Wolfgang Wee Uncut #778 - Hans-Erik Olav | Pengesystemet, Renten, Inflasjon, FIAT, Pengetrykking

We had a very nice, uh, coffee lunch a little while ago. Yes. And then there was a, we actually started that conversation with something that I also think was a good podcast opener. Mhm. It was that we talked about debt. Yes. And, uh, this debt-incentivized economy and the monetary system. And then I said, I said, "I'm trying to pay off debt. I want to be debt-free." Then you said, yes, it actually bothers me a bit to go to the bank and have them print money, and then they want interest on it. Mhm. I think that's a very good starting, uh, starting point for the conversation here. Yes. Yes, that could very well be, uh, we also talked a bit about inflation and those things, so we can get to that eventually. But to take this about going to the bank and borrowing money, for example, for a home, Mhm. I have written a lot about this, and I have also had some podcasts where I have talked about how money is created. And to take that, take that quite quickly, it is like this, when you go to the bank to take out a loan to buy an apartment or a house, say, for example, 10 million kroner, then it is like this, the bank makes you sign a promissory note. And then it's with two witnesses, otherwise it's with a lawyer who witnesses this promissory note for 10 million. And then what happens afterwards, it is that this is booked correctly in the bank, of course. Uh, uh, so that it looks good for auditors and accountants. But what happens afterwards, it's not that they fetch these 10 million from somewhere, but internally within the bank. There are no internal transfers within the bank to an account, uh, that is in your name. There are no external transfers from outside. Mhm. They simply create an electronic page where it says that you have an account where 10 million kroner has been transferred to you. They just write the number in, 10 million. And then you have a loan, you have received a loan for your house out of, uh, what people usually call out of thin air or out of nothing. But that's not entirely correct. Because to be completely precise, uh, that money is created out of debt. So what happens when you take out this loan is that debt is created. A debt is created that you have to pay back to the bank, even though the bank has never had these 10 million. Mhm. They should never have been created, and you should never have been obligated to pay them back with interest. And this sounds quite incredible. Mhm. But the fact is that this has been confirmed by many, including by former central bank governor Nikolaisen when he gave a speech at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. They had an annual dinner where the central bank, or the former central bank governor, was present. And then he gave a speech about how money is made. And he said it directly that the banks, meaning private banks, they don't have a money bin from which they can take this money and lend it to people. They don't have a Scrooge McDuck money bin. They also don't have any deposit funds that they use for this. They just create it. That is, fiat, as we call it, let it happen. And they let it happen. That is, they create these 10 million out of nothing or out of your debt. And this is confirmed not only by Norges Bank, meaning the former central bank governor. It is confirmed by, uh, the head of Den Danske Bank. It is confirmed by the Bank of England. And Professor Richard Werner, who is German but has taught at Oxford. He conducted an empirical study to find out if this was true. He is a professor of Economics. You can find many YouTubers where he explains this online. Uh, he conducted an empirical test where he brought the BBC with him, and he struggled to get any of the major banks to participate in this experiment, because they wanted to keep this as secret as possible, how this happens. But he finally got one bank, I think it was a bank in Germany, a medium-sized bank. And then they filmed the whole thing. And the conclusion was that it was done exactly as I said. He then made a fictional loan. Mhm. Uh, which he got approved, signed it. And then the bank simply created an account with his name electronically where they then put in this money, meaning they just wrote the number. Yes. So that's how, that's how money is created. Uh, not money, excuse me, I have to be careful. Credit is created. Only the central bank can create or print money. And then there is the private banking system that creates credit out of it. And what they do in addition to these, if we call them these 10 million first, is that they don't use, once they have created this amount of 10 million. Uh, to put it simply, they leverage the 10 million. That under the financial crisis in 2008, investigations showed that they had lent out, uh, the same 100-kroner note or the same 10 million, uh, an average of 32 to 33 times. So what they use your signature on a promissory note for is not just to create 10 million in credit for you. Mm. They leverage it or create even more credit that then goes out into society. So when you have a monetary system based on credit, you can call it an inflation machine, right? Because everything created by money in the private banking sector is then inflationary. Yes. It is structured to create inflation. It is absolutely impossible not to have inflation when you print so much money. So we have a willful inflation. It is a willful. It is a politician-created, uh, politician-created, actually, it is a monetary system created by those who started the Federal Reserve Bank in the USA in 2013. That famous meeting they had down at Jekyll Island in 1910. In 1910, Senator Aldrich and representatives of the Rothschild family and the Morgan family and the Warburg family, who was a major banking family in Europe, went down there. Mm. And Paul Warburg then came over to the USA to help structure this. And then we started what became the fiat-based American Federal Reserve System, which is owned, uh, by private interests by 67%. That is, the major banks on Wall Street. I think the last time, the last time I checked, JP Morgan owned, they owned about 27% of The Federal Reserve. And together, the major banks on Wall Street owned about 67%. So they, the private banks on Wall Street, have their own money-printing machine. Mm. So if they have problems or need more money, they print it for themselves, right? Mm. The printing happens by, by the Federal Reserve, uh, excuse me, the Treasury Department, which needs the money. Mhm. It's the same as the Ministry of Finance in Norway. They need money, and then they issue a bond, a government bond, which goes through the banking system to The Federal Reserve. And then the Federal Reserve presses some buttons, and 100 million dollars, for example, for which that government bond is collateral, goes back to the Treasury. And they have money to use, for example, to pay lobbyists who want to get members of Congress on their side, and all of this. Yes. Yes, that's not what it's primarily used for. It's used to finance the federal budget in the USA, right? Roads, schools, you name it. Mhm. But, but that's how it happens. So, uh, and so the central banking system is invented by the private banking system. That is, those who are at the very top of this system, the families I mentioned. Mhm. And then the politicians have, of course, gone along with it, because they are dependent on this system. How? Uh, no, ultimately, politicians are supported by those who sit and print this money. That is, politicians depend on these major banks doing what they do so that they can maintain their power base, right, over the people. They depend on government bonds being issued so that they get money into the coffers to spend on, yes, the opera, the opera Holmenkollen, which cost 10 times more than it should have cost, all these things we spend money on. So it's a mutually dependent relationship, you could say, between the elected politicians and, uh, the system that finances credit and money in society. And then we must remember the distinction I made, that only central banks print money, and then it is, uh, the private banking sector that then creates all this credit. And that credit is, uh, created, and the intention is to have inflation. So when they say they want an inflation target of, for example, 2%, which is what we often hear. Mhm. So, so it is simply because it is a way to cover the state's, the state's expenses. So when we now see, for example, that inflation is at 3.5% or at 7%, it's because we have printed too much money. Because inflation means to inflate, uh, just like you blow up a balloon. Mm. It's the actual printing of money. Okay. The result of printing money is price inflation, right? CPI, as we call it. And here there are many, I haven't seen a Norwegian economist describe this correctly, because we just call it all inflation, but that's wrong. Inflation is the printing of money. The result of printing money is price inflation. That's a slightly important distinction in all of this. And then, of course, there are interest rates. Interest rates are the price of credit, the price of loans. Mm. And if you have a monetary system that by definition must constantly expand, we must constantly print more money because we don't have the interest money to pay off the things we have already printed, so we must constantly print more. Yes. Then you understand why we get a system that is constantly growing. That is, uh, a very well-known American economist named Richard Duncan, who has researched this a lot, says that we have put ourselves in a situation now where if America and other Western modern economies don't print between 2.5 and 3% new currency every year, we get a recession. We are totally dependent on printing more money to keep things going, right? So this is a system. So when, whether the Conservative Party or the Labour Party or others talk about reducing the tax burden and the duty burden, Mhm. it's by definition a bluff. Because in a debt-based monetary system, it's impossible. It has to increase. And that's why the monetary system we have, and it was designed to do that since 1913 in the USA and the same in Norway. It is designed so that people eventually, uh, don't have enough money to make ends meet, which we see more evidence of today than ever before. Mhm. We are reaching a point where this money-printing system simply leads to so much inflation over such a long period that people can no longer afford to buy food and heat their homes and so on and so on. It's that spiral, a kind of death spiral we are in because of the monetary system. And because the only thing the central bank can do is print money. That is, they, there is nothing else they can do that has any value at all. So one can discuss what value printing money has. It's not of great value, but that's what they do. So this means that we must abolish the current monetary system. Because it impoverishes people and first makes them debt slaves. Mm. And then once they are in that labyrinth as debt slaves, it's not long before they accept almost everything the state does, right? And then we are in a very dangerous situation where we are sliding towards a totalitarian state, if you will. That's usually the end of this, this monetary system, before it collapses. And there have been many thousands of similar fiat monetary systems throughout history, and they all collapse. It is absolutely inevitable. It will, it is absolutely inevitable. It will collapse. It's just a matter of how much suffering people will go through, Mhm. before they react and before they see how they are being exploited. So it's a way of introducing the modern slave state through a monetary system where politicians, whether they understand how this works or not, at least don't let the people know how it works. Do you think they understand it, or do you think they do it knowingly? Uh, last, I sometimes write to them when I get provoked by how they go out on Facebook and talk about lower taxes and we have to halve the wealth tax, and Astrup is constantly out there, and so I last wrote something to Astrup and then I presented the memo or the article you gave me called "Snake Oil Salesmen" by Espen Nakstad, where I explain a bit about what inflation is and how it works, and he answered, his answer made me decide to simply not continue the dialogue because it was such a "good day, axe handle" answer, it was like, yes, well, things are going better now, and we shouldn't be doomsayers, and we have to do our best, and the Conservatives are removing the wealth tax and so on. That's not what it's about. Can you imagine a kind of battery or some kind of cylinder, and then you can say that what we're talking about regarding the monetary system, the economy. It's maybe 5-10% up there with small, small adjustments with wealth tax. It's a little dividend tax, just completely marginal changes. While the big, most important part, economists and politicians don't know about. And those who actually know something about it, they make sure to stay on it. Just talk about the superficial. Yes. Yes. So what we have become very good at in Norway is talking about the symptoms of the disease. So we always talk about symptoms. Some want lower wealth tax, some want something else. Uh, now we saw that there were duty cuts for those who depend on diesel. Mhm. Right? I don't know who got it. It was some industry associations and so on, and then, and then politicians are very good at going out and saying that now we have reduced, now we have reduced the duty for these people so much. The state cannot reduce anything. The state has no money in principle. No. Right? It's broke. Mhm. It has to take money from somewhere. And if the state goes out and says that now we have reduced duties somewhere, it means they have to increase taxes and duties elsewhere. There is no choice. If you are to balance the books, you have to do it. Mhm. But apparently not enough Norwegians understand this. So they applaud the state for having saved this industry. And what we are constantly doing is giving privileges to different industries. The one who shouts the loudest, perhaps first. Mhm. And what we achieve is that we satisfy a small interest group at the expense of the rest of society. Mhm. And this is done all the time, so it becomes a very suboptimal system where productive capital, as I call it, is constantly redistributed. And we have a redistribution apparatus that now represents about 65%. That is, the public part of Norway's GDP, that is, gross domestic product. Mhm. It is now about 65%. And I wrote to Astrup that there is a study from the USA from 2012 called the Dawson study. And that study researched the public share of GDP in the USA to see how the increase in the public share has impacted gross domestic product, to see how productivity has been burdened by public regulations, laws, and so on and so on. And what the study showed was that from 1949, when the public share of the economy in the USA was about 28%, until 2012, when this study is from, it had increased to, it had increased to around, yes, what was it, 74-78%? And what the study showed was that all the regulations and laws that come with this increase, where the state increasingly controls the means of production, goods and services in society, and constantly regulates things, so that bureaucracy grows. That loss of productivity had led to a loss in GDP, so that instead of GDP in 2012 being 55 trillion US dollars, GDP was 15.5. Mm. If you transfer these figures to Norway, and you can't really transfer them directly, because they are two very different economies. We are 5.5 million people. The USA is, yes, 300-something. But it becomes a bit like comparing apples and pears, but it's still worth doing. Uh, and let's be conservative and cautious with the numbers. But what the numbers show, transferred to Norwegian conditions, is that you can say with reasonable certainty that the increase in the public share of the economy in Norway from about 29% in 1949-1950 to today, where it is 65%, has led to a loss in gross domestic product for Norway that corresponds to 1 million kroner for every single Norwegian, whether it's a newborn child or an old man. 1 million kroner every year from 1950 until today. That's the loss. That's the productivity loss. And those are terrible numbers, right? Mhm. Uh, who, how is that possible? And I confronted Astrup with these numbers. I have confronted some other politicians before, and there is no reaction to this at all. They evade any discussion about this. And even if the numbers were wrong, maybe it's lower, maybe it's only 500,000 a year, the number is still extreme. And there is probably no country in the Western world where the public share of the economy is as large as in Norway. Mhm. And because we have the monetary system we have, which constantly impoverishes the entire population, it's clear that with such low productivity and so much waste in the public sector, this implies that we will go bankrupt in the end. That is, the entire state must be dismantled, right? We have to shut down the entire ministry, start over. We can't continue with the same. Are we saved by the oil, that we can continue like this for a while longer? Yes. Yes. We have oil left. That is, Norway runs its, runs the country, politics runs the country with about, it did for a long time with only 12-13% deficit each year, and in the last four years, it has been up to 24-25% deficit. Most companies that operate like that would have gone bankrupt long ago. And that calculation, so we all keep up. That is, if you remove the oil. Then we don't have the oil. That's what I was getting at. The oil is not included. Because the point with the oil is that you constantly have to inject more oil money into the economy to cover this deficit. And that is also inflationary, right? Mhm. So there is no way to reduce inflation. We have, we have a structural problem in how we have organized the banking and monetary system, in that it is built-in to cause inflation. And then, as Norway pours in oil money, we worsen the situation. So when politicians talk about reducing interest rates, it's an impossibility. Interest rates must go up. The interest rate should reflect debt, the price of debt. Mhm. And if you have 10 million in debt and have to pay 5% interest on it, and you can barely manage that, if you suddenly have 50 million in debt, do you think you will get better loan terms or worse and have to pay more interest, right? Mm. So that's self-evident. So this is an impossibility. And if we compare, for example, with Finland, which is comparable to Norway, there are about the same number of people, about the same social standard, then the figures now show that in a few years, if we continue in the direction we are now with the state budget and spending, Norway's NAV will soon receive as much money as Finland's entire national budget. That's where we are heading. Mm. And what comes out when you have such over-regulation and such great public control is, of course, with all these new rules and laws and all those who complain about this and want lower taxes and duties on what they are most interested in. And you have laws and regulations that are very strict against people who don't follow these rules, so you get a state apparatus that is constantly growing. Because they constantly need more case handlers to process all those who cheat. Mhm. Who have no choice but to cheat. And you end up in a situation where NAV is now asking employers if they can't cover unemployment benefits because they don't have time to process the applications. If you go to what's it called, up in Brønnøysund, where they collect money, the tax office. Yes, it's the tax office that collects money. The situation there is that you might have to wait over a year for a response to a complaint. Because the pressure is so great. That is, this system with such great public participation in the economy, with all the new laws, it creates such a cumbersome machinery that productive capital hardly exists anymore. And what that leads to is that you just have frustrated case handlers sitting around, never managing to finish their cases, you know? The cases just pile up. So these are stress factors in the system that show that this system is about to completely break down. And it will, because there is no way to stop it other than to introduce a completely new monetary system. Now, a new monetary system will certainly come because, no matter who you ask and what political affiliation they have, whether they are on one side or the other, they agree that we need a new monetary system. Because what we have is bankrupt. There is no way to service all this debt. We must remember that during the financial crisis in 2008, the total debt in the world was about 105 trillion dollars. That would be billions in Norwegian. And the reason, that was the reason why everything was about to collapse. We were only hours away from everything going dark in the financial and banking world. It was saved at the last minute by The Federal Reserve. But we were only hours away from a complete collapse where you wouldn't be able to go to the bank. There would be no money there at all, right? But that system was saved then. And the reason it was about to collapse was liquidity problems in the banks. And then you can imagine today, where the total credit is not 105 trillion, but about 350 trillion. So if we, we are in an even worse situation. Much worse. And why has it gotten worse? Well, it's because we have done more of what we started talking about, namely issuing promissory notes without collateral. Mhm. Right? Yes. And then there is an exponential increase in this, so it suddenly spins out of proportion. It has already spun out of control. So this debt cannot be settled. Everyone knows it, politicians know it, Norwegian politicians should know it. It can never be settled. And even though Norway has relatively low government debt, considering what we have in the oil fund, it is still relatively high. Perhaps not compared to countries like Ireland and Japan and some others, because we inject the oil money. But the oil money is also inflationary, right? It also leads to inflation. Mhm. So when Norges Bank started talking about interest rate cuts two years ago, I wrote that it wouldn't happen. They don't have the opportunity to do it. Mm. It will never happen. And if they do it, what happens then? Well, then they admit defeat to inflation. Okay. Yes. Then they admit that we can't do anything about it. Well, that's always what they do. They choose inflation over living within their means. Because through inflation, you can save the banking system. And if they have to choose between saving the banking system and saving the population, they choose the banking system. So the population always gets the short end of the stick. This is what they did in 1913 when they designed this Federal Reserve system. One of the most important points there was to create a kind of guarantee for when this system collapses. Because those who designed it, they knew that it can only grow, right? Mm. It can only get bigger. The pyramid just grows and grows. So they knew that at certain times it would experience stress factors and it would collapse. And then we need a, what you call a lender of last resort. And who is that other than the population you have tricked into this system? So the same year they established the Federal Reserve, they established the income tax in the USA. The background for the establishment of The Federal Reserve was that JP Morgan and Warburg and the Rothschild dynasty saw that there was a boom in private banking, especially in the USA. And they wanted to, they wanted two things. They wanted to have control over everything that was done in terms of lending and such themselves, right? They didn't want anyone else to eat the same pie. Mhm. And then they wanted, they wanted a monopoly on printing money, right? Uh, and that's why they sat down then at Jekyll Island in 1910 under false names and so on. Uh, and made this plan for how they, the private banks, the bankers, the owners of these, would establish the Federal Reserve. And so they did. And then they have had control, they have had a monopoly on money printing since. Mhm. And then you have the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, which is considered the bank that is above The Federal Reserve. So The Federal Reserve naturally has representatives there and all that. But what was that bank's function? That bank's function at one point became the bank that was to administer the repayment of war, what you call war reparations from Germany. Mhm. But the strange thing about that bank is, first of all, there are no known directors there. That is, those who work there are anonymous, the whole bunch. Mm. So it's answerable to no one. But the other thing that is interesting is that the history and the history during, also during World War II, and the time before, was that Hilmar Schacht, who was then the central bank governor in Germany and was supposed to handle the Germans' repayment of debt and so on. Both World War I, it was a huge and unmanageable debt. Mm. Which was noted by the French general whose name I don't remember now, and John Maynard Keynes, who was there from the British side, who said the Germans will never be able to do this. So what we have is a will to war that will return. Mm. And the whole point, I can come back to that later, was that the war was supposed to start again. That is, both World War I and World War II were planned long, long before. I can take that later. Okay. But Hilmar Schacht, it's a bit interesting because it's Hilmar Schacht who was supposed to stand with his head bowed and folded hands and ask for good weather to pay back what the winners of the war wanted. He had as his best friend, on the other side of the table, Norman, no, Montagu Norman, who was the central bank governor for the Bank of England. So here you had a German and an Englishman who during the war, World War, were best friends. They were godfathers to each other's children and collaborated so that it ended up with quite favorable terms for the Germans after all. Yes. So it's a curiosity that such things can happen. Uh, but if we go back to, it's a bit interesting to see these things in a historical perspective. And, uh, you can stop me if you think I'm going off the rails, but if we go back to just take some of the most important dates and then talk about a couple of the more recent dates that underline what I've been talking about now. The first date is 1599 when some Englishmen sat in a house in London, at the same time as Shakespeare was probably writing Macbeth. Mm. And decided and formed what they called the East India Company in 1599. Then they went to the Queen, I believe it was at the time, and asked for the English military support to go out into the world and plunder. And they did, formulated that way, or to conduct trade in closed rooms, they probably said, but not explicitly. Mhm. No. And this was then the start of what we call the colonial era, which led to England subjugating, yes, twenty to thirty places. They went into the East, the Far East, India, and had weapons that the locals couldn't match. And under threat of death and also killing large parts of the population, they plundered. And so, and they have done so until today. That is, when we abolished colonial states, regularly throughout the 20th century, we thought we were freeing these countries. We didn't. What we did instead was to encourage them to take loans through institutions established by what we have called the City of London. The City of London is a separate district in London where the financial centers are. They have their own police force, they have their own jurisdiction, and that's where the bank is located. Yes. And, and yes, the organizations that the City of London and others helped create were, among others, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, which you've probably heard of. Mhm. And through these organizations, they encouraged these poor countries in Africa and the East, former British colonies, French colonies, to take out large loans to develop their countries. The conditions were then that they used, today the conditions would be that okay, you get this loan, and then you have to use Black Rock, or you have to use JP Morgan, or you have to use Caterpillar to build infrastructure, to build all the infrastructure at three times the price, right? Yes. So they continued, in a way, imperialism and the exploitation of these populations right up to today. And you see, for example, what's its name, Burkina Faso. Yes, that's right. They have now broken free. Niger has broken free from the French grip and so on. And they are rattling the war drums, Macron and the others, because what will France do, for example, if they can't steal 85% of the GDP of these countries? That's what they've been doing all these years. That is, then the French and the English will have to start working themselves, and they really don't want to. Mm. Right? So these countries have been exploited, so we have believed that the colonial era is over and imperialism is over, but it is disappearing now because all of this is now being dismantled. How, in my opinion? Why now? And who, who, what is dismantling it? No, that's a good question. Uh, be careful how far we go down the rabbit hole, because I don't want to have anyone after me. But the fact that we are dismantling the City of London and what it stands for is, among other things, through BRICS, that is, this alliance of countries and then, uh, other affiliated countries, that is, the BRICS countries now. They first consisted of five countries: Brazil, Russia, Mhm. India. Uh, Iran, yes, and then South Africa. Uh, not Iran. No, not Iran. Not Iran. But anyway. You have five countries. Now there are, I think, 12-13. And then you have something called The Belt and Road Initiative, which the Chinese started some years ago. It's to build, in a way, the modern Silk Road again. Mm. To promote trade. That's why they are building out the railway network and all of this. Uh, massively. And then you have something called the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is also a

Of this collaboration. And those who are involved in total in this alliance, not just BRICS, but in the other organizations, it now numbers somewhere around 150 to 160 countries in the world. Representing, uh, more than 50% of the world's GDP. And they are growing by 3, 4, 5% uh per year, while we, we have, we have, we have negative growth. Mm. We are told that we have a little positive growth, but we don't. In reality, we have had negative growth for a long time in all of Europe. Mm. Uh, we are lied to about that too. But these countries do have, uh, good economic growth. Uh, they, uh, represent over 90% of the world's population. Compared to Europe. If you take Europe and the USA as a bloc. Mhm. Now, we probably can't take Europe and the USA as a bloc anymore, presumably. Mm. Uh, for better or worse. Uh, but they also, uh, represent somewhere between 75 to 85% of the world's raw materials. Uh, and, uh, especially things like rare earths and that type of thing, uh, and completely central raw materials that the West depends on. The result of this, then, is that Europe and Norway, let's put it a bit brutally, we are finished, and it's over. Uh, we are, there is industrial dismantling on a large scale in Europe. And the last, the final nail in the coffin for that will be the green transition. Mm. Uh, it will be the death of large parts of Europe. Uh, what also made it very difficult was when the Ukraine war led to, uh, to the Nord Stream thing being blown up, and then it was forbidden to buy Russian oil and gas, right? Uh, because Russia was to be punished. So now Europe is paying two and three times now, and with Nord Stream closed as well, they are probably paying even more. Mhm. To get, uh, energy for its industry. This has led to BASF, the big giant in Germany, moving operations abroad. Uh, I think Volkswagen has closed down three or four of its largest factories in Germany. Uh, Mercedes moved a huge factory now to, I think it was to Alabama, at least to the USA. Wow. Yes. And the steel industry in Germany, industrial production is down by 25% in the last three years, approximately, in Germany. And these are enormous figures. So, so all of Europe is on the brink of the abyss. And in such a situation, Europe does what it has always been very good at, and that is starting wars. Yes, we've been doing that for many hundreds of years. The English and the French have fought each other since the dawn of time. Mhm. They found each other during the First World War and afterwards. But Europeans, they are very good at starting wars. If we have a problem, the hammer is what counts, right? So now we are in the insane situation that instead of talking to our neighbors in the East, Mm. and trying to pursue diplomatic solutions, we want to wage war with them. And there, we have nothing to offer either. Mhm. We have less. The USA is involved. Uh, no, not even with the USA, I don't think it will work. So, uh, so we have nothing to offer, but that is the solution we choose. And then we come to, uh, the next date. Now we have 1599 and the East India Company. And then we have the date in, in 1694. In 1693, the king of England needed more money, and, uh, he couldn't go out into the countryside anymore because there were so many, uh, Robin Hoods. They didn't want the tax collector at their door all the time. They wanted to keep their things themselves. They were poor, right? Mm. So then, in a way, the modern, or the precursor to the Federal Reserve, even though this happened several hundred years before, so, so a wise person then figured out that they should start the Bank of England, and the shareholders, if you will, of the Bank of England were the king himself and his court and friends. Mm. And what they did was they printed money, right? They made money out of nothing. Yes. Yes. How did they do that? Uh, it was, I think it was partly in banknotes and partly in coins, but mostly, I think it was banknotes for the most part. What they did was they managed to finance their wars, because they needed money for that. Mm. And then they took as much as they spent on war, they lent it out to, uh, parts of the population. And then they charged interest on it, of course, to make money, so that the king and the nobility would profit well from this. So it was, in a way, another important date to note. Because then, in modern times, at least reasonably modern, it is, uh, a fiat money system that was created then at the Bank of England, right? But wasn't this at a time when one backed, uh, a value against, that one had reserves and gold and valuable things? That was probably, that was probably earlier, you know, that was the old method where, uh, where people went to the goldsmith with either gold or silver or copper or whatever it was. And then they stored their valuables with the goldsmith and then they got a receipt. Got a receipt that they had so much gold or silver with, uh, with the goldsmith. Mhm. And what one then eventually understood was that no one comes at the same time and wants to withdraw everything. Yes. So I'll just make more receipts and give them to people so they can go around with these receipts and use them as a means of payment, right? That is typically the first credit-based monetary system you can imagine. It was the goldsmith who was smart enough to realize that I can take these things here and then I can leverage them and lend to more people, right? Because not everyone comes at the same time and wants to withdraw everything, right? No, and it's exactly the same system we have today. Exactly. Yes. So, but that was before this with the Bank of England then. Mm. So that's another important date. Then you have the date in, in 1913, but before that, we had in 1891, when, I don't know what you would call it, a lodge or a gathering of the elite in England. Uh, they founded something called The Society of the Elect. Yes, you can hear that it's prestigious to be a member there. And it was done without parliament or anyone knowing about it. Uh, those who started it were Cecil Rhodes, who had a country named after him, Rhodesia. And, uh, uh, Rudyard Kipling was involved. If you've heard of Rudyard, he who wrote The Jungle Book. Mm. He also wrote a poem called, which you've probably heard of. Uh, "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you." It's a very fine poem, by the way. Mm. And then he wrote a poem called "The White Man's Burden." And "The White Man's Burden," that poem, it actually symbolizes what The Society of the Elect was actually for. Because The Society of the Elect believed that the white man's burden, meaning the white man, had a yoke on his shoulders. And that terrible yoke was to do God's work. Because the white man knew better than everyone else how the world should be governed. Mhm. So everyone else should be subordinates, Africa, the East, everything. They saw themselves as a superior race. Uh, don't rule out that some of them still do. Bold. Yes. And this was then "The White Man's Burden" that Kipling wrote a poem about, that they saw themselves as God's emissaries, in a way, to rule the world. Mhm. The British at that time. And some of them probably still do today. So, uh, who are they today then? Who, who are they? No, it must be, it's probably represented through these wealthy families. And then you have, then you have the, the court and the king and what surrounds that, which actually, actually probably has to cooperate with those who hold the money. Mhm. Even though Charles would hardly phrase it that way. But what happened then was that, uh, this was started by Cecil Rhodes as an initiative, and then Alfred Milner soon joined because Cecil Rhodes became ill and died a few years later. Uh, and then, as mentioned, Rudyard Kipling was involved, and then it was all financed by Nanny Rothschild, meaning Nathaniel Rothschild, he was involved in financing it, and eventually a young and very ambitious Winston Churchill joined this later, and what they were concerned with was how to solidify, build out, and make the British Empire larger and more secure. Uh, "The Empire on which the Sun never sets," right? That was the goal. And then to rule the world in accordance with Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden." Because they were chosen by God, in a way, then. Mhm. And the first thing they did in 1891 was, you can call this a shadow government. They operated in the shadows of parliament. Uh, they made sure to bribe people and get them into parliament so that they always knew what was going on. They got people in who could influence parliamentary decisions in both the upper and lower houses in England. So they worked as a kind of, yes, what should I say, clandestine operation then, uh, without any mandate other than that they were powerful and had money. And a form of corporatism you could also call it. Mm. If you were to look at something similar today, you would call it corporatism, and then you would say BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and these, these companies, they fall into the same category. But what they did first then was that, uh, they planned how they would conquer the diamond mines in the Transvaal in Africa. And, uh, and they had to do it in such a way that the British would not be blamed for starting this war. That is very important, uh, a very important factor in all of this is that all the things they were involved in, it had to be done behind the scenes. It had to be done through secret alliances, and then so that others would get the blame for starting the trouble, right? And what they did then was that they eventually managed to provoke the Transvaal and those who lived there and the settlers to start a war. And it was the British who provoked it. And in 1902, that war lasted from 1898 to 1902, they were finished, uh, with that war and had won it and had full control of the diamond mines and so on. And immediately after they finished with that, they started planning World War I. They saw the Germans as a threat, as an industrial superpower on the rise. And remember that the English royal family and the German royal family are the same family. So it was, in a way, cousin against cousin, uh, so then they started planning. And what they did was that, uh, the English king, I don't remember exactly who it was. I think it was Edward, but I'm not entirely sure. I don't read about this every single day. But, but he was then sent to France because France had been England's enemy for many, many years. They had to, in a way, convince the French that can't we be friends, and can't you join us in what we are now going to do against the Germans, because the Germans will defeat us and you, right? Mm. Why, what indicated that the Germans? Because what I've heard from the Danes, whom he leans on, especially, was that the German paranoia, that it was a very new state, and they had very little, they felt like a very confined nation geographically. Yes. No, the Germans at that time were in the process of building an industrial power, right? And then there was old enmity and old alliances. Mm. Of course, and so it was decided that something had to be done about the Germans. They wanted to remove them from the map, almost. So they planned this. They did it with the French, where they sent, I think it was King Edward to Paris, where he initiated conversations with the elite in France and the politicians, and where they paid Nanny Rothschild, gave money so that they could bribe high-ranking political politicians, and also, as far as I understand, when he wasn't busy with that, he frequented most of the brothels in Paris. That's the story we're told. Okay. Although it doesn't matter much for the war that came later. But, uh, and then they made an alliance with Russia. They had to get Russia, uh, on board with this. And they worked on this from 1901, 1902, up until the outbreak of war in 1914, where you have that famous shot in Sarajevo. Yes. And the shot in Sarajevo was a British intelligence operation that then led the Serbs to war against, or bomb, or no, rather, to kill, excuse me, the prince, the archduke. Because it was Serbian students who, yes, two or three of them, who were supposed to do it. Mhm. And, and this was the British who were behind it, who planned the whole thing and managed to make it happen. And then the Austrians came and wondered, we have to react, we can't let this go unanswered. And then, of course, the shadow government in England, with these people from The Society of the Elect, which has later been called The Pilgrim Society or Committee of 300, as some have called it. Mm. They made sure that, uh, that the Austrians believed they had the backing of the British to do something, uh, to retaliate, because the British said, we will not defend the Serbs at all. You just do what you have to do. Uh, and then they did the opposite, of course. And then they said to the Russians, when this happened, look, the Germans are starting now. No, Austria. And they have a defense pact with the Germans. So now, if we don't do something now. And then they managed to prove that the Germans, who did not start World War I, are that the Germans were the absolute last to mobilize their troops to defend themselves. The Russians mobilized, were at it for weeks. Uh, the French mobilized. Uh, the Germans sat and watched, of course. They saw what was happening, and Kaiser Wilhelm begged his English cousin, the king, please, can't we talk, can't we stop this? And the British, or the shadow guys, they pretended to, yes, we can do this and that, but instead, they schemed behind their backs. So finally, when Germany realized there was no way out, they mobilized first. But I have read that several historians believe that the Germans felt a clock ticking on whether they should actually take the side of Austria-Hungary and also tried to, if they acted fast enough, they knew that the Russians would take just enough time that perhaps it would all be over before the Russians had time to react. Because historically, the Russians were quite slow to get started. They were quite a slow war nation, but once they got going, they were unstoppable. Yes. Now I don't remember the name of the Russian agent that the British used, but they had, a Russian agent who was high up in the hierarchy and had the ear of the Tsar. And he was instrumental because the Tsar was very reluctant for the Russians to join this. Mhm. So there was considerable pressure and money changed hands among politicians to make this happen. So what you are telling about those historians, that's not what I have read. Mhm. Uh, but I am not absolutely sure that everything I have read is entirely correct. No. But that is the history that I have familiarized myself with and have read about in several places. So, uh, I have these books at home, so you are welcome to follow along and read. Yes. And then what happened was that we got, we got World War I, which is one of the most horrific wars there has been. And it was attempted to be stopped, halted. It was Kaiser Wilhelm who took the initiative for that. After a year or a year and a half, he did it. And then things were going quite well for the Germans. Uh, J.P. Morgan had financed a lot of the British warfare by issuing and selling British government bonds. Mhm. Which meant that J.P. Morgan stood to lose a lot if the British didn't win. And in that situation, J.P. Morgan was in that situation when this became clearer and clearer, a horse trade was made. And that horse trade was made between Winston Churchill and Chaim Weizmann, who was the first, the first president, I believe, or I don't remember if it was president or prime minister, I think it's president of Israel in 1948. Mhm. And the deal that was made, it was made, it was made in 1916, as far as I remember, but it was cemented in 1917 by Lord Balfour, who was an English general and also an English prime minister at one point, he wrote a letter to Lord Rothschild where he, yes, gifted Palestine to, uh, to Rothschild, or the Jews then. Mm. And then it went all the way to 1948 before they actually, uh, before Israel became an independent state. But that was the part of the deal that Churchill had to, uh, give in to. Because at that time, the Ottoman Empire had been dissolved, and it was France and England that ruled, or had a lot of control in the Middle East. So the British talked with the French and agreed that okay, Palestine, we'll fix that. And that was the fix they did at that time. Mhm. So, uh, this deal that Chaim Weizmann arranged, was that he ensured that the Jewish banks on Wall Street could come in and support and get support through having people who could persuade President Wilson, who was a pacifist, to join the war on the side of the Allies. Mhm. And that happened by the famous sinking of the Lusitania, which had American passengers, a little over 1500 American passengers, but which also had war materiel on board, which sailed from the USA to England. And the Germans then placed advertisements in dozens of American newspapers, where they practically begged the Americans not to send that ship with war materiel because they were at war with England, and they were forced to sink it. Mhm. And then history has it that when they entered the English Channel, the British naval vessels withdrew and let the Germans sink the Lusitania, and 1500 American lives were lost. How much agreement is there on that exactly? No, there is certainly great disagreement about that. Yes. Yes, I would think so. I don't think there are many official sources that support that explanation. Because the idea is that the British withdrew to involve the Americans in the war. Yes. Uh, what happened, in any case, the result of this was that Wilson had the pretext he needed to join the war. Mhm. I think, with all the other things I have read, I must say that I find it a more plausible explanation than all the others I have heard. And remember that this was done to save J.P. Morgan's large investments in British government bonds. Mhm. And in addition to that, J.P. Morgan was a supplier of much war materiel to the British. So anyway, whether one believes it or not, I have read a lot about other versions of this, and I must say the most credible is this one. And the Lusitania was indeed sunk, and 1500 Americans went to their doom. Mm. In the English Channel. So that's the reason I bring this up is to explain what is being taken down now. Because, uh, this is a City of London type, uh, action with, uh, the Society of the Elect and this shadow government that has been operating. And, uh, if we then look at conflicts today, for example, in Iran, Mhm. Uh, we must remember that the British entered Iran at the beginning of the 20th century, around 1903-1904, the British entered Iran with full force to secure their oil. And they started the first oil company in Iran, and they have had, they have had people, people in Iran for a long time. British intelligence, MI6, and others. So when we perhaps one day get the truth about what was really the reason for the war in Iran, it may well be that the reality is a bit different than what we think now. Namely, that this is an action to limit or bring down City of London's influence over the monetary system and over, then, yes, uh, former colonial powers and countries they have had great economic interest in draining the life force out of, including Iran. Okay. So, so this is what Trump is leading, with the backing of, uh, whatever forces must back him, who are going to tear down this City of London system through, uh, then going to war with Iran under the pretext that it is nuclear weapons? That could be it. I mean, so much is happening these days that I, uh, I am very careful about trying to draw any conclusions because I don't think it's possible to draw any conclusions about everything that is happening. But, and it may be that there are many agendas at play simultaneously here, but that what Trump is doing is very damaging to previous power structures that started as far back as 1891 with The Society of the Elect, City of London, and so on and so forth. I am quite convinced of that. Uh, and then the question becomes, what will emerge in the end? And then I return to this issue of the monetary system. What kind of monetary system will we get? Because all these conflicts are ultimately about power over the monetary system. Because what we are talking about is power over resources. That is, who is going to hold the resources of the world? Who needs to hold them? And how will they obtain these resources if they don't have money and military power? Can you just say, like, what is the big difference between the monetary system we know today and the BRICS, uh, system, the structure? I mean, how is BRICS built differently to be more robust so that it doesn't collapse? Yes, uh, what is wrong with today's monetary system is because, uh, you had the Bretton Woods negotiations in 1944, uh, which formed the basis for, uh, a monetary system, uh, backed by the dollar. That is, it was tied to a price of, uh, gold, backed, excuse me, backed by gold. And then the USA became so heavily indebted. I mean, they had enormous gold reserves after the world war, from other countries as well. And then they became so heavily indebted that in 1971, they had their back against the wall. And that was when Nixon, among others, President Charles de Gaulle in France, he wanted his gold back from Fort Knox, where it was stored by the Americans. He wanted that gold back to France, because it belonged to France. And he saw how the Americans were handling this monetary system where money was constantly losing value. He wanted the gold back. So two, one or two warships came to New York to retrieve it. Not because he intended to bomb New York if he didn't get it, but he wanted it safe and secure when he transported it back. And, and this was then the precursor to Richard Nixon in October or November 1971 closing the gold window, as they call it. He then removed, uh, the backing that gold had in relation to the dollar, so that the dollar then became a pure, uh, fiat currency. Mhm. And then the money printing began, right? So then the dollar was not backed by anything. And then it was Kissinger and perhaps some other smart people who figured out, okay, what do we do now to maintain our hegemony over the dollar and hegemony over all these other countries in the world that we want to have some control over? And then Kissinger went to Saudi Arabia. And then he sat down with the Saudi royal family. And they agreed that they would demand, that is, OPEC, with Saudi Arabia, would demand that all countries buying oil in the Middle East would pay with dollars. This means that then, for example, Germany, which wants oil, to pay for a barrel of oil in Saudi Arabia or from OPEC, they have to exchange, uh, German marks or euros. Mhm. If you will. Uh, to do that, they first have to produce this value, right? This currency through hard work. They have to take those values, that is, the money, the currency, they have to put it into the American banking system in New York, exchange it for US dollars, and pay, right? So this was fantastic for the USA, which could use the dollar and, and government bonds, not least, to build wealth, right? Mm. So that's what, uh, that's what happened then in 1971 and afterwards. So then you had what you call the petrodollar. And that is a currency that is not backed by anything and which, of course, is very susceptible to inflation-driving factors, right? Mhm. The things we have talked about, plus other things. For example, that you now have supply shocks, uh, in connection with the Nord Stream, that goods and so on are not coming out. That is also inflation-driving. Mm. Because inflation, a bit amateurishly put, a bit simply put, it's too much money chasing too few goods, right? Mhm. You have too many dollars chasing the same goods. And of course, if there is a supply shock and you can't get goods out of a place, the goods become more expensive, you use more money, right? That is inflation-driving. Mhm. So what BRICS has done is that they have been working on this for some years, and they have, through something called Embridge and something else, the Bank for International Settlements was involved in this project for a while. They withdrew when they realized it was becoming a reality. And where the Bank for International Settlements is today, I don't know. But they were involved in this experiment, if you will, for a while. A system has been developed where, uh, you have, uh, trade between countries, uh, that can then take place in local currency. And then the currency, uh, BRICS the unit, it's a part of this, but the system is set up so that 40% of the currency, uh, of BRICS, is based on gold. A gold standard. Mm. It is backed by gold. And then you have the rest, which is backed by, uh, the individual country's, the individual country's, what shall we call it, advantages. Mhm. So in Norway, for example, if we were involved, it would be oil, for instance, or salmon, right? Yes. So, uh, they mix gold with a country's comparative advantages, and if they do well, it goes well for them, and if they do poorly, it goes worse. Mm. But everything should be backed by physical raw materials, so that you maintain the value of the money, that you are not in this debt hell and this inflation-driving system that makes the value of the money you have, that is, the currency, constantly decrease in value, thereby diminishing the purchasing power of you and me. Yes. So that is the essential difference. Then they have something called The Unit, which is intended to be, uh, a means of payment for ordinary people. Mm. But it should be backed by the same thing. And then the question becomes, okay, what will we get when all these wars are finished and settled and everything, and so on, what kind of monetary system will we get? Who will win that battle, and what do they actually want to do with us? Mhm. Uh, should we cheer for Trump? Should we cheer for Iran? Should we cheer for the British? Right? It's impossible to say, really, but we will find out eventually what kind of monetary system we will get, who will control the raw materials, and who will control the monetary system. And hopefully, then, it will be a monetary system that is quite similar to what BRICS has designed. Isn't it a bit crazy that no one questions why there should be 2%, that 2% is healthy inflation, and that not, I mean, the money supply should be the same, that we don't have deflation or inflation, but that it is such a widespread truth? Uh, but is it then that the BRICS system can promise to a greater extent that the money will be worth the same over a longer period and not be affected by inflation at all? Yes, that, that must be the goal, that it should be. I mean, if you have a given, if you have a given money supply in a country in year zero, you have so much money. In a century, there is no reason for it to be larger. There is no reason to print money at all. But when you do it, you do it because you have a debt-based monetary system where you have to do it. Credit must grow by between 2.5 to 3% each year for the economy to be able to grow. So you are, in a way, trapped in a pyramid scheme that you just have to keep going until that pyramid scheme bursts and collapses. Is it possible to protect oneself, shall we say, as a citizen or a small business organization? Is it possible at all to protect oneself against a coming fiat collapse? Yes, it is. It is possible to protect oneself. Uh, it must be to buy some gold and silver then. Yes. Uh, because that is, that is money. And J.P. Morgan once said, "Gold is money, everything else is credit." He was honest about that. Yes. That's a good one. You should have it like, uh, a slogan on the wall. Yes. That it came from his mouth is quite special. And it's the truth. It's the truth about today's monetary system. And that is that, uh, gold is money, silver too, and copper has also been money. But while what we have today, it is credit, and it is, that is, it is debt, and there is no way, that is, there is no way to avoid the population becoming debt slaves. That is, and that is the whole point, because how much can you protest what the authorities and tax authorities are doing if you have sky-high debt? Yes. You are trapped, right? Yes. Shut up and do your job. But does that make you, the more, uh, free you are and don't have a very large debt burden, does that also make you, in many ways, a slightly more dangerous person to power? You could be, but it depends a bit on whether you go quietly about it or not. Mhm. But would you buy, would you buy gold or physical gold and silver, or is it good enough to just go through a stock exchange or an intermediary? You have to have the physical. Yes. Then you are into what is called counterparty risk. Mhm. And counterparty risk is that you have some intermediary between you. Uh, right? There is something called electronic gold. Mhm. Chew on that. And you also have something called paper gold. Okay. Chew on that. Yes. So on Comex, the stock exchange for gold, for gold and silver and so on in the USA, for every ounce of silver, there are at least 400 contracts on that ounce owned by 400 different people, and not everyone can get it. Mm. 399 will not get settlement. No, but as long as you have the mindset of the goldsmith who issues receipts and no one comes at the same time to collect it, Mhm. it works. The problem now is that there is so little silver now, if we take silver again, both in London Bullion Market and in, uh, London Bullion Market and in Comex, Mm. that it will take very little now before they can't deliver. So it's expected that they won't be able to do it at some point. And then the silver price will skyrocket. Yes. I mean, today we have a situation where somewhere between 800, 800 and 850,000 ounces, I think it is, of silver are produced per year. That is.

Mexico, Peru, some other countries. Uh, and then you have demand of around 1.3 million. So you have a deficit in silver, Mhm. in the market for physical, uh, physical use, uh, of around 350, 400,000, maybe even more. And this has been the case every single year now for several years. Mm. That's why you saw the silver price go up so dramatically here last year. And it's still up, even though it has fallen significantly. It has fallen because it was at 100 and something and 20 down to now it's in the 80s. Mhm. So, all in all, it's up 124% from a year ago. Yes. Even with that fall. And the reason is that physical silver, you need it in AI. Mhm. Right? You have to have it to build out these enormous AI, uh, what do you call them? AI data centers. Data centers. Yes. Yes. Yes. So you use it in batteries. Uh, the Koreans. Samsung has just invented a battery where your car can drive four times further than it can today. Yes. But it requires silver because the node in these batteries, uh, is where you need to use silver so that it doesn't, in a way, burn up, right? Mm. So this technology, people have been waiting for it. I think Mercedes and Volkswagen have ordered it to get this, and, uh, but to get it, you need silver. So they, and much of the weapons industry also depends on silver. Mhm. So silver is a very good, uh, life insurance. Yes. Just like gold. Uh, gold is essentially more pure money. Silver is money plus something more. So if you were to, we're probably not allowed to give financial advice here. No, one can say, I don't know if we are subject to, is everyone, is everyone very careful. I would, I would at least do this. So you who are listening at home, you have to, yes, go to the. I think we have to qualify it. Otherwise, you'll have the Financial Supervisory Authority at your door. Yes. But for my own part, I would, uh, buy a bit of both to have life insurance. I notice that too. Yes. Yes. So, and physical silver, so, meaning not using the stock exchange, or you have to buy coins because bars are subject to VAT. Exactly. Don't ask me why it's subject to VAT, because only the tax authorities know that. Yes, there was a half-explanation for that. But there's something about the coins, then, that has some kind of, uh, exchange effect, or that it becomes a kind of means of payment compared to the silver bar, which is just more of an asset. It can be as simple as coins and such are actually means of payment. Yes. While a bar, it's a bit, right? If you go to buy a hot dog at a kiosk, then, yes, I don't think they'll accept a gold bar. No, so then everyone has to go out and buy silver coins, that's the lesson from the episode. Yes. And then, and then, of course, it's not just gold and silver that count. I am of the opinion that Europe is the lost continent, is becoming so, and the green wave with this false climate perception we have. Mhm. Which is just nonsense from time to time, really. Don't we see that it's starting to reverse a bit? Yes, it is, it is, but it has done so much damage. Mm. And it has led to the energy used for industrial production in Europe becoming sky-high. And then companies go bankrupt. So we are de-industrializing Europe, in a way. Mhm. And, uh, what we must, what we can do in addition, then, if we have very tough times, we should buy some rice and some of that and store it in bags that last a few years. Yes. You can't, it sounds ridiculous, really, that we should have famine in Norway. Mm. But just a reminder that there has been famine quite a few times in this country and in Europe. Yes. So the fact that we think it can't happen again is a bit naive. And then we can have very difficult times, because we can have sky-high electricity prices, right? Mhm. I envision completely different prices than what we have now. And it doesn't take much for elderly people on minimum pension to sit and freeze in their apartments. But isn't there a certain vigilante opening here that if you get some really modern guys in the woods who go and blow up these international cables, blow them to pieces and take them out for a long time, a proper citizens' guard against our own state, then the electricity prices might stay a bit lower? An incitement to terror here. That was perhaps a bit, there were a lot of supervisory bodies that were going to come down on this podcast. The strange thing is, you know, that many people have these thoughts. Mhm. Increasingly so. We must be very careful about promoting violence, of course, and it is a last resort, but, uh, the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution and other things that happen, the Tom Robinson protest in London, and all of this, and near civil war in both France and England and elsewhere, suggests that we are not far from having civil war, if we don't already have it. Yes. So, and yes, I mean, those thoughts about boycotting things and stopping and doing things to get the authorities to change direction. Mhm. Then you can go back to Mahatma Gandhi and what he did in India for India to become free, or so-called free, from the British. It hasn't really become that. But when he went on that march, to the Salt Sea, right, where the peaceful march, the silent protest, and what we can do, and you had the Canada trucker strike. Mm. Where they just stopped working. Mhm. These are the kinds of things the population can do to get the authorities to pull themselves together. Yes. How sick is it that it hasn't, I don't know how far they got with this, but they froze funds, money for those involved in the strike. A full, proper authoritarian grip to stop the protesters by really just hurting them economically, right? That's the same as taking away electricity or food from people. Yes. And that's what they did in perhaps one of the countries in the world that is most associated with a complete democracy. Mhm. It's a warning. Yes, it is. And then you can think that people, people who talk about CBDC, Central Bank Digital Currency, which many are afraid of, that then it becomes a programmable currency. Yes. Where, if you, if you cross the limit for how much meat you can eat, or you've driven too much in the mountains, to the cabin in the mountains, then they can actually just block your card and force you to stay home. Yes. And that's the piece of meat we're most worried about. Oh, isn't it? But here you see, in Canada, they did this without having a so-called CBDC. Yes. Yes. So they can do this already now. Mm. Because they put pressure on Big Tech, wasn't it? That they put pressure on PayPal, among others, which is much more widespread there. But it's like, almost, it's like the authorities in Norway would put pressure on Vipps. Yes. Exactly. Maybe, maybe a fair comparison. Yes. So, we ask, this is how societies go where, in a way, political forces gain great power, right? Uh, was it the philosopher Oppenheimer, not the one who, uh, the other one, not the one who started, or built the atomic bomb. Mm. But another one, he said that there are two ways a society organizes itself. One is, one is the economic means. It's free interaction. Some are good carpenters, some are plumbers, some are something else. And then there's free interaction and a free market, right, where you trade things and maybe, maybe you create a currency so it's easier to trade things, so you don't have to, uh, avoid arbitrary situations, right? Mm. Uh, and then, and that's what you call a free society, you can call it self-governance, in a way. And then you have the society that is governed by political means. And what are the political means? Well, it's just that you have enough power to force someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do. And that's the democracy we live in. We live, therefore, in a, what we call a democracy. And democracy is organized in such a way that we have people who don't really want to be involved in governing. They'd rather not produce anything. They'd rather be involved in governing things because they think that society has become so large. There are so many people. There are so many different carpenters and plumbers and so on. So we need some rules here. And then the politicians come, and they are often those who can't find work themselves, right? Unfortunately, that's how it is. You see the incompetence in parliament, and you understand what I mean. But, but the point is, then, that they introduce this system, and then it grows, and it grows, and it's a parasitic system, so many want to be part of it, and eventually you have a society that Bastiat would call everyone plundering each other, and the biggest plunderer of all is the state. And that's the societal system we have in large parts of the West, and especially in Norway, where the public sector's share of the economy is as high as 65%. But but you claim that this has been going on for a very, very long time, as we've been talking about now, but it's so complicated and so hidden behind many layers that it's only now, when the shoe is on the other foot, especially for us Norwegians, that we understand that something is wrong, without being able to articulate or perhaps calculate or understand the background here, what is the real problem, and then we might get caught up in interest rate discussions, in superficial analyses in the media, but everyone notices that something is wrong here. Yes. Yes. I think the conclusion to what you asked now, yes, is that you won't see any change until the system collapses. Uh, meaning, people don't react until it collapses because the system is built around politicians giving privileges. One year they give privileges to these groups. Another year they give privileges. And so all they can do is give and take privileges. That's what the state can do. And then they can have a monetary system that is fundamentally criminal. And our entire monetary system is in violation of sections 367, 368, and 369 of the Penal Code, which prohibit counterfeiting. That's 10 years in prison for that. But because it's the authorities who are doing it, it's okay, right? If you and I did it, we'd be put away. Mhm. Yes. Yes. So, but it's very difficult to take privileges away from people, and as long as there are many people who have privileges in this system, it won't collapse. Everyone is waiting. They don't protest too much, because then, as you and I might become, we will be attacked by the mainstream media, all these trolls online who serve the powers that be, right? So, it's very difficult to do anything about this system until it actually breaks down. So, but it can, just, it's a known fact that the media is largely dependent on the state. Very many, at least. Um, and we have, uh, extremely many working Norwegians are, if not directly paid by the state, perhaps a supplier or a customer of the state, which is even larger than the two and a half million who are employed by the state, and then you have two and a half million. But, uh, how big is the economy of all those who sell themselves to the state? Uh, as long as the majority of both the press and working Norwegians are in some kind of state-run Mhm. uh, business, it's difficult to turn anything around. It's very difficult because everyone wants a piece of this pie. Everyone wants to take from others. The whole system is set up as a kind of plunder and rob, uh, robber state, right? So everyone wants the state's, uh, what shall we say, the state's help or the state's goodwill, and would rather not step on the state's toes too much, because then they won't get what they want out of this system, which is an enormous welfare system, for example, NAV. You don't bite the hand that feeds you. So this system is very difficult to do anything about until it actually breaks down. Mm. And that's where we see it creaking at the seams now. Uh, and where we will eventually see it break down, because it simply cannot survive. And how will it break down? Probably through an inflationary event. Mhm. That we get Weimar conditions, i.e., the conditions of the Weimar Republic in 1922-1923, where they printed and printed and printed money, credit. Mhm. To keep things going, and where all this printing led to people using banknotes to light their fireplaces. Yes. And the price of a loaf of bread changed within an hour, so that when payday came, they ran down to buy bread before too much time had passed, because prices rose dramatically. Mhm. Uh, and then you had something in the 1980s, I think, with Zimbabwe, where you saw that famous one trillion Zimbabwe dollar banknote in circulation. 1 trillion, and you could buy a loaf of bread for that. So I think it will take an inflationary, uh, collapse for us to see a change. But what, what could such a single event or events be? I mean, natural disasters, or other nations attacking Norway, or just, I mean, war is one thing, but when I talk about an inflationary event, I mean that people, when people become desperate and there's no money, the state has to step in and distribute money. We call it helicopter money in economic terms, where they sprinkle money on the population so they sit still and don't start a revolution. So then money will be printed en masse because the coffers are empty, and then you get hyperinflation, and what we will see, I think, in Norway is that we will get inflation back to double digits, like we had two and a half years ago, we were just over double digits, I think it was around 12-13%. Mhm. And we will see those numbers again. We already see now that the price of money, the price of a 30-year government bond, was yesterday for the first time in many, many decades above 5%. It was at 5.19%. Mhm. And if you want to know how inflation is doing and how interest rate setting at Norges Bank is doing, you can look at the price of, uh, the yield on bonds, and Americans are leading there because they have the most of them. So when a 30-year bond with a 30-year maturity in the US, Mhm. rises above 5%, and the 10-year perhaps rises and continues to rise as well, then you can lower the interest rate, but if you set, and that's what they did, that's what they did for a period from, I don't remember the exact year, but it ended in the 1970s, started 20 or 28 years earlier. So then, the interest rate was set below inflation. Mhm. So you got negative, negative, negative real interest. Yes. And what does negative real interest mean for you and me? Yes. It means that all the money we have, it loses its value slowly but surely. What does it mean for the state? Well, it means that it inflates away its debt problem. Yes. And that is the desired model from the state and politics, i.e., the politicians. Mhm. Because then they can hide all the mistakes they have made in creating the society we have today with sky-high debt by having the population pay, pay the price for it, while they inflate away the debt. So this is the method they normally choose. Mhm. Unless the people wake up and realize they are being screwed. And the chance of that, I don't know, the chance of people waking up now is greater than ever because you see people reacting to these sky-high prices and so on. So hopefully, then, programs like this can perhaps make more people wake up. I hope so. Yes, that's a general thought with almost everyone I talk to, including economists, right? And all sorts of brokers in different industries, it's that you're labeled an idiot if you talk about becoming debt-free. That is, it's just, uh, immediately comes to mind, impulsively. So it's this thing about, you understand that we live in a time where you have to maximize loans. That is, really just take out as much loan as you can from the bank and let inflation eat that up. That has gone from an idea to a theory to, uh, almost a fact. In the same way that, yes, your home will increase in value, so relax. Mm. Yes. Yes. That's quite a symptom, perhaps. It's also a paradox, you know, that good economic times and forecasts are justified by rising housing prices. That housing prices are rising. That's a declaration of bankruptcy, really. Mm. Why is that? Can you explain it in a simple way? It's not a sign of health that everything is rising in value. And when housing prices rise as much as they do, it's not a sign that the economy is doing well. It's a sign that the economy is doing poorly. In short. And then you have, I don't know if you've had Gregar Mikkelborg on here. You should have him on. Yes. He can explain. He has made a lot of graphs on these things, money measured against gold and so on. He's very good at this and inflation. So you should have a chat with him. But in short, then, it's a paradox that because housing prices are rising and people are taking on even more debt, it's a sign of economic prosperity. Then it's a sign of the opposite. It's a sign that things are going in the wrong direction. Mhm. Mhm. Was there something else I was thinking about? We were on, uh, yes. When we're on economists and that, most of them, shall we say, we've even got celebrity economists now in Norway, who often, they don't necessarily have the education there, there might even be economic influencers who pop up in the major media all the time. Mhm. But why are there no economists with a master's from NHH or who sit in ministries who are out there taking this economic debate to the level that we are talking about here now, i.e., the monetary system and that it will collapse? Why don't economists see it the same way, for example, you and those who worry about this? And then they think that this is just that the monetary system is good and that it just needs a little tweaking, that this is, there are two different ideologies here. Uh, yes, partly. Because most economists in Norway are trained in Modern Monetary Theory, which is Keynesian, right? Where you stimulate and de-stimulate the economy according to, if you think it's too hot, you raise interest rates, and if it's too cold, you lower interest rates to get people to spend more money. Mm. Why did this theory win in the West? Well, Keynes was a very smart guy, and the theories he came up with many years ago became very popular because it gave the system and those who controlled it a kind of alibi to print more, to print more credit, and to inflate things, right? So, that such a famous guy, such a brilliant man, he was super intelligent. Keynes was, as mentioned, involved in the discussion during the Treaty of Versailles when it was created for the British. So, but Keynes himself admitted on his deathbed, almost, to another Nobel laureate in economics, Hayek of the Austrian school. He admitted on his deathbed to Hayek. They were completely at odds about how these things worked. Yes. But they were good friends. Yes. Mm. And Hayek visited him before he died. And according to Hayek, Keynes said that it was all nonsense and that stuff. Yes, that's not how it works. He understood it. And his statement about money printing and inflation was that "not in a million can detect it." That is, the perfect thing for a state and a central bank system was to do this because people don't realize they are being robbed. Exactly. Keynes said that about his own theory. Allegedly through Hayek. No, the last thing he said, he said that. But that he went so far as to say to Hayek just before his death that I actually agree with you, Hayek. That's just Hayek's word. We have to take it with a grain of salt. But Hayek was a sensible, relatively sober, honest guy. So I think he was probably telling the truth. In short, the Austrian school, we talked a bit about it last time, a few years ago. Um, why did the Austrian school end up in the back seat, and why has it been a nearly marginal economic theory with a very, shall we say, ardent, loyal, uh, following that isn't very large from the public's perspective? The simple answer is that the Austrian school does not promote money printing. Yes. Uh, banks, the entire system makes a lot of money from money printing. Uh, Andreassen, the economist Andreassen, yes. And all these other economists, they work in financial institutions. Yes. That live off paper. Yes. They live off having a lot of credit available. They live off inflating things. They live off customers buying a lot of paper. I call it paper. Mhm. Stocks, bonds. They live off this. If they are to get a bonus under the Christmas tree, they have to be supporters of this. And this is completely contrary to what Austrian Economics wants. Yes. They believe that you create economic bubbles that you ultimately have to pay for. And that Mises and Hayek and Rothbard and others correctly say. Yes. What we are doing is borrowing or stealing money from the future. That is, we are stealing money from unborn life that is not allowed to decide if it's okay for us to burden them to the hilt before they are born. Mhm. Yes, that's what we're doing. If we had, if there was a shred of ethics and morality in this, we would expose what we are actually doing, and that is stealing from the future. Mhm. That is, we are making life [ __ ] difficult for the younger generation and those who come after. And we see that today. Look how difficult it is for people to get, for young people to get into the housing market, for example. Mhm. That's your fault and mine, really. Mhm. No, not directly, but indirectly. If we had protested enough, enough people had protested, we might have stopped this insane spending of money or credit. Mm. So this affects the generations that, yes, our children and grandchildren. Given what you're saying now, right, about these bank economists, these celebrity bankers who are used as experts everywhere without mentioning many names, am I going too far if I say that these experts who belong to the banking industry or some economic institution are not strictly speaking quite biased in the grand scheme of things regarding economic issues? Yes, you're not going too far. Okay. For a year or two ago, I would have been very careful to comment on these, for example, Andreassen and others. But when I saw Andreassen on a podcast here at NES a week or so ago or something like that, I don't remember who interviewed him. Yes. And was it you? I think he's been around a lot. I know he's everywhere, but he lives out at Fenby here, so I see him at Meny here. I think it was him who was supposed to explain why there's a 2% inflation target. Was it you who asked him about that? Ah. And that, uh, explanation he gave was absolutely fantastic. That was truly a guy who didn't understand what he was talking about. Mm. And without me remembering exactly what he said. That was an explanation that part of the explanation was that if you wanted to have a weaker krone because of how you should trade with foreign countries and so on, then it would be necessary to have low growth in Norway, for example, then you could do this and that. So then he tried to explain parts of the inflation target with that, and then he had a lot of other arguments that didn't make sense, and yes, I turned it off because I thought it was simply too stupid. I'm not saying he's a stupid guy, he's probably very smart and good at his things. But we must remember that he is a paper pusher. And if he, if he is to get a bonus under the Christmas tree when Christmas comes, he has to push the products of those he works for. Mhm. To less informed or less aware people than himself. Yes, he simply has to. That's a very beautiful statement if we get there, and we're perhaps talking about the different, uh, directorates and so on, so I've had a lot to do with the Directorate of Health here and dietary debates and a lot of that. And it's exactly the same there as you said earlier, that things that are not profitable, like natural things, and those phenomena, and that lost knowledge from old times, from fasting to meat-eating, diets like keto are now very much in the public debate, it's often noticeable, often where there's no money to be made, there's very little energy in the debates, and there, and it reminds me a bit of what you said now about banking economics. That is, what kind of, where is there room for the Austrian school, and then you use representatives of some house or some institution, a bank directorate, to represent a message where they don't actually work. It's not their own personal opinion or idea. It's not from themselves. It's just a repetition of what the system represents. Yes, they are slaves to the system. Yes. Ultimately, for Andreassen or others to continue to have the jobs they have, the first thing they must realize is that they are slaves to the system, and then they must act accordingly. And, and, and that can be understandable. It's not easy. It's not easy to go against the system that, after all, puts butter on the table. Mhm. And so on. It's not that simple. There aren't many who are completely free, both in terms of debt and who don't have an employer who breathes ethics into their lungs. So, and there aren't many of those. And, but it's a bit interesting too, because often statistically on this podcast, the guests who have often become most popular are often, you can have an employer, but it doesn't have to be a very controlling employer. You can be a freelancer, for example, as a journalist, we've had several good journalists here who aren't necessarily dependent or have been controlled from above. But they are journalists, and people who are actually quite, as Hans Gilmøen said, you have to have [ __ ] you money, and several who were then free to speak and say, and it's usually older men who have earned a certain sum, have a certain freedom, they drop the bullshit filter. Mm. And those guests have tended to do very, very well on the podcast, far above average on many episodes, and I think young people, and perhaps older people too, pick up that here are some brave individuals who are testing ideas and coming up with theories that seem very sensible. Mhm. Yes, we need more like yourself. Yes. No, I've been publishing articles about this for four years now. I have my own Substack, and yes, at most, maybe 100,000 read it. So when I hear about these young ladies who have done all sorts of things to their bodies and so on, who then have like 1,500,000 listening and watching them, I think [ __ ] I'm in the wrong industry. No, you can't be annoyed about that. We are, we live in a world that is full of these things. That is, wokeness is still reigning at full force. Yes. Even though I think that movement has also taken a hit, as it should. Mhm. So we are, unfortunately, we are unfortunately in a place where it's this, right? Mhm. Mm. We live on this screen, and it will distort us something awful, right? That's not healthy. What's on it. And it can be programmed too. Yes. So we are, in a way, guided. There are many subtle things that can be put into young minds that can make them see the world in a completely different light than they actually should. So, but what about Norwegian politicians and the Norwegian parties from after World War II onwards? Do they have any leanings towards what we've been talking about today, towards the monetary system, towards, uh, foreign powerful individuals, systems, uh, lobbies, or all these organizations, I don't know what they're called, free, all these lodges, Freemasons, Odd Fellows, and all these, are there very, very many secret hidden connections going on behind the scenes? Yes, in my opinion, there are. I believe it's infiltrated in many places. Uh, now Ellen was just promoted to the tenth degree. The highest you can get. How, how do we know? Do they send out newsletters on that? Through rumors? No, no, no, no. There are rumors about it. Yes, I have it from good sources. And yes, he's welcome to do it, of course. But as I said, there are certain network connections in this. Mhm. One can question, for example, the last two ministers of justice we've had, the previous one, Mel. Mhm. The other was Ås Hansen. Mel was an associate at Elden's for a few years before she became Minister of Justice. Who do you think she called when she needed help in that job? Mhm. Yes. And Hansen was a partner at Elden's law firm. Yes. Yes. So, who is the Minister of Justice in Norway, really, in the last 7-8 years? Is it these two, or is it de facto Elden who is our Minister of Justice? Hm. He sits quite centrally in the Freemason lodge. He certainly has a powerful network that he talks to. And in our country, where we've uncovered so much corruption and the Epstein class, as they call it, and so on, who is actually running things? Who is actually running things? Yes. Yes. Who is it? I have my opinion on it, but I'll be a bit careful about going too, too forcefully here, because I don't want people at my door. But it's clear that Norway has an unhealthy relationship with power, and there is a lot of power in hidden, hidden rooms in Norway. There's no doubt about that. And you see, for example, Vigdis Boller

Which are indeed whistleblowers within the police and legal security for everyone. That association, which is constantly gaining more and more supporters and which uncovers, uh, uncovers gross criminal acts from public Norway. Uh, people are starting to see the contours of how this system actually hangs together. And I could have gone into how the court system actually works in Norway, but that's quite a big discussion, really. But it doesn't work very well, to put it that way. Marius Reikeross has sort of been here and touched upon it. Yes. Uh, in the two Epstein rounds we've had here, we've touched upon it. But what is it about the Norwegian legal system that is dysfunctional then? No, the first thing is that there is no judge in Norway with valid authority to be a judge. First. No, all judges in Norway. There is no judge in Norway who has taken the oath and the judicial declaration that you, according to the constitution, are obliged to take. None of them have done it correctly, and none of them have repaired it. And you cannot repair it because it is a state matter. So then one can ask, why haven't they done it when it's so simple to do it? Elden said, I think it was in 2012 or something like that, that if they haven't done this correctly, then none of their judgments are valid. We have, we had a former Supreme Court Justice Tore Ski, if you remember him. He sat there for 35 years, uh, and was a Supreme Court Justice for a large part of that period. And I have checked the papers, and he never had valid authorization to be a judge at all. It's a breach of the constitution. It's a breach of the constitution, it's a breach of the Civil Service Act, it's a breach of the Courts Act, it's a breach of the Archives Act, uh, it's a breach of the Civil Service Declaration Act, so it's a breach of all these laws. And because, according to Morgenstjerne, among others, and so-called legal scholars in Norway in this field, there is no way to repair it. They must be dismissed, right? I have gone round and round with the Courts Administration in Trondheim about this for people who have asked me to help them with their cases because they feel that the state is trampling on them, and every single time the same answer comes back from the Courts Administration. They will, meaning, we reach a point where they simply refuse to answer whether these people have violated these laws. If they hadn't violated them, they could just have explained to me, no, they haven't violated them, because you don't get an answer. So, so that's the first thing that is wrong with the Norwegian court system. We have no judges who are authorized to judge. Is that the responsibility of the different individual judges or is it the system's? No, well, it's both. It's a system error because they are supposed to ensure that they take the oath before they assume office. And they don't. And it sounds trivial, but it's a breach of the constitution, and it's a breach of the Courts Act, a breach of all these laws I mentioned. So it's not trivial. It is, in fact, a state act to be appointed a judge. And then you must follow the rules. How have they reacted to these things? It became a scandal in 2012 when this was discovered. Then they came up with all sorts of excuses. No, the government building had been blown up, so all the papers had been lost. Yes, Jens Stoltenberg said, then they understood how stupid it was, so they withdrew that explanation. And I have made a longer note on this where I show that three or five different judges, appointed or assigned at very different times, with, say, a 20-year span in when they, among other things, happened to have signed the same declaration on the exact same date. That's document forgery, right, in Norway's Supreme Court. Mm. Uh, uh, it's document forgery. In my own case, I have a court decision that has been forged four times. I can. How? How do you know that? Yes, I have used. I have asked for the original, and then I have said, this is wrong. It's forged. It's four pages. The one I received now is five. And then a new one comes, which is also forged. Right. So you have a court that sits, the Court of Appeal, and forges its own decisions. And when they are caught doing it, because they are able to pick it apart, you are just told that no, we have made a decision, that's it. I don't know your case at that level. So it's no. It's not so important whether it's my case or not. I'm just saying that the court system in Norway is on the wrong track when it comes to certain things. Mhm. Uh, there are several things wrong with the court system. Uh, we have a court system that was developed in accordance with the security regulations, I believe it's called. And without going into detail, this is written in black and white, but it's in a law, another law than the one that is actually the Courts Act. Uh, so it's written in black and white. I don't remember, it's a regulation where it says the actual and practical significance of complying with this security regulation is that we have a two-tiered court system. If it is really the case that the corridors of power and lodges and so on can determine the outcome of a case, then you can do it without anyone knowing. Because they can appoint a judge to handle that case. And that judge is then, the one they pick is security cleared. So we have two, we have two classes of judges. And you should not have two classes of judges in a state of law. All judges should be able to judge any case. You should be able to draw the judge from a pool. The principle of randomness applies. But we don't have any principle of randomness in Norway. If someone wants a specific outcome in a case, either for economic reasons or for political reasons, then we actually have, through the security regulations, they have an opportunity to pick the judge they want to judge in that case. So it is, by definition, a para-legal institution that no one knows about. Hm. This is the Norwegian court system. And a number of other things as well, which mean that the Norwegian court system can carry out miscarriages of justice if they wish. If they wish, yes, very simply. If there are interests, for example, in the lodge or elsewhere, who are friends with someone and have and are in this network, if they want someone convicted or they want a specific outcome in a case, then they can, in theory, and probably also in practice, do it through the security regulations, where we have established a system under, yes, under the guise of Norway's security, that it concerns Norway's security, then you have a special class of judges who should be able to handle special cases. And those special cases should concern the security of the realm, but who ensures that it is only the security of the realm that these guys are selected to handle? Yes, because if you ask who the security-cleared judges in Norway are, they refuse to give you their names. You don't even know who they are. Okay. For example, if you have a military court, you get to know who is going to judge you. Yes. Right? When a when a security-cleared judge is selected for a special case, you don't know that he has been selected. Mm. You don't know that he comes from this class of judges, not this class. And that's how you can't run a legal system. Because a legal system should have the judge as a solitary person sitting in their office without influence from others, judging cases that are drawn from a pool. This is to ensure objectivity and impartiality in the courts. But we have, in fact, a court system that is a para-legal organization with security-cleared judges, who no one knows who they are, who can be instructed by a friend or a business associate or someone in their network to say, get that guy convicted. You know, we guys, we are on the same team. Mhm. Right. This exists in Norway today. Yes. It is a bit paradoxical that we see so many of these favors, nepotism in politics, where it's perhaps not so easy to hide all your tracks, and then there's certainly a good dose of naivety in all these political cases we've seen with nepotism and favors. But these are rare. Have we ever seen it problematized that these networks that judges and bureaucrats and politicians and, uh, powerful editors, business owners, that is, uh, associate with each other in, uh, highly private networks? Mm. Where there is zero possibility of getting any insight other than perhaps some rumors that it is a very closed network. Then it is also given that many people are extremely loyal to these networks and systems they have been part of for 10 years and climbed in a system. Yes. To which they are very loyal. But it is a kind of democratic challenge, to say the least, that very many of the most powerful people in Norway are part of these lodges and these networks without any insight or any significant problematization or speculation. No. Yes. No, well, I think it's ridiculous to call Norway a democracy and a people's government. It's been many, many years since we were that. Uh, and if you or I and our spouses had traded shares like the husband of Erna Solberg did, we would be behind bars, right? That's for sure. If we had, the last and worst is perhaps Vetre, is that his name, Vestre, furniture, Vestre, right, who makes, who makes tender rules in the sense that for the ministry, in terms of the position he holds, he makes tender rules that result in his furniture company winning tenders. That's how you do it. That's how you hear about it. That's how you do it down in Africa. Yes, right? Because that's how it is. That's a banana republic. So why isn't Vestre prosecuted and in prison? I mean, what he also did with the German advertising signs down in Germany about Vestre's furniture company, which has been given carte blanche to sell such benches from his furniture factory. What has Vestre done for them to make a contract with him? Will we get transparency about that? Will we know how those negotiations went and what agreements were made behind closed doors? Mm. Right? Uh, so, but these are typical signs of a society that is rotting from within. This is what happens when we have a debt-based monetary system where everyone is to plunder each other, and no one is better than the state, and those who work in the state, they are master thieves. Mhm. Right? Because it has to be that way. And then, as, uh, former President Abraham Lincoln said, nations do not die from attacks from external enemies. They die from internal rot. And that's what we see in Norway today. Mhm. There is rot across the board. Uh, it's just favors and favors in return and plunder. Patronage. What? A culture of patronage. Yes, that's it. And it stems from what kind of money and banking system we have, right? Because when you can create a lot of credit, you also create a system where this can happen. So the root of all evil is not taxes, as many believe, but the root of all evil is the monetary system and the banking and monetary system, and all these things we discuss on social media and so on that are wrong, and one wants to fix this and the other wants to fix that, it stems from this. If we take away the power from the politicians, which they have indirectly through the banking and monetary system, then this corruption will stop. As long as we don't do that, Norway is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But what, what, what should one vote for, then? Is it with that little democratic ballot we have then? What is possible? Uh, because I think, a bit like you, if I understood you correctly earlier, that I think things have to go to hell before they start to get better. Yes, they have to. Yes, I haven't voted in 40 years, or no, 30 years. 30, 35 years. No, because in the big picture, when we talk about how a nation is put together, what kind of society we want, then I understand that the form of government is important for people who have businesses and large assets, that it means something. Of course it does for them. I'm not scoffing at that. It means a lot. But in the big picture, when we talk about nation-building and societal systems, it means very little. It's a symptom of the disease itself. And the disease itself is the banking and monetary system we have created to produce as much fake money as possible, to create mass credit. Mm. Which then gives power structures in society that often get the money first when it's printed, to make the rest of the population debt slaves and ultimately totalitarian slaves who, through perhaps a CBDC, a digitally controlled state currency, have their lives completely controlled. That's where we are heading. And we are not allowed to talk about it. Freedom of speech has become quite, it has become quite, yes, it has become, I would say, it's a bit, I've never been gagged. I can get a lot of criticism and all sorts of things. Uh, and otherwise, regarding freedom of speech, it's usually the biggest media and the national broadcasters that influence the population. And that's where most people get their information from, unfortunately. Mhm. Instead of both looking at foreign information, but also thinking for themselves. To let in other ideas and theories that may not be 100% accurate or perhaps strong, but in a way initiate some thought process by questioning the state of affairs. Mhm. But it could well be that the digital currency we are talking about, the CBDC digital money, is the beginning of also being able to gag many. For example, that the income stream for someone like me, or some of these weaker actors or these alternative, slightly annoying media, will have quite significant problems eventually, at some level, which may be difficult to see now. Yes, I think that can absolutely happen. We are heading towards. What we have today is corporatism. That is, we have state organizations of various kinds that cooperate with big business. That is corporatism by definition. And the path from corporatism to fascism is almost non-existent. So I claim that we have fascism in Norway today because we have corporatism, and that is the same as fascism. Mhm. Call it, you can call it communism for all I care. Mm. But you think Norway is a communist, soft communist country? Yes, I honestly don't know whether to use fascism or communism for the Norwegian system, but it is becoming more and more authoritarian, and the fact that we are even discussing what kind of freedom of speech we should have is absurd. Because what is the whole point of freedom of speech? It is that it is absolute. You should say whatever the hell you want, right? Yes. Uh, excuse me for swearing, but freedom of speech is absolute. Where do you start to define free speech? Who is going to decide what is free speech? That's the whole point of freedom of speech, that you should be allowed to say what you want, no matter how much you offend others. Yes, that's the point. And if people are aware that that's the point, then people will themselves form their own thoughts about what they think about it. Mhm. They don't need a state super-judge to tell them, no, we don't allow him to say that, because then you might get the wrong influence. Mhm. We don't need any kindergarten teachers to tell us what is right or wrong about speech. We are adults, everyone. Mm. We can manage just fine ourselves. But that's what they are trying to do. They are trying to gag us more and more. So you are in danger that at some point they might come and knock on your door. People must go to wwwtv.no and subscribe there, and we will keep Christmas going. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. It will probably be taken down, and no, you know, we live in a country where a representative of the Christian People's Party came out the other day and said that, as in England, people born after a certain date will be completely banned from smoking. Yes. And they thought that was great. But then there was another discussion. It went, it went a bit like this, explained interpersonally. It was about when can you and I, if we sit together, either in a bar or at your home, how long are we allowed to pour a glass of cognac for me in the morning? Mhm. Right? They want to decide that. Mhm. What business is it of theirs? Yes, absolutely nothing, right? But they sit there in Parliament and think that this is something they should stick their noses into and think that they also represent the people in the process. Yes, it's completely insane, you know. They, I mean, I understand that they can stand there with a straight face, as we say, and say things like that. Okay, you were born after that date. No, you are not allowed to start smoking. Yes, that's completely crazy. I didn't know that, but it sounds crazy. Yes, it's on the way in Britain. Keir Starmer has proposed this, and the Christian People's Party and some other parties in Norway think it sounds like a good idea. They want to, you know, they want that Dagfinn Høybråten wave number two, you know. Yes. Yes. He got so much credit. He got credit alone. But there too, they have the power of definition. So Dagfinn Høybråten's smoking ban is a success because no one smokes in public places anymore. Yes. Are those criteria for success? I mean, hello. We should be able to have a slightly more intelligent conversation about the smoking ban than to call it a success just because you get fined or have to leave because you have a smoke in a public place. Mhm. That's not a sign of success at all. It's a sign that you've gotten your way. That's what it is. Success for. Mhm. So no, we need a, we need an education in what freedom of speech actually means. And then we need an education in what politicians are allowed to do. Because clearly, in today's society, they are doing all sorts of things to control us humans. And the most frightening thing about it is that by doing so, they show what contempt they have for us. Because people who are constantly trying to control our lives and tell us what we can and cannot do, they just show that they have contempt for our judgment, and then they have contempt for us. So the politicians have contempt for the people they are supposed to serve. Yes. So everything is upside down, right? Yes. It's completely. And they don't understand, or perhaps they do understand, but have a desire for power. Who knows? Yes. Yes. But the mere fact that you overlook the fact and the word "elected official" and go into such an arrogant position that you rather serve, shall we say, your party's line or a larger agenda than to actually implement the policies that, yes, that your voters believed in. Yes. It's like you vote in an election, it's not for democracy and that type of thing. You vote for which 169 representatives will decide over you. Mhm. That's what you're actually doing. And if they in Parliament think similarly to, for example, a small municipality where I tried to help the residents up in Rødal up there, Nord-Uvdal, Nord-Uvdal municipality, where they were going to build, the idea was to build a, a municipal building with various things in it, and then of course, a swimming pool. Mhm. Okay. And it was originally supposed to cost 700 million kroner. And how many households live in Nord-Uvdal? 1100 households. 700 million kroner. Yes. Everyone understands that that's crazy, that calculation doesn't add up. Yes. Right? So it was stopped at first. And there are some angry people at me up there in those parties that we supported who blamed me for having calculated it for those who were against it. So they have now ended up with a kind of interim solution where they say it will only cost 350, but you know what happens with that budget. So that's how they operate. And when this was discussed in the municipal council meeting, the argument, I think it was from the one in the Center Party, yes, and the others agreed with him, was that basically, as long as we have been elected, we can do whatever we want. Mhm. That was the attitude. It's a lust for power without skin in the game. Yes. Just saying something like that. Mhm. It shows how little you have understood about people's government. Yes. Damn, that was a blatant example. It is, and that you don't, I think many, I think many of them think like that, yes, we are elected, so we do as we please. Yes. And what we have talked a lot about skin in the game with this podcast before, is that you shift the risk to someone else and take credit for a decision, and then you move on. The downside affects everyone else but yourself, and just that small municipality with the existing economy they might have. Uh, and that's probably a clear example of if there had been a direct democracy there, then, Mhm. it would never have gone through, because then you get the numbers that you have to manually provide. And two, if it had been direct democracy, then that politician, those politicians, would probably not have been there, they would not have bothered to work in a job where they are not allowed to exercise the lust for power they have. No. And perhaps they would even have been weeded out in a simpler, clearer democratic process where you can strike out those you don't want. So it is, yes. Hooray. Direct democracy, or are you? Yes. Yes. Do you have any, do you have any objections to the Swiss model? Yes, I'm unsure which model is suitable for creating a people's government. But it is often the case that you have to create a system and legislation for it. All nations must have legislation so that we have something to relate to. And then you have to try to make it as simple as possible. That is, the Cardamom Act is sufficient, really. A slight extension of the Cardamom Act, and do as you please as long as it doesn't harm others. Yes, that's a very good starting point. Then you need some other laws and regulations, of course. Mm. But if you keep that in mind, then perhaps you will do something right when you create a law. You don't just create a law and then hit it with another law, and then it just becomes a mess. Remember that in Norway, between 400 and 700 new laws, regulations, and ordinances are issued each year, the last time I checked. And it's clear that you can't run a society that way. It's not possible. No, then you have to go KKK at some point, because nothing works when you have a society with so many laws and rules. Yes. Yes. It's exactly like, I've seen several, just like Harry Potter, of all things, they actually manage to put that point into the movie where, movie number 4 or 5, for all you Harry Potter fans out there, a new principal comes in, and she introduces so many regulations and restrictions on what the students can do to maintain power, where she can dictate, torture, and so on with her rescue operation for the school these children attend, and it's funny, they have a wall, and there's always a new admonition or a new rule. A rule for how long you can stay up, what you should eat, how much you can talk, everything that is disciplinary. And there become so many rules on that wall that it fills the whole, they have to go up to the ceiling and attach things, and then eventually, so that's where you end up with that. And then you get such a situation, to say the least, when Erna Solberg didn't know or didn't know her own corona rules in the middle of the most manipulative part of Norwegian recent history. She knew when it came, but she didn't give a damn, right? Yes. But back to the democracy thing, for me it's very difficult exactly how it should be done, but we have, for example, a Companies Act in Norway, which is supposed to regulate shareholder, that is, shareholder communities and other companies. And it is better structured democratically than the rest of society. There you have the 5% rule for you to be able to demand an investigation. You have 33.34% for example, for you to be able to vote down things and so on. There you actually have something that protects the minority. Mhm. And in a democracy, there should not be a situation where you have a majority dictatorship. Mm. Which is, which is democracy taken to the extreme. Therefore, you can manage to do a lot either with a mix of direct democracy and by ensuring that the minority, who are always the ones who suffer, their interests are taken care of and not trampled on, that must be a goal. Mhm. So the minority, I say, those who are in the minority in a society, it is their interests that are most important to take care of to have a semblance of popular government. Mhm. I think. And then there's the direct democracy thing, which will probably work quite well, at least in larger matters. I think at the municipal level it's a no-brainer. Yes. How it should work on a larger scale, I have no idea. But, but I think we have to take power away from politicians. I think we have to, we simply have to limit what they are supposed to decide. Mhm. Yes. Almost all power must go. Politicians say they love to engage in politics. Yes. That's what we need to get rid of. We need to get rid of people who love to engage in politics because it destroys society. M. Mhm. Yes. Politics destroys society. We need as little of it as possible, but we have done the opposite. Yes. We have never had a limitation. So now, just for all lawyers and wise people out there, just tear your hair out a bit. But I'm just guessing and speculating that the Swiss state has some kind of built-in limitation in its constitution that it can only be a certain size. Then we have the American constitution, which also protects the citizen against a threatening state. A potentially threatening state. But there we don't have any of those types, I don't know, maybe lawyers know better, but do we have the same, does the people have the same protection against a state that eventually goes rogue? It doesn't seem like it, or what do you think? No, I think we have gotten a system that does whatever it wants with us because, in the last instance, it has a court that is obedient to the power apparatus it is itself a part of. That is, I spend a lot of time helping people who are subjected to miscarriages of justice or who are trampled on by the public, who come and ask for help. And the last guy I helped, he was driven by his daughter to Halden prison today. He is going to, he has received three years. He is innocent. Okay, just take my word for it. He is innocent. 67 years old. And I have helped him, primarily with a letter to the Supreme Court, where I say to the Supreme Court that you cannot give an unfounded rejection of an appeal to the Supreme Court. Here we have come up with seven or eight points that are very concrete in relation to the case. And according to your own court decisions, that is, case law and the law, you are obliged to answer each and every one of them. Yes. What do they do? You get an answer back when you present this and ask them to do it, you get an answer back where they say exactly the same thing again. We see no reason for the appeal to succeed. That is, they refrain from answering it. They are legally obliged. Mm. By the Ministry of Justice. Uh, and the politicians in Norway, that is, those who carry it out, to answer, and they can do it because it's the Supreme Court. Yes. No one can touch them. No. If you are prosecuted for something you haven't done, and you lose, and you appeal to the Supreme Court, and it has decided that you should go to prison, the Supreme Court will never answer your objections. They will never answer that you can document. No, I wasn't there on the night of the murder. I was on a trip in Spain. Yes. They can ignore it completely. They don't answer it. Mm. When I have sent copies of these things to the Ministry of Justice, to the Ombudsman, and so on, and asked them to react because they have a duty to react when the Supreme Court does not follow the law. That the Supreme Court gives an unreasoned refusal, they cannot do that. Mhm. And do you think I ever get an answer from them? No, no, it doesn't come. So the, the judiciary in Norway is not accountable to anyone. No, they don't give a damn. So this man is going to prison, and he has, he has completely justified objections. He has new information, new evidence he has presented. They are obliged to answer these things. That is, we can refer to case law from their own judgments which state that they are obliged to answer. Mhm. We can refer to the ECHR, of course, and we can refer to the UN's, the UN's rules for civil rights and all of this. They don't care one bit about it. No. The man is going in, that's it. Yes. His rights are irrelevant. They don't care about that in the country's highest court. That's how they treat the Norwegian people. For he is not the only one, of course. No, there are masses of people who are treated this way throughout the legal system. Masses. The dark figures are large. So, but so it becomes like that, you know. It's part of that rot that Abraham Lincoln so beautifully tells us about why societies break down. Mhm. That's what's happening. So, Mm. So that's how it is. Yes. No, I would have liked to jump back a bit again. Now we've talked a lot about Norway and so on, and now the clock is ticking, we're almost at two and a half hours, so maybe a bit late to the party here. But no, as long as this chair doesn't give me too much discomfort, which it is starting to do, there's not much wood in that chair. It's not a Norwegian design chair. Is it so uncomfortable that you want to keep the interviewees awake, or is it? That's exactly right. I think it's made so that you, it's almost like coffee, that it keeps the workers going. Yes, you manage that with me, otherwise I think I would have fallen asleep. I have some who actually insist on sitting in that worn-out office chair over there, you know. So I understand what you mean. I'm sitting in it myself, to put it jokingly. I'm quite tired of talking about these things, you know. Yes. So it is that I feel, I'm not actually tired of it, you understand that I like talking about it. But yes, but sometimes when I'm asked to talk about these things, I think, oh, do I have to do this again? I mean, why can't they play what I've said before and then, yes, and then they can disagree or disagree with me. That's perfectly fine. I don't care about that, but, yes. No, I, without comparison, but on the same level, but I'm invited to other podcasts, and I always hope for something new. Then I have to be self-critical if you didn't get that feeling from this podcast, but I always hope that a new angle comes up on something that gets me started on a new idea, that I'm just talking off the top of my head all the time. But often that's what they want to know. There are always three, two, three questions that come up every single time in the same interviews, and it becomes like, damn, they haven't heard this before. But that is, and that is additional information that in my world is just sleep-inducing, personal history and feelings and, uh, drama. While I hope that you, who have listened all the way through here now, found a slightly higher level in this conversation and learned something. And perhaps, first and foremost, what I hoped to get out of our reunion is to initiate thought processes in people. Yes. And to initiate their own, uh, research into whatever we have talked about today, and perhaps initiate some larger process, whatever it may be, that is bigger than yourself. Mhm. Yes. No, this about people doing their own research and reading up and familiarizing themselves with things, that's the most important thing, really. If you can help to get them interested in doing that, then you have achieved a lot. Mhm. Because it doesn't help if the two of us sit and poke at this. You, you shouldn't scoff at that. It was, considerably more people are listening now than when we met in 2020. Mhm. Damn, time flies. So I think this might leave some traces. So let's see how it goes. You're welcome back anytime. Yes. So what I had on my mind was that it would be fun too. A fun entry point is that I see more and more people talking and writing that World War III has already begun. Mhm. We briefly touched upon it earlier that a lot is about to change. But this idea that World War III has already begun is, I think, very, very interesting. Yes, it is. Mhm. Yes. And in many ways, it is. In my opinion, it is. Mhm. And it is ongoing on several levels, right? It's no longer the case that people are lying in trenches and shooting at each other. They are, for that matter, also doing that, but it's happening on many levels, right? Uh, not least through the banking and monetary system. Mhm. With confiscation of funds. For example, confiscation of 300 million dollars, was it, or was it 300? Yes. 300 million of Russian funds in connection with Ukraine and, Mhm. Mm. And this with tariffs, sanctions, and so on, that is, uh, all these things, and not to mention that it can develop into, and probably already is, a cyber war, right? Yes. And that's the big fear, that they suddenly just turn off the power grid, right? So in the middle of winter, with 20 degrees below zero. Yes. And that's a real threat, right? Uh, and losing access to the internet, how much of the modern societal model collapses then, with banking, news streams, personal, that is, everything goes through that damn little mobile phone now. So it's, I think, I think people could almost live without electricity for a couple of days than without internet coverage. I think that would be a catastrophe. What would you do if you couldn't watch walk series on Netflix, right? I think people need to prepare for the crisis and then remember to get some, uh, protein powder or dried protein through meat, some rice was suggested here, but also download a couple of episodes of this podcast so you have it offline when the internet goes down, then you have at least some entertainment. That's a hot tip on top of that. Yes, I have to agree with that. Yes. Mhm. No, we'll have a, a follow-up. We've talked about more things behind the scenes that might be possible to touch upon later. Yes, absolutely. Must say thank you for the conversation. Yes, very nice. Yes, thank you too. So we'll talk again soon. We will.