Spiritual Economics

We’re All Gingerbread Men Riding on the Nose of the Global Government

  

Remember the folk tale of the Gingerbread Man? Everybody was trying to eat him: the woman who baked him, the pig, the cow, and the horse. He challenged them all: “Run, Run, as fast as you can, you can’t catch me, I’m the Gingerbread Man.” But when the Gingerbread Man came to a stream he thought that all was lost. Surely he would be eaten now. How could he cross the stream, he wondered. The sly fox who was nearby offered the solution: “just jump on my back and I will carry you safely across the water.” Not completely trusting the fox, but having no other choice, he accepted the offer. In the middle of the stream the fox told him that he was too heavy on his back that he had to move forward to his shoulders. Gingerbread man did as he was told. Then the fox said, still the weight was too great on his shoulders and they would sink if he stayed there, better that the Gingerbread man should ride on his long nose. Submissively the Gingerbread man again did as he was told. Just as the fox reached the other side and it appeared safety was in reach, the fox flipped up his nose tossing the Gingerbread man into the air, then catching him in his mouth and devouring him.

In an effort to escape all of the evils that have been chasing the world economy we are now hitching a ride with the fox. He promises to help us, and that everything will turn out just fine if we ride on his nose. And so far, it appears that that might be the case. We like to hope so, although things are still far from certain. However, if we look closely at what is going on, this life boat that we are all on seems to be headed for a different destination than we signed on for. This is becoming more obvious with every passing month. Have we jumped out of the economic frying pan only to land in the One World Government fire?

In case you haven’t been looking, over the past several years there have been a number of significant steps made toward establishing a defacto global government—all in the name of saving us from economic crises. Rest assured that it will not look like a government in terms of what you commonly think of in that sense. It is not an overt government that everyone can see, talk about and participate in. It is instead a covert government that controls the finances of the world, and that means that they control the entire world, and many things that will affect you directly, without your knowledge, consent, or recourse. The recent events moving us toward a global government include:

• Establishing of a global central bank and world currency
• Replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve currency
• The move to bring the U.S. into line with other countries as an equal player
• Economic regulation at the global level via the Financial Services Board

The steps toward global governance have been in the planning stages for decades and they are beginning to take final shape in the aftermath of recent events. This is not a conspiracy of any sort. All of the steps leading to this conclusion are openly discussed by the leaders of the world. You can read their documents and see their videos. In order to see the plan though, you have to look for it and you have to connect the dots, because the main stream media is not going to do that for you. Some of the alternative reporters are however. One of my favorite financial writers, Joan Veon, has been pointing out for more than fifteen years that there is something very wrong with the big picture. In a recent piece[1] she cites the 1994 United Nations Development Report, containing a Special Contribution by Nobel Prize-winner Jan Tinbergen, who laid out the steps we see being enacted now. Entitled “Global Governance for the 21st Century,” Tinbergen wrote:

Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system. In some cases, this would mean changing the role of UN agencies from advice-giving to implementation. But some of the most important new institutions would be financial—a World Treasury and a World Central Bank. Just as each nation has a system of income redistribution, so there should be a corresponding ‘World Financial Policy’ to be implemented by the World Bank and the World Central Bank.

World Bank and Global Currency

Veon explains that the UN Development Report called for changes to be made at the international level of government in order to establish the necessary powers. These included a World Central Bank whose five functions would include:

(1) Stabilizing global economic activity

(2) Acting as lender of last resort to financial institutions

(3) Calming jittery financial markets

(4) Regulating financial institutions and

(5) Creating and regulate new international liquidity.

Interesting, isn’t it, that these are exactly what we are hearing from all sides about why we need changes in the economic structure. The 1994 UN report also stated, “It will probably take some time and probably some international financial crisis before a full-scale World Central Bank can be created.”

There it is plain as day—the plan: a world central bank and a world government called for in a UN Report, even telling us that a financial crisis will help to bring about the result. Well, is that the same international financial crisis that we had starting last year? I do believe it is. Uncanny, isn’t it? Not at all. The planning has taken place over decades and many events orchestrated to create the conditions that this report calls for, and the plan is being executed before our eyes. Problem is that few are looking. Yoo-hoo, check it out! Is this where you want to go? Or is the fox taking us to his deep, dark woods?

(I will explain in detail in future posts how this entire economic debacle was deliberately created to establish these conditions. See my “Economic Chernobyl of 2008”). 

Dancing to this tune the world’s leaders have been calling for reform of the international monetary system, particularly China and Russia. Perhaps because the Chinese hold vast reserves of U.S. dollars and don’t want to see their wealth vanish before their eyes. Or perhaps because they are playing their part. Back in March of this year, and again last month, Zhou Xiaochuan, the governor of the central bank of China asked for monetary restructuring. He wrote in March: “The desirable goal of reforming the international monetary system, therefore, is to create an international reserve currency that is disconnected from individual nations and is able to remain stable in the long run, thus removing the inherent deficiencies caused by using credit-based national currencies.” And, “The costs of a dollar-dominated system to the world may have exceeded its benefits. The dollar should be replaced by a new global reserve currency.”[2] In this document Xiaochuan suggested the Special Drawing Rights the little known currency issued by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as the best tool for the job.

Their calls are being heeded. While the G20 Meeting was in session last September Jim Rickards, director of market intelligence for scientific consulting firm Omnis, in a CNBC interview said that “the IMF is being anointed as the global central bank,” and opined that this was in fact the unannounced purpose of the G20 Summit in Pittsburgh on September 24. Rickards further said that the plan is for the IMF to issue a global reserve currency that can replace the dollar.[3]  That new, fiat, global reserve currency has the catchy name of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs). Veon was onto this scheme more than five years ago although the banking officials that she interviewed denied any knowledge of it.

Financial writer for the London Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, wrote that a single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order. The articles subtitle says it all: “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” What happened was the G20 “agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.” That’s bankerspeak. Evans-Pritchard explains it so that all of us can understand it: “In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money. . . In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”

Trashing the Dollar

The call to replace the dollar as the world’s reserve currency has come from heads of central banks and heads of state for the past two years. It will happen, but the reasons first have to be established. The best reason is the decline and instability of the dollar, which is in fact being engineered by those in charge of it. It must be “managed to a lower value.” In his interview Rickards pointed to an op-ed piece by Fed governor Kevin Warsh, published in The Wall Street Journal on the same day the G20 met. Rickards interpreted Warsh as saying: “We sort of have to trash the dollar, but we’re going to do it gradually. . . Warsh is trying to preempt an unstable decline in the dollar. What they want, of course, is a stable, steady decline.” If you go looking for it, you can easily find that there is a war on the dollar. Just a few weeks ago financial speculator Martin Weiss wrote such an article asking “Our readers are deeply concerned about the dollar’s current decline … how that decline could slash their wealth … and how it could impact their quality of life. They wonder when and how they will be able to save for their future, for their children and grandchildren. They ask: Can the United States survive the decline of its currency? Could the dollar’s decline mark the end of our nation’s greatness as a world power?” As super-investor Jim Rogers agrees that this is indeed what is going on: “It’s the … official policy of the central bank and the United States to … debase the currency.” Debasing the currency means that it’s value will decrease. Your money will not buy what it formerly did. This is a very subtle way of stealing your wealth.

The Game Plan Reveals Everything

If you understand that it is the plan to create a global government, you will observe world leaders calling for, or justifying the implementation changes that lead us inexorably in that direction. For example, England’s Gordon Brown recently offered justification for global coordination saying that “the cause of the problem is that banks have been insufficiently regulated at a global level, and we have got to set the standards for that for the future.”[4] The fact is that it was not necessary in the past, and is not necessary now, to have global regulation if the markets were reined in nationally. The fact is that the situation has been allowed to develop so that the excuse exists to make these changes globally.

In what is described as a “shocking attack,” very uncharacteristic for a head of state, Germany’s Angela Merkel castigated the central banks saying that they may end up doing more harm than good. She told a conference in Berlin: “What other central banks have been doing must stop now. I am very sceptical about the extent of the Fed’s actions and the way the Bank of England has carved its own little line in Europe.”[5] Why is a head of state attacking “the system?” Because if you want to change it you must have a reason.

Again, if we know the game plan this is not shocking behavior at all. What Brown and Merkel are doing is offering justification for a greater global authority. This idea is also decades in the planning. Also in 1994, The Bretton Woods Commission was convened by Paul Volcker, the former chairman of  the Federal Reserve Bank. Meeting with the Chairman and Director of the World Bank, James D. Wolfensohn, they issued a report that reinforced the 1994 UN Human Development Report and called for “greater economic convergence among countries.”

Equal Players

In order to bring about a global government the role of the United States has to be reduced so that the U.S. is just another player. President Obama has recently acquiesced to this idea leading his once great country into the ranks of the ordinary. What “leadership”, eh? In an address to the 64th session of the General Assembly at United Nations headquarters, Obama said “Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world’s problems alone. . . Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges. . . The time has come for the world to move in a new direction.” Obama is giving up the lead, offering to be a team player, instead of being the supreme power that the United States has been in the past, continuing “No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. . . The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and that treaties will be enforced.” And for this he’s considered a great orator? We’d better pay closer attention to what he says instead of how he says it.

The former Japanese prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, played his role well during a 2009 meeting with Obama by telling the press that he wants to shift Japan’s diplomatic stance from one that is less centered on Washington’s lead. In former years that would have been considered a strong and direct insult, given that he was with the President of the United States at the time! Why didn’t Obama take it like that? Because it’s all part of the script.

President Obama also recently said that he is determined to go after the “reckless risk-taking” that pushed the global economy into the worst financial crisis since the 1930s (if he is, then he should arrest his own economic team), and he is also pushing for countries to promote more balanced growth going forward. He is pushing a plan that would require the United States and other countries to make sweeping changes in how they manage their deficits. Here Obama is talking about international regulation. His initiative would require chronic trade-deficit nations like the United States to boost their savings rates to consume fewer imports, and for trade-surplus countries like China to get their consumers to spend more and rely less on export-led growth.[6] Tell me please, how is Obama going to control your saving and consumption? By making sure that you don’t have enough money to go hog wild as you have been in the past. When money is flowing people think about enjoying now and paying later. But when times are tough people scrimp and save, not knowing what tomorrow will bring. Is that where you want your President to lead you?

Financial Stability Board

It appears at this stage that the ‘World Financial Policy,’ called for by Tinbergen is going to be managed through a sort of group consensus coordinated by the Financial Stability Board (FSB), and everybody’s on board. The G20 leaders gave the FSB (formerly the Financial Stability Forum) a prominent role in taking forward the agenda of promoting financial stability. Their own document provides the methods that will be used (emphasis added):

Through the collective actions of its members, the FSB facilitates consistency in the development and implementation of regulatory, supervisory and other financial sector policies as well as cooperation in identifying and addressing vulnerabilities. The international community is committed to maintaining an open and integrated financial system. Therefore, consistency and cooperation are essential for the success of the reform agenda and the preservation of a level playing field across national financial systems.

So when Obama says that the United States is not going to solve the world’s problems alone he wasn’t kidding. Instead the U.S. will be just another voice in the crowd of the G20 nations, plus assorted additional members, all of whom are going to be participating in what will be a global planned economy. This is what the Soviets were doing, although they didn’t have a global reach. Guess what? The Communists have triumphed! They have conquered the world!!! (and without firing a shot). Oh, it is not called communism, but if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, shouldn’t we call it a duck? And what is going on certainly squawks like communism—Soviet style.

We just cited above how Obama will cooperate with international needs. But “cooperation” with the FSB is not going to be voluntary. It is going to be mandated through “commitments” and “obligations to promote a sound, globally integrated financial system.” Globally integrated means that everybody marches to the same tune. It’s a planned economy, centrally managed, but for whose benefit? We don’t know for sure, but based on the earlier “global economy” we can guess that its not for the benefit of the common man anywhere. Again, from the FSB’s document:

With financial markets and institutions being global, efforts to promote financial stability must also be global. There are many official institutions and bodies that have some degree of responsibility for financial stability. These are largely organised along national and functional lines. The FSB brings them together to promote consistency in the development and implementation of policies across jurisdictions and sectors. . . Work is underway to expand the regulatory perimeter to ensure that all systemically relevant institutions, entities and products are subject to appropriate oversight. . . More effective arrangements are also being put in place for international coordination and cooperation in the oversight of large cross-border financial institutions.

The language of the document tells us that we are going to have global regulation by a central body. Their rhetoric makes this sound all well and good, and nobody will argue with the stated goals of financial stability. However, exactly how those goals will be accomplished, and for whose benefit, is the real issue. If somebody is going to regulate me don’t I want to know that it’s for my interest?

What’s Wrong With a World Government?

Now a world government may not be necessarily a bad thing. After all, there have been global governments in the past. The Vedic literature tells us of wonderful, global civilizations ruled by a single king. Ramachandra was one. King Yudhistira was another. Bharata Maharaja, after whom the entire world, and present day India are named, is yet another. You can read this wonderful history in the Puranas. These were benevolent dictators who followed the laws of dharma and ruled the world as a representative of God for the benefit of all citizens. And without exception they were loved by all the people.

If our present day leaders were such benevolent types who would object to their governing the entire globe? Unfortunately our memorable history doesn’t show us that, but in fact quite the opposite. Instead of being benevolent they are despotic. Instead of being concerned for the welfare of everyone they are concerned only with the welfare of a very small minority at the expense of the vast majority. Their activities are cloaked in stealth, secrecy, lies, obfuscation, manipulation, coercion, collusion, torture and death at almost every level. In every country they abuse the trust that is placed in them, making themselves objects of scorn and derision by the people they rule.

If they want a world government why don’t they just openly campaign for one? Because the people don’t want it and they know it. The people know that it does not serve their own interests, just as the global economy didn’t serve their interests. Therefore they plot and plan how to create such miserable conditions that the people, in extreme distress, will accept whatever plan is put before them. David Icke calls their modus operandi “problem, reaction, solution.” Create a problem that will cause the people to react in such a way as to call for the solution that the elite want to establish. It is the oldest trick in the book. The Reichstag fire, the sinking of the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, and 911—all of them staged events to draw support from the people. Add the economic crisis of 2008-? to the list, which is leading us to a global government that is not a democracy by any stretch of the imagination. Instead it will be fascist despotism.

We are all Gingerbread men now riding on the nose of the sly fox. They tell us that we will soon be safe. Don’t believe them.

---

[1] Joan Veon, Planning The Steps To World Government

[2] http://www.cfr.org/publication/18916/

[3] Ellen Brown, The IMF to Play Role of Global Central Bank?

[4] “Bank of England Governor breaks ranks over Labour policy on financial regulation”

by Sean O'Grady, Economics Editor Thursday, 22 October 2009

[5] Merkel Lashes Out at Central Banks, Sean O’Grady, Business Week, June 3, 2009,

[6] AP – President Barack Obama speaks about the economy, Monday, Sept. 21,2009, at Hudson Valley Community College …