|
by Dr. James Polk
from
GlobalResearch Website
Our era is largely defined by two highly interlinked concepts: globalization and the so-called “war on terrorism.”
As geopolitical-economic operatives, both concepts complement each other as significant means to specific ends; both shape important aspects of our daily lives and determine form and content of much that passes for public discourse.
Particularly in Europe and in the United States, populations are kept vigilant to the “clear and present dangers” ostensibly posed by “international terrorism” through mnemonic icons of troop movements in Central Asia and/or strategically deployed bomb plots that are purportedly thwarted “just in time” by our intelligence services.
As if copied from the lecture notes of Carl
Schmitt, a totalitarian “enemy” has been constructed which can conveniently
be called back into service at a moment’s notice should public memory begin
to fade.
In its current development, the construct of a
unified world is largely synonymous with the ideal world government as
envisioned in the Sociocracy of French philosopher Auguste Comte in the 19th
century [2], in which international bankers and elitest think
tanks determine and execute public policies.
The treaty also buried the eius regio, quius
religio principle and reinstated the tolerance of Protestants as spelled
out in the Peace of Augsburg (1555), the revocation of which under the Holy
Roman Emperor Ferdinand II in the Edict of Restitution (1629) prompted the
vicious counter-response from Protestant nobility in Austria and Bohemia.
The terms of the peace accord also radically limited the territory and power
of the Holy Roman Empire and acknowledged the sovereignty of the many
principalities that constituted the realm of German influence, with France
and Sweden entrusted as guardians of the peace.
The councils of minds at Münster and Osnabrück were able to establish through rational discourse the concept of a peace accord based on the primacy of reason and rules of law that transcended warring national interests and belief systems, effecting in a truly Kantian sense the regulative idea of attainable peace as a principle of reason to guide all actions of the parties involved, and to which all participants, nolens volens, were to submit.
This is clearly evident in the way various
clauses in the treaty assumed a meta-normative role. The treaty thus paved
the way for an era of secularized thought in which the rule of law and
political negotiation served as instruments of conflict resolution and as
guidelines of national sovereignty based on principles of reason.
It is the power embodied in the domains of
concentrated financial interests that today are in the process of
transforming our lifeworld and realms of experience in previously
unimaginable ways.
The results of this bloodless coup are being
felt today on a truly global scale. With careful, detailed planning,
representatives of the most powerful financial institutions in both Europe
and the United States succeeded through the enactment of the Federal Reserve
Act (also known as the
Glass-Owen bill) in radically and permanently
altering the foundations of the nation as a whole.
According to Article 1, Section 8 of the American Constitution, it is Congress to whom the power is given “to coin money” and to “regulate the value thereof.”
The Federal Reserve Act of course interprets this power quite literally as the coinage of pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters; it is, however, the creation of money in the form of bank notes that lies at the heart of the act. When the government requires money, the United States treasury writes out IOUs in the form of U.S. treasury bonds, which it then sells to the privately owned Federal Reserve system in exchange for a Federal Reserve check.
In reality, the “Federal” Reserve bank simply enters the corresponding numbers on its computer keyboard, once as a liability, and once as an asset.
In other words, the numbers are created by the Federal Reserve out of nothing, for which it then demands repayment with interest. The funds are then credited to the government’s account, from which all the various bills are then paid. It is in that exact moment that “money” as such is created by the Federal Reserve bank out of nothing. But there is one additional trick used by all banks operating on the Federal Reserve system: fractional reserve lending.
This scheme allows the bank to multiply the
amount of money it lends to clients tenfold without having the actual funds
in reserve to back it up. This entire scheme has allowed the hidden owners
of the private “Federal” Reserve system to effectively extort money from the
American people in the form of IOUs, also known as treasuries, which then
must be repaid with interest.
Like other central bank signatories to the Bretton-Woods Agreement (and thereby to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund), the US Federal Reserve system is able to control the amount of money in circulation through several mechanisms, for example by raising or lowering interest rates and/or the minimum reserve requirements of banks in the fractional reserve lending system.
Through the enactment of the Federal Reserve system, the essence of money has become debt. Through the creation of debt, money comes into existence in the system. It thus becomes obvious that it is never in the bank’s interest that clients, borrowers, actually pay off their debts because that would leave the banks without interest payments.
When the borrowers happen to be sovereign nations, for example from the developing world, or now the United States and a number of countries in Western Europe, the interest payments earned by the banks easily go into the hundreds of billions.
This is extraordinarily
profitable for banks who have been able to “sit in on” the negotiation of peace accords (through which terms of surrender and repayment of damages are
settled) and international trade agreement deliberations to regulate global
commerce and finance.
The terms forced on Germany through Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles laid the foundations for the consolidation of the enormously powerful financial interests in London, New York, Frankfurt, and Paris, which had been instrumental in pushing through, by hook and by crook, the Federal Reserve Act in the United States.
(It should be noted
that these are the same financial interests which also did their part to
push the nations into
military conflict in the first place. The focus here however remains restricted to the
genesis and perpetration of the private central banking cartel as such and
its connections to the current financial crisis and the war on terrorism.)
Such principles of good will, intentionally
redolent of the terms set out by the Peace of Westphalia, could only be
implemented through a common general will or global consent. In other words,
a League of Nations, a
Völkerbund in the strictest Kantian sense, was needed
to define and implement internationally valid principles of humanitarian,
indeed cosmopolitan conduct to benefit the entire human species and our
lifeworld.
The agreement encompassed 26 principles to which the 58 member states committed themselves. But the most central problem confounding the ideals of the League was the fact that the agreement was predicated on significant economic interests that essentially doomed the treaty to failure from the start.
The League was based on the status quo as defined by the victors of World War I, who, as simultaneous representatives of ostensibly “national interests” did everything in their power to ensure the richest gains possible for the elite bankers working behind the scenes in New York, London, Paris, and Frankfurt. And the means to this end were found in the terms of reparation payments they then forced on Germany.
An article featured in the May 31, 1922 issue of the New York Times outlined the most salient demands being made on Germany by the Allied entente powers:
Attentive readers will immediately note the unmistakable parallels to the demands (“austerity measures”) frequently imposed on developing nations through the international monetary fund in its policy proposals formerly known as “structural adjustment programs,” including demands for the privatization of the banking system, or to use the phrase introduced by “Fed speak,” to guarantee the banks’ independence (“autonomy”) from politics.
(In corrected translation, this is the simple demand that this private banking cartel as the sole source of phony money should be allowed to perpetrate its debt-based currency scam without any supervision or control by the people or their representatives.)
A gamut of conditions imposed by the IMF has consistently led to widespread domestic hardship and economic crises within the nations in question, because the interests and well-being of the general population are often clearly at odds with the IMF programs being implemented.
Joseph Stiglitz put it this way:
And it is precisely this extraordinary expansion of the power of the private bank cartels that was central to much of the behind-the-scenes maneuvering during and after World War I.
In a very enlightening essay published in Foreign Affairs in 1936, Leon Fraser brought the true hidden agenda of the banking elite into selective public view:
The bank Fraser was referring to, of course, is
none other than the central bank of all central banks, the
Bank for
International Settlements, with headquarters in Basel.
Writing with reference to Grotius’s theory of just settlements of military conflicts (De Jure Belli ac Pacis), McFadden argued that the Versailles Treaty had in fact been negotiated in bad faith, with the “House of Morgan” and the usual suspects from the clique of international bankers being the prime beneficiaries of the reparations bonds, and that substantial aspects of the treaty had been worked out in the financial centers of London well in advance of the actual negotiations in Paris.
McFadden prophetically augured the long-term consequences of the treaty as laying the,
The consolidation of economic and financial power in the West at the end of World War II made possible the ensuing rapid and encompassing globalization of inchoate trends already visible in the League of Nations platform.
The establishment of the United Nations in 1945 as well as the foundation of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as stipulated by the outcome of the Bretton-Woods Agreement (1944), contributed substantially to the international system of currency and finance of a distinctively Anglo-American character.
This meant in particular that the central banks of all member nations were largely to adopt the modus operandi of the Federal Reserve system. The printing of national currencies, once the privilege of sovereign governments, was to be replaced by the system of government bonds or IOU issuance, which would then be lent or sold to the private banking cartel (spearheaded by the country’s respective “central-bank”) in exchange for currency notes - with interest due.
The outcomes of two world wars, in which a private banking cartel had ultimately written the terms of economic and financial surrender, had forced the vanquished into participant roles in the greatest scam in human history:
Many of the newest investment vehicles and resources discussed in growing numbers of studies have so successfully interlocked the political realm with the corporate/financial that a clear separation is no longer possible.
Nevertheless, among wide segments of the populations in many countries, voting citizens are still convinced of the sanctity of the elected office.
Such convictions are based on false advertising, and the voters have failed to see the fusion between capital and the successful campaign/office tenure regularly performed behind the smoke and mirrors screens of the mass media. In a number of important instances, even opposition/protest movements have been bought and staged. [8]
Yes we can! Si, se puede! should now be seen as the pitiful chants of all those who fell for the change they believed in.
Change came in the form of continued bailouts for Wall Street banks, with the former head of the New York Federal Reserve placed comfortably by Obama himself on the throne of the US treasury, immune from critique and reprimand, despite his urgent e-mails to the legal counsel of AIG urging silence in response to congressional queries on the extent of the Fed’s bailout funds funneled into the pockets of Goldman Sachs.
(Of course at the time these revelations became public - on the Internet! - the mainstream media was busy convincing the semi-conscious public of the importance of the then-and-now whereabouts of Tiger Woods’s genitalia.)
It’s been all business as usual. But the
teary-eyed and desperate seem to fall for the Hollywood hype every time:
He’s the ONE!
In exchange for much-needed IMF loans, Bolivia was required to transfer the “rights” of the Cochabamba water system to the private firm of Aquas de Tunari, a subsidiary of the International Water Ltd./Bechtel Corporation consortium.
(Bechtel gained international notoriety under the George W. Bush administration as the recipient of generous no-bid military “reconstruction” contracts in Iraq.)
The
privatization of the water supply meant that
prices for this necessity of life increased by more than 300%, becoming
unattainable for many families. With public outrage and potential violence
on the horizon, a report authored by World Bank experts advised: no public
subsidies should be given to ameliorate the increase in water tariffs in
Cochabamba. [9]
This agreement formed the international legal
basis for the deregulation of so-called “financial products,” specifically
derivatives such as “credit default swaps” and “mortgage backed securities,”
which then led to the global financial meltdown.
Two years later, the entire country was in a
house-buying frenzy with visions of homes increasing in value year after
year until the end of time. Many buyers bought two or three in the hope of
“flipping” them into untold thousands in profit.
At the speed of electronic funds transfers, BISTRO enabled unimaginable exponential profits through “credit default swaps” which the “House of Morgan” then divided up into packages and sold by the thousands to interested parties among corporations, banks, insurance giants, and investment funds worldwide.
As the German magazine Der Spiegel so accurately put it,
Attentive observers of financial history should recognize the concrete developmental pattern at work here.
A putatively well-founded expansion of credit and a corresponding economic boom are followed by a sudden retraction of credit and an implosion of the markets. At the core of our current crisis is the banking industry and its ability to create money and derivatives out of thin air. The collapse was predictable, and in all likelihood carefully planned.
No sooner had
the collapse of 2008 begun than
the directors of America’s leading banks began to issue ultimatums to the
American people through their own representative, Henry Paulson (former CEO
of Goldman Sachs), as the Secretary of the Treasury. If bank coffers were
not replenished with ample public funds, Americans would soon wake up to
martial law on the streets of many major cities.
The U.S. Congress recently ratified a
comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s financial system, and thereby granted
increased authority to the Federal Reserve. On a global scale, financial and
economic experts from around the world are in the process of developing
fundamental revisions to the Basel Accord (Basel III) within the framework
of the Bank for International Settlements. [11]
The Federal Reserve’s decision to increase
liquidity by printing more dollars is already seen as a potentially fatal
mistake by many skeptics particularly in China, which holds an inordinately
large sum of US dollars in its reserve currency trove. Russia and China,
among others, have already agreed to a bilateral exchange of goods and
services by using their own currencies, without the US dollar as
intermediary.
As the chief operative for all the clandestine forces intent on seeing a one-world government in control of the planet, the Federal Reserve has been actively destroying the US currency as an instrument of national sovereignty.
And in close collaboration with the “Fed,”
working groups within both the United Nations and the IMF have published key
position papers in which a new global currency is proposed, to be printed or
coined expectedly by a global central bank. [12]
At particular risk today is the integrity of the Internet as the last bastion of uncensored information exchange. With every publicized “cyber attack,“ whether a reality or an ad hoc creation, new demands go out for increased security measures and legislation to control both form and content online.
New key supranational concepts such as “Al Qaeda,” “terrorist networks” or “suspicious money transfers” are now in common use in public discourse and enable the implementation of unprecedented military/political control measures and surveillance strategies over ordinary citizens.
The readiness of governments worldwide to adopt anti-terror measures that are potentially inimical to all forms of individual freedom is predicated on the questionable acceptance of the official explanation offered by the US government and its intelligence services for the events that transpired on 9/11.
The paucity of critique, particularly among
mainstream US media, of the implausible official narrative of all that
transpired on 9/11 is itself sufficient evidence of a thoroughly top=down
controlled American press.
Answers to the inevitable cui bono? question
point to the long-term beneficiaries of global control which will ultimately
allow for no exceptions.
The Federal Reserve system should be seen for what it is - the agency of an international clique of banking elites who are hell-bent on obtaining a global government, with a single system of universal justice, a single currency, and an all-encompassing surveillance network as guarantors of a fail-proof, totalitarian, neo-feudalistic regime.
Thanks to the efforts of this same
global elite, the United States is in its
last throes and will eventually succumb to the constraints its leaders have
willingly adopted within the context of globalization.
The continuing global economic crisis was also
conceived and implemented as a further essential tool in bringing about a
one-world government controlled by bankers and their intellectual shills
sitting in crucial positions and calling the shots - qui custodiet custodes?
In previous eras, the implementation of such
plans and intentions would have been deemed high treason and appropriately
punished; in today’s parlance, it should most properly be categorized as an
act of terrorism.
|
