A Brief History of the New World Order
  "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
  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 financiers.
  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 is why I see WWI as the birth of the
  new-world-order project.
  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', such as 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 nation's 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
  traveled.
  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 it"
  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
  elites.
  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, a.k.a. 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, a.k.a.  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.
  [Could the bankers be creating the oncoming  (2009-?) great depression for the same purpose?
  � Ed.]
  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, e.g., 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 governance
  The WWII project was, like the WWI 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 asset
  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 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 (e.g., the Shah, Noriega,
  Marcos, Saddam, etc., ad nauseam) 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 (e.g., Marcos), or they would
  get uppity and start defending their national  interests (e.g., 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,  WWII being only the most recent instance,
  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 WWII, 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.
  Its "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, Ronald 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
  project.
  Globalization, with its deregulation of corporations  and international finance, has certainly been
  a profit bonanza for international banks and  transnational corporations.
  Its 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 Asian  "Tigers" were cut down to size, and any number
  of other boom-bust cycles have been engineered  over the past several decades (e.g., 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.
  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 asset
  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 first to
  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
  government.
  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:
  Gordon Brown sets stage for the New World  Order.
  Once a global central bank has been achieved,  using the IMF and World Bank as a starting
  point, the consolidation of a one-world government  will be straightforward to achieve.
  The ability to manipulate global and national  finance will be centralized in that elite-run
  bank, and the UN provides the nucleus from  which a formal governmental structure can
  be fashioned.
  UN "reform" will of course be required � to  eliminate whatever vestiges of democratic
  representation still exist there � and appropriate  reform measures are already underway, although,
  not surprisingly, this process hasn't been  featured prominently (yet) in mainstream news
  reports.
  That will soon change.
  
        
      
 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét