RHODA WILSON
“It is our intention to prove, out of their own mouths, that there is a conspiracy to build a new social, political and economic world order, and that the purpose of that conspiracy is to concentrate the wealth, the natural resources, the production, distribution, and sale of the world’s goods, in the hands of a favored oligarchy of international financiers and industrialists.
“We further intend to prove that there is an overall plan for the accomplishment of this purpose, a plan which is already being carried out, and a plan which calls for the building of a new social order on a global scale.”—Don Bell Reports, 8 September 1972
This document is absolutely chock full of the meticulous input-output analysis I’ve been documenting as of late.
It began within the DoD (McNamara in 1961), but was begun under LBJ in August, 1965 – and soon began to comprise ALL types of traceable data under OECD. pic.twitter.com/qmtsfQhyT6
— _Esc (@_Escapekey_) April 26, 2025
Don Bell Reports was a weekly commentary published by Time for Truth Press in Palm Beach, Florida, starting in 1954. It’s not clear when Don Bell stopped publishing his weekly reports, but a now non-existent website called ‘The King’s Bench’, which is archived HERE, had a section in its ‘Library’ for the ‘Don Bell Reports (1972-1993)’.
On 8 September 1972, Don Bell Reports published the first part of a report titled ‘Proofs of a Conspiracy to Build a Total, Managed Global Society’. The report was published in 17 parts, comprising a total of 68 pages; the final part was published on 29 December 1972.
The report stated that there is a long-term conspiracy financed by the Rockefeller family and programmed through the Council on Foreign Relations, with the goal of imposing a one-world Socialist government.
To support his claims that a conspiracy existed among influential figures and organisations to establish a totalitarian global society, Bell drew on historical precedents. He referenced various events and movements that he argued illustrated a gradual shift towards global governance. This includes the rise of international organisations and treaties that, according to Bell, serve as stepping stones towards a more centralised authority.
The report also suggested that certain self-appointed leaders are working to control the future evolution of mankind through sophisticated governance methods like the Planning-Programming-Budgeting System (“PPBS”). According to Bell’s report, these planners have been working on a PPBS operational model for public schools to produce the “new man” trained to fit into the total, managed, global society.
The PPBS is a resource allocation system designed to support decision-making in government and military organisations. PPBS was introduced into the US Department of Defence (“DoD”) in the 1960s by Robert McNamara during his tenure as Secretary of Defence. In the DoD, PPBS evolved into the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution (“PPBE”) process, which is an annual cyclical process to determine funding requirements and allocate resources to satisfy those requirements.
Bell also discussed the potential political and economic ramifications of a managed global society. He raised concerns about the erosion of national identities and the implications for democratic governance. Bell said that a global authority would prioritise efficiency and control over individual rights and freedoms.
The following is the first part in the Don Bell Reports’ ‘Proofs of a Conspiracy to Build a Total, Managed Global Society’ series.
Proofs of a Conspiracy to Build a Total, Managed Global Society Part 1: Introduction
By Don Bell Reports, 8 September 1972
There appeared in the Wall Street Journal of September 1, 1972, a leading editorial which labeled as fantasy, hallucination and big lie, the charge that there is “a long-time conspiracy financed by the Rockefeller family and programmed through the Council on Foreign Relations, aimed at imposing a one-world Socialist government.”
The spokesman for the Dow Jones interests also derided the idea of any conspiracy in such controversies as fluoridation, progressive education, mental health programs, sex education in the schools etc. These were all ridiculed as “rightist” fantasies. But also scorned as untrue were such “leftist” charges of conspiracies in connection with the assassination of JFK, that “the military industrial complex sent Johnny marching off to war in Vietnam in pursuit of corporate profits,” and that “the U.S. intervened in Vietnam in order to lay claim to that nation’s off-shore oil reserves,” etc.
Then, in closing his editorial, the writer perhaps unintentionally delineates the most:-
“What is notable about these descents into surrealism is that radical rightist theorists are generally without political, economic or social influence. As a rule, they preach their gospel mainly to their own kind through fringe journals and vanity printing presses. But radical leftists are given nationwide TV forums from which to propound their theories, respected publishers vie to print their most fantastic charges, even the most wild of them remain respected members-in-good-standing in the academic community, and the national media, which properly execrate the rightists, generally treat them with respect and from time to time with deference. “
If what the editor says is true – and it is – then is this not proof in itself that there is a conspiracy to silence the rightists and to publicize every word uttered by the leftists?
We cannot deny that what we write in this series of letters will be preached mainly to “our own kind” and we realize that few will be converted because of what we write. In far graver situations – because souls were involved in their cases – Noah faced the same handicap, as did Isaiah, and all the other prophets from Jeremiah to John the Baptist. Still, what they said had to be said, because it was their privilege and duty to bear witness to the truth, that succeeding generations might read what their own generations refused to hear. It is with this same regard for obligation that we write of a conspiracy which is denied and called fantasy by those who would conceal facts from the people.
DEFINITION:-
Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Second Edition, records the following meanings for the word “conspiracy”: 1) a “combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime in concert, as treason, a plot. ” 2) “Combination of men for a single end; a concurrence, or general tendency, as of circumstances, to one event; harmonious action; 3) “Law. An agreement, manifesting itself in words or deeds, by which two or more persons confederate to do an unlawful act, or to use unlawful means to do an act which is lawful; confederacy.“
Using any one, or all three of the above definitions, it becomes immediately apparent that to deny that conspiracy exists is to, in the words of the editor of Wall Street Journal, engage in “fantasy, hallucination, myth and big lie.”
The Council on Foreign Relations is, of course, a “combination of men for a single end,” which makes of it a conspiracy. The real argument, then, has to do with the answer to the question: For what end are the members of the CFR conspiring?
It is our intention to prove, out of their own mouths, that there is a conspiracy to build a new social, political and economic world order, and that the purpose of that conspiracy is to concentrate the wealth, the natural resources, the production, distribution, and sale of the world’s goods, in the hands of a favored oligarchy of international financiers and industrialists.
We further intend to prove that there is an overall plan for the accomplishment of this purpose, a plan which is already being carried out, and a plan which calls for the building of a new social order on a global scale.
First, let us ask, Why? And a person well qualified to answer is Roy Ash, president of Litton Industries and chairman of the President’s Advisory Council on Executive Organization.
On February 7, 1972, there was held a White House Conference on the Industrial World Ahead, which was called: “A Look at Business in 1990.”
As one of the participants in that conference, Roy Ash later appeared before the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce to tell West Coast businessmen what was decided at the White House Conference. The billing for this latter event is impressive, reading:
“The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Commerce and the White House Staff, is presenting The White House Conference, The world Ahead, A Look at Business in 1990. Thursday, May 18, 1972. Los Angeles Hilton. 3:00—6:30 p.m. “
Following is a part of what Roy Ash told his Los Angeles audience.
It’s a privilege to be with you this afternoon and, together, to peer into the future toward 1990. Some of you may have wondered why the White House conferees were advised to direct their prognostications to the year 1990, rather than to some other specific date in the decades ahead. Unfortunately, there is little I can provide in the way of edification; I rather wondered about it myself. Alright, I reasoned, George Orwell long ago appropriated 1984. Herman Kahn more recently laid claim to 2000. So there were not many good numbers left. Possibly 1990 was selected for the benefit of the panelists. They will all be retired and safe from harm if their predictions are wrong.
At the White House conference held earlier this year my fellow panelists and I discussed the subject of world business and the economy of 1990. Our particular panel, I should add, was comprised of Jean Frere, Managing Partner of Banque Lambert, Brussels, Belgium; Robert V. Roosa, partner of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., United States; Roberto Campos, president of the International Bank, Sao Paulo, Brazil; and Peter G. Peterson, then Assistant to President Nixon for International Economic Affairs and Executive Director of the Council on International Economic Policy, and now the Secretary of Commerce.
While we did not always achieve unanimity, our conclusions on the general subject of the future of world business tended, for the most part, to be strikingly similar. In the time alloted me today, I will attempt to summarize those conclusions. However, in all fairness to Messrs. Frere, Roosa, Campos and Peterson – none of whom are here to cry foul if their panel chairman goes astray – I will hedge by saying that what follows represents essentially my own views, reinforced where appropriate with their comments.
The threshhold question is, why is world business so important to us anyway? Why don’t we just concentrate on improving the U.S. business and economy? Isn’t that enough challenge?
The answer is that increasing economic and business interdependence among nations is the keynote of the next two decades of world business – decades that will see major steps toward a single world economy evolve out of today’s increasingly interacting, but still separate, national economies. As city, state and regional economies in this country have become melded into a single and highly interacting national economy, so individual national economies will meld into a single world economic system. And as the economic development of the United States made obsolete self-contained U.S. state, or even regional, economies, so the natural development of the world between now and 1990 will make obsolete a free standing French economy, a Japanese one, and even a U.S. economy in isolation from others.
Such an evolution is natural and inexorable – and beneficial. For an intelligent civilization always has and always will seek more and more efficient, and thus productive, means of converting its limited resources, energy and manpower into useful products and services. More highly integrated economic structures – based on specialization of its many elements and on interdependency among the specialized parts – is the inevitable answer. A single world economy is that higher order integration for the decades ahead.
The obstacles and hazards in the way of realizing a beneficially functioning single world economy are many. More effective multilateral governmental institutions must be developed and brought into operation. Some aspects of individual sovereignty will be given over to supranational authority. Even as critical, the relative roles of the world’s governments, on the one hand, and of globe circling business enterprises on the other, need to be worked out. Some have likened the upcoming issues between sovereign nations and multinational business to the test of earlier times between church and state.
We need only look at the long road the European Common Market countries have taken, and are still on, as they step by step reconcile national interests with the mutual advantages of a more broadly based economy, and as they embrace the activities of multinational business, to visualize the even more complex issues as we move toward a single world economy. But the Common Market countries are all industrialized and all operate under the private enterprise system. In embracing all the countries of the world, special attention needs to be given to the less industrialized countries and how they relate to the already industrialized ones, and to the place of the socialist countries in a developing world economy.
Roberto Campos, of the panel, maintains that great strains will arise in embracing within a single world economy countries of widely disparate development levels. He sees a strong bipolarity of interests and objectives. One of the bilateral poles of the future, as he sees it, will be comprised of emerging post-industrial, mass consumption societies – the largely developed societies – by 1990 perhaps 30 per cent of the world’s population when taken together. The industrial-transitional end pre-industrial societies, representing over 70 per cent of the world’s population, would constitute the other pole. And, as he notes, these two groups will greatly differ in the nature of their priorities and in the range of options available, thus a continuing source of international tension. Campos foresees, in the post-industrial societies, a humanistic revolt against technology and the surfeit of materialism it has produced; and in the developing nations, a technological revolt against hedonistic humanism – because for them the most urgent concern is the eradication of poverty – through stepped up “materialism.”
As importantly, international agreements between the socialist and the private property economies add a different dimension to the problems for which solutions need be found over the years ahead. But as Jean Frere forecasts, the socialist countries will take major steps toward joining the world economy by 1990. He goes so far as to see them becoming members of the International Monetary Fund, the sine qua non for effective participation in multilateral commerce. Then also, by 1990 an imaginative variety of contractual arrangements will have been devised and put into operation by which the socialist countries and the capital countries will be doing considerable business together, neither being required to abandon its base ideology. (The economic theories of Adam Smith and Karl Marx are not without their common points.)
These special dimensions of the next economy – the economy of the world, as it first permeates the industrial countries and then reaches out to embrace both the pre-industrial and socialistic ones-present challenging tasks for the next two or more decades . . . .
The industrial world ahead … will turn increasingly on the use of massive amounts of capital, the development and application of a cascading flow of new technologies, and highly professionalized management. Yet these relatively scarce resources are not equally available to all the world’s countries. Thus the role for the multinational company.
For, the fundamental reasons the multinational corporations are here to stay and will conduct much of the world’s business of the future. are simple ones. These powerful factors of production – that is, capital, technology and management – will be fully mobile, neither contained nor containable within national borders. They can be employed wherever in the world they will be most productive. World-wide transportation systems – extensive, economic and rapid – will make the world smaller in 1990 than California was in 1920. New management techniques, aided by computer processed data and instant communications, will allow as effective direction and control of world-around business activities in 1990 as a fifty man factory was controlled by the on-the-floor visual supervision of 1920.
The multinational corporation will be the natural outgrowth of the driving force of industrial enterprise that continually seeks out ways of producing and distributing more goods at lower cost to the consumer. Having a world perspective and operating in conducive national environments, it will combine labor, materials, capital, technology and management in the most productive combinations and distribute the fruits of this combination to world markets.
Such maximum efficiency in the use of all the world’s productive resources is essential for the demanding period ahead. The multinational corporation – domestic in all countries, foreign in none – will become the mechanism to realize the potentials of world business for all the world’s citizens.
Yet the very scale and dimension of the multinational corporation will require new forms of relationships between business and national governments. To reflect this need for reconciling the roles of nations and multinational corporations, Robert is convinced we are going to have to develop and apply clear “rules of the road.” It cannot now be predicted whether they will come about from case by case development in the courts of international law or by treaty among major nations. In any event, effective international rules of the road are as essential for the world economy ahead as they are for Los Angeles traffic.
As a framework for their development and application will be the establishment of more effective supranational institutions to deal with intergovernmental matters, and matters between governments and world industry. A key intergovernmental institution that needs to work well in a world economy is the International Monetary Fund. Roosa predicts that the IMF will reach new capabilities and dimensions. It will become, in Bob’s words, the most advanced embodiment of the aspirations that so many have for a world society, a world economy. The IMF, he forecasts for 1990, is going to be the source of all of the primary reserves of all the banking systems of the world.
Jean Frere observes that monetary stability is going to be as critical for the 1990 world economy as the finer standards for distance, weight and time that are now required by modern technology. To bring this about is no small task; inflation must be licked and gold restored its rule; he concludes.
It would be my own forecast that within two decades the institutional framework for a World Economic Community will be in place and operating just as today’s European Economic Community structure provides the strong supranational framework for the European economy.
So, as we look ahead to the world economy of 1990 we already see some parts falling into their places. World business already is rapidly increasing. Multinational corporations are increasingly a fact of world business. Governments are beginning to perceive the meaning, problems and opportunities of a world economy. High on official agendas, world-around between now and then, will be programs to reconcile national interests, the forces of world business, and international objectives.
For, in the final analysis, we are commanded by the fact that the economies of the major countries of the world will be interlocked. And since major economic matters in all countries are also important political matters in and between countries, the inevitable consequence of these propositions in that the broader and total destinies – economic, political and social – of all the world’s nations are closely interlocked. We are clearly at that point where economic issues and their related effects can be considered only in terms of a total world destiny, not just separate national destinies, and certainly not just a separate go-it-done destiny for the United States.
In the preceding, Roy Ash and his fellow White House panelists – multinational industrialists, international bankers, government appointees – tell American businessmen that a World Economic Community will be in operation by 1990, that “some aspects of national sovereignty will be given over to supranational authority,” that the IMF will be “the source of all of the primary reserves of all of the banking systems of the world,” and that the Socialist countries of the world will join in the creation of this New World Society, and finally, that this is “natural, inexorable, and beneficial. “
In simpler words: We shall have World Government whether we like it or not. And the oligarchists who say this know whereof they speak; because they have their plan, it has been put into operation, and it is now working and being worked at every level of society: international, national, regional and at State, County, City and Community levels.
This revolutionary plan for the reshaping of the world is complex, difficult to understand because of its semantics. Even the name of the plan is disarming, seemingly innocent and innocuous. The plan is called the “Planning-Programming-Budgeting System” and few people other than its operators even know of the plan’s existence.
We intend to do our utmost to relieve this dearth of knowledge in this series of letters.
(To Be Continued)
DON BELL REPORTS and CLOSER-UP are privately circulated newsletters which accent the Christian American point of view. Complete service: $24 per year. 3 months trial: $6. Extra copies: each. Please address orders and make checks payable to: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. Box 2223, Palm Beach. Florida 33480
This article (Don Bell Reports: Proofs of a Conspiracy to Build a Total, Managed Global Society (1972)) was created and published by The Expose and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Don Bell and Rhoda Wilson
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply