Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses & the Central Banks Are Behind It. Economist Explains.

Richard, thanks for doing this. It's a 

great pleasure and honor to be here. Um, 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 as you've pointed out many times, all wars are engineered. And we're just having 

a discussion at breakfast that I think is worth recounting for others. Um, so first world 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. It had already 

been going for 3 years. But one of the main reasons the US got into that war is because the 

sinking of a passenger ship called the Lucatania off the coast of Ireland two years before in 1915 

in which 120 odd Americans were killed was sunk by a German yubot. 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 112 years later, we 

know a lot more about the sinking of Lucanian. 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. Um yes. Yes, I mean this the sinking was clearly um a key factor in 

in creating in the media in America anti-German sentiment quite successfully. Um and so yeah, the 

question is what happened really? Um the way it's presented was well there's a passenger ship with 

American passengers, you know, just civilians traveling across the Atlantic and sunk by a German 

submarine. Well, that's like an act of war against America. Yes. Got to do something about this. 

we're going to declare war on on Germany. Well, that's not that's not a representation of the 

facts. What really happened was there was this British plan to get America into the war on 

the British side against Germany which was very difficult because uh of course actually you know 

ethnically a majority at the time of Americans were of German origin. Even German speakers still 

by that time was still German was still widely used as a language in America and and so to get 

America into war against Germany is a bit of a feat you know to arrange that is it is um so how 

how did this happen and and that is a good example of the extent to which the the plotters that want 

war go and it's 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. Um so that's why that is true. People cannot even permit themselves to believe 

that could be true. Yeah. Yeah. And 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 um 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 uh Britain did this very officially. It listed the 

Lucitania as an auxiliary um naval military ship and of course the as you can imagine the German 

Imperial Army and Navy went by the book. I mean that's what one thing Germans are famous for. Um 

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 um it was on there as an auxiliary military 

ship. The Germans would of course target it. Now when the Germans then saw this German military, oh 

well hang on, isn't this a passenger ship? Well, you can re uh reuse um you know um 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 half realized well this could be a part of a bigger plot. That's not good and we 

don't want to sink passengers. On the other hand it was listed there. So that in in many ways they 

had no choice. What they did then was the German uh military command they put out and the 

German embassies implemented in America. They put out ads into American newspapers stating 

and they, you know, we have copies of these ads, uh, warning people, don't board the Lucitania. 

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 the Lucatania because they might sink 

it. Exactly. Indeed. Indeed. That's incredible. And and it turns out that in 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 uh 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 know, you would have some people on there for 

sure. Maybe you pay them to board even, who knows? You know, 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 um 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 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 something is loaded and we do have some indication that this happening. 

Of course later this was denied. Um but there's also uh you know various people looking at at 

the the sunken wreck. Um and still it's basically there is a good chance that there was military 

ammunition and and other equipment on there. Now so that's one thing. The other thing is well how 

would the captain of the ship handle this? Um as you know as he crosses with his passengers and 

potentially military load and of course he must have been aware that it's listed as an auxiliary 

military ship uh as he crosses the Atlantic. Well, the British at that time had actually broken the 

the secret code for encryption that the German military was using, the Enigma code, and they 

therefore could read the messages between um the Yubot submarines and headquarters and so on, 

which of course is another indication that okay, um you know, this this could not really have 

been such a big surprise uh to Britain. And something like this of course must have been 

the reason why the captain of the ship uh of the Lucitania was happy to go because you know of 

course he has to trust his his admiral t and his um you know um his country's leadership. They said 

no you'll be fine. We make sure you'll be fine. We we know where the Ubots are, the Germans are and 

we'll we'll we'll guide you on the track that uh will keep you safe. So they guided him as it turns 

out straight into one of those German submarines. Um 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 because that never makes 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 admiral te 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 underlings saying well sir um 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 Yubot, 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 um you know, the Huns, the butchers had it again, 

as the Germans were described in the British First World War propaganda. And it it was an 

important factor in getting America into war. So, so basically it was a false flag and that 

has been um 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. 

Again, most people think surely third world 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. Um, 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 cuz we 

drink it all day long. If you want coffee without theatrics, start with just black whole bean if 

you grind it yourself. Ground if you don't. No sweeteners designed disguise mediocrity. No 

seasonal gimmicks masking weak beans. Just bold American roasted coffee that delivers what 

it promises. is. And if you prefer variety without lowering the bar, try these supply drop variety 

rounds. A curated lineup of pod roast that rotate in but never compromise strength. Consistency, 

standards, discipline, out with watered down blends, in with pure American coffee. You can 

grab just black or supply drop variety rounds on 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 of I mean 9/11, the details of 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 and the deaths of millions. Yeah. Now, actually on this topic, I think there is there 

is the other important parallel. you know, we we we've been seeing this this war on Iran by 

the US and Israel. And of course, it has major economic consequences, dire consequences. 

This something we can we can talk about, but also this is another reason why 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. You know, previously you would never mobilize the entire country. Of course not. 

Even civilians, even you know, housewives were mobilized to do factory work or other support 

work, uh, hospital work, all sorts. Um, and and so it was really the 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 as we speak you know there's there's uh 

preparations for mobilization in Germany draft um military service um you know all the rules being 

revamped and tightened and the 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 it'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 um whether not perhaps not formally in a military way but de 

facto allies. China is there. So and that's that's official EU policy to have this war 20 um 28 29 

2030 other dates that are being mentioned. we have to be ready by that time for a world war um or a 

war against Russia which would be a world war. So, so what's going on here? And I think that what 

we've seen this year has been clearly quite dramatic. First Venezuela dramatic events although 

in a way on the larger scale sort of you know 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 principle it's a very British principle of uh 

plausible deniability Well, we didn't do that. Oh, this this poor president get assassinated of this 

country. It'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, uh, in fairly brutal ways and then getting regimes into power that are, you 

know, essentially puppet regimes run by the CIA, um, presidents, prime ministers assassinated 

and so on. But always, oh, it wasn't as denied. Although, you know, we do have um whistleblowers 

like uh Fletcher Prrowy and his great book, The Secret Team, which tells you a lot about how 

the CIA became so powerful, totally out of bounds and out of control, beyond its legal powers. You 

know, it's been active beyond its legal powers for decades. He he also describes how they did this 

very simply. the um um basically the institution that's supposed to reign in the CIA. They exist 

formally. It's the the committees um in in the Senate and Congress, you know, there's committees, 

the House Intelligence Committees and Senate intelligence. Exactly. And and that's ultimately 

what's supposed to provide these checks and balances on on the secret services, including of 

course the CIA. But as Fletcher Prrowy explains, you know, once the law was passed that it's a 

criminal to reveal whether 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. Um and and then also it was accepted that when you 

are uh a congressman, a member of Senate and you are a member of these committees, you don't 

have to disclose that potentially huge conflict of interest. Obviously, at that moment, you're 

in charge of the country because you make sure, and that's what the CIA did, that all the um the 

committee members who supposed to oversee the CA are all CIA agents and then there's no more checks 

and balances. You've got the rule by the CA, and that's seems to be what happens. Now, the book by 

Fletcher Prrowy was unavailable for 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 highest position was 

uh head of covert 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 presidents and his colleagues knew that. So he 

was sent to, you know, far away as far as he 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 '9s, of course, it's now available 

again. Um, so um, you know, that that that shows how how these things work. So that's the 

background. But now Venezuela, um, what was that? What was that? What was the point of that? The 

Well, there's there's several points, but in terms of the the method, the the big difference was 

there's no plausible deniability. No, actually, it's official. We're going to 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 doing the 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 

well, we're going to intervene and do it. So, no more um reference to the nicities of international 

law and and ethical behavior. Not necessary. So, that's an important turning point. But of course, 

the the other implications are and then that's where we we move on to Iran and beyond. Why 

Venezuela? Well, it's the biggest um well, it has the biggest oil resources. Of course, 

there's a there's a more detailed story. I mean, it's it's it's a particular type of of crude 

oil, very heavy one. You need particularly refineries to do that. Uh it's not a 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 Venezuelan oil and has 

built up um 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 um for China is Iran. So now Iran is under attack. War is made on Iran 

and of course we have the the economic fallout uh that um other countries will suffer 

as trade through the straight of Hormuz is severely limited restricted. It's not fully 

100% embargoed. You know that ships are getting through but clearly not the majority. And it 

has had an impact and of course it's not just um oil um but also other things are delivered you 

know fertilizer um a lot of the u middle eastern countries are the world some of the world's 

largest producers of fertilizer um for the world even for the US you know delivering to the 

US to Europe um to 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 you 

know growing season uh because you know there's stocks and so on. So uh 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 illicitly. Well, Stopbox Pro is 

the answer. So storing your firearm used to be a huge problem. and you had to put it somewhere 

far away that 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 in the United States. That means buying it supports meaningful American jobs here. Stopbox 

also offers a range of product design for an array of needs. Take the new Stopbox UKAN, 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 show's listeners get 10% off at 

Stopbox when you use the code Tucker at checkout. Visit stopboxusa.com. Use the code Tucker for 10% 

off your whole order. After your purchase, Stobox will ask you where you heard about them. feel free 

to mention us. But do you see Venezuela and Iran as connected in that both of those conflicts are 

aimed at China? Indeed. Yeah, that's that's that's exactly it. And and that's where now I think it's 

it's good to go back again to the the runup to the First World War. What was the situation? It was a 

situation where we had one global hegeimon Britain running the world. Half the world was formerly 

part of the British Empire. Of course, not acquired through free and open elections, was it? 

No. So, military force um at at times extremely brutal uh colonial suppression for quite a long 

time um the greater part in in in the subcontinent in India uh 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 of of um you know millions and 

millions of people. Um and and actually the the the ruling elite in the East India Company always 

had this view well it's too many Indians. We don't really need that many Indians. Horrible views um 

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 um came from. It goes back to the East India Company 

uh because Malus who is this famous you know um 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 that. So that's the picture of the world. So Britain, 

half the world directly under British control in a uh colonial regime that clearly benefit Britain, 

not the colonial subjects. Um to the same extent many suffered and many died that includes actually 

of course um you know one of the first colonies of Britain was Ireland and you know there's the 

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 result in this famine. 

But anyway, there were too many Irish people. We have documents of British leaders saying that 

there 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 um of a new 

economic power and political power in Europe, Prussia. Prussia was the first modern high growth 

economy and it was quite breathtaking. Um it was high growth and prosperity for the majority of the 

people. It was capitalism but it was capitalism for a kind where the idea was well we want it to 

be sustainable capitalism in the sense that we don't want to have mass poverty at the same time. 

We don't want this K-shaped economy where the elite is doing really well but the majority of the 

people are not doing well. That's and I think it's perfectly rational to say that that's not 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 it is a, you know, and you have increasingly democratic structures, 

then at some stage something will change, right? Yes. Um, so you want to avoid it and 

they did it very early on. So the first modern um u 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 merit-based. You could move up the ladder. Um, if you 

put in your energy and your efforts, it will be rewarded. Very successful economy based 

of course also on the system of decentralization, local decision-m and especially many 

small local banks lending to small firms. Now Prussia then morphed into um into uh Germany 

in in 1871. Yes. The unification which is another um or partial unification because of course many 

German states were left out such as Austria. Yeah. Um under international um sort of um influence 

but also Prussia felt Austria was a rival and and so on. I mean there's there that's for another 

show. There's there's a lot of interesting stuff happening there. Um but the principles were 

also applied in now Imperial Germany under essentially Prussian leadership and again Imperial 

Germany was highly successful. Um economic growth um just in the the beginning of the 20th 

century was very high. It was a high growth economy again and people benefited prosperity 

the middle class uh it was um quite impressive. the city's beautiful massive public investment, 

railway network, schools, universities, science, you know, this is the beginning of science 

being German dominated. Um, in the first half of the 20th century, the majority of scientific 

publications were in German and all the leading research was was was in these these publications. 

That was where things were happening and other countries were were following were looking at this 

model. Now the place that didn't like that was the hegeimon of the world Britain that clearly was 

to from their viewpoint rivalry a rival being um built up and growing and um it is one thing to 

start to lose market share because Britain used to be the number one economic power industrial 

revolution and you know mass production really happened first in Britain and then spread from 

there um to other countries. So Britain was in the sequence chronology of economic development was 

number one but then soon after Germany came and of course also at the same time America also rose um 

as a emerging economy high growth economy as well let's not forget that so but of course America is 

further away and was for international documents using English so I suppose the British felt less 

immediately threatened by America Germany is very and um the decision was made, we've got to do 

something about this. But a key turning point in this in in really resolving the um the 

British goals uh and and and 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 through the seas, the oceans, the navy because it was a global empire, you know, 

from Britain to Australia and and you know, 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 um the numbers of ships and and British naval dominance. 

But then something else happened um that was felt as is a huge threat. Germany developed this plan 

in working on the continent is a continental power and we have this conflict between a sort of 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 um for 

the steel industry, you know, it has it had some input, but it still needed other raw materials and 

inputs from from across the globe. So, how do you get that? If it's via the seas, then essentially 

it's beholden to the British, can be blackmailed by the British as actually happened, demonstrated 

in 1919. You know, the first world war in Germany was over in 1918 when the armisters was signed 

and Germany I mean German leaders have always been slightly on the naive side believing okay that's 

an armistice that's that the first world wars ended Germany wasn't defeated no foreign troops 

on German territory yet and and it it disbanded its army and its navy right but the British of 

course didn't disband their army and navy and they staged a naval blockade of Germany. Suddenly, 

shipping was entirely cut off. Uh, as a result, 1 million, it's estimated around 1 million Germans 

starve to death in the famine of 1919, which was engineered by the British. Just to illustrate 

the reality when you're beholden 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, war countermeasures. So around a million Germans 

started to death. Yeah. In 1919. And of course, Britain continued to fight in in on British 

senotars of the first world war often in the countryside. You see the the first 

world war um defined as 1914 to 1919 because you know dead bodies were still 

arriving the villages. You couldn't tell the uh the pastor no right 1918 on the senado. Well, 

we were still at you know our fallen coming you know and then the villages recording the the 

deaths in 1919. So um now this what what really um 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 uh in a situation where it's 

blackmailed by Britain um through the seas namely to have a continental transport system and this 

plan was um developed by um on the investment side and the engineering side Seammens major German 

engineering company and funded by Deutsche Bank namely the plan to build the Berlin Baghdad Bazra 

railway well here's some pretty awful statist 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 and 

ranchers deliver 100% American meat delivered right to your house. It's pasture-raised, 

has 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 never get bored. It's like a dog 

eating dog food every time. You are thrilled. We are anyway. Start your plan today and you'll 

get free meat included with every order plus a 100 bucks off your first three orders. Use the 

code Tucker to get that. Visit goodranchers.com. The code is tucker. That's free meat with every 

order and a hundred bucks off your first three orders when you start your subscription plan this 

month. Or 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. Ottoman Empire was already a um an 

ally and so it's quite natural to gain access to um the Gulf area and oil which was beginning to be 

you know clearly an important resource and so they started building that railway the Berlin Baghdad 

Basra railway that's when the British colonial and 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 um energy resources, raw materials, 

you can sell your high value added output u to actually the British Empire, Middle East or 

or India um to the rest of the world. You can ship through your own railway network without British 

interference. Um so the 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 runup to the first world war. 

Of course there were other factors. Um the German government became increasingly internationally 

critical of British um warfare across the globe. For example, um you know, in in in South 

Africa, yes. Um Britain made war on the farmers, the German and low country Dutch farmers that 

had settled centuries earlier in South Africa, created the world's first concentration camps. 

Indeed. Indeed. That was a British invention. Um there were three farmer wars. Farmer Bower in 

German in Dutch. Ba ba. Um the three ba wars. the farmer wars because literally the world's 

number one uh military power made war on farmers to control this country, this area. Why? Well, it 

was of strategic relevance but also oil uh sorry not um other resources, gold and diamonds were 

found there and um London was very keen to to have those. Um actually surprisingly the farmers were 

so well organized. They won the first farmers war and the second boa war and then they had to use 

Britain had to use their usual devious techniques um to win the third one murdering women and 

children in concentration camps. Yes. And so and and the Kaiser the German um leadership criticized 

the British intervention and and so Britain also I mean these are other reasons that what future 

British prime minister fought in that war. Yes. Well, Churchill had a had a role there and writes 

about it in his I think he even got captured. He did get captured and was treated well um enough to 

to escape alive which wasn't really true for for people in the concentration camps necessarily. So 

yes now so there were other factors no doubt but uh it's clear when you look at the the old 

documents that anti-German sentiments whipped up um as soon as there were early plans for this 

railway. It didn't come from nowhere. It was discussed already in the 18 um late 1880s 1890s 

and then became a proper investment project at the at the end of the the 19th century and and 

you know 1900s um onwards and of course the first world war succeeded in stopping that. Now also 

just another point before we look at what this means for today. What are the lessons for today? 

The first world war itself was of course quite devastating for Germany um also for all the 

other countries involved. Uh the number of of people killed in the war I it's just horrendous 

huge waste of um yeah of lives and and resources very very sad. Also Germany then in the Versail 

treaty after the starvation of 1919 this is meant to soften up Germany and then impose the Versail 

you know um 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 new countries newly created by the British such as Czechoslovakia and so on. And and so 

you know this a lot of hardship followed this. Despite that they couldn't essentially change the 

fact that Germany was still scientifically leader engineering in terms of engineering and and u 

production was a leader in the world and was still a rival of of Britain um because the education 

system also hadn't really been destroyed and so you know a second round was needed another world 

war was needed and for this interestingly a lot of investment took place in Germany in the 1920s 

that allowed a quick revival and of course there's other issues how Hitler came to power. If we have 

time we should talk about how did he actually come to power when you look at money and banking 

and central banking you get some interesting new insights. So we also had investment in in Germany 

particularly by America American companies ITT, General Motors, Ford and then also banking Brown 

Brothers Haramman where Prescott Scott was uh from the uh uh sorry Prescott um Bush from the Bush 

family was was active supporting Germany. Um now something very similar is happening or has been 

happening in in recent decades. Of course the the postc world war global hegeimon is America. 

It's taken on that leadership role from Britain originally even with its own colonies. I mean 

there been American colonies whether Philippines or other places. Um 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 um working on ensuring its uh supply of raw 

material inputs in the last particularly in 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 it didn't want to be beholdened 

to shipping uh under British control could be blackmailed. Of course, America is dominating 

the seas and China doesn't want to be beholden to America and that includes, of course, the straight 

of Homus. Uh it also includes the straight of Malaka 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 um really landmark 

um milestone foreign policy initiative started um 11 years ago. On the one hand, it offers 

an interesting alternative to participating countries, many developing countries to the IMF 

World Bank system that I hope we have 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. It's like 

the modern version of the colonial British Empire is this American dominated IMF World Bank rule and 

the above and road initiative on the one hand is an is alternative that can be offered to countries 

and many countries including in Africa have joined this for this reason. Can you describe what it is 

for people who don't know yes about Bel and Road? Yes. So um the there's actually many different 

names for this. Uh at one stage was called the the the one belt initiative then belt and road 

initiative. Uh sometimes it's called the silk the modern silk road the new silk road. It is about 

um on the one hand logistics to ensure stable um effective u supply routes between China and 

um the rest of the world to a large extent on the continent but not entirely. There's also shipping 

belt and road um across the seas. Um 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 um you know the dollar becoming the petro dollar 

in the years afterwards under Henry Kissinger's um interventions the petro dollar Saudi Arabia 

being essentially made part of the United States uh only selling dollar uh as I say oil against 

the dollar but also reinvesting 80% of its foreign exchange reserves in US treasuries um that petro 

dollar system is increasingly being challenged by other countries and of course by China the 

BRICS countries and the Beldon road initiative is a counterparty to that um and likewise you know 

counterparty to this IMF world bank system which is really the the continuation of the bread and 

wood system which is the dollar dominant system um so China had this problem beforehand that you know 

as as a successful exporter it's earning foreign exchange but mostly it's earning dollars what to 

do with the dollars and of course it was investing like at the time most countries in US treasuries 

which suited America fine but China decided um sort of 15 years ago well we need an 

alternative to this we can't keep investing US treasuries because and very few people know this 

when other countries buy US treasuries all they're actually getting is a promise on a promise because 

you know treasury is is an IOU is a promise right but do you know that China doesn't even get those 

promises. The US Treasury issues government bonds, Treasury bonds, but China doesn't get those. 

Why? Well, there's a rule that they're held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in custody 

for foreign governments. So it's a promise on a promise so that you know China can't go with 

these papers and and sell them somewhere without permission of US entities the the Federal Reserve. 

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

reality this can be very very important. For example, in the so-called Asian crisis 9798 1997 

1998 um which was very much engineered by the um by the system IMF and and central banks. It's 

very much um you know I I was sent as 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. Um 

based on my analysis I concluded that it was a plot by the local central bank in Thailand 

against the country together with the IMF. Um it was a situation to create um you know a 

boom bust cycle and then bankrupt Thailand and ask the IMF to come in and then the IMF asked for 

Thai assets to be sold to foreigners. You know Thailand was doing well until then. Um and then 

it had to sell well it was asked to sell its banks and its industry to to foreigners very cheaply 

while the currency had been devalued. Right? you know, just looking at the the big picture 

outcome, that's that's um what he was meant to be about. The mechanism is also quite interesting. 

It's the same mechanism they put on onto Germany in the early 1930s to get Hitler into power. Um 

you know, Thailand had a savings surplus. It had um you know, successful exports um and was 

a reasonably high growth economy, but it was brought down very badly. um in in this uh in this 

setup and this started with the central bank. the central bank saying okay well we'll have a fixed 

exchange rate against the dollar everything's safe never worry about the exchange rate we can we 

have foreign currency reserves we can maintain this taibart dollar exchange rate and at the 

same time as I could show in my work on this um they uh raised the domestic interest rate above 

the dollar interest rate and allowed companies you know current account uh open um deregulated 

allowed companies to raise money in dollars. Well, if there's a fixed exchange rate and the dollar 

interest rate is lower than the domestic interest rate, they're basically the Thai center was 

telling Thai companies, "Borrow in dollars, please," which doesn't make sense. It's not a 

good idea. Even short-term borrowing in dollars was increased by the central bank in this setup. 

Um and then all you need as as then foreign debt increases and increased increased all you need 

is a bit of a set setback in economic growth in exports for example foreign exchange reserve 

going down a bit international investors this is not sustainable building up this uh this debt pile 

for no good reason and that's what happens then of course speculators attacked the Thai bot um and 

the central bank defended the bot which meant it was selling foreign exchange reserves selling 

dollars buying the bot Of course, the dollar pile went smaller and smaller until you run out. They 

defended the B, they said, until the last dollar and then what? Well, then the B collapses and this 

is what happened. Um, so it was a crazy strategy. I also found out that during the same time the 

central bank even imposed loan growth quotas. You know this is the window guidance central bank um 

informal guidance of bank credit which when used properly is is part of the high growth system. You 

can make sure that bank credit goes to productive business investment leads to growth. But you can 

also use it for bad things as I show in my book princes of the yen. The Bank of Japan used this 

mechanism to force banks to increase real estate speculative loans, create a real estate bubble 

which you can use to bust the system. And and so the this credit guidance system was also used by 

the Thai central bank to exacerbate this um this crisis or this uh 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 have to tighten everything up um and restrict 

fiscal policy. Everything has to be restricted. So recession get a huge recession um industrial 

output collapsed by 25%. The Thai bot now without foreign exchange reserves just fell and fell. 

Thailand became very cheap and the IMF demands well help you. But there's conditionality. 

You have to now sell your assets to to foreign strategic partners. I advise them don't do that. 

Get out of the IMF program. here's how you can get back on your feet. Um it took them maybe two 

years but then they took the advice and they ended the IMF program because it was it was clearly 

um a system to take down Yeah. It's a control mechanism to take the Yeah. take the country down. 

So um the belt and road initiative offered and and continues to offer alternatives to this fairly um 

you know predatory predatory. This is the word I was looking for. Um, system run via the IMF and 

the World Bank and and other institutions that has not helped developing countries. And so 

many countries saying, well, let's try that. At the same time, it offered China the possibility 

to diversify its dollar reserves because as part of this initiative, it would give money to other 

countries but um for particular projects that build up infrastructure and therefore also helps 

these countries. So, China has spent billions on building really shiny new roads and highways and 

bridges and railway connections, transport, ports, massive investments in ports. Um and of course 

you know all these receiver countries I've been to some they're very proud of this and they look 

really impressive projects um modern and helping the country and the countries can use this for 

their own economic development. Excuse me. And so um it's been attractive and many countries 

have joined although of course also counter measures have been started and some countries 

were put under pressure to drop out again. It wasn't popular when Italy wanted to sign up or 

Hungary wanted to sign up with this and they were put under pressure by the EU and US um parties as 

well. But it's been quite successful and and so of course a key strategic partner has always been 

um Iran as a oil supplier to China and we can tell that the war on Iran is part of the this counter 

measure that's um that's really in operation against China because in in these bombing 

campaigns against Iran what was also bombed were belt and road infrastructure uh projects, bridges, 

um railway connections and um and other parts of this um supply structure. And so, you know, why 

would America do that? Well, it is to get in the way of the the modern Berlin Baghdad railway. Um 

so, goes up through Central Asia. Yes, of course. It's it's you know the the the modern silk road. 

There's many many silk roads of course there's one via Russia further north and further south there 

several um and it's the similar viewpoint I mean there's there's actually a British theoretician 

Mckinda who talked about this heartland theory that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world 

and that's really why Britain first was very keen to prevent Germany from collaborating with 

countries further east um Ottoman Empire Russia in particular and also prevent the the buildup of 

um transport infrastructure that of course fosters closer economic and political connections and 

it's the same of course America has has adopted that strategy um there's a there's a famous 

quote by uh what's his name Stratfor Freriedman um saying that you know the the key goal in 

the 20th century has been to prevent Germany from collaborating with Russia Um and America has 

also pursued that and very successfully you know Germany is not collaborating with Russia even 

though it would be both countries interests to put it mildly. Yeah. Exactly. And and likewise 

in Asia of course the equivalent that he didn't mention that but I think I would add that uh 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 is has very favorable memories of being part of Japan 

until 1945. And most Taiwanese people I know speak always very fondly of Japan. It's also Chinese 

youth. They think Japan is a cool, fun place and quite exciting. Um and of course there is a 

whole generation uh Deng Xiaoing'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 Xiaoing came to power he asked the Japanese for that and the Japanese didn't 

have to tell him but they did. Not just that, they sent their key guy who was a high growth 

1960s high growth planner uh to to China and he came with you know another 11 12 people top 

planners and they did the Chinese high growth system for Deng Xiaoing together with the uh you 

know 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 this 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 uh because it's not supposed to be like this. Yes. So this 

is really the context in which we have to see what's happening with this war on Iran. I think 

ultimately the goal is China because unfortunately America has or key decision makers let's say it's 

not ordinary American people obviously what we're talking about here but some key decision makers 

in America influential people that influence American policy have decided that there should be 

antagonism between America and China there's all these you know military strategic plans and 

China is in these military plans described as a key threat even more important than Russia 

which explains some of the um unfriendly policies towards China in the past and it is a parallel 

development because China you know when you look back at the British colonial rule and then Germany 

rising Germany was identified as the threat and then measures were taken including a world war, 

a second world war, which shows you the extent to which these planners would go, China seems to be 

the modern equivalent. It clearly is a challenge economically to America. But if we only think 

in economic terms, it's not really something to worry about because economics is about embracing 

this and competition is fine, is 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. Um, but you see 

also there's something sinister going on because it wasn't really necessary for America to transfer 

most of the manufacturing to China in the first place. This reminds me of the American investment 

in Germany in the 1920s and 30s, right? Of course, massive American investment has taken place in 

China and technology has been transferred to China when it was needed and helpful. Now, in many ways, 

you know, there's not many areas left where China needs foreign technology because it's very much 

ahead of the game in a lot of them. Not all, but you know, in quite a lot. But clearly, that was 

very important. So, why did this happen? I think it's the same reason why it happened in Germany. 

you know, you need if you're planning for world war, you also need to make sure the opponent is 

built up first to have a proper war. Um, and um, that tells you about the sort of the goals that 

are at play here. Do you really think so? It looks like it. I mean, you know, I'm always reluctant to 

come to these conclusions, but, you know, it was a bit much, wasn't it? the American investment in 

China, shifting all this production to China for short-term profit, you know, oh, you've got 

higher margins if we do it that way. Well, you're losing all these jobs. You're creating all 

these problems for America, for ordinary people, for the middle class, for the country, and the 

for the long term. Why are you doing this? Well, some people were aware of this and still were part 

of this thrust. Um, and it wasn't slowed down. So, it, 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. Um and uh 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 and China is actually an interesting 

case study to come to that conclusion too. If we look at the earlier phase of Chinese 

postwar development when Mao was in charge, yes, it was more or less a dictatorship. It was a 

communist more oralist dictatorship and Mao took a very um unpleasant policies clearly and a lot of 

people died. Now there's always this historians view that oh when people died that was clearly 

wasn't intentional. Um, 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 denied. Yeah. 

Well, what what does Russian mean? I mean, um, it was certainly Soviet and perhaps Bolevik would 

would come closer to it because you see a direct um lineage there of if you look at the 

individuals. Yes. Go back to they go back to the sort of Bolevik movement. which you could 

even call anti-Russian at some stage. I mean, it was clearly murdered a lot of Russians. So, 

yeah, it's fair and and so there is that link. Um, so he was put in in place by foreign uh 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 in many way ways is being 

replayed nowadays. You know, this this cultural Marxism is is a cultural revolution where you you 

mess with people's heads. It's like a scop. You know, red is not red and black is not black. You 

know, you have to denounce yourself and denounce the facts and and you know, declare untruths to be 

true sort of thing. A man is not a man. What is a woman? You know, doesn't this sound familiar? It 

does. Um that's that that was also a big operation so-called cultural revolution. And then we had 

this great leap forward which is economically a great leap backward. And then we had this famine 

which is quite a mysterious thing. So I want to just briefly talk about this famine and it's 

relevant for us today because again ordinary people think oh we couldn't have leaders who plan 

horrible things for us that wouldn't happen. You know they wouldn't intentionally do it. They have 

good intentions. They don't want they wouldn't never want to starve 80 million people to death 

would they? Well here's the counter case. Here's a case where 80 million people were starved to 

death. It was covered up for a long time and the numbers the more research been done have 

been going up and up and up. We're around 80 million now. First of all, 2 million, 10 million, 

15 million. It got higher and higher and it seems to be in this order which is phenomenal. I mean 

this is really very very sad and very tragic. What happened? What is this famine in China? It 

started in a year when there was a bumper crop. So good harvest. Now if you want to engineer 

a famine is not the great starting point. And but because it happened at this point, it makes 

clearer that it was an intentional starvation of a of millions of people because you had to 

take a particular combination of very specific policies to get this disastrous outcome. And 

they're all policies. There's actually no doubt, no historian says it wasn't policies that led 

to this famine. They just all whether western or Chinese historians they all say well but sure 

it was a mistake they didn't intend this well when it's such a very specific combination of highly 

unusual policies which are however are necessary to have this outcome of a famine then you really 

have to wonder you know and it wasn't under duress they were freely taken so there is no doubt that 

it was a policyinduced outcome is the debate is was it intentional or not? Well, I 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, um otherwise there won't be a famine. For example, 

what what can you do? Think about it. What can you do? Um well, we could we could um actually pass 

some laws that round up all the harvest workers and transport them from the rural areas to the 

cities. So, let's do that. Well, that's what they did. And I know from growing up in Bavaria, you 

know, when the the harvest comes, that's when the the the the school boys and school girls and and 

students getting asked, "Can you please help the farmers? This, you know, we've got a big crop. We 

need helpers." and you earn some money per hour, which is nice. Everyone likes that's that's the 

harvest time, right? But if you divert millions of people forcibly transporting them away from the 

rural areas at harvest time or just around harvest time, that's certainly something you can do to 

disrupt um the the um the delivery of of of food in that year. So that was taken. Now it turned 

out to be not enough because you know farmers are resourceful and partly that you know they they had 

uh ways to still farm a lot harvest a lot of the um of the crops. Now um there is a natural or 

you know seemingly natural way you could reduce a 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, it's clearly not every year. It's unusual. It's so unusual that when it 

happens, you know, it's recorded for thousands of years like in the Bible. Wouldn't it be nice to 

arrange for that? Well, in in a bumper crop year, right, if you if your goal is to have a famine, of 

course, that's not so easy to arrange, right? Is it? uh particularly at a day and age where we did 

not yet have the insect laboratories where they breed various forms of genetically modified you 

know insects that could do all sorts of evil stuff you know that that wasn't yet happening but also 

it's unlikely that it would be um swarm 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 

named ly the ordinary um Asian tree sparrow. Yes. And and in fact in China is estimated as there's 

around 700 million of them the tree sparrows and they would you know in the in the development 

of the the locusts you know they intervene at the right point and they eat them and the lavi 

and and so on. Um, so you really if you wanted to have swans of locas, you would need of I mean 

nobody would think this up surely, but you would need a very specific policy that would declare 

the ordinary um Asian tree sparrow enemy number one that has to be killed and exterminated. 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 being studied. And it's quite clear that such a specific policy in 

this chain in 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 um famine. So now you need the usual Soviet style policies which is to um uh 

sequester um the harvest. You know the government moves in Yes. and seizes 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. 

Um and then some farmers have some storage because actually farmers always think of next year's 

crop. Do you want to keep some to plant next year? That's before genetically modified, you 

know, things were invented to destroy that natural uh cycle um of farmers behavior. Um so they went 

after those farmer anyone who stored food was declared um a a bourgeoa hoarder and and enemy of 

the people and was severely punished and of course the food and the the grain and all the storage was 

taken away. So put all this together and of course on top of that various communist campaigns um 

the famine took place and it was such a horrible disaster um and and as I said we're we're around 

80 million as an estimate of people who starved um as a policy result. So we have to we have to 

realize that our leaders don't mind killing us. In fact they seem quite keen on killing ordinary 

people. Um and and perhaps one more link to China where we learn these things is you know um Deng 

Xiaoing and I I spoke about him last time we had our discussion how he introduced the high growth 

model. Yes. And Japan helped him as I said and um and I think that was great and he realized and 

the Japanese told him you need many many banks. You need thousands of small local banks that lend 

to small firms. It's decentralized decision-m you know you've got five instead of the Soviet 

originally started out with one bank right central bank only. Central decision-m doesn't 

work well. The Prussian principle of high growth which all these East Asian high growth economies 

adopted is decentralization. The subsidiarity principle decisions on the local level there 

they can be made flexibly as the situation demands and appropriately. Central planning is 

not informed enough can't react quickly enough and doesn't work and also the incentive structure 

is wrong because you know what's worse what's worse than being given an order that you know 

is is really counterproductive and useless and you still have to do it. is so frustrating and 

that's of course why the Soviet system failed um and the the Prussian decentralization work. 

I mean there's studies comparing the 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 the the German 

army was always far more efficient and effective with smaller numbers better outcome and they 

found it's because decision-m was delegated to the lowest level the officer in the field had 

the decision-m power there was always the 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've got yes better trained people and they make the decisions that's the right motivation 

then people are also motivated they know that they make a difference and their decisions will 

uh shape things and they can do the appropriate decisions in the fog of war things change so 

quickly central planning just cannot work likewise that was then applied in Prussia and in Germany 

in the economy through decentralized decision-m so not one central bank but thousands of small banks 

lending to small firms, credit creation, money creation in the banking system for productive 

investing, for productive business investment, you get job creation, growth and prosperity. 

And China did that. And so this this is the uh you know the the Chinese um high growth 

system um which Deng Xiaoping implemented and the rest is history. 40 years of high economic 

growth lifting more people out of poverty than anywhere in history. um you know 800 million 

people lifted out of tech you know according to the official definitions lifted out of poverty 

this has never happened before in history in such a short time period in one generation that's what 

China achieved using the Japanese model which is essentially the German model of high growth and um 

and so I was always surprised that Dengiaing who was behind this and did this really well and he's 

a good manager very humble person not you know this narcissistic type that um you know will take 

policies that selfish but really bad for ordinary people. He was not like so he was a good leader 

in many ways as far as I can tell. Um but he he also is the one who took the one child policy 

and we know that that's not that wasn't a good policy. Also if you think about it it's a sort of 

policy that you can see western decision makers uh western leaders liking like I mean there's lots of 

western leaders in history starting from Napoleon uh talking about oh if China you know 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 that's always the sense I had like why would a Chinese leader 

particularly a high growth leader the high growth model means also you want high population growth 

population growth is good you want people to have um children you want to educate them well 

because that that's what leads to growth growth comes from productivity technology new ideas 

100% of ideas come from people we need people um of course you know now they're trying to 

replace that with AI but um that has its its severe limitations and risk and dangers But um so 

you want more people normally but Denging imposed this one child policy. Then I looked into how did 

this happen and it turns out that it was early on when he was implementing the high growth system 

from Japan. The particular person who was asked who was invited to China as the key you know 

helper with this high growth system was very able Japanese um economic planner high growth 

planner of the 1960s and in 1978 when Denging came to Japan he asked he was he was told by the 

Japanese okay talk to this guy and he he was our man in the 60s now retired uh he may be able to 

help you and so Ping asked him can you please come to China soon like now. Um I need you now. 3 days 

later he was in China with you know there was 12 uh including other colleagues that he brought 

along. Now who was he? His name is um Okita family name Saburo Sabro Okita. Now by that time 

he had been recruited by the club of Rome into his the club of Rome's executive committee. What was 

the club is 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, this really big turning point 1971, that's when 

the Club of Rome um entered the world stage, so to speak. That's the year the US defaulted 

on its gold obligations. Yes. With its report um the limits to growth, this allegedly limits 

the growth. And of course, haven't we heard this before? I mean this the whole degrowth movement 

climate change all sorts growth is bad and we need to limit that limits the growth we've reached 

the limits of growth this has basically been the the story in the media ever since the club of 

Rome came out with this report so the club of ro was founded by and it's not really disputed by 

Rockefeller supported by Rockefeller certainly in the early years that was very clear they met in 

the Rockefeller villa in Italy and you know all that um and And very early on this executive 

committee um drafted also Mr. Okita from Japan which is very ironic because he's the high growth 

expert. But the Club of Rome's two main messages were economic growth is bad and we need to reduce 

it. We've reached the limits. We're going to destroy the planet. Blah blah blah. We need low 

growth. And secondly, h too many people on this planet in fact very much regurgitating the views 

of the East India Company leadership and its hired economist Malfus Thomas Malfus famous for his 

prediction population growth too high. Um there's not enough food. We're going to starve. We need to 

reduce the you know population growth. Sometimes what you read is it sounds more like we need to 

reduce the population. Of course that's what they did in India quite yes um clearly by result but 

to a large extent intentionally again these policy decisions famines and other uh taking people's 

livelihoods away destroying the textile industry in India millions of people RNA shots you know 

well the mo that's the modern version so um this is the message of the club of Rome and the club of 

Rome drafted this high growth expert now I think he was fairly innocent And you know he was at this 

stage he was you know uh retired um and he was called up by this you know selected selective sort 

of international body that has a good reputation to be in the executive committee and he agrees no 

many Japanese people want to be very international and all this nice famous people are there backing 

this so I'll join I don't think he was really part of the nefarious activities that are also going 

on but is clever from the club Rome and and it's backers Rockefeller Foundation uh 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 is certainly 

a way of getting a handle on the high growth model and making sure that it can be suppressed 

in the future. That's the job of the IMF and the World Bank for developing countries not allowed 

to adopt the high growth policies. Um 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 investment. So it you know that that was allowed to happen 

but there seems to have been a required payoff and that is to impose the one child policy. So at 

least implement half of the Club of Rome agenda and the other half well we'll come to that later 

sort of thing could have been the attitude when I looked into so how did Denza Ping adopt this one 

child policy how did it exactly happen turns out that he took the advice of a Chinese statistician 

mathematician who is who was working for the military doing complicated ballistic calculations 

you know so using mathematics which is pure logic. And he did then uh he was asked to do population 

growth trajectories. Okay. And of course they were um scary and he came to this conclusion we need 

to restrict population growth. Now the key thing is this and I call this the great deception. He 

was using simulations and if you look at okay what did this military statistician mathematician 

what did he use what sort of approach what sort of model he used the club of Rome model. Now why was 

a Chinese sort of military related mathematician using the club of ro 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 and who knows but we know the result that he used as a fact the 

um Club of Rome's model which entirely simulation and that is a great deception because you can 

make up any simulation of anything and present it but it's used to convince people and give the 

impression that it's factual and this is used in economics it's used for growth trajectories. Um 

it's used for um population growth trajectories to show that it's unsustainable and it's used 

of course for climate scenarios and it's used for declaring pandemics, you know, how the 

virus grows. It turns out it's all simulation, madeup stuff, but I'll I'll come back to 

this in a moment um because that's actually interesting way of um deceiving people. Fact 

is, okay, that's what he used. Club of Rome um model simulations and Deng Xiaoping declaring, 

"Yep, we 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 he just fell like many people 

for the simulation approach. Or maybe there are other reasons, but that's a fact. And so we see 

that we do have influential international forces that are anti-population growth, potentially 

anti-population um and also anti-growth and and we don't well it's not really factually based. 

You know this this um great deception started really again in the British Empire um in the 19th 

century. It it's really the source of of modern economics. This is how modern economics was was 

developed. It started with the so-called classical economists in Britain. And the key figure here 

is David Ricardo. Who is he? Well, he's a famous classical economist. He did the theory of free 

trade. You know, the theory of comparative advantage which concludes well we should have 

free trade. It gives us prosperity. Yes. And at the same time uh the argument is well the previous 

economists the mercantalists mercantile economists they were so wrong because they argued well we may 

need some trade policy we need some intervention we need to make sure that the benefits from trade 

are properly equally distributed that's what the mercantalist said and ever since David Ricardo 

uh this is claimed to have been disproven and it's just free trade is best also to 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 the conditionality you get money carrot but 

here's the stick you have to adopt these in these policies free trade policies allow foreign 

investment deregulate liberalize privatiz which effectively means these countries are stuck in 

a low value added activity exporting commodities they're not allowed to build up their own 

industries move up the value added ladder and they're not allowed to prevent foreigners 

from buying up their industries cheaply. Now, empirically, this model is is been proven wrong 

many times over. Uh actually, Preish and Singer showed already a long time ago that commodities 

exporters have declining terms of trade. Yes. Now, what does that mean? Terms of trade is is u is 

simply the um 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 and 

what they've shown is that if you're exporting commodities and if you're focusing on that, that 

means all your high valued goods, manufacturing goods are imported, right? And that's the position 

developing countries in. But if you are in this position, what happens over time and they looked 

at around almost half a century um actually more than half a century. You could show that the terms 

of trade must deteriorate which means you will ever get less for your exports in relative terms 

and you have to pay ever more for your imports and therefore you're getting poorer and you're not 

getting the benefit from from trade. That's what the IMF and the World Bank are locking developing 

countries in through their policy regime. And it's not a coincidence and even David Ricardo knew 

this very well. The trick was this. How did he prove that you know free trade is the best 

and intervention is always bad. Well, he didn't actually prove it. All he did is he presented some 

nice mathematics. Now, mathematics is logic and the logic is correct. And here's the trick. Here's 

the great deception. We like logic. Men like logic. People like logic. Logic is convincing to 

us and so convincing that we forget one small but fundamental issue. Logic is not truth. Well, hang 

on. Why is that? Well, if it's logical, 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 empirical. 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. Um and and it usually is used um consist correctly consistently. 

Therefore, you've got consistent logic. That's why it's so convincing. But the conclusion doesn't 

tell you that you should do this. Well, it's not perfectly predictive. It's not predictive at 

all. And also, it may not describe the world. It may not describe reality because it depends on the 

assumptions that you've used to build this model. And that's where they exactly cheat you. So, the 

assumptions in Ricardo's model are highly specific and unrealistic. That's how economics has worked 

ever since. In fact, it's called Ricardo's vice. So modern economics and you know historians of 

economic thought agree on this. Modern economics essentially in was invented by David Ricardo. 

It's called the Ricardian vice which is to um make such assumptions that you will come 

to the conclusions that you desire. Right? And and so it's of course not scientific. It's not 

scientific at at all. It is a way of deceiving people and you don't point out that this is only 

a scenario. It's a simulation that could be true on some planet. But we are not saying anything 

about whether this actually applies to this or not. And so in sophistry really. Yes, it is. Um 

but but also you could say it's rhetoric or it's marketing because you're trying to convince people 

of something that you've concluded you want to do. Exactly. And you provide the expos justification 

and it's it is impressive. Oh wow, so much clever mathematics. This is a real clever scientist. 

Well, it must be true. Whatever he's saying, this is essentially how economics has been working. 

And now David Ricardo doesn't point out that his conclusion depends crucially on on the terms of 

trade on what is that post trade price. What is the relative price of things? He has nothing on 

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

countries have a deteriorating terms of trade if they follow his advice. So he's essentially David 

Ricard essentially proven what everyone already knew that trade can potentially be beneficial 

for everyone because we create benefits through trade. That's not in doubt. The mercantalists knew 

that. I wonder why they're called mercantalists. Mercantile merchant trade. They favor trade. They 

said, "Let's trade. This is where prosperity comes from, from trade." That's what the mercantalists 

said. So why are they so wrong? Well, they're not wrong. They were not wrong. They actually were 

a step further than Ricardo. They talked about the distribution of those benefits from trade. 

They said trade can be beneficial. There will be benefits. But who's getting those benefits? Well, 

exactly. How is that distributed? That depends on the terms of trade, which is what Ricardo totally 

and on purpose left out. I think I'm starting to understand how the world works. and and this 

deception has been used consistently in economics but has been used in other disciplines you know so 

so this is how they persuade this is how the club of Rome operated so their model of oh there's 

too much growth and growth is bad and we need to suppress growth is based on the same approach 

assumptions it's a simulation it's not truth and it's turned out to be wrong you know we're more 

than halfway through their 100year forecast and we're you know they've been proven incorrect not 

where they said we'd Yeah, exactly. Um, 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, which also just simulations. And just recently 

we hear that oh you know the the IPCC's is is admitting and and people at the UN admitting well 

these were extreme scenarios and and yes they're implausible um you know it's increasingly being 

a bit because that's what it was just always an extreme too late for the German economy a 

simulation yes of course well people need to be aware that policy makers when they impose 

bad policies they use this clever sophistry of um simulation ations the deductive approach is 

presented as very logical and it is logical but logic is not truth that's the key point truth is 

based on evidence and facts and very often you can quickly debunk all of these models so I mean 

given that and I mean part of what you're saying is it is hard to project into the future it's just 

hard to know because of the number of variables but I'm going to ask you do it anyway so given 

everything you've just said your understanding of what this conflict with Iran is really about, 

what the conflict with Venezuela is really about. It's really about China and the contest for global 

hijgemony between the United States and China. Um, and that is likely to flower into a world war. 

I think it's hard to imagine the United States wins in any conclusive way given that it's a 

smaller country, population, economy, smaller, less technologically advanced in some ways than 

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 under 

the 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? Well, exactly. You've said it already. systems that 

govern the world. Yes. Not countries. Exactly. So it that's what it seems to be about to um to 

entrench a new system, a more effective system from the viewpoint of the central planners to 

govern the world. Exactly. Because these crises, whether it's economic, you feel that it's very 

obvious, right? Yeah. Exactly. And clearly wars have always been used. you know, you shake up the 

old structure, you've got your ready new structure that you want to implement. Yes. And that's what 

it seems to be about. Now, that structure as in past, you know, of wars um includes, of course, 

as a core pillar, the international monetary system. There's no doubt about that. Yes. The 

monetary system, you know, first world war, the result of the first world war was the creation 

of the League of Nations. Yes. Um and the League of Nations had particular views. The problem was 

America never joined the League of Nations because America was still you know a bit more sort of you 

know representatives of elected representatives would represent what their constituents wanted 

and people didn't want it why you know and in fact the first world would just prove the point that 

it's not a great idea to get involved in these international conflicts right so uh America didn't 

join the League of Nations and that was another reason why another round was considered necessary 

and so towards the end of the Second World War, the United Nations were created. In fact, did 

you know the United What is the United Nations? It's the renamed Allied uh countries. They simply 

renamed them. Security Council. Yeah. Um um you know, so the Second World War Allied countries 

were renamed United Nations. Sounds nicer, which is why Germany, you know, and and Japan are 

still enemy countries in the in the United Nations charter. and they created in 44 uh the bread and 

wood system based on the dollar. So it was a clear transfer uh from the the British Empire as an as 

a dominant force to America. Um there was a bit of a internal battle between America and Britain. 

Kanes was negotiator for Britain. Um you know he was already director of the Bank of England 

shareholder and the Bank of England. Um he died um unfortunately sort of uh 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 um was going to be used in the system. Um and and of course, this the Bretonwoods 

conference, you know, in in New Hampshire in the uh what was it the Washington Hotel in in New 

Hampshire in Breton Woods is meant to be a global conference of all the representative. It was 

basically Britain and America and their colonial subjects being represented by somebody but they 

had to say whatever Britain and America wanted to say. So it wasn't the world. The Soviet Union 

was there but then quickly after that dropped out and thought no we don't want to be part of 

this. China was represented by some people that you know America was supporting in China who later 

of course were not really in power and had nothing to do with China really but they went to Formosa. 

Yes. For instance. Um that's right. So um it was really America and Britain um calling the shots 

and deciding things and it was very much about the monetary system and the structure United Nations 

and the organizations I'm of World Bank to run the world. So that's also I think what this is about 

and I think you see if the goal just for sake of argument is to have a one world government a 

proper one world government that controls the world um and I don't think it's a good idea by the 

way just want to make that clear okay um because thank you doctor because decentralization is 

the best we have already too much centralization and this is going to be quite a nightmare, 

totalitarian nightmare unfortunately. But there are people power- hungry, you know, psychopaths 

who want more power and, you know, over time in history, we see their footsteps. Um, and that's 

clearly where, you know, that's at least one um red thread going through history that forces 

are being aimed at this for one reason or another. So I think as a working hypothesis we can put it 

on the table that there's people some people out there who want to create a one world government. 

Um and if that's the goal you know you know what what your obstacle is. I think it's it's just 

like with the League of Nations. It's America from their viewpoint. I mean I'm not saying America 

is the obstacle uh or is is you know America is bad if it's opposing this. I think that's a good 

thing. America should oppose this. But from their viewpoint America is an obstacle. So America has 

to be taken down. the dollar has to be taken down. Now, a lot of the people fighting for this may be 

in the American government. Who knows? You know, I'm, you know, it doesn't mean they are 

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. And you know, where would 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. Um so I yeah I don't want to 

be drawn into speculation because of course from my viewpoint it doesn't actually matter but once 

we see it I think it will tell us a lot. Uh but it doesn't really matter for this argument. So 

maybe maybe Yeah, I wouldn't speculate either. I would just think you know logic suggests it would 

not be east or west but in the middle. Yes, that could be that could be. Yeah. um that that would 

be an argument because of course if it's like the United Nations again you see and always they move 

it you see first world war league of nations after first world war was in Geneva Switzerland you know 

some arguments for that it's sort of international territory but Europe well then United Nations 

because America didn't join so you needed to be in America United Nations uh of course Rockefeller 

gave the land um and helped a lot in building up the UN uh institutions was very much involved 

you know so you know we see the Rockefellers there Rockefeller foundation quite active. Um 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 uh give up the 

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. 

Uh so then you can't have it in America, right? Um or to 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 would 

want to use to motivate other people right outside America. So then it would be in America and then 

where could it be? And so then yeah um 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. Um warfare 

is an important one at least for big changes. There are many changes 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 is also economic 

warfare on the people shakes up society like high inflation in Germany in the 1920s clearly was uh 

one way to get Hitler into power is the beginning um and by the way we may not have time to to 

go there but um you know the the person who was put in charge um sort of at the peak 

of this high inflation became head of the German central bank in Vimmore yes Shak was 

his name he was appointed by um by foreigners not by Germans so there's no doubt about that 

because um the they call themselves now Victor Victoria victorious powers of the first world 

war although it was an armistice allegedly um but they decided that no we we are going to occupy 

Germany Germany then became occupied by foreign um troops you know the rhin African troops y yes 

yes indeed indeed and yeah it wasn't too pleasant but um and and so also its central bank was taken 

under foreign control formally there was a new central bank act and it stated that half of the 

board members have to be foreigners they couldn't be German and in total because also the president 

was effectively appointed by the foreigners which foreigners are we talking about was mainly in 

practice it's not really in dispute it was the uh the JP Morgan le reparations committee because 

the story was that during the first world war Britain funded its war effort by borrowing money 

from JP Morgan that was already the first step of transferring power from Britain to America 

yes um and because you didn't have to do that. There were alternatives, but Britain chose, it 

seems, you know, chose to do this. Um, and so, um, JP Morgan then was the one that money was 

owed to by Britain. It was it was more than 10% of American GDP. It was not a small sum. And 

therefore, after the first world war, Britain had to do what JP Morgan was recommending really. and 

JP Morgan was thinking well Britain is not going to really repay this money uh we better get it 

from Germany and so the reparation committee was all about Germany paying Britain to pay JP Mong 

so really it was from Germany to JP Morgan and um this started to become entrenched in if you 

look at the German central banks the first step was this this new law um that made the German 

central bank totally independent from government and from any um democratic assemblies in Germany. 

The rice bank was made unaccountable to anyone. It was the the most independent central bank 

in the world while also at the same time being 100% privately owned. By the way, Rice Bank was 

privately owned. So um and this rice bank then as soon as the uh the ink had dried on this 

new uh statutory independence but of course dependence on JP Morgan's wishes, the reparations 

committee was appointing these foreigners. You see um the hyperinflation started in Germany 

and they then put Yamash in power um at the helm of the um rice bank and it was 

the same who then um took the steps I mean we need another session on um on the details but 

he took the steps that brought Hitler into power um and even approached the Nazi party and said 

well you guys have some interesting ideas but you I 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 Helmasht who was highly respected by that time because he 

was he was actually known as dictator the the the the monetary and credit dictator because he he he 

decided over life and death of German companies in the 1920s when the rice bank said no then the 

company wouldn't get credit from the banks and 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 as head of the central bank again who 

then very quickly did the right policies sort of early versions of my QE quantitative easing to rev 

up the German economy and so by 1936 so only after 3 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 Shashak who had created those policies that created this and exported the great 

depression from America to Germany knew how to get out of it quickly and adopted these policies. So 

Germany by 1936 um just when when Kanes 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 recommendation 

fiscal policy well shocked had already led Germany to full employment and shortage of labor that's 

how the economy was booming in 1936 and it wasn't through fiscal policy as often said oh that 

was military spending oh no no German 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 out of that bank credit creation and Shak knew 

that because he was also known as the the credit magicians, the wizard of credit creation. So it 

turns out there was just one lever in the German economy and it was monetary policy and when you 

cranked it in one direction, people thrived. When you cranked in 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, dynamic stoastic 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 aimatic 

hypothetical very logical and therefore convincing economics, there are no banks. There's no bank 

credit question. Who was Who was David Ricardo? Well, he was a banker. He just retired at the 

age of 42. Was he British? He was British. He made a fortune in the city working with um um 

well, working with a very rich banking dynasty, making a fortune so that he's known as the second 

richest person in Britain. Banking dynasty. Well, exactly. And and why second richest? Who was the 

richest? Well, that was Rothschild's and that's where he was most likely making his money because 

he was in the bond market in 1815. Rothschild made a a fortune in the bond market through inside 

knowledge um of what's going on. If you fund wars, 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 at the rock bottom. and you could get them 

for I don't know um 20 pennies in the pound um for Rodri without people realizing you know Ro 

is actually buying them very cheaply and then owned the entire national debt and then could say 

to the Bank of England well actually your assets are mostly the bonds um I'm the biggest bond owner 

I'm buying the chairs the shares cheaply um and could dictate anything to the government or the 

royal house uh it seems um but this David Ricardo having made his fortune then retired at the age of 

42 and built himself a nice little country house u princess royal princess anne lives in it today 

so you know it's probably quite impressive I think 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 aimatic 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 information complete markets rational agents and all that stuff you 

know then it's an ideology that's the definition of an ideology that's religion at that point 

that's what economics becomes and the trick is this that once you have these assumptions then 

you can show that in equilibrium demand equals supply prices move to give us equilibrium it's 

prices that dominate never look at quantities and this is what's being pushed. I mean modern 

economics is equilibrium economics and the the um the irony is there is no equilibrium that's 

made up because this scenario is so hypothetical. What is the probability of having equilibrium? 

You need at least eight assumptions to hold at the same time but each assumption has a probability 

of probably less than 1% of being true. But let's say for the sake of argument each assumption like 

perfect information, complete markets, you know, zero transaction cost. If each assumption had a 

probability of being more likely to be true than not 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 8. 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 reveals 

it as a lie. Exactly. Because what is the result? Even if each is 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 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 ever be 

true that we know for sure there's no equilibrium any market, but central banks are using general 

equilibrium models. That means equilibrium, not just in one market, but in all markets at the same 

time. That's even less likely. That's like the probability 0.0000 whatever percent. So the real 

power is with the governors of the central bank. Exactly. But also what you're hiding with this 

equilibria economics is the power of the is is actually power. You could say power e 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. Prices move. You get this outcome. You're 

unemployed. I'm sorry. That's the markets. There's no power. But the moment you realize that actually 

all markets are rationed then the so-called short side principle applies which is whichever quantity 

of demand or supply is smaller determines the outcome and has power to pick and choose with 

who to trade. That's the power that we realize is there all the time and that's the reality 

of markets. So that means people um the short side whatever that may be in any market has power 

that's totally ignored by economists. So this is why equilibrium this this deductive equilibrium 

approach this deception is so useful. You never think of looking for the power players the 

power holders. Of course when it comes to money um is the equilibrium demand and supply is it 

equal? Well, no, because the demand for money is essentially infinite. And of course, the short 

side is the supply of money. So, whoever supplies money has power to pick and choose who to give 

it to, how much to give it to, for what purposes. Now, who is creating the money? That is the banks. 

And of course that's why we need many small banks, local banks because then you're giving this power 

which is then power over the whole economy really because it's the power over money creation and and 

availability of money purging 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. 

And so the in the background is this deception that is equilibrium when actually all markets are 

rationed and there's power players. It's the short side and when it comes to money, it's the supplies 

of money. But it's really the big banks and the central banks that have usurped that. That's 

why we need to decentralize and have many small banks. There is actually a person at the Federal 

Reserve now who's vice chair of supervision um Mickey Bowman. She is an advocate of small banks 

and local banks. So there is hope. I mean she should be the next um really um chair of the board 

of governors of the Federal Reserve system. But of course we have somebody else starting in the in 

the interim. But hopefully she will still be there and continue to fight for small banks. We need 

some other changes to make it easier to create new banks. That should be deregulated. There was 

an era in America of high growth when you could very easily set up a bank. Well, why don't we 

have that? You know, it's virtually impossible to set up a bank. Well, they suddenly make it very 

hard. So, um, it doesn't sound like the political environment that we're in, which is clearly 

accelerating, we're moving towards something, its outlines are not clear, but we're moving at high 

speed. It doesn't sound like we're moving toward decentralization of anything, right? The the 

trend is continues to be centralization. They're reducing the number of banks. The ECB has overseen 

the disappearance of 6,000 banks in Europe. That's very sad. Um, they continue to drop their numbers 

also in America. That needs to be reversed because that as the number of banks goes down, there's 

less economic growth. There's less prosperity for the middle class. It is really a war on the 

middle class if you destroy the small banks. But that continues to take place. And it's even 

official ECB policy. Of course, the background to that is that the ECB um is the revived rice 

bank. I've I've told you about how powerful this foreign controlled rice bank was. So once Germany 

um was defeated in the Second World War, postwar Germany thinkers there were given some leeway 

to think about okay how to do the 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 stateowned. But more importantly, it should be made accountable to democratic assemblies to 

parliament which the rice bank was not uh due to the controlled by the reparations committee which 

was later by the way renamed the BIS bank for international settlement. That is the continuation 

effectively of the JP Morgan reparations committee. you see um but um the Bundesbank was 

then um 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 Bundes Bank independent from um 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 

and employment you know 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 asset bubbles because if you allow banks or encourage 

banks to to lend for asset purchases, you get because it's money creation. You get asset bubbles 

which lead to banking crisis and that's the system played in many countries certainly in England 

boom bust cycles all the time but many countries um the central banks have been playing this game 

which then can be used to rearrange ownership and all sorts of things as a world bank report pointed 

out about the Asian crisis. Oh, the Asian crisis is a window of opportunity to rearrange ownership. 

Oh, interesting. That's World Bank report. Um, so the the Bundes Bank 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. Its days were unfortunately numbered. Germany allowed itself to give up the 

Bundesbang and give up its currency, the Demar. Now the Demar had become the European currency. So 

what was marketed? I remember that. That's right. It was by market forces and voluntary decisions. 

Other countries decided to peg themselves to demark. Yeah. Voluntarily that nobody was 

forced to do that. And so what really was was marketed as the introduction of the European 

currency, the euro was actually the destruction of the European currency, the demar, 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 to say oh giving up the demog is a bad thing um in in public debates. I was chief economist 

of a British investment bank and so invited to various events in Germany also and other German 

bank Deutsche Bank chief economists were there and I would say well we we can't give up the demark 

there's no good economic rationale and silence and some would say oh they wouldn't engage on on 

that point because it's true they would then say oh but there's a good political rational there's 

a moral rational and moral I want to hear that one because that is an even worse argument but no but 

that's you you know when a society's collapsing when every argument becomes a moral moral 

argument. That's right. So then fighting Russia, so we're good. Okay. So then they introduced 

they abolished the European currency, the demog, and they introduced the euro with its own central 

bank, the ECB. Now they marketed this as, oh, the ECB will be like the bun bank, it's going 

to be in Frankfurt. It's going to be the same as independent as the bunes. Well, hang on. The 

the lesson from the rice bank and the bunes was to make the central bank less independent. Turns out, 

as I show actually my book, Princes of the Yen, um, quantumpublishers.com is the place to get 

it. Amazon is not really the place to get it. Um, it was a book that was impossible 

to get it. It's like $500 on eBay, but you've reissued it. Yes. Quantum.com. So, 

there's a chapter here on on this. The ECB is the revived rice bank. It was modeled on the um 

on the worst central bank in history, which is of course why I predicted that the ECB was likely 

to create bank credit driven asset bubbles, banking crisis and big recessions in the Euro 

zone. And that's exactly what they did. Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Greece. Well, and not just in the 

Euro zone, but in the United States. So here's my here's my last question. I am going to ask you to 

predict and project. So go out on a limb. But um you know the United States has been experiencing 

I think what's fair to call an asset bubble. Certainly you see it in real estate markets but 

not just real estate um cryptocurrency etc. What happens to assets in the United States as this 

war progresses and as the global system changes? Well, um I in principle of course in in 

real estate markets we have we have a we have big cycles. Um they're slowm moving and 

the cycles are function of in real estate of interest rates and the quantity of credit for more 

importantly uh for uh real estate transactions. um assets are somewhat overpriced I dare say uh 

in the US but particularly when you look at stock markets it doesn't necessarily mean there will be 

an immediate crash but I do think we are heading uh towards a crisis and again you know if you 

look at at the big game that's being played then it's quite clear this this has to happen if 

the working hypothesis is that there are forces out there that want to dethrone America. Yes. And 

they may be active in America even these forces. No question about it. Um and that means also 

dethroning the dollar. Um and that would explain why China actually had been strengthened with 

American investment in the past because you're building up this this opponent that can help take 

down America. Um if you make sure America stays aggressive and and and adopts anti-China policies, 

you know, which also seems to be happening to some extent. So then what are the scenarios and what's 

the way well as we said whenever you have these big wars they lead to currency system changes the 

global financial system changes so we moved from first the British pound which was on and off the 

gold standard then we moved to the Bretonwoods dollar standard which was a gold standard and but 

of course gold standard you know some people think oh that means it's one to1 to gold and you can't 

create money. No, that never happened. Such a gold standard never exists. It's always been bank 

credit creation and that's how the real game is played. But it's some kind of limit because as 

soon as you know turns out America was creating too much too many dollars buying up assets in 

Europe, the French were not yet part of NATO, therefore not part of the command structure. It 

was the French that uh called out American like our gold, please. And they said, "Okay, you're 

printing all these dollars and you're buying us up. Um what we can do is we can change these 

dollars now into gold. We want to see gold." Um so that's you know um but so then we moved 

from the 71 Nixon shock US default on its international gold obligations. Then we move to 

the petro dollar which of course is very closely intertwined to actions in the Middle East and all 

the wars in the Middle East. Oil was only allowed to be sold against the US dollar. Anyone who did 

otherwise whether it's in uh Iraq Saddam Hussein or in Libya Gaddafi that was a big no no and led 

to severe consequences warfare and you get killed for that. You get killed for it. Exactly. Um 

so what's next? Because also when the last uh you know when the Nixon shock happened and we 

moved from the gold dollar to the petro dollar there was also inflation. You inflation is a 

good camouflage that you know it sort of makes it easier to rearrange the monetary system. It 

was entirely monetary inflation by the way not uh energydriven. It was the central banks creating 

a lot of money but we had the same in 2020 with the co scop 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 and you know now we could be um it looks like 

we're heading into the second run of inflation. still early stage is not entirely clear but that 

would be my guess without having yet the necessary data but I think there will be a second uh bout 

of inflation and but we already had the first bout and and it indicates that we are in this phase of 

running up towards the next rearrangement of the monetary system what is it going to be well that 

seems to be increasingly clear it's going to be digital based on digital identity and I think 

we therefore should oppose digital ID on all fronts. We're humans. We're not digits, you know. 

We have digits, 10 digits, okay? But, you know, we should not subject ourselves to um to this regime 

where if you don't provide the right digital ID credentials, you're not accepted as a human and 

you don't have the human rights in reality. I mean, that's and you know, dehumanizing. We should 

reject it just on that principle, but there's many other reasons why we should reject it. It is the 

beginning of this control regime of a digital currency. Now digital currency as such is not 

a a bad thing because for half a century we've been using bank digital currency BDC we could 

call it because the banking system been digital and and most money is created by banks. It's 

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 

lord the banks because the new regime is all about you know our information about our transactions 

being sold freely. The government is now Facebook and and and yes being used to manipulate us 

whether it's in elections or you know to sell products and 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 it's more control as um um as Katherine Austin Fitz always points out quite 

correctly. Um and so because we've been using BDC, bank digital currency, what is the difference? 

It's the central. They tell us justification Christine Lagard 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 now another bout of inflation and in some countries with a boom 

bust cycles being arranged such that in Germany we are heading we're in a property bust. 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. It's the Bank of Japan's game, you know, in Japan. And so banking crisis of 

course is ideal and inflation to launch your CBDC. That's for Europe. In other countries, there 

may be slightly other ration uh justifications for introducing it. But a crisis one way or another 

is always good. A war of course is even better because then it's just wartime uh direct dictats. 

You can't do anything. It's war time. You have to accept whatever you're told. um and as a wartime 

measure. Of course, that's the ultimate, you know, if everything else fails, then definitely wartime 

measures will be used to introduce uh these these measures. So, we're heading towards digital 

control systems where we have no more control over over our liquid assets. It will be um of course 

programmable, permission based. So only what the central planners allow you to use your your money 

for at what time and place and location will be permitted. And if you're in the wrong place, it's 

not going to work. And if you're buying the wrong book title, it's not going to work. And so on. 

I mean, there's no limit to how much you can fine-tune and control. Oh, they don't have so much 

power. They can't control, you know, millions of people. Well, this is what the drive to build all 

these hundreds, in fact, thousands of data centers is about. It is an organizational challenge to 

micromanage the world's population through the new um 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 

subsidiarity it will be more productive no doubt more efficient more productive that's been 

demonstrated in many contexts. I mentioned the the warfare military but and businesses and so 

on. It's 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 control controlling 

us. That's why they need these huge resources. Then you can control inflation easily because 

people can't buy when the central banks don't allow you to buy. So then prices are can't be 

driven up. Um 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 15minute prison zone 

or whatever it may be. It is the totalitarian dictator's dream come true. And that is the scary 

thing. Most people are still not aware that we are so close to the scariest most dystopian system 

where we're giving so much control and power into the hands of ever fewer people over our lives. and 

billions of people. Again, if everyone is good, like the majority of people, and the controllers, 

the elites, the central planners are good, it's not an issue. But that's not what human history um 

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 Actton um a British uh political 

observer and advisor to prime ministers concluded power corrupts. Most people get corrupted by 

power. They can't handle power and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We are talking about absolute 

power in the hands of central planners if we allow the central bank digital currency to be imposed. 

And um and the central planners um will have this absolute power including you know of course they 

have already monetary power but they will have the tools um 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 by the 

central planners the monetary central planners to take over everything. So the dangers are just 

so manifold that it's it's quite clear that we have to stop this. So um I mean this is really 

the big scenario and that's where we see forces pushing as internationally power gets ever more 

centralized despite this being the biggest lesson of the 20th century that it's not a good idea to 

constantly have more power in the hands of few and fewer people. that's actually being accelerated 

in the 21st century on 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' be a pleasure. It's a pleasure to be 

here and I hope I can come again. I mean, there's literally anytime I'm I'll be thinking about this 

for the next month. Fantastic. Thanks very much.