in other words - they produced a report which laid out the conditions and roles of the BIS, IMF, World Bank, GATT and others on the eve of WW2.

1. destroy nation
2. offer ‘development aid’ to rebuild nation
3. ‘development aid’ is conditional upon adhering to the ‘ethic’

now the nation is captured. then you

1. insist on the digital architecture (id, accreditation, surveillance data, live audits)
2. integrate ‘ethic’ into the CBDC that eventually awaits
3. your money is now conditional upon you adhering to the ‘ethic'

now all the citizens of that nation are captured, too.


https://t.me/disclosetv/20590

three events, all on the same day, supporting my ‘iran’ thesis.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/ramp-imminent-trump-tells-world-go-get-your-own-oil-strait-after-decimating-iran

1. iran explicitly target the (AI) machinery
2. US claims the destruction is largely over (and the conditional finance can begin)
3. China and Pakistan demands routing of 'peace' through the UN

this is about IMEC

IMEC, in essence, seeks to establish a clearinghouse between North and South AND East and West - in israel. and it trades in digital, energy, and goods - per their own material.

but the clearinghouse is not in control, ultimately - that's where the ethic-to-standard da'at translation comes in

and michael laitman in essence redefined ‘israel’ to be about compliance, not ethnicity or geography

it’s not about jewish people, it’s about adhering to ‘altruistic communism’, where the ‘ethic’ is defined… well, that doesn’t matter; what matters is the international organisations dictating how the ‘ethic’ is translated…

what i say is that EVERYONE is being manipulated. well, apart from the dupers.

1. Five sons cleared between sovereign states.
2. The London clearinghouse cleared between banks within state.
3. The BIS cleared between central banks.
4. Basel cleared between regulators.
5. The NGFS clears between climate models and capital requirements.
6. And the Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican clears between capital and moral authority.

gee, this puzzle is so hard to decipher.

the tripartite agreement (1936) was a BIS production.

this was the first working arrangement for managed currency cooperation


https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Tripartite_Agreement_of_September_25.html?id=tUHD0AEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

in short - UK, US and France decided to stabilise their currencies relative to the other. France and UK had left the gold standard by then, but the US had not. they devalued, but they still retained the gold standard.

so since the UK and France stabilised relative to the USD which itself was on a gold standard…… then the 1936 tripartite agreement was a de-facto Bretton Woods currency stabilisation.

this means that the entire conventional narrative about bretton woods as a wartime innovation collapses

not only was the bretton woods currency stabilisation launched in 1936 through the tripartite agreement as an output of the BIS, but the Van Zeeland report developed it into the organisations we see today

and that came after keynes had published his general theory - which was entirely contingent upon three RIIA reports from 1931, 1933, and 1935

sheesh is quite literally every part of monetary history a pack of lies?

the tripartite agreement was, in essence, an early version of the van zeeland report.

the tripartite agreement is essentially to the van zeeland report what the atlantic charter is to the dumbarton oaks output

https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/archive/ar1937_en.pdf

off to bed.

the statistical likelihood of this not being rothschild is still hovering around 0%.

… three to go…


https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-van-zeeland-report

PDF

‘It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning’ —Henry Ford (allegedly)

the 'multipolarity' narrative completely misses the point. it's not about a 'multi-polar order' - it's about the organisations which negotiate between those 'multi-polar' powers.

that's why the RIIA, CFR and other leading think tanks cheer the idea on - because they designed the system leading to that outcome

read 'international government'. the political branch of this system originates in 1916.

what the few have done repeatedly - and very successfully - is to insert themselves into the middle of two alleged disputing entities. that's the point of the clearinghouse - whether in finance, politics, environmentalism, peace, ... frankfurt school critical theory...

but - again - the clearinghouse is NOT ultimately in control.

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/international-government?utm_source=publication-search

the 'ethic' is translated into a (cognitive) standard
and it's that standard which is upheld by the (evaluative) clearinghouse

the entity translating the 'ethic' into a 'standard' is where true power resides.
the clearinghouse merely applies the standard. that doesn't make them beyond reproach - but it matters, because swapping a few people on, say, the board of peace will not make one bit of difference.

so everyone applauding the fall of, say, bill gates will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to address the actual problem.

the issue does not reside with any specific billionaire, or even groups of billionaires. the issue resides with the system itself.

and that's why you're not meant to understand how the process works - because blaming the billionaires is weaponised to protect the few

so when rothschild and rockefeller speaks of 'own nothing, control everything' it's because they control the system.

and they couldn't care less about a few billionaires being taken down, provided the system remains intact.