SOVEREIGNTY: BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

 

BACK TO WESTPHALIAN PRINCIPLES

By Bernard CHALUMEAU

The treaties of Westphalia and the genesis of International law.

 

Like all French school children, we are aware that the Treaties of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War, which began with the defenestration of Prague in 1618, giving France the Three Bishopricks of Metz, Toul and Verdun  of the Holy Roman Empire.

However, let us take a closer look because there was much more to it than this:

These treaties are constituted of several agreements signed between the parties to the various conflicts:

– On January 30th, 1648, in Münster, the treaty between Spain and the United Provinces ended the war of Eighty Years.

– On October the 24th, in Münster, the treaty between France and the Holy Roman Empire ended the Thirty Years War, to which was added an act by which the Holy Empire gave to France the three Bishopricks of Alsace, Brisach and Pignerol, and another by which Emperor Ferdinand III, the archdukes of Austria, Charles, Ferdinand and Sigismund gave Alsace to France.

– On October 24, in Osnabrück, it also ended the 30 Years War.

-On July 2,1650, in Nuremberg, the two agreements between the Holy Empire and France and between the Holy Empire and Sweden relating to the enforcement of the peace.

These treaties were the bases for the organization of Germany up to the end of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806.

Unfortunately, most school texts fail to indicate that the principles of international law were born on the date these important treaties were signed.

The object of this article is not to describe the very complex progress of the Thirty Years War (1618-1848) where many conflicts pitted the Hapsburg of Spain and the Holy German Empire, supported by the Roman Catholic Church, against the Protestant German States of the Holy Empire allied with the nearby European powers with Protestant majorities, United Provinces and Scandinavian countries, as well as France, which intended to reduce the power of the Hapsburgs on the European continent.

However, one must bear in mind that it was the most dreadful slaughter of the entire 17th century, which killed several million men, women and children.

Since the demography of Europe was seriously affected, the belligerents thus looked for ways and means to avoid a recurrence of such horrific massacres.

The negotiations of these treaties lasted a long time (from 1644 till 1648), because it was necessary to establish new modes of relations between States with a view to limiting wars and to strengthen “the law of nations.”

In his work “The six books of the Republic”, published in 1576, the famous French lawyer Jean BODIN (1529-1596), had published his thoughts on public law, “res publica,” and on the powers of the king, as the first legal principles of sovereignty: “Sovereignty is the absolute  and perpetual power of the State, which is the greatest power to command. The State in the person of the monarch is supreme inside its territories, independent of any high authority, and legally equal to the other States”

Further, the Dutchman Hugo Grotius published in 1623 a work entitled “De Jure Belli et Pacis,” which proposed the establishment of a “mutual association” between nations, that is to say an international organization, thereby laying the groundwork for a code of public international law. Their ideas were intended to guide the negotiators of these treaties in establishing what has conventionally been called since that time “the Westphalian system” as a guideline for the concept of modern international relations.

– The balance of powers, meaning that any State, large or small, has the same importance on the international scene (For example, see the Article CXXII of the Münster Treaty in Old French below)

– The inviolability of national sovereign power (See article CXII of the Treaty below).

– The principle of non-intervention in the affairs of others (see article LXIV of the Treaty below).

Since the treaties of Wesphalia, a new actor succeeds the division of the power between villages, duchies and counties, namely, the modern State.  The world is organized with States whose sovereignty must be respected by the bordering states by virtue of the Westphalian concept of the border. International relations become interstate and the respected borders guarantee the peace.

These treaties proclaim the absolute sovereignty of the State as the fundamental principle of international law.

Europe becomes a set of States, having precise borders, recognized by others, in which the prince or monarch exercises his full and complete sovereignty. The characteristics of these modern States include the constitution of permanent armies and the expression by the elites of the fact of national existence. In these States, language appears as a factor of unity.

The Westphalian principles subsequently contributed to the emergence of the idea of the Nation States in the 19th century, as well as the principle of nationalities, where every National State enjoys, within its own borders, complete independence, being provided with the highest possible form of sovereign power with its own army, its own currency, its justice system, its police and an economy, allowing it to live as independently as possible of the other States.

Later the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, signed on December 26th 1933, would add four essential elements:

 

“To be sovereign, a State must have :

–          a permanent population.

–          a defined territory.

–          an operational government.

–          the capacity to enter directly in relation with other states.” 

 

It added a fundamental clause:

The political existence of a state is independent of its recognition by other states.

The United Nations, undoubtedly horrified by this measure, which it considered too Westphalian for its taste — since it paved the way for the emergence of multiple large or small States — then hurried to add notions of “internal sovereignty” and “external sovereignty,” so that, to be sovereign, States must have, in addition to their capacity to exercise their power over the population inside their territory without any outside constraint, the need to be recognized as sovereign States by the other States of the international system.

 

The law of nations (Jus gentium ) or public international law:

Established under the Treaties of Westphalia, this law governs the relations between the subjects of this legal system, which are States and international organizations.

A subject of international law must comply with this law and must be able to benefit from it. In the beginning, the State was the only subject of international law. But this concept became obsolete, because, after1815, the States found it necessary to join together in international organizations, gradually acquiring the status of legal subjects. Thus, the United Nations became, like the EU and other international organizations, subjects of derived law (generally referred to in American English as case law).

Introduction of the right of intervention in international relations:

Unfortunately, since the end of World War II, the increase in the number of treaties between States of the western world tended to suppress Westphalian principles by considerably developing their military, economic and financial interdependence.

At the end of the Cold War, the United States of America, an enormous consumer of energy and raw materials, desiring to extend its hegemony throughout the planet and to get energy and raw material at the lowest possible prices, noticed that the Westphalian ban on intervention in other States thwarted its designs.

The United States of America felt obliged to find a way to by-pass Paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter, which stated:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State,” summing up the very Westphalian-sounding article 8 of the Agreement of Montevideo, which banned intervention in the internal affairs of a State.

Based on the ideas of persons such as the philosopher Jean-François Revel in 1979 and of Bernard Kouchner, a new “right” called the “right of intervention,” was concocted, i.e., the recognition of a right of one or more States to violate the sovereignty of another State, within the framework of a mandate granted by a supranational authority.

It was a wondrous invention which allowed:

–          to abolish Westphalian principles,

–          to add the notion of supranationality,

–          to intervene on the territory of any State even against the will of that State,

–          to establish world governance under the aegis of ad hoc international organizations,

–          to subjugate the weakest States to one or more stronger States,

–          to establish the hegemony of the US government.

The precious Westphalian principles were thereby overturned and the whole world returned essentially to the monstrous situation of the Thirty Years War.

The desired ad hoc international organization in the hands of United States of America was found, namely, the UN. All that was needed was the pretexts for war.

No problem:

– The US oligarchy rushes to the target State to be destabilized, a CIA team, which will increasingly include, or be supplanted by, a Soros foundation, USAID or the like, providing camouflage in the form of “private” intervention.

– This team, relying on existing opposition or opposition to be created from whole cloth in the current regime, develops a “National Liberation Front” or the equivalent thereof.

– It equips it with the necessary weapons and bolsters it with troops, usually drawn from the Islamic sphere of influence.

– Thanks to mass media under its control, it floods public opinion with information and images, often doctored, that overwhelm the government in power.

– All that remains is for the UN to pass a “resolution” allowing the armed forces of several States, mainly of the EU and the US, to come to the aid of the young “National Liberation Front” and oust the current regime.

This system worked very well for the interventions in Romania, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Darfur, Ivory Coast, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Ukraine, etc., spreading war throughout the planet.

The right of the bankers replaces the right of the people :

Thanks to the “legality” of the UN ad hoc resolution, the armed forces deployed in the target State destroy a maximum of infrastructure, such as power plants, factories, bridges, roads, railways, airports, runways, and so on…

Thus, when the target State is “pacified,” American companies share in the juicy reconstruction contracts. The new leader of the regime, set up by the “liberators,” is very helpful in awarding these contracts to said companies. At that point, the target State, its population and resources are under the control of the US oligarchs.

These operations are managed behind the scenes by bankers, generally US bankers. The bankers finance both belligerent parties, enjoining the winner to honor the loser’s debts. They finance the military-industrial lobbies committed in the conflict and manage the process in such a way that it is drawn out as long as possible.

So, the bankers win every time!

The superiority of the right of the bankers over the right of the people was established in Europe by the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 by the introduction of a single currency, the “euro,” controlled by the European Central Bank, completely independently of the Member States’ governments under Article 108 of that treaty.

ARTICLE 108

 

When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred upon them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ESCB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any member of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, governments of the Member State or from any other body.”

All European treaties since then have reinforced those provisions, resulting in an impoverishment of populations subject to this single currency and complete submission to a new slavery for the benefit of bankers.

It is no longer states that control the banks, but the banks that control the states.

Evidence of this is on flagrant display throughout the world, notably in Cyprus where depositors were ruined by bankers with the support of the International Monetary Fund, the European Commission in Brussels and the Central Bank of the EU.

 

The objective of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, expressed below:

 

“Let me produce and control the issue of currency of a state, and I do not care who can make laws”

 

has been achieved!

Having succeeded in removing Westphalian principles from international law, the bankers rule the planet, start wars wherever and whenever they want and enslave the people of the world.

Conlusion:

The Westphalian system described herein clearly shows that whoever advocates it, in France or elsewhere, i.e., patriots and the sovereignists, are peace activists! They are the future of nations. That is why the banker-controlled mass media are bent on either contradicting them with outright lies, or silencing them.

To secure peace in the world, Wesphalian principles must be restored!

History in fact shows that, as long as these principles were respected, the world (ie, Europe initially and then throughout the world from the 19th century onward) experienced overall stability, but when they were abandoned by a State or group of States, horrific conflict occurred again.

Many historians believe that the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 was responsible for World War II by violating Westphalian principles, substituting a collective security.

That is why I urge all patriots and French sovereigntists, particularly French youth, to enter into Resistance.

I invite them to partner with the youth of Europe and the rest of the world to fight by all possible means to restore Westphalian principles everywhere based on respect for the inalienable sovereignty and independence of States.

There is not only an absolute necessity to recover their freedom, their way of life, the kind of society they want to live in to escape this new slavery, but also and above all, the need to preserve their property, their lives and those of their descendants, who are, as we can see today, physically threatened.

As for me, I remain at their disposal to help them while strength and breath shall last.

French patriots!

The wind of hope is rising! It is bringing back our France! It is bringing back our freedom!

Bernard CHALUMEAU

Translation by Bernard Chalumeau, translation editing by Don Hank

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

SACRED SOVEREIGNTY MUST BE RESTORED

American conservatives and libertarians have always stressed the importance of the US Constitution as the ruling document in our government. Indeed sticking to the Constitution could restore government. Yet, government moves farther and farther from that document, and sometimes with the aid of unwitting conservatives.For example, we have often made the mistake of supporting presidents based on machismo and swag instead of on their insistence on respect for the sovereignty of other countries. Indeed, we have in the past praised presidents for their decisiveness in invading a country without the permission of Congress prescribed in Article 1, Section 1, foolishly thinking we can have it both ways.

We have also forgotten Section 10 of that Article, which gives Congress the power to print money. We’ve had over a century to forget that. It was back in 1913 that Congress, without constitutional authorization, gave a group of fast talking bankers that power and dubbed them the Federal Reserve. These people are no more legitimate than our foreign born and foreign raised White House resident. But force of habit accustoms unwary and lazy-brained people to accept the unacceptable. We cherry pick the Constitution, accepting the parts we like and discarding the rest. Many of the people who do this proudly call themselves ‘Patriots’ or even ‘sovereign citizens.’

Friends, all of these missteps have cost us not only our liberty but also our national sovereignty, and those are 2 equal but separate concepts. Americans have been brainwashed into forgetting sovereignty and focusing on personal liberty. We base our demands for liberty on the Constitution. Yet our government denies people outside the US their liberty on a routine basis, denying the concept of sovereignty. We have the gall to blame it on God, averring that He will protect us no matter how we misbehave because we are ‘exceptional.’ (Yet the Bible shows that God does not allow the disobedient to win wars. Joshua, the great general, lost one war because one of his soldiers took forbidden booty.)

Sovereignty is as important to a nation as the heart is to the body. And the borders are the skin of the nation, without which it would bleed to death.

The answer to these problems is complex, and part of the problem with sovereignty is that the word is not mentioned explicitly in our Constitution, which was written by men who took for granted that the US would always be sovereign because anyone seeking to eliminate national sovereignty would be considered a traitor and not be able to acquire power. But they were wrong.

Sovereignty is a 2 way street. A nation must not only defend its own sovereignty but also that of other nations. Otherwise, the rest of the world will eventually gang up on the nation that denies theirs.

Just as our Constitution laid the groundwork for our national government, the Treaty of Westphalia, signed in 1648, laid the groundwork for the modern concept of national sovereignty and the mutual respect of nations for each other’s sovereignty — a concept no more nor less revolutionary, or vital, in its sphere than our Constitution is in its.

Yet, like the Constitution, that remarkable Treaty seems to be lying around gathering dust.

However, if we read what international law specialist Bernard Chalumeau says in his translated article (click on his name or the link below), we can catch a glimpse of the importance of reviving the concept of national sovereignty, not only for our own country, but for every other country as well.

The EU, as pointed out by M. Chalumeau, was an attempt to suppress the sovereignty of all European nations — with disastrous effects both economically and socially. But that action to enslave was met with an equal and opposite reaction as the northern countries in Europe started to demand a return of their sovereignty and pro-sovereignty parties gained momentum. UKIP in the UK, PVV in Holland and Front National in France.

I  dream of a day when the concept of national sovereignty is revived and people of all nations reach out to each other in an effort to keep this concept alive and to reinforce their power. And in so doing, to diminish the power of the self-appointed Masters of the Universe. M. Chalumeau and I are committed to seeing that happen some day. We will lend our support to any group founded on the principle of national sovereignty.

So far, there is Free Nations in the UK and France Libre in France. America can and should be the linchpin. Like Europe, we are straining under the burden of unlimited immigration and all the problems of crime, drugs, disease and job loss that such entails, not to mention the disastrous loss of prestige associated with our haphazard military adventures that violate the sovereignty of other nations.

A political party based on the principle of sovereignty could resonate with patriotic Americans and kick off the movement, if only Americans could understand the vital importance of this little-used word ‘sovereignty.’

Please give the idea your thoughts and prayers.

Bernard Chalumeau’s article:

http://laiglesforum.com/sovereignty-back-to-westphalian-principles/3133.htm

Don Hank  

Slave or Human, Republic or Empire

I have found a new hero, historical author Jürgen Elsässer.

Quote:

“And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course.”

Please read this essay, all of it. If you’re short on time, print it up and read it over your lunch hour. Read it often. Every Westerner, American, Brit, Australian, German, everyone who still yearns to be free, MUST read his essay “Human or Slave, Republic or Empire.”

It’s that important.

I found the original German text on line at http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/index.php?id=3566 and cleaned up the translation a bit to make it easier and more enjoyable for you to read.

But when you’re done, please just hit on the link http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=907 to give the site “Current Concerns” the much deserved credit for finding and posting this absolutely wonderful essay. (You can also tell them they are welcome to my edited version. It may not be perfect, but it is a step in the right direction).

Don Hank

Human or Slave, Republic or Empire?

From the Holy Roman Empire to the “Brave New World Order”

by Jürgen Elsässer

To paraphrase a familiar saying, the Swiss are from Venus, the rest of the Europeans are from Mars. Venus, the planet of love. And this takes me to the story of the Swiss jurist who said, “oh yes, we also have conflicts in Switzerland.” And then she spoke of the last big conflict, the Sonderbundskrieg, eighteen hundred something, with one hundred casualties. Well, says one from the rest of Europe, like me, what a wonderful world this Switzerland! A good planet to move to.

Party capital Berlin

I cannot report from Switzerland now, but I will report from the empire. Maybe not directly from the heart of the beast, as Che Guevara said, but rather from the rectum of the empire, Berlin, the party capital of Europe, as our mayor put it, who likes to tout the city with the slogan “poor but sexy.” This Berlin is indeed one of the big laboratories of the new world order where they are about to produce what one might be tempted to call the “new man”. What we can watch developing in Berlin full-size is the collapse of a society and the loss of humanity in society.
By contrast, Switzerland is a functioning society with mutual respect and feelings where people meet at eye level. But Berlin is a quagmire for humanity. There are also historic reasons for this development. As a city, Berlin has grown much too fast. Other capitals in Europe took centuries to grow. Berlin has been thrown into the imperialist era since the time of Bismarck and then became the capital of the Nazi horror in a very short time. And all this, of course, created a certain mentality, long before the New World Order. Maybe you know this joke, from the olden days: A Berliner is in Vienna. He is looking for the Prater Ferris wheel and he asks a local harshly, without greeting: “Hey, where is the Prater?” And the Viennese answers: “Come on, can’t you be a bit more polite?” Snaps the Berliner: “I’d rather get lost!”
So this has been Berlin mentality for a long time. The most friendly people in Berlin are the Turks, maybe not all of them, but at least if you visit Turkish shops. But the standard Berliners, they simply shoot down everything; their tongue is a machine-gun. And this rough mentality that was already in place now gets sucked up into the crowd psychology maelstrom of the new world order. This maelstrom is hyper-individualism. Party capital of the continent. People no longer work in Berlin. There is no industry left. Berlin’s main income is the party industry. That is, via Easy Jet and similar companies, hedonistic youths from Spain or maybe Greece fly to Berlin for a night or a weekend club hopping and leave behind a trail of destruction in town. This is one of the main sources of income for Berlin.
The ideology that shapes the city is worship of the unbridled individual. In contrast, any form of collectivity or humanity is held to contempt. Take the family: Family is considered an institution of coercion, family is out. Family is the nucleus of fascism. Then there are associations: the shooting associations breed the killing frenzy. Men meeting regularly over a beer are fascist groups. The church and religion: really bad, just think of the witch burnings, inquisition and all that. And nations or ethnicities? Here we have the equation: Nation = nationalism = fascism; they are all the same. Any Berlin college student can recite this in one breath.
All these forms of collectivity are disparaged or generally suspected of fascism. Against this dark backdrop we have the shining individual who must realize his full potential in every way. The perspective of this trend is an individual as an atom, surrounded by the total market. Isolated, because all forms of community and social coherence will have been destroyed. And the isolated individual’s only remaining partner will be the computer via the internet. This is where you get entertainment, this is where you get sex, this is where you get information. And on the other side of the screen there is Big Brother supplying all your needs.

Huxley’s “Brave New World”

It was seventy or eighty years ago, I think, that Aldous Huxley described this development very well in his book “Brave New World”. And I have drawn from it, integrating it into my book “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (The Nation State and Globalization). There I wrote about Huxley’s “Brave New World”:
“The new order brought peace. Abolishment of parliamentarianism and democracy, introduction of genetic breeding of humans, impulse standardization through sleep hypnosis, luxury and affluence for the alphas and betas in charge, full employment and contentedness for the hard-working deltas and epsilons, free sex, movies with real feelings and comforting soma-ecstasy for all. Those who grow old die the gentle death of euthanasia.
In Huxley’s words: “The world is in equilibrium now. People are happy. They get what they want and they desire nothing they cannot get. They are well. They are secure, always healthy, have no fear of death. Passion and age are unknown to these happy people. They are no longer attached to mothers and fathers, have neither wife nor child nor lover for which they might have strong feelings. Their very standardization is so that they can hardly behave other than they should behave.”
So much for “Brave New World” in Aldous Huxley’s prophecy. How did we get to this point then, this “Brave New World”? The world had been shaken by a huge economic crisis, by terror attacks through anthrax and a Nine-Years’ War afterwards. Huxley writes: “The Nine-Years’ War, the great economic collapse, there was only a choice between world supervision and destruction. Liberalism was killed by anthrax.” In Huxley’s utopia this world supervision, world government, is the preliminary stage to this general standardization of man. And this world supervision or world government requires the prior destruction of the nation states and the republics, of course. This is a very important point when talking about destruction of humanity and other forms of community or social life: For the protagonists of the new world order, the main target is the nation state, because the nation state provides an institutional framework for the minor forms of humanity. The nation state protects the family and fosters marriage and family. The nation state looks to an education of the people, provides for children from all classes to be educated together, at least for a few years, secures that the language is cherished, that a certain form of sexuality is cultivated. Thus, the nation state fosters a development where human beings are not alone, but where we can develop in mutual exchange – and this is how human abilities and human emotions can grow.
But this nation state is in danger all around the world, especially since September 11, 2001 when a terror attack like that in Huxley’s book shook the world – not with anthrax but by other terroristic means. And now we have the economic crisis and we have this discussion about whether to abolish all these little republics with all their nationalisms and atavisms and replace them with supervision by the “Greats” through “good governance”, instead of by us citizens.

Fugger, Death and Devil

This development is driven by international financial capital. When I speak with people today and say that the development of the EU might result in a “Fourth Reich,” and when people shake their heads in disbelief and say: “You don’t really mean that there will be something like the ‘Third Reich’ again, do you?”, I reply: “When I speak of a ‘Fourth Reich’, I am not thinking of the ‘Third Reich’, but of the first one, the medieval German Reich.
What we currently see is a regression into the Middle Ages. The original German Reich, the so-called “Holy Roman Empire”, was not a centralized power, brought into line like the Nazi state where the SS was in charge from the Atlantic Ocean to the Urals. That’s how it was in the “Third Reich.” In contrast to this, the First Reich, the “Holy Roman Empire” was a completely amorphous entity reaching from the Baltic Sea to Sicily, at least in the best of times, but it was in no way unified, even lacking a capital. You cannot even call it an Empire of the “German Nation” because it was actually a multiethnic state, torn between the various ethnic groups speaking different languages, in various dynasties, with constantly fluctuating power structures and frontlines inside it.
The First Reich did not work too badly at first. There was some progress in the 10th, 11th, 12th, maybe also in the 13th century, and some even speak of the Golden Middle Ages. But this structure entered into a crisis about the 15th and 16th century with the rising of financial capital. This is where things got out of control.
The financial capital in the “Holy Roman Empire” was centered around the Fugger Trust: the Fuggers, originally from Augsburg, originally textile manufacturers, textile merchants, textile producers, succeeded in rising to the level of a financial trust by virtue of the merchant superpower Venice and their good relations with the Vatican. The first step was the colonization of Tyrol, the occupation of Tyrolean natural resources and precious metals, and then they were off to Hungary. And these natural resources are used by the Fuggers to erect a minting monopoly and to deal in monetary policy and use this base to finance the German emperors. The emperors of the time, especially Maximilian I and Karl V, came to power exclusively through the billions in support from the house of Fugger. The Fuggers bought the emperors. And then we have the expansion of the German Empire, ruled by Habsburg at the time, towards Spain. And matrimonial politics created the Habsburg-Spain axis. And the need for more credits or to pay back loans to the Fuggers forced the emperor to go to the other continent, South America. This is the moment when the German Kaiser says: “The sun will never set on my empire”. This leads to one of the worst chapters of humanity, the looting of Latin America. We are told that the Spanish are responsible for this blood bath. But the Fuggers participate behind the scenes. The Spanish had to raise the money for the Habsburg Emperors, so that they could pay off the Fuggers. Thus, the driving force of this expansion is the seizure of power with financial capital in the Roman Empire of that time.

Pirates and Confederates

Finally, even the Reformation and the wars associated with it can be seen as a consequence of this development. What forces actually drove Luther to start the Reformation? There were reformers before who were less successful. But what increased the number of Luther’s followers enormously was the grassroots outrage regarding the practice of indulgences: a monk, Tetzel, sent by the pope to preach in towns and sell indulgences allowing people to buy forgiveness from sins, even those not yet committed, by giving money to the Pope. But who organized this? It was the Fugger investment bank. It was an ingenious business idea of the Fuggers. And this business idea threw the whole Reich into turmoil. And it contributed to the wars associated with the Reformation.
Getting back to the exploitation of Latin America, the slaughter of the Incas and Aztecs: The captured gold was brought to Spain. Then a new rival enters the game: the rising sea power England starts raiding the Spanish corvettes full of gold. Today we see movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean” with Johnny Depp and we think these were adventure stories with wild swashbucklers. These pirates, however, were no small criminals but rather instruments of the English striving for global power. Sir Francis Drake, Her Majesty’s pirate, raided Spanish ships in royal missions, without Parliament’s knowledge. The gold meant for the Fuggers thus ended up in London. In this process, the Spanish empire and the Fugger empire collapse and the rise of the new global power England, later Great Britain, begins. The first thing this power uses its money, its capital, its raided gold for is to expand the scope of business: More ships are outfitted and business is shifted to a new footing, less primitive than with the Spanish, with the entry into slave trading. Slaves in great numbers are bought in Africa, dragged onto ships and taken to South America, to the colonies – for the benefit of England and with huge profits.

And at this time when we have the contrast between Habsburg plus the Spanish plus the Vatican, the Catholic powers on the one hand and the new rising power of England on the other hand, we have the worst wars in Europe, the religious wars. The Thirty Years’ War in Germany, which killed off one third of the population; the wars in England, Anglican kings against the Catholic Scots and Irish; all the campaigns in France. All these were religious wars only on the surface. In the background we find the rival forces of financial capital.

In these bloody times, when the Golden Middle Ages were giving way to the Dark Middle Ages, Switzerland fights for its independence and founds a democratic republic. This is a historic landmark. And what we see at that moment is an attempt to roll this back. A regression to the Middle Ages subjecting the whole continent again to the power of the financial capital. What was special at the time was that the German Empire was disintegrating as a whole, because not only Switzerland was seceding, but the Netherlands were also becoming independent of Spanish-Habsburg rule. But the latter became independent only to plunge into imperialism themselves. Only Switzerland succeeded in shaking off feudalism without becoming imperialistic. This development is so unique it deserves much more attention.

The Monster Banks

The upshot of all this history – Fugger, Karl V, Latin America’s gold, Sir Francis Drake – is: The gold of the Incas and Aztecs is in London and the Bank of England is based on this foundation. This is the prototype of a very dangerous type of bank which still exists today: a national bank owned by private individuals, but functioning as a state bank which lends money to the state. This means that the state always has to approach this Bank of England, this private bank, to borrow money and that it is a perpetual debtor to these private owners of the bank bearing the respectable name Bank of England.
Exactly in this style – nominally a national bank, de facto a private bank – the US Federal Reserve Bank was founded on the eve of World War I. And to this date, both the Bank of England and the Fed are the institutions that have taken possession of an entire monetary system which gives them the power to create and lend money without public control.
I could go on forever about the development of financial capital. But this is why people write books. [2] So I will only tell you the end of the story. We see the end of the story after September 11, 2001, when the US Federal Reserve proceeded to prodigiously inflate the money supply. Between September 11, 2001 and 2005 it issued more additional dollars than in the previous 200 years of American economic history. That was only until 2005 – at this point the publication of the money supply trend was discontinued by the Bush administration.
According to unofficial estimates, debts of private households, companies, private banks and the State – that is the total debt of all branches of the economy – grew from US$ 50 trillion to 60 trillion. So we have a total US debt of US$ 60 trillion of which 10 trillion was added during the last 15 months. US$ 60 trillion are 60,000 billion. These debts were paid by paper money or electronic money without any real backing, created by these private bank monsters. Actually, this increase in the money supply is so inflationary it is surprising that this currency, the dollar, is still accepted for payment any­where.
It seems crazy, but there is a plausible reason: The US government can, unlike the government of any other debtor state, promise the dollar investors to use military force against anyone at any time at any place to press him to accept the worthless paper snippets with “Dollar” printed on them as payment for goods. Their credit ratings on the international capital market increased when they managed to get a country like Iraq, which probably owns the second larges oil reserves in the world, under their control. On the other hand, the more unstable the situation in Iraq, the more nervous the reaction of the dollar creditors is. A US sinking deeper and deeper in debt with the paper money hoax becoming more and more obvious will cause them to compensate even more desperately for their economic problems through military successes. And the more we will see a tendency to break up the still existing and intact nation states like Switzerland to suck out the last resources and to throw them into the debt cycle to close gaps. In other words, the greater the deficit in this cycle becomes, the greater the tendency for war and the risk of a regression into the Middle Ages.

1 Speech held at the conference “Mut zur Ethik” on the topic “Sovereignty of the people or imperialism – what is true democracy?”, 4 to 6 September 2009 in Feldkirch/Austria
2 The speech has been inspired by the speaker’s latest books:  J. Elsässer (editor), “Gegen Finanzdiktatur. Die Volksinitiative – Grundsätze, Konzepte, Ziele” (Kai Homilius, July 2009),
J. Elsässer, “Nationalstaat und Globalisierung” (Manuscript, April 2009)

http://www.currentconcerns.ch/index.php?id=907