Notice To All Readers - By Tim Brown

Dear readers of The Omega Report,

I wanted to take the time to sit down and write you all, as I have you dear in my heart. The time I spent writing on the topics of Christian eschatology and preparedness for the days ahead were some of the best and worst of days. I remember over the last year hurriedly taking steps to prepare my family for the uncertain days ahead. God was stretching me in many ways, spiritually, family-wise, financially, etc. and in many ways we are still being stretched. My family has gone through a lot of transition and we have just recently been able to get financially stabilized as I am starting a job next week, God willing.

The last 2 years though, regardless of the difficulties, has also been the best of times. God called me in a time in my life when I was in a place of self destruction. He then led me through years of legalism in a certain denomination context, and then through that allowed me to get buried up to my head in an addiction that nearly cost me my life. However, through that I also learned the grace of God and the power of transformation that comes through knowing and accepting one’s identity in Christ. This pursuit of transformation and grace eventually led me out of the legalisms of my past and eventually out of the personal moral legalisms I held myself personally to. It has only been over the last 3 years where I can say I have truly learned how to walk with God, hear his voice, and do his will in a way where it is not my own fleshly efforts trying to accomplish his divine purposes, but his Holy Spirit working and leading within me. This has truly been life-changing for myself and my wife.

Things really came to a head in December when it became clear to me that I would never be able to serve in the kind of ministry context I was in, due to the fact that my views had changed so drastically from what they traditionally had been. Grace and God’s love filled my teaching, as well as showing people HOW to live holy lives through knowing their identity in Christ, not just tell them they had to go and live holy lives. I was asked to leave ministry at my church in December 2009, and have been looking for some kind of work ever sense, again starting one next week.

So why has it been so hard for me to find another ministry within the denomination I had been a part of? Because I refused to not be honest about who I am, what I believe, and where God has brought me in my journey of faith. The plain fact of the matter is, I am a former addict, former legalist, who now preaches grace and holiness without performance.

I say all this to say, that the Spirit has convicted me to not only be transparent in all these facets of my life, but to also be transparent with those who were the readers of The Omega Report. On the site, I mentioned that I began my Christian faith with a belief in Amellinalism, which later changed due to things that God was showing me through scripture and through other’s teaching. Any other teaching in my denomination would be cause for automatic dismissal, or of being labeled as a person in error. When God began to press upon my heart to write articles concerning his Son’s second coming (as I do still believe he is VERY near), I started The Omega Report writing under a pseudo name-as I wanted to not only protect my family’s privacy, but I was also still living with some residual fear about letting others in my circle of influence know the real me, and to some extent I am still afraid-just where I am in God’s process of working with me. But as I said to myself and my wife when I began looking at ministry again, I told her that I would never again where a mask, and that I would never again hide behind the fleshly attempts to create an identity for other people that is contrary to the identity that I have in Christ.

Duncan Conner, was my pseudo name. So let me introduce myself formally. My name is Tim Brown. I reside in TN and have a beautiful family of 5 (just had our third son!). I decided to continue writing, now especially sense I will be working again and hopefully will have more time. But another reason why I plan to continue writing is because as I mentioned earlier, God has been doing some amazing things in me that have led me to the conviction that my role in these lasts times is yes, to help people understand the Lord’s second coming, but so many more people are far more gifted than I am in that area. I have come to the conviction that God has called me to help set the captives free-to use my life as one who was hopelessly addicted to show others how to be free, and in general to help who the church and teach the church who they really are in Christ. This is the focus on that new web site that I mentioned in my last post on The Omega Report.

My new site is called www.timothybrownministries.com I just started it last week and I do plan to import all of my articles over from the old site to the new site. I still plan to keep The Omega Report up and going for you to use the articles and information as you wish. But any new material will be posted on the new site, and also I will be writing and focusing my attention on issues with regard to how we are to walk and how to walk in the Spirit in these last days-a much more compelling (if you ask me) and encouraging theme, that a lot of the craziness that we see in the world around us. The fact is this: If we don’t know who we are in Christ, then regardless of how much information we possess about the end times, we will still not be as effective as we could be, had we walked in the Spirit and accomplished the things that God wants us to accomplish in the intervening time between now and his second coming. I hope that the new site will be an extended and expanded section on Spiritual Preparation.

I pray that my writing under a pseudo-name does not offend anyone. I assure you it was partly about fear, and partly about privacy. But now I know that I do not need to hide behind any masks. I plan to keep any who were on the mailing list still on the mailing list. But if you decide you want to opt out, then when you get the e-mail, you may do so there. If I don’t hear from you, then I will assume we can still continue our adventures in the word of Christ together, and I look forward to getting to know you better, as you get to know me (the real me) better.

May God bless you richly and may he continually supply you with all knowledge and grace as you walk worthily in him.

In Christ,

Tim Brown (aka, Duncan Conner)

P.S., I mentioned that my wife and I just had our third son. We named him Connor…  Look forward to hearing from you.

A Final Message From Duncan Conner

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

A couple of months ago I came to you to let you know that I had lost my job and that I would be focusing all of my energies on seeking employment in order to provide security for my family of 5. I began limiting the amount of extra work and volunteer work that I was doing and as a result I decided to not update The Omega Report as far as writing and posting new articles, and to keep posting news related to prophecy daily. I wanted to take a moment to update you on the situation and to let you know about the future of The Omega Report.

I have been tirelessly looking for work for 2 months now, and though I am currently following up on about 4 leads, I am still unemployed. The financial stress in our family is rising and I am at a point now where I am going to have to go out there and literally grab anything-though it may not pay all our bills. I am still praying that something will come through but have accepted the fact that God has his plans and that his processes are not always those that we would normally choose for ourselves. They are nevertheless his and are always best.

Having said that, it is with great sorrow that I am now going to have to step away from this ministry. I have tried to make time to produce new articles and provide new insights for the study of Bible prophecy and it has became apparent that I am no longer going to be able to do this. So looking to the new year, my intent is to cease updating the web site and adding new articles and news. I will leave all the information that is on there now currently, at least through to the beginning of the new year, and then sometime next year I will shut down the web site. Personally I would not like to see The Omega Report go away completely. If there are any out there who would like to get in the driver’s seat, I would love to work with you and hand it over to allow it to keep going.

Your kind words, insights, prayers, and friendship have been wonderful. I have loved interacting with you and learning from you, and look forward to continuing on in the relationships that I have formed in this ministry.

I know that many of you enjoyed the unique articles and news items that we posted on the site, so I would like to give you a few links to help you continue seeking out this kinds of information.

For news I scoured the web and hit all the main news sites like CNN.com, Fox News, etc. I found the Drudge Report to be very helpful, as well as various prophecy news web sites that are easily found by Google. A particularly helpful web site is also http://www.prophecyupdate.com/ You can also set news alerts through Google if you want that will send you news alerts for certain keywords like “Bible prophecy,” “Gog and Magog,” etc.

Also, please copy down all the sites that I have listed in my SOFL links section. A lot of the articles that I deemed the best of the best came from reading these others sites.

As far as the financial information, etc. is concerned here are some of the sites that I frequent:

Glenn Beck
http://www.glennbeck.com

Harry S. Dent
http://www.hsdent.com/

Stan Deyo
http://www.standeyo.com

Jerome Corsi
http://www.worldnetdaily.com
http://www.redalert.wnd.com

Mish Shedlock
http://www.globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot
http://www.sitkapacific.com

Walter Zimmerman
http://www.icap.com/

Gerald Celente
http://www.trendsresearch.com

Peter Schiff
http://www.europac.net/

Survival Information
http://www.survivalistboards.com/

I hope that these resources will be helpful for you. I wish you all the best in the days and years to come. I don’t know what will happen with America, the economy, whether these are the last of the last days or not. But I know who holds the day and who will care for us. Study the word, live godly, be ever ready for the appearing of our lord. Continue to prepare as best as you can, and live for Christ to the greatest of your ability. Until then…God bless you all.

In Christ,

Duncan Conner

Preparation For The Coming Days: Part 1 - What Should I Prepare For? - By Duncan Conner

In this series of articles I plan to lay out for you the exact steps that my family has taken over the last couple of years to get ready for what is more and more looking like the beginning stages of the very last of the final days.

A Little Background
When I write those words it feels almost surreal-and yet we as believers should not be surprised. The Lord told us numerous times in the scriptures that one day he would return, and he gave us clear signs to look for that will precede his second coming. Couple these statements with all the prophecies in the Old Testament, and you have quite a detailed roadmap as to what the final days will look like.

In 2007 I felt very convicted in my Spirit to begin a web site, with the aim of proving my and other’s insights into Bible prophecy, as well as provide resources for people to prepare for what will most certainly be dire pre-rapture conditions. As I have stated numerous times, we don’t know what life prior to the rapture will look like. Most Christians who believe in the rapture have classically assumed that they would see no trial, hardship, persecution, or difficult times, before the catching away mentioned in I Thessalonians 4:17. 2 Timothy 3:1 says that in the last days “difficult” times will come.

A very intriguing passage is the one in 2 Peter 3:3-4, 3 “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with [their] mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For [ever] since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”

I have personally always taken this passage to mean that in the last days, as we begin to see Bible prophecy start to be fulfilled and as we begin to see the pieces of the puzzle line up, Christian will no doubt begin to get excited more and more about their faith and the soon return of the Lord. However, the Bible says that there will be the naysayers, the mockers, the one who will challenge us and call us crazy and “Christian fundamentalists.” We’ve all heard it before right? “Every generation thinks there is the one where Jesus will come back,” “People have been setting dates for years,” etc.

The Bible teaches us clearly what the attitude of Christians will be toward the end of the age. Again, Paul warns in 2 Timothy 3:1-5, 1 “But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. 2 For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, 4 treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power…”

Are we not heading down this path? Anyone who sees what is going on in the world knows clearly that we are. And in terms of persecution, Jesus guarantees that those who stand up for their faith will be persecuted. Jesus says in John 15:20, “Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you…’

Jesus also mentioned the signs that would immediately precede the time of the tribulation. He said in Matthew 24:6-8, 6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars . See that you are not frightened, for [those things] must take place, but [that] is not yet the end. 7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes. 8 “But all these things are [merely] the beginning of birth pangs.”

The question is then, when will the rapture take place? Will it take place before or after the beginning of these birth pangs?

As many of my readers have e-mailed me recently, I am becoming aware that more and more people are starting to read the handwriting on the wall. Things have really ratcheted up over the last couple of years. I have always been someone to read the news headlines. I think and see in associations. When I see a list of news headlines I can easily see lines of connection running throughout them, and lines of connection that connect with other stories in the previous months or years. I also see the lines of connections from these stories and the many prophesies in the Bible that relate to the end times and the things that must be in place before the end times scenario can occur.

I can tell you, never in my life have I seen so many pieces of the prophetic puzzle coming together all at once. I remember the time when it would literally take months before I would see a news story that was relevant to Bible prophecy. And now I can’t hardly keep up!

Think about it. Look at what has occurred in human history just over the last hundred years. Knowledge has increased exponentially, the world is moving at an ever more rapid pace toward regionalization and globalization, American for the first time ever is moving toward Socialism, we are on the verge of having our entire financial system collapse, the decline of the U.S. has already begun, the world is clamoring and calling for One World Government, Israel is becoming more and more isolated, especially now under the Obama administration-which has shown itself to not be an ally for Israel. Iran is allying with Russia, and everyone believes that Iran and Israel will go to war soon.

Everything is moving toward the final goal that God has for mankind-the second coming of Jesus Christ! These are indeed exciting times.

Preparation 101
Now before we get into the basics of preparation, let me just say, the very first thing you have to do is determine what you are preparing to survive and how each disaster threatens you and your safety. That will give you the parameters necessary for the following steps.

This initial exercise isn’t hard as it only takes a few minutes of thought. I suggest you jot down some notes or switch into your word processor while you work.

But first, it’s important to realize that you cannot prepare for everything. There are a lot of preparedness resources out there with lists as long as the eye can see for things you should buy, get, etc. It’s important when you first start off to only prepare for those things that you think you will personally potentially face, and prepare ahead for things you could be facing within the next 5 years.

As yourself this question: What do you think it likely to happen in my town, around my area, etc. within the next five years? You will have to do your best on this one. I suggest spend some time in prayer over it. But you will need to extrapolate, evaluate trends, read the newspaper, and conduct your own research. At the very least, take a few minutes and consider your location. Pull out a map and look what’s within a 2-mile, 5-mile 10-mile and 25-mile radius of your home and place of work. Put on your pessimist hat and consider what might go wrong that could directly impact you and decide if that’s something you want to prepare for.

For example, if you live a “safe” distance outside of a flood plain, your house might still gets flooded in the 100-year flood, so should you prepare for it? I, but it’s your call. That nuclear plant 20 miles away has an excellent safety record. Should a nuclear disaster be on your list? Again, you make the call. Are you worried about a meteorite crashing into your house? Well, it has happened, but it’s probably not worth preparing for.

Finally, if you’ve been afraid of something since you were a child — whether it’s a raging fire or nuclear war–prepare for it. At the very least, you’ll sleep better at nights knowing you have done all you can.

Here are some questions to ask yourself:

1.) What natural disasters or extreme conditions, taking into account the times we are living in, taking into account all that is going on in the world, my country, my state, my city, my neighborhood, am I (we) likely to face in the next five years?

Make a list and rank them in order of most to least likely to impact you. You can review my list of possible natural disasters below if you need to.

If you are quite optimistic and you are not too concerned with the economy, your list might look like this:

1.) Heavy Thunder Storms
2.) Severe Winter Weather
3.) Nearby Flash Flooding

If you are like me, the top 3 on my list are:

1.) Collapse Of The Dollar
2.) Civil Unrest
3.) Martial Law

Obviously there is a big difference between the two lists, and how you prepare will be contingent on the kinds of things you put on your list.

2.) What other disasters or emergency situations might I face?

Add to your list the man-made or other disasters that you might face in the next five years (again, you can refer to our list, if necessary). Let’s say you have added these categories:

1.) Toxic Material Emission/Spill (From A Train Derailment)
2.) Riot Or Other Civil Disorder
3.) Nuclear Plant Problems
4.) Terrorism

3.) What are the ramifications of each item on my list?

Now, take your list and create a second column. Put the ramifications of each disaster in the second column. What do we mean by ramification? How the disaster or emergency situation could affect you. Think this one through very carefully, as everyone’s situation is different. For example, families with children have different concerns than those without children or single people.

Once you are done with that, finally, note if the ramifications could require evacuation (which is what we will cover in the next article, i.e. “Bugging Out”).

To keep using our example, results in a table might look like this:

Potential Disaster	Ramifications
Collapse of the dollar	Food shortages Gas shortages Massive unemployment Possible civil unrest Possible Martial Law
Thunder storm with electrical outage for 2 (average) to 48 hours (severe)	Food spoilage possible Lack of air conditioning/furnace Damage to house or car from nearby trees Possible local flooding (see below) Local transportation impaired by fallen trees, wires Lightning damage/fire potential
Severe winter weather	Electrical outage for 4 (average) to 72 hours (severe) would affect furnace operation Exposure problems Frozen pipes Disruption of travel, transportation Self or family members possibly stranded away from home Possible food shortages and empty shelves at local markets
Nearby flash flooding	Local transportation disrupted Danger while traveling in car or by foot Possible loss of some utilities
Nearby train derailment	Possible leak or spill of chemicals Short-term exposure problem Long-term cancer concerns Evacuation may be necessary
Riot or other civil disorder	Disruption of commute (ala Los Angeles) Stranded in car or office while family is at home and/or school Danger of riot spreading to my neighborhood Danger of local kids/low lives taking advantage of situation Attack or threat to personal safety Looting and rampaging by otherwise lawful citizens Fire with potentially no response by authorities Police are overwhelmed, cannot protect law-abiding citizens
Nuclear plant problems	Reactor vessel damage could result in release of radioactive chemicals to atmosphere Evacuation necessary
Terrorism	Threat to safety at work and during business travel Disruption of commerce, travel Less personal freedom, privacy as a result of government reaction to terrorism

Once you’ve created a chart like the one above, you know what situations you are most likely to face and can prepare your survival plan. For the next steps, go on to Part 2 (Will be published soon).

Origins of the American Empire: Revolution, World Wars and World Order

Russia, Oil and Revolution
By the 1870s, John D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire had a virtual monopoly over the United States, and even many foreign countries. In 1890, the King of Holland gave his blessing for the creation of an international oil company called Royal Dutch Oil Company, which was mainly founded to refine and sell kerosene from Indonesia, a Dutch colony. Also in 1890, a British company was founded with the intended purpose of shipping oil, the Shell Transport and Trading Company, and it “began transporting Royal Dutch oil from Sumatra to destinations everywhere,” and eventually, “the two companies merged to become Royal Dutch Shell.”[1]

Russia entered into the Industrial Revolution later than any other large country and empire of its time. By the 1870s, “Russia’s oil fields, including those in Baku, were challenging Standard Oil’s supremacy in Europe. Russia’s ascendancy in natural resources disrupted the strategic balance of power in Europe and troubled Britain.” Britain thus attempted to begin oil explorations in the Middle East, specifically in Persia (Iran), first through Baron Julius de Reuter, the founder of Reuters News Service, who gained exploration rights from the Shah of Iran.[2] Reuter’s attempt at uncovering vast quantities of oil failed, and a man named William Knox D’Arcy took the lead in Persia.

By the middle of the 19th century, “the Rothschilds were the richest family in the world, perhaps in all of history. Their five international banking houses comprised one of the first multinational corporations.” Alfonse de Rothschild was “heavily invested in Russian oil at least forty years before William Knox D’Arcy began tying up Persian oil concessions for the British. Russian oil, which in the 1860s was already emerging as the European rival to the American monopoly Standard Oil, was the Baron [Rothschild]’s pet project.” In the early 1880s, “almost two hundred Rothschild refineries were at work in Baku,” Russia’s oil rich region.[3]

By the mid-1880s, “the Rothschilds were poised to become the chief oil supplier, not only to Europe but to the Far East,” however, “the Baku-Batum railroad was already proving inadequate to transport the volume of oil being produced. Another route was needed, and came in the form of the recently opened Suez Canal, which shortened the journey to the Far East by four thousand miles. Palestine was suddenly of interest to the Rothschilds as it provided access to the Suez.”[4] When the Egyptian government was bankrupt in 1874, British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli turned to his close friends, the Rothschilds, “for the colossal cash advance necessary” to buy shares in the Suez Canal Company.[5] By this time, the Rothschilds were already principle shareholders in the Bank of France,[6] and the Bank of England, sitting alongside other notable shareholders such as Baring Brothers, Morgan Grenfell and Lazard Brothers.[7]

The Rothschilds “had long been involved in developing Czarist Russia’s nascent industry and banking system, while that country’s growing network of railroads was largely financed by Rothschild-managed loans.”[8] When the Czar died, he was succeeded by his son, Czar Nicholas II, who instituted anti-Semitic pogroms, discriminating against Jews, which had the effect of stimulating a massive emigration of Jews out of Russia and Eastern Europe and into Western Europe. However, these East European and Russian Jewish émigrés grew up in a newly industrializing nation in which the tyranny of the government and collusion between it and powerful financial and industrial interests left the great majority of people dispossessed and incited more socialist tendencies in thought and action.

The English Rothschilds were very alarmed “when the socialist tendencies of the émigrés contributed to a massively disruptive tailors’ strike in the East End of London in 1888. A young Georgian communist who would become known to the world as Joseph Stalin was already organizing laborers to strike at the Rothschild oil interests in Batum.” The British Rothschilds were very concerned with this wave of Jewish immigrants into Western Europe and Britain, as they were intensely anti-Czarist and progressively socialist, and the Rothschilds were known for their heavy collaboration with the Czarist regimes of Russia. One potential solution considered to the problem of increased socialist-leaning Jewish immigrants in Britain was to institute restrictions on immigration. However, this would likely backlash, in the sense that it would be viewed as comparable to expulsion. So, Edmond Rothschild began his personal campaign to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine in order to create a release valve for Jewish émigrés to put their political action behind a new cause, and to promote them emigrating to Palestine, and out of Western Europe.[9]

On top of this, as the pre-eminent Zionist in Britain, his proposal for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine served major economic interests of the Rothschilds and of the British Empire, in that several years prior, Rothschild bought the Suez Canal for the British, and it was the primary transport route for Russian oil. Palestine, thus, would be a vital landmass as a protectorate for British and Rothschild imperial-economic interests.

The Rothschilds, despite their overtly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish rhetoric, did not stop their support of the Russian regime and economic activities within anti-Semitic Russia. In 1895, the Rothschilds, then one of the world’s leading producers and distributors of oil, “had gone so far as to co-sign an agreement with rival producers - including America’s Standard Oil [of Rockefeller interests] - to divide up world markets. It never took effect, presumably because of the opposition of the Russian government.” In 1902, the Rothschilds “entered into a partnership with Royal Dutch and Shell (soon to become a single global company) to form the Asiatic Petroleum Company for exploiting the fields of Southern Russia.”[10]

In the early 1900s, the Rothchilds were the primary oil interests in Russia, second in the world only to the Rockefellers. As industrialization was under way, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people. This spurred protests and riots, and a “young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general, [and] the Rothschilds in particular. Mass action by oil workers in Baku [the major oil fields in Russia] in 1903 was the spark that set off the first general strike across the Russian landmass.” Then with the Russian loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, and further protests, came the Revolution of 1905. In the following years, the Rothschilds sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, gaining significant shares in the international oil company.[11]

The specter of political and social instability within Russia was high and did not go without notice from international banking, oil, and industrial interests. Naturally, the international banking houses were keeping a close eye on developments within Russia. The Rothschilds had to lessen their overt involvement with Russia, as they could not maintain such a relationship with the most anti-Jewish nation in the world at the time, while also claiming to be the primary advocates of Jewish aspirations for a homeland. This is why they sold their Russian oil interests to Royal Dutch Shell, but then gained significant shares in the company itself. So while publicly cutting their ties with Russia, they still held massive interests in its industrial capacity. Following the Russo-Japanese War, the Rothschilds “refused to participate in underwriting a major loan, this at a time when Russia desperately needed funds to stabilize the regime.”[12]

So, in 1906, John D. Rockefeller stepped in to aid Czarist Russia, and offered $200,000,000, or “400,000,000 rubles for a concession for railroads from Tashkend to Tomsk and from Tehita to Polamoshna and a grant of land on both sides of the prospective lines.”[13] These international financiers were still clearly intent upon maintaining their interests within Russia.

However, the Russian governments refusal to allow the deal between the Rockefellers and Rothschilds and other major oil monopolies to divide up the world’s oil reserves, may well have spurred discontent among these powerful interests. If Russia refused to allow them to control all the oil and have a right to all oil, did this mean that Russia was planning on building a domestic oil industry? If this were the case, it could pose a threat to all the entrenched economic and financial interests, particularly those of the Rockefellers and Rothschilds, as Russia’s significant oil reserves and resources would allow it to possibly even surpass the United States in industrialization. Further, Czarist Russia became an increasingly unstable investment environment, controlled by an increasingly unpredictable monarchy.

The 1917 October Revolution “inspired workers’ uprisings in the oil fields against low wages and harsh working conditions. In 1919, Azerbaijan took advantage of the political unrest to declare sovereignty over the Baku fields. That same year SONJ [Standard Oil of New Jersey] made an agreement with the Azerbaijani government to purchase undeveloped land for exploration in the Baku region. Amidst the chaos, foreign oil companies rushed into Russia hoping to collect concessions at reduced rates. The Nobel brothers sold much of their operations to SONJ (today ExxonMobil) to build an alliance in 1920.”[14]

Antony C. Sutton, economist, historian and author, as well as research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, that both fascist and communist systems are “based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J.P. Morgan and J.D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to ‘go political’ and make society go to work for the monopolists,” and that, “the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers.”[15] Thus, the major money powers of the west decided to put their money behind the creation of a totalitarian communist state in Russia, in order to create a captive economy, which they could exploit and remove from competition.

When the Revolution began, Trotsky was in New York, and was immediately granted an American passport by President Wilson, and then given a Russian entry permit and a British transit visa, in order to return to Russia and “carry forward” the revolution.[16] Trotsky, while traveling, was arrested in Canada, but was released as a result of British intervention.[17]

Trotsky traveled on board a ship in 1917, leaving New York, along with an interesting cast of fellow passengers, including “other Trotskyite revolutionaries, Wall Street financiers, American Communists, and a man named Charles Crane. Charles Richard Crane, former chairman of the Democratic Party’s finance committee, whose son, Richard Crane, was an assistant to U.S. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, played a significant part in what occurred in Russia. Former U.S. Ambassador to Germany, William Dodd, said that Crane, “did much to bring on the [Alexander] Kerensky revolution which gave way to Communism.” Kerensky was the second Prime Minister in the Russian Provisional Government, which followed the collapse of the Czarist government, and preceded the Bolshevik. Crane also thought that the Kerensky government “is the revolution in its first phase only.”[18]

The Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, which broke out in 1914, and had all the major European powers at war. Morgan and Rockefeller interests, organized in Wall Street and centralized in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the most powerful of all the regional Federal Reserve Banks, used “the Red Cross Mission as its operational vehicle” in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Red Cross Mission in Russia got its endowment from wealthy people such as J.P. Morgan, Mrs. E. H. Harriman, Cleveland H. Dodge, and Mrs. Russell Sage, and “in World War I the Red Cross depended heavily on Wall Street, and specifically the Morgan firm.” When the American Red Cross set up a mission to Russia, “William Boyce Thompson, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, had ‘offered to pay the entire expense of the commission’.”[19] All expenses were paid for by William Boyce Thompson, who was a major stockholder in Chase National Bank, whose President had Thompson appointed head of the New York Fed.[20]

The Mission was primarily made up of lawyers, financiers, their assistants, people affiliated with Standard Oil and the Rockefeller’s National City Bank.[21] The Mission supported through a loan, the Provisional government of Alexander Kerensky, yet, William B. Thompson of the New York Fed “made a personal contribution of $1,000,000 to the Bolsheviki for the purpose of spreading their doctrine in Germany and Austria.” Interestingly, when the Bolsheviks took control, “The National City Bank branch in Petrograd had been exempted from the Bolshevik nationalization decree - the only foreign or domestic Russian bank to have been so exempted.”[22] Ultimately, the Red Cross mission in Russia “was in fact a mission of Wall Street financiers to influence and pave the way for control, through either Kerensky or the Bolshevik revolutionaries, of the Russian market and resources.”[23]

The American International Corporation (AIC), was “created in 1915 to develop domestic and foreign enterprises, to extend American activities abroad, and to promote the interests of American and foreign bankers, business and engineering.” It was created and controlled by Morgan, Stillman and Rockefeller interests, and its directors were affiliated with National City Bank (Rockefeller), the Carnegie Foundation, General Electric, the DuPont family, New York Life Insurance, American Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Members of its board financially supported the Bolsheviks and urged the US State Department to recognize the Bolshevik government.[24]

In 1920, Russian gold was being siphoned through Sweden, where it was melted down and stamped with the Swedish mint, funneled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and into Kuhn, Loeb & Company and Guaranty Trust Company (Morgan), two of the primary banking interests behind the creation of the Federal Reserve System. [25] During the civil war in Russia between the Reds and the Whites, while Wall Street financiers were aiding the Bolsheviks quietly, they also began to finance Aleksandr Kolchak (of the Whites) with millions of dollars, in order to ensure that whoever emerged victorious in the war, Wall Street would win.[26]

As Antony Sutton wrote, “Russia, then and now, constituted the greatest potential competitive threat to American industrial and financial supremacy,” and that, “The gigantic Russian market was to be converted into a captive market and a technical colony to be exploited by a few high-powered American financiers and the corporations under their control.”[27]

Eventually, the Bolsheviks emerged victorious, and Wall Street won. Under Stalin’s Five-Year Plans in the early 1930s, Soviet industrialization “required Western technology and expertise,” and in a “frequently overlooked contribution” that came “from abroad,” American firms aided in the industrialization of the USSR, including Ford, General Electric and DuPont,[28] with Standard Oil, General Electric, Austin Co., General Motors, International Harvester, and Caterpillar Tractor trading heavily with the Soviet Union.[29]

Standard Oil bought “gargantuan quantities of Red Oil,” General Electric received a $100,000,000 contract from the Soviet Union to build “the four largest hydroelectric generators in the world,” Austin Co., got a $50,000,000 contract to erect the City of Austingrad, “complete with tractor and automobile factories involving an additional $30,000,000 contract for parts and technical assistance with Ford Motor Corp.” On top of this, “Other [Soviet] business friends are General Motors, DuPont de Nemours, International Harvester, John Deere Co., Caterpillar Tractor, Radio Corp. and the U. S. Shipping Board, which sold the Reds a fleet of 25 cargo steamers.” Banks with close ties to the Russian economy included Chase National, National City Bank and Equitable Trust, all of which are either Rockefeller or Morgan interests.[30]

World War Restructures World Order
In the midst of World War I, a group of American scholars were tasked with briefing “Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world once the kaiser and imperial Germany fell to defeat.” This group was called, “The Inquiry.” The group advised Wilson mostly through his trusted aide, Col. Edward M. House, who was Wilson’s “unofficial envoy to Europe during the period between the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and the intervention by the United States in 1917,” and was the prime driving force in the Wilson administration behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve System.[31]

“The Inquiry” laid the foundations for the creation of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most powerful think tank in the US, and “The scholars of the Inquiry helped draw the borders of post World War I central Europe.” On May 30, 1919, a group of scholars and diplomats from Britain and the US met at the Hotel Majestic, where they “proposed a permanent Anglo-American Institute of International Affairs, with one branch in London, the other in New York.” When the scholars returned from Paris, they were met with open arms by New York lawyers and financiers, and together they formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921. The “British diplomats returning from Paris had made great headway in founding their Royal Institute of International Affairs.” The Anglo-American Institute envisioned in Paris, with two branches and combined membership was not feasible, so both the British and American branches retained national membership, however, they would cooperate closely with one another.[32] They were referred to, and still are, as “Sister Institutes.”[33]

The Milner Group, the secret society formed by Cecil Rhodes, “dominated the British delegation to the Peace Conference of 1919; it had a great deal to do with the formation and management of the League of Nations and of the system of mandates; it founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in 1919 and still controls it.”[34] There were other groups founded in many countries representing the same interests of the secret Milner Group, and they came to be known as the Round Table Groups, preeminent among them were the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, and parallel groups were set up in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India.[35]

World War I had marked a monumental period in history in what can be understood as “transitional imperialism.” What I mean by this is that historically, periods of imperial decline and transition (that is, the rise or fall of an empire or empires), are often marked by increased international violence and war.

World War I was the result of the culmination of imperial ambitions by various powers. This was the natural result of the wave of “New Imperialism” that swept the industrialized world in the 1870s. In 1879, the German Empire and Austria-Hungary created the Dual Alliance to combat growing Russian influence in the Balkans with the decline of the Ottoman Empire. Italy joined in 1882, making it the Triple Alliance. In 1892, the Franco-Russia Alliance was made, which was a military alliance between France and the Russian Empire to counteract the German Empire’s supremacy over Europe. In 1904, the Entente Cordiale, a series of agreements between France and Britain, was agreed upon in order to maintain a balance of power in Europe. In 1907, the Anglo-Russia Entente was formed in an effort to end their long-running Great Game by setting the boundaries of their imperial control over Afghanistan, Persia and Tibet. It also acted as a balance to the growing German Empire’s might and influence in Europe. After the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente, the Triple Entente was cemented between Britain, Russia and France as a significant counter to the Triple Alliance.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire had been a long and slow process. The Ottoman Empire dated back to 1299, and lasted until 1923. “From 1517 until the end of World War I, a period of 400 years, the Ottoman Empire was the ruling power in the central Middle East. Ottoman administrative institutions and practices shaped the peoples of the modern Middle East and left a legacy that endured after the empire’s disappearance.”[36]

In the late 16th century, “Ottoman raw materials, normally channeled into internal consumption and industry, were increasingly exchanged for European manufactured products. This trade benefited Ottoman merchants but led to a decline in state revenues and a shortage of raw materials for domestic consumption. As the costs of scarce materials rose, the empire suffered from inflation, and the state was unable to procure sufficient revenues to meet its expenses. Without these revenues, the institutions that supported the Ottoman system, especially the armed forces, were undermined.” This was largely done through commercial treaties known as Capitulations. The first Capitulation “was negotiated with France in 1536; it allowed French merchants to trade freely in Ottoman ports, to be exempt from Ottoman taxes, and to import and export goods at low tariff rates. In addition, the treaty granted extraterritorial privileges to French merchants by permitting them to come under the legal jurisdiction of the French consul in Istanbul, thus making them subject to French rather than Ottoman-Islamic law. This first treaty was the model for subsequent agreements signed with other European states.”[37]

The Ottoman state had been sufficiently weakened by the early 20th century, which happened to be the same time period that Europeans, particularly the British, were looking at Middle East oil to fuel their empires. The major European alliances sought to take advantage of this weakened Ottoman position. In 1909, Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia-Herzegovina, inciting the anger of the Russia Empire. The First Balkan War was fought between 1912 and 1913, in which Serbia, Montenegro, Greece and Bulgaria fought the Ottoman Empire. The settlement that followed angered Bulgaria, which then began to engage in territorial disputes with Serbia and Romania. Bulgaria then attacked Greece and Serbia in 1913, followed by Romania and the Ottoman Empire declaring war against Bulgaria, which was the Second Balkan War.

This further destabilized the region, and Austria-Hungary grew wary of the growing influence of Serbia. When Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914, Austria delivered an ultimatum to Serbia, where the assassin was from, and then declared war. The Russian Empire mobilized for war the next day, with German mobilization following behind, and France behind it. Germany then declared war on Russia, and World War I was under way.

The end of the Great War saw the disillusion of the Ottoman Empire, breaking up its territory, which was carved up between France and Britain at the Paris Peace Conference. The German Empire and Austro-Hungarian Empires also officially ended as a result of the war, for which Germany was given the sole blame for the war and punished through the Versailles reparations. The Russian Empire ended with the Bolshevik Revolution, which resulted in Russia pulling out of the war in 1917, the same year the United States entered the war. The Great War turned the United States into a powerful nation in the world, becoming a leading creditor nation with significant international influence. The British and French maintained their empires, though they were in decline. However, they attempted to maintain significant control over the Middle East.

World War I was thus the culmination of a massive build-up of imperial nations seeking expanded influence and markets for their capital. Entering the War, there were many empires, leaving it, there were two dominant European Empires (France and Britain) and an emerging new force in the world, the United States.

The Great Depression

The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin . . . Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them but leave them the power to create money, and, with a flick of a pen, they will create enough money to buy it back again . . . Take this great power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine will disappear, for then this would be a better and happier world to live in. . . . But, if you want to continue to be the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let bankers continue to create money and control credit.[38]

- Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England, 1927

Benjamin Strong, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, who worked closely together throughout the 1920s, decided to “use the financial power of Britain and the United States to force all the major countries of the world to go on the gold standard and to operate it through central banks free from all political control, with all questions of international finance to be settled by agreements by such central banks without interference from governments.” These men were not working for the governments and nations of whom they purportedly represented, but “were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.”[39]

In the 1920s, the United States experienced a stock market boom, which was a result of the commercial banks providing “funds for the purchase of stock and took the latter as collateral,” creating a massive wave of underwriting and purchasing of securities. The stock market speculation that followed was the result of the banks “borrowing substantially from the Federal Reserve. Thus the Federal Reserve System was helping to finance the great stock market boom.”[40]

In 1927, a meeting took place in New York City between Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Hjalmar Schacht, President of the Reichsbank, the German central bank of the Weimar Republic; Charles Rist, Deputy Governor of the Bank of France and Benjamin Strong of the New York Fed. The topic of the meeting was the “persistently weak reserve position of the Bank of England. This, the bankers thought, could be helped if the Federal Reserve System would ease interest rates to encourage lending. Holders of gold would then seek the higher returns from keeping their metal in London.” The Fed obliged.[41]

The Bank of England had a weak reserve position because of Britain’s position as champion of the gold standard. Foreign central banks, including the Bank of France, were transferring their exchange holdings into gold, of which the Bank of England did not have enough to supply. So the Fed lowered its discount rate, and began buying securities to equal French gold purchases. Money in the US, then, “was going increasingly into stock-market speculation rather than into production of real wealth.”[42]

In early 1929, the Federal Reserve board of governors “called upon the member banks to reduce their loans on stock-exchange collateral,” and took other actions with the publicly pronounced aim of reducing “the amount of credit available for speculation.” Yet, it had the reverse effect, as “the available credit went more and more to speculation and decreasingly to productive business.” On September 26, 1929, London was hit with a financial panic, and the Bank of England raised its bank rate, causing British money to leave Wall Street, “and the over inflated market commenced to sag,” leading to a panic by mid-October.[43]

The longest-serving Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, wrote that the Fed triggered the speculative boom through its pumping excess credit into the economy (sound familiar?), and eventually this resulted in the American and British economies collapsing due to the massive imbalances produced. Britain then “abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.”[44]

The Bank for International Settlements
In 1929, the Young Committee was formed to create a program for the settlement of German reparations payments that emerged out of the Versailles Treaty, written at the Paris Peace talks in 1919. The Committee was headed by Owen D. Young, founder of Radio Corporation of America (RCA), as a subsidiary of General Electric. He was also President and CEO of GE from 1922 until 1939, co-author of the 1924 Dawes Plan, was appointed to the Board of Trustees of the Rockefeller Foundation in 1928, and was also, in 1929, deputy chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. When Young was sent to Europe in 1929 to form the program for German reparations payments he was accompanied by J.P Morgan, Jr.[45]

What emerged from the Committee was the creation of the Young Plan, which “was assertedly a device to occupy Germany with American capital and pledge German real assets for a gigantic mortgage held in the United States.” Further, the Young Plan “increased unemployment more and more,” allowing Hitler to say he would “do away with unemployment,” which, “really was the reason of the enormous success Hitler had in the election.”[46]

The Plan went into effect in 1930, following the stock market crash. Part of the Plan entailed the creation of an international settlement organization, which was formed in 1930, and known as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). It was purportedly designed to facilitate and coordinate the reparations payments of Weimar Germany to the Allied powers. However, its secondary function, which is much more secretive, and much more important, was to act as “a coordinator of the operations of central banks around the world.” Described as “a bank for central banks,” the BIS “is a private institution with shareholders but it does operations for public agencies. Such operations are kept strictly confidential so that the public is usually unaware of most of the BIS operations.”[47]

The BIS was established “to remedy the decline of London as the world’s financial center by providing a mechanism by which a world with three chief financial centers in London, New York, and Paris could still operate as one.”[48] As Carroll Quigley explained:

[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.[49]

The BIS was founded by “the central banks of Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Japan, and the United Kingdom along with three leading commercial banks from the United States, including J.P. Morgan & Company, First National Bank of New York, and First National Bank of Chicago. Each central bank subscribed to 16,000 shares and the three U.S. banks also subscribed to this same number of shares.” However, “Only central banks have voting power.”[50]

In a letter dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt told Edward M. House, “The real truth .. is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson - and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W[oodrow]. W[ilson]. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States - only on a far bigger and broader basis.”[51]

Banking on Hitler
Throughout the 1930s, with the loans provided through the Dawes and Young Plans, Germany was able to create a few dominant industrial cartels, which were all financed by Wall Street bankers and industrialists.[52] These cartels provided the basis for and main financial backing of the Nazi regime. Collaboration between the German Nazi industry and American industry and finance continued, specifically with Morgan and Rockefeller interests, as well as Ford and DuPont. The Morgan-Rockefeller international banks and companies associated with them “were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry.”[53] Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Empire “was of critical assistance in helping Nazi Germany prepare for World War II.”[54] On top of this, the Rockefeller Foundation was also pivotal in not only funding the racist and elitist eugenics movement in the United States, but played a pivotal part in bringing the eugenics ideology to Nazi Germany, facilitating the beliefs that brought about the Holocaust.[55]

Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank throughout Weimar Germany, stayed on as President of the German central bank from 1933 until 1939, and was thus a central figure in Nazi Germany, being a major driver being the German plans for reindustrialization, redevelopment and rearmament. Hitler, in 1934, made Schacht his Minister of Economics.

Central banks across Europe began to purchase Nazi gold, which was smuggled and melted down and re-stamped in Switzerland, (much like was done with Soviet gold). Sweden, Spain, Portugal, Argentina, Turkey, France, Great Britain, Poland, Hungary, and the United States all “traded with the Nazis with gold transferred by the BIS.” This was done as a collaborative effort among central banks, as “the BIS did enter into gold and currency transactions with Nazi Germany through its participation with the Reichsbank.” Schacht wielded his significant influence and “had become instrumental in placing high-ranking Nazi officials and foreign collaborators on the BIS Board of Directors.”[56]

Empire, War and the Rise of the New Global Hegemon
World War Two also marked a period of massive imperial transition. The build-up of the Third Reich led to Nazi imperialism throughout Europe and North Africa and the Japanese Empire expanded into China. At the end of the War, the British and French Empires were all but vanished, holding onto remaining colonies in Africa and Asia. The Soviet Union was devastated and Germany, with much of Europe, was in ruins. What emerged from this war that was most significant was the rise of a new empire, the American Empire. America’s intervention into the war and expansion into Europe as a liberating force allowed it to set up bases throughout Europe as well as in Japan on the Pacific. The Soviet Union, having taken Europe from the East, expanded its influence and dominance across Eastern Europe. Following Churchill’s speech that an “Iron Curtain” had fallen across Europe, the Cold War was underway. Thus, World War II ended the age of many European empires, even of those in decline, and created a bi-polar world, which was divided between the USSR and the USA.

Following World War II, the US, as the only major nation in the world whose industrial base survived the devastation of the war, assumed the position of global hegemon. It began to set up the infrastructure, both national and international, to assume the position of global superpower, exerting its hegemony across the globe. The crown had been passed from the British Empire to the American Empire. Ultimately, both were and are owned and controlled by the same interests, primarily represented through the central banks and the private banking interests that make up the dominant shareholders.

Before America had even entered the war in late 1941, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the American branch of the round table groups Carroll Quigley discussed as having originated from the secret society of Cecil Rhodes, was planning on America entering the war. The CFR had essentially captured US foreign policy firmly in the grips of the banking elite. The establishment of the Federal Reserve (1913) ensured that the United States would become indebted to and owned by international banking interests, and thus, act in their interest. The Fed financed the US role in World War I, provided the credit for speculation, which led to the Great Depression, and massive consolidation for the interests that own the Federal Reserve System. It then financed US entry into World War II.

The CFR, established six years after the Federal Reserve was created, worked to promote an internationalist agenda on behalf of the international banking elite. It was to alter America’s conceptualization of its place within the world - from isolationist industrial nation to an engine of empire working for international banking and corporate American interests. Where the Fed took control of money and debt, the CFR took control of the ideological foundations of such an empire - encompassing the corporate, banking, political, foreign policy, military, media, and academic elite of the nation into a generally cohesive overall world view. By altering one’s ideology to that of promoting such an internationalist agenda, the big money that was behind it would ensure one’s rise through government, industry, academia and media. The other major think tanks and policy institutions in the United States are also represented at the CFR. They are constitutive of divisions within the elite, however, such divisions are predicated on the basis of how to use American imperial power, where to use it, on what basis to justify it, and other various methodological differences. The divide amongst elites was never on the questions of: should we use American imperial power, why has America become an Empire, or should there even be an empire? If one takes such considerations to heart and questions these concepts, be it within the foreign policy establishment, intelligence, military, academia, finance, corporate world, or media; chances are, such a person is not a member of the CFR.

The CFR effectively undertook a policy coup d’état over American foreign policy with the Second World War. When war broke out, the Council began a “strictly confidential” project called the War and Peace Studies, in which top CFR members collaborated with the US State Department in determining US policy, and the project was entirely financed by the Rockefeller Foundation.[57] The post-War world was already being designed by members of the Council, who would go into government in order to enact these designs.

The policy of “containment” towards the Soviet Union that would define American foreign policy for nearly half a century was envisaged in a 1947 edition of Foreign Affairs, the academic journal of the Council on Foreign Relations. So too were the ideological foundations for the Marshall Plan and NATO envisaged at the Council on Foreign Relations, with members of the Council recruited to enact, implement and lead these institutions.[58] The Council also played a role in the establishment and promotion of the United Nations,[59] which was subsequently built on land bought from John D. Rockefeller, Jr.[60]

The Rise of the American Empire and Keynesian Political Economy
Within liberal political economy, a prominent individual and British economist, John Maynard Keynes, undertook the process of evolving liberal theory into what later became known as Keynesian economics. Following in the footsteps of the dominance of the liberal order, in which the economic and political realms were viewed as separate, and necessarily so, Keynes sought to re-imagine the political-economic relationship. His work was largely influenced by the events leading up to and following the Great Depression, which was largely seen as a failure of the liberal economic order. Keynes wanted to combine state and market forces, not rejecting the liberal notion of the “invisible hand,” however, relegated that to a more distinct area, and imagined a broader role for the state in the economy.

Keynes advocated for the state to act, or invest, when private individuals would not, in an effort to stave off financial or economic crises. Thus, Keynes would argue, the state strengthens the market. A Marxist theorist would likely point to this as an example of how the state, within a capitalist society, functions as an institutional organ which protects the interests of the capitalist class. Keynes advocated a liberal international order composed of free markets, however he recommended state intervention domestically, particularly to protect jobs and control inflation.

Keynesian political economic theory served in large part as a basis for the creation of the Bretton-Woods System, established in 1944, and his concept of embedded liberalism (promotion of liberal international economy, and state intervention in domestic economy), reigned supreme until the 1970s.

In 1944, representatives of the 44 Allied nations met for the Bretton Woods conference (the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference) in New Hampshire, in an effort to reorganize and regulate the international financial and monetary order following the war. The UK was represented by John Maynard Keynes; with the American contingent represented by Harry Dexter White, an American economist and senior US Treasury department official. It was out of this conference that the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), now part of the World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), now institutionalized in the World Trade Organization (WTO), originated. They were designed to be the institutionalized economic foundations of exerting American hegemony across the globe; they were, in essence, engines of economic empire.

In 1947, President Harry Truman signed the National Security Act, which created the position of Secretary of Defense overseeing the entire military establishment, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff; as well as created the CIA modeled on its war time incarnation of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS); and the Act also created the National Security Council, headed by a National Security Adviser, and designed to give the President further advice on foreign affairs issues separate from the State Department. Essentially, the Act created the basis for the national security state apparatus for empire building.

The founding of the CIA was urged by the War and Peace Studies Project of the Council on Foreign Relations in the early 1940s, and the architects of the CIA, designing the shape and organization of the Agency, as well as its functions; were all Wall Street lawyers, largely made up of members of the Council on Foreign Relations. The Deputy Directors of the CIA for the first two decades were all “from the same New York legal and financial circles.”[61]

Notes

[1] Edwin Black, Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq’s 7,000-Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2004: page 105

[2] Edwin Black, Banking on Baghdad: Inside Iraq’s 7,000-Year History of War, Profit, and Conflict. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: 2004: page 107

[3] Patricia Goldstone, Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. Harcourt Trade, 2007: pages 21-22

[4] Patricia Goldstone, Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. Harcourt Trade, 2007: page 22

[5] Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power. Perseus, 2002: pages 193-194

[6] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: page 56

[7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: pages 499-500

[8] Herbert R. Lottman, Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries. I.B. Tauris, 1995: page 81

[9] Patricia Goldstone, Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. Harcourt Trade, 2007: pages 22-23

[10] Herbert R. Lottman, Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries. I.B. Tauris, 1995: pages 141-142

[11] Herbert R. Lottman, Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries. I.B. Tauris, 1995: pages 143-144

[12] Herbert R. Lottman, Return of the Rothschilds: The Great Banking Dynasty Through Two Turbulent Centuries. I.B. Tauris, 1995: pages 141-142

[13] NYT, Rockefeller To Aid Czar? New York Times: March 6, 1906

[14] Toyin Falola and Ann Genova, The Politics of the Global Oil Industry. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2005: page 215

[15] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 16-17

[16] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: page 25

[17] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: page 34

[18] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 25-26

[19] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 71-73

[20] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 89-90

[21] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 73-77

[22] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 82-83

[23] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: page 87

[24] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 127-135

[25] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 159-161

[26] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 166-167

[27] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution. Buccaneer Books, New York, 1974: pages 172-173

[28] Michael Kort, The Soviet Colossus: History and Aftermath. M.E. Sharpe, 2001: page 202

[29] Time, Russia & Recognition. Time Magazine: August 18, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,789203,00.html

[30] Time, Everybody’s Red Business. Time Magazine: June 9, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,739474-5,00.html

[31] H.W. Brands, “He Is My Independent Self”. The Washington Post: June 11, 2006: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060801104.html

[32] CFR, Continuing the Inquiry. History of CFR: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/inquiry.html

[33] Chatham House, CHATHAM HOUSE (The Royal Institute of International Affairs): Background. Chatham House History: http://www.chathamhouse.org.uk/about/history/

[34] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment. GSG & Associates, 1981: page 5

[35] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: pages 132-133

[36] William L. Cleaveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004), 37-38

[37] William L. Cleaveland, A History of the Modern Middle East (Boulder: Westview Press, 2004), 49-50

[38] Ellen Hodgson Brown, Web of Debt. Third Millennium Press: 2007: Page 2

[39] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: pages 326-327

[40] John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975), 173

[41] John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975), 174-175

[42] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: page 342

[43] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time. The MacMillan Company: 1966: page 344

[44] Alan Greenspan, “Gold and Economic Freedom” in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. (New York: Signet, 1967), 99-100

[45] Time, HEROES: Man-of-the-Year. Time Magazine: Jan 6, 1930: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738364-1,00.html

[46] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. G S G & Associates Pub, 1976: pages 15-16

[47] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 2

[48] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324-325

[49] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 324

[50] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 6

[51] Melvin Urofsky and Paul Finkelman, A March of Liberty: A Constitutional History of the United States Volume II From 1877 to the Present 2nd Edition. Oxford University Press, 2002: pp. 674

[52] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. G S G & Associates Pub, 1976: pages 17-19

[53] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. G S G & Associates Pub, 1976: pages 19-20

[54] Antony C. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. G S G & Associates Pub, 1976: page 51

[55] Edwin Black, Eugenics and the Nazis — the California connection. The San Francisco Chronicle: November 9, 2003: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/09/ING9C2QSKB1.DTL

[56] James Calvin Baker, The Bank for International Settlements: evolution and evaluation. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002: page 202

[57] CFR, War and Peace. CFR History: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/war_peace.html

[58] William P. Bundy, The History of Foreign Affairs. The Council on Foreign Relations, 1994: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/foreign_affairs.html

[59] CFR, War and Peace. CFR History: http://www.cfr.org/about/history/cfr/war_peace.html

[60] UN, 1945-1949. Sixty Years: A Pictorial History of the United Nations: http://www.un.org/issues/gallery/history/1940s.htm

[61] Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), 12

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

You May Need A Dose Of Glenn Beck - By Perry Stone

It is a sly comment that I have experienced myself on several occasions. A person from another faith or religious background will out of concern warn their family member or friend not to listen to a person with a differing opinion. It is usually expressed this way, “You better not listen to him or you will be confused.” Or it may be stated, “They are not telling you the truth so stay away from them.” While there may be times when a warning is accurate and needed to prevent a sincere person from innocently falling into the hands of some cult or far out teaching, too often the fear is not induced to protect the person as much as to prevent them from hearing something that would change their opinion.

It seems the secular, liberal media is attempting to figure out how that can prevent the bloodletting from their cable news channels, to more conservative talking heads that are crushing them in the media news ratings. For years, liberal publications such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times had a total monopoly on readership and promoting a leftist agenda through editorials and op-ed articles. Today, the newspaper industry is struggling to survive against their new rival, internet news sites such as the Drudge Report. The major media evening news, ABC, CBS and NBC, have lost their older viewers to new conglomerates such as FOX-News. In fact on an average day, Fox News will hold the top 7 out of 10 highest Nelson Ratings which indicates their viewership is sinking the other networks like the iceberg sunk the Titanic.

One of the new threats on the block, not only to the liberal media and left brained journalists, but to the most liberal administration in U.S. history is a man named Glenn Beck. Mr. Beck previously hosted a nightly news talk/interview show on a major network but moved to Fox News Network at 5:00 EST. I try never to miss the 1 hour, very informative and entertaining Beck as he literally exposes numerous hidden agendas, organizations and people in the “shadow government.” This includes the actual beliefs of the Czars forming the agenda in the present U.S. administration.

Beck’s information is well researched by a team of experienced researchers and his presentation is a bold yet entertaining expose of facts and information that affect the common American. Furthermore, the secularist progressives are terrified of the fellow. They have painted him as dangerous and non progressive. The same fear mongers that warn Americans to avoid watching or believing Glenn’s information, are scared spit less that the more their agenda that they are trying to push through is exposed, the less chance they will have to reform and change America from a Capitalist to a Socialist society. Other threats to them include Bill O’Riley, and Shawn Hannity.

Here is a personal suggestion. If you are free to watch Beck for about 1 week, do so and you will be stunned at the plans being made against your freedoms, including banking, auto, health care, the internet and freedom of speech. I have been blessed to have one of the best watched weekly teaching programs (according to ratings) in the United States. We often have 200 to 300 thousands viewers on any given night over major Christian networks when the program is aired. If you have not watched Beck, tune in and listen to a man who is not a preacher…but finally someone that has some common sense! It is time to stand up and speak up or we will be forced to sit down and told to shut up by strange laws forced upon us!

Perry Stone Jr.

www.voe.org

Bible Prophecy: Where to Begin? - By Edward Wood

It has been said that 25% of the Bible is comprised of prophecy in one manner or another. Considering the length of the Bible, any one who wishes to begin an exploration of this subject might wonder just where to start. I know I did. Interestingly enough, the answer was not long in coming. Now this in no way should be construed as some kind of inherent brilliance on my part but should instead be looked upon as a practical example of what James said: [James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

In other words, any wisdom you might find here isn't generated from yours truly. Next, I strongly urge you to do your own homework and arrive at your own conclusions not only on what you read here, but on any commentary regarding Scripture. Why? Because Paul reminds us that "we see through a glass darkly" (1 Cor. 13:11-12) - even the greatest of Bible scholars. As a layman with no formal Bible training, I'm sure this adds more layers of tint to my particular glass, making this advice even more relevant in the present circumstances. This being said, let's proceed. So, then, where is a good place to begin to study Bible Prophecy? My personal answer - the Olivet Discourse. From this last of Jesus' public sermons, his followers, including us, are given a broad view of the future. Some think that the events described have already happened. In fact, there are even those who have the view that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled, culminating with the invasion of Jerusalem, circa 70 A.D.

Others believe that the Bible's prophetic pronouncements are allegorical. While it is true that a great deal of symbolism occurs in such great books as Daniel and Revelation, the Olivet Discourse is direct and clear. I believe that the Lord meant exactly what he said. It is from that basis I will attempt to present an overview of its contents. I do recommend you read Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 yourself before proceeding. It will greatly help you follow along.

Intriguingly Olivet's physical location ties together accounts of Jesus' return to Earth in the Old and New Testaments. The words he himself spoke likewise connect the essentials of Old and New Testament prophecy as well. Let's now look at the highlights of the Olivet Discourse and see where they lead. Since on occasion events are repeated in more than one place throughout Jesus' address, I'll endeavor to present them topically.

Olivet would no doubt be remembered in history alone for what Jesus said there almost 2000 years ago. but there is much more to the story than that. In fact, a little over forty days from the time he gave his discourse it would also be the scene of his last post-resurrection appearance to most of those very same people!

From there they would watch in awe as he rose into the clouds, with two men "in white apparel" promising them that he would return in the same manner (Acts 1:1-12). But this isn't all. In Zechariah, chapter 14, we read how the Lord's return to Olivet at the end of this age will bring incredible changes to our world for all time!

The Mount of Olives stands east of Jerusalem overlooking the city from which vantage point the temple which had been rebuilt to magnificent splendor by the volatile and often ruthless Herod the Great in an attempt to curry favor from the populace. His being appointed by Rome to this position and being descended from the Judean's tradtional adversaries the Edomites engendered no shortage of resentment from his subjects. Yet despite his character flaws, he was a master builder and the temple was the crown jewel of his accomplishents. It had been described from those of that time as often glowing in gleaming splendor in the Judean sunlight.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke record that the first thing that Jesus revealed was that the temple which so impressed his audience would one day no longer exist. His listeners must have been incredulous as they looked down upon its immensity and grandeur from the Mount of Olives. How could such a structure be so destroyed that there would not be "one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matt. 24:1-2)? It must have been as unbelievable to them as the thought that our own World Trade Towers would crumble to the ground as a result of a terrorist attack on 9-11 was prior to that terrible event. But it happened all the same.

This was not the first time the temple would fall. Almost 600 years earlier Nebuchadnezzar's Babylonian forces destroyed Jerusalem and everything in it, temple included. What Jesus described was to occur exactly as he related almost forty years later. When Titus' Roman Legion finally broke into the city, the historian Josephus recorded that even he couldn't stop his troops from setting this grand structure on fire. Its huge porous limestone blocks exploded from the moisture within them as it turned to steam. As if that wasn't enough, the soldiers pried part the wreckage to get at the gold with which it had been adorned that had melted and flowed down into the ruins.

From this point on. Jesus spoke of events that are future even to our time, but, I believe, are very close at hand. I think you will find many of them are now sounding very familiar in our Twenty-first Century World. The very next thing Jesus warned of was the coming of false prophets. One of the biggest problems of the early church was this very problem. (See Acts 13:1-11; 2 Cor. 11:12-26; Galatians 2:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1-6.) It still is today, and, in my opinion, is getting much worse.

I personally have watched the particular denomination of which I had belonged give its blessing to actively homosexual clergy, deny Jesus as the only means of salvation, and select for itself clerical and lay leaders that are telling people only what they want to hear. It is like watching Paul's words to his young protege' Timothy come true before one's own eyes across many of the largest denominations (1 Timothy 4:1-4).This action will all intensify and culminate in the advent of the Antichrist (Daniel 8:23-25; 2 Thess. 2:1-12; Rev. 17:7-17, 19:11-21). The fall of the western church to false doctrine in the past few decades is not only rendering it incapable of standing against the growing forces of darkness but actually aiding them.

The Lord related that famines would come. The population of our planet stands near seven billion, a large percentage of which go to bed hungry every night. Recently there are ominous signs that it could get worse very quickly. As I write, there is a potential for the Ug-99 wheat fungus to devastate 80% of the world's wheat if it should manage to spread around the globe. In this case, the warning given on Olivet might very well be pointing to the Black Horse of Revelation 6:5-6 wherein a measure (quart) of wheat or three of barley cost a penny, or denarius, depending on which Bible translation you are using. This doesn't mean much to our modern ears unless we understand that the denarius was a day's wages to a common laborer (Matt. 20:1-16), and that a measure of wheat or three of barley were considered the minimum dietary requirement for a person of those times. In other words, there will come a time when a person's entire income will be needed to buy enough food to survive. The passage continues with "the oil and wine" not being harmed. I've heard various interpretations of this but the one that seems to make sense is that these last two items were commodities of the rich. Is it possible that this points to a time when most people will suffer while the wealthy continue to live opulently? Does this sound awfully familiar? Notice how Jesus' words link us to an event written by John in Revelation sixty years later about something that hasn't even happened in our time, but one in which we are beginning to see the manner in which it can.

Along with famines, Jesus told of the coming pestilences and earthquakes. It is hard to imagine any other time in human history when we have seen so much of both! About thirty years ago HIV-AIDS exploded across our world and is still running rampant, especially in Africa. I personally can't rmember any communicable affliction ever existing which has had such a wide range, lasted so long, or resisted a cure. In affluent societies such as the United States, the main vectors ar drug use and fornication, the details of the latter I'm sure you already know. I've heard many say it's a "judgment" disease because of this. Well, knowing that God is a loving God, I'm pretty sure he didn't create HIV. But whenever people disregard his rules of living and push him out of their lives, how can they expect him to protect them from the consequences of their own free will?

Regarding earthquakes, a visit to the United States Geological Survey website is most revealing. I decided to count only the larger quakes of Richter Scale magnitude 6.0 and above. Until the turn of this century, most years had less than six per year, with only sporadic counts of ten or twelve. Since 2002, the numbers I got ranged from 22 for that year up to a high of 47 in 2007! Even 2008 had 35! As I write, the count for 2009 is already over 20. Being human, my counts might not be perfect but even so it is clear that geologically speaking, it is no longer "business as usual" for Planet Earth.

Jesus predicted that Christians would again be persectued, that even people within familes would betray each other. This is already well under way throughout the world where being a follower of Christ can get one killed in some regions. In fact, he said that people in general would would become more cruel in the End Times, that their "love would wax cold." When one sees regularly the increase and appalling visciousness of crimes being committed even within the United States, it makes one wonder just what is going on. In Romans 1:19-32, Paul presents a sobering description so accurate of the way people will become as this age winds down that it is hard to escape the fact that we must indeed be very close to the end. Jesus said that as the time of the end draws near, the Gospel would be preached "in all the world." Isn't it fascinating that our present-day technology has made made this literally possile instantly anywhere on the planet? In addition to this even as the Tribulation is well under way, God will employ an angel to preach the "everlasting gospel" to all nations in every language (Rev. 14:6). I believe that this proves God will go to every length he can to get his message out. Anyone who choses to ignore it will therefore have no excuse for the judgment that will fall upon them.

The Lord spoke of military conflicts that would come. Did you know that the Twentieth Century had more casualties due to war than any other time in human history? When was the last time you watched the news on TV or read your paper without reports of some conflict somewhere? The stakes grow higher each day as more and more very bad people gain access to more and more very bad weapons. One day it will all come to a head on the Plain of Esdraelon which lies below a place called Har (Mount) Megiddo - otherwise known as Armageddon (Rev. 16:13-15)!

Regarding the author of this ultimate battle mentioned above, Jesus provides an important clue as to the means by which to identify him in Matthew and Mark's accounts. When the "abomination of desolation" appears in the "holy place," this will be a sign for the people of Judea to "flee to the mountains." Daniel tells us who it is that will do this (Daniel 9:27). Referred to variously as the "king of fierce countenance" (Daniel 8:23), "son of perdition" (2 Thess. 2:3), "that Wicked" (2 Thess.:2-3), and the "beast" (Revelation, particularly chapters 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20), this man will embody the worst of every despot that has ever walked on this planet. In common parlance he is best known as the "Antichrist."

Satan has always wanted to be "god" and this man will have access to demonic power to do whatever is necessary for the devil to accomplish this goal. One day the war will come which will cause all prior military campaigns to pale in comparison when the Antichrist gathers the armies of the world to attempt to carry out the "Final Solution" against the Jews that the pharaoh of Moses' time, Haman, and Hitler had also attempted.

But why have so many tried to wipe out a people who, except for relatively short periods, have been virtually powerless? Well, just suppose the pharaoh (Exodus), Haman (Esther), or Nebuchadnezzar (Jeremiah, Daniel) had succeeded in making the Hebrews cease to exist. In such a case the tribe of Judah would have disappeared into history and with it King David and his descendant Jesus of Nazareth. But since these men failed, Jesus has indeed come and with him the only sacrifice God could accept to save us all. Satan's only chance remaining is to prevent the prophecies of the Bible regarding Israel to ultimately fulfll its role in becoming the pre-eminent nation of the millennial age to come (Zech. 8:23, 12:5-10, 13:1, 14:1-20). Adolf Hitler, who was very much a type of the coming Antichrist, was well on the way to doing just that.

The "son of perdition" will be Satan's last shot at accomplishing that goal. But he will not succeed, either. As his forces are about to capture the entirety of Jerusalem, they are stopped by the return of Jesus Christ himself in a cloud accompanied by the "host" or armies of heaven (Zech. 1:1-3, Luke 21:26-27, Rev. chapter 19). From that moment on, everything will change. The Antichrist and his false prophet henchman will be cast into the lake of fire while his army is routed. Satan will be locked away for 1000 years during which time Jesus will personally establish and rule his Millennial Kingdom.

As magnificent as this time will be, it will be followed by a final disposition of Satan, his demons, and all who refused God's offer of salvation throughout all ages as they are themselves cast eternally into the lake of fire. Now with all traces of evil forever banished, God will create a new everlasting heaven and Earth in which he will come with his city, the New Jerusalem, to dwell among humankind for all time (Rev. chapters 20-22).

I'll conclude our exploration by telling you that I believe in a Pre-Tribulation rapture. Out of all the other possibilities, it seems best to explain the apparent contradiction of Jesus returning completely unexpectedly "as a thief" (Rev. 3:3) and then an exact time of his coming being given three and a half years after the erecting of the "abomination of desolation" in the rebuilt temple's "holy place" (Daniel 12:7-12, Rev. 12:14) when the persecution of God's people ends - no doubt by the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. The rapture of the church will be totally unexpected and virtually instantaneous (1 Cor. 15:51-53). The Second Coming three and a half years after the "holy place" is defiled will be seen by the whole world (Luke 17:24, Rev. 19:11-21).

There are several more passages that I find further support the Pre-Trib scenario: [Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.] Though other versions of the Bible have varying translations of this verse, this from King James is very accurate. It suggests in clear terms that there is a means of escape before the Tribulation. Belief in Jesus is what makes us “worthy.”

[1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned from idols to serve the living and true God; And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivers us from the wrath to come.

Though Paul was speaking to those who had turned from idolatry in his day, how much more applicable are these words to the believers of today! [Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

These words by Jesus were orignally intended for the Apostle John be conveyed to the faithful Asia Minor church of Philadelphia. Many believe this church is also representative of the “true church” of all times comprised of all faithful believers in Christ which will allow them to escape the “hour of temptation” (trial) which will come upon all the world. This certainly sounds like the Tribulation to me!

Since this obviously hasn’t happened yet, it must be something which is yet to come. If, therefore, you are a believer in Jesus, you are a “Philadelphian” and this promise is for YOU! This means that there lies just up ahead a destiny for us that exceeds our wildest dreams and our greatest hopes. You mansion is already being built in the New Jerusalem and before long it’ll be Moving Day (John 14:1-3).

A long time ago God’s Son stood upon the hillside of a place called Olivet speaking the words that unify all of Bible Prophecy. I commend them to you as the time draws near when we will see that man who spoke them so long ago face to face!

The Fall Feasts of Israel - By Jack Kelley

(At sunset on Sept. 18, 2009 Israel began year 5770 on the Hebrew Calendar. As I often do with articles that commemorate annual events, I have updated this study on the Fall Feasts and added new information for your review. As you can see, I’m also posting it a day early to coincide with the start of Rosh Hashanah.)

The fall is arguably the most important time of the year in Judaism. Three of Israel’s holiest days are celebrated then, and all in the space of 15 days. They are Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, followed 10 days later by Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, and 5 days after that the week long Feast of Tabernacles. On our calendar they usually fall (no pun intended) some time between mid September and early October due to the differences between the Jewish (lunar) calendar and the western (solar) one.

Each of these holy days has both historical and prophetic significance, the prophetic fulfillment to occur on the day itself. Therefore Christians study them for glimpses into the future as well as to gain a better understanding of Jewish culture.

Happy New Year
Gentiles are sometimes confused in their studies of these holy days by the fact that the Lord changed the Jewish calendar at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). What had been the 7th month was thereafter to be the first, moving the beginning of the year to the spring, 10 days before Passover.

But because of the harvest, the Jews retained their original calendar as well, so now they have a religious year which begins in the spring and a civil year beginning in the fall. Therefore the Jewish New Year has always been celebrated in the fall and remains so today. This feast is known by two names, Yom Teruah, which means day of blowing but is called the Feast of Trumpets, and Rosh Hashanah, which means “head of the year”.

Rosh Hashanah is a time of new beginnings. According to some Jewish traditions, the creation was completed on Rosh Hashanah, and therefore Adam was born on that day as well. Many students of prophecy place the birth of the Messiah on Rosh Hashanah, giving the day it’s historical fulfillment, and believe that the beginning of Daniel’s 70th week and 7 years later the Lord’s Second Coming will also occur on Rosh Hashanah, fufilling it’s prophetic significance.

Others think that the Rapture of the Church will happen on Rosh Hashanah, but I’m convinced that the Rapture is a number specific event rather than a date specific one, meaning the Church will be raptured when “the full number of gentiles has come in” making the day and hour unknown to us in advance, except that it will precede Israel’s re-awakening (Romans 11:25) and Daniel’s 70th week. (Acts 15:15-16)

I’m also convinced that Paul’s reference to the Rapture happening at “The Last Trump” (1 Cor. 15:52) should not be used to connect it to the Feast of Trumpets. He spoke of the same event In 1 Thes. 4:16 saying it would be accompanied by the trumpet call of God. Some scholars say there are two trumpets of God that recall the two horns of the ram caught in the thicket as Abraham prepared to sacrifice Isaac. They call the Trumpet of Exodus 19:13 the left one, or First Trump, and say that God will call the Israelites back to the Land in the End Times by blowing the right one, or Last Trump. If, as I suspect, this will occur in conjunction with the Battle of Ezekiel 38, then my belief that the Rapture will take place before Ezekiel’s battle would be confirmed.

Religious Jews believe that in Heaven, books recording the deeds of mankind are opened on Rosh Hashanah for an annual review of man’s behavior. To this end, they spend the previous month in a sincere effort to right all the wrongs they may have committed during the year just ending.

When the books are opened, the names of those whose life has been exemplary in every respect are entered into the book for another year of life, while those who have demonstrated no redeeming qualities at all are scheduled for death. Since normal bell curve distribution would indicate that very few fit at either extreme, the majority are given 10 days until Yom Kippur to “get right with God.” These 10 days are called the Days of Awe where each man’s destiny hangs in the balance as he goes about asking forgiveness from friends and neighbors for sins he’s committed in the year just past. A common greeting among Jews during the Days of Awe is, “May your name be written in the Book.”

On the first afternoon of Rosh Hashanah (it’s a two day celebration) Orthodox Jews go to a running brook or stream where fish swim and throw pebbles or crumbs they’ve gathered into the water, symbolizing God’s casting away of their sins. While doing so, they recite Micah 7:18-20. “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea. You will be true to Jacob, and show mercy to Abraham, as you pledged on oath to our fathers in days long ago.”

This is one of the most eloquent descriptions of God’s grace to be found anywhere in Scripture. It reminds God of His promise to be merciful to them in the coming judgment of Yom Kippur.

The fish’s dependence on water symbolizes their dependence on God. The fact that fish can’t close their eyes reminds them to be thorough because God sees everything. This ceremony is called Tashlich, Hebrew for “You will cast”, a reference to hurling their iniquities into the sea in Micah 7:19.

Judgment Time
Ten days later, on Yom Kippur, judgment is rendered, the books are closed and everyone’s fate is sealed for another year.

Yom Kippur was the only day of the year when it was permissible to speak the Name of God. Yes God does have a name, but it’s not Jehovah or Yahweh. These names were created out of the four letters that Hebrew scribes used to represent God’s name in the Old Testament. Wherever the word LORD appears all in caps, you’ll find the Hebrew letters JHVH, (or YHWH) in the Hebrew text. Theologians call these four letters the tetragrammaton, which is Greek for “four letters”. So, in effect these four letters are God’s initials, standing for His real name.

Since Hebrew has no vowels, early English language translators added an E, an O, and an A, (vowels they took from from Elohim, a form of the Hebrew word meaning God and Adonai, Hebrew for Lord) to JHVH and created the name Jehovah. We used to think that was God’s name. And in Hebrew the four letters are pronounced yod, hay, wah, hay, which probably gave rise to the “Yahweh” we use today. Neither one is really His name.

It was forbidden for Jews to speak God’s actual name except for once a year on Yom Kippur when it was spoken 10 times. After the Temple was destroyed, the Yom Kippur ceremony gradually changed until the name of God ceased to be used and was subsequently lost.

So no one alive today knows God’s name, and it probably hasn’t been spoken on Earth for about 1700 years. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Philippians 2:9-11 says that Jesus, or if you prefer the Hebrew, Yeshua is now the name above all names.

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Back to Yom Kippur. During a great and awe inspiring ceremony at the Temple, two goats were brought before the High Priest. One was a goat “for the Lord” to be presented as a peace offering as commanded in Lev. 16:7-10. The other was called “the scapegoat” because all the sins of the nation were symbolically placed upon its head, and then it was led outside the city to be killed. The goat had done nothing to deserve this but was chosen to demonstrate the fact that only the shedding of innocent blood could atone for the sins of the people. The death of the two goats symbolically set aside the sins of the nation, made their peace offering acceptable and gave them peace with their Creator. The people spoke the Name of God in heartfelt thanks.

Here are a couple of interesting tidbits from Jewish tradition. When the goats were brought before the High Priest, their respective roles in the ceremony were determined by lot. Two golden lots were placed in a golden bowl and as he placed his hand upon the head of each goat, the High Priest reached into the bowl and pulled out one of the lots. Before the cross, the goat that was to be presented to the Lord as a peace offering always turned out to be on the right hand of the High Priest. After the cross it never was.

While the scapegoat was symbolically receiving the sins of the people upon its head a scarlet ribbon was tied from one of its horns to the door of the temple. When the time came for the goat to be taken into the wilderness the ribbon was cut, leaving some on its horn and some on the door. At a predetermined location outside the city, the goat was pushed off a cliff and fell to its death. In all the years before the cross, at the moment of the scapegoat’s death, the remnant of ribbon on the temple door turned from red to white symbolizing the passage from Isaiah 1:18, “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow.” After the cross this never happened again. The One Who now sits at the right hand of the Father and Who had fulfilled the dual role that the two goats only symbolized had come and forever taken away the sins of all who would choose to accept Him. (Source: The Fall Feasts Of Israel. Authors Mitch and Zhava Glaser, Publisher Moody Press.)

The Law Is Only A Shadow…
In Christendom a view holds that the Lord Jesus began His ministry on Yom Kippur announcing in effect that the judgment that was due mankind would be borne by Him (Luke 4:16-21) and that man no longer need live in fear of judgment nor have to endure the 10 Days of Awe every year.

It’s easy to see the Lord in the role of our scapegoat, whose shed blood purchased our pardon forever (Hebrews 10:11-14) but He was also our peace offering. “He is our peace, Who has broken down every wall.” (Ephe 2:14)

In the prophetic sense, Tribulation survivors from the nations will receive their fulfillment of the Yom Kippur judgment in the days immediately following the Lord’s return. This is described to us in the Sheep and Goat judgment (Matt 25:31-46) where Gentiles who’ve cast their sins at the foot of the cross during the Great Tribulation will be granted life in the Kingdom, and those who haven’t will be sent away for death. Their willingness to help believing Jews during the Great Tribulation will be evidence of their faith. In Matt. 19:28 the Lord told His disciples that the judgment of Jews who survive would take place then, too.

For those of all ages who reject the Lord’s vicarious atonement, the prophetic fulfillment of Yom Kippur will come at the end of the Millennium in the so-called Great White Throne judgment, when all the unsaved dead are brought back to life to be judged according to their works. (Rev. 20:11-15).

Happy Thanksgiving
The Feast of Tabernacles comes five days after Yom Kippur. It was a harvest celebration and is the inspiration for the American Thanksgiving Day. It began as a seven-day feast, later expanded to eight, when all the tithes the Israelites had set aside during the year were brought to Jerusalem for a joyous time of national celebration and thanksgiving for the Lord’s bountiful provision. The aroma of delicious foods cooking over open fires permeated the whole city. For seven days where ever you went there was an air of joy and festivity as the people remembered their Provider and gave thanks. (Deut. 14:22-26).

Historically the Feast of Tabernacles commemorates the time of God’s dwelling with the Israelites in the wilderness. Its prophetic fulfillment comes in the Millennium when the Lord will once again dwell among His people; with the Church in the New Jerusalem (Rev 21) and Israel in Jehovah Shammah, the new name of the Holy City in the Promised Land. (Isaiah 62:2 & Ezekiel 48:35)

Somewhere along the way a water libation ceremony was added to the Feast of Tabernacles. Each morning a procession of priests would descend the steps from the Temple to the Pool of Siloam and dip a silver pitcher into the water. Carrying the water back to the altar, they would pour it into the ground that had been exposed by the removal of a paving block near the altar, while offering prayers for rain. The purpose of this daily ceremony was to remind God to bring the fall rains needed to prepare the ground for planting. In Israel it doesn’t rain during the summer and the ground gets very hard. Gentle rains are needed to soften the ground so it can be prepared for the fall planting.

On the last day of the feast the High Priest himself would officiate and on this day instead of a silver pitcher one of pure gold would be used. The High Priest would be dressed in all his finest and attended by a huge contingent of similarly attired priests, blowing trumpets, singing psalms, and waving palm branches. When it was first described to me, I was struck by its beauty and pageantry. I’ve since read that extra balconies were set up around the Court of the Priests so more people could observe it.

One year just as the High Priest was about to pour the water into the ground, a loud voice interrupted the ceremony shouting, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.” (John 7:37-38) It was Jesus and He was referring to the Holy Spirit, who believers would soon receive. This caused many to believe that He was indeed Israel’s Messiah. (We’re not told what the High Priest’s reaction was, but it couldn’t have been pleasant.)

Let’s Get Spiritual
Following the thought that events that were external and physical in the Old Testament are often internal and spiritual in the New, there is a sense in which these holy days also reflect the life of the believer.

As Jesus came to live in the world at His birth (Rosh Hashanah), so He comes to live in our hearts at our new birth. As He required the shedding of innocent blood to reconcile Himself with Israel (Yom Kippur) so He shed His own Blood to reconcile Himself with us. As He dwelt with the Israelites in the wilderness of Midian (Tabernacles), so He dwells with us in the wilderness of Earth. “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age,” He promised. (Matt 28:20) Even so, Come Lord Jesus. (Rev. 22:20) You can almost hear the Footsteps of the Messiah.

www.gracethroughfaith.com

How to Put Together the Ultimate Survival Kit

There are so many debates when it comes to the perfect survival kit. In my opinion, the items you choose to be in a survival kit can be very different based on the situation you see yourself in (maritime vs. desert survival) as well as your level of skill. For that reason there are a number of factors that determine what items you ultimately put in it. For this article, I will explain to you how I organize my kit, the elements that make it up, and hopefully provide some inspiration for your own. As always, I’d love to hear your opinions, so feel free to comment!

My entire kit is based off of three tiers - one that I carry with me, one that I keep in my car (and sometimes on me), and one that is in my home ready to go in a moments notice if I had to bug out. Here is the three-tiered survival kit:

The Three-Tiered Survival Kit

First Tier
This ‘kit’ includes those items that you have with you at all times. This is your fallback kit. If you were stranded somewhere with nothing else except for what you have on you, than this is what you’d be left with. They should be with you at work, while you’re running errands, church, basically everywhere possible. Obviously when you’re showering you can make an exception, just have it close by to grab on your way to wherever you’re going. The following gear (which I call the Essential 3) is recommended for your first tier:

Folding Knife: If you’ve ever been in a survival situation (planned or not) you know how essential a knife is. This I consider to be your most important survival tool. Purchase a good quality folding knife. My knife of choice is the Doug Ritter RSK MK1 - good quality, good price, and thoroughly field-tested (by me) for my needs.

Fire Starter: This comes in second in order of importance for first-tier gear. For all you smokers out there thinking, “I’m all set, I’ve got my Bic” you might want to reconsider. A Bic Lighter is ok, but the fuel can run out quickly (especially if you’re not skilled at fire making) and they are a bear to start when they get wet. Instead of a fuel-based fire starter or worse (matches) I would recommend a “firesteel.” I recommend the ones from FireSteel.com or any of the Swedish FireSteel versions. These ’strike-style’ fire starters are far superior to fuel based ones because they last forever and produce a hotter heat output compared to a Bic and an added benefit is I’ve never had issues taking them on a plane. The only downside is if you have no fire-making skills you’ll need to practice with it a bit. In the meantime you can carry with you a simple tinder made by mixing a little Vaseline into a cotton ball which will easily light with this fire starter.

Cordage: Cordage is a fundamental part of survival. It’s used for bowstrings, lashings, fishing line, snares, trap triggers, nets, tying down shelters and more. While making cordage from natural materials is always an option, and is not too difficult to learn, it’s always a good idea to have some with you at all times. I would recommend at least 10 feet of good strong cord - my favorite being 550 Paracord. I carry around 10 feet of it on my wrist at all times in the form of a bracelet I made. The benefit of Paracord is that not only is it strong (it has a 550 lb rating - hence the name), but it is made up of a strong outer sheath and seven inner strands that can be used for multiple purposes. Just carrying 10 feet of Paracord is like carrying 80 feet of cordage!

While I would at the least recommend the Essential 3, there are a few other items you may want to consider carrying as part of your EDC (Every Day Carry) Gear or first Tier. Here are some other items I’ll have on me:

Coin Sized Compass: These are those small, coin-sized compasses you see in many mini survival kits. Try to get one of the liquid-filled ones since it doesn’t have to be completely horizontal to work.

Pinch Light: These little ‘pinch lights’ are perfect in a pinch (pun intended). They provide enough light for travel, for night time camp activities (building a fire, setting up camp), and the LED versions last forever.

Lock picks: We live in an unpredictable world. Since I’m all about preparedness, there may come a time when you are held captive by terrorists, kidnapped for ransom (visit Mexico), or your simply locked out of your house. Lock picks - and knowing how to use them - are a great addition to any EDC list.

Hand-Cuff Keys: It’s not unknown for kidnappers and terrorists to use handcuffs to hold you captive. Since many cuffs use a universal key, carry a spare in a location on your person that is accessible with handcuffs on.

Personal Protection Device: This could be a concealed carry pistol, mace, tactical flashlight etc. Just be sure you have the proper license if required.

The key to the first-tier kit is to incorporate it as much as possible with what you wear. While the above items could probably all fit on a keychain, key chains sometimes get lost. If your knife has a clip, clip it to the top of your pants. Wear a cordage bracelet, or use strong cordage as lacing for your footwear. Attach a small fire starter to your belt. Find creative ways to ‘wear’ your first tier gear. That way it will always be available.

Second Tier
The second-tier survival kit includes items that you can fit in a small carry bag (like a fanny pack) or if you’re in the military or field, this would be what you attach to your H-Harness. If it’s in a pack, have it somewhere close by like in your car or in some cases feel free to carry it with you (in a purse or “man purse”). And for insurance purposes, duplicate and upgrade the items you have in the first tier. Here’s a list of what I have:

Fixed Knife: In other words, non-folding. You’ll want a heavy duty, full-tanged knife that can take a beating and hold an edge. My favorite is the Bark River Bravo-1. If you want more details into what makes up a good knife checkout my article on how to choose a survival knife.

Full-Size Compass: Even if you already have a small one in your first tier, then this should be upgraded to a full-size compass for ease of reading an azimuth. I prefer a lensatic compass due to the accuracy I can get in the reading.

Water Container: Any collapsible, light, and easily carried container will do.

Fire starter: Again, for insurance purposes you’ll want to duplicate what is in the first tier. I just include another fire steel that is a bit bigger than the one I carry on me. I also have a film canister filled with cotton balls mixed with Vaseline.

Water Purification Kit: In a small kit like this, iodine crystals are a perfect fit. They come in a small bottle (you’ll want to buy the Polar Pure brand) and it can purify up to 500 gallons!.

Flashlight: The ‘tactical’ flashlights out there are an excellent choice. Check out the SureFire brand. You won’t be dissatisfied.

First-Aid Kit: This would be smaller than what you carry in your third-tier survival kit, but should include at least tweezers, a hemostatic agent (like QuickClot dressings), antihistamine, aspirin, antiseptic wipes, bandages, butterfly closures, moleskin, tape, and gauze.

Simple Shelter: This could be a shelter half, bivy, tarp etc. This simple shelter should fit in your small kit and is mostly used to protect against the elements. I have a simple bivy and space blanket combo - both small and extremely light.

Cordage: Again, I would recommend 550 paracord. Try to have around 50 feet.

Energy Bars: Any high-calorie, nutrient dense bar will do.

Signal Mirror: While any mirror will do, it’s best to buy the signal mirrors that have the hole in the center to accurately aim the reflected light.

Lock Picks & Cuff Key: I have a more extensive kit in this tier.

Multi-Tool: My Leatherman Wave has been a lifesaver for many tasks out on the road. This tool is so handy, it fluctuates between the first tier and second tier.

Third Tier
Your third-tier survival kit is equivalent to what others commonly refer to as a go-bag, bug-out bag (BOB), or 72-hour kit. This kit should include all those items that could fit into a good-sized backpack that will sustain you for at least 72-hours. It should be easily accessible and ready to go at a moments notice. I keep mine at my house. The most important thing is that you pack your bag for scenarios that you may encounter. Individuals living in the city will have many needs different than those in the boonies, so be sure to prioritize around your needs.

I also like to separate my bug-out bag into multiple tiers - each tier enclosed within its own bag - with the most important items being on top. This allows for easy access at night when visibility is low. They are based on the following priorities (in order of importance):

1. Personal Safety: This tier is in two separate bags: one is for personal security items and the second is for first aid. The first-aid kit is a bit beefier than what is in the second tier above.

2. Shelter: Personal shelter and sleeping bag. I keep these on the outside of the pack. I love the Henessy Hammock. It’s lightweight and super comfortable. If you are with a family and personal hammocks aren’t an option, you’ll want to consider a tent. .

3. Water: My pack has an integrated water bladder that I combine with the Katadyn Hiker Pro Water Microfilter. I also include another bottle of Polar Pure (duplicated from the second tier kit).

Since I live in an area where water abounds, finding water to filter is less of a worry. If you live in a more arid environment you may want to consider packing as much as you can carry.

4. Fire: This tier includes the same items listed above, as well as an efficient camp stove and fuel.

5. Food: I have some canned goods, but mostly freeze dried foods and MREs. Have enough for three days.

Besides what’s listed in the priorities above, I also include several tools and miscellaneous items such as an entrenching tool, 100-ft length of paracord, fish hooks and line, headlamp, small hatchet, playing cards, and something to read.

Conclusion
In summary, while the list above is what I use, it may not be suitable for you. It’s important that you organize and supply your kits with items specific to your environment, needs, and skill level.

The best advice I can give you is to put your three tiers together and put them to use. Practice using the various items in darkness and light, different types of weather and different seasons. Take your go-pack on a hike with you to see if you can even carry it for an extensive time period. Drop those things that aren’t working for you and add others you think you’ll need.

With time you’ll find a kit that is highly customized to you (and your families) needs. Best of luck!

www.tacticalintelligence.net

Finding Gog - By Jack Kelley

Those who labor to understand the nuances of the battle described in Ezekiel 38-39 quickly identify two major puzzles. One is the timing of the battle and the other is the identity of Gog, from Magog. Suffice it to say here that almost no scholar, certainly none I’m aware of, believes the battle of Ezekiel 38-39 has already taken place. Some believe it will occur just before the beginning of Daniel’s 70th Week, while others believe Ezekiel is actually describing the Battle of Armageddon, which would put it at the end of the Great Tribulation. But all place it sometime in our future.

In my opinion, there are several reasons why Ezekiel 38 can’t be part of the Armageddon scenario. First, only some nations are involved in Ezekiel 38. For example, Saudi Arabia and Western Europe are said to be on the sidelines observing and others you would expect to see, like Egypt and Jordan, are not mentioned at all, although both appear later on. But Zechariah 12:3 says that in preparation for the Battle of Armageddon all the nations of the Earth will come against Jerusalem.

Second, how is Israel going to burn the left over weapons for 7 years as Ezekiel 39:9 indicates unless there are 7 years left in which to burn them? Rev. 21:24. says the nations will walk by the light of the New Jerusalem in the Millennium, so they won’t need fuel for energy then. And then you have Ezekiel 38:11 telling us that Israel will be a peaceful and unsuspecting people when the Moslem coalition strikes. Could that be possible near the end of the Great Tribulation when all the nations are gathering to attack? I don’t think so.

But most importantly, Daniel’s 70th week can’t start until Israel is back in covenant with God and the battle of Ezekiel 38 is what causes the covenant to be re-instated. (Ezek. 39:22) Armageddon comes at the end of Daniel’s 70th week, not the beginning.

As for Gog and Magog, the first thing to note is that while Magog is listed in Genesis 10, Gog is not. The list of 70 names in Genesis 10 is often called the Table of Nations because each of the men named there was the original ancestor of an ethnic group that grew to become a nation of people. For instance, Magog was the 2nd son of Japeth, one of Noah’s three sons, and bore the children who in time became known to the ancient world as the Scythians. They lived in central Asia and are believed to be the forefathers of today’s Russians. Many historical references support this view. For example, Josephus Flavius wrote “Magog founded the Magogians, thus named after him, but who were by the Greeks called Scythians.” And in some ancient Arabic documents, the Great Wall of China is called the Ramparts of Gog and Magog. It was built to keep the Scythians out of China.

So while the Russian people of today are likely descended from Magog, there is no such biological connection for Gog to either Magog or any other ethnic group. There is an unrelated mention of a man named Gog, a grandson of Reuben, in 1 Chronicles 5:4 but there doesn’t seem to be any connection between him and the land of Magog either. Clearly, while Magog refers to the millions of his descendants in today’s Russia, Gog remains a single individual.

Some say he’s a king or leader, and in a real sense I think that’s true but I don’t believe he’s of the human variety. The time spanned by his three appearances in scripture make that impossible.

The first one is in the first verse of Amos 7, but you have to be reading Amos from the Septuigent translation to see it. There, Gog is identified as a king, but of a swarm of locusts. To further shroud him in mystery Proverbs 30:27 states that locusts have no king, and observers of locust swarms agree that no obvious leader directs them, as a queen would direct a hive of bees for example. The swarm of locusts led by Gog in Amos 7:1-2 was symbolic of a judgment that was to come upon the Northern Kingdom, but the Lord relented because of Amos’ intercession.

(This hint also lends insight to another appearance of locusts, by the way. I’m referring to the one in Revelation 9, where a swarm of locusts comes out of the Abyss to afflict those on Earth who lack the seal of God on their foreheads. These locusts have a king named Abaddon in the Hebrew or Appolyon in the Greek. Here again, the Proverbs passage would indicate that these locusts are of supernatural origin like the ones in Amos 7, not ordinary locusts.)

The next time Gog’s mentioned is in Ezekiel 38:1, where he is called by name as the leader of a coalition of what are now primarily Moslem nations attacking Israel. His final mention comes from the Book of Revelation where he again leads the people from Magog against the Lord’s army at the end of the Millennium (Rev. 20:8).

Even if you’re among those who place the battle of Ezekiel 38 at the end of the Great Tribulation, the span of time between Gog’s last two biblical appearances is at least 1000 years, and while I believe that some born in that era will have long life spans, there isn’t any indication that natural humans born before the Millennium begins will live to see its end. This is especially true of God’s enemies, since all surviving unbelievers are removed from Earth at the beginning of our Lord’s reign.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that Gog is a supernatural figure. The Bible clearly states that behind the human seats of government stand supernatural figures manipulating the thoughts and actions of the world’s leaders. These figures are in Satan’s employ, helping in his effort to wrest ownership of Planet Earth from its Creator. Gog is at least the supernatural figure behind the throne of Russia, and perhaps is even Satan’s counterpart to the Archangel Michael, who commands the Lord’s armies.

In Daniel 10:13 Michael is identified as one of the Lord’s chief princes who in 536 BC came to Daniel’s aid in a supernatural struggle with the Prince of Persia, a nation barely emerging on the world scene having conquered Babylon just three years earlier. At its conclusion Michael told Daniel that he’d soon be battling the Prince of Greece, a nation that didn’t even exist at the time. In Daniel 12:1 we’re told he’ll protect Israel at the end of the age. And in Rev 12:7 he’s seen leading the angelic host in a great battle in heaven when Satan is defeated there and cast down to Earth at the outset of the Great Tribulation. Michael is clearly a supernatural warrior leaping across the pages of history in defense of the Lord’s interests. It makes sense that Satan would have a military commander leading his forces as well, since everything he does seems to mirror the actions of his Creator. With his multiple mentions in Scripture and the long span of time between appearances, Gog could easily be this commander.

Only time will tell if this view is correct. But one of the great advantages of living in our day is that we won’t have long to wait till we find out. You can almost hear the footsteps of the Messiah.

www.gracethrufaith.com

Global Power and Global Government: Evolution and Revolution of the Central Banking System - Part 1 - By Andrew Gavin Marshall

Introduction
Humanity is on the verge of entering into the most tumultuous period in our history. The prospects of a global depression, the likes of which have never been seen before; a truly global war, on a scale never before imagined; and societal collapse, for which nations of the world are building totalitarian police states to control populations; are increasing by the day. The major global trend forecasters are sounding the alarms on economic depression, war, a return to fascism and a total reorganization of society. Through crisis, we are seeing the reorganization of the global political economy, and the transformation of capitalism into a totalitarian capitalist world government. Capitalism has never stayed the same through its history; it has always changed and will continue to do so. Its changes are explained and analyzed through political-economic theory, both mainstream theory and critical. The changes are undertaken over years, decades and centuries. The next phase of capitalism is one in which the world moves to a state-controlled economic system, much like China, of totalitarian capitalism.

The global political economy itself is being reorganized into a world government body, consisting of one center of global power where the socio-political-economic power of the world is centralized in one institution. This is not a conspiracy theory; it is a reality. Nor is this a subject confined to the realm of “internet conspiracy theorists,” but in fact, the concept of world government originates and evolves throughout the history of capitalism and the global political economy. Mainstream and critical political-economic theory has addressed the concept of world government for centuries.

The notion of a world government has such a long history, as the forces driving the world into such a structure intertwine with the history of the modern global political economy itself. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the global political economy in taking steps toward forming a world government, in both theory and practice.

How did we get here and where are we going?

Why Study Theory?
Within the academic realm of Political Science, specifically the field of Global Political Economy (GPE), it is essential to understand the various theoretical perspectives of political economy so as to understand the actions and directions taken within the global political economy, and how capitalism has been and continues to be reorganized and altered. Theory provides the foundation upon which actors are understandable and actions are undertaken. As the political economist Robert Cox once stated, “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.” It is important to understand and analyze the theoretical leanings of those making changes in the global political economy, in order to understand the changes being made, specifically the theoretical foundations of a world government. As well as this, it is important to examine critical theory in how it interprets both how and why a world government is being constructed.

Mercantilism
The history of political economic theory shows a continued fascination with the concept of constructing such a cosmopolitan or global community. The earliest forms of western Global Political Economy theorists lie in the early mercantilist period, and with the emergence of Liberal theory, following Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, mercantilist writers such as Friedrich List and Alexander Hamilton wrote critiques of the underlying Liberal concepts. List wrote in Political and Cosmopolitical Economy that Smith dispersed with the idea of a “national economy” in which nation’s determined economic conditions, and instead advocated replacing the “national” economy with a “cosmopolitical or world-wide economy.” List discusses the perspective of Jean-Baptiste Say (J.B. Say), a French liberal economist, saying that Say “openly demands that we should imagine the existence of a universal republic in order to comprehend the idea of general free trade.”[1]

List states that, “If, as the prevailing school [of political-economic thought] requires, we assume a universal union or confederation of nations as the guarantee for an everlasting peace, the principle of international free trade seems to be perfectly justified,” however, this prevailing thought “assumes the existence of a universal union and a state of perpetual peace, and deduces therefrom the great benefits of free trade. In this manner it confounds effects with causes.” List elaborates in explaining that, “Among the provinces and states which are already politically united, there exists a state of perpetual peace; from this political union originates their commercial union.” Further, “All examples which history can show are those in which the political union has led the way, and the commercial union has followed. Not a single instance can be adduced in which the latter has taken the lead, and the former has grown up from it.”[2]

It must be addressed that List is a mercantilist theorist. This means that he views the realm of the political and economic as an interacting realm in which they are intertwined and merged, however, the political realm remains above the economic, which is subject to the dictates of the political element. Liberal theorists believe that the political and economic realms are separate, and that they should be separated, so that political elements interact separately and without influence over the economic realm, which itself acts independently and separately of the political. This is the foundation for the ideas of the “free market” and the oft-quoted Adam Smith phrase, “the invisible hand of the free market,” which was only mentioned once in his entire volume of the Wealth of Nations. The ascension of liberal theorists marked a separation in the academic and theoretical studies, in which Political Economy was separated as a field, and saw the emergence of Political Science and Economics as separate studies.

As political economist Robert Cox stated, “Theory is always for someone and for some purpose.” The purpose of this separation was to compartmentalize academic thought and separate the realms of politics and economy, so as to better control both - as the banking interests, which dominated both the realms of politics and economics since the late 1600s, continued to view the world in terms of political-economic theory. It was a strategy of “divide and conquer,” in which theory and academia was divided in order to conquer and control thought on both sides. This separation continues to this day, as even the field of Political Economy is placed underneath and subjective to Political Science, whereas it would make more sense that Political Science and Economics would be under the umbrella of Political Economy. Again, compartmentalize thought and then the control of discussion and debate becomes much easier.

What List was arguing in his essay was a critique of the liberal concept of a cosmopolitical society, in which all nations are united in a world federation. Naturally, this was not the case in that era, it was an incorrect and dubious assumption on the part of liberal theorists. List explained that never before had economic or commercial interdependence and union led to a political union. List postulated that history showed that political union had to precede an economic union. However, List was writing in the first half of the 19th century, and history has changed the course of events and Political Economic theory. I would argue that the major banking interests, essentially made up of a dynasty of banking families (the Rothschilds, Warburgs, and later the Morgans and Rockefellers, among many others), decided to chart a different course, in which they would pursue a strategy in which economic union would be incrementally undertaken with the aim of constructing a political union to follow in its footsteps.

Central Banking
Thus, liberal economic theory came to the forefront, championed by the global hegemonic power of the day, Great Britain, which was firmly under the control of the banking dynasties. In 1694, the Bank of England was formed as a private central bank, which would issue the currency of the nation, lending it to the government and industry at interest, which would be paid back to the Bank of England’s shareholders, made up of these private banking dynasties.[3] The 16th to the 19th centuries was the period in which both the nation-state and capitalism emerged, soon followed by central banking in the late 1600s. This is when the origins of what was known as a “world economy” took place. Mercantilist economic theory dominated this period, in which the economy was secondary and submissive to the political structure of nations.

Liberal theorists rose in opposition to this. Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations in 1776, the same year that the American colonies revolted against the British imperial forces in the country, and ultimately gained independence from the British Empire. Among many of the primary motivating factors for the Revolution were the British military presence in the American colonies, acting above the law; a heavy imposition of colonial taxes, particularly on tea and other imports from foreign nations such as France, in an effort to promote the mercantilist assumptions that the colony should only survive and trade with the metropole (imperial hegemon) - which extracts the resources of the nation in trade for material goods to that nation, creating a dependence upon the colonial power. Arguably one of the primary motivations for the Revolution was the control of currency by a foreign imperial power, with the ability to control inflation and devaluation, essentially controlling the entire economic conditions of the colony from abroad. The Founding Fathers of the United States understood the necessity of controlling one’s own currency if one was to preserve sovereignty and independence.

Following Britain’s humiliating defeat, which was aided by the French who supported the American revolt, European banking interests suffered a significant blow against their mercantilist expansion. Capitalism functions in that it constantly needs to expand and consume more. Central banking functions in a very similar, although much more dubious manner, in which it needs to expand its control over industry, nations and people through the expansion of debt, continually needing to bring more individuals, nations and industries under debt bondage. Debt is the source of all power and wealth for the central banking system - as they do not actually produce any tradable good, such as industry; nor do they provide any necessary service, such as government. Interest on debt is the source of income and authority for the central banking system, and thus, it needs to continually advance credit and expand debt. Thus, the loss of the American colonies as a source of expansionary credit and debt was a massive blow to their entrenched interests.

The European banking interests quickly learned their lesson regarding not falling under the imperial hubris of believing people of a given region or nation could never defeat imperial might and armies. Revolution had become a great threat to the entrenched capitalist, and particularly, banking interests.

Within a decade of the American Revolutionary War, which ended in 1783, another nation was going down the road of revolutionary zeal, in part inspired by the American example. However, this nation was no colony, but rather a mercantilist imperial power, and thus, its loss would be too great a loss to allow. In 1788, the French Monarchy was bankrupt, and as tensions grew between the increasingly desperate people of France and the aristocratic and particularly monarchic establishment, European bankers decided to pre-empt and co-opt the revolution. In 1788, prominent French bankers refused “to extend necessary short-term credit to the government,”[4] and they arranged to have shipments of grain and food to Paris “delayed” which triggered the hunger riots of the Parisians.[5] This sparked the Revolution, in which a new ruling class emerged, driven by violent oppression and political and actual terrorism. However, its violence grew, and with that, so too did discontentment with the Revolutionary Regime, and its stability and sustainability was in question. Thus, the bankers threw their weight behind a general in the Revolutionary Army named Napoleon, whom they entrusted to restore order. Napoleon then gave the bankers his support, and in 1800, created the Bank of France, the privately owned central bank of France, and gave the bankers authority over the Bank. The bankers owned its shares, and even Napoleon himself bought shares in the bank.[6]

The bankers thus sought to control commerce and government and restore order to their newly acquired and privately owned and operated empire. However, Napoleon continued with his war policies beyond the patience of the bankers, which had a negative impact upon commercial activities,[7] and Napoleon himself was interfering in the operations of the Bank of France and even declared that the Bank “belongs more to the Emperor than to the shareholders.”[8] With that, the bankers again shifted their influence, and remained through regime change.[9]

The Rothschilds ascended to the throne of international banking with the Battle of Waterloo. After having established banking houses in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples, they profited off of all sides in the Napoleonic wars.[10] The British patriarch, Nathan Rothschild, was known for being the first with news in London, ahead of even the monarchy and the Parliament, and so everyone watched his moves on the stock market during the Battle of Waterloo. Following the battle, Nathan got the news that the British won over 24 hours before the government itself had news, and he quietly went into the London Stock Exchange and sold everything he had, implying to those watching that the British lost. A panic selling ensued, in which everyone sold stock, stock prices crumbled, and the market crashed. What resulted was that Rothschild then bought up the near-entire British stock market for pennies on the dollar, as when news arrived of the British victory at Waterloo, Rothschild’s newly acquired stocks soared in value, as did his fortune, and his rise as the pre-eminent economic figure in Britain.[11]

As Goergetown University History professor, Carroll Quigley wrote in his monumental Tragedy and Hope, “The merchant bankers of London had already at hand in 1810-1850 the Stock Exchange, the Bank of England, and the London money market,” and that:

In time they brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.[12]

The period from 1815 to 1914 was known as the British Imperial Century, in which they adopted the liberal economic concepts of Adam Smith, and manipulated and distorted them for their own imperial ambitions. Mercantilism was still strong in practice, but rode under the banner of a liberal economic order, “free markets” and the “invisible hand.” The “invisible hand” was in fact, connected to a body made up of government and industry, molding the “free market” according to its designs, and the body was controlled by the brain, the central bank, the Bank of England. Markets were hardly “free” and the hand was visible to those who could see the rest of the body.

The Liberal Revolution
It was during this British imperial century that other nations, such as Germany and the United States, were pursuing mercantilist economic practices in order to protect their own nations from the British free-trade imperialism. It was in this context that mercantilist theorists such as Alexander Hamilton in the United States, and Friedrich List in Germany were writing in criticism of liberal economic theory.

Mercantilism was dominant in political-economic theory until the mid 19th century when the ‘liberal revolution’ manifested, largely in critical opposition to mercantilism. In liberal economic theory, the economic realm is autonomous and separate from the political realm, and functions according to its own logic. Within this theory, politics and economics, though separate spheres, are still connected, but remain independent of one another. Whereas mercantilists see the state as the primary actor in the global political economy, liberals see the individual (both producer and consumer) as being the major actor.

Mercantilists see the international arena as inherently conflictual, justifying their policies of colonialism and empire building in an international arena in which if one state does not colonize foreign lands and extract resources, another state will, and thus, will deprive the state that does not create an empire of resources and economic growth. In this sense, mercantilists view the world in terms of a zero-sum gain, in which the progress of one state requires the regression of another. Liberal theorists argue that the international arena, made up of individuals, constitutes a positive-sum gain, in which all individuals act according to self-interest, and in doing so, benefit everyone, and foster cooperation and interdependence. In this sense, the international arena is not inherently conflictual, but rather a cooperative and interdependent sphere in which order and stability is upheld by international regimes - such as the British liberal imperial order and the gold standard it instituted.

Where mercantilists view history as an amalgamation of conflicts and decisions made by states, liberal theorists view history as the sum of the unintended consequences of actions made by private individuals and activities. This implies almost an inherently natural progression of history - that it is not shaped by powerful forces in any designed or intended way, but is merely a natural response and reaction to the actions of individuals. This ties into the liberal concept of the natural state of a liberal economic order, bringing in the idea of the “invisible hand of the free market” which will determine economic activities.

Adam Smith’s notion of the “invisible hand” has been used to advance the idea that private individuals who seek personal wealth and gain through self-interest will unintentionally aid the interests of all of society. However, the “invisible hand” was mentioned merely once in Smith’s monumental Wealth of Nations, and was taken out of context. Smith was discussing how “Every individual naturally inclines to employ his capital in the manner in which it is likely to afford the greatest support to domestic industry, and to give revenue and employment to the greatest number of people of his own country.” In addition to employing “his capital in the support of domestic industry,” the private individual would “direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value.” Therefore, the individual “neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it.” Smith explains that:

“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.”[13]

Smith had conceptualized the “invisible hand” as the “natural inclination” of an individual to promote domestic interests, yet the phrase has been manipulated to promote the concept of a “self regulating market” in which the less regulation and restrictions there are, the better all society will be, because industry will naturally benefit all people. The manipulation of this phrase has taken the notion of the “invisible hand” away from the actions of individuals and transferred it to promoting non-regulation of economic activities. That is a far cry from Smith’s contention.

Smith even stated in the Wealth of Nations that, “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.”[14]

In discussing regulation regarding wages for workers and resolving equity issues between the employers, or “masters” and the labour class of “workers,” Smith explained that, “Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counselors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.” Further, “When masters combine together in order to reduce the wages of their workmen, they commonly enter into a private bond or agreement, not to give more than a certain wage under a certain penalty. Were the workmen to enter into a contrary combination of the same kind, not to accept a certain wage under a certain penalty [such as a union], the law would punish them very severely; and if it dealt impartially, it would treat the masters in the same manner.”[15]

These quotes by Adam Smith tend to fly in the face of the common perceptions and usage of Smith’s ideas, proving that liberal economy in practice is a far cry from the intent of its original theorist.

In the 1870s, the notion of a “liberal economic order” was challenged as the major European empires undertook an incredible extension of their imperial presence across the globe, itself a mercantilist practice - the idea of obtaining colonies in order to extract its resources, create a captive market for the imperial nations manufactured goods, and deprive its economic competitors of access to that market. Between 1878 and 1913, European empires extended their control over much of the world, specifically with the Scramble for Africa, in which all of Africa, save Ethiopia, was colonized by European powers.

This “new imperialism,” as it was known, proliferated throughout Europe following the rapid expansion of banking throughout the continent, and the pre-eminence of international financiers over governments.[16] The growth of the continent-wide banking networks “fed the growth of colonial empires” as it stimulated a system in which “creating debt that then had to be serviced by the purchase of more infrastructure,” and expansion of territory.[17] This led European nations to undertake a massive imperial effort across much of the globe, to find and control foreign markets and expand their capital.

The Emergence of Marxism
In the 19th century, the rise of critical IPE (International/Global Political Economy) theories emerged in opposition to the growing dominance of Liberal IPE. The most profound of these criticisms arose from Karl Marx. Marxism, as Marx’s critical theory came to be known, put an extensive focus on the relations of classes within society, as the class that owns the means of production is the central and most powerful class, subverting the other classes to a submissive position. Marxists also view capitalism as being inherently exploitative. Within this theory, the political and economic realms are not seen as separate spheres of action, but are seen as intertwined and internally related. Within this theory, the purpose of the state is not to serve the interests of the broader population that inhabits it, but to secure, maintain and advance the interests of the capitalist class. Marxist theorists also put emphasis on the nature of war and conflict as being intrinsically related to the expansionary nature of capitalism, which is one of the primary roles of states in advancing the interests of the capitalist ruling class.

Marx defines what he perceives as capitalism: a system which is governed by capital, which is money that has been invested in order to generate more money; production, which is dominant within capitalist society, is designed for sale, not use - in that, it moves beyond subsistence and into what we refer to today as materialism and consumption; labour is commodified, thus people, through their labour, themselves become a tradable commodity; exchange occurs with money; ownership of the means of production is in the hands of the capitalist class; and competition between various capitalist forces is the logic of interaction.

Marx places a large focus on the circuit of capital, in how money transforms into capital. Money (M), is invested in purchasing a Commodity (C), and then into Labour Power (LP) and the Mean of Production (MP), which make up the Production circuit (P), which produces a new Commodity (C1), which is then sold, creating expanding money (M1), or earned profits. Capital, thus, is money that is invested into production. Marx postulates that the inherent exploitative nature of capitalism is most apparent in the Production circuit, specifically with Labour Power.

Diverging From Marx
However, with the exploration and understanding of the central banking system, some of the circuit of capital must be called into question. Central banking functions not on “investment” of capital, but on the expansion and creation of money and debt, which is lent at interest, thus serving as the source of income for the central banking system. This cannot be called productive capital, for its purpose and intent is not to produce a new commodity, there is no labour power or means of production involved, and new money is not produced from the sale of such a new commodity, but rather profit is extracted from interest on the original money. This, for the sake of argument, can be called the Circuit of Debt:

M –> L –> I –> M1 –> LID –> DB

M = Money
L = Loan
I = Interest
M1 = New Money
LID = new money Loaned to debtor to pay Interest on Debt
DB = debtor falls into Debt Bondage; owned by creditor

Through the Marxist perspective of exploitation, there is no labour to exploit within the Circuit of Debt, so where does exploitation come into play? Exploitation comes into the process in that the debt (or loan) issued, is designed to exploit whoever the debtor is, be it an individual, a nation, or a corporation. Within this paradigm, class structure, although playing a significant part of the process of overall exploitation and exercise of power within the capitalist system is not the only, or arguably, even primary target of control and oppression within capitalism, as we know it. The target is the individual, the nation, and industry to the submission of the predatory nature of the central banking system.

The central banking system has, from its inception, acted in ways which monopolize industry (thus negating Adam Smith’s concept of a “free market” and “competition”); militarize nations (financing wars and conquest, imperialism); merging the interests of both the economic and political realms into a holistic ruling class (modeled upon the dual nature of a central bank itself - holding the authority and power of a government body, but representing the interests and submitting to the ownership of private individuals). Thus, the ruling class itself is a social construct which this tiny elite formed, hardly capable of the numbers to be termed a class, especially since class is most often defined in national terms, whereas this elite is international in nature.

The central bank of a nation finances monopoly industry and imperial states, both of which are created out of debt bondage to the central bank. Both the commercial/industrial elites and political elites merge their interests - the state will pursue imperial policies that have the effect of benefiting industry, while industry will support the building of a strong, powerful state (and provide a cozy job for the political elite upon leaving the public sector). This makes up the ruling class of a nation, the capitalists, or owners of the means of production, merging with the political rulers of the nation. One does not represent or overpower the other, but rather, both serve the interests and are owned through interest, by a tiny international elite.

One must ask: What would capitalism look like if it were not for the advent of the central banking system?

Accumulation by Dispossession
In discussing Marxist theory, I am not advocating a total support of its theoretical discussion and perspective. However, it is vital to address, as historically and presently, it has served as a very powerful source of criticism against the capitalist system and its importance cannot be underestimated. Having said that, it is also important to address in that it does, as a theory, identify many accurate and important aspects of how the capitalist system functions. For that reason, many of the critiques have been and are currently prescient and justified.

In Marxist theory, the nature of accumulation plays a very important part, in that it holds a dual character. One is known as accumulation as expanded reproduction, which is concerned with commodity markets and production (the circuit of capital), where money is made through the labour process. The other nature of accumulation is accumulation by dispossession, which is usually framed in terms of relations between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production. This is accumulation derived from dispossessing someone of something. The Atlantic slave trade was an example of accumulation by dispossession, as Africans were dispossessed of their lives and freedom. Colonialism is another example, where resources are extracted, dispossessing the nation of its own resources.

Perhaps it would be helpful to expand upon Marx’s ideas of accumulation by dispossession in regards to the central banking system. Central banking, not falling into the circuit of capital, and thus, accumulation as expanded reproduction, better represents an example of accumulation by dispossession. Money is given in loans at interest, to which the debtor is never meant to fully repay, and is dispossessed of its freedom and wealth through interest payments and debt bondage. Debt is just another word for slavery, therefore, the central banking system itself, functions through a system of accumulation by dispossession.

However, conventional understanding of accumulation by dispossession describes it as an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes of production, where the capitalist mode will dispossess the non-capitalist mode of production. Central banking, however, is the pinnacle of the capitalist system, and ultimately, the primary source and avenue of its power, so it can hardly be said to be an interaction between capitalist and non-capitalist modes, as it is an interaction between central banks and ALL modes of production which need money - including the entirety of the capitalist system. Thus, industry/commerce, governments/nations, and individuals/people, are dispossessed of their freedom through debt bondage. This cannot simply be predicated in terms of class warfare or class-centric theory, but rather, an assault against all individuals, individuality, and freedom, in any and all forms. It is within this context that class structures are created, so as to play off one against the other - to compartmentalize people into classes, and thus, better control and manipulate the masses. It is a strategy of dividing and conquering people. Class, including the upper capitalist class, is constructed in an effort to conform thought within each class, and thus direct collective action of that class accordingly. The freethinking individual is the target in all cases. Individuality is to be removed from commerce, government, and society as a whole.

The Communist Manifesto
In the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848, Marx proclaims in the opening subtitle that, “The history of all society hitherto is the history of class struggles.” However, if class itself is a construct of powerful individuals, albeit throughout human history, can it not be argued instead that the history of all society is the history of the struggle of the individual against collectivity and control? Class itself is a collective grouping designed to control a mass of people, whether it is upper class or lower class. Individuals are stifled within all classes, and thus, the history of class struggles itself, is a history of the struggle between the free thinking individual and the collective form of control.

Within the Communist Manifesto, Marx (and Engels) outlined an initial program for an “advanced” nation to undertake in order to create a Communist system, with ten major points. (1) Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes; (2) A heavy progressive or graduated income tax; (3) Abolition of all right of inheritance; (4) Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels; (5) Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly; (6) Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state; (7) Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state - the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan; (8) Equal liability of all to labour - Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture; (9) Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries - gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country; and (10) Free education for all children in public schools - Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form [and] Combination of education with industrial production.[18]

Of particular importance is number 5, in which a central bank is advocated. If nations have the ability to create and issue a currency through a Treasury department or even on a more regional or local level, why centralize and monopolize creation of a currency to a central bank? It should be noted that the recommendation was to have it centralized “in the hands of the state,” however, central banks are today, still widely perceived as being within the purview of governmental authority, while acting and functioning totally outside of it and above it. Imposing a tax on one’s income (2), also seems to promote the commodification of labour, in that instead of industry exploiting one’s labour and extracting a profit from it, that becomes the job of the state. All property would be owned by the state (1), and virtually the entire economy is subject to the control of the state. Even education, while free, is directed by the state. With the “Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels,” what room is there for dissenting thought in such a society? Dissent would not be encouraged within the “free education” system. In fact, conformity would be enshrined. Is this not a form of “accumulation by dispossession” in which the individual is dispossessed of free thought and action and submitted to the will of and restricted thinking allowed by the state? Within this paradigm the state accumulates power and authority by dispossessing people of individuality in thought and expression.

The Communist Manifesto ends with the declaration of, “Workers of all countries, Unite!” This, in and of itself, promotes class divisions within society, placing focus on the need for an international mobilization of the global working class to rise up against the capitalist class. Marx outlines that any successful workers’ revolution must be international.[19] Thus, this promotes the cosmopolitical notion of an international community, at least in initial terms of a transnational class system. Essentially, Marx argues that as capitalism expands, what we will later term “Globalizes,” so too must the working class of the world “globalize” and “internationalize.” In a sense, this makes Marx, himself, an early globalist theorist, in promoting the concept of an international class uprising against the capitalist class. Ultimately, would this not simply replace the tyranny of one class for the tyranny of another? Throw out the capitalists and bring in the communists! Substituting one form of oppression for another is hardly a change in the right direction. In both systems, the individual suffers and free thought is stifled.

Though much Marxist criticism is extremely pointed in analyzing the functions and structure of the capitalist system, such theory itself, even though critical, must be critically examined.

Retaking America
The history of the United States from its founding through the 19th century to the early 20th century, was marked by a continual political battle revolving around the creation of a central bank of the United States. Mercantilists such as Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Treasury Secretary, were in favour of such a bank, and his advice won over George Washington, much to the dismay of Thomas Jefferson, who was a strong opponent to central banking. However, “[Alexander] Hamilton, believing that government must ally itself with the richest elements of society to make itself strong, proposed to Congress a series of laws, which it enacted, expressing this philosophy,” and that, “A Bank of the United States was set up as a partnership between the government and certain banking interests,”[20] which lasted until the charter expired in 1811.

Again, during the tenure of Andrew Jackson (1829-1837), the primary political struggle was with the entrenched financial interests both domestic and from abroad (namely Western Europe), on the issue of creating a central bank of the US. Andrew Jackson stood in firm opposition to such a bank, saying that, “the bank threatened the emerging order, hoarding too much economic power in too few hands,” and referred to it as “The Monster.”[21] Congress passed the bill allowing for the creation of a Second Bank of the United States, however, Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill, much to the dismay of the banking interests.

It was in the later half of the 1800s that “European financiers were in favor of an American Civil War that would return the United States to its colonial status, they admitted privately that they were not necessarily interested in preserving slavery,” as it had become unprofitable.[22] The Civil War was not based upon the liberation of slaves, it was, as Howard Zinn described it, a clash “of elites,” with the northern elite wanting “economic expansion - free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, [and] a bank of the United States. [Whereas] The slave interests opposed all that.”[23] The Civil War, which lasted from 1861 until 1865, resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, during which, “Congress also set up a national bank, putting the government into partnership with the banking interests, guaranteeing their profits.”[24]

As Lincoln himself stated:

The money powers prey on the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes.

I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me, and the bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe. As a most undesirable consequence of the war, corporations have been enthroned, and an era of corruption in high places will follow. The money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed.[25]

Throughout much of the 1800s and into the 1900s, the United States suffered several economic crises, one of the most significant of which was the Great Depression of 1873. As Howard Zinn explained:

The crisis was built into a system which was chaotic in its nature, in which only the very rich were secure. It was a system of periodic crises - 1837, 1857, 1873 (and later: 1893, 1907, 1919, 1929) - that wiped out small businesses and brought cold, hunger, and death to working people while the fortunes of the Astors, Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, Morgans, kept growing through war and peace, crisis and recovery. During the 1873 crisis, Carnegie was capturing the steel market, Rockefeller was wiping out his competitors in oil.[26]

Massive industrial consolidation by a few oligarchic elites was the rule of the day, as J.P. Morgan expanded total control over railroad and banking interests, and John D. Rockefeller took control of the oil market, and expanded into banking. Zinn explained that, “The imperial leader of the new oligarchy was the House of Morgan. In its operations it was ably assisted by the First National Bank of New York (directed by George F. Baker) and the National City Bank of New York (presided over by James Stillman, agent of the Rockefeller interests). Among them, these three men and their financial associates occupied 341 directorships in 112 corporations. The total resources of these corporations in 1912 was $22,245,000,000, more than the assessed value of all property in the twenty-two states and territories west of the Mississippi River.”[27]

These banking interests, particularly those of Morgan, were very much allied with European banking interests. On the European side, specifically in Britain, the elite were largely involved in the Scramble for Africa at this time. Infamous among them was Cecil Rhodes, who made his fortune in the diamond and gold mining in Africa, as “With financial support from Lord Rothschild and Alfred Beit, he was able to monopolize the diamond mines of South Africa as De Beers Consolidated Mines and to build up a great gold mining enterprise as Consolidated Gold Fields.”[28] Interestingly, “Rhodes could not have won his near-monopoly over South African diamond production without the assistance of his friends in the City of London: in particular, the Rothschild bank, at that time the biggest concentration of financial capital in the world.”[29] As historian Niall Ferguson explained, “It is usually assumed that Rhodes owned De Beers, but this was not the case. Nathaniel de Rothschild was a bigger shareholder than Rhodes himself; indeed, by 1899 the Rothschilds’ stake was twice that of Rhodes.”[30]

Cecil Rhodes was also known for his radical views regarding America, particularly in that he would “talk with total seriousness of ‘the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire’.”[31] Rhodes saw himself not simply as a money maker, but primarily as an “empire builder.” As historian Carroll Quigley explained, in 1891, three British elites met with the intent to create a secret society. The three men were Cecil Rhodes, William T. Stead, a prominent journalist of the day, and Reginald Baliol Brett, a “friend and confidant of Queen Victoria, and later to be the most influential adviser of King Edward VII and King George V.” Within this secret society, “real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner.”[32]

In 1901, Rhodes chose Milner as his successor within the society, of which the purpose was, “The extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom and of colonization by British subjects of all lands wherein the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labour, and enterprise . . . [with] the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of a British Empire, the consolidation of the whole Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial Representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire, and finally the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the best interests of humanity.”[33] Essentially, it outlined a British-led cosmopolitical world order, one global system of governance under British hegemony. Among key players within this group were the Rothschilds and other banking interests.[34]

In the early 20th century, European and American banking interests achieved what they had desired for over a century within America, the creation of a privately owned central bank. It was created through collaboration of American and European bankers, primarily the Morgans, Rockefellers, Kuhn, Loebs and Warburgs.[35] After the 1907 banking panic in the US, instigated by JP Morgan, pressure was placed upon the American political establishment to create a “stable” banking system. In 1910, a secret meeting of financiers was held on Jekyll Island, where they planned for the “creation of a National Reserve Association with fifteen major regions, controlled by a board of commercial bankers but empowered by the federal government to act like a central bank - creating money and lending reserves to private banks.”[36] President Woodrow Wilson followed the plan almost exactly as outlined by the Wall Street financiers, and added to it the creation of a Federal Reserve Board in Washington, which the President would appoint.[37] The Federal Reserve, or Fed, “raised its own revenue, drafted its own operating budget and submitted neither to Congress,” while “the seven governors shared power with the presidents of the twelve Reserve Banks, each serving the private banks in its region,” and “the commercial banks held stock shares in each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks.”[38]

The retaking of the United States by international banking interests was achieved with barely a whimper of opposition. Where the British Empire failed in taking the United States militarily, international bankers succeeded covertly through the banking system. The Federal Reserve also had the effect of cementing an alliance between New York and London bankers.[39]

Notes
[1] George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: pages 48-49

[2] George T. Crane, Abla Amawi, The Theoretical evolution of international political economy. Oxford University Press US, 1997: pages 50-51

[3] John Kenneth Galbraith, Money: Whence it Came, Where it Went (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1975), 31

[4] Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage. Volume C: Since 1789: Ninth edition: (Pearson Prentice Hall: 2007), 596

[5] Curtis B. Dall, F.D.R. : My Exploited Father-in-Law. (Institute for Historical Review: 1982), 172

[6] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 515

Robert Elgie and Helen Thompson, ed., The Politics of Central Banks (New York: Routledge, 1998), 97-98

[7] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 516

[8] Robert Elgie and Helen Thompson, ed., The Politics of Central Banks (New York: Routledge, 1998), 98-99

[9] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 516

[10] Sylvia Nasar, Masters of the Universe. The New York Times: January 23, 2000: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3D6123AF930A15752C0A9669C8B63

BBC News. The Family That Bankrolled Europe. BBC News: July 9, 1999
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/389053.stm

[11] New Scientist. Waterloo Windfall. New Scientist Magazine: Issue 2091, July 19, 1997
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15520913.300-waterloo-windfall.html

BBC News. The Making of a Dynasty: The Rothschilds. BBC News: January 28, 1998
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/50997.stm

[12] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), 51

[13] Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations. U. of Chicago Edition, 1976: Vol. IV, ch. 2: 477

[14] Adam Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Regnery Gateway, 1998: page 152

[15] Adam Smith, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Regnery Gateway, 1998: pages 166-167

[16] Patricia Goldstone, Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. (Harcourt Trade, 2007), 29-30

[17] Patricia Goldstone, Aaronsohn’s Maps: The Untold Story of the Man who Might Have Created Peace in the Middle East. (Harcourt Trade, 2007), 31

[18] Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Philip Gasper (ed.), The Communist manifesto: a road map to history’s most important political document. Haymarket Books, 2005: pages 70-71

[19] Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Philip Gasper (ed.), The Communist manifesto: a road map to history’s most important political document. Haymarket Books, 2005: page 67

[20] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York, 2003: page 101

[21] Michael Waldman, My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Speeches of America’s Presidents, from George Washington to George W. Bush. Longman Publishing Group: 2004: page 25

[22] Dr. Ellen Brown, Today We’re All Irish: Debt Serfdom Comes to America. Global Research: March 15, 2008: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BRO20080315&articleId=8349

[23] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York, 2003: page 189

[24] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York, 2003: page 238

[25] Steve Bachman, Unheralded Warnings from the Founding Fathers to You. Gather: June 19, 2007: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977031677

[26] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York, 2003: page 242

[27] Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States. Harper Perennial: New York, 2003: page 323

[28] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), 130

[29] Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 186

[30] Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 186-187

[31] Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power (New York: Basic Books, 2004), 190

[32] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment. GSG & Associates, 1981: page 3

[33] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment. GSG & Associates, 1981: page 33

[34] Carroll Quigley, The Anglo-American Establishment. GSG & Associates, 1981: page 34

[35] Murray N. Rothbard, Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. World Market Perspective: 1984: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard66.html

[36] William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 276

[37] William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 277

[38] William Greider, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987), 50

[39] William Engdahl, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order. (London: Pluto Press, 2004), 51

Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.

Next Page »