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

Richard, thanks for doing this. It's a great pleasure and honor to be here.

“I think of the claim that we went to war with Iran”

because of its nuclear program as a kind of IQ test. Anyone who repeats that claim has failed the test, as you pointed out many times, all wars are engineered. And we're just having discussion in breakfast that I think is worth recounting for others.

So first we're a war, one of the most momentous events

in World History, ended Christian Europe, killed more than 20 million.

People wounded another 20 million, just really reordered the globe and then led to the Second World War. So the United States joined that war in 1917 toward the end and it already been going for three years. But one of the main reasons the US got into that war

is because the sinking of a passenger ship called the Lucetanie off the coast of Ireland, two years before in 1915, in which 120 out of Americans were killed with sunk by a German U-boat. And even at the time, there were people who said,

I don't think this is, this is not quite on the level. But now, 120 years later, we know a lot more about the sinking of Lucetanie, and I wonder if you wouldn't just mind recounting what you said to me this morning at breakfast because it gives us perspective on the effect

of propaganda in wartime.

Right. Yes, I mean, the sinking was clearly a key factor in creating in the media in America, anti-German sentiment, quite successfully.

“And so, yeah, the question is, what happened really?”

The way it's presented was, wow, there's a passenger ship with American passengers, just civilians traveling across the Atlantic and sunk by German submarine. Well, that's like an act of war against America. Yes, I'm going to do something about this.

We're going to declare one on Germany. Well, that's not a representation of the fact. What really happened was there was this British plan to get American into the war on the British side against Germany, which was very difficult

because, of course, actually ethnically a majority at the time of Americans were of German origin. Even German speakers still, by that time, but still, German was still widely used as a language in America. And so, to get American into war against Germany,

is a bit of a feat, you know, to arrange that. Yes, yes, yes. So, how did this happen? And that is a good example of the extent to which the plotters that want war go.

And it's good for people to think about that, because, of course, ordinary people don't want war in any country. Most ordinary people are good people. And that creates this problem that they just can't imagine

that we're dealing today, you know, as we look at the world with such dark and evil forces that are intentionally plotting to create a world war or get countries to declare war, you know? - Yes, so that's why it is true.

People cannot even permit themselves to believe that could be true. - Yeah, yeah.

“- And that's where studying history is important,”

because we need to know the facts of what happened in the past to understand the present and make some predictions about the future or prepare for what could happen in the future. And the past teaches us that there are some evil elements

out there and they're not really, you know, they're not people that are representative ordinary people. The majority of people wouldn't intentionally harm others, but we do have such people out there

and often in very important and powerful positions.

So what happened was step number one, a Britain that is very officially it listed the Luzitania as an auxiliary naval military ship. And of course, as you can imagine, the German imperial army and navy went by the book.

I mean, that's one thing, Germans are famous for. And of course, the British knew this. So the moment they would list it on their official list of what are our ships officially declared to be military ships, it was on there.

It's an auxiliary military ship. The Germans would of course target it. Now when the Germans then saw this, German military, oh, hang on, isn't this a passenger ship? Well, you can reuse, you know, of course,

passenger ships for warfare. So that seems to be what they're doing. But then they realized, oh, actually, they're taking passengers in. They plan to take passengers in in America.

And so partly they sort of have realized that well, this could be a part of a bigger plot.

on the other hand, it was listed there. So in many ways they had no choice. What they did then was the German military command. They put out and the German embassies implemented in America. They put out ads into American newspapers stating.

And we have copies of these ads warning people. Don't bought the list of Tania. It is listed as a military auxiliary ship. It is on our target list with the German government put ads in American newspapers telling Americans

not to board those retaining, because they might sink it. Exactly, indeed, indeed. Let's say incredible. And it turns out that in some cities, the big newspapers refused to carry these ads,

because they were clearly controlled by people that had the same views as the British side in this war. And wanted America to join the war.

So the ads weren't always published successfully everywhere,

but quite a few were published. So that's the situation. Despite that, there were passengers on board, no doubt some efforts were made to make sure certain groups. You would have some people on there for sure,

maybe you pay them to board even who knows. We don't know these details. We know the facts that there were passengers American passengers on board American citizens. And the Germans had warned, we're going to sink this.

And it's not quite clear whether there was actually military equipment on there. There seemed to be the indication that there was. Because-- and I, you can imagine that the goal was really to make sure that the Germans will sink it.

“So the best way then is to actually have military equipment on there.”

And you know, have some visibility when it's in the dock and some of something is loaded. And we do have some indication that this happening. Of course, later this was denied. But there's also various people looking at the sunken wreck.

And still, it's basically there is a good chance

that there was military ammunition and other equipment on there. Now, so that's one thing. The other thing is, well, how would the captain of this ship handle is as he crosses with his passengers and potentially military load?

And of course, he must have been aware that solicitors and auxiliary militia ship as he crosses the Atlantic. Well, the British at that time had actually broken the secret code for encryption that the German military was using, the Enigma code, and they therefore could read the messages

between the U-boat submarines and headquarters and so on. Which, of course, is another indication that, OK, this could not really have been such a big surprise to Britain. And something like this, of course, must have been the reason why the captain of the ship of the Lucitania was happy to go,

because, of course, he has trussed his admiralty and his countries leadership. They said, no, it'll be fine. We make sure you'll be fine. We know where the U-boats are.

The Germans are, and we'll guide you on the track that we keep you safe. So they guided him. As it turns out, straight into one of those German submarines. But the captain didn't know, he was told, this is the safe path. Now, where I'm sure he started to become suspicious was,

when the order was suddenly then given in the vicinity, or about to approach the vicinity of a German submarine,

“to slow down the engines, does that never make sense?”

And there's a good BBC documentary on this, where they didn't hide the facts.

And they have the first lord of the admiralty as the key figure,

who was that, none other than Winston Churchill. And they show how he gives the order. Now, instruct the captain to slow down the engines. And even his underlinks saying, well, sir, you know, this sort of increases the risk should we really do that?

This is my order, give the order. And that's what they did. They slowed down the Lucitania. And of course, it was unavoidable then. The U-boat, they saw them, it's on the list.

They have to follow the orders and they sank it. And then, of course, the next day, you had all these headlines, you know, these, you know, the Huns, the butchers added again. As the Germans were described in the British First World propaganda. And it was an important fact in getting American to war.

So, so basically it was a false flag. And that has been a key mechanism to start, or, you know, get countries to join a world war. It's not the only incidents, but it shows you the devious nature of the plotters.

“And that's what we have to be aware of today in this day and age.”

As we are, unfortunately, on the brink of a third world war,

Well, nobody wants a world war.

“Well, ordinary people don't, and I don't want it.”

And you don't want it. No, but there are people out there who really doing everything to get there. And a false flag is likely to be the beginning of this. You know, as we talk about peace, as we have peace negotiations,

just one vicious and successful cunning, false flag, and then magnified with false information by the media, is unfortunately still enough. - Spring is the most refreshing time of year. Nothing compliments it better than black rifle coffee, lots of it.

This is an American company founded by veterans with conviction. They built the whole thing around a simple idea. Do it right or just don't do it. They're definitely doing it right.

We know 'cause we drink it all day long. If you want coffee without theatrics, start with just black, whole bean, if you grind to yourself, ground, if you don't. No sweeteners designed disguise, media, creating no seasonal gimmicks, masking, weak beans.

Just bold American roasted coffee that delivers what it promises, and if you prefer variety without lowering the bar, try these supply drop variety rounds, a curated lineup of pod rows that rotate in,

but never compromise strength.

Consistency standards discipline out with water down blends in with pure American coffee. You can grab just black or supplied drop variety rounds, and Amazon or go right to black rifle coffee.com to stock up from the source.

Black rifle coffee veteran founded American roasted still standing, still brewing. - I mean, 9/11, the details who which are still classified for reasons no one will explain, no one's attempting to declassify it,

which tells you everything, led to 20 years of war in the deaths of millions. - Yeah. Now, actually on this topic,

“I think there is the other important parallel.”

You know, we've been seeing this this war on Iran by the US and Israel. And of course, it has major economic consequences, dire consequences. There's something we can talk about.

But also, this is another reason where we should look back at this era of the first World War, and how we got into this, because it was the first great war. It was, you know, in Britain,

it's still called the Great War, where you had full mobilization of entire countries.

In a previously, you would never mobilise

the entire country. - Of course not. - Even civilians, even, you know, housewives were mobilised to do factory work or other support work, hospital work, also.

And so it was really the beginning of this modern era where you have totalitarian control unleashed under the cover of a Great War. And of course, that's a scenario we have to be very much aware of as we speak, you know, this is preparations for mobilization

in Germany, draft military service, you know, all the rules being revamped and tightened and the plan clearly is to draft more people into the military. It's official EU policy to have a huge, rearmament drive to get ready for war.

And they talk about dates. And that tells you that, I mean, they're planning for a war.

“I mean, that's not a secret they're saying.”

We're planning for a war against the Great Powers Russia. They don't mention China, but of course, you know, they're allies, whether or not, perhaps not formally in a military way, but de facto allies, China is there.

So, and that's officially you policy to have this war, a 28, 29, 20, 30 other dates that are being mentioned. We have to be ready by that time for a war against Russia, which would be a world war. So, so what's going on here?

And I think what we've seen this year is being clearly quite dramatic. First Venezuela, dramatic events, although in a way on the larger scale, sort of quickly done, somewhat contained, it seems, but quite a remarkable event,

because before, of course, for decades, US intervention in Latin America took the form of covert operations,

which always run under the principles,

a very British principle of plausible deniability. Oh, we can do that. Oh, this poor president get assassinated of this country. There's nothing to do with us, right? This is how it's been working for decades in Latin America.

You know, you can list the countries, just country after country, regime change operations by the CIA, in fairly brutal ways, and then getting regimes into power that are essentially puppet regimes run by the CIA,

presidents, prime ministers, assassinated, and so on. But always, it wasn't us as denied. Although, you know, we do have whistleblowers, like Fletcher Proudti and his great book, The Secret Team,

totally out of bounds and out of control.

“Beyond its legal powers, it's been active beyond its legal powers”

for decades. He also describes how they did this.

For example, the, basically, the institution

that's supposed to reign in the CIA, they exist formally, it's the committees in the Senate and Congress, you know, there's committees, the House Intelligence Committees, and Senate Intelligence. Exactly.

And that's ultimately what's supposed to provide these checks and balances on the secret services, including, of course, the CIA, but his Fletcher Proudti explains, you know, once the law was passed that it's a criminal to reveal where the somebody works for the CIA or not.

And that was passed. And so now it's a secret who's at the CIA or not. And, and then also it was accepted that when you are a congressman, a member of Senate, and you are a member of these committees,

you don't have to disclose that.

Just potentially a huge conflict of interest, obviously. At that moment, you and Charles of the country,

“because you make sure, and that's what the CIA did,”

that all the, the committee members who was supposed to oversee the CIA, or all CIA agents. And then there's no more checks and balances. You've got the rule by the CIA,

and that seems to be what happens. Now the book by Fletcher Proudti was unavailable for 20 years. He wrote it in the '70s, who was he? He, of course, had worked for the CIA. He was a top guy at the CIA.

At the end, I think his high position was, ahead of COVID operations, at the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the White House. He's the one who was sent to Antarctica when JFK was assassinated,

because deep down he was always a good guy,

and he wouldn't be involved in assassinating the president, and his colleagues knew that. So he was sent to, you know, far away as far as, as you, as you could, and when he returned, he quickly found out, oh, it was the CIA,

and he started to be a whistleblower. And the book was then unavailable for decades, but with the rise of the internet in the '90s, late '90s, of course, is now available again. So, you know, that shows how these things are,

so that's the background, but now Venezuela. What was that? What was that? What was the point of, well, there's several points, but in terms of the method, the big difference was, there's no plausible deniability.

No, actually, it's official. We're gonna officially move in there and arrange regime change in a sovereign country. So in other words, America is now at the stage where there's no longer felt to be a need

to deny that America is doing these things and has been doing these things. Well, now we don't need a color revolution, pretend there was a popular uprising. We just, we want this guy to be in power,

or we don't want this guy to be in, well, we're gonna intervene and do it. So no more reference to the nicest days of international law and ethical behavior, not necessary. So that's an important turning point,

but of course, the other implications are, and then that's where we move on to Iran and beyond, why Venezuela? Well, it's the biggest, well, it has the biggest oil resources. Of course, there's a more detailed story,

I mean, it's a particularly type of crude oil. Very heavy one, you need particularly refineries to do that, it's not a cheap and easy process. So it's not the economically the best oil, but it's the biggest volume, okay?

So that is something. And by the way, who's been refining most of Venezuela and oil and has built up a huge array of refineries

“is China, and that is an important indication”

of where all this is heading. So that was step one, Venezuela. Step two, well, who else is a big oil producer and source of oil and energy for China is Iran? So now Iran is under attack.

War is made on Iran, and of course, we have the economic fallout, that other countries will suffer as trade through the straight-of-formers is severely limited, restricted, it's not fully 100% embargoed, the ships are getting through, but clearly not the majority.

And it has had an impact, and of course, it's not just oil, but also other things are delivered, you know, fertilizer, a lot of the Middle Eastern countries

of fertilizer for the world, even for the US, delivering to the US, to Europe, to many countries. And of course, that has also been severely the shipping of those has been restricted. That'll have consequences next year.

That's not immediate, it's for the next growing season. Because this stalks and so on, so for this-- The whole point of keeping a gun at home for self-defense is to defend yourself, and your family, especially when you're not expecting a threat,

you don't know when the threat may arise.

“You have to be able to get to your firearm quickly,”

but prevent other people from getting it. They'll be illicitly, while stopbox pro is the answer. So storing your firearm used to be a huge problem, you had to put it somewhere far away. It was hard to get to, or you had to leave it out

in the open where anyone could get to it. Not good. Stopbox is the solution. With a five-button interface, stopbox requires no keys and no batteries, but you get immediate access,

but you're the only one who has access. That means you can keep it in your office, your closet, you can even keep it right on the table. Stopbox pro is made the United States that means buying and supports meaningful American jobs here.

Stopbox also offers a range of product design for an array of needs. Take the new stopbox U-can, which uses the same mechanical system as his pro, but has a much bigger capacity.

You've got room for guns, ammo targets, whatever you want. For a limited time only, this shows listeners get 10% off at stopbox when you use the code Tucker at checkout, because it's stopboxusa.com. Use the code Tucker for 10% off your whole order.

After your purchase, stopbox will ask you where you're front of at them, feel free to mention us. But you see Venezuela and Ron is connected in that both of those conflicts are aimed at China. Indeed, yeah, that's exactly it.

“And that's where now I think it's good to go back”

again to the run up to the first World War.

What was the situation? It was the situation where we had one global hegemon, Britain, running the world, half the world was formally part of the bridge empire. Because not a quiet through free and open elections. Was it? No, it's so.

Military force at times extremely brutal colonial suppression. For quite a long time, the greater part in the subcontinent India run by a for-profit enterprise, the East India company. So you had colonialism run by a for-profit enterprise. It's not a good idea.

It's not very nice for people. The estimates vary of how many million Indians were killed under this rule by a for-profit company, being in charge of a, you know, of, you know, millions and millions of people. And actually the ruling elite in the East India company

always had this view was too many Indians.

We don't really need that many Indians. Horrible views out there. Too many useless eaters. This is where, by the way, this whole overpopulation agenda that I'd like to talk to you about came from.

It goes back to the East India company. Because Malthus, who is this famous, you know, economist talking about overpopulation. Yes, he literally worked for the East India company. And it's known and there's many quotes of the East India company people saying, there's too many people, you know, we don't need all these these Indians.

But anyway, we'll come back to this. So that's the picture of the world. So the Britain, half the world, directly under British control in a colonial regime. That clearly benefit Britain, not the colonial subjects to the same extent. Many suffered and many died.

That includes actually, of course, you know, one of the first colonies of Britain was Ireland.

And, you know, there's the great Irish famine, the potato famine. Well, did you know that during the potato famine, Ireland produced potatoes and exported

“potatoes, exported potatoes to England, while Irish people were starving?”

So it wasn't a lack of potatoes. It was policies that resulted in this famine. But anyway, there are too many Irish people. We have documents of British leaders saying that there's all these Irish people. We don't need so many Irish people.

So this is the background, okay? So Britain, in charge of the world. Now, we had this development earlier on of a new economic power and political power in Europe. Prussia. Prussia was the first modern high-growth economy.

And it was quite breathtaking. It was high growth and prosperity for the majority of the people. It was capitalism. But it was capitalism for kind where the idea was what we wanted to be sustainable capitalism in the sense that we don't want to have mass poverty at the same time.

of the people are not doing well.

“That's, and I think it's perfectly rational to say that.”

That's some really a great system because you're storing up trouble for the future, right? Yes, you know, if the majority is actually not benefiting and you have increasingly democratic structures, then at some stage something will change, right? Yes. So you want to avoid it and they did it very early on.

So the first modern sort of social security legislation was done in Prussia.

Also, of course, the first investment in public schools, properly public schools and kindergartens and universities, was in Prussia. It was a very modern state highly successful. The middle class was thriving. It was married based. You could move up the ladder.

“If you put in your energy, any efforts, it will be rewarded.”

Very successful economy based, of course, also on the system of decentralization, local decision-making and especially many small local banks lending to small firms. Now, Prussia then moved into Germany in 1871. Yes, the unification.

Which is another partial unification because of course, many German states were left out such as Austria.

Under international sort of influence but also Prussia felt Austria's arrival and so on. I mean, there's this, there's for another show. There's a lot of interesting stuff happening there. But the principles were also applied in now Imperial Germany under essentially Prussian leadership and again, Imperial Germany was highly successful. Economic growth just in the beginning of the 20th century was very high.

It was a high growth economy again and people benefited prosperity, the middle class. It was quite impressive. The city's beautiful, massive public investment, railway network schools, universities, science. This is the beginning of science being German dominated.

In the first half of the 20th century, the majority of scientific publications were in German.

And all the leading research was in these publications. That was where things were happening. And other countries were following. We're looking at this model. Now, the place I didn't like that was the hegemon of the world Britain. Back clearly it was from their viewpoint rivalry, arrival being built up and growing. And it is one thing to start a lose market share because Britain used to be the number one

economic power industrial revolution and mass production really happened first in Britain. And then spread from there to other countries. So Britain was in the sequence chronology of economic development was number one. But then soon after Germany came in, of course, also at the same time, America also rose. As a emerging economy, high growth economy as well. Let's not forget that.

But of course, America's further way and was for international documents using English. So I suppose the British felt less immediately threatened by America. Germany is very close. And the decision was made.

“We've got to do something about this. But the key turning point in this and really resolving the British”

goals and creating this conviction that war has to be made on Germany was the following development. So British power was projected across the globe through the seas, the oceans, the navy, because it was a global empire from Britain to Australia and many parts of the world. Shipping was of course very important and control of the seas was important. And that was, it was in British hands. So no doubt about that. Nobody could even come close to

the numbers of ships and British naval dominance. But then something else happened that was felt as a huge threat. Germany developed this plan in working on the content. It's a continental power. And we have this conflict between the sea power and the continental power now. Germany made plans to, I mean, it's quite natural to improve its access to resources.

You know, Germany didn't really have many resources. It has coal for the steel industry. You know, it has it had some input, but it still needed other raw materials and inputs from across the globe. So how do you get that? If it's via the seas, then essentially it's behold

You know, the first world war in Germany was over in 1918 when the armistice was signed.

And Germany, I mean, Germany, there's always been slightly on the naive side believing,

okay, that's an armistice. That's that. The first world war is ended. Germany wasn't defeated.

“No foreign troops on German territory yet. And it expanded its army in its navy, right?”

But the British of course didn't disband their army in navy, and they then staged a naval blockade of Germany. Suddenly shipping was entirely cut off. As a result, one million is estimated around 1 million Germans started to death in the famine of 1919, which was engineered by the British. Just to illustrate the reality when you behold and to a sea power that controls the seas for your inputs. And so on the one hand, Germany had been aware of that risk, and it was working on alternatives,

and on the other hand, Britain had adopted countermeasures. Where were the countermeasures? So

around the million Germans? Yes, in 1919. And of course, Britain continued to fight

in on British synotards of the First World War. Often in the countryside, you see the first World War, defined as 1914 to 1919. Because, you know, dead bodies were still arriving the villages. You couldn't tell the pastor, no, right 1918 on the Senate. Well, we were still at, you know, our fallen, coming, you know, and the villages recording the deaths in 1919. So now this, what really changed things was around 1900. The German plan to improve its

raw material resource access to avoid these issues that unfortunately could not be in the end avoided, but not to be beholden. It was trying not to be in a situation where it's blackmailed by Britain through the seas, namely to have a continental transport system. And this plan was developed by, um, on the investment side and the engineering side, Siemens, major German engineering company, and funded by Deutsche Bank, namely the planned build, the Berlin Baghdad Basra railway. Well,

here's a pretty awful statistic. Over 85% of the so-called grass fed beef sold in this country comes from other countries. It's not American. That's no good for our farmers. It's a tragedy for them.

“And that's why it matters to be intentional about where you buy your meat. That's why we buy”

our meat from good ranchers. Good ranchers partners with local farmers in ranchers deliver 100% American meat delivered right to your house. It's past your age as no antibiotics, no added, hormones, nothing awful or bad for you. It's quality meat and you can feel good about eating it and serving it to the people you love. We use good ranchers meat for dinners here. It's awesome. We could eat it every day and every good board. It's like a dog eating dog food. Every time you

are thrilled, we are anyway. Start your plan saying you'll get free meat included with every order plus 100 bucks off your first three orders. Use the code Tucker to get that. Visit good ranchers.com. The code is Tucker. That's free meat with every order in 100 bucks off your first three orders when you start your subscription plan this month. If you just want to try it out, you can get $40 off your first order with the code Tucker. Good ranchers.com American meat delivered to you.

Via Istanbul. Ultimately, empire was ready an ally and it was quite natural to gain access to

“the golf area and oil, which was beginning to be clearly an important resource.”

And so they started building that railway. The Berlin-Bugdard Basro Railway. That's when the British colonial empire planners decided this really has to be stopped because had that been built in time completed. Then it would have rendered essentially the British naval dominance irrelevant. Because you can transport energy resources, raw materials. You can sell your high-valuated output to actually the British Empire Middle East or India to the rest

of the world. You can ship through your own railway network without British interference. So the British planners decided this cannot be allowed. This has to be stopped by all means, including war. And it was a key factor in the run-up to the first world war. Of course,

there were other factors. The German government became increasingly internationally critical of

The German and low-country Dutch farmers that had settled centuries earlier in South Africa

created world's first concentration camps. Indeed, indeed, that was a British invention.

There were three farmer wars, farmer, in German, in Dutch, Boer, Boer. The three Boer wars, the farmer wars. Because literally the world's number one military power made war on farmers to control this country, this area, why it was of strategic relevance, but also, I'm sorry, other sources. Gold and diamonds were found there. And London was very keen to have those. Actually, surprisingly, the farmers were so well organized. They won the first farmers war,

and the second Boer war. And then they had to use the Britain,

had to use the usual devious techniques to win the third one, murdering women in children in

concentration camps. Yes. And the kinds of the German leadership criticized the British intervention.

“Other reasons, what should 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 would get captured in this case. He would treat it well enough to escape alive, which wasn't really true for people in the concentration camps necessarily. 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 nowhere. It was discussed in the late 1880s, 1890s, and then became proper investment project at the end of the 19th century, and you know, 1900s onwards.

And of course, the first work was exceeded 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 work itself was of course quite devastating for Germany, also for all the other countries involved. The number of people killed in the war. I mean, 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 is meant to soften up Germany, and then impose the Versailles, you know, strange rules on Germany. The Germany would be taken apart one quarter of Germany would be lost and

given to other countries. Lots of Germans, millions of Germans would now live in a new country. She's 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 production was a leader in the world, and was still a rival of Britain, 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 Germany,

particularly by America, American companies, ITT, General Motors, Ford, and then also banking, Brown Brothers, Harry Men, where Prescott Scott was, sorry, Prescott Bush, from the Bush family, was active, supporting Germany. Now, something very similar is happening, or has been happening in recent decades. Of course, the post-second world war global hedge among is America. It's taken on that leadership role from Britain, originally even with its own

colonies, I mean, the 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”

arrival 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.

Of course, America is dominating the seas, and China doesn't want to be beholden to America.

“And that includes, of course, the state of Hormuz. It also includes the state of Malakka,”

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's been working on alternative routes. The, 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 initiatives started 11 years ago. On the one hand, it offers an interesting alternative

to participate in 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 bridge 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 us for this reason.

You describe what it is for people who don't know, yes, a Belt and Road.

Yes. So, there's actually many different names for this. At one stage was called the, the one Belt initiative, then Belt and Road initiative, sometimes it's called the Silk, 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, you know, the dollar becoming the petrol dollar in the years afterwards under Henry Kissinger's interventions, the petrol dollar Saudi Arabia, being essentially made part of the United States, only selling dollar, as I say, all against the dollar, but also reinvesting 80% of its foreign exchange reserves in U.S. Treasuries.

That petrol dollar system is increasingly being challenged by other countries, and of course, by China, the BRICS countries. And the Belt and Road initiative is a counter-party to that. And likewise, you know, kind of party to this IMF World Bank system, which is really the continuation of the Bretton Wood System, which is the dollar dominant system. So, China had this problem beforehand that, you know, there's a successful export, 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 U.S. 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 years' treasuries, because, and very few people know this, when other countries buy yours treasuries, all they're actually getting is a promise on a promise, because, you know,

treasuries is an IOU is a promise, right? But, you know, that China doesn't even get those promises. The U.S. 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 U.S. entities, the Federal Reserve.

Now, some may say, well, that's just a technicality, that's not an issue. But we've seen that

“in reality, it can be very, very important. For example, in the so-called Asian crisis, 9798, 1997-98,”

which was very much engineered by the system IMF and central banks. It's very much, you know, I was sent on an official mission to Thailand in 1998 on this 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

and ask the IMF to come in and then the IMF asks for Thai assets to be sold to foreigners.

You know, Thailand was doing well until then and then it had to sell, well, it was asked to sell its banks and its industry to foreign as very cheaply while the currency had been devaluerated.

“So, you know, just looking at the, the big picture outcome, that's, that's what it was meant to be”

about. The mechanism is also quite interesting, because the same mechanism they put on on to Germany in the early 1930s to get Hitler into power. You know, Thailand had a saving surplus, it had, you know, successful exports and what's the reason behind girls economy, but it was brought down very badly 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 safe, never worry about the exchange rate, we have foreign currency reserves,

we can maintain this Thai barred dollar exchange rate. And 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 in a counter-account open, deregulated, allowed companies to raise money in dollars. Well, if this fixed exchange rate, the dollar interest rate is lower than the domestic interest rate, they're basically the Thai Center where I was telling Thai coverage 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 increase, all you need is a bit of a set, set back in the economic growth, in exports, for example, foreign exchange reserve going down a bit internationally invested, this is not sustainable,

“building up this debt pile for no good reason. And that's what happens that of course,”

speculators attack the Thai barred and the central bank defended the barred, which meant it was selling foreign exchange reserve selling dollars buying the barred, because the dollar pile went smaller and smaller until you run out, they defended the barred, they said, until the last dollar. And then what? Well, then the barred 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 long-growth quotas,

you know, this is the window guidance central bank, informal guides of bank credit, which when used properly is part of the high-growth system, it 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 on 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 bus the system.

And so the this credit guidance system was also used by the Thai central bank to exacerbate this crisis, or this impending crisis. And 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've 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 barred now without firing changes, that's just fell and fell. The time became very cheap. And the IMF demands, well, will help you, but this conditionality, you have to now sell your assets to foreign strategic products. I advise them, don't do that. Get out of the IMF program. Here's how you can get back

on your feet. It 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 troll mechanism to take the country. Yeah, take the country down. So the Belt and Road initiative offered and continues to offer alternatives to this fairly, you know, predatory, predatory, this is the way I was looking for 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 his dollar reserves. This is part of this initiative. It would give money to other countries, but for particular projects that build up infrastructure

and never also helps these countries. So China has been billions on building really shiny new

in port. And of course, you know, 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 in 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

hungry, wanted to sign up with this and they were put under pressure by the EU and US parties as well.

“But it's been quite successful. And so of course at key strategic partners, always been Iran,”

as a oil supplier to China. And we can tell that the warning Iran is part of the this countermeasure that's 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-backed railway. So it goes up through

central Asia. Yes, of course. It's, you know, the modern Silk Road, there's many, many Silk Roads, of course, there's one via Russia further north and further south, several. And it's the similar viewpoint. I mean, there's actually a British, the British and McKinna who had to talk about this heart length theory that we have a controls, you raise your controls of 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 build-up of transport infrastructure that, of course, fastest, 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 this name, a strat for Friedman saying that, you know, the key goal in the 20th century has been to prevent Germany from collaborating with Russia and America is also pursued that in very successfully.

You know, Germany is not collaborating with Russia, even though we've been both countries interest to put it mildly. Yeah, exactly. And like was in Asia, of course, the equivalent that 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. Yes. 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." And 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, it's because very fondly of Japan. It's also Chinese youth.

They think Japan is a cool, fun place and quite exciting. And of course, there is a whole generation, a 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 Paris, 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

girl of 1960s, high-growth planner to China. And he came with, you know, 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 that's, you know, and of course, people know that it's on both sides.

“So I think the two countries actually get along better than people realize. It'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 warny run. I think ultimately the

goal is China because unfortunately America has a key decision-makers, let's say, he's not ordinary

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 policy stores China and 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

Second World War which shows you the extent to which these planners would go. China seems to be

the modern equivalent. It really is a challenge economically to America. But if we only think in economic terms is not really something to worry about because economics is about embracing this and competition is fine as 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 1920s and 30s, right? Of course, massive American investments take place in China and technology has been transferred to China when it was needed and helpful. Now in many ways, 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, and 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 build up first to have a proper war. And that tells you about these sort of the goals that are playing 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?

The American investment in China shifting all this production to China for short-term profit. You know, oh, you've got higher margins, we do that. 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, you know, 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. And that actually, you may be getting back to what you said at the outset about, you know, 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, yes, it was more or less a dictatorship. It was a communist moralistic dictatorship, and Mao took in a very unpleasant policies clearly,

and a lot of people died. Now, there's always this historian's view that when people

died, there was clearly wasn't intentional. But 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 right. Yeah. Well, what does Russian mean? I mean, it was certainly of it. And perhaps Bolshevik would come closer to it because you see a direct lineage there of if you look at the individuals. Yes. Go back to, 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 100 a lot of Russian. So yeah, it's fair. And so there is that link. So he was put in place by foreign interests on the one hand. And 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 many ways is being replayed nowadays. You know, this cultural Marxism is a cultural revolution,

where you, you mess with people's heads. It's like a sign-up. You know, red is not red and black is not black.

“You know, you have to denounce yourself and denounce the facts and declare untruths to be true.”

Sort of thing. A man is not a man. What is a woman? You know, it doesn't necessarily hurt us.

greatly forward, which is economically 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. They have good intentions. They don't want.

They wouldn't never want to starve 80 million people to death with they. Well, here's the counter

case. Here's a case where 80 million people were starve to death. It was covered up for long time in the numbers. The more research has been done. I've been going up and up and up and we're around 80 million now. First was only 2 million, 10 million, 15 million. It got high on 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. But 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 the old policies, there's actually no doubt. No historian says it wasn't policies that led to this famine. They just all were the Western or Chinese. His daughter's their old hair well, but sure, but he was a mistake. They didn't intend this. Well, when it's such a very specific combination of highly unusual policies, which, however, are necessary to have this outcome of a

famine, then you really have to wonder. And it wasn't under duress. They were freely taken. So there is no doubt that it was a policy induced outcome. 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 got to do some things. I mean, otherwise there won't be a famine. For example, what can you do? Think about it. What can you do? Well, we could, 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 at the very, you know, when the harvest comes, that's when the schoolboys and schoolgirls and

students getting asked, "Can it please help the farmers?" 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 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 the delivery of food in that year. So 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, similarly, natural way you could reduce the harvest. And if you read the Bible, in bad years, you know, horrible things happened like swarms of locusts come and eat up the crops. Yes, which is actually, you know, clearly not every year. It's unusual. It's so unusual.

When it happens, you know, it's recorded for thousands of years, like in the Bible. When it be nice to arrange for that, well, in a bumper crop year, right, if you if your goal is to have a famine, because that's not so easy to arrange, right, is it? Particularly at a day and age where you did not yet have the insect laboratories where they breed various forms of genetically modified, you know, insects that could also leave evil stuff. You know, 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, you know, giant grasshoppers the locusts, namely the ordinary Asian tree sparrow. Yes. And in fact, in China, it's estimated

that there's around 700 million of them, the tree sparrows, and they would, you know, in the

and they're larvae, and so on. So you really, if you wanted to have swarms of locusts, you would need of, I mean, nobody would think this up surely, but you would need a very specific policy, they would declare the ordinary Asian tree sparrow, enemy number one that has to be killed and

“exterminated. And of course, that's what Mao did. And what happened was swarms of locusts”

destroyed quite a bit of the harvest. That's increasingly 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, yes,

and ceases the harvest, and it's taken from the people and it's not being sold. Or some of it is exported abroad to Romania, 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 plan next

“year? That's before genetically modified, you know, things were invented to destroy that natural”

cycle of farmers behavior. So they went after those farmers, anyone who stored food was declared bourgeois, hoarder, and 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 very 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 stopped as a policy result.

We have to, we have to realize that our leaders don't mind killing us. In fact, there's even quite keen on killing ordinary people. And perhaps one more link to China where we learn these things is, you know, Deng Xiaoping, and as I spoke about him last time, we had our discussion

“how he introduced the high-growth model. Yes, I've in Japan helped him. As I said, and I think”

that was great. And he realized in a 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, you know, if good five, instead of the Soviet originally started with one bank right central bank only, central decision-making doesn't work well, the Prussian principle, high-growth, which all these East Asian high-growth economies adopted is decentralization, the subsidiary of the principle,

decisions on the local level, there they can be made flexibly as the situation demands. And appropriately, central planning is not informed enough country act quickly enough and doesn't work. And also the incentive structure is wrong because, you know, what's worse, what's worse than being given an order that you know is it's really kind of productive and useless and you still have to do it. It's so frustrating. And that's of course why the Soviet system failed. And the the Prussian decentralization

work. I mean, their 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 out the

German army was always far more efficient and effective with smaller numbers, a better outcome

and they found it's because the siege 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. Of course, that meant that you had to train people better, but that's a good thing if you could, yes, better, train people and they make the decisions. That's the right motivation. Then people also motivate. They know that they make a difference and

their decisions will shape things and they can do the appropriate decision. The fog of war things changed so quickly. Central planning just cannot work. Likewise, that was then applied in Prussia and in Germany in the economy through decentralization. You're making so not one central bank, but thousands of small banks lending to small firms, credit creation money creation in the banking system for productive investment, you get job creation growth and prosperity and China did that,

and so this is the Chinese high-grilled system, which dangcellping implemented. And the rest is history. 40 years of high economic growth, lifting more people out of poverty,

then anywhere in history, 800 million people lifted out of technology, or according to the

time period in one generation. That's what China achieved using the Japanese model, which is essentially

“German model of high growth. And so I was always surprised that dangcellping, who was behind this,”

and did this really well. He's a good manager. He was always a humble person, not 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 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, like, I 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, you know, and to impose a policy that, oh,

only one child is allowed, sounds very much like a Western idea to me. It's always the sense I had,

like what 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. Growth 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 its via limitations, at risk and dangers, but so you want more people normally, but things are being imposed as one child policy, then it 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

was invited to China as the key, you know, helper with this high growth system was a very able Japanese economic planner, high growth planner of the 1960s. And in 1978, when tanks are being in Japan, he asked, he was told by the Japanese, okay, talk to this guy and he was, he was our man in the 60s. Now retired, he may be able to help you. And tanks are being asked, can he 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 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 was the Club of Rome? Yeah, that is a very good question. What actually is the Club of Rome? Well, it's also an institution that, you know, it's really big turning point in 1971.

That's when the Club of Rome entered the world stage that was big. That's the year the U.S. to falter on its gold obligation. Yes. With its report, the limits to growth. There's allegedly limits to growth. Now of course, haven't we heard this before? I mean, this the whole de-growth movement climate change also growth is bad and we need to limit that limits

to growth. We've reached the limits to growth. This is basically being the story in the media,

ever since the Club of Rome came out with this report. So the Club of Rome was founded by, and it's not really disputed by Rockefeller, supported by Rockefeller. Suddenly, the early years that was very clear, they met in the Rockefeller villa in Italy and, you know, all that. And then very early on, this executive committee, drafted also Mr. Orkita 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, to many people on this planet. In fact, very much, regarding the views of the East India Company leadership, and it's hired economist Malthus, Thomas Malthus, famous for his prediction of population growth, too high. There's not enough food. We're going to start. We need to reduce the population growth,

sometimes what you read is, it sounds more like we need to reduce the population. And of course,

“that's what they did in India quite. Yes. Clearly, by result, but to a large extent, intentionally,”

again, he's a policy decisions, famines and other taking people's livelihoods away destroying the textile industry in India, millions of people still aren't in their hearts, you know. Well,

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, selective sort of international body that has a good reputation to be in the executive committee and he agrees. No, no, many Japanese people want to be very international, and I'll just 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 it's Bakers, 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, you know, low economic growth and low population growth. Really, it's 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 in the World Bank for developing countries not allowed to adopt the

“high growth policies, and 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 investments. 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,

sort of, 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, and 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. And 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 maybe other channels to do with Rockefeller visiting China and who knows, but we know the result that he used as a fact,

the Club of Rome model, which is entirely simulation. And that is a great deception because you can make up any simulation of anything, I'm presented. 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 trajectories. It's used for population growth trajectories to show that is unsustainable. And it's used, of course, for climate scenarios. And it's used for declaring pandemics,

you know, how the virus grows. In terms of that, it's all simulation made up stuff. But I'll come back to this in a moment, because that's actually an interesting way of

“deceiving people. Fact is, okay, that's what he used. Club of Rome model simulations. And”

denxial being declaring, yep, where you should listen to this guy, you 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 just felt like many people for the simulation approach, or maybe that other reasons. But that's the 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. It 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,

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 trader

“properly equally distributed. That's what the mercantilists 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 you have to adopt these in these policies. Free trade policies allow foreign investment, deregulated liberalized privatized, which effectively means these countries

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 is being proven wrong many times over. Actually, prohibition singers showed already a long time ago that commodities exporters have declining terms of trade. Yes. Now, what does that mean? Terms 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 exporting commodities and if you're focusing on that, that means all your high-value 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 and 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 Whelping, a locking developing countries in through their policy regime, and it's not a coincidence, and even David recorded new this very well. The trick

was this, how does he prove that free trade is the best and intervention is always bad? What

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, it 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. That's an empirical question. Logic is not in parallel. It's not evidence based. No. 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, consistently, correctly, consistently, whatever 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 he's used to build this model. And that's where they, that's exactly what we're talking about. So the assumptions in Riccardo's model are highly specific and unrealistic. That's how economics is worked ever since. In fact, it's called Riccardo's vice. So modern economics, you know, historians of economics thought

agree on this. Modern economics essentially was invented by David Riccardo. It's called Riccardo's 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. It'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 there's actually

applies to this or not. And so in the middle of the surface tree, really. Yes, it is. But also, you can say it's rhetoric or it's marketing because you're trying to convince people of something

it is impressive. Well, how so much clever mathematics. This is a real clever scientist while it must be true, whatever he's saying. This is essentially how economics has been working. And now, David Riccardo doesn't point out that his conclusion depends crucially on, on the terms of trade. And what is that post-trade price? What is the relative price of things? He's nothing on that.

He just leaves that out. But that's the crucial factor. And the problem is that developing countries

have a theoretic terms of trade if they follow his advice. So he's essentially, David Riccardo essentially proven what everyone already knew that trade can potentially be beneficial for everyone, but cause we create benefits through trade. That's not in doubt. The mercantilist 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 mercantilist said.”

So why are they so wrong? Well, they're not wrong. They were not wrong. They actually were step further than Riccardo. They talked about the distribution of those benefits from trade. Is it 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 Riccardo totally and on purpose left out. I 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. We're more than halfway through their 100 year forecast. And we're, you know, they've been proven incorrect.

Not where they said it would be. Exactly. It's true for the population growth scenarios. We 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 are admitting

well, these were extremes scenarios. And yes, they're implausible. It's increasingly being a bit

“because that's what it was, just always an extreme tool for the general economy. A simulation. Yes,”

yeah. Of course, well, people need to be aware that policymakers when they impose bad policies, they use this clever surface tree of simulations, the deductive approach is presented as

very logical. And it is logical. But the 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, 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 do it anyway. So given everything you've just said, you're understanding of what this conflict with Iran is really about with the conflict with Venezuela is really about it's really about China

and the contest for global Germany between the United States and China. And that is likely to flower into a world war. I think it's hard to imagine United States wins in any conclusive way, given that it's a smaller country, population, economy, smaller, less technological advance than 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 and another British now under us, the Americans, they're replaced by what? What what are the systems that govern the world when China's in charge? What 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 a different field,

that is very obvious. Yeah. Exactly. And clearly wars have always been used. 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 wars, it 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

The problem was, America never joined the League of Nations. That's right. Because America was still

a bit more sort of representatives of elected representatives would represent what their constituents wanted. And people didn't want it. Why? 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 that what is the United Nations? It's the renamed Allied countries. They simply renamed American. So yeah. You know, 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 44 the Brettonwood 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 American Bretton. Cains was negotiated for Bretton. You know, he was ready direct of the Bank of England and Sherald and the Bank of England. He died unfortunately sort of 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 Brettonwood's conference in New Hampshire and the Washington Hotel in New Hampshire in Bretton

Woods is meant to be a global conference of all the Representative. It was basically Britain in America

and their colonial subjects being represented by somebody, but they had to say whatever Britain America wanted to say. So it wasn't the world. The Soviet Union was there, but then quickly after that dropped out and just thought, no, we don't know, part of this China was represented by some people that, you know, America was supporting in China, who later, of course, we're not really in power and nothing to do with China really. No, they went to Foremoser. Yes, for it's it. 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, the United Nations and the organizations,

“I'm of Warbank 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. And I don't think it's a good idea, by the way, just want to make that clear. Okay. Because thank you, Dr. Because decentralization is the best. We have read too much centralization, and this is going to be quite a nightmare, totalitarian nightmare, unfortunately. But there are people, power hungry, you know,

psychopaths who want more power and, you know, over time in history, we see their foot steps. And that's clearly where, you know, that's at least one red thread going through a history that forces are being aimed at this for one reason or another. So I think as they're working our policies, we can put it on the table that there's people, some people out there who want to create a one-world government. And if that's a goal, you know, you know, what what you

“opt to clear 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 it's, you know, America's 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, it's to be taken down. Now, a lot of the people fighting for this may be in the American government who knows, you know, I mean, 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. You know, where were the capital of this world government be do you think? Oh, that's a good question. Clearly, a political question, and there will be debates, but perhaps they already have a preferred location. So yeah, I don't want to be drawn into speculations,

because of course, from my viewport, 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,”

maybe 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. That would be an argument.

Because of course, if it's likely United Nations again, you see, and always they move it,

you see, first of all, what League of Nations, after first of all, what was in Geneva?

well, then United Nations, because America then joined. So you need it to be in America,

“United Nations, because Rockefeller gave the land and helped a lot in building up the UN,”

institutions with very much involved, you know? So, you know, we see the Rockefeller's there, Rockefeller's 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? Exactly. Why would America give up the dollar dominance? No. And actually, you know, have an international currency that is not the dollar, which would be necessary for this

new one-world government. So 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, right, outside America. So then it would mean 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 things you can do without war, and 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. It's also part of that. It's also economic warfare on the people, shakes up society like the high inflation. And Germany in the 1920s clearly was one way to get Hitler to power was the beginning. And by the way, we may not have the time to go there. But

you know, the person who was put in charge, sort of at the peak of this high inflation, became head of the German Central Bank, the ice bank in Vimer. Yes, General Chuck was his name. He was appointed by, by foreign, there's not by German. So there's no doubt

“about that, because they called themselves now Victor, Victor, his powers of the First World War,”

although he 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 Rhineling African troops. Yes, indeed, indeed. And yeah, it wasn't too pleasant. But, um, and so also it's Central Bank was taken on the foreign control formally. There was a new Central Bank Act and it stated that half of the board members have to be foreignist. It couldn't be German. And in total,

because also the president was effectively appointed by the foreigners, which foreigners that we talking about was mainly in practice, it's not really in dispute. It was the, 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 ready, the first step of transferring power from Britain to America. Yes. And because he didn't have to do that, there were alternatives, but Britain chose, it seems, you know, chose to do this. And so, um, J.P. Morgan then was the one that money was owed to by Britain. It was, it was more than 10% of American GDPs was not a small sum. And therefore, after the First World War, Britain had to do with J.P. Morgan was recommending

really. And J.P. Morgan was thinking, well, Britain is not going to really repay this money and we're better get it from Germany. And so, the reparation committee was all about Germany paying Britain to pay J.P. Morgan. So, really it was from Germany to J.P. Morgan. And this started to

become entrenched in, if you look at the German Central Bank. So, the first step was this, this new

law that made the German Central Bank totally independent from government and from any democratic assemblies in Germany. The high-spunk was made unaccountable to anyone who's the, the most independent Central Bank in the world. While also at the same time being 100% privately owned by the way, the rice bank was privately owned. So, um, and this rice bank, that as soon as the, uh, the anchor dried on this new, uh, statutory independence, uh, but of course, dependence on J.P. Morgan's,

which is the reparations committee was appointing these foreigners, you see. Um, the hyperinflation started in Germany and they then put J.M. a shot in power, um, at the home of the, um, rice bank. And it was the same J.M. a shot to then, um, took the steps. I mean, we wouldn't need another session on that, um, on the details, but he took the steps that brought

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 rice bank.

“So that's how the plot thickens. And then, of course, when Hitler was appointed on strong”

recommendation from J.M. a shot to was highly respected by that time, because he was, he was actually known as dictator, the, the, the, the, the monetary and credit dictator, because he, he, he decided over life and death of German companies and 1920s. When the rice bank said no, then the company wouldn't get credit from the banks, and it would be finished. Um, 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 J.M. a shot 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 Germany 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 Sharma Schacht, who had created those policies that

created this, an exporter, 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 Caine's 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 is his recommended fiscal policy, well, Schacht had already

“led Germany to full employment and shortage of labor. That's how the economy was booming in 1936,”

and he wasn't through fiscal policy, as often say, oh, that was military spending. Oh, no, no, Germany military spending only picked up much later. Um, it was monetary policy, credit creation for productive business investment in many industries, high technology industries, that's what led Germany, uh, out of that bank credit creation and Shacht knew that, because he was also known as the, the credit, magicians, the wizard of credit. So it turns out

there was just one lever in the German economy, and it was monetary policy. And when you cranked it in one direction, people thrive, when you crank to the other direction they starve 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. 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, dynamics, sarcastic equilibrium models, general equilibrium models, where there's no banks. There's no need for banks. Well, this is what David Ricardo started. I mean, his, in his fake economics, this based on this, um, you know, all these assumptions,

this axiomatic hypothetical, very logical, therefore convincing economics. There are no banks. There's no bank credit creation. Who was, who was David Ricardo? Well, he was a banker. He just retired at the age of 42. He was British. He was British. He made a fortune in the city, working with, um, well, working with, uh, 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, and why second richest, who was the richest? Well, that was Rothschild's. And that's why”

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, um, of what's going on if you fund walls, you know, 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 the but rock bottom and you could get them for, I don't know, uh, 20 pennies in the

pound, um, four Rothschild without people realizing, you know, Rothschild is actually buying them very cheaply and then owned the entire national debt and then could say to the bag 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 build himself a nice little country house, uh, Princess Royal Princess Anne lives in it today, so, you know, it's probably quite impressive. I think it's 700 acres of land and anyway. So, you know, he was seriously, um, 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. Now, you can make any assumption in logic. Why not? But when certain assumptions

become compulsory, like you have to assume, right, perfect. If it made complete markets,

ideology. That's what I realize becomes. And the trick is there's that once you have these assumptions,

“then you can show that in equilibrium, demanding or 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. And the, um, the iron 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 save a 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 50%, 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. What is the probability of getting equilibrium? When each assumption is more

likely to be true than not 55%. Well, it's 0.55% to the power of eight. You need all of them

to hold at the same time. Conditional probability. So while they love to use logic and math, that's the calculation they don't actually feels it is a lie. Exactly. Because what is the result, even if each is, you know, 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. Of course, there is not even equilibrium. It doesn't exist. It's so unlikely to have been true that we know for sure there's no equilibrium any market it, but central banks are using general equilibrium models. That means equilibrium, not just in one market, but it all markets at the same time. That's even less likely. That's like the probability 0.00, whatever, to send. So the real power is with the governors at 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. We're about economics. We don't. Power doesn't enter the equation. Why? Because it's equilibrium economics. Price is smooth. 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-site principle applies, which is, whichever quantity of demand or supply 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 the short-site, whatever that may be in any market, has power. That's still ignored by economists. So this is why equilibrium, this disruptive equilibrium approach, this deception is so useful.

You never think of looking for the power players, the powerholders. Of course, when it comes to money

is the equilibrium, demand and supplies it equal. Well, no, because the demand for money is essentially infinite. And of course, the short-site is the supply of money. So whoever supplies money has power to pick and choose who to give it to, how much you 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 over money creation and availability of money, perching 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. So the, in the background, this deception that is equilibrium, when actually all markets are rationed,

and there's power players, it's the short-site, 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 usurp that. That's why we need to decentralize and many small banks. There is actually a person at the Federal Reserve now, whose 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,

the Federal Reserve System. But 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. Why don't we have that?”

You know, it's virtually impossible to set up a bank. Well, they suddenly make it very hot. So it doesn't sound like the political environment that we're in, which is clearly accelerating.

It doesn't sound like we're moving toward decentralization of anything.

“Right. The trends is 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 war on the middle class if you destroy the small banks. But that continues to take place. And it's even official ECB policy. Because the background to that is that the ECB

is the revived rice bank. I've told you about how powerful this foreign control the

rice bank was. So once Germany was defeated in the Second World War, post-war Germany, think as there, were given some leeway to think about 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 stayed owned. But more importantly,”

it should be made accountable to democratic assemblies to Parliament, which the rice bank was not. Due to the control by the Rep. Committee, which was later, by the way, renamed the BIS Bank for International Settlement. That is the continuation, effectively, of the JP Morgan Rep. as 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. That, 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. It performed very well. So it made other central banks look bad. It also never created

these acid bubbles, because if you allow banks to encourage banks to to lend for acid purchases, you get, because it's money creation, you get acid bubbles, which lead to banking crisis. And that's the system played in many countries. Suddenly, England, boom, bus 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, notice

about the Asian crisis, all the Asian crisis, the wind of opportunity to rearrange ownership. Oh, interesting. World Bank report. So the Bundesbank was a good central bank, probably one of the best in history, I would say. And it because it made other central banks look bad,

it stays where, unfortunately, number Germany allowed itself to give up the Bundesbank and give

up its currency, the D-mark. Now, the D-mark had become the European currency.

“So what was marketed? I remember. That's right. It was by market forces in voluntary decisions.”

All the countries decided to pick themselves to the D-mark. Yeah, voluntarily, that would 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 D-mark. And also the destruction of this good central bank. Now, 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, giving up the D-mark is a bad thing in public debates. I was chief economist of a British investment bank and so invited to various events. Germany also and other German bank, Deutsche Bank, chief economist, were there. I would say, well, we can't give up the D-mark. 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.

There's a moral rationale. And moral. I want to hear that well because that's in even worse argument. No, but that's, you know, when a society is collapsing, when every argument becomes a moral argument. That's right. So they're fighting Russia, so we're good. So then they introduced the abolished the European currency, the D-mark, 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

Frankfurt. It's going to be the same as independent as the Bundesbank. Well, hang on, the less and from the Reichspunk and the Bundesbank was to make the central bank less independent. Turns out as a 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. There's a book that was impossible to get it. It's like $500 on eBay, but you've re-issued it. Yes, quantumpublish.com. So this is a chapter here on on this.

which is of course why I predicted that the ECB was likely to create bank credit driven acid

bubbles, banking crises, and big recessions in the Eurozone. And that's exactly what they did. Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece. Well, and not 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 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? Well, in principle, of course in real estate markets we have, we have big cycles, the slow moving, and the cycles are 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 U.S. But particularly whether it's stock markets, it doesn't necessarily mean there will be an immediate crash. But I do think we are heading towards a crisis. And again, you know, if you look at the big game that's being played, then it's quite clear this has to happen. If the working hypothesis is that there are forces out there that want to dethrone America. Yes, and there may be active in America, even these forces. No question about it. And that means also

dethrone the dollar. And that would explain why China actually had been strengthened with American investment in the past, because you building up this opponent that can help take down America. If you make sure America stays aggressive and adopts anti-China policies, which also seems to be happening to some extent. So then what are the scenarios in, or 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 to bridge pound, which was on and off the gold standard, then we moved to the Bretton Woods dollar standard, which was a gold standard. But of course, gold standard, you know, some people think, or that means it's one to one to gold, and you can't

create money. No, that never happened. Such a gold standard nevex is always been bankretic 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's creating too much to many dollars buying up for 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 and it's 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." So that's, but so then we moved from the 71 Nixon shock, US default on its international gold obligations.

Then we moved to the Petra dollar, which, of course, is very closely intertwined to actions in the Middle East and all the wars in the Middle East. While it was only allowed to be sold against the US dollar, anyone who did otherwise, whether it's in Iraq, Asadam Hussein, or in Libya, Gaddafi, that was a big no-no, and led to severe consequences warfare, and we 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 Petra dollar, there was also inflation. You know, inflation is a good camouflage. 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 created a lot of money. But we had the same in 2020 with the COVID cyob, 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”

and, you know, now we could be, it looks like we're heading into the second run of inflation,

a still-oh, it's not entirely clear, but we, my guess, without having yet the necessary data. But I think there will be a second, a 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 increasing clear. It's going to be digital based on digital identity. And I think we therefore should oppose digital ID on all

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 to human rights in reality. I mean, that's, 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 is such, it's not a bad thing because for half a century,

we've been using bank digital currency, BDC, we could call it. Yeah, because the bank system being digital and most money is created by banks is digital money. We 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 load 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, 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 because that's what it is. It's not really a currency. It's more control as,”

as Katherine 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, oh, 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, there's, there's now another bout of inflation. And in some countries with the boom bus cycles being arranged such that in Germany, we are heading in a property bus now. There 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 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 the crisis, one way or another, is always good. A war,

of course, is even better. Because then it's just wartime, direct dictarts. You can't do anything.

“It's wartime. You have to accept whatever you told. And as wartime measure, of course, that's the”

ultimate. If everything else fails, then definitely wartime measures would 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 plan is 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 find to you in control. Oh, but 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 of thousands of data centers is about. It 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 any use and any anything where humans are involved, if you introduce the principle of decentralization subsidiary, it will be more productive. No that. More efficient more productive. That's been demonstrated in many contexts. I mentioned the the warfare military, but businesses and so on is true for everything. But 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 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. Yes. So then prices aren't a 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 dictators dream come true. And that is the scary thing. Most people are still not aware that we are so close to the scariest

people over our lives and billions of people. Again, if everyone is good like the majority of

people and the controllers, 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. And then that's when power gets abused. That's why Lord Akten,”

British political observer and advisor to Prime Minister's concluded power corrupts. Most people get corrupted by power. They can't handle power. And absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are talking about absolute power and 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 monitored 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. So 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, but the central plans, 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 centralised. Despite this being the biggest lesson of the 20th century, there's just not a good idea to constantly have more power in the hands of few and few people. This is actually being celebrated in the 20th 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's a pleasure to be here and I hope I can come again. I mean, that's literally any time. I'll be thinking about this for the next month. Fantastic. Thanks very much.