The Hidden Economic Power

27.12.2017
Ladies and gentlemen,
 
It is a great honour for me to be invited to the second colloquium on economic questions in Chisinau. An analysis of the economic problem will be all the more useful as it will be examined from different angles, which will allow us to better determine its contours. In order to understand the economic question, I think it is absolutely necessary to analyse it in the temporal-spatial context of its institutional character.  No dissertation about the economic problem will have meaning or a solid foundation if it does not make an attempt to conduct a serious analysis of its institutional evolution in time and space. 
 
However, an analysis of the institutions, ladies and gentlemen, is not, strictly speaking, exclusively a part of the sphere of competences of economists, as is commonly thought. Expertise on the institutional frames of economics is also a part of the competences of lawyers. That is why in this colloquium, which is dedicated to economic questions, I will address you as a lawyer. And in this way, I will conduct an analysis and try to make an indispensable contribution in the monetary-credit and financial sphere.  
 
In the preliminary stage of our analysis it is useful to recount the cycle of Chisinau conferences in its international and institutional context. This symposium corresponds to the declaration that was signed in Philadelphia on the 10th of May 1944, which, were it applied, would have acted against both the absolute freedom of international trade conducted by multinationals, as well as against the creation of the system of the Single International Monetary Fund. This is a gigantic history…   
 
I started my analysis of the legal and institutional analysis of the economic problem when I was working on my thesis, which was dedicated to the functioning of commercial enterprises in general. Later, my work experience as a lawyer in the field of international taxation and, to be more precise, transfer pricing, led me to a reorientation of the boundaries and frames of my conclusions. My analysis of the economic sphere, at first of an institutional and judicial character, later took on a political and geopolitical character. This is because any institutional analysis naturally intertwines itself with a political and geopolitical aspect. Today, economics, as an independent science and because of its significant influence on the daily lives of people, must be considered a full subject of political and geopolitical teaching. In the current context of an endless crisis, even if there are any attempts to fix it, there are no concrete ways out of this dead-end. We must understand that a problem to which a solution cannot be found is a poorly formulated problem. In my view, the economic problem is exceptionally poorly presented. To convince you of this, I will share with you my conclusions that say that my approach, which, according to some, will be ‘iconoclastic’, is judicial, institutional, political, and geopolitical.  
 
The term ‘iconoclasm’, which is used in the context of temporal power and not spiritual power, should not be a cause for concern. Actually, we must oppose tradition if it leads humanity to a loss, even if it is several centuries old; and it is exactly this direction that we are collectively working towards. There are times which should be politically ‘iconoclastic’, and we are by rights located at the foundation of such an epoch. By practicing a political and geopolitical approach towards economics, I have discovered a series of elements which by themselves mean a conceptual way out of the current economic-monetary dead-end. The dead-end which flourishes in the whole world and is directly leading us to the destruction of peoples and the establishment of a world government with the main holders of the planet’s capital at the helm.  
 
This small introduction, which is necessary for an understanding of the subject, leads me to state that academic circles never examine economics in accordance with this institutional, political, and geopolitical approach, which is deciding nonetheless. From an academic point of view economists practice economics and lawyers weigh economics down with norms, without actually casting doubt on the actuality of the structure. Lawyers are now limited to a second-place role of the implementation and improvement of economic rules. For too long they have renounced their political function, which lies in a dynamic approach and critical view on legislation. In addition, lawyers have become useless, plain parasites, feeding the economic-political system as if it were the Newtonian, which more and more hides humanity from the sun that is necessary to its survival. This unfortunate bent appeared because of the influence of the pure theory of law of Hans Kelsen; lawyers who practice on this foundation have become structurally incapable of evaluating the goal of a law; nothing but legal methods are inaccessible to them.  
 
In order to return to the essence of the economic question and possible alternatives, we must above all understand, that the forces that are active in the world in which we live have, during the ages, organised the general institutional dominance of economic power above its political analogue. This domination will, before long, find its logical conclusion in the appearance of a world government under the name ‘New World Order’, which is supported by its disciples. Actually, this New Order isn’t anything new, it is the logical result of the constant rising of the social prestige and power of the trade and banking order, which today has the rank of a political power. This order of merchant bankers, who can be roughly traced to the time of the Great Discoveries, have now, because of the significant enrichment which they enjoy, reached a point of worldwide power of a monopolistic character. The lords of this economic power, by dint of wealth, have reached the stage where they are enforcing their own international institutes. Sadly, our conclusion tells us that there is not one political organ at the current time that could square up to these merchant bankers who embody absolute power.  
 
“How did we get here…” This is a long story which consists of struggle, counterstruggle, and a significant number of renunciations.  
From the very beginning, the nascent and ambitious caste of merchant bankers completed a double revolution (in the direct sense of the term), which consists of, on the one hand, conceptual endeavours dedicated to the liquidation of political ‘power’ in situ, and, on the other hand, the implementation in country after country of institutions with the capability to centralise and control the masses of money in circulation. In other words, the two key instruments used by the economic powers before their rise to the level of political power were: first, the development and spread of the principle of the ‘separation of powers’, and second, the creation of ‘central banks’. The French played the main role in the conceptual and institutional effectuation of these two elements of the mass destruction of peoples and states. To me it seems right when, in turn, the French people posit conceptual measures which will allow for the re-establishments of states in the political term of the word and return them to their normal functioning. However, in the current context and the current times, we should not, sadly, count on the French people implementing these new concepts on a state level. We will return to this later… 
 
Thus, the first instrument that was used by the holders of economic power in their drive towards political power is the principle known as the ‘separation of powers’, which has been entered into theory by Charles Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu. This principle had temporal and spatial success, as you know. By being widely acknowledged as the only legal instrument for the limitation of power, it allowed for the general standardisation of ruling regimes in all countries of the world, which made the transition to the highest levels of world government possible.  
 
The separation of powers, which has been erroneously depicted as a ‘limitation’ of power, is actually a ‘dissolution’ of it. To convince ourselves of this, it is necessary to return to the initial meaning of the word ‘politics’ and remember that government is a structural organisation, that allows one to realise ‘politics’. In its initial meaning, ‘politics’ is the art of organising the live of a city. In other words, ‘politics’ should regulate individual behaviour in such a way that it should be in harmony with group behaviour and social behaviour. This is why ‘politics’ is always accompanied by formal permissions to control the laws used on its territory, realise justice, and apply limiting measures for the security of the integrity of the group. If we were to remove the law giving and judicial functions from ‘political power’, it just loses its political meaning. Also, if we were to take the control over its own currency (which is one of the measures to secure the integrity of society) away from the government, we would receive the current situation, in which governments have ceased to be political units and have turned into subjects serving the hidden economic power.   
 
It is necessary to add, that the principle of the ‘separation of powers’ was meant for the old political power; it will be liquidated as soon as it loses its function and the new power can be expressed in an open form. Actually, we are witnesses to this evolution in the construction of Europe, which is the first step on the road to a New World Order and in which the principle of the separation of powers openly disappears. It is clear, that the 'separation of powers’ will not be used by the world government of the future.  
 
The second measure developed by the holders of economic power in their drive to political power, is the centralisation of monetary issues in their hands. The system of monetary centralisation in the hands of bankers, which we will here (for ease of comprehension) the ‘central banking system’, was born in the Netherlands, came of age in England and France, and then spread to all countries of the world. As a result, the central banking system became more diverse and complex. The majority of the world’s central banks (the sixty largest) are now managed by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel. This banking and financial institution, created in 1930 on the occasion of the ‘Young-plan’, was initially conceived as the judiciary face of public law, comparable to a government but, of course, without the function of social regulation. As an anecdote (which is by far not one-of-a-kind), the financial streams (through many credits) that went through the BIS financed the Nazi war effort and made the appearance of the Third Reich possible. 
 
The ‘central banking system’ was later supplemented in 1944 with the appearance of international banking institutions, such as the IMF and World Bank at the Bretton-Woods agreement; this way, the so-called international financial order was created. This financial system is supported by many international, regional, and supranational banking organisations, such as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (BIRD, birthed in Bretton-Woods in 1944), the European Investment Bank (1958), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (ЕBRD, created in 1991), the Council of Europe Development Bank, (CEB, created in 1956)… Not to mention the different institutions of the more and more integrated financial system of the European Union. In addition, many banking and financial institutions, thanks to the policy of interest-bearing loans, keep pushing more and more territories and countries of the world towards dependency. This placing of states under global financial control is hidden behind the politics of ‘goodwill’, meant to rebuild and improve territories. Here it is necessary to note, that the hiding of factual reality behind the concept of ‘goodwill’ is a method, traditionally accompanied by supporters of the economic power in order for them to reach their political goals.  
 
In relation to this and in accordance with the twisted methodology that is usually used by the ruling economic caste, I must warn the auditorium against the misleading interpretation of the origins of the construction of Europe. Yes, this construct was created during the dominance of the American world of the 20th century, but this is not an American product in the strict sense of the word. We must acknowledge, that the American empire has been and still is but a personification of the global economic and financial power. This power, which started to become politically cognizant in the era of the ‘Enlightenment’, consequently took shape in the British and later in the American empire; the United States of America was the materialisation of the growing power of financial bankers, the British crown was the same in the nineteenth century. It is not impossible, that the holders of the world financial power picked China as the next transitory empire, which is to be the last before the concrete arrival of the world government. However, their plans might be disrupted by China’s political power, which, for example, bans cryptocurrency platforms on its territory, and, as it seems, is tirelessly continuing the battle with corruption. The future will tell us whether China will become the third or last global empire, which will be the forerunner to the New World Order, i.e. the universal dictatorship… 
 
The European project, the origins of which are to be found in the 19th century, was thought up by circles, working towards the domination of global economic power. Europe is a testing ground, it is the first step towards the integration of that which will become inevitable in the 21st century (if no one seriously raises an objection to it), i.e. a world government. The experience of European integration, which carries the name of the European Union, allows the holders of economic power to check in vivo that which will be applied to the whole world and what will become conditions for the functioning of the world government. We should not be deceived!  
 
I could tell you in detail about the current rage for cryptocurrencies via the blockchain technology, about the functioning of the global economic chain in the sense that international corporations have done everything possible in order to place governments into economic dependence. However, these long elaborations are not adaptable to the format of this oral presentation. I could also explain to you a series of technological consequences from the point of view of governmental organisation were we to remove the principle of the ‘separation of powers’. But here, too, we need time, which is incompatible with the requirements of this presentation. Allow me only to remind you, that if article 13 of the current Russian Constitution is being discussed, then article 10 should be the subject of suspicion, because the ‘separation of powers’, which assumes the ‘disintegration’ of power, creates a political problem that is impossible to solve for all governments that have accepted it. The discussed section 13, which rams the final nail in the coffin of ‘power’, is, actually, only a secondary result of the real political problem. 
 
In order to discuss the other technical details, I will make an appointment with you in other surroundings… 
 
I conclude this presentation by underlining that the LAW is a means, by the help of which we will either move towards the appearance of the one world government, or end this process of destruction and start an effective battle with the economic aspects of political power.  
It is absolutely clear, that a simple knowledge of the legal methods of resistance against this principle is not enough. We must also supplement it with an authentic political decisiveness, which by itself will allow us to realise those methods. We should not look for this will in Western countries, which are themselves incapable of political and socio-cultural struggle; in this context, the awakening of the BRICS should be seen as a potential hope, although we must account for the great power and strength of our opponent… 
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for your attention during this presentation. 
 
____
 
Translated from Russian by V.A.V.