Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses Tucker Carlson

TITLE: Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses & the Central Banks Are Behind It. Economist Explains. CHANNEL: Tucker Carlson DATE: 2026-05-22 ---TRANSCRIPT--- 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.