…And Now For a Global Bank and a Global Currency

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 18, 2010

Since I was a child I hear about the possibility of one world currency.  Back then no one around me knew how to explain how thatwould come about or who would control it.  The answer to those questions are now clear.  Dominic Strauss-Kahn answered my childhood questions.  A Global Currency managed by a Global Central Bank.  The IMF chief said so in Zürich, Switzerland, during a meeting in which he confirmed his view that this crisis “is an opportunity”.

According to Kahn, the Global Central Bank and Currency would be a thing of last resort, in cases when the global economy is in shambles.  He said the new currency would be a “risk-free asset for the system independent of national currencies,” and that a “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort”.  How smart of Mr. Kahn.  The problem is that this ideas aren’t new and aren’t his.  The push for a global financial body has been in the works for decades.

The idea of a global body that controls the issuance of currency and all financial policy was created before the United Nations, the League of Nations and the European Union were born.  This principle of concentrating power and policy originally intended to amass control with the excuse it would avoid economic corruption and disaster.  However it doesn’t take too long to find out it is exactly the opposite.  Just as the creation of the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union did not end war, neither will a centralized supranational organization end economic unrest.  In fact, it will perpetuate it.

Let’s take a look at past events.  Since the United Nations was born, we experienced conflicts in every continent.  Those conflicts were not the works of countries against countries, but the destabilization came in the form of rogue groups sponsored by governments or their intelligence agencies.  Mossad, MI6, CIA, Taliban and the IRA are just a few examples.  Country-sponsored wars are a thing of the past, and in their letters of intent, the countries that pushed for the creation of the League of Nations and the U.N. knew they would not need such a tool because they also controlled terrorist organizations that would do the work for them.

In the world of economics and finances, the empires, or the countries that aspire to become empires also have their tools to carry out economic and financial terrorism.  The Corporations that initially were outside governments hired financial institutions to carry out their fraudulent activities.  Then, the Corporations became government and it got even easier to carry out financial terrorism.  Multinational Banking Corporations established a new order controlled by themselves, ended oversight and created policies that effectively turned them into the masters of the world’s economy.

So, the bankers did not need Al-Qaeda, MI6, Mossad or the CIA to bring the world to its knees.  That goal could be achieved from and through Wall Street, the IMF and Bank of International Settlements.  The creation of regional blocks to promote commerce and exchange was an excuse to consolidate power and resources.  This idea would later be tested at a global level by promoting the creation of a global financial entity which will control the issuance of money and the terms under which that money is lent.

What were the results of the concentration of financial and economic policy in Europe?  We are seeing them right now.  Iceland, Greece and now Spain, Portugal and England are in shambles.  Why?  Because financial homogenization is not meant to provide stable economies and sound policies, but to tighten controls and carry out policies that will allow the bankers even more.  The goal of the bankers has never been to have a stable economy with sound monetary policy, because in that kind of world they have less control and the wealth is not concentrated in their hands.

Let’s look at another example history provides us:  The creation and adoption of globalist policies like the free trade agreements.  NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT to mention a few, were the troops on the ground for the bankers.  The end of the industrial world, the end of Capitalism -as it successfully worked for some time-, gave way to open borders for cheap, toxic products to flow and illegal aliens to migrate.  Not only did the free-trade agreements ended industry, but also annihilated the social safety net in the nations of the western world.  While cities’ and towns’ monies were robbed and divested to imaginary financial products, illegal aliens sucked dry the already battered social services in every nation of the Americas and Europe.

Nowadays, the most influential politicians and pop culture stars plead for the nations to disrespect their constitutions and laws by allowing not only free-trade agreements, but the continuous flow of illegals through every possible place at the borders.  Enforcing immigration and constitutional laws is seen as racist and those proposing legal immigration are labeled as unjust, inhumane and simply lunatics.  This is exactly the result the banking globalists hoped for.  Dividing and conquering has never looked better.  Sound immigration policies are sure radical in a world where everyone unconsciously believes open borders are the normal thing and cheap slave-made goods are the best bang for their buck.

Now that we have taken a look back, let’s take a look forward.  What would a world with more concentrated power and control in the hands of the makers of the current crisis look like?  Let’s be optimistic and say it could not look better, it will not look better.  The centralization of power and governance at regional levels is what caused the mess we are in right now, so further centralization in the hands of those who financed Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam and who now control and finance the shadow governments of the United States, Great Britain, Asia and Africa, will spin the world even more out of control.  For their benefit, of course.  History doesn’t lie, does it?

Those who promised the end of wars, only brought more of it, and those who promised financial stability only created more inequality, poverty and misery.  Would you trust your house keys to the thief who stands outside your property to take care of it?  You wouldn’t.  You shouldn’t.  In the next election, wherever you live, vote yourself in and vote the crooks out.  That is the only way to defeat their agenda of conquest and slavery.  Many people are already actively working to end the global tyranny they created decades ago, so you are not alone.

Now, enough talk!  Let’s act!  Next, there is a list of some of the corporations in fraudulently in charge of the world today.  I am hoping you can deny them the privilege of running your life.  Stop using, buying or in any way consuming their products.  Let’s use their globalism against them.  A global boycott of their cheap, toxic and fraudulent products will be the first step.

Disney                              Adidas                         Time Warner                  IBM

Merck                              Napa                              Holiday Inn                    ACE

Old Navy                        Ford                              Seven Eleven                  USPS

Comcast                         Chevrolet                    Citgo                                  VISA

CNN                                 Dyncorp                       Pepsi                                  Chevron

Coca Cola                      True Value                   Kraft                                  Chrysler

Exxon Mobile             General Electric         Starbucks                        Westinghouse

Taco Bell                       Wells Fargo                  America Online             KFC

NBC Universal            American Airlines    Royal Dutch Shell         Bank of America

CBS                                  The Carlyle Group    GAP                                     Master Card

Master Card                Stop&Shop                   HBO                                     ABC

Nike                               Wal Mart                       Jiffy Lube                          JP Morgan

GM                                 Volkswagen                 Fox News Channel        Monsanto

Du Pont                        NASA                             Pizza Hut                           Syngenta

Microsoft                    Mc Donald’s                 Home Depot                    Safe Way

Burger King               Sony                                Dodge                                Intel

Staples                         Verizon                          Toro                                  John Deere

Firestone                    Bechtel                           MSNBC                             Goodyear

Amoco                        AT&T                               Mitsubishi                       Nestle

Feel free to suggest names of more corporations through the comment section.  Also, respond to our poll regarding corporate control of government below.

Cybersecurity: The Takeover of the Internet

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 1, 2010

In the United States, a recent version of a bill was passed by the House Of Representatives, which will give the Federal cybersecurityCommunications Commission (FCC) complete dominion over the web. The bill includes the creation of a new sector of internet security which will include the training, research and coordination of cyberspace. It allows the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to create a program to recruit children from Kindergarten up to 12 years old to teach them how to carry out internet surveillance, as part of the new Cyber Army. The scholarship program that will fund the training will teach the students how to create and identity management systems used to control access to the web, computer networks, and data. It will also create a series of standards which all service providers will have to meet in order to remain active. Internet users will have to put up with endless requirements, which include the use of government issued software. Bye, bye Linux!

In section 12, subsection 4, the document reads: “We shall provide a procedure to identify K-12 students to participate in summer work and internship programs that will lead to the certification of a federal information technology workforce standards…” In other words, anyone who intends to work anywhere close to the internet, will need to be certified by the federal government, and the federal government will assure itself it will have the “humans resources” to carry this plan out by recruiting children as young as 5 years of age.

Besides the programs described above, the bill also talks about the creation of new protocols that will provide enhanced security. All software made available will have to first be reviewed by the government and then pre-aproved. Again, bye bye open source! Coincidentally, Google has announced the creation of their own version of the internet; which many worried citizens recognize as a beta test for the coming internet 2.0. Among some of the suggested practices that would be adopted under this internet 2.0, is the use of biometric identification in order to access the web. This would allow the government and its technology partners -AKA Microsoft, Google, AT&T, Verizon and others- to further monitor anyone who uses the web, since such identification would narrow down the work to a single individual operating from a specific computer at a specific location. This type of practices have been put in place by technology manufacturers in computers, external hard drives and other devices, which were biometrically enabled. Recently, Microsoft unveiled the latest version of their Xbox game console which features a 5 megapixel camera that activates on movement and recognizes specific body movements.

Section 7, which talks about licensing and certification of cybersecurity professionals reads: “Beginning three years after the enactment of this act, it shall be unlawful for any individual to engage in business in the United States or to be employed in the United States as a provider of cybersecurity services to any federal agency or information system or network … who is not licensed and certified by the program.” Reading further into the bill, it is clear the mentioned networks include not only the all public ones, but also all private ones.

The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative will give the President emergency powers -to be added to the ones he got under the Patriot Act- that include contingencies to limit the publication of content, access to the internet and shut down of the web. Some presidential aides as well as technology professional who support the bill tried to dampen critics concerns alleging the president already has vast powers to regulate the Internet during emergencies. No one would think the government’s intent is to take advantage of a bill like this in order to limit or end access to the net, if it was not for the crystal clear statements that government officials have put out with respect to net neutrality, internet 2.0, access to the web and so on. One of the best examples we can use to illustrate what the military industrial complex is planning to do is the most recent statements by Barack Hussein Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein. He said websites should be mandated remove “rumors” and “hateful” or “absurd” statements, usually contained in “right wing” websites. “In the era of the Internet, it has become easy to spread false or misleading rumors about almost anyone,” Sunstein writes. “Some right-wing websites like to make absurd and hateful remarks about the alleged relationship between Barack Obama and the former radical Bill Ayers; one of the websites’ goals was undoubtedly to attract more viewers. “On the Internet as well as on talk radio, altruistic propagators are easy to find; they play an especially large role in the political domain. When Sean Hannity, the television talk show host, attacked Barack Obama because of his alleged associations, one of his goals might have been to promote values and causes that he cherishes.”

The kind of policies bills like the passed in the U.S. House of Representatives wants to implement, are also being proposed and adopted elsewhere in the world. In Australia, senators are rocking their newly acquired powers, by telling the citizens what is legal and what is illegal to say or publish on the web. One of the many people advancing censorship in the land down under is Senator Steve Fielding, who is a member of the party called Family First. He wants all X-rated content banned for everyone, including adults. Mr. Fielding is open to wide censorship on the internet.

Meanwhile in Indonesia, the local government is following on the steps of the United States and Australia. “There are myriad violations by Internet users in Indonesia. We don’t have any intention to move backward… but we don’t want people to think that the government ignores matters like pornography on the Internet.” Recent laws passed in Indonesia were adopted despite firm opposition and widespread protests. The bill was supported by conservative Muslim groups such as the Prosperous Justice Party (PKS), which traces its origins back to Egypt’s outlawed Muslim Brotherhood.

Governments and organizations that support internet censorship and push for cybersecurity acts usually cite pornography, rumors, hate speech and conspiracy theories as the reasons to intervene with what is written and read online. In reality, however, such plans are efforts to minimize or eliminate dissent, much like some governments like Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Cuba close newspapers and television stations that challenged the “official position”.

In the United Kingdom, a bill labeled as The Digital Economy Bill includes a new code to limit Internet access. Local reports warn that the government may bypass the regular consultation process to bring it into force. The bill in the UK contains two clauses, 10 and 11, which are particularly worrisome. They would enable Ofcom to move forward with technical measures as soon as the Initial Obligations code has been introduced. This is seen as a government plan to jump the gun, and ahead to limit the Internet without following the appropriate steps. According to the site IPINTEGRITY.com, the rules included in the bill mirror the language of ‘limitations’ contained in the Universal Services directive in the E.U. Telecoms Package.

What other goals do these kind of internet bills will try to achieve?

Back in the United States, section 5 of the Cybersecurity bill states: “The transfer of cybersecurity standards, processes, technology and techniques, will be developed by NIST.” Both NIST and the FCC, have praised Google’s initiative to build a high speed version of the internet. At the same time, the FCC is in the process of submitting a National Broadband Plan which will effectively limit the amount of time and areas a user can access. In addition, internet users would be charge by the use of bandwidth, the amount of downloads and so on. Among the plans to be implemented with the new cybersecurity bill is the “harmonization” of the web. This means, people will eventually have to use software approved by federal agencies in order to access the world wide web.

Section 6, which details the new standards NIST will put in place, indicates that those who do not comply with federal regulations will be barred from using the internet. Subsection 2.2, again touches on the FCC’s prerogative to decide what are safe standards and to allow access to the web only to those Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and other companies that meet those standards. In other words, companies that provide internet services and the users themselves will have to operate under the federal governments boundaries or simply forget about what up until now has been a freely accessed medium. This type of policies match Cass Sunstein’s views regarding the use of the web. He says: “freedom usually works, but in some contexts, it is an incomplete corrective.” He proposes a “chilling effect” on “damaging rumors” or using “corrective” measures to deter future rumor mongers. WND reported about Sunstein’s “First Amendment New Deal” also known as a new “Fairness Doctrine” that includes the creation of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to force “diversity of view” on the airwaves. The regulatory Czar’s radical proposal is contained in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution.

Section 8, which talks about Domain Name Contracts, gives an advisory panel created by the act veto power on decisions made by the assistant secretary of commerce for Communications and Information with respect to renewal or modification of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority for the operation of Domain Name System. This seems to echo what was stated by the two representatives who presented the cybersecurity bill. “We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs—from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records,” Jay Rockefeller said. Olympia Snowe agreed with her colleague: “if we fail to take swift action, we, regrettably, risk a cyber-Katrina.” The governments that approve bills like the ones in the U.S., and initiatives like the ones in Indonesia, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and other countries, will certainly follow on the steps China has left behind. There, “companies like Cisco Systems, Nortel Networks, Microsoft, Sun Microsystems and Websense – stand accused of aiding and abetting human rights violations,” states the website campaignforliberty.com. The group Amnesty International documented violations committed by Chinese authorities which have introduced regulations, closed LAN houses, spied on and blocked e-mails, taken down search engines as well as foreign news and politically-sensitive websites. More recently, a new filtering system was put to work, with the intention of banning a list of key words and terms”. Such control, it seems, can be implemented either through a central organization that will oversee all internet providers and users, or through regional and local management posts, which the American bill states, will be established through the monetary support of non-profit organizations which will serve as branches for the centralized cybersecurity center.

Groups concerned with the far reaching powers the bill appropriates to the president -whomever he or she happens to be- as well as federal agencies are already mobilizing to show their opposition. GoPetition.com, is a place where people can sign a petition to reject S773. The site correctly states that if the bill passes, “Barack Obama can silence his dissenters directly by ordering a shutdown of all Americans’ access to the Internet. The Internet is a free marketplace of ideas and information and not a federal government property.” Another site called thepetitionsite.com also prompts people to make their voice heard by signing their petition. “If you’re on this site, then you probably know how useful the internet is for the sharing of information.” And it continues, “You also probably enjoy the many ways you can interact with others and entertain yourself. This will all come to and end if the cybersecurity Act of 2009 (s773) passes.” The website freedomfactory.us begins its opposition by citing what many internet users are familiar with: “The usual threats and scare tactics are used to justify giving Big Brother greater powers, including giving the President the power to shut down portions of the internet he deems a threat to national security, and access to vast amounts of digital data currently legally off limits.”

Shelly Roche, from breakthematrix.com pointed out a very important issue. The more dis-centralized the management and control of the web is, the harder it is to “take it down” or significantly hack it to a level where it poses a threat to users or companies. “If common practices are forced on private companies via a federal certification program, hackers will have a road map that, once deconstructed, could unlock every compliant network.”

Just like the neoconservatives used Leo Strauss’ theory to create fictitious threats in the 20th century, engaging the fundamentalist Christians at home to build support, now communist/fascist infected federal governments have created a fake cyber threat in order to push their agenda to limit access to the world wide web. Just like the neocons succeeded in creating the fake war on terror based on a false premise and alliances with terrorist groups around the world -which they themselves financed and directed- now the liberals, -also controlled by banking interests- are trying to tighten the grip on the only medium that challenges their power and control; the only medium that brought some real freedom of information to the people; the only medium that put the brakes on their plan to create a global technocracy, to consolidate their scientific dictatorship.