Think back to the 20th February this year. This was the day that former Prime Minister David Cameron announced the date for the UK’s upcoming in / out referendum on the European Union. The date chosen was June 23rd, 2016. Keep that date in mind.
What followed was three months of campaigning, carefully choreographed by the political establishment and their dedicated band of disinformationists e.g. the mainstream media. The purpose? To ensure that the majority of people remained oblivious to the true motivations for why this election was even held. Hence it quickly descended into the usual manufactured theatrics that bore no semblance to reality.
The overriding theme of ‘Divide and Rule‘ was devised from the outset: Those for remaining in the EU were seen as ‘progressive’, believed in globalism and that the UK was better off in the union so it could be ‘reformed from within’. Those for leaving were racist, extremist, anti immigration, and largely seen as the elderly trying to screw over the younger generation.
The whole basis of the ‘debate’ slotted perfectly into the false left / right paradigm that is British politics. Crucially, the leave vote was perceived as being the exclusive property of ‘the right’. Those of a Conservative bent. A falsehood that was central to the whole set up.
Come the week of the EU referendum, and whilst the British public and the world’s attention was distracted, an unknown institution called ‘The Bank For International Settlements‘ (BIS) were meeting for their 15th Annual Conference on the 24th of June in Basel, Switzerland. This was the day after the referendum on the 23rd. But as with all BIS gatherings, the attendees – in this case, the head’s of over 50 central banks from around the world – began convening before the conference start date. They were together on the night the British public went to the polls. All assembled in the one place. They were prepared.
On the eve of the election, the general consensus was that the remain vote would succeed. Very few had anticipated that the result would end up in favour of leave.
At this point, if you are not sure who the ‘Bank For International Settlements’ are, these articles are a good place to begin your research:
One Bank to Rule Them All: The Bank for International Settlements – Global Research
Meet The Secretive Group That Runs The World – Zero Hedge
Ruling The World of Money – Edward Jay Epstein
Below is an up to date list of the current members of the BIS:
To briefly summarise, the bank is known as ‘the central bank for central banks’. Established in May 1930, the original intention for it’s creation, according to this article hosted on Global Research, ‘was inextricably tied to the problem of German reparations in the context of Germany’s overall debt burden during the 1920s.’ Germany was financially crippled following the culmination of the first world war.
Today, the current chairman of the board at the BIS is a man called Jens Weidmann. This is the first time in the 84 year history of the BIS that a German has fronted the bank. Beginning the role in November 2015, Weidmann is also president of the German Deutsche Bundesbank central bank. Which is of course a member of the BIS.
In short, the BIS is where central banks meet and discuss monetary policy throughout the course of a year, by way of regimented conferences. These conferences enable the heads of central banks to co-ordinate policies with their peers, within the context of a globalised economy. Attendees can speak in the knowledge that everything they say is off the record. No minutes of what is discussed are taken.
Former Governor of the Bank of England Mervyn King, who once chaired the bank’s ‘Economic Consultative Committee‘, said a few years ago that,
‘Being able to talk informally and openly about our experiences has been immensely valuable. We are not speaking in a public forum. We can say what we really think and believe, and we can ask questions and benefit from others.’
Given that it courts no publicity and is never spoken about in the mainstream media, the BIS remains a secretive organisation. And yet they stand at the apex of world economic control.
This is where the UK referendum comes in. At the time the election was announced, the date for the bank’s 15th annual conference was already in the diary (June 24th). If David Cameron was not aware of it (a tall order), then certainly the Bank of England and the Treasury will have been. A separate date that was entirely independent of the BIS could surely have been chosen. The fact it wasn’t leads to one conclusion: that the result of the referendum was timed to coincide with the annual conference.
I referred to this sequence of events in a recent blog post, ‘Brexit’: A Globalist Entrapment?’. I believe that the timing of the election was deliberate so that the world’s central bankers could co-ordinate the inevitable fall out of a leave vote. All during their planned annual conference. A conference that was long since planned, meaning it was never likely to arouse suspicion. I believe that a leave vote was not only expected, but orchestrated to happen.
Before people went to the polls, leading figures within the world of economics – namely George Soros and Jacob Rothschild – were openly warning about the ramifications of a successful ‘Brexit’ vote. George Soros in particularly warned of damage to the UK pound and significant falls in currency markets. Being the ‘genius’ that mainstream media and money markets falsely portray him as, he profited from the leave vote, extending his fortune still further.
By using their unique method of hiding the truth in plain sight, Soros and Rothschild were forewarning people of what was to follow. This is called placing yourself within the comforting arms of ‘plausible deniability’.
In the aftermath of ‘Brexit’, figures within the world of economics came out advocating greater centralisation of the monetary system. One was Robert Kaplan, president of the Dallas Federal Bank in Texas, who said,
“We have to think globally and be aware. Is there contagion? What does Ireland do? What does Scotland do? What do other EU countries do. It will take a significant amount of time to see how all that unfolds.”
ECB President Mario Draghi also called for a more coordinated international policy by saying,
“We have to think not just about whether our domestic monetary policies are appropriate, but whether they are properly aligned across jurisdictions. In a globalized world, the global policy mix matters.”
Moving forward to the present day, our attention is now focused on the upcoming US Presidential Election on November the 8th. It is a straight ‘fight’ between Hillary Clinton, seen as the favourite, and Donald Trump, the outsider.
As with ‘Brexit’, this befits the false left / right political paradigm perfectly, using the same methods of ‘Divide and Rule’. Clinton is promoted as the ‘Social Democrat‘, a champion of women’s rights, someone who will reign in the banks of Wall Street. Trump is promoted as racist, homophobic, anti immigration, misogynistic and a crony capitalist. Most critical of all, he embodies ‘the right’ of politics. Just as ‘Brexit’ was perceived to have done in the UK.
In amongst the theatre of the election campaign, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank quietly met in Washington DC at the beginning of October. During the meeting, according to WAOW,
Officials of the Group of 20 major economic powers acknowledged a broad range of new risks ranging from Donald Trump’s vows to impose penalty tariffs to punish China and other countries he believes are pursuing unfair trading practices to extensive worries over whether Britain’s planned exit from the EU could further drag down an already weak global recovery.
“Uncertainties and risks facing the world economy have increased,” Chinese finance minister Lou Jiwei told reporters. “Geopolitical tensions are growing, terrorist attacks are frequent … all of these factors have major implications on the international economic and financial markets.”
The Naples Herald reported that,
Increasing anger over globalization dominated the annual meetings of the IMF and its sister lending agency, the World Bank.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew urged the IMF to “more boldly and forcefully” push member countries to pursue all economic policy options to spur growth.
“We must not close ourselves off to the world, but rather redouble our commitment to ensuring shared growth,” Lew said.
Carrying on the theme of ill feeling towards globalism, Times of Oman said that,
World finance leaders fretted over a rising populist backlash against trade and globalisation at the IMF and World Bank annual meetings in Washington.
The International Monetary and Financial Committee said uncertainty and downside risks to the global recovery were elevated, and that it was increasingly threatened by protectionist policies and stalled reforms.
“We reinforce our commitment to strong, sustainable, inclusive, job-rich and more balanced growth. We will use all policy tools – structural reforms, fiscal and monetary policies – both individually and collectively,” it said.
But it was IMF head Christine Lagarde who came the closest to exposing what the true agenda is of not just her organisation, but the BIS too. She said the following after the meeting with the World Bank had concluded:
“We certainly decided to come up more loudly on this occasion to say, ‘central bankers cannot be the only game in town’. Let’s get on with it and see some action on the part of the other authorities as well.”
Why is that significant? Because it gently builds up the narrative that central banks cannot be relied upon indefinitely when markets need recapitalising.
The Bank For International Settlement’s 86th annual report, released in June and reported on by Zero Hedge, built the narrative up further by saying,
Easy-money policies and unprecedented monetary stimulus have started to backfire in global financial markets.
Historically low interest rates and bond-buying programs – which have sent yields below zero on more than $8 trillion of government bonds, a record amount – are causing anomalies in asset values.
“Monetary policy is running out of room for maneuver,” said Hyun Song Shin, head of research at the BIS, in an interview. “It is not clear how much further stimulus of the real economy can be achieved using monetary-policy tools alone without inviting unwanted distortions.”
Debt has been acting as a political and social substitute for income growth for far too long.The global economy cannot afford to rely any longer on the debt-fuelled growth model that has brought it to the current juncture.
It follows what BIS chairman Jens Weidmann has said in the past. In 2014, Weidmann gave some comments to The Wall Street Journal, in which he was critical of the European Central Bank’s stimulus measures. Here are some extracts from it:
The IMF and other international institutions have called on the ECB to consider buying government bonds, but Mr. Weidmann said such a policy would be a ‘dangerous path’.
‘There is a risk of monetary policy, especially in the Euro area, being held hostage by politics’.
He repeated his fierce opposition to the idea of having the ECB purchase government bonds, a policy that has been used aggressively by central banks in the US, UK and Japan to reduce long-term interest rates.
Mr Weidmann puts the onus on governments to take steps to improve their economies and finances.
Although he opposed the asset-backed securities program, Mr. Weidmann has for months signed off on an ECB statement that officials are unanimous in their willingness to take additional unconventional stimulus measures if needed.
The ECB’s unanimous statement ‘is not meant to imply a willingness to immediately fire whatever weapon happens to be in the arsenal’.
The language on display here chimes with that of Christine Lagarde. Namely that central banks can only do so much. Countries have to help themselves to with their own fiscal policies. Consider also that the man who was reluctant for central banks to persist as being the first port of call in a crisis is now the chairman of the Bank For International Settlements.
The sentiment is beginning to turn. For the first time, key figures within the banking industry are showing open hostility to continuing with central bank intervention.
Which means that should an unexpected crisis come along that markets and investors were not anticipating, will central banks still be there to steady the ship, as they have been over the past eight years?
The irony here is that the stimulus measures of central banks since 2008 came on the pre-condition that countries tighten their spending to ‘reduce deficits’. It gave birth to the ‘age of austerity’. What we are now seeing, as a result of money created out of nothing, is stagnant growth in the economy and continuing low interest rates. Governments, particularly in Europe, have since been making noises about wanting to increase investment in their own infrastructures. Putting them into direct conflict with central banks.
The message is clear: Central banks do not want to bankroll fiscal policy. But if growth remains stagnant and countries are unable to raise sufficient funds for investment outside of central bank stimulus, what happens then? Something has to give.
With stock markets in the US and UK at near record highs, it implies to those who look only upon the surface that all is well. In reality, the system is more fragile now than at any other time. Central bank recapitalisation has only exacerbated the problem. It, along with low interest rates and the as yet un-exploded derivatives market, remain the three pillars that are preventing the markets from collapse.
Last December, Donald Trump said this about the American economy:
We could be in a big fat bubble…and if that bubble crashes it’s a problem…the word bubble, remember the word bubble, you heard it here first… I mean, I don’t want to sound rude, but I hope if it explodes it’s going to be now rather than two months into another administration… because honestly you got yourself problems.
A week ago on October the 10th, Trump brought the spectre of ‘Brexit’ into his campaign by comparing it to the US election. Wind the video forward to 12:15 for the beginning of the ‘Brexit’ part (a transcript of what he said is recorded beneath).
“Crazy deal. Mr Brexit. Mr Brexit. You remember I said Brexit’s gonna happen, ’cause I have a lot of property over there. Brexit’s gonna happen. They all laughed. They all said, ‘Donald Trump said Brexit’s going to happen. Isn’t he ridiculous? Anyway, three days later they vote, Brexit happens. This is like Brexit folks. You watch. We want our independence back. We want our borders strong. We don’t want people coming in from Syria that we have no idea who the hell they are.”
These comments are perhaps what you would expect from a candidate who falsely positions himself as anti-establishment by putting Americanism before Globalism. But it’s when you view Trump’s words in the context of the Bank For International Settlements that it takes a different twist.
I discovered a few days ago that the BIS is meeting in November for their ‘Sixth Joint BIS, World Bank, Bank of Canada Public Investors Conference‘ in Washington DC. This conference will feature the BIS, the World Bank and the Bank of Canada. It takes place over the dates of the 7th and the 8th of November. The 8th being the day of the Presidential election.
According to the Bank For International Settlements own website, this is the last BIS gathering scheduled for 2016.
The ‘Investors Conference’ occurs once every two years, and first began in November 2008 in Frankfurt, Germany, after Barack Obama had already been announced as the next US President in waiting.
In 2012, again after Obama had been confirmed for a second term, the conference took place in Washington DC on the 3rd and 4th of December.
This year is different in that the conference begins and ends before the next president will have been officially unveiled.
Here are some snippets from the BIS conference announcement ahead of the gathering next month:
Since 2008, the Bank for International Settlements and the World Bank, in corporation with partner institutions, have organized this bi-annual conference to discuss policy issues, quantitative methods and current challenges for central banks, sovereign wealth funds and public pension plans. The conference aims to promote an exchange of innovative ideas among practitioners and academia, to encourage knowledge-sharing and collaboration across organizations, and to foster the development and dissemination of best practices in public sector portfolio and risk management.
In recent years, the global financial markets have been characterized by fragile economic recoveries, accommodative monetary policies and extraordinary price movements in commodities and currencies. Looking forward, public and private investors alike are seeking investment solutions in an environment of monetary tightening in the United States, ongoing policy easing in the Eurozone and heightened investment risk in emerging markets.
The following topics will be discussed at the conference.
- Organization and governance of the investment functions
- Strategic, tactical and dynamic asset allocation
- Optimal currency allocation
- Asset and liability management
- Framework, processes and techniques for active management
- Measuring and managing market and credit risk
To reiterate, two previous gatherings of this nature took place on election year in Washington DC, at a time when the next President was already known. There was no uncertainty in that regard, a trait which markets are renowned to rebel against.
As with the UK referendum, the date for the Presidential election falls precisely as the BIS are gathered.
So the question can now be legitimately asked – why is this meeting taking place at a time when the next President has yet to be announced? A change of leader is usually seen as an event of high significance, even more so this year with the possibility of Donald Trump being chosen for the White House. Why put so many issues up for ‘discussion’ before you know for sure who you are going to be dealing with for the next four years?
In another article, ‘Plantation before the Bloom?’, I listed a series of events that occurred in September that could become a trigger point under a Trump Presidency. One of them was the JASTA (Justice Against Sponsers of Terrorism Act) bill that was passed by Congress after Barack Obama vetoed it. This has the potential of destabilising the Petro Dollar in the middle East, notably through Saudi Arabia, and ultimately the Dollar’s current status as the world’s reserve currency. The Chinese Renmindi being included into the IMF’s basket of reserve currencies immediately after the JASTA bill passed is also worth considering.
There is as well the lingering prospect of the United Status and Russia engaging in combat over the conflict in Syria. Should tensions between them be escalated further, it is inevitable that this will have an impact on currency markets.
This article began with the realisation that the ‘Bank For International Settlements’ came together just before the UK referendum leave vote was confirmed.
It concludes with what at present can be classified as a conspiracy, albeit one that is not without foundation:
I believe the timing of this BIS conference will coincide with Donald Trump being given the Presidency. I think this has been the plan for a while and that the BIS are aware of what is about to unfold. Central bank chairmen will confer on how they plan to manage the expected shock and panic that will inevitably impact on economic markets.
As for why they would manage Trump into office, the reason is in direct correlation with the UK referendum result. The plan is to engineer a collapse of the markets in such a way that those responsible – the IMF, the BIS – are not seen as the instigators. An inversion of the truth.
Trump’s victory and the subsequent downturn in markets will be pinned squarely on ‘populism’. People turning in on themselves, rejecting the outer world. Rejecting globalisation. In other words, the sentiment of conservatism will be held responsible. The rise of the ‘far right’. The fact that both ‘left’ and ‘right’ are manipulated and controlled by the same financial power structure will not matter. Social democrats and those who consider themselves of a socialist / communist disposition will perceive this as right wing fascism. As intended.
The division will be locked in. The dividing line set. ‘Right’ vs ‘Left’. The false paradigm acting as the integral disguise for what is really going on.
The visual evidence for this false paradigm can be seen in this one image alone. This is back in 2005 at Donald and Melania Trump’s wedding.
We are supposed to believe that only after 11 years did Trump become enlightened to the criminal ways of the Clinton family and, most notably, the Clinton Foundation. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump has even previously donated to their foundation.
And for all the attacks that the mainstream media line up against Trump, notice that friendly relations with the Clinton’s is not one of them. The reason is that the false paradigm must be maintained. Otherwise you lose the conflict that is necessary to advance the agenda we now see playing out. If ‘right’ vs ‘left’ breaks down, then so does the system that supports it.
Even though Trump and Clinton tread the same ground, it does still matter which one of them enters the white house. Simply because of which side of the paradigm they falsely champion. The rise of ‘populism’ has been chosen as the vehicle to engineer the upcoming crisis. And ‘populism’ is perceived as being intimate with conservatism, to which Donald Trump represents.
Trump’s election will commence the next phase of what began with ‘Brexit’. I don’t believe that the referendum was a one off event, or an anomaly that defied reason. It set the tone for what we are seeing now. ‘Brexit’ alone was not enough to advance this agenda. The follow up trigger of Trump in the White House will be.
Everything that follows November the 8th will play to the mantra of ordo ab chao – Order Out of Chaos. The long standing agenda of institutions like the Bank For International Settlements should not be forgotten here.
Chief economist of the BIS, Claudio Borio, wrote in a paper back in May about the need for central banks to explicitly coordinate policy:
The Achilles heel of the international monetary and financial system is that it amplifies the key weakness of domestic monetary and financial regimes, i.e. their inability to prevent the build-up and unwinding of hugely damaging financial imbalances. The most ambitious possibility would be to develop and implement new global rules of the game that would help instill greater discipline in national policies.
How far away is the international community from finding adequate solutions? The answer is a long way. There is no doubt that the dominance of one currency creates challenges.
The preconditions for progress are consensus on diagnosis, which would put financial imbalances at the heart of the problem, as well as a strong sense of urgency and shared responsibility internationally. At present, neither precondition is met.
The eventual aim is to push the world into full globalisation – a world currency, a world central bank, a world government and a world army. None of these things are possible during times of peace and tranquility. They are only achieved out of conflict and division. Which is guaranteed by a Trump victory.
By creating conditions that people find intolerable, and which have a detrimental impact on their lives, both physically and mentally, it becomes a psychological ploy to evoke the desired response. The solution as outlined above would, after a time, be presented. Not to the public’s benefit, but to their further enslavement into the state apparatus.
Let’s not discount Hillary Clinton entirely, however. She too represents conflict and division, just not to the same degree. And certainly not to the lengths of being able to utilise it immediately to set about a market downturn. If Clinton does become President, then the agenda towards the ultimate goal of complete centralisation of power will be more drawn out. Achieved most likely through warfare with the East. Which in itself could act as a cover story for collapsing the world economy. As it could also do under Trump.
Whilst people continue to be manipulated by the system, and kept at odds with one another through false ideologies, the universal control and oppression of the world’s populace will succeed.
The next level towards outright centralised control is about to begin. It starts with Donald Trump being declared the next President of the United States. By which time the Bank For International Settlements conference will have disbanded, with all central banks having received their instructions on how to proceed and manage the ensuing market chaos in their own countries.
Decide for yourself if this is too conspiratorial, but the day the next president will be officially recognised, November 9th, happens to form 9/11.
In three weeks time we will have a clearer picture of what is to come, and how the globalist elites plan to capitalise on it.
Brexit’s gonna happen. They all laughed. They all said, ‘Donald Trump said Brexit’s going to happen. Isn’t he ridiculous? Anyway, three days later they vote, Brexit happens. This is like Brexit folks. You watch.
Thank you for reading.