Economic Reset: The Gold shall destroy the FED. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/europe-has-been-preparing-global-gold-standard-1970s This article is one of the more enticing ones, ecause it claims Europe to have been preparing for a gold standard type of system AFTER the Petro dollar collapse .... Given the fact Q admitting on the question: Do we have the gold: " Yes"  and " Gold SHALL destroy the FED I get the feeling something is going on here.  First of: Deep State & Co was always equated with BIS, and shady billionaire figures aligned in all kinds of parlors like TLC, Bilderberg, Altantic Council etc, strechting its tentacles out into active administration executives and into echelons of the administrative state, the media, and via Intelligence Community controls the illicit sectors.  The way I saw it was two systems, one Global, the other national. The article does not negate that, though perhaps on a different footing.  I am not quite sure as to how to put this into words without going into some other issues I picked up along the way of investigations.  So, here is the story of Marquis de Lafayette, the almost Monsieur le President de la Republique francaise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_du_Motier,_Marquis_de_Lafayette I note this man was a staunch supporter of the revolution of 1776. This revolution was about self government of the people by the people. A revolution of a equal kind was in 1581 in The Netherlands, and although staunchly republican, the party of the royalist was winning because in the foundation of that federal state, interwoven within it, it did not do away with class difference: nobilty and their divine right.  The French Revolution of 1789 was another uprising against this divine right idea. And there is a data  point in this article that is very interesting to consider, as it also ties in with Monsieur la Marquis.  https://www.globalresearch.ca/kissinger-1815-congress-vienna/5718304 https://www.britannica.com/topic/Carlsbad-Decrees Although the whole article is worth quoting here, let me first start with this one in context with emphasis supplied by me.   Professor Pierre Beaudry in his ground breaking study Lafayette and the Hereditary Principle (2008) quotes France’s great Foreign Minister and historian Gabriel Hanotaux who described the paradox of France of 1798 and 1830: “The question is always the fight between the two principles: the hereditary principle and the revolutionary principle. It is the dispute of the two Frances, the quarrel of the two flags which lingers on, and which renders impotent all government system, unless it is stopped once and for all.” When the time came for Lafayette to declare himself President of the French republic on July 31 1830, thousands of Parisian citizens shouted his name in front of City Hall after days of rioting. However, at the last minute, Lafayette failed to capture the moment and gave into the false promises of Philippe Egalite’s son (the Duke of Orleans) who agreed to become a “republican King of France” and make Lafayette the head of the National Guard and defender of the people. Waiting until the last minute, Lafayette decided tragically to go to the balcony with Louis Philippe at his side. In front of thousands of onlookers, Lafayette ignored the popular calls to become president and instead embraced the monarch and within minutes France had a new king under Louis Philippe I. Gabriel Hanotaux reported on the dialogue between Lafayette and the soon-to-be monarch moments before the embrace: “You know,” said to him Lafayette, “that I am a republican and that I consider the Constitution of the United States as the most perfect that ever existed.” – “I think as you do,” replied the Duke of Orleans, “It is impossible to have lived two years in the United States and not be of that opinion; but, do you believe that, in the situation that France is in, and following public opinion, it would be right to adopt it?” – “No,” replied Lafayette, “what the French people need today, is a popular monarchy, surrounded by republican institutions, completely republican .” – That is precisely what I intend to do,” said the prince.” Within months, the Marquis Lafayette had been fired from his position as head of the National Guard. The republican movement of Poland was annihilated as none of the support needed to advance their revolution was given by a monarchist France and the surviving revolutionaries made their way to France after the failed October uprising to find temporary protection under Lafayette. Lafayette was horrified as he watched the new king enmesh France into a deep alliance with Britain while expanding its colonial policy abroad. Lafayette died in 1834 after watching King Louis Philippe turn on the people and become the same tyrant which the revolution of 1789 sought to end. In spite of his death, the fervor for freedom from monarchism couldn’t be stifled directly. Now the writer drops his most interesting observation: Instead, a technique was honed called neo-Jacobinism which used anarchism to direct the rage of the masses towards breaking all structures identified as “the establishment” while in reality keeping said establishment in  Do you see the movement? Riding a popular wave, only to have it co-opted and diverted to something else. What lies at the heart of that something else. Perhaps it is best exemplified by the history of the House of Orange, as they played a vital role in compromising and redirecting the exercise of self government:  prenote: Compare it to House Motier de Lafayette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_La_Fayette William was succeeded by his second son Maurits... In the early years of the 17th century there arose quarrels between stadtholder and oligarchist regents—a group of powerful merchants led by Johan van Oldebarnevelt—because Maurits wanted more powers in the Republic. Maurits won this power struggle by arranging the judicial murder of Oldebarnevelt. A quarrel about the education of the young prince arose between his mother and his grandmother Amalia (who outlived her husband by 28 years). Amalia wanted an education which was pointed at the resurgence of the House of Orange to power, but Mary wanted a pure English education. .... Jan de Witt and Cornelis de Graeff, meddled in the education and made William a "child of state" to be educated by the state. The doctrine used in this education was keeping William from the throne. William became indeed very docile to the wishes of the regents and the Estates.[9][10] The Dutch Republic was attacked by France and England in 1672. The military function of stadtholder was no longer superfluous, and with the support of the Orangists, William was restored, and he became the stadtholder. William successfully repelled the invasion and seized royal power. He became more powerful than his predecessors from the Eighty Years' War.[9][10] In 1677, William married his cousin Mary Stuart, the daughter of the future king James II of England. In 1688, William embarked on a mission to depose his Catholic father-in-law from the thrones of England, Scotland and Ireland. He and his wife were crowned the King and Queen of England on April 11, 1689. With the accession to the thrones of the three kingdoms, he became one of the most powerful sovereigns in Europe, and the only one to defeat Louis XIV of France.[9] What Wiki fails to mention is the death by orangist mob of the regent who meddled in his education: The De Witt brothers. In another Wiki entry: CABAL relates to the privy council under Charles II, instigating the 1672 invasion into the Dutch Republic. It is clear as to why.  At the invitation of the provisional government, William Frederick returned to the Netherlands on November 30. This move was strongly supported by the United Kingdom, which sought ways to strengthen the Netherlands and deny future French aggressors easy access to the Low Countries' Channel ports. The provisional government offered William the crown. He refused, believing that a stadholdership would give him more power. Thus, on December 6, William proclaimed himself hereditary sovereign prince of the Netherlands—something between a kingship and a stadholdership Now in 1815, after the Vienna Congress, where a different peace framework was laid down, one of military, social en economic control, the Karlbad decrees come into play. See also Beatrice de Graaf: Fighting terror after Napoleon.  1848 saw several revolution, one Belgium split away, and the King had to accept a more modest role in day to day rule of the Kingdom. Typically, this is the Monarchy with republican institutions. However, ..... the constitution is totally skewed towards the power of the state, the nanny state if you will.  This whole scheme above gives me the impression that our nobles are scheming behind the veil into getting things totally under their control. A measure of populist activity is ok, but not to much. Lords and serfs and perhaps a few in between to aid in administration.  In an integrated and rather interdependent world as we have today, the overall move of Europe to equalize gold holdings is the setup for a global gold standard that will enhance the nobles power. It is interesting to note China to be part of that movement. Unless, someone diverts the direction. And this is what Donald Trump is doing. Without pre-eminence the battle is lost.