And everybody welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International.
Today's discussion, this group was founded by Dr.
Stephen Frost in a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health.
And it has been successful in doing so over the last two years.
Stephen has stood up against government and power over the years and has been a
whistleblower and activist.
His medical specialty is radiology.
I'm Charles Cobes, the moderator of this group.
I must relate to his passion provocateur.
My jacket is red because red is the color of passion.
I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
Now the last 12 years I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for
vaccine damage and damage from bad medical advice.
I'm also the CEO of an industrial hemp company.
On the bad medical advice, John Rappaport reports that bad medical advice is the
third largest killer in America.
We comprise lots of professions, including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths,
journalists, scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers and troublemakers.
And we're from all around the world.
Many of us thought the vaccines were OK.
Now many of us proudly say, yes, we are passionate anti-vaxxers.
And the number, I keep testing this number as well on people not on this group.
And I urge all of us to do so that when I was a kid, we got four or five vaccines in
the first four years of life today in Australia.
In the first four years of life, you have to have 43 antigens.
And in America, I believe it's 72 or 73 in the first 18 years.
Like this is just madness.
So I am a passionate anti-vaxxer.
I take on board Judy Mikovits advice to us.
Don't be jabbed with anything.
If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free to introduce yourself in the chat
and where you're from.
If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or you have a radio or TV show like I do on TNT
radio, or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow you, promote
you and find you.
And Dave Collin, put your annual review link into the chat because you haven't done that
for quite a while.
Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War Three and there are various battle
lines as part of this war.
Most of us understand the development of science and that the science is never settled.
The meeting runs for two and a half hours after which, for those with the time, Tom
Rodman runs a video telegram meeting.
Tom puts the links into the chat.
If you are able to join, we'll listen to our guest presenters today, Mads Palsvik from
Denmark and Alex Kraner from Monaco via Croatia.
For as long as they wish to speak and then we have Q&A.
Stephen Frost via long established tradition asked the first questions.
There's no censorship.
It's a free speech environment.
Free speech is crucially important in our fight for freedom.
If you're offended by anything, be offended.
We are genuinely not interested.
We reject the offence industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
Remember, I have a paper with nine standard responses to somebody who says to you,
I'm offended by what you said.
If you want that, if you want those nine standard responses, put it in the channel, send me
an email, I'll happily share it.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love and not fear.
Fear is the opposite of love.
Fear squashes you.
Love, on the other hand, expands you.
If you have a solution or a product or links or resources that will help people put the
details into the chat, the meeting is recorded and is uploaded on the Rumble channel.
And now welcome to our guest presenters, Alex Kraner and Mads Palsvik, who are both
wonderful geopolitical experts and wonderful thinkers.
And we thank you both so much for giving us your time and wisdom and insights today.
And thank you, Stephen Frost again for creating the group and for organizing Alex and Mads
to speak to us.
Gentlemen.
Charles, I should I should have told you, but didn't have a chance that Alex and Matt
are going to try and have a discussion rather than either of them presenting.
And and then depending on what they want, we can join in and and of course, ask
questions.
But I hope they say something offensive.
No, we want to we want to sit in on this discussion with pretend we're at a conference
with these two guys are the panelists up on the stage, Stephen, and we're watching this
conversation between these two geniuses.
And we're going to have a discussion about the topic of the discussion.
Between these two geniuses and to make life easier, just because the way this works,
because I'm recording on this computer and then we put it up on the rumble.
If any of you want Mads and Alex to be side by side, just reminding you all you have to
do is to pin them, click on their name, you add a pin and then they magically turn up
into the top left corner of your computer.
And then you can see them side by side talking to each other as if they're on a stage.
So add the pin and they are there on my top left corner.
And I don't have to go finding their good looking faces.
All right, so I'm like you, Stephen.
So Alex and Matt, it's up to you how you how you do this.
I was trying to think who's the better question asker of the two of you.
And it's not an easy question to answer.
So it's a bit weird to kind of talk to each other on this platform, Zoom platform.
But if you could try your best and then we'll try it, we'll help you if you run out of
things to talk about, because I know that you could talk for hours.
You're muted, Alex and Mads.
Thank you, Stephen, and thank you, everyone, for participating and for having us.
It's a pleasure and a privilege.
I wanted to ask if Mads had something that he wanted to open with.
And if not, then I can open with something.
Hello, Alex. Hello, Stephen. Hello, Charles.
It's good to see you again, Alex.
We met on a similar circumstances on Bornholm virtually.
Correct.
A month ago.
And yeah, no, I mean, obviously, I think that since we are both hedge fund managers,
investment bankers, we will maybe talk a little bit about economics and how we can have a
better economic system that benefits everybody.
And that would be something I would like to talk about.
And another thing, your book, I think we've talked about it before, but I think it's
your book, I think it was called Grand Deception.
I read it four years ago when it came four or five years ago.
And of course, your knowledge about Russia is second to none.
And I would love to delve into that a lot.
My wife is Russian.
We met New Year's Eve 1989, 1990.
And one month later, I was on a plane to Moscow and we got married the 9th of March.
And we're still together.
And I love my wife and my kids.
And I love Russia.
And I was devastated to see how that nation was treated in the 90s.
There was a real Holocaust.
At least six million Russians were killed by the banksters and the oligarchs.
The average age for men collapsed.
They just didn't pay them any money.
And I just think that maybe you and I could talk about some anecdotes.
I see from the book, The Grand Deception, the treasure trove of information that you
have there, the articles that are there, the list of literature.
So I would hope that we could maybe talk a little bit about that because also what you
write about is that it's so important that Russia and America refine their history,
that they are friends.
And it has been systematically, it's been a conspiracy against Russia and against the
American people to convince them that actually the English and the French are their friends
when it is exactly the other way around.
So these are some of the things that I would love for you to talk about for sure.
And then I'll pitch in with whatever I can whenever there's a chance.
So back to you, Alex.
Thank you very much, Mads.
Okay, so challenge accepted.
But I would like to start with first giving the discussion and the current circumstances
in the world a context.
So because there's so much stuff going on in the world, there are so many events unfolding
that it can be disoriented unless you understand the full context of what is going on.
And I always go back to what George Soros told us in 2021 at the Davos gathering,
the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos.
And he said that what we're witnessing is the conflict between two systems of governance.
And so, okay, so he characterized it as the open societies, which are wonderful,
democratic, liberal, care about human rights, blah, blah, blah, all of that, versus closed
systems, which are none of those things, which don't care about human rights,
and they're tyrannical and autocratic and so forth.
But there he was being disingenuous.
In reality, it's the conflict between the predatory, oligarchic, imperialistic,
colonialist system that's taken root in the West versus pretty much the whole rest of humanity,
including the domestic populations of countries where these oligarchies have
taken over as a parasite.
And this conflict goes back to antiquity.
It goes back to Hammurabi's Babylonia and ancient Greece, the Roman Empire.
Aristotle in the Republic already, he didn't accurately describe it, but he
foreshadowed the emergence of two systems, of a system where the economy exists to produce
goods and services to make life better for the local community versus the system that
turns to trade, turns to profit making, turns to essentially predation.
And then in 1850s, Henry C. Carey, who was the chief economic advisor to Abraham Lincoln,
he wrote quite a long passage describing how he saw the difference between the two systems.
So all the conflicts that we see today, including the conflict between the two systems,
all the conflicts that we see today, including the corona pandemic, including the war in Ukraine,
including what happened in Russia during the 1990s, what's happening in Africa today,
the whole colonialist period that has devastated pretty much most of the world,
which has destroyed six indigenous civilizations around the world and thousands of
kingdoms, cultures, tribes, enslaved tens of millions of human beings, depopulated entire
continents almost entirely of their native populations. That is the system of governance,
which I wouldn't hesitate to call a malignancy, which is today fighting a proxy war in Ukraine
against Russia and against China because these two nations have emerged as worthy rivals,
as credible rivals, and they have been progressively beating back the globalist, imperialist system.
The first big blow was US withdrawal from Afghanistan, which I thought was the mortal
wound to the empire. Now they're on the verge of losing entirely in Ukraine, and as we're
observing, as we're speaking, just in the last week, we had a coup in Niger. African countries
are turning up. They are no longer accepting the colonial dictates from the UK, from France,
from the United States. This system of governance, the imperialist, globalist,
colonialist, whatever we want to call it, this malignancy, and the occult oligarchies that
control it are literally in the fight for their very survival. I believe, I don't know this,
but I believe that the logic of this conflict imposes it on Russia and China and Iran and
BRICS nations and pretty much everybody concerned that this period of history must end, that these
oligarchies and the methods and mechanisms that they use to enslave humanity must be completely
eradicated. They must be completely destroyed. They must be completely disenfranchised.
So that, I think, is very important to keep in mind so that we understand that
we're not looking at public health issues, that we're not looking at
the Western do-gooders trying to salvage liberal democracy in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world,
that we're literally looking at predatory oligarchic imperialistic system trying to
to rule the world and losing at present. That's the context.
Excellent. Matt?
Oh, your microphone has gone very low, Matt.
Okay, is it better if I sit like this?
You've gone quiet again, Matt. I don't know what's happened.
Okay, well, it works.
Unlike you, be quiet.
I was on a podcast. Let me mute and...
So how about now?
Now it's fine.
It's fine. Okay, I'll go a little bit closer. So basically, a lot of freedom fighters
toeing the line, talking about the economy is collapsing. And I've been saying all along
that it's not. And I'm saying that the moment I'm wrong, that is the time we have won. Because the
threat of the collapse is what is creating the fear that they can control the world through.
The minute the world collapses, they lose their power grip because people will go in and say,
excuse me, why don't we just produce some money? We have people who can work. We have bricks. We
have builders. We have farms. We have food. So we just need to create our own financial system,
and it won't take long. We're not talking years. We're talking either weeks or months.
So that's why the threat of the collapse is what they're doing. They're never collapsing it.
They have a local collapse in Greece. Yes. They will destroy a colony there until they
have their dictators in place. Yes, of course. But overall, if you look at it, it's not collapsing.
If you read the book, Super Abundance, we spent on average, it's a straight line. We're becoming
richer and richer and richer. We spent less minutes to buy any services. We spent less hours to buy
any goods than ever in history. And I am aware that we can buy less than we did last year. But
that's a blip. The trend is still going up. The world is super abundant. There's enough for
everybody. There's absolutely no reason why anybody is homeless or starving. No reason at all.
We have in Denmark 1% of the population working in agriculture and fishing, and we are producing
food for 60 million people. We are 6 million people. We have 3% of the population in the
industrial goods production, and we are net exporters of industrial goods. But the remaining
96% are basically on some sort of universal basic income. So we are so wealthy. So the thing is,
the problem is not that we are not wealthy. The problem is the distribution of the wealth.
And I am not a bleeding-heart communist here at all. I'm not. It's just that the whole entire
economic system is structured in a way that sucks all the energy and the velocity of money. The
biggest wealth creator we have on this planet is money creation and the velocity of money.
If you and I are allowed to buy services from each other, then it creates such a huge
wealth that I don't even think any economist have dared writing about it. The multiplicator
effect, how important that is for wealth creation. I challenge you to find any books,
anybody writing anything about it, because they will be laughed at if they say, because then once
they start studying it and find out, my goodness, we're so rich. Let me give you an example of
Denmark, and then you can counter intuitively understand how rich we are. So Denmark, we have
the highest average salaries of any nation in the world, I believe. And the marginal tax rate is 63%
and then you pay 25% VAT and of course all the other taxes I don't want to go into details about.
But let's just say for argument's sake, say that you pay 80% tax. So I make a thousand kroner,
I give 80% to the technocrats and the warmongers and the vaccine purchasers that are my government
and I keep 200 kroner. I then go out and spend 200 kroner buying services from someone.
And this gentleman or woman will then be spending the same 80%. So she or he will be able to spend
40 kroner. So in just this one transaction or two transactions, the government system,
the beast system, the oligarchical predatory system, they have been able to drain out 96%
of our money. They could have gone into productive use and wealth creation. They managed to suck it
all out. And what do they, and then the argument for doing that is, oh yeah, we're better off taking
care of the money. And yes, I do understand they put some of the money back in terms of hospitals
and salaries to unproductive public workers and so on. I'm aware that some of it comes back,
but the bottom line is they suck a lot of it out and then they give it to destruction, to wars and
so on. So I think this is what I'm saying about the collapse. If it collapses, then I agree with
you. That means we have won. And some of the things why I think you are on the right track
is when you see them destroying all the rivers in America, the forest fires, this is the thing
they would do when they are really beaten. They want to destroy everything when they're losing.
So this could be a sign that you might be right.
Thank you, Mats. I'm astonished that the figure is 96%. I suspected it was something high.
I thought it was less than 96%, but it doesn't surprise me. You're right.
Okay. So with regards to the money system, I kind of had to explain this to myself,
and then now I try to convey it because I think it makes sense. But basically,
the way we generate wealth is through productivity, meaning producing things that are useful,
things that we desire. And so I try to ask people to envision, imagine a nomadic community.
And basically, they still exist today in the world and basically the whole community
works and collaborates to earn their subsistence. And I think somebody somewhere,
I think I read it in Carol quickly, that it takes in these very simple communities, it takes 21
persons' labor to provide sustenance for 23 people. I don't know where that comes from,
but let's say that it's broadly correct. But then what happens is that once we develop
agriculture and settle down, now we have surplus. And once we have surplus, it means that not
everybody has to work. So we can divert labor to teaching philosophy, art, painting. We can
invest into infrastructure projects. We can create public transport. We can, you know, you can
ask a squad of men to go and build a bridge across the river where there's further fields that can
be cultivated. And now, you know, once the bridge is built, the community becomes even wealthier,
and now it can cultivate more fields, now it becomes even wealthier. And so the more we apply
knowledge, creativity, entrepreneurial spirit, the more wealth we build and accumulate. And now
this wealth, this creates a surplus, a very significant surplus. And then we have to decide
what to do with this surplus. And so inevitably, the question of monetary economics has to be
a political question. So now we have to ask ourselves, what do we want? You know, we are
individuals who are, you know, put on this earth. We have the capacity to be happy. We love our
children. We love our family members and friends and parents and so forth. We enjoy good times and
good food, music, arts, community and so forth. I think that these are the kinds of things that
we would desire more. Whereas we found ourselves in a matrix where the imperative is economic growth.
What kind of growth is almost secondary? You know, like we just have to produce more crap
and more crap and more crap every year and consume more crap and more crap and more crap
every year. It's a metastasizing of quantity against and loss of quality probably along the way.
And so we have to participate in these decisions because they should be formed and informed by our
own inclinations, by our own core values. And so, you know, the relevant question of economic
becomes who are we really? Why are we here? Those are economic relevant questions of economics.
And I think that by now we have become so accustomed to living in this matrix
that we don't, you know, we've kind of checked out on these issues. We don't ask ourselves.
We've abdicated our responsibility to politicians and think tankers and academics and experts who
tell us how things should be, what is good for us, what is not good for us. But I think that by now
many, many people, maybe most people, are sensing at least intuitively that this is all wrong
and that we need to rethink our future. And now the problem is how do we fix the money?
Because money is exactly the, you know, the source of all evil that poisons all the relationships
in society because the kind of money that we have now is fraudulent. It's based on fraud.
It's based on conjuring purchasing power out of thin air and then choosing what to spend it on.
So it's no longer, you know, the spending is no longer chosen by individual people or communities
based on their own needs, desires, values. But it's being decided by an oligarchy who says
you shouldn't have art and ballet and symphony and beautiful libraries and community centers.
Instead, you should have QR codes and 5G networks controlling your every move and,
you know, an infinite maze of rules and prohibitions and permits that you can't even keep trying to
even keep track of. So, you know, they're hoping to work it out with AI, but, you know, they're not
going to. How to fix money is, I think, the key problem. So to go from the fraudulent money to
the honest money, we go back to that analogy of turning from nomadic life to agriculture
and generating surplus. So now the surplus would be surplus of food, ability to, you know, build
houses for families. And now if you're going to divert labor for other uses other than sustenance,
then you have to pay that labor in some way out of the surplus. So, you know, rather than dishing out
bushels of grain and, you know, bottles of milk and whatever you have it, you would tokenize it,
right? You would tokenize that surplus. And then you would make the political decision where the
surplus gets invested. And then you would pay the people who manage this investment, who manage
the projects, whatever the community shows, by means of these tokens. You give each worker,
I don't know, 100 tokens, and these 100 tokens entitles them to so much out of the surplus.
So that would be, let's say, a broad brush idea of the honest money. And so the difference is that
those tokens reflect and represent society's community's actual wealth.
Or it could, it can also represent future wealth if we dare to imagine some, you know,
when the Erie Canal was built, it collapsed the cost of trading between East Coast and the Lake,
it collapsed the cost of trading between East Coast and the Lake, and the Great Lakes by 90%.
So by building that canal, you can already project that it's going to enhance the community's,
the society's wealth. So then you can base money also on future wealth in a conservative way.
But it cannot be credit, conjured out of thin air, and then allocated at the discretion of
some oligarchy that is allocating it for their own agendas, their plans, their desires, because
it becomes pathogenic. They, you know, they don't want everybody to be well off. They want to
concentrate as much wealth as possible in their own hands. They like the population,
they prefer the population to be, you know, in George Carlin's world, just smart enough to
keep the machines going and too dumb to actually understand what is being done to them. And so I
think it's down to us, to the awakening, to us understanding how the system operates, and how
it should operate. And I just wanted to also, before I wrap up this argument, I also wanted
to point out, I used to think for the longest time that getting to honest money would fix the
society's problems, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Namely, you know, throughout antiquity,
we arguably did have honest money because it was gold and silver coin mostly, and it was physical.
There was no possibility of fractional reserve lending. That is, it was impracticable.
So even in absence of fiat currency, and even in absence of fractional reserve lending,
we had such malignancy that we saw arise with the Roman Empire, which was an absolute abomination.
I mean, the more you know about it, the more you know how horrifically rotten it is. And, you know,
the fact that it's called Holy Roman Empire is another one of those big lies of history that,
you know, actually turns everything upside down. And so it's not just honest money. We also need
real checks against the emergence of oligarchies. Because in every, I live in Monaco, right? It's
not a democracy. The sovereign is the prince, Prince Albert at the moment. The ruling family
has had more than 700 year continuity as the ruling dynasty. But in Monaco, there's a, you
know, a handful of families that are probably wealthier than the prince himself. And I suppose
that, and you know, they are into being wealthy and getting more wealthy. And I suppose that at
a certain moment in time, they might decide to conspire against the sovereign and take him out.
And decide that it's better to have an oligarchy. Sorry, not better to have an oligarchy,
to have a democracy. You see, what happens is that throughout history, tyrants, kings,
tsars, people like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, they are able to deal with oligarchy in the way
that democracy cannot. So, you know, in China, we've seen that corrupt bankers actually get to
face a firing squad. In Russia, we saw Vladimir Putin line up the oligarchs and lay down the rules.
So in 2003, basically, he got them all together. And he said, carry on. Run your businesses.
There are three things that you have to do. You have to treat your people correctly,
pay them correctly. You have to pay your taxes correctly. And you have to stay out of politics.
And this last condition, they didn't take him seriously. So Mikhail Khodorkovsky, all the same,
tried to barge into politics and set up his own party and run. And he got immediately arrested
and thrown into prison for, I think, nine years. And that is something that is inconceivable in
the UK, in France, in the United States, in any democracy. Because what we're being sold as
democracy is the system that is ruled by an oligarchy with a facade of choice. And we know
that it doesn't work because in most of the Western nations, people always vote for people
who always vote for anti-war candidates, like the United States. For as long as I remember,
people always voted for people who promised to end the wars, to stop the nation building,
to stop the empire building and so forth. And after every election, they still got more war,
with the sole exception of Donald Trump. They always got more war. They always got more
nation building. They always got more global military adventurism everywhere around the world.
So obviously, the really, really important questions in society are decided by somebody else.
Nobody asked for the vaccinations. Nobody asked for LGBT. Nobody's asking for climate lockdowns,
but they still want to institute them. Nobody asked for 15-minute smart cities. Nobody asked
for 5G network. Somebody's making all those decisions. Somebody's allocating capital into
realizing those plans. And it's not the democratic will of the people.
Since the times of antiquity, the tyrants was the label applied to people who wanted to put
brakes on the oligarchy, who wanted to deal with the oligarchy and put a check on their excesses
and abuse. Julius Caesar was one of them, and he was assassinated. History packages out as like,
the senators killed Julius Caesar to preserve democracy, ignoring the results. So the declarations
are taken as evidence, but the results of what the system actually does are ignored by history.
I think I shared this with Stephen just today, but as an example, after the Punic Wars, there was
the creation of the Latifundia in the Roman Empire, and of course, the aristocrats got
all the good lands, and it was consolidated in very few hands.
This was all based on the operation of debt and usury.
2,200 years later, Penguin Classics in translating Livy's History of Rome omits three passages
that explain that the consolidation of wealth in the aftermath of the Punic War was based on the
operation of debt and money lending and the operation of the bankers. Those three passages
were omitted from the translation. So to this day, the oligarchies lie about historical record
to conceal the way they operate. So I think that our task today is not only to create honest money,
but also to institute checks on oligarchies, whether emergent ones or the ones that already exist.
Great speech, Alex.
Alex, and so basically, we were talking about fixing money, and I think I want to
delve into that a little bit because we have a very important task, and that is that,
just like I had to be interested in pharmaceuticals and medical in the last four years,
which I've never been before, but because of the pandemic, I had to do that. I think that now it's
very important that everybody take it upon themselves to try to understand what money is.
And now we have, for various reasons, we have such a big chance to do it now because
we saw how they, in 2019, they were doing it in the same way that they were doing it in the
past. We saw how they, in 2019, couldn't spend one billion on welfare to the elderly here in Denmark,
and the following year, they could spend 500 billion on sending the entire public sector home.
And real estate prices went up. Equity prices went up. If you ask any economists what would happen
if you send the entire public sector home, the last thing they would say would be that equity
prices went up and house prices would go up. There's no way that could happen. Well, it did
because of money creation. When you create money and the velocity of money, how much you're spending
that money, how fast it's being put to use, it creates either inflation or growth or a combination
of the two. So that's why this bizarre thing happened. And that is a good chance for people
to understand that these oligarchs who are running, or Democrats, false Democrats,
or politicians who are running the show, they can create as much money as they want. They can type
in as many zeros after the digits as they want. And this is something that is very important to
understand. And you have the 2008 where the Southern Europeans, it was too tempting for
the banksters. All these Southern Europeans, most of them owned their houses without a mortgage.
So it's difficult to take control of Southern European nations because if you're unemployed,
you always had a dad or an uncle or granddad or grandmother who had a big family home
with no mortgage because they bought it or built it 100 years ago. So if you ever were in trouble,
you could just move home, no more home, free of charge. And then, so this was very tempting
for the banksters. So they created this artificial crash and it goes like this literally.
They call each other and say, let's crash the market, okay? So they sell all their personal
assets first. And then they go to call all the bank managers. Now you stop lending and call back
your loans. And then it's a game of musical chairs. It's about the music stops. Who doesn't have a
chair to sit on? You lost. And then they throw that you crash the markets. And they did that
in Southern Europe. They crashed the economy. And already with the corrupt politicians, they,
as we do in Denmark and all the other countries have these massively corrupt politicians, they
always ran a deficit of 3%. Why? I mean, we already have this huge tax burden. Why are they always
running a deficit of 3%? I mean, come on. So you're taking in 97 and you're spending 100. Why? Why not
take in 100 and spend 100? If you're already taking so much, why do you have to run a deficit?
They do this interest on interest to have this debt that keeps growing. And then when you have
the crash, it's no longer 3% deficit. It's maybe 7%, 8% or 9% deficit. And then the EU and the IMF
comes in, oh, Southern Europe, that is not acceptable. So now you have to fix it. Yeah,
but we need to borrow some money. What do we do? The corrupt politicians cannot talk about money
creation. They cannot talk about what they did in 2020, just produced the money out of thin air
by tapping in it. No, no, they didn't do that. No, they had to borrow the money from IMF and
the international banksters, of course, of 8% or 9% interest, which of course they can't pay because
they're already running this huge deficit. And then the IMF says as a condition to the loan,
they say now you have to fire all your public sector workers. Guess what's going to happen then
with the tax base? The public sector, they're not paying anything because they're unemployed.
They're not spending any money in the local businesses. So they are also closing down.
So the tax base is totally destroyed. And then, of course, the countries can't pay anything. And then
IMF comes in and says things like, for example, well, you should probably introduce a real estate
tax. And then people say, well, I can't pay my real estate tax. I'm unemployed. I can live in my
home because I paid for it. But I can't pay real estate tax. I don't have any money. I'm not
making any money. And then the banksters come in and then they say, and here comes, you can take a mortgage.
And then they take a mortgage and pay the tax to the banksters. And this is what they did in 2008.
And then they bailed out the banks. They said they could not help the poor people in southern Europe.
They printed or typed in 1,500 billion euros and bailed out the British, the French and the German banks.
And I think a lot of people dawned to the fact that there is something going on with this money.
There's something going on. And then they saw from 2008 to 2016, they saw President Obama,
Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama, spending $10,000 billion mainly on wars. So doubling the amount of
dollars in circulation in eight years. And to translate $10,000 billion, because that's neither
here nor there, that is the equivalent of 30,000 US dollars per capita. So an average family in America
with two parents and two children, call me old fashioned, dreamer, would be $120,000 US dollars
in a country with 55 million people on food stamps. Imagine what a life-changing event that would have
been for many, many families. If Obama, bastard, instead of having bombed poor countries all over
the world, transferring money to the military criminal complex, imagine he had instead just
produced the money and handed it to the rightful owners, which is the people, everybody. We all own
our fair share of the money creation. It doesn't say anywhere in my constitution that BlackRock
and Vanguard are allowed to mint coins in Denmark. It says only the king can mint coins. That's what
it says in our constitution. Nowhere does it say that the ECB can do it on behalf of Goldman Sachs.
Nowhere does it say that. So now we have this chance now to explain these stories,
and they can see that Obama, he was a puppet for these evil oligarchs. And then that was example
number two. And example number three, of course, was the lockdown, where in Denmark they spent
$500 billion on locking, on just sending all the public sector home, and then in 2021, I mean,
they're busy bees, these banks, aren't they? In 2021, they could spend an equivalent amount
of vaccines. Come on, what's going on? Where do they get all this money from? They just type it
into a computer. And now in 2022, America $150 billion already, and Denmark, I don't know how
many billions we're sending down there. And soon, of course, as you mentioned, it will be the climate.
So now, please, come on, everybody. I have zero tolerance for anybody not understanding
money creation now. The evil bastards, they are giving us so many examples of what they're doing.
So everybody must understand that. And ask yourself the question, what if Obama didn't
bomb Afghanistan and Syria and Libya? What paid the money to the poor people in America instead?
What if the ECB hadn't spent 1,500 billion euros bailing out French, German, and English
money laundering businesses called banks? What if they had instead given the money creation to the
rightful owners, the people in Southern Europe, so they could have a nice standard of living,
which they deserve in these rich, beautiful countries? And what if we hadn't sent the entire
public sector workers home, but instead had invested that in, well, let people find out what
they want to invest that in. Don't tell them what to do. Just give everybody their fair share of the
money creation and then allow them to save it or spend it or use it on education or go on holiday,
do whatever they want. Let people decide for themselves. So I agree with this, if I understood
you correctly with the token idea, I think that money creation should be a kind of being a
shareholder in your country. We are all together. We all own our fair share. Why should a bankster
have all of it? Why? Why should someone who is educated have more than someone who's uneducated?
Why should someone who has a job have more than someone who's unemployed? Why is that? No, no.
We should all have the same. And that money, and if we then have a tax system,
where we move the tax burden from human beings with a heart and a capacity for empathy towards
other people, other human beings, and move that tax burden to corporations, which are basically
psychopaths. They are like sharks. They just eat everything on their way. They're not necessarily
good or bad. They're just designed just to grow and grow and to think about their shareholders.
They don't think about it. All this public-private partnership, that's bullshit. A company cannot
have any empathy by design. Of course it can't. So the entire tax system is designed so that human
beings, we pay, as in my example, 80%. And when I spend the money, the next one pays 80%. So after
two transactions, it's already 96%. Whereas the multinational corporations, and I'm astonished
so many grownups are not aware of this, but multinational corporations do not pay tax.
They have this transfer pricing system where they put all their profits in Cayman Island and Panama
and all their expenses in England and Denmark, or wherever they are operating. So they don't pay any
tax. So please, come on. What we need to do is we need to remove tax on human beings. End of story.
We need still the revenue because just like in the Bible, it takes 30 years before people
can get into the promised land because they are used to this system. So we introduce a 1%
turnover tax on all digital transfers of money. The multinational corporations, they cannot operate
without transferring money. So this would mean that for the first time in human history,
we'll be paying tax to the countries they're allowed to operate in. So this is a good thing.
And counterintuitively, this system is a win-win for everybody. It's quite obvious it's a win-win
for the human beings. Instead of paying 80% tax, they pay 1% when they spend their money. Come on.
It's hard to see. That's a pretty damn good business. Now you would then say, but what about
the multinational corporations, these poor guys? Well, yes, they will pay 1% when they import stuff,
1% when they pay salaries, 1% whenever they do anything. But the thing is, why would they win?
Because their customer base just doubled or tripled or 10-doubled because the middle class
just took off. It just exploded. Everybody had enough. Everybody had prosperity. Everybody had
an abundance of goods and services at their disposal. And everybody wants to pitch in.
People are productive. They'd like to get up in the morning, have a purpose in life,
and do something good. So even the multinational corporations will win. They will all win. And why
have they done this before? And I think we're back to you again here, Alex, now, because I think that
is what you talked about. There are some very evil people, predatory oligarchs who do not have the
best interests of other people at heart. Wow, Mads, thank you. That was brilliant.
I wasn't able to bottle it up, but I'll try to. I took some notes. So I need to think about that.
But I very much like those ideas, the ideas that you present. I had another idea. Well, you know,
like I don't want to... Do you know, I watched once a documentary. I think it was about Bushmen,
or maybe it was the... Well, some African tribe, some native African tribe, they were hunting a
giraffe. Okay? And the hunt was like three or four days, because the giraffe is a lot faster than
them. So they run after the giraffe until they exhausted. And they have to set up camp at night
and rest. And then in the morning, they continue chasing the giraffe. And well, in this case,
some Westerner was with them shooting the documentary. And then he wanted to bring up
the subject of the giraffe. And the native said, like, no, no, no, no, no, we do not talk about the
giraffe. And he said, but why? That's because if we talk about the giraffe, we're giving it power.
We're making it stronger. So we don't talk about the giraffe. Now, why did I say this? I say this
because I think we should focus our attention on where we want to go, what solutions we want to
think up, develop, implement, and refine over time, and not think about the evil oligarchs.
Yeah. Evil oligarchs are all there. And maybe they are residing in each and every one of us.
We just didn't get the opportunity yet. But I think that we need to talk, I think we need to focus
our attention of what we want from this lifetime. Or maybe in better terms,
if we want to imagine what kind of life we would want for our children and their children,
and then try to develop that. One of the problems that I was kind of grappling with
about how to allocate credit, to whom, for what uses. Because this is where the system,
you know, like anybody envision a banker, envision a statesman or some kind of an
administrator who allocate capital, that's going to be a magnet for corruption.
Because if we know that, I don't know, MADS controls a state fund with $10 billion in it,
I'm going to want to be friends with MADS, and I got all kinds of ideas that I want to implement.
And then maybe, you know, if we're effective, if we're successful,
maybe I'm going to have some clever ideas even that are going to go at the expense of the community,
but to our benefit. And we can, so, you know, like that's where corruption can happen.
And this is when, where some people tend to become more equal than others. So,
so how does, I'm sorry, I'm juggling about the comments. So, how do we get around
this risk of corruption emerging where the social wealth, the social credit,
is being allocated to different uses? And I think that today we can solve this problem.
And my idea came when I looked at some of these crowdfunding platforms,
right? You have all these ideas emerging bottom up from creative young people who have ideas,
they want to do this, they want to do that, blah, blah, blah. And then perhaps a solution would be
to raise this crowdfunding to the level of society so that it becomes one of the ways
for us to invest. You know, Matt said, like, this social wealth should belong to everybody.
Because, you know, like maybe, you know, like maybe I'm a hedge fund manager. I'm not,
I'm an expat hedge fund manager, but maybe, you know, like I'm a hedge fund manager and I earn,
like, $100 million a year. But what about the firefighter? You know, if my house catches on
fire and the firefighter saves my family, that person provides probably more value to society
than my speculation. So, I think there's a very good argument to be made that social wealth should
be distributed in an equal way, at least some part of it, at least like a core part of it.
And then maybe you have a choice to do this or that profession and maybe there is a marketplace
and sometimes your products, your services are worth more than other times. And so you end up
worth earning a bit more than the other ones. But then investing this wealth should be perhaps
brought to crowdfunding platforms where I would have a choice to not take my share of the social
wealth in cash, but maybe to allocate my share of it to projects that I like. So somebody maybe
wants to start a school of calligraphy. And I really like calligraphy. And then I say, like,
you know what? I like that idea. It doesn't have to take us to the moon. It doesn't have to help us
eliminate all disease or destroy Russia, erase it from the face of the earth. Or maybe I like
calligraphy. Or maybe somebody can say, like, there's a really good reason to build pyramids.
Hey, why not? Let's build pyramids. You know, like, because, you know, if they're diverting
96% of our wealth and we're only navigating through our lives on 4%, it means that we should
be 25% wealthier than we are. So why not calligraphy? Why not pyramids? Why not anything
that we wish? And so maybe crowdfunding would be one part of the social architecture that would
enable allocation of capital, of the surplus, in a democratic, transparent way, and also eliminate
the rise of the more equal class that is always going to emerge around very large pools of capital.
So anyway, that's my four cents on that. And I also propose that we try to ignore the
oligarchy as much as possible. Yes, lazy people are important. I agree. That is the essence of
all the folk stories. If you read Russian, Indian, Turkish, whatever, folk stories,
the lazy people are always the heroes. You know, the entrepreneurial sons always end up killed,
and then the lazy one gets to inherit the wealth and marry the princess and live happily ever after.
Alex and Mats, could you address the way they do it in China? Or that Amon McKinney
tried to explain to us about China, how they have this money over for big projects,
infrastructure projects. So I don't know whether Mats saw... Yes, you did see it, Mats.
I just wondered...
Well, I can comment a little bit on that if you want. If I let me, I can start on that, Alex,
if you're okay with that. So again, back to this thing about people saying the world economy is
collapsing. And I'm a former trader and so are you, Alex. So if you and I were wrong for 20 years,
we would so much have been fired a long time ago and probably never have been able to work again.
But if you are an economist or a salesperson who can talk, or if you are a journalist or a
professor on a university, you can be wrong for 20 years. Nothing happens to you.
And I would like to ask all the people who are saying the world is collapsing,
do you have a day when you admit that you were wrong? So if the world has not collapsed in 2050,
will you sign a piece of paper where you agree that you were wrong? Okay. And if so, how about
2049? How about 2048? How about now? Right? How about right now? You've been saying this
for 20 years, the world is collapsing, so far it hasn't done it. Why should it do it right now?
And I can compare this analogy to China. I have books that are 20 years old saying that this
economic miracle in China cannot go on because they're growing at 10% a year. At that time,
now it's only six or seven, but still it's a lot. It cannot go on. It is an impossibility,
they said 20 years ago. And they are still making their huge salaries as an economist in the biggest
investment banks in the West. They still have their columns in the Financial Times and Wall
Street Journal. And they have been wrong consistently about China for 20 years. And
one of the parts of the reason is they probably are as clueless about money creation as I was
when I was an investment banker, which doesn't say a lot. But the other thing is that they're
not allowed to talk about it. They're not allowed to talk about the fact that they have two economic
systems. Yes, they are part of the World Trade Organization dealing with the West. They enjoy to
produce goods for America and so on. But they also produce government money. This is a big secret.
You won't hear any economist talking about that. China, they produce as much money as they want.
They just decide they want to have this amount of growth and they produce enough money until they
get it. Even if to the tune of building cities, million cities where million people could live
without just keeping it empty. They will make sure that it keeps growing. They try to,
they try to, in George Soros, when they were trying in the Asian crisis in the 90s, when they tried to
devalue all the currencies, they also tried with Hong Kong and China and they didn't succeed. In
Hong Kong, the Chinese government just said, okay, yeah, that's fine. They tried to sell the
hank-sen and they tried to destroy the currency. And the government just bought everything.
They just bought everything. They just bought it all. Then they made a lot of profit and the
Western bankers, they lost. So what I'm saying here is again, back to the money creation,
the Chinese, they have two systems. They are producing so much money. And also I just saw
this, I believe there was an article that an America has 150 miles of high-speed rails.
And then you just saw what do they have in China, just what they have built since 2007.
It was like, it was just a maze of high-speed rail through every single big city in China.
This is what they've done in the last 15 years. So it's an amazing growth engine they have over there.
So that was my, yeah, what I want to say. Yeah, well, and I wanted to add, Mads, that is very
correct. And the dual monetary system is the reason why in 1997, when all the East Asian
economies collapsed, China did not. They have insulated themselves from this financial collapse
that engulfed all the other economies. And I think that to address another aspect of Stephen's
question, I think that what Eamonn McKinney was saying is legitimate. Because there are sometimes
projects that go beyond the ability or willingness of private capital to fund things like large dams,
bridges, the tunnels, what have you. And in that case, it is legitimate that the government
steps in and says, okay, we're going to build here a bridge that's going to cost
X amount of money. But they already, you know, like Eamonn was, I liked very much his explanation
that, you know, there were these two big cities and that the drive between them took six or seven
hours and that so many millions of vehicles went back and forth every year. And so you had like,
I don't know, six billion hours being wasted in traffic generating pollution. And so the government
built this insane bridge, the longest bridge of its kind in the world, but it made sense.
And the government was able to make that study, come to that decision and build the bridge. And
I think that these types of projects, Erie Canal, pyramids, you know, Chinese wall,
are probably beyond what private capital would or could do. You know, like somebody could say like,
oh, I'll be the entrepreneur, I'm going to build that bridge. But what if you come up with only
half the money from the crowdfunding, you still can't do it. You need all of the money.
I think this is where governments can legitimately step in. I think that Western knee-jerk
resistance to this, which, you know, like people always cringe socialism, is disingenuous because
you have socialism anyway. You know, it just masquerades as capitalism. And I'd like to
explain this as well. So it ties into the argument that Mads made about the way they screwed
Southern Europeans by crashing the economies and so forth. You know, the 3% deficits and then the
7% deficits and so forth. The governments have to go into deficits because of a thing called the
deflationary gap. And I tried to explain this. It's a little bit convoluted, but here's how it goes.
So all the money that goes into circulation is the principle. You have to pay it back with interest.
All the money that goes into circulation is because somebody took on the debt, because it would be
impossible otherwise to pay back. You know, like if they put $1 into circulation and your mortgage
after 20 years is you have to pay $2 in total, the second dollar simply doesn't exist. Right? So it's
it would be impossible to pay back the debt. So you have to create a Ponzi scheme where
you try to get more and more and more people into debt so that you can put more and more and more
money into circulation. Okay. So what happens is that all the debts that are taken out constitute
the money supply. And this money supply generally constitutes the aggregate salaries, aggregate
expenses, you know, like everything that the economy puts into producing goods and services.
That's one side of the equation. The other side of the equation is that that same money,
that exact same money represents the total purchasing power that's available in the system
to absorb all the services and products and services that are produced.
Now, two big problems emerge. First one is that people don't spend all that money, all their money.
They always save 5, 10, 15 percent for the rainy day if they can. So that already reduces the
purchasing power. Now, what happens is when you reduce the purchasing power, then all these
companies that produced all the goods and services cannot sell them for the price that they planned.
And now if they have to reduce the prices, then you start to get the so-called deflationary debt
spiral because now they won't be profitable enough. They might not be able to pay back their debts.
They might have to let go some workers, reduce their capacities and so forth. And then that would
further reduce the purchasing power available in the society. So it creates a self-reinforcing
spiral. The other element that has the exact same effect is that every time you pay back your debt,
you extinguish that money. So that money disappears from the economy and along with it,
the purchasing power that's attached to it. And so given the fraudulent debt-based
fiat currency system that we have in operation, the only way that the purchasing power can be kept
growing is by the government stepping in. And it's not enough to just
tax people and spend the money because that merely transfers the purchasing power from one group,
from private individuals to the government. Nothing changes. The amount of money in the
system hasn't increased. So the government has to borrow money. So the government has to
become a participant in the Ponzi scheme. The government has to borrow money. It has to go
into a deficit. And that is very obvious when you look at any government's deficit spending
in anywhere in the world where you have this monetary system. It always goes like this.
And the government debts expand exponentially. And so this is completely inevitable. And
this is the result of the fraudulent money that we have.
One organic solution to that. There is one organic solution to that. That will solve that problem
with you borrowing one dollar and over 20 years you have to pay back two and the other dollar has
not been created. Therefore, it's a Ponzi scheme because you can only pay it back if someone else
is willing to lend that dollar into existence and has to grow and grow and grow. And the solution
to that is very simple. Negative interest rates, problem solved. Bam. That's it. Job done. And then
I think that was what was happening in Europe the last few years organically because maybe the
banksters and politicians were so busy scheming the pandemic and so on that the financial system
sorted itself out by having negative interest rates. And I haven't done any calculations how
many years it will take, but it can balance out itself out by having negative interest rates for
a while. I mean, if you asked anybody, can we have negative interest rates just five years ago,
people would say, no, come on, you're crazy. And I think that's the solution. And I think
five years ago people would say, no, come on, you're crazy. Impossible. And now it's like normal.
Yeah, I know the interest rates have gone up quite a lot. Of course, I'm aware of that. But
just two years ago, it was negative all over Northern Europe. So that is the organic
solution to it. And then again, we go back to the good old king or the first dental banks,
just print the money. You don't have to make it as debt. You can actually just issue the money.
I promise, and I owe you, the government, I promise my people will get up in the morning
and go to work for the value of this dollar. I promise that the value of my bridges and real
estate and the soil and the productive capacity is more than this dollar. And they just produce it.
And if they're wrong, they just create inflation. So Alan Greenspan, he said that
America can always produce as many dollars as it wants. He said that to some, to an astonished
crowd of journalists. I don't know whether you remember that famous video. But well,
they were astonished because they're clueless. If they were worth anything as journalists,
they wouldn't be astonished. That's like an obvious fact. Right. And that's the scam that
American banksters use against, for example, Southern America. See, America never borrowed
in foreign currency, which means all this story about, oh, China selling their bonds. And America
will go, yeah. And what's the problem? It's not a problem. Right now, there are so many people
against the US dollar. What happens to the dollar? It goes up. Why? Because all the other nations
have made loans in dollars. So when they want to switch them away from dollars, what do they have
to do? They have to buy dollars. They have to buy dollars because they want to have loans in euros
and yen and renminbi and everything else. So by going away from the dollar, you're strengthening
the dollar. Right. So the Americans, they don't care and they shouldn't care because they've never
been so stupid to borrow in foreign currency. But the banksters and these fake Harvard economists
that would go to the Southern American countries and say, oh, you just have to borrow in dollars
and then you just have this liberal economic policy that you should just
fire the public sector workers and then you should hike taxes and hike interest rates and
then you have a strong currency and they export some more and import less and all the stupid
things that always then creates inflation and it creates a devaluation. And when Argentine devalues,
they still have to pay the same amount of dollars back, which they can't. And then they are just
spiraling out of control into Americans or the banksters control. So one very important lesson
is do not borrow in other nations' currencies for sure. That is the stupidest thing a nation can do.
So. That is probably unnecessary. Sorry, Alex. Sorry. Go ahead. I just wanted to ask,
Mats, does that apply to Russia and China and all these countries who are threatening to
get out of the dollar? How does that work? Well, Alex, you can maybe update me whether this
has been changed, but I read Nikolai Starikov's book, Nationalization,
Arubel Nationalization, Way to Russia's Freedom. And in that, he stipulates that the Russian
constitution was changed in 1991 when Harvard and CIA and the American banksters made this coup
in Russia. They convinced for $250 billion with a bond that was issued. Wait for it. A 10-year bond
issued the 12th of September, 1991. $250 billion. I said 10 years from the, do the math, 12th of
September, 1991. And all the papers were in, yes, you guessed it, in a certain tower in New York.
Well, that's another story. So just like Victoria Newland spent $5 billion on regime change in
Ukraine, the CIA spent $250 billion on regime change in the United States. And one of the things
they managed to do was convince them, and for $250 billion, they decided to agree that it was a good
idea to have an independent central bank. So as one of the very few, if not the only country in
the world, it stipulates in the Russian constitution that the Russian central bank has to be independent.
And if the Russian people, the Russian Duma, or even the Russian majority government is unhappy
with the policies implemented by the Russian central bank, it can sue them in the state of New York.
What? We think Russia is a sovereign state. But so what we saw in the 90s with interest rates of 33%,
can you imagine the scam these banksters did to Russia, convincing them that they were poor?
A country that owned all their flats and houses without a mortgage. They owned all their
factories without a mortgage, the whole infrastructure without a mortgage. And these Howard banksters and
the CIA managed to convince, for $250 billion, to convince the Russians that they were poor
and that they wanted in order to have a good economy, it should be a shock therapy and it
should be 33% interest rates. And they didn't produce any money. And it gets worse. The way
they told they were allowed to produce money was they were told by the Russian central bank,
so you have to produce sound money. What is that? Well, you export all your raw materials for dollars.
You then spend those dollars buying US government bonds that gives you 2% interest rate.
And then with those bonds, you put in a security with, guess what, the American international
investment banks, and they will then lend you that money for 8%, the same money. So they took out 6%
interest arbitrage out of the Russian government, $60 billion a year they looted that way in the
90s. Howard endowment doubled their wealth from 1991 to 1999. They were in on the scam.
They are criminals as well, by the way. So this is something that I would like, maybe something
has changed, but that is something that puzzles me. Why have the Russians, to my knowledge,
changed their constitution yet? I know that they are minimizing the damage because they have sold
the majority, if not all of their US government bonds. So they're not losing money on this interest
arbitrage any longer. But I still believe that the central bank governor in Russia is
working for the enemy. And I'm probably not up to date, you probably know more about it.
It's a speculation, I don't know the answer to the question. But I think that
what matters ultimately in the society is who has the monopoly on violence. And so
my understanding is that the Rothschilds and whoever, maybe other people, still
Westerners still own, yeah, Gref, Herman Gref, that they still own the Russian central bank,
controlling interest. But the governor, now her name escapes me,
she can't know. If Vladimir Putin tells her to do something, then she has to do that.
And I remember that in 2014, with the coup in Ukraine and Russia taking
control of Crimea and the West imposing sanctions on Russia, the ruble began to collapse.
And then the Russian central bank started selling their hard currencies to rescue the ruble,
which is not only the wrong thing to do, it is a form of plunder.
It is a deliberate form of plunder. This is what George Soros did to the Bank of England in 1992.
And then she got a call from Vladimir Putin who said, stop it immediately. And she had to stop it
immediately. The process of selling the dollars and the euros from the Russian central bank
to buy ruble to float up the exchange rate, Vladimir Putin said stop that immediately,
and she did. And it turned out to be the right thing to do because the Russian government,
their budget is in rubles. If the ruble collapses, then the value of Russian exports in rubles
suddenly becomes much, much higher, and the government's tax receipts in rubles are much,
much higher. So it's not a problem at all, except that the central bank was acting,
quote unquote, to protect the value of the ruble on somebody else's behalf. But ultimately,
it's the man with the big stick that decides what's going to be done. And so even if there are still
foreign financiers who own the central bank of Russia, it doesn't help them if they cannot
influence the policy. So I just wanted to digress a moment because Tom Rodman dropped a note about
MMT, the modern monetary theory. And I just wanted to say that I agree that it's not
all bad. There's a baby in that bath water. And I think that there's a valid argument
in favor of something like that. And I think David Graeber in his book Bullshit Jobs presents
a very good argument for, let's say, a valid aspect of, you know, not so much the modern
monetary theory, but for the idea of social credit, not the social credit that's being
bandied about as Chinese-style social credit, but social credit as in the
social surplus of an economy, the real wealth of a society. So, you know, the
idea of distributing that wealth to every member of the society equally, that idea.
I think that that's getting mixed up with the MMT, with modern monetary theory. There's an
ideological-based outrage over that. You know, people are like, they're rejecting it outright
without giving it any thought, because I think that in the West we have another cultural problem.
We got a newer to this matrix, and it became almost obligatory that everybody has to earn
their keep. And nobody should get anything unless they actually deserve it. And I think
that we've all become a little bit acquiescent towards that idea, and it shouldn't be that way,
because it isn't like that in nature, and we are still part of nature.
So, anyways, I just thought I'd throw that in.
Why don't we go to the questions? You guys have done well for an hour and a half. We've only got
an hour to go. We've got hands up. Stephen hasn't had his questions yet, and so you guys, I know,
could go for three hours, unless there's a crucial issue you want to raise. Let's get some interesting
questions, because I'm sure people have got them for you.
Stephen? Yeah, just two seconds. I'm just trying, could you take the question from Tessa?
Tessa's our favourite Russian participant here, man. Tessa, give us...
Okay, can you hear me? Yep. Okay, wonderful. For a change, I'm so happy. Well, first of all,
thank you both for your talks. Brilliant. Thank you very much. I loved it. And I have a question,
half common, that is to hold. I think that we in the West, and of course, I was born and raised
in Moscow, so I'm only halfway we in the West, but we in the West are experiencing oppression,
quote unquote, for the first time. And that's why so many people are shocked and outraged,
understandably so. But it's a first time experience of abuse. But many people in the world have been
aware for a very long time that such an oppressive oligarchic system exists. And so the part of my
question that is actually a question is, what do we do? Because I think it is very well known that
the, well, psychopaths, the people on the dark side, whatever we call them, they know exactly
what they're doing. They have a lot of people under... Well, it's almost like a metaphorical
spell where people act against their own interests. And the past three years have been a good example,
but it's not the only one. There are many, many dogmatic system which people are attached to,
and then they're ready to harm themselves in the name of the dogma. And so... And those psychopathic
people, they know what they're doing, they know what they want, and they're not letting go.
And the so-called authoritarian systems are proof where if somebody steps out of line,
they don't live very long. And that's a very real thing. So question, question is... So we have all
those ideas about better systems, which I love. Both of your talks are beautiful. But then if
anybody actually tries to implement them, it looks like they're going to be either jailed or
disappeared or smeared or like some weird things are going to happen around them,
things like that. And that's a very practical concern. So what are your thoughts on that?
And then the second part of my question is... Or comment, half comment, half question. It seems like
at least my observation throughout this life has been that it boils down to the internals. Because
let's say, for example, well, I'm going to do a model. So we have a hundred people, five of them are
bad guys, genuinely dark psychopathic bad guys. Let's say all five are disappeared,
jailed for life, expelled. But then if that energy is present, if people are broken on the inside,
there's going to be five or 10 more, and it's going to be there. And the same dynamic is going
to reappear. So my whole thing is that it's very important to address the internals. And that's a
very deep metaphysical process. And we're not fully in charge. So that the high powers, how people
believe. So I suspect that the whole purpose of the great reset is to remind us of who we are,
why we are here, and what the entire thing is about. And until many people remember that,
we're probably going to deal with some kind of oppressive system. And I'm going to end with a
punchline. For example, if like, I wonder, and I asked myself this question. So if we look at,
for example, people who are institutional Christianity, like institutional is the
keyword here, because what people do on the inside is beautiful things. But so if Jesus Christ
descended from heavens, this second or tomorrow, actual Jesus Christ, and he said, you know what,
your ideas that you were scribing to me, that was a lie. That's not me. It was supposed to be
entirely different. You were not supposed to go genocides in my name. You're not supposed to steal
in my name. You're not supposed to be arrogant in my name. You're not supposed to force anybody to
do things or believe or pray in my name. Then what would people do? Would they believe him or would
they crucify him again? I mean, that's a rhetorical question. So with that, thank you very much again.
Tessa, thank you so much. And I want to say, in addition to being the favorite Russian
participant, Tessa is also an excellent writer. Very enjoyable subsect. I think that everything
you laid out is kind of right over the target. And I think that, A, it's going to have to be,
there's going to have to be political power behind it.
B, the second coming of Jesus Christ, he said he would come, you know, it's a mistake to imagine
a humble man in leather sandals and a little thing over him. He said that he would come
to wage war and judge and pronounce judgment. So that's what's going to happen if we believe in
those kinds of things. Maybe it's already happening. I don't know. But it will definitely
require a spiritual awakening. Because as I said, the decision of what to do with wealth and
abundance is a political decision. Ultimately, it rests on what we want. It cannot be done without
the, wondering the question of who we are. And I think that at this stage, you know, we've been
living in this matrix now for perhaps a few hundred generations. So imagine what chickens who have
been raised in a chicken coop might think about living out in the wild, in the free world. It may
seem scary from inside. And we might even grow attached to the structures that, you know, provide
us food and keep us safe. And, you know, there's a farmer that comes and gives us antibiotics and
keeps us healthy. But I think that once we break the matrix, I think that at that point,
everything will come back because it's in us. We are hardwired for that life. And we'll be able
to throw off this conditioning of the matrix very quickly and very easily.
The knowledge that we need to acquire and the solutions that we need to think up and design
are not necessarily going to be easy to do. But, you know, we were able to fly into space. We were
able to build jetliners, you know, all kinds of miracles of technology, the internet, and so forth.
So there's no reason to think that we are not mature for that challenge and that we will come
up with solutions that are probably beyond what we can imagine today. And I think that the political
power for this is coming from Russia and from China perhaps as well. And there have been prophecies
that that's what's going to happen. In 1936, I think, Edgar Cayce said that the emancipation...
I can't recall his exact word, but it is in my book, The Grand Deception, that the...
Sorry?
Yeah, freedom will come out of Russia, he predicted in 1945.
Yes, correct. And he said specifically, I don't mean this communistic system,
I mean the next system that's coming. But he said the principle has already been born.
And now, you know, I don't know if we can think about that, you know, mysticism. But today we know
that there's some reality to some people's ability to envision and to predict things like that.
So, you know, maybe we're at this stage, maybe we're in the early stages of a massive transformation.
And many of the solutions that we maybe cannot fully articulate and envision today
will mature and will crystallise over the coming years and decades.
Maheds, any comment?
Just on this smearing, of course, and what they are doing to people,
who speak out and want to create a system that benefits everybody is basically...
I think I'd like to quote Matthias Desmet, who said that it is so important that we speak out,
that we don't stop speaking out, because that is what stops the system from going full-blown,
you know, full-blown fascism with concentration camps and genocide and depopulation and so on.
The fact that we just say, oh, hold it, hold it. You said that the vaccine worked. It didn't.
Oh, hold it. Stop, stop, stop. You said the mask worked. No, it didn't. It didn't protect against
anything. You know, we have to keep reminding them these things. And with the, for example, with
Ukraine, we keep saying, in my party, we keep saying, you know, stop the globalisation.
We keep saying, in my party, we keep saying, you know, stop the globalist wars with human beings
as cannon fodder. It's a money laundering operation. We keep saying these obvious
tautologies and truisms. And by doing that, then we will put a break on the system.
I read also Mark Twain. He also gave this as an example of how this, how it comes into war.
It's when people stop speaking out, then even the people who are totally against the war will start
because everybody else is talking about war. They will say, oh, yeah, I'm also against,
I'm also against. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I also want war. Yeah. So it's important that we,
that even if we feel that we are the last person in our country against it, we should still do it
because they are all there. They're all there out there now. And right now, what we're having going
for us is that they all know we are right. They all know it. You can tell. I mean, we were on this
Volkemøde in Bornholm and last year in Møn, which is a place where all the politicians are. You have
tents, you have basards, you have political debates and so on. If you go back four years ago, if I
said any of these things, I would say people would be very aggressive, shaking their heads.
I was a crazy one. Now they all bow their head in shame. They all feel ashamed. They shouldn't have
given their kids that poison injection. They all know we're right. All of them. We can tell. I was
just on this. We were literally the only tent in Denmark, which were against the narrative.
We had a big sign. The more CO2, the better. People were like, what? What? They were very curious.
They took pictures and they wanted to come over, honestly, and ask him because they knew we were
right about everything else. So maybe we were right about this as well. Not aggressive at all.
And then we had this big sign with the war is money laundering. And we had a big vaccine,
anti-WHO propaganda. And they all, there were no aggression. They were all just either pretending
not to see it or they bowed their head in shame, which is body language don't lie. Body language
don't lie. They all know we are right. So we just have to keep shouting. Oh, beautiful. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Matt. All right, Stephen, you next. We'll go to Mark. Yeah. So am I muted?
No. So Matt, maybe that was because you were blessed with Archbishop Bigano.
No, probably. Yeah, he started out or he finished off. Yeah. And so I've got some questions here,
which were sent to me by one of my sons. I won't name him because it'd be too embarrassed.
And can I ask the questions? Just two seconds. Sorry about this.
Ah, now I can't get the thing to go up. Can't. Yeah. Just two seconds.
That's all right. This is our meditation moment, everybody.
Yeah, I could do it before. And as soon as I want to do it in a rush, I can't do it.
Just two seconds again. Sorry about this. Oh, here it is. So both of you. So either of you, whichever
can answer these questions. So quick answers or quickish answers. How are they getting away
with the money creation? Do you think going back to the gold standard would be good?
The home owning middle class in the UK is collapsing or looks to be in the future.
Normal families can no longer afford mortgage payments, house prices. These houses are then
bought by rich families. Are we heading to owner and owned? Are we moving to a feudal system?
How do you think Western economies will look in the near future? This is all one question.
So which country in the world would it most resemble? I think the question is there.
And the last question, it is clearly very important to understand economies and finance.
It is interesting because you can get a macro view understanding of the world.
Would you recommend going into finance banking hedge funds? I think the question is, would you
recommend that young people go into financing, finance banking hedge funds? Well, I could answer
that. Yeah, it might destroy you, that corrupt world. But anyway, what do you, so which, so the
first question is, how are they getting away with the money creation? So is the present system legal
or is it not legal? Is it moral or is it not moral? And if it's neither legal nor moral, how are they
getting away with it? I think that's the question.
I don't, Stephen, I'm sorry. That was what, like 30 questions? No, so the first one is,
how are they getting away with the money creation? By fraud, by fraud, by its theft.
And monopoly on power, like you said before, Alex. I'm sorry?
Monopoly on power as well, right? Yes, yes. Yeah, so is it legal? Stephen, I recall that part of the
question was, is it legal? Well, I think it is. Is it legal? Is it moral? If not, then neither.
No, it's the diametric opposite of anything that's moral. Yeah, so why do the people go along with it
so readily? Because it was sold and forced on the people in stages, gradually. It seemed,
you know, when you start to artificially pump purchasing power into an economic system,
into a community, then at first people feel emancipated. They have new purchasing power.
They feel more prosperous and they feel like they can do more things. They can, you know,
there's the aspirations rise. But the problem obviously comes along when the system stops growing,
as every point of the scheme at some point stops growing. And then the second it stops growing,
it starts to collapse. And then, you know, it's a mathematical certainty that a percentage,
a substantial percentage of all the participants, individuals and businesses will go bankrupt.
They will lose their savings. They will lose their properties and they will go bankrupt.
Well, you know, then you introduce ideology. So, you know, the continuity of the system
the system also has a continuity of ideology. So the current empire probably
emerged in Venice, probably the seed was planted in Venice. And then they migrated to
to Holland, where they created the Dutch Empire. Spain was somehow very intimately
involved in all this. And then from Holland, you know, they had the Glorious Revolution,
which was not 1694. It was 1688. 1694 was the date of establishment of the Bank of England.
And all along that history, they, the oligarchy funded, you know, various
religious, Fauci's and Neil deGrasse Tyson's and Stephen Pinker's and such and thus thusly,
you know, starting with a man named Paolo Sarpi in Venice and Galileo and a lot of these public
intellectuals who, you know, essentially contrived persuasive intellectual arguments
in favor of the system and against the alternatives, this system of governance.
Remember, we're going back to what George Soros told us two years ago.
So it's, it's all, you know, as we now understand the academia and the think tanks
are always against us. They are, they are not blunt, they, they deal in arguments,
but those are the arguments and the, and the devious distortion of knowledge and philosophy
and logic is much, much more pernicious than, you know, blunt force, which is easy to recognize
and push back against. Yeah. So it's part of the problem, Alex, that people on our side too, fear
the consequences of bringing the present system down because they're worried about how long it
will take for this system, immoral as it is, to be replaced by another system, which is better and works.
Yes, but, but do we have any choice? I mean, do we want our children to and their children to grow
up in this system only more ossified, more degenerated and more, you know, I clearly we do not.
So, you know, there's no justification and no excuse for not doing our best to replace the system
with something better. And, you know, fear is, fear is never a good reason to do anything.
Fear always robs us of our inventiveness, of our creativity, of our humanity, and ultimately even
of our integrity. Sure. Well, arguably it robs us of our, well, yes, exactly. It's anti-human.
So it's taken this pandemic posing falsely as a medical emergency. The pandemic never occurred.
It's taken this pandemic to wake up people like me who, you know, people like me,
who, you know, previously I was looking at these videos where people were recommending that you
didn't pay your taxes and that it would be perfectly legal. Well, actually you'd probably
say that it is perfectly legal not to cooperate with governments in paying their taxes when
actually they're spending most of it on wars. So I just, it's interesting, isn't it, that it
actually took a kind of purported medical emergency to wake many of us up and to question
everything. I mean, I'm constantly saying these days, I don't know whether I know anything about
anything any longer. Can I add something? Yeah, sure, Matt. So basically out of all the questions,
I would like to focus on two of them. One of them was, is the gold standard the solution?
Yeah, do you think going back to the gold standard would be good? So that was the question.
The short answer is no. A little tiny bit longer is who owns the gold, right? It's some rich dudes
and if they decide not to put the gold forward for collateral for the monetary base in the
country, it's going to collapse. If you don't have enough money, if you have a small monetary base,
economic activity is basically an impossibility. You would starve. So gold standard, bad, very bad.
And so watch out when anybody is talking about saying all the right thing and then proposing this,
most likely working for the other side. Home ownership is collapsing in the UK and I see that
also in Denmark, we see BlackRock coming in, buying all the properties in Copenhagen, leaving it empty
and the prices keep going up because they have inside information they probably knew already,
they're going to print a lot of money on the lockdown, print a lot of money on the vaccine,
print a lot of money on the Ukraine. So that money will go into two things, either gross or inflation.
And obviously, if people are sent home from the public sector and small business are closing,
that means that it will create inflation and go into the house prices. So they had inside
information and now normal people can no longer afford their houses, is what your son was saying.
Well, specifically.
I would like to see some corona now a little bit. So think about solutions. Don't lie down.
Don't be de-fetistic. It's very fucking simple. They might buy all the houses, but guess what?
They can't take the houses with them. The houses are placed where we live. We can just decide to
put on an estate tax. We can decide to give human beings interest-free loans. And then we can say
that the big corporations, they have to pay a minimum of 2% interest minimum or 5%, whatever.
If we create a system of dividend, of money creation as dividend to the people, so you would
get your fair share of money creation every month and you would have an interest-free mortgage
would you then be paying rent to a globalist like BlackRock or would you buy your own house and live
in it for within a 40-year interest-free mortgage? You would. And then the house prices for the
big real estate developers would collapse. All the wheels would be standing empty. So there are so
many ways we can make a wealth transfer from the super rich to everybody else. We could do it over
10 years. We could do it over two years. We could do it overnight. It's really, really,
really, really simple. We just need some more people with cojones.
Well, that's the problem, isn't it? So and then the last question was it is clearly very important
to understand economics and finance. It's interesting. Would you recommend that young
people go into finance banking hedge funds? And I said, well, my answer to that would be...
Of course, it's a great job. Great colleagues. It's a lot of fun. You're allowed to play games.
You're allowed to play with your brain. Do mass questions, play with Excel files,
play with all different computer programs. You talk to interesting people.
Politics is important. History is important. Knowledge is important. You try to gather as
much information as possible and you gamble with other people's money. If it goes well,
you get paid a lot of money. If it goes bad, you get fired, but you might find another job.
It's a win-win. It's a fantastic job. I recommend it highly. Yes, but Matt, you must know...
I'll give a very different answer. Okay. Exactly. I think that it has the capacity
to destroy you. That kind of life where you actually... So there are many people,
as I've understood it, in that world who think that they are really... What's the word?
I have an expression. Can't think of it at the moment. Masters of the universe. That's right.
And so how do people, how do young people especially, keep their feet on the ground
when they've got too much money?
Life is great. Why shouldn't they? Why should they be allowed to feel the abundance of this world?
Why should we always run around like woke climate hoax believers saying that we should be ashamed
of having nice clothes and having a fast car and a nice home? The world is abundant. That's
enough for everybody. We can all have a lavish lifestyle if that's what we want. I don't believe
in all this that we should be ashamed of drinking a nice bottle of red wine. I don't believe in it.
It's all global propaganda to make you feel bad, to basically accept to be depopulated, basically.
Useless eaters get the world population down to 500 million. It's part of this scam.
And the amount of effort put into it by university professors because they're paid to towel the line
and spew this neo-Bolshevist green, you know, communism climate theory out of people.
No, no, of course not. You should encourage people to enjoy life.
Yes, but we don't want, well, I don't think that, you see, many people I think think that they can
be happy if only they had enough money. And I don't believe that. I don't think happiness comes
with money. My father told us when we were children that his rich customers, he was a bank manager,
his rich customers were miserable and his poor customers were happy. And I think that was true.
So, lots of money means that you're caught up in some kind of race with your colleagues
and other people who believe that money is going to free them from their unhappiness.
So what do you think, Alex?
Well, based on personal experience, most of my friends here in Monaco are millionaires.
It's not what makes people happy. My own personal experience over the last 20 years,
I've been completely broke three times and in between I've had periods when I made a lot of
money. And I can say that being broke is a miserable experience. And
also having a lot of money is not necessarily a happy experience.
You don't know who your friends are for one thing.
Well, yeah, but there's all kinds of problems. And I see so many problems, particularly between
couples, you know, because Monaco being a wealthy place is a big magnet for attractive girls from
the United States, from Europe, from Russia, Ukraine, everywhere. They'll come party in Monaco
and try to be the rich guy. And many of them do succeed. And I think that I don't know a single
one case where these encounters resulted in a happy family, happy children and a lasting marriage.
And I tell you, I've been in a lot of relationships where I've had a lot of
happy marriages. And I tell you, I know dozens of cases where an attractive young girl seduced
or found a rich guy to marry. Every single case I know ended badly and miserably for the young
woman. You know, men kind of, you know, they have their wealth, they move on and they do this several
times. Professional wise, every single young person that asks me
if they should study economics and go into banking and hedge funds, I tell them study
anything but economics. You know, I think that economics is something that once you know who you
are and what you want to do in life, then I think it's highly, highly advisable to read economics,
you know, to pick up books by good economists like Michael Hudson.
I can't actually name too many of them. But it's good to study economics to understand how the
world works. But to make yourself an economist by profession, by your degree, I think is not only a
waste of time and a waste of your energy and your talent and your potential, you will actually learn
the wrong things. What the universities will teach you and the curriculum that you need to
master to pass exams, most of it is complete bullshit, bluntly. So no, it's not a good idea.
What I enjoy about being a hedge fund manager is that it's a job that,
you know, basically you're devoted to research. You read, you study, you have to figure out how
the world operates rather than how they tell you that it does. And this is maybe what has kind of
pushed me into, you know, digging down the rabbit holes and trying to understand how things are.
So that's great. But on the other hand, you're developing skills and something that has no social
use, is of no use to society. Nobody needs a commodities trader, right? I mean,
people need oil traders who move physical cargoes and, you know, that kind of thing. But nobody
needs a futures trader, you know. So, you know, like if you fall through the cracks of that
industry, and it has happened to tens of thousands of people, it's not just like an exceptional
thing. It's happened to many, many people. Then you find yourself in the situation where
nobody actually needs you and your skills are completely superfluous to society. So my own
personal position is that I wouldn't want my children to be hedge fund managers. I would be
probably more at ease if they were firefighters or, you know, something like that.
That's my personal view on that profession.
Thank you so much. So we'll call that a draw then, Matt. The interesting thing to me, Matt, about
you is that you're such a wonderful human being and yet you seem to be blind to the possible
dangers of, or to me you seem that way, you know. You kind of overemphasize the importance of
money and that people should live, I don't think you're really suggesting they should live
hedonist lifestyles, but maybe some people might think that.
I think they should. I think money in someone, in your hands, for example, in
people who've had some experience and seen both sides, then yeah, and my hands, for example, I
think we could make good use of it, wise use of it, but you can't be wise when you're young.
And so a lot of money, the worst scenario is being a footballer or something like that, you know.
Anyway, let's just see what Mark wants to ask. Sorry, Mark.
Thanks, Stephen. Hi, Marge. How are we doing? How are we doing?
Hey, Mark. Good to see you. Good to see you. Good to see you. Thanks, Alex and Marge.
Just to quite throw a bit of a curveball at you, obviously the plan on this significant reduction
in the global population is about 77% of the UK population of planet are cold. And we have
large debts, local authorities, local authorities in the United Kingdom are drowning in debt.
And people are getting sicker. There's less people paying into the pot.
We've got significant issues with, you know, some of the technologies, electric vehicles,
basically giving everybody cancer and sterilizing the children. We've got radar for these
ultra low emission zones, large increase of 5G networks, making significant problems, health
problems in particular, like cancer rates are now at epidemic levels from the 50s. We've got epidemic
diabetes, we've got epidemics in all sicknesses, all related to not just the contaminated
bio-tech weapon, but the installation of 5G. Now, how does that play out from an economics
perspective? If you've got all these governments in mountains and mountains of as much debt as
you can possibly get them in, and then you kill off the asset that creates the wealth?
You first, Matt.
I mean, you basically, you write it off. I mean, it doesn't matter. I mean, think about it, the banks,
the banks are actually not the ones that are looting anyone. The banks are instruments
of their real owners. So I'll give you an example. When I lived in London, there was a couple of
Iranian brothers. I think they made a lot of money on owning some petrol stations or something,
whatever. But they also managed to get a loan in Barclays Bank to buy a commercial property
for 100 million. They only had to put down 1 million themselves. So they would get 99 million
from Barclays. Okay, who would make such a deal? Let me just really spell it out here. So if the
real estate and commercial property is really risky business, everybody knows that. So here's
the deal. If the real estate market in London goes up, these two Iranian brothers will make a
bandit and pay 4 or 5% interest rate to Barclays. Now, if on the other hand, real estate prices would
go down, the Barclays Bank would lose 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 million pounds and the Iranian brothers
would lose 1 million. Now, who in their right mind would make such a deal? Unless it is by design,
a scam to defraud the population through bailing out the banks later. So when everything goes up,
the bank tries not to make too much money because they're going to pay 25% corporate tax. So they
don't want to make any money. They transfer all the profits from this to these, whoever they want
to create to become wealthy. I for sure, and none of you here in this call, none of us here in this
call will be able to go to Barclays and say, hey, I would like to with one pound borrow another 99.
What are you talking about? Are you on drugs or something? No, no, no, no. This is by design. This
is the real deal that happened. This is how they do it. They create wealthy people and then they
write off the debt. They don't care. And if they can get away with it, they will say, oh,
it's a financial crisis. It's because of this or that or this whatever. And that's why it's too big
to fail. So now the taxpayers will have to pay. And that's how it operates. So they'll basically
just write off the debt. It doesn't matter. No, but if you haven't got a population of paid,
I mean, you said, I mean, the Tengu brothers, if they were dead, so let's say they're not alive.
If you haven't got a general population to generate wealth in an economy, then how do you
how do you have an economy? I mean, how do you have any finance? If they're planning to kill 77%
the UK populace, that's not as bad in Denmark. I think you lot have got a 35% extermination plan
with 77% obviously don't like the English. They don't like the Irish. They definitely don't like
the Americans because they're the largest parts of the world where they're planning this major
depopulation. How does that work in relation to economics? That's what I'm trying to get at is
if you've killed all the workers, the wealth generators, how do you actually proceed with
your financial model? Well, it's very few people who own this debt. So it doesn't matter.
You just write it off. So the people who own the banks, Mark, I think that's what Matt is saying.
You know, I mean, at the end of the day, the surviving population in the England and Denmark,
they would be moving on. And of course, the banksters would try to skin them as much as
they could, they can and take as much away from them as they possibly can. And then all of a sudden,
the English people were looking at each other. Do we really want to pay this debt? And then they
say, no, what could we do? We could, for example, put a tax on interest payments to people living
in Panama and Cayman Island. How about a 99% tax? Great idea. How about a 102% tax? Even better.
Problem solved. This reminds me, Matt, of a Seinfeld episode where Kramer says to Jerry,
you know, Jerry says, well, what are they going to do with the loss? And Kramer goes,
they're going to write it off. And Jerry looks at him and says, you don't even know what that means,
Kramer. He says, no, but they do. All right. All right. Mark, it's very, it's a great question.
And the answer is write it off. And they know how to handle it. So and indeed, and indeed,
the question of what would the banks do? So let's go to Tom because we've only got
13 minutes left and we've got two hands up here. Tom?
Okay. You guys hear me okay? Yep.
Yeah. So it seems like, well, thank you both. It's really fun to hear you both. It seems like
creative play and optimistic and, you know, like we could be founding fathers for a new civilization.
And this idea that there is a surplus. And ideally, the people would decide what to do
with that surplus. But I'm afraid the civic involvement in the U.S., like I was just at
this big festival and nobody seems to care about anything other than having fun. Or, you know,
I'm a curmudgeon, I know. But it was a bicycle race. But anyhow, we have to get people involved
to take the reins. And then I think we need some sort of a document. Like we had a constitution,
but where's this constitution of, say, greenbacks or money, some kind of Bible that we can look to
that would capture what you guys are all saying? And I guess the question I have is to keep it
really simple and focused. Would you agree with something like in the U.S., we would get rid of
the Fed because it's largely privately controlled. We would not necessarily even want to call the
replacement a bank. I'm not saying I know what I'm talking about, but I'm just throwing down some
hypothesis. And the United States government would issue debt-free currency based on the
budget that we democratically really agree on as a people. We decide how we want to spend our
resources. And then we print the money to the degree that we have the physical minerals and
resources that are available and that we have the human resources. We put the people to work
and then get those things accomplished. And then we tax to reduce the...anyhow,
we have to keep an eye on the overall money supply. And whatever this entity is called,
it's got to have an uncorrupt board or an uncorrupt structure. So I don't again know what you would
call it, but yeah, how would you architect it and how would you keep it from becoming corrupted?
Who's going to say that?
Oh, I can try, but I don't really know the answer to this question. But I think that
central government should have a very, very limited role. I think that the political decisions should be
bottom-up defined by the local democracy, by the local communities. And I think that that would
also eliminate a lot of corruption because people locally see what's going on. I think another way
to eliminate corruption is the idea of crowdfunding some of the development. And I think that then the
central government should only step in for major projects, for defense, and maybe not very much
more than that, like building out and maintaining the infrastructure and defense and anything else.
I think that money should not be issued by a central bank as debt to the government and to
the economy, but rather it should be spent by the government into the economy interest-free.
I agree with that. Spend the money into the economy interest-free and even tokens or
citizen dividend to the people. And then the people will show us what kind of society they want.
Exactly.
I would like to say something to that. Can I?
Yes, go ahead.
Because, you know, I'm looking back now on quite a lot of years, 75 exactly,
because I was born in 48 and I have gone through this whole experience,
the whole development which culminates now in my vision in a transformation of humanity.
Definitely. I was like money. Money is a very low principle. If you look at the laws
that the universe is run by, it doesn't actually exist there. It's totally unimportant.
And I let my life without making money any topic in my life. I'm a lawyer, as you see on my
description. So I was on my first demonstration in 1966. We were demonstrating against the Vietnam
war. I was in the Social Democratic Party for 10 years, the Willy Brand Party,
and I was married to a politician for five years for a member of parliament.
And so I learned very early about politics on a daily life. I really saw how it functions.
And this made me very disinterested in politics, and especially in the 70s,
when it changed, you know, in the beginning of 70s, the turn came. The 60s had a very special
quality. There was like champagne in the air. I mean, the murder of the Kennedy brothers and the
whole military, things that mushrooms in the world gave a totally different aspect again,
and one could feel that the darkness was rising again in the back. But then in the 70s, it really
took on the speed. And so many people decided actually in the 70s, the last dance of the tyrants
started that we see now. But in the 70s also started the big spiritual movement. And I went
to a master after my second state exam in law. I went to India for five years and was in an ashram
and started meditating. I was with the enlightened master for five years. And now I'm so grateful
for that, that I did this and didn't try to get some career, you know, in the world as many of my
friends at that time did. And they succeeded also. Like one of my closer friends was a mayor here
in Munich for 20 years. And I tell you, I pity him today, because he's not able anymore to have
to think on his own. Like he bought this whole corona stuff. Totally. Because if you have this
kind of professions, you have to check for 24 hours, you have a radar where you check all the time
with whom you can speak, what you can say, what you're not allowed to say, what you are not even
allowed to think. Otherwise they kill you. And this I saw maybe because I was married to this
politician already when I was 20. And I decided I'm not going for a career in the world because
you have to sell your soul in every career. You have to sell your soul. And you don't
sense nothing of yourself. You don't know who you are. What are you really just a bunch of
flesh and shit, you know, and keep it going by eating and shitting? Or are you more?
And my answer is we are more. We are much more. And money doesn't play any role of it. Money can
be dissolved and finds other possibilities to live on very easily. And since a while I'm now
connected with Rainer Völmich. I don't know whether you know him. He's one of the voices
of the resistance. Yes, we know him. You know him. Yeah. So I met him already in 2015.
And I think it was not an accident that I asked him to join this transparency
international group out of which then the Corona committee was created. So
he's put a lot of energy into it. And he's now really very much attacked by the deep state.
And I always try to give him some spiritual support. And I also work for the group.
So and I just wonder where he takes all the energy that he puts out, you know,
because it's amazing. And we all don't know the outcome of our attempts to prevent
the big disaster, you know, but I think we will succeed because the light always succeeds. The
darkness has no substance in the oldest darkness. If you just bring a very tiny little
candle, it's gone. It's gone. Darkness has no substance. That's the most important insight
one can have. And every small light that is put out and lived is more important than one billion
you have on your bank account. You know, it's just.
What? It was a domestic from Charles. He's forgotten.
Sorry. Yes, I was a domestic. Correct. Keep going.
Okay. So yeah, that's just what I wanted to say. I hope that I can still live and experience that
light will win this time on this planet. And but more than 10 years, I won't be here because then
I really have enough. You know, I want to go home to the source of light. But yeah, we will see.
But it was a very interesting discussion. Also, I also think some things you said very easily.
One could do it, you know, to change the whole dark. Yeah, that's that's very true.
I think what we need from Max and Alex, Dagmar, is some kind of guidance as to how we we
without without all landing in prison, how we institute a new system and how we kind of
get it off the ground without destroying too much. But maybe we can take that another time.
We're on the two and a half hour mark. We've got now we've got buddy three hands up.
It's growing like it's going like a virus here, Stephen, if the virus exists.
We're going to be quick smart because we are going to finish very quickly.
So we need quick questions and actually, maybe if Alex and Max can attempt to be
reasonably quick in their answers as well, because otherwise the question is get accused of
taking the time. So go ahead, Charles. Jim.
Oh, Alex, Jim, you got your hand up, Alex, you don't need your hand up. I do. I do.
I have a question. I have a question for Mark. I have a question for Mark. Okay, very good.
Mark's one of our graduates.
Now, where is where is Mark? He's there. Oh, but he's muted. Mark, you muted.
You should know that by now. I'm joking. I didn't mean to cut the line. I think there's two people
before me now. No, you were there. Oh, okay. So Mark. Hang on. I'm looking for Mark.
He's there. Oh, I see. He's muted. But I think he's moving. So it's not a picture.
Mark Steele or Mark Dyer you're after? Mark Steele. Mark Steele.
Right. Sorry. Oh, he's gone. Yeah, he's gone. He may have gone. Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Well, then. No, I think. You have to ask him next time, Alex.
Yes. Yes. I'll just lower my hand. If you email the question to me, Alex,
what was the question? It was a matter of interest. Oh, well, I was, you know,
one of one of his speeches, I bought that 10 Mars radiation meter.
Yeah. And so I took it with Croatia. And then I went around my parents' house. And everything
kind of under control until I get to their bedroom. And exactly through their window,
the thing shoots up. But like, off the chart, the radiation. Wow. And so I was horrified. There
must be like a 4G or something like pointed straight at their window where they sleep.
And so I now have to figure out a solution to the problem. But it's not exactly obvious, you know,
you know, I think I have to buy like some kind of a curtain to block the radiation.
So I just wanted to ask you. Alex, you need to make your parents a Faraday's cage
Faraday's cage from memory. Yes. Yes. Yeah. So there's lots of technology available on that,
Alex. We're going to get moving. We're running out of time. So we've got answers for you on that.
I'll pass it to Mark. Okay, thank you. I will do that. Because I'd like the answer. I'd like to know
as well. Jim. If he's not there, Dave. You muted Jim. Hey, thanks.
Sorry. Great presentation. I if we can hold the people responsible for the starting of the COVID
and stuff, then can we make them financially responsible for this downturn and the banking
crisis because it may be the same one in the same people who own the Federal Reserve and things like
that. And is there a way to hold the people who engineered the COVID responsible? Thanks.
I'm going to jump right in. I'm going to very quickly. I'm going to I throughout this COVID
thing, I've been saying that these people need to be a whole hold to a Nuremberg to trial,
and they need to be expropriated 100% full family assets, no, no hiding behind wifey's trust
or children's savings account, the whole family should be 100% expropriated. And that would
probably pay the damages for a lot of people whose businesses and livelihoods have been destroyed.
I think this should be done and can be done. I mean, they routinely expropriate people on a one
on a case by case basis. So we should be able to do that as well. Okay, Matt, okay, great.
Yeah, I totally agree. Beautiful. Okay, thank you. Dave.
Did Jim just plan that?
Come on, we're running late. Yes, and we're working on that because remember the Nuremberg trials,
they did not, they were not able to prosecute people because they said they did not know about
it. Everybody had quote, plausible deniability, and we have to remove plausible deniability by
telling them about this. Absolutely. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. It was minutely planned.
All right. Yes, Dave.
And now you're muted. Oh, you're muted now, Dave.
To answer that last one, the economic problems are way bigger than the COVID problem. I know it
exacerbated it, but they go so many years back. I think ultimately, if you look for the question of
where did the system go off the rails, you're going to find is when the government went from
being 3% of GDP, at which point you bribe politicians to get out of the way to let you do
something. So the railroads, the steel mills, the whatever, when government became 50% of GDP,
your entire business model was to get money from the government. And that just doesn't work. I
would be very cautious about looking for solutions that come from the government.
So I think Alex's view that it's got to come from the bottom up is correct. I don't know. I think
the gold standard would work, but we don't know how to get from here to there. So the Brits tried
to go back to the gold standard. They made the mistake of pricing the pound wrong. They tried
to get too much for the pound and it blew up on them. So the gold say, if you're going to have a
sound money policy, you need to also tolerate defaults and we don't tolerate defaults.
So if I'm lending to you, Steven, I'm going to charge you an interest rate that reflects both
the time that you have the money and the risk that you present to me. What I can tell you is
none of the credit markets are priced that way. If I asked you how much would you demand out of a US
30 year treasury, if you had to hang on to it, because someone does, once it's issued, they own
it. Someone out there owns it. The answer is never 5%. Never 5% because of all the unknowns,
the potential for inflation, 8, 9, 10 is a very standard answer, which means US treasuries are
priced wrong. They're just trading sardines at this point. So big government, government centered
things. And I'm not an anarchist, but it's gotten so big. The government's gotten so,
it's just a big rift. It's a gigantic rift. Everything is a grip. You look around,
dig it into the ground. Dave, we haven't got time for speech questions. Go for it. I don't have a
question. I just wanted to... No, no, I mean, you should have been talking an hour ago. In fact,
we're due for, Steven, we're due for another presentation by Dave Colum as well because it
ties into this whole theme. All right. So Alex and Matt, David Colum is a professor of chemistry.
So by the way, I read David Colum. So yeah. I pinged both of you on Twitter while you were
talking. So in case you want to connect. Thank you. Anyway, Steven, put Dave Colum on the thing
because I really want his views on all this stuff. And Dave, I think Dave tells us he knows nothing
about anything, but he talks pretty well. So good work. Dave, have you got the time to come on and
speak to us or not? Oh, yeah, sure. I do. I do three podcasts a week. So. All right.
We want you to. Okay. Daniel, Nagazi, and then we're finishing. Thanks, Dave.
Hello. Can you hear me? Yep. Yes. Okay. You can discuss the current system and talk in circles
and solutions for centuries, maybe even millennia and not come to a solution. If we really want to
solve this monetary banking problem, you've got to think way outside the box. And by way outside
the box, I mean, have every individual issue their own currency. And now with thanks to technology,
crypto currencies and cryptography, that actually is possible. So what you can have is every person
issues their own currency of what they want to trade. Let's say I have a hundred solar panels
and I want to trade half of my solar panels for food or services. So what I'll do is I'll issue
a Daniel coin, right? And each Daniel coin is worth two solar, two 500 watt solar panels.
And I put them on the chain. So when someone browses through the chain looking for items to
trade, they'll see, oh, here's up for trade, two solar panels. I'll trade for those two solar panels.
Let's say, you know, two hours of naturopathic consultation. And then I can trade the solar
panels for the naturopathic consultation, which maybe I don't need at this point in time. And I
will trade the naturopathic consultation from my account because now I've traded two solar panels
for naturopathic consultation. I'll trade that for something else. Let's say, you know, food or,
or, you know, vegetables, three months worth of vegetables. So that's something the ledger
that keeps accounting the list of all the transactions who's traded what for what can
be all kept digitally. And because of cryptography, it can be secured against tampering. And because
of the distributed nature of any type of cryptocurrency network, everyone who is a part of the network has a
copy of the entire ledger so that they can see everything that's up for trade by every single person.
So every unit of money, in fact, you just got rid of money. You changed money into its actual purpose,
which is to facilitate trade and exchange between people. Now, then now you have to also redefine
what a bank is. Forget about banks issuing currency, central banks, throw that all in the garbage.
That was the past two to 3000 years of society built was built on that. We're thinking outside
the box. What is the essence, the purpose of a bank? The bank is a store of value, which means a warehouse
in the community where everyone brings their crops. Let's say someone has a oil pump jack
on their property, they can bring their diesel or whatever they refined. People can bring their
solar panels or whatever they have that's a store of value to a central location.
So you don't have to drive across to the opposite side of the community to conduct a trade because
everyone brings their produce for trade to a central location. And then the trade happens there.
So let's say I buy 1000 kilograms of wheat. I'm not going to use it all at once,
but I will keep the wheat that I bought or I traded for with my labor or hours of doctor's work.
I will keep that at the warehouse and the warehouse guards and stores the wheat.
I'm not going to eat 1000 kilograms of wheat, but then I can use the wheat to trade
for something else. Let's say fuel for my vehicle. That trade can all happen on a ledger
without physically moving the actual product. The wheat gets transferred from under my name
to someone else's name when they provide a service that I traded for. So the bank is actually
literally a bank. It's a store. It's a warehouse that stores the value. And we're not talking
about money, gold back standard, or some kind of basket of currencies that you're issuing a
bond on. Forget about that whole system. I mean, you can play in that system if you want. You
might make some money in the system, but if you want to return the purpose of money, the purpose
of banks to the true meaning of those ideas, I'm not even going to say the word. The idea of a bank
is a store house of value. And instead of having money or gold or silver,
okay, we've got Daniel, we got it. We're over our time. Quick comment by Alex and Mads,
and then we're finishing. Excellent concept. Alex and Mads, and then we're stopping.
So that was a medical doctor, Alex and Mads.
I very much agree with Daniel that we need to think out of the box radically, probably.
I would question the, I think I'm very intrigued by the idea you suggested.
I question its feasibility. Would it eat up all the energy in the world if every last thing for,
I don't know, seven billion people were tokenized?
It depends on the mathematical algorithm.
Daniel, we haven't got time for comments. I just want a quick comment from Alex and Mads.
Just so all of you notice, we had 57 here for most of the call. We're down to 36 now. We're
on a two and a half hour process, everybody. Please. Alex, thank you for that comment.
Great question, but great suggestion. Great question. Mads?
Yes. Well, I just like it as simple as possible. Money creation, get it out to the people,
let people decide what they want to do with it. If they want to buy crypto, if they want to put
to store their wheat and their solar panels in Daniel's system, by all means, they should
be allowed to do it, but they should not be forced to do it. It should be something that
happened organically because people wanted to do it. Thank you. All right, and Daniel,
reminds me of there are two global barter systems. What Daniel's talking about is
essentially a barter system. These two barter systems are working around the world and people
can put any price they like onto their time. It's all just a digital ledger and it works beautifully.
It can absolutely be done. All right, everybody, round of applause for Alex and Mads. Great job,
guys. Coming in, clearly we could go for three hours, like hello, but wonderful, wonderful.
Dave Colum, you're on the agenda to speak. Stephen will be in touch with you. Tom,
you can go to the Tom Rodman group for those of you with time to do that. Thank you for being here.
Thank you for the chat. Thank you, Stephen, for organizing. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Thank you. Great job. Yeah, Alex and Mads, could you work on that suggestion? Well, you don't have
to, but if you think it's a good idea, forming some kind of constitution for a new system
so that that can be discussed. But I don't know whether you think it's worth doing that.
Maybe we don't tell everybody. All right, thanks, everybody. Stephen, I want to suggest,
can you hear me, Stephen? Can you think about getting Ann Vanderstil on here? Because she has
been talking about the American state national movement, which is the common law, women and men
of the land. Ann Vanderstil, we've had her on, Shasta. She could talk about this movement that's
happening in America, because it's got its own, it's got, it's got, we're supposed to have our
own judges, our own courts, our own sheriffs, our own everything. That might be good advice.
I'd like to say, that is, I'm glad that Alex and Matt studied economics, because they have the
clout to explain all this to us. Similarly, anyway, that's a big, look, come on, we're going.
Thanks, everybody. We stopped the recording. Thanks for being here. Shasta, it's on the agenda.
Thank you for the suggestion. See you on Sunday. Thank you all. Thank you. Thanks, Mads. Thanks,
Alex. Thank you, Alex and Mads. Thank you very much.