[News Service Index] [Comment Blog] [Now on Facebook] [Heartlink Home] [Bio] [Heartlink Radio Show] [Coaching/Counseling] [Classes] [Seminars] [Other Services] [Contact] [Disclaimer]

“How better to implement a single currency for use throughout the world than by making all currencies fail at once?  And governments get a huge bonanza in the process by paying off their debts with ever-more-worthless currencies that they simply print for pennies on the dollar.  How better to pave the way for a single world central bank?  Of course, those of us without printing presses get left holding the bag, as always.”
~ from: “Fiat Money and The Coming Economic Pandemic”

There is Profit in Chaos!

REMAIN CALM

WORLD GOVERNMENT IS NOT COMING, IT'S HERE! By Joan Veon
October 6, 2008
Understanding World Events and the Credit Crisis

For many of us, reading history does not provide us with the flavor of life, the uncertainties of the moment and the fears of facing the truth of the situation. The events over the past six weeks and more specifically from August, 2007 have provided us with a myriad of events which leave even the most astute observer speechless. Over the past fourteen years, I have written extensively about a global currency, global tax, global stock exchange, global central bank, and world government. I have stated on many occasions that world government is not coming, it is here. In order to bring in world government, it will have to be through crisis—continuing, constant crises. The solution will be world government, total integration of all the countries of the world.

The remaining piece that needs to be put in place is for the United States to adopt a global regulatory system to merge our banking, insurance, and stock market and commodity industries to that of the other countries of the world. While only a handful of countries like Britain, Canada, Australia, and the Nordic countries have already adopted some type of global regulatory system, it is America’s turn and once America changes, the rest of the countries will follow suit.

As part of a two step process to change the financial and economic landscape of America and Americans, the Treasury Blueprint saw the first step confirmed: the bailout of Wall Street to the tune of $700B with an additional $300B in sweeteners, giving lawmakers the ability to face their constituents as victors. However, the reality is that America has neither the $300B nor the $700B. At every turn, the amount of money that we owe the Federal Reserve rises. Add the interest to the debt and America is reduced to pauper status.

In the whirlwind of the situation, most people don’t know whether to breathe a sign of relief that the darkness of the situation has passed or if this may be just the beginning.

The credit crisis has evolved over the past 13 months from a problem regarding a small percentage of sub-prime mortgages to a full blown global credit crisis. In response, Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson issued the "Treasury Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory System." By reading the Blueprint, it is very clear that the former international banker, turned treasury secretary, is basically waging all out war on American financial sovereignty, demanding that all of our remaining financial assets be federalized and put under the control of the Federal Reserve.

In light of the credit crisis and all the money the Federal Reserve is making available, it should be understood that the private corporation of the Federal Reserve prints money on demand and has grown immensely in power over its 95 years of existence. Whenever America needs money, it simply prints it up out of paper, calls the newly created note “The Federal Reserve Note” and credits the account of the United States of America for the liability of the loan. The reason why Americans cannot forgive themselves the interest on the debt is because it is owed to the Federal Reserve and not ourselves. They have a racket going that is better than all of the mafia’s of the world combined. They have brought the most powerful country in the world to its knees by usurping the authority of congress, which has bestowed a blank check to the Federal Reserve giving it all powers. However, we won’t fall completely on our faces until the new international regulation demanded by the Blueprint is put in place.

We should remember that when the Federal Reserve Act was in the making, it promised to “free the country ‘from panics and consequent unemployment and business depression by such a systematic revision of our banking laws…with protection from control or dominion by what is known as the money trust’” (Harold van B. Cleveland, Thomas F. Huertas, Citibank 1812-1970, p.68). We will now be told that given the credit crisis the adoption of the Blueprint is necessary to calm the global markets.

In order to transfer the final and last vestiges of America’s sovereignty, which is made up of many components, to these really evil and ruthless people, some type of major financial crisis would have to be perpetrated. The stakes are very high. Those assets to be conveyed in its entirety include the mortgage industry, the insurance industry, the Payment and Settlement System of Wall Street, and all financial institutions not under the Federal Reserve including credit unions, savings and loans, thrifts, and state chartered banks.

To give us an understanding of what is behind the Blueprint plan, I would like to refer to the very brave and honest senator from Alabama, Senator Richard Shelby. In testifying why he would not vote for the Senate version of what has become known as the “Bailout Bill,” he said,

“The proposal before us tonight provides $700B to provide illiquid assets from financial institution. The stated goal of this scheme is to return confidence and liquidity to our markets. We did not get into this situation within days and we are not going to fix with a quick piece of legislation quickly cobbled together in the back room of the U.S. Capitol. This crisis has been years in the making. Over the last decade, trillions of dollars were poured into our mortgage markets, often at the direction of well intended but ill conceived government programs. At first the conventional mortgages, with standard down payments and verified incomes, [did well, but] over time the number of home buyers that met conventional requirements dwindled. In order to fuel the upward spiral, mortgage products became more exotic requiring less of borrowers and involving more risk. Eventually economic reality caught up when housing prices stalled and then started to fall. Many who bought homes with unconventional loans could not afford the increased payment. I have been a member of Senate Banking Committee for 22 years. When I joined, the S&L Crisis was beginning to unfold and it took 10 years, 5 Congresses and 3 Administrations, until that smaller, more contained crisis, which cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, was resolved.

In 1995, I opposed CRA and loosening of loan underwriting standards. Credit cannot be safely extended only on any basis other than risk and risk cannot be mitigated through social engineering. The appropriate allocation of credit is not political, it is based on merit. The CRA was an attempt to get around it and it failed. I reminded my colleagues of this as we prepare to buy mortgages backed by the very same mortgages born of this flawed policy. It is not free market that failed, but government policies. In 1999, I opposed the Financial Modernization bill, I did not think it had a sufficient regulatory structure to oversee the financial system it created, also known as GLB. In 2001, I became concerned about banking regulators efforts to modernize bank capital standards, known as Basel II. While it is very important to updated these standards , it appeared to me and others on the Banking Committee, Democrats and Republicans, that modernization was concerned more on reducing bank capital levels than on improving bank capital standards.

In 2003, I became concerned about the financial health and regulatory structure of Fannie and Freddie. I did not think they had sufficient capital, management control, or regulatory oversight. I and others were troubled with their size because their combined portfolios totaled $2T. We tried to pass tough GSE reform and was rebuffed by the Democrats on the Banking Committee, and the Senate. As driving force in mortgage finance, the GSE purchasing efforts broke down when scant underwriting standards remained in the marketplace. Many of the toxic investments this bailout is designed to buy, were originated in an atmosphere created by the GSE and facilitated by their supporters here in Congress In 2007, I publically questioned the adequacy of the SEC Consolidated Supervisory Entity program-CSE. This non-statutory program was put in place by the SEC for the 5 big investment banks to meet European regulatory standards without having to submit to the Federal Reserve supervision as provided in the Financial Modernization Act [Gramm-Leach-Bliley]. It also allowed the investment banks, most are gone now, to reduce their capital requirements.

Because I thought that the ‘99 act did not have adequate supervision, I was troubled that the investment banks continued to chafe even at this minimal supervision with their trillions of dollars in asset, global operations, and hundreds of thousand employees. They were content to be regulated by a program with a staff of less than 20 and they lobbied the Banking Committee to keep it that way. I insisted that the Banking Committee hold hearings to exam the structure in greater detail before we ratified that which the SEC created through regulatory fiat. Once again, we did not. Instead my colleagues on the other side of the isle, voted not only to codify the CSE program but to expand it. When my republican colleagues voted to reject it unanimously. Today the CSE program is gone because our major investment banks have merged, gone bankrupt or become that, which they fought to avoid, bank holding companies, supervised by the Federal Reserve. I would like to point out that a great deal of assets to be purchased by the Paulson plan were originated or held by Bear Sterns, Lehman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan. Know the first House version was soundly defeated.“

For a day or two, Americans had some type of victory knowing their voices had been heard by their elected representatives. On September 29, The Washington Post reported, “The normally sure-footed Paulson stumbled badly last weekend when he rushed to the Capitol with a vague and poorly-explained proposal that all but invited politicians and the news media to label it as a $700B bailout for Wall Street.” On 10/1/08, The Financial Times reported, “Embattled Paulson—seeking to regroup his forces and salvage the rescue plan…the loss was a stinging setback for the former Goldman Sachs chairman.” As credit dried up across America, the bailout was re-characterized from being a “Bailout of Wall Street” to a “Bailout of Main Street.” Auto dealers could not get credit to purchase cars and could not extend credit and small and mid-size corporations could not get loans to expand or to meet payroll. As a result, we saw more carnage last week than ever before.

On September 29, the Bailout Bill was unveiled. The Washington Post stated, “[Paulson] would largely stand unfettered by traditional rules, largely unrestricted in his ability to spend $700B of federal money. The Treasury would decide what kind of assets to buy, and which financial companies could sell them. It would decide how much to pay and it would hire companies to manage its acquisitions, without having to obey the normal rules for hiring contractors.” On September 30, Wachovia was sold to Citigroup for $2.16B. Wachovia was run by Treasury Secretary Paulson‘s former deputy, Robert Steel who came with him to Treasury from Goldman Sachs. On Friday, Wells Fargo put a bid in for Wachovia to the tune of $15.4B which would not involve any FDIC insurance. A judge overturned the buy-out by Wells Fargo in favor of Citigroup over the weekend. Again, the taxpayer will make up the difference.

As Congress was voting, the Dow Jones dropped 7% by 777 points, a market loss of $1.4T. Markets around the world dropped in response to the news: Britain’s stock market dropped 5.30%, Russia dropped 7.11%, Europe dropped 5.23%, Brazil’s dropped 9.36%, and Chile’s dropped 9.10%. Gold went up only $5.30 to $888.30. Banking stocks took a bath, and the S&P500, had its worst day since 1987. The Federal Reserve had to pump $630B into the world financial system, including an extra $330B that would be lent abroad via nine other central banks. The Financial Times had a commentary entitled, “Have a Nice Depression.”

The next day, the market rose 345 points on news the Senate would pass a revised bailout bill. On Wednesday, October 1, the Senate ratified their bill, which was the 107 page House bill plus an additional 344 pages of proposals. The Senate proposed, in part, $700B to buy bad assets from faltering financial institutions, an array of tax breaks worth $108B, and a temporary increase in the limit of FDIC from $100,000 to $250,000.

Two days later, on Friday, October 3, the House voted on the expanded Senate version of 451 pages, comprised of the following: The Trouble Asset Relief Program totaled 105 pages, the FDIC totaled 8 pages, major tax breaks totaled 154 pages and the remaining 184 pages was for all the pork they could muster. The size of the final bill was over $1T. We can’t afford $750B, let alone an additional $250B. The market’s failed to respond positively, closing down.

The financial news of larger than expected job losses helped Congress confirm their votes. They are so sure of their power, position, and might. Ohio Congressman John Baynor said he feels the second bill is better than a week ago and that it was time “to act on behalf of the American people—their savings, jobs, retirement securities” and that they have a responsibility to protect the American economy. I agree more with Congressman Brad Sherman who said the bill was a “pork-laden, earmarked laden Wall Street bailout bill.” He pointed out that the oversight board can critique but it cannot stop anything. He said to vote no and to stay in town to write a good bill. The fact of the matter is the Federal Reserve is the Chairman of the oversight committee. Congress is about to find out who holds the real power.

The rocking and rolling has only begun. We are in the final stages of a move into world government. Congress has already shown they are emotionally weak and that they have no idea of what they are doing or not doing. They have not defended the Constitution they swore to upon hold, as they are playing into the hands of the Federal Reserve and the other major central banks of the world, which are controlled by a small group of very powerful people. In order to finalize the Blueprint, which I have heard will come before a new Congress in January, what will it take to traumatize the new legislators? Will the powers that be decide on a Banking Holiday in the spirit of 1933? Will they cause a total bank collapse by demanding sound banks to down grade their solid loans, as has recently occurred when the Comptroller of the Currency did a bank audit? Or will they simply change our currency to adjust our debt load?

In the book of Esther, we read about the decision a young Jewess had to make in response to the pending annihilation of her people. At the urging of her uncle, she broke all royal protocol to make a plea to her husband, the country’s ruler. Her uncle said, “Who knows if you have come into the kingdom for such a time as this?” The days ahead will try our very souls. When you see the value of your savings drop by 50% and the equity in your home dwindle to the point of foreclosure, what will you do? Who will you turn to? The day the banks close, whether for a day or week, is the day Americans will really wake up to the cold hard facts that the world has changed and individual nation-states are no longer.

www.NewsWithViews.com                                             You can Comment at Hearlink Blog

Oct. 10, 2008 (Bloomberg) -- Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said political leaders are discussing the idea of closing the world's financial markets while they ``rewrite the rules of international finance.''

``The idea of suspending the markets for the time it takes to rewrite the rules is being discussed,'' Berlusconi said today after a Cabinet meeting in Naples, Italy. A solution to the financial crisis ``can't just be for one country, or even just for Europe, but global.''

The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell as much 8.1 percent in early trading and pared most of those losses after Berlusconi's remarks. The Dow was down 0.5 percent to 8540.52 at 10:10 in New York.

Group of Seven finance ministers and central bankers are meeting in Washington today, and will stay in town for the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings this weekend. European Union leaders may gather in Paris on Oct. 12, three days before a scheduled summit in Brussels, Berlusconi said today, while Group of Eight leaders may hold a meeting on the crisis ``in coming days,'' he said.

Berlusconi didn't give any details about what kind of rules leaders were looking to change, except to say that leaders are ``talking about a new Bretton Woods.''

The Bretton Woods Agreements were adopted to rebuild the international economic system after World War II in a hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The aim of the agreements was to establish a monetary management system, initially by pegging currencies to gold. The IMF was set up later to help manage the international financial system.

To contact the reporter on this story: Steve Scherer in Rome at scherer@bloomberg.net

 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP5mpMUORBWM

You can Comment at Hearlink Blog

THE NETWORK by Alfred Mendez <alfred.mendes@virgin.net>-

See also Alfred Mendez' article AN UNCOMMON VIEW OF THE BIRTH OF AN UNCOMMON MARKET on my Bilderberg History page

http://www.spectrezine.org

The wealth of the country flees the land
Like cottonseed on a wind
Blown by the fetid breath
Of money-pimps in Bedlam
Pursuing the creed of masters
Who worship a market freed
Of all restraints on greed -
While politicians posture
And feed on delusions of power

The above graph [couldn't reproduce it here, see below ed.] was created in order to bestow meaning in simplistic, delineated form to such terms as 'free market', 'new world order' and 'globalisation' - terms that have dominated political/economic terminology over the past two decades-or-so, and the fact that it focusses on banks and bankers (a profession endowed with the aura of authority in the eyes of the public) is quite simply because, without money, those terms are meaningless. Indeed, the title itself emphasises the role of money: After all, what is a banker if he's not a trader in money? Similarly, 'globalisation' would be equally meaningless if such politically omnipotent groups as the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission were not taken into account when assessing it's (globalisation's) significance. Moreover, how is it possible to disassociate banker from politician from businessman when, at times, one individual is all three - and, in any case, they are constituent parts of a single entity: the corporate establishment? Hence the inclusion of these two groups within the graph.

The Bilderberg (or BB from now on) was formed in 1954 out of the need of corporate America to ensure cohesion of purpose on the part of its European partners in the recently formed North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) - the twin aim being to facilitate the flow of American capital into the region, and to bring Germany into the Alliance (against, it should be noted, the wishes of many of its partners). That it is a group endowed with enormous political clout can be attested to by: (1) examination of the lists of committee members and conference attendees over the years - together with the gravity and importance of the subjects discussed at these conferences (NATO, understandably, being repeatedly a key subject); and (2) these conferences take place under very strict security cover supplied by the respective host countries - even though implicit within the structure of this cabal is its unaccountable, secretive nature.

The Trilateral Commission (or TRI from now on) was formed in 1973, its agenda determined by the corporate-funded Brookings Institute and the Kettering Foundation - with not-a-little-help from David Rockefeller of the Chase/Manhattan Bank. That its projected formation should have been so enthusiastically acclaimed by the BB Conference in Knokke (Belgium) in 1972 should cause no surprise. Both corporate-controlled organisations, with linked membership, they shared the same aim: increasing globalisation of their wealth and power. Certainly, the BB with its total lack of any 'democratic accountability', must be in agreement with the TRI's declaration (published in their "The crisis of Democracy") that what the West needs most "is a greater degree of moderation in democracy". Though, on second thoughts, the former probably thinks the 'the degree of moderation' somewht understated!

A further examination of both graph and list of bankers' names reveals that, of the banking organisations, the Banks for International Settlements (or BIS from now on) is self-evidently of prime importance on the international scene - not only because of its prestigious membership (embracing as it does the head bankers of the leading industrial nations) - but also because of the significance of its links with other groups. This article will focus on it, at the expense of the other better-known banking institutions, for two reasons: (1) its prime ranking in the international hierarchy; and (2) so little knowledge of it is in the public domain.

The BIS is the world's oldest international financial institution, having been set up in 1930 with the twin aim of (1) coping with reparations/loans from/to a very unstable post-World War one Germany; and (2) more importantly, to act as a forum for central bankers in the future. As such, it was the epitome of supranationality - able to circumvent all those orthodox ideals that had, over the years, become synonymous with the concept of the 'nation state' - such as 'love of country', 'patriotism' etc., - the danger, of course, being that, in certain circumstances (such as a state of war), such circumvention of patriotism by any of its board members could lead to them being accused of treasonable offences.

In order to appreciate what followed, it is essential to offer a brief resumé of the political/economic situation at the turn of the century: the Industrial Revolution, having fostered the rapid growth of a capitalist economy, inevitably gave birth to an ideal/dogma exposing the socio-political discord inherent within that same system which was based on the concept of one comparatively small group of people garnering profit from the wealth created by the labor of a much larger group. Thus was Marxism born - leading to the Bolshevik revolution in 1917.The USSR, now perceived by the industrial nations as representing the very antithesis of capitalism, was henceforth 'the enemy'. The 'cold war' had begun, and its most blatant expression was the birth of fascism in the aftermath of the Bolshevik revolution - a birth both induced and nurtured by corporations such as I.G.Farben, SKF, Ford, ITT and Du Pont - corporation which were fast becoming multi-national in nature..Enter BIS. Set up in 1930 (see above),it consisted, initially, of a group of 6 central banks and a 'financial institution of the USA'. Granted a constitution charter by Switzerland, it was henceforth based in that country. That America was by then a financial force to be reckoned with on the international scene is borne out by the fact that the first President appointed to the BIS was Gates W. McGarrah (ex-Chase National Bank & Federal Reserve Bank).

By the late 1930's the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias - much of it disclosed by Charles Higham in his book "Trading With the Enemy", and years later corroborated by a BBC Timewatch film "Banking With Hitler" (broadcast in late '98). Two examples of such bias (there were many more) were: (1) The BIS had arranged transfers into the account of the German's Reichbank of $378 million of what was, in effect, gold looted from the coffers of the invaded countries of Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland and Belgium; and (2) in the summer of 1942, plans for the projected American invasion of Algeria were leaked to the governor of the French National Bank, who immediately contacted his German colleague in the BIS, SS Gruppenfuehrer Baron Kurt von Schroder (of the Stein Bank of Cologne), and by transferring 9 billion gold francs to Algiers - via the BIS - the Germans and their French subsidiaries made a killing of some $175 million in this dollar-exchange scam. Given the membership of the BIS at that time, this was hardly surprising. On the board were the following high-profile representatives of the Axis powers (there were 4 others): Walther Funk (Pres. of the Reichbank); Kurt von Schroder (above); Dr. Hermann Schmitz (Jt.Chm. of I.G.Farben); Emil Puhl (V/Pres. of the Reichbank); Yoneji Yamamoto; and Dr. V. Azzolini (Gov. Bank of Italy). It should be added that, of the non-Axis members on the board, many - such as Montagu Norman (Gov. of the Bank of England) were Nazi sympathisers, and that the President of the BIS from 1939 to 1946 was Thomas McKittrick, an American corporate lawyer who had been both Director of Lee, Higginson & Co. (a company which had made substantial loans to the Third Reich) and Chairman of the British-American Chamber of Commerce in London. His continued presidency of the BIS after America's entry into the war in December1941 was approved by Germany and Italy with this significant addendum to their note of authorisation: "McKittrick's opinions are safely known to us".

With the above noted disclosures in mind, the policy of appeasement pursued by Britain and France towards Germany in the pre-war period can now be more readily understood. By concluding a pact with Hitler, Britain and France - in effect - gave him the green light to advance eastwards (ref. "Mein Kampf"). Furthermore, the fact that they shared his endemic anti-communism blinded them to the risk that they were running by negotiating from a position of comparative military weakness - of which Hitler was perfectly aware - and for which they paid a heavy price. It should also be added that the architect of this act of appeasement, Prime Minister Chamberlain, was a shareholder in ICI, which had ties with I.G.Farben.

In the late '30's, and more particularly during World War 2, given America's great wealth - as opposed to Europe's straitened circumstances - it was inevitable that the trade between the two would be of a one-way nature, from the former to the latter. And not surprisingly, in view of the close relationship between American and German corporations (as noted above), a substantial portion of supplies went to Germany - often via fascist Spain - by ship and tanker under flags of neutrality. Many of the financial arrangements covering such trade were handled by BIS in neutral Basle. As an example of how substantial this trade was: in mid-'44 Am,erica was supplying Germany with 48 thousand tons of oil, and 11 hundred tons of much-needed wolfram (tungsten) per month! The fact that this trade was illegal in the USA for much of this period - and particularly after America's entry into the war in December '41 - did little to stop such trade. The large corporations, such as Standard Oil and ITT, saw to that. After all, then - as now - the US Administration was effectively under corporate control (as it has been since 1933, during FDR's term of office). Even the Secretary of Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, and his Assistant, Harry Dexter White, aware as they well were of the part played by BIS in this, could do little about it. In July '44, 730 delegates from 44 countries met at Bretton Woods to plan a framework for post-war international trade, payments and investments - a conference which subsequently resulted in the setting up in'47 of both the International Bank for Reconstruction & Development (IBRD, or World Bank) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The apparent inviolability of the BIS referred to above was perhaps best illustrated by the fact that Resolution 5, calling for the dissolution of BIS, was subsequently ignored and proven ineffective. The corporate establishment had seen to that - as indeed, it had seen to all such previous attempts.

With war's end now calling for a clearing of conscience, BIS's method of achieving this was by stressing its somewhat euphemistic neutrality, while playing down its less palatable, but quintessential supranationality. Their annual report of 1946 - as quoted in the Times - stated: "It is noted that the Bank has continued to supply the principles of strict neutrality, but that circumstances have caused a further decline in the volume of its business". Further: "Wars are the worst cause of monetary convulsions, and the first condition for enjoying the benefits of an ordinary monetary system is to establish and maintain a reign of peace". In view of their recent previous history, the term 'irony' hardly does justice to the above statements!. This report was, incidentally, the last to be signed by its President, Thomas McKittrick: in June 1946 he was appointedVice/Chairman of the Chase National Bank by its owners, the Rockefellers - presumably as a mark of gratitude for the assistance rendered to them by the BIS during his presidency.

In view of the somewhat puzzling fact that this now meant that there were in this post-war period three international financial/banking institutions - all with the self-evidently similar aim of resolving the world's serious economic problems - a brief, close look is called for in order to clarify the situation. The first (and intriguing) fact to be noted here is that, whereas the IMF and The World Bank have been frequently and conspicuously in the public eye from birth, the BIS has adopted a low profile and remained uncommunicative. This was an expedient tactic for the latter to adopt - for two reasons: (1) it thus eluded any investigation into its previous financial dealings with the Third Reich; and (2) more importantly, by so diassociating itself from the IMF and World Bank, the latter would henceforth be widely (though erroneously) regarded as the sole guardians of the worldwide economy, thus allowing the BIS more latitude to follow the agenda set by the corporate establishment - to whom, it must be recalled, they owed their survival.

This ambivalent relationship between the IMF/World Bank vis-a-vis the BIS/commercial banks in the 70's is epitomised by Anthony Sampson in his book "The Money Lenders": "The commercial banks in the meantime had created a very different perspective, for the IMF now controlled much less of the world's money. In 1966, the quotas which made up its capital amounted to 10% of the total world imports; but by '76 they made up only 4%"..."by '76 world annual deficits had reached $75 billion : of this, 7% financed by the IMF; 18% by other official international bodies (governments and World Bank) - remaining three-quarters financed by banks (commercial)". (Today, some two-and-a-half decades later, the board members of BIS, between them, control 95% of the money in circulation). The reason for this apparent taking over of such responsibility by the BIS from the IMF/World Bank is twofold: (1) the collapse of the Bretton Woods system of exchange convertibility in the early seventies exposed the irrelevance of the latter as agents for European reconstruction; and (2) the latter being statutorily-appointed agents of the UN, were therefore - ostensibly - accountable to a much wider constituency than the BIS, and therefore politically less manageable by the corporate establishment, whose primary aim in the aftermath of World War 2 was to ensure the unrestricted flow of American capital into Europe. A flow considerably eased by subsequent European integration, in which both NATO and the Bilderberg played a crucial role. This aim was furthered by means of the US Congressionally-authorised European Cooperation Act (ECA) of 1948, and implemented by its subsidiary, the European Payments Union (EPU) of 1950 - both under the aegis of the Marshall Plan of 1947. Predictably, the BIS was the institution chosen by the EPU to oversee this movement of capital (a point worthy of note here is that the head of the EPU at that time was one Richard Bissell, an economist who, years later, was to be the CIA Deputy Director of Planning overseeing the Bay of Pigs fiasco in April '61!).The BIS was now firmly ensconced in the heart of European integration, and was subsequently to play a critical role in the events leading to its (Europe's) eventual evolvement into the European Union, a bureaucratic politico-economic body occupying a position of crucial importance within the wider global hierarchy envisaged by the corporate establishment.

The significance of the American's key central role in this sequence of events is underscored by the fact that, in the aftermath of World War 2, they (the Americans) set up the Bundesbank in Frankfurt (in their zone of control), ensuring that the bank would be independent of government and follow a strict monetary policy - in effect, another Federal Reserve System. In 1948 they replaced the existing Reichmarks with approximately 11 billion Deutschmarks, and Germany's subsequent conduct vis-a-vis European integration must be viewed with this in mind. In any case, the fact remains that Germany's subsequent frequent delaying tactics enabled the dollar to consolidate its dominance.

In their published précis entitled "Profile of an International Organisation", the BIS states that its "predominant tasks are summed up most succintly in part of Article 3 of its original Statutes. They are 'to promote the co-operation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations'". To achieve this aim it has 3 administrative bodies: (1) a Board of Directors, comprising the Governors of the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the UK and the USA, each of whom appoints another member of the same nationality - plus the central bank Governors of Canada, Japan,Holland, Sweden and Switzerland: a total of 17. (2) A Management Board; and (3) An annual General Meeting in June of each year.

That this is an organisation carrying enormous clout is readily confirmed by a closer look at said synopsis, pertinent quotes from which follow (italics are BIS's):

(A) "Since September 1994, the eleven countries from which the members of the Bank's Board of Directors are drawn have been identical with the countries which comprise the Group of Ten (G-10), with which the BIS has had a long and close association".

(B) "As well as making resources available to the IMF under the GAB (General Arrangements to Borrow) the G-10 has, since 1963, been a principal forum for discussion of international monetary questions. From the outset, the BIS has been a participant in G-10 Meetings, above all because the Governors of the G-10 central banks meet regularly on the occasion of the Basle monthly meetings. The G-10 meetings have, over time, become the pivotal forum in which much wider activities have been set in motion by the G-10 central banks in the pursuit of financial stability". (Meetings, it should be noted, hosted by the BIS in their high-rise office block in Basle).

(C) "As early as 1971 concern among central banks about the evolution of the Eurocurrency markets led to the establishment of a Standing Committee of the Group of Ten central banks which has met periodically in Basle ever since"

(D) In December 1994 the G-10 Governors set up "The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision, the secretariat for which is provided by the BIS".

(E) "The BIS hosts meeting of, and provides the secretariat for, the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems and its various working parties".

(F) "..the BIS in a joint initiative with the Basle Committee on Banking Supervision is establishing an Institute for Financial Stability which is expected to commence its activities sometime in the second half of this year" (1998).

(G) " From 1964 until the end of 1993 the BIS hosted the Secretariat of the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks of the Member States of the European Economic Community (theCommittee of Governors). From 1st of June 1973 until the end of 1993 the Secretariat of the Committee of Governors also served the Board of Governors of the European Monetary Co-operation Fund (EMCF) and the Bank (BIS) acted as EMCF agent. Until they were replaced by the European Monetary Institute on 1st January 1994, the Committee of Governors and the EMCF were the Community bodies which provided the institutional framework for monetary co-operation in the European Community".

(It should be added that the above quotes are by no means a comprehensive listing in the synopsis of the BIS's activities on the global scene).

Three news items concerning the role played by the BIS are worthy of note:

(1) In 1994 the Belgian banker, Baron Alexandre Lamfalussy resigned from his post as General Manager of the BIS in order to become Head of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) - forerunner of the European Central Bank (ECB). As reported in the Times of 10/11/'93: Andrew Crockett (Executive Director of the Bank of England), who was replacing Lamfalussy as General Manager of the BIS,.."said he did not foresee the ENI..impinging on the work of the Basle-based BIS which is widely regarded as the central banker's central bank"..and adding that.."The EMI would enable the BIS to re-focus on global issues, and develop its role as a forum for collaboration between central banks in the monetary and regulatory fields".

(2) C.Fred Bergsten, Head of the Institute for International Economics, told the Washington Post on the 3rd of January '99 "The adoption of a common currency is by far the boldest chapter of European integration. Money traditionally has been an integral element of national sovereignty"..and the decision by Germany and France to give up their mark and franc "..represents the most dramatic voluntary surrender of sovereignty in recorded history. The European Central Bank that will manage the euro is a truly supranational institution".

(3) In the Independent On Sunday of the 21st February '99 it was reported that Andrew Crockett (see above) has been appointed Chairman of a newly-established 'Stability Forum' (see quote 'F' above), whose aim is to monitor global markets (this was the idea of Hans Tietmeyer, President of the Bundesbank).

Certain conclusions can be drawn from a recapitulation of the facts noted above:

(1) The BIS occupies a central role within the global/European financial scene - to the extent that such institutions as the G-10 and ECB (among others) play a surrogate role.

(2) The goal of the corporations is precisely the same today as it was at the end of the Great War. This is inevitable, inasmuch as inherent within the capitalist system is its obligation to the aggrandisement of profit.

(3) As a consequence, sovereignty - in the sense of a country's or organisation's political independence - can be ignored and overridden. This is happening today. The signs are there for all to see: Is America really in the Gulf Region for the benefit of its inhabitants ('ragheads' in American parlance)? Ask any oilman.

Are the two terms 'NATO' and the "International Community' really synonymous? Ask any country not in the Alliance.

Is the 'Cold War' really dead? Ask NATO why it is still in existence.

Is it not clear that NATO's primary role in Europe is to act as corporate America's anti-Marxist enforcer (even though the Marxism in question may be of a purely nominal nature)? Ask the head formulator of NATO, George Kennan (he may be dead, but his disclosure of the real reason for NATO's birth is on record in the BBC's Lord Reith Lecture of 1957).

Has not the UN's sovereignty been by-passed time-and-time again over the years? Ask its main debtor - America.

And finally, why is so little of the BIS in the public domain? Ask the owners/controllers of the means of communication - the media.

Alfred Mendez' Bankers' Network chart proved impossible to transfer to a web page so it is available here as a Microsoft Word 6 file - a Rich Text file - and an Adobe Acrobat file - so you can print it out.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

DAVIES, Glyn "A History of Money" (University of Wales '94)

DEDMAN, Martin "The Origins & Development of the European Union - '45 to '95 (Routledge '96)

HIGHAM, Charles "Trading With The Enemy" (Robert Hale '83)

MARSHALL, Matt "The Bank" (Random House '99)

SAMPSON, Anthony "The Money Lenders" (Hodder & Stoughton '81)

BIS Précis '98

INTERNET (Membership lists, etc.)

Alfred Mendez <alfred.mendes@virgin.net>

http://www.spectrezine.org

http://www.bilderberg.org/bis.htm#Ruling

You can Comment at Hearlink Blog

BIS - Board and Senior Officials - July 2001

Board of Directors

Urban Bäckström, Stockholm (Chairman of the Board of Directors, President of the Bank)

Lord Kingsdown, London (Vice-Chairman)

Vincenzo Desario, Rome;

David Dodge, Ottawa;

Antonio Fazio, Rome;

Sir Edward A J George, London;

Alan Greenspan, Washington;

Hervé Hannoun, Paris;

Masaru Hayami, Tokyo;

William J McDonough, New York;

Guy Quaden, Brussels;

Jean-Pierre Roth, Zürich;

Hans Tietmeyer, Frankfurt am Main;

Jean-Claude Trichet, Paris;

Alfons Vicomte Verplaetse, Brussels;

Nout H E M Wellink, Amsterdam;

Ernst Welteke, Frankfurt am Main

Alternates

Bruno Bianchi or Stefano Lo Faso, Rome;

Roger W Ferguson or Karen H Johnson, Washington;

Jean-Pierre Patat or Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn, Paris;

Ian Plenderleith or Clifford Smout, London;

Peter Praet or Jan Smets, Brussels;

Jürgen Stark or Stefan Schönberg, Frankfurt am Main

Senior Officials

Andrew Crockett, General Manager

André Icard, Deputy General Manager

Gunter D Baer, Secretary General, Head of Department

William R White, Economic Adviser, Head of Monetary and Economic Department

Robert D Sleeper, Head of Banking Department

Renato Filosa, Manager, Monetary and Economic Department

Mario Giovanoli, General Counsel, Manager

Günter Pleines, Deputy Head of Banking Department

Peter Dittus, Deputy Secretary General

Josef ToÆovský, Chairman, Financial Stability Institute

Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific

George Pickering, Chief Representative

Others

Carlo Azeglio Caiampi - Italian politician

Lamberto Dini - Italian politician and banker - board of directors BIS

Antonino Occhiuto Italian central banker - BIS 1975 - now

Tommaso Padoa-Schioppa - Italian central banker - BIS 1993 - now

more on The Cabal

The Beginning Of A World Centralization Whirlwind