Catherine Austin Fitts on Tucker Carlson
April 29th, 2025Sir James Goldsmith predicting the decline of the west due to the flight of capital in search of slave labor with Charlie Rose in 1994.
The battle between capital and labor. Very prophetic interview. And here we are 31 years later. pic.twitter.com/qTiaMab540
— Edward Dowd (@DowdEdward) April 29, 2025
—
Former Bush administration official Catherine Austin Fitts on how America’s leaders gave up on the country in the 1990s, began stealing trillions and built a digital prison to control the population.
(0:00) Introduction
(1:11) The Attempts to Control the World’s Currency
(12:09)… pic.twitter.com/hreoSfTRcc— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 28, 2025
Goldsmith would know–10 years before he was one of the biggest corporate raiders of the 80’s, strip mining and destroying manufacturing companies world-wide. People can change though, who knows.
Q for Grok:
Sir James Goldsmith has been being highlighted a bit for a 1990’s interview he did with Charley Rose, where he seemed to support policies that favored the average person, and railed against “globalization” policies–is he the same person as the corporate raider who in the 90’s, did hostile takeovers of corporations like Crown Zellerbach, chopping them up and selling pieces, regardless of how many middleclass jobs were destroyed and shipped over to developing countries?
Grok
“Yes, Sir James Goldsmith, the Anglo-French financier, is indeed the same person known for both his 1990s interview with Charlie Rose and his earlier career as a corporate raider. The seeming contradiction between his corporate actions and his later warnings about globalization reflects the complexity of his views and career trajectory.
In the 1980s, Goldsmith was a prominent corporate raider, known for high-profile hostile takeovers, including the 1985 takeover of Crown Zellerbach, a major U.S. forestry and paper company. He acquired a controlling stake, outmaneuvering the company’s “poison pill” defense, and split the company into two: Cavenham Forest Industries (focused on timberland) and James River (paper and pulp). This restructuring resulted in significant profits for Goldsmith—estimated at $330–440 million—by leveraging undervalued timber assets. However, such takeovers often led to job losses, as restructuring prioritized shareholder value over employment stability. For example, his attempted takeover of Goodyear Tire in 1986, though unsuccessful, sparked fears of job cuts and asset stripping, galvanizing community resistance in Akron, Ohio. Critics labeled him an asset stripper, though Goldsmith argued his reorganizations streamlined inefficient management and enhanced shareholder value, denying he was purely destructive.
By the 1990s, Goldsmith’s focus shifted. In his November 15, 1994, Charlie Rose interview, he critiqued globalization, particularly the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), warning that unchecked global free trade would harm the middle class in developed nations. He argued that corporations chasing cheap labor in developing countries would lead to job losses, wage stagnation, and social instability in places like the U.S. and Europe. He stated, “As jobs migrate to where labor is cheapest, wage levels in the developed world will inevitably fall,” and predicted that globalization would benefit a small elite while destabilizing societies. His book The Trap (1994) elaborated on these views, emphasizing the risks of economic policies prioritizing corporate profits over societal stability. He saw the middle class as the “canary in the coal mine,” signaling broader economic and social decline.
This shift might
15 web pages”
Me:
Seems like you got cut off–you ended with “This shift might”
Grok:
“Apologies for the cutoff. Yes, Sir James Goldsmith is the same person known for both his corporate raids in the 1980s, like the Crown Zellerbach takeover, and his 1994 Charlie Rose interview critiquing globalization.
The shift in his public stance might seem contradictory, but it reflects his evolving perspective. In the 1980s, as a financier, he capitalized on market inefficiencies, acquiring undervalued companies like Crown Zellerbach and restructuring them for profit, often at the cost of middle-class jobs. His 1985 takeover of Crown Zellerbach, for instance, netted hundreds of millions by splitting the company, with critics noting layoffs and mill closures as a result. Yet, by the 1990s, Goldsmith began warning against the broader consequences of globalization, including job losses and wage suppression in developed nations due to corporations chasing cheap labor abroad. In his Charlie Rose interview and book The Trap, he argued that globalization enriched a corporate elite while eroding the middle class, predicting social instability.
This evolution could stem from his firsthand experience in global markets, seeing the long-term societal costs of the same profit-driven strategies he once employed. Some view this as hypocrisy—a raider lamenting the system he profited from—while others see it as a genuine reckoning with globalization’s downsides. His actions as a financier and his later warnings both highlight his focus on economic structures, whether exploiting them or critiquing their broader impact.”
Q for Grok:
Fair enough, people do have the ability to change their perspective which can lead to a marked change in behavior. Corporatism, and the laws formulated by special interests in order to turbocharge windfall financialized corporate profits is more what I’m getting at. When you said “netted” hundreds of millions”–how much ownership stake in Cavenham Forest Industries did Goldsmith end up with? The forestlands that were integral to the pulp and paper business as a buffer for the ups and downs of commodities, when removed, clearly weakened the viability of that pulp and paper enterprise.
Grok:
“Sir James Goldsmith’s takeover of Crown Zellerbach in 1985 and the subsequent restructuring are a key example of the kind of corporatism you’re pointing to, where financial engineering often prioritized short-term profits over long-term enterprise stability or middle-class jobs. Let’s address your specific questions about his ownership stake in Cavenham Forest Industries and the impact of separating the forestlands.
Goldsmith’s Ownership Stake in Cavenham Forest Industries
After acquiring Crown Zellerbach for approximately $570 million in 1985, Goldsmith restructured the company into two entities: James River (focused on paper and pulp) and Cavenham Forest Industries (focused on timberland). The exact percentage of Goldsmith’s ownership stake in Cavenham Forest Industries isn’t explicitly detailed in available records, but we can piece together a clear picture. Goldsmith, through his investment vehicle General Oriental Securities, initially acquired about 20% of Crown Zellerbach’s stock by May 1985, which he increased to a controlling stake (likely over 50%) by July 1985, overcoming the company’s defensive measures. After the takeover, he spun off Cavenham Forest Industries as a separate entity to manage the company’s valuable timberland assets, estimated at 1.6 million acres across states like Oregon, Washington, and Louisiana.
Goldsmith retained significant control over Cavenham Forest Industries through his holding company, though exact share percentages vary in reports. A 1986 New York Times article notes that Goldsmith’s entities held a majority interest in Cavenham, with estimates suggesting he controlled at least 51% of the new entity to maintain decision-making power. The restructuring allowed him to sell portions of Cavenham’s timberlands to institutional investors like pension funds, reportedly generating $500 million in sales by 1986. This suggests that while Goldsmith maintained a controlling stake, he likely diluted his ownership in Cavenham over time through these sales, though precise figures on his final equity stake are not publicly specified. His profit from the deal—estimated at $330–440 million—came largely from leveraging the undervalued timber assets, not necessarily from retaining full ownership of Cavenham.
Impact of Separating Forestlands on Crown Zellerbach’s Viability
You’re absolutely right that removing the forestlands, which served as a buffer for the cyclical nature of the pulp and paper industry, weakened the remaining James River Corporation. The forestlands provided a stable supply of raw materials (timber) and acted as a hedge against commodity price fluctuations, which are critical for the pulp and paper business. By spinning off Cavenham Forest Industries, Goldsmith stripped James River of this integrated asset base, leaving it more vulnerable to market volatility and supply chain disruptions.
Economic Impact: James River, post-restructuring, focused on paper and pulp production but lacked the vertical integration that ownership of timberlands provided. This made it more dependent on external timber suppliers, increasing costs and exposure to price swings. Industry analysts at the time noted that such separations often prioritized short-term financial gains over long-term operational stability. A 1986 Wall Street Journal report highlighted that James River’s profitability was initially boosted by the restructuring but faced challenges in maintaining margins without direct control over timber resources.
Job and Community Impact: The separation also contributed to mill closures and layoffs. For example, Crown Zellerbach’s facilities in places like Port Angeles, Washington, saw reduced operations or closures as the company streamlined to focus on profitability. This aligns with your point about corporatism—special interests (in this case, financiers like Goldsmith) influenced corporate structures to maximize shareholder value, often at the expense of middle-class jobs. Estimates suggest thousands of jobs were affected across Crown Zellerbach’s operations, though exact numbers are hard to pin down due to varying reports.
Broader Context of Corporatism: Goldsmith’s actions exemplify the 1980s trend of leveraged buyouts and asset stripping, facilitated by financial deregulation and tax policies that incentivized debt-financed takeovers. The legal and financial frameworks of the time allowed raiders to exploit undervalued assets, often with little regard for the social costs. By the 1990s, Goldsmith’s critique of globalization in The Trap and his Charlie Rose interview acknowledged some of these downsides, particularly how globalized corporate strategies (like outsourcing production) further eroded domestic industries and jobs. His earlier role in weakening companies like Crown Zellerbach through financial engineering arguably contributed to the very trends he later decried.
In summary, Goldsmith likely held a controlling stake (at least 51%) in Cavenham Forest Industries initially, though he sold significant portions for profit. The separation of forestlands from James River undermined the pulp and paper business’s long-term viability by removing a key stabilizing asset, reflecting the corporatist prioritization of financial windfalls over enterprise sustainability and middle-class jobs. If you want, I can dig deeper into specific financial filings or X posts for more granular details on his stake or the aftermath—let me know!”