How Inflation Turns Democracies Into Dictatorships
A critique of Nazism, Fabianism and Keynesianism, and an appeal for religious morality
I recently did an interview with my good friend Jan Erik Schnieder, whom I have a tremendous amount of respect for. As his message is quite complex, I thought of breaking it down through an article format. It is a most tremendously important message, and one which I firmly believe that, were every Canadian to listen to, would place this country in a far better trajectory towards recovery.
I met Jan during my hopeless run at federal politics in the April 2025 election. Back then, he assisted me with better understanding economic issues. But unlike most economists who speak of models and interest rates, Jan understood it at an almost religious level. Jan has this unique ability to view life through the lens of monetary policy, and use that monetary policy to frame everything from fascism right through to Christianity.
Our conversation started out on the issue of homelessness. I believe there is something intrinsically broken in a society which rewards the homeless with free hotel accommodation, but penalizes hard working people through vacant home tax policy aimed at stripping them of their summer cabins. In Canada, homeownership is treated as a vice, whereas renting, or in this case outright homelessness, is touted as a virtue. This then intersects private property ownership when the government forces private businesses such as hotel operators to accept homeless populations, despite it running contrary to their own business model. I put to Mr. Schneider the question of what the motivation behind this could be from the perspective of the BC NDP government.
Jan immediately began, not through monetary policy, but through psychology. In his view, human beings respond to positive versus negative reinforcement. In a sane world, one traditionally governed by religion, one would reward good behavior with positive reinforcement. Conversely, one would punish bad behavior with negative reinforcement. His claim is that what the left is pursuing now is a utopia, not necessarily rooted in reality. This pursuit has resulting in a swapping of the reward system to, instead, reward bad behavior with positive reinforcement.
Beyond creating an absurd situation, what we end up with is a dangerous one where people behave in an unnatural way. Jan uses the phrase “psychotic” to describe it as people come to understand that doing the wrong thing can lead to positive outcomes for them. We are so far down this road to the welfare state that it has become a religion unto itself, and one of the virtues of this new religion is unquestioning faith in the welfare state. To question whether it is good policy to house the homeless in hotels is a sin. For this reason, no one dares suggest that someone may be homeless due to his or her own bad acts. It is, essentially, a wholesale refutation of personal responsibility.
Further to this, is the concept of having the power to forgive. By offering forgiveness to the, in this case, homeless, the state is carving out powers for itself. Later, Jan and I will touch on how Hitler used this same strategy to strip away voters from the church by offering forgiveness for bad deeds that the Christians were not so willing to offer.
Another topic which I have often talked about is that of merit versus nepotism. Nepotism, strictly speaking, is the hiring of people one either is related to, or is friends with. In Canada, we have an indirect form of nepotism, called DEI, where the government hires people that, although it is not related to directly, it knows indirectly by agreeing to act as a protector of those people. Jan points out a missing link which is that back in the day, people who obtained university degrees were invited to participate in the management of government. Today, conversely, it is more about seeking the participation of people that agree with one’s opinions.
From there, the conversation shifted over to the main topic, which is Germany’s experimentation with socialism in the 30s. Over the last six years I have seen a growing number of people fascinated with Hitler’s monetary policy. The argument thrown around is that he took a nation with hyper inflation and transformed it into the leading European economy. Specifically, they believe that a state sovereign bank which printed money at zero interest rate was proven to be an optimal solution. I personally disagree with these people for many reasons. First off, Germany did not have inflation because its people lost their minds, as is the case here in Canada today. They had inflation because the victors of World War One imposed crushing reparations on the country, and to be able to pay them, they resorted to printing money. Secondly, Germany was not completely destroyed in World War One the same way India was destroyed after two hundred years of English occupation. Therefore, with the human capital intact, it was more within grasp for Hitler to return Germany to its pre World War One industrial capacity. Finally, a third disagreement I have with this notion a state sovereign bank was a flawless solution is that Hitler’s principle of print and spend, with no need to ever pay back was unsustainable, and the consequence of it was, inevitably, the outbreak of war in search of natural resources to loot, and cheap labor to exploit.
In addition to being a very intelligent historian and economist, Jan has the benefit of having had a father who, as a German himself, despised Adolf Hitler and who further studied the reasons for Hitler’s rise to power. His father presumably passed this information down to Jan, so Jan still has that connection to the past that the rest of us have had beaten out of us through a public education system which simply told us that Adolf Hitler was crazy because Nazism was evil, and Nazism was evil because Adolf Hitler was crazy. What Jan is emphasizing here is that Hitler was not the original source of evil, but rather that it was the Weimar initiated inflation which paved a path for Hitler to come in and unleash his own acts of evil.
Next, Jan lays out one of his main theses whereby the understanding in the 50’s of the central role of inflation in the rise of National Socialism in Germany created two opposing viewpoints. On one side, there were people in the West that wanted to save the West, and wanted to ensure that something like that would never happen again. These people vehemently opposed inflation. Then there were people on the other side who were actually subversive actors who wanted to replicate National Socialism in order to collapse the West. These people naturally supported inflation.
I believe what we are witnessing in the West right now is the end stage of this subversion, and I often say that the West, or more correctly, America, no longer exists. There is no longer a republic which we once called America. There is no longer a democratic monarchy which we once called Canada. It is all a mix of National Socialism, Keynesianism or Chinese style authoritarianism. And this is the conflict neo-conservatives and adherents of realpolitik are running into with the present war in Iran. The argument that a Pax American is preferable to a Pax China or a Pax Russia assumes that America is somehow different whereas many view it as some strain of the latter two.
I then asked Jan about religion and why it was that religious people rejected inflation. Jan believes that from a religious perspective, it is the emphasis on prudence (the ability to govern oneself through reason, characterized by sound judgment, caution, and foresight in managing practical affairs and risks) which better prepares religious people to reject inflation. As one example, Jan cites the Jews in Germany in the 20s who chose to live with their parents and save up to either buy a home of their own, or to invest in an enterprise.
It is starting to become clear to me that the moral degeneracy in the urban centers is not merely a rejection of religion, but rather the destruction of religion is occurring because of this new religion which worships at the altar of irresponsibility. When put in this perspective, it is easier to understand why so many churches have been allowed to burn in Canada over the last few years.
In a past private conversations with Jan, we talked about how in the 20s in Germany, the church would only help individuals provided they exercised personal restraint and personal responsibility. Those that acted irresponsibly, like getting pregnant before they were married and before they had saved up enough money to support their child, received no such help. Hitler stepped into this environment and provided this help in the form of a massive welfare state that rewarded those irresponsible individuals. Here, Jan is making the argument that from the perspective of those irresponsible people, if they cannot save up money to start their own business, and in other words to be sovereign, they then are forced to become employees. And once they are employees it is a slow, steady march towards left leaning policies, such as through handouts. Again, Jan goes back to the concept of positive rewards for negative behaviors, which is the underlying premise of the left’s school of thinking.
I believe Canada has moved through three distinct phases. In the first phase, Canadians had true freedom by living off their land. Next, in the second phase, Canadians stopped being sovereign on their land, but still supported one another in within their communities. I came to Canada amidst this second phase where the communities could manage themselves, but it was their responsibility to pay for all the services. We are now in the third phase where municipalities are being sidelined as the provincial governments push everyone off the land and into fifteen minute cities and manage all their lives. That is what I am trying to convey through my comments here.
Related to inflation, the conversation then shifted to mortgages, and a time when Canadians did not need to rely on mortgages through something called the Homestead Act. In America, in the 1800s, the government would pay for a surveyor to go out and map out a plot of land and would gift it to the new settlers, with the intention of settling the land. When the Americans started coming up into British Columbia, the colonial government of the time panicked and started a Homestead Act of its own, however, lacking the funds to do the surveying itself, as a requirement demanded that the settlers themselves pay for the survey. Nevertheless, I thought this practice died in the early 1900s, but Jan informed me that this law existed until the 1960s.
To me, this is the ultimate Canadian dream. Provided you are a citizen, you can petition for a piece of land to live off of. In a country as large as ours, it is only logical that the land be gifted to the people, and not to the state. Of course, the state does not like this as a sovereign man cannot be taxed. It is fitting that it was Pierre Trudeau, the first Fabian socialist, who repealed the act. Today, we are seeing a reverse of that Act with fifteen minute cities, biodiversity corridors and ecosystem services. We have gone from a law that gifted tax free land to the citizenry, to a banking system that makes Canadians slaves through long term mortgages.
The conversation next shifted towards Pierre Trudeau and the repeal of the Homestead Act, and how beyond just being disastrous for Canadians, it was a calculated move to transition people from being independent, to being taxable assets to be leveraged. As most people today are employed in some fashion, we no longer consider that when one uses their own labor, that labor is not taxed. By way of example, when I buy a bottle of orange juice, I pay VAT tax on that. However, if I grow some oranges on my land and squeeze those oranges by hand, I do not pay any taxes on that. In other words, by getting people off the land and into the cities, the government made it so rather than, for example, them building their homes by hand, they would work for a year, then pay someone else to build a home for them, and then pay a percentage of that work to the government. Pierre Trudeau’s ultimate goal was to tax people’s activities.
Jan expressed this same idea, but he frames it in a very interesting manner. He characterizes the GDP as the “national wage” and the national debt as the “national mortgage”. And just like how people try to increase their wage to be able to get a bigger mortgage to be able to afford a bigger house, the federal government tried to increase its national wage (more taxable citizens), to qualify for a bigger national mortgage (take on more debt) to be able to offer a bigger welfare state.
Next, we touched on the rural/urban divide. I was born in Iran, and in Iran, even up until the 90s, people had a very primitive view towards banks. It was always preferable to work one’s entire life, make money, then buy land. Then that land would be gifted to one’s children. This helped reinforce the family unit, while also preparing children for life and for marriage at a younger age. When I came to Canada, I was amazed at this view where at the age of eighteen kids were expected to leave home, get a job and start taking on debt. The repeal of the Homestead Act appears to be the starting point of the decline of Canada. Nevertheless, Jan here describes a situation in the rural areas more closely resembling what I remember of Iran, than what I witnessed growing up in Vancouver.
As we switched over to talking about the complex building code it dawned on me that everything we were discussing was the consequence of an erosion in property rights. Before, with the Homestead Act, one had their own land, and they were free to do with it as they pleased, but they were on their own. Then, with the repeal of the Homestead Act, the state started to grow to feed its insatiable appetite for more debt. Part of this growth was through more building inspectors, more professors to teach the building code to contractors, and ultimately, more codes. Today, with the real economy obliterated as entrepreneurial Canadians have fled for freer jurisdictions, the state has turned the building codes into a job creating engine.
Here, Jan compares the state’s desire to increase the number of taxable workers to the psychology of a worker that tries to maximize his salary to increase the mortgage he qualifies for to be able to afford the biggest house. The cruelty of this is that it is at the expense of the do-it-yourselfers as the state is forcing the hand of a do-it-yourselfer to give their money over to a, for example, contractor.
Continuing on with the topic of complicated building codes, it occurred to me that there is something in the psychology of Canadians which goes beyond mere deference to authority. I can only characterize it as reverence of authority where, for example, tax evasion is seen as a bigger sin than murder. The same is true of carrying out renovation work without a permit. When caught and ordered to destroy one’s work, one’s neighbors applaud the state action gleefully in a manner reminiscent of the mass formation psychosis of covid. It is a dystopian environment where the community sides with the state over its own inhabitants. As one example, my parents live in a gated community where they regularly engage in squabbles and feuds, threatening to inform one each other’s undeclared renovations. This is not the mark of a free society, but rather a society in decline.
I couldn’t contain myself and so I asked about the citizens who voted for these policies in the sixties. The issue of the “Baby Boomer” generation is a heated one. It has become trendy lately to vilify them for being the cause of all the woes of society. In response to this, there has been a counter narrative suggesting that the vilification of the Baby Boomers is merely a means of pitting the youth against their parents and grand parents. After hearing Jan’s story, I must admit that I am leaning more towards the former than the latter. So naturally, a question has to be asked as to how it is that society could swing so quickly from a World War Two generation with tremendous personal responsibility, to a Baby Boomer generation which recklessly repealed the Homestead Act.
Jan suggests that it has to do with the concept of instant gratification where the Homestead Act does admittedly grant you free land, but it does so in the middle of nowhere and one has to, furthermore, work hard to build a house on it with utilities. By contrast, in the city, the Baby Boomers would have to get a mortgage from the bank, and would have to live in a much smaller dwelling, but they had access to all the amenities that city life offered. I would take this further and say that today, the people are being wooed with meaningless perks such as increased food options.
Going back to the concept of a psychotic mind, the issue with bailing people out is that eventually your parents get tired of it and kick you out. With National Socialism, Hitler understood that he could reward these irresponsible people and gain a loyal following. The consequence was that by rewarding bad behavior, he was guaranteeing even more bad behavior. The end result was mass murder. All of this is incompatible with a normal society.
I firmly believe that the West has been captured by interests, whether foreign as in the case of the Soviets and later the Communist Chinese, or domestic as in the case of the Fabians and the Frankfurt School. This capture has brainwashed multiple generations into accepting the left principle of inflation as a virtue. It has also kneecapped any remaining conservatives who are blind to the fact that our form of life is no longer free and as such, it is futile to attempt to rally people to saving a non existent way life.
We finally arrive at the crux of Jan’s argument, which is the contrast of the four different forms of monetary policy: Keynesianism, Fabianism, National Socialism and finally the religious/conservative perspective. First, up is Keynesianism which can be described as taking out a loan for productive investments. For example, one might borrow money to purchase a guitar to pursue a music career. Although it might sound silly to say this, but Keynes stressed the importance of having to pay back that loan. In other words, the investment must be productive.
Jan contrasts this productive investment with something that is not productive, like investing in a pair of clothes or in something specious like tourism where it is not possible to track every dollar invested to every dollar earned.
Next, Jan paints a picture of how the West was not converted over to Keynesianism overnight after World War Two. Instead, the West was subverted from the inside, starting in the sixties, to becoming more socialist. He contrasts Keynes’ teachings of responsible investing to the reckless spending of the Fabians.
Then Jan describes the Fabian approach to monetary policy. According to him, Fabians present themselves as Keynesians, but Fabianism, by contrast to Keynesianism, is the borrowing of money to spend on social programs. However, if one is simply borrowing money, with no intention of ever paying it back, it is simply a monetary policy rooted in inflation. What Jan is building up to is the shocking similarity of the present Fabian policies we have in Canada and the socialist policies which existed in Nazi Germany.
Finally, Jan describes National Socialism (Nazism) as simply patriotic socialism. The printing of money to pay for a welfare state to boost the morale of a German people that have been demoralized by the effects of hyper inflation.
In a private conversation with Jan, we discussed how perilously close we are getting to turning into National Socialism here in Canada. On the monetary side, we are borrowing money with no intention of ever paying off our debts. On the social side, we are taking that money and giving it to our own people in the form of job creation, like with the aforementioned building regulations, or in the form of high paying bureaucratic positions, like what we are witnessing in our hospitals. This is a form of patriotic socialism where we are investing in our own people. We then bring in migrant works as a low wage, or some would say slave, labor force. This work force plugs the gap of unskilled labor caused by employing patriotic Canadians, and it also offsets the cost of inflation caused by keeping costs down somewhat. We are turning into that which we swore would never again appear. Jan stresses this point by saying that we pay off our loans precisely because we are not Nazis.
Jan has a theory that the Canada of today was created by the Liberal party, and the Conservative party, which the religious party of practicing prudence, is unable to take back control and pay off the debt.
Here Jan presents a real life example, pertaining to Canada, of what happens when one does not pay off their debts. He compares how we weathered the oil shocks of 2008 to today and suggests that because our debt is so high, it has precipitated a credit rating drop, which has made Canada unappealing for investment, and so we are now seeing high gas prices.
In wrapping up, I move the conversation over to the events in the US. I am coming to the view that England was always socialist, perhaps not to the extent that it is today, but starting with the East India Company and the London City bankers, there was a plan to enslave all of mankind through banking. Then 1776 was a rejection of that system, and it fared rather well until the American Civil War, and then the London banking interests started to infiltrate the country. The progressive movement also did a lot of damage, with everything from Teddy Roosevelt until today being a continuation of what some call the City of London, but which can loosely be called the English system. Here I am using the blanket term “socialism” to refer to all of these ungodly, unnatural practices.
I put to Jan the question of what he believes is going on with an increasingly schizophrenic Trump administration. In closing off the episode, Jan responded in a three part answer.
First, Jan says the schizophrenia is a symptom of people trying to sabotage Trump. He ties it back to the previous framing of people who studied Hitler to ensure National Socialism never rises again, versus those who studied Hitler to try to ensure another National Socialist state can be ushered in. What he is hinting at is that this socialist cabal that has spread like a cancer across the globe is not willing to relinquish power.
Next, he specifically singles out the intel agencies, citing the dangers of these institutions erected originally to preserve Western style democracies, and to uphold the concept of God, to now pursuing their own political goals. He suggests that that political goal is Fabianism. He even goes further to say that Fabianism is very close to Nazism, which I would agree with him on.
And finally, Jan gets to the point that I’ve been making, which is that the English model is socialist, which the American model was supposed to have rejected in 1776. Jan says that Trump wants to move away from the British system, and I, to a certain degree agree with him on this. I think Trump’s original goal in 2024 was to continue with his 2016 policy of opposing globalism. However, after Butler, Pennsylvania, I believe the billionaire class told him that the election environment had changed in 2024 and that he would not be permitted to win if he was not firmly committed to the American Imperial system whereby the US remains as the single hegemon. That I believe is what got him dragged into this debacle in Iran, and it is what is rendering his administration schizophrenic.
Jan then echoes the ideas shared by Tucker Carlson which posits that there exists a supra-national entity of intel agencies working with a common goal towards socialism. What Jan is subtly hinting at also is that the intel agencies do not merely exist to take out terrorists around the world, but to also provide advice to Presidents. By being ideologically captured, they are, essentially, doing a disservice to President Trump.
Finally, the intel agencies have resorted to tricking Trump into a war in the Middle East. They can keep these deceptions going indefinitely by scaring the population through lies, like the recent riots in Iran, the Maidan Coup, and January 6, and by making it verboten to ever question those narratives, as was the case with October 7.
He ends with these words. How do you steer a right wing person into socialism? By printing money. Through the process of money printing, you wipe out their savings, and they are now forced to follow orders, just as was revealed during the Nuremberg trials.
After the Second World War, the prevailing worldview was opposition to inflation at all costs to prevent another Nazi Germany. In the 60s, the view changed to support for inflation to kill the true enemy, the prudent, religious conservative.