Historical Analysis of the Global Elites: Ransacking the World Economy Until ‘You’ll Own Nothing’ (4)
Read the third part of the article
Who owns the US Federal Reserve System now?
According to Dean Henderson writing in 2010, it is “the Goldman Sachs, Rockefellers, Lehmans and Kuhn Loebs of New York; the Rothschilds of Paris and London; the Warburgs of Hamburg; the Lazards of Paris; and the Israel Moses Seifs of Rome.”
Henderson goes on to state that “The control that these banking families exert over the global economy cannot be overstated and is quite intentionally shrouded in secrecy. Their corporate media arm is quick to discredit any information exposing these money powers as halfbaked conspiracy theory. The word ‘conspiracy’ itself has been demonized, much like the word ‘communism’. Anyone who dare utter the word is quickly excluded from public debate and written off as insane. Yet the facts remain.” (Big Oil and Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families and Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics and Terror Network, pp. 473-4)
Other scholars in the field agree.
In his exceptionally detailed investigation into three major historical events of the C20th – the Bolshevik Revolution, the rise of Franklin D. Roosevelt and the rise of Hitler – Professor Antony Sutton identified the seat of political power in the United States not as the US Constitution authorized but “the financial establishment in New York: the private international bankers, more specifically the financial houses of J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller-controlled Chase Manhattan Bank, and in earlier days (before amalgamation of their Manhattan Bank with the former Chase Bank), the Warburgs.”
“For most of the twentieth century the Federal Reserve System, particularly the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (which is outside the control of Congress, unaudited and uncontrolled, with the power to print money and create credit at will), has exercised a virtual monopoly over the direction of the American economy. In foreign affairs the Council on Foreign Relations, superficially an innocent forum for academics, businessmen, and politicians, contains within its shell, perhaps unknown to many of its members, a power center that unilaterally determines U.S. foreign policy. The major objective of this submerged – and obviously subversive – foreign policy is the acquisition of markets and economic power (profits, if you will), for a small group of giant multi-nationals under the virtual control of a few banking investment houses and controlling families.” (Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler, pp.125-126.
So what has changed? Nothing has changed, nor transformed.
But it is not just fine scholars who have reached this conclusion. Consider David Rockefeller’s delusionary whitewashing of his own family’s key role in the killing, devastation and destruction outlined above: “Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. One of the most enduring [conspiracies] is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world’s economy, [but these people] ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted from our active international role during the past half-century”. (Memoirs, p. 483)
If you are wondering how all of this occurs without any significant pushback from within elite circles, there is a simple answer: They are all insane and control to maximize resource accumulation has become the perpetual substitute for their destroyed capacity to engage emotionally in their own lives and empathize with their fellow human beings. For more detail, see Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War and The Global Elite is Insane Revisited.
So while some of us occasionally ponder how we can contribute more to improve the human condition and the state of the world, and then endeavour to do something along those lines, there are plenty of terrified people whose daily life is consumed (consciously or unconsciously) by the question “How can I take more?” And people like that have been taking more since the dawn of human civilization and, no doubt, earlier.
The Global Elite is simply those who have been insanely ruthless and organized enough to take more, whatever the cost to humanity and all other life on Earth.
The Post World War II Superstructure to Transform World Order, Destroy the World Economy and Capture All Wealth
So how, precisely, is the Global Elite driving the change of world order, the collapse of the world economy and capturing final control of all wealth?
There are three parts to the answer to this question:
1. The foundations progressively laid over the past 5,000 years, as outlined above; 2. The superstructure (including such institutions as the United Nations, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund) that has been built since World War II and, more recently, under the guise of the United Nation’s Sustainable Development agenda, to impose global governance on the human population and, particularly, to intrude global financial governance into every aspect of our lives. In the words of Iain Davis and Whitney Webb, this is because the UN’s sustainable development goals “do not promote sustainability as most conceive it and instead utilise the same debt imperialism long used by the Anglo-American Empire to entrap nations in a new, equally predatory system of global financial governance” 3. The final part relates to political, economic and, especially, technological measures being imposed as part of the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’ under cover of the fake narrative about a covid-19 ‘pandemic’.
If we briefly consider elements of the post-World War II superstructure, for example, both the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have historically used debt to force countries, mostly in the developing world, to adopt policies that redistribute wealth to the elite via their banks, corporations and institutions. But corporations have employed their own ‘economic hit men’. By identifying and ‘persuading’ leaders of developing nations, using a variety of devices – ranging from false economic projections and bribes to military threats and assassinations – the economic hit men make them accept enormous ‘development’ loans for projects which are contracted with western corporations, so countries quickly become entrapped in debt. This is then used to force those countries to implement unpopular austerity policies, deregulate financial and other markets, and privatize state assets, thus eroding national sovereignty. (The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man).
If you want to read further evidence of the role of the World Bank and the IMF as agents of Elite policy against nation-states, you might find the US Army’s manual of unconventional warfare interesting. (Army Special Operations Forces: Unconventional Warfare). Originally released by WikiLeaks in 2008 and described by them as the US military’s “regime change handbook”, as elaborated by Webb, “the U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions – such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) [and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS] – are used as unconventional, financial weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war,” as well as in leveraging “the policies and cooperation of state governments.” (Leaked WikiLeaks Doc Reveals US Military Use of IMF, World Bank as “Unconventional” Weapons)
Beyond this, however, what we have seen since the UN, increasingly a tool of corporations since the 1990s, adopted its Sustainable Development Goals is a dramatically expanded set of mechanisms designed to enslave the bulk of the human population, not just those in ‘developing’ countries, and take complete control of Earth’s ecosystems and natural processes.
Among many initiatives, for example, the Global Public-Private Partnership has been presented by Klaus Schwab and Peter Vanham, on behalf of the World Economic Forum.
While this sanitized account obscures the threat it poses to humankind, Iain Davis and Whitney Webb have thoughtfully critiqued it – see Sustainable Debt Slavery – noting that even a 2016 UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs report – see Public-Private Partnerships and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Fit for purpose? – also found it “unfit for purpose”. So what is it? According to Davis, the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) is a worldwide network of stakeholder capitalists and their partners: the Bank for International Settlements, central banks, global (including media) corporations, the ‘philanthropic’ foundations of multi-billionaires, policy think tanks, governments (and their agencies), key non-governmental organizations and global charities, selected academic and scientific institutions, labour unions and other chosen ‘thought leaders’. (You can see an instructive diagram here.)
The G3P controls the world economy and global finance. “It sets world, national and local policy (via global governance) and then promotes those policies using the mainstream media”, typically distributes the policies through an intermediary such as the IMF, WHO or IPCC and uses governments to transform G3P global governance into hard policy, legislation and law at the national level. “In this way, the G3P controls many nations at once without having to resort to legislation. This has the added advantage of making any legal challenge to the decisions made by the most senior partners in the G3P (an authoritarian hierarchy) extremely difficult.” In short: global governance has already superseded the national sovereignty of states: “National governments had been relegated to creating the G3P’s enabling environment by taxing the public and increasing government borrowing debt.” (What Is the Global Public-Private Partnership?)
As Davis notes: We are supposed to believe that a G3P-led system of global governance is beneficial for us and to accept that global corporations are committed to putting humanitarian and environmental causes before profit, when the conflict of interest is obvious. “Believing this requires a considerable degree of naïveté.” Davis clearly perceives “an emergent global, corporate dictatorship that cares not one whit about truly stewarding the planet. The G3P will determine the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. There is no opportunity for any of us to participate in either their project or the subsequent formation of policy.” Davis goes on: “In theory, governments do not have to implement G3P policy, in reality they do. Global policies have been an increasing facet of our lives in the post-WW2 era. It doesn’t matter who you elect, the policy trajectory is set at the global governance level. This is the dictatorial nature of the G3P and nothing could be less democratic.”
Another initiative was launched at the COP26 conference in November 2021. The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) is an industry-led and UN-convened alliance of private banking and financial institutions that announced plans to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to ‘transform’ the global financial system. See Our progress and plan towards a net-zero global economy.
But this report makes it clear that GFANZ will simply employ the same exploitative tactics that the ‘economic hitmen’ and agents such as the multilateral ‘development’ banks (MDBs) – including the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development – have long used to force even greater deregulation on ‘developing’ countries to facilitate supposedly climate and environmentally-friendly investments by alliance members. In fact, composed of several “subsector alliances”, including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance and the Net Zero Banking Alliance, GFANZ commands “a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests”. Moreover, the “largest financial players” who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander and HSBC as well as the CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund. In essence then, as Whitney Webb goes on to explain it:
“Through the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, such as the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends.
Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of ‘saving the planet,’ its plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world.” (UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System)
But, again, it is not just their fellow human beings over whom the Elite wants total control. They want that control over nature too, and that is yet another project in which the Elite has been long engaged.
Hence, in September 2021, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced the launch of a new asset class, jointly developed with Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) – whose founding investors included the Inter-American Development Bank and the Rockefeller Foundation – for Natural Asset Companies: “sustainable enterprises that hold the rights to ecosystem services” that enable natural asset owners “to convert nature’s value into financial capital, providing additional resources necessary to power a sustainable future”.
According to the IEG: “Natural areas, underpinned by biodiversity, are inherently valuable in and of themselves.” Either unaware of their ignorance or, perhaps, making hypocritically tokenistic use of some key words often-expressed by indigenous peoples and deep ecologists (including the inventor of the term “deep ecology”, Professor Arne Naess, in his 1973 article The Shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement) – the IEG goes on to express this “value” in strictly economic terms: “They also contribute life supporting services upon which humanity and the global economy depends. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and genetic resources; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling.”
And in its report on this subject, the World Economic Forum’s Global Future Council on Nature-Based Solutions urged investors, corporations and governments “to create and strengthen market-based mechanisms for valuing nature.”
Elaborating the IEG’s delusional conception of how further business investment in natural resources will work, Douglas Eger, the CEO of IEG, suggests that “This new asset class on the NYSE will create a virtuous cycle of investment in nature that will help finance sustainable development for communities, companies and countries.” Really? I wonder how. But IEG’s motives are more likely revealed in this fact: “The asset class was developed to enable exposure to the opportunities created by the estimated $125 trillion annual global ecosystem services market, encompassing areas such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity and clean water.”
Hence, to clarify: corporations are now engaged in the largest land and resource grab in history. This will enable Elite corporations to privately own the ecosystem services of a pristine rainforest, a majestic waterfall plunging into a lagoon, an expansive grassland, a picturesque cave, a magnificent wetland, a trout-filled lake, a beautiful coral reef or other natural area and then sell clean air, fresh water, pollination services, food, medicines, and a range of biodiversity services such as the enjoyment of nature, while displacing the world’s remaining indigenous populations.
So what about the Commons? “The Commons is property shared by all, inclusive of natural products like air, water, and a habitable planet, forests, fisheries, groundwater, wetlands, pastures, the atmosphere, the high seas, Antarctica, outer space, caves, all part of ecosystems of the planet.” Or are corporations finally about to own the Commons as well? See Mother Nature, Inc.
Are we to reduce everything in nature to its value as a profit-making commodity?
As Robert Hunziker concludes his own critique of this initiative: “The sad truth is Mother Nature, Inc. will lead to extinction of The Commons, as an institution, in the biggest heist of all time. Surely, private ownership of nature is unseemly and certainly begs a much bigger relevant question that goes to the heart of the matter, to wit: Should nature’s ecosystems, which benefit society at large, be monetized for the direct benefit of the few?”
More could be written about this, as Webb, for example, has done in Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class.
But if you believe that corporations – extensively documented to destroy pristine natural environments in their rapacious efforts to exploit fossil fuels, minerals, rainforest products and a vast range of other products, as well as force indigenous peoples off their land to do so: see, for example, Seven (of Hundreds) Environmental Nightmares Created by Open Pit Mines (and the Obligatory Tailings Ponds) that have Caused Irremediable, Highly Toxic Contamination Downstream – are about to become ‘virtuous investors’ in nature when 4 billion years of Earth’s history and 200,000 years of indigenous people living harmoniously with nature have an impeccable record of preserving ecosystems and their services, without the involvement of these ‘virtuous investors’, then you will do extremely well on any gullibility test you attempt.
Analysis by Robert J. Burrowes
February 11, 2023