via Devon Douglas-Bowers hamptoninstitution.org
This is a transcript of a recent email interview conducted between Devon Douglas-Brewers and independent journalist James Corbett, where they discuss BRICS, the view that many have of the organization as a resistance force and the truth behind that. The conversation ends with how we can fight back against The Powers That Be in our own way.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: What are BRICS (an international financial alliance involving Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AAIB) really about? Many people argue that it is these countries challenging the dominant US-based system. How is that true or not true in some respects?
JAMES CORBETT: Who is contending that the AIIB or the BRICS’ New Development Bank is in any way competitive with the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF/World Bank)? Certainly not anyone involved with any of these institutions.
In March, IMF chief Christine Lagarde pledged IMF cooperation with the AIIB.
In June, World Bank chief Jim Yong Kim issued a statement congratulating the AIIB on its formation and calling it an “important new partner” for the Washington-led development bank.
In July, NDB [New Development Bank] President K.V. Kamath returned the favor, conceding that the NDB and the IMF/World Bank are complementary institutions, not rivals.
Also in July, the AIIB and the World Bank signed an actual cooperation agreement, promising to identify projects for joint financing later this fall.
Paulo Batista, BRICS bank VP and IMF Executive Director
No, these institutions do not view themselves as competitive. It is only various media pundits who have speculated that these new banks are in fact some sort of challenge to the so-called “Washington consensus.” What none of these experts has bothered to report (for obvious reasons) is the remarkable fact that the Vice President of the NDB is also an Executive Board member of the IMF, who then went on to pledge cooperation and joint action between the NDB and IMF. Also missing from this narrative is the fact that the NDB’s chief, Kundapur Vaman Kamath, is a former staffer of the supposed NDB “rival” Asia Development Bank. Or there’s Jin Liqun, widely tipped to be the head of the AIIB, who also happens to be a former Vice President of the Asia Development Bank and alternative Executive Director of the World Bank.
In fact, the only sign that these Beijing-backed development banks pose any challenge to the existing order whatsoever is that the NDB has already confirmed that their first loan will be denominated in yuan, not dollars, and the AIIB is considering a basket of currencies, including the yuan.
But even this is not as much of a challenge to the Bretton Woods institutions as it appears at first glance. Although Beijing is obviously seeking to bolster the yuan as an international settlement currency, this is not being done in an effort to make the yuan itself a world reserve currency in the same way that the dollar is today. Instead, this is being done in service of a policy goal outlined by People’s Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan in 2009 that is seeking to establish the “Special Drawing Rights” currency basket as the new world reserve currency.
China’s goal is to have the yuan included in the SDR basket along with the dollar, yen, euro and pound. But the SDR itself is issued and administered by the IMF so once again we see that Beijing is not seeking to undermine these US-led hegemonic institutions at all, merely to increase their status and clout within these institutions.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: Are there any cracks in BRICS, as in problems and disputes between member nations?
JAMES CORBETT: It would almost be better to ask if there are any points of accord between the BRICS nations other than occasional alignment of bilateral trade or security goals.
Meet Goldman Sachs, creator of the BRIC
The idea that there is any such thing as a shared BRICS economic, military or foreign policy is part of the fundamental fraud of the “BRICS” idea itself. The truth is that the BRICS (formerly “BRIC”) are not a coherent or organic grouping of like-minded states at all, but an arbitrary grouping of economies first identified by Goldman Sachs as emerging economies who were all expected to outperform the developed world in the coming decades. It was the BRIC countries that took this Goldman Sachs concept and attempted to make it into a real-world political reality, and the ploy becomes even more obvious when one realizes that the “S” (South Africa) was added not for any rational economic or political reason, but primarily to give the organization a footing in another continent.
China and India were at war in 1962 and have suffered through decades of tense relations. Even as late as 2006 Indian parliamentarians were openly urging a harder line on ongoing border disputes between the two countries, and border issues continue to this very day, with a tense military standoff in the disputed border region occurring last year, over a decade after the BRIC’s inception.
China and Russia likewise share their traditional rivalries. Ever since the Sino-Soviet split in 1960, the two countries have been famously distrustful of each other. They have competing security and economic interests in places like Central Asia, where Putin is trying to construct his Eurasian Economic Union and Xi is attempting to solidify his New Silk Road. The fact that China, the world’s largest energy importer, and Russia, the world’s largest natural gas exporter, have only just now completed a pipeline agreement shows the degree to which their warming economic relations are a matter of political expediency, not mutual trust.
Brazil has enjoyed a close trading relationship with China in recent years, but even so Brazil has joined fellow BRICS member India in openly criticizing Beijing for its foot-dragging on yuan appreciation.
Brazil, India and South Africa have attempted to create closer relations in recent years through mechanisms like the IBSA Dialogue as part of the “South-South Policy,” but the very fact that they are seeking to expand cooperation through alternative dialogues and fora show the ineffectiveness of the BRICS to address these issues within the BRICS framework.
The BRICS are an artificial creation of a US investment bank, and the glacial pace at which the organization moves and the constant internal jockeying for status and position (see deliberations over where to locate the NDB, for example) show that it is little more than an afterthought in these countries’ economic and foreign policies.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: Are there any ways in which the interests of countries like Russia and China align with the interests of the US? What do you make of this cooperation on one front, while they disagree and fight on another front?
JAMES CORBETT: I think the problem with thinking of international relations this way is that it presupposes that the people in positions of political power and financial influence are interested in vague concepts of “national interest” rather than in the preservation and expansion of their own power and influence and that of their colleagues and associates.
As insiders like David Rothkopf and others have shown in recent years, there is a “Superclass” of several thousand individuals in positions of influence who have the ability to act transnationally and who actively do so in the pursuit of their own international relation and economic policy goals. Seen from within this framework, a billionaire financier from one country with global assets to protect has demonstrably more in common with a billionaire financier from another country with global assets to protect than he does a poor manual laborer from his own country.
Consequently, global political and economic relations are more fruitfully seen as a mishmash of sometimes rivalrous, sometimes complementary interests of various multinational banks and corporations and the various think tanks and international institutions they control. Although there may be greater points of accord and room for cooperation between elite oligarchs who share a language, history, culture or geographical location, it by no means rules out cooperation with others, even in countries that are nominally suffering through poor relations.
Thus, what does it even mean to ask whether the interests of “Russia” and “China” align with the interests of the “US”? Surely these nation-state entities do not have interests in and of themselves. The people in positions of power in those countries have interests, but we would be better served in narrowing the scope of the question by identifying them in particular. Do the interests of Gazprom and Rosneft align with the interests of BP or Royal Dutch Shell? Sometimes, in certain contexts, yes. In other contexts they would be rivals.
Similarly with JPMorgan and HSBC and the Bank of China, or the various central bankers at the Bank for International Settlements, or the members of the Trilateral Commission. Their deliberations have very little to do with amorphous national interests and everything to do with jockeying for personal position and control of the global economic and political chessboard.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: Why do you think that people buy into this narrative that countries like Russia and China are a “resistance” force?
JAMES CORBETT: We have been conditioned our entire lives to expect that anything that opposes a demonstrably evil entity must itself be good. Whether it be the Star Wars Rebel Alliance fighting the Galactic Empire or the heroic Allies fighting the villainous Axis or even the more nuanced case of a valiant Serpico fighting the corruption within his own NYPD, we are almost invariably given narratives with identifiable “good guys” fighting risible “bad guys.”
But when it comes to the machinations of global geopolitics, this is completely the wrong lens through which to understand what is happening. Much more to the point would be the metaphor of rival gangs competing for territory. It is not the case that the Bloods are the “good guys” and the Crips the “bad guys” or vice versa; they are both criminal networks that use brutality and violence to enforce their control over given areas and to terrorize others.
Similarly, if we understand that rivalries between various international organizations (to the extent that they exist at all) are really only battles between gangsters for control over the global turf, we can more clearly understand that it is not a question of choosing sides in the struggle but of opposing the very ideologies of centralized, hierarchical control that make these institutions possible.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: Talk about the history of China and the US, specifically with regards to how the build-up of the Chinese economy is due to, at least in part, the involvement of US companies.
David Rockefeller with Chinese Premier Chou En-lai in Peking, June 1973
JAMES CORBETT: The modern era of Sino-American relations famously began with Henry Kissinger’s secret trip to China in 1971 that paved the way for Nixon’s own trip and the renormalization of relations between the two countries. But even that narrative is grossly misleading. It neglects, for example, that Kissinger was a protégé of David Rockefeller, whose family had been intimately involved in China since the early part of the 20th century and who “supported” Kissinger’s China initiative, which later resulted in his Chase bank becoming the first US correspondent bank of the National Bank of China.
Regardless, Kissinger’s efforts blended seamlessly into subsequent efforts by National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (also, not coincidentally, a Rockefeller protégé and co-founder, with David, of the Trilateral Commission), and by the end of the decade the death of Mao and rise of Deng Xiaoping created the condition for the “Red Capitalism” that has led to the rise of modern China. This process was overseen by a small cadre of politically connected individuals (known in Chinese as the “Eight Immortals“) whose families still continue to control vast portions of China’s “national” wealth.
These “capitalist road” reforms created the conditions for massive foreign investment in the country, which began in the 1980s with the establishment of the Beijing Central Business District and the formation of Chinese subsidiaries of major Fortune 500 companies like HP. This influx of foreign capital increased in the 1990s, when direct investment of US-based multinationals in China quadrupled (from $2.6 billion in 1994 to $10.5 billion in 2001).
 |
| Source Data: Excel file |
During this period, China became a cheap labor pool for American corporations looking to outsource manufacturing during an era of easing regulations and even direct incentives to move American jobs offshore. According to the US government’s own reports, China’s open door came with a price: “forced” technology transfers that allowed China to leapfrog many other developing nations to become a player on the international scene in advanced technologies. There have also been numerous military technology transfers from the US to China over the last two decades that have doubtless played a role in the rise of the PLA Navy and Air Force’s capabilities.
In short, the rise of China as an economic and military power has been facilitated by a small group of oligarchical families working in close conjunction with businessmen, politicians and financiers representing oligarchical interests in the West, specifically in the US.
DEVON DOUGLAS-BOWERS: What would you say are our alternatives to trusting in these “resistance” forces and how do we keep hope alive?
JAMES CORBETT: If what we are combating is, as I posit, essentially two (or more) gangs competing for turf, then it is self-evident that we gain nothing from supporting one gang over another other than the vague hope that the other gang will treat us more kindly.
The real solution to centralized, hierarchical international institutions created by and for the interests of the oligarchical elite are decentralized, non-hierarchical relations created by and for the grassroots. One aspect of this decentralized approach is the peer-to-peer economy, i.e., the notion that technology is enabling humanity for the first time to seek out and source answers to their problems instantaneously and internationally without recourse to unwieldy institutions like the World Bank, IMF, BRICS, AIIB, NDB, WTO, etc.
Through open-source collaboration people can construct more detailed (and accurate) reports of ongoing events than can ever come from slanted mainstream media journalists who are beholden to corporate interests. Through complementary currencies, LETS programs, crypto-currencies, barter exchanges, peer-to-peer lending and other means, both high-tech and low-tech, people can carry on economic transactions even when national (or regional) currencies fail. People are finding economic, social and other forms of support through grassroots community organizations that deliver the type of aid that national governments are incapable of providing. Collaborative learning and internet technologies have enabled a flowering of auto-didacticism that is rendering traditional government-sponsored and highly centralized and authoritarian forms of education all but obsolete.
In short, there is a revolution that is happening all around us, even as we speak. It does not require guns or bombs or pitchforks or protests, only participation. And it is threatening to turn the ideology of statism and its associated forms of centralization on its head, and international mafias like the IMF/World Bank and the BRICS along with it. The only question is whether we are discerning enough to perceive it, wise enough to understand it, and brave enough to see it through to its completion.
Absolutely superb, James!
Your words glide across the canvas of this article.
You have a gift
The BRICS alliance is, most definitely, not a fake opposition group to the NWO.
And, the best proofs of that, are (1) how this countries have economically developed, and (2) how the quality of life of its citizens has improved, ever since its non-aligned leaders have come to power (in comparison with the situation in the most NWO-controlled Western countries, in which the quality of life has been decreasing since the 1960’s, when all the fake “green agenda”/”global warming” propaganda, and other excuses to stop economic growth, started appearing).
Yes, they all have their “dirty tricks”, and cooperate with their enemies, when they see some benefits in it. But, that doesn’t (necessarily) make them part of the same cabal. And, what they do, is what every government in History has always done, in the intervals of (continually) fighting their enemies. (Look at the secret, and not so secret, history or relations between Iran and the West, for example.)
Please, James, pay closer attention to very good alternative media sources, such as Daniel Estulin, F. William Engdahl, and the LaRouche Movement.
The Nazi coup in the Ukraine was part of a NATO strategy to military encircle Russia. The protest movements in Brazil, against big international sports events, that aim to promote the Brazilian economy, are instigated – on very well-produced Internet videos – by people with American (US) accents. Etc… Here’s, for example, (the “former” Russian intelligence agent) Daniel Estulin, mentioning how Russia and China are the main enemies of the NWO project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN9eiicrm8M
Why do you think that RT gives you air time, James? (Would they ever do that, with a truly independent voice, if Russia was also part of the NWO project?)
Yes, most or all governments are corrupt. And, most of the times they have elites who are mainly worried about themselves. But, that doesn’t (necessarily) mean that they also don’t care about their citizens. And, the best way to evaluate that, is (how I said, above) to see the practical results in the quality of live of the ones ruled by such elites.
Here’s the GDP of Russia rising, ever since Putin came to power: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#/media/File:Russian_economy_since_fall_of_Soviet_Union.PNG
Here’s the unemployment rate in Brazil decreasing, ever since the PT came to power: http://5.fotos.web.sapo.io/i/o0e11e7e8/18422384_H3YCe.jpeg
(What the selfish NWO elites are doing, on the other hand, is to destroy their own economies, on purpose, in order to preserve what’s left of increasingly scarce natural resources for themselves… – source: Daniel Estulin – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3OfMqbXnz8, http://paramimtantofaz.blogspot.pt/2009/02/o-grande-plano-para-actual-crise.html)
You are 100% wrong in your analysis, Fernando. The NWO is crashing the west in order for the “emerging economies” to rise in prominence in global governmental entities like the IMF/World Bank, WTO, UN, etc. I have outlined that at length in this article as well as here:
http://www.corbettreport.com/the-great-decoupling-how-the-west-is-engineering-its-own-downfall/
And here:
http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-297-china-and-the-new-world-order/
And here:
http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-985-finance-and-liberty-globalization-chimerican-style/
And numerous places. As I have explained numerous times, there are differences amongst competing gangs for control over the global pie, and there is a 2D chess game that really is taking place (and really believed in by many of the global players), but the 3D chess game being played by the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/”8 Immortals”/characters like Paulo Batista (as you should know very well)/etc. does not have the happiness of average Brazilians/Russians/Indians/etc. in mind.
You are feeding into a phoney dialectic no different than the right/left political charade or any of the other false choices that are given to the public. If you are interested in understanding this false dialectic in greater detail, please read this:
https://www.corbettreport.com/homeland-insecurities-welcome-to-the-north-american-union/
And if you want to understand how the real solution is decentralization, not greater faith in multinational institutions run by political gangsters (and their bankster controllers) please read this:
https://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-really-defeat-globalism/
(Having, in the meantime, found the time to read and listen to the material in the links you left here…)
First of all,
When I speak about the BRICS countries, I’m mainly thinking about Brazil and Russia – which are the ones who catch my attention more, due to the facts that I’m a Portuguese citizen, the first country is a Portuguese-speaking country, and the second one is (also) an European one. And, if at least 2 (of the 5) of them function in a certain way, certainly, no one can say that the whole BRICS alliance is functioning in an opposite way to those two countries.
Concerning the particular case of China,
Yes, I know of the very “suspicious” relations that it has had with the West – namely, the very worrying recent participation of Chinese representatives at Bilderberg meetings. And, the fact that the (quasi-fascist) Chinese model of government is somewhat close to the NWO model leaves me very worried that China might be recruited to the NWO project (and, that it might be some sort of “trojan horse” within the BRICS organization). Nevertheless, I suspect that the case is that China is “flirting” with the Western powers-that-be, in order to gain some things economically (like buying rights to Western companies that are being privatized) and that, in the long run, this country has the conditions to not need to bow down to, or unite with, Western oligarchs.
But, as I said, we can’t use the particular Chinese case to generally speak about the whole BRICS organization. And, yes, I know that the countries of such grouping don’t just cooperate, but also compete, in terms of international relations, when it comes to establishing cooperation agreements with other countries outside of the alliance (and, surely that has been the case with other allied countries in History).
Now, concerning the people who work for the IMF, World Bank, and the powers-that-be,
Not everyone who works for establishment institutions is bad. (The overall majority, yes, is corrupt. But, not every single person who works for such institutions, at high positions, is.) There are people who actually believe that such institutions can be used for good things (like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who was clearly framed, after letting people know of his intentions to use the IMF as an engine for economic growth, like the high-ranking UN official Richard Falk, who denounced the truth behind 9/11 – or, speaking of national institutions, John F. Kennedy, who came from an establishment family and wanted to use the US government to do good things). And, didn’t Paul Craig Roberts, for example, held an important position in the economic body of an US government, at a time that such a country was already being deindustrialized? And, wasn’t he even an editor at “The Wall Street Journal”?
Although they have been mainly used for bad things, the IMF and the World bank are, like the UN, international institutions where every government is allowed to vote – so, they’re not completely controlled, and there’s always room for reform and change, once a number of governments are able to get rid of Western/NWO control. And, not everyone who has got a good degree at an establishment-controlled school (where else can they get one?), like Paulo Batista, has necessarily become part of the establishment itself. We can’t confuse the majority with the totality. Estulin has sources even at high positions at the World Bank itself, and the Bilderberg Club steering committee. So, not everyone who is part of this groups is completely aligned with the interests that created them. And, we have to remember that the official reason why the Bretton Woods institutions were created, was to financially help governments. So, what else could the corrupt elements of the IMF and World Bank say about new international banks that are created with the same intention? One alternative explanation for Christine Lagarde to have said what she said, might be that: “If it’s a nearly impossible task to destroy such alternative banks, why not try to subvert and control them, by creating links with them?”
As for international cooperation, between the West and the BRICS countries,
We live in a now globally interdependent economy, in which is in every country’s interest to trade and cooperate internationally. And, I don’t believe it’s in any BRICS country’s interest to isolate itself economically from the West – and, stop buying things like Intel microchips, and other high-technology that only Western companies make. The BRICS strategy is even, as the LaRouche people indicate, to create interdependencies, so that a war between the different global powers will be in no one’s interest. And, although they create this economic ties, and also create customs-free borders with neighbouring countries, (with the exception of Russia, that is seeking to reunite with its former Soviet “buddies”, for obvious historical reasons) the BRICS countries are not significantly surrendering their political sovereignty to international institutions, neither are they selling the key components of their economies to multinational corporations – as the NWO would like, and as it has been done in the West. And, this is a very important point. Since that, the #1 enemy of the NWO project, as Estulin repeatedly says [1] [2], is the concept of nation-state, and the ideal of common welfare, that is associated with, and led to the creation of, such nation-state concept (which has led to the great economic development, that we have witnessed in recent History, with great leaders seriously improving the quality of life of their people, through the good use of national governments). Being that the main reason why the NWO is trying to destroy nation-states world-wide.
One other thing that should be noted, is that, contrary to the situation in Western countries, where the drug traffic is (hiddenly) promoted (source: Daniel Estulin’s “The Shadow Masters”), in the BRICS countries drugs trafficking is (highly) repressed, because of how it devastates their populations, and fulfils the NWO goals of stupidification and elimination of the world population. (Why do the Chinese and Russian governments abhor drugs so much? Why is the Brazilian government cracking down on the favelas, where the drugs come from? In Russia, the government even pays for people to have children. And, in China, the “one-child policy” is obviously about controlling the growth of population, which has never stopped – and, not about reducing population numbers.)
When it comes to Western governments, I can clearly see them acting together, in what are clearly commonly and previously agreed plans, behind the stage. But, when it comes to the BRICS countries, as I said, I can only see them doing the usual “double game” of cooperating with their enemies, when it’s to their advantage, or when they need to. And, after more than a decade of researching about this project, I remain convinced that the NWO is a Western conspiracy. Having the great and reliable sources that I’ve discovered in such a process (some of which I mention in my first comment) only confirmed that.
The West funded the Communists in Russia and China because, with the amount of territory that such countries have, they have always had the potential to become superpowers. And, the fact that these countries have, in the meantime, (also) turned to Capitalism, proves that such a plan, of keeping this countries backward through the political regime adopted, has failed. And, now, when it comes to China (wich is more “open” to the West) all that it’s left is for the West to try to recruit its elites into the NWO project. But, so far, the only thing I have seen is economic cooperation, that is mutually beneficial, between China (and also other BRICS countries) and the West.
I know what you mean, when you say that a 2D chess game can serve a hidden purpose that is part of a 3D chess game. I’m familiar with the work of Antony C. Sutton, about how the US build up the Nazis, and then used the outcome of WW2 to provide aid to destroyed European countries, on the condition that such recovery was made on a collaborative basis – therefore, laying the foundations for a future EU – and how WW2, itself, was used as an excuse to create the UN, as an embryo of a future World Government, desired by these elites that funded the Nazis. I’m also familiar with the work of the same author denouncing how the West build up the Soviet Union – which was then used as an excuse to militarily unite the West, and as an excuse to create things like the CIA, that are used to spy on, and repress, political dissidence in the West. (I have even published an interesting clip from a Cold War spy movie, where a character speculates that the whole spy game being played might be being used to establish a “New World Order”, here.) But, unlike it’s the case with the extensive proofs provided by Antony C. Sutton’s great works, I have never seen any indications that this new “Cold War” is a repetition of this same formula.
Concerning two things that you mention in the first article that you link to,
– The “high level military technology” that you mention, that was intended to be given to Russia – if I found out the right alternative hyperlink to your source (since that the original one is dead) – is actually “compared to a ‘laser tag’ system available in some commercial markets”. So, it’s not some hard-to-get technology that, in no way, should be given to military enemies. That single (and, also insignificant) transfer can’t be used to extrapolate the existence of a hidden plan to military arm Russia.
– And, the BRICS grouping wasn’t “created” by Goldman Sachs. The research paper that you mention, was a mere description of an (inevitably) emerging reality, that was not created by the mentioned bank (which is part of the efforts to deindustrialize such countries), but by the emerging social movements within those countries. And, that the countries belonging to this emerging BRICS group decided to form an alliance under such label was, not only a smart move on their part, but surely also an inevitability – independently of who came up, first, with such a designation.
Concerning the second link, to your 297th episode,
– The Tiananmen Square crackdown was not supported by the West, and was not a “massacre”. It was actually an implementation of the (US-backed) “colour revolutions” formula, to try to topple a government not under the control of the West (source: investigator F. William Engdahl).
– And, the technology transfers from the US to China, where obviously of relatively old technology. Since that, still today, the Chinese military is considered not to be a significant enemy of the West (source: former military intelligence officer Daniel Estulin).
This is what sustains the claim I have made in my first comment. Now, concerning your thesis, that the NWO is truly an *international* conspiracy, with the BRICS countries now playing a part in it, I see two major flaws in it.
[to be continued…]
[continuation]
Everyone that is well informed about the NWO project knows that the environmental movement, that started in the 1960’s – with the formation of the WWF, the Club of Rome etc – is actually a propaganda campaign that is part of an agenda to depopulate and deindustrialize the world, in order to reduce the number of people to controllable levels, in terms of rate of development, and to throw everyone, that is not part of the Western oligarchy, back into a situation of poverty and ignorance, where they can be as easily dominated as people were in pre-industrial, pre-Renaissance times. So, I think that everyone agrees that anything related to more industrialization and economic development (and consequent improvements in the quality of life, access to culture etc) is contrary to the goals of the NWO, ever since that 1960’s decade.
1) And, if that’s so, then how come that the BRICS countries (if they are into this plan) are industrializing and developing themselves?
Also, an obvious objective included in the goal of deindustrialization, is the destruction of the middle class.
1.1) So, how come that China has had an “explosive” growth of its middle class, Russia’s middle class has risen above “pre-crisis” level, with the “United Russia” governments, and Brazil’s middle class has risen to a level above 50%, ever since the PT came to power?
1.2) Also, if Russia is playing along with the NWO conspiracy, then how come it was the target of a campaign, orchestrated by the West, to destroy its economy in the 1990’s (Mike Ruppert, and there’s a whole book about it), and, during the same period of time, from the 1960’s to now, has been seriously developing its economy, ever since Putin came to power?
The BRICS countries are (unlike the West) seriously pursuing an economic path that is contrary to the objectives of the NWO.
Also,
Among the great sources that I’ve discovered, that denounce the NWO project, the best one that I know (and, that I have complete trust in) that has access to “privileged” information that comes from intelligence circles, is Daniel Estulin.
Estulin is a self-admitted former Russian intelligence officer, that still has connections to, and receives information from, the FSB/KGB, travels to Russia every month etc. In other words, even if he’s not officially a member of the Russian intelligence services any more, he’s someone who is, in part, still acting as their agent.
Estulin has written several great books, authored lots of mini-documentary episodes, that have been aired on the Spanish version of RT, and has done a lot of other things that denounce a huge part of this NWO conspiracy.
2) So, if Estulin his clearly one of the greatest denunciators of this NWO conspiracy, then how come that he’s still supported by the Russian government, when it comes to its intelligence services, and is given air time in the Russian TV channel, RT?
(He clearly denounces the final objectives of a One World Government/Company Limited, and also calls people’s attention to the works of Antony C. Sutton, that talk about the historical 2D games that served a hidden 3D one. He also denounces people like Christine Lagarde. And, repeatedly denounces the Western elites’ plan to destroy the world economy on purpose, among lots of other things…)
2.1) And, why does RT give air time to independent voices, like yourself, that seriously denounce the NWO, has been threatened not to interview Alex Jones any more etc?
(And, speaking of something that I mentioned in my first point… Why has the Climategate scandal, most probably, been the work of Russian intelligence?)
In conclusion,
These are two (very important) facts that don’t add up with (or don’t fit into) your thesis.
And, to the contrary, facts that fit into what Estulin and the LaRouche movement denounce, that this NWO project is, in great part, a continuation of the British Empire’s formula of destroying the nationalist movements whose goal is the general well-being of the local populations, in favour of an imperial system, which benefits only a small oligarchical elite.
Now, concerning the alternatives that everyone should adopt, to counter the NWO plans,
I’m an anarchist myself. (Even after knowing of the true origins of such a movement, as denounced by Estulin.) So, I’m also in favour of decentralization, direct democracy, and people taking power (and solutions) into their own hands. I’m just describing what I see, and what I know, independently of my personal positions of agreement or not with any of the BRICS countries’ governmental policies.
Absolutely nothing of what you have written is even related to the subject of why the BRICS as an organization is good or even necessary. The subject is not “the BRICS countries” but the BRICS as a regional organization acting to create multinational institutions that are explicitly cooperating with the IMF/World Bank Washington consensus (because they’re run by the same people). You are also wrong about Russian/Chinese/Brazilian/etc. governments being “good” or working toward the best interest of their own people, but that is another story.
Well, if you’re writing only from a philosophical anti-state pro-decentralization perspective, that the BRICS alliance is not something that is “necessary” or that can be considered “good”, I understand what you mean. As I said, I’m an anarchist myself. And, my point was not to dispute that, philosophically. (I also believe that governments, per se, are something “bad” – but believe in the sincerity of some people who use these institutions to do what they think is “good”.)
What I was trying to prove, is that the BRICS countries’ governments are not part of the same “New World Order” conspiracy (as it is commonly know the modern, behind-the-stage, continuation of the British Empire’s objectives) that has been elaborated by Western elites. The BRICS alliance is formed by countries whose ultimate leaders are not part of that same (Western) conspiratorial group, known as the “New World Order”.
Sure, the BRICS’ leaders cooperate with the West when they see benefits in it. And have created the NDB as something similar to the World Bank and IMF. Sure, they cooperate with this latter institutions, because it’s surely to their advantage to also contract loans, and have contacts, from outside their alliance. But, they clearly do not purse the same goals as the NWO. And, for that reason, can’t be considered “phoney opposition” to it.
The fact that some of the people who are part of the NDB have been also part of the World Bank or IMF doesn’t necessarily prove that all these institutions pursue the same objectives. (Does the fact that Paul Craig Roberts used to be a hight-ranking US government official prove that the sites he now collaborates with, like GlobalResearch.ca, are government-run fake alternative media? Does the fact that Lyndon B. Johnson was Kennedy’s vice-president prove that LBJ’s succeeding governments were run by the same interests as the previous Kennedy government? No.)
And, the creation of multinational institutions is not something bad, per se. Only when they start to (significantly) abolish national or (decentralized) regional sovereignties. There’s a way to combine both concepts, or forms of organization, in a increasingly interdependent global economy (like the anarchist “International Workers’ Association”, that I used to be a member of, for example, does).
As corrupt as they are, the World Bank and IMF are organizations similar to the UN, where almost every country is a member of them. So, as long as there are different nation-states, and each nation’s economic strength evolves or changes, the Western dominance of such institutions is not invincible. And, the fact that some countries have decided not to abandon such organizations due to all the corruption and “evil deeds” that have dominated it, it’s something that only its leaders can one day answer about. Maybe it’s also for the same reason why the average citizen, who knows how corrupt commercial banks are, continues to use them. (And, speaking of some of this countries’ intelligence agencies, isn’t the old saying right, when it goes: “Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer”?)
Let’s see if the NDB will act in the same way as the IMF and World Bank do. Let’s see if it will be used to develop or to destroy economies. And, only then can we make a judgement if this new bank is the same thing as the World Bank and IMF. But, in the meantime, judging by the way that the people who created such a new bank have been acting in their countries, the clear indications are that it’s a different type of international bank.
(“What I was trying to prove, is that the BRICS countries’ governments are neither part of the same ‘New World Order’ conspiracy, nor are they (actually) playing along with it, or into its goals“ – I should have wrote above, as I realize now that that may be the point you were trying to make… As I said, multinational organizations are not something bad, per se, nor do they fulfil the objectives of the NWO, if they maintain the member countries’ national sovereignties.)
Wowzer,many words written here, can’t say I read them all. It now appears that the whole world is operating on a capitalistic model to a greater or lesser extent. The world is now full with no new frontiers and with heavy population numbers.The world economy is run on a ponzi debt money scheme which is reaching another debt saturation point, perhaps a systemicly fatal one? Since there is no huge ideological differences you would think all would be a rosy picture of peace, trade and commerce among nations and peoples but this is not so. The reason for this is the very nature of those who dominate the heights of humanity. They all operate on a narcissistic, greedy, distrustful, law of the jungle and xenophobic basis, besides other lovely qualities. One grouping of oligarchs just cannot abide dealing with another grouping from a position of equality due to these character traits. While they may do some roaring business deals they are also quite ready to stab one another in the back if it means getting a leg up. Yes the world economy is intertwined but these gents and some ladies hate with intensities the normal person would have a hard time understanding. The western oligarchs and owners of the banking cartel want to dominate Putin and his crew as well as any other grouping like the 8 immortals of China and other wealthy families. It is my conjecture that much of the collapse of the Chinese stock market was an orchestrated “pump and dump” (Catherine Fitt’s term) which produced vast profits for various western entities while conducting economic warfare at the same time. To sum up these groups want total control and power for their grouping and no one else, and like mafia families occasionally have peace or internecine wars but these groups drag nations along with themselves. When you see inter marriage between the different oligarh adult children then you will know peace has been established for the time being. Right now the Chinese oligarch has made a necessary alignment with the Putin regime to repel the western oligarchs world domination ambitions. Think of these groups as rival mafiosos and a better picture emerges of what is taking place, with the western “family” trying to dominate the whole show before its inevitable decline due to bad business decisions from greed etc. leading to economic decline and power loss while the other families still growing in strength are not yet ready to challenge the old order.