The conservative libertarian writer Paul Craig Roberts has posted an article, "The New Colonialism: Washington's Pursuit of World Hegemony" that has received much attention from the alternative-news blogosphere. In this article, I want to comment on the story from a larger point of view. Robert's perspectives are probably the last piece of the puzzle that we've been working on putting together here at The Daily Bell. With his courageous input, we now have a clearer vision now of how the New World Order is coming together and how it will function. That sounds like a large statement, but in this article I will try to explain it and justify my presentation.
It is important to understand such things. If one does not understand the world, one is doomed to make numerous mistakes in investing and even in life itself. There is the old saying, referring specifically to software: "garbage in, garbage out." If one's INPUTS are wrong, then one's conclusions may be too. In this fraught day and age one should work steadily at refining one's inputs to make sure that the best and most foolproof conclusions are reached in all areas of existence.
So let us begin. We need to start with the idea that there is an Anglo-American power elite trying to establish a world government. We cannot necessarily explain WHY anyone would want to do such a thing. But apparently someone does. Actually more than a "someone" – a handful of impossibly wealth banking families, located mainly in the one-square-mile City of London.
These families – and one family in particular – apparently have control of a worldwide central banking apparatus. With the ability to print money-from-nothing around the world, the Rothschilds have amassed a fortune that may be in excess of US$300 trillion. (Nobody really knows.) In the 1800s, such an impossible amount of money gave rise to the concept of "money power." This was an implacable force that controlled the destinies of countries and even continents. Money power caused wars to take place and elevated certain men to high places while casting down others.
In the 20th century, as the power elite gained more control over the mainstream media the term money power went out of fashion. There was a time in the late 20th century when one couldn't even question the functioning of central banks or discuss the fundamentals of currency and money. These concepts were simply not available for contemplation and anyone who tried to analyze them within the context of a larger philosophical or free-market economic framework was running the risk of becoming professionally – if not personally – marginalized.
Times have changed. Ben Bernanke is going to start to give press conferences to emphasize the transparency of the Federal Reserve. You can bet he wouldn't be doing so if he didn't have to. The Fed has taken an enormous beating over the past few years and Bernanke has done what he can to counteract negative publicity. But how do you justify printing money from nothing? Or worse still creating a trillion dollars at a time at the touch of a button and then giving it to your cronies so that their badly run financial businesses don't go broke. You can't. A press conference or two won't help.
Ben Bernanke has been forced into such PR stunts because of the Internet itself, a truth telling device that has allowed millions in America and Europe to understand their worlds better, and in more detail. As people have found out about the huge Ponzi scheme called central banking, indignation has built. We would tend to believe that the anger has not yet crested. The elite seems to believe that if economic circumstances get better people will go back to being the way they were, disinterested in finance and uninterested generally about what is evidently and obviously an ever-advancing one-world government.
The problem with this is that if Western economies become too healthy, the rush to world government will be stymied. It seems a delicate balancing act. There must be SOME chaos and confusion (including food and water insecurity) or people will not see the need for a global currency, a global political system, a global court, etc. But there cannot be too MUCH or events may spin out of control and then all the money in the world will not be able to control unrest.
Is there a plan, then, for a global currency? It would seem so. We've charted its evolution in numerous articles. The International Monetary Fund has presented several White Papers on how such currency could be built out of its SDR program. Additionally the IMF believes it would make a good central bank.
Influential, billionaire financier George Soros agrees with some of this. He too has stated that he believes that SDRs would make a good global currency. Additionally George Soros is planning a "new" Bretton Woods conference in which he hopes to gain approval from countries and top bankers to move toward a one-world currency. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has the same idea and wants to set up his own Bretton Woods conference to discuss a new worldwide currency. It could be SDRs or it could be something else. But it will be global.
The new, global currency is to be accompanied apparently by the emergent, global political infrastructure that is being implemented piece by piece. This includes the UN, the International Criminal Court at the Hague (suddenly one of three such Courts of Justice) and of course the World Health Organization (WHO). The UN is increasingly involved in military activities around the world and in "keeping the peace." For larger actions, NATO itself is called upon and in fact is currently conducting live military campaigns in Afghanistan and Libya.
There is apparently a universal energy policy as well that features a variety of facilities to diminish "carbon-based global warming" and to encourage alternative forms of energy such as solar and wind. Meanwhile, all over the world, nation-states have suddenly formed regional cooperatives and have plans to issue regional money printed (created out of thin air) by regional central banks. This is taking place in Africa, South American and Asia. In some cases (Africa) the money is already in use. An "African Union" similar to the EU is planned. And so is a South American one and presumably sooner or later one in Asia.
Roberts contribution to all this is to put the current unrest in the Middle East and North Africa into perspective. What we are observing in Libya is the rebirth of colonialism, he writes. But it is different than the colonialism of several hundred years ago. This time, European nation states are not competing with each other. "The new colonialism operates under the cover of the world community, which means NATO and those countries that cooperate with it. … Today NATO provides European troops on behalf of American hegemony. Washington pursues world hegemony under the guises of selective ‘humanitarian intervention' and ‘bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed peoples.'"
From Roberts' point of view, the Libyan war is a perfect example of this hegemony. Not, perhaps, anticipating the regime change in Tunisia and Egypt, Washington responded with a more muscular approach to Libya's unrest, encouraging and even cultivating it, he explains. "Khalifa Hifter, a suspected Libyan CIA asset for the last 20 years, has gone back to Libya to head the rebel army," he points out. Washington will be more in control of events this time.
Why Libya? Gaddafi, he writes, became a target because he wouldn't play along with this new imperialism. He declined to be part of the new US Africa Command, seeing it rightly as an update of the old colonial strategy – divide and conquer. It was President George W. Bush who created the US Africa Command (AFRICOM) back in 2007. And AFRICOM's mission is a "unified approach" to creating stability and security in the region. It integrates African efforts "with those of other U.S. government departments and agencies, as … other international partners." Nearly 50 countries are now involved in AFRICOM, though not Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, and Ivory Coast.
What of these five countries? Sudan has just been split in two and the Ivory Coast has recently been involved in fierce fighting over a disputed election. The man who has been declared the winner of the Ivory Coast elections has close ties to Western socio-political machinery including the UN and the IMF. It is probably safe to say that if he assumes office, the Ivory Coast will soon become part of AFRICOM as well.
Perhaps Roberts most controversial point is his analysis of AFRICOM's key strategic objective, which is the defeat of the "Al-Qaeda network." Ten years after "the war on terror" began, an "omnipotent al-Qaeda now ranges across Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia in Africa, across the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UK and is such a threat within the United States itself as to require a $56 billion ‘Homeland Security' annual budget. He then calls the al-Qaeda threat, "a hoax as likely as not," and points out that it has become "Washington's best excuse for intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries and for subverting American civil liberties."
Washington is not deterred by the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and continues to exhibit the ambition of empire. It can pursue this goal because the US mainstream media in particular is not doing its job. American citizens are not informed of the truth about their country's military disasters, nor the scope of the empire with over 700 military bases around the world (and probably more if you count CIA and FBI outposts).
For Roberts such a sprawling empire is insupportable. The US is broke, basically bankrupt, and its internal composition is changing as it doesn't have the necessary civil infrastructure to sustain its borders. Whole swathes of the Southwest are being repopulated by Hispanic ethnicities and soon parts of the US may fall back into the hands of Mexico. Demographically if not militarily, it is "game over" for these regions, he writes.
All this is a startling blunt analysis by Roberts, a former high-ranking official of the Reagan administration, though some of it is not quite accurate from my point of view. I have already pointed out for instance that the current Middle Eastern wars and regime changes are partially aimed at sustaining the convertibility of the dollar for oil. But in the longer term there seems no doubt that the Anglo-American monetary elite wants to evolve from a dollar system into a larger and more formal world currency.
Roberts' statement about Washington being caught off-guard by regime change in Tunisia and Egypt doesn't ring quite true to me either. We've covered both of these "color revolutions" and pointed out significant Anglosphere elite involvement starting with the support of the American-sponsored youth organization AYM which trained many of the young protestors (along with the CIA apparently) in tactics of peaceful insurgency that sparked the mass protest that proved so effective.
Of course, if one grants Washington's involvement in Tunisia and Egypt, then Roberts' argument becomes even stronger. It is, in fact, the final piece of the "one world" puzzle. The pattern seems to me unmistakable and even irrefutable. There is in the world today a one-world political order led by the UN, an emergent court system located in the Hague, regional political and currency regions that should serve as stepping-stones to a single political and economic union, worldwide and, finally, a series of actions in the Middle East and Africa intended to replace uncooperative regimes with ones receptive to globalization.
Again, if you put the Middle Eastern military actions into this context, they fit right into the Anglosphere's program for building a New World Order. Every part of the globe is being prepared for a fuller initiation of this powerful, all encompassing sociopolitical, economic and military structure. To continue to proclaim as most in the Western mainstream media do regularly that such talk constitutes "conspiracy theory" is increasingly a hard argument to sustain.
This is the gift then that Roberts has given us, a way of fitting current military actions into the larger trend of emergent global government. Regardless of any rhetoric to the contrary, what is evolving is so evident and obvious that further arguing about it should be considered a waste of breath.
Certainly, these conflicts are not just about oil – or even the sustaining of the dollar reserve and its oil convertibility (though that's part of it as I have previously pointed out). But in the larger sense, Washington's serial wars – especially the one in Afghanistan – are surely wars of CONQUEST, designed to remove the final tribal impediments to world government. If the war goes badly (as in Afghanistan) the fall back is to build a series of isolated fortresses and settle in for an indefinite occupation. But the militarization proceeds apace and is neither coincidental nor random.
I thank Paul Craig Roberts for giving me the additional insights necessary to arrive at such conclusions. Those stopping by to glance at this article may yet deny them or believe they are simply paranoid remarks of someone opposed to the greater centralization of world government. But it is my view the current expansion now taking place inevitably implies a loss of freedom and individual initiative – and a more totalitarian environment as well. Big government is necessarily more inflexible, insistent and generally imperious than small government.
If one wishes to live in the real world in all its complexities and hidden agendas, then such trends need to be confronted and analyzed. If we do not see the world as it is, then we cannot take necessary action to deal with inevitable consequences. The ancient Greeks had a wonderful saying: "Know thyself." In this complex time one should try to "know" the world as as it is actually becoming.
The ambitions of the Anglo-American elite are truly mad in my view; and their plans likely are neither feasible nor practical even perhaps in the short term. But they are apparently bound to carry them forward and this means there will surely be a sustained period of confusion and even chaos, not just in certain far-flung areas of the world but throughout the West too. These events will affect people's personal wealth as well as the safety of their families. It is important to see the world for what it is. Paul Craig Roberts does, and he is right to do so.