The geopolitical tectonic plates are shifting rapidly, at present. 'De-dollarisation' is the word of the day, leading 'multi-polar' by a short head. Conventional wisdom holds that the United States' position as the global apex predator is being progressively undermined, primarily by China, Russia and their partners in BRICS, which is an increasingly powerful center of gravity for the Global South and other disaffected (and disadvantaged) nation states who have little to gain from remaining within the American orbit. The BRICS grouping, together with a significant chunk of their trading partners, are beginning to ditch the dollar and are even feeling bold enough to float the idea of their own reserve currency.
The many consequences that flow from these processes are being pored over in minute detail and this article will also go at least partially down that path. After all, this reorganization of the global order has the potential to be the most impactful event since the fall of the Berlin Wall. In simplistic terms, the US has been the only genuine superpower post the Cold War. Yes, China is an economic powerhouse and is peerless in its use of soft power, but the UN, NATO, the IMF and every other supranational entity have always been under American control. Additionally, the dollar has reigned supreme and successive US presidents have uniformly indulged the national narcissism which decrees that American exceptionalism is an indisputable fact that must be forcefully demonstrated to unbelievers.
However, cracks in the facade are now widening and the current administration is belatedly learning the truth of the axiom which states that it's wise to be nice to people on the way up, as you'll likely meet them again on the way down. Or, rather, they're learning what happens when you abuse your privilege and the Americans can expect no mercy – nor do they deserve any, as bullying less powerful nations has been the go-to modus operandi for decades.
All of this should mean that the globalist putsch, masquerading as The Great Reset, will necessarily stall and the forces of totalitarianism will be vanquished. At least, that's the outline of much commentary and it fits well with those who have always believed that the elites aren't as smart as they think they are and, hence, were always going to screw up in the end. But I'm not so sure. Of course, there's every chance that they are woefully out of touch with reality and therefore prone to tone-deafness and tactical miscalculations and it's equally likely that their habitual arrogance makes them a prime candidate for bouts of cognitive dissonance, particularly when confronting their reduced rank in the evolving global pecking order. It would only be natural to be a little tardy in accepting a loss of pre-eminence, especially as the loss is self inflicted, so continued bluff and bluster are to be expected. In short, their strategy and tactics are unlikely to be perfectly calibrated and they will make mistakes.
But while the diminution of American influence cannot be ignored (by the US administration, as well as by the rest of us), the elites' asymmetric response to individual elements which are vital components in their decline is instructive. It seems that not all crises are created equal, in their eyes. To this observer, some of what is going on looks to be engineered or, at the very least, is not being resisted with the vigor that one would expect, yet other elements are being overreacted to. An example; China gets a relatively free pass across the board (if one ignores the political theater of congressional trips to Taiwan and the like), whereas Putin's effigy is figuratively burned at the stake. Brazil is excoriated for comments critical of US policy in Ukraine, while simultaneously being awarded $500 million to combat 'climate change' in the rainforests.(1)
This article is an attempt to delve beneath the surface and read the runes, as I am convinced that some of what are represented as unintended consequences are nothing of the sort. It may be that, instead of multipolarity leading to a globalist rout, it leads instead to a truncated, Western tyranny which is an outcome that the elites have already accepted – they may, in fact, have morphed into ersatz globalists, by dint of a recognition that they cannot accomplish anything more that hemispheric dominance. But, maybe not. Maybe they are still going for the whole pie. The signals are mixed, because the responses to adversity are uneven, but it's difficult to view their actions as anything other than deliberate.
Firstly, before making any attempt to analyse the financial side of things, it may be worth examining where the United States is attempting to meddle and to draw some conclusions as to why. Generally, there are three main tactics; economic (via the IMF or World Bank, or via sanctions), regime change or military adventurism. To take the latter first – the Americans are currently militarily engaged in two theaters, one which is front and center and another which tends to fly under the radar; Ukraine and Syria. The conflict in Ukraine has been extensively covered by this writer and others, but it's worth revisiting it and examining American enthusiasm for the conflict from a slightly different perspective.
From the outset, the US was spoiling for a fight in Ukraine. If we accept (as we reasonably could) that NATO and the US are synonymous, then the constant provocations prior to what the Russians styled a special military operation were designed to precipitate conflict. If we further accept (which, again, we could without strain) that Ukraine has been a client state of the Americans since prior to the first US-initiated color revolution in 2004, then Zelensky's suddenly enhanced shelling of the Donbas and massing of troops in February 2022 bears the imprimatur of the Biden regime. A war was clearly necessary, from the US perspective. But why?
Are we to believe the official explanations? That the West is protecting 'democracy' and the sanctity of national borders? That they're fighting to the last Ukrainian in order to attrit the Russians? I would suggest that the former rationale is risible, given US conduct elsewhere, and the latter may have been an item on the wish list, but neither are the primary objective. The Nordstream sabotage provides a clue, as does the following map.
Figure 1
As well as providing us with the fallacy of 'Putin's price hike', as a cover for the rapid rate of energy inflation created by their own policies, the war has greatly reduced the supply of gas and oil from Russia to Europe; not just via the imposition of sanctions, but also because the physical infrastructure has been compromised. Poland, the site of the main pipeline to the West, and among the most russophobic European nations, has reportedly cut all Russian oil imports and has built a liquid gas terminal instead,(2) as well as completing the Baltic Pipe gas pipeline to Norway.(3)
Germany has had any element of choice in the matter removed by the destruction of three of the four Nordstream pipelines, almost certainly by the United States and (possibly) others, in the form of the UK and Norway. This doesn't mean that a reliance on Russian energy doesn't still exist – it does, but it's been reduced and repackaged and may very well be revised, given time. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from Russia doubled in the year to September 2022.(4)
A reduction in European trade with Russia has clearly been a desired outcome for the US, but that outcome has not been as clear-cut as might have been expected, as only around half of all trade has been banned.(5) Additionally, and sneakily, a price cap policy was introduced, which permitted Western countries to buy Russian oil as long as they didn't pay more than $60 a barrel for it; not something that our leaders have been keen to acknowledge. Whilst they're busy hyperventilating about Ukraine's sacred sovereignty, they are directly financing Putin's military operation.(6) It is, nonetheless, tempting to see the act of driving a wedge between Europe and Russia as a principal strategic aim of the war. The United States could see its influence waning and Russia's growing commensurately and took steps to rebalance the scales.
This hypothesis may be supported by the US involvement in Syria, about which little is reported. According to the official narrative, America involved itself in what is a multi-sided civil war because ISIL established a caliphate which encompassed parts of Syria, as well as Iraq. This didn't prevent US forces from bombing government targets too, when the opportunities presented themselves, as the Americans are in bed with rebel forces and the mission has morphed into attempted regime change, instead.(7) But why? Because al-Assad is uniquely evil, apparently, and absolutely nothing to do with oil.
Despite the fact that US involvement has nothing to do with oil,
“...whether Washington chooses to admit it or not, the US now has direct influence over the vast majority of Syria’s most productive oil fields...”(8)
and it's stealing said oil and transporting it over the border to be sold in Iraq, through Kurdistan – total of $107 billion since 2011, according to Syria, 80% of its total output every day.(9) To be fair, they're not just stealing the oil – they're stealing the wheat too, which is creating acute shortages in West Africa.(10)
But, beyond the appeal of a spot of grand larceny, are there any other reasons why the US is still in Syria, nearly nine years after initially making its presence felt? Despite the fact that it's nothing to do with oil, it's to do with oil. And also, the right of a national leader to make decisions which affect his own country without being told what to do by another country. Assad made a decision that mightily displeased the US and needed to be punished.
Figure 2
The Arab Gas Pipeline is under the control of Western companies. They want it extended into Turkey, from where it can supply Western Europe. The US wanted Assad to give the extension the green light, as its completion would have ended Europe's reliance on Russia. But Assad was in receipt of a counter-offer, this from fellow Shi-ites Iran.
Figure 3
“The Iranian pipeline would be unacceptable to both Washington and Brussels, as it would mean energy co-ordination from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Russia (putting pressure on their Sunni-led cohorts in the region), and also because the product from such would be traded in a basket of currencies — not exclusively the petrodollar.”(11)
And Assad chose the Iranian deal, instead. ISIL was largely defeated by 2018 and yet, five years later, US troops are still there. The Americans are far from the only opponents to the plan. Clearly, other Arab nations – those of a Sunni persuasion and copious oil reserves, such as the Gulf nations – also stand to lose out in the event of the Islamic Pipeline becoming a reality:
“Most Arabs view the Islamic Pipeline as a Shi’ite pipeline serving Shi’ite interests. After all, it originates in Shi’ite Iran, passes through Shi’ite Iraq, and flows into Shi’ite controlled Syria. Therefore, the Sunni-dominated Gulf nations have both an economic and religious reason for preventing the Islamic Pipeline from becoming a reality. So far, the Gulf nations have violently opposed Syria’s adoption of the Islamic Pipeline by arming opposition fighters within Syria in order to destabilize the nation.”(12)
So far, the pipeline has not advanced beyond the drawing board stage, due to the ever bubbling conflict in Syria, and there hasn't been much evidence of urgency on the part of Iran. The Syrian conflict has rumbled on, the US has continued to plunder Syrian treasure and stalemate has set in. What is seldom acknowledged is the fact that the US has no right to be in Syria. There is no UN resolution to fall back on; furthermore,
“...the president has no authority to invade another nation, permanently occupy it, and forever wage war because a hostile force once existed. Nor are supporting allies, friends, humanitarian aid, and human rights constitutional grounds for executive war making.”(13)
None of which has made a blind bit of difference. Syrian governmental forces have not previously had the audacity to directly attack American forces, although the new alliances being made throughout the world outside of the Western hemisphere are now making themselves felt in Syria, also. China is on diplomatic manoeuvres, brokering a rapprochement between the Saudis and the Iranians. The Saudis are also sending aid to Assad, in lieu of the huge earthquake that devastated parts of Syria and Turkey. The latter is also contemplating a normalization of relations with Syria, which would include removing its forces from the north east of the country. In more abject news for the Americans, Putin is likely to be the intermediary in that affair.
The US is clearly being frozen out of the Middle East.(14) The hawks aren't happy and are making their feelings known to Biden, to comic effect:
“Opposing regime normalization in word only is not enough, as tacitly allowing it is short-sighted and damaging to any hope for regional security and stability.”(15)
Because, as everyone knows, reducing the tension is a sure-fire way to damage regional stability. The temperature is still rising in the American sector, where either government or Iranian backed troops are launching rocket attacks and tit-for-tat ground offensives against US bases and receiving air-strikes in return.(16) But the US isn't going to exit stage left, unless they are forced to.
“The specter that is haunting Washington is that the stabilization of Syria following Assad’s normalization with the Arab countries and with Turkey will inexorably coalesce into a Syrian settlement that completely marginalizes the “collective West.” The U.S. is vastly experienced in using extremist groups as geopolitical tools. The time may have come for the militants, including ex-Islamic State fighters, who were trained in the U.S.’s remote At-Tanf military base to return to the killing fields for “active duty.””(17)
In both Syria and Ukraine, the US is demonstrating a determination to go the extra mile and involve themselves in conflicts that aren't theirs to fight, but the reasoning is clear; if they are to retain control of Europe, then stymieing attempts to usurp American influence makes sense. Both conflicts are also a way of confronting BRICS as a whole, while appearing to merely target one constituent part, Russia. They aren't taking on Brazil or India and, unless and until Biden goes off-piste, they aren't truly threatening China either. But, by explicitly targeting Russia, they are coming at BRICS obliquely, while giving the grouping no obvious opportunity for retaliation.
Further clues to US strategy can be found in an examination of their recent and ongoing attempts at regime change. There's nothing random about them and almost all the effort is going towards destabilizing and undermining Russia. The unfortunate exception is Israel and it's conceivable that Iran is also being targeted although, in the latter case, reliable information is hard to come by. But in Eastern Europe, the trail is easily followed as it involves time-honored methods that have been successful elsewhere, particularly in the Middle East and Latin America.
Georgia, one of the current targets, has experienced the entire gamut of American tactics over twenty plus years. The ubiquitous non governmental organisations (a George Soros and American favorite) played a large role in what is charmingly referred to as the Rose Revolution where a duly elected president, who had presided over a large scale privatization of Georgian industry which enriched Western oligarchs, was overthrown by 'the people.' The protests were ostensibly triggered by the results of recent parliamentary elections, which they believed to have been rigged – another trademark allegation, usually asserted without evidence. At the height of the protests, the biggest crowd numbered perhaps 25,000; this, in a country of 3.7 million.
Nonetheless, Soros' goal was accomplished.(18) And it was Soros who engineered the regime change; it was he who funded a new opposition party and an anti-government media campaign and it was also he who paid for thousands of Georgians to be taught the art of peaceful revolution.(19) President Shevardnadze resigned and his successor set about antagonizing the Russians, as per instructions. This culminated in a five day war in 2008, initiated by the Georgians and also, inevitably, lost by the Georgians.(20) The friction between the two nations was caused by two issues that find a substantial echo in the Ukrainian conflict – breakaway republics of ethnic Russians being maltreated by the national government and a deliberately provocative flirtation with NATO membership.(21)
The Georgian government of 2018, whilst closely allied with the West, was also making overtures to Russia and actively seeking the arrest of the previous president, Sakkashvili (he of the abortive 2008 war). This was sufficiently alarming to prompt another rather obvious attempt at an organised color revolution, this time labelled the 'White Noise' movement. Their alleged complaint had something to do with demands for more liberal drug legislation, but it didn't take more than a day or two to abandon their cause célèbre and start calling for the Prime Minister's resignation.(22)
Insufficient critical mass was achieved on this occasion, but that didn't deter the plotters. The next spurious excuse, this time a 2019 speech to parliament by a Russian politician, culminated in around 10,000 protesters trying to storm parliament, resulting in the hospitalization of over a hundred.(23) Commentary was replete with the usual bromides and a dearth of non-narrative analysis, but the organised nature of the protests was notable and clearly involved members of parliament, also. Georgian Dream, the ruling party, managed to survive, once again.
However, the Ukrainian conflict served up another opportunity for conflict and led to a further campaign against the democratically elected government. The trigger this time is a foreign agents law, a copy of US legislation, which would require all NGO's to disclose any source of funds that contributes 20% or more to its overall budget. This has prompted a deluge of misinformation by the likes of USAID and others, accusing the government of somehow attempting to undermine democracy:
“Georgia’s proposed foreign agent laws gravely threaten Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic future and the ability of Georgians to fulfill their own economic, social, and other aspirations. I call upon the Georgian Parliament to drop these proposed laws.”(24)
All complete nonsense, naturally, but a stance that's deemed necessary because, were the law to pass, the US (and Soros') role in undermining Georgian democracy would be revealed. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), created by the then Director of the CIA in 1983, funds at least 26 NGOs in Georgia, to the tune of over $2,500,000 annually. These organisations have names such as Engaging Young Scholars in Democracy Research, Youth and Democratic Values and Engaging Key Actors in Democracy.(25) USAID also funds numerous NGOs in Georgia. The Georgian government knows what the Americans are doing and, not unreasonably, wants to stop them.
The West has stridently insisted that Georgia join its sanctions regime against Russia and, additionally, send arms to Kiev. It's also made another demand that it hasn't been so forthcoming about:
“This information warfare campaign is waged against its premier for his refusal in early December to open up a “second front” against that Eurasian Great Power to relieve pressure upon the US’ Ukrainian proxies.”(26)
Georgian resistance to successive Western blandishments has, once again, displeased the elites. In early March, there was another attempt to violently seize power, which was once more rebuffed, although the government has put the proposed foreign agent legislation on ice.(27) Whether the government will last much longer is an open question; it seems that there is no shortage of useful idiots in Tbilisi. Many seem to have swallowed the propaganda about the proposed legislation whole and the Western elites who are working their strings aren't usually inclined to back off; they are much more likely to double down.(28)
“In terms of the larger picture, the latest unrest serves American grand strategic interests by forcing Russia to react to yet another crisis on its periphery, thereby tightening the “containment” noose that it’s set up in recent years throughout a slew of former Soviet Republics and forcing it on the defensive on yet another front. Furthermore, the possible loss of pragmatic partners in Georgia could further deteriorate Russia’s relations with the country, especially if a new ultra-nationalist government tries to expedite the state’s entry into NATO...”(29)
But Georgia isn't just a useful stick to beat Putin with. It's also rich in natural resources and a crucial transit point linking the Russia to India via Iran. Conflict in Georgia would undermine Russia's trade with another huge economy, one which has become doubly important due to the loss of markets in Europe.(30) As such, keeping the pot boiling in Georgia serves to remind Putin of his vulnerabilities. A successful regime change, combined with the installation of a rabidly russophobic government, would do significant damage to Russia and, by extension, BRICS. The prospect of multipolarity would also take a huge hit.
And while Georgia just happens to be in be in the spotlight currently, it is very far from the only country to have experienced an attempted color revolution in the recent past. In fact, Central Asian republics seem to be particularly prone to them, although the outcomes may not be precisely what was aimed for. In January 2022, it was the turn of Kazakhstan. It began as an alleged protest against a long publicized rise in vehicle fuel prices. The government promptly reversed course and rescinded its decision, to no avail. Gangs attacked police, set buildings on fire and stormed arms caches. They were well trained and there may well have been as many as 20,000 of them.(31) It soon became clear that these were not simply disgruntled workers, but rather members of an attempted coup.
Unfortunately for them, the president activated a security arrangement with Russia, which briefly intervened, allowing Kazakh state forces to quell the uprising. It is clear that the Russians were ready for the call. Predictably, the Americans expressed faux outrage and demanded answers. Also, predictably, NED is heavily invested in Kazakhstan too – eighteen different NGOs, nearly $1,400,000 a year.(32) Not forgetting USAID (approximately $15,000,00 a year)(33) or Soros, who has spent $100 million on 'civil-society initiatives'.(34)
In October 2020, while the 'pandemic' allegedly raged across the world, Kyrgyzstan was the target, as they had been in 2005, when the familiar protests over the legitimacy of an election resulted in a coup; the Tulip Revolution. Russia has a base in the country, which is the keystone of its security strategy in Central Asia – it was therefore paying attention and when the dust settled, Moscow's favored candidate was holding the reins of power, rather than a pro-Western figurehead. This episode represented the first failed color revolution in the region.(35)
The US didn't do any better this time around, either. Again it was disputed elections and, as they were to reprise in Georgia just over two years later, the US undermined an elected government:
“The United States stands with the Kyrgyz people as they make decisions about their future, the composition of their government, and how and when elections are organized.”(36)
This from the US embassy, part of the permanent bureaucracy that would shortly demonize anybody who complained about their own presidential elections and pursue and imprison anybody within hailing distance of the Capitol on January 6th. Quite why the US felt that they had the right to lecture anyone about anything is beyond me. In any event, Moscow ignored them and ensured that the coup did not achieve its desired result.(37) Once again, US NGO tentacles stretch deep. NED funds 28 entities with over $3,000,000 annually (38) and Soros has invested a minimum of $98 million in “civic initiatives” since 1995.(39)
Apart from the fact that both countries are former Soviet republics with names that start with a K and end with stan, there is at least one other commonality of note. Both are vital to China's future. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the key to its security and prosperity, goes through both countries. And if the BRI is vital to China's interests, then it's also vital to the well-being of BRICS. Without it, China's potential is much reduced and its vulnerability to a blockade in wartime is much enhanced.
“...Kazakhstan... it must be noted, is an indispensable part of both the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative, making it a strategic hub in the region.”(40)
Uncoincidentally, Russia is also scheduled to be a participant in the BRI and Belarus and Ukraine may also feature. We all know the situation in Ukraine; the Western provocations that have resulted in war look to have put paid to any likelihood of cooperation on the BRI. As for Belarus – its president is a well-known Putin ally, non-responsive to Western charm. The US led 'economic shock therapy' that was the vehicle for the plundering of the public wealth of other former Soviet republics was rejected in Belarus, earning the enmity of the West. President Lukashenko has, additionally, cultivated warm relations with Venezuela and he trades with Syria.(41) For the Americans and their ever shifting Rules Based International Order – which somehow supersedes international law – these are unpardonable sins.
Moreover, while Ukraine is slated to join NATO, if the alliance is to complete the military occupation of Russia's western border, Belarus must also be brought to heel and it's abundantly clear that this outcome will not be accomplished under the current leadership. In the light of that backstory, it may not surprise you to learn that the country became yet another victim of an attempted coup, once again revolving around what was labelled – ahead of time – a rigged election. Ironically, it's entirely likely that there were irregularities (including suppression of the opposition), but impartial observers still believe that the president carried a majority.(42)
Tellingly, the vote had yet to be counted when the rioting began. The US and the EU rejected the poll in the standard evidence-free way and encouraged the protests. USAID weighed in, too, by sponsoring the publication of an opposition plan to reorientate the Belarusian state and society to face west, rather than east.(43)
“Politically, Belarus would withdraw from the Union State and all other structures where Russia is prominent and join the European Union and NATO. In conjunction with the privatization of state enterprises and the creation of a thorough market economy, purchase of Belarusian enterprises by Russia would be prohibited while being opened to western corporate interests.
Russian media along with scientific and cultural exchanges would be suppressed. The official use of the Russian language would be banned in a nation where 70% speak Russian at home.”(44)
Figure 4
This is not what the majority of Belarusians want. They may want shot of Lukashenko, but that isn't the same thing as wanting to install a regime antithetical to their interests – and, based on the examples of Ukraine, Moldova, Romania and Poland, that's exactly what they'd get, as a color revolution may well bring:
“the liquidation of state enterprises, mass layoffs, collapse of collective farms, mass exodus from the countryside and the death of villages…disintegration of the social infrastructure of daycare centers, hospitals, old people’s homes and the consequences for life expectancy, alcoholism and neglect…. In return, you will certainly get new oligarchs....”(45)
To date, regime change has not been effected, despite the best efforts of NED which, between 2016 and 2020, seed funded 119 Belarusian projects connected with 'freedom of information' with a average of $50,000 each.(46) Soros has had to sit this one out, as his foundation has been banned in Belarus for over 20 years.
Now, I appreciate that correlation doesn't prove causation. I also acknowledge that there are likely to be countries where the cancer of civil society NGO's has not yet metastasized – although I'd be willing to bet that that number is lower than we might think. But USAID and NED both have historic connections with the CIA and Soros has been open about his own meddling in the affairs of nation states.(47) But, happily, you don't have to take my word for it.
The Rand Corporation, a US state proxy, has been explicit about the direction of US foreign policy in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. In its Extending Russia publication of 2019, it proposed the following geopolitical measures:
Measure 1: Provide Lethal Aid to Ukraine
Measure 2: Increase Support to the Syrian Rebels
Measure 3: Promote Regime Change in Belarus
Measure 4: Exploit Tensions in the South Caucasus (which includes Georgia)
Measure 5: Reduce Russian Influence in Central Asia
Measure 6: Challenge Russian Presence in Moldova (48)
So, not so far-fetched then. Particularly when the document openly discusses the likelihood of success of a color revolution in Belarus and also speaks of intensifying NATO's relationship with Sweden and Finland. And of stopping Nordstream 2. Rand's recommendations are specifically aimed at stretching Russia in whichever way possible, for reasons that must be assumed. There is no real attempt to justify why pressuring Russia is a necessity, or why European reliance on Russian energy is inherently problematic; it seems to be obvious to the authors, if not to the reader. But, in targeting specific regions with activity that might diminish Russia, the US is also actively impeding China's BRI and the BRICS grouping in general; just not openly. It's not difficult to see why.
“The BRI poses the most significant challenge to United States hegemony which for much of the post-World War II period has managed to dictate the nature and course of economic and social developments in large parts of the world....”(49)
This American administration, unlike Trump's, also has issues with any democracy that could be characterized as being governed by right of center parties. It's instructive that this grouping has only three members - Hungary, Israel and El Salvador– as the vast bulk of Western Europe and Latin America are plagued by Leftist coalitions which obediently toe the US line. El Salvadorian leadership has been pummeled with sanctions (while the Cubans and Venezuelans have had theirs lifted)(50) and the usual tactics are being deployed in the other target countries, despite the fact that Israel is a historic ally of America and Hungary is a NATO partner. But neither of them will send arms to Ukraine, which further guarantees that they will find themselves in the cross-hairs.
Israel is currently wracked with crisis over judicial reforms which would return political power to the Knesset (the Israeli parliament), depriving the Supreme Court of its self awarded right of veto over legislation and much else besides. It has also decided to select its own members, rather than permit elected representatives to do so. This reform shouldn't be in any way controversial, as it would result in a carbon copy of the structure in the US; the Supreme Court there doesn't elect its own members, nor does it strike down laws or appointments simply because it doesn't like them. Israel's does (despite there being no written law), suborning the democratic process, which is why an inherently conservative country – 65% of 18-24 year olds voted that way in the most recent election – has been ruled over by a Leftist judiciary for over 30 years.(51)
Indeed, the recent election saw a turnout of 71% and they elected a conservative government, one which had campaigned explicitly on a platform of judicial reform. Further, Israel cannot be characterized as an autocracy and a home for sham elections. Nobody was claiming that the Right cheated their way into power. But none of that makes any difference when the 'wrong' party wins. Netanyahu's views on the advisability of a Palestinian State and on the way to deal with a dictatorship building nuclear weapons (which are to be aimed at Israel) do not align with Biden's, so he's got to go.(52)
To that end, the usual suspects have been fomenting insurrection. That's no exaggeration; US taxpayer funds have been funneled to the Movement for Quality Government (MQG), which is at the epicenter of the Far Left's war against government. The protest/riots that are no longer aimed at a reversal of what is a legitimate, legal reform, but are instead targeting regime change.(53) Soros has been embedded in the Israeli NGO network for many years, continually funding radical groups that deny the legitimacy of Israel,(54) and the New Israel Fund (also a recipient of Soros funds) is financing the anti-government protests.(55)
"My friends, against this evil government there is only one method to be used, and that is a widescale public rebellion...we're changing the cassette. No more polite protests on Saturday nights. No more lamentations and complaints. Just actions. Just results. Businesses will be shut down, services will come to a halt, roads will be blocked...”(56)
This is the political rhetoric of the Left in Israel, the faction that is being encouraged and funded by the US and others (the EU also does its bit). It's difficult to see those sentiments as anything other than a call to overthrow an elected government and, if any American conservative were to utter them in relation to his own government, one would expect swift condemnation of him and an early morning visit from an FBI SWAT team. But, because there is no moral framework guiding globalist policy-making, double standards apply. And so
“...the opposition has gone to the streets in much the same way U.S. progressives rioted alongside Democrat-supported street gangs in the spring and summer of 2020. The point is to make the majority beg for an end to the chaos, a plea the motivated minority is glad to accommodate but only on its terms: Help us get rid of the man you elected.”(57)
And if that doesn't work, there's always Plan B, which is remarkably transparent. The Americans plan to provide 5,000 Palestinians with commando training and then deploy them to parts of the West Bank, ostensibly so they can police the area in place of the Israeli Defence Force. Which won't happen, as it never has because the terrorists themselves are viewed as being part of the Palestinian Authority's security establishment.(58) Any Israeli leader that agrees to such a plan stands next to no chance of re-election, I would suggest. Netanyahu is walking a tightrope – this tweet captures his posture precisely:
“Israel is a sovereign country which makes its decisions by the will of its people and not based on pressures from abroad, including from the best of friends.“(59)
Simultaneously, his government is reaching out to China for assistance in dealing with the Iranian threat. Israel can be in no doubt that the Obama policy of recalibrating the balance of power in the Middle East, by facilitating Iran's nuclear programme, is alive and kicking in what is effectively Obama's third term and so it pursues the only avenues that it can.(60) Quite why Obama chose Iran over Israel is hard to fathom. At the time, Iranian relations with Saudi Arabia were frosty, to say the least, so cosying up to the ayatollahs was calculated to alarm not one, but two long term allies and would also set in train the processes that will soon destroy the petrodollar (which we shall get to, shortly).
Perhaps that was the idea. In any event, Biden has certainly accelerated the feelings of alienation and hugely diminished American influence in the region and, as we know, nature abhors a vacuum. China knows this, too and has stepped into the breach, brokering a rapprochement between the Saudis and the Iranians. The Saudis have not been shy in showing their contempt for their soon-to-be former ally. It turns out that calling them 'a pariah' wasn't the smartest move, after all;(61) now the Crown Prince doesn't care what Biden thinks, nor is he inclined to bend the knee.(62)(63)
Hungary's Viktor Orbán is no fan of the globalist agenda either, and is inclined to speak his mind, as are his ministers and so, predictably, the target on his back grows ever larger as his litany of sins multiplies. He wouldn't join a blockade of oil and gas sales from Russia,(64) he's happy to pay for any imports in rubles,(65) he won't join the NATO alliance in its continual push for further escalation of the war in Ukraine,(66) nor will he send military equipment.(67) His reasoning is sound enough:
“We are pro-Hungarian. We are on the side of the Hungarians in the Russian-Ukrainian war.”(68)
This mindset probably explains why he keeps getting re-elected with large majorities.(69) It also explains why he won't have the EU dumping tariff-free Ukrainian grain in Hungary and collapsing the value of their own crop.(70) Bulgaria (and Austria, which is pointedly neutral, in any case) are emboldened and won't send weapons, either.(71) The Hungarians aren't content with cordial relations with just one of West's bête noires, either. They are also on goods terms with China and, more to the point, they pursued a policy called Eastern Opening for five years from 2010, an endeavor that still finds an echo in the present.(72)
The plan was to reduce dependence on Western countries and re-orientate east in the hope of obtaining investment and one of the results of it, spookily enough, is the proposed Budapest-Belgrade railway upgrade, possibly the most important BRI project in Europe,(73) which will reduce an eight hour trip to three and is being co-funded by Russia; if it ever gets built, in the face of EU protectionism.(74) But facing east is not on the list of approved behaviors of either the EU or the US.
And so, for those many disparate reasons (and more besides, of an ideological bent), Orbán has to be punished, both overtly and under-handedly, pour encourager les autres. The public flogging was administered by the EU, who fined Hungary €5 billion for, effectively, electing the wrong president.(75) Washington following up by sanctioning a Hungarian bank, using the ubiquitous 'ties to Russia' excuse.(76) And predictably, given Biden's crass characterization of Hungary as a totalitarian regime,(77) it comes as no surprise to note the telltale signs of interference in the country's political arena, even though they are coated in the sort of bland, boilerplate terms that the globalists favor. Hence, USAID is in Hungary to relaunch its work with
“...programs (that) support independent Hungarian partner organizations working to protect the rule of law, strengthen democratic institutions and civil society, and support independent media.”(78)
Of course they are. It just so happens that the democratically elected government isn't held to be the repository of any of those values, so the Americans have to work with the left wing opposition instead. However, this is all misdirection. The biggest TV station is critical of the government, as is the biggest daily tabloid. The biggest political weekly magazine is independent, the biggest broadsheet is leftist and two of the four biggest news portals are deeply critical of the government; these are clearly not scenarios that would be tolerated in an autocracy,(79) but none of that matters if the government holds the wrong opinions. That man Soros, born in Hungary, is also active, funding over 60 Hungarian NGOs,(80) with the vast majority of them in the 'pro-democracy' arena, although he hasn't had it all his own way as a number of his 'aid' groups have abandoned Budapest and relocated to Berlin.(81)
Figure 5
A reminder, once again – Hungary is a democracy and a member of both the EU and NATO. As such, it is an ally of the United States, but it is also a control sample that cannot be allowed to exist in its current form, lest it prosper and, in so doing, shine a light on the catastrophic consequences of pursuing the globalist agenda. But Orbán is perfectly well aware of American policy; a document culled from the recently leaked Pentagon Papers reveals the CIA's view that the prime minister sees the US as one of his top three adversaries.(82)
And so, in summary; the covert campaigns in the 'stans', Syria, Georgia, Belarus and Hungary (as well as the overt involvement in Ukraine), when looked at in combination, are explicable as an undeclared war on the Chinese and anybody else with plans to trade with Europe, which has the virtue of appearing to solely be an attack on Russia. In addition, successful outcomes within Russia's sphere of influence would have the effect of undermining its credibility as a guarantor of regional stability, which simultaneously discredits BRICS. The interference in Israel is a little harder to quantify, but it may just be a symptom of Leftist peevishness - the Middle East doesn't seem to be important to this US administration, so perhaps Biden feels free to indulge himself.
But the globalists' meddling in others' affairs isn't an unqualified success. Most of their attempts at regime change have, so far, come up short. Some of them don't appear to have stood much chance from the get-go, especially in Central Asia, as there doesn't seem to be a phalanx of pro-Western stooges on tap. Nor has it proven easy to overcome the geographical reality; Russia is on the doorstep and the US is 15,000 kilometers away. Adding to the sense of schadenfreunde, is the fact that Russia is going to emerge victorious from the Ukrainian theater, short of all-in NATO involvement – and even then, probably.
The BRI is certainly being delayed by US sponsored disruption but, on the downside, the split between the G20/Western cabal and the BRICS/Global South grouping is rapidly widening. For most observers, warning klaxons are sounding and yet the US regime doesn't seem bothered by the implications of impending multi-polarity and de-dollarisation. Certainly, it's doing nothing to avert the catastrophic effects that are inevitable if the dollar loses its status as the global reserve currency. But is that even a possibility?
Some don't think it is – some believe that the dollar will always be the backbone of global economy, largely because it has been since 1944 and because they don't see an alternative. However, as every financial commercial is obliged to intone, 'past performance is not indicative of future results' and just because there isn't an alternative today, doesn't mean there won't be in one of our tomorrows. Plus, we are now in uncharted waters with unprecedented levels of government debt and a hugely inflated money supply.
We've been here before, in 1971, and no-one saw that coming either. Indeed, the seeds of the current imbroglio go back to the the original Bretton Woods agreement. Successive administrations abused the privilege that came with husbanding the world's reserve currency. President Johnson, in particular, was responsible for a vast expansion in federal deficit spending to finance both the Vietnam War and the Great Society; the creation of Medicare and Medicaid stem from this period. Spending money that it didn't have became a temptation too difficult for government to resist.
After all, the dollar was the anchor of the world financial system, so liberties could be taken with little risk; or so it was believed. Other countries came to feel rather differently. Economies such as Japan, Germany and France were dependent on the US dollar to maintain the economic growth that they were enjoying (as they had undertaken to settle their international accounts with dollars) and the reckless deficit spending and large trade deficits which were becoming a permanent feature of the American policy landscape did not inspire confidence.
The element causing the most disquiet was the foundational commitment to peg the dollar to gold at $35 an ounce. America had accumulated vast new debt, did not have the money to pay for it and was hemorrhaging its gold reserves as nation after nation redeemed its dollars for gold. As 1971 progressed, it became apparent that the Bretton Woods agreement was in its death throes. The French, in particular, were chafing at bit, complaining (accurately) that the system was “...America's extraordinary privilege...” resulting in an “..asymmetric financial system...” where non-US citizens “...see themselves supporting American living standards and subsidising American multinationals...”.(83)
Having to become the global gold repository, in order to satisfy foreigners who doubted the strength of the dollar, had never been part of the US plan; the idea was that the gold backstop engendered trust in the dollar, trust which had now been compromised.(84)
There were solutions to hand, two in particular, but both shared one unattractive attribute. They required fiscal responsibility. The US could have got its economic house in order, ameliorated deficit spending and reduced its trade deficit or it could have renegotiated the rate of dollar to gold conversion and similarly exercised monetary restraint in the aftermath. It chose to do neither, but to instead untether the dollar from gold and abandon any further pretense. This is what is now known as The Nixon Shock.
From that point onwards, the US dollar has been a purely fiat currency. This means that the currency is not guaranteed by anything of any intrinsic or agreed upon value. It stands or falls by the perception of its value. It is, inevitably, less stable and less desirable. However, there is one massive bonus if you happen to be a politician. You are now able to have money printed at will, with no need for restraint. Although nothing lasts for ever, least of all that.
The US currency thus became a floating currency. The other currencies that had been pegged to the dollar also became, perforce, floating currencies. Overnight, the world financial system thus became less stable and more prone to manipulation and America had to come to terms with two unfamiliar anxieties. Now that the US dollar was not guaranteed by gold, would foreign entities still hold it? And, given the continued profligacy of US governments, would they continue to hold (and purchase) US debt, or would their new found lack of confidence result in wholesale redemptions?
Fortunately, such an arrangement was conceivable, although it took four years to reach fruition. We know it as petrodollars, which are US dollars that are received by oil producers in payment for oil and which are then deposited in Western banks. This system, arrived at via a 1974 agreement with the Saudi Arabians, was introduced by virtue of the Saudis insisting that every nation that wished to purchase oil from them had to pay for it in US dollars. Surplus Saudi oil receipts were to be invested in US debt securities. In return, the US pledged to defend Saudi militarily (if needed) and to supply materiel at preferential rates. By 1975, all of the oil producing countries of OPEC (The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries) had decided to take advantage of a similar offer. Et voilà . A long term guaranteed demand, not just for US dollars, but for the purchase of government debt as well.
So, as before, the currency is maintained at artificially high levels. This time though, there is an explicit agreement to purchase US government bonds (rather than a hope predicated upon their desirability) and the ever increasing energy needs of expanding economies ensured that there were always plenty of excess dollars sloshing around in the Gulf States, to be diverted into what are, effectively, loans to America.
And it's not just an economic boon. It's also a geo-political one, as it forces any country that needs access to oil that it cannot itself produce to acquire dollars. Option one, purchasing dollars on the money markets, is expensive as a long term commitment. Option two, on the other hand, only requires that a country sell products at attractive prices to the United States. As well as the obvious consumer bonus for US buyers, the country producing the imports needs to keep costs down, thus depressing their own standard of living. US competition is kept in check.
Inevitably, given that the petrodollar system replicated the Bretton Woods arrangement (on steroids), the same stressors and mechanisms were in play. One, in particular, is noteworthy. With more demand for dollars, comes an obvious need to produce more dollars. And with more and more American dollars circulating globally, American asset prices rose; which is another way of saying that inflation was an inevitable consequence. The second arm of the original agreement is also impactful; excess profits being invested in US debt security. This represents what is, effectively, a guaranteed overdraft that continually expands. And the third benefit is that America, in contrast to all other nations, can buy its oil in a currency that it can print at will.
There are obvious additional effects. Other countries have to behave with more circumspection. They have to operate in the world without a safety net. This hampers competition and gives the US an advantage that is effectively insurmountable as long as the system remains in place. It is especially compromising to countries who are obliged to trade for oil. Their consequent need for dollars must induce a certain wariness in any potentially contentious dealings with America and leave them vulnerable to bullying.
Further, like a gambler with an inexhaustible line of credit, government has no incentive to exercise economic good judgement as, in purely monetary terms, there will always be funds available; gross errors go unpunished and the bipartisan political orthodoxy is absent any pressure to balance the books.
In summary, the petrodollar system sustains the US economy. It creates an artificial demand for dollars, from which flows massive benefits; low interest rates, cheap imports, the ability to simply print money with gay abandon and jury rig an economy that would be unrecognizable without it. It follows, therefore, that if the petrodollar system were to be compromised, serious (catastrophic) consequences would ensue.
For starters, there would suddenly be a vast amount of dollars circulating internationally which would be no longer required and which would come home to roost - currently, foreigners hold approximately $7.3 trillion in US debt.(85) This circumstance, were it to happen, would be the classic definition of hyper-inflation and it would, almost inevitably, devastate the US economy as there would be a need to vastly reduce the overall supply of US dollars, thus also crashing the value of assets held in dollars. It's clear that US citizens are at risk of great financial hardship. So, maintaining the petrodollar system should be priority number one. Curbing spending should be priority number two, so as to counter the perception that the dollar is increasingly worthless. You'd think.
But, if one squeezes one's eyes really tightly shut, one might be able to persuade oneself that none of this is relevant. One might be able to cling to the fallacy of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), which holds (among other equally unsupported tenets) that a government cannot be forced to default on debt denominated in its own currency, because;
...”a country that enjoys sovereign control over its money supply is effectively unconstrained by capital markets in the amount of borrowing the government can do to finance public sector deficits...because the country’s central bank can buy the debt instruments (i.e. bonds) issued by the government by essentially “printing money” to pay for the bonds. The central bank can further mitigate the government’s direct cost of borrowing by charging a zero-interest rate on the debt instruments purchased. Proponents of MMT acknowledge that there is a potential limit to printing money to finance government deficits. Namely, at some point, increased government spending facilitated by MMT could lead to increased inflation. ”(86)
And when that happens, one simply raises taxes, which means that the American tax-payer pays twice – firstly, inflation devalues the dollars in his pocket and, secondly, the government then takes more of them from him. Believe it or not, this is what the Biden administration believes; that deficits don't matter and neither does the national debt, because they can just keep spending.
One might reasonably observe that, ordinarily, if a government wishes to destroy its currency, it is entitled to do so – the fallout will no doubt be felt beyond its borders, to a degree, but most of the pain will be of the domestic variety. However, doing so with the global reserve currency is a different matter, both practically and morally, domestically and globally. But, it is abundantly clear that any appeal to morality will fall on deaf ears and it is equally obvious that the Biden administration are true believers bent on increasing the debt, thus further devaluing the dollar. Since 1971, the dollar's value against gold has fallen by 98%. It will soon be more.
If MMT was a shared delusion, foreign debt holders would be on the same page as the globalists in the White House – but they're not. Adding to the disquiet is the American habit of imposing sanctions, freezing dollar accounts held by foreign banks and locking whomsoever it pleases out of the international monetary system that it controls, so that it may impose its expansionist foreign policy.(87) The actions taken against Russia, including the entirely unjustified seizure of individual assets such as super-yachts, have been duly noted.
“U.S. foreign policy is based on an inherent contradiction and fatal flaw. The aim of U.S. foreign policy is a U.S.-dominated world, in which the U.S. writes the global trade and financial rules, controls advanced technologies, maintains militarily supremacy and dominates all potential competitors.
The inherent contradiction in U.S. foreign policy is that it conflicts with the U.N. Charter, which commits the U.S. (and all other U.N. member states) to a global system based on U.N. institutions in which no single country dominates. The fatal flaw is that the U.S. has just 4 percent of the world population, and lacks the economic, financial, military and technological capacities, much less the ethical and legal claims, to dominate the other 96 percent.”(88)
So says Jeffrey Sachs and it seems he's not the only one to notice. The Americans have exploited their hegemony ruthlessly for decades but, little by little, they have squandered their inheritance and it seems as if a tipping point has been reached. An increasing number of 'allies' have now made the calculation that risking US wrath is a price worth paying in order to pursue their own national interest. They have been encouraged in this endeavor by the likes of Putin, who has excoriated the West's globalist world order, blaming them for the hardships currently being endured by Europe and the US.(89) He also put them on notice:
“No matter how much Western and so-called supranational elites strive to preserve the existing order of things, a new era is coming, a new stage in world history. And only truly sovereign states can ensure high dynamics for growth and become an example for others.”(90)
The Rubicon was probably crossed some time last year, after the imposition of sanctions against Russia. The exact date may be hard to pin down, because EU countries are not keen to reveal the truth, but at some point some of them starting paying for Russian energy in rubles. It is known that, by May 2022, twenty European companies had opened ruble accounts with Gazprombank JSC, with another fourteen applications pending.(91) Although punitive action could have been taken against them, it largely wasn't.
This appears to have emboldened a number of countries to reduce their dependency on the dollar. In early April, China and Brazil reached an agreement to settle trades in each others' currencies.(92) Brazil and Argentina announced plans for a common currency for use in bilateral trade.(93) Russia and India have agreed to trade oil for rupees.(94) India and Malaysia are also trading in rupees and France recently executed a test trade with China for natural gas, settled in yuan.(95)
Most devastating of all, if true, is the rumor that Saudi Arabia is selling oil for yuan which it then converts to gold on the Shanghai International Gold Exchange.(96) It wouldn't be that fantastical, as they've already had discussions with China about trade in currencies other than the US dollar,(97) and relations with the US are in the toilet, while relations with China are flourishing. Remember, it was the Chinese that brokered the recent restoration of relations between the Saudi's and the Iranians, not the US.(98)
More evidence of Saudi realignment came with the news that they, along with China and Russia, have agreed to limit oil supply for 2023, in order that the price might remain high.(99) This is more than just an economic muscle flex; it's another direct challenge to the US sanctions regime, because it has resulted in Russian oil breaching the $60 a barrel cap, thus providing nations with a choice - continue to buy the oil and breach the sanctions, or follow the guidelines and stop purchasing Russian oil which will, in turn, drive the price of non-Russian oil higher; which is what they'll have to buy instead. The policy has already succeeded in prising Japan free from any embargo, as they are continuing to purchase the oil.
But Japan is merely the latest renegade. India now has rupee accounts with eighteen separate countries.(100) The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and basket case South Africa) are the Rebel Alliance, ranged against the US led Galactic Empire. Bloomberg estimates that, based on the most recent IMF figures, the BRICS consortium will contribute 32.1% to global growth, compared to the G7's 29.9%. The gap is expected to widen by 2028 (35%-27.8%),(101) but these figures underestimate the true picture, as numerous additional countries will have joined BRICS by then. More than a dozen have already shown interest in joining this year and that doesn't include Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt who are also said to be interested, as is Mexico.(102)
The process of de-dollarisation and the increasing eminence of the BRICS alliance are closely linked, as the first article of faith, even before formal membership, is a willingness to trade in other currencies. This leeriness vis-a vis the US dollar is not simply a recent phenomenon – the Global South and the Asia/Pacific region have been divesting themselves of dollars since 2010, in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis brought on by US banks. But, 2022 saw a huge drop in its market share as a reserve currency.
Figure 6
The pace of decline was ten times as rapid as the overall trend. This is solely concerning dollar holdings. The optimists comfort themselves with the thought that even the doubters are still obliged to transact in dollars when using international financial institutions. However, as we've already seen, that can no longer be guaranteed. If a complete schism between the G7 and BRICS is to be achieved, two things must happen; there must be a genuine contender as a reserve currency and an alternative financial system must be established, one outside the control of the US.
It seems that the BRICS nations realize this, too. There is talk of a new currency based on a basket of their currencies (the R5) and there is talk of a gold backed digital currency, too. There is even the possibility of a currency backed by commodities, such as gas and oil.(103) In truth, any new reserve currency which is backed by a credible commodity will crucify the dollar, as it is an essentially valueless fiat currency. And the fulfillment of that outcome must only be a matter of time, as there is zero chance of Russia and China continuing to support the dollar, when all the Americans can do is throw barbs at them.
BRICS also has the outline of a financial structure that's independent of the US dominated financial system. It has its own bank, the New Development Bank, which is intended to be a rival to the World Bank, in time.(104) It also has BRICS Pay, a digital payments platform which
“...aims to enable digital payments between the different countries in BRICS PLUS format, allowing businesses and consumers to securely and seamlessly make and receive payments in their local currency. The platform is designed to reduce the cost and complexity of international payments, while also providing a secure and reliable way to pay for goods and services.”(105)
While breaking free of the dollar dominated financial system is far from easy, it could be accomplished. The US is, after all, providing plenty of incentive, both in its stewardship of the dollar and its lack of respect for national sovereignty in its foreign policy. It also seems to be deliberately hastening the demise of its own currency. It ought to be cosying up to partners in the Middle East, particularly the Saudis and the Emirates, but it isn't. Biden and whoever is writing on his Teleprompter are content to squander decades of goodwill in the region by a combination of crassness and by promising “to do away with oil and gas on a rapidly shortening timescale”.(106) The EU, likewise.
The net result, obviously, is that the oil rich Gulf states will reposition themselves and ally with those who still wish to trade with them. Perhaps, MMT is responsible for the West's dismissive approach. Perhaps, they don't think they need the petrodollar any more. After all, a central conceit of the theory is that the dollar can be propped up by domestic purchases of US issued debt. Or, perhaps the regime is actively undermining its own currency because it wants to replace it with something else and, in the meantime, a spot of hyperinflation will do wonders for debt devaluation and, simultaneously, nobble anyone overseas who's still holding dollars. It's a plan, after all and it's tempting to come to the conclusion that it's the plan as the available evidence is pointing in that direction.
We know that the The Great Reset agenda now features a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) as a central plank. We also know that many countries have suddenly decided to trial one – in fact, at the last count, sixty five countries are in an advanced state of development and over 20 central banks have already launched pilots.(107) The US itself is going for a soft launch, with a Trojan Horse leading the way.
The FedNow service, starting in July,(108) is transparently the first step towards a CBDC, as the Biden administration is preparing the ground for its ubiquity by cracking down on off-ramps such as de-centralized crypto-currencies that would allow an escape from a hermetically sealed, centrally managed central bank currency.(109) This isn't speculation – the groundwork is already being laid although, laughably, we are asked to believe that “the U.S. has not yet decided whether it will pursue a CBDC” but, if it did,
“there could be many possible benefits, such as facilitating efficient and low-cost transactions, fostering greater access to the financial system, boosting economic growth, and supporting the continued centrality of the U.S. within the international financial system.”(110) (emphasis mine)
In a remarkable coincidence, the IMF has also just announced the launch of a 'Universal Monetary Unit' (or Unicoin), an international CBDC which is allegedly compatible with all existing national currencies.(111) Helpfully, the IMF has also produced a handbook to assist all the central banks out there in their CBDC roll-outs, so that they'll all no doubt be compatible with the global version.
I have previously dealt with CBDC's at length. Suffice to say that
“...in the worst case scenario, though, economic access is the greatest oppressive tool. With CBDCs in place and no physical cash in existence, your savings will never be truly yours and you’ll never be able to hold your purchasing power in your hands. The means of exchange would be bottle-necked by the banks, and governments would have the option to freeze your ability to transact.”(112)
And that will be the dystopia we would find ourselves in; why else would regimes be awarding themselves that much power if they didn't intend to use it? Once again, it's far more realistic to focus on what they could do – which is quantifiable – rather than what we think they would do, which is purely subjective.
I am aware that I've covered a lot of ground; perhaps too much ground for one article. It's been an attempt to pull on all the disparate threads that make up the globalist approach, to assess where effort is being expended and to note where the response is less proactive that expected. The sudden spurt of progress towards CBDC's has been trackable for well over a year and, no matter what political theater is enacted for our benefit, there is no real doubt that Western governments mean to impose them upon us. The subsequent phasing out of cash will be unacknowledged (or even denied), but it will happen nonetheless.
However, it isn't just Western countries that have been on the CBDC treadmill. Russia, Latin America and Africa are all trialing them, too. I don't know whether there was ever any intention on behalf of the BRICS nations or the Global South to enmesh their own currencies in a global digital currency but, if there was, my guess is that there isn't now. I would surmise that the geopolitical bifurcation prompted by the Western provocation of and reaction to the war in Ukraine has prompted a rethink.
The French (plus the rest of us) may not have escaped the yoke upon the collapse of Bretton Woods, as the US outmaneuvered most of the world with the petrodollar replacement, but all the signs are that Russia, China and their burgeoning collection of allies intend to chart their own course this time around. That being the case, hitching their CBDC to the US-backed IMF-sponsored version would be a seriously retrograde step and would compromise everything they are trying to achieve.
The collective West, the G7 nations and the Anglosphere are currently united in their perfidy, although that unity may not hold. Hungary, Poland, France (surprisingly), Germany and Japan may not be fully on board, for one reason or another. Interestingly, Biden's cabal are giving the impression that they may have scaled back their ambitions; perhaps the emergence of a multipolar world was not part of the plan, or perhaps they knew that it was likely all along. There doesn't seem to be much gnashing of teeth at the defections to the rival camp, which might be telling.
Perhaps they've accepted that they are only going to get half the pie, after all. This isn't stopping them throwing as much sand in the BRICS works as possible, with some degree of success at the present time. They still need to try and diminish the rival grouping as best they can. And so, China's BRI is mired in delays and uncertainty due, in large part, to the dark arts of US foreign policy, but setbacks don't appear to have diminished the appeal of the Rebel Alliance. The dam looks to have broken; there is courage in the numbers that are defecting.
In the final analysis, it isn't just economics that separates the two blocs; it's also culture. Climate change, trans rights and wokery in general gain no traction outside the collective West. That's not to say that all the ideology that infects those issues is widely believed by the folks in the Galactic Empire, either – but the globalists that rule us are using them to tighten the noose around our rights and freedoms and we haven't done enough to oppose them yet.
Events are moving swiftly now. The West will keep the Ukrainian war going for as long as it can, it will keep accumulating debt, it will press ahead with centralized digital currencies and it will lash out at those within its sphere of influence who falter, as it already has with its sabotage of the Nordstream pipeline. The US sees Europe as its personal fiefdom; any threats to its dominance from Russia or China will be vigorously resisted and soon, if all goes to plan, the combined effects of the engineered collapse of our economies, the Pandemic Treaty, a subsequent 'pandemic', a CBDC and the death of cash will leave us just where they want us; if we let them. But the rest of the world may well be choosing freedom, instead.
Citations
(1) https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/climate/biden-amazon-deforestation-climate.html
(3) https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-russia-energy-gas-pipeline/
(4) https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/09/energy/russian-lng-imports-europe/index.html
(7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
(9) https://thecradle.co/article-view/21957
(10) https://thecradle.co/article-view/13355
(12) https://followthemoney.com/whysyria/
(13) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-are-we-still-in-syria/
(14) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/03/28/us-occupiers-lash-out-as-syria-war-draws-to-an-end/
(15) https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2023/03/former-us-officials-sound-alarm-bidens-syria-policy
(16) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/fresh-missile-attack-us-base-syrias-conoco-gas-fields
(17) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/03/28/us-occupiers-lash-out-as-syria-war-draws-to-an-end/
(18) https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/georgians-overthrow-dictator-rose-revolution-2003
(19) https://www.mintpressnews.com/coup-cia-foreign-agent-law-color-revolution-georgia/283992/
(20) https://www.sott.net/article/270680-Saakashvilli-admits-Georgia-started-war
(21) https://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/index.html
(24)
(25) https://www.ned.org/region/eurasia/georgia-2021/
(26) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/georgia-being-targeted-regime-change
(27) Ditto
(31) https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/01/mysteries-of-the-failed-rebellion-in-kazakhstan.html
(32) https://www.ned.org/region/eurasia/kazakhstan-2021/
(34) https://www.soros.kz/en/about_us/soros_foundation_kazakhstan/
(35) https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/another-color-revolution-fails-in-kyrgyzstan/
(36) https://www.rt.com/russia/545705-kazakhstan-shows-us-influence/
(37) https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/moscow-derails-kyrgyz-color-revolution/
(38) https://www.ned.org/region/eurasia/kyrgyz-republic-2021/
(39) http://donors.kg/en/agencies/50-soros
(40) https://www.rt.com/russia/545705-kazakhstan-shows-us-influence/
(41) https://strategic-culture.org/news/2020/08/27/belarus-options-in-midst-of-color-revolution/
(42) https://consortiumnews.com/2020/08/20/western-media-misperceptions-about-belarus-lukashenko-putin/
(43) https://cooptv.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/our-values-the-program-of-the-belarusian-opposition/
(44) https://strategic-culture.org/news/2020/08/27/belarus-options-in-midst-of-color-revolution/
(45) https://cooptv.wordpress.com/2020/08/18/open-letter-to-the-protesters-in-belarus/
(46) https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/eng/zxxx_662805/202205/t20220507_10683090.html
(48) https://media.washtimes.com/media/misc/2019/04/24/RAND_RR3063.pdf
(50) https://compactmag.com/article/bukele-has-brought-freedom-to-el-salvador
(51) https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/03/israels_judicial_coup.html
(54) https://www.ngo-monitor.org/funder/open_society_institute_osi_/
(55) https://www.jns.org/new-israel-fund-admits-financing-protests-against-netanyahu-government/
(56) https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/365724
(60) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2023/04/biden_drives_even_israel_into_chinas_arms.html
(61) https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pompeo-biden-calling-saudi-arabia-pariah-state-enormous-mistake
(62) https://watcher.guru/news/saudi-arabias-crown-prince-is-no-longer-interested-in-pleasing-the-u-s
(63) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/11/saudis-arent-afraid-of-us-anymore/
(70) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/21/eus-ukraine-grain-policy-hits-eastern-europe/
(72) https://theorangefiles.hu/eastern-opening/
(73) https://thediplomat.com/2023/02/chinas-growing-foothold-in-hungary/
(74) https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/china-and-the-budapest-belgrade-railway-saga/
(76) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/us-slaps-sanctions-hungary-bank-over-russia-ties
(77) https://rmx.news/article/joe-biden-slanders-hungary-and-poland-as-totalitarian-regimes/
(78) https://www.theamericanconservative.com/samantha-power-color-revolution-in-hungary/
(79) Ditto
(80) https://news.yahoo.com/soros-keep-funding-ngos-hungary-despite-government-hostility-184547541.html
(81) https://thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hungary-kicks-out/
(83) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
(84) https://followthemoney.com/preparing-for-the-collapse-of-the-petrodollar-system-part-1/
(85)https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/bltype.txt
(86) https://www.fraserinstitute.org/blogs/modern-monetary-theory-part-3-mmt-and-inflation
(87) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/role-reversal-collapse-dollar-enforced-empire
(88) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/04/18/the-need-for-a-new-us-foreign-policy/
(89) https://summit.news/2022/03/18/putin-blames-western-ruling-elite-for-global-problems/
(92) https://www.barrons.com/news/china-brazil-strike-deal-to-ditch-dollar-for-trade-8ed4e799
(93) https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/de-dollarization-just-got-real
(94) Ditto
(95) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/de-dollarization-has-begun
(96) https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/saudi-arabia-selling-oil-china-gold
(98) https://consortiumnews.com/2023/03/28/hope-for-yemen-peace-after-saudi-iranian-rapprochement/
(101) https://thecradle.co/article-view/23848/brics-set-to-surpass-g7-in-economic-growth
(102) https://www.zerohedge.com/political/macleod-its-all-hotting
(103) https://thecradle.co/article-view/20532/global-south-gold-backed-currencies-to-replace-the-us-dollar
(104) https://www.dw.com/en/a-new-world-order-brics-nations-offer-alternative-to-west/a-65124269
(105) https://www.brics-pay.com/
(106) https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/macleod-how-quickly-will-dollar-collapse
(108) https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/other20230315a.htm
(111) Ditto
(112) https://discernreport.com/project-icebreaker-the-beginning-of-a-one-world-digital-currency-system/
Figure 1 https://w3ask.com/map-gas-pipelines-europe/
Figure 5 https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/the-open-society-foundations-in-hungary