[Simon Dixon](www.simondixon.com), the former [London Stock Exchange](www.londonstockexchange.com) market maker who quit banking in 2006, wrote [Bank to the Future](www.simondixon.com) in 2011 and co-founded the Bitcoin securities platform [BnkToTheFuture](bnktothefuture.com), spends two hours and four minutes with [Peter McCormack](www.petermccormack.com) arguing that Western political dysfunction is not chaos but structure. His load bearing claim is monetary: money is created as debt, the interest to repay it was never created, so the system survives only by rolling debt forward and finding the next borrower. Everything else follows, in his telling, from that one mechanism: why the [IMF](www.imf.org) always releases the next tranche, why governments end up with the liabilities while corporations end up with the assets, why the asset managers who vote your pension shares matter more than the politicians you vote for, and why he calls this the asset stripping phase. He is emphatic that it is not a cabal, saying "there is no one on top", and he follows the ownership chain from executive to board to shareholder to [BlackRock](www.blackrock.com) to refute the ethnic conspiracy narratives his own audience gets served. McCormack pushes back throughout and closes with the best test in the episode: even if Dixon is wrong about the geopolitics, the living standards trend and the recommended response are unchanged. This page rebuilds the whole conversation in order with every claim attributed, and separates documented mechanism from interpretation in a closing section.
Published Jan 8, 20262:04:13 video87 min readAdded Jul 27, 2026Open on YouTube →
At a glance
Simon Dixon, the former London Stock Exchange market maker and investment broker who quit banking in 2006, wrote Bank to the Future in 2011, and co-founded the Bitcoin securities investment platform BnkToTheFuture with his wife Bliss, sits down with Peter McCormack for two hours and four minutes to answer one question: who actually makes the decisions. His answer is that governments do not, and that the confusion people feel watching Western politics fail is not chaos but structure working as designed.
Dixon's argument runs on a single mechanism he keeps returning to. Money is created as debt, the interest on that debt does not exist, so the system survives only by rolling the debt forward and finding a new borrower. Everything else, he argues, falls out of that: why the IMF always releases the next tranche, why governments end up with the liabilities and corporations end up with the assets, why the asset managers who vote your pension shares matter more than the politicians you vote for, and why he thinks the West is now in what he calls the asset stripping phase. McCormack pushes back throughout, asks repeatedly how much of this is knowable versus inferred, and gets Dixon to separate the two out loud more than once.
What follows rebuilds the whole conversation in order, keeping the numbers, institutions, dates, names, and mechanisms in place, with every claim attributed to whoever made it. A closing section separates the parts that are documented public mechanism from the parts that are Dixon's own interpretation, including the places where his figures have moved since taping.
Figure 1. The structure Dixon spends the first half hour building. His repeated caution is that the arrows are incentives, not orders: nobody sits at the top issuing instructions, and people get thrown off the network all the time. The claim is that the layer citizens vote on is the layer with the least room to move.
The cold open, and the question McCormack actually wants answered
The episode opens on Dixon mid sentence, a passage the show returns to around 1:08:20: the UK, the European Union, Australia and Canada, "the collective West," are in his phrase "fully subordinate to US corporate interest because they're rolling over the debt based Ponzi scheme." He lists the tools he says come with that subordination: currency war to destroy a rival's wealth, debt that can be laden on and rolled over, intelligence and military assets used to destabilise a country, genuine riots turned into colour revolutions, a representative removed and a dictator installed who takes corrupt money and privatises the resources, so that Chevron, ExxonMobil, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, JPMorgan and the IMF "all can come in and use your country as an asset management portfolio."
Then the line that governs everything after it, and the reason the conversation is not quite what its thumbnail suggests: "So most people when they hear this they think, is this some kind of organised cabal. It's actually not. It's a ruthless game of betrayal at the top, power dynamics and access to capital. And you can throw people off the network and then operations go wrong. It's a ruthless game."
The two have known each other for years, first meeting in Hong Kong and later recording with Bill Barhydt, but this is their first time in person on this show. McCormack notes Bitcoin is back over 90k and predicts it will dump 5k again. Then he sets up the real question. He has been listening to Dominic Cummings on The Spectator's show talking about the complete dysfunction of the state, why nothing works, why everything breaks, why nothing gets done. Half of McCormack thinks it is simply a dysfunctional state. The other half thinks there must be a vested interest somewhere in it not working. And while that runs, "all the poor and the middle class just get poorer and there's a group of people on yachts." He does not know what is going on. Tell me.
Power dynamics: the state as battering ram and piggy bank
Dixon starts structurally. People have a misguided understanding of what he calls power dynamics, meaning who is actually making decisions and what the role of the state is. From his research, "the state and the government are a battering ram to take blame for the fact that they are a piggy bank in a Ponzi scheme that needs to reallocate finance to where their lobby wants it to go."
To unpack that he goes back to the monetary conversation, which is how he and McCormack first met. The pound, and fiat currency generally, is in his framing fundamentally a Ponzi scheme. He dates it to a $1.2 million loan between William Paterson and the King of England, a perpetual loan carrying perpetual interest, in exchange for which a monopoly on the creation of the pound went to private banks, the Bank of England being private at the time. He puts the date at 1694.
The structural problem follows immediately, and it is the load bearing claim of the entire two hours. If every pound in existence is a debt, where is the money to repay the interest? It does not exist. So somebody else has to take on another loan in order to produce the money that services the interest on the money that was never created. That is how the pound is created, how the dollar is created, and how the model works anywhere that adopts it.
From there he derives the consequences as a hierarchy of borrowers:
The consumer is an asset. You try to get them into debt. At the consumer level you are paying the highest rate in the system, 30% on a credit card or a payday loan.
The corporation is an asset, but a stratified one. A corporation can get access to 0% loans if it sits at the highest level of power, which he defines as proximity to a central bank. A small or medium sized enterprise mostly does not get the loan at all, because the bank would rather lend to a consumer buying a house, which cannot run away. If the SME does borrow, it pays near the top of the range unless it has some kind of cash flow instrument.
The government is the obvious one. When the consumer goes bankrupt, the debt gets restructured onto the government's balance sheet. When a corporation has enough influence, it tells the government how to spend the money the government borrows.
His summary of the result: "People think that what we have in the West is capitalism, but what we actually have is socialism for the corporation that can get the cheapest interest rate and access to the money printer, and the rest get capitalism."
That produces what he calls the K shaped economy. Everyone is trying to take on and roll over debt, but most people lose that game, because the people who can access the 0% money leverage it into assets, while everyone else becomes the asset, going deeper into debt. Because the interest does not exist, the rich end up as the class that owns the assets and everyone else ends up as the assets paying the interest.
Who is actually losing on IMF debt
McCormack brings a specific puzzle from a Tucker Carlson interview he listened to on the drive over, with a guest he takes a moment to name, Coleman Church, who works in sovereign debt refinancing and trading. The guest's description was that they go to a country, talk to the people who manage its debt and to the IMF about when the next tranche lands and how likely it is, "but they always get the next tranche, that's the business of the IMF," and then help trade that debt around the world.
McCormack's question is the obvious one and he keeps hammering it: if a country needs an IMF bailout it has already blown its budget, and if it is on a second tranche it has blown that too, so who keeps buying the paper? Somebody has to be losing. Where is the loser?
Dixon's answer is that the loss only arrives when the debt cannot be rolled over. Until then, whoever receives the interest keeps receiving the interest, and who ultimately receives it is the bank that can create the currency. Which is why the separation between central bank and government matters, and why he says we are heading into a monetisation phase: use the government to stimulate the economy and push as much debt out as possible.
He then walks the plumbing, and this is the most technically concrete stretch of the early conversation. You cannot have the central bank buy directly from the government, so an investment bank sits in the middle. The investment bank creates the products, the bonds. The bank buys them at auction as a primary dealer. It holds a licence to create the pound, so it creates the money that purchases the gilt. As long as the debt can be continually rolled over, the machine runs. Expand that to the international level, he says, and you are into the real game of power dynamics.
The British model, and the relay from London to Washington
The first thing to understand, Dixon says, is that this system was created in England, which he finds fitting given they are discussing the UK. Britain copied pieces from Amsterdam, which had the Dutch East India Company as the private corporate interest and the Amsterdam Wisselbank as the bank, but the loan mechanism to fund wars was a British creation, in 1694.
Once that exists, the government needs to keep taking on more debt, and to keep rolling it you want a productive asset at the end of each loan. So the empire built mercantilism around it, and Dixon describes it as four interlocking pieces: build the best military industrial complex, meaning the naval fleet; create a private corporate interest, the British East India Company; create a mechanism for the government to borrow; and create a mechanism to funnel the borrowed money back into the private corporate interest. What the corporate interest then does is colonialism.
His examples are specific. Get China's silver, get the country addicted to opium, and build a bank called HSBC on the proceeds. Go to India, take the gold, take the tea, preside over a famine, and make the country subordinate to the pound, which then serves as the base layer for the next round of the debt scheme.
The endgame of the model, in his telling, is always the same shape: the corporate ends up with all the assets and the government ends up with all the debt. Rich get richer, poor get poorer, the K shape again. Then the investment banks find another country to run it on. In this case, America.
And he adds the detail he treats as the tell, that it was the same people funding all sides: the Warburg family sat on both the Federal Reserve Board and the board of the Reichsbank, the German central bank. The scheme, he says, always transitions to the most influential corporates ending up with the hard money and the assets, the government ending up with the debt, and then a new world order to reset and decide where the experiment runs next.
1694A $1.2 million perpetual loan between William Paterson and the King of England, in exchange for a private monopoly on creating the pound. Dixon's origin point for everything that follows.
18th to 19th c.Mercantilism assembles the four pieces: naval military industrial complex, the British East India Company, government borrowing, and the funnel back to corporate interest. Opium into China and HSBC out of it; gold, tea and famine out of India.
1913 to 1918World War I, the Federal Reserve Act, income tax. Dixon: "everything repeated itself" in America.
1929 to 1939Great Depression and the gold confiscation. He reads the Roaring Twenties and the crash as a pump and dump that redistributed wealth upward.
1944 to 1945Bretton Woods, the IMF and the World Bank. With the manufacturing base, the military and what he puts at 75% of the world's gold, America can set the terms.
1971The gold window closes. Dixon's framing: after Vietnam, the French turned up asking for their gold and were refused. "So America defaulted then."
1998 to 2008Long Term Capital Management, then the global financial crisis. Losses socialised, gains privatised, and in his reading a further concentration of power.
2020COVID. He calls it a massive concentration into the technical and financial complexes.
2026$38 trillion of federal debt at the time of taping, which he says traces the whole way back to the Bank of England story. "The asset stripping phase."
Figure 2. The relay as Dixon narrates it, from the 1694 founding loan to the debt figure he cites in the interview. He treats each step as the same mechanism finding a new host rather than as separate historical events. The dates and institutions are real; the causal reading connecting them is his.
Is it lizard people, or is it just how it works
McCormack asks it bluntly. Is this run by a group of lizard people, or is this just organically how it works? Are there interests who know exactly what is happening and are pulling the levers, or is it an organic system?
Dixon's answer is that it has changed over time and is very fluid, and then he describes the current iteration. The UK, the European Union, Australia and Canada are fully subordinate to US corporate interest. Our governments and central banks are piggy banks. The job of the Bank of England and the European Central Bank is to find a mechanism for printing more money, and the job of the leaders is to find a mechanism for spending it, and that spending needs to pump the US stock market and a little of the UK and European markets, because if the US stock market collapses everything collapses.
Why would they comply? Because, he says, they are controlled by the lobbies: to make it as a politician you have to receive your lobby financing, and you have to agree what you are going to do for your corporate sponsor.
McCormack tests it against a specific image: is this when Larry Fink comes over and has a meeting with Keir Starmer? Absolutely, Dixon says, and then immediately dampens the personality reading. Fink is not the top of the chain. He is the manager of BlackRock.
What BlackRock actually is, in Dixon's account
So what is BlackRock? Dixon is careful about what it is not. It is not as centralised as the Dutch or British East India Companies, because those had a monopoly and BlackRock does not. What it has instead is scale and position:
About $12 trillion of assets under management, the figure he uses on the day.
A special relationship with the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve. During COVID, he says, it was telling Treasury how to allocate the money. During the great financial crisis it was telling the Fed how to manage the process, which companies BlackRock and JPMorgan should acquire, which should go down, which should go over, and what assets to transfer.
The technology. The system BlackRock built, because it has access to all the data, is used by most central banks, most money managers, many governments and many treasuries. (He does not name it in the conversation; BlackRock's platform is Aladdin.)
He is quick to say BlackRock is not the whole picture. Add State Street and Vanguard and you are at roughly $30 trillion of assets, and then there are the foreign sovereign wealth funds that co-invest alongside.
Then the part he treats as the mechanism people miss. What are these asset managers, actually? They are the recipients of everyone contributing to a pension and everyone paying an insurance premium, plus money managers looking for passive exposure. Through managed funds, ETFs and, in the UK, unit trusts, they get to become the largest shareholder by holding your shares for you across all those pools of capital. "And with that comes the proxy voting rights and the ability to put a board." His figure: BlackRock has 20,000 board seats across most of the public companies.
Figure 3. Dixon's answer to "why would a billionaire chief executive take orders from anyone." His claim is that there is no tap on the shoulder: the discipline arrives as the terms of access to capital. Note the two distinct paths, ownership on the right and lending on the left, which he treats as one machine. The "20,000 board seats" phrasing is his; the closing section explains how it differs from what asset managers actually hold.
Why chief executives are not really in charge
Those public companies need access to capital, Dixon says, because we do not have a free market stock market, and because in his reading the United States is at the end of a debt cycle, which has consequences everywhere.
Underneath the board seats sits the second lever, and here he leans on having worked in investment banking. If you want access to capital, you need a relationship with the investment bank that made you public. He works the example that most people would reach for as a counterexample: Tesla. Most people think of Elon Musk as the richest person in the world, so he must have a lot of power, and to a degree, Dixon concedes, he does. But the job of the investment bank is to make him subordinate to what Dixon calls the financial industrial complex. If Musk wants to acquire companies and grow, he has to get a loan from the bank, and he has to co-invest with the Gulf sovereign wealth funds. By borrowing against your stock and using that stock as collateral, you hand the markets the ability to change the price of the collateral, because they have access to all the products to manipulate markets.
Through that mechanism, executives become subordinate to their capital allocations and capital needs. And through it you can dictate a great deal: ESG was his example of directing the flow of capital by saying that to get this capital at this rate you have to do the following things and meet this score. This, he says, is the most powerful force in the West, though he is specific that he means the West and not the world: the financial industrial complex, which is access to capital, and BlackRock is the most important node in it.
McCormack, who remembers the Twitter acquisition and that a large share of the investment came from Gulf states, stops to confirm the mechanism rather than the anecdote. So the subordination is not a tap on the shoulder, it is the rules of access to the capital? Correct, Dixon says.
He then adds the historical layer. In the early British and American empires the military industrial complex had the most power. Underneath the military sits what we now call the deep state, which he glosses as the CIA, Mossad and MI6, because they get Pentagon budgets. Intelligence can escalate wars, and when wars escalate the military companies' stock prices benefit.
Why a revolution would fail
McCormack asks the question directly and it produces one of the sharpest passages in the episode. If he were secretly planning a people's revolution in Britain, to get rid of a government he considers completely incompetent and to install a codified constitution and restore proper democracy, would he end up arrested, killed, or simply outmatched?
Dixon says it would be a multi purpose operation, and he assigns a role to each complex:
The military industrial complex and the intelligence services would find a way of infiltrating it and turning it violent, taking what could be a peaceful process, starting the killing, and turning it into a narrative that can be weaponised.
The financial industrial complex would start planning which assets to acquire cheaply. Public companies become M&A deals and volatility to profit from; private ones become distressed vulture capital deals. The more distressed the country gets, the more assets get acquired and rolled up into the ultimate power structure, which is hosted on the US stock market.
The technical industrial complex would treat it as an opportunity to manufacture the algorithms and the fear that get everyone onto the technology they want them on, and to advance the pre crime agenda, digital ID, a central bank digital currency, stablecoins, and people at home talking through algorithms rather than in person.
The media props up the other three portfolios, and when you want to crash markets you use derivatives and hedge your bets, so that whether the war fails or succeeds you have a strategy for both.
McCormack calls it a win win. Dixon agrees: a win win whatever happens. He is explicit about the ambiguity he will not resolve, saying they will weaponise it "whether they create it or engineer it, depending on how conspiratorial you want to be."
Russia, and what he means by sovereign
Dixon uses the framework to explain how he reads the war, and he starts by defining his term. Russia is a "fairly sovereign" country, by which he means its central bank is not subordinate to the Bank for International Settlements. His sequence: a failing Soviet Union; Gorbachev there to manage the failure and transfer assets to the oligarchs and elites; those oligarchs infiltrated in order to privatise as many Russian assets as possible, install a Western central bank that joins the BIS, and privatise the oil. What Putin did, in his account, was arrest the oligarchs and keep the oil nationalised.
He stops himself before McCormack can. McCormack says it for him: Putin is not the good guy. Dixon: "None of these people are good. They're acting in the interest of their own power structure in their own country." Russia is fairly sovereign and independent, he argues, because it has its own sovereign wealth, its own currency, and is not running massive trade deficits.
He also flags the corporate view of the same board. A global institution like Apple has its factories in China and its consumption financed by debt in America and the West, and has to ask whether that consumption dries up when everyone is in debt, and where the next market comes from.
Ukraine, NATO, and the war he says was not between Ukraine and Russia
This is the most contested stretch of the interview and Dixon states it flatly. Ukraine, in his view, is "100% colour revolution," and Zelensky is aligned with the military industrial complex faction of America. Starmer, he says, is aligned with all factions, because the UK is fully subordinate, having had bad growth "ever since World War I."
The mechanism he describes for the money: the leader's job is to create the narrative that sends money to Ukraine, which then comes back as weapons purchases. A little goes to the UK stock market, but most goes to Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Raytheon as a tied loan. The structure is collateralised via the World Bank, with BlackRock issuing the money against a government guarantee, and the end state is that they can end up with the Ukrainian assets.
So the shape of the operation, as he lays it out: run a colour revolution, install the leader you need, create a media narrative of saving democracy, and use NATO, which he characterises as "a sales machine for Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Boeing," to increase those companies' revenue. McCormack interjects the detail that the installed leader was a comedian. Dixon agrees, adding that you need a good boogeyman and Putin is one if you want one.
And then the claim that reframes it: "The war between Ukraine and Russia was not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It was a war between the US financial industrial complex and Europe." The strategy, he says, was to fully subordinate Europe, which is why you install your Macrons, your Merzes, your Starmers, whose job is to create an acceptable narrative for why their people's money is being spent on US corporate interest.
"How much of this is conspiracy?"
McCormack asks the question the audience is by now shouting, and asks it twice. How much of this is conspiracy and how much is just how it works? Are you 100% sure this is how it works?
Dixon's answer is a credential list rather than an evidence list, which is worth noting precisely because he offers it as his warrant. Twenty five years on this. He reads a book a week. He has worked in the industries, in business and in investment banking, knows how trading works, did economics to master's level, worked on monetary reform trying to change the system in the UK, and left the UK because he tried to create a bank.
For sources, he points to two things. WikiLeaks and declassified documents, including declassified CIA material. And a book he names as Covert Regime Change, which he says goes through roughly 100 covert operations since World War II, adding that USAID is a mechanism for controlling media. His note on the record stopping at a certain point is that the next set will be declassified twenty years from now. "This is to me 100% how the world works."
Is it evil, or is it a finite game
McCormack presses on the moral question rather than the factual one, and it is the best exchange of the first hour. If the world works on this basis, does it not have to work on a basis of evil?
Dixon offers "profit maximisation" as the more precise word. McCormack does not accept the swap: if profit maximisation requires starting wars and sending young men to die to create demand for weapons companies, and requires extracting hope and opportunity and wealth from the large majority so it trickles upwards, then it requires evil, and it is evil. Dixon concedes the point and extends it: "everybody knew that the British Empire was evil, but they are just about to figure out that the American Empire was just as evil."
Asked about China's Belt and Road Initiative as their version of the same thing, Dixon says it is their version but built on a fundamental difference. China has the world's manufacturing base, partnerships and access to resources, and wants demand for its product. The Anglo American model, by contrast, was to eliminate competition: never allow Africa to use its own resources, take it instead, run proxies to extract it, and destabilise the Middle East. China was a victim of the same thing, he says, in its century of humiliation, which is what produced its hundred year plan.
Then he brings in the analytical frame that does most of the work in the back half of the conversation, drawn from game theory. There are infinite games, where you can think genuinely long term, which is what he says China is playing, and finite games, where a deadline is attached to the action. The US stock market, he argues, is structured around three month games: hit the quarterly goal to keep access to the next level of capital, keep the stock price from being destroyed, stay in the index funds, and stay on the right side of the money printer. Do what you are meant to do and everything rolls: passive index flows, money printing, and media that supplies the needed narrative. US politics runs the same way on a four year cycle that really breaks into two, because the midterm means you have two years to prove your utility to your backers, and you need money to be in the game.
Compromise as a promotion mechanism
The finite game argument leads Dixon straight into his most inflammatory claim, and he makes it as a structural point rather than a scandal. "You also have to be compromised. That's what Epstein was. You can't rise to the top unless you're compromised, because we need to mutually guarantee that all of us won't spill the beans on each other." McCormack restates it as compromat on everybody. Dixon's formulation: the higher you want to go, the more compromised you have to be.
Applied to Trump, this becomes Dixon's explanation for undelivered promises. Trump, from his perspective, does not control the Epstein files; the military industrial complex, the CIA and those forces do. McCormack raises DOGE as an exercise that was useful but wimped out. Dixon reads it differently: DOGE was a data mining exercise, and Musk's role in the technical industrial complex is to build the social credit score by providing the data sets. His supporting argument is dependency: these companies are DARPA funded and intelligence funded, their business requires Pentagon budgets and government funding, and Musk is "leveraged to the eyeballs even though the richest man in the world," with his stock subordinate to the financial industrial complex, so he has to comply.
On Trump's own background, Dixon describes the New York real estate world he rose through in terms of organised crime networks, using ethnic framing as he does so, and names two specifics: Trump was mentored by Roy Cohn, and he married into the Kushner family, with Charles Kushner pardoned by Trump. His structural claim is that there is always an Epstein figure, a sequence he gives as Meyer Lansky, then Cohn and Charles Kushner, then Epstein, "and there'll be the next one as well." No single person, he argues, could be as networked as Epstein was on his own; that is a multi decade network of contacts, and Epstein was "manufactured into this Bear Stearns billionaire financier" whose job was to compromise. Which intelligence service, McCormack asks. Dixon says Mossad, CIA or MI6, maybe all of them, though serving US corporate interests.
He adds a wrinkle he returns to later: US corporate interests route through proxies, so the things that are "really, really illegal" get done at arm's length, with companies like Palantir supplying the surveillance layer. His phrasings for what he says Palantir is building in Gaza, "genocide as a service" and "occupation as a service," are his own, and McCormack repeats them back in disbelief rather than endorsement.
Immigration, and the claim that instability is a product
McCormack turns to immigration across Europe: very unpopular, unprecedented in scale, and no government seems willing or able to deal with it despite that unpopularity. Has this been manufactured?
Dixon's answer routes back through his central mechanism rather than through demography. All politicians, he says, are compromised and subordinate to this network. McCormack tests it against his own situation, which makes the exchange more concrete than most of the episode. Would he see it if he became an MP? Dixon says he would not rise far enough to see it, because first you need access to funding, and getting funding means moving in the networks that supply it. McCormack counters that he is known in Bedford and could stand as an independent, win, and throw a few hand grenades. Dixon concedes the point precisely: at that level you are probably not important enough, but if you want to rise, you have to do it in the party, and then you will have to be compromised to get further up the chain. And they will compromise you. The mechanism he describes is a slow leak: material comes out gradually, and each leak is a signal to stay on track.
McCormack, half joking, asks whether all the stupid things he has done in his life are on a database somewhere. Yes, Dixon says, and offers a live example that lands harder than the joke: if you are using ChatGPT as a therapist, you are building your own blackmail file.
Surveillance, and the free speech platform question
The surveillance thread continues into platforms. Dixon's claim is that you cannot run a platform like Twitter without giving intelligence a back door, and that these technologies are not organic, they are DARPA funded. McCormack's phrase for it is a Faustian bargain. Dixon extends it to the incentive: the Pentagon budget is the carrot. He cites the big beautiful bill at $1.3 trillion with a $5 trillion debt ceiling, and says if a politician complies, that money gets pushed to the corporate contract, with Palantir getting some and Musk getting some. If you do not comply, Musk can come out and say you are in the Epstein files.
McCormack adds a data point he has been sitting on, that thirteen VPNs have been bought by Israeli companies, and works through the implication with visible discomfort, noting his son is in the room. Dixon's answer is short. They know exactly what you are searching for. The two of them land on the same conclusion: a database of everyone's private habits is an extremely effective control mechanism, and that is the future being walked into.
McCormack's reaction is the honest one, and it becomes the hinge of the whole second half: "The thing is, if all this is true, you can't fight it." Dixon says there is zero way to fight it head on, and that they will get to solutions. McCormack asks him to save it for a white pill at the end, since they both already know what it is going to be.
Venezuela, Afghanistan, and the "successful operation" test
Venezuela is McCormack's next case, framed simply: they just want the oil. Dixon's reading is more specific, and it inverts the framing. Chevron and Exxon already have control of the oil, so nothing needs to happen on that front. The question is who is buying it, and the answer is China. Venezuela gets weapons from Russia and drones from Iran, and is aligned with the BRICS bloc, a system that works outside the dollar.
Here he applies his framework in its sharpest form. If you thought of America as a sovereign nation, you would say that cannot be on our doorstep. But America is not sovereign in his model, it is run by the financial industrial complex, so the objective is different: America wants more GDP and Chevron and Exxon want more revenue, so they want China to keep buying the oil, just on better terms. To get better terms you need a narrative, and Trump's job is to create an acceptable narrative for the American people to justify a negotiation. He adds that there is a new discovery on the border, Guyana, which he calls the largest discovery.
On the drug cartel pretext, he makes a claim he has clearly made before: the deep state funds itself through black operations, meaning human trafficking, sex trafficking, weapons trafficking and drug trafficking, so if you want to stop drugs in America you need to have a CIA conversation. And he does not soften the implication about force: "at the same time, we can kill you," adding that the American and British empires have been behind hundreds of millions of deaths, and that these are engineered campaigns rather than organic events.
Afghanistan is where he makes the framework do explicit work, and it is the clearest illustration of his method. The standard framing is that America failed: twenty years and $2 trillion to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. That is a failure if you are a sovereign nation called the United States. But if you are a corporate interest, Dixon argues, you made $2 trillion of revenue out of that war in rebuild contracts, you replaced a Taliban that was suppressing poppy cultivation with one that allowed the drugs to flow, and you created a narrative that you were doing something else. By his scoring, a very successful operation.
Who lost? The Afghan people and the American people. And the mechanism by which the American people lost is the one he keeps returning to: that $2 trillion was printed to roll over the debt based Ponzi scheme, which means it was inflation. If you owned the stocks, you were on the right side of that inflation. If you did not, you paid a higher price, borrowed more, and paid 30% on the credit card. "You are the product for the bank."
On 9/11, Dixon says he has made a four hour documentary going through the declassified FBI documents and attempting to reverse engineer the redacted portions from names appearing in other cases. He asserts CIA and Mossad foreknowledge, points to a moving company he says had bomb traces and was detained for nine months before being sent back to Israel, says the money flows ran through Saudi intelligence, and mentions the insurance payout to Larry Silverstein, which he puts at $4 billion, on what he calls the first terrorism insurance contract. He also notes the Clean Break memo and the observation that the Patriot Act was already written, which he reads as a mechanism for creating the category of terrorism in order to remove constitutional due process.
Notably, he includes a caution against the rest of the genre, and it is the most self aware moment in this stretch: "What they do is they give you all the crazy conspiracy theories. There was no plane, it was remote controlled. They give you the crazy ones to drown out the genuine ones." He then names Ryan Dawson as a source he follows, and both men note that in the released Epstein files "the copy and paste didn't work," a redaction failure that has since become a running joke between them. Dixon's own hedge lands immediately after: maybe the discoverable material is a red herring, because "we are in psychological operations to confuse us as much as possible and point at the wrong things."
When does the debt actually break
McCormack asks the question the whole audience wants: at what point does the debt collapse and become unmanageable, because things are visibly fraying in the UK, Europe and the US.
Dixon's answer is arithmetic rather than prophecy, and it is the single most useful passage in the episode. The first thing to understand is that America has the world reserve currency, which gives it the ability to continually print it, export debt, and run twin deficits, fiscal and trade. That is a requirement of holding reserve status, not a bug. And the condition for the whole thing continuing is one inequality: as long as you can grow at a rate higher than the average cost of your debt, you can continue.
Later in the conversation he supplies both numbers on the day. US GDP growth had "just printed 4.7%," which he attributes to Trump's spending operations and notes is increasingly government spending. The average cost of the debt is about 3.3%. As long as the first is above the second, the roll continues.
Figure 4. Dixon refuses to name a collapse date and instead gives a condition. Growth above the average cost of the debt means the roll continues indefinitely; the gap he cites is 1.4 percentage points, and both terms are policy sensitive, which is why he spends the next stretch on what the Treasury is doing to each of them.
Is this MMT, and the two monetary models
McCormack asks whether this is MMT. Dixon says it is worse than MMT and, in a distinction he clearly cares about, that MMT is the better of the two: under MMT you do not pay the interest and you do not hand it to a private bank, the treasury receives the money, spends it, and receives the benefit.
He uses China's PBOC as the working contrast: a state central bank with commercial banks that are in general state controlled, where all the currency printed goes back to the government and the government reinvests it in its own infrastructure. Under the American model the dollars are printed but the money goes to the bank, and then the bank does two things. First it becomes global and forms alliances, which is why he insists "an American bank is not America first," it is a global institution doing deals with China, the Gulf, Russia and the world. Second, with the profits, it buys the politicians. The financial lobby controls Congress and the Senate, the military industrial complex supplies the deep state, the illegal work bribes the judiciary, "and so you have the illusion of democracy."
The consequence, which he says has already been demonstrated: when the banks take too much risk, losses are socialised and gains privatised, which leads to a higher concentration of power. Knowing the central bank and government will always bail you out, "you just keep going until no one will buy your debt."
Where the printed money lands
The Western model, as Dixon describes it
The PBOC model, as Dixon describes it
Who receives the new currency
the private bank, which holds the licence to create it
the government, via state controlled banks
Who collects the interest
the bank that created the money in the first place
largely internal to the state, so it recirculates
What it gets spent on
whatever the lobby directs: stock market, defence, AI buildout
domestic infrastructure and reinvestment
What the profits buy
political influence; "then they buy the politicians"
further state capacity
Game horizon
finite: three month earnings, two year electoral
infinite: multi decade planning
Figure 5. Dixon's core structural contrast, assembled from his answers on MMT and the PBOC. He is not arguing China is virtuous, and says elsewhere none of these actors are good. The claim is narrower: that who receives newly created currency, and on what time horizon they are judged, determines everything downstream.
The reset, and what Dixon says the tariffs are actually for
This is where Dixon lays out his most sweeping and most speculative construction, and he frames it as instructions BlackRock would give rather than as documented policy. What does the Trump administration have to do? Reset the world order with tariffs, make everyone trade with China, make everyone hate America, deconstruct the deep state, which he says means taking away everything that propped up the dollar: break the eurodollar by going hard at Europe, break the Japan carry trade by letting the Bank of Japan raise rates, break the petrodollar so that, in his figure, 30% of oil is now priced in yuan.
The result is that America and the Gulf now compete, while China provides much of the money behind the Gulf sovereign wealth. So the Gulf funds do the rational thing: buy America's AI companies, buy Europe, buy the real estate, co-invest with BlackRock, get a board seat at BlackRock. They partner with the financial industrial complex because that complex, by definition, is not America first.
Playing that forward, Dixon ventriloquises the allocation: Europe becomes a war zone where assets can be acquired cheaply, America becomes the data centre and AI hub, China is treated as sovereign and negotiated with, and at some point capital gets reallocated toward Chinese tech rather than American, "but first we'll asset strip everything out of America that we can." The instruction to Trump in this telling is to print as much as possible, push it into the US stock market, raise military revenue, push money into AI, and create a narrative of systemic risk in which China takes over the world unless everything is spent. He names the circularity that has been widely noticed in the AI trade, that contracts recycle around from OpenAI to Nvidia, and says the effect is that Nvidia "has no bearing on reality" and is geopolitically strategic. Every tariff negotiation, he argues, is really a negotiation over access to chips and revenue, dressed as making America great again.
His name for the current period: "We are in the asset stripping phase."
McCormack's test is a person rather than a theory. Is that why Ray Dalio has moved to Singapore? Dixon says he prepared for this decades ago and is on the right side of these investments. McCormack's deadpan follow up, "I don't really want to own BlackRock now," gets an "exactly," on the grounds that they are profit maximising in a three month game.
The asset managers run the world
Dixon then does something the rest of the interview has been building toward: he stacks the ownership chain and lands somewhere less satisfying than a villain. The asset managers, he says, managed to get the banks that create the dollars in the first place, the investment banks that securitise and financialise everything, and the private equity firms that buy assets cheaply by borrowing. And here he makes a point that cuts against the standard Silicon Valley mythology: "They don't have the money. Silicon Valley doesn't have the money. They just have access to the 0% money." The celebrity billionaires sit on top of major tech companies that were, in his account, funded with government money and then privatised.
McCormack compresses the whole two hours into a sentence: "The asset managers run the world." Dixon agrees, and adds the partner: they run it with the sovereign wealth funds, which he defines by what they did differently. The sovereign wealth funds belong to the countries that kept their central bank independent and did not privatise their resources, which is why they do not have to tax their people. There is no income tax in much of the Middle East because, as an alternative to tax, they took the oil, put it in a sovereign wealth fund, and reinvested it in their people. "And we're told that that's socialism, communism, capitalism."
That leads him to a swipe at the discipline itself, offered with the credential attached: he did a master's in economics, and asks who created the university system, who funds the syllabus, who determines which research moves forward. Just as you can control a government, he says, you can control an education, which is why new economic models keep appearing that justify government and never seem to return to free markets. Because, McCormack answers, the government is the piggy bank. Of course, Dixon says, I know why.
Their aside on this is genuinely funny and worth keeping. Dixon's daughter wants to do economics A level, and his advice is to read Hayek and then tell her professor that Keynes is nonsense. McCormack points out Keynes was close to the government. Absolutely, says Dixon, noting that Keynes at Bretton Woods wanted what they want today, a one world currency, and that he ended up creating the justification for taking the world off the gold standard and making everyone trade their currencies against the dollar. The promise was that the gold would be kept and Federal Reserve notes could be exchanged for it. Then in 1971, after Vietnam, "the French turned up with a ship and said give me my gold, and they just said no, we ain't got it, you ain't having it, and defaulted." McCormack thought the French got their gold back. Dixon says no, that was the default, and that is when the gold window closed.
The point where McCormack stops arguing
The emotional turn of the episode arrives here and it is worth quoting at length, because it is what makes the second hour different from the first. "I don't want to live in this world anymore," McCormack says. "I want to live in a world where I believe you can have a chance as a good person to go out there and democratically win elections and represent your people. It just sounds like we're screwed."
Dixon: "Well, they sold you a lie. The whole democracy was a lie."
McCormack's response is more precise than resignation, and it is the honest objection: "I know that. And I know there are special interests, I'm not that naive. But to just be this coordinated." Putting it all together is what breaks him, not any individual claim.
What do you do, then? Dixon's first answer is a fork. You can continue to engage in delusion, continuing to believe that changing the politician changes something. Or you can focus on the community level, where he does believe community politics makes a difference. McCormack says he has no confidence in Reform and Nigel Farage being able to change anything, that it feels like a moment of capture, and then names the real social cost of this worldview: "you end up sounding like that crazy uncle at the Christmas dinner."
Dixon's answer to that is the most personally revealing thing he says. That reaction is itself part of the problem, and he has been fighting it since leaving investment banking in 2006, so nineteen years of being told he is crazy. His method, he says, is that every time they tell him he is crazy he tries to find out whether he is, and every time he goes further down, it turns out he has been able to predict things accurately by following the money and ignoring politicians and media. Which produces his thesis in one line: "Money moves the world. So your money is your vote." The best you can do is boycott, go local, support yourself, your family and your community, "and not put your head above the parapet so much that they want to disappear you." McCormack, dryly: "I'm long gone on that one."
Being sorted into a box
Before the solutions, Dixon addresses the two narratives he says anyone going down this path collides with, and he is unambiguous about rejecting both. Go on X right now, he says, and you can find a 24/7 space explaining how every single problem in the world is caused by the Jews, and then find another space that explains the identical set of problems as being caused by Muslims, terrorists or Qatar. Depending on how much time you spend, the algorithm adjusts to feed whichever narrative supports the hatred you have started to hold.
McCormack confirms it from his own feed. He watched an interview between Andrew Gold and an ethnic nationalist, and within three days everything served to him was ethnonationalist content, debates and arguments. He also notes the second order effect on his own show: make something slightly controversial and it gets targeted at that group, and if you disagree with them you get annihilated in the comments, which pushes people into echo chambers because you feel like the weirdo. His line, and it is a good one: "I'm not a racist, that makes me a weirdo at the moment."
Dixon's read is that people are being compartmentalised into boxes to be radicalised as efficiently as possible, and he names the boxes: a white nationalist American ends up in the Nick Fuentes box; a British boomer socialist in the Piers Morgan box; a Christian conservative woman discovering the idea that Israel rules the world ends up with Candace Owens; a man ends up with Tucker Carlson. Neither of the two grand narratives, he says, is the answer. He returns to this later with numbers.
A multipolar world order
So what does he think is actually being built? A multipolar world order, which he calls the next empire. The offer to the Gulf countries is that they keep their sovereign wealth and the region transitions from the forever war model to peace, which requires regional stability, investment in data centres, and access to energy including nuclear.
His position on Iran is where he deliberately breaks with his own audience, and he flags it as such: "Most people think Israel rules the world and Israel is going to get America into a war with Iran, we're going to do a regime change, and then it's going to be World War Three. That's a common narrative in the circles I hang around with. I think it's the complete opposite. I think Iran has already been regime changed." His evidence, as he offers it, is the pattern of de escalation: Hezbollah taken out, the Houthis calmed down, the militias quiet.
He extends the argument to the militias generally, saying Hamas is headquartered in Doha because America asked it to be there, and describing the financial chokepoints around Gaza: money enters the Palestinian banking system via the Israeli banking system, or as cash across the Egyptian border, and Egypt is subordinate to the IMF, while the largest recipients of American aid in the region are Israel, Egypt and Jordan. His claim about October 7th is that it was allowed to happen and then framed by media as something other than what it was, an operation he says has happened repeatedly. For historical precedent he points to Iran Contra as the moment Iran was demonstrably working with American intelligence on weapons and drug trafficking. And he makes the claim that most separates him from the standard framing on either side: "Netanyahu doesn't work for Israel. Netanyahu works for the military industrial complex."
The direction of travel he predicts: America gets shrunk into the Western Hemisphere, with Trump using tariff policy to deconstruct what propped up the dollar and reduce America to a regional power. In exchange the military loses forever war profits in the Middle East and is compensated in Europe and South America, while the technical complex gets its digital ID, its surveillance state, its social credit score, privatised stablecoins in America and a CBDC in Europe.
And then, unexpectedly, the upside. "There's a positive side to that, because peace in the Middle East is something that we've never witnessed in our lifetime, and I believe we will witness it." The consequences he names are that Asia gets to rise with China and Africa "might actually get to use its resources," which requires settling Sudan, Yemen and Libya. He describes those as currently being negotiated, with the military exiting and the banks asking what they get instead. His account of Syria is characteristically blunt and characteristically unsourced: install the leadership the Gulf and Turkey selected, legitimise them at the White House, lift sanctions on conditions, and then, "right after al Sharaa met with Trump in the White House, Trump went and met with all the banks," who began constructing 40 year land deals in Syria. The demographic reason he gives for the whole reorientation: the only regions with birth rates are Africa and the Middle East. Everywhere else "ain't having children. They need robotics and AI."
Bitcoin as boycott
McCormack finally asks the question the audience has been waiting nearly eighty minutes for. What is the role of Bitcoin in all of this?
Dixon's framing is not price and not technology. "Bitcoin to me is a boycott." The logic is a chain of specific opt outs:
To boycott the Federal Reserve, you have to own money outside the system. Gold or Bitcoin.
To boycott BlackRock, you have to own it in self custody. Most people cannot self custody gold at scale, so they end up self custodying Bitcoin.
To boycott the banks, you do not mine fiat currency against your Bitcoin, meaning you do not borrow against it.
That last point is where he goes after his own industry, and he names names. He is critical of Michael Saylor and Strategy, of Bitcoin backed loans, and of the treasury company model generally. His argument is structural rather than personal: Strategy's mission is to accumulate as much Bitcoin as it can borrow or sell equity to acquire, and the buyer of that equity is the financial industrial complex, which then constructs debt instruments on what used to be equity, creating obligations that supersede. The only ways to service them are to sell Bitcoin, borrow more, or sell more equity. "That is full submission to the financial industrial complex."
He then ventriloquises the strategy from the other side, and it is the most vivid passage in the Bitcoin section. Rather than destroy you or push you into Chapter 11 like Celsius, we would much rather have you as a tool. Centralise as much Bitcoin as you can. We have a lovely tool to manipulate the short term price, so we can get it to where you have to sell, or we can issue you corporate debt with heavy terms. Behave, and we will manufacture the media narrative that gets you into the S&P 500, and then you get our passive flows. Then create another one: he names 21 Capital, Tether, Jack Mallers and Howard Lutnick, roll up Strike, get people borrowing against their Bitcoin, capture the media side, capture the developer side, move the mining out of China to America, take the miners public, launch an ETF, and manage the passive inflows.
His conclusion on the operation: "As long as we have nodes, miners, and self custody, we can opt out, but the short term price is captured."
McCormack asks the sharp question. Does it require people like us to self custody and run nodes for it to have value at all? If it were fully centralised, would it lose all its value? Dixon believes so. Which is why, he says, "the fight is not over. I am still here for a reason."
He is scathing about the political turn, in a passage that will be uncomfortable for a lot of the audience. "We allowed a Trojan horse, and we cheered it on, and we got really excited. And Trump, congratulations, you fooled them all." His bill of particulars: rewriting the law so Bitcoin can be confiscated, sending Samourai Wallet developers to prison, launching as many shitcoins as possible, and the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework under which, in his reading, JPMorgan gets to create its own Federal Reserve collateralised by stablecoins with a yield advantage. He mentions his own stake in this fight directly: he is a Bitfinex shareholder and would like the Bitfinex hack Bitcoin returned. Instead, "Tether's sitting around the White House rebuilding the ballroom and the crypto lobby is integrated into the financial industrial complex, and all the people that were on this mission are suddenly integrated into BlackRock." McCormack's summary: "We're not in." Exactly, Dixon says.
He also volunteers two speculations and labels both, which is worth noting given how much of the episode is stated as certainty. On the old Bitcoin wallets that moved recently, he suspects early operators engaged in market manipulation and names Peter Thiel as the type of holder he has in mind, and then says twice, unprompted, "I got no evidence for this" and "complete speculation." And on origins, he says he believes Bitcoin came from intelligence, referencing Len Sassaman, Hal Finney and work with David Chaum, while adding the qualifier that matters: "but it open sourced, which meant it was irrelevant."
Who survives, and the honest limit of the good news
Dixon is careful not to oversell what Bitcoin does, and this is where he separates himself from most people who would make the preceding argument. "If your goal is to think that wealth redistribution gets solved and Bitcoin's going to suddenly make everyone rich, that's not going to happen. It won't solve wealth redistribution. It will save as many people that are willing to listen and take action."
His reasoning for why it will not be universal is structural and slightly bleak. He lives on an island, he says, because the British colonisers needed escape hatches for elites when they want to leave, which is why the Cayman Islands, the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey were allowed to exist, and why Swiss bank accounts exist. By the same logic, the rich and wealthy want Bitcoin in self custody for themselves, but want yours in their custody, so they can lever it up, create derivatives against it, and give you margin calls. "And they will succeed with the vast majority of people."
The exchange that follows is the moral crux of the episode, and neither man lets the other off. McCormack: so you have to become part of the evil. Dixon: no, you boycott the evil by holding it in self custody; if you hold it in the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF and borrow against it, you are part of the evil, and that is the decision. McCormack does not accept the clean split, because he can do the arithmetic on who is able to follow that advice: "But you become part of the evil by doing that, because you know the majority of people won't be able to." Dixon says you have to live. McCormack: "Yes, but if you do that, you do that knowing 70% of people won't." Dixon's answer is education, and then the two of them arrive at the joke that keeps recurring: we should start a Bitcoin podcast. We could call it What Bitcoin Did.
His numbers here: roughly 70% of Bitcoin holders are not in self custody, and the treasury company constructs now hold a couple of million Bitcoin between them.
Leaving the West, or staying
Dixon's first practical instruction is where to live, and he does not hedge it: "I believe that this is the decline of the West. I don't think anything stops that train. I think it gets worse. Europe gets worse, the UK gets worse, America gets worse." McCormack adds the corollary that follows from everything already said: if you own assets, you will have the best time of your life, the rich are going to be fine.
His options are to escape to the islands, or to go to a country that is about to be decolonised from the British American empire for the first time in millennia, which is his case for Africa and Asia. McCormack, who likes Thailand and was recently looking at property there, says he might not go to Africa just yet.
That prompts Dixon's three consequences of tariff policy, which he counts off deliberately:
It wiped out small business in America, because small businesses paid the tariff and could not afford it, which pushed them into mergers and acquisitions up to the large companies. "It was like COVID for that." You wipe out the small business and hoover them up into the multinationals.
It did the same to export dependent countries. If you are in Vietnam, you got wiped out and consolidated upward too. Which is why, he says, BlackRock and China have been negotiating ports, trade routes and Gulf arrangements.
It creates another tax, which he flags and then defers, promising to come back to tax later, which he does.
Systemic inflation in the US, he notes in passing, is about 3% and looks like staying there.
On Russia and Ukraine he adds the incentive reading that follows from his framework, and it is his coldest line: it is a win win between Russia and the financial industrial complex, because the longer it goes on the better it gets for them. "They get more land and BlackRock gets more resources, and they make more money and they subordinate Ukraine and they kill more Ukrainians for their profits."
His rule of thumb for where to be: the closer you are to America, the worse it will be. Central and South America and Europe are fully subordinate and "a playground for military profits." Asia, Africa and the Middle East get the growth, with the Middle East highest.
The chart, and fiscal dominance
McCormack asks Connor to pull up a chart of the US debt so he can see it, expecting a hockey stick, and gets one. The number on screen is $38 trillion, with a ratio he reads as 156%, and there is a brief comic scramble over whether they are looking at the US or the UK.
Dixon reads the chart as a history of the mechanism. World War II is the first spike, with America relatively debt free before it. Then the Cold War, the Korean War, Vietnam, Iraq, the fall of the Soviet Union, the Middle Eastern wars and what he calls the fake war on terror, then the bank bailouts, Long Term Capital Management, the global financial crisis bailout of the banks, and then COVID, which he characterises as a massive concentration into the technical and financial complexes. And underneath all of it, he says, the composition of the debt is interest, war, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Which brings him back to demographics: if you are running those numbers, you either make up the shortfall through immigration, or you get civil unrest and turn it into some form of universal basic income.
But when does the rolling stop? Dixon returns to his inequality and then describes what Trump is doing about it: fiscal dominance, meaning print as much money as you can and spend it into the stock market. He is even handed about the parties here, which is unusual for this genre. If the left gets its way, that spending is social programmes, which means banks and insurance companies get to manage more money and place it where they want. If the right gets its way, it goes to the technical industrial complex, called capitalism and winning the AI war, and into military expenditure, of which he cites the newly announced AI battleships that McCormack dubs the Trump fleet, with a share going to Palantir and the surveillance state. Either way, you keep rolling over.
The technical description of the current manoeuvre is worth keeping precise, because it is checkable. Trump is trying to monetise: run the economy hot, push everything into the stock market, and roll the debt over at the short end using T-bills while pressing the Fed to keep short rates down. Meanwhile, and he notes the same thing is happening in the UK, long term interest rates are getting more expensive, because the market is saying that lending for ten years now demands more. That crashes the price of bonds while raising the yield. His verdict on the whole posture: "That is the emerging market end of cycle type of action."
And what happens after? "They just go to the east and restart." What they need to do to America, he says, is what was done to the UK: shrink the currency into a regional currency and manage a series of asset stripping and stock market growth. His proof of concept is Britain today, where "the economy is destroyed but the stock market's at all time highs," and the government points at the index as evidence it is doing a good job.
McCormack draws the conclusion himself: and to pay for this you have to eviscerate the middle class. Yes, Dixon says. You get wage compression between the working class and the middle class, and the middle class gets destroyed, and nothing stops that train. You keep the welfare programme ticking over, "and you keep it going until the last bond won't be bought."
"So hope is really cope," McCormack says.
The 4chan post, and the housing arithmetic
The most affecting stretch of the episode is not an argument at all. McCormack pulls up a post his producer Connor found while they were planning a year end show, sitting in the Soho hotel, which McCormack had built an article around. He reads it out nearly in full.
Its claim is that there will be no collapse in the way people imagine it, no single day when prices skyrocket and everyone riots. It is more insidious than that. It points the reader to The Hollow Men by T. S. Eliot, and then describes the actual mechanism as accumulation: simple things get a little more expensive every day, homes and apartments get smaller, work hours get longer while pay decreases, you see family and friends less and in time care about them less. You lower your standards for everything, work, food, relationships. Job security stops existing as a concept. People hold onto clothing longer. Fewer marry, fewer still have children, and people engross themselves in technological distractions and fantasy rather than experience the real world. Whatever dream people had about their lives becomes a distant memory, and the only thing left is the reality of their debt and their poverty. And every minute of every day they are told: you are stupid, ugly and weak, but together we are free, prosperous and safe. "That is the collapse. The reduction of the American man into a feudal serf, incapable of feeling love or hate, incapable of seeing the pitiful nature of his situation for what it is, or recognising his own self worth."
McCormack's reaction when Connor first sent it: "It's the most beautiful and devastating thing I've read at the same time."
Then the detail that makes it land, and it is a small masterpiece of framing. They checked the date. It was posted in 2013. "This is like, even if you're wrong, this is still happening."
He backs it with his own arithmetic, which is the most concrete personal data in the episode. He looked up his father's salary in the 1970s and the house he bought, a four bedroom detached, which cost about three and a half times that salary. An aircraft engineer's salary today is roughly what his father earned in equivalent terms, and Connor would love to buy a house. So McCormack went on Rightmove and looked at the same area. The cheapest four bedroom detached, not as good as his father's, was £385,000, which is more than ten times the equivalent multiple.
His conclusion is not economic, it is moral: "Little by little we are destroying people's lives." And then the admission that costs him something, given his politics: "This is the only time I go, well, the communists have got a point. I disagree with their solution, but they are actually identifying the same problem that we identify."
Dixon agrees with every word of the passage in terms of where it is going, says there is no way of sugar coating it because it is reality, and gives the reason he has spent two hours describing the machinery: "You can't put together a plan to win unless you know the rules of the game."
Property, debt, and the thing that actually breaks the banks
Is owning property in the UK a fool's errand? Dixon's answer is that the game has changed, and property is now "just a mechanism for rolling up into the financial industrial complex and becoming a debt slave," with 50 year mortgages in the US as the next iteration. He offers his own path as one data point rather than a template: he was broke and in debt with a mortgage while trying to build a business, avoided Silicon Valley, avoided going public, paid off his debt, and now owes nobody anything and lives in a country where it is illegal to borrow. His general rule: avoid debt where you can, own an asset, and recognise that real estate is now largely an institutional game, whereas "Bitcoin, you can buy fifty pounds of it and self custody it."
McCormack then asks the question that matters most for the audience, and he sets it up carefully: what about someone who is not wealthy, has kids in school, cannot just leave the country, and simply wants the best basic life they can have, food, a holiday, not being miserable? There are tens of millions who cannot say "I'm leaving."
Before answering, Dixon debunks the idea McCormack raises about Americans refusing to pay tax, and the debunking is genuinely useful because it explains what tax is for in his model. Tax does not fund the government; the government is funded by money printing. Tax serves three functions: it creates demand for the currency, because paying tax in pounds creates demand for pounds; it is disinflationary, contracting the supply that printing expanded; and it creates the illusion that you are paying for something. So refusing to pay tax is, in his words, "sadly inflationary." He notes the rich already do not pay much of it and the mechanisms exist because they want them: "Tax is for you, peasants."
But there is one action that does break the system, and he is unambiguous about it: stop paying rent and mortgages. "That breaks everything, because it breaks the banks." McCormack agrees that one works, and immediately asks the follow up that defines Dixon's pessimism: what will their answer be? The pre crime surveillance state, a social credit score, an AI pre crime agenda powered by stablecoins, and a CBDC in the European Union.
Which gives Dixon his closing formulation. The real winning is not a revolution, which will be crushed. And "I do not consent" does not mean mass non consent in order to get a government we believe is strong. "The real 'I do not consent' is just playing outside the system as much as possible." McCormack: "Agree. That's all I know how to do."
The boycott, in practice
The practical programme, assembled from both of them across the last half hour, is smaller and more domestic than the preceding two hours would suggest, which is precisely why it is convincing.
Dixon's version: pay off the mortgage, put a vegetable garden in, buy meat from the local butcher, be part of your community, and exit the financial system as far as you can, which means Bitcoin or gold. You cannot exit completely. You have to drive on the road and use the internet. He is candid about his own compromises: "I need AI, I need an iPhone." McCormack suggests Venice as an alternative. And that, Dixon says, is the key thing: you are never going to get this perfect, and perfection is the enemy here. His rule borrows the shape of the standard Bitcoin advice: own more Bitcoin this month than last month becomes boycott more this month than last month.
He is emphatic that boycotts work, and gives a concrete case: when Malaysians stopped going to Starbucks over Israeli settlements, profits fell and the company changed its chief executive. He is wearing a Starbucks branded item as he says it, and notes it. "The real money, the real vote, is your money."
McCormack's version comes with the scar tissue of having tried it. He went local in Bedford, and everything he did became political and he got attacked in every direction, so he stopped worrying about local and went national, on the grounds that he had touchpoints with MPs and political leaders. He and his team cancelled a pizza place they were going to open because they could not make money against the tax and bureaucracy. Then he decided he did not want to become an MP either. So in a single day he built a website called I No Longer Consent and a matching profile, as a way of saying he does not want to be part of this. Dixon's response is that this is exactly right, that it is a decentralised movement of people declaring they are not going to be part of it, and there is nothing that can be done to forty million people who go local.
McCormack's own formulation of the programme: shake the hand of the local farmer and buy the steak from him, buy fruit and veg from the local farm, only support local privately owned businesses and farmers, put the money in Bitcoin, "and that's our boycott."
Then McCormack makes the observation that reframes the entire episode, and it is why the show works: "Even if you were a mad conspiracy theorist, your solution is still something we should be doing anyway."
Dixon agrees completely, and gives the version that does not require any of his geopolitics to be true. In the best case there is simply massive corporate interest, which we know exists, and corporate lobbying, which we know exists, and a moat around big businesses that makes life hard for an independent coffee shop. A thousand Starbucks can centralise accounting, centralise HR and offshore profits; an independent cannot. All that is uncontroversial. His addition is that Starbucks is Starbucks because it subordinated to the financial industrial complex and took the compromise, whereas the local coffee shop is not doing that, so the more decentralised we go the better.
He adds a claim he flags as personal experience rather than analysis: he believes there is a spiritual energy behind money, that every time he has done something questionable with his money it has blown up in his face, and every time he has allocated it intentionally toward things he thinks make the world better, it has multiplied many times over.
"Is there anyone on top?" The ownership chain, followed to the end
Near the close, McCormack asks what the end goal is. Do you just get a bigger and bigger yacht? Dixon's answer is the thesis restated one last time, and it is the answer to the title: "It's maintenance of the system. This is systemic. There is no one on top. It's not an organised cabal."
He then addresses the specific narrative directly, and describes doing the work to try to refute it. He wrote a blog post specifically to debunk the claim that Jews sit on top of the whole thing, because everyone kept saying it. His method was to follow the ownership chain one link at a time rather than stop at the first one:
People point out that a number of executives are Jewish. Fine, he says. But what is an executive? A manager who works for a board.
Who does the board work for? The shareholders.
So who are the shareholders? That is global wealth, and it changes over time.
The distribution he cites from the last study he looked at: 55% of global wealth is held by those who identify as Christian aligned, 36% atheist aligned, 8% Muslim aligned, 6% Hindu aligned, and 1% Jewish aligned. He does not dodge the obvious follow up, and answers it squarely: given a global population of roughly 16 million, are they punching above their weight? "Absolutely. Are they punching above their weight?" But punching above your weight in representation is a different claim from owning the system, which is the claim he is refuting.
He then dismantles the "they control the banks and the Fed" step with the same chain. The banks are public companies. The member banks own the Federal Reserve. The banks themselves are public companies owned by the asset managers. And who are the asset managers? Large sovereign wealth funds and your own money pooled into ETFs. "So it's just a very, very large complex set of incentives."
His final formulation of what the system is: "profit maximisation with zero ethics in a finite game." And countries that maintain their sovereign wealth get to play an infinite game. He extends the frame back to Bitcoin one more time, elegantly: Bitcoin is an infinite game, but the moment you take it into an options contract and create a derivative that must be repaid with interest on a certain date, you have created a finite game with your Bitcoin, and now you have to become a speculator and get the price right. Whereas in the infinite game you buy it every month and do not care about price. That, he says, is the whole time preference conversation.
He notes what this cost him personally: the minute he figured out how the system worked, he had to leave the UK, and the path from 2015 to 2026 was a ten year project to incrementally get to where he could opt out.
His last structural point rejects the assumption buried in McCormack's pessimism. McCormack says the decline of an empire is the rise of other powers who, by the sound of it, control the new empire too. Dixon disagrees: as long as there are countries that do not have a Western central bank and keep their resources to build a sovereign wealth fund, those countries can use those resources for their people and move toward less tax and lower capital costs. And then the line that puts him outside every economic tribe at once: "Capitalism, communism, socialism, even Austrian economics, is all nonsense. There is a country, you have resources, and you decide how to use those resources and what is the optimum setup to make sure you're not externally controlled."
The two scarce resources
Dixon closes with a question he says he has asked before. What are your two scarce resources? One you will get, he tells McCormack, one you will not.
McCormack guesses knowledge. No, Dixon says, that is not scarce, that is infinite with AI. McCormack gets the first: Bitcoin. (He adds the standard joke about losing it all in a boat accident.) The second he does not get, and Dixon supplies it: your time.
That produces the actual white pill the show has been promising since the forty five minute mark, and it reframes the entire conversation from a warning into an instruction. Dixon points out that McCormack likely has more of it than he does, maybe sixty or seventy years to his thirty. Real altruism could be giving money to people, but a genuinely altruistic life now would be using your time to help as many people as possible see this and build a better life outside of it. "So that's not selfish. Taking your time and being altruistic with it is an incredible and beautiful thing you can do." McCormack, who has just spent an hour saying he gave up on local, says they tried it and just played the game wrong locally, and lands on the plan: be altruistic with our time. And then, for the third time, the running joke: we should start a Bitcoin podcast. I think it might work.
Final reflections: the yacht is not worth it
The last few minutes leave macroeconomics behind entirely and are the better for it. "I can never get my yacht without being evil," McCormack says. And then decides that is fine: "Getting the yacht through being part of this dirty business is just not worth it."
His thesis on money is simple and he states it plainly. You do not want to be broke, because that sucks. But you do not need a lot to be happy: debt free, owning a property somewhere, able to afford your shopping and have a holiday. Chasing the yacht is the mistake, and he counts the miserable rich people to prove it, noting that Sean Combs was not happy, had to have his parties, is still not happy, and is in jail. Having loads of money does not really make you happy.
Asked when he was happiest, McCormack does not hesitate. The year he stopped work and just ran. Nearly 10km a day, a half marathon a week, listening to books and meditating. He was thin, and he was so happy. "It's the happiest time of my life. Money didn't do that. It's putting on a pair of trainers every day and having no commitments."
Dixon's closing frame returns to the structural optimism he has been threading through the dark material: it is a self reflective thing, because the fall of an empire he considers captured by evil is the opportunity for other regions to rise. What the West is experiencing now, he says, are the same tactics that have been used elsewhere for centuries, "and now they're just coming home."
And then McCormack delivers the line that is the honest close for the whole two hours, and it is the reason the episode holds together whatever you make of its claims: "If in connecting the dots you've connected dots that don't exist, and say you're wrong. Say you were wrong about 9/11 and the war in Ukraine, what's happening is happening anyway. And even if you are wrong, the choices that you can make to lead a happy and fruitful and prosperous life are still the same. It's still good to buy local. It's still good to go to the farmer. It's still good to not be part of the banking system. It's still good not to spend your entire life in the rat race, which everyone knows is miserable. It's still good to spend time with your family and go for walks and touch grass. So whether you're right or wrong, it kind of doesn't matter, because that is the answer for a happier life."
Dixon completely agrees. Chasing the money, McCormack says, is a myth and a scam, as long as you get over the basic hurdles. They agree they will have a fun journey home, and agree to do it again.
Key takeaways
The load bearing claim is monetary, not political. If money is created as debt and the interest is never created alongside it, the system can only survive by finding the next borrower. Every other claim in the episode is presented as a consequence of that one.
Dixon's specific rejection of a cabal is central, not incidental. He says it in the cold open and repeats it at the end: "There is no one on top." The model is incentives, finite time horizons and access to capital, not coordination.
The mechanism of control he describes is credit, not command. No tap on the shoulder. The discipline arrives as the terms attached to capital: loan covenants, collateral you do not price, index inclusion, scores you have to meet.
The roll over condition is checkable arithmetic. Nominal growth above the average cost of the debt means the scheme continues. He cites 4.7% versus 3.3%, refuses to name a collapse date, and says the end is "when the last bond won't be bought."
Tax, in his model, does not fund the government. It creates demand for the currency and contracts the money supply. Which is why he says a tax strike is inflationary and useless, while a rent and mortgage strike "breaks the banks."
He explicitly refutes the two ethnic narratives his own audience is sorted into, following the ownership chain from executive to board to shareholder to asset manager, and citing global wealth distribution figures to argue that neither narrative survives contact with the ownership data.
He separates his speculation from his assertion more than once, saying "I've got no evidence for this" and "complete speculation" about the dormant Bitcoin wallets, and "depending on how conspiratorial you want to be" about engineered versus opportunistic crises. Much of the rest is asserted flatly.
The prescription is smaller than the diagnosis. Own an asset, avoid debt, self custody rather than borrow against, buy local, boycott incrementally, and treat your time as the scarce resource. None of it requires the geopolitics to be correct.
McCormack's closing test is the most useful thing in the episode. If Dixon is wrong about 9/11 and Ukraine, the living standards trend is happening anyway, and the recommended response is unchanged.
Chapters
0:00:00 Introduction
0:02:41 Power Dynamics vs Democracy
0:06:59 IMF Bailouts and Rolling Debt
0:10:28 The British Empire Financial Model
0:16:31 Blackrock, Capital Allocation & Board Control
0:18:43 Why CEOs Aren't Really in Charge
0:25:00 Why Revolutions Fail
0:27:56 Russia, Sovereignty & Oil
0:30:00 Ukraine, Nato, and Arms Incentives
0:34:10 Profit, War, and Moral Cost
0:38:34 Compromise, Power & Politics
0:41:53 Immigration and Instability
0:45:29 Surveillance, Data & Control
0:47:07 Venezuela, Oil & Geopolitics
0:55:25 When Debt Actually Breaks
1:03:08 Why Stock Markets Rise as Countries Fail
1:06:30 The Collapse of Living Standards
1:12:25 Multipolar World Order
1:16:18 Bitcoin as Boycott
1:24:00 Who Survives the System
1:28:51 Leaving the West vs Staying
1:47:32 Property, Debt & Freedom
1:49:20 Advice for People Who Can't Escape
1:57:19 What Actually Breaks the System
2:02:15 Final Reflections: Playing the Game Without Losing Yourself
Notable quotes
"Most people when they hear this, they think: is this some kind of organised cabal? It's actually not. It's a ruthless game of betrayal at the top, power dynamics and access to capital." Simon Dixon, 0:44
"The state and the government are a battering ram to take blame for the fact that they are a piggy bank in a Ponzi scheme that needs to reallocate finance to where their lobby wants it to go." Simon Dixon, 2:47
"People think that what we have in the West is capitalism. But what we actually have is socialism for the corporation that can get the cheapest interest rate and access to the money printer, and the rest get capitalism." Simon Dixon, 5:41
"The answer is they only lose when you can't roll it over." Simon Dixon on who loses on sovereign debt, 8:26
"Eventually the corporate ends up with all the assets and the government ends up with all the debt." Simon Dixon on the British model, 11:25
"Is this run by a group of lizard people, or is this just organically how it works?" Peter McCormack, 14:08
"So his subordination is that, rather than a tap on the shoulder, it's more like the rules of access to the capital." Peter McCormack, getting Dixon to the precise claim, 20:25
"The war between Ukraine and Russia was not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It was a war between the US financial industrial complex and Europe." Simon Dixon, 31:44
"Everybody knew that the British Empire was evil, but they are just about to figure out that the American Empire was just as evil." Simon Dixon, 34:36
"The higher you want to go, the more compromised you have to be." Simon Dixon, 37:46
"What they do is they give you all the crazy conspiracy theories, to drown out the genuine ones." Simon Dixon, 54:05
"An American bank is not America first. It's a global institution that does deals with China, the Gulf countries, Russia and the world. And then what do they do with their profits? They buy the politicians." Simon Dixon, 57:33
"They don't have the money. Silicon Valley doesn't have the money. They just have access to the 0% money." Simon Dixon, 1:02:32
"The asset managers run the world." Peter McCormack, 1:03:08
"I don't want to live in this world anymore. I want to live in a world where I believe you can have a chance as a good person to go out there and democratically win elections and represent your people." Peter McCormack, 1:05:47
"Money moves the world. So your money is your vote." Simon Dixon, 1:07:35
"Bitcoin to me is a boycott." Simon Dixon, 1:18:01
"As long as we have nodes, miners, and self custody, we can opt out. But the short term price is captured." Simon Dixon, 1:21:53
"It won't solve wealth redistribution. It will save as many people that are willing to listen and take action." Simon Dixon on Bitcoin, 1:25:56
"The economy is destroyed but the stock market's at all time highs." Simon Dixon on the UK as the template, 1:37:02
"You keep it going until the last bond won't be bought." Simon Dixon, 1:37:50
"There will be no collapse the way some of these people think of it. It's far more insidious than that." the 2013 post McCormack reads aloud, 1:50:36
"This is like, even if you're wrong, this is still happening." Peter McCormack, on discovering the post was from 2013, 1:53:12
"You can't put together a plan to win unless you know the rules of the game." Simon Dixon, 1:54:07
"Not paying your tax is sadly inflationary. But there is one that breaks everything: if people actually said, I'm not paying my rent and paying my mortgage. That breaks the banks." Simon Dixon, 1:56:37
"The real 'I do not consent' is just playing outside the system as much as possible." Simon Dixon, 1:57:34
"Even if you were a mad conspiracy theorist, your solution is still something we should be doing anyway." Peter McCormack, 1:42:19
"It's maintenance of the system. This is systemic. There is no one on top. It's not an organised cabal." Simon Dixon, 1:44:21
"Capitalism, communism, socialism, even Austrian economics, is all nonsense. There is a country and you have resources, and you decide how to use those resources." Simon Dixon, 1:59:00
"Your time is a scarce resource. A real altruistic life now would be using your time to help as many people as possible to see this and create a better life for themselves outside of this." Simon Dixon, 1:59:55
"Money didn't do that. It's putting on a pair of trainers every day and having no commitments." Peter McCormack on the happiest year of his life, 2:02:00
"Even if you are wrong, the choices that you can make to lead a happy and fruitful and prosperous life are still the same." Peter McCormack, closing, 2:02:58
Money creation in the modern economy, the Bank of England's own explanation of how commercial bank lending creates deposits, which is the documented core of Dixon's monetary claim.
Where it stands: documented mechanism versus interpretation
The episode moves between two very different kinds of claim without changing tone, so it is worth sorting them. This section is an assessment of the material, not part of the conversation.
The monetary core is largely documented, though the framing is contested. Commercial banks do create money when they lend, which is not a fringe position: the Bank of England published exactly that in 2014. The Bank of England really was founded in 1694 on a loan to the Crown arranged by William Paterson to fund war with France, though the figure was £1.2 million rather than dollars. Primary dealers, gilt auctions and the intermediation that keeps the central bank from buying directly from the government are all as he describes them. Where economists part company with Dixon is the step from "money is created as debt" to "therefore the interest cannot exist and it is a Ponzi scheme." Interest is paid out of income and turnover over time, not solely out of newly issued principal, and the deposits created by lending circulate rather than sitting still. The mechanism is real; "Ponzi scheme" is his characterisation of it, and it is the single inference the rest of the argument rests on.
The BlackRock claims are a mix of accurate, stale and imprecise. The advisory relationship is real and specific: BlackRock's Financial Markets Advisory arm was hired by the New York Fed in 2020 to run the corporate bond purchase facilities, and advised on the Bear Stearns and AIG portfolios in 2008. The Aladdin platform genuinely is used across a very large share of the industry. But two of his numbers do not hold. He cites $12 trillion in assets; BlackRock reported $14.0 trillion at the end of 2025 and $13.9 trillion at March 2026, so the figure is understated rather than exaggerated. More importantly, "20,000 board seats" is not what asset managers have. BlackRock states that it does not nominate directors or file shareholder proposals. What it does is vote proxies on behalf of clients at roughly that many shareholder meetings a year. The distinction matters to his own argument: the influence is real, but it is exercised as a vote that clients can increasingly direct themselves, not as an occupied seat in the room.
IMF conditionality is real but not as he states it. Structural adjustment programmes have imposed fiscal, monetary and privatisation conditions for decades, and that record is extensively documented and criticised, including by economists inside the institutions. But "install a Western central bank and privatise your resources" are not the two formal requirements of an IMF loan, and describing them that way turns a contested policy pattern into a stated rule.
The figures that have moved since taping. US federal debt crossed $38 trillion on 21 October 2025, so his number was current when this was recorded in January 2026. It passed $39 trillion in May 2026. The growth and cost of debt numbers he cites, 4.7% and 3.3%, are point in time readings; the inequality he builds from them is the durable part, not the values.
The historical compressions are mostly directionally right and dramatically told. HSBC was founded in 1865 in Hong Kong to finance China trade, opium included. Paul Warburg was central to designing the Federal Reserve and sat on its board while his brother Max was a Reichsbank director. Executive Order 6102 did confiscate gold in 1933. Afghanistan's cost is credibly put around $2.3 trillion by Brown University's Costs of War project. The 1971 story is the exception: the gold window did close in August 1971 under pressure that France helped create by converting dollars through the 1960s, but the image of the French turning up with a ship and being refused is a compression of a slower process, not an event.
The geopolitical claims are interpretation, and several are contested or unsupported. His account of 9/11, including foreknowledge and complicity by intelligence services, is rejected by the 9/11 Commission and by the weight of investigative evidence; the Silverstein insurance detail is also imprecise, since he leased rather than bought the complex, the settlements totalled roughly $4.55 billion after years of litigation, and terrorism cover was not a novel instrument. Ukraine as "100% colour revolution," Iran as already regime changed, Netanyahu working for the US military industrial complex, and October 7th as an allowed event are his readings, offered without documentation in the conversation. Epstein as an intelligence blackmail operation has never been established, whatever the volume of speculation around it. Where intelligence involvement in drug trafficking is concerned, the record is partially on his side: the Kerry Committee and the CIA's own 1998 Inspector General report documented that the agency worked with Contra-linked figures it knew were trafficking, which is narrower than "black ops are funded by trafficking" but is not nothing.
He labels some of his own speculation, and that deserves credit. He says "I've got no evidence for this" and "complete speculation" about the dormant Bitcoin wallets. He hedges "whether they create it or engineer it, depending on how conspiratorial you want to be." He notes the crazy versions of 9/11 theories exist and function to discredit the rest. And the wealth distribution figures he cites to refute the ethnic narratives sum to 106%, so they are a recollection rather than a citation, though the direction of the argument, that following the ownership chain past the executive layer dissolves the claim, is sound reasoning and he applies it deliberately against a narrative his own audience is often served.
What survives regardless. McCormack makes the point himself in the last two minutes and it is the fairest summary of the episode: the trend in living standards, the divergence between asset owners and wage earners, the housing multiple that went from three and a half times a salary to more than ten, and the case for owning assets, avoiding debt, buying local and treating time as the scarce resource are all unaffected by whether the geopolitical reading is correct. The 2013 post lands for exactly that reason. It described the slow version of the collapse thirteen years before this conversation, and the description held without requiring anyone to be right about who was steering.
Full transcript
The UK, the European Union, Australia, Canada, the collective West is fully subordinate to US corporate interest because they're rolling over the debt based Ponzi scheme. Yes, they have access to the financial industrial complex tools. [music] They can create a currency war if they want to destroy your wealth. They can laden you with debt which they can roll over. They can use intelligence and military in order to destabilize your country, turn genuine riots into color revolutions, take away somebody that represented the people and install a dictator that takes the corrupt money in order to privatize all their resources and make sure that Chevron, Exxon, Loheed Martin, General Dynamic, [music] JP Morgan, the IMF all can come in and use your country as an asset management portfolio to so most people when they hear this they think is this some kind of organized cabal [music] it's actually not it's a ruthless game of betrayal at the top power dynamics and access to capital and you can throw people off the network and then operations go wrong it's a ruthless game
right Simon how you doing man
uh all good Peter I think um last time we spoke was with uh We were either in Hong Kong face to face and then we did a podcast with um Bill Barheight. I think
that was we Hong Kong was first.
Yes.
It's strange that this is the first time we're doing this in person.
Yeah. Yeah.
After all these years, it's not even a Bitcoin joke.
Yeah. That's wild.
I'm sure we're going to talk about it. Actually, I've just seen the prices up back over 90k.
Okay.
It'll it'll dump 5K again surely.
Yeah.
Um I don't even know where to begin. I mean, I was listening to this Dominick Cummings interview on um The Spectator Go's show and he was talking about the complete dysfunction of the state. Uh the absolute dysfunction of the state, why nothing works, why everything breaks, and why nothing can get done. And there's like half of me is that it's just a dysfunctional state. And then half of me there's must be some vested interest somewhere in that this doesn't work. And whilst that happens, all the poor in the middle class just get poorer and there's a group of people yachts. Like I don't know what's going on. Tell me.
Yeah. Okay. Where do we start? All right. Well, let's um let's maybe do some structural things and then we can look at the big issues in the UK. Um but I think I think people have a very misguided understanding of what I call power dynamics. like who who's making decisions um and what is the role of the state and the government? Um from all my research um the state and the government are a battering ram to take blame for the fact that they are a piggy bank in a Ponzi scheme that needs to reallocate finance to where their lobby wants it to go. Okay. Okay. So what does that actually mean? Well, firstly, you start with the monetary conversation, which is how we first met.
Um, which is that the pound and fiat currency is fundamentally a Ponzi scheme.
What does that mean? That every single pound that is created, um, it started with a $1.2 million loan between William Patterson and King and the King of England. Um, and that loan was a perpetual loan that had perpetual interest and they gave a monopoly on the creation of the pound um to the private banks which the Bank of England was at the time. And so with that structure which is exported globally around anyone that subscribes to this model um you have a problem. where is the money to repay the interest if every pound is a debt? Um, and you soon realize that well the money to repay the interest doesn't exist and so you have to find someone else to take on another loan in order to repay the interest on the money that doesn't exist. Um, and so structurally that is how the pound is created, how the dollar is created. And so you have a number of consequences to that. Uh the first is you treat every consumer as an asset. You try and get them in debt. Um you have you treat every corporation as an asset. Um, and those corporations, they can either get access to 0% loans, which is at the highest level of power the closer you are to a central bank, or you're a small business and you pay virt well, you don't get a loan for a start because they'd rather lend it to the consumer for a house that isn't going to run away. um or you uh you know you pay the highest level of interest whether it's 30% on a credit card or a payday loan at the consumer level. Um and so the corporate debt market is really for the highest levels of power and the small to mediumsiz enterprise doesn't really get the loans unless they've got some kind of cash flow type of thing.
And then at the the third one is is the the most obvious one which is the government.
Mhm. And so when the consumer debt when the consumer goes bankrupt, you restructure it and put it on the government's balance sheet. And when the corporate um has significant influence and significant control, they tell the government how to spend the money when they take on the debt. Um and so you end up in a situation where people think that what we have in the west is capitalism. Uh but what we actually have is socialism for the corporation that can get the cheapest interest rate and access to the money printer and the rest get capitalism. But that capitalism is fundamentally in a game where we have this concept of the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy means that if everyone's trying to take on the debt and roll over the debt, um, then most people lose that game because the people that can access the 0% money can leverage that money to get the assets and the rest become an asset because they go deeper and deeper into debt. And because this scheme is structured as a Ponzi scheme and the interest doesn't exist, the rich fundamentally become the class that own the assets. and everyone else just becomes the assets that's paying all the interest.
Right. Hold on. This is so interesting because on the way over I was listening to Tucker Carlson and he was doing an interview with Adam Marblestone. Is that it? Is that Adam Mar? No, sorry. Apologies. Um doesn't even say it's so it's gold, crypto, and the debt crisis. How to survive when the US needs a bailout. Who's the guest? Hold on. Let me just try and get the name of the guest. Anyway, but this guy, he's a guy who does um sovereign debt refinancing
and trade sovereign debt. And when he was explaining it, he was saying, "Well, we go to a country, we speak to the people who manage their debt and uh we speak to the IMF and when they're going to get the next trunch and you know the likelihood." But he's like, "But they always get the next trunch. That's the business of the IMF." And so eventually they get that tranch and we know they do. We um we help uh um
Common Church.
Coleman Church.
Oh, Coleman Church.
Um and he was like, "And then we uh we help trade their debt around the world." And I was thinking, "Hold on a second." So, and I'm, you know, I'm only early in the interview and I'm I'm wondering if they cover this, but like my my little simple brain was going, well, if they if they need an IMF bailout, they've obviously blown their countries dead. If they're on a second tranch, they've obviously blown that. And so, who keeps buying shitty like who's losing?
Where's the loser in this? because somebody's got to be losing. If there's corruption at these third world countries at the state level where they're basically taking the money and just pissing it up the wall and then they get another IMF bailout, who's losing?
Yeah, cuz someone's got to be losing. Uh well, the answer is they only lose when you can't roll it over. Yes.
And if you can roll it over, then whoever's receiving the interest continues to receive the interest. And inevitably, who receives the interest? Well, it's actually the bank that can create the currency. And so we have this separation between central bank and government. Um, and right now we're headed into what is called a monetization phase. Um, where essentially you're using the government to stimulate the economy and you're trying to get the the you're trying to get as much debt out there as possible. Um, in order to sell that debt, um, you can't actually go directly to the central bank, you actually have an investment bank that creates those products, those bonds, and then the bank is able to purchase them as a primary dealer in an auction. Um, and you get a pretty complicated process. But in order to have it where you don't have the central bank buying directly from the government, you put the bank in the middle and they have a license to create that pound. Um, and so they actually create the money to purchase the guilt and as long as the the debt can be continually rolled over and then you expand that out at the international level and now you get into the real game of power dynamics. Um, and the first thing to understand is that this system was created in England. So, it's interesting that we're going to be discussing UK today. Oops.
Because it was our creation. You know, we we copied bits and bobs from Amsterdam. They had the Dutch East India Company which was the private corporate interest and then they had the Amsterdam Central Bank. Um, but we created this loan mechanism to fund wars. Um, and that was 1694. Um, now once you have that set up, you need the government to continually take on more and more debt. Um, and the way to do that is you need to try and get a productive asset at the end of that debt because you can keep rolling over as long as the government, you know, as long as you're building your capital. And so the British Empire created this concept of mercantalism. And mercantalism was essentially all right well let's create the best militaryindustrial complex the naval fleet um let's create a private corporate interest which was the British East India Company let's create a mechanism for the government borrowing the money and then let's create a mechanism for funneling it back into the private corporate interest and what would the private corporate interest do it would do colonialism if it meant okay let's get all of China silver. Let's get them addicted to opium and build a bank called HSBC, you know, or let's go to India, let's steal all their gold, get all their tea resources, uh commit a famine, um and make them fully subordinate to the British pound. And then we can use that as the base layer to continue the debt based Ponzi scheme. But eventually the corporate ends up with all the assets and the government ends up with all the debt. And so the end result of that was the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, this K-shaped economy, what we are experiencing right now. Um, and then the corporate class, the investment banks, they go find another country to do it to. And in this case, it was America. So you had World War I, the Federal Reserve Act, income tax, everything repeated itself. What we did with the Bank of England and what was after World War II, you had Great Depression, confiscation of all Americans gold. uh you had a pump and dump scheme in order to redistribute the roaring 20s, Great Depression of the 30s, you had World War II, and then you set up the IMF, the World Bank, and you forced the world because they had the manufacturing base, the military-industrial complex, and all the gold that came from British colonialism, um mercantalism, Germany's gold, Russia's gold after the Bolevik Revolution, 75% of the world gold ended up, you know, in the Federal Reserve. Um, and it was the same people that were funding all of those, the Soviet Union, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the Rice Bank, you know, the the the Warberg families were both on the Federal Reserve Board and the Rice Bank, the German central bank's um board. And so you you have this scheme that ends up with all the assets and it always transitions to the corporate um the most incorporate most influential corporates ending up with all the hard money and all the assets. The government ending up with all the debt um and then a new world order in order to reset where you're going to do the experiment next.
Right? So, but but it's okay with the government to have the debt cuz they're they're not people as such and it's great for the corporate interests to have the assets because they are people essentially at the end. Is that correct? Well, um again, it creates that K-shaped economy. So, you got a debt based Ponzi scheme,
a mechanism for getting the best access to finance, which is banking. In fact, you know, the banks, they get to create it. uh the corporate class get it at the cheapest rate and then you use that in order to control government. Government becomes the piggy bank. Um and then yeah they they the compensation is that they create some jobs. But but is this run by a group of lizard people or is this just organically how it works? Like is there what are the interests that know exactly what's happening and they're pulling the levers or is it just an organic system? Um I think it's changed over time and it's very fluid. Um so let's take the current iteration which I would say where are we today? Um the UK, the European Union, Australia, Canada, the collective west is fully subordinate to US corporate interest.
Mhm. Um and so our governments and our central banks are piggy banks and their job is the Bank of England and the European Central Bank need to find a mechanism for printing more money and the leaders need to find a mechanism for spending that money and that needs to go up to pump the US stock market and a little bit of UK and European stock market
because if it doesn't and the US stock market collapses everything collapses. Well, it's because they're fully subordinate and in control by the lobbies. And so, if you want to make it as a politician, you have to receive your lobby financing and you have to agree to what you're going to do for your corporate sponsor.
So, is this is this when Larry Frink comes over and has a meeting with Kia Star?
Oh, absolutely. Um, so you know, Larry Frink again, he's not the top of the chain. He's the manager of BlackRock. Yeah.
What is Black Rockck? Black Black Rockck is today I'd say it's not as centralized as the Dutch East India Company or the British East India Company cuz they had a monopoly. Uh Black Rockck doesn't have a monopoly um but it has $12 trillion of assets and it has a special relationship with both the US Treasury and the US Federal Reserve. So it provides so during COVID it was telling Treasury how to allocate the money and during the great financial crisis it was saying it was telling the Fed what comp how to manage that process and which companies essentially Black Rockck and JP Morgan should acquire which one should go down which one should go over and what assets to transfer uh that technology like that black rockck created because it's got access to all the data um is used by most central banks, most money managers, many governments, many treasuries. And so through technology and the fact that it's managing about 12 trillion of assets, it's the most significant player in allocation of capital. um and allocation. You then have, you know, it's not the full thing because you got Straight Street, you got Vanguard, you got about $30 trillion of assets and then you got the foreign sovereign wealth funds as well, which are countries that co-invest with BlackRock. Um but then you look at and and this is where we get to the power dynamics of today and we'll try and bring it all back into like real things on the ground that are happening in the UK now. Um but once you you know you have these asset managers what what are those asset managers? Well they are the recipients of everyone contributing to their pension um everyone paying their insurance premiums um and all money managers and uh that are essentially looking for passive investments. And so through this structure of these managed funds um like ETFs and various other products and unit trusts in the case of the UK um they get the ability to become the largest shareholder by holding your shares for you for all the pension funds for all the different pools of capital and with that comes the proxy voting rights and the ability to put a board and so BlackRock has 20,000 board seats across most of the public companies. Now those public companies they need access to capital because we don't have a free market stock market. Uh today the the state of the stock market today is that because we're at the end of a debt cycle I would say in the US which has consequences everywhere. um the the US um the yeah so you you have these different pockets of corporate power and I think this is where it helps people um understand um underneath those 20,000 board seats if you want access to capital um you have to essentially have a relationship with the investment bank that made you public and I used to work in investment banking so I'm very familiar with how these these different types of structures work. You know, most people think of, let's take Tesla for example, um they think of Elon as the richest person in the world that must have a lot of power. And to a degree, he does. But the job of the investment bank is to make him subordinate to what I call a financial industrial complex which is if Elon wants to acquire companies and grow he has to get a loan from the bank and he has to co-invest with the Gulf sovereign wealth funds and by borrowing against your stock and using that stock as collateral um the markets get to change the price of stock uh because they have access to all the products to manipulate markets. markets. Um and so by this mechanism you create the executives are kind of subordinate to their capital allocations and capital needs. Um and through this you can manipulate many many different things like ESG was an example. You know you can dictate the flow of capital saying in order to get this capital and to pay this rate you have to do this following these following things and meet this score. Um and so this is the most powerful force I would say in the west not the world in the west is the financial industrial complex is access to capital
and black rockck's the most important node there. Okay. So I remember when you brought Twitter
uh large percentage of the investment came from Gulf States
um and so hold on actually let me go back a step. So his subordination is that through rather than a tap on the shoulder, it's more like the rules of access to the capital.
Correct.
So the you know originally like the early British American Empire was military-industrial complex had the the most amount of power. Under military, you have what we call the deep state today, which is just the CIA, MSAD, all that type of MI6 power, you know, because they they get Pentagon budgets. The intelligence can escalate wars and the military companies, their stock price benefits, the more wars you can go in.
Hold on.
That's military.
So, do you look at the Ukraine Russia war with an entirely different lens than everybody else?
Correct. Yes. explain to me the lens you look at that war through.
Okay. Um so the when I look at the Ukraine Russia war um I look at it as a who is the ultimate power. Uh well it's the financial industrial complex that represents the US stock market and US GDP. That's the current power structure of the west. Now, if you're Black Rockck and you're managing your portfolio, then you're starting to think about some of the demographic issues in the UK, US, low birth rates, where the next profit's coming, all of these different parameters, um, which we can outline and look, go down right to the micro of how it affects us. Um, but you have a spreadsheet of effectively managing these different demographical issues, geopolitical issues. Um and you say to yourself right well what is you know what is the 10 20 year plan how are we going to manage this portfolio um our country is part of a portfolio
absolutely this is what people need to understand the west when you install a western central bank and you turn and you privatize your resources your oil those are the two requirements of an IMF loan you have to take on excessive debt You have to install a western central bank and you have to privatize your resources. Once you privatize your resources, you become a debt based Ponzi scheme and you take on US loan. Uh the West or the Brits and now the Americans or the American financial industrial complex has all the tools they they need in order to manage your country as an asset. It makes me think, you know, when you watch one of those like sci-fi movies when the aliens come and they just like suck everything up that they want, all the resources. Yes.
It just feels like that.
Yes. Because they're rolling over the debt based Ponzi scheme.
They have access to the financial industrial complex tools. They can create a currency war if they want to destroy your wealth. Um they can laden you with debt which they can roll over. They can use intelligence and military in order to destabilize your country, turn genuine riots into color revolutions, take away somebody that represented the people and install a dictator that takes the corrupt money in order to privatize all their resources and make sure that Chevron, Exxon, Loheed Martin, General Dynamic, JP Morgan, the IMF all can come in and use your country as an asset management agement portfolio.
So on this podcast, you are definitely hearing me talk about Bitcoin a lot. Well, why? We live in a really strange time with governments driving inflation with their reckless spending and endless money printing. There is a way out of this. There is a way to protect your money and that is by stacking Bitcoin. I've made loads of shows about Bitcoin. You can go and research this. You can go and read the books. But the truth is it is the hardest money ever created. If you are interested in protecting your financial future, it's time for you to get on the Bitcoin train. I have. I've been stacking Bitcoin personally and through my businesses since 2017. It's protected me. It's secured my family's future, and it also strengthens all of my businesses. So, if you want to start stacking Bitcoin, where do you do it? Well, for me, it's with Gemini. They're a fully licensed full reserve exchange and custodian. So, they give you a secure way for you to buy and own your Bitcoin. There's no risks and no funny business. So, if you're serious about stacking Bitcoin the right way, head over to gemini.com, which is gem i ni.com. So, if I was secretly planning a revolution in this country, a people's revolution to get rid of the government because they're completely [ __ ] incompetent and uh maybe institute a new codified constitution, restore proper democracy back, am I going to end up arrested or killed or there will just be another powerful force ahead of me? Well, there'll be a multi-purpose operation. So, the military-industrial complex and the deep state or the intelligence, they will find a way of infiltrating that and turning it into violence. And so, they'll take what could be a peaceful process and start killing people and turning it into something that can be weaponized, a narrative. Um, the financial industrial complex, they'll come along and they'll start planning what assets can we acquire on the cheap. So, we'll put, you know, if they're public companies, then we can do an M&A deal, we can profit from volatility, and if they're a private equity house, then we can buy it through a distressed vulture capital deal. So, the more distressed your country get, the more assets we get to acquire and roll them up through M&A into the ultimate power structure, which is hosted on the US stock market. At the same time, the technical industrial complex, so there's these different complexes, they'll be thinking, okay, this is a great way to manufacture the algorithms and fear in order to get everyone on the technology we want them to be on. Uh, we can then progress our pre-rime agenda. We can progress our digital ID. We can progress our central bank digital currency. We can progress our stable coins. we can progress our um you know getting people at home using algorithms and talking online uh rather than talking in person. So they'll come up with whether whether they create it or engineer it depending on how conspiratorial you want to be. They'll weaponize it and so you have a multi-pronged and now what does BlackRock they've got? The military-industrial complex, the financial industrial complex, the technical industrial complex. What else do they have? What else do they make public? the media. And so you can use your media as a tool to prop up the other portfolios. And when you want to crash markets, you use derivatives. You hedge your bets. You go and conquer wars. If that war fails or succeeds, you've got a strategy for both.
It's a win-win.
It's a win-win whatever. So this is this is a structure. So let's get back to that original question. How do I look at the Russia Ukraine war? Um, so there is a so a fairly sovereign country called Russia and by fairly sovereign I mean it's not a central bank that's subordinate to the bank for international settlements or any of those forces. Um, you had a failing Soviet Union.
Yeah,
you had Gorbachof that was there to manage the fail and transfer the assets over to the oligarchs and elites in Russia. Those oligarchs and elites were infiltrated in order to privatize as many of Russian assets, install a western central bank that becomes a member of the bank for international settlements and also privatize its oil. Um, so what did Putin do? Well, Putin arrested the oligarchs, uh, kept the nationalization of the oil. Um, and then the media, and I'm not saying this is, please don't.
Putin isn't the good guy.
Putin's not Look, none of these people are good. They're acting in the interest of their own, their own power structure in their own country. Now, Russia has a different power structure. You know, there are oligarchs, but it is fairly sovereign and independent because it has its own, you know, sovereign wealth. It has its own, it's not running massive trade um deficits,
own currency.
Yeah. It's got its own currency. And so when I look at that, right, so you know that's how Russia is. What else do you know? If you're a if you're a global institution like Apple, you know, you're saying, well, I've got my factories in China. Um, I've got my consumer by debt in America and the West. Um, eventually, is that consumption going to dry up because everyone's in debt? um where are we going to find our you know where where is the next market um that we're going to be able to go to um and China's basically got its own policy and its own power structure but let's get back to the west um what what is the power structure of the west so you've got um Ukraine is 100% color revolution Zalinski works for I'd say he's aligned with the military-industrial complex faction of America and so what is his job? And and so Kostama as well, Kostama, he's aligned with all factions. So we're just fully subordinate in UK. You know, we've had bad growth ever since World War I essentially. Um and so Karma is fully subordinate to the financial, technical, and military, but his job is to create the narrative to send money over to Ukraine that then goes back into buying weapons on the UK stock market. But most of it goes into Loheed Martin, General Dynamic, Rathium as a tide loan. And then they use they they structure it and the collateral is done via the World Bank. Um and then Black Rockck is essentially issuing the money with a government guarantee and they end up with the they can end up with the Ukrainian assets. So in the end when you do this operation, you essentially do a color revolution. You install the leader that you need in order to do this operation.
A comedian.
Yeah, a comedian. Um, you create a media narrative that backs up the justification where we're saving democracy. Um, you have NATO, which is a sales machine for Loheed Martin, General Dynamic, Rathium, you know, all of the Boeing, um, all of the the different And their job is to increase the revenue of these military companies. And so Ukraine was the perfect way of doing that. Um you pretend you're you're defending democracy. You have a boogie monster called Putin who's a good boogie monster. Um if you want one. Um and you start to have a a a bigger strategy. What is the strategy? Well, we want to fully subordinate Europe. That was the strategy. So the war between Ukraine and Russia was not a war between Ukraine and Russia. It was a war between the US um financial industrial complex and Europe. And so you use your leaders, you install your macrons, you install your meres, you install your stars. Um and their job is to create an acceptable narrative for the people of why you're stealing all their money and spending it on US corporate interest. And that's your job. That's the war. Okay. So, going down this rabbit hole, uh, how how much is of this is conspiracy and how much is this is you like, oh, this is just how it works? I I know. I know now.
Like, are you 100% this is just how it [ __ ] works? I know. I've seen it.
Yeah. I I've spent 25 years on this and I'd say I know.
You know,
um, what is what are my source? So, I read a book a week.
Yeah. Um, I've worked in all the industries. I've been in business. I've been in investment banking. Um, I know how trading works. I've been in all of the 25 years of my life. Did economics to masters. Um, worked, you know, doing monetary reform, trying to change the government to change the system in the UK. Left the UK because I tried to create a bank. So, this is 25 years of my life of following the money. Um and you it needed a couple of things to put the final pieces together. We needed Wikileaks where you can get all the declassified documents um that you know we that you can use to back up um and uh many of the declassified CIA documents. So if you read a book for example covert regime change it will go through the 100 covert operations um how they fund terrorism um USA ID is the mechanism how they control the media um how you go back to corporate interests you can find there's been 100 operations since World War II um and then they stop at a certain point because we're going to find the next set in 20 years from now um but this is to me 100% how the world works. And so yeah, when that's how I look at what what is happening. So but the world therefore has to work on a basis of evil. you could say profit maximization
but but if profit maximization requires you to start wars and send young men to front lines to die to create uh uh demand from the weapons companies, it isn't it requires evil. And if it's a system that requires you to extract hope and opportunity and wealth from the large majority of people to trickle upwards and and transfer the assets to the riches, it is evil. Yeah. And I think everybody knew that the British Empire was evil, but they are just about to figure out that the American Empire was just as evil. And so with China and the Belta Road initiative is that is essentially their version of this. It's their version, but it's built upon a fundamental difference.
Well, soft power, not war.
Well, they want to So, they they have the world's manufacturing base.
Uh they have partnership and access to resources. Um and they would like uh to find demand for their product. And so, America and the British Empire's model was eliminate competition. Don't allow Africa to ever use their resources. We'll just steal it all. Um, we'll create groups like M23, M13. We'll have proxies to steal all their resources. Um, we'll create ISIS, al-Qaeda in the Middle East. Um, whatever we need to do. Um, and so the Middle East was fully dis you can see it all around the world. China was a victim of it. They had their 100 years of shame. Um, their century of humiliation which led to them coming up with this 100-year plan where they are now. Um, and if you look all around the world, you'll see that the tactics that you find appalling that are currently coming home. By the way, they're using the tactics on our self because they got another plan. Uh, they funded every genocide, every ethnic cleansing campaign. You can tie you can tie this to pretty much every war in the world over the last 100 years. And I did that exercise of figuring out what interest um it it it was it served. But is is it evil? Right. So, I use game theory. I'm a bit of, you know, in economics with game theory. Um, in game theory, you have two types of games. You have an infinite game, um, which is where you can really think long term. That's what China's doing. And then you have a finite game. And what a finite game means is that you put a time deadline on an action. And so, if you look at the US stock market, it is structured around three-month games. uh you have to meet your goal um in the next three months in order to gain access to the next level of capital to have your stock price not destroyed to gain access to the index funds and to be on the right side of the money printer. And if you do what you are meant to do for the financial industrial complex everything rolls and everything ticks. uh you get access to your passive index fund, you get money printing um and you get media that kind of gives you the narrative that's needed in the financial times. Um and uh in US politics, you have a 4-year election cycle which breaks down into two years.
Midterm election. So, you have two years to prove your utility to your backers and you need money in order to be in the game. You also have to be compromised. That's what Epstein was. Uh you can't rise to the top unless you're compromised because we need to mutually guarantee that all of us won't spill the beans on each other.
So, there's compromat on everybody.
Compromise. You you the the higher you want to go, the more compromised you have to be. So, it's part of the argument of why Trump has not delivered on everything he promised is that he can't because of his backers.
Trump in my perspective doesn't control the Epstein files, the military-industrial complex and the CIA and those forces do.
But even Doge to an extent wimped out. It was a useful exercise and wimped out. Doge was a data mining exercise because Elon is an important network of the technical industrial complex. Um his job from my perspective is to build the social credit score. That's what his job is. He's providing all the data sets for the social credit score. Um under the guys, you know, these people are DARPA funded. This is, you know, CIA intelligence funded. Their business requires Pentagon budgets. um it requires government funding and he is leveraged to the eyeball even though the richest man in the world with his stock fully subordinate to the financial industrial complex and so he has to do what they say he has to comply Trump um is uh if you look at his background you know he he I mean he made money in real estate in New York that's the Jewish mob the Italian mafia the real estate dyons um he was mentored by Roy Cones Um, he was married into the Kushner family. The Kushner were the original Epstein blackmail operations, Charles Kushner, which Trump pardoned uh before Epstein. So, there's always been an Epstein. It was Myansky, then it was Roy Coons and Charles Kushner, then it was Epstein, and there'll be the next one as well. There is no way in hell that one person could be asworked as Jeffrey Epstein was. That's a multi-entury network of contacts and he was manufactured into this bare sterns um billionaire financia. Um his job was to compromise. Um and that's I think you know that's at the intelligence level whether it's MSAD, CIA, MI6,
Five Eyes.
Sorry,
maybe all of them.
Uh maybe all of them. Yeah. Um but he would be serving US corporate interests. Now remember US corporate interests they also go via these different corruption pro proxies. So if you want to do something that's really really illegal like a genocide or ethnic cleansing then you use your Israeli proxy and then the money comes back into so you do the illegal [ __ ] over there. You have all these cyber security AI like surveillance technology like palenteers building genocide as a service in Gaza, occupation as a service,
genocide as a service.
Genocide as a service in what what they are building in Gaza, have you not? If you read the plan of what they're rebuilding in Gaza, the Tony Blair plan by the way, nonetheless, with Jared Kushner, uh, funded by MBS Saudi um, money, um, it is going to tokenize the land into a shitcoin. It is building data centers for Elon. Um, it is building the mass surveillance date Orwellian 1984 nightmare and Palanteer, which is the company that's going to be powering it. and powered the genocide as a service and the occupation as a service and the integration into drones in Ukraine and crowd control in Saudi Arabia during Hajj and the pre-rime agenda in the UK and the surveillance day across Europe that is monetizing and weaponized immigration policy in order to manufacture civil unrest. So, okay. So, let's let's talk about the immigration across Europe. Um, because it's very unpopular. Uh, the scale of it is unprecedented. Um, no government has seemed to want to or be able to deal with it despite the fact that it's publicly un unpopular. So, this this has been manufactured. Uh, yeah. So I mean look if you're if you're looking So firstly all all politicians are compromised and subordinate to this network this financial industrial complex.
So should I if I wanted to see it
and I became an MP would I see it or would I not realize I'd become subordinate? um you would be firstly you wouldn't rise you you firstly you'd need access to funding then when you need access to funding you'd be hanging around with the different networks you need to hang around in order to access that funding
but I'm I'm known in Bedford I could go as an independent
okay
have a chance of winning throw a few hang grenades in
yeah so at that level you're probably not important enough if you want to rise
you got to do it in the party
then you're going to have to be compromised to get further up the chain
and they will compromise you. You know, Kia Starmer, if you look at he was all connected to the sex trafficking with um uh Julian Assange and various other operations like you know you can go back into like everybody has the compromise that they don't want to come out and then they leak it out and as they leak it out that's basically saying stay on track to where we're meant to be going.
So all those stupid things I've done in my life are on a database somewhere.
Yeah. Yeah, I mean if you're if you're using chat GBT as a therapist um then you're creating your blackmail operation in your Orwellian 1984 future.
I've been conscious of that for the start. So beyond it calling me babe, I think we're all right.
Even even X, right, the like we went from okay, so we had COVID, we had censorship and then suddenly we came back with the free the free speech platform X, right? M so we watched um Jack Dorsey which you cannot run a platform like Twitter without giving intelligence a back door. You know the network you you you you become Twitter because the network allows you to become Twitter,
right?
You know um you you know uh these are not organic things that happen like this technologies are all DARPA funded utilized that
you make a fouian bargain.
Yeah. the the theft is, look, you have this Pentagon budget. Um, you know, the big beautiful bill Trump just announced, there's 1.3 trillion and a 5 trillion debt ceiling. And you, if you, if your politician complies, they pushed that money up to your corporate contract. Palanteer gets some, Elon gets some. Um, and this is, you know, the gradual uh the gradual mechanism. And if you if you don't comply, you suddenly Elon can come out and say, "Hey, Trump, you're on the Epstein files."
So, I'm aware that uh Israel, I think, has bought 13 Israeli companies have bought 13 VPNs. And obviously, my son's in the room and neither he doesn't watch pornography and I don't. But if I happened to, if I was one of those people, if Connor was one of those people who watched pornography, they probably have a database of that as well.
They probably do.
They know exactly what you're searching for.
They know exactly. I already know what you're searching for. [laughter]
Yeah. So like um so they've probably got a vast database of everyone's kink in the world as well.
Which is a great way to control somebody.
Absolutely. This is the this is the future we're walking into now. This is interesting because when when you go through that natural progression
perhaps with a camera with your face.
The thing is right [laughter] if all this is true
you can't fight it.
There's there's zero way.
Um well then we get to solutions um if you want to go
you just have to kind of play the game the best you can.
Let's not let's come to
let's end let's end on a on a on a white pill cuz you know what it's going to be and I know what it's going to be. We had the text conversation on the way. Um, and I think I know where it's going to be. So, so when you look at Venezuela,
yes,
basically they just want the oil.
Okay. So, let's look at Venezuela. So, um, uh, Venezuela firstly, it was subordinate to military-industrial complex, financial industrial complex, IMF warfares, color revolutions like the global south have been all subjected to this. Um, and so, uh, at in its current state, uh, the most important thing is that Chevron and Exxon have control of the oil. They already do. They don't need to do anything. Um, but who's buying that oil? China's buying it. Um, and so where is where are they getting their weapons? Well, they're getting their weapons from Russia. Um, where are they getting their drones? They're getting their drones from Iran. So you got a country that has aligned with, you know, the bricks, let's say, [snorts] um, a system that works outside the dollar.
Mhm.
Um, a network where you can do this. But what is the problem? The problem is is that and normally if you thought of America as a sovereign nation, you would be thinking, "No, that can't be on our doorstep." But America is not sovereign. America is run by the financial industrial complex and corporate interest. And so what do they say? Well, they say, well, we want more America wants more GDP and Chevron and Exxon want more revenue. Um, so we want China to continue buying the oil. Um, but we want better terms. And so if you want better terms, um, and by the way, there's a new discovery right on the border of Venezuela called Guyana, which is the largest discovery, um, then you pretend that you're coming after the drug cartels. Um, the drug cartels, by the way, how does the deep state fund itself? [laughter] you know, uh, the CIA, MI6, um, MSAD, they are funded by Black Opali operations, which is humans trafficking, sex trafficking, weapons trafficking, drug trafficking. If you want to stop drugs in America, then you need to have a CIA conversation because that's how they fund their black ops. They have partnerships with the drug cartels. Um, and so if you want better terms on those, then what you need to do is you create a narrative. And so Trump's job is to create an acceptable narrative for the American people um in order to uh justify a negotiation that gets better terms. Now, at the same time, we can kill you. Yeah. Absolutely. Uh and and don't be shocked by that. America's been behind the American and British Empire have been behind hundreds of millions of deaths like around the world. Like the these are not organic events. These are engineered campaigns.
And and we also I mean you mentioned they got the Chinese addicted to opioids. And we also know in Afghanistan that they very quickly uh protected the poppy fields, allowed the drug trade to continue.
Yeah. So let's look at Afghanistan. So Afghanistan, people frame it as America failed. They spent, the joke is they spent 20 years to replace the Taliban with the Taliban and spent $2 trillion. Now that is unsuccessful if you're a sovereign nation called United States of America. But if you are a corporate interest, you made $2 trillion of revenue out of that war, rebuild contracts. Um, you uh also took a group called the Taliban which were fighting against poppy seeds and drugs and you replaced it with a new version of the Taliban that allowed the drugs to flow and you created a narrative that you were doing something different. So the Taliban that we see today is not the Taliban that were fighting the drug trafficking. We've got America's Taliban now.
Um and you can see how the media narratives if you look via the NOS's, USAD, you see all the funding into BBC, funding into all the different um National Endowment of Democracy, um all these different organization, we call it foreign aid. um that is essentially the blackmail operations in order to allow these things to do. So what was Afghanistan? You got you you managed to get the drugs flowing again. You got two trillion dollars of revenue and you put a proxy version of the Taliban from a resistance version of the Taliban. Very successful operation. But who lost? Um the Afghan people lost and the American people lost. Why? because that was $2 trillion that was printed to roll over the debt based Ponzi scheme.
So that was inflation.
Yes, that was inflation. Now if you own the stocks, you were on the right side of that inflation.
The rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
Exactly. Everybody else is paying a higher price, which means you need to borrow more, pay more credit card at 30%. And you are the product for the bank. So how do you look at 911? um 911. Um I put a I got a 4-hour documentary that goes through the declassified document by the FBI and tries to reverse engineer the bits that were redacted based upon likely names from other cases.
the copy and paste didn't work in those ones.
Did you see that in the Epstein files?
Absolutely.
They're [ __ ] idiots.
Or maybe not.
Or maybe not. There you go. you know these are these are okay we'll allow them to discover this that could be a red herring you know that that's the thing we are in psychological operations to to confuse us as as much as possible and point at the wrong things um 9/11 was okay so you had a military-industrial complex financial industrial complex and technical industrial complex operation so firstly prior to 911 um you already had the clean break memo which was the uh the seven countries and seven wars that America wanted to fight in five years.
Uh you had that already as a policy. You also had Patriot Act already written. Um so Patriot Act was um a mechanism for creating the word terrorism in order to remove the constitutional due process um and be able to just um at will justify these wars. remove um due process in America and usher in the the the the technical industrial complex progression. Um 9/11 was a very successful operation. If you go into the declassified documents, um the CIA were all over it. Um the MSAD was all over it. There was Urban Movers funded by Steve Wickoff, by the way, who is in the Trump administration now. uh which was a msad moving company um that had bomb traces as one of the things that they were they had access to 911 via the art students operation. These are not the conspiracy theories. These are these are the declassified documents FBI documents in there. You had them detained for 9 months um and then you had massive pressure campaign to send them back to Israel. um and the laundering of the money, all the monetary flows um happened via Saudi intelligence. So you had CIA, Saudi intelligence and MSAD uh that were all involved in 9/11 and it solved multiple purposes. Um it could finance all of those wars. Um there was all the issues with the Twin Towers and the insurance payouts. You can go through all of that.
Took out a new premium what weeks before?
Yeah. So I I think there was a $4 billion payout to Larry Silverstein who was given the opportunity an Israeli American jewel national um in order to purchase the towers and take out the first ever terrorist insurance contract. You also had um the two of the you know what they do is they give you all the crazy conspiracy theories. there was no plane and it was a remote control or it was all like it couldn't, you know, they give you the crazy ones to drown out the the genuine ones.
Um, and so you get you get pushed into that group. Um, but I I follow like Ryan Dawson who's done some great documentaries like going through all this stuff. Um, and I kind of just put it in with the follow the money um type of philosophy of how these operations work. Um, but if you look at really the entirety of the $ 38 trillion debt today, it follows the Bank of England story. What time does the debt collapse? At what point does the debt collapse? it becomes unmanageable because it feels like there's a combination of things say here in the UK in Europe and the US which means things are starting to fray.
Yeah. So um the first thing to understand is that world reserve currency is what America has.
And that's the important part. Once you have the world reserve currency, you have the ability to continually print it, export debt and you can run these twin deficits, trade deficit and um fiscal deficit. I.e. the government can spend more um and you can export more than um you know you can import more than you export. That's a requirement to have world reserve currency. So you got to roll that up. There's a debt based Ponzi scheme. you got to keep going. As long as you can grow um at a rate that is higher than the average cost of your debt, then you can continue the debt based Ponzi scheme. So there will be an average price on that 38 trillion.
Hey, is this MMT?
Uh it it's worse than it is kind of MMT, but the banks get all the interest and the money. So MMT is better because MMT you don't actually pay the interest. Mhm.
And you don't give it to the bank, you don't privatize it. That the treasury receives the money and spends it and they receive the benefit. And so under this model, so if you look at China, uh the PBOC model is they have a state central bank um with um a bunch of uh commercial p um commercial banks which are all state controlled. In general, there's a few private, but in general, you got state controlled, local banking, and PBOC. Every all the currency that's printed goes back to the government and the government reinvests it in its own infrastructure. Under the current model in America, the dollars are printed, but the money goes to the bank and then the bank is now using that money to do what? uh firstly they become global and so they form alliances. They don't have an America first agenda. An American bank is not America first. It's a global institution that does deals with China, the Gulf countries, Russia and the world. Um and so there's no America first. And then what do they do with their profits? They buy the politicians. And so the lobby, the financial lobby controls Congress, Senate, and then via the military-industrial complex, you have the deep state. And then you can do the illegal stuff to bribe judicial. And so you have the illusion of democracy. And so what actually ends up happening then when the banks take out too much risk uh they socialize the losses and they privatize the gains as we've seen. What does that do? That leads to a higher concentration of power. So knowing that the the the central bank and the government will always bail out, you just keep going until no one will buy your debt. eventually somebody won't there won't be the right there won't won't be the right market and so what does the Trump administration have to do well black rockck tells him what to do tariffs reset the world order uh make everyone trade with China make everyone hate America deconstruct the deep state which means you take away everything that propped up the dollar uh break the euro dollar by going nuts on Europe break the Japan carry trade allow the Bank of Japan to put their rates up. Uh break the petro dollar. Um so that now you know 30% of oil is priced in yuan. Um and what do we do? We compete start competing with the Gulf countries. So now America and the Gulf compete. China's providing all the money for the sovereign wealth of the Gulf countries. Um so who do you think Saudi Arabia needs to answer to? So what are they doing right now? They say, "Right, we'll buy up all of America's AI companies. We'll buy up all of Europe. We'll buy up all the real estate. We'll co-invest with Black Rockck. We'll get a board seat on Black Rockck." And so the Gulf sovereign wealth funds have partnered with the financial industrial complex because they're not the the financial industrial complex is not America first. It it's a global institution by definition. And so if Black Rockck now wants to reset the chessboard, it can say Europe, you're going to be a war zone. We can do some demographic operations. Um we can do all sorts of things to acquire the assets on the jeep. Uh America, you're going to be the data center, the AI hub. China, you're sovereign. We're negotiating with you. You know, at some point, Black Rockck will say, "We'll reallocate some of our capital over to Chinese tech companies rather than American, but first we'll asset strip everything out of America that we can." So, let's push the K-shaped economy to the extreme. So, what do you do? Say, "Trump, print as much as you can. Push all of that money into the US stock market. We'll tell you where to allocate it. uh get more revenue for the military-industrial complex. Um make sure that you're pushing as much money into AI. Create a narrative that there's systemic risk. China's about to take over the world with AI if we don't spend everything. Recycle all of these contracts around chat GBT over to Nvidia. Make sure that Nvidia has no bearing on reality. Is geopolitically strategic. And then what we'll do is you go and pretend that you're negotiating tariffs with countries and we'll just negotiate access to chips, access to revenue and we'll start building all the data centers in the Middle East and we'll start you every time you do a negotiation. You pretend it's make America great again. Well, we'll just sell off all the stocks with Chinese money through Gulf sovereign wealth funds that partnered with this whole financial industrial complex. And so that we are in the asset stripping phase.
So and the money is moving east.
The money is moving east.
So is that why Ray Dalio has moved all his money into Singapore? Does he he knows what going on?
He he he prepared for this decades ago. [laughter] You know, he he's on the right side of these investments. You know, the these people, they're part of the financial indust. And that's a public company. Um
I don't really want to own Black Rockck now. Exactly. Uh because they are fundamentally profit maximizing in a threemonth game that requires them to meet the goal of this financial industrial complex and they're a part of it and even they managed this is what the asset managers was really interesting. So they managed to get the banks that create the dollars in the first place. They managed to get the investment banks that securitize and financialize everything. They managed to get the private equity companies that can buy all the assets on the cheap borrowing from the government. They don't have the money. Silicon Valley doesn't have the money. They just have access to the 0% money. You know, they have access to the cheap capital. And then you have a bunch of people that can be these celebrity icon billionaires when really all of these major tech companies were just funded with government money. Um, and we privatized it all. Uh, and we ended up with the board C and we're just asset stripping, asset stripping, asset stripping, asset stripping. Um, and so now I think we ask what is Black Rockck wanting to do now? And I say Black Rockck, it's, you know, it's a it's decentralized power structure based upon who owns these these asset managers. And that's an interesting conversation in itself.
The asset managers run the world.
The asset managers run the world. They partner with the sovereign wealth funds and the sovereign wealth funds are the ones that kept their central bank independent and managed to not privatize their resources so they don't have to tax their people. So there's no tax in the Middle East because as an alternative to tax they took all their oil, put it in a sovereign wealth fund and used it for their people and reinvested in their people. And we're told that that's socialism, communism, capitalism. And so what ends up happening is you create a narrative in America. And by the way, I you know I did a masters in economics. It was a long time ago. Um the [ __ ] behind these models like you know and again you ask yourself what is the university college system? Who created that? [laughter] Who funded who funds these syllabuses? Who determines what research moves forward? It just so happens that just like you can control a government, you can control an education. Well, we keep inventing new economic models or keep discussing new econ economic models uh that seem to justify government and we know we don't seem to see any return to free markets. And
but why? Because the government is the piggy bank.
Of course, I know that. I know why. I know. Like every kid I meet now who's going to study economics, even my daughter wants to do economics A level, I'm like, "Right, you're gonna be reading Hayek and you're going to go and say to your professor, Kane's bullshit."
Yeah. But Kayes was close to the
Yeah. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. I mean he you know he was Breton Woods too got the world to you know I mean he wanted to do what they want to do today which is one world currency and he wanted to create the bank. Um in the end he created the justification for taking the world off the gold standard. Uh making everyone trade their currencies against the dollar. Um, and then the dollar said, "I promise we'll uh uh you know, we'll we'll keep the gold and you can trade your your uh your uh your Federal Reserve notes for gold." And then in 1971 after the Vietnamese war when the French turned up with a ship and said, "Give me my gold." And just said, "No, we ain't got it. [snorts] You ain't having it." And defaulted. So America defaulted then.
Oh, I thought they gave the French a gold back. No, they didn't give it. I don't know what happened. Um maybe something happened after, but that was the default and that's when they came off the gold standard. So, you can no longer convert.
I don't want to live in this world anymore.
I want to live in a world where I believe you can have a chance as a good person to go out there and democratically win elections and represent your people. It just sounds like we're [ __ ] Whatever.
Well, they sold you a lie. There were the the the whole democracy was a lie.
Well, I know that. I know that. And I know there special interests. I'm not that naive, but to
just to be this coordinated,
putting it all together just means Yeah. What do you do?
What do you do? You can't do anything.
Your choice is basically go sit on a beach somewhere and forget about it.
Yeah. Just go into the
the first thing like when when I when you come to the firstly you can continue to engage in delusion. Um you can continue to believe that changing the politician will change something. Um or you can I like focus on the community level. So I do believe community politics makes a difference.
Well, we have we have talked about that. I mean I've just I have no confidence in reform and Nigel Farage being able to change anything. It it feels like it's just a moment of capture. But but also you end up sounding like that crazy uncle at the Christmas dinner. Oh, you can't trust them. It's all the tips blah blah blah.
Well, that's a scop in itself. And um I you know I've I've been fighting that ever since I left investment banking in 2006. So that's been 19 years I've been told I'm crazy. Um and every time they tell me I'm crazy I try to find some you know whether I am crazy or not. Um and and every time I go further and further down the rabbit hole, um it it turns out that you're quite I've been quite accurately able to predict things based upon following the money and ignoring politicians and ignoring media. And so while everyone is focused on media and politicians, um once you realize that okay, what what actually does move the world? Well, money moves the world. So your money is your vote. And that's the conclusion that I come to. So the the the best you can do is boycott, you know, um and go local um and support yourself, your family, and your community um and not put your head above the parapit so much that they want to disappear you.
Well, there's kind of um two things that are happening right now. Um I'm long gone on that one. [laughter]
Yeah. Um but uh there's two things that are happening right now. So the next world order is I believe a multipolar world order and at the same time um you talked about coordinator. So most people when they hear this they think is this some kind of organized cabal. It's actually not. It's a ruthless game of betrayal at the top power dynamics and access to capital and you can throw operations go wrong. It's a ruthless game. Um, but what I've found most useful is to figure out who rules the world. Um, I think um, you know, I I looked at who owns all these shares to try and answer that question because inevitably when you go down this path, there's kind of a couple of narratives that if you're if you're online, you know, you know, there's a couple of narratives right now.
That's Charles.
Yeah. You you either the Jews rule the world.
Or Qatar rules the world and there's an invasion, right? And Muslims are taking over. Those are the two narratives. If you go on X right now, um you can find a 24/7 space that will tell you how every single thing and every problem in the world is because of the Jews. And then you can go on the same space and they'll tell you the exact same thing, but they'll tell you how it's the Muslims, it's the terrorists, it's Qatar. Um, and and depending on how much time you spend, uh, your algorithm will adjust to feed the narrative that backs up the hate and belief that you need in order to believe those two things.
Well, I've started to notice the algorithmic tyranny recently
um, in in both YouTube and X. X, weirdly, I started calling it X. I always said I wouldn't. I was calling it Twitter forever. But um I know with the X it very quickly uh reconfigures yourself to the latest thing you're looking at. And so for example this week there was an interview between Andrew Gold and Steve Laws. Steve Laws as an FNAT like just total FNAT uh ethn Yeah. Eth ethnic nationalist and within three days all I've got is ethnoist content or debates or arguments and I just feel like that's feeding me right at the moment.
Absolutely. And then at the same time we will make a certain kind of show and if it's slightly controversial that is then targeted at that group and if you don't agree with them you get annihilated in the comments. So there's like these these kind of like algorithmic biases being created that is forcing people also into echo cham chambers because you feel like I'm the weirdo.
I'm not a racist that makes me a weirdo at the moment. So it's like it's a bit weird the way it's happening. are both a distraction anyway. Is it neither? It's not the Muslims or the Jews.
Yeah. Um yeah, I think we're we're being c compartmentalized into boxes right now. Um and so, you know, if you if you're like a a white nationalist American, then you'll end up in the Nick Fuentes box.
Yeah. If you're like um if you're like a Britain boomer um kind of socialist, you'll end up in the Piers Morgan type of box. Um if you are a Christian conservative woman um that is discovering that they think Israel rules the world, you'll end up in Candace Owen. Um and uh you know then if you're a man, you'll end up with Tucker Carlson. um and uh they're compartmentalizing us into the box we need to be in order to radicalize us into our ideology as much as possible. Um and then they can use those algorithms um in order to I think the goal is so let's look at the bigger goal. So I think um Black Rockck wants to split the world up into a multipolar world order. That's the next empire. It's saying the Gulf countries, you have your sovereign wealth. um we'll transition from the forever war model over to peace in the Middle East which requires regional stability and investment in data centers and access to energy including nuclear.
It would probably help then if you had a revolution in Iran and
yeah um so the Ayatala
I think I I my personal belief and most people disagree with me on this. Most people think Israel rules the world and Israel is going to get America into a war with Iran. We're going to do a regime change and then it's going to be World War II and Israel is going to rule the world. That's like the a common narrative in the circles I hang around with. Um I think it's the complete opposite. I think Iran has already been regime changed.
Um and the IRGC are completely on board with everything that's happening right now. Um so you saw that Hezbollah was taken out. Um you saw that Houthis have calmed down. You see the militias. Uh by the way also the stories around militias is completely different as well. So like for example I'm jumping around a little bit here. Um but if you look at Hamas um Hamas is located in Qatar Doha because America asked them to be there and the only way to get money into the Palestinian banking system is via the Israeli banking system or if you want to put cash in the border uh then you have to do it via the Egyptian border. The Egyptian border is subordinate to IMF and most the biggest aid producers are Israel. uh American aid goes to Israel, Egypt, and Jordan that surround, you know, that that that region. Um and so if you want to take level the playing field and you want to rebuild a brochure called the technocratic Orwellian nightmare, um then you allow something like October the 7th to happen and you use media to make it look like it's something different from what it actually was. Um and that is an operation that's happened time and time again. Um and so the the whole militia side um you know you can look at Iran Contra affair to find when Iran was working with American intelligence or weapons trafficking, drug trafficking.
Uh you can look at Turkey operations. You can look at Qatar operations. Um you can look at all the different Saudi Gulf countries and you can see every single one of them took a different approach in a manufacturing civil unrest strategic tension and never allow them to you know be around their resources and Israel is obviously the destabilizing force for the US military-industrial complex. Netanyahu doesn't work for Israel. Netanyahu works for the military-industrial complex. And there is a change that's happening as a result of this world order because the financial industrial complex is co-investing with the Gulf countries. And so they've persuaded regional stability because we've now got China money and you get your region. So America, I believe, is being shrunk into the Western Hemisphere, and Trump is there to use tariff policy and deconstruct everything that that's propped up the dollar in order to shrink America into a regional power. And in exchange, the military gets to say, "Right, you're no longer got the profits of the forever war in the Middle East. You can go back to Europe and South America. We'll make up for loss revenue there. Um, and uh we'll subordinate. We'll do, you know, civil unrest campaigns. Um, and yeah, we'll we'll give you your digital ID, your palunteer surveillance date, your social credit score. America, we we'll privatize all the stable coins and you guys can have a CBDC so that all the power goes up to the American stock market and you'll be fully subordinate. And uh um and that's the operation right now. It's the asset stripping phase. [laughter] Go on.
There's there's a positive side to that.
Because peace in the Middle East is something that we've never witnessed in our lifetime and I believe we will witness
which has consequences. It means that Asia gets to rise with China
and Africa might actually get to use its resources. So we need to settle Sudan, Yemen, Libya, all the other previous wars. Um, and they're currently being negotiated with the financial industrial complex, which has said, "Right, the military, we're going to exit, but what are you going to give the banks?" And the banks are saying, "Right, what we need to do is we'll send ISIS into Syria. We'll pretend that we're protecting the Christians, create some crazy narrative. Um, we'll put the head of ISIS as the president of Syria. He can come to the White House. will legitimize him, which is the Gulf country and Turkeykey's selection. Um, and then we'll have a we'll lift sanctions, but only on these conditions. And so, right after Galani met with Trump in the White House, Trump went and met with all the banks. They started constructing their 40-year land deals in Syria. They started front running everything. Um, they started divvying up the land between all the banks and financial institutions. um and the Gulf countries and the financial industrial complex get to basically um have regional stability and the military will exit and the finance is negotiating what the terms are. Um and so why do they need to do that? Because there's only two countries which have birth rates right now, Africa and the Middle East. The rest of them, they ain't having children. They need robotics and AI. What is the what is the role of Bitcoin in all of this?
Um, okay. So, Bitcoin to me [snorts] um was to me it's a boycott.
Um, if you want to boycott the Federal Reserve, then you have to own money outside the system. Gold or Bitcoin are two ways of doing that. If you want to boycott Black Rockck, you have to own it in self- custody. Most people can't self-custody gold, so they end up self-custodying Bitcoin or they can do self-custody gold in a small scale. Um, if you want to boycott the global uh the banks, then you don't mine fiat currency by custodying your Bitcoin and borrowing against it and being a part of Howard Lutnik's treasury companies and um Bitcoin back loans and all the different [ __ ] that Michael Sailor and everyone's creating. Um you they're trying to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible within America. They've got over a million. They've got a couple of million Bitcoin now in their constructs. So, whatever happens to Bitcoin, they'll be fine.
You know, Black Rockck managed to centralize as much as possible. Strategy central strategy is subordinate to the
Hold on. Is Sailor the equivalent of Dorsy?
Uh, yes. Um,
that's why the 0% loans.
Yeah. What is Strategy's mission? Yeah, exactly. Strategy's mission is I will get as much Bitcoin in this public company as I can borrow or I can sell equity. Who's he selling it to? The financial industrial complex. And they'll construct debt instruments on what used to be equity instruments so that you have obligations that supersede and the only way to pay your dividends or pay your debt is to either sell Bitcoin or borrow more or sell more equity. That is full submission to the financial industrial complex. And then when we're ready, rather than destroy you or send you into chapter 11 like Celsius and others, um we'd much rather have you as a tool. centralize as much Bitcoin as you can. You know, get it get as much of it um as you can. [snorts] Um and uh we we've got a lovely tool to manipulate the short-term price of Bitcoin. We can get it where you have to sell it or we can issue corporate debt. And if you take on corporate debt, it comes with massive terms and conditions. And uh eventually if you're a good person sailor um we'll manufacture the media narrative that gets you into the S&P 500. Uh first we want more debt, we want more equity in there. Um and then once you get into the S&P 500, you'll get our passive flows. Um and we can use media in order to manipulate people. And then we'll create another one 21 Capital Tether Jack Dorsey. Uh sorry, not Jack Dorsey, Jack Malers. um partner him up with Howard Lutnik. Howard Lutnik is as deep state as you can get. Like [laughter] he he's involved in all operations. Um and uh and then you can, you know, roll up strike, get people to borrow against their Bitcoin custody as much as possible. We'll create multiple operations. We'll get the media side of Bitcoin. David Bailey, you come over here. What about the developer side? Adam Back, you come over here. put your Bitcoin in our treasury companies, partner with these stable coins. Um 2015, Jeffrey Epstein tried to penetrate the developer community. We'll release some files on that. Um and uh we'll get as much of the Bitcoin mining away from China and over to America. Uh and then what we'll do, we'll make them public companies and then we'll create a ETF and we'll manage the passive inflows. So that was their operation to centralize as much as possible. As long as we have nodes, miners, and self-custody, um then we can opt out, but the short-term price is captured. Now, do they need does it require people like us [snorts] to self- custody uh run nodes for it to have value for them to be able to control it? Like if it was fully centralized, would it lose all its value?
I believe so.
Yeah. Yes.
So, we're just allowed.
We We are in a mission. The fight is not over. I am still here for a reason.
We allowed a Millennium Vulcan.
Yes. Um and we cheered it on and uh we we got really excited. And Trump, Congratulations, you fooled them all. And what did he do? He rewrote the law to say you we can confiscate Bitcoin and send Samurai Wallet into prison. [snorts] So, we'll come after self- custody. We'll launch as many shitcoins as possible. We'll create the stable coin genius act where JP Morgan gets to create the Federal Reserve, collateralize it by stable coins. We'll give them an edge by having yield. Um, and we'll update the executive order where you can confiscate as much Bitcoin as possible. We're still Bit Finex's shareholders Bitcoin. I'm one of them. I'd like the Bitcoin back. Thanks. Um, and instead, uh, Tether's sitting around the White House rebuilding the ballroom and the crypto lobby is integrated into the financial industrial complex and all the people that were on this mission are suddenly integrated into Black Rockck and the the complex. We're not in. We're not in. Exactly. And that's the important
Are you doing this, Connor? Are you like, oh, [ __ ] month like
but once once you know you know that's the good thing.
Simon might be a man man.
That's true
potentially
but also
he might be 100% right. [snorts]
It all sort of adds up. [laughter]
Yeah. So we we we have a battle ahead which is that um it
do we like do you lose no matter what? Is it too like
where's your fight boy? Where's your fight?
I think you lose. Okay, I'm realistic.
The the the realistic battle is um there will be a two-tiered Bitcoin. Um most people will custody Bitcoin. At the moment, about 70% don't. Um 70% of the Bitcoin. Um all of those remember those massive bitcoins we sold all the old wells are selling. I got no evidence for this, but I'm pretty sure that these are the Peter Tills and the various other operators that were engaging in the market manipulations.
Oh, you think all those big cuz it's all of a sudden a lot at the same time.
Yeah, complete speculation. Got no evidence for it, but I I believe that some of those old Bitcoin wallet addresses are controlled by early operators. Um, you know, I I do believe that Bitcoin came from intelligence. Um, but it open sourced, which meant it was irrelevant,
right? Yeah. Um I do think that Len Sassimon and Hal Finny and their funding um and working with David Ch um I I do think it was an offshoot and and this is why I think this is interesting that we've got off UK and gone on to Bitcoin quite a lot.
Yeah, [ __ ] it.
it's a it's a it's a Easter egg for the old listeners.
Okay, cool. Um
there are a few by the way.
Yeah. Yeah. Walker will be listening. He listens regularly.
Okay. Um, where was I going? Uh, where were we going? Bitcoin.
Uh, Len, how
Offshoot.
Um, yeah. I think it created an open source like offshoot. Um, here's what gives me hope. And here's what if your goal is to think that wealth redistribution gets solved and Bitcoin's going to suddenly make everyone and all the many people and everyone, that's not going to happen. I don't think
um it won't solve wealth redistribution. It will save as many people that are willing to listen and and take action. I personally believe um and I believe as many people need to be in self- custody running nodes. There's going to be a certain percentage of the network that needs to remain on that mission. Um and we still need we got a lot of work to to do with that. Um but there [snorts] is a reason why um you know I live on an island because the British colonizers needed escape vows for elites uh when they want to leave. And so you allowed Cayman Islands and you allowed Isle Man and you allowed Jersey and Gernzi and all of these different places to exist. Um you allowed Swiss bank accounts to exist uh because the rich and wealthy want them. And so the rich and wealthy want Bitcoin in self-custody, but they want you to put your Bitcoin in their custody because they want to lever it up and they want to create derivatives and they want you to have margin calls. Uh, and they want to take as much of your Bitcoin as possible in their custody. Um, and so they will do that and they will succeed to the vast majority of people,
[ __ ]
Yes. Um, but just don't mine the fiat currency against your Bitcoin. How do how do we be so so sorry. You don't lose and you win by playing the game. That's your only choice. You kind of have to play the game.
I I have not found a way of beating the financial industrial complex and they got as much Bitcoin so that whatever happens with Bitcoin, they're going to
So, you have to become part of the evil.
Uh no, you have to boycott the evil by holding it in self-custody. If you hold it with the Black Crop Bitcoin ETF and you borrow against it, then you're part of the evil and that's the decision.
But you become part of the evil by doing that because you know the majority of people won't be able to.
You have to have something. You have to you have to live.
Yes. But if you do that, you do that knowing 70% of people won't do that.
Well, then we have to educate them. You know what we should do? You know what we should do? We should start a Bitcoin podcast.
Exactly.
We should start a [laughter] Bitcoin. We could we could call it what Bitcoin didn't. And uh I filmed another episode on that.
This is what Bitcoin did. [laughter]
I don't know.
But here's the thing. Um yeah, I I don't believe wealth redistribution. So firstly, um you have to decide where you're going to live. I believe that this is the decline of the West. I don't think anything stops that train. I think it gets worse. I think Europe gets worse. I think UK gets worse. I think America gets worse.
If you own assets, you you'll have the best time of your life. The rich are going to be fine.
It's time to get the [ __ ] out. Yes. Um, now you can escape two islands or you can go join a country that for the very first time in history is going to be deolonized from the British American Empire. Uh, and for them it's going to be great. Um, this is going to be the first time in millennia that Africa might be able to use their own resources. Yeah. I might not go to Africa just yet. Um, although I quite like it.
Yeah. I've been I quite like it.
Asia I think is going to be great for all of them. There's some of them.
I'm a big fan of Thailand. I was looking at properties in Thailand recently. They look quite nice.
Yeah. The ones they're very vaselized into Black Rockck like um anyone. So the tariff policy had three impacts.
Uh firstly, it wiped out all of the small business in America because they paid the tariff.
They couldn't afford it and so they got the mergers and acquisitions up to the large companies. It was like COVID for that.
So you wipe out a small business, you hoover them up into the large multinationals. That was impact one. Um, and then obviously that leads to somewhat we haven't seen too bad inflation, but systemically inflation's about 3% in the US. It seems like it's going to stay there. Um, but uh you know the uh you just created another tax here's the scam. There's a movement around right now. This is a live campaign, right? Hold on. Let me get I'm jumping too much. I'll finish the three thoughts and then I'll get back to tax.
Um, so that was the first one. The second one is the export dependent countries got pushed up into the same companies as well. So if you're in Vietnam and you're subordinate and you're you know you got wiped out and consolidated up as well. And that's why we had Black Rockck and China negotiating all the ports, all the different trade routes, all the Gulf countries. That's why we're seeing it appears like it's World War II. I don't think it is World War II. Um this is a massive massive change in the world.
Right. And is it this part of the reason why Russia wanted Crimea and parts of Ukraine because they wanted access to those ports?
Um, so there's there's with Ukraine and Russia, there's like a win-win game with Russia and the financial industrial complex. Okay.
The longer this goes on for, the better it gets for them.
They get more land and Black Rockck gets more resources. Um, and they make more money and they subordinate Ukraine and they kill more Ukrainians for their profits. Oh, [ __ ] man.
Yeah. Okay. Where do we go to live then? Oh, sorry. No, let me finish your point. Um, yeah. And then, so, you know, this is the rise of Asia. I think Asia is going to have massive growth. I think Africa's going to have massive growth. I think Middle East is going to have the highest growth. Um, and I think the global south in general, the rule of thumb, the closer you are to America, the worse it will be.
So, if you're central South America, if you're Europe, you are fully subordinate and you are a playground for military profits. H how how long do you think we got?
I don't know how to answer that question cuz I'm going to go back to tax. But I think that brings up an interesting one. Currently the financial industrial complex are in charge. But there is a new thing called I guess this one world government Orwellian 1984 one central bank digital currency type of conspiracy theory. Um, the data centers and the energy are in the Middle East. America's got the software and the hardware. Um, and China's got the uh the manufacturing base. Africa's got the labor. Um, I believe that Black Rockck would like to consolidate that all into a massive control grid where maybe, just maybe, money doesn't really matter. Uh, because everyone's on some kind of UBI. This is where we're going into the 10year, 20-year prediction. I don't know what the world looks like in 10 years. Colin, can you get a chart up of the US debt? I want to see it as an actual chart. Because it's pretty hockey stick, right?
Yep.
And is [snorts] that uh
that's the British Empire right there.
Uh hold on. That's that's the UK. Um,
oh, you got UK now.
No, that's US. [snorts] 38 billion trillion gazillion billion.
156%. Okay. World War II. Hold on. That doesn't seem right. Uh, just just go to Google uh images and just search for uh US debt. Yeah, these are one of the ones, right? So, like go but actually con go over to the left. See that newest? Yeah, that one. See? Right. So, like at some point it just can't work anymore. And then you're done.
Yeah. So, what you're seeing there is World War II.
America fairly debtree.
Um Cold War, debt, debt, debt, debt, debt, debt, debt.
Um then you have uh Korean War.
Then you have Vietnamese war.
Yep. Uh then you have Iraq,
the fall of the Soviet Union. Uh then you have all the Middle Eastern wars and the fake war on terror. Uh you have bank bailout, you have long-term capital management, bailout of the hedge funds.
You have global financial crisis, bailout of the banks.
Um you then have uh COVID which is um massive concentration into the technical industrial complex and the financial industrial complex. Um, and if you look at what is uh what is all of that debt, it is interest, war, social security, Medicare, Medicaid. Um, if you're running those demographics right now, how do you solve those demographics? The UK looks a little bit similar. You need to try and make up for it through immigration.
Or you do civil unrest and turn it into some kind of universal basic income.
But but they're milking the end of it, right? it comes a point where it just it's you can't just keep rolling it over
um
to the point where it's useful
as long as American GDP growth which just printed 4.7% through fake all of these operations of Trump spending
um and more and more of it is government um as long as that is greater than the average cost of the debt which is about 3.3%. So what's Trump trying to do? He's doing fiscal dominance, which means print as much money as you can and we'll spend it into the stock market. Um, if the left get their way, then that's social programs, which means the banks and the insurance companies get to manage more money and they put it where they want it.
Um, if the right get their way, um, then we put it into the technical industrial complex, call it capitalism, winning the AI war. Um, and we do it into military expenditure. So he just announced AI battleships.
Oh, the Trump fleet.
Yes, the Trump fleet. So you get all of that and uh and then a bunch of it goes into Palunteer, which is the surveillance state. So either way, you keep rolling over and then what he's trying to do right now is monetize, which essentially means I'll run the economy hot, hot, hot, hot, hot, hot. Push everything into the stock market. Screw everyone else. If you own shares, you'll be fine. and we're going to put as much into the stock market and I'm going to roll over the debt on the short term. So he's saying Fed um you know uh you know we'll put interest rates down and what's happening to the long-term interest rates by the way this is what's happening in UK
the long-term interest rates are getting more and more expensive the short-term interest rates are going down so he's rolling over the debt you know with tea bills um while the long the market is saying hold on this is not this is not looking good if I'm going to lend to you for 10 years I got to pay more that's crashing the price of bonds while increasing the yield. Um, and he's just running the economy hot. That is the emerging market end of cycle type of actions.
How long we got?
And then they just go to the east and restart.
Yeah. So then um but what what will they do? Well, what they need to do is do what they did to UK. You shrink the currency into a regional currency and you manage just a series of asset stripping stock market growth. So if you look at the UK, the economy is [ __ ] but the stock market's at all time highs.
I know. I know. And then [ __ ] Labor saying, "Look, we're doing a good job.
Yeah. [ __ ] off."
And so they all say, "The stock market's at alltime highs because it's mass corruption."
Um, hold on. So, and and to pay for this, you have to eviscerate the middle class.
Yes. Yeah. That's it. That's it. That's it. There'll be
that you'll get wage compression between
the working class and the middle class, and the middle class will be destroyed.
Yes. And you you nothing stops that train as Linen says,
but you can you can you can keep your welfare program going. You can just you can keep everyone just tick it over.
Yeah. Um and uh and you know you keep the you keep it going until the last bond won't be bought.
That's it.
So hope is really cope.
Yes. [laughter]
[ __ ] man.
Well actually what what is hope? You you have to firstly be an asset owner. That's the only way. you're you know the stock market comes back to my game which it comes back to my point though
what's the [ __ ] point [laughter]
you have to play the game
yes
you have to be an asset owner
but I personally personally for me
um I wouldn't invest in palenteer stock and I wouldn't buy S&P index because of I don't want to support this [ __ ]
um but investing in any asset you are supporting this [ __ ] because you you are realizing this is how it works and I have to do this.
No, you you have to live and so you you've got
and so does everyone. What you're saying is all those people will get left behind and that's fine.
But we already knew that anyway.
We already know.
[ __ ] [ __ ]
Yeah, it is [ __ ] But that's that's been as long as time, right? But like your choice is uh jump off a cliff. You're not allowed to do that cuz I need you around. Um secondly, it's go okay, what part of the system am I willing to be? So like for example, if we wanted to stay in the UK, we could pay off the mortgage. We could put a little vegetable garden in the garden. We could buy our uh meat from the local butcher. We could be part of our community and we just exit the financial system as much as possible. Um that's means Bitcoin or gold or whatever. You can't not you have to drive on the road and you have to use the internet. You like you have to do part of it or you go and live in a country and just I don't know buy a ranch and live off off grid. Boycott's work. Look, I've been I've been involved in the anti-war movements for before I was involved in Bitcoin.
Um, and you know, we uh when the Malaysians decided that they weren't going to go to Starbucks, and I'm wearing got a Starbucks here because they were supporting Israeli settlements um and uh their profits went down. They had to overthrow their CEO. This is the important part. The real money, the real vote is your money.
And so you you vote with your money.
You you have to spend local. Now look, it's not perfect. I I need AI. I need an iPhone.
you could use Venice. You could use air. Use Venice.
That but that's the key thing. You have to become You're never going to get this perfect. The perfection is an evil is is an enemy here.
You you need to every week just like the the right advice with Bitcoin. I think you always said this as well. Um it was ow more Bitcoin this month than last month. That was always the right advice. Be better. Be boycott more this month than last month.
And so be more conscious. Are you are you support? Am I investing in a global machine or am I investing in my local football club, my local community? Um am I, you know, doing private? This is why I think it was really interesting what you were doing, Peter, because you you were going local and you were just recognizing that um investing local, supporting local, buying local. Um
Yeah. But I gave up most of it.
Yeah. because uh everything everything I did suddenly became political. Yeah.
And I got attacked in every direction
and the machine was too big.
Yeah. The machine was too big and I was like, "Okay, well, I need to stop worrying about local stuff." Actually, I can't change things. You know, we were going to open this pizza place and we canceled it cuz like we can't make any [ __ ] money. There's too much tax, too much bureaucracy. So, we was like, "Well, we need to go do at the national level." So, it's like
at the national level, I can have influence. I you know I'm I'm
I've got touch points with various MPs and various political leaders. I can influence that and then you know maybe I'll become an MP but I was like well [ __ ] become an MP. I don't want to become part of this day and [snorts] now we're at this point where we well I say we I in a day I built a website called I no longer consent.com
and I did the Twitter profile and I just saying to everything I don't want to be part of this but maybe that is
that is a decentralized movement say I'm not I'm not going to be part of this.
You know this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to buy local. It's a bit more effort, but we're gonna we're gonna go and shake the hand of the local farmer and buy our steak from him. We're going to go and buy our fruit and veg from the local farm. We're just going to stop using all of these [ __ ] We literally will only support local privately owned businesses and farmers, put all our money in Bitcoin, and just that's what we do. That's our boycott. [snorts] Or we just go and live in the Cayman.
I I completely agree with that. And um you know, we become more and more conscious about our supply chains. You know, we we think who whose honey are we buying here?
Liquid sugar.
But do you know what the funny thing is?
Even sorry I've known you for a long time, but even if you were a mad conspiracy theorist,
your solution is still something we should be doing anyway.
Yes. Absolutely. Because like the best case scenario just there's just massive corporate interest which we know exists and we know there's corporate lobbying and we know they create this kind of like moat around their businesses where us as an independent coffee shop is [ __ ] hard right it's really hard whereas if you've got a thousand Starbucks you can centralize your accounting you can centralize your HR and you can you can uh um you can um offshore your profits we can't do that right but we can create such a good product that enough people come
Yeah. Exactly. And and you know the reason Starbucks is Starbucks is because they subordinated to the financial industrial complex. They took the compromise and they engaged in laundering money in the directions that meet that prop up the empire whereas the local coffee shop is not doing that. So I completely you know the more decentralized we go the better and and and that has both a spiritual benefit. I believe personally in in my experience, every time I've done something which I think is pretty questionable with my money, it's blown up in my face. Um, every time I'm intentionally and directionally allocating my money to things that I think make the world a better place, uh, it's it's multiplied for me many times over. So, I do think that there is a spiritual energy behind money that if how it is achieved. Um, [snorts] and even though there are these big evil empires, these are the, you know, look at these industries. They are all being exposed right now. Whether it's the rap star, whether it's the Hollywood, you know, these people are depressed, addicted to drugs, engaging in, you know, massive degeneracy, like these are not happy people,
you know, some of it, some of it was fun.
Yeah. [laughter]
Well, we saw the yacht, didn't we? We looked at all the yachts parked up at St. Barts, all the billionaire yachts.
[snorts]
take this as it come
it comes back to like what what is end goal for them do you just get a bigger and bigger yacht is that it uh it's maintenance of the system um this is systemic there is no one on top it's not an organized cabal um if you look at I know when people say like are Jews on top of this whole thing I looked at that I did a whole blog post where I just I just wanted to debunk it because everyone said it what everyone does is they point okay there's a bunch of executives that are Jewish fine what's an executive well an executive is a manager that works for a board. Okay. Well, who the who does the board work for? Well, the board works for the shareholders. So, who are the shareholders? Well, that's actually the global wealth. And that changes. And then I looked at the last study and 55% of global wealth is those that call themselves Christian aligned, 36% atheist aligned, um 8% Muslim aligned, uh 6% Hindu aligned, and 1% Jewish aligned. Um, so that's global wealth distribution.
So of course there's a very small number of them, 16 million relative. Um, so are they punching above their weight? Absolutely. Are they punching above their weight? But who is actually achieving all of this wealth? Well, you say, well, they control the banks. They control the media. Well, no, that's not actually accurate. What happened to the banks? Uh, the banks are public companies. The banks own the Federal Reserve. So you say they own the Fed. Like, no, the Fed is owned by the member banks. The member banks is owned by the banks. The banks is a the banks are public companies and they're owned by the asset managers. Who's the asset manager? Large sovereign world funds and your money that's being pulled into ETFs. So, it's just a very very large complex set of incentives.
It it is um it is profit maximization with zero ethics in a finite game. And countries that maintain their sovereign wealth, they can play an infinite game. It's a bit like Bitcoin. Bitcoin is an infinite game. But if you then take Bitcoin into an options contract and create a derivative of it where it has to be repaid plus interest on a certain date, you created a finite game with your Bitcoin. Now you have to become a speculator and a trader and get the price right. Whereas if you were just paying the infinite game, you just buy it every month and you don't care about price. This is the, you know, the whole time preference conversation. And this is the whole this is why you have to have you know the minute the minute I figured out how this system worked I had to leave the UK I was you know I couldn't do what I wanted to do and that was a 10year time frame from 2015 to where we are 2026 today
you know to figure out what I needed to do to kind of incrementally get where I could opt out from the system and now I have no debt live in a country where it's illegal to borrow um you know opt out of the system um contribute to decentralization, local farming, local, you know, and that's where that's that's the real one. There's a couple of um process at the
Quick quick thing. Do you think owning property here in the UK is a fool's errand? I think that um the game has changed where property is just a mechanism for rolling up into the financial industrial complex and becoming a debt slave. Um, and 50-year mortgages in the US is another iteration.
Um, the game that I played and it just worked for me is that I was broken in debt. I had a mortgage. Um, I was trying to create a business. I avoided Silicon Valley just cuz Bitcoin worked in the right way. Avoided going public because I sold the company to Coinbase in the end. Um, but I didn't have to get entangled into any of that. And then I paid off my debt. Um, and now I don't owe anyone anything. And so the more you can avoid debt,
which I know is a radical thing cuz most people just are not that's not going to happen.
Um, but the new game is to essentially you have to own an asset.
Um, and I don't think real estate or property is a game that most people can do. And I think actually right now that's an institutional game.
Whereas Bitcoin, you can buy 50 pound of it and self custody it. Absolutely.
Um, so if someone's listening right now and they're like, "Fuck, I'm fucked." Uh, but they're not wealthy [snorts] and they are they've got kids in school. They're kind of trapped. They can't just leave the country,
but they just want to have just the best life they can have. And that's a basic life. They can afford their food. They can have a holiday. They're not miserable. Like, what advice would you give? because there's other people who can exit easily and there's some that just can't. I mean, they've got family time. There's so many reasons that tens of millions cannot just say, "I'm leaving." So, what would advice would you give to them?
Yeah. Let's look at the different boycots, right? So, you've got civil unrest.
Oh, but this boycott is saying, "I don't want I [ __ ] hate the system." But there's also survival.
Yeah, absolutely. Um, [snorts] and yeah, it becomes down to reality in the end. Um so you've got um firstly if you don't own any asset this is going to get worse for you. So you have to make your decision. Either you're going to be leveraging into real estate if you can. Either you're going to be borrowing a bit um owning a bit more Bitcoin every month. Either you're going to do the gold silver game um or you're going to be playing the game into the stock market. But you will not you your life will get worse and worse and worse. it because wages are not going to suddenly start outperforming the market. Hold on. Did you see I wrote an article yesterday? No. [snorts] Dig out that 4chan post. You can find it on my sub. Oh, you've got it in your thing. So, me and Connor were planning a show for the end of the year and we were talking about all the different subjects and we're sat in the Soho hotel. kind of digs out this tweet and he sends it to me and there's it was like I wrote an article about inflation yesterday but my version of inflation is like the naive childish version of the story you've told like it is that if you haven't got assets you're [ __ ] and the money always goes upwards. It is that. But listen to this. There will be no collapse the way some of these people think of it. It's not going to be like the movie Dawn of the Dead or whatever where one day suddenly [ __ ] hits the fan, prices skyrocket and everyone begins to riot and the SS comes marching down the street to kill everyone. There will be no happen. It's far more insidious than that. Read the poem The Hollow Men by TS Elliot and you'll understand. You'll just notice that every day simple things will get a little bit more expensive. Everyone's homes and apartments will get smaller. Your work hours will get longer, but your pay will decrease. You'll see your family and friends less. And you'll find that in time you care less about them. Every day you'll find yourself lowering your standards for everything, work, food, relationships. Job security will no longer exist as a concept. You'll notice that houses apart that shrinking. People will start hanging on to clothing longer and longer. Less people will get married. Even less will have children. People will engross themselves in technological distractions and fantasy will never truly experience in the real world. Whatever dream people used to have about what their lives were going to be will become for them a distant memory. The only thing left for them will be the reality of their debt and their poverty. And every minute of every day they will told, "You're stupid, ugly, and weak. But together we are free, prosperous, and safe." That is the collapse. the reduction of the American man into a feudal surf, incapable of feeling love or hate, incapable of seeing the pitiful nature of his situation for what it is or recognizing his own selfworth. And so Connor sent me that and I read it and what was it you said? You like
it's the most beautiful and devastating thing I've read at the same time
and it was like [ __ ] So we made a show about it. I was like ranting about inflation and [ __ ] elite wankers. And then uh New Year's Day, I woke up and I hadn't had a late night drinking. So I just went and sat in my coffee shop and just wrote wrote and wrote wrote this article. What was it called?
This is the way the world
and that's part of that poem, right? And I just wrote a thing just mine like I I looked up what my dad's salary was when in the 70s and it was like I don't know that first house he bought was like three and a half times the price. So I went on right move and and it's about the same the aircraft engineer salary now is about the same as what Connor ran sorry Connor um and Connor would love to buy a house and I looked up where my dad bought his four bedroomedroom detached house and I went on right move same like equivalent budget three and a half times nothing. So then I looked up what a fourbedroom detached house would cost the cheapest one in the area not as good as my dad's £385,000 so more than 10 times that. And I was like, "Fuck." But the really interesting thing about that, I was reading that. I was like, "This is miserable. What were they on about?" Like, "This is what's happening now." And then we looked, what's the date of the
2013?
It was actually posted in 2013.
Wow.
And I was like, "This is like even if you're wrong, this is still happening."
Like we are destroying millions of people's lives slowly. [snorts]
Just just
Yeah. little bit of chip about you know it's one budget here or it's a price up there and it's now can't school to four private schools or I now can't take kids on holiday or I now can't move like little by little we destroying we I say colle we collectively I just mean the world is destroying people's lives
and I this is the only time I go well the communists have got a point I disagree with their solution but they are actually identifying the same problem that we identify
it's I their solution. But it's so [ __ ] sad, Simon.
It It is sad. Um, firstly, I completely agree with every word that was said there in terms of where this is going.
Um, and there's no way of sugar coating that. Um, because it's reality. You can't put to you can't put together a plan to win unless you know the rules of the game. So, I've tried to outline what I believe the rules of the game are.
But you can't But actually, sorry, sorry to inter interrupt because I'm
Yeah. It's like what Connor said. It's like yes, actually the way to play and win the game is yourself. You can't collectively. You can't defeat this.
It doesn't matter how much I want to create a people's like it'll be infiltrated. They'll start violence. They'll throw me in prison. They'll embarrass me. Like there's something that will stop that happening. You
you you as revolutionary you want to be as as passionate as you are, you think I want to [ __ ] end this [ __ ]
They've got a plan for the revolution, which is a technocratic nightmare, a digital ID. So you have one option.
Well, they can't stop.
What can they do to 40 million people who go, I'm going local.
Exactly. There's there's nothing they can do with that. Now, one one thing that's interesting. So, there is a campaign,
although we can't afford it.
Is your is your algorithm telling you that all the Americans are going to stop paying their tax at the moment?
I've seen some of that. Yeah. And and people have talked about that here as well. Yeah.
It's much harder here because of PA.
Okay. Let me let me debunk that one. Um what is tax? Um it's not to pay for goods and fund a government. No. Um it serves three functions. Uh the first thing is it creates demand for the currency. And so by paying your tax in pounds, it creates demand for pounds. Um but when you pay your tax, uh the government is not funded by your tax. The government is funded by money printing.
Yes. This is what the MNT guys say.
Exactly. Um and when you pay your tax
to control inflation, right?
It controls inflation.
Um it's it's disinflationary. And so when you print the money, you create inflation. And by paying the tax, you contract the supply. So it's disinflationary. So it's just a mechanism for controlling some of the inflation and creating demand for the currency. Um some of it you create the illusion that you're paying and you're going to make it work. But it's a debt based Ponzi scheme. So you can't you can't repay the debt. When Elon said, "We're going to repay the debt." He was engaging in um giving people delusion that you can pay the debt.
But is this why there are so many mechanisms for rich people to not really pay tax?
Uh yes. Um well, firstly, yeah, the rich don't pay the tax. Um there's so many mechanisms cuz they want it. And that's why they'll allow Bitcoin and self-custody as well.
You go peasants for they want it.
Tax is for you, peasants.
Yeah. Um and so not paying your tax is sadly inflationary.
[laughter]
Um, but there is one that breaks everything.
Um, and uh, if people actually said, "I'm not paying my rent and paying my mortgage." That breaks everything cuz it breaks the banks.
That breaks the banks. That one works.
But then But what will their answer be? They'll have
What will their answer be? will be the pre-rime surveillance day, Elon Musk social credit score, Peter Thiel, um AI pre-rime agenda powered by a stable coin by David Saxs and the CBDC by the European Union. So the real winning is not a revolution that will be crushed and won't happen. And the real I do not consent isn't us mass not consenting to somehow get a government that we believe is strong. The rule I not consent is just playing outside the system as much as possible.
Agree. That's all I know how to do.
Oh [sighs] man, we're going to have a fun journey home. Con, aren't we? God doesn't be like, "Let's move somewhere hot." [laughter] He's probably right. Uh and yeah, maybe move to a country with a game that's played differently. Like um there's the there there is not wealth destruction. Remember, look what happened to the British Empire. We've just had [ __ ] growth ever since World War I. We shrunk the currency from a global world reserve currency to a regional currency. They'll do the same with the dollar. I don't think they may break something, but it will be slowly like we lost 7% on the dollar relative to foreign currencies, almost 100% on gold and silver. Um, and they'll keep doing that. So, they'll keep shrinking the dollar into a regional currency. Boy, don't be pessimistic. The way to think about this is I know the game. I know how it's being played. I look after me, my friends, my family,
and do the best I can. Yeah, it feels selfish.
No, that's altruism.
No, but remember the decline of an empire is the rise of other powers that have been by the sounds of it. They have control of the new empire as well.
Actually, I disagree. Um there are there are forces in the world that their sovereign wealth.
They're just moving their assets from the west to the east and they're going to start again. So
they as long as there are countries that don't have a western central bank and keep their resources to build a sovereign wealth fund, those countries will be able to use those resources for their people and move closer and closer to less tax and low capital. The the the thing that you need to capitalism, communism, socialism, even Austrian economics is all [ __ ] There is a country and you have resources and you decide how to use those resources and you decide what is the optimum setup to make sure you're not externally controlled or sovereign. What are your two scarce resources that you have access to
currently?
Yeah, one you'll get, one you won't. I think I've talked about this a lot.
I think knowledge.
No, that's not scarce. That's infinite with AI. What scarce resources do you have? Do you possess?
Bitcoin.
Yeah. What's the other one?
But I lost it all in a boat in that.
Yeah. Well, we can get some more. What's the other scarce resource that you own?
It's your time.
Okay. Your time is a scarce resource. The time you have, you've got likely more than me. I might have another 30 years. Hopefully, you've got 60, 70. Right. So the real altruism altruism could be giving money to people, but a real altruistic life now would be using your time to help as many people as possible to see this and create a better life for themselves outside of this. And so that's not selfish. Taking your time and being altruistic with it is is an incredible and beautiful thing you can do. We tried it. We just played the game wrong locally. So that's the positive side. We're gonna
we're gonna be altruistic with our time. We should start a Bitcoin podcast. I think I think it might work.
Huh?
I can never get my yacht without being
It's the cigarette.
Yeah, cool.
You know what? Getting the yacht through being part of this dirty [ __ ] is is just not worth it. No, none of it. This is the thing about money, right? It's like my thesis of money is very simple. It's like you don't want to be broke because that sucks, right? if you have to, but you don't need a lot to be happy, you know, debtree, owning a property somewhere and being able to afford your shop and have a holiday. You don't need a lot. Chasing the yacht. How many miserable [ __ ] How many miserable rich people are there? Loads of them. PD wasn't happy. He had to have all his weird parties and he's still not happy. He's in jail. Like, having loads of money doesn't really make you happy. I
do think there is something in the ignorance is bliss.
What? Where do I always say my happiest time was? my happiest year.
Uh when you were running?
When I was running. I stopped work for a year. Just went running for a year.
Like proper forest gum nearly every day. I'd run 10 km nearly every day and a half marathon a week and I'd listen to books and I'd meditate and I was I was thin. I was a lot thinner than I am now. I was [ __ ] great. I was so happy. It's the happiest time of my life. Money didn't do that. It's putting on a pair of trainers every day and having no [ __ ] commitments.
Yeah. Yeah. So, we're gonna have a we're gonna have a chat on the way home.
Kickstart to 26.
It's good, man. [laughter] This is one of these shows that feels negative, but certainly positive.
Yeah. As I said, um it's it it is a self-reflective thing cuz the fall of this empire, which is fundamentally captured by evil, is the opportunity for other regions to rise. and they they remember what we're experiencing now for a cent for centuries those same tactics have been used all around the world and now they're just coming home. Sure. But do you know what the really interesting thing about this is is if in connecting the dots you've connected dots that don't exist and say you're wrong. Say you were wrong about 9/11 and the war in Ukraine Russia what's happening is happening anyway. Okay. And even if you are wrong, the choices that you can make to lead a happy and fruitful and prosperous life are still the same.
Because even if say you were wrong,
it's still good to buy local. It's still good to go to the farmer. It's still good to not be part of the banking system. It's still good not to spend your entire life in the rat race, which is everyone knows it's miserable. It's still good to spend time with your family and go for walks and touch grass and sun your balls. All that stuff is still [ __ ] good. And so, so whether you're right or wrong, it kind of doesn't matter because that is the answer for a happier life, I think.
Yeah, completely agree.
Chasing the money is not it's a it's a it's a myth. It's a scam. As long as you get over the basic hurdles. Um, we're going to we're going to have a fun journey home, aren't we, Tom?
Simon, thank you for doing this. I I think I could see us doing something again very soon.
Yeah. I could see us doing There's a lot to think about here, man. Okay,
we should definitely do a Bitcoin podcast. That'd be a good idea. All right, Simon, thank you so much. Thank you everyone for listening. Uh, see you soon.
Thank you.
