All Episodes
Previous Next
July 16, 2023 - Jim Fetzer
01:08:36
Crucial CBDC’s with Professor Richard Werner: YOUR Future is Being Decided!
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome all to the home of sound science and the interview I have for you today is packed with incredible information.
I promise you, you will not believe it.
And I put it in the top three most important interviews I've ever conducted.
Professor Desmet, Professor Nordengård, And now Professor Richard Werner, and he is a PhD in economics from Oxford University, multiple other achievements, and he worked with the Bank of Japan and the Japanese government back in the 90s, and he created the concept of quantitative easing, QE1 and QE2, which went on to have huge impacts on the world.
So it's incredible information please do share with people so they can understand how the world works from central banking true to inflation creation and it all has a huge effect on ordinary people I can tell you that.
We also covered the CBDCs, Central Bank Digital Currencies.
And just before we sit down with Professor Werner, I'm going to show you a short clip from the head of the Bank of International Settlements, which is the central bank of central banks, the most important structure in our world.
And just listen to this guy and what he says about the upcoming CBDCs and what they're all about.
Our analysis on CBDC, in particular for the use of general, to the general use, we tend to establish the equivalence with cash.
And there is a huge difference there.
For example, in cash, we don't know, for example, who's using a $100 bill today.
We don't know who is using a $1,000 bill today.
A key difference with the CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.
Those two issues are extremely important and that makes a huge difference with respect to what cash is.
Alrighty then, to that whet your appetite, well this man Augustin Carstens knows what he's talking about and he just divulged there the intent behind the CBDCs.
So now we'll switch over to Professor Werner who will explain everything about them fully and so much more.
I'm here in the Science Summit Amsterdam and I've been delighted to meet in person Professor Richard Werner.
Great to see you.
Good to see you again.
Absolutely, and last year you gave a fantastic talk.
This year you focused on central bank digital currencies, CBDCs, and I'm aware of how crucially important these are, and not necessarily in a good way.
But we might start with some of your accreditations and background so people can realize the extent to which you are capable in this arena.
All right.
Well, I'm originally from Germany.
Went to the UK to study economics.
Got my first degree at the London School of Economics.
I've got a doctorate in economics from the University of Oxford.
Went to Japan then.
I studied at the University of Tokyo.
Was a visiting researcher at the Bank of Japan.
Was a visiting scholar at the Development Bank of Japan.
and actually in total spent 12 years in Japan.
I've been both in the private sector, chief economist at Jardine Fleming Securities in Tokyo.
I set up a global macro hedge fund for Bear Stearns Asset Management in Mayfair in London.
I've also been active in setting up charities, foundations, a community interest company called Local First, which has all the know-how to set up community banks because you need a whole pile pile of regulatory stuff and policies and content.
We've got all that.
So if you've got five million in local capital, we can set up a community bank for you and get the license authorization.
And we'll talk about that because if you have a banking license, it literally is a license to print money.
But we'll come back to that.
I'm also known as a central bank watcher.
I've spent time at various central banks and I've been a central bank critic.
And in 1995, I proposed a new monetary policy for a situation where you have a banking crisis, I mean I've been warning of these recurring banking crises and this is a policy to get out of this situation quickly so you don't have a long recession.
I call this policy quantitative easing.
Unfortunately, I don't get royalties on the percentage of the volume they're doing when they're doing it.
Also, they've been slightly mischievously changing their parameters.
In Japan, for example, they didn't want a recovery as I point out and predicted in my book, Princes of the Yen.
Which was number one bestseller actually beating Harry Potter in Japan for six weeks.
So Harry Potter number two, Princes of the Yen number one, which is a great time to tell you.
Great title too, I mean, perfect.
Yes, and you can get it at quantumpublishers.com.
Now, why this title, Princes of the Yen?
Because It turned out, I mean this is empirical research, I was at the Bank of Japan, I interviewed lots of people there and also in the banking circles in my years in Tokyo and uncovered the data, I've got eyewitness testimonials in there.
Essentially there's a small group of insiders inside the central bank.
And they run the show by using, not what they officially talk about, which is interest rates.
That's like a sort of decoy, look here, interest rates, you know, media, focus here, interest rates.
Well, actually, they use not the price of money, but its quantity, measured in terms of the quantity of credit creation.
Which is also what my QE, the true QE, is about.
And it turns out that these insiders, it's a very small group, they get selected very early, when they're in their 30s, they join the Bank of Japan in the sort of elite group, and then they get selected.
You, you're sort of, you know, 32 or something, you've been selected.
The governor has picked you among this cohort of, you know, I don't know, 500 people in a 10 year period, you will be governor of the Bank of Japan in 30 years' time.
And because of that, and it always leaks in Japan, informally you speak the truth, you see, after 6 o'clock, so everyone knew that's the prince.
They used the English word prince, prince, because you're going to be governor 30 years later.
And this is exactly what happened.
And so it was these princes of the yen who controlled what was happening in the economy, the boom-bust cycles, the timing, everything, through their control of the quantity of credit.
And it turned out that They're doing this to increase their power further.
So they became independent from the government and also from essentially from anyone, from the country, from Parliament.
So central bankers, and this is worldwide actually, are not very accountable for what they're doing.
And then they're using this B for certain changes they want to engineer, which usually are connected, again, to increasing their power.
We can talk about that.
So this is all spelled out in Princes of the Yen.
And so you can see, you know, it goes beyond Japan, I've got a chapter on Asia in there, on the Asian crisis, which was also engineered by the central banks.
And there's a chapter, and the English version was published in 2003, and in this chapter I warn that because the ECB had just been created, it was one of the youngest central banks in the world, but analyzing The laws, how it was created, I realized, wow, this is a monster they've created.
This European Central Bank is, and I give the reasons, is for these and these reasons, likely to do the following.
It's going to create bank credit driven asset bubbles, property bubbles, then banking crises, then recessions with vast unemployment in Europe.
I warned this in 2003 and of course that's what they did.
Starting essentially 2004 and the first crises then 2010-11, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece all run from the ECB predictably.
And, you know, the data is there and of course the ECB is fair.
At the moment they're doing the same thing in Germany.
So, they create a property bubble.
It has started to crash.
So, the games are continuing.
This is what the princes of the yen, so to speak, the princes of the money control systems, the central planners are doing.
Exactly, and the control of credit, creation of money, allocation of money, often unfairly I guess, that's the powerhouse of influence.
More than interest rates, they obviously have an effect, but it's the creation of credit that's the big thing.
Exactly.
You know, we might, just to get people straight to the hot topic, and then we'll circle back and go into more detail here, the CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency, But what's the unique thing about that?
I would guess it's the fact that it's digital, right?
Like crypto, it's digital, or not?
Exactly.
Well, that's certainly how the central planners at the central banks are selling it.
And on the record, Christine Lagarde, the sort of faces of these central banking institutions, But also, in their documents, they talk about, you know, the digital.
That's the thing.
It's new because it's digital and there's cryptocurrencies and central banks need to respond to this.
We're offering this.
We need to offer a digital version of cash.
It's the digital aspect that is new.
Well, that is completely misleading, because we have been using digital currency for many decades.
If you look at the money supply, what does it consist of?
There is cash, paper, notes and coins, which are banknotes issued by the central bank, and they are a small part of the money supply.
In most countries, 3% of the money supply.
Now, actually, if you look into the history of these banknotes, and the name gives it away, why are they called banknotes?
Oh, because the central bank's issuing.
Well, hang on, why don't they say central banknotes?
Well, you could say nowadays central banknotes, but historically, they used to be called banknotes because banks, ordinary banks, used to issue them.
In England and Wales, until 1844, all the paper money was issued by the various banks.
Banks issued banknotes.
And then they passed this law which gave the Bank of England, 100% privately owned, still at the time, the monopoly to issue these banknotes.
But, because the law applied only to England and Wales, It doesn't apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
And therefore, that's why, in case you ever wondered, if you go to Scotland or Northern Ireland, you still have banknotes issued by commercial banks.
You've got Northern Trust and Bank of Ulster and all sorts.
I don't know what they're all called.
First, something Northern Bank.
Then in Scotland, of course, you've got Royal Bank of Scotland, Bank of Scotland issuing this paper money.
Of course, also, The former British colony, Hong Kong, they had the same system, and there you've got Hong Kong dollars issued by all the commercial banks.
HSBC, Standard Chartered, and of course then later Bank of China, but that's not the People's Bank of China, you see.
So historically, Paper money was issued by banks, but then the central planners started to move in on the act.
Hey, we want the power.
And they managed to get these monopoly laws in many countries.
These are exceptions.
Northern Ireland and Scotland are real exceptions, but they're good to illustrate this for people to realize, actually.
So, in most of the world nowadays, it's only the central banks that issue paper money.
However, The banks essentially managed to circumvent this attempt by the central planners to have total control because they continue to create money.
It's now less visible and less known to the public.
But 97% of the money supply is actually created by banks through bank lending.
They're just not allowed to issue paper notes.
They issue deposit entries in your bank book, which is digital.
And that's why we're using digital currency.
So, really, we have been using digital currency, you could call it BDC, Bank Digital Currencies, for many decades.
I mean, since the introduction of computing, it's digital, right?
So, that's quite a few decades.
So, okay, so back to your question, so what really is new about CBDCs?
Well, what's the difference between BDCs that we've been using and CBDCs?
It's the C, it's the central aspect.
This is actually also going back to this historic tug of war between the central planners and the banks.
This is now the central bankers seeing an opportunity and actually you could argue they've created this opportunity and they've been planning for this.
And they're now coming out and they're saying, and really they're stepping out from behind the curtains, we want to issue, of course they don't say we want to say, we're considering, there's demand out there, we need to study whether we should offer Central bank digital currency.
So the new aspect is that the central planners are saying, hey, we're going to step into the arena and we're going to compete directly against the banks while they're actually bank regulators.
I mean, what do you think?
I mean, is this normal?
It's like the umpire joining the game?
This is the great analogy you gave yesterday, Richard, in your talk.
It's like the referee or umpire says, OK, hold on a minute.
I want to have some fun here.
I want to actually play the game.
I'm the big guy.
Score some goals.
Score some goals.
But he does that, or she, While still carrying the yellow and red cards and all of his role as regulator, so he's obviously going to, it's an unfair game now, it's crazy.
Absolutely, and that's what's happening.
CBDC, C is the thing, central, central planning.
I mean I could call it SBDC, Stalin.
Yes, no.
Because this is the danger, I guess, it's very dangerous.
It is a danger, it is a big danger, and in fact that's the right comparison.
Because you can see where this is going.
If we allow central bank digital currencies, sooner or later they will drive out the private sector competition.
They will drive out the banks.
Of course, also we have this other problem.
I mentioned already 20 years ago one of the recurring banking crises.
And one problem is that Whenever we get a banking crisis and a financial crisis, the regulators get more power.
Because each time they argue, that now happened, it's different from before, and that's because we still don't have enough powers.
We need to have more powers.
And they say this each time.
And I warned of this 20 years ago.
And they're still doing it.
And after the 2008 crisis, predictably, they got more powers.
So, this is regulatory moral hazard.
If the regulator gets rewarded for failure, Because they argue, oh, it's because we don't have enough powers.
Then they're given more powers.
Well, you can be sure that we'll have more crises, because they'll give them more powers.
Now they want to introduce CBDCs.
And of course, the best time from their viewpoint is, oh, if there just happens to be another banking crisis, so that people want to move their money out of banks, because they're really worried it's a big crisis, the media will, you know, have all this panic.
And, oh, there is an option, CBDC, Central Bank Digital, let's move it over.
And that's of course the easiest way to introduce this, which means we have a massive Incentive now for regulators, for central planners to create another huge financial crisis so that they can then take over and of course then that's the end of it because the banking system is not going to recover from this.
Now do we really want this where essentially the number of banks goes down so much that there's really only one bank left, the central bank and mind you ECB, you know, it's a new and young central bank, but they've managed in their 23 years or so of existence.
Do you know how many banks they've killed already?
It's around 5,000 banks in Europe they've killed already.
Whoa.
They've disappeared in this time period.
And it wasn't the big guys, it wasn't Goldman Sachs, where Mario Draghi, the former ECB president, comes from, right?
And he said, and he made it official ECB policy, oh, Europe is over bank, there's too many banks.
And he wasn't thinking, oh, let's abolish Goldman Sachs, was he?
And I think there's the perfect parallel with the Fed, which is a private organization in the States, even though everyone thinks, well, it's the Fed, it's the government.
It's not.
But they have also caused chaos over the last decades.
And thousands of banks are gone in America too.
And of course, JP Morgan and the rest are hoovering them up.
So they're just becoming big fat mega banks?
Exactly, exactly.
It's always the same.
They're gobbling them up.
And so then the end game is when there's very few banks left and essentially then there's only the central bank left.
Now we have a historic example where there's a large country, large economy and they only have one bank, the central bank.
The name of that bank was Gosbank.
And that was in Russian.
It was the Soviet Union we're talking about.
This is the Soviet system.
Central planners love it.
And it looks like in Europe, these bureaucrats that gathered in Brussels and so on, they've been, you know, studying history and they've been envious of the powers of central planners in the Soviet Union.
And they've been usurping all that power.
In fact, there are some historians, some Russian historians, who argue that the EU is the continuation or the revival of the Soviet Union.
Because, you see, in the Soviet Union you had a parliament.
It was a democracy.
Ha-ha.
It was a democracy.
Why?
Well, there's a Parliament.
But this Parliament had no powers.
It was literally a rubber-stamping Parliament because it didn't have the power to table new laws.
That was all done by the unelected Politburo.
They wrote the laws and Parliament could maybe delay, debate a little bit, but they had no real powers.
Hang on.
What system do we have in Europe, in the EU?
Oh, we have a European Parliament.
It's a democracy.
Well, hang on.
They have no power to propose any laws.
That's a joke.
Who's actually writing the laws and pushing them through?
It's the unelected Politburo, which is called the European Commission.
They have all the powers.
It is really that system.
So it seems like now the ECB is set up to be the new Gosbank, the only bank they really want left in Europe.
And that's going to happen if we allow CBDC.
So we really have to now step up and say, we don't need this.
We already have digital currencies.
Thank you.
Nice idea to have digital currencies.
We have it already.
Thank you.
Exactly.
And in your talk yesterday, you actually went through what you just finished with there, or one point you just finished with.
The requirement for this.
We already have this.
And you went through a document where it was assessed by an official body and they were listing out the kind of problems with the push for this.
I think there were three primary kind of problems.
Yes, so one was that when you study this objectively, this proposal to have CBDCs, do you remember the exact words they put it?
Something like this, there doesn't seem to be a convincing value proposition, i.e.
there's no need for it.
And one central bank in the U.S.
has quite honestly said this publicly, he stated, this is Neil Kashkari, he's one of the presidents of the, I think it's the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, one of the American minor central, you know, Federal Reserve Banks.
But he said that, oh, CBDCs, it's all clever stuff, but it seems to be a solution for a problem that we don't have.
There's no problem.
We don't need it.
And that is the truth.
So that's what this McKinsey study, when they studied this, they, well actually, there's actually no need for it.
So why do we keep getting this news that they're pushing CBDCs?
It's because the central planners want it.
Now, the other thing they mentioned in that list, why it's not being rolled out faster, is, you know, if it's such a clever thing, you know, why is it not rolled out yet?
So there's no actual need for it.
That need has to be created like a crisis will convince people.
Secondly, there seem to be some technical problems, actually.
And of course, you know, think about this.
They claim that, oh, it's going to be more efficient and faster and whatever than cash.
Well, you just need to switch off electricity.
Your cash is still going to work.
CBDCs, well, good luck!
So, it depends on a whole set of technologies that you need to work at the same time.
So, it is much more complex.
It's not a very resilient system.
So, clearly, there's a weakness.
They mentioned that.
And thirdly, they mentioned that, oh, there is a problem here with trust.
Why?
I'm just popping in for a moment here before Professor Werner goes through the third item on the CBDCs and I just want to give you a quick reminder of Agustin Karstenz, the BIS head, just before we go on.
A key difference in with the CBDC is that central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability.
And also we will have the technology to enforce that.
Those two issues are extremely important and that makes a huge difference with respect to what cash is.
Why?
Oh, it seems, they write in their report, that European citizens suspect that governments and central banks are just trying to roll this out in order to monitor and control and restrict transactions.
Thank you, exactly.
That's what apparently people think and they're absolutely right.
This is in fact the risk because of course that is the true attraction for central planners in this very powerful technology.
It's a technology where you see real-time what everyone is doing, where they are, what they're buying, but it's not just about the know-how, the information you get and then can use for all sorts of things.
But it's the power to interfere and intervene.
In fact, essentially, you have to think of CBDCs as a control system, not a currency, or a permit system.
And again, we're back to the Soviet Union, because you need a permit for everything.
May I breathe?
Oh, you need a permission.
Wait for the commissar to give you approval.
Because basically, and they write this also in their report, essentially the issuer of the CBDC, which is the central bank, has the power to decide whether you can use it now for whatever you want to do.
So whatever you want to do, you have to essentially apply for permission.
So it's a conditional currency based on you actually getting that permit.
Now if you happen to be some kind of critic of government policy or a critic of central banks, This could be difficult.
Or if you dare to step out of the 15-minute city zone, you know, maybe you'll find that, oh, it's not working.
Of course, these are things we've seen already in China.
You know, there's plenty of videos where somebody tries to use it to buy a ticket and it doesn't work because his social credit score has fallen below.
And of course, there's this other whole big agenda of You know, they'll come up with excuses why you can't do what you want to do, and they'll never tell you the real reason, but the official reason is likely to be something like, oh, your carbon footprint, which is another, you know, vague concept.
And, of course, they'll have tools.
There's already some tools out there for every bank transaction.
You get a carbon CO2 rating or quantified number.
And then if you've used up your carbon budget, You can't use it.
And, and, and, I mean you can come up with any number of schemes.
The point is, the issue of the CBDC, which is the central bank, has the power, and essentially it's going to be arbitrary power, to say yes or no to what you want to do with what you thought is your money.
Well, it's not your money, I'm afraid.
And to oppose that even before it becomes full China or full dystopia or full Soviet era, even in the early stages when your transactions are being stopped, maybe even genuinely incorrectly.
Who do you complain to?
It's like now with YouTube or any of the platforms, the tech platforms.
If you get censored, which is a new thing, obviously, since the COVID era, you reply and you explain, no, actually, that was a mistake.
And just sorry.
Automatic reply, sorry.
Because who's there to fix the problem if you are refused unfairly?
Exactly.
Who's behind the curtain?
Exactly.
Some apparatchiks.
Well, the reality is, and this is particularly clear with a vast system like CBDC's where you've got millions, in fact hundreds of millions of users and a tiny, tiny group of controllers, of commissars.
No matter how you want to do it, the reality is going to be Sorry, you know, there'll be an automatic response.
Oh yes, there will be a procedure.
We'll review this.
And it goes into some system.
They will use algorithms and they'll call it AI.
And you will get some automated response one way or another.
But there's no real right to appeal.
So that's going to be the reality.
Because any system where you've got a small number of people that have decision-making power over a vast number of people, that's already a totally wrong setup.
Lord Acton, one of the, I think he was the first Catholic Member of Parliament in the UK, and he was also different in some other aspects, I think his mother was a Bavarian princess, so he sort of didn't quite fit into the typical English establishment, and he became a bit of a critic, and of course that's why he never had an actual position of power, but he was very eloquent, very well educated, and he studied
power in England quite well, and he's written some very insightful things, and so one of his famous quotes is that, and this is really true about human nature anywhere, I think, power corrupts, because power leads to temptations, like I have the power to decide, and we've seen it, we've all experienced it, whether it's at the airport and some or in the COVID era, you know, the The little Hitler's.
The little Tim Pot dictators enjoying their power.
But that's human nature.
So in a way we shouldn't blame individuals.
It's just whenever a person has power there is that temptation.
That's a fact.
And the reality is also that most people can't handle that power.
Because the way to handle it correctly would be to realize I'm actually accountable to God for what I'm doing now, and God is watching this as a test.
Am I abusing my power?
Most people just go straight for the, fall for the temptation, I'm going to abuse that power, I'm going to, oh I want to feel that power, enjoy that power, which is really what happens.
Then he says, now if that power gets larger and you get more and more powerful, then proportionately to the power that you're getting, you're getting more and more corrupted by it, because the temptations get bigger.
Bigger and bigger, all the things you can do with that power.
And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And that's a beautiful, timeless quote for sure.
But this is a form of utter absolute power.
A central bank digital currency.
All behind the curtain of these apparatchiks, commissars, central planners.
Invisible to the ordinary person.
And I think for UK people particularly, you know Little Britain, the comedy?
And they had a famous kind of character who always says, computer says no.
Sorry, computer says no.
And it's just that was always the refrain.
But that's what it's going to be like.
We know that's what it's going to be like when there's a problem.
So it's quite shocking and there isn't... Here's something to emphasize actually, Richard.
I always have to do this and I should not have to.
The conspiracy theorist slur is weaponized now for decades, and it's used against anything that sounds against powerful people and organizations.
It's so absurd.
For all of human history, humans instinctively, survival-wise, were distrustful of powerful organizations that had control over them.
But somehow they've managed to get the modern population To be distrustful of people who are distrustful of powerful organizations.
So I just want to emphasize to people there isn't a whit of conspiracy theory about this.
This is all documented to the hilt.
It's just no one reads it.
And the media.
The media don't cover this.
Maybe that's the thing to...
Absolutely, yeah, they don't cover it.
I mean, the media nowadays is very controlled, particularly in the EU and, you know, the EU, the Commission again, has just put out this new, it's called, I mean, this is very Orwellian, I mean, you think they really, they think, you know, George Orwell's 1984 was just a manual.
Because, so they call it the European Freedom of Media Act.
Freedom.
Trust.
It is literally about controlling European media even more by making it directly subservient to the European Commission.
And they go on about, oh, media should be independent of the member states and entities of the member states.
But they're 100% totally accountable and controlled by the European Commission.
That's in this Act.
The European Commission is just controlling everything left, right and center with this new, and then all the media platforms and media service providers.
With this act, the European Commission can do anything with the media.
It's really scary.
But it's shrouded in words of media freedom, independence.
Well, not from the central planners.
They're totally in charge with this.
And there's a direct parallel there.
Well, there's so many parallels with all the bodies, the UN, the WHO, but the WHO has just released its trust system for tracking every human being traveling and their health records.
And there's a trust node shown.
This is all published by them.
A trust node is shown on multiple graphs showing how people's data, there's a trusted node, so it doesn't get thrown around the place.
It's all through a trust partner on all these diagrams.
The trust partner is the WHO, which is basically like, you know, the commissars of the health sphere.
It's extraordinary, but the ordinary people have no idea that all of this is going on.
And Professor Jakob Nordingaard, very funny in a recent interview, he said, go to this link, this YouTube, and apparently one of the major bodies, I think it was the UN on our common agenda, which is just as scary as the central bank stuff, They put out that they wanted feedback from the public, and it was around a year ago.
And he said, go to their prime video that they shared and see how many views it has.
In a year, the most important thing for a billion people, 385 views.
And that's it.
They technically did put it out there.
- Well, of course, no one saw it. - It's premature. - Yeah, exactly. - So, as well as all the carbon credits, and oh, you ate two steaks last week, so you can't buy a steak this week.
You're done, chappy!
And all that nonsense, which is terrible, but also the whole health tracking.
I mean, the CBDC will lock you in to your health records, I'm guessing, in a superstructure.
True 1984, essentially, for us.
Well, I mean, there is the argument to be made that the entire COVID scam may have been run just in order to prepare things for the CBDCs.
And the real, you know, the real goal or the big prize to them is the CBDCs and the introduction of CBDCs.
Because there is one step before then, they need digital IDs.
And by having the COVID thing, of course, suddenly it's all about all these vaccine passports, although medically, it never made sense, right?
I mean, it just doesn't make sense, particularly, of course, since, you know, the vaccines didn't work, you know, transmission and whatever, getting COVID.
So, it never made sense, but that's survived.
What's the result of all this stuff now?
They're all saying all these international bodies.
In fact, the EU digital health passport is now going to be used by WHO and the UN has mentioned it.
They want that digital ID thing and then they're going to link it.
When CBDCs will be introduced, of course they will be linked.
There's no doubt about it.
And of course we have the historical, most important thing maybe in the century, the World Economic Forum contracted and joined up and partnered with the UN.
In 2019, I think September, no media covered it.
Most important thing for all of our futures, our children.
And if you take the G20, the WEF and the UN now, that's the Troika and you've all EU below them.
But there was another crazy thing about that.
ID2020, which Bill Gates has talked about, because of course Bill is in everything as well.
There's no conspiracy theory, just Bill is in everything.
He's one of the earliest World Economic Forum 1992 global leaders.
So he's in at the start, fair enough.
But ID2020 is sold as a right.
So all these poor people in Africa, etc, that they always use, They have a right to a digital ID.
Everyone has a right.
And Bill, in an interview, and they deleted the piece.
He actually made a mistake and said, well, everyone's going to have to have one.
Like his famous interview where he said, everyone's going to have to take the vaccine.
And they deleted it within 12 hours from the interview because they knew, ooh, we're not meant to tell people that.
Who funded ID2020?
And it's Rockefeller Foundation, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.
Which is Bill Gates.
Which is Bill Gates.
And Bill Gates as well.
And Microsoft, which is Bill Gates.
So basically, two-thirds of it is Bill Gates, and Bill Gates is so close to Rockefeller interests, that is kind of almost all.
Well, that's how he gets started, isn't it?
What was the story?
So his dad was the key lawyer for the Rockefellers.
And I guess at the time they were saying, how do we dominate software?
And, okay, we can buy it in and then we push that through IBM.
That's how we started.
Suddenly, we got this huge contract from IBM.
Surprise, surprise.
And, well, we need a front.
Who's going to do it?
Well, it needs to be a young person.
You know, we can tell the story.
You know, it's a new era.
Who's good?
So, Bill, your son, how old is he?
Okay, well, why don't we have him?
I think that's how it works.
Rough and tough, that's how it works.
And again, this particular discussion, these items are not documented.
Obviously, these are surmising.
But it is interesting to go into speculation on certain things, even if they're not fully proven and documented, because humans have always done that.
And that's how people work stuff out.
But yeah, it's crazy.
And you know the Professor Nordengard story, I went through it on Friday.
It's just fascinating, the Rockefeller Foundation from the 50s, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, just basically, they set up the League of Nations, essentially, which became the United Nations, which Nordengird said they kind of thought of as their own club, and they paid for the United Nations building in New York in 1946.
It's on their land, exactly.
It's on their land.
And then they set up the Trilateral Commission, and they just set up, and WHO essentially was their instigation.
So the whole thing is such a rotten edifice that there isn't even any conspiracy theory left.
It's just business, centralization, and just a movement towards a kind of a You know, a communism of sorts, or a Chinese ant-farm system.
A technocratic control system.
Technocratic control.
In fact, there's this famous, well now famous, Rockefeller report on sort of technocratic futures.
Future developments from 2010 which get four scenarios in it and one is called lockstep and it's about a virus breaking out in China and then well there will be strong measures against this There will be lockdowns.
Misinformation will be a problem.
Exactly, how much time they spend on, oh we need to suppress misinformation, this could be a health problem.
Just like then of course in the event 301 thing.
Or then 201, yes.
- Or in the 201, yes. - Was it 201? - That was just comical, Richard.
And many people may know, but the WF joined up in September 19 with the UN, A load of other stuff happened.
The year, the decade of action was declared by the UN, their 75th anniversary.
Greta goes off to New York on a boat, right?
And there's all this stuff happening.
It's comical.
And then Bill Gates in October 2019 with Johns Hopkins and there was another key partner, WEF funded, they did event 201 and they just got all the media heads and important political people in a huge bash in New York, went through a multi-day simulation and they said what if, say, a coronavirus turned up and it was very transmissible and they effectively reran lockstep.
We'd have to smash down on disinformation.
We'd have to lock down.
And that was October 2019.
Exactly.
And the virus we now know was circulating and there was an awareness of this in June 2019.
So it wasn't like they even did it ahead of the virus or ahead of a release.
They did it knowing.
That it was already out there!
And of course, if it was a genuine sort of health concern, you'd expect a whole lot of doctors to be there and the discussion to be about health and standard principles in medicine, how to deal with pandemics.
But no!
I mean, the amount of time they spend on how do we suppress misinformation and control, you know, we need to be ahead and in charge of the narrative, you know.
That tells you everything, doesn't it?
And it was heavily stacked with the media, key media people, of course, because it was all, of course, about propaganda and control.
And they had, of course, intelligence community people there, significant figures.
So it's kind of, again, there's no conspiracy left.
I'm almost disappointed now after the three years of COVID, because I used to enjoy looking at these kind of salacious conspiracy theory things, and I was amused by them.
Because I developed a six-point chart to be able to adjudicate whether something's a conspiracy theory or a genuine confluence of interests.
A conspiracy, just a real one.
And it's quite technical, but when you fill it out, it's pretty on the money.
You can't really go wrong.
But now, after the last three years, it's like, well, everything's turned out to be largely a confluence of interests, a conspiracy of interests.
And it's like, God damn, some of those crazy guys from 20 years ago were right!
It's weird, but here we are.
But as you say, when you look at commercial interests, that alone, almost by definition, means there will be what people have defined as a conspiracy.
Because what does it mean?
It means a bunch of people meeting in the meeting room, behind closed doors, and they're coming up with a strategy.
How do we sell this product?
How do we push this?
How do we do that?
But of course, are we going to tell the world that that's our plan?
No.
We're going to actually say this and really want to achieve that.
I mean, that happens all the time.
Of course.
That's commercial activity, basically.
And the word conspire, apparently, I found this out as I was researching my adjudication tool, conspire to breed together.
That's the word.
It's just that people come together and conspire, and it does not need to be secret.
Oxford Dictionary, they've changed recently and said, oh, it's a secret cabal.
That's new.
Oxford Dictionary from 1998, I found it, and it was not secret.
It can be secret, but it's just a little covert, or not really publicized too much.
Private conversations.
It is fascinating how they change definitions and dictionaries, right?
I mean, they did it through COVID, but even previously, I mean, I've done this in economics and checked all the various dictionaries and as they push another new agenda, they just change the past, which is another reason why they like the digital
approach because then you can centrally change everything just like in Orwell, you know, we'll rewrite history as we go along, you know, which is why it's good to have hard copy stuff and cash, you know, the digital stuff is subject to manipulation.
And hyper-manipulation in the topic we've discussed, not just the usual kind of nonsense.
And what was my favorite Orwell quote almost, and it pertains to exactly what you said, Richard, he who controls the present controls the past.
He who controls the past controls the future.
And it was so smart.
Yes, if you have control now, you can create the history.
I think it's very true.
which informs people so you've got their future. - Yeah, I think it's very true. - Oh, clever guy. - It is very true, it is very true.
Well, now, I mean, a lot of people have been affected in the last few years by one of the major results of what's been happening in the financial world, inflation.
And I think it's a good way to demonstrate this.
And there's a lot of misinformation as an official narrative, but if you check the details and the data, you can demonstrate what is the real chain of causation and where is the responsibility.
Hope you're enjoying this incredible education and I just popping in here to indicate that the next 10 or 15 minutes as we draw to a close are hugely important and I really learned some new stuff here I new about the 1970s inflation, hyperinflation and the impact that had on the people all over the world and of course the fuel crisis.
But now Professor Werner explains what was really behind and the orchestration behind that whole period when of course we were going away from the gold back dollar and onto a new kind of monetary system of fiat and a lot of the what went on at the time was kind of covering for that transition enjoy And it's quite blatant, actually.
So, the official narrative is, once again, just like in the 70s, we're also told about the 70s, you know, there's a war, and as a result there's some kind of energy embargo, so in the 70s, OPEC oil embargo.
As a result, energy prices jump up and we get inflation.
That's why we had inflation in the 70s and again in 2021, sort of peaking end of 2022.
So that's the official narrative.
Unfortunately, if you check for the proponents of this narrative, the data doesn't check out this way at all.
The inflation essentially peaks in both periods, the 70s and also recently, before the war.
So in the 70s, the war was in mid-October 1973 and then oil prices didn't rise yet.
Henry Kissinger had to fly to Saudi Arabia and arm-twist the oil minister to quadruple the oil price, which happened in January 74.
Now in many countries inflation already had peaked by then and was coming down so the timing doesn't work out and similarly in the recent era the inflation was already significant before the military action Russia-Ukraine And so that doesn't pan out and of course oil prices have since been and energy prices have been falling and are much lower.
So why do we have this significant double-digit inflation?
It's much simpler and it's true for both the seventies and the recent era and I'll focus on the well in the seventies what we saw was that suddenly the central banks were forcing the banks in all the major countries to massively expand money creation.
Surprise, surprise!
What else could create inflation?
And yet this huge surge, 15%, 20%, 25% credit creation growth, you know, massive, suddenly.
And that was in 1971 and 72.
And that goes well with the timing, because there's 18 months, lead time usually 12 to 18 months, you get your inflation.
And, you know, and so this is what happened.
What happened recently is, so in March 2020 the Federal Reserve and then simultaneously the other key central banks adopted a very specific policy which is quite unusual.
It's usually only taken once a century or twice maximum a century.
So it's not something like, oh, we accidentally did this, you know.
It's very specific.
It must be intentional.
And in fact, there's evidence, there's proof that it's intentional.
Now, I saw this in the data, the March data, by around May 2020, and I've been public on my Twitter accounts, Scientific Econ and Professor Werner, the two.
So I've been warning, we'll get significant inflation in 18 months' time.
Now, I did not expect the specific military action.
We had Russia, Ukraine.
It's not part of the forecast.
It was just based on what the central banks have been doing in March 2020.
That caused the inflation.
Now, what was it?
Well, this is the link to my original QE.
So I proposed in Japan in the 90s, because I was predicting that there will be a huge banking crisis.
I said that very early in 91, when most people were completely oblivious, in fact for many years, of what was going to happen.
But it's quite obvious.
And so I then was working on a way to quickly get out of it.
And essentially what you need is that the cause of the banking crisis is always the same.
In the eighties there was too much bank credit for property purchases, just like in Ireland in 2004 and 2010.
And so you get this property bubble when that burst.
And it burst when banks stopped lending.
It's a game of musical chairs.
While there's new money, Because bank lending is money creation.
It is literally creating new money, pumping into property markets.
What's going to happen to property prices?
They have to go up.
And they will go up, it can be years, until the banks stop lending for property.
And they stopped 2009-2010.
And then it all comes down.
Because it's just based on this new money creation being injected into property markets.
So there's no intrinsic, you know, income generation, it's all capital gains due to money creation.
And so the same was in Japan in the 80s and then I expect this to come down in the 90s and create a big banking crisis and then banks get risk averse, they reduce lending, the whole economy slows because if you don't have bank credit for the real economy, for productive business investment, you will get no growth.
So that was likely to happen.
So then my proposal was, I called it quantitative easing and had two aspects.
So the first policy recommendation, which we can call QE1, the first type of QE is for the central bank to step in and purchase the non-performing assets in the banking system, which is all essentially the excessive property lending.
It's all going to turn sour because it's all Money creation for speculative purposes is unproductive, unsustainable.
Central Bank buys it up at face value.
Problem solved.
Banks have a strong balance sheet.
But that won't be enough to get them to increase credit because there's still shell shock because the problem is so vast in Japan.
So I proposed QE2, the second version of QE, which allows the central bank to force the banks to create more money, push it into the economy.
Namely, if the central bank buys assets from the non-bank sectors, From the non-bank players, which can be anything.
In reality, it would be a lot of bonds, corporate bonds.
I recommended, among others, for the Bank of Japan to buy property.
Of course, there was a huge property crash, property prices fell by 80%.
You needed money creation, you needed to support the property market by that time.
And also at the same time, Tokyo still is the city with one of the lowest ratios of park space, green space to population.
Therefore, the Bank of Triantis needs to buy property, real estate, turn it into parks, improve quality of life, but that leads to money creation injected into the economy and supporting the property market, you know?
So you kill a few birds with one stone.
So I recommended that.
Because when a central bank buys something from the non-bank sector, the seller, say, of this property, how do they get the money?
Well, the central bank will transfer it to their bank account.
Which means that suddenly they have money in their bank account, which actually the bank creates because it gets a booking in its reserve account with the central bank.
So that's how it works.
That's how a central bank can push money into the economy directly.
So these were the two forms of QE I recommended.
Unfortunately in Japan, I mean, they understood what I was saying, but essentially the story was, well, okay, great analysis, we'd love to do this, but the Americans are not allowing us.
So Japan, for 20 years, didn't do this.
But in 2008, when it happened in America, Bernanke said, oh, the Werner proposal, QE1, yeah, we'll do that, and they did it immediately.
Whereas, actually, even in Europe, they didn't understand the finer details.
QE, we have to do QE, just buy assets, anything.
They bought performing assets from banks, which is marginally helpful, but it doesn't really Do the job.
And so it took much longer in Europe to get out of the 2008 crisis, whereas America was very quickly recovering because Ben Bernanke, who was part of these debates in the 90s on Japan, he was aware of my proposal and he purchased, the Fed purchased the non-performing assets close to face value from the banks.
So the banks were suddenly in one go, you know, fine.
But they still didn't do the second recommendation because they deemed it not necessarily fine.
It took two years for banks to then increase credit significantly, and then it was 6-7% bank credit growth 2010-11, and they were doing fine.
Now, 2020, March, what happened was the Federal Reserve adopted QE2.
At a time when the economy was actually doing fine.
Growth was fine.
Bank credit growth was around 5-6%.
There was no deflation.
This was a recommendation for deflation and for a shrinking economy and they did it.
They did QE2 and there was a massive expansion.
The Federal Reserve buying up private sector assets from non-banks.
Therefore, forcing banks to create credit and massive, I mean, it's just totally off the charts, the biggest in the post-war era.
And at the same time, of course, there were government restrictions in 2020, so therefore, if you reduce supply, but you massively increase demand through money creation, putting into the economy this money, which in 2008 was just an accounting transaction, there was no new money, so it wasn't going to create inflation.
But in 2020, it's very clear it's going to create inflation, so I want there's going to be inflation.
Most commentators thought, because they don't understand these differences between QE, it's going to be fine. 2008, All this Fed QE, no inflation.
It's going to be the same in 2020.
No, it's totally different.
It's going to be massive inflation.
Now, the smoking gun is this.
How do we know that this was fully the intention?
Well, A, it's a very specific policy and it's very rarely taken.
And all the central banks suddenly did it.
Even the Bank of Japan that for decades have been saying, oh, we can't do what Professor Werner is saying.
We can't do it.
They did it in March 2020.
So they can do it.
But the other proof is, just before COVID, in August 2019, there was a conference in Jackson Hole of the annual Central Bankers Conference.
But they'd invited BlackRock, the big asset manager, tens of trillions of assets under management, the biggest asset manager in the world.
And BlackRock made a proposal.
They said, there will be another crisis.
Yeah, we can be sure of that, because each time we reward the central planners for creating crises, so why wouldn't they have another crisis?
There'll be another crisis, but this time we should create inflation.
They never explain why.
They just say, we must create inflation.
Of course, it's a clever sort of psychological trick, because the insinuation is unspoken.
The crisis will be deflationary, therefore we must create inflation.
Or it could be just because we want inflation.
They just don't say, but next time we must create inflation and here's how we're going to do it.
And they cited my proposal, without mentioning my name of course, we need to back fiscal policy through money creation and get the central bank to directly push money into the economy, which it can do by purchasing assets from the non-bank sector.
And how do we know that this is what the Fed did in March 2020?
Well, we've got the data and...
There's one more factor.
The Federal Reserve hired BlackRock in March 2020 to buy assets.
Yeah, I heard that and I found it, well I don't find anything hard to believe anymore, but I found that kind of hard to believe because it was so openly crazy to be connecting all these things.
Yeah, but it's all out in the open.
You can get the August 19 paper, you can get the appointment announcement of BlackRock in March 2020.
And the irony is, Bernanke got your Nobel Prize, and Larry Fink directly used your work to create a dystopian ant farm, or at least help move us in that direction.
It's a funny old world, Richard.
Yeah, it is that.
And of course, you know, I hasten to add, I mean, this QE was for a deflationary situation, but the way they were using it, it had to cause inflation, there was no doubt.
And they knew it, because they even said it, BlackRock, we must, we should create inflation, and they did it.
So this inflation, It's entirely intentionally created by the central banks, by the central planners.
So how are we going to punish them for this?
Oh, let's give them more powers.
Let's give them unprecedented powers over everything, over life on earth through central bank digital currencies.
Yeah, it's like many of these things.
It's just when they're laid out, and as you say, all fully documented.
And to be honest, even to a layperson, you should be able to follow this discussion and realize how self-evident it is.
But only after you hear the discussion and you are aware of the data.
It's obviously completely opaque and impossible to understand if you look at legacy media.
Because you won't get a single shred of the whole, you know, root cause web of this thing.
But when you lay it out as clearly as you have, it's actually self-evident.
It's extraordinary.
It's funny, Richard.
I had, if you will, some friends.
I had a circle of friends who are actually very significant in central banking and in high-level banking.
But I no longer really converse with them because of COVID.
So you're well aware, I guess, people who held up and basically shared the true data on COVID, you know, often have to be cancelled.
Not aggressively, but just simply became a little hot to handle.
So it'll be interesting if they ever watch this though, because they would actually be able to learn themselves how it all works in spite of their specialty.
I wonder, this has been superb Richard, and I know you have to get back to the conference, we have to bring this to a close, but is there any final thoughts?
I know there's so much more, but final thoughts maybe on what people should do Yeah.
In terms of, like, personally, I think some allocation to physical metals, you know, commodities are probably in the coming years maybe going to be okay.
I'm guessing the stock market, no financial advice, but I'm guessing the stock market and the S&P at some point after this bull run It ain't going to look good, given the mass of multi-bubbles.
I mean, well, you're just broad thoughts on ordinary person's finance.
Yes, I mean, you've got the cyclical issues, but you've also got these long-term structural issues we have to be aware, because the 70s inflation was used to cover up the move from the gold dollar to the petrol dollar.
And that's the true reason I think why they wanted this inflation because that is the cover-up to cover up the essentially disintegration of the petrol dollar and move to the new system which they want to be CBDC based.
Now that is the risk and and well I mean it's that that it will happen if we don't stop it.
So I think of course you know everyone needs to prepare for this.
That means you should have some physical gold with you that so you have access to it.
Ideally you bought it anonymously because like in the US 1933 you know gold confiscation took place and if even known to have bought this gold they may come after to look for that.
But also we should just do more in the local communities and try to become autarkic.
Because really, the economy is us, people.
And if we work together locally, that can create a very resilient structure.
And then we can use anything we want as means of settlement.
We can have a local currency, we can have a gold-based system, silver-based system, or we can just have a local community bank, which is often a good way of running a system, a community bank, and then you can have your own credit creation locally.
In fact, I think because the central planners, they want to centralize, they want to reduce the number of banks, now is the time, I think, for humanity, for people who have a bit of capital to step forward.
And say let's create community banks.
Here's five million euros.
That's the minimum you need.
Local First Community Interest Company has the know-how.
We can get the banking license.
We need people to step forward now.
We'll set up community banks locally, get the banks authorized.
That can be the core of a local economy.
which then makes it resilient.
And of course also it shows that this decentralization system is much more superior because local banks are accountable locally.
Community banks can be structured either with a local charity, so all the profits go locally into this geographically restricted area.
I mean Germany has been successful for 200 years because 80% of its banks are local not-for-profit community banks and they only lend locally to the local small firms.
And these small firms are therefore highly productive.
They have huge exports globally.
They're so-called hidden champions, you know, top market leaders.
But they're actually small family-owned firms.
But they can constantly upgrade because the local bank will always lend to them to get the latest technology.
That's why productivity is much higher in Germany than in the UK, for example.
But that's, of course, under threat by the central planners.
They want to force them to merge.
But basically, we need to set up new banks.
And I think we can do that if we act quickly now.
In the coming two years, we really need to get this going.
Yes, the time is now, call to action, particularly for people of worth out there, five million, you know, or a couple of people together, and these can be set up, well, Ireland, British Isles, certainly, legally, or Europe, also in each domicile, they should be locally set up, and authorized by the local regulators, and it's a profitable investment, banking is profitable, so the investors would get a return, while the local community would get a return, and
It's a way of delaying, perhaps even preventing the introduction of CBDCs.
They have, you know, they have literally delayed their agenda because I think it's so important to them.
They've been very careful about the timing and they've, oh, let's wait a little longer, let's wait a little longer, let's have this crisis first, oh, let's have COVID first, you know, soften them up.
But they've delayed because the technology was really ready around 2015 to roll out.
And what people don't mention is, what do these CBDCs actually look like?
At the moment there's a bit of talk about this being phone based apps and yes that is the initial phase but what was already ready around 2015 is the ultimate goal what they really want apparently I was told by a central banker is you know CBDC looks like a small grain of rice that they want to put under your skin which is in my view a violation of human dignity and they realize there is a hurdle so
To get people to accept this, there will be, you know, why suddenly all the billionaires saying let's have universal basic income?
Because the story is going to be, oh, now we've created this vast unemployment and disruption and crises.
Well, we need universal basic income.
You will get 2,000 euros into your account every month, but of course to run this efficiently, we need to use the latest technology.
So, you know, you need the CBDC chip implant.
But how many people will say, okay, fine, 2,000 pounds, 2,000 euros, you know?
A surprising proportion, shockingly obviously to me or yourself, but we've seen Years ago, in Sweden, there has been a substantial small minority take up of what's currently much larger.
It's kind of like a little cylinder in stainless steel, I guess.
Maybe it's titanium or something.
And they are doing it because they just want to.
They want to be early adopters of this nonsense.
So if anyone's listening and that sounds fanciful or conspiracy theorist, the fact is in Sweden, they are taking it up and in other places, and that's not coming out of nowhere.
That's not just some local tech firm makes this.
You know, it's part of the early adoption kind of tendrils coming out from the mothership.
So yeah, interesting times ahead.
But now, as you say, Richard, now is the chance for awareness, wider awareness, and the time to start taking action in any way you can.
Exactly, exactly.
Great stuff, Richard.
Thank you so much.
Thanks so much folks and I hope you'll agree this is compelling information all fact-checked and factual and of course I've been on a mission now for many years to bring the actual facts behind you know pandemics and metabolic health
and big pharma and all of those things and more recently getting into the geopolitical and world of financials so my whole aim is to get information out there so people can be informed and try and cut through the nonsense that comes out from the largely purchased legacy media
I think it's crucially important for all of our futures and I really appreciate the support and help I get from so many people out there to keep me on this mission and anyone else who can chip in even a little to help with getting the correct information out there and countering the misinformation from the legacy media.
I really really appreciate it.
▲
Export Selection