Thursday, July 20, 2017

O & I P III

And finally, continuing from the last 2 posts, we have the World Adversarial Force (WAF) positioned as advocates (if not authors) of a multilateral international monetary and financial system (IMFS) with plans to introduce a new primary global unit of account to retire the dollar. The WAF might be considered "very VERY old money" - senior to the relatively newly created BIS, but more or less equal in dynastic tenure to an Eastern orthodoxy that historically opposes its ambitions and interests on a deep, epic level. The faction is nameless, but is referenced in large part as "Russia".

In this paradigm, China is a patient advocate for inclusion in the SDR (pretty much a historical fact leading up to last October). Russia's central bank is a BIS member bank, but again, the powers in flux here outrank the BIS in power, wealth and continuity.

This scenario is fairly consistent with the Freegold thesis in terms of a devaluation of the dollar through its loss of "global unit of account" status.

As the supra-national unit of account derives its "backing" (value/credibility) from a multilateral mix (basket) of currencies, the currencies themselves must still derive credibility and value from certain aspects of the issuing central bank. We can still call this credibility and value "backing". For example, and for the time being, we ascribe the backing of the current global unit of account to it's issuing nation's military and economic strength.

In the new paradigm, a nation's military and economic strength may still be important, but understanding that said military and economic strength is a byproduct of corporatism is an important lesson for the little people to learn.They still want to believe that their "elected" government is there to protect them, when in fact all governments exist to serve the same powers that the lesser classes want to be protected from - and who have been exploiting them since before the birth of Christ.

Pardon me for extrapolating the logical intersection between the thoughts of Roacheforque and the Collins paradigm in a sense. They fit well in an eerie sort of way. In a future such as this one, it easy to comprehend the statement, "if you didn't like the last system, you won't like the next" since it is effectively a continuation and consolidation of economic totalitarianism into a "hunger games" type existence.

It is also easy to understand the intuitive feeling of hope that lies in the power that stands opposed to this progression. An epic battle of Good vs. Evil. That characterization is derived from moral considerations involving so many interlocking moral puzzle pieces that it would consume an entire post. But the hazards of GMO and the opposing positions on global agribusiness come to mind as a big one. Monetary and cultural sovereignty might be equally huge, and the list goes on.

So in essence, the Eurasian experience replaces the American experience as the important center of the WAF's "harvesting of wealth". We can conclude that ultimately the WAF will overcome and convert Russia to its design, or destroy it.

In as much as the WAF represents fraudulent money, exploitationism, debt as wealth, destruction of the middle classes, totalitarianism and basically an empire composed of a tiny minority of all powerful elites ruling over a world of obedient, happy slaves, I oppose the WAF. And the Freegold thesis indeed lies in structural opposition to the WAF, even though it benefits the WAF ultimately.

If the WAF will use the Eurasian experience to reshape regional producers into global consumers (as with the US citizen) to re-position wealth there for later extraction (as with the U.S.) most of the little people of the West will hardly understand it enough to not like it. Pragmatically, protecting ones savings in such an event is fairly useful, but the end result is far from optimal.

Truly one can appreciate the difference between small dogs and Lions in the epic struggle behind the veneer of noise that poses as news.

2 comments: