Change…

…pocket change that is, is changing.

One dollar coins (Loonies) were popular as a forgotten novelty; two-dollar coins (Toonies) were not. I remember working in the service industry back in those days. Everyone complained about the amount of change they would have to carry around in those money belts. The money belts grew more robust. Waiters today are in for a surprise.

The nickel and the quarter will be eliminated in favour of a twenty cent piece, called a “Twenny.” (I don’t know that for sure, in fact, I just coined the phrase. Nevertheless, I think it sounds catchy. In France they are called “des pièces de vingt centimes” but then everything takes more words to say in French… maybe that’s what makes it romantic.)

This move, on it’s own, will likely lighten waiters’  loads (and necessitate another re-design of the money belt,) but there’s more.

The five dollar bill will be replaced by a coin. $5 bills represent just under 2% of the Canadian money supply. [It won’t be long now for the tens.] A two-hundred dollar bill will also be introduced. And all this for 2017. What ever happened to banning the ‘C’-note? In the cancellation of a bill, is a demand for it not being created? As they cancel more and more bills, and create new ones, won’t they be feeding the monster they wish to slay? Getting people to hoard cash is not good for banks. The Bank of Canada eliminated the thousand-dollar bill in 2000 for this purpose, and put the blame squarely on drug-runners and money-launderers. Movement of physical cash is closely watched at the borders and at all points of entry. Are they developing cover for a digital monetary system? Are they really going to ban cash? These recent actions lead us to believe that they will not, but sometimes an event must be manufactured with nothing but ‘good intent’ behind it acting as a catalyst to ensure it’s quick demise. Kissinger might find it easier to pop the balloon rather than let it deflate on its own. That would require intervention. Intervention always incurs cost.

Either this brings us closer towards the European system, or the people at the Mint are preparing for inflation. You don’t think of the economy in the same way if it costs a million of something to buy a loaf of bread. Being a millionaire is easy in some places. Debasing currency (by lowering the cost of production,) even fiat, always leads to inflation. The central banks have been struggling to find a way to increase inflation to keep this sham system afloat, and it looks like this turned out to be their best-worst option. Will this replace the need for ‘helicopter money‘ or is it just an addition? Perhaps it’s all been scripted in order to introduce a global [?digital?] currency. Either way, UNPA member Justin Trudeau is paving the way for his ascension through the UN. [Read the “Welcome” message in the UNPA link.]

Portugal had to wreck its economy for the former Prime Minister (1995-2002) António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres (a notable socialist, ECFR, and Club of Madrid member – not to mention his long list of distinctions) to be elected Secretary General of the UN. That’s quite a cover charge for entry to the big boys’ club. I wonder if it was on a dare or a bet, or if it was just an initiation, of sorts. With that against him, his loyalty would be assured. Amongst other positions, he had previously served as the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees.

Is Canada next? The Asian money doesn’t seem to think so, but the Canadian government’s recent action in the Vancouver housing market was a clear signal for Asian markets to ‘keep away.’ The manipulation practiced by Wells-Fargo, Shkreli, Volkswagen, and the gold market pale by comparison. Where’s RICO when you need him?

It looks like the Lone Ranger is gonna’ need some more silver bullets, and gold ones; or maybe Dorothy could just click her heels… rubies and sapphires might have some value, but emeralds are not a good investment.

Is Winning Even Possible?

Can the end be seen; is it visible? Is there a path? Is it even discernible? Sorting the truth from the non-truth, and all the variations therein, seems self-defeating. It seems, most times, that there is no hope. Man has always lived in a condition of servitude, the wealthy have always held power, the ratios haven’t changed.

“So you think we might have put a few people out of business today. That its all for naught. You’ve been doing that everyday for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of paper with pictures on it so we don’t have to kill each other just to get something to eat. It’s not wrong. And it’s certainly no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn’t that fuck me up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It’s all just the same thing over and over; we can’t help ourselves. And you and I can’t control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot of money if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. Yeah, there may be more of us today than there’s ever been. But the percentages-they stay exactly the same. “

– Jeremy Irons as John Tuld from the movie “Margin Call.”

Let me begin by saying that if there is no solution, nihilism wins, the universe will get colder, and humanity is a temporary condition in a losing proposition. If there is an end goal to our technological progression, if there is a long-term reason for our ingenuity, be it immortality, or time travel, whatever, if there is a summum to our bonum, then we must figure out a way to attain our potential instead of being held back by our own particular ‘destinies.’

Let’s assume, for the benefit of this article, that there is a way for us to beat the system, that we can become emancipated from the continuous drudgery of life as we have come to accept it, and that we can improve the human condition. This is quite an assumption (for many reasons,) but let’s just start from there; it will simplify the discourse.

The one thing which we must consider at this point is that every war ever fought (yes, even the French revolution and the American war of secession) was a contrivance. There is no war possible but a class war, otherwise we are simply fighting to protect the interests of those who hold us in bondage. The struggle for freedom is class-based, and there can be no other way to sovereignty.

“And his hands would plait the priest’s entrails, For want of a rope, to strangle kings.”

“Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du prêtre,
Au défaut d’un cordon pour étrangler les rois.”

Les Éleuthéromanes, in Poésies Diverses (1875) – Denis Diderot

There is a relationship which exists between the crown and the cross. From ancient Egypt to modern England, there has always been an interplay between the divine and the sovereign. To deny the monarchy exclusive access to the divine is an emancipation of our very souls.

For who is there that does not see, to whose benefit it conduceth, to have it believed, that a King hath not his Authority from Christ, unlesse a Bishop crown him?Leviathan (1651) – Thomas Hobbes

If there is to be any freedom, not only the people who control the system, but the very system itself must be brought down, not to be replaced with a surrogate, but with something so completely novel that power itself is seen in its true light. Nationalism, religion, food distribution, inequality, and all the other divisive pillars of what we call civilisation must be re-examined. To be a patriot is to abhor all that is not native to one’s culture. To follow a flag is an exercise of submission. A pledge of allegiance is a denial of equality. Religious sectarianism is nothing more than cultism, no matter how convincing the rhetoric. The golden age of Hegelistic thought must end for there to be any semblance of equality and personal sovereignty.

If centralization has not worked under any economic system, perhaps we must go in another direction. If Americanism (disaster capitalism*) has not fulfilled the needs of the populace, there must be another way, and we owe it to ourselves to find it. Whether that way be metallism, anarchy, direct democracy, autonomous collectivism, controlled despotism, or a return to a monarchistic city-state, we must, eventually, find a path which will protect the rights of all, allow co-operation rather than competition, glorify good deeds over good deals, and bring actual meaning to our lives, not just ‘progress’ – whatever that means, ‘growth,’ and personal profit.

[Perhaps, if man were immortal, he would think more of others. He wouldn’t be gone by the time his deeds were known; he would have to live with them forever.]

Would you sell weapons for profit, thus helping your family to buy food? Would you steal rations from dead soldiers to feed your family? Would you kill to protect them? What is evil, then? Evil can be justified as pre-emptive self-defence. If there is no aggression, there is no need to defend. Co-operation, then, is critical to ensure peace, competition will inevitably lead to war. Defence, on the other hand, is essential to a free life. Self-defence is an unalienable right… that doesn’t make it more desirable as a means of communication.

Negotiation always comes from a position of power, authority, or truth. We need not negotiate for that which is already ours.

Can we change the world? We say we always have. But have we really? It’s like painting the walls of a very old house. It’s a change, technically speaking, but the architecture remains in place.


* An example of disaster capitalism:

Derivatives insure crops against failure by multiples of the value of said crop, so a field with one million dollars worth of wheat can be worth two million in insurance if disaster strikes. At the same time, insurance companies in Calgary funded cloud-seeding projects in order to move hailstorms away from the city and down-wind into the farms because it was cheaper to insure failed crops than a parking lot full of SUVs. Not only was it cheaper, the derivatives against the crop hedged for huge profits.) When it is in the best interests of shareholders of a corporation to lay waste to crops (in order to cash in on the derivatives taken against them,) all manner of geo-engineering is undertaken and food-security is lost to the populace. Not only do these companies profit from natural disasters, they are financially motivated to cause them. This is very similar to the scenario which brought Lehman down.

Putin and the UN – Is Change in the Air?

Based on a recent interview with Charlie Rose, Vladimir Putin made some subtle comments regarding the status of the UN and what the future might hold in store. This is simply speculative interpretation, but did he hint at the possibility of an overhaul of the foundations of global governance? The BRICS association analogy may be a valid comparison to draw at this point.

“…I will have to say a few words about…the fact that the United Nations remains the sole universal international organisation designed to maintain global peace. And in this sense it has no alternative today.”

This is an interesting comment. Of course, everybody knows that the UN is unique, so why mention it here? Is there a plan amongst the developing economies to overhaul the UN, or is the plan to replace it with a less partisan body? His qualification of the comment with the word ‘today’ leads one to believe that tomorrow might be a different story. With Russia being a founding member (since its inception at Yalta after WWII,) and if Russia can convince the other members of the BRICS countries to follow suit, they could withdraw from the UN and create their own body to uphold international law without granting the US veto power over all its decisions. On the 25th of September, Putin met with the other members of the UN’s security council to discuss the situation in Syria, as well as current domestic policy issues. One wonders what these issues might be, but given recent comments by Putin (such as those given at Valdai) as well as those given by Assad (here and here,) not to mention the rift which is developing between Germany and France against the US over NATO’s involvement in the Ukraine and US involvement in Syria indicate that the world’s opinion about the US and its activities in the middle-east and elsewhere are changing (or worsening, depending on your point of view.)

“It is also apparent that it should adapt to the ever-changing world, which we discuss all the time: how it should evolve and at what rate, which components should undergo qualitative changes. Of course, I will have to or rather should use this international platform to explain Russia’s vision of today’s international relations, as well as the future of this organisation and the global community.”

It is very clear, based on these statements that the UN is an ever-evolving entity, but it is also clear, given the prevalence of this comment at the beginning of the interview, that there is a will amongst the participants (not including the US) to reform the role of the UN in the near future.

“…in my opinion, provision of military support to illegal structures runs counter to the principles of modern international law and the United Nations Charter. We have been providing assistance to legitimate government entities only.”

This comment was clearly meant to demonstrate US support for the forces opposing Assad – ISIS/ISIL et al. – and its illegality. Will the international community continue to allow the Western forces’ ‘carte blanche’ towards the middle-east, and will it stand idly by as Syria is turned into Libya v2.0? It would not appear to be the case. China has also decided to support Assad’s forces by sending its navy to the port at Tartus in Syria. Has the BRICS military coalition started?

“There is only one regular army there. That is the army of Syrian President al-Assad.”

And in another quote from a past interview,

“It’s my deep belief that any actions to the contrary in order to destroy the legitimate government [of Syria] will create a situation which you can witness now in the other countries of the region or in other regions, for instance in Libya, where all the state institutions are disintegrated. We see a similar situation in Iraq,” Putin stressed.

“There is no other solution to the Syrian crisis than strengthening the effective government structures and rendering them help in fighting terrorism. But at the same time, urging them to engage in positive dialogue with the rational opposition and conduct reform.”

The Russian leader stressed that US-led coalition partners need to understand that only the Syrian people are entitled “to decide who should govern their country and how.”

With this, Putin is upholding the democratic process by which Assad was elected, and legitimizes his presence in the discussion.

That which the future holds, only time will reveal, but clearly the winds of political change are blowing squarely in the face of the US, its official policies, NATO, and the UN.

*Update* Given what the Kazakh president said at his speech to the UN, there are more massive changes coming to the ‘International Order’ as we know it. Buckle up!