Jasper-Global-Tyranny-Step-By-Step-The-United-Nations-and-the ...

policy, and a single authority issuing the currency and directing the monetary policy. How can
independent states accomplish that They need to turn over the determination of monetary policy to a
supranational body." (Emphasis added)
Insider Cooper realized the challenge involved in selling this totalitarian idea to the public. "This onecurrency
regime is much too radical to envisage in the near future," he said. "But it is not too radical to
envisage 25 years from now.... [I]t will require many years of consideration before people become
accustomed to the idea." Getting people in the West, and particularly in the United States, warm to the
idea of "a pooling of monetary sovereignty" — especially with communist countries — would be
difficult. Cooper wrote:
First, it is highly doubtful whether the American public, to take just one example, could
ever accept that countries with oppressive autocratic regimes should vote on the monetary
policy that would affect monetary conditions in the United States.... For such a bold step to
work at all, it presupposes a certain convergence of political values....
Convergence with Totalitarian Regimes
That requisite "convergence" is already underway and well-ahead of Professor Cooper’s 25-year
estimate, thanks to the high-powered sales job his fellow CFR members have conducted on behalf of the
"former" communist states. The Establishment policy line has been repeated again and again in the
Insiders’ elite journals (Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, World Policy Journal), as well as in the CFRdominated
popular media. It holds that the United States must provide Russia and all the nations of her
former satellite empire with billions of dollars in credits and aid to help them make the transition to "a
market economy."
Writing in the Summer 1990 Foreign Policy, Thomas G. Weiss (CFR) and Meryl A. Kessler set out the
globalist line:
As for the economic realm, there is little hope for cooperation between the superpowers
until the United States allows the Soviet Union to become a full-fledged actor in global
economic affairs.... The United States should follow up by supporting immediate Soviet
observer status in the IMF and the World Bank, leading toward full membership....
American interests and the credibility of the United States as a leader in world affairs would
be enhanced by joining the Soviet Union in taking the lead at the United Nations.17
Those steps were adopted in toto by the Bush Administration. The 12 "republics" of the new
Commonwealth of Independent States, the former Warsaw Pact countries of Eastern Europe, and the
three Baltic states have either become members of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund or
are in the process of joining. The IMF is now in the process of transferring billions of tax dollars from
the West to socialist regimes in the East still run by communists and former communists. Not
surprisingly, these regimes have shown little evidence of any serious intent to make the leap from
collectivist to free-market economies.18
The Insider line, in fact, is that we must slow down the transition of the communist/socialist countries to
free markets. Writing in the Summer 1992 World Policy Journal (published by the World Policy
Institute — a CFR-dominated think tank — and the Fabian socialist New School for Social Research),
Sherle R. Schwenninger asserted in an article entitled "The United States in the New World Order" that
"the United States should use its weight within the IMF and the World Bank to encourage a slower