EU e-Privacy Directive

This website uses cookies to manage authentication, navigation, and other functions. By using our website, you agree that we can place these types of cookies on your device.

You have declined cookies. This decision can be reversed.


Despite the appearance of being at loggerheads over the Ukraine, Taiwan, and whatever other flashpoints may yet surface, and despite the BRICS countries moving ahead with their own basket of interchangeable currencies supported by "hard assets" and the Western nations still wedded to their essentially worthless paper, is there really uniformity of approach to base the new world financial system on the existing Central Banks and the Central Bank of the Central Banks, the Bank of International Settlements?

Would that not simply leave the foxes in charge of the hen-house?

"it was the West's sanctions that helped the BRICS nations achieve a long-held monetary policy objective, In June 2022 the BRICS member states announced their plans to establish an alternative to the IMF's special drawing rights (SDRs). A basket of BRICS currencies will potentially form a new tradable asset to be exchanged for goods, services and commodities, or redeemed for equivalent currency value"

"According to ... the Atlantic Council, 105 countries around the world—accounting for 95% of global GDP—are surging ahead with development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC)"

"a coincidence of almost incalculable improbability that, following the G7 bankers' emergency plea to create a new multipolar international monetary and financial system, global events in the space of just a couple of years—first the pseudopandemic and then the war in Ukraine—and more specifically the West's spending responses to these crises—should have coalesced so perfectly to move the world, with pinpoint precision, towards the specific monetary destination desired by the central bankers"

Well, who would have thought it?

Even the WEF is on board:

"The open 'transformation' of global governance to the multipolar system is simply the public disclosure of that which was already extant. The New World Order has been repackaged as 'multipolar' and is now being advocated as some kind of escape hatch from itself"

Iain Davis writing for UK Column sorts the facts from the fluff.

The conclusion?

Well, my conclusion is that whichever faction you back they are likely all as bad as each other. At the end of the day when all is said and done, the real questions that matter are simple:

a) Who has custody / control of my money? I want that otherwise I may not be free to save or spend it as I wish, and in the event that my bank collapses I don't want my money disappearing with them.

b) Is it asset-backed? I don't want any intermediary racking up any charges or otherwise inflating away my monetary value.

If either (a) or (b) is not forthcoming then we will never be free.

Unrealistic? Under any of the "usual suspects", definitely. This needs to be redesigned from the point of view of the man in the street, none of whom are present in the corridors of the WEF or the great financial institutions. It cannot be left up to them, nor to their cronies that run our governments for their own purposes. Is there anyone who is even talking about it?

We would need some alternative form of monetary governance where the currency issuance and tracking systems are distributed and the banking system may provide services but would never hold custody control over our money.

One thing is for sure, if you allow yourself to be sucked into the "my version of CBDCs is better than yours" you will lose sight of question (a) simply because it will never be mentioned.