This raises the second possible, and arguably more plausible, interpretation of the facts: that those responsible for the immense losses of United States gold were fulfilling some plan other than the maintenance of American monetary stability. This may be styled "the ulterior-motive theory" of the gold loss.
As explanation of this kind also has great appeal where politicians and bureaucrats are involved. Here, moreover, it tends to fit and explain the facts better than "the stupidity theory" does. A strong and consistent undercurrent in the history of international finance and banking during the twentieth century has been the attempt by certain groups - predominantly centered in Europe, but with their allies in the United States - to create a "one-world" fiat (irredeemable) paper currency and a "one-world" central bank politically independent of, if not actually superior to, any nation or combination of nations. To achieve this goal, certain preliminaries were required: (i) To drive the world, and particularly the United States as the world's leading free-market economy, from the pre-World War I "Gold-coin standard" based on a single national paper currency. That was accomplished by the 1922 Genoa and the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreements, which elevated the Federal Reserve Note to the status of the unique "world reserve currency" under a form of the "gold-exchange standard." (ii) To destroy this national paper currency as a viable "world reserve currency," so as to justify the creation of a new "reserve" currency independent of any particular nation. That was accomplished by the systematic inflation of the Federal Reserve Note during the post-World War II period, destroying over 90% of its purchasing power, and creating monetary chaos world-wide. (iii) To prevent the United States from frustrating the establishment of a true "world currency" by itself returning, unilaterally, to a domestic "gold standard" of the pre-1933 type.
Whether these steps were accomplished through the knowing, intentional actions of those officials of the United States government who oversaw and allowed the 1951-1971 drain of gold is as yet unknown, and must be considered supposition, not fact. But it is supposition well-based on facts, and supposition that the facts support more completely and convincingly than some other, alternative hypotheses. The explanation-that American officials purposefully sacrificed the interests of the United States to the agenda of foreigners bent on subordinating this country to a supranational financial oligarchy-is, of course ,distasteful. Yet the truth must be faced, palatable or not.
What, then, is the truth? We do not know, at least not completely. Who does? The individuals who were responsible for implementing, year after year, the policy that resulte din the loss of over half of this country's gold stock. How can the American people expose the truth? Only by demanding an investigation of those individuals and the policies they carried out. Whether this investigation proceeds under the auspices of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the government, or at the national or state level, is not immediately consequential-so long as some inquiry begins, under circumstances in which witnesses are compelled to appear, produce documents and either testify or assert their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
The mystery of the huge loss of gold from the United States' stocks has gone on too long. And too much is at stake to allow it to remain a mystery any longer.
1988 book by Chris Weber
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks