Hey, hey, welcome to the Bitcoin Matrix podcast. I'm your host, Cedric Youngelman.
Today's episode is brought to you by CrowdHealth. My family and I ditched Fiat Health insurance for
this. Take back control. Go to joincrowdhealth.com and use code matrix for your first three months
at just $99 per month. Today's episode is also sponsored by MicroSeed. Level up your self-custody
with a micro seed kit. Stamp your seed phrase so tiny it's practically invisible to the human eye.
Grab yours at micro seed dot IO with code matrix for a discount. In this episode, I sit down with
David Collum, Cornell professor, legendary year in review author, and one of the sharpest economic
minds out there. We tear into why his 2015 bubble warnings weren't wrong just early engines on fire,
yet the fix is climbing higher. Dave exposes deep fakes, media manipulation, and a reality
you can't trust. After 45 years of nonstop gains, we're stuck in a complacency bubble.
Society's completely unprepared. Dave's 17-year year-in-review streak? Zero regrets. Zero cringes.
Strap in for raw truth on corruption, fake jobs, market insanity, and why keeping your head on a
swivel has never mattered more. Thank you for tuning in. Please like, subscribe, drop a five-star
review and share your favorite episodes. Please support the show directly on Fountain for early
ad-free access. Hit up thebitcoinmatrix.com for the newsletter Dope Merchandise and to connect
with me directly. Thank you for listening. Your support keeps the Bitcoin Matrix independent.
Your support means the world to me and helps keep the Bitcoin matrix independent.
Please check out our sponsors.
I only partner with Bitcoin aligned builders whose tools I personally use and trust.
When you back them, you back the Bitcoin matrix.
And thank you.
I appreciate you all.
And now let's enter the Bitcoin matrix with my good friend, Dave Colum.
What is real?
How do you define freedom?
You can't jump into cash.
Cash is trash.
What do you do?
You get out.
Welcome back to the Bitcoin Matrix for the 9,000th time.
How are you, Dave?
Do I hold your record?
Do I?
I might be close.
You might have some hodlers.
But you can swing a bat and hit a hodler.
Yeah, I think there's a couple guys with five or six and four, but no one has eight or nine now.
Yeah, you're sort of glutton for punishment by that model.
Well, you're prolific.
I love checking in with you and hearing what you think.
You know, tons of hot, great takes.
And, you know, I think in a lot of ways, we're both willing to have strong opinions held loosely if new information comes up.
Because that's all we've been doing is peeling back this layer.
I just read your 20, 25 year in review, error 404.
We're going to get into it, but I think we kind of have to start with 2026 and Davos and maybe Trump.
You know, Davos, I'm picking up shards of Davos.
I'm not keeping up well because I've had a full plate.
I'm teaching double O this semester because I didn't teach last semester.
And Davos is one of those topics where you could go bananas trying to understand it and getting not within, you know, a three iron of the truth.
And so I've been picking up some shards that are terrifying.
The ones that I've been picking up tell me that the Davos guys are up to no good, as usual.
I'm watching Andrew Ross Sorkin moderate, and it's pretty clear he's being groomed to be a Devosian,
you know, one of the Devosian leaders.
I just finished his book, 1929, and noticed several things.
The first is irrelevant.
He's got a funny eye.
You watch him in an interview.
He's got a lizard eye thing going.
He probably got hit in the eye when he was a kid or something.
I just noticed it, though.
Someone else in the comment section mentioned it.
I'm not convinced he wrote the book.
I'm not convinced.
It's a...
He won't...
I'm listening to the audiobook.
It sounds like him reading it.
Could be AI, but I'm not picking up the AI flavor,
although I can't rule it out.
But twice he mentioned McKay's classic, you know,
1848 treatment on manias and panics and shit.
and twice he refers to it not as McKay but as McCad.
Now either Andrew doesn't know what the hell he's talking about
because anyone in his world should know it's McKay not McCad
or some AI reader did it.
But here's the problem.
I was kind of entertained by it and a friend of mine said I bought it, I read it,
I thought it sucked.
I thought I was just rehashing a bunch of crap.
And I thought about it and I said, you know, you could take 10 books on 1929.
You take Galbraith and a handful of others.
send it through an AI program and say, write me a book.
And you get a new book.
It would just pull pieces from the different books and give you a new book.
I thought it was very banker-friendly.
It in no way criticized the Fed.
In no way criticized FDR.
Seemed to not give Hoover the credit I think he actually deserves.
Was critical of the Fed for popping the bubble.
It just, everything about it seemed not quite right.
And so I'm wondering if he didn't write it and he didn't read it in the audio.
And, you know, it's just the problem we face in this modern era.
In any event, Davos.
So there he is in Davos being groomed sort of like Ben Shapiro gets groomed for his thing, right?
You know, you get this feeling.
You can see these young leaders being brought up through the system.
I was listening to Larry Fink, and he had this excerpt where he talked about how everything,
Currency, everything.
Stocks, bonds, everything is to be brought on one gigantic blockchain.
And again, as I've said to you, the hodlers, who are usually pretty fiercely independent people,
have been cheering about the fact that guys like Larry Fink are embracing Bitcoin.
I go, I think he's going to run you down.
I think he's not your friend.
There's no way Larry Fink gives a shit about hodlers, right?
This is absolutely a guarantee.
and when he talks about the blockchain
he doesn't talk about Bitcoin. He's talking about
blockchain, right? So I think he's
going to try to absorb everything into this
blockchain and it's going to be like the Borg.
I really think it's going to be, I think it's
a potential
path to an
aristocracy and to an
authoritarian state. Yeah, I agree with
everything you just said. Yeah,
Andrew Ross Sarkin could hire someone for
$50,000 to write his book.
It could easily be ghostwritten,
even if it was handwritten. And I want to
read you know i just i spoke to aaron day i had him on the show and it's fascinating conversation
about technocracy and you wrote the moment you realize well there's a meme and then you write
we are now living in a technocracy that is changing too fast to metabolize
what futurist alvin toffler back in 1970 referred to as future shock we travel through life guided
by our metaphorical gps we no longer know the complete route to our destination only the next
turn, and it doesn't always work. My internal GPS device is now randomly rerouting me,
constantly flipping to new directions, causing dysfunction, the magnitude of which will become
clear shortly. Facts do not stay factual. The past is like a Tarantino film where history is
rewritten to control the narrative. I can no longer trust my lying eyes. As Brett Weinstein
so incisively noted, somebody has intentionally broken all of our fact-checking mechanisms.
And you even noted a quick anecdote about your son driving and they're getting directions and they end up at like three o'clock in the morning at like a pier.
And it's like you should take the next ferry out of here at 6 a.m. in March.
And it's like December.
Yeah, right.
It's just a broken, fragmented world.
And we've all had the experience where we actually go somewhere we know and for some reason we decide to use the GPS anyway so we get fucked up by it.
Right?
and and you can really get screwed up where you're driving down and it says take the next
right-hand turn on route such and such east and the next right-hand turn is such and such west
and you just don't know what to do at that point and yeah and sure and so um and i've been asking
i had lunch today with a guy and i i mentioned two things two historical events and i said they
botched it they seemed to overplay it but did they actually overplay it or did they overplay it on
purpose and that they're just they're screwing with us right so let's start with COVID right
so the COVID story you could you could argue that if you really wanted to get the public to
vaccinate and at the end to get the public to embrace the modern health care system then they
boned it because I you know if you're still an enthusiastic vaccine guy you know as I like to
say you need a CAT scan because because you don't know if they work you don't know what's in them
you don't know if they've changed like your your flu vaccine you say well I get it every year I go
do you know what's in it this year? They're not going to tell you that they've changed the
technology. For all you know, you're going to get an mRNA gene-altering vaccine for the flu this year.
So I personally will never get another vaccine, with the exception that if some goddamn pandemic
is ripping through the world and it is demonstrably, you know, 10% fatality, then they'll say,
okay, fuck it. You know, I got to do it. That might even be the plan. The next one might be,
and here's what it'll do is it'll take out all the anti-vaxxers because they won't vaccinate and
they'll all die. So the question is, did they overplay it? You know, they told kids to get it
and everyone knew kids didn't need to. They told pregnant women to get it. Everyone knows that a
pregnant woman never does anything like that. That's just insanity. They had heads of pediatric
society. I just read this. I had to reread all my urine reviews. They had heads of National
Pediatric Society saying the vaccine is safe for pregnant women five months into the vaccine.
And so I'm going, so we haven't even delivered the first COVID baby yet. And I read the Pfizer
papers. They had out of 33 pregnancies, they had 28 miscarriages, right? The Pfizer paper showed
that the vaccine was wreaking havoc. And those are Pfizer's notes. Those are Pfizer's results.
So they knew everything that was going wrong. And we knew everything. So as I read, to explain why
I read it.
Bob Moriarty's binding every year in a review I've written.
17 years.
It turns out it's going to be 17 volumes.
The most extraordinary thing that even baffles me is like the year 2021 in book form.
It's a smaller book.
It's not an 8.5 by 11, so the page is smaller and you fit in less on it.
2021 was 550 pages.
I write them in the fall.
I have no idea how I wrote that.
I can't even remember reliving that.
How do you write 550 pages in the fall?
William F. Buckley couldn't do that, for Christ's sake, right?
And I remember bleeding it into the January, maybe even February,
but it's still a crash course.
So I was reading what I wrote about pandemics,
what I wrote about January 6th, about Epstein,
about the shootings in Vegas.
And it was shocking to me what I had written, how much I'd forgotten about what I had written and how bad the situations were.
The vaccine story was horrific.
And the things they did to people who refused and the firing doctors who refused to sell the vaccine to their patients and stuff.
It was real authoritarianism.
And so the question is, did they overplay it or was that their goal?
I don't know.
What if there was an achieved goal we're not aware of?
Well, you mean like we're all going to die 15 years faster than we're supposed to?
Some people said that's already happened in some ways.
But also, let's say that didn't come to fruition.
Maybe that wasn't a goal.
Maybe there was just, and I'm riffing here, but batch testing.
I know.
So maybe everyone got a different batch and you have subtle differences.
I have no idea.
But, like, I can't see.
And maybe it was just a test run and it feels overplayed to us, but they're still measuring where.
Well, if you tell pregnant women to get a vaccine that's experimental, you're overplaying it.
I mean, wasn't 9-11 overplayed in the framework of this conversation we're having?
Well, yeah.
You know, and I think they achieved all their goals with the Patriot Act.
Well, so then they didn't overplay it is the key.
That's my...
I don't think...
If I was...
I'm trying to pontificate here.
I have the feeling that they're very happy with the way things are going.
And so their goal was not to make us be ignorant of what they did.
They don't care about that.
So the third one I'll mention is Israel's response to October 7th.
If their goal was to moral capital, which they presumed to have after October 7th,
and then use that to achieve their...
Their goals are obvious, right?
To squeegee the Gaza Strip and the West Bank and stuff free of Palestinians.
If they thought that the moral capital would allow them to do that, have no one bitch, they overplayed it.
But if their thought was, we don't care, 10 years from now, no one's going to remember,
and we're going to have those tracts of land all to ourselves,
and we're going to take a beating now, but long run, we're fine, then they didn't overplay it, right?
So all these issues in which they seem to do a shitty job really getting away with it,
you have to ask do they really care about really getting away with it Or did they just say fuck him we just going to mow them down Health insurance is broken I know it You know it So an open enrollment rolls around and all those health insurance companies start hoping
you'll just re-sign, eyes closed, for the same overpriced plan with confusing fine print.
It feels like they're betting on your inaction, but we deserve better than that.
That's why I started looking for something different for me and my family.
Something honest.
That's when I found CrowdHealth.
With CrowdHealth, it's not about profits. It's about people and community.
You get a team that helps negotiate your bills, access to low-cost prescriptions and lab tests,
and a list of doctors who don't treat you like a number.
And if something major happens, you cover the first $500.
Then the crowd steps in to help share the rest.
It feels real. It feels like taking care of your health the way it should be.
Simple, direct, and human.
Thousands of members already say CrowdHealth saved them tens of thousands of dollars over traditional insurance.
And with many subsidy programs ending and costs rising, there's never been a more important time to take charge of your health care.
So this open enrollment, don't sign because you're told to, sign because you choose to.
If you're ready to join a community that looks out for you, give CrowdHealth a try.
Join CrowdHealth to get started today for $99 for your first three months using code MATRIX at joincrowdhealth.com.
CrowdHealth is not insurance. Opt out. Take your power back. This is how we win.
Yeah, that's I mean, I think if you zoom out, I think most things are going to plan.
It seems like to me, it seems like, you know, going back to technocracy and the Aaron Day conversation I had with him.
So that goes back to the 1930s, too. That's a that's a that's right. But I think the point I want to make in recent times is that more happened on a technocratic front with, I think, Trump in office than ever would have happened if Harris won.
I think the speed of things went much faster with Larry Fink and the tokenization of the
it's I think stable coins will be mainstream and near 100% use for most things in America
within 18 months if not deposit tokens and maybe there will be you know a difference between where
you can get yield right I think I do think everything will be tokenized I think they're
to go what much further i think they're going to tokenize rainforest say which what for what
purpose here here's where we can uh say we're going to extract minerals and wealth from future
and you can monetize it and sell bonds and i think they're looking that's just inflation
yeah i think i don't think i don't i don't think you need and surveillance i think it's all of it
it it's surveillance i see no evidence i see no evidence that they need an excuse to add more
liquidity to the system they seem to be willing to do it at will so did so so so they talk about
it like we can use the you know we can use the uh you know u.s resources as collateral right that's
kind of what you're saying is use this collateral well i'm going more internationally but everywhere
so right in poor countries undeveloped countries third world nations they'll monetize
oh well they could sell it to us then sort of thing what i mean and they say the future value
and we can issue debt greenland put it on the on the on the blockchain and the fact that he's
talking about one blockchain that's an extremely scary thing uh to go to your point i think that
elon musk is in charge of rolling out the social credit score system i think these things are
moving very i mean i think the the the doge was it was a data harvesting operation uh i still have
this i think Hillary Clinton and again i'm not trying to pick sides i'm looking at this
objectively if someone on the left said we're bringing in someone besides Elon Musk but maybe
Bill Gates to harvest all the data the right would not have allowed that and then i think the
you know so i think they have this back and forth so during the four years of Biden Biden you know
has the they use him as a figurehead to be like oh well we had this mistake in Afghanistan
leaving and that's Biden he's an idiot and uh oh the border's a little looser and it's probably
actually statistically maybe even not more open or less open but you know it's a good narrative and
the right will sort of the left will support it because you know what I mean so I think they just
use it as a pendulum to go back and forth and I think right now it's sort of the technocratic uh
get everything as you fast as you can through the door with trump and vance and teal and musk
and hopefully they get reelected and biden and biden and biden well so biden opened the borders
well by the way so biden did operation choke point right so i'm saying they use biden to open the
borders trump now rails against it so you get a digital border all these things are a ying and a
yang that nothing is good for us and it's just used to whack them all both sides get them crazy
on both sides have a food fight and nothing good comes at it for us they create problems on both
sides create solutions on both sides that don't work that have opposite effects or different
effects than we you know we voted for them i would think that most trump supporters are very
unhappy right now i think there's some of us who have this ever so remote hope we're not
understanding it. So here's the case for, I can button down Greenland and Venezuela in a way that
I can live with. And that is, you look at Venezuela, it's not about drugs. There's no drugs in Venezuela.
They were not a drug campaign. You'd go after Colombia if you wanted to go after drugs, right?
As I said, you know, shooting cigar boats out of the water, those cigar boats hold enough drugs for
Hunter Biden's weekend, right? I mean, they're just not, they're just, it achieves nothing, right?
It's like, that'd be like drive-by shootings on guys selling nickel bags on the corners of the
street, right? I'm not even sure it's about the oil because we can buy it from them. It could be
defensive though. So let's say, let's say Venezuela's really about keeping the Chinese
dirty little paws off Venezuela, right? And the Chinese are using a softer touch, I'm told.
They're going into countries, countries where we go in and act like punk-ass bitches.
They go in and say, let us build you some schools.
Let us build you some highways.
They're financing real improvements to make it seem like, oh, they're our best buddies.
They're really helpful to us.
So they're using the soft-touch approach.
Now, so let us say optimistically, let's put the optimism meter to 11 and say Trump is doing something transformational.
What is he doing?
Well, it's possible that he's saying, look, we're going from a unipolar world, which I don't like at all.
The unipolar world sits wrong with me because I don't think we should have 150 air bases, military bases all over the world.
I think that's just crazy.
It is time to pull back, in my opinion.
And he's recognized that, and he's recognized we're going to have a multipolar world, and he's trying to get ahead of it.
And what's he trying to do?
Well, I think he's trying to say the Western Hemisphere is ours.
And if you say that, so he's saying let's have a smaller footprint, good.
and he's saying that small footprint includes controlling the Western Hemisphere.
Keep your paws off.
And I go, okay, I can kind of live with that thinking.
Greenland, you say, well, why should we get it?
And I go, well, why should Denmark have it?
Let's start with that.
How did Denmark get it?
Well, what is it that got Greenland in control?
It's not like a superpower, right?
It's just, you know, we're a superpower.
They're not.
It's like, it's a Western Hemisphere.
You know, and you can say, well, that's not fair.
And I go, tell me, when in history has humanity been fair?
William the Conqueror slaughtered people.
He starved people to death.
I'm still pissed at the Angles or the Saxons.
I'm not even sure which one to be pissed at.
And so Mao killed 80 million.
Stalin killed 40 million.
Since when do you think the peasants are going to get treated well in this world?
They never do.
We happened to grow up in a country where they were pretty good to us, all things considered.
There's still an elite.
there's still a ruling elite you know who who have really ultimate say over our well-being
and fortunately we were in a place where they said but we'll treat you well we'll make it worth your
your effort as opposed to starving us to death and things like that so in a multi-polar world
grabbing up the western hemisphere and saying okay we're taking everything you know it's it's
got a brutality to it but it's also represents a gigantic step towards pulling back which i'm
happy with. Do you believe the official story that we went in, got Maduro with Iron Man soldiers?
No. Okay. And then do you believe that Macron and Trump actually text each other over Greenland
and territory? My Greenland narrative, which no one should take seriously, this is not a story
that I've done. I can give you a much more coherent story about Charlie Kirk than Greenland.
Let's put it that way. My Greenland story is that you could think of it as Denmark, Greenland, being analogous to the Louisiana Purchase.
So the French had the Louisiana Territory. They knew they were going to lose it. They said, fuck it, let's sell it before they just take it.
So Trump's saying, look, you can sell it, you can take it, we're going to take it one way or the other.
Somehow, you know, we're going to end up with it. We'll pay you.
Now, there's 57,000 Greenlanders. You offer to pay each of them a million dollars.
And if someone said, well, why do Greenlanders want a million dollars?
I go, would you please rethink that thought just briefly?
You know, maybe they'd like a new fishing boat.
Maybe they'd need a new roof on that shack of theirs up in Greenland.
Maybe they'd like to have a better snowmobile.
They'll figure out what to do with a million dollars apiece, right?
And so the Greenlanders could be bought off.
Denmark, you say, okay, we'll send you a little money just to shut you up, but you don't matter.
You're irrelevant. You're a bunch of happy cloggers.
I think Maduro knew we were coming.
It's even arguable that he was happy to get extracted
because it's better than getting a knife up your ass like Gaddafi.
Being an ex-dictator is a very precarious job description.
Ex-dictators die.
So when he realized that the game was over,
he probably said, come and get me.
I do not want to die the kind of death that Gaddafi died or that Saddam died.
So for all we know, he's going to be treated well.
I don't know. He cut some deal. It was way too civilized. It was so perfect.
He was so happy. Thumbs up.
Get me out of here. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Get me out of here because they're going to kill me if you don't.
The story that were planted after.
I can't think the tangent there that we don't have to go down is the Bush family, the CIA,
Jeb Bush going there to set up the banking infrastructure in the 2000s, the CIA,
and some drug running, I would think, coming out of it as well.
I know it's minuscule compared to Colombia.
Well, if you're really fighting drugs, it's irrelevant.
Yeah, I agree with that.
I got to ask them, what's the Charlie Kirk story that you put a beat on?
Well, Charlie Kirk, ultimately, you make me bet a million bucks, you got to bet on Israel having whacked him.
I mean, everything says it wasn't Tyler Robinson.
Here's my prediction.
If I am correct, Tyler Robinson will not go to court.
They will plea it out.
I was on a Zoom call with Bobby Kennedy one day, and he started talking about the Sirhan Sirhan conviction for killing his father.
And he said, I ignored it for years.
And so I said, Bobby, you've got to look at it.
He said, there is no chance they could have convicted Sirhan Sirhan in a court of law.
No chance.
There was nothing that pointed to him being the killer.
Nothing.
And I think Tyler Robinson, they'll say, look, we're going to do this hard way or easy way.
You know, we're going to.
And, you know, he should, if he did it, he should be executed.
and that's not going to happen, but he's not going to go to court
because they're not going to go through the discovery process
because they'll get annihilated.
Everything points to an alternative story.
The problem is that as soon as it's not Tyler,
then you say, well, who's up then? Who is it then?
You've got to go straight to Israel.
Now, it might not be Israel,
but they're certainly the ones with motive, with skill,
you know with you know all these stories of you know Charlie turning against Israel for the last
few months and you know personal calls from Netanyahu and Charlie saying fuck off I don't
want anything to do with you and next thing you know boom he's shot right did they overplay that
one right I don't know maybe the goal was to say by the way if you go against this we're going to
shoot you and Charlie was still you know when you hang people in the town squares to get the people
who are still alive to behave.
It's not the dead guy.
It's not to get the dead guy.
It's to get the people in the town square
getting a note to self.
Don't do that.
So maybe Charlie Kirk was note to self.
Don't turn against Israel.
And what do you think of Trump?
And is he against the deep state or?
And the reason I asked that in that way,
I mean, do you think Trump actually looks at,
like, I get what you're saying about,
it's a very plausible theory.
Trump's trying to align the cards
in the Western hemisphere.
get our ducks in a row going to a multipolar world.
We want to protect sort of the bring maybe manufacturing back home.
Maybe home is the greater Americas in this.
Maybe manufacturing goes to the global south and maybe we have minerals in Greenland
and this is to protect ourselves and it's like the Louisiana Purchase.
But do you really think it's him looking at the board?
Do you really think it's him deciding that like we could pull off the operation
or we should negotiate with Maduro now to bring him in?
As opposed to who?
As opposed to a team behind him that is really-
Well it the same thing though It like the CEO of Merck gets credit for what happened If Merck does well the CEO of Merck gets a pay raise right Right right Because well I mean none of this is popular
Well, I should say none of this.
In fact, what you've got to pray is that it's not just Trump making these calls.
Yeah, I mean, but I don't think it is on either side or ever has been.
No, he has advisors.
Whether he actually listens to them is more in doubt than any previous president, right?
He is the one who you could imagine just saying, screw off, I don't care, more than anyone else.
But Biden was not in control at all.
Biden scares me much more than Trump.
Here's the analogy.
You think it's a different, I could see sort of inter-power, intra-party power struggles.
If you think there's a uniparty and they just have two teams for show and kayfabe and the art of the theater of politics, in my opinion.
And they might actually fight over different things because there's benefits to being the one that's currently in power.
And there's benefits, I think, to being the antagonistic party.
I think it's almost in American politics gone to the point where the more powerful party is the one that's out of power.
They all agree.
They all agree they just want to be reelected.
And they all want to print money.
I mean, they don't tend to differ.
They all make a fortune staying in power.
They're all making a fortune staying in power.
So if you're on the losing team, you're still making a fortune.
Yeah, so I'm saying it's a great fight to have, and it doesn't have to be real between them or personal.
They're all benefiting along the way, is my thinking.
And I don't think it matters to the real power structure that stays the whole time who's in charge.
I think they orchestrate that dance of who's in charge and control the candidates that get in.
And so they control, you know, they win either way every time.
Well, so here's an example of how that might play out in unbelievably brutal, straightforward terms.
If you subscribe to the notion that the 2020 election was rigged, which I do, I think the data is very strong.
You have to then point to, you know, Dominion, Smartmatic, which ultimately traces to a company in Beijing.
Prior to that, elections were run by Diebold.
The Smartmatic CEO or the Dominion CEO was on the Biden transition team.
So you go, that's really tasteless looking, right?
I just don't think the guy who runs the voting machine should be on a transition team for the guy who won.
Prior to that was Diebold, and the Diebold CEO was on the Bush transition team.
One could argue that they passed the ability to rig the election from one team to the other.
And there's WikiLeaks talking about rigging swing states and stuff.
So it's quite possible that the teams are just kind of agreeing,
look, I'll tell you what, you don't do this and we'll give you the presidency next time.
You know, that sort of thing.
I think it's like the Harlem Globetrotters and the Washington Senators.
Yeah, is it the Senators or the Generals?
The Generals, yeah.
I don't know which one it is.
I've been saying Generals, but I could have been wrong.
I forget.
Well, I think, yeah, either way, but it's the same point.
Yeah, same idea.
It's just a game.
Yeah, and the owners own both teams and people go and, you know,
nine out of ten fans uh want to see the harlem globetrotters do their thing and win and some
people are one out of ten are rooting for the the underdogs to spoil it for the first time in history
you know and yeah yeah yeah those people are really dreaming yeah yeah and there are probably
some uh who some some uh basketball players who dream of being on the globetrotters and some who
dream of being on the villain right it's just you know so general mcgregor doug mcgregor
paraphrase someone, I think. I think it came well before him, but he said,
he said every four years we have an election and we elect John McCain. And that pretty much says
it, right? You elect Obama, you give him the Nobel Prize eight days into his presidency,
and then he bombs seven Muslim countries. Liberal Democrats are not supposed to do that in theory.
In practice, of course they'll do that because they're not really making the calls.
When it comes to Bitcoin, the rules are simple.
Run your own node, hold your own keys, and protect your seed phrase.
That's where MicroSeed comes in.
Unlike bulky backups, MicroSeed is stamped onto a tiny steel washer.
Fireproof, waterproof, and so small you can carry it anywhere or hide it in plain sight.
Go to MicroSeed.io and use the code MATRIX for a discount on your order.
I think this is what I mean I grew up very liberal progressive when I think it was very
anti-government right and and sort of some of the things that they took on weren't things like
you know I believe in this but it's like I believe others should have the right to do it and
government shouldn't tell you what you can and can't do and it was a little hippie more hippie
dippy but a lot more freedom oriented and screw the state and go do your thing so I viewed it the
I used to phrase that as I used to say the liberals, it was like a husband-wife team where the mom's in charge of making sure the kids stay alive and dad's in charge of making sure that mom doesn't turn them into a couple of pussies, right?
And I think the liberals suffered from sort of an exaggerated utopianism and the conservatives suffered from sort of a bloated pragmatism.
So the conservatives seemed like sort of overly hard-ass, the liberals seemed overly clueless.
And so the two combined produce offspring that somehow function, right?
And so I don't know where we're at now.
What I do know is that if I were a Democrat, I'd be mad, especially if I hated Trump.
I don't hate Trump. He baffles me, but I don't hate him.
And I notice this to be true, too.
When the election was over and they had been told, vote for first Biden and then Harris,
because you're going for anything but Trump.
And then he won anyways.
And they're going, my party just totally destroyed itself.
We just put up two complete morons.
Instead of putting up a viable, here's, could Trump have beat a Gabbard Kennedy ticket?
They had it right in their fingertips.
They had it right there.
That's why I think it was all by design, because RFK ran as a Republican.
Eventually.
He could have been a Democrat.
Right.
And I think he's more, he would have had more of his family's backing.
Yeah.
Which is immense.
Like, none of these decisions made sense unless you were trying to craft it towards Trump.
And it all crystallized for me with Butler.
I said, wow, the deep state wants you to think that he's somehow the enemy of the deep state.
And I think that the whole thinking there, my calculus was the Trump supporters and the people who are on the fringe
just do not have the energy again for another Trump four years
and the conversation at Thanksgiving.
But they really wanted Trump in.
And that's why I think they – and I'm not even going to say the worst candidate.
I don't think Harris was a good candidate.
But I think that the way they rolled the whole thing with Biden jumping out last minute
after the primaries looking incredibly not democratic in form and function
is by design to kind of get the other side to be like, enough, enough.
You know, and all this is to and I don't think any of the voting is real, but I think they have to have the voting close enough so that it's believable.
Even it's the same thing.
You can root for Hulk Hogan.
You don't need control of 98 senators.
You need control of two to four and get the vote close enough that one or two or three senators is enough to push it any direction.
And you see it every time there's this big moment around a vote, like a water cooler moment or everyone's kind of like, what is the Senate going to do?
there's always the last minute senator who comes in and votes completely opposite of everything
they were voted in for and what their party stands for. Surprise, surprise. Right. Right.
They even put up a lot of different bills with a lot of different things in it that none of which
will pass, but gives everybody something where they can say, I voted for this and the opposing
team voted it down. Now, where you can really see this during, what was it? Which hearings were they?
was it the Kavanaugh?
One of the hearings they had,
I don't think it was Kavanaugh.
I think it was the,
who was that fucking guy
who was on the same lacrosse team
with John Kerry,
who was the guy who ran the hearings
for years?
It begins with a B, whatever.
They had these extensive hearings
and in the morning,
you would say,
holy shit,
they beat the crap out of Trump.
I mean, they just got him,
they got him, they got him.
And then in the afternoon,
they'd recant
and they'd look like total assholes.
the same guys and so when the news came cnn could show clips from the morning and facts could show
clips from the afternoon and you you'd go this is just to give news clips just to give just to give
talking points sometimes some of these events that any event you know that becomes national
conversation i think is sus and you say okay that probably happens every day in america but this
one's brought to the forefront but each time it happens and you again without taking sides you
You could point to sort of Kavanaugh, the kid was a cow written house, right?
These events where they're just perfect Rorschach tests and to go into the echo chambers and
where one side feels emphatic 100% that their side's in the right.
And I think this is by design.
These in a way that like either they happen every day or some of them might even be like
AI.
I have no idea, but they release them when that they want that conversation to go in
a certain direction.
And then when I divide us on a certain topic or I don't know if it's as far as like,
like, oh, there's a news event and they want to distract us.
It seems that way sometimes.
It just could be flood the zone.
So here's what I'll tell you is I think for the last decade at least,
for quite a while, the really absurd shit looked like it was coming from the left to me.
So it seemed to me one of the reasons I'm having trouble now is because of the shift in the politics.
I'm not quite adjusting to it very quickly.
But things like the left supported no voter ID, right?
Just shoot them.
Yeah, no, some of these are just like, I agree.
They're just insanity.
They're just, the left, this left seemed to be behind the open borders.
By the way, the open borders aren't just open borders.
We've had Mexicans getting across the border all the time.
What was the problem?
There was no problem.
They came over, they picked grapes, they picked vegetables, they mowed lawns, they shipped money back.
It was part of the economy.
What happened in Biden's administration is we set up NGOs, we shipped people across the border from all over the world.
And the guys who went down to the Darien Gap, guys like Michael Yan or Brett Weinstein and Chris Martinson and guys I know went down to the Darien Gap and looked at what was going on.
There were multiple, multiple organizations pulling these guys over the border.
So there was a Chinese immigration.
And you'd talk to the Chinese guys.
They were standoffish.
They didn't want anything to do with you.
They were well-dressed.
They were ready for crossing the border.
They were very standoffish.
This was China.
planting undocumented people inside the United States.
For whatever purpose, heaven only knows, but it's not a good one.
And yet they're shipping people from North Africa.
These are not people we should be recruiting to the United States.
It's not Ellis Island. This is a very different world.
And we were using NGOs and taxpayer dollars to fly them here,
to get them up from South America.
These guys didn't come from 2,000 miles away on foot to get to the border.
And so Mayorkas should be, you know, tried in front of a jury of his peers and hung, right?
I mean, it was totally treasonous what he did.
But there was this whole system set up to do it.
And I don't remember the Republicans calling out the NGOs.
If I were king of the world, the first thing I'd do is I'd get rid of every NGO.
I'd say anything that's an NGO, just get rid of it.
And then start over and say, OK, now we will let you make your case for why you should be brought back.
But I'd vaporize them.
OK, so this is sort of this like maybe I get where you're saying, because I think propaganda, I think, is is the crutch of all this.
I think and I think propaganda really found a way to succeed at a greater level on the left because you could take victimhood and turn it into being a hero.
You can.
Well, they did the George Floyd.
both parties did the January 6th thing.
So the January 6th thing, throwing those guys in jail.
When I had to reread that section, I was vibrating.
I was so mad. I was livid.
The things that, putting, you know, a thousand guys in prison
before it happened on January 6th is just,
I would find all the people who were signed off on that
and throw them all in prison.
I think it was treasonous what they did.
I think the fact that there were 274 FBI agents in there after they claimed to not know how many or they claimed,
the fact that out of 80 cops who were on the front line, four committed suicide, what the hell is that all about, right?
There were Ukrainian nationals in the crowd.
Everything was wrong with January 6th, and we were putting grandmothers in prison.
It was just a horrible, horrible thing.
And there's plenty of evidence that the crowd was not going to storm the Capitol building,
But then they stirred it. They stirred it. The whole thing was, it was the left, or should we say, whatever team that was, smelled blitz.
And so they had the line let them through, and then they threw a screen pass right over their head. Right over their heads.
And so, but the problem is they used Joe Sixpacks. Only 18% of the guys arrested were jobless.
I mean, these were people who were there because they were really unhappy.
Putin nailed it.
Putin said I saw 500 guys go to the Capitol building because they had a grievance right So I could be convinced I got this wrong but I don think I do I think and both parties signed off on it
Both parties signed off on it.
The Republicans didn't say boo.
They didn't scream about it, right?
The guys in prison didn't have access to their lawyers.
They didn't have access to the videotapes.
videotapes. Find the guys who've denied him access and throw them in fucking jail for the
rest of their fucking lives. I'm just that mad about that, right? One of those, if you ever do
that again, we're not going to have a trial next time. We're going to line you up against a wall
and shoot you. I want the government to fear the people again. I'm really mad at this point.
Yeah. So I think in terms of, just to address the NGO thing, maybe the Trump regime gets rid
of NGOs because there's propaganda.
I don't think they did.
I think it just morphs into new things or it's left alone.
But there's a story that they did.
But it's sort of like they don't get rid of the Epsteins and Ditties of the world.
They just move that to X and monitoring your email and monitoring your video that they
have on you and your browsing history in all different ways.
They don't need people movers anymore.
They don't need the human people at the NGOs anymore, but they're still going to have that
function.
So I think what I mean by that is the left can create a problem or be the champions of a thing that, you know, humanity is like, well, that's not good.
The right comes in and be like, we're going to not let that happen.
But then they do it 10 times worse in a different way.
In this case, let's say it goes from analog to digital.
The left is like, we're going to do an analog.
And the right is like, that's horrible.
We're going to do X, Y, Z analog.
X, Y, Z is horrible.
Left is still analog.
Fighting the ice.
And ice is also analog, right?
You, by the way, can't get rid of 10 million illegals by arming a bunch of cops and manually carrying them across the border.
That's about as inefficient as imaginable.
There's got to be a better way.
And this is another one where I saw a stat a few months ago that ICE is not actually deporting more people per day.
It seems to be less people per day.
And this reminds me of sort of the children at cages on the border where the news made that an issue during one administration.
It didn't go away, but the story went away.
But I think about, you know, ICE going into schools and you hear these stories about masked men without papers going into anywhere.
But I think about school.
Grabbing up people, yeah.
Grabbing up people.
And I think about sort of just the parameters here.
And I don't think that's great.
sounds horrible like how do we know that these are real ice how do we you know so i just see sort
of like uh again i'm not saying it's also profoundly inefficient and profoundly inefficient
so you say is that done on purpose meaning so you get the team who's like hey we would like to close
the border that sounds logical and rational that's what any sort of you know father's job is to secure
the perimeter lock all the doors before we go to sleep close the windows these things make sense
That's what a leader does.
But, you know, we're going to do it in such an inhumane way.
We got 20 South, 20 North Africans sitting in our living room after we locked the doors.
So, you know, I'll read a tweet from Health Ranger.
Infowars is now reporting that insider sources say Trump will declare the Insurrection Act next week.
This is right on schedule.
Trump will declare it.
The radical left will amp up their uprising.
ICE will be told to start shooting people even more who resist.
This will by design result in a domestic civil war situation brewing hot across 20 U.S. cities by the summer months, at which point Trump will deploy the U.S. military to oversee the midterm elections, citing safety concerns for the public.
This will stop the Democrats from cheating.
And if this takes place, as I expect now, this the Dems, should I read more?
The Dems will do horribly in the election.
I don't I don't necessarily agree with all this, but I could see how people on either side get very.
and maybe this is i'm not saying this i've been thinking this could happen and at any time
every summer so uh but it you know you wonder uh the way things are being done the news that's
being reported on that you don't even know it's true either we don't even know it's true right
we don't know how it's being reported is true we don't know the quantity the scale the materiality
all these questions but i could see how it's very divisive i could see how some things i'm hearing
on the true are true would be very upsetting to me i know here you know where i live the local
school board voted to affirm ice's rights to go into public schools here and you know but what's
weird about that is that's already this like it's already uh legal for law enforcement to go into
the schools so they didn't need to vote for that they need to vote but the vote was uh in response
to one of the five board members going to an anti-ice rally.
So this seems personal and political.
And then the community came out en masse and said,
well, you know, now that we're voting, we'd like to say no.
The school board voted three to two yes.
You know, these are affecting people's lives.
There are different ways to go about everything.
You know, even getting, like, let's say,
I don't think the Maduro story is true,
but I think the official narrative as it stands
has to be frightening for other sovereign nations who aren't really sovereign because they don't
really have the military might. You know, if you believe this story, like really no one's sovereign
but us. Right. Everybody is a U.S. protector. Right. And that's what I don't like. I mean,
it's not sustainable. That's right. The moral dilemmas, because if you have the money printer,
then you have to solve every problem with the money. But I want to read another, you know,
coinkydink so do you know on on september 10th when charlie kirk was assassinated the that nick
shirley was on the show which show which um was on the charlie kirk show that same day that same
day nick shirley and um that is a little weird isn't it on a randomly selected clip so now and
and they happen to do nick shirley is not just some kid who started knocking on doors there's
no question i don't believe that i think it's astro not even close oh he's he is a he's part
of the machine they wanted us to talk about that and i don't know why and it's divisive
or actually i don't think that one's been as divisive so what i find also interesting about
it so he's on the show now the i watched this he's on the show i'd never heard of nick shirley
before the the somali daycare thing but he's on the charlie kirk show on september 10th so he
he couldn't go to Utah where he wanted to be to live stream it.
And according to him, again, I don't know if that's real,
if that was his real intent or desire, but that's what he said.
And he's on the Charlie Kirk show with the leader dude of Turning Point USA.
I'm sorry, I don't know his name.
So the conversation was around gun violence in Chicago.
So Nick Shirley produced video of him going into what looked like the toughest neighborhood.
I'll use the word toughest neighborhood in Chicago, just hanging out with really tough people in Chicago with weapons brashed and flashed.
He asked them all sorts of like interesting questions.
And it's about guns and gun violence.
And that, I think, is an interesting connection.
And then and there was another connection on the next day.
He had he I think he got sick and then he had to go somewhere.
But so I don't think.
Yeah. And so then someone wrote, wow, this seems super sus and really points to the whole idea that Nick Shirley is a massive psyop at best.
or something far more nefarious
where Charlie Kirk was absolutely living in the Truman Show.
And that's from the Patriot Voice on Twitter.
So I thought that was...
I think Charlie was...
I think that Truman Show is a really good analogy.
Charlie Kirk might have been the only guy
who didn't know what was going on.
Yeah, but he comes across...
He comes across to me as, you know, articulate,
which doesn't mean that you're incredibly smart.
You can be fed...
If he's only a high school grad...
i don't believe that because he sounded way more intelligent so that gets to the next question so i
think for example erica kirk is fake from head to toe it's dreams yeah extraordinarily fake i
actually think she's probably an mk ultra product from age five sort of thing i think i think she was
one of those brainwashed yeah right and she's got all the traits as far as i'm concerned she's got
the blank stare she's got the fraudulent personality she's got the she's got the complete lack of real
emotion. There's so many suspect things like her doing videos for the CIA and her mother being
in deep state and dating shows and Israel and the fact that she was... Mike Ferris used to see Charlie
in the grocery store. He never saw him with his kids or his wife. Never. The videos I've seen of
Charlie with his children seem really odd to me. Well, the weirdest one is where his daughter
supposedly is in the front seat and they're driving up to a TPUSA function and she's like
three years old. Do you have kids? Do you have kids, right? Yeah. A three-year-old kid, just barely
lingual. And she's playing with her toys or something and then she gets distracted and she
notices they're pulling up to a TPUSA function and she starts saying, Charlie Kirk, Charlie Kirk.
And I'm going, that's not what you call your father. There's no pictures of Charlie Kirk's
kids where you can see their face. I think they were just props. I agree. I think I'm not convinced
they were even married.
The question I have is,
okay, so I'm going to just bet a paycheck
that Erica was all part of some master plan.
She probably knew he was going to get whacked.
I'm guessing Ben Shapiro knew he was going to get whacked
his last interview.
Maybe he's not whacked.
We don't know.
I don't know why you do that.
It didn't look real to me.
I don't know.
It looked pretty authentic to me.
But the no blood between him and the car,
the way they handle him.
If you hit the spinal cord, it stops pumping.
All the cleanup around, I get that screams.
But it's, yeah, I don't think that too much.
No, it was certainly, the whole story was suspect from head to toe.
I mean, there's things all over that.
There's nothing, that story holds together about as well as the Las Vegas shootings.
I mean, it really doesn't hold together at all.
That doesn't mean real bullets didn't, or real people didn't, I'm not trying to say that.
Same thing with Butler.
But the way they threw him in the back of a car, you don't do that.
You treat him right there in the spot, Mikey McCoy walking off into the distance, looking
at what happened, talking on his phone, everything's wrong with the story.
Erica Kirk, before the shooting, sitting there on a video with Charlie and they're taking
questions from the internet and Charlie says, oh here's an easy one, they'd been married
four years and he said, what year were you married and Erica Kirk couldn't remember?
Would your wife ever forget what year you were married?
Now as I like to say, my wife's been trying to suppress that memory but she still hasn't
succeeded.
Four years in, your wife knew what year you got married.
And she sits there and she was asked, and she goes, 2021?
And I'm going, she doesn't remember when she got married.
So I think the whole thing.
Now, the question is, was Charlie Kirkaprop?
And I haven't gotten good data, but the other day I picked up something from Jimmy Dore
where they made some reference to Charlie having a handler in a context that sounded like he was himself a created figure.
not just a guy. He was not oblivious. One argument is they took him and they knew what to do with him
and stuff like that. Some mysteriously wealthy guy took him under his wing. There's a lot of
suspect things having to do with Charlie's career. But Charlie himself might have been a created
entity. And I don't mean just created like, of course, everyone's created boy bands, you name it.
He might have been...
TPSA was registered in 2002.
Charlie Kirk was one years old or something.
I mean, it was really ridiculously long before he came on the scene.
I just don't know, and his background is very vague.
You don't find out his family was not at the memorial service.
Her family was not at the memorial service.
No one's seen any of them, right?
They're all off radar.
They're about as visible as John Cullen, let's put it that way.
And so the whole thing just smells from head to toe, just from head to toe.
And Erica Kirk, by the way, if they really thought they were going to insert Erica, they blew it.
There's no chance she can do that job now.
She is so damaged, right?
She is just tainted material, and they don't have replacements, so TPUSA is going to just, it'll turn into something else, but it's not going to, they're never going to rekindle that flame.
My hypothesis is that they didn't overplay their hand.
and they executed this the way they wanted.
But I think personally, she overplayed her hand in her role.
I don't think she...
I think she leaned into the role a little too hard,
and the public just revolted for obvious reasons.
Well, but her handlers did that.
I mean, they put her there.
Oh, I think putting her there was the plan.
I think she was supposed to usurp and take all the power,
and this was all the plan.
And I think the way she carried her...
She just wasn't a good actor.
I don't think she was a good enough actor for the role,
and she blew it by smiling too much or celebrating too much
or doing that kind of thing.
Not being able to cry, not being able to show emotion,
not being able to...
The right emotion for the context of the role at that time.
And I think she was so excited to leap forward
into the next part of the role of being the leader and the CEO and all of it.
I think she's just a terribly shitty actress
who was asked to do an Academy Award quality acting job.
Well, then Charlie Kirk can't be real,
because, I mean, he couldn't have been honeypotted by, I mean, that bad of an actress.
I mean, you'd have to think that he, like, some of the stuff that's coming up now,
that was he not aware of any of her life before they met?
because that's that's the part i don't know they don't really uh jive on paper when they supposedly
met in israel they supposedly met in israel sure but usually choir church boys look for girls who
are not on dating shows we're hanging out in church all day right right and you know usually
she got kicked out of romania for trafficking children that wasn't very good for her image
right that sort of thing all of this i mean wouldn't really go well if he did any sort of
like real digging so it's hard to imagine but here's what i've been watching i've been waiting
for candace owen to say something that tells me charlie was fake well do you think can't wait
because i i don't i think she's another sort of chaos agent well she might be but she sure as hell
is calling out the guys who shot charlie or distracting us by calling out people who didn't
you know give you know we don't know how these things work well she's been battling israel pretty
hard. So if Israel whacked Charlie,
then she is calling out
that team. We can't be certain that Israel whacked
Charlie. But who did?
They're the number one candidate.
It's like they find the wife in the
garage in a puddle of blood.
I'll entertain the question.
And I'm not saying it's
the wrong answer, but we don't
know. And there's a non-zero chance that there's
some agency out there who could be
even cohorts with Israel.
Or wants to frame
Israel. Or wants to frame Israel. That's my
greater point that we just don't know that's like as we unravel the onion that's right that's right
what i found interesting it's just it's the propensity of these events now that the moment
i pick up my phone it's like i have nothing to do with charlie kirk and he was the first thing i saw
on my phone when i picked up that phone like within seconds of it actually happening in real
time i checked my phone a lot my my timeline but based on what my interests and all everything i'm
involved in my timeline that should have been maybe 10th thing i saw that day or like it shouldn't
And I saw the same thing with Butler.
And it happened to people around me.
Like, we all pick up our phone within moments, and we see the first thing.
So that means that they're using these algorithms.
So do you think he did not get shot in the ear?
I can't remember where you stand on Butler.
You don't think he actually got shot in the ear?
You think that was fake?
I think somehow these moments, and I look back at 9-11,
I think a lot about 9-11 and just how limited views there were of the towers
and how it just seemed very controlled in retrospect what got out.
Well, 9-11, though, the towers did come down.
Something did hit the Pentagon.
I agree, but we don't know if it was a direct energy weapon.
We don't know if it was two planes.
We don't know if it was a bomb.
A lot of guys don't know the Judy Wood plot, right?
The Judy Wood plot is—even the truthers hate the Judy Wood plot.
There's all sorts of plausible plots that are nothing like—
But the question is, do you think someone shot Trump in the ear or not is the question.
I don't.
Okay, so you think Trump reached up and cut his own ear?
Do you think he cut his own ear?
I think if a bullet grazed his head, he'd probably be on the ground crying like a little bitch.
I think he'd be scrambling.
His team wouldn't let him up.
I don't think the odds of that being the only rally that got covered when it seemed like the news was trying not to cover him.
It's like they play us.
They're like, we're not going to cover him.
Oh, they were all there.
They were all there.
They knew something was coming.
9-11 photographer who captured the moment of Bush.
I know.
Right?
Okay.
I mean, it's just, it's like a little high school play.
It's in Butler.
They get the lady to say something, the head of the FBI to be like,
we didn't think that was a slope we could be on.
It's regarded.
Did you see the two guys?
Did you see the slow-mo of the two guys sitting behind Trump and Butler?
Yeah, like three minutes.
They did this.
Yeah, none of it.
throats now i don't know if any of the videos are real or whatever but my point is with 9-11 going
back to is i 9-11 there was only three real networks right all they have to do is put in
three seconds of fake footage and that doesn't mean that everything that happens and that there's
not bombs in the building or planes but like they can fool us is what i'm trying to say what we see
is not real they want us to see it i'd be shocked if the planes hitting the pentagon weren't playing
I would actually be shocked if the towers were not planes.
I would be shocked if whatever hit the Pentagon was a plane.
I think the Pentagon was not a plane.
I think the towers were planes.
I don't think the story about United 93 is real.
Which one?
The guys rushing the cabin.
Oh, yeah.
No, that's totally fake, I think.
For one thing, how would you know?
I still can't drive down the road and keep my signal on my cell phone.
I have to pull over to talk on my cell phone.
I lose signal.
So these guys flying at 350 miles at 540 knots making phone calls to their loved ones is a total sack of crap.
In 2001, they're using flip-
People have been believing this.
It's like the moon landing call.
Yeah, I know.
Which, if you go back to the original footage, not only do they hand them the landline,
and he's like, oh, cool, this is the moon.
The very next thing is a commercial for AT&T, my bell.
We're getting played so hard.
And we're all going along.
And it's like we feel like, you know, I don't know.
So I have a friend who doesn't believe in conspiracy theories at all.
He's kind of like an amateur Michael Shermer.
And I finally said to him, I said, give me a conspiracy theory you believe.
Just give me one.
And he couldn't name one.
And I said, I said, men and women of wealth and power conspire every waking hour.
Every waking hour, these guys are scheming.
So your assumption that there's no conspiracy theories is absurd.
Let me also point out to the listener something very important, scientifically important.
Occam's razor does not say the simplest explanation is the most likely.
What I can tell you is if it said that, it would be nonsense.
The most simplest explanation is never the right one.
It is never the right one.
You look into anything, it gets more complicated just by looking at the details.
Occam's razor said you have to go with the simplest explanation consistent with the data.
What it also says is get more fucking data.
And so Occam's razor says you can't make up a complex story to explain something for which the data only gives you a simple story.
So if all you have is video of the planes hitting the towers, you can't make up a complicated story.
But if you start putting together some of the other information,
all of a sudden you go, oh, wait a minute, those towers fell at free-false speed.
Now the story gets more, now your model can get more elaborate.
Occam's razor doesn't say the simplest explanation is the correct one.
That is not ever what Occam's razor said.
He said you've got to go with the simplest that explains the data.
It doesn't mean it's right.
It just says you can't start adding shit for no reason.
But we've got plenty of reason to add shit, right?
That's the problem.
We've got plenty of data to show those stories are all whacked out.
I don't think there's a narrative out.
I think at this point, if you trust history, you're out of your mind.
Here's a statement I like to make.
Name me a country who hasn't lied to optimize their narrative.
You can't name one.
Every country will optimize their narrative, period.
So when it comes time to explain something, when it comes time to explain, you know, attack on Pearl Harbor, whatever,
we are going to write a story that is absolutely in our best interest. Daniel Ellsberg used to talk
about in his book Secrets, he talked about how they were in the basement. They had top security
clearance. And some guy would run down the basement and say, one of our planes got shot down over
Uzbekistan. You know, we need five reasons why it was there and what the hell happened.
We need them in 15 minutes. So these guys would crunch out these news stories. And then they'd
turn on the news that night and see which one they went with. They would just make them up.
And so, for example, there's no historical event that you can say that the official narrative
hasn't been optimized. So when you look at, say, Israel getting attacked on October 7th,
I can make a compelling case that there was a stand-down order using exclusively Israeli sources,
Times of Israel, things like that. It was easy. By the way, anyone who thinks that 800 Hamas could
run around Israel for eight hours and not get their asses kicked senseless is out of their mind.
One thing I have great faith is the Israelis can protect themselves. They don't blow shit like this.
They're good. And so if you'd asked me ahead of time, okay, they're going to drop 800 Hamas into
Israel, how long would they survive? I would have said, well, the guys coming in by paraglider
wouldn't be alive when they got to the ground. And within 10 minutes, they'd be mopped up.
Israel knows how to not let shit like that happen. Then all the articles talked about all the ways
that Israel boned it.
They didn't bone it.
The guy who moved the concert
close to the border
was the same guy
who pulled the troops
away from the border.
Same general.
And so, you know,
and so we do it too.
Everyone does this.
9-11.
We have our story, yeah.
The Gulf of Tonkin.
If you haven't read
about the USS Liberty,
holy shit,
what an awful story that is.
Remember the Maine,
Lusitania, Pearl Harbor.
They all have
their screwed up components.
Yep.
FDR neutered them.
Right.
Just everything has its story.
And they create the narrative that will best suit their needs.
And so if you think governments aren't lying to get the best possible narrative,
one thing I do not believe is I do not believe Hamas ran around Israel for eight hours.
I don't think they'd run around there for eight minutes.
And that is my faith in the Israelis to kick the shit out of them.
They're tough.
So why?
You go, well, because they wanted to take the Gaza Strip.
This is not hard.
why did we let 9-11 happen?
Because we wanted to move our military into the Middle East.
You say, well, how could they do something?
How could you let 3,000 people die?
And I go, these are the guys who dropped thousands to their death
on Omaha Beach and in Normandy.
And we lost millions of people over the years in wars.
If they believe we got to get to the Middle East,
and someone says, well, we're going to lose thousands of people,
if they can't say, fuck it, we got to do it,
they can't have that job.
Now, I disagree with letting people die in the towers to get to the Middle East.
I just can't agree with it.
But if that's your conclusion, that will get us to the Middle East where we have to be.
If you can't make that call, you need another job.
I mean, it radicalized me.
I was in New York around 9-11.
I don't believe the official story, but I know the buildings came down.
I know people who lost their lives.
It impacted all of us.
I was trapped in the city that day.
Yeah, and Howard Lutnick didn't go to work that day.
that's true and you know you look into the policies uh behind the towers and there's just a lot of
um the dancing israelis all of it um it's all the the trillion dollars being announced by rumsfield
that was lost no footage of the pentagon getting hit no footage of the pentagon getting hit um
shanksville no debris i remember you crash a plane there's body parts everywhere there's
There's luggage everywhere.
There's underwear in the trees, body parts in the trees.
It is an awful, awful mess.
And it was just a hole in the ground.
It's like they shot a missile and just blew a hole in the ground.
And there's a story about the ID they found on the street.
I mean.
Well, that was obviously just a make-up of bullshit story.
Let's say they were tracking them and then they blew it and they pulled out 9-11.
You'd make that story up fast.
I mean, the air was black because of the disintegration of everything that went in the air.
Well, that gets to the Judy Wood story.
That gets to the Judy Wood story about DEWs.
Well, I was down there.
You'd be walking.
I had actually special permission to go below 14th Street to help Bank of New York get overcharged by their auditor.
But, you know, we've got to help Bank of New York.
We're going to send people down there 24-7.
They have multiple locations.
We're going to go down to Wall Street, one wall.
and there were just, you'd go into the seventh floor
and floor to ceiling just stacks of books.
And this side is all Bank of New York.
That side is the custodian.
And you need to find every trade and match them.
And we don't care.
Just try to reconcile and match whatever you can by hand
and just bring as many bodies down here as possible.
And there'd be even conversations
with Bank of New York people
that we don't need that many people.
Well, you've already paid for it.
So it's not that altruistic,
but you'd be down there
And in five minutes of just being outside, like you'd be covered in black dust.
But what's also interesting is they found nothing recognizable in the rubber.
That's my point.
I mean, it was just.
They didn't find filing cabinets, by the way.
I don't care how many tons fall on a filing cabinet.
You'll still fall in the filing cabinet.
That thing's not going to vaporize.
Right.
And I would have.
Yeah, I agree that the pile wasn't as high as you would think.
And I knew firemen who were down there.
Well, I was talking to a guy at a Stansbury conference I spoke at,
and he was there, and he had cancer from head to toe because he worked there.
He was a first responder, and he was riddled with cancer.
Heaven only knows.
That could just be the dust, but heaven only knows.
My wife sent me one of those, because I don't know if the,
like it was like a link, like if you were down there, you should apply.
Because I mean, technically I was down there, but not for long.
Well, you're still with us, so.
And I think you're past the risk point.
Yeah, I was young and healthy.
I'm still young and healthy.
But so that was real.
But, you know, it made me very angry about, in the same way, like, you know, your country's out.
How long did it take you to figure out that there's something wrong with the story?
When did that happen?
Well I started digging into Osama bin Laden right away in Al When did I Oh man that a really good question Well it must have been Building 7 right It must have been one of those days where someone sent you a video of Building 7 and you go that just not right
That was me.
I had a physicist send me Building 7 and I watch it and I go, oh boy, that's a demo.
Yes, I don't know if that was in like 2005 or 2006.
I have no idea.
It probably took you a little while, didn't it?
It probably took you a little while.
I would think so.
I think I was in shock.
I mean, honestly, I didn't understand how to interpret it.
I didn't think about things like the way I'm thinking about the Charlie Kirk thing right away or the Butler thing.
Right.
But I was already like really into rabbit holes like Kennedy and Kennedy Jr.
So I was sort of predisposed to not believing the official story.
Oh, OK.
When you start looking at Osama bin Laden and on one hand, if you believe the official story, I'd be like, you know, this is really inspiring.
I mean, not what he did, but like that.
You could live in a cave.
And pull this off.
What?
You know, and I'm like, and then the more you think about it, they're like, no, that's just not possible.
Well, this is like the Somali daycare centers where you're going.
Yeah.
If you and I went over to Germany and they said scam the German government, we wouldn't know where to start.
Yeah.
Yes.
Some Somali guys are figuring out how to scam billions.
No, they're just front men.
Right.
And take the chance.
They're getting paid 15 bucks an hour.
They're going to pay $15 an hour for being there.
I think also analyzing Bush's response and the delay.
Well, the other thing was, I read Secretary of the Treasury O'Neill's book as soon as he left the Bush administration
and then wrote a book and said, I've got to find out what the hell is going on inside the White House.
So I read O'Neill's book, which is the first book coming out of the administration.
He said the first cabinet meeting, they're talking about getting into a war with Iraq.
Yes.
The first cabinet meeting.
so they were looking to pick a fight with the rock period i was walking through rockefeller center
when the very first news flash so i'm you know rockefeller center's nbc this is like october
something i think in 2001 maybe 2002 the anthrax and across the screen it's like live from rockefeller
center anthrac on the seventh floor and my co-worker she's like are we you know should we
be worried and i was like well it's too late if we're you know if we're in a bad situation here
and so to your point though like history most of it's fake but we're still living through history
though but it's but it's always fake and one of the problems we have now is my point we don't even
have hard copy now so you can go back and change the digital copy what do you think of ai uh i think
we're gonna wish we hadn't invented it and do you think uh and what does that mean i mean i i i think
it'll be used for surveillance and uh people won't think for themselves but i think that's the worst
part you think that's the worst of it well no i mean i think it'll be authoritarian yeah i think
it'll be very orwellian um one of the things that troubles me is is that we're going to raise an
entire generation who doesn't know how to write doesn't know how to solve problems because they're
just going to put it into ai now it could be like when i was a freshman and calculators were just
hitting the street they were like 300 bucks a piece in freshman chem they wouldn't let us use
a calculator because they were too expensive so only rich kids had them and stuff like that
But we thought we'd all go brain dead and somehow we survived Calculator.
But the problem now is I get emails from students that are clearly written by AI.
I worry that, you know, AI is writing software to run the world.
And I worry that we're going to reach a point where there's no human who knows how to intervene.
See, I think that I don't think any of that is possible with what they're doing in the sense that
I think they're in control here and they're 40, 50 years ahead of us.
So like I think about it, like the way I think about the Internet is DARPA created the Internet.
Way long ago.
And so they're not like we'll wait till we have the routers, but it's more like we'll seed it and then we'll start Oracle and we'll build routers.
And we will get the public to invest in the public company that will scale the routers that we know we're going to need.
We know how this is going to go.
It's not.
No, when I say we won't have control over it, what I mean is...
Do you think there's a possibility we could lose control over AI?
I don't mean in the sense of our everyday lives.
So you walk in the grocery store and your credit card either works or does,
and everything's a binary decision.
I think we're going to increasingly run into situations
where you can never get a human to help you.
And a human is often needed to say, let me solve this problem for you.
Let me push the bullshit aside.
I see the problem you're having.
Let me fix this for you.
I think that will disappear.
So I order takeout from this Thai restaurant.
It seems like it really works, but then it fucks up.
And I don't know how to undo the fuck up.
So if everything is AI, there will be no way for humans to intervene to help you with a problem that isn't formulaic.
But I think that's not the worst of it.
It might not be the worst of it, but it really bothers me.
But I'm really curious.
Do you think that this is something that they're in a lab with today and they're trying to
figure out what's going to be next and they don't know?
Or is it like they've gamed out and played out?
They're way ahead of us.
I agree they're way ahead of us.
Yeah.
And I think any sort of experimentation is sort of what they let us know.
And I don't think it's real experimentation in the background in terms of maybe they have
to scale it or different things.
But we're also going to be brain dead.
You know, when I write scientific papers, the project's not done until I write the paper, right?
But writing is thinking, right?
And so you are really going to be a putty head.
You know, we've raised a generation who've been staring at their iPhones too long already.
And now what's going to happen is they're going to get to Cornell,
and they're not going to learn to write because they can just AI everything.
They're not going to be able to learn how to do the math or whatever
because they can just put it into a computer and do the math.
You say, okay, you're just an old man.
You don't understand that the world moves forward.
But I go, but you still need an intellectual operating system to think.
And the great ideas, maybe AI is going to be the source of the great ideas,
but the great inspiration seems to me they're going to be some guy thinking outside the box.
If he doesn't have an operating system to work with,
imagine Shakespeare if he had to use Google to look up vocabulary.
But I think this is a feature.
I think they want a world where only...
Well, that may be, but that's authoritarianism.
Yeah, yeah.
I think that's what they want.
And I think this is all in line with that.
And I think that they're very comfortable with the way things are progressing.
And I don't think they have true fear of it getting out of their control, is my guess and my hunch.
Well, I think they're also fools.
Let's take a related fool.
Because I don't think they want anything out of their control.
Releasing organisms into the wild.
They've created a dire wolf.
A dire wolf is a wolf that went extinct about 12,000 years ago.
It's 20% bigger. It's more of an apex predator.
And they've taken wolves, and they've done a mapping of the wolf and the dire wolf,
and they basically have reinserted the dire wolf genes into wolves.
So now they have dire wolves in an enclosure.
We've seen Jurassic Park. This does not end well.
Well, this is like Lyme disease.
Lyme disease out of Lyme, Connecticut, 20 miles from some bioweapons lab off the coast of Lyme, Connecticut, right?
So we released a bunch of mosquitoes that supposedly the females are sterile.
Right.
But the gene is carried by the males or something.
So what happens is I did the math.
I can't remember the details, but I concluded that that specific species of mosquito will go extinct.
It will spread and it will go extinct the way it's designed,
unless it can escape, unless it can mutate its way back into non-extinct.
The question becomes who gave them the right to do this?
Let's say Bill Gates is seething the clouds with shit for some fucking reason, right?
I don't know what I think of chemtrails.
I sure as hell can't dismiss them.
My brother says a number of times outside there's no cloud, and all of a sudden he's getting rained on.
It just doesn't even make sense.
So they talk about putting a blanket over the earth to solve the climate change problem, which is a completely fake problem.
It's going to be unbelievable.
The climate change story is going to go away for two reasons.
One is that it's in the way of the AI problem.
So you can't have climate change and zero energy and zero carbon shit
while trying to get enough energy to run AI.
So they're going to have to go,
Tio, the climate change thing was bullshit.
Don't worry about it.
We need the energy to do AI.
The second reason it's going to go away
is because the solar cycles are about to go into a cold spell.
Solar cycles are so predictable, it's like night and day.
The physicists can tell you what the solar behavior is going to do
when it oscillates, and there's oscillations within oscillations,
and they're very, very predictable.
And all the solar physicists say we're about to get colder than shit,
so we're not going to be bitching about how hot it is.
And the whole climate change narrative is just crappy science.
It is horribly crappy science.
And there's lying.
And the reason why, why would they lie?
Because there's $150 trillion that have been promised,
and who doesn't want a piece of that?
I hate all these square miles of solar panels.
You think that's worse than releasing CO2 into the air?
You think that's better than releasing CO2 into the air?
You see, they don't know how to get rid of the rotors from the windmills, which are horrifically stupid.
The windmills are horrifically stupid.
I asked a security analyst, not an equity security analyst, but a national security analyst,
about energy, about the alternative energies.
I said, are any of these alternative energies energy positive?
Cradle to grave analogy, energy positive.
And he gave me a name.
It was either something Ray or Way or something like that.
I've got it written down.
And he said, so-and-so did the best work.
He says, zero, no chance.
No chance.
Cradle to grave, you don't make energy.
We've got to go to nukes.
And guess what?
We're going to nukes.
We're going to go there.
Finally.
Finally, we're going to go there.
It's been long overdue.
I think they're holding.
I don't believe the nuclear bomb story in a way.
And I think that was to get us off of nuclear energy.
And I don't think my hunch is that oil is not really scarce and it doesn't come from.
That's a Doomburg bottle.
Doomburg says we've got essentially infinite oil.
I have a feeling that we have replenishing oil in some way.
I don't know if that's true.
I think we have way more than they've intimated to cost up.
Duhnberg argues that in the absolutely foreseeable future, we got a ton of energy.
And he's a smart guy.
I know who he is.
I know what his career was.
I listened to him.
There's no chance I'm going to tell anyone Duhnberg's full of shit.
He might be wrong, but I ain't going to be the one to say it.
And so, but with that said, the idea that it's unlimited in a spherical, spherical world,
there is a limit somewhere.
But he might be saying, yeah, but it's 500 years from now.
Now, here's the funny story.
Exxon did an analysis of climate change literature back in 1984, I think it was.
And everyone said, ah, Exxon knew there was a problem with climate change.
That's not what they did.
They actually asked the question, what's out there?
And they surveyed the literature.
They just surveyed the literature.
And there was a line in there that no one paid attention to.
They said the odds of climate change becoming a problem is almost zero
because we're going to run out of oil before we get to that point.
And no one noticed that claim.
So that sounds like a peak oil claim, right?
That's by Exxon, though, which increases the value of their balance sheet because they're predominantly—
But supposedly it was an internal report that they just created.
Yeah, it just seems a little too in their interest to have you think oil is scarce.
And they have so much on their balance sheet, but it was so hard for them to get it, and you can't get the rest.
And there is very little more.
But we are drilling in very, very hard-to-get-to places now.
It's not Jed Clampett shooting his gun into the side of a hill anymore, right?
The first well was, what, 77 feet deep or something.
We are now going into the North Sea and the Arctic and miles below the Gulf of Mexico.
Now, technologically, we are keeping up.
As we need to get deeper, we are keeping up.
But it also tells me that it's not an infinitely replenishing system.
Right, but so much of it we can't get to because we don't have the technology to just refine it or extract it.
The million dollar question might be as if you could get down to, you know, 50,000 feet or whatever, you know, economically.
Maybe there really is this gigantic ocean of oil.
I don't think the fields replenish themselves on a time scale.
I have no idea, but I think they go dry.
Well, I think they go dry.
You see it pop up in some way I have no understanding of.
I just don't know if I believe that it's as limited or as scarce as they want.
but we can solve this with nuke so i'm not worried right and i think yeah and i think they could turn
to nuclear energy which i think they've tried to keep at bay so that they could keep valuing the
oil as long as possible and then switch when it's convenient for them regardless of how much is
left over because if there is a limited list less you would or nuclear could still be better and
you'd want to milk this right right might be a better way to go than fossil fuel yeah by the way
If fossil fuel is really getting precious, we should stop burning it and start using it for things that you need to make out of fossil fuel.
Right.
I think, like, blimp technology was supposed to be, like, superior in a lot of ways to airline travel.
Maybe not as fast, but much more comfortable.
Well, I'm told not as fast, yeah.
Yeah, definitely not as fast, but maybe much more luxurious and economic.
But tech moves so quickly So the Wright Brothers have you ever read the Wright Brothers biography It a fascinating biography So they invent plane flight right So City Hawk Kitty Hawk there was literally one photo taken at Kitty Hawk
There's that famous photo of a guy standing on a plane flying by.
And then what they did is they moved back to Ohio and they kept working on it.
The world did not know they had flown.
There were people who claimed to know, but the world had not gotten the message.
And after two years working in Ohio, they then were contacted by the French military and said,
we want to buy your company.
The French military.
So the military was right away onto the, this could be valuable.
And they said, no, we will sell you one plane.
And they said, okay.
So they packed the plane up and go to France.
Somehow, mysteriously, the plane arrives at Speed to Shed.
But the good news is the Wright brothers built it.
They knew how to rebuild it, right?
So they work on it for months.
Then there's this big day and they'd wheel the plane out.
and they'd work on it and they'd do some stuff.
Then they'd wheel it back in the hangar.
The French were torn between those who were sure this was going to be amazing
and those who thought they were just charlatans.
That was the big debate.
So one day they finally bring it out and they fly,
and they're doing figure eights.
And all of a sudden it's like, holy fuck.
The next year they had a flying competition.
There were 23 entrants.
That's how fast technology catches once you...
And by 1914, the militaries were using planes.
I think it was Orville or Wilbur.
Orville or Wilbur witnessed jets flying.
Holy shit.
One of the two saw jets fly.
That's amazing.
My mind thinks that those companies, those 14 companies,
were around way before the story of the Wright brothers,
and they roll out the story.
Well, I think people were trying to get it.
I think they were trying to get it,
and probably the Wright brothers gave me,
oh, this is the piece we were missing.
I think they probably said, okay, now we can now modify our design.
So I think those 23 entrants were, they didn't go from a cold start.
But here's a great story.
The guys who were betting on AI to make them rich.
Gundlach pointed out that electricity, what's more profound, AI or the Internet?
I think the Internet's more profound.
I think AI is a derivative of the Internet.
What's more profound, the Internet or electricity?
And I say, oh, electricity, way more important.
When we electrify the world, holy shit, what's more important than that, fire or electricity?
You've got to go with fire.
So we have been actually getting incrementally less impressive with time.
Now, here's the deal.
Gundlach points out that electricity stocks soared.
They peaked in 1911.
Electricity was barely existing in 1911.
So the guys who think they're going to get rich off AI,
if it follows the same path, their gains might be in the rearview mirror.
I think AI might be in that sort of that pets.com moment
where we might have a big CapEx bust
and there's not the revenue on the horizon that they're arguing.
And I think, again, they're giving this story.
So Ben Affleck just said this on, I think, Rogan.
Was he on with Damon?
I think he was on with Damon.
But I think sort of like 2000, though, even if we have a bust in AI,
I don't think it's the end of AI.
Oh, no, it's not the end of AI at all.
It's part of the process.
I think there will be some value to come, however society extracts that into the markets.
But what I find most interesting, and I think Edward Dowd said this in a clip I saw somewhere,
is how we're rooting for our own dystopic future, not just by going on Facebook and being a user and giving our data for free,
but we're actually investing in these companies' capabilities through the stock market,
voluntarily through our 401ks and our own retirement vehicles.
I had long chats with Eddie before he became famous Eddie.
Long chats.
And we talked about dark things.
The things you and I talked about, we talked about shit like that.
It was fun.
Eddie can go outside the box comfortably.
I just can't believe.
Now he's more careful because he's a famous guy with a brand.
And not that he's dishonest, but, you know, he's now trying to run money.
And you can't look like you're insane and run money.
You know, that sort of thing.
But people are rooting for their stocks to do well.
And if these companies do well, they build our financial panopticon.
And the other thing with nuclear is one of the stories I can't square in my head, the circle, is Chernobyl.
And what a wonderful, lush environment it's become.
You mean the lockdown area of Chernobyl?
And how rapidly that happened.
How quickly nature took it back?
Yeah, it just doesn't, I don't know.
It makes me wonder.
That's all.
It's one of those things.
Well, no, I think that's consistent with the dystopian movies.
The depreciation rate of civilization is about 25 years.
So we have basically created a technological world by putting in,
do you have any science training?
Do you have any science background?
High school.
So enthalpy is heat.
That's energy.
That's fossil fuel.
Enthalpy.
You put in the heat to do work that creates civilized society.
you want to find out how much energy it takes to keep society from decaying you just turn it off
and you'll watch within 25 years nothing will work buildings will be falling just like in the sci-fi
movie and so what you find is that if you analyze how much wealth we've created since say the time
of christ as humans how much have we accumulated how much wealth we accumulate if you try to put
a price tag on the known world you got to give real estate some price in modern dollars you got
to give the pyramid some price. You got to give housing some price. You might say the world was
worth a billion dollars, five billion dollars, something like that, right? Over 2,000 years,
our current, there's actually, you can find the estimated book value of the world now,
and I can't remember the numbers, but it's in the hundreds of trillions, right? It compounded
in a fraction of a percent. What it tells you is, is that we create wealth at pretty much the same
rate that we consume it and destroy it. And that makes sense. You create it, you use it. You create
it, you use it. But it decays very quickly. Just turn off the energy and watch what happens and
everything goes to shit. It takes a lot of energy just to keep things running. And so what did we
compound over 2,000 years? We compounded knowledge. That's the only durable thing. So this idea that in
a modern society we can grow wealth at three percent a year maybe we can but my guess is we're
going to create wealth at roughly the rate that we consume it and destroy it which means three percent
just happens to be a window of time where it appeared to compound at three percent and then
we're going to nuke it or we're going to do something just like they did in the past where
they you know burn cities to the ground and destroyed entire civilizations and so there's a
recency bias. We think that we can just grow at 3% a year. Albert Bartlett, there's a guy named
Albert Bartlett on YouTube. He talks about the failure to understand the exponential function.
And he basically says, if you don't understand the exponential function, the role of compounding,
they say, you know, these guys who say the greatest invention is compound interest, right? You know,
you've heard that phrase, Einstein gets credited, Mark Train gets credited, all these guys get
accredited. And it turns out, I think it's a fiction. It compounds for a while, then it goes
to shit. You know, it's like I was on a podcast the other day, and they talked about, we talked
about equities, outdoing bonds. And I said, well, equity has what's called a risk premium, right?
The people focus on the premium, but they fail to listen to the word risk. And it turns out,
if you look at 200 years of investing, if you take the 20 years after World War II,
where they shoved bond rates something like double digit below inflation.
Financial repression was off the charts after World War II
to deal presumably with the debt.
If you take away those 20 years,
the other 180 years, bonds and stocks tie.
Why do equities have a risk premium?
Because once in a while, they kick your ass.
And everyone likes to find the window where they didn't kick your ass
and say equities always do better.
This guy in McQuarrie, by the way, did this analysis,
has said Siegel is a lying pig fucker.
I mean, he really calls it.
He doesn't, those are my words, right?
Not McQuarrie's for the record.
But he says Siegel cherry picks his story.
He says Siegel's full of crap.
And he was shocked.
McQuarrie was shocked when I highlighted it
in one of my hearing reviews.
He said, I didn't realize I'd get this much press
on this paper.
And so at some point,
we're going to shake the etch-a-sketch
on the equity market
because it is way the hell out of whack.
And I'm tired of people saying
that the valuations are insane, I go, no, no, no, no.
Give me a number. Give me a number.
Because the average joker thinks valuation being insane
means 20% over historical valuation.
I have it at 200, and I can make the case.
Now, someone else, you want to make the case for 50%,
have a ball, but you've got to make it.
You just can't say insane.
You can't say equities are fairly priced.
You've got to make the case.
My case I have made year after year after year,
And they're more insane now than they were 10 years ago for 45 years.
Here's an amazing...
Anyone who understands valuations,
which most of the investing world doesn't even understand what a valuation is,
it's a price divided by something it should track.
It's that simple.
Revenues, book value, you name it.
There's like dozens of them.
But they're both inflation sensitive.
They should track.
So inflation doesn't make one go up relative to the other.
Everything's inflation sensitive.
And for 110 years, they tracked.
They just kind of channeled, and then they took off over the last 30.
From 1981 to the present, valuations compounded, annualized, 4% a year.
That's insane. That's insane.
We went from the lowest valuations in history to the highest valuations in history
by over 45 years by compounding at four valuations, 4%.
And if people say, well, that's just depreciation of the money, I go, you didn't listen to me.
The numerator and the denominator are both inflation sensitive.
If they're just destroying the money, the revenues are going to go up too.
So you can't solve a valuation problem by printing because the two will just respond.
Here's what will happen.
If you start printing and you really create inflation,
then all of a sudden that 200% overvaluation to an investor who finally wakes up is going to say,
holy shit, that's a terrible investment.
because I'm pricing it 2% a year, 2.5% a year.
And we've got bonds now paying 10.
Why the fuck would I own an equity?
Or let's say the bond market gets its ass kicked, right?
30-year treasuries in Japan are up to almost 4% now.
Where's the carry trade explosion?
I'm waiting.
It's got to be there.
The carry trade has been huge for years and years.
Something's got to be breaking.
I haven't found it yet.
But when it goes, it's going to be unbelievable, in my opinion.
But if bonds take off, here's something that Mike Green pointed out that I didn't understand until he said it.
He says, if bonds take off, meaning the value goes down, a mandated 60-40 portfolio has now dropped to more like 65-35.
And therefore, you have to sell your equities to buy your bonds.
to get back to your mandated 60-40.
And so the equities, a bond-bear market will cause an equity-bear market for those portfolios.
If the passive flows reverse, and someday they will, I don't know when,
people will say, look, if you can't tell me when, what good does that go?
I'm telling you, you're about to get hit with a goddamn thermonuclear weapon.
I can't tell you what day it is.
But you should be building a bomb shelter.
You should be worried about this.
You should be trying to figure out how to survive when it finally does happen.
And when it does, it's not going to tell you.
I mean, actually, sometimes the bell does ring at the top.
Sometimes it's really obvious.
But, you know, you watch it.
The market goes down to 20% and then bounces back 20% within a year.
That corrected nothing.
It has reinforced investors' cockiness.
It has reinforced the belief that you simply should never sell.
You should just hang on to.
That is so wrong.
If you own the 29 top, you are even in 1981.
Wow.
inflation adjusted, not including dividends and not including taxes and fees.
But taxes and fees and dividends, right?
That means we averaged 4% dividends through that period.
But the fees were at least 1%.
The taxes and the 4% bring it down to what, 3%, 2%, something like that.
Now the fees.
And you say, well, the fees are cheap now.
I said, so those guys doing hookers and blowing Wall Street are working for free?
They're getting paid by somebody.
And so Ron Grice corrects inflation using M2.
And over the last 100 years, the S&P corrected using M2 capital gains has sloped downward.
If you correct for M2 and you consider total return, including the dividends,
it has a net positive return of 3.77% over 100 years, not including taxes and fees.
and not only taxes and fees,
but in inflation adjusted plot,
you don't see inflation.
But when you get taxed,
you get taxed on the inflation.
So if your equity's doubled
just because of inflation,
you didn't get anything,
but you're going to get taxed on that profit.
So your nominal gains will get taxed,
even though they're not real gains.
And so we are teed up
for a terrible period of investing.
And the guys who are the most bearish,
I don't think they're being honest with you.
I think they pulling their punches I think I the only guy who going out over his skis as far as he can lean And I don want to hear anyone all you guys who are out there you punists don say valuations are insane
Give me a fucking number.
Because insane could mean anything.
It's a vague term.
You mean 22%.
Yeah, yeah.
And don't tell me we corrected when it bounces right back.
You've reinforced investors' confidence that the Fed will always protect us.
I go, Mao killed 80 million people.
What makes you think the state will protect you?
The state doesn't care about you.
The elite doesn't care about you.
Only to the extent that you become dangerous to them.
That's all they care about.
I agree with that.
Larry Fink doesn't, Larry Fink doesn't care about you.
Larry Fink in your report said,
Markets don't like uncertainty.
Markets like totalitarian government.
Isn't that a great quote?
Wow.
Well, we're heading for that one.
And I think the CIO of BlackRock is one of the candidates to be the new Fed chair.
Oh, no doubt.
And I wanted to run this by you.
Did you know that prediction markets were a former DARPA project?
No, not a bit.
And that was because I remember right before I saw that tweet.
You mean Predict It and Cal Shia and those guys?
Polymarket, I'm a think.
Polymarket, Polymarket.
Per this CIA website in 2001, the DARPA agency started experimenting with methods for applying DARPA's future markets applied to prediction future map program.
tested whether prediction markets, markets in which people bet on the likelihood of future events,
could be used to improve upon existing approaches to preparing strategic intelligence.
The program was canceled in the summer of 2003 under a barrage of congressional criticism.
They didn't cancel it, right?
No, no, no, but, you know, it's like the CIA canceling MKU.
Okay, we won't do it anymore, right?
Oh, no, they'd never just keep doing it.
It's like when they moved gain-of-function offshore.
You know, so here's one that's consistent with your idea.
I was talking to a military guy at the New Orleans Investment Conference.
And, you know, come on, the Israeli company, Peter Thiel, give me the name.
Are you talking about Palantir?
Palantir.
Palantir, supposedly.
You try to find when Palantir started writing software around 2002, right?
Not just that they founded some.
I've tried to find out when they first started writing software.
And I've tried to use AI to find out.
I've quizzed and stuff like that.
You keep coming back to 2002.
He said he saw Palantir software in 1996.
That is consistent with the Cedric,
they have it way before they let you know they have it model.
There's no question that's true.
And they're not going to release it until they're done doing what they need to do.
And by the way, I looked into DEWs a couple years ago when Maui burned to the ground
because there was some question of whether they got fried by DEWs.
I was reading 40-year-old Rand reports about DEWs that were terrifying.
The shit they could do 40 years ago.
And this was outside the paywall 40 years ago.
What do they have behind the paywall now?
Holy moly, what can they do?
And I listed George Friedman on Tucker, I think.
George Friedman ran Stratford, which wrapped up instantly when they got their emails hacked.
Two million emails got hacked.
Stratford disappeared in a heartbeat.
They just wrapped up shop, closed it right up.
Friedman says we grotesquely, intentionally grotesquely,
understate our capabilities.
We are hiding so many capabilities.
I can remember decades ago talking to a guy who wanted to join the Air Force.
He said, oh, yeah, like you're flying your plane.
You pass out, the plane just flies you home.
And at the time, I go, wow.
And then I go, yeah, that makes sense.
But it's still pretty surreal now that we're, you know, given it.
That's something you'd say now.
but back in 1990?
Well, that was something,
nothing that came up with Aaron Day.
So like just, you know,
the narratives you hear about, say,
China come from,
when I was growing up,
came from really three channels
or, you know,
public education school books.
What do you think of the dissident
who said maybe there's
1.4 billion people in China?
Who says there's not 1.4 billion?
I don't know about this.
This Chinese dissident
has the entire internet
questioning how many humans truly exist
after she claims China's population
is actually under 500 million.
instead of 1.4 billion.
This was on like the Donnie, some show, I don't know.
Danny Jones, Danny Jones?
Maybe Danny Jones, that's what it looks like.
Yeah, Danny Jones.
Yeah, that looks like Danny Jones.
You know, I've heard some people mock this dissident,
but it would not surprise me if all countries,
every country had fibbed up numbers tremendously.
I am confident that they know they can't suppress the truth,
so they just have to bury us in bullshit.
They have got us chasing laser pointers like cats.
They'll just throw more.
It's like the jet that flies and throws the shit out the back of the plane
so that guided missiles don't know what to aim at and stuff like that.
They are just throwing bullshit.
And, by the way, when we bite them, they can say,
look at these idiots, they got it wrong.
I don't trust a lot of them.
Like, there's a guy named Kiriakou, who supposedly is ex-CIA,
and he did some jail time.
But I'm not sure there's ever such a thing as ex-CIA.
Right.
I think you get old to the point where you're ex-CIA when you're doddering.
Okay.
Did you read my interview?
I don't want to interrupt, but if you were truly ex-CIA, you wouldn't go around telling people.
You would just disappear.
Right.
I have a box of pictures of my grandfather who was trying to set up a banking system in Southeast Asia.
And I asked my dad, you know, did it work?
and he ended up being the president of the Bridgehampton National Bank, right?
It had like six branches.
He lived in a house in Long Island, in Bridgehampton, Long Island.
And he said, no, because everyone was so crooked,
and he was trying to set it up in Thailand, and everyone was so crooked.
And then what I did put two and two together is he was doing this from 1955 to 62, right?
And there was not an American in Southeast Asia from 1955 to 62
who didn't have CIA's hooks in their ass.
And I'm going through these pictures of him with my grandmother on elephants
and at cafes and shit, and all of a sudden there's a picture of him
standing in front of a Huey with a bunch of soldiers
and a picture of him standing with some Southeast Asian with a machine gun,
and I'm going, oh yeah, that must be his teller.
My grandfather was CIA.
Of course he was.
They wouldn't give you a visa and not make you CIA from 55 to 62.
The fact he left in 62, that's not a coincidence.
That's when this shit hit the fan.
That's when we went from advisors to military.
And what do you think the bank was about then?
Just a nice-to-see job?
I think what happened is when he came back, they gave him a bank as a reward.
As the reward, right?
Yeah.
And, I mean, I'm assuming some money laundering for the CIA.
I have no idea.
Maybe they just said, no, we'll just get you a, you know, the CIA shell companies helped Walt Disney set up Disney World.
I always knew something crazy had to happen.
Crazy.
You can't buy up like, you know, 20 square miles of anything without people smelling a problem.
And all of a sudden you just can't buy it, right?
And so he had Angleton and guys like that helping him buy it.
I mean, he had big time players.
And I imagine that some of the sales were not as pleasant as others because they said, look, here's the deal.
We're going to whack if you don't sell.
You're making this hard.
And Walt was a 33rd degree Mason,
and heaven only knows what the Masons are up to.
I've tried to go there.
It just makes no sense.
Disney's a rabbit hole.
Disney's a big rabbit hole.
The shit Disney puts out is a super rabbit hole.
They put out so much pedophilic crap.
And all that land is like the Vatican down there.
They have their own rules and laws and police.
They were allowed to have a nuclear reactor.
They were a sovereign state.
They let an alligator eat a kid, and nobody gave Disney a too hard on time there.
I didn't know that.
I didn't hear that story.
I shouldn't say it so flippantly, but at one of their campgrounds or playgrounds,
it's a tragic story.
A little kid went down by the water, and they lost track of her,
and the alligator came up onto the shore, grabbed her, and pulled her in.
Yeah.
Yeah, but it seemed like, you know, that happening on Disney property should have probably had different outcomes, I think.
Well, but, you know, like, I know when the Gulf of Mexico, the gates of hell opened up with event Deepwater Horizon, they had high-level meetings to talk about the problem.
I don't want to name where or by who, but let us just say in one of the biggest think tanks on the planet.
And I asked, you know, were they talking about the environmental damage?
She said, no, the whole thing is about protecting British petroleum.
That's all it was, right?
It wasn't about the fact that we had just literally opened the gates of hell into the Gulf of Mexico.
And then, oddly enough, we fixed it and it did go away, right?
So things that look like we've made irreparable disaster become history.
They just become old news.
Yeah.
How do you bomb Europe into oblivion?
How do they ever come back?
But they somehow did.
With a lot of our, I would think, financial aid.
Or we made money.
We made a ton of money.
Where we needed bases and where we needed to have a narrative.
That's why we became a super empire.
Because, you know, the Lend-Lease program,
I copy-edited Battle of Bretton Woods for Ben Steele.
I copy-edited it for him.
And it was really fun because I was exchanging the chapters back and forth
saying, boy, this Harry Dexter White guy, he's an enigma.
I haven't figured out where it's going with this guy.
Turns out he was a Soviet sympathizer.
But one of the things he talks about is the Lend-Lease program to the Brits.
Wasn't they were our best buddies?
We bent them over and gave them everything we had.
By the time they signed the Lend-Lease program,
they were guaranteed to come out of World War II neutered.
Not a superpower.
It was not out of the goodness of our heart.
We reamed them out.
Now, the real story is also if you read Stalin's war and American betrayal,
we gave 10 times or more arms to the Soviets than to the Brits.
And that's because Harry Hopkins, who was FDR's right-hand man, his chief of staff,
was a total Soviet, not a sympathetic, a complete Soviet spy.
And so Harry Hopkins made sure that everything we did was pro-Stalin.
Everything.
Where we landed in Normandy, everything.
Pearl Harbor, the Soviets knew it was coming.
They wanted us to take Japan off their flank,
so they made sure that we got into that battle with Japan.
Everything was pro-Soviet.
When the war was over, we kept fueling Soviet,
we kept giving Soviet shit.
We funded the rise of the post-war Soviet superpower.
Who won World War II?
Not the Americans, not the Europeans, not the Germans.
The Soviets, they won World War II.
Who beat the Germans? Separate question.
But the Soviets won World War II.
They got half of Europe.
What did we get?
What did anyone else get?
I mean, we could talk about what the point of World War II is.
I mean, there have been so many different takes in books.
I mean, was it to consolidate Europe, to then destroy it?
Was it to, you know, we dismantled the Soviet Union and the USSR?
Was it to kind of build them up, to take them down and concentrate power there?
So much.
We can get into the Bolsheviks.
I mean, there's just, here's a picture of your grandfather.
Yeah, look at that guy behind him.
here. Those guys are sitting in the Huey. Those are American soldiers. Yeah. And so we're never
told the truth about history. We're never told the truth. It's all lies. And there's so much we
don't even have any amount packed. I read your entire year interview. It's awesome as usual.
One way, you know, you look at the different sections and I don't want to spend a lot of time
on it. I look at your investing and just find it so amazing that you have all these positions and
you manage them and I think you know there was a day where I dreamed about
being an investment banker and a money manager and all these things and this to
me looks like a headache man it's so boring and in so many different
positions I don't even comment on this it's so interesting to me because I try
to read it all very similar though they're all very similar positions they
are but it's you know to me it's an exercise in restraint in a lot of ways
oh it's a total exercise in restraint yeah so I find it fascinating I check in
with it every year.
You know, I try to see how it moved.
Did you happen to catch the numbers on those gains?
Well, so that was the next thing I was going to say.
You've been exercising amazing humility.
You're not, I mean, metals and gold and platinum and silver, booming years.
I wouldn't say that you've been a screaming gold bug fanatic, but you've been a prudent
investor and a wise investor, and I think you've always been sort of into gold and metals.
So to not be going around bragging and boasting.
Well, I'm a little nervous.
It's a karmic thing.
I was feeling very cocky when silver ran up to 49 back in around 2013.
And I was really exuberant.
And then I got to watch it go all the way back down.
And I said, okay, Dave, you deserve that one.
And so things have worked well.
Last year I made a fortune by my standards.
And this year, to calibrate you, this year I am going to brag here.
This year I am up 16% year to date.
Well, you know, and look, I mean, obviously there could be corrections.
None of this is financial.
I could give it all back.
I wouldn't be surprised to see silver hit 500.
Gold hit 20 grand. I mean, the way the world is going. None of these things would shock me.
Well, let me ask you this question. Gold and silver are one of two things right now. It seems
to me it's finery. Either they are telling us something is breaking in the system. The COMEX,
you name it, there's all these stories, but something is breaking. And the demand for gold
is huge and it's big money demanding the gold. Or it's a mania and it's all going to be given back.
Where do you comment on this?
I don't think it's a rational exuberance.
Okay.
I think it's a debasement trade in a lot of ways.
I think it's the debasement trade.
They even, they tout it.
They promote it.
Well, that's what worries me, though.
That worries me not in terms of, well, I think it's, they want, they'd rather have it melt
up and melt away the debt.
We could talk about valuations being oversampt, but you can inflate away debt.
You can liquefy markets.
You can extend credit if people believe in the shared consciousness of the observed currency,
and they can keep printing money, which I think all that's in their interest.
I'm not sure you can inflate away debt easily.
It's not easy.
You've got either a debt forgiveness, a debt jubilee, the inflation.
There's only so many ways you can go.
Well, so, for example, Weimar Germany didn't inflate away their debt.
People always cite Weimar Germany.
They didn't inflate away their debt.
The inflation hurt the public.
Their debt remained as a country.
Right, and then that gets bought and sold,
and so there's levels above the country.
Right.
So what happens is we ended up in World War II.
In the end, I believe the debt goes away
because of what is more of a deflationary result
where there's just a big default.
Yeah.
So I think that could happen.
I think at some point,
I do think that there is a deflationary event
and possibly a great taking or takening.
Takening.
I like the EN on the end of those words.
Havening, takening.
I certainly could imagine that.
Again, I do not believe that you can say the state would ever restrain itself from doing something awful to you.
They might do it on purpose and make it worse and worse so you beg.
Well, someone's got to shake the etch-a-sketch.
Sorkin's book, he's somewhat critical of the Fed poking the bubble.
And I'm thinking, dude, the Fed were the ones saying, look, this is nutty.
We've got to do something.
The Federal Reserve, they were actually fairly bearish saying this is a frigging problem.
Now they cranked down the rates and they fueled it earlier.
They always forget about that part.
There was a huge credit bubble in the 20s, a huge credit bubble, and no one knew what to do about it.
And the guys who were euphoric were begging the Fed not to blow it.
Now, if you're euphoric because everything's really stable and rock solid,
you don't worry about someone pricking the bubble because there's no bubble to prick.
And they were worried about it.
They wanted the party like crazy.
I think the Fed right now is terrified of raising rates, of lowering rates.
And I think they're terrified of lowering rates because I think they're terrified that the bond market will defy them.
The rates will go up, not down, which is the bond market saying, finally, we're back in the game.
And since you're dropping rates, inflation is a serious risk, and therefore we're going to demand a higher rate of return for those treasuries.
For many decades, they have not demanded.
And I think the Fed's huge fear, I'm now applying an emotional state to them that I have no data.
It's just, if I were in charge of the Fed, this is what I'd be afraid of,
is that the world would discover that I've got no weapons left.
So if they try to do something and it fails, then this whole Fed omnipotent story is over.
And then the shit will hit the fan.
Yeah, well, I think they want to phase out the Fed.
Who's that?
I think the government.
I think they want to use the money printers, the people that own the Fed.
I think eventually the banks somehow want to get rid of the Fed?
Aren't they the Fed?
Well or the powers that own the banks that don like that don care about the banks P per se but they will own the future world as well I think want to move to an algorithmic issuance quote unquote of a CBDC The algorithm is not so much immutable it controllable and they can change things and
use the credit score and combine databases.
I think they want everything to be tokenized and they want to take humans out of it, quote
unquote, to help sell the story.
Like, why should people control the money?
Why should the Fed be political?
It is political.
We should solve it with this apolitical solution that's inherently political.
One of the theories I had on Trump hammering Powell, and it was some time back.
It's an act.
In fact, I think Trump wanted to burst the bubble so that it would tank and then it would be recovering when he needed it.
Sort of like Reagan, to imitate a Reagan administration, right?
And somehow it stayed elevated, and I even am willing to go so far as to say maybe they kept it floating so that they could tank it when it would really damage the guy, right?
But by hammering Powell to lower rates, if you're Powell, you can't do it, right?
If you're Powell, you can't say, Alf Donald, if you really wanted to lower rates, you'd say, shut the fuck up.
You're making it politically impossible for us to lower the rates.
And I think that might have been the whole kayfabe.
But it gives you a foil.
If you're Trump and the economy's not doing great, you can say-
He gets to blame the Fed.
Blame the Fed.
Can you take this one for the team?
Right.
So I think that whole thing might have been a kayfabe.
And he gets to go down as the most independent-minded Fed chairman for playing the game.
And he looks like a hero and more like Vlocker than like Greenspan or Bernanke.
It's all narrative.
It's all-
But the fact that it hasn't tanked yet is a problem.
because we got midterms coming.
We got national elections coming.
They do not want to be in the Great Depression 2.0.
Well, no, I don't agree with you necessarily.
In 2027.
Part of the narrative is the Trump supporters are thinking
if Trump is elected,
of course he would want the first two years
to be a great economic boom.
Of course he would want Bitcoin price to rise.
Of course he'd want all these things.
You think he and hope he wants to do these things,
but he's there to make you hope for them
and not deliver on those things, but give other things.
Could be. I don't know.
I don't even know what to make of Trump.
I can tell you why he's a complete wacko.
I can tell you why he's playing five-dimensional chess.
If you're going to do the great taking,
you have to do it during the Trump regime or right regime
and not during a left regime.
Why is that?
Because the guns would come out.
So it's the way the COVID lockdowns had come on.
You want the MAGA guys to not be armed.
The COVID lockdowns and the vaccine rush of vaccines
that were already created by the military decades ago
could only come out under the Trump regime.
So you're just like, it's like jujitsu.
Right.
You don't have to convince the left to do some things.
You have to convince the right to do that thing
and then vice versa.
But you can't use the right to convince the right.
You have to use the left to put the right in a situation
where of course we want lockdown.
You remember that online meme
where someone spread the word
that women could show their independence by wetting their pants.
There was a meme out there that said women could show their independence
by pissing in their pants.
And people started posting pictures of them having pissed in their pants.
I'm going, this is so, this is, like, did you see Rudy Havenstein's
Erica Kirk meme where he says, he says,
I worry my wife would get remarried right away,
but I never thought that pyrotechnics would be involved, right?
He got 300,000 likes on that.
That triggered a wave of Erica Kirkbeams that was absolutely relentless for about a week.
And so social media has this unbelievable ability to warp our brains.
I mean it really And this is the problem I having I don know what I can talk about in a way that I remotely qualified So when the left was in charge I spent huge amounts of ink explaining all the stupid things all the wokey shit all the transgender shit
It was really clear that there was stupid shit happening and it was good fodder.
It was good to talk about. All the people getting fired for not using pronouns correctly, you know, things like that.
and as I said
when I was young it was cool to wear bell bottoms
this generation was cool to cut off your dicks
so that was easy
that was low lying fruit
I don't know what the low lying fruit is now
and it could be I'm just biased to the right
and now the stupid stuff is theirs
but it just isn't even making sense
yeah it's reached error 404
it's overload
that's right
And error 404 was me potentially not putting up a year in review.
I didn't think I was going to write one.
There's not a single thread line that makes sense, is cohesive, keeps going.
Everything takes you to everything else.
Half of it's more of a tweak.
And it changes.
It changes.
And it changes so you don't even know it's true.
Right.
You don't even, your lying eyes, like not knowing if Andrew Ross Sarkin actually read the audio.
I can't tell.
But there's shit in it that tells me if he read it, he's an idiot.
But I'm not sure he read it.
Yeah, I know what you mean.
That's a trivial one.
But how are we going to know if Putin gives a speech saying,
if you do this, we're going to do this?
How do we know it's even remotely true?
You don't.
But they're going to make the shit, and they're going to tell us it's true.
The whole ICE thing, we have no idea what's going on in the streets, right?
I don't know what ICE is really doing.
I do know that if you've got battles in the streets between ICE and protesters,
that it's guaranteed at some point someone's going to get shot or run over or hurt or killed or whatever.
Guaranteed.
That is exactly what the anti-ICE guys want.
They want the martyrs.
But is it also what the ICE guys want?
I don't know.
Or the rulers of ICE.
I don't know.
I think they do.
And I think that even...
And I think it's not even they want one and they have none.
They want a consistent flow of it so that they can pick which one they want to put in front of us at the right time.
Well, I was convinced Ashley Babbitt didn't get shot.
And I made the case.
I showed it to some very smart people, and they said, I see your point, but.
And so I pulled back in the story, and so I wrote it, but I kind of said, here's some links.
Make up your own goddamn mind, right?
But I read through not only links questioning it and showing stuff that made me give me pause,
but I read thousands of comments where people were adding interpretation and stuff like that.
And I watched tons of videos and stuff like that.
And I became convinced that she didn't get shot.
And then I pulled back because I couldn't sell it to people who were a friendly audience.
And they understood what my point was, but they just weren't sure.
And I said, okay, don't go over your skis that far.
So it's out there, but it's out there in sort of an abbreviated form.
Last year, 2025, Cheryl Atkinson sat there with two federal agents and went through the same tapes and said,
this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong.
So I had a quick communication with Cheryl, a couple of exchanges, which I told her things that were also wrong.
But the journalist doesn't want to hear that because they've already made the case.
But I was exonerated like three or four years later when Cheryl got on it and said,
okay, all these federal agents say none of these things make sense.
Reading 17 years of year in review, here's the entertaining part.
I never, I didn't find a chapter that made me cringe.
I didn't find a chapter where I said, oh, fuck, I'd love to have not written that one.
The closest I got was a couple years ago,
it looked like we were gonna have an energy crisis.
I built the case.
You can build the case for anything.
And then we just didn't have it.
It's not a terrible fuck up,
but that was about as far over my skis as I got
and face planted.
Yeah, I mean, it's an astonishing record.
I thought it was interesting how you brought out in 2025 lots of the quotes from 2015 2015 Yeah yeah That showed that in 2015 the markets were insane
And you read those quotes.
Those are from legends of Wall Street saying, we are so fucked again.
How did this happen?
Greenspan, Howard Marks, Druckenmiller.
These guys saying, how did we end up in this big bubble?
We're looking into the abyss.
It happened again.
How did we do this?
And then you look at what happened over the next 10 years, the markets went straight up.
So the question I ask is, were they wrong or are we super fucked?
And I think we're super fucked.
Yeah, they definitely were correct.
I think they were correct down the road.
Right.
So the can now is so far down the road.
The problem is valuations.
It's like you're at 35,000 feet and your engines are on fire.
And they took it to 45,000 feet.
That doesn't solve the problem.
As someone said, supposedly one of the airplane manuals says you will have enough gas to get to the crash site.
I love that phrase.
We'll go out there.
So there's going to be a coming.
There's going to be a come to Jesus.
I'm positive.
Positive.
Just don't know when.
We'll see.
No one knows when.
I'll read you quoting me.
You.
I'm going to quote you.
Oh, yeah.
I remember this one.
Talking about you.
I was thrilled to see this.
Dave doesn't care if he comes across as an asshole.
He really doesn't.
He's just trying to get it right.
Thank you.
That was a great quote.
You know what I really love are quotes that hammer me.
What I really found was someone really hammers me.
Because I can always find a quote of someone who takes the exact, so juxtaposing the two.
So I had one where someone really hammered me.
And then right below it, it was Stephen Roach's quote.
It was a couple years ago.
Stephen Roach's quote that said,
I know of no one more qualified than you to bring honor back to economic.
This year I had a quote from Stockman, which I couldn't believe, where David Stockman said,
he said, the smartest economist at Cornell was some guy named Lowy.
And he says, until I met this guy, Collabon, on Twitter.
And I've gone, oh, I can use that.
I can use that.
I want to ask you a question after we go offline, one brief one, about one of your guests.
about one of your guests.
I don't want to do it online.
Okay.
I'll hang tight.
Thank you as always, David.
Well, actually, I'll leave it to you for any parting words
and let people know where they can find you and your work.
Just be careful.
Just be careful out there.
I think we're in very...
And I can't tell you when.
If people say too early is wrong,
I go, not if you're going to get your head blown off.
Charlie Kirk, if he quit speaking five years ago,
he'd still be alive.
Yeah.
Right?
That wouldn't be too early.
So if the stop clock is right and your house blows up,
you're going to wish you'd paid attention to what time it was.
And so I'm confident that we are in for a very rough time.
And it's not like society is emotionally ready for it.
We are all pissed off.
So it's going to be real fourth turning crap when it comes.
So plan accordingly, right?
Yeah.
And you can't have money at the bottom if you don't have cash at the top.
You got to go to cash at the top, and that's the hardest thing to do.
Yeah.
You talk about how we're in the complacency bubble,
and it's really hard for people to switch gears and FOMO.
FOMO.
45 years of nothing but up.
My papi used to always say, just keep your head on a swivel.
Keep your head in the game.
All right, Dave, it's been awesome as usual.
Share this episode with your friends, family, or anyone curious about Bitcoin.
And let's keep growing this community together.
Stay curious, keep stacking, and I'll catch you in the next one.