KV83aaMi

1American Babylon
2-Rise and Fall-
3
4American Babylon
5-Rise and Fall-
6
7
8 
9
10
11Introduction
12
13Part 1: The Economic Challenge
14
15Part 2: America at a Crossroads
16
17Part 3: America's Imperial Achievements
18
19Part 4: A One World Vision, New York City, and the CFR
20
21Part 5: The Triumph of the Merchants
22
23Part 6: Globalization and the American New World Order
24
25Part 7: New York City and the Apocalypse
26 
27
28 
29
30    This study is a comprehensive historical/political analysis of the United States of America, and of the powers that have controlled her since the early twentieth century. Our nation was born in a struggle against Empire, and we existed for over a century as an example and leader around the world against the oppression that Empire represented. However, a change took place. We were seduced and then intoxicated by the lure of luxury and riches, and we became an agent for Empire, and then an Empire ourselves. 
31    The Introduction of this study simply puts forth the fact that the world has undergone a massive change, and that a New World Order has already arrived. It is a New World Order that is dominated by the merchants and financiers who, from their power base in New York City, continue to erode sovereign nations around the world in their blind pursuit for profit. Christians must address this present New World Order, and American Christians, many of whom have been duped into supporting it, must take a step back and reevaluate their basic values and their deeply held political prejudices.
32    Part One explains the wickedness behind the global financial system that now dominates. It is based on greed, period. However, Americans can be encouraged by the fact that traditional American ideals used to be much more clear and pure. We used to champion an economic system based on human development and progress, and we saw through the false and destructive lure of Empire. We can take pride in the past, and we deserve to and should, because we were once the world's greatest expression of liberty. If only America would recognize those ideals we still might realize our potential to lead the world in a positive direction.
33    Part Two explains where things went wrong, but it also brings forth an unlikely hero, at least from the usual Conservative viewpoint, in the fight against Empire. Many will question my perspective on the career of FDR, but it must be conceded that he played an instrumental role in dismantling the British Empire, offering oppressed people around the world at least a brief chance to realize freedom. In this he was a true American. However, when FDR died things went wrong, and the profit-minded Establishment that surrounded him was able to dominate Truman and chart a course once again for Empire. 
34    Part Three explains some of the events that took place as America consolidated its Empire. The Cold War was, for all intents and purposes, a sham, a charade, a smokescreen, that allowed the American merchant and banking Establishment to expand their influence and pad their profits. As this study covers American involvement in the Third World we will introduce various members of the so-called "American Establishment." Men like Allen and John Foster Dulles, John J. McCloy, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and George Bush. Their connection to the international bankers and merchants will be explained and their roles in sponsoring oppression and destroying Democracy will be highlighted. We'll also take a good look at an aberration, the brief respite the world felt while JFK led the nation. The longer he remained in power the more Wall Street became frustrated. And so they killed him.
35    Part Four examines the history of the Anglo-American goal of a single world government, and it examines the Council on Foreign Relations as a branch of the faction dedicated to that goal. The CFR is revealed as one of the most effective institutions pursuing the Anglo-American objective of "gradually absorbing the wealth of the world," and its role as a promoter of the international merchants and of free market economics against the sovereignty of nations is highlighted.
36    Part Five is perhaps the most important section of this study and should be read by all Conservatives who believe that only Capitalism and the "free market" can save us from tyranny. The opposite is true. The future totalitarian one world government is being built on the back of unrestricted Capitalism, which has been the stated goal of some of the most revered "free market" economists of the twentieth century. This section will also reveal that "conservative economics" is only ultra-liberalism in disguise, and has been from the beginning. Its champions have always viewed the Judeo-Christian ethic of brotherly love and moral restraint as their greatest enemy.
37    Part Six demonstrates why the Establishment has pushed "Conservative" economics as the system of choice, and will show that in the past few decades this system, working hand in hand with the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization, has succeeded in bringing about the greatest theft of real wealth, from the poor into the hands of the super-rich, that this world has ever seen.
38    Part Seven organizes and analyzes all of the preceding facts and matches them up with the seventeenth and eighteenth chapters of the Book of Revelation. New York City, the home of the international merchants that have seduced and corrupted the kings of the earth, causing them to betray their own people in return for riches and material luxury, is our American Babylon. New York City is that great city that will be judged by God and then hated by the Antichrist.
39
40 American Babylon
41-Rise and Fall-
42 
43
44 
45
46Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, 
47who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth 
48committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth 
49were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries...
50
51For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine
52of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed
53adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth
54grew rich from her excessive luxuries...
55
56Your merchants were the world's great men. 
57By your magic spell all the nations were led astray.
58
59Revelation 17 and 18
60
61
62 
63
64Introduction
65
66A Satanic New World Order has arrived.
67
68It now openly dominates a greater part of the globe.
69
70It is portrayed quite vividly in the Book of Revelation, so why is it that Christian America remains so ignorant of its existence, and of its origin, power and purpose?
71
72The reason is that this New World Order has been established largely as an American enterprise and exists under American domination. It was built under the guise of fighting Communism, and when the Cold War ended it came out into the open. Many people do not realize its malevolence because the American Establishment - in politics, business and in the media - has insisted on portraying it as a promoter of freedom and global prosperity, when in fact the opposite is true.
73
74This American-dominated New World Order is based very much upon Economics, and "consumerism," "corporate profits," "free trade" and "globalization," are all important precepts upon which it has been established. It is portrayed as a defender of "freedom," but to those who look closely it becomes clear that the "freedom to pursue profit" is its most important freedom, and all others are subservient.
75
76This New World Order may be dominated by the United States of America, but the philosophies and policies upon which it is based can be shown quite clearly to be very un-American, in the traditional sense, and also very un-Christian. Unfortunately in America today our history books have been written under the influence of the people who created and who benefit from this New World Order, and no critical understanding of it can be gained there. Sadly, many of our Churches have also been subverted into supporting it, especially within the so-called "conservative" Religious Right, the political-religious faction that seems to always pray and vote in favor of Wall Street and the military/industrial complex.
77
78In this corporate-based New World Order we have various interests labeled, in the media for instance, as Big Business, Big Oil, Big Tobacco, etc. Into this corporate mix we can add the massively wealthy and hugely influential shadow of Big Christianity. The truth about our present World Order cannot be understood without breaking away from the political indoctrination many Americans receive from Big Christianity. We must have the courage to be critical of the powers that be, to learn what both America and Christianity were originally all about, and to discover how both have been subverted.
79
80The term "New World Order" means different things to different people. To most conservatives and Christians the New World Order is the shadowy goal of the United Nations, Communists, and Globalists to create a one world government, destroy the U.S. Constitution, and eradicate borders and the sovereignty of individual nations.
81
82To President George Bush Sr. the New World Order meant the end of the Cold War and the triumph of "free-market" capitalism. He viewed it as a positive thing, along with Wall Street and the corporate-dominated political establishment. This is the "New World Order" that Christians need to address today. It is not a conspiracy theory set to be unleashed in the not-too-distant future. It exists today, right here, right now, and it is anything but "Christian."
83
84The oppression and injustice of the New World Order is continually illuminated and challenged by a multitude of articulate critics, but because these critics are usually labeled "leftist" or "liberal" Big Christianity has found it easy to ignore them. By doing this Big Christianity has found that it has lost its place on the pedestal of moral authority in the eyes of the public, and "compassionate conservatism" has quickly become a pathetic oxymoron.
85
86If American Christians are to ever regain their position as a legitimate moral voice in world affairs then they must have the integrity and courage to address the evils of the system that they have helped bring about. What follows are a few selections from the critics of our New World Order that help to define exactly what it is, and how it is the greatest force in the world today that threatens freedom, democracy, and the sovereignty of individual nations.
87
88-- In 1995 authors Richard Barnet and John Cavanagh published Global Dreams: Imperial Corporations and the New World Order. It is a study that describes how "global companies are steadily replacing the political power of sovereign nations; controlling the flow of money, goods, and information across the globe; and affecting everything from the fundamentalist strife in the Third World to the products we eat, drink, smoke, and wear at home."
89
90-- In 1996 Noam Chomsky released World Orders Old and New. The staunch leftist MIT professor gives a review of the Cold War (Old World Order), and an analysis of the New World Order of American-dominated capitalism. He shows very clearly that Western success has come at the economic expense of the Third World, offering statistics such as those from the UN Development Program that show that the gap between rich and poor nations doubled between 1969 and 1989. Chomsky, as the heir of Bertrand Russell, holds some very twisted views on morality, liberty and human progress, but his criticism of the New World Order is certainly valid.
91
92-- In One World, Ready Or Not (1998), best-selling author William Greider analyzes the New World Order of corporate globalization and "contends that the global economy is sowing 'creative destruction' everywhere: while making possible great accumulations of wealth, it is also reviving forms of human exploitation that characterized industry one hundred years ago. Greider warns that if the system isn't reformed it will threaten not only our middle-class lifestyles but also social peace in rich and poor countries alike."
93
94-- Political Science professor David Model offers Corporate Rule: Understanding and Challenging the New World Order (2002). He explains how "concentrations of economic, social and political power are being held by a few strong companies," and highlights "how devastating these effects have been to both the planet and the majority of its inhabitants."
95
96-- In 2002 investigative journalist John Pilger authored The New Rulers of the World. An extraordinary indictment of the New World Order, Pilger reveals the "secrets and illusions" of power, and "illuminates the nature of modern imperialism." He discloses "how up to a million Indonesians died as the price for being the World Bank's 'model pupil,'" and he describes "the new thrust of American power and its goal of 'world order,' as well as the propaganda that justifies and drives it."
97
98--Another serious and intelligent critique of the new global economy comes from Noreena Hertz in her 2002 book, "The Silent Takeover : Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy". A reviewer of the book writes, "Cambridge University economist Hertz asserts that Reagan's and Thatcher's brand of free market capitalism has had dire social and political repercussions, although it has triumphed as the dominant world ideology and brought prosperity to many. She sensibly argues that with government in retreat from its traditional rule-setter role, multinational corporations have grown so powerful (51 of the hundred biggest economies in the world are corporations) that they determine political policies rather than operate subject to them. Market success may rule, but Hertz laments that the state, in appearing to serve business, may be nullifying democracy's social contract to represent and protect the rights of all citizens equally."
99
100-- One of the best exposés of the effects of globalization is given by journalist Greg Palast in his 2002 bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Palast refers to the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization as the "iron triangle of globalization," and he reveals a great deal about how they work, and who they work for, from a number of confidential documents that were placed in his hands. (More of this information can be read within the "Globalization" section of Palast's website.)
101
102For most American Christians the books referred to above may be hard reading. Many of the authors are very anti-American, several are vocal atheists, and some would probably describe themselves as socialist. But these uncomfortable traits and tendencies should not distract the reader from the task at hand, which is to simply understand the true nature of our New World Order of corporate globalization: who encourages it, who benefits from it, and who suffers. With the knowledge gained from the works above and from the rest of this study it should then become clear to the true Christian how he or she should relate to it.
103
104Hopefully this study will also help to inform the many critics of Christianity as well. In a day and age when Christianity is seen as increasingly irrelevant as a faith, but increasingly dangerous as an aggressive and outspoken political force, this study intends to show that God is not blind and that Jesus Christ stands where He has always stood. He is the great Example for the unpopular but persistent peacemakers of our day, the great Hope of those who hunger and thirst after justice, and the eternal Saviour of those who humbly seek His mercy.
105
106American Babylon
107-Rise and Fall-
108 
109
110
111
112Part 1: The Economic Challenge
113
114Greed Is Good
115The American System of Economics
116The General Welfare
117The Fight for the American System
118
119 
120
121Greed Is Good
122
123Adam Smith is the patron saint of our Corporate-dominated New World Order. He was an eighteenth century British economist and the author of the much-revered "free trade" bible, The Wealth of Nations. His basic premise was that if people were simply allowed to freely pursue their own self-interest (profit) without any government or other interference, then the "invisible hand," meaning Adam Smith's magical and omnipotent market forces, would miraculously act to guide and expand the economy, stabilize fair prices and inevitably lead to a perfect society free from want and poverty.
124
125The character played by Michael Douglas, in Oliver Stone's 1987 film Wall Street, summed up the fundamental conclusion that is inevitably drawn from the economic theories of Adam Smith, when he declared...
126
127“The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works.”
128
129Adam Smith said that if business was just left alone to pursue profit then everything would work itself out perfectly and fairly. According to Adam Smith, the love of money is the key to a fair and just society and to all human happiness. The Apostle Paul shows that this fantasy is not just delusional, but also evil. Inspired by the Holy Spirit he had this to say about the "love of money,"
130
131"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:9-10)
132
133The truth is that the laissez-faire (French for "leave alone") economic theory of Adam Smith is an extreme system that has never been the foundation or source of any nation's economic progress. It is a system that only succeeds in enriching the rich at the expense of the poor, and it helped to create the injustice that prompted the emergence of Communism. These two opposing systems, both evil, both extreme, (and both created in Britain within the influence of the British East India Company), have been used to divide and conquer humanity, and to create the bogus left/right paradigm that so many of our politicians, intellectuals and academics have accepted and perpetuated. People are led to believe that they can only choose between either unrestricted Adam Smith "greed-is-good" capitalism, or totally restricted and atheistic Karl Marx Communism. Is there not any rational middle ground between these two wicked extremes!?
134
135
136The American System of Economics
137
138The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, the same year in which the United States of America declared independence from Great Britain. In his book Smith commented on the prosperity of the American colonies and offered some economic advice for their future. He wrote,
139
140    It has been the principal cause of the rapid progress of our American colonies towards wealth and greatness, that almost their whole capitals have hitherto been employed in agriculture. They have no manufactures, those household and coarser manufactures excepted, which necessarily accompany the progress of agriculture, and which are the work of the women and children in every private family. The greater part, both of the exportation and coastal trade of America, is carried on by the capital of merchants who reside in Great Britain...
141    Were the Americans, either by combination or by any other sort of violence, to stop the importation of European manufactures, and, by thus giving a monopoly to such of their own countrymen as could manufacture the like goods, divert any considerable part of their capital into this employment, they would retard instead of accelerating the further increase in the value of their annual produce, and would obstruct instead of promote the progress of their country towards real wealth and greatness.
142
143History shows that America's founding fathers ignored Adam Smith's advice, and built America into a great power by doing the very opposite of what he suggested. What became known as the American System of Economics was designed in part by Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and most importantly, Alexander Hamilton, the far-sighted thinker who Washington appointed as the first Secretary of the Treasury at the age of thirty-two.
144
145Hamilton's energies were focused first and foremost on the area of the economy that Smith argued should be left alone. Hamilton commissioned a comprehensive study on industry and manufacturing as it existed in the new nation, he fought for federal support for the emerging industries, and he also pushed through a policy of high tariffs on British imports, aimed at the very British merchants that Adam Smith worked so hard his whole life to protect. Hamilton's policies helped the United States declare financial independence from Great Britain, after the military battle was won. Tariffs and subsidies, as well as the National Bank and  the National Mint, both established under Hamilton, were some of the key components of the American economy that helped build the nation and set her on a path to greatness.
146
147The American System continued after Hamilton's death through the Whig Party and through patriots like Henry Clay, Mathew Carey, John Quincy Adams, and later Henry Carey and Abraham Lincoln. However, by the end of the nineteenth century, with the rise of the British-allied financial/political/media powerhouses of Morgan and Rockefeller, the American System of Economics began to be pushed aside in favor of Adam Smith's "free trade" policies.
148
149The economic system created by America's founders was meant to work with the basic moral principles that they lived by. The Declaration of Independence puts forth the Biblical truth that mankind is one continuous brotherhood, created in the image of God, and equal under God, divinely endowed with the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.  In other words, the founders understood that man is created with a divine purpose and a positive potential, and they understood man's responsibility to rule over all the creatures of the earth and over all the earth itself. God commanded man to "fill the earth and subdue it," and this is fulfilled through the American System of Economics by its faith in human creativity and ingenuity, and in its dedication to human progress over the many hurdles that nature presents.
150
151On the other hand, Adam Smith, influenced as he was by thinkers such as John Locke (See Leibniz, not Locke, Inspired the Declaration of Independence) and Bernard de Mandeville (who argued that a sinful citizenry is good for a nation) showed no such faith, and offered no such dedication. Adam Smith thought that progress would occur despite what he called "the slow and uncertain determinations of our reasons," and then only by leaving the merchants alone to pursue their profits. This is one of many basic philosophical and moral differences between the American System and the "free trade" system originated by Adam Smith that became the dominant system of Empire, in either its Anglo or later American form.
152
153
154The General Welfare
155
156The single most important principle of the American System of Economics is its dedication to the "General Welfare." This is first explicitly mentioned in the preamble to the United States Constitution:
157
158"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
159
160Later it is mentioned again in Article 1, Section 8:
161
162"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States..."
163
164The concept of a government that has a duty to provide for the "General Welfare" of its citizens was a concept that was naturally arrived at by men who had a great respect and admiration for the teachings of Jesus Christ. The great patriot Patrick Henry once commented on the foundation of the new United States, 
165
166"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
167
168When the French aristocrat Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the 1830s he wrote that "the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country."
169
170Jesus Christ clearly showed, through His teachings and His actions, that we have a responsibility, guided by our God-given sense of compassion, to do our best to help our fellow man in his basic material needs. Therefore America's Founding Father's knew that a government that was formed of the people, by the people, and for the people - a Christian people guided by Christian morals - had a duty to care for the basic needs of its citizens, and a mission to focus on maintaining and improving the general welfare of all.
171
172Unfortunately, since the end of World War II any attempt by any government to actively promote the general welfare of its citizens has run the risk of being falsely denounced by American conservatives and their Establishment controllers as "socialist" or even "communist." Very quickly the distinction between controlled capitalism and human progress dedicated to an improvement of the general welfare, as opposed to the rigid socialist or communist "welfare state," became purposely clouded. Controlled capitalism that helped to build nations was shoved aside in favor of unrestricted capitalism that helped to build the bank accounts of the Anglo-American Elite and their few fortunate business partners.
173
174
175The Fight for the American System
176
177Friedrich List was a German economist who studied the American System and contrasted it with the British "free-trade" system of Adam Smith. After receiving an economic education in America in the 1830's he returned to Germany and his endorsement of the American System of national economy became the basis for Germany's massive economic expansion in the second half of the 19th Century. Here is one of his comments on Adam Smith,
178
179However this teacher of national economy [Smith] is esteemed in other respects, all of his merits can not compensate for the immeasurable damage which the fable of so-called free trade, which he has implanted in the ears of our theoreticians, has caused. Smith's basic error consists in the fact, that he ascribes a productive power to capital, although only labor produces, with the assistance of a greater or lesser capital.
180
181List also spoke out brazenly against Adam Smith in a speech in Philadelphia in 1827, saying,
182
183His system, considered as a whole, is so confused and distracted, as if the principal aim of his books were not to enlighten nations, but to confuse them for the benefit of his own country.
184
185Great Britain was the richest country in the world at the time and Adam Smith's views were promoted as a means for her merchants to get even richer. In Boston and New York the descendents of the Tory merchant families who had fought on the British side in the Revolutionary War also agitated constantly for "free-trade" in America. The fact is that Adam Smith's laissez faire economic theory has always been the favorite of merchants, the fat cats in the middle who buy and sell, but rarely consume or produce. In this passage from List (quotes taken from "Friedrich List and the American System"), he comments first on the principle of the "general welfare," and lastly on the merchant interests in Smith's system,
186
187An individual, in promoting his own interest, may injure the public interest; a nation, in promoting the general welfare, may check the interest of a part of its members. But the general welfare must restrict and regulate the exertions of the individuals, as the individuals must derive a supply of their strength from social power... It is bad policy to regulate everything and to promote everything, by employing social powers, where things may better regulate themselves and can be better promoted by private exertions; but it is no less bad policy to let those things alone which can only be promoted by interfering social power... Look around, and you see everywhere the exertions and acts of individuals restricted, regulated, or promoted, on the principle of the common welfare. The commonplace of laissez faire et laissez passer, invented by a merchant, can therefore only be alleged sincerely by these merchants.
188
189The United States of America became a great nation precisely because the government interfered in the private sector, regulated the economy, promoted industry and infrastructure, and fulfilled its Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare. List wrote,
190
191Without interference of national power there is no security, no faith in coined money, in measures and weights, no security for the health of seaports, no security for the commerce at sea by the aid of a navy, no interference for the citizens in foreign seaports and countries by Consuls and Ministers, no titles to land, no patents, no copyright, no canals and railroads, no national road. Industry entirely left to itself, would soon fall to ruin, and a nation letting everything alone [laissez faire!] would commit suicide.
192
193The battle for the American System of Economics was fought successfully throughout the nineteenth century. Its defenders were true patriots who sought to uphold the U.S. Constitution and Christian principles of morality. Its attackers who pushed "free trade" were the Northern merchants and elitist families that later became known as the East Coast Establishment, and the Southern plantation owners, later of the Confederacy, that were allied economically with Great Britain as simply another colony offering the Empire a cheap raw material harvested by slaves. 
194
195In 1852 Senator Thaddeus Stevens added his voice to the debate over "free trade" in a Congressional debate,
196
197    It is not my intention to discuss at much length the doctrine of free trade. That has been so amply done of late, both orally and in writing, as to become tedious. 
198    But although the theory has been much discussed, it has never been reduced to practice, except among barbarian tribes. I think gentlemen cannot point to a single highly-civilized commercial and manufacturing nation capable of producing the raw material, that has ever adopted it. Every highly-cultivated nation has made the protection of domestic industry the special care of Government. It has been found by the experience of more than twenty centuries that the protection of domestic manufactures by prohibitions, discriminating duties, and commercial regulations, has been, and is, the true, natural, and wise policy of nations, or all history is a lie...
199    England has acquired all this power, wealth, and grandeur through her protective policy alone. And now she preaches "free trade" to others--to young nations! And there are found shallow dupes who swallow the bait! It is often objected to a protective tariff, that it is for the benefit of the rich capitalists. This argument, I know, is never used by statesmen, or writers on political economy; but often by demagogues, who fancy themselves statesmen... [David Rockefeller, Reagan/Thatcher, George Soros, Clinton/Bush, Rush Limbaugh, etc.]
200    It is a question of serious import, whether this country will ever become sufficiently manufacturing to produce enough for her own consumption, and furnish for exportation. It is very certain that under the free-trade system she never will.
201
202Another vigorous defender of the American System was Henry Carey, the economic advisor of Abraham Lincoln. A devout Christian, Carey clearly understood the evils of British colonialism and the oppressive anti-Christian nature of their economic system. In his writings he saw that slavery was the key component of "free trade,"
203
204Hence it is that we see the slave trade prevail to so great an extent in all the countries subject to the British system.... The system to which the world is indebted for these results is called "free trade''; but there can be no freedom of trade where there is no freedom of man, for the first of all commodities to be exchanged is labour, and the freedom of man consists only in the exercise of the right to determine for himself in what manner his labour shall be employed, and how he will dispose of its products.... It [the British System] is the most gigantic system of slavery the world has yet seen, and therefore it is that freedom gradually disappears from every country over which England is enabled to obtain control....
205
206The system commonly called free trade tends to produce the former results [the cheapening of labour and land everywhere, the perpetuation of slavery, and the extension of its domain]; and where man is enslaved there can be no real freedom of trade. That one which looks to protection against this extraordinary system of taxation, tends to enable men to determine for themselves whether they will make their exchanges abroad or at home; and it is in this power of choice that consists the freedom of trade and of man. By adopting the 'free trade,' or British, system we place ourselves side by side with the men who have ruined Ireland and India, and are now poisoning and enslaving the Chinese people. By adopting the other, we place ourselves by the side of those whose measures tend not only to the improvement of their own subjects, but to the emancipation of the slave everywhere, whether in the British Islands, India, Italy, or America...
207
208The modern school of political economy [the British school] says, ‘Be not fruitful; do not multiply. Population tends to increase faster than food.’ It prescribes disobedience to the earliest of God’s commands. Obedience thereto, in those who are poor, is denounced as improvidence… To have children to develop all the kindly and provident feelings of the parents, is a crime worthy of punishment. Charity is denounced as tending to promote the growth of population… Southey denounced the Byronian school of poetry as ‘satanic’ and so may we fairly do with the political economy that has grown out of the colonial system… It teaches every thing but Christianity…
209
210The fundamental difference between the American System of Economics and the satanic British "Free Trade" System of Adam Smith is explained very simply by journalist James Fallows in his essential article, "How the World Works." In it Fallows comments on the economic history of Britain and how Britain became great by protectionist policies that were contrary to Adam Smith's laissez faire system. Only after she achieved industrial preeminence did she begin to advocate free trade to the world as a means of opening up markets for her manufactured goods. And then Britain's long-term economic decline began at the very moment that she began adopting laissez faire policies, so much so that the vast and mighty Empire, upon which the sun never set, was forced to depend on American economic might to rescue it from both world wars. Britain's merchants, bankers and upper class families became rich through laissez faire policies, but the British government, the national economy, and the people as a whole suffered. After commenting on Britain Fallows turns to America,
211
212    America's economic history follows the same pattern. While American industry was developing, the country had no time for laissez-faire. After it had grown strong, the United States began preaching laissez-faire to the rest of the world -- and began to kid itself about its own history, believing its slogans about laissez-faire as the secret of its success.
213    The "traditional" American support for worldwide free trade is quite a recent phenomenon. It started only at the end of the Second World War. This period dominates the memory of most Americans now alive but does not cover the years of America's most rapid industrial expansion. As the business historian Thomas McCraw, of the Harvard Business School, has pointed out, the United States, which was born in the same year as The Wealth of Nations, never practiced an out-and-out mercantilist policy, as did Spain in the colonial days. But "it did exhibit for 150 years after the Revolution a pronounced tendency toward protectionism, mostly through the device of the tariff."
214
215Fallows quotes from President William McKinley (1897-1901), who remarked on American achievements by saying,
216
217We lead all nations in agriculture; we lead all nations in mining; we lead all nations in manufacturing. These are the trophies which we bring after twenty-nine years of a protective tariff.
218
219When Adam Smith concluded that "the wealth of a state consists in the cheapness of provisions and all other necessaries and conveniences of life," he created a system that primarily looks out for the interests of the merchants by cleverly appealing to the short-term interests of consumers ("We want cheap goods!"). On the other hand, the American System looks out for the interests of the nation as a whole, and for the general welfare of its citizens, which is done by promoting the producers of the nation, rather than  the merchants or the consumers (most of whom are producers to begin with). James Fallows summarizes List's American System argument, and then makes a perceptive analogy:
220
221"a society's well-being and its overall wealth are determined not by what the society can buy but by what it can make. This is the corollary of the familiar argument about foreign aid: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for his life."
222
223Fallows also notes Abraham Lincoln's common-sense observation regarding the battle over "Free Trade" when he said, "I don't know much about the tariff, but I know this much: When we buy manufactured goods abroad we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money."
224
225When confronted with the work of Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, Henry Carey, and other promoters of the American System of Economics, Adam Smith's laissez faire economic system put forth in The Wealth of Nations shows itself to be fatally flawed in its understanding of the true nature of wealth, and of how wealth is best used to serve the people. The theories of Adam Smith, then, can be justly blamed for the economic catastrophe that exists in the Third World today, because his theories have been steadily forced upon those nations since the end of World War II. To put the Third World's main problem in Lincoln's terms: The foreigner got the money.
226
227The next few sections will explain how the United States Government became the main henchman for the international merchants as the primary enforcer of the laissez faire "Free Trade" system during this time.
228 
229American Babylon
230-Rise and Fall-
231
232 
233
234
235Part 2: America at a Crossroads
236
237The Subversion of the Republic
238The Heroic Presidency of FDR
239FDR's Post-War Vision
240The End of Imperialism?
241The Third World War
242
243
244
245The Subversion of the Republic
246
247"Free Trade" was preached by Britain once her position as a manufacturing and industrial leader appeared secure. She used "Free Trade" to destroy whatever competition existed in her colonies of Ireland, India, Egypt and elsewhere, reducing them to poor dependencies that only exported cheap raw materials. The young United States could very well have suffered the same fate were it not for the far-sightedness of her founding fathers and for the economic system that they created. Elements of the American System of national economy were then adopted by Germany, Japan and Russia, which helped these countries grow strong and resist the very Empire that America had been born in revolt of. In fact, these were America's greatest allies of the nineteenth century until the pro-British Wall Street faction under the Houses of Morgan and Rockefeller was able to influence American foreign policy. Then the flip-flop occurred, which led directly to World Wars I and II, and the Cold War.
248
249Historians refer to the American switch from being an enemy of the British Empire, to being a supporter and imitator of it, as the "Great Rapprochement." It was anything but "great." It was a betrayal of the most fundamental American values. The British Empire was the world's nine-hundred pound gorilla. At its height the Empire controlled over a quarter of the world's land area, its navy dominated all the oceans, and its government controlled a population of just over half a billion subjects, which was about a fifth of the world's population. Within this huge Empire only a tiny white minority could claim to be able to exercise their God-given rights to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The rest were enslaved economically and often subdued violently through the barrel of a gun. The English novelist George Orwell was born in Burma and spent his young life there. In his semi-autobiographical novel Burmese Days Orwell explains British colonialism through one of his characters,
250
251    My dear doctor... how can you make out that we are in this country for any purpose except to steal? It's so simple. The official holds the Burman down while the businessman goes through his pockets. Do you suppose my firm, for instance, could get its timber contracts if the country weren't in the hands of the British? Or the other timber firms, or the oil companies, or the miners and planters and traders?
252    ...We've even crushed various industries. Where are the Indian muslims now? Back in the 'forties [1840's] or thereabouts they were building sea-going ships in India, and manning them well. Now you couldn't build a seaworthy fishing boat there. In the eighteenth century the Indians cast guns that were at any rate up to the European standard. Now after we've been in India a hundred and fifty years, you can't make so much as a brass cartridge case in the whole continent. The only Eastern races that have developed at all quickly are the independent ones.
253
254Profit was the great lure of Empire, and the Elite families of America's northeast knew that they could easily take their share of the booty if only they could convince the American government to follow Britain's example. In fact, Christopher Hitchens, in his insightful book, Blood, Class, and Nostalgia - Anglo-American Ironies, notes that the terms "East Coast," "Establishment," and "Anglophile" have often been interchangeable. The truth is that the "East Coast Establishment" has always been just an American branch of the British Empire.
255
256A significant achievement for this faction was the installment of Theodore Roosevelt as President of the United States after the assassination of President William McKinley. Roosevelt idolized the British Empire and saw that his own nation had the potential to do the same. Under Roosevelt relations between the two former enemies became solid, and American foreign policy strategists began to learn the British way of doing things. However, Roosevelt's expansionist dreams were met with a great deal of contempt from most Americans, including politician William Jennings Bryan, who gave his views in his book A Republic, Not An Empire, and Mark Twain, a long-time head of the popular and influential Anti-Imperialist League, who wrote passionately against America's colonial policy in the Philippines.
257
258After Theodore Roosevelt the next openly pro-British President was Woodrow Wilson. Descended from a Confederate family, and a great supporter of the Ku Klux Klan, Wilson's policy decisions, such as slashing the tariff, allowing the creation of the Federal Reserve, and entering the United States into World War I, were very helpful to the British Empire. However, even though Wilson was a devoted anglophile, and surrounded by like-minded Eastern Establishment advisors and policy makers, he still understood the American ideal of self-determination for all, and he articulated it well in his speeches and writings. Unfortunately his actions, or inaction, outweighed his words, and he watched the British Empire make its greatest one-time expansion in the aftermath of World War I.
259
260The creation of the Federal Reserve in particular was a great achievement for the British Empire and for their economic control of the world. A year later in 1914 the long-planned war against Germany was brought to fruition in Europe, and American financing, even prior to American entry into the war in 1917, was the key to the British victory.
261
262After the war the Federal Reserve, dominated as it was by Morgan and Rockefeller interests, acted in partnership with Wall Street and the City of London as a British economic weapon against the general welfare of the American people and the global economy as a whole. Historian Webster Tarpley explains this complicated situation in his important essay "BRITISH FINANCIAL WARFARE: 1929; 1931- 33 - HOW THE CITY OF LONDON CREATED THE GREAT DEPRESSION".
263
264Tarpley reveals how two key people were responsible for carrying out the policies that led to the Great Depression. The first was Sir Montagu Norman, the governor of the Bank of England from 1920-1944. The second was Benjamin Strong, the Governor of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1914 to 1929.
265
266Note: (Tarpley writes that Norman "...owned a large piece of Hjalmar Schacht, Governor of the German Reichsbank and later Finance Minister in governments in which Adolf Hitler was chancellor. Montagu Norman himself, along with King Edward VIII, Lady Astor and Sir Neville Chamberlain, was one of the strongest supporters of Hitler in the British aristocracy. Norman put his personal prestige on the line in September, 1933 to support the Hitler regime in its first attempt to float a loan in London. The Bank of England's consent was at that time indispensable for floating a foreign bond issue, and Norman made sure that the "Hitler bonds" were warmly recommended in the City."
267    Norman's grandfather had been a very successful banker and a partner in the New York bank of Brown Brothers & Co. By the early 1930's the bank was known as Brown Brothers, Harriman, and was run by W. Averell Harriman and Prescott Bush, the grandfather of George W. Bush. Their firm was an important financial backer of Hitler - See Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony Sutton, Ch.4, p.74. In 1942 another Bush-Harriman enterprise, the Union Banking Corporation, was seized by the Federal Government for its support for Nazi Germany under the Trading With the Enemy Act. - See George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, chapter 2. The bottom line is that the rise of Hitler was only accomplished through the support of this elitist Anglo-American Establishment, the treasonous cabal that we will continue to analyze.)
268
269Sir Montagu Norman and Benjamin Strong operated in tandem, with frequent meetings and constant contact, to create the financial bubble of the 1920's that Norman saw as necessary to insure the primacy of the gold-based British pound. Here is how Tarpley explains it,
270
271    Montagu Norman's golden pound would have been unthinkable without the puppet role of Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Since the pound was grotesquely overvalued, the British were running a balance of payments deficit because of their excess of imports over exports. That meant that Norman had to ship gold from the Bank of England in Threadneedle Street across the Atlantic. The British gold started to flow towards New York, where most of the world's gold already was. 
272    The only way to stop the flow of gold from London to New York, Norman reasoned, was to get the United States to launch a policy of easy money, low interest rates, reflation, and a weak dollar - in short, a policy of inflation. The key to obtaining this was Benjamin Strong, who dominated the New York Fed, and was in a position to dominate the entire Federal Reserve system which was, of course, independent of the "political control" of the US government which these oligarchs so much resented. 
273    In essence, Norman's demand was that the US should launch a bubble economy. The newly-generated credit could be used for American loans to Germany or Latin America. Or, it could be used to leverage speculative purchases of stocks. Very soon most of the new credit was flowing into broker call loans for margin buying of stocks. This meant that by advancing a small percentage of the stock price, speculators could borrow money to buy stocks, leaving the stocks with the broker as collateral for the loans. There are many parallels between the measures urged for the US by Norman in 1925 and the policies urged on Japan by London and Wall Street in 1986, leading to the Japanese bubble and their current banking crisis. 
274    In 1925, as the pound was returning to gold, Montagu Norman, Hjalmar Schacht and Charles Rist, the deputy governor of the Banque de France visited Benjamin Strong in New York to mobilize his network of influential insiders for easy money and low interest rates in the US. Strong was able to obtain the policies requested by Norman and his European puppets. Norman & Co. made a second pilgrimage to Wall Street between 28 June and 1 July 1927 to promote American speculation and inflation. On this second lobbying trip, Norman exhibited grave concern because the first half of 1927 had witnessed a large movement of gold into New York. Strong and his cabal immediately went into action. 
275    The second coming of Norman and Schacht in 1927 motivated Strong to force through new reflation of the money supply in July and a further cut in the US discount rate in August of that same year.
276
277This artificially induced inflationary bubble made an American economic collapse inevitable. Norman knew it, Strong knew it, and his colleague Andrew Mellon, the Secretary of the Treasury from 1921-1929, knew it as well. In fact, Mellon seemed to welcome an American financial crisis, saying,
278
279It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.
280
281After the 1929 crash living standards did go down, and people were forced to work harder. But was it a positive thing for the nation? And who were the "enterprising people" who picked up the pieces of the economy at bargain basement prices after it shattered? Author G. Edward Griffin reveals the answer in his informative book on the Federal Reserve, The Creature From Jekyll Island,
282
283John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Joseph P. Kennedy, Bernard Baruch, Henry Morganthau, Douglas Dillon - the biographies of all the Wall Street giants at that time boast that these men were "wise" enough to get out of the stock market just before the Crash. And it is true. Virtually all of the inner club was rescued. There is no record of any member of the interlocking directorate between the Federal Reserve, the major New York banks, and their prime customers having been caught by surprise.
284
285Because of the Crash the Great Depression began with control of the American economy entrenched even further in private hands that were interested only in profit. The elite families of Wall Street's Eastern Establishment were the big winners of the Crash of 1929 and they continued to use their control to make themselves even richer at the expense of the majority. Laissez faire! was their slogan and they resented any type of government intrusion into their affairs. Tarpley writes of the situation at the very beginning of the Great Depression, and on the cowardice of President Hoover, who...
286
287...for the sake of absurd free-market, laissez-faire ideology, allowed his country to drift into the abyss. As we will see, Hoover had everything he needed to base his 1932 campaign for re-election on blaming the Federal Reserve, especially its New York branch, for the 1929 calamity. Hoover could have assailed the British for their September 1931 stab in the back. Hoover would have been doing the country a permanent service, and he might have done somewhat better in the electoral college. But Hoover was not capable of seriously attacking the New York Fed and its master, Lord Montagu Norman.
288
289
290The Heroic Presidency of FDR
291
292Franklin Delano Roosevelt was sworn in as the 32nd President of the United States in 1933. FDR's background, as his critics are so quick to point out, was that of an Establishment insider. His distant cousin was Theodore Roosevelt, his uncle had been a founding member of the Federal Reserve Board, and his family had been involved in banking for two hundred years. He attended Groton Academy and Harvard, he served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President Wilson, and then during the 1920's he held eleven corporate directorships. In 1928 he was elected governor of New York state, and then in 1930 he was elected again by the greatest margin in the history of the state. The people loved him, and not without reason.
293
294FDR could be superficially painted as the quintessential Establishment Man, but as such he understood how the Establishment worked and the power that he would have to confront if he were to ever rescue the nation. He once remarked, "Sixty families in America control the wealth of this nation," and his policies that targeted Big Business were fought almost every step of the way by many of these same families.
295
296From the very beginning of his presidency FDR faced off against Wall Street, London, and especially the House of Morgan. His enemies knew FDR's goals because of his time as governor of New York state. His term was noted for his measures to create old-age pensions, unemployment insurance, labor regulations, and for his support for developing public electricity. They were policies aimed at improving the General Welfare, but they were resisted by Big Business and the private interests that may have offered the same things, but only for profit.
297
298Central to FDR's legacy was his clear understanding of the ongoing battle of entrenched, hereditary, monopolistic private power versus the citizens of the United States as represented by their elected leaders and the three branches of government. This is something that many conservatives simply do not grasp. Eliminating the role of government as a regulator simply allows the situation where the Elite minority gets richer and more powerful and the rest of society, middle class as well as poor, becomes more and more exploited and steadily poorer.
299
300FDR understood the government's Constitutional duty to maintain and promote the General Welfare, and of the government's Constitutional responsibility to control and manage the economy, which is given to Congress in its power "to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures."  (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5). FDR's chief goal was to take the economy back for the people, away from the private interests that controlled it so thoroughly after the Crash, and at the people's expense. The four part series entitled "FDR vs. the Banks: Morgan's Fascist Plot, and How It Was Defeated", from the American Almanac, reveals how the Anglo-American Establishment fought FDR from the very beginning. It is required reading for those who have become convinced that FDR was a friend of the Establishment, or a servant or puppet carrying out their goals. Here is a partial list of how FDR served the people, and went against the wishes and demands of his own Establishment:
301
302-FDR helped to create the Works Progress Administration, and he passed the Wagner Act, which greatly aided the labor movement at the expense of Big Business. 
303-He also worked to pass Social Security, an institution that continues to help millions of low-income retired or disabled people get by month to month. 
304-FDR was also the most important backer of the first Federal minimum wage law.
305-He created the Federal National Mortgage Administration (Fannie Mae), through which millions of Americans were able to finally afford to buy their own house. This institution worked to keep housing affordable for thirty years, until it was privatized and taken over by the big banks and helped create the massive real estate bubble we see today. (See Fannie and Freddie Were Lenders).
306-FDR also created the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that kept an eye on corporations, Wall Street and the stock market on behalf of private investors. 
307-He backed the Glass-Steagall Act that restricted the big banks and kept banking separate from insurance and other forms of investment banking, which in turn led to the creation of the FDIC that protects small banks from runs and panics. 
308-FDR also created the Tennessee Valley Authority as a public institution providing cheap electricity to a large area in the South. Before the TVA the Establishment had looked upon electricity as another long-term cash cow, but FDR spoiled their plans and brought it to the American people for close to nothing.
309
310These were but a few of the achievements of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a man so loved by the American people that he was elected to the Presidency for four consecutive terms. After FDR's death Congress was pressured to pass an amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to two terms, which is the most any other American President has served, or ever will serve. 
311
312FDR did not just fight the Establishment in his domestic and economic policies. He also fought the Establishment through his foreign policies. The Anglo-American Establishment is dedicated to the concept of Empire, and to its basic principles, which are domination and profit. The United States of America was initially created through a successful revolt against Empire, and FDR actively continued this fight in the twentieth century. He did so by subduing the elements that sought to make his own nation into an Empire, and by enacting policies that helped to ensure the disintegration of the British Empire after World War II. A few of the sources that demonstrate this fact are, Imperialism At Bay - The United States and the Decolonization of the British Empire, 1941-1945, by William Roger Louis, (1978), the articles "The Other War: FDR's Battle Against Churchill and the British Empire" and "Roosevelt's 'Grand Strategy' To Rid the World of British Colonialism: 1941-1945," from the American Almanac, and the first-hand account of FDR's diplomatic summits during World War II described by FDR's son Elliott in his book As He Saw It, (1946).
313
314When World War II began it quickly became apparent that Great Britain was in serious trouble. Prime Minister Winston Churchill saw that his tiny island nation was virtually cut off from its colonies, Germany was poised to invade, and the government had run out of money. Roosevelt knew that the entire British Empire depended upon the United States of America to save it. From the beginning of the war it became clear that FDR intended to save Britain, but this was because he knew that the evil of Nazi Germany had to be destroyed. FDR would lead the United States into the war, but Britain would have to face several conditions before receiving American support. After the war began FDR commented to one of his advisors, "We will have more trouble with Great Britain after the war than we are having with Germany now."
315
316FDR first articulated his vision of a world without colonialism to the American public in his State of the Union address of January 6, 1941. He began his speech by addressing the fact that Britain was dependant upon the US for its very survival, and then he went on to describe his vision of the post-war world:
317
318    "In future days, which we seek to secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. 
319    The first is the freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world [emphasis FDR's].
320    The second is the freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world. 
321    The third is the freedom from want--which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world. 
322    The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world. 
323    That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our time and generation...     
324    ...This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God. Freedom means the supremacy of human rights everywhere. Our support goes to those who struggle to gain those rights or to keep them. Our strength is our unity of purpose. 
325    To that high concept there can be no end save victory."
326
327In early 1941 FDR asked Churchill to meet with him to work out their strategy of cooperation and come to agreements regarding further American assistance. The meeting finally took place on August 13-14 at a naval rendezvous in Argentia, Newfoundland. At the meeting FDR made it clear to Churchill that American support was conditional upon Britain signing on to a document that he and his advisors had drafted, known as the Atlantic Charter. In the discussions prior to the signing the following exchange took place, as recorded by Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It. It was sparked by FDR's comments on Britain's trade policies, and his stated view that they would have to be revised before any lasting peace was achieved...
328
329    Churchill shifted in his armchair. "The British Empire trade agreements," he began heavily, "are -
330    Father [FDR] broke in. "Yes. Those Empire trade agreements are a case in point. It is because of them that the people of India and Africa, of all the colonial Near East and Far East, are still as backward as they are."
331    Churchill's neck reddened and he crouched forward. "Mr. President, England does not propose for a moment to lose its favored position among the British Dominions. The trade that has made England great shall continue, and under these conditions prescribed by England's ministers."
332    "You see," said Father slowly, "it is along in here somewhere that there is likely to be disagreement between you, Winston, and me. I am firmly of the belief that if we are to arrive at a stable peace, it must involve the development of backward countries. Backward peoples. How can this be done? It can't be done obviously by eighteenth-century methods. Now--"
333    "Who's talking about eighteenth-century methods?"
334    "Whichever of your ministers recommends a policy which takes raw materials out of a colonial country, but which returns nothing to the people of that country in consideration. Twentieth-century methods involve bringing industry to these colonies. Twentieth-century methods include increasing the standard of living, by educating them, by bringing them sanitation--by making sure that they get a return for the raw wealth of their community."    
335    Around the room, all of us were leaning forward attentively. Hopkins was grinning. Commander Thompson, Churchill's aide, was looking glum and alarmed. The P.M. himself was beginning to look apoplectic.
336    "You mentioned India," he [WC] growled. 
337    "Yes, I can't believe that we can fight a war against fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy."
338    "What about the Philippines?"
339    "I am glad you mentioned them. They get their independence, you know, in 1946. And they've gotten modern sanitation, modern education, their rate of illiteracy has gone steadily down..."
340    "There can be no tampering with the Empire's economic agreements."
341    "They're artificial...."
342    "They are the foundation of our greatness."
343    "The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism. The structure of the peace demands and will get equality of peoples..."
344
345Churchill finally signed the Atlantic Charter (text here), as FDR knew he must. In the third clause Churchill's delegation objected to the use of the word "all" as it might be used to refer to British colonial possessions,
346
347...they respect the right of ALL peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them.
348
349The word remained in the text despite British objections, and when the Atlantic Charter was released to the media oppressed colonial peoples around the world cheered! They believed that with American support, led by FDR, their freedom would soon come. Throughout the war FDR spoke many times regarding his view of colonialism (from "Roosevelt's 'Grand Strategy"),
350
351-- "The colonial system means war. Exploit the resources of an India, a Burma, a Java; take all the wealth out of these countries, but never put anything back into them, things like education, decent standards of living, minimum health requirements--all you're doing is storing up the kind of trouble that leads to war. All you're doing is negating the value of any kind of organizational structure for peace before it begins."
352
353-- "I'm talking about another war. I'm talking about what will happen to our world, if after this war we allow millions of people to slide back into the same semi-slavery! Don't think for a moment, Elliott, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight, if it hadn't been for the shortsighted greed of the French and the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all, all over again? Your son will be about the right age, fifteen or twenty years from now." [A prediction fulfilled in Vietnam].
354
355-- "Why does Morocco, inhabited by Moroccans, belong to France? Or take Indochina.... The native Indo-Chinese have been so flagrantly downtrodden that they thought to themselves: Anything must be better, than to live under French colonial rule. Should a land belong to France? By what logic and what custom and by what historical rule?"
356
357-- "India should be made a commonwealth at once. After a certain number of years ... she should chose whether she wants to remain in the Empire.... As a commonwealth, she should be entitled to a modern form of government, an adequate health and educational standard. But how can she have these things, when Britain is taking all the wealth of her national resources away from her every year? Ever year the Indian people have one thing to look forward to, like death and taxes. Sure as shooting, they have a famine. The season of the famine, they call it."
358
359-- "I've tried to make it clear to Winston--and the others--that while we're their allies, and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we're in it just to help them hang on to the archaic, medieval Empire ideas. Great Britain signed the Atlantic Charter. I hope they realize that the United States government means to make them live up to it."
360
361FDR's anti-Imperialist views are the very key to understanding his Presidency. This is the problem that Establishment historians face. Their job is to minimize the evils of Empire, and so they minimize this aspect of FDR's character. Instead they describe his foreign policy as "confusing," "mystifying" or "complicated." The truth is that FDR is not a hard figure to understand. It's just that his principles are impossible for the Establishment to accept.
362
363Another characterization of FDR is that he was a loner, that he was "cunning" and "devious" (prior knowledge of Pearl Harbor?), that he often kept his true views to himself, and that he rarely placed complete trust in his advisors. This is explained by his understanding of the Establishment from which he came. He knew that he was surrounded by wolves who objected to the path he was charting for his nation. He once commented on this, bitterly, to his son Elliott,
364
365    "You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston [Churchill]. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are. Stop to think of 'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that! It isn't a question of whether they're Democrats or Republicans... It's like the British Foreign Office... That's our State Department."
366
367By FDR's time the State Department had become just another office for the Eastern Establishment. He suppressed its subversive pro-British influence over the American government during his life, and promoted the traditional role of America as the hope of the world, as the defender of freedom and liberty and of all people's right to self-determination. Unfortunately America's role changed dramatically after World War II, from being a liberator, to being a dominator and oppressor, in perhaps the greatest and most damaging betrayal of American values and human hopes that the world has ever seen.
368
369In a later section we will explore how the book of Revelation makes it clear that God has not let this betrayal go unnoticed.
370
371
372FDR's Post-War Ideal
373
374After World War II the world stood at a crossroads, faced by the twin menaces of a stubborn and lingering Imperialism and the emerging shadow of Communism. FDR's energy had been devoted to directing America and the world on a course that would avoid both of these evils. Only the United States had the global power to lead the world, and the foundational principles to guide it, against the two totalitarian systems.
375
376Imperialism is a system of domination and plunder. It rejects the idea that every person is born equal and with God-given rights, and is instead infused with racism and the philosophy that "might makes right." Imperialism is a brutal system of power, profit, and luxury for the few, and impoverishment, oppression and humiliation for the many. It is clearly contrary to the American ideal and, indeed, America itself was created by a victory against it.
377
378Communism is basically an over-reaction to Imperialism. While Imperialism is a system of domination of one group or class over another, Communism is theoretically a system where all groups and classes are equal. In practice, however, the bureaucrats and theoreticians in charge of enforcing equality and distributing the wealth always emerge as the favored ruling class, and pure Communism has never been realized. Additionally, Communism has almost always promoted a materialistic and atheistic philosophy that forbids freedom of religion and promotes Communism as a religion itself. Communism has also been a traditional enemy of free enterprise, of the free press, and of freedom of assembly. As a system that focuses on the Material aspects of life Communism ends up suppressing the Political and Spiritual freedoms that man needs to become complete. However, Communism, with its material focus, does offer Material freedom by mandating the equal distribution of basic necessities such as food, clothing and shelter. But as Jesus Christ said in rebuke of Satan, "Man does not live on bread alone." For these reasons Communism as a philosophy and as a system of government is clearly contrary to the American ideal, and clearly contrary to Christian morality that is the foundation of that ideal.
379
380Imperialism is hardly any better. It suppresses Political freedom and it suppresses Material freedom. It suppresses Political freedom by not allowing its subjects the right to self-determination or representation, while it suppresses Material freedom by creating a climate where the poorest majority is often denied access to even the bare minimum of food, clothing and shelter. The British Empire cared little for the material well-being of its subjects, and is solely responsible for forcefully pushing opium on China, for the horrific Irish Holocaust, and for the annual Indian famines that took place under Imperial rule. Regarding Spiritual freedom, historically the British Empire has always paid lip service to it, but this has often been in the form of infiltrating and corrupting the religious establishments in conquered nations. Britain first took over its own Church, then it conquered and subverted Catholic Ireland, followed by the leaders of Hinduism and Islam in India, Buddhism in Burma, and then the leaders of Islam in Egypt and the Middle East. The British Empire made organized religion so corrupt that the revolutionary movements that fought against it were often inclined to atheism, and therefore often sympathetic to the views of Marx and the Communist system.
381
382The American system of government is a system far superior to British Imperialism or Soviet Communism. In its ideal the American system respects and protects all of the basic freedoms: Political, Spiritual and Material. Under the American system the people have Political freedom in that they have the freedom (and responsibility) to elect their Representatives; they have Spiritual freedom to worship in any manner they choose, and the government is forbidden to interfere; they have Material freedom insomuch as their elected Representatives live up to their Constitutional duties to provide for and promote the General Welfare, and to ensure a fair economic policy and climate. The American system is also fundamentally Christian in its view that man is created by God, made equal and in His image, with a divine purpose and a positive potential. Any system allowing such great freedom can only be a system that emphasizes the positive aspects of man, in this case man's positive potential. We may all be born sinners, but God created us equal and we all have the potential to fulfill His divine and perfect will in our lives.
383
384FDR's vision for the post-war world was very simple. He envisioned that it would be led by the Big Four: the USA, Great Britain, Russia and China. These would be the 'Four Policemen' to keep the peace. His views on each are very important.
385
386Regarding America he knew that his nation would emerge as the most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world. He viewed this as a great responsibility, and also as a great possibility for positive change. America had taken the lead in bringing Britain into signing the Atlantic Charter, and FDR's plan was that the New York-based United Nations would pick up where the Charter had only begun. The UN would be an international forum for all the nations of the world to meet in an equal environment, to command a global audience, to air their views and negotiate fair settlements of their grievances without resorting to warfare. He saw the UN as an organization that would strengthen the sovereign powers of independent nation states, and initially it proved capable in this regard. FDR had a positive vision for the role of the UN, but he would have had contempt for the elitist organization that the UN is today, that seeks to destroy national sovereignty rather than helping to strengthen it.
387
388In the case of Great Britain, it was clear to FDR that the Empire was fading fast. A military memorandum at the time made this clear,
389
390As a military power, the British Empire in the postwar era will be in a distinctly lower category than the United States and Russia. The primacy of the British Empire in the century before World War I, and her second-to-none position until World War II, have built up a traditional concept of British military power which the British will strive to profit by and maintain in the postwar era.... Both in an absolute sense and relative to the United States and Russia, the British will emerge from the war having lost ground both economically and militarily.
391
392However, as the war continued it became clear to FDR that the British would fight the liquidation of their Empire with every resource they possessed, including their own agents in the American government, which proved so decisive after FDR's death. It  was partly because of this knowledge that FDR can be legitimately criticized for being 'soft' on Communism, but people should be sure to understand  why. He did so because he saw in Stalin's Russia an ally, both against Hitler and against Imperialism after the war. Without Russia, Hitler would have eventually conquered England, the rest of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa, perhaps destroying even many more millions of Jews and other 'undesirables.' Russia was a firm friend in this regard.
393
394Roosevelt also understood another thing about Soviet Russia. He knew that it only continued to exist because of Western support. The Anglo-American Establishment had promoted and bankrolled Bolshevism in the first place as a way to eliminate Tsarist Russia as an Imperial rival. Soviet Russia only survived as a viable government through the loans, grain shipments and technology transfers from Britain and America. FDR knew that Russia could only become as powerful as the West desired her to be.
395
396Much of the hysteria that FDR was pro-Communist can be silenced by the record of his 'Strong China' policy, and his vision for China as a member of the Big Four. Roosevelt was committed to a China led by the nationalist party of Chiang Kai-Shek, and in America the Chinese Nationalists were viewed in opinion polls as America's firm ally, second in importance and loyalty only to the British.
397
398During the war China was in a standoff between the KMT party of Chiang and the Communists under Mao. One of the best sources to understand the intrigues surrounding China's situation at this time is the book "Recasting the Imperial Far East - Britain and America in China, 1945-1950," by Lanxin Xiang. Based on British Foreign Service records and U.S. State Department documents, Xiang shows quite clearly that while FDR supported Chiang, the British were much more sympathetic towards Mao. One of the main reasons was that FDR and Chiang agreed that after the war Britain would no longer be allowed their colonial holdings and preferences in Hong Kong, Canton and Shanghai. This was a possibility that threatened the Empire and infuriated Churchill.
399
400Near the end of the war FDR's personal agent and diplomat for China was the conservative Republican, Major General Patrick J. Hurley. He was sent to Yenan province to negotiate with Mao, to bring the Communists back into line within Chiang's government. Mao refused, and the Communists thereafter referred to the tall, mustachioed Hurley contemptuously as "Little Whiskers." From then on the fiery Hurley referred to Mao as "Mother-----r!"
401
402In March of 1945 Roosevelt sent Hurley on a mission to Moscow and London to attempt to gather support for Chiang against Mao. He achieved success in Moscow, but failed in London. The British were more supportive of Mao than the Soviets! (also see "The British Role In Creating Maoism") Xiang writes,
403
404    The Hurley Mission was perhaps FDR's last effort to induce Big-Three cooperation and approval for his version of a "strong China." But the results of the trip did not reach him before his sudden death on 12 April. According to Hurley's record, the trip to Moscow was successful. Stalin promised not to support the so-called Communists in China, though William Averell Harriman and George Kennan remained skeptical of this pledge[!]. The trip to London, however, was "hell-raising." After considerable anxiety and careful preparation, the Foreign Office was dismayed to learn that Hurley's trip had turned out dreadfully. As a top-secret brief prepared for Eden pointed out, the trip's principal objective was to clarify American policy toward the KMT-CCP dispute, but this was clearly unobtainable, given Hurley's attitude. The real drama developed between a vehement British prime minister and the American special envoy with an Irish temper. According to Hurley, "In the discussion with Churchill and Eden, questions pertaining to the reconquest of colonial and imperial territory with American men and lend-lease supplies and the question pertaining to Hong Kong and other problems were interjected by the British." Churchill branded the American long-range policy regarding China as the "great American illusion."
405
406Harriman and Kennan were two of the State Department employees that could be classified as "working for Winston." Harriman, as the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, was responsible more than any other American for creating the Cold War, and he differed greatly with Roosevelt in his vision of the post-war world. For instance, FDR had made an agreement with Stalin in Yalta that Poland would be allowed free elections after the war, but then Harriman worked with the Establishment to create a climate of distrust and he watched as Stalin backed out of his promise. If FDR had lived there would have been no "Warsaw Pact," and to this even Harriman agrees, (also see Treason In America - From Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin).
407
408Regarding Kennan, the Princeton graduate and career State Department employee was a British admirer and cheerleader for an American Empire. Here is what he wrote in a document for the State Department in 1950, revealing his true Wall Street motivations. Had he been born in Germany he would have made a fine Nazi,
409
410...we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its population... in this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy  and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position  of disparity... To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated  everywhere on our immediate objectives... We should cease to talk about vague and... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization. The day is not too far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts.
411
412Regarding Stalin's policy with China, the fact is that Stalin consistently supported Chiang as an American partner, provided the Nationalists with important weapons and equipment, and failed to actively support Mao until the first Sino-Soviet treaty was signed in 1950. The British, on the other hand, saw a great advantage to having Chinese potential squelched under a repressive Communist regime. After FDR died, men like Harriman influenced Truman to betray Chiang and drop his Nationalist Party as a lost cause. Mao was allowed to take over mainland China and he pushed Chiang into Taiwan. The British were then allowed to keep their imperial possessions that included Hong Kong.
413
414Roosevelt's post-war vision was brilliant in that he recognized the inherent evil in Imperialism, while he understood that Communism was a failing system that could not survive long on its own without outside help. In FDR's 'Big Four' system the evil of Imperialism would be represented by Great Britain, but constantly held in check by the three great non-Imperial powers of the United States, Russia and China. Conversely, Communism would be represented in the 'Big Four' by Russia, but it would be contained by the three non-Communist powers of the United States, Great Britain and Chiang's China. Supporting this structure, and helping the 'Four Policemen' to keep the peace, would be the United Nations organization acting as a voice for the lesser powers, and overseeing the transition of previous colonial holdings into independent nations.
415
416FDR's policies and vision are very simply explained by the fact that his goal was to export the American ideal to the entire world. And all of the shallow and narrow-minded accusations that FDR was soft on Communism are very simply explained by the fact that he saw Imperialism as an even greater evil. Communism existed only as a reaction to injustice, and Imperialism was often the source of that injustice. Rather than fight the reaction, FDR's policies focused on eliminating the injustice that fueled it. FDR knew that if his Four Freedoms were honored, and Imperialism removed from the world as a system of government, then Communism would be left without any oxygen to breathe. If FDR's post-war vision had been achieved the Soviet Union would have either suffocated or been forced to reform, without the Cold War.
417
418FDR's views on Communism were much the same as Martin Luther King's, who said within his sermon "How Should A Christian View Communism?",
419
420We must not engage in a negative anti-Communism, but rather in a positive thrust for democracy, realizing that our greatest defense against Communism is to take offensive action in behalf of justice and righteousness. After our condemnation of the philosophy of Communism has been eloquently expressed, we must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, injustice, and racial discrimination which are the fertile soil in which the seed of Communism grows and develops.
421
422FDR looked to a future world that would be led by American principles and greatly relieved of the two evils of Communism and Imperialism, but unfortunately, there was one way in which his vision could be potentially ruined, and he understood it very clearly. He spoke about this fear with his son Elliott after one of his many meetings with Stalin,
423
424"...the biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that the United States and Great Britain were not allied in one common bloc against the Soviet Union. I think we've got rid of that idea, once and for all. I hope so. The one thing that could upset the applecart, after the war, is if the world is divided again, Russia against England and us."
425
426
427The End of Imperialism?
428
429When FDR died the pro-British Eastern Establishment took over American foreign policy. That is the simplest way to explain the speed in which America strayed from the course that FDR had set for her. Historian Walter Isaacson, in his book The Wise Men - Six Friends and the World They Made, documents the role played by Truman's advisors, the six Wall Street insiders Kennan, Acheson, Bohlen, Lovett, Harriman and McCloy. These men were at the heart of the profit-minded American Establishment and they quickly placed Truman and the United States on the road to Empire. Isaacson writes that only hours after FDR's death Bohlen prepared a background paper for the new president to "educate" him on the Soviet threat. Under Truman, Roosevelt's greatest fear quickly became a reality. Below is a list of Truman's "achievements" that helped to create the Cold War:
430
431-Truman presided over the dropping of the atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The biggest lie regarding this event is the one most often repeated, which is that these bombs saved a million American lives. General Douglas MacArthur himself believed that the bombs were cruel and unnecessary and that a land invasion of Japan would never have been needed. (See "Why Hiroshima Was Bombed: The 'Utopians' Duped a Nation"). The only purpose it served was to fuel the Cold War by creating Russian mistrust of American intentions.
432
433-Truman created the CIA by signing the National Security Act in 1947. This act placed the USA on a permanent war footing in which 'security analysts' began to scour the globe looking for any potential American enemies. The godfather of the CIA was Sir William Stephenson, the head of British Intelligence in the US, and the CIA immediately began to act as agents of Empire, be it the Anglo or American form. 
434
435Note: (Michael Ruppert gives an excellent interview detailing the constant incestuous relationship between the CIA and Wall Street, which is the key to understanding the Cold War. The Act itself was written by Clark Clifford, a Wall Street banker and lawyer, later at the center of the BCCI scandal of the early '90s.)
436
437-Truman allowed China to be taken by Mao's Communists, as related above, that promised not to threaten Britain's colonial possessions within China.
438
439-Truman watched as the "Truman Doctrine" was created for him, which laid the basis for American preventive actions and intervention into the affairs of nations that were "going Communist." Below we will explain further how "going Communist" was defined by the Establishment. Often it simply referred to a nation's refusal to bend to Anglo-American corporate domination.
440
441-Truman presided over the breakup of Korea into North and South and the escalation of the conflict into war. He then fired General MacArthur for trying to actually win the war.
442
443Truman is viewed as one of the first Cold War warriors, but he was actually quite 'soft' on Communism when it came to China and Korea. As the record shows he was also very 'soft' when confronted with the evils of Imperialism.
444
445During the wartime conferences in Cairo Roosevelt had met with Chiang Kai-Shek and promised him two things. First, that the Soviets would be required to return Manchuria to China, respect China's boundary and promise not to interfere in China's internal political problems. Second, that the US would "back the Chinese in their postwar refusal of extraterritorial rights to the British in Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghai." To back up this promise FDR made the further personal guarantee that "only American warships would enter those and other Chinese ports and that British warships would be excluded when Japanese resistance ceased."
446
447Elliott Roosevelt in As He Saw It records what happened to these two promises after FDR's death. The first was agreed to and lived up to by the Soviets through the excellent diplomacy of General Hurley. On the other hand, "The first warships to enter Chinese ports were British warships. The order excluding them was 'held up' somewhere, in all probability in the State Department."
448
449This breach of faith in favor of the British Empire was the first in a long series of American betrayals of Chiang Kai-Shek. The same went for the newly liberated colonies in southeast Asia. Regarding Indochina, FDR's attitude was expressed to Chiang that...
450
451...the French would have no right, after the war, simply to walk back into Indo-China and reclaim that rich land for no reason other than it had once been their colony. And he [FDR] had insisted to Chiang that the most the French should have was a trusteeship of their colonies responsible to a United Nations organization, looking toward eventual independence, once the United Nations were satisfied that the colonies could manage their own affairs.
452
453FDR had the same view regarding Dutch Indonesia, and British Malaysia and Burma. He knew that the British Empire depended upon keeping all of these colonies under European control. In the middle of the war at Casablanca FDR had to face down a ludicrous British suggestion to create a whole new theater and mount an invasion of Burma through Singapore. Elliott recounts a conversation with his Father on the subject,
454
455    "You know why Winston has Mountbatten here with him? It's so that I can be filled up to the ears with arguments about how important it is to divert landing-craft to Southeast Asia." 
456    I looked my astonishment and incredulity.
457    "Sure," he went on. "Burma. the British want to recapture Burma. It's the first time they've shown any real interest in the Pacific war, and why? For their colonial empire!"
458    "But what's that got to do with Mountbatten?"
459    "He's their choice for Supreme Allied Commander of a brand-new theater -- Southeast Asia."
460    ..."It's all part of the British colonial question," Father was saying. "Burma -- that affects India, and French Indo-China, and Indonesia -- they're all interrelated. If one gets its freedom, the others will get ideas. That's why Winston is so anxious to keep de Gaulle in his corner. De Gaulle isn't any more interested in seeing a colonial empire disappear than Churchill is."
461
462John Newsinger's article "The Empire Strikes Back" illuminates the forgotten post-war history of Vietnam and Indonesia,
463
464In 1942 the Japanese armies overran much of the territory of the European empires in the Far East. Malaya, Burma, Indonesia and Vietnam were all occupied by Japanese troops. Once Japan was in retreat the European powers were determined to reclaim their empires. With France and Holland still too weak after suffering the effects of German occupation, it fell to the British Labour government to restore French rule in Vietnam and Dutch rule in Indonesia as well as reoccupying Britain's own colonies. In both countries the British met with fierce resistance that inaugurated bloody wars of national liberation.
465
466During the war Ho Chi Minh had led his Viet Minh forces against the Japanese, taking control of much of the north by the end of the war, and then Hanoi on August 19, 1945. On September 2, Ho Chi Minh declared independence for the nation of Vietnam, with a document that begins (text here) with a quote from the American Declaration of Independence, and ends with a passionate condemnation of Vietnam's French colonial masters. Ho Chi Minh looked to the United States for support, who could have easily influenced his movement in a positive way, because he was once an American ally. In 1942 he had been captured by Chiang Kai-Shek while he was organizing his movement in China. At this the United States lobbied Chiang for his release, which was granted. Then the US provided his Viet Minh forces with arms and equipment to fight the Japanese. As it turned out, after FDR's death Truman stood by while the British reconquered Vietnam and handed it back over to the French. Newsinger explains,
467
468    South Vietnam had been placed under British control at the Potsdam Conference of July 1945 [after FDR's death in April]. The British commander, Lord Mountbatten, sent over 20,000 troops of the 20th Indian division under General Douglas Gracey to occupy Saigon. The first soldiers arrived on 6 September and increased to full strength over the following weeks. The Committee of the South attempted to open negotiations, but was ignored. As Gracey later boasted, 'I was welcomed on arrival by the Vietminh. I promptly kicked them out.' Instead he set about driving the nationalists off the streets, banning meetings and demonstrations, closing down the Vietnamese press, prohibiting Vietnamese from carrying weapons and restoring Japanese curfew regulations. On 23 September, with his connivance and under his protection, French troops staged a coup. They seized public buildings, including the town hall, and made widespread arrests. This provoked fierce resistance.
469    Saigon was paralysed by a general strike and fighting broke out in many parts of the city. Barricades were erected and poorly armed rebels attempted to fight it out with heavily armed British troops. For a while it looked as if the British were in danger of being cut off from reinforcements when Vietnamese forces nearly succeeded in overrunning Tan Son Nhut airfield. They were driven off. While this fighting continued the Vietminh took the opportunity to destroy the Vietnamese Trotskyist movement, executing its leaders.
470    At last the British secured control of the city but only after the liberal use of artillery, the deliberate burning of areas held by the rebels and the rearming and use of surrendered Japanese troops...
471    After the city was cleared fighting continued on the outskirts and into the surrounding countryside. Here once again use was made of Japanese troops in an effort to keep down British casualties. The orders issued by Gracey instructed his troops to 'always use the maximum force available to ensure wiping out any hostiles... If one uses too much no harm is done'.
472    By the end of December--as large numbers of French troops began arriving--British withdrawal began...
473    Gracey had saved Vietnam for the French and thereby precipitated a war of national liberation that was to last another 30 years.
474
475Newsinger goes on to describe Britain's similar action in Indonesia, this time on an even larger scale,
476
477    Although less well known than British intervention in Vietnam, the British intervention in Indonesia was a much more serious affair, involving over 60,000 troops and considerably greater loss of life. It also provoked a remarkable display of working class solidarity.
478    In Indonesia, the nationalists led by Sukharno proclaimed their independence from Holland on 17 August 1945, even before the Japanese surrender. They swiftly took control of Java and the other islands so that when the first British troops arrived on 29 September they were met by banners proclaiming 'Indonesia for the Indonesians'.
479    The British, once again using mainly Indian troops, occupied a number of coastal towns (Jakarta, Demarang and Malang). Once it became clear that they were bringing the Dutch back with them, fierce fighting broke out. Once again Japanese troops were rearmed and used against the rebels.
480    The most serious fighting took place in Surabaya. This battle is virtually unknown in Britain but in Indonesia it is celebrated as a national holiday. Some 4,000 British troops arrived on 25 October and the brigade commander, Brigadier Mallaby, demanded that the Indonesians disarm and surrender the city. Three days later they began advancing into the city and were suddenly attacked by some 20,000 rebels. The British were driven back with heavy losses: Mallaby himself was killed as were over 200 of his men. This defeat precipitated a full scale revolt against the British that spread throughout Java.
481    The British poured reinforcements into Surabaya and on 9 November demanded the Indonesians surrender. The following day two cruisers and three destroyers together with tanks and artillery began shelling the city while RAF fighter bombers dropped 1500lb bombs on rebel strong points. Only after three days of street fighting was the city taken. Altogether British and Indian casualties were over 900 killed and wounded, while Indonesian casualties were estimated at over 10,000.
482    Elsewhere the British were driven out of Magelang and Ambarawa. In Bandung they gave the nationalists an ultimatum to evacuate the city by midnight of 24 March. The rebels fired the city as they left, leaving the British to occupy a ruined ghost town.
483    After the occupation of Bandung an uneasy stalemate operated while Dutch troops were poured in. These were armed and equipped by the Labour government. As their strength built up, British troops were withdrawn. The last were not evacuated until November 1946.
484    Total British and Indian casualties were an incredible 620 killed and 1447 wounded with another 327 missing. Over 1,000 Japanese troops were killed fighting alongside the British. Indonesian casualties are estimated at 20,000 dead. The scale of the fighting was a complete shock to the British and played a significant part in convincing the generals that it would not be possible to hold Burma or India against a population in revolt...
485    While both the French and the Dutch were eventually driven out of their colonies, it was British troops who had enabled them to return in the first place. These two episodes are usually removed from the Labour government's record, but they deserve to be remembered as a time when British and Indian soldiers were sent in to kill in order to restore European imperialism in the face of popular revolution.
486
487Indonesia finally kicked out the Dutch in 1949, after continual fighting made it clear that Indonesians would accept nothing less than full independence. The Anglo-American Establishment looked on quietly, and began making plans to deal with Sukarno at a later date (see Part 3).
488
489The British Empire was greatly humbled by World War II. Imperialism seemed to be defeated, and one by one British colonies gained independence. First India and Pakistan in 1947, then Burma and Sri Lanka in 1948. Egypt then kicked the British out of the Suez in 1956, which was also the year Sudan achieved independence, followed a year later by Ghana. In the 1960's Malta, Cyprus, Kuwait, South Yemen, Malaysia, Singapore, Samoa, Surinam, Guyana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Sierra Leone and Gambia all achieved independence. In the 1970's the nations of  Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Fiji followed after. Few honest historians would argue that the breakup of the British Empire was the most significant political change in the twentieth century. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. commented on the extraordinary demise of Imperialism within his sermon "The Death of Evil Upon the Seashore," in 1956,
490
491    Gradually we have seen the forces of freedom and justice emerge victoriously out of some Red Sea, only to look back and see the forces of oppression and colonialism dead upon the seashore. There are approximately 2,400,000,000 people in the world today. The vast majority of these people are found in Africa and Asia. More than 1,400,000,000 of the peoples of the world are found on these two continents. Fifty years ago most of these people were dominated politically, exploited economically, segregated and humiliated by some foreign power. There were 400,000,000 persons in India and Pakistan under the iron feet of British rule. There were 600,000,000 persons in China under the gripping yoke of British, Dutch and French rule. There were 100,000,000 persons in Indonesia under the oppressive hands of Dutch rule. There were 200,000,000 persons in Africa dominated and exploited by the British, the Belgium, the French, and the Dutch. The great struggle of the Twentieth Century has been between these exploited masses questing for freedom and the colonial powers seeking to maintain their domination.
492    What we are seeing now in this struggle is the gradual victory of the forces of freedom and justice. The Red Sea has opened, and today most of these exploited masses have won their freedom from the Egypt of colonialism and are now free to move toward the promised land of economic security and cultural development. As they look back, they clearly see the evils of colonialism and imperialism dead upon the seashore.
493
494Unfortunately Dr. King was premature in stating that colonial peoples were "free to move toward the promised land of economic security and cultural development." With the demise of overt Imperialism, the Anglo-American Establishment settled on a policy of covert neo-Imperialism, a policy that was greatly enabled by the Cold War and the manufactured hysteria of the "Communist menace!"
495 
496
497The Third World War
498
499Before we go on to examine the nature of the Anglo-American Establishment's post-war policy of neo-Imperialism we must first examine the situation that faced Third World nations after they achieved democracy and/or independence. In almost every Third World nation centuries of colonial rule had been achieved only through the willingness of a tiny indigenous elite that acted as partners with the colonial powers, enabling them in their looting of natural resources, their tax collection, in their general oppression of the masses, and in their suppression of any popular revolts. These were the Tory factions, always rewarded for their collaboration with money, land and political power. This was true within Britain's early American colonies, in Britain's colonies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, and also within the Latin American colonies of the former Spanish Empire. The colonial powers created an entrenched elite and then when they withdrew they often left behind a situation of great inequality between their favored elite minority that possessed the wealth and the majority of the land, and the large impoverished majority.
500
501In the aftermath of World War II Roosevelt's hopes and Churchill's fears were confirmed: Independence became contagious! Once one nation achieved freedom other nations followed after in domino fashion. But often independence provoked a conflict within the new nations, and the wealthy landholding elites faced off against the majority of their own impoverished people. The people demanded reform and greater equality, while the elites were content to keep the people poor and continue their favored trade relationships with the previous colonial powers. After independence the people only prevailed when true Democracy was realized, and through the democratic process the popular majority almost always enacted legislation that curbed the power of their own treasonous elites. The new legislation usually included policies of land reform, nationalization of the most important natural resources, and industrialization:
502
503- Land reform was a process whereby the state forcibly purchased land from the elites and then sold it back cheaply to the people. Just as Western nations enact laws forbidding corporate monopolies, newly independent Third World nations knew that their national progress demanded action against the elitist practice of holding land monopolies. In her book How the Other Half Dies, Susan George writes,
504
505The most pressing cause of the abject poverty which millions of people in this world endure is that a mere 2.5% of landowners with more than 100 hectares control nearly three quarters of all the land in the world - with the top 0.23% controlling half.
506
507- Nationalization of resources did away with the trade agreements between the elites and the colonial powers that enriched both but did nothing positive for the majority of the population. With nationalization the people finally received compensation for the natural wealth that belonged to them in the first place. Nationalization of resources was often a major factor inducing Anglo-American intervention, as we will document shortly.
508
509- Industrialization is simply a process of modernization, but this was also resisted by the colonial powers. If a country became industrialized then it depended less and less on manufactured Western goods and the Corporate interests of the Establishment lost an outlet for their commodities. Industrialization makes a nation self-sufficient, less dependent on foreign ties, and less susceptible to foreign domination, economic or otherwise. In Intervention and Revolution author Richard J. Barnet comments on industrialization from the perspective of the revolutionary fighting against neo-Imperialism,
510
511The Revolutionary is convinced that the very policies on which the United States banks its hopes of development actually destroy the possibilities of progress. He accuses the United States of using its foreign-aid funds to sponsor a small entrepreneurial elite who are able to pay for U.S.-manufactured imports, when, if it really wanted to encourage independent economies, it would finance local manufacturing facilities. (The trend is toward increased U.S. investment in factories, but local ownership is minimal.) The Revolutionary believes that his country is assigned a more or less permanent role in the world economy as the poor farmer and miner. Since the price of raw commodities can to a great extent be controlled by the powerful nations, this policy too ensures continued political dependence, with very little prospect of economic self-sufficiency. He is convinced that these policies are deliberate attempts to continue a pattern of exploitation.
512
513After World War II the colonial powers were willing to withdraw from their Third World possessions, and they were willing to allow their colonies at least the claim of "Independence," but they were much less willing to sit idly by as Democracy brought reforms that radically changed their favorable economic relations with the new nations. In this regard the colonial powers and the Third World elites remained allies in the struggle against the rest of the world's impoverished masses.  Together they resisted Reform, then they resisted Democracy itself, then Dictators were installed to "keep the peace" and create "stability." All with the objective of Profit. This was neo-Imperialism.
514
515In this internal Third World fight of the disenfranchised people versus their own elitist masters the people at first looked to the United States for help. It was the original American example, followed by one hundred and fifty years as the self-proclaimed "Defender of Democracy," that brought about this hope. Barnet writes that "by promoting the rhetoric of freedom and the vision of the abundant life around the world, the United States itself has helped stir up revolution." But the United States turned away from the people in this global revolution and instead embraced the elites of the Third World as business partners. With the United States unwilling to fulfill its self-proclaimed role, where could the people of the Third World turn for assistance to achieve freedom? Only the international Communist movement was there to fill the void. Communism offered the only hope because America had betrayed its historic mission and in effect had become just another Empire.
516
517The Soviet Union emerged from World War II  as the West's greatest enemy, and this occurred in large part due to the diplomacy and propaganda of the Anglo-American Establishment. It was no accident. The Empire-minded Establishment needed a global threat under which to carry out their designs, and it just so happened that Communism, the most powerful anti-Imperialist force in the world, fit the bill perfectly. With the ever present specter of Communism as an excuse Imperialism found new life.
518
519The conflict that resulted is known as the "Cold War," but former CIA director John Stockwell has a more appropriate term for it, as he explains in his book, The Praetorian Guard - The U.S. Role in the New World Order,
520
521    Since the mid-1950s [U.S. military operations] have all been conducted in Third World countries where governments do not have the power to force the United States to stop its brutal and destabilizing campaigns. 
522    One might call this the "Third World War." It is a war that has been fought by the United States against the Third World. Others call it the Cold War and focus on the anti-Communist and anti-Soviet rationales, but the dead are not Soviets; they are people of the Third World... Altogether, perhaps twenty million people died in the Cold War. As wars go, it has been the second or third most destructive of human life in all of history, after World War I and World War II.
523    The six million people the CIA has helped to kill are people of the Mitumba Mountains of the Congo, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the hills of northern Nicaragua. They are people without ICBMs or armies or navies, incapable of doing physical damage to the United States. The 22,000 killed in Nicaragua, for example, are not Russians; they are not Cuban soldiers or advisors; they are not even mostly Sandinistas. A majority are rag-poor peasants, including large numbers of women and children.
524
525The change in America from being a Republic to becoming an Empire, and from being a defender of freedom, to becoming its most powerful opponent, did not come about naturally. It came about through the influence of the once-great British Empire, and from the actions of the treasonous American Establishment that admired it. In his book Blood, Class, and Nostalgia - Anglo-American Ironies, British author Christopher Hitchens comments on this American change in chapter one entitled "Greece to Their Rome." He quotes from an analogy made by Harold Macmillan, Churchill's emissary to General Eisenhower during World War II and later British Prime Minister. Macmillan understood that the inevitable British fall would be met with an American rise, and remarked that it fell to the British to play the role of Greece to the new American Rome. In other words Macmillan saw Britain as a positive influence on America, just as the Roman Republic was at first based on the positive aspects of classical Greek culture such as  Greek philosophy and the Greek concept of Democracy. Hitchens goes on to ridicule Macmillan's self-righteous delusion, saying that "England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, or what you will, had never been Greece to America's Rome. It had always been Rome to America's -- what?" Hitchens declines to answer, and goes on to write later in the chapter,
526
527...the ambiguities of this Graeco-Roman synthesis are more interesting than a mere political and diplomatic compromise might suggest. Long before Macmillan, in fact, the British were striving to limit the extent of American republicanism, which they saw as a threat and a rival. Throughout the nineteenth century, as I will argue and show, they tried to prevent the emergence of a continental United States. Thwarted in this effort, they turned to making common cause with a new "expansionist" America in 1898. Seeking thereafter to engage America on the British side in European quarrels, they stimulated and helped aggrandize what might be termed the superpower spirit among American elites. In the titanic battle against Hitler, they were forced to acknowledge that the proportions of the relationship had changed, and that Britain could now survive only as junior partner. But along the way, huge alterations had been made in the American system. The United States found itself committed in far-off places with which it had no common history, it found itself a nuclear power, it found itself involved as an arbiter in the politics of old Europe, and it found itself engaged along the widest front in history against the Soviet Union. In the origination of all these historical changes, it had been the British connection that was seminal.
528
529Near the end of his remarkably insightful book Hitchens makes the same conclusions again,
530
531It might well be argued that the United States would have chosen empire over republic in any case, taking its precedents and promptings from itself or elsewhere, but in point of fact the real connection was almost always the English one... American rediscovery of the intoxications of a "natural" aristocracy, of an "expansionist" credo, of an affection for the marks and baubles of caste -- all this was conveyed from England as directly as the chests of tea that had once ended up in Boston Harbor. And every time that the United States has been on the verge of a decision: to annex the Spanish Empire, to go to war in Europe, to announce the Soviet Union as the official enemy, to acquire new and weighty "burdens" in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to embark upon nuclear weapons research, to establish a national nexus of intelligence gathering, there has been a deceptively languid English advisor at the elbow, urging yes in tones that neither hector nor beseech but are always somehow beguiling.
532
533American Babylon
534-Rise and Fall-
535 
536
537 
538
539Part 3: America's Imperial Achievements
540
541Iran 1953:             Mossadeq - British Petroleum - Dulles
542Guatemala 1954: Arbenz - United Fruit -  McCloy
543The Congo 1960: Lumumba - Union Miniere - Rockefeller
544Iraq 1963:             Kassem - Standard Oil - Baath Party - CIA
545Brazil 1964:         Goulart - Hanna Mining - McCloy
546Indonesia 1965:    Sukarno - The Greatest Prize - Rockefeller
547Ghana 1966:         Nkrumah - African Unity - Cocoa - CIA
548Cambodia 1970:   Sihanouk - Nationalism - Vietnam - Kissinger
549Chile 1973:           Allende - ITT - Copper - Kissinger
550Nicaragua 1981:  Ortega - Iran-Contra - Bush
551
552 
553
554The Cold War was a front for a new form of Imperialism, led by New York, but with strong guidance from London. To the masses being indoctrinated by the Establishment-controlled press the greatest threat to the West was Communism, and this was the enemy to be faced and defeated throughout the globe. But to the Establishment the real enemy was not Communism, the real enemy was Third World Nationalism, and Communism provided the smokescreen under which it was fought. The Soviet Union was never attacked. Red China itself was never attacked. Even Castro's Cuba was allowed to exist ninety miles from the American border, perhaps to keep the "Communist menace"  always relevant and firmly entrenched in the minds of America's public.
555
556This "Third World" War was played out in scattered battles throughout the continent of Africa, in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and in Central and South America. Leftist William Blum offers a list of fifty-five American CIA and military interventions since World War II in his book Killing Hope, but for the purposes of this article we will highlight only two examples from each of the above regions.
557
558These ten should be enough to make it clear that acquiring and protecting corporate profit was the priority, and Democracy the actual target, of these Anglo-American interventions into the affairs of Third World nations.
559
560 
561
562Iran 1953 - Establishment intervention in Iran was prompted at the very beginning by the initiatives made by Iran's most patriotic politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadeq, to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). In 1950 this firm had made a profit of £170 million, but the Iranian government only received twelve percent of it, the rest going to the British government and private investors. Mossadeq spearheaded the bill to take over Iranian oil for the Iranian people, which was passed on March 15, 1951, and shortly afterwards he was elected Iran's Prime Minister. Even though the British government had recently nationalized its own coal industry, it accused Mossadeq of turning to "communism." Blum explains how the scenario played out,
563
564    As the prime minister had anticipated, the British did not take the nationalization gracefully, though it was supported unanimously by the Iranian parliament and by the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people for reasons of both economic justice and national pride. The Mossadegh government tried to do all the right things to placate the British: It offered to set aside 25 percent of the net profits of the oil operation as compensation; it guaranteed the safety and jobs of the British employees; it was willing to sell its oil without disturbance to the tidy control system so dear to the hearts of the international oil giants. But the British would have none of it. What they wanted was their oil company back. And they wanted Mossadegh's head. A servant does not affront his lord with impunity.
565    A military show of force by the British navy was followed by a ruthless international economic blockade and boycott, and a freezing of Iranian assets which brought Iran's oil exports and foreign trade to a virtual standstill, plunged the already impoverished country into near destitution, and made payment of any compensation impossible. Nonetheless, and long after they had moved to oust Mossadegh, the British demanded compensation not only for the physical assets of the AIOC, but for the value of their enterprise in developing the oil fields; a request impossible to meet, and, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, something which decades of huge British profits paid for many times over.
566
567This episode is described in greater detail in Stephen Dorril's 850-page book, MI6 - Inside the Secret World of Her Majesty's Secret Intelligence Service. He describes how the British government put together an operation code-named "Boot" to oust Mossadeq, and they tried to immediately gain American assistance by arguing that Mossadeq's government was unduly influenced by Iran's communist Tudeh Party. Dorril handily refutes this allegation and concludes,
568
569Despite British propaganda, the Mossadeq government was generally democratic, moderate, and seemed likely to succeed in establishing a middle-class hold over the state. It was officially viewed by the Truman administration as popular, nationalist, and anti-communist. Mossadeq believed that fear of a communist takeover in Iran would lead the Americans to support his government despite British pressure.
570
571The CIA was approached by British Intelligence regarding Operation Boot, but joint action against Mossadeq was strategically put on hold. Truman held nothing against Mossadeq, but the next president, the Republican General Dwight Eisenhower, was much more caught up in the emotional crusade against communism, and was susceptible to such British accusations. Dorril explains,
572
573US support for Boot illustrates the difference between the Truman and Eisenhower administrations in the Cold War consensus. Whereas Truman had often tried to foster non-communist nationalist governments, feeling that some degree of social change was inevitable and that it could be channelled to America's advantage - to which roster Mossadeq could be added - the new administration tended to see reform movements as disruptive and likely to fall prey to communists. It was also true that members of the Eisenhower administration were much more explicit in their espousal of the big business interests that lay behind the anti-communist rhetoric. In particular, the new Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, liked to mix big business with international politics, while his brother Allen, as Director of Plans in the CIA, made sure that intelligence operations supported commercial interests.
574
575Dorril also makes note of the fact that the Dulles brothers were partners in the powerful Wall Street law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which just happened to be the legal counsel for the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).
576
577After numerous intrigues, which we will not go into here, the coup against Mossadeq occurred as planned on August 19, 1953. It was initiated by the British, but carried out primarily by CIA agents and with CIA funding. Mossadeq was arrested and the Shah was placed back into power. Previously democracy had greatly reduced the Shah's role as an Iranian leader to that of a mere figurehead, but this Anglo-American coup put him back in power as a dictator. The oil profits again flowed into British bank accounts and as a payoff for the American involvement American companies were given their piece of the pie as well. Dorril explains,
578
579The Dulles law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, helped negotiate the redivision of Iran's reserves, to the advantage of American companies. The four parent companies (Jersey, Socony, Texas and Socal) involved in the Iranian consortium deal (along with Gulf) had also cut the Aramco-Saudi 50-50 agreement. In the new consortium, AIOC, which changed its name to British Petroleum, held a 40 percent share and received £34,500,000 in compensation plus 10 per cent a barrel on all exports until a sum of £510 million was reached... To further compensate their old client, Sullivan and Cromwell 'helped it on to the North Slope of Alaska, arranged a takeover of Standard Oil of Ohio, and protected it from anti-trust legislation in American courts.'
580
581According to the exposé Meet The Rockefellers, the Dulles family was not the only major American Establishment family working to topple Mossadeq,
582
583...it was disclosed by syndicated columnist Jack Anderson in December of 1979 that the Rockefellers had helped to plan the August 1953 CIA coup in Iran that brought down Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the detested Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. According to Anderson, the Rockefellers were handsomely rewarded by a grateful Shah who deposited huge sums of cash in Chase Manhattan and consigned the construction of new housing to a Rockefeller firm.
584
585
586Guatemala 1954 - The story of the American-backed coup against the democratically elected President of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz, is one of the most shameful and disturbing accounts of CIA operations in the "Third World" War.
587
588Guatemala achieved independence from Spain in 1821. Afterwards, Guatemala's post-colonial existence was the familiar sort where the people were ruled by the Elite, and the government took the form of a series of dictatorships. As Spanish influence waned, American influence rose. The most important American influence in Guatemala came to be the Boston-based United Fruit Company (UFCO).
589
590In the 1930's the dictator in charge was President Jorge Ubico. He enjoyed very friendly relations with the UFCO because he gave them a huge plantation on the Pacific Coast, greatly reduced their taxes, allowed them to import duty-free goods, and also asked that they keep wages low so as not to create envy of UFCO employees within the rest of the peasant population. At the same time the UFCO took over International Railways of Central America, which then placed United Fruit in "complete authority of the nation's international commerce."
591
592As World War II came to a close the people of Guatemala were caught up in the rising tide of freedom and democracy. They listened as FDR outlined his Four Freedoms, and they applauded at the signing of the Atlantic Charter. In 1944, at the people's encouragement, the Guatemalan military kicked out the dictator Ubico, and then it withdrew to allow the democratic process to take effect. Guatemala's first democratically-elected president was a schoolteacher named Juan Jose Arevalo. By the end of his term average wages in the country had risen by eighty percent.
593
594In 1951 Jacobo Arbenz became Guatemala's second democratically-elected president. In his inaugural address, which can be read within Nicholas Zuiker's paper, "The Banana Coup," Arbenz outlined his plans for Guatemala to achieve economic independence, to increase his people's standard of living, and to utilize science and technology in agriculture. A key component of his plan was land reform, and because of this he faced off against Guatemala's biggest landowner, the American-owned United Fruit Company. In Killing Hope, William Blum describes the power that Arbenz was up against (excerpts),
595
596    United Fruit functioned in Guatemala as a state within a state. It owned the country's telephone and telegraph facilities, administered its only important Atlantic harbor, and monopolized its banana exports. A subsidiary of the company owned nearly every mile of railroad track in the country. The fruit company's influence amongst Washington's power elite was equally impressive. On a business and/or personal level, it had close ties to the Dulles brothers, various State Department officials, congressmen, the American Ambassador to the United Nations, and others. Anne Whitman, the wife of the company's public relations director, was President Eisenhower's personal secretary. Under-secretary of State (and formerly Director of the CIA) Walter Bedell Smith was seeking an executive position with United Fruit at the same time he was helping to plan the coup. He was later named to the company's board of directors.
597    Under Arbenz Guatemala constructed an Atlantic port and a highway to compete with United Fruit's holdings, and built a hydro-electric plant to offer cheaper energy than the US controlled electricity monopoly. Arbenz's strategy was to limit the power of foreign companies through direct competition rather than through nationalization, a policy not feasible of course when it came to a fixed quantity like land.
598
599Zuiker's paper, which draws heavily on Schlesinger and Kinzer's book Bitter Fruit, explains how Arbenz's government implemented its policy of land reform in a very clever yet fair way. Those holding massive land monopolies were forced to hand over portions of their unused and uncultivated land to the government, but the government paid back to the owner the full price of the land according to its worth as stated by the owner in property tax documents. The problem for United Fruit, and the beauty of Arbenz's policy, was that in the past United Fruit had consistently undervalued its own land in an effort to defraud the Guatemalan government out of tax revenue! Zuiker writes,
600
601    In the spring of 1953, Guatemala expropriated 225,000 of United Fruit's 300,000 acres. Guatemala paid United Fruit U.S. $1,000,000 dollars in exchange for the land. United Fruit insisted the land was worth $20 million dollars...
602    United Fruit was enraged over the new proposal. UFCO began a huge campaign to appeal to Congressmen, State Department officials and anyone else that would listen. They stated that Guatemala was for all practical purposes stealing their land. UFCO never mentioned that they had valued their land at those prices, however, they did mention that it was all uncultivated; UFCO stated that this loss of land would ruin the company.
603
604One of United Fruit's biggest supporters was a man by the name of John J. McCloy. In 1958 the famous Harvard economist/historian John Kenneth Galbraith singled out McCloy as the "Chairman" of the American Establishment, and thus the most powerful man in America. During his life McCloy was a partner in three powerful New York law firms; he served as assistant Secretary of War under Stimson in the FDR administration; he was appointed US High Commissioner in Germany after the war; served as the second President of the World Bank(1947-1949); served as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank from 1953-1960; served as chairman of the Ford Foundation from 1958-1965 (see the article The Ford Foundation and the CIA); and served as chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1953-1970 (prior to David Rockefeller). He simply was "The Chairman."
605
606While serving as President of the World Bank McCloy had turned down a much-needed loan application from Guatemalan President Arevalo, and in 1953 as Arbenz battled United Fruit McCloy oversaw a CFR study group that concluded that a coup against Arbenz was necessary. McCloy later became a director of United Fruit.
607
608Another powerful associate of United Fruit was public relations expert Edward Bernays. Zuiker notes that in 1928 Bernays wrote a book entitled Propaganda, in which he stated,
609
610The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country... it is the intelligent minorities [the Establishment Elite] which need to make use of propaganda continuously and systematically.
611
612The success of United Fruit's propaganda campaign across the nation, to portray democratic Guatemala as a bastion of communism that threatened the security of Central America and indeed the United States itself, is documented in Zuiker's paper. Against the hysteria Guatemala could do nothing but meekly protest, as Blum explains in Killing Hope, 
613
614    In the midst of the American preparation to overthrow the governmet, the Guatemalan Foreign Minister, Guillermo Toriello, lamented that the United States was categorizing "as 'communism' every manifestation of nationalism or economic independence, any desire for social progress, any intellectual curiosity, and any interest in progressive liberal reforms."
615    Toriello was close to the truth, but Washington officials retained enough contact with reality and world opinion to be aware of the inappropriateness of coming out against nationalism, independence or reform. Thus it was that Secretary of State Dulles asserted that Guatemalans were living under a "Communist type of terrorism" ... President Eisenhower warned about "the Communist dictatorship" establishing "an outpost on this continent to the detriment of all the American nations" ... the US Ambassador to Guatemala, John Peurifoy, declared that "We cannot permit a Soviet Republic to be established between Texas and the Panama Canal" ... others warned that Guatemala could become a base from which the Soviet Union might actually seize the Canal ... Senator Margaret Chase Smith hinted, unmistakably, that the "unjustified increases in the price of coffee" imported from Guatemala were due to communist control of the country, and called for an investigation ... and so it went.
616
617In the campaign against Guatemala the US found an ally in Nicaragua, home of dictator Anastasio Somoza, and in neighboring Honduras, also governed by dictatorship, which became a base for the anti-Arbenz militia. The rulers of both of these nations had an interest in stopping the spread of democracy that also threatened their own regimes.
618
619In 1954 the CIA and United Fruit financed and armed the military coup that defeated the Arbenz government and installed dictatorship. Castillo Armas became the new President of Guatemala and United Fruit was given back the land that was taken from it, along with all of the concessions given to it by previous dictatorships.
620
621The people of Guatemala had been betrayed by the USA and the corporate interests that ruled it. This betrayal also marked a turning point in the life of an Argentine doctor named Ernesto "Che" Guevara. As a resident of Guatemala he had observed the treacherous American action against democracy, and from that point on he became a radical convinced that armed struggle was the only way to defeat the "oligarchic system and the main enemy, Yankee imperialism."
622
623
624The Congo 1960 - The third largest nation in Africa, but the richest in natural resources, gained its independence from Belgium on June 30, 1960. Elections had been held a week before and a young articulate nationalist by the name of Patrice Lumumba [film] had been swept into power. Democracy lasted for only two months in the Congo, before Belgium, Britain, and the United States put an end to it for good. Through it all Lumumba continued to write letters to President Eisenhower appealing for help, and according to journalist D'Lynn Waldron, "It was America to which Lumumba looked as the dream of what the Congo could be."
625
626The problem for Prime Minister Lumumba was that his country possessed a fortune in natural resources that the Establishment was determined to control. An excellent article by Osei Boateng from New African magazine explains the situation,
627
628    By 1958, Congo was producing 50% of the world's uranium (almost all of it bought by America), 75% of the world's cobalt, 70% of the world's industrial diamonds, and it was the world's largest producer of rubber.
629    More than 80% of the uranium in the American atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 came from Congo's heavily guarded mine at Shinkolobwe. In terms of Western geo-political interests at the height of the Cold War, Congo was a very important country...
630    ...Two of the companies that shaped the history of Congo were the Union Miniere de Haut-Katanga founded in 1906 (mining copper, uranium, cobalt etc) and the Societe Internationale Forestiere et Miniere du Congo (Forminiere) which started mining diamonds in the Congo in 1907. By 1929, Congo had become the world's second largest diamond producer, after South Africa. Forminiere also had gold and silver mines in the Congo, in addition to vast cotton, oil palm, cocoa and rubber plantations, cattle ranches, sawmills and a chain of shops.
631    Union Miniere was largely controlled by Belgian, French and British interests while Forminiere was controlled by American interests. But in 1950, the Rockefeller Group became a major shareholder of Union Miniere by buying into one of Miniere's subsidiaries, Tanganyika Concessions. This opened the door for American interests in Union Miniere. It was therefore vital that Congo remained in the Western sphere of influence.
632
633During the independence day ceremonies, when Belgium handed over control of the Congo to the newly elected government, Prime Minister Lumumba listened as King Baudouin whitewashed Belgium's decades of brutal colonial oppression saying,
634
635"The independence of the Congo is the crowning of the work conceived by the genius of King Leopold II, undertaken by him with courage and continued by Belgium with perseverance. 
636    "For 80 years, Belgium has sent to your land the best of its sons - first to deliver the Congo basin from the odious slave trade which was decimating the population, later to bring together the different tribes which, though former enemies, are now preparing to form the greatest of the independent states of Africa...
637    "Belgian pioneers have built railways, cities, industries, schools, medical services and modernised agriculture... It is your task, gentlemen, to show that we were right in trusting you."
638
639After King Baudouin ended his speech, Joseph Kasavubu, the moderate President of the Congo, gave a speech on behalf of his nation, but he failed to mention colonialism, or his people's struggle, or to comment on the "genius" of King Leopold II who had presided over the deaths of millions of Congolese. Lumumba was appalled at King Baudouin's speech, and at his own president's pathetic response, and so he stormed the podium to offer an unscheduled but much-needed rebuttal,
640
641"Men and women of the Congo, who have fought for and won the independence we celebrate today, I salute you in the name of the Congolese government. 
642
643"I ask you all, friends who have fought relentlessly side by side to make this 30th of June 1960 an illustrious date that remains ineradicably engraved on your hearts, a date whose significance you will be proud to teach to your children, who will in turn pass on to their children and grandchildren the glorious story of our struggle for liberty.
644
645"For, while the independence of the Congo has today been proclaimed in agreement with Belgium, a friendly country with whom we deal on an equal footing, no Congolese worthy of the name will ever be able to forget that independence has only been won by struggle, a struggle that went on day after day, a struggle of fire and idealism, a struggle in which we have spared neither effort, deprivation, suffering or even our blood. 
646
647"The struggle, involving tears, fire and blood, is something of which we are proud in our deepest hearts, for it was a noble and just struggle, which was needed to bring to an end the humiliating slavery imposed on us by force.
648
649"Such was our lot for 80 years under the colonialist regime; our wounds are still too fresh and painful for us to be able to forget them at will, for we have experienced painful labour demanded of us in return for wages that were not enough to enable us to eat properly, nor to be decently dressed or sheltered, nor to bring up our children as we longed to.
650
651"We have experienced contempt, insults and blows, morning, noon and night because we were 'blacks'. We shall never forget that a black was addressed tu, not because he was a friend but because only the whites were given the honour of being addressed vous.
652
653"We have seen our lands despoiled in the name of so-called legal documents which were no more than a recognition of superior force. We have known that the law was never the same for a white man as it was for a black: for the former it made allowances, for the latter, it was cruel and inhuman.
654
655"We have seen the appalling suffering of those who had their political opinions and religious beliefs dismissed as exiles in their own country, their lot was truly worse than death. We have seen magnificent houses in the towns for the whites, and crumbling straw huts for the blacks; a black could not go to the cinema, or a restaurant, or a shop that was meant for 'Europeans', a black would always travel in the lowest part of a ship, under the feet of the whites in their luxurious cabins.
656
657"And finally, who can ever forget the shooting in which so many of our brothers died; or the cells where those who refused to submit any longer to the rule of a 'justice' of oppression and exploitation were put away?
658
659"All this, brothers, has meant the most profound suffering. But all this, we can now say, we who have been voted as your elected representatives to govern our beloved country, all this is now ended. The Republic of Congo has been proclaimed, and our land is now in the hands of its own children. Together, brothers and sisters, we shall start on a new struggle, a noble struggle that will bring our country to peace, prosperity and greatness...
660
661"We shall show the world what the black man can do when he is allowed to work in freedom, and we shall make the Congo the focal point of Africa..."
662
663Prime Minister Lumumba presided over the political liberation of his country, but he was also determined to achieve economic liberation as well, and to use the resources of the Republic of the Congo to improve the general welfare of his people. Perhaps that is why, according to Under Secretary of State Douglas Dillon, President Eisenhower and the National Security Council determined in 1960 that Lumumba was a "very difficult if not impossible man to deal with, and was dangerous to the peace and safety of the world."
664
665The first plan that was adopted by the Establishment to ensure the continued plundering of natural resources that was taking place under Union Miniere, Formeniere, and other corporate interests, was to back the secession from the Congo Republic of the province of Katanga, home of the two mining companies and the source of 60% of the Congo's wealth, that was ruled by "company man" Moise Tshombe.
666
667Only weeks after the Congo achieved independence from Belgium, Tshombe proclaimed Katanga independent from the Congo, and Belgian, British, Rhodesian and South African troops moved into Katanga to support him. After a UN condemnation of the secession the Eisenhower administration (itself under a great deal of Establishment pressure to back Katanga) decided to back a UN proposal to end the secession and to replace the Belgian and foreign troops with UN troops. Lumumba then appealed to the US for help to transport his own troops to regain control of his rebel province. When the US turned him down he asked the Soviets for help, who quickly sent him trucks and planes. By this foolish action Lumumba falsely identified himself as a "Communist," offering the Anglo-American Establishment a weapon by which he was brought down.
668
669Note: [Even today conservatives in America continue to falsely portray Lumumba as a Communist, in sources such as Katanga: The Untold Story, an hour long documentary narrated by US Congressman Donald L Jackson, 46 Angry Men by the 46 doctors of Elisabethville, Who Killed the Congo by Phillipa Schuyler, Rebels, Mercenaries, and Dividends by Smith Hempstone ,and The Fearful Master by G. Edward Griffith. For a first-hand account of Lumumba's brief career, the disinformation spread in the American press, and a forceful rebuttal of the charge that he was a Communist see the writings of American journalist D'Lynn Waldron.]
670
671On September 5 President Kasavubu, later proven to be on the CIA payroll, illegally dismissed Prime Minister Lumumba from the government, but Lumumba took his case to the Congolese legislature where both houses of Parliament voted to reinstate him as Prime Minister.
672
673This democratic action was too little, too late, because the Establishment had another ace up its sleeve in the form of military strongman, and Pentagon favorite, General Joseph Mobutu. Encouraged by the CIA he carried out a military show of force and installed himself as Kasavubu's partner in the government. Prime Minister Lumumba then became a fugitive in the country that had elected him its leader. Blum goes on to describe the CIA's unease regarding Lumumba even while he was on the run, offering a few quotes from American officials at the time, and describing their attempts to eliminate him,
674
675"CIA and high Administration officials continued to view him as a threat" ... his "talents and dynamism appear [to be the] overriding factor in reestablishing his position each time it seems half lost" ... "Lumumba was a spellbinding orator with the ability to stir up the masses of people to action" ... "if he ...started to talk to a battalion of the Congolese Army, he probably would have them in the palm of his hand in five minutes" ...
676    In late September, the CIA sent one of its scientists, Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, to the Congo carrying "lethal biological material" (a virus) specifically intended for use in Lumumba's assassination. The virus, which was supposed to produce a fatal disease indigenous to the Congo area of Africa, was transported via diplomatic pouch. [Note: According to researchers, AIDS first emerged as a new virus in the Belgian Congo in 1959].
677    In 1975, the Church committee went on record with the conclusion that Allen Dulles had ordered Lumumba's assassination as "an urgent and prime objective" (Dulles's words). After hearing the testimony of several officials who believed that the order to kill the African leader had emanated originally from President Eisenhower, the committee decided that there was a "reasonable inference" that this was indeed the case.
678
679American journalist D'Lynn Waldron, a supporter of Lumumba and one of his primary voices to the West, describes how her stories for Scripps-Howard were edited, and offers a clue that may explain how the CIA tracked him down,
680
681The story I sent to my newspaper in America had a paragraph that said Lumumba told me he was afraid that the Communists would take control of his party and that the Belgians were accusing him of taking financing from Russia, but the publisher changed this to make it seem as if I were saying this as a fact, rather than something Lumumba feared. I did not see this article until the Russians arrived and showed it to Lumumba to discredit me with him. (It should be noted that Lumumba never gave up on hopes that America would aid him, and after he became Prime Minister, Lumumba's travelling companion and confidant was Frank Carlucci [!], who it has since been revealed in Congressional investigations was an American intelligence officer and presumably part of Operation Zaire Rifle, the plot to assassinate Lumumba.
682
683Lumumba's capture was brought about with the help of the CIA and Mobutu's troops arrested him on December 1, 1960. He was then handed over to his worst enemy, Moise Tshombe of Katanga province on January 17, 1961 and assassinated the very same day. Former CIA agent John Stockwell mentions in his book In Search of Enemies - A CIA Story, that he spent time in 1965 with a CIA instructor who related to him an adventure he had experienced in Lubumbashi, the capital of Katanga, "driving about town after curfew with Patrice Lumumba's body in the trunk of his car, trying to decide what to do with it." According to a recently published book Lumumba's body was buried and exhumed twice, and then finally dismembered and dissolved in sulphuric acid by a Belgian police commissioner in Katanga.
684
685Lumumba's assassination took place three days before John F. Kennedy was sworn in as America's 34th president. This was no coincidence. Allen Dulles knew that he had to act fast because he knew that Kennedy had a much different idea of what the role of the United States should be in addressing Third World nationalism. This aspect of Kennedy's  foreign policy is explained in the article "Dodd and Dulles vs. Kennedy in Africa" by Jim DiEugenio, which often cites the book JFK: Ordeal In Africa by Richard D. Mahoney as a source. On the cover of Mahoney's book is the photograph of an anguished JFK on the phone, taken when he received the news of Lumumba's death. DiEugenio recounts a speech JFK gave on the subject of Third World nationalism in LA in 1956,
686
687...the Afro-Asian revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control their national destinies... in my opinion, the tragic failure of both Republican [Eisenhower] and Democratic [Truman] administrations since World War II to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for good and evil, has reaped a bitter harvest today - and it is by rights and by necessity a major foreign policy campaign issue that has nothing to do with anti-communism.
688
689After quoting from Kennedy, DiEugenio goes on to write,
690
691Kennedy objected to the "for us or against us" attitude that, in Africa, had pushed Egypt's Gamel Abdul Nasser into the arms of the Russians [after the World Bank refused to help finance the Aswan Dam]. He also objected to the self-righteousness with which people like Dulles and Nixon expressed this policy. John Foster Dulles' string of bromides on the subject e.g. "godless Communism," and the "Soviet master plan," met with this response from Senator Kennedy: "Public thinking is being bullied by slogans which are either false in context or irrelevant to the new phase of competitive coexistence in which we live."
692
693John F. Kennedy proved to be an aggressive opponent of the Establishment from the very beginning and he acted to curb the power of the CIA that continued to function as an independent Establishment-controlled entity after he assumed office. He once remarked in frustration that he wanted to "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." DiEugenio describes JFK's actions regarding the Congo when he first assumed the presidency,
694
695    Unaware of Lumumba’s death, Kennedy requested a full-scale policy review on the Congo his first week in office. Kennedy had made an oblique reference to the Congo situation in his inaugural address. He had called the UN, "our last best hope" and pledged to support "its shield of the new and the weak". Once in office he made clear and forceful those vague insinuations. On his own, and behind the scenes, he relayed the Russians a message that he was ready to negotiate a truce in the Congo. Ambassador Timberlake got wind of this and other JFK moves and he phoned Allen Dulles and Pentagon Chief Lyman Lemnitzer to alert them that Kennedy was breaking with Eisenhower’s policy. Timberlake called this switch a "sell-out" to the Russians. Upon hearing of the new policy formation, [UN Sec. Gen.] Hammarskjold told [UN rep. to the Congo] Dayal that he should expect in short order an organized backlash to oppose Kennedy.
696    On February 2nd, Kennedy approved a new Congo policy which was pretty much a brisk departure from the previous administration. The new policy consisted of close cooperation with the UN to bring all opposing armies, including the Belgians, under control. In addition, the recommendation was to have the country neutralized and not subject to any East-West competition. Thirdly, all political prisoners should be freed. (Not knowing Lumumba was dead, this recommendation was aimed at him without naming him specifically.) Fourth, the secession of Katanga should be opposed. To further dramatize his split with Eisenhower and Nixon, Kennedy invited Lumumba’s staunch friend Nkrumah [PM of Ghana] to Washington for an official visit. Even further, when Nehru of India asked Kennedy to promise to commit US forces to the UN military effort and to use diplomatic pressure to expel the Belgians, Kennedy agreed.
697
698Against fierce Establishment resistance JFK led the United States government to work with the UN to ensure that Katanga province remained within the Congo Republic. Kennedy supported the forceful, and sometimes brutal UN action to remove Moise Tshombe from power, the brutal corporate puppet who was known as "Africa's most unpopular African." Kennedy also directed the US Air Force to supply Congolese troops in their fight against the Katanga rebels, but at the same time, according to Blum, "...the CIA and its covert colleagues in the Pentagon were putting together an air armada of heavy transport aircraft, along with mercenary units, to aid the very same rebels."
699
700The breakaway Katanga province was eventually crushed and brought back into the Congo Republic. However, after Kennedy's death, with Establishment support, the hated Tshombe was brought into the Congo government by Mobutu! Then in 1965 Mobutu got rid of the "moderate" President Kasavubu. In 1966 General Mobutu, at the urging of his powerful American friends, finally ended any appearances of democracy and installed himself as the sole military dictator of the Congo. Under his rule he changed the name of his nation to Zaire, and his own to Mobutu Sese Seko. He became the Anglo-American Establishment's favorite dictator in all of Africa and he ruled at the expense of his people with total authority and in great luxury until he was deposed by Laurent Kabila in 1997.
701
702Turning back to JFK, establishment leftists (Chomsky, Hersh, Schlesinger, even William Blum of Killing Hope) and establishment conservatives (take your pick) have done a hatchet job on the JFK presidency. For a clear and non-partisan look at JFK's legacy this writer suggests Battling Wall Street, by Professor Donald Gibson. JFK openly sparred with David Rockefeller regarding economic policy on the pages of Life magazine, and he sparred with CFR chief John J. McCloy behind the scenes regarding foreign policy, even going so far as to fire Allen Dulles as the head of the CIA. JFK was an admirer of Egypt's Nasser, of India's Nehru, of DeGaulle's desire to allow an independent Algeria, and of Nationalism in general throughout the Third World. He also began programs such as the Peace Corp and the Alliance For Progress that sought to help the Third World become economically self-sufficient. According to Gibson, whose conclusion is backed up with sharp logic and copious references, not to mention the bare historical record, JFK threatened the Establishment the most because he threatened their control over the economies of the Third World. The vast riches of South America, Africa and Asia beckoned, and lay there for the Establishment's taking, but JFK's idealism stood in the way. For that he was eliminated.
703 
704
705Iraq 1963 - On April 28, 1959, CIA Director Allen Dulles appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He warned, "Iraq is today the most dangerous spot on earth."
706
707From 1930 to 1958 Iraq had been led by the most pro-British Arab leader in all of the Middle East, Prime Minister Nuri Said. He governed Iraq alongside a figurehead monarchy and proved his worth to the British and to the Iraqi elite in numerous ways. Historian Said Aburish documents a few of his policies in A Brutal Friendship - The West and the Arab Elite,
708
709    - The British Mandate over Iraq expired in 1932, but in 1930 Said sponsored a British-Iraqi treaty that gave Britain military bases in Iraq and status and influence over Iraq's foreign policy.
710    - Said scaled back the land reform policies that had been enacted under Turkish rule, taking land away from the Iraqi people and giving it back to the feudal sheikhs.
711    - In 1936 Said advised the Grand Mufti of Palestine to end the anti-British rebellion when Arabs everywhere wanted it to continue.
712    - In 1948 he refused to allow the Iraqi army in Palestine to come to the aid of the Egyptian army in the face of the Israeli attack, and then he withdrew Iraqi troops altogether, allowing Israel to achieve a victory.
713    - In 1955 Said initiated an alliance with Turkey that became the pro-West Baghdad Pact. The Anglo-Americans saw the pact as necessary to neutralize both the Soviet influence and the rise of Arab nationalism led by Gamal Nasser of Egypt. The vast majority of Arabs favored an alliance with Egypt to combat the emerging power of Israel and to avoid domination by either the Soviets or the West.
714    - In 1956 Said stooped to the lowest level of any Arab leader by supporting the failed British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt that was prompted by Nasser's takeover of the Canal.
715
716Aburish writes that Nuri Said was,
717
718    ...the antithesis of a believer in democracy, openly scoffing at the idea, and his anti-democratic activities included expelling students from universities, sacking civil servants, banning newspapers, imprisoning politicians, eliminating opponents through implicating them in phony plots and executing and banishing communists and leftist to brutal desert detension camps...
719    ...Above all, Nuri was neither king nor president: he was a strongman rather than a head of state. As is obvious from the brief description of his internal, Arab and foreign policies, he was an extremely unpopular and corrupt conspirator who stopped at nothing to stay in power and he had very little time for the Arabs and the Iraqis. However, by all accounts - including those of many of his opponents - the man had charm. It was a charm which appealed to women decades younger and which he used with tribal sheikhs, army officers, most members of the royal family, Iraqi politicians, Arab heads of state and Western leaders.
720
721Unfortunately for Nuri Said his charm ran out on July 14, 1958. On that day the monarchy was toppled in a populist-inspired military coup. King Faisal II was executed and Nuri Said took refuge in the home of a friend. His friend felt compelled to hide Said, but his friend's boy did not share the same feelings for the old despot and reported him to the military. Aburish goes on, "Sensing danger, Nuri tried to escape dressed as a woman. But a mob recognized him, killed and tore him to bits and repeatedly ran over whatever was left of him with their cars. There was nothing left to bury."
722
723The danger perceived by Allen Dulles only a year later stemmed from the policies of Iraq's new republican leader, General Abdel Karim Kassem. Aburish explains that Kassem, although not a communist himself, favored working with the Iraqi Communist Party rather than ignoring or harassing it. This was of course the main excuse used by Dulles to condemn him, but Kassem also carried out some very popular reforms that threatened the Establishment just as much,
724
725He successfully pressured the British-controlled Iraqi Petroleum Company (IPC) into giving Iraq a greater share of the oil income, prevailed on the British to close their military bases in his country, encouraged the trade unions, built new cities for workers, distributed land to peasants, reduced rents, created the People's Militia and signed arms deals with the USSR.
726
727Dulles was also worried that Kassem might unify with Nasser to create an even stronger pan-Arab block. This paranoia regarding Kassem was at first not entirely shared by the British who had a more subtle approach and a deeper understanding of Middle Eastern realities. Aburish explains that they believed that Kassem would emerge independent of Nasser and resurrect the old Babylon vs. Egypt antagonism, thus weakening Arab nationalism by dividing it.
728
729This British perception was proven true, and after Nasser saw that he would not be able to dominate Kassem he tried to have him assassinated in the hopes that a more pro-Egyptian leader would emerge. One of the early attempts on Kassem's life was made by a young Baath Party acitivist named Saddam Hussein, who was wounded in the failed attack and forced to flee to Cairo in 1959.
730
731British tolerance of Kassem's regime did not last long, however. In 1960 Kassem was one of the leading figures involved in the creation of OPEC, envisioned as a way for oil producing nations to resist Anglo-American corporate domination of the industry. Then in 1961 Syria seceded from the United Arab Republic that had unified it with Egypt, and Arab nationalism was no longer seen as such a great threat. The same year Kassem made two blunders that angered the British even more: He nationalized another portion of the British-dominated Iraqi Petroleum Company, and then he vocalized the Iraqi claim to Kuwait, the nation that had been shorn off of Iraq by the British after World War I. Kassem made the same assertions that Saddam Hussein would stupidly act on thirty years later.
732
733With Anglo-American oil profits at stake in Iraq and Kuwait the CIA was called in to take care of business. Their partner against Kassem became Iraq's Baath Party, a strongly anti-communist, yet socialist party that had branched off from the Syrian Baath Party and was led at first by secular middle class intellectuals. By the time Kassem came into power it had gained a strong influence within the Iraqi military and with several Sunni Arab tribes, out of which Saddam's Tikrit tribe emerged on top.
734
735The CIA connection to the Baath Party was through Colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, who was recruited by the CIA when he served at the Iraqi embassy in Washington, DC. The CIA also established ties with Iraqi dissidents that had fled to Egypt, including Saddam Hussein.
736
737When Colonel Ammash was arrested by the Iraqi government the Baath-CIA coup was forced to spring into action. It began on February 8, 1963, and ended the next day when General Kassem surrendered. The Iraqi nationalist was interrogated, subjected to a sham tribunal, and then shot in the head without a blindfold as he shouted "Long live the people!" Afterwards Robert Kromer of the National Security Council explained to a sidelined and skeptical President Kennedy that "the coup is a gain for our side."
738
739In the aftermath of Kassem's execution phase two of the coup was put into action. The CIA demanded that the Baath Party remove all communist elements from the country and they provided Baath leaders with lists of suspects, the longest of which came from a CIA operative named William McHale, who worked in Beirut undercover as a reporter for Time magazine. Instructions were also transmitted into Iraq from a CIA radio station in Kuwait during the coup and throughout the elimination phase that followed it. The purges were more than thorough. Aburish explains,
740
741    The number of people eliminated remains confused and estimates range from seven hundred to thirty thousand. Putting various statements by Iraqi exiles together, in all likelihood the figure was nearer five thousand...
742    ...There were many ordinary people who were eliminated because they continued to resist after the coup became an accomplished fact, but there were also senior army officers, lawyers, professors, teachers, doctors and others. There were pregnant women and old men among them and many were tortured to death in the presence of their young children. Saddam Hussein, who had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for the fellaheen, or peasants, and the muthaqafeen, or educated class... The British Committee for Human Rights in Iraq, one of the few international groups to investigate what happened after the coup, confirmed all this in a 1964 report and compared the Ba'athist hit squads to 'Hitlerian shock troops.'
743
744The main goal of the purges was to destroy Iraq's Communist Party but, much like Mao's "Cultural Revolution," the end result was the loss of a significant portion of Iraq's educated and intellectual populace. The Baath Party which, in the words of the new Minister of the Interior "came to power on a CIA train," then became the Establishment's path to the natural riches of Iraq.
745
746In the commercial field, Shell, BP, Bectel, Parsons, Mobil and other British and American companies were allowed to re-enter Iraq to develop its oilfields. Robert Anderson, the one-time Eisenhower Secretary of the Treasury and later a CIA troubleshooter, came to Baghdad to negotiate a sulphur concession for the Pan American Sulfur Company. American companies began negotiations to build the Basra dry-dock facilities. The CIA-Iraqi connection was yielding economic benefits.
747
748In overthrowing Kassem the Baathists had removed a very popular leader. Partly to placate the populace they appointed as President a former ally of Kassem's who had drifted apart because of Kassem's refusal to cooperate with Nasser. He was Colonel Abdel Salam Aref, and to the dismay of the Baathists and the CIA he immediately made moves to bring Iraq closer to Egypt. This inevitably brought about another coup, which took place in 1968, again with CIA backing. From that point on the Baath Party firmly ruled Iraq with strong support from the US and British governments. Saddam Hussein took power in 1979, and he continued to be viewed as a Western ally until after the end of the Iran-Iraq war when he was tricked into invading Kuwait in 1990. President Bush then made his famous speech rallying Americans to war, hypocritically screeching, "This tyranny shall not stand!"
749
750
751Brazil 1964 - Brazil is the largest nation in the South American continent, and one of the world's richest in terms of natural resources. In 1961 a young idealistic nationalist named João Goulart became president and he began promoting policies of land reform, nationalization, and industrialization to try to make the most of his nation's enormous potential.
752
753During Goulart's presidency he became good friends with President Kennedy who began the Alliance for Progress foreign aid initiatives involving Brazil in 1961. These initiatives were made on a government-to-government basis, sidestepping the World Bank and the IMF and the profit-driven initiatives of Wall Street, and they were widely criticized by Establishment spokesmen such as Nelson and David Rockefeller, and in Wall Street mouthpieces such as the Wall Street Journal and Fortune magazine, and in McCloy's CFR journal Foreign Affairs.
754
755Gerard Colby in his book Thy Will Be Done offers David Rockefeller's perspective on how the United States should approach foreign economic development, and the quote within it is from Rockefeller's paper, "A Reappraisal of the Alliance for Progress," written in February of 1963,
756
757    The Cold War doctrine of counterinsurgency had brought U.S. policy full circle, blurring means and ends: Development was necessary for order, and order was necessary for development.
758    David Rockefeller had explained the first half of this thesis from an exclusively corporate interpretation of development in 1963. He had called upon President Kennedy to shift foreign economic aid away from government-to-government aid. Such aid allowed governments in underdeveloped countries to fund publicly owned enterprises that competed with privately owned (often American controlled) companies. Local government aid, in turn, encouraged political independence from Washington and greater national sovereignty - including nationalization of American holdings.
759    David wanted Kennedy to proclaim a shift in foreign-aid policy toward private entrepreneurs, both American and allied local investors, on the grounds that private enterprise per se was the basis of freedom:
760    "The first requirement is that the governments - and, as far as possible, the people - of Latin America know that the U.S. has changed its policy, so as to put primary stress on improvement in the general business climate as a prerequisite for social development and reform."
761    But David went beyond the classical liberal argument of the market basis for individual liberty. He extended it to suggest that U.S. policy should not merely prefer private enterprise, but should oppose public enterprise and its creation out of private corporations, no matter what the public's grievances or the corporation's crimes. David wanted a general U.S. policy that discouraged all nationalizations...
762    David and his corporate allies feared "possible changes in the rules of the game." To soothe corporate jitters in corporate boardrooms and securities exchanges, the "obstacles" that a developing nation usually erected to protect its infant industries, small farms, and working-class' buying power had to be done away with... Multinational corporate ideology had not yet advanced to the point of asserting that these protections were "outmoded" in their global marketplace, but this would be the next step.
763
764JFK had very different ideas from David Rockefeller on how developing nations could realize their potential, and JFK's ideas were viewed much more favorably by those nations than were the Establishment's clever ideas promoting neo-imperialism. Perhaps that partially explains the anguish felt in Brazil, and worldwide, at the death of JFK, as Colby describes,
765
766    News of John Kennedy's murder sent a shudder through Brazil. Then came grief such as had not been shown for the death of any foreign leader since President Franklin D. Roosevelt. As then, Brazilians sensed that the world had taken a dramatic turn. A shroud had been hung over the face of the future, making the loss of Kennedy so unexpectedly personal. In Rio de Janeiro, rivers of grief swept through the streets as lines of people converged to mourn at the U.S. Embassy
767    Ambassador Lincoln Gordon was startled by the emotional crowds and what they could mean for President Lyndon B. Johnson in Latin America. "The experience we had that Friday afternoon and evening and the following weekend, I suppose, was repeated all over the world," he later recalled. "But in Rio it was a most dramatic thing. We opened a book at the chancery and another one at our residence, and over that weekend we had a line of people stretching for three of four blocks. It was continuous, day and night, of every class of person, every type, poor, rich, middle class, most of them weeping. It was a most extraordinary outpouring of emotion. So as a reaction to that, there would inevitably be some doubts about Kennedy's successor."
768    There was no doubt in Washington's higher circles, however, about Lyndon Johnson. The former Senate majority leader was no maverick like Kennedy. He was the classic insider among Washington's power brokers.
769
770After Kennedy's death in November of 1963 major changes occurred in the Alliance for Progress program, changes which, as noted by Gibson, were received very favorably by David Rockefeller, as he made clear in a 1966 article he wrote for Foreign Affairs. Major changes also took place in the Brazilian government, when President Goulart was removed from power in a CIA-backed right-wing military coup in March of 1964. Brazil then endured two decades of death squads and dictatorships before any meaningful form of democracy was allowed to surface again.
771
772The Establishment's interest in Brazil came chiefly through the Brazilian holdings of the Rockefeller family, which by the 1960's were extensive and diverse, from oil and mining, to electricity and communications, to cattle ranching, agriculture, and of course banking and investment. Much of them were managed under the umbrella of Nelson's massive multinational corporation, the International Basic Economy Corporation (IBEC), which also included holdings throughout the rest of South and Central America, in Southeast Asia, and in Africa as well. Rockefeller's influence in South America, and the influence of the IBEC, is documented extensively in the previously mentioned book written by Gerard Colby in 1995, Thy Will Be Done - The Conquest of the Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. As the title infers, the Rockefeller's designs on the resources of South America were cleverly cloaked by their support for Protestant evangelism, especially through the missionary work of William Cameron Townsend and Wycliffe Bible Translators. In the United States Billy Graham was the most prominent name among a host of evangelicals that have always had  strong financial backing from the secular Rockefellers. This may help explain how American corporate initiatives against Third World nationalism came to be falsely portrayed by Big Christianity in America as "Christian" initiatives fighting against "Communism."
773
774Even before João Goulart became president of Brazil the CIA had his eye on him. Colby writes,
775
776A stocky, handsome man with a large popular following, Goulart viewed himself as [former Brazilian president] Getulio Vargas's spiritual successor in the struggle to rid Brazil of foreign domination. For that reason alone, he made Washington nervous at every step in his rise to power. As Vargas's minister of labor, he had built himself a base among Brazil's growing, restless working class. In gestures all too reminiscent of Argentina's Juan Peron, he found every opportunity to deliver rousing, populist speeches to the masses.
777
778Colby describes how in 1963 Goulart presided over the nationalizing of a subsidiary of American-owned International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT). The president of ITT then began to furiously lobby congress for an amendment to Kennedy's 1962 foreign-aid bill that would immediately cancel all aid to any country that nationalized, repudiated a contract, or specially taxed or regulated any American company. According to Colby,
779
780Such a Big Stick approach appalled President Kennedy, who worried that it would further enflame Third World nationalism, appear to corroborate Soviet propaganda about "U.S. imperialism," and force the United States to take the side of American companies more often than was merited.
781
782Kennedy fought the amendment to the bill, and then helped mediate a settlement between ITT and the Brazilian government. Afterwards, Goulart made an offer to buy out all American-owned utilities that were squeezing the Brazilian economy with steadily jacked up rates. Colby writes,
783
784Kennedy endorsed the idea. He wanted to avoid Brazilian anger at rising electric bills. "It's that damned U.S. company," he thought Brazilians would say when their monthly bills arrived.
785
786Unfortunately for Brazil, Goulart's plan was shelved because of lack of internal political support for such an ambitious move. His next action was to order his finance minister to apply a limit on the amount of net profits that foreign companies would be allowed to take out of the country, and then he asserted control over foreign aid. Up to that point much of it was being poured into favored states within Brazil, but Goulart mandated that it must first be channeled through the federal government. These were all policies aimed at improving the general welfare of the Brazilian people, but they conflicted with the profit motives of the American Establishment.
787
788Goulart also turned his attention to the United States' largest producer of iron ore, the M.A. Hanna Mining Company, that had a major presence in Brazil. Hanna was the main iron ore supplier of National Steel, which in turn supplied 40% of Chrysler Corporation's steel, and all three companies were highly invested in by the Rockefeller family. In 1962 President Goulart issued an expropriation decree against Hanna's iron ore concession. It was appealed in the Brazilian courts by Hanna's CEO George Humphrey, but by early 1964 it looked as if Goulart's decree would be passed. JFK was out of the way, and the time had come for the Establishment to act.
789
790No time was wasted because Humphrey was a firm Establishment insider. He had previously been Eisenhower's Treasury secretary, and his company's law firm was Milbank and Tweed, the law firm of John J. McCloy. "The Chairman" then took control of the Goulart situation during the very same time that he was beginning his work with the Warren Commission on the JFK assassination. McCloy would work to cover up the successful American coup at the same time as he planned for a Brazilian coup, and as these two tasks began President Lyndon Johnson awarded him the Freedom Medal at a White House ceremony in the State Dining Room.
791
792Biographer Kai Bird describes how McCloy took command,
793
794    McCloy quickly set about educating himself on the situation by seeing all the appropriate officials at the State Department, the World Bank, the IMF, and the CIA. As it happened, one of the men he had worked with in Germany after the war, Lincoln Gordon, was now the U.S. Ambassador to Brazil. Gordon was back in Washington temporarily that week and gave McCloy his own highly pessimistic assessment of the situation...
795    In preparation for the worst, McCloy set up a channel of communication between the CIA and Hanna's man, Buford [CEO Humphrey's assistant]. Thereafter, whenever Buford returned from one of his frequent trips to Rio de Janeiro, he would drive out to the CIA's headquarters in Langley, Virginia, for a debriefing. According to Buford, McCloy also arranged for him to meet periodically with the CIA station chief in Rio. "Through this fellow," recalled Buford, "we had many, many meetings with the military people who were opposing Goulart behind the scenes."
796
797Bird relates that on February 28 McCloy flew out to Rio de Janeiro to meet with President Goulart. In his pocket he had two proposals to settle the dispute between Hanna Mining and the Brazilian government. Goulart readily agreed to both of the proposals and promised to set up a meeting between Hanna officials and government representatives to work out the deal. Goulart felt greatly relieved at this turn of events, but he had no way of knowing that the proposals were never meant to be lived up to. Several days later Goulart pressed on with his reforming agenda, announcing at a rally his plans to nationalize "all private oil refineries and some landholdings."
798
799At the same time the powerful anti-Goulart opposition shifted into a higher gear. Demonstrations for and against Goulart took place throughout Brazil and tensions escalated. Bird writes,
800
801    Hanna officials were now very worried. Back in their Cleveland headquarters, Humphrey and Buford considered sending McCloy down to Rio once again. But McCloy knew from his contacts in the intelligence community that the time for deal making was over. On March 27, 1964, Colonel Walters cabled Washington that General Castello Branco had "finally accepted [the] leadership" of the anti-Goulart "plotters." Three days later, he told Ambassador Gordon that a military coup was "imminent." The following morning, Washington's contingency plan for a Brazilian coup, code-named Operation Brother Sam, was activated as a U.S. naval-carrier task force was ordered to station itself off the Brazilian coast. Well before the coup began, the Brazilian generals were told that the U.S. Navy would provide them with both arms and scarce oil.
802    The Goulart regime, however, collapsed so quickly that the protracted civil war predicted by the CIA on March 31 never developed. The generals who planned and executed the coup did not need the arms or oil supplies waiting for them off the coast. Hanna Mining Company, in fact, ended up giving the generals more direct assistance than did Operation Brother Sam. The initial army revolt occurred in Minais Gerais, the state in which Hanna had its mining concession. When these troops began marching on Rio, some of them rode in Hanna trucks. In Rio itself, Jack Buford was in constant touch with the local CIA station chief, who kept him informed by phone on Goulart's movements.
803
804Throughout President Goulart's brief term he was continually labeled a "Communist" by much of the Brazilian elite, by a large segment of its military and by the Establishment-controlled mass media in the United States. The hysteria was so effective that a year later the House of Representatives took as credible the testimony of US Southern Command General Andrew O'Meara, who stated, "The coming to power of the Castelo Branco government in Brazil last April saved that country from an immediate dictatorship which could only have been followed by Communist domination."
805
806In Killing Hope author William Blum refutes O'Meara's ridiculous testimony,
807
808    The rescue-from-communism position was especially difficult to support, the problem being that the communists in Brazil did not, after all, do anything which the United States could point to. Moreover, the Soviet Union was scarcely in the picture. Early in 1964, reported a Brazilian newspaper, Russian leader Khrushchev told the Brazilian Communist Party that the Soviet government did not wish either to give financial aid to the Goulart regime or to tangle with the United States over the country...
809    A year after the coup, trade between Brazil and the USSR was running at $120 million per year and a Brazilian mission was planning to go to Moscow to explore Soviet willingness to provide a major industrial plant. The following year, the Russians invited the new Brazilian president-to-be, General Costa e Silva, to visit the Soviet Union.
810    During the entire life of the military dictatorship, extending into the 1980s, Brazil and the Soviet bloc engaged in extensive trade and economic cooperation, reaching billions of dollars per year and including the building of several large hydroelectric plants in Brazil. A similar economic relationship existed between the Soviet bloc and the Argentine military dictatorship of 1976-83, so much so that in 1982, when Soviet leader Brezhnev died, the Argentine government declared a national day of mourning.
811
812Why were there no hysterical cries of communist influence from the Establishment  during the Brazilian and Argentinean dictatorships? Because the Soviets did not threaten American corporate profits, while their pet dictators ensured it. The biggest threat to the Establishment has always been the threat that Third World people's might take over their own affairs, put an end to Anglo-American plundering and exploitation, and use their own natural wealth for themselves. Death Squads are not an enemy of the Establishment, nor is Dictatorship. Its greatest enemy has always been thriving and functioning Democracy, where the people have the power to control their own government and their own economy, and where they can achieve the potential they naturally possess.
813 
814
815Indonesia 1965 - Indonesia gained independence from the Netherlands in December of 1949, and their leader Achmad Sukarno quickly came to be a major thorn in the side of the Anglo-American Establishment.  He became an outspoken enemy of Imperialism and one of the most important Third World leaders forging an independent path between the Soviet bloc and the Anglo-American Imperial faction.
816
817In 1955 he convened the Conference of Asian and African Nations in Bandung, Indonesia. It became known as the Bandung Conference, and it led to the creation of the Nonaligned Movement in 1961. Sukarno, Nehru (India), Nasser (Egypt), Tito (Yugoslavia), and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana (who the Establishment will get to next), were all founding members of this Third World organization that unsuccessfully tried to create a new international economic order.
818
819However, the power and wealth of the Anglo-American faction was too great, and Indonesia was steadily pushed into submission. The article "A Brief History of the International Financial Institutions in Indonesia," describes how Sukarno put up a strong fight,
820
821    Throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the Indonesian economy faced a crisis caused by the sudden drop in the world market price for natural rubber, at that time the country's main export. The US and the World Bank seized on this "opportunity" and lobbied the left-wing Sukarno government to receive a delegation from the World Bank. The delegation offered substantial loans to Indonesia conditional upon the implementation of severe austerity measures and the denationalisation of the previously foreign-owned sector the economy.     The World Bank package was rejected and President Sukarno confronted the US ambassador before a mass rally in Jakarta with the cry: "Go to hell with your aid!"
822
823With Sukarno unwilling to play ball the Establishment was left with their last, but always reliable option, which was simply the fact that President Sukarno allowed a large communist party, the PKI, to exist within his country. Once again, a "communist threat" emerged to save Anglo-American Imperialism. The excuse came when, according to Blum,
824
825...a small force of junior military officers abducted and killed six generals and seized several key points in the capital city of Jakarta. They then went on the air to announce that their action was being taken to forestall a putsch by a 'General's Council' scheduled for Army Day, the fifth of October [1965]. The putsch, they said, had been sponsored by the CIA and was aimed at capturing power from President Sukarno.
826
827To confront this threat the powerful CIA-backed General Suharto and his colleagues and troops sprang into action. They charged that the PKI was behind the uprising, and that Communist China was backing the PKI. To "restore order" General Suharto grabbed control of the Sukarno government, and then crushed the faction involved in the uprising in a matter of days. With Sukarno neutralized General Suharto then turned his attention to the PKI and other potential rivals. Once again, the CIA provided the Indonesian military with long lists of "communists" to be eliminated. Over the next few years Indonesia was engulfed in a terrible bloodbath, where suspected communists, large numbers of ethnic Chinese, and any other undesirables were arrested, tortured or killed. Estimates of the final death toll range from 500,000 to a million victims.
828
829When the smoke cleared the Establishment stepped in. British investigative journalist John Pilger explains what happened in his book The New Rulers of the World,
830
831    In November 1967, following the capture of the 'greatest prize', the booty was handed out. The Time-Life Corporation sponsored an extraordinary conference in Geneva which, in the course of three days, designed the corporate takeover of Indonesia. The participants included the most powerful capitalists in the world, the likes of David Rockefeller. All the corporate giants of the West were represented: the major oil companies and banks, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, British Leyland, British-American Tobacco, American Express, Siemens, Goodyear, the International Paper Corporation, US Steel. Across the table were Suharto's men, whom Rockefeller called 'Indonesia's top economic team'.
832    The 'top team' was led by the Sultan of Jogjakarta, Hamengku Buwono, whom Suharto had persuaded to join him, and Adam Malik, an old political warhorse, in a triumvirate that now ruled the country. Suharto knew he needed America to underwrite him; and in April 1967, he had asked the Sultan to draw up a plan for a 'market economy'. In fact, the plan was the inspiration of the Ford Foundation, which had a long history in Indonesia, often working through CIA front organisations like the Center for International Studies, and the Stanford Research Institute, which sent a team to Jakarta immediately after the coup. It was written by Harvard economist Dave Cole, hired by the US Agency of International Development, a branch of the State Department. Cole was fresh from re-writing South Korea's banking regulations according to Washington's requirements.
833    In Geneva, the Sultan's team were known as the 'Berkeley Mafia', as several had enjoyed US government scholarships at the University in Berkeley. They came as supplicants and duly sang for their supper. Listing the principal selling points of his country and its people, the Sultan offered '...abundance of cheap labour... a treasure house of resources... vast potential market'... 
834    On the second day, the Indonesian economy was carved up, sector by sector. 'This was done in a most spectacular way,' said Jeffrey Winters, professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, who, with doctoral student Brad Simpson, has studied the conference papers. 'They divided up into five different sections: mining in one room, services in another; and what Chase Manhattan did was sit with a delegation and hammer out policies that were going to be acceptable to them and other investors. You had these big corporate people going around the table, saying this is what we need: this, this and this, and they basically designed the legal infrastructure for investment in Indonesia. I've never heard of a situation like this where global capital sits down with the representatives of a supposedly sovereign state and hammers out the conditions of their own entry into that country.'
835    The Freeport Company got a mountain of copper in West Papua (Henry Kissinger is currently on the board). An American and European consortium got West Papua's nickel. The giant Alcoa company got the biggest slice of Indonesia's bauxite. A group of American, Japanese and French companies got the tropical forests of Sumatra, West Papua and Kalimantan. A Foreign Investment Law, hurried on to the statutes by Suharto, made this plunder tax-free for at least five years. Real, and secret, control of the Indonesian economy passed to the Inter-Governmental Group on Indonesia (IGGI), whose principal members were the US, Canada, Europe and Australia and, most importantly, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank...
836    Under Sukarno, Indonesia had had few debts; he had thrown out the World Bank, limited the power of the oil companies and publicly told the Americans to 'go to hell' with their loans. Now the big loans rolled in, mostly from the World Bank, which had the job of tutoring the 'model pupil' on behalf of the IGGI godfathers. 'Indonesia,' said an official of the bank, 'is the best thing that's happened to Uncle Sam since World War Two.'
837
838Rockefeller was Chase Manhattan's president and co-CEO, along with George Champion, during the November 1967 "division of the spoils" conference in Geneva. In his 500-page Memoirs, just published in 2002, "Indonesia" does not even appear in the index, and the only hint we get of Chase Manhattan's involvement is his brief remark on page 204 that Chase established a branch in Jakarta in the late '60s.
839
840David Rockefeller became full CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank in early 1969 and, as his memoir recounts, he became a leading figure in (if not the originator of) Nixon's  policy of  engagement with the Soviet Union and Red China. Rockefeller writes,
841
842President Nixon regarded broadening commercial intercourse with the Soviet Union an integral element in his policy of détente. The Soviet leadership, hungry for access to the modern technology and capital resources of the West, were eager to oblige, and the framework for a trade treaty was incorporated in the agreements signed at the 1972 Moscow Summit that inaugurated a "new era in Soviet-American relations." As part of the "new era," a Soviet-American Commission was created to work out the details that would lead to most-favored nation (MFN) status for the Soviets.
843
844In 1973 Rockefeller opened up a Chase branch in Moscow, and Chase also became the first American bank to sign an agreement with Red China during Rockefeller's visit there the same year as well. His bank would help to openly prop up International Communism for the next decade and a half. For further information on the Establishment's long-standing support for Russia and China see The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, by Antony Sutton.
845
846Regarding Indonesia, under Sukarno the nation had been relatively debt free, but after thirty years under General Suharto (with World Bank and IMF direction, while multinational corporations extracted untold billions of dollars in natural resources), Indonesia now has a total debt of $262 billion, which is 170 percent of its gross domestic product. Pilger writes, "There is no debt like it on earth. It can never be repaid. It is a bottomless hole." Then when General Suharto fled the country in 1998 he took a "retirement bonus" of $17 billion with him. This nation was, according to the World Bank, its "model pupil."
847 
848
849Ghana 1966 - After World War II the British colony known as the Gold Coast went through a period of unrest marked with demonstrations and civil disobedience that was often met with brutal and violent British repression. The people of the Gold Coast had become infected with the stubborn desire for independence and they made it clear to the British ruling regime that they would accept nothing less. The man that emerged to lead that movement was Kwame Nkrumah.
850
851Nkrumah had left his African homeland in 1935 to live in the United States and go to college. He received degrees at Lincoln University and Pennsylvania University, and then moved into a teaching career. In 1945 he was voted "Most Outstanding Professor of the Year" by the Lincoln University newspaper. By this time he was one of the most prominent and outspoken leaders in the movement for a free Africa. Later in 1945 he moved to London, where he thought he could be more effective in the independence movement of his homeland, and while in England he helped to organize a Pan African Congress in Manchester.
852
853In December of 1947 he returned to the Gold Coast. His tour of the country, with speeches to large crowds and many meetings, made it clear that he was a force to reckon with, and in January of 1948 Nkrumah was appointed as the General Secretary of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), one of the leading revolutionary parties. The three part article "Kwame Nkrumah: Africa's 'Man of the Millenium'" describes what happened next,
854
855    The 28th of February, 1948, was a landmark day in the nation's history. A large contingent of former servicemen who were tired of unfulfilled promises by the government, drafted a petition seeking redress of grievances for presentation to H.M's Governor, Sir Gerald Creasy. As they marched, unarmed and defenseless, they were set upon by government troops at Christianborg cross-roads. When the smoke cleared, sixty-three former loyal soldiers lay dead or badly wounded on the streets of Accra. Gold Coast would never be the same. Rioting and looting lasted for five days.
856    On 1 March, 1948, the Riot Act was read and Governor Creasy declared a state of emergency. Strict press censorship was imposed over the entire country. On 12 March, the Governor issued Removal Orders and police were dispatched to pick up and arrest the entire UGCC Central Executive. Kwame Nkrumah, Dr. Danquah, E. Akufo Addo, William Ofori Atta, E. Obelsebi Lamptey and E. Ako Adjei were arrested, detained and exiled to the Northern Territories.
857    On 14 March, 1948, Cape Coast students demonstrated, demanding the release of the Party leadership. Once again, the government responded with great force, leaving the dead and dying in its wake.
858
859In the wake of the unrest, the British government undertook a study on what to do with their colony, which became known as the Coussey Committee Report.  During this time Nkrumah became disillusioned with the lack of action from his own party, the UGCC, and so he left his post as secretary to form his own Convention Peoples Party (CPP), in 1949.
860
861When the Coussey Report was published in December of 1949 the study fell far short of recommending full independence for the Gold Coast, and so Nkrumah led a protest movement that utilized the economic weapon of labor strikes. In a speech that echoed the cries of the USA's founding fathers Nkrumah said, "...all men of goodwill, organize, organize, organize. We prefer self-government in danger, to servitude in tranquility. Forward ever, backward never".
862
863For his role in leading the strikes he was arrested and put in jail. The Coussey Report recommended limited representation for the Gold Coast and during Nkrumah's thirteen months in prison his party the CPP won the elections by a landslide. Out of 23,122 votes cast, Nkrumah received 22,780, to become the recognized and legitimate political leader of the Gold Coast. He was released from prison, but he warned the British regime that he would not rest until his country achieved full independence, and then he worked with it to embark on an agenda of modernization and industrialization for his country.
864
865On March 6, 1957 the Gold Coast, now known as Ghana, was finally granted political independence from Great Britain under Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah. However, Nkrumah quickly found that it would be a much greater task to achieve economic independence and self-sufficiency for his country. The biographical article of Nkrumah lists the great achievements of Ghana under his leadership,
866
867-He was the co-founder of the Pan-African movement and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) that at first included 32 member nations, and grew to include 53.
868-He built factories and industries in Ghana, the Tema City Harbor, new roads, and expanded the Civil Service. 
869-He constructed the Akosombo Dam to provide electricity both for Ghana and the neighboring states. 
870-He broke the monopoly of the multinational corporations in the Ghanaian economy, through nationalization policies. He created more jobs in the economy and increased wages. He set up the main Ghana Shipping Line - the Black Star Line. 
871-He built new hospitals and pipe-borne water 
872-He encouraged and financed sports to introduce Ghana to the world. 
873-He maintained the colonial educational structures geared towards European degrees and values. 
874-He introduced free basic education for all children in Ghana by abolishing school fees at this level. 
875-He expanded education by building more schools to increase enrollments. 
876-He built teacher colleges to train teachers for the schools. 
877-He built several secondary schools (high schools). 
878-He built three universities: The University of Ghana, Cape Coast University, and the University of Science & Technology. 
879
880All of this positive development was not received very well by the Western colonial powers that still sought to dominate Africa. Nkrumah's success had to be thwarted and Africa's drive for modernization and self-sufficiency had to be stopped.
881
882There were a number of weaknesses within Nkrumah's regime that the West was able to take advantage of. The first was the fact that Ghana's economy largely depended on its main cash crop of cocoa that was bought almost exclusively by Western chocolate makers at an ever increasing rate. If cocoa prices were lowered then Nkrumah would find it harder to finance his industrialization projects. A second weakness was the fact that Nkrumah had an affinity for many Marxist and Communist doctrines. As the West became increasingly resistant to Nkrumah he found no problem in turning to the Soviets and Chinese for help. A third weakness was that Nkrumah had a messianic view of himself that surfaced in an increasingly authoritarian management style as forces began to line up against him. By the end of his regime he was accurately described as a Communist dictator, but it did not have to turn out that way. The previously mentioned article describes how the West's economic strategies against Ghana achieved success,
883
884    ...beginning in mid-1960, at about the time that he assumed the Presidency and approved the new Republican Constitution, the economic fallibility of Ghana clearly manifested itself and materially effected the lives of all Ghanaians. From 1960 to 1965, world cocoa prices plummeted, and the enormous development spending begun by Nkrumah four years earlier, severely impacted the country's economy. Foreign exchange and government's reserves shrank and disappeared. Unemployment rose dramatically. Food prices skyrocketed up over 250% from 1957 levels and up a phenomenal 66% in 1965. Eventually, there were massive food and essentials shortages effecting every area, sector and individual in Ghana. Economic growth, which had ranged from 9% to 12% per annum until 1960, dropped to 2% to 3%, insufficient to sustain a population expanding at almost 3% per year.
885    Nkrumah's response was an austere socialist budget which imposed flawed Marxist concepts of economic resuscitation on the population, primarily through harsh and unrealistic taxation. Financial mismanagement and economic chaos increased and the country was eventually poised at the brink of national bankruptcy and international disgrace.
886
887Near the end of his regime in 1965 Nkrumah published his famous book, Neo-Colonialism - The Last Stage of Imperialism. In it he accused the CIA of being the main strike force behind the former colonial powers. He later wrote that after publishing his book the American government under Lyndon Johnson sent him a note of protest and backed out of a US promise for $35 million in aid. As Ghana's economy continued to self-destruct internal unrest against Nkrumah began to increase. The inevitable military-led coup finally took place in February of 1966. William Blum describes the CIA's involvement in his book Killing Hope,
888
889At the time of the coup, the Soviet press charged that the CIA had been involved, and in 1972 The Daily Telegraph, the conservative London newspaper, reported that "By 1965 the Accra [capital of Ghana] CIA station had two-score active operators, distributing largesse among President Nkrumah's secret adversaries." By February, 1966, the report continued, the CIA had its plans ready to end Nkrumah's regime: "The patient assiduous work of the Accra CIA station was fully rewarded."
890    It wasn't until 1978, however, that the story "broke" in the United States. Former CIA officer John Stockwell, who had spent most of his career in Africa, published a book in which he revealed the Agency's complicity. Shortly afterwards, the New York Times, quting "first-hand intelligence sources", corroborated that the CIA had advised and supported dissident Ghanaian army officers.
891    Stockwell disclosed that the CIA station in Accra "was given a generous budget, and maintained intimate contact with the plotters as a coup was hatched..."
892
893Blum goes on to describe the aftermath of the coup,
894
895The Ghanaian leaders soon expelled large numbers of Russians as well as Chinese and East Germans. Virtually all state-owned industries were allowed to pass into private hands. In short order the channels of aid, previously clogged, opened wide, and credit, food and development projects flowed in from the United States, the European powers, and the International Monetary Fund. Washington, for example, three weeks after the coup, approved substantial emergency food assistance in response to an urgent request from Ghana. A food request from Nkrumah four months earlier had been turned down.
896
897After Nkrumah was removed the West stepped in to ensure their continued domination of the once promising independent nation. Evidence that the price of cocoa had been artificially depressed was revealed in the fact that only one month after the coup the international price for the commodity had increased by fourteen percent.
898
899
900Cambodia 1970 - Prince Norodom Sihanouk of Cambodia wrote the following about his dealings with the American Establishment that took place through the Dulles brothers, John Foster and Allen Welsh, in 1955,
901
902John Foster Dulles had called on me in his capacity as Secretary of State, and he had exhausted every argument to persuade me to place Cambodia under the protection of the South-East Asia Treaty Organization. I refused ... I considered SEATO an aggressive military alliance directed at neighbors whose ideology I did not share but with whom Cambodia had no quarrel. I had made all this quite clear to John Foster, an acidy, arrogant man, but his brother [CIA Director Allen Dulles] soon turned up with a briefcase full of documents "proving" that Cambodia was about to fall victim to "communist aggression" and that the only way to save the country , the monarchy and myself was to accept the protection of SEATO. The "proofs" did not coincide with my own information, and I replied to Allen Dulles as I had replied to John Foster: Cambodia wanted no part of SEATO. We would look after ourselves as neutrals and Buddhists. There was nothing for the secret service chief to do but pack up his dubious documents and leave.
903
904The meetings are described in Sihanouk's memoirs, My War With the CIA. They occurred only two years after Cambodia received independence from France, and the same year that Sihanouk had been elected Prime Minister after abdicating his throne in order to enter the electoral process. After Sihanouk's rebuffing of the Dulles brothers, the Establishment settled on a policy of destabilizing Cambodia economically and by funding and training Cambodian factions hostile to Sihanouk such as the Khmer Serei and Khmer Krom. William Blum writes about a conspiracy to topple Sihanouk through a powerful Cambodian general named Dap Chhuon, at the end of the Eisenhower administration,
905
906The intrigue, according to Sihanouk, began in September 1958 at a SEATO meeting in Thailand and was carried a step further later that month in New York when he visited the United Nations. While Sihanouk was away in Washington for a few days, a member of his delegation, Slat Peou, held several conferences with Americans in his New York hotel room which he did not mention to any of his fellow delegates. Slat Peou, it happened, was a close friend of Victor Matsui and was the brother of General Dap Chhuon. In the aftermath of the aborted conspiracy, Slat Peou was executed for treason. Sihanouk was struck by the bitter irony of the CIA plotting against him in New York while he was in Washington being honored by President Eisenhower with a 21-gun salute.
907
908Blum writes that by February of 1959 the conspirators in the plot had all been apprehended or had fled, including Victor Matsui who had been "operating under State Department cover as an attaché at the embassy." When Kennedy took office the CIA continued its covert operations against Cambodia. Sihanouk confronted Kennedy about the matter and Kennedy tried to assure him that the US government was not involved. To this Sihanouk wrote, "I considered President Kennedy to be an honorable man but, in that case, who really represented the American government?" American interference into Cambodian affairs finally led to Sihanouk taking an unprecedented step. Blum explains,
909
910On 20 November... two days before the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Cambodian National Congress, at Sihanouk's initiative, voted to "end all aid granted by the United States in the military, economic, technical and cultural fields." It was perhaps without precedent that a country receiving American aid voluntarily repudiated it. But Sihanouk held strong feelings on the subject. Over the years he had frequently recited from his register of complaints about American aid to Cambodia: how it subverted and corrupted Cambodian officials and businessmen who wound up "constituting a clientele necessarily obedient to the demands of the lavish bestower of foreign funds"; and how the aid couldn't be used for state institutions, only private enterprise, nor... used against attacks by US allies.
911
912With the death of Kennedy the Establishment used its control over the LBJ administration to commit the United States towards a more complete domination of Indochina. Strategists such as Robert McNamara, Walt Rostow and the Bundy brothers saw South Vietnam as the key to the region and to prop it up they committed more and more American troops and created the Vietnam War. When the Republican administration of Nixon took office in 1969 the war shifted into an even higher gear, and Sihanouk's neutral regime became a main target. The most important Establishment agent to emerge from this era was National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger.
913
914Kissinger was born in Fuerth, Germany on May 27, 1923. His family was Jewish and they arrived in the United States in 1938 as refugees from the Nazis. He then served in the US Army from 1943 to 1946, which allowed him to gain US citizenship. Because Kissinger's native tongue was German he was placed in a counter-intelligence unit, and after the war ended, while only 22 years old, he was made the military administrator, the "absolute ruler," of the German town of Bensheim.
915
916In 1947, at the age of 24, Henry Kissinger entered Harvard University where he was assigned Professor William Yandell Elliott of the Government Department as his personal tutor. Elliott was himself a key academic figure within the Anglo-American Establishment, having been a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford in the 1920s and an open admirer, in his lectures and published writings, of H.G. Wells' blueprint for an Anglo-American world government. Elliott was a southern racist neo-confederate who viewed the U.S. Constitution, as well as the very concept of democracy, with thinly veiled contempt. Closely associated with the Rockefeller and Harriman families, during his decades at Harvard Professor Elliott also helped to recruit and indoctrinate influential figures such as the Vietnam hawk McGeorge Bundy, "Clash of Civilizations" advocate Samuel Huntington and "Arc of Crisis" mastermind Zbigniew Brzezinski.
917
918Kissinger graduated from Harvard, summa cum laude, in 1950 and received his Ph.D. in 1954. In 1951 he was put on the Harvard payroll as the executive director of Professor Elliot's new Harvard International Seminars. These seminars were funded by the Rockefellers, the CIA and the Ford Foundation and they attracted the cream of the crop of young foreign and domestic diplomats, politicians and journalists. A year later Kissinger founded the publication Confluence to promote the seminars, with $26,000 from the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation and continued assistance from the Ford Foundation.
919
920From 1954 to 1969 Kissinger remained a fixture at Harvard, first as a faculty member of the Department of Government, then as an associate professor, and later as a fully tenured professor. During this time he was known to his fellow professors as "Kissassinger" for his ability to flatter and manipulate those who could advance his career.
921
922The door opened for Kissinger in a big way in early 1955 when he was brought into the Council on Foreign Relations (chaired by John J. McCloy) to direct a study group on the subject of nuclear weapons and U.S. foreign policy. The resulting book, with the obvious title, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, written almost entirely by Kissinger, quickly became a best seller. A friend of Kissinger, a former Council colleague, commented that Kissinger's role as director of this study proved to be the most important event in his life, second only to his decision to enroll at Harvard. The main conclusion of the study was that the United States had to make clear its willingness to engage in limited nuclear war to obtain its objectives, rather than allowing the Soviets to "paralyze us with the argument that any limited war must automatically lead to all-out war."
923
924After serving under John J. McCloy for two years, McCloy recommended Kissinger to Nelson Rockefeller, who was looking for a young sharp mind to head a Special Studies Project on the nation's major problems and opportunities in store for the next fifteen years. The project was financed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and its purpose was to help Nelson in his political career. Biographer Kai Bird records McCloy's observation that the ambitious Kissinger "wanted to get close to the Rockefellers," and that he took to the assignment "as a trout takes to bait." He became Nelson Rockefeller's right-hand man for the next fifteen years, and a Rockefeller lackey for the rest of his life.
925
926When JFK took office the switch from a Republican to a Democratic administration created a number of openings, and Kissinger found work as a consultant to McGeorge Bundy, JFK's special assistant for National Security Affairs. During the Berlin crisis Kennedy found out that Kissinger was advocating the use of limited nuclear weapons, (perhaps attempting to test the thesis of his CFR book), and for that Kennedy promptly fired him. Years later even McGeorge Bundy would regret his sponsorship of Kissinger, commenting on his constant reliance on subterfuge saying, "Kissinger doesn't lie because it's in his interest; he lies because it's in his nature."
927
928However, Kissinger remained a favorite within the Establishment and his stock continued to rise. In the presidential elections of 1968 both the Democrat Hubert Humphrey and the Republican Richard Nixon made clear their intention to hire Kissinger as the National Security Advisor in their new administrations, which is just another example of how foreign policy of the United States remained outside of the democratic process and under Establishment control.
929
930In his book The Trial of Henry Kissinger, Christopher Hitchens goes into great detail to reveal the fact that Henry Kissinger was almost single-handedly responsible for the breakdown of the peace talks in Paris between North and South Vietnam in 1968. From Kissinger's perspective a Republican administration was more appealing than a Democratic one under Hubert Humphrey, who campaigned on a peace plank that was neutralized when the South backed out of the talks in Paris. Kissinger was a member of LBJ's delegation to the peace talks and he was privy to every shift in the negotiations. Kissinger sabotaged them very simply be leaking them to the Nixon team, which had its own covert line of communication to the South Vietnamese. Every time the North made a concession the Nixon team urged the South to demand even further concessions, and promised them that a Nixon administration could achieve more favorable terms for the South if they would but stall and wait until after the election. Hitchens writes,
931
932In the December 1968 issue of the establishment house organ Foreign Affairs [published by the CFR], written months earlier but published a few days after his gazetting as Nixon's right-hand man, there appeared Henry Kissinger's own evaluation of the Vietnamese negotiations. On every point of substance, he agreed with the line taken in Paris by the Johnson-Humphrey negotiators. One has to pause for an instant to comprehend the enormity of this. Kissinger had helped elect a man who had surreptitiously promised the South Vietnamese junta a better deal than they would get from the Democrats. The Saigon authorities then acted, as Bundy ruefully confirms, as if they did have a deal. This meant, in the words of a later Nixon slogan, "Four More Years." But four more years of an unwinnable and undeclared murderous war, which was to spread before it burned out, and was to end on the same terms and conditions as had been on the table in the fall of 1968.
933
934When Kissinger took the reigns of power in 1969 he embarked on a two-track foreign policy: first to consolidate American control over the Third World by promoting military and CIA interventions against neutral or communist-leaning states, and second to neutralize and appease the Soviet Union and Red China through peace overtures, arms control agreements, technology transfers, financial assistance and trade, often facilitated by Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank. Regarding Kissinger's first track, Cambodia emerged as his first target, as Blum relates in Killing Hope,
935
936    In March 1969, the situation began to change dramatically. Under the new American president, Richard Nixon, and National Security Affairs advisor Henry Kissinger, the isolated and limited attacks across the Cambodian border became sustained, large-scale B-52 bombings - "carpet bombings"...
937    Over the next 14 months, no less than 3,630 B-52 bombing raids were flown over Cambodia. To escape the onslaught, the Vietnamese Communists moved their bases further inside the country. The B-52s of course followed, with a concomitant increase in civilian casualties.
938    The Nixon administration artfully played down the nature and extent of these bombings, going so far as to falsify military records, and was largely successful in keeping it all a secret from the American public, the press and Congress.
939
940On March 18, 1970, Prince Sihanouk was removed form power while he was on a trip to the Soviet Union, and Cambodia was taken over by General Lon Nol and Sirik Matak. Of General Nol CIA sources had previously said, "He would welcome the United States with open arms and we would accomplish everything," and the Pentagon had called Matak "a friend of the West" and "cooperative with U.S. officials." Blum records the observations of Roger Morris at the time, who served on the NSC under Kissinger,
941
942It was clear in the white house that the CIA station in Phnom Penh knew the plotters well, probably knew their plans, and did nothing to alert Sihanouk. They informed Washington well in advance of the coup.
943
944With Prince Sihanouk removed from power as the lynchpin of Cambodian nationalism and unity all hell broke loose. Pro-Sihanouk troops faced off against General Lon Nol's troops, which faced off against the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong, which faced off against the Khmer Serei and Khmer Krom, which faced off against the greatly energized Cambodian communist movement, the Khmer Rouge led by the infamous Pol Pot.
945
946On April 30, 1970, only weeks after the coup, American troops invaded Cambodia to assist General Lon Nol, and to fight against the Communists that seemed to come from all sides. As Blum records, the invasion was met with a huge protest from the peace movement in the United States, and four members of Kissinger's NSC, including the above-mentioned Roger Morris, resigned in protest.
947
948The end result of the Establishment's actions, both to prolong the Vietnamese war, and to weaken and eventually destroy the Sihanouk regime in Cambodia, was a Communist victory in both nations. On April 17, 1975, Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge, which led to the murderous campaign of Pol Pot's genocide against the Cambodian people that took over a million lives (some say up to four million) and sent Cambodia back into the stone age.
949
950Two weeks later, on April 30, 1975, Saigon fell to the North Vietnamese. Unlike in Cambodia, the Vietnamese Communists took power without a campaign of genocide and in a relatively ordered and rational manner. In 1978 the Vietnamese intervened in Cambodia and invaded to topple Pol Pot's insane self-destructive regime, and for this the People's Republic of China declared war on Vietnam in 1979. The Chinese invasion lasted for only a month before the People's Liberation Army withdrew after suffering large losses and gaining little territory. During Vietnam's invasion to crush Pol Pot the United States backed the murderous Pol Pot (even defending the Khmer Rouge's right to Cambodia's UN seat after it had been chased back into the jungle), and during China's brief invasion of Vietnam the Establishment cheered on their new ally, Communist China.
951
952Blum recounts the fact that during the Vietnam war China sold several thousand tons of steel to the US military in South Vietnam to help in the building of Air Force and Army bases. White House envoy Alexander Haig met with Chinese Premier Zhou En-Lai in January of 1972, and Haig later wrote of his impressions of the meeting,
953
954Though he never stated the case in so many words, I reported to President Nixon that the import of what Zhou said to me was: 'don't lose in Vietnam; don't withdraw from Southeast Asia.'
955 
956
957
958Chile 1973 - At the same time that the Establishment was organizing a coup in Brazil against President Goulart, it was also acting with a great deal of  alarm in the nation of Chile to prevent the election of the patriotic socialist Salvador Allende to the Presidency. In 1958 Allende had failed to reach the post by only three percentage points, and in 1964 the Establishment worked through the CIA to influence the Chilean people to reject him once again.
959
960An estimated $20 million was spent on blatant propaganda to help the favored choice, the moderate Christian Democrat Edwardo Frei, which was later described in a Senate report, Covert Action in Chile, 1963-1973,
961
962    In addition to support for political parties, the CIA mounted a massive anti-communist propaganda campaign. Extensive use was made of the press, radio, films, pamphlets, posters, leaflets, direct mailings, paper streamers, and wall painting. It was a "scare campaign", which relied heavily on images of Soviet tanks and Cuban firing squads and was directed especially to women. Hundreds of thousands of copies of the anti-communist pastoral letters of Pope Pius XI were distributed by Christian Democratic organizations. They carried the designation, "printed privately by citizens without political affiliation," in order more broadly to disseminate its content. "Disinformation and "black propaganda" - material which purported to originate from another source, such as the Chilean Communist Party - were used as well...
963    The propaganda campaign was enormous. During the first week of intensive propaganda activity (the third week of June 1964), a CIA-funded propaganda group produced twenty radio spots per day in Santiago and on 44 provincial stations; twelve-minute news broadcasts five times daily on three Santiago stations and 24 provincial outlets; thousands of cartoons, and much paid press advertising. By the end of June, the group produced 24 daily newscasts in Santiago and the provinces, 26 weekly "commentary" programs, and distributed 3,000 posters daily...
964    In addition to buying propaganda piecemeal, the Station often purchased it wholesale by subsidizing Chilean media organizations friendly to the United States. Doing so was propaganda writ large. Instead of placing individual items, the CIA supported - or even founded - friendly media outlets which might not have existed in the absence of Agency support.
965
966 The most important link into the Christian Democrat Party and the Chilean media was a man by the name of Augustin Edwards. He was the owner of the influential El Mercurio chain of newspapers and prior to the election he met with a number of influential corporate executives at David Rockefeller's Fifth Avenue office to strategize how to defeat Allende, their enemy who promised the necessary land reform, nationalization and industrialization that Chile needed to become fully independent. Edwards' meeting with Rockefeller resulted in funding for his right wing newspaper that came from the CIA and from the influential Rockefeller Group subsidiary, ITT.
967
968The article "US Responsibility for the Coup in Chile," by Daniel Brandt, explains the Establishment's corporate interests in Chile's economy and their profitable looting of Chile's resources that they intended to preserve,
969
970At the end of 1968, according to Department of Commerce data, U.S. corporate holdings in Chile amounted to $964 million. During that year, U.S. corporations averaged 17.4 percent profit on invested capital, and mining enterprises alone turned an average of 26 percent. Copper companies, notably Anaconda and Kennecott, accounted for 28 percent of U.S. holdings, but ITT had the largest holding of any single corporation with an investment of $200 million. Chilean copper accounts for 21 percent of the world's proven copper reserves. Over a 42 year period the copper companies earned $420 billion on original investments totaling $35 million.
971
972By 1970 the Chilean people could see that the massive profits of the multinationals had failed to trickle down to them and did not result in any substantial improvement of their general welfare. They also saw that the promises of the Christian Democrats had failed to bear any fruit, and for these reasons, despite another massive Establishment-funded propaganda campaign, Salvador Allende was elected President of Chile on September 4.
973
974However, his margin of victory was so small that he needed a confirmation vote by the Chilean Parliament scheduled for October 24, before taking office. To meet the crisis of a nationalist regime taking power in South America the American Establishment controllers called a series of high-level meetings and determined that Allende had to be stopped.
975
976The most famous meetings took place on September 15 and included Henry Kissinger, President Nixon, CIA Director Richard Helms, Attorney General John Mitchell, PepsiCo CEO Donald Kendall, and Augustin Edwards. As a means of demonstrating how the Establishment works, the connections between this seemingly diverse group of people should be examined: Richard Nixon had received his first corporate account from Donald Kendall's PepsiCo when he joined John Mitchell's New York law firm as a young lawyer. Augustin Edwards, by 1970 the president of the Chilean branch of Nelson Rockefeller's vast IBEC conglomerate, owned Chile's largest newspaper chain (El Mercurio), largest granary, and largest chicken farm, as well as the Pepsi bottling operation in Chile. Kissinger was, of course, Nelson Rockefeller's former advisor, and Helms, as CIA chief, simply took orders from the Establishment. At the meeting of September 15 he hastily took notes,
977
978One in ten chance perhaps, but save Chile! Not concerned risks involved.
979No involvement of embassy. $10,000,000 available, more if necessary. Full-time job - best men we have ... Make the economy scream. 48 hours for plan of action.
980
981Allende never had a chance. Chile's economy was so heavily dependant on American imports and credit from American and international banks that the Establishment found it quite easy to make it scream. The following list of economic measures taken against Chile is compiled from the article "US Responsibility for the Coup in Chile," by Daniel Brandt:
982
983- After Allende's election in 1970, commercial banks, including Chase Manhattan, Chemical, First National City, Manufacturers Hanover, and Morgan Guaranty, cancelled credits to Chile. In 1972, Kennecott tied up Chilean copper exports with lawsuits in France, Sweden, Italy, and Germany, forcing Chile to spend $150,000 in legal expenses. The campaign continued even after Allende agreed, in February 1972, to pay a Kennecott subsidiary $84 million and made a down payment of $5.7 million.
984- In addition to multinationals and commercial banks, the U.S. government also involved itself in the economic boycott. The involvement of the government was partly a result of massive pressure from ITT, which had access to Kissinger, William Rogers, the CIA, and the U.S. Ambassador in Chile.
985- After 1970, the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Agency for International Development, and the Export-Import Bank either cut programs in Chile or cancelled credits. The Allende government continued to pay off old loans from the IDB and the World Bank, but neither made new loans to Chile. The only exceptions were IDB loans to Catholic University and Austral University; both universities were strongholds of anti-Allende activity.
986- Chile's foreign-exchange reserves fell from $335 million in November, 1970 to $100 million by the end of 1971, and in August, 1972, Chile became the first country in the International Monetary Fund to completely exhaust its Special Drawing Rights. By this time Chile's imports had declined, and the percentage of total imports from the U.S. dropped from 40 percent to about 15 percent. In December, 1972, Allende spoke to the U.N. General Assembly and complained of Chile's inability to purchase food, medicine, equipment, and spare parts. Almost one-third of the privately-owned microbuses, taxis, and state-owned buses had been immobilized by early 1972 because of the lack of spare parts. The scarcity of parts also fueled the truckers' strike, which in turn provoked more economic chaos.
987- The economic boycott did not include aid to the Chilean military. On the contrary -- military aid to Chile, which has always been substantial, doubled in the 1970-1974 period as compared to the previous four years.
988
989It was through the military that the Establishment was able to eliminate Allende, but in 1970 they faced an early obstacle to this route. He was General René Schneider, the Commander-in-Chief of the Chilean Army. The general was not a fan of Allende's policies, but he was a true Chilean patriot intent on keeping his military forces out of the political battle. In the run up to the October 24 Parliamentary vote to confirm Allende as president, Kissinger and Helms set their sights on the elimination of Schneider, and they authorized a shipment of machine guns, grenades, and $50,000 to an opposing general with ties to a far right fascist organization. On October 22, after several failed attempts, the conspirators finally succeeded in murdering General Schneider, and the way was paved for the ascendancy of the Anglo-American's favorite, General Augusto Pinochet.
990
991The Chilean Parliament refused to be intimidated by the murder of General Schneider, however, and they confirmed the results of the election and gave Allende the presidency. When he took office he knew that he was facing the most powerful enemies in the world, but he fearlessly pushed ahead to enact the policies for which he had been elected.
992
993Chile was made up of a populace that tended to vote one third left-wing socialist, in favor of major reform; one third capitalist and in favor of the established upper class and the status quo; and one third centrist and moderate Christian Democrat. Allende was elected by a slim margin, and backed by a parliamentary minority, but there were many of his policies that received a great deal of majority support. Chief among these was the long-awaited takeover of the multinational mining outfits that were taking obscene profits out of Chile. An excerpt from the book The End of Chilean Democracy describes the takeover,
994
995In July 1971, the Chilean Congress, although controlled by the opposition Christian Democrat and National parties, unanimously passed a constitutional amendment requiring the Allende administration to nationalize all copper mines. The rich copper reserves of Chile, in just sixty years, had produced for U.S. copper corporations (which included among their largest stockholders the Rockefeller and Morgan financial groups) the equivalent of over half of Chile's total assets accumulated over the previous 400 years. The unanimous vote for the nationalization amendment reflected widespread popular sentiment that the country had been plundered. The amendment called for compensation of the U.S. firms "at book value, less outstanding taxes, depreciation and deductions for obsolescence, depleted lodes and excess profits."
996
997The Chilean takeover of Chilean copper resources was not arbitrary and it was not illegal. International law and the UN Charter allowed the nationalization of resources if carried out constitutionally, as Chile did. The key sticking point was the article dealing with "excessive profits," that said that all profits extracted from the country in excess of a reasonable twelve percent, could then be subtracted from the value of the company to determine the amount of final compensation. The excess profits of the two largest companies, Kennecott and Anaconda, were so massive ($774 million) that Chile's Comptroller General's Office (appointed prior to Allende) determined that Chile did not owe the two companies any compensation whatsoever.
998
999In December and March of 1972 negotiations between Chile and the United States were held to deal with Chile's nationalization of US companies and Chile's debt to US banks. Chile offered to have the disputes settled along the lines of a 1916 treaty that had been made between the two nations. The treaty stipulated that economic disputes would be handed over to a five member commission, composed of two members appointed by Chile, two by the US and one by common agreement. In 1972 Chile had maintained its side of the panel, and the common member of the panel was included as well, having been agreed upon by Chile and JFK, but the two American posts were vacant because the original members had died and had not been replaced. Article Three of the treaty stated that the five member commission was to have six months to study disputes and if an agreement was not concluded then the dispute would be handed over to the International Court of the Hague. Birns gives an excerpt from a report that covered this issue,
1000
1001    During the negotiations in March of this year Chile proposed that, due to the impasse, it was willing to allow its interpretation of the nationalization proceedings be studied by the international commission according to the treaty. The United States negotiators recognized that the treaty was effective and obligatory in this instance, but they gave a very firm but informal "no." They also let it be known that the position of the United States in the upcoming Paris talks for the renegotiation of Chile's international debts would even be more stringent than it has been to date [1972]...
1002    The renegotiation of the debt and the nationalization of the copper companies are two separate and distinct issues. The U.S. attempt to unite the two issues during these negotiations is a clear example of government protection of private investment in foreign companies.
1003
1004The United States knew that it could afford to take a hard line against Chile and Allende and they refused to allow international mediation because they knew that it was only a matter of time before Chile's internal problems became so intense that Allende would be forced out of office. Henry Kissinger and the CIA played the major role in this operation. David Rockefeller gives his own interpretation of the events in his Memoirs. He begins by speaking about Latin America's "dismal years," and writes that after the Alliance For Progress initiatives failed to work out (after JFK's guidelines were replaced by the Establishment's), a number of South American nations formed the Andean Pact in 1970 as a united front to defend themselves against Anglo-American economic domination. At David's and Kissinger's urging Nixon sent Nelson Rockefeller on a tour of South America to help improve "hemispheric relations," but he was greeted by hostile crowds wherever he went. Then David turns to Chile,
1005
1006    Most emblematic of these dismal years in Latin America was Chile during Salvador Allende's presidency in the early 1970s. The story has become well known and quite controversial. Allende, an avowed Marxist and leader of the Chilean Socialist Party, campaigned in 1970 on a platform of radical land reform, the expropriation of all foreign corporations, the nationalization of banks, and other measures that would have put his country firmly on the road to Socialism.
1007    In March 1970, well before the election, my friend Augustin (Doonie) Edwards, publisher of El Mercurio, Chile's leading newspaper, told me that Allende was a Soviet dupe who would destroy Chile's fragile economy and extend Communist influence in the region. If Allende won, Doonie warned, Chile would become another Cuba, a satellite of the Soviet Union. He insisted the United States must prevent Allende's election.
1008    Doonie's concerns were so intense that I put him in touch with Henry Kissinger. I later learned that Doonie's reports confirmed the intelligence already received from official intelligence sources, which led the Nixon administration to increase its clandestine financial subsidies to groups opposing Allende.
1009    Despite this intervention, Allende still narrowly won the election. The Chilean congress confirmed his choice a few months later even though the CIA continued its efforts to prevent Allende's accession to power. Once in office the new president, true to his election promises, expropriated American holdings and stepped up the pace of land seizure from the elite and its redistribution to the peasantry. Most of Doonie Edwards' property was taken, and he and his family fled to the United States where Donald Kendall, CEO of Pepsico, hired Doonie as a vice president, and Peggy and I helped get them established.
1010    Allende's radical program swiftly alienated the Chilean middle class. By September 1973 economic conditions had worsened and political violence had increased. The Chilean military, led by General August Pinochet Ugarte, revolted. Army units stormed the Moneda presidential palace, and Allende committed suicide. What followed can only be described as a reign of terror as old scores were settled and Allende loyalists, trade union leaders, and others were tortured, killed, or driven into exile.
1011
1012Despite the claims of David Rockefeller and his pal "Doonie," Allende was never a Soviet dupe. The Soviets feared interfering in the Western Hemisphere and during his time in office the Soviets actually pressured Allende to be more receptive to American demands. Rockefeller's recollection is also slanted by his refusal to explain why Chile's economy suffered under Allende. It was not due to "socialism," but was caused almost entirely by the American economic blockades, the drying up of credit from the World Bank and other American banks, and CIA-sponsored strikes and walkouts by upper middle class workers. A final point  is that Salvador Allende did not commit suicide, he was murdered in cold blood by Pinochet's henchmen on September 11, 1973, as he and a small group of supporters courageously fought back from within the Moneda.
1013
1014After lamenting the negative aspects of Pinochet's regime, David Rockefeller's Memoirs concludes its section on Chile on a positive note, by describing the subsequent guidance Pinochet received from America's best laissez-faire economists,
1015
1016Despite my own abhorrence of the excesses committed during the Pinochet years, the economic side of the story is a more constructive one. Faced with high inflation and huge budget deficits, and cut off from the international capital markets, Pinochet sought the advice of a group of young economists, many of them trained at the University of Chicago. They counseled the general to free Chile's economy from the restraints and distortions it had labored under for many years. Their daring experiment became the basis of Chile's strong recovery after 1985 and the model for other hemispheric nations.
1017
1018Rockefeller's touting of Chile's "economic miracle" is another fantasy. To read what the Establishment actually achieved in Chile read the article "The Chicago boys
1019and the Chilean 'economic miracle'," by Steve Kangas. He writes,
1020
1021    Many people have often wondered what it would be like to create a nation based solely on their political and economic beliefs. Imagine: no opposition, no political rivals, no compromise of morals. Only a "benevolent dictator," if you will, setting up society according to your ideals.
1022    The Chicago School of Economics got that chance for 16 years in Chile, under near-laboratory conditions. Between 1973 and 1989, a government team of economists trained at the University of Chicago dismantled or decentralized the Chilean state as far as was humanly possible. Their program included privatizing welfare and social programs, deregulating the market, liberalizing trade, rolling back trade unions, and rewriting its constitution and laws. And they did all this in the absence of the far-right's most hated institution: democracy.
1023    The results were exactly what liberals predicted. Chile's economy became more unstable than any other in Latin America, alternately experiencing deep plunges and soaring growth. Once all this erratic behavior was averaged out, however, Chile's growth during this 16-year period was one of the slowest of any Latin American country. Worse, income inequality grew severe. The majority of workers actually earned less in 1989 than in 1973 (after adjusting for inflation), while the incomes of the rich skyrocketed. In the absence of market regulations, Chile also became one of the most polluted countries in Latin America. And Chile's lack of democracy was only possible by suppressing political opposition and labor unions under a reign of terror and widespread human rights abuses.
1024    Conservatives have developed an apologist literature defending Chile as a huge success story. In 1982, Milton Friedman enthusiastically praised General Pinochet (the Chilean dictator) because he "has supported a fully free-market economy as a matter of principle. Chile is an economic miracle." However, the statistics below show this to be untrue. Chile is a tragic failure of right-wing [laissez-faire!] economics, and its people are still paying the price for it today. 
1025 
1026
1027Nicaragua 1981 - In July of 1979 the Nicaraguan people rose up and overthrew the US-backed dictator Anastasio Somoza II. The Somoza dynasty had ruled since 1933, when it was originally set up with US support at a time when General Augusto Sandino's rural revolutionary movement threatened American financial interests. The main group that overthrew the Somoza dictatorship forty-three years later, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), was named after the legendary Sandino.
1028
1029After Somoza was toppled he fled to Miami, taking with him hundreds of millions of dollars (his paycheck for his service as an American corporate strongman), but leaving Nicaragua with a $1.6 billion foreign debt. The Sandinistas then took over a bankrupt Nicaragua and in a few years they did more to help the people of Nicaragua than any regime has ever, or probably will ever do. After a few successful years the Sandinistas presided over an election in 1984, in which their candidate, Daniel Ortega, was easily elected president in a process that was declared by all observers to be free from fraud and intimidation. Some of the achievements of the Sandinista regime, from 1980 to 1990, are listed in an article by Peter Costantini,
1030
1031    In many areas, the Sandinistas did the things that every government of a poor country ought to do, but few actually do.
1032    They conducted one of the largest and most effective land reforms in Latin American history, granting land titles to 184,000 poor families in the countryside and urban shantytowns.
1033    In health care, they quadrupled public expenditures, building free health clinics and involving thousands of volunteers in vaccination campaigns. These measures cut the infant mortality rate in half and extended life expectancy by seven years. In 1983, the World Health Organization praised Nicaragua as a "Model Nation in Health Attention" among developing countries.
1034    Tripling education spending, the Sandinistas extended free public schooling to all. Within one year, 100,000 student volunteers from the cities went out into the countryside and reduced Nicaragua's illiteracy rate from over 50% to 13%...
1035    Whereas under Somoza strikes had been routinely suppressed and union leaders jailed, under the Sandinistas labor union membership grew from 6 percent to 55 percent of the workforce. In some public-sector enterprises, workers won significant participation in decision-making.
1036    Although branded "communist" by Washington, Nicaragua's economy remained a mixed one: only 39% of industrial production and 11% of farmland was in public hands. It was a Latin American adaptation of a western-European social-democratic economy, more like Sweden's or France's than a Soviet-style state socialism. The Sandinistas merely tried to extend democracy and public accountability into a market economy.
1037
1038When the Sandinistas first took power in 1978 the Carter administration viewed it relatively passively, but when Reagan took office in early 1981, with an ex-CIA Vice-President, a cabinet of Establishment insiders, and a flock of Wall Street advisors, the heat was turned up a great deal on the new Nicaraguan government:
1039
1040In November of 1981 the US approved a budget of $19 million for the CIA to begin subverting the Sandinista regime. The main thrust was to re-arm the remnants of Somoza's hated National Guard, rename them as the Contra Freedom Fighters, and offer them bases in neighboring countries to carry out their attacks on Nicaragua. They were the very same forces that had killed 40,000 Nicaraguan civilians in the seven weeks prior to the FSLN victory in 1979. The article "The CIA In Nicaragua" explains how the subversion worked,
1041
1042    ...By the autumn of 1983, 12,000 to 16,000 contra troops of the so-called FDN (Nicaraguan Democratic Force) were operating along the Honduran border. Smaller contra forces operated from bases in Costa Rica. They staged hit and run raids against rural towns and co-operatives in Nicaragua, before returning to their bases across the border. The CIA had no illusions about the contras' ability to overthrow the FSLN; in two years of operations, they failed to take and hold even a small village. The aim of the contras was to use terrorist tactics to stop Nicaraguan development projects in all areas: economic, education, health services and political organisations. 
1043    The contras blew up bridges, civilian power plants and schools, they burned fields of crops and attacked hospitals. Their tactics included rape, kidnappings of peasants and civilians, ambushes and massacres against small rural communities, farms, co-operatives, schools and health clinics. Contra raids caused extensive damage to crop fields, grain silos, irrigation projects, farm houses and machinery. Numerous state farms and co-operatives were incapacitated; other farms still intact were abandoned because of the danger. 
1044    Witness For Peace, an American Protestant watchdog body, collected a list of contra atrocities in one year, which included murder, the rape of two girls in their homes, torture of men, maiming of children, cutting off arms, cutting out tongues, gouging out eyes, castration, bayoneting pregnant women in the stomach, amputating the genitals of people of both sexes, gouging out eyes, scraping the skin off the face, pouring acid on the face, breaking the toes and fingers of an 18 year old boy, and summary executions...
1045    One survivor of a contra raid in Jinotega province, which borders Honduras, reported: "Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit." The human rights organisation Americas Watch, concluded that "the contras systematically engage in violent abuses…. so prevalent that these may be said to be their principle means of waging war." ...
1046    The Reagan administration imposed a total trade embargo on Nicaragua, together with additional economic sanctions. This was designed to force the Sandinistas to divert resources from development projects to defence, and to disrupt their economy to such an extent that the government could not deliver its promises of a better life for the poor, and thus be discredited. Washington hoped that the people would eventually tire of the war and turn against the FSLN. Nicaragua was excluded from US programmes which promoted American investment and trade, sugar imports from Nicaragua were slashed by 90% and Washington pressured the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the European Common Market to withhold loans to Nicaragua.
1047
1048In the face of the Contra atrocities the US Congress passed the Boland Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill on December 21, 1982, designed to prohibit any US Government action to destabilize Nicaragua. The amendment read in part,
1049
1050None of the funds provided in this Act may be used by the Central Intelligence Agency or the Department of Defense to furnish military equipment, military training or advice, or other support for military activities, to any group or individual ... for the purpose of overthrowing the government of Nicaragua.
1051
1052President Reagan was, for the most part, a lame duck president who exercised only ceremonial power. The most important decisions were made for him by the Establishment insiders that surrounded him, and chief among these was his vice president, George Bush. In fact, Reagan had been coerced by the Establishment into naming Bush as his VP against his own wishes. He had beaten Bush in the campaign for the Republican nomination for the presidency, and had come to dislike the man intensely, but as it came time to announce the ticket his party worked to present Bush as the only possible candidate for VP.
1053
1054The real history of George Bush is revealed in the book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. The book is a collectors item, selling for $200 and up on the used book market, but the entire text is available online at www.tarpley.net.
1055
1056The Bush family has been a member of the East Coast Establishment for generations, and George, a graduate of Yale and member of Skull and Bones, was able to take advantage of his family's connections from the beginning of his career. Initially his most important backing came from his maternal uncle George Herbert Walker, Jr. (Skull and Bones, Wall Street financier), and by his father Prescott's connections to the Harriman Group. They were the main financial supporters of his Zapata Petroleum business that he ran until 1966.
1057
1058After establishing himself as a name to be reckoned with in the Texas oil business George turned his attention to politics. He failed in his bid to unseat Senator Yarborough in 1964, but he won a congressional race in 1966 for a seat representing a newly created district in Houston. He came to Washington in January of 1967, and due to his high-level connection, the new representative became  "the first freshman member of the House of either party to be given a seat on the Ways and Means Committee since 1904."
1059
1060In 1970 President Nixon persuaded Bush to give up his Congressional seat and his important Committee memberships to run again for the Texas Senate seat. After being defeated in the Senate race by Lloyd Bentsen, Bush was given the position of US Ambassador to the United Nations. It was during this time that Bush became one of the most important agents of the Anglo-American imperial establishment. The Unauthorized Biography explains,
1061
1062    Henry Kissinger was now Bush's boss even more than Nixon was, and later, as the Watergate scandal progressed into 1973, the dominion of Kissinger would become even more absolute. During these years Bush, serving his apprenticeship in diplomacy and world strategy under Kissinger, became a virtual Kissinger clone in two senses. First, to a significant degree, Kissinger's networks and connections merged together with Bush's own, foreshadowing a 1989 administration in which the NSC director and the number two man in the State Department were both Kissinger's business partners from his consulting and influence-peddling firm, Kissinger Associates. Secondly, Bush assimilated Kissinger's characteristic British-style geopolitical mentality and approach to problems, and this is now the epistemology that dictates Bush's own dealing with the main questions of world politics...
1063    Kissinger was the high priest of imperialism and neocolonialism, animated by an instinctive hatred for Indira Gandhi, Aldo Moro, Ali Bhutto, and other nationalist world leaders. Kissinger's British geopolitics simply accentuated Bush's own fanatically Anglophile point of view which he had acquired from father Prescott and imbibed from the atmosphere of the family firm, Brown Brothers Harriman, originally the US branch of a British counting house...
1064     Bush spent just less than two years at the UN. His tenure coincided with some of the most monstrous crimes against humanity of the Nixon-Kissinger duo, for whom Bush functioned as an international spokesman to whom no Kissinger policy was too odious to be enthusiastically proclaimed before the international community and world public opinion. Through this doggedly loyal service, Bush forged a link with Nixon that would be ephemeral but vital for his career while it lasted, and a link with Kissinger that would be decisive in shaping Bush's own administration in 1988-89. The way in which Bush set about organizing the anti-Iraq coalition of 1990-91 was decisively shaped by his United Nations experience. His initial approach to the Security Council, the types of resolutions that were put forward by the US, and the alternation of military escalation with consultations among the five permanent members of the Security Council- all this harkened back to the experience Bush acquired as Kissinger's envoy to the world body.
1065
1066The Nixon years were a hard time for the CIA, and after Nixon resigned President Ford felt pressured to fire the Director of Central intelligence (DCI) William Colby, in late 1975. To take over this most important job the Establishment had in mind George Bush, who had proven his loyalty as UN Ambassador, then as Chairman of the RNC, and then as Kissinger's ambassador to Communist China. However, Bush looked forward to a place as Ford's VP in the presidential elections of 1976. These ambitions were dashed when Bush was forced to agree to put aside his VP ambitions in order to be confirmed as the DCI by Congress. However, his acceptance of the DCI post paid off when Ford was beaten by Carter. This opened up a new opportunity and Bush resigned as DCI in 1977 to focus on the 1980 Presidential elections. He viewed the presidency as his "birthright" and put all his energy, political connections, and Machiavellian manipulations towards achieving the new goal.
1067
1068The main covert operation that led directly into the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s was the so-called October Surprise agreement between the CIA, high levels of the Republican Party, and the new Iranian revolutionary regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini. Tarpley and Chaitkin demonstrate convincingly that George Bush was up to his neck in this operation, which basically resulted in money and arms for the Iranians in return for a promise that the American hostages held in Iran would not be released while Carter remained President. The plot worked and the plane carrying the released hostages took off from Iranian soil at the very moment that Reagan was sworn in as President on January 20, 1981.
1069
1070Ronald Reagan was 70 years old when he became President and Bush knew that he was only a bullet away from the position that he had worked his whole life to achieve. Only a few months after taking office, on March 25, 1981, George Bush was named the leader of the US "crisis management" staff, within the National Security Council. Five days later Reagan was shot.
1071
1072Tarpley and Chaitkin spend a whole chapter on "The Attempted Coup D'Etat of March 30, 1981," covering the John Hinckley assassination attempt. They reveal a number of coincidences and connections between the Bush and Hinckley families, including the fact that John Hinckley's brother was invited as a dinner guest to the home of Neil Bush, George's son, for the night of March 31, and the fact that the Hinckley family had been generous contributors to the Bush presidential campaign. Rather than focus on these remarkable and potentially damning coincidences the media felt obliged to dwell on the bizarre obsession that John Hinckley had for Hollywood actress Jody Foster. Where the media failed, common sense prevailed for even the most simple-minded observers, as Tarpley and Chaitkin relate,
1073
1074What was the truth of the matter? The Roman common sense of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (who had seen so many of Nero's intrigues, and who would eventually fall victim to one of them) would have dictated that the person who would have profited most from Reagan's death be scrutinized as the prime suspect. That was obviously Bush, since Bush would have assumed the presidency if Reagan had succumbed to his wounds. The same idea was summed up by an eighth grade student at the Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC who told teachers on March 31: "It is a plot by Vice President Bush to get into power. If Bush becomes President, the CIA would be in charge of the country."
1075
1076In any event, President Reagan survived, and George Bush had to pursue other avenues through which to consolidate his power as the real decision-maker of the Executive Branch. For all intents and purposes, this was achieved on May 14, 1982, by a secret memorandum that explained the creation of a new agency through National Security Decision Directive 3 (NSDD3). The new agency to be established was known as the Special Situations Group (SSG) and it was chaired by the Vice President. It was created for the task of "formulating plans in anticipation of crisis," a broad purpose which Bush was to exploit throughout his vice presidency to pursue his many illegal and unconstitutional foreign policy exploits.
1077
1078Along with the SSG, a subordinate agency was also created, known as the Crisis Pre-Planning Group (CPPG). It was composed of Bush representatives, NSC staff members, and reps from the CIA, the military and the State Department. Its mission included: -identifying areas of potential crisis, -presenting plans and policy options to the SSG, -coordinating implementation plans to resolve the crises, -providing the SSG with "recommended security, cover, and media plans that will enhance the likelihood of successful execution." Oliver North was the NSC staff member who worked for the SSG under Bush coordinating the different agencies involved with the CPPG. Tarpley and Chaitkin write,
1079
1080It is most astonishing that, in all of the reports, articles and books about the Iran-Contra covert actions, the existence of Bush's SSG has received no significant attention. Yet its importance in the management of those covert actions is obvious and unmistakable, as soon as an investigative light is thrown upon it.
1081
1082Tarpley and Chaitkin then proceed to throw that much-needed light into the actual workings of the Iran-Contra affair, the details of which cannot all be told here. The bottom line is that Iran-Contra did not stop at Oliver North, and it had little involvement from President Reagan. Indeed, after May 14, 1982, Reagan's presence in the Oval Office was viewed by the Establishment as little more than an irritant. Iran-Contra was a Bush project in which he carried out Establishment desires to destroy the example the Sandinista government was becoming, of Latin American resistance to US hegemony in the form of neo-imperialism and brutal right-wing dictators.
1083
1084The first Boland Amendment to prohibit US Government sabotage of Nicaragua was passed at the end of 1982. However, illegal CIA involvement continued, as described in a Wall Street Journal article of March 6, 1985, as related by Tarpley and Chaitkin,
1085
1086Armed speedboats and a helicopter launched from a Central Intelligence Agency "mother ship'' attacked Nicaragua's Pacific port, Puerto Sandino on a moonless New Year's night in 1984. A week later the speedboats returned to mine the oil terminal. Over the next three months, they laid more than 30 mines in Puerto Sandino and also in the harbors at Corinto and El Bluff. In air and sea raids on coastal positions, Americans flew--and fired from--an armed helicopter that accompanied the U.S.-financed Latino force, while a CIA plane provided sophisticated reconaissance guidance for the nighttime attacks. The operation, outlined in a classified CIA document, marked the peak of U.S. involvement in the four-year guerrilla war in Nicaragua. More than any single event, it solidified congressional opposition to the covert war, and in the year since then, no new money has been approved beyond the last CIA checks drawn early [in the] summer [of 1984].... CIA paramilitary officers were upset by the ineffectiveness of the Contras.... As the insurgency force grew ... during 1983 ... the CIA began to use the guerrilla army as a cover for its own small `"Latino '' force.... [The] most celebrated attack, by armed speedboats, came Oct. 11, 1983, against oil facilities at Corinto. Three days later, an underwater pipeline at Puerto Sandino was sabotaged by Latino [sic] frogmen. The message wasn't lost on Exxon Corp.'s Esso unit [formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey], and the international giant informed the Sandinista government that it would no longer provide tankers for transporting oil to Nicaragua. The CIA's success in scaring off a major shipper fit well into its mining strategy.... The mother ship used in the mining operation is described by sources as a private chartered vessel with a configuration similar to an oil-field service and towing ship with a long, flat stern section where helicopters could land....
1087
1088These outrages prompted Congress to reiterate its intentions to keep the United States out of Nicaraguan affairs by passing new legislation on October 3, 1984, that became known as Boland II. It stated bluntly,
1089
1090During fiscal year 1985, no funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities may be obligated or expended for the purpose or which would have the effect of supporting, directly or indirectly, military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua by any nation, group, organization, movement, or individual.
1091
1092On December 5, 1985 more aid-limitation laws were passed by Congress that became known as Boland III. Altogether the Boland legislation did very little to hinder the Contras or covert Establishment support for them. Aid was simply channeled through El Salvador, which Bush and North visited in 1983, or through Honduras, which became the favored route for aid to the Contras after a February 7, 1995 meeting of the CPPG. On March 16, 1985 Bush acted on the conclusions of the meeting and visited with the Honduran President, presenting him with an aid package of $110 million, with the understanding that Honduras would continue to support the Contras and enable the transfer of arms and supplies to their bases.
1093
1094The entire scandal erupted on October 5, 1986 when a cargo aircraft flying out of El Salvador was shot down over Nicaragua. Eugene Hasenfus, a cargo handler, was the only survivor and he was captured by the Sandinistas, promptly confessing to everything he knew. He stated that his covert mission "had the blessing of Vice President Bush." Upon hearing of the loss of the aircraft Felix Rodriguez, the on-the-ground manager of the operation, made a phone call directly to the office of the Vice President and another to Bush's aid Sam Watson. Oliver North was then immediately sent to El Salvador to attempt a cover-up, and false explanations for the downed aircraft were offered to the press.
1095
1096On October 7, 1986, Rep. Henry Gonzalez of Texas called for a congressional investigation. On October 9 Hasenfus exposed Felix Rodriguez as the head of the covert operation to supply the Contras. On October 11 the Washington Post ran a headline story, "Bush is Linked to Head of Contra Aid Network," in which the ties between Rodriguez and Bush were revealed. On November 3 the Iranian connection first surfaced in the pages of a Lebanese newspaper, which led to the exposure of the fact that the Reagan (Bush) Administration sanctioned a shipment to Iran of 3000 TOW missiles in exchange for hostages held in Lebanon.
1097
1098A year later, on November 13, 1987, the House Select Committee filed its report on the Iran-Contra affair. George Bush found that  he was entirely exonerated and that his name was hardly even mentioned. The senior Republican member of the Committee was Wyoming Representative Richard Cheney. When Bush took office as President in 1989 he made Cheney his Secretary of Defense. In 2001 Cheney became the Vice President for the administration of George Bush, Jr. Such is the state of our American "democracy." The moral of the story then, is that when you deal with the Bush family you either play ball and are rewarded, as in the case of long-time Bush cronies Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Powell, etc., or you resist and you get eliminated, as in the case of the scores of unfortunate individuals who are now included posthumously within the Bush Body Count.
1099
1100Returning to Nicaragua, by the time that the Iran-Contra scandal broke out the people of Nicaragua had been beaten down by the effects of years of civil war and economic sanctions, and they had become disheartened about the potential that the Sandinistas could offer in the face of continued American animosity. By the time of the national elections of 1990 the people were ready for a change. In the election nine opposition parties faced off against the ruling Sandinistas. The Bush Administration backed only one of these parties, the National Opposition Union (UNO) Party, that was led by Violeta Chamorro, to the tune of $11 million via the National Endowment for Democracy. Prior to the election Bush gave a further warning to the Nicaraguan people by ordering the US invasion of Panama. Daniel Ortega explains how it influenced the election in an interview he gave for CNN,
1101
1102    [The United States] invaded Panama, which had a great influence on the elections in our country -- because this happened two months before the 1990 elections, and it broke up the support we had and the votes we had accumulated during the campaign. In December we had 47 percent support, with two months' campaigning still to do; [then] the invasion of Panama took place on December 23rd. And when we did a poll the following January, we had come down 10 points to 37 percent --- by which time we were one month away from the elections. ... 
1103    It wasn't a completely free election because there was open interference from the United States, from President Bush, in the form of financial and political support to our opponents, as well as threats that the blockade would not be lifted and all the rest of it if UNO didn't win. The decisive moment was the invasion of Panama.
1104
1105At the elections the UNO prevailed and Violeta Chamorro was elected President of Nicaragua. Bush called the UNO's victory, bought with foreign money that would be viewed as illegal for any American election, a "victory for democracy." The ensuing policies of the Chamorro regime explain why the UNO was so whole-heartedly supported by the US Establishment: She immediately signed accords with the IMF that included the usual "austerity programs" aimed at Nicaragua's poor for the purpose of making Nicaragua's economy attractive to foreign investors. Privatization was at the top of the agenda and industries and businesses taken from the Somoza oligarchy were given back. Her regime also made attempts to roll back the land reforms that had been begun, but never finished, by the Sandinistas. The Somoza family and its supporters had consolidated (stolen) massive land holdings that the Sandinistas had given back to the poor, but Chamorro invited many Somoza cronies back into Nicaragua to either get their land back or receive compensation. In the face of the reversal of land reform many Nicaraguans echoed the sentiments of one Adalberto Cantalero, who told the Washington Post, "If I lose my land, I will be the first one to go back to the mountains and pick up a rifle and go to war again."
1106
1107By 1996 Nicaragua faced a foreign debt of $10 billion, which is five times the country's GNP. Average annual income was $479, with 60% unemployment and 75% of Nicaraguans living under the poverty line. It was a very typical IMF "success" story.
1108
1109American Babylon
1110-Rise and Fall-
1111 
1112
1113 
1114
1115Part 4: A One World Vision, New York City, and the CFR
1116
1117Cecil Rhodes and the One World Agenda
1118The Council for Global Domination
1119The CFR and the New York Financial Oligarchy
1120The CFR Creates the Postwar World
1121
1122
1123
1124Cecil Rhodes and the One World Agenda
1125
1126The Anglo-American Establishment is simply the powerful alliance of the top financial and merchant interests of Britain and the United States. On the British side political power became concentrated, beginning in the eighteenth century, in a group associated with the first modern multinational  corporation, the British East India Company, and in the City of London financial nexus (the "merchant bankers" that included Baring, Lehman, Rothschild and others). On the American side political power became concentrated by the early twentieth century in the factions that were associated with industry, commerce, and finance, such as Morgan (banking), Rockefeller (oil), Harriman (railroads), Carnegie (steel), Ford (automobiles), and DuPont (armaments). The so-called "great rapprochement" that took place between the British and American governments between 1895-1914 brought the Anglo and American factions together in the very simple common desire to dominate the world and to make a lot of money in the process.
1127
1128One of the most important researchers of the Anglo-American Establishment in the twentieth century was the late Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley. His two most important books on the subject are Tragedy and Hope, published in 1966 but quickly suppressed, and The Anglo-American Establishment, not published until 1981 after Quigley's death. The cover of the latter work very fittingly depicts an upside-down American flag engulfed within the British Union Jack. Professor Quigley was a mainstream historian who claimed a pro-Establishment perspective and was thus allowed access to Establishment records and documentation, and his work has shown itself to be consistently credible and accurate and a primary source for understanding the makeup and evolution of the dominant political power in the world today.
1129
1130For Quigley, the origins of the Anglo-American Establishment trace back to British imperialist Cecil Rhodes, and to his seven wills that controlled how his wealth was to be distributed after his death. The one consuming goal of Cecil Rhodes was to establish an Anglo-American alliance that would take over the world and establish a global empire. Near the end of his life Rhodes formed a secret group, together with his friends William T. Stead and Lord Alfred Milner, Britain's most influential journalists, and Lord Esher, later the influential advisor of Edward VII. The Group was formally established on February 5, 1891, and was named the "Society of the Elect." In an early letter to Stead Rhodes explained his vision for the Group,
1131
1132The key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organization... an idea which ultimately [leads] to the cessation of all wars and one language throughout the world .... The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object .... Fancy the charm to young America ... to share in a scheme to take the government of the whole world!
1133
1134One of the most important creations of the Rhodes legacy was the Rhodes Scholarships that were set up in his seventh will. Through this endowment the best and brightest young students have been chosen from America and around the world and offered a chance to study at Oxford University. There they are indoctrinated in the philosophies and methods of the British elite to take their place in society as influential supporters of the Establishment's imperial agenda of "absorbing the wealth of the world." Dr. Dennis Cuddy's book The Globalists offers an excellent overview of the legacy of the Rhodes Scholarships over the years.
1135
1136After Rhodes died, leadership of the Group that he had created passed to Lord Alfred Milner, and it became informally known as the Milner Group. In 1919 with the aid of Group member Lionel Curtis, and financial backing from Cecil Rhodes' close friend Sir Abe Bailey, the Royal Institute of International Affairs was created. It was organized on May 30 at a meeting of British and American experts that had been gathered in Paris for the Versaille peace negotiations. Quigley writes that the RIIA, "is nothing but the Milner Group 'writ large.' It was funded by the Group, has been consistently controlled by the Group, and to this day is the Milner Group in its widest aspect."
1137
1138Quigley goes on to describe the American representatives of the meeting that created the RIIA,
1139
1140The American group of experts, 'the Inquiry,' was manned almost as completely by persons from institutions (including universities) dominated by J.P. Morgan and Company. This was not an accident. Moreover, the Milner Group has always had very close relationships with the associates of J.P. Morgan and with the various branches of the Carnegie Trust.
1141
1142The RIIA became headquartered in London at Chatham House, the former residence of Sir William Pitt, the first Earl of Chatham. Pitt was a member of the House of Lords when, in 1770, he remarked, "There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself." This is the basis of the phrase "the power behind the throne," and it is certainly an ironic twist that Pitt's home became the home of the most influential organization pushing behind the scenes for a world government. (Click here for the text of Sir Henry Kissinger's address to his allies at Chatham House on May 10, 1982, in which he embraced the imperial foreign policy of Winston Churchill over the idealistic American approach of Franklin Roosevelt.)
1143
1144
1145The Council for Global Domination
1146
1147After establishing a formal organization through which the British and American elite would jointly seek world domination, and after establishing the British base in London, the American faction sought out a base in their capital, New York City. Initially these efforts faltered, but in 1921 an elitist dinner club that was suffering from inactivity, known as the Council on Foreign Relations, was officially merged with the RIIA. The inconspicuous CFR at the time was chaired by Wall Street lawyer Elihu Root, who supervised the merger and brought new life into the organization. After World War II it would become the Establishment's most influential voice dictating the nature of the post-war world.
1148
1149Over the years the very mention of the CFR can bring forth accusations of "conspiranoia" from the Establishment media, its payrolled pundits and its mainstream academic dupes. This mainstream rejection of any critical analysis of the CFR's role over the years largely stems from the hysterical and counter-productive accusations that have come from the extreme right through organizations such as the John Birch Society. The basic JBS charge is that the CFR is a bastion of global Communism and that it has continually promoted the Communist movement around the world. This well-known accusation has actually been a very useful smokescreen for the Establishment, because the historical record is very clear that the agenda of the CFR has actually been that of the opposite extreme.
1150
1151The JBS, through its accusations, implies that the agenda of the CFR must be that of promoting total government control over national economies, which is the basis of Communism. However, the reality is that the CFR's consistent agenda has been that of destroying the power of Nation-States around the world, eroding the State's legitimate role as caretaker of a fair economy, and limiting its fundamental function as the protector and promoter of the general welfare of its citizens. The CFR, since the end of World War II, has in fact been the most important foreign policy engine promoting Anglo-American corporate Imperialism around the world, utilizing laissez faire Capitalism as their weapon, and not Communism.
1152
1153The CFR has always had a very complicated relationship with Communism (which will be discussed in an upcoming article), and not all of the far-right John Birch hysteria is off-target, but unfortunately it has clouded the issue of what the CFR represents, and has helped to shield it from legitimate criticism that it should have been bombarded with. However, this shielding has not been entirely successful, as evidenced by the groundbreaking 1977 work of Laurence H. Shoup and William Minter in Imperial Brain Trust: The Council on Foreign Relations & United States Foreign Policy. Their research offers documented proof that the CFR has been and is controlled by American corporate and financial interests that are predominantly based in New York City, and that the CFR has consistently influenced official American foreign policy to look out for those interests as its main priority. Part 3 of this study mentioned a number of specific cases where those corporate interests were forcefully protected by the Establishment as it worked through the US Government, and now with the help of Imperial Brain Trust (IBT) the influence and agenda of the Establishment as it has been channeled through the medium of the CFR will be examined.
1154
1155
1156The CFR and the New York Financial Oligarchy
1157
1158After the CFR became the RIIA's American counterpart it was reorganized according to the plan of an appointed committee. Elihu Root became the honorary president, John W. Davis the president, Paul Cravath the vice-president, and Edwin Gay the secretary and treasurer. All of them were associated with Wall Street and all were based in New York City.
1159
1160Elihu Root was the revered elder statesman of American diplomacy. He was a Republican that had served under McKinley as Secretary of War and under Theodore Roosevelt as Secretary of State. According to IBT,
1161
1162Root was an early leader in America's imperial expansion, being responsible for organizing the administration of the overseas territories won by the United States in the Spanish-American War. He acted as counsel for several leading American corporations and banks of the time. In addition he advised Andrew Carnegie on his philanthropies, and served as first president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
1163
1164Root was the direct mentor of Henry L. Stimson (CFR member from the beginning), who in turn served as Secretary of War under Taft, Secretary of State under Hoover, and then under FDR as Secretary of War from 1940. It was Stimson who pushed for the forced internment of Japanese Americans during the war, and it was Stimson's eight-person government committee that included four other CFR members that recommended the cruel and unnecessary atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki under President Truman. One of Stimson's CFR colleagues on the committee, Karl T. Compton the president of MIT, argued that the bombs needed to be dropped to "impress the world." After Stimson's retirement from government service Stimson then passed the imperialist baton to his protégé, the Wall Street lawyer John J. McCloy, who chaired the CFR from 1953-1970. From Root, to Stimson, to McCloy there are three generations of CFR and Wall Street-based American Imperialists who worked their whole lives against the very ideals that the American Republic was founded upon.
1165
1166John W. Davis, the CFR's first president, was another Wall Street lawyer. He served President Woodrow Wilson as solicitor general, and then as ambassador to Great Britain. After World War I he formed his own law firm in New York City and became the chief counsel for J.P. Morgan and Company. He was the Democratic presidential candidate in 1924, but was beaten in the election by Calvin Coolidge. In 1933 John W. Davis became involved in a fascist plot to topple the new Roosevelt administration that threatened the Morgan interests that were allied with the Bank of England, a plot that was exposed by Major General Smedley Butler but then covered up by the Establishment press. Davis also helped to found the American Liberty League, a Wall Street-dominated organization that masqueraded as a patriotic "grass roots" movement that opposed the New Deal.
1167
1168Paul Cravath, the CFR's first vice-president was yet another Wall Street lawyer, and his firm, Cravath, Swaine and Moore was one of New York's largest and most influential. Cravath hired John J. McCloy and Henry Leffingwell (another influential CFR member), to work for his firm at different intervals.
1169
1170Edwin Gay, the CFR's first secretary and treasurer, was not a lawyer, he was an economist and the first dean of the Harvard Business School. However he had close ties to Wall Street, and after World War I Thomas W. Lamont, the chief executive of J.P. Morgan and Co., made Gay the editor of his New York Evening Post.
1171
1172In the third chapter of Imperial Brain Trust, entitled "The Council and the New York Financial Oligarchy," the authors delve deep into the council's membership, leadership, and financial backing to further expose its intimate ties to the New York corporate elite. They write,
1173
1174We have located the Council on Foreign Relations at the center of a network linking both private and government sectors of the foreign policy community. The picture presented so far lacks an essential element, however, for neither the Council as an organization nor the Council network and community exist within an isolated world of foreign policy expertise. The Council is solidly based in the United States capitalist class and represents a conscious initiative of the dominant sector of that class, the New York financial oligarchy. Unless this is taken into account, the content of the Council's views and the extent of its influence are largely inexplicable.
1175
1176Initial funding for the CFR came from individual members, chiefly those associated with the Morgan Group, and then later coming predominantly from the Rockefeller Group. In the late 1930s  the CFR began to receive funding from the major foundations, first coming from Elihu Root's Carnegie Corporation, and then from the Rockefeller Foundation, of which fourteen of its twenty-one trustees were CFR members in 1939. The CFR's current headquarters at the Pratt House in New York City came from the Rockefeller circle, donated to the Council in 1945 by Mrs. Harold I. Pratt, whose fortune came from her husband's years as an employee of Rockefeller's Standard Oil. In 1953 the Ford Foundation, which had been newly reorganized according to Establishment dictates, made its first contribution to the CFR, a $100,000 grant to finance a study on US-Soviet relations that was chaired by John J. McCloy, through which Henry Kissinger first made a name for himself. IBT remarks that this was the very same year in which McCloy became the chairman of the CFR, Chase Manhattan Bank, and the Ford Foundation all at once, an unsurpassed Establishment hat trick. The next year the Ford Foundation gave the CFR $1.5 million and the two organizations have had close ties ever since. (See the article "Time For Ford Foundation & CFR To Divest?" by Bob Feldman.)
1177
1178In 1953 the CFR began its Corporation Service, a program offering seminars to business executives of corporations that gave $1000 or more annually to the Council. Twenty-five firms signed on for the service initially, but it grew quickly. IBT remarks that David Rockefeller was particularly active in recruiting corporations to sign up for the program and by 1972 it included 157 companies that together contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Council each year. The third chapter of IBT includes the following table that documents the corporate presence within the CFR:
1179
1180Table 3-3: Firms with Four or More Council Members as Directors or Partners (1969)
1181
1182Industrials (with Fortune rank, 1970)
1183    8 members    U.S. Steel (12)
1184    7 members    Mobil Oil (6)
1185    6 members    Standard Oil (N.J.) (now Exxon) (2)
1186    6 members    IBM (5)
1187    5 members    ITT (8)
1188    5 members    General Electric (4)
1189    4 members    DuPont (18)
1190
1191Commercial banks (with rank by trust holdings, 1972)
1192    8 members    Chase Manhattan Bank (2)
1193    8 members    J.P. Morgan and Co. (1)
1194    7 members    First National City Bank (5)
1195    7 members    Chemical Bank (12)
1196    6 members    Brown Brothers Harriman and Co. (private bank, not ranked)
1197    4 members    Bank of New York (8)
1198
1199Life insurance companies (with Fortune rank, 1970)
1200    9 members    Equitable Life (3)
1201    8 members    New York Life (4)
1202    4 members    Metropolitan Life (2)
1203    4 members    Mutual of New York (11)
1204
1205Investment banks
1206    6 members    Morgan Stanley
1207    4 members    Kuhn, Loeb
1208    4 members    Lehman Brothers
1209
1210Law firms (with 1957 ranks from Smigel)
1211    8 members    Sullivan and Cromwell (9) [the law firm of the Dulles brothers]
1212    7 members    Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons and Gates (not in top twenty in 1957)
1213   7 members    Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland and Kiendl (6) [of the Morgan group's John W. Davis]
1214    5 members    Shearman and Sterling (1)
1215   4 members    Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy (7) [the law firm of John J. McCloy]
1216
1217Investment company
1218    7 members    General American Investors
1219
1220The authors of IBT explain why these major corporations and the banks and firms associated with them have such a strong interest in having a voice within the foreign policy think tank,
1221
1222The firms listed in Table 3-3 are certainly included among the top "multinationals." Of the industrials and commercial banks, at least Mobil, IBM, and the First National City Bank earn more than 50 percent of their profits overseas. Chase Manhattan Bank has subsidiaries in over 100 countries and obtains almost 35 percent of its earnings from foreign operations, while Exxon and ITT make 39 and 38 percents of their sales, respectively, overseas. In 1974 DuPont made 28 percent of its total sales overseas and had over 100 plants in twenty-nine countries and territories outside the United States. General Electric, which reported 18 percent foreign sales, is also a full-scale "multinational," with manufacturing facilities in twenty-four countries and an international orientation aimed at building the "GE World System." J.P. Morgan does business in thirty-two different foreign countries and Chemical Bank in twenty-five. Even U.S. Steel, which had only five percent of its sales overseas in 1973, is heavily involved abroad in other ways, owning a near majority of stock in a manganese mine in Gabon, a copper mine in South Africa, a nickel mine in Indonesia, iron mines in Canada, and manufacturing or steel making facilities in Spain, Nicaragua, Italy, France, Brazil, India, and Germany. The other financial institutions and law firms listed, while not "multinationals," are intimately involved in the same world economic system as investors in and advisors to the industrial firms and commercial banks. It is thus clear that these corporations and their leaders, dominant in the Council on Foreign Relations, are most concerned with establishing and maintaining a foreign policy and world environment favorable to their very large economic interests overseas.
1223
1224IBT goes further into documenting the makeup of the CFR by highlighting the seven major financial groups or factions that in 1977 (IBT's publication date) maintained the highest levels of influence within the Council. These factions were (and are) the Rockefeller Group, which controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank,  the Bank of New York, Equitable Life, Metropolitan Life, Mobil Oil, the investment bank Kuhn, Loeb, the law firm Debevoise, Plimpton, Lyons and Gates, the law firm Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy, and Standard Oil of New Jersey (Exxon); the Morgan Group, which controlled J.P. Morgan and Co., Morgan Stanley, New York Life, Mutual of New York, the law firm Davis, Polk, and the multinationals U.S. Steel, General Electric, and IBM; the First National City Group (basically another subsidiary of the Rockefeller Group), which controlled First National City Bank, the law firm Shearman and Sterling, and International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT); the Harriman Group that specialized in banking and through which the Bush family rose to power; the Lehman Brothers - Goldman Sachs Group that was based in Wall Street and controlled General American Investors; the Sullivan and Cromwell Group, the prestigious New York-based international corporate law firm run by the Dulles brothers; and the DuPont Group, that has an international reach and specializes in armaments and chemicals.
1225
1226
1227The CFR Creates the Postwar World
1228
1229Now that the dominant role of the New York financial oligarchy within the CFR has been explained, it is time to examine the hugely influential role that has been played by the CFR in formulating the economic and foreign policies of the United States government since even before World War II.
1230
1231After Herbert Hoover was defeated by FDR the Establishment was faced with the emerging reality that laissez faire economic policies had been a major factor creating the Great Depression. The emerging trend became that of economic nationalism, and the monopoly held by the corporate/financial Establishment over economic decisions was challenged. The government was asked to take a role in regulating a fair financial climate and FDR's New Deal was a step in this direction. To meet the threat of "Big Government" the CFR's secretary-treasurer Edwin F. Gay published an article in the CFR's journal Foreign Affairs, which was followed by a study group that was chaired by John Foster Dulles and included influential members of FDR's administration. The end result was that the extent of FDR's domestic economic reforms were scaled back, and the passage of the Export-Import Bank and Trade agreements Act in 1934 "marked a return to traditional emphasis on foreign trade expansion as a solution to domestic problems." FDR was indeed influenced by the banking establishment, but he was influenced to tilt decidedly towards the right, in a direction that favored Wall Street and laissez faire capitalism, rather than towards the left as some conservative critics of FDR continue to imagine.
1232
1233During World War II the CFR's most important program was its War and Peace Studies Project. IBT explains,
1234
1235    The Second World War and the subsequent cold war were decisive turning points in the history of American foreign policy. They marked a move on the part of the United States toward a full-blown imperialism - a largely successful attempt to organize a single, world-spanning political economy with the United States at the center. Providing the intellectual rationale and leading this thrust toward global power was the Council on Foreign Relations...
1236    Among the groups depending on the Council for "light and guidance" was the United States Department of State. The department had just incorporated the top leadership of the Council's special War and Peace Studies Project into its own Advisory Committee on Postwar Foreign Policy, and the Council's research secretaries for the project into its own planning staff for half of each week. 
1237    The War and Peace Studies were a turning point in American history...
1238
1239The War and Peace Studies Project began in 1939 with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. It was divided into five study groups (Economic and Financial, Political, Armaments, Territorial, and Peace Aims) that focused on specific aspects of the future postwar world, and plotted how to guide US foreign policy in a way that ensured the dominance of the New York-based financial and corporate powers. IBT documents the role of the Project in chapter four entitled: "Shaping a New World Order: The Council's Blueprint for World Hegemony, 1939-1975." At least four major postwar global institutions were planned either within the War and Peace Studies Project, or elsewhere within the CFR during the war, and then created afterwards:
1240
1241The Marshall Plan for rebuilding Western Europe was created within a group headed by lawyer Charles M. Spofford, with a young David Rockefeller as secretary, called Reconstruction in Western Europe. This group maintained close contact with Secretary of State George C. Marshall for whom the plan was later named. The Marshall Plan provided American tax dollars to European governments which were then kicked back to American corporations to purchase imports and pay for the rebuilding of infrastructure. It was a very important plan for the New York financial oligarchy and John J. McCloy was dispatched to Germany to act as High Commissioner to oversee the early phases of the plan. The Marshall Plan worked out to be a gift to Europe from the American taxpayer and a very positive initiative to help Europe rebuild, but it was also a brilliant financial coup for Wall Street and for the many corporations involved that made millions.
1242
1243The IMF and the World Bank were also envisioned early on within the CFR. In November 28, 1941 a memorandum was dispatched to FDR and the Department of State from the Economic and Financial Group of the War and Peace Studies Project. It mentioned the need for a US/UK board of financial experts to be set up to plan for an "international investment agency which would stimulate world trade and prosperity by facilitating investment in developmental programs the world over." This memo was then followed up by recommendations for what the board itself should recommend. Jacob Viner, the professor of economics at the University of Chicago who led the Group said in February of 1942, "It might be wise to set up two financial institutions: one an international exchange stabilization board and one an international bank to handle short-term transactions not directly concerned with stabilization." Viner's recommendations became a reality in 1944 at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, when both the IMF and the World Bank were created under firm Anglo-American control. The role that these organizations have played in helping the Anglo-American Establishment "gradually absorb the wealth of the world" will be covered below.
1244
1245The creation of the United Nations was also recommended by the CFR during the war, and the eighteen acres on the east side of Manhattan on which the UN headquarters now stand was donated to the UN by John D. Rockefeller Jr. in 1946. The first serious planning for the UN began with the Informal Agenda Group established by Secretary of State Cordell Hull. Hull was not a CFR member, but he was acting on CFR proposals and five out of the six original members of the IAG were members of the CFR. After the IAG produced a draft for the proposed UN they then turned to three distinguished lawyers to rule on its constitutionality. They were Myron C. Taylor (CFR director), John W. Davis (former CFR President and current director, and lawyer for J.P. Morgan Co.), and Nathan L. Miller the former governor of New York. When the UN was officially created at the international conference in San Francisco in 1945 the American delegation included seventy-four CFR members. IBT concludes,
1246
1247The Department of State was clearly in charge of these propositions within the American government, and the role of the Council on Foreign Relations within the Department of State was, in turn, very great indeed. The Council's power was unrivaled. It had more information, representation, and decision-making power on postwar questions than the Congress, any executive bureaucracy except the Department of State, or other private group. It had a very large input into decisions on the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the United Nations. The formulators of the Grand Area had indeed been able to gain positions of strength and put their plans for United States world hegemony into effect.
1248
1249 The United Nations has been dominated by the Anglo-American faction of London and New York from the very beginning. Rather than supporting national sovereignty and strengthening the ability of nations to act on behalf of their peoples the UN has evolved into just another tool of Empire. The Establishment has been the main cause of the economic misfortunes in the world and the resulting  suffering and injustice since the end of World War II, and to remedy that injustice the Establishment offers the bogus solution of world government through multinational agencies and their unelected bureaucrats, spearheaded through the UN.
1250
1251That the Establishment has dominated the UN cannot be argued, as author Phyllis Bennis proves in her book Calling the Shots - How Washington Dominates Today's UN. However, as is sadly typical of many commentators, Bennis fails to adequately explain that Washington is itself dominated by New York and that the elected representatives based in Washington are simply the puppets of the New York-based Corporate elite. Rockefeller would not have given the UN eighteen acres of prime Manhattan real estate and allowed the US to grant it sovereign territorial status, if he had not been completely certain that his family and the interests allied with it would always be in control of the organization.
1252
1253For a greater understanding of the Establishment's CFR influence within the US government over the years, in central banking and the Federal Reserve System, in US colleges and universities, and in influential global governing bodies, please see this page at www.restoringamerica.org.
1254
1255American Babylon
1256-Rise and Fall-
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261Part 5: The Triumph of the Merchants
1262
1263The Immoral Basis of Free Trade
1264The Field Marshals of Free Trade
1265The Socialists and World Government
1266The Capitalists and World Government
1267
1268 
1269
1270The Immoral Basis of Free Trade
1271
1272After World War II, New York City became the most powerful and wealthiest city in the world, and the headquarters of the most influential international merchants and financiers. Before we examine the twentieth century economists who have worked to justify Free Trade on behalf of this cabal, allowing them to pursue their profits with the minimum of restrictions, we must first take a closer look at Adam Smith, the originator of Free Trade, to find out the source of his ideas and to understand how they were seriously misguided from the beginning.
1273
1274Perhaps the most important influence on Adam Smith's philosophical and economic ideas were the writings of Bernard de Mandeville. Mandeville was a Dutch doctor and writer who lived (1670-1733) in London at a time when anti-Christian Enlightenment ideas were coming to the forefront and when London was quickly becoming the occult capital of the world. He was allegedly a member of the Hell-Fire Club, later led by Sir Francis Dashwood, that engaged in gluttony, drunkenness, and orgies and practiced the "Do As Thou Wilt" satanic philosophy that later inspired Aleister Crowley. Mandeville became a champion of this influential underground network of upper class hedonists through his poem The Grumbling Hive published in 1705 and released again as part of his book The Fable of the Bees in 1714. The basic point that Mandeville tries to argue for in his poem and in his book can be summed up in the short phrase: "Private vice makes public virtue."
1275
1276In the Fable, Mandeville describes society using the parable of a hive of bees. According to Mandeville's understanding of human nature, man's primary motivation is to satisfy his own selfish sense-driven desires, and Mandeville concludes that blindly pursuing those desires, even if they cross the line into sin and vice, actually works for the betterment of the society as a whole. He writes,
1277
1278The grave Industrious were the Same.
1279All Trades and Places knew some Cheat,
1280No Calling was without Deceit...
1281The Lawyers, of whose Art the Basis
1282Was raising Feuds and splitting Cases...
1283Physicians valued Fame and Wealth
1284Above the drooping Patient's Health...
1285Among the many Priests of Jove,
1286Hir'd to draw Blessings from Above,
1287Some few were learn'd and eloquent,
1288But Thousands hot and ignorant...
1289
1290Mandeville goes on to describe how virtually every profession exists hand in hand with a particular vice, and then he writes,
1291
1292Thus every Part was full of Vice, 
1293Yet the whole Mass a Paradice;
1294Flatter'd in Peace, and fear'd in Wars
1295They were th'Esteem of Foreigners,
1296And lavish of their Wealth and Lives,
1297The Ballance of all other Hives.
1298Such were the Blessings of that State;
1299Their Crimes conspired to make 'em Great;
1300And Vertue, who from Politicks
1301Had learn'd a Thousand cunning Tricks,
1302Was, by their happy Influence,
1303Made Friends with Vice: And ever since
1304The worst of all the Multitude
1305Did something for the common Good.
1306
1307Then Mandeville tries to explain how the vices themselves are the very engines of prosperity,
1308
1309The Root of evil Avarice,
1310That damn'd ill-natur'd baneful Vice,
1311Was Slave to Prodigality,
1312That Noble Sin; whilst Luxury.
1313Employ'd a Million of the Poor,
1314And odious Pride a Million more
1315Envy it self, and Vanity
1316Were Ministers of Industry;
1317Their darling Folly, Fickleness
1318In Diet, Furniture, and Dress,
1319That strange, ridic'lous Vice, was made
1320The very Wheel, that turn'd the Trade.
1321
1322Adam Smith's connection with Mandeville is hotly debated and very controversial. Prior to The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith wrote the book A Theory of Moral Sentiments that was influenced very much by his mentor Francis Hutcheson of Glasgow University. Hutcheson was a harsh critic of Mandeville's extreme laissez faire philosophy and Hutcheson offered a rebuttal to Mandeville saying,
1323
1324We are never to put in the balance with the liberty or safety of a people, the gratifying the vain ambition, luxury, or avarice of a few. It may therefore often be just to prevent by agrarian law such vast wealth coming into a few hands, that a cabal of them might endanger the state.
1325
1326Author Kenneth Lux in Adam Smith's Mistake explains how Smith at first tried to repudiate Mandeville's extreme conclusions and sided with his mentor Hutcheson, but that he was also drawn to important aspects of Mandeville's ideas and ended up repackaging them in his later work The Wealth of Nations. In the end it was those ideas that ended up creating the justification for the very economic climate that Hutchison warned against in his quote above,
1327
1328Smith deals with Mandeville near the end of his book, when he discusses "licentious systems." Here Smith says that all traditional systems of morality rest on the belief that there is a real and essential distinction between vice and virtue... This distinction "encourages the best and most laudable habits of the human mind." A licentious system, such as that of Dr. Mandeville, says Smith, asserts that such a distinction is false, "a mere cheat and imposition upon mankind." In it an individual need not attempt restraint and control of the lower passions because they are not really lower after all. In that way Mandeville's system gives "license." Smith regards Mandeville's ideas as "wholly pernicious," and "in almost every respect erroneous." In dispensing with Mandeville, however, Smith does acknowledge the following: "But how destructive soever this system may appear, it could never have imposed upon so great a number of persons nor have occasioned so general an alarm among those who are the friends of better principles had it not in some respect bordered on the truth."
1329
1330The main idea that Smith took from Mandeville was the idea that the individual's pursuit of self-interest should be regarded as the main foundation upon which society benefits as a whole. This is perhaps the central premise of The Wealth of Nations and, according to Lux, Adam Smith's greatest mistake. Prior to the Enlightenment, avarice, or greed, was viewed with contempt as one of the seven deadly sins, but Adam Smith, buttressed with the work of Mandeville, Hume and other avowed atheists, paved the way for greed to be viewed as a natural, and even as a positive thing. This change in values was perhaps one of the most important and profound changes that helped to overthrow Judeo-Christian morality as the foundation of Western society.
1331
1332Jesus Christ explicitly taught that love of God is the primary commandment, and that benevolence for our fellow human beings is the the second most important commandment (Matthew 22:34-40). These two basic commandments, which Jesus said were the foundation of all the Law and of all the Prophets, are supported by the warning from the Apostle Paul that the love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:9-10). Adam Smith's fundamental conclusion contradicts the commandments of Jesus and then pushes us towards the evil warned of by Paul, by making self-interest, or "love of self," the foundation of society, which today equates to the single-minded pursuit of money which is the basis of modern material gain. Lux explains how the idea that "individual self-interest should come first" was taken up by Smith,
1333
1334In the Modern Library edition of The Wealth of Nations, editor Edwin Cannan, notes the following in regard to the change in Smith between the two books: "We can scarcely fail to suspect that it was Mandeville who first made him realize that 'it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.'" Cannan is an economist and, of course, sees the influence of Mandeville on Smith as a "realization" rather than a mistake. Cannan goes on to say that Smith put the doggerel verse of Mandeville "into prose and to this added something from the Hutcheson love of liberty when he propounded what is really the text of the polemical portion of The Wealth of Nations."
1335
1336It is a very serious observation that Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations "put the verse of Mandeville into prose," but when the basic premise of Smith is compared with that of Mandeville the damning accusation is vindicated. Another important concept that Smith apparently drew from Mandeville was his theory of the "division of labor." Lux writes that the phrase "division of labor" did not become common until Mandeville's Fable, in which he talks of men "learning to divide and subdivide their labor," and indexes the notion under "Labor- the usefulness of dividing and subdividing it." The "division of labor" is a key aspect of Smith's economic theory, and in The Wealth of Nations he goes into great detail about the potential it has to increase production and stimulate the economy. Smith's problem, however, is that he places capital over labor, or money over the producers, and the people at the bottom end up suffering the most. Mandeville had a very harsh perspective regarding labor and its position within the economy, and he made it clear when he wrote,
1337
1338The economic well-being of the nation depends on the presence of a large number of men who are content to labor hard all day long. Because men are naturally lazy they will not work unless forced by necessity to do so. The education of the poor threatens to rob the nation of their productivity... Every hour those poor people spend at their books is so much time lost to society. Going to school in comparison to working is idleness.
1339
1340Smith was apparently reconciled to this view of the destiny of the laborer and he penned the following words,
1341
1342The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations... generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to become. The torpor of his mind renders him, not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiments, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of the country he is altogether incapable of judging.
1343
1344However, after making his analysis Smith offered up the solution of government-sponsored public education, as he was unwilling to openly endorse Mandeville's conclusion that stupidity for the masses was actually good for the nation. Smith recognized some of the drawbacks of a pure "free market" society and he realized, unfortunately far too late, the conflict that would arise between traditional views of Judeo-Christian morality and his brand of economics. Lux comments on this problem at the conclusion of his section comparing Smith with Mandeville,
1345
1346    In the Smith of The Wealth of Nations we can see, then, a conflict between two very different influences - Hutcheson and Mandeville. Smith brings forth both of these voices in his own attempt at synthesis in his book. But the tragedy is that in history's judgment it is the Mandeville voice that is Smith's greater contribution. And so, for example, the atomization of work has been accepted into the modern world as a highly beneficial principle.
1347    Yet, in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith himself labels Mandeville's voice as a "noise." So there is a profound and sad irony in the legacy Smith has bequeathed to us. Smith had listened to Mandeville's noise in the world and indeed has himself become a contributor to it, whether in the principle of the division of labor or in the more central theme of self-interest. The significance of this is stated by another Smith scholar, Louis Dumont:
1348    "It is widely admitted that the central theme of Adam Smith, the idea that self-love works for the common good, comes from Mandeville... We are thus sent back from Adam Smith to Mandeville for the origin of the key assumption of The Wealth of Nations, and this is more than a minute point of literary history, for, as we are going to see, the problem of the relation between economics and morality was acutely - indeed, explosively - posed by Mandeville at the beginning of the century."
1349
1350The young Adam Smith had a desire to study for the Christian ministry that won him an education at Oxford, but his Christian views were quickly challenged by the radical new views of the Enlightenment. While he tried to maintain at least an outward appreciation for Christianity, his social connections often evoked suspicion from the Church. During his life he absorbed the writings of Bernard de Mandeville, he was sponsored by the British East India Company's Lord Shelburne, he became friends with the anti-Christian polemicist Voltaire ("This Smith is an excellent man! We have nothing to compare with him!"), and he was a lifelong friend of the brash atheist philosopher David Hume, even remarking with admiration on Hume's unconcern for the afterlife at his passing. During his life Smith continued to live with his mother and he never married, but he kept up a rigorous social life by joining numerous clubs and organizations. The true extent of his dubious political and social connections may never be known, however, because his personal papers were all burned prior to his death, as economist Mark Skousen explains in his book The Making of Modern Economics,
1351
1352    [Smith] dined every Sunday with his two closest friends, Joseph Black the chemist and James Hutton the geologist, at a tavern in Edinburgh. Several months before his demise, he begged his friends to destroy all his unpublished papers except for a few he deemed nearly ready for publication. This was not a new request. Seventeen years earlier, when he traveled to London with the manuscript of The Wealth of Nations, he instructed David Hume, his executor, to destroy all his loose papers and eighteen thin, paper folio books "without any examination," and to spare nothing but his fragment on the history of astronomy. Smith had apparently read about a contemporary figure whose private papers had been exposed to the public in a "tell-all" biography, and he feared the same might happen to him. He may have also been concerned about letters or essays written in defense of his friend Hume, who was a religious heretic during a period of intolerance. But Hume died before Smith, and a new executor of his estate was needed.
1353    Approaching the end of his life, Smith became extremely anxious about his personal papers, and repeatedly demanded that his friends Black and Hutton destroy them. Black and Hutton always put off complying with his request, hoping that Smith would come to his senses and change his mind. But a week before he died, he expressly sent for them and insisted that they burn all his manuscripts, without knowing or asking what they contained, except for a few items ready for publication. Finally, the two acquiesced and burned virtually everything - sixteen volumes of manuscript! Thrown into the fire was his manuscript on law. Fortunately, extensive student notes on these lectures were discovered in 1958 and published later as Lectures on Jurisprudence.
1354    After the conflagration, the old professor seemed greatly relieved. When his visitors called upon him on the following Sunday evening for their regular supper, he declined. "I love your company, gentlemen, but I believe I must leave you to go to another world." It was his last sentence to them. He died the following Saturday, July 17, 1790.
1355
1356What dark secrets did Adam Smith want covered up, that caused him such great anxiety? Perhaps the case of Sir Isaac Newton, another British Empire academic who never married, offers a test case. Newton died in 1727 but unlike Smith he was not successful in destroying all of his personal papers. In 1936 a long-hidden portion of them came to light and were offered up for auction at Sotheby's. The winning bidder was economist John Maynard Keynes (who we will get to later), and in 1942 Keynes addressed the Royal Society Club and gave a lecture and presentation on what he had found. It turns out that Newton was hardly the devout Christian that many believed him to be, and even though he respected the mystical aspects of Bible prophecy he rejected the divinity of Jesus Christ. Isaac Newton, as his records show, was a homosexual more interested in alchemy than anything else, and he dabbled in the Kabbalah, astrology, and was steeped in occult research for the greater part of his life. Could Adam Smith's papers have caused a similar controversy, perhaps an even greater one if publicized immediately after his death? We will never know, and perhaps it is irrelevant in any case, because the thoroughly un-Christian character of Smith's fundamental economic conclusion is enough to speak for itself.
1357 
1358
1359The Field Marshals of Free Trade
1360
1361The state of the world today and the primacy of the multinational corporation, based on the ultra-liberal "free trade" economic ideas that trace back to Adam Smith, owe a great deal to the twentieth century economists who have grown famous packaging and promoting this satanic system to the world. This section will highlight these economists, men such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek, Murray N. Rothbard and Milton Friedman, and it will uncover how their twisted ideas on Morality, Liberty and the purpose of Government became prominent only through concerted backing from the Anglo-American Establishment. Without Rockefeller, Wall Street and the British Oligarchy the fascist anti-human principles of extreme laissez faire advocated by these economists would have never been accepted and the world would be a much better place today.
1362
1363Author and economist Mark Skousen, an honest and well-intentioned Adam Smith admirer, refers to Smith's so-called "Classical Model" of Economics and breaks it down into four basic, seemingly benign principles [with this writer's criticism in brackets]:
1364
1365    1. Thrift, hard work, enlightened self interest, and benevolence toward fellow citizens are virtues and should be encouraged. [Of course the "self-interest" part stands out as primary, and in practice the recommendation of "benevolence" is always viewed as optional and is rarely exercised.] 
1366    2. Government should limit its activities to administer justice, enforce private property rights, and defend the nation against aggression. [There is no conception of the Christian principle put forth by America's founding fathers that governments receive their very legitimacy only through their active role in protecting and promoting the general welfare of all the citizens. For the merchant class that sponsored Smith, which benefits the most from his economic model today, government's role is limited to protecting their "property," and keeping them safe from external aggression.]
1367    3. The state should adopt a general policy of laissez-faire noninterventionism in economic affairs (free trade, low taxes, minimal bureaucracy, etc.). [The merchants tell the government, "Get out of the way, leave us alone (laissez faire) and don't interfere in the profits we're taking!"]
1368    4. The classical gold/silver standard restrains the state from depreciating the currency and provides a stable monetary environment in which the economy may flourish. [In this way a nation's wealth is measured by the amount of inherently useless yellow metal it possesses in its vaults, rather than by the capacity of its producers. The British cornered the market on gold in the early twentieth century, and then FDR wisely dropped the gold standard and gave control of the American economy back to the people to which it belonged. The gold standard may be a classical ideal, but it is certainly not an economic necessity and it often acts to stifle economic growth and the advancement of the general welfare.]
1369
1370Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations was received very warmly by the ruling British Establishment, for it helped to create a climate in which the single-minded pursuit of profit was viewed as natural and good. However, Britain continued a policy of protectionism at home that helped to build her manufacturing base which made it the greatest in the world. This reality was remarked upon by Senator Thaddeus Stevens in his debate against Free Trade in 1852, as mentioned in Part 1,
1371
1372England has acquired all this power, wealth, and grandeur through her protective policy alone. And now she preaches "free trade" to others--to young nations! And there are found shallow dupes who swallow the bait!
1373
1374After the defeat of Napoleon, France became, in effect, a vassal of the British Empire, and home to some of the most influential "shallow dupes." Smith had spent time in Paris and had discusses his ideas with intellectuals such as Quesnay, Turgot, and Voltaire, and after The Wealth of Nations was published it was translated into French and widely publicized. It was in France, of course, that the term "laissez faire," meaning "leave alone," became tied to Smith's views, and it was in France that Smith's ideas advanced through the work of economists Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832), who coined the term entrepreneur, and Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
1375
1376In 1848 the inevitable backlash against laissez faire capitalism culminated with the publication of The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx. With the emergence of Marxism one extreme matched up against another and the left-right paradigm surged to the forefront of political/economic thought in Europe. The old order of Empire and Monarchy felt justifiably threatened by the revolutionary "power to the people" movement, and they enlisted the strategists of the Right to combat it. Typical of this trend was the career of economist Carl Menger (1840-1921), the founder of the celebrated Austrian School of Classical Economics.
1377
1378Menger was born in Austria, and he attended the University of Vienna and then earned his doctorate at the University of Krakow in 1867. His father was a lawyer and his grandfather, it should be no surprise, was a wealthy Bohemian merchant. Menger's family had influential connections and he was able to begin his career in the press section of the Prime Minster's office in Vienna, where he often wrote for the official Habsburg newspaper Wiener Zeitung. In 1871, at the young age of thirty-one, he published his most important work, Principles of Economics, that drew heavily from Adam Smith and the French School of Say and Bastiat. Two years later he gained the remarkable achievement of being offered a professorship at the University of Vienna, and from there his influence within the upper class continued to skyrocket.
1379
1380Just as Adam Smith personally served the British elite as tutor of the son of Charles Townsend (author of the Townsend Act that sparked the American Revolution), so did Menger personally serve the Austrian elite, beginning in 1876 when the Habsburg's asked him to tutor Archduke Rudolf, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne. Skousen records that Menger used Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations as the primary textbook for his economic lectures to Rudolf, and Skousen quotes from another commentator who remarks on Rudolf's notes from the lectures saying,
1381
1382Menger's Rudolf Lectures are, in fact, probably one of the most extreme statements of the principles of laissez faire ever put to paper in the academic literature of economics.
1383
1384Emperor Franz Joseph rewarded Menger by approving his appointment as chair of law and political economy at the University of Vienna in 1879. Skousen remarks that many believe Menger was being groomed to become the Prime Minister, but this possibility fell apart in 1889 when Archduke Rudolf committed suicide. Nevertheless, Menger became very wealthy as a professor at Vienna, eventually receiving a salary that today would equate to half a million dollars a year.
1385
1386Menger is considered the founder of the Austrian School of Classical Economics which pushed Adam Smith's free market ideas to even further extremes. When Menger retired from the University of Vienna in 1903 the ideological leadership of the Austrian School passed into the hands of two of his students, Baron Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen Boehm-Bawerk. Wieser succeeded Menger's top position at Vienna, and Boehm-Bawerk served as a professor at Innsbruck beginning in 1880, and as Finance Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1891, before receiving his position at the University of Vienna in 1904. Boehm-Bawerk is best known for several important books, one of which was a devastating critique of Karl Marx, and Skousen remarks that at the turn of the century Boehm-Bawerk was considered the best-known economist on the European continent.
1387
1388Following in the footsteps of Wieser and Boehm-Bawerk came the two twentieth-century giants of the Austrian School of Classical Economics, namely, Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Friedrich A. Hayek (1899-1992). It was through the publications and careers of these two men, more than any other, that the Austrian School came to dominate the world. Through sponsorship that came from the British elite and from the American Establishment, chiefly from the Rockefeller family, the Austrian School eventually moved to Chicago, where it set up headquarters and guided the formulation of US economic policy, and also the policies of the most powerful globalizing institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization.
1389
1390The Chicago School can be rightly blamed for the present corporate domination of the West that has eroded the ideal and indeed the very practice of democracy. It can be blamed for the economic subjugation of the Third World, for its increasing state of poverty, filth and ignorance, and for its continual status as an undeveloped source of cheap raw materials and labor, but dependent on goods peddled by Western corporations. The Chicago School can also be blamed for the breakdown of the Nation-State as an institution that exists to serve the people, guided by the people in a democratic fashion on behalf of the general welfare of all the people. The Chicago School is at the very heart of the Establishment that has been erecting the framework of the New World Order, that envisions the complete destruction of the Nation-State and the creation of a single authoritarian World Government.
1391
1392
1393The Socialists and World Government
1394
1395Before going into the careers of Mises and Hayek we must first step back and analyze the views that were competing within the Anglo-American Establishment at the time for prominence. The Establishment has always viewed a one world government as the long-term goal, but there have been different factions within the Establishment that have argued for various ways to pursue that goal. During the time of Cecil Rhodes one of the strongest voices for world government came from the faction grouped around the socialist Fabian Society.
1396
1397At this point in time it is also important to draw a distinction between the American System of National Economy and the Establishment's Fabian Socialists. While both systems argue for government intervention or at least government oversight of the economy, the American System sought to improve national economies and supported the power of the State to act as a positive force for humanity. The American System has always supported free education, full employment and technological advancement, and it has always worked to make the State truly sovereign by building up the necessary infrastructure and by promoting industry and manufacturing to make it independent of foreign economic pressures or domination. The American System envisions the creation of individual national economies that work hand-in-hand with the people, who voice their will through Representative and Democratic governments, to improve the general welfare of all the people (What Is The "General Welfare"?). To read about the extraordinary, but little-known, achievements of the traditional American System of productive common-sense Capitalism see historian Anton Chaitkin's article "How Henry Carey and the American Nationalists Built the Modern World."
1398
1399In contrast to the American System that built the new nation and guided it in becoming the greatest industrial power in the world,  the Fabian Society was an elitist movement that basically sought to manage the masses by offering them social programs that endeared them to the Establishment-controlled State. It was more concerned with offering the minimum of wealth redistribution to keep the people satisfied, rather than emphasizing state-sponsored infrastructure improvements and scientific and technological progress on behalf of the whole nation.
1400
1401The Fabian Society was founded in 1884 by Sidney and Beatrice Webb, George Bernard Shaw, and others, and it quickly became a major force in British politics. In 1895 the Fabians founded the London School of Economics to promote their brand of socialism, but in the following years the influential economist John Maynard Keynes and the Cambridge School became more outspoken in its advocacy of socialism than the LSE.  After the economic catastrophe of the Great Depression the LSE moved even further to the right, becoming the base for the main opponents of Keynes, and of socialism, as we will soon see. The LSE was always more a tool of the Establishment than it was a firm bastion of socialism.
1402
1403The socialist faction of British politics was a faction of the Establishment that was most influential in the early 1900s, and it was the primary force backing socialism in Europe and Bolshevism in Russia, with help from the RIIA and Wall Street, as historian Antony Sutton makes clear in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. The Fabian goal of a World Government is highlighted in the famous stained glass window ordered by Shaw that once adorned the Beatrice Webb House. The shield depicts a wolf in sheep's clothing, while two men hammer away at the world to "remould it nearer to the hearts desire."
1404
1405
1406
1407Despite the rise in public support for socialism, which culminated in the British Parliamentary elections of 1945, the Establishment became disillusioned with the long-term potential of using socialism to conquer the world, and support for the slow-moving Fabians waned. The decline of Fabian influence is typified by two members of the Fabian Socialists who, for very different reasons, left the organization to pursue other paths. These two men are H.G. Wells and George Orwell.
1408
1409H.G. Wells is the celebrated English author who wrote The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, and War of the Worlds. He is called by some the father of modern science fiction, but what is less  well known is that he was also a passionate advocate for an Anglo-Saxon dominated world government. He summed up his vision in a publication entitled The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution in 1928, to which Fabian member Bertrand Russell responded "I do not know of anything with which I agree more entirely." In 1940 Wells followed up The Open Conspiracy with an even more blatant proposal in his book simply titled The New World Order.
1410
1411Wells had joined the Fabian Society in 1903 but left it after becoming disillusioned with the organization and falling out with George Bernard Shaw, who then had Wells depicted in the Fabian Window thumbing his nose (far left). Wells favored a much more aggressive approach to achieve a New World Order than the Fabians, and in one of his many publications he wrote,
1412
1413The men of the New Republic will not be squeamish either in facing or inflicting death... They will have an ideal that will make killing worthwhile; like Abraham, they will have the faith to kill, and they will have no superstitions about death... They will hold, I anticipate, that a certain portion of the population exists only on sufferance out of pity and patience, and on the understanding that they do not propagate; and I do not foresee any reason to suppose that they will hesitate to kill when that sufferance is abused... All such killings will be done with an opiate... If deterrent punishments are used at all in the code of the future, the deterrent will neither be death, nor mutilation of the body... but good scientifically caused pain.
1414
1415The prediction above should serve to remind the reader of the warnings implicit in the work of George Orwell in 1984. Orwell was a Fabian Socialist who became critical of the movement after Sidney and Beatrice Webb toured Stalinist Russia with George Bernard Shaw in the early '30s, coming back with a glowing report. Orwell's hatred of communism became complete during the Spanish Civil War when he fought alongside the socialists against Franco and witnessed first-hand how the socialists were betrayed and destroyed from within by the Stalinists. In the pages of 1984 Orwell predicted that the New World Order would be led by a political party known as INGSOC, meaning English Socialism, along the totalitarian lines envisioned by Wells and applauded by the Fabians who looked up to Stalin. Some commentators believe that the very title "1984" is meant to point towards the one hundredth anniversary of the 1884 founding of the Fabian Society, and the narrative of 1984 begins precisely on April 4, which was the date of publication of the Fabian Society's very first pamphlet, "Why are the Many Poor?"
1416
1417Orwell remained a committed socialist his whole life, but he became disillusioned with the Fabian Society because of its elitist overtones, totalitarian tendencies, and lack of democratic ideals. H.G. Wells also remained a committed socialist, but only in the sense that he saw the need for his one world Super-State to parcel out the minimum of necessities to the masses. He broke with the Fabians because for him they were too slow in achieving their goal and too naive in working within the democratic process to the extent that they even did.
1418
1419In judging these two cases it becomes clear that the Anglo-American Establishment reacted towards the socialist movement as their promoter H.G. Wells did. International Socialism (comparable to the Nazi's National Socialism) has always been viewed as the long-term and final goal, and the Elite have always intended to take care of mankind's basic necessities once they are in power and once they have culled the herd to its desired numbers, but the primary and immediate goal has always been power and control. Rather than work through state-sponsored socialism to gain control, which could be interrupted by the ever-present threat of Democracy, the Establishment decided instead to work around the State, to utilize laissez faire capitalism to destroy the State, and to, as Rhodes put it, "gradually absorb the wealth of the world." Once deciding on this strategy Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek were employed to help carry it out.
1420
1421
1422The Capitalists and World Government
1423
1424Ludwig von Mises was born in Austria in 1881, and at the age of nineteen he entered the University of Vienna, receiving his doctorate at age twenty-seven. Mises was completely indoctrinated with the Austrian School economic views of Menger and he studied directly under Boehm-Bawerk. After finishing at the University he became employed at the Austrian Department of Commerce, where he worked from 1909-1934, eventually becoming  the chief economic advisor to the government. His famous rule was, "The first job of an economist is to tell governments what they cannot do!" Mises published his first major work, The Theory of Money and Credit, in 1912, and his next major work was a critique called Socialism, published in 1922. It was around this time that his monetary theories began to gain popularity in the US, and Benjamin M. Anderson, an economist at New York's Chase National Bank, became Mises' outspoken backer.
1425
1426Friedrich A. Hayek was born seventeen years after Mises, and he attended the University of Vienna while Mises was an unpaid lecturer there. He did not meet Mises at the University, but he did study under Friedrich von Wieser who later introduced Hayek to Mises, which led to the close collaboration between the two men that was to last for decades. Hayek idolized his mentor and said of him, "there is no single man to whom I owe more intellectually."
1427
1428In 1923 Hayek made his way to New York, utilizing the connections that had been made between the Austrian School and the Establishment. For a year Hayek worked in close contact with the National Bureau of Economic Research at Columbia University. The NBER has always been an organ of the American Establishment, and its director Wesley Mitchell, with whom Hayek worked, was a member of the CFR board of directors from 1927-1934. Hayek was impressed with the NBER's research and when he returned to Austria he worked with Mises to set up an Austrian counterpart, the Austrian Institute of Economic Research, to which Mises appointed him director.
1429
1430In 1926 Ludwig von Mises was prompted by his American friends to make a lecture tour of American universities. The tour was sponsored by the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Foundation and was a great success in promoting the Austrian School of Economics to the brightest of America's young economists.
1431
1432In 1929 Hayek published his first book, Monetary Theory and the Trade Cycle. This work was very well received by the Establishment and because of it Hayek was invited by Sir Lionel Robbins, the chairman of the Economics Department at the London School of Economics (LSE), to lecture at his school. At the same time the Austrian School was also gaining a great deal of positive publicity because of its accurate forecasts of the stock market Crash of 1929. Mises claimed to have made the general prediction, and Hayek claimed to have predicted the crash "within the next few months" in early 1929. However, the prediction of the crash was hardly as amazing as Austrian School admirers would like to think. At the time of their predictions Mises and Hayek were enjoying ever closer relations with the American Establishment, which certainly saw it coming, and the CFR itself predicted the crash by liquidating its $300,000 portfolio the year before.
1433
1434Nonetheless, Mises and Hayek both became even more popular, and after the success of his lectures in London Hayek was offered a prestigious job at the LSE as the Tooke Professor of Economic Science and Statistics in 1931. According to Lionel Robbins himself, Hayek was brought to the LSE specifically "to fight Keynes," and with Robbins and Hayek firmly in control of the economics department the Fabian's London School of Economics became the headquarters for the campaign to promote laissez faire on behalf of the Establishment against the challenge coming from sovereign and independent governments.
1435
1436In 1934 Mises, because of his distrust of Hitler, left Austria and accepted a job as professor of International Economics at the University of Geneva. Mises hated Hitler, but for all the wrong reasons. A great deal of Hitler's popularity came from his economic successes and his program of state intervention into the economy. Under Hitler Germany issued credit to promote the general welfare of the people, and public works programs such as the Autobahn were taken up; industry was protected from foreign competition; national health care was instituted as well as unemployment insurance; and education standards were set up. The German people were not inherently wicked, they were seduced by Hitler because he genuinely helped the country, if only so far as the economy was concerned. From the perspective of the Austrian School, it wasn't Hitler's totalitarianism that was the problem, it was his meddling in their precious "free market" that angered them. Mises' views on Hitler can be understood by the views of his fellow Austrian School colleagues. Here is what Hayek wrote in his 1944 bestseller, The Road To Serfdom,
1437
1438No doubt an American or English Fascist system would greatly differ from the Italian or German model. No doubt, if the transition were effected without violence we might expect to get a better type of leader. And if I had to live under a fascist regime, I have no doubt that I would rather live under one run by an Englishman or American than under one run by anyone else.
1439
1440Hayek's wish for a fascist system "to get a better type of leader" was an attack aimed directly at FDR. Roosevelt was hardly a totalitarian, but he was hated because he used the government and intervened into the free market to improve the general welfare of the people. Another Austrian economist, Joseph Schumpeter, who was hired by the Establishment to teach economics at Harvard in 1935, had this to say when asked by an inquisitive woman if he would vote for FDR, "My dear lady, if Hitler runs for President and Stalin for Vice President, I shall be happy to vote for that ticket against Roosevelt."
1441
1442In his Memoirs David Rockefeller fondly recalls his years at Harvard studying under Professor Schumpeter and other professors of similar outlook. From them it can be seen quite clearly that Harvard had also become a bastion of laissez faire economic theory at a time when the general public felt quite the opposite about allowing Big Business to operate unchecked. Rockefeller writes,
1443
1444    I was most influenced that year by Joseph Schumpeter. In fact, one of the intellectual high points of my graduate work was his basic course in economic theory. Schumpeter was already considered one of the world's premier economists. He had been active in politics in Austria and had served briefly as minister of finance in 1919. He had also run a private bank in Vienna for a time in the 1920s. He arrived at Harvard in 1932 [taking over Taussig's post in 1935] and was in his mid-fifties when I met him in the fall of 1936.
1445    Schumpeter was most interested in the entrepreneur's role in the process of economic development, and by the mid-1930s he had emerged as one of the principal champions of the neoclassical economic tradition...
1446    Professor Gottfried von Haberler's course on international trade also influenced me greatly. A charming man with courteous European manners, Professor von Haberler had just arrived on campus that fall with a reputation as a staunch defender of free trade. His ideas were ignored in the 1930s when nations around the world gave in to the siren song of protectionism, but they would have a great impact after World War II when international trade expanded and world economic growth surged dramatically.
1447    Professor Edward S. Mason's equally interesting course covered the nascent area if international economic development... His pioneering work would make him one of the leading proponents of foreign economic assistance in the years after World War II, a subject that would engage me deeply as I became involved with Latin America and Africa later in my career. [To the great detriment of those regions!]
1448
1449David Rockefeller then goes on to describe his decision to attend the London School of Economics, and how the way was paved for him through his family's generous grants to the institution from the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial and from the Rockefeller Foundation. He also mentions his father's friendship with Sir William Beveridge, who was the director of the LSE, and who provided accommodations for David only a short walk away from the university.
1450
1451While enrolled at the LSE the young David Rockefeller was personally tutored in economics by none other than Professor Friedrich A. Hayek. Rockefeller explains,
1452
1453    The economists at LSE were much more conservative than the rest of the faculty. In fact, its economists comprised the major center of opposition in England to Keynes and his Cambridge School of interventionist economics.
1454    My tutor that year was Friedrich von Hayek, the noted Austrian economist who in 1974 would receive the Nobel Prize for the work he had done in the 1920s and 1930s on money, the business cycle, and capital theory. Like Schumpeter, Hayek placed his trust in the market, believing that over time, even with its many imperfections, it provided the most reliable means to distribute resources efficiently and to ensure sound economic growth. Hayek also believed that government should play a critical role as the rule maker and umpire and guarantor of a just and equitable social order, rather than the owner of economic resources or the arbiter of markets.
1455    Hayek was in his late thirties when I first met him. Indisputably brilliant, he lacked Schumpeter's spark and charisma... Nevertheless, I found myself largely in agreement with his basic economic philosophy.
1456
1457After spending a year under the care of Hayek at the LSE, David Rockefeller had to make a choice as to where he would finish his college education. It was not a hard choice to make,
1458
1459After a year in London I was eager to return to the United States to complete my graduate work at the University of Chicago, which boasted one of the premier economics faculties in the world, including such luminaries as Frank Knight, Jacob Viner, George Stigler, Henry Schultz, and Paul Douglas. I had heard Knight lecture at the LSE and found his more philosophical approach to economics quite compelling. Lionel Robbins knew Knight well and urged me to study with him. The fact that Grandfather had helped found the university played a distinctly secondary role in my choice.
1460
1461So finally we arrive at the truth. The University of Chicago, founded by John D. Rockefeller Sr., should be more aptly named the University of Rockefeller, and the Chicago School of laissez faire economics should be more aptly named the Rockefeller School of "How to Neutralize Governments and Sidestep Democracy, so as to Exploit the People, Plunder the Resources, and Absorb the Wealth of the World, Thereby Destroying the Nation-State and Paving the Way for a Totalitarian New World Order." All done under the guise of "conservatism" of course, and in the name of economic "freedom" and "liberty."
1462
1463In his memoirs, after Rockefeller mentions his enrollment at his Grandfather's university, he tearfully laments the negative reputation that the school has gained over the decades, and then shamelessly shifts the blame to his family's de facto employee, Milton Friedman,
1464
1465    The Chicago "school of economics" has gained a great deal of fame and not a little notoriety over the past fifty years for its unwavering advocacy of the market and strong support for monetarism. These ideas are intimately associated with Milton Friedman, whose views have now come to symbolize a Chicago School that is strongly doctrinaire in its insistence that government should not interfere at all with the market and the natural pricing mechanism. Friedman also argues that business should concentrate exclusively on optimizing profits and should not be sidetracked by involvement in outside activities that are "socially responsible."
1466    While Friedman later became an associate of Professor Knight and Viner on the economics faculty, I have no doubt they would have resisted being categorized as members of the Chicago School in the narrow present-day meaning of the term. They both favored the "invisible hand of the market" over government intervention as the best means to sustain economic growth, but I believe they would have objected to Friedman's cavalier dismissal of corporate social responsibility.
1467
1468Jacob Viner, the Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Chicago, as it may be recalled from Part 4, was the man who led the Economics Group of the CFR's War and Peace Studies Project that was itself funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. Viner was also the originator of the concept that led to the creation of the IMF and the World Bank, and he played a pivotal role for the CFR at Bretton Woods. When Viner left Chicago for Princeton in 1946, Milton Friedman took his position and became the voice of the Chicago School. According to his memoirs, while at the University of Chicago young Rockefeller was able to enlist Viner, along with the influential New Deal basher Frank Knight, as members of his personal "thesis committee" to aid him in writing his dissertation.
1469
1470About the same time Rockefeller was working on his thesis, back in London Friedrich Hayek was creating an organization that would later re-form as the Mont Pelerin Society. The early group was formed in 1939 and was known as the Society for the Renovation of Liberalism. Members of the organization included Frank Knight and Henry Simons of the University of Chicago, the slavishly pro-British American Fabian Socialist Walter Lippman, the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, Sir John Clapham of the Bank of England, and of course, Ludwig von Mises.
1471
1472All of these early members of Hayek's group then met at Mont Pelerin, Switzerland to form the influential, highly-secretive, and elitist Mont Pelerin Society in 1947, the world's first international free market association. Its founding members also included the young Milton Friedman, Otto von Habsburg, the "heir" to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and Max von Thurn und Taxis the head of the ancient and massively wealthy Bavarian family dynasty.
1473
1474The Mont Pelerin Society replaced the Fabian Society as the favored apparatus for the Establishment's push for a New World Order, and it reflected the Establishment's shift away from socialism towards laissez faire capitalism. From the beginning the Mont Pelerin Society worked hand-in-hand with the Pan European Union and, according to investigator Jeffrey Steinberg in his article on Hayek, "The concept of a Pan-European federation was a cornerstone of von Hayek's scheme, which demanded the replacement of the nation-state with a "benign" feudalist system."
1475
1476In 1940 the American Establishment sought out reinforcements for its battle against the government, and so Ludwig von Mises himself was brought to the United States from Geneva. He was given an inconspicuous position at New York University, where he took a post as an unpaid lecturer. His income, as his biography at www.mises.org explains, was provided by "business people" and "foundations." In truth, his salary was paid by the Rockefeller Foundation and supplemented with contributions from Big Business journalists Henry Hazlitt and Lawrence Fertig, among others. Then in 1944 Mises published two books that were made possible with grants from the Rockefeller Foundation and from the aforementioned CFR-linked National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).
1477
1478In 1946 Mises became an advisor to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), which is exposed in George Seldes' book 1000 Americans (published 1947), as the most influential lobby in the US at the time and one of the most important voices for Big Business. In the following passage Seldes lashes out at the war-time profiteering of Big Business, as enabled by the lobbying and influence of the NAM,
1479
1480    In the First World War, as congressional inquiries immediately afterwards, and the Nye-Vandenberg and other investigations later revealed, the corporate interests held up and robbed the government and the American people of billions of dollars. The profits were beyond belief. No less than 23,000 persons became millionaires and multimillionaires out of that war. It was determined that this must never happen again. The American Legion went on record with an official resolution that the profits must be taken out of war, and that the nation must conscript business and wealth as well as men - a resolution it betrayed in 1941. Bernard M. Baruch issued the slogan "take the profits out of war" and drew up blueprints for the mobilization of industry.
1481    However, all these things were forgotten in 1940 when the defense program went into effect. But from 1940 on, and to this very day, the standard newspaper press repeats and repeats, until a vast majority believes it, that labor went on strikes, labor did not do a patriotic job, and that business was not only patriotic but noble, and that free enterprise saved the country and the world.
1482    The opposite of course is true...
1483    In fact, and in truth, the great sit-down strikes of 1940 and 1941 and even later, was the strike of the National Association of Manufacturers and Chamber of Commerce, against the American people and against the war effort. If any one group in America betrayed the rest, it was the big business group. The "treason" of big business in the Second World War, once publicly denounced by Truman, was never mentioned in the press, no investigations were ever made of business as a whole, and no books have yet been written documenting this un-American history.
1484
1485Seldes then goes on to highlight the corporate monopolization of the press and its Big Business bias that permeated the country even back in 1947, and he exposes the control exercised over the seven monthly magazines, the seven weeklies and the major newspapers. He then highlights the Morgan and DuPont Empires, the thirteen most powerful families, the twelve super rulers of American industry, and the power of the Big Eight banks, these eight all based in New York City. Taken together, the research of George Seldes meshes very well with the research of Imperial Brain Trust into the nature of the Council on Foreign Relations, and they both pierce right into the heart of the American Establishment.
1486
1487The battle against government intervention into the "free market" cranked up several notches in 1944 when, with much international publicity, Friedrich Hayek published what is perhaps his most famous work, The Road to Serfdom. It was a very broad attack against John Maynard Keynes, against FDR's New Deal, against socialism, and also against the very existence of the Nation-State. Mark Skousen in The Making of Modern Economics, explains how the book was received in the US,
1488
1489The University of Chicago, Hayek's American publisher, arranged for a book tour in the United States in the spring of 1945. Henry Hazlitt gave The Road to Serfdom a rave review as the lead feature in the Sunday New York Times Book Review, and Reader's Digest published a condensed version. Hayek arrived in New York harbor to find himself a cause celébre. The academic book became a huge best-seller and Hayek enjoyed a whirlwind tour of lectures and interviews.
1490
1491One of the best critiques of Hayek and of his book is given by author David J. Peterson, in Revoking the Moral Order - The Ideology of Positivism and the Vienna Circle. Rather than looking through an economic context, Peterson looks at Hayek through the philosophical context of his involvement with the so-called "positivists" of the Vienna Circle that also included Sigmund Freud, Ernst Mach, Neils Bohr, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolph Carnap, Moritz Schlick, Karl Popper and the vicious anti-Christian "pacifist" Bertrand Russell. Peterson explains how The Road to Serfdom is a propaganda piece for a New World Order,
1492
1493...The Hayek international credo is based on "limited sovereignty," a term that means eliminating the concept of the independent nation state. In reality the plan would place a wealthy power elite or financial oligarchy comprised of Hayek's backers in a position to assert their increasing power and domination over virtually all international commerce and trade.
1494    Writing in The Road to Serfdom, Professor Hayek's own words make it all perfectly clear. He declares,
1495
1496If the resources of different nations are treated as exclusive properties of these nations as a whole, if international relations, instead of being relations between individuals, become increasingly relations between whole (sovereign) nations organized as trading bodies, they inevitably become the source of friction and envy between whole nations. ... [If] economic transactions between national bodies who are at the same time the SUPREME JUDGES OF THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR, who BOW TO NO SUPERIOR LAW and whose (elected) representatives cannot be bound by any considerations but the immediate interest of their respective nation, [the result] must end in clashes of power.
1497
1498He includes an incredible assertion that without such a super agency, independent sovereign states all have the potential to emulate Nazi Germany which was, he says, "merely the first to take the path along which all the others are ultimately to follow."
1499    The premise of his argument is that the great danger or bogeyman preventing world peace is the existence of independent sovereign nations. It is almost word for word the identical formulation used by the Fabians, World Federalists and Bertrand Russell style pacifists to justify their own world super state...
1500    In case anyone missed Hayek's meaning the first time, he repeats it again (on page 235),
1501
1502It is worth recalling that the idea of the world at last finding peace through absorption of the separate states in federated groups and ultimately perhaps in one single federation, far from being new, was indeed the ideal of almost all the several thinkers of the nineteenth century. From Tennyson whose much quoted 'battle of the air' is followed by a vision of the federation of the people which will follow their last great fight, right down to the end of the century, the final achievement of a federal organization remained the ever recurring hope of a next step in the advance of civilization. Nineteenth century liberals may not have been fully aware how essential a complement of their principles a federal organization of the different states formed, but there were few among them who did not express their belief in it as an ultimate goal.
1503
1504Hayek adds one more important detail - A modest proposal to establish a global police force. He says,
1505
1506A true system of law which guarantees both that the certain rules are invariably enforced and that the authority to enforce these cannot use it for any other purpose, for its task of enforcing the common law the SUPERNATIONAL AUTHORITY MUST BE VERY POWERFUL.
1507
1508...With his utopian vision, Hayek built up the Mont Pelerin Society with the encouragement and support of a super elite comprised of the top financial aristocracy of Europe. The goal was to promote unlimited "freedom" for their own special interests: the freedom to grab and loot any or all of the world's resources. This is what the financial journalists are touting today as a full 'globalization' of the world markets. The enforcement arms are agencies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations with its many affiliates and sub groups.
1509
1510The Road to Serfdom was meant to attack the concept of the nation-state, and to highlight how government intrusion into the economy is just the first step on the road towards inevitable national totalitarianism. The "serfs" in Hayek's title are the citizens shackled by the rules of sovereign nations, however Hayek's ultimate remedy for this potential "serfdom," is in fact a greater "serfdom" of every individual on the planet subjected to the law of a single SUPERNATIONAL AUTHORITY of a world federation ruled by an unelected elite. For Hayek, that is the ultimate goal which his brand of extreme laissez faire economics is meant to achieve, and is achieving, step by step every day as Hayek's patrons continue to "gradually absorb the wealth of the world."
1511
1512After the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society in 1947 things moved quickly for the advancement of the "free market." In 1949 Ludwig von Mises published Human Action, his magnum opus, a massive, 900-page, full-scale economic treatise, referred to by his student Murray N. Rothbard as "one of the finest products of the human mind in our century." With its publication the Establishment press came out with its endorsements. Newsweek said that "it should be the leading text," and the Wall Street Journal, predictably, said that "it ought to be on the bookshelf of every thinking man."
1513
1514Note: (Skousen  writes that after running into problems with the second edition of  Human Action at Yale University Press, Mises turned to publisher Henry Regnery to publish the third edition in 1966. Henry Regnery is also the long-time backer of the John Birch Society, and his father was a close associate of the University of Chicago's chancellor Robert M. Hutchins. Together they helped found the America First Committee that fought FDR and preceded the JBS. Hutchins was a member of the CFR and a one world government fanatic, authoring the "Preliminary Draft of a World Constitution" in 1950. He also helped to bring to the University the synarchist philosopher Leo Strauss, the godfather of today's so-called "neo-conservatives" that surround and manipulate President George W. Bush.)
1515
1516In 1950 Friedrich Hayek himself was brought to the University of Chicago to teach, not economics, but as professor on the Committee on Social Thought, a very dangerous field for a man with the views and influence such as Hayek. He stayed at Chicago for twelve years, confirming the preeminence of the Austrian School of free market economics in the US and solidifying the Chicago School as its new headquarters. While at Chicago he published The Counter-Revolution of Science, reviewed below by Jeffrey Steinberg,
1517
1518    In that 1952 book, von Hayek... railed against the two great achievements of the Council of Florence and the Golden Renaissance: the creation of the modern nation-state governed by principles of natural law, and the development of modern science. Von Hayek rejected the idea that the individual was capable of creative scientific discovery, describing it as a fraudulent construct, demonstrating the "collectivist prejudices" which he claimed were inherent in all science.
1519    Von Hayek devoted an entire chapter of The Counter-Revolution of Science to an attack against France's L'Ecole Polytechnique, and particularly against its two greatest figures, Gaspare Monge and Lazare Carnot. What he specifically detested about the L'Ecole Polytechnique -- which he ridiculed as the "new temple of science" and the "source of the scientific hubris" -- was, in his own words, the L'Ecole's notion that there were "no limits to the power of the human mind and to the extent to which man could hope to harness and control all the forces which had so far threatened and intimidated him." This, he denounced as "a metaphysical fiction."
1520    Von Hayek didn't stop there. He then argued that the L'Ecole Polytechnique was the source of all subsequent socialist ideas, from Henri Saint-Simon, to Auguste Comte, to Karl Marx. He then went one step further. He lumped together as leading Saint-Simonists, the great American System political economists Henry Carey and Friedrich List!
1521    Von Hayek totally rejected the principle that man was created in the image of God. In fact, he traced his own philosophical roots to the early eighteenth century Satanist, Bernard Mandeville. In a lecture he delivered at the British Academy on March 23, 1966, von Hayek lauded Mandeville as a "master mind," as the inventor of modern psychology, and as the true intellectual forbearer of David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham, Carl Savigny and Charles Darwin. 
1522    Von Hayek argued in his Mandeville lecture that Mandeville's poem, "The Fable of the Bees," was perhaps the greatest philosophical treatise ever composed. He credited Mandeville with inspiring Adam Smith's argument for the unbridled free market.
1523
1524And so we are brought back again to Adam Smith's fundamental conclusion that the pursuit of individual self-interest is the legitimate foundation of a successful society. Both Mises and Hayek adopted this conclusion, taking it to the furthest extremes. In Theory and History, published in 1957, Ludwig von Mises wrote,
1525
1526The older ethical systems were almost unanimous in the condemnation of self-interest... Referring to the Sermon on the Mount, they exalted self-denial and indifference with regard to treasures which moth and rust corrupt, and branded self-interest as a reprehensible vice. Bernard de Mandeville in his Fable of the Bees, tried to discredit this doctrine. He pointed out that self-interest and the desire for material well-being, commonly stigmatized as vices, are in fact the incentives whose operation makes for welfare, prosperity, and civilization.
1527
1528David Peterson, in Revoking the Moral Order, focuses on the parallel conclusions drawn by Friedrich Hayek, and explains how genuine Christianity has always been the Austrian School's greatest enemy,
1529
1530    ...Professor Hayek's attempt to dissect economic history contains an insidious lie which reveals his deep seated rage against moral law and the Judeo-Christian outlook. Hayek claims two cultural attitudes he labels "primitive instincts" had to be rooted out to allow modern industrialism to develop. He says primitive cultures burdened mankind with "solidarism," a concern for the welfare of the community, and "altruism", a charitable and self sacrificing attitude toward one's neighbors. According to Hayek, at the start of the eighteenth century, these "instincts" in Western culture finally broke down and gave way to naked self interest and greed. It was in those regions and towns where Christianity proved tolerant to this cultural shift that free markets and modern capitalism blossomed forth, which created unprecedented wealth and prosperity.
1531    Solidarism and altruism are unequivocally the essence of a true Christian civilization. They are the cultural expression of "agape" or charity, derived from a devotion to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Austrian School philosopher praises capitalism and individual freedom because he believes they are a triumph over the ridiculous superstitions of Christianity. Hayek insists that attempts to resurrect the outmoded "instincts" of human solidarity and social justice will lead to catastrophe and destroy freedom. All such laws must be stopped. In his view, "the distributive justice aimed at is thus inconsistent with the rule of law and that freedom which the rule of law is intended to secure."
1532    Hayek's individualism is so extreme he speaks of social justice as a devious plot which will lead to fascism,
1533
1534My basic contention is that in a society of free men ... the term social justice is wholly devoid of meaning or content. Attempts to ENFORCE IT in a free society must make society unworkable. Social Justice can be given meaning only in a directed command (i.e. totalitarian) economy in which individuals are ordered what to do.
1535
1536In Hayek's pessimistic vision, democratic society is entirely negative; there is no positive natural law. Government can only limit destructive behavior: it is but a referee that contains the clash of the combatants, the struggle that Social Darwinists call, "the survival of the fittest."
1537
1538And in just such a struggle it is the strong that devour the weak, and the rich that plunder the poor. That is what happens when Adam Smith's views are taken to their extremes, when the Austrian School, or the Chicago School, or the Rockefeller School is allowed to make the rules for the global economy. The freedom and liberty that Hayek and others of his ilk champion is the freedom of the strong to devour at will, and the liberty of the rich to plunder at will, proudly and boldly, without either shame or guilt. It is the freedom to oppress that they are concerned with rather than the freedom from oppression, which was the form of freedom that America's founding fathers envisioned for their new nation, and the type of freedom promised through Jesus Christ. Perhaps now the designation of extreme laissez faire economic theory as "satanic" is sounding much more appropriate.
1539
1540After Hayek moved to Chicago he continued to guide the Mont Pelerin Society. In 1955 a member of the Society, Antony Fisher, founded the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London, along with Hayek, British economist Allan Walters,  and Ralph Harris who, according to Steinberg, was a leader of the British Eugenics Society which had helped to draft Hitler's race laws.
1541
1542In the following years Antony Fisher and the Mont Pelerin Society would be influential in creating numerous "conservative" think tanks and organizations that promoted neo-liberal free market economic policies for the Establishment. This is a crucial point to understand: that Hayek's economic views were that of extreme liberalism. He hated rules for Big Business, and he hated government involvement in the economy. He understood his position clearly and refused to be labeled a "conservative." Hayek made this clear in his essay "Why I Am Not A Conservative" in his book The Constitution of Liberty, published by the University of Chicago in 1960. Those who claim to be "fiscal conservatives" today, demagogues like Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger, are in fact extreme liberals, and true Conservatism as a social outlook would be much healthier, and much more Christian, if it were purged of this corrupting liberal influence that dominates the thinking of Conservatives when it comes to economic matters.
1543
1544Nonetheless, the corruption of American Conservatism was a huge success, and the neo-liberal economic agenda promoted by Hayek, Fisher and the Mont Pelerin Society expanded to include the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC in 1973, the Fraser Institute in Vancouver in 1974, the Manhattan Institute in 1977, and the Pacific Institute for Public Policy Research in San Francisco in 1978. However the big break came in 1979. Steinberg explains,
1545
1546    When Margaret Thatcher was elected Prime Minister of Britain in 1979, the Mont Pelerin apparatus moved right into 10 Downing Street. In recognition of the Mont Pelerin Society's loyal service to the House of Windsor, Queen Elizabeth II appointed Ralph Harris a peer for life, as Lord Harris of High Cross, and knighted Antony Fisher and Allan Walters. Walters was given an office at 10 Downing Street as Thatcher's resident economics advisor...
1547    ...Following the Thatcher victory, Mont Pelerin launched an ambitious overhaul of Heritage, importing a half dozen British Mont Pelerinites in anticipation of the 1980 Presidential run by Ronald Reagan.
1548    Following the Thatcher election in Britain, Fisher also contacted von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and other leading Mont Pelerin figures and spelled out an ambitious expansion effort; in effect, the launching of a new fascist (i.e. Conservative Revolution) international.
1549
1550On January 1, 1980, Hayek, smelling victory over "socialism," wrote back to his friend Fisher and voiced his agreement with the plan to expand London's IEA all over the world, saying that any money for the effort would be well spent. Shortly after, the plan was endorsed by Thatcher and joined by Milton Friedman. In a strategy paper in 1985 Fisher highlighted the need to transform the perception of Mont Pelerin's policies from radical, extreme and anti-government, to the perception that they were simply the "new orthodoxy." Fisher wrote, "To inform the public, it is necessary to avoid any suggestion of vested interest, or intent to indoctrinate..."
1551
1552How would Americans have reacted if they realized that the "free market revolution" of the Reagan years was a Rockefeller ploy, planned by the super rich of Wall Street, New York and London, to dominate the world, steal its wealth and establish a New World Order? How would the world react today if it realized that in truth there is no such thing as a "free market"? As Jeffrey Steinberg so aptly points out,
1553
1554"Remove sovereign nation-states from a role in economic development and all you have is the oligarchy's cartels."
1555
1556The "free market" takeover of the British and American governments occurred when Milton Friedman's Chicago School was at the very height of international acclaim. In 1976 Friedman had won the Nobel Prize for Economics, and in 1980 PBS launched a $2.5 million, ten-part miniseries on Milton Friedman and the free market called Free to Choose. Over three million unwitting Americans tuned in for the indoctrination, and afterwards the book based on the series sold over a million copies. Milton Friedman became a household name and his neo-liberal brand of economics gained its greatest influence among American Conservatives and the parishioners of Big Christianity.
1557
1558Many Free Marketeers (or rather, "Free Profiteers") like to claim that laissez faire economics as an ideology is an underdog, always fighting against the Establishment that supposedly prefers state-sponsored socialism. Strange then, that since 1969 when the Nobel Committee began handing out Nobel Prizes for Economics, that the overwhelming majority of Nobels have been handed out to free market economists. In fact, professors based at the Rockefeller's University of Chicago have won more Nobel prizes than professors from any other institution on earth. Mark Skousen explains,
1559
1560    There's no better indicator of the renaissance of free-market economics than the list of winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science, one of the most prestigious awards in the world. Since 1969, when Sweden added the sixth Nobel category, the vast majority of awards have gone to free-market economists. Keynesians who have won include Paul Samuelson, James Tobin, and Robert Solow, but since 1974, when Friedrich Hayek shared the prize with socialist Gunnar Myrdal, the scales have tipped noticeably toward free-market advocates.
1561    Moreover, almost all of the winners have taught at or attended the University of Chicago. During the 1990s, the majority of Nobels went to this one school, including Ronald Coase, Gary Becker, Robert Fogel, and Robert Lucas.
1562
1563The free market revolution of the early 1980s was greatly helped by behind-the-scenes manipulations from the Establishment, and Antony Fisher's plan to expand the Institute of Economic Affairs was carried out with great success. The end result was that by 1995, in an interview for Reason magazine, Milton Friedman exclaimed "I think there are too damn many think tanks now!" Skousen explains,
1564
1565One of the reasons Friedrich Hayek established the Mont Pelerin Society was to spread the concepts of economic liberty and to restore the principles of classical economics. Then along came a British chicken farmer, Sir Antony Fisher (1915-88), who established the Institute of Economic Affairs in London. Fisher was so enamored with the idea of setting up free-market foundations that he created an organization for the very purpose of creating more institutes around the world: the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, based in Fairfax, Virginia. Gradually, his vision has succeeded. Today there are hundreds of free-market think tanks throughout the world, and many institutions previously considered antimarket, such as the Brookings Institution and the World Bank, have become market friendly. Atlas lists 350 organizations, including such big names as Heritage, Cato, and the American Enterprise Institute, but also lists dozens of free-market think tanks in Europe, Latin America, and Asia.
1566
1567Sir Antony Fisher, the mild-mannered "chicken farmer," established the Atlas Foundation in 1981, and it was all timed to come together at a very crucial period in history, when the Third World was vulnerable and ripe for the taking and when government protection of their economies needed to be challenged and neutralized. The hundreds of free-market think tanks that were spawned around the world did their duty of indoctrination, and then the Establishment's cabals swooped in and plundered the spoils. The next section of our study will explain how it all worked out.
1568 
1569American Babylon
1570-Rise and Fall-
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575Part 6: Globalization and the American New World Order
1576
1577The Oil Weapon
1578The Dollar Weapon
1579Four Steps to Economic Subjugation
1580The Sad Fate of Labor   
1581The Importer of Last Resort
1582
1583 
1584
1585The Oil Weapon
1586
1587The present Anglo-American financial domination of virtually the entire world was achieved through a series of coldly calculated and brilliant, yet sinister steps. These steps are explained in the book A Century of War by F. William Engdahl. This hard-to-find but crucially important historical work explores how the Anglo-American Establishment has used its control of oil, the resource that powers the economies of the world, to advance its agenda of global control.
1588
1589Note: [Used copies of A Century of War can be purchased through www.Amazon.com, or through www.bookfinder.com at prices ranging from $140-$300 a copy. As an alternative I recommend the following site where important excerpts from the book can be read. An excellent review of the book can also be found in Alan B. Jones' book How the World Really Works. The historical education that A Century of War offers is critical and should not be passed up.]
1590
1591Engdahl explains that in 1928 the previously competing major world oil cartels signed an agreement known as the Achnacarry Agreement, (signed in Achnacarry Scotland), that divided the world's oil resources and markets between the seven major British and American controlled cartels, the legendary 'Seven Sisters.' These seven were Esso (Standard Oil of New Jersey, now Exxon), Mobil (Standard Oil of New York), Gulf Oil, Texaco, Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Royal Dutch Shell, and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum).
1592
1593Engdahl writes that after the Achnacarry Agreement the Seven Sisters "were effectively one institution," and that with it, "British and American oil majors agreed to accept the existing market divisions and shares, to set a secret world cartel price, and end the destructive competition and price wars of the last decade." He says that since this 1928 agreement, "the Anglo-American grip over the world's oil reserves has been hegemonic," and that "threats to break that grip have been met with ruthless response..." Engdahl's book documents a number of instances throughout history where this ruthlessness was displayed.
1594
1595After World War II the global economic system was created at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, and the American dollar became the world's foundational currency, pegged to gold at $35/ounce. Engdahl writes that the Bretton Woods system was built upon the 'three pillars' of the IMF, the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which eventually evolved into the World Trade Organization. Because of the primacy of the dollar, the US Federal Reserve became the real master of the entire system, and the Federal Reserve, of course, is a private enterprise that is not 'Federal,' that possess no reserves, that is owned and controlled by the New York banks.
1596
1597These same New York banks were, and are, also tightly interlocked with the major American oil cartels. After World War II the Rockefeller faction controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, National City Bank, Chemical Bank, the Bank of New York, Kuhn-Loeb, and others, and also many of the major oil companies including the various Standard Oil franchises and Mobil Oil. It is significant, then, that after the Marshall Plan for rebuilding western Europe was begun, the single greatest European expenditure was on American oil. Engdahl writes that of the hundreds of different commodities purchased through the Marshall Plan, fully 10% of the aid went to buy American oil, and by 1947 the Big Five American oil companies supplied half of western Europe's oil. Big Oil used its monopoly to an advantage and doubled the price of oil between 1945 and 1948, while at the same time refusing to allow European countries to use Marshall Plan aid to rebuild European oil refining capacity.
1598
1599Over the next two decades western Europe was able to rebuild, and the Third World was able to modernize and industrialize a great deal as well. The Anglo-American problem, however, was that as Europe and the rest of the world became increasingly independent and self-sufficient they became less and less dependent upon American dollars. As the US refused to devalue the dollar against gold, many nations found it worthwhile to cash in their dollars for gold, and by 1971 US gold reserves "represented less than one quarter of her official liabilities." Engdahl explains the situation, and the remedy that the Establishment settled on,
1600
1601    The Wall Street establishment persuaded President Nixon to abandon fruitless efforts to support the dollar against the flood of international demand to redeem for gold.  But, unfortunately, they did not want the required dollar devaluation against gold which had been intensely sought for almost a decade.
1602    On August 15, 1971, Nixon took the advice of a close circle of key advisers... That sunny quiet August day, the President of the United States announced a move which rocked the world: formal suspension of dollar convertibility into gold, effectively putting the world completely onto a direct dollar-standard, with no gold backing.  By doing this, the US unilaterally ripped the central provision of the 1944 Bretton Woods system apart.  Foreign holders of US dollars could no longer redeem their paper for US gold reserves.
1603
1604After Nixon took the US off the gold standard he then announced that the Fed would pay 8% more for gold, offering $38/ounce. This half-hearted attempt to "devalue" the dollar was ineffective, and in February of 1973 the dollar was again devalued by 10% and the Fed's price for gold was set at $42.22/ounce. This action was also ineffective, and by the end of March the value of the US dollar had plummeted around the world, dropping 40% against the German Deutschmark. However, the Anglo-American financial establishment had an Ace up its sleeve, a card that was first revealed in May of 1973 at the Bilderberg meeting held at Saltsjoebaden, Sweden.
1605
1606The annual Bilderberg meetings had started at the Bilderberg Hotel near Arnheim in 1954, at the initiative of Prince Bernhard of Holland, and these meetings included the cream of the crop of the Anglo-American establishment, as well as any potential candidates who wanted to join the club and had something to offer. In 1973 the meeting was attended by 84 of the world's top financiers, corporate executives and politicians including Robert O. Anderson of ARCO petroleum, Lord Greenhill of British Petroleum, George Ball of Lehman Brothers, and of course David Rockefeller, who brought along one of his top strategists Zbigniew Brzezinski. Engdahl writes that the high point of the 1973 meeting occurred when CFR member Walter Levy outlined a "scenario" for a 400% increase in the international price of oil. According to Engdahl, "The purpose of the secret Saltsjoebaden meeting was not to prevent the expected oil price shock, but to plan and manage the about-to-be-created flood of oil dollars, a process US Secretary of State Kissinger later called 'recycling the petro-dollar flows.'" Engdahl explains the goal that was outlined at the meeting,
1607
1608    In 1973, the powerful men grouped around Bilderberg decided to launch a colossal assault against industrial growth in the world, in order to tilt the balance of power back to the advantage of Anglo-American financial interests. In order to do this, they determined to use their most prized weapon -- control of the world's oil flows. Bilderberg policy was to trigger a global oil embargo in order to force a dramatic increase in world oil prices. Since 1945, world oil trade had, by international custom, been priced in dollars. American oil companies dominated the postwar market. A sharp sudden increase in the world price of oil, therefore, meant an equally dramatic increase in world demand for US dollars to pay for that necessary oil.
1609    Never in history had such a small circle of interests, centered in London and New York, controlled so much of the entire world's economic destiny. The Anglo-American financial establishment resolved to use their oil power in a manner no one could imagine possible. Their scheme was utterly outrageous, and that was their chief advantage, they clearly reckoned.
1610
1611The Establishment's number one engineer of the planned global hike in oil prices was Henry Kissinger. It was he who manipulated Egypt and Syria into invading Israel on Yom Kippur in 1973, and it was he who facilitated the Arab oil embargo that ensued. Engdahl writes,
1612
1613Kissinger, who was by then Nixon's intelligence "czar", consistently suppressed US intelligence reports, including intercepted communications from Arab officials confirming the buildup for war. Washington scripted the war and its aftermath, including Kissinger's infamous "shuttle diplomacy," along the precise lines of the Bilderberg deliberations of the previous May in Saltsjoebaden, some six months before the outbreak of the war. Arab oil-producing nations were to be the scapegoat for the coming rage of the world, while the Anglo-American interests responsible stood quietly in the background.
1614
1615From 1949 to 1970 the global price of oil, dictated by OPEC from the early 1960s, remained steady at about $1.90/barrel. From 1970 to 1973 it gradually rose, and in early 1973, near the time of the Bilderberg meeting, it jumped to $3.01/barrel. The Yom Kippur war began on October 6, 1973, and on October 16 OPEC members met in Vienna and raised the price of oil by a staggering 70% to $5.11/barrel. This massive price hike was then dwarfed on January 1, 1974, when OPEC raised the price of oil by more than 100% to $11.65/barrel. Overall, from early 1973 to January of 1974 the price of oil jumped over 400%.
1616
1617To put this price hike in perspective, let's compare it to the current price of gas. Right now gas is somewhere close to $1.90 a gallon. Imagine that it jumped to $3.01 a gallon. Then imagine that a year after that you had to pay $11.65 a gallon for gas. The 1973 oil shock was a hike in oil prices on a similar scale. It was premeditated economic warfare against the entire world.
1618
1619Throughout the whole affair Nixon remained on the sidelines, unsure of what was happening and unsure of what to do. In 1974 he attempted to put together a plan with the US Treasury to force OPEC to lower prices, but according to a memo from a Nixon official at the time, "It was the banking leaders who swept aside this advice and pressed for a 'recycling' program to accommodate to higher oil prices. This was the fatal decision..."
1620
1621There were many losers in the new era of high-priced oil, but the "banking leaders" who guided the US Treasury were clear winners. Initially Saudi Arabia was one of the first of the oil producers to ally with the Anglo-American banks, and then by 1975 the new paradigm was secure. At that time OPEC ministers agreed to accept only US Dollars as payment for OPEC-produced oil. In effect, the stable gold standard had been exchanged for the erratic, but for Anglo-American banks highly profitable, oil standard. As a result, global demand for the "petro-dollar" was greatly increased and Anglo-American domination of the global economy was confirmed. The Anglo-American financial establishment and the oil-producing nations were winners, but the rest of the world was the big loser. Engdahl explains,
1622
1623    ...the impact of an overnight price increase of 400% in their primary energy source was staggering.  The vast majority of the world's less-developed economies, without significant domestic oil resources, were suddenly confronted with an unexpected and unpayable 400% increase in costs of energy imports, to say nothing of costs of chemicals and fertilizers for agriculture derived from petroleum. 
1624    In 1973, India had a positive balance of trade, a healthy situation for a developing economy. By 1974, India had total foreign exchange reserves of $629 millions with which to pay -- in dollars -- an annual oil import bill of almost double that or $1,241 million. In 1974, Sudan, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, Africa and Latin America country after country was faced with gaping deficits in its balance of payments. As a whole, over 1974 developing countries incurred a total trade deficit of $35 billion according to the IMF, a colossal sum in that day, and, not surprisingly, a deficit precisely 4 times as large as in 1973, or just in proportion to the oil price increase.
1625    Following the several years of strong industrial and trade growth of the early 1970s, the severe drop in industrial activity throughout the world economy in 1974-75 was greater than any such decline since the war.
1626
1627Up into the 1970s many developing nations had depended upon the World Bank's low-interest loans to help them industrialize and modernize. However, with the oil shock, the money that went to development was eaten up by the high energy costs. Nations had a choice to make: either stop developing, betray the hopes of their own people, and forget the long-term profits from development that the World Bank's loans were to be paid back with, or borrow money from the IMF to buy oil, service their debts and try to keep developing. This was no easy choice for nations to make and both paths led to even more indebtedness. Engdahl summarizes the situation prior to the pre-engineered "free market revolution" propaganda that flooded the world by 1980,
1628
1629If the methods reminded us of a perverse variation of the old mafia "protection racket" game, it is understandable. The same Anglo-American interests which manipulated political events to create a 400% increase in oil prices, then turned to the countries which were the victim of their assault, and "offered" to lend them petrodollars to finance the purchase of costly oil and other vital imports, at vastly inflated interest cost, of course.
1630    For the vast majority of the world living in less-developed regions, real industrial and agricultural development suffered the consequences of the Anglo-American oil policy. Petrodollars went to simply refinance deficits, rather then to finance creation of new infrastructure, agriculture, or to improve the living standards of the world's population.
1631    During 1975, the policy  organ of the Anglo-American liberal establishment, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, under the direction of New York attorney Cyrus Vance, drafted a series of policy blueprints for the 1980s, much as they had done at the critical turning point in the late 1950s recession.  In their account of the future of the global monetary order, the Council stated, "A degree of 'controlled dis-integration' in the world economy is a legitimate objective for the 1980s." What was disintegrating, however, was the entire fabric of traditional industrial and agricultural development, most clearly in the developing sector.
1632
1633
1634The Dollar Weapon
1635
1636The destruction of the promise of national self-sufficiency and genuine independence for the Third World, that was to be gained through development, was brought about to a great degree by the 1973 oil shock and the sinister alliance between OPEC and the Anglo-American financial establishment. However, the war on the progress of nations and human potential did not end there. After making oil costly as a source of development, and after tying the purchase of oil to the US Dollar, the Establishment then settled on a campaign to make US Dollars themselves much more expensive to acquire. This occurred only a few years later in the late 1970s under Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, and it took place under the cover of a bogus campaign to fight the shadowy and elusive enemy of "global inflation." It was another way in which the Establishment engineered "controlled disintegration" of the world economy.
1637
1638When Fed Chairman Paul Volcker began to jack up the Fed's interest rates the price of oil had already reached all-time highs of $40/barrel, which was blamed on the unstable situation in Iran as the Shah fell to the Anglo-American engineered revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini (See Engdahl Chapter 10 and this article). By raising interest rates Volcker made dollars even more expensive to borrow, and once acquired they could buy even less oil than after the crisis of 1973. Engdahl explains where Paul Volcker's policies originated,
1639
1640    It would be mistaken to think that the monetary shock therapy which Paul Volcker imposed on the United States beginning October 6, 1979, was Volcker's own invention.  The policy had been developed, and already implemented months before, in Britain.  Volcker and his close circle of New York banking friends... merely imposed the Thatcher government's monetary shock model under US conditions.
1641    In early May 1979 Margate Thatcher won the election against her Labour party opponent, James Callaghan. She campaigned on a platform of "squeezing inflation out of the economy."  But Thatcher, and the inner circle of modern-day Adam Smith "free market" ideologues who surrounded her, promoted a consumer fraud, insisting that government deficit spending, and not the 140% increase in the price of oil since the fall of Iran's Shah, was the chief "cause" of Britain's 18% rate of price inflation.
1642    According to the Thatcher government claim, inflated prices could again be lowered simply by cutting the supply of money to the economy, and since the major source of "surplus money", as argued, was from chronic government budget deficits, government expenditure must be savagely cut in order to reduce "monetary inflation."  The Bank of England simultaneously restricted credit to the economy by a policy of high interest rates, as their part of the remedy.  The effect was predictably depression, but it was called instead the "Thatcher revolution."
1643    Thatcher cut and squeezed.  In June, 1979, only one month after taking office, Thatcher's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Geoffrey Howe, began a process of raising Base Rates for the banking system a staggering five percentage points, from 12% up to 17%, in a matter of twelve weeks. This amounted to an unprecedented 42% increase in the cost of borrowing for industry and homeowners, in a matter of weeks. Never in modern history had an industrialized nation undergone such a shock in such a brief period, with the exception of a wartime economic emergency.
1644    The Bank of England simultaneously began to cut the money supply to insure that interest rates remained high.  Businesses went bankrupt, unable to pay borrowing costs; families were unable to buy new homes; long-term investment into power plants, subways, railroads, and other infrastructure ground to a virtual halt as a consequence of Thatcher's monetarist revolution...
1645    As Thatcher imposed the policies which earned her the name "The Iron Lady," unemployment in Britain doubled, rising from 1.5 million when she came into office to a level of 3 million by the end of her first eighteen months in office. Labor unions were targeted under Thatcher as obstacles to the success of the monetarist "revolution," the prime cause of the "enemy," inflation. All the time, with British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell exploiting astronomical prices of $36 or more per barrel for their North Sea oil, never a word was uttered against big oil or the City of London banks which were amassing huge sums of capital in the situation. Thatcher also moved to accommodate the big City banks be removing exchange controls, so that instead of capital being invested in rebuilding Britain's rotted industrial base, funds flowed out to speculate in real estate in Hong Kong or lucrative loans to Latin America.
1646    Beginning in Britain, then in the United States, and from there radiating outward from the Anglo-American world, the radical monetarism of Thatcher and Volcker spread like a cancer, with its insistent demands to cut government spending, lower taxes, deregulate industry and break the power of organized labor.  Interest rates rose around the world to levels never before imagined possible.
1647    In the United States, by early 1980 Volcker's monetary shock policy had driven US interest rates up to British levels, and some months later, beyond, to an astonishing 20% level for select interest rates.  The economics of this interest rate austerity were soon obvious to all. For any industrial investment to be "profitable" at 20% or even 17% interest rate levels, would mean that any normal investment which required more than four to five years to complete, was simply not possible. Interest charges on the construction alone prohibited this.
1648    ...This entire radical monetarist construct, advanced in the early 1980s first by the British regime of Thatcher, and soon after by the US Federal Reserve and the Reagan Administration, was one of the most cruel economic frauds ever perpetrated.  But its aim was far different from what its ideological "supply-side" economics advocates claim.
1649    The powerful liberal establishment circles of the City of London and New York were determined to use the same radical measures earlier imposed by Friedman to break the economy of Chile under Pinochet's military dictatorship, this time in order to inflict a devastating second blow against long-term industrial and infrastructure investment in the entire world economy.
1650
1651And so the "debt crisis" of Third World nations emerged as a major problem in the early years of the Reagan Administration. As developing nations were continually assaulted on the economic front they threatened to fight back by defaulting on their loans to Anglo-American banks. Some sort of solution had to be arrived at and the Third World and the big banks had to settle on a compromise. The Establishment's solution was unveiled by Secretary of State George Schultz on September 30, 1982 during his address to the UN General Assembly. George Schultz was a friend of Milton Friedman and a former economics student at the University of Chicago and the solution he offered was hardly a solution at all. Schultz advocated bringing in the IMF to police the debt repayment, to restructure developing economies, and to make Third World exports more attractive to the West. It was boldly proclaimed that the "Free Market" would save the Third World, and that they could buy their way out of debt by increasing their sale of raw materials.
1652
1653One of the most courageous defenders of the developing world was Mexican President Lopez Portillo. In 1976 Mexico was benefiting as a major oil producing nation and President Portillo used the profits to began an ambitious program to industrialize his backward nation. He focused on Mexico's infrastructure and, as Engdahl relates, he began to build roads, ports, petrochemical plants, agricultural complexes, and he even started a nuclear power program (one nuclear reactor can provide power for a modern city of one million people). To address the Mexican "threat" the Establishment orchestrated a run on the Mexican peso, and through a deliberate mass-media campaign advised Western investors to withdraw from Mexico.
1654
1655The flight of capital out of Mexico forced Portillo to devalue the peso by 30% in early 1982, and this act alone was a crushing blow against his program to modernize Mexico and make it truly free and independent. Because of the devaluation unemployment shot up, inflation shot up, but the price of Mexico's raw materials and average living standard went down. A Mexican case officer of the IMF said at the time, "This was just the right thing to do." Engdahl explains how the Mexican crisis led to a meeting on August 20, 1982 at the New York Federal Reserve where the Mexican Finance Minister addressed more than 100 influential New York bankers and explained to them the situation. Mexico held $82 billion in foreign debt, but its currency reserves had run dry. Mexico could not pay.
1656
1657On September 1 President Portillo nationalized, with compensation, the nation's private banks as well as the Central Bank, in a move to halt Mexico's economic disintegration. In a speech to his nation he called the banks "speculative and parasitical" and explained how they had stood by as $76 billion fled the country for foreign investment.
1658
1659On October 1, one day after US Secretary of State George Schultz spoke to the UN, President Portillo took his turn. He blasted the Anglo-American strategy and explained that high interest rates, combined with the drop in prices of raw materials were, "two blades of a pair of scissors that threatens to slash the momentum achieved in some countries, and to cut off the possibilities for progress in the rest." He then threatened to lead the developing world by suspending payments on Mexico's debt. He went on to say, "Mexico and many other countries of the Third World are unable to comply with the period of payment agreed upon under conditions quite different from those that now prevail... We developing countries do not want to become vassals. We cannot paralyze our economies or plunge our people into greater misery in order to pay a debt on which servicing has tripled without our participation or responsibility, and on terms that are imposed on us... Our efforts to grow in order to conquer hunger, disease, ignorance and dependency have not caused the international crisis."
1660
1661Unfortunately, President Portillo soon faded as a voice supporting the developing world against the onslaught from the Establishment. His term lasted for only two months after his UN address, and he was succeeded by President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado, who took over Mexico and meekly capitulated to the wishes of the Establishment. The IMF moved in on an international scale as the financiers' policeman and Engdahl describes what happened after that. It was...
1662
1663    ...the most concerted organized looting operation in modern history, far exceeding anything achieved during the 1920s.
1664    Contrary to the carefully cultivated impression in Western Europe or the US media, debtor countries paid many times over, literally with blood and the proverbial "pound of flesh" to the modern-day Shylocks of New York and London. It was not the case that after August 1982, large Third World debtor nations refused to pay. They had a "pistol to the head," under IMF pressure, to sign what the banks euphemistically termed "debt work-outs" with the leading private banks, most often led by Citicorp or Chase Manhattan of New York.
1665
1666
1667Four Steps to Economic Subjugation
1668
1669As Part 3 of this study documents, the previous decades had seen a concerted Anglo-American campaign against genuine Democracy in countless Third World nations around the globe. By 1980 the leaders of the Third World were, for the most part, simply puppets of the Anglo-American oligarchy, and when the debt crisis hit there were very few Third World leaders willing or able to stand up to their masters. Because of this moral and leadership vacuum, when the IMF was offered as a temporary solution on the way to the "free market" promised land, almost the entire Third World took the bait.
1670
1671IMF loans were only offered if the victim country agreed to a number of "conditionalities," which included cutting imports, slashing government budgets, raising taxes, and devaluing the currency. Then the debt was renegotiated and restructured and another fee for this "service" was tacked on to the principal. For instance, Mexico was forced to slash subsidies on medicines, foodstuffs, fuel and other necessities, while at the same time the peso was brought down to a level that was beyond criminal. In early 1982, after years of President Portillo's positive economic program, the exchange rate stood at 12 pesos to one US Dollar. Then the 30% devaluation occurred, and then by 1986 the peso had dropped even further to an incredible rate of 862 to the dollar. By 1989, the peso was devalued even further to the unbelievable rate of 2300 pesos per dollar. That is how the Anglo-American Establishment destroyed the Mexican economy. Engdahl compares Mexico to the Germany of the 1920s after similar conditions were imposed by the Anglo-Americans after World War I. But Mexico was only one case, as Engdahl writes,
1672
1673    The same process was repeated in Argentina, Brazil, Peru, Venezuela, and most of black Africa, including Zambia, Zaire, Egypt, and large parts of Asia.
1674    The IMF was the global "policeman" to enforce payment of usurious debts through imposition of the most draconian austerity in history. With the crucial voting block of the IMF firmly controlled by an American-British axis, the institution became the global enforcer of Anglo-American monetary and economic interests in a manner never before seen.  It was hardly surprising that victim countries shattered when told that they were to receive an IMF inspection visit...  
1675    As debtor after debtor was coerced to come to terms with the IMF and the creditor banks of the Ditchley Group [the bankers' cooperative], a reversal in capital flows of titanic dimensions set in.  According to the World Bank, between 1980 and 1986, for a group of 190 debtor countries, payment of interest alone to the creditors on foreign debts totaled $326 billion.  Repayment of principal on the same debts totaled another $332 billion, for combined debt service payment of $658 billions on an original debt of $430 billion.  But despite this effort, these 109 countries still owed to creditors a sum of $882 billion in 1986.  It was an impossible debt vortex.  Thus worked the wonders of compounded interest and floating rates.
1676
1677Studies have shown that throughout the 1980s the nations of the Third World transferred a total of about $400 billion to the United States, the majority of it in the form of debt service. Engdahl writes that "this allowed the Reagan Administration to finance the largest peacetime deficits in world history, while falsely claiming credit for 'the world's longest peacetime recovery.'" This influx of cash to American banks was good for the banks and their shareholders and executives, and it padded the GNP and the numbers at Wall Street, but the windfall in profits failed to trickle down much further and the overall Third World debt crisis was not a good thing for the US economy, as one report discovered. Engdahl explains,
1678
1679In May 1986, a Staff Study prepared for the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress on the "Impact of the Latin American Debt Crisis on the US Economy" took note of some of these alarming aspects of how the problem was being handled by the Reagan Administration.  The report documented the devastating losses of US jobs and exports as the IMF austerity measures forced Latin America to virtually halt industrial and other imports in order to service the debt.  The authors noted, "it is now becoming clear that Administration policies have gone above and beyond what was needed for protecting the money center banks from insolvency... the Reagan Administration's management of the debt crisis has in effect, rewarded the institutions that played a major role in precipitating the crisis and penalized those sectors of the US economy that played no role in causing the debt crisis."  The study was promptly buried.
1680
1681In the early 1990s the major shakeups affecting the global economy were the fall of the Communist Bloc, the first Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, and the continuation of the "Free Trade" agenda through the GATT and regional agreements such as NAFTA. The World Trade Organization was itself created at a GATT meeting in Uruguay on January 1, 1995, and from the beginning it proved to be a tool of the international merchants that are based predominantly in the world's financial capital, New York City.
1682
1683Investigative journalist Greg Palast refers to the World Bank, the IMF and the WTO as the "iron triangle of globalization," and shows that their combined agenda is a two-pronged attack. On one hand it advocates the complete removal of the role of sovereign governments in the "free market" or in economic development, and on the other hand it empowers the international merchants as masters of the global economy. Democracy and the viability and sovereignty of Nation-States are both being eroded, and in the new political climate money is the supreme arbiter of mankind's destiny, rather than the will of the people as expressed through representative democracies. These anti-State side effects of globalization reveal the "iron triangle" as the most effective force paving the way for the complete elimination of independent nations and the creation of an all-powerful One World Government. Capitalism will create World Government, rather than socialism or communism as so many Conservative conspiracy-theorists fear today. It is the ultimate irony, and also a testament to the Establishment's shrewdness, that many of those who claim to be passionately fighting the New World Order are also the most steadfast supporters of the neo-liberal "free market" ideology on which it is being built.
1684
1685Greg Palast, in his interview with former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz, explains that the IMF, World Bank and WTO are "interchangeable masks of a single governance system," and he reveals the Four Steps by which this system has taken control of so many nations:
1686
1687    Step One is Privatization - which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, he said national leaders - using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics - happily flogged their electricity and water companies. "You could see their eyes widen" at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
1688    And the US government knew it, charges Stiglitz, at least in the case of the biggest ‘briberization’ of all, the 1995 Russian sell-off. "The US Treasury view was this was great as we wanted Yeltsin re-elected. We don’t care if it’s a corrupt election. We want the money to go to Yeltsin" via kick-backs for his campaign.
1689
1690Privatization is a step in which governments are told to get rid of all or most of their property, industries, and national assets, and sell them on the open market. In almost all cases these assets, such as public utilities including electricity and water, as well as oil and other natural resource holdings, are sold off to Western corporations or indigenous Elites at bargain-basement prices, and then the new owners often strip down and sell off their new possessions at a great profit, but at the expense of the people for whom they were designed to serve. Such was the case in Russia under Boris Yeltsin, and Palast writes, "the US-backed oligarchs stripped Russia’s industrial assets, with the effect that the corruption scheme cut national output nearly in half causing depression and starvation."
1691
1692    After briberization, Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ In theory, capital market deregulation allows investment capital to flow in and out. Unfortunately, as in Indonesia and Brazil, the money simply flowed out and out. Stiglitz calls this the "Hot Money" cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
1693    "The result was predictable," said Stiglitz of the Hot Money tidal waves in Asia and Latin America. Higher interest rates demolished property values, savaged industrial production and drained national treasuries.
1694
1695This step towards "liberalization" of the economy according to "free market" ideology can be blamed for almost single-handedly creating the "Asian Crisis" of the 1990s. Prior to the deregulation of their capital markets the Asian Tigers were being lauded as the new masters of the upcoming "Pacific Century," and viewed as the greatest threats to American economic hegemony. But then the Anglo-American economic "experts" were sent in to convince Asian nations to drop their protective rules and allow the "free market" to guide them to even greater profits. They were, to quote Senator Thaddeus Stevens, "shallow dupes who swallowed the bait," and the biggest profits were gained by currency speculators like George Soros. Palast goes on to describe the step that comes after the required loosening of capital restrictions,
1696
1697At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas.
1698
1699In South Africa, according to the research of journalist Patrick Bond, the World Bank influenced South Africa's water policies in a decidedly "market-oriented" direction, advising the government to "privatise South Africa's water; change tariffs to lower the price to the rich and raise it for low-volume consumers; deny low-income people access on grounds they cannot pay for full operating and maintenance; and maintain extremely low standards of infrastructure (communal taps and pit latrines) even in dense urban areas."
1700
1701Market Based Pricing does not just focus on commodities such as food, oil and water, but also on services. In Tanzania one of the World Bank's Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) called for families to pay a fee for each child that wanted to enroll in public school. Enrollment dropped precipitously of course, but the World Bank was paid. Back in the late 1970s 96% of Tanzania's children were enrolled in free public schools, but now in Tanzania education is another purchased commodity. Today about a third of Tanzania's national budget goes to servicing its debt, which is four times the national education budget. Tanzania is just one instance of how the World Bank views Education, and indeed all other necessary public services, which is from the single-minded perspective of greed and profit. By the way, 51% of the World Bank is owned by the US Treasury. Few Americans realize this embarrassing fact, but it is common knowledge wherever the Bank does its dirty business. When will America's Christian leaders expose the hypocrisy of the US Government profiting from the suffering of the Third World? Was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. the last genuine Christian voice to be heard in America?
1702
1703As the prices of essential goods and services are raised in countries in which the iron triangle is involved, the poor people inevitably respond. Palast explains,
1704
1705    This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: what Stiglitz calls, ‘The IMF riot.’
1706    The IMF riot is painfully predictable. When a nation is, "down and out, [the IMF] takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them. They turn up the heat until, finally, the whole cauldron blows up," as when the IMF eliminated food and fuel subsidies for the poor in Indonesia in 1998. Indonesia exploded into riots, but there are other examples - the Bolivian riots over water prices last year and this February, the riots in Ecuador over the rise in cooking gas prices imposed by the World Bank. You’d almost get the impression that the riot is written into the plan.
1707    And it is. What Stiglitz did not know is that, while in the States, BBC and The Observer obtained several documents from inside the World Bank, stamped over with those pesky warnings, "confidential," "restricted," "not to be disclosed." Let’s get back to one: the "Interim Country Assistance Strategy" for Ecuador, in it the Bank several times states - with cold accuracy - that they expected their plans to spark, "social unrest," to use their bureaucratic term for a nation in flames. 
1708    That’s not surprising. The secret report notes that the plan to make the US dollar Ecuador’s currency has pushed 51% of the population below the poverty line. The World Bank "Assistance" plan simply calls for facing down civil strife and suffering with, "political resolve" - and still higher prices.
1709    The IMF riots (and by riots I mean peaceful demonstrations dispersed by bullets, tanks and teargas) cause new panicked flights of capital and government bankruptcies. This economic arson has it’s bright side - for foreign corporations, who can then pick off remaining assets, such as the odd mining concession or port, at fire sale prices.
1710
1711Palast makes note of the fact that the iron triangle is actually only a half-hearted adherent to genuine "free market" rules,  and that they favor government intervention whenever it is needed to bail out their banking friends, such as happened in Indonesia. Nonetheless, they still maintain the rhetoric of "free trade," which is the focus of the next step,
1712
1713    Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their "poverty reduction strategy": Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank, Stiglitz the insider likens free trade WTO-style to the Opium Wars. "That too was about opening markets," he said. As in the 19th century, Europeans and Americans today are kicking down the barriers to sales in Asia, Latin American and Africa, while barricading our own markets against Third World agriculture. 
1714    In the Opium Wars, the West used military blockades to force open markets for their unbalanced trade. Today, the World Bank can order a financial blockade just as effective - and sometimes just as deadly. 
1715    Stiglitz is particularly emotional over the WTO’s intellectual property rights treaty (it goes by the acronym TRIPS, more on that in the next chapters). It is here, says the economist, that the new global order has "condemned people to death" by imposing impossible tariffs and tributes to pay to pharmaceutical companies for branded medicines. "They don’t care," said the professor of the corporations and bank loans he worked with, "if people live or die."
1716    By the way, don’t be confused by the mix in this discussion of the IMF, World Bank and WTO... They have locked themselves together by what are unpleasantly called, "triggers." Taking a World Bank loan for a school ‘triggers’ a requirement to accept every ‘conditionality’ - they average 111 per nation - laid down by both the World Bank and IMF. In fact, said Stiglitz the IMF requires nations to accept trade policies more punitive than the official WTO rules.
1717    Stiglitz greatest concern is that World Bank plans, devised in secrecy and driven by an absolutist ideology, are never open for discourse or dissent. Despite the West’s push for elections throughout the developing world, the so-called Poverty Reduction Programs "undermine democracy." 
1718    And they don’t work. Black Africa’s productivity under the guiding hand of IMF structural "assistance" has gone to hell in a handbag. Did any nation avoid this fate? Yes, said Stiglitz, identifying Botswana. Their trick? "They told the IMF to go packing."
1719
1720Near the end of Palast's interview with the former World Bank economist (Stiglitz was fired in 1999), he asks him what remedy he would begin with to help the Third World pull itself out of poverty. Stiglitz's answer: Land Reform. It is the necessary remedy at the very heart of every former colonial nation's problems, and it is also the very action that the United States undertook while we governed postwar Japan. Land Reform helped to structure an equitable economic environment in Japan and it led to their quick and easy rise to become the world's second largest economy. However, a strange thing happened once the Cold War shifted into gear. Perspectives changed in a very hypocritical way, and every time Land Reform was attempted by aspiring independent nations it was lambasted by their indigenous Elites and their Anglo-American partners as proof that the nations were "Going Communist." Once Land Reform was attempted anywhere in the Third World it was almost always inevitably followed by a CIA-backed military coup.
1721
1722
1723The Sad Fate of Labor
1724
1725In the rush to champion laissez faire capitalism as the only acceptable economic system, middle-class Conservatives have joined sides with the upper class Elites, and together they blame the poor for the injustices that have appeared as globalization has taken over. Welfare and other social services are seen as unnecessary and addictive incentives for the poor to remain lazy, and viewed as the main reason why State budgets in America are increasingly under-funded. But are the poor the real culprits here? If we look at the rate of corporate taxation, as compared to individual taxation over the years, we find that in the early 1950s Big Business paid $0.76 for every dollar that families and individuals paid in Federal, State, and Local Income Taxes. By the late '70s, after two decades of corporate propaganda from Wall Street and from the gurus at the many Conservative economic think tanks, corporations found that they were paying only $0.31 for every dollar, and by the early '90s after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, corporations were paying even less: only twenty-one cents for every dollar paid in taxes by individuals. This decline in corporate taxation coincided with the greatest corporate expansion ever seen, when the profits of corporations and the wages of their pampered CEOs were skyrocketing.
1726
1727Another favorite target of laissez faire propaganda is Labor. If only workers would stop asking for so much, then the economy would prosper, it is argued. Sure, the numbers on Wall Street might benefit from a drop in Labor costs, but what about the numbers on Main Street? Corporate share prices are a false measure of economic prosperity. The real measure should always be the living standards of the majority of the people. In the article "The Emperor Has No Growth," the authors compare the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures of 1960-1980 to the era of globalization of 1980-1998 that arrived with Reagan and Thatcher. In Latin America the per capita GDP grew by 75% in the first period, but only by 6% in the last period. If growth had not fallen in the last two decades Mexico would have nearly twice as much income per person today, and Brazil would easily have more than twice as much per capita income today. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the most populous region of Africa, the numbers are even more frightening. GDP per capita grew by 36% from 1960 to 1980, but since then the GDP per person has fallen by 15%. For the developing world, Globalization has been a scourge, an economic version of the Black Death.
1728
1729For the worker in general Globalization has been a terrible experiment. Labor is us. Labor is you and me, the middle class and the poor that are the real producers in the economy. In "The Emperor Has No Growth," the authors point out that since 1973 the median real wage in the United States has remained the same. You and I have not received a legitimate pay raise in twenty-seven years, while during the same period the experts were hysterically applauding the "unprecedented economic growth" that America was supposedly experiencing. Growth for whom? In the twenty-seven years prior to 1973, real wages for American workers grew by 80%! Why did wages stop rising? They stopped because after 1973, and especially with Reagan, the policies advocated by the laissez faire Chicago School of Milton Friedman were followed, and those policies place cheap goods and merchant profits over the welfare of the people.
1730
1731Big Business has always been organized against Labor. Through international bodies such as the WTO; by its domination of the media, and the media's dependence on corporate advertisement; and through the politicians that have been bought off by Big Business with campaign contributions, Big Business has always been united and has always found the money to push forward its agenda.
1732
1733The same is true for the Big Banks. They have always been organized in their closely-knit Anglo-American alliance, and in 1982, when the "debt crisis" had the world's attention, this alliance became even closer. Engdahl explains in A Century of War,
1734
1735    After October 1982, the onslaught against debtor nations of the developing sector took identifiable stages. The first crucial step came when the private banks of New York and London moved to "socialize" their debt crisis. By publishing numerous interviews in the world media warning of dire consequences to the international banking system of a widespread debt moratorium, the banks secured international support for the debt collection strategy elaborated by Citicorp, Chase Manhattan, Manufacturers' Trust Hanover, Lloyds Bank and others.
1736    These private interests used the crisis to turn the power of major public institutions to enforce the minority interests of that private elite, the creditor banks. The banks banded together following a closed-door meeting in England's Ditchley Park in the fall, to create a de facto creditors' cartel of leading banks, headed by the New York and London banks, later called the Institute for International Finance or, informally, the Ditchley Group. They proceeded to impose what one observer characterized as a peculiar form of "bankers' socialism" -- the private banks socialized their lending risks to the majority of the taxpaying public, while privatizing to themselves all the gains. And the gains were considerable, despite the appearance of crisis.
1737
1738Big Business has always been organized and has worked to pursue its obvious objectives. The international bankers have also organized to pursue their interests. However, in the era of Globalization, Labor has been continually thwarted in its efforts to organize and to receive the piece of the economic pie that it has honestly earned. One of the first attacks against Labor occurred when Ronald Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers and dissolved their union in 1981. It was a clear signal to organized Labor, and a shadow of things to come. With Globalization and the Iron Triangle conditionalities imposed on Third World nations, the international merchants found that they were the new bosses and the entire world was their playground. The race to uproot and set up manufacturing bases where Labor was cheapest had begun.
1739
1740In the United States the loss of its once-dominant manufacturing base was greatly enabled by the Reagan and Bush Administrations and by the US Agency for International Development (AID). The anti-Labor agenda of Reagan/Bush was made clear in a National Labor Committee (NLC) report on AID policies that was published in 1992, entitled "Paying to Lose Our Jobs." Journalist Patricia Horn summarizes the report,
1741
1742    ...The report revealed how the federal government, through the Agency for International Development (AID), has persuaded factories throughout the United States, particularly in the Southeast, to relocate to low-wage Caribbean and Central American countries. AID promotes the region's "natural comparative advantage" --low wages, no unions and US taxpayer assistance.
1743    "Paying to Lose Our Jobs" also details how, between 1980 and 1993, the Reagan and Bush administrations funneled more than a billion dollars to investment and trade promotion projects in Central America and the Caribbean through AID. At least half of that money went directly to promote company flight to export-processing, or "free trade" zones in those countries.
1744    Thousands of US workers have lost their jobs as a result, especially in the apparel and electronics industries.  In its partial survey of job loss in the apparel industry, the NLC found that -- just since 1990 -- US companies with plants in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras have closed 58 plants and conducted 11 mass layoffs that left over 12,000 US workers jobless.  Such job loss has helped drive down the wages of remaining apparel workers.
1745    ...To those concerned about Third World development, the AID program may not sound like such a bad deal.  The jobs lost in the United States create new jobs in Central America and the Caribbean.  Except the new jobs in export processing zones are no bargain for workers or local economies.  The zones, also known as maquiladoras, free-trade, or tax-free zones, typically set themselves up in industrial parks with clear boundaries. They are considered exempt from most of their host country's customs, tax and trade laws.
1746    What makes zones hard on workers is this isolation.  Frequently, zone managers barricade the area behind guards and chain link fences topped with barbed wire. The companies pay their workers 40 to 50 cents an hour, a below poverty-level wage even by these countries' standards.  And any hint of organizing to fight for better working conditions routinely results in a worker being fired and her name added to the country's "blacklist," ensuring she will never work in a zone again.
1747    ...If these programs are not developing the Caribbean and Central American economies, why is the federal government pursuing them? According to the Labor Fund's Kernaghan and Steve Hellinger, executive director of the Development GAP, an international development nonprofit, the US government encouraged such programs to help corporations gain access to lower wages both abroad and at home.
1748    "Our report breaks down the myth about AID," says Kernaghan. "The government said it was to develop the region, to create jobs, to create democracy.  They lied.  They did this stuff to give US companies access to low wages. Period. Now the government is finally admitting it."
1749    AID and other programs are the latest steps in a long-term process of corporations relocating south.  "You have to remember that this was a Reagan/Bush strategy.  They had corporate support and a corporate agenda," says Hellinger. "This is only the latest round of support for the movement of investors from the North to the South to reduce costs and substantially increase their leverage with US unions." Lower wages also keep corporations competitive with the Asian apparel industry which uses cheap, sometimes prison, labor.
1750    ...AID supports promotional offices in the United States for at least 11 Central American and Caribbean countries.  The goal of those offices is to: (1) sell US companies on their countries' low wages, weak or unenforced health and safety rules, anti-union policies, and "adaptable" workers; (2) dole out US-backed aid; and (3) assist companies in setting up new factories, many of which US monies financed.
1751
1752Ten days after the NLC's report on AID policies was published the public outcry was so loud that Congress acted against AID and passed bills prohibiting taxpayer money from going to finance corporate relocation abroad. This step was only temporary, because a year later in 1993 the corporations received an even greater boost in their quest for cheaper Labor with the passage of NAFTA in 1993. By the year 2000, after seven years of NAFTA, the US had lost half a million manufacturing jobs, while during the same period workers in Mexico's maquiladoras found that they were working harder (productivity rose by 36%), for an even smaller paycheck (wages dropped by 29%).
1753
1754The corporate labor camp is not a phenomenon confined to Latin America. It can be found throughout the Third World wherever nations find themselves led by corrupt puppets that have accepted the reforms of the IMF and World Bank. British journalist John Pilger describes the situation in Indonesia, the world's fifth most populous nation, in his book The New Rulers of the World,
1755
1756    Flying into Jakarta, it is not difficult to imagine the city below fitting the World Bank's description of Indonesia.  A 'model pupil of globalisation' was the last of many laurels the bank bestowed. That was almost four years ago.  Within weeks, short-term global capital had fled the country, the stock market and currency had crashed, and the number of people living in absolute poverty had reached almost 70 million.  The next year, 1998, General Suharto was forced to resign after thirty years as dictator, taking with them severance pay estimated at $15 billion, the equivalent of almost 13 per cent of his country's foreign debt, much of it owed to the World Bank.
1757    From the air, it is the industrial design of the city that is striking.  Jakarta is ringed by vast, guarded, relatively modern compounds, known as export processing zones, or EPZs. These enclose hundreds of factories that make products for foreign companies: the clothes people buy on the high street in Britain, in shopping malls in North America and Australia: from the high street designer look of Gap to the Nike, Adidas and Reebok trainers that sell in London's Oxford Street for up to £100 a pair. In these factories are thousands of workers earning the equivalent of seventy-two pence a day, about a dollar. This is the official minimum wage in Indonesia, which, says the government, is about half the living wage; and here, that means subsistence, bordering on working pauperism.  Nike workers get about 4 per cent of the retail price of the shoes they make, which is not enough to buy the laces.  Still, they count themselves lucky: they have jobs.  The 'booming, dynamic economic success' (another World Bank accolade) has left more than 36 million Indonesians without work.
1758    Posing as a London fashion buyer (for the filming of my ITV documentary The New Rulers of the World) I was given a tour of one such factory, which makes Gap clothes for Britain and America. I found more than a thousand mostly young women working, battery-style, under the glare of strip lighting, in temperatures that reach 40 degrees Centigrade. The only air-conditioning was upstairs, where the Taiwanese bosses were.  What struck me was the claustrophobia, the sheer frenzy of the production and a fatigue and sadness that were like a presence. The faces were silent, the eyes downcast; limbs moved robotically. The women have no choice about the hours they must work, including a notorious 'long shift': 36 hours without going home.  I was assured that, if I wanted to place a last-minute order, that was 'no problem' because 'we just make the workers stay longer'.
1759
1760The economic system that the international financiers and merchants have created and forced upon the world is a brutal system of cutthroat competition, outright greed, and shameless exploitation. When the "free market" is allowed to operate unchecked, guided and protected by undemocratic institutions such as the World Trade Organization, without any oversight from the will of the majority acting through democratic nations, the result is a primal climate where the powerful rule over the week, where the rich get increasingly richer and the poor are abused and become enslaved. The fate of the worker in the Third World, a fate that is threatening the worker in the West, is but one symptom of the evils of the dominant oppressive economic system that rules the world. 
1761 
1762
1763The Importer of Last Resort
1764
1765The global system of out-of-control corporate-dominated capitalism that exists today is not a healthy system. It is a system not based on production, but rather on stealing, looting, plundering, and gambling. Back in the 1960s about 70% of dollars spent on trade were for actual products, real goods that were used by real people. However, as this article by EIR explains, by the late 1990s derivatives speculation had grown so high that only one half of one percent of dollars changing hands were spent on real goods. The other 99.5% was spent by financial speculators on bets on the worth of global commodities, or in currency speculation and the trade of money itself. For instance, in 1986 the value of the total global derivatives market was $1 trillion. By 1994 this market had grown to be worth $45 trillion, and then only five years later in 1999 the global gambling market jumped to the size of $300 trillion. That is what happens when nations are tricked into loosening all financial and currency controls over their economies. Instead of investing money on real productive projects the financiers and money merchants of the world prefer to make their money by betting on the economy, often against the economy, at the same time proclaiming how sound the system is while the foundational economic infrastructure of the world crumbles around them.
1766
1767New York City is the very heart of the system and the powerful financiers associated with old firms such as JP Morgan and Chase Manhattan (now merged as JP Morgan Chase), Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, manipulate the global economy in association with Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve, the IMF and World Bank, and the US Treasury Department. This top group then caters to the Corporate firms associated most especially with Wall Street, with the interests of the City of London, and also with the corporations of the Trilateral Commission club in Europe and Japan, all overseen according to joint agreement by the World Trade Organization.
1768
1769The US Dollar is the currency that holds the system together, and the primacy of the dollar has allowed the United States to be the main outlet for the over-production of goods that the system is churning out. The result is the constant corporate demand that Americans buy more and more goods that are often paid for only through an ever-increasing individual mortgage or credit card debt. At the same time the trade deficit of the United States increases exponentially as well, which is a national debt that cannot continue forever, as author William Greider explains in his report on global capitalism, One World, Ready or Not,
1770
1771    This role cannot continue indefinitely and may soon come to an end.  As America's economic dominance has steadily weakened, the nation takes on an increasing volume of foreign indebtedness through its large and persistent trade deficits -- the losses sustained every year by buying more goods from other economies than they are willing to buy from the United States. At the same time, the nation's broad capacity for mass consumption is being slowly eroded by declining wages and the loss of high-income employment, whether from technological reform or the migration of manufacturing sectors. Thus, the nation's economic resilience is weakening as its debt obligations accumulate.
1772    A very rich nation can manage to do this for quite a long time.  But not forever.  Sooner or later, like any other kind of debtor, the United States will be tapped out -- no longer able to afford its role as buyer of last resort.  As the enormous US trade debts accumulate, the dollar declines steadily in foreign-exchange value, reflecting the country's diminishing strength. At some point, the nations devalued purchasing power in global markets will, literally, price it out of buying so much from others.  Like Britain's before it and for roughly the same reasons, American hegemony will be ended.
1773    This reality may surface as a dramatic thunderclap or simply emerge from the slow, bleeding process that is already in progress.  Either way, the moment of recognition promises crisis, not only for the United States, but also for the global economy at large.  For Americans, the meaning is already been felt: a lower standard of living for most people, perhaps abruptly lowered if a sudden financial markdown of America's economic worth occurs.  That by itself does not constitute a global crisis, given the luxurious and often wasteful nature of American consumption, and might even be therapeutic for Americans themselves in the long run.  But it is sure to trigger a grave moment in US politics and a deep psychic wound to the national self-confidence.
1774
1775The global economy is in a precarious position, and radical changes could occur if the status of the dollar is ever seriously threatened. The new Euro currency is one of these potential threats, and the petroleum basis of the dollar, meaning the fact that OPEC only accepts dollars for oil, is an achilles heel. As William Engdahl explains in his article sub-titled "Iraq and the hidden euro-dollar wars," it is just this Euro vs. Dollar competition that lies at the heart of the US conquest and occupation of Iraq. If OPEC ever agreed to accept anything other than US Dollars for oil, then the American economy, and indeed the global economy, would implode. This dam was breeched in November of 2000, when Saddam Hussein dropped the dollar, and began accepting only euros for his oil-for-food program that was being directed by the UN. The Anglo-American Globalist faction that is intent on keeping the present system propped up had to make an example out of Saddam Hussein, and eliminate any thought that other oil-producing nations might have of breaking from the petro-dollar standard.
1776
1777Engdahl comments on the petro-dollar standard in his article, and on the result that has allowed the United States to became awash in cheap goods and the "importer of last resort,"
1778
1779    So long as almost 70% of world trade is done in dollars, the dollar is the currency which central banks accumulate as reserves. But central banks, whether China or Japan or Brazil or Russia, do not simply stack dollars in their vaults. Currencies have one advantage over gold. A central bank can use it to buy the state bonds of the issuer, the United States. Most countries around the world are forced to control trade deficits or face currency collapse. Not the United States. This is because of the dollar reserve currency role. And the underpinning of the reserve role is the petrodollar. Every nation needs to get dollars to import oil, some more than others. This means their trade targets dollar countries, above all the U.S. 
1780    Because oil is an essential commodity for every nation, the Petrodollar system, which exists to the present, demands the buildup of huge trade surpluses in order to accumulate dollar surpluses. This is the case for every country but one — the United States which controls the dollar and prints it at will or fiat. Because today the majority of all international trade is done in dollars, countries must go abroad to get the means of payment they cannot themselves issue. The entire global trade structure today works around this dynamic, from Russia to China, from Brazil to South Korea and Japan. Everyone aims to maximize dollar surpluses from their export trade. 
1781    To keep this process going, the United States has agreed to be ‘importer of last resort’ because its entire monetary hegemony depends on this dollar recycling. 
1782    The central banks of Japan, China, South Korea, Russia and the rest all buy U.S. Treasury securities with their dollars. That in turn allows the United States to have a stable dollar, far lower interest rates, and run a $500 billion annual balance of payments deficit with the rest of the world. The Federal Reserve controls the dollar printing presses, and the world needs its dollars. It is as simple as that.
1783
1784The bottom line is that the present global economy is in a precarious position, propped up only by debt, and by American imperialistic policies of pre-emptive war and conquest. Economic growth is falling, the Third World is degenerating into a situation bordering dark ages feudalism, while the super-rich do their best to acquire resources, cheap labor and profit while they still can, and institutions like the IMF bleed debtor nations dry and continue to reward the Third World leaders that follow their suicidal policies. At the same time the remaining consumers in the West continue to be burdened with increasing debt, while their paychecks keep getting smaller and smaller, and the public services provided by sovereign governments continue to be cut to lessen the tax burden on the rich, all in the name of fighting the bogus scapegoat of last resort: Big Government.
1785
1786The global economic system is feeding off of itself to survive. It is a snake eating its own tail for nutrition, and sooner or later, the nutrition is sure to run out. When it does, and when the present New World Order of corporate-dominated capitalism is dismantled, the Anglo-American-Globalist Establishment will have a false revolution ready made through which to create a new system, a system completely opposite the current system of manic free-profiteering, which will have much more in common with Stalinist Russia and the totalitarian socialist regime that George Orwell warned us about in 1984. Read on to discover how the prophecies of the Bible predicted both of these wicked political/economic systems that would dominate the world at the end of the age.
1787
1788American Babylon
1789-Rise and Fall-
1790
1791
1792 
1793
1794Part 7: New York City and the Apocalypse
1795
1796Introduction
1797Setting the Stage for the Apocalypse
1798Babylon Revealed
1799The Kings of the Earth
1800The Merchants of the Earth
1801
1802
1803
1804Introduction
1805
1806Today New York City is the financial capital of the world and home to the world's wealthiest and most influential banks. These banks control the Federal Reserve and the United States Treasury, and they also dominate international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.
1807
1808New York City is also the commercial capital of the world, the home of Wall Street and the biggest multinational corporations, and the home of the world's largest stock exchange, the NYSE, as well as the NASDAQ and the AMEX. New York City is the market that serves the world's greatest consumer nation, the USA, and its massive port facilities are the world's busiest and wealthiest. Until September 11, 2001, New York City was also the home of the World Trade Center complex, and even though this complex was destroyed the city remains the undisputed capital of world trade.
1809
1810New York City is also the political capital of the world by the fact that it is the home of the United Nations, which possesses a headquarters in Manhattan that enjoys an independent and sovereign status. New York City should also be noted as the headquarters of the world's most influential foreign policy think-tank, the Council on Foreign Relations, which has had more input in charting the course of American foreign policy and global political and economic affairs than any other organization on earth since World War II (See Part 4).
1811
1812For these reasons, and for many more that could be listed ad nauseum, New York City exists as the undisputed wealthiest and most powerful city on the earth today, and the greatest that has ever existed in human history. New York City is Babylon the Great, that final world power that will exist before the appearance of the Antichrist at the end of the age.
1813
1814
1815Setting the Stage for the Apocalypse
1816
1817Before we begin to focus on Babylon itself we must first examine the Scriptures that describe the situation on the earth during the rise of Babylon, prior to the Antichrist and the end-times Tribulation. Within the Gospel of Matthew, in a talk given by Jesus known as the Little Apocalypse, Jesus described the events that precede the Tribulation:
1818
1819Matthew 24 KJV
18203. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
18214. And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
18225. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
18236. And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
18247. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
18258. All these are the beginning of sorrows.
18269. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
1827
1828The disciples asked Jesus for the sign of His coming and of the end of the age, and in the above passage Jesus gave them three types of signs:  
1829
18301. Signs that do not relate to the time of the end.
1831According to Jesus, the appearance of false Christs (plural) and deceivers, and of scattered wars and rumors of wars, do not relate to the end-times.
1832
18332. Signs that are classified as "the beginning of sorrows." 
1834The Greek word for sorrows used here can also refer to the pain of a woman giving birth. The Apostle Paul used the same word in 1 Thessalonians 5:3 to describe the period prior to the Tribulation, "For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape." According to Jesus, the signs which are the birth pangs of the end-times Tribulation include the sign of "nation rising against nation and kingdom against kingdom," and the signs of increasing famines, pestilences and earthquakes.
1835
18363. Signs that relate to the time of the end.
1837According to Jesus, the end has come when all the nations of the world persecute those who believe in Jesus. This is the first sign that the birth pangs are over and the time of the end has arrived.
1838
1839Turning back to the birth pangs, here is what I write in my article Entering the Apocalypse,
1840
1841    According to Jesus, the very first birthpang that believers are supposed to recognize as a visible sign of the approaching end-times is the sign of a global military conflict. When Jesus mentioned this sign He was describing something that is very well known within Judaism. In an ancient Jewish commentary, the Bereshit Rabbah, section XLII:4, it is stated, "If you shall see kingdoms rising against each other in turn, then give heed and note the footsteps of the Messiah." 
1842    In another Jewish commentary, the Zohar Chadesh, it is written, "At that time wars shall be stirred up in the world. Nation shall rise against nation and city against city; much distress shall be renewed against the enemies of the Israelites."
1843    Jews and Christians should both understand that a massive World War is a sign of the approaching end-times. If we were to look back in history and try to identify a conflict that might possibly fulfill Jesus' prediction we need look no further than the Second World War. It encompassed eastern and western Europe, as well as a significant part of Asia and Polynesia, parts of Africa, and it was fought throughout the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It was also fought, as the Jewish source the Zohar Chadesh appears to have predicted, against the "enemies of the Israelites," who were the German Nazi's who exterminated up to six million Jews. 
1844    World War II ended with the use of atomic energy, a terrible power never used in warfare since, and it dwarfed World War I, which was fought mainly in Europe and the Middle East, which was more comparable in size to the Napoleonic Wars than to World War II. Truly the Second World War stands out as the most significant global conflict of the past two millennia, and it had a huge impact on the global Jewish community, leading to the creation of the modern nation of Israel. When Jesus predicted a worldwide conflict as the first birthpang of the end-times it is highly likely that He was referring directly to World War II.
1845
1846The birth pangs of the Tribulation that are referred to by Jesus are also very helpful in interpreting the meaning of the first four Seals of Revelation that introduce the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. The reader should understand that I have developed a prophetic model that places the starting point of the seven year Tribulation (the 70th Week of Daniel 9:24-27) after the first Trumpet judgment of Revelation, which is a view that can be analyzed in the article Entering the Apocalypse. For this reason the seven Seal judgments of Revelation precede the 70th Week of Daniel, and my conclusion is that the Four Horsemen of the first four Seals relate directly to the birth pangs of the Tribulation. The first Horseman will be identified later in Part 8 and appears to be unmentioned by Jesus, but the other three appear to parallel the words of Jesus quite closely. The chart below explains:
1847
1848Jesus in Matthew 24:7	Revelation
1849"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom..."	2nd Seal - "When the Lamb opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say, "Come!" Then another horse came out, a fiery red one. Its rider was given power to take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other. To him was given a large sword. "
1850"...and there shall be famines..." 	3rd Seal - "When the Lamb opened the third seal, I heard the third living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a black horse! Its rider was holding a pair of scales in his hand. Then I heard what sounded like a voice among the four living creatures, saying, "A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"
1851"...and pestilences..."	4th Seal - "When the Lamb opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "Come!" I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."
1852
1853If the words of Jesus are used to help interpret the meaning of the Seals of Revelation, then the second Seal which brings forth the rider of the red horse, who is given a sword and the power to "take peace from the earth and to make men slay each other," is symbolic of the great conflict of World War II.
1854
1855As the preceding six Parts of this study have shown, after World War II New York City emerged as the greatest power in the world, and its economic policies were enacted on behalf of the Anglo-American Establishment to pursue the long-term goal of "gradually absorbing the wealth of the world." In the decades after World War II this Establishment, using the economic and military might of the USA, has succeeded in this quest and overseen the greatest transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich that the world has ever seen. As we have shown, Oil has been a primary weapon in this assault, and Labor, the working man, has been a primary victim (see Part 6 for confirmation of both of these statements). At the same time Western culture has experienced almost a wholesale abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and has embraced materialism and the "If it feels good, do it!" hedonistic lifestyle pushed by the Western media and culture that includes MTV, Hollywood, and the sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll counter-culture. "Let's party!" is the slogan of the apathetic, self-absorbed and inebriated minds of the comfortable masses in the West, while living conditions in the rest of the world continue to degrade at a rapid pace.
1856
1857The third Seal which brings forth the rider of the black horse seems to explain the global situation very precisely. When the rider is introduced he is shown "holding a pair of scales in his hand." The scales have always been understood as the traditional symbol of Justice, and it traces back to Roman times when Themis, the goddess of Justice and Law, was always portrayed with a pair of scales in her hand. By this symbol the reader is then directed to apply the theme of Justice to the statement that is heard from the four living creatures in heaven,
1858
1859"A quart of wheat for a day's wages, and three quarts of barley for a day's wages, and do not damage the oil and the wine!"
1860
1861A quart of wheat or three quarts of barley for an entire day's wages is a wage that is below a subsistence level. We are talking much less than a dollar a day here, and that is exactly the kind of wage that too many of the world's workers earn today. As explained in Part 6 of this study the sad fate of Labor in the world today is a direct result of corporate-dominated capitalism and the policies of the IMF, WTO and World Bank that have been directed through New York.
1862
1863On the other hand, the last words that come from the living creatures in heaven, words that make the theme of Justice quite clear, are "do not damage the oil and the wine." Oil is the foundational resource of Western consumer-oriented economies, and wine is the commodity that Western culture seems to enjoy the most. We let the poverty-stricken working man that is representative of a large segment of humanity waste his life away working to simply feed his stomach, while we in the West enjoy our high standard of living and party the nights away. That seems to be the situation that the imagery and statements of the third Seal seem to be indicating. It very simply presents a stark picture of economic inequality and injustice.
1864
1865The subject of "wine" and the related vice of "drunkenness" is a theme that can be found throughout the prophetic scriptures relating to the end-times. According to Jesus drunkenness is to be avoided as a vice that might potentially distract believers from their watch, leaving them forced to endure the Day of the Lord on the earth,
1866
1867Luke 21 NIV
186834. Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. 
186935. For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. 
187036. Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man.
1871
1872The prophet Isaiah describes the people of the earth crying out for wine after the catastrophes of the Day of the Lord begin,
1873
1874Isaiah 24 NIV
18756. Therefore a curse consumes the earth; its people must bear their guilt. Therefore earth's inhabitants are burned up, and very few are left. 
18767. The new wine dries up and the vine withers; all the merrymakers groan. 
18778. The gaiety of the tambourines is stilled, the noise of the revelers has stopped, the joyful harp is silent. 
18789. No longer do they drink wine with a song; the beer is bitter to its drinkers. 
187910. The ruined city lies desolate; the entrance to every house is barred. 
188011. In the streets they cry out for wine; all joy turns to gloom, all gaiety is banished from the earth.
1881
1882Where will our celebrated rock stars, our pop singers, and our actors and actresses be when the entertainment industry ceases to be so entertaining after the catastrophes of the Day of the Lord begin? Verses 7-9 above seem to predict the death of MTV and all it stands for.
1883
1884In Isaiah 28 many scholars believe the prophet refers to the 70th Week covenant as the "covenant with death" in verse 15. Prior to that reference he describes Israel as "befuddled with wine," staggering and vomiting in drunkenness and oblivious to God's instructions. Drunkenness is a vice that is definitely to be avoided as the Tribulation approaches, and as this study continues we will see that it is very closely associated, symbolically and perhaps also literally, with Babylon the Great, the seductive purveyor of a "wine" that creates a maddening "drunkenness" throughout the world.
1885
1886The fourth Seal continues with the theme of the degradation of civilization that is a result of the policies of the Anglo-American Establishment. With this Seal a pale horse is introduced with Death as its rider, and with Hades, a figure known in Greek mythology as the god of the underworld, following close behind. They are "given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth." This statement does not mean that one fourth of the earth's population is to perish, it simply means that one fourth of the land area of the earth is given over to these dangers, the mortal threats of war, famine, disease and wild animals.
1887
1888As a result of the policies of the iron triangle (the IMF, World Bank, and WTO) as explained in Part 6, economies have been destroyed and infrastructure has been dismantled in the poorest and most powerless nations of the earth. The extent of the disintegration of civilization in these areas is highlighted in the article "A Needless Decade of Despair: Developing Nations Are Dying," by EIR reporter Mary Jane Freeman. The article quotes from a UN development report that reveals the economic collapse of Eastern Europe and South America, and highlights the extent of poverty in other areas of the world including Southeast Asia and Africa. Freeman writes,
1889
1890Other key markers of economic collapse detailed in the report include the fact that by the close of the decade, 2.4 billion people still did not have access to adequate sanitation; 1.2 billion people were living on less than $1 equivalent per day; 1.0 billion people lacked access to improved water sources; and 10.7 million children age five or younger in 2000 died of preventable diseases such as malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera.
1891
1892Professor Sam Aluko used to be an economic advisor to the Nigerian government, and he unsuccessfully fought the policies of the iron triangle for thirty years. In a ten-page article he summarizes the terrible shape that Africa is in today, and explains how these circumstances have come about:
1893
1894    And because people are getting poorer and poorer, there is increased crime, and violence, and conflicts. So very many countries in Africa, you have like Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, name it, every country, every country in Africa—even South Africa, which is one of the most developed, the crime there is terrible—in Nigeria the crime rate has increased abundantly. And there is no country in Africa, where there is no increase in crime. They steal cars; you cannot go out, you cannot walk. About four or five politicians had been killed before I left home.
1895    So when you have violence and you have conflicts, you have ethnic quarrels, there cannot be peace; and when there is no peace, there cannot be economic progress. And you find that the budget which was spent on production, is now spent on the prevention of crime, which is very ineffective.
1896    And this is because, also, of the diminishing role of government: Because the World Bank and the IMF have come and said: "You are inefficient, and you are not making progress, because the government is corrupt. And therefore, even remove government, and allow the private sector in the economy; then the economy will move." But there is no private sector in Africa. I want to assure you, that there is no private sector in Africa. The only sector in Africa that is viable is the government sector.
1897    There is no private sector, because there are no infrastructures, there is no electricity. In my house, the last water I had was in 1980, public water supply; so I had to dig my own well and put a pump and pump to the roof, to have water in my house. No electricity! I had to buy a generator and to buy fuel to fuel it, to get light. Telephone: I called my wife this morning; we have three telephones, two at home and one in the office: All the three are turned off. I said, "Why?" "Because there was heavy rain last night and everything broke down." And I am still one of the elite. So, you can know what the ordinary person is suffering. So there is no private sector, because the private sector cannot function, because there are no infrastructures, no good roads, no water, and no electricity.
1898    Then of course, because we are following liberalization, globalization, privatization and every shibboleth that comes from abroad, government is virtually doing nothing to arrest the situation.
1899
1900The destruction of once-viable governments in Africa has led to increasing violence and warfare, and as a result Africa must deal with a massive refugee problem. Africa is the home to only one tenth of the world's population, but the home to fully one half of the world's refugees who have been forced to flee their homes to avoid tribal conflicts, border and civil wars and sectarian violence.
1901
1902As Professor Aluko explains, the rise in violence and breakdown in the economy coincides with the degradation of the foundational infrastructure, the roads, water systems and electricity. This degradation allows disease to flourish, and plagues that were once neutralized, such as malaria, tuberculosis and cholera, are making a comeback, not to mention the scourge of AIDS. Throughout the world 34 million people have AIDS, and 24 million of these live in sub-Saharan Africa. In South Africa one out of every ten people has AIDS, and every day about 1500 more people in the country become infected with HIV.
1903
1904These facts bring to mind the views of the influential Lord Bertrand Russell, the British advocate of a world government founded on totalitarian socialism. In Prospects For Industrial Civilization he wrote,
1905
1906Socialism is only possible as a stable system if the population is stationary or nearly so ...The White population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the Negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without the help of war and pestilence. Until that happens, the benefits aimed at by socialism can only be partially realized, and the less prolific races will have to defend themselves against the more prolific by methods which are disgusting even if they are necessary.
1907
1908In the Impact of Science on Society, Russell went on to elaborate his genocidal views,
1909
1910    At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars. War has hitherto been disappointing in this respect but perhaps a bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors would be free to procreate freely without making the world too full...
1911    ...This state of affairs may be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.
1912
1913Russell's elitist views may be seen as extreme, but he was simply articulating the commonly understood problems that consumed the Anglo-American Establishment. A strategy to address the "population threat" was drawn up by Henry Kissinger in 1974, and it was adopted by the US Government as policy paper NSSM 200. Within it the World Bank was highlighted as a key partner in the Anglo-American goal to depopulate the earth. NSSM 200 is required reading for anyone genuinely interested in the real history of the United States and of the Establishment that controls it.
1914
1915Regarding AIDS, Africa continues to be shackled in its fight against the disease because of the multinational pharmaceutical companies' unwillingness to provide cheap or generic drugs. Their reasoning goes that if you only earn a dollar a day and cannot afford the drugs, then you deserve to die. It is also noteworthy that AIDS was first identified as a newly emergent disease in the Belgian Congo in 1959. This was at a time when the European colonial powers were being kicked out of Africa, and when Belgium had already agreed to give the Congo independence. (Part 3 of this study covers the early years of the independent Congo, and the courageous but brief career of Prime Minister Lumumba as he fought the CIA and Rockefeller's mining outfits that sought to dominate his country's natural resources.)
1916
1917Another result of the iron triangle domination of African economies, a result that can be seen wherever their policies are followed, is explained by Professor Aluko of Nigeria in the article linked to above,
1918
1919    And because of the diminishing role of government, you find that Africans are increasingly unable to feed themselves! Even food! When I was young, we used to access food; we used to export cotton, groundnut, palm oil—name it. Today we import all those—including toothpicks! Our government has just, because of pressure, banned about 30 items, including toothpicks and so on. So, we even import petrol, kerosene, diesel, and we are the sixth-largest producer of crude oil in the world. We built an export terminal to export excess refined products. We have now turned that port to the importation of the fuel; so when you get to Nigeria today, you find long queues of people struggling to buy refined petrol.
1920    The same thing in Africa.
1921    Zimbabwe: When I was studying in London, I was studying the economies of Africa, the major export of Zimbabwe, at that time—which was then southern Rhodesia—was maize; today Zimbabwe imports maize to feed its cattle. The main export of Tanzania was groundnut. Today, they import groundnut-oil to feed themselves. Cameroon: They export bananas, but today they cannot even get banana or plantain to eat. And that goes along throughout Africa. They have turned into becoming the bottom of the world.
1922
1923The global economic policies of the Anglo-American Establishment as they are enforced through the IMF, World Bank and WTO, have much in common with the policies that led to the Irish Holocaust of 1845-1850, that resulted in the deaths of more than 5 million people. The famine that occurred during this period was not a result of the failure of the potato crop. Potatoes were only one crop, and Ireland has always been able to feed itself many times over from its agricultural base that has always included hundreds of commodities. As the website www.irishholocaust.org explains, Ireland didn't starve because of a lack of potatoes...
1924
1925    Ireland starved because its food, from 40 to 70 shiploads per day, was removed at gunpoint by 12,000 British constables reinforced by the British militia, battleships, excise vessels, Coast Guard and by 200,000 British soldiers (100,000 at any given moment)...
1926    Thus, Britain seized from Ireland's producers tens of millions of head of livestock; tens of millions of tons of flour, grains, meat, poultry & dairy products; enough to sustain 18 million persons.
1927
1928This forced exportation of food continued unabated throughout the so-called "famine" which never even occurred. Ireland never lacked for food; Ireland starved because the food it produced was forcefully taken away. The same thing is happening in the poorest and most indebted parts of the earth where governments have been made ineffective as a result of globalization. Food is exported to service their debts, while the poor go hungry, die of disease, or turn to violence and warfare to force change or as an outlet for their frustration. In addition, these are also the areas of the earth where the poor are often forced to compete with wild animals to provide for their basic livelihood. In a sense these poor people have become wild animals. They gather food from the forests and fields, they bathe and drink from polluted unprotected streams, and they live in structures that hardly even keep the rain out, much less offering protection from wild animals.
1929
1930Yes, the fourth Seal does provide a realistic portrayal of what life is like in the poorest quarter of the earth. It is a far cry from what we experience in the West, and we only get scattered glimpses of it through National Geographic, and only relate to it when reality TV shows such as Survivor pay people to endure that type of lifestyle. Nonetheless it is an existence that is lived by billions of people around the world today.
1931
1932"I looked, and there before me was a pale horse! Its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. They were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth."
1933
1934Taken together, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse symbolize the birth pangs of the Tribulation period:
1935
1936    -The first Horseman symbolizes a powerful figure that carries out a short career of conquest, and we will identify him in Part 8. 
1937    -The second Horseman symbolizes World War II. 
1938    -The third Horseman symbolizes the unfair economic order that was begun after World War II, that was created to achieve the Anglo-American goal of "absorbing the wealth of the world" as a step towards world government. 
1939    -The fourth Horseman symbolizes some of the effects of that unfair economic system, and the plight of the poorest quarter of the world,  a pathetic situation that has become steadily worse in the last two to three decades.
1940
1941With these symbols understood and the stage set for the beginning of the Tribulation, we now turn back to our study of Babylon the Great.
1942
1943
1944Babylon Revealed
1945
1946Here is how Babylon the Great is first introduced in Revelation:
1947
1948"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries." 14:8, NIV
1949
1950Wine, drunkenness and adultery are themes that are found throughout the descriptions of Babylon the Great. The passage above makes it clear that Babylon is a power that forcefully  pushes its wine on the nations of the earth. She made the nations of the earth drink her wine, and the wine is described as maddening, or leading to madness and insanity. The wine of Babylon is not good for the nations that are forced to drink it. In the seventeenth chapter of Revelation an angel introduces Babylon using the same themes as before,
1951
1952"Come, I will show you the punishment of the great prostitute, who sits on many waters. With her the kings of the earth committed adultery and the inhabitants of the earth were intoxicated with the wine of her adulteries." 17:1-2, NIV
1953
1954The angel introduces Babylon as a Great Prostitute, and her clients are the kings of the earth who turn away from their true responsibilities and are seduced by Babylon into committing adultery. This relationship involves a wine, a maddening wine, which intoxicates the inhabitants of the earth. Intoxication is a state of mind that erodes moral inhibitions and creates a false sense of reality, and Babylon is the source of this "intoxication." The angel then shows John a vision of the Great Prostitute riding the Beast of Revelation,
1955
1956"Then the angel carried me away in the Spirit into a desert. There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. This title was written on her forehead:
1957
1958MYSTERY BABYLON THE GREAT 
1959THE MOTHER OF PROSTITUTES 
1960AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
1961
1962I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus. When I saw her, I was greatly astonished." 17:3-6, NIV
1963
1964Babylon is dressed seductively and luxuriously, but she holds a cup full of filth and "abominable things." She is also drunk with the blood of the saints, which implies that she should be viewed as responsible for the end-times persecution of Christians that will take place around the world.
1965
1966After John is shown the vision of the Great Prostitute riding the Beast, the angel then offers an explanation of both. In this section we will focus on the explanations regarding Babylon, and then later we will examine the meaning of the Beast.
1967
1968In 17:9 the angel explains that the seven heads of the Beast have two different meanings, but in relation to the Great Prostitute the seven heads are "seven hills on which the woman sits" (NIV). In 17:1 the Great Prostitute is introduced as sitting "on many waters," and in verse 15 the angel explains that the waters are "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages." Finally in verse 18 the woman herself is explained as "the great city that rules over the kings of the earth."
1969
1970New York City is the greatest city in the world, the most wealthy, and the most powerful. It is the home of the United Nations which is the representative body of the "kings of the earth," but more importantly New York City is the financial capital of the world. New York's entrenched banking and commercial interests exercise their power to such a great degree that their power, and their bank accounts, dwarf that of individual nations, and they have even succeeded in purchasing for themselves effective control over the resources of the United States Government, including its politicians, its treasury, and its powerful military. The "King" or President of the USA, since the end of World War II, has usually been just a puppet serving the interests of the New York corporate and financial oligarchy, and as such has only been one of the many "kings of the earth" over which Babylon has ruled.
1971
1972The city of Babylon is represented as a woman, and she sits on seven "hills," or "mountains," and on "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages." The plural form of the Greek word hora, mis-translated as "hills" by the NIV and translated as "mountains" in the KJV, is a word never used to refer to the hills of Rome (which are always described as seven bounos), but refer instead to mountains, sometimes to deserts, and even to large land masses or continents. The symbol of New York City is the Statue of Liberty, which wears a crown of seven spikes or rays, and at the official web site of the Statue of Liberty it is explained that "The seven rays of the Statue's crown represent the seven seas and continents of the world." [http://www.nps.gov/stli/prod02.htm]
1973
1974It cannot be argued that the power of New York City is unparalleled, and that it exists on many levels, including the financial and corporate levels through the big banks and multinational corporations, the diplomatic level through the UN, and politically and militarily through New York's domination of the United States Government. All of this power combines to make New York City the world's only city that can claim to dominate the kings of the earth and the continents of the earth, while enjoying unsurpassed influence over the "peoples, multitudes, nations and languages of the earth." Against these plain facts no other interpretation for the identity of Babylon the Great makes sense. This will become even more clear as we continue to examine the crimes of Babylon the Great and the indictments that God makes against her that lead to her punishment.
1975 
1976
1977The Kings of the Earth
1978
1979After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. With a mighty voice he shouted: 
1980    "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! She has become a home for demons and a haunt for every evil spirit, a haunt for every unclean and detestable bird. For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries." 18:1-3, NIV
1981
1982In this passage the nations and the kings of the earth are again mentioned, and the economic theme that is the key to properly understanding Babylon is introduced with the "merchants of the earth," who have grown rich from Babylon's "excessive luxuries." The American Standard Version (ASV) translation of this verse offers even more insight into the crimes of Babylon,
1983
1984"For by the wine of the wrath of her fornication all the nations are fallen; and the kings of the earth committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth waxed rich by the power of her wantonness."
1985
1986This translation states that Babylon's fornication with the "kings of the earth" brought about the fall of "all the nations," and at the same time Babylon's actions allowed the merchants of the earth to grow rich. In this passage the Bible is very plainly describing the situation that has occurred to the nations of the earth after fifty years of Anglo-American planned, New York-based, economic domination. From this passage which connects the downfall of nations with the enrichment of kings and merchants a strong case can be made that the maddening wine that is forced on the peoples and nations of the earth refers to corporate globalization and the hedonistic, materialistic, and immoral philosophy that comes with it. The passage speaks of the rise of corporate influence and enrichment, the subsequent destruction of the sovereignty of individual nations, and the role played by the leaders of the nations who should have fought the corporate powers to protect the best interests of their people. Instead these "kings of the earth" committed fornication with the New York corporate juggernaut and accepted the lies, promises, and massive bribes that New York was able to offer these leaders as payment for the betrayal of their own people.
1987
1988Let's examine a few of the nations that have been economically destroyed and politically neutralized as a result of the IMF/World Bank/WTO policy that has been masterminded from the corporate and financial capital of New York. We will see how Babylon, allied with the traitorous rulers, or kings, of the nations,  is spearheading the downfall of those same nations, while the merchants of the earth reap the rewards.
1989
1990In Part 3 we examined New York's role, acting through the US Government, in crushing democracy in Iran, Guatemala, Zaire, Brazil, Indonesia, Chile and other nations, and we were able to reveal that the hand of New York through the CFR and through the corporate interests that it represented was the key factor.
1991
1992In Iran, Mohammed Mossadeq was trying to help his own people by taking back Iranian oil resources for Iranians. He was kicked out of power, and the Shah was installed as the Anglo-American puppet. He then ruled for over 25 years and was handsomely rewarded for always doing as he was told, until finally he met his end when the Anglo-American strategy for the region evolved to a point where he was no longer wanted. The Shah of Iran was a king that fornicated with Babylon, and he allowed Babylon's merchants to use his nation's resources to get rich.
1993
1994In Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and indeed throughout Central America for that matter, the rulers have existed only as American puppets, eagerly facilitating the looting of their country's natural resources by Western corporations, and also watching as their citizens are exploited through the creation of corporate labor camps (see Part 6). Author Walter LaFeber chronicles the United States' historical involvement in Central America in his book Inevitable Revolutions, and although he is typical of many leftists in that he prefers to blame the US Government rather than the corporate interests that dominate it, his book lays bare the proof that the rulers of these nations exist only as puppets of the US, to the great detriment of the general welfare of their people. The rulers of these nations, aside from the rare case of Guatemala in the early '50s and Nicaragua in the early '80s, can also be viewed as satisfied and greatly enriched customers of the Great Prostitute, and their power lasts only as long as they cater to the wishes of Babylon's merchants.
1995
1996In the Congo, during a few months in the summer of 1960 after becoming independent from Belgium, the people were offered a brief window of hope through the leadership of Patrice Lumumba. However, Babylon's merchants had no desire to allow the Congo's wealth to actually help the Congolese, and so Lumumba was murdered and General Joseph Mobutu was installed as a dictator. He renamed the Congo as Zaire, and became one of the most notorious strongmen in all of Africa. He ruled for over thirty years in splendor and opulence, while his people lived in poverty and were never raised up from their existence beset with ignorance, filth, hunger, violence and disease. He was one of Babylon's most favored kings, because under him corporate mining interests were allowed to extract from his country untold billions in dollars worth of gold, diamonds, cobalt, copper, and most importantly, uranium.
1997
1998In Nigeria Babylon's merchants (Chevron and Mobil) plunder petroleum, and Nigeria's leaders only exist because they allow it. The same is true for poor Ghana and the Ivory Coast and their cocoa crop, or of Cameroon and its coffee, cocoa, rubber, and sugar cane, all controlled by Western corporations. Mozambique and Tanzania also export their agricultural products for the profit of Western cartels, and indeed the same can be said for virtually all of Africa. And if any African leader tries to change the situation there is always a General that can be feted and bribed, to carry out a coup and return the situation to the status quo so favorable to Babylon.
1999
2000In Indonesia the Babylonian agenda was carried out with textbook execution and with results that made the merchants and financiers of Babylon pleased beyond their wildest dreams. In 1965 Indonesian president Achmad Sukarno was overthrown by General Suharto, and Suharto stood by as Chase Manhattan Bank, Babylon's Bank, presided over a three day "yard sale" of Indonesia's services, assets, and natural resources in November of 1967. Henry Kissinger's Freeport Copper was given a 'mountain of copper' in West Papua, Alcoa was given a huge chunk of Indonesia's bauxite, and other Western merchants were given Indonesia's nickel, tropical forests, and other resources. Sukarno had used the profits from these resources to help the Indonesian people, but Suharto allowed the profits to go to Babylon's merchants. General Suharto retired as one of the Great Prostitute's best customers after thirty years as Indonesia's dictator, and he took with him a personal bonus valued at $17 billion. To add insult and injury to insult and injury, Suharto left the Indonesian people with a debt to the World Bank and IMF of $262 billion, which will continue to be paid down with the blood, sweat and tears of Indonesians, but never paid off.
2001
2002This is the type of "adultery" that the kings of the earth commit with the Great Whore of Babylon. It may be a situation that remains unknown or at least uninteresting to the many misguided American Christians who align themselves with Wall Street, the Pentagon and the Republican Party, but Jesus Christ is a different type of Christian, and the injustice and oppression carried out by Babylon is certainly noticed by Him. The Book of Revelation continues, and God's wrath against Babylon is made clear,
2003
2004Then I heard another voice from heaven say: 
2005    "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues; for her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her crimes. Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done. Mix her a double portion from her own cup. Give her as much torture and grief as the glory and luxury she gave herself. In her heart she boasts, 
2006          'I sit as queen; I am not a widow, and I will never mourn.'
2007    Therefore in one day her plagues will overtake her: death, mourning and famine. She will be consumed by fire, for mighty is the Lord God who judges her. 
2008When the kings of the earth who committed adultery with her and shared her luxury see the smoke of her burning, they will weep and mourn over her. Terrified at her torment, they will stand far off and cry: 
2009          'Woe! Woe, O great city, O Babylon, city of power! In one hour your doom has come!'  18:4-10, NIV
2010
2011The attitude of Babylon is characterized by extreme arrogance and pride, extreme selfishness, and overwhelming greed. She gives herself glory and luxury, and believes that her power will never be lost. She calls herself a queen, and predicts that she will never mourn.
2012
2013The nature and timing of the destruction of the great city of Babylon will be covered in detail in a further section, but the text is clear that it will initially come in the space of a single hour, resulting in a great deal of death, and leading to mourning and famine. It will come as a divine judgment from God, and not from the Antichrist or any other country or power. It will be a judgment of fire, and the first people who mourn at the loss of Babylon will be the adulterous kings of the earth, who gained their positions, their power, and their great wealth through their careers spent as clients and servants of the Great Whore. The following table lists only a few of the more notable kings who have served Babylon over the years:
2014 
2015
2016King
2017Country - time of reign	
2018Nature of service to Babylon
2019
2020The House of Saud
2021
2022Saudi Arabia, 1925-present	
2023The House of Saud is the dynasty that has ruled Saudi Arabia since 1925. Their corruption and taste for luxury is well known, and their totalitarian regime is propped up by the US because of its role as a major supplier of oil. The current ruler is King Fahd, and his regime is notorious for its persecution of Christians, for its support for Wahhabi Islam, and for its intolerance of political dissidents. Many political commentators believe that without US support the House of Saud would fall like a house of cards.
2024
2025Shah Reza Pahlavi
2026
2027Iran, 1953-1979	
2028The Shah of Iran was put in power by the US after the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadeq, Iran's democratically elected leader, who threatened Anglo-American control of Iran's oil. The Shah ensured such control and also developed a close relationship with David Rockefeller until the Shah's betrayal in 1979. See my article "The Globalists and the Islamists" (the G-I article), and also Part 3 of this study.
2029
2030General Joseph Mobutu
2031
2032Zaire, 1960-1997	
2033General Mobutu rose to power on the back of the CIA, and his rule over Africa's third largest country ensured that the interests of Babylon would supercede the interests of the people of Zaire. When his fall became inevitable the US turned to Laurent Kabila to replace it, and to ensure that economic relations remained profitable for Western merchants. See also Part 3.
2034
2035Ferdinand Marcos
2036
2037Philippines, 1965-1986	
2038Ferdinand Marcos was elected President in 1965. In 1972, with US support, he declared martial law and made himself dictator for life. When he was finally chased out of the country he was welcomed in the US. His Swiss bank accounts at the time of his downfall held up to $35 billion, while the entire national debt of the Philippines stood at $28 billion. He was a favored client of Babylon, who gained great luxury through his corruption.
2039
2040General Mohamed Suharto
2041
2042Indonesia, 1965-1998	
2043In the early 1960s under the socialist Sukarno CFR analysts described Indonesia as "the greatest prize." General Suharto's services were purchased by Babylon in 1965 and he overthrew Sukarno. His subsequent policies allowed the natural wealth of Indonesia, the world's third most populous nation, to be exploited by Babylonian merchants, with the profits flowing into Babylonian banks. Suharto was paid well and he became very rich, while Indonesians became extremely poor. See Part 3.
2044
2045General Augusto Pinochet
2046
2047Chile, 1973-1990	
2048In 1973 the policies of Chile's democratically elected leader Salvador Allende threatened Babylon's economic control of Chile's industry and natural wealth. To remedy this situation the CIA purchased the services of General Pinochet, who carried out a coup on September 11, 1973. Afterwards Pinochet ensured that Babylon would dictate Chile's future, and he allowed the Rockefeller's University of Chicago (see Part 5) to plan Chile's economy. Pinochet was a Rockefeller stooge and a devoted client of Babylon. See also Part 3.
2049
2050General Zia ul-Haq
2051
2052Pakistan, 1978-1988	
2053In the 1970's Pakistan was led by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who did much to help his people, while at the same time scorning the wishes of Babylon (see G-I article). Henry Kissinger threatened Bhutto often, but to no avail, and so Babylon purchased General Zia's services and a coup took place in 1978. Pakistan subsequently became a base for Babylon's "Arc of Crisis" policy, articulated by David Rockefeller's strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, to undermine the progress and growing independence of Arab nations in the region.
2054
2055Saddam Hussein
2056
2057Iraq, 1979-2003	
2058When Babylon conspired to hand the nation of Iran over to the Ayatollah Khomeini and his cabal of fundamentalist psychopaths as part of the "Arc of Crisis" policy, the services of Saddam Hussein were acquired to keep the new Iranian regime contained. The result was the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's. After Iran was neutralized and peace was declared Saddam Hussein became unnecessary and he was lured into attacking Kuwait. His career was finally finished in 2003, when the long-standing plan to take over Iraq and its huge oil reserves was finally implemented. Currently Babylon plots to corporatize the Iraqi economy, and to make the American people pay for reconstruction. Profits will enrich Babylon's merchants, while the Iraqi people will suffer and the American people will pay the bill. With the occupation of Iraq, planned by the neo-cons, Wall Street and the CFR, New Babylon comes full circle as the true power over Old Babylon.
2059
2060General Hosni Mubarak
2061
2062Egypt, 1981-present	
2063General Mubarak took over as Egypt's leader after Anwar Sadat perished as a casualty of the "Arc of Crisis" policy (See G-I article). Mubarak soon became a favorite of Babylon because his authoritarian regime controlled Egypt's Muslim population and helped to protect Israel. Currently Mubarak receives over $2 billion a year from the US in foreign aid, which is second only to Israel. When Babylon falls, Mubarak's regime will come under immense pressure and Egypt could face the situation predicted in Isaiah 19.
2064
2065General Manuel Noriega
2066
2067Panama, 1983-1989	
2068In 1986, according to the in-depth EIR exposé Dope Inc., the long-time favored US ally Manuel Noriega made a major blunder when he closed down Panama's First Interamericas Bank after it was proven that it was owned by the powerful Cali cocaine cartel. What Noriega failed to understand was that the Cali cartel was a trading partner of powerful American interests associated with the New York banks and Wall Street. Noriega learned that when you mess with the Babylonian cartel you don't get visited by mafia thugs or anonymous hitmen, but by the US Military. After Panama was "liberated" of Noriega in 1989 the US installed a new government whose President, Attorney General, head of the Supreme Court, and Minister of the Treasury were all members of the board of First Interamericas Bank. The cocaine trade so profitable for Babylon then continued at a greater pace than before. Also see The Real Drug Lords by William Blum and The CIA's Greatest Hits by Mark Zepezauer.
2069
2070Ibrahim Babangida
2071
2072Nigeria, 1985-1993	
2073When Ibrahim Babangida seized power in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, in 1985, it was called "The IMF Coup," because he was backed by the US to remove a leader that was unwilling to accept all of the reforms that the IMF was demanding of Nigeria in return for massive loans. After Babangida took over he imposed those so-called "free market" economic reforms that were so helpful to the international merchants and so hurtful to the Nigerian people, and massive riots and street protests ensued, followed by the arrests of political dissidents and a military crackdown. When Babangida finally stepped down in 1993 the economy of Nigeria was ruined, but his Swiss bank account was full and his Babylonian masters were pleased.
2074
2075Carlos Menem
2076
2077Argentina, 1989-1999	
2078When Carlos Menem was elected president of Argentina in 1989 he was already a close friend of the Bush and Rockefeller families, and so when the IMF offered to "help" his country he led the campaign for "free market" reforms. After serving two terms Argentina's economy was in a predictable shambles: over half of the population was pushed over the poverty line, and one in five were unemployed. Today Argentina owes $14.3 billion to the IMF, $8.5 billion to the World Bank, and $8 billion to the IADB regional development bank. Carlos Menem, on the other hand, is very rich and trying to get back into politics to continue his adulterous services for the Whore that made him rich.
2079
2080Boris Yeltsin
2081
2082Russia, 1991-2000	
2083When the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 Boris Yeltsin presided over economic reforms in Russia that were disastrous to the Russian people. In just four years the life expectancy of Russian men dropped from 63.4 years to 58.2 years which was, according to one commentator, a situation "without precedent in modern history. Nowhere else has health worsened so seriously in peace-time among industrialized nations." The Russian reforms were designed by the IMF, and Yeltsin was their client who pushed them through, and when the Russian economy was finally bled dry in 1998 the Clinton Administration pushed through another IMF deal that kept Yeltsin and his partners in business for two more years. Yeltsin was the king of the largest country in the world, and he sold his people down the river as Babylon's servant.
2084
2085Fernando Cardoso
2086
2087Brazil, 1995-2002	
2088In 1998 the US and the IMF gave Brazil a "rescue package" of $41.2 billion. This rescue was necessary because of the terrible state of the Brazilian economy after three years under President Fernando Cardoso. Government jobs  had been cut, industries and services had been privatized, and taxes had been raised, but still Brazil could not service its $90 billion debt, one third of which was owed to American banks. In 2002 the IMF gave Cardoso's Brazil another $30 billion loan, but by the end of the year Cardoso had been voted out in favor of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, who has since then failed to deliver on his promises to rebuke Babylon and save the people and economy of Brazil.
2089
2090General Pervez Musharraf
2091
2092Pakistan, 1998-present	
2093General Musharraf became Pakistan's most powerful leader when he took over the Army in 1998, and his power was cemented in a bloodless coup against the civilian government in 1999. Musharraf's importance to Babylon has become critical since the events of 9-11-01, and he has performed his duties well as the leader of a country at the heart of the USA's "War on Terror." On the economic front Musharraf has consistently backed pro-Babylonian economic reform, and the IMF has praised him and kept the loans coming in.
2094
2095Vicente Fox
2096
2097Mexico, 2000-present	
2098Mexico became entrapped by the Babylonian financier/merchant system after President Lopez Portillo left office in 1982 (See Part 6). His successors of the dominant PRI party capitulated to the IMF and watched as policies were instituted that further accelerated the free-fall of the economy. In the early 1990's NAFTA was introduced as a remedy to the situation, but by the year 2000 things had gotten even worse. This was when the PRI fell out of power for the first time in 71 years, and Vicente Fox of the PAN was elected in what was billed a "revolution." It was no such thing. Today Fox continues the Babylonian agenda of "free trade," tax increases, privatization, and the cutback of government services. The people of Mexico are growing justifiably disenchanted with Fox's adulterous relationship with his Prostitute mistress, and they are voicing their will through the ballot box. Soon the Whore will have to seduce another puppet into doing her dirty work in Mexico.
2099
2100 
2101
2102The Merchants of the Earth
2103
2104The second group that will mourn over the punishment and fall of Babylon is the merchants of the earth. Revelation describes their dismay after the great city is torched by the fire of God,
2105
2106    The merchants of the earth will weep and mourn over her because no one buys their cargoes any more-- cargoes of gold, silver, precious stones and pearls; fine linen, purple, silk and scarlet cloth; every sort of citron wood, and articles of every kind made of ivory, costly wood, bronze, iron and marble; cargoes of cinnamon and spice, of incense, myrrh and frankincense, of wine and olive oil, of fine flour and wheat; cattle and sheep; horses and carriages; and bodies and souls of men. They will say, 
2107         'The fruit you longed for is gone from you. All your riches and splendor have vanished, never to be recovered.' 
2108    The merchants who sold these things and gained their wealth from her will stand far off, terrified at her torment. They will weep and mourn and cry out: 
2109        'Woe! Woe, O great city, dressed in fine linen, purple and scarlet, and glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls! In one hour such great wealth has been brought to ruin!'  18:11-17
2110
2111Babylon is the key city for the merchants of the earth, not only because it is the financial and stock market capital of the world, but also because it is the gateway to the United States which is the world's greatest consumer economy. At the end of Part 6 of this study we explained how this situation has come about, and how the primacy of the US Dollar has allowed the US to steadily change from being an economic producer and net exporter, to being predominantly a consumer and a net importer, with our multi-trillion dollar trade deficit reflecting that change. In Revelation, two whole verses list the various goods that Babylon brokers in, through which the merchants of the earth have become rich. Babylon is clearly a secular and materialistic world power, and the "fruit she longs for" is the material goods, riches and success that comes from being the center of world trade.
2112
2113In the year 2000 the Institute for Policy Studies published a report (.pdf) on the top 200 global corporations. The list of "key findings" at the beginning of the study is an eye-opener and reveals much about the corruption and power of these corporations. The study also shows that 82 of these top 200 corporations are based in the United States (41%). To further demonstrate the power of the New York merchants the 2003 Fortune magazine list of the top 500 US corporations reveals that New York City has more FORTUNE 500 headquarters than any other city, and indeed all major corporations are automatically tied to New York City because of Wall Street's role as the home of the major stock markets of the United States. In world trade, all eyes look to Babylon.
2114
2115The third group that will mourn over the downfall of Babylon is the shipping industry, which further enforces the fact that Babylon is a secular power based on world trade. International shipping is the backbone of the global economy, and because the USA is the world's greatest importer, and New York is the corporate capital of the world, it goes without saying that New York harbor is the most important commercial port in the world. Revelation predicts the dismay of the people associated with the shipping industry when Babylon falls,
2116
2117    "Every sea captain, and all who travel by ship, the sailors, and all who earn their living from the sea, will stand far off. When they see the smoke of her burning, they will exclaim, 
2118            'Was there ever a city like this great city?' 
2119    They will throw dust on their heads, and with weeping and mourning cry out:               'Woe! Woe, O great city, where all who had ships on the sea became rich through her wealth! In one hour she has been brought to ruin!' 
2120    Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you."  18:17-20, NIV
2121
2122Revelation concludes its description of end-times Babylon with the following words,
2123
2124Then a mighty angel picked up a boulder the size of a large millstone and threw it into the sea, and said: 
2125    "With such violence the great city of Babylon will be thrown down, never to be found again. The music of harpists and musicians, flute players and trumpeters, will never be heard in you again. No workman of any trade will ever be found in you again. The sound of a millstone will never be heard in you again. The light of a lamp will never shine in you again. The voice of bridegroom and bride will never be heard in you again. 
2126    Your merchants were the world's great men. By your magic spell all the nations were led astray. In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth." 18:21-24, NIV