New World Order University Forum

It’s hard to find good reporting on the G20 meeting in Pittsburgh. There were some demonstrations in the street, but that isn’t what interests us today. We are wondering what they decided.

Gordon Brown announced that the G20 will replace the G8 as the favored world negotiating body. Brown proposed that the IMF institute an insurance scheme so that nations would not have to accumulate reserves. Brown always pushes for more IMF power over national economies and tries to coax more money out of nations and into global accounts. Given Labour’s history of corruption, and the World Bank’s history of corruption, everyone should hang onto their money.

Reuters interprets the communique. The idea that Barack Obama is a big winner for shifting the IMF voting structure to 50 percent representation of developing nations is kind of funny. Obama was probably handed the proposal to give him a role that looks something like leadership to the press. If Obama is leading, he is leading the interests of the developing countries, not the United States.

Obama may want China to increase domestic demand, but what Obama wants isn’t what matters. China is already increasing domestic demand and is pursuing a very independent economic policy that is in China’s interest, and as far away from the United States as it can get, while still maintaining cordial relations.

This little reorganization of IMF voting rights is simply an acknowledgment of the reality that developing nations have interests that are different from developed nations and their squabbles. There needs to be some framework that will allow them a bigger voice. However, G20 negotiations are always subject to a nation’s self-interest, so getting agreements is not easy. Moreover, no country wants to appear to be the obstacle to “progress” or an easy mark for the financial sharpies. No national leader wants to be the center of attention of his national press, so reporting always focuses on agreement rather than what actually occurs behind the scenes.

John Browne reports on the mood at the G20 meeting. Thin stuff.

Before the meeting, EU President Manuel Barroso issued the standard European Union propaganda line. Barroso expressed the big lie that justifies the global financial takeover after globalism crashed markets around the world:

“Globalism has created enormous wealth and pulled much of the world out of poverty. Business dealings and cultural exchange have replaced isolationism and mistrust.”

The world seems to believe that global free trade creates wealth, but free trade is not free trade, it benefits only a few large corporations and crushes small business. One can point to Communist China as a beneficiary of global trade, but this is mainly because of massive foreign investment raising China’s industrial capacity from a low level, combined with China’s artificially low yuan. The rest of the world has not benefited from free trade. Ask an auto worker or steel worker if he has gotten something from “free trade.”

Everybody wants to export to everybody else. This is the fundamental dilemma at the heart of globalization. The apparent winners are those who keep the value of their currency low while building up their industries for export. But all you really get for exporting is somebody else’s currency. Competition to export translates next to currency speculation and currency wars. To characterize this situation as “cultural exchange” and an “end to mistrust” is laughable. Economy and finance are never-ending wars, both inside and between nations, and the only reason everyone doesn’t realize this is because the propaganda refuses to name winners and losers.

Here is the second big lie in Barroso’s statement:

“Our number-one priority must be saving and creating sustainable jobs.”

The number one priority of Europe, Britain, and America is to salvage its big banks from bad debt. The real economy comes second. If these countries were interested in creating sustainable jobs, they wouldn’t be pursuing unsustainable financial policies. Big corporations ship jobs to the Third World, they don’t create any jobs. All net job creation in the United States has come from small business in the past several years. But credit flows to small business formation are shrinking, not expanding. We’ll have more on high unemployment rates and the squeeze on small business in a future post. One thing we can say for sure: Europe, America, and Britain are not pursuing job-creation policies.

President Obama is completely on board with Barroso’s talking points. There isn’t a single area of disagreement between them. Barroso probably handed Obama his script. All Obama had to do was read it. Obama is not representing any U.S. interest in international meetings. He is not President of the United States, he is in Europe’s pocket, a minor role-player in the globalist takeover. He might as well be President of the European Union.

So why is there a G20? Why doesn’t the takeover script play out at the United Nations instead of at G20 conferences? Because the UN has too many members and is too unwieldy to be easily controlled. The global takeover isn’t about giving every country a speech and a vote, it’s about arm-twisting and making deals and then issuing some bland communique so it will appear that the nations are united in pursuing globalist takeover policies rather than the interests of their people.

We’re pleased to learn that security in Pittsburgh was massive. These traitors should not be allowed to travel comfortably.

Tags: Barack Obama, G20 meeting in Pittsburgh, global takeover, Gordon Brown, Manuel Barroso

This entry was posted by Director on Thursday, October 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm and is filed under Obama Administration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.