Tag Archives: SDR

My Appearance on the Smaulgld Subscriber Sound-Off Series

Hey, all! Another brief update for you. I’m a subscriber to a top-notch YouTube channel called Smaulgld. It’s hosted by Louis Cammarosano, a contrarian alternative media producer whose analysis of the precious metals market is unparalleled. Louis has recently launched a series called “Subscribers Sound Off,” designed to give followers of his YouTube channel a platform to discuss important issues, and he was kind enough to have me on:

…or if you prefer the decentralized video platform BitChute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/M0gNwEpmEYr6/

Louis and I discuss my longstanding thesis that the BRICS/AIIB/SCO/China-led complex is joined at the hip with Anglo-American entities typically defined as “Globalists” by alt-media. We also discuss the cognitive dissonance, confirmation biases, and generally unfriendly stance of alt-media commentators when broaching topics that go against the proverbial grain of traditional off-mainstream narratives. Wrapping up, we talk cryptocurrencies and the potential that those who shun their use are painting themselves into a corner by eschewing their influence in a new monetary paradigm.

The “Eastern Saviours” Meme, Veterans Today, and Sniffing Out Alt-Media Disinformation

I recently had a comment exchange on the site with a user named Jerry, who brought to my attention some information that Veterans Today had put out in conjunction with “psychic” Ben Fulford (still holding my breath on that Ninja Army by the way, Ben). The implication of the video built upon the “BRICS Saviour” meme, going so far as to imply that the buildout of Agenda 21 infrastructure in the East was a positive development for Free Humanity. 

Jerry’s comment in full: 

I spend so much time on the Alt Media because it seems to be the best compared to so much of anything else. I have also experienced GOD (not God nor gods), so INtuition is my filter.

I have recently come across two sources of info, that seem related, concerning the “cause” of so many things on this planet.

I will see if I can find them and paste them here, I intend to spread them (links) around, but one came from Veterans Today, which I think that you bad-mouthed, so maybe you can tell me what you think of the link, and how it relates to your own view of their info (it seems they promote Fulford and his White Dragon folks) … the “second” subject, that to me is most important, because it so reminds me of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (which fake or not DO SHOW the intentions and methods used resulting in what we have today) …

https://plus.google.com/106206657604068245588/posts/11ZDGXeqABJ

I realize this thread is rather out of date, but maybe you will find it and answer, Thanks, j.

As traffic here at Stateless Homesteading is increasing month to month, I sometimes forget that I’ve picked up thousands of new readers who are surprised to learn that my work refutes the “White Dragon Society”/”BRICS World Order” narrative propagated in so much of alt-finance media. I post my response to Jerry here in full in the hopes that other readers may gain some perspective on exactly where I’m coming from when I say the rise of the East is an integral aspect of the “New Multipolar World Order” being erected around us at an ever-increasing pace, not an opposing force to Globalism.

My Response

Appreciate the comment, Jerry, and I’m glad you find this site at least somewhat valuable – always nice to talk with someone whose spiritual conceptions are similar to your own!

As for VT and the Gordon Duff “disinfo mill,” I don’t mean to give the impression of “bad mouthing” or attempting to discredit VT, if only because they do a fine job of that all by themselves:

“I don’t know know any imaginable way you can get information…First of all…Because, about 30%, based on what I believe…and you know what? Who says I’m right? According to my belief, and I have as good of, uh access to information as anyone in the world, probably, anyone I know of. About 30% of what’s written on Veterans Today, is patently false. About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive. I simply have to do that. I write…anything I write I write between the lines.”

-Gordon Duff, VT
https://archive.org/details/GordonDuff.FalseInformationControversy

By Duff’s own admission, 70% of what he writes is a lie, and the other 30% is merely his personal opinion. The latter half I take little issue with – everyone has their own way of seeing things, myself included, though I try my best to leave my own color commentary until the end of my articles and let the primary sources speak for themselves.

…which leads me to my main point of discontent with Duff, Wantana, Fulford, et. al., which is that they have ZERO primary sources which I (or anyone else) can objectively analyze. It’s always “super secret insiders” or “channeled alien psychic woo-woo” or “magical White Dragons taking down the Khazarian mafia.” Never evidence. If Stateless Homesteading is founded on the ethos of “Open Source” research, then VT is its foil: Closed Source.

For example, the group that VT regularly refers to as the aforementioned “Khazarian Mafia” have members who are widely known to us (Kissinger, Rockefeller, Rothschild, Brzezinski, etc.) Yet their supposed “mortal enemies” in the White Dragon society (or Red Dragon society, or just Dragons… they change the name so often it’s hard to keep up) have not a SINGLE public figure whose name we’re allowed to know?

A few years ago, I casually entertained the notion of “super secret Eastern insiders” who were going to “take down the evil Western bankers.” Gold flows from West to East seemed to suggest this might be the case, so I went looking for evidence and primary sources to back up the contention. Many metals analysts (like Jim “The Golden Jackass” Willie, another talking head who offers no primary sources to back up his claims) had long held that the “White Dragons” controlled the PBOC; but when I looked, all I found was people like Zhou Xiaochuan, a Bank for International Settlements member who’s all aboard the IMF’s SDR basket nonsense:

http://www.bis.org/review/r090402c.pdf

Others, still, said the “White Dragons” were the founders of the New Development Bank(s), but here, too, a little digging only yielded evidence of Western puppets like Jin Liqun, former Vice President of the Asian Development Bank (a vassal of the World Bank and America’s Neomercantile playing piece in the South China Sea) and now President of the AIIB. Who, by the way, has been hard at work signing “Sustainable Development” pacts (Agenda 21) with the World Bank:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2015-07/17/content_21308703.htm

The video you posted, in part, was actually the genesis of my first article on this site; when Fulford and his merry band of “psychics” started propagating the notion that Agenda 21 and the Transhuman borg beehive society was A GOOD THING, my “INtuition” (as you so aptly put it) said otherwise. And so did the primary sources:

http://statelesshomesteading.com/china-21-anglo-american-sustainability-in-asia/

Since then, I’ve uncovered ample evidence (from both “Western” and “Eastern” sources) that suggests supranational coordination towards building a “New World Order” (for lack of a better term) and little to no evidence of “White Dragons” coming to save us all from ourselves. Re-stating my entire thesis here would make this comment even more long in the tooth than it already is, but I’d suggest this article as a starting point for where I’m coming from:

http://statelesshomesteading.com/dr-bricslove-or-how-alt-media-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-nwo/

If there’s anything I despise, it’s being lied to. I think that’s true of everyone in “conspiracy” culture, as being lied to by TPTB is why we’re all here in the first place. So when there’s people claiming to be movers and shakers in the “Truth” community who knowingly lie to their audience, I don’t think these people deserve our time or attention. Lying to your readers as an author is tantamount to lying to yourself – the worst kind of lie, the kind that makes you an untrustworthy person.

Duff’s assertion that he doesn’t know “any imaginable way you can get information” is patently silly – this site is LOADED with information in the form of primary documentation and verifiable source material, painstakingly assembled for readers to dig further into should they so choose. I would posit that Duff makes this ridiculous claim to dissuade people from looking at actual evidence, as if one takes a peek under those proverbial covers, they’ll quickly find VT caught with its pants down.

Thanks again for taking the time to comment, Jerry, and I hope our difference of opinion on this matter won’t put you off to my future writings; I sincerely hope this is the first comment exchange of many!

Kind Regards,
Rusticus

GUEST POST: De-Dollarization is Now Assured – SDR Bond Issued by World Bank in China

Rory Hall of The Daily Coin hits it out of the park with this one – a very important story with prescient commentary, and yet more evidence of the Hegelian “East-West Changeover” so often discussed here at Stateless Homesteading. The “writing on the wall” for SDR-denominated bonds in China has been visible since at least April of this year, when the PBOC began releasing data on currency reserves denominated in SDRs (which we covered here). 

First the Yuan’s rapid integration with the IMF’s SDR basket (as predicted by this author in Summer of 2015), then the AIIB’s joint World Bank development pact, now SDR-denominated Chinese bonds issued by none other than the World Bank. Is this an Eastern effort to launch a “Trojan Horse of Reform” into the heart of the Western financial system, or are these merely China’s outward attempts to fully integrate themselves as a multilateral “partner” in the Globalist borg? Can a meat grinder be “reformed” into a cow?

Only with the retrospection of history will we know the outcome, though this author’s personal take on the matter is likely known to you by now. Thanks as always for reading and check back for more updates soon!

Rusticus

Original Author: The Daily Coin

This just hit the wire and confirms what we have been discussing for the past couple of weeks. The World Bank (International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, IBRD) has approved the People’s Bank of China to issue the SDR Bond. This is a major first step in delivering a realistic blow to the dominance of the U.S. dollar as world reserve currency. It is no secret that China has been making international moves to make the Renminbi (RMB) a more attractive currency on the global stage. This latest move solidifies the RMB as a world currency.

There has not yet been set a launch date for the first issuance of this new SDR Bond, however, in previous communiques there has been discussion to launch as soon as the end of August.

A lot of you are probably thinking “big deal, who cares”. Well, once this bond reaches it’s 3rd, 4th issuance and the demand begins to grow the impact this will have on U.S. Treasuries could be significant. The United States is the largest debtor nation in the history of the world and the U.S. Treasuries are the financial instrument that creates and maintains that debt. Once all these U.S. Treasuries begin flowing back into the U.S. economy that has the potential to create a lot more inflation that we are currently experiencing. That is merely one aspect of the overall. So, yes, it’s a big deal.

One of the main characteristics of this new SDR Bond is it will be issued in SDRs and redeemable in Renminbi (Yuan). The significants of this can not be overstated. This means that an investor in America who purchases the new SDR Bond will now have exposure to the RMB and hold fewer dollars in their portfolio. These investors can then use those SDR Bonds as collateral to make other purchases. The renminbi will now be on a level playing field as the other currencies that make up the SDR Basket of currencies. Currently the SDR Basket of currencies is made up of US dollars, Euro, Japanese Yen, British Pound Stirling and as of October 1, 2016 the Chinese Renminbi.

This is a big deal and has the potential to forever change the U.S. dollar and the bond market. Nay-sayers will be quick to point out these bonds were tried in the past. While that is true, the economic times were not as they are today.

As Eric Dubin, The News Doctors, described the beginning phases of this new bond “will be like flicking grains of rice into the bond market“. While I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, over the coming months and years the impact will be very real. As the AIIB, BRICS Bank, New Development Bank, PBOC and other banks around the world begin, in earnest, to convert their bond holdings to the SDR Bond the market will begin evolving and once it reaches critical mass the hordes will rush in, just as they always have in the past.

According to the World Bank:

The size of the World Bank’s new issuance program is 2 billion SDRs (approximately equivalent to USD 2.8 billion). The bonds will be denominated in SDRs and payable in Chinese renminbi (RMB). The precise timing of issue and individual bond terms will be based on market conditions at the time of issuance.

During the 1970’s we did not have Quantitative Easing, Zero Interest Rate Policy nor Negative Interest Rate Policies. We also did not have derivatives, nor “too big to fail” banks. So, yes the SDR bonds first appearance was a failure, however, everything has changed and the world looks and acts a lot different than back then.

World Bank explains further:

“This is a landmark development for China’s bond market and for the SDR as an international reserve asset,” said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim. “We are very pleased to support China’s growing role in global financial markets. World Bank issuance of SDR bonds in China will support the G-20’s objective of expanding the use of SDRs and help promote the development of China’s domestic capital market. It will also increase Chinese investors’ access to foreign currencies in the domestic bond market, while opening up new opportunities for international investors seeking high-quality investment products in the country.”

Since I am a betting man my money is on these bonds being supercharged right out of the gate. My bet is there are nations around the world looking for an alternative to the U.S. Treasury and world reserve currency system. Change has arrived. The dollars days are numbered. How long it will take for the dollar to transform is yet unknown, however, what is known is this – China is on the rise, China has the wealth, the gold and support of the banking cabal around the world. What China also has is more than $1 TRILLION in U.S. Treasuries that she will begin converting to SDR Bonds over the next several months and years. Count on it.

BREXIT Vote Passes! Here’s how Alt-Market Called It When No One Else Did

I hope to write on the greater end-game of “BREXIT” and what such a move spells for the IMF’s planned SDR re-weighting later this Fall, but for now, Brandon Smith of Alt-Market echoes my sentiments wholeheartedly. The move, while seemingly cause for celebration, ultimately has the potential to end with both the Pound and the Euro significantly weaker going into this IMF basket re-weighting, allowing the RMB to take monetary helm of the “multilateral World Order” now emerging. 

If these “sweeping Populist movements” already emergent in much of Europe begin to secede en-masse or if the waves of BREXIT cause commercial bank defaults, the debt hologram collective of the European Union will no longer be foisting usurious austerity upon and bailing out neighboring countries – they will be seeking bailouts themselves. Only supranational institutions like the IMF are able to facilitate this task, and Europe may find itself “out of the EU frying pan and into the Multipolar fire.”

While it remains to be seen exactly what the fate of the global economy will be post-BREXIT, it’s important to view these changes within the context of recent events as well as history:

  • The UK never adopted the Euro as a currency, keeping the Pound Sterling in place even as Euroskeptic resistance in nations like France and Germany failed to do the same.
  • The UK, despite now finding itself in the tenuous position of having to re-negotiate trade deals with its former bedfellows in the EU, are prepared for this contingency: They were the first major Western nation to join the AIIB, a move that “shocked” the financial world but was quite predictable for those of us who realize the Anglo-American Establishment’s history in China as well as the “East-West changeover” now in progress.
  • The Pound is a member of the SDR basket and its weighting is individually calculated from the Euro; if the upcoming re-weighting of the SDR includes a hefty share to the RMB, as scripted by Chatham House, a stalwart AIIB partner like the UK would stand to benefit. The City of London, it would seem, has planned for their European headquarters and gateway to the East to have a destiny somewhat insulated from the Eurozone chaos at large.
  • Equally important is that, were the Eurozone to begin to disintegrate as a whole, the “rebooted” currencies of continental Europe (Drachma, Franc, Lira, Deutchemark, etc.) would find themselves excluded from the multipolar SDR currency regime – no longer a fief of the Technocrats in Brussels, but instead, indentured servants of Global Governance. 

For the record, none of these musings should indicate that I am “against” a departure of the UK from the Eurozone – I applaud the sentiments of the referendum and populist rejection of Globalism wholeheartedly! This type of populist expression, however, (playing the game of Nation-States as opposed to exercising individual and localized solutions) is easily re-directed by the Aikido-like reflexes of Globalism into something far different than what was intended; if it wasn’t scripted this way from the outset, of course.

My commentary is getting a bit long in the tooth, so I’ll leave you now with Mr. Smith’s fantastic macrofinancial analysis. Check back for more updates soon!

-Rusticus

Brandon Smith, Alt-Market

Yes, in case you fell asleep before the votes were tallied, the UK referendum has passed and global markets are currently in a freefall we have not seen since 2008.  In this case, I’m going to have to trumpet my successful call here.  For all the general flak I received in emails for my predictions of a Brexit passage including in my article ‘Brexit: Global Trigger Event, Fake Out Or Something Else’ which was published during the height of the polling disinformation frenzy, I think it is important to explain how I was able to discern how the vote was likely to turn out when no one else did.

Also, if there were other analysts that did predict a Brexit win and I am overlooking them, please list their names and where they made those predictions in the comments below so that we can give them their due credit.

Here’s why the vast majority of analysts were caught with their pants down on the UK referendum:

1) They assumed that the Brexit will hurt globalists – In the article linked above, I outlined why the Brexit actually aids international financiers and central banks by creating a scapegoat for a market crash that was ALREADY going to happen.  Rather than re-explaining my position, here is a large portion of quotations from that article:

I believe the Brexit vote may be allowed to succeed, here’s why…

1) Elites including George Soros have suddenly decided to dive into the market to place bets on the negative side. Dumping large portions of their stock holdings, shorting equities and buying up gold and gold mining shares. Soros has been preparing his portfolio for a successful Brexit vote while at the same time publicly warning of the supposed dire consequences if the referendum passes.  The last time Soros put this much capital into the markets was in 2007, just before the crash of 2008.

2) The IMF and the BIS have been warning since late 2015 (for six to eight months) that a global economic downturn is on the way in 2016. We saw considerable volatility at the beginning of this year, and markets are due for another shock. The last time the BIS and IMF were so adamant about an impending crash was in late 2007, just before the 2008 market plunge.

3) While the Federal Reserve has not yet implemented a second rate hike (I still believe they could use a rate hike this year to stab markets in the back if necessary), Janet Yellen pulled a maneuver which was almost as upsetting to investors. After the Fed policy meeting last week, markets were moderately exuberant and stocks were rising, then, Yellen opened her mouth and blamed the Brexit for the rate hike delay

Here is what the Fed has done: By delaying the second hike for another month, and then blaming the Brexit vote as a primary reason, they have created a bit of a paradox. If the Brexit vote passes, the Fed is asserting that they may not hike rates for a while, giving market investors the impression that the global economic recovery is not all that it is cracked up to be. If the Brexit vote fails, then the Fed MUST hike rates in July, otherwise, they lose all credibility. I believe Yellen’s claim that the Brexit vote was the cause of the hike delay was highly deliberate. It has triggered what may become a growing firestorm in equities and commodities.

From the point of view of investors, if the Brexit passes, then all hell breaks loose. If the Brexit fails, then the Fed will hike rates and once again, all hell breaks loose. Or, the Fed refuses to hike rates even though its number one scapegoat is out of the picture, it loses all credibility, and all hell breaks loose.

It’s a lose/lose/lose scenario for the investment world, which is probably why global markets plunged after Yellen’s remarks. Investors have been relying on the predictability of central bank intervention for so long that now when ANY uncertainty arises, they run for the hedges.

The Fed decision to blame the Brexit for their rate hike delay could indicate foreknowledge of a successful Brexit vote.

4) The recent murder of British lawmaker Jo Cox is perhaps the weirdest piece in the puzzle of the Brexit. For one thing, it makes no sense for a pro-Brexit nationalist (Thomas Mair) to attack and kill a pro-EU lawmaker when the polls for the “Leave” group were clearly ahead. One could simply argue that the guy was nuts, but I’m rather suspicious of “lone gunman,” and his insanity has yet to be proven.  I see no reason for this man, insane or not, to be angry enough to kill while the Brexit side was winning in all the polls.

If someone was using him as a weapon only to discredit the Brexit vote or sway the public towards staying in the EU, you would think that they would have initiated the murder closer to the day of the referendum when it would have the most effect. The information flooded public has days to digest new data and forget Jo Cox.

My theory? Thomas Mair has handlers or he is just a mentally disturbed patsy, and his purpose is indeed to paint the Brexit movement as “angry” or crazy. But this does not necessarily mean the intent behind the assassination of Jo Cox was to break the back of the Brexit movement. Rather, the goal may only be to perpetuate a longer term narrative that conservatives in general are a destructive element of society. We kill, we’re racists, we have an archaic mindset that prevents “progress,” we divide supranational unions, we even destroy global economies. We’re storybook monsters.

Even the cultural Marxists at the Southern Poverty Law Center somehow produced documents allegedly linking Mair (a veritable unknown) to Neo-Nazi groups in 1999. Wherever the SPLC is involved, the official story is always skewed.

The murder of Jo Cox has had a minimal effect on Brexit polling numbers.  In the end, the elites may find Thomas Mair more useful as a mascot for the Brexit AFTER the vote, rather than before the vote.

So now the Brexit movement, which is conservative in spirit, is labeled a “divisive” and “hateful group”, and if the referendum is triumphant, they will also be called economic saboteurs.

I thoroughly agree that the internationalists do not usually allow economic developments of a global nature to occur if those events are damaging to their base of power.  The problem is, Brexit is not damaging to their base of power in the long run.  In fact, the elites are aided by the Brexit because now they have British pro-sovereigns and the principle of sovereignty itself to blame for a market crash that they have actually been engineering for years.

2) They Believed The Polling Numbers – I take polling numbers into account at times but they are ultimately meaningless when you are dealing with global economic events.  As I point out above, such events are thoroughly played by internationalists.  What people should have been looking at instead of skewed polling numbers was the behavior of elites prior to the vote.  George Soros’ latest market bets were clearly on a crash (I’m sure he just raked in a handsome profit), and central bankers from around the world congregated at the Bank for International Settlements in preparation for the vote.  Janet Yellen blaming the Brexit for the Fed’s refusal to raise rates in June should have been a red flag for everyone.  When in doubt, always look at what the elites are doing with policy and their own money.

3)  They Have Grown Cynical – After eight years of constant market manipulation, the Liberty Movement in particular has grown rather cynical about whether or not the fundamentals even matter anymore.  I’m here to tell you, they do matter.  However, stocks today are not based on fundamentals, they are based on dubious investor psychology and algo-trading computers.  When investor psychology is broken, the markets are suddenly reminded of the terrible fundamentals of our economic system and stocks begin to crash.  Eventually, fundamentals will win over false financial optimism.  The international banks are well aware of this, and are merely allowing circumstances by which they can crash the markets THEIR WAY instead of allowing the markets to crash naturally.  Too many analysts overlooked the usefulness of Brexit to the elites because of their crippling cynicism.

4) They Missed The Bigger Picture – If all an analyst does is track equities and sometimes commodities, they are never going to grasp what is happening in the economy.  Our financial system is not based entirely on numbers and graphs; it is a sociopolitical apparatus.  Political and social developments can indeed signal what might happen in stocks and on mainstreet.  The relations are there, but they are often indirect.  In 2016, EVERYTHING is snowballing with tension.  It was only a matter of time before something snapped.  The timing of the Brexit amidst these tensions led me to believe it had a high probability of being a trigger for the next leg down.

So, the big question now is what happens as the circus continues?  I will be writing a comprehensive article on what is likely to occur over the next few months in markets and everywhere else in response to the Brexit event.  Look for that article to be published early next week.  I do believe that central banks around the world are probably going to take action at some point in the near term to mitigate the market collapse and slow it down slightly.  As I have always said, this is a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the global economy; the elites want to steam valve the system down and are probably not going to allow a complete freefall.

You will most likely see a mainstream media campaign to marginalize the importance of the Brexit.  They will claim that the referendum is not necessarily binding yet. That it will take years to be instituted.  Frankly, this is not relevant.  Again, the markets are based on psychology first, and the damage has already been done.  Watch for further market disruptions to pile on before the U.S. elections, including other EU member states suggesting their own referendums.

Stay tuned to Alt-Market for further analysis…

Regards,

Brandon Smith, Founder of Alt-Market.com

Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO

Since its inception, a common theme running throughout the entries here at Stateless Homesteading has been the notion that the “East vs. West” dialectic presented in both mainstream and off-mainstream media is not an organically-manifested conflict, nor does it represent the end of Globalization, but is instead a managerial shift from from a “unipolar” World Order to a “multipolar” New World Order.

Yet despite my best efforts in demonstrating, with primary sources and documented evidence, the “ties that bind” East and West in globalized efforts as varied as Agenda 21 or the gradual emergence of the SDR’s multi-currency basket as the preferred “One World Currency” of both China and the Anglo-American Establishment, the onslaught of propaganda proclaiming that the BRICS/AIIB construct is to spell “death to the Western banking empire” continues to grow.

Seemingly immune to the inaccuracy of the unsourced “predictions” being churned out by the “BRICS World Order” rumor mill, fantastic fairy-tales of White Hats and White Dragons fly unabated, despite the breakdown of the BRICS Saviour meme at its core. While these pundits prognosticate about the end of Agenda 21 in the East, official statements from both Jin Liqun (former Vice President of the Asian Development Bank, now AIIB President) and Xi Jinping completely contradict this narrative. So, too, do the notions espoused surrounding the Yuan/RMB attaining world reserve currency status stand in stark contrast to the macroeconomic reality we now face: A China whose currency has been accepted into the SDR basket (as predicted by myself and others). A PBOC that has begun issuing Chinese reserves denominated in SDRs. Anglo-American think tanks proposing not a gold-backed RMB as so many have foreseen, but a “pseudo” gold-backed SDR, and a Chinese Central Bank head all too willing to comply.

The real tragedy of this disconnect between fiction and reality, however, is not merely the perturbing dismissal of primary sources, but that in the abandonment of uncomfortable Truths for reassuring fiction, those alt-media aficionados who believe the Chinese-led Eastern coalition to be in opposition to Globalism find themselves in unwitting support of the next phase of the New World Order, euphemistically marketed as “multipolarism.”

While the above may seem a contradictory statement to those still mired in the “BRICS World Order” PR pumpage, the afterbirth of the Rhodes Roundtable known as Chatham House has done us all a great favor in the publication of its November 2015 policy paper, “International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

Not that the “Royal” Institute for International Affairs has undergone some profound outpouring of empathy for human freedom and autonomy – though I doubt you were expecting that, Reader. They have, however, demonstrated succinctly that the rhetoric surrounding the rise of the East in Globalist circles is virtually identical to the “Asian exceptionalism” being propagated throughout alternative media today.

Save for one key distinction, of course: The Chatham House version of events in no way implies some cartoonish overnight disappearance of the structures of national and global governance, but instead, an assimilation of regional powerbrokers into a Globalized financial order. Not only does this article series seek to demonstrate that a “World Federalism” of distributed power blocs like the BRICS and AIIB is the “transformation” of Globalism being sought in the 21st Century, but to show, within the context of history, that this has been a linchpin in the gambit for global governance for at least half a century.

Goodbye Pax Americana, Hello New Multipolar World Order

A central element of the “BRICS Saviour” meme, in addition to the geopolitical and financial rise of Asia, is a corresponding end to American (and thus Dollar) hegemony. The funeral pyre of “The West” will inevitably serve as fertilizer for the Phoenix of Eastern multipolar institutions like the BRICS and AIIB, and here, many an alternative media blogger and Chatham House are in complete agreement:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-33-22

In keeping with the G20-centric title of the paper, Chatham House decries not only the unipolar U.S.-led global coalition, but its chief “old World Order” working group, the G7; as an organization set up in 1973 and designed expressly to support the mechanics of floating currencies inherent with the petrodollar, the G7, like the unipolar American Empire it represents, must make way for the “new working group on the block.” And what better working group to lead the charge in a “multipolar world of more dispersed economic power” than the “inclusive” G20, of which China takes the reigns later this year?

G20 Logo

The logo for the 2016 G20 meeting in Hangzhou, China – complete with all-seeing eye symbolism. Cue Alan Parsons Project.

Doubtlessly, Chatham House has high hopes for President Xi’s coming G20 stewardship, with such grandiose aspirations as “improving global governance” and “implementing the UN’s 2030 development agenda” already pledged by the would-be Chairman:

From Chatham House publication "Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016," published in March of this year

From Chatham House publication “Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016,” released in March of this year

Yet despite Chatham House’s full acknowledgement and support of the new multipolar world now emerging, a critical element in furthering this agenda has yet to come into play: The IMF’s Christine Lagarde refers to it as the “Great Reset.” Many alt-media soothsayers use the same terminology, appending any number of personal delusions (from the end of Globalism to the playing out of Biblical Prophecy) to this pending event. It is known to the RIIA simply as a “Bretton Woods moment:”

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-36-36

Like the public relations onslaught from various “BRICS Saviour” authors, Chatham House expresses a certain amount of frustration in the lack of a fundamental restructuring of the global economy post-2008 – the lack of this “Great Reset”. The commonalities in narrative regarding the presence of such a monetary event on the horizon, however, aren’t damning in and of themselves – after all, the “deep changes in the world economy” referenced above are becoming increasingly known to even the layman. What is disconcerting is the synchronous manner in which Chatham House and various segments of alt-media view the world – and in part, how they view the New World:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-37-34

This is where things get particularly interesting; Chatham House overtly decries the “US-dominated world economic order” represented by the IMF, World Bank, and various “Anglo-Saxon” economic institutions as “unfavorable” and an “imposition.” This unipolar old order, being inherently opposed to the new multipolar one being promoted therein, must be restrained in order for the agenda at large to progress – in both the eyes of Chatham House as well as the “Eastern exceptionalists” in our midst:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-39-36

Much to the chagrin of many a BRICS PR agent, Chatham House appends the much-lauded buzz-word of the “New World (Economic) Order” not to the Pax Americana discussed previously, but to emerging markets, specifically China. This New Order, Chatham House proclaims, must no longer allow the United States to project its power through Globalist institutions. “King Dollar,” too, Chatham House deems to be an unnecessary unipolar burden, having outlived its usefulness.

The above passage has profound implications. From the mouth of the Anglo-American Establishment itself, it is emphatically declared that the American Empire is not now and never was the “New World Order,” but a mere stepping stone towards regional federationism, the “true” face of global governance! What’s worse, vast swaths of the “resistance” have somehow come to the fallacious conclusion that the death of American hegemony is the end of Globalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-40-16

Chatham House goes out of its way to establish that the sacrifice of the United States and its influence over international organizations pales in comparison to the survival of “the system” itself. The transformation to a multipolar system, they say, is an inevitability. After over half a century of being used by the Globalists as a blunt instrument of imperialism, usury, and terror, the proverbial pitbull of the old Order must be put down in favor of the multilateral puppy mill headquartered in the East.

For those disparate souls still ensnared by the belief that the “BRICS World Order” will somehow spell the end of Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and World Bank entirely, this author is here to inform you that this is simply not the trajectory the world is on. As opposed to the machinations of Globalism and its governing structures vanishing with the flick of Eastasia’s magic wand, an altogether different sleight of hand is set to debut on the world stage: The handover of these Globalist institutions to the East.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-42-18The message from Chatham House to America is unabashed: “You are no longer the driver of economic Globalism. Step out of the vehicle (the IMF) and allow Eastasia to finish the cruise towards Technocratic Neofeudalism.” Growing increasingly impatient with even the ghost of “representation” known as Congress, the implementation of increased voting rights at the IMF for the BRICS/AIIB nations and thus, an end to American veto power, can’t happen soon enough in the eyes of the RIIA. In the meantime, though, Europe and America must not wait to act – the World Bank and IMF head must represent this newfound multilateralism, declaring that Lagarde’s potential replacement could (and it is implied should) be Chinese. The installation of Globalist puppets like Zhou Xiaochuan or Jin Liqun to such a position would certainly herald the beginning of this handover in earnest. Chatham House also suggests that America should “show support for the AIIB and other emerging-market initiatives (read: BRICS),” though I suspect the “Good Witch of the East vs. the Wicked Witch of the West” dialectic is far too useful a propaganda initiative in selling the changeover to the global populous to be abandoned just yet.

All of this, of course, is a radically different outcome from the almost Utopian bill of goods sold by alt-media authors publicizing the “Great Reset” as a quick (albeit painful) end to Free Humanity’s woes. Some have already begun to subtly modify their stories to integrate these inconvenient facts, proclaiming that globalism itself is not the genesis of our problems, but that we merely have a “bad King.” Still embroiled in the paradigm of competing nation-states, too many have forgotten Globalism’s true nature as a multinational Superclass with little to no national identity to speak of.

The end of Pax Americana, the regionalization of the globe, a federalized global government under which all these seemingly disparate regions will be bound – these aren’t ideas cobbled together since 2008 in some floundering attempt to retain the current model of Western imperialism, nor are they a tacit acceptance of the “unforeseen” rise of the Second World. This plot has existed, in various forms, since at least the establishment of the post-War institutions the East is set to inherit.

The Multilateral World Order: An Old Plan Comes to Fruition

For the student of forensic history, ruminations about the “multilateral” and “multipolar” era we’re now on the cusp of are not difficult to find – even among some of the most frequently cited works in alt-media. Take, for example, the oft-mentioned 1997 book by Zbignew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard. While best known for the establishment of the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” (the encirclement of the Eurasian Heartland as opposed to its direct invasion) The Grand Chessboard includes many references to a multilateral world structured in regionally-administered blocs – specifically citing the economic rise of Asia:

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

In the chapter entitled, “The Far Eastern Anchor,” Brzezinski makes note of Asia as the new engine for world economic activity; and how does he suggest the Anglo-American Establishment best direct this synthetic “Eastern miracle”? Through the establishment of “multilateral structures” prevalent in the West that, as of 20 years ago, did not formally exist in the East. The Asian “working groups” (and the Asian Development Bank that supports them) as they existed at the time were not satisfactory in the eyes of Brzezinski.

In retrospect, however, it’s clear that Brzezinski’s aforementioned “web of multiltaeral and regional cooperative ties,” as confirmed by Chatham House, the United Nations, and the AIIB itself, have begun to emerge in the form of the dual Chinese-led development banks:

From the Chatham House policy paper, "International Economic Governance."

From the Chatham House policy paper, “International Economic Governance.”

Just this past week, a prominent alt-media commentator declared, “That [the rise of the AIIB] is a quantifiable way to show that China is taking a different direction than the Zbignew Brzezinski Grand Chessboard model.” This statement stands in such stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question that I’m forced to question whether people have truly digested and internalized these primary sources or are merely parroting one another’s unrealities.

Brzezinski is hardly alone among the cadre of Globalist “luminaries” promoting this multilateralism, nor is he the first – another protege of the Rockefeller family, the infamous Henry Kissinger, is not to be excluded in tracing this meme’s origins. From 1956 to 1960, Nelson Rockefeller hand-selected a then-youthful Kissinger to head up what was known as the “Special Studies Project.” The Commission was staffed with the task, as stated on pg. 35 of the Project’s literary adaptation, of “helping to shape a New World Order.” Its complete findings, published in 1961 as Prospects for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, are nothing short of a guidebook towards the multilateral future we now face.

I recommend this excellent blog post for a more thorough background on Prospects for America, but a select few passages deserve mention here; chiefly those regarding (you guessed it) the development of regional multipolarism in the East:

regional189

In discussing the topic of “multinationalism,” a regional bloc structure organized globally is a foregone conclusion to Rockefeller’s Special Studies Project. And how does the Kissinger-led, Rockefeller-commissioned panel suggest these “regional arrangements” should be made?

regional190

Not only should regionally federated blocs be organized worldwide, the latter “suggestions” given by the panel are almost universally at play in the East. Joint efforts in “economic development, common markets, and free trade areas” are exactly the purpose served by the BRICS and AIIB in our modern era, especially as these “regional agreements” are being rapidly integrated into the Globalist borg:

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank - from China Daily

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank – from China Daily

The “join accord on monetary and exchange agreements” are also quickly progressing within these new Eastern blocs; Zhou Xiaochuan, a longstanding member of the Bank for International Settlements and head of the People’s Bank of China, has been in support of such a joint accord in the form of the SDR for nearly a decade now. With the acceptance of the RMB into the SDR basket as of last December, we continue to see (as with the AIIB) the integration of regional blocs into globalized structures, exactly as the Project foresaw half a Century ago:

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year - via Xinhua

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year – via Xinhua

These supranational institutions are readily constructing the mechanisms by which the East will be fully integrated with the Anglo-American Establishment’s longstanding goal of global governance. Beginning in earnest with Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and Richard Nixon’s Neomercantile “opening of China” briefly after Prospects for America‘s initial publication, the timing is hardly coincidental. The trade imbalances globalism has wrought upon the people of Western society, too, are now a matter of the historical record – all as dictated back in 1961:

china75b

Conclusions

Despite this author’s dour take on the state of alternative media analysis regarding the BRICS/AIIB construct, not all alternative commentators don rose-colored glasses when gazing Eastward. There are any number of alt-media websites that examine the “East rising” meme within the full context of history.

Among these ranks is Catherine Austin Fitts. A former insider at both Dillon, Reed & Co. and the H.W. Bush Administration, Ms. Fitts is a whistleblower whose credibility is matched by few in our field. Perhaps due to the insider information yielded by her connections in a previous life, Catherine offers the most succinct breakdown of the “multipolar World Order” I’ve yet to come across when she says:

“What’s been happening is when Snowden came out with his revelations and they got publicized, you had a reaction in the BRICS nations to say, ‘These systems have no integrity. We need to build our own systems. Whether they’re internet and digital communications systems, payment systems, or clearance systems – and we need to be able to transact without going through the dollar. We need to build currency swaps and interaction.’

Now I think that ultimately what’s happening is that you started a process in 1995 where the United States tried to build out a global empire leading towards global governance, and the U.S. has stalled in many different fields and for a variety of reasons. They’re pregnant halfway, stuck in the mud, everybody mad at them, and it just wasn’t getting done. And if you look at what Snowden and Putin and the BRICS are up to, I think that’s Mr. Global deciding that the U.S. needs a little competition – that we have a better chance getting to a global currency and global governance through the Hegelian Dialectic of competition between Plan A and Plan B.

Catherine Austin Fitts

And therein lies why the “East vs. West” pseudo-conflict as currently portrayed is so disheartening to watch: One of the oldest tricks in the Globalist playbook, the Hegelian Dialectic, is being actively fomented in order to advance the cause of a “multipolar New World Order”… and a significant portion of alt-media has taken the bait.

It’s easy to see why so many people have relegated themselves to the belief that the post-“Great Reset” world led by the BRICS nations will end all transnational woes – the idea that “everything will be fine due time” is quite alluring bait, indeed. But in accepting the external, supranational synthetic “saviours” offered to us, our attention is drawn away from the internal, localized organic solutions that can thwart the machinations of Globalism at their core, be they Eastern or Western.

My intention in destroying the “Noble Lie” of this dialectic is not to instill hopelessness; far from it, Reader! It’s an attempt to empower – to acknowledge the true potential in the coming “Bretton Woods moment.” Despite the best efforts of the Machiavellian schemers mentioned throughout this article, the “Great Reset” will by no means be a completely orderly transition. While it may be true that we’re already well along the path outlined by the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, and Pickfords of the world, its success still depends upon our compliance.

As is the modus operandi of the ruling class, significant economic hardship is almost certain to be a key factor in coercing humanity’s consent for the multipolar World Order. In true Ordo ab Chao style, any number of top-down solutions will be offered (with weighty concessions) to “make the pain stop.” But what if, in ripping off the Band-Aid of our engineered “world economy,” people found the wound far less debilitating than the media talking-heads proclaimed? What if local trade, agriculture, and energy production were resilient enough on a wide scale to compete with multinational trade deals? What if individuals chose their own currencies and were in a position to reject the SDR-denominated system to be foist upon them?

Doubtlessly, we are still far from this vehemently decentralized vision of the future – and perhaps we always will be. Perhaps Free Humanity is simply not prepared for the hard work of genuine autonomy this time ’round.

But I do know this: We’ll never attain these lofty goals by pretending some external force will do it on our behalf.