Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Matthias Chang

Matthias Chang

Global Research, December 13, 2008 - 2008-12-12

A few weeks ago, I warned in my website that the Dow would dive below 7,000 at the earliest by end of December 2008 and at the latest by the end of the first quarter 2009.

Any responsible central banker would want to control a downturn, preferably by a gradual slide of the market as opposed to a sharp hard landing.

But events and data have revealed that these financial handlers are not responsible and are hard core gamblers in their very soul.

Their mindset is that of the ultimate gambler and nothing in this world will change their behaviour not even the thought that millions will starve and die and that national economies will be shattered. They are totally unconcerned as the devastating consequences of their actions.  And anyone still having illusions about their altruistic aims will be disappointed.

The stock market and the derivative market is their ultimate casino. Fix this in your mind in the months to come. Then you will understand and agree with me and my conclusions in the next few paragraphs.

Global Financial Domination

The present global financial tsunami has given the 12 elite global gamblers and 2 maybe 3 central banks, the opportunity of a millennium to confiscate un-imaginable wealth and power and to reign supreme over the entire planet.

Since the massive injection of trillions into the major global banks by the FED, Bank of England and to a lesser degree the European Central Bank (ECB), many financial commentators and economists of all hues have been lamenting that the banks are not lending as per the aims of the “rescue package” but are instead hoarding the monies. Various reasons and excuses have been made to justify this massive hoarding, unheard in the history of banking.

I will now reveal the real and hidden reason for this hoarding.

It is this. Bernanke and Paulson have been directed by the controllers of the Shadow Money-Lenders that it is time to make the ultimate bet on the global casino – the playing of the $Trillion dollar chips.

This gambit is risky but they have been assured by the “financial models” created by economists, the Nobel Laureates such as Myron Scholes etc. that they will win hands down!

Should the bet misfire, be assured also that the world will enter the dark ages for years to come. But the 12 chosen elite gamblers have been primed and are ready for the ultimate gamble and they are not concerned about our welfare.

$8.5 Trillion no less is the pot of money that they can throw at the casino table, maybe more. This sum is over half the GDP of the US which has been estimated at US$13 Trillion. The global GDP is approximately US$60 Trillion.

There is no entity in the world that has the means and the control of the casino to match their betting power. So these elite gamblers are determined and more than confident that they will win and win big.

This is because their mindset is that of a gambler and that the world is a Casino.

They have completely in their calculations divorced their strategy from the dynamics of the real economy.

This will be their fatal mistake and their downfall. But my pleas will fall on deaf ears.

The Ultimate Bet

What is uncertain and unknown is the timing of this Trillion dollar bet. But my estimation is, just before the crowning of Obama on 20th January 2009.

The logic of these gamblers is that when they place the trillion dollar bet in the global casino, the markets will surge in one huge rally – the reversal of a tidal wave. When that happens, everything will be “sucked-up” and recede in the belly of the ocean (the gamblers financial pockets)

Those of us who have had the experience of the Tsunami will understand. The incoming Wave destroyed everything in its path. And when the force reversed, everything was sucked backed into the ocean, leaving the dead and damages on the beaches!

Therefore, I expect a huge rally soon.

The chosen elite global gamblers know that this is their one and only chance to total conquest and financial power. This is because should the Dow decline below the 7,000 mark and other stock indexes dive in tandem, no force will be able to trigger a reversal of the trend.

The hoarding of Trillions in the coffers of these chosen elite gamblers is the equivalent of giving extra fuel or ammunition to these financial terrorists to unleash their evil deed of devastation!

How high the rally, I cannot forecast. But I am confident that this gamble will fail. Had this bet being played in late 2007, there was an even chance of success. But it is too late now for this gambit.

The financial cancer has spread all over the body. Not even the immediate surgery and transplant of the organs will change the course.

Given the situation and the desperation of the Controllers of the Shadow Money-Lenders, this bet must be played. It is all or nothing. This is their mindset.

Just place yourself in their position, one with a warped mindset. You have $8.5 Trillion, maybe more. There is a chance for you to amass maybe US$100 Trillion or more on this one bet. If you fail, a slow but still a luxurious death awaits you. What would you do?

“To hell with the rest of the world, I will take my chances and even if I lose, I still have a couple of billions” will most probably be your frame of mind.

As I said earlier, they will fail. The Dow will surge, but will explode and dive with such ferocity that the world will suffer a massive heart attack from the shock of the collapse. THE DOW WILL SINK LIKE THE TITANIC!

If you are a gambler and want to take a chance and go in and buy then sell at the top, by all means do so, provided you have the inside intelligence possessed only by the chosen elites.

For the rest of us, start building bomb shelters!

You are all forewarned.

Stop these financial terrorists!


Matthias Chang  

Recently, I wrote:

1.    “Wrong Medicine & Treatment For A Dying Patient” – 07.12.08
2.    “The Unbelievable Has Happened” – 09.12.08
3.    “Obama’s Gamble –The Ultimate & Final Bet …” – 12.12.08

These articles have been posted to my website in the Folder: “Breaking News” and I hope that it has prepared you and your family for the inevitable global breakdown commencing first quarter 2009.

In my last article of the above series I drew your attention that the global banks are up to no good, even though they are all bankrupt, and are intent on unleashing further devastation.

Yet, I have received messages arguing that they cannot be bankrupt as they have received billions in new capital. My answer to these challenges is simple – please read at least five times all my articles for I have repeatedly stated that these fraudulent banks’ liabilities are in the trillions, not billions. Therefore, additional injection of capital in the billions and the hoarding of the same do not alter the status quo of these banks. They are all bankrupt.

If anyone needed further confirmation, please read the latest by Reuters which reported on December 11, 2008 that Jim Rogers speaking at the Reuters Investment Outlook 2009 Summit has stated categorically: “Most of the significant American banks, the larger banks, are bankrupt, totally bankrupt.”

And bear in mind who is Jim Rogers – he was the co-founder with George Soros of the Quantum Fund and is one of the world’s most influential investors.

Echoing my sentiments, Jim Rogers even said that the US government is barking up the wrong tree and providing the wrong solutions.

He said: “Governments are making mistakes … They’re saying to the banks, you don’t have to tell us your situation. You can continue to use your balance sheet that is phony … All these guys are bankrupt, they’re still worrying about their bonuses, they’re still trying to pay their dividends and the whole system is weakened.”

He continued his sharp criticisms and observed: “What is outrageous economically and is outrageous morally is that normally in times like this, people who are competent and who saw it coming and who kept their powder dry go and take over the assets from the incompetent. What’s happening this time is that the government is taking the assets from the competent people and giving them to the incompetent people and saying, now you can compete with the competent people. It is horrible economics.”

Following my very successful November 19, 2008 Forum at the Kuala Lumpur Mandarin Hotel, “A Strategy Forum With Matthias Chang – Will Your Company Survive The Global Financial Tsunami?”, I have noticed that there have been some conferences and seminars organized by ‘event managers’ exploiting the situation to make a quick buck, but failing miserably to address the fundamental causes of the present crisis.

Another recent event had a Nobel Laureate explaining the causes of volatility of markets. Do we need a Nobel Laureate to tell us how gamblers behave? When these experts till to-date cannot even create mathematical models to forecast the winner of a ten horse race at the turf club or to break the bank at any one of the Las Vegas casinos, what use are their models other than to con gullible investors? In fact, the present crisis has exposed the flaws and fallacies of such financial models, specifically their ability to forecast volatility, determine appropriate pricing of financial products and risks etc. The ARCH model which secured the Nobel Prize for this economist is now totally discredited!

Yet, he has the audacity to lecture us on volatility. But it is so typical of Malaysians who are always in awe of “experts” with titles and alphabets behind their names, and to listen and heed their advice on crisis management when the house is already on fire.    

The organizers, whoever they may be, seem unable to think independently and or see through the con-games structured by such economists! All they need to do was to Google “ARCH” and they would have known in an instant that it was used by investment bankers and hedge funds to gamble on the derivatives casino! Adding insult to injury, the event was organized to promote peace. How can there be peace, when such economists use their expertise to assist Wall Street gamblers to impoverish further the global economy where more than a billion people are surviving on less than a $1 a day, and now even less!

Be that as it may, the point that I want to stress here is that the “financial engineering” invented by Wall Street fat cats and fraudsters has brought the global economy to its knees!

I am most fortunate to come across a few days ago, the frank admission by one of the most admired mouthpiece of the global money-elite, that the consequences of the collapse of the US-based financial system will be dire and prolong. I refer to Mr. Neill Ferguson, touted as one of Britain’s most renowned historian. He is also the Laurence A Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and a Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.

In his latest book, “The Ascent of Money”, he wrote:

“All of this may seem arcane to some readers. Yet the ratio of a bank’s capital to its assets, technical though it may sound, is of more than merely academic interest. After all, a ‘great contraction’ in the US banking system has convincingly been blamed for the outbreak and course of the Great Depression between 1929 and 1933, the worst economic disaster in modern history. If US banks have lost significantly more than the $255 billion to which they have so far admitted as a result of the subprime mortgage crisis and credit crunch, there is a real danger that a much larger – perhaps tenfold larger – contraction in credit may be necessary to shrink the banks’ balance sheets in proportion to the decline in their capital. If the shadow banking system of securitized debt and off-balance sheet institutions is to be swept away completely by this crisis, the contraction could be still more severe.”

Please read the underlined words again.

Recall that my 3rd Volume of the Future Fast-Forward Trilogy is entitled “The Shadow Money-Lenders and the Global Financial Tsunami” and it was the first in Malaysia to expose the off-balance sheet toxic assets that have now infected the entire global economy.

If the next quote from this historian does not make you throw up a vomit, and put you in fear, you are not human. I quote:

“It is not too much to say that in mid-2008 we witnessed the inflationary symptoms of a world war without the war itself.”

Ponder on this in the next few days BEFORE you decide to make the next investment decision. It would be your very last one, and it would be a toss between survival and utter bankruptcy. And the worst is yet to come!

The coming months will witness bloody battles on all fronts between the global money-elites and their allies in central banks (who have been brainwashed to do their bidding) and the heroic frontlines of the emerging Global Counter-Alliance.

There are only a few moves left on the chess board.
The global money-elite is counting on one final move to checkmate the global economy and to seize the long awaited goal for total control of the world’s riches.

The emerging Global Counter-Alliance has at least three remaining moves to block, counter and checkmate the financial terrorists.

In my previous article, “Obama’s Gamble” I warned that the Shadow Money-Lenders will unleash a ferocious attack using the Trillions which they have hoarded from the bailouts structured by the FED and the US Treasury under the control of Paulson. This is a huge gamble, a bet never played before by any global gambler.

But this bet has been long in the planning, as the Shadow Money-Lenders were aware of the impending crisis. Alan Greenspan had served his purpose, and there was an urgent need for a replacement, one who would be willing to make an unprecedented $Trillion bet on one last throw of the dice!

Ben Bernanke was the money-elites’ first and only choice. And they trained and monitored him for four years before allowing him to take over the reins of the FED from Alan Greenspan.

It is because Ben Bernanke was the only one who dared to offer to play this US$ Trillion bet on one roll of the dice. It requires nerves of steel and a unique kind of hubris to make such a play. Bernanke fit the profile of such a gambler, when he said in a speech in November 21, 2002:

“US dollars have value only to the extent that they are strictly limited in supply. But the US government has a technology called the printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many US dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost. By increasing the number of US dollars in circulation, or even by credibly threatening to do so, the US government can also reduce the value of a dollar in terms of goods and services, which is equivalent to raising the prices in dollars of those goods and services. We conclude that, under a paper-money system, a determined government can always generate higher spending and hence positive inflation.”

Should we be surprised that Ben Bernanke is now caricatured as “Helicopter Ben”? Since 2007, Bernanke has dropped over $8.5 trillion from his helicopter to bailout the Wall Street fat cats. And now these global banks are hoarding the money to launch an unprecedented attack on global markets to secure total control. This is an all or nothing “suicide poker” bet. Forget about the FED and the Treasury rescuing the real economy. Bernanke and his masters are focused on the trillions up for grabs in the shadow financial system – pure lust and greed for toilet paper money.

But Bernanke and his Masters will not succeed.

The danger confronting the world will be after they have lost on the US$ trillion bet. These financial terrorists will be incensed and they will want vengeance.

So we must be realistic in our efforts to thwart the evil schemes of the global money-elites. Even in defeat in the financial battlefield, they will not surrender and will instead mobilize their hard-power to retain power.

It is therefore a given, that they will unleash domestic violence to justify military rule and to launch new wars to suppress any potential challengers to their dominance, even if it is over toilet paper money. They cannot, knowing their mindset, accept the reality of the historic demise of paper money.  

2009 will be the beginning of another historic 30-year war. But this time, it will not be confined to Europe, though it will start in Europe, but will engulf the whole world.

Obama, the “change agent” of the global money-elite, will be facilitating change, but the change will be to one of permanent wars, at least for the next 30 years. All his appointees thus far are the recycled products of the War Party who has dominated world politics for the last fifty years.

Consider the following:

1.    Robert Gates, Defense Secretary, a left over from Bush I and Bush II. Is that change?

2.    Rtd Marine General Jones, National Security Adviser and formerly Supreme Commander, NATO. Is that change?

3.    Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State who wants to wage war on Iran and supported the invasion of Iraq. Is that change?

4.    John Brennan, CIA Chief, a key player in “Extraordinary Rendition” – the kidnapping of suspects to be tortured. Is that change?

This is just for starters! Prepare for wars, more deadly wars!
Chris Hedges

The multiple failures that beset the country, from our mismanaged economy to our shredded constitutional rights to our lack of universal health care to our imperial debacles in the Middle East, can be laid at the feet of our elite universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford, along with most other elite schools, do a poor job educating students to think. They focus instead, through the filter of standardized tests, enrichment activities, advanced placement classes, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools and blind deference to all authority, on creating hordes of competent systems managers. The collapse of the country runs in a direct line from the manicured quadrangles and halls in places like Cambridge, Princeton and New Haven to the financial and political centers of power.

The nation’s elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent and often subversive. They organize learning around minutely specialized disciplines, narrow answers and rigid structures that are designed to produce certain answers. The established corporate hierarchies these institutions service—economic, political and social—come with clear parameters, such as the primacy of an unfettered free market, and with a highly specialized vocabulary. This vocabulary, a sign of the “specialist” and of course the elitist, thwarts universal understanding. It keeps the uninitiated from asking unpleasant questions. It destroys the search for the common good. It dices disciplines, faculty, students and finally experts into tiny, specialized fragments. It allows students and faculty to retreat into these self-imposed fiefdoms and neglect the most pressing moral, political and cultural questions. Those who defy the system—people like Ralph Nader—are branded as irrational and irrelevant. These elite universities have banished self-criticism. They refuse to question a self-justifying system. Organization, technology, self-advancement and information systems are the only things that matter.

“Political silence, total silence,” said Chris Hebdon, a Berkeley undergraduate. He went on to describe how various student groups gather at Sproul Plaza, the center of student activity at the University of California, Berkeley. These groups set up tables to recruit and inform other students, a practice know as “tabling.”

“Students table for Darfur, no one tables for Iraq. Tables on Sproul Plaza are ethnically fragmented, explicitly pre-professional (The Asian American Pre-Law or Business or Pre-Medicine Association). Never have I seen a table on globalization or corporatization. Students are as distracted and specialized and atomized as most of their professors. It’s vertical integration gone cultural. And never, never is it cutting-edge. Berkeley loves the slogan ‘excellence through diversity,’ which is a farce of course if one checks our admissions stats (most years we have only one or two entering Native Americans), but few recognize multiculturalism’s silent partner—fragmentation into little markets. Our Sproul Plaza shows that so well—the same place Mario Savio once stood on top a police car is filled with tens of tables for the pre-corporate, the ethnic, the useless cynics, the recreational groups, etc.”

I sat a few months ago with a former classmate from Harvard Divinity School who is now a theology professor. When I asked her what she was teaching, she unleashed a torrent of obscure academic code words. I did not understand, even with three years of seminary, what she was talking about. You can see this absurd retreat into specialized, impenetrable verbal enclaves in every graduate department across the country. The more these universities churn out these stunted men and women, the more we are flooded with a peculiar breed of specialist. This specialist blindly services tiny parts of a corporate power structure he or she has never been taught to question and looks down on the rest of us with thinly veiled contempt.

I was sent to boarding school on a scholarship at the age of 10. By the time I had finished eight years in New England prep schools and another eight at Colgate and Harvard, I had a pretty good understanding of the game. I have also taught at Columbia, New York University and Princeton. These institutions, no matter how mediocre you are, feed students with the comforting self-delusion that they are there because they are not only the best but they deserve the best. You can see this attitude on display in every word uttered by George W. Bush. Here is a man with severely limited intellectual capacity and no moral core. He, along with “Scooter” Libby, who attended my boarding school and went on to Yale, is an example of the legions of self-centered mediocrities churned out by places like Andover, Yale and Harvard. Bush was, like the rest of his caste, propelled forward by his money and his connections. That is the real purpose of these well-endowed schools—to perpetuate their own.

“There’s a certain kind of student at these schools who falls in love with the mystique and prestige of his own education,” said Elyse Graham, whom I taught at Princeton and who is now doing graduate work at Yale. “This is the guy who treats his time at Princeton as a scavenger hunt for Princetoniana and Princeton nostalgia: How many famous professors can I collect? And so on. And he comes away not only with all these props for his sense of being elect, but also with the smoothness that seems to indicate wide learning; college socializes you, so you learn to present even trite ideas well.”

These institutions cater to their students like high-end resorts. My prep school—remember this is a high school—recently built a $26-million gym. Not that it didn’t have a gym. It had a fine one with an Olympic pool. But it needed to upgrade its facilities to compete for the elite boys and girls being wooed by other schools. While public schools crumble, while public universities are slashed and degraded, while these elite institutions become unaffordable even for the middle class, the privileged retreat further into their opulent gated communities. Harvard lost $8 billion of its endowment over the past four months, which raises the question of how smart these people are, but it still has $30 billion. Schools like Yale, Stanford and Princeton are not far behind. Those on the inside are told they are there because they are better than others. Most believe it.

The people I loved most, my working-class family in Maine, did not go to college. They were plumbers, post office clerks and mill workers. Most of the men were military veterans. They lived frugal and hard lives. They were indulgent of my incessant book reading and incompetence with tools, even my distaste for deer hunting, and they were a steady reminder that just because I had been blessed with an opportunity that was denied to them, I was not better or more intelligent. If you are poor you have to work after high school or, in the case of my grandfather, before you are able to finish high school. College is not an option. No one takes care of you. You have to do that for yourself. This is the most important difference between them and the elites.

The elite schools, which trumpet their diversity, base this diversity on race and ethnicity, rarely on class. The admissions process, as well as the staggering tuition costs, precludes most of the poor and working class. When my son got his SAT scores back last year, we were surprised to find that his critical reading score was lower than his math score. He dislikes math. He is an avid and perceptive reader. And so we did what many educated, middle-class families do. We hired an expensive tutor from The Princeton Review who taught him the tricks and techniques of taking standardized tests. The tutor told him things like “stop thinking about whether the passage is true. You are wasting test time thinking about the ideas. Just spit back what they tell you.” His reading score went up 130 points. Was he smarter? Was he a better reader? Did he become more intelligent? Is reading and answering multiple-choice questions while someone holds a stopwatch over you even an effective measure of intelligence? What about those families that do not have a few thousand dollars to hire a tutor? What chance do they have?

These universities, because of their incessant reliance on standardized tests and the demand for perfect grades, fill their classrooms with large numbers of drones. I have taught gifted and engaged students who used these institutions to expand the life of the mind, who asked the big questions and who cherished what these schools had to offer. But they were always a marginalized and dispirited minority. The bulk of their classmates, most of whom headed off to Wall Street or corporate firms when they graduated, starting at $120,000 a year, did prodigious amounts of work and faithfully regurgitated information. They received perfect grades in both tedious, boring classes and stimulating ones, not that they could tell the difference. They may have known the plot and salient details of Joseph Conrad’s “Heart of Darkness,” but they were unable to tell you why the story was important. Their professors, fearful of being branded political and not wanting to upset the legions of wealthy donors and administrative overlords who rule such institutions, did not draw the obvious parallels with Iraq and American empire. They did not use Conrad’s story, as it was meant to be used, to examine our own imperial darkness. And so, even in the anemic world of liberal arts, what is taught exists in a moral void.
“The existence of multiple forms of intelligence has become a commonplace, but however much elite universities like to sprinkle their incoming classes with a few actors or violinists, they select for and develop one form of intelligence: the analytic,” William Deresiewicz, who taught English at Yale, wrote in “The American Scholar.” “While this is broadly true of all universities, elite schools, precisely because their students (and faculty, and administrators) possess this one form of intelligence to such a high degree, are more apt to ignore the value of others. One naturally prizes what one most possesses and what most makes for one’s advantages. But social intelligence and emotional intelligence and creative ability, to name just three other forms, are not distributed preferentially among the educational elite.”

Intelligence is morally neutral. It is no more virtuous than athletic prowess. It can be used to further the rape of the working class by corporations and the mechanisms of repression and war, or it can be used to fight these forces. But if you determine worth by wealth, as these institutions invariably do, then fighting the system is inherently devalued. The unstated ethic of these elite institutions is to make as much money as you can to sustain the elitist system. College presidents are not voices for the common good and the protection of intellectual integrity, but obsequious fundraisers. They shower honorary degrees and trusteeships on hedge fund managers and Wall Street titans whose lives are usually examples of moral squalor and unchecked greed. The message to the students is clear. But grabbing what you can, as John Ruskin said, isn’t any less wicked when you grab it with the power of your brains than with the power of your fists.

Most of these students are afraid to take risks. They cower before authority. They have been taught from a young age by zealous parents, schools and institutional authorities what constitutes failure and success. They are socialized to obey. They obsess over grades and seek to please professors, even if what their professors teach is fatuous. The point is to get ahead. Challenging authority is not a career advancer. Freshmen arrive on elite campuses and begin to network their way into the elite eating clubs, test into the elite academic programs and lobby for elite summer internships. By the time they graduate they are superbly conditioned to work 10 or 12 hours a day electronically moving large sums of money around.

“The system forgot to teach them, along the way to the prestige admissions and the lucrative jobs, that the most important achievements can’t be measured by a letter or a number or a name,” Deresiewicz wrote. “It forgot that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers.”

“Only a small minority have seen their education as part of a larger intellectual journey, have approached the work of the mind with a pilgrim soul,” he went on. “These few have tended to feel like freaks, not least because they get so little support from the university itself. Places like Yale, as one of them put it to me, are not conducive to searchers. Places like Yale are simply not set up to help students ask the big questions. I don’t think there ever was a golden age of intellectualism in the American university, but in the 19th century students might at least have had a chance to hear such questions raised in chapel or in the literary societies and debating clubs that flourished on campus.”

Barack Obama is a product of this elitist system. So are his degree-laden Cabinet members. They come out of Harvard, Yale, Wellesley and Princeton. Their friends and classmates made huge fortunes on Wall Street and in powerful law firms. They go to the same class reunions. They belong to the same clubs. They speak the same easy language of privilege and comfort and entitlement. They are endowed with an unbridled self-confidence and blind belief in a decaying political and financial system that has nurtured and empowered them.

These elites, and the corporate system they serve, have ruined the country. These elite cannot solve our problems. They have been trained to find “solutions,” such as the trillion-dollar bailout of banks and financial firms, that sustain the system. They will feed the beast until it dies. Don’t expect them to save us. They don’t know how. And when it all collapses, when our rotten financial system with its trillions in worthless assets implodes and our imperial wars end in humiliation and defeat, they will be exposed as being as helpless, and as stupid, as the rest of us.
Matthias Chang    
It Is So Stupid To Borrow US Toilet Papers For Trade Finance.

There Can Be Only A Credit Crunch For Dollars If You Are Stupid Enough To Want To Be Paid And To Pay In Dollars.

Otherwise, There Is Only An Illusion Of A Global Credit Crunch.

This Is The Global Con Game By Bernanke & Paulson.

It may have made some sense, post-World War II to dollarise international trade when the so-called “Free World” was supposedly threatened by the “Communist Bloc” and the Imperial United States was offering “protection” in exchange for financial dominance.

The imperial design for financial dominance was the Bretton Woods dollar reserve currency scheme.

Since those days, the US has been abusing its financial power by the use of its greatest invention, the “toilet paper printing press” (now, the modern “electronic printing press”) to issue irredeemable fiat money.

Now the world is flooded with trillions of this toilet paper.

The US Superpower is at the very precipice of the abyss and a wrong move will plunge it into the black-hole of financial Armageddon. The world will not face Armageddon, only the US. The rest of the world will suffer pain, deservedly so, for being so stupid in believing in the use of toilet papers as money!

To avoid this catastrophe, Ben Bernanke and Paulson as directed by their Shadow Money-Lender masters have devised an insidious scheme. The ultimate con-game!

Basically, what they have done is to try to turn a weakness into perceived strength.

Let me explain.

Countries have been so used to trading in dollars that they cannot think otherwise. They continue to borrow dollars to finance their imports. Their corporations continue to borrow dollars to finance their business expansion. It is as if the world is addicted to dollars, as a drug addict is addicted to cocaine and or crack!

The world has been brainwashed into thinking that without the US toilet paper, their global economy would come to a grinding halt.  

How bloody stupid!

Yet this is exactly the state of mind of governments and central banks all over the world. The most idiotic is China. But fortunately, they have other strengths which will see them through this painful period.

Taking advantage of this temporary idiotic global mindset, the Fed and the US Treasury has deliberately triggered a credit crunch for US toilet papers. The major global banks are hoarding the toilet papers and with-holding cross-border financing of every kind.

There is an ocean of toilet paper (literally in the trillions) but there is now created, a deliberate shortage of these very same toilet papers.

But where is the money?  There is no money. It is an illusion, stupid!

What a ridiculous contradiction. But that is the present reality. The Fed has stated that they will pump US$8.5 trillion to resolve the crisis! You got to give credit where credit is due. This is indeed a brilliant con-game and the whole world has fallen for it hook, line and sinker – almost the whole world! I refuse to accept this state of affairs.

Yet, the Nobel Laureates in economics have missed this stark reality by a thousand miles and are coming up with all kind of theories for the present global credit crunch of US toilet paper. Alternatively, it may be that as paid-scribes, they have been directed to spew economic nonsense to confuse other economists.

How was this illusion set up?

This happened when all of a sudden, and in total connivance, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea and Singapore got into the act by entering into swap facilities with the FED, each requesting a hefty US$35 Billion to “overcome their liquidity problems.”  These countries could not get enough toilet papers! Wow!

Even the great magician Houdini would not have come up with this grand illusion of shortage in currency when there is an ocean of funny money. But it is an illusion and a stupid one at that.

So now, Bernanke and Paulson is advertising to the whole world, that they are prepared to do anything and use all financial weapons, including financial nuclear weapons to defeat the crisis.

For those countries that are short of toilet papers, the US will be the global guarantor and will be willing to lend trillions of toilet papers to help them weather the financial crisis and the credit crunch. How generous of the FED and the US Treasury. But there is a catch.  

The catch being – countries must continue to use the worthless toilet papers in global trade.

In one masterful stroke, the US has created an artificial demand for dollars thereby rescuing in the short term the plunging value of the dollar.

Since the global banks are not willing to lend and are insolvent, the mighty FED, the nasty and abhorrent creation of the global Shadow Money-Lenders, will be the lender of last resort to the whole world. It will be business as usual. That is what they hope. This is their final gambit. The last magic show!

And as I have written earlier, this is the OBAMA’s GAMBLE!

Countries need not trade in dollars, as after all, they are not even BUYING “MADE IN AMERICA GOODS”. AMERICA IS A NET IMPORTER, NOT EXPORTER.

So assholes central banks of the world, especially the third world, and the emerging powers of China and Russia, you have no need for toilet papers when you sell your national products to countries other than the US.

And in so far as U.S. is concerned, why are you demanding to be paid in toilet papers? Why are you not demanding payment in your own currency?

China and Russia is really so stupid at the present moment. It makes me want to throw up a vomit. They hold trillions of dollars but acting as if they are at the mercy of the US, fearing that if they do anything untoward to the dollar there will be a massive slump in the value of the dollar.

But that is a given in any event. So why play a game that has been rigged in the favour of the global Shadow Money-Lenders.

There is no reason why Russia and China should be in a recession or having slower growth. They are suffering from the present so-called credit crunch because they continue to manage their economies in dollar terms and in a dollar mindset.

Bloody stupid!

The US is playing suicide poker and calling one last card. They have nothing on the table but toilet paper.

The US will collapse in a minute, if not sooner if China and Russia were to categorically call the US’s bluff and say:

1)     Close down the derivative casino now!

2)    Buy back all the toxic wastes which you have unloaded on the unsuspecting global economies with currencies of our choice!

3)    Since the US is in debt, the US must now borrow in the currencies of our choice to repay past debts and new loans!

Failure to comply will result in a credit crunch to US banks and companies. US can continue to use domestically their worthless toilet papers (to wipe the shit off the ceiling fans, if there are any left hanging from the ceilings) but there will be no more credit in toilet papers. Period. There will be loans only in other currencies.

This is the checkmate, stupid.

So China and Russia should wake up and do what is necessary to save their economies as well as the global economy or their economies will end up in the shit hole as they are now playing the US / UK rigged game.

I am not surprised at the present state of mind of Chinese and Russian bankers. They have sent some of their best brains to be trained in Harvard etc., and by the fraudsters in Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup etc. They have all been infected with the Ponzi disease and as such cannot think otherwise. Otherwise, how do you explain their mental paralysis?

This is a simple financial puzzle.
There is no credit crunch. There is only a false or an illusion of credit crunch for US toilet papers.

Once there is no demand for dollars, there will be no credit crunch for dollars. The Shadow Money-Lenders con-game will be exposed for what it is – a giant fraud. Not unlike that of Bernard Madoff, only a thousand times more insidious and toxic.  

I hope that I have made myself absolutely clear to the financial officials in Russia and China.

If China and Russia and the third world continue to stand pat, these economies deserve to be in the dog house.

Bernanke and Paulson are going to destroy the US and the global economy so as to fulfil the grand design of the Shadow Money-Lenders. Stop them before it is too late.

The Count-down has started!

CUT SHORT BY 92 YEARS                   
Mike Whitney

America's time as a superpower is coming to an end. The financial crisis was just the last straw. Whatever good faith was left after the invasion of Iraq, the shrugging off of international treaties and the shameless disregard for human rights, is now gone. The United States has polluted the global economic system with worthless mortgage-backed securities and, by doing so, has pushed 6 billion people closer to a long and painful recession. That's not something that can be easily forgiven.  

 The anger at the US seems to be surfacing everywhere at once. It was particularly noticable at the recent opening of the UN General Assembly. Typically, this is a tedious event full of empty political blabbering and pretentious ceremonies. But not this time. With the world sliding towards a US-created recession; patience have worn thin, and foreign leaders have started to lashing out at the United States more vehemently. The speeches have been blunt and acrimonious; no one is "pulling their punches" any more. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez summed up the mood of the meetings like this:  

  "I think that, sooner rather than later, this empire will fall - to the benefit of the whole world, enabling a balance in the world to be created: polycentric and multi-polar. That will guarantee peace in the world. To the creation of this multi-polar world we are making our small contribution."

Chavez likes the American people but opposes the American Empire; it's that simple.  He was the first foreign leader to offer food and medical assistance to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. (Bush refused his offer) Also, he regularly supplies tons of heating oil to low-income families in the Northeast USA.

 What Chavez objects to is Bush's "unipolar" model of global governance whereby all the world's crucial decisions--on everything from global warming to nuclear proliferation--are made by Washington. No one likes being told what to do, just as no one likes the US constantly meddling in their affairs. That's why none of the UN attendees seem particularly bothered by the fact that the US financial markets are in freefall. It's called schadenfreude, taking pleasure in someone elses misfortune, and there was ample supply of it at the United Nations last week.  

Many of the dignitaries seem to believe that America's sudden downturn presents opportunities for a change in the way the world is run. That's what everyone wants; change. Real change. No one wants another 8 years like the last.  That's why the central theme in Chavez's speech was repeated over and over again by the other world leaders. They reject the present system and want a bigger role in shaping the world's future.

That doesn't mean that the world hates America. It just means that everyone wants a breather from the torture, the abductions, the bombing of civilians, and now, the financial contagion that the US has spread throughout the global system. The US's lack of regulation and low interest monetary policies have driven up inflation, triggered food riots, and sent oil prices skyrocketing. Enough is enough. The United States is like the dinner guest who doesn't know when it's time to go home. Perhaps, a touch of recession will help to rebalance Washington's approach and make its leaders more responsive to the needs of the rest of the world. In any event, other nations are already preparing for a world where America's role is greatly reduced.

Journalist John Gray summed it up like this in his article in The Observer, "A Shattering Moment in America's fall from Power":

"The control of events is no longer in American hands.....Having created the conditions that produced history's biggest bubble, America's political leaders appear unable to grasp the magnitude of the dangers the country now faces. Mired in their rancorous culture wars and squabbling among themselves, they seem oblivious to the fact that American global leadership is fast ebbing away. A new world is coming into being almost unnoticed, where America is only one of several great powers, facing an uncertain future it can no longer shape."

The US is about to join the family of nations and learn how to get along with its neighbors whether it wants to or not. There's simply no other choice; the dollar is falling, the deficits are soaring, and the financial markets are in a shambles. America will either learn to cooperate or become isolated in a world that is rapidly integrating. It's "get along or get out"; a message that Washington needs to learn quickly so it can adapt to a new power-paradigm.    

Yes; plenty of money will still go into covert operations and CIA-sponsored dirty tricks just to keep alive the hope the Superpowerdom will be restored. That is to be expected. The well-heeled rogues in the British royal family  still dream of rebuilding the Empire, too. But realists know that it's just a harmless fantasy. Nothing will come of it. Empire's have a short shelf-life and they're impossible to stitch-back together. They usually end on a corpse strewn battlefield or in a towering financial bonfire which leaves nothing behind but a pile of ashes and shards of broken glass. We can only hope that the yawning economic chasm ahead of us all, will involve less hardship than we anticipate. But when a nation sows dragon's teeth, it shouldn't expect a harvest of sweet plums.

Journalist Steve Watson reports on Infowars:
    "A Council on Foreign Relations member and former policy planner under prominent Bilderberger Henry Kissinger has penned a piece in the Financial Times of London calling for a “new global monetary authority” that would have the power to monitor all national financial authorities and all large global financial companies.

“Even if the US’s massive financial rescue operation succeeds, it should be followed by something even more far-reaching – the establishment of a Global Monetary Authority to oversee markets that have become borderless." writes Jeffrey Garten also a former managing director of Lehman Brothers

The biggest global financial companies would have to register with the Global Monetary Authority (GMA) and be subject to its monitoring, or be blacklisted. That includes commercial companies and banks, but also sovereign wealth funds, gigantic hedge funds and private equity firms. The GMA’s board would have to include central bankers not just from the US, UK, the eurozone and Japan, but also China, Saudi Arabia and Brazil. It would be financed by mandatory contributions from every capable country and from insurance-type premiums from global financial companies – publicly listed, government owned, and privately held alike." (

    The dream of "one world" government does not die easily, but it is dead all the same. The center of the present global financial system is the Federal Reserve. Its offspring includes the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, The World Bank, the G-7 banking cartel and thousands of predatory NGOs which have expanded the grip of the Washington banking cabal and the dollarized system across the planet. Neoliberalism is collapsing. What we are seeing now is the erratic spasms of a terminal heart patient entering the final stages of cardiac arrest. There is no drug or medical procedure that will restore the victim to good health.  

No one is looking to the US or its  "economic hit-men" to chart a course for their country's economic future. Those day's are over. The US will have to pull itself from the rubble and start over without the massive infusions of low interest capital from China, Japan and the Gulf States. The money spigots have been turned off. It's thin gruel and hard times ahead. That's the price one pays for swindling the world with worthless mortgage-backed snake oil and other "illiquid" garbage.  

Russian President Vladimir Putin summed up recent events in the financial markets like this:

“Everything that is happening in the economic and financial sphere has started in the United States. This is a real crisis that all of us are facing, and what is really sad is that we see an inability to take appropriate decisions. This is no longer irresponsibility on the part of some individuals, but irresponsibility of the whole system, which as you know had pretensions to (global) leadership.”

Back at the United Nations, Germany's Finance Minister Peer Steinbuck echoed similar sentiments when he said:
  “The United States is solely to be blamed for the financial crisis. They are the cause for the crisis and it is not Europe and it is not the Federal Republic of Germany. The Anglo-Saxon drive for double-digit profits and massive bonuses for bankers and company executives that were responsible for the financial crisis.”

He added,"The long term consequences of the crisis are not clear. but one thing seems likely to me; the USA will lose its superpower status in the global financial system. The world financial system is becoming multipolar."

Steinbuck was merely reiterating the feelings of Chancellor Angela Merkel who used more diplomatic language in her critique:

“The current crisis shows us you can do some things on the national level, but the overwhelming majority must be agreed to on the international level. We must push for clearer regulations so that a crisis like the current one cannot be repeated.”

Merkel knows that Europe was blind-sighted by America's deregulated system which allows crooks and chiselers to rule the roost. Even now--in the middle of the biggest financial scandal in history--not one CEO or CFO from a major investment bank has been indicted or dragged off to prison. US markets are a lawless "free for all" where no one is held accountable no matter how large the crime or how many people are hurt. But, there's a price to be paid for running a crooked system and fleecing investors, and the US will pay that price. Already, the purchase of US Treasurys has slowed to a crawl. In the coming months, America's life-support system will be disconnected altogether and the oxygen tent removed. Kissinger's protege is not worried about that; but working class American's should be. There's a train wreck just ahead and many people will suffer needlessly.

This is how Spiegel Online puts it:

 "The banking crisis is upending American dominance of the financial markets and world politics. The industrialized countries are sliding into recession, the era of turbo-capitalism is coming to an end and US military might is ebbing....This is no longer the muscular and arrogant United States the world knows, the superpower that sets the rules for everyone else and that considers its way of thinking and doing business to be the only road to success.

 A new America is on display, a country that no longer trusts its old values and its elites even less: the politicians, who failed to see the problems on the horizon, and the economic leaders, who tried to sell a fictitious world of prosperity to Americans....Also on display is the end of arrogance. The Americans are now paying the price for their pride." (Spiegel Online, "America loses its Dominant Economic Role")

President Dmitry Medvedev was not present at the opening ceremonies at the United Nations, but his views on the nascent "multipolar" world are worth considering. In a recent interview he said:

 "We cannot have a single polar world. The world has to have various poles. A policentric world is the only way of ensuring security for the years ahead. So I think it is a very promising direction for our country to pursue...The world is more stable when there are a range of major, important political players. In a multipolar world, everyone influences everyone else. We will work to extend ourselves.

I do not think that the bipolar world that existed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (The Cold War)has any future prospects. But it is clear today that the single-polar world is completely unable to manage crisis situations."

Both presidential candidates have vowed to continue the unilateralist Bush Doctrine. Obama is just as eager as McCain to violate sovereign borders, invade countries that pose no imminent national security threat to the US, and carry out the many flagrant violations of human rights and international law as long as it advances the geopolitical objectives of western mandarins. There's no doubt that the impending financial meltdown will bring our leaders back to their senses and help to restore the republic. The US needs a foreign policy that doesn't require slaughtering people in their homes or ripping off their retirement savings to maintain our standard of living.  

The war that Bush has launched against the world--the war on terror--will persist for years after the US financial system collapses in a heap. The will to power is fueled by arrogance, class consciousness, and a "sense of entitlement" that is stronger than even the will to survive. This is the force that animates the destructive, suicidal impulses of the current conflict. And that is why the war will continue.  The social fabric within the US will be torn to shreds long before the fighting stops. A strong sense of entitlement creates the belief that "The world is mine to do with whatever I choose; the claims of others are of no consequence". These feelings cannot be changed through logic or rational discussion; they must be eradicated with a scalpel the same way one would remove a cancerous tumor.

There's trouble ahead. The multi-polar world is about to collide head-on with the "faith-based" unipolar world and millions are bound to suffer. But there is no doubt about the final outcome. The geopolitical plates are shifting inexorably away from Washington. America's ability to wage war will steadily erode as capital and resources dry up.  Its only a matter of time before the war machine sputters to a halt and the troops return home. When the killing stops, a truly new world order will begin.

David Glenn Cox

There comes a point, as the car careens out of control down the icy highway, when we are no longer the driver but just the person holding onto the wheel. We try to do what’s right but the situation changes from instant to instant and it appears that our actions have little effect.

The undercurrents of history, however, may appear to move in unseen channels, but still we can’t escape cause and effect. The film "Charlie Wilson’s War" illustrates the case of a dundering, drunken, back-water Congressman who, through serendipity and right wing Bible thumpers, becomes involved in the Afghan mujahideen, fighting the Soviets.

From a budget of five million dollars a year to five hundred million a year, all to fight for the cause, not the cause of Afghan independence but the cause of putting our thumb into the eye of the Russian bear. Once the last Russian tank had crossed the border, headed north, all aid was withdrawn and Afghanistan dissolved into factional fighting courtesy of the millions of dollars of leftover military hardware. Charlie Wilson was given medals and accolades for basically making the situation worse in the grand scheme of things, but our goal was only to humiliate the Soviets, so, "mission accomplished."

Sometimes it's as if we’ve turned children loose in a boiler room; they turn a knob and suddenly steam is blowing through a pipe seam, so they turn another knob to see what happens next. The Federal Reserve uses its last card, cutting interest rates but forgetting to call "Uno!" The stock market soars as the dollar falls so what did they accomplish? Nothing! Not a damn thing. They fired the last shot in the gun only to remind us that they still had a gun. The seven hundred billion-dollar bailout has accounted for the massive rush by American banks to buy Chinese bank notes. They’ve cut interest rates for the banks and Americans still can’t get credit or a mortgage or a job.

General Motors cries, save me, save me, don’t you know me, I’m your native son! Yet promises that if they receive their bailout they will enact cost-cutting measures to eliminate American jobs. Already they are planning the expansion of their Mexican manufacturing plants to supply the American market. It would seem that following that business plan that they are asking the wrong government for the money. In 1932 Ford was shut down, as was Chrysler and GM. The Hoover administration offered loans to spur production. but it wasn’t money they needed, it was customers. The carmakers had money, Ford was loaning millions to keep the city of Detroit afloat, but their customers, they did not have any and the Hoover administration believed it to be morally wrong to lend money to private individuals.

Like Richard Dreyfuss piling up his mashed potatoes, these things mean something. This road that we are on leads us to the darkest part of the woods. In Greece the riots and protests continue unabated and have spread to new cities. In the German magazine, Der Spiegel, an article entitled "The Revolt of a Disappointed Generation" describes a grim picture.

"Jorgos Barutas, 29, had to struggle to make himself heard. The computer engineer, sporting a five-day beard and steel-rimmed glasses, stood at the foot of the steep rows of seats and shouted up to the audience with a throaty voice. 'We have to hold out until the government steps down.' Applause. 'We have to transform the protests into a political movement.' Applause. 'We have to formulate political objectives,' followed again by thunderous applause. Barutas stepped down from the stage, feeling satisfied, and the students poured out of the hall."

"It is day five of the intense rioting by young people in Athens. The protests began in the district of Exarchia -- a traditional haunt of artists, anarchists and left-wing intellectuals -- and rapidly spread throughout the entire country. They have also sparked violent unrest in the large cities of Thessaloniki, Patras and Heraklion -- and in 20 other Greek towns."

American officials scoff as the American media turns a blind eye to what is taking place in Greece. In the 1920’s it was Italy and the 1930’s it was Germany, but the message is always the same, when the needs of the people aren’t being met the arms of the people will be. It is easy to laugh them off just as the Polish government once tried to laugh off Lech Welensa and the American media once laughed off those crazy Germans marching in the streets with those ridiculous brown shirts. Adolph Hitler came to power on just two messages, that Germany was a great nation and traitors had stolen her greatness from her. His second message was only to blame the Jews, but without the acceptance of the first message the second message becomes meaningless, idle ranting.

Economic collapse brings about societal upheaval; failed wars bring about economic collapse. So round and round we go and where she stops nobody knows! I want to support Obama, I want him to be a successful President but his jobs and public works program looks a lot like filling water balloons to fight back panzers. A little here and a little there and little off the top ain’t going to cut it.

The government and the media need to start looking past their own foisted statistics and realize that what is going on here has meaning. Madoff, GM, the SEC, the Federal Reserve, when the people lose faith in the institutions that are supposed to protect them, the government then becomes nothing more than a cardboard cut-out. These institutions are the brick and mortar of government, and when they fail then what is plan B?

There’s battle lines being drawn, those who are aware, who have had the sand of corporatism and globalism kicked in their face are damn angry about it. Then there is the other camp, still trusting and docile and still employed but becoming confused by all the hubbub. The ones most trusting who wake to find out that the GM bonds that they staked their retirements on are now only worth thirty cents on the dollar. And that the Republicans that they voted for are trying to push GM into bankruptcy so that they might not be worth even that much, and so the angry camp grows.

This whole Blagojevich affair sickens me, but not because of the Governor's actions but by the public’s naiveté. This has always gone on. Do you think Joseph P. Kennedy was the US ambassador to Great Britain because he was a swell guy? Choice postings of US ambassadors always goes to prominent contributors so why should dealing for a US Senate seat be such a stretch of the imagination? This is a preemptive political attack on the new administration as already witnesses are lining up for the impeachment hearings that weaken the federal case against the governor before the federal case can even get off the ground.

This is window dressing for a castration. White Water, Monica, go on and give it a good smell test. Media headlines while Rome burns, as GM sinks and Madoff steals. Colin Powell, who may be the Republican's "One good man," tries to warn his party off from where they are going, but they won’t listen. No man is a prophet in his own hometown, but Powell, as a military man, knows scorched earth when he sees it. To lose at the ballot box and then to try and circumvent that victory by declawing the cat in advance.

Soon, very soon, if those in power and those about to be in power don’t wake up to the pressing economic emergency, they will find themselves spinning out of control on an icy highway, holding on to the wheel, not to steer with but for dear life. The media ignores what is going on in Greece because they don’t want to give you any ideas. In Greece the public has grabbed the attention of the government by the testicles and won’t let go until they are listened to, or the government falls. They are not rioting because they failed the government but because the government has failed them.

If the US government does not take care of the people, the people will take care of the government.

Angela Balakrishnan

The head of the International Monetary Fund urged governments to step up action to stem the global economic crisis or risk delaying a recovery and sparking violent unrest on the streets.

Using a speech last night in Madrid to issue his stark warning, Dominique Strauss-Kahn argued that government efforts to tackle the economic downturn so far have been uncertain and largely insufficient, which could lead to severe consequences. He singled out the eurozone nations as he attacked the inadequate global response.

His hard-hitting coments came as fears of a prolonged slumped intensified after China showed signs that its economy could be in more trouble than initially expected next year. Factory output in the rapidly growing economy registered the weakest growth in almost a decade last month.

The IMF's managing director said such news signalled that a world recovery may not take place until late next year or into 2010 unless swift action is taken.

"A lot remains to be done, and if this work is not done it will be difficult to avoid a long-lasting crisis that everyone wants to avoid," he said.

Governments in leading economies have been called upon by the IMF to commit a combined 2% of global GDP, equivalent to £1.075bn, to try combat the dangers of a global recession. But the IMF chief blamed governments, saying they were unwilling or unable to use more public funds to jump-start economic activity.

"If we are not able to do that, then social unrest may happen in many countries - including advanced economies," Strauss-Kahn said.

He added that violent protests could break out in countries worldwide if the financial system was not restructured to benefit everyone rather than a small elite.

Revealing his concerns of a deeper economic slowdown, he said that the IMF would probably cut world growth next year from its current forecast of 2.2%. He also predicted that China's once red-hot economy will rapidly run out of steam.

"We started with China at 11% growth ... China will probably grow at 5 or 6% [next year]," he said. "The possibility of a global recession is real. We realise something must be done."

Strauss-Kahn's comments were in sharp contrast to Jean-Claude Trichet, president of the European Central Bank, who yesterday told European leaders they should stick to EU's controversial Stability and Growth Pact, which limits government borrowing and total debt. But Strauss-Kahn said that existing rules should be scrapped to allow governments to deliver essential economic stimulus packages.

"We are facing an unprecedented decline in output and we have evidence of substantial uncertainty limiting the effectiveness of some fiscal policy measures," he said, "What was decided by Brussels ... 1.5% of GDP in the form of stimulus, is a bit below what we need."

His views reflect the continued clashes between European governments on how they should react to the crisis.

Germany has been uncertain about injecting large amounts of public money into economies to encourage growth and resisted pressures to join in with a more coordinated EU effort.

Gideon Rachman

I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.  A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”.

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.


The Financial Times, one of the most respected and widely read newspapers on the planet, features an editorial today that openly admits the agenda to create a world government based on anti-democratic principles and concedes that the term “global governance” is merely a euphemism for the move towards a centralized global government.

For years we were called paranoid nutcases for warning about the elite’s plans to centralize global power and destroy American sovereignty.

Throughout the 1990’s people who talked about the alarming move towards global government were smeared as right-wing lunatics by popular culture and the media. Now the agenda is out in the open and in our faces, the debunkers have no more ammunition with which to deride us.

A jaw-dropping editorial written by the Financial Times’ chief foreign affairs commentator Gideon Rachman entitled ‘And now for a world government’ lays out the plan for global government and how it is being pushed with deceptive language and euphemisms in order to prevent people from becoming alarmed.

“For the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible,” writes Rachman, citing the financial crisis, “global warming” and the “global war on terror” as three major pretexts through which it is being introduced.

Rachman writes that “global governance” could be introduced much sooner than many expect and that President elect Barack Obama has already expressed his desire to achieve that goal, making reference to Obama’s circle of advisors which includes Strobe Talbott, who in 1992 stated, “In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all.”

Rachman then concedes that the more abstract term “global governance,” which is often used by top globalists like David Rockefeller as a veil to offset accusations that a centralized global government is the real agenda, is merely a trick of “soothing language” that is used to prevent “people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland”.

“But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on,” says Rachman. “Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

Rachman proceeds to outline what the first steps to an official world government would look like, including the creation of “A legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force”.
“A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations,” writes Rachman. “It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model.
The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.” “So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government,” concludes Rachman, before acknowledging that the path to global government will be “slow and painful”.
Tellingly, Rachman concedes that “International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic,” citing the continual rejection of EU expansion when the question is put to a vote. “In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters,” writes Rachman.
So there you have it - one of the world’s top newspapers, editorially led by chief economics commentator Martin Wolf, a top Bilderberg luminary, openly proclaiming that not only is world government the agenda, but that world government will only be achieved through dictatorial measures because the majority of the people are dead against it.
Will we still be called paranoid conspiracy theorists for warning that a system of dictatorial world government is being set up, even as one of the world’s most influential newspapers admits to the fact? Or will people finally wake up and accept that there is a globalist agenda to destroy sovereignty, any form of real democracy, and freedom itself in the pursuit of an all-powerful, self-interested, centralized, unrepresentative and dictatorial world government?

In Life Magazine and Look Magazine dated January 16th 1962, David Ben Gurion Made the following prophecy.

Life Magazine and Look Magazine of the 16th of January 1962, David Ben Gurion, Zionist, atheist and first prime minister of Israel stated, while still in office:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentsia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union…

[Glasnost, Perestroika & Gorbachev were right on time in 1987 and went according to plan]

“…On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and the rising Political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will  become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime.

“With the exception of the U.S.S.R. as a federated Eurasian State, all other continents will become united in a world alliance at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished and there will be no more wars.

In Jerusalem, the United Nations will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.

Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India. And by 1987 the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.”

[The Struggle for World Power, George Knupfer, pages 21-22] 

July 23rd 2003 Shimon Peres calls for Jerusalem to be made the World’s Capital. The Russian delegation which attended the function was said to include Mikhail Gorbachev.

David Pidcock
Author On the Other road to serfdom

Matthias Chang

Global Central Banks Acting In Concert - Disinformation In Financial Dailies To Confuse The People  When The Truth Dawns On Hapless People, There Will Be Blood On The Streets. This Is The Warning By IMF!  


The disinformation by the global financial dailies in the last twelve months as to the cause of the global financial tsunami, serve the same purpose as the global mass media when they perpetuated the lies that lulled the people to support the war criminals Bush, Blair and Howard to launch the barbaric war against Iraq and Afghanistan which resulted in the genocide of millions, the mutilation of hundreds of thousands, physically and psychologically, and the devastation of an entire nation.

The wars unleashed thus far, specifically the “War on Terror” was launched to preserve the shadow money-lenders’ political and military power.

This War on Terror is the greatest military sideshow that distracted the great American people from the financial rape and plunder of their economy and the destruction of their Constitution.

Since the summer of 2007, we have witnessed a concerted effort by the world’s central banks and global commercial and investment banks to preserve the shadow money-lenders’ financial power, one that is founded on fraud and structured in every detail as in the infamous Ponzi scheme.

In the last seven years, the Ponzi scheme was globalised by the Shadow Money-Lenders, siphoning hundreds of billions from so-called sophisticated investors and sovereign wealth funds. At its peak, the Ponzi scheme was estimated to be worth over $500 Trillion, with the Credit Default Swap (CDS) portion just under $60 Trillion!

Hidden behind the headlines of the financial destruction that is sweeping across the globe, lies another story – a dark tale of men who orchestrated the crisis and have amassed enormous wealth and power at the expense of the millions who are now unemployed and whose homes have been foreclosed. This select group of men is in absolute control of the unfolding events. Who are they?  THE


The hidden power is almost indestructible because throughout the ages, any attempt to unveil their hidden agenda and to expose the men behind the screen has been labeled “a Conspiracy Theory” and those who risk their wealth and reputation to expose this power are accused of being “Conspiracy Theorists”.

This is notwithstanding the fact that many insiders who were previously seduced by the power and recanted, have written about such men and their global agendas.

Some “do-gooders” who have visited my website have pleaded with me not to make any reference to the hidden power as “I would be condemned as a conspiracy theorist and lose my credibility.” It is these do-gooders who are unconsciously, the allies and propaganda tools of the hidden power. They are the foot soldiers of the Hidden Power and the first to be slaughtered. They never learn and if they persist, must be considered collaborators.  

I have made detail references to the hidden power in my books. I shall recap herein what the insiders have been saying for years. For those who are aware of these writings, it would serve them well to revisit these writings again so as to strengthen their resolve to expose the hidden power until total victory.

In essence, the hidden power is the Global Shadow Money-Lenders - the men and women who control and manage the Shadow Money-Lending System. And they also control all political leaders, directly and indirectly in every part of the world, in every country, Malaysia included!

Anyone who denies this is a fool from our perspective but an indispensable ally from the shadow money-lenders’ point of view.

Please consider the following exposé by renowned insiders.

Napoleon Bonaparte

“When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain.”

Niccolo Machiavelli

“For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.”

President James Madison

“History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control of governments by controlling money and its issuance.”      

President Abraham Lincoln

“The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.”

President James A Garfield

“Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.”

The Rt. Hon. Reginald McKenna – Chancellor of the Exchequer

“I am afraid that the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can, and do, create money. The amount of money in existence varies only with the action of the banks in increasing and decreasing deposits and bank purchases. Every loan, overdraft, or bank purchase creates a deposit and every repayment of a loan, overdraft or bank sale destroys a deposit. And they who control the credit of a nation direct the policy of governments, and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.”

Sir Josiah Stamp – Bank of England

“Banking was conceived in inequity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the costs of your own salary, let them continue to create deposits.”

President Woodrow Wilson

“A great Industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world – no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country.”

(President regretted signing into law the Federal Reserve Act)

Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.”

Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of Banking & Currency Committee

In 1932:

“The truth is the Federal Reserve Board has usurped the Government of the United States. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks government at will …”

In 1933:

“Roosevelt has brought with him from Wall Street James P. Warburg, son of Paul M. Warburg, Organizer and first Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve System…”

In 1950:

“This same Warburg had the audacity and arrogance to proclaim before the U.S. Senate: ‘We shall have World Government whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by Conquest or Consent’.”  

Senator Barry Goldwater

“Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money-lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States.”

Henry Ford

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

The above is the truth laid bare before your eyes and which the shadow money-lenders have spent billions over the years for the control of the global mass media, and paid handsomely specially cultivated economists, historians and politicians to disseminate lies, divert attention and to cover up their hidden agenda.

The next quotation will shock most of you and will change your perspective of many global issues. It is written by a courageous Jew to another courageous Jew.

Benjamin H. Friedman

Letter to Dr. David Goldstein dated October 10, 1954

“The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy (to destroy Christianity and obtain global power). The world-wide net-work of diabolical conspirators implements this plot against the Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian clergy appear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspiracy than other Christians … It seems so sad.”  


To secure their global agenda, the shadow money-lenders needed a national base to first consolidate their power and to legislate laws that would secure their monopoly to issue money and credit. The target country was England and that is why the first central bank was the Bank of England. Almost all the laws that secured the money-lenders their unbridled economic and political power can be traced back to the legal basis for the establishment of the Bank of England as a central bank and their unfettered right to create “credits”.

The £ was the currency of choice for world conquest and the result was the mighty British Empire, where the sun never sets! It was an empire based on debt. When the £ Ponzi scheme unraveled, Britain outlived its usefulness and the shadow money-lenders relocated to structure another Ponzi scheme.

The next target country was the United States and the vehicle was the Federal Reserve System. It was a long struggle, but the shadow money-lenders finally prevailed. Thereafter, they established the greatest financial empire in history, but they are still short of their ultimate hidden agenda, as arrogantly proclaimed by James P. Warburg – the establishment of a World Government by conquest or by consent!

Today, the shadow money-lenders have achieved unrivalled military power, but in the process they have put at risk the fiat money system. This is because so much money was required to maintain and sustain the military might of the US and its military bases in client states all over the world and the occupation of Germany and Japan since their defeat in 1945.

What is important to understand is that the shadow money-lenders are parasitic in nature and they have to feed on a continuous diet of debts. The financing of military adventures ensures a continuous stream of debts and compound interests. Debts beget more debts!

When the debts reach saturation point, the Ponzi scheme will collapse and hence, the need to revive and or re-establish another Ponzi scheme, failing which the shadow money-lenders’ financial empire cannot be sustained.


At the end of the Second World War, the United States was the indisputable super-power and largest creditor.

The shadow money-lenders created various covers for massive lending such as the Marshall Plan, supposedly to revive the devastated economies of Europe and Asia. Under the cover of the aforesaid altruistic economic plan of post war recovery, was the hidden agenda for the establishment of the US dollar as the one and only supreme currency to replace the £.

The shadow money-lenders had under their control the following sovereign debtors post World War II:


The countries of the South American Continent

The countries of Europe, west of the then “Iron Curtain”

The countries of the African continent

The countries of the Middle East

The countries of Asia, west of the then “Bamboo Curtain”

Australia and New Zealand

To secure the sovereign debtors’ consent to the use of the dollar as reserve currency, it was agreed that the dollar was redeemable in gold at US$35 per oz of gold.

The shadow money-lenders never had it so good. Then they got greedy.

Like the goldsmiths of yester-years, the shadow money-lenders created more credits than there was gold to sustain the dollar reserve currency. There were also the numerous wars that needed to be financed, principally the Vietnam War and the proxy wars in Africa and Latin America. There was a huge drain in the gold holdings at Fort Knox.

This gave rise to a crisis of confidence in the Bretton Woods (I) dollar system.

To resolve the crisis and to maintain the unrivalled position of the US dollar, the shadow money-lenders devise a brilliant scheme – a variation of Bretton Woods (I)


The dollar would no longer be redeemable in gold as decreed by President Nixon.

There were two parts to the overall scheme to secure full compliance.

Part 1 was the use of the simple bully tactic. The Cold War was engineered and intensified to create the myth that the Soviet Union would unleash a nuclear war against the “free countries” and therefore there was a need for collective security in which only the United States could provide the necessary defense, as it was the most powerful nation in the world.

The quid pro quo for the protection under the umbrella of the US led collective security was that countries must continue to use the US dollar in all international trades.

Notwithstanding the fact that the client states agreed to the new arrangement, there was still the fear by the shadow money-lenders that sooner or later the debtors will wise up to the fact that they were holding mere toilet papers. Should this happen, the dollar would be dumped as toxic waste and that would spell the end of the shadow money-lending system.

Part 2 was therefore initiated and the man chosen to implement the con-game was none other than Henry Kissinger. He secured an agreement with the corrupt Saudi monarch and lesser tyrants in the region that the oil price would be manipulated to hit the roof and in return for their untold wealth and financial power, all future crude oil trades must be denominated in dollars, and the petro-dollars must be repatriated to the United States, to be invested in dollar assets.

In a warped sense, dollar was now backed by crude oil instead of gold, as without dollars, no nation could purchase crude oil.

The dollar toilet paper over-night regained its stature and value as the global reserve currency.

Yet, and once again the shadow money-lenders got greedy. They came to the insane conclusion that they could create limitless credits (debts) out of thin air and none would be wiser!

By the late eighties, it was apparent to the shadow money-lenders that the demand and use of crude oil would not be able to sustain the level of dollar credits needed to support the debt pyramid.

Plan B, the Yen Carry Trade was put into action – borrowing yen at zero interest rate to invest in dollar assets, bearing higher interest rates. The Japanese could not complain, being a conquered race and still under military occupation, and so for over a decade, they suffered in silence. The dollar as the global reserve currency was saved, but, not for long.

The instability in the Middle East became a major concern. Saddam Hussein had grandeur ideas. He aspired to be the regional power but Desert Storm scuttled his grand designs. Iran having recovered from the devastation of the eight-year war with Iraq, began to assert itself and their growing strength was perceived as a threat to the security interests of the shadow money-lenders and their partners-in-crime, the big oil companies.

A Plan C was needed. The China card had to be played!


Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s announced to the world that China would practice socialism with Chinese characteristics. Being Red was not critical, for the colour of the cat was not important so long as the cat catches mice!

China wanted to modernize and catch up with the West. It had abundant cheap labour and a disciplined workforce. But development was slow and foreign investments were confined to certain regions.

Back home in the US, manufacturing concerns were being clobbered by the Japanese and the Koreans. Industry after industry became less competitive and costs were rising. A solution had to be found.

The shadow money-lenders have their share of worries – How to accelerate the momentum of credit creation in an economy that is slowing down? Less debts mean less compound interests and therefore less profits. Q.E.D.

The shadow money-lenders realized soon enough that if debt-driven consumption is the solution, then there must be a manufacturing base that can produce the massive quantities of goods that would meet the demands for debt.

China loomed large in the overall scheme of things.

The shadow money-lenders entered into an agreement with the Chinese along the lines of the petro-dollar agreement. There will be massive relocation of industries to China, massive investments in plants and equipment to produce goods for the US and European markets in exchange for dollar denominated trade. And more importantly, it was agreed that the dollar trade surplus would be re-invested in dollar assets.

It was an offer that China found hard to refuse. It was the fast track to economic development and the rapid modernisation of China. China agreed and the rest is history!

Debt exploded in the US and in Europe. Consumers were borrowing as never before to purchase the goodies from China. The recycled dollars from China funded the consumer bubble from home ownership to motorcars, electronic goods, toys, clothing etc. China became the world’s factory and her economy surged. Within a decade, China accumulated dollar reserves amounting to $2 Trillion. Other Asian countries jumped on the bandwagon, and accumulated huge dollar reserves. These huge reserves must be invested and the US lured them to the exotic investments created by Nobel Laureates and rocket scientists.


Financial engineering by the shadow money-lenders accelerated further credit creation. The United States led the way. During the past ten years, while income stagnated, consumer spending rose to a record $8.34 trillion fueled by cheap consumer loans – home mortgage, credit-card loans, car loans, holiday loans etc.

The securitization of the growing stream of compound interests from the wide range of consumers’ debts was the natural and logical step in the next round of credit creation for the derivative casino. These debts were sliced and diced into tranches to form CDOs, synthetic CDOs, CLOs, MBS and CDS etc. and marketed worldwide. The demand for securitization was so great that banks and mortgage brokers were even willing to lend to borrowers on the barest of credit information. They were aptly called “Liars’ Loans”!

In 2004, $157 billion CDOs were issued but rocketed to an amazing $557 billion in 2006. And when there were insufficient mortgages to be securitized into CDOs, Wall Street created the “synthetic CDOs” – bonds which have no underlying loans and or security but allegedly have an income stream based on a parallel contract and on contingencies which may or may not result in any interest payments. Investment is risk, stupid! Higher risks, higher payouts!  

In the first quarter of 2007, the creation of CDOs surged further, led by Merrill Lynch which sold nearly $29 billion in February and March, sixty per cent more than the preceding two-month period; Goldman Sachs pushed $10 billion in March which more than double the value in February and Citigroup sold $9 billion in March, one third more than the previous month. CDOs were the rave and the ticket to glorious wealth.  

The US, specifically Wall Street became the “Mecca of debts”.

The rest of the world jumped on the bandwagon. So much CDOs were packaged and sold so quickly that no one even had the time to determine which and what securities were being securitized in the CDOs. “Just do the trade, just do the trade” was the chorus line for the traders.

The following table says it all – the Sub-Prime Fiasco.

The Shadow Money-lenders also came up with a scheme to protect investors and which brought another massive stream of revenue. The scheme was called “Credit Default Swaps” (CDS).

Total Face Amount of CDS was estimated as follows:

2001 $918.9 Billion
2002 $ 2.2 Trillion
2003 $ 3.8 Trillion
2004 $ 8.4 Trillion
2005 $ 17.1 Trillion
2006 $ 34.4 Trillion
2007 $ 62.2 Trillion
2008 $ 54.6 Trillion as of June 2008

The world became addicted to debt!

Then the housing bubble busted, and with it the gigantic Ponzi scheme.

Creditors are now faced with a dilemma, what to do with the loads and loads of dollar toilet paper, now derisively referred to as “toxic wastes” – stand pat, sell down, continue to be paid in dollar toilet papers or shut down the printing press?

We are now at this juncture.


The Fed’s decision to cut the Fed Fund Rates to 0.25 percent means that the Fed has embarked on a Zero-Interest-Rate Policy (ZIRP) and to proceed with the policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) – to turn on the spigot for “limitless supply of credit”.

In layman’s jargon, to encourage more debts – mortgage debts, credit-card debts, car loans, and more importantly to revive the derivative casino, presently on life support. This was the drug addiction that sustained the global financial system in the last twenty years and more intensely in the last seven years!

The announced policy (ZIRP / QE) is the last bullet in the Fed’s arsenal or as I have stated earlier, using another analogy, the final gamble, the last chip on the betting table. There will be no more ammunition left after this.

This huge gamble will take six months to play out but it will end in failure as surely as the sun will rise in the East tomorrow.

But a more sinister aspect of the zero-interest-rate policy which has not been highlighted by any economist or financial commentator is that the United States under the present Bush regime has declared to the entire world that the United States cannot and will not service anymore interest payments on the nation’s outstanding debts amounting to trillions.

Bush has declared that the United States for all intent and purposes is bankrupt and have no means to service the interest due, what more the principal sum.

Bush, Bernanke and Paulson have therefore collectively agreed to give the “two-finger sign” to the world’s creditors and in no uncertain terms are saying that:

You creditors, you a@#holes, you can jerk off. You know, I know and the whole bloody world knows that the US of A have no income to even service the interest which amounts to a few hundred billion a year.  

So let us stop the pretense. We owe trillions and interest on top of that runs to hundreds of billions, which when unpaid is capitalized. And every year we have to borrow from you guys just to pay the interest so as to avoid a call on default. There were so many occasions when we have defaulted, but you guys allowed us to roll over to maintain the façade that the US of A is still floating.

We ain’t floating like a bee, but we are sinking fast! Let’s cut the crap and be real.

So this is the offer. And you jerks better listen good because this will be said once and once only.

You guys should be more than happy with so much interests already accruing on the outstanding. All these years, you guys have been only too happy to see us print the toilet papers in payment of your goods and to service the interests. It was an incredible con and what a free ride we had all these years. You guys were part of the con as well.

If you insist that I continue to pay you in toilet papers, why do you insist that we issue more toilet papers as interest payments? It is just more toilet papers. You guys are swarmed with toilet papers!

The toilet paper is worthless. So what is the point of paying “toilet paper interest” on outstanding toilet papers?

This is it! We are not paying anymore toilet paper interest. We are going to print more toilet papers to pay for whatever we want to purchase. If you want to sell to us, you will get toilet papers but with no interest. Period!

This is the greatest irony. The Fed, the world’s biggest money-lender and its partners-in-crime are telling their creditors to stuff it! When debtors cannot pay the exorbitant interests and the principal, these financial predators demand that the debtors give their pound of flesh in lieu of cash. But when they borrow, they repay in toilet paper money abd get away with it!

And now they even have the audacity to give an ultimatum:

We are the biggest buyers in town. If you don’t want toilet papers from us, that is fine by us. You can get tissue papers from the Europeans, bamboo papers from the Japanese and whatever that is on offer. Who is going to argue whether tissue paper would do a better job than plain toilet paper? Hey, this is a free market. Pick your choice!

This is the ultimate poker game. Bush, Bernanke and Paulson is betting that no one will call their bluff, turn away and stop selling anymore goods to the US of A. Bush is counting that the fear of recession and or social unrest in the creditors’ countries will force the creditors to capitulate.

Unfortunately, this gambit will fail. The reason is simple. The US cannot supply the goods that the American consumers want, even the most basic stuff. The manufacturing industries are all anemic, while others are on life support. Without imports, the United States will have to shut down within six months.

There will be massive riots all over the US, with people killing for food and other basic necessities. Basic raw materials, commodities for manufacturing etc. will be unavailable. There will be no more cars on the freeways! Millions of Americans licensed to carry arms will stalk the streets for whatever scrap they can get their hands on.

You can bet your bottom dollar, the Shadow Money-Lenders and its military partner will impose martial law.

Preparation is already on the way.


On Tuesday, December 9th 2008, President Bush in fascist speak stated that, “I have abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.”

If you guys out there still don’t get it, this is what Bush is saying:

I am imposing dictatorial rule!

This is because the opposite of “free market” according to conventional wisdom is “state-control economy”. In a word, Socialism – Big Government.

The Fed and the Treasury, in connivance with Congress, have already approved and financed big time, the acquisition of the major banks in Wall Street through the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), and the $700 Billion bailout plan. Several US financial commentators have already conceded that this is outright nationalization of the financial institutions.

Soon it will be the nationalization of the big corporations like GE, GM, Ford and Chrysler, all too big to be allowed to fail.

Too far fetched? Just look back to the events leading to World War I and World War II and to the dictatorships in Latin America in the 1970s.

How did Franklin Roosevelt get out of the 1930s mess if not for big government policies and engaging in the wars in Europe, against Germany and Japan in Asia? He even decreed Americans could no longer own gold in any form. They were all confiscated. President Roosevelt ruled with an iron fist, and don’t you believe otherwise.

Now that the entire world knows that the Federal Reserve Note (the dollar bill) is toilet paper and even though in law is “legal tender” (i.e. by law the toilet paper must be accepted as full payment of any debt, failing which the debt is deemed paid), the Shadow Money-Lenders cannot afford the risk of an armed open rebellion and the fiat money system to be overthrown. It is therefore necessary in these circumstances to enforce the use of the US dollar toilet paper by military rule and brutality.

To those who are not attuned to “dictatorship speak”, there is no clearer message to prepare the elites for the coming catastrophe that the announcement that free market principles will no longer apply. The emphasis is on the word “free” and not the word “market”.

We can argue till the cows come home whether my reading of events is correct. Time will be the final judge.


James P. Warburg, the son of Paul M. Warburg (first Chairman of the Board of the Federal Reserve System), had proclaimed that world government is their ultimate objective. But that objective cannot be achieved unless and until the United States is completely subdued. A world government can only come about if there is created a crisis that will engulf the entire world, starting from America. Such a crisis will not and cannot be resolved by any one country. It will have to be a global solution. And since countries can only work through a common mechanism, there is therefore a need for an international institution or mechanism.

The United Nations is the precedent from which a new world government will emerge.

Henry Kissinger, since the onset of the crisis, has been calling and cajoling world leaders to submit to such an endeavour if the world is to avoid a global calamity.

And it will be a socialist world government. Before anyone protest and declare that I have gone insane, let me state here once and for all, I am in full command of my faculties. I have done my research.

Capitalism and Socialism are two sides of the same money-lender’s coin. Both ideologies serve a common master - the global shadow money-lenders.

For doubting Thomases, please consider the following facts:

1) The Russian October Revolution, led by Lenin was financed by bankers, to be precise, the bankers in New York and Berlin. In New York, the money was organized by the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co whose directors included Mr. J. Schiff and Mr. Warburg, founder of the Federal Reserve System. In Berlin, the German banker was the brother of the New York Warburg.                  

2) On January 16, 1962, the Look and Life magazine published the following statement by David Ben Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel who was then still in office:

“The image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: The Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligentia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers and the rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become as federation of autonomous states having a socialist and democratic regime … countries will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly united nation) will build a shrine of the prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.”

3) On the success of the Russian October Revolution and the abdication of the Czar Nicholas II, the British Premier David Lloyd George said in Parliament, that Britain had achieved one of its major war aims.

4) The principal aim of Capitalism and Socialism is the centralized rule of an elite political group which owns and or controls all the means of production and the issuance of money and credits – in the case of the former, through various forms of monopoly and in the case of the latter, public monopoly.


To prove the point, let me use a simple analogy.

It is often reported in the headlines of newspapers that a certain gentleman or woman had been brutally beaten up for failing to pay the debts due to a money-lender. In Malaysia, money-lenders are often referred to as “Ah-Longs”. This is even the case when the debt is paltry. If the money-lender adopts the “soft method” in recovering a loan, it may encourage defaults and non-payments. Brutality ensures full compliance!

So is the case with nations. When the very survival of a nation is at stake because of economic and or currency warfare, do you really think that the nation at risk would not go to war?

The US invaded Iraq not because of the threat of Saddam’s WMD but for the crude oil and because Saddam was selling crude oil in Euros instead of the dollar toilet paper.

The shadow money-lenders are in a desperate situation and they will start a world war to avoid the collapse of the fiat money system. The war will be financed by the major central banks and their proxies – the 8 to 10 global commercial and investment banks. As in World War I and II, the elites of the City of London and Wall Street will be the primary movers of this insidious plot.

Anyone who doubts this scenario need only to ask one simple question – Do you think the financial powers centred in the West would accept and tolerate their loss of financial power?

I am using such graphic terms because the average Joe Six-Packs have yet to appreciate the full import of the latest announcements by President Bush that the US will abandon “Free market principles”, and by Bernanke of the Fed’s Zero-Interest-Rate Policy. Worst still, the majority of the political leaders of the third world are equally ignorant. This was evident in the APEC Summit in Peru. Like the average Joe Six-Packs, these leaders have no idea how the fiat money system works. When Washington and London say “print”, “open the spigots”, “lower interest rates”, and vice-versa they just follow blindly. There was just one rare exception, when Malaysia opted out during the 1997 financial crisis. Even then, this was temporary as the new Badawi regime has succumbed to the old ways.

Can this war be stopped?

There is a slim chance. If American patriots, who are lawfully armed, rebel and resist the imposition of martial law, world war may be averted.

The IMF has already warned that if the US fails to resolve the crisis, there will be massive social unrest. There will be blood flowing on the streets! Military power would be pitted against brave militias with a proud tradition of having once defeated the mighty British colonial power.

Dare we hope for a second American Revolution?  
Richard Moore

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the
political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to
attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim
we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even
believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best
interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as
'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to
build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one
world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am
proud of it."  David Rockefeller, Memoirs, 6-11-6

World War I and the birth of the new-world-order project

The beginning of anything is always problematic to pin down. For every
beginning, there are always antecedents, causes, preparations, broader
canvases to consider, etc. For my money, World War I  the war to end
all wars  is a sensible choice, as the launch-event into the new
world order project.

Of course one must go further back for motivation, the conception of
means, and for the vision. Some refer all the way back to The
Illuminati, which was (still is?) a real conspiratorial clique aiming
for global governance,. Others refer to Cecil Rhodes, who quite
effectively used his wealth from diamond mining to promote his vision
of global Anglo-Saxon dominance. Regardless of the details of the
preceding historical thread, WWI was the epochal event that began an
identifiable program toward a new world order, a single global
hierarchy, controlling all global affairs, under the control of elite

The British Empire represented the ultimate evolution of one
particular path to global dominance: a single hegemonic power, playing
off other powers against one another in a balance of powers strategy.
Certain mechanisms of power were perfected in this era. I refer to the
integration of propaganda, racism, intelligence operations, covert
intervention, diplomacy, financial manipulation, and naked military
power  all orchestrated, with considerable art and brutality, in the
pursuit of imperialist objectives.

The real power behind the British government, however, by 1900, had
long been the elite banking families of The City, in league with their
colleagues in Europe and America. In Marxist terms, we would call this
community the capitalist elite of the day, and they were the ones
envisioning our now-unfolding new world order. Within the context of
the British Empire, they had exercised considerable power over global
affairs and finance, and they had outgrown the relatively limited
vision of the British imperial model.

Britain itself, circa 1900, despite being still seen as the greatest
world power, had become only a shadow of its former self. Once the
manufacturer to the world  it enjoyed a near monopoly on industrial
production for a century  it had now been eclipsed industrially by
both Germany and the USA. Britain was no longer the obvious choice, as
the base for a global power grab.

As Alexis d'Tocqueville had noted earlier in Democracy in America, the
nations most inherently destined for greatness were the USA and
Russia. Of the two, c. 1900, the USA was certainly more promising,
from a capitalist perspective, as a power base. So the decision was
made, to shift hegemony from London to Washington, and to create the
context for a more evolved model of global hegemony.

For centuries The City's banking elite and Britain's nationalist elite
had collaborated harmoniously. One might not have imagined a
distinction between them; they were, it seemed, of a whole. But while
in British circles generally, c. 1900, European dominance and the rise
of Germany were the big issues, the bankers were looking at a broader
canvas, and with a longer-range lens. A splitting of the ways was
beginning, and a betrayal among global elites was in the offing.

In British nationalist eyes, control over the balance of power in
Europe was everything. America was far away, and up until then its
only imperialist adventures were also far away, peripheral to European
affairs. Germany, however, had become an urgent threat to European
dominance, with its industrial productivity and its plans for a Berlin-
Baghdad railway and a wider rail network, undercutting Britain's sea-
based dominance of world trade.

British nationalists, quite naturally, were thinking in terms of war
with Germany, as the only available means of maintaining British
hegemony. The banking elite, more slyly, was seeing such an adventure
as a way to kill several birds with one stone. And thus began a
classic betrayal scenario. For the time being they were still
seemingly one, still comrades, the bankers and the nationalists . They
worked together to set the stage for war, creating encircling
alliances which would bring everyone and their cousin in against
Germany and her allies, once a match was lit under the carefully
prepared conflagration.

And then came the small matter of finance. Long before, the
Rothschilds, the classic model of an elite banking family, learned
that the financing of wars is the most profitable and reliable of all
banking operations. Britain could indeed prosecute the war with
Germany, with the help of her alliances, and prevail, and she could
also stake out strategic claims in the Middle East  but where would
she get the money for the troops and ships? Don't worry about that,
we'll take care of you, said the friendly bankers.

So Johnny goes marching off to war, allegedly to end war, while the
British state pursues with vigor its nationalist objectives. Meanwhile
the City's bankers appointed their man in America  JP Morgan  to
broker America's support of the British war effort. By making America
the financier and goods-supplier of Britain's war on Germany, Germany
could be brought to its knees militarily, and Britain could be brought
to its knees financially  while at the same time America could be
turned into a proto-superpower. All of these things coming together at
one time  that is why I see WWI as the birth of the new-world-order

WWI was the making of America, as a world power. Its actual military
participation was minimal, late, and secondary. Much more important
were the internal industrial expansion, the influx of funding to the
domestic economy, and the business consolidation that occurred. Money
went from New York to London, on loan, and then the money was sent
back to Chicago, or Cleveland, or wherever, to purchase the goods of
war. While Europeans and Brits were being slaughtered in their
millions, Americans were experiencing boom times, leading into its
golden age of the roaring 1920s.

When the war ended, Britain had accomplished her imperial objectives,
had won the battle for European hegemony, and eliminated Germany as an
immediate threat. In the process, however, she had inadvertently lost
the war for global hegemony: Europe was no longer the focus of world
power. Guns and troops had won the battle, but debt had won the war.
All of Europe  winners and losers alike  were destitute as the war
ended, and the victorious allies were encumbered by astronomical debt
to the American Treasury and to the banking elite.

The European economic malaise that emerged out of the Treaty of
Versailles is usually blamed, in popular mythology, on the
'shortsightedness of chauvinistic diplomats', eg. Clemenceau, in
seeking revenge on their erstwhile enemies. Or it is blamed on 'narrow-
minded protectionist measures' adopted by European nations in the
postwar years. In reality, it was the enforcement of debt collection
that caused the malaise, and it was Morgan's men, not diplomats, who
dictated the draconian terms of repayment. The betrayal, of Britain by
the bankers, was now complete, and the dagger was being twisted in the
guts of the betrayed.

Britain and its allies could not afford the repayment terms out of
their own pockets, so the fiction was propagated that Germany had
started the war, and that it must therefore pay reparations to the
innocent victors. As usual, the victors write the histories. The whole
repayment scenario was carefully scripted by Morgan's men, in the
terms of the treaty, so that Europe would be struggling for decades to
pay their debts to America and to Morgan's financing syndicate. The
focus of global hegemony had shifted Westward across the Atlantic.

While Europe had been devastated by war, America had built up its
infrastructures and expanded its industrial base. While Europe emerged
deeply in debt, America emerged with a strong balance sheet and an
astronomical amount in the accounts-receivable column, to be paid by
the war's 'victors', and subsidized by the 'losers'. While Europe
struggled to rebuild  requiring still more borrowing  America could
continue its economic expansion, capture global markets, and generally
exploit its privileged financial and industrial position.

From a nationalist perspective, we could say that America won WWI,
and all of Europe lost and lost big. The Europeans were bound to pay
America huge sums for the privilege of having devastated one another.
But in America as in Britain, one must draw a distinction between
nationalist-minded elites, and financial elites. During the war the
bankers had shown the face of a true comrade to both Britain and
America  enabling the one to win the war, and facilitating the rise
to power of the other. Each of the banker's "friends" got what it
wished for. (One needs to be very careful of what one wishes for.)

We have seen how the banking comrade betrayed his British nationalist
friends, by shifting the ground of hegemony westward while the old
ground was being bitterly contested. It turns out that the American
nationalist friends were also betrayed at the same time, by the same
banking comrade, in a coup that will be described in the next section.
Britain had won the battle for Europe, for a while; America had won
the battle for strongest nation, for a longer while  but it was the
banking elite who won the war for discretionary power over the
future course of world affairs.

The Federal Reserve and the subversion of the American republic

"Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes
the laws." Amshall Rothschild

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the
issuance of their currencies, first by inflation and then by
deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them
will deprive the people of all their prosperity until their children
will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson

Even while Britain was arranging its encircling alliances, and
creating the conditions for inevitable war, banking-agent Morgan and
his cohorts were busy arranging the means of financing the adventure,
and creating the conditions so that that the banking elite would be
the decider-behind-the-scenes and a primary raker-in-of-profits, as
America exploited its position of dominance in the post-WWI era.

The time-tested formula, by which banking elites had come to dominate
European governments, was the creation of a privately-owned central
bank. Such a bank, according to the trusty formula, has the power to
control credit, the money supply, and interest rates, to issue the
currency of the nation, and to loan that currency at interest to the
government. The implementation of that fatal formula in America,
however, had severe obstacles to overcome. The dangers of a central
bank were well known to the Founding Fathers, and sentiment among
political elites remained strong in the republic against such an
institution. Earlier implementations had occurred, and each had been
dissolved, to beneficial effect, by a subsequent administration.

In order to overcome these political obstacles, the bankers employed
two other time-tested formulas: buying politicians, and creating panic
through engineered crisis.

Like so many well-minded politicians, who for the most part try to do
good during their tenure, Woodrow Wilson found it necessary, at a
critical juncture in his career, to make a pact with the devil. The
path to the Presidency would be opened to him, and in most things he
could have his own mind, but if a bill came before him establishing a
central bank, he was to sign it. The pact was made, the coffers were
opened, and the road to the Presidency was successfully travelled.

With Wilson elected, and his signature assured, it remained only to
manipulate the Federal Reserve Bill (which was written by banking-
agent Paul Warburg) through Congress. Step One was to create a banking
panic, which JP Morgan was able to accomplish simply by leaking rumors
to the press that a certain New York bank was in trouble, causing a
run on the bank, and from there the crisis spread domino-fashion and
general panic ensued.

When the panic was at its peak, the Federal Reserve Bill was
introduced into Congress, along with false and sombre assurances that
the result would be financial stability, and an end to boom-bust
cycles. The general panic created enough political support that a
vocal minority of Congress came to support the bill. Step Two, in
manipulating the bill through Congress, was to call for a vote late
one night, when most of Congress had gone home for Christmas, while
the minority-in-favor had been tipped off to stick around. The bill
passed, Wilson signed it promptly, and the coup was complete. The
devil got his due, and just in time to maximize elite gains (both
political and economic) from the financing of WWI.

Wilson lived to rue the day he shook hands with the devil. He
expressed this later in strong terms:

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely
controlled and dominated Governments in the world  no longer a
Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and
vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of
small groups of dominant men."

"Some of the biggest men in the United States are afraid of something.
They know there is a power somewhere, so organised, so subtle, so
watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive that they had
better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of

The war had served as a vehicle to transfer the focus of hegemony to
America, and much else was shipped across the Atlantic along with that
focus. The lessons Britain had learned in its centuries of empire were
brought over as well  the sly coordination of the overt and the
covert, secret collaborations between private and public actors, the
artful use of deception and betrayal, and all the other tricks of
internal intrigue and geopolitical dominance. The Council on Foreign
Relations was established, directly on the model of a similar British
organization. The emerging American giant was being carefully tutored
by past masters of global games.

In a single decade the Anglo-American banking elite had managed to
devastate Europe, launch America on the path to hegemony, secure
direct control of American finance and behind-the-scenes control of
American political affairs  and rake in astronomical profits in the
process. Let this be a lesson to those who assume that elites aren't
clever enough to carry out big projects successfully in this
complicated world of ours.

And in fact these kinds of elite manipulations are not really rocket
science. When you have control over finance, and you have your
tentacles into high-level political circles  and you have centuries
of experience at this kind of thing  there's a lot you can accomplish
using routine methods.

Among the routine methods are deception, betrayal, artificial crises,
bubble and burst economic cycles, engineered conflicts  and above all
never hesitating to finance wars to get what you want; genocide is a
legitimate means. As Henry Kissinger put it, when America betrayed the
Kurds and was enthusiastically supporting Saddam Hussein, "You can't
make an omelette without breaking eggs". It's really just a matter of
thinking big, and not giving a damn about anyone else but you and your
friends and your shared power. These people have a philosophy: if we
weren't on top, someone else would be. Typical gangster reasoning.

World War II and the consolidation of American hegemony

WWI had been such a successful project that planning began immediately
for a grander sequel, another giant step toward a new world order. In
the early 1920's, still in the days of the Weimar Republic, a team of
Krupp engineers were secretly tasked with a project: come up with
designs for a line of military equipment suitable for a war twenty
years from now. Thus were conceived the advanced weapons that served
the Reich so well when the time came. Even though Germany was
destitute, and treaty-bound not to rearm, someone knew, and told
Krupp, that all this would change  and within the designated timeframe.

There were two primary elite objectives for the inter-war years:
collecting the WWI debts, and creating the conditions for a larger-
scale war that would consolidate America's hegemonic role in world
affairs. As in WWI, the plan would be to get others to do the hard
work, and for the yanks to come in when most of the fighting was over,
pick up all the marbles, and score the points for victory. And once
again, the banking elite would be financing the war (as it turns out,
all sides) and raking in profits beyond measure.

Ongoing destitution in Europe was useful for two reasons: it maximized
debt repayment, and it created the conditions in which elites could
socially engineer the reconstruction process. Destitute people are
likely to accept whatever crumbs of hope are thrown their way. When
Mussolini came along, with his vision of fascism, elites saw a man who
could 'instill the discipline' necessary to enable debt repayment. He
was promptly funded by the Anglo-American bankers.

Mussolini's fascist ideas resonated with ideas popular among American
elites. Eugenics, for example, including the killing or sterilizing of
"undesirables", was a cause promoted by Rockefeller, Ford, and many
others. And the primary tenet of fascism,the individual is
subservient to the needs of the state  is music to the ears of
ruthless elites everywhere, and in particular to our friendly banking

Hitler was a project of the Anglo-American bankers. His charismatic
brilliance was noticed early, and his Mein Kampf served as an
effective marketing brochure for himself: here was a man determined to
do exactly what the financial elite would love to see happen  he
wanted to invade and decimate the anti-capitalist Soviet Union. His
rise to power was funded largely through the auspices of the Anglo-
American bankers, and immense profits were made by investing in the
German rearmament process. And he was good about debt repayments.

Germany fighting Russia, that was a good start for the next war
project. Meanwhile, in the Pacific, Japan was looming as a new power.
In 1905 she had bettered Russia in the Russo-Japanese war and she was
rapidly industrializing. Japan had imperialist aspirations and this
fit perfectly into elite planning. Japan against China, and Germany
against Russia, was precisely the kind of global war that elites,
comfortable in New York, would be happy to fight, and win. Many a
dollar was made investing in Japan's imperialist adventures, and
selling them supplies and equipment, prior to Pearl Harbor.

Meanwhile, in the USA, there were profits and gains of other kinds to
be made during the inter-war years. First came the bubble, aka the
roaring twenties. Everyone and his cousin was playing the market.
Everything was going up, as carefully stage managed by the new Federal
Reserve financial autocracy. With a strong economy, and all that cash
coming in from debt repayments, the bubble was easy to manage. Lots of
people made a bundle, but the biggest bundles were stashed away by
those at the top who financed the episode. The house always wins.

Next came the consolidation phase, aka the Great Depression. If
America was to emerge from the next war project as global hegemon, the
important thing was to own as much of America as possible. By
comparison, current profits were secondary. And the most convenient
way to buy up American assets was to create a depression, whereby
everything would be on the market at fire-sale prices. Elementary, my
dear Watson.

All of these threads wove together perfectly as WWII began. The masses
of people in Europe and Asia were engaged in murdering one another,
and destroying one another's countries, while the USA continued to
stay out of the fray, and the Anglo-American banking elite was
profiting from its investments and loans to all sides of the
conflicts. America's entry into the war was carefully delayed, coming
just in time to determine the outcome, but after much of the fighting
had already occurred. In order to facilitate this delay, the virtues
of neutrality were promoted in the mainstream media right up until
Pearl Harbor, despite considerable grassroots anti-fascist sentiment.

When the right time came for entry, banking-agent Roosevelt initiated
a series of provocations against Japan, designed to force them to
attack. The Japanese codes had been broken, the date of the attack on
Pearl Harbor was known, and the valuable aircraft carriers were put
safely out to sea. Out-of-date ships were left as sacrificial lambs,
eg the Arizona. Day of Infamy indeed. By such an arranged incident,
the neutrality propaganda could be instantly reversed, and a
declaration of war readily obtained from a neutralist-minded Congress.
Many of them pacifists yesterday, the young men of America were now
all lining up to enlist.  So easy, when you pull all the strings, to
turn a whole nation around on a dime.

"If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if
Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill
as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious
under any circumstances." Harry S. Truman, New York Times, June 24, 1941

Even after declaring war on Japan and Germany, America participated
only marginally, with a holding action in the Pacific, a troop buildup
in the British isles, and a bombing campaign against the Reich. The
real fighting was happening in China and on the Eastern Front of the
German campaign. America was happy for the fighting to go on, as long
as a big winner didn't emerge, a potential threat to US hegemony.
Every day the fighting continued, the bankers were profiting from the
financing, and potential rivals to America were being weakened.

Only when Germany was defeated at Stalingrad, and the huge Russian
army began advancing westward, did America finally commit masses of
ground troops to combat. There was no need to defeat Hitler; Stalin
was taking care of that business on the Eastern Front, where 80% of
the German divisions were fighting. The task of the American troops
was to race eastward to halt the advance of Russia as quickly as
possible. Much to the consternation of Stalin, after the allies landed
in Italy, the yanks allowed three more German divisions to transfer
unmolested from Italy to the Eastern Front, as one way of slowing down
the Russian advance. Once again betrayal, this time of ally Russia.

The WWII project achieved all of its objectives admirably. While
having fought only marginally, and suffered negligible casualties  in
comparison with the other major combatants  the US emerged with an
intact infrastructure, 40% of the world's wealth and industrial
capacity, control of the seven seas, a monopoly on atomic weapons,
strategic footholds in the Middle East oil sheikdoms, and general
popular acclaim as the heroic champion of democracy. Quite naturally,
the world's eyes turned to Washington for leadership in shaping the
postwar world.

And America was ready with a blueprint. The bankers had selected a
committee, from their Council on Foreign Relations, and sent it over
to the White House to design the postwar architecture. America was now
secured as a hegemonic base of operations, more viable for that role
than Britain had been, and it was time to move forward with the next
phase of the new-world-order project. Thus were launched, promptly
after the war ended, the Bretton Woods globalist institutions  the
UN, IMF, and World Bank  the early foundation stones for an eventual
one-world government.

Note to the reader: In my harsh description of America's participation
in WWII, I in no way mean to dishonor the brave men and women who
fought and sacrificed in that war as GI's. They were not deceiving or
betraying, they were fighting with all their hearts for freedom. They
were as much the victims of elite games as were all the others who
lost their lives.
The short American Century: preparing the world to accept global

The WWII project was, like the first war project, a remarkable success
for the banking elites. Again, as before, the next stage of the larger
new-world-order project was promptly set in motion. With its hegemonic
position, America would serve as an ideal base of operations for this
next stage, but a global American Empire was not to be the final
outcome. America was to be used and betrayed, like Britain before it,
and this time the plan called, and still calls, for a world government
to be installed, making the whole Earth into a base of operations, a
private fiefdom, to be owned and ruled directly by the banking elite.

The unfolding of this third phase of the new-world-order project took
about six decades, and as we lived through it we saw what seemed to be
many surprising and unpredictable episodes. However, if we step back
and look at the big picture, the key elements of the project become
clear. The following objectives have all been achieved, and they were
all carefully orchestrated to reach their conclusions at about the
same time, which turned out to be the end of 2008:

the rise and fall of America as hegemonic imperial power
the preservation of American military supremacy as its only major
the universal destabilization of localized economic systems
a worldwide extended boom-bust cycle, ending with most of the world
destitute and hopelessly in debt

In the final section of this article we will examine how these
conditions are currently being exploited, under the charismatic and
deceptive leadership of banking-agent Barak Obama, to bring about the
final installation of the New World Order. In this section, we'll
briefly review how each of these objectives was systematically achieved.

As it was in the heyday of the British Empire, the interests of
banking elites and nationalist-minded elites (in America this time)
were more or less aligned as the postwar era began. A grand campaign
of imperialist operations in the Global South served both their
interests. With a policy of containment with respect to the communist
world, and of Pax Americana with respect to Europe  precluding Europe
from becoming a military competitor  America was able to maintain
military hegemony in the "free world" and use its forces to achieve
direct imperialist objectives in the Global South, without needing to
directly confront other major powers.

America employed a much more refined and efficient model for imperial
management than the British Empire had ever been able to achieve.
Besides avoiding direct military conflicts with major competitors,
Washington spurned the burden and expense of colonial administration,
and instead focused on regime-change operations as a way of keeping
small nations under control. The installation of corrupt dictators was
the preferred model (eg, the Shah, Noriega, Marcos, Saddam, etc ad
nauseum), who once installed were encouraged to enrich themselves and
their cronies as they suppressed their populations, so that investors
from the North could exploit the nation's resources and workers.

Eventually such dictators would always outlive their usefulness.
Either they would lose control of rebellious populations (eg Marcos),
or they would get uppity and start defending their national interests
(eg Noriega). When such a time came, the elite-controlled mass media
would suddenly discover that there was a ruthless dictator loose in
the world, and the successor regime change would be widely welcomed as a 'victory for democracy'. The faces would change, and perhaps some
reforms would be implemented, but in the end there would be another
proxy in place doing whatever needs to be done to facilitate
exploitation by foreign investors. Such has been the nature of the
free world era in the South.

A critical underpinning of the Cold War and the Pax Americana regime
was the mythology of a communist threat. In fact Russia posed no real
threat, not militarily nor in terms of covert subversion. Russia had
been devastated by the war, and the last thing it wanted was to get
involved in another one. It had been invaded by Europe time and again,
WWI being only the most recent example, and its main concerns were
security and national development. Russia tried time and again to
normalize relations with the West, and to pursue large-scale nuclear
disarmament, but was each time rebuffed.

With the destruction caused by WWI, and with the West again exhibiting
hostility, Russia had little choice but to hold on to Eastern Europe
as a protective barrier against another attack. Certainly Eastern
Europeans were not happy with clumsy, autocratic Russian rule, but
they were not being economically exploited as was the Southern "free
world".  Living conditions in Eastern Europe were typically better
than in the Soviet Union itself, and better than in the South. It's
"satellites" were an economic and political burden to the Soviets, an
investment not in imperialism but in national security. Now that
Eastern Europe has been separated from Russia, and Washington is
putting missiles and radar installation there and extending NATO, it
is clear that Russia's attempt to maintain a buffer made perfect
defensive sense.

The "communist threat" provided a handy excuse for US interventionism,
for maintaining a strong US military, and for the ongoing development
of America's nuclear arsenal. Equally important, enabled by the
fiction that Russia threatened the entire West, America was able to
portray itself as the 'friend and protector of Europe', justify the
economic isolation of the socialist block, and justify as well the Pax
Americana regime in the "free world".

But as in Britain before, the interests of nationalism and of the
banking elite were not to remain aligned. Even as America continued to
extend its hegemony in a geopolitical and military sense, the seeds of
economic decline were being planted by the bankers. The first step was
to start moving manufacturing overseas, leading to the de-
industrialization of America and yielding increased profits to
investors and transnational corporations. After that Reagan was
ushered into power, bringing with him a full scale assault on the
stability of the American national economy. The program of economic
destabilization was then extended globally, as the globalization

Globalization, with its deregulation of corporations and international
finance, has certainly been a profit bonanza for international banks
and transnational corporations. It's deeper purpose, however, has been
to destroy localized economic systems and to make everyone dependent
on the global marketplace for essential goods and services. Not only
has self-sufficiency been undermined for nations everywhere, but
mutual-benefit bilateral trade arrangements have been largely
eliminated as well.

Under the hocus-pocus doctrine of free trade, a situation has been
created where, to the maximum extent possible, all goods and services
are generated in the lowest-waged parts of the world, and then sold on
the global market to the highest bidders. Not only does this maximize
the profits of the middlemen (the bankers and transnational
corporations), and drive wages down everywhere, but it also results in
market prices that are largely beyond the reach of the Global South.
Under globalization, we've seen the most draconian system of
imperialism every imposed on the South, and it's an imperialism
managed by the bankers (via their globalist institutions) directly,
not by an imperialist nation, as in the days of earlier empires.

Just as with the Native Americans and the Australian Aborigines in the
1800's, the whole population of the South is now considered to be 'in
the way' of ongoing economic development and the accelerated
exploitation of Southern resources. A program of wholesale genocide,
on a scale much larger than the Holocaust, is now underway in the
South, facilitated by economic and social destabilization, in turn
facilitated by "free trade" and by covert interventions. The campaign
for biofuel development, which makes little or no sense from an energy
perspective, has the main (and intended) consequence of accelerating
the program of genocide by substantially increasing the price of food
on the global market. Keep this in mind when next you listen to
banking-agent Al Gore's inspiring speeches about "energy independence".

Of all the advantages the banking elites enjoy from this globalized
and unregulated economic system, the most strategic is the
discretionary power they have to arbitrarily manipulate global
affairs. And of the tools available to them under this regime, the
most potent is the ability to manipulate high-level finance. By such
means Japan and the Southeast "Tigers" were cut down to size, and any
number of other boom-bust cycles have been engineered over the past
several decades (eg Brazil, Argentina).

It is this ability to manipulate high-level finance that has been used
to create the climactic conclusion of this short American Century: the
engineered global banking collapse and the ensuing general panic. This
manufactured panic was then exploited to push through the disastrous
bailout schemes that are transferring insolvency from the banks to the
governments. By intentionally committing economic suicide, the bankers
have managed to kill not their banking system, but the economic
viability of nations worldwide.

From a big-picture perspective, the entire period since the end of
WWII can be seen as one big boom-bust cycle. It brought us the
greatest period of sustained economic growth the world has ever seen,
and in the end, with the engineered collapse and bailouts, all the
marbles are now being picked up by the banking elites. Game over.

Obama and the marketing of subservience: installing the New World Order

As with the two world-war projects, the short-American-Century project
was a complete success, in preparing the ground for a global system of
governance by, of, and for the elite bankers. Again, the main elements
of this penultimate sub-project:

the rise and fall of America as hegemonic imperial power
the preservation of American military supremacy as its only major
the universal destabilization of localized economic systems
a worldwide extended boom-bust cycle, ending with most of the world
destitute and hopelessly in debt

To be more precise, the destitution and hopelessness are only now
beginning to unfold. We've seen the first wave of business failures
and personal insolvencies, but many more will follow domino fashion.
The amount of the losses the banks have suffered have still not been
disclosed, and massive credit-card defaults are yet to come, as the
ranks of the unemployed continue to soar globally.

The classic, time-tested way to implement big social-engineering
changes is to first create a crisis, and then in the ensuing panic to
offer a solution  the 'solution' being the original goal of the
entire exercise. We've seen this formula used to facilitate the
installation of the Federal Reserve system, the passage of the bailout
schemes, the entry of America into WWII, etc. On a still-grander
scale, it is the formula that will lead to the creation of a one-world

The problem in this case is the collapse of national economies and the
global financial system; the solution will be a Global Central Bank
in sum, a global-scale replay of the Federal Reserve project. Banking-
agent Gordon Brown seems to be the one who has been assigned the task of moving this agenda forward. In a recent article in BBC News he
begins framing the context of the debate to come.

The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has produced a paper titled, "Manning the Barricades," which those committed to saving human civilization would do well to take note of. As a mouthpiece for the London-based financial oligarchy, going all the way back to the U.S. Civil War, when it openly opposed President Abraham Lincoln's war to save the Union, The Economist's "study" should be read as a statement of intent for ushering in a period of global chaos, in which that financial oligarchy maintains its power over a decimated planet.

"There is growing concern about a possible global pandemic of unrest," the report almost gloats.

The study warns that there is a 40% likelihood that the efforts to solve the financial crash, through the bailouts, will fail, and that it could lead to world war. At minimum, The Economist admits that the financial crash has killed globalization, and then moans that a new protectionist wave, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, could prolong the depression. The document attacks President Obama for allowing a "Buy America" clause to be included in the first stimulus package, and warns that he is moving in a populist direction that could cause a far worse crisis, leading to the global political destabilizations the report already forecast.

If protectionism and nationalism do fully erupt, the EIU warns, the world will face "armed rebellions, military coups, civil conflict and even wars between states." Will we once again face "wheelbarrow time?," the report asks, warning of global hyperinflation.

The bulk of the report deals with nation-by-nation ratings of the likelihood of countries being destroyed. The EIU projects that Britain will be in the front line of nations shaken by social upheavals that will topple governments. In Britain, "popular discontent and anger are likely to rise, and populist sentiments to strengthen. The news of big personal payouts to bankers who have failed spectacularly has incensed public opinion." Overall, 95 countries are ranked as being at "high" or "very high" risk.

The top of the list coincides with countries already targetted by Lord Mark Malloch-Brown's and George Soros's destabilizations: Zimbabwe, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Cambodia, and Sudan. Three European countries are among the 27 rated as "very high risk": Ukraine, Moldova, and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As for Britain, the EIU points to immigrant labor as a possible flashpoint for unrest. A Financial Times/Harris poll says that almost 80% of British adults believe that immigrants should be asked to leave the country if they do not have a job, and a majority believes that social chaos will lead to the deployment of the British Army onto the streets. Clearly, such a scenario is not limited to Britain alone.

How can such a wish list/scenario be subverted? In fact, only by the very measures which The Economist excoriates—a revival of national sovereignty which leads to cooperation among nations for a new international credit system (not a British monetary system) geared to global economic reconstruction. That means war against the British imperialists—to prevent them from destroying us all. Left to their own devices, the Brits will resort to their longstanding doctrine of "permanent war/permanent revolution," a doctrine forged during the World War I period by British agent Alexander Helphand ("Parvus"), and earlier, by Lord Palmerston's Jacobin duo, Karl Marx and Giuseppe Mazzini.


Andrew G. Marshall

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated, “We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.” As the Telegraph reported, “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”[1]
The article continued in stating that, “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China.” Further, “The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,” or, in other words, a global central bank.
It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast-tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

A New Bretton-Woods
In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods - building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.” He continued in saying that, “we must now reform the international financial system around the agreed principles of transparency, integrity, responsibility, good housekeeping and co-operation across borders.” An article in the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown would want “to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”[2]

On October 17, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said, “This week, European leaders came together to propose the guiding principles that we believe should underpin this new Bretton Woods: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance. We agreed that urgent decisions implementing these principles should be made to root out the irresponsible and often undisclosed lending at the heart of our problems. To do this, we need cross-border supervision of financial institutions; shared global standards for accounting and regulation; a more responsible approach to executive remuneration that rewards hard work, effort and enterprise but not irresponsible risk-taking; and the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.[Emphasis added]”[3]
In early October 2008, it was reported that, “as the world's central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic "policeman" to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.” Further, “any organisation with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.” A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however, “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”[4]

Emergence of Regional Currencies
On January 1, 1999, the European Union established the Euro as its regional currency. The Euro has grown in prominence over the past several years. However, it is not to be the only regional currency in the world. There are moves and calls for other regional currencies throughout the world.
In 2007, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article titled, The End of National Currency, in which it began by discussing the volatility of international currency markets, and that very few “real” solutions have been proposed to address successive currency crises. The author poses the question, “will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?” He answers by stating that, “This is a dangerous misdiagnosis,” and that, “The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today's instability.”
The author explains that, “Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world's governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.” The author states that, “Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.” Essentially, according to the author, the solution lies in regional currencies.[5]
In October of 2008, “European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny said a ``tri-polar'' global currency system is developing between Asia, Europe and the U.S. and that he's skeptical the U.S. dollar's centrality can be revived.”[6]

The Union of South American Nations  
The Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) was established on May 23, 2008, with the headquarters to be in Ecuador, the South American Parliament to be in Bolivia, and the Bank of the South to be in Venezuela. As the BBC reported, “The leaders of 12 South American nations have formed a regional body aimed at boosting economic and political integration in the region,” and that, “The Unasur members are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Paraguay, Peru, Suriname, Uruguay and Venezuela.”[7]
The week following the announcement of the Union, it was reported that, “Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Monday that South American nations will seek a common currency as part of the region's integration efforts following the creation of the Union of South American Nations.” He was quoted as saying, “We are proceeding so as, in the future, we have a common central bank and a common currency.”[8]

The Gulf Cooperation Council and a Regional Currency
In 2005, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a regional trade bloc among Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), announced the goal of creating a single common currency by 2010. It was reported that, “An economically united and efficient GCC is clearly a more interesting proposition for larger companies than each individual economy, especially given the impediments to trade evident within the region. This is why trade relations within the GCC have been a core focus of late.” Further, “The natural extension of this trend for increased integration is to introduce a common currency in order to further facilitate trade between the different countries.” It was announced that, “the region's central bankers had agreed to pursue monetary union in a similar fashion to the rules used in Europe.”[9]
In June of 2008, it was reported that, “Gulf Arab central bankers agreed to create the nucleus of a joint central bank next year in a major step forward for monetary union but signaled that a new common currency would not be in circulation by an agreed 2010 target.”[10] In 2002, it was announced that the “Gulf states say they are seeking advice from the European Central Bank on their monetary union programme.” In February of 2008, Oman announced that it would not be joining the monetary union. In November of 2008, it was announced that the “Final monetary union draft says Gulf central bank will be independent from governments of member states.”[11]
In March of 2009, it was reported that, “The GCC should not rush into forming a single currency as member states need to work out the framework for a regional central bank, Saudi Arabia's Central Bank Governor Muhammad Al Jasser.” Jasser was further quoted as saying, “It took the European Union 45 years to put together a single currency. We should not rush.” In 2008, with the global financial crisis, new problems were posed for the GCC initiative, as “Pressure mounted last year on the GCC members to drop their currency pegs as inflation accelerated above 10 per cent in five of the six countries. All of the member states except Kuwait peg their currencies to the dollar and tend to follow the US Federal Reserve when setting interest rates.”[12]

An Asian Monetary Union
In 1997, the Brookings Institution, a prominent American think tank, discussed the possibilities of an East Asian Monetary Union, stating that, “the question for the 21st century is whether analogous monetary blocs will form in East Asia (and, for that matter, in the Western Hemisphere). With the dollar, the yen, and the single European currency floating against one another, other small open economies will be tempted to link up to one of the three.” However, “the linkage will be possible only if accompanied by radical changes in institutional arrangements like those contemplated by the European Union. The spread of capital mobility and political democratization will make it prohibitively difficult to peg exchange rates unilaterally. Pegging will require international cooperation, and effective cooperation will require measures akin to monetary unification.”[13]

In 2001, Asia Times Online wrote an article discussing a speech given by economist Robert A. Mundell at Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University, at which he stated that, “[t]he "Asean plus three" (the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus China, Japan, and Korea) ‘should look to the European Union as a model for closer integration of monetary policy, trade and eventually, currency integration’.”[14]

On May 6, 2005, the website of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) announced that, “China, Japan, South Korea and the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have agreed to expand their network of bilateral currency swaps into what could become a virtual Asian Monetary Fund,” and that, “[f]inance officials of the 13 nations, who met in the sidelines of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) annual conference in Istanbul, appeared determined to turn their various bilateral agreements into some sort of multilateral accord, although none of the officials would directly call it an Asian Monetary Fund.”[15]

In August of 2005, the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank published a report on the prospects of an East Asian Monetary Union, stating that East Asia satisfies the criteria for joining a monetary union, however, it states that compared to the European initiative, “The implication is that achieving any monetary arrangement, including a common currency, is much more difficult in East Asia.” It further states that, “In Europe, a monetary union was achievable primarily because it was part of the larger process of political integration,” however, “There is no apparent desire for political integration in East Asia, partly because of the great differences among those countries in terms of political systems, culture, and shared history. As a result of their own particular histories, East Asian countries remain particularly jealous of their sovereignty.”

Another major problem, as presented by the San Francisco Fed, is that, “East Asian governments appear much more suspicious of strong supranational institutions,” and thus, “in East Asia, sovereignty concerns have left governments reluctant to delegate significant authority to supranational bodies, at least so far.” It explains that as opposed to the steps taken to create a monetary union in Europe, “no broad free trade agreements have been achieved among the largest countries in the region, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and China.” Another problem is that, “East Asia does not appear to have an obvious candidate for an internal anchor currency for a cooperative exchange rate arrangement. Most successful new currencies have been started on the back of an existing currency, establishing confidence in its convertibility, thus linking the old with the new.”

The report concludes that, “exchange rate stabilization and monetary integration are unlikely in the near term. Nevertheless, East Asia is integrating through trade, even without an emphasis on formal trade liberalization agreements,” and that, “there is evidence of growing financial cooperation in the region, including the development of regional arrangements for providing liquidity during crises through bilateral foreign exchange swaps, regional economic surveillance discussions, and the development of regional bond markets.” Ultimately, “East Asia might also proceed along the same path [as Europe], first with loose agreements to stabilize currencies, followed later by tighter agreements, and culminating ultimately in adoption of a common anchor—and, after that, maybe an East Asia dollar.”[16]

In 2007, it was reported that, “Asia may need to establish its own monetary fund if it is to cope with future financial shocks similar to that which rocked the region 10 years ago,” and that, “Further Asian financial integration is the best antidote for Asian future financial crises.”[17]

In September of 2007, Forbes reported that, “An East Asian monetary union anchored by Japan is feasible but the region lacks the political will to do it, the Asian Development Bank said.” Pradumna Rana, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) economist, said that, “it appears feasible to establish a currency union in East Asia -- particularly among Indonesia, Japan, (South) Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand,” and that, “The economic potential for monetary integration in Asia is strong, even though the political underpinnings of such an accord are not yet in place.” Further, “the real integration at the trade levels 'will actually reinforce the economic case for monetary union in Asia, in a similar way that real-sector integration did so in Europe,” and ultimately, “the road to an Asian monetary union could proceed on a 'multi-track, multi-speed' basis with a seamless Asian free trade area the goal on the trade side.”[18] In April of 2008, it was reported that, “ASEAN bank deputy governors and financial deputy ministers have met in Vietnam's central Da Nang city, discussing issues on the financial and monetary integration and cooperation in the region.”[19]

African Monetary Union
Currently, Africa has several different monetary union initiatives, as well as some existing monetary unions within the continent. One initiative is the “monetary union project of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),” which is a “regional group of 15 countries in West Africa.” Among the members are those of an already-existing monetary union in the region, the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU). The ECOWAS consists of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, Cape Verde, Liberia, Ghana, Gambia, and Nigeria.[20]

The African Union was founded in 2002, and is an intergovernmental organization consisting of 53 African states. In 2003, the Brookings Institution produced a paper on African economic integration. In it, the authors started by stating that, “Africa, like other regions of the world, is fixing its sights on creating a common currency. Already, there are projects for regional monetary unions, and the bidding process for an eventual African central bank is about to begin.” It states that, “A common currency was also an objective of the Organization for African Unity and the African Economic Community, the predecessors of the AU,” and further, that, “The 1991 Abuja Treaty establishing the African Economic Community outlines six stages for achieving a single monetary zone for Africa that were set to be completed by approximately 2028. In the early stages, regional cooperation and integration within Africa would be strengthened, and this could involve regional monetary unions. The final stage involves the establishment of the African Central Bank (ACB) and creation of a single African currency and an African Economic and Monetary Union.”

The paper further states that the African Central Bank (ACB) “would not be created until around 2020, [but] the bidding process for its location is likely to begin soon,” however, “there are plans for creating various regional monetary unions, which would presumably form building blocks for the single African central bank and currency.”[21]

In August of 2008, “Governors of African Central Banks convened in Kigali Serena Hotel to discuss issues concerning the creation of three African Union (AU) financial institutions,” following “the AU resolution to form the African Monetary Fund (AMF), African Central Bank (ACB) and the African Investment Bank (AIB).” The central bank governors “agreed that when established, the ACB would solely issue and manage Africa's single currency and monetary authority of the continent's economy.”[22]

On March 2, 2009, it was reported that, “The African Union will sign a memorandum of understanding this month with Nigeria on the establishment of a continental central bank,” and that, “The institution will be based in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, African Union Commissioner for Economic Affairs Maxwell Mkwezalamba told reporters.” Further, “As an intermediate step to the creation of the bank, the pan- African body will establish an African Monetary Institute within the next three years, he said at a meeting of African economists in the city,” and he was quoted as saying, “We have agreed to work with the Association of African Central Bank Governors to set up a joint technical committee to look into the preparation of a joint strategy.”[23]

The website for the Kenyan Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that, “The African Union Commissioner for Economic Affairs Dr. Maxwell Mkwezalamba has expressed optimism for the adoption of a common currency for Africa,” and that the main theme discussed at the AU Commission meeting in Kenya was, “Towards the Creation of a Single African Currency: Review of the Creation of a Single African Currency: Which optimal Approach to be adopted to accelerate the creation of the unique continental currency.”[24]

A North American Monetary Union and the Amero

In January of 2008, I wrote an article documenting the moves toward the creation of a North American currency, likely under the name Amero. [See: Andrew G. Marshall, North-American Monetary Integration: Here Comes the Amero. Global Research: January 20, 2008] I will briefly outline the information presented in that article here.

In 1999, the Fraser Institute, a prominent and highly influential Canadian think tank, published a report written by Economics professor and former MP, Herbert Grubel, called, The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union. He wrote that, “The plan for a North American Monetary Union presented in this study is designed to include Canada, the United States, and Mexcio,” and a “North American Central Bank, like the European Central Bank, will have a constitution making it responsible only for the maintenance of price stability and not for full employment.”[25] He opined that, “sovereignty is not infinitely valuable. The merit of giving up some aspects of sovereignty should be determined by the gains brought by such a sacrifice,” and that, “It is important to note that in practice Canada has given up its economic sovereignty in many areas, the most important of which involve the World Trade Organization (formerly the GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement,” as well as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.[26]

Also in 1999, the C.D. Howe Institute, another of Canada’s most prominent think tanks, produced a report titled, From Fixing to Monetary Union: Options for North American Currency Integration. In this document, it was written that, “The easiest way to broach the notion of a NAMU [North American Monetary Union] is to view it as the North American equivalent of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and, by extension, the euro.”[27] It further stated that the fact that “a NAMU would mean the end of sovereignty in Canadian monetary policy is clear. Most obviously, it would mean abandoning a made-in-Canada inflation rate for a US or NAMU inflation rate.”[28]

In May of 2007, Canada’s then Governor of the Central Bank of Canada, David Dodge, said that, “North America could one day embrace a euro-style single currency,” and that, “Some proponents have dubbed the single North American currency the ‘amero’.” Answering questions following his speech, Dodge said that, “a single currency was ‘possible’.”[29]
In November of 2007, one of Canada’s richest billionaires, Stephen Jarislowsky, also a member of the board of the C.D. Howe Institute, told a Canadian Parliamentary committee that, “Canada should replace its dollar with a North American currency, or peg it to the U.S. greenback, to avoid the exchange rate shifts the loonie has experienced,” and that, “I think we have to really seriously start thinking of the model of a continental currency just like Europe.”[30]

Former Mexican President Vicente Fox, while appearing on Larry King Live in 2007, was asked a question regarding the possibility of a common currency for Latin America, to which he responded by saying, “Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea.” Larry King then asked, “It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?” to which Fox responded, “Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”[31]

In January of 2008, Herbert Grubel, the author who coined the term “amero” for the Fraser Institute report, wrote an article for the Financial Post, in which he recommends fixing the Canadian loonie to the US dollar at a fixed exchange rate, but that there are inherent problems with having the US Federal Reserve thus control Canadian interest rates. He then wrote that, “there is a solution to this lack of credibility. In Europe, it came through the creation of the euro and formal end of the ability of national central banks to set interest rates. The analogous creation of the amero is not possible without the unlikely co-operation of the United States. This leaves the credibility issue to be solved by the unilateral adoption of a currency board, which would ensure that international payments imbalances automatically lead to changes in Canada's money supply and interest rates until the imbalances are ended, all without any actions by the Bank of Canada or influence by politicians. It would be desirable to create simultaneously the currency board and a New Canadian Dollar valued at par with the U.S. dollar. With longer-run competitiveness assured at US90¢ to the U.S. dollar.”[32]

In January of 2009, an online publication of the Wall Street Journal, called Market Watch, discussed the possibility of hyperinflation of the United States dollar, and then stated, regarding the possibility of an amero, “On its face, while difficult to imagine, it makes intuitive sense. The ability to combine Canadian natural resources, American ingenuity and cheap Mexican labor would allow North America to compete better on a global stage.” The author further states that, “If forward policy attempts to induce more debt rather than allowing savings and obligations to align, we must respect the potential for a system shock. We may need to let a two-tier currency gain traction if the dollar meaningfully debases from current levels,” and that, “If this dynamic plays out -- and I've got no insight that it will -- the global balance of powers would fragment into four primary regions: North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East. In such a scenario, ramifications would manifest through social unrest and geopolitical conflict.”[33]

Global Currency

The Phoenix
In 1988, The Economist ran an article titled, Get Ready for the Phoenix, in which they wrote, “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 favoured 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 late twentieth century.”

The article stated that, “The market crash [of 1987] taught [governments] that the pretence of policy cooperation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (ie, until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.” Amazingly the article states that, “Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stockmarket 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 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 trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.”

Further, the article stated that, “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.” The author admits that, “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.”

The article concludes in stating that, “The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right 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 last sentence states, “Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”[34]

Recommendations for a Global Currency
In 1998, the IMF Survey discussed a speech given by James Tobin, a prominent American economist, in which he argued that, “A single global currency might offer a viable alternative to the floating rate.” He further stated that, “there was still a great need” for “lenders of last resort.”[35]

In 1999, economist Judy Shelton addressed the US House of Representatives Committee on Banking and Financial Services. In her testimony, she stated that, “The continued expansion of free trade, the increased integration of financial markets and the advent of electronic commerce are all working to bring about the need for an international monetary standard---a global unit of account.” She further explained that, “Regional currency unions seem to be the next step in the evolution toward some kind of global monetary order. Europe has already adopted a single currency. Asia may organize into a regional currency bloc to offer protection against speculative assaults on the individual currencies of weaker nations. Numerous countries in Latin America are considering various monetary arrangements to insulate them from financial contagion and avoid the economic consequences of devaluation. An important question is whether this process of monetary evolution will be intelligently directed or whether it will simply be driven by events. In my opinion, political leadership can play a decisive role in helping to build a more orderly, rational monetary system than the current free-for-all approach to exchange rate relations.”

She further stated that, “As we have seen in Europe, the sequence of development is (1) you build a common market, and (2) you establish a common currency. Indeed, until you have a common currency, you don’t truly have an efficient common market.” She concludes by stating, “Ideally, every nation should stand willing to convert its currency at a fixed rate into a universal reserve asset. That would automatically create a global monetary union based on a common unit of account. The alternative path to a stable monetary order is to forge a common currency anchored to an asset of intrinsic value. While the current momentum for dollarization should be encouraged, especially for Mexico and Canada, in the end the stability of the global monetary order should not rest on any single nation.”[36]

Paul Volcker, former Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, stated in 2000, that, “If we are to have a truly global economy, a single world currency makes sense.” In a speech delivered by a member of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank, it was stated that Paul Volcker “might be right, and we might one day have a single world currency. Maybe European integration, in the same way as any other regional integration, could be seen as a step towards the ideal situation of a fully integrated world. If and when this world will see the light of day is impossible to say. However, what I can say is that this vision seems as impossible now to most of us as a European monetary union seemed 50 years ago, when the process of European integration started.”[37]

In 2000, the IMF held an international conference and published a brief report titled, One World, One Currency: Destination or Delusion?, in which it was stated that, “As perceptions grow that the world is gradually segmenting into a few regional currency blocs, the logical extension of such a trend also emerges as a theoretical possibility: a single world currency. If so many countries see benefits from currency integration, would a world currency not maximize these benefits?”

It outlines how, “The dollar bloc, already underpinned by the strength of the U.S. economy, has been extended further by dollarization and regional free trade pacts. The euro bloc represents an economic union that is intended to become a full political union likely to expand into Central and Eastern Europe. A yen bloc may emerge from current proposals for Asian monetary cooperation. A currency union may emerge among Mercosur members in Latin America, a geographical currency zone already exists around the South African rand, and a merger of the Australian and New Zealand dollars is a perennial topic in Oceania.”

The summary states that, “The same commercial efficiencies, economies of scale, and physical imperatives that drive regional currencies together also presumably exist on the next level—the global scale.” Further, it reported that, “The smaller and more vulnerable economies of the world—those that the international community is now trying hardest to help—would have most to gain from the certainty and stability that would accompany a single world currency.”[38] Keep in mind, this document was produced by the IMF, and so its recommendations for what it says would likely “help” the smaller and more vulnerable countries of the world, should be taken with a grain – or bucket – of salt.

Economist Robert A. Mundell has long called for a global currency. On his website, he states that the creation of a global currency is “a project that would restore a needed coherence to the international monetary system, give the International Monetary Fund a function that would help it to promote stability, and be a catalyst for international harmony.” He states that, “The benefits from a world currency would be enormous. Prices all over the world would be denominated in the same unit and would be kept equal in different parts of the world to the extent that the law of one price was allowed to work itself out. Apart from tariffs and controls, trade between countries would be as easy as it is between states of the United States.”[39]

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)