Goldman Sachs & BRICS: Alternative World Scenarios
Before I begin to write about how Goldman Sachs and BRICS (the Brazil, Russia, India, China & South Africa alignment) are related—I want to, first, go over a document titled A Decline of Superpower Influence, that was published by the U.S. Army War College in 1986. The author was Charles W. Taylor, a faculty member at the college. Charles Taylor was also a strategic futurist with the Strategic Studies Institute and a member of the World Future Society. In addition to his forecast written in 1986, he released an updated document in 1988 ( Alternative World Scenarios for Strategic Planning) and another version in 1992 titled A World 2010: A New Order of Nations.
In the 1992 paper, Taylor describes the “decline” (or controlled demise) of the Old Guard influence—he explores “the notion of a devolution of political and economic world power and forecasts a rise of a new order of nations.” A new era where even “third world nations [can] become competitive industrial states.” He envisioned a world where new coalitions would be formed among states that have grown tired of the Old World Order and wanted their own piece of the pie. Taylor also emphasizes World Interdependence which would continue to increase as the world becomes more globalized. Furthermore, he mentions that “redistribution” of wealth would happen through investments in the economies of transitioning industrial countries while, simultaneously, lessening the influence of post-industrial countries.
In the 1994 document (obtained through a FOIA request by The Black Vault)—there was an info-graph called The Cone of Plausibility: Past and Future that I found to be peculiar. It is a double-sided cone with larger cones that have smaller cones within them and one cone faces the past and the other faces the future. To me, the larger cone symbolizes the universe in which we currently live and within that, the smaller cones represent the different realities that can manifest within that universe based on the different decisions we make. And the same goes for the cone that faces the “past” which is also made up of different realities based on the decisions we’ve made in the past (the range of plausible pasts).
Personally, I don’t want to live within any of those pre-constructed cones (realities) — I’d like to exist outside of all of the cones and carefully reflect upon and create my own understanding of reality, while observing the “cone of plausible pasts and futures” from the bleachers. That’s my route, though, everyone is entitled to their own path.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not rejecting the entire notion of “making plans for the future” or having specific goals, but it doesn’t sit well with me when it’s coming from a “military logistics” angle. This is so because I have a deep distrust for the individuals (at the top) who run the war industry AND for the ignorant individuals at the managerial and “lower” levels who participate in the charade. Another important idea brought up in Charles Taylor’s documents is the possible rise of the “Non-Aligned Movement”—basically what we are seeing happen with the “anti-NATO” or BRICS alignment that formed in the early 2000’s—Goldman Sachs was writing about BRICS as early as 2001 in their document titled Building Better Global Economic BRICs. More on Goldman Sachs’ Global Economics Papers later.
Charles Taylor highlighted four basic alternative scenarios:
1.Scenario Alpha: Isolationist — Political leaders advocate a strong welfare & social investment economy. Post-industrial infrastructures lack the capacity to support industrial surge requirements. A rise in worldwide nationalism suppresses U.S. influence and precludes U.S. military presence overseas. U.S. local community infrastructures inhibit military stationing and reduce installation investment.
2.Scenario Bravo: Peacekeeper — Advocate a strong military defense. Tradeoffs of nationalism for economic development strengthen U.S. influence and preserve U.S. military presence overseas. U.S. local community infrastructures underpin military stationing and installation investments.
3.Scenario Charlie: Neo-Nationalism — Strong military defense. A rise in worldwide nationalism suppresses U.S. influence and precludes U.S. military presence overseas. U.S. local community infrastructures inhibit military stationing and reduce installation investment.
4.Scenario Delta: Muted Multipolar World — A strong welfare and social investment economy. Tradeoffs of nationalism for economic development strengthen U.S. influence and preserve U.S. military presence overseas. Local community infrastructures inhibit military stationing and reduce installation investments.
Moreover, according to Taylor, the “new order of nations” could be classified into five categories in accordance with their “progress” in industrialization and modernization. The categories were: postindustrial, advanced industrial, transitioning industrial, industrial, and preindustrial.
- Post-Industrial: Ultramodern, science-based/high tech oriented for information services and knowledge industries (dominate outer space).
- Advanced Industrial: Highly modernized, automated and robotic 21st century manufacturing (use of space).
- Transitioning Industrial: Modernized industrial/manufacturing and mostly agricultural economies.
- Industrial: Modern, late 20th century industrial manufacturing and agriculture.
- Pre-Industrial: Partly industrial to almost completely agricultural economy.
World Future Society & Charles Taylor
As I already stated in the opening of this essay, Charles Taylor was also part of the World Future Society—this fact is stated under the biography section of his 1986 document titled A Decline of Superpower Influence published by the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania.
The World Future Society or WFS was founded in 1966 by Edward Cornish as a response to the Cuban Missile Crisis. They even created a magazine (in 1967) called The Futurist that had a notable list of contributors ranging from Buckminster Fuller, Ray Kurzweil, and Carl Sagan to Al Gore, Kofi Annan, and Nicholas Negroponte. The Futurist was a pioneer in bringing unique areas of science and technology into the mainstream ether—the publication focused on topics such as: cybernetics, energy independence, neural modification, global warming, smart fabrics, intelligent textiles, running computers on DNA, nanotechnology legislation, and fMRI imaging (or brain scans) in classrooms.
Nicholas Negroponte, Alfred Loomis & MIT Radiation Lab
Nicholas Negroponte is the brother of John Negroponte, who was the first director of National Intelligence under George W. Bush. Nicholas Negroponte co-founded MIT Media Lab with Jerome Wiesner, who was part of MIT Radiation Lab (Rad Lab). MIT Media Lab received grant money from Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted of sex-trafficking minors and Nicholas Negroponte was quoted saying it was completely justified and would take the money again if the clock was turned back.
In 1995, Negroponte wrote Being Digital, which was about “true personalization” in the Post-Information Age—where everything is made to order and information is extremely personalized. The post-information age would consist of a myriad of demographics that would be fed ultra-focused and personalized media messages that would be specifically curated for them. He also added that the post-information age would remove the limitations of geography because “digital living will include less and less dependence upon being in a specific place at a specific time, and the transmission of place itself will start to become possible.” In Being Digital, Negroponte explains that bits are the underlying particles of digital computing—they had no color, size, or weight, but could travel at the speed of light. Bits are, fundamentally, the DNA of information—basically, bits help create a digital representation of the material world.
Nicholas Negroponte’s co-founder of MIT Media Lab, Jerome Wiesner, was also affiliated with the MIT Radiation Lab (Rad Lab) which was established by a man named Alfred Loomis—a physicist, financier, and lawyer who was a friend of Vannevar Bush and a cousin of Henry L. Stimson (who was Secretary of War). In 1948, Loomis was one of the original members of the RAND Corporation Board of Trustees along with other representatives from Carnegie Corporation, Cal Tech, Princeton, and Battelle Memorial Institute. Alfred Loomis made his fortune by financing electric companies while they were building the electrical infrastructure of rural America.
Loomis sat on the boards of several banks and electric companies. He also pioneered “the concept of the holding company, consolidating many of the electric companies that operated on the East Coast of the United States. Loomis further increased his fortune via insider trading practices that are now illegal.” Right before the 1929 Wall Street Crash, Loomis converted most of his investments into cash, so when the crash did happen he became even wealthier because he was able to purchase cheap stocks while the value was low. Henry Loomis, Alfred’s son, served on the board of the MIT-affiliated Mitre Corporation for thirteen-years, worked with the CIA, and the Department of Defense until 1958 when he became the director of Voice of America (VOA).
Mapping the Global Future (2003)
The National Intelligence Council (NIC)—which was established in 1979 to bridge the U.S. intelligence community with policy makers—has been producing a “Global Trends” report every four years since 1997. In 2003, the NIC published the following scenarios in a document titled Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project: Davos World, Pax Americana, A New Caliphate, or Cycle of Fear.
- Davos World: provides an illustration of how robust economic growth, led by China and India, over the next 15 years could reshape the globalization process — giving it a more non-Western face and transforming the political playing field as well.
- Pax Americana: takes a look at how US predominance may survive the radical changes to the global political landscape and serve to fashion a new and inclusive global order.
- A New Caliphate: provides an example of how a global movement fueled by radical religious identity politics could constitute a challenge to Western norms and values as the foundation of the global system.
- Cycle of Fear: provides an example of how concerns about proliferation might increase to the point that large-scale intrusive security measures are taken to prevent outbreaks of deadly attacks, possibly introducing an Orwellian world.
Some experts featured in the 2003 NIC report warned that a pandemic (caused by SARS) is likely to be in the future and that it would greatly hurt globalization—for all of the folks who scream about Event 201 at nauseam, Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab are not the only two who “just knew” a pandemic was coming. It is not to defend either of them, I just get fucking tired of hearing the hysteria around “Bill and Melinda Gates” or “the democrats” or “the World Economic Forum”—I beg you, please mindfully engage with the media you consume, don’t let the “alternative” (or the mainstream media) turn you into reactionary nitwits. No offense to anyone, but it has to be said.
Goldman Sachs and BRICS (2001 & 2003)
In 2001, Goldman Sachs produced their Global Economics Paper №66, titled Building Better Economics BRICs.
In the report, they stated that in 2001 and 2002, the real GDP growth in large emerging market economies would exceed that of the G7 countries. And since the weight of the BRICs countries (especially China) in world GDP would grow, then the G7 should be ready to adjust and incorporate BRIC representatives (Brazil, Russia, India, and China). Two years later, in 2003, Goldman Sachs published Global Economics Paper №99 titled Dreaming With BRICs: The Path to 2050—where they postulate that if things go right, in less than 40 years, the BRICs economies together could be larger than the G6 in US dollar terms.
And by 2025, they could account for over half the size of the G6. Of course, Goldman Sachs is just one banking institution and they don’t “run the world” themselves; however, when they write these types of documents, it is normally for investors who are interested in profit and in that realm, Goldman Sachs’ words carry quite a bit of weight. I want to bring attention to one more detail from the 2003 document where they, in passing, mention that the growth in GDP (for BRICs nations) is dramatic in the first thirty-years, but that growth for BRICs is likely:
“to slow significantly toward the end of the period, with only India seeing growth rates significantly above 3% by 2050. And individuals in the BRICs are still likely to be poorer on average than individuals in the G6 economies, with the exception of Russia.”
The document is basically saying that the everyday people in the BRICS countries will not see much material difference and will still be living “poorer” than the average individuals in the G6 economies—in all of the BRICS nations EXCEPT for Russia, how interesting, eh? So, the other countries in BRICS (all located in the “global south”) are supposed to agree to this type of coalition while knowing that the “material” differences for the everyday people will only be to the “benefit” of Russia? How does that make any sense? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding or missing something, but this seems like an unfair deal (even by the establishment standards).
Goldman Sachs: BRICs and Beyond (2007)
Let’s move forward to another Goldman Sachs paper BRICs and Beyond written in 2007—this was a more comprehensive document that covered:
- India’s rising growth potential
- Unlocking Brazil’s growth potential
- BRICs and Green Energy
- The Next Eleven (N-11) nations
- Is Wall Street doomed?
- Agricultural commodities
- Can anyone else do a China?
- Globalization and disinflation
In the report, China is poised to surpass the U.S. economy by 2027 and the Next Eleven (N-11) countries were from a previous concept that was introduced in the 2005 paper—it discussed the next set of large-population countries that would also economically “rise” — similar to the BRIC countries. Of the possible countries with the conditions to rival the current major economies, in 2005, Goldman Sachs predicted Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, and Vietnam would be next. It seems like they are picking winners and losers based on how well the leaders of the selected countries comply with the rules set by central banks, legacy commercial banks, and multinational corporations—that’s just my opinion, though.
Furthermore, the economist who coined the term “BRICs,” Jim O’Neill, is a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, served as a UK government minister, and is a current chairman at Chatham House — the UK think tank from which the Council on Foreign Relations was birthed. I have no love for the U.S. dollar’s dominance, but let’s not act like the upcoming “collapse” of the dollar is some sort of surprise or fluke rather than a controlled demolition that has been in the making for several decades—again, that is my opinion.
One has to wonder, was the BRICS coalition set up by Goldman Sachs (and others alike) as a possible reserve replacement for the dollar after its collapse? If we peel back the layers of the “illusion” that BRICS is “fighting back” against NATO and the West, it becomes clear that the people pulling the strings in the “anti-NATO” movement are the SAME people pulling the string behind NATO.
That is not to say that the individual governments of each country don’t have “real” qualms that they squabble about among one another (especially with the western hegemonies, of course there will be REAL resistance and it is understandable and justified). The NATO countries realized long ago that they were very unpopular, that is why they made contingency plans to give the “third world” nations the illusion that they were “fighting back” when they were actually being steered (cybernetics) toward the very same agenda that they think they are fighting. The United States and NATO didn’t just suddenly become unpopular—all “empires” fall because their demise is coded into the fabric of their existence. “Empires” are designed in such a way that they appear to rise and fall, but really they operate in cycles—and who comes to power is based on the winners and losers that are chosen by the same type of people who have always been in power: ignorant people and complete sociopaths. There is a reason why the military, legacy banks, and other private or government institutions have been testing out different scenarios for decades. They always readjust and adapt as things arise because as long as people have free-will, they cannot account for randomness.
What the “anti-NATO” coalition might not realize is that the “saving grace” being presented as an “alternative” is constructed by the same people who they are currently fighting (it is a covert infiltration). This is not uncommon and I am not trying to pass what I am saying off as some “profound” analysis; this is just how I view the geopolitical landscape and I am sharing my thoughts because I fucking feel like it. Bite me.
Global Economics Paper №181 (2009)
The Global Economics Paper №181 published by Goldman Sachs in 2009 provided some advice for the G20 countries about the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization.
The report advised G20 leaders to oppose any form of “protectionism”—in case this needs to be said, Trump selling himself as a “protectionist” is not him going “against” the establishment (he is playing a character because he is a mobster and an actor). The document also mentioned that there was a need to alter the global perception that the IMF is a tool of the US and Western Europe—hilarious, they are talking about “rebranding” the IMF. The document makes it clear that the changes would, strictly, be cosmetic in order to appease certain countries and give them the illusion of representation; it made very little substantive or material difference…lovely. Thank you for your honesty, Jim O’Neill.
The 2009 report actually cites Edwin Truman’s paper titled The IMF and the Global Crisis: Role and Reform and it was published by Peterson Institute for International Economics. It seems like the whole idea behind Truman’s perspective is the need for the IMF to appear “decentralized” or “reformed” so that the “non-developed” nations feel like they are getting a slice of the pie, when in reality, nothing will ultimately change. This is deception.
In the paper, Truman identifies three problem areas that need to be solved in order for the IMF to t maintain legitimacy:
First, a country’s adoption of economic adjustment programs in connection with IMF financial assistance is politically controversial. Second, the private sector came to play the dominant role as the source of international capital flows, and global surveillance and supervisory systems failed to keep pace with many of the resulting implications for the countries attracting the inflows. Third, the governance of the IMF continued to be dominated by the major industrial countries, in particular the United States and the European countries, which undermined the legitimacy of the institution in a changing world.
Truman says it plainly: receiving financial assistance from the IMF is politically controversial—which is why they needed to rebrand. Also, note that this paper was published in 2009—the same year the Bitcoin white paper came out and there was a massive movement raging against the legacy banking system by “building parallel economies” with cryptocurrency (I wrote about Bitcoin’s ties to the Extropians and the NSA here).
Extropian & NSA Roots of Bitcoin, Cypherpunks, Wikileaks + UNICEF
Sebs Solomon—June 23, 2022
My theory is that the energy of the “anti-central banks” movement was captured by corporate ghouls who harnessed that energy and redirected it toward some variety of “crypto solutions” that were designed by frauds who astroturf as “grassroots” organizations.
It is my belief that the current crypto economy is the illegitimate love child of the “rebranding” done by the IMF (and other prominent multilateral institutions) in conjunction with the real (and very much justified) cries of the masses who demanded an alternative to the corrupt central banking cartel.
Goldman Sachs: “(De)Globalization Ahead?” (April 2022)
Goldman Sachs De(Globalization) Ahead? paper was published in the Top of Mind series in April of 2022—it went over: Russia and Ukraine relations effect on globalization, inflation, slowbalization, newbalization, localization of semiconductor foundries, and the dollar’s demise. In the report, Adam Posen, who is President of the Peterson Institute for International Economics was asked about globalization and whether or not it was on a decline—to which he replied:
What we’re seeing is better described as a corrosion, as opposed to the end of globalization. That’s because globalization isn’t a single concept, but rather a multi-layered interaction between economies and societies along many dimensions, incl trade and investment, the flow of people & the development of business relationships and networks…we’re at a turning point in that many countries will feel growing pressure to align with one or the other, accelerating the corrosion of global integration, and leading to larger and more frequent holes in the fabric of globalization. So, the world is set to look a lot messier ahead.
The paper also emphasizes that the “data” shows a world on a gradual slowdown in the growth in cross-border flows in goods, capital, and people—which they refer to as slowbalization. The paper also argues that the sharp rise in cross-border digital activity supports “the notion of ‘newbalization’ or the idea that the nature of globalization itself is changing as flows slow in tangible areas while accelerating in intangible ones [cross-border data flows].” Jim O’Neill, who coined the acronym “BRICS” while he was chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management is interviewed in the report and he is quoted saying that “devising a global governance system across countries that don’t share the same values is challenging, but imperative to forward progress.” By and large, O’Neill is saying that it is essential to concoct a global governing system across countries that may not share the same values—even if it’s challenging, it must be done. O’Neill accepts this as the proper path forward because, in his opinion, the world as a whole has benefited from globalization because it has been “extremely positive, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in many parts of the emerging world and driving unprecedented economic growth over the past two decades.” At least that’s how he justifies it on official documents—I cannot say whether or not it’s what he truly believes.
I wanted to write this post in order to document, in writing, the chronological order in which I did the presentation on this topic in this video. I am not writing this to “bash” the “non-aligned” movement. Nor am I here trying to tell anyone that “everything is captured so why keep trying”—please do not take this post as some sort of “sneak diss” toward any well-meaning individuals, groups, or organizations who believe in the multi-polar world from an authentic and righteous place. I actually quite like most of those people because I can empathize with wanting to root for the underdogs who have been humiliated and exploited by the corrupt, cretin-infested governments of the northern hemisphere.
However, when approaching these types of conversations, I find that I often get dismissed as a “liberal” or “CIA shill” when I simply bring up basic facts that are easily verifiable with a simple google search. Or I get told that I am reading “too much” into patterns and not comprehending the “sophisticated nuance” within “targeted” nations. Why would a legacy behemoth like Goldman Sachs be so involved in boosting a “non-aligned” movement that would “truly” challenge the core of the “western empire” within which they exist, operate, and thrive? Like I already stated above, of course it’s not JUST about Goldman Sachs—I simply used their papers on BRICS to make my case because those reports provided the most obvious examples of collusion between the “east and west”—while the masses are led to believe they are rivals. Again, if I am missing some information or someone feels I am way off, I would love to hear a different point of view. And of course, as I have get more information, I will always incorporate that into my analysis and readjust as needed. I am not saying that this is the end all be all TRUTH—this is just where I have landed for now on this matter.
Peace and blessings,
PS. I was feeling slightly aggressive today; so, I apologize for the pugnacious tone and the bellicose expletives. My father has complained about my language in previous posts, but he will just have to get over it—it’s my damn blog! If you are reading this, old man, love you.