make use of politicians who are willing to bury their citizens in debt. Out of that crushing debt, and the subsequent need for an endless supply of new loans, they slowly gain control.
Since this game results in a hemorrhage of wealth from the industrialized nations, their economies are doomed to be brought down further and further…
The result will be a severe lowering of their living standards and their demise as independent nations. …The underdeveloped nations, on the other hand, are not being raised up. What is happening to them is that their political leaders are becoming addicted to the IMF cash flow and will be unable to break the habit. …They are becoming mere components in the system of world socialism…Their leaders are being groomed to become potentates in a new, high-tech feudalism, paying homage to their lords…And they are eager to do it in return for privilege and power within the new world order.
The Role of the CFR
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is perhaps the most visible cog in the New World Order machine. CFR members have openly and unapologetically called for the weakening of our economic and political sovereignty as a way to establish world government. Admiral Chester Ward, a long time CFR member who later became a harsh critic, summed up the prevailing goal of the CFR this way: “…the submergence of u.s. sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government.”
Admiral Ward’s assertion is backed by countless references. Consider this a short list. (All emphases added.)
…the house of world order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down… an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.” –CFR member Richard Gardner in an article published in the CFR journal foreign Affairs.
Some dilution or leveling off of the sovereignty system as it prevails in the world today must take place … to the immediate disadvantage of those nations which now possess the preponderance of power…The united States must be prepared to make sacrifices…in setting up a world politico-economic order. –CFR member Foster Dulles, later appointed Secretary of State by CFR member Dwight Eisenhower.
…some international cooperation has already been achieved, but further progress will require greater American sacrifices. More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position. –CFR member and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzesinski.
The standard of living for the average American has to decline. …I don’t think you can escape that. –CFR member and former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker.
We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest. –CFR member James Paul Warburg (son of Federal Reserve co-founder Paul Warburg) in a statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
It’s important to know, wherever you find people in positions of power, you find the CFR. Griffin explains:
…almost all of America’s leadership has come from this small group. That includes presidents and their advisors, cabinet members, ambassadors, board members of the Federal Reserve System, directors of the largest banks and investment houses, presidents of universities, and heads of metropolitan newspapers, news services, and TV networks.
Before moving on, we should also briefly mention the Trilateral Commission. Created by David Rockefeller in 1973, the Trilateral Commission has been called the little brother of the CFR and it was established (no surprise here) to further assist in the creation of global government.
However, unlike the CFR, the Trilateral Commission was specifically focused on bringing Pacific Asia into the global government equation. It has succeeded. Starting with Japan in 1973, the Pacific Asian branch now consists of members from Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater called the Trilateral Commission “David Rockefeller’s newest cabal,” and in speaking of its aims he 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.”
When it comes to how the New World Order crowd ultimately plans to complete the creation of their one-world government, G. Edward Griffin cuts right to the chase:
The objective is to draw the United States, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and Western Europe into political and economic union. Under slogans such as free trade and environmental protection, each nation is to surrender its sovereignty “piece by piece” until a full-blown regional government emerges from the process. … Once that has happened, it will be a relatively simple step to merge the regional governments into global government. That is the reality behind the so-called trade treaties within the European Union (EU), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation agreement (APEC), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
Expanding on Griffin’s assertion, the EU (European Union) provides a perfect example. What we now call the EU began as a simple trade agreement in 1951 between six European countries. That agreement was called The european Coal and steel Community and it established a “free trade area” where coal and steel could be bought and sold without import/export duties. (In that very limited sense, the agreement “erased the borders” between those member nations.)
But in 1957, a new agreement was signed and the concept of cooperation among member nations was greatly expanded.
The new agreement was called the european economic Community and its ultimate aim was the economic and eventual political merger of its member nations. (Policies on labor, social welfare, agriculture, transportation, foreign trade, etc. were to be “harmonized.”)
In 1992, the word “economic” was dropped and the organization became known as simply the european Community. And finally, in 1993, the European Community became the european union.
What began as a simple trade agreement has now morphed into a supranational government entity that is more powerful than its member nations (of which there are now 27). These 27 member nations have already lost a great deal of control over their own countries, but the EU powerbrokers have far bigger things in mind. Look no further than a recently proposed European Justice system for proof of that. Under “Corpus Juris” the citizens of member nations would have:
• No right to a trial by jury. The accused would go before a state appointed judge to be pronounced guilty or innocent.
• No right to Habeas Corpus. Anyone declared a suspect can be arrested without charges and the suspect would have no right to challenge the legitimacy of their detention. The initial limit for how long the state could keep “a suspect” without presenting evidence was set to 6 months, however that term can be extended AND there is…
• No protection against double jeopardy. Conceivably the state can continue arresting and trying “a suspect” for the same crime until it secures a conviction.
• No presumption of innocence. Rather than the state having to prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” suspects are automatically presumed guilty. (Even if you were fortunate enough to convince a judge that his comrades were wrong, you’re right back to being potentially brought up on the same charge again.)
That these provisions were even put forward with a straight face provides some insight into the kind of “New World Order” our masters intend to build. For the elites looking to stifle and punish all dissent against them, this type of worldwide system would be a utopia. For all others, it would be an inescapable global Hell. (Sadly, many of these OLD concepts of justice have already found a home in the United States. It looks as if the intellectual elite driving U.S. policy have outperformed the EU bureaucrats in this regard.) [1] [1]
Again, the EU perfectly illustrates how the framework for global government is being put in place. Nations are convinced to sign on to “trade agreements” that, in effect, give a newly created “supranational” government entity control over them. Once a handful of these new entities are in place (A European Union, North American Union, Asia-Pacific Union, etc.), merging those supranational governments into a one-world government will be a relatively simple task. (Whether or not they are ever officially merged is irrelevant. In the end, a tiny group of elite will be in complete control, and that is the ultimate aim.)
Enough on the “final play” in this game; let’s return now to the transfer of wealth that is helping set it up.
Panama
When Panama fell behind on its bank loans, the major banking interests that stood to lose money had a brilliant idea. Chase Manhattan Bank, First National of Chicago, Citibank (and a handful of others) went to Washington and pitched their solution. It was this: The Panama Canal, built at a tremendous cost in American dollars and American lives, would be given to the Panamanian government. The Panamanian government could then use the hundreds of millions in annual revenue generated by the canal to pay back its loans.
Many in the U.S. strongly opposed this giveaway, but in the end Congress dutifully served its real masters. Once again, the politically well-connected and powerful insiders got their way. Regardless of where you stand on the issue of giving the canal to the Panamanian government, this fact remains: The citizens of America, yet again, bailed out the banks. (Hundreds of millions in annual revenue generated by the canal were given away and that lost revenue, ever since, has been made up in one of two ways: taxes or inflation.)
Mexico
In 1982, Mexico announced it would have to halt payments on its $85 billion ($85,000,000,000.00) in debt. But not to worry, the Federal Reserve was standing by to save the day! $4.5 billion worth of new loans were arranged with $2.7 billion “created out of nothing” by the Federal Reserve itself. The commercial banks agreed to accept “interest only” payments for a couple years and, as a result of the new infusion of cash, the multi-million dollar loan payments resumed. Of course, none of this fixed the underlying problems so, a few years later, Mexico was again behind on its payments. This time the banks agreed to postpone payments on $29 billion and issued $20 billion in new loans to replace/pay off some older debts. The game continued.
Can you guess what happens next? Mexico announces it cannot make payments on its debt and the Federal Reserve comes to the rescue. (Surprised?) This time, the head of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, met with Mexico’s finance minister and agreed to a “currency swap” of over half a billion dollars to help Mexico get past its upcoming election. Specifically, the United States traded Mexico $600 million US dollars for 600 million essentially worthless Mexican Pesos. Mexico agreed to redeem the Pesos for US dollars at a later date, but could anyone reasonably believe that would happen? Griffin adds:
The importance of this loan was neither its size nor even the question of repayment. It was the manner in which it was made. First, it was made by the Federal Reserve directly, acting as a central bank for Mexico, not the U.S.; and secondly, it was done almost in total secrecy.
When the currency swap failed to solve the problem, a new and even more imaginative move was implemented in 1988: a debt swap. What follows would actually be funny if it wasn’t so irritating. First, a brief explanation:
The United States government offers Treasury bonds that pay no interest while you hold them, but when the bonds “mature” (when the day arrives that you’re allowed to cash them in) they are worth much more than their original cost. So, for instance, imagine you purchased one of these Treasury bonds in the amount of $10,000. When the bond matures (say 20 years later) the government will owe you $70,000. Technically, this kind of bond is called a “zero coupon” bond.
…With that brief explanation out of the way, here is how the “debt swap” with Mexico worked.
Using $492 million dollars, Mexico purchased U.S. Treasury bonds that, on maturity 20 years later, were guaranteed to pay $3.7 billion. Mexico then approached the banks that were holding a fortune in essentially worthless Mexican bonds (bonds that had no chance of being paid by Mexico) with the following offer: “We will trade you the worthless bonds you’re now holding for NEW bonds that have this $3.7 billion in U.S. securities backing them as collateral… how does a ratio of 1.4 to 1 sound?”
As a very simple example, imagine one bank was holding $140 million in Mexican bonds. What Mexico was saying is this: “If you tear up that $140 million debt that we owe you, we’ll give you (in exchange) $100 million in new bonds that are backed by these u.s. bonds we now own.”
Of course the banks were eager to swap old worthless Mexican bonds for new “U.S. guaranteed bonds.” It reduced the bank’s interest income some, but in the long run it guaranteed a fortune would be made. –Pretty clever, huh?
Now for the fun part: The $492 million that Mexico used to purchase the U.S. bonds came mainly from the IMF. In turn, that means our government put up the lion’s share of the money used to buy the bonds in the first place. It essentially went half a billion deeper in debt and guaranteed to pay $3.7 billion 20 years later, all so Mexico could keep making payments to the banks. But that didn’t fix the problem either. Griffin continues:
The following year, Secretary of State, James Baker (CFR), and Treasury Secretary, Nicholas Brady (CFR), flew to Mexico to work out a new debt agreement that would begin to phase in the IMF as final guarantor. The IMF gave Mexico a new loan of $3.5 billion (later increased to $7.5 billion), the World Bank gave another $1.5 billion, and the banks reduced their previous loan values by about a third. The private banks were quite willing to extend new loans and reschedule the old. Why not? Interest payments would now be guaranteed by the taxpayers of the United States and Japan.
Do you see a pattern here? Let’s hope so. And following that pattern, what do you think happened after the aforementioned $9 billion in additional loans were given? Do you think that money fixed the problem? We’ll pick up in December of 1994.
At the end of 1994, the game was still going…Once again Mexico could not pay the interest on its loans. On January 11, President Bill Clinton (CFR) urged Congress to approve U.S. guarantees for new loans up to $40 billion. Secretary of the Treasury Robert Rubin (CFR) explained: ‘It is the judgment of all, including Chairman Alan Greenspan (CFR), that the probability of the debts being paid (by Mexico) is exceedingly high.’ But, while Congress debated the issue, the loan clock was ticking. Payment of $17 billion in Mexican bonds was due within 60 days, and $4 billion of that was due on the first of February! who was going to pay the banks?
This matter could not wait. On January 31, acting independently of Congress, President Clinton announced a bailout package of over $50 billion in loan guarantees to Mexico: $20 billion from the U.S. Exchange Stabilization Fund, $17.8 billion from the IMF, $10 billion from the Bank of International Settlements, and $3 billion from commercial banks.
These stories are so common that to tell them all would become boring. By the early 1980’s, Third-World governments owed three quarters of a trillion dollars and dozens of them were behind on their payments. As of this writing, the total debt of developing nations is well over TWO TRILLION. Through it all, we find the same game and the same players. For instance, in 1987 Brazil was in default (again) on over $120 billion in debt. Despite having a fortune pass through its hands, the government was so broke it couldn’t even put gas in its police cars. In 1989, President Bush Sr. (CFR) upped the ante by calling for debt forgiveness as a solution to the entire Third-World debt problem. (Debt forgiveness sounds very humanitarian, but let’s not forget who we’re dealing with. Few take the time to look at the strings attached to debt forgiveness or contemplate how those strings benefit the ones who are doing the “forgiving.”) But returning to Brazil, a little over a decade later, President Bush’s son (Bush Jr.) was pushing for another $30 billion IMF loan, backed by US citizens, to help Brazil overcome its payment problems.
In 1982, an IMF loan of $2.15 billion was necessary to help Argentina make a $2.5 billion payment it owed. Within a year of receiving this help, Argentina was again unable to keep up with its payments. The banks scrambled to arrange new terms, guarantees, and IMF loans. An additional $4.2 billion was loaned to cover interest payments and also provide some political incentives. By 1988, Argentina had again stopped making payments on its loans. To make a long story short, by 2002 the IMF had bailed out Argentina to the tune of an additional $48 billion.
It would be counterproductive to cover the same sordid story as it has unfolded in each country. Suffice to say that the identical game has been played with teams from Bolivia, Peru, Venezuela, Costa Rica, Morocco, the Philippines, the Dominican Republic, and almost every other less-developed country in the world.
The great Deception
No world government would be complete without including Communist China and the former Soviet Union. However, before either of these nations could be merged into the New World Order puzzle, they required a serious image makeover. After all, citizens of the United States, as well as other western governments, would be unlikely to support the transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to the totalitarian enemies of freedom. And as we already know, without the IMF/ World Bank mechanism doing its job (transferring billions and acquiring the kind of cooperation that only billions of dollars will buy), everything becomes complicated. So maybe those “nasty commies” could be persuaded to drop the open hostility, take a more moderate stance, and reap the financial and ideological rewards of doing so.
…the apparent crumbling of Communism has created an acceptable rationale for the industrialized nations to now allow their lifeblood to flow into the veins of their former enemies. It also creates the appearance of global, political “convergence,” a condition which CFR theoretician, Richard Cooper, said was necessary before Americans would accept having their own destinies determined by governments other than their own.
Communist China joined the IMF/World Bank in 1980 and by 1987 it was the IMF’s second largest borrower. While billions of dollars were being funneled into China (supposedly to help fight poverty, develop natural resources and improve living standards), the Chinese government was busy dumping billions into military development. In other words, China already had the money; it simply chose to spend it elsewhere, and IMF/World Bank loans only made it easier for it to do so.
It’s kind of odd. Back in the good old days, when government-forced abortions, interference in the free market, land confiscations, slave labor, prisoner organ harvesting, religious persecution, torture, and nearly zero tolerance for freedom of speech were a big deal, China was (at least in the eyes of the West) an absolute pariah. But now that China is one of our “strongest trading partners,” all of these things no longer seem to matter. …This provides some priceless insight into how our governments choose our enemies. When it suits them to attack and vilify a nation, they do so with a vengeance. When it suits them to keep quiet, the silence is deafening.
Then there is the former Soviet Union. Can anyone really say where all the Communists went? For nearly a century, there they were; the gravest threat the free world ever faced. Menacing and powerful, they maintained their control over the Russian people with force and violence…a tyrannical cabal that created and controlled the world’s only other superpower; and then, in the blink of an eye, they all just went away? Nobody wants to rob the West of its proudest moment (its victory over Communism), but doesn’t the magic vanishing act of “The Great Red Menace” warrant a little bit of scrutiny?
Was our victory over Communism everything it was cracked up to be, or was it just a ruse? Did the power brokers in Russia all simultaneously experience a profound ideological shift, or was the new term “Social Democrat” a calculated PR move aimed at softening the image of the former Communists and setting the stage for convergence? [2] [2]
A few disposable leaders purged from the ranks, a new public image and promising rhetoric, a long awaited “nod” given to the greater wisdom of western ways…Surely it would require more than that to convince the world that Communism had fallen. Apparently not.
No other changes are required. Socialism remains the economic system of choice and, although lip service may be given to free-market concepts, the economy and all means of production remain under state control. The old communists are now Social Democrats and, without exception, they become the leaders in the new system.
The West rejoices and the money starts to move. … former Bolsheviks are now hailed by the world as great statesmen who put an end to the Cold War, brought freedom to their people, and helped to forge a New World Order.
When did Communism depart? We are not quite sure. All we know is that one day we opened our newspapers and it was accomplished. Social Democrats were everywhere. No one could find any Communists. …Communism was dead. It was not killed by an enemy. It voted itself out of existence. It committed suicide!
Whether the death of Communism was exaggerated or not is open to debate. What isn’t debatable is, since its death, the money has flowed like water. And to be clear here, we’re not suggesting American banks and corporations weren’t making money on humanitarian loan packages prior to the announced end of Communism. They certainly were. Just nowhere near as much.
Example: In 1990, just prior to “the collapse,” President Bush Sr. announced all “sound American corporate investments” in Russia would be 100% insured (for free) with no limit on the amount of coverage. In other words, the bailout game had been expanded to include not just the banks, but other industries as well. It was a promise that, when investments went sour, the taxpayers would pick up the bill. Now, farmore people could get in on the lucrative “bet big, you cannot lose” government gravy train. Imagine being in charge of an operation like this:
International agencies loan billions of dollars to the “social democrats.” Nobody expects the loans to be repaid, but that isn’t a problem – the taxpayers will take care of that. In exchange, the social democrats agree to spend the billions purchasing products and services from well-connected American corporations.
In addition to this cozy little arrangement, corporations are offered 100% insurance on anything they invest in Russian projects. Such lucrative risk-free contracts are not awarded based on merit, but on political connections. (Come on, you don’t really expect those running the game to let everyone in on the easy money, do you?) And finally, when socialist mismanagement drives everything into the dirt, the federal government covers corporate profits and repayment of bank loans by extracting the money from the U.S. citizenry. Chalk up another “win/win” for everyone but us.
There you have it. The Social Democrats get the goodies; the corporations get the profits, and the banks get the interest on money created out of nothing. You know what the taxpayers get!
Whether the bailout takes place domestically or internationally, the same individuals (engaged in the deliberate destruction of national sovereignty) are guaranteed to profit. There are the direct and most visible profits (the actual dollars and cents transferred from their rightful owners to the conspirators themselves) and there are the less visible but more significant profits; acquiring the cooperation of influential leaders around the globe. The ultimate objective is the creation of an inescapable, financially controlled global tyranny, run by an unelected “intellectual elite and world bankers.”
Dr. Carroll Quigley, in his 1300-page book, “Tragedy and Hope,” speaks with the authority of an elite insider. In no uncertain terms he exposes the aims of what he refers to as “the network.” It is important to note his only real “difference of opinion” is in the network’s secretive approach to securing its aims. In his own words: “I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments…my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown....” [3] [3]
You and I are the targets in this game. As “the network” secretly conspires to manipulate, deceive and literally enslave us all, we have a choice: We can allow them to create their government (For the elite, by the elite and of the elite) or we can stop them.
Our problem really isn’t that complicated. It’s not like trying to reverse the earth’s orbit around the sun. These men created (and continue to expand) a fraudulent system for their own benefit. It has been built and sustained with human effort; it can be undone just the same. However, one thing we will need (to prevent them from simply repackaging their current scheme) is a deeper understanding of money
[1] [1] Many were shocked by the brazen violations of basic Constitutional principles under the administration of G.W. Bush. However, those who hoped “Constitutional scholar” Barack Obama would return the U.S. to sanity were undoubtedly amazed when he, in May of 2009, proposed a brand new unconstitutional policy of his own called “preventive detention.” Under this new policy, the Federal Government asserts the right to imprison you, indefinitely, based on ZERO evidence of any crime whatsoever. That is, they can put you in a cage not because you committed a crime, not because they believe you “conspired” or attempted to commit a crime, but because they think you might decide to commit a crime in the future! (Good luck proving your innocence against that charge.)
[2] [2] If you’d like to dig a little deeper into this idea of “preparing the U.S. for convergence,” Ed Griffin conducted an interesting interview with Norman Dodd (Director of the Reece Committee), which is available online. During his investigation, Dodd was told by the president of the Ford Foundation: “Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies here have had experience either with the oss (predecessor of the CIA) during the war or the european economic Administration after the war. we’ve had experience operating under directives…that emanate from the white house…the substance of which is that we shall use our grant-making power to alter life in the united states so that it can be comfortably merged with the soviet union.”
[3] [3] Tragedy and Hope is a long, dry, and tedious read, but it provides an enormous amount of insight into how the banking elite (in modern history) establish and maintain their power. Discussing the early groundwork (period 1810 – 1850), Quigley says: “In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other. The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers.” And, discussing the early 1900s, Quigley says: “In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the last century shows…that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally. Such advice could be enforced, if necessary, by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity.”
No comments:
Post a Comment