The Bretton Woods Committee

07 Apr

[courtesy Google Images]

[courtesy Google Images]

In A.D. 1944, an international conference was held at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, to establish a new monetary system for the post-WWII world.  A fundamental principle of the resulting “Bretton Woods Agreement” was that the US dollar would be backed by gold and would come to be used as the world reserve currency.

In A.D. 1971, President Nixon closed the “gold window” and stopped redeeming foreign-held US dollars with gold.  Some people suppose that when the US dollar became pure fiat and was no longer redeemable in gold, the Bretton Woods Agreement ended.

However, the original Bretton Woods Agreement involved much more than merely promising to redeem foreign-held dollars with gold.  Vestiges of that Agreement continue to function and exert influence under the oversight of The Bretton Woods Committee.

According to the Bretton Woods Committee’s website,

“The Bretton Woods Committee is the nonpartisan network of prominent global citizens, which works to demonstrate the value of international economic cooperation and to foster strong, effective Bretton Woods institutions as forces for global well-being.

“The Committee was created in 1983 at the suggestion of two former Treasury officials—Secretary Henry Fowler and Deputy Secretary Charls Walker, a Democrat and a Republican—who saw the need for an organized effort to ensure that leading citizens spoke about the importance of the international financial institutions (IFIs).

“Committee members are leaders at the top of the business, finance, academic, and non-profit sectors, including many industry CEOs, as well as former presidents, cabinet-level officials, and lawmakers who share the belief that international economic cooperation is essential and best served through strong and effective IFIs. Through the Committee, they champion global efforts to spur economic growth, alleviate poverty, and improve financial stability.”

Would you trust a group of men and woman who lived in the United States of America but who identified themselves as “prominent global citizens” to represent the best interest of the vast majority of the American people?  Would you trust that same group if they focused on building “international economic cooperation” and on supporting “international financial institutions” rather than building national (American) economic strength?

Insofar as the 32 signatories to his letter are “prominent global citizens,” are you and I also presumed to be “global [but not ‘prominent’] citizens”?


•  These “International Financial Institutions” (a/k/a “Bretton Woods Institutions”), “. . . were created in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire in 1944 during the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference. At the conference, member nations agreed to create a family of institutions to address critical issues in the international financial system.”

These institutions include:  the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank Group, the International Finance Corporation, Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, World Trade Organization, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the Inter-American Development Bank.  Their stated objectives are to “promote economic growth,” “alleviate poverty,” and “improve global financial stability”.

That’s quite an impressive lineup of “international financial institutions”—all under the influence of The Bretton Woods Committee.

On reflection, The Bretton Woods Committee and its “family” of International Financial Institutions are at least close to, and almost certainly the foundation for, global governance and a New World Order.

If so, that’s more support for the “conspiracy theories” that the New World Order is primarily a coalition of banks and global bankers.   However, there’s also a faint suggestion that the backbone of the New World Order isn’t necessarily the world’s Central Banks so much as the “International  Financial Institutions” operating under, or in association with, The Bretton Woods Committee.



•  On March 12th, A.D. 2014, The Bretton Woods  Committee sent a letter to Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. The letter’s purpose was to ask Congress to enact a new law to allow the US government to guarantee a total of $2.6 billion in loans to Ukraine.  A pristine copy of that letter can be downloaded from:

Perhaps this letter’s most impressive characteristic is the list of names associated with The Bretton Woods Committee and/or this particular letter:

2 Honory Co-Chairmen:  Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter

6 Former Committee Leaders:  Gerald R. Ford, Henry H. Fowler, Paul A. Volker, and others.

32 Signatories to this letter, including: Madeleine Albright, James Baker, Sandy Berger, Zbigniew Brezezinski, Frank C. Carlucci, Timothy Geithner, Alan Greenspan,  Henry Kissinger, Leon Panetta,  Henry Paulson, Condoleeza Rice, Robert Rubin, Brent Scowcraft, Lawrence H. Summers, three retired Generals,  and one retired Admiral.

That’s quite a crew of heavy hitters.

The letter reads as follows:

“Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell and Minority Leader Pelosi:

“We write to urge Congress to maintain strong U.S. leadership in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by enacting IMF quota reform legislation. For over 60 years, the IMF has been a principal tool for advancing U.S. national security and economic interests globally.”

The second sentence fascinates in that the Committee admits that a principal duty of The International Monetary Fund is to advance US national security and economic interests globally.  They’re admitting that the IMF is little more than a puppet for the US government.


“The immediate importance of a strong IMF role for countries in crisis is apparent now in Ukraine, which seeks help from the U.S. and IMF to maintain its independence and economic health, and to reduce its energy dependence on Russia.  Implementation of IMF quota reform would mean Ukraine would be able to borrow 60% more in rapid IMF financing (from $1B to $1.6B) than is possible today. Coupled with the U.S. $1 billion in new loan guarantees for Ukraine currently being considered by the Congress, Ukraine would have a total of $2.6 billion in emergency resources to draw upon to stabilize its economy. This enhances the geopolitical position of Ukraine’s government in the current crisis with Russia.”

The proposed “IMF quota reform” would allow Ukraine to borrow another $600 million (total $1.6 billion) from the IMF, based the US guarantee to make good on the loan, if Ukraine defaults.  These loans from the IMF would be in addition to the $1 billion in loan guarantees already contemplated by Congress.

The Committee isn’t asking the US gov-co to actually lend more currency to Ukraine.  Instead, the objective seems only to be to persuade the US government (which wields ultimate control over IMF activities) to guarantee and act as surety for whatever currency is lent by the IMF to Ukraine.   The Committee doesn’t trust Ukraine to repay its loans, so the Committee is trying to protect IMF assets by getting the US to “co-sign” for those loans.  Thus, the Committee is not representing US interests, but is instead representing IMF interests.


•  The previous paragraph from the Committee’s letter includes the word “stabilize”.  In subsequent paragraphs you’ll see six more variations on that word, including “stabilize,” “destabilize,” “instability,” “stability”.  I conclude that a principal goal of The Bretton Woods Committee (and perhaps the US and IMF) is to maintain stability and the status quo for the world’s nations and economies.

If so, that’s a very defensive and ultimately untenable position.  Whether the Committee and/or our government like it or not, the world is overrun by growing forces for change.  The Committee and/or our government may be trying to prevent that change by maintaining the status quo.    That defensive posture implies that the elite want global stability in order to hold onto whatever power they have, in part because they can’t acquire any more, and in part, because they fear loss of whatever power they’ve got.  They’re trying to maintain an “orderly” financial system and suppress all evidence of instability.

I expect that most people in Europe and America would support maintaining stability.  But I’d bet that most people in Asia and the emerging markets would support destabilizing the current “global system” so as to grab a bigger slice of the global economic “pie”.


•  In the final analysis, is political or economic instability really a bad thing?  Or, is it a natural part of life that’s needed flush institutionalized corruption and imbalance out the system every so often?

Good or bad, instability (like the poor) will always be with us.  But whenever any government or special interest fears instability, that’s evidence that that government or special interest is losing power and fears losing even more.  “Law and Order” is not the mantra of the powerful.  It’s the mantra of the weak who fear being overwhelmed by the forces of change.  If you’re going to fight instability rather than take advantage of it as “opportunity,” odds are you’re going to lose and be left behind.


•  The object behind the new “IMF quota reform” is to increase the amount of currency Ukraine is able to borrow by increasing US guarantees that Ukraine loans will be repaid.

Given that the US government recently defaulted on its treaty obligation to defend Ukraine against Russia, the value of a US guarantee of loans made to Ukraine wouldn’t seem to be particularly valuable.  In fact, there’s a good chance that lenders might laugh at the idea of lending money to Ukraine based on US guarantees.

More, what part of the U.S. Constitution instructs or empowers the U.S. gov-co to guarantee loans made to foreign countries in order to preserve that country’s “geopolitical position”?  I know that the US gov-co has loaned currency to, and/or guaranteed loans on behalf of, foreign countries in the past.  But given America’s current economic condition and our government’s insolvency, wouldn’t it be imprudent take on further debt obligations that might ultimately be imposed on the American people?

Wise or not, is it constitutional for our government to guarantee loans made by a third party to another nation’s government?


“The IMF doesn’t always get it right but it has been doing important work in countries for decades to stabilize their financial situation and put them on a path toward economic growth for decades.  This clearly serves our interests.”


Whose “interests” are being served?  Those of the American people?  Or those of the globalists represented by the “prominent, global citizens” of The Bretton Woods Committee?

“Advancing National Security Interests:  The IMF is often the first responder of choice for the United States and our allies, to help countries prevent or manage financial crises before they destabilize an economy and give rise to conditions of economic stagnation, poverty, and political instability, which can embolden terrorism.  When Russia went to war with Georgia in 2008, the U.S-backed IMF $750 million emergency loan to Georgia countered the early financial fallout and kept our friend on a path of market-friendly economic policies. It was the IMF that stepped in to provide financial assistance to the former Eastern European countries after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  U.S -supported IMF loans helped stabilize Pakistan after 9/11, and have reinforced fragile economies such as Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco to help ensure our partners can focus on counter-terrorism cooperation and combating radical extremism.”

The phrase “National Security Interests” is a euphemism for “Government Security Interests”.  Our government’s “national security interests” have little to do with protecting the nation or its people, but are primarily intended to protect the government.

Did the IMF loans help “stabilize Pakistan after 9/11”?  Or were those IMF loans used to bribe Pakistani officers and officials to maintain “market-friendly economic policies”?

Are “market-friendly economic policies” conducive to supporting or diminishing each man’s “unalienable Rights” as declared in our “Declaration of Independence”?  Or do such policies only increase the wealth and power of the globalists?

It’s interesting that the Bretton Woods Committee seems to view “terrorism” and “radical extremism” as threats to “market friend economic policies” and “economic stability” rather than threats to people’s lives or political systems.  Apparently, for that Committee, it’s all about the money.  On the other hand, “terrorists” and “radical extremists” may be defined by the globalists as anyone who fights for national identity and against the idea of world governance and the New World Order.


“Promoting U.S. Economic Interests:  In its role to promote the stability of the international monetary and financial system, the IMF consistently promotes a growth-oriented agenda based on open markets and strong macroeconomic and structural policies.

“IMF support to the Euro Area during the recent financial crisis lessened the global fallout and financial instability of highly interconnected economies, and forced long-needed structural reforms to begin to take place. The IMF was first responder to the Asian crisis in the late 1990s, and helped restore growth to Asian economies and create robust export markets for U.S. businesses, which supports American jobs.”

That’s a bunch of crap.  Did the IMF’s lending to Asia during the 1990s develop “robust export markets” for the USA?   If so, why are we still running substantial trade deficits with the world?

How were “American jobs” “supported” by the IMF’s lending to Asia over the past 20 years?   Isn’t it true that many American jobs have fled this country to take residence in China?

By lending money to foreign counties, did the IMF primarily create markets for American products?  Or did the IMF create foreign industries able to effectively compete against American industries and thereby cause the loss of American profits, jobs, high wages, and standard of living?

The proof is in the pudding.  Are Americans blessed with lower unemployment rates today than we had in the 1990s?  Are American wages rising or falling? Is the American standard of living rising or falling?

Has the IMF really worked in the best interests of the people of the United States?  Or has it worked against those interests?   The answer’s obvious.  The Bretton Woods Committee’s claims that the IMF works for the best interests of the people of the United States are lies.

If it’s true that the IMF has worked against the best interests of the American people, and it’s known that the IMF is dominated, some say, controlled, by the US government, then it follows that our government has been working against the best interests of the American people for at least a generation.


“Implementing the IMF quota reforms negotiated by the United States in 2010 bolsters our leadership in the Fund without increasing the overall U.S. financial commitment.  It requires other countries to make additional financial commitments, effectively providing a larger and more stable source of financing that the U.S.—as the largest shareholder and only country with veto power over major IMF decisions—can leverage to continue to preserve our national security and economic interests abroad. A stronger IMF keeps emerging economies secured in the system we designed without sacrificing any of our influence.

We would therefore urge the Congress to continue its longstanding, bipartisan support of the International Monetary Fund for our national self-interest and for the good of the global system.”

When the Bretton Woods Committee refers to bolstering “our leadership” and “our national self-interest” does the word “our” refer to the government of the United State, the people of the United States, or the “prominent global citizens” who comprise The Bretton Woods Committee?

Similarly, who are the “we” in the phrase “the system we designed”—the US government, American people or the Committee’s “prominent global citizens”?

Whoever those authors may be, it’s apparent that “the system we designed” is the current “global [fiat monetary] system”.

Knowing the identity of the “we” who designed that “global system” is important since that “we” will undoubtedly be the primary beneficiaries of that “global system”.

Does this “we” include the American people?  Or is that “we” only the “prominent global citizens” composed of super-rich and/or high former government officials who are closely associated with The Bretton Woods Committee and/or similar organizations?

Where does the U.S. Constitution grant powers to government, Congress or even “prominent global citizens” to “design” a “global system” and a New World Order that’s paid for, in part or in whole, by the wealth or guaranteed loans of the People of The United States of America?

If the American people aren’t part of the “we” behind this global system, they probably won’t benefit from that system—but will they even be impoverished, oppressed and even enslaved by that “global system”?

The letter concludes with “Respectfully yours,” followed by the signatures of 32 “prominent global citizens”1 who include:

7 Secretaries of the Treasury:  Nicholas Brady, Timothy Geithner, Paul H. O’Neill, Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin, John Snow, Lawrence H. Summers,

6 National Security Advisors: Sandy Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski , Stephen J. Hadley, Henry Kissinger, Robert McFarlane, Brent Scowcroft

4 Congressmen and/or Senators:  William Cohen, Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge, Vin Weber

4 Generals and/or Admirals:  Michael W. Hagee (USMC; Ret.),  Brent Scowcroft (USAF; Ret.), Charles F. Wald (USAF; Ret.), James M. Loy (USCG; Ret.)

3 Secretaries of State:  Madeleine Albright, Henry Kissinger, Condoleeza Rice

3 Secretaries of Defense:  Harold Brown, Frank Carlucci, Leon Panetta

2 U.S. Trade Representatives:  Charlene Barshefsky, Carla Hills,

2 Directors and/ or Deputy Directors of the CIA:  Frank Carlucci, Leon Panetta

2 Private Bankers:  Timothy Geithner, Robert Rubin

2 Homeland Security advisors:  Lee Hamilton, Tom Ridge

2 Governors:  Bill Richardson (NM), Tom Ridge (PA)

1 White House Chief of Staff:  James Baker

1 Chairman of the Federal Reserve:  Alan Greenspan

1 Secretary of Agriculture:  Clayton Yeutter

1 Secretary of Health and Urban Development:  Carla Hills

1 President of the World Bank:  Robert Zoellick

I have little doubt that this list of names is a “Who’s Who?” of the America’s “prominent global citizens” and proponents of globalism and the New World Order.

I have much doubt that any of these “prominent global citizens” are working for the best interests of the American people.

So long as Americans remain indifferent to the forces of globalism, The United States of America will continue to decline and  possible national destruction.



1There are more than 32 offices included in this list because some of these “prominent global citizens” held more than one significant office and are therefore listed more than once.



Tags: , , , , ,

9 responses to “The Bretton Woods Committee


    April 7, 2014 at 1:10 PM


    EDOM has gained control of the Western Nations Foreign and Domestic Policies and have turned the world against us. EDOM has infected many Nations with COMMUNISM, and robbed many others of their Natural Resource’s, and installed “Leaders” that will do the bidding of the EDOMITE Rothschild!

    EDOM In A Nutshell!

    “One World SPIRITED” Empires going back to Nineveh, were controlled and manipulated into existence by the same Demon SEED that is of CAIN! China is based on the Leninist ‘model’ if you will, and is the vision for the N.W.O. that is about to be implemented today! (SEE AGENDA 21) That is why Hillary Clinton and her ILK love MAO Tse Tung policies! The N.W.O. will be every bit as ruthless and VIOLENT as it was in peace time China when the C.I.A. installed MAO!

    IT is those REV. 3:9 SYNAGOGUE Of Satan JEWS™ (aka EDOM) that seek to destroy TRUE Israel and JUDAH, in their futile attempt to regain the ‘birthright’. EDOM still hates all of the Seed of Abraham (ISHMAEL/ARABS too). The following is the only thing that makes sense of it ALL!

    The SPIRIT of the N.W.O. goes back to NIMROD and those of his father CAIN/CANAAN! EDOM killed Nimrod and usurped Nimrods One World Rule, And Edom married into the seed of Cain/CANAAN, and are the creators of the Babylonian Talmud, the VATICAN, ISLAM, the ILLUMINATI, COMMUNISM, The PROTOCOLS of the Learned ELDERS of ZION (EDOM) and Zionism! MY research and Observations are FLAWLESS!

    In addition to that, we have these “SYNAGOGUES”.

    The Counsel On Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Federal Reserve, The Builderberg Group and many others.
    We also find they created many Subversive Organization with the help of the Anti Defamation League. The National Organization Of Women, The N.A.A.C.P., Planned Parenthood etc. With the T.S.A. and D.H.S. and Gun Control being more of their subversion

    The END of this “AGE” is what?? The New World Order! It is those EDOMITE JEWS that are bring the N.W.O. about!
    THE N.W.O.? >> Esdras 6:9 …”For Esau(EDOM) is the end of this age, and Jacob is the beginning of the age that follows”…
    EDOM = N.W.O. and JACOB = Messiah’s SOON coming KINGDOM.

    The SYNAGOGUE Of SATAN: EDOMS Playground

    • hogorina1

      December 22, 2014 at 10:30 AM

      In retrospect, there is no such thing as an ethnic Jewish bloodline nor nation. The fallacy of such assertion is that Christ was a Jew. This is absolutely ridiculous and is an affront to all sustained truth. At the base of the cross a sign was posted, ” king of the Jews “. This is incorrect for the word Jew did not show up in world literature until after 1776 AD. Actually, it was posted ” king of the Judeans.
      In physical composure the word Jew has no physical coronations and is of abstract
      value. Here, is no flesh and blood personality. In this view the Jew does not exist and is a complete fabrication. When God appointed David over Israel David was warned as to how the Jebusites controlled Palestine. When Christ walked the pathways through the inner city about eighty percent of the people were of various nations. Only a hand-full were Israelites. Now, this is where the term Jew is hung on Christ. By law, if one was born in Jerusalem then this name of birth was given. By birth only was Christ a citizen, but by race He retained a bloodline back through to the house of David. Our Lord was born into the house of Judah and not in the tribe of Judah. Judah was of no
      racial pollution. In essence, from Mary back to Abraham and Noah our Lord’s lineage was pure.
      Down through times biblical translators came up with the Jew for a translation of Judah. Satan and his gang coined the word Jew after the civil way in 1776. Now Christ is called a Jew.

      Historicity reflects as to the natural enemies of God, Christ, in numerous ways. The most simple investigation is to reflect upon the original house of Israel. Jacob had twelve sons. God named Jacob as Israel. Jacob had four wives that actually peopled the then known world.
      No where within this tribe will we discover any sort of so-calculated Jewish blood lineage. This is God’s holy and chosen people, the house of Israel.

      Little doubt about it on many occasions individuals within the house of Israel went a whoring after strange gods. The most seemingly outrageous act was when Esau, brother of Jacob violated God’s law in guarding against intermarriage with foreign flesh. Isaac and Rebecca warned
      Esau, but Esau married into the Canaanite race of which had escaped the Great Deluge, Flood, in Noah’a day, when sexual perversion was rampart. The bottom line is this;
      We have a race of devils here on earth. Mental and physical infidelity couples our Satanically devised two-party system. Within this misled gang of roving scoundrels is a playground
      for a nest of international financial political bootlegging working hand-in-glove with Beelzebub and his family queers and personality ingrates. The vast majority carry the ancient blood line of Esau.
      God hates Esau and his contemporary pundits of whom call Christ a Jew as a contemporaneous
      slang word as pushed off on them through all the fraudulent man-made religious empires that come and go on the American political industry.

  2. Christian Gains

    April 7, 2014 at 7:03 PM

    Thanks Al for a WELL developed analysis of the significance of BRETTON WOODS Committee, and those “Prominent global citizens”…VERY WELL detailed and logically following the dots.

    E.T., (I’ve spent the last 45 yrs. studying the Scriptures, and I DO sense that “EDOM” is a good label for the “synagogue of Satan”, but I need to study & prayer over your material…which will take me awhile…will be in touch tho.


      April 8, 2014 at 11:14 AM

      Christian Gains I thank you. Those articles are the result of 43 years of research and observations

      We are told to prove all things and I have set my mind to doing that. I saw some things were being said a taught that just did not line up with the word of God. WE ALL should determine the truth and STAND therein. The idea or thought, that some are comfortable with believing lies, when they have been shown things contrary to what they believe is appalling.

      II Cor. 10:12 “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.”
      In other words think for yourself!

      II TIMOTHY 2:15 “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.
      SC GREEK 3718 “orthotomeo” to make straight, cut, to DISSECT!

      AND when people ridicule what they do not understand, and can not prove an error, That is to their shame.

      Proverbs 18:13 “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him”.

      Proverbs 1:20-22 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets: She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying, How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?”

  3. cynthia

    April 8, 2014 at 9:40 AM

    It seems that VERY few have comprehension that in regards to “UNITED STATES INC” the ‘people’ and ‘People’ are NOT the ‘common man’ but rather ‘bankers’ and “Investors” typically ‘foreign’ investors ‘in’ or ‘with’ said “stock” or “agreements” as such typically the aristocrats and “shakers”. For example, if you have a “loan” of any type, standard practice is to not only “securitize” on said “loan” by the signer’s signature, but also ‘bundle’ that “note” with others as “securities” and sell the bundled ‘notes’ on the “stock market” for which the “Investors” are in the fact the “beneficiaries”. So when you say you are receiving “benefits” you are receiving a ‘pay out’ from said “stock market” off the backs\labor of other living men falsly told that they have to ‘repay’ with ‘debt notes’ which technically are NOT ‘pay’ but rather ‘pay-ment’ i.e. “mind pay” or “all in your mind” – an illusion – by fact because the “investors” have ALSO ‘paid into’ the same company in a fashion with “Wall Street” a ‘front’ or ‘pass through’ to the SAME COMPANY that you are now ignorantly consenting to ‘repay’ on a ‘loan’. Its not that difficult, only the ‘money lenders’ try to MAKE it difficult to comprehend so they don’t get “caught with their hands in the cookie jar” in a fashion. All while at the same time all ‘making payments’ are also assumed and presumbed to be “running up the national debt” by ‘using’ said technically in fact debt based “Federal Reserve Note” ‘legal’ ‘currency’ – No Wonder “UNITED STATES INC” is not only perpetually ‘in debt’ to PRIVATE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK but also “raising the debt ceiling” perpetually – separate from “commodity prices increasing” ‘on WallStreet’ due to being “for profit” which is a hypocritical ‘paradox’ because technically “profit” IS ‘debt’ per USD\FRN… the less “profit” the less the ‘debt’ …

    • moon

      April 8, 2014 at 8:20 PM

      cynthia, got silver?

  4. #AceNewsGroup

    April 10, 2014 at 3:51 PM

    Reblogged this on Ace News Services 2014 and commented:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s