Tag Archive | "Rockefeller"

Findings & Forecasts 02/06/2013

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Monopoly Banking

The Fed­eral Reserve has run out of ammu­ni­tion. For all the money that the Fed has thrown into our finan­cial system, the economy actu­ally shrunk in the fourth quarter of 2012. Unem­ploy­ment is also ticking up again.

Con­trary to pop­ular belief, the Fed does not have absolute con­trol over interest rates. It often acts in hind­sight, adjusting its internal rates to market forces, and such has been the case during the long term bear market in interest rates. What the Fed does do, how­ever, is dis­lo­cate free mar­kets in order to pro­vide pri­vate money-making oppor­tu­ni­ties to its members.

This is seen in recent years by the blow-up of the sub-prime mort­gage industry and the mul­ti­tril­lion dollar bailout of large finan­cial insti­tu­tions. If the Fed had been absent during this period, these things never would have happened.

The Fed’s actual agenda has been to pro­tect its pri­mary con­stituents — the large U.S. and global banks. It’s feigned atten­tion to the Amer­ican economy, workers and cit­i­zens is a phony as a three-dollar bill. The largest U.S. banks, all of which hold shares in the Fed include,

  • JP Morgan Chase
  • Bank of America
  • Cit­i­group
  • Wells Fargo
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Morgan Stanley

How do you sup­pose they got to be the largest banks in the country? By free-market com­pe­ti­tion? Hardly.

John D. Rock­e­feller, the early patri­arch of the Rock­e­feller for­tune and founder of Stan­dard Oil, was an unabashed monop­o­list who famously stated, “Com­pe­ti­tion is a sin.”

The Rock­e­feller family has con­trolled the Chase-related line of banking since the 1920’s. When Chase Bank merged with Equi­table Trust  (John D. Rock­e­feller, Jr. was the largest share­holder) in 1930, it became the largest bank in the world. It is STILL the largest bank in the U.S. and the ninth largest in the world!

The essence of monopoly cap­i­talism is to always game the system in their favor while dis­crim­i­nating against com­peti­tors. These banks, and espe­cially JPMor­gan­Chase have turned gov­ern­ment manip­u­la­tion into an art form. Communist/Marxist Lenin was the first person to define “state monopoly cap­i­talism” as the suc­cessor to simple monopoly cap­i­talism. According to Marxist theory, state monopoly cap­i­talism is the final his­tor­ical stage of capitalism.

Per­haps this is why the global banks and cor­po­ra­tions are pushing so hard for a new eco­nomic model that they them­selves call a “green economy.” Under the cover of green lies Tech­noc­racy, which I have written about for sev­eral years now.

Interest Rates Headed Up

The long-term bull market in 30 year Trea­suries is over. As bond prices have recently moved lower, we can also say that the bear market in interest rates is over as well — it’s the flip side of the same coin.

 

The July 2012 low of 2.44 per­cent should stand as the bottom of this entire trend, with rates soon moving above 4 per­cent. Over the next five years, rates should move back up into the 6 – 8 per­cent range.

Someone might say, “Who cares?” Well, elite bankers do not make a market, they only manip­u­late, exac­er­bate, exag­gerate and dis­lo­cate already existing mar­kets. The Fed’s response to rising rates, and the resulting economic/financial effect will be played by the elite banks to fur­ther con­sol­i­date their monop­o­listic posi­tion and max­i­mize their profits. Most of those profits will be at the expense of the middle class and the Amer­ican taxpayer.

When the Fed shuts off the mon­e­tary spigot, and it is a cer­tainty that they will at some time in the next 12 – 18 months, the eco­nomic impact will be imme­di­ately felt. The dollar will rise in value in rela­tion to other cur­ren­cies in the world, defla­tion will increase its grip, gov­ern­ment spending will be cur­tailed, interest rates will rise dra­mat­i­cally, and stocks will fall.

If you were part of this elite, and knew these things were going to happen and when the trigger would be pulled, do you think you could make some money off the news? Of course you could. Buy dol­lars, short stocks and futures, sell long-term bonds, sell real estate, etc. I should men­tion that this is exactly what so-called “smart money” is doing right now — accu­mu­lating dol­lars, dumping stocks, bonds and real estate.

Con­sid­ering the chart above, think about the finan­cial damage that was done to America during a period of falling interest rates. There was the dot com bubble and the first leg of the great bear market starting in 2000. There was the sub-prime melt­down and real estate crash of 2006 onward. The stock market crashed again in 2007 – 2009. Busi­ness and per­sonal bank­rupt­cies soared. Unem­ploy­ment soared. [Note: during the first four years of Obama, some 8.5 mil­lion workers have dropped out of the labor force and are not counted in cur­rent unem­ploy­ment sta­tis­tics.] The national debt, trade deficit and budget deficit are at record levels.

All of this hap­pened with falling interest rates. What do you think will happen when interest rates turn up? Will it bring pros­perity or poverty? I am sad to say, poverty.

As small investors are finally coming back into the stock market, they are investing at a time when insti­tu­tional investors are dumping their stocks. They are buying bonds just when smart money is selling. (see Insiders Bailing on Dow 14000) They are buying homes again with cheap money, often bet­ting on vari­able rate mort­gages because they think interest rates will con­tinue to fall. In short, the middle class public is 180 degrees out of step.

Retire­ment accounts and trust funds that are heavily com­mitted to long-term bonds will be ham­mered as the prin­cipal value of their invest­ments crash. A $1,000 30-year bond yielding 3 per­cent today will be worth only $500 when yields go up to 6 per­cent.  In other words, a dou­bling of the rate cuts your port­folio in half.

Home owners with vari­able rate mort­gages will be “reset” at higher rates, dri­ving their mort­gage pay­ments up. Interest only on a $200,000 mort­gage at 4 per­cent is $8,000 per year. At 6 per­cent, it jumps to $12,000, and at 7 per­cent, it hits $14,000. The result will be the same as it was in 2007 — mass fore­clo­sures and fur­ther real estate deterioration.

It is not a bright pic­ture. Facing the reality of it is worth the time and effort, because you might avoid some very painful mis­takes, and per­haps even profit from it.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.
VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Findings & Forecasts 10/24/2012

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,


Tech­noc­racy and the IMF: New Global Mon­e­tary System?

Beware of a new trial bal­loon being floated by the Inter­na­tional Mon­e­tary Fund, that is, “The Chicago Plan Revis­ited.”

According to British jour­nalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard,

The con­juring trick is to replace our system of pri­vate bank-created money — roughly 97pc of the money supply — with state-created money. We return to the his­tor­ical norm, before Charles II placed con­trol of the money supply in pri­vate hands with the Eng­lish Free Coinage Act of 1666.

Specif­i­cally, it means an assault on “frac­tional reserve banking”. If lenders are forced to put up 100pc reserve backing for deposits, they lose the exor­bi­tant priv­i­lege of cre­ating money out of thin air.

The nation regains sov­er­eign con­trol over the money supply. There are no more banks runs, and fewer boom-bust credit cycles. [Emphasis added]

At a time when some ivory-tower econ­o­mists are pre­dicting the end of cap­i­talism, any talk of mon­e­tary reform by global banking orga­ni­za­tions is worthy of atten­tion, if not alarm. The IMF has been one of the pri­mary engines of glob­al­iza­tion, having worked in con­junc­tion with the World Bank and the Bank for Inter­na­tional Set­tle­ments for decades.

The IMF has now dug up the so-called “Chicago Plan” from the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago dating back to 1936, and is seri­ously studying it for modern application.

Beware. As Patrick Henry once stated, “I smell a rat.”

First, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago was orig­i­nally cre­ated with a grant from John D. Rock­e­feller in 1890, and has long been an aca­d­emic vassal of Rock­e­feller inter­ests. In 1936 during the heat of the Great Depres­sion, leading econ­o­mists were looking for alter­na­tives to cap­i­talism and mon­e­tary theory. Tech­noc­racy, for instance, was one attempt to sug­gest an alter­na­tive eco­nomic system, during the same time period. Nei­ther Tech­noc­racy nor the Chicago Plan were suc­cessful at the time.

According to the IMF’s study,

“The decade fol­lowing the onset of the Great Depres­sion was a time of great intel­lec­tual fer­ment in eco­nomics, as the leading thinkers of the time tried to under­stand the apparent fail­ures of the existing eco­nomic system. This intel­lec­tual struggle extended to many domains, but arguably the most impor­tant was the field of mon­e­tary eco­nomics, given the key roles of pri­vate bank behavior and of cen­tral bank poli­cies in trig­gering and pro­longing the crisis.

“During this time a large number of leading U.S. macro­econ­o­mists sup­ported a fun­da­mental pro­posal for mon­e­tary reform that later became known as the Chicago Plan, after its strongest pro­po­nent, pro­fessor Henry Simons of the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago. It was also sup­ported, and bril­liantly sum­ma­rized, by Irving Fisher of Yale Uni­ver­sity, in Fisher (1936). The key fea­ture of this plan was that it called for the sep­a­ra­tion of the mon­e­tary and credit func­tions of the banking system, first by requiring 100% backing of deposits by government-issued money, and second by ensuring that the financing of new bank credit can only take place through earn­ings that have been retained in the form of government-issued money, or through the bor­rowing of existing government-issued money from non-banks, but not through the cre­ation of new deposits, ex nihilo, by banks.” [Emphasis added.]

I have long argued that the Fed­eral Reserve Bank, estab­lished in 1913, is a pri­vate cor­po­ra­tion whose pri­vate stock­holders were the major banks of that time period. The Fed was a super-lobby that would work directly with gov­ern­ment to orches­trate lending and col­lecting on an orderly basis. At that time, the banks did not “own” the var­ious nations of the world, so they could not sum­marily dic­tate public policy.

The Frac­tional Reserve system that cur­rently spans the globe was never intended to be a per­ma­nent solu­tion to wealth dom­i­na­tion. By def­i­n­i­tion from the start, the lenders would even­tu­ally wind up owning every­thing (all the resources) in society, and the frac­tional banking system would become obsolete.

The IMF is sug­gesting that the day of the Cen­tral Bank (the Fed included) may be over, and that the power of cur­rency cre­ation and issuance should instead be given to the state. This would lit­er­ally pull the rug out from under all the cen­tral banks of the world, requiring their untimely disbandment.

But, so what? Corporation’s change strategy all the time. If the cen­tral banks are essen­tially a ser­vice provider to their major con­stituent banks, then they will be useful only as long as they can pro­vide a ben­e­fi­cial ser­vice; there­after, they are discardable.

The orig­inal Chicago Plan and the Chicago Plan Revis­ited make no ref­er­ence to the eco­nomic system of Tech­noc­racy (also from the 1930’s) or the use of Energy Credits as cur­rency. How­ever, during the 1930’s and beyond, the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago has been a hotbed of Technocracy.

For instance, Pro­fessor Patricio Silva wrote In the Name of Reason: Tech­nocrats and Pol­i­tics in Chile that the so-called “Chicago boys” (Chilean econ­o­mists edu­cated at the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago) brought Tech­noc­racy to Chile where it sur­vived sev­eral changes of polit­ical power.

The “Chicago Boys” were edu­cated by Milton Friedman and Arnold Har­berger as the result of a State Depart­ment ini­tia­tive called the “Chile Project” that was orga­nized in the 1950’s and finan­cially spon­sored by the Ford Foundation.

Thus, I will sug­gest that the IMF’s new plan could be an impor­tant and nec­es­sary stepping-stone toward tying the issuance of cur­rency to energy policy instead of eco­nomic policy.

This link is not trivial. A state that arbi­trarily deter­mines the nec­es­sary level of cur­rency required to make its economy work must have some form of linkage to a non-political and more stable touch­stone. For many years, gold was such a touchstone.

While gold is not in the imme­diate pic­ture for mon­e­tary policy, energy is!

The United Nations has been pushing hard for a new global “Green Economy” that would replace the cur­rent “brown economy” based on fossil fuel and over-consumption in devel­oped nations.

“A green economy implies the decou­pling of resource use and envi­ron­mental impacts from eco­nomic growth… These invest­ments, both public and pri­vate, pro­vide the mech­a­nism for the recon­fig­u­ra­tion of busi­nesses, infra­struc­ture and insti­tu­tions, and for the adop­tion of sus­tain­able con­sump­tion and pro­duc­tion processes.” [Emerging policy issues, UNEP, 2010, p. 2] [Emphasis added]

If mon­e­tary cre­ation is handed back to the state, the above “decou­pling” could easily become a reality. Con­versely, as long as the cen­tral bank system imposes a frac­tional reserve system on global mon­e­tary policy, it cannot become a reality.

Again I say, Beware! The argu­ments for scrap­ping the Fed will sound appealing to everyone: no more boom/bust cycles, no more bankster rip-offs, etc. Just remember that the global elite do not exer­cise influ­ence in order to ben­efit anyone except themselves.

In this writer’s con­sid­ered opinion, the next phase of global dom­i­na­tion will focus on the direct con­trol of resources, rather than indi­rect own­er­ship via debt-based money.

Defla­tion vs. Spending

An economy grows when spending occurs for goods and ser­vices. There are three gen­eral sources of spending: Per­sonal, busi­ness and government.

Since I have been talking about credit defla­tion for sev­eral years now, it is worth noting again that the only escape from defla­tion is spending. When spending caves in, the economy caves in with it.

Since Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke was appointed by George Bush on Feb­ruary 1, 2006,  his pri­mary nemesis has been defla­tion, not infla­tion. As the credit melt­down pro­gressed, con­sumer and busi­ness spending fled, leaving gov­ern­ment spending the only pos­sible source of rescue. This became painfully obvious as lending/borrowing activity did not pick up after interest rates were dropped to almost zero.

Thus, the var­ious stim­ulus and Quan­ti­ta­tive Easing pro­grams were directed to get the gov­ern­ment to spend, and hence, we now have a $16 tril­lion national debt and vir­tu­ally nothing to show for it. The economy has not recov­ered, jobs have not returned and global sen­ti­ment has rad­i­cally shifted to a policy of fiscal austerity.

Since 2007, the Amer­ican con­sumer has been limping along while slowly descending into the eco­nomic abyss. Wages are down, unem­ploy­ment is higher and banks aren’t lending. People are trying to spin the real estate market uptick as some kind of bottom, but the activity is more like oxygen-starved koi sucking for air in a stag­nant pond.

The fol­lowing excerpt from the October 2012 McAl­vany Intel­li­gence Advisor) aptly describes the state of the average consumer:

…con­sumers are in the worst finan­cial shape they’ve been in since the Great Depres­sion. One recent report showed that credit card bal­ances for the indebted (people who carry a bal­ance each month) have dropped nearly $2,000, from $16,383 in March 2010 to $14,517 in March 2012. This sounds like Amer­i­cans are finally get­ting a grip on their finances. Hardly. If you look at credit card debt for all house­holds, the average has only dropped from $7,219 to $6,772.

That’s not the worst news, though. The reason for the decrease is not that Amer­i­cans are paying off their debt. Tim Chen wrote on Forbes.com (5/30/2012): “The reality of the sit­u­a­tion is much grimmer. In 2010, credit card com­pa­nies wrote off seri­ously delin­quent debts, declaring a huge chunk of money uncol­lec­table. America’s credit card debt dropped. The charge-off rate, which is the per­centage of dol­lars that have been clas­si­fied uncol­lectible, jumped to 10.7% — a 300% increase from 2006.

“After losing a gar­gan­tuan number of pay­ments, credit card com­pa­nies began to exer­cise shrewder dis­cern­ment in issuing finan­cial prod­ucts. With credit cards more dif­fi­cult to obtain, average debt con­tinued to fall.

“So, no. A decrease in credit card debt does not indi­cate height­ened finan­cial lit­eracy, a recov­ering job market, or smarter spending habits. It means the sit­u­a­tion was beyond repair and required an arti­fi­cial reduction.”

The truth of the matter is that the Amer­ican con­sumer is com­pletely tapped out on credit. This was true before the housing crunch, as most home­owners used the equity in their home as a piggy bank to main­tain bloated lifestyles. When home prices dropped, they went under­water in a hurry. [Emphasis added]

So, do the math. Con­sumer spending is not recov­ering. Gov­ern­ment spending will shift due to inter­na­tional and internal demands for aus­terity. Busi­nesses are already cur­tailing spending on cap­ital goods and ser­vices. Who is left to spend? No one.

This is where we stand as of today. On the first of Jan­uary, how­ever, the employed uni­verse of workers are going to see sig­nif­i­cantly higher taxes taken from their pay­checks, thanks to the sunset of the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001.

A family with a $100,000 income will lose about $3,000, or 3 per­cent, of their spend­able income. Con­sid­ering how tight bud­gets are already, that $3,000 loss rep­re­sents a dis­pro­por­tionate per­centage of dis­cre­tionary spending… and it’s going to be painful to many households.

Thus, the spiral down into defla­tion continues.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

Trilateral Commission influence in the Eurozone

Tags: , , , ,


by Patrick Wood

Speaking of his Tri­lat­eral Commission’s influ­ence in the orig­inal cre­ation of the Euro­pean Union, David Rock­e­feller wrote in 1998,

“Back in the early Sev­en­ties, the hope for a more united EUROPE was already full-blown — thanks in many ways to the indi­vidual ener­gies pre­vi­ously spent by so many of the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s ear­liest mem­bers.” [Cap­i­tals in orig­inal] (Rock­e­feller, David; In the Begin­ning; The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion at 25, 1998, p.11)

Some argued that “that was then and this is now,” and that the Commission’s influ­ence had waned with the passing of the older generation.

Non­sense. It was Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Vallery d’Estaing who authored the EU’s Con­sti­tu­tion in 2002 – 2003 when he was Pres­i­dent of the Con­ven­tion on the Future of Europe.

On November 10, 2011, Robert Wenzel, Editor & Pub­lisher of the Eco­nomic Policy Journal, wrote the fol­lowing short report:

And the Big Time Banksters Come Marching In

“Here’s what you need to know about the cur­rent crisis in the Euro­zone. The big time banksters are get­ting direct hands on control:

“Mario Drgahi has become pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank as of November 1. He was vice chairman and man­aging director of Goldman Sachs Inter­na­tional and a member of the firm-wide man­age­ment com­mittee. He was the Italian Exec­u­tive Director at the World Bank. He has been a Fellow of the Insti­tute of Pol­i­tics at the John F. Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment, Har­vard University.

“Lucas Papademos takes over today as Prime Min­ister of Greece. He was an econ­o­mist at the Fed­eral Reserve Bank of Boston. He was a vis­iting pro­fessor of public policy at the Kennedy School of Gov­ern­ment at Har­vard Uni­ver­sity. And, he was pre­vi­ously a vice pres­i­dent of the Euro­pean Cen­tral Bank. He has been a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion since 1998.

“Indi­ca­tions are that Mario Monti will suc­ceed Silvio Berlus­coni as prime min­ister of Italy, within in days. Monti com­pleted grad­uate studies at Yale Uni­ver­sity, where he studied under James Tobin (see the Tobin Tax). He is a member of the Euro­pean Com­mis­sion. He is Euro­pean Chairman of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and and member of the Bilder­berg Group.

“If you get the sense that the elitist banksters are going to take this finan­cial crisis and push it in what­ever direc­tion they want, you are prob­ably very right.”

As you can see, little has changed since 1973, and the same Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­ber­ship keeps pop­ping up in the most hal­lowed posi­tions of power and influ­ence. The Commission’s defense is that it was simply coin­ci­dental for their mem­bers to be picked for var­ious high-level posi­tions because of their supe­rior tal­ents and abil­i­ties. This is not hearsay: I have had this spoken directly to me by mem­bers of the Commission.

Con­sid­ering that the mem­ber­ship hovers around 300 – 350 at any given time,  it is sta­tis­ti­cally impos­sible that they could have been ran­domly picked at such a high fre­quency over such a long period of time. In the U.S. alone since 1973, Com­mis­sion mem­bers held

  • 8 out of 10 U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive appointments
  • 6 our of 8 World Bank presidencies
  • 6 out of 7 President/Vice Pres­i­dent elections

Could any sane person think that they Tri­lat­erals just stum­bled into all of these posi­tions?  Of course not.

The his­tor­ical evi­dence declares that the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion hijacked the global polit­ical system for the exact pur­poses it stated in 1973. That is, to “foster a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.”

Just who rules the world economy?

When Antony Sutton and myself studied the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1978, one ana­lyt­ical tech­nique we used was a deriv­a­tive of soci­ology called “net­work topology.” We assem­bled names of direc­tors, exec­u­tives and major share­holders of com­pa­nies asso­ci­ated with the Tri­lat­erals and then dia­grammed them to show over­laps and other non-obvious asso­ci­a­tions. Our results were stun­ning. We found a tight inter­locking net­work that was far stronger than a bunch of inde­pen­dent com­pa­nies. In graph­ical form, the net­work was clearly vis­ible. (See Tri­lat­erals Over Wash­ington, Volume I)

Recently, three researchers in Switzer­land (S. Vitali, J.B. Glat­tfelder, and S. Bat­tiston) have released a sim­ilar and modern study called “The net­work of global cor­po­rate con­trol.” In the abstract they state,

“We find that transna­tional cor­po­ra­tions form a giant bow-tie struc­ture and that a large por­tion of con­trol flows to a small tightly-knit core of finan­cial insti­tu­tions. This core can be seen as an eco­nomic “super-entity” that raises new impor­tant issues both for researchers and policy makers.”

This is an under­state­ment. In Table S1 buried in the appendix, they list the “top 50 control-holders,” where share­holders are ranked according to their level of net­work con­trol. These are the com­pa­nies who com­prise the inner-core of global control.

Of the 50 com­pa­nies, 45 are banks, insur­ance or other finan­cial insti­tu­tions. From the U.S. we see the usual: State Street, JP Morgan Chase, B of A, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and others.

In short, this core of banks/financials are the real rulers of the world economy. There is no spec­u­la­tion here: This is hard and com­pelling evidence.

This is also the exact same con­clu­sion that Sutton and I reached in 1978 with more rudi­men­tary, non-computerized analysis.

The report concludes,

“This is the first time a ranking of eco­nomic actors by global con­trol is pre­sented. Notice that many actors belong to the finan­cial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of the names are well-known global players. The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsus­pected pow­erful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their busi­ness in iso­la­tion but, on the con­trary, they are tied together in an extremely entan­gled web of con­trol. This finding is extremely impor­tant since there was no prior eco­nomic theory or empir­ical evi­dence regarding whether and how top players are con­nected. Finally, it should be noted that gov­ern­ments and nat­ural per­sons are only fea­tured fur­ther down in the list.” [emphasis added]

Zbig­niew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion with David Rock­e­feller in 1973, summed up the “net­work” in his 1970 Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Tech­netronic Era:

“The nation-­state as a fun­da­mental unit of man’s orga­nized life has ceased to be the prin­cipal cre­ative force: Inter­na­tional banks and multi­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions are acting and plan­ning in terms that are far in advance of the polit­ical con­cepts of the nation-state.” [emphasis added]

Unfor­tu­nately, this is the reality of the matter. With inter­na­tional banks at the center and var­ious multi­na­tional com­pa­nies in the periphery, the net­work con­tinues to dom­i­nate and con­trol the course of world events. The cit­i­zens of the respec­tive coun­tries are little more than objects to be taxed and manipulated.

In Europe, the finan­cial demise of Italy and Greece threatens to melt down the Euro­pean region, if not the entire global economy. That Tri­lat­eral bankers Papademos and Monti, respec­tively, would take the helm as Prime Min­ister of their own nation-state should be likened to be a receiver­ship move designed to pro­tect the assets of the banks (the “Net­work”) they rep­re­sent. If nothing else, it cer­tainly shows that the Tri­lat­eral hege­mony over Europe is alive and well.

Until this hege­mony is somehow dis­solved, the game of national polit­ical elec­tions (In the U.S. or Europe) is largely an exer­cise in futility. Elec­tors are simply deceived when they fail to rec­og­nize and address the real power behind the political/economic system.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Plundering the Public Purse

Tags: , , , , , ,


By Patrick Wood, Editor

As the global finan­cial crisis unfolds, one thing is cer­tain: The major invest­ment and com­mer­cial banks who have wrecked our economy and finan­cial system are now suc­cess­fully sucking unlim­ited amounts of money from the people’s Trea­sury to bail them­selves out.

Drooling at the head of the line are Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase. There will be more.

In simple terms, Bear Stearns, the fifth largest U.S. invest­ment bank, got caught in a mas­sive bank run. Vir­tu­ally overnight, those who extended credit on a reg­ular basis, dis­ap­peared. It’s not that they didn’t deserve insol­vency, because Bear Stearns was a pio­neer in the secu­ri­ti­za­tion of now-toxic sub-prime mortgages.

Had Bear Stearns been allowed to col­lapse, it would have set off a domino effect that could have taken down major com­mer­cial banks as well as other invest­ment banks and brokerages.

Fed Chairman Bernanke and Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Paulson quickly set into motion a plan to pre­vent dis­aster. (Um, hold on to your wallet!)

Invoking a rarely used 1932 Amend­ment to the Fed­eral Reserve Act, The Fed­eral Reserve set up a spe­cial fund with $200 bil­lion that can be used by major banks to shore up their cap­ital posi­tion so that a) they won’t fail alto­gether and b) they can con­tinue to loan mul­ti­plied bil­lions to clients world-wide. The lan­guage of the Amend­ment gives the Fed such authority when “unusual and exi­gent cir­cum­stances exist and the bor­rower is unable to secure ade­quate credit accom­mo­da­tions from other sources.”

In essence, the Fed becomes the lender of last resort, and the Trea­sury guar­an­tees payoff even in the case of default.

But, Bear Stearns is NOT a bank and NOT a member of the privately-owned Fed­eral Reserve. And since the Fed can only lend cash directly to member banks, it chan­neled funds through sur­ro­gate JPMorgan Chase, to pur­chase Bear Stearns and guar­antee its con­tinued operation.

What a sweet­heart deal for JPMorgan Chase: It lit­er­ally stole the com­pany for a mere $2 per share or a total of about $250 mil­lion. The Bear Stern head­quar­ters building alone is worth at least a bil­lion dol­lars. Its stock traded as high as $170 just over a year ago.

So, Bear Stearns gets bailed out at no risk to JPMorgan Chase, and JP Morgan Chase gets to add wind­fall assets to its own bal­ance sheet.

Don’t be shocked to remember that the Chase in JPMorgan Chase is derived from the old Chase Man­hattan Bank that was the dynasty of David Rock­e­feller, which merged into banking giant JP Morgan some years ago. Rock­e­feller was the co-founder of the elite Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973, whose spe­cific goal was to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.”

In a sep­a­rate move, the Fed announced it will begin to loan Trea­sury secu­ri­ties (not cash) directly to the large invest­ment banks in return for col­lat­eral based on “more risky invest­ments,” e.g. worth­less sub-prime paper. By infu­sion of “better cap­ital” onto their bal­ance sheets, the hope is that other lenders will be more likely to con­tinue to do busi­ness with them. If  the bor­rower goes defunct, its cred­i­tors seize the Trea­sury secu­ri­ties, and the Trea­sury is left holding the worth­less secu­ri­ties. Of course, tax­payers will con­tinue to pay interest on these secu­ri­ties for years into the future.

Amer­i­cans aren’t going to take this much longer.

Social mood is vis­ibly turning just as cer­tainly as a San Fran­cisco cable car on its turntable at the end of the line.

A recent search on www.cnnfn.com for “Bear Stearns” pro­duced these two spon­sored ad links at the very top of the results page:

  • “Bear Stearns Law­suit: Lose Money in Bear Stearns Shares? Free Case Review”
  • “Bear Stearns Employee? Did Com­pany Vio­late Your Rights? Get into an ERISA Investigation”

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The FBI announced in Jan­uary that it is cur­rently probing 14 major mort­gage lenders for fraud, including Coun­try­wide Finan­cial. It is very likely that Bear Stearns is among this list. Sev­eral Fed­eral and state agen­cies are already inves­ti­gating crim­inal wrong­doing from the Bear’s two failed hedge funds that went under in 2007.

Can an industry as cor­rupt and self-serving as this escape unscathed under the gaze of a hoard of hungry lawyers, attor­neys gen­eral, state and fed­eral agen­cies and more? Not.

This writer pre­dicts that at least some of these top exec­u­tives (and per­haps some gov­ern­ment col­lab­o­ra­tors) will ulti­mately be carted off in hand­cuffs, much like Jef­fery Skilling and Ken­neth Lay after the col­lapse of Enron in 2001.

Mean­while, ABC News reports that Bear Stearns has called in grief coun­selors “to help workers handle the news that their plans and per­haps their dreams have abruptly and dra­mat­i­cally changed.” How thoughtful.

Appar­ently, the overnight loss of 99% of their retire­ment funds plus the prospect of losing their jobs is pro­ducing symp­toms like depres­sion, with­drawal, sleep­less­ness, loss of appetite and anx­iety and irritability.

Under­stand­able, but many of us have been suf­fering the same things over the sellout and melt­down of our entire country, and for a lot longer than they have!

Who will hire grief coun­selors for us?

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Toward a North American Union

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


By: Patrick Wood

Good evening, every­body. Tonight, an aston­ishing pro­posal to expand our bor­ders to incor­po­rate Mexico and Canada and simul­ta­ne­ously fur­ther diminish U.S. sov­er­eignty. Have our polit­ical elites gone mad?
Lou Dobbs on Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005

Intro­duc­tion

The global elite, through the direct oper­a­tions of Pres­i­dent George Bush and his Admin­is­tra­tion, are cre­ating a North Amer­ican Union that will com­bine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a super­state called the North Amer­ican Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly pat­terned after the Euro­pean Union (EU). There is no polit­ical or eco­nomic man­date for cre­ating the NAU, and unof­fi­cial polls of a cross-section of Amer­i­cans indi­cate that they are over­whelm­ingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.

To answer Lou Dobbs, “No, the polit­ical elites have not gone mad”, they just want you to think that they have.

The reality over appear­ance is easily cleared up with a proper his­tor­ical per­spec­tive of the last 35 years of polit­ical and eco­nomic manip­u­la­tion by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.

This paper will explore this his­tory in order to give the reader a com­plete pic­ture of the NAU, how it is made pos­sible, who are the insti­ga­tors of it, and where it is headed.

It is impor­tant to first under­stand that the impending birth of the NAU is a ges­ta­tion of the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment, not the Con­gress. This is the topic of the first dis­cus­sion below.

The next topic will examine the global elite’s strategy of sub­verting the power to nego­tiate trade treaties and inter­na­tional law with for­eign coun­tries from the Con­gress to the Pres­i­dent. Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.

After this, we will show that the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (NAFTA) is the imme­diate genetic and nec­es­sary ancestor of the NAU.

Lastly, throughout this report the NAU per­pe­tra­tors and their tac­tics will be brought into the lime­light so as to affix blame where it prop­erly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.

The Best Gov­ern­ment that Money Can Buy

Modern day glob­al­iza­tion was launched with the cre­ation of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski. Its mem­ber­ship con­sisted of just over 300 pow­erful elit­ists from North America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion was to foster a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” that would sup­plant the his­tor­ical eco­nomic order.

In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion nonethe­less estab­lished a head­lock on the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment with the elec­tion of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date by Brzezinski, Carter was per­son­ally tutored in glob­alist phi­los­ophy and for­eign policy by Brzezinski him­self. Sub­se­quently, when Carter was sworn in as Pres­i­dent, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. mem­bers of the Com­mis­sion to his Cab­inet and other high-level posts in his Admin­is­tra­tion. Such was the gen­esis of the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s dom­i­na­tion of the Exec­u­tive Branch that con­tinues to the present day.

With the elec­tion of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member George H.W. Bush was intro­duced to the White House as vice-president. Through Bush’s influ­ence, Reagan con­tinued to select key appoint­ments from the ranks of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as Pres­i­dent. He was fol­lowed by fellow Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion member William Jef­ferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as Pres­i­dent and appointed four­teen fellow Tri­lat­eral mem­bers to his Administration.

The elec­tion of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no sur­prise. Although Bush was not a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addi­tion, Dick Cheney’s wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Com­mis­sion in her own right.

The hege­mony of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion over the Exec­u­tive Branch of the U.S. gov­ern­ment is unmis­tak­able. Critics argue that this sce­nario is merely cir­cum­stan­tial, that the most qual­i­fied polit­ical “talent” quite nat­u­rally tends to belong to groups like the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in the first place. Under exam­i­na­tion, such expla­na­tions are quite hollow.

Why would the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion seek to dom­i­nate the Exec­u­tive Branch? Quite simply — Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impos­sible to accom­plish through the only mod­er­ately suc­cessful lob­bying efforts of the past; power to use the gov­ern­ment as a bully plat­form to modify polit­ical behavior throughout the world.

Of course, the obvious corol­lary to this hege­mony is that the influ­ence and impact of the cit­i­zenry is vir­tu­ally eliminated.

Modern Day “World Order” Strategy

After its founding in 1973, Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers wasted no time in launching their glob­alist strategy. But, what was that strategy?

Richard Gardner was an orig­inal member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, and one of the promi­nent archi­tects of the New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order. In 1974, his article “The Hard Road to World Order” appeared in For­eign Affairs mag­a­zine, pub­lished by the Council on For­eign Rela­tions. With obvious dis­dain for anyone holding nation­al­istic polit­ical views, Gardner proclaimed,

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing con­fu­sion,’ to use William James’ famous descrip­tion of reality, but an end run around national sov­er­eignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accom­plish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.1 [emphasis added]

In Gardner’s view, using treaties and trade agree­ments (such as Gen­eral Agree­ment on Trade and Tar­iffs or GATT) would bind and supercede con­sti­tu­tional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has hap­pened. In addi­tion, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sov­er­eignty of indi­vidual nations.

Gardner con­cluded that “the case-by-case approach can pro­duce some remark­able con­ces­sions of ‘sov­er­eignty’ that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis“2

Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would even­tu­ally capit­u­late its sov­er­eignty to the newly pro­posed world order. It is not specif­i­cally men­tioned who would con­trol this new order, but it is quite obvious that the only ‘players’ around are Gardner and his Tri­lat­eral cronies.

It should again be noted that the for­ma­tion of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion by Rock­e­feller and Brzezinski was a response to the gen­eral frus­tra­tion that glob­alism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The “frontal assault ” had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typ­ical mindset of the global elite to view any road­block as an oppor­tu­nity to stage an “end-run” to get around it. Gardner con­firms this frustration:

“Cer­tainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objec­tives and the capac­i­ties of the inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions that were sup­posed to get mankind on the road to world order. We are wit­nessing an out­break of short­sighted nation­alism that seems obliv­ious to the eco­nomic, polit­ical and moral impli­ca­tions of inter­de­pen­dence. Yet never has there been such wide­spread recog­ni­tion by the world’s intel­lec­tual lead­er­ship of the neces­sity for coop­er­a­tion and plan­ning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, espe­cially beyond social system.“3

The “world’s intel­lec­tual lead­er­ship” appar­ently refers to aca­d­e­mics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Out­side of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion and the CFR, the vast majority of aca­d­emic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as men­tioned above.

Laying the Ground­work: Fast Track Authority

In Article 1, Sec­tion 8 of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, authority is granted to Con­gress “To reg­u­late com­merce with for­eign nations.” An end-run around this insur­mount­able obstacle would be to con­vince Con­gress to vol­un­tarily turn over this power to the Pres­i­dent. With such authority in hand, the Pres­i­dent could freely nego­tiate treaties and other trade agree­ments with for­eign nations, and then simply present them to Con­gress for a straight up or down vote, with no amend­ments pos­sible. This again points out elite dis­dain for a Con­gress that is elected to be rep­re­sen­ta­tive “of the people, by the people and for the people.”

So, the first “Fast Track” leg­is­la­tion was passed by Con­gress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion. It was the same year that Nelson Rock­e­feller was con­firmed as Vice Pres­i­dent under Pres­i­dent Gerald Ford, nei­ther of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rock­e­feller was seated as the pres­i­dent of the U.S. Senate.

According to Public Cit­izen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that…

“…the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Con­gress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the para­me­ters for con­gres­sional debate on any trade mea­sure the Pres­i­dent sub­mits, requiring a vote within a cer­tain time with no amend­ments and only 20 hours of debate.“4

When an agree­ment is about to be given to Con­gress, high-powered lob­by­ists and polit­ical hammer-heads are called in to manip­u­late con­gres­sional hold-outs into voting for the leg­is­la­tion. (*See CAFTA Lob­bying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little oppor­tu­nity for public involvement.

Con­gress clearly under­stood the risk of giving up this power to the Pres­i­dent, as evi­denced by the fact that they put an auto­matic expi­ra­tion date on it. Since the expi­ra­tion of the orig­inal Fast Track, there been a very con­tentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, Pres­i­dent Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in Con­gress. After another con­tentious struggle in 2001/2002, Pres­i­dent Bush was able to renew Fast Track for him­self in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to nego­tiate the Cen­tral Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment (CAFTA) and insure its pas­sage in 2005.

It is star­tling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade agree­ments. Under the Clinton pres­i­dency, for instance, some 300 sep­a­rate trade agree­ments were nego­ti­ated and passed nor­mally by Con­gress, but only two of them were sub­mitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agree­ment and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agree­ment. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invo­ca­tion of Fast Track.

Why the selec­tivity? Does it sug­gest a very narrow agenda? Most cer­tainly. These trade and legal bam­boo­zles didn’t stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was cre­ated as a very spe­cific leg­isla­tive tool to accom­plish a very spe­cific exec­u­tive task — namely, to “fast track” the cre­ation of the “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order” envi­sioned by the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion in 1973!

Article Six of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Con­sti­tu­tion or Laws of any State to the Con­trary notwith­standing.” Because inter­na­tional treaties super­sede national law, Fast Track has allowed an enor­mous restruc­turing of U.S. law without resorting to a Con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion (Ed. note: Both Henry Kissinger and Zbig­niew Brzezinski called for a con­sti­tu­tional con­ven­tion as early as 1972, which could clearly be viewed as a failed “frontal assault”). As a result, national sov­er­eignty of the United States has been severely com­pro­mised — even if some Con­gressmen and Sen­a­tors are aware of this, the gen­eral public is still gen­er­ally ignorant.

North Amer­ican Free Trade Agreement

NAFTA was nego­ti­ated under the exec­u­tive lead­er­ship of Repub­lican Pres­i­dent George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely cred­ited as being the pri­mary archi­tect and nego­tiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

NAFTA Initialling

NAFTA “Ini­tialing” Cer­e­mony: From left to right (standing)
Pres­i­dent Salinas, Pres­i­dent Bush, Prime Min­ister Mul­roney
(Seated) Jaime Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.

With Bush’s first pres­i­den­tial term drawing to a close and Bush desiring polit­ical credit for NAFTA, an “ini­tialing” cer­e­mony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very offi­cial looking, most Amer­i­cans did not under­stand the dif­fer­ence between ini­tialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not imple­mented and Bush did not have the authority to actu­ally sign such a trade agreement.

Bush sub­se­quently lost a pub­licly con­tentious pres­i­den­tial race to demo­crat William Jef­ferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar oppo­sites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a sea­soned member of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

Imme­di­ately after inau­gu­ra­tion, Clinton became the cham­pion of NAFTA and orches­trated its pas­sage with a mas­sive Exec­u­tive Branch effort.

Some Unex­pected Resis­tance to NAFTA

Prior to the 1992 elec­tion, there was a fly in the elite’s oint­ment — namely, pres­i­den­tial can­di­date and bil­lion­aire Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Elec­tronic Data Sys­tems (EDS). Perot was polit­i­cally inde­pen­dent, vehe­mently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major cam­paign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money to over­come the neg­a­tive pub­licity that Perot gave to NAFTA.

At the time, some polit­ical ana­lysts believed that Perot, being a bil­lion­aire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elit­ists who were pushing NAFTA. Pre­sum­ably, it would accu­mu­late all the anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elit­ists to deter­mine who their true ene­mies really were. It’s moot today whether he was sin­cere or not, but it did have that out­come, and Perot became a light­ning rod for the whole issue of free trade.

Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nation­ally tele­vised cam­paign speeches:

“If you’re paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for fac­tory workers and you can move your fac­tory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young — let’s assume you’ve been in busi­ness for a long time and you’ve got a mature work­force — pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care — that’s the most expen­sive single ele­ment in making a car — have no envi­ron­mental con­trols, no pol­lu­tion con­trols, and no retire­ment, and you didn’t care about any­thing but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south…“5 [emphasis added]

Perot’s mes­sage struck a nerve with mil­lions of Amer­i­cans, but it was unfor­tu­nately cut short when he entered into public cam­paign debates with fellow can­di­date Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot’s lunch, not so much on the issues them­selves, but on having supe­rior debating skills. As orga­nized as Perot was, he was no match for a polit­i­cally and glob­ally sea­soned politi­cian like Al Gore.

The Spin Machine gears up

To counter the public rela­tions damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the Pres­i­dent unleashed the biggest and most expen­sive spin machine the country had ever seen.

NAFTA emblem

NAFTA/NAU Emblem

Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multi-million dollar nation­wide ad cam­paign that praised the ben­e­fits of NAFTA. The mantra, car­ried con­sis­tently throughout the many spin events: “Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages”, all of which have turned out to be empty promises

Bill Clinton invited three former pres­i­dents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affir­ma­tion NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. his­tory that four pres­i­dents had ever appeared together. Of the four, three were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Com­mis­sioner, but was nev­er­the­less a con­firmed glob­alist insider. After Ford’s acces­sion to the pres­i­dency in 1974, he promptly nom­i­nated Nelson Rock­e­feller (David Rockefeller’s oldest brother) to fill the Vice Pres­i­dency that Ford had just vacated.

The aca­d­emic com­mu­nity was enlisted when, according to Harper’s Mag­a­zine pub­lisher John MacArthur,

…there was a pro-NAFTA peti­tion, orga­nized and written my MIT’s Rudiger Dorn­busch, addressed to Pres­i­dent Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel lau­re­ates in eco­nomics, and exer­cise in aca­d­emic logrolling that was expertly con­verted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on Sep­tember 14. ‘Dear Mr. Pres­i­dent,’ wrote the 283 sig­na­to­ries…“6

Lastly, promi­nent Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers them­selves took to the press to pro­mote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Com­mis­sioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:

“[NAFTA] would be the most con­struc­tive mea­sure the United States would have under­taken in our hemi­sphere in this cen­tury.“7

Two months later, Kissinger went further,

“It will rep­re­sent the most cre­ative step toward a new world order taken by any group of coun­tries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemi­sphere.” [NAFTA] is not a con­ven­tional trade agree­ment, but the archi­tec­ture of a new inter­na­tional system.8 [emphasis added]

It is hardly fan­ciful to think that Kissinger’s hype sounds quite sim­ilar to the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s orig­inal goal of cre­ating a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order.

NAFTA Signing

Pres­i­dent Clinton signing NAFTA

On Jan­uary 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track pro­ce­dures, the house had passed it by 234 – 200 (132 Repub­li­cans and 102 Democ­rats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61 – 38.

That Giant Sucking Sound Going South

To under­stand the poten­tial impact of the North Amer­ican Union, one must under­stand the impact of NAFTA.

NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the oppo­site has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 tril­lion dol­lars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5 mil­lion jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly.

Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA’s dele­te­rious effect on the U.S. economy:

“When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehi­cles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehi­cles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.

“As McMil­lion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as “Auto Cap­ital of the World”?

“What hap­pened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.9

Of course, this only rep­re­sents the auto industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other indus­tries as well. Buchanan cor­rectly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal: Rather, it was an “enabling act — to enable U.S. cor­po­ra­tions to dump their Amer­ican workers and move their fac­to­ries to Mexico.” Indeed, this is the very spirit of all out­sourcing of U.S. jobs and man­u­fac­turing facil­i­ties to over­seas locations.

Respected econ­o­mist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mir­rors that cloud what has really hap­pened with exports:

“Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been pro­ducer goods — in par­tic­ular, parts and com­po­nents sent by U.S. multi­na­tionals to their Mex­ican fac­to­ries for assembly or for fur­ther pro­cessing. The vast majority of these, more­over, are reex­ported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for final sale. In fact, by most esti­mates, the United States buys 80 to 90 per­cent of all of Mexico’s exports.“10

Tonelson con­cludes that “the vast majority of Amer­ican workers have expe­ri­enced declining living stan­dards, not just a handful of losers.”

Mex­ican econ­o­mist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico’s sup­posed ben­e­fits from NAFTA:

“Much praise has been heard for the few ‘win­ners’ that NAFTA has cre­ated, but little men­tion is made of the fact that the Mex­ican people are the deal’s big ‘losers.’ Mex­i­cans now face greater unem­ploy­ment, poverty, and inequality than before the agree­ment began in 1994.“11

In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the cit­i­zenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the back­drop against which the North Amer­ican Union is being acted out. The glob­al­iza­tion players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as disin­gen­uous as ever.

Pre­lude to the North Amer­ican Union

Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for a “deep inte­gra­tion” which NAFTA could not pro­vide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North Amer­ican Union, pub­lished in 2001. Unfor­tu­nately for Pastor, the book was released just a few days prior to the 9/11 ter­rorist attacks in New York and thus received little atten­tion from any sector.

How­ever, Pastor had the right con­nec­tions. He was invited to appear before the ple­nary ses­sion (held in Ontario, Canada) of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion on November 1 – 2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, “A Modest Pro­posal To the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion”, made sev­eral recommendations:

  • “… the three gov­ern­ments should estab­lish a North Amer­ican Com­mis­sion (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meet­ings by the three leaders and to mon­itor the imple­men­ta­tion of the deci­sions and plans.
  • A second insti­tu­tion should emerge from com­bining two bilat­eral leg­isla­tive groups into a North Amer­ican Par­lia­men­tary Group.
  • “The third insti­tu­tion should be a Per­ma­nent Court on Trade and Investment
  • “The three leaders should estab­lish a North Amer­ican Devel­op­ment Fund, whose pri­ority would be to con­nect the U.S.-Mexican border region to cen­tral and southern Mexico.
  • The North Amer­ican Com­mis­sion should develop an inte­grated con­ti­nental plan for trans­porta­tion and infrastructure.
  • “…nego­tiate a Cus­toms Union and a Common External Tariff
  • Our three gov­ern­ments should sponsor Cen­ters for North Amer­ican Studies in each of our coun­tries to help the people of all three under­stand the prob­lems and the poten­tial of North America and begin to think of them­selves as North Amer­i­cans12 [emphasis added]

Pastor’s choice of the words “Modest Pro­posal” are almost com­ical con­sid­ering that he intends to reor­ga­nize the entire North Amer­ican continent.

Nev­er­the­less, the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion bought Pastor’s pro­posals hook, line and sinker. Sub­se­quently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:

“The Council has launched an inde­pen­dent task force on the future of North America to examine regional inte­gra­tion since the imple­men­ta­tion of the North Amer­ican Free Trade Agree­ment ten years ago… The task force will review five spheres of policy in which greater coop­er­a­tion may be needed. They are: deep­ening eco­nomic inte­gra­tion; reducing the devel­op­ment gap; har­mo­nizing reg­u­la­tory policy; enhancing secu­rity; and devising better insti­tu­tions to manage con­flicts that inevitably arise from inte­gra­tion and exploit oppor­tu­ni­ties for col­lab­o­ra­tion.“13

Inde­pen­dent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three mem­bers were chosen from the three coun­tries. Each country was rep­re­sented by a member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.

This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on eco­nomic and polit­ical poli­cies for all three coun­tries, not just the U.S. The Task Force stated pur­pose was to

“… iden­tify inad­e­qua­cies in the cur­rent arrange­ments and sug­gest oppor­tu­ni­ties for deeper coop­er­a­tion on areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus pri­marily on U.S. policy, this ini­tia­tive includes par­tic­i­pants from Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy rec­om­men­da­tions for all three coun­tries.14 [Emphasis added]

Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, point­edly made the link between NAFTA and inte­gra­tion of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:

“Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the secu­rity and eco­nomic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are inti­mately bound. But there is pre­cious little thinking avail­able as to where the three coun­tries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the poten­tial of this task force to help fill this void,“15

Haass’ state­ment “there is pre­cious little thinking avail­able” under­scores a repeat­edly used elitist tech­nique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and sec­ondly, assign a flock of aca­d­e­mics to jus­tify your intended actions. (This is the crux of aca­d­emic funding by NGO’s such as Rock­e­feller Foun­da­tion, Ford Foun­da­tion, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion process is com­plete, the same elites that sug­gested it in the first place allow them­selves to be drawn in as if they had no other log­ical choice but to play along with the “sound thinking” of the experts.

The task force met three times, once in each country. When the process was com­pleted, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper titled “Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity” and sub­ti­tled “Report of the Inde­pen­dent Task Force on the Future of North America.” Even the sub-title sug­gests that the “future of North America” is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors.

Some of the rec­om­men­da­tions of the task force are:

  • Adopt a common external tariff.”
  • “Adopt a North Amer­ican Approach to Regulation”
  • “Estab­lish a common secu­rity perimeter by 2010.”
  • “Estab­lish a North Amer­ican invest­ment fund for infra­struc­ture and human capital.”
  • “Estab­lish a per­ma­nent tri­bunal for North Amer­ican dis­pute resolution.”
  • “An annual North Amer­ican Summit meeting” that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public dis­play of confidence.
  • “Estab­lish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly.”
  • Create a “North Amer­ican Advi­sory Council”
  • Create a “North Amer­ican Inter-Parliamentary Group.“16

Sound familiar? It should: Many of the rec­om­men­da­tions are ver­batim from Pastor’s “modest” pre­sen­ta­tion to the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion men­tioned above, or from his ear­lier book, Toward a North Amer­ican Union.

SPP Summit

2006 SPP Summit in Cancun

Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three coun­tries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The spe­cific result of the summit was the cre­ation of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship of North America (SPPNA). The joint press release stated

“We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the estab­lish­ment of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship of North America.

“We will estab­lish working par­ties led by our min­is­ters and sec­re­taries that will con­sult with stake­holders in our respec­tive coun­tries. These working par­ties will respond to the pri­or­i­ties of our people and our busi­nesses, and will set spe­cific, mea­sur­able, and achiev­able goals. They will out­line con­crete steps that our gov­ern­ments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the con­tin­uous achieve­ment of results.

“Within 90 days, min­is­ters will present their ini­tial report after which, the working par­ties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Part­ner­ship will be an ongoing process of coop­er­a­tion, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agree­ment as cir­cum­stances war­rant.17

Once again, we see Pastor’s North Amer­ican Union ide­ology being con­tinued, but this time as an out­come of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The ques­tion must be raised, “Who is really in charge of this process?”

Indeed, the three pre­miers returned to their respec­tive coun­tries and started their “working par­ties” to “con­sult with stake­holders.” In the U.S., the “spe­cific, mea­sur­able, and achiev­able goals” were only seen indi­rectly by the cre­ation of a gov­ern­ment web­site billed as “Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­net­ship of North America.” (www.spp.gov) The stake­holders are not men­tioned by name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the three coun­tries; most likely, they are the cor­po­rate inter­ests rep­re­sented by the mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission!

The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30 – 31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Cana­dian prime min­ister Stephen Harper. The Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship agenda was summed up in a state­ment from Mex­ican pres­i­dent Vicente Fox:

“We touched upon fun­da­mental items in that meeting. First of all, we car­ried out an eval­u­a­tion meeting. Then we got infor­ma­tion about the devel­op­ment of pro­grams. And then we gave the nec­es­sary instruc­tions for the works that should be car­ried out in the next period of work… We are not rene­go­ti­ating what has been suc­cessful or open the Free Trade Agree­ment. It’s going beyond the agree­ment, both for pros­perity and secu­rity.18 [emphasis added]

Reg­u­la­tions instead of Treaties

It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP sum­mits resulted in no signed agree­ments. This is not acci­dental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called “deeper inte­gra­tion” of the three coun­tries is being accom­plished through a series of reg­u­la­tions and exec­u­tive decrees that avoid cit­izen watch­dogs and leg­isla­tive over­sight.19

In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 dif­ferent working groups that would deal with issues from immi­gra­tion to secu­rity to har­mo­niza­tion of reg­u­la­tions, all under the aus­pices of the Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship (www.spp.gov). The SPP in the U.S. is offi­cially placed under the Depart­ment of Com­merce, headed by Sec­re­tary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other Exec­u­tive Branch agen­cies also have SPP com­po­nents that report to Commerce.

After two years of mas­sive effort, the names of the SPP working group mem­bers have not been released. The result of their work have also not been released. There is no con­gres­sional leg­is­la­tion or over­sight of the SPP process.

The director of SPP, Geri Word, was con­tacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to inves­tiga­tive jour­nalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied

“We did not want to get the con­tact people of the working groups dis­tracted by calls from the public.” 20

This pater­nal­istic atti­tude is a typ­ical elitist men­tality Their work (what­ever they have dreamed up on their own) is too impor­tant to be dis­tracted by the likes of pesky cit­i­zens or their elected legislators.

This elite change of tac­tics must not be under­stated: Reg­u­la­tions and Exec­u­tive Orders have replaced Con­gres­sional leg­is­la­tion and public debate. There is no pre­tense of either. This is another Gardner-style “end-run around national sov­er­eignty, eroding it piece by piece.”

Appar­ently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush admin­is­tra­tion believes that it has accu­mu­lated suf­fi­cient power to ram the NAU down the throat of the Amer­ican People, whether they protest or not.

Robert A. Pastor: A Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion Operative

As men­tioned ear­lier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North Amer­ican Union, having written more papers about it, deliv­ered more tes­ti­monies before Con­gress, and headed up task forces to study it, than any other single U.S. aca­d­emic figure. He would seem a tire­less archi­tect and advo­cate of the NAU.

Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the glob­al­iza­tion busi­ness, Pastor has a long his­tory with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers and the global elite.

He is the same Robert Pastor who was the exec­u­tive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rock­e­feller and Ford Foun­da­tions) called the Com­mis­sion on US-Latin Amer­ican Rela­tions — aka the Linowitz Com­mis­sion. The Linowitz Com­mis­sion, chaired by an orig­inal Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Sol Linowitz, was sin­gu­larly cred­ited with the give­away of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter pres­i­dency. ALL of the Linowitz Com­mis­sion mem­bers were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion save one, Albert Fishlow; other mem­bers were W. Michael Blu­men­thal, Samuel Hunt­ington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.

One of Carter’s first actions as Pres­i­dent in 1977 was to appoint Zbig­niew Brzezinski to the post of National Secu­rity Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski’s first acts was to appoint his pro­tege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin Amer­ican and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Tri­lat­eral Commission’s point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.

To actu­ally nego­tiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as tem­po­rary ambas­sador. The 6-month tem­po­rary appoint­ment avoided the require­ment for Senate con­fir­ma­tion. Thus, the very same people who cre­ated the policy became respon­sible for exe­cuting it.

The Tri­lat­eral Commission’s role in the Carter Admin­is­tra­tion is con­firmed by Pastor him­self in his 1992 paper The Carter Admin­is­tra­tion and Latin America: A Test of Principle:

“In con­verting its pre­dis­po­si­tion into a policy, the new admin­is­tra­tion had the ben­efit of the research done by two pri­vate com­mis­sions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, which pro­vided a con­cep­tual frame­work for col­lab­o­ra­tion among the indus­tri­al­ized coun­tries in approaching the full gamut of inter­na­tional issues. With regard to set­ting an agenda and an approach to Latin America, the most impor­tant source of influ­ence on the Carter admin­is­tra­tion was the Com­mis­sion on U.S.-Latin Amer­ican Rela­tions, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz.21

As to the final Linowitz Com­mis­sion reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor him­self, he states:

“The reports helped the admin­is­tra­tion define a new rela­tion­ship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 spe­cific rec­om­men­da­tions in the second report became U.S. policy.“22

Pastor’s deep involve­ment with Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion mem­bers and poli­cies is irrefutable, and it con­tinues into the present.

In 1996, when Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sioner Bill Clinton nom­i­nated Pastor as Ambas­sador to Panama, his con­fir­ma­tion was force­fully knocked down by Sen­ator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against Pastor for his cen­tral role in the give­away of the Panama Canal in 1976.

The set­back obvi­ously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.

Where from here?

The stated target for full imple­men­ta­tion of the North Amer­ican Union is 2010.

“The Task Force pro­poses the cre­ation by 2010 of a North Amer­ican com­mu­nity to enhance secu­rity, pros­perity, and oppor­tu­nity. We pro­pose a com­mu­nity based on the prin­ciple affirmed in the March 2005 Joint State­ment of the three leaders
that ‘our secu­rity and pros­perity are mutu­ally depen­dent and com­ple­men­tary.’ Its bound­aries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer secu­rity perimeter within which the move­ment of people, prod­ucts, and cap­ital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guar­antee a free, secure, just, and pros­perous North America.”
23

Don’t under­es­ti­mate the global elite’s ability to meet their own deadlines!

Con­clu­sion

This paper does not pre­tend to give thor­ough or even com­plete cov­erage to such impor­tant and wide-ranging topics as dis­cussed above. We have shown that the restruc­turing of the United States has been accom­plished by a very small group of pow­erful global elit­ists as rep­re­sented by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Commission.

The Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion plainly stated that it intended to create a New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order. We have fol­lowed their mem­bers from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead center of every crit­ical policy and action that seeks to restruc­ture the U.S.

Some critics will undoubt­edly argue that involve­ment by mem­bers of the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion is merely inci­dental. How­ever, the odds for their involve­ment at random is too large to be even remotely under­stand­able; it would be like win­ning the lot­tery jackpot five times in a row, with the same numbers!

The credo of The August Review is “Follow the money, follow the power.” In this view, the United States has lit­er­ally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elit­ists who have little more than con­tempt for the cit­i­zens of the coun­tries they would seek to dom­i­nate. According to Tri­lat­er­alist Richard Gardner’s view­point, this incre­mental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.

To again answer Lou Dobbs ques­tion, “Have our polit­ical elites gone mad?” — No Lou, they are not “mad”, nor are they igno­rant. To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmit­i­gated greed, avarice and treachery.

Foot­notes:

  1. Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (For­eign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
  2. ibid, p. 563
  3. ibid. p. 556
  4. Fast Track Talking Points, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
  5. Excerpts From Pres­i­den­tial Debates, Ross Perot, 1992
  6. MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
  7. Wash­ington Post, op-ed, Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
  8. Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
  9. The Fruits of NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, The Con­ser­v­a­tive Voice, March 10, 2006
  10. Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom (West­view Press, 2002) p. 89
  11. Tri­na­tional Elites Map North Amer­ican Future in “NAFTA Plus”, Miguel Pickard, IRC Amer­icas website
  12. A Modest Pro­posal To the Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion, Pre­sen­ta­tion by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, 2002
  13. Council Joins Leading Cana­dians and Mex­i­cans to Launch Inde­pen­dent Task Force on the Future of America, Press Release, CFR Website
  14. ibid.
  15. ibid.
  16. Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, 2005
  17. North Amer­ican Leaders Unveil Secu­rity and Pros­perity Part­ner­ship, Inter­na­tional Infor­ma­tion Pro­grams, U.S. Govt. Website
  18. Con­cluding Press Con­fer­ence at Cancun Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
  19. Tra­di­tional Elites Map North Amer­ican Future in “NAFTA Plus”, Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
  20. Bush sneaking North Amer­ican super-state without over­sight?, Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
  21. The Carter Admin­is­tra­tion and Latin America: A Test of Prin­ciple, Robert A. Pastor, The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
  22. ibid. p. 10
  23. Building a North Amer­ican Com­mu­nity, Council on For­eign Rela­tions, 2005, p. 2

Fur­ther Reading

Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North Amer­ican Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006
Robert A. Pastor Resume, Amer­ican Uni­ver­sity, 2005
North America’s Super Cor­ridor Coali­tion, Inc. Website

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)