Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [less-developed countries]?… I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that…I’ve always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City… The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand…The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
IN ADDITION TO the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), through its War and Peace Studies Project, also spawned the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. The Articles of Agreement for these organizations were drawn up at an international conference of 44 allied countries at the Mount Washington Hotel and Resort in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. The War and Peace Studies Project was funded entirely by the Rockefeller Foundation, and the control of the CFR fell into the hands of David Rockefeller, the youngest of John D. Jr.’s sons, who had joined the organization in 1941.1
Outwardly, the IMF was supposed to be a philanthropic endeavor to address the problem of poverty and starvation throughout the world by controlling international exchange rates and stabilizing currencies.2 Clandestinely, the new world financial institution represented a grandiose scheme so that the nations of the world would relinquish their sovereignty to the money cartel.3 As A. K. Chesterton wrote: “The World Bank and the IMF were not incubated by hard pressed governments engaged in waging war, but by a supra-national Money Power, which could afford to look ahead to the shaping of a post-war world that would serve its interests.”4
The funding for the IMF, which established its headquarters in Washington, D.C., was based on a quota system with the most industrialized countries providing the greatest share of revenue. But the lion’s share (over 30 percent) came from the United States taxpayers, since the currencies of other countries were not transferable into gold. FDR had confiscated the gold of the American citizenry and removed the nation from the gold standard. But everybody else in the world could still exchange their paper dollars for gold at the fixed price of $35 per ounce.5 The result of this arrangement was the ongoing transference of America’s wealth to overseas banks, and the recognition of the dollar as the basis of the global economy.
The funding for the IMF, which established its headquarters in Washington, D.C., was based on a quota system with the most industrialized countries providing the greatest share of revenue. “International Monetary Fund formed 1945” by Archives New Zealand is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0
Each nation was required to maintain the value of its currency within 10 percent of the value of the dollar. This demand forced countries to bolster their paper money with shipments of gold to the IMF. This stipulation came with the recognition of the right to establish the price of gold at any value they might fancy.6 This right eventually enabled members of the money cartel to multiply their wealth almost beyond measure.
As long as the dollar remained redeemable in gold, the amount of currency that could be created by the money cartel in charge of the IMF remained limited. John Maynard Keyes, the leading British economist at the Bretton Woods Conference, recognized this problem as soon as the IMF was established. He wrote: “I felt that the leading central bank would never voluntarily relinquish the then existing forms of the gold standard, and I did not desire a catastrophe sufficiently violent to shake them off involuntarily. The only practical hope lay in a gradual evolution in the forms of a managed world currency, taking the existing gold standard as a starting point.”7
The ultimate goal of the group who gathered at Bretton Woods was the creation of a world currency called the bancor. At the conference, Mariner Eccles, a governor of the Federal Reserve Board, noted: “An international currency is synonymous with international government.”8 But this act proved to be even too radical for acceptance by the American dignitaries in attendance who, strange to say, retained a modicum of patriotism.
The plan to wean the world from gold came to fruition on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon signed an executive order declaring that the United States no longer would redeem its paper dollars for gold.9 Nixon was acting on the advice of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a lifelong appendage of the Rockefeller interests, and budget adviser George Shultz, later secretary of state and chairman of the vast Bechtel construction giant.10
After Nixon’s executive order, the IMF now could function as the world’s central bank by providing an unlimited issue of its own fiat currency to member nations. This new money, based solely on the money cartel’s statement of its worth, was called Special Drawing Rights (SDR). The member nations of the IMF were now compelled to make their currencies fully exchangeable for SDR. This meant that the new IMF currency was legal tender in every industrialized country, including the United States.11
The SDRs became tantalizing to every Third World country that sought to enter the modern age. The new currency was backed by gold; convertible into any form of cash; and available in large amounts to all takers, provided they had the means (including natural resources) to secure the loans. Eventually, as economist Dennis Turner explains, the following pattern was set: “SDRs are turned into loans to Third-World nations by the creation of checking accounts in the commercial or central banks of the members in the name of debtor governments. These bank accounts are created out of thin air. The IMF creates dollars, francs, pounds, or other hard currencies and gives them to a Third World dictator, with inflation resulting in the country where the currency originated…. Inflation is caused in the industrialized nations while wealth is transferred from the general public to the debtor nation. And the debtor nation doesn’t repay.”12
But the sword is two-edged. Nations borrow SDRs primarily to pay interest on their mounting debts. This would be fine and dandy, save for the fact that the IMF charges interest on every SDR that it produces from its computer system. And so, the loans, for the most part, do not serve to bolster failing economies. They simply create a steady flow of wealth from borrowing nations to the money changers who control the IMF and are not subjected to any international supervision.
The dollar, severed from the gold standard, ceased to serve as the official IMF currency and was compelled to compete with other currencies—primarily the mark and the yen—on its relative value to the countries. Over the decades, the dollar became increasingly discounted. Still and all, it remained a favored medium of exchange since America, as a country, remained wide open to foreign investors, who could buy American real estate, American factories and industrial plants, American mining companies and shopping centers without the restrictions placed on such purchases by other nations. For this reason, the Federal Reserve continued to churn out massive amounts of fiat paper money, since the demand for such dollars seemed to be endless.13
This situation permitted Americans to finance its enormous trade deficits with more and more money made out of nothing and allowed them to purchase cars, cell phones, computers, clothing, generic drugs, and 70-inch high-definition television sets at cut-rate prices, while the foreign manufacturers got the greenbacks. By the 21st century, this flood of dollars, which continued to be discounted, caused inflation to raise its hoary head until America was rapidly approaching the time, when foreign manufacturers no longer will accept dollars for their goods and the Federal Reserve no longer will be able to finance its enormous trade deficit by churning out paper money.14
Since the IMF possessed the power to regulate currencies and to establish exchange rates, the new international bank ruled in 1988 that world bankers must raise their reserve capital to eight percent by 1992. This demand placed a ceiling on fractional reserve lending practices. Countries throughout the world began to scramble for capital—treasury bonds from other countries, foreign currencies, gold and other liquidable assets. To acquire this capital, countries were forced to sell stock in their public utilities and nationalized companies. Japan, which had one of the lowest capital reserves, was hit so hard by this new requirement that its economy collapsed almost immediately. Within a matter of days, 50 percent of the value of Japan’s stock market was swept away, along with 60 percent of the value of the country’s commercial real estate. In an effort to prop up the collapsing economy, the Bank of Japan lowered the interest rate to one-half of one percent—practically giving away money to anyone willing to spend it. The effort was fruitless, and the depression continued to worsen.15 In 2009, Japan signed a $100 billion borrowing agreement with the IMF. This amount was equivalent to 31 percent of the IMF’s total funds.16 Japan, in effect, had become a vassal of the new international bank.
Mexico was also hard hit by the regulation to fortify its reserve capital to eight percent. The country received a $20 billion bailout from the United States. But even that amount could not ward off financial disaster. Mexico’s debt continued to escalate, and new loans from the IMF were created to cover the interest on old loans. Mexico, too, was forced to sell off its assets, which were gobbled up by the money cartel.17
As the financial disaster continued to spread, the IMF continued to churn out more and more SDRs by the mere stroke of a pen on one of its ledgers. Eventually, the new world bank attained absolute economic power over the people of the world, as it alone could decide what countries would receive further loans, and what countries would not.18
While the IMF purportedly provides loans to stabilize economies, the World Bank shelled out loans to war-ravaged and underdeveloped nations.19 Through the years, the majority of the presidents of the World Bank have come from the stables of the Council on Foreign Relations. Eugene Meyer, the first president of the World Bank (1945), was a CRF official and the former chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was succeeded by John J. McCloy (1947–1949), who also served as the CFR chairman.20 All of these men had strong ties to Wall Street. McCloy was a partner of the Wall Street corporate law firm of Milbank, Tweed, Hope, Hadley & McCloy, which had long served the Rockefeller family and the Chase Bank as legal counsel. From there, he moved to become chairman of the board of the Chase Manhattan Bank, a director of the Rockefeller Foundation and of Rockefeller Center.21
While the IMF purportedly provides loans to stabilize economies, the World Bank shelled out loans to war-ravaged and underdeveloped nations. Through the years, the majority of the presidents of the World Bank have come from the stables of the Council on Foreign Relations. “World Bank building” by AgnosticPreachersKid is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
The World Bank established its headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1945. Its membership consisted of the same 44 nations that belonged to the IMF. Like its sister agency, it was controlled by “one dollar, one vote” rather than the “one country, one vote” UN system. Since the United States provided nearly 20 percent of the money required to fund the World Bank, the New York bankers (Morgan, Rockefeller, and Kuhn-Loeb) gained a permanent place among the Bank’s executive directors and the exclusive right to appoint the Bank president.22
This latest Rockefeller creation was supposed to serve as the savior of mankind by enabling foreign governments to provide care for those most in need. The loans were provided on generous terms, usually at rates below market, and for durations as long as 50 years.23 The lion’s share of the cash, which amounted to $30 billion, came from the U.S. taxpayers.24
But there is a snare to the World Bank’s every transaction. The money, like IMF loans, is provided with very exacting conditions, known as structural adjustment programs (SAPs).25 One SAP is the immediate reimbursement to the country’s creditors, such as Morgan Stanley, Chase Manhattan, and Citibank. Another is the country’s agreement to sell off its key assets, including their water supply, their pipelines, and their power systems to buyers provided by the World Bank/IMF. A third condition is the country’s commitment to take remedial steps, including a restructuring of its government and the resettlement of populations, dictated by World Bank/IMF officials.26
The SAPs have caused devastating results for countries who accept the loans. The World Bank/IMF forced Argentina and Ecuador to liquidate its public holdings in order to comply with the repayment demands. In this way, Rockefeller-affiliated Citibank seized control of 50 percent of Argentina’s banks; Rockefeller-owned British Petroleum assumed ownership of Ecuador’s pipelines; and Enron, a shell company tied to the House of Rothschild, obtained the Great Lakes, which provide water to Buenos Aires.27
Other SAPs include the lowering of existing wages, the raising of the interest rate, the downsizing of all state facilities, the phasing out of statutory minimal wages, and the termination of “surplus” teachers and health-care workers.28 In extreme circumstances, even the resettlement of existing populations is required.29 Such a program got underway in Tanzania, which has received more aid per capita from the World Bank than any other country. Thousands of Tanzanians were driven from their villages, which were set ablaze, and loaded like cattle into trucks for relocation in government villages.30
On average, Third World countries face as many as 67 conditions for every World Bank loan. Some countries are hit with a far higher number of demands. Uganda, for example, where 23 percent of the children under five are malnourished, faced a staggering 197 conditions attached to its World Bank development finance grant in 2005. Anxious to uphold the conditions, Ugandan security forces engaged in mass detentions, torture, and the killing of hundreds of prisoners.31
Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia in honor of Cecil Rhodes, serves as a prime example of the effects of SAPs on a Third World economy. In accordance with stipulations from the IMF/World Bank, the leftist government confiscated and nationalized many of the farms that were owned by white settlers. The most desirable properties became occupied by leading government officials, while the least desirable farms were transformed into state-run collectives. The collectives were such miserable failures that the natives who worked the farms were forced to beg for food.32
By 1992, one year after Zimbabwe became subjected to the IMF/World Bank, the economy went into a deep recession, with the GDP falling by nearly eight percent. Twenty-five percent of the public workers were laid off, and unemployment began to soar, reaching 50 percent in 1997. By 1999, 68 percent of the population was living on less than two dollars a day.33 The per capita budget for health care fell from $22 in 1990 to $11 in 1996, causing a 30 percent decline in the quality of medical services. Twice as many women were dying of childbirth in Harare hospitals in 1993 than in 1990. By 1995, the number of cases of tuberculosis had quadrupled. At the dawn of the 21st century, one-fourth of Zimbabwe’s population was infected with HIV/AIDS.34
According to a three-year study released in 2002 by the Structural Adjustment Participatory Review International Network (SAPRIN) in collaboration with the World Bank, SAPs have been “expanding poverty, inequality, and insecurity around the world. They have torn at the heart of economies and the social fabric… increasing tensions among different social strata, fueling extremist movements and delegitimizing democratic political systems. Their effects, particularly on the poor, are so profound and pervasive that no amount of targeted social investments can begin to address the social crises that they have engendered.” 35
Since the World Bank and the IMF are located in Washington, D.C., and controlled the Houses of Morgan and Rockefeller, the people who have been subjected to SAPs manifest a strong anti-American animus. They assume that the twin banks are part of a corrupt capitalistic government that seeks to deprive them of life’s basic necessities. Within 40 years of the creation of these sister organizations, violent riots directed against Americans and caused by the austerity programs erupted in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Haiti, Liberia, Peru, and the Sudan.36
Concerning these occurrences, Luis Ignacio Silva, a prominent Brazilian politician, said: “Without being radical or overly bold, I will tell you that the Third World War has already started—a silent war, not for that reason any the less sinister. This war is tearing down Brazil, Latin America, and practically all the Third World. Instead of soldiers dying, there are children; instead of millions of wounded, there are millions of unemployed; instead of destruction of bridges, there is the tearing down of factories, schools, hospitals, and entire economies. It is a war by the United States against the Latin American continent and the Third World. It is a war over the foreign debt, one which has as its main weapon interest, a weapon more deadly than the atom bomb, more shattering than a laser beam.”37
1 Peter Grose, Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1966, Council on Foreign Relations Press, November 1982, https://www.cfr.org/book/continuing-inquiry, accessed February 13, 2019.
2 Emanuel M. Josephson, The “Federal” Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefellers (New York: Chedney Press, 1968), p. 159.
3 Ibid.
4 A. K. Chesterton, quoted in Jack Kenney, “The Federal Reserve: Bankers for the New World Order,” New American, January 2014, https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/item/17312-the-federal-reserve-bankers-for-the-new-world-order, accessed February 13, 2019.
5 G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, 5th Edition (Westlake Village, CA: The Reality Zone, 2017), p. 90.
6 Josephson, The “Federal” Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefellers, p. 161.
7 John Maynard Keynes, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keyes (New York: Macmillan, 1971), 5: xx.
8 Mariner Eccles, quoted in G. Vance Smith and Tom Gow, Masters of Deception: The Rise of the Council on Foreign Relations (Colorado Springs: Freedom First Society, 2012), p. 60.
9 Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 91.
10 F. William Engdahl, Gods of Money: Wall Street and the Death of the American Century (Wiesbaden, DEU: Edition Engdahl, 2010), p. 163.
11 Stack Jones, “An Essay on the History of Banking,” The Banking Swindle, January 1, 2018, https://criminalbankingmonopoly.wordpress.com/, accessed February 13, 2019.
12 Dennis Turner, quoted in Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 90.
13 Ibid., pp. 93–94.
14 Ibid.
15 Jones, “An Essay on the History of Banking.”
16 “IMF Survey: IMF Signs $100 Billion Borrowing Agreement with Japan,” International Monetary Fund, February 13, 2009, https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew021309a, accessed February 13, 2019.
17 Jones, “An Essay on the History of Banking.”
18 Ibid.
19 Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan: An American Banking Dynasty and the Rise of Modern Finance (New York: Grove Press, 1990), p. 518.
20 Smith and Gow, Masters of Deception, p. 60.
21 Murray N. Rothbard, “Rockefeller, Morgan, and War,” Mises Institute, April 30, 2017, https://mises.org/library/rockefeller-morgan-and-war, accessed February 13, 2019.
22 Asad Ismi, “Impoverishing a Continent: The World Bank and the IMF in Africa,” Halifax Initiative Coalition, July 2004, http://www.halifaxinitiative.org/updir/ImpoverishingAContinent.pdf, accessed February 13, 2019.
23 Ibid., p. 95.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Peter Palms, “Building the New World Order with the IMF and the World Bank and Taypayers Pay the Bill,” Thom Hartmann Program, October 9, 2015, https://www.thomhartmann.com/users/dr-peterpalms/blog/2015/10/building-new-world-order-imf-and-world-bank-and-taxpayers-pay-bill, accessed February 13, 2019.
27 Greg Palast, “World Bank Secret Documents Consume Argentina,” Greg Palast.com, March 4, 2002, http://www.gregpalast.com/world-bank-secret-documents-consumes-argentinaalex-jones-interviews-reporter-greg-palast/, accessed February 13, 2009.
28 Michel Chossudovsky, The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity (Montreal: Global Research 2015), pp. 125–31.
29 Ibid.
30 G. Edward Griffin, The Creature from Jekyll Island, p. 98.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid, pp. 98–99.
33 Ismi, “Impoverishing a Continent.”
34 Ibid.
35 SAPRIN, “The Policy Roots of Economic Crisis and Poverty: A Multi-Country Participatory Assessment of Structural Adjustment,” April 2002.
36 “IMF Hands Out Prescriptions for Sour Economic Medicine,” Insight, February 9, 1987.
37 Luis Ignatio Silva, quoted in Susan George, A Fate Worse Than Debt: The World Financial Crisis and the Poor (New York: Grove Press, 1990), p. 238.