by Brandon Smith
02 December 2015
from Alt-Market Website

 

The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another."

Henry Kissinger, "Henry Kissinger On The Assembly Of A New World Order"

 

 

"[P]art of people's concern is just the sense that around the world the old order isn't holding and we're not quite yet to where we need to be in terms of a new order that's based on a different set of principles, that's based on a sense of common humanity, that's based on economies that work for all people."

Barack Obama

 

 

"We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (UN) as the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace, order and sustainable development to the world. The UN enjoys universal membership and is at the center of global governance and multilateralism."

Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

 

 

"We support the reform and improvement of the international monetary system, with a broad-based international reserve currency system providing stability and certainty. We welcome the discussion about the role of the SDR in the existing international monetary system including the composition of SDR's basket of currencies. We support the IMF to make its surveillance framework more integrated and even-handed."

Fifth BRICS Summit Declaration

Here is where many political and economic analysts go terribly wrong in their examination of current global paradigms:

They tend to blindly believe the mainstream narrative rather than taking into account conflicting actions and statements by political and financial leaders.

Even in the liberty movement, composed of some of the most skeptical and media savvy people on planet Earth, the cancers of assumption and bias often take hold.

Some liberty proponents are more than happy to believe in particular mainstream dynamics. They are happy to believe, for example, that the growing "conflict" between the East and West is legitimate rather than engineered.

You can list off quotation after quotation and policy action after policy action proving that Eastern governments, including China and Russia, work hand in hand with globalist institutions like,

• the International Monetary Fund

• the Bank of International Settlements

• the World Bank

• the United Nations,

...toward the goal of global governance and global economic centralization.

But these people simply will not listen. They MUST believe that the U.S. is the crowning villain, and that the East is in heroic opposition. They are so desperate for a taste of hope they are ready to consume the poison of false dichotomies.

The liberty movement is infatuated with the presumption that the U.S. government and the banking elites surrounding it are at the "top" of the new world order pyramid and are "clamoring for survival" as the U.S. economy crumbles under the facade of false government and central banking statistics.

How many times have we heard over the past year alone that the Federal Reserve has "backed itself into a corner" or policy directed itself "between a rock and a hard place?"

I have to laugh at the absurdity of such a viewpoint because central bankers and internationalists have always used economic instability as a means to gain political and social advantage. The consolidation of world banking power alone after the Great Depression is a testament to this fact.

And even former FED Chairman Ben Bernanke has admitted (at least in certain respects) that the Federal Reserve was responsible for that terrible implosion, an implosion that conveniently served the interests of international cartel banks like JPMorgan.

But the Federal Reserve is no more than an appendage of a greater system; it is NOT the brains of the operation.

In his book "Tragedy and Hope," Carroll Quigley, Council on Foreign Relations member and mentor to Bill Clinton, stated:

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance.

 

They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down.

 

The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called "international" or "merchant" bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks.

 

These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks."

In "Ruling the World of Money," Harper's Magazine established what Quigley admitted in "Tragedy And Hope" - that the control of the global economic policy and, by extension, political policy is dominated by a select few elites, namely through the unaccountable institutional framework of the BIS.

The U.S. and the Federal Reserve (FED) are mere tentacles of the great vampire squid that is the new world order. And being a tentacle makes one, to a certain extent, expendable, if the trade will result in even greater centralization of power.

The delusion that some people within the liberty movement are under is that the fall of America will result in the fall of the new world order. In reality, the fall of America is a necessary step towards the RISE of the new world order.

The Rothschild-owned financial magazine The Economist reaffirmed this trend of economic "harmonization" in its 1988 article "Get Ready for a World Currency by 2018" (below insert), which described the creation of a global currency called the "Phoenix" over three decades:

 

Get Ready for the Phoenix
The Economist

01 September 1988

Vol. 306, pp 9-10

Source
 

 

 

 

THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency.

 

Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let's say, the phoenix.

 

The phoenix will be favored by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today's national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.

At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987.

 

The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates - a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October.

 

These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.

But in spite of all the trouble governments have in reaching and (harder still) sticking to international agreements about macroeconomic policy, the conviction is growing that exchange rates cannot be left to themselves.

 

Remember that the Louvre accord and its predecessor, the Plaza agreement of September 1985, were emergency measures to deal with a crisis of currency instability. Between 1983 and 1985 the dollar rose by 34% against the currencies of America's trading partners; since then it has fallen by 42%.

 

Such changes have skewed the pattern of international comparative advantage more drastically in four years than underlying economic forces might do in a whole generation.

In the past few days the world's main central banks, fearing another dollar collapse, have again jointly intervened in the currency markets (see page 62).

 

Market-loving ministers such as Britain's Mr. Nigel Lawson have been converted to the cause of exchange-rate stability. Japanese officials take seriously he idea of EMS-like schemes for the main industrial economies.

 

Regardless of the Louvre's embarrassing failure, the conviction remains that something must be done about exchange rates.

Something will be, almost certainly in the course of 1988. And not long after the next currency agreement is signed it will go the same way as the last one. It will collapse.

 

Governments are far from ready to subordinate their domestic objectives to the goal of international stability. Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stock-market crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice.

 

This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by a patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018 - except for two things.

 

As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very tends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.
 

 

The new world economy

The biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970's is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates.

 

As a result of the relentless integration of the world's financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another.

 

These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still.

 

With uncoordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.

Alongside that trend is another - of ever-expanding opportunities for international trade. This too is the gift of advancing technology. Falling transport costs will make it easier for countries thousands of miles apart to compete in each others' markets.

 

The law of one price (that a good should cost the same everywhere, once prices are converted into a single currency) will increasingly assert itself. Politicians permitting, national economies will follow their financial markets - becoming ever more open to the outside world. This will apply to labour as much as to goods, partly thorough migration but also through technology's ability to separate the worker form the point at which he delivers his labour.

 

Indian computer operators will be processing New Yorkers' paychecks.

In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments.

 

In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.

The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate - and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge.

 

Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit.

 

With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case.

 

Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.

As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice.

 

They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies.

 

That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right (SDR) is today.

 

In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.

The alternative - to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time.

 

They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect.

 

Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.

We are now on the cusp of the "prediction" set forth by The Economist over 27 years ago.

The BRICS nations, including Vladimir Putin's Russia, have all consistently called for the formation of a global reserve currency system under the direct control of the IMF and predicated on the basket methodology of the SDR.

This new global system, as The Economist suggested, requires the marginalization of existing power structures and the end of sovereign economic control.

Governments around the world including the U.S. would be at the fiscal mercy of the new financial high priests through the use of insidious debt based incentives given or withheld at the whim of the IMF.

China is set to be inducted into the SDR basket in 2015, with specific economic changes to be made by September 2016, a development I have been warning about for years.

The "vote" is in and the decision has been finalized. 

While some in the mainstream media are playing off the rise of the Yuan as meaningless, IMF head Christine Lagarde presents the shift as a major event, not for China, but for the IMF and the SDR which she proudly refers to as the,

"currency of currencies".

The addition of China to the SDR, I believe, is the next trigger event for the continuing removal of the dollar as the world reserve currency.

The monetary shift may explode with speed if Saudi Arabia follows through with a possible plan to depeg from the dollar, effectively ending the petrodollar status the U.S. has enjoyed for decades.

This is, of course, the same IMF-controlled SDR system that Putin and the Kremlin have called for, despite the running fantasy that Putin is somehow an opponent of the globalists.

Putin continues to press the "U.S. as bumbling villain" narrative, while at the same time supporting globalist institutions and the internationalization of economic and political governance.

While many people were overly focused on his "calling out" of the U.S. and its involvement in the creation of ISIS in his recent speech at the U.N., they seemed to have completely overlooked his adoration of the United Nations and the development of a global governing body.

Putin often speaks at cross purposes just as Barack Obama does - one minute supporting sovereignty and freedom, the next minute calling for global centralization:

"Russia is ready to work together with its partners to develop the UN further on the basis of a broad consensus, but we consider any attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the United Nations as extremely dangerous.

 

They may result in the collapse of the entire architecture of international relations, and then indeed there will be no rules left except for the rule of force."

 

"Dear colleagues, ensuring peace and global and regional stability remains a key task for the international community guided by the United Nations. We believe this means creating an equal and indivisible security environment that would not serve a privileged few, but everyone."

Putin also proclaimed his support for the UN's fight against "climate change", the same climate change which Secretary of State John Kerry argued was a "contributing factor" in the crisis in Syria and the rise of ISIS. 

As written in the past on the fraud of "man made climate change (global warming)" and will not enter that tangent here now, but the point remains that Putin is fully on board with said fraud like all other puppet politicians around the globe:

"...One more issue that shall affect the future of the entire humankind is climate change.

 

It is in our interest to ensure that the coming UN Climate Change Conference that will take place in Paris in December this year should deliver some feasible results. As part of our national contribution, we plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions to 70–75 percent of the 1990 levels by the year 2030."

 

"It is indeed a challenge of global proportions. And I am confident that humanity does have the necessary intellectual capacity to respond to it. We need to join our efforts, primarily engaging countries that possess strong research and development capabilities, and have made significant advances in fundamental research.

 

We propose convening a special forum under the auspices of the UN to comprehensively address issues related to the depletion of natural resources, habitat destruction, and climate change.

 

Russia is willing to co-sponsor such a forum."

Source

Indeed, it has been Putin's intention all along to support and defend the internationalist framework while at the same time participating in the theatrical East versus West false paradigm:

"In the BRICS case we see a whole set of coinciding strategic interests.

 

First of all, this is the common intention to reform the international monetary and financial system. In the present form it is unjust to the BRICS countries and to new economies in general. We should take a more active part in the IMF and the World Bank's decision-making system.

 

The international monetary system itself depends a lot on the US dollar, or, to be precise, on the monetary and financial policy of the US authorities.

 

The BRICS countries want to change this."

The Chinese support the same agenda of an IMF managed economic world:

The world economic crisis shows the,

"inherent vulnerabilities and systemic risks in the existing international monetary system," Gov. Zhou Xiaochuan said in an essay released Monday by the bank.

He recommended creating a currency made up of a basket of global currencies and controlled by the International Monetary Fund and said it would help,

"to achieve the objective of safeguarding global economic and financial stability."

It is rather interesting how the desires of the BRICS seem to directly coincide with the designs of international bankers.

This Hegelian dialectic is perhaps the most elaborate public distraction of all time, with the ultimate solution to the artificially engineered problem being a single "multilateral" but centrally dictated world economic system and world government, i.e., the New World Order.

Again, the globalists at the BIS and the IMF require a diminished U.S. dollar, greatly reduced U.S. living standards and a much smaller U.S. geopolitical footprint before they can establish and finalize a single publicly accepted global elitist oligarchy.

If you cannot understand why it seems that the Federal Reserve and U.S. government appear hell-bent on self-destruction, then perhaps you should consider the facts and motivations at hand. Then, you'll realize it is THEIR JOB to destroy America, not save America.

When you are finally willing to accept this reality, every disastrous development since the inception of the FED a century ago, as well as all that is about to happen in the next few years, makes perfect sense.

This is not to say that the ultimate endgame of the new world order will result in victory.

But the cold, hard, concrete evidence shows that internationalists do have a plan; they are implementing that plan systematically; and all major governments around the world are participating in that plan.

This plan involves the inevitable collapse and reformation of America into a Third World enclave, a goal that is nearly complete, as I will outline in a next article.

As the U.S. destabilizes, we are not escaping the clutches of the Federal Reserve system, only trading out one totalitarian management model for another. It is absolutely vital that the liberty movement in particular finally and fully embrace this reality.

If we do not, then there will truly be no obstacle to such a plan's success and no end to the tyrannies of the old world or the new world.