Oligarchic transformation of the world order

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The holding of the next summit of the G20 (G20) in Osaka revived the information field for the discussion of what exactly constitutes the G20, as well as other elite "groups", in particular, the "Group of Seven" (G7), which often and are not quite rightfully opposed to the UN.

Everything in order. The structure of the global governance system was revealed in his works by the great ideologue of globalism Jacques Attali, ex-head of the EBRD, adviser to François Mitterrand and economic mentor of the current French President Emmanuel Macron. In the "new world order", which was first publicly described and the establishment of which George W. Bush called in his message to the US Congress in 1990, J. Attali deduced three components - the "world orders" of the sacred, power and money.

For the "world order of the sacred" - the notorious "new world religion", created on the basis of the integration of various religious and confessional systems and beliefs, the Vatican is "responsible" "Elder brother" of Christianity (the concept of Judeo-Christianity). In 1977, the fifth report to the Club of Rome by Erwin Laszlo "Goals for Humanity" appeared, in which the "hierarchy of world religions" was derived, led by Judaism.

The next important stage in the development of the ecumenical process was the adoption in 2001 of the Ecumenical Charter; this is a large and separate topic. Let's just say that the history of ecumenism goes back to the middle of the 19th century, and the ecumenical organization received a single organizational form in 1948, when the World Council of Churches (WCC) was created at the Amsterdam Congress, which behind the back is called the "Protestant Vatican."

The “world order of power” is a euphemism for political governance, the current system of which dates back to the first half of the 1970s, with the creation of the Trilateral Commission. A brief background is as follows. At the end of the 19th century, at the zenith of the power of the British Empire, thoughts began to arise about how to extend the British imperial model to the whole world.

Strictly speaking, for the first time such ideas appeared much earlier, back in the 17th century, against the background of the Protestant Reformation in England, where they were put forward by the adviser of Elizabeth I, John Dee. The revival of these ideas in the Victorian era is associated with the name of Cecil Rhodes, the provocateur and instigator of the Anglo-Boer War, who founded the named after him Rhodesia and the diamond monopoly - the De Beers company. Rhodes is the founder of the Round Table Society (1891), within which, after his death, around his successor Alfred Milner in 1910-1911, a “narrow circle” arose - the Round Table.

After the First World War, when plans to turn the League of Nations into a "world government" collapsed in Russia with the Great October Revolution, the Anglo-Saxon elites began to play for a long time. In 1919-1921 the Round Table was transformed into the British, since 1926 the Royal Institute of International Relations (KIMO or, in the modern interpretation, Chatham House).

At the same time, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) emerged on the other side of the Atlantic. This is an elite Anglo-Saxon bunch of "conductors" of promoting the "new order", part of which was the organization of the Great Depression when Hitler came to power. Having failed in World War II - not a European split was planned, but complete domination and dictatorship of the Anglo-Saxons - the elites of the Anglo-Saxon world began to "rake" under themselves that part of Europe that was under their control: the Marshall Plan, the Western European Union, NATO, the European Union coal and steel (ECSC).

In the non-public sphere, the Bilderberg Club (group) was established here in 1952-1954. The link KIMO - CMO in this scheme is the pivot of the "pyramid" of global governance. Bilderberg is the bottom, widest "pancake" of the European elites put on him. The next "pancake" on the "pivot" was the Trilateral Commission, which supplemented the unification of the Anglo-Saxons and Western Europeans with the Japanese, and since 2000 - the Asia-Pacific component as a whole.

The headquarters of the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilaterali (Trilateral Commission - TC) are all in the headquarters of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington. David Rockefeller headed all three structures from decade to decade. Community "David Rockefeller Fellows" is still reflected on the official website of the TC. As well as the "pilot" regions and projects presented on the website of the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, which strikingly repeat the range of UN themes and programs: respectively, China, the Western Balkans, as well as democracy, sustainable development, peacebuilding, rock art and culture (in such sequences: culture in the background of rock).

Now attention to two things. First, the Big Seven (G7) is not an international organization; it does not even have a charter or other setting documents. This is not a "club of the elite" either. And what? The Seven is the mouthpiece of the Trilateral Commission and meets every year some time after its annual meeting. The behind-the-scenes decisions made there, or, let's say, the recommendations of the "seven" are brought to the public sphere.

This proves once again both the puppetry of Western leaders dancing to the tune of shadow conceptual centers, and the senselessness of being in the "seven" of Russia, which even at that time never participated in the discussion of the most important issues of financial and economic management that "did not concern us" …

And the second thing: the setting document for the entire system of the "world order of power" is the second report to the Club of Rome by Michael Mesarovich - Eduard Pestel "Humanity at the Crossroads" (1974). It presents a "ten-regional model" of the international division of labor: the western core of the world-system in it remains the core, and the rest of the periphery - the periphery. Ten regions are united into three blocks under the control of respectively the Anglo-Saxon elites (KIMO-SMO), Anglo-Saxon + European (Bilderberg) + the same and Japanese, as well as other Asian (Trilateral Commission).

The only country that, in this model, is torn between two blocs - European and Asian - is Russia. Therefore, participation in the "seven" in an attached chair is not even "self-satisfaction", but complicity in self-destruction. To justify it, the crafty formula “Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok” was born in due time to replace “Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals” formulated by Charles de Gaulle, where the divided Russia was supposed to end.

The "world order of power", according to the formula of the first director of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is directed "against Russia" and is being built "at the expense of Russia and on its ruins." Hence the "litmus test" of the authenticity of supposedly new times and trends, which supposedly "leave in the past" the old, elite model of globalization. We will willingly believe this, but only if and if the Trilateral Commission either ceases to exist or changes its format, say, to a “four-sided” one, in which a “Russian and post-Soviet” bloc will appear, and the Eurasian Economic Commission will enter the structure of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) UN. Until this is observed, all the talk about "globalization for all" is noodles for the purpose of lulling public opinion.

Now about the "world order of money", which is the only one that is exposed in the public field. But not completely. In plain sight - only the G20, as well as the IMF and the World Bank Group, which are closely associated with the G20 on the one hand, and with the UN, on the other. In the G20 they are the 21st and 22nd participants officially invited to all meetings, and in the UN they are specialized partner agencies. Therefore, it is wrong to oppose the G20 and the UN: these are different structures with different tasks, tied to a single governing nucleus, which, with their help, is pursuing its line both in the UN and in the G20.

From this moment, as they say, let's go in more detail, gradually revealing the foundations of the system of global economic governance and its relationship with the system of global political governance.

So, before getting to the idea of what the G20 is, it is necessary to start with the "Washington Consensus". This is, firstly, a set of liberal-monetarist "rules of the global game", and secondly, a set of certain institutions. Which ones? First of all, it includes the world's only Treasury, of course, the American one. Leading central banks, issuers of the main reserve currencies - the dollar, pound and euro: the Fed, the Bank of England and the ECB.

Finally, the so-called "world central bank" is a collective union of the IMF, the World Bank Group, and the Basel Bank for International Settlements (BIS). We have already mentioned the links between the IMF and the World Bank with the G20, on the one hand, and with the UN, on the other. They are in plain sight, this is the face of the "world central bank". Its core is the Basel BIS, which in the public sphere, unlike the IMF and the World Bank, does not shine from the word at all.

The Washington Consensus is hardly spoken about today. But he did not die, as it is believed. A vivid example is the violent reaction of the West to the trolling of Vladimir Putin about the exhaustion of liberalism. Even clearer. In 2010, at the G20 Summit in Seoul, the Seoul Consensus emerged. Unlike "Washington", it is not liberal, but social democratic.

Some fell for the ruse. The first in this row was IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who in April 2011 raised these ideas on the shield, for which he soon "ran into" a story with a black maid. That is, the Seoul Consensus turned out to be a livelihood for high-ranking elites. The "conductors" who planted it did not want to change anything, but launched Seoul through an official decision of the G20 in order to find out the supporters of change. That is, they used the "twenty", as it is more fitting to put it, "for delicate purposes."

The Basel BIS was created in 1930 by the Hague Agreement on the basis of the Swiss Banking Charter for the project of German reparations to the West for the First World War. But when Hitler annulled them three years later, the bank quickly switched to financing the Nazi regime. The financiers of the Western "democracies" and the Third Reich successfully cooperated in it throughout the war, and in the economy of Hitlerite Germany itself, the ball was ruled by two largest industrial associations - I. G. Farbenindustrie and Vereinigte Stahlwerke.

Formally, the holdings were German, since they were based in Germany, but the Americans and the British dominated among the shareholders, and the management companies were located in the United States. It is no coincidence that after the war, the archives of both these octopuses were first "lost", capable of shedding light not only on the touching connection of the West with Nazism, but also on their organically inextricable connection. Then they were generally divided into parts. This is how the ends hide in the water, and this is far from the only example.

Today the BIS is the "central bank of central banks" to which all central banks are subordinate through appropriate agreements with the governments of supposedly sovereign countries. Has anyone wondered where the liberal dogma about the "independence" of central banks came from? From there, that if you are "independent" from your authorities, then you obey strangers. Why do you think the BIS does not climb on the front pages of newspaper pages? That is why: money loves silence, and the external management of national money emissions - even more so. It is carried out by different means - with the help of the Basel agreements (Basel-1, "-2", "-3"), as well as through the very "twenty", in the structure of which there are corresponding tabs.

Are all central banks members of the BIS Basel Club? No, not all - the two main exceptions are North Korea and Syria. Do you need comments? Russia has been in this club since the time of the "seven-bankers", since 1996: they really needed money for the elections of Yeltsin.

The BIS had ten founders: five states - Belgium, Britain, France, Germany and Italy, who made up the bank's board of directors, four private founders - American banks closely associated with the Fed, and one Japanese private bank. On this basis, the management structures of the BIS were formed, from which (attention!) The G20 subsequently emerged.

The heads of the five central banks of the founding countries, five representatives of large banking businesses nominated by them, as well as one representative each of the central banks of Sweden, Switzerland and the Netherlands - this is the BIS board of directors. Eight of its members represent the leading central banks associated with states, and five more are large private bankers. Integration of public and private banking business starts from here, and then we will see who is in charge in this connection.

The Board of Directors, together with the USA, Canada and Japan, is the so-called G10 - the "Group of Ten" (although it has eleven members, but it is called the "Ten", because the Swiss representation is informal, like the "masters of the field" and the charter of the same name in 1930.).

And now attention - two arithmetic operations. First. Sweden, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium are subtracted from the eleven members of the top ten, and seven remain. And second: to this seven, that is, in fact, to the Board of Directors of the BIS minus Belgium, countries of the "second order" with the "largest economies" are added. Five BRICS members (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). And also Australia, Argentina, Indonesia, Mexico, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and South Korea. It turns out nineteen.

The EU has the twentieth mandate, the 21st and 22nd, "out of competition", as we remember, - from the specialized partner agencies of the UN - the IMF and the World Bank. Their participation in the "world central bank" is put out of brackets, as is the third participant - the BIS. This is understandable: how can he sit in the "twenty", if it came out of his womb, and is controlled by it? Moreover, from two sides: both by the central banks of the Basel Club, and by the "visible parts" of the "world central bank" - the IMF and the World Bank.

And what happens? It turns out that the "twenty" has a core - the countries of the "first order", that is, founders and other members of the BIS board of directors, as well as the G10, and the periphery - stepchildren from the countries of the "second order". Since the members of the Basel Club are everyone except Pyongyang and Damascus, the BIS and, more broadly, the “world central bank” are the authorities ordering the “tune”.

Others dance to this music, regardless of the size of, for example, the Chinese and Indian economies. Expecting to "take over control" at some point. Holy naivete! Until another, alternative system of institutions appears next to this system of institutions, there is simply nothing to “catch” the countries of the “second order”.

The meaning of a system with a core and periphery is simple and cynical. Decisions are made in the core, and the periphery is called in order to lead them through it and give them the appearance of consensus and "conformity to broad interests."

Let's digress for a second in order to pay attention: there is nothing in common between the G7 and the G20, despite the participation of the figurants of the first in the composition of the second. The Seven is an instrument (not an institution) of global governance and is an appendage of the Trilateral Commission. The G20 is no longer an instrument, but a full-fledged global governance institution, an appendage of the BIS and, in general, the “world central bank”. Both types of governance are linked through the UN and its “new” institutions that emerged after the destruction of the USSR and are associated with “sustainable development” and “peacebuilding”.

But let's not go into the jungle - this is a separate topic. Let us just state that the erosion of the UN in connection with the increase in the number of ordinary members does not give rise to any crisis: the size of the crowd does not affect anything and does not change anything. And what influences and changes? Again, only the creation of a parallel world-system that generates a global dual power.

Why didn't the late John McCain's idea of the League of Democracies get through? Because in the West itself, minds more adequate than the possessed senator realized that with its creation there would be isolation from the existing system of institutions headed by the UN, which, having remained ownerless, would very quickly be privatized by China and Russia.

As for the claims for the reform of the UN Security Council, everything is much more complicated here than some people imagine. In December 2004, the report “A Safer World: Our Shared Responsibility” was published (UN document A / 59/565); in it, the time frame for resolving this issue is assigned to 2020. There was no information about their removal from the agenda.

It is another matter that Russia and China are in solidarity against the reform of the Security Council, and now India, after the SCO summit in Bishkek, has stopped insisting on its permanent membership. Therefore, progress can be made. We are waiting and monitoring: if progress is made, a new report will appear, just like the one named, under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. And in order for it to appear, a new working group will be created, which will be officially announced, and the information will be on the UN website. So far, this has not been observed: documentary facts, in contrast to conspiracy speculation, are a stubborn thing.

So, the G20, which is a product of the BIS, is linked to the UN through the IMF and the World Bank. In other words, it is under the complete control of the "world central bank", without which the UN does not work either. By the way, the G20 was created not in 2008, when its first “anti-crisis” summit was held in Washington, but in 1999, but in the format of heads of central banks and ministries of finance, which once again clearly demonstrates dependence on the BIS. In 2008, the group was simply transferred to the format of heads of state and government, which proves the man-made nature of the crisis that broke out then, under which, it turns out, international institutions were created and brought down in advance.

In 2009, at the London G20 summit, the FSB (Financial Stability Board) - the Financial Stability Board - appeared in its structure. This is the aforementioned tab in the "twenty" from the side of Basel. In the BIS, it is closely tied to the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which appeared back in 1974, which, in turn, is controlled by the G10 group with a core in the form of the BIS Board of Directors. That is, the countries of the "first order", where the "second order" is not allowed even to a cannon shot.

Once a year, in November, the FSB publishes lists of banks that are “too big to burst,” and the respective issuing centers help them with freshly printed cash (QE programs). Upon closer examination, it turns out that assistance is provided to the same list of banks, which are part of a number of banking networks, the existence of which is not hidden, but also not advertised.

There are four such networks, not counting the FSB list, and this is again a separate topic. One global, centered in London, which controls the price of gold. This is the former "golden five", now, since 2015, the "thirteen" with the participation of three state-owned banks from China. Two networks in Europe: the private Inter-Alpha Group of Banks, controlled by the Rothschild clan, and the EU Financial Services Roundtable (EFSR). Another network is the Financial Services Forum in the United States.

All networks are intertwined with each other and made up of banks representing the interests of all major financial oligarchic clans and groups, including the Vatican. But let's pay attention to this. The FSB is part of the BIS and G20 structure. It is nominally formed by governments. However, assistance through inclusion in the lists is provided to private banks, on which, as if on command (however, why "how"?) A generous rain of reserve emissions is poured. What is it?

Here's what. The interweaving of “personal” wool with “state” is the principle of global governance, with the help of which emission centers are forced to serve private interests. Let us recall how central and private commercial banks coexist in the structure of the BIS board of directors. But that's not all. The BIS has a conceptual center that is not formally included in its structure - the Group of Thirty (G30) or the “Thirty”, in which there are approximately equal numbers of ex-heads of central banks, including reserve emission centers, and private bankers.

Moreover, it is a widespread practice that retired “central bankers” receive “mega-salary” seats on the boards of directors of private banks at the exit, intertwining personal interests with them. That is, it is in the “thirty” that state interests are matched by private interests. And everything that the BIS does in the direction and management of central banks is developed and initiated by the G30.

Roughly speaking, if the BMR is the external center in relation to the G20, then the G30 is the same external center in relation to the BMR itself. And this means that the world financial and monetary system within the existing world-system is under the "reliable" control of the oligarchy. And the rest of the structures of the "world central bank" - the IMF and the World Bank Group - are extending oligarchic control over the UN and its institutions, promoting the globalist agenda with the help, as already noted, of "sustainable development" and "peacebuilding".

This is the whole foundation of the world model, which cannot be corrected. It can either be destroyed in a world war, or, if you feel sorry for the planet and the people living on it, you can bypass it with the help of a parallel, alternative world-system of global dual power, which existed in the first Cold War.

Another touch on how private interests control states. The "Big Three" international rating agencies - S&P, Moody’s, Fitch - issue credit ratings to economic entities and countries, which are "guided" by investors. The agencies are private, and depend on these ratings of the state. If earlier it was necessary to introduce tanks into an unwanted country, now it is enough to bring down its rating.

And again, it is impossible to escape from this within the framework of the existing world-system. Russia has no external debts, but Russian companies, including those with state participation, have enough of them. We need our own rating agencies, but since all the places on Olympus in the existing world-system are already occupied by the “big three”, such a tool will be effective only in a parallel world-system, with its own coordinate system.

And the last thing. In whose ultimate interests does the entire system of global governance operate - in the economy and beyond? Open any portal with the equity structure of leading multinational banks and companies. And very quickly it turns out that the owners are the same for all - "institutional investors" and "mutual funds" of ten or fifteen of the same asset management companies. Regardless of the scope of business and nationality of specific companies.

Here is a sample list: Capital Group, Vanguard, BlackRock, State Street, FMR, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Barclays, AXA, Bank of New-York Mellon Corp. and a few more. These are the ultimate beneficiaries of the world economy, or rather, the ultimate beneficiaries are their real owners, who, apparently, can only get to the bottom through the intertwined system of dummy “owners”, and not everyone.

But this only means that the entire so-called "market" economy is in fact not governed by any "seven" or "twenty". And not even the UN. And in general, not by competition, but by the monopoly of a super-narrow circle of not even legal entities, but individuals. Station stalls compete, and the oligarchs negotiate and share spheres of influence and feeding troughs. And with them - and world power in the world-system called "global capitalism".

There is only one way to leave this cell - by creating your own world-system. This is exactly what was done by Great October a century ago. And that is why that October - Great and still instills so much hatred in power and property in those in power.

At one time, Soviet intelligence reported to J. V. Stalin that the real government of America is the "round table" of dozens of leading capitalists. This information was officially confirmed in 1993, when the National Economic Council (NEC), a government agency within the administration, was created in the United States. It is chaired by a president and ruled by a director with the rank of presidential assistant for economic policy, typically from finance companies and their affiliates.

The functions of the NES include coordination of domestic and foreign economic policies, preparation of analytical reports and draft decisions of the president, as well as monitoring the results of the policy pursued. In other words, the official US government is the administration, while the de facto US government is the NES, which makes sure that the interests of large owners, primarily the oligarchs, are not infringed upon.

Following the privatization of property, the circle of privatization of power has closed. That is why if anything in the outcome of the Osaka summit inspires very cautious optimism, it is precisely the erosion of the G20 with its actual disintegration into bilateral formats. You look, this "ice" will break, gentlemen of the jury …