6139008-History-of-Money

the money center banks and multinational corporations, the media, the educational establishment, the entertainmentindustry, and the large tax-exempt foundations. Mr. President, a careful examination of what is happening behind thescenes reveals that all of these interests are working in concert with the masters of the Kremlin in order to create whatsome refer to as a new World order. Private organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relation, the Royal Institute ofInternational Affairs, the Trilateral Commission, the Dartmouth Conference, the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies,the Atlantic Institute, and the Bilderberger Group serve to disseminate and to coordinate the plans for this so-called newWorld order in powerful business, financial, academic, and official circles.... The psychological campaign that I amdescribing, as I have said, is the work of groups within the Eastern establishment, that amorphous amalgam of wealthand social connections whose power resides in its control over our financial system and over a large portion of ourindustrial sector. The principal instrument of this control over the American economy and money is the Federal ReserveSystem. The policies of the industrial sectors, primarily the multinational corporations, are influenced by the moneycenters through debt financing and through the large blocks of stock controlled by the trust departments of the moneycenter banks. Anyone familiar with American history, and particularly American economic history, cannot fail to notice thecontrol over the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency which Wall Street seems to exercise.... Theinfluence of establishment insiders over our foreign policy has become a fact of life in our time. This pervasive influenceruns contrary to the real long-term national security of our Nation. It is an influence which, if unchecked, could ultimatelysubvert our constitutional order. The viewpoint of the establishment today is called globalism. Not so long ago, thisviewpoint was called the "one-World" view by its critics. The phrase is no longer fashionable among sophisticates; yet, thephrase "one-World" is still apt because nothing has changed in the minds and actions of those promoting policiesconsistent with its fundamental tenets. Mr. President, in the globalist point of view, nation-states and national boundariesdo not count for anything. Political philosophies and political principles seem to become simply relative. Indeed, evenconstitutions are irrelevant to the exercise of power. Liberty and tyranny are viewed as neither necessarily good nor evil,and certainly not a component of policy. In this point of view, the activities of international financial and industrial forcesshould be orientatef to bringing this one-World design - with a convergence of the Soviet and American Systems as itscenterpiece - into being.....All that matters to this club is the maximization of profits resulting from the practice of whatcan be described as finance capitalism, a system which rests upon the twin pillars of debt and monopoly. This isn't realcapitalism. It is the road to economic concentration and to political slavery.The Gulf Corporation had dated back to 1901 when J M Guffey Petroleum's Spindletop well in Texas came in. Guffey wassoon ousted by his major backers, the Mellon family of Pittsburgh, and as a result the company name was changed to theGulf Corporation in 1907. Gulf invested heavily in developing the oilfields of Kuwait but the company was weakened bythe 1973 oil crisis and by claims of corruption in the Kuwaiti dealings. The Texas Oil Company renamed Texaco in 1959,flourished until the late 1970s when its own wells began to run out. In an effort to acquire more reserves in 1983 Texacobid $8.6bn for Getty Oil, despite the fact that Getty had agreed a deal with Pennzoil. A Texas court later ruled that Texacoshould pay Pennzoil $10.53bn in damages. As a result Texaco was forced to seek bankruptcy protection in 1987. Thedispute with Pennzoil was eventually settled for $3bn but Texaco's weak state was made worse when corporate raider CarlIcahn bid for the company. Texaco had to sell off $7bn of assets to beat off Icahn's bid. In 1989 Texaco did a deal withSaudi Arabia to form a joint venture called Star Enterprise, which linked up 60% of the company's US refining andmarketing operations with Saudi Arabian cash and provided a steady supply of crude oil. The Gulf War, however,disrupted supplies and highlighted the company's weakness. In 1993 Texaco sold off its chemical operations and investedheavily in finding new oilfields in Russia, China and Colombia and in increasing outputs in the North Sea but as the oilindustry consolidated it became clear that Texaco needed to merge with another major company in order to compete. Adeal was struck with Chevron.The newly-named Chevron continued to buy up competition and in 1988 paid $2.5bn for Tenneco's oil and gas holdings inthe Gulf of Mexico. The company then became a takeover victim with a bid from Pennzoil in 1992. This was fought off butChevron had to give Pennzoil a number of its oil and gas fields as part of the settlement. In 1988 Standard Oil mergedwith its archrival, British Petroleum. The last 15 years have seen the joint venture repurchase nearly all of the originalRockefeller oil companies. When coupled with the recent mergers of the US and UK Defense infrastructure and the sale bythe UK Ministry of Defense of 1/3 of its research and development company to the Bush/Binladen Carlyle Group, whichlists George H. W. Bush as a Senior Director, one can only conclude that the corporate (read Fascist) takeover is nearlycomplete.In all of the upheavals, the overriding concern of the majors was clearly to retain control over crude oil shipping, refining,and marketing. This was shown in 1974, when Saudi Arabia demanded the nationalization of Aramco. If there wereproblems, the Saudis threatened, they would simply offer 3 million barrels a day directly to third parties (outside themajors). In the end, Aramco quietly gave in, in return for contracts by which it would handle all the shipping of Saudicrude. Since the usual effect of a major price rise is to cut consumption, by economy (conservation) or switching toalternate supplies, one would expect that a continuation of OPEC production at its 1973 rates would tend to bring pricesdown again, no matter what the wishes of the producers. If OPEC could maintain its prices in the face of restricteddemand, production would have to drop. In 1974 production was almost exactly the same as 1973, and in the light of ahistorical 9.5% increase each year for 20 years, this constitutes a distinct restraint in production. In 1975 there was a realdrop in production. Together, these actions ensured that the price remained high. It's quite conceivable that these figureswere achieved because the majors as well as the producing nations both benefited from the large price increase, andneither had any interest in seeing that position eroded.The interests of OPEC and the majors coincided to this extent: both wished to see a large volume of oil flow through toconsumers at high prices. In these circumstances, OPEC members received large amounts of money in royalties andThe Hidden History Of Money & New World Order Usury Secrets Revealed at last! Page 624