Toward World Currency Control

 By Steve Elwert

“… so that no one may buy or sell unless he has the mark, which is the beast’s name or the number of its name.”

— Revelation 13:17, (ISV)

The Bible does not use the phrase “one-world government” or “one-world currency” in referring to the end times. It does, however, provide ample evidence to enable us to draw the conclusion that both will exist under the rule of the Antichrist in the last days.

In his vision in the Book of Revelation, the Apostle John sees the “beast,” also called the Antichrist, rising out of the sea having seven heads and ten horns (Revelation 13:1). Combining this vision with Daniel’s similar one (Daniel 7:16–24), we can conclude that some sort of world system will be inaugurated by the beast, the most powerful “horn,” who will defeat the other nine and will begin to wage war against Christians.

John goes on to describe the ruler of this vast empire as having power and great authority, given to him by Satan himself (Revelation 13:2), being followed by and receiving worship from “all the world” (13:3–4), and having authority over “every tribe, people, language and nation” (13:7). From this description, it is logical to assume that this person is the leader of a one-world government which is recognized as sovereign over all other governments. Twentieth Century history and current events doesn’t make it hard to imagine how such diverse systems of government as are in power today would willingly subjugate themselves to a single ruler.

The disasters and plagues described in Revelation as the seal and trumpet judgments (chapters 6–11) will be so devastating and create such a monumental global crisis that people will embrace anything and anyone who promises to give them relief.

Once entrenched in power, the beast (Antichrist) and the power behind him (Satan) will move to establish absolute control over all peoples of the earth to accomplish their true end, the worship Satan has been seeking ever since being thrown out of heaven (Isaiah 14:12–14). One way they will accomplish this is by controlling all commerce, and this is where the idea of a one-world currency comes in.

Revelation 13:16–17 describes some sort of satanic mark which will be required in order to buy and sell. This means anyone who refuses the mark will be unable to buy food, clothing or other necessities of life. No doubt the vast majority of people in the world will succumb to the mark simply to survive. Again, verse 16 makes it clear that this will be a universal system of control where everyone, rich and poor, great and small, will bear the mark on their hand or forehead. There is a great deal of speculation as to how exactly this mark will be affixed, but the technologies that are available right now could accomplish it very easily.

There also seems to have been moves afoot recently to implement a one-world currency.

In April of 2010 a paper was released by the Strategy, Policy and Review Department of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) titled “Reserve Accumulation and International Monetary Stability”. In the introduction of the document, the task force advocated the establishment of the Bancor as a one world currency, a sui generis, that the entire world would use. It also recommended the establishment of a single global central bank to administer the currency.

The paper states that the current system of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) between countries currently in use is an inadequate method of commerce between countries in today’s global economy:

A limitation of the SDR as discussed previously is that it is not a currency. Both the SDR and SDR-denominated instruments need to be converted eventually to a national currency for most payments or interventions in foreign exchange markets, which adds to cumbersome use in transactions. And though an SDR-based system would move away from a dominant national currency, the SDR’s value remains heavily linked to the conditions and performance of the major component countries.

The IMF suggests that the world’s nations “develop, over time, a global currency. Called, for example, Bancor in honor of Keynes, such a currency could be used as a medium of exchange—an “outside money” (outside the world monetary system) in contrast to the SDR which remains an “inside money”.

As the report implies, the idea of a Bancor as a world currency is not a new idea.

In August 1942, in his work, “Proposals for an International Clearing Union”, Lord John Maynard Keynes outlined a plan where the countries of the world would convert their gold reserves to Bancors as a modicum of trade. In an interesting section of the paper, countries could convert gold into Bancors, but could not convert Bancors back to gold. In the Keynes paper, countries could leave the consortium of countries using the Bancor, but they leave their gold behind. It is a one-way ticket.

As like most governmental proposals, they never die, they just come back again under a different form (Common Core is a recent example).

The Keynes plan also .includes an interesting reason for using Bancors:

There is no country which can, in future, safely allow the flight of funds for political reasons or to evade domestic taxation or in anticipation of the owner turning refugee.

That is the endgame — capital controls.

With a one world currency, people would no longer be able to leave countries for other places that had lower taxes, as has recently happened with France. While France had to rescind its 75% wealth tax after wealthy individuals left for greener pastures, such as England and Belgium, if there was a one world currency, travel restrictions .could be placed on these individuals to keep them where they are. Actually, it is not the people these countries would be interested in, it would be their money.

While a global currency may not be in the offing, there may be a more immediate way to control currency flight and speculation, do away with currency altogether.

Willem Buiter, an economist for Citigroup, a global bank, suggests the reason for the world’s economic troubles is the existence of cash. Banks now are paying negative interest rates (meaning you pay the bank to keep your money and its value is also reduced through inflation). A saver is better off keeping their money stuffed in a mattress than keeping it in a bank. Cash, therefore, is an effective way of avoiding this negative savings rate. To Buiter, this is a bad thing. Keeping cash instead of putting it in the banking system deprives the banks (and the government) the use of this money.

In the Keynesian monetary theory, less money in the system would raise interest rates and thus reduce the demand for the money in way of loans. This is anathema to Keynesian economists. The thing to do is to abolish cash. Abolishing cash would end the last remnants of financial privacy. It would also increase a government’s ability to manipulate the economy with negative interest rates.

Buiter proposes three ways to separate the people from their cash:

1. Abolish currency.
2. Tax currency.
3. Remove the fixed exchange rate between currency and central bank reserves/deposits.

Buiter correctly assumes that there would be resistance to this proposal, but he believes that “the arguments against abolishing currency seem rather weak.” As stated before, these ideas may not take root immediately, but they will come back in another form.

Events in geopolitics and financial markets are making things clear that we are living in a time that is spoken of in the Bible more than any other time, including the time that Jesus walked the shores of Galilee or climbed the mountains of Judea.

The question is, are you ready?