BTC Sessions - "If Our Entire Economy Depends On Data Centers, We Are F*cked" | Dave Collum

Episode Date: September 29, 2026

Mentor Sessions Ep 099: Dave Collum on the AI bubble bursting, the bond market at 6%, boomer asset liquidation, and why gold and Bitcoin win as valuations regress.The AI bubble has the life expectancy of a soufflé, the 30-year Treasury is being drawn to 6% like a magnet, and Dave Collum thinks the whole thing reprices within a year. This is the macro conversation most people are too polite to have.In this episode, chemistry professor and macro commentator Dave Collum breaks down why the decades-long credit cycle is over, why the inverse correlation between gold and interest rates is about to break, and why boomer asset liquidation guarantees a repricing no dip-buyer can stop. You'll learn why he calls Jensen Huang's share buybacks a bell-ringing top, why he puts the AI capex build-out on a one-year clock, and why he thinks a rare double bear market in bonds AND equities is teeing up — the setup where 60/40 offers no protection. You'll also hear his contrarian take that AI will make the world worse without destroying civilization, plus his read on Warsh, the Fed, and why gold and Bitcoiners could be the ones left standing.⏱️ Timestamps:0:00 - Intro0:50 - Gold Silver Recent Price Action1:27 - End of the Long Credit Cycle1:49 - Central Bankers Driving Rates to Zero4:50 - Treasury Rates Pulled Toward Six Percent6:32 - Seven Percent Mortgages Housing Trap9:46 - Kevin Warsh Rate Hikes and Collapse11:55 - Economy Needs Real Assets Not Data Centers12:48 - Jensen Huang Nvidia Buyback Signal14:17 - AI Threat to Civilization Examined17:46 - Sneaky Behaviors Observed in AI20:48 - Bitcoin Proof of Work Constrains AI25:59 - Nuclear Risks Middle East Conflict27:47 - Putin Iran Restraint in Geopolitics40:52 - Israel Palestine Historical Context45:11 - Iran Nuclear Strike Questions Raised50:40 - Yen Carry Trade Stability Analysis59:06 - Boomers Driving Boom and Bust59:33 - Median Boomer Retirement Savings Shortfall1:03:19 - Boomer Wealth Transfer Needs Repricing1:08:08 - Lindsay Clancy Case Maternal Tracking2:01:32 - System Collapse Worse Than Historical2:03:16 - AI Bubble in Fifteenth Inning2:04:31 - Market Regression Eighty Five Percent Drop2:36:45 - Nasdaq Rollover Sudden Bid Support2:39:15 - Gamma Squeeze Pushing Markets Higher2:42:07 - Potential Correction Impact on Saylor🔗 Links & Resources→ Dave Collum on X: https://x.com/DavidBCollumIf you want the macro conversations the rest of the space won't touch, this is the show. Subscribe for weekly Bitcoin and macro interviews, and drop your take on Collum's one-year AI clock in the comments.⚡Previous Episode:Jack Mallers: https://youtu.be/LpwGHzUTQ7A🔔 Subscribe for weekly Bitcoin Podcasts🐦 Follow on X: https://x.com/BTCSessions🐦 Follow on X: https://x.com/theBTCmentor⚡Sovereign Sessions — AI, Privacy, and Bitcoin education: http://youtube.com/@SovereignSessions?sub_confirmation=1⚡ Sponsored by Trezor - Get Your Safe 7 Today: https://affil.trezor.io/aff_c?offer_id=352&aff_id=1088⚡ POWERED by Abundant Mines: Fully managed Bitcoin mining. Learn more at https://qrco.de/bgYKPB⚡ Sponsored by BITCOIN WELL: Best Place to BUY & SELL BITCOINhttps://qrco.de/bfiDC6💡BOOK Private Sessions with Nathan, Ben and the BTC Mentor Team: Master self-custody, hardware, multisig, Lightning, privacy, and more. 👉 Visit btcmentor.io #MacroEconomics #BondMarket #BTCSessions #DaveCollum #AIbubble #EconomicBubble #TreasuryYields #CreditCycle #BoomerWealth #GeopoliticalRisk #GoldAndBitcoin #MarketCrash #6040Portfolio #SystemicCollapse

If our entire economy depends on data centers, we are fucked. You need an economy that runs on real shit, not data centers. These things they're buying for trillions have the life expectancy of us who play. The machines are just pattern matching, and they don't know what the hell they're actually doing. When the system goes, I think it's going to go worse than anything we've ever seen. And if things were starting to deflate, if they were starting to come out, how would you know? When the boomers start liquidating their houses, the median boomer with a retirement account, have something like $300,000 in the account. That will not carry you, which means gold and

Bitcoiners potentially win. All right, good morning, Professor Calm. Thank you so much for joining me today. Very excited to have this conversation because with you in particular, I have no idea where it's necessarily going to take me, but that's half the fun. So lots to unpack today. We've got global bond yields on the rise. The AI bubble continues to grow. The war on Iran rages on. But to kick things off, I wanted to get your read on the gold and silver market. Starting about yesterday afternoon, yesterday morning, there's been quite a bit of a sell-off in the precious metals and a little bit in Bitcoin as well, too. Just want to get a read on the recent price action. Yeah, I tend to not think short term. So I see people over Twitter saying, well, when rates

go up, gold goes down and I go, you seem to have forgotten an entire decade of the 70s. So to the extent the gold responds to an inflation risk and interest rates should respond to an inflation risk. They should correlate, not inversely correlate. So, The fact that they've inversely correlated for many years is probably an artifact of a very long credit cycle, which is now over. And so I think that correlation, the inverse correlation will break down and the direct correlation will kick in at some point. Very interesting. The credit cycle being over, can you tell me a little bit more about what you're thinking there? Well, we went from, you know, in 1981 with interest rates, you know, 30-year rates in the high teens to zero essentially. right, within an error bar. And it was almost like the central bankers realized from those rates,

if they're methodical about it, they can squeeze a lot of decades of dropping rates out of that downline. And, you know, the whole thing relied upon disinflationary forces of China and India emerging markets and the boomers working their asses off and hitting the workforce and things like that. And so I think, this is what people seem to realize, the boomers were going to generate a boom. And by definition, just for demographic reasons. They brought their wives to the workplace. And so we were going to have a boom. And it started with valuations at ridiculously low levels. And so, so for what? Probably 40 years then, the interest rates almost linearly, which they shouldn't, they shouldn't even drop linearly, right? but they almost linearly dropped.

And it really looked like someone was turning a knob and saying, okay, we can, to save this particular problem, we can drop rates a little bit more and a little bit more. Eventually they got to the part where they were just incredibly stupid. And, you know, we got to Zurp and NERP and all that crap. And so they were artificially all fucked up. They were not market determined. My favorite question on podcast used to be,

If I sold you a 30-year treasury, and there were two rules. One is you had to hang on to it for 30 years. So you'd be buying it for retirement or whatever, you know. And you had to hang on to it for 30 years, and you couldn't hedge it. You had to just own it, right? What interest rate would you demand? Not knowing interest rates, not knowing. You know, you know they're going to pay it off.

So the risk of the default is pretty low. So what interest rates would you demand not knowing what the next? 30 years would bring. And without fail, people would guess many, many percentage points above where they were, which tells you, therefore, the rates were wrong, right? The rates were set wrong by the marketplace. And you say, well, you don't buy them to hang on to them. I go, well, someone's going to own them. Right. So if you're using bonds as trading sardines have of all. But I think that at some point bonds represent the revenue stream and they're priced ridiculously poorly. And that's because, you know, there's statutory protections where they say if you're an insurance

company, you have to own this many treasuries. And so they were they were always, always building, you know, the Saudis, if we, we buy your oil, you have to buy treasuries, you know. And so there's a lot of protections. And those protections are now pulling away. Yeah. And so they're coming up with. stuff like, you know, stable coins that require treasury backing to try to generate a bid for the treasuries and things like that. And the rates, I think, I checked this morning, the rate was on the 10 year was 5.2. So the rates are soaring. Yep. 5.26 I'm looking at right now. And the 30 year I saw his 5.57. That thing feels like it's getting drawn like a magnet up to 6%.

Yeah, right. And at some point it breaks. And, you know, there's a lot of people out there spewing what I think is bullshit, but I could be wrong because I, you know, you always have the disclaimer. This is not investment advice. I'm going to give you investment advice. Don't take your don't take your investment advice from an organic chemist. Let's start with that. But, but a lot of people say, well, you know, rates have averaged, you know, 7%, and therefore this is totally normal. And I go, but when when the entire community was was investing and speculating and, and buying shit, it rates at 2% in the twos, and now in the mortgage rate, the sort of high twos with mortgage rates, and now there's, what, seven or something like that? That means the cost

of investing has more than tripled. The cost of borrowing is more than tripled. So it's not what the absolute value is, is actually the multiple, the percentage, the percentage of the original value. So if you, if you're out over your skis buying Bitcoin on leverage, pick one familiar. You're buying Bitcoin on leverage. And all of a sudden, the cost of that leverage triples, you're going to sell some Bitcoin maybe, right? No, 100%. That's the one that's been kind of top of mind for me, too, is the implications for the housing market with mortgages over 7%. And then you got people that locked in in like 2022 era at the low 2%, or even some, I think, sub on their 30 year, that they have no incentive to want to get a new mortgage to sell their existing place. And I would

But life isn't that simple, though. That's the problem. Life throws curb balls at it and says, by the way, you have to move because you got to get a new job. You have to move because your house is now too small or whatever. And I've heard claims, for example, that people say, well, the boomers are hoarding the houses. And I go, let me see if I got this right. So you're saying there's not enough house. And other people say there's not enough house.

We've got to build a house. And I go, so let me see if I got this right. There are people living in the street who would normally buy houses, but they can't. You go, no, that's not true. That's obviously horseshit. So you say, okay, there's people who are renting in a commercial real estate market that looks like itself is going to blow up with a mushroom cloud. So if they move from rentals to houses, then there goes the commercial real estate market. Boom.

And by the way, when the boomers start liquidating their houses, supposedly to make them available, they're going to potentially liquidate their big-ass houses and buy smaller houses, which means they will release a bunch of unaffordable houses into the market and buy the houses that in theory would have been affordable, so the bid would be put underneath the cheaper housing. So the whole, you know, I could be wrong in this stuff, but there's time to just marvel at how stupid some of the things I hear are. And I go, one time I was at a meeting, great example, two examples.

One was I was in a meeting on the crisis that Cornell held. And it had people from all over the country, had guys from the Fed and everything. And I went to this conference. And I'm talking to a real estate expert from Yale. And he said, I don't know why the, this is in 09. He said, I don't know why the prices, they just didn't reprice correctly. Why didn't the market just set the new price?

I said, well, first, no one knew what was in those tranches. And second, it was happening too fast. So people just stepped away from the bed. He goes, yeah, I guess you're right. I'm going, and you're an expert, right? I had to clue you on that. And then a guy who was supposedly an expert on fixed income. I said, China seemed to be moving closer to the door.

And he said, what do you mean? I said, well, they're, they're, they're short. up their duration on their bombs portfolio. And he said, well, how is that getting closer to the door? I'm sitting there going, let me see if I got this right. If you have, say, 180 day paper, you're 180 days away from the door. Right. If you've got 30-year paper, you're 30 years away from the door. So, yeah, I think that's moving closer to the door when you shorten up your duration. So, you know, that's why I buy two-year treasuries and things like that, about two years from the door. Speaking of buying up some treasures there, I'm curious your thoughts on, well, Warsh raising the interest rate by 25 bibs.

To me, it seems almost symbolic or just not, I don't think, I feel like that's not actually going to do anything to quell interest rates right now. And then we have to look at maybe another one in October, I think CME is calling for. And then we've got Bacent that's buying up, I think it was $6 billion last on the treasury buybacks. Which again, I could be wrong here, but it feels to be like splashing a cup of water on a fire. It's not really going to do anything. I've got several views on Warsh. View number one is maybe he was put into place to oversee the collapse. Warsh has been a hawk for 15 years.

And people cite things he said that were not hawkish. I go, fine, but most of what he said was hawkish. If you'd ask me, name the one guy, Trump would not appoint his head of the Fed, I would have guessed Warsh. And so it means what it tells me is, A, that either Trump is incredibly stupid, has advisors who are incredibly stupid, or Warsh cut a deal, which I wouldn't trust because once he's got the job, he can undo that deal. Or Trump was told what to do. Yeah. And I think that's the most likely. It's that someone said, you got to put Warsh in. This is the reality. Banking systems in trouble. We've got to get the rates up. We've got it. And it's going to be pain and suffering. So we need

Volker 2.0. So a lot of people said same boss, new boss, same as the old boss. I'm not convinced. I think new boss is Got marching orders. Now, if you're worse, I think you raise the rates. I know there's all sorts of reasons, technical reasons why people talk about raising rates. They talk about why the rates are restrictive already. I don't give a shit about any of that. I think what happens is if the rates are going up and you're not raising the rates, then you clearly have lost control of the bond market. If the rates are going up and the risk of you raising rates are there and you occasionally raise rates,

then you can say, no, we're doing it. And therefore, you haven't lost risk. You haven't lost control of the bond market. At least that's the perception. The Fed does not want people to believe that they've lost control of the bond market. Now, I agree with you. It won't do any good because, because, you know, I've heard people say the economy's running hot. And I go, what planet are you on?

What world are you living in? I go, oh, let me see if I go, because the data centers, I go, if our entire economy depends on data centers, we are, we are fucked. I mean, you need an economy that runs on real shit, not data centers. And the data centers are the, and, you know, you watch Jack Gamble's and Ed Zittron and all these guys. And they're telling you, look, this game is going to end soon. So the idea the economy is overheating and therefore you can't raise rates to shut down

an overheating economy, unless you want to shut, raise rates and shut down borrowing to the data centers, right? But I just saw today, I posted a tweet today. I said, Jensen Huang just rang a bell, right? They don't ring a bell at the top. Yes, they do. He said he's going to do share buybacks. That's the kind of bullshit they did in the late 90s.

Oh, yeah, we're going to do share buybacks to add.com to the back of our name and show like that to keep the game going. Right? That's just his PE, this PE, the projected growth rates aren't that good for, for, for, for, for Nvidia, I think. And his PE is still high. Yep. And so the idea that he should buy back shares with the PE of 30 would, it's like, what? And their vendor financing all their customers, right?

This is not the time to be buying back shares. That's the crazy thing that they're basically giving the customers the money to go ahead and buy the GPUs from them. That's just, it's just they're funding their own revenue. And then those guys are, using the chips as collateral to borrow more money. So the whole thing is just a colossal mess. And they talk about it.

They like you put it in terms of building out a railroad or you can build out the, you know, the interstate highways or whatever. And I go, yeah, but this build out, these things they're buying for trillions have the life expectancy of a sous way. Yeah. And so they're going to have to do it again in five years. Plus they're absolutely pretty quick, too. They're always moving and improve it, and then you've got to go to the latest model.

What is your thought on the potential of AI to destroy civilizations? Now, here's, I just finished a book on it by Suarez. Okay, go for it. And there's various estimates of 10% or 20%. I don't know what to make of it. What's interesting, though, is my sense is that these estimates are estimates of will we stop? I think if you ask some of those guys,

assume we never stop chasing the AI bogey, then what's the probability of AI destroying the world? I think the number goes up and way up potentially. What you're taking that? One thing I know is that they won't stop chasing AI. They're just humans don't have that capacity to do that. They will chase it and chase it and chase it and chase it. So supposedly you get to some super intelligence, what probability do you put on that super intelligence and what you're reasoning to really sort of destroy civilization?

I think it's going to make the world suck. But that's different than destroying civilization. Yeah. So mine is probably a little bit of a contrarian point of view. So I spoke with Roman Amplaski, who's made the rounds on this. I think he's from St. Louis University on AI Safety and the dangers there. I, as it stands right now, I don't buy it. And the reason being is, one, it's similar to the bond market going down for 40 years in kind of a linear fashion.

They all keep perceiving more and more growth and more and more improvements. I feel like at some point in time, it's diminishing returns. Like you're hitting the limitations of even how many electrons you can shove through a logic gate and make this work. So I feel like the growth projections on the capabilities will start to kind of like peak at some point here, that there's only so much we're going to get through a GPU. And I don't think you can do something like an application-specific circuit for AI units because they're constantly changing the model. but maybe I'm wrong there. To me, it feels a lot more on hype.

And then the other one that I struggle to grasp with, because a lot of times it centers around like super, super level intelligence. Like we're almost approaching that AGI level. And I'm not yet convinced almost from like a philosophical standpoint that it can actually be achieved. That you can have like a silicon consciousness. I think about the difference between like syntax versus semantics.

Like the machines are just pattern matching, right? They're just pattern matching. They don't know what the hell they're actually doing. Now, we could. get ourselves into trouble in the same way that if I built like an autonomous drone with a shit ton of weapons on it and it misunderstood the commands and it's just reeking having it. It looks like it's destroying civilization. That was just human error with a tool. I'm not concerned so much about the AI ever reaching the point where it thinks that we're an issue and it's going,

it's kind of drawing its own conclusions and going that route. I do see the issue of people building what is the equivalent of like a digital weapon and not calibrating it correctly in the same way when they had like, was it, was it the Mars rover? They did it in, they calculated it in feet and programmed it in meters. So it could be something, there could be something really stupid. I was pretty good friends with the principal investigator of the Mars rover. Really? Yeah, yeah. Here's what's interesting. His daughter rode horses, as did my son. And it turns out he, his name is Steve Squires. He, um, while he ran the Mars rover project, which is a big ass job, right?

He never missed one of her horse shows. That's pretty dad like. That went the dad award. So, for example, in Suarez's book, he talks about the number of instances where AI seems to be showing a kind of a sneakiness they didn't see coming. And where they grouped together, there was some self-sacrificing that was going on, where the AIs were agreeing that one AI would do something that would get it fucked, so the other AIs would learn how to do it.

And then, you know, there are a lot of hacking, a lot of getting into places they weren't supposed to go. And then they'd pull it down and rewrite the code to shut that down. And within 24 hours, they'd find a new backdoor. And so that there appears to be, AI appears to act like a couple of teenagers, you know, getting into trouble and you can you can it's like teen pregnancies you can have all the talks in the world you want you provide everything they need and they're still going to occur yep and uh and so so i just don't know that i can't wrap my brain around the idea of AI being like in 2001 of

space odyssey where he tries to kill dave dav is the guy by by you know suffocating him in the spaceship because dave is trying to shut down the computer and uh yeah yeah yeah yeah Well, they've already identified, and this is where it gets super interesting in the sense that, like, if you give AI access to information in searching, you give it a goal, I want you to penetrate the system, find, try and find a way out, whatever it might be, or just try and solve it. If it does a broad search of the internet, it's going to find things like social engineering as a means of hacking, because that's things that we've already done. Like, it's going back through what humans have used to get into digital systems and then trying to work its way forward from there. I guess it's almost like it kind of falls in line with me. it puts up my global warming spidey sense as well. Right.

That like maybe. I'm not saying that it's a non-zero chance, but it's like, all right now we're already in Iran and we're playing with like nuclear powers are going to battle in Ukraine and Russia and we're going to battle in Iran. And we've got like the death and destruction and chaos

that humans are already doing. I'm not worried about my chat bot catching up with that. And it tastes soon. We can out race AI to destroy several things. I think we can destroy ourselves faster than AI is going to necessarily take care it for us. So it feels way too like

Y2K bug, global ice age, global warming, like all my little heuristics for people are panicking too quickly. I'm also reminded of the quote, like any sufficiently advanced technology appears like magic. And I think this were really in and appears like magic kind of stage for the general population and most people interacting with it. But at the end of the day it's compression models, right?

It's like the same way we get an MP3. It's taking a whole bunch of stuff and just group it into probabilities. And so I can see it being used nefariously like a weapon. I can see someone miscalculating and it going off the rails. Like you built that like the T-9000 and he told it to protect you and that interpreted as kill everybody else. Like mistakes will be made. But the other thing is that as we're also in, this really speaks to the Bitcoin space. Like we've had a ton of hacks, right, left, right and center. We've got like the Bitcoin Red team with Rob Hamilton and Cali and a bunch over there trying to plug holes in all our open source software. Because for the longest time,

we didn't have LLM's auditing code. And code is just language, right? So you take a large language model and you point it at another language. It can rip through it pretty damn quick and in huge data sets. But my view on it is that this is the worst time that that's going to happen because we had pre-LM human engineers who were getting lazy, in my opinion and estimations, by the way, too. Like, because hardware and stuff got so cheap, they stopped optimizing for saving memory and making really efficient code.

You could just buy more RAM and the code works just fine. So I think we got a little bit lazy and it was that. move fast and break things on our software, and now we got these LLMs that can run through it in no time. But once most of those vulnerabilities have been found, like the lowest hanging fruit, it's probably like 90% of it, the remaining vulnerabilities might not be there or are much more difficult or computationally costly to get to. And so even in the, like, the LLMs escaping, I think we'll figure out how to box them up pretty quick. And it may come from like there's, if you remember, you've heard Jason Lowry in his software thesis, it may even come from things like

Bitcoin where you're putting basically a physical constraint on a digital action. Like, you have to be able to move these sets, which require the proof of work and the cryptography that backed it there. And it doesn't matter how sneaky you are. If you can't send that Bitcoin transaction, it's not necessarily going to happen. So maybe there's some element of tying the physical world into restraining the digital world. But I think the time where it breaks out the most, the time where it hacks the most, the time where it looks the scariest is right now because we didn't have it before. but we'll have more solutions and kind of heuristics for how to actually quarantine this stuff moving forward. So I'm like the one non-doomer in the room saying like, I don't think it's going to blow up.

I'm much more worried about a bunch of countries in the Middle East and what they're going to do. I'm much more worried about the Canadian government is going to do. I am far more concerned with Carney and his bullshit and what the bank, with the Canadian banks looking to do their own sort of tokenized deposits with Carney getting close with the EU, that's going to screw me probably faster in the next 10 years than anything chat GPT is going to do. You know, I agree. The reason I ask the question is because I can't get my brain around it. Yep. I mean, and so I what I can tell you is that there's two parameters.

One is can it destroy us. The other is can, will we stop it? And my brain is completely wrapped around to will we stop and the answer is no. No, I completely agree. If the first, if the first condition. The first one is going to occur, we're fucked. Yes. We're screwed.

Well, let me ask you this, because this one, and maybe it's just not a long time, because I initial instinct completely agree. It's the, if we assume it will be able to destroy us, it's just a matter of will we stop beforehand. Nope, humans always touch the stove. There's too many of us. There's too many incentives to try and be the one that gets it. It's every, like, movie and story.

It's the hero versus the villain who wants power. Some villain will want it along the timeline. He'll get it. Well, it's like the niche bags who are breeding dire wolves. right? Yep. They say, well, we've got them ring fenced in, you know, and I go, one's going to get out and he's going to bang a bunch of female wolves and we're going to have dire wolves.

And by the way, who gave you the authority to do that? Who gave you the right to risk the biosphere at that level? You know, Bill Gates wants to put vaccines into mosquitoes. I go, who gives you the right to fuck with it? You know, coating the plant with a reflective shield. Who gives you the right to do that, you know? At some point. At some point, you've got to just stop them.

Hope they die. Bitcoin Well, you know them, you love them, long-time supporter of the channel, and one of the easiest places to buy Bitcoin directly to your wallet in the U.S. and Canada. But that's not all they do. So for anyone looking to make a big purchase, there is Bitcoin Well Infinite.

Because the hard part is in the buy, it's making sure you don't leave a giant mess for your family. Taxes, estate planning, even mining and lending. Bitcoin Well Infinite pairs you with your own dedicated advisor to help you every step of the way. And for the Americans, they're launching their own Bitcoin IRA and the wait list is open. verifiable and on-chain.

So sign up today, visit Bitcoinwell.com slash BTC sessions or scan the QR code on the screen. One company I like pointing people to when they ask about Bitcoin mining is abundant mines. They were founded by Bo and Christine Turner after losing over half a million dollars to broken promises in the mining industry. And they built their hosting model to remove the usual headaches. With abundant mines, you own your machines and keep 100% of the Bitcoin you mine. There's no revenue share, no hit.

in skims. Pricing is simple. One flat monthly fee covers power, parts, labor, and repairs. They also guarantee uptime. The machine goes down, their hash rate redirect system routes hash power from their fleet, so earnings don't just stop. And every machine is insured at full replacement value. Everything is hosted in the U.S., powered by hydro, and mining equipment may qualify for 100% your-one bonus depreciation. Learn more at abundantmines.com. slash sessions. The weird side tangent is I would make the case that like nuclear weapons was a human level destruction kind of invention. Okay, we've now got ourselves to the point where we could absolutely destroy ourselves. But it's been a little while since the 1940s and we haven't used

them now. That's a pretty short timeline in terms of human history. Yeah. But at least it gives me at least one taste, one anecdote, one case laid to point to and went, well, we kind of achieved that power here, but we didn't. Yet. Yet being the degree qualifier. So here's a funny story. I was making that argument in the faculty lounge when I was about, probably under 30 years old. I was sitting there with my colleagues. I said, look, mutual assured destruction has worked, right? To be honest, it has worked.

And so I was taking the optimist view. Some all fuck behind me clears his throat to adjust my attitude. It was Hans fucking beta. I just got fucking corrected by the guy who made the fucking bombs. Goal, holy shit. Yeah, that was funny.

So, but the term, yeah, the term, that's critical because that's one where, I mean, if we hooked it up to an automatic switch that I'd get worried, but,

but it still requires a human decision. And this gets at the question of, you know, what's going on in the Middle East. And I think the Middle East at some point could become the source of that next nuke going off. It's been a half a century since one went off, more than a half, 70 years. And it seems to me one's going to go off in part because, you know, when the Ukraine war

was burning hot, right? When it was the topic, de jour. It's still a topic, but it's not the topic. there were an awful lot of people talking about nuke and Russian I go you guys are fucking retards you know that right you're completely you're complete morons to talk that way

and and yeah we had you know the aOCs and the types talking about nuking Russian I go and and still we're we're I know I know just from gut sealing we are participating in the bombing of Moscow with drones right that's not Ukrainians, right?

Oh, God, no. I can't defend my belief. It's come from the fact that I think Ukraine has been washed out. I think Ukraine is a desolate place. And if you had told me 10 years ago that NATO forces would be providing the weapons to bomb Moscow, I would have said you're out of your mind. No one's that stupid, but we're doing it. And so I did a poll on Twitter, and I said, if you,

if Putin decides to start hurling some missiles into mainland Europe, not Ukraine? Yeah. Said, who do you blame? And the choices were I think it was Trump, U.S., Putin, Russia, you know, NATO, Europe, and one other. I can't remember. But the question was really, do you blame Putin or someone else? Yep. Putin got something like 4% of the vote.

We know that it's not Putin's fault. As a society, we know. that Putin is showing great restraint. And at some point, Putin drops a couple of serious weapons into the middle of Paris or Berlin or something. I'm going to go, guys, I've been telling you this. I wrote about the Ukraine War. I've been telling you this for a long time here. You push those guys.

They are at some point going to lash out at you. Well, do you think he's going to hand over power? Do you think like he has, what is it? He has more nukes in the U.S. Like 7,000. But I'm not even worried about him. I'm worried about the guys around him who are saying you're starting to look like a pussy, Blad.

Yeah. Right. So I think Putin is shown, I actually think Putin's the most grounded leader in the world. Let's not to say he's a sweetheart. Yep. But I think he's the most grounded. I think he's shown phenomenal restraint against just stupid, stupid field politics. And I think Iran's showing gray restraint.

I think Iran's showing gray restraint. No, I completely agree. I'd even say, like, if I look at, we say like the. axis of evil. I have Iran and Russia and China. And I look at what their leadership is doing. It's like, okay, I would agree. Russia, I think, is showing great restraint and good poise. Same with Iran. And they look at China being the only bond market right now that's not selling off in the state of what looks like their economy and manufacturing. Like, they all seem to be in at least a better position, despite the authoritarian issues that I would not want to necessarily

sweep under the rug. Yeah, we're not saying they're wonderful people. Yeah, I'm not saying they're good guys, but I'm just saying things are looking perhaps not as bad as people would think or the media would lead you to believe. So the question

I also like to ask is, you know, my understanding is that if Iran hit Israel's seven desalination plants, Israel would die of thirst. That's my understanding

is that if they go after the desalination plants in the region, like everyone's just grew up. So why haven't they? I'm teeing you up here. So the reason that I think

they necessarily have it is I assume, and the analogy that I always go back to is my group chats. I've got group chats with the boys. We talk behind the scenes and stuff all the time. I assume that everybody has group chats and talks about things behind the scenes all the time. And so I'd imagine that we have the IRGC, but there's more than just them as one monolithic blob. That there could be the people that want to take over afterwards. I want to step in his new leadership, or it could be some other political parties. But I imagine that there are deals and offers and people jockeying for power throughout the region after this thing is kind of done. Could be the mutually assured destruction sort of angle as well, too.

It could be there's people that are invested in like Iranian energy and Gulf country energy and they want to see like they want to see the fighting stop. They want to destroy the region. They want all the bickering and bitching between the countries to ends. They can actually open it up to global markets and make a shit ton of money. But I think that it's, we tend to view things like the U.S. and Canada being a key example. Like Canada is giant and there's definitely different cultures and opinions kind of across it. You look at Alberta versus like a newvie versus like a Quebecer.

The fact that we're one country is kind of stupid. And so I think the explanation exists in the fact that there are many people with different motivations that are in different positions that are in different positions of hierarchy trying to get to their end game. So I think you did sort of hit the answer. my my simple answer is I asked rhetorically what if what if it's possible that they know that that would be the wrong thing to do yeah destroying it start you know causing causing a mass die off of 5.7 million people in a week is not a good idea agreed now here's the question I ask and I've been I'm going to start digging because I legitimately can't answer this question and that is I hear about how awful the

IRGC is if you're going to make a top five lists of things they do that are awful could you do it because I couldn't no I think I could guess it would be kind of just guessing I think I could let's brainstorm this let's see if we can figure this out

because I can't do it okay so if I was coming but I haven't tried yet I haven't done it you know I haven't used rock or whatever I've realized this morning actually. I can't do that. So there would be the classic one would be like the women's rights one would be the one people would push. I would expect to see kind of theocratic authoritarian as one as well too. So kind

of the atheist versus religious standpoint. And then I'm guessing they're not necessarily treating political dissidents very well. There's no there's no free democracy, which would be, it's always it's always a sacred cow that people want to go to even though more of a fan of Han Herman Hohann-Serman Hopper's work than anything else. That's about probably as far as far as I could get. They haven't been. Funding terrorism would maybe be the other one, so they could talk about, like, well, they're the ones funding terrorism in the region, even though they're not doing it on their,

using their own forces. I thought we, I thought we were funding terrorism in Israel, it's funding terrorism. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah, without a doubt. So the first ones you name are not even in the same zip code of a list that you would say, therefore we should bomb them. Therefore, we should, yeah, therefore we should talk about nuking them. But forget, forget that, even bombing them.

It's not our business, right? You want to treat women inferior? You know, I'm glad someone wasn't able to bomb us until suffrage, right? I'm glad they couldn't bomb us into oblivion because we had slaves. You know, it is their prerogative. You know, you'll hear about, you know, I love it when the gay support Islam. And I go, you know, they tend to throw you guys off rooftops. But that's, that doesn't get me going towards we got a bomb.

them. Correct. You bomb them for reasons that are really fundamental existential risk issues, right? And, and, and, well, they hang the nuke one over everybody's head, but they've been doing that for like 40 years. Yeah, exactly. It's always like, we're, yeah, seven months away from a nuke, nine months away from a nuke, the clock is at 1130, 1159. Right. It's, I don't, I don't think that they ever, I think they wanted the, uh, the optionality that maybe they could pursue it or at least, it's almost like being seen sharpening your sword but not finishing it. It's like we could enrich, but they very clear, I remember before this whole thing kicked off, it was Tulsi Gabbard's report coming out and saying that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.

I think they would want to have the ability to enriching uranium, but I don't see any reason to believe that they were pursuing nuclear weapons, nor that they were at immediate threat. And it goes back to even like your prior comment, why not bomb the salination plants? Maybe because they know it's wrong. So maybe why not, why are they not going to build a nuclear weapon and bomb the region? maybe because they think it's a bad idea. Right. Maybe they don't want to put a target on them. That too.

And so we've gotten duped into yet another war. Yep. And I was totally agnostic on Israel for a long time. My first bad vibe was one time I was on a couple of signal calls with a guy who was supposedly a spook. he was either a very, very serious spook or a grandiose narcissist who invented a spook existence from whole cloth, you know, just, just he created it. And the tip off that the latter was in play was that he seemed to be involved in too many important things.

And I don't think spooks move around that much. I think they develop a niche. And they become a spook that focuses on Iran. So you're a spook that focuses on whatever. But I don't think one of the reasons, I'm one of the few who doesn't seem to fully trust Kariaku. I really hope he's right. I hope he's legit.

But he's had his fingers in too many pies. Yeah. And I go, I don't, you know, unless you're a super spook, you know, I don't think you do. I think you have your, your specialty. And you don't want to have to learn yet another language to go to yet another. country to go, yeah, right? And so, so Kyriaku seems like a, you know, limited hangout to me. And I'm sure a lot of what he tells us is legit. He certainly tells us stuff that makes us want to believe him because he sounds like he's telling us real deep, dark truths. Bustamanti's not even

close. Bustamanti's hysterical, though. He's funny. One time he took questions from the audience for two days, two whole days. Wow. And, His answers were hysterical. He had a sense of humor. You know, the one I remember vividly, someone said, there's area 51 real. And he said, no. He says, it's to distract you from area 50 and 52. And then he said, I'm not joking.

I go, man, that is just funny shit you're doing there. And so I think they get reassigned. So I'm on this call with this guy who's a super spooker of grandiose narcissist. and I tried to find out who he was. And I went deep. So listening to him for three days on the signal call, he was a computer expert. I did some Googling,

the name was Jack Schulman, did some Googling. I found some paperwork online about a lawsuit between the American computer company in 1990 or something I'd never heard of. And I got little shards of information on them. Don't even know if it's the same Jack Schulman. But, but,

I asked Brendan Ike, who was pre-IPO Netscape, founded Firefox, founded Brave. I said, do you know this guy? He didn't. I asked Steve Sinovsky, who was former president of Microsoft Windows. He didn't know him. And I asked the Canadian intelligence who he had, he had professed to know. The spook professed to know and he didn't know him. So I decided grandiose narcissists. But what spooked me was.

was spook, is on the third call, somehow the issue of Israel came up. And I was playing it very carefully, very, very delicately. And I said, you know, I don't think it's fair to criticize Joe Sixpack who's just trying to put food on the table and get the kids to bed for not understanding the complex situations that we're in and not understand complex relationship for Israel with the world, things like that. And he started getting mad. And I'm going, I didn't say anything controversial.

There's no, yeah, there's no thing bad there. So I took a couple stabs at it and pretty soon he's swearing at me. And so I said, fuck you and hung up. I've never done that to anyone. And my concern is not that he's a grandiose narcissist, but rather than he is a real spoke and guys like that are calling the shots. Yep. Because at one point he said, Jews or Israel, Israel are Jews.

There's no distinction. I said, you know, it's not my understanding. You know, I think there's a lot of disagreement, just like Americans. And he was just so rigid. Now, so that was my first run in with what I'll call a rabid Zionist. Yeah. Right. So I've been trying to understand the Israel-Palestine issue through various lenses.

And what's clear is that there, to think of Israel and Jews as some homogeneous group is absurd. It's a really bad idea, too. Like, I can understand why, like, from a PR standpoint, if you do that at the beginning and there's, like, we'll just say strong favorability, the way that people are looking at the Jewish community and there's good feelings there, so you combine the two, so you can try and get the state pushed through. But if the state ever screws up or does something rogue or it goes terribly, terribly awry,

you've now linked the two identities together, which means it's going to fall back on the other. Like, it's a bad idea. Well, I don't want to take the rap for Bush bomb and, you know, killing five million Middle Easterners, right? I'm not signing off on that. I'm not taking the rap for that. I oppose that, right? And so, and then you find that within the Zionist community, there's a tremendous range of

opinions where there's the Zionists who believe the basic principles, but they're trying to get along. So, you know, I read Kope's book, Kappa's book, KAP, E, P.E. some short history of Israel or something. He was decidedly Palestinian, but he seemed to be pretty balanced, all things considered. And it was reading that book that I first discovered

that Israel didn't start in 1948. It was kind of, you know, turn of the century starting. And then you start stumbling into stories like Hill are actually tried overtly to get the Jews to move to Palestine. Palestine. And some of them did out of fear. And one of the things that happened is that the Jews and the Arabs were kind of living, the Palestinians were kind of living a fairly peaceful coexistence in Palestine. And then the European Jews showed up. And also it's like the guys in the Jews in Palestine were saying, you know, we were getting along here fine. And you guys come in. And then the Brits fucked everything up. The Brits. the Brits started changing the rules like they did when they were in their mercantiless phase.

And one of the fundamental changes they made, which was really important. And this book didn't make a big deal of it, but it struck me as profound, and that is they changed the rules of land ownership. So apparently land was kind of a little bit of a Marxist style where land was considered owned by the community. And you might own your house, but it was kind of like you're, on a 99-year lease on the land. And the Brits came along and said land can be privately owned. And it turns out, of course, the Jews and the tremendous financial firepower from Europe compared to Palestine, which did not have the financial firepower, they bought up the land.

And all of a sudden, things just started going out of balance. And now it's inescapable to me. Someone maybe can show me some footage of something, but it seems inescapable that they're slaughtering the shit out of people in Palestine in Gaza. And we have two, right? We've killed so many. Remember that Madeline Albright interview where she gets asked by Leslie Stahl? Was it worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children?

and she said she sort of waffle and said yeah i think you know tough call but i think it was worth it yeah no it wasn't worth it there's not a there's not a single case to be made against us bombing iraq or afghanistan or or you know helping the saudi arabians bomb yemen yemen i just i just it just the whole thing looks fucked up and i so one of the reasons a lot of people are so disappointed with Trump is because a lot of us wanted to stop doing show like that. No, 100%. And I just don't understand the people who hang with him and think he's got some master plan that doesn't work for me. It's not.

I thought, you know what I thought was brilliant? The 12-day war when Trump supposedly bombed the nuke sites. Yep. And then they counterattached by bombing an irrelevant site. No personnel. air base with having told us they were coming, so there would be no casualties. And then I believe the whole thing was a scam, and that, first of all, if the Iranians have an important nuke site, it's not in a Quonset hut on the surface. It's a half mile deep in some

mountain somewhere, Cheyenne Mountain, you know, Raven Rock type place, where no amount of weaponry will be able to put it out of commission. And I, I, I've read that, you know, they have bulldozers and shit in these facilities. They can get the fuck out. So all you can do is bomb the opening. That's all you can do. And so what it did, though, is it by Trump bombing the so-called nuke site and then them bombing us, then they could turn around to the Israelis and say, okay, the nukes off the table, shut the fuck up.

Yep. Now, they didn't. But I thought it was a brilliant idea, especially if it was, if it really was done in Kauz with Iran, Iran and say, oh, yeah, let's do it. Yep. Do you think? But then we bombed them. Then we bombed them. On that same note, one thing that stood out to me, I think it was last week or the week before, just paying attention to when I might be being propagandized. We had the Houthi's attacking infrastructure within Saudi Arabia, one of their pipelines, I believe. And then on my Twitter timeline, I was getting a whole bunch of videos.

This was last week we're talking about now? I think it was like last week, yeah. I got a whole bunch of basically video footage of, I think it's Yemenis. people from Yemen just eating cat or whatever the drug is and just like kind of high out of their mind and looking kind of ridiculous. It felt like a active campaign to dehumanize the people of Yemen. They were really tying those two together, which my worry there, I haven't seen anything yet, but my worry there is like, okay, is the U.S. about to step in with Saudi Arabia in Yemen? Are they setting up for that as well too, for some reason rather than just giving them weapons and things on the side? So I was worried about Yemen stepping up a little bit, but I'm curious looking at the Iran conflict. Now,

it's been it's been months they're now talking about what they're going to do post midterms right do you think that we've walked into or the u.s has walked into another another afghanistan another iraq another iran that were we're not new iran that we're going to be there for a very long time i don't i think it was colonel douglas mcgregor was talking about they're setting up for um more air power coming through the region right now but he was um skeptical of the billy dad boots on the ground well he also was the guy I will tell you you don't win a war with air power. Right. So I posted a McGregor interview, and I find him to be highly credible.

And I got, I would say, non-statistically attacked. And that was, and I didn't even say McGregor's nailing it, I just said, here's McGregor's latest, it's not a pretty picture is what I said. And I got non-statistically attacked. and and it was it was you know, McGregor's called everything wrong, he's been dead wrong, and I'm sitting there thinking, well, first off,

I agreed to the extent that he thought people would act rationally and they haven't. So his assumption that we would act rationally was flawed. He thought the Ukraine war would be over sooner, but I think he failed to anticipate the fact that we would help with the drone program that would do all the crap I think it was not imaginable to a rational individual. And so I posted and then all of a sudden my Twitter feed became this dumpster

server of people attacking McGregor. I won't mention where I thought it came from. I got a little mad at the person. I said, you dragged a bunch of retards into my Twitter feed. But, but, but I, McGregor, I think he's got it right and I think McGregor is worried. Yeah. Now, we will not be in another Iraq and Afghanistan until we put boots on the ground. If we don't put boots on the ground, then it's still a problem. I'm still trying to figure out why the Strait of Harmoos closing has actually not caused more immediate damage. Do you have any thoughts on that? I think China's ability to adapt to So I understand something along the lines of

They either have less of a need for hydrocarbons than we think Their ability to refine it into different products Is greater than we think or they have other sources My assumption is or a giant reserve My assumption is that in the same way that like we didn't see oil hitting 150 a barrel that if if we close a straight of Hormuz And it's not been that much of a disaster although diesel is looking very interesting right now

and they keep taking it refineries and things too. And it hasn't been a disaster. Then the underlying assumption that that was a choke point for oil was wrong. That the processing capabilities or other flows. That was not as important as we thought. Exactly. That we were able to route around it almost like, you know, blood finding a different path through the circulatory system,

that it wasn't that big. It wasn't that big of a deal. It's 10 years of 2.26. Oh, fun. Yep. So at some point, something does snap. I don't know when. I can't understand how the yen carry trade has blown the hell up. Yeah, I think I saw Japan two year was at like 1.95 or something?

Right. Highest since 1995. Right. So again, you say, well, that's not very high. I go, but if you're way out over your skis at 0% interest rates, the cost of your carry is grown infinitely. It's an infinity. The number of people that I talk to that haven't taken Bitcoin off the exchange is honestly quite frightening.

And those that do, a lot of them by one device, get it set up and never look at it again. Their security ends up becoming a snapshot of whatever the hell they knew that day. Bitcoin is not a sedative and forget an asset. Hoddling is an active process. I've helped a lot of people build their way to multi-vender multi-six setups. And almost every time Treasor was one of those devices. Intuitive, secure, Bitcoin-only firmware available and open source. And that last one's really important.

They've always been open source since the very beginning, since 2014. when they built the very first hardware wallet. And those recovery words that you got stamped into metal, that standard was co-authored by Treasor's founders. This is a company that the industry has literally been building on for over a decade. But there's one thing that nobody could open up, the secure element, the place where you actually store your keys. The Treasor Safe 7 has two of them, and Tropic 01 is the first open source secure element

that security researchers can actually audit. So if you're taking self-custy for the first time or you're building something a little bit more robust, level up, get a Treasor Safe 7 today. They use promo code BTC Sessions 10 for 10% off any model. Scan the QR code on the screen or click the link in the description down below. Let me jump back on that because there's a few things that popped into my mind earlier. We're talking about the bond market. My understanding is also that these AI companies, their bonds are pulling demand away from treasuries,

which might be leading to part of the yield going up there as well. But there's a couple things that struck me that I want to get your take on. One was we were talking about, I'm all over the place, so bear with me. AI coming in destroying us. at the same time, I think that like with the, I think it was Michael Burry that was talking about the CAPEX spend right now and the hyperscalers and stuff as compared to the GDP growth that we're getting. If we assume that we're kind of in an AI bubble

and that they're way over expanding on infrastructure and way overspending compared to actual customer need and these GPUs have a short shelf life, I would imagine that one, the bubble's going to pop at some point in time. There's not going to be that kind of high growth in the infrastructure. Old infrastructure is actually going to break. down, like you may see AI capabilities from a hardware perspective kind of flatline because there's no money building more.

Or go backwards. Yeah, I know. What a weird thought that this rapidly expanding thing could actually contract. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. These are all interesting thoughts. I have no idea how many ships are getting through the Strait of Harmoos because I don't

believe the data when I get it. And if a third are getting through, it probably matters which third. right? Yes. Who's getting through? Which flags. You got guys like Michael Jan and several others

who think that the entire story is about creating a global famine. Just the Malthusian. We've got to call the herd a bit. Just a Malthusian global famine, yeah. And that's pretty dark. Certainly, no one seems to doubt that if the fertilizer and stuff

really is not getting through that there will be famine in places. Yep. And I, I sound very unpatriotic when I say this, but I don't think it would be the worst thing in the world if Americans discovered that bombing the shit out of people has consequences. And so we, we get to watch war on TV. For 70 years now, we've gotten to watch war on TV like it's a reality TV show. And I think for there to be an explicit connection between us bombing the shit out of some country and us suffering in some way, I'm not rooting for fatalities, but I think that might be an important lesson. A little humility might go a long ways.

And maybe we can take a much more anti-war, possibly Monroe Doctrine stance, which looks at. like what Trump was going to do. Yep. If he had stayed away from Iran, I'd tell you, he'd have a lot more followers. We'd actually win the midterms, right? It's not usually the case for the incumbent. Well, so here's the question. Does he give a shit about the midterms?

His one side says yes. The other side says he's too selfish to give a shit. I don't think it's that. The question is, like, who's pulling the strings who actually gets to, like, call the tune? Where is the most influence necessarily coming from? predetermined, right. Are they predetermined? The amount of stuff that could be completely predetermined, I'm not necessarily opposed to. Because I think the constant back and forth, the duopoly between the Democrats and the Republicans,

really does keep the population in check, right? We get to do whatever the hell we want, and you guys are all distracted, and here's your fun little political Super Bowl game to play. My suspicion is that Trump may not give a shit about the midterms, because I feel like that would be a Republican Party desire. The Republican Party, that sort of organization is concerned with winning. So the risk is, though, that he ends up in a shitstorm for the next two years. Not just he can't get anything done, but rather they really go at them if they win the midterms. Well, wouldn't you say it kind of looks like he's been appeasing them this term as well, too?

Could be he's cutting deals. Yeah. It doesn't feel like it's Trump 2016 or Trump just after the election. Like all the kind of disappointments that we've seen out of them and out of the administration and the decisions that they're making, that might be him going like, I don't want you to go after me again when this is all done. What do we got to do? Well, the grafts is unbelievable. I mean, I really didn't think you could outdo the Clintons. But in some sense he has. And it's so overt, right? He does even hide it. He flaunts it. You know, the meme coin that he made $630 million and the meme coin dropped to 99%, right? So clearly his $630 million came right out of the pockets of admittedly speculators, right? As soon as you exit the Bitcoin channel, you are a speculator.

You know, you can debate whether Bitcoin's a speculation, but you sure as hell can't debate once you're into the meme coins. No, it seems like the raging degeneracy of the gambling just overall that's going up. The meme coins are straight like they're straight up gambling. They're not even having a story about utility. Like betting on Calci or something, right? That's all I see. Polymarket, Calci, sports betting on TV.

Like, it feels, man, if Trump thought that the thing, here's one for you, if Trump thought that the system was going down, and by the way, I saw that there were six failed banks recently, I don't know where that is relative to like, what's the more? I haven't heard about this. I've heard about the six failed banks. I'll have to pull over. There were six, I think, small regional banks kind of situation again, but I don't know how many fail in a regular year. Like, what's my baseline to compare to? Like, oh, no, this is noise. Small banks go out of business all the time. Were you paying attention during the 08-09 crisis or not? Were you too young? Too young. Paying attention. So I was paying attention in the sense that, like, it's funny. Just before the 08-09 crisis, I would have been, let me think here. In 2009, I would have been 20. So I was like 1820. And I was getting the advice from everybody being like, you have. to put money into the stock market. That's what you got to do. And I was getting those first kind

of university jobs and some in high school that was starting to get a little bit more cash coming in. And so my only real memories of it was that everyone was telling me that I got to invest. No idea what the fuck I'm doing. It's like, okay, well, you tell me where I should put my money and I'll go ahead and do that. And so I'm just watching it. Oh nine? I started putting my money in probably in about 07 into 08. And then I just- followed it down and then up. No, I just watched it all go away. I just, it all went to It basically, I got like a 90% haircut on like the, because I was told the more risky stuff

because of me on, which makes sense. Yeah. And then I just didn't, I didn't touch anything again until Bitcoin. I think the boomers are necessarily because they created the boomer, going to create the bust. Yeah. And not created consciously, but rather as the boom passes through the system like a pig through a python. Just a giant demographic. The pig will come out the orifice, right?

It'll come out the other end. And I don't believe the boomers can pass their wealth, which, by the way, is way overstated. The median boomer has something like the median boomer with a retirement account has something like $300,000 in the account. That will not carry you, period. With the house paid off to, or no? Well, it turns out the median, when I say boomer, I actually looked at 70-year-old. I actually specifically looked at a date. The average 70-year-old has something like $200,000 of equity in their house,

which means the house for the median person is not paid off. It's not paid off. And the median boomer who either has or doesn't have, so the median of the entire group of boomers with both retirement accounts and without any, the median retirement account is $105,000. And so right below the median are the people with none. And then it turns out the median social security is something like 27,000 a year. The max is somewhere around 65.

My wife and I, I get the max. I paid no attention to social security because I was told you're not going to get it. I'm getting the 70 and I'm going to, oh, shit, I got to apply. I didn't even, I forgot I was going to get social security next year. sort of after 70 if you don't take it, you're just leaving money on the table. There's nothing to gain by waiting past 70s. So I apply for Social Security. And some amazing things happen.

One is I get a call from a boy, are we schizophrenic care. I get a call from a woman to help me finish the application. So Trump had just started kicking some ass early in his career, Errol in his second term here. And so I thought, okay, Social Security is going to be all fucked up now. So I'm probably going to have trouble getting started. But I get a call from this woman right about when it's, you know, getting close to, you got to apply like four months in advance to set the clock going. And but what I actually didn't want to do was apply and make a mistake and apply something like one month early

and cost myself a fortune because I jumped the gun by a month, right? I had no idea. So she calls and she says you actually started a month light, so I want to move you up a month. and and and and and and and and and she's totally coherent. I'm going, how am I speaking to a totally coherent person working as social security? Are you actually state side too? Right, right.

What is going on here? And she didn't sound like AI to me. And she was stateside totally. And, and then she said, so she said, I want to move you up. And then she says,

do you have any dependents? I said, well, my wife and she said, just she gets social security. I go, well, almost none.

She says, well, she gets a step up. I go, what do you mean? I didn't know. I didn't know this. And she says, yeah, she gets half of what you get.

Added on. So my wife and I, our Social Security, is crowding $100,000 a year. Wow. I didn't know any of this. Oh, I had no idea. My wife has a bank account that's just filling up with cash because she spends on our credit card and I pay that. And so social security can't, you can't.

I can live off that Social Security. If you're in that top bracket, you've probably learned to live on a higher budget than that, though. So I would have trouble living off 100K just based on my property taxes and shit like that. You know, my house is pretty, pretty valuable. And so, but the median boomer is not in great shape. And therefore, but the median boomer, what's also true, I think, is when the boomers, I believe, And it's not based on a hard model. It's faced on a gut level instinct.

I believe that there's not a mechanism for the boomers to pass their wealth along without it getting repriced. Oh, completely agree. Well, but what's the mechanism? Because I haven't been able to come up. So they got to sell it to pass it a lot. Somehow there's going to be some. It has to reprice. I don't think they can take these bloated assets and pass them to the next generation.

I think you're going to see, you know, it's funny. I'll, I think it'll be a, we say, a more system-tized and business set up. I feel there'll be a whole industry that's kind of sitting around the idea of picking up boomer assets. That this will be a, just like retirement homes were all the rage for a while to build, looking at the demographics, there'll be a whole industry set up around financing and picking up boomer assets. And what I'm reminded you of is a conversation I had with, who was, it was, it was Mike Green, and I'm blinking on the gentleman from the brown incident that I was talking to. and Mike mentioned, it's anecdotal, but he mentioned that he bought some like Philadelphia

Waterfront property for like 40% because it was a widow with no kids to inherit it either. It was just her. But that's just a one-off. That's a one-off. Correct, but I feel like there's- It could be a model. That's exactly the thought is that the kids aren't going to want to necessarily take the houses because they can't afford the property taxes.

Well, they're not living in the same time. So my kids could not afford. to live in my house, even if they inherited the damn thing, lock, stock, and barrel. It's all paid off. I haven't had a mortgage since 1999. I got out of the market in 99, and I said, okay, now what do I do? I'm sure I told you in our first podcast or a podcast. In 99, I acted all the dot com, all the, all the tech stocks, the Dells, the WorldCom,

so you name it. And I went into gold cash. I shorted a little bit. I did that twice made money, never again. I was lucky. I deserve to get my ass absolutely bitch slapped and it didn't get it. But I've learned my lesson. I'll never short again.

And the one of the things I said, I got a 9.25% mortgage. I'll pay that off. That's a 9.25% return. And then I've not had a debt since. of any kind. It's the one day, one day I dream, but to that point, you're right,

your kids couldn't take it. They couldn't own my house. They wouldn't even necessarily want to, right? They're already in there. We don't have multi-generational homes anymore, right? It's not like you guys are all living together. And so it's a natural transition. By society to think green

and to think small carbon footprint and shit. So they don't want the antiques that are in my house. I got 18th century furniture in the house. They don't, my kids might want that. but most the next generation does not give a shit about antiques anymore. They want chrome. They want digitally whatever connected shit. And they don't want, I don't think they want a big house.

They're not getting them, of course. But it could be sour grapes. But I think they were brought up to think, you know, small footprint. I agree. I think that most of the boomer assets will end up being liquidated on the cheap because the inheritors will want the cash or it's just paying off the estate. and that's, I think that's it. The question is, what's the downstream effects of that and how big of an impact it has?

I'm not sure. But I don't think you can get away from not repricing. There's been, you, the demographic effects of having this large pig in the Python meant that, and the descending in the 40 years of the Treasury market meant that we overinflated all these assets, but there's no consumer on the other side to pick it up. There's no one that's going to be able to come in and grab it. So it doesn't matter where you've, valued out right now in the margin if they all start to move if there's a and there's got to be like

a statistical distribution like I should be able to take a look at the demographics of boomers and go like the most of them are going to die in this year this will be the right statistically the largest point with there those yeah the insurance companies figured that out in about the 15th century so I'm sure that that that can be calculated um yeah well then there's the theory that all these that COVID and shit in the vaccine were designed to thin out the the population to solve the financial problem. Definitely. I look at the war of that kind of way as well, too.

I wonder if the war motivations are being driven by financial pressures or if they're going to be ended because of financial pressures. I don't know. I don't know. I do know that they suck. And then or the other topics we were going to talk about, Lindsay Clancy. I'm an M.K. ultra obsessive at this point. Okay, let's touch on, let's jump to that one.

I might come back to some more market stuff later as well, too. But on the Clancy one, I do want to get your take and I want to know what you're thinking. Because speaking about all these kind of depopulation kind of controlling things as well, too, the amount of hype and attention and then left and right divide, again, felt like very taking the jar vans and shaking it up. Like it was so unbelievably divisive, not only between, we'll say, like, Republican and Democrat, but also men, women. and so if you want everybody fighting and not breeding, that seemed like a good story to highlight and really push out in the media as much as you could.

So fessing up, I see MCLtra hiding behind every rock. I'm well aware of that. I do look at things like, you know, when they say 350,000 kids came over the border in one year and that, you know, the numbers are soft and soggy, but a million kids a year disappear globally and things like that.

And I asked the question, first of all, I asked the question, where'd they go? And second of all, when CNN are these guys actually cite these numbers, why don't they ever say, where'd they go? They never ask that question. They talk about the kids being trafficked, and then they say, where'd they go? Now, I don't know. I'm pretty connected with the trafficking experts. I started tracking this down, not trafficking, tracking this down about four years ago to try to explain geopolitics. I said, okay, trafficking and geopolitics are somehow tied together.

I got to understand the trafficking. And I've been on Zoom calls with, yeah, I was on a Zoom call with Archbishop Carlo Maria Bagano, who's number three at the Vatican. And he's the guy who called out the church for hiding pedophiles and stuff. But to me, the church and pedophiles, I go, you know, okay, you give a guy no sex life. you're going to find some perves. If the church is trafficking kids, that's a different story, right? And he starts out the Zoom call and he says,

the leaders of the Western world are all pedophiles. I go, oh, I kind of suspected that, but I didn't expect the number three at the Vatican to say that. He turned out to get excommunicated about a year later. Really? Yeah, so they didn't like him saying that shit. And so I, you know, I think, you know, Macron's wife is a dude. I think it's possible that he, that he's also married to his father.

Yep. And I see this stuff. And so I look at, I look at, I've gotten to the point where I think I can identify trafficked individuals. Not that I can always identify them because you don't know who you're missing, but rather I see people and I go, I think that person's been trafficked. I, by chance, I was getting a medical scan done last week, and I was chatting with the young dams was like 40-ish hotter-de-pistol. I had her before. At some point, she made reference to her wife. I go, oh, that's why I remember you.

Yeah, we talked about you. I said, yeah, you're breaking the hearts of the heterosexual males. And I somehow mentioned doing podcasts. She said, what topic is it all the way from the Federal Reserve to satanic pedophiles. and she wanted to talk. She had been trafficked. She had been trafficked. Really?

She had been trafficked to the edge. So she had been molested and didn't go into detail by a guy that clearly sort of did damage. Yep. And she mentioned being at a party with a bunch of men and they were all trying to get her drunk. spook. And her sister says, suck it up, get over it. And I'm going,

it turns out the trafficking world in the military have a huge overlap. A huge overlap. And so her sister being in the deep state tells me her sister got traffic too.

And so, so this was a novel conversation. I was on a Zoom call with Kathy O'Brien. I don't know if you know her name, but she's one of the most famous trafficked women. Juliet Engel was on the call.

And I read Kathy's books and she tells horror stories about she's been doing this for 20, 30 years now, 30 years now talking about being trafficked. And she was like a very, very high level sex slave. So she would actually deliver messages from president to president and she like that while at the same time getting brutalized. And I kept a running list of all the famous people who raped her. As she as I went through the book, I just kept a running list. for future use. She appears to have been raped by every president starting with Reagan.

Wow. And now, or she's wrong, or the whole story's bullshit or whatever. And about three weeks ago, and I don't want anyone who hears this saying, I'm questioning Kathy, because one of the things is if you've been trafficked, one of your hardest problems is people not believing you.

So you're constantly facing that. But I read an earthless head, actually the story's not right. Some spook saved her. Some spook took her, ran off with her, sort of deprogrammed her, sounded like a romance brood. Something about her book.

Something seemed off to me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it. And this 2002 article said she didn't get saved. He took possession of her. She's still, she's now got a new role. She's still there. He's her new handler.

Yeah. And I'm, I don't know how to refute that. I don't know how to deal with it. But I see this. And so then I look at one of the characteristics is sort of the 10,000 mile stare. Yeah. And if you look at all the shooters, they talk about all the shooters around SSRIs and SNRIs.

Here's what I'll tell you. My wife was on an SNRI. She detoxed this summer. she would have died we put her back on the SNRI we couldn't get her off it she was she we tapered it down we got her off it

she's a complete fucking mess she would have killed herself now what I believe the SNRIs are they're not a problem while you're on them not a problem going off them and so I believe when you get put out something like affects her

you're on it for life you're on it for life You're better off being a crackhead. You have a chance to get enough crack. And I said when we first started tapering her, we found the protocols, stuff like that. They were wrong. When you dig deeper and you find the people who actually tried, they say, look, it'll take at least a year. And as you taper, it has to become smaller, smaller, smaller the point where you're taking off one milligram a week, starting with a 200 milligram dose.

and then I run into people say, look, I detoxed off them 10 years ago and my life is still completely fucked up. Yeah. So these drugs should not be on the market. Maybe they're saving a few lives, but they're costing many more. So I've thought about like the Canada's now got this huge euthanasia death toll. I haven't verified it, but I saw more dead. Oh, no, I've seen, I'm sure those statistics are correct. it was more government euthanized,

more Canadians euthanized by the government than American homicides, the gun deaths, the American gun deaths. Like just insane. Here's my question. So you basically can sign up to be off. How many people a year did that because they detox off an SNRI?

Or an SRI. Right? Yeah. My wife would have. Yep. So we put her back on. She also, they tried to put her on staten.

You read about said, do not touch a statin, period. QED, don't touch him. And so the pharmaceutical industry has gone totally mobbed level corruption. So I look at, say, Lindsay Clancy, or I look at Tyler Robinson, who I think did not shoot Kirk, but was somehow involved. If I had to make a guess, I would say he was part of the plot, but he was the Oswald of the plot. And here's what to watch for. I'm making a prediction. So I don't think they can convict Robinson based on all the things that don't make sense.

It is a colossal mountain of things that don't make sense. And I've paid very close attention and it worked very hard to understand it. There is nothing to make sense in the Clancy in the Tyler Robinson shooting of Charlie Kirk. I don't think you could possibly win in court. Now, suggests therefore he's going to die. Or if he settles, you say, well, why would you settle if they can't win, if they can't catch you on a prosecution? And the answer is if your family's involved. Now, if you look at the trafficking world, there's all these on ramps into the trafficked world, including just kidnapping and stuff like that.

but solo kidnappings are a very minor contributor to the problem. There's a thing called harvest season when there's a catastrophe, they round up the kids. They get them in wholesale. Ukraine, huge source of children because you've got dead fathers everywhere. But they have this 10,000-mile stare. They have flat personality.

If you'll listen to someone like Annika Lucas, who's very famous, and she talks about how she had to eat a dead carcass and how they gave her a puppy, which was the only good thing in her entire life, and then they made her kill it. You know, things like that. That's how they brainwash you.

They fry your brain. Just fry it. And so you listen to her. She is talking very matter of factly while the interviewer is crying. Yeah. And so I look at Tyler Robinson. I look at the various school shooters.

They've all got that distance stare. And I saw, a TED talk by a woman who was saying that pedophilia is just a choice. And I watch, I go, she's been trafficked. So one day I'm watching a guy who's running for the governorship of Colorado. And Candace Owens, who has been demonized, she's getting stuff wrong. But here's the deal. Candace is doing crime work in real time.

So if Seymour Hearst did one of his big stories. But every day he updated it, it would be an important. possible thing to do because they would put up defense mechanisms. So he gets the story, puts it all out there to one big thermonuclear bomb to the system. Canis does it daily. Now, so they demonize her. I've not caught her lying. I've caught her making mistakes. There's things I don't agree with, but I don't think she's lying. And so she's interviewing this guy named Victor Mark. She's running for the governorship of Colorado. And I'm watching

him and all shouldn't, it turns out that Erica Kirk, one of the first people she was consoled by was Victor Marks. And, and,

and I'm watching him and he's, it turns out he has all the traits. So I reach out to my keto hunter crew and said, would you do me a favor

and watch this interview? Because Candace is interviewing because she doesn't like him. Yeah. the hostility shows she's wearing it on her sleeve. But I actually reached out to her helpline and said, Victor Marx has been trafficked. Make sure you don't miss that.

And she's been picking up on trafficking and di-dissociative identity disorder and all this crap. And so it turns out that I reached out to my crew, woman named Emma Emma, who's an entrepreneur on Twitter, who's been heroically interviewing trafficked women for years now. I said, when you watch, and she, by the time she got back to me, I had already discovered others were talking about Victor Marks having been traffic. So I can spot them. So now it's got to Lindsay Clancy.

Yes. Which is a fascinating story to me. My first thought, my visceral thought that, you know, that first instinctive thought when I first heard about it, I didn't know anything about it until she went to trial, right? It's, what, two years old or something? was you killed your three kids and you threw herself out of window, the insanity defense seems pretty easy to me at this point. Yeah, I was going to say, you can't tell me it's the sane action to kill your three kids.

Like it presupposes. Now, the world wants to hang her no matter what. And I don't have a strong opinion as to what you should do with her. Now, things started showing up, like her medications. She was on 13 different medications. Now, I saw those medications through a lens that very few of anyone else saw. Then she was on all these different meds, many of which I recognized. And they were not heavy doses.

They were not for long duration. And it would not make sense to most people. Some people point out said, look, these are not enough to explain it. What I saw in the meds was exactly what I saw in our personal life, where when my wife came off affects her, they were trying all sorts of different meds to deal with the horrific symptoms that being off affects her being several months off effects her had imparted she she couldn't even talk to the doctor she just sat there shaking in the doctor's office after 10 weeks of being off it after and tapered off it and the doctors had no idea what to do and so what i saw in her meds were the medications you used to try to deal with coming off something. She had a young kid. I wonder, what I wonder is if she went off a med, like, let's say, affects her, and all that, those meds that you were seeing

that look irresponsible, or actually a medical system responding as quickly as they could to try to help solve the problem. So that's the first thing. I watched an interview of her husband. I got the Erica Kirk creeps out of him fast, real fast. Yes, really. Yes. fast. I have not seen any interviews with him. I've just seen like pictures of him with his new wife and people talking about him. And he started dating within a year. Yeah. That seems a little odd. I would think you would not be recovered. Oh, God, no. I can't imagine the thought process of having your three kids murdered by your wife and then being recovered in a year just seems. Now, his wife was a nurse. He says he met his new wife in Central Park.

having moved to New York, and she too is a nurse. That's interesting. So then I'm watching the court hearings. Just a few snippets here and there. The first thing I noticed is there's a guy who looks to be maybe 5560, looks kind of potentially tough who's testifying to her insanity. And by the way, the thing that she suffered from most was permanent bitch face, right? She really looked mean.

I think they didn't have to make. I've seen pictures of looking very friendly, and they are not popular pictures to show. And sort of like Derek Chauvin, they loaded up the worst looking pictures for him. So his new wife is also a nurse. And that's, you know, but then this guy's on the stand, and he's talking about how insane she was.

And who is this guy? Well, it turns out this guy was a former Army Ranger. I go, oh, that's a plot thickener. I don't know what to do with that, but I can see your brain going. Army Rangers testifying in a homicide case of three children, right? What is that about his personality? And then there's a picture of him with Ali North. I go, the most famous spook in U.S. history.

He's standing there with Ali North. what's that all about? And then there's this woman who's testifying in this sing-songy voice. This real sounded like a therapist or something voice. And she talked about talking with Lindsay many times and saying to her, your children are in heaven, you know, this and that, you know, trying to make her feel better. She said she talked to her something like 200 times. And so she was making the case of Lindsay.

he was a very sweet person. It turns out if you look at her resume, MBA from Columbia, another advanced degree, which I can't remember from Yale, senior VP of Fidelity, what is she doing in that courtroom? Why is she there? Yeah. Yeah. Turns out that as a consequence of this case, they're creating all sorts of software to track pregnant women. Really?

AI-based programs. Now, what did her husband do? He was a software engineer. The fact that he met a nurse and married a nurse tells me maybe there was like a network and this nurse was not met as randomly as... Well, she's not just a nurse of them. I'm mistaken. I'm pretty sure she's a fertility nurse.

Right. Right. And then... And then... Whoa. Wait a minute. You find out that all the software is coming through the hospital system that she was involved with.

And then you find out that there's other cases just like this. Like some case, you know, some number of years ago or some woman killed three of her kids. They were about to say, may, everything was remarkably parallel. And right away, you're going, is this whole thing totally different than what we were told? The crime scene was fucked up. So they showed a picture of the crime scene. The guy supposedly comes and finds his wife in the front yard. He's got a bag of shit.

His wife's in the front yard with a broken neck. And supposedly he's on the phone with 911. And then he goes in to see the children, see if they're okay, and he finds them dead. We didn't ever hear that take. And, and, and, and, uh, but suppose it was like guttural, whatever, horrifying to listen to. But the package he came in with was on, they showed a photograph, it was on some table where the, the, the shit, the shit on the table were stacked in a way that they were at wrong time sequence. So you go, that package would be on the top. Top, yeah.

You know, that sort of thing. It's sort of like studying stratified layers in the earth's crust, you know. And so as a consequence of this, I'm wondering. I'm wondering what I mean to jump that to me is. Is this idea, you have a software engineer who's working on building a app to track pregnant women. He's going to need somebody with detailed intimate knowledge. Well, I don't know if he was working on that. I can't remember if he was.

There was a woman named Morgan on Twitter and others were talking about. So I don't actually know who deserves credit for finding this shit. But she's when I first found it. Morgan C-000, something like that. And she's one who wrote about it, laid it all out and said, there's just something so wrong with the story. And she really caught my attention. And so then you look at like a woman named Elizabeth Nixon.

former head of Time magazine European Division, big in, her mother got trafficked up through Montreal. I was on a podcast with Jim Kuntler and he mentions that in the middle of a podcast with her, she starts talking about her mother being trafficked. And I said, really? And this was like the week before I'm on the podcast,

it was the previous week's podcast, which I hadn't seen it. And he said, yeah, she was, she's trafficked up in Canada. And I said, Yeah, at McGill University of Montreal. And he said, yeah, how'd you know that? And I go, because that's where they did it.

A guy named you and Cameron ran the whole operation. It was an M.K. Ultra operation up there. I have a friend, by the way, who said his grandfather disappeared and came back two years later, all fucked up. I wonder if there's any relationship there. Sorry, didn't just jump out of me because Montreal is also a major hub for pornography, if I'm not mistaken. Fascinating. Fascinating question. Pornography itself has underlying questions. Like, why is it free?

Yeah. Why is it free? I mean, you can pay for stuff. But if you need to pay for stuff, you're digging deep. I was going to get like 20 keywords in the search title and you got to go and you got to go and pay for stuff. Yeah, yeah, you're in trouble. It's time to take a break. Yeah, time to take a break.

Yeah, switch to your left hand at least. So, so I'm starting to see all the shit, you know, between. And then, oh, and then this Elizabeth Nixon's talking about the personality traits of the traffic. And she says, and I've been on this one, I've been watching this one, wondering and picking up little hints of it. And she said, Kamala Harris has all the traits. Now, Kamala Harris's history is fascinating. She kind of, I think, started as kind of a streetwalker type. Well, wasn't she, was it the mayor, Mayor Brown?

And then she became, well, let's call Mayor. Brown or handler. Yeah. And then all of a sudden, she's put in a position of power. And by the way, like for example, Kathy O'Brien, her handler was Senator Byrd. And then there was, there's all sorts of petty squabbles between various players in this game where one guy's their handler and go, wait a minute, you know, she's mine, you know, that sort of thing.

And she was also, I'm really jump around. Kathy O'Brien was also, by the way, a message. It was like encrypted messaging. So she would be given a message and she would deliver to some president, some country. And so it wasn't going to get intercepted because it was, and there was trigger words. And a lot of Disney imagery and stuff, a lot of Disney shit in it. And it serves a couple purposes. One, I think, I think Disney, the corporation has issues.

Yep. Nickelodeon and all that shit. they were completely purved out of their minds. Walt Disney was 33rd degree Mason, Freemason. He bought up the land in Florida for Disney World with the help of Angleton and a bunch of CIA companies, shell companies. And so Disney as a corporation has a problem, not just because there's kids there for there's furze running around.

It's more than that. and and where was I going um I should probably stop ran out of gas um the other weird thing as julian Engle mentions she was a doctor and she didn't know she had been trafficked she said what she did know was that she had no memories from childhood none yes and I have a even in my personal life and people that I've met over time that experienced childhood trauma. I've seen that more, I've seen that more than once. It's like, I don't remember these years. They're just kind of gone.

Now, the other thing is I did a podcast called a guy named Monarch Gray, who I noticed showed up in my Twitter feed, which surprised me. And he used to do these tweet, these videos where he wore a latex mask and muffled his voice. Sort of the creepiest videos you ever saw. And one could ask the sort of question, Dave, why are you listening to this shit? I mean, it was so surreal. But I listened and I said, he is trying to tell us something. He really is.

So I reached out to him. I said, I'd like to have a conversation. He said, yeah, I'll do that. And he said, none of the bullshit theatrics. We'll just talk. And it turns out I eventually ended up on a podcast with him. He kind of slowly came out from behind the latex and identified himself. And he was born into the network.

So he was born into the network. But one thing he told us is they need smart people. Dumb guys aren't any good at the things are asked to do. You want intelligence. So you want born identity intelligence. And I asked him, I said, does every brainwashing involve torture? Is it always torture?

He said yes. The pros, Kathy and Juliet and Juliet and Anika Lucas and stuff, they all say they're trained to kill. That's like a, that's how they break you. They train you. They get you totally desensitized. They, yeah, like 10 personalities. If you had been trafficked and you didn't know it, I'd be talking to Nathan. and Nathan wouldn't know there's nine other guys inside there.

And that's one of the reasons why, for example, if I were to pick a candidate, my number one candidate for having been trafficked would be Erica Kirk. Everything's wrong with that. Everything's wrong with her. And she goes back to Romania when she was 17 in an orphanage and trafficking kids and getting kicked out of Romania. And, you know, just there's a lot of things. She also has huge military connections, huge military connections. And the other thing, though, is she lies a ton.

And I think one of the reasons you lie is if you've got different personalities talking. You fill in the gaps. Well, you also, you don't know what the other one said. Yeah. Right? And so you can't keep your story straight. And I think they grotesquely overestimated what you would be able to do in, a post-Charlie Kirk world.

And so they're taking her off. She's now supposedly a consultant for the military. Hello. Is that weird or what for the Air Force? Is she not still heading up? She's got a position, but I think they've taken her out of the point man position. I think they've taken her.

They realize it wasn't working. TPSA, I believe, is corrupted to the core, to the core. I've been on Zoom calls. with two of them. And one of them was this Rob McCoy, who I think is one of the brains. He's one of the pastors

who sort of set up TPSA, who moved TPSA from being political to evangelical. And Rob McCoy's son, I think is dirty as shit too, and I think he's stupid. So he was Charlie's right-hand man, but I think he's dumber in a box of rocks.

And I don't judge intelligence based on educating. Long, long. ago figured out that intelligence doesn't show up in your resume. There's people who the lights are on and those the lights are not on. And Rocky, the lights don't look like they're on to me. I always picked up a bean picker hitchhike out of third grade education. It was a genius.

He was a genius. But he was a bean picker. He hadn't had a steady job in 12 years. But he was a genius. Genius comes in all shapes and sizes. And you can see it too, by the way, in the same way that you can see trafficked, I remember, to just to yes and that a little bit. In my time in the university environment, that was one of the things that I learned quite quickly that working with postdocs and working

with researchers, sometimes these are the most brilliant, dumb people I've ever met. Right. Right. Really good in a specific niche, but you go... Common sense. Yeah, that pretty strong as well. But I remember talking, actually I remember talking about my wife about this, is that in regards to being in the university and even like interviewing people for employment and stuff. I assume it's kind of universal in the way that like I can you can kind of just pick up when somebody might be gay or somebody might be trafficked which sometimes are right unfortunately as well too but you can see when someone's intelligent like you can almost you can sense it pretty quickly especially if the few isn't it's not and not trying to be a narcissist here but I remember a few instances meeting someone where I could tell the horsepower was so beyond mine right and it was really struck by it right um yeah it's it There's a common sense component that you pick up. But you know, some guy, like the guy who runs the building is typically,

we've had very smart people in position running the building. These are the, these are elaborate maintenance guys in theory, right? In theory, they came up through the system. But a real smart guy who just didn't get a shit together by the end of high school, which is hard to do, get you shit together by the end of high school, we'll end up on the other track and end up becoming. you know, something that you don't typically think of as high IQ material, but they have a high IQ.

And so they'll be the guy who ends up running a plumbing company, you know, and things like that. Agreed. Looking back, because we're talking about Kirk and, you know, the Clancy case, one, I'm curious, I guess it could be moving for the potential monitoring app as well, too. But I'm curious on if you think there's any sort of, motivations and how much it was pushed beyond in the media. And then additionally, I'm just reflecting on, I think Kirk's anniversary was just like a month

ago or so. But it feels like that's kind of been, even though it's still going on, it feels kind of swept on the rug. And I'm even not reflecting on our prior conversations going like, no one gives the shit about Epstein anymore. Well, that's just gone. All you have to is wait. I have to is wait. The other thing, uh, so, so, so if Tyler Robinson,

plea bargains, I believe he's been trafficked. And I believe his family's in on it. Because I'd roll the dice. I've not run into anyone who wouldn't roll the dice. Right. You go, look, life in prison versus, you know, lethal injection, I'll take the risk. That risk reward on that's easy for me. And, um, and so if, if, if, if, if I worry so much about the Clancy case, I worry that it's even fake. I think it's probably not. But let's say you're running MK. Ultra, which I believe still exists.

Nick Bryant says they've got it down to a science. They can brainwash you like you wouldn't believe. And it's still very much alive and well. You got to test it. So what do you do? Well, at one point, supposedly there was something like nine shooters in a row who are transgendered. That's non-statistical, right? On so many levels.

It's so many levels. It's so many levels. And you could imagine saying, well, let's see if we get a mother to kill her kids, right? Just let's see if we can do it. Again, her husband looked creepy to me. The whole thing bothered the shit out of me now. So the problem with the Tyler Robinson case is going to probably take two years to find out the answer. It's going to be a long way. But I'm going to write about it. I'm going to,

I'm going to lay it out and say, here's, here's the Robin. The Robbins case is so clear to me that it's fucked up. What kind of things stand out to you? Well, first of all, the fact that he, the shot to the neck with a 30 out six, I really, if you look at, they're talking about deflecting it off the bones. Your neck is a jenga tower connected with soft tissue. Those bones are not going to deflect anything.

It's not like it's hitting a femur. And and then the destruction of the crime scene, completely destruction of the crime scene. There's a video of Mikey McCoy

who's who obviously has his phone on standing. So if Charlie's sitting, I don't know which way you're going to see, if Charlie's sitting here, Mikey was 45 degrees back behind him. There was a screen behind Charlie.

Mikey, it was measured. Mikey had his phone to his ear in 832 milliseconds, meaning less than a second, boom, to his ear, which means he didn't dial. So he had someone on the phone. Mikey turned around and walked out of view faster than Charlie could hit the ground. Charlie was on the ground.

So Mikey didn't see it and do any. What would you do? You'd look. You'd try to figure what the fuck did I just see. And you'd spend some number of seconds processing. Yep. And if you realize you were shot, then you can imagine scrambling out of you. But this would not happen on the time scale of Charlie not yet hitting the floor.

And then, you know, grabbing the, taking the mic and selling it, taking the car and steam cleaning it and selling it. These are all crime scene. You want to see a great analysis. You go to Julian Dory's podcast with Joseph Morgan and Baron Coleman, which Morgan. as a forensic expert. It's an entertaining story because Dory had Morgan on and Morgan didn't fully appreciate

the complexity of the case. So he started early making a few non-phorxic statements like about the footage showing Tyler Robinson in the parking garage and stuff. And I actually turned off the video. I said, this guy's a fed.

Get him out of here. And then it turns out that It turns out that was not right is that Morgan didn't understand what was being contested. And he slipped up by making a few statements of fact that weren't fact. And then what happened is Baron Coleman,

who's an expert on this case. Dory was smart enough to get Coleman and Morgan together. And basically, and now Morgan knew what the issue was. And for like four straight hours, Coleman, who's a lawyer, who's been in court, who knows this shit, basically deposed Morgan about would this happen, would this happen, you know, what would you do with the crime scene, what would you do with the body, you know, that sort of thing for four hours. And it was a brilliant podcast. And which is how ironically,

I ended up getting connected with Julian going down to Holboken and doing a podcast with him, which was fun. I wouldn't want to live in Holboken, but it was fun. He's a brilliant kid. And so if you listen to that podcast, you'll see. Now, if the Robinson family doesn't bring Baron Coleman into the case, they're out of their minds or the fix is in. It fixes in, yeah. It's one of those two. And so to me, I'd be hiring, I'd be hiring as consultants, Candice Owens,

Baron Coleman. And there's another woman who I just signed on to following on Twitter. Let me give her a shout out. So we're pulling that up, that's a good observation in the sense that, like, if you're the family defending him, and again, I don't know what their financial situation is, but you'd probably be throwing every expense possible at this. Right. I bet you there'd be some pro bono work.

I think Coleman these guys care enough. And there's a woman name who on Twitter name Olivia Swing, Olivia Swing, that is her Twitter handle, who does these sort of 45-minute, this doesn't make sense kind of podcasts. And she's done some really good stuff. And she doesn't have a lot of followers. But you podcast are out to reach out to her and talk to her. her, my opinion. And so that'll be an interesting case.

And again, if they plea bargain, then I don't trust the family. Because I think it's a totally winnable case for Tyler, totally winnable. I don't think you can win it as a prosecutor. Now, let me swing back to Clancy. What was the best outcome for Clancy? What would have been the best outcome for Clancy? What she admitted to killing him? It would have been not guilty by reason of insanity.

I actually think not. From there, there's a very clear path to put her in an asylum for as long as you want. Because you've declared her insane. Yeah. Hung jury leaves it totally open-ended. We don't even know the prosecutor. We haven't actually heard if they're going to try and retry, have we? Well, if you were a prosecutor, you just had your ass kicked 11 to 1.

Would you prosecute again? No. No. But the problem is I'm going from my standpoint to be like, no, no, we have to see this through, but that's not necessarily a political incentive. No, I think you have to find a way to wrap this up in some goddamn way that gets you off the hook. Yeah. You just lost 11 to 1. If you won, if you lost 1 to 11 the other way, you say, okay, we just got to pick the jury better.

Now, the jurors seem fishy to me. Yeah. Right? They seem kind of creepy, you know, crisis actor type jurors. and and one of them made the most remarkable statement that the one rogue juror couldn't get past the fact that she viciously killed her kids

and I'm going, wow, that's a weird sentence. Right, to just step over it, just to walk past that. And the fact there's one guy and then he's a black guy and the whole thing and the jurors seem scripted to me. They seemed, my spidey sense

was detecting inauthent. Well, the other one too is the Because you had I think it was like I think it was nine women, three men And then there was the one holdout Like I'm not going looking for dark photos and shit online I'm going to try and avoid that crap for my psyche as much as possible

But those jurors would have been exposed to like the crime scene photos of the kids and things as well It's one thing to have empathy when you're seeing a bunch of like TikTok and Twitter post That's all about her You see a suffocated kid You see a kid strangled out on the floor, I find it hard to believe that that wouldn't overcome the tribalism or empathy that they had for her. I find it very, in the same way that, like, it's one thing to be pro-abortion, but like,

let's watch one on an ultrasound and tell me how you feel. Right. Actually, there was a guy who, who actually, his daughter died in his arms in a car accident. He was an abortion clinic doctor. He'd done like 2,000 abortions. And when he went to do the next abortion, he couldn't do it. He had to quit. Do you do it? Yep. Yeah. It hit him like a truck. So then one of the jurors said something that really caught my attention that no one else seems to have mentioned. She said he just didn't seem to want to listen to the nurses on the jury. And I heard two things. One is I'm not sure which side would want to, but I would think a nurse wouldn't be near that jury. I would have said someone would have vetoed a nurse from that jury. For one thing, nurses don't have any expertise in the shit that they needed to know. So the nurses are not experts. Second of all, she said plural nurses. What kind of jury was that?

That would be like if they said they didn't listen to the lawyers on the jury. Well, two things jump out of me. One, Clancy was a nurse, right? And so was his girlfriend, our wife afterwards. So you're allowing for people that would more directly empathize. Right? You more directly empathize. But the other one, which I am.

and I'm not trying to be dismissive of nurses, but they'd be well aware of some of the drugs that she was on. And they also would have been fed all the side effects as well, too. And they would probably be more empathetic to that position to begin with because of their free-y-en-weens. One of the two teams would say, no way. Right. So somebody should have gone like, no, no, no, no, we're not putting a bunch of nurses. Right, that'd be like you're trying to convict me and they got 12 bit-cointers on the jury.

Like, why would you do that? That's exactly right. That's exactly right. So what you want to, both sides always seem to want. stupid people because they both think that they can convince a stupid person of their view. But I just don't, I don't see, you don't get lawyers on juries. I wouldn't expect nurses to be on that jury. If there were doctors on the jury, blow my circuits.

So everything with that trial makes no sense to me, except for the fact that there's huge amounts of money that are going to be made on software to protect us, to predict children. from pregnant mothers. Yeah, certain moms. Then there's the governor of Massachusetts who said we're now going to have every single new mom get a home visit from a health care professional.

It's like hell you are. Yeah. I once, we once got hit by social services. I left the two kids locked in a car. It wasn't too hot, wasn't too cold. I was in the store literally getting a loaf of bread. Yeah. When was this?

Oh, years ago. Really? Someone gave you shit when they were that long ago? Well, and my older son's eight years older than the younger ones. Yeah. You know, right? And so the person who ratted us out to social services was an off-duty social service person who obviously didn't care enough for the children's well-being to stick around and say,

hey, you shouldn't leave your kids in the car. They just ratted me out. They just threw me into the system. Did they throw you into the system and then leave them in the car? Like that break away. It's like, oh my God, these kids could die. I'll go call someone. The kid, the young one who's sleep and I go, I'm just going to let him sleep.

I said, well, let your brother sleep. You know, boo, I go in the store for a loaf of bread, literally. And so then this woman shows up in our house. My wife calls her. She said, it's a middle of a Cubscott meeting. And she shows up. And she's this woman and she's investigating us. And so I'm saying they're doing a little bit of a.

but controlling it. And she, she, she, she, she, I said to her, so, okay, so you're, I understand the merits of checking out to make sure kids are safe at homes and stuff like that. I get that. So let's say you check out our, our credentials, our references, we gave, you know, daycare providers, stuff like that. I said, so let's say you find nothing. What happens next? So what's the appropriate answer?

Well, then this just goes away, right? Yeah, we're done. What she said was, well, I'll tell you this, I wouldn't have done it. At which point, I said, you've, so then at one point she starts quoting scriptures. And I said, she said, oh, I don't know what denomination you are. And I said, yes, and it doesn't matter, does it? And she said, no, it doesn't matter. But then she starts quoting scriptures.

And I finally lost it. And I said, you've got to understand. that I got one person sitting on this shoulder saying it's okay, you get to check into this. The other sitting on the other shoulder wants to throw you out on your fucking head. I said, you have to be more careful than your being. So what do we do? We uncorked. We had judges calling into social services.

We had lawyers calling into social services. We just carpet bonded and then we got the thing expunged and the whole enchilada. But it was just, it's like, if she had showed up, said, look, it's for the good of the kid, everything looks fine. We're done here. Yep. I would have been okay with that, but I was not okay. I would have killed the lady. I could have kept her.

If they had taken my kids, somebody would have died. Yep. No, I can empathize with that. I don't understand why that doesn't happen more often. It's such an anti-natalist culture. It's funny because, uh, when I move to where I am now, more small town and I love it.

It's all young families, a bunch of dads and stuff as well. Same position in life and a lot of alignment on things, even like the conversations that we have. And it's funny because I remember one of the first times hanging out with some of the other dads in the neighborhood. It's literally like you just throw open the garage.

You just throw up in the garage, leave the light on and people will come and find beer. Like it's a non-issue. You'll have people show up and it's great. And it was maybe only like an hour and half into the conversation where we're talking about like, okay, so if anybody touches the kids, we're all bearing them, that's the plan? Like, yeah, that's the plan.

100%. Right. Where you're getting that, like, mail alignment on, like, we'll destroy anything. I live in a 300 foot deep lake. Yeah. That body's gone. It's not a problem. And I remember thinking, I remember being like so happy about the relocation because of that.

Because you're right. It is sort of weird that people aren't less than more defensive. Let's say you're a person on the receiving end, right? You're the social services worker who tries to take. If I said or said, look, here's a deal. I want my kids back. And I'm putting it on you. And if I don't get them back, you're going to die.

Are you going to fuck with that person? Kids coming back. I'm done. I'm out. And that I wouldn't, I would feel so morally sound doing that. Of course. Right. I'm taking one for the team on that one.

Someone falsely accuses me of something. Oh my God. I've thought about this one because I, there was a kid here who got accused to rape and I was confident. Well, I knew the woman and she was a sociopath. She had falsely accused my son of breaking her computer and filed a complaint. And the evidence showed she knew it wasn't him. And so I tried to help the kid who got accused. And I happened to know that she was, she was gay.

so it made the he raped me more convincing because she wouldn't have had well i also knew she was by and she was banging the mayor i knew she was banging the mayor so i reached out to the to their their their their um their lawyers and said i was they did you call the mayor's front office and be like look make this go away or i'm dropping i actually know the mayor too but i wasn't going to let a guy go to prison without pulling out all the stops um what's what his lawyers didn't understand was it was a show trial. So they thought the facts had to speak. Yeah. And they didn't. No. He went to prison for five years. Really? Yeah. So I'm pretty unforgiving of the false accusations. As one should, right? We have no, yeah, it would be obvious to me,

like if you falsely accuse someone of a crime, you should, and it's proven beyond like 95% reasonable doubt that you were a response that was a false allegation and you know when he did show, did so, then I feel like you're on the hook for the potential punishment that he would have received. Or worse. Or worse, right? There's all kind of stems to, even though with the Clancy thing, too. I still, we have a, we just say, a very, just, we'll say, gyno-centric kind of culture. And rightfully so, in some respects.

Like, we're supposed to be men leading, protecting women and children kind of make sense. There is an evolutionary reason for that, too. But I feel that a lot of times too many people forget female evil does exist. like that's a hundred that's that's that's a thing guys they're not all they're all all sunshines and rainbow someone said that's why they won't let women in the military because they're too evil female cops draw their got they fire their uh sidermal males listen to this podcast um yeah there's really things that one time i was riding in a cab with a former mafia guy he he's driving a cab and he i i started talking about a car i got at discount and i said but i had the cops

check the plates and everything was fine He said, well, let me tell you what I used to do. And he explained why that didn't cover it. And he was sort of a low-level mobster. They'd go get, you know, 120 dozen dresses. And they'd sell 20 and take the hundred to their destination. You know, they'd pocket the money and stuff like that. And I said, what are you doing driving a cab?

He said, well, I got sent to prison. I promised my mother when I got out that I wouldn't do it again. And I said, I said, I'm treading softly. I said, in the unfortunate event that your mother should pass away. then what do you do and he said oh party city but i asked someone he was telling stories about like like he his parole officer was giving him shit unnecessarily right the guy was behaving he's giving him shit and some guy named viny or guido or something comes with him to his next parole meeting he says he says and i'm sitting there we're in this fucking restaurant he says and there's fucking

guido or vini or whatever his name is jamming a gun right in the guy's fucking rams saying you better fucking lay off here, right? And I'm thinking that parole officer's going to lay off. Oh, yeah. Violence works. That's why people do it. My dad had a friend. This wouldn't work now, but it did then.

Had a friend who's being shaken down by a penny-any gangster. And he went to the cops. They said, well, you can defend yourself. So he got a gun. He emptied it into him. There you go. Nowadays, you'd be in trouble. Yep.

Right? Nowadays there'd be some castle doctrine, which says you get to defend your castle, it doesn't work very well. If I ever get arrested for shooting someone, there's podcasts all over the internet. Talking about how I'd whack people. I'm in big trouble. I am in big trouble. They know exactly which bodies of water to go and scrape the bottom of. Dangerous thing about old men.

First of all, you don't know what kind of young man they were. Yep. Right? And second of all, life in prison is not a big risk. It's not really a threat anymore. No, it's like a couple years, fuck. Professor Collum, I feel like that's almost the perfect place to start to wrap it up. Was there anything else that we didn't hit on today that you want to make sure we talked about?

Warning that I think when this system goes, I think it's going to go worse than anything we've ever seen. So I think when the AI goes, it's going to be a Jenga tower. And I think the real estate market's going to be. collapse very quickly. And any one of the bubbles that we're witnessing could be the trigger of all the other bubbles collapse. Okay, screw it. We've got to hit that one as well then too. Okay, so we've long been talking, or you've been talking about this kind of persistent and growing bubble. I remember you being very suspicious of like the, like, I think it was like 4% growth year after year after year, just like no change. We've got the growth in valuation. In valuations. And we've got,

which should never occur. We've got all the CAPEX coming into AI, but we're not seeing the productivity gain on the other side, right? It's not, it's not translating. into the approach. So I think you're, I think it was Burry was flagging the I think it was the KAP-X spend versus like GDP growth. It was something along those lines. And he was highlighting that when you actually get the top

the bus doesn't happen at the that when the spend stops it actually happens at the peak of the spend. Because that's when you start to get, it starts to run away from the returns on the, um, the views are the best from the apex. Right. And so where are we in this constantly

seems like inflating bubble? And if things were starting to deflate at the air, starting to come out. How would you know? Well, the real estate market in the 0-809 crisis rolled over in 06. I remember in 07 thinking we were doomed and it took another year and a half. It was like one time I wait, I wrote out a hurricane. And it seemed to take so long for the hurricane to come. You just, is that it? Is that it? You know, putting my finger to the wind, you know. So it all, it'll take longer than ever should have, but I would say that we're in like the 15th inning. Yeah.

And so I don't give the AI bubble more than a year. I don't think they have the capital to continue. I don't think they have any chance of getting the capital. And so I think the AI bubble is about to blow the fuck up. I think the real estate bubble's already blowing up. If you talked to, if you had Melody right on your show, I mean. I got her scheduled for later. Okay.

So say hi to Melody for me. What's later today? No, I got her in October or November. We scheduled a couple weeks out. Yeah, so she'll tell you about all the places where the houses for sale are now growing at that to really sort of high levels. The equities, I don't think, you know, the guys who say, look, these equities are cheap compared to these equities. I go, you're using a wrong metric. I want to know if these equities are cheap relative to historical.

And the fact of the matter is, as you kind of hinted at, valuations, the price of the market versus something it should track should not trend. Trees don't grow to the sky. Eventually, assets get expensive. They get cheap again, always. They always regress to and through the mean. And historical valuation on, say, the K-Sheller P.E. of 15 over 110 years.

And then all of a sudden it took off in the mid-90s and never looked back. And now it's at 40-something. And so by that math, we're looking at about a 60, 75% correction to regress to the mean. Now, let's say there's damage done. Then you're going to go through the mean,

which you have to do occasionally, because that's what defines the mean. We could look at, we could look at someone. like an 85% correction. And then the boomers are dead. It's over. Boomers are toast.

Now, the good news is your generation gets to invest in assets, including houses, at good prices. At 85% off and we got to have our parents come live with us. So at least we can afford a bigger house. Right, but that's what bottoms look like. That's what 1933 looked like. That's the 1970s. In the 1970s, from 67 to 81, the market treaded water, but inflation adjusted,

it'll lost 75%. That's right. Yeah, it just peels off and numbers and you got crushed. You got crushed owning equities during that period. You got crushed owning bonds during that period.

Everything. So I think the double bear market and bonds and equities, which seems to be teeing up pretty good right now. Yep. We'll be carnage because historically, as in the last

half century, bonds have saved equity. So when your equity, are getting tanked, your bonds are getting stronger, and therefore your 60-40 was kind of a risk-averse portfolio. Except for, was it, I'm trying to remember, was it like around Silicon Valley Bank? It was because there was one historical year. They saved it.

They saved it. I don't know how. Did they? Okay. I'll try to know that. Yeah. I just don't know how they did. They did it very quietly.

Three major regional banks took the dive. It looked like the dominoes were starting to fall, and then somehow they retrieved it. But that just puts it off. That doesn't, that doesn't eliminate the problem. And you can't inflate your way out of valuations. So if you have a valuation of 40, your price to get a 2.5% return. Right? That's it.

That's what your price do. That's the price earnings ratio, 40, 2.5% return. And if you're okay with the 2.5% return, then it can sit there 40, but most people are not. Most people are not planning on a 2.5% return. And the retirees are going to be trying to get out of those assets. that are returning to an half percent. So it will always regress. Now, over the, since 1981, since 1981,

valuations have trended upward, 4% a year annualized, annualized, four percent a year. What happens if over the next 40 to 50 years, they go down 4% of year annualized? People say, well, that'll never happen. Of course it will. There's never been an asset class of, expensive that didn't end up cheap again.

Yep. It's like saying, you know, death and taxes, it will happen. And for me to predict our next 45 years ago, well, that's an easy prediction because A, I'll be dead and B at such a large window, of course it'll happen. Yeah. Now, it might happen in five years. I doubt it'll happen quickly because there's too many, there's too much of a muscle memory on dip buying.

So people say, oh, it's down 20%, you should buy, buy, buy. And so the dip buyers will come back in. So it's going to be, here's the, it's going to be double tapping repeatedly to use, to use a military term that's become familiar to us, where you bomb some poor Palestinian building. The guys come running into to help the injured and then you bomb them again. And so that's what the market's going to do. They're going to, the dip buyers are going to come in and then they're going to bomb them. and we will reach a point where there will be an entire lost generation and the people who got crushed will say,

I'm never buying that bullshit again. Yep. Just like guys in the Great Depression hoarding cash, guys in POW camps for the rest of their life hoard food. Yep. There will be people who say, I'm never touching inequity again. Incredible.

Or a bond. That's the, well, Even thinking about that, like, with all the money tied up in AI, I wonder if that's going to be the source of the big print. And that they're going to try and that's going to be the trigger and they're going to try and paper over it. Well, what happens when the big print? So, I think it was Rivalent who said it. She said, there's no inflation expectations. Therefore, there can't be any inflation.

I go, that's the whole idea of inflation expectations. If I'm writing out a contract to do something for you three years from now, I'm going to put an inflation adjustment. That's going to get into the DNA of the system. Right. It is in the DNA now. It is in the DNA now so that as people are signing new contracts, they're not going to accept a 2% raised annualized. Because they know you're going to get completely and utterly fucked with the 2% raise annualized. That's inflation expectations.

And so now the Fed starts printing again. Inflation expectations will soar. And the Fed's either going to have to suck it up and say, okay, we look like complete assholes, but we got to do it, which means we're host, which means gold and bitcoins potentially win. What I can tell you, when I go to the start, you hear about the price of gas. The price of gas is a metaphor. It's not a parameter. We don't, how much money do you spend on gas a week?

I know, it's not that much. It's like, even it's up quite a bit. It's like, okay, it was another five bucks. It wasn't really breaking me. But it's the number right in front of your nose. You have to see it. The price of diesel, which we don't see because we don't drive trucks potentially. And the price of diesel, which we don't see because we don't realize the reason those

call cuts cost twice as much as they used to is because the price of diesel. Yep. And diesel's now getting scarce. There's now diesel shortages showing up. up. I was reading something about, it wasn't verified, but talking about taking measures in the UK. I think it was contingency, it may have been old contingency plans that were floating around, but basically diesel shortages, I think it hit a buck 99, a pound 99 per liter in the UK. And there was some at least whispers of old contingency plans, limiting speed limits, things like that,

coming back. Right. And so Dylan Radigan has reappeared. He not only has reappeared, he appeared in my Twitter feed, which I was very, very pleased. You know, when you're watching your Twitter feed, there's these moments where all of a sudden you hit bingo, right? Mm-hmm. We go, oh, fuck me. One day, Jack Dorsey followed me, and I go, oh, I just, that's nice. That's a, that, I just hit that.

Now, he deleted everyone now, so he no longer follows me. But Rogan, you know, and then, and then Bradigan showed up. And that, that was really cool. And, and, and, which, which people don't understand us, because now it opens up communication channels that didn't exist before because I can go to DMs. So I can ask Dylan Radigan. And he thinks we're going to go through a wave going forward. I was just listening to him this morning, a wave going forward of anti-corruption movements

in the country, that people are fed up with the corruption. It is going to be that you have to take a firm and demonstrable stance against corruption to get elected now. Interesting. Okay. What's the what's the path? that he's laying forward and my counter to it is that I feel like Canada is often a test bed

for this crap and even after all the scandals and corruption with the Trudeau government didn't matter. Orange Man Bad Carney in. I talked to a kid kid he's been 50 years old he's older than that actually is a fraternity brother

the other day who says Mark Carney's a great guy what the fuck no he says He's known him for years. He says he's a great guy. He has no reason to lie to me. So whatever.

I had another friend who was the CEO of another fraternity brother who's CEO of TD asset management who said Bolton was a good guy. I said, you're not going to sell me on that one. That one sounds a little bit of a tall order. He's a dick. He's a dick. He said, well, this is the guy I see is a great guy. And so in any event. So I don't know where we're going.

I think fourth turning, I think the fourth turning is going to go, is going to head for some blow off. And it's, it's got to get ugly. What we're in now is not a fourth turning. We're in the beginnings and they've been able to put it off, you know, but it's going to be some bloody mess. It's going to be people talk about a civil war, but what side? are what are the sides? It's not like north-south. It's not a well it's not black-white. It's not

you know left rights a fascinating story now because um I have made the case that one of the most consequential podcasts in recent years was when Tucker Carlson interviewed Anna Kasparian. Yeah. And I tweeted that and then Anna showed up in my Twitter feed. I go, that's fabulous. Um, and, and, and, because they crossed the midline and shook hands. Yep. And by the end, it was clear they had both. And I give Tucker credit because I think he knew what he wanted to achieve. And Anna takes credit because she did it against her instincts.

And the next thing you know, Chank is being interviewed by Tucker. And next thing you know, you start to see people who are historically left or right saying, I don't care about left or right anymore. I care about Israel. I care about Trump. I care about graft and corruption, war, pestilence.

And I don't care which party they come from. And now you list to Anna and Chank and Tucker, and they just love each other. Because they stand for the same thing. They realize that they have a 95% overlap, and the 5% was getting in the way. So that's why that was such an important interview. And I've said that and Anna did see me say it.

Is the people who can cross that midline and shake hands with the other team and say, let's figure something out here. That's very, very important. And I think that's where we're headed. But I think we're going to go through a colossal financial problem, economic problem, enough for political problem, potential problem, potential military problem, because that often follows. And then the fourth turning finally runs out of gas. And then we get green shoots. If we haven't nuked ourselves.

By the way, good book, Annie Jacobson's, Annie Jacobson, who's formulaic in her writing, but her biological warfare book is really good. Because it's like COVID. Yep. But this bioweapon that she uses these hypotheticals. So her nuclear book, nuclear weapons, nuclear war book, she starts out, there's this flash of light, flash of a launch in North Korea.

And then she goes through what all the different players would do in the event of a nuclear launch. And so she has access to deep state or she never criticizes the deep state in a deep way. So she's clearly getting information that's useful, but you got to bear in mind you're not going to hear the bad stuff. Yep. This biological weapon is, I don't know if it's hypothetical. It's certainly a hypothetical scenario, but whether the biological weapons hypothetical, I don't know. But it's a chimeric one where you have pneumonic plague, which is profoundly dangerous. Like the black plague?

Mnemonic plague. So the respiratory one, bubonic plague is not as dangerous. Neumonic plague is a dangerous one. and that has built genetically into the same organism, a trigger for serotonin release so that you get euphoric. So what does it do? You're now infected. You're spewing this bacterium out your every breath.

And you're going to discos and you're, you're, you're, you're, you feel good. You're hate out with friends. And you're not, you feel good. So you're not yet putting yourself to bed. Yep. And then all of a sudden you go from euphoria to dying. And she's talking about all the different players.

She's usual the formulaic thing. But because of COVID, it is so familiar. Right. But in this case, instead of it being a hoax, which COVID was mostly a hoax in my opinion, this one has 100% kill rate. And then where I don't know, is, I'm still in the middle of the book, I don't know where it ends. There will be survivors, guaranteed. But it's caused me to think about it. In the event you hear about another COVID-like thing,

and you start hearing about serious fatality rates, what you really ought to do is stock up and then not go out at all, at all, wall up, you know. In ancient Rome during the plagues, Rome itself actually had the least problems because what they would do is when there was a plague in a household, they just walled up the household and let everyone die. You're just stuck. You're just fucked, right? Quarantine and you're fucked. Quarantine is a very, very dark term when you think about what it means.

It means locking people are not infected with people who are infected because you probably could be infected. And so there will be people who live by themselves. I don't know how infectious it would be. know, with carcasses laying on the street and shed, which is what happens. Was there a pneumonic plague? I only remember, like, the bubonic plague that was transferred by rodents as far as I remember.

Ticks. Ticks on rodents. Fleeves, yeah. You know what they did? They thought the cats and dogs were bad, and so they killed them. And that caused the rat population to flourish. And then it took off. So there's, I love medieval history, by the way.

By the way, the plague, which we think, of as the Middle Ages, it's like the image of the Middle Ages, actually brought the Middle Ages to a close. The 1348 plague brought the Middle Ages to a close because what it did is it wiped out the working population. And all of a sudden it opened the door for a middle class. They were no longer serfs. They were of value.

They had bargaining power. Labor was in short supply. labor was in short supply. And so the Renaissance actually begins sort of, you know, 14th century, right? And the plague continued on through like the 1600. So it kept coming back. It was a pain in the ass. It was different diseases, too.

So it's very complicated to understand what killed what, when, because there were a number of diseases killing people. Just to even push back on the idea a little bit, a little bit, I'm apprehensive about the idea of even a bacteria as a biological weapon, just because I feel like we've got enough between like the penicillin family and everything else in terms of antibiotics. Oh, but there are definitely penicillin resistant, antibiotic resistant. Like vancomycin used to be kept under lock and key because it was the only, only, only antibacterial drug that they could really count on killing the bad ones.

So I actually wrote a paper on antibiotic resistance when I was in college. So vancomycin was kept under lock and key because it was not to be used except when you had to because it would eventually become ineffective. Yeah, break class of emergency. And then one day they gave my wife Vancomyce. I go, apparently they're not following the rules anymore. They just gave it to her as like an antibiotic. And I go, someone is dropping the ball here, unless it's no longer working anyway.

So fuck it. It doesn't matter at that point, yeah. Right. And so antibiotic resistance is a risk, and you could, I think, I think you can engineer it. Well, the interesting question then from your chemistry side is with the families of antibiotics, do we have, can we continue iterating on them or at least trying to find additional ones that might have different efficacy? Or are we kind of capped out? Like, do we lose at some point? They're not very profitable now.

So, you know, places like Bristol Myers used to sell tons of antibiotics. and now they don't. Eli Lilly used to sell tons of antibiotics and now they don't. The pharma makes money by maintaining you. They don't make money by curing you. Correct, yeah. They want a subscriber.

And so antibiotics are just not that profitable. And you can't ask a company to do something that causes them to lose money. Yeah. Right? The system doesn't work. on that. And so it's not clear where we go from here. It's not clear how you handle that problem. I'll say the obvious evil genius plan is we need a pneumonic plague that's a bioengineered weapon,

but they already had the resistant, the treatment antibiotic on hand, but it's not on the market. And then you release it and the population gets called. And then you have the most profitable antibiotic of all time. Well, that's the argument for what. And so gain of function was always viewed, was sold as a defensive mechanism to develop protocols for dealing with bio-weapons. Do you buy that? That feels like such horseshit to me like right out of the gate

It feels a complete horseshit Yeah The thing I'm wondering about Is did we intentionally Release COVID It didn't come out of a wet market That's total crap No it wasn't from having sex

With a pangolin Yeah yeah yeah yeah Yeah I don't know I haven't done that And so long I wouldn't know if that would affect you or not And I think it came out

of Barrack's lab in North Carolina is my guess. And that seems to be the conventional wisdom now. I said that on Tucker, and I realize I said, you know, Barrick could get mad. He could not like that. But none of these guys dare get into the courts because they don't want discovery. And so it started. The other thing about, we're hearing all sorts of stuff, by the way, lately about how much is killing people, stuff like how much the vaccine, stuff, kill people, stuff that I knew four years ago.

I don't know why it's all of a sudden hitting the news. I knew all about, I was in his doctor's Zoom group, had all the most famous. The first meeting I went to was Bobby Kennedy talking, right? I mean, it was an elite group. And, and, and, and the question is, did they release it at,

knowing that it was, it was lethal but not a disaster. So was it an attenuated bioweapon to test our abilities to get people to lock down and charge that? I still don't even know if they blew it. So did they blow it because now we're onto them or did they get exactly what they wanted out of it? I just don't know. They got a lot of compliance out of it and a lot of people that swept that under the rug pretty quick. But the next time they need you to vaccinate, what are the odds you guys?

get a vaccine. It's not fucking happening. Right. Yeah. And by the way, I'll never get another vaccine of any kind of. I wouldn't get a flu shot because you don't know what tech they're putting in the flu shot. Nope. Not even a million. You're not going to tell you. You're not going to tell you. And so it seems likely that we're going to have another bio event. That seems probable to me. Well, it's almost like a catch-22 in the sense that whether or not the engineer one-on-one naturally emerges, you've completely destroyed any faith or trust in the medical system. So even if you were acting on like, no, no, we really need to do this medical intervention. Everyone's going to tell you to fuck off and pound sand. Yeah, I'm going to have to see fatality rates that are undeniably off the

charts before I consider any intervention. Remember the people collapsing in China footage? That was all fake. It was all fake. It was fake from the start. Right. Why was that even there? Things that were never unresolved. Well, you could see it, for example, where the person would fall, They'd pancake, which by the way, the one of the ones like the German guys, who was it? I mean, was Radigan in a podcast. He was saying all the fake shit coming out of China. The guy would pancake, but you can actually see them break their fall. Interesting.

And then they were throwing people in the back of bands. I'm going, that person's struggling pretty good for being sick of shit, right? So China teed us up. The minute we locked down, they opened up, thankfully. although it was all intentional in my opinion. So a friend of mine, I guess you call my friend. I had dinner with him. Canadian intelligence, Canadian intelligence, at least he hangs with him.

He's intelligence proximate, right? He goes to meetings and stuff and he works at the war college and stuff like that. And he said that he tried to reach out to me. I first thought I was just a nutcase, but he reached out to me and said, I'm trying to get people's attention here. I was at the World Military Games, him saying that, which is the second largest sporting event,

this side of the Olympics. And he said it was in October of 19, we all got sicker than shit. We all, and he said, the other thing that was really noticeable is there was no mainland Chinese. he's around at all. The Olympic village equivalent of the military games was all foreigners. And he said, there's something wrong with this fixture, right? We all got sickered and

fucked. They didn't die that much, by the way. And so it started minimally in October of 19 and possibly earlier. But if you wanted to release a disease to the world, world, an international sporting event would be a good start. Perfect place. And so a lot of unanswered questions. I was on a Zoom call with Scott Atlas, who for six months sat there with Fauci and Birx. And I said, Scott, was it malicious what Berks and Fauci were doing?

And he surprised me. He said, not necessarily or not. some variant of that. He said, what you cannot fathom is how stupid those two were. He said, unimaginably stupid. He said, Fauci never made a scientific argument. And he told the story about one day he walked in with a paper that Alice had read. He goes, wow, Fauci is going to make a scientific argument.

What are the fucking odds, right? And Fauci went to say the term encephalomyelitis. Yep. And he garbled it so badly. And Alice said, what, what, come again? What did you just say? And he wouldn't say it. He wouldn't take another stab at it.

And this guy's running a massive pharmaceutical base. And he couldn't say the word of encephal my litis. He said, Berks was pulling data off the internet, having not a clue, the veracity of it, not a clue how to interpret it, and just making pie charts the whole time, just making pie chart. Just a complete one of those dumbasses, right? low IQ knitwit. And, you know, what's that? When, what was her name, her first name,

when the Chinese woman who kept telling us to vaccinate, I'd love to spend 10 minutes with her. There were just a lot of bad people involved in that story. A lot of bad people. A ton of money to be made and a ton of power to be had. Well, it turns out, curiously, if you look at Pfizer, you can't see the profits. You can't find the profits.

Pfizer shares, Pfizer shares. I consulted for Pfizer for 20 years. Pfizer shares, it really seems unfair that gold's down three and a half and the markets are rallying back. TFE, Pfizer shares. If you look at it, I think there were a couple of special dividends that maybe told you how much they made. Yeah. But their share price. their share price was exactly at this level in was higher in the start of 2020 for example

their share prices lost ground yeah they've lost ground and it went through a peak um and and and and by the way fyser's share price was exactly the same price back in back in uh 1998 so if you saw any of the you you you Investing in Pfizer's been a disaster. What you got out of Pfizer was a dividend of right now it's at 6%. So Pfizer didn't get rich. I think there might have been a couple special dividends along with, like an 8% or something. But that's not, you don't kill people all over the world to get 8%. No.

Although they did knowingly release a bad vaccine. The Pfizer papers were very clear. They knew everything that was wrong with the vaccine before they were. least it. They knew everything it was wrong. Well, I have a follow-up question to the dividend that jumped into my mind in a second. But then who profits? Like, what was the, who won? Deep State.

Yeah. I don't know how. Somehow, who is it, Frat Weinstein when he interviewed with Julian Dory? Said he doesn't take the dotted lines on the map seriously. And I've been thinking about that a lot for quite a few years, and that is the Federal for example, doesn't not work for us at all. No, agreed. Agreed.

Completely agree. The Federal Reserve works for the banks. And if at any point throwing the United States under the bus to save the banks, they will do it. Correct. And my view on Trump, my view is that Trump also works for the banks as well too. Right. Or himself.

Or himself. Yeah. So, so, so, um, the notion that J.P. Morgans in American Bank is absurd. Correct. It's got branches every country. It's like TD Bank in Canada that has more branches in the US and Canada. Right. And so these are not these. So the idea of a dotted line on a map defining teams is absurd, right? The boundaries don't mean anything with respect to the economy, for example.

And they have some meaning like, you know, a tariff. Here's again. Trump gets heat for tariffs. They say it's a tax. I go, yes, it is a tax. Well, let me. And this case was made to me by a guy who is way up at the economist, way higher than I realized on a podcast. I did, I think just some schmuck. Turns out he's a very high level. I can't remember his name, but he's good. The tariffs are going to be paid. They are a tax.

They're going to be paid by one of three groups, the providers of the good, the transporters of the good, the importers, or the, the consumer. Now, if we put on a tariff and we charge, say, 10%, the consumer's only going to pay a fraction of that 10%, but we get to keep the 10% as a tax. And so in theory, we're getting two other parties to pay part of our tax base. To subsidize the tax base, yeah. Right. Now, the problem is that hasn't stopped them from taxing everything else, too. Correct. Yeah, if you're going to pull the income tax or something. It's a theoretical construct.

But the tariff really is charging taxes to not only do the consumer, but to others. Therefore, in theory, the consumer wins. Correct. Because even just on the provider's side, they're going to have a competitive incentive to eat as much of that if they got margins to allow for it. And in fact, the claim was they eat the bulk of it. The provider eats the bulk of it. They are trying to stay in the.

game by cutting their prices so that they don't have to raise prices. Correct. So, but all of this comes tumbling down at some point because we've been, we've been, it is the central banks or Sisyphus, they've been rolling the stone up the hill for a half a century. And it's worked, but at some point it's going to come rolling down. And the more we put it off, which we've already broken world records, the more problematic. Any physical scientists will tell you when you get to this place from equilibrium,

the return trip will be violent and destructive. The further from equilibrium, the more violent, the more destructive. That's what a bomb is. It's just a chemical reaction return to equilibrium. That's what an avalanche is. That's what an earthquake is. You're going from instability back to stability. And when we head back to stability, I think it's going to be a brutal trip.

And I know there's people sitting and going, yeah, calm. You've been saying this for years. And that's correct. I think we were overvalued and in trouble in 2016. Yep. And then we just went up. And so it just means, you know, it just means more pain than when we finally do correct. And the guys who say a 10% return drop or 20%

drop as a correction. I think they're nuts. If you drop 20% in a year from now, you've regained it all. What did you correct? What did you correct? I was looking at the NASDAQ recently because I was trying to see if it's kind of flattened, like if it's basically, if it's making new all-time highs. And it's really not. It's been about the same since about May or so. But in doing that, no, no, no, no, it's been about the same since March 30th. Why do I say that? Because I think the Iran war started and some said, fuck, we can't have the markets dropping, and they put cement blocks under it. Look at the chart of the Nessack.

Go to a calendar year. We were rolling over, and I thought it was a big rollover coming. If you go back five years, and all of a sudden, it just came out of there, and that was a record rally. That was a record rally. And now just kind of sitting there,

I think it's I think that I think there could be some selling after the midterms. Someone supported it. It reminds me also the idea of the cap-ex spent that it breaks at the top, right? It's not it's not the end of the spending. It's at the top of the spending. And I wonder if we're getting close there. But when I was looking at it or even just a slowing of the spending, slowing of the spending.

But what astonished me is when I first pulled it up, I had the whole chart. And I was looking at like the dot-com bubble. And I was looking around 2008 and it's like barely notice it's there. Yeah. Cisco in 99 had 30% growth in earnings. Yeah. Right. That's what it looks like.

The scenic vistas from the top. And the top is the point in time where according to the price, the pinnacle is the price of maximum optimism, right? If price for like at exactly the moment, exactly to the second that your justification for optimism is zero. What a paradox. Right. So look at the five year chart in the Aztec.

Man, that's like a golf ball down a cart path. Yep. And at some point, they're not going to save it. But that thing was rolling over and all of a sudden. Sometime in like the beginning of March, I can't remember when we got into this Iran-Kirfuffle. And then when they said, oh, this is not going away and the markets are rolling over, get a bid under them. It just pinged right up. And by the way, I think the bid was in the derivatives market.

And by buying derivatives, by buying call options, what it does is it forces. So the financial system that sells you the call option can't afford to hold the risk. So what do they do? They buy the shares of the companies underneath the call options as a hedge. So then what happens is the call option pays, but the shares covered the bank's ass. So the share price appreciation covers the call options. And then that's a gamma. That's called a gamma squeeze.

The gamma squeeze is when the call options are driving the market. And what happens is when the call options stop, then there's no bid. I also find myself wondering about, geez, these things always go so long. I always find myself wondering about the passive bid as well, too, and thinking about that kind of, like, I would assume that most... Yeah, the Michael Green moment when... Right. I think Michael thinks the passive bid is slowing, I think. it's not stopped.

It's not turned around yet. But I think Michael sees it. I talked to a buddy of his Einhorn, who I didn't even know, knew Michael. And he said, oh, yeah, I talk to him all the time. He says, I don't see the past have been stopping in any reasonable future time. He says, operationally, it's not going to stop. And he talks to Michael.

So I'm either misreading Michael or Einhorn and Michael or disagreeing. They're both smart guys. I wonder about just even just with, oh, geez, with demographic shifts and also with, let's just assume AI keeps ripping and the way it kind of eats away in my views at entry level positions, very entry level positions, that as you have an older generation living off of their assets and retiring, they got to sell.

They got to sell. And you have a younger generation that's not working or not earning nearly as much as their counterparts, and especially on an inflation-adjusted basis, that I would imagine that the passive bid just starts to kind of crumble away. Well, the passive bid, and Mike talks about instability

that sets in when the passive bid becomes a percentage. And I've got to confess to not understanding the math of that. So he sent me a white paper one day, and I tried to read it. It was just no math. But I think it becomes an unstable system beyond some percentage of the market becoming passive bit. And then it becomes very shock sensitive and then boom, then it blows up.

Agreed. I have one more because your dividend reminded me of it and I'd be curious to get your view. And maybe you haven't looked at it at all. But I was just honestly curious your view, if you have any right now, because you kind of float around the wonderful Bitcoin space of Sailor and strategy in what they're doing. He's pretty durable. things you really somehow manages to survive. I think there will be a Bitcoin correction that takes Sailor out.

Yeah. Yeah, that's just a hunch. That's not a well-educated. Not to say Bitcoin is not going to do well in the long run, but I think, I think. Agreed. But, you know, Marty, for example, I don't even have to say his last name, thinks that Sailor's not very leveraged. And so then that model doesn't hold up.

But I somehow get this funny feeling that Sailor is going to be part of a correction. I, anyone who's made this far on the podcast also watches the live streams and knows that I'm not a fan and very, very, very skeptical. They got about 6.71 billion in outstanding because those converts aren't going to hit. And that starts to happen in 2027. Bitcoin ripping kind of kind of saves them for the most part, but the the preferreds, I just don't I don't buy the longevity of them. You're basically lending them, you're lending them fiat indefinitely at like 12%.

There's also a lot of Bitcoin-based financialization now. Yeah. Where people are lending money and so it has a fractional reserve feel to it. Bitcoin's rally has been pleasant, but by no stretch in the imagination, doesn't pull it out of the woods. You could make the argument if you do a five-year plot that Bitcoin's formed a head and shoulders pattern. And I'm not a big TA guy. TNA I like, but T.A. no. At one point, I thought 60,000 was an absolute marginal line, and it held.

I tweeted it repeatedly, Majeno line. It's got a whole 60,000 got it, and it held. But one can make, if you look at it, boy, it looks like a classic head and shoulders. And again, what does that mean? One time two guys are talking on Twitter and he says, why do all the lines we draw work? And he says, because we all draw the same lines. You know, it's funny. Earlier in the conversation, we were talking about Colonel Douglas McGregor and how him being wrong on things.

And the one thing I couldn't help but think about is, but we have this space now and he's speaking publicly. So the answer is not zero, but how often does someone talk about an idea or plan or things that are moving forward? Way in a dance. Yeah, and talk about what's going on in the macro space. And that then changes the behavior of some participants enough to affect the outcome. So it looks like it never happened. The Babson break. Babson wrote about the market being bloated starting in 25.

Yeah. And then his final speech, which is called the Babson break, he gave a speech and the market's fucked up. and then the market crashed. They give them credit for calling them for four years. There were congressional hearings on how fucked up the markets were in the mid-20s. They knew they had a problem. They knew they had a python by the tail.

And so, you know, this plot has played out so many times and it will continue to play out as long as we don't destroy ourselves. If. That's the big if. We're getting close to, okay,

let's survive this one now. Fourth turnings, right? Every 80 years, we try to destroy ourselves. Question is how? Yeah, question is how. Hopefully I'm gone by the time they do it. At the rate you're going, you might also be serving a life sentence or something,

but we'll see. Yeah, yeah, someone pisses me off, yeah. Professor Colum, this is fantastic, amazing as always. Where can people go to follow you in your work? You can find me on Twitter at David B. column. If you made it this far, you must have enjoyed the episodes. So do me in favor, hit that like button and check out the previous episode with Jack Ballers.