Is the Elite Destabilizing the World on Purpose?
By Staff News & Analysis - October 27, 2010

Problem, Reaction, Solution: "Crisis is an Opportunity" … In May of 2010, Dominique Strauss-Kahn (left) , Managing Director of the IMF, stated that, "crisis is an opportunity," and called for "a new global currency issued by a global central bank, with robust governance and institutional features," and that the "global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort." However, he stated, "I fear we are still very far from that level of global collaboration." Well, perhaps not so far as it might seem. – Market Oracle

Dominant Social Theme: Capitalism is prone to booms and busts and it is natural, to point fingers when times are bad. Get over it.

Free-Market Analysis: This is a very long and learned article (excerpted above) from a forthcoming book by Andrew Gavin Marshall on Global Government, from Global Research Publishers, Montreal. It was just published online yesterday, interestingly enough on the same day we published our modest analysis of power elite, global plans entitled Why the West Is Losing. The two articles make an interesting point-counterpoint presentation in our view, so we will try to analyze Mr. Marshall's brilliant article (keeping in mind it is part of a longer book) within the context of the Bell's admittedly idiosyncratic perspective.

First a little background. Marshall is apparently a close associate of the courageous academic editor Michel Chossudovsky who runs the alternative-news website Centre for Research on Globalization. Marshall apparently contributed three chapters on the history of Western economics to a recent book Chossudovsky edited. Here is some background on Chossudovsky from Wikipedia:

Michel Chossudovsky is Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He has taught as visiting professor at academic institutions in Western Europe, Latin America and Southeast Asia, has acted as economic adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for international organizations including the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the African Development Bank, the United Nations African Institute for Economic Development and Planning (AIEDEP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). In 1999, Chossudovsky joined the Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research as an adviser. … The Centre for Research on Globalization is "committed to curbing the tide of globalisation and disarming the New world order."

Chossudovsky and presumably Marshall approach economic "conspiratorial" analysis from a somewhat Leftist perspective. Here is the crux paragraph in the article. It appears about midway, as follows: "Simon Johnson, former Chief Economist at the IMF, wrote an article in May of 2009 explaining that the problem with most third world nations ('emerging market economies') is that the governments are so closely tight-knit with the corporate and banking elite that they form a financial oligarchy, and that this is essentially the same problem in the United States. He wrote that, 'the finance industry has effectively captured our government,' and 'recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform.'"

Now we have some difficulties generally with Simon Johnson and have written about him in the past. You can see a commentary here: The Quiet Coup. Simon Johnson, Marshal and even Chossudovsky certainly recognize the problem the world faces as one of a "financial oligarchy" of corporate and banking elites. But when they are writing of these elites, they are writing in our view of the actual individuals and groups that wish to create a one-world government. We, on the other hand, do not believe that IBM, CitiCorp or even Goldman Sachs are ULTIMATELY behind the problems the world faces. They are actors within the system but not initiators. In fact, just yesterday in defense of our previous article, we presented the following feedback reply on the way the world works:

We believe the West – or should we say Western elites have certain peculiarities. We believe there may exist a certain millennial line of families that trace their roots back to Rome, and beyond, to Babylon. Today, we think of these families as the black nobility: their money is central banking money and there is a wealth of literature on the Internet about them. China built a Great Wall to keep out enemies. Islam put the West to the sword in the name of religion. But only the West seems afflicted with this particular group of families that is aggressively expansionistic and entirely focused on its own perpetuation. It has nothing to do with WASPS and everything to do with the perpetuation of merciless familial culture that waxes and wanes but never truly dies.

From our point of view, the idea that a modern clique of corporatists have come together serendipitously to try to run the world is not necessarily accurate. The intergenerational, familial enterprise that we postulate makes more sense to us. In simplest terms, if one looks through the past 300 years of history (or even through millennia), and certainly the past 100 years, it is easy to find a fairly powerful pattern leading to the world's current problems. There are so many books and so many clues left by this elite that to dismiss it is difficult. History is simply littered with Illuminati codes and absurd coincidences that do more to reveal money power than to conceal it.

Marshall's approach to the current economic disaster would seem (and this is only speculation) to postulate a kind of voracious capitalism that seeks to gorge on the masses and exploit workers around the world. The solution is usually the same (though again, we have not read Marshall's full book) and features additional programs and initiatives that are somehow not tainted by elite interference. This is government, in other words, without mercantilism. It is a fantasy in our view. It cannot exist. If there are governmental levers of power, wealthy elites will always find a way to pull them. The only solution is to starve the beast. Remove the levers of power altogether, or at least as much as possible. We believe in free-markets.

This is also, perhaps, why we come to different conclusions than Marshall does about the success of the power elite's effort to create global government. Where Marshall, or Simon or Chossudovsky may see a modern industrial and corporate plot to ruin the world (in order to run it), we see an ongoing, intergenerational, familial effort to create ever-closer global governance that has been, in the past, anyway, fairly gradualist.

We do not see it in class-warfare terms, necessarily. We do not see it even in terms of capitalist exploitation. We see it as a kind of cultural problem. These families have been pursuing the same goals for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. And for those who say it is impossible, we point to modern royalty and its entrenchment. It is indeed possible to leverage privilege into law and perpetuate wealth through national mandates. The evidence is all around us.

Anyway, those who look at the world through primarily Leftist lenses are very apt to come to the conclusion that evil capitalists are intent on subverting the world. Our perspective is less ideological. We grant that there is a group that wants to "rule the world," but we are not so sure that it will succeed. We see evidence of much clumsiness and arrogance, leading to mistakes. We think in aggregate, they may not have expected the kind of downturn that the West is currently struggling with. The EU itself totters on the brink, and this is an enterprise that the elite has been building for 60 years. How did that happen? We think the powers-that-be may have miscalculated. They may want to destabilize the world, but perhaps they have gone too far too fast.

We are not so sure global government is preordained. Again, Leftist analysis would make the argument that a cabal of industrialist exploiters (including bankers) are almost sure to overwhelm fragile Western democracies. But as we wrote yesterday, our point of view is that the current elite incarnation has been severely troubled by the Internet, which has revealed its machinations and even its long-term plans. More and more people know what's going on and don't like it.

We are not necessarily facing class warfare in our view. The world is in the final throes of a desperate effort on the part of a few families (and religious and industrial groups clustered around them) to use certain globalist mechanisms developed in the past half-century to install an ever-more binding New World Order – one that will expand their control, wealth and power. But it is a primarily Western initiative and this of itself seems to doom it to failure in that other parts of the world simply will not cooperate (the BRICs, for instance) and the Western familial elite, having over-reached, does not have the wherewithal to force the issue anymore.

Anyway, for readers who are interested in sorting through social and power-paradigms, we have tried in this modest article to spell out how one can reach similar conclusions with entirely different world-views. It is important in the sense that one's fundamental understanding of the way the world works can give rise over time to entirely divergent results as regards one's wealth and ultimately the safety of one's investments.

After Thoughts

We do not see the world in Marxist terms and we do not perceive class warfare between corporations, banks and the rest of us. We think money power resides several layers deeper. Additionally, we think the Western power elite has underestimated the impact of the Internet and the communication's revolution it has spawned. Their ambition, in other words, may have exceeded their grasp. In the other article in today's issue, we examine invading Pakistan and whether Western elites care if they win or lose in Afghanistan so long as blood is shed and treasure spent. Again, the Leftist view of such a Long War is considerably different than our own.