Global Conflict + IMF's Electronic Currency; What Kind Of Citizen?
"We shall have world government, whether or not we like it." -James P. Warburg, February, 1950
"The cashless society will eventually be forced upon us all, whether we like it or not."-TruePublica --January, 2019
During the 1970s and early 80s, historian Antony Sutton published a series of books proving that American interests had financed both the Bolshevik revolution and the rise of Hitler's Nazis, seemingly opposing interests. The two were central forces for initiating World War II, a result of which was the United Nations, considered by many a step toward one world government. In 1986, Sutton expanded his case in The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, in which he provided evidence that throughout the post-WWII Cold War, American technology was being made available for Soviet buildup while the U.S. Government was using that same Soviet technology to justify ballooning defense spending. He also documented U.S. support for both sides of the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In sum, Sutton's many books amount to well-documented proof that American organizations have intentionally been creating and supporting adversaries in order to yield outcomes that further their own interests -- massive defense spending and movement toward one world government.
The process that has driven the past century and a half, as described by Sutton, has been characterized by "managed conflicts" created by a cadre of "elites" who, by generating competing forces, and through control of both sides, have forged desired outcomes. "Left" and "Right" Sutton depicts as orchestrated, controlled opposites with elites playing roles in both camps, thereby dividing and busying the masses and giving some impression of "balance". "Without controlled conflict", Sutton writes, "this New World Order will not come about".
If one considers Sutton's "controlled conflict as driver-of-history" model, if only for the sake of argument, it's difficult to avoid noticing elements now coming together, just as Axis and Allied powers did leading up to War II. The U.S. Navy continues to provoke China, while at the same time talk of war with China being unavoidable is on the increase. NATO is escalating its military presence against Russia's western border, even as the relationship between Russia and China grows ever closer. One can see a growing likelihood of warring between a Russian-China-Iran alliance, on the one hand, with NATO and the Anglo-American Empire of "The West" on the other. If there is an identifiable power structure mobilizing and influencing such a scenario, how might it benefit in the final analysis?
There is enough information for making a rational guess. President George H.W. Bush in 1991 stated before Congress, "What is at stake is more than one small country. It is a big idea, a New World Order." And David Rockefeller is quoted as having told the U.N. Business Council in 1994, "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." It was Rockefeller too who wrote in his 2003 Memoirs , "Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
The world is changing so rapidly now on so many fronts - social, environmental, military, financial -- that much of humanity, pressed ever closer to survival considerations, is showing rising levels of distress. Increasing numbers of Americans want to leave the country, but " there is no "away". In 1997 Zbigniew Brzezinski, "America's grand strategist", wrote "The Grand Chessboard : American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives", in which he identified Central Asia - those "stans" surrounded by Russia, China, Iran and the Caspian Sea -- as key to continued U.S. global dominance. Even the title telegraphed an assumption of the U.S. in control. A mere fifteen years later, his 2012 "Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power" revealed a much reduced confidence: "[B]asic changes in the distribution of global power, the impact of the new phenomenon of global political awakening on the exercise of that power, and the negative consequences of recent US foreign policy moves and of growing doubts regarding the vitality of the American system have cumulatively put [the] more hopeful legacy of the West in question."
The push for open borders is a growing global phenomenon that carries with it a breakdown of national cultural identities. In the U.S., concern for secure borders is now frequently depicted as xenophobic bigotry. In Europe, German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently told an audience that national sovereignty must yield to new world order, and French President Emmanuel Macron has gone so far as to liken nationalism to treason.
But nothing would homogenize global society more completely than abolishment of cash and the creation of a universal electronic money allowing centralized power to record each person's every exchange, and that is exactly the path humanity is on. This past November, International Monetary Fund Director Christine Laggard told the world "Let us sail ahead" to an international electronic currency. And indeed we're sailing toward it like dazed sheep made fearful of impending crises, distracted with high-tech entertainments, debit cards in hand. If we ever allow ourselves to be chained to a single global electronic money, we will have become essentially chipped, only the "chip" will be a piece of plastic people carry. What's in your wallet? Your chip!
It is perfectly logical to conclude that such a set of conditions would produce a global community along the lines of Australian journalist Matthew Carney's depiction,"Leave no Dark Corner", of China's, with its use of total surveillance to establish a "social credit" rating system. Each citizen's every move, purchase, comment, opinion, affiliation, habit, culinary taste, clothing preference - everything - is part of a constantly monitored rating. Even the ratings of family members and acquaintances impact one's own. Those with ratings conforming most perfectly to governmental dictate are rewarded by being allowed "to roam freely under heaven", while for dissidents it is difficult "to take a single step." It is the consummate system for creating the desired product: a world of uniformly well-behaved citizens, constantly self-editing so as to avoid any unauthorized action or utterance and the punishment that would result.