We've established there is a goat behind every door. Let's go deep inside Door Number Three and take a closer look at the goat with the green leafy coat.

::::::::

In Part I, we learned there were goats behind all three doors.  So much for the brand new car.  We hoped that Uncle Sam was behind Door Number Three, but we were disappointed.  It seemed that everywhere we looked, there was Goldman Sachs.  So, is the goat with the green leafy coat Goldman Sachs?

Let's begin by exploring the Corrigan - Group of Thirty - Volcker connections and adding some depth to our picture of the Federal Reserve System. 

 

Paul Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed Chairman of the Fed in August 1979 by Democratic President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by Republican President Ronald Reagan.  The Volcker Fed is generally "credited" with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s by raising the federal funds rate to a peak of 20% in June 1981.  The prime rate rose to 21.5% the same year.  Under Volcker, general price inflation as measured by increases in the Consumer Price Index peaked at 13.5% in 1981 and declined to 3.2% by 1983.

The Volcker policy also contributed to the significant recession in the U.S. economy in the early 1980s, with the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression. Volcker also stimulated the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors.  Indebted farmers drove their tractors onto C Street NW and blockaded the Eccles Building, the main offices of the Board of Governors of the Fed in Washington, D.C.

Volcker was a founding member of the Trilateral Commission in 1973, and is a long time member of the Bilderberg Group.  After leaving the Fed in 1987, Volcker became Chairman of J. Rothschild, Wolfensohn & Co., run by James D. Wolfensohn, who was later to become president of the World Bank.  Volcker was a director of the United Nations Association of the United States of America between 2000 and 2004.  As of October 2006, he remains the current Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty, He has had a long association with the Rockefeller family, not only with his positions at Chase Bank and the Trilateral Commission, but also through membership of the Trust Committee of Rockefeller Group, Inc. (RGI), which he joined in 1987.

In January 2008, Volcker endorsed Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama for President.  Total political political contributions by the financial/insurance/real estate (FIRE) sector in 2008 were $468,809,924, an increase of 81% from the 2006 election cycle.  Fifty one percent of that went to Obama and Democrats.  Obama took in $22.5 million of it during his Presidential campaign. Volcker is currently an economic advisor to President Barack Obama and will head the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

Aside from the fact that it would be crazy to think that President Obama is not in the pocket of the world's most influential bankers, what the heck is really going on?  Why is everyone in finance so anxious to get you the taxpayer on the hook to pull every big bank's fat out of the fire??? Perhaps a global view can shed light on the subject. 

Do you know this next man? 

He is Zhou Xiaochuan, Governor of the People's Bank of China, the central bank of China.  He is China's Ben Bernanke, and the People's Bank is China's version of the Federal Reserve.  So, what's up with Zhou?  It just so happens that Zhou wants the IMF to manage a new one world reserve currency according to The Daily Bell:

"On March 23, 2009, China's central bank on Monday proposed replacing the US dollar as the international reserve currency with a new global system controlled by the International Monetary Fund. In an essay posted on the People's Bank of China's website, Zhou Xiaochuan, the central bank's governor, said the goal would be to create a reserve currency "that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies".

Wow, out of left field, the International Monetary Fund is attracting encomiums from all over the place! Even China.  China!  Some big shot in China sees the same positive qualities in the IMF that the English Prime Minister and the French President ...

[Sarkhozy is the French President with the sexy ex-model wife, who likes to hang out with Vincent Bollore and ride on the billionaire's private yacht and jet; Strauss-Kahn of the IMF we will learn was previously secretary-general and VP of a French industry lobby that represented Bollore.]

... see in that world-spanning organization.  Incredible.  What are the odds?  And where does this man - whom few have heard of - Zhou Xiaochuan come from? And why would he be interested in the IMF? Well, let's look a little deeper. ...

Hm-mm. We are doing our research ... He is certainly a most interesting and powerful banker - and comes from a powerful family. His father, a leading communist, was apparently mentor to China's most powerful bureaucrat in the 1990s - Jiang Zemin. In December 2002, Zhou was appointed to his present position as governor of the People's Bank of China. As leading banking authority, Zhou is in charge of clearing up some $865 billion bad loans in the Chinese banking system. Recently he has been under pressure from the finance ministers and central bankers of the G7 countries, to revalue the Renminbi and change its exchange rate-setting mechanism. Later on, in 2005 Zhou joined the influential Washington-based financial advisory body, the Group of Thirty.

The Group of Thirty, often abbreviated to G30, is an international body of leading financiers and academics which aims to deepen understanding of economic and financial issues and to examine consequences of decisions made in the public and private sectors related to these issues. ... The group is noted for its advocacy of changes in global clearing and settlement. The group consists of thirty members and includes the heads of major private banks and central banks, as well as members from academia and international institutions. It holds two full meetings each year and also organizes seminars, symposia, and study groups. It is based in Washington, D.C. The Group of Thirty was founded in 1978 by Geoffrey Bell at the initiative of the Rockefeller Foundation, which provided the initial funding.  Its first Chairman was Johannes Witteveen, the former Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Its current Chairman of Trustees, as we already know, is Paul Volcker.

In a previous Daily Bell article, we pointed out how certain politicians were making the case for the International Monetary Fund to become a kind of global regulator - and even holder of reserve currency. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been a big IMF backer in this regard for some reason.

And the tide keeps building. What about this just recently offered perspective from our old Cold War foe?

The Kremlin published its priorities Monday for an upcoming meeting of the G20, calling for the creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system. The International Monetary Fund should investigate the possible creation of a new reserve currency, widening the list of reserve currencies or using its already existing Special Drawing Rights, or SDRs, as a "super-reserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community," the Kremlin said in a statement issued on its web site. (Moscow Times)

One would like to think that Zhou [the UK and Russia too] arrived at his perspective entirely on his own, but certainly those in the West with whom Zhou interacts would seem to have various pro-IMF prejudices. The first Group of Thirty chairman (the group to which Zhou belongs) has direct links to the IMF. Another member of the Group of Thirty, Paul Volcker was in business with James D. Wolfensohn who became president of the IMF's sister organization, The World Bank.

We were all set to believe that Zhou [the UK and Russia too] came to his conclusions by himself, from rigorous study of the way the world works. But now we are not so sure. And here is a question that gives us a bit of a headache: Where does all this enthusiasm for the IMF come from in the first place? So many important people want the IMF to step up and assume a bigger international role. Why?  First Gordon Brown, then the Obama administration and even, incredibly, the Kremlin. And now China!

Is it because of the competence of the IMF? No, can't be. The agency itself admits it is incompetent - and others say far worse things about it. And yet the calls for its enlargement continue. It seems almost like an orchestrated campaign, but a campaign that includes Europe, Russia and China? Who or what would have the resources and clout to put together such a campaign? And why would someone - anyone - want to do so. Impossible! And yet ... it really is quite curious. As Alice would say, "curiouser and curiouser ..."

Aside:

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organization that oversees the global financial system by following the macroeconomic policies of its member countries.  It offers highly leveraged loans mainly to poorer countries. Its headquarters are located in Washington, D.C., USA.  The role of this Bretton Woods institution has been controversial since the late Cold War period, as the IMF policy makers supported military dictatorships friendly to American and European corporations.  Critics also claim that the IMF is generally apathetic or hostile to their views of democracy, human rights, and labor rights.  The controversy has helped spark the Anti-globalization movement. Arguments in favor of the IMF say that economic stability is a precursor to democracy; however, critics highlight various examples in which democratized countries fell after receiving IMF loans.  In the 1960s, the IMF and the World Bank supported the government of Brazil's military dictator  Castello Branco with tens of millions of dollars of loans and credit that were denied to previous democratically-elected governments.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn (DSK) is the Managing Director of the IMF.  He served as French Minister for Industry (1991-93). In 1991, he was nominated by Mitterrand to be Junior Minister for Industry and Foreign Trade in �dith Cresson's social-democrat government. He kept his position in Pierre Bérégovoy's government until the 1993 general elections. After the electoral defeat of 1993, Strauss-Kahn was appointed by former Prime Minister Michel Rocard chairman of the groupe des experts du PS ("Group of Experts of the Socialist Party"), created by Claude Allègre. The same year, he founded the law firm "DSK Consultants" and worked as a business lawyer. In 1994, Raymond Lévy, then director of Renault, invited him to join the Cercle de l'Industrie, a French industry lobby in Brussels, where he met the billionaire businessman Vincent Bolloré and top manager Louis Schweitzer; Strauss-Kahn served as secretary-general and later as vice-president. This lobbyist activity earned him criticism from the alter-globalization left. 

Vincent Bolloré is a French industrialist, corporate raider and businessman, heads the family investment group Bolloré, and is ranked 451st richest person in the world according to Forbes, with an estimated fortune of US$1.7 billion.  Bolloré started his investment career as a bank trainee at investment bank Edmond de Rothschild. His personal investment career began when he took over the reins at his family-controlled conglomerate Bolloré, which deals in maritime freight and African trade, and paper manufacturing (cigarette and bible paper).  Bolloré employs 33,000 people around the world.

Back to the Bell:

These two men [DSK and Bolloré] move in impressive circles and it is no wonder that the IMF continues to have clout on the world stage given the kinds of corporate personnel behind it. Of course, as we have pointed out above, the IMF's resources and allies apparently extend far beyond its immediate circle. And many of these allies seem to want the IMF to play a larger role in world affairs.

Conclusion: We are not surprised that the IMF is issuing warnings about the grimness of the world economic climate. It makes perfect sense if one believes that the IMF leadership is positioning itself for expanded power under the aegis of the Group of 20 that will meet in April. Certainly the stars have all aligned. It is an almost magical event - with Europe, Russia and now China all calling for the IMF to have more power and responsibility. The IMF itself has not shied away from increased duties. It has publicly declared it doesn't have the resources to do a good job. Now, with this latest announcement, the IMF shows us that the world is indeed in dire straits. Must the IMF come to the rescue? Well, we're not so sure. Maybe the G20 upcoming communiqué will help change our minds.

So, what happened at the G20 meeting in April?  Very simple.  They talked about this:

America, this is your future if the globalists have their way.  The United Banks of America, One State among many States, under One World Government.  You simply must read this article by Willam F. Jasper in its entirety, although I've reproduced much of it here:

Foremost on the G20 agenda is what globalist movers and shakers refer to as "global financial architecture reform," code words for transforming the International Monetary Fund (IMF) into, virtually, a global Federal Reserve System, with vast new monetary and regulatory powers - and huge new infusions of cash to be provided principally, as usual, by the citizens of the United States, Japan, and Europe.  In the run-up to the summit, there was even a stunning proposal made by China, Russia, a UN panel, and others - and tacitly endorsed by U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner - to replace the dollar as the world's reserve currency with the IMF's Special Drawing Rights (SDRs).

This "supersizing" of the IMF, as it has become popularly known in globalist circles, falls under the rubric of "global governance stimulus," a term being used to describe the transfer of powers from nation-states to institutions that are part of the United Nations system. That includes, of course, the IMF and World Bank.  It includes also the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The London summit, said Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the French economist who is the IMF's managing director, is but the launchpad for an ongoing process. "This reform is a dynamic reform, meaning that it has to be completed over time with several rounds," he said on the eve of the summit. "The first decision, which can be made at the G-20 Summit, will be to shorten this period from 2013 to 2011."

"A new world order is emerging," declared British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the conclusion of the summit. The signals being sent by Brown, Sarkozy, Strauss-Kahn, Geithner, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and others should be setting off high-decibel alarm bells. We are witnessing the demolition of our constitutional system and the piecemeal replacement of it with world government.  Over the coming months, the architects of this new global system intend to wring every opportunity possible out of the current economic crisis to bulldoze through our constitutional checks and balances that stand in the way of empowering the IMF, the WTO, and the United Nations.

Gideon Rachman, a leading financial opinionator for the very influential Financial Times, in an important op-ed last December 8, Rachman blurted his undisguised enthusiasm for the developing contours of world government appearing from the current so-called reform process. In his column entitled "And now for a world government," the Timesman expresses excitement that "for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible."

Rachman described what he envisions:  A "world government" would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force. 

Rachman offered three reasons why he thought the time was right: "global warming, a global financial crisis, and a "global war on terror" ... The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty."

Rachman approvingly quoted from a recent report of a globalist think tank, the Managing Global Insecurity project, calling for a legally binding UN climate-change agreement and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force, but he observed that the MGI report tellingly avoids using words that might "get people reaching for their rifles in America's talk-radio heartland ... Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language," he noted, using " 'global governance' rather than world government."

Rachman noted: "Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: "Global governance is just a euphemism for global government." As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon."  But, to Rachman's disappointment, there is still stubborn resistance to this vision and "any push for 'global governance' in the here and now will be a painful, slow process."

Rachman, the ardent global government proponent, then made an important admission against interest. He acknowledged, "Even in the EU - the heartland of law-based international government - the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for "ever closer union" have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians - and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic."

This, of course, confirms yet again two of the main objections by critics of the processes employed to promote "global governance," "harmonization," "shared sovereignty," "interdependence," and other code words for schemes that subvert national sovereignty and build global government. The first is that globalists perennially mislead and deceive to obtain their objectives; the second is that despite their proclaimed commitments to transparency, democracy, and rule of law, the global-government adherents regularly ignore and violate all of these principles.

Unfortunately, while revealing admissions (and boasts) by other globalists are cropping up, most of Rachman's and Attali's one-world colleagues are more circumspect. When the inquiring journalist or alarmed citizen points to the obvious disturbing destination where this process is taking us, he is given the Wizard of Oz treatment: "Don't pay any attention to that man behind the curtain." In other words, don't believe your eyes, ears, or common sense.

Hmm.  It appears that Goldman Sachs might only be one leg, a hoof even of the goat with the green leafy coat.  And, this is no ordinary barnyard goat.  This a sneaky goat with brains, vision, and a plan.  But, surely Uncle Sam is still in charge.  After all, it's only a goat, right?  

Authors Bio:

Merchant marine experience on ocean research and oil exploration vessels in my youth. Ex-mechanical engineer, oil exploration equipment industry, commercial and military aerospace industries, SCUBA diving and respiratory protective breathing apparatus industries. Sport skin diver, spear fisher, scuba diver, fisherman, boat owner, football player, tennis player, husband, father, math teacher. Ex-Republican, not a fan of the Democratic Party either. Not very impressed with the reasoning ability of Progressives either, who seem gullible and incapable of envisioning the negative consequences of trying to create Utopia by law, but have a soft spot for them anyway because their heart is often in the right place. Long time interests include: political philosophy, ethics, economics, banking and monetary systems, criminology, the Second Amendment and gun control.