Category Archives: Globalism
The 2015 UN Summit will be held in September 2015 in New York. Like any UN summit, it will be full of UN buzzwords such as consensus, empowerment, rule of law and sustainability, all of which are fake and have a sinister double meaning. The United Nations, founded by the Rockefellers and the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations), has always been, right from its inception, about creating a One World Government. It has achieved this by appearing to be “of the people” when “of the globalists” would be a more apt description. Later this year, it will attempting to adopt the “post-2015 development agenda” which will be a furthering of its Agenda 21 aims, such as grabbing national land under the guise of saving the environment, forcing people off their land into tiny apartments in Smart Cities, global gun control and global internet control (the latest of its power grabbing schemes).
The Post-2015 Development Agenda
Here are some of the items on the agenda at the 2015 UN Summit:
– Protecting our planet and combatting climate change
– Building effective, accountable and inclusive institutions to achieve sustainable development
– Delivering on a revitalised Global Partnership (which includes “meeting all commitments on the means of implementation”)
Sounds great and seems so noble if you don’t know the background to all this. However, when you pass the above points through the Orwellian translation unit, it means centralizing vast amounts of power into a body destined to become the World Government, under the pretext of fighting an imaginary manmade global warming or climate change. It also means extending the reach of the UN so that local bodies (local councils and municipalities that belong to ICLEI, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) can implement its global directives and make it look grassroots or like it was locally decided.
United Nations “Consensus” = Bought-and-Paid-For Opinion
The UN loves to boast about how it operates by consensus. However, it’s fake consensus, much like the nations of the West have fake democracy. There is no real democracy when all of the political candidates have the same view on key issues, and answer to the same force. Likewise, there is no real consensus when the direction and agenda have been decided in advance. It’s just a playing out of a discussion, cleverly guided by key agents to ensure the outcome is what the elite have secretly dictated beforehand. One way this happens at the UN is through the World Bank (a branch for the UN) which pays for people (from all corners of the globe) to come to events to give appearance of a global consensus of all the citizens of the world. However, a condition of them being funded is that they say what they are told to say. Rose Koire and others have also exposed the Delphi Technique, which is a way that meetings are cleverly manipulated by facilitators to guide the group towards an end goal, view or consensus, while making it appear the group arrived there organically.
United Nations “Empowerment” = One World Military
When the UN talks about empowerment, it is not really talking about individual empowerment for you or I. That is just a pretext. The UN is seeking global power. It was set up to become higher and more powerful than national Governments. It is seeking the empowerment of itself. It wants an army or police force with which it can start to impose all its rules over every nation and person on Earth. There is already a UN “Peacekeeping” force – another Orwellian name for military soldiers. War is Peace. In a similar vein, the UN “Humanitarian Missions” are not called wars but are wars. They involve the attacking and bombing of innocent countries (including many civilians, women and children, such as happened in Libya) because UN leaders and “the international community” (i.e. the elite-controlled global consensus) has decided that they want more control over a particular area. The more that the UN empowers itself, the closer we step to a One World Military force.
United Nations “Rule of Law” = Subversion of National Sovereignty
The UN keeps invoking the “Rule of Law” mantra to convince people it has authority over them when it doesn’t. Interestingly, this is exactly the phrase used by George Bush Sr. on September 11th, 1991, when he publicly pushed for a New World Order. The UN keeps arrogantly proceeding with its “Rule of Law” idea, however the basic rule of treaty law is that a treaty is only binding on the signatories, and the UN is still trying to impose the ICC (International Criminal Court) upon all countries, even those who have not signed on to it. This is based upon the arbitrary number of “60” countries that ratified it. It all stems from the false belief that UN Charter trumps the US Constitution.
United Nations “Sustainability” = Centralization of Control
The 2015 UN Summit agenda includes “effective, accountable and inclusive institutions to achieve sustainable development”. Sustainability and sustainable development are clever pretexts for centralization of power. This stems from the decision made decades ago by the elite to use the threat of pollution and environmental catastrophe, or the threat of humanity itself, as the cover for a worldwide power grab. Consider the excerpt below from the Report from the Iron Mountain:
“It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species. Poisoning of the air, and of the principal sources of food and water supply, is already well advanced, and at first glance would seem promising in this respect; it constitutes a threat that can be dealt with only through social organization and political power.”
Consider also this excerpt from the Club of Rome’s 1991 document entitled The First Global Revolution:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together … all these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
The Entire Foundation of the United Nations …
Underpinning all the marketing buzzwords of the United Nations, and underpinning the entire foundation of the United Nations itself, is the same insidious ideology behind many famous “isms”. It’s the same ideology behind fascism, socialism and communism. It’s called collectivism – and it doesn’t matter whether you’re left or right (a false dichotomy anyway since both sides are controlled by the same force), because collectivist thinking controls all parts of the current political spectrum across the world.
Collectivism is the idea that the group is more important than the individual, that the State is everything, that only the State grants human rights and that there should be no private property. Collectivism is total anathema to individual freedom and rights, and everything upon which the American Republic was founded. No one has exposed this better than G. Edward Griffin, whose speeches and books are worth close attention.
The elite controllers promoting collectivism are trying to achieve, though the UN, one of the finest pieces of brainwashing ever attempted: to convince you that all your rights are granted by Government – and therefore that Government (i.e. the elite at the top) may take them all away if it deems so. Such a balance of power is inherently tyrannical. To deny that humans are born with or come to Earth with intrinsic rights is to deny the basic worthiness of a person – and to set up a situation where they can become enslaved later on in life.
(As an aside, one of the 3 most notorious conspiracy documents ever written, in my opinion, was The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Towards the end of the document the writers admit that the World Government they are trying to install is collectivist.)
Below is a quote from the official UN Charter:
Chapter II, Article 5:
UN Security Council may suspend rights and privileges
“A Member of the United Nations against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The exercise of these rights and privileges may be restored by the Security Council.”
And which members comprise the UN Security Council? There are 5 permanent members (US, Britain, France, Russia and China), all of whom have historically had governments which have experimented upon, tortured, killed and committed genocide against their own citizens, and citizens from other countries.
As Edward Griffin write in his book The Fearful Master: A Second Look at the United Nations:
” … the UN assumes that the Charter is vague and broad enough so as to authorize it to do absolutely everything! This concept of unlimited power was made absolutely clear when the UN World Court declared: “Under international law, the organization [the UN] must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties.” “
The Collectivist 2015 UN Summit Draws Closer …
There you have it. The collectivist foundation of the UN has always been in diametric opposition to the individualistic foundation of the US. The UN was set up to be able to administer and oversee (i.e. control) everything from your state of health to your housing. The US Federal Government was set up with strict limits on how much it could do (especially in the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Bill of Rights).
As the 2015 UN Summit draw closer, it would be well worth revisiting what kind of world we want to live in, before it is overtaken by a collectivist New World Order.
Makia Freeman is the editor of The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of the global conspiracy, from vaccines to Zionism to false flag operations and more, and also including info on natural health, sovereignty and higher consciousness.
A major Tuesday consumer victory became defeat on Thursday in a stunning 48-hour turnaround by swing Democrats – at first against, now for fast track after being bribed and pressured to support it.
The Senate will debate the bill next week – a formality en route to granting Obama Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) fast track authority – secretive anti-consumer, anti-environmental trade bills no responsible society would tolerate.
They gut personal freedoms. They override national sovereignty. They grant corporate predators unrestricted supranational power to establish global trade rules serving investors exclusively – at the expense of popular needs and rights.
Defeating fast trade (trade promotion authority) depends on getting enough House members to block it.
Proportionately more members oppose it than in the Senate – at least before strong-arm pressure tactics try swaying enough lawmakers to support monied interests over popular ones.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi key, saying:
“(S)he needs to come out strong against the secrecy of trade negotiations and call on others in the House to follow her lead.”
She represents San Francisco. In April, its Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an anti-fast track resolution – urging the district’s congressional members to oppose it for TPP.
The city’s year 2000 Sunshine Ordinance protects government openness, saying:
“Public officials who attempt to conduct the public’s business in secret should be held accountable for the actions.”
The same applies to binding international deals – especially ones harming public interests.
Pelosi stops short of opposing fast track. At the same time, she said granting it gives Obama “carte blanche” authority to bypass Congress on trade deals.
Most House Democrats oppose fast track. Pelosi’s opposition is crucial in getting others to vote no.
Fundamental freedoms are on the line. Obama, his trade representative and other administration officials continue spreading Big Lies about TPP and TTIP.
Preventing their enactment requires defeating fast track. The next few weeks are crucial, EFF stresses.
Email, call or otherwise contact congressional members to vote no on fast track. At stake are fundamental freedoms and eco-sanity.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Score one for the good guys. A previous article explained so-called “trade promotion authority (TPA)” lets Obama and his trade representative, complicit with corporate predators, ram through Congress, with minimal debate, no amendments or public discussion outrageous legislation global justice advocates call NAFTA on steroids.
Proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are stealth corporate coup d’etat measures – freedom and ecosystem-destroying nightmares.
Corporate giants wrote both measures – to establish unrestricted supranational global trade rules overriding national sovereignty, domestic laws and personal freedoms, serving their interests at the expense of humanity.
They permit anything goes for profit. Investor rights alone matter. Public ones be damned.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) called fast track’s defeat “a significant (consumer) victory.”
Hundreds of independent organizations opposed it. EFF said its “members alone sent tens of thousands of emails, phone calls, and tweets to lawmakers to come out against this legislation.”
Fast track supporters needed 60 Senate votes to debate granting Obama what he sought. He fell eight short.
One Democrat alone backed him – Delaware’s Tom Carper. Party leadership opposed him. Fast track authority was defeated by a 52 – 45 majority.
In Tuesday Senate floor remarks, Carper willfully and outrageously lied claiming TPP is “fair to workers and middle class families.” If enacted, it’s a dagger in the heart of fairness, fundamental freedoms and eco-sanity.
“Today is not the end of the fast track fight,” said EFF. TPP and TTIP supporters won’t quit.
Obama continues going all-out to enact what belongs in the dustbin of hellish proposed congressional legislation.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest downplayed Tuesday’s defeat saying “(i)t is not unprecedented for the US Senate to encounter procedural snafus. We’re going to continue to work through these challenges.”
EFF was upbeat saying “we can come away from (Tuesday’s victory) empowered and energized because it’s a clear sign that we’re succeeding at convincing Congress to come out against these (hellish anti-consumer) international corporate deals.”
Let’s hope EFF is right. Consumer victories are hard to come by. Sustained momentum is vital to prevent triumphs later becoming tragedies.
Global Trade Watch’s Lori Wallach issued a statement saying in part:
“The Fast Track train went off the rails today. The US Senate vote was supposed to generate momentum for Fast Track in the US House of Representatives, where it’s in deep trouble, with almost every House Democrat and a significant bloc of GOP lawmakers opposing it.”
“The only reason to upend the required procedures for a ‘revenue bill’ and bring up Fast Track in the Senate first was to get a huge victory to build momentum in the House.”
“But that strategy backfired and Democrats in the House remain committed to standing up for their beliefs that the trade package would do a lot more harm than good.”
“Fast Track for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is an especially bad idea. After six years of negotiations, the text is almost complete.”
“Yet under the Hatch-Wyden-Ryan Fast Track bill, the pact would remain secret from the public until 30 days after its text is locked.”
“That the text would be made public 60 days before the formal signing ceremony is irrelevant, because it would be too late to fight for needed changes.”
“The rhetoric being used to sell the trade package is really far off from the reality of what is in it. It is like being in the twilight zone.”
TPP and TTIP are corporate predator wish lists at the expense of fundamental consumer rights and environmental sanity.
Not according to New York Times editors. They support fast track enabling enactment of outrageous trade bills demanding rejection.
In a Tuesday editorial, they lied claiming TPP “could help reduce environmental destruction and improve the lives of workers…”
In 1993, Times editors supported NAFTA saying:
“The laboriously constructed agreement to phase out trade barriers among the US, Mexico and Canada, which this page has strongly supported, is likely to have a positive, though small, impact on US living standards and provide a modest boost to the Mexican economy.”
“Some American jobs would be lost to cheaper Mexican labor, other jobs would be gained because American exports would increase as Mexico’s high tariffs gradually disappeared.”
“Economics aside, Nafta’s defeat would suggest that the US had abandoned its historical commitment to free trade and would thus discourage other Latin and South American countries that have moved toward more market-oriented economies in the expectation of freer world trade.”
Fact: America’s trade deficit with Mexico cost around 700,000 US jobs through 2010 alone.
Fact: Official government data show well over five million US manufacturing jobs lost – plus millions more offshored to cheap labor markets, many more at risk.
It bears repeating. US trade bills are one-way – everything for corporate predators at the expense of fundamental consumer rights and eco-sanity.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.
The UN plans to launch a brand new plan for managing the entire globe at the Sustainable Development Summit that it will be hosting from September 25th to September 27th. Some of the biggest names on the planet, including Pope Francis, will be speaking at this summit. This new sustainable agenda focuses on climate change of course, but it also specifically addresses topics such as economics, agriculture, education and gender equality. For those wishing to expand the scope of “global governance”, sustainable development is the perfect umbrella because just about all human activity affects the environment in some way. The phrase “for the good of the planet” can be used as an excuse to micromanage virtually every aspect of our lives. So for those who are concerned about the growing power of the United Nations, this summit in September is something to keep an eye on. Never before have I seen such an effort to promote a UN summit on the environment, and this new sustainable development agenda is literally a framework for managing the entire globe.
If you are not familiar with this new sustainable development agenda, the following is what the official United Nations website says about it…
The United Nations is now in the process of defining Sustainable Development Goals as part a new sustainable development agenda that must finish the job and leave no one behind. This agenda, to be launched at the Sustainable Development Summit in September 2015, is currently being discussed at the UN General Assembly, where Member States and civil society are making contributions to the agenda.
The process of arriving at the post 2015 development agenda is Member State-led with broad participation from Major Groups and other civil society stakeholders. There have been numerous inputs to the agenda, notably a set of Sustainable Development Goals proposed by an open working group of the General Assembly, the report of an intergovernmental committee of experts on sustainable development financing, General Assembly dialogues on technology facilitation and many others.
Posted below are the 17 sustainable development goals that are being proposed so far. Some of them seem quite reasonable. After all, who wouldn’t want to “end poverty”. But as you go down this list, you soon come to realize that just about everything is involved in some way. In other words, this truly is a template for radically expanded “global governance”. Once again, this was taken directly from the official UN website…
1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all
7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
8. Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all
9. Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialisation, and foster innovation
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (taking note of agreements made by the UNFCCC forum)
14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development
15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
17. Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development
As you can see, this list goes far beyond “saving the environment” or “fighting climate change”.
It truly covers just about every realm of human activity.
Another thing that makes this new sustainable development agenda different is the unprecedented support that it is getting from the Vatican and from Pope Francis himself.
In fact, Pope Francis is actually going to travel to the UN and give an address to kick off the Sustainable Development Summit on September 25th…
His Holiness Pope Francis will visit the UN on 25 September 2015, and give an address to the UN General Assembly immediately ahead of the official opening of the UN Summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda.
This Pope has been very open about his belief that climate change is one of the greatest dangers currently facing our world. Just a couple of weeks ago, he actually brought UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to the Vatican to speak about climate change and sustainable development. Here is a summary of what happened…
On 28 April, the Secretary-General met with His Holiness Pope Francis at the Vatican and later addressed senior religious leaders, along with the Presidents of Italy and Ecuador, Nobel laureates and leading scientists on climate change and sustainable development.
Amidst an unusually heavy rainstorm in Rome, participants at the historic meeting gathered within the ancient Vatican compound to discuss what the Secretary-General has called the “defining challenge of our time.”
The mere fact that a meeting took place between the religious and scientific communities on climate change was itself newsworthy. That it took place at the Vatican, was hosted by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and featured the Secretary-General as the keynote speaker was all the more striking.
In addition, Pope Francis is scheduled to release a major encyclical this summer which will be primarily focused on the environment and climate change. The following comes from the New York Times…
The much-anticipated environmental encyclical that Pope Francis plans to issue this summer is already being translated into the world’s major languages from the Latin final draft, so there’s no more tweaking to be done, several people close to the process have told me in recent weeks.
I think that we can get a good idea of the kind of language that we will see in this encyclical from another Vatican document which was recently released. It is entitled “Climate Change and The Common Good”, and it was produced by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. The following is a brief excerpt…
Unsustainable consumption coupled with a record human population and the uses of inappropriate technologies are causally linked with the destruction of the world’s sustainability and resilience. Widening inequalities of wealth and income, the world-wide disruption of the physical climate system and the loss of millions of species that sustain life are the grossest manifestations of unsustainability. The continued extraction of coal, oil and gas following the “business-as-usual mode” will soon create grave existential risks for the poorest three billion, and for generations yet unborn. Climate change resulting largely from unsustainable consumption by about 15% of the world’s population has become a dominant moral and ethical issue for society. There is still time to mitigate unmanageable climate changes and repair ecosystem damages, provided we reorient our attitude toward nature and, thereby, toward ourselves. Climate change is a global problem whose solution will depend on our stepping beyond national affiliations and coming together for the common good. Such transformational changes in attitudes would help foster the necessary institutional reforms and technological innovations for providing the energy sources that have negligible effects on global climate, atmospheric pollution and eco-systems, thus protecting generations yet to be born. Religious institutions can and should take the lead in bringing about that change in attitude towards Creation.
The Catholic Church, working with the leadership of other religions, can now take a decisive role by mobilizing public opinion and public funds to meet the energy needs of the poorest 3 billion people, thus allowing them to prepare for the challenges of unavoidable climate and eco-system changes. Such a bold and humanitarian action by the world’s religions acting in unison is certain to catalyze a public debate over how we can integrate societal choices, as prioritized under UN’s sustainable development goals, into sustainable economic development pathways for the 21st century, with projected population of 10 billion or more.
Under this Pope, the Vatican has become much more political than it was before, and sustainable development has become the Vatican’s number one political issue.
And did you notice the language about “the world’s religions acting in unison”? Clearly, the Vatican believes that it has the power to mobilize religious leaders all over the planet and have them work together to achieve the “UN’s sustainable development goals”.
I can never remember a time when the United Nations and the largest religious institution on the planet, the Catholic Church, have worked together so closely.
So what will the end result of all this be?
Should we be concerned about this new sustainable development agenda?
Please feel free to add to the discussion by posting a comment below…
Michael T. Snyder is a graduate of the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and has a law degree and an LLM from the University of Florida Law School. He is an attorney that has worked for some of the largest and most prominent law firms in Washington D.C. and who now spends his time researching and writing and trying to wake the American people up. You can follow his work on The Economic Collapse blog, End of the American Dream and The Truth Wins. His new novel entitled “The Beginning Of The End” is now available on Amazon.com.
By: N. Morgan | Right.is –
Over the last couple of years Vladimir Putin has gained recognition as being against the New World Order, an unexpected hero to many, but new information has come to light that may cause doubt and change that train of thought.
Putin’s new plan has come forth and it will leave you scratching your head in wonder and perhaps a bit of trepidation.
In this latest move for power, Putin has a major plan to build a super highway from Russia to America.
Why would enemies dare to get involved in such a venture?
If Putin is truly an enemy of the New World Order, why is he signing on with enemies?
The New World Order super highway will span the globe.
The Elites are planning a world without borders.
Imagine driving from London to New York City would be possible if Russia succeeds in building a superhighway spanning across the country with links to western Europe and Asia.
During a March meeting, head of the Russian Railways Vladimir Yakunin unveiled an ambitious plan called the Trans-Eurasian Belt Development, which entails constructing a superhighway and an accompanying high-speed railway.
If the plan is realized, motorists will be able to drive from London to New York. Russia hopes the development will spur the economies of remote cities and towns.
The Trans-Siberian Railway is about 9,000 kilometers long. According to CNN, a road trip from London to New York would cover about 20,777 kilometers.
Yakunin said other infrastructure such as oil pipelines, power plants and water supply facilities will be built alongside the highway and high-speed railway.
The mega highway system will face a multitude of difficulties, one of them being the connection to Alaska across the Bering Strait.
Either a long bridge or a undersea tunnel would be needed.
Money is likely to be another challenge. Russian Railways said the construction cost would amount to trillions of dollars.
This is proof that the so called enemy, is actually part of the New World Order.
All the wars and destabilization around the world is a smoke screen to cover up their real agenda.
Many are unaware there are 10 regions to the New World Order, all to be divided up among the Elites leaders.
Joint Statement on Cooperation in the Bering Strait Region
The Presidents announced their intention to cooperate broadly in the cross-boundary Bering Strait region.
This will include enhanced contact between the government agencies responsible for the specially protected natural territories of both countries in the State of Alaska and Chukotka.
They also expressed their intention to increase interaction and facilitate travel among the native peoples living in these two regions.
The text of the Joint Statement on Cooperation in the Bering Strait Region can be found at: www.state.gov/russiabpc
Joint Report by the Coordinators on Progress of the U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission
The Presidents hailed another productive year in the work of the Presidential Commission, as reflected in the latest Joint Report.
The Commission’s second year has been focused on expanding our common agenda across 18 working groups, as well as producing new joint projects and initiatives related to our shared innovation agenda as well as in other priority areas that serve the national interest of both countries.
The Commission’s agenda is also growing to strengthen collaboration in areas that are important to the promotion of our mutual economic prosperity.
The achievements of the U.S.-Russia Presidential Commission are outlined in the Commission’s annual report, which can be accessed at www.state.gov/russiabpc.
By: Tyler Durden | Zero Hedge –
Over the centuries there have been many stories, some based on loose facts, others based on hearsay, conjecture, speculation and outright lies, about groups of people who “control the world.” Some of these are partially accurate, others are wildly hyperbolic, but when it comes to the historic record, nothing comes closer to the stereotypical, secretive group determining the fate of over 7 billion people, than the Bank of International Settlements, which hides in such plain sight, that few have ever paid much attention.
This is their story.
First unofficial meeting of the BIS Board of Directors in Basel, April 1930
* * *
The following is an excerpt from TOWER OF BASEL: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World by Adam LeBor. Reprinted with permission from PublicAffairs.
The world’s most exclusive club has eighteen members. They gather every other month on a Sunday evening at 7 p.m. in conference room E in a circular tower block whose tinted windows overlook the central Basel railway station. Their discussion lasts for one hour, perhaps an hour and a half. Some of those present bring a colleague with them, but the aides rarely speak during this most confidential of conclaves. The meeting closes, the aides leave, and those remaining retire for dinner in the dining room on the eighteenth floor, rightly confident that the food and the wine will be superb. The meal, which continues until 11 p.m. or midnight, is where the real work is done. The protocol and hospitality, honed for more than eight decades, are faultless. Anything said at the dining table, it is understood, is not to be repeated elsewhere.
Few, if any, of those enjoying their haute cuisine and grand cru wines— some of the best Switzerland can offer—would be recognized by passers-by, but they include a good number of the most powerful people in the world. These men—they are almost all men—are central bankers. They have come to Basel to attend the Economic Consultative Committee (ECC) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is the bank for central banks. Its current members [ZH: as of 2013] include Ben Bernanke, the [former] chairman of the US Federal Reserve; Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England; Mario Draghi, of the European Central Bank; Zhou Xiaochuan of the Bank of China; and the central bank governors of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Canada, India, and Brazil. Jaime Caruana, a former governor of the Bank of Spain, the BIS’s general manager, joins them.
In early 2013, when this book went to press, King, who is due to step down as governor of the Bank of England in June 2013, chaired the ECC. The ECC, which used to be known as the G-10 governors’ meeting, is the most influential of the BIS’s numerous gatherings, open only to a small, select group of central bankers from advanced economies. The ECC makes recommendations on the membership and organization of the three BIS committees that deal with the global financial system, payments systems, and international markets. The committee also prepares proposals for the Global Economy Meeting and guides its agenda.
That meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, in room B and lasts for three hours. There King presides over the central bank governors of the thirty countries judged the most important to the global economy. In addition to those who were present at the Sunday evening dinner, Monday’s meeting will include representatives from, for example, Indonesia, Poland, South Africa, Spain, and Turkey. Governors from fifteen smaller countries, such as Hungary, Israel, and New Zealand are allowed to sit in as observers, but do not usually speak. Governors from the third tier of member banks, such as Macedonia and Slovakia, are not allowed to attend. Instead they must forage for scraps of information at coffee and meal breaks.
The governors of all sixty BIS member banks then enjoy a buffet lunch in the eighteenth-floor dining room. Designed by Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architectural firm which built the “Bird’s Nest” Stadium for the Beijing Olympics, the dining room has white walls, a black ceiling and spectacular views over three countries: Switzerland, France, and Germany. At 2 p.m. the central bankers and their aides return to room B for the governors’ meeting to discuss matters of interest, until the gathering ends at 5.
King takes a very different approach than his predecessor, Jean-Claude Trichet, the former president of the European Central Bank, in chairing the Global Economy Meeting. Trichet, according to one former central banker, was notably Gallic in his style: a stickler for protocol who called the central bankers to speak in order of importance, starting with the governors of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the Bundesbank, and then progressing down the hierarchy. King, in contrast, adopts a more thematic and egalitarian approach: throwing open the meetings for discussion and inviting contributions from all present.
The governors’ conclaves have played a crucial role in determining the world’s response to the global financial crisis. “The BIS has been a very important meeting point for central bankers during the crisis, and the rationale for its existence has expanded,” said King. “We have had to face challenges that we have never seen before. We had to work out what was going on, what instruments do we use when interest rates are close to zero, how do we communicate policy. We discuss this at home with our staff, but it is very valuable for the governors themselves to get together and talk among themselves.”
Those discussions, say central bankers, must be confidential. “When you are at the top in the number one post, it can be pretty lonely at times. It is helpful to be able to meet other number ones and say, ‘This is my problem, how do you deal with it?’” King continued. “Being able to talk informally and openly about our experiences has been immensely valuable. We are not speaking in a public forum. We can say what we really think and believe, and we can ask questions and benefit from others.”
The BIS management works hard to ensure that the atmosphere is friendly and clubbable throughout the weekend, and it seems they succeed. The bank arranges a fleet of limousines to pick up the governors at Zürich airport and bring them to Basel. Separate breakfasts, lunches, and dinners are organized for the governors of national banks who oversee different types and sizes of national economies, so no one feels excluded. “The central bankers were more at home and relaxed with their fellow central bankers than with their own governments,” recalled Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, who at- tended the Basel weekends. The superb quality of the food and wine made for an easy camaraderie, said Peter Akos Bod, a former governor of the National Bank of Hungary. “The main topics of discussion were the quality of the wine and the stupidity of finance ministers. If you had no knowledge of wine you could not join in the conversation.”
And the conversation is usually stimulating and enjoyable, say central bankers. The contrast between the Federal Open Markets Committee at the US Federal Reserve, and the Sunday evening G-10 governors’ dinners was notable, recalled Laurence Meyer, who served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 1996 until 2002. The chairman of the Federal Reserve did not always represent the bank at the Basel meetings, so Meyer occasionally attended. The BIS discussions were always lively, focused and thought provoking. “At FMOC meetings, while I was at the Fed, almost all the Committee members read statements which had been prepared in advance. They very rarely referred to statements by other Committee members and there was almost never an exchange between two members or an ongoing discussion about the outlook or policy options. At BIS dinners people actually talk to each other and the discussions are always stimulating and interactive focused on the serious issues facing the global economy.”
All the governors present at the two-day gathering are assured of total confidentiality, discretion, and the highest levels of security. The meetings take place on several floors that are usually used only when the governors are in attendance. The governors are provided with a dedicated office and the necessary support and secretarial staff. The Swiss authorities have no juridisdiction over the BIS premises. Founded by an international treaty, and further protected by the 1987 Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss government, the BIS enjoys similar protections to those granted to the headquarters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and diplomatic embassies. The Swiss authorities need the permission of the BIS management to enter the bank’s buildings, which are described as “inviolable.”
The BIS has the right to communicate in code and to send and receive correspondence in bags covered by the same protection as embassies, meaning they cannot be opened. The BIS is exempt from Swiss taxes. Its employees do not have to pay income tax on their salaries, which are usually generous, designed to compete with the private sector. The general manager’s salary in 2011 was 763,930 Swiss francs, while head of departments were paid 587,640 per annum, plus generous allowances. The bank’s extraordinary legal privileges also extend to its staff and directors. Senior managers enjoy a special status, similar to that of diplomats, while carrying out their duties in Switzerland, which means their bags cannot be searched (unless there is evidence of a blatant criminal act), and their papers are inviolable. The central bank governors traveling to Basel for the bimonthly meetings enjoy the same status while in Switzerland. All bank officials are immune under Swiss law, for life, for all the acts carried out during the discharge of their duties. The bank is a popular place to work and not just because of the salaries. Around six hundred staff come from over fifty countries. The atmosphere is multi-national and cosmopolitan, albeit very Swiss, emphasizing the bank’s hierarchy. Like many of those working for the UN or the IMF, some of the staff of the BIS, especially senior management, are driven by a sense of mission, that they are working for a higher, even celestial purpose and so are immune from normal considerations of accountability and transparency.
The bank’s management has tried to plan for every eventuality so that the Swiss police need never be called. The BIS headquarters has high-tech sprinkler systems with multiple back-ups, in-house medical facilities, and its own bomb shelter in the event of a terrorist attack or armed conflagration. The BIS’s assets are not subject to civil claims under Swiss law and can never be seized.
The BIS strictly guards the bankers’ secrecy. The minutes, agenda, and actual attendance list of the Global Economy Meeting or the ECC are not released in any form. This is because no official minutes are taken, although the bankers sometimes scribble their own notes. Sometimes there will be a brief press conference or bland statement afterwards but never anything detailed. This tradition of privileged confidentiality reaches back to the bank’s foundation.
“The quietness of Basel and its absolutely nonpolitical character provide a perfect setting for those equally quiet and nonpolitical gatherings,” wrote one American official in 1935. “The regularity of the meetings and their almost unbroken attendance by practically every member of the Board make them such they rarely attract any but the most meager notice in the press.”8 Forty years on, little had changed. Charles Coombs, a former foreign exchange chief of the New York Federal Reserve, attended governors’ meetings from 1960 to 1975. The bankers who were allowed inside the inner sanctum of the governors’ meetings trusted each other absolutely, he recalled in his memoirs. “However much money was involved, no agreements were ever signed nor memoranda of understanding ever initialized. The word of each official was sufficient, and there were never any disappointments.”
What, then, does this matter to the rest of us? Bankers have been gathering confidentially since money was first invented. Central bankers like to view themselves as the high priests of finance, as technocrats overseeing arcane monetary rituals and a financial liturgy understood only by a small, self-selecting elite.
But the governors who meet in Basel every other month are public servants. Their salaries, airplane tickets, hotel bills, and lucrative pensions when they retire are paid out of the public purse. The national reserves held by central banks are public money, the wealth of nations. The central bankers’ discussions at the BIS, the information that they share, the policies that are evaluated, the opinions that are exchanged, and the subsequent decisions that are taken, are profoundly political. Central bankers, whose independence is constitutionally protected, control monetary policy in the developed world. They manage the supply of money to national economies. They set interest rates, thus deciding the value of our savings and investments. They decide whether to focus on austerity or growth. Their decisions shape our lives.
The BIS’s tradition of secrecy reaches back through the decades. During the 1960s, for example, the bank hosted the London Gold Pool. Eight countries pledged to manipulate the gold market to keep the price at around thirty-five dollars per ounce, in line with the provisions of the Bretton Woods Accord that governed the post–World War II international financial system. Although the London Gold Pool no longer exists, its successor is the BIS Markets Committee, which meets every other month on the occasion of the governors’ meetings to discuss trends in the financial markets. Officials from twenty-one central banks attend. The committee releases occasional papers, but its agenda and discussions remain secret.
Nowadays the countries represented at the Global Economy Meetings together account for around four-fifths of global gross domestic product (GDP)— most of the produced wealth of the world—according to the BIS’s own statistics. Central bankers now “seem more powerful than politicians,” wrote The Economist newspaper, “holding the destiny of the global economy in their hands.” How did this happen? The BIS, the world’s most secretive global financial institution, can claim much of the credit. From its first day of existence, the BIS has dedicated itself to furthering the interests of central banks and building the new architecture of transnational finance. In doing so, it has spawned a new class of close-knit global technocrats whose members glide between highly-paid positions at the BIS, the IMF, and central and commercial banks.
The founder of the technocrats’ cabal was Per Jacobssen, the Swedish economist who served as the BIS’s economic adviser from 1931 to 1956. The bland title belied his power and reach. Enormously influential, well connected, and highly regarded by his peers, Jacobssen wrote the first BIS annual reports, which were—and remain—essential reading throughout the world’s treasuries. Jacobssen was an early supporter of European federalism. He argued relentlessly against inflation, excessive government spending, and state intervention in the economy. Jacobssen left the BIS in 1956 to take over the IMF. His legacy still shapes our world. The consequences of his mix of economic liberalism, price obsession, and dismantling of national sovereignty play out nightly in the European news bulletins on our television screens.
The BIS’s defenders deny that the organization is secretive. The bank’s archives are open and researchers may consult most documents that are more than thirty years old. The BIS archivists are indeed cordial, helpful, and professional. The bank’s website includes all its annual reports, which are downloadable, as well as numerous policy papers produced by the bank’s highly regarded research department. The BIS publishes detailed accounts of the securities and derivatives markets, and international banking statistics. But these are largely compilations and analyses of information already in the public domain. The details of the bank’s own core activities, including much of its banking operations for its customers, central banks, and international organizations, remain secret. The Global Economy Meetings and the other crucial financial gatherings that take place at Basel, such as the Markets Committee, remain closed to outsiders. Private individuals may not hold an account at BIS, unless they work for the bank. The bank’s opacity, lack of accountability, and ever-increasing influence raises profound questions— not just about monetary policy but transparency, accountability, and how power is exercised in our democracies.
* * *
WHEN I EXPLAINED to friends and acquaintances that I was writing a book about the Bank for International Settlements, the usual response was a puzzled look, followed by a question: “The bank for what?” My interlocutors were intelligent people, who follow current affairs. Many had some interest in and understanding of the global economy and financial crisis. Yet only a handful had heard of the BIS. This was strange, as the BIS is the most important bank in the world and predates both the IMF and the World Bank. For decades it has stood at the center of a global network of money, power, and covert global influence.
The BIS was founded in 1930. It was ostensibly set up as part of the Young Plan to administer German reparations payments for the First World War. The bank’s key architects were Montagu Norman, who was the governor of the Bank of England, and Hjalmar Schacht, the president of the Reichsbank who described the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS’s founding members were the central banks of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and a consortium of Japanese banks. Shares were also offered to the Federal Reserve, but the United States, suspicious of anything that might infringe on its national sovereignty, refused its allocation. Instead a consortium of commercial banks took up the shares: J. P. Morgan, the First National Bank of New York, and the First National Bank of Chicago.
The real purpose of the BIS was detailed in its statutes: to “promote the cooperation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations.” It was the culmination of the central bankers’ decades-old dream, to have their own bank—powerful, independent, and free from interfering politicians and nosy reporters. Most felicitous of all, the BIS was self-financing and would be in perpetuity. Its clients were its own founders and shareholders— the central banks. During the 1930s, the BIS was the central meeting place for a cabal of central bankers, dominated by Norman and Schacht. This group helped rebuild Germany. The New York Times described Schacht, widely acknowledged as the genius behind the resurgent German economy, as “The Iron-Willed Pilot of Nazi Finance.” During the war, the BIS became a de-facto arm of the Reichsbank, accepting looted Nazi gold and carrying out foreign exchange deals for Nazi Germany.
The bank’s alliance with Berlin was known in Washington, DC, and London. But the need for the BIS to keep functioning, to keep the new channels of transnational finance open, was about the only thing all sides agreed on. Basel was the perfect location, as it is perched on the northern edge of Switzerland and sits almost on the French and German borders. A few miles away, Nazi and Allied soldiers were fighting and dying. None of that mattered at the BIS. Board meetings were suspended, but relations between the BIS staff of the belligerent nations remained cordial, professional, and productive. Nationalities were irrelevant. The overriding loyalty was to international finance. The president, Thomas McKittrick, was an American. Roger Auboin, the general manager, was French. Paul Hechler, the assistant general manager, was a member of the Nazi party and signed his correspondence “Heil Hitler.” Rafaelle Pilotti, the secretary general, was Italian. Per Jacobssen, the bank’s influential economic adviser, was Swedish. His and Pilotti’s deputies were British.
After 1945, five BIS directors, including Hjalmar Schacht, were charged with war crimes. Germany lost the war but won the economic peace, in large part thanks to the BIS. The international stage, contacts, banking networks, and legitimacy the BIS provided, first to the Reichsbank and then to its successor banks, has helped ensure the continuity of immensely powerful financial and economic interests from the Nazi era to the present day.
* * *
FOR THE FIRST forty-seven years of its existence, from 1930 to 1977, the BIS was based in a former hotel, near the Basel central railway station. The bank’s entrance was tucked away by a chocolate shop, and only a small notice confirmed that the narrow doorway opened into the BIS. The bank’s managers believed that those who needed to know where the BIS was would find it, and the rest of the world certainly did not need to know. The inside of the building changed little over the decades, recalled Charles Coombs. The BIS provided the “the spartan accommodations of a former Victorian-style hotel whose single and double bedrooms had been transformed into offices simply by removing the beds and installing desks.”
The bank moved into its current headquarters, at 2, Centralbahnplatz, in 1977. It did not go far and now overlooks the Basel central station. Nowadays the BIS’s main mission, in its own words, is threefold: “to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in these areas, and to act as a bank for central banks.” The BIS also hosts much of the practical and technical infrastructure that the global network of central banks and their commercial counterparts need to function smoothly. It has two linked trading rooms: at the Basel headquarters and Hong Kong regional office. The BIS buys and sells gold and foreign exchange for its clients. It provides asset management and arranges short-term credit to central banks when needed.
The BIS is a unique institution: an international organization, an extremely profitable bank and a research institute founded, and protected, by international treaties. The BIS is accountable to its customers and shareholders—the central banks—but also guides their operations. The main tasks of a central bank, the BIS argues, are to control the flow of credit and the volume of currency in circulation, which will ensure a stable business climate, and to keep exchange rates within manageable bands to ensure the value of a currency and so smooth international trade and capital movements. This is crucial, especially in a globalized economy, where markets react in microseconds and perceptions of economic stability and value are almost as important as reality itself.
The BIS also helps to supervise commercial banks, although it has no legal powers over them. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, based at the BIS, regulates commercial banks’ capital and liquidity requirements. It requires banks to have a minimum capital of eight percent of risk-weighted assets when lending, meaning that if a bank has risk-weighted assets of $100 million it must maintain at least $8 million capital. The committee has no powers of enforcement, but it does have enormous moral authority. “This regulation is so powerful that the eight percent principle has been set into national laws,” said Peter Akos Bod. “It’s like voltage. Voltage has been set at 220. You may decide on ninety-five volts, but it would not work.” In theory, sensible housekeeping and mutual cooperation, overseen by the BIS, will keep the global financial system functioning smoothly. In theory.
The reality is that we have moved beyond recession into a deep structural crisis, one fueled by the banks’ greed and rapacity, which threatens all of our financial security. Just as in the 1930s, parts of Europe face economic collapse. The Bundesbank and the European Central Bank, two of the most powerful members of the BIS, have driven the mania for austerity that has already forced one European country, Greece, to the edge, aided by the venality and corruption of the country’s ruling class. Others may soon follow. The old order is creaking, its political and financial institutions corroding from within. From Oslo to Athens, the far right is resurgent, fed in part by soaring poverty and unemployment. Anger and cynicism are corroding citizens’ faith in democracy and the rule of law. Once again, the value of property and assets is vaporizing before their owners’ eyes. The European currency is threatened with breakdown, while those with money seek safe haven in Swiss francs or gold. The young, the talented, and the mobile are again fleeing their home countries for new lives abroad. The powerful forces of international capital that brought the BIS into being, and which granted the bank its power and influence, are again triumphant.
The BIS sits at the apex of an international financial system that is falling apart at the seams, but its officials argue that it does not have the power to act as an international financial regulator. Yet the BIS cannot escape its responsibility for the Euro-zone crisis. From the first agreements in the late 1940s on multilateral payments to the establishment of the Europe Central Bank in 1998, the BIS has been at the heart of the European integration project, providing technical expertise and the financial mechanisms for currency harmonization. During the 1950s, it managed the European Payments Union, which internationalized the continent’s payment system. The BIS hosted the Governors’ Committee of European Economic Community central bankers, set up in 1964, which coordinated trans-European monetary policy. During the 1970s, the BIS ran the “Snake,” the mechanism by which European currencies were held in exchange rate bands. During the 1980s the BIS hosted the Delors Committee, whose report in 1988 laid out the path to European Monetary Union and the adoption of a single currency. The BIS midwifed the European Monetary Institute (EMI), the precursor of the European Central Bank. The EMI’s president was Alexandre Lamfalussy, one of the world’s most influential economists, known as the “Father of the euro.” Before joining the EMI in 1994, Lamfalussy had worked at the BIS for seventeen years, first as economic adviser, then as the bank’s general manager.
For a staid, secretive organization, the BIS has proved surprisingly nimble. It survived the first global depression, the end of reparations payments and the gold standard (two of its main reasons for existence), the rise of Nazism, the Second World War, the Bretton Woods Accord, the Cold War, the financial crises of the 1980s and 1990s, the birth of the IMF and World Bank, and the end of Communism. As Malcolm Knight, manager from 2003–2008, noted, “It is encouraging to see that—by remaining small, flexible, and free from political interference—the Bank has, throughout its history, succeeded remarkably well in adapting itself to evolving circumstances.”
The bank has made itself a central pillar of the global financial system. As well as the Global Economy Meetings, the BIS hosts four of the most important international committees dealing with global banking: the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Committee on the Global Financial System, the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, and the Irving Fisher Committee, which deals with central banking statistics. The bank also hosts three independent organizations: two groups dealing with insurance and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The FSB, which coordinates national financial authorities and regulatory policies, is already being spoken of as the fourth pillar of the global financial system, after the BIS, the IMF and the commercial banks.
The BIS is now the world’s thirtieth-largest holder of gold reserves, with 119 metric tons—more than Qatar, Brazil, or Canada. Membership of the BIS remains a privilege rather than a right. The board of directors is responsible for admitting central banks judged to “make a substantial contribution to international monetary cooperation and to the Bank’s activities.” China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia joined only in 1996. The bank has opened offices in Mexico City and Hong Kong but remains very Eurocentric. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Slovakia (total population 16.2 million) have been admitted, while Pakistan (population 169 million) has not. Nor has Kazakhstan, which is a powerhouse of Central Asia. In Africa only Algeria and South Africa are members—Nigeria, which has the continent’s second-largest economy, has not been admitted. (The BIS’s defenders say that it demands high governance standards from new members and when the national banks of countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan reach those standards, they will be considered for membership.)
Considering the BIS’s pivotal role in the transnational economy, its low profile is remarkable. Back in 1930 a New York Times reporter noted that the culture of secrecy at the BIS was so strong that he was not permitted to look inside the boardroom, even after the directors had left. Little has changed. Journalists are not allowed inside the headquarters while the Global Economy Meeting is underway. BIS officials speak rarely on the record, and reluctantly, to members of the press. The strategy seems to work. The Occupy Wall Street movement, the anti-globalizers, the social network protesters have ignored the BIS. Centralbahnplatz 2, Basel, is quiet and tranquil. There are no demonstrators gathered outside the BIS’s headquarters, no protestors camped out in the nearby park, no lively reception committees for the world’s central bankers.
As the world’s economy lurches from crisis to crisis, financial institutions are scrutinized as never before. Legions of reporters, bloggers, and investigative journalists scour the banks’ every move. Yet somehow, apart from brief mentions on the financial pages, the BIS has largely managed to avoid critical scrutiny. Until now.
Republished from Zero Hedge.
A coalition of major business groups is urging Stephen Harper to take a “leadership role” in completing the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Dan Dicks of Press For Truth breaks down the latest news on the TPP front.
Now… before you get your tea bags in a bunch about this Ted Cruz pile on… let’s take a step back to understand what Preps is saying… now, if you love America as much as you say then you’ll listen very closely.
So, Canadian born Ted Cruz stands up and says it’s time to step up and restore the American promise – but what promise is he speaking of? The promise his wife broke when she sold America out to the Council on Foreign relations? The promise she broke when she began work on Building a North American Community?
Investigative journalist and bestselling author Daniel Estulin is this week’s guest on Real Politik. Based in Spain, Mr. Estulin is renowned for his reportage and research on the transnational power elite, whose agendas and deliberations greatly influence the trajectory of global economic and political events. His book, The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2005), is an international bestseller that has been translated into over 40 languages. He has recently been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for this and related journalistic work.
Estulin’s research has led him to conclude that the true rulers are not elected. Rather, they effectively vet and choose those vying for public office who will carry out broader agendas beyond public view. “Many years ago,” he recalls, “when I began researching these people I came across them by chance. I asked myself a fairly simple question, ‘If presidents and prime ministers of countries don’t really have much to say in terms of real body politics, then who runs the world from behind the scenes?”
The Bilderberg Group itself dates to the immediate post-World War Two era.
It was a very important element of the oligarchical structures of the Cold War period. That in and of itself is a pretty significant factor because what it meant was that it was one of the vehicles through which private financier oligarchical interests were able to impose their policies over what were nominally sovereign governments. The biggest scandal part of this whole Bilderberg organization is that it was heavily populated by people who came out of the World War Two Nazi apparatus and who were basically cleaned up, dusted off, and deployed to become a hardcore of the Cold War anti-Soviet structures in the West.
The Bilderberg Group and similar organizations are invoked under various terms, such as “‘one world government, new world order, an all-seeing eye, a Jewish-Masonic conspiracy. But not matter how you want to spin this thing,” Estulin points out, “it’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a conspiracy reality. These organizations–the Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, Bohemian Grove–they’re not the power centers of anything really. They’ve had an important role to play in the past, especially Bilderberger, but much less so today as its role has been diminished. Today these organizations, they’re basically conveyor belts of opportunities. The real decision making process is done at a much higher level. That said, it’s an important medium-sized organization where a lot of important decision making processes are [conducted] and passed on to higher organizations, higher entities, to where these debates are put together into a concrete policy initiative.”
There has been an almost complete news blackout of the Bilderberg Group and its meetings, thus allowing for the association to exist under the radar for much of its sixty year existence. “The media has always participated, talking about the mainstream press. They’re invited. They’re part of the Bilderberg conspiracy, Estulin argues.
When you look at the individuals and groups that attend these meetings, we see presidents, prime ministers, secretaries of state, royalty, billionaire financiers, presidents of the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on. And, of course, among them you have the ‘fifth estate’–the New York Times, Washington Post, Le Monde, Economist, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, etc., and they all attend these meetings with the understanding that whatever the information, the decisions and discussions that take place at these meetings, they’re never revealed in the mainstream press’ publications. The world’s media … are just a source to legitimize a lot of these policy decisions taken by the elitists at these meetings.
Estulin also discusses recent geopolitical and economic events–the foremost being the standoff between Western countries and Russia. He argues, for example, that Vladamir Putin’s de facto opening of the “gold window” for the first time since Richard Nixon closed it in 1971 is a game changer that will eventually have major repercussions for the US petrodollar and broader political economy. “Nothing happens by accident,” in terms of volatility and the financial sector, the author observes.
A lot of the decision making takes place at these meetings. They’re discussed. They’re ironed out. Obviously not all of that stuff can be controlled. But without any doubt whatsoever, especially some of the conditions and situations that affect society in general, a lower strata of society, they’re very much discussed at these meetings.
I’ll give you one example. At this year’s Davos meeting they discussed an important issue for the rest of us, which is ‘fiscal austerity.’ Fiscal austerity is something that the media–the fifth estate–is trying to sell to us as people as something positive in a sense because in an age when the economy is spiraling out of control, fiscal responsibility, fiscal austerity is important, because allegedly the governments’ are going to be penny-pinching, watching the spending. It’s nonsense! It has nothing to do with reality. Fiscal austerity, as far as the elite is concerned, is kind of a vague term which actually refers to cutting social spending and increasing taxes. That’s what fiscal austerity means.
And the effect is that the public sector is devastated, obviously, as all assets are privatized, public workers are laid off en masse, unemployment becomes rampant, health and education disappear, taxes rise dramatically, and then currencies are devalued to make all assets cheaper for the international corporations and banks to buy up while internally causing inflation, which of course increases the costs of fuel and food. In short, this vaunted fiscal austerity which allegedly helps save money for the lower classes, implies in real body politic social destruction, as the social foundations of nations and peoples are pulled from under them. States become despotic and oppress the people who actually are revolting against austerity policies, and they have a term for that as well, which is called the “sterilization” of society.
The True Story of the Bilderberg Group is now being produced as a feature-length documentary film that will debut at film festivals with a subsequent theatrical run in late spring (preview below). A movie based on the book has been attempted twice over the past several years but ran into unforeseen difficulties whereupon the project was abandoned. The initial US producer “was scared into giving up on the project.” (See December interview with Kris Millegan, Estulin’s US book distributor.) “Then another producer came along and, basically, he was bankrupted.” Then “three-and-a-half years ago a producer in Spain, who had a big name in Spain, he was bankrupted. If you believe in conspiracies or coincidence theories, three banks called in his loans all in the same day. The loans had nothing to do with the Bilderberg documentary. Finally, we decided to put our money–over $200,000 over the past three years–for getting this out there. Right now we’re in the final stages of postproduction. We’ve traveled to 11 countries, interviewed some of the biggest experts in the world, and we’re about three three weeks away from finishing this.”
The project is still in need of about $25,000 in funding to complete postproduction. Mr. Estulin has established a site at rockethub to accept donations toward this goal.
Additional information on Estulin and his work is available at danielestulin.com.
Professor James F. Tracy is an Associate Professor of Media Studies at Florida Atlantic University. James Tracy’s work on media history, politics and culture has appeared in a wide variety of academic journals, edited volumes, and alternative news and opinion outlets. James is editor of Union for Democratic Communication’s Journal Democratic Communiqué and a contributor to Project Censored’s forthcoming publication Censored 2013: The Top Censored Stories and Media Analysis of 2011-2012. Additional writings and information are accessible at memoryholeblog.com.
Im Interview mit der “Süddeutschen Zeitung” kritisierte Gates, dass besonders im Hinblick auf den Klimawandel “eine Art globale Regierung” fehle. In an interview with the “Süddeutsche Zeitung” Gates criticized that especially with regard to climate change, “a kind of global government” lacks. Mit anderen Worten: Gates will eine Weltregierung. In other words, Gates wants a world government.
When Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum started the yearly pilgrimage to the inner sanctums of the Swiss Gnomes, he could hardly conceive that the ritual would turn into a celebrity bash of the super rich. The Davos venue is appropriate. Only rarified air is suitable for the global Mattoids. Billed as an assembly of business moguls, it really is more of an audition of well-heeled speculators vying for inclusion into the real power elites who make or break governments, economies and political destinies.
Using a combination of a Hollywood press agent, Madison Avenue ad firm and a media business channel the CNBC cheerleaders, the Davos clan relishes in their ill-gotten privilege and influence. The too big to fail mantra fits into the nihilism of their cult devotion of manipulated markets.
Globalism is god in Davos. Genuine entrepreneurial business creation shares the wealth across a broad spectrum of contributors. Not so, with those who revere monopolies and use the tools of derivative financing as a means of cabal consolidation. Globalism has achieved one dominant objective; namely, the separation of most depraved from the stark reality of those who pay the price of Free Trade oppression. Feed and fuel the appetites of the Masters of the Universe are on the permanent agenda of the Davos screen.
So what drives these parasites who despise any trace of free markets? Paul B. Farrell in Market Watch pulls no punches with his answer. “But the real motives of the Super Rich are personal wealth, political power, glory. They care little for the masses. They are myopic narcissists, like Blofeld’s Angels of Death, trained solely to laser in on profit opportunities, marginalizing risks. Sadly, they will never see the next big catastrophe in time, will not act till it’s too late”
Mr. Farrell quotes Francis Fukuyama, author of “The End of History”,
“It is well established that income inequality has increased substantially in the United States over the past three decades, and that gains from the prolonged period of economic growth that ended in 2007–08 have gone disproportionately to the upper end of the richest layer of society.”
Yes, Super Rich billionaires grabbed the bulk of economic prosperity since Davos was launched. Fukuyama says “a study by Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez shows that between 1978 and 2007, the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of American families jumped from 9% to 23.5 % of the total. These data point clearly to the stagnation of working-class incomes in the United States: Real incomes for male workers peaked sometime back in the 1970s and have not recovered since.”
A joint House and Senate federal government report, Income Inequality and the Great Recession states,
“Over the past three decades, income inequality has grown dramatically. After remaining relatively constant for much of the post-war era, the share of total income accrued by the wealthiest 10 percent of households jumped from 34.6 percent in 1980 to 48.2 percent in 2008. Much of the spike was driven by the share of total income accrued by the richest 1 percent of households. Between 1980 and 2008, their share rose from 10.0 percent to 21.0 percent, making the United States as one of the most unequal countries in the world. Moving even further up the income distribution, the share of income accruing to the wealthiest 0.1 percent of households – those with incomes of at least $1.7 million in 2008 – has grown sharply as well. In short, the evolution of income inequality in the United States is largely driven by the trends at the very top of the income distribution, as very wealthy households have continued to accrue an ever-greater share of the nation’s total income”.
In an important Atlanta Magazine article, The Rise of the New Global Elite, Chrystia Freeland echoes the same conclusions. She quotes from a recent interview of a U.S. based CEO of one of the world’s largest hedge funds. In a recent internal debate, he said, one of his senior colleagues had argued that the hollowing-out of the American middle class didn’t really matter. “His point was that if the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile means one American drops out of the middle class, that’s not such a bad trade,” the CEO recalled.
Freeland goes on to quote Thomas Wilson, CEO of Allstate, who also lamented this global reality: “I can get [workers] anywhere in the world. It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for American business … American businesses will adapt.”
By now, it should be exceedingly clear that the economic “best interests” of the American middle class is a non-concern for the Globalists. Just how different and removed from normal life are these self-ordained arrogant elites? Based upon money and the power that derives from its use, the Davos crew of post-graduate criminal enterprises stands as high as the Alps.
IBT cites according to Forbes magazine, 69 billionaires from 20 nations are scheduled to attend the economic forum in the Swiss ski resort. By Forbes’ calculations, the assembled elites have a total net worth of $427-billion, greater than the aggregate GDP of Israel and Egypt combined.The mentality and disconnect from reality that comes of total disdain for American citizens is embedded in the international mindset.
The basis of Totalitarian Collectivism stems from a total rejection of authentic moral principle and respect for individual humanity. The next insight from Ms. Freeland defines the context of the despotism. She cites a 2005 Citigroup report to investors, “the World is dividing into two blocs—the Plutonomy and the rest”:
“In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie”.
Davos Globalism is a celebration of the worst in human nature. Greed, self-centeredness, egotism and obnoxious pride underpin the culture of condescension narcissism. An optimistic forecast of a global economic recovery is mere camouflage for rationalization that “Corporatists” are endowed with special privileges that give them the power to rule over the rest of civilization.
Even Nouriel Roubini a rock star at the Swiss resort bemoans a lack of joined-up global leadership. He describes trade imbalances, capital flows, water resources, immigration and climate change as “G Zero”. “There is complete disagreement and disarray”, “There is no agreement on anything. We are in a world where there is no leadership”. Yet he defends the global economic model and cautions that protectionism is a threat to the internationalists.
If the Davos buzzword is “G Zero” maybe the current transnational system is just buying time until the natural reaction from middle class exploration finally erupts. In her conclusion Chrystia Freeland warns,
“The real threat facing the super-elite, at home and abroad, isn’t modestly higher taxes, but rather the possibility that inchoate public rage could cohere into a more concrete populist agenda—that, for instance, middle-class Americans could conclude that the world economy isn’t working for them and decide that protectionism or truly punitive taxation is preferable to incremental measures such as the eventual repeal of the upper-bracket Bush tax cuts”.
|A Soros world only benefits the Davos crowd.
‘I think there is a big push now for a financial transaction tax and that I think could be the basis for some action and it could also be used for fighting climate change and so on,’ said Soros.
Free Trade bears barren fruit for the populace. The Davos sect pontificate on saving the planet from global warming as they roast their compatriot chickens on a spit made by slave labor and imported tariff free. Only the monopolists benefit from an economic system void of genuine free enterprise.
Language used to convey a shared meaning. A common history used to be the bond of a native country. The nomenclature of economics once was based upon objective standards of accounting. The sovereign debt time bomb is proportional to the synthetic accumulation of booty at the expense of a supply and demand axiom. Governments are used as tools by artificial transnational trading schemes that manipulate every aspect of the legal and banking systems. Exploration is a consistent theme in all human endeavors, but in today’s New World Order matrix, the final coup de grâce comes at the hands of a global guillotine.
The public exposure from attending Davos suggests that the nouveau riche see this cabaret as a coming out party. The real controllers of the world economy are busy doing the sinister business of consolidation of global resources and finance. SPECTRE may be a fictional global terrorist organization in Bond films. However, the real originators of Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion are the outlaws that pull the strings of the fraudulent global financial system.
The Davos gang revels in the subjugation of the masses in their depression that is now a new way of life for many of our fellow citizens. Elites believe they are beyond the trials and tribulations of ordinary existence. The flight path of a Gulfstream 5 knows no boundary other than gravity. Soon that same gravitational force will extract a sharp pain in the neck. The cry “off with their heads” is one commodity that derivatives cannot hedge.
SARTRE is the pen name of James Hall, a reformed, former political operative. This pundit’s formal instruction in History, Philosophy and Political Science served as training for activism, on the staff of several politicians and in many campaigns. A believer in authentic Public Service, independent business interests were pursued in the private sector. As a small business owner and entrepreneur, several successful ventures expanded opportunities for customers and employees. Speculation in markets, and international business investments, allowed for extensive travel and a world view for commerce. He is retired and lives with his wife in a rural community. “Populism” best describes the approach to SARTRE’s perspective on Politics. Realities, suggest that American Values can be restored with an appreciation of “Pragmatic Anarchism.” Reforms will require an Existential approach. “Ideas Move the World,” and SARTRE’S intent is to stir the conscience of those who desire to bring back a common sense, moral and traditional value culture for America. Not seeking fame nor fortune, SARTRE’s only goal is to ask the questions that few will dare … Having refused the invites of an academic career because of the hypocrisy of elite’s, the search for TRUTH is the challenge that is made to all readers. It starts within yourself and is achieved only with your sincere desire to face Reality. So who is SARTRE? He is really an ordinary man just like you, who invites you to join in on this journey. Visit his website at http://batr.org.
My theme for 2015 has been the assertion that this will be a year of shattered illusions; social, political, as well as economic. As I have noted in recent articles, 2014 set the stage for multiple engineered conflicts, including the false conflict between Eastern and Western financial and political powers, as well as the growing conflict between OPEC nations, shale producers, as well as conflicting notions on the security of the dollar’s petro-status and the security and stability of the European Union.
Since the derivatives and credit crisis of 2008, central banks have claimed their efforts revolve around intervention against the snowball effect of classical deflationary market trends. The REAL purpose of central bank stimulus actions, however, has been to create an illusory global financial environment in which traditional economic fundamentals are either ignored, or no longer reflect the concrete truths they are meant to convey. That is to say, the international banking cult has NO INTEREST whatsoever in saving the current system, despite the assumptions of many market analysts. They know full well that fiat printing, bond buying, and even manipulation of stocks will not change the nature of the underlying crisis.
Their only goal has been to stave off the visible effects of the crisis until a new system is ready (psychologically justified in the public consciousness) to be put into place. I wrote extensively about the admitted plan for a disastrous “economic reset” benefiting only the global elites in my article ‘The Economic End Game Explained’.
We are beginning to see the holes in the veil placed over the eyes of the general populace, most notably in the EU, where the elites are now implementing what I believe to be the final stages of the disruption of European markets.
The prevailing illusion concerning the EU is that it is a “model” for the future the globalists wish to create, and therefore, the assumption is that they would never deliberately allow the transnational union to fail. Unfortunately, people who make this argument do not seem to realize that the EU is NOT a model for the New World Order, it is in fact a mere stepping stone.
The rising propaganda argument voiced by elites in the International Monetary Fund and the Bank For International Settlements, not to mention the ECB, is not that Europe’s troubles stem from its ludicrous surrender to a faceless bureaucratic machine. Rather, the argument from the globalists is that Europe is failing because it is not “centralized enough”. Mario Draghi, head of the ECB and member of the board of directors of the BIS, tried to sell the idea that centralization solves everything in an editorial written at the beginning of this year.
“Ultimately, economic convergence among countries cannot be only an entry criterion for monetary union, or a condition that is met some of the time. It has to be a condition that is fulfilled all of the time. And for this reason, to complete monetary union we will ultimately have to deepen our political union further: to lay down its rights and obligations in a renewed institutional order.”
Make no mistake, the rhetoric that will be used by Fabian influenced media pundits and mainstream economic snake-oil salesmen in the coming months will say that the solution to EU instability as well as global instability is a single global governing body over the fiscal life of all nations and peoples. The argument will be that the economic crisis persists because we continue to cling to the “barbaric relic” of national sovereignty.
In the meantime, internationalists are protecting the legitimacy of stimulus actions and banker led policy by diverting attention away from the failure of the central planning methodology.
Mario Draghi has recently announced the institution of Europe’s own QE bond buying program, only months after Japan initiated yet another stimulus measure of its own, and only months after the Federal Reserve ended QE with the finale of the taper.
I would point out that essentially the moment the Fed finalized the taper of QE in the U.S., we immediately began to see a return of stock volatility, as well as the current plunge in oil prices. I think it should now be crystal clear to everyone where stimulus money was really going, as well as what assumptions oblivious daytraders were operating on.
The common claim today is that the QE of Japan and now the ECB are meant to take up the slack left behind in the manipulation of markets by the Fed. I disagree. As I have been saying since the announcement of the taper, stimulus measures have a shelf life, and central banks are not capable of propping up markets for much longer, even if that is their intention (which it is not). Why? Because even though market fundamentals have been obscured by a fog of manipulation, they unquestionably still apply. Real supply and demand will ALWAYS matter – they are like gravity, and we are forced to deal with them eventually.
Beyond available supply, all trade ultimately depends on two things – savings and demand. Without these two things, the economy will inevitably collapse. Central bank stimulus does not generate jobs, it does not generated available credit, it does not generated higher wages, nor does it generated ample savings. Thus, the economic crisis continues unabated and even stock markets are beginning to waver.
As demand collapses due to a lack of strong jobs and savings, it pulls down on the central bank fiat fueled rocket ship like an increase in gravity. The rocket (in this case equities markets and government debt) hits a point of terminal altitude. The banks are forced to pour in even more fiat fuel just to keep the vessel from crashing back to Earth. No matter how much fuel they create, the gravity of crashing demand increases equally in the opposite direction. In the end, the rocket will tumble and disintegrate in a spectacular explosion, filled to capacity with fuel but unable to go anywhere.
Oil markets have expressed this reality in relentless fashion the past few months. Real demand growth in oil has been stagnant for years, yet, because of stimulus, because of the real devaluation of the dollar, and because of market exuberance, prices were unrealistically high in comparison. The crash of oil is a startling sign that the exuberance is over, and something else is taking shape…
The disconnect within banker propaganda could be best summarized by Mario Draghi’s recent statements on the ECB’s new stimulus measures. When asked if he was concerned about the possibility of European QE triggering currency devaluation and hyperinflation, Draghi had this to say:
“I think the best way to answer to this is have we seen lots of inflation since the QE program started? Have we seen that? And now it’s quite a few years that we started. You know, our experience since we have these press conferences goes back to a little more than three years. In these 3 years we’ve lowered interest rates, I don’t know how many times, 4 or 5 times, 6 times maybe. And each times someone was saying, this is going to be terrible expansionary, there will be inflation. Some people voted against lowering interest rates way back at the end of November 2013. We did OMP. We did the LTROs. We did TLTROs. And somehow this runaway inflation hasn’t come yet.
So the jury is still out, but there must be a statute of limitations. Also for the people who say that there would be inflation, yes When please. Tell me, within what?”
Firstly, if you are using “official” CPI numbers in the U.S. to gauge whether or not there has been inflation, then yes, Draghi’s claim appears sound. However, if you use the traditional method (pre-1990’s) to calculate CPI rather than the new and incomplete method, inflation over the past few years has stood at around 8%-10%, and most essential goods including most food items have risen in price by 30% or more, far above the official 0%-1% numbers presented by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
But beyond real inflation numbers I find a very humorous truth within Draghi’s rather disingenuous statement; yes, QE has not yet produced hyperinflation in the U.S. (primarily because the untold trillions in fiat created still sit idle in the coffers of international banks rather than circulating freely), however, what HAS stimulus actually accomplished if not inflation? Certainly not any semblance of economic recovery.
Look at it this way; I could also claim that if international bankers lined up on a stage at Davos and danced the funky-chicken, hyperinflation would probably not result. But what is the point of dancing the funky chicken, and really, what is the point of QE? Stimulus clearly has about as much positive effect on the economy as jerking around rhythmically in tight polypropylene disco pants.
Japan and the ECB are in fact launching sizable stimulus measures exactly because the QE of the Federal Reserve achieved ABSOLUTELY NOTHING except the purchase of 5-6 years without total collapse (only gradual collapse). And what is the real cost/benefit ratio of that purchase of half a decade of fiscal purgatory? When the breakdown of debt and forex markets does occur, it will be a hundred times worse than if the Fed had done nothing at all. Which brings me to our current state of affairs in 2015, and the IMF plan to take advantage…
IMF head Christine Lagarde put out a press release this past week, one which was probably drafted for her by a team of ghouls at the BIS, mentioning the formation of what she called the “New Multilateralism”.
Lagarde begins with the same old song about accommodative monetary policy:
“Besides structural reforms, building new momentum will require pulling all possible levers that can support global demand. Accommodative monetary policy will remain essential for as long as growth remains anemic – though we must pay careful attention to potential spillovers. Fiscal policy should be focused on promoting growth and creating jobs, while maintaining medium-term credibility.”
Of course, as we have already established, monetary policy does nothing to inspire demand. So, what is a global syndicate of bankers to do? Promote maximum interdependency! Lagarde laments the impediments of the sovereign attitude:
“No economy is an island; indeed, the global economy is more integrated than ever before. Consider this: Fifty years ago, emerging markets and developing economies accounted for about a quarter of world GDP. Today, they generate half of global income, a share that will continue to rise.
But sovereign states are no longer the only actors on the scene. A global network of new stakeholders has emerged, including NGOs and citizen activists – often empowered by social media. This new reality demands a new response. We will need to update, adapt, and deepen our methods of working together.”
And here we have a more subtle insinuation of the planning and programming I have been warning about for years. Because national sovereignty is no longer “practical” in an economically interdependent world (a world forced into economic interdependency by the globalists themselves), we must now change our way of thinking to support a more globalist framework.
The first big lie is that interdependency is a natural economic state. Historically, economies are more likely to survive and thrive the LESS dependent they are on outside factors. Independent, self contained, self sustaining, decentralized economies are the natural and preferable cultural path. Multilateralism (centralization) is completely contrary and destructive to this natural state, as we have already witnessed in the kind of panic which ensues across the globe when even one small nation, like Switzerland, decides to break from the accepted pattern of interdependency.
Also, take note of Lagarde’s reference to the growing role that developing nations (BRICS) are playing in this interdependent globalized mish-mash. As I have been warning, the IMF and the international banks fully intend to bring the BRICS further into the fold of the “new multilateralism”, and the supposed conflict between the East and the West is a ridiculous farce designed only as theater for the masses.
Lagarde reiterates the IMF push for inclusion of the BRICS (new networks of influence) into the new system, as well as the IMF’s role as the arbiter of global governance:
“This can be done by building on effective institutions of cooperation that already exist. Institutions like the IMF should be made even more representative in light of the dynamic shifts taking place in the global economy. The new networks of influence should be embraced and given space in the twenty-first century architecture of global governance. This is what I have called the “new multilateralism.” I believe it is the only way to address the challenges that the global community faces.”
The IMF head finishes with my favorite line, one which should tell you all you need to know about what is about to happen in 2015. I have for some time been following the progress (or lack of progress) in the IMF reforms presented in 2010; reforms which the U.S. Congress has refused to pass. Why? I believe the reforms remain dormant because the U.S. is MEANT to lose its veto powers within the IMF, and the IMF has already made clear that lack of passage will result in just that.
“Against this backdrop, the adoption of the IMF reforms by the United States Congress would send a long-overdue signal to rapidly growing emerging economies that the world counts on their voices, and their resources, to find global solutions to global problems.
Growth, trade, development, and climate change: 2015 will be a rendezvous of important multilateral initiatives. We cannot afford to see them fail. Let us make the right choices.”
Why remove U.S. veto power? Because BRICS nations like China are about to be given far more inclusion in the IMF’s multilateralist order. In fact, 2015 is the year in which the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights conference is set to commence, with initial discussions in May, and international meetings in October. I believe U.S. veto power will probably be removed by May, making the way clear (creating the rationale) for the marginalization of the U.S. dollar in favor of the SDR basket currency system, soon to be boosted by China’s induction.
In 2015 what we really have is a sprint towards currency and market devaluation across the spectrum. India, Japan, Russia, Europe, parts of South America, have all been debased monetarily. The U.S. has as well, most Americans just don’t know it yet. The value of this for globalists is far reaching. They have at a basic level created an atmosphere of lowered economic expectations – a global reduction in living standards which will at bottom lead to third world status for everyone. The elites hope that this will be enough to condition the public to support centralized financial control as the only option for survival.
It is hard to say what kind of Black Swans and false flags will be conjured in the meantime, but I highly doubt the shift towards the SDR will take place without considerable geopolitical turmoil. The public will require some sizable scapegoats for the kind of pain they will feel as the banks attempt to place the global economy in a totalitarian choke hold. While certain institutions may be held up as sacrificial lambs (including possibly the Federal Reserve itself), the concept of banker governance will be promoted as the best and only solution, despite the undeniable reality that the world would be a far better place if such men and their structures of influence were to be wiped off the face of the planet entirely.
Brandon Smith is the founder of the Alternative Market Project, an organization designed to help you find like-minded activists and preppers in your local area so that you can network and construct communities for barter and mutual aid. Join www.Alt-Market.com today and learn what it means to step away from the unstable mainstream system and build something better. You can contact Brandon Smith at: [email protected].
“I remember when there were those who were exposing government corruption and it was called a ‘conspiracy theory.’ Now, 50 years later. I find that it was not theory. In fact, it is now a reality.” (Jeremiah 11:9) – Posted from commenter at Bradlee Dean’s Facebook page.
I am humored by the sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity that some people in this country accept concerning their representatives on the topic of “Global terror.” Friends, it is not just America that I am now addressing, I am addressing the peoples, the governments and the incumbent representatives on a global scale. We see these officials act rather strangely after these supposed “terror attacks.” They seem to conglomerate on cue and ally themselves to condemn the acts, yet not the actors. In the end, they ask the people to give up their rights while attempting to disarm them for the “global good.” Additionally, they attempt to forge new powers against the very people they are supposed to represent.
Concerning the current Obama administration, terror is nothing more than a created battering ram to upend government sovereignty in order to implement new totalitarian government and establish a global government. Just ask Secretary of State under George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice, when she said of Josef Stalin: “The system of terror was essential to Stalinism…Terror was the creation to mold politically the control that they wanted.”
Adolf Hitler used the same methodology, as well as the same philosophy in so many ways. Hitler was responsible for attacking his own Reichstag to start a world war. He perpetuated a war against the “enemies” he created. His propagandists had the Germans believing they were under attack. All the while, Hitler was the one doing the attacking. Hitler was also responsible for sending his brownshirts to incite the people to chaos, so he could play the role of problem solver. Eighty million Germans refused to believe Hitler was guilty of these crimes until 12 million innocent people were slaughtered.
James Madison, known as the father of America’s Constitution, knew how dictators attempted to overthrow their subjects when he warned: “If tyranny or oppression come into this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” There is nothing new under the sun. This is history repeating itself. We have a new devil (dictator want to be), who thinks he has a new way of establishing an old plan. That plan has failed again and again and again (Isaiah 14). Why? It’s because truth, crushed to the earth, will rise again and again and again (Psalm 37:28). Our Heavenly Father will not be dethroned no matter how wise man thinks that he is (Romans 1:22).
Gen. Douglas MacArthur said of the United States government back in 1957: “Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear – kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor – with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. …” You would think that this is what America was told by the president on Sept. 11, 2001. It was. What is so self-defeating to the American people is the fact that when Barack Hussein Obama talks of condemning terrorism that there are some that actually believe what he is saying. America fails to recollect that it is this president entertaining America’s sworn enemies, within the four walls of the people’s house, known as the White House, as he celebrates Ramadan.
He has sent F-16s to the Muslim Brotherhood. He has given them aid to the known sum of over $1.5 billion. He has appointed to Homeland security advisors with known terrorist ties, as well as releasing five more high risk detainee’s from Gitmo just this last week. Don’t forget the recent appointment of Representative Andre Carson to House Intelligence Committee. After the terror attacks in France where 17 people were slaughtered in their streets, we see Barry fighting to stop anti-Jihad articles. This is the tip of the ice-burg with this administration. Do not forget about Barry Soetoro in Europe calling for a “New World Order” as he stated, “There is no other way.” Or consider his speech in Brussels where he said, “The international order that we have worked for generations to build.” Interestingly, President George H. W. Bush on September 11, 1991 called for a new world order over 202 times from the presidential bully pulpit.
Mr. Bush went on to declare, “Out of these troubled times… A new world order can emerge, a new era. Free from the threat of terror, today that new world is struggling to be born, a world quite different from the one that we have known… If we are successful… and we will be.” After September 11, 2001, U.S. Commission on National Security C0-chair Gary Kent said, “There is a chance for the President of the United States to use this disaster to carry out what his father – a phrase his father used I think only once and hasn’t been used since – and that is a New World Order.” Nine days later it was said President Bush would declare, “Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”
Don’t forget about Henry Kissinger when he said that those that reject the New World Order are terrorists. Also, concerning the Bush’s, keep in mind that the father of George H. W. Bush Sr. was Prescott Bush, who was indicted under the Trading with Enemies Act. Prescott was a shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. He aided in the rise of Adolph Hitler, who was attempting to establish “A New World Order.”
Let me bring forth the correlation between Adolph Hitler and the present administrations that are attempting to advance the same end with the same methodologies. Adolph stated, “The only religion I respect is Islam. The only prophet I admire is the prophet Muhammad.” Barrack Hussein Obama stated, “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook-Inter-Services Intelligence is on record stating, “The truth is there is no Islamic army or terrorist group called Al-Qaeda. And any informed intelligence officer knows this. But, there is propaganda campaign to make the public believe in the presence of an identified entity representing the “devil” only in order to drive TV watchers to accept a unified international leadership for a war against terrorism. The country behind this is The US…”
The things that are taking place are simply the fruit of the judgments of a just and holy God. These types of leaders are permitted to flourish because the people at large loved not the truth and, therefore, perished because of their adherence to deception and unrighteousness (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; And if ye shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror…. And I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies: they that hate you shall reign over you; and ye shall flee when none pursueth you. And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins. -Leviticus 26:14-18
A Nation that forgets God!
Study The Past/History Tends to Repeat Itself.
Bradlee Dean is a syndicated columnist for WorldNet Daily, nationally syndicated talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, ordained preacher, and musician. Combined with his constitutional forefather style of writing, what makes him unique from every other columnist is that he includes a video for every commentary he posts, blending the new age of video with the traditional written commentary. Bradlee Dean is also known for his bold stand of truth in the public square reflected in his recent lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. He speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Who is Bradlee Dean? Twitter @BradleeDean1 – Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/bradlee.dean.7?ref=ts&fref=ts
Poverty, hunger and instability are not consequences of a polarized world, but the result of policies implemented by industrialists and bankers to force the poor to live in misery.
Eradicating poverty and misery is cheaper than maintaining it. This reality is well-known by those in power. Yet, year in and year out, the ‘governors’ of the international financial syndicate refuse to put an end to endemic poverty worldwide, even though they have tools and the skills to do so.
While everyone expects that new, creative and innovative ways to solve poverty come out of gatherings such as Davos and the Bilderberg Group meetings, it is really hard to see how the ‘governors’ would want to do just that.
The gathering at Bretton Woods back in 1944 allowed 730 delegates from all 44 Allied nations to plan their vision of the world to come.
The ‘governors’ laid out very clearly the type of progress and at times the lack of it, that there would be for the best part of the 20th and 21st centuries.
They created the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund in 1945, which are still today the United Nations Monetary and Financial organizations that control development worldwide, but with more intensity in the so-called developing world, which by the way has remain so – developing – since the Bretton Woods institutions were installed.
This system of global governance has either purposely failed to curb poverty and end misery, or it was simply designed to keep the wealth concentrated in few hands, which is what it has managed to do so far. In this context, can the ‘governors’ of the Bretton Woods institutions, who dragged the world down into the pit it is in today solve the current global crisis?
The argument presented by those who think it is possible to solve the issue of poverty is very simple and it can be summarized in one word: productivity.
History is the best witness that while the world was a productive place and while the industrialists were in a controlled mode, the global economy is the fairest to most people. It was not perfect of course, but it was the time when the largest tidal wave of progress lifted the most boats.
However, once the forces entangled with the hands of the ‘governors’ grew out of control, productivity took a back seat to monopoly capitalism, concentration of wealth and exploitation of natural resources beyond any limits.
Today, as a result of an out-of-control corporatization of the economic and financial landscape, one percent of the people who live on planet Earth have concentrated half of the world’s wealth in their pockets.
What most people do not understand is that the installation of the Bretton Woods institution was a direct attempt to control, not to aid development. Any and all examples of progress seen since after WWII was roughly planned for and carefully made available.
Having accumulated a lot of wealth, the owners of industry and banking began to do what we have all witnessed with more frequency since the start of 1990s and up until now. Political bodies and private interests have worked systematically to transfer the most amount of wealth and power into fewer hands.
This is the real purpose of the Bretton Woods institutions and the real intention envisioned by its creators.
By promoting development in some of its member-states while limiting and controlling progress in the developing world, where they had put themselves in charge to ‘help out’, the ‘governors’ guaranteed that they would have unlimited cheap, nearly free labor while swallowing up the most natural resources which they used to develop infrastructure and technology that further expanded their control.
Although productivity was the mother of all progress, industrialists and bankers only used it as long as it worked for them and not a minute longer. The moment productivity appeared to be providing more wealth and power to those outside their circle, the ‘governors’ turned their eyes to monopoly.
They implemented monopolies through two main practices. First, so-called free-trade to implement even more controls over production, labor, wages, markets, sales and profit. Under these programs, jobs, savings and property have vanished. Second, they embarked in a political conquest that called for the unification of existing bureaucracies and geographical areas as well as the creation of new ones that are not accountable to anyone.
According to the United Nations’ World Food Program, investment of one US dollar against child malnutrition brings benefits equal to an investment of 45 US dollars. So why have the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations itself failed to end poverty?
One of the reasons is that poverty is a weapon of control, that, as mentioned earlier, has been used forever to control development in third world regions of the planet. Financial aid and debt negotiation, for example, have been conditioned to adopting austerity policies that promoted and still promote more poverty.
The growth of poverty and misery around the world is policy, not an accident or a sign of political incapacity.
An investigation published by “The Lancet” concludes that the populations of developing countries can get as much as 46% more income throughout their life if they receive adequate nutrition during the first two years of their life.
Although promoting policies to end hunger is an objective of all political leaders and philanthropists, it is clear that neither politicians nor philanthropists think it is a good idea to increase productivity and eradicate poverty in order to end hunger and malnutrition. As pointed out before, productivity, which is in itself a generator of employment, income and consequently better living conditions for the greatest number of people, is no longer a goal for the ‘governors’.
Experts in the field such as Horton and Hoddinott proved the thesis that productivity supports the birth of better living conditions. A study conducted in Guatemala in 1969 compared the evolution of two groups of preschoolers: a few were fed properly and others followed their usual diet. Thirty-five years later it was found that those who received adequate nutrition spent more years in school and found a better cognitive development than others. They also got good jobs, better wages and household consumption registered a 66% increase.
Despite the fact that studies as those conducted by Horton and Hoddinott clearly exemplify how productivity promotes the betterment of humanity, don’t expect the participants at the Davos meeting to tell you that or to act upon it. All they want to talk about is how vaccinations, land-grabbing by the UN, concentration of power and wealth in fewer hands are the salvation for us all, even though vaccines, political and economic power and illegal confiscation of property have nothing to do with health, nutrition, productivity or progress for humanity.
As Oxfam has reported, inequality, a consequence of political and economic policies adopted since the inception of Bretton Woods, is directly responsible for poverty, little or no economic growth, unhappy populations, undermining national governance and democracy and the squashing of human potential. All of these realities are true today.
Can the “global governors”, the fathers of the Bretton Woods institutions that dragged the world down into the hole it is today now solve the issues they have purposely caused? Probably not. They can’t because it would mean going back to earlier times, when they were less in control of world affairs. It also means they would have to yield wealth and power. They can’t. They don’t want to.
Luis R. Miranda is an award-winning journalist and the founder and editor-in-chief at The Real Agenda. His career spans over 18 years and almost every form of news media. His articles include subjects such as environmentalism, Agenda 21, climate change, geopolitics, globalisation, health, vaccines, food safety, corporate control of governments, immigration and banking cartels, among others. Luis has worked as a news reporter, on-air personality for Live and Live-to-tape news programs. He has also worked as a script writer, producer and co-producer on broadcast news. Read more about Luis.