CHAPTER 10

The New World Money System

 
What I really think is at stake here globally is the future of free institutions.... It really is an open question in my mind of whether we can cope with these chronic problems — problems that you don’t need to solve tomorrow in order to survive — within the context of freedom....1
• William D. Ruckelshaus,

Business Council for Sustainable Development

A Real Mover and Shaker

Early in 1990, journalist Daniel Wood was riding along Highway 17 through the arid and sagebrush filled terrain of southern Colorado. He had just spent a week visiting a sprawling ranch where a 60-yearold Canadian millionaire, oil tycoon, environmentalist, UN official, and New Age devotee was constructing a controversial global village and ecumenical ashram. Although the tycoon had risen into the rarefied atmosphere of international finance where he dined with Rockefellers and Rothschilds, his name had not yet become a household word as each of theirs had.

Soon that would change, as orchestrated world events would thrust him into the international limelight. As the highway through the desert slid by, Wood’s driver, the tycoon-environmentalist himself, told him of a novel he had been planning to write. It was about a group of world leaders who decided the only way to save the world was to cause the economies of the industrialized countries to collapse. The journalist sat transfixed as his host explained how his fictional leaders had formed a secret society and engineered a worldwide financial panic and, ultimately, the economic collapse they sought. While the tycoon drove and talked about the proposed novel, the increasingly astonished reporter took copious notes.

His account of that conversation appeared in the May 1990 issue of West magazine:

Each year, he [the tycoon] explains as background to the telling of the novel’s plot, the World Economic Forum convenes in Davos, Switzerland. Over a thousand CEO’s, prime ministers, finance ministers, and leading academics gather in February to attend meetings and set economic agendas for the year ahead. With this as a setting, he then says: “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?... The group’s conclusion is ‘no.’ The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”2 [Emphasis in original]

“This group of world leaders,” the driver-tycoon continued, “form a secret society to bring about an economic collapse.” It was becoming obvious to Wood that this unfolding “novel” was a thinly-veiled roman ˆ clef starring the tycoon and his power-elite comrades. The millionaire storyteller went on:

It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodity and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock exchanges and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the rest of the world leaders at Davos as hostages. The markets can’t close. The rich countries.... [Emphasis in original]

Wood wrote that at that point the tycoon “makes a slight motion with his fingers as if he were flicking a cigarette butt out the window.” Pffffft! The fates of hundreds of millions, even billions, of people callously sealed with the flick of a finger — their livelihoods, life savings, jobs, businesses, homes, dreams — tossed out like a cigarette butt, “to save the planet.”

“I probably shouldn’t be saying things like this,” the tycoon confessed to the reporter.

No, he should not even have been thinking things like that. For some reason, however, the millionaire insider felt compelled to tell the outsider his story, somewhat like Colonel House did when revealing his megalomaniacal nature in Philip Dru: Administrator.3

Wood wrote:

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

Most of the world was first introduced to Maurice Strong in 1992 while he was serving as secretary-general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the so-called Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro. Before, during, and after the summit, the Canadian activist made headlines more than once with environmental tirades against the life-styles of “the rich countries” that sounded uncomfortably similar to the story line of the “novel” he related to Wood. The fact that he was the top executive of the privately owned Dome Petroleum of Canada, president of Power Corporation of Canada, and later head of Petro Canada, the giant government oil company, is fairly well known from the many profiles about him appearing in the major media.

Many of these articles mention that he was head of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm and the first secretary-general of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). We were unable, however, to uncover any articles even suggesting the range of Strong’s Insider connections.

Yet, this man is president of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, cochairman of the World Economic Forum, member of the Club of Rome, trustee of the Aspen Institute, a director of the World Future Society, director of finance of the Lindisfarne Association, a founding endorser of Planetary Citizens, convener of the 4th World Wilderness Congress, organizer of the international Business Council for Sustainable Development, and builder of “The Valley of the Refuge of World Truths,” a spiritual center on his controversial Baca Grande ranch in Colorado. Strong, it turns out, may also be the planet’s richest eco-warrior. His Colorado ranch sits atop one of the largest aquifers in the world.

Together with his wife, Hanne, and his former partners in the American Water Development company, Strong may control water worth, by some estimates, as much as $600 billion!4 Whether or not the Davos conspiracy scenario laid out by Strong for journalist Wood is (or was) an actual game plan, it is clear that in the new world order economic system envisioned by Strong and his fellow Insiders, the United Nations and its financial institutions would be able to wield the kind of world-economy-collapsing power he described in his “fictional” story.

The 20th century has seen the creation of fractional reserve banking controlled by national central banks in most of the nations of the world. Its effect has been an explosion of spending accompanied by massive deficits, oppressive taxation, and a mushrooming of administrative bureaucracy.

With the founding of the United Nations and its affiliated financial institutions, these problems grew worse. In his 1977 book The War on Gold, Dr. Antony C. Sutton surveyed the incredible turnabout of America’s economic fortunes in the short period from 1945 to 1975:

At the end of World War II the United States was in a unique and seemingly unassailable monetary position. The world’s largest gold stock was secure in the vaults of Fort Knox and the Federal Reserve Banks. The American dollar was everywhere in short supply, facing an apparently insatiable demand. American technology and the standard of living it made possible were the envy of the world.

Three decades later the United States is wracked by internal political and moral problems, inflation, and self doubts. The world’s most powerful nation had been defeated by a third-rate country in a wasteful no-win war. Half of its gold stock had been lost, and it had short-term liabilities to foreigners totaling almost ten times the value of what gold it still owned.5

Two years later, surveying the same post-war phenomena as had Dr. Sutton, political analyst Dan Smoot asked, “What earthquake of history has occurred?” To which he answered: “None. All of it was planned.” 6

Betrayal at Bretton Woods

The planning had been formulated by the Economic and Finance Group of the Council on Foreign Relations during the early years of the war,7 and the plans were put into effect at the Bretton Woods Conference in July 1944. Sitting as the leader of the conference and the head of the U.S. delegation was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Harry Dexter White, a secret member of a Soviet espionage ring.8

Serving as the technical secretary for the conference was Virginius Frank Coe, a director of monetary research for the Treasury Department. Coe became the first secretary of the new International Monetary Fund (IMF), a post he held until 1952 when it was revealed in congressional testimony that he was a member of the same communist ring White had joined.9 From 1958, until his death in 1980, Coe lived in Communist China.

Working hand-in-hand with communists White and Coe were numerous Establishment Insiders among whom was Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. It was he who declared at the time:

“It has been proved ... that people in the international banking business cannot run successfully foreign exchange markets. It is up to the Governments to do it. We propose to do this if and when the legislative bodies approve Bretton Woods.”10

The incredible deceit now evident here is that Morgenthau personally represented the very “international banking” establishment he was criticizing, and the system he was helping construct would place the world economy more firmly in its grasp than ever before. The two primary institutions to come out of the conference, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have been run by certified members of the Insider banking fraternity ever since.

Dan Smoot observed in his 1979 article:

White’s Bretton Woods Conference set policies which our government has followed, without deviation, under all Presidents, since the end of World War II. These policies were intended to accomplish four major objectives:

 

(1) Strip the United States of its monetary gold reserve by giving the gold to other nations;
(2) Build the industrial capacity of other nations, at our expense, to eliminate American productive superiority;
(3) Take world markets — and much of the American domestic market — away from American producers to stop American domination of world trade;
(4) Entwine American affairs with those of other nations until the United States could not have an independent policy, but would become an interdependent link in a worldwide socialist chain.11

The Bretton Woods participants, of course, did not state their resolves as bluntly or succinctly. It makes little sense to dispute the fact, however, that the policies and institutions they established have indeed produced the tragic results enumerated by Smoot. Bretton Woods opened the floodgates of government spending worldwide. As free-market economists warned, it has led to massive growth of government, mountains of debt, and global inflation.

At the time the Bretton Woods agreements were being hammered out, the near-solitary voice in the major American media opposing the one-world economic scheme and warning of its dire consequences was Henry Hazlitt, then the financial editor of the Wall Street Journal. In one article after another, he soundly refuted the sophistry put forward for the new global economic plan. Unfortunately, his arguments were ignored.

Hazlitt was always a strong opponent of inflation. But, unlike many others, he employed a proper definition of the often mis-defined term. Inflation is an increase in the quantity of currency. Its effect is a lessening of the value of all existing currency. When merchants and others ask for more of it in return for their goods and services, they are responding — even if they are unaware of the process that has been forced on them — to the fact that the currency has lost value.

That value, stolen from all existing currency through the introduction of more currency, was actually stolen from currency holders by the issuer. In virtually all cases, the issuer is either government or a privately-run central bank. The path to inflation begins with the removal of precious metal backing for the currency. Once the requirement for gold or silver in the issuer’s vault (in this nation, the U.S. Treasury formerly served this purpose) is removed, inflation is possible, even inevitable.

In his 1984 book, From Bretton Woods to World Inflation, Henry Hazlitt reviewed the tragic worldwide devastation and upheaval that he insisted are ... the consequences of the decisions made by the representatives of the forty-five nations at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, forty years ago. These decisions, and the institutions set up to carry them out, have led us to the present world monetary chaos. For the first time in history, every nation is on an inconvertible paper money basis. As a result, every nation is inflating, some at an appalling rate. This has brought economic disruption, chronic unemployment, and anxiety, destitution, and despair to untold millions of families.12

Of course there had been inflations before Bretton Woods. But it was at that conference, primarily under the leadership of White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes of England, that, as Hazlitt noted, “inflation was institutionalized.” Many nations are now saddled with impossible debt burdens and oppressive bureaucracies because, claims this dean of free market thinkers, “the IMF, in effect encourages them to continue their socialist and inflationist course.”13
 

Hazlitt, who has called the shots correctly during all of these many years, does not mince words when it comes to solutions.

“The world cannot get back to economic sanity,” he has warned, “until the IMF is abolished.... We will not stop the growth of world inflation and world socialism until the institutions and policies adopted to promote them have been abolished.”14

Unfortunately, our elected leaders have continued along the course set by communists, socialists, and globalist Insiders decades ago.

Again, we turn to Hazlitt:

Yet the supreme irony is that the Bretton Woods institutions that have failed so completely in their announced purpose, and led to only monetary chaos instead, are still there, still operating, still draining the countries with lower inflations to subsidize the higher inflation of others.15

In fact, the internationalist Insiders have stepped up the pace of these suicidal policies. In his Spring 1988 Foreign Affairs article entitled “The Case for Practical Internationalism,” CFR strategist Richard N. Gardner stated bluntly:

But most of all, the world needs to enlarge the flows of private and official capital to developing countries in order to stimulate an adequate level of global growth. A near doubling of World Bank capital and International Monetary Fund quotas should be a high priority for American leadership.... [Emphasis added]

A World Central Bank

Even worse, the one-worlders are working to expand their scheme in order eventually to achieve complete global economic control by transforming the International Monetary Fund and World Bank combine into a central Federal Reserve system for the planet. One of the first in-depth presentations of this plan to CFR membership came in 1981 with the publication of Collective Management: The Reform of Global Economic Organizations.

Written by Miriam Camps (CFR) in collaboration with Catherine Gwin (CFR), it was the 21st volume in the Council’s 1980s Project series. Collective Management’s proposals for “restructuring” United Nations institutions included designing a new global trade organization to supersede the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), merging several United Nations aid programs in order to create in their places a new “United Nations Basic Support Program,” and taking additional steps that would aid in “the continuing evolution of the IMF in the direction of a world central bank.”16

Expanding further on this topic in the Fall 1984 edition of Foreign Affairs, Harvard University Professor Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC) proposed “A Monetary System for the Future” that would mean the end of America as we know it.

He wrote:

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

 

“The currency of the Bank of Issue could be practically anything,” the Harvard economist continued. “... The key point is that monetary control — the issuance of currency and of reserve credit — would be in the hands of the new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of any national government....” (Emphasis added)

The problem, however, is that

“a single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.” (Emphasis added)

Insider Cooper realized the challenge involved in selling this totalitarian idea to the public.

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

Getting people in the West, and particularly in the United States, warm to the idea of “a pooling of monetary sovereignty” — especially with communist countries — would be difficult. Cooper wrote:

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

Convergence with Totalitarian Regimes

That requisite “convergence” is already underway and well-ahead of Professor Cooper’s 25-year estimate, thanks to the high-powered sales job his fellow CFR members have conducted on behalf of the “former” communist states. The Establishment policy line has been repeated again and again in the Insiders’ elite journals (Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, World Policy Journal), as well as in the CFR dominated popular media. It holds that the United States must provide Russia and all the nations of her former satellite empire with billions of dollars in credits and aid to help them make the transition to “a market economy.”
 

Writing in the Summer 1990 Foreign Policy, Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and Meryl A. Kessler set out the globalist line:

As for the economic realm, there is little hope for cooperation between the superpowers until the United States allows the Soviet Union to become a full-fledged actor in global economic affairs.... The United States should follow up by supporting immediate Soviet observer status in the IMF and the World Bank, leading toward full membership....

American interests and the credibility of the United States as a leader in world affairs would be enhanced by joining the Soviet Union in taking the lead at the United Nations.17

Those steps were adopted in toto by the Bush Administration. The 12 “republics” of the new Commonwealth of Independent States, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, and the three Baltic states have either become members of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund or are in the process of joining. The IMF is now in the process of transferring billions of tax dollars from the West to socialist regimes in the East still run by communists and former communists.

Not surprisingly, these regimes have shown little evidence of any serious intent to make the leap from collectivist to free-market economies.18

The Insider line, in fact, is that we must slow down the transition of the communist/socialist countries to free markets. Writing in the Summer 1992 World Policy Journal (published by the World Policy Institute — a CFR-dominated think tank — and the Fabian socialist New School for Social Research), Sherle R. Schwenninger asserted in an article entitled “The United States in the New World Order” that,

“the United States should use its weight within the IMF and the World Bank to encourage a slower transition to an open market economy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.”

Moreover, said Schwenninger, a senior fellow at the WPI-NSSR think tank,

“If the industrialized nations gave up their SDRs [special drawing rights] to the developing countries and the former republics of the Soviet Union, these countries would be able to borrow more money from the IMF.”

UN Taxing Authority

What is even more alarming, however, is Schwenninger’s assertion further along in the article that due to “needs ranging from the global environment to U.N. peacekeeping, we can no longer afford to rely on ‘voluntary’ national contributions....” As you might expect, in the next breath, he proposes granting taxing authority to the United Nations:

“If international agencies are to have the resources they need to address critical transnational problems, then we will need to move to a system of value-added taxes that would be automatically when goods and services cross national .”

Proposals along these lines are cropping up everywhere. Complaining of the UN’s “present mendicancy,” in his June 1992 An Agenda for Peace report to the UN Security Council, Secretary- General Boutros-Ghali called for the following:

“the establishment of a United Nations Peace Fund”;

“a levy on international air travel”;

“[a]uthorization to the Secretary-General to borrow commercially”;

“[s]uspending certain financial regulations of the United Nations”; and

“general tax exemption for contributions made to the United Nations.”19

Boutros-Ghali’s proposals were given a boost in Changing Our Ways, the 1992 report issued by the Carnegie Endowment’s National Commission on America and the New World. The Carnegie report, which was released amid great media fanfare, declared: “Any plausible vision for America’s future role in the world must include a renewed financial commitment to the United Nations.” It referred to the Boutros-Ghali package as a “bold but pragmatic set of financing proposals,” and urged “policymakers to study them carefully.”20

This Carnegie Commission, made up of a panel of 21 prominent Americans from the fields of politics, business, finance, and higher education, offered many proposals to collectivize and internationalize the American economy. This is hardly surprising since all but three of the panelists are members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Several are also members of the Trilateral Commission. The group’s chairman is Winston Lord, a former president of the CFR who is still a proud member.

Other Establishment heavyweights on the panel include:

• C. Fred Bergsten, director of the Institute for International Economics and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

• Morton Abramowitz, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and former Assistant Secretary of State

• Barber B. Conable, former president of the World Bank

• David Gergen, editor-at-large for U.S. News and World Report

• Jessica T. Mathews, vice president of the World Resources Institute and columnist for the Washington Post

The Carnegie panel believes we must “reduce our defense spending,” but we must also “[s]trengthen the peacekeeping capacities of the United Nations and regional organizations.”21 Its Changing Our Ways report advocates taxing Americans an additional $1.00 per gallon for “gasoline ... and other petroleum products,” calls for a “weight tax” on automobiles, and proposes a “substantial” tax on “carbon content.”22

More and More Power in Government

Consonant with the plans of the one-worlders at the United Nations and environmental extremists everywhere, these CFR elitists propose “swift ratification of the global warming treaty” and advancement of protocols “for the management of greenhouse gases.” The Carnegie report recommends Agenda 21, the massive program adopted at the UN’s Earth Summit that calls for government regulation and control of virtually every aspect of life in the name of protecting the environment.23

Other Insider-created organizations have come forward with similar proposals. One of the newest groups to enter the chorus is the Business Council for Sustainable Development (BCSD), an international group of globalist business executives. Launched in 1990 by Maurice Strong, it is chaired by Stephan Schmidheiny, chairman of UNOTEC, a Swiss investment company. Its U.S. members include William D. Ruckelshaus (CFR), chairman of Browning-Ferris Industries; Frank Popoff (CFR), president and CEO of Dow Chemical; and Paul H. O’Neill, chief executive officer of ALCOA. In a perfectly timed publicity coup, the BCSD released its 1992 book, Changing Course: A Global Perspective on Development and the Environment, just before the opening of the Rio Earth Summit.24

While paying lip service to “market incentives,” it quickly became apparent that, like the Carnegie panel’s recommendations, everything offered by the BCSD will increase the size, cost, and power of government.

This Business Council calls for “[n]ew forms of cooperation between government, business and society” to achieve “sustainable development.” According to these business leaders, “the prices of goods and services must increasingly recognize and reflect the environmental costs of their production, use, recycling, and disposal.” This, they say “is best achieved by a synthesis of economic instruments designed to correct [market] distortions” and “regulatory standards” to help the market “give the right signals.”25

The real philosophy behind the BCSD’s statist nostrums was revealed (most likely unintentionally) by BCSD member William Ruckelshaus, the first head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Just prior to the 1992 Earth Summit, he stated:

“What I real think is at stake here globally is the future of free institutions.... It really is an open question in my mind of whether we can cope with these chronic problems — problems that you don’t need to solve tomorrow in order to survive — within the context of freedom....”26

Still more propaganda for UN intervention in and control of the world economy came from the influential Club of Rome. Founded in 1968 by Italy’s Aurelio Peccei, a former top executive with the Olivetti Company and Fiat Motors, the Club of Rome boasts an elite membership of some 200 members worldwide who have backgrounds in business, science, politics, higher education, and religion. In its celebrated 1991 report, The First Global Revolution, the group called for the implementation of “energy accounting,” which it announced,

“is becoming increasingly necessary in measuring, for example, the carrying capacity of countries for human and animal populations.... It is urgent that a Worldwide Campaign of Energy Conservation and Efficiency be launched.”27 (Emphasis in original)

Moreover, the Club of Rome document proposed:

It would be appropriate that the scheme be launched by the United Nations in association with the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Meteorological Organization and UNESCO. A corollary would be the setting up in each country of an Energy Efficiency Council to supervise the operation on the national scale.28

Because of the “global nature as well as the seriousness of the environmental threats,” the Club called for “the creation of a UN Environmental Security Council parallel to the existing Security Council on military matters.” Also, the United Nations “should convene an intergovernmental scientific meeting to plan a comprehensive World Alternative Energy Project.”29 Like the Club’s 17 previous reports, The First Global Revolution sees more government as the solution to every real or imagined problem.

And because its members hold that all of mankind’s problems today are global, it only makes sense to favor global government.

“The market is ill-adapted to deal with long-term effects,” says the Club’s report. “... The system of the market economy countries based on competition is motivated by self-interest and ultimately on greed.”30

Echoing the socialist slogans of the environmental left, these globe-trotting, champagne-and-caviar consuming elitists hypocritically state:

“Our efforts to create a sustainable world society and economy demands that we diminish the profligate life-styles in the industrialized countries through a slow-down in consumption....”31

Appropriately, The First Global Revolution opens with the following excerpt from The Rubayat of Omar Khayyam:

Ah love! Could thou and I with fate conspire,
to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire,
would not we shatter it to bits and then,
remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.

Students of political history will recognize this as the same quatrain adopted by the Britain’s Fabian Socialist Society in their “open conspiracy” to create a socialist world. This verse was represented pictorially in the famous stained glass window at the Beatrice Webb House, a world-renowned socialist shrine in Surrey, England.

The window shows socialist leaders Sidney Webb and George Bernard Shaw smashing the world with hammers and, above their heads appears the last line of the quatrain, “remould it nearer to the heart’s desire.”32

Is it mere coincidence that the socialist-elitist-internationalist Club of Rome chose this favored Fabian verse? Don’t the proposals they and their fellow globalists offer lead inexorably to the creation of an all-powerful socialist super-state ruled by the United Nations?

With each passing day, the words and actions of the CFR, Trilateralist, Club of Rome, World Federalist one-worlders make plain that they intend to shatter freedom to bits and, then, remold the world to their collectivist heart’s desire.

Notes

1. William D. Ruckelshaus, quoted by Larry B. Stammer, Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1992, p. H11.
2. Daniel Wood, “The Wizard of Baca Grande,” West, May 1990, p. 35.
3. Colonel Edward Mandell House, Philip Dru: Administrator: A Story of Tomorrow — 1920 – 1935 (New York: B. W. Huebsch, 1919).
4. Wood, p. 33.
5. Dr. Antony C. Sutton, The War on Gold (Seal Beach, CA: ’76 Press, 1977), p. 99.
6. Dan Smoot, “The Dan Smoot Report: Pushed Into Bankruptcy,” The Review of the News, February 14, 1979, p. 31.
7. James Perloff, The Shadows of Power: The Council on Foreign Relations And The American Decline. Appleton, WI: Western Islands, 1988, p. 72.
8. See: David Rees, Harry Dexter White: A Study in Paradox (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1973); Whittaker Chambers, Witness (New York: Random House, 1952); Allen Weinstein, Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case (New York: Vintage Books, 1978); James Burnham, The Web of Subversion: Underground Networks in the U.S. Government (New York: The John Day Co., 1954); Elizabeth Bentley, Out of Bondage (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); and Christopher Andrew and Oleg Gordievsky, KGB: The Inside Story: Of Its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991).
9. See: Louis F. Budenz, The Techniques of Communism (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1954), p. 235-36; Burnham, pp. 37-39; and Activities of United States Citizens Employed by the United Nations, hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security, December 1, 1952, pp. 227-56 and January 2, 1953, p. 7.
10. Henry (Hans) Morgenthau, quoted by Henry Hazlitt, From Bretton Woods to World Inflation (Chicago: Regnery Gateway, 1984), p. 88.
11. Smoot, pp. 32-33.
12. Hazlitt, p. 7.
13. Ibid., p. 14.
14. Ibid., p. 26-7.
15. Ibid., p. 19.
16. Miriam Camps and Catherine Gwin, Collective Management: The Reform of Global Economic Organizations, 21st volume in the CFR’s 1980s Project series (New York: McGraw Hill, 1981).
17. Thomas G. Weiss and Meryl A. Kessler, “Moscow’s U.N. Policy,” Foreign Policy, Summer 1990, p. 112.
18. See, for examples, William F. Jasper “From the Atlantic to the Urals (and Beyond),” The New American, January 27, 1992; and the author’s interviews with Yuri N. Maltsev and Llewellyn H. Rockwell reported in “Meeting Ground of East and West,” The New American, February 24, 1992, pp. 23-24.
19. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace- Keeping (New York: United Nations, 1992), pp. 41-43.
20. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace National Commission on America and the New World, Changing Our Ways: America and the New World (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1992), p. 54.
21. Ibid., p. 5.
22. Ibid., p. 44.
23. Ibid., pp. 46, 38-39.
24. Stephan Schmidheiny with the Business Council for Sustainable Development, Changing Course: A Global Business Perspective on Development and the Environment (MA: MIT Press, 1992).
25. Ibid., p. xi.
26. William D. Ruckelshaus, quoted by Larry B. Stammer, Los Angeles Times, May 26, 1992, p. H11.
27. Alexander King & Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution, a report by the Council of the Club of Rome (New York: Pantheon Books, 1991), p. 156.
28. Ibid., pp. 156-57.
29. Ibid., pp. 157-59.
30. Ibid., p. 198.
31. Ibid., p. 257.
32. An artist’s drawing of the Fabian Window now displayed in Beatrice Webb House is provided in Zygmund Dobbs (Research Director), The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences (West Sayville, NY: Veritas Foundation, 1964), p. viii.

Back to Contents

Back to The Global Banking