Irvin Baxter interviewed by Craig Treadwell


Q: What took place at the recent G20 meeting in London?


A: The G20 meeting was critical. Some people billed it as the most important meeting on international finance in the last sixty years. The plan was to put together a structure for a new world economic order—producing a solution for the world economic crisis of 2008-2009.


Q: The meeting has been compared to the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. What’s the correlation?


A: Some people actually called this meeting Bretton Woods II. The International Monetary Fund (the IMF) was established at the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944. The IMF is actually the federal reserve bank of the world. The World Bank was also established at Bretton Woods. World leaders were setting up the financial structures in 1944 so they could launch the political structures of the United Nations the next year in 1945.


It has always been believed that economic union has to come first, and then political union will follow. The world leaders attended the London G20 Summit on April 2-3, 2009, to set up a new global economic structure. At this Summit, they referred continually to the New World Order. When they say New World Order, they are referring to the system of global government that they hope to establish, with the UN finally becoming a bona fide one-world government.


Q: They talked about launching a new global currency at the G20. Did this actually happen and what are these Special Drawing Rights?


A: Before the G20 Summit, there were several powers that proposed launching a world currency. For example: In March 2009, Russia suggested that the G20 Summit should start by establishing a global currency system. A week later, China suggested the establishment of a global currency. Also in March, a United Nations panel of economists proposed a new global currency reserve that would take over the US dollar-based system used for decades by international banks. Then on March 25th, Timothy Geithner, the U.S. treasury secretary and former president of the New York Federal Reserve, said he had no problem with the establishment of the IMF Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) as a global currency. So this was coming from China, Russia, the UN, and even with a nod from Geithner.


A day later Wall Street said, “Wait a minute! Are you telling me that the dollar is no longer going to be the reserve currency of the world and that we’re switching to something else?” They knew what that meant because there are dollars out there by the dump truck loads. The world is awash in dollars! Wall Street foresaw that there would be a steep drop in the value of the dollar if it were no longer the world’s reserve currency. When Wall Street raised its voice in protest, Geithner immediately started backpedaling and saying, “That’s what I said, but that’s not what I meant.”


As far as the SDRs go, the announcement was made at the end of the G20 Summit: “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation, which will inject $250 billion into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” The G20 also agreed to put another $500 billion into the IMF’s war chest to enable them to fight against this global economic crisis.


Altogether, they put $750 billion dollars at the IMF’s disposal for the SDR to actually become a global currency. The way I understand it—and I’m not an expert in global finance—eventually international transactions could very well start being done in SDRs.


Q: So these SDR’s are global currency?


A: It certainly appears that way. That’s what was said as far as the communiqué that was issued at the end of the G20 Summit. The commentators that I read were saying: “We have now seen the birth of a global currency.” This new global currency is in the infancy stage. You don’t make a switch overnight with something this massive. They’re sort of sliding this in, easing the dollar out and creating an international currency. They are actually projecting that the value of that currency will be determined by averaging out several different currencies. They may include the Japanese currency, the dollar, the Euro, and one or two others. This is how they would determine what the value of an SDR is at a given time.


Q: I heard Alan Greenspan talking about how the Federal Reserve didn’t need the approval of Congress or the White House to make major decisions. he explained how they do this electronically by simply increasing the accounts of the banks. What is your take on this?


A: The U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, which has become America’s central bank, has created money this way for a long time. That’s exactly what Alan Greenspan was addressing. How do you create money? It used to be that you would print the money, and you had to have enough gold at Fort Knox to back it up. It said right on the money that it was redeemable in gold. However, President Nixon cut us loose from the gold standard. That was really the beginning of this horrible crisis that we are in right now. There’s nothing whatsoever backing the dollar at this point except faith in the American people.


We’ve now reached the point where we don’t even have to print money anymore. If the federal government goes to the Federal Reserve Bank and says, “We’re going to need to borrow 50 billion dollars for the next 30 days,” the clerk at the Federal Reserve just types in 50 billion and electronically puts that in the government account.


So the G20 has empowered the International Monetary Fund to do the same thing on a global level that the Federal Reserve does on the United States level. Therefore, they can actually create money and lend it.


Q: So they’re taking the International Monetary Fund and turning it into an International Federal Reserve?


A: Yes. It is actually becoming a world central bank just like the Federal Reserve is the US central bank. Germany also has a central bank, and so does Great Britain.


Our forefathers didn’t want us to have a central bank because they understood it would be as Mr. Rothschild said many years ago, “Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes her laws.” That’s what is occurring here. They now have control of the nation’s money, but they’re not content with just that. They are moving now to control the money of the entire world. They are getting ready for the New World Order.


Q: What is the New World Order and where did the term come from?


A: It’s not a new term. Believe it or not, Adolf Hitler used the term while he was rallying the German people back in the 1930s. Then Franklin D. Roosevelt bought into it, placing the term on the back of our dollar bill. It’s still there right now—on the ribbon under the pyramid. It’s written in Latin, “Novus ordo seclorum.” Novus means new, ordo means order and seclorum means secular or world.


As time has gone along people have resurrected the term. Mikhail Gorbachev used it. George H. W. Bush picked up on it. More recently, Henry Kissinger talked about Barack Obama having the chance to usher in a New World Order. All of them simply refer to the dream of a world without borders—a one-world government.


Q: What is the International Criminal Court, and how far advanced is it right now?


A: In 1997, President Clinton was scheduled to speak at the United Nations to welcome the delegates from around the world. In his speech, he said that the time had come for the establishment of a world criminal court. That became the hot topic of discussion for the rest of the 1997 General Assembly. Having the green light from the US President, they immediately convened a preparatory conference. When they had drawn up the general structure for the new world court, they convened a global conference in Rome. From June 15 to July 17, 1998, they pounded out the details of the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court Statute of Rome. When it was all said and done, 120 nations voted for the ICC while 7 voted against it. Even though President Clinton had initiated the launching of the international court, the U.S. was one of the 7 nations that refused to sign it.


President Clinton had intended for the ICC to only try cases that were recommended to it by the United Nations Security Council, knowing that the US had veto power there. The international court conference took the bit between its teeth and created an independent prosecutor who could try whoever he wanted, anywhere in the world.


This permanent international court is designed to try individuals. Americans tried there will have no Bill of Rights and no US Constitution to protect them. The World Court is above the law of the United States of America. At least that’s what they claim, and that’s the way they are set up and structured.


Sixty nations had to ratify ICC statute before the new court could come into force. World planners thought the ratification would be a ten-year process. However, ratification was completed just four years later in 2002. President Clinton, on the last possible day, signed for the U.S. to become a member of the International Criminal Court. People understood that, in so doing, he was signing away the sovereignty of the United States of America. Consequently, President Clinton had quite a bit of opposition. His rationale was: I would rather sign on and be able to influence the direction of the court from within, than to boycott it and then have nothing to say about its future direction.


When President Bush came to power, one of the first things he did was to officially rescind our signature from the ICC. He also demanded that the United Nations grant immunity from the ICC for Americans. The United Nations didn’t want to do this, but President Bush said, “You either do it or else we will not renew any of the peacekeeping mandates around the world.” The United Nations understood that, if America pulled its troops and money out, the whole UN system would collapse. So they caved in to the U.S. demands. However, it was stipulated that the immunity was only for one year, after which it would have to be renewed.


When the next year rolled around, President Bush again demanded immunity. The UN granted the immunity again because they really had no choice. However they said, “Don’t keep expecting this.”


Then the tide turned. When things started going badly after the invasion of Iraq, President Bush began to solicit the United Nations for its support. The UN said, “You haven’t been willing to respect our International Criminal Court. Why should we help you?”


Soon after, a little article in the paper: “The United States decides not to demand renewal of immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.” That’s when President George W. Bush sold out the sovereignty of the United States, submitting all the citizens of America to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, even though he still didn’t officially sign the treaty. Two or three months later, the UN began to send in UN soldiers to help in Iraq.


That brings us to our present situation. Will the United States now, with the change of presidents, fully buy into the International Criminal Court? The answer is yes. President Obama was asked that question while on the campaign trail. “If you become president, will you sign the ICC Treaty?” He said, “Yes. I think the United States should be there.”


I’ve read every word of the International Criminal Court Statue. I know exactly what they are planning on doing, and I believe that the ICC is the judicial arm that will be used by the Antichrist to persecute Christians during the Great Tribulation.

1 reply

Comments are closed.