The coming destruction of the dollar - why George Soros really is a spooky dude

Whether you love him or hate him, the reality is that Glenn Beck does his homework. And the homework he has done on George Soros is truly frightening. To see the documented participation this "Sith lord" has had in the destruction of four (4)[...yes, that's right, 4!!!] world currencies, is a harbinger of what's coming for the U.S. dollar.

Dismiss this research as conspiracy theory at your own peril...you have been warned and I only reiterate to "do your own research...know why you believe what you believe" not because someone else tells you so.

I didn't fully understand why Glenn was using a Star Wars reference when talking about George Soros, but then I did a little research on my own. Turns out that "Sith Lord" was a title that was conferred on a powerful master of Sith knowledge. Before Darth Bane established the Rule of Two, The Brotherhood of Darkness made all force-sensitive members Sith after training them, to make the members believe themselves to be equal. (hhmmm...everyone equal, redistribution of wealth...heard that before) This strategy was created to prevent the Sith from killing each other, which is the natural order of the dark side of the force, thus violating the natural order. Bane saw this and cleansed the order by killing all of the order and created the Rule of Two; two Sith, one master to embody the power and one to crave it.

If you understand that the current path we're on all starts with George Soros. Once you know George Soros, you really don't need to go much further and the Star Wars analogy to the Sith Order makes total sense. George Soros is the guy who started Center For American Progress. Center For American Progress is the group funded by George Soros that selected John Podesta, and John Podesta selected the Obama Administration and the current White House team. This is where Van Jones went back, to the Center For American Progress. Just do a little reading on the research Glenn has put together on George Soros and his investment in Petrobras.

Read more at GlennBeck.com

To be fair, you also need to read the left perspective and how they respond to Glenn Beck. Read this story called "Progressive Hunter" to understand more about the opposition to Glenn Beck.

In an incredibly insightful piece laid out below, Ton Coumans lays a well constructed argument that supports the possibility of the coming destruction of the dollar. Instead of denying that this could even be a possibility, that just gives power to those who don't want you asking the right questions or being prepared for what they've already put in motion. The right questions are more like, "what does someone like George Soros have to gain by the destruction of the dollar?" or "what is it that the Obama Administration really believes they are accomplishing?" When you start thinking like the people in power (who could care less about the Constitution and America), then you reframe the questions and the answers (previously unthinkable to you and I) beging to make sense.

Author Dinesh D’Souza has a new book out entitled The Roots of Obama’s Rage. In brief, the book is about Barack Obama’s youth and formative experiences that ideologically made him the man he is today. Obama has been the most successful Leftist since President Lyndon Johnson, and maybe FDR, in pushing a radical agenda of socialist encroachment on the American way of life. Instead of denying the reality of what is happening all around us, if you start to ask the question, "what does he believe he's accomplishing with all this?" then you start to get to a frame of reference where from Obama's perspective everything has a purpose. Obama definitely rejects the American dream and the American way of life, but that statement doesn't make sense to Patriotic Americans unless you try and understand why that is the case. Obama has done little or nothing to advance a color-blind society, but rather seems obsessed on some level with skin color and is fanning the flames of racism instead of contributing to solutions. If you understand WHY Obama needs this controversy to continue, then you begin to understand why all these pieces are starting to make sense - only from his perspective.

1914 All Over Again?
By Ton Coumans

I am not one for art, statues or monuments. Most of these objects fail to touch me but every now and then I bump into something that sticks in my mind. Last summer I was drawn to the monument in the picture below, which stands on a square in Nevers - a beautiful city on the river Loire in France. I spent quite a long time studying it and I eventually took some pictures that, for some reason, I regularly review at home.

You will have recognized that this is a monument commemorating the tribulations of the First World War. There is a lot of symbolism in the statue but it is the French soldier's sorrowful stare that won't let me go. What trauma has he lived through? France eventually battled its way to an armistice (not victory) in 1918 after having incurred 1.7 million dead (one in 28 of the population) and over 4 million wounded. Everyone will see something different, but for me this monument is whispering; my God, what have we done?

http://dailyreckoning.com/files/2010/10/DRUS10-16-10-1.jpg

The uncanny thing is that before the outbreak of World War I, most Europeans expected the future to provide an endless stream of good fortunes, to the point of being bored by the prospect. In fact many soldiers such as the one represented by the statue, just four years earlier, were swept up by the bizarre spirit of 1914 that took hold of the peoples of Europe.

The "Spirit of 1914" which seems to have infected the passions of most of the European populations is described as a reckless urge for adventurism under the flag of nationalism. Young men in all countries volunteered to leave their prosperous lives behind and take up a fight with their European neighbors. It is difficult to comprehend the spirit of 1914. All those men lusting for adventure and the glory of battle and no one was sensing danger.

There were only a handful of people, too few to sway the opinion, that realized what lay ahead. A useless and long-forgotten quote by one of them reads: "If the scientific nations of Europe were to wage war on one another they would be thoroughly sick of it before it was finished". That quote is by Sir Winston Churchill who at the time was 37 years old and First Lord of the Admiralty. He had seen the power of artillery and machine guns in the Sudan and the Boer War and repeatedly warned against armed conflict in Europe, to no avail.

Europe had been at peace for 40 years and the millions of men that charged off to battle had no way of being able to imagine what war would be like, until they found themselves mugged by reality and stuck in the horrors of trench warfare "In Flanders Fields". That was obviously not where they had wanted the free market to take them, as Bill Bonner might assess. Nemesis, the Goddess of divine retribution, had finally found a way to sink her teeth into Europe, having waited patiently in the background during the 40 years of the Belle Epoch.

The question now is, do we stand at a similar point in history where we expect the future to provide expanding, effortless wealth, and have we been swept up by the spirit of 2006; flipping houses and living high on mortgage equity withdraws and debt? Does Nemesis have a special surprise for us and what could that be? We are in a global de- leveraging process, which is painful, but is it, in itself, truly destructive? I contend that if we are to "fall deep" there will need to be some kind of major breakdown of cooperation or even "conflict amongst peoples" resulting in a major lose-lose event that sinks the physical economy. What could that be?

In the run up to WWI, an influential book was written by General Von Bernhardi titled Germany and the next War. The book manifests Germany's frustration and militancy. Von Bernhardi proclaims that, with her scientific and intellectual achievements, Germany should have a more prominent role in world affairs, more colonial trophies with access to petroleum reserves. Germany's GDP had passed that of Great Britain and France and they now wanted more respect. France and Great Britain were maneuvering as best they could to keep Germany (a perceived threat) out of the game. Bernhardi's book also argues that war was not only a justifiable means to achieve that goal but even an obligation of Germany's leadership.

And now in 2009 we witness the wide distribution of a book titled Unhappy China, which expresses China's frustrations with their current position. The similarity in tone is uncanny. China is on its way to become the second economy of the world, yet China is not "embraced" as a member of the G8 and has almost no influence in the IMF and World Bank. China is frustrated with the West's meddling in internal affairs and with the humiliation endured by the Olympic torch run that was, in their perception, disgraced by demonstrations.

All the maneuvering by the West now is to keep China out of the game and treat them as a potential threat. Does this have automatic conflict baked into it? All out "kinetic" war does not seem realistic and more something of the past century. We have since organized the UN Security Counsel to regulate conflicts involving the use of force. But do we have adequate global institutions for monetary policy? I judge that today every government and their symbiotic Central Bank feels they have the right and obligation to use monetary policy to the advantage of their own short-sighted wealth preservation and power games. Could the conflict of the twenty-first century revolve around currency wars? Should we rephrase Churchill's warning to state, "If the financially developed nations of the world were to wage a war of competitive currency devaluation on one another, they would be thoroughly sick of it before it was finished". Could competitive currency devaluation be the bear market surprise mechanism that pits countries and peoples against one another?

The First World War is remembered for the senseless slaughter of trench warfare. Will this period be remembered for disruptive impoverishment of currency warfare? It does seem to have the potential to breed distrust and breakdown cooperation between the nations. It also has a runaway nature since it invites tit for tat exchanges. It is inherently instable because the currency that moves first and fast could have the advantage. But does it have the destructive power to sink our global physical economy? Let's hope that some years from now we will not find ourselves sorrowfully staring at the horizon and whispering; my God, what have we done.

Regards,

Ton Coumans
for The Daily Reckoning