Economist Exposes How Banks Manufacture Wars, False Flags & Famines to Usher in the New World Order

35:34created the world's first concentration camps indeed indeed that was a british invention um there were three farmer wars farmer bauer in german and dutch boa bauer um the three bauer wars the farmer wars because literally the world's number one military power made war on farmers to control this country this area why well it was of strategic relevance but also oil sorry not um other resources gold and diamonds were found there and london was very keen to to have those um actually surprisingly the farmers were so well organized they won the first farmers war and the second ball war and then they had to use the britain had to use their usual devious techniques um to win the third one murdering women and children in concentration camps yes and so So, and the Kaiser, the German leadership criticized the British intervention.

36:34And so Britain also, I mean, these are other reasons. What future British prime minister fought in that war? Yes, well, Churchill had a role there and writes about it in his, I think he even got captured. He did get captured and escaped. And was treated well, enough to escape alive, which wasn't really true for people in the concentration camps necessarily. So, yes. Now, so there were other factors, no doubt. but it's clear when you look at the old documents that anti-German sentiments whipped up as soon as there were early plans for this railway. It didn't come from Norway. It was discussed already in the late 1880s, 1890s and then became a proper investment project at the end of the 19th century and 1900s onwards.

37:23And of course, the First World War succeeded in stopping that. Now, also just another point before we look at what this means for today, what are the lessons for today. The First World War itself was of course quite devastating for Germany, also for all the other countries involved. The number of people killed in the war, it's just horrendous, huge waste of lives and resources, very, very sad. Also Germany then in the Versailles Treaty. After the starvation of 1919, this was meant to soften up Germany and then impose the Versailles, you know, strange rules on Germany. Germany would be taken apart.

38:05One quarter of Germany would be lost and given to other countries. Lots of Germans, millions of Germans would now live in new countries, newly created by the British, such as Czechoslovakia and so on. And so, you know, a lot of hardship followed this. despite that they couldn't essentially change the fact that germany was still scientifically leader engineering in terms of engineering and and production was a leader in the world and was still a rival of of britain um because the education system also hadn't really been destroyed and so you know a second round was needed another world war was needed and for this interestingly a lot of investment took place in germany in the 1920s that allowed a quick revival and of course there's other issues how hitler came to power if we have time we should talk about how did he actually come to power when you look at money and banking and central banking you get some interesting new insights so we also had investment in in germany particularly by america american companies itt general motors ford and then also banking brown brothers harriman where Prescott Scott was from the, sorry, Prescott Bush from the Bush family was active, supporting Germany.

39:26Now something very similar is happening or has been happening in recent decades. Of course, the post-Second World War global hegemon is America. It's taken on that leadership role from Britain, originally even with its own colonies. I mean, there have been American colonies, whether Philippines or other places. And it's adopted the key policies and policy tools from Britain. So which country is the new Germany that is a rival to America? Well, it's China. And China has been working on ensuring its supply of raw material inputs in the last, particularly the last 15 years. So in many ways, it's a sort of new strategy, but it is very much the same situation as Germany was in it.

40:19It didn't want to be beholden to shipping under British control, could be blackmailed. Of course, America is dominating the seas and China doesn't want to be beholden to America. And that includes, of course, the Strait of Hormuz. It also includes the Strait of Malacca, where even more Chinese trade goes through. That's another of these potential choke points, as they call it, where they can choke China. So China has been working on alternative routes. What is the modern Berlin-Baghdad railway? Well, it is the Belt and Road Initiative, which is the Chinese president Xi Jinping's really landmark milestone foreign policy initiative started.

41:0911 years ago. On the one hand, it offers an interesting alternative to participating countries, many developing countries, to the IMF World Bank system that I hope we have time to discuss because that system has been designed to keep developing countries from developing, to prevent development and to keep them poor but effective, cheap exporters of raw materials according to the British colonial model. So it's like the modern version of the colonial British empire is this American dominated IMF World Bank rule. And the Belt and Road Initiative on the one hand is an alternative that can be offered to countries and many countries including in Africa have joined this for this reason.

41:55Can you describe what it is for people who don't know about Belt and Road? Yes. So there's actually many different names for this. at one stage was called the one belt initiative, then belt and road initiative. Sometimes it's called the modern Silk Road, the new Silk Road. It is about, on the one hand, logistics to ensure stable, effective supply routes between China and the rest of the world to a large extent on the continent, but not entirely. There's also shipping belt and road across the seas. And it's also a way for China to switch out of the dollar. So it is linked to the Nixon shock, what happened there, the dollar becoming the petrodollar in the years afterwards under Henry Kissinger's interventions, the petrodollar, Saudi Arabia being essentially made part of the United States, only selling oil against the dollar, but also reinvesting 80 % of its foreign exchange reserves in US treasuries.

43:08That petrodollar system is increasingly being challenged by other countries and of course by China, the BRICS countries. And the Belt and Road Initiative is a counterparty to that. And likewise, a counterparty to this IMF World Bank system which is really the continuation of the Bretton Woods system which is the dollar dominant system. so China had this problem beforehand that as a successful exporter it's earning foreign exchange but mostly it's earning dollars what to do with the dollars and of course it was investing like at the time most countries in US treasuries which suited America fine but China decided sort of 15 years ago well we need an alternative to this we can't keep investing in US treasuries because and very few people know this When other countries buy US treasuries, all they're actually getting is a promise on a promise.

44:07Because, you know, a treasury is an IOU, it's a promise, right? But do you know that China doesn't even get those promises? The US treasury issues government bonds, treasury bonds, but China doesn't get those. Why? Well, there's a rule that they're held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in custody for foreign governments. So it's a promise on a promise. So that, you know, China can't go with these papers and sell them somewhere without permission of US entities, the Federal Reserve. Now, some may say, well, that's just a technicality. That's not an issue. What we've seen in reality is can be very, very important.

44:48For example, in the so-called Asian crisis, 1997-1998, which was very much engineered by the system IMF and central banks. I was sent on an official mission to Thailand in 1998 to analyze this and advise the Thai government from the Asian Development Bank's perspective. based on my analysis I concluded that it was a plot by the local central bank in Thailand against the country together with the IMF it was a situation to create a boom bust cycle and then bankrupt Thailand and ask the IMF to come in and then the IMF asked for Thai assets to be sold to foreigners Thailand was doing well until then and then it had to sell well he was asked to sell its banks and its industry to foreigners very cheaply while the currency had been devalued right so you know just looking at the the big picture outcome that's that's um what he was meant to be about the mechanism is also quite interesting because the same mechanism they put on onto germany in the early 1930s to get hitler into power you know Thailand had a savings surplus it had you know successful exports and was a reasonably high growth economy but it was brought down very badly in in this in this setup and this started with the central bank the central bank saying okay well we'll have a fixed exchange rate against the dollar everything's safe never we worry about the exchange rate, we have foreign currency reserves, we can maintain this Thai baht dollar exchange rate.

46:37And at the same time, as I could show in my work on this, they raised the domestic interest rate above the dollar interest rate and allowed companies, you know, current account, open, deregulated, allowed companies to raise money in dollars. Well, if there's a fixed exchange rate, the dollar interest rate is lower than the domestic interest rate. They're basically, the Thai Central Bank is telling Thai companies, borrow in dollars, please. Which doesn't make sense. It's not a good idea. Even short-term borrowing in dollars was increased by the Central Bank in this setup. And then all you need, as then foreign debt increases and increased and increased, All you need is a bit of a setback in the economic growth, in exports, for example.

47:27Foreign exchange reserve going down a bit, international investors, this is not sustainable, building up this debt pile for no good reason. And that's what happens, then of course, speculators attack the Thai BART, and the central bank defended the BART, which meant it was selling foreign exchange reserves, selling dollars, buying the BART. Of course, the dollar pile went smaller and smaller until you run out. They defended the BART, they said, until the last dollar. And then what? Well, then the BART collapses and this is what happened. So it was a crazy strategy. I also found out that during the same time, the central bank even imposed loan growth quotas.

48:09You know, this is the window guidance, central bank, informal guidance of bank credit, which when used properly is part of the high growth system. You can make sure that bank credit goes to productive business investment, leads to growth. But you can also use it for bad things, as I show in my book, Princes of the Yen. The Bank of Japan used this mechanism to force banks to increase real estate speculative loans, create a real estate bubble, which you can use to bust the system. And so this credit guidance system was also used by the Thai Central Bank to exacerbate this crisis or this impending crisis.

48:49And then once the crisis happened, everyone, oh, we need the IMF to come in. And what did the IMF demand? Well, you have to restrict credit creation now. You have to tighten everything up and restrict fiscal policy. Everything has to be restricted. So recession, get a huge recession. Industrial output collapsed by 25%. The Thai bot now without foreign exchange reserves just fell and fell. Thailand became very cheap and the IMF demands, well, we'll help you, but this conditionality, you have to now sell your assets to foreign strategic partners. I advised them, don't do that, get out of the IMF program, here's how you can get back on your feet.

49:28It took them maybe two years, but then they took the advice and they ended the IMF program. Because it was clearly a system to take down. Yeah, it's a control mechanism. To take the country down. So the Belt and Road Initiative offered and continues to offer alternatives to this fairly predatory system run via the IMF and the World Bank and other institutions that has not helped developing countries. and so many countries think well let's try that at the same time it offered china the possibility to diversify its dollar reserves because as part of this initiative it would give money to other countries but um for particular projects that build up infrastructure and therefore also helps these countries so china has spent billions on building really shiny new roads and highways and bridges and railway connections, transport, ports, massive investments in ports.

50:36And of course, all these receiver countries have been to some. They're very proud of this and they look really impressive projects, modern and helping the country. And the countries can use this for their own economic development. Excuse me. And so it's been attractive and many countries have joined. although of course also countermeasures have been started and some countries were put under pressure to drop out again it wasn't popular when italy wanted to sign up or hungary wanted to sign up with this and they were put under pressure by the eu and u.s um parties as well but it's been quite successful and and so of course a key strategic partner has always been Iran as a oil supplier to China.

51:25And we can tell that the war on Iran is part of this countermeasure that's really in operation against China. Because in these bombing campaigns against Iran, What was also bombed were Belt and Road infrastructure projects, bridges, railway connections and other parts of this supply structure. And so, you know, why would America do that? Well, it is to get in the way of the modern Berlin-Baghdad railway. So it goes up through Central Asia. Yes, of course. It's the modern Silk Road. There's many Silk Roads, of course. There's one via Russia further north and further south, several. And it's the similar viewpoint.

52:22I mean, there's actually a British theoretician, Mackinder, who talked about this heartland theory that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world. And that's really why Britain first was very keen to prevent Germany from collaborating with countries further east, Ottoman Empire, Russia in particular, and also prevent the buildup of transport infrastructure that, of course, fosters closer economic and political connections. And it's the same. Of course, America has adopted that strategy. there's a famous quote by what's his name Stratfor Friedman saying that the key goal in the 20th century has been to prevent Germany from collaborating with Russia and America has also pursued that and very successfully Germany is not collaborating with Russia even though it would be in both countries interests to put it mildly and likewise in Asia of course the equivalent, he didn't mention that but I think I would add that it's been a key goal of America to prevent Japan and China from collaborating.

53:33Yes. Because if they did, you know, who needs America in the Pacific? So, of course, America has always been telling the Japanese, oh, don't trust the Chinese, you know, they hate you. And it's been telling China, oh, don't trust the Japanese, they hate you. I don't think the Chinese trust the Japanese for other reasons too. I think actually the two countries get along better than people recognize. And it's not just the Taiwanese population that has very favorable memories of being part of Japan until 1945. And most Taiwanese people I know speak always very fondly of Japan. It's also Chinese youth.

54:11They think Japan is a cool, fun place and quite exciting. And of course, there is a whole generation, Deng Xiaoping's generation of Chinese leaders who know the great things Japan did for China. Because when he traveled to Japan to seek the secret of high economic growth, you know, when Deng Xiaoping came to power, he asked the Japanese for that. And the Japanese didn't have to tell him, but they did. not just that, they sent their key guy who was a high growth 1960s high growth planner to China and he came with another 11 or 12 people, top planners and they did the Chinese high growth system for Deng Xiaoping together with the 300 top Chinese colleagues so Japan did some great things for China, China wouldn't be where it is today without the help of Japan and of course people know this on both sides So I think the two countries actually get along better than people realize.

55:12It's just not politically correct to mention that because it's not supposed to be like this. Yes. So this is really the context in which we have to see what's happening with this war on Iran. I think ultimately the goal is China because unfortunately America has key decision makers, let's say, it's not ordinary American people, obviously, what we're talking about here, But some key decision makers in America, influential people that influence American policy have decided that there should be antagonism between America and China. there's all these you know military strategic plans and china is in these military plans described as a key threat even more important than russia which explains some of the unfriendly policies towards china in the past and it is a parallel development because china You know, when you look back at the British colonial rule and then Germany rising, Germany was identified as the threat and then measures were taken, including a World War, a Second World War, which shows you the extent to which these planners would go.

56:31China seems to be the modern equivalent. It really is a challenge economically to America. But if we only think in economic terms, it's not really something to worry about. Because economics is about embracing this. And competition is fine, it's a good thing. And if you have the right economic policies, America can really thrive on working with China, as partly happened in the past. but you see also there's something sinister going on because it wasn't really necessary for america to transfer most of the manufacturing to china in the first place this reminds me of the american investment in germany in the 1920s and 30s right of course massive american investments taking place in china and technology has been transferred to china when it was needed and helpful.

57:22Now, in many ways, you know, there's not many areas left where China needs foreign technology because it's very much ahead of the game in a lot of them, not all, but, you know, in quite a lot. But clearly that was very important. So why did this happen? I think it's the same reason why it happened in Germany. You know, you need, if you're planning for world war, you also need to make sure the opponent is built up first to have a proper war. and that tells you about the sort of the goals that play here. Do you really think so? It looks like it. I mean, you know, I'm always reluctant to come to these conclusions, but, you know, it was a bit much, wasn't it?

57:59The American investment in China, shifting all this production to China for short-term profit, you know, or you've got higher margins, we do it that way. Well, you're losing all these jobs, and you're creating all these problems for America, for ordinary people, for the middle class, for the country, and for the long term. Why are you doing this? Well, some people were aware of this and still were part of this thrust and it wasn't slowed down. So it was intentional, but it was unnecessary. It wasn't really necessary to do this. So there were considerations to make sure China would be built up.

58:35And that actually, you may be getting back to what you said at the outset about a small percentage of the population has goals that are incomprehensible to normal people because they're so evil. Right, and China is actually an interesting case study to come to that conclusion too. If we look at the earlier phase of Chinese post-war development when Mao was in charge, it was more or less a dictatorship. It was a communist moralist dictatorship and Mao took very unpleasant policies clearly and a lot of people died. Now, there's always this historian's view that, oh, when people died, that clearly wasn't intentional.

59:23But some facts about this are very disturbing. First of all, let's not forget that Mao indisputably was put in power by foreign interests. That's not even denied. Well, what does Russian mean? I mean, it was certainly... and perhaps Bolshevik would come closer to it because you see a direct lineage there if you look at the individuals. Yes. They go back to the sort of Bolshevik movement, which you could even call anti-Russian at some stage. I mean, it was clearly not. They murdered a lot of Russians. So yeah, it's fair. And so there is that link. So he was put in place by foreign interests on the one hand.

1:00:06And at the same time, then you look at the policies he took and i want to focus i mean there are many crazy policies like cultural revolution which in many ways is being replayed nowadays you know this this cultural marxism is a cultural revolution where you you mess with people's heads it's like a psyop you know red is not red and black is not black you know you have to denounce yourself and denounce the facts and and you know declare untruths to be true sort of thing a man is not a man what is a woman you know doesn't this sound familiar it does um that's that that was also big operation so-called cultural revolution and then we had this great leap forward which is economically greatly backward and then we had this famine which is quite a mysterious thing so i want to just briefly talk about this famine and it's relevant for us today because again ordinary people think oh we couldn't have leaders who plan horrible things for us that wouldn't happen you know they wouldn't intentionally do it they have good intentions they don't want they wouldn't never want to starve 80 million people to death would they well here's the counter case here's a case where 80 million people were starved to death it was covered up for a long time in the numbers the more research has been done it's been going up and up and up we're around 80 million now first it was only 2 million 10 million 15 million it got higher and higher and it seems to be in this order which is phenomenal I mean this is really very very sad and very tragic what happened what is this famine in China it started in a year when there was a bumper crop so good harvest Now, if you want to engineer a famine, it's not a great starting point.

1:01:54But because it happened at this point, it makes clearer that it was an intentional starvation of millions of people. because you had to take a particular combination of very specific policies to get this disastrous outcome. And they're all policies. There's actually no doubt. No historian says it wasn't policies that led to this famine. They just all, whether Western or Chinese historians, they all say, well, it was a mistake. They didn't intend this. Well, when it's such a very specific combination of highly unusual policies which are however necessary to have this outcome of a famine then you really have to wonder you know and it wasn't under duress they were freely taken so there is no doubt that it was a policy induced outcome it's the debate is was it intentional or not well i'll give you some of the ingredients of this famine so if you want to start a famine when you have bumper crops you've got to do some things i mean um otherwise there won't be a famine For example, what can you do?

1:03:06Think about it. What can you do? Well, we could actually pass some laws that round up all the harvest workers and transport them from the rural areas to the cities. So let's do that. Well, that's what they did. And I know from growing up in Bavaria, when the harvest comes, that's when the schoolboys and schoolgirls and students getting asked, can you please help the farmers? this you know we've got a big crop we need helpers and you earn some money per hour which is nice everyone like that's that's the harvest time right but if you divert millions of people forcibly transporting them away from the rural areas at harvest time or just around harvest time that's certainly something you can do to disrupt um the the um the delivery of of of food in that year.

1:04:00So that was taken. Now, it turned out to be not enough because, you know, farmers are resourceful and partly that, you know, they had ways to still farm a lot, harvest a lot of the crops. Now, there is a natural or, you know, seemingly natural way you could reduce a harvest. And if you read the Bible, in bad years, horrible things happen like swarms of locusts come and eat up the crops. Yes. Which is actually clearly not every year. It's unusual. It's so unusual that when it happens, it's recorded for thousands of years like in the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice to arrange for that? Well, in a bumper crop year, right?

1:04:47If your goal is to have a famine, of course, that's not so easy to arrange, right, is it? Particularly at a day and age where we did not yet have the insect laboratories where they breed various forms of genetically modified insects that could do all sorts of evil stuff. That wasn't yet happening. but also it's unlikely that it would be swarms and swarms of locusts, millions of locusts eating the harvest because in China there was a natural enemy of the giant grasshoppers, the locusts, namely the ordinary Asian tree sparrow. Yes. And in fact, in China it's estimated there's around 700 million of them, the tree sparrows and they would you know in the in the development of the the locusts you know they intervene at the right point and they eat them and the larvae and and so on um so you really if you wanted to have swans of locusts you would need of i mean nobody would think this up surely but you would need a very specific policy that would declare the ordinary um asian tree sparrow enemy number one that has to be killed and exterminated.

1:06:07And of course, that's what Mao did. And what happened was swarms of locusts destroyed quite a bit of the harvest. That's increasingly being studied. And it's quite clear that such a specific policy in this chain and this natural, you know, biological cycle where you intervene and destroy the enemy of the locusts as a specific policy that surely can't be by accident. Now, still, it wasn't quite enough for an 80 million famine. So now you need the usual Soviet-style policies, which is to sequester the harvest. You know, the government moves in and seizes the harvest and is taken from the people and is not being sold.

1:06:54Or some of it is exported abroad. To Romania, exactly. Exactly. And then some farmers have some storage because actually farmers always think of next year's crop. Do you want to keep some to plant next year? That's before genetically modified things were invented to destroy that natural cycle of farmer's behavior. So they went after those farmers. anyone who stored food was declared a bourgeois hoarder and an enemy of the people and was severely punished and of course the food and the grain and all the storage was taken away so put all this together and of course on top of that various communist campaigns the famine took place and it was such a horrible disaster and as I said we're around 80 million as an estimate of people who starved as a policy result.

1:07:49So we have to realize that our leaders don't mind killing us. In fact, they seem quite keen on killing ordinary people. And perhaps one more link to China where we learn these things is, you know, Deng Xiaoping, and I spoke about him last time we had our discussion, how he introduced the high growth model and Japan helped him. As I said, and I think that was great. And he realized, and the Japanese told him, you need many, many banks. You need thousands of small local banks that lend to small firms. It's decentralized decision-making. You know, instead of the Soviet originally started with one bank, right?

1:08:33Central bank only. Central decision-making doesn't work well. The Prussian principle of high growth, which all these East Asian high-growth economies adopted, is decentralization. Decentralization, the subsidiarity principle, decisions on the local level, there they can be made flexibly as the situation demands and appropriately. Central planning is not informed enough, can't react quickly enough and doesn't work. And also the incentive structure is wrong because, you know, what's worse than being given an order that, you know, is really counterproductive and useless and you still have to do it.

1:09:06It's so frustrating. And that's, of course, why the Soviet system failed and the Prussian decentralization worked. I mean, there's studies comparing the German army with the British army in the First World War and the German army with the American army in the Second World War. And they conclude that the German army was always far more efficient and effective with smaller numbers, better outcome. And they found it's because decision-making was delegated to the lowest level. The officer in the field had the decision-making power. There was always the goal is given, but how you get there, the officer in the field had to decide.

1:09:44Of course, that meant that you had to train people better, but that's a good thing if you've got better trained people and they make the decisions. That's the right motivation. Then people are also motivated. They know that they make a difference and their decisions will shape things and they can do the appropriate decisions because in the fog of war, things change so quickly. Central planning just cannot work. Likewise, that was then applied in Prussia and in Germany in the economy. through decentralized decision making. So not one central bank, but thousands of small banks lending to small firms, credit creation, money creation in the banking system.

1:10:17For productive business investment, you get job creation, growth, and prosperity. And China did that. And so this is the Chinese high growth system, which Deng Xiaoping implemented. And the rest is history. 40 years of high economic growth, lifting more people out of poverty than anywhere in history. 800 million people lifted out of, according to the official definitions, lifted out of poverty. This has never happened before in history in such a short time period in one generation. That's what China achieved using the Japanese model, which is essentially the German model of high growth. And so I was always surprised that Deng Xiaoping, who was behind this and did this really well, and he's a good manager, very humble he was always a humble person not you know this narcissistic type that you know will take policies that selfish but really bad for ordinary people he was not like so he's a good leader in many ways as far as i can tell but he he also is the one who took the one child policy and we know that that's not that wasn't a good policy also if you think about it It's a sort of policy that you can see Western decision makers, Western leaders liking.

1:11:35I mean, there's lots of Western leaders in history, starting from Napoleon, talking about, oh, if China wakes up and then they keep growing population growth and China will take over the world. And you get this Western sort of paranoia. And to impose a policy that, oh, only one child is allowed, sounds very much like a Western idea to me. That's always the sense I had. Like why would a Chinese leader, particularly a high growth leader. The high growth model means also you want high population growth. Population growth is good. You want people to have children. You want to educate them well. Because that's what leads to growth.

1:12:12Growth comes from productivity, technology, new ideas. 100 % of ideas come from people. We need people. Of course, you know, now they're trying to replace that with AI. But that has its severe limitations and risk and dangers. So you want more people normally, but Deng Xiaoping imposed this one-child policy. Then I looked into how did this happen. And it turns out that it was early on when he was implementing the high-growth system from Japan. The particular person who was asked, who was invited to China as the key helper with this high-growth system was a very able Japanese economic planner, high growth planner of the 1960s.

1:13:02And in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping came to Japan, he asked, he was told by the Japanese, okay, talk to this guy. And he was our man in the 60s, now retired. He may be able to help you. And Deng Xiaoping asked him, can you please come to China soon? Like now, I need you now. Three days later, he was in China with, you know, there was 12, including other colleagues that he brought along. Now, who was he? His name is Okita, family name, Saburo. Saburo Okita. Now, by that time, he had been recruited by the Club of Rome into the Club of Rome's executive committee. What is the Club of Rome? Yeah, that is a very good question.

1:13:47What actually is the Club of Rome? Well, it's also an institution that, you know, This really big turning point in 1971, that's when the Club of Rome entered the world stage, so to speak. That's the year the US defaulted on its gold obligations. Yes. With its report, the limits to growth. This allegedly limits the growth. And of course, haven't we heard this before? I mean, this whole degrowth movement, climate change, all sorts. Growth is bad and we need to limit. That limits the growth. We've reached the limits of growth. This has basically been the story in the media ever since the Club of Rome came out with this report.

1:14:23So the Club of Rome was founded by, and it's not really disputed by Rockefeller, supported by Rockefeller. Certainly in the early years, that was very clear. They met in a Rockefeller villa in Italy and all that. And then very early on, this executive committee drafted also Mr. Okita from Japan, which is very ironic because he's the high growth expert but the club of rome's two main messages were economic growth is bad and we need to reduce it we've reached the limits we're going to destroy the planet blah blah blah we need low growth and secondly are too many people on this planet in fact very much regurgitating the views of the east india company leadership and its hired economist Malthus, Thomas Malthus, famous for his prediction, oh, population growth is too high, there's not enough food, we're going to starve, we need to reduce the population growth.

1:15:28Sometimes what you read is, it sounds more like we need to reduce the population. Of course, that's what they did in India, quite clearly by result, but to a large extent intentionally. Again, these policy decisions, famines and other, taking people's livelihoods away, destroying the textile industry in India, millions of people started. mRNA shots, you know. Well, that's the modern version. So this is the message of the Club of Rome. And the Club of Rome drafted this high growth expert. Now, I think he was fairly innocent. And, you know, he was at this stage, he was, you know, retired. and he was called up by this, you know, selective sort of international body that has a good reputation to be in the executive committee and he agrees.

1:16:16Now, I know many Japanese people want to be very international and all this nice famous people are there backing this, so I'll join. I don't think he was really part of the nefarious activities that are also going on, but it's clever from the Club of Rome and its backers, Rockefeller Foundation, viewpoint because he's the high growth guy. To get him in the executive committee of a club that argues for low growth, of low economic growth and low population growth, really is certainly a way of getting a handle on the high growth model and making sure that it can be suppressed in the future. That's the job of the IMF and the World Bank for developing countries not allowed to adopt their high growth policies.

1:16:59And when it comes to China, effectively, I think, whether an explicit deal or just an implicit deal happened. Namely, Deng Xiaoping was allowed to run the high growth model, also attracted American investment. So, you know, that was allowed to happen. But there seems to have been a required payoff. And that is to impose the one child policy. So at least implement half of the Club of Rome agenda and the other half, well, we'll come to that later sort of thing. Could have been the attitude. When I looked into, so how did Deng Xiaoping adopt this one child policy? How did it exactly happen? Turns out that he took the advice of a Chinese statistician, mathematician, who was working for the military doing complicated ballistic calculations, you know, so using mathematics, which is pure logic.

1:17:59and he did then he was asked to do population growth trajectories okay and of course they were scary and he came to this conclusion we need to restrict population growth now the key thing is this and i call this the great deception he was using simulations and if you look at okay what did this military statistician mathematician what did he use what sort of approach what sort of model he used the club of rome model now why was a chinese sort of military related mathematician using the club of rome model of course it was in the west it was propagated it could just be by chance that he just saw the headlines in some western publications that's a leading model we'll use that but or it may be other channels to do with Rockefeller visiting China and who knows.

1:18:54But we know the result that he used as a fact the Club of Rome's model, which is entirely simulation. And that is a great deception because you can make up any simulation of anything and present it. But it's used to convince people and give the impression that it's factual. And this is used in economics. It's used for growth projectories. it's used for population growth trajectories to show that it's unsustainable and it's used of course for climate scenarios and it's used for declaring pandemics you know how the virus grows it turns out it's all simulation made up stuff but i'll come back to this in a moment because that's actually interesting way of deceiving people fact is okay that's what he used club of Rome model simulations and Deng Xiaoping declaring, yep, we should listen to this guy.

1:19:50You know, we have no other choice. We have to do this. So it's not really clear why on earth he came to this conclusion. Maybe he just felt like many people for the simulation approach or maybe there are other reasons, but that's a fact. And so we see that we do have influential international forces that are anti-population growth, potentially anti-population. and also anti-growth. And we don't, well, it's not really factually based. You know, this great deception started really, again, in the British Empire in the 19th century. It's really the source of modern economics. This is how modern economics was developed.

1:20:39It started with the so-called classical economists in Britain. and the key figure is David Ricardo. Who is he? Well, he's a famous classical economist. He did the theory of free trade, you know, the theory of comparative advantage, which concludes, well, we should have free trade. It gives us prosperity. Yes. And at the same time, the argument is, well, the previous economists, the mercantilists, mercantile economists, they were so wrong because they argued, well, we may need some trade policy. We need some intervention. we need to make sure that the benefits from trade are properly equally distributed that's what the mercantilist said and ever since david ricardo this is claimed to have been disproven and it's just free trade is best also unilateral free trade and that's exactly what the imf and the world bank are preaching and enforcing in their policies on developing countries you know their conditionality You get money, carrot, but here's the stick.

1:21:40You have to adopt these and these policies. Free trade policies allow foreign investment, deregulate, liberalize, privatize, which effectively means these countries are stuck in a low value added activity, exporting commodities. They're not allowed to build up their own industries, move up the value added ladder. And they're not allowed to prevent foreigners from buying up their industries cheaply. Now empirically, this model has been proven wrong many times over. actually Prebysh and Singer showed already a long time ago that commodities exporters have declining terms of trade. Yes. Now, what does that mean?

1:22:16Terms of trade is simply the export price divided by the import price. It's basically the relative price you get for what you're selling compared to what you have to buy, what you're importing, right? And what they've shown is that if you're exporting commodities, and if you're focusing on that that means all your high valued goods manufacturing goods are imported right and that's the position developing countries in but if you are in this position what happens over time and they looked at around almost half a century actually more than half a century you could show that the terms of trade must deteriorate which means you will ever get less for your exports in relative terms and you have to pay ever more for your imports and therefore you're getting poorer and you're not getting the benefit from from trade that's what the imf the world bank are locking developing countries in through their policy regime and it's not a coincidence and even david ricardo knew this very well the trick was this how did he prove that you know free trade is the best and intervention is always bad well he didn't actually prove it all he did is he presented some nice mathematics now mathematics is logic and the logic is correct and here's the trick here's the great deception we like logic men like logic people like logic logic is convincing to us and so convincing that we forget one small but fundamental issue logic is not truth well hang on why is that well if it's logical must be true no there's there's a difference logic can only ever tell us about theoretical possibilities but never tell us about what is true and what is not true.

1:24:08That's an empirical question. Logic is not empirical. It's not evidence-based. Whether something is true or not, whether something happened or not, it's always evidence-based. You have to check the evidence. That's the inductive approach. Whereas logic is mathematics. You know, mathematics is logic. And it usually is used correctly, consistently. Therefore, you've got consistent logic. That's why it's so convincing. but the conclusion doesn't tell you that you should do this well it's not perfectly predictive it's not predictive at all and also it may not describe the world it may not describe reality because it depends on the assumptions that you've used to build this model and that's where they that's exactly cheat you so the assumptions in ricardo's model are highly specific and unrealistic and that's how economics has worked ever since in fact it's called Ricardo's vice so modern economics historians of economic thought agree on this modern economics essentially was invented by David Ricardo it's called the Ricardian vice which is to make such assumptions that you will come to the conclusions that you desire And so it's of course not scientific.

1:25:27It's not scientific at all. It is a way of deceiving people. And you don't point out that this is only a scenario. It's a simulation that could be true on some planet. But we are not saying anything about whether this actually applies to this or not. So it's sophistry, really. Yes, it is. But also you could say it's rhetoric or it's marketing because you're trying to convince people of something that you've concluded you want to do. Exactly. And you provide the ex post justification. And it is impressive. Oh, wow, so much clever mathematics. This is a real clever scientist. Well, it must be true, whatever he's saying.

1:26:04This is essentially how economics has been working. And now David Ricardo doesn't point out that his conclusion depends crucially on the terms of trade. And what is that post-trade price? What is the relative price of things? He has nothing on that. He just leaves that out. But that's the crucial factor. And the problem is that developing countries have a deteriorating terms of trade if they follow his advice. So he's essentially, David Ricard essentially proven what everyone already knew, that trade can potentially be beneficial for everyone because we create benefits through trade. That's not in doubt.

1:26:43The mercantilists knew that. I wonder why they're called mercantilists. Mercantile, merchant, trade. They favor trade. They said, let's trade. This is where prosperity comes from, from trade. That's what the mercantilists said. So why are they so wrong? Well, they're not wrong. They were not wrong. They actually were a step further than Ricardo. They talked about the distribution of those benefits from trade. They said trade can be beneficial. There will be benefits. But who's getting those benefits? Well, exactly. How is that distributed? That depends on the terms of trade, which is what Ricardo totally and on purpose left out.

1:27:18I think I'm starting to understand how the world works. And this deception has been used consistently in economics, but has been used in other disciplines. So this is how they persuade, this is how the Club of Rome operates. So their model of, oh, there's too much growth and growth is bad and we need to suppress growth is based on the same approach. Assumptions, it's a simulation. It's not truth. And it's turned out to be wrong. You know, we're more than halfway through their 100-year forecast. And we're, you know, they've been proven incorrect. Not where they said we'd be. Exactly. It's true for the population growth scenarios.

1:27:54We don't have too much population growth. That's quite clear if you look at the facts. So it's been disproven there because it's just been simulations. And it's been true for the pandemic simulations. It's been true for the climate simulation. It's also just simulations. And just recently, we hear that, oh, you know, the IPCC is admitting and people at the UN admitting, well, these were extreme scenarios. And yes, they're implausible. You know, it's increasingly been a bit because that's what it was. Just always an extreme scenario. Too late for the German economy. A simulation. Yes. Yeah. Of course, well, people need to be aware that policymakers, when they impose bad policies, they use this clever sophistry of simulations.

1:28:38The deductive approach is presented as very logical, and it is logical, but logic is not truth. That's the key point. Truth is based on evidence and facts, and very often you can quickly debunk all of these models. So, I mean, given that, and I mean, part of what you're saying is it is hard to project into the future. It's just hard to know because of the number of variables, but I'm going to ask you to do it anyway. So given everything you've just said, your understanding of what this conflict with Iran is really about, what the conflict with Venezuela is really about, it's really about China and the contest for global hegemony between the United States and China.

1:29:18and that is likely to flower into a world war. I think it's hard to imagine the United States wins in any conclusive way, given that it's a smaller country, population economy smaller, less technologically advanced in some ways in China. So what happens then? So let's just jump right ahead. So let's say there's some kind of conflict. Hopefully it's limited in scale, but whatever it is, but China remains after that. all the systems that you're talking about, which have been in place for hundreds of years, first another British, now under us, the Americans, they're replaced by what? What are the systems that govern the world when China's in charge?

1:30:01Well, exactly, you've said it already. Systems that govern the world. Yes, not countries. Exactly, so that's what it seems to be about, to entrench a new system, a more effective system from the viewpoint of the central planners to govern the world. Exactly. Because these crises, whether it's economic crisis. You can feel that. It's very obvious, right? Yeah, exactly. And clearly wars have always been used. You know, you shake up the old structure. You've got your ready new structure that you want to implement. Yes. And that's what it seems to be about. Now that structure, as in past, you know of wars includes of course as a core pillar the international monetary system there's no doubt about that yes the monetary system you know first world war the result of the first world war was the creation of the league of nations yes and the league of nations had particular views the problem was America never joined the league of nations that's right because America was still you know a bit more sort of you know representatives of elected representatives would represent what their constituents wanted and people didn't want it why you know and in fact the first world would just prove the point that it's not a great idea to get involved in these international conflicts right so america didn't join the league of nations and that was another reason why another round was considered necessary and so towards the end of the second world war the united nations were created in fact did you know the united what What is the United Nations?

1:31:36It's the renamed allied countries. They simply renamed them. That's the Security Council, yeah. So the Second World War allied countries were renamed United Nations. Sounds nicer. Which is why Germany and Japan are still enemy countries in the United Nations Charter. And they created in 1944 the Bretton Woods system based on the dollar. So it was a clear transfer from the British Empire as a dominant force to America. There was a bit of an internal battle between America and Britain. Keynes was negotiated for Britain. You know, he was already director of the Bank of England, shareholder in the Bank of England.

1:32:19He died, unfortunately, sort of at the time of these negotiations. Anyway, one way or another, America won the argument, it seems. and it was the dollar that was going to be used in the system. And of course, this Bretton Woods conference in New Hampshire, in the Washington Hotel in New Hampshire, in Bretton Woods, is meant to be a global conference of all the representatives. It was basically Britain and America and their colonial subjects being represented by somebody, but they had to say whatever Britain and America wanted to say. So it wasn't the world. The Soviet Union was there, but then quickly after that dropped out and thought, no, we don't want to be part of this.

1:33:03China was represented by some people that, you know, America was supporting in China, who later, of course, were not really in power and had nothing to do with China really. No, they went to Formosa. Yes, for instance. That's right. So it was really America and Britain calling the shots and deciding things. And it was very much about the monetary system and the structure United Nations and the organizations, I'm a World Bank, to run the world. So that's also, I think, what this is about. And I think, you see, if the goal, just for sake of argument, is to have a one world government, a proper one world government that controls the world.

1:33:45and I don't think it's a good idea by the way just want to make that clear because thank you doctor because decentralization is the best we have already too much centralization and this is going to be quite a nightmare totalitarian nightmare unfortunately but there are people power hungry psychopaths who want more power and over time in history we see their footsteps and that's clearly where you know that's at least one um red thread going through history that forces are being aimed at this for one reason or another so i think as a working hypothesis we can put it on the table that there's people some people out there who want to create a one world government um and if that's the goal you know you know what what your obstacle is i think it's it's just like with the league of nations it's america from their viewpoint i mean i'm not saying america is the obstacle or is you know america is bad if it's opposing this i think that's a good thing america should oppose this but from their viewpoint america is an obstacle so america has to be taken down the dollar has to be taken down now a lot of the people fighting for this may be in the american government who knows you know i'm not you know it doesn't mean they're necessarily outside america that's right but there are people who are working seem to be working for this goal At least that's the evidence we get when we use the evidence-based approach, not simulations and scenarios.

1:35:12Where would the capital of this world government be, do you think? That's a good question. Clearly a political question and there will be debates, but perhaps they already have a preferred location. So I don't want to be drawn into speculation because, of course, from my viewpoint, it doesn't actually matter. But once we see it, I think it will tell us a lot. But it doesn't really matter for this argument. So maybe we'll come. Yeah, I wouldn't speculate either. I would just think, you know, logic suggests it would not be east or west, but in the middle. Yes, that could be. That could be. Yeah.

1:35:47That would be an argument. Because, of course, if it's like the United Nations again. You see, and always they move it. You see, First World War, League of Nations after First World War was in Geneva. Yeah. Switzerland. You know, some arguments for that. It's sort of international territory. But Europe. Well, then United Nations, because America didn't join. So you need it to be in America. United Nations of course Rockefeller gave the land and helped a lot in building up the UN institutions was very much involved so we see the Rockefellers there, Rockefeller Foundation, quite active but if you move to the next step and you realize just by logic that America is now the obstacle because why would America subordinate itself to an outside body why would America give up the dollar dominance and actually have an international currency that is not the dollar, which would be necessary for this new one world government.

1:36:41So America becomes the obstacle. So then you can't have it in America, right? Or to make it clear that America is no longer the dominant force, it's now a new thing. It's a world government that is different, which you want to use to motivate other people outside America. So then it wouldn't be in America. And then where could it be? And so then, yeah, a few things, a few places come to mind. But also, how do you go about this? And what we learn from history is it's always the same mechanisms. Warfare is an important one, at least for big changes. There are many changes you can do without war.

1:37:21And that is through economic, you could say economic war, but economic cycles. boom-bust cycles, long deep recessions, downturns. They shake up society. High inflation is also part of that. It's also economic warfare on the people. Shakes up society like high inflation in Germany in the 1920s clearly was one way to get Hitler into power as the beginning. And by the way, we may not have time to go there, but the person who was put in charge sort of at the peak of this high inflation became head of the German Central Bank, Reichsbank. In Weimar. Yes. Charles Norschacht was his name. He was appointed by foreigners, not by Germans.

1:38:09So there's no doubt about that because they call themselves now victorious powers of the First World War, although it was an armistice, allegedly. But they decided that, no, we are going to occupy Germany. Germany then became occupied by foreign troops, you know, the Rhineland. Including African troops. Yes, indeed, indeed. And yeah, it wasn't too pleasant. And so also its central bank was taken under foreign control formally. There was a new central bank act. And it stated that half of the board members have to be foreigners. They couldn't be German. And in total, because also the president was effectively appointed by the foreigners.

1:38:53Which foreigners are we talking about? It was mainly in practice, it's not really in dispute, it was the J.P. Morgan-led reparations committee. Because the story was that during the First World War, Britain funded its war effort by borrowing money from J.P. Morgan. That was already the first step of transferring power from Britain to America. Yes. And because you didn't have to do that, there were alternatives, but Britain chose, it seems, chose to do this. and so JP Morgan then was the one that money was owed to by Britain it was more than 10 % of American GDP so it was not a small sum and therefore after the First World War Britain had to do what JP Morgan was recommending really and JP Morgan was thinking well Britain is not going to really repay this money we better get it from Germany and so the reparation committee was all about Germany paying Britain to pay J.P.

1:39:53Mohng so really it was from Germany to J.P. Mohng and this started to become entrenched if you look at the German central bank the first step was this new law that made the German central bank totally independent from government and from any democratic assemblies in Germany the Reichsbank was made unaccountable to anyone it was the most independent central bank in the world while also at the same time being 100 % privately owned, by the way. Reichsbank was privately owned. And this Reichsbank, then as soon as the ink had dried on this new statutory independence, but of course dependence on JP Morgan's wishes, the reparations committee was appointing these foreigners, you see.

1:40:40The hyperinflation started in Germany. and they then put Hjalmar Schacht in power at the helm of the Reichsbank and it was the same Hjalmar Schacht who then took the steps, I mean we need another session on the details, but he took the steps that brought Hitler into power and even approached the Nazi party and said well you guys have some interesting ideas but you don't have a really good economic program, I'll give you how to get out of the Great Depression, that he helped to export to Germany through his policies at the Reichsbank. So that's how the plot thickens. And then of course, when Hitler was appointed on strong recommendation from Charles Schacht, who was highly respected by that time, because he was actually known as dictator, the monetary and credit dictator, because he decided over life and death of German companies in the 1920s.

1:41:33When the Reichsbank said no, then the company wouldn't get credit from the banks and would be finished. So this guy recommended Hitler and then he was appointed, even though he didn't have the absolute majority in parliament, he was appointed chancellor and then immediately appointed Helmut Schacht as head of the central bank again, who then very quickly did the right policies, sort of early versions of my QE, a quantitative easing, to rev up the German economy. And so by 1936, so only after three years you know germany was also in the great depression you have to understand i mean there was large scale unemployment 20 25 unemployment and then chalmerschacht who had created those policies that created this and exported the great depression from america to germany knew how to get out of it quickly and adopted these policies so germany by 1936 um just when when canes in britain was publishing his analysis of you know what could be behind this Great Depression and what could be done to get out of it, which was his recommendation, fiscal policy.

1:42:37Well, Schacht had already led Germany to full employment and shortage of labor. That's how the economy was booming in 1936. And it wasn't through fiscal policy, as often said, oh, that was military spending. Oh, no, no, no. German military spending only picked up much later. It was monetary policy, credit creation for productive business investment in many industries, high technology industries. That's what led Germany out of that bank credit creation and And Schacht knew that because he was also known as the credit magicians, the wizard of credit creation. So it turns out there was just one lever in the German economy and it was monetary policy.

1:43:12And when you cranked it in one direction, people thrived. When you cranked it in the other direction, they thrived to death. That's right. But it's always the same everywhere. It's not just Germany. It's always bank credit. That's what shows you what's going on. That's why they're hiding it. That's why even today in leading economics textbooks, there are no banks. There's no bank credit creation. Central banks still use their equilibrium models, dynamic, stochastic equilibrium models, general equilibrium models where there's no banks. There's no need for banks. Well, this is what David Ricardo started.

1:43:41I mean, in his fake economics, based on all these assumptions, this axiomatic, hypothetical, very logical, and therefore convincing economics, there are no banks. There's no bank credit creation. Who was David Ricardo? Well, he was a banker. He just retired at the age of 42. Was he British? He was British. He made a fortune in the city, working with a very rich banking dynasty, making a fortune, so that he's known as the second richest person in Britain. Second banking dynasty. Well, exactly. And why second richest? Who was the richest? Well, that was Rothschilds. And that's where he was most likely making his money because he was in the bond market in 1815, Rothschild made a fortune in the bond market through inside knowledge of what's going on.

1:44:34If you fund the wars, you know slightly earlier what's going to happen. That episode is quite well documented, but Ricardo was a bond trader. He was likely one of those who, as agents, bought the bonds when they were at the rock bottom and you could get them for, I don't know, 20 pennies in the pound for Rothschild without people realizing you know australia is actually buying them very cheaply and then owned the entire national debt and then could say to the bank of england well actually your assets are mostly bonds um i'm the biggest bond owner i'm buying the chairs the shares cheaply um and could dictate anything to the government or the royal house uh it seems um but this david ricardo having made his fortune then retired at the age of 42 and built himself a nice little country house princess royal princess anne lives in it today so you know it's probably quite impressive i think 700 acres of land anyway so you know he was seriously wealthy what did he do with the rest of his time he decided to create modern economics which is based on assumptions this hypothetical axiomatic deductive simulation.

1:45:51Now, you can make any assumption in logic. Why not? But when certain assumptions become compulsory, like you have to assume perfect information, complete markets, rational agents, and all that stuff, you know, then it's an ideology. That's the definition of an ideology. It's a religion at that point. That's what economics becomes. And the trick is this, that once you have these assumptions, then you can show that in equilibrium, demand equals supply, prices move to give us equilibrium. It's prices that dominate. Never look at quantities. And this is what's being pushed. I mean, modern economics is equilibrium economics.

1:46:27And the irony is there is no equilibrium. That's made up. Because this scenario is so hypothetical. What is the probability of having equilibrium? You need at least eight assumptions to hold at the same time. But each assumption has a probability of probably less than 1 % of being true. But let's say for the sake of argument, Each assumption, like perfect information, complete markets, you know, zero transaction cost. If each assumption had a probability of being more likely to be true than not, more than 50%, 55%, okay? But you've got eight of these assumptions. They all need to be true at the same time to get equilibrium.

1:47:06What is the probability of getting equilibrium when each assumption is more likely to be true than not, 55 %? Well, it's 0.55, 55 % to the power of eight. You need all of them to hold it at the same time, conditional probability. So while they love to use logic and math, that's the calculation they don't want you to make. Math reveals it as a lie. Exactly. Because what is the result? Even if each is more likely to be true than not with 55 % probability, the joint probability is less than 1%. But of course, each assumption has a probability closer to zero, less than 1%, I would say. So in other words, when Americans say, non-economists say, this doesn't look like a free market economy to me, they're right.

1:47:49Of course. There is not even equilibrium. It doesn't exist. It's so unlikely to ever be true that we know for sure there's no equilibrium in any market. But central banks are using general equilibrium models. That means equilibrium not just in one market, but in all markets at the same time. That's even less likely. That's like probability 0.000 whatever percent. So the real power is with the governors of the central bank. Exactly. But also what you're hiding with this equilibrium economics is the power of, is actually power, you could say, power. Economists would say, well, let's not talk about power.

1:48:27We're about economics. Power doesn't enter the equation. Why? Because it's equilibrium economics. Prices move, you get this outcome, you're unemployed. I'm sorry, that's the markets. There's no power. But the moment you realize that actually all markets are rationed, then the so-called short side principle applies, which is whichever quantity of demand or supply is smaller determines the outcome and has power to pick and choose with who to trade. That's the power that we realize is there all the time. And that's the reality of markets. so that means people um the short side whatever that may be in any market has power that's totally ignored by economists so this is why equilibrium this this deductive equilibrium approach this deception is so useful you never think of looking for the power players the power holders of course when it comes to money um is the equilibrium demand and supply is it equal Well, no, because the demand for money is essentially infinite.

1:49:30And of course, the short side is the supply of money. So whoever supplies money has power to pick and choose who to give it to, how much to give it to, for what purposes. Now, who is creating the money? That is the banks. And of course, that's why we need many small banks, local banks, because then you're giving this power, which is then power over the whole economy, really, because it's the power of money creation and availability of money purchasing power, you give it back to the people, to the local areas. And that's why the central planners have been setting out on a campaign to destroy small banks, local banks.

1:50:04And so in the background, there's this deception that is equilibrium when actually all markets are rationed and there's power players. It's the short side. And when it comes to money, it's the supplies of money. But it's really the big banks and the central banks that have usurped that. That's why we need to decentralize and many small banks. There is actually a person at the Federal Reserve now who's vice chair of supervision, Mickey Bowman. She is an advocate of small banks and local banks. So there is hope. I mean, she should be the next really chair of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve System.

1:50:39But of course, we have somebody else starting in the interim. But hopefully, she will still be there and continue to fight for small banks. We need some other changes to make it easier to create new banks. That should be deregulated. There was an era in America of high growth when you could very easily set up a bank. Well, why don't we have that? It's virtually impossible to set up a bank. Well, they suddenly make it very hard. So it doesn't sound like the political environment that we're in, which is clearly accelerating. We're moving towards something. Its outlines are not clear, but we're moving at high speed.

1:51:16It doesn't sound like we're moving toward decentralization of anything. Right. The trends continues to be centralization, the reducing number of banks. The ECB has overseen the disappearance of 6 ,000 banks in Europe. That's very sad. They continue to drop their numbers also in America. That needs to be reversed because as the number of banks goes down, there's less economic growth. There's less prosperity for the middle class. It is really a war on the middle class if you destroy the small banks. But that continues to take place. And it's even official ECB policy. Of course, the background to that is that the ECB is the revived Reichsbank.

1:51:59I've told you about how powerful this foreign-controlled Reichsbank was. So once Germany was defeated in the Second World War, post-war Germany, thinkers there were given some leeway to think about, okay, how to do the monetary system, the central bank. and they concluded, well, the problem was the central bank was too powerful. It's no good being privately owned, so it should be state owned, but more importantly, it should be made accountable to democratic assemblies, to parliament, which the Reichsbank was not due to the control by the Reparations Committee, which was later, by the way, renamed the BIS, Bank for International Settlement.

1:52:38That is the continuation, effectively, of the J.P. Morgan Reparations Committee, you see. but the Bundesbank was then made accountable to parliament and its independence was reduced that's the big insight and as a result we had a very successful central bank in Germany that throughout the existence of an independent Bundesbank independent from the government but dependent on parliament and laws were made for it by parliament For example, it also needs to look at growth and employment. You can't have huge unemployment. It's no good having low inflation but a huge recession, right? So that was the law.

1:53:21It performed very well. So it made other central banks look bad. It also never created these asset bubbles because if you allow banks or encourage banks to lend for asset purchases, you get, because it's money creation, you get asset bubbles, which lead to banking crises. And that's the system played in many countries. Certainly in England, boom-bust cycles all the time, but many countries, the central banks have been playing this game, which then can be used to rearrange ownership and all sorts of things. As a World Bank report pointed out about the Asian crisis, oh, the Asian crisis is a window of opportunity to rearrange ownership.

1:53:55Oh, interesting, that's a World Bank report. So the Bundesbank was a good central bank, probably one of the best in history, I would say. And because it made other central banks look bad, its days were unfortunately numbered. Germany allowed itself to give up the Bundesbank and give up its currency, the DMARC. Now, the DMARC had become the European currency. So what was marketed... I remember. That's right. It was by market forces and voluntary decisions. Other countries decided to peg themselves to the DMARC voluntarily. Nobody was forced to do that. And so what really was marketed as the introduction of the European currency, the euro, was actually the destruction of the European currency, the DMARC, and also the destruction of this good central bank.

1:54:44Now, really the destruction of Germany itself. That's right. That's when it started. And I was a fierce opponent in the 1990s, but it was like a taboo to say, oh, giving up the DMARC is a bad thing. In public debates, I was chief economist of a British investment bank and so invited to various events in Germany also and other German bank, Deutsche Bank chief economists were there. And I would say, well, we can't give up the DMARC. There's no good economic rationale and silence. And some would say, oh, they wouldn't engage on that point because it's true. They would then say, oh, but there's a good political rationale.

1:55:17There's a moral rationale. And moral. I want to hear that one because that's an even worse argument. No, but you know when a society is collapsing, when every argument becomes a moral argument. That's right. But we're fighting Russia, so we're good. So then they introduced, they abolished the European currency, the DMARC, and they introduced the euro with its own central bank, the ECB. Now they marketed this as, oh, the ECB will be like the Bundesbank. It's going to be in Frankfurt. It's going to be the same, as independent as the Bundesbank. Well, hang on. The lesson from the Reichsbank and the Bundesbank was to make the central bank less independent.

1:55:53Turns out, as I show actually my book, Princess of the Yen, quantumpublishers.com is the place to get it. Amazon is not really the place to get it. it was a book that was impossible to get it it's like$500 on eBay but you've reissued it yes quantumpublist.com so there's a chapter here on this the ECB is the revived Reichsbank it was modeled on the on the worst central bank in history which is of course why I predicted that the ECB was likely to create bank credit driven asset bubbles banking crises and big recessions in the eurozone and that's exactly what they did Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece.

1:56:33Well, and not just in the Eurozone, but in the United States. So here's my last question. I am going to ask you to predict and project. So go out on a limb. But, you know, the United States has been experiencing, I think what's fair to call an asset bubble. Certainly you see it in real estate markets, but not just real estate, cryptocurrency, et cetera. What happens to assets in the United States as this war progresses and as the global system changes.

1:57:06Well, in principle, of course, in real estate markets, we have big cycles. They're slow moving. And the cycles are a function of, in real estate, of interest rates and the quantity of credit for, more importantly, for real estate transactions. Assets are somewhat overpriced, I dare say, in the US. but particularly when you look at stock markets it doesn't necessarily mean there will be an immediate crash but i do think we are heading uh towards a crisis and again you know if you look at at the big game that's being played then it's quite clear this this has to happen if the working hypothesis is that there are forces out there that want to dethrone america yes and They may be active in America, even these forces.

1:57:59No question about it. And that means also dethroning the dollar. And that would explain why China actually had been strengthened with American investment in the past. Because you're building up this opponent that can help take down America. If you make sure America stays aggressive and adopts anti-China policies, you know, which also seems to be happening to some extent. so then what are the scenarios and what's the way well as we said whenever you have these big wars they lead to currency system changes the global financial system changes so we moved from first the british pound which was on and off the gold standard then we moved to the bretton woods dollar standard which was a gold standard and but of course gold standard you know some people think, oh, that means it's one-to-one to gold and you can't create money.

1:58:52No, that never happened. Such a gold standard never existed. There's always been bank credit creation and that's how the real game is played. But it's some kind of limit because as soon as it turns out America is creating too many dollars buying up assets in Europe, the French were not yet part of NATO, therefore not part of the command structure. It was the French that called out America. We'd like our gold, please. And they said, okay, you're printing all these dollars and you're buying us up. What we can do is we can change these dollars now into gold. We want to see gold.

1:59:26So then we moved from the 71, Nixon shock, US default on its international gold obligations. Then we moved to the petrodollar, which of course is very closely intertwined to actions in the Middle East and all the wars in the Middle East. oil was only allowed to be sold against the US dollar. Anyone who did otherwise, whether it's in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, or in Libya, Gaddafi, that was a big no-no and led to severe consequences, warfare. And you get killed for that. You get killed for it, exactly. So what's next? Because also when the last, you know, when the Nixon shock happened and we moved from the gold dollar to the petrodollar, there was also inflation.

2:00:10Inflation is a good camouflage. That, you know, it sort of makes it easier to rearrange the monetary system. It was entirely monetary inflation, by the way, not energy driven. It was the central bank creating a lot of money. But we had the same in 2020 with the COVID PSYOP. Money creation by central banks, no economic rationale for this whatsoever. It was clear 18 months later we get inflation. As a result, that's what happened. So it looks like we're heading into the second run of inflation. It's still early stage, it's not entirely clear, but we might guess without having yet the necessary data.

2:00:50But I think there will be a second bout of inflation. But we already had the first bout and it indicates that we are in this phase of running up towards the next rearrangement of the monetary system. What is it going to be? well that seems to be increasingly clear it's going to be digital based on digital identity and i think we therefore should oppose digital id on all fronts we're humans we're not digits you know we have digits 10 digits okay but you know we should not subject ourselves to to this regime where if you don't provide the right digital id credentials you're not accepted as a human and you don't have the human rights in reality i mean that's and you know dehumanizing we should reject just on that principle but there's many other reasons why we should reject it it is the beginning of this control regime of a digital currency now digital currency as such is not a bad thing because for half a century we've been using bank digital currency bdc we could call it yeah because the banking system has been digital and and most money is created by banks is digital money.

2:01:55We have been using decentralized bank digital money and actually has worked quite well. And the banks have never sold our personal transactions data to anyone. So actually we should lord the banks because the new regime is all about, you know, our information about our transactions being sold freely. The government is now Facebook. And yes, being used to manipulate us, whether it's in elections or, you know, to sell products and services that we don't really need. So it's going to be a digital currency. It is marketed as CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency. I call it Central Bank Digital Control.

2:02:34Because that's what it is. It's not really a currency. It's more control. As Catherine Austin-Fitz always points out quite correctly. And so because we've been using BDC, Bank Digital Currency, what is the difference? It's the central. They tell us this justification, Christine Lagarde, that or we need this because there's Bitcoin, we need digital central bank currency now as well. Well, the digital is not the new aspect. We have digital money. It's the central aspect that this is about. Because, and particularly if there's now another bout of inflation, and in some countries with the boom-bust cycles being arranged such that in Germany, we are heading, we're in a property bust now.

2:03:19There was the bubble arranged by the ECB from 2009 to 2022. now property prices are steadily declining putting banks slowly under more and more pressure they were forced to do this by the ecb it's the same game as the bank of japan's game you know in japan and so banking crisis of course is ideal and inflation to launch your cbdc that's for europe in other countries there may be slightly other rationales and justifications for introducing it but a crisis one way or another is always good a war of course is even better because then It's just wartime direct dictates. You can't do anything. It's wartime.

2:03:57You have to accept whatever you're told. And as a wartime measure, of course, that's the ultimate. If everything else fails, then definitely wartime measures will be used to introduce these measures. So we're heading towards digital control systems where we have no more control over our liquid assets. it will be of course programmable permission based so only what the central planners allow you to use your money for at what time and place and location will be permitted and if you're in the wrong place it's not going to work and if you're buying the wrong book title it's not going to work and so on i mean there's no limit to how much you can fine-tune and control oh they don't have so much power they can't control you know millions of people well this is what the drive to build all these hundreds, in fact, thousands of data centers is about.

2:04:51It is an organizational challenge to micromanage the world's population through the new financial world order. Yes, but they're working on solving that. AI is really about that. If AI was about helping us to be more productive, the principle of decentralization would be applied because any human organization and anything where humans are involved. If you introduce the principle of decentralization, subsidiarity, it will be more productive, no doubt. More efficient, more productive. That's been demonstrated in many contexts. I mentioned the warfare, military, and businesses and so on. It's true for everything.

2:05:31But that's not what they're doing. They're creating highly centralized structures, which proves that it's not about actual productivity. It's about control, controlling us. that's why they need these huge resources. Then you can control inflation easily because people can't buy when the central banks don't allow you to buy. So then prices can't be driven up. And also you control movement of people. You can't buy a ticket. You can't go here and there because your money won't work outside a certain zone whether it's 15 minute prison zone or whatever it may be. It is the totalitarian dictator's dream come true.

2:06:10and that is the scary thing most people are still not aware that we are so close to the scariest most dystopian system where we're giving so much control and power into the hands of ever fewer people over our lives and billions of people again if everyone is good like the majority of people and the controllers the elites the central planners are good it's not an issue But that's not what human history teaches us. And human nature we know is different. Most people actually, once they're given a lot of power, that comes with temptations of power. And most can't handle those temptations. And they give in.

2:06:52And then that's when power gets abused. That's why Lord Acton, a British political observer and advisor to prime ministers, concluded power corrupts. Most people get corrupted by power. They can't handle power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. We're talking about absolute power in the hands of central planners if we allow the central bank digital currency to be imposed. And the central planners will have this absolute power, including, you know, of course they have already monetary power, but they will have the tools to deploy this in every detail to micromanage us. That is a new dimension of power and effectively includes fiscal policy because ultimately everything becomes controlled by the central bank.

2:07:46So now you could still say, well, we have some politicians, they meet for parliamentary votes and they decide budgets. Well, all that will become obsolete because everything will be controlled by the central bank. This is what the politicians don't realize, that the central bank digital currency is the first step, the central planners, the monetary central planners to take over everything. So the dangers are just so manifold that it's quite clear that we have to stop this. So, I mean, this is really the big scenario. And that's where we see forces pushing as internationally power gets ever more centralized.

2:08:25Despite this being the biggest lesson of the 20th century, there's not a good idea to constantly have more power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is actually being accelerated in the 21st century. on the basis of lies about the 20th century. Indeed, indeed, yeah. Richard, thank you. And I hope this won't be your last trip here. It'd be a pleasure. It's a pleasure to be here and I hope I can come again. I mean, there's literally any time. I will be thinking about this for the next month. Fantastic. Thanks very much.