. , .

, ? , ? , ? ? .

Log-in.ru© - . , , -.

!  ? …    
, .







Rouble Nationalization the Way to Russias Freedom (Starikov Nikolay)

Rouble Nationalization  the Way to Russias Freedom

Unrestrained issuing of money backed by nothing has been the dream of bankers and moneylenders for centuries. This is the shortest way to world domination. Today this dream has become reality. All the world's money stocks are tied to the dollar, which can be issued without restrictions. As a result of defeat in the Cold War Russia was deprived of a significant part of its sovereignty. The Russian rouble does not belong to the people anymore. The only way out of the dead end is to change the current form of the system of money-issuing.

: 2013

: 407 .

Rouble Nationalization the Way to Russias Freedom :

    Rouble Nationalization the Way to Russias Freedom

    Rouble Nationalization the Way to Russias Freedom

    Unrestrained issuing of money backed by nothing has been the dream of bankers and moneylenders for centuries. This is the shortest way to world domination. Today this dream has become reality. All the world's money stocks are tied to the dollar, which can be issued without restrictions. As a result of defeat in the Cold War Russia was deprived of a significant part of its sovereignty. The Russian rouble does not belong to the people anymore. The only way out of the dead end is to change the current form of the system of money-issuing.
    By reading this book you will find out the answers to the following questions: What are the gold and currency reserves of Russia and why do they not belong to the Russian Government? Who was Stalin's 'Chubais' and how did the leader of the USSR treat him? How are the deaths of American presidents connected to various types of identical American dollars? How did Benito Mussolini cooperate with the British intelligence service and what did it lead to? Why did the USSR refuse to enter the IMF and sign the Bretton Woods agreement? Who was knighted upon Stalin's death and why? What constitution did Sakharov offer to his country?
    The story of the Bank of England, the reasons for Joseph Stalin's death, unknown snipers on the rooftops of Moscow in October 1993, the Central Bank of Russia independent from Russia these are parts of one thing; the roots of one tree.

    Nikolay Starikov Rouble Nationalization the Way to Russias Freedom

    The author's preface. What is State sovereignty?

    Napoleon Bonaparte
    Many extraordinary events have taken place lately in different parts of the world. The Arab Spring, the collapse of multiculturalism in Europe, youth riots in major European countries and the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement are just a few examples to mention. The world is changing rapidly. What is more, these changes are clearly not for the better. All those things that were clear, secure and solid yesterday are now becoming unstable. The international financial system is falling apart at the seams, and that can be seen with the naked eye. Just ten years ago those who would speak of the dollar crash or of the Euro-zone decay, would perhaps have been regarded as insane and would have been recommended to see a doctor. Now these matters are discussed night and day on all TV-channels. This news is on the front pages of newspapers.
    Let us look at ordinary people. What should they think of these events? Should they applaud the victory of the opposition in the Arabic countries and the establishment of democracy there? Or rather worry about the defeat of government forces and growing instability? Should they sympathise with the youth riots in the developed countries or rather regard these young people as just having too much of a good thing? Or, maybe, they had better simply forget about all that and go to see a football game? But even there they will come across football fans, nationalists, tolerance issues and many other unpleasant things? And finally consider the conspiracy theories about the end of the world and the aliens. So, what should they do? Let us look at it more closely.
    And we should start with state sovereignty. Without this concept we will never grasp the essence of what is happening
    There are currently over two hundred states on Earth. These states are very different, just like human beings are. There are large and small ones, rich and poor ones, famous ones and completely unknown to the majority of the world's population. Among these nations there are those with advanced economies and those with decaying ones, those growing and those wasting away. Some die out, some grow older, and others are propagating vigorously and growing younger year by year. So, what is this factor that determines whether a nation is developing or stagnating?
    Let us compare it with the factors, influencing the life of a human. Those are plenty: parents and upbringing, attitude of a person towards the things they are busy with, their love of learning. Health is important and even one's birthplace has certain significance. One cannot ignore friends, bad habits, luck. Happy or unhappy marriage plays its role, too. All in all, it is a mosaic of accidents that determines the life of a human being. And so, people live, get older and work following the waves of destiny. They pursue their goals. Or which also happens they sink to the very bottom.
    But there is one sine qua non condition of the phenomenon called human happiness. It is not by chance, that I address happiness in this context, since it is happiness, which has to be the criterion of human existence; happiness, and not success, interpreted differently in different cultures. Human happiness presupposes autonomy. One has to make decisions by oneself; one has to carry responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. In the same way the 'happy life of the state requires this state to be autonomous. This self-determination of the state is called State Sovereignty.
    State sovereignty means supremacy of the state within its borders as well as its autonomy in the international affairs.[1] State sovereignty is incompatible with any interference from the outside. A sovereign state is the one to decide for itself and to reap the fruits of these decisions. The country itself has to determine its path of development; the head of the country has to do things that are good for the country and that make the country prosperous. The power is sovereign only if this criterion is chosen as the basic one for defining of state policy exactly as an adult is independent only if they are free to decide themselves about their family. It may happen that the benefits of certain decisions will not be immediate, and will not always be obvious; yet the criterion 'make it better' will always guide a normal person in actions concerning their family.
    Is this not the case of modern states as well? Is this not the case that the statesmen of different countries are striving hammer and tongs for the sake of their countries? Is this not the case that while looking at the political map one sees a lot of independent countries that bravely move across the rough sea of politics and economics?
    Alas, it is not; the reality is completely different. It is exactly the opposite. Nearly all countries of the modern world are forced to conduct policies that are very far from their national interests. The examples are not hard to find, you will find them in today's newspapers. What do Poland, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria need the deployment of the American antiballistic missile elements on their territories for? Do they need it to defend themselves from the missiles? I would like to highlight two points in this context. Firstly, these countries are NATO members, and this alliance, where the USA and Britain rule the roost, has, in compliance with its regulations, to protect them from any military attacks. Secondly, it is not very clear whose missiles these countries are going to defend themselves from. Some say that this refers to Iranian missiles. Yet for some obscure reason the ABM is being deployed closer to the Russian borders than to the Iranian ones. Whereby would it not be more logical to deploy the system in the proximity of the hazard and not in another part of the planet. Furthermore, the Iran of today simply does not have missiles which would be capable of reaching Poland or the Czech Republic, and it is not clear when Iran will get such missiles. Maybe the ABM is being deployed in Europe 'just in case'? In case Iranians invent, assemble and launch a missile of the newest generation?! Well, let us suppose, they have indeed invented one. And even have assembled a couple of dozens. The questions remain the same why should Iran immediately attack somebody? Why should Iran aim at Poland or the Czech Republic? What harm did these or other Europeans such as Romanians or Bulgarians inflict on Iranians? The questions hang in the air, and the things, mentioned in this context by American politicians resemble a smokescreen.
    As for today, the probability of Iranian missiles attacking the West is the same as that of aliens landing in California.
    The benefit to Eastern-European countries from these actions is questionable, to say the least. Their security will not develop whereas they will inherit a lot of problems. As a matter of fact, the positions of the American missiles will be immediately exposed to attacks of Russian nuclear warhead missiles. On the other hand, it will be impossible to track what kind of rockets Americans shelter in the launching silos. Who can guarantee that these missiles are just an air defence weapon? What if they are equipped with nuclear warheads, too? Indeed, the proximity of the missiles to our borders drastically reduces their flying time to Russian towns and strategic objects. It was exactly the argument that made American diplomats so eloquent during the Caribbean crisis yes, it would have taken just a few minutes for a missile to attack the USA from Cuba. So, today's Russia cannot help reacting either. As a result, people living in Poland and the Czech Republic who gained nothing from deployment of the American ABM in terms of security, now risk coming under the crossfire of Russian nuclear missiles. So what is that big reward for these countries, can anybody explain to me? Well, the leaders of these countries will be tapped on the shoulder during the next summit meeting and will be titled 'democrats' by human rights activists. It does not sound like a very generous reimbursement for the constant fear of being attacked by nuclear missiles, does it? Would you settle for putting a barrel of petrol in your own apartment to get a discount for your rent and a tablet on your door with the inscription An excellent household apartment'? No? Then that is not the point.
    The questions arise one by one. Are the leaders of these countries, who jeopardise their citizens without gaining anything worthy instead really freestanding? Are they really freestanding, those masking their misconduct with talks about some hypothetical threats corresponding to nothing in reality? The answer is evident no, they are not. And that means that the country behaving in such a strange way has no sovereignty. In the modern world only a very small number of countries can proudly claim Absolute State Sovereignty. It has always been the case there have always been those who drive and those who are driven, mother countries and satellites, seniors and vassals, slave-owners and slaves. Nothing changes but the style and the pattern of the curtain which hides this uncomfortable truth from the majority of the population. The states enjoying the sovereignty in its full range can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Normally the situation looks as follows: the state has its flag and its president. And that is it! These are the alpha and omega of the sovereignty of some 'proud and independent' country. Deeds, words and acts of this state are imposed by its 'partners'.
    In 1985 these sovereign countries were the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and China. All the rest had to more or less coordinate their steps with the 'big brothers' whose struggle against one another formed the main subject of the world politics. In just a few years' time, the reality looks far less promising for us. Today the Absolute State Sovereignty is maintained by Great Britain and the USA, two world powers forming the skeleton of the policy-makers, and China, which stepped in the shoes of the USSR, and which is now the country with the world's highest rates of economy growth.[2] Did we miss anybody in our list? I am afraid not. Todays Russia is not among the countries with the Absolute State Sovereignty. Our country enjoys only a restricted, partial sovereignty, the acquisition of the Complete State Sovereignty is the object of the unseen struggle carried out at the moment. Sometimes this struggle spills over onto TV-screens and the pages of newspapers in the form of news of the next terrorist attack or the 'earthshattering' international meeting.
    The internal problems of today's (as well as of yesterday's, though) Russia derive directly from the loss of the Complete State Sovereignty. Before we find out when we lost it, we have to clarify the terms. So, what is the Complete State Sovereignty?
    It consists of five different sovereignties:
    1. The recognition of the territory of the country by the international community, the flag, the national emblem and the national anthem.
    2. The diplomatic sovereignty, implying the ability to pursue an independent international policy, which means that the state should be free to choose its own friends and its own enemies. If you are on good terms with Iran, you will never care that the power in this country is held by the Ayatollahs who are not popular in the USA. You can punch the aggressor in the face and you need not worry that this aggressor is the democratically elected president of Georgia.
    Once the diplomatic sovereignty is achieved, objective processes start immediately and dictate the necessity of obtaining two further sovereignties. It is a well-known fact that military power and a strong economy are the only factors the diplomats have real respect for.
    So, the third and the fourth sovereignties will be:
    3. The military sovereignty the ability to rebuff an aggressor and to provide security for yourself and your allies;
    4. The economical sovereignty the economical and industrial development, providing for further advancement of the country out of its internal reserves.
    Is that all? No. There is also a fifth sovereignty, and as our history instructs it is the most important one. The lack of this is the first step that leads into the abyss.
    5. Cultural sovereignty.
    Let us refocus. Solely in the case of all five sovereignties being present is it possible to speak about the Complete State Sovereignty. If we consider all the modern countries from this point (or reconsider the history), we will immediately notice that practically every country lacks one or several of the abovementioned points. For instance, today's Germany doesn't have military sovereignty. German armed forces amount to ca. 250 thousand people.[3] Here it can be recalled that by the time Hitler came to power in 1933, the effective strength of the Weimar Republic's army had reached 100 thousand people, with which Germany was considered completely disarmed, as good as having no army at all! Yet at the time when the country of beer and sausages was full of strength and was actively developing, the corresponding figures were radically different. Just before the First World War in 1914, the peace-time strength of Germany was 801 thousand people. Is this an argument indicative of the German aggressive character? No. In the same year, France had the disposal of a regular establishment numbering 766 thousand.[4] Today, the population of Germany amounts to 83 million, i. e. it has grown by 20%, and its army in comparison with 1914 has shrunk to a quarter of its size.[5] What does it mean? Nothing but the lack of military sovereignty in Germany.
    Yet if anybody stated that a large army in today's world is an anachronism, I would refer to the article concerning the US Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, just to give them a general idea of manpower of the American Army: 'Currently the armed forces of the USA amount to ca. 2.6 million men and women, from which 1.4 are on the active service, 876,000 of guardians and reservists are in the military bases, and 287,000 form the special trained reserve.'[6] Why then is the US so reluctant to reduce its huge army, even given the enormous yearly budget deficiency?[7]
    It is because a strong army is the sine qua non condition for having Complete State Sovereignty. And equally importantly, it is a possibility for one country to deprive other countries of their sovereignty at its behest, exactly as the USA has done with Iraq, and as it has done with Yugoslavia.
    The rules in politics would never change, just as the desire of street boys to be strong and muscular so that nobody could offend them. Germany has a small army because it has delegated a part of its sovereignty to NATO and 'personally' to the USA. Germans have no military sovereignty, and therefore no diplomatic sovereignty, whereas their economical sovereignty is evident. The German economy is the biggest in Europe, and Germany is the top GDP country of the euro-zone. So, why does Berlin send its soldiers to Afghanistan? Because Berlin is not allowed to act otherwise. What do German soldiers have to look for in Afghanistan? Do the Taliban endanger the security of Germany? No, the reason is different. The USA and Great Britain invaded a country of major strategic significance under the following contrived pretext; Afghanistan borders on Pakistan, Middle Asia (i.e. Russia), Iran, China and over the little stripe of the Pakistan territory with India. While there, the Americans get the opportunity to trouble quite a number of their political contestants. That is exactly why after Americans and the British came to Afghanistan, the drug production that had nearly been eradicated by the Taliban, was resumed, and what is more, on a massively industrial scale.[8]
    This is not purely coincidence. Drugs mean a possibility to kill the young of Russia, Iran and China. Drugs provide an excellent excuse to place these countries under one's control. Drugs mean corruption, which is one step away from the betrayal of one's own country. Drugs mean networking with the dregs of society, with its feculence, with people who are willing not only to import and sell the deadly potion, but also to organise the terrorist act and assassination as well just for being paid.
    The interests of the USA are clear to us. But what about the Germans? Why on earth are they in Afghanistan? And Italians? And Estonians, and Latvians? I will not even ask about Estonian and Latvian soldiers the matter is abundantly clear. Our Baltic friends had never had the real sovereignty and will never obtain it. But Italy and Germany? From the first glance these countries are self-sufficient and sovereign. But, alas, they are not free to stop sending their soldiers to this senseless war! While studying history and politics, please, keep in mind a simple truth: the ownership of a flag and an emblem per se counts for nothing. Never be surprised if a country acts against its own interests. The simple fact is that this country does not have a real autonomy.
    So, let us check, what the situation with all compounds of the Complete State Sovereignty looked like in different years in our country.
    What did we have in 1952? In this year all five sovereignties were present:
    ● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem were present;
    ● the diplomatic sovereignty the ability to conduct an independent international policy was disputed in arms during the Great Patriotic War;
    ● the military sovereignty was present the USSR did not stand behind its contestants; every effort was exerted for production of nuclear weapons;
    ● the economical sovereignty was present the food-coupons were abolished, the country was recovering;
    ● the cultural sovereignty was present: songs, values, cult-figures all of them were of Russian provenance.
    In 1980 only four sovereignties were left:
    ● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem were present;
    ● the diplomatic sovereignty the ability to conduct an independent international policy was present;
    ● the military sovereignty was present the USSR still did not stand behind its contestants, having joined the armament race, adhering to the law of the talion, rather than to the principle of sufficient cause[9];
    ● the economical sovereignty was present food shortages occurred, but nobody went hungry.
    Yet the cultural sovereignty had vanished: everyone was chasing after the foreign rags and chewing gum. The West is the 'regent of dreams'. The West was considered something advanced, whereas our own country was disrespected as a backward 'sovok' (from 'soviets').
    It is the loss of cultural sovereignty that became the starting point of the tragedy of Russia the USSR. We started with losing our cultural sovereignty under Khrushchev Brezhnev, then the military sovereignty under Gorbatchev. Unilateral reductions of the newest missiles, withdrawal of troops everywhere and the termination of the Warsaw pact[10] are the hallmarks of this process. As a result, the economical sovereignty shrunk immediately, instantaneously. Ration books and coupons emerged; the life became dependent on the credits from the West. The gold reserve of the USSR disappeared without a trace. The 'gold of the communist party' was hunted for by the democrats, whereas they never cared for the 'Gold of USSR'. Because the only place where this gold could have gone was the West. There were no other possible destinations.
    And finally, the last thing we lost was the diplomatic sovereignty, as the destiny of the country was decided not within but without the country's participation. Yet the process of demolition did not rest there. The subsequent shameful dissolution of the USSR with violation of all thinkable laws, the notorious agreement in Belavezhskaya Pushcha (Bialowieza forest) was the bottom-line of a complete loss of the diplomatic sovereignty. The freezing point had been reached. Immediately after the session, as three politicians who had violated the results of the referendum on retaining of the USSR decided to dissolute it, Boris Yeltsin dialled Washington and reported what had happened![11] Just like in the TV-game 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' the first call is to the friend!
    And after you have lost everything what do you need your life for? And so the USSR vanished literally a few days after it had lost the remnants of its sovereignty
    By 1992 all we had was the international recognition:
    ● a beautiful flag, emblem and the recognition by the West of the new strongly curtailed borders of our country;
    ● no diplomatic sovereignty left Russia gives up all its friends just like that for patronizing compliments on its steady move towards democracy;
    ● no military sovereignty left we started disarming unilaterally;
    ● there was no trace of the economical sovereignty the country could supply itself with nothing, the whole industry was being sold out at no price;
    ● no cultural sovereignty left we were actively talking over foreign values.
    Yet Carthage shall be destroyed, shall it not? Wiped off the map. So the process of our sovereignty should have been brought to the final point, and this final point should be the complete decay of the country. By the end of the nineties that proved to be a terrible reality: the Ural republic under Eduard Rossel the republic with the completely autonomic state structure, as well as numerous presidents of the autonomy republics and districts were already present. By 1999 Russia's sovereignty was reduced to a flag, emblem and the internationally recognized territory. It is this fifth sovereignty that we were sentenced to be deprived of. It would have meant a break-up of Russia into minor states; it would have meant a war and chaos. The signal for this scenario was given by Basayev's invasion of Dagestan. The country was completely ready to be surrendered. Yet it was not
    The turn of 2000 marked the beginning of the gradual restoration of the Complete State Sovereignty. The previous process had been reversed. What was lost last was regained first. The whole thing began with restoration of diplomatic sovereignty, i.e. with the second Chechen operation. I am speaking about the right of the country to have control over its own territory, whatever the opinion of the international community may be. I am speaking about maintaining friendship with those countries, whose friendship is profitable for Russia. I am speaking about repelling an aggressor in the South Ossetia. Let us face it it was not the Georgian president but the USA standing behind, who was chinned by the Russian troops. With my own eyes I saw reports from the South Ossetian capital a corpse of a black soldier in the NATO uniform. It was shown a couple of times then these shots disappeared from the broadcast. A military advisor, killed in the battle. It is not by chance, that in the Soviet tanks, that had been in arsenal of the Georgian army and were captured in Tskhinvali, the labels inside the machine were written in English
    By 2011 we had:
    ● recognition, flag, emblem and anthem;
    ● partial diplomatic sovereignty we have to bargain with the USA and act with caution on it;
    ● the military sovereignty is being restored, this process may be slow, but it is talking place;
    ● we are still missing economic sovereignty.
    The cultural sovereignty still stays out, yet it is on the rebound. Like after the cruel disease we come to ourselves, recover from amnesia and finally realize how meanly we were deceived by the 'perestroika foremen'. Once again our youth starts to be proud of our country. Patriotism has apparently grown in the last ten-fifteen years; the times when our tourists felt ashamed to confess that they are from Russia, are over. This does not sound like a huge progress, does it? No, it does not, the progress is indeed very little. Annoyingly little. Yet the direction is right, however slow the tempo may be.
    The objective of the management and the government of Russia shall be acquisition of Complete State Sovereignty of Russia.
    How can we get rid of the deficiency of State Sovereignty? How then to restore the Complete State Sovereignty? The road out of trouble is the same as that into trouble, yet travelled in the opposite direction. We see that the restoration of Complete Sovereignty involves all five components of sovereignty. Now we have got the first, the second (nearly), the third and the fifth ones. The matter depends on the fourth sovereignty the economic one. In order to achieve something, one has to have a clear understanding of what one wants to achieve. The structure of today's world is a financial one par excellence. Today's chains consist not of iron and shackles, but of figures, currencies and debts. That's why the road to freedom for Russia, as strange as it may seem, lies in the financial sphere. Today we are being held back from the progress at our most painful point our rouble. Exactly in the same manner as the lack of sovereignty had formerly been symbolised by the enemy soldiers in the streets of our towns, now the defeat of those towns is testified by the enemy's currency, which is entirely soft. As our sovereignty was threatened by the enemy's soldiers, we had our army to oppose this threat. Today the enemy's soft currency shall be opposed by our, Russian currency.
    Here I anticipate a reasonable question: is this currency not ours anyway? Does the rouble not belong to us? Well, our rouble, the Russian currency unit, is just to put it delicately in a way, not quite ours. And this situation is the most serious obstacle to our country's development.
    Let us examine this situation.

    About the Federal Reserve System and the non-Russian Central Bank

    David Korten
    Heinrich Heine
    What do we know about the world around us? Only what we see, hear and read. Knowledge comes together with information and knowledge is followed by understanding. Everyone deals quite well with everyday problems. Everyone knows that if the sky is overcast with clouds, it is going to rain. And that means that one should take an umbrella or not even leave home in the first place. Any adult knows that if food is left on the table, and it is warm in the room, it will go off. Everyone knows not to put fingers into a socket or jump off high buildings onto driving cars, like Hollywood film characters. But there are fields of human activity where practically no one understands the way things work. And I do not mean nuclear physics or the structure of Universe. I mean the sphere that nearly everyone uses, knows of it existence and yet will not be able to answer even the simplest questions regarding the way it functions.
    Maybe, ordinary people do not even need this understanding? Why burden oneself? We do use TV sets, microwave ovens and digital cameras. But when asked how an image can be transferred with the help of numbers, or what waves rage in that little box and make things warm up, few people will be able to give a coherent answer. It is not that things feel more useful if we do not know how exactly they work, is it?
    Yes. Heating up a sandwich without knowing how a microwave oven works, is possible.
    Yet establishing a prosperous state while not understanding the principles of the modern world order is impossible. Similarly, all attempts to build one's own prosperity in a world where everything is in accordance with definite, logical but concealed laws, not knowing the basic principles of today's world, would be like sand castles. The rules are set, the game has been on for a while. But no one announces the rules. On the contrary, other players are trying to convince us that we are competing in ballet, while it is actually ultimate fighting. Imagine the following situation: a tennis player has arrived at a competition. He is holding a racket, wearing a baseball cap and he has tennis balls in his pockets. And only when he is already on what should be a tennis court, he realises that it is not a lawn but ice, as at an ice rink. And his opponent looks a bit strange: he is wearing new skates and a helmet and is holding a stick. How long can the tennis player withstand the hockey player if they are actually playing hockey?
    One has to be an idiot to cut down the size of the army and reduce the weapons in exchange for beautiful promises![13] And all of this served under the pretty sauce of 'world peace', 'disarmament' and 'elimination of the nuclear threat'. Everything was given up. The leaders of the USSR gave up the country's allies, its army its bases and then the country itself was given up as well as its citizens who all of a sudden found themselves in what was now a foreign country. And what happened in the end? Did the world become more secure? Did the main opponent, the USA together with NATO, disarm? How much blood has been shed in wars since then?
    This is what incompetence and lack of judgement in political leaders may cause. Their good intentions to establish peace for everyone lead to wars and catastrophes because rivalry and political struggle were never cancelled. And therefore there is a sphere that everyone needs to understand, even if it seems too difficult and one does not feel like it. Even if one does not want to think about it or it is hard to believe in it. Because common ignorance will eventually concern everyone, and even if it does not concern yourself, it will concern your children. In any form. In the best case scenario, ordinary people will buy dollars as they get more expensive again and will start selling euros when they get cheaper. For their future retirement allowance they will buy shares that by the time they actually retire will cost nothing. In the worst case scenario a tank strike will shatter their house and an explosion in the underground will take their lives or health
    Politics and finances. These are the spheres of human life that require knowing at least the basic principles, otherwise it may incur real damage to human life. Finances today have brought politics to heel, have replaced politics with themselves. Not understanding this sphere may destroy peoples and countries. Today's world is based on finances, it lives among finances and is controlled by them. Therefore, dear reader, you will have to examine modern currencies. There is no moving on without it.
    The financial world is not a group of geeks in front of computers, it is not polite clerks in banks and not even traders at stock exchanges. The financial world is aircraft carriers, nuclear-powered submarines, tanks, fighters and helicopters. It is infiltrators and assassins, snipers and spies, politicians and public figures. And all of that is only needed to preserve the existing financial order of the planet, to retain their dominance and even assert it. The most interesting thing is that despite clear physical signs of such world order, most people do not even have a slightest idea how everything functions. And those who dominate, those who created this theatre of the absurd, need exactly that.
    In order to understand what is happening around you today, you have to realise three things, and they should be understood in combination.
    1. The keystone of the modern financial world is the dominant part of the dollar. That means that all prices in world economy are only defined in dollars. Oil, gas, gold, aluminium etc. are only sold for dollars. All natural resources, all metals and all their derivatives. That means that it is in dollars that prices for production are defined. To put it short, everything, nearly everything that is sold at the global market, is only sold for dollars. This is how world economy works. If you want to buy gas or nickel get your dollars out. It is impossible to buy them for euros or Norwegian Kroner. You have to exchange your currency for dollars. And that means creating extra demand for them.
    And that is not all.
    2. Not only is the dollar the main means of payment in todays international trade but it is also the main means of savings. And by that it is not private savings of people around the world that are meant but savings of countries themselves. The so-called gold and foreign currency reserves. Whichever country you take it will have less gold in the reserves than currency[14] Therefore it would be more sensible to call such reserves foreign currency and gold ones.[15] But you had better get used to it in the financial mirror-world all terms are designed to confuse the situation rather than make things clear.
    3. It is not the United States of America but a private institution called the Federal Reserve System of the USA that issues the main currency of the world.[16] Private initiative has nothing to do with it. The US dollar just does not belong to the USA. The fact that the dollar is issued by a private institution is even stated on the dollar bill. But who reads that? Meanwhile, it says everything quite clearly. No one hides anything. American money says nowadays: Federal Reserve Note.
    You are not holding a US dollar, you are holding a dollar of the Federal Reserve System.[17] But this strange situation has not always existed in the USA. It will soon be 100 years since the American government decided to privatise emission of the dollar. The Fed was established in December 1913, when President Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act.[18] When money was issued by the Government and not by a private institution, dollar bills said a different thing: United States Note. Can you feel the difference? There used to be state money (bills) and now there is corporate money (bills). But, alas, there is no state money in the USA any more.
    Even on the Federal Reserve official website you will find public information about its private nature: The Fed is a mixture of public and private elements.[19] This phrase is rather misleading a bit like what they say about mixtures of raisins and nuts. Can such a phrase be found on a governmental institution website? Say, at the US Navy website? Or on the US Air Force website? Even the National Guard cannot say that it is a 'mixture of public and private elements'. Because the army, navy and police in the USA, as anywhere in the world, are run by the state. Whereas the organisation that issues American money is not. We do live in a strange world! Although, what is so strange? Who controls the wallet controls everything.
    You can often hear statements that the Fed is controlled by the US government, which, allegedly, makes it a state organisation.[20] Refuting this statement is very easy. All it takes is to look at the founders of this institution. The Fed was established by twelve Federal Reserve banks scattered across the USA. It would seem that the Fed is a federal organisation since it consists of federal banks. But this is just a facade, a mimicry. There is not a single state-run bank in the USA! All the banks that have the word Federal in their names, were actually established by ordinary commercial banks which had been grouped according to their location. And who are the founders of American commercial banks? Via a chain of companies, shares, trusts and funds, it is always INDIVIDUALS. Therefore, the twelve Federal Reserve banks comprising the Fed are owned by unknown individuals, and not the American state. And each of these twelve Federal Reserve banks has the right to issue dollar bills.[21] If you are curious, you can take a note you have and read where it comes from.[22]
    For an outsider, all proprieties are observed. An illusion is created that the Federal reserve is controlled by the state, although it is actually independent. It is about the independence of the Federal Reserve that you will read in all reference books. And it will be presented as a great advantage. The Fed is an 'independent financial institution established in order to function as the central bank and perform centralised control over the US commercial bank system'.[23]
    So, what is the Federal Reserve System independent from? From the government. This means that the President of the United States has no influence on the policy of the Federal Reserve. Otherwise, what independence are they talking about? If the head of a corporation can appoint or dismiss the head of one of the companies within its corporate group, we can hardly talk of any independence. And if the head of the corporation has no right to dismiss him or make him to pursue a policy needed by the group, what kind of head of corporation is that? This is not authority any more but mere illusion. Similarly, speaking of the independence of the Fed on the one hand and of the control exercised by the state, on the other, is creating an illusion. One cannot be slightly pregnant, it is either one thing of the other.
    The essence is simple: in the capitalist world everything is decided by shareholders, that is by owners of companies. If they want, they can appoint a CEO, otherwise, they can give him the sack. No American president could make Coca-Cola or Pepsi shareholders dismiss or appoint the CEO of these companies because neither he, nor the American government owns the control stock of these organisations. The situation with the Fed is similar. How many shares of the Federal Reserve System belong to the American Government? None. How can the President appoint or sack the head of the Fed? He cannot.
    It does all look decent though. The Federal Reserve banks establish the governing body of the Fed, called the Board of Governors, and delegate one member each.[24] Each member of the Board of Governors is appointed for a term of 14 years.[25] These Governors then elect the Chairman of the Fed. He is appointed for four years and the US President confirms him at the position.
    What do we see? This is an imitation of subordination. This is what you will find in the book written by the Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan: 'Federal Reserve System, formally independent from the White House'.[26] What is informal dependence then? In a world where the whole management structure is strictly vertical, such dependence simply does not exist. No structure has one. There are always superiors and subordinates, ordered according to the staffing establishment, law or criminal practices.
    We are dealing with an imitation. An imitation of formal subordination. Going back to the Coca-cola example, its shareholders can write in the corporate charter that every CEO has to be confirmed by the President of the United States. The head of the White House does not own any shares and therefore cannot vote. But he is granted the honourable right to sign the confirmation of the head of the company. The situation with the Fed is exactly the same because the appointment of the Fed Chairman is the most important appointment in today's world economy and hierarchy. Far more important than that of the US President.
    You will also read that the FRB is accountable to the US Congress. But this is an imitation as well. It is as though the head of the Coca-Cola company made a statement in Congress and members of Congress heavily criticised it for the high concentration of sugar in the drink and for using the plastic packaging. What could they do apart from criticising? Nothing Coca-Cola would continue to produce the same drink, with the same concentration of sugar and in the same packaging. In a similar manner, the FRB is accountable to Congress for its performance. And members of the Congress can criticise the organisation as much as they please, they can stamp their feet in anger and blame them for causing the recession and bad performance but it would have no legal implications.
    As a result, we get a very peculiar image.
    The main money for trading and main money for saving on the global scale is issued by an organisation owned by an unknown group of private bankers. But why should we care about the USA and the rest of the world we should be primarily interested in our own country. It is high time we discussed the rouble. Let us look at it. Let us read what it is written on it. This is something that an ordinary person in everyday life never does. We are, frankly speaking, only interested in the value of the bill and not in what it says. Now, let us have a look. A note of the Bank of Russia'. Does it mean that the note was made in Russia? Geographically, yes. And de jure no. Why? Remember the Federal Reserve System that issues green dollars with portraits of American presidents, an independent Central Bank, independent from the state. Is the Russian system the same?
    In order to understand it, let us read the law on the Central Bank of Russia (Bank of Russia).[27] Let us start with the simplest question who issues roubles? This is easy the Central Bank of Russia, also known as that Bank of Russia, has the monopoly on issuing the Russian national currency. This is exactly what article 4 of the law says: 'has the exclusive right to issue cash money and organise its circulation'.[28] Does this sound sensible? Yes, there should be only one issue centre. But what is it controlled by? In order to find out, we carry on reading. The most interesting article in the law on the Russia Central Bank is probably article 2. It contains so much information that one needs to read it at least twice. Let us look at it as a whole and then examine the details.
    Article 2. The registered capital or any other property of the Bank of Russia is considered federal property. In accordance to the goals and in the order specified by this federal act, the Bank of Russia exercises the authority to possess, use and dispose of the property of the Bank of Russia, including the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Bank of Russia. Withdrawal and encumbrance of the aforementioned property without consent of the Bank of Russia shall not be allowed, unless specified otherwise by a federal act. The state shall not be liable for the obligations of the Bank of Russia, and the Bank of Russia shall not be liable for the obligations of the state, unless they have taken such obligations or unless otherwise specified in federal acts. The Bank of Russia undertakes its expenditures by means of its own profits'.
    So, what belongs to the state? The property of the Bank of Russia. That is the real estate. Furniture of all sorts, chairs and suchlike. Wallpapers. Pens and computer mice. Turntables in microwave ovens. Is that it? No, it is not. There is also the 'registered capital' of the Central Bank in the amount of three billion roubles.[29] Is it much? You can answer this question yourself. First, look at the size of the gold and foreign currency reserve of the Central Bank.[30] These figures are published every day. Today the reserves amount to ca. 465 billion dollars. Now, you tell me whether three billion ROUBLES is a lot compared to 465 billion DOLLARS. This is very little. It is not the registered capital that matters but the assets of the Central Bank, its gold and foreign currency reserves. This is the 'grand prix', so to speak. And it is very peculiar that the gold and foreign currency reserves should be described in the law as 'other property'. Yet the most interesting part is ahead.
    The gold and foreign currency reserves of the Bank Russia do not belong to Russia itself.
    How else would you explain the following: 'Withdrawal and encumbrance of the aforementioned property without consent of the Bank of Russia shall not be allowed'. If the states owns the property, then it does not need consent from an organisation that uses the property ON BEHALF OF THE STATE. If the states owns a plot of land, it does not need any consent from the current tenant in order to build something on the land or sell it. In the case of the Central Bank we get a very strange picture Russian citizens, voters, the people, elected high officials and through these officials granted the Central Bank with authorities in the financial sphere. It was entrusted with the country's gold and foreign currency reserves. And now they cannot use these values without consent of the Central Bank. Imagine that you let someone your own flat and then would not be able to use this flat without the tenant's consent.
    'The state shall not be liable for the obligations of the Bank of Russia, and the Bank of Russia shall not be liable for the obligations of the state'.
    If the state owns the property of the Central Bank and its gold and foreign currency reserves, why shall it not be liable for its obligations with this property? If the money and the gold belong to the state, then the state can pledge it, that is to be liable for its obligations with its assets. And in our situation, the country seems to have the money but it cannot be spent. It cannot be pledged. Nothing can be done without consent of the Central Bank of Russia. And we have come across another example of legal nonsense the user can prohibit the owner to use their own property. Or does that mean that the gold and foreign currency reserves do not belong to the state?
    'The Bank of Russia exercises the authority to possess, use and dispose of the property of the Bank of Russia, including the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Bank of Russia'[31].
    Please note: the authority to dispose. What is that supposed to mean? When at a state institution, say, at a fire station or a tax office, a fire fighter or a tax inspector is sent to work and they are provided with appropriate instruments. The fire fighter is given a hose, a helmet and a fire engine, and the tax inspector is provided with a computer, a calculator and some paper. But the authorities of these employees are confined to, speaking of the language of the law on the Central bank, 'use and possession. There can be no disposition here. The fire fighter does not own the fire engine and the fire hose, and the tax inspector does not become the owner of the computer and the calculator. Similarly, a soldier does not become the owner of the tank or the aircraft that he has been entrusted with to protect the country, and a policeman does not become the owner of the gun and the bulletproof vest needed to capture criminals.
    The 'right to dispose' is a legal term that indicates the owner of the gold and foreign currency reserves.
    Your family has a wallet which contains a lot of money. You earned it over many years through honest labour. But you are not allowed to spend it. Under no circumstances unless you have the consent of an absolutely independent man who, incidentally, lives in your flat. Technically, he works for you. So to speak. But in reality, he is entirely independent from you. He sets the salary himself, he pays it himself.[32] And you are the one who depends on him, and quite a lot because he is the only person who can authorise you to spend the money YOU have earned. And without his consent you cannot do it. And to avoid all temptation, all your salary and your savings now go to the man and not to you. He guards the 'gold and foreign currency reserves' of your family. You find it unfair? Inconvenient? Strange? On the contrary! It is fair! Convenient! Progressive! And what is most important, there is no other way if you are entrusted with the money, you can spend it. This is how this situation is explained to us. But you would quickly sort it out with the man in your family you would simply kick him out. Right? But the man is cunning! As soon as you want to kick him out, he starts shrieking so that all the neighbourhood can hear him. And at the entrance to your house three more men are standing, 'just in case'. They are called 'Human Rights Organisations', 'Independent press', 'Civilised countries'. And it is not you who they listen to, but to your unwanted financial assistant. They vigilantly guard order and justice, effectively stopping you from hurting the man and making you politely ask him for approval of your expenditures. Why? Because you signed the Law on the Central Bank of your flat and now you are obliged to abide. Otherwise, all the newspapers of your district, as well as the bulletin of your company will have your portrait with nasty words about you. Your children will be lectured at school about their parent's 'legal nihilism'. And a sign saying WANTED under a picture of you will be attached to the door of your house.
    Therefore, the law should be obeyed, and one should meet one's commitments because this is the way the whole civilised world lives. To spend your own money yourself is obsolete. Look around all the neighbours live like that. They also have an independent man in their flat, and so does everyone in the building. It is hard for everyone. But everyone has something to aspire to. The boss of all these men lives on the top floor. He spends his money the way he wants, and, what is more, he is authorised to control all the men in the building. He drives around in a Mercedes, and everyone else in the building drives old cars. But the reason why he is so prosperous is concealed they say that his posh car comes from the right electoral system. Because all his family issues are only solved through election
    Lets us imagine that you have had enough of this situation and have decided to stop caring about the three guys at the door who make a scene about right violation and carry on with dragging your man to the exit. You have decided to stop listening to the tales that spending your own money yourself is obsolete and inefficient. You were not convinced that the independent man is the key to your prosperity and wealth. In a word, you have decided to kick the annoying man out of the flat once and for all. And what do you see? Next to the lift there are three more people. Huge muscular blokes with very grim faces. The armbands on their sleeves say 'The US army', 'The British army' and 'NATO'. Still determined to kick the man out? Get ready for a fight then
    The law on the Central Bank is full of controversies. It is technically federal property, and nevertheless, the Central Bank has no obligations towards the state. What is more, should we, that is the state, decide to get rid of the annoying man and use the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank to build new factories and roads, we would be doomed to failure. The three guys next to the lift would not beat us up while we still have the Russian army and the nuclear shield. But very soon a fourth roughneck would come to the flat. 'Independent International Court' is written on his back. You must have already guessed that there is no chance for justice. The Central Bank of Russia, if the Russian state wants to use what allegedly belongs to it can file a complaint to the international court!
    Article 6. The Bank of Russia is authorised to file suits to courts in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. The Bank of Russia is entitled to appeal to international courts, courts of foreign countries and courts of arbitration for protection of its rights'.
    The Bank of Russia and the state cannot decide a controversy themselves. It will be decided by the Stockholm court of arbitration. Or the independent court of the State of New York. This is as ridiculous as if the Central Party Committee and the People's Commissioners for Finances at the times of Stalin did not solve their disputes in the Kremlin or government sessions, but at the court of the Third Reich. It was equally independent from the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party and from the USSR government. Right? Right. Therefore it could decide who was right and who was wrong in the USSR, being the court of Nazi Germany. It would have been fair and impartial. And of course, it would have been guided only by the interests of Russia and by the letter of the law. But the funniest thing is that should the Central Bank appeal to the International Court of Justice, it would inevitably win. And Russia, that is us, would inevitably lose. Why? Because the Central Bank is a part of a whole system of similar central banks which, in their turn are a part of a web called the International Monetary Fund (IMF). And what is most important: the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank of Russia are not stored in Russia. Except for a small percentage of gold stored in Russia, the rest of the reserves of our Central Bank does not look like wads of cash from various countries bound with rubber bands but digital 'zeros'. Which are stored, incidentally, in computers abroad. Gold and foreign currency reserves of our Central Bank are invested in state bonds of other countries, mostly in US state bonds: 'Russia has spent over 30% of the gold and foreign currency reserves on buying securities issued by the US Treasury According to the American Ministry of Finance, our country's investments in American state bonds have grown by 3.5 times over the last year from 32.6 billion up to 116.4 billion dollars. And now Russia takes the 7th place in the rating of countries crediting the United States.'[33]
    Can you imagine the USSR State Bank investing 30% of its reserves in US state bonds? Not in gold, but in bonds?
    But let us be just the Central Bank does not invest the gold and foreign currency reserves only in American securities. The International Monetary Fund also receives some funds: 'In the near future Russia will invest 10 billion dollars of the gold and foreign currency reserves in bonds of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This was announced at a meeting with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev by the Finance minister of the Russian Federation Alexey Kudrin. According to the minister, it was the Central Bank that was going to invest the money'.[34]
    The fact that the IMF is fully controlled by the Anglo-Saxons and other monstrous offspring of Bretton Woods will be discussed later. For now we will only note that the Central Bank always purchases various bonds when Russian economy needs the credits resources. But investing them inside Russia is impossible. Why? It is prohibited by law.
    Article 22. The Bank of Russia is not entitled to credit the Government of the Russian Federation to fund budget shortfall, buy state securities at the initial offer, except for the cases when it is provided for by the federal law on federal budget'.
    The Central banks of the so-called developed countries credit the budget through buying state bonds. And our Central Bank is not allowed to buy Russian bonds. But it can buy American state bonds and securities of some other countries. This is an important detail: the Central Bank of Russia is only entitled to buy bonds issued by OTHER countries, which means that it is obliged to credit other countries' economies. Very particular economies actually.
    According to the legislation, the rouble can only be issued by the Bank of Russia. And according to the same law, it is not entitled to provide loans to the state. How is emission organised then, how are roubles introduced into circulation? Easily through purchasing foreign currency at the stock exchange.
    The system works as follows:
    ● Russia sells certain goods at the global market;
    ● the country receives 100 dollars;
    ● the Central Bank buys the dollars at the stock exchange;
    ● the dollars go to the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank;
    ● Russian economy gets 3000 roubles.
    In other words, foreign currency can only get into the country through the stock exchange, where it is sold and the respective amount of roubles is 'injected' into Russian economy. Some sort of an unspoken parity rate for the population is observed. The parity rate between the amount of dollars in the gold and foreign currency reserves and the amount of roubles in the economy. For example, oil prices grow. For the same goods Russia now receives 110 dollars and not 100. The parity is tilted and the Central Bank corrects it. It lowers the dollar exchange rate, buys them for less money and injects in the economy a smaller amount of roubles per dollar. If the oil price drops, the process is reverse: the Central Bank increases the dollar exchange rate. And now, for each incoming dollar, more Russian currency is issued. It is the Central Bank that watches the gross volume of roubles. As according to the law on the Central Bank it is the governing body of the Central bank the Board of Directors that makes decisions regarding 'total volume of cash issue'.[35]
    In other words, there is a strict relation between the monetary stock inside Russia and the dollar stock that Russia receives from the outside. And that means that we are vulnerable. We are not fully independent. Why does the Central bank keep the parity rate between the amount of dollars in the gold and foreign currency reserves and the gross volume of issued roubles? Because the Central bank controls issue of the rouble in the 'currency board' mode.[36]
    It is required because any country which is a member of the IMF is obliged to guarantee single-step exchange of the total amount of the national currency into dollars and pounds using its own gold and foreign currency reserves. This rule has to be observed at any given moment. Otherwise, a country cannot be accepted to the IMF. And without being in the IMF one cannot be a part of the 'civilised society'.
    As a result, the Russian economy does not have as much money as required for its proper operation but equal to the amount of dollars in the reserves of the Central Bank. The amount of roubles that can be issued depends of the amount of dollars Russia received for its oil and gas. That means that the whole Russian economy is artificially put in direct correlation with the export of natural resources. This is why a drop for oil prices causes a collapse of everything and everywhere. This is not due to insufficient tax collection from oil sales. The reason is that roubles disappear from the economy, which is followed by a collapse of trade, construction, reduction in salaries and curtailment of the whole production process.
    It is important to understand that the gold and foreign currency reserves of the country are not state reserves. This money is not to be spent. It has to stay in the storage of the Central Bank just to make it possible to issue roubles. The gold and foreign currency reserves do not do any good to the government or the people. Their role is completely different this is guarantee, which cannot be spent and which allows to issue roubles. Why they cannot be spent is clear if we sell dollars to cover the country's external debt, the roubles issued under the guarantee will remain in the country. The balance will be distorted. And this is against the rules. This is not acceptable.
    Here is an example: Putin paid Russia's external debt. Well done him, he cut one of the financial ropes that the global puppeteers used to control us. Only one so far the other one is still in use. And he did everything 'in accordance with the rules'. The external debt was paid from the stabilisation fund which actually belongs to the state.[37] No money from the gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Bank was paid to cover that debt. Why? Because it is not allowed! Why is not allowed? Because in 1944 in a town called Bretton Woods international agreements feigning further development of mankind were signed. We will talk about the Bretton Woods agreements and everything that has happened in the financial mirror-world since when in another chapter.
    And now let us continue being amazed while reading the law on the Central Bank. It contains a lot of much more important information. Again, we are going to deal with the main question: who is in charge of the Central Bank of Russia? Who controls it? It seems that no one. At least, no one in Russia. Article 1 on the law is unambiguous enough:
    'The functions and authorities specified in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and this Federal law, are exercised by the Bank of Russia independently from any other federal bodies of state authority, bodies of state authority in subjects of the Russian Federation or local government bodies'. We can try our last chance to find any governmental nature of our Central Bank by looking at the order of forming the governing bodies. Chapter III is called 'Governing bodies of the Bank of Russia'.
    Article 12. The Chairman of the Bank of Russia is appointed by the State Duma for a term of four years by a majority of votes of the total number of members of parliament. The candidate for the post of the Chairman of the Bank of Russia is presented by the President of the Russian Federation. The State Duma is entitled to dismiss the Chairman of the Bank of Russia upon the recommendation of the President of the Russian Federation'.
    Is that clear? The Russian President introduces and the State Duma appoints. The Duma as well dismisses the Chairman from the post. But this is just the beginning. The law is written in such a cunning manner that the possibility to dismiss the Chairman of the Bank of Russia from their position for the President and the State Duma is purely theoretical. In order to make sure in this, let us just read article 12 to the end.
    'The Chairman of the Bank of Russia can only be dismissed from the position in the following cases: 1) expiry of term in office; 2) disability which makes performance of duty impossible and which is confirmed by a state in the US government stocks and other abstract entities. You can see that for medical commission; 3) there is a personal resignation letter; 4) the person in question committed a penal offence and was found guilty and sentenced; 5) if federal acts regulating issues related to the activities of the Bank of Russia have been violated'.
    So, apparently, if the Chairman of the Central Bank: 1) is fit as a fiddle, 2) the term in office has not expired 3) is not willing to leave the job, 4) does not pinch wallets off old ladies, 5) observes the federal legislation (that is, does not credit his own country) dismissing the man is impossible.
    He can even pinch wallets off old ladies but until there is a sentence from court, the State Duma cannot dismiss him. The Russian president cannot do anything either. It is interesting, is it not? Cannot the head of an organisation appointing a financial director dismiss him with a decree and appoint a new one? Or does he have to wait for four years? Or a sentence from court? Or summon a medical commission? No, in reality, the head of an organisation is free both to appoint and dismiss his subordinates. The head of state in Russia is the President. All other governmental officials are his subordinates whom he controls, not directly, but through ministers, governors, mayors, generals and admirals. And only the Chairman of the Central Bank is beyond time and space. The President cannot dismiss him or give him the sack. And if he does, the banker can appeal an international court. And the position of the head of the Central Bank is indeed a key position!
    Article 23. The federal budget funds and state non-budget funds are stored in the Bank of Russia unless otherwise specified by federal laws'.
    So, apart from the gold and foreign currency reserves it also stores the whole Russian budget. Accounts of the Central Bank hold what used to be the unified Stabilisation fund. 'The Reserve fund and the National Welfare Fund are stored on accounts of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation to account these funds in foreign currency in Moscow'.[38] You would not be wrong if you said that the Central Bank is our everything, meaning that all funds of our country are concentrated there. And this key department is not controlled by the state?! Do you understand what that means?
    If you look closer at it, you will see traces of the compromise achieved by the Russian authorities and almighty bankers in the scheme of control over Russian finances. I would like to remind you that the Stabilisation fund that we have just spoken about was divided in two parts: they were called Reserve Fund and National Welfare Fund. So, the funds in the first one are controlled by the Central Bank, that is not the state, and the funds in the second one the Ministry of Finance, that is the Government, that is the state[39]
    Article 5. The Bank of Russia is accountable to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The accountability of the Bank of Russia to the State Duma means that the Chairman of the Bank of Russia is appointed and dismissed from the post by the State Duma on the recommendation from the President of the Russian Federation'.
    And this is all the accountability there is? But we have just found out that it is only an illusion because the head of the Central Bank cannot be dismissed without his consent and will. Incidentally, it is practically impossible to dismiss other bankers from the Central Bank.
    Article 13. The members of the Board of Directors are appointed for a term of four years by the State Duma on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Bank of Russia, agreed upon with the President of the Russian Federation. The members of the Board of Directors can be dismissed: at the end of their term specified in this article by the Chairman of the Bank of Russia; before the end of the term specified in this article by the State Duma on the recommendation of the Chairman of the Bank of Russia'.
    So it is only the Chairman of the Central Bank who can give the sack to stubborn colleague as to dismiss a banker who is also a member of the Board of Directors of the Central Bank a recommendation of the Chairman is needed. The State Duma itself cannot dismiss bankers unless the Chairman of the Central Bank wants it. How can they say that the Central Bank is accountable to the Parliament then?
    What was it like before? In the USSR the financial system was based on the principles of common sense. The Council of ministers of the USSR, that is the Government, was in charge of the financial sphere. The State bank authorised to perform emission operations was the body that followed all instructions from the USSR Government regarding the monetary system. This was an antipode of today's Central Bank. It followed the orders of the Government, no consent from the State Bank was needed, and its head was appointed by the Council of Ministers and was dismissed in the same manner. The State Bank had no right to appeal to a foreign court. The amount of money required for the country's economy was defined by the Council of ministers and the State Bank only issued it.
    The money issued in the USSR was of three types: notes of the State Bank of the USSR, treasury notes and metal coins. The differences between the bank and the treasury notes were purely juridical. Only bank notes were backed with gold, precious metals and other assets of the State Bank, which as stated on the bills from ten roubles. One-rouble, three-rouble and five-rouble notes (treasury notes) had a different inscription on them and were backed with the whole 'property of the state', so they did not have any gold content. In everyday life ordinary citizens had no idea about these details and that there was a difference between the two types of Soviet money. All types of money were issued into circulation by the State Bank of the USSR.
    Did Yeltsin understand what he was doing in 1990? I am sure, he did not. Illiteracy of the USSR population in financial issues was amazing. But it was not too bad back then the Soviet people did not have to deal with anything more complicated than public bonds and deposits in a savings bank. The problem was that the elite were just as illiterate. And that ended with a catastrophe. An idea of a bank independent from the state was brought into the Soviet Union as a Trojan horse through 'advisors'. through those who had practical trainings at Columbia University, those who were recruited or simply betrayed their country. Just as in the Hollywood film Alien' an extra-terrestrial creature was implanted into a living body. I am exaggerating a private Central bank was indeed like an alien for the USSR.
    Now, are the following events surprising at all? I do not think so. If anything, they are logical. I would just like to address Gorbachev with one question: Mikhail Sergeevich, how did you let this happen being the president of the USSR? What were these banks, independent from the people's authorities, which appeared in our still multinational state still governed by the people? He will not reply though. Or he will start his old song about humanity, the new way of thinking and a chance to get everyone disarmed. I put all my hopes on hell and cauldrons with boiling oil
    Do the Russian authorities know about this 'strange' situation with the Central Bank?
    What should one do if there is understanding of the importance of the task and yet there is no power to solve the problem? One should start a systematic siege. The task should be broken into several smaller ones. To change the legislation regarding the Central Bank, a vote in the State Duma is needed. The founders of the Bank of Russia saw perfectly well what a key role it would play. And therefore they did their best to create several security levels. The first level is the law on the Central Bank. Among other things, it contains such amusing details as article 7: 'Drafts of federal law and regulatory documents of the federal bodies of executive power concerning duties of the Bank of Russia and it performance shall be submitted to the Bank of Russia for approval'.[40]If you want to dismiss bankers through making amendments to the legislation kindly submit the draft of the bill to them in advance. Otherwise, they might as well sue you for your legal mayhem in a court of Delaware
    The second security level is the Constitution. As the 'reformers' shoved some words on the Central Bank and its status even into the Constitution. Article 75 (points 1 and 2) says that 'the currency of the Russian Federation is the rouble', and 'issuing of money shall only be done by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation', that 'it performs independently from any other governing bodies'.[41] If you want to be surprised have a look at Soviet Constitutions. Read the Constitution of the USA. You will find no mention of a bank that issues money independently anywhere, because such articles should not be a part of the main law of the country. What body issues the currency is a technical question, it is not fundamental for the country and its people. For the people it is not very significant, but it is a key issue for enslaving the country. That is why it was hastily dragged into the Constitution. And now this technical detail is there next to the fundamental rights of Russian citizens.
    All the following steps of the Russian authorities will make more sense if we use the failed mounted attack against the Central Bank as a reference point.
    Laws need to be changed. That means that it is necessary to take the State Duma under control. That means that a parliamentary majority is required. And therefore, a party needs to be created that will win the general elections. A political structure which is currently rather popular starts being created.
    Winning the elections is not possible without controlling the mass media. The process of talking the mass media under control begins.
    But what is even more important is talking Gazprom under control. In spring 2001 a new team comes to the company headed by Alexey Miller. Gazprom is not just gas flares and pipelines. It is also money required to buy the loyalty of the elite.
    The cold truth among politicians in Russia at the time was that if you do not pay for loyalty, you are going to be betrayed as very few people can work for the sake of the idea, putting material welfare at the very end of their priorities. It takes a while to find such people. Where? Among one's friends. This is when people from St. Petersburg start coming into Russian politics and economy. It is required to put one's own people at key positions and secure their loyalty with a high salary provided by Gazprom, with some encouragement' in an envelope or turning to blind eye to their 'mischievousness'. One can only have very few close friends whom they know very well. When one runs out of them, one has to switch to friends' friends. These will not betray in conditions when betrayal is normal, as long as they have a secure reasonable income.
    One of the most important parts of the preparation are the law enforcement structures. Otherwise, one may just not live long enough to see the victory. It is required to fill the key positions. First of all, the doctor, the head of security and the cook. Then the minister of defence, the Home Minister, the head of the FSB, the head of the Federal Security Guard Service. If you look at the dynamics of changes of leading officials in these spheres a lot of things will become clearer.
    If you are still not entirely convinced that the key to all the problems is hidden in the corridors of the Central Bank of Russia, then there is an interesting table at the website of the Central Bank just for you.[42] It is called 'The Base Rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation'. In crude terms, this is the interest rate at which the Central Bank credits banks and through them the whole Russian economy. As, let me remind you, no one is authorised to do it except for the Central Bank because roubles are issued by the Central Bank which then lends them to commercial banks.
    Looking at the table you will easily see that from 1st June 2010 the base rate has been 7.75%. This is written at the very top. And now scroll down. Have you still got any questions why the Russian economy was dying in the early 90s? Simply because the only issuing authority lent money at a 210% annual interest rate.[43] We have forgotten about that but this is how it was. This is a record-breaking rate of course, but generally in the period between 1993 and 1996, for nearly three years, the interest rate was a three-figure number. Try and borrow some money at a 210% rate! It does put you off from starting your own business and talking a loan, does it not?
    This is not a number, this is something out of this world! And, what is most interesting, do not confuse the consequence with the reason. It is the Central Bank that is to regulate the circulation of money in the country so that the country could breathe normally and develop. And it is on its activities that the level of inflation depends.
    That is to say that the inflation rate was extraordinary, and the prices were skyrocketing exactly because the Central Bank credited the Russian economy at such an extortionate rate. And not vice versa! If the idea of borrowing money at a 210% rate does not appeal to you, may be you would like 55% more? Still no? Yet this was the base rate when Putin became the head of the country in 2000. And since then the percentage has been gradually reducing until it reached 7.5% of today. The economy could finally breathe. The Central Bank had been purposefully smothering it, absolutely consciously. It can be proved by the negative processes that took place in the absolutely market and very capitalist American economy when the Federal Reserve System of the USA held the base rate not even at a rate of 210% or 55% but at a mere 20% rate.
    'In April 1980 the main interest rates in the USA exceeded 20%. Cars stopped being sold, houses remained unfinished, millions of people lost their jobs by the middle of 1980 the level of unemployment reached 9% and kept rising until the end of 1982, nearly reaching 11%'.[44] It is no one but the former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan himself who tells us about this. And if you do have a look at the aforementioned table, you will make sure that the Russian economy lived at such a deadly rate of 21% from 7 August 2002 until 16 February 2003, and about ten years more at astronomical rates of up to 210%. What would have happened to the US efficient' economy if the FRB had raised the base rate up to 45% and kept it at this level for five years?
    In order to see what destructive consequences bankers from the Central Bank and their superiors from abroad were leading our economy to, just look at the following table. There is much less money in the Russian economy than in economies of Western countries. Some might say that Russia does not work enough. Rubbish! This is like trying to explain anaemia with the fact that the patient does not work enough, forgetting that the doctors just do not trouble themselves with feeding the patient properly. The Central Bank consciously performed a demonetisation of the Russian economy. Just as a normal human body requires a certain number of litres of blood to function properly, an economy needs a certain stock of money. The amount of money in the Russian economy was drastically reduced, which immediately led to a lack of longer-term money required for economical growth and caused a stagnation of the economical development. And the volume of 'blood' let out of the economy amounts to 1.3-2 trillion dollars.[45] For such a policy the Central Bank can be considered the Central Bank of anything but Russia.

    Demonetisation of the Russian economy was performed from early 1990s during active implementation of developments prepared by American experts into the Russian macro-economical and political policies. Monetisation still has not been restored[46]

    So, what made the Central Bank gradually lower the high base rate? Or maybe, WHO made them reduce the interest rate grip at the throat of the Russian economy? All it takes is to look at the steady lowering of the base rate since Vladimir Putin's team came into power in Russia
    And if are still not convinced that the vast gold and foreign currency reserves of the Central Banks do not belong to Russia, just ask yourself one question: why is the Government going to privatise and sell shares of various companies owned by the state? Why sell shares of'Rosneft' and VTB when you have 450 billion dollars in the reserves? In order to get some money. Why sell liquid assets to get some money if you have plenty of money?
    There can only be one answer if these billions do not belong to you. And projects require money, development requires funds. Even fighting terrorists requires money as well as secret services. Money is required for everything and all the time. But when was the first time the 'printing machine' become non-governmental? When did this madness begin?
    It all dates back to history.

    On the Bank of England and the Sun King's frail relatives

    Winston Churchill
    There are historical facts that are known practically to everyone. There are historical figures familiar to every pupil. Yet it is enough to probe just a bit deeper about one of these well-known events or personalities and it turns out that we are completely ignorant of that. Here is an incontrovertible fact the French monarchs inherited crown from one another. For a very long time all of them were called Louis. The name remained the same only the ordinal number of the king changed. The most famous Louis (and the most famous French king generally) was Louis XIV. It was he who bore the title of the Sun King and who built the famous series of palaces and gardens, Versailles. It was him, who Dumas described in his novels as having put an iron mask on his twin brother. It was him, who as a boy d'Artagnan and the three musketeers defended from the intrigues of the cardinal. And some years earlier these four protected his mother Anne of Austria from another cardinal Richelieu.
    He was the most 'branded' French monarch, to use the modern show-business parlance. He is featured in literature and cinema, his mistresses are talked about in TV programmes. Yet the real life of the Sun King was so exciting and unbelievable, that Dumas's stories are by comparison just a collection of dull, bleak stories, and it is about this most exciting part of the monarch's life that historians and novelists are tight as a clam.
    Museum guides on the other hand say a lot about the Sun King to their tourists, to everyone who visits the beautiful Versailles and wonderful Paris. So, what do they say?
    The King lived in the lap of luxury and pursued invasive wars. Well, that does not say anything special about him, for in those times everyone fought wars and everyone tried to surround themselves with at least some luxury. Those who are better educated will make an obligatory remark, that Louis the XIV ruled for a very long time for over 70 years. Even the reign of 'comrade Stalin in comparison with Louis was nothing but a one-reeler. So, generations changed, children became parents, grandchildren were born, and the King remained on the throne, as an eternal and irremovable symbol of power. Here we should recall his famous maxim: L'État, c'est moi' ('I am the state').
    And now I am going to ask you a question, dear reader. What is the relation of Louis XIV to his immediate successor on the throne Louis XV? I have presented this question to many people. So far, nobody has given me the correct answer. It would seem that no question could be easier. We all know this king, we know Versailles, and we have a general idea of the French history. The most common answer is that he was his son. Those who realise that there must be a catch in the question try to grope for the right track and reply 'grandson'. Wrong. Then one normally replies: 'Nephew'. Still wrong. Then, finally, they make a desperate guess 'he is not related to Louis XIV'. And that is wrong, too.
    The throne of Louis XIV, the politician, who established the most powerful state, the statesmen, who was in control of the country for seventy two years, was inherited by his great-grandson. And mind you, the Sun King was not childless, and neither were his children. Yet it was only one of his great grandsons who inherited the throne. What happened to all the in-between heirs? Why did nobody reflect about the reasons of such strange events?
    I am very often surprised by the fact, that historians for some reason persistently refuse to understand the real springs of action that shape the discipline they study. They will not compare the dates of various events, to coordinate them, as criminologists do as they try to solve a case. I speak of motives, coincidences, indirect evidences. These are the three pillars that all criminal investigations are based on. And we are going to conduct such an investigation right now. Let us study the history of that period and try to comprehend what happened to the family of the 'Sun King'. It is important, because the decline of his family coincided with the first, even if tentative blossom of the 'money printing device', which is now dominating nearly all over the world. And at those times this invention was just talking its first steps towards establishing worldwide hegemony. The monster had just hatched. And the family of Louis XIV was one of its first victims
    Money is power. Whatever your attitude towards money may be, you cannot deny the fact. And who could be more aware of the fact than those by nature of their occupation submerged in the world of jewellery and gold? In different times bankers existed under different names: in the ancient world they were called money changers, then jewellers and merchants. Let us call them bankers. Just like any other human beings bankers had a dream. They dreamed of obtaining a boundless source of power and wealth. Similar dreams captivated the alchemists and warlocks who desired to discover the secret of turning cheap metals into gold. In the end, they failed: the science of alchemy was abandoned as it brought no results giving way to modern chemistry. The warlocks were burnt at the stake while bankers happened to be luckier. They managed to get a true recipe of making gold out of nothing. As one cannot get around the laws of nature, the task was not to create gold itself but to endow some other things with the qualities of gold. Not only to use gold and silver as currency, but to elevate money to some extra value which is not the same as that of some metal. And as a result to substitute gold with paper money, that would be conceived by bankers themselves.
    The idea was in the air. In the middle ages bankers stored gold of some, and lent this gold to others. Besides, they overtook for a small reimbursement another bank function: the payoff one. Gold does not necessarily need to be carried from one place to another. All one needs is just a bank-bill, i.e. the document reading that the presenter has the guarantee to get a certain amount of gold from the banker who issued the bank-bill. A piece of paper is more comfortable to travel around with than a sack of gold, is it not? All the more so as the world was rather volatile in those days. Having presented this document, one could get gold from the banker in the other town without risking precious metals. All you have to do is the following: you give your gold to the banker against a warrant, then you present this warrant to the banker in the other town as a paying means for the goods you need. It is practical and secure.
    And what the banker gained was a unique possibility to issue more 'gold warrants, than he could back by real gold in his storages.
    Who could check how much he had altogether? Who could know how many depositors stored their gold with the banker, and how much gold he owned himself? Who could check how many borrowers had borrowed gold? How much was left? Miraculous opportunities revealed. Only one situation was to be avoided, and it is also catastrophic for any bank today. It is the situation when all the depositors at once come to take their money back. The bankruptcy is in this case inevitable because it would be clear at once that the banker had issued more warrants than he had real gold. That he simply cheated.
    The more paper warrants that were given by the banker to his clients, the higher was the risk, the risk of being disclosed. Apart from this danger there was another one the idea seemed to be far too simple and elegant. Someone else could be exactly as clever. And this mastermind could have begun 'cheating' himself, or, if his authority were sanctified, he could have beheaded the sly bankers and put up their shutters once and forever.
    This genial gamble required some solid protection which was invented by an unknown banker. A force was needed that would defend and would stand up for bankers. As a matter of fact bankers, having invented such a simple method to create money out of nothing, entrenched upon the millennial foundations of economics, where the values had always been real. He tempted the soul of humankind. He began to lend credence. Credence in that some gold is reserved under a warrant, credence in that a banker can always meet a bill with the yellow metal. In reality this credence proved to be enough, it turned out that it is not necessary to have that much gold it is enough to have faith that this gold is really there. Today's economics are based on this very principle. Have you not heard in major TV and radio news, the expressions 'investors trusted in the USA's economics' or 'traders trust in the fast recovery of the Eurozone'? What is that? That is faith, nothing more. With a helping hand of bankers modern economics has stopped being a science and turned into a religion. And in the Middle Ages it was dangerous to trifle with faith
    So, the 'inventors' of getting money out of nothing needed some armed shelter. The gains involved were enormous, the opportunities for the bankers were far too tempting. Without the support of the state 'money changers' would never stay afloat. And they shared their idea. With whom? To clarify this question it is enough to check, where and when the idea of bankers was implemented on the state level.
    The first organization to 'make money out of nothing' was the Bank of England. Let us do justice to the Englishmen it was on their territory where the first private currency issuing centre was created. It happened nearly 300 years before the US Federal reserve system was established. So, the bankers shared their idea with the Royal Family of England. Yet after the juxtaposition of facts and dates one gets an impression that the Albion became the cradle of private money issuing not quite voluntarily.
    As you can see, bankers used mimicry and disguise from the very beginning. Even the first agency to make money out of nothing already bore a proud name which clearly referred to the governmental nature of the institution. But the Bank of England was private, and its shareholders were bankers and the King.[48] The budget deficiency was eliminated by issuing paper and not golden pounds sterling. A public subscription to a loan of 1,200,000 pounds was announced; subscribers formed a privileged company which was given control over negotiations regarding all the subsequent loans. The list of subscribers was filled within ten days'.[49] It is this 'privileged company' that became the mysterious group of people that managed to gradually impose their rules on the rest of the world over the next several centuries. Yet they could have failed. But for a start they guaranteed the new paper bills of the Bank of England and that they could have been exchanged for gold. However, if we look at the dates and the circumstances of establishment of the Bank of England more closely we might have doubts about it all happening smoothly and amicably.
    The king who agreed to establishment of the Bank of England was William III, Prince of Orange. The thing is that he ended up on the English throne as a result of a coup d'etat[50] which took place six years before the Bank was founded. While still ruling over the Netherlands, in 1688 William received a secret letter (!) from England with an offer to overthrow James II and take the throne[51]. On the 5th November 1688 he disembarked on the shores of England together with an army and set off to London[52]. These were hired warriors and they consisted entirely of foreigners with the exception of some English ex-pats. William III became the king almost effortlessly. Dethroned James II fled to France while the new king started negotiations with those who, most likely, sponsored him to hire his army.
    The money also served to pay for the sudden loyalty of the leaders of the English army. As a matter of fact, the invading troops were immediately joined by the nobleman who was in command of James's army. One of this man's descendants became one of the most distinguished politicians in the world history his portrait with a cigar in his mouth is familiar to everyone. This heir and descendant is Sir Winston Churchill[53]. No one is going to say that the title of the Duke of Marlborough, proudly carried by the Churchills today, was conferred to their ancestor for a betrayal. It turns out, however, that John Churchill who was commanding James's troops changed sides and joined William Prince of Orange and, thus, determined the future of the country. It is from the new king that he got his title the Duke of Marlborough. Can we be quite sure that he did not get anything else as a reward?[54]
    The new king started a new period of economic growth in England. Here we should ask ourselves one thing: why was it during this new reign that the British economy started to prosper? The people had been working like mad before but their living standards were not any different from the rest of Europe. In the middle of the 17th century, for example, England produced 4/5 of all the European coal. Metallurgy developed a lot during the period. So did shipbuilding, potter trade and hardware manufacturing. But production of fabrics turned out to be a real national craft for England. Export of fabrics accounted for 80% of the total export.[55] Britain also went as far as prohibiting export of wool which had been exported before and thus became a country which supplied external markets with finished woollen goods.[56]
    These goods, however, did not make the English rich. The country's economy was just another economy at the time. And all of a sudden there came prosperity. Contemporary British historians and politicians like William III a lot. And they tell us that it was during his reign that the Bill of Rights was passed which became the basis of the new political system of the country. This is a typical trick used by demagogues and manipulators in order to prove a certain statement they simply omit some of the facts. They need to demonstrate that it is the Parliament and the system of elections and nothing else that brought prosperity to the Albion. People of today have a modern image of elections and they cannot picture them in a different way. And when they find out that back in 1690 England already had a democratically elected parliament they immediately realise that Russia was lagging behind by centuries. But actually we have nothing to worry about. Those who are trying to manipulate our opinions choose not to mention that there was no such thing as universal elections of a democratic parliament only those who had at least 200 pounds in money or real estate had the right to vote.[57] And the country with a population of 20 million people had only 250 thousand who met the requirement. These were the gentlemen who voted, and a lot of those people made their fortunes by trading slaves and owned 'talking cattle', as slaves were called back then, themselves. Women were not to take part in the elections at all.[58]
    What other good things are normally mentioned about King William? It was during his reign that the English East India Company was founded which later became an instrument of conquering and looting of colonies. But the English will turn to looting their colonies later, gold and diamonds from dependent lands will flow into the Empire later. But the country's prosperity started before all that. So, what was the economic miracle that took place in Britain?
    The story of William's way to the English throne is rather dubious. He was helped by money and the betrayal he bought with it. Who could give him the required amount? Back then kings borrowed money from people whom these days we would call bankers. So, once in power, the King signed the Bill of Rights, a legislative act designed primarily not to grant universal and equal voting rights but to restrict the King's authority. It was not about freedom and democracy for everyone. British bankers and slave owners thought about no one but themselves. This was their protection against the King potentially changing his mind. Since, if we go deeper we can find information on the number of bankers who took part in the project called 'The Bank of England'. 'In 1694 forty merchants found the Bank of England'.[59] The number of partners is minimal and the temptation is great. Throughout the course of English history people were executed frequently and in big numbers. Forty merchants together with their relatives would not be a big problem. A plot is discovered, people are beheaded and their property is confiscated. And if there is no plot, it is just an insignificant detail. Three hundred years later historians would say that those were difficult times. There are conspiracies everywhere. Similarly, the founders of the new Bank were sent by the Catholic party and the French king in order to weaken England during the fight with its rivals.[60] And the king simply had to take severe measures
    However, history is indeed written by the victors. And the 'printing machine' has been striding successfully around the world for three hundred years since it was first used. And it has its own heroes. For example, American president Woodrow Wilson, who signed the decree on establishment of the American Federal Reserve System, is portrayed on the bill with the highest value in the world of 10,000 dollars. Contemporary British historiography likes William III too, for the fact that during his reign bankers achieved agreement with the royal power. He got funds for fighting for the throne and a share in the 'money printing machine' whereas they got a private emission centre in Britain. It was the first printing machine in the history of mankind that enabled its owners to conquer the world using its amazing features. And then, having conquered the world, to write history and make heroes out of those who made creation of such a machine possible. And dead heroes are always easier to deal with then living ones they can be spoken for, explained for and they will put up with everything and remain silent. Similarly, King William III, apart from this dark story of coming into power, has a dark story of passing away. His death was just so well-timed
    But we will come back to it later. I would like to draw your attention, dear reader, to one particular fact. Great Britain remained the leading sea power for centuries until the baton was taken by another Anglo-Saxon nation the USA. Incidentally, at the times when the Bank of England was founded Britain's military capabilities were lower than those of its primary rival. 'French marine forces in 1689 and 1690 exceeded those of England and Holland altogether'.[61] That means that Britain was far from being the Ruler of the Seas back at the end of the 17th century this title rightly belonged to France. French Corsairs based in Dunkerque ruined English trade completely.[62] Their English counterparts did not manage to achieve such results. In 1690 during the Battle of Beachy Head, the French defeated the English fleet having sunk twelve of their ships. Twenty ships more were exploded by the English crews themselves. Who remembers this defeat today? Instead, everyone remembers the greatest victory achieved by Admiral Nelson near Cape Trafalgar. How many ships did the heroic Brits sink in that epic batde? Just one![63] And seventeen more ships led by French Admiral Villeneuve surrendered. History is written by the victors
    And yet the English did take the lead in the size and capacity of the fleet. And it happened exactly at the beginning of the 18th century. So, what was it that helped them? Let us remember what was required back then in order to build a great number of latest ships. Just as today, money was everything. A fleet is obviously an expensive thing to maintain. The cost of its construction exceeds the cost of developing land forces by many times. The exhausted English economy 'all of a sudden' found the enormous amounts of money required to build a fleet. Where from? It is the money derived from issuing paper money and using the secret bankers' know-how that was engaged to obtain military supremacy for the country where the printing machine took roots.
    It is in that period that the main principles of the British policy were established not to let another strong power appear in Europe and try to use others to fight. A lot has been written about it. But you will not find the main principle of the British policy in any reference books not to let there be another strong emission centre. Always follow the same standing rule your currency should be stronger, more reliable, more convenient, more in-demand than any other currency in the world. As early as the end of the XVII century the founders of the Bank of England understood something that everyone realised to be right only today. It is not a strong economy that makes a currency the strongest on the planet. On the contrary, it is a strong currency that makes the country's economy strongest. Make your money the most important money in the world and everything else will come to you itself. The conclusion is rather obvious weakening rival countries is required to weaken rival currencies.
    This is how the cooperation between clever and cunning financial experts and the British government started. Only after William III, Prince of Orange established the Bank of England, Great Britain as we know it appeared out of the mists onto the political stage. The country is called Great Britain, and was called such even before its greatness had been supported by an English know-how; destabilising the situation within rival countries. This is how Spain was defeated, and marine guerrillas from Holland Geuzen were based in English harbours. Later on, French Huguenots received weapons and money from England, which was well described in novels by Alexandre Dumas. And now another invention made by a cunning banker's mind added to this political ingenuity printing money out of nothing. Financial wit and bankers' cunningness fit the English political tradition perfectly. All together they made a really explosive combination of that Anglo-Saxon political art that Great Britain used against its enemies, as well as against its friends, as a matter of fact. Since then the Anglo-Saxons have been following one rule in politics, and this rule is that there are no rules.
    And here we should remember who the main enemy was for the English on the brink of the 18th century. The answer is obvious it was France. We will not get too deep in describing the endless wars between the French and the English on various continents and for various reasons. As an example, let us take only one of them the War of the Spanish Succession. It was during this conflict that England managed to overcome France's power and took the leadership in the size and capacity of its fleet: 'This supremacy setdes and becomes obvious after the War of the Spanish Succession. Before this war England was one of the sea powers; after this war it became a sea power which knew no rivals'.[64]
    Year 1702. The War of the Spanish Succession is on. This was the largest military conflict in Europe since the Crusades. The Sun King decided to put his grandson on the Spanish throne, which could have led to creation of a European super-empire by means of merging two nations in one kingdom.[65] And a union of France and Spain was more than just dangerous for England. It would have meant an alliance of an old enemy which the British had been depriving of colonies and gold, that is Spain, and a new rival on the world arena, that is France. The first aim of such a new most powerful state would have inevitably been destroying Great Britain as a colonial power. The 'money printing machine' found itself in danger soon after it saw the light of day. In order to save the new-born it was required to use the whole range of tools available for money. And England immediately declared a war against France. As we remember, a lack of money in the treasury was one of the reasons why the Bank of England was founded in 1694. And as early as 1702 the English did not have the same problem anymore. Apart from incurring its own expenses, England also paid for military expenditures of Germany, Denmark and Austria. Admiral A. T. Mahan, a famous geostrategist and historian, wonders why France was depauperated and exhausted while England was jubilant and prospering. Why was it that England dictated the conditions of the treaty and France simply accepted them? The historian sees the reason in the difference between wealth and credit. France was fighting alone against several enemies risen and supported by English subsidies.[66]
    But where did the English find such money and such opportunities to enlist practically all of Europe to start a war against Louis? The money just appeared. Itself. Out of nowhere. Out of nothing. The same writer says that despite being burdened with a debt which was far too considerable to pay back within a short period of time after a most excruciating war in 1697, already in 1706 instead of seeing the French fleet next to the British shores, they were already sending the strongest ships on annual offensive missions against the enemy.[67] Is this owing to economic miracles? No, miracles simply do not happen. The money for bankrupt England was provided by the Bank of England. France, on the other hand, did not have the money to buy the loyalty of other countries. That is why Savoy, who fought with the French at the beginning of the war, finished it on the side of London.[68] It was simply overbought. The English 'suddenly' had a lot of money. Not only did they manage to pay others to fight for them. They were even able to find enough money to fund the media. No, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) had not yet been invented, there were no 'human rights organisations' or 'independent journalists'. They had to use what they had at hand. And at the beginning of the 18th century the only 'opposition' that existed in France included the Huguenots. They were opponents to the French government on account of their religion, so would nowadays be seen as real 'prisoners of conscience'. And it was exactly in 1702, when the War of the Spanish Succession broke out, that the Huguenots started a revolt in the French province of Languedoc. It will be known in history as the Revolt by the Camisards.[69]
    France did not lag behind. A year after being dethroned by William, King James landed in Ireland, where the situation was quite the opposite: the English, who were Anglican, were oppressing the Irish, who were Catholics.[70] Louis, the Sun King, sent 7000 soldiers to Ireland in order to help him. But military luck favoured London and not Paris. The fight between France and England did not stop for a single day. When the USA started the War of Independence, a squadron of 'volunteers' led by Marquis de La Fayette immediately set off for America. These were military advisers and not awe struck youths or admirers of liberty. The French actively helped the rebellious Northern colonies to fight against their own archenemy. For example, Beaumarchais, the famous playwright who created Figaro, was at the time in charge of a front company called 'Rodrigo Gortalez' which was used to send weapons and ammunition to the New World.[71] At the first opportunity, in 1778, France recognised the sovereignty of the United States and signed The Treaty of Alliance with Washington. And only the retaliation blow of the English which caused a revolution in France itself put an end to this century-long dispute
    It is now time we remembered the mysterious events that took place in the family of Louis XIV. They started closer to the end of that very War for Spanish Succession which started seven years after the Bank of England was founded. The 'printing machine' could not make any steps further to the world hegemony without defeating the Sun King. At this point completely different methods had to be used
    Louis XIV was 73 years old. Nothing seemed to spell trouble. The first to die, on 13th April 1711, was the King's son and the heir to the throne, Louis, Le Grand Dauphin. Smallpox was claimed to be the reason of his death. This story is very similar to that of the Russian Emperor Peter II, who allegedly entered a peasant's hut to have some water while hunting and contracted smallpox from a girl.[72] This atrocious disease was indeed a recurrent guest in Europe. There is only one contradiction the Dauphin had smallpox when he was little,[73] and he died at the age of fifty. And, as is well-known, one cannot have this disease twice. Yet the heir to the French throne died within several days.
    So, was it smallpox indeed? Or arsenic? Arsenic oxide, also known as white arsenic (As203), is perfect for crimes: diluted in water it has no colour or smell. It does have disadvantages diluting it in water is rather difficult. But one does not need a lot: 60mg is a lethal dose. And, what is most important, the poisoning symptoms are very close to the symptoms of many diseases.[74] It is very hard to recognise an arsenic poisoning apart from the digestive tract it also affects the nervous system and blood, causes mucous membranes and skin diseases. At the same time, some clever people tried to prolong their lives by licking a piece of arsenic gradually increasing the dose and thus getting insensitive to the 'favourite' poison of those times.
    There are hundreds of stories of poisoning. Some of them remained mistaken for natural deaths until recently, and there are very significant and well-known people among the victims. Such is Napoleon Bonaparte. For your reference one of the French emperor's fans of our times decided to make the reasons of his death clear. As you know, after the Battle of Waterloo Bonaparte surrendered to the English and was sent to the island of Saint Helena where he died of stomach cancer. There were, however, suspicions that he had been poisoned. In order to find out what the truth was, remaining Napoleon's hair was examined. Arsenic settles in tissues and as it accompanies poisonings, the examination would either prove or refute the poisoning theory. The results prove that the great French emperor was indeed poisoned with arsenic. The quantity of poison in Napoleon's hair is 38 times as high as the limit that a human body can withstand.[75] As of today, the fact that Bonaparte was poisoned is 100% certain but apparently books about this man will keep saying that he died of natural reasons for centuries. So, who poisoned him? He was poisoned systematically Napoleon's death was not sudden. He was given poison repeatedly. I should remind you that Bonaparte was guarded exclusively by the English, and at the time he was the main enemy of the Albion who had managed to shake the world hegemony of Britain together with the world hegemony of the Bank of England.
    And before Napoleon it was Louis XIV who was by far the most wanted villain for the Anglo-Saxons. And bacterial misfortunes started happening in his family with a surprising frequency. After the Sun King's son died of smallpox, it was his grandson, the Duke of Burgundy who became the heir to the throne. But he did not keep the title for too long. In early February, 1712 his young wife died in strange circumstances. She was in fever for several days. The princess could not sleep and doctors did not leave her for a moment. What was happening to poor Marie-Adelaide was unknown. Nothing would help her neither blood-letting, popular back then, nor opium.[76] She was never properly diagnosed. The poor woman suffered so much that the heir was not even allowed near her so that he would not hear her shrieks. And later on, he was even asked to move to a different room as the princess was dying straight above his. On 12th February 1712 the Duchess passed away. And several days later it was her heartbroken spouse, the heir to the throne, the Duke of Burgundy who was covered in spots. The pain all over the Dauphin's body soon became intolerable. According to himself, it felt like everything was burning inside him.[77] Six days later, on 18th February 1712, the Duke of Burgundy died. The reason was unclear.
    He left two infant orphans, one of whom became the heir to the French throne. And this time germs, bacteria and viruses demonstrated amazing selectivity. For some reason they aimed to attack only the heirs to the French throne. The five-year-old Duke of Brittany and his three-year-old brother, Duke of Anjou, fell ill just two weeks after their parents had died. Did they contract the disease from them? No, they did not. The children were diagnosed with scarlet fever whereas their parents died of a strange fever which looked like measles.[78] Can you see the logic? As soon as one becomes the heir to the throne, one gets fatally ill and will die imminently. Having been the heir for as little as 17 days, the infant duke died on 8th March 1712.
    This was the third heir of the 74-year-old Sun King who died within a short period of time. The three-year-old boy who got infected together with the heir hovered between life and death for several days and was considered hopeless. They say that the King ordered to find some sort of an antidote and, eventually, the child survived.[79]
    Mathematics is a precise science. History surrenders here. To solve a mathematical problem we are given precise data, otherwise nothing will work out. In case of history we have altered and retold stories and no data whatsoever. Were the Sun King's relatives poisoned? To answer this question we need to know how many servants accidentally fell out of the window, quitted the job all of a sudden or drowned in the nearest pond around that time. How many cooks were hanged or died in the prime of their lives whilst on duty. Who of the court nobility and those who were close to the victims suddenly and mysteriously solved all their financial problems. How many Surgeons in Ordinary to the King choked on a steak or froze to death in the forest following an accidental fall off their horse. We need to know whether anyone else died in the Royal Palace or was the epidemic always confined to the heir to the throne. But we do not have that information at our disposal
    What would you do if you were an old king whose heirs are dying one by one? Would you become more cooperative during negotiations? The question is difficult and everyone decides for themselves. The Sun King agreed to negotiations. The Treaty of Utrecht was signed in 1713 which consigned the eleven years that France spent fighting to waste.[80] After that, the heirs to the French throne stopped dying. The five-year-old infant, the Sun King's great grandchild and the future Louis XV, became the heir. An infant Dauphin by a 74-year-old king, who can die of old age any moment. Should the King die, who will protect and help the child? France would have found itself in a very tough situation if it had not been for the handsome 28-year-old Duke of Berry, the second grandson of Louis XIV and the heir's uncle. It was him that the elderly king entrusted with looking after the country and the young king. And yes, your guess is right, the Duke of Berry died very soon, too. He was injured while hunting and hit the saddlebow very hard.[81] It is usually said that he fell off his horse and died. Allegedly, he broke his neck or spine. But this is not true. The poor duke died on 4th May 1714 after a four-day-long illness. Now it is more common to say that he died of internal injuries caused by the fall.[82] Could this have happened? Yes, it could have unless another participant of turbulent politics of the time had not died in a similar way having fallen off his horse
    After the accident that happened to his grandson Louis XIV lost interest in life. Fearing further accidents, he went as far as to change the law. Previously, only children born by the queen could be the heirs to the throne. Louis XIV had several illegitimate children. The King legitimated them and put them at the top of the royal hierarchy straight after the princes of the blood. A couple of months later, Louis XIV especially stipulated the following: should the legitimate kin be extinct the new princes would be able to inherit the throne. He knew who was trying to destroy his family and realised that the series of deaths was not incidental and more deaths could follow.
    In 1715 the Sun King passed away. End of story, it would seem. However, it was just the beginning. Less than a year after the old King's death, the shareholders of the Bank of England proved to be right in their suspicions. Someone tried to steal their know-how, their invention, in a most impertinent way. To copy it, just as sly Chinese manufacturers copy the looks of famous car brands. It turned out to be impossible to keep the secret of the 'printing machine'. Its advantages and amazing simplicity were obvious. Instead of the complicated procedure of extracting gold and silver there came the simple process of printing money. France, which lost in the war due to 'credit deficiency', decided to create its own 'printing machine'. In 1716 a Scotsman called John Law received a patent for opening a private bank with the right to issue bank notes that could be exchanged for metal.[83]
    The French king, Louis XV was a still a child and obviously was not very interested in financial issues. His Regent, Philippe II, Duke of Orleans, on the other hand, seized on this brilliant idea. He ordered that bank notes were to be accepted as payments as well as coins. In 1718 Law's bank was renamed into Banque Royale.[84] Although, essentially, it was the same 'joint stock company' where shares were divided between cunning bankers and the Royals. From now on the military and diplomatic rivalry between England and France also takes a secret financial turn. Two groups of bankers who received two different governmental protections were fighting each other for the right to uncontrollably print unsecured money. And through that to rule the whole world.
    But we have been distracted. Let us go back to the French attempt to clone the 'English idea of paper money. The story of rapid development of England during the reign of William started repeating itself in France. It is not surprising your personal economy will immediately flourish as well if your find a briefcase full of money in the street. The Central Bank of France was very successful. In one fell swoop, John Law solves all the financial problems of the royal house: he lends 100 million livres to the Government at a 3% annual interest rate. For reference: when the Sun King died there was as little as 700 thousand livres in the treasury.[85] At the end of 1716, on the other hand, when John Law turned his printing machine on, the budget deficit had reached 140 million livres[86] and France could now proceed with its global expansion as it had the money for it.
    The French copied the system established by the English not only in its essence but also in details. The authorities leased to John Law the exploitation of gold deposits in Louisiana as well as all trade overseas. It would all be dealt with by the India Company which was a full copy of the British East India Company. Shares of the new company were at first sold to anyone and later on, only to those who paid with bank notes which could be received in exchange for gold coins. 'It turned into a competition who could get rid of their gold first'.[87] But the success did not last long, in fact it was surprisingly short. The credit and monetary basis of the French expansion was destroyed within literally a few months.
    This is the chronology of prosperity and immediate death of the Bank of England's clone in France. In January 1720 banker John Law rises on the surge of phenomenal success of his creation and is put in charge of controlling all financial affairs of France, since the Bank which he was the head of had just lent France 100 million livres. And at this point something terrible happened. 'Immediately and very rapidly disturbing news spread around Paris and the whole city found itself in the state of atrocious panic', recalls the French writer Guy Breton in his book 'Love Stories throughout the History of France'.[88] And already in early 1720 those who wanted to exchange their paper money back to gold started applying great pressure on the bank. At first, the exchange had to be slowed down and later on frozen altogether.[89] When did it happen? In February-March, 1720.
    Since it all happened such a long time ago, it is hard to track how the panic among shareholders was organised, but in my opinion those technologies were not very different from the ones used today. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it happened three years after the Bank started operating, which means that at the beginning it was doing pretty well. And then, all of a sudden, things got worse after the record-breaking loan of 100 million livres received by the government. Was this a coincidence? Judge for yourself the blow was quick and merciless. The Bank that issued 3 billion worth of paper money under the warranty of 700 million in coins was unable to pay back. But the French Government did not give up without fighting. And it managed to find a very 'original' way out. As the population would not want to use paper bills and preferred coins using coins should be prohibited. 'The decree of 11th March 1720 banned using coins from 1st May onwards; if found on someone, coins were to be confiscated'.[90]
    You can imagine the reaction this decision caused in France. Of course, universal jubilation and enthusiasm of the public. After this decree, the popularity of paper money went down to the very bottom, as well as the popularity of the royal power. Everyone started hunting the forbidden coins and avoiding the allowed banknotes. And this quickly ended in a catastrophe. The next decree published on 22th May 1720 announced a reduction of the nominal rate of banknotes by half.[91] Therefore, those who obeyed the previous decree and had started using paper money immediately lost half of their savings. Then, on 10th October 1720 a third decree was published which announced that banknotes would no longer be used after 1st November 1720. Small banknotes were to be exchanged for state bonds with another half-reduction of the nominal rate.[92]
    As a result, obedient citizens were quickly robbed twice. Obviously, the royal government which did all these tricks (very similar to Russian reforms) became very unpopular. It was then that the hatred for the French monarchy was planted which would lead to a revolution in 1789 and would completely destroy the royal authority. In November 1720 the Central Bank went bankrupt and its founder had to flee from France a month later. It would be interesting to find out where, because it would shed light on many things
    I do not know much about the following years of the founder of the 'printing machine' in France. But I do know what happened to the founder of the Bank of England. As we remember, William III of Orange, the English king, had a deal with bankers. And he kept his promises. Possibly because his death was also very timely. In March 1702 he passed away in the Kensington Palace of (not again?!) injuries he got as a result of a fall off his horse.[93] Could this have happened? Yes. Only two facts seem suspicious: the similar death of the Duke of Berry and the official reason of William's death as it was announced. What was it exactly that caused his death? William died of pneumonia, which was a complication to a broken shoulder, which the King broke when he fell off the horse. Who would have thought that a broken shoulder can start pneumonia? What is the connection between a fracture and pneumonia? It is all rather interesting, is it not? And rather suspicious, too
    The founder of whatever it is, is needed for a figurehead. It is this king that signed all the laws that the bankers needed, he gave them everything they needed at the time. The following kings would receive the established system as legacy. And the secrets of William's agreements died with him and his descendants were left with the King's stern look from the full-dress portrait. The Bank of England would be a given entity for the new monarchs, certain legacy and an irreversible decision of their ancestor.[94]
    It was high time they started thinking of further steps in establishing world hegemony. There had always been one means to achieve that by declaring a war. The British elite, led by bankers, added another one to the world's geopolitical arsenal, and it was special operations. Both should be generously accompanied with money, seeing that now it was made out of nothing. The War of the Spanish Succession was the beginning of a long way of the 'printing machine' to the July morning in 1944 in Bretton Woods, where the pound sterling passed the baton to the dollar. When it was time to change location the 'printing machine' moved overseas where it was more secure.
    But before that there was WWI which destroyed the golden rouble and the golden Deutsche Mark. They were followed by the currencies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Only one step was left till the world supremacy, only one world war. And the scenario of the Second World War which was written in London was very different from the one that happened in reality.
    And the most important rule is that there are no rules.

    Six Spy Stories, or The Amazing Adventures of Ribbentrop in Russia

    Adolf Hitler
    Analysing results of battles I inevitably came to the conclusion that it was not only courage of infantry and audacity of cavalry and artillery that determined the result of many battles but mostly this damned invisible weapon called spies.
    Napoleon Bonaparte
    It is always pleasant to fight with someone else's fists. The advantages are numerous: all the losses are incurred by someone else's economy all the crimes are committed by someone else's army. Another country spends the money, another people exhausts its economy. And can you fight without stressing your own economy? No, this is simply not possible. Military expenses can bring any successful nation to its knees. This is the reason why it has always been important to enter a war last. Therefore, no matter how you look at it, it is good when someone else is fighting instead of you. This country buys weapons and equipment, food and other goods. During wars prices always grow, factories always work at their full capacity, the economy develops and all of this happens to the country which is not at war, of course.
    But this is not the most important thing. The most important thing is that gold flows in the right direction. In order to start a 'printing machine' on a global scale, to get an unprecedented emission of hard currency flowing, it was necessary to eliminate the possibility of creating a currency secured by gold. For this purpose it was required to use up practically all the world's reserves of the yellow metal. Such a possibility could be provided by a world war and preparations were being made. A new hegemony of a global currency was to crown an unprecedented war, where any power capable of resistance would be ground to dust. Millions of Europeans were to perish so that all nations would agree to abandon their sovereignty.
    But there was one problem. The advantages of standing aside and joining the fight at the last moment were too obvious. As well as the disadvantages of a gruelling war. Therefore, there would be no fools willing to start a war. Everyone wanted to be 'second'. So, what should be done in such a situation? One should help someone else to be 'first'
    Practically everyone must have heard of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Have you ever wondered why all other treaties are called treaties and only the treaty of non-aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union persistently called a pact? And why Western historians and our liberals keep trying to paint this document and the story of its execution black? Because this pact crossed out the scenario of a world war drawn up in London. History started developing in a completely different direction. By a miracle the Anglo-Saxon world retained its hegemony over the planet; this miracle was Hitler's unrestrained Anglophilia
    But let us move on to the facts. When you next hear someone say that Stalin is to blame for initiating the Second World War, that it is the pact with Hitler that helped it to begin, remember that these are all lies.[96] If one studies the facts scrupulously enough, one will realise that it is simply impossible to blame the USSR for initiating the Second World War. Therefore, one could only assert the latter maliciously or out of ignorance.
    It was not until 1st April, 1939 that Hitler, who had had no plans for a war against Poland, ordered them to be drawn up.[97] Fall Weiss, which was accepted ten days later, specified the date of the strike against Poland 26th August, 1939. That means that in April, when there had been no negotiations between the USSR and Germany, Hitler was already planning to destroy Poland and was planning to do so in August. The text of Hitler's plan contains the following phrase: 'Russia's interference, if it were capable of it, would still be very unlikely to help Poland'[98] This suggests that in April 1939 Hitler saw the USSR as his potential enemy. What does it mean? It means that when setting the date of the beginning of the war, the Führer was not guided by signing a pact with Russians. What is more, no one in Germany could even have dreamt of such a pact back in April 1939. The USSR signed the non-aggression treaty with Germany on 23rd August, 1939. It would seem that it should have let Hitler off the leash and one would have expected the Germans to proceed with their plans concerning Poland straight away. And yet, they did not. Two days after executing the treaty with the USSR, the German leader altered his plans and changed the planned date of attacking Poland. On 25th August, 1939, Hitler postponed the invasion until 1st September, 1939. After signing the pact in Moscow, Hitler changed the date of the beginning of the war. AFTER that! Thus, we can see that in defining the date of the first strike Hitler was always guided not by his arrangements with the USSR but by completely different motives.
    And now let us try to dot all the is and cross all the t's. Let us pose one direct question: did the non-aggression treaty executed between Hitler and Stalin make defeating Poland easier? The honest answer is: it certainly did. And now let us pose another direct question: would Hitler have declared war on Poland without a non-aggression pact with the USSR? The facts say unequivocally that he would have done. Preparations for war were going at full speed and did not depend on negotiations with the Kremlin.[99]
    Now, another couple of questions. What is the main task of the leader of any nation? Is it the prosperity of their own country and people or the prosperity of a different country and people? What is more important for this leader, saving their own people from participating in a war and avoiding aggression from another country or 'world peace'? There can be only one honest answer: the head of state is obliged to use all possibilities to avoid aggression against their country. And this is a duty of every head of state.
    So, what country should have Joseph Stalin thought of and cared for: the USSR, Poland or another country?
    It was the USSR, and the USSR alone, that Stalin had to protect against aggression. The fate of Poland, which was an overtly anti-Russian state and before April 1939 was even planning to join Germany in a war against Russia, was not his concern. This country had its own government to worry about its fate. And this government believed the promises of England and France and did everything it could to make the war between Germany and Poland happen.[100]
    The non-aggression pact between Germany and the USSR was a brilliant manoeuvre performed by Russian diplomats who thus managed to ruin the game of the Anglo-Saxons completely and avoid an offensive operation against the Soviet Union. The fact that Hitler did later attack Russia is not due to an error or a mistake made by the Soviet government but an irrational, unpredictable and fundamentally stupid act on the part of the Fuhrer.[101] A war pursued by our country on two fronts against Japan and Germany, as was planned in London, never happened at all. Stalin managed to change the future scenario drawn up by the Anglo-Saxons and not become the first to fight and, consequently, to bleed. This is the main reason why the treaty signed by Molotov and Ribbentrop became the most hated diplomatic document in Western historiography.
    Since we are on the subject, let us dispel a couple of the nastiest myths about this treaty.
    Myth One: signing a treaty with Hitler's Germany was something out of the ordinary. This is not true. Pacts, or treaties with Hitier, by August 1939 had been executed by England, France, Estonia and Latvia. The list can be continued. And the first country to do it was, in fact, Poland. In 1934 she signed a non-aggression treaty with the German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler. So, while Poland was the first to sign such a treaty, the USSR is the last one on the list. Therefore, there was nothing special in signing a treaty with Germany. In 1939 it was a nation recognised by the global community and at its head was one of its leading politicians. By conclusion,the USSR had the full moral and judicial right to sign a non-aggression treaty with Germany.
    Myth Two: there were 'secret protocols' to the treaty signed between Moscow and Berlin. Firstly, having secret articles or secret treaties is a common diplomatic practice of any era. They have been signed by lawful monarchs and presidents and not only by villains and dictators. For example, the treaty between Russia and France of 1894 signed by Emperor Alexander III and the French president was completely secret. Russian tsars and French presidents knew its contents but the French Parliament was not familiar with its articles. The agreement of 1905 between the USA and Japan was just as secret. The two countries divided spheres of influence in Asia based on the results of the Russo-Japanese war. Japan abandoned its aggressive intentions concerning the Philippines, while the States recognised the right of the Japanese to append Korea.[102]
    Secondly, it was not only Russia and Germany but also other countries that had secret protocols within their treaties in 1939. For example, the guarantees given to Poland by Britain in April that year were also accompanied by a secret protocol.[103] German treaties with Estonia and Lithuania also contained a secret article. According to this article, the Baltic states were 'to take all military security measures against Soviet Russia as agreed with Germany and in compliance with its advice'.[104]
    Thirdly, there is still no convincing evidence that the secret protocols within the non-aggression pact with Germany existed at all. The USSR recognised that they had existed at the Second Congress of People's Deputies[105] after a report made by a commission headed by the foreman of perestroika, Alexander Yakovlev. The thing is that neither in Russian archives nor anywhere abroad can one find the originals of these notorious secret protocols;[106] only copies of copies' were presented. But Gorbachev and his subordinates had already taken a firm tack in the direction of destroying the country. Destroying the country's history blackening and rigging its past are major elements of destroying a country. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that despite lacking the originals, the commission found it 'possible to admit that the secret protocol of 23rd August, 1939 had existed'.[107]
    The conclusion is that the very existence of the protocols has not been proved. But even if they had indeed been signed, this was a regular political and diplomatic phenomenon.
    The Soviet Union is not to blame for starting the Second World War. If we wanted to blame someone, that would be the Government of Germany, as well as the British and US governments that had been investing enormous amounts of money in German industry for six years. Here we should make a little remark. Adolf Hitler was put in charge of Germany by London and Washington: in other words, by the owners of the 'printing machine'.[108] His task was to start a war against the USSR and to conquer vast territories and vast treasuries full of natural resources as well as to eliminate a dangerous alternative plan of economic development. For this Germany was promised to be made an equal partner of the Anglo-Saxons at the global table. To enable Hitler to fulfil this task, enormous amounts of money were invested in Germany and she was supplied with the latest industrial equipment. The West was afraid and did not notice the militarisation of Germany, which in just six years (1933-1939) created an army from scratch and equipped it with latest systems. Austria and the Czech Republic were surrendered to Hitler to create a big army, and these two countries would provide millions of conscripts and the huge Czech Skoda military plant.[109] Even Poland was Hitler's loyal ally and was preparing a joint attack against Russia.
    And when the time had come to realise the plans, Hitler started his game. Instead of building up a conflict with the USSR around the Ukraine, he resolved it.[110] The situation was as follows: having acquired everything he could have possibly acquired from the West, Hitler deviated from the prepared scenario, according to which a war was bound to begin in 1939. It was not without reason that the American magazine Time called Hitler 'Man of the Year' in 1938.
    Then London decided to alter the strategy slightly. The English knew perfectly well that Hitler was going to attack Poland. And they were not trying to prevent this attack. The idea was different: having defeated the Polish, the German army would have turned up at the Soviet borders. The tensions between the two countries and the mutual propaganda between the communists and the Nazis were to guarantee that a war between the USSR and Germany would definitely break out. To make it work out it was necessary to:
    ● promise support to Poland, so that it becomes uncompromising, and never provide any;
    ● promise Hitler that there would be no support for Poland and he would be 'granted a pardon if he starts a war against the Russians;
    ● play games with the Russians and linger with negotiations until Germany attacks Poland.
    These are the three points on which English diplomacy placed emphasis throughout spring and summer 1939. There was also a fourth task: to keep an eye on the Russians and Germans to prevent them from making any deals. Therefore, each time Berlin and Moscow resumed their relations, the British immediately became more active
    And now let us move on to the story of the signing of the non-aggression pact itself between Germany and the USSR. There are some fascinating details that do not get spoken about aloud very often, if at all. These tiny details can tell us much more about that period and its tensions than numerous thick books. To begin with, I will give you an irrefutable historical fact: it was not Stalin but Hitler who initiated the warm-up of German-Soviet relations. As early as 22nd December, 1938 the trade mission of the USSR in Berlin received a proposition to draw up an agreement. After some probing and 'exchange of opinions', contact ceased. As this book is not on the history of diplomacy, we can omit several months and proceed straight to the climax.
    On 2nd August, 1939 the envoy of the USSR, Astakhov, was summoned by the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Joachim von Ribbentrop. The essence of his words was that there were no problems between Berlin and Moscow that could not be solved.
    On 5th August, 1939 British and French delegations set off for Moscow to participate in negotiations. The English are not in a particular hurry. They do not go by air but by sea. And not by a military fast ship but by a low-speed steamer, City of Exeter. As a result, instead of several hours, getting to Moscow takes seven days (on 10th August, 1939 the allied delegation arrives in Leningrad).
    On 11th August, 1939 Hitler summons the League of Nations High Commissioner, Carl Burckhardt and asks him for a 'favour': to help explain to the West that everything that Hitler was doing was aimed against Russia. And if this were to fall on deaf ears then he would have to come to terms with Russians.
    On 12th August, 1939 the first official meeting of the British, French and Soviet missions took place. Immediately it turned out that the head of the British delegation, Admiral Drax, did not have any letter of authority. The head of the French delegation, General Doumenc, was only authorised to reach an agreement and not to sign any resulting documents. When asked by the head of the Soviet delegation, Voroshilov, whether Poland and Romania would let the Soviet troops into their territory in order to fight against the German aggressors should they annexe these countries, they did not produce any definite answer. This is the very lingering that has been mentioned above. The English did not need to hold on and sit in session for too long: only two weeks were left until Hitler's planned attack against Poland.
    On 15th August, 1939 at a meeting with Molotov, the German ambassador, Schulenburg, read out a note which essentially said that it was 'possible to restore good mutually beneficial cooperation' between the two countries and raised a question regarding the arrival of a high German official in Moscow. Incidentally, he was not authorised to give the note to the Russians so that no evidence would be left behind.[111]
    The fact that Hitler had planned an attack against Poland for the 26th August, 1939 was known not only in London but also in Moscow. Therefore, it was decided to buy some time and play on the Germans' nerves. At the same time, this would let them find out how serious their intentions were. So, having had a lovely chat with the German ambassador and having realised that the Germans were under time constraints, Molotov said that there was no rush with the visit, ensuring they did not end up just having talks in Moscow without making any particular decisions.
    On 17th August, 1939 Schulenburg saw Molotov again. The head of the soviet Foreign Ministry said that Moscow understood why Germany would really want to improve its relations with the USSR. But then a list of previous offences followed. Yet, 'since now the German government has decided to change their policy', it should prove that its intentions are serious and execute economic contracts. That would mean giving the USSR a loan of 200 million marks for seven years and supply quality equipment for this amount. This contract would come first and then it would be possible to discuss a non-aggression treaty.[112]
    On 19th August, 1939 Hitler and Ribbentrop sent Schulenburg to Moscow again. He passes a proposition to sign a treaty which would consist of two provisions:
    Germany and the USSR shall not under any conditions resort to the use of violence against each other. The proposed duration of the treaty was 25 years.
    As an addition Germany was to use its influence to help improve the relations between Moscow and Tokyo. The last provision was crucial. It meant that signing the treaty with Germany would also solve the USSR's second problem, that being the constant aggression from Japan. This was a very serious argument. Incited by Great Britain and the USA, Japan invaded China back in the thirties[113] and started gradually biting off bits of Chinese land approaching the Russian borders. According to the English plan, the USSR was going to be attacked by Japan in the east and Germany in the west. This was to be a two-front war for the USSR, not for Germany. And the first front had already been opened. On 11th May, 1939 a regular Japanese army attacked the Mongolian frontier posts.
    When the German ambassador proposed to Stalin the signing of the non-aggression pact, Tokyo was considered to be Berlin's ally. Meanwhile, heavy fighting was talking place at the Khalkhyn Gol River in Mongolia. The Japanese planned an offensive operation on 24th August, 1939. Instead, it was the Red Army that started an offensive on 20th August, 1939, that is to say on the day after the Germans offered their mediation in reconciliation with Japan. To make the Japanese more willing to negotiate it was necessary to beat them up well first.
    To assess the actions undertaken by the Soviet officials properly, one needs to realise that the negotiations with the Germans and the battles with the Japanese were happening at the same time. And Berlin did not just offer its friendship: the Germans could actually persuade the Japanese to put an end to the conflict. Pursuing a war against Russia on its own was an extremely difficult task for Japan, if at all feasible.[114] And a non-aggression treaty between Berlin and Moscow would be a perfect excuse for Tokyo to stop fighting. It would be only natural to ask the following question at this point: was there a different way to influence Japan? No, because it would have required a will to stop the war between the USSR and Japan, and this is exactly what was lacking. The situation was, in fact, quite the opposite: the English were trying to organise a rebellion in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.[115] Why did the British need that? Because it was through that province that the USSR supplied support to China and Russian weapons and counsellors helped to strengthen China, thereby weakening the Japanese troops which confronted the Red Army. By blocking the route by which Russian weapons and equipment were supplied, the English were sabotaging the fight of the Chinese and strengthening the Japanese, helping them to aggravate the conflict with Russia
    Credit where credit is due. Stalin did realise how serious Germany's intentions were and did understand why they were in such a hurry. Therefore, despite the problems with the Japanese, he decided to take advantage of the situation with as much profit for the USSR as possible. The Germans asked to meet a minister in Moscow. The English sent someone with no particular position or authority. The situation was very telling
    During his visit to Moscow, the German ambassador, Schulenburg, received quite a specific response from Molotov: provided that the economic agreements were signed on the same day, 19th August, Ribbentrop could come a week later, on 26th or 27th August. When it was suggested that Ribbentrop could arrive earlier, Molotov objected that it was too early to speak of that before the first stage, that is the economic negotiations, had been accomplished. It was about 3 p.m., 19th August, 1939.[116] The officials in Berlin were panicking: time was running out very fast. The Russians were being polite but did not cast any light upon the situation. And all of a sudden they said that without a loan of 200 million marks there could be no progress in the relations. What was Berlin to do? Did Hitler want to credit Stalin? Of course not. He needed money himself to finance his preparations for a war with Poland. But he had no choice. Stalin used the good old Anglo-Saxon trick in the negotiations: having created a problem, he was 'selling' ways to solve it. Today, the USA funds international terrorism and then fights it.[117] The Kremlin lingered and then suddenly offered to speed up the negotiations through financing the USSR until 1946. And to achieve a positive result, the USSR used a carrot after using a stick. Half an hour after saying that Ribbentrop could come a week later, the German ambassador was summoned to Molotov again.
    He was presented with the Soviet project of the non-aggression treaty drafted in compliance with all the rules. This is the version that was signed later on with insignificant amendments. This was an ordinary treaty; there was nothing special about it except for one detail: the draft did not specify that the document would lose become null and void should one of the parties attack a third party.[118] Let us just keep this fact in mind and proceed. This piece of information will be very useful later.
    On 20th August (at 2 a. m.) a trade and credit agreement was urgently signed. The USSR was to receive a loan of 200 million marks that the country could spend on German equipment and pay back with raw material and food.[119]
    So, Germany did what the Kremlin had been asking for: the economic agreement was signed. Hitler, completely exhausted, went to bed at seven in the morning on 20th August. But there was still no clarity from the Russians and the only date proposed by them for the arrival of the German delegation remained the same: 26-27th August, 1939. This was too late for Berlin. And then Hitler decided to speed things up. On 20th August, 1939 he sat down and wrote a personal letter to Stalin. They had never been in correspondence or spoken before. But Hitler had no time to act according to the official procedures: the attack against Poland was planned for 26th August and there was no time to spare. 'Nevertheless, I repeat my proposition to accept my Foreign minister on 22nd August or 23rd August at the latest'[120], said Hitler in his letter. On 21 August, 1939 at 15:00 the German ambassador, Count Schulenburg, presented Hitler's letter in Moscow. Just two hours later, at 17:00, Vyacheslav Molotov gave the German ambassador the response of the head of the USSR.[121] Stalin replied practically immediately.
    '21st August, 1939.
    To the Reichschancellor of Germany, Mr. A. Hitler
    Thank you for the letter.
    I do hope that the -aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union will he a pivotal moment in the history of political relations between our countries and will contribute to their improvement.
    The peoples of our countries need peaceful relations. The agreement of the German government to sign a -aggression treaty will serve as a basis to eliminate political tensions and establish peace and cooperation between our two countries.
    The Soviet government authorised me to let you know that it agrees to see Mr. Ribbentrop in Moscow on 23rd August.
    J. Stalin'[122]
    The economic agreement that the USSR needed had already been signed and the funds would be received. A non-aggression pact with the Germans could now be signed, which the USSR also needed in order to avoid a possible war with Germany and finish the current war with Japan. Molotov hands Stalin's response to the German ambassador and And here came the moment which was the reason, dear reader, why we made such a long introduction into the hot August of 1939. The most interesting and the least studied part of the story of the non-aggression pact begins. Pure miracles ensue

    Story one
    Concerning inert Germans and Stalin's letter

    Here is the question for you: how long did it take to pass the message from the Soviet government? As we know, at 5 p.m. the envelope with the message got into the German ambassador's hands. And when did it reach Hitler?
    Let us try to calculate. We will give fifteen minutes to Ambassador Schulenburg to say his goodbyes to Molotov and walk to the car, then, say, twenty minutes to drive to the Embassy. Around ten minutes to take his coat off and suchlike, about twenty minutes to cipher the message. Ten more minutes to send the message to Berlin the document is tiny, there are only 14 lines. In total, we get 75 minutes. Let us round it up to 90, as the German ambassador is not very young and therefore does not walk very fast. So, an hour and a half in total. What are the time expenditures in Berlin? Deciphering would take 20 minutes, delivering to the Fuhrer another 20 minutes. Let it be an hour. An hour in Berlin and an hour and a half in Moscow. It means that passing Stalin's response from the Kremlin to Adolf Hitler could take two and a half hours at the most. And this would be without too much haste, in a very laid-back manner. Whereas Hitler must have ordered this material to be given top priority due to its urgency and importance. Everyone should have run! What happened in reality?
    How could it have happened that the most expected document in Germany was delivered to Hitler with such a delay? Did it get lost on the way? Just compare two and a half hours and nine hours. Who held the message up for so long? I think you will agree that it raises a lot of questions. Hitler must have asked these questions, too, as he really was looking forward to Stalin's answer. 'In utter anxiety, practically unable to control his nerves, Hitler was waiting for an answer. He could not sleep and that is why he called Hermann Goering in the middle of the night to share his worries with him and express his irritation about Russian stolidity'.[124] And the Fuhrer's misgivings concerning Stalin were completely unfounded, as the head of the USSR replied at lightning speed. So, where was the response? Who kept it from Hitler? And when Stalin's letter finally got through to the addressee, the Führer's reaction was rather peculiar. 'Hitler was given a note at dinner. He quickly ran through it, blushing thoroughly, stared in front of himself for some time and then hit the table in front of him so hard that it clinked and shouted in a failing voice, 'It's all right! It's all right!'[125] There is other evidence. When Hitler received the message that Ribbentrop could fly to Moscow on 23rd August, he exclaimed: 'This is one hundred per cent victory! And though I never do, I am going to have a bottle of champagne'.[126]
    Could Adolf Hitler take no notice of the strange delay in the delivery of this important information simply out of joy that Stalin had replied and agreed to move the negotiations closer? He could have done. But the senior officials of his secret services were obliged to examine the situation. Why? Because when the head of state runs around his residence in anxiety and is constantly on the phone, asking, 'Where is Stalin's answer?' a delay in delivering information by six seven (!) hours has a very short and concise name: sabotage. Or maybe even a louder one: a diversion. This 'delay' could have resulted in a turning point in history. In fact, world history could have been completely different.
    Let us approach this question from a different point of view. It would seem that to entirely conceal from Hitler the fact that Stalin had replied would have been impossible. So what is the difference between delivering the message two hours later and nine hours later? The difference is enormous. The difference is as big as between the mornings of 10th and 11th September 2001. Let us pose another question: who would be interested in making it look like there had been no response from Stalin? Who would be interested in driving Hitler mad with Stalin's silence in response to Hitler's PERSONAL LETTER? What results would it produce? What could Adolf Hitler have done having not received Stalin's message? What would have happened had Hitler's patience snapped earlier?
    Curiously enough, it is pretty easy to answer these questions. The Fuhrer was a gambler. He played two boards at the same time, both the West and the East. When, six years later, Adolf Hitler shot himself in the Fuhrerbunker, Stalin was abundantly clear about it ('The scoundrel's game is over!'). These words tell us the whole truth of the Second World War. Hitler's game-playing with everyone at the same time led him to a defeat. He said more than once that fighting on two fronts would be disastrous and impossible for Germany, that such a war scenario was the biggest mistake made by Kaiser Wilhelm II. And that he, Hitler, was not going to make the same mistake. Therefore, in August, 1939 Hitler was to come to an agreement either with the West or with the East. And it would be even better if he managed to make an arrangement with one side and then with the other centre of power, as well. And should the proposal of the English prove more interesting, the friendship with the Kremlin could be forgotten about again.[127]
    But let us go back to the question of what Hitler would have done had Stalin's response been some five hours later. The answer is that he would have continued negotiating. But not with Russians. With whom then? There is only one answer to this: with the English. It is an historical fact that on 21st August, 1939 the German ruler asked London to have a meeting with Goering on 22nd August and received a positive answer.[128] In those fateful August days there were two aeroplanes at the Berlin airfield. One of them, the Fuhrer's personal Junkers, was waiting for the Foreign Minister, Ribbentrop, in order to take him to Moscow. And the other plane was a Lockheed A-12 of the British secret service.[129] Hermann Goering was ready to board it and fly to London. Both flights and both visits were planned for the same day, 23rd August, 1939. Goering's flight was organised personally by the head of the British intelligence in order to avoid publicity.
    Fatman, which was Goering's nickname, was to meet not just anybody but Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. And the whole arrangement was kept under a veil of complete secrecy. He was to fly not straight to London but first land at a small airfield near a town called Bonvington in Herefordshire. From there Goering was to be delivered straight to Chequers, the official residence of the British Prime Minister. It was planned to dismiss Chamberlain's staff for the sake of secrecy, and replace all its members with officers of the British secret service. It was also planned to disconnect all the phones[130]
    This was not the first occasion when, at crucial political moments, one of the leaders of the Third Reich would fly to London in order to make arrangements in real time and in person. For example, when German troops invaded Austria in spring, 1938, Ribbentrop was in the British capital. The excuse not to make this visit official was found in the process. Ribbentrop, who used to be the German ambassador in London, now became the head of the Foreign Ministry. And in this new position he just wanted to see his all friends and throw something akin to a farewell party.[131] As a result, England recognised the Anschluss (annexation) of Austria to Germany despite having a treaty with Austrians in which the British promised to protect their independence.
    In August 1939 only one flight could take place. And it is exactly where Hitler's envoy would fly and which country the Fuhrer chooses to make an arrangement with that the flight was for.[132] Having no response from Stalin was supposed to prod Hitler into negotiating with the English. The German leader simply did not have any other options. This is why we can state that the supposed lack of response from Stalin could have meant an entirely different scenario for Europe. And this scenario would have been even more tragic for Russia, as straight after defeating Poland the German troops would have turned up at the Russian borders and the Russian Army would have had to fight the Wehrmacht on its own and two years earlier and France or England would not have been obliged to reinforce Russia.
    Who would have found it profitable if a war between Russia and Germany had started in September 1939? England. Who would have found it profitable to pit two peoples against one another in order to then join the battle second when the rivals had bled white? England. And a nine-hour delay in delivering the urgent and important letter is an historical fact which no one can deny. So, who could have tried to impede negotiations between Germany and Russia through holding up a message from one head of state to the other? The answer is obvious. There is one thing I do not understand: why has no one else tried to answer this fascinating question before, since answering it makes a lot of things clear. Even too clear. This was a question of national importance and Great Britain used the help of the secret service apart from all diplomatic sources
    Who could have provided the 'extra' six hours for Stalin's letter? English agents in German institutions. What institution exactly is not really that important; Foreign Ministry, intelligence, ciphers, Ribbentrop's deputies. If you want to know who exactly was responsible, get hold of German archives; they must have the answer. Such a blunder could not have remained unpunished. Either the German secret service or Ribbentrop himself must have reacted to this obvious sabotage. There must have been a reaction severe but concealed. Within a month someone must have drowned, died in a car crash or of a sudden heart attack. Quietly. With no publicity. With nothing but a portrait at work with a black ribbon. Some crying colleagues. A true Aryan. Blind Death has taken him away. With a pension for the heartbroken widow.
    I do not know what happened to the British agent who put everything at stake performing the task of his bosses in London; I do not know his name. But I do know names and surnames of other real foreign agents who were in Germany back then.

    Story two
    About a Russian agent

    This man was not just an agent; he was considered the most valuable agent of the USSR in Nazi Germany. A book about him is actually called 'His Majesty the Agent'[133]. With a capital letter as they use for royalty. And this is not for nothing Willy Lehmann was indeed a very precious agent. For as many as twelve years he supplied very sensitive information to Moscow under the pseudonym of Breitenbach, while working not just for an agency but for the Gestapo. 'Willy Lehmann took the initiative and offered his services himself Lehmann spent twelve years working for Soviet intelligence. During that period he did not make a single professional mistake, nothing that could have attracted any suspicion',[134] says the author of the book, Theodore Gladkov, about the agent. Having started working with Soviet intelligence even before the Nazis came to power, he passed on the last piece of sensitive information on 19th June, 1941. On that day, Lehmann reported the exact and accurate day of the German invasion of the USSR.[135] After that, contact with him was broken.
    As a result, there was a very strange situation: there was a very precious agent but no contact with him. 'By spring 1942 the Centre managed to restore contact with none of their agents in Berlin'[136]. That means there was physically no one who could have contacted Lehmann. Then it was decided to send some liaisons over the front line. Two agents were sent to Berlin and both were arrested by Willy Lehmann's colleagues' from the Gestapo. One of them held on to the last and died under torture; the other one started collaborating with the Nazis. A radio game started. Later on, the arrested Soviet agent insisted that he had given a coded sign that he was working under control which, allegedly, had not been noticed by the radio operators of the Centre. On 4th December, 1941 a password and terms of contact with Breitenbach were sent to the receiver controlled by the Gestapo
    In December, after the 11th, the telephone rang in Lehmann's apartment. Late at night. There was nothing special in it for an agent. It might have been an urgent call. In his many years of service, it had happened many times A service Horch was already waiting for him. He opened the door, dived into the car, and immediately handcuffs clicked on his wrists There was no warrant for his arrest. He was to be delivered, and that is it No one knew of Lehmann's case except for the head of Gestapo, Mueller and a few more people. Lehmann was doomed. He was denied even a mockery of a trial from the very beginning, even with a predetermined death penalty And there was nothing but a short message in the internal Nazi 'Bulletin on 29th January, 1943 which said that 'Willy Lehmann gave his life for the Fiihrer and the Reich. The only truth in this message must have been the month of his death December 1942.'[137]
    In a very quiet, peaceful, family-like manner. He gave his life for the Fiihrer and the Reich. Well, why trouble the public? Why cause puzzlement and anxiety? Nothing happened to Lehmann's wife. Could it have been different if her husband had lost his life for the sake of Germany? 'Margaret Lehmann was not subjected to any sanctions or oppressions. Not out of humanism, of course, but purely to keep the secret. In the beginning she was told that Willy died during a 'secret' mission.[138]
    It is very, very seldom that truth does come to the surface. Secret services sacredly keep their secrets.

    Story three
    About an English agent

    This story is of particular interest because its main character was a regular German diplomat which, however, did not stop him from working for English intelligence. Our character was called Wolfgang zu Putlitz. He came from an ancient and noble family, did his military service in the Kaiser's army and after Germany's defeat in the First World War he became a diplomat. His well-known surname and connections helped him take the post of Head of the Consular Department in the German embassy in London in 1936.[139] And it seems like he was recruited. Why 'seems'? Because in his memoirs, Putlitz, being a man of sound judgement, does not say anything specific about his connections with English intelligence.[140] He tells his readers about his 'friendship' with the English. Yet the results of this friendship are so telling that there can be no doubt about the nature of this relationship.
    The German diplomat writes about many interesting things. For example, just before the beginning of the Second World War, he is appointed at the German mission in Holland. Being a German diplomat, he is commissioned to get a large batch of oil and other strategic raw materials to the Reich. It did not have time to get through the German-Dutch border before Germany's attack against Poland and was blocked. Where are the raw materials from? They are from England.[141] As an English agent, Putlitz is trying to do the opposite and prevent the Nazis from getting a single drop of the oil. And he writes a letter to the English intelligence centre (as he does not admit to being an agent, he just 'sends them a letter'!). How does he know the address? 'Everyone in the Hague knew that the British intelligence centre was located in the passport agency of the British consulate in Scheveningen, and that it was headed by a certain Captain Stevens'[142], says Putlitz in his memoirs.
    Is this not charming? Everyone knew. All the boys and every single old lady. It is just over there, the English intelligence centre. Maybe there was even a sign? For convenience. But let us put all jokes aside. As you may have the future. Therefore, nothing bad was to be written about the Nazis. Nothing guessed already, as a result, the oil successfully got through to Germany with the help of employees from the Shell company. And as for Putlitz himself, the English 'suddenly' decided to bring him over to Britain so that he would not hinder strategic supplies to Germans. And yet, Putlitz says that he was not an agent but just 'friends' with some English people. I would like to draw your attention to the way they were going to bring him over. Putlitz's 'friend', Lord Vansittart, said,[143] 'If it is necessary, I will send a British torpedo boat to Scheveningen to bring Putlitz. But it would be better if Stevens could find an aeroplane in Holland'[144].
    The Second World War had begun. The British fleet had been placed in operational readiness and was about to start battle operations. And Lord Vansittart was ready to send a torpedo boat for his friend. Did military vessels really have nothing more important to do? Did the English have so many torpedo boats that any lord could send one of them anywhere during a war 'to get a friend of his'? And did the head of the English Intelligence Department, Captain Stevens, really have nothing else to do except look for a plane for someone who had simply written a note to him?
    We will have no questions left if we read the episode where Putlitz describes the way he was met in England. What is more, we will be convinced that Putlitz had provided the English with rather important information. We do not know what information exactly, but, obviously, rather sensitive. You can judge for yourself. Putlitz flew to Britain on a plane which had been found for him by British intelligence in Holland. The man who was meeting him shook his hand and said, 'Your arrival has been the most promising event in the whole war so far'. Quite some appreciation. 'No customs formalities were complied with; no one even looked at our passports'[145], says Putlitz about the meeting. Indeed, why trouble oneself with formalities? There is no point in them. Why check passports of any passengers flying from Holland? Yes, Great Britain had joined a world war, and what? Yes, Holland has borders with Germany, and what? It does not really matter that the tulip country is neutral and the Germans freely move around it.
    After having a glass of champagne to celebrate the successful arrival of the escaped German diplomat he was offered British citizenship.[146] Whereas, according to the martial law, every citizen of the country which is in a war with Britain has to be interned until the end of the war. Put simply, citizens of the enemy state are sent to a concentration camp until the end of the war.[147] This is unpleasant but necessary to prevent espionage and sabotage. And on this occasion a German citizen is offered to become British. Simply out of kindness, of course, out of friendship. But noble zu Putlitz refuses to become a British citizen. After this, he is not arrested either, and he can freely travel around the country. Lord Vansinttart even invites him over to his villa.
    Then Putlitz leaves Britain and goes to the USA. When four years later, on 6th January 1945 (apparently, after accomplishing another task for English intelligence) Putlitz was coming off the boat in Liverpool, things were even funnier. And even more telling. There someone to meet him again. The same person as in 1939, actually. There was a hand-shake again. And extraordinary negligence' again, 'He had papers that allowed me to go ashore without being searched'[148]. The reaction of an ordinary English customs officer at the sight of all these miracles is the best illustration of the situation: 'Casting a suspicious look at me, the immigration officer mumbled, And I thought we were fighting Germans!"[149]
    In 1948 Wolfgang zu Putlitz did decide to take British citizenship and got a British passport within three weeks. I do not know what exactly he did for Britain but his story is perfect evidence of the fact that there were English agents in the German Foreign Ministry, who were rather successful. And therefore they were quite generously rewarded if they remained alive. Here, of course, you can ask where these agents come from. What can I say? Money had always been the best key to a human heart. Do you really think that all the so-called progressive journalists, all those pseudo-human rights activists and all those dissidents sincerely believe in democracy in Washington and London FOR NOTHING?
    Germany was plunged into famine and poverty in November 1918. Darkness and horror covered the country. As many as 21 years are left until 1939. An agent would be helped to go up the career ladder (the West conveniently had full control over 'democracy' in the Weimar republic); he was assisted and provided with money. And this agent, who may have done nothing of importance for London before 1939, could change history completely. Had the Fuhrer's envoy flown to London instead of Moscow in 1939, all the expenses on the part of the agent and the patience of his bosses would have been worth it. Who knows, maybe it was actually Putlitz himself? Maybe he made an attempt, which did not work out, but survived?
    Yet, the story of strange and amazing things happening while such a disliked non-aggression treaty was being signed does not end here. The English would never have become a great nation if they had given up after the first failure. Yes, Hitler did receive Stalin's letter and cancelled Goering's flight to London.[150] Is that it? No. We will give it another try. What if Ribbentrop's aircraft does not make it to Moscow?

    Story four
    About loafers in air defence and strict comrade Stalin

    The atmosphere at the end of August 1939 was tense and edgy. Poland, for example, just a week before it had to become the 'guiltless victim of Hitler's aggression' was firing on German airliners (!) flying over its territory. Not trespassing on its air area but just passing on their way to other countries. One can read about this completely freely in the book by Hitler's interpreter, Paul Schmidt, who went to Moscow together with Ribbentrop. This book has been published several times in England and in the USA and no one has ever questioned this story: 'In the course of a brief visit to the aerodrome restaurant, I had learnt that both Condors[151] were having fighter cover. In the last few days, such was the tension which had already developed between Germany and Poland, Lufthansa machines had often been fired on by Polish anti-aircraft batteries'.[152]
    Imagine the following picture: an aircraft with the German foreign minister is flying to the USSR to sign this treaty between Berlin and Moscow for Great Britain which was so unwanted for Britain. And gets shot down by the Polish air defence. What does it mean? For Germany it would be an excuse to declare war on Poland. And it would mean that there would be no treaty with the USSR. When did Ribbentrop fly to Moscow? 'On 23rd August in the afternoon between 4 and 5 p.m., we arrived at Moscow airport in the Fiihrer's aircraft', says the German foreign minister himself.[153] I should remind you that the attack against Poland is planned for 26th August. Hitler might just have no time to send another minister to the Kremlin. Or may even not want to. Hitler did not break off contact with the West. Should Ribbentrop be unable to make it, the Führer, being a fatalist, would immediately send Goering to London.












    Since we have touched upon the Eastern Europe please, note that none of the former USSR allies became neutral, i.e. independent. All of them entered NATO. That confirms once again the old truth: if you do not control something, this 'something' will be controlled by somebody else. And this 'somebody' will never be neutral. If you renounce your control over something, this control will be just taken over by your rival. That is all.



    Gorbatchev's achievements in German reunification are enormous and undeniable. It is not for nothing that he was conferred with a title of 'the best German. The thing is that he was the one who insisted on the scenario that was realised in reality. Germany's allies in NATO Great Britain and the USA vehemently opposed to the restoration of Germany's unity. A certain interim period was suggested. The Anglo-Saxons have always been afraid of independent and strong Germany, and this argument will have importance in their policy as long as Germany is powerful. And having done so much good for the Germans, Gorbatchev did as much bad for Russians. As of today, the Russian people is the most numerous divided people not only in Europe but in the whole world! There are Russians left beyond the borders of Russia and Belorussians and Ukrainians, that are not three 'fraternal' peoples but one people. A unified country was cut into pieces, a unified people was divided. So, why is Gorbatchev so disliked in his motherland?


    The Germans were mad with happiness and were ready to sign any conditions of reunification. Including leaving NATO for the unified FRG. Gorbatchev took their word for it. When, a bit later, withdrawal of Russian troops from the former GDR was discussed, Germany was ready to pay any amount as compensation. And this is understandable how much does it cost to unify a people? No amount of money can be excessive here. Gorbatchev refused to take the money although the USSR had to take loans from the West at the time. As a result the troops were withdrawn into the fields. Why hurry? The troops needed to be withdrawn slowly, to make sure that unified Germany was neutral and kept to its obligation on leaving NATO. Nothing better than a 100,000 strong army has been invented to control politicians over keeping their promises.




































































    The English achieved all their goals: they weakened France and stopped Austria from strengthening. And having agreed with the French candidate for the Spanish throne Philip V, they managed to get a formal prohibition for him to become the next French king. It meant that Spain and France could not merge into one superpower. By the way, this is when England obtained an important part of the Spanish territory Gibraltar. And apart from that, the Isle of Menorca and the French territories in North America (the land around Hudson Bay and Newfoundland). But the most important English acquisition was the Asiento. This was the exclusive permission to sell slaves from Africa to Spanish territories. England became the only country entitled to do slave trade. And it did a good job and brought slavery overseas. Wherever the British came, it is slaves who started working. Another story, which we will leave beyond this book, is white slaves of the English. They were mostly Irish. English laws did not provide for any punishment for a murder of an Irishman committed by an Englishman. Because an Irishman living in Ireland occupied by the English was a second class person even being free. Because the Irish were Catholics, whereas England was Protestant, and even more than that it had its own Anglican church.
    The English did not forget Russia either: English money and diplomatic support helped Sweden, making it pursue wars with Russia until 1721. And Charles XII who strived to achieve peace, died very promptly after returning to Sweden in 1718. He was killed by a stray bullet in a trench during an operation in Norway. Do you recognise the style? His sister, Ulrika Eleonora, stopped peace negotiations and continued the war for three more years.




















    It was not by accident that I give you a brief story of swift rapprochement of Germany and the USSR in August 1939. Dates are essential here. This is what the chief of the German Army General Staff, France Haider, wrote in his diary on 15 August, 1939: 'No changes are expected until the evening of 19 August. No changes in operation of public transport until 22 August The cancellation of the party rally should be kept secret The location and time of strikes, the date of the surprises remain unchanged'. (Haider E War private journal of Generaloberst Frans Haider [United States] : A.G. EUCOM, 1947.). That means that the Germans were working hard on preparing their offensive operation against Poland. Despite the fact that on 15 August, 1939 there was no pact with Russians there was not even a draft, no negotiations are being held. There was nothing and yet the German military machine was actively preparing for war. Even on 4 August there was no certainty that Stalin would change his opinion concerning Germany. This shows in the cable from the German ambassador, Schulenberg, from Moscow: "The Soviet Government is actually more inclined to improve the relations between Germany and the USSR, but the old mistrust towards Germany is not yet extinct. My general impression is that the Soviet Government is determined to sign an agreement with England and France' We can read this in Churchill's book. (Churchill W. The Second World War. Volume 1: The gathering storm. London: Cassell, 1964). But contemporary liars in history only try to sound plausible to the ignorant. They appeal to emotions. But once you open a book, even by Churchill, who was not particularly friendly to Russia, all accusations dissolve as mist in the morning. Do not believe liars in history. Read books and judge for yourself.















    Here are just some facts. Great Britain was Japan's ally during the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. As a result of the war. Japan annexed Korea, which went unnoticed by the Anglo-Saxons. After the Japanese invasion of China, despite enormous casualties on the Chinese side, Great Britain blocked all accusations of Japan's aggression as a member of the League of Nations. In total, between 1931 and 1945 as a result of the Japanese aggression, 35 million people died in China (Narochnickaya N. A., Falin V. M. The Score of the Second World War. Who started the war and when? Moscow: Veche, 2009. P. 54). And finally, while the delegations from England and France were getting ready for negotiations in Moscow, on 24th July 1939 London and Tokyo signed a treaty which completely recognised the existing situation in China'. This was a blessing for a war with Russia. For a full-scale war


    Russia did not lose the war with Japan in 1905. We were forced to sign a peace treaty! Russia was forced to do that by means of revolutionary action, strikes, terrorist attacks and 'mutinies' in the fleet. All revolution was the result of excellent work of the foreign special services. For example, the mutiny on the Potemkin started with a soup in which the sailors found living worms. Their indignation was just they were being fed rotten food! And it did not occur to anyone that boiling the soup would have surely killed the worms and there was no way they could still be alive. Someone purposely threw living worms into the food AFTER it had been cooked. And this is just one of the examples: the most telling one. The peace negotiations were initiated by Japan. Two days after the battle of Tsushima the Japanese offered a peace treaty. Because they realised that it was impossible to win a long war with Russia. You can read more on how the English were forcing Nikolas II to sign the peace treaty with the help of the revolutionaries (and most importantly, why?) in: StarikovN. Who funds disintegration of Russia. From Decembrists to Mujahids. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2010.






    Very often, to demonstrate Stalin's silliness or cowardice, people mention the trains full of crops which crossed the Russian-German border up until 22 June. But it was not due to cowardice or fear; the USSR was paying back its loan. Or do those who condemn Stalin not pay their loans back? First, Germany supplied machines, weapons and a lot of other things to the USSR, and then the USSR paid the debt back over several years. It was a bargain. It is not the USSR that financed Hitler, but Hitler who financed the USSR. Stalin squeezed everything possible out of Hitler. Who can say exactly how much of the loan we paid back before the beginning of the war and how much was left? Who remembered our debt in 1946 when the loan contract expired? If this is not a victory of the Russian diplomacy, then what is a victory?!









    For some reason those who write about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact make it sound like Hitler, once he had signed the treaty, was ready to be 'friends' with Russia forever. For a man as cynical as Hitler, a treaty was nothing but a paper. And he was not going to adhere to it forever from the very beginning. He could have easily exchanged it or traded it for more preferences from his beloved Britain. This is what happened in reality. By 25th May Hitler had already sent Dalerus, who was a Swedish manufacturer, a relative and a friend of Goering's, to London. And up until 1st September, 1939 active work on diplomatic channels was taking place. But the English decided that Hitler's word was worth nothing and therefore declared war against him: in actual fact, they were not pursuing any war, and promised to stop it provided that Hitler would fulfil his obligations and attack Russia. And they kept pushing Hitler until he finally gave London satisfaction on 22 June 1941.






    Those who are at least a little bit familiar with the principles of the English policy are bound to know that the main principle is to fight using others. Britain has always tried to 'get rid of its rivals with the help of other countries. Spain was weakened by the revolt in the Netherlands then Holland was defeated on land by the French. When France became the main rival of the Anglo-Saxons, she was eliminated' by Russian troops in 1812-1814. The principle did not change later. In the First World War the two enemies of England Germany and Russia mutually destroyed each other. The same principle was going to be applied to the Second World War. The following fact is rather telling: on 27th April, 1939 the law on universal military service was passed in Great Britain. But it remained on paper even after the world conflict had started. It is enough to say that 24-year-old Brits were only asked to arrive at recruiting stations as late as March 1940 that is six months (!) after London declared war on Germany (on 3 September 1939). (Maysky I.M. Memoirs of a Soviet Diplomat. Tashkent, 1980. P.387). When Hitler was destroying Poland, the English were dropping leaflets over German territory. Over the first month of the war they dropped 18 million leaflets. This was how the British helped Poland. The English wanted to stay 'second' and avoid fighting themselves.








    We will mention in passing what the author of the memoirs said about England's attitude towards the Reich: 'In England there was no sign of negative or hostile feeling towards the Third Reich. On the contrary, the press did its best to avoid what the Nazis called 'stigmatisation. The only exception was the communist newspaper 'Daily Worker' which was, however, impossible to buy at any stand The Brown Book of the Reichstag Fire and other anti-Nazi books were normally only sold under the counter and could not be seen in big book shops.' (Putlitz W. G. Unterwegs nach Deutschland. Erinnerungen eines ehemaligen Diplomaten. Berlin (Ost): Verlag der Nation, 1958). At the time Hitler was the favourite and the most promising project of the English who was expected to attack Russia in was written, nothing was sold. Freedom of speech in operation. There were no books on Hitler's crimes but in the same year, 1936, the Anglo-German Fellowship was founded in London. Its only task was to spread the ideas of friendship and cooperation with the Third Reich among the English public. Such organisations do not appear on their own without being sanctioned by government. Just look at it, is this not interesting? When there was no Hitler, there were no ideas of friendship and cooperation with Germany, and once Hitler came to power the British authorities became eager to be friends with Germany.

















    : - — - , , , .