This article by Ellen Brown was first posted at Global Research.
The Tower of Basel: Secretive Plans for the Issuing of a Global Currency
Do we really want the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) issuing our global currency
In an April 7 article in The London Telegraph titled “The G20 Moves the World a Step Closer to
a Global Currency,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote:
“A single clause in Point 19 of the communiqué issued by the G20 leaders amounts to revolution in the global financial order.
“‘We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity,’ it said. SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century.
“In effect, the G20 leaders have activated the IMF’s power to create money and begin global ‘quantitative easing’. In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.”
Indeed they will. The article is subtitled, “The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity.” Which naturally raises the question, who or what will serve as this global central bank, cloaked with the power to issue the global currency and police monetary policy for all humanity? When the world’s central bankers met in Washington last September, they discussed what body might be in a position to serve in that awesome and fearful role. A former governor of the Bank of England stated:
“[T]he answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). . . . The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”
And if the vision of a global currency outside government control does not set off conspiracy theorists, putting the BIS in charge of it surely will. The BIS has been scandal-ridden ever since it was branded with pro-Nazi leanings in the 1930s. Founded in Basel, Switzerland, in 1930, the BIS has been called “the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world.” Charles Higham wrote in his book Trading with the Enemy that by the late 1930s, the BIS had assumed an openly pro-Nazi bias, a theme that was expanded on in a BBC Timewatch film titled “Banking with Hitler” broadcast in 1998.2 In 1944, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton-Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS, following Czech accusations that it was laundering gold stolen by the Nazis from occupied Europe; but the central bankers succeeded in quietly snuffing out the American resolution.3
Modest beginnings, BIS Office, Hotel Savoy-Univers, Basel 
First Annual General Meeting, 1931
In Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (1966), Dr. Carroll Quigley revealed the key role played in global finance by the BIS behind the scenes. Dr. Quigley was Professor of History at Georgetown University, where he was President Bill Clinton’s mentor. He was also an insider, groomed by the powerful clique he called “the international bankers.” His credibility is heightened by the fact that he actually espoused their goals. He wrote:
“I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. . . . [I]n general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
Quigley wrote of this international banking network:
“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.”
The key to their success, said Quigley, was that the international bankers would control and manipulate the money system of a nation while letting it appear to be controlled by the government. The statement echoed one made in the eighteenth century by the patriarch of what would become the most powerful banking dynasty in the world. Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild famously said in 1791:
“Allow me to issue and control a nation’s currency, and I care not who makes its laws.”
Mayer’s five sons were sent to the major capitals of Europe – London, Paris, Vienna, Berlin and Naples – with the mission of establishing a banking system that would be outside government control. The economic and political systems of nations would be controlled not by citizens but by bankers, for the benefit of bankers. Eventually, a privately-owned “central bank” was established in nearly every country; and this central banking system has now gained control over the economies of the world. Central banks have the authority to print money in their respective countries, and it is from these banks that governments must borrow money to pay their debts and fund their operations. The result is a global economy in which not only industry but government itself runs on “credit” (or debt) created by a banking monopoly headed by a network of private central banks; and at the top of this network is the BIS, the “central bank of central banks” in Basel.
Behind the Curtain
For many years the BIS kept a very low profile, operating behind the scenes in an abandoned hotel. It was here that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, fix the price of gold, regulate offshore banking, and raise or lower short-term interest rates. In 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building has been described as “an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises above the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor.” It quickly became known as the “Tower of Basel.” Today the BIS has governmental immunity, pays no taxes, and has its own private police force.4 It is, as Mayer Rothschild envisioned, above the law.
The BIS is now composed of 55 member nations, but the club that meets regularly in Basel is a much smaller group; and even within it, there is a hierarchy. In a 1983 article in Harper’s Magazine called “Ruling the World of Money,” Edward Jay Epstein wrote that where the real business gets done is in “a sort of inner club made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat” – those from Germany, the United States, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and England. Epstein said:
“The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. . . . A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system.”
In 1974, the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision was created by the central bank Governors of the Group of Ten nations (now expanded to twenty). The BIS provides the twelve-member Secretariat for the Committee. The Committee, in turn, sets the rules for banking globally, including capital requirements and reserve controls. In a 2003 article titled “The Bank for International Settlements Calls for Global Currency,” Joan Veon wrote:
“The BIS is where all of the world’s central banks meet to analyze the global economy and determine what course of action they will take next to put more money in their pockets, since they control the amount of money in circulation and how much interest they are going to charge governments and banks for borrowing from them. . . .
“When you understand that the BIS pulls the strings of the world’s monetary system, you then understand that they have the ability to create a financial boom or bust in a country. If that country is not doing what the money lenders want, then all they have to do is sell its currency.”
5 The Controversial Basel Accords
The power of the BIS to make or break economies was demonstrated in 1988, when it issued a Basel Accord raising bank capital requirements from 6% to 8%. By then, Japan had emerged as the world’s largest creditor; but Japan’s banks were less well capitalized than other major international banks. Raising the capital requirement forced them to cut back on lending, creating a recession in Japan like that suffered in the U.S. today. Property prices fell and loans went into default as the security for them shriveled up. A downward spiral followed, ending with the total bankruptcy of the banks. The banks had to be nationalized, although that word was not used in order to avoid criticism.
Among other collateral damage produced by the Basel Accords was a spate of suicides among Indian farmers unable to get loans. The BIS capital adequacy standards required loans to private borrowers to be “risk-weighted,” with the degree of risk determined by private rating agencies; and farmers and small business owners could not afford the agencies’ fees. Banks therefore assigned 100 percent risk to the loans, and then resisted extending credit to these “high-risk” borrowers because more capital was required to cover the loans. When the conscience of the nation was aroused by the Indian suicides, the government, lamenting the neglect of farmers by commercial banks, established a policy of ending the “financial exclusion” of the weak; but this step had little real effect on lending practices, due largely to the strictures imposed by the BIS from abroad.7
Similar complaints have come from Korea. An article in the December 12, 2008 Korea Times titled “BIS Calls Trigger Vicious Cycle” described how Korean entrepreneurs with good collateral cannot get operational loans from Korean banks, at a time when the economic downturn requires increased investment and easier credit:
"The Bank of Korea has provided more than 35 trillion won to banks since September when the global financial crisis went full throttle,’ said a Seoul analyst, who declined to be named. ‘But the effect is not seen at all with the banks keeping the liquidity in their safes. They simply don’t lend and one of the biggest reasons is to keep the BIS ratio high enough to survive,’ he said. . . .
“Chang Ha-joon, an economics professor at Cambridge University, concurs with the analyst. ‘What banks do for their own interests, or to improve the BIS ratio, is against the interests of the whole society. This is a bad idea,’ Chang said in a recent telephone interview with Korea Times."
In a May 2002 article in The Asia Times titled “Global Economy: The BIS vs. National Banks,” economist Henry C K Liu observed that the Basel Accords have forced national banking systems “to march to the same tune, designed to serve the needs of highly sophisticated global financial markets, regardless of the developmental needs of their national economies.” He wrote:
“[N]ational banking systems are suddenly thrown into the rigid arms of the Basel Capital Accord sponsored by the Bank of International Settlement (BIS), or to face the penalty of usurious risk premium in securing international interbank loans. . . . National policies suddenly are subjected to profit incentives of private financial institutions, all members of a hierarchical system controlled and directed from the money center banks in New York. The result is to force national banking systems to privatize . . . .
“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. . . . The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”
Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that trapped them in debt to outsiders:
“Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”
When governments fall into the trap of accepting loans in foreign currencies, however, they become “debtor nations” subject to IMF and BIS regulation. They are forced to divert their production to exports, just to earn the foreign currency necessary to pay the interest on their loans. National banks deemed “capital inadequate” have to deal with strictures comparable to the “conditionalities” imposed by the IMF on debtor nations: “escalating capital requirement, loan writeoffs and liquidation, and restructuring through selloffs, layoffs, downsizing, cost-cutting and freeze on capital spending.” Liu wrote:
“Reversing the logic that a sound banking system should lead to full employment and developmental growth, BIS regulations demand high unemployment and developmental degradation in national economies as the fair price for a sound global private banking system.”
The Last Domino to Fall
While banks in developing nations were being penalized for falling short of the BIS capital requirements, large international banks managed to escape the rules, although they actually carried enormous risk because of their derivative exposure. The mega-banks succeeded in avoiding the Basel rules by separating the “risk” of default out from the loans and selling it off to investors, using a form of derivative known as “credit default swaps.”
BIS Tower Building, Basel
Botta 1 Building, Basel
However, it was not in the game plan that U.S. banks should escape the BIS net. When they managed to sidestep the first Basel Accord, a second set of rules was imposed known as Basel II. The new rules were established in 2004, but they were not levied on U.S. banks until November 2007, the month after the Dow passed 14,000 to reach its all-time high. It has been all downhill from there. Basel II had the same effect on U.S. banks that Basel I had on Japanese banks: they have been struggling ever since to survive.8
Basel II requires banks to adjust the value of their marketable securities to the “market price” of the security, a rule called “mark to market.”9 The rule has theoretical merit, but the problem is timing: it was imposed ex post facto, after the banks already had the hard-to-market assets on their books. Lenders that had been considered sufficiently well capitalized to make new loans suddenly found they were insolvent. At least, they would have been insolvent if they had tried to sell their assets, an assumption required by the new rule. Financial analyst John Berlau complained:
“The crisis is often called a ‘market failure,’ and the term ‘mark-to-market’ seems to reinforce that. But the mark-to-market rules are profoundly anti-market and hinder the free-market function of price discovery. . . . In this case, the accounting rules fail to allow the market players to hold on to an asset if they don’t like what the market is currently fetching, an important market action that affects price discovery in areas from agriculture to antiques.”10
Imposing the mark-to-market rule on U.S. banks caused an instant credit freeze, which proceeded to take down the economies not only of the U.S. but of countries worldwide. In early April 2009, the mark-to-market rule was finally softened by the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB); but critics said the modification did not go far enough, and it was done in response to pressure from politicians and bankers, not out of any fundamental change of heart or policies by the BIS.
And that is where the conspiracy theorists come in. Why did the BIS not retract or at least modify Basel II after seeing the devastation it had caused? Why did it sit idly by as the global economy came crashing down? Was the goal to create so much economic havoc that the world would rush with relief into the waiting arms of the BIS with its privately-created global currency? The plot thickens . . . .
Ellen Brown developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her earlier books focused on the pharmaceutical cartel that gets its power from “the money trust.” Her eleven books include Forbidden Medicine, Nature’s Pharmacy (co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker), and The Key to Ultimate Health (co-authored with Dr. Richard Hansen). Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.
I am reposting here an article written by James, posted to "winterpatriot.com" outlining the real possibility of a world currency being created in the next few years, how it might be instigated and the very negative implications it would have for the world.
In this essay, I will be arguing against the use of a One World Currency; why it would be bad for everyone except bankers; how it will be brought in and how it will be made viable. I will also point out how all the strategies essential to its implementation have been employed before only not together and, lastly, how it has caused war in the past and will again in the very near future.
In the Forum section (link below in the right column) is the article “The Tower of Basel”by Ellen Brown. It gives a very brief but good history of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) which is the driving force behind the campaign for a One World Currency (OWC). I highly recommend reading it before you progress further with this essay.
Still here? You want the bottom line now, right? OK, but read it after!
The most important part of Ellen Brown's article for my purposes is the following paragraphs which are highlighted in the forum version-
“BIS regulations serve only the single purpose of strengthening the international private banking system, even at the peril of national economies. . . . The IMF and the international banks regulated by the BIS are a team: the international banks lend recklessly to borrowers in emerging economies to create a foreign currency debt crisis, the IMF arrives as a carrier of monetary virus in the name of sound monetary policy, then the international banks come as vulture investors in the name of financial rescue to acquire national banks deemed capital inadequate and insolvent by the BIS.”
Ironically, noted Liu, developing countries with their own natural resources did not actually need the foreign investment that trapped them in debt to outsiders:
“Applying the State Theory of Money [which assumes that a sovereign nation has the power to issue its own money], any government can fund with its own currency all its domestic developmental needs to maintain full employment without inflation.”
The first paragraph clearly spells out that having anything to do with the world banking bodies is akin to national suicide. These bodies are entirely predatory. The second paragraph says that involvement with these bodies has been entirely unnecessary as each country has the ability to issue its own currency backed by its own resources, skills and production. These resources are owned by or are integral to the population as a whole in whichever nation we happen to be looking at. So long as someone holding that nation's currency (whether that person is residing in that particular country of outside of it) can exchange it for goods of intrinsic value, then that currency is valuable and viable. It needs no gold hidden in vaults anywhere to back it up.
There is another factor that gives a nation's currency value domestically and that is the demand for it imposed by the government that demands taxes and will only accept payment in “legal tender” i.e. the national currency. If you don't pay your taxes with this curency, ultimately, they will lock you up. So “you gotta get you some”. Pretty hard to argue with!
The leadership of every country in the world (except the Channel Island of Guernsey, as far as I know) has either been corrupted or tricked into acquiescing to the practice of private banks issuing their currencies and pocketing the interest from it. Given that the entire Money Supply of most countries comes into being through loans from these banks, that's a lot of interest money. This gives enormous power to these banks (or bankers) who, conscious of their trickery, set about corrupting the whole fabric of society to gain control over it and ward off any possible challenge to their position.
If the sovereign Government issued the currency (out of the same thin air that the private banks use), they would have all the interest free capital they need to provide infrastructure and services. (Indeed, this is what the Australian Federal Government did in the very early part of the 20th Century). Interest charged to private borrowers would go towards funding services as well. It is quite possible to run a prosperous nation without taxes!
That is briefly how a currency is supposed to work. Government issued currency, managed well, leads to prosperity with little or no taxation and national independence. What's not to like?
Privately issued currency, which also leads to foreign loans from more private banks, leads to poverty, oppressive taxes and loss of sovereignty. With the loss of sovereignty comes the inevitable risk of involvement in foreign wars that have nothing to do with you. What's not to loathe?
If the drive to one world currency is resisted and should the resistance prove successful, it should immediately be followed with a campaign for a nationalized banking system to return the wealth to the people of the nation.
So that's what's wrong with a privately issued national currency. Does it apply to a One World Currency? Yes, indeed, and more. While there is a general loss of sovereignty within all countries (and it is much more than most people would like to think) there remains the possibility of it being regained by the populace of any particular nation. A nation that successfully financed itself would then be a shining example for others to follow. A global currency would take away that possibility or at least place it so far out of reach to make it virtually impossible. Thereafter, if a nation tried to establish its own currency, it would find it couldn't convert it to carry out foreign trade plus it would have the armies of the world surrounding it because the bankers would be in effective control of all the world's governments (and their armies) just as national banks are in control of national governments now. It just gets that much harder to have an economically just system.
So how are the “Powers That Be” going to bring in a One World Currency? Well, they've already started. They have had a trial run with the Euro for Western Europe which has no doubt provided useful lessons. It is interesting to note that Ireland boomed after it join the European Union with the injection of loan funds which increased the money supply and after they refused (twice) to adopt the Euro as their national currency, they now find themselves deep in recession; carrot and stick. This will be used more and more.
The current derivatives meltdown around the world is a necessary part of this plot to a One World Currency. The PTB get people to adopt unpalatable changes by first creating a problem or crisis and then presenting the change as the solution; “the medicine will taste better than the disease”, sort of thing; along with such platitudes as “Short term pain for long term gain”.
Anyway, you can read more about Stage One, "Into The Valley of Debt" here. It's not over either. There's more of stage one to come. All the trillions of dollars that have been created to “bail out the banks” will inevitably lead to inflation, probably massive. There's no escaping it. The mechanicism for that is explained in the above link. People (political shills) will call out for a stable one world currency and some countries will go for it. But not every country will be keen on it particularly if they know what's in store. So there's a need for something to provide value to and to enforce the adoption of this OWC by reluctant countries. China, for instance, might not be too keen to hear that this new currency will be backed up in part by their own resources yet they will have no say in the issuance of the currency nor share in part of the consequently massive profits. Nevermind the loss of control of their own economy.
I believe the proposed new currency will be backed by oil. The international bankers behind the BIS will not need to own the oil (though they own quite a lot through their oil companies). All they need is for the oil to be sold, and only sold, in exchange for their new currency. This will ensure an instant and massive demand for this currency. This sleight of hand requires the control of or agreement from the world's oil supplier countries. We already have a similar system in place in the world.
In the early seventies, OPEC was formed and then massively increased the price of oil over the following years. The major oil companies (and their client governments) rolled over without much fuss at all and accepted the new staus quo. There were no invasions. I remember being surprised at the time and the answer to the riddle came along in due course. The oil majors (who, remember, are owned by the major banking families) made a deal with the Saudis (and the other OPEC nations followed) to only sell their oil through the oil “bourses” in London and New York and the sales to be denominated in US dollars. This neat trick meant that the major banks could issue huge amounts of dollars (out of thin air) as loans to the value of the world's oil sales because everyone now needed to get the US$ before they could get the oil. This is how the US dollar was cemented in place as the reserve currency of the world. And this is how, too, they have been able to deliberately dismantle the US domestic economy over the last thirty years through globalisation (thank you Milton Freidman!) and not see the value of the US dollar plummet. This is how the US has financed its huge military buildup. It would have not been possible otherwise. It has been able to spend, spend, spend all this new found wealth from the interest gained from the vast loans as well as spending the money outright. It may take a while to get your head round this but, believe me, it really is as simple as its sounds.
Perhaps now you will see new meaning in Saddam Hussein's selling of oil in currencies other than the US$ which he started shortly before he (and all Iraqis) came to grief. This accounted for the timing of the war as well as its raison d'etre. Perhaps you will extend that new meaning to encompass Iran's decision to do likewise. Not only has this threatened the viability of the US's continued military dominance (it buys from all over the world with its currency backed by others oil), but just as importantly, it threatens the introduction and viability of their projected New World Order currency. This makes Iran target number one. If the US and these bankers can't control or own Iran's oil, they must, at least, stop them from selling it in anything other than $US for the moment and the OWC in the future. Bombing their oil fields and have the Iranians block the Straits of Hormuz in retaliation would achieve that just fine.
But that would be a temporary solution. What is needed really is complete control of Iran. This same scenario applies to Russia as well. The oil fields need to be under the international bankers control before the OWC can be introduced. Time is running out. This juggernaut has been put in motion and they cannot afford to stop it in mid stride for fear the whole plot, hatched over decades (if not longer), will collapse.
Here are two articles for added background and comment. The first is from Mike Whitney entitled, "Fragile Dollar Hegemony" and I aggree with him wholeheartedly.
The second is from William Engdahl (his website is here, lots of good stuff there) and has valuable background, though, I have some disagreement (apart from the major point of his article!). For instance,
“the status of the dollar as reserve currency depends on the status of the United States as the world’s unchallenged military superpower. In a sense, since August 1971 the dollar is no longer backed by gold. Instead, it is backed by F-16’s and MI Abrams battle tanks, operating in some 130 US bases around the world, defending liberty and the dollar.”
I believe he has this relationship exactly backwards as I argued further up in the essay.
Also, Engdahl quotes the former Director of the London International Petroleum Exchange, Chris Cook, as saying, “It is therefore with wry amusement that I have seen a myth being widely propagated on the Internet that the genesis of this "Iran bourse" project is a wish to subvert the US dollar by denominating oil pricing in euros.
’As anyone familiar with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will know, the denomination of oil sales in currencies other than the dollar is not a new subject, and as anyone familiar with economics will tell you, the denomination of oil sales is merely a transactional issue: what matters is in what assets (or, in the case of the United States, liabilities ) these proceeds are then invested.’
This is pure bullshit, as one might expect from someone in Cook's position. BTW, anytime you read, “as anyone familiar with (whatever) will tell you ...” suspect nonsense is being peddled. It's an oft used rhetorical ruse thrown at an uneducated audience (on the particular topic) to counter possible questions. I don't have space to elaborate further here on the above errors but I will answer any questions raised in the comments section.
So, to summarise, the world's international bankers, through owning the Bank for International Settlements and the US Federal Reserve, have been robbing the rest of the world blind ever since oil sales were denominated in US currency in the seventies. This grand theft has allowed them to build this massive military machine with which they are presently dominating the world. Further, they will use this war machine to intimidate the rest of the world into accepting an even more insidious currency, the One World or Global Currency from which it will be exceedingly difficult, indeed, to escape from. The pillaging will be massive and dominance will then be complete. The world will, indeed, "be their footstool". This is the bad news.
The good news is that if this juggernaut that has been launched now is delayed or sidetracked in any way, it will crash, I believe. If the approaching war with Iran in June is stymied, even temporarily, the bankers will miss their opportunity to use oil as the backing for their planned One World Currency and this will take away its viability. The current economic mess will be cleaned up in some other way other than instituting a global currency and maybe, just maybe, the truth will out and the bankers and their corruption of our societies will all start to collapse. Certainly, though, the world will have avoided massive death and destruction from yet another of their wars.
So spread the word!
Addendum.
Another way of seeing this whole issue of the One World Currency is to see it not so much as the introduction of a new currency but rather as the removal of alternate and competing national currencies (such as the Yen and Ruble, in fact, any other currency at all) to the US dollar, which is undeniably our present de facto global currency. Largely, it is just a name change because the same people (private international bankers – Rothschilds et. al.) will be issuing the new currency using the same backing, international oil sales, except now there won't be any alternatives to turn to. There will be no escape.
This changover from $US to $Global needs to be seemless. If the rest of the world starts using their own currencies in a major way in the meantime and see that it works just fine (in fact, better) then the spell will be broken. Everyone may well see that a Global or One World Currency is not only entirely unnecessary, but is (and always has been) a positive menace to world peace and prosperity. A universal currency is a necessary ingredient in establishing and maintaining an empire.
Currently, the $US is being collapsed in preparation for the changover. This has been set in motion and its course is set as the inevitable inflation reeks its damage. The bankers have their One World Currency ready in the wings to implement. BUT, they need control over the sale of ALL the oil to bring it in and to enforce its use. Any alternative to using the OWC to purchase oil will wreck it's viability and its enforcment. They don't have control of Iran's oil and presumably Russia's oil sales yet and time is running out.
The financial meltdown has been years in gestation and once set in motion had a timing of its own. The bankers had planned on a world war before this. Lebanon in 2006 was supposed to provide the spark; the attack on Syria a year or so later, as well; then finally the attack on Gaza. None have worked. What I'm saying is that the global financial meltdown, the One World Currency and all the troubles in the Middle East and now Central Asia are intimately connected and there is a critical timeline involved. Upset that timeline through further delays in bringing all the worlds oil sales under the world bankers' control (either diplomatically or militarily) and their opportunity to switch seemlessly from $US to $Global will disappear.
The $US is imploding and it will be replaced with either nothing (best alternative) or a basket of currencies or the OWC. But this last one needs the control of the oil sales in place first, as I have argued. Hence, the urgency on the bankers part and also the opportunity on everybody else's part to scuttle the whole thing.