Though I never thought I’d side with a former IMF economist, I must admit that most of what Simon Johnson says is in agreement with my core beliefs. Of course, I agree with most of what Barack Obabma says – it’s what he does that sickens me. I’ve added the Peterson Commission’s IIE web site to our blogroll links, if only to offer their (counter) point of view as a preview of things to come.

The crux of the matter is this: we are at a point where Social Security and Medicaire are unsustainable under the present Keynesian, monetarist paradigm.

Yes, if we could get China, Russia, India and the United States to abandon that paradigm, then these programs could survive. Good luck with that. Of these four powers, the United States would likely be the last on earth to abandon the current derivative-infected archetype. Let’s face it — our central bank controls the issuance of the world’s reserve currency, and that unique distinction has afforded the U.S. a distinct advantage ever since. We presume most readers understand this to be a forgone conclusion.

This is why our proposed strategy of sovereign micro-economies does not fully abandon the paradigm of monetarism, but rather leverages it to the advantage of the working class through representative State government and sovereign State banking. Our strategy represents a firewall between the people and the global elites, which, if it spread upward and outward (by example) could block their power grab.

And yet, sadly, the successful example of North Dakota has not spread to other States. They are crumbling under their budget deficits and spiraling revenue losses, as their governors go, bowl in hand, to Obama, like so many Oliver’s begging porridge. That said, with the smaller victory appearing beyond the scope of the people today, the prospect of any larger appeal to a system of sovereign, independent, self-sufficient credit economies throughout the world seems abysmal.

I find this amazing, considering that the Declaration of Independence was the foundation of our country, and we presume most Americans are familiar with the document and hold to that belief. Yet that independence is not only now understood to be relinquished, but our so-called progressive, intellectual elites have freely and openly mocked the regaining of it as a threat to their agenda for so long now, that we simply stand by, slack-jawed and oblivious, to the building of their corporatist oligarchy, through their declaration of interdependence.

(T)his present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for long.  Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all our hopes and efforts to erect an enduring structure of global interdependence.
–David Rockefellar, U.N. Business council speech, 1994

So the quandry here is one of compromise. Is the Peterson Commission truly a “wolf of global elitism in fiscal responsibility clothing” representing neofeudalism? Or do they represent the reality of a certain degree of austerity which one must accept under what appears to be a politically irreversible paradigm? And finally, since Obama’s arguably unconstitutional “fiscal commission” is modeled after the Peterson report, there are certainly those who would consider both the Obama Commission and the Peterson Commission to be peas of the same pod.

It is with certainty that the IIE Conference on Climate Change is a North American Union, Cap and Trade, globalist power grab, right in keeping with the Rothschild – Rockefellar axis of a global banker’s regime. And it is interesting to note that Imperial traps often take the form of a perveted version of their enemy’s own strategy, disguised to serve the enemy’s purpose, but in fact distorted to serve the Empire. To replace the dying global monetarist archetype with a credit archetype based on the Empire’s control of carbon emission credits could be such a strategy.

Perhaps the IIE and the Peterson Commission, through Barack Obama and his fiscal commission, are the populist avenue to that ”supranatural sovereignty of intellectual elites and world bankers” that the American culture could mistakenly embrace.

Or, we could embrace the spirit of our Constitution, as embodied in our proposed Sovereign State Solution. Ultimately, if the growing tea party movement is any indication, the people will decide – our purpose is merely to help them see the truth, so that decision is not based on a Trojan horse of lies.

You Should Also Check Out This Post:

More Active Posts: