The False Ideological Paradigm By JC Collins
April 14, 2014 Contributed by Hugh
(Note: Thanks to Hugh for catching this very important aspect of the Hegelian Dialectic of the centralization which is taking place. Divisions are only illusionary. There are visible components of the centralization and invisible components. The invisible will slowly emerge piecemeal as the multilateral reality is announced by way of solutions.
This false ideological paradigm was also played out before, during, and after WW2. Western banks and industry were heavily involved and invested in Germany, as well the eugenics programs which were originally started in the west.
The Bank for International Settlements was the main clearing house for Nazi Germany and the West. As they will be again with the SDR bond system. – JC)
The money, minds, men and muscle behind the BRICS emergence…
“China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country.
The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.
And the BRICS association that economists were wringing their hands over in previous years as a major threat to American-led western economic neoliberalism?
It was actually created by Goldman Sachs, an outgrowth of a research paper that was convincing enough that it actually caused the four nations (of the then-”BRIC” grouping) to start a political process that made the paper into reality.
It seems that as we enter the world of the “new cold war” there is western backing behind every aspect of this new rivalry. And sure enough, the much-ballyhooed Cold War 2.0 is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.
China’s decision to abstain from the UN Security Council vote on Crimea’s annexation last month was a significant turning point in and of itself. Given China’s unease over its own territorial issues (Tibet, Xinjiang), the fact that they didn’t vote for the resolution condemning a nation’s right to unilaterally secede from a country speaks volumes about China and Russia’s increasing cooperation in geopolitical matters.
The inescapable conclusion is that the NATO powers have helped to create their own enemy. They have helped to arm and fund that enemy, and then poked and prodded him into reaction. We would do well to remember the true genesis of this conflict the next time we are told about the “New Cold War.””
Credit to Corbett Report subscriber for content referenced above: