re/ Trump, Soros, Putin, and the reshaping of world order


Richard Moore

Bcc: FYI

Greg Maybury wrote:
Great piece. G


James Fadiman wrote:

Thank you richard. Always valuable to see the largest possible view of the chessboard and to realize that the individual pieces imagine themselves to be free agents. 



Jan Dunbrack wrote:

Fascinating foresight! I found the possible privatization of public domain to fund by undermining and looting our land quite intuitive. The horror unleashed by Trump continues to seem unlimited, stretching into domains I never imagined…. 
Hope is something I continue to cherish as integral to being human and are encouraged when your insight helps me prepare; of course, hoping this horror will never happen! I am thankful for our connection and look forward to being able to commune with you! Thanks!

I find hope confusing.

If hope is the opposite of despair, it is certainly more healthy to embrace hope. If hope is thinking that reality might change to please us, then it becomes an expression of powerlessness. If hope is expecting our actions to lead to certain outcomes, then we need to detach ourselves from that expectation: we can shoot the arrow, but the universe decides where the arrow lands.

When I started writing, I had hope that I could change things politically. I’ve given up that hope, but I still feel that writing is what I need to be doing. We are all Arjuna, with a role to play in a world that is ephemeral, where everyone alive now will be dead in a blink of eternity. C’est la vie.

Carl Jung said that when we die, we find ourselves with comrades, and we share what we’ve learned. He claimed to know. We can go with flow, or we can make waves, and doing what we need to do with integrity, courage, and respect seems to be the thing.


Helen Basinger wrote:
Hi Richard,
In your scenario there appears to be no hope, and in fact there may be none.
Humanity may progressively be enslaved and eventually reduced to 500 million people to serve the Cabal’s NWO global totalitarian government.
But, what if the fight between good and evil was real…and what if Putin and perhaps even Trump were backed up by forces of good – both on this planet and off-world? What if the Hero’s Journey is a blueprint of the Universe and when all looks lost the tables suddenly turn against the dark ones?
I see people acting as detectives and creating an alternative media that is exposing the Satanic affiliations of these people in power, drawing attention to the corruption and shenanigans that has managed to stay secret for millennia. I’m listening to all the stuff coming out on about the secret space program, I’ve read the Book of Once material.  I see so many people waking up… but maybe that’s just another form of division: the awake and the hypnotized.
Best wishes

With the memes of  ‘conspiracy theories’ and ‘fake news’, the program seems to be the divisiveness you name: the awake vs. the hypnotized. We need to accept that people will always see things differently from one another. What divides us is not the difference in our beliefs, rather it is giving too much importance to beliefs – the trap of identity politics. 

If we want to overcome divisiveness, it won’t come from the awake talking to the awake, and it won’t come from the awake converting the hypnotized. It can only come from all of us finding common ground together. And that can only happen if we include everyone (the 99%) in the conversation, and listen to everyone’s concerns with respect.

You suggest that there may be a cosmic battle going on between the forces of good and evil. That idea has been around at least since the time of Zarathustra, over a thousand years ago. But according to Zarathustra this battle goes on in our minds. It is about the choices we make, not about an external struggle between a God and a Satan. If we externalize the struggle, we give up both our power and our responsibility.


Hill Eshbach wrote:

Superb article, Richard, as always!
  A thought with regard to Putin.  Perhaps there is not a single oligarchy, but a shifting group of competing oligarchies – say, “East” vs. “West”, or “Anglo-American/NATO” vs. “Russian” vs. “Chinese”, or perhaps more complicated still – each seeking advantage over the other(s), and Putin has the support primarily of the “Russian” one and secondarily the “Chinese” oligarchy?
  I’ll appreciate your insight on this.  Thanks.
 Keep up the great work!

Every modern society is dominated by some elite group, but not all elite groups are oligarchies. In Russia for example, Putin and his supporters have been struggling against the internal oligarchs that came to power under Yeltsin. Putin may have considerable personal wealth, but his mission is not about using economic power to control the Russian population. That’s what oligarchs do.

You are quite correct in what you say, if we substitute ‘elite group’ for ‘oligarchy’. Lots of elite groups, of different kinds, sometimes cooperating and sometimes competing, with each pursuing its own interests. When I talked about ‘the oligarchy’ in my article, I was referring to one particular elite group – the close-knit central banking dynasties, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and a few others. 

Over the past several centuries, these oligarchs have been gradually increasing their power by overcoming other elite groups. They supported the republican revolutions, thereby eliminating monarchs and churches as a competing power. They orchestrated World Wars 1 and 2 so as to concentrate power in the US, which they control via the Federal Reserve and by other means.  Their goal is to rule the world, and my article is basically a status report on how they’re doing.


Michael Banks wrote:

Call me naive but i simply refuse to believe that the nightmare future is a done deal. While love is still in our hearts I believe we can overcome and create the world we want. 
Other than that it’s a well written, logical and well argued article Richard. And in fact, quite fascinating in terms of the possibilities and what the actual reality might be.

Good on you Michael, for not giving up hope (opposite of despair) that change might be possible. And yes, it’s about love in our hearts, not guns in our hands. Jesus reportedly said we should love our neighbor. We tend to think of that as a spiritual directive, but we may also interpret it as a good political idea, a way to create a harmonious society. Our ‘neighbors’ are those who hold different beliefs, and ‘love’ is about finding common ground with them.


Thomas Greco sent in a very long and thoughtful response, and much of what he brings up we’ve already talked about above. Begging his indulgence, I’ll include below some of the new things he mentioned, and intersperse my own comments. 

He wrote:

For the most part I agree with your analysis, your worldview and the possibilities you pose, but you seem to see every one of them leading to the same destination–global domination by the oligarchy. Is a multi-polar world really just a stepping stone to a unipolar world? Do you really see no other possibility?  Is democracy truly dead, never to be revived?

When was democracy ever alive? Certainly never in the US, which has been controlled by various elites from the very beginning. Political parties and elections are a means of divide and rule by elites, not a way for people to exercise self-governance. Athens was not a democratic society, even though the minority ruling class (property-owning males) used a democratic process among themselves, in ruling over slaves and an empire. The only democratic societies I know of were some indigenous societies, which used the circle way to govern themselves.

We currently have a multi-polar world, with no one power ruling the whole globe. Genghis Kahn and Hitler are examples of leaders who sought to create a unipolar world empire. The oligarchy figured out that such a world empire would be too difficult to manage and administer. Much better to let the existing nations continue to exist, ruling over their populations according to their various methods, and establish a global power center that rules over the nations, grouped into what Huntington calls ‘civilizations’. 

Nations have for some time been ceding sovereignty to trans-national corporations via trade agreements that negate the effect of environment regulations and fair labor laws and force governments to guarantee their profits. But the main event is to get nations to cede monetary sovereignty via monetary unions, like the euro, or a soon to be unveiled global reserve currency that will replace the dollar in that role.

As Amshall Rothschild famously said, “Let me issue and control a nations money and I care not who writes the laws.” But I wouldn’t call a global currency the ‘main event’, rather one key step among many in establishing a global governance system. 

The big question is, what will it take to thwart the elite agenda? I believe it is decentralized control of credit via innovative approaches to exchange and finance that governments and banks will be unable to control.  

You are doing important work in this area and I applaud your efforts. I see decentralized economics as an essential part of a better world, if we ever achieve a better world. And I agree that innovative approaches to credit systems can be one way to help bring people together and empower them. I see that as one essential component of what I would call a community empowerment movement.

A large number of activist groups are pursuing these kinds of initiatives. I imagine we could tote up a number of marginal benefits that have been achieved, but we aren’t even beginning to make inroads toward thwarting any elite agendas. I’d say credit unions have been one of the most effective initiatives, and here in Ireland the central bank is busy plotting how to get hold of the assets of credit unions.

Something more is needed to do any real thwarting, and if I had any idea what that might be I’d be out there trying to do it. Meanwhile I hope you keep up your good work.


Vera Gottlieb wrote:

Just as with globalization, fitting the entire human race with “one size only” is not going to work, so too “one world order”. We are too diverse a bunch and not willing to give up our individual traits and characteristics. 

Right you are, that’s why their scheme is based on continuing with diverse cultures, and playing them off against one another.


David Creighton wrote:

Interesting speculations Richard but I do not understand how multipolar worlds—of Putin, Latin America, Iran, BRICs, etc—would mesh with one world order. The former seems a devolution/stand-down of the latter. 
Also you’ll need to make allowances for the (economic) end-of-oil and the accelerating effects of climate change (whoops, sorry about that one) that incline towards decentralizations, local autonomies; plus, the instabilities of the financial systems, that won’t be remedied by public-private infrastructure projects. You’ll need to include your thoughts on these, clearly. Otherwise, lots of good cynicism.

With BRICS, and with other initiatives, Russia and China are leading a movement to overcome the hegemony of the US and its oligarch backers. They want a multi-polar world where the different powers remain independent and sovereign, and no one nation dominates. They want the UN to be the place where nations work out their differences, not a place that dictates to nations. Only if a nation goes rogue would this UN get into the business of using force.

The situation is very much like when the US was founded. According to the Constitution, each of the states was to be essentially sovereign, with very little power in Washington, mainly limited to foreign affairs. All powers not specifically granted to the Federal government  by the Constitution were “reserved to the states, and to the people respectively”.

This didn’t last, because once there is a center of power, elite groups seek to take control of that center and extend its power. The same thing happened with the EU, which was supposed to be based on the principle of subsidiarity. In the case of the US, the gradual centralization of power was not intended by the drafters of the Constitution. In the case of the EU, it was intended from the beginning. Subsidiarity was only a deceptive selling point, a campaign promise made when the Maastricht Treaty was being debated.

Need I say more, about the fate of an updated, well-intentioned UN, with the oligarchy being one of the parties helping to establish it?

As regards petroleum reserves and climate, I’m not sure how best to respond to you. My own research tells me that we’re not running out of petroleum reserves and that CO2 has no measurable effect on climate. We could talk about the science if you want to, but that would be a case of each of us trying to convince the other about beliefs, which I’ve already said I don’t see as a productive way forward. 

Let me respond instead in two different ways. First, it makes no difference what we believe about climate. We have no say in government policies. Polarization over climate beliefs serves only to divide us. It’s become a version of identity politics. 

Second, we need to be aware of how the elite-sponsored fear of climate change is being used politically. If they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions, they’d need to do things like replacing the automobile as the world’s primary form of transportation, and replacing energy-intensive agriculture with old-fashioned farming methods. Instead, they are using the fear to justify introducing the micromanagement of our lives, with smart meters and the like. Climate activists are unknowingly playing right into their hands. We may be restricted to one shower a week, and only allowed to travel with government permission, but CO2 emissions will continue to rise.