Admiral Chester Ward, a former US Judge Advocate General of the Navy, was a member of the CFR for sixteen years. He said that the purpose of the organisation was the “…submergence of US sovereignty and national independence into an all-powerful one-world government”. In his book, Kissinger On The Couch, written with Phyllis Schafly, Ward said: “…(the)…lust to surrender the sovereignty and independence of the United States is pervasive throughout most of the membership, and particularly in the leadership of several divergent cliques that make up what is actually a polycentric organisation… (the main clique) is composed of the one-world-global-government ideologists – more respectfully referred to as the organised internationalists. They are the ones who carry on the tradition of the founders.”
If you are looking to impose global ‘solutions’ you need global ‘problems’ and the environment is perfect for that. It allows you to pass international laws and create centralised, global organisations to police them. It allows you to move native peoples from their ancient lands to create wildlife parks and ‘conservation’ areas all over the world, particularly Africa and the Americas, which then come under your centralised control. It gives you footholds in strategic areas from which you can launch ‘freedom fighters’ to start civil wars. The advantages are endless. Transnational agreements like the Biodiversity Treaty are handing control of large tracts of land in the United States and elsewhere to United Nations control.
The situation is the same as in Africa where the parks are administered by outside agencies over which the people have no control. The ‘Global Biodiversity Strategy’ was launched by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) the Swiss-based organisation formed by Sir Julian Huxley in 1948 with a constitution written by the British Foreign Office. This sits at the centre of a network connecting 68 countries, 103 government agencies and 640 non-government organisations. It worked with others like the Rockefeller-funded World Resources Institute in the United States headed by Lester Brown (CFR), and its strategy was presented at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit by… Maurice Strong, who with his wife, is also seeking to play the same scam with the New Age Movement. One of his vehicles for this is the Dalai Lama.
==The Biggest Secret: The book that will change the World (Icke, David)
Expanding further on this topic in the Fall 1984 edition of Foreign Affairs, Harvard University Professor Richard N. Cooper (CFR, TC) proposed “A Monetary System for the Future” that would mean the end of America as we know it.
A new Bretton Woods conference is wholly premature. But it is not premature to begin thinking about how we would like international monetary arrangements to evolve in the remainder of this century. With this in mind, I suggest a radical alternative scheme for the next century: the creation of a common currency for all of the industrial democracies, with a common monetary policy and a joint Bank of Issue to determine that monetary policy. [Emphasis in original]
“The currency of the Bank of Issue could be practically anything,” the Harvard economist continued. “… The key point is that monetary control — the issuance of currency and of reserve credit — would be in the hands of the new Bank of Issue, not in the hands of any national government….” (Emphasis added)
The problem, however, is that
“a single currency is possible only if there is in effect a single monetary policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy. How can independent states accomplish that? They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a supranational body.” (Emphasis added)
Insider Cooper realized the challenge involved in selling this totalitarian idea to the public.
“This one currency regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future,” he said. “But it is not too radical to envisage 25 years from now…. [I]t will require many years of consideration before people become accustomed to the idea.”
Getting people in the West, and particularly in the United States, warm to the idea of “a pooling of monetary sovereignty” — especially with communist countries — would be difficult. Cooper wrote:
First, it is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States…. For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values….
A fundamental contradiction in the global system, to reiterate, is a globalizing economy within a nation-state-based system of political authority, legal enforcement, and legitimation.
The “neo-liberal revolution” unleashed by globalization marked a transition from the Fordist-Keynesian social structure of accumulation to a savage global capitalism that entailed
1) a redisciplining of labor through globalization, flexibilization, high un- and underemployment, and the dismantling of welfare systems, and
2) the development of vast new social control systems, including prison-industrial complexes and transnational immigrant labor supply and control systems.
The shift from social welfare to social control states is less a question of public policy, in the first instance, than of class relations; the liberation of emergent transnational capital from the nation-state has undermined the material basis of the capitalist redistributive state.
A dictatorship of transnational finance capital in the literal sense of unrestrained power to dictate. This power is structural; it is neither coercive (directly, although “legitimate” transnational coercion through the TNS (Transnational State) is an increasing occurrence) nor hegemonic. During the 1980s and 1990s the transnational elite and TNS organs forged consensus among the leading dominant groups in most countries around the world and weaved together a global capitalist power bloc, but it was unable to secure a more expansive hegemony or base of “active consent” among subordinate majorities around the world.
===Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (Robinson, William I.)
It has now been 31 years since the CFR article on one world currency “A Monetary System for the Future”–more than the 25 years estimated at the time for the implementation and acceptance of such a monetary system. The planned “controlled disintegration” of the global economy and the devaluation of currencies around the world, combined now with the technological mechanisms to digitize and control all modes of the media of exchange under one, unified and totally centrally supervised “currency”, under the totalitarian guidance of an elite of the elite of the transnational capital class (TCC) devoid of any democratic or nationalistic constraints and manipulated for the self-interest and protection of that class is at hand.
We are in the final stages of a well planned attack on the concept of the nation-state, national sovereignty and any pretense of democracy will be memory–for many layers of the global elites will now reside between the “deciders” and the people. Obama was and is a Trojan horse, not of the traditional redistributive left, as is the standard false meme placed in our brains by all of the talking heads of the “right”, but of the transnational capitalist party. Call it global socialism, call it Fabianesque, whatever –but the truth is easy to understand, it is the rule of transnational capital and global government supported by transnationalist states and a global capitalist class “Davos Man”, it is a new 21st century transnational fascism.
A key question concerning the new Bank of Issue is what countries should participate in its management, use its currency, and forswear national monetary policy. We have come to think of the international monetary system, centered on the IMF with its 146 members, as a global system, albeit excluding most communist countries and Switzerland. That was certainly the conception at Bretton Woods, even though most of the early negotiation had been between the Americans and the British. That was also the spirit of the times at Bretton Woods, when the wartime allies placed their hopes for a better world in the United Nations Organization and its functional affiliates.
But there is serious question about whether one world money is either necessary or desirable. And it is certainly not feasible, even within our generous 25-year time frame. It is not feasible for two reasons. First, it is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States. I believe that the same reservations would obtain in other democratic societies. For such a bold step to work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values as reflected in the nature of political decision-making, and the basic trust and confidence to which those give rise.
Second, countries with different values, circumstances, and systems of governance are bound to introduce into negotiations leading toward a common Bank of Issue elements which are of greater interest to them, thus broadening the agenda for negotiation and rendering impossible an already difficult negotiation. For both reasons the proposal should be undertaken in the first instance by the United States, Japan, and the members of the European Community. This group represents the core of the monetary system at present and for some time to come. Other democracies would be free to join if they wished, and if they were willing to undertake the commitments involved, but no one should be obliged to join. Very likely many countries would find it attractive in the early stages not to join, but nonetheless to peg their currencies to the SDR or whatever was the unit of account of the Bank of Issue. They would retain some monetary freedom, however, which members had given up. Some countries would also be reluctant to give up the seigniorage from currency issue, which can be consequential where currency still bears a high ratio to GNP.
In short, there would be an inner club accepting higher responsibilities, but open to additional members who met the requirements, and of value even to nonmembers by providing a stable monetary environment against which to frame their economic policies. But this arrangement would mark a formal break with the universalism that governs the de jure if not the de facto structure of the Bretton Woods system today.