Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO
Written by Rusticus
Category: Article In depth
Published: Thursday, 26 May 2016 19:18
Source: Stateless Homesteading
Since its inception, a common theme running throughout the entries here at Stateless Homesteading has been the notion that the “East vs. West” dialectic presented in both mainstream and off-mainstream media is not an organically-manifested conflict, nor does it represent the end of Globalization, but is instead a managerial shift from from a “unipolar” World Order to a “multipolar” New World Order.
Yet despite my best efforts in demonstrating, with primary sources and documented evidence, the “ties that bind” East and West in globalized efforts as varied as Agenda 21 or the gradual emergence of the SDR’s multi-currency basket as the preferred “One World Currency” of both China and the Anglo-American Establishment, the onslaught of propaganda proclaiming that the BRICS/AIIB construct is to spell “death to the Western banking empire” continues to grow.
Seemingly immune to the inaccuracy of the unsourced “predictions” being churned out by the “BRICS World Order” rumor mill, fantastic fairy-tales of White Hats and White Dragons fly unabated, despite the breakdown of the BRICS Saviour meme at its core. While these punditsprognosticate about the end of Agenda 21 in the East, official statements from both Jin Liqun(former Vice President of the Asian Development Bank, now AIIB President) and Xi Jinpingcompletely contradict this narrative. So, too, do the notions espoused surrounding the Yuan/RMB attaining world reserve currency status stand in stark contrast to the macroeconomic reality we now face: A China whose currency has been accepted into the SDR basket (as predicted by myself and others). A PBOC that has begun issuing Chinese reserves denominated in SDRs. Anglo-American think tanks proposing not a gold-backed RMB as so many have foreseen, but a “pseudo” gold-backed SDR, and a Chinese Central Bank headall too willing to comply.
The real tragedy of this disconnect between fiction and reality, however, is not merely the perturbing dismissal of primary sources, but that in the abandonment of uncomfortable Truths for reassuring fiction, those alt-media aficionados who believe the Chinese-led Eastern coalition to be in opposition to Globalism find themselves in unwitting support of the next phase of the New World Order, euphemistically marketed as “multipolarism.”
While the above may seem a contradictory statement to those still mired in the “BRICS World Order” PR pumpage, the afterbirth of the Rhodes Roundtable known as Chatham House has done us all a great favor in the publication of its November 2015 policy paper, “International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?”
Not that the “Royal” Institute for International Affairs has undergone some profound outpouring of empathy for human freedom and autonomy – though I doubt you were expecting that, Reader. They have, however, demonstrated succinctly that the rhetoric surrounding the rise of the East in Globalist circles is virtually identical to the “Asian exceptionalism” being propagated throughout alternative media today.
Save for one key distinction, of course: The Chatham House version of events in no way implies some cartoonish overnight disappearance of the structures of national and global governance, but instead, an assimilation of regional powerbrokers into a Globalized financial order. Not only does this article series seek to demonstrate that a “World Federalism” of distributed power blocs like the BRICS and AIIB is the “transformation” of Globalism being sought in the 21st Century, but to show, within the context of history, that this has been a lynchpin in the gambit for global governance for at least half a century.
Goodbye Pax Americana, Hello New Multipolar World Order
A central element of the “BRICS Saviour” meme, in addition to the geopolitical and financial rise of Asia, is a corresponding end to American (and thus Dollar) hegemony. The funeral pyre of “The West” will inevitably serve as fertilizer for the Phoenix of Eastern multipolar institutions like the BRICS and AIIB, and here, many an alternative media blogger and Chatham House are in complete agreement:
In keeping with the G20-centric title of the paper, Chatham House decries not only the unipolar U.S.-led global coalition, but its chief “old World Order” working group, the G7; as an organization set up in 1973 and designed expressly to support the mechanics of floating currencies inherent with the petrodollar, the G7, like the unipolar American Empire it represents, must make way for the “new working group on the block.” And what better working group to lead the charge in a “multipolar world of more dispersed economic power” than the “inclusive” G20, of which China takes the reigns later this year?
The logo for the 2016 G20 meeting in Hangzhou, China – complete with all-seeing eye symbolism. Cue Alan Parsons Project.
Doubtlessly, Chatham House has high hopes for President Xi’s coming G20 stewardship, with such grandiose aspirations as “improving global governance” and “implementing the UN’s 2030 development agenda” already pledged by the would-be Chairman:
Yet despite Chatham House’s full acknowledgement and support of the new multipolar world now emerging, a critical element in furthering this agenda has yet to come into play: The IMF’s Christine Lagarde refers to it as the “Great Reset.” Many alt-media soothsayers use the same terminology, appending any number of personal delusions (from the end of Globalism to the playing out of Biblical Prophecy) to this pending event. It is known to the RIIA simply as a “Bretton Woods moment:”
Like the public relations onslaught from various “BRICS Saviour” authors, Chatham House expresses a certain amount of frustration in the lack of a fundamental restructuring of the global economy post-2008 – the lack of this “Great Reset”. The commonalities in narrative regarding the presence of such a monetary event on the horizon, however, aren’t damning in and of themselves – after all, the “deep changes in the world economy” referenced above are becoming increasingly known to even the layman. What is disconcerting is the synchronous manner in which Chatham House and various segments of alt-media view the world – and in part, how they view the New World:
This is where things get particularly interesting; Chatham House overtly decries the “US-dominated world economic order” represented by the IMF, World Bank, and various “Anglo-Saxon” economic institutions as “unfavorable” and an “imposition.” This unipolar old order, being inherently opposed to the new multipolar one being promoted therein, must be restrained in order for the agenda at large to progress – in both the eyes of Chatham House as well as the “Eastern exceptionalists” in our midst:
Much to the chagrin of many a BRICS PR agent, Chatham House appends the much-lauded buzz-word of the “New World (Economic) Order” not to the Pax Americana discussed previously, but to emerging markets, specifically China. This New Order, Chatham House proclaims, must no longer allow the United States to project its power through Globalist institutions. “King Dollar,” too, Chatham House deems to be an unnecessary unipolar burden, having outlived its usefulness.
The above passage has profound implications. From the mouth of the Anglo-American Establishment itself, it is emphatically declared that the American Empire is not now and never was the “New World Order,” but a mere stepping stone towards regional federationism, the “true” face of global governance! What’s worse, vast swaths of the “resistance” have somehow come to the fallacious conclusion that the death of American hegemony is the end of Globalism.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Chatham House goes out of its way to establish that the sacrifice of the United States and its influence over international organizations pales in comparison to the survival of “the system” itself. The transformation to a multipolar system, they say, is an inevitability. After over half a century of being used by the Globalists as a blunt instrument of imperialism, usury, and terror, the proverbial pitbull of the old Order must be put down in favor of the multilateral puppy mill headquartered in the East.
For those disparate souls still ensnared by the belief that the “BRICS World Order” will somehow spell the end of Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and World Bank entirely, this author is here to inform you that this is simply not the trajectory the world is on. As opposed to the machinations of Globalism and its governing structures vanishing with the flick of Eastasia’s magic wand, an altogether different sleight of hand is set to debut on the world stage: The handover of these Globalist institutions to the East.
The message from Chatham House to America is unabashed: “You are no longer the driver of economic Globalism. Step out of the vehicle (the IMF) and allow Eastasia to finish the cruise towards Technocratic Neofeudalism.” Growing increasingly impatient with even the ghost of “representation” known as Congress, the implementation of increased voting rights at the IMF for the BRICS/AIIB nations and thus, an end to American veto power, can’t happen soon enough in the eyes of the RIIA. In the meantime, though, Europe and America must not wait to act – the World Bank and IMF head must represent this newfound multilateralism, declaring that Lagarde’s potential replacement could (and it is implied should) be Chinese. The installation of Globalist puppets like Zhou Xiaochuan or Jin Liqun to such a position would certainly herald the beginning of this handover in earnest. Chatham House also suggests that America should “show support for the AIIB and other emerging-market initiatives (read: BRICS),” though I suspect the “Good Witch of the East vs. the Wicked Witch of the West” dialectic is far too useful a propaganda initiative in selling the changeover to the global populous to be abandoned just yet.
All of this, of course, is a radically different outcome from the almost Utopian bill of goods sold by alt-media authors publicizing the “Great Reset” as a quick (albeit painful) end to Free Humanity’s woes. Some have already begun to subtly modify their stories to integrate these inconvenient facts, proclaiming that globalism itself is not the genesis of our problems, but that we merely have a “bad King.” Still embroiled in the paradigm of competing nation-states, too many have forgotten Globalism’s true nature as a multinational Superclass with little to no national identity to speak of.
The end of Pax Americana, the regionalization of the globe, a federalized global government under which all these seemingly disparate regions will be bound – these aren’t ideas cobbled together since 2008 in some floundering attempt to retain the current model of Western imperialism, nor are they a tacit acceptance of the “unforeseen” rise of the Second World. This plot has existed, in various forms, since at least the establishment of the post-War institutions the East is set to inherit.
The Multilateral World Order: An Old Plan Comes to Fruition
For the student of forensic history, ruminations about the “multilateral” and “multipolar” era we’re now on the cusp of are not difficult to find – even among some of the most frequently cited works in alt-media. Take, for example, the oft-mentioned 1997 book by Zbignew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard. While best known for the establishment of the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” (the encirclement of the Eurasian Heartland as opposed to its direct invasion) The Grand Chessboard includes many references to a multilateral world structured in regionally-administered blocs – specifically citing the economic rise of Asia:
The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153
In the chapter entitled, “The Far Eastern Anchor,” Brzezinski makes note of Asia as the new engine for world economic activity; and how does he suggest the Anglo-American Establishment best direct this synthetic “Eastern miracle”? Through the establishment of “multilateral structures” prevalent in the West that, as of 20 years ago, did not formally exist in the East. The Asian “working groups” (and the Asian Development Bank that supports them) as they existed at the time were not satisfactory in the eyes of Brzezinski.
In retrospect, however, it’s clear that Brzezinski’s aforementioned “web of multiltaeral and regional cooperative ties,” as confirmed by Chatham House, the United Nations, and the AIIB itself, have begun to emerge in the form of the dual Chinese-led development banks:
From the Chatham House policy paper, “International Economic Governance.”
Just this past week, a prominent alt-media commentator declared, “That [the rise of the AIIB] is a quantifiable way to show that China is taking a different direction than the Zbignew Brzezinski Grand Chessboard model.” This statement stands in such stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question that I’m forced to question whether people have truly digested and internalized these primary sources or are merely parroting one another’s unrealities.
Brzezinski is hardly alone among the cadre of Globalist “luminaries” promoting this multilateralism, nor is he the first – another protege of the Rockefeller family, the infamous Henry Kissinger, is not to be excluded in tracing this meme’s origins. From 1956 to 1960, Nelson Rockefeller hand-selected a then-youthful Kissinger to head up what was known as the “Special Studies Project.” The Commission was staffed with the task, as stated on pg. 35 of the Project’s literary adaptation, of “helping to shape a New World Order.” Its complete findings, published in 1961 as Prospects for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, are nothing short of a guidebook towards the multilateral future we now face.
I recommend this excellent blog post for a more thorough background on Prospects for America, but a select few passages deserve mention here; chiefly those regarding (you guessed it) the development of regional multipolarism in the East:
In discussing the topic of “multinationalism,” a regional bloc structure organized globally is a foregone conclusion to Rockefeller’s Special Studies Project. And how does the Kissinger-led, Rockefeller-commissioned panel suggest these “regional arrangements” should be made?
Not only should regionally federated blocs be organized worldwide, the latter “suggestions” given by the panel are almost universally at play in the East. Joint efforts in “economic development, common markets, and free trade areas” are exactly the purpose served by the BRICS and AIIB in our modern era, especially as these “regional agreements” are being rapidly integrated into the Globalist borg:
AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank – from China Daily
The “join accord on monetary and exchange agreements” are also quickly progressing within these new Eastern blocs; Zhou Xiaochuan, a longstanding member of the Bank for International Settlements and head of the People’s Bank of China, has been in support of such a joint accord in the form of the SDR for nearly a decade now. With the acceptance of the RMB into the SDR basket as of last December, we continue to see (as with the AIIB) the integration of regional blocs into globalized structures, exactly as the Project foresaw half a Century ago:
Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year – via Xinhua
These supranational institutions are readily constructing the mechanisms by which the East will be fully integrated with the Anglo-American Establishment’s longstanding goal of global governance. Beginning in earnest with Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and Richard Nixon’s Neomercantile “opening of China” briefly after Prospects for America‘s initial publication, the timing is hardly coincidental. The trade imbalances globalism has wrought upon the people of Western society, too, are now a matter of the historical record – all as dictated back in 1961:
Despite this author’s dour take on the state of alternative media analysis regarding the BRICS/AIIB construct, not all alternative commentators don rose-colored glasses when gazing Eastward. There are any number of alt-media websites that examine the “East rising” memewithin the full context of history.
Among these ranks is Catherine Austin Fitts. A former insider at both Dillon, Reed & Co. and the H.W. Bush Administration, Ms. Fitts is a whistleblower whose credibility is matched by few in our field. Perhaps due to the insider information yielded by her connections in a previous life, Catherine offers the most succinct breakdown of the “multipolar World Order” I’ve yet to come across when she says:
“What’s been happening is when Snowden came out with his revelations and they got publicized, you had a reaction in the BRICS nations to say, ‘These systems have no integrity. We need to build our own systems. Whether they’re internet and digital communications systems, payment systems, or clearance systems – and we need to be able to transact without going through the dollar. We need to build currency swaps and interaction.’
Now I think that ultimately what’s happening is that you started a process in 1995 where the United States tried to build out a global empire leading towards global governance, and the U.S. has stalled in many different fields and for a variety of reasons. They’re pregnant halfway, stuck in the mud, everybody mad at them, and it just wasn’t getting done.And if you look at what Snowden and Putin and the BRICS are up to, I think that’s Mr. Global deciding that the U.S. needs a little competition – that we have a better chance getting to a global currency and global governance through the Hegelian Dialectic of competition between Plan A and Plan B.”
–Catherine Austin Fitts
And therein lies why the “East vs. West” pseudo-conflict as currently portrayed is so disheartening to watch: One of the oldest tricks in the Globalist playbook, the Hegelian Dialectic, is being actively fomented in order to advance the cause of a “multipolar New World Order”… and a significant portion of alt-media has taken the bait.
It’s easy to see why so many people have relegated themselves to the belief that the post-“Great Reset” world led by the BRICS nations will end all transnational woes – the idea that “everything will be fine due time” is quite alluring bait, indeed. But in accepting the external, supranational synthetic “saviours” offered to us, our attention is drawn away from the internal, localized organic solutions that can thwart the machinations of Globalism at their core, be they Eastern or Western.
My intention in destroying the “Noble Lie” of this dialectic is not to instill hopelessness; far from it, Reader! It’s an attempt to empower – to acknowledge the true potential in the coming “Bretton Woods moment.” Despite the best efforts of the Machiavellian schemers mentioned throughout this article, the “Great Reset” will by no means be a completely orderly transition. While it may be true that we’re already well along the path outlined by the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, and Pickfords of the world, its success still depends upon our compliance.
As is the modus operandi of the ruling class, significant economic hardship is almost certain to be a key factor in coercing humanity’s consent for the multipolar World Order. In true Ordo ab Chao style, any number of top-down solutions will be offered (with weighty concessions) to “make the pain stop.” But what if, in ripping off the Band-Aid of our engineered “world economy,” people found the wound far less debilitating than the media talking-heads proclaimed? What if local trade, agriculture, and energy production were resilient enough on a wide scale to compete with multinational trade deals? What if individuals chose their own currencies and were in a position to reject the SDR-denominated system to be foist upon them?
Doubtlessly, we are still far from this vehemently decentralized vision of the future – and perhaps we always will be. Perhaps Free Humanity is simply not prepared for the hard work of genuine autonomy this time ’round.
But I do know this: We’ll never attain these lofty goals by pretending some external force will do it on our behalf.