It is an honor to have been invited to this second Chisinau symposium dedicated to economic issues. In order to analyse the economic problem properly and better define its scope, a shift in perspective can prove usefull. So to understand the economic question, I feel it is absolutely necessary to put it in an institutional context. No dissertation on economics can bring forward any guiding principles without a proper analysis of its institutional evolution both in time and space.
However, ladies and gentlemen, institutional analysis does not pertain to the economists’ domain of expertise per se – they are practitioners of the economic field. And study of the economy’s institutional framework is a legal matter. So it is as a jurist that I speak in this conference on economic issues. It is also as a such that I make a necessary foray into the monetary and financial field.
As a preliminary, it seems useful to reposition the cycle of Chisinau conferences in its international institutional context. This symposium is in line with the Philadelphia Declaration of 10 May 1944 which, if applied, would have opposed both the absolute freedom of international trade held by multinationals and the establishment of a system Unified International Monetary Fund. This is a huge story …
I started analysing the economic question from a legal and institutional standpoint when working on my thesis, which was focused on companies. I redirected my field of studies after having worked as a lawyer in international taxation, and more specifically transfer pricing. My perspective on economic issues, initially legal and institutional, then slowly became political and geopolitical. Because any institutional analysis necessarily, naturally, requires a political and geopolitical approach.
Due to its implications in everyday life, the economy today must be considered THE ultimate political and geopolitical matter. In the current context of everlasting crisis, though many theorize at length, with or without agenda, on the financial and economic deadlock in which the world is held, no one seems to see, and even less offer, any viable way out.
Yet a problem without a solution is one that is simply not properly defined. The economic problem seems to me particularly ill-defined. The observations my legal, institutional, political and geopolitical approach has led me to make, as iconoclastic as it may be, may serve to convince you.. The term « iconoclast», temporally rather than spiritually speaking, should not scare you. It is, in fact, absolutely necessary to oppose tradition, even dating back hundreds of years, when it leads humanity to its downfall ; yet it is precisely where we are collectively heading. There are periods of time than need to be politically iconoclastic, and we find ourselves in such a time. By applying a political and geopolitical approach to the economy, a number of elements have emerged that point to a conceptual road which could end the economic and monetary deadlock. A worldwide deadlock which leads to the destruction of populations and the establishment of a global government led by the main capital owners of the planet.
This brief introduction, essential to understand the subject matter, leads me to remark upon the fact that academia never seems to consider the economy from the institutional, political and geopolitical side, however crucial. From an academic perspective, economists follow the economy, while jurists put the economy into regulatory music without ever putting the framework into question. Jurists limit themselves today to a secondary role consisting in applying and maybe improving economic regulations. For far too long, they have resigned their political function, which is to have a dynamic and critical approach of legislation. In so doing, jurists have become useless, mere parasites feeding a « Newton-like » economic and political system which further drives humanity away from the sun it needs for its survival. This slippery slope was born under the influence of Hans Kelsen’s Pure theory of law ; from that point on, practicing jurists have been unable to question the aim of law, keeping a hand only into legal techniques.
Going back to the subject at hand, the economy and possible alternatives, we must first of all understand that the forces at work in this world have, over centuries, organised a complete institutional domination of economic power over political power. This domination shall soon find its logical conclusion in the advent of a global government, called « New World Order » by its proponents. In fact, this New Order isn’t new at all, it is the logical outcome of the ever-growing social status of merchant bankers, who today hold political power. This order of merchant bankers, born around the time of the Great Discoveries, due to the considerable enrichment it was able thrive on, has managed to acquire today a monopolistic type of global power. Through continued stockpiling of wealth, those holding this economic power are now in a position to impose upon the rest international institutions made to their measure. Unfortunately, no political body is able any longer to fight effectively against this conglomerate of merchant bankers, who wield an undivided and absolute power.
« How did we get here ? »… this is a long story made of struggles, counter-struggles and a considerable amount of renunciations.
Right from the start, the budding and ambitious cast of merchant bankers undertook a twofold revolution (no pun intended), consisting on the one side in a conceptual effort to dissolve the political « power » in place, and on the other in setting up,country by country, an institution able to centralise and manage the monetary masses in circulation. To be concrete, economic power used two major tools to elevate itself as a political power: first, the elaboration and dissemination of the « separation of power » principle, and secondly, the establishment of « central banks ». The French have spearheaded the conceptual and institutional foothold these two instruments of mass destruction have on both people and states. In return, the French should be the ones developing conceptual measures able to reestablish the States, in the true political sense, to their normal operating levels. Unfortunately, in the current context, we cannot rely on the French to apply these new concepts institutionally for the renewal of political power. We will come back to this…
The first principle these economic powerholders put in place is that of « separation of powers» , which was developed by Charles Louis de Secondat, baron of Montesquieu. We know the success this strategy has had in time and space. Universally recognised has the only institutional mean of limiting power, it made possible a widespread uniformisation of government models throughout the world ; making it possible to reach the ultimate stage, a global government.
The separation of power, falsely heralded as a « limitation of power », is in fact a « dissolution » . In order to fully understand this, we must consider the original meaning of the word « politics » and remind ourselves that government is the institutional tool by which « politics » are implemented. This term « politics » initially refers to the art of organising the City. On this basis, « politics » must regulate individual behaviors to make them compatible with group behaviour, social behaviour. « Politics » must therefore hold the power to control laws in their jurisdiction, deliver justice, as well as the power to restraign, thus ensuring group integrity. Without the legislative and judicial role, « political power » is simply depleted of purpose and the legitimate basis for its power to constraint. If a government also looses control over its currency – a mean by which it may promote social peace – then, as is the current situation, States cease to be political entities and are instead at the service of a hidden economic power.
Furthermore, because its objective is desolving the old political power, the « separation of power » principle will be discarded once it has fulfilled its function and the new power is free to express itself openly. This evolution can be seen precisely in the european construction – the first step to a New World Order – wherein the principle of separation of powers is blatantly abandoned. The future world government will of course not apply a separation of powers.
The second mean used by economic ringleaders to gain power is the centralisation of monetary issues into their own hands. The system of centralising currency into the bankers’ hands, which we will call the « central banking system » for ease of understanding, was born in the Netherlands, perfected in England, and then settled in France before spreading to the rest of the world. Through this generalisation, the central banking system has naturally become more diverse and complex. Most of the world’s central banks, that is, 60 of the most influential, are today managed and regulated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS in English, or BRI in French) located in Basel (Switzerland). Right from its inception under the Young plan in 1930, this banking and financial institution was set up as a legal entity under public law similar to a State, minus, of course, the role of social regulator. Whether incidentally or not, it was the financial flows transiting through the BIS (by ways of numerous loans) that financed the nazi war effort and enabled the advent of the German Third Reich.
During the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement, new international banking institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank were created to complement the « central banking system ». Thus was formed the international financial order, as we call it. This financial system is supported by many other banking organisations of international, regional and supranational character such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD, created in 1944 at Bretton Woods), the European Investment Bank (EIB, created in 1958), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD , created in 1991), the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB, cresated in 1956)…Not to mention the various institutions of the increasingly integrated European Union’s financial system. We can also add to the list the many banking and financial institutions who, with interest loans policies and through a regional or global financial bridge, gain control over all the world’s territories and countries. This global financial supervision of nations hides behind the well-meaning desire to build, rebuild and plan the territories. We should point out that economic powerholders have always chosen to hide factual reality under desguise of much-trumpeted good sentiments in order to reach their political aim.
In this respect and in line with of the perverse methodology usually employed by the economic cast in power, I must warn the auditory against a widely made yet false interpretation of the origin of the european construction. This construction DID happen under the global American domination of the 20th century, yet it is NOT, strictly speaking, an American product.
We must take into account that the American empire has been, and still is, only an avatar of global economic and financial power. Having gained political self-awareness during the Enlightenment, this power became embodied by the British then the American empires. The United-States of America where to the 20th century what the British Crown was to the 19th : a materialisation of the bankers-financiers’ growing power. We cannot dismiss the idea that China has been chosen by the holders of global financial power as an intermediary new Empire preceding the actual world government. However, their plans may be compromised by the Chinese political power who, for instance, banned all crypto-currency platforms in its jurisdiction and seems to have been fighting corruption relentlessy for a number of years. The future will show whether or not China is to become the 3rd and last global Empire before the advent of the New World Order, that is, universal dictatorship.
Starting for the most part in the 19th century, the european construction is the brainchild of those holding global economic power. It is a test lab , the first step towards an integrated world government, which will inevitably occur in the 21st century if no one seriously opposes it. Under the name of European Union, the integration of Europe allows economic leaders to test in vivo, on the continent, what will be extended to the rest of the world and will constitute the workings of a world government. Rest assured of that !
I could talk at length about the current craze for cryptocurrencies that use blockchain technology, the way the global economic system operates and how States have been made economicly dependant on and by multinationals. These lengthy arguments are not suited to the speech format, however. I could also explain the technical consequences abandoning the principle of « separation of powers » will have, in terms of government organisation. But again, this speech answers to the requirements of an overall presentation, and time is limited. Let me just add that, though article 13 of the Russian Constitution is up for debate, article 10 should especially be questioned; because all the countries that have implemented a « separation of powers », which involves a « dissolution » of power, face an unsolvable political problem. While it nails shut the coffin of « power », the controversial article 13 is in fact a mere by-product of the real political problem.
For more technical details, we shall meet in another forum…
To finish this presentation, let me stress that LAW is THE mean by which we either move closer to the advent of the global government or stop this deadly process and efficiently fight against economic candidates of global political power.
Of course, it is not enough to know the legal techniques that help us face danger. Only real political determination will make these techniques implementable. This political will should not be sought in western countries, politically and socially unable to fight ; in this respect, the BRICS awakening is potential for hope, keeping in mind that the enemy is powerful, including in these countries…
Ladies and Gentlemen, thank for your attention during this presentation.