PART 5 & 6
By Professor Steven Yates
January 9, 2010
NewsWithViews.com
[Author’s note: this article is dedicated to the memory of William C. Yates Jr. -World War II Submarine Veteran, patriot, devoted husband of 57 years to my mother, and devoted father to my sister and myself- who passed away on December 23, 2009 at age 86.]
I.
The twentieth century saw the rise of new institutions for the financial domination of nations. The Bank for International Settlements was founded in 1930. Its two main founders were Hjalmar Schacht, a Rhodes Round Tabler who later became Hitler’s Reich Minister of Economics, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England and a Fabian. The Bank for International Settlements would be the central bankers’ central bank, and therefore a major power center. About it Carroll Quigley would write:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups” (Tragedy & Hope, p. 324).
Member central banks of the Bank for International Settlements soon included all those of Western European nations as well as that of major Eastern powers such as Japan. Obviously, the Federal Reserve was a member.
The Fabian Society role is not obvious. For some reason, Quigley was uninterested in them as a group. Fabians always worked in the background. They did not seek publicity. They were more interested in results, and they sought evolution, not revolution. They saw no need for open coercion when infiltration, persuasion through subterfuge, and the subtle conditioning of malleable populations would do the job (penetration and permeation, as we saw in Part 4). Capitalism certainly appeared to be the ‘incredible bread machine,’ producer of wealth and prosperity. The Marxian complaint, echoed by the Fabians, was that capitalism could produce but not distribute equitably. Yet in this view, it was a crucial step in the evolution of economies—its establishment a necessary condition for the emergence of genuine socialism. Genuine socialism, in this view, was not what was had developed in the Soviet Union, where the Bolsheviks had tried to build socialism on an agrarian base without having gone through the capitalist stage. The most that could have happened there, again in this view, was a corrupt state-capitalism, a system every sane observer eventually realized was delivering worse injustice and brutality than anything in the British-American world.
The Fabians therefore began to change their tactics. They sought not to destroy capitalism but to transform it from within, using devices we have encountered such as the subversion of education (led by the Fabian John Dewey) to produce those malleable, manageable masses instead of informed, independent-minded individuals. The British-American superelite would further Fabian goals. David Rockefeller Sr. is arguably among the most powerful and well-connected of today’s superelites—and very much a capitalist in the new mode. He’d studied at the Fabian-founded London School of Economics (LSE) in the 1930s and written a senior thesis entitled Destitution Through Fabian Eyes, as recounted in his Memoirs (2002, p. 75-76). David Rockefeller’s vision of a globalized world led him to the helm of the Council on Foreign Relations and would lead him to assist in founding the European Bilderberg Group in 1954. He would regularly attend its top-secret annual meetings which, for several days, would transform plush hotels into armed enclaves with carefully selected staff members sworn to secrecy.
He would help found the Council of the Americas in 1965. Eventually, in the early 1970s, he would read fellow globalist Zbigniew Brzezinski’s Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era (1970). This book described history as a process moving away from “nationalism” (i.e., national sovereignty) through Marxism to a globalism that would be essentially a merger of capitalism and what was then called communism. With Brzezinski and Henry Kissinger, Rockefeller would organize the Trilateral Commission—all the while continuing in his ongoing role as overlord of the CFR. The Trilateral Commission propelled Jimmy Carter into the White House and would maintain a central presence in all subsequent administrations regardless of party affiliation. All these groups were pursuing Fabian goals whether the rank and file knew it or not—and most surely did not. That is, they had become agents of Fabian permeation.
II.
In sum, one envisions the Fabians and those they mentored as having taken an implicit fresh look at a key Marxian thesis: in order to create conditions for global socialism, the world needs global capitalism. The superelite began to think in those terms. Their efforts shifted from building global socialism to removing all barriers to an aggressive if micromanaged global capitalism. The Fabians had had control over the Democratic Party at least since 1960; John F. Kennedy Jr. had also studied at (where else?) the LSE. The “liberals” had built on the collectivism of the Rooseveltian welfare state with the “war on poverty” and such programs as “affirmative action” for women and minorities. Soon, the false opposition would appear. By the start of the 1980s we were hearing from “neoconservatives”—neocons—educated in such hotbeds of Fabian permeation as New York’s City College and Columbia University (where Brzezinski had taught). The first wave of neocons penned books with titles like Two Cheers For Capitalism (1978) by the late Irving Kristol, father of one of today’s neocon leading lights William Kristol, and Breaking Ranks by neocon Norman Podhoretz (1980). What would masquerade as a “conservative” intellectual renaissance began that would ultimately ruin the Republican Party by the time it had run its course (2008, end of the Bush II era).
The Reagan years spoke of “morning in America”; the truth was, with the rise of the neocons the Fabians had begun the capture of the Republicans. One of the newest mantras would be free trade. It began with so-called enterprise zones. This idea, to all appearances, was the brainchild of one Stuart M. Butler—a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, who published two seminal essays on the subject in 1979 and 1980 respectively. The idea was not Butler’s, however. Sir Geoffrey Howe, Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain, had introduced it to Parliament. Howe, in turn, had acquired the idea from Professor Peter Hall, an urban planner based at Reading University. Professor Hall had developed the concept of a “freeport” as a means of developing the depressed inner city—creating unabashedly capitalist enclaves, within which “workers parties” could also be established. Professor Hall was a Fabian—on the Society’s executive committee.
The idea would spread among conservatives who assumed it had originated with one of their own. Howe led the way in merging the idea with that of the free trade zone, which when enlarged to encompass multiple nations would dismantle tariffs, customs and duties. Managed globalist capitalism would be unleashed via so-called free trade agreements (FTAs). The antecedent to these was, of course, the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) which was signed back in the 1940s as part of the process that included Bretton Woods and the UN, with the founding of satellite organizations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In theory, globalist free trade would raise the level of prosperity for all. Economists spoke of putting “comparative advantage” to work. In practice, it allowed corporations to move operations to where labor was cheapest, least organized and least educated; where environmental standards were lax; and where the cooperation of local officials could be guaranteed through bribes and other forms of corruption. Wall Street soared; Main Street suffered. A few analysts led by Paul Craig Roberts would finally break ranks and offer their theory of “absolute advantage” (see especially the article he co-authored with Charles Schumer in the New York Times, Jan. 6, 2004. For a detailed account of how Fabian-managed globalist capitalism would destroy indigenous peoples, economies and cultures, see John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, 2004).
Globalist capitalism in practice, unlike its theoretical classical-liberal, laissez faire and libertarian images (which many libertarians unfortunately struggled to maintain), had made peace with Fabian-derived welfare-statism. It had few qualms about cooperating with expansionist government—provided, of course, that those in government embraced globalism. The neocons at its helm in America saw themselves as the vanguard of a new manifest destiny: taking “liberal democracy” to the rest of the world, in echo of what Cecil Rhodes had envisioned for British society almost a century ago. The neocons would form liaisons of convenience with, e.g., the so-called Religious Right. Although they were materialists in practice, such a liaison enabled them to get many of their people elected to office by masquerading as Christians. Once in office, of course, they continued the secularist agenda. Example: abortion. Republicans are constantly running on anti-abortion sentiment. Yet not one Republican elected to high national office has lifted a finger to stop the practice. Leading neocons have furthered the New International Economic Order, not Christianity. They have no more real interest in spiritual matters than they have in quantum physics.
While we would hear a lot of rhetoric about the need for competitiveness and the evils of protectionism, there would also be no more desire for genuine competition among the upper-echelon players than there had been among the robber barons of the late 1800s. We were approaching a new turning point, where economic coercion would become the norm as entire industries were destroyed and people were forced out of work. The once-thriving textile industry is an example. Former textile workers were told, in effect, to “reinvent themselves” for the “jobs of the future” (i.e., cooperate or starve). Almost none understood what was happening to them. Who were the upper-echelon players? The ideal participants in this system were multinational and transnational corporations whose only loyalties were to money and power—those Brzezinski had lauded back in 1970 in Between Two Ages. They had none to nationality, and this meant the fulfillment of CFR and Trilateral Commission member Richard Gardner’s call for the slow erosion “piece by piece” of national sovereignty (CFR journal Foreign Affairs article “The Hard Road to World Order,” 1974). It would shortly be clear to anyone who knew what to look for: the globalist process being furthered by Fabian-permeated superelites, and the sovereignty of the U.S. under our Constitution, were on collision course; also on collision course was this process and the continuation of a financially independent middle class in America.
The two collisions came with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993—yet another pivotal event which had the support of the Bushes, the Clintons, and even talk-show host Rush Limbaugh who otherwise bashed Bill Clinton mercilessly (the incongruity here went unnoticed). What public debate over NAFTA had taken place was overshadowed by mainstream media reportage on O.J. Simpson. In such ways America’s masses were easily distracted. NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994, and began a long-term exodus of millions of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. What replaced them were so-called “service sector” jobs which required a quite different skill set and paid considerably less. Since the Federal Reserve was pumping unprecedented quantities of printing-press money into circulation and the Dow was soaring to record heights, the economy “boomed.” Further empowering the boom was the explosion in changing technology including the cell phone, the Internet, the iPod, and so on. Clearly if you didn’t have a six-figure job in the newly-emerged, fast-paced tech sector, it was your own fault! As a result, few people noticed the seismic shift that was taking place.
While some of the major innovators (e.g., Apple, Microsoft, Amazon.com) survived, the “tech boom,” built up on the Fed’s credit expansion, proved unsustainable overall. “Dot-coms” went out of business by the thousands. The losses in manufacturing jobs continued. Several writers had begun calling our trade policies a “race to the bottom” (see Alan Tolenson, The Race to the Bottom, 2002). By the middle of the decade the number of job losses had risen to over 2.4 million.
Personal debt was skyrocketing, however, as a “housing boom” replaced the “tech boom”—another unsustainable bubble. When people could not pay their debts, they were foreclosed on; foreclosures were soon at record highs. The average American’s savings rate had gone negative.
As everyone knows, the system nearly collapsed in 2008. The superelite-owned investment banks and other large corporations received bailouts, of course. The Federal Reserve oversaw the creation of over $1 trillion out of thin air to save from collapse corporations deemed “too big to fail.” Elite-paid “economists” refused to grasp the notion that the solution to problems created by spending and debt is not more spending and more debt. Now, the 2000 decade has ended with this country mired in the worst economy since the Great Depression despite the “economists” seeing “green shoots” of recovery that do not exist outside government numbers. Job losses, business closings, foreclosures, and simple abandonments of homes in the real economy have now turned once-thriving, healthy communities into ghost towns. The unemployment rate—the real one which counts “discouraged workers” who have given up, those who have left the labor force to “reinvent themselves” as students, those working part-time but seeking full-time work, etc.—is over 20 percent!
NAFTA’s effects on Mexico have been worse. Mexico has long been more vulnerable than America. Mexican farmers could not compete with American “Agra-Biz,” resulting in a mass exodus of newly unemployed Mexicans. Those able to do so, came here. They crossed our wide-open Southern border by the millions in search of work. Their willingness to work for lower wages than native-born Americans sent still more of the latter to the unemployment lines. Thus our present illegal immigration epidemic, which at its height resulted in almost a tenth of all citizens of Mexico residing here—is also a product of Fabian-permeated trade policy.
III.
“Free trade”—corporatist trade managed by Fabian-permeated governments and corporations working closely together—effectively merges economies, and because since Keynes the idea of an economic system without government oversight has been anathema, “free trade” slowly turns national borders into meaningless lines on maps. It shifts the locus of control to supranational organizations such as the WTO, created in 1995 by the second GATT. It had done this in Europe, where trade agreements made following World War II gradually morphed into the European Union. Small wonder that by the 2000 decade the idea had surfaced that we would soon see the U.S., Canada, and Mexico merge into a North American Union—a natural offspring of NAFTA.
The idea of a North American Community was promoted openly by the CFR in its now-well-known Building a North American Community (2005), less openly by the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) founded in March of that same year, and by Professor Robert Pastor of American University in a earlier book entitled Towards a North American Community (2001). Professor Pastor vigorously denies promoting a North American Union, insisting that his conception of a North American Community respects the sovereignty of the three nations. We should recall Arnold Toynbee’s words, of course, when evaluating Pastor’s denials in light of the precedent set by the formation of the EU which also began with post-WWII trade agreements. And we should note remarks such as the following: “[P]olitical considerations are more important than economic ones. Since the existence of Europe is at stake, integration is more of a political than an economic desideratum. Political integration can be facilitated by economic cooperation, but mere economic union is unthinkable” (R.F. Sandwald and J. Stohler, Economic Integration: Theoretical Assumptions and Consequences of European Integration, 1959, p. 42). There can be no doubt that North American power elites learned from studying the European example.
It very much appears, though, that exposure over the uncensored Internet, and the publication of Jerome R. Corsi’s bestselling The Late Great U.S.A. (2007), have significantly weakened the North American Community effort for the moment, just as exposure forced the elites to set aside their plans for an Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) proposed in 1994 to go into effect in 2005. I can visualize the superelite fuming; they would shut down the uncensored Internet if they could. But too much commerce and communication now depends on it. The uncensored Internet is a liability for them, but not a fatal one. No one really thinks elite-sponsored economic integration has gone away, after all. Under Barack Obama, the SPP is continuing as the North American Leaders Summit. Several universities, including Pastor’s own American University and Arizona State, have programs or institutes devoted to “North American Studies.” Organizations such as the North American Forum on Integration, with which Professor Pastor is also involved, still sponsor annual conferences aimed at students.
And there is every reason to believe that the ongoing decline in the value of the dollar—a product of Federal Reserve / U.S. Treas. Dept. printing presses going full blast—is deliberate. This process was made much easier when President Richard Nixon severed all remaining ties between the dollar and gold in August 1971 and cynically declared, “We are all Keynesians now.” Gold was then $35/oz. Early last month it skirted $1,200/oz., an index of actual dollar devaluation. Attendees at the recent G20 meeting spoke openly of replacing the dollar with a global currency. This sort of move would doom the U.S. by dooming its economy! Given this, there are liberty-loving Americans who are giving up on reversing this madness and out of concern for family members planning their exit strategies, some to Central or South American countries and some elsewhere. The superelite will doubtless try to orchestrate a seamless replacement of the dollar with a global currency. They do not like disruption; it awakens the sleeping sheeple. But they are not all knowing or all powerful. They could lose control. What happens on U.S. soil should we experience a currency collapse with hyperinflation is a matter of speculation; we’re in uncharted territory here, for never before has an economic system as large as that of the U.S. been threatened this way before. Those remaining on U.S. soil may find themselves too busy obtaining food to stand up for U.S. sovereignty.
A number of scenarios speak darkly of an impending breakup of the U.S. under such circumstances. As many know, there are secession movements of various stripes in various parts of the country. Separation may not be the panacea it seems. Such a result would yield weaker nations, all of them struggling with most of their people unprepared for independence. The superelites would doubtless have their assets well protected, and would play former states or regions or populations or ethnic groups against one another, as they have done countless times past. Former Americans would be closer to, not further from, the long term goal shared by the Rothschild-Rockefeller axis and the Fabian Society: world government, always intended to follow the destruction of the United States of America however the latter is accomplished.
The odds are very good that the New International Economic Order will be governed in the manner of China but Westernized: as an oligarchic corporatocracy, collectivized via the educational system and political correctness, that would at last embrace the socialism Fabians originally wanted—except, of course, at the superelite level. If there is any remaining resistance, we can expect the Tasers to come out. Recall H.G. Well’s chilling words from the last installment in this series: “Countless people ... will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
IV.
There is much more to be said about Fabian permeation than space limits permit here. Suffice it to say, Fabian direction has completely reshaped British-American economics. What is essentially now a command economy has, for the first time in history, been able to pass itself off as market-driven—and it is, if you control the markets. Alan Greenspan references the Fabians in The Age of Turbulence (2007), crediting them with having had a “tempering effect” (p. 265) on market capitalism that kept the latter politically palatable. Both Britain’s past prime minister, Tony Blair, and its present one, Gordon Brown, are past presidents of the Fabian Society. Last spring, the latter paid newly anointed President Obama a visit. Obama is a disciple of the Saul Alinsky school of Fabianism and has used Alinsky’s techniques (Rules for Radicals, 1971) very effectively. It is dismaying to have to note that the two dominant forces in American politics right now, the neocons of the Republican Party and the PC-type liberals who backed either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in 2008, are both instruments of Fabian permeation. While appearing to lock horns in mainstream media for public consumption, each has done its part to destroy our Constitution and undermine our national sovereignty. Each is still viewed in partisan terms, although both are controlled by the same entity whose true identity remains almost unknown. Many of those working to make it known are dismissed in the mainstream media and by pseudo-sophisticates who identify with authority as “conspiracy nuts.”
Conclusion. In this series we have spelled out Four Cardinal Errors That Have Almost Ruined Our Republic. Again: (1) We failed to secure full economic independence from Great Britain and especially British bankers. (2) We embraced an educational system set up on principles alien to those of our Founding Fathers. (3) We rejected Christianity and embraced materialism. (4) We failed to recognize Fabian penetration and permeation. The implication of all this is that for America, time has grown very short! Indeed, the likelihood of success in saving the U.S. qua republic—a system founded on morality, limited government, and sound money—is unlikely. I am writing under the assumption that future historians, if there be such, will want to know why the greatest civilization in human history lost its sense of direction and self-destructed.
We may thus note a number of pivotal moments or events: (1) 1791: Alexander Hamilton was allowed over Thomas Jefferson’s explicit objections to create the first Bank of the United States, allowing the bankster class of the day to establish a presence here—which never left; (2) 1840s: the creation of government schools based on an ideology hostile to individuality and freedom; naturally they slowly ceased to produce citizens educated for a free and sovereign republic; (3) 1865: President Abraham Lincoln saved the Union but in so doing established the political supremacy of the federal government over state and local governments, thus paving the way for further economic as well as political centralization; he also opened the door wider to meddling by British bankers; (4) Early 1900s: Americans did not recognize the arrival of Fabian socialist thought when it came to our shores under an assumed name; (5) 1913: President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act, in effect granting superelite control over the U.S. economy through control over its monetary system. (6) 1944: GATT set the precedent as the first globalist trade agreement, as part of the rise of institutions (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) that began the migration of power to the global level; (7) 1971: President Richard Nixon severed the dollar’s ties to gold, allowing free reign to Federal Reserve / U.S. Treasury Dept. money creation which allowed the build-up of our present edifice of debt; (8) 1993: NAFTA was passed and went into effect on Jan. 1, 1994. Since that day, America has lost millions of middle class jobs which will probably never return; an equivalent destruction of Mexico’s economy, meanwhile, sent those workers here. The long-term effect may be the dissolving of our Southern border.
Doubtless, those who have followed me to this bitter end are asking that perennial question, What can we do? I have suggested—and I am not being facetious—developing an exit strategy. The beginnings of de facto colonies of American ex-pats already exist in many Central and South American countries. Of course, without guiding principles, efforts by expatriated Americans to form colonies elsewhere will only delay the inevitable arrival of world government and “scientific” totalitarianism to their new doorsteps. Based as it is on unsound economics, the New International Economic Order will eventually collapse. It might take a couple of generations.
What will the result be? The worst depression the world has ever seen! Billions of people will literally starve to death or die fighting each other for food and other resources! What can we do to prevent this kind of world? Begin developing personal goals, social goals, economic systems and a spiritual state, working towards a society that avoids the Four Cardinal Errors. That, of course, is another long story. In a future series, I hope to offer some suggestions. End of series.
© 2010 Steven Yates - All Rights Reserved
Steven Yates has a doctorate in philosophy and has taught the subject at a number of Southeastern colleges and universities. He is the author of two books: Civil Wrongs: What Went Wrong With Affirmative Action (1994) and Worldviews: Christian Theism versus Modern Materialism (2005). His articles and reviews have appeared in refereed philosophy journals such as Inquiry, Metaphilosophy, Reason Papers, and Public Affairs Quarterly, as well as on a number of sites on the Web. He also writes regular columns for a conservative weekly, The Times Examiner. He lives in Greenville, South Carolina with two spoiled cats, Bo and Misty.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento