War in the Context of Everything Else
The Global Ponzi Scheme
|The economic treason of 'Trade in Services' didn't begin with William Brock. He was just a political whore doing the bidding for the greedy psychopathic CEO's of three corporations: American Express, Citibank, and American International Group (AIG). In Harry Freeman's own words commenting on a paper titled, "Financial Services and the GATS 2000 Round' written by Pierre Sauvé and James Gillespie :|
Comments by Harry Freeman: I am an advocate of trade in services from the point of view of organizing private sectors around the world. I am [End Page 455] the head of the Mark Twain Institute, which is a virtual institute with about fifteen consultants on the payroll looking at the future of some economic scenarios.
In 1975 Pan American, which was still there, and American International Group (AIG) took a shot at trade in services. In 1979, I was in New York with the American Express Company and was in charge of strategic planning and acquisitions. We were having problems, which we now call market access problems (we did not have this kind of terminology at that time), in thirty or forty countries. We had no remedy under the trade laws or under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which only covered goods.
To make a long story short, we decided that we would have to change that, which meant starting a new round of trade negotiations including services. My boss, Jim Robinson, chief executive officer (CEO) of American Express, asked me to start a new trade round as soon as possible. He asked, "How long will it take?" I said, "I don't know, ten years maybe. I don't know.I have never done it. I am just reading this book by Ken Dam called the GATT." 1 He said, "Well, do it as soon as you can." I said, "I need some money." He said, "Don't worry about money. This is so important, you will have an unlimited budget." If there was one phrase that really pushed trade and services, that was it. We put a person in Brussels, a person in Tokyo, two or three people in Washington, three people in New York, and so forth.
We enlisted the aid, which was really important, of Citicorp and also AIG. John Reed came along a few years later as CEO. We had an alliance in which Jim Robinson of American Express, John Reed, and Hank Greenberg of AIG were working together. I was the go-between.
Having those three men with a lot of staff was the key. We went from zero probability of success to having a chance. We went to the ministerial meeting in 1980, 1982, 1984, and 1986, and the Uruguay Round started. The negotiations lasted an awfully long time. My colleagues in financial services groups and advocacy groups here are calling for a three-year round. They should remember that if the Uruguay Round had ended on time, services would have been dropped.The round almost collapsed in 1990, and we finally got services in right before 1993, at the end of the Uruguay Round. [End Page 456]
Another thing that we had to deal with very, very early on is the meaning of financial services. The first thing we did in 1979 was to coin the phrase.You will not see the term "financial services" before 1979. We did that by asking everybody in the company to talk about financial services particularly with the media, and in about two years the term financial services was part of the lexicon.
It is always difficult to determine the meaning of financial services company. What does that mean? Everybody talks about banks, insurance companies, and securities companies, and they are part of it. But what about H&R Block, which is one of the largest accounting firms in the United States and operates in about twenty countries? That is a financial services company, I think. EDS, which does back-office work for American Express Bank, Citibank, and others around the world, also is a financial services company. Credit card processors, such as MBNA, Reuters Information, Standard & Poor's, which operates in 100 countries or something like that, and asset management companies are all financial services companies. That is a partial list. We were quite successful in the Uruguay Round in defining financial services as "any service of a financial nature." This allowed us to have more and more allies, and you have to take care of your allies.
Incidentally, as you read the media and other papers, you always see the phrase "goods and services." That phrase came about in the early 1980s when I wrote at least 1,600 letters. Every time they would say the phrase "goods," I would give the clip to my office manager and say, "Write this reporter, sign my name, and say that he left out the term 'services.'" And that worked. It was a simple, but laborious, thing to do. Fortunately, those were the days of Wang, so it was not so bad.
Our argument is that this is good for developing countries. They do not always agree.They are not so happy sometimes with the American Express offices, or Bank of America, or Chase in their countries. They do not know why they need these foreign banks and foreign financial experts. To us, free competition helps development. They do not always agree. We will win this battle, but it will take many, many years of discussion, scholarly writing, and all kinds of communication.
The U.S. private sector on trade in services is probably the most powerful trade lobby, not only in the United States but also in the world.I would tend to disagree with Sauvé and Gillespie somewhat regarding the amount of work that has been done by our transatlantic partners, particularly the European Union. They only recently formed any kind of organization and pitched in.
You have working relationships, and you see these people, and you see the U.S. Trade Representative and the Treasury Department, and the relationships are good. U.S. government trade negotiators went to Seattle knowing exactly what they wanted in financial services. I do not think that is true in other countries. Sauvé said that we have to deliver the trade negotiators. That is true, but it is not applicable to the United States. We have a fifty-page wish list, and we meet with our trade negotiators as often as weekly.
Corporations as WMD's
There is no greater evidence that the CEO's of the largest corporations are dangerous psychopaths than the sheer audacity of their actions. First, they sell us out - stabbing us in the back with 'Free Trade Fraud: Trade in Services'. Then they ask us to BAIL THEM OUT as our economy is melting down. They expect the American people, who are experiencing record unemployment, record foreclosures, record bankruptcies - the people they tossed out like yesterdays trash, to now pay them - to keep them in business? For what? Their treason? Their betrayal? Their criminality? COME ON! Why aren't we hanging these criminals? Where is law enforcement? Where are the prosecutors? Where is the media? Where are the intellectuals?
Sorry... I lost my head for a minute. I was having a flash back to a time when people knew the meaning of integrity. Today, now that everything is in Full Throttle Reverse, we reward criminals and harass and terrorize law-abiding citizens.
None of what's happening in this country today would be possible without institutional support. The criminal traitors of the "financial services" industries buy their institutional support by providing funding for Think Tanks like the American Enterprise Institute, Cato, Brookings, Manhattan Institute, etc. They start Foundations and they provide funding for non-profit social engineers. These "learned ones" package the corporate agenda to a sellable format. And they provide the "you lie and I'll swear to it' cover for the members of Congress to hide behind.
The Enemy Within
If there was one single person who understood more than
any other, what the internationalization (globalization) of
our financial system would mean to this country, that would be
Walter B. Wriston. Wriston was the CEO of Citibank and
he'd been at the forefront of the Information Age since the
very beginning. In 1992, he wrote a book telling
it to the world. And it's not as if his message went
unnoticed. On the back cover of the book are comments from
Richard Nixon, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.
The Enemy Within
Left to Right: Paul W. McCracken, Alan Greenspan, President Ronald Reagan, George P. Schultz, and Walter B. Wriston during a meeting of the Economic Policy Advisory Board in the Oval Office, ca. 1981
There are a lot of things to know about Wriston, but this small snippet from his New York Times Obituary is noteworthy - especially to those who are interested in the history of banking:
The following are excerpts from Wriston's bio at the Speaker's Platform Speakers Bureau:
In Walter Wriston's history, you find the power behind the internationalization of U.S. economic policy - and the ideas that are now bringing this country to ruin - both morally and financially. In the preface of his book, "Twilight of Sovereignty" Wriston quotes Baruch Spinoza:
Following that quote, Wriston said, "We have learned that freedom is a virus for which there is no antidote, and that virus is spread on the global electronic network to people in the far corners of the world who previously had no hope or knowledge of a better way of life. This process is in train and it cannot be reversed, since the technology on which it is based will not go away."
Because the ideology of Wriston so closely parallels that of the Libertarian Party, I did a search to see if there was any connection. And in fact, there is. For anybody who wants to understand how the Libertarians - whether knowingly or not, actually support the move to "global governance", this article is a must read:
Libertarians, of course, oppose the essentially statist-social democratic ideology of transnational progressivism. Nevertheless, some libertarians have contributed to the weakening of the moral argument for sovereign self-government through their constant denigration of the nation-state and thus of democratic politics. The late Citicorp CEO, Walter Wriston's Twilight of Sovereignty was a radical libertarian manifesto that delighted in the rise of transnational action beyond the reach of democratic self-government. The late Robert Bartley, long time editor of the Wall Street Journal, is reputed to have told journalist Peter Brimelow, "the nation-state is finished." And even at meetings of the venerable Mt. Pelerin Society strong arguments were made at one meeting supporting a "world constitution" from a libertarian perspective.
Hostility to the "state" in general (even the limited democratic state) has blurred an understanding of the core principles of liberal democracy. For example, in April 2002 the Cato Institute's Dan Griswold writing in National Review Online objected to new U.S. Border Patrol initiatives against illegal immigration smuggling. He described the border security measures as follows: "It's just another example of government trying to stop people from doing something that is natural to better their conditions."
Mr. Griswold's remarks display confusion about the meaning of self-government. The "people" he refers to are non-American illegal immigrants (in this case many from the Muslim nations of the Middle East) who hire smugglers to enter the United States against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the American people. The "government" consists of border patrol agents (many of them Americans of Mexican descent) who are clearly carrying out what conservative political thinker Willmoore Kendall in the early days of National Review would have called the "deliberative sense of the American people."
In a similar vein, a Wall Street Journal editorial on July 10, 2006 trumpets the so-called "rights" of illegal immigrants to "contract" with American employers in violation of American law:
"Our own view is that a philosophy of 'free markets and free people' includes flexible labor markets. At a fundamental level, this is a matter of freedom and human dignity. These migrants are freely contracting their labor, which is a basic human right."
This is a rather clear case of a core conflict that should be clarified within the democratic center-right? a conflict that pits the democratic nation-state (the right of a self-governing people to make their own laws concerning immigration, border security, and labor relations) against an alleged international human right to voluntarily enter into employment contracts. Ironically, the arguments of the Wall Street Journal editorial parallel those articulated by many on the left who drafted a recent UNESCO proposal on international migration, which essentially endorses a "human right" of immigration with or without the consent of the people in the host nation.
On a webpage found on the 'Friends of Liberty' website, there is a list of the Directors and Officers of the Council on Foreign Relations. Walter Wriston is listed as being an Officer of the CFR under the Directorship of George Schulz. And by the way, George Schulz's father was a diehard Communist.
George P. Shultz 1980-82
(Reagan's Secretary of State)
More interesting than that however is the listing for 1934-42
Philip C. Jessup 1934-42
(Supreme Court Justice and probable Soviet spy)
The Libertarian party was started in Colorado by David Nolan. From the Colorado Libertarian website:
Keep in mind that Walter Wriston's book, "Twilight of Sovereignty" was called a Libertarian Manifesto as you read the following written article by William Engdahl:
As I've said many times, the financial arena is not my forte but it looks to me like Citibank - under the management of Walter Wriston turned the U.S. financial system into a ponzi scheme. Loaning ever more money in order to pay interest on Saudi CD's. That would explain the race of the multinational corporations to own and control commodities - because they are the only real wealth.
Frontline did a program titled 'Secret History of the Credit Card'. One of the interviews was with Walter Wriston:
I found the term Eurodollars relative to money markets started in Europe which is what apparently caused Nixon to close the gold window. I found this article titled, "Greenspan: The Wizard of Bubbleland" by Henry Liu. Following a paragraph on the elimination of Regulation Q, the Savings and Loan debacle, he wrote this:
It must be his political bias against the American middle class that prevents him from understanding that this was anything but a protection for the middle class. It was the beginning of economic warfare against the middle class. If you export their jobs, the "propertied middle class" doesn't stay "propertied" for very long. In fact, most "propertied middle class" are just urban sharecropper's in the bank's property - responsible for maintaining the value of the property for the privilege of being called an owner to something they can never own because of property taxes. And how can you have inflation in a debt based economy anyway? It seems to me that what they were really doing was accelerating the squeeze on the middle class to finish them off - to take away all of their assets - with the goal of ultimately reducing them all to penniless peasants.
[Side note: His convoluted thinking is the result - I believe - of the inability to understand "Reverse". He assumes that the U.S. was building wealth. They weren't. They were building debt - and they've done just a bang up job of it. And therein lies the problem of having the Financials Industry driving our economy. The economy is just digits in a computer to them and it doesn't matter which side of the ledger the numbers appear on - they can make money on either side. But the people - who by the sweat of their brow and their raw materials - try to build something tangible, which side of the ledger the numbers appear on means everything.]
Oh well, enough of that. I'm letting my curiosity run away with me. Back to Walter Wriston. In 1996, Wriston did an interview with Wired News titled, "The Future of Money". In that article, he reveals the real plan for money which is to have everybody accept digits in a computer as having value. Of course, the Banksters will set the value of those digits and you will live according to the standard that they deem appropriate for all of you peasants.
A Virtual World for Real People
In the course of doing the research for my website, one thing that has become crystal clear is that all people - in all the countries of the world have been the victims of the con artists of the financial industry - more accurately, high class thieves empowered by technology. The people in developing countries think that the people in the developed countries are rich - when all they are really is debt slaves. The people in the developed countries see their jobs - which are their lifeline in the debt economy being transferred to the developing countries so that people in the developing world can become debt slaves too.
In the previous section, it
was mentioned that William Brock started a subgroup of the
G8 which they called "The Quad" - Quadrilateral Ministers
Group comprised of trade ministers from Canada, Japan, the
European Union and the United States. This is the group I
would identify as the principals in the global con game of
the financials industry. It becomes clear when you
find that the European people are suffering the same kind of
economic meltdown that the U.S. is facing different only in
the sense of their norms and traditions (i.e. French Dream,
British Dream, German Dream - relative to the American
Before going further in to this, I need to take a trip down memory lane to the early part of the decade. I was watching a hearing on C-Span - I'm not sure what committee but I think Senator Grassley was the Chairman. The subject of the hearing was corporate tax fraud. There was an anonymous witness who testified behind a screen because he was afraid for this life. I believe he had been an accountant who had been involved in setting up a tax shelter scheme whereby U.S. corporations were leasing European infrastructure and were writing it off their U.S. income taxes. What that means in effect, is that the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing the Europeans in their infrastructure costs. This begs the question, 'why would anybody offer a sewer pipe for lease? And - Why would anybody take them up on it? I believe I found the answer in this research on 'Trade in Services'.
The following is an excerpt from an article titled, "Why we need EU Bonds" in the section called, "A Little History":
Jacque Delors White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness and Employment is the European Master Plan for European competitiveness in the 21st Century. Strip off the name 'Delors' and you'll recognize the elements of the plan immediately because it America's Master Plan and no doubt it's Canada and Japan's Master Plan as well.
Page 6 -
To summarize what the fraudsters have done is that in swapping debt, they used the deposits from the "loans" to increase the money supply to build infrastructure creating the illusion of prosperity while implementing the 'Global Information Society' that by definition reduces employment opportunities for people. In fact, the design of the 21st century economy according to the Master Plan promises growth by implementing 'smart systems' that by definition exacerbate the unemployment problem. The more automation (control) there is - the less people are required and the less opportunity there is for personal or macro economic growth. They are selling a virtual reality of 'Less is More' while to those of us who live in the real world, 'Less is Less' and a virtual meal is not a replacement for the real thing.
Hopefully, you can also see why the bail out plan for the banks won't work - even if they internationalize the oversight. They are adding debt on debt to achieve growth for an administrative system that is designed to maximize efficiency by controlling the resources to the maximum degree. You can't constrain - and grow at the same time. And debt is not wealth - no matter how many zeros you put behind the number.
More on the European Debt Swaps:
Debt Swaps for Education
Euro Bonds - debt swaps