They're Deliberately Winding Down America — Here's the Plan for What Comes Next | Simon Dixon

I think there's a small group of power structures that sit above countries that are running the show. There's no political solution in the West. There's no democracy. It's all a lie. The government is a distraction. The left versus the right is a complete distraction. You need a theatrical moment to define the end of empire and the transition to the new world order. There is a way, a break in the system if we wanted, but they don't want you to know that.

>> What's the way? You have a very, um, atypical way of viewing the power structures that actually make the world go round. And so I actually want to start there. Is it fair to say that there is a small group of people that sit above countries that are actually running the show?

>> I think there's a small group of power structures that sit above countries that are running the show.

>> What is a power structure?

>> I like to call them complexes. I think the world really understood the military-industrial complex as a group of companies and countries that have corporate interests that profit from war, um, and that sell weapons. And so whether that be America, UK, France, Germany, Israel, um, that had a group of companies from Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing, um, BAE Systems. Um, it is a a group of companies that have a well-oiled machine that requires a continual source of revenue that is derived from more profitable is war and less profitable is defense contracts. And their revenue has to continue and structurally they have fiduciary duties to shareholders and they have to report quarterly earnings. And you can see in those quarterly earnings where most of their revenue comes from and it gives you clues as to where the next war zone will be. And so I use just reading those balance sheets and where the contracts are to determine where the next war zones will be, uh, because they prepare. And so you can see narrative ratchets up in politics, but before that contracts and revenue move. Um, and so the military-industrial complex is an important part of it. Um, but there is a greater power than the military-industrial complex. Um, and that is the financial industrial complex. And so the financial industrial complex does not have ultimate power, uh, to one institution or one, um, organization. Uh, just like the military-industrial complex, it is a group of companies, uh, that perform very specific functions and through controlling the creation of fiat currencies and the movement of capital globally, uh, they're able to influence, um, and subordinate countries in order to get access to capital and there's all sorts of different layers within there. Uh, the final layer is, um, the reason that I put finance above military is because all of those military companies are public companies and so they need access to capital. They can either get it from the government through tax, you know, through bonds, um, or they can get it from, um, capital markets. And so bondholders, shareholders, um, and, uh, the government is just another form of bondholder, really, because it's just a piggy bank for bondholders. Uh, they're able to influence, um, those capital flows and therefore governments, uh, need access to such capital and they have all sorts of subordination structures, whether it be lobbying, whether it be, uh, deep state black operations for blackmail, um, or whether it be just straight-up access to capital markets. Um, but one of the other complexes that is incredibly important is the technological industrial complex. And so that is, you know, the 50% of the S&P is, uh, you know, five, uh, like the magnificent seven companies now, almost, um, and that includes access from data, data centers, algorithms, uh, the ability to engineer via new media, um, and perform operations, uh, by controlling algorithms. Again, the technical industrial complex is a series of companies. Um, they normally and, uh, they are subordinate to finance because they need access to capital. So, if you're trying to simplify it down, I call it a financial industrial complex and governments serve their agendas and governments are subordinate to, uh, their control grids and structures.

>> Okay. So, so far we have three named, uh, power structures. We have the financial industrial complex, which sits on top of everything. We have the military-industrial complex, which seems to be something that has found a very profitable way to benefit from what I'll call human tendencies. Um, and then we have the technological industrial complex, which feels, if I'm interpreting it right, relatively new. Um, so are these complexes something that arise organically, that will always exist no matter what structure, no matter how countries are aligned? Um, or was this something where somebody sat down and said, "Here are the three ways in which we can manipulate the public and we just have to get this set up." And it was very intentional, and it was like, "Okay, you're going to be the financial industrial complex, you're going to be the military." Like, how did that come? Is this a top-down or a bottom-up phenomenon?

>> Yeah, I mean, it evolves with time and adjusts with time, but throughout human history, we've had different labels for very similar systems, whether it's a, a country having a monarchy or whether it's a democracy or whether it's, um, you know, whatever government structure, um, it's always a few incredibly wealthy people, um, that rule the masses and co-opt the system and just put a different label on top of it. Um, but in terms of, if if we were to simplify this down to the modern version of it today, and we could go back thousands of years if we wanted. Um, but if we were to simplify it down, I'd say it's, um, central banking at the base layer. Um, and the ability to create currency in a Ponzi-like structure has a series of incentives that lead us to a game of monopoly, um, that it ultimately concentrates power in, normally historically, one region. Um, but now it's increasingly more transnational and global. Um, and, uh, and is less dependent upon any one country or jurisdiction.

>> Okay, let's stop there because I think for anybody hearing that for the first time, there are enough phrases in there that they won't necessarily understand. Um, so the reason that the central bank sits at the bottom of this pyramid is because we are in an economic structure where the money is fictional, and so we just have to get everybody to grant this bank has the power to create money. Is that how they, uh, exist at the bottom of this structure?

>> So it's a, if we were to put this into a triangle, the central bank is the guarantor of the system.

>> But the,

>> What's the system?

>> Uh, the monetary system.

>> Okay.

>> Um, and so let's start at the, at the base layer, how money is created in very brief terms. Money is created by a private commercial bank. And so a loan has to exist in order for a bank to create a credit, which is the money supply. And so if you want to borrow $1,000, uh, then you go to a bank and that bank has a authority and license to create $1,000 to deposit into your, um, current account.

>> And who gave them that license? The government or the central bank itself?

>> Uh, the, well, were regulated by the central bank, but, um, the license, the the law, the legislation comes from Congress and from, uh, from the government.

>> Okay. I don't want to derail the story too hard, but when you were laying out the initial three structures of power, um, government wasn't listed as a fourth. It was talked about as being subordinate to finance, but so was the military-industrial complex. And one of the things we will have to answer for in all of this is the people. And as I have tried to map your worldview, the people do start to become like these mindless, easy-to-control things, feels like the base assumption. Um, and so is there a difference between an easy-to-control population and the government that they elect?

>> I think that the people have very little say in who gets elected. Um, I think the lobby is the most significant, um, player.

>> The lobby or lobbies?

>> Lobbies.

>> Okay.

>> Um, and there,

>> Act of what? Using money to influence politicians, or is there something deeper there?

>> Yeah, I see, um, I see politicians as actors, WWE actors. Their job is to create an acceptable narrative to justify why all of the money is serving a smaller group of private corporate interests.

>> Okay. So it's bread, circus, and government.

>> Yes. So those are the things that if you're well-fed, if you're entertained, and you have a plausible story of like, oh, I can influence this system, you can numb the people out enough that the power structures that are actually, and I'll say when I say running the system, I think you mean, um, controlling resources and money such that they can acquire the highest utility thing in the world, which is access to capital. Well, um, money is just a construct to end up with the assets that they actually want, which is the real estate, the gold, the hard assets, the real assets. Um, by being able to create the money, they're able to swap money, you know, as value that is designed, as we were about to go into, to go down in value, in exchange for assets that are designed to go up in value. Um, and so what they actually want is resources, strategic choke points, commodities, um, real estate, land, um, gold, um, more recently Bitcoin. Um, and so they are just using a fiat currency system in order to acquire assets. And then eventually, in a cyclical nature, the slow destruction of purchasing power of that fiat currency hits the point where it gets to an end of a cycle and therefore they throw throw the Monopoly board, reset the board and start again. Um, and that's where I think we are right now. Um, that's a typical, you know, can take a decade or two in order to manage such a transition. Um, but I think we're there right now. We'll be right back with the show, but first, let's talk about how exposed you really are. Let's say you cut someone off in traffic. They're furious. They snap a photo of your license plate. Within minutes, they can pull up your home address on a people search site, your phone number, the names of your kids. Your personal information is sitting on hundreds of data broker sites. Your address, phone number, email, even your social security number. Incogn. They track your data down across hundreds of sites and remove it. You authorize them once, they handle the rest, and they keep removing it as it comes back. Plus, with custom removals, you can send them any link where your data shows up, and their team is going to get it taken down. Incogn is the first and only data removal service independently verified by Deloitte, so you know it actually works. Go to incogn.com/impact and use code impact for 60% off an annual plan. Try it risk-free for 30 days. All right. Now, let's get back to the show. We'll get to that in a second because that's very important for people to understand what these transitions really are. Uh, to understand the way that you'll walk us through it, though, we we have to put a final sort of word on these power structures, where the government fits in, where the people fit in. Then I think people will be able to track the what I'll call the swarm of locusts that gobble up resources in one area and then take the control and wealth that they're able to extract from that, move on to the next to gobble everything up there. But for that to make sense in terms of the mechanism, uh, we need to to put a bow on these different power structures. So when I first encountered your ideas, the one thing that I had a hard time accepting was there's a sense of coordination that I don't believe humans are capable of. And the reason I think that is, um, when you look at a TV show like Succession, I think that it reveals something true about people, um, that play these very intense power games, which is it requires somebody who's, I'm going to round this stuff, but narcissistic, hyperaggressive, um, low in empathy. And so they'll be fighting within their own family to make sure that like, if a father has a very aggressive son, that the son is kept in check. And so they'll do horrible things to their own children to make sure that they're subservient to them. And so if they're willing to do that to their own family, I have a hard time buying that there's this hyper cooperative, uh, group of elites that exist above this system. Now, you've been very clear to say these are power structures. And so that's probably the first important piece of this. But are these power structures not in competition internally for control of the Fed, the Pentagon, the whatever? Like they're going to be, there'll already be infighting, and then there's going to be a war happening between the financial industrial complex, the technical industrial complex. Like they will have their own wars. So, how should people understand how this, um, machine will be capable of doing the thing we're going to go to next, which is literally go, bleed England dry, then bleed America dry, and now presumably we'll move on to China and bleed China dry. Like, how is it possible for that level of coordination to exist?

>> Yeah. Um, so I think what we, firstly, it is a ruthless game and just like in a mafia, um, there is a hierarchy and preservation of the structure overrides anyone that tries to deviate and play a power play. And so structure and architecture become really important. Um, and so people do,

>> You have real-world examples of where a person challenged the structure and was dealt with?

>> Um, I think JFK is the one of the most obvious examples in terms of American. I mean, there's example after example. I mean, we could even go more into questioning what happened with Trump, what happened with Charlie Kirk. I think,

>> Please.

>> Let's, um, let's go, I think a layer back. So, um, the monetary system is a Ponzi scheme by nature. So, I talked about that all money is created as credit.

>> Mhm.

>> And so, if you want to create $1,000, it has to be borrowed into existence. That is the nature of money. It's just a digital entry in a bank's computer. Um, but it also needs to be repaid plus interest. Um, and so the game that was engineered in, firstly, the Dutch Empire, then the British Empire, then three times in America with the central banks, um, and then global central banking, um, that exists today is that there's not enough money to pay the interest.

>> It just literally doesn't exist.

>> It doesn't exist. So, there's only two ways of solving that problem. The money either needs to be invested in an asset that appreciates in value that can then cover some of the interest, um, or, um, you keep rolling over the debt. And so that is the game. Um, the game is that if too much of that money is just invested in non-performing assets, then the system breaks. Uh, because you, when you repay that loan or default on that loan, the money disappears. And so you have the reverse cycle. Um, and so every time that happens, you need a guarantor to the system. So the banks get to create the money and they receive the additional interest. And the only way to do it is to roll over. And so they have a, a risk management profile of who they should be lending to in order to meet that goal because the system must grow at all times to continue working.

>> Absolutely. Yes. Um, and, uh, and that creates incentive structures in all sorts of levels, at the individual level, the corporate level, the government level. Um, but the central banking system was created to guarantee the system. And so the central banking, um, model effectively, uh, does a couple of things. It guarantees that when a bank takes excessive risk, that they're too big to fail, as we saw in 2008, and therefore the government is on the hook in order to bail out the system, which creates a moral hazard, which means that, you know, bad behavior, you can be over-speculative knowing that you'll be guaranteed. Um, and the other thing it, it does is it, uh, creates mechanisms for the government to infinitely borrow. Um, and so the bond market, um, it can be a buyer of last resort for a government that can no longer find people to invest in their, in their debt. That's where we're at right now. Um, so in America, uh, the auctions, approximately 40% of the auctions are now being mopped up by reverse re, uh, reserve brokers, um, and the Federal Reserve itself. Um, and remember, gone a bit far here, but the Federal Reserve is owned by the banks. So the shareholders of the Fed are the banks, and as you put more and more money or government debt on that balance sheet of the Fed, they even receive a 6% dividend, uh, per year from that money. So the bigger the balance sheet gets, uh, the more they get. Um, but the banks are taking the risk. So the government just effectively becomes a piggy bank, um, for rolling over this debt, and then they want to make sure that the debt goes to them. So the government is the other half of that, um, and the government's job is to take on the debt, and then you need a mechanism for getting that debt into private control, um, which is the stock market. Um, so the stock market is make sure that that debt goes to prop up these stocks or or contracts. And so they need a lobby in order to, uh, make sure that, uh, they can have an auction system, uh, where all of the politicians become as useful to all these different lobbies, and they auction them off, and your career only progresses if you deliver enough value for the lobbies. Um, and that is the career, the the career of a politician is to make up a narrative to pretend that he's doing stuff for the people while serving the lobby. And the more useful they get to the lobby, you ultimately may get to be play president.

>> Very interesting. I think it is, um, it's important for people to understand that you say the lobby as if it's one thing, but it's really a bunch of competing interests. Is that true or false?

>> True. Because in America right now, in this moment, when people hear the lobby, they think APAC, and so it triggers a, what Michael Mouse would call a mouse trap of like, it's the Jews.

>> And so, and maybe that is the theory, maybe it's not, but when I think of it as, uh, this is a whole bunch of competing interests, but they're all motivated by the same thing, which is I want access to power and capital. So to your point about structurally, they're not arguing maybe about the specifics, they are, but there's two things I think important. One, people need to understand that lobbies find their candidates very early. So they'll find them at the city level and they'll say, "Go do this thing." And if they go do that thing, then they fund them more. And then they say, "Go do this thing." And then if they do it, they fund them more. So by the time they get to the national stage, even if it's just that they really believe those same things and they really are fighting with their conscience, but they have the lobby, meaning they, the lobbies, any one of them, when they're looking for candidates, they start with a really broad field and then only the ones that are useful to them, even if it's useful again out of their own true beliefs, they find the ones that will serve their interests the best. That's an important thing to note. And then second, we need to understand the mechanism by which all of this is funneled into the stock market. And, um, you said it happens, but can you walk us through how it happens?

>> Yeah. So let's do an example of of of lobby. So JD Vance, for example, um, his name's not JD Vance. Um, he was groomed by Peter Thiel. Uh, Peter Thiel is a keynote in the technical industrial complex and he was DARPA funded, which is a venture capital arm of intelligence and military. Um, and he created Palantir and he is given military-grade technology that was created by the government with a Pentagon budget that is then transferred over to private through private, um, you know, public-private partnerships. And so every piece of technology, almost every single one of them, if you do a similar, um, forensic investigation, um, it was all of the American innovation, uh, was originally invented for killing people and it was handed over to a company and they groom entrepreneurs and create a story around that entrepreneur, um, that is often very sensationalist. Um, but they are often chosen to receive that technology.

>> Who's the they in this situation? Are we back to the lobbies or?

>> Because I look at Peter Thiel and I may have, this may just be me with a completely distorted view of what's real. But I look at Peter Thiel and I think this guy's smart and he has been out there talking about the way that he views the world and how things should be for a very long time. Since the time he was at Stanford, he's been working with David Sachs. They wrote a book together. Like this isn't somebody who I would say is obviously a product of some other thing. This feels like a guy that really knows his [ __ ]. Now, people might, I mean, people call him the Antichrist. What I'm not debating that. I'm just saying he's very effective. I would put forward that he's effective without whatever secret thing is behind the scenes. Now, he may be amplified by getting access to things other people don't get to. Um, but help me understand, do you see him as somebody that was groomed like from 19, 20 years old?

>> Yeah, there's, look, there's a spectrum, right? And everyone's got their, their own different story. Um, but there is a process, just like when you want to climb a mafia, um, there's a process of becoming more useful to the financial industrial complex and getting access to capital. And JD Vance is a good example. So he's groomed by Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel is, um, very much involved in the police and surveillance state, um, military-grade artificial intelligence technology, um, that is getting global government contracts right now to commit crimes against humanity in many countries, including Gaza. Um, so it was Palantir's technology that was deciding, um, I call it genocide as a service. Um, I call what they're doing in West Bank occupation as a service. Um, I call what they're doing with pre-crime arrests and scraping social media data in the UK, um, as pre-crime, um, Palantir technology. Um, but anyway, um, so if you're, if you're in a mafia, um, they first try and bring you in. They put you in a compromised situation where you're desperate. This happens when they build militias all around the world and various other things through war zones. Um, then you get some financing. Um, if you're trying to achieve something, there's different degrees of this model. Uh, if you are useful with that financing, you get more financing. And if you get, if you're useful with that, you get more financing. And then eventually you hit a level where you have to join a compromised network. Um, and so this is often when I worked in investment banking, there was a, a level where I got to where they want me being a bit more degenerate. You know,

>> This is a good time. Give us a quick rundown of your background, then we'll pick back up with the degenerate offer.

>> My background is, I, I used to work in investment banking. I started in, um, stockbroking, um, as basically selling shares. I then worked in market making. I learned that that's all about market manipulation for the financial industrial complex.

>> And do you feel you were being groomed at this point?

>> Yes.

>> Knowingly, like, "Hi, I'm Bob. I'm here to groom you." Or they, they were just like, seeing if you would rise up the ranks.

>> There's a culture which makes you succeed and there's a culture which won't let you succeed. Um, and so when I went to corporate finance where I was helping companies go public and constructing some of these types of plans where you scenario plan and figure out, okay, what contract would you get in this type of war zone, um, and various other, um, types of, uh, constructions and investment banking, um, they want you compromised. And so, you know, it starts with inviting you to parties. It then involves asking you to, you know, do things at parties, whether it be drugs, whether it be, uh, sleeping with prostitutes, uh, whether it be any of that, because they want you in the compromised network. They need you, um, where they've got something on you. Um, and, uh, if you choose not to partake, you're not going to progress.

>> M.

>> Um, you know, I left in 2006. Um, and I could see who succeeded and who doesn't succeed. Um, once you have compromised and if you're at the higher echelons of compromise, you got very sophisticated networks like the Epstein revelations. Um, and, uh, you know, then everything's about leverage. And the more you succeed, so you got to remember, most people think of Peter Thiel as a wealthy billionaire. Um, I think of a billionaire as somebody, um, that has a billion dollars of gold or could send a billion dollars of Bitcoin. Most people's net worth is dependent upon compliance with the financial industrial complex. Even Elon Musk, Elon Musk was allowed to buy Twitter because he was able to place his Tesla stock as collateral in order to get a loan from the financial industrial complex, whether that be JP Morgan or City. Then he is told what investors will be co-investing, which is the Gulf sovereign wealth funds or the transnational capital. Um, and then he is constructed with share options where if his share price goes up, um, then his net worth increases, but they leverage his net worth to the kill so that if he ever does not comply, um, then they can knock down the share price and they can knock down his net worth and draw him back into compliance. And we've seen that with Elon Musk a lot. You know, when we've had these tit, um, when we've had, you know, focus on Tesla. Oh, now you get, uh, Goldman Sachs is giving you a $2 trillion SpaceX, um, IPO. You have to buy your fiduciary duty to shareholders. And who are those shareholders? BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, Transnational Capital, Gulf Sovereign Wealth Funds, Chinese Shell Companies. Um, once you work for transnational capital, once you are trying to at the highest level IPO, your net worth is dependent upon compliance with this, the the financial industrial complex by design. By design, they create subordinate structures through the process of securitization, through debt, through compromised networks, through leverage, um, through blackmail operations. Um, and the higher you want to go, the more compromised you generally are.

>> Do you have a sense of what Elon was doing that got the tit for tat with Trump to trigger? If that really was, you know, the power structures bumping him back in line, what was it? What was he doing that they didn't like?

>> Yeah, power plays. So, uh, Elon is a node in the technical industrial complex. Uh, Trump works primarily for the financial industrial complex and the technical industrial complex. He's not a neocon. He's not a military-industrial complex guy, but he needs to compensate them if he's going to give more power to finance. That's why you have to compensate them with various wars and operations, um, that reset things. So the way to understand the guy that comes to power saying no new wars. The reason that he then started wars, uh, is because I've got to balance these guys out. I want to do all my crazy stuff over here for the financial industrial complex, which already love me because I'm aligned with them. This is just how I operate. But I've got to throw a bone to these guys. So I'm just going to go blow up Iran real quick.

>> Uh, yeah, but then there's bigger oper. He doesn't decide to blow up Iran. You know, his job is to give a story of why he's blowing up Iran.

>> So, somebody comes in as like, "We are blowing up Iran, so get good at explaining this."

>> Yes. Yeah. You need to come up with a narrative. And that's why I think his, his, uh, social media posts are so inconsistent, 'cause he doesn't necessarily know what's coming next and he's not deciding. You know, these are longer-term operations. These are like multi-decade operations in order to reset energy flows, um, ports, access to ports, split the world up. Um, these are long-term negotiations based upon power dynamics way above, um, Trump. But even if you look at Trump himself, he's a great example. Um, let's look who were his three biggest funders to his latest campaign. Uh, the number one was Elon Musk, $250 million. Um, and he's a node in the technical industrial complex. Number two was the Mellon banking family, um, the financial industrial complex. Um, and number three was Miriam Adelson, who's your Israel lobby, who Israel is a node in the military-industrial complex. Um, and so what you'll notice is there's different factions. And you did the, the Israel conversation earlier. APAC is the 14th most important lobby, but they have plausible deniability stories. And right now, they are utilizing the extraction of the Israeli asset and they are deliberately allowing, uh, social media influencers to destroy the reputation of Israel. This is not to say that Israel isn't involved in crimes against humanity. Like, I, I spend a lot of time, you, I almost have to take off my analytical hat and put on my humanitarian hat sometimes, 'cause people confuse me. If I put on my humanitarian hat for a second, um, I spent years on the Palestinian cause. It is the, the sickest crimes against humanity. Um, what is being done? It is a laboratory for the technology that America cannot test. So it does it in a Palestinian laboratory. Everything that is coming home right now was tested in the most extreme circumstances to kill Palestinians.

>> Can you give me some examples? Is this technology we're talking about?

>> So, the goal of Palestine was to set up a series of events that would lead to the complete destruction of Palestine. Um, there was a bribe that was set up to Egypt where they were meant to accept $18 billion debt forgiveness by the IMF in order to, uh, ethnically cleanse the Palestinians and put them in the Sinai desert. That was a forever war model. Greater Israel project is a narrative in order to justify the destabilization of the Middle East. That's been going on for a long time. Um,

>> Did Egypt do that?

>> Uh, Egypt didn't do that because they aligned with another power structure, which is the Gulf countries. And the Gulf countries, interestingly, became more important as China rose.

>> And so as China's buying so much oil?

>> Because China's buying so much oil, their sovereign wealth funds go up. They then became one of the major shareholders in BlackRock. The CEO of Saudi Aramco gets a board seat on BlackRock. Now they have influence over the most important node in the West, which is BlackRock. Um, now they didn't, um, ethnically cleanse the Palestinians because the Gulf countries and China had an alternative plan. We'll get right back to the show in a second, but first, let's talk about how your brain actually works. Your brain can run on two fuel sources, glucose and ketones. Most people only ever give it glucose. Think of it this way. You would not put regular unleaded in a Ferrari. Your brain is like that. It is the most complex machine on the planet. And most people are fueling it up with the cheap stuff. And the Department of Defense believed in this enough to spend $6 million developing the technology behind today's sponsor, Ketone IQ. Ketone IQ delivers pure ketones directly to your brain. They cross the blood-brain barrier and fuel your neurons at the cellular level. There's no caffeine, no sugar, no crash, no stimulants at all. For me, I use it when I really need to be sharp. So, if I'm about to do an interview or something that I'm writing that really takes a lot out of me, and it carries me straight through. Ketone IQ contains no artificial sweeteners or fillers and comes in delicious flavors like peach, green apple, and raspberry lemonade. If you're ready to fuel your brain properly, visit ketone.com/impact for 30% off your subscription order or visit your local Target to get your first shot for free. Now, let's get back to the show. So,

>> This goes back to what I was saying about these power structures are competing.

>> Absolutely.

>> Got it. Okay. So, Egypt aligns with a power structure that doesn't agree, so they don't do it. So this amorphous competing blob goes up. We have another option. I'm guessing you're going to say that is the Israel option. Like, how do we end up where?

>> Israel? Okay. So once you get beyond the nation-state level, if you can buy into that thesis, um, you can see that factions of power are aligned within these complexes. So let's take, uh, the Middle East, which is one of the most complicated ones, but let's take it. Um, so Israel was a construct of the British Empire. Um, it was created, uh, between the British government for W. Rothschild, who was a prolific war financier. Um, the Rothschild family's game was funding both sides of wars. Um, and that has been a constant theme throughout. Now, this is a time in which, uh, the British Empire needed vast oil resources. We were in an industrial revolution. We were transitioning power from the British Empire to the American Empire. The British East India Company had bankrupted the UK government. The Bank of England distributed all the assets to the financial industrial complex. And then we set about doing the same in America. You know, prior to that, you had the creation of the Federal Reserve, World War I. Um, and Israel was declared, uh, via the Balfour Declaration from the British Empire to W. Rothschild in 1917, the same year, um, that, uh, Wall Street funded the Soviet Union and the Bolshevik Revolution to implement communism in Russia so that you, so that most of the Russian gold ended up there. Um, that's the, that's the background. And by the way, the same family, the Warburg family, that was on the board of the Federal Reserve, uh, was also on Reichsbank, the German central bank that transferred much gold to the Hitler regime every time he invaded a country. So you had fascism, you had the Federal Reserve system in America, and you had, uh, the communism, uh, that was all funded via the same, um, type of structure, this financial industrial complex.

>> Okay, for this, for this all to make sense, um, I need to follow one line of questioning for a second to see where it terminates. Uh, so the British government decides that they're going to go along with the, uh, Israel project. Um, the reason they wanted to do that, if I understood you correctly, is they owed something or they wanted to win over, uh, the Rothschilds. So they say, "Cool. This thing matters to you for reasons we have not yet discussed, but it matters to you. You want it. We'll give it to you, but you're going to have to keep funding war." Like, what were they hoping to get in that exchange?

>> Exactly. And, uh, not only we have to keep funding war, you have to keep funding war. Uh, because war is the industry. What is what is the industry? The industry is finance war.

>> Mhm.

>> That war then leads to the, uh, ability to steal resources that are needed. Um, those resources then lead to massive destruction. That massive destruction leads to rebuild contracts, and those rebuild contracts is what makes up a massive amount of GDP in such an economy. Um, so then you have resource, resource acquisition, profit from war, profit from the rebuild. Um, and then also in the rebuild, more recently today, you have control grids with Palantir and technology and Oracle and all the different complex, um, nodes within that structure. Um, so there is a very well-understood model that was done by the Dutch Empire, the British Empire, and covertly into the American Empire. Um, and it's always been, it's always been the model. So they needed oil resources and destabilization. So war allowed them to break up the Middle East, install monarchies, call it Sykes-Picot, which was the French Empire and the British Empire, and make sure that the region is always at war. And that was the design. Um, and Israel was a node connected to the military-industrial complex in order to create a false narrative, the weaponization of religion to have a story for the people, um, while they're actually just causing havoc in the region and destabilizing the region. Um, and at the higher levels of power, they're weaponizing both the Muslim faith, the Jewish faith, and the Christian faith, which is how all wars are done. Whether it's Christian Crusaders, um, whether it's recruiting radicalizing Jews in order to join the IDF, whether it's operations to create the fake war on terror, um, whether it's evangelical Christianity believing that they can weaponize the Bible, re-ranslate it, and say that you need to protect Israel. Um, these factions of power are aligned. So the Zionist narrative in Israel answers via the lobby. People think like Netanyahu is in charge. He's like, he's he's just middle management. He, he answers to the military-industrial complex, which is stockholder value, A.I. Systems, and all of the different evil technologies that are created and tested in these war zones. Uh, but who is he aligned with? He's aligned with the neocons in America. The neocons also just happen to support evangelical Christianity and the protection of Israel. And so, as I said, they're actors. Um, these people are pretending that they, you know, that they care about this, but they don't care about the Ten Commandments and the evil that's that's created from it. There is also interesting stuff within the Iran side. Um, the,

>> I think before we get there, because this started, I'm trying to figure out what was being tested in Israel that's making its way back.

>> Um, so that helps paint the picture of the destabilization, uh, which allows for resource acquisition. Um, understanding the whole time that there's like these different fighting factions, but, um, we were trying to understand, so Egypt is like given this opportunity, hey, you can, um, ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. They reject it. I'm still trying to get the answer for, from where I'm sitting, it looks like Israel is going, "Oh, cool. Yeah, we'll take the ethnically cleansed vibe. We're here for that." But the actual immediate question that we're trying to answer is the US is using this, or the military-industrial complex is using this as a testing ground, uh, for presumably things, weapons and technology that they will later use in larger scale wars to move larger amounts of resources, if I'm understanding what you're saying correctly.

>> Yeah. And the main thing they built out was through technologies like Lavender, um, which is a Palantir technology that committed the genocide was using facial recognition surveillance software in order to create the optimum amount of chaos without actually looking like it is a genocide, um, and targeting border control, um, all of the security stuff that's actually now being utilized in the UK, Ukraine, Europe, Saudi Arabia, and even America right now with border policies. Um, and so all this technology comes home, maybe in a less extreme version. Uh, but they do the really extreme stuff over there. Uh, but then it comes home. Um, and, and this is the construct of the police and surveillance state that's being built in the name of technological innovation.

>> Um, and that's privatized. The government pays for it. Then the, the technology is transferred over to private, uh, partnership. They get more and more government contracts. Um, and then they go public and the financial industrial complex takes over, um, through creating, you know, subordination vehicles that we talked about.

>> Okay, let me, let me ask just a calibrating question. Are there good guys and bad guys in any of this, or is this just all bad guys?

>> You could be as good as you want, but you won't progress unless you comply with the structure. Um, so wild cards do exist, of course, and, uh, in my experience, um, it is designed to slowly bring out the worst behavior in you.

>> The climb to power.

>> The climb to power. Yes.

>> Okay. And that's because that's the thing that is leverable.

>> Yes. Um, and so if you don't do it yourself naturally, it will be enforced upon you, otherwise you won't make it.

>> Okay. Um, I do want to keep coming back to the people at large because I can tell from my own sanity, I'm not going to want to live at the level of all these power structures. This is old.

>> Yes and no. So, the one thing I will say that I bump into with your, um, I'm not even saying I will yet contest it, but there's an element of the power structure that I think you leave out, which is this is the perfect time to talk about, which is the masses have a very powerful role to play, which is, um, the compromat only works on people because they, because they're all compromised, so they don't give a [ __ ]. Like, if you're raping kids or whatever, to them, that's who cares. Uh, what they know is I'm going to show this to the masses and the masses are going to turn on you and they will tear you apart. And so that feels very powerful for me as somebody who views himself as a part of the people and not a part of the power structure. And so, um, just as a, a point here, hey everybody, there is like a very powerful role for people because I think we're in the age of waking up. The velocity and volume of information that social media has brought about makes it possible for anybody with the interest, the fortitude, and the intellect to parse through all this stuff can can have a more meaningful voice than previously. Um, so, okay, I, I just say that for my own sanity. Okay, so they're getting the compromat. It brings out the worst in you. It brings out the worst in you so that they can weaponize that against you by showing it to the masses, as they have done with the Epstein files, so that the masses will turn on those people selectively. Now, they obviously want to control who gets dipped into the bat of acid that is the populace. Um, but that feels like the full chain of events. Any disagreement there?

>> No.

>> Okay. So now to put a bow on Israel before we move on to Iran, why did Israel take the offer to ethnically cleanse that Egypt rejected? Why did Egypt reject it? Was it moral grounds? And why did Israel take it?

>> Oh, right. Well, um, that's what Israel was created for from day one. It was the Greater Israel project, um, was to gain more and more land. So that's why, um, Rothschild wanted that.

>> Did he want more land for Jewish people, or did he have some other thing going?

>> Well, I mean, there's conflating interests here, but primarily I default up to what is the financial incentive here? Um, so you may have some ideological sideshow as well. Um, or that you may have an ideology that's driving, okay, um, that, but what, uh, to me, the creation of Israel was the radicalization of the Jewish faith based upon the fact that Europeans didn't want Jews in their country at the time. Um, they wanted to put them somewhere. Um, and the business model was population growth. And so they,

>> Hold on, you said that the British government did Israel for Rothschild because they needed him to keep funding wars. He was like, "Fine. However, you're going to do this thing for me." But now you're saying that it was actually something else. It was the desire to get rid of the Jews from Europe, from England, from the empire.

>> Oh, well, I mean, if you, if you go back to those times, those, those were like, I, I hate to use the word anti-Semitic because it's been weaponized to the point of ridiculousness now.

>> Sure.

>> Um, where, um, anyone talking against Israel is accused of being anti-Semitic.

>> Um, but that was an anti-Semitic era. You know, that was a, that, you know, the Jews were, you know, if you think about it, this goes back into the finance conversation. Uh, Christianity forbade usury. Um, so does Islam.

>> Define usury.

>> Uh, usury is the process of using interest in order to subordinate as well. Um, you know, to this debt-based Ponzi scheme is usury. Um,

>> Okay, but debt is awesome. Like there's, it can be weaponized, but it's also part of what allows us to build and grow and do incredible things. So is there a point at which?

>> That's an, that's an ideology. Um, previously it was strictly, um, forbidden. Um, in Christian, any country that had Christian values.

>> But yeah, when I hear the word usury, some people make a distinction.

Between it's just interest. Other people say it's excessive interest. Do you draw the line between interest and excessive interest, or any interest of any kind is a moral hazard? I don't want to put words.

No, I mean, look, the entire financial system is built upon interest. It's impossible to I happen to have exited it. Uh, but that was only because Bitcoin came along and I was able to exit it. Um, there are different degrees of usury. I think it's a I think it's a the version of usury that we have that is our fiat currency is 100% incredibly harmful. Um, it is because it is a Ponzi scheme and it leads to all this wars and everything that we're talking about to prop it up, um, to create that perpetual growth cycle.

So to understand you, I must understand that your worldview is interest is bad.

In an ideological world, um, I wouldn't have interest. Yeah, I would have profit share. I would have equity. Um, and if there is to have interest, it would have to be existing money that already exists. You can't combine the process of creating money and charging interest on the money created, because that's a Ponzi scheme. And so if you, or if you have a mechanism for sustainably creating money and then people would like to, um, charge interest, uh, personally, I prefer profit share mechanisms. I prefer equity, um, and I prefer things that align incentives, um, rather than you, you know, you, you end up having to pay me no matter what. Um, and, you know, that's just a, but I get there's practicality in this, right? Um, it's a, it's an interesting debate. Um, but yeah, another, another version of usury is predatory loans, uh, as opposed to defining something that may be more equitable.

Okay. So, not to bog us down there, that I think gets us close enough. Uh, so, um, we need to finalize. Egypt does not take the option.

Christian Power. Wanting to do banking, but it was prohibited. And so therefore, uh, you know, Jews wanted to do it because they had carve-outs in their religion where they couldn't lend to each other, but they could lend to anyone at some point.

This is in the early 1900s. Uh, this goes further back, like this is like.

I'm saying, when is that debate? Because I'm trying to figure out why Israel takes the ethnic cleansing route and Egypt is.

What I was just giving is an example of how real power, um, ends up using a group in order to look like they're the ones that are doing just that, which they are. There's it's a partnership of crime. Um, but who's making most of the money? It's it's kind of like people blame Israel right now, which I do. I I think Israel is fundamentally evil. But where's the money going back to? It's all in the US stock market. It's all US financial industrial complex, US technical industrial complex, US military-industrial complex with a plausible deniability story. Um, so that when America wants to divorce from that, which is what Britain handed over this project to America, um, they've got a, it was them, not us, which is the story that we're going through right now. And yet everyone's saying, cuz what is the real story? The real story is that America is constructed off a debt-based Ponzi scheme that is governed by transnational capital and the financial industrial complex. And the construct is to transfer wealth upwards to the point where now 92% of the stock market is controlled by 10% of the FIC, and everyone's pension is managed by the FIC.

The FIC is the financial industrial complex.

Um, and everyone's in debt to the FIC, and all businesses are subordinate to the FIC in generality. Um, and the FIC is in charge. And by the way, $69 trillion dollars of assets are foreign-owned. So, who is the FIC? It's not it's not American aligned anymore. So I think with the reason we were doing this is because we were saying the MIC, the military-industrial complex is more aligned or with nationalism because it was what built America, the the manufacturing base, you know, the post-World War II Britain's order, the Cold War, all the all that stuff. Um, it was built upon a manufacturing base in America that built out this, uh, vastly superior technology for killing people, um, that was then privatized, um, and built the stock market, um, and the growth engine that fed the financial industrial complex to the point where now there's massive concentration of wealth and this K-shaped economy where there's only those in debt and those that have the assets, and those that have the assets is concentrating upwards, and those in debt are getting significantly deeper into that position, which creates civil unrest. Um, but the, the, I think we were doing the, the creation of Israel is a military story, which is a business model that the Brits, the Dutch handed over to America, um, of create destabilize regions, get access to resources, um, and, uh, make sure that the oil can be used and the resources can be used for us and our technology and our consumption.

Okay. So, let me paint a picture that tries to reconcile a couple things. So, uh, you said that, um, Israel is fundamentally evil. So, we've got England helping to create the state of Israel, uh, for essentially Rothschild. And they do that because they want him to keep funding the military-industrial complex because that's their game. And, uh, he does that because this is an anti-Semitic age. He's trying to find a home for his people, essentially. Uh, and as that becomes an ongoing concern and actually starts gaining power and becomes its own nation, they have to plug into the game somewhere. So they've got the military-industrial complex, the financial industrial complex, or the technological industrial complex, are the three that we've talked about, plus the sort of governmental thing that, anyway, I'm not going to bog down on that. Uh, so they choose military-industrial complex, correct?

Uh, that's who they're aligned with. Yeah.

All accurate so far. Okay. And so now we come to the question that maybe when I get the answer, I'll be like, that was a waste of time to pursue. I really want to know, uh, why they, I I think what you're saying is because they decide to go with the military-industrial complex, that leaves.

They were created for the military-industrial complex.

Rothschild's like, "Hey, I've got a new business model." That is the creation of Israel, uh, to have a node in the military-industrial complex.

In the Middle East. Yeah. And so their their job is to destabilize the Middle East, ensure that there's never that there's always war. Um, and making sure that, um, empire and FIC can negotiate with countries to get their oil.

Okay. And so that becomes the reason why they take the Fouian bargain of, yeah, we'll do the ethnic cleansing because we got, we got to kill somebody because that's how this military-industrial complex works.

There always has to be war. War never ends. There has to be constant revenue. You're not going to get a situation where the revenue goes down.

Okay. So why did Egypt reject it?

Because the world order changed in the meantime. Um, and so if you think about it, this model, this model of America post-World War II, Bretton Woods, um, was predicated that whole model, the transition from British Empire to American Empire, um, was when you had all these organizations in the to transfer everything to America, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, United Nations, um, all of these constructs of obfuscating crimes against humanity, war, resource extraction, build back better, all of that, that different model that built the stock market and the military base.

So did Egypt just move too slowly? So they had their opportunity, but they didn't take it.

If you look at the again, deep history, but if you look at the, what was the defining moment for the end of the British Empire, or if you look at it, it was a slow thing. It was over decades, World War I, World War II, Great Depression. But the ending moment, and that led to the decolonization moment, was the Suez Canal. Um, it was when the British Empire could no longer use their naval fleet in order to stop the Egyptians from privatizing the Suez Canal and nationalizing it for their people. U, very similar with Strait of Hormuz today. Um, you have, you need a theatrical moment to define the end of empire and the transition to the new world order. And that was the Suez Canal was that moment, um, that led to all the decolonization, declaration of independence from all the different African nations and various other, um, colonies. Um, and so, um, Egypt over that time was the resistance against Israel originally. So what we call Iran today was originally Egypt. Um, but Egypt got destroyed by through this process, through international monetary fund debt, um, through regime change, through color revolutions, through decapitation campaigns to take out leaders, replace them with American puppets.

Because they weren't playing ball.

You, in the post-World War II Bretton Woods order, uh, your job was to take on IMF debt, take on dollar debt. Um, and if you don't give your resources for the American Empire, then there is a series of covert operations that either lead to you being overthrown, assassinated, uh, regime changed, uh, uprising, color revolution, um, and the CIA and IMF jackals would turn up at your door and tell you what would happen to you if you don't comply. And if you don't comply, the, at the worst case, you get assassinated so they can install a dictator that then uses the resources for the empire and not for the people. Um, and Egypt was the biggest resistance against that, um, in this, in this moment. Um, and, um.

And so they've just been permanently sidelined, essentially?

Oh, they've been, yeah. So they were, there was then there was the slow multi-decade decline of their economy, debt subordination, IMF debt, uh, currency wars, devaluation of their, um, currency, subordination, um, until eventually it had a military takeover and a military coup. Um, you know, and then we had Arab Spring, various other things. Too, too deep, too, you know, you could go down lots of rabbit holes just in one of these countries. Um, but, um, what, what happened, um, I think the multi-decade strategy of realizing that the FIC is transitioning the world to multipolarity started, um, leading up to the 2008 financial crisis.

So they were already doing it.

That's how long this operation to transition to multipolarity is.

What made them decide to start the transition?

Um, a number of factors. Imagine, imagine if you're a fund manager. Uh, let's do BlackRock. We haven't gone through BlackRock and why they're important yet. Um, but let's say they're the American version of the British East India Company.

When did they start?

Uh, '80s.

Okay.

Yeah. Um, and they created the mortgage-backed security.

Mhm.

Um, they, uh, were the net beneficiary of the global financial crisis.

Oh, good. Um, they were they got the contract to manage, uh, for the Fed, the bailout money. They also got the contract to manage the big print during COVID for treasury.

Meaning who was going to get it.

Yeah. How to allocate the money, how to, uh, resources, uh, the mergers, the acquisitions, the allocation of capital.

This is something I don't think enough people understand. So, um, when we were going through all of this, they, they were actually, and I didn't know it was BlackRock, but apparently it was BlackRock. Uh, they were deciding to, hey, this money that we printed, the way we're going to get it into the system is we're actually going to buy shares. We're going to buy debt, and somebody has to decide which debt to buy, what companies to prop up, and that was them, you're saying?

Yeah. BlackRock was, uh, the, the contractor that was consulted in both the global financial crisis and during the COVID treasury. Uh.

So they literally decide who lived and who died.

Yeah. So, um, again, so what did they end up doing? So they ended up buying, uh, the ETF department of Barclays. So the Barclays ETF exchange-traded fund are the new mechanism for allocating capital, you know, and BlackRock is the largest manager of those those funds.

So they actually spun it out of Barclays and they took it.

Spun it out of Barclays, received some capital, bought it, and now they're the biggest ETF provider in the world.

Damn.

Um, you know, JP Morgan, um, you know, got access to capital. We're told that Bear Stearns and Lehman need to go. Um, and, uh, these decisions, you know, Goldman Sachs said, "Oh, by the way, we're not an investment bank, we're a retail bank, so please bail us out and give us some of that capital." Um, and, and, you know, those incredibly corrupt decisions were all based upon the mortgage-backed security market, which was an innovation of BlackRock. Um, and Larry Fink was the inventor of it. Uh, Bill Masters was the inventor of the credit default swap. And they knew through these liar loans that there was the central bank would bail out, that they were too big to fail. That it could be a massive wealth concentration. And so they allowed the real estate bubble to blow up, knowing that those mortgage-backed securities would be bought by the Federal Reserve.

Now, why didn't Sterns get protected in all this?

Um, I don't have an exact explanation, but it's interesting. Um, Bear Stearns and Lehman were the two most intelligent connected nodes in this network. That's where the Jeffrey Epstein network, like, originally came from. Um, I don't have a, um, exact, um, thesis for why they were, um, not chosen.

But presumably they pissed somebody off.

Uh, I think it's more about preservation of power. So they act as a, the FIC acts as a portfolio. You know, BlackRock's a shareholder in all of them. Um, and so, you know, this, this construct that was created in the '80s with with BlackRock, um, was a rise to utility by the financial industrial complex. Um, and Larry Fink and the others and the board played the game better than than anyone. Um, and ended up rising to the top of this, uh, construct today. Um, why were we talking about that? Well, so for me, all of this is about mapping out how these different structures interact with each other because the ultimate thing that I want to build is, uh, we're in a moment of transition. And so what you and I have been talking about so far is understanding the current world order, how the power structures actually work, how they interface with each other. The different nodes that I've picked on have just been me trying to use them as a case study to understand why somebody does well, somebody else does poorly, how much they're battling, how much this is coordinated because, um, understanding how to, if we understand how the transitions work, what motivates people, who the real players are, then the average person hopefully can survive this transitionary moment by understanding how to position themselves economically. I get that the vast majority of people won't. They won't pay attention. Um, they're just too busy trying to raise families and fall in love and make enough money to get by. And I, I have so much empathy for that. Uh, however, there is a way always at the individual level to navigate this well. And so, um, I'm trying to build a mental map of how you think through this to see how much high utility there is in all this. So anyway, so that we're, we're getting close, I think, to wrapping up a rough approximation of how the world order works today. We have a handful of these, um, powerful entities that are at war with themselves, at war with each other, but largely agreeing on how the system works in terms of this is a central bank at the bottom. You've got to compromise everybody that wants to succeed. That way you can tear down anybody that you need to so that there can be a loose sense of cooperation as the system changes in a largely unpredictable fashion, but you can react in a way that's intelligent. So to the point of the transition into the 2008 crisis, which is something we need to to finish before we can move on, um, the powers that be had decided it was time to begin a multi-decade transition away from America. And now what we're trying to figure out is what, what do we learn from who wins and who loses in all of this?

Um, so BlackRock starting in the '80s becomes a tremendous winner. You winner. You addressed how they just outperformed everybody. Bear Stearns goes down. Lehman goes down for reasons we don't quite understand, but there's probably something there for anybody that wants to research it in terms of what they did. Were they just a sacrificial lamb and they happen to be as things start falling? It's like, oh well, for whatever random set of reasons they happen to have the most bad debt and so cool, we're going to axe them off. Who knows? But they do get axed off. Then they step in. They, being the Fed and the government cooperating to figure out how we're going to deploy this capital. They pick BlackRock to be the disseminator of that, presumably because, um, that node is the most well-connected, the most trusted, people believe that they're going to get them through this, but then they're obviously going to prioritize their own entities.

Yeah, it was, um, important piece to add there is what BlackRock had that is unique to everyone else. Um, they built a technology called Aladdin. Um, and Aladdin is used by pretty much every pension fund manager, every endowment fund, every insurance company, every sovereign wealth fund, every central bank and treasury and government treasury management services all around the world. And if you look at who has access to Aladdin in terms of, um, an earliest AI, um, technology for scenario planning, um, all sorts of capital markets, currency markets, commodity markets, stock markets, financial markets globally. It has the largest data set in the world. Um, whereby if you, for example, uh, a sovereign wealth fund, and you're saying, I think the Strait of Hormuz is going to be closed for 90 days, how do I scenario plan that? Um, it will kick out a scenario plan for the largest pools of capital in the world. And so capital moves as Aladdin tells it how to move. Um, and so Aladdin has the most, the best and most superior technology used by $25 trillion of capital.

Whoa.

Yes. And they also have $14 trillion of assets under administration, under management. So they got $14 trillion of other people's money, and maybe $6 trillion of it is they have authority to allocate it. The rest of it is managing other people's money as set by a specific investment product.

Uh, but they've also got ETFs. Uh, they've also shareholders in the entire financial industrial complex, the biggest shareholder in all of them. And so who owns the Fed? Well, it's the banks, and all those banks are public companies, and the largest shareholder in all of them is BlackRock.

What about the private equity side? So, when there is distress buying of assets, there is, uh, all of the, the biggest Blackstones and KKR are public companies with BlackRock as their number one shareholder. Those that create fiat currency, the banks are all public companies, and larger shareholder BlackRock. Um, all of the different asset managers own shares in each other, and BlackRock's the largest fund manager, uh, shareholder in State Street, Vanguard, Fidelity, the competition. Venture capitalists, the public one, you know, they they rely upon bank credit in order to get their, this is what I was trying to say earlier about Peter Thiel. Those VC funds are not just massive wealth. It's all leveraged. It's all leveraged wealth. Even the VC funds, um, is borrowed from banks, you know, they use leverage in order to make these investments. Um, and so even people's net worth is leveraged to the kill when you look down and go down, you know, the, the, the cycle. Um, but yeah, BlackRock, um, also ended up, via the global financial crisis, the largest ETF provider in the world by buying Barclays' ETF division, um, and growing their own ETF division and leverage mergers and acquisitions and leverage buyouts, um, over time. So now if you're a country, um, then you can use Aladdin in order to scenario plan why capital inflow should go into Egypt. You can use the FX broker market in order to destroy or make a currency. They just did it in Iran. Um, Scott Benton went on national TV and said, part of economic fury, uh, we killed the currency. That was an operation that's done via London. Um, that is deliberate destruction of the savings of the ordinary Iranian people. That is a civilian target. Um, that is collective punishment for every single, imagine you log into your online banking and your entire life savings disappears, and then they create an inflationary cycle in order to encourage you to rise up against a militarized government. And a militarized government, the IRGC is gonna shoot you, you know, if you are uprising. And, and they had MSAD, CIA intelligence agencies. And every one of those, many of those politicians in America were just saying, "Uprise, uprise." Um, and then lying about what happened as well. You know, they control the media. All the media are public companies as well.

Now, are they trying to do that just because they need another war and they need to destabilize Iran in order to capture the oil? Like, what's the endgame?

Here's where it requires a bit more nuance in the Iran side. But, um, what I wanted to say anyway is that BlackRock has $25 trillion of assets under administration in technology, 12, 14 trillion now. They've made so much money out of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that added two trillion to their value, um, that, uh, they've got, uh, 14 trillion there, um, and then they've got all the ETF flows. So if they want a scenario plan capital comes into Egypt now, then Aladdin can do that and get the largest capital flows in the world. And so the value of an ETF, as the value of a currency, is a financial weapon of mass destruction for subordinating countries to the FIC. Um, and this is always, every single war of the British Empire was always a currency war. The transatlantic slave trade, the opium wars, they were always destroy the value of the currency in order to destabilize, in order to manufacture the environment that justifies military action so that we can take the resources, renegotiate, contract, install our own dictators so that the resources become ours and not the people's. That's the entire history of this 500-year, um, European American empire. Um, and it, and it's still happening today. We're watching it in real time. Um, now when you look at the, the construct of Iran today, and we'll.

Say the construct of Iran.

Yes. Um, Iran has a 6,000-year history, but go back to 1953, and the CIA and MI6 overthrew, um, the democratically elected democracy in order to install somebody that would give all the oil to British Petroleum. 80% of the revenue went to British Petroleum because they dared to try and nationalize their oil, so that their people wouldn't have to pay tax, as they do in Saudi Arabia today. Um, and so the, the leadership, the entire history of Iran is getting access to their oil. Um, the Shah was an installation of the change in empire because the previous leader, Musaddiq, um, was connected with the British Empire, and regime, the CIA regime changed, um, to the Shah to have a brutal dictator in order to make sure that Iran could be used for the American empire. And the Iranian revolution, um, was an uprising. Um, and people question as well, was that, you know, the, uh, when Khomeini came back from France after being circled by MI6? Um, was that another op? You know, we've got declassified CIA documents for for much of, you, you find out about it when it's too late. But once you recognize the pattern, just look up Operation Ajax 2.0. The exact same thing that just happened was done in 1953 for British Petroleum.

What's the thing that just happened? So what's Ajax? What's 2.0?

You destroy a currency. You create inflation. You use sanctions in order to create an economic environment where the civilian targets, and then you, you create an environment of an uprising in order to destabilize a country so that you can, and the financial markets hedge everything. They don't care whether these operations succeed or fail. They use derivative markets. They know what operations are coming ahead of time. They make money if they succeed, money if it fails, and then they manipulate the markets in between, um, so that they're hedged for any outcome. They don't care what happens.

You know, they're, they're just doing bank the whole way. Um, killing people is not a concept that they care about. You know, this is not, there is no such narrative that's fed through the media they control, that is public companies, you know. Um, is just an acceptable narrative to make it you think that what you're doing is good, and you're defending democracy, or you're standing for, you're trying to save the people. Look what happens to the Venezuelans like now. The, anyway, let's not go off, um, these, uh, these, you know, the, everything in the, that's the part you've got to take away. Everything a politician says and the media says is a managed narrative, which if you follow the money, is completely opposite to what the financial industrial complex are investing in.

Right. So you just have to explain why we're going to do this thing, but we're doing this thing for a different reason. So the reason that you just walked through with Iran is their whole history is about, we need to control the oil. This is an empire story. So right now, it'd be the American empire is trying to control it. However, we are in a moment of transition where we are moving away from, we being this power structure is moving away from the American empire. And so the question we haven't answered yet that we've opened it is, um, why roughly, I don't know, 10, 20 years ago, did they decide that they were going to start this migration? What triggered that? Why now? And then where does it end up? Is this just everything being migrated over to China?

Yeah. So if you're managing a portfolio and you're BlackRock, and you're seeing, okay, China enters the World Trade Organization, China is the global manufacturing base. Did you put China into the WTO, or did you just watch it happen and react?

China's independent. China does not have a corporate structure that sits above the CCP. Uh, the Chinese Communist Party went through a century of humiliation from the British Empire and all the opium wars and all the currency wars and all the manufactured wars. Um, the Japan situation, a century of humiliation, and said, "We're building constructs to keep out the barbarians." That was the Great Wall of China, effectively. That's capital controls. That's, um, and the CCP rules. You know, it's known as an authoritarian government. It is authoritarian. Um, but it is it is designed so that no corporate structure can subordinate it. There's no MIC, FIC, TICK above the CCP. There's a MIC, FIC, TICK below the CCP. Uh, but the CCP is the ultimate ruler, um, in, in the Chinese construct. And the reason there's capital controls is they don't want currency wars. They want to protect everything. Um, and so China created a structure where if you're optimizing, if you're optimizing for corporate profits and your quarterly returns, um, and your earnings report, and not for America, because America is just a stock market to fix. It's a currency market to fix. It's liquidity. It's a government you can control. Yeah, that's all. Those, those are America is to them. The people are just collateralized debt obligations. You know, your job is to go into debt, go to college, go to debt, be a worker bee. Um, the, get a mortgage, get a credit card, keep consuming, keep going. Um, and if you knock off, if you fall off the fair, we don't care about you. If you earn enough money, then or you become an entrepreneur, then we put you in our control grids as you go up, VC, private equity, IPO, as we go up, and then we co-opt you into being a FIC member, a node in the FIC, that's all it is. Now, I think if you're, if you're managing a portfolio, BlackRock, you're looking at it and saying, I think we've, I think we've done what we can. Um, everyone's on debt, or they're a part, or they're subordinate to one of our power structures. And now there's problems. The suicide rates are at record highs. The 10th largest, for the first time in history, the 10th largest creation, uh, the 10th, uh, death is suicide.

The 10th reason for death.

Leading cause.

Leading cause. Sorry. Thank you. Um, degeneracy. Um, people are choosing, women are choosing OnlyFans. Uh, men are gambling. Cryptocurrency speculation seems to be one way that people are trying to create a career, um, nowadays because women and men hate each other. People are confused around what women are and what men are. Um, the, the numbers, the debt levels, the K-shaped economy, the wealth inequality, the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer is reaching the point where, where's the consumption going to be? They're all maxed out on their credit cards. Like, where is the consumption now? 50% of all consumption is done by 10% of wealthy people. The others are starting to uprise. There seems to be real dissatisfaction. Um, how do we weaponize that dissatisfaction? Um, how do we make money out of the dissatisfaction? Um, and, uh, so I think they sat around and said, "Hey, by the way, the the killer, no one's having kids. They're going to extinction." Um, who's having the kids? The Africans, the Southeast Asians, and some of the Muslims in the Middle East. Are they going to be the ones that are going to buy our product in the future? Or are we going to be able to roll over that? Maybe we'll just give them 50-year mortgages rather than 30-year mortgages. Um, we, we'll figure out what to do with them, but we've got to make sure that we extract as much out of the government. Let's keep the debt going. Let's do fiscal dominance is the strategy, which is where the government spends to prop up the stock market by redistributing through things like the big beautiful bill, AI data center buildouts, um, military spending, um, bailouts. These are the mechanisms for using the government debt to extract as much as possible, push inflation.

Sorry.

Like, how does that mechanism extract?

Um, so you do a, if you create a, a pump and dump cycle, you end up with a bailout like we did in 2008, like we did with COVID, like we are right now. Um, and that leads to, um, needing to the Federal Reserve having to buy government bonds and increase the government debt.

So, I'll say it in my really simple way, and this is your chance to tell me that I'm crazy, which my audience, I'm sure, would love. Uh, the way that I see it is you can just boil it down to something very simple. The way that you extract is by, uh, running deficits so that you can money print. Money printing steals from everybody, but it gives back only to people that hold assets. And that's the funnel.

Just that simple.

Correct. Yes. Uh, absolutely. Um, and, and those in debt pay the interest that support the assets. The, those in debt are the asset of the.

Literally, I scream at the top of my lungs to get people to understand that. And, yeah, I get a lot of pushback, but alas, here we are.

Um, military budget. So that's that's FIC, um, military budget, um, engineer war, and now we're going from a trillion to a trillion and a half department of war. Peace through strength as a narrative.

No, that, that's creating war. Uh, that's manufacturing war. Uh, there's no defense in that, and they've finally returned it to the appropriate name, the Department of War. That's a way more appropriate name.

So why are we being honest now? That's an interesting question as well in itself. Um, technology, TICK, um, we need to spend the maximum amount. The entire growth of the entire US economy last year was AI.

Data centers, the whole infrastructure, everything around that. There would have been no growth if it wasn't for AI data centers.

Now, are you bringing that up, though, because that's one of the warning signs that the powers that be see that make them want to march towards a multipolar world? Because I still can't yet put together.

The, like, I, China's got to make sense, or you've got to tell me that why do you keep bringing up China? Has nothing to do with this. They're to the side. Like, cuz the mental model that I'm building of your worldview, which is what I'm trying to map, is that, okay, we've sucked America dry. Yeah, maybe there's some stuff at the edges that we can continue to monetize, but we've already maxed these guys out. They're starting to commit suicide, not very interesting, not having kids. Uh, who's the future? Now, there, I keep inserting China because I can't imagine you're going to say anybody else is going to be the multipolar. But China isn't having kids either. So I'm not, and if they have done something to protect themselves from the influence of the MIC, FIC, and TICK, uh, they seem like the least likely place you'd want to swing this all to. So what am I missing?

Yeah. So that's how fiscal dominance works. MIC, FIC, TICK, they get all their stimulus to their stock market value by getting government to spend it. You know, you had a big beautiful bill, which covered all of it. Um, so now you're trying to say, right, uh, we still have an incredible stock market, the most liquid stock market in the world. The government that's taking on the most amount of debt in the world, the most liquid bond market in the world. Um, but things are breaking at the international level. Um, people aren't buying our treasuries. Central banks aren't buying our treasuries. They're buying gold. Gold's become the world reserve asset. Um, the constructs that made the dollar the world reserve currency, the petrodollar, the eurodollar, and the Japan carry trades, which we can go in later. Let's, let's break them. Um, but why, why are they doing that? Why are they doing that managed transition? Um, well, imagine if you've got your MIC, FIC, and TICK. The TICK is essentially data centers, AI chips, all of the stuff that they've built. The MIC is all of this military technology and everything that we've, um, built, intelligence. Uh, and the FIC is financialization and securitization. Um, China now has an independent system that we need to integrate with. Now, the reason we built up China and put it in the World Trade Organization is cuz we wanted cheap labor and cheap manufacturing cuz it makes us more money. Doesn't matter what America wants. It's we need, we, the stock market gets more revenue out of having a cheap labor force and a manufacturing base that's highly, highly efficient. Um, and a currency that's devalued. So, everything is cheaper. Our dollars are going up in value. We get more Chinese yuan. We get cheaper, cheaper, more revenue, more profit, more revenue, more profit. Um, and so China was built for that. Um, and you can, you know, you can look back at the agreements, and that was a great deal for them. They built out this, uh, this manufacturing base, and they said to companies like Apple, they said, uh, why don't you just put your factory here, but if you're putting your factory here, you have to play by Chinese rules. And Apple said, okay. Um, so it's Chinese factories with Chinese people with Chinese rules and Chinese capital controls. Um, and we get to build our own one, Huawei, and we get to utilize anything. And Tesla, why don't you do the same? And the company said, "Yeah, sure. We don't care about America. Uh, we care. We're we're global in nature. Um, if we get to work with the Chinese market and we get to get the, the cheaper manufacturing base and the currency arbitrage, um, and the cheap labor, then yeah, we'll build there." Um, and so they did. And so, you know, China built this insulated system that FIC couldn't penetrate. There's no way of penetrating it. And so if they maximize profits by having a manufacturing base in China, and there's only a few populations that are actually having children, then what is the Chinese model? The Chinese model was the opposite of the American model. It was, um, we want to grow, uh, countries so that they can buy our products. And so we want them more wealthy. We don't want them just for their resources. We obviously do want their rare earth minerals. We do want their resources. But where are the consumption markets? We need wealthy populations in Africa. We need wealthy populations in the Middle East. We need wealthy populations in Southeast Asia so that we can sell our products to them. They can get more wealthy, and they're still having children. With everyone else, we probably need to automate them. We probably need to do robotics, like, because they're just unproductive. Let's just take all their jobs. And China's going through the same thing. 250 million people, um, are going to go out of the work market, um, within China. So they built out this Belt and Road Initiative and started investing everywhere, selling all their US, some of their US treasuries, and investing it in countries so that they could build their infrastructure and increase their wealth. They did the reverse of the IMF. The IMF said, "You don't get anything, you have to give it to us, and we install a dictator."

So they're basically trying to plant trees instead of eat the seeds.

Yes. Yeah. Um, now if you're America, and you're thinking, right, we are still redot, our stock market is redot, our capital markets are redot, but there's serious problems in the population, like serious problems. Then you think about, well, what about the tactics that we used abroad? Why don't we just bring them home? Why don't we just do our own color revolutions? Why don't we just build our own police and surveillance state? There's 2 million people in prison in America. That's more than any country in the world. And it's all privatized. The deport, the, the deporting industry, uh, they get paid a dividend. They get paid for every single deportation, every single incarceration. I know people that went to America, uh, and they were just driven around from prison to prison, um, because they're just trying to delay them actually seeing the judge of why they shouldn't be deported. And every time they go from one prison to the other, uh, there's a new check that comes from these government programs. And so there's all these rampant privatized prison, sentient, prison industry that's trying to skim from the government.

Absolutely. The, the, they expose the Somalia one, but they don't expose the ones that everyone else is doing that's happening absolutely everywhere.

Um, okay. So we, we sort of keep bouncing back and forth between two different things that I really want to, um, make sure that we move forward with the question that's burning in my mind. So the things we keep bouncing back and forth between are further extraction from America, and then we've got a multipolar world sitting out there somewhere that the powers that be, MIC, FIC, TICK, uh, they're trying to move us towards. Um, I am still having a hard time. So I understand what China is doing, but if China is somewhat impervious, I still don't understand the incentive to leverage them in this new migration to a new world order. Why are they not trying to isolate China, push them out, stop them from doing all the Belt and Road Initiative? Like.

Yeah, I'll stop there.

Yeah. So if you're managing a transition, and you've got a MIC, FIC, and TICK in America, and a dysfunctional system that may one day, uh, create some regulatory environment or some uprising that takes away your power, you start to think about, why don't we use our resources and build a MIC, FIC, and TICK everywhere?

Yep.

And so they started doing that. Um, and so every war creates a new opportunity to negotiate a new MIC, FIC, and TICK in that region.

Do you think they want war with China to destabilize to MIC, FIC, TICK China?

Okay, so China's still sitting off to the side in your mind, just so I know if I keep pushing down this lane in your mind, does China have a role? Should I keep trying to understand how they bolt onto your worldview, or are they an anomaly and I should set them off to the side?

Uh, no, China is, um, you know, the manufacturing base of the world.

But are they like a necessary thing that the powers of be have to, like, ah, [ __ ] all right, whatever.

Yes, that's the, they, that's the right way of framing it.

Okay.

But we have to deal with them.

Yeah.

Got it. But we're always looking like, hey, Iran, like, we're going to MIC, TICK you.

Yes.

Like, that's the play there. And then we've got Israel, MIC, FIC, TICKing Palestine. I mean, the, the model that, what, what gets rebuilt in Gaza is the model that ideally MIC, FIC, TICK would like to build globally.

Okay.

That's the globally. So we're going to have to blow up a lot of other places.

Yeah.

Because Palestine's small as hell.

Yeah.

So Iran, that's good size. 93 million-ish. Cool. Ton of rebuild. Love what's happening there. Where else? We destabilize the US. Rebuild us.

Yeah. So there's, there's another part to the this equation, which is that, um, FIC co-opted every country that managed to remain a degree of sovereign, sovereign to keep a bit of their sovereign power, and that is every, if you look at, if you go in ChatGPT and ask for the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world.

Mhm.

Those are the countries that managed to keep their resources, negotiate with MIC, FIC, and TICK to bribe them as a mafia protection racket. Like, you get a military base here, just leave us alone.

Um.

I mean, we're basically talking about GCC, right? I mean, this.

We're talking about Singapore, we're talking about the Gulf countries, we're talking about China, uh, we're talking about Norway in the case of Europe. Um, if you look at the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world, they played the game where they managed to just put themselves in a situation somehow, and in Saudi, was assassinations and all sorts, and, and the group that created 9/11 and all sorts. I don't want to go down those rabbit holes. Um, but they managed to play the game where they got to keep the resources and feed a sovereign wealth fund. And those sovereign wealth funds got co-opted by FIC, where they gave them co-investment in every single deal. And so when you look at any of the deals, we're about to do the, um, SpaceX API, uh, sorry, IPO, um, the SpaceX IPO. If you look at the entire history of Elon, it was FIC, DARPA, intelligence funding, military funding, and sovereign wealth funds. And so if you're a sovereign wealth fund, you, the, the original construct of what propped up America, we've missed a whole load of monetary history, but we, we got to the petrodollar in the end. That was about making sure that you were buying US debt, but now they're buying US equity. And remember, debt, equity, two different products. Equity means voting rights and control. Uh, debt means, um, you know, you're creating artificial demand for for dollars, um, and you're in, you're creating demand for the government to go deeper into debt in the Ponzi scheme. They stopped buying debt and bonds and they started buying equity. And so now you've got influence, you've got subordination, and this block, I would call it. If you look across the financial industrial complex controls the entire West, Europe, UK, America, Australia, Canada, um, all of the, the collective West where there was neoliberal opening up markets, um, floated currencies, stock markets, bond markets. Um, then you've got the sovereign wealth funds that nationalized their resources and then built a, a defense mechanism called a sovereign wealth fund. They negotiated with FIC, and then you've got this one system called China, which is a, a siloed ward garden with capital controls, currency controls. Um, and, uh, if you know, you've got to integrate with China, which is the manufacturing base. America, the consumption is just the wealthy, eventually the wealthy will leave, just like they did in the UK, and you can see the operations to drain the UK. That was another one we could go through. Um, but in the end, you want to set up a MIC and TICK and you charge fees off all the alternative parallel financial systems. Um, and you charge fees integrating into.

The Chinese system. Um, and you extract, you asset strip the West for everything you can. Um, now you'd want to do that while America is still very, very powerful in terms of its stocks. You'd want to manage a capital outflow. So, if you look at many ETFs, we're outperforming the S&P in terms of commodity countries, energy countries. Same with the currencies as well. Um, but you'd want to negotiate into that while you're still very strong. And so, you need that timeframe to utilize, like, all of the assets. And that's why they're going around.

If you look at the meeting, very symbolic, there was Trump, who represents all of the executives of the shareholder classes, meeting with Xi Jinping. Um, and you can go through each one of those executives and you can see how they're integrating into a multipolar framework. Um, and that's what's happening in the world today, as I see it. Um, and what did we get an announcement today? I think just right now, uh, or the other day, you know, Putin met with Xi Jinping and here's 40 deals that moves us towards a multipolar framework after meeting Trump. But Trump wasn't negotiating for America. Trump was negotiating for the Fick, Mick, and Tick. Okay.

So, we have a fly in the ointment in the name of China that is actually causing a different kind of negotiation than they, the Mcfigantic, would normally do, where they would just find the next target. They would go in, be like, "Cool, we're going to destabilize, take over, extract all the resources." They can't do that with China. Um, nonetheless, they understand that they have to somehow integrate with China. And so the multipolar world is less, "Oh, it's time for a multipolar world." And it's like, well, this is just what this moment in history has brought us. China has crawled its way out from under a hundred years of humiliation. We've gotten more or less what we're going to get out of America because it's starting to show signs of breaking down. In our last moments of strength, we want to play our hand to create an alliance with China such that we're able to take advantage of the Belt and Road initiatives and things that they've done around the world. But we still have this looming, like, these guys don't know how to stop doing a good thing. So they're going to keep playing the game of destabilizing and extracting. Iran is the hot thing.

Now, you said earlier, if you follow the money, you can see where the wars are going. So, let's say I'm China and I'm watching this play out, but I'm aware of your mental model, or maybe I just believe it. So, I'm looking at the world and I'm saying, "Hm, where is this going next? What are they going to try to destabilize?" It isn't me. I'm too big. I'm too strong. I've made myself impervious. I see them [ __ ] around with Venezuela. I see them making a move on Iran. What am I thinking? Am I like, "I've got to put an end to this [ __ ] ASAP because clearly Venezuela and Iran matter to me?" And so, am I going to make sure that Iran gets restabilized? Am I going to say, "Okay, whatever. Iran's already gone. I need to protect insert thing here." Like, how would they be viewing this moment?

There's one more important piece, which is the energy piece, um, that I think we need to cover, and then hopefully we can answer that question. Uh, under the Trump administration, one, America became somewhat energy independent, or, um, they didn't need the Middle East to the extent they needed before. They still needed Mexico and Canada, uh, for like diesel and various other, um, essential things. Um, but they didn't need the Middle East anymore. And so the Middle East had this whole construct of subordination that was set up to different degrees in every single country. But where were, who was buying all the energy and all the oil and all the LNG? And remember, we have this radical change that AI moves us from less dependency on oil and more dependency on LG and electricity. China was buying it all. And so your sovereign wealth fund is buying US equities, no longer lending to the US government, but all the money is coming from China, or the vast majority of the money is coming from China. China now has influence over you, and you have influence over Fick. That changes power dynamics. So now you've got Fick, rather than in the ideal world, they'd like to dominate the entire world, but it, it didn't scale, it didn't reach that phase. And so once America became energy independent, now, um, you know, the Gulf is saying, "Well, all the money is coming from China. Like, what are we doing here? Let's just buy America. Let's just buy all their assets, but let's not lend them anymore. That ain't working well for us." Um, and, uh, if I were China, I would do exactly what China did. I'd normalize between Iran and Saudi Arabia. I'd lean into the Russian relationship. Um, I'd build out an infrastructure across Africa, across Central and South America, um, across the Middle East. Um, and, uh, exactly as they did. Um, and we need something that resets the world order.

>> What's that something?

>> The closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

>> Because it's going to allow them to do what?

>> It creates an energy crisis simultaneously. It reprices 50 commodities. It, it flattens out the, the small business, uh, the people that were on the, the, the [ __ ] brink of bankruptcy, the middle class. Keep that closed. Um, and who benefits? Fick, Mick, Tick, sovereign wealth funds that are selling commodities at higher prices. Um, and China that is getting all the, you look, you look, you look across Trump too. I, I look at the four main policies he did. So, first thing he did, the big beautiful bill.

>> Mhm.

>> Which was a stimulus check for Mick, Fick, and Tick. Then he did, um, uh, Doge, Department of Government Efficiency. Anybody that understands currency knows that you can't pay down the national debt. That's a Great Depression. You can't pay down the debt. The dollar is debt. Paying down the debt is, is saying, "End of dollar, you know, end of the world as we know it today." So, why did they do that? Well, it was a data collection exercise for Tick, and that data ended up in XAI and Palantir and, um, you know, uh, you know, on a false pretense that they're going to try and pay down the debt or handle the deficit. One, one important thing to understand is that having world reserve currency means you have to do what America does. You have to always spend more than you bring in in tax, and you have to always export debt, and you always have to have a trade deficit. That's the rule of being world reserve currency. If you paid, if that changes, you stop becoming world reserve currency, um, and you become a regional power, as it were. Um, so he started doing that, and what was the mechanism for doing that? Tariff, tariff, renegotiated every relationship, drew everyone to BRICS. Wealth transfer, BlackRock got the, you know, contracts, um, assets under administration goes up, wealth concentrates upwards again. Um, small to medium-sized business in America paid the tax because you're an import country, so the importer pays the tariff. Um, then you get, uh, what else? Um, release of Epstein files. I think that severely damaged the reputation, um, of the American Empire.

>> Now, this felt like a parenthetical on why China wanted the, um, Strait of Hormuz closed. I'm still not sure how they benefit from that.

>> Yeah. Then you go to the event that changes the order, which is you create the Southeast Canal moment for America.

>> Just to prove these guys are [ __ ]. They can't, like, Mick is done. They can't do their thing. If you can no, if America, 'cause most people think in terms of nation-states rather than transnational capital.

>> Mhm.

>> If America can no longer protect and, um, they can't open the Strait, then you've reset every part of the post-World War II Bretton Woods system. And what did tariff policies do? It started breaking. What has Trump done? He's broken all the constructs of what propped up the dollar. The deep state, USAD, these are all where the covert operations happen.

>> Mhm.

>> Um, the Japan carry trade. Suddenly Japan starts increasing their interest rate for the first time. That breaks the mechanism which is funding 50% of the US government debt by the hedge funds. Um, Eurodollars, um, which is everyone creating dollars outside the system, transfers more power over to foreign central banks.

>> Okay. So, give us,

>> Dollar G.

>> Give us a thumbnail sketch of what the new world order is and who it's going to benefit.

>> Um, so America is controlled by Mick, Fick, Tick.

>> That's the status quo.

>> Correct. Um, it subordinates Europe further. I think it needs, you can probably squeeze another three years of war out of that. Get another trillion dollars out of the Brits and the Europeans. Um, you can probably get Russia's sanction money. Um, and you can keep that narrative going for maybe another three years. Um, send Europe into massive asset stripping. Um, you can, if Fick needs to retreat from the forever war in the Middle East, give it Europe, give it internal unrest in America and police and surveillance state, and give it Central and South America. Uh, you can go back and you can do your banana republic, um, wars again over there. So you have Venezuela, then you choke it, then you have Cuba's the new narrative, and you just keep going round in circles across, um, Europe, Central, and South America. You can dollarize them. You can test out your Palantir technology. Um, you can extract resources into the US stock market. So then we can extract all the value into stocks. Uh, increase the debt exponentially for as long as that will last. Weaken the dollar relative to other foreign currencies, which creates capital outflows. Um, then you take the rest of the world and you try and get one node in every block. So the GCC, the Gulf Cooperation Council, um, I'd say UAE is the Fick node. Um, in the case of China, um, Hong Kong is their gateway. Um, you know, that, that they've got more of their financial markets and many of the legacy drug trades and gold routes and all the money laundering stuff that happens in UAE and Hong Kong. Um, and then you get, um, ASEAN as a block, and you get BRICS as a block. Um, BRICS is basically China is the head of BRICS. Saudi is the head of the GCC, and Singapore and, uh, potentially, um, Indonesia, uh, is the head of the ASEAN block. And then we get a MCFI and Tick and as many as we can penetrate. Um, in the case of BRICS, let's penetrate India. In the case of GCC, let's penetrate, uh, UAE. Um, and then we build based upon actually regional stability in the Middle East for the first time in history. So my prediction is, we ain't going to World War II. Not a chance in hell.

>> There's no. This feels way more unstable to me.

>> Oh, it's way more stable. It's a much better world.

>> More stable?

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> How is it more stable when more people are fighting for trying to penetrate a given region?

>> Because I believe they're coordinating at the nation-state level. And this is a manufactured transition. Um, based on.

>> Wasn't it a manufactured transition to the US?

>> It was a manufactured and coordinated stripping of the US. So where does the increase in stability come from?

>> I think this is China's plan with the Gulf sovereign wealth funds with the Fick.

>> So China is running the setup of the new world order.

>> Yes. China negotiating with Fick. It's not correct to say one has all the power.

>> Okay. China and Fick are the powers, and each sovereign wealth fund has a degree of leverage because they control strategic, strategic choke points and resources.

>> And so with more people being able to push back, you're saying that there's less likely to be the, "Oh, we're just going to go destabilize this place. Oh, we're going to go destabilize this place." This is if you get outside of a Western paradigm. Um, if you've been on the wrong side of these bombs, and I've visited as many countries as I can and spoken to as many people. Uh, when Trump started deconstructing the US empire, um, this was the dream of the global South. This is the, the competition between taking capital from the IMF or the Gulf countries or China Belt and Road, um, and being able to fight back. And actually, for the first time in history, some countries in Africa, for the first time in a millennia, are actually able to say, um, "We'll, we're all actually going to hold out on our resources and we're going to play you off against each other. And if you want to invest in our country, you need to employ our people and build the factory here, and we'll sell you the finished product."

>> And people having the power and ability to stand up, that creates a more stable world.

>> Yeah. They're able to play the, there's, there's, there's competition for access to capital. You can go to the Belt and Road Initiative, you can go to the Gulf sovereign wealth funds, or you can go to the IMF model. And everyone knows what happens when you go to the IMF.

>> You know.

>> Humor me. What happens?

>> Uh, you end up with a dictator. You end up with the media destroying the reputation of your country. And that dictator is bribed to take the resources and send them back to Western countries for their consumption, debt-based economy with no benefit to the population. And you, and if you don't comply, you get assassinated. Or you get regime changed, or you get called a brutal dictator, Gaddafi-like. Do you, we could go round and round. Saddam Hussein was a, was a US ally, then the, then he tried to, um, actually use his resources and price a current, uh, price his currency in a, and price oil in a different currency. Now he's the enemy. Gaddafi tried to create a pan-African currency backed by gold. That's when you need to be wiped out. That's when suddenly, um, Assad, if he's not complying, needs to be given by MI6 chemical weapons so that we can manufacture a narrative and make it look like you were blowing up the chemical weapons. Like the boot of the Western Empire is being lifted. Uh, so for the rest of the, for many parts of the world, this is the best thing that ever happened to them. Like, this is their opportunity. This is multipolarity. This is competition. This is markets, not monopolies. Like everything that America said it was, but then didn't do because Fick took over, is what the rest of the world wants to see happen. And they couldn't do it, um, until there was competition to this, uh, Mick, Fick, and Tick construct.

>> Okay. So, um, I mean, obviously, wild for people that are hearing this for the first time. It is, I think for a lot of people, going to be very eye-opening. Um, one thing that you said early is that you can exit the system, and you did. And for you, that was Bitcoin. Um, why is Bitcoin the off-ramp? And for people that are like the populace, the masses, what is your advice for how to navigate this transition to an actual new world order? How do they do it?

Well, >> yeah, I think the first thing to realize is the polit and people push back against this and it creates a journey of people deciding whether they agree or disagree. There's no political solution in the West. There's no democracy. It's all a lie. Um, the lobby with the controls and it's run by the government is a distraction. The left versus the right is a complete distraction. It's designed to get you to buy into a system that will never fix itself, and you'll be eternally distracted forever. Uh, they put people like, you know, the Thomas Massie comes along, and you get new hope, and then they, the APAC lobby take it. You'll be eternally distracted, um, in a paradigm. The, the, the manufactured civil unrest is a construct that's being deliberately done to make Muslims hate Jews and Jews to hate Christians and blacks to hate whites and, um, countries, China to hate America. Um, religious tensions, racial tensions, um, political tensions, Democrats, Republicans, divide and conquer was always the strategy. Now it's, you know, and it's always been done on, on home as well, at home. So once you come to that realization that there is no political system, you realize that there's two types of people and a third type of person that they don't want. They don't mind you having freedom of speech and no money and deep in debt. You can winge about the system. You can say what you want about Jeffrey Epstein. You can talk about how corrupt, um, some of the trades are by Biden and Trump. Please don't think I got Trump derangement syndrome. If Biden was in charge, I'd be doing the same exercise. I have been doing it. You know, I'm just doing it because Trump is here right now. So, you know, that's another defense mechanism. Um, they don't mind you having freedom of speech as long as you have no power and you're subordinate to the Fick. You can keep saying what you want, nothing's going to happen. Um, or they want you in the system. You know, that's where you are in their leverage networks, in their subordination structure, um, in access to debt capital markets, or a public company, or a VC-funded business, or any of these, um, things, or a public company, you know, then you, you can't talk. You have fiduciary duties to shareholders. You have subordination structures that mean your life can be impacted if you can't pay your debt, you know. Um, they, they don't mind people being in the system because they know that you can't talk about it. You're just part of the theater. You're part of the WWE game. You can't say what you want because your power and your wealth depends upon it. And so they like people co-opted into the system. What they don't like is wealthy people with no debt, with a business that is not venture-funded, um, that has assets that sit outside the system and are incredibly wealthy and can say whatever they want on a podcast. That's what they don't like.

>> So there, those are very rare. And my mission was to, uh, work to see how many of those we could produce. And that's what drove me to Bitcoin. Um, and so, you know, I, I, I realized that there is a way of storing value without a central bank. Um, owning money without a bank and spending it without government permission. Now, I have to follow the law still in my country. So pick the right jurisdiction. They don't like people that, those jurisdictions exist because people want to escape. And so, um, for me, um, and it's a spectrum, but becoming a more sovereign person, a more sovereign, um, company, and using jurisdiction or arbitrage is how you win the game. And the more people that do that, the more people that can use their wealth to co-opt the Fick, to buy the Fick, to build the decentralized technology that disrupts the, the Tick, and to create an environment where regional stability is better than destruction, which is the Mick's model. And so right now, you're watching new defense contracts being constructed everywhere because it's more profitable than destroying it. And why? Because the Gulf countries and China built enough wealth to co-opt the Fick and influence the system and get control mechanisms within it. So to me, there's two ways in which people can, um, take this, and I don't judge. Um, my choice was quite extreme and quite rare, which is I decided to exit everything, jurisdictional arbitrage, wealth arbitrage, own wealth in, in, you know, things you can self-custody, whether it's gold or Bitcoin, but no debt, you know, no interest. I try to do everything the opposite, build wealth and then buy houses, um, rather than actually leverage debt in order to control houses for, you know, under Fick's terms. Um, the, the more sovereign you can become, and it's a spectrum. It's a journey. Um, I think the, the biggest thing that people get wrong is perfectionism. They want to get it all right right away. I mean, no, it ain't going to happen. Like, this is just a bit, am I more sovereign today or less sovereign today? Is my decision more, am I supporting more evil or less evil? And I ask myself those questions every day. Is this purchase decision helping my local, you know, my local farmer, or is it helping some big, um, conglomerate that is wiping out the farmers? Is my investment supporting, um, a subordination structure, or is it supporting something that's more good? Um, and, and so there's a couple of ways you can go about this. You can either say, "I'm going to use the system for what it is, and I'm going to be that one person that's actually able to speak out against the system and do the difficult thing," which is speak against my vested interest. And there are wild cards. There are good people. There are people that, um, do that. You know, read a book like Confessions of an Economic Hitman, and you can find people that were involved in these control constructs and wars and spoke out against it and went against their own interest. Or you can just exit the system, boycott it, um, and become a loud voice, um, and using your money in order to try and change the things that you can control. And what I've noticed is that I think the way we win is decentralized technology versus centralized technology, and decentralized communities versus centralized communities. If you look at all of this, this multipolar world, and probably this one global government between China and the, the big Tick companies that we seem to be moving to with AI and social credit scores and central bank digital currencies, global in nature, um, there will always be pockets of decentralized communities. And so it really comes down to, what is my relationship with myself? Um, how am I with my family? And around my family are a bunch of neighbors. And at the end of the day, it's up to us. You know, that's the thing that impacts us. Um, are they going to break supply chains with my farmers? Well, I, I better support my farmer. You know what I mean? Because I don't want them gone. Um, and so it comes down to that, and I think that that, that, that is the battle. It's the system is the system. I think nothing stops this train, and there's no political solution. AI is AI. There's nothing that's going to stop that. So you need to lean into it, build as much as you can in the system as it is today. Um, and then be very conscious that your vote is your money on the micro level. And if more and more people do that, and by the way, once you realize that, you realize there is a way of breaking the system if we wanted, but they don't want you to know that.

>> What's the way?

>> Stop paying your mortgage and stop paying your rent on a global coordinated scale, the entire system breaks. And if you actually had coordinated unions of how to negotiate with power, but they don't want you to know that. They want you to think all I need to do is find the next Thomas Massie. All I need to do is find the next politician. And you will be bought into it. The more the longer you buy into it, the more you'll be distracted, um, from it. And so if you want to break the macro system, that's how to do it because that's the whole system. The system is debt. And the system is those assets, and you're in those assets. If you want to break the system, that's how it's done. But if we don't want to break the system, then we need decentralized communities with sovereign people, with sovereign businesses, with sovereign money, using jurisdiction or arbitrage, um, and playing the game as it is, because I think that there is a power structure that we can't change.

>> Fascinating and very clear. Um, the reason that I got introduced to you was a mutual friend of ours told me, uh, that you have a hypothesis about who Satoshi is. So, speaking of people that make a lot of noise, people that don't know, Satoshi is a pseudonym for the person that gave us Bitcoin. Um, so one by way of bonafides, you got into Bitcoin very, very early. Um, but I'd be very curious to know, um, who you think it is and why you would have been close enough to it to have a credible opinion.

>> I think a lot of people, um, know who Satoshi is. Um, so I was, uh, when I left investment banking, um, I tried to create a fractional reserve bank. So I did the try and change the system from within.

>> Was it a non-fractional reserve bank?

>> Yeah. Yeah. Um, did I say fractional reserve?

>> I think you did. Yeah. Thank you for that. Um.

>> Yeah, so look, uh, I left, um, the corporate in 2006. Um, and, um, I learned all these constructs from direct experience in in different areas of the investment bank. Um, I then left to try and think, okay, what's the political solution here? And I realized that all the politicians are controlled by lobbies and Fick. Um, so then I said, "Well, can I just create an alternative bank?" And so, um, my wife and I tried to create an alternative bank in England. Uh, we got a meeting with the Bank of England, um, and they said, "You got to deposit $16 million, uh, pound, sorry, to progress this plan. Uh, you're probably not the type of people we'd regulate," was the wording that they said. And you're gonna have to build it on top of another bank because we ain't giving you a banking license unless you build it on top of another bank. Um, and so I, I realized you can't change the banking system. Uh, it's just more technology integrated into the same. It's very protected at the, at the central banking level. Um, and, uh, yeah, somebody, um, invited me, and he said, uh, "I got a message on Facebook, a guy called Johnny Bitcoin in 2011, and said, 'Hey, I've sold my house. I've moved into a squat in an area in London called Old Street. And there's a bunch of developers that are working on this open-source project called Bitcoin. Why don't you come along and check it out?'" Um, and so, uh, I, I went to that, um, squat in London. I met one of the very first developers, a guy called Amir Taki. Um, and he invited me to speak at the first Bitcoin conference. I wrote a book, which was the first published book in the world to include Bitcoin. Um, and, uh, I went all in on investing in Bitcoin companies. So, um, then companies couldn't get financed, but we ended up investing in Coinbase, Kraken, Bitfinex, Circle, Robin Hood, Bitstamp, about 100 of the.

>> Biggest companies in the sector.

>> Um, and, um, but, uh, and I saw them all get subordinate to the Fick. Um, you know, they, Coinbase floated at a hundred billion dollars, completely subordinate to Fick. Like, you see them go through the structure, but at the roots of it, there was always the, the, the cypherpunk movement, that this was the ability to own your own money, spend your own money, and have a value that beats central banking debasement. Um, but yeah, um, I think the story of, um, Satoshi is, I do think it actually came from intelligence.

>> Really?

>> Yes.

>> Oh [ __ ].

>> Yes. Um, but something didn't go as it was meant to go. Um, so if you look at, um, the precursor to Bitcoin was DigiCash, uh, which was created by David Chaum. And David Chaum wanted to create, um, privacy transactions on top of banking, um, and he created the digital currency, but it was shut down because it was on top of banking infrastructure. Um, at that time, he didn't go to prison.

>> At that time.

>> Mhm. Uh, but he ended up a teacher at university in, in, um, Netherlands. And, um, for those that haven't figured out, university and college is another construct of Fick as well, to control the education system and funnel money into, um, you know, alternative, um, agendas and build the workers they need. Um, completely corrupted. Um, and, uh, two of his students were, um, someone called Len Sassaman, and there was a company set up in Netherlands that also, um, was connected to Hal Finney. Um, now today, both Len Sassaman and Hal Finney are dead. Um, but, uh, I think that Satoshi Nakamoto, um, under the intelligence op of David Chaum, who was, uh, we, the, the one that wrote the white paper was Len Sassaman, is my opinion. Um, and the first person that did the first Bitcoin transaction was Hal Finney. Now, if you look at the developer that they handed it over to, it was a guy called Gavin Andresen. Um, and you can, you can see, um, when Satoshi decided to leave the project, it was when Gavin Andresen said, "I'm going to make the CIA. Um, we've got a meeting with the CIA, and I'm going to tell them about how Bitcoin works." Um, Satoshi left the project at that point. This was also around the time when Julian Assange wanted to use it for WikiLeaks and we beat the financial blockade.

>> Um, and one month after that CIA meeting, um, Len Sassaman allegedly committed suicide. Um, and a bit later, uh, we were told that Hal Finney, um, has a critical illness and is dead. Um, and Len Sassaman meets all of the credentials and the time zone and all the different things. He did have social media posts where he was kind of saying, "Uh, yeah, I'm not sure about Bitcoin and that type of stuff." Um, but I think what Len Sassaman did was not what he was meant to do. Um, he open-sourced the project. I don't think it was meant to be open-sourced. I think this was meant to be a gateway drug for what we're having today, central bank digital currencies. And I've traced the entire history of Epstein's interaction, um, with different, uh, developers and compromised networks that he tried to infiltrate with Peter Thiel in 2011 and or and beyond.

>> To try to pull Bitcoin back into the fold.

>> Yes. Yeah. Uh, there were many ops, and I, I would almost like to do a whole podcast on those different ops in Bitcoin because I was there and I saw them all, and I saw what Brock Pierce tried to do.

>> Um.

>> What did Brock Pierce try to do?

>> Well, Brock Pierce, I think was, uh, Epstein's guy in the digital currency space. Um, and, um, he tried to persuade me that, um, Satoshi Nakamoto was Dr. Craig Wright. Um, who's the guy that recently got a year in prison, and I think, not sure if he had it for pretending to be.

>> Satoshi.

>> Um, and he ended up being an essential part of creating an alternative version of Bitcoin. Um, Brock Pierce also was the co-founder of a stablecoin called Tether. And Tether was later sold to a company called Bitfinex, that I had invested in. Um, and, um, that stablecoin Tether was the gateway drug for central bank digital currencies. And when Bitcoin went open-source, um, there were several attempts to create alternative versions and fork it off and confuse the community into going to a more centralized version of Bitcoin called Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision. Um, and I can trace back all the conversations and the developer that said that had all the credibility. Satoshi handed the key, you know, the development over to Gavin Andresen. It was Gavin Andresen that met with Dr. Craig Wright and said, "This guy's cryptographically proven to me that he is Satoshi."

>> And that was a lie. He hadn't.

>> Um, and, uh, I can go through all the different people like that led to these crypto market and VC funding. The crypto market, the stablecoin market, the central bank digital currency market is all a scop venture capital-funded, um, complete wealth extraction vehicle, um, complete degenerate gambling, ushering in a vital key by David Sachs, you know, who was introducing stablecoin policies and Genius Act and all the programmable money that turn stable coins into programmable, um, police and surveillance grids in the Bank Secrecy Act and Genius Act and Patriot Act and Clarity Act. Now, uh, they want you doing everything but using Bitcoin. And there were several operations, Operation Chokepoint 2.0, various other things, which we could go through all of them in a, in a different time if this is interest, um, interesting. There's too much to cover, um, you know, to take us to the stablecoin alternative crypto gambling world. Um, but Bitcoin in self-custody still exists where there's 25,000 nodes. There's a distributed supercomputer. In fact, interestingly, Iran is the largest sovereign, uh, Bitcoin miner in the world, powered by nuclear energy,

>> Which was always what this was about. It was never a nuclear weapon. And it was always nuclear energy. Everything's about energy.

>> Um, and we're resetting the world based upon energy right now. And what are they trying to do? They're trying to get you to own Bitcoin in a treasury company with Michael Saylor. They're trying to get you to own Bitcoin with BlackRock in an ETF. They're trying to get you to borrow against your Bitcoin through Cantor Fitzgerald and Howard Lutnick, connected to the Epstein network. Uh, they're trying to get you to not own Bitcoin, to own crypto, to use stablecoins, to use central bank digital currencies, to put it in a Wall Street wrapper, to put it in a debt wrapper, because the last thing they want is for you to own Bitcoin and self-custody. And in the end, you realize that all of this [ __ ] around it is just like the, it's to distract you around from the thing that actually, that actually makes a difference, that makes you sovereign, that allows you to escape the system, and has created a generation of incredibly wealthy people that have been able to remain sovereign. But, um, I think Satoshi Nakamoto was, um, Len Sassaman.

>> There it is. Simon Dixon. God damn. Like, this was incredible. Where can people follow along with you?

>> Um, so I, what I, what I tend to do is I got a channel on YouTube, Simon Dixon 21, I think it is. Um, and what I do is, as a commitment for myself, um, I spend about four hours every Friday where I go through everything that's happening in tech, Bitcoin, macroeconomics, and geopolitics and reinterpret through the lens of follow the money and how it's different from the media and what the politicians are saying. It's more for me. You can see that I, I, I got, you know, I do it as a discipline. Um, but people that want to listen to the four hours, I, I do it every single week. Um, and then I plug it into AI and get it to do five minutes, 15 minutes, and then I publish that all on my blog, simonixon.com. Um, and then real-time analysis, I'm on X at Simon Dixon Twitter. That's about all I can manage.

>> Fair enough. All right, boys and girls. If you have not already, be sure to subscribe. And until next time, my friends, be legendary. Take care. Peace. If you like this conversation, check out this episode to learn more. The, uh, thing with socialism, it's, it sounds obvious. It's like, hey, you've got one group of people who are billionaires and rising class and they can afford 10 houses and private jets, and it sounds so obvious that you would just take the money off them.