NowMeditate !

[PART 1] [I’d like to start with one of your books – ”Rouble Nationalization”. This work of yours is now more relevant than ever, including for the Republic of Moldova. I’d like to ask you to briefly describe how the mechanisms of the US’ financial influence work on our society, on our countries. And why you think Russia should implement such a fundamental financial ... revolution.] Good afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity to see my book as a kind of ‘underground publication’. That’s very interesting, pleasant and certainly unexpected. These days, by the hand of fate, I am frequently in Moldova, mostly in Chișinău, of course, but I have also traveled around the country quite a lot. I guess in a few Russian cities they might be offended that I visit Chișinău more often than them. That’s just how it has turned out. As for the global financial system, it’s not just about money and the global economy. The understanding of where money comes from, and who creates it, leads to an understanding of what is happening today in global geo-politics. So it really is important. It concerns not only the Russian Federation, Moldova and other nations. In the whole world it’s constructed almost identically. There are two unequal groups of nations. The first group is headed by the US and includes the EU, Japan, Switzerland, UK. They create money out of thin air. This has to be understood. The emission of these magnificent major “hard currencies” takes place without the backing of anything of value. That’s the first thing to know. Secondly, at a certain point, for some reason, the creation of money was transferred from the state to private central banks. The European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England – these are non-state organizations, they are shady private outfits. So we have a strange situation where the state has surrendered one of its main functions – the coining of money, which was metal – gold, silver. Now it’s paper money and virtual ones and zeroes on credit cards, but the essence is unchanged: private bankers create money without the backing of any resources. This gives them unlimited power. It gives them access to an unlimited source of wealth, and, accordingly, power. Because for money one can buy corruptible politicians and (in quotation marks) “independent journalists”. One can establish military bases around the world. If the volume of this money is unlimited, then it would seem to bring unlimited power. [Alright, Nikolai. In the case of Russia, or Moldova, in terms of the Constitution and legislation, the Central Banks are supposedly state institutions.] Well, you and we, and most nations – the overwhelming majority, belong to the second group of nations, not having the right to sovereign emission of their own currency by the same principle as the first group of nations does. We are forced to accumulate the money created by these private central banks of the so-called “leading” European powers and the US, in order to emit our national currency. This is the so-called “foreign exchange reserves”. In order to create Lei, Roubles or Mexican Pesos, we have to accumulate in certain reserves those digital ones and zeroes, which others simply print out of thin air. [You mean, our sovereignty is limited, we cannot have our own financial system?] Of course not. Moreover, in order to obtain _ their _ digital ones and zeroes, we have to give something away to them – they won’t simply give us this money, we have to sell something on the global market. In this way is created a very unequal exchange – the Western nations hand over primarily money they created out of nothing, and in exchange they receive very concrete resources. In the case of Moldova it could be some agricultural products, since, unfortunately, manufacturing has been destroyed in the post-Soviet period. Part of the nation’s sovereignty, a certain voting power at the UN, a certain political position can all be bought for these unbacked digital ones and zeros. In the case of the Russian Federation, a significant part of our natural wealth is likewise sold for this unbacked western money. And only by receiving this money into the foreign exchange reserves of the Central Bank do we get the right to issue our own money. What we have, in fact, is a feudal system of tribute payments cloaked by the financial system. Without paying the tribute, without handing over some of your national wealth effectively for free, most nations of the world don’t have the right to issue money. Hence the difference in the standard of living. Imagine you’re working honestly in some job, doesn’t matter what. Meanwhile someone else is printing money. Which of you will live better? [That’s obvious. So it means our central banks are independent of the government, the parliament and the president, but are dependent on external factors.] Absolutely right. They are incorporated into a certain international structure that was set up as a result of the second world war – the IMF. The central banks are a kind of quasi-governmental structure. If you take the Constitution of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Moldova or other countries, you’ll see there is a very cunning system of subordination. In reality, what exists under the guise of a quasi-governmental structure is subordination to the International Monetary Fund. Imagine, the state cannot liaise directly with the office that creates money. Any conflict which arises has to be resolved in the Stockholm Arbitration Institute. [So, institutions within the state, it would seem, have to resolve their disputes overseas?] Imagine (as an analogy) you’re the Chief Executive of a business. If you don’t like your director of finance, you have to sue him in the Stockholm Arbitration Institute – you can’t fire him. Question: is he subordinated to you or to someone else? Clearly the subordination here is very strange and confused, and for sure this chap is not acting in your best interests, as you cannot dismiss him from his position by the stroke of a pen. 6 New Insight New Insight 6 years ago [PART 2] [So how about the nationalization of the rouble, the leu, other national currencies in our region? How can we make the breakthrough in practical, legal and constitutional terms? For now we can only talk about it. I don’t think anyone in our region has managed to get out of this situation.] No-one has ever managed to get out of this situation. Let me emphasize – didn’t get out _ alive _ . Certain politicians, who tried to break the global bankers’ monopoly on the emission of money, got killed. In particular, the US President John F. Kennedy, who was killed after signing the executive order (11110) that the emission of US dollars was to be returned – partially, as a first step – into the hands of the state, and was taken away from the Federal Reserve. After about 4-5 months he was killed by a group of snipers, then the farce was put on with Lee Harvey Oswald, who supposedly shot the President. I won’t go into the details here – anyone can examine the documents and see that it violates not only the laws of logic, but also the laws of physics. For example, the President’s head which was hit by the bullet moves in a clear trajectory in the bullet’s direction of movement – that’s obvious. But in the investigative material it is stated that the shot was fired from the other side. I won’t say that the bullet hovered in the air for a time, since it struck several people on a trajectory that is simply impossible. [So there is some similarity to the tragic fate of Ceaușescu and Qaddafi – if we take times closer to us.] Yes, in a certain sense. Both Qaddafi and Ceaușescu are victims of the global financial system, to different degrees. Regarding Ceaușescu, the situation was as follows. Romania during his time borrowed money, which was used to develop Romanian industry. Ceaușescu decided it was necessary to tighten the belt. It was brutal austerity, but as a result, toward the end of his life, Romania re-paid its national debt. But since bankers create money out of nothing, which costs them nothing, their primary task, strange as it may sound, is to put people into debt such that they cannot re-pay it. Why would they need back the money that they can print in any quantity? What they need is the state to borrow money, such that in the future they won’t be able to re-pay it, so they will act according to orders from the bankers, lose their sovereignty, hand over their territory for military bases, and in short, sell out for resources which cost the bankers nothing. Ceaușescu, on the other hand, re-paid the debt. That’s why he was killed as a result of the coup d´état, after which Romania became one of Europe’s main debtors. The current Romanian leadership takes on more debt to the joy of the bankers, while the Romanian people are supposed to repay this debt one day. Of course, it’s a crushing burden. To the ordinary person international politics seems so complicated that it’s impossible to understand anything. That’s an artificially created sense of complexity. In fact, it’s all banal and simple. We understand it all perfectly well. Imagine, when you’re going for some job. Do you choose it because of the freedom, the freedom of speech there? Or because the pay is good? [Obviously for the good pay.] But when it’s a question of electing political parties, a certain vector gets pushed upon us, like “freedom”. What exactly is “freedom”? It’s a very abstract concept. Everyone has their own understanding of “freedom”. Once we get onto the specifics of it, we realize that “freedom” can mean anything at all. International politics today is constructed very banally. A few nations, by creating money out of thin air and using the global financial system, pump out all the resources, with which they secure a good standard of living for themselves. Basically, it’s a big pump. IMF, WTO – this is all tools to suck out this standard of living. What is WTO or EU? It’s when they say to a small nation like Moldova: “come into our structure, everyone will trade freely”. Then the trade begins – but from the other side. Huge concerns, which receive credit, now at 0%... Technology isn’t the main thing. It’s 0% finance, or negative rates in Europe, I assume that Moldovan business owners get credit not at 0%. [It’s 14-16%] In Russia it’s higher, but still, how is one to compete against huge concerns, which are already up and running and occupy a large share of the market, and could even engage in ‘dumping’ (=capture market share by low prices), and at that they get credit at a negligible rate of interest. Obviously, in normal competition they will eat up local business-owners. And that’s what is happening. WTO is a kind of “market bottle-opener”. It opens up the markets of other nations. Western products flood in. Local producers get washed away and eliminated. Unemployment begins. The state doesn’t receive tax revenues, because all the businesses have closed down. The Western concerns pay where they are registered, or else offshore. As a result, the state has no money, borrows from those same Western countries, and ends up in debt slavery. “You owe us money – do as we say”. Here begins the main issue which we should mention. If a state is very happy with the current world order, then they are interested in its preservation. Their main task is to prevent an alternative power center from emerging, so they can continue to rob the whole world and pump the resources to themselves. At the center of the global economy today is the US. Their main task is to prevent the sovereignization of Europe’s politics. It’s no secret that the policy of the Anglo-Saxons in the course of many centuries – then England, now the US – is a policy of weakening the strongest power in Europe. Today certain states can be nominally called the European Union. The Americans, the English endeavor to keep this organization in check. On the other side, the Russian Federation is restoring its might in the context of the Eurasian Economic Union. If there are calm conditions in Europe, if there is peaceful co-existence, if there is trade and cooperation, then sooner or later it will become obvious that there are no contradictions between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. That’s the first phase. In the second phase some kind of unification might be possible. Our President, V.V.Putin, proposed a united Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok. For Europeans this is great. But for the Americans it’s deadly. A united continent, united economic and political interests, won’t need the US. What would they need US military bases for, if in Europe there is no longer the threat of war. Therefore, we are coming to a very interesting conclusion: the Americans are interested in the destabilization of Europe, the creation and growth of conflict in Europe.