Dear participants of the Chisinau Forum 2024!
Global situation in Spring 2024 can be well illustrated by the stark contrast of the satements of top world politicians and the reality on the ground we can all see. We see no evidence of genocide in Gaza, they say. We only promote democracy, they say. We are initiating and fighting wars just to make you safe and sound, they say. We see no chemicals sprayed in the skies, they say. We will make you well by eliminating last shreds of national sovereignty in your constitutions by WHO Pandemic Treaty to be signed end of May, they say.
So how sincere are the global decision makers, how sincere are we?
There was a song in 1972 in Slovenia about sincerity. May I wake up one day among the sincere people the lady sang. A love song but also a social quest. Looking back we can now better see that Slovenia and Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1991 were a global social experiment laboratory. Much like Israel, Gaza, Ukraine, Singapore, Baltic states,… today. The Yugoslav experiment with self- management socialism is reflected today within Agenda2030 generated projects like DAOs (Decentralised Autonomous Organizations). Global strategists have been involved in developing Yugoslav self-management socialist Utopia ― John Galbraith among them. And John Galbraith was a member of probably the most influential triad of the last decades ― together with Heinz Alfred Kissinger and Herman Kahn. A lot of globally relevant phenomena have been generated in this part of the world, Balkans and neighbouring lands ― a border between Ottoman and Habsburg empires for hundreds of years, a dynamic and at times explosive mix of nations, cultures, religions, birthplace of Nikola Tesla, location of the spectacle of assassination of Prinz Ferdinand igniting the war of three cousins, also called WW1. In 70s there was a sort of communist counter-revolution taking place in Yugoslavia, on the surface a battle against pro-western liberalism. What we can understand today much better is that it was just different factions of technocracy performing a spectacle and fighting for better positioning with global powers. But we have to be sincere to admit that.
When recently listening to South African minister at the Faculty of Humanities, Johannesburg, I ask myself how sincere she is and how sincere the initiatives of South Africa against the genocide in Gaza are. Any decent person probably welcomes the initiative. But does the initiative address the systemic causes of Gaza genocide? Western world initiated wars from 1914 to 1945 have killed more than 120 million people and devastated lives of billions. Even during often mentioned peaceful 100 years from 1815 to 1914 there were hundreds of wars fought around the world initiated by the Few and suffered by the Many. Any initiative not addressing Agenda2030 as a proclamation of war against humanity and nature is not sincere enough to help us correctly understand what is really going on, what are the causes, what are the trends and where we should look for a path of survival.
May I express my gratitude to the organizers of the Chisinau Forum for their endeavours and for giving me the opportuinty to participate. It is refreshing to see some of our distinct colleagues exposing the threat of globalism spreading through the Multipolarity concept. As a supporter of Multipolarity, I would also like to see main powers within Multipolar initiative developing a clear rejection of Agenda2030. It probably requires a great deal of sincerity, knowledge, independence and resolution to talk critically about endevours of Russia and China, as we predominantely can see them fighting against imperialism.
Are we sincere enough to publicly proclaim that globalists are systematically poisoning, robing and killing us ― the people? Are we sincere enough to stop ignoring the obvious? Stop ignoring the obvious is more difficult then one would think. Start believing your own eyes and common sense is today a revolutionary act. And it creates emotional pain. If we want to approach better understanding of what is really going on today, we should probably avoid dicussing and fighting based on the premises imposed on us through many different channels. Accept fighting for Socialism or Capitalism, one religion against the other, one race against the other, one culture against the other. We are objectively confronted with complex social phenomena like: War, Religion, Technology, Culture, Terrorism, Corruption, Debt, Inflation…
to name just a few. And we are flooded with mainstream and alternative explanations and solutions. Mostly we are dealing with false flag operations ― wrong causes, wrong cures.
The question is ― can we realistically expect to be successful in finding correct answers and solutions accepting the dogmatic fetters constructed and imposed on us by the globalists? For decades, globalists have developed and promoted dogmas in key areas of human society. Thinkers of today who remain fettered within one or more of the dogmas cannot come to the fair assesments of what is going on, what are the real causes of events and where human civilization is headed. This is why I propose a Multidisciplinary Approach to the analysis of a paradigmatic question ― What is really going on? and What to do? There is vast base of knowledge availabe today ― historical and new. The main problem is putting things into context and avoiding the traps of corrupt science which is dominating globally. In a very abreviated way we are dealing here and today with four main dogmas of modern imperialism:
- Democracy
- Money
- CO2
- Virus
No decision in the world today is taken outside the dominating impact of the listed dogmas. And nothing happens in the human society without decisions. If the system of institutions and motivations does not change, there will be no change in decisions, just variations in narratives.
I have explained in enough detail and with all my sincerity the basics of four dogmas and Multidisciplinary Approach at Chisinau Forum last year. Let me draw your attention this time to some of the monetary dilemmas and strategies of the BRICS+ movement. We hear statements in support of new, alternative global reserve currency, ditching the dollar, backing the reserve currency with gold, putting it on digital platform like Blockchain or similar. My sincere warning about such statements is that they are proving that spectacles in Ukraine, West Asia, potentially Taiwan, Kosovo, are just side shows to hide the Agenda2030 being robustly implemented within the BRICS+ group. Or should we believe that Agenda2030 is good for us? Or there are maybe good and bad variants of Agenda2030.
One of the most influential sociologists, Karl Polanyi, has explained 80 years ago that it would be catastrofic for the humanity not to understand correctly the three crucial categories: Labour, Land and Money. He showed that these categories in essence are not commodities, but have a different nature. Today, however, we are exactely in a situation Polanyi was warning the world about. Wrong understanding of money is the mother of all dogmas. This is because privatized and globally monopolized emitting of money makes devastating imperial projects possible.
So what is wrong with golden backed currency and understanding excessive printing of money as the proclaimed problem?
The neoliberal project wasn’t just pursued at the national level but at the international one too, through the creation of the gold standard, which was an attempt to extend the logic of the allegedly self-regulating (but actually enforced) market to the economic relations between countries. This was an early globalist attempt to marginalise the role of nation-states ― and their citizens ― in the management of economic affairs. The gold standard effectively subordinated national economic policies to the inflexible rules of the global economy. It also served as very effective tool to discipline labour.
Neoliberals such as Hayek and Mises, were aware that the self-regulating market was a myth. Their aim was “not to liberate markets but to encase them, to inoculate capitalism against the threat of democracy”, by using the state to artificially separate the “economic” from the “political”. In this sense, market liberalism can be considered a political project as much as an economic one: a response to the entrance of the masses into the political arena from the late-19th century, as a result of the extension of universal suffrage ― a development most militant liberals of the time were vehemently opposed to. This project wasn’t just pursued at the national level but at the international one too, through the creation of the gold standard, which was an attempt to extend the logic of the allegedly self-regulating (but actually enforced) market to the economic relations between countries. This was an early globalist attempt to marginalise the role of nation-states ― and their citizens ― in the management of economic affairs. The gold standard effectively subordinated national economic policies to the inflexible rules of the global economy. But it also shielded the economic realm from the democratic pressures building as suffrage spread across the West, while at the same time offering a very effective tool to discipline labour.
However, the gold standard imposed such massive costs on societies, in the form of destructive deflationary policies, that the tensions created by the system eventually caused the implosion of it. First, we saw the collapse of the international order in 1914, and then again following the Great Depression. The latter prompted the biggest anti-liberal countermovement the world had ever seen, as nations sought different ways to protect themselves from the destructive effects of the global “self-regulating” economy ― including by embracing fascism. In this sense, according to Polanyi, the Second World War was a direct consequence of the attempt to organise the global economy on the basis of market liberalism.
Gold should therefore be understood just as one of the commodities, probably advisable asset within national, corporate or private portfolios, just like silver or some other traditionally established commodities. The only real backing of the currency is harmonically functioning national economy, where goods and services are being created to cover the real needs of citizens.
The really crucial and pressing monetary question is monetary sovereignty of national states. No sound national money ― no sound solution for international trade and investment. Purchasing power should not be printed or electronically created, but created in real terms. Printing of money (or electronic emitting of it) as such is not a problem, it is just a technical fact, the real problem is that the national states (including the USA) are not emitting money themselves, which would be practically free of charge for the citizens, but needlesly borrow money from private lenders (like FED). Why the most prominent economists (with honourable exceptions of Michael Hudson and very few other heterodox economists) do not pose the question where does the money, which the global money lenders lend to national states, come from? It is not based on the real value created but on fiction and manipulation.
BRICS+ should develop a modern version of a multilateral clearing similar to what was functioning among Yugoslavia and Soviet block countries decades ago. So far there is a comparative advantage of the Russian and Chinese monetary system against the US, EU and others. Russian and Chinese systems are not yet so deeply financialised which made it possible to overcome sanctions better, increase the military production faster and more efficiently and absorb a giant speculation bubble like Everegrande liquidation relatively smoothly. This would be a vast strategic strength within a SWOT analysis but there is also strategic weakness and threat ― Russia and China are completely subjugated to Agenda2030. World bank has strong influence on all BRICS+ central banks. In monetary area this could mean that BRICS+ will just leapfrog the phase of classical money financialization and implement even deeper crypto financialization of their economies and societis.
After objective analysis there is a challenge ahead of us to incorporate all our well meaning findings into a written document stating clearly what we the people, living here and now, want and what we do not want. Humanity has gone through glorious and often tragic paths to develop a solution. It is called a constitution of a sovereign democratic republic national state. Some constitutions are better, some are worse, but none of them is meaningfully respected. We should find a way to reinforce the decision making power of those in our socities who really create a life supporting value.
Down with globalism! What we really need is active international peaceful cooperation of sovereign national states serving their citizens.
Thank you!
