Shaun Newman Podcast - #321 - Tom Luongo

Episode Date: September 28, 2022

Tom is a former research chemist, amateur dairy goat farmer, libertarian & economist whose work can be found on sites like Zerohedge, Lewrockwell.com, Bitcoin Magazine & Newsmax Media.  November 5th SNP Presents: QDM & 2's.   Get your tickets here: https://snp.ticketleap.com/snp-presents-qdm--222-minutes Let me know what you think   Text me 587-217-8500

What's up, guys, it's Kid Carson. This is Alexandra Kitty. This is Danielle Smith. Hey, everybody. This is Paul Brandt. Jeremy McKenzie, Ragingdissident.com. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the podcast, folks.

Happy Wednesday. Hope everybody's week is cruising along. We got some good one. Well, I got another good one on tap for you today. But the week is flying by. Let's get to today's episode sponsors. Blaine and Joy, Stefan, Guardian Plumbing and Heating, in the 2021 Lloydminster Chamber of Commerce Business

of the year with a team of over 30 who thrive on solving your problems and offering the best possible solutions. They got 24-hour emergency service available, as we know, in the wee hours of the night, you're not waiting to get things back online or back going. You need help immediately, and they certainly do that with 24-hour emergency service.

Also, for all the farmers in the area, they have developed and manufactured the world's most efficient grain dryer right here in Loimminster. You can find out more at guardian plumbing.ca where you can also schedule your next appointment at any time. The deer and steer butchery out on Range Road 25 on Highway 16 and Range Road 25. They're looking, any of the hunters, looking to get your animal in, they're open for business, of course, cattle and everything else, all your beef needs.

They've opened their spot up to some different, you know, facts about animal meat as hopefully here shortly, I got a couple different guests coming on to talk about it, but animal products like meat are the only natural source of vitamin B12, which promotes brain development and children, helps your nervous system function properly, and they just want to promote some of the benefits of meat as in society we move closer and closer to, I don't know, crickets and everything else. Give them a call the 780870-800.

Gartner Management, Lloydminster-based company specialized in all types of rental properties, to help me your needs, whether you're looking for a small office or a 6,000 square foot space, give Wade Gertner a call 7808-808, 5025. Now let's get on that tail of the tape brought to you by Hancock Petroleum for the past 80 years. They've been an industry leader in bulk fuels, lubricants, methanol, and chemicals, delivering to your farm, commercial, or oilfield locations. For more information, visit them at Hancock.comptroleum.com. He's a former research chemist, amateur dairy goat farmer, a libertarian,

and economist whose work can be found on sites like Zero Hedge, Lou Rockwell.com, Bitcoin Magazine, and Newsmax Media. I'm talking about Tom Luongo. So buckle up. Here we go. This is Tom Luongo, and you're listening to the Sean Newman podcast. Welcome to the Sean Newman podcast this morning. I'm joined by Tom Luongo.

So first off, sir, thanks for hopping on. Oh, sure. Absolutely. Sean, thank you for the invite. Now, there's going to be a ton of people who've never heard Tom before. So how would we start with who is Tom? Tom, who are you? Well, I am a guy that like many of you out there was just as confused about the world 20 years ago and this is angry at the world 20 years ago as y'all are today.

Like seriously, I'm not, this is not my first love. Politics, geopolitics, finance, markets, all that stuff. I'm a chemist by trade, actually, that just, you know, once my career dried up, I turned my hobby, which had become politics and economics and all this stuff into, well, hey, Let's, you know, let's do what I've been advising people to do for years, but just to monetize your hobby. And now it's just kind of turned into the thing that it is today. And then, of course, being me, and if you've ever seen me before, you'll know that I'm pretty much not fit for human consumption on a regular basis in a world of dominated by HR departments. And, you know, with a social media profile that I have, and that's not hard to figure out.

There was no way I was ever going to get hired by corporate America ever again anyway. Why is that? Why is that? Simply because I'm simply because I am as contrary and as un-PC as one could possibly ask for. And in this environment, the purpose of HR departments is to make sure that people like me don't have jobs. So, and I know many, I know a lot of people are going through this and they're going, but I'm good at what I do where I have to like, keep my mouth shut because I'm not allowed to explain that I'm a libertarian or I'm absurd or I'm allowed to do this.

You live in an age where you're being, you're being silenced for your, you're being silenced simply because of who you are and not what you're, not what you do. And now, and in a highly politicized world, and I'm a hardcore libertarian. And, you know, by, by extension, my economic analysis is highly Austrian, which makes me a hard money kind of guy. I write a blog called Gold Goats and Guns for Christ's sake. You do the math, right? So that's it.

That's who I am. And then all this is done is that once I got hired by newsmats to write a newsletter for them back in 2013 and was relatively successful at this and had just built a very loyal. I knew over the course of the four years that I worked for them that my retention rate was incredibly high within the industry. And then I was, you know, that whatever I was doing was resonating with the small conduit people that I, you know, we were able to hold on to in that space. And, you know, since then, you know, marketing what I do was very, very difficult because it's kind of rarefied. And really kind of orthogonal to, you know, any kind of mainstream or even mainstream alternative

takes on politics and markets. Like even the zero hedge crowd has problems with. what I do. And zero hedge is like the king of alternative finance and alternative politics. And even then, I'm one step further along that path than they are. And because of that, it just means that there's a kind of a small group of that. But once, you know, but my original relationship with News Max ended in 2017. And, you know, I thanked them for for the opportunity. And I learned a lot. I realized that, look, there's a market out here for this stuff. I just need to figure out as you need to find these people. And it took me a while. But now we're here. And then

interestingly enough, two and a half years into that project, Newsmax hired me back to edit a different newsletter. And now I do both of those gates at the same time. So I have my independent newsletter, gold goats and guns, the Patreon, all of that. And then the, uh, and I also write for Newsmax. Um, and I write ultimate wealth report for them. So, well, and we'll make sure to post a couple links in the show notes that way people want to find you, Tom, they can. Um, you mentioned you were at 20 years ago you're at where a lot of people are right now. What was it 20 years ago that you set you off on this course?

Or have you always been on this course and it just kind of, you know, culminated 20 years ago? Well, what happened with me was that I was always angry and hated politics. I was completely apolitical for years. Up until I was practically 32 years old when I, you know, during, during Y2K. I think it was losing all my money in the NASDAQ, the NASDAQ crash of the Y2K crash. It wasn't a lot of money, but it was a lot of money to me. But it just set me on that path of what happened here. I don't understand what happened. And I thought I understood what was

going on. And my arrogance, you know, it was, you know, just like everybody else, I got killed because I didn't know what I was doing. And I don't like not knowing what I'm doing. I'm a root cause analysis kind of guy. That's what I did when I was a chemist. It's what I did. It's what I've done everywhere I've ever gone, which is the C, the C problems, and then fix them. And I was, you know, many And in all the places that I ever worked at as a chemist, I was always brought in to fix a problem. If it be just, you know, process flow or whatever it happens to be. My last job was in the know what coding industry where I fixed with no background in electrochemistry and metallurgy, I fixed a 55-year-old problem of a particular style of electrolytallus nickel boron, not knowing of, not knowing anything, really, beyond what I was taught in general chemistry about electrochemistry.

So, okay, well, got, okay, it's time to get a PhD in an electrochemistry and metallurgy. and then unofficially and then turn around and fix this problem and it took me five years but you know I solved it and now it's out there in the world and and doing its thing to too bad the too bad the coding that I perfected wasn't um you know a better product wasn't anything more if it was more than a niche product we wouldn't be talking right now because I'd be sitting on my own private island with you know billions of dollars in my in my pocket but you're not on a private island right now what's that you're not on a private island right now well no unless you consider my 13 acre farm up here in North Florida, which we lovingly call outer Louangolia,

you know, my own private island. So you know, you figure it out. You know, you mentioned you're a guy who sees problems and wants to fix them. Right now, I think we could both agree. There seems to be problems absolutely everywhere. That might be putting it lightly. What are some of the problems you see and for yourself, for your followers, your listeners, your kind of group, how are you trying to, I don't know, fix them's the right word, but maybe trying to adjust for what's going on because there's a lot. There's a lot happening right now. The problem isn't, we can't fix anything. I think I was on the first time I try to explain where my head is in looking at capital markets and looking at the geopolitical structure

of the world. And for those of you don't know, I firmly believe at this point that the Federal Reserve is acting on the basis of American sovereigns to take the American government and the American system back from European globalists centered around Davos and the world economic form. And then there's some people actually think that that's a naive take on this thing. And I'm like, well, okay, then you're like, do you believe in the flat earth too? Oh, okay, great. So, but that that is where we are in this fight. And then this fight doesn't make any sense because what we're seeing is as the system breaks down, as the system breaks down, as the financial system breaks down what everybody can see, and the political system is breaking down.

And this is all just an aftershock of 2008, which is also an aftershock of Y2K and 9-11. These are all just points on the timeline leading to what is effectively a crescendo of this current geopolitical and economic system that supports it. And that was always going to fail. Any Austrian going back to the 19, Austrian economists or Austrian style economists, going back to the 1940s could tell you where we were going to wind up, which is where we are today. Now, when we were going to get there was, you know, under, was, was not part of the analysis. This is a qualitative analysis and a quantitative analysis, right? And so when you make qualitative arguments, you can, you know, you can persuade people with the rightness of your logic and your analysis and everything else. but you cannot say anything about time because timing is a thing to the gods it's the systems

are too complex for anybody to perceive when the timeline is going to you know when events are going to catch up with themselves and therefore so you just have to like make yourself prepared emotionally and and intellectually for what's on the horizon but at the same time when you kind of consider that kind of strategic thinking but at the same time you tactically have to go through on a day-to-day basis or a month-to-month basis, what are you going to do with your money in the interim while you're waiting for what the sort of Damocles is hanging over your head. What do you do? I mean, it can hang over your head your entire life. You know, this thing might not collapse until your grandchildren are entering their

20s or their 30s. You don't know when the timing is. So you have to, you have to assess where things are today and then project them out in a reasonable timeline. But you have to, you have to start with good first principles. We live in a world where we have been told that our first principles of economic and political life are correct when they're fundamentally wrong. Okay. They're fundamental. We have Marxist politics and Keynesian economics and those two things together have got us where we are today. And it's it's pathetic, frankly, that we have to, you know, have to spend so much time just even having that discussion that those two things are dumb when Keynesianism was just was debunked in the 1970s with the sagflation then because they said

they could never have an inflationary depression under Keynesian economic model only a deflationary depression and we had an inflationary depression that and then Marxism was debunked by the history of the 20th century you got to you got to I'm going to slow you down because I want to certainly a student of history. Marxism, I hear it and I go, I think for most of the audience, they probably understand. But Keynesian economics, I'm not a student of economics, I guess. And so if you wouldn't mind just breaking it down for me, Tom, and the listener. It's a very simple thing.

Keynes and Hayek were the, and Friedrich Hayek, and Friedrich Hayek is a lesser light within Austrian circles, as far as far as I'm concerned. Because his political theories were horrific. But in the 1930s, while we were going through the last great sovereign debt crisis and the last great depression, Keynes and Hayek were celebrities arguing on the pages of the New York Times whether we should have no government intervention into the situation or maximum government intervention to the system. Keynes, of course, fell. Keynes's general theory, published in 1936, made the argument. And I use that term loosely because the logic involved in this argument is tortuously.

if not, and convoluted at best, and that's being kind. It's intellectual gobbledygook made the argument that in order for, in order to mitigate the effects of the natural business cycle, the boom and the bust that comes with the natural emotional ebb and flow of the economy as, as expressed by human behavior and human decisions. We make good decisions and bad decisions in the aggregate. The business cycle is run, comes from a concentration of one versus the other. And the boom is the thing that has to be, there's always going to be malinvestment during a boom time.

And that malinvestment will eventually overwhelm the boom and that will have to be liquidated. Then we have a bust. And then the bus is over. And then that capital is moved around and we get another, and we get another boom cycle started. And this is a natural thing. And it's actually an upwardly sloping line of human value creation. But we don't do it in a straight line. We do it in an upward sloping sine wave.

Okay. Well, Keynes' argument is that we can have governments come in and countercyclically spend money that they don't have through deficit spending to mitigate the amplitude of that sineway and try and crush it down to the line. Okay? That's the argument. It's a terrible argument because the Austrians have quite convincingly, and you can even argue the Aristotelians and, you know, from a Greek philosophy perspective, I've also argued, have also

made this argument quite convincingly that when you do that, all you're doing is by distorting the natural market, all from away from where people want to put their money. All you're, you then are introducing loss due to friction, loss due to the enforcement of these rules, which will never be overcome by the stimulus you get from doing the thing you said you wanted to do through deficit spending. And so every government intervention begets a greater government intervention, and eventually the whole thing called eventually the interventions, which are fueled by debt, means that you eventually wind up with more debt than you can service, and all economic growth has to stop until we have either we write down the debt and bring,

all the assets down in value because everybody's asset valuations are based on faulty valuations based on the continued issuance of new debt on top of old debt, keeping asset prices higher, or we either write all those down and bring the price general price level down by 90% or we inflate the debt away and hyperinflate the economy. So why Ron Paul is very famously said hyperinflation and hyper deflation are two sides of the same coin. It doesn't matter. They're both the same thing. One is prices and the other one, they want it being the same thing. Your purchasing power is destroyed in the process. The purchasing power of your savings is destroyed in the process because your savings is what your investments are, right? Or at least you think they are.

And that's the other thing we've done is to tell people don't save invest. And Keynes made this argument as well, saying if people save too much, the paradox of thrift, that that's actually a drag on the economy and you should be good consumers and you should go out and you should spend and let the government worry about the value of your savings, which is complete nonsense. Now, politicians love this stuff. Why? Why do politicians? Because it gives them power. It gives them a point in the marketplace. It gives them a justification to go in and intervene in the markets and pick winners and losers

and aggregate power to themselves and expand government regulations and allow the corruption to enter the system because now there's a point. of corruption where politicians can get paid off by a corporation together to get a bill passed for Congress, and then we have the thing we have today. Like, it's all that. Everything we're dealing with is just that. And it all came from the, it all came because at the end of the day, Hamilton wrote the damn general welfare clause and interstate commerce clause into the Constitution, knowing full

well that that's what would happen because they argued about it during the formation of the country and argued about it during the second constitutional convention. and the anti-federalists wrote about this stuff. Then, and then in the 1930s, guess what? The Keynesians and the commies, led by FDR, drove a truck through those two clauses and justified the entire New Deal. And it wasn't just FDR because honestly, the New Deal was just, you know, Hoover's works project administration renamed.

It wasn't anything new. So this is all, this is what we're dealing with today. We're dealing with a crescendo. So what happens when you can't create more spending through the application of more debt? Because GDP is not gross national product. It's a misnomer. It's the only thing we can measure. How much money have we spent in the aggregate?

And that's supposed to in Keynesian terms, the Keynesian math, which is, of course, an oxymoron because Keynesian math is an affront to math. Okay. That in Keynesian math, gross national spending equals demand for money. And demand for money is all that matters. And because demand for money is all that matters, the quantity side of the economy will take care of itself. These people believe this. They believe that the quantity of goods produced is only driven by the demand that we demand for them.

And that somehow the quantity will take care of itself. Obviously not. You can print all the money in the world and keep people stuck in their homes under COVID, but if there's nobody out there working, there ain't no supply. If you give people the incentive to keep them on the dull universal basic income, welfare, and they don't produce anything, then eventually how do you produce any goods or services? To feed these people who are sitting at home doing nothing. It doesn't work.

The math doesn't function. At some point, all you're doing is issuing debt, and you can't stimulate supply construction with high taxes, high regulation, and a significant portion of the population sitting on their ass home playing video games and watch them porn. But that's the future that they have planned for us. Because they think the robots are going to do all the work or something. I haven't been able to figure out what these people are actually thinking what they're going to actually move us into. Because what I see on the horizon is Mad Max. hopefully not. Hopefully there are sovereigns forces within the world that don't lead us down

into Mad Maxdom, but it's not going to be too hard and I don't know about you, but I don't fit into a pair of shoulder pads anymore and I don't fit into my high school football helmet anymore either. So, you know, like, I don't know what I'm going to do. Like, I, you know, it's why I got goats on a 14-acre farm. Like, it's not tough. But at the same time, I also look at that going, I'm also 54 years old and I don't want to be, you know, out there having a farm goats and run a victory

garden and all the rest of it. I'm mentally prepared for it. I'm mostly prepared for it. But physically, I don't want to do it. I don't even have time for it. Like spending all day trying to help other people understand what's going on, takes up all of my day and takes up all my energy. At the end of the day, I don't want to go out and like, you know, till potatoes or anything. You got to be hidden now. So I barely have enough time to like pet my dog and, you know, power down from the day's annoyances. Well, I appreciate you helping. I always joke I'm a minion because I just sit and I listen to all you, fine folks who give up your time and, you know, give a voice to trying to understand different things.

I sit here and I just try and soak it in so that I can be like, okay, okay. Here I sit, Tom, and I go, I've had a whole diversity of people on to discuss, you know, what's going on. and I go, if you're some just regular person going through the day, what is something you think they need to know about probably their money or their assets, what they have moving into the next year or a decade or whatever time frame you think is? Because like so many things are just, you mentioned Mad Max, right? We're in the moment where everything is going to change.

Right. In the next two to three years, everything is going to change. The strength of the dollar right now, because the Federal Reserve is inviting a dollar, a dollar bull market, the world of money is finally getting scared that the politicians don't have any answers and that the numbers don't, don't add up, yada, yada, yada, yada. I've talked to a couple of people recently, you know, they're like, yeah, I can see what's going on. And I'm not leaving, I'm not leaving U.S. equities because that's the only place to put my money. It's the only safe haven I got at this point. I can put it in other things. But the point being is that if you can understand the policy of what's going on

and the mindset of the people who are writing the policy, this is why everything I do starts there and then trickles down to a kind of a very simple set of action points, of actionable bits of advice. The order of operations is that the world is under collapse. And the question is in what way, as this system collapses, who's going to die in what order? Okay. So that's the hard part.

This is the part that nobody wants to talk about. Everybody wants to have their in the community. They all want to have their primary thesis that they wrote up 20 years ago and then to stick with that and not be not willing to be wrong. I was wrong 20 years ago. It was on 10 years ago that the dollar was going to collapse before the euro. No, the euro was going to collapse. Zero is in the process of collapsing right now.

So is the Great British Town. Right. So what does that mean? It means that policy in Washington is aggressive towards the global south, Russia, China, Iran, India, etc. The UK, because they're on the vestige, they're arresting on or they have the vestiges of the British Empire are going along with this and they're effectively the same group of people. You can call them the Straussians, you can call them the neoconservatives, you can call them, you can call them, you know, whatever you want to call them. It ties into Paul Wolowitz and the, you know, and McKinder and Brzynski and all that stuff. You realize that those people have one agenda.

Europe has another agenda, which is that they want their colonies back. They want the U.S. back. They want the U.K. back. They don't want Italy to leave. They want to control North Africa. They want to control. They want some control over the Middle East. And they want to destroy Russia.

So there's common purpose here between these two factions. Why do they want to control Russia? Because it's not that the World Economic Forum and the European Union is against Russian energy. They're against Russian energy because they don't control it. Okay. It's not about, they don't control Putin. They have no control over the Russian government system. They have no control over the Russian military.

And so because they don't control it, they will do anything imaginable to get control of it. This has been British foreign policy for 150 years to either stop Asian integration or destroy the Russian Empire and take it over from within. So much of our history, you can look at the last 150 years of American, British, and European history is that. You can look at World War I this way. You can look at World War II this way. You can look at the multiple war in Afghanistan this way. You can look at, you know, why we overthrew Mossadegh, in 53, and Iran, all of it, all that. Why the British Empire was so obsessed with holding onto its assets in Asia well into the end of World War II.

Because they didn't want Asia to do what it's doing now, which is to come together, economically, politically, politically, defensively, and everything else. So that's where we are. So what does the average person do when they look at this? So if you can understand that game, you can understand this, right? So you can understand that the world breaks down into like four different areas. Europe, the UK, the U.S., and then the Asian or global south of the Russia, China, Iran, access. India is now part of that axis. Brazil is as well, the bricks.

But let's not, but don't get, but the real tripod of that power is not India and Brazil at this point. it's Russia, China, and Iran. That's where Russian China are putting their money. Russia and China are not necessarily at this point putting all their money in India because India has tried to play both sides against the middle, similar to the way Turkey's been doing it. Just Russia, China, and Iran.

Those are the three. If any of those fall, then they believe that they can collapse the whole thing, the whole project. So once you understand that, and you understand that Europe is caught in the middle because the Russians and the Chinese understand what the Europeans are trying to do.

The UK is fighting for its, And the Americans have been sold out by their own politicians because their politicians work for Europe. European globalists. Once you understand that, the board is really simple. And the Europeans are now caught between the Silla of the Russians on the one side and the charybdis of the American sovereigns on the other side. This is the basic thesis. We have a functional split at the top of the American government. There are, and the American oligarpe.

The most powerful lobby in the United States is not the military industrial complex. I hate to anger a whole bunch of leftists in the audience. It's not. It's the U.S. commercial banking interest. The banks are more powerful, period. Because the banks control the federal. Reserve who controls monetary policy, controls the cost of capital, that Washington can doll out. They control Congress's purse strings if the Fed decides to hold back. Now, in the past,

Congress has always been able to get away with this because it was always a market for our debt. Other central banks would buy it, other foreign corporates would buy it, the American corporates would buy U.S. Treasuries. But since we've been in the QE period of the last 14 years, who's the primary buyer, marginal buyer of U.S. debt, the Federal Reserve, who holds a massive pile of U.S. Treasuries on their balance sheet, the Federal Reserve. So if the Federal Reserve decides it's no longer like Congress's spending shenanigans, Congress can't spend because they can't blackmail the Fed by selling, you know, U.S. treasuries to Singapore, Central Bank, or China Central Bank or Japan Central Bank. Right. So that, so I can go farther into this.

is the why the Fed has the leverage now to be able to pull this strategy off. It has to do with the way debt is the way the cost of capital is transmitted through the system. But that's probably beyond the scope of our discussion here. So once you understand that, now you have one giant, the Federal Reserve and U.S. sovereigns and the commercial banking system, fighting another giant up in the clouds, the old colonial European banks, and Tesla San Paulo, Unicredit, Deutsche Bank, ING, Lloyds, all of those, right? Those guys.

The ones that are going to, the BBBA, like all the big banks of the, of the, of the, of the, that were, you know, that are 500 years old. You see this stuff all the time. The oldest bank in Italy is in serious trouble. Yeah, 500 years old. Got news for you. It is.

It's also insolvent. Because Italian government is insolvent. The only, only being propped up by internal, by the, Germans buying the Italian debt through the ECB intermediary. So they're the most vulnerable. And that fight is going on right now. And our job is to figure out how not to get stepped on. Because we're an ant and they're giants.

But we can avoid being stepped on. How do you do that? Well, you figure out where capital is that it's overvalued and where it's undervalued. And then you buy the undervalued asset because the overvalued asset is going to fall in price and it's going to rush into the undervalued asset. And what asset right now is more undervalued than gold? Right now, when gold was $2,100 an ounce, it's probably overvalued. But right now, it's gold. Is it going to go lower?

Possibly. Why? Because there are a lot of people out there who are so biblically short dollars and the structure of the gold market is, that people use the paper gold trade in the futures market as a piggy bank in order to get dollars. Nothing more than that. And they trade paper gold around, but they don't actually want gold. The guys who are sitting, most of the 95% of the trading that happens on the gold futures exchanges around the world, well, in the West, in London and Chicago, has to do with people trying to figure out a way to hedge their currency risk to get dollars. And then when gold rallies, they sell the rallying in,

and then shore up their dollar position because they have dollar liabilities that they need because they've got loans to service and they've got payroll to make and they've got all of that stuff and that's why people demand dollars the federal reserve is tightening the supply of dollars worldwide so at this moment in time and which is then setting off and popping off you know people not being able to pay their bills so if the dollar supply is tightening up then it makes sense in this first wave of this, the gold is going to get crushed. And I've been telling my people this the entire time. Don't panic.

Let's watch it. See how it plays out. I'm all about gold. I love gold. I love Bitcoin. I love all hard assets. But there's a time and a place when they're going to be, when the timing is going to work out for them.

And right now, the Federal Reserve does not want a higher gold price. Or not even that the Fed doesn't want a higher gold prices. There's just a lot of people out there who need dollars. And until that is finished, we're going to have default. of assets that are tied to the supply and flow of dollars

around the world. And the flow of dollars is shrinking. The ones that are getting hit the hardest are, of course, corporate debt, stocks,

home values, all of that stuff. And then, of course, by extension, mortgage-backed securities and all the rest of it. It's why the Fed is able to shrink

its balance sheet and sell U.S. Treasuries, but they're being a little little slow in selling mortgage-backed securities, or they're selling someone, some, and buying on others. I mean, the Fed's playing a game with their tightening of the mortgage-backed security market. And rightly so, their first job is to protect the banks. That's their ultimate job, because the banks, that's who they work for. That's who the shareholders are in the federal

reserve. So why are we surprised when the Fed protects the banks? And then you hear the incessant whining from the alternative left space, from the Wall Street on parade types, from the Occupy Wall Street types, that the Fed is just another, you know, that they're, that why are they bailing out the banks? Well, because that's their job. What freaking world do you live in that the Fed would not defend the banks? It's what the Fed was designed to do. That's not some great conspiracy theory. It's just reality. And it's always been reality. Are you denying reality? Do you think the Fed works for you. Now, when choosing between a bunch of Eurocomi fascists or Kong, sorry, Eurocommies that, they're going to turn it to fascists to some point anyway,

because it all winds up being the same thing. There's going to, it's the EU is moving into wanting to become the U.S.S.S.R. When you've got your choice of Eurocomis on the one side and colonialists on the one side who want to destroy commercial banking, destroy the good, any good parts, any good parts, they want to throw all the good parts of commercial banking out with the bad parts of commercial banking. You want to throw it all away. Get everybody up in arms fighting. Oh, the banks are all terrible. And the banks and the banks and the corporations and the banks and the corporations.

It's typical left-wing friggin problem. It's not wrong, but it's not right either. Okay? Because it's more nuanced than that. It's more important. Like commercial banking isn't wrong, folks. It's how we built bridges. How we build buildings.

It's how we get roads built. It's how you get schools built. It's how you get, you know, stop. Stop signs put up and all the rest of it. Without the commercial banking system to pool capital to build larger projects that you could build yourself because you're not building a road. I live back a private road. I have to maintain my road. I know how expensive that shit is.

Okay. Like, you know, you're not doing that. Like, you're not. So we need banks for these things. This is the basis of capital formation, banking in its purest form. It's best and most constructive form. It's ultimately should be, if it's done properly, an expression of community and sovereignty, local community and local sovereignty.

We obviously don't do that, but we can't throw that idea out with, well, let's just replace it all with the central banks, which is what the Eurocomies want to do over at the WF. They want to get rid of the commercial banks and they want to collapse. the commercial banks means of transmitting money into the market and collapse that because we have a two-tiered system. It goes from the central bank to the commercial banks, right, and then from the commercial banks to you. They wanted to get cut out the middleman, put us all on a digital blockchain and then have the government and the central bank decide whether or not you get the order of pizza because you've got, you know, your cholesterol is too high. Or you wrote something mean about cost swab on Twitter so, you know, you don't get a car line. Or you had Tom or you had Tom Lulango on your podcast.

or you had Tom Luan. I want to go on my podcast. Dude, I'm serious. That's where they want to take us. That's what deep platforming Alex Jones was all about. That's what going after cabs payment process was all about. That's what all of this stuff is all about. It's to chill people into not saying what needs to be said.

And, you know, and get them. And then the blackmail them with their jobs, the COVID jabs, this, that way. You're going to argue all day long whether the COVID job was good, bad, or indifferent. I'm not even here to talk about that. My opinion on that is irrelevant. Just like I always said, my opinion on the lockdowns was the political and economic fallout of the lockdowns was wrong. And who was benefiting from that, not whether or not the virus was real and people were dying or anything along those lines. None of that stuff.

I only focused on the political fallout and the economic fallout. You could see that coming a mile away. Who was going to benefit from this? And of course, obviously, COVID with the W. just came out and said, COVID was a dry run for what we're going to do when we have a full social credit system in place. Okay. I take them at their word. At this point, you have, at this point, you should take them at their word. Tom, we just went through two years of it here in Canada and we're still trying to pull ourselves out of it, if you will, because I mean, we still got different

restrictions. Well, Sean, I got good news for you. Disloos TV just tweeted out about an hour or an hour or two ago that the Canada just lifted all COVID travel restrictions, including masks, everything else. Yeah, and FYI, that doesn't happen if the Canadian banks weren't on board with what the feds do. Like the reason the truckers, the reason Trudeau was not able to get the emergencies act passed through the Canadian Senate, which was a massive moment in time. Because the Canadian Senate, usually this rubber standard. Right. That was pressure from the banks who were already seeing bank runs from what Trudeau was doing. And the Canadian banks, I have this on good authority.

from people high up in the Canadian Conservative Party. That the Canadian banks said told Trudeau in Freeland, yeah, no, that's not happening. So why did they? In the same way that the U.S. banks told Joe Biden that we're not going to have a little brainer as bed chair. We're going to have Jerome Powell. So why then did people have their bank accounts frozen then? They didn't have.

That stuff happened because and they were able to get some of it done. But then that, but then that, you know, if one I understand, those have been lifted. But they didn't get the full emergency. I agree. But I guess the reason I bring it up is if the banks were against what Trudeau was doing with the emergency. They were caught. They were caught flat-fitted by how quickly Trudeau was going to escalate. Even to the point of allowing in their own system for bank accounts to be frozen?

Well, dude, like they have to, like the banks are government charges. They have to listen. if the government makes a decree, they have to listen. Otherwise, they, you know, like, look, bureaucrats are bureaucrats. Okay. So they're going to do whatever the government decrees until such time as they can use the political process to reverse that, which is exactly what happened. Okay. So it started.

Best metaphor for you. Trudeau and Freeland reached for the boob too early on prom night and got their hands slapped. Done. It was over a week. It should have gone on for months. But the power of the Canadian commercial banking system showed itself when the Canadian Senate, literally like a bunch of court stenographers,

turned around and said, no. The same way that when British Parliament told David Cameron, no, we're not going along with Barack Obama to invade Syria in 2012, was a watershed moment, which led the Brexit, which almost directly leads to Brexit four years later. That moment by the Canadian Senate was a massive moment.

Same way that the House of Lords tried to stop Brexit for months when they don't have any power either. When all this stuff, when hard Brexit was going through the British Parliament. And the House of Lords kept trying to step in

and stop this. Like, you can see, And the House of Lords is full Davos, full globalist, European globalists, whereas, you know, we had hard Brexiteers in elected the parliament. And you had the referendum that they had to, you know, honor. It's the same thing was happening in Canada. The whole thing with the banks, the banks put the cabasher on this so quickly. And they're absolutely like, no, we're getting, this is why Freeland, by the way, is now angling for a job over NATO. Because she knows she's not going to be in power much longer.

And she wants her golden, she wants her golden parachute. She wants her next stepping stone. It's like Pelosi knows that the Democrats are going to get shellacked in six weeks. And she wants to become ambassador to Italy. She wants her gold watch for, you know, for time served. Okay. We're in this moment now where these people are all reaching for the boob to early on prom night because all of their power that they bought off for all these years is all 82 years old.

and either is a drunk like Pelosi or demented like Biden or, you know, you know, they're all, I mean, every, like, so many of the, of the geriatrics in Congress could drop bed tomorrow from a stroke. Half of them are like, you know, TIA victims. You can see it. I mean, my mom was, I, I, in the last years of my mom's life, I look at Pelosi and I look at her face. I'm like, how many TIAs have you had, honey? Oh, no, you're just a drunk. Got it.

Okay, never mind. It's hard to tell sometimes. You know, with time slowly closing in, because I don't have you all morning. And I've really enjoyed your thoughts. I just want to bring us to a couple, two, three current events, if you will, and your thoughts on it. One is you talk about the banks and all these different things being the absolute powers. One that, well, they have more power.

Sure, sure, sure. One of the ones that I wanted to bring up was the, was the, Vatican. Pope Francis had ordered the Holy See and connected entities to move all their financial assets back in the Vatican by the end of September. What do you make of that? What do you think people should know about that? They're prepping for the, they're prepping for the, okay, with the Italian elections, ending the way they have, which was no surprise anybody. Okay, and we're doing this in the morning after the results. Right. And it was a landslide win for the, That's a nice way of putting it.

I think that's overseen. Okay. But again, I take me 10 minutes to go through the vagaries of Italian politics or explain why. Okay. But the nuance is simply put, it's good, the brothers of Italy, winning good. Why? Because they are the most nationalist, sovereignst of the three center-right parties.

Okay. It does not make them not fascists or not economic, not socialists in terms of economic. planning. Of course they are because they're Italian. And unfortunately, that's just where they are. Like there's, there isn't much, you know, these people are definitely civil libertarians, but they're not economic libertarians at all. So they're very, so what passes for the far right in Italy wouldn't, you know, pass, wouldn't get through the door at a libertarian party convention here in the United States. Like it's like, or even a Republican, you know, but everybody's moved so far left that it's crazy. And the left at this point is just basically said, if you're, if you're, if you're,

you're one-step right of Karl Marxi, a fascist or a Nazi or whatever the hell you are at this point. So it doesn't really matter. I mean, even Marx, I think, is too right-wing for most Marxists today. If you really listen to them talk. Yeah, yeah. It's quite scary. So the Italian elections and the Pope are intertwined here. The Pope was obviously put in place by Davos. He's not even Catholic, for Christ's sake, for I'm concerned. And he's definitely a Marxist. So either one of two things happen, and I can't really tell you. One of two things happened. Either, again, going back to my argument, the U.S. is trying to break the European Union because the European Union and the Davos nominal, their power comes from the offshore dollar markets, and it comes from their banking system. the rural banking system, the ability to use all those dollars to buy Pelican privilege and start wars and everything else.

Well, who collapsed the Italian government three months ago? Was it Davos in preparation for bringing in a new Trojan, Italian Trojan horsestorm on the country? Or was it American forces behind the scenes forcing a collapse of the Draghi government, which brought us to these elections? and now the Pope is just trying to do is just can see what's coming next, which is that there's going to be an epic fight for the control of Italy between the Americans and Europe. And the Pope is just trying to secure the Vatican's assets against the collapse of the Italian banking system, which is clearly on the horizon now.

Because Davos' best weapon against George Maloney and the brothers of it is, if she gets up to, is to demand their one, point something trillion dollars in target two liabilities that they owed the Germans. You want to leave Italy? You want to leave the EU? No, you can't do that. Now, if you listen to George Romney's acceptance speech this morning, she's very clear that she believes in staying with NATO, staying with, you know, staying the course on, you know, not fracturing the alliance over the Russia, Ukraine war and all of that. A lot of people have misread this into thinking that that makes her Adavos. No, no, no, she's actually working for the ridiculous American neocons. Again,

this now that, that, that, where they had, where they had alliance over Russia and Ukraine, that's being broken apart. And now the Americans are trying to beat the Europeans into submission. But at the same time, the American banks know that beating Russia into submission is a bad thing. So there's a lot of, this is a very fluid situation. Okay. So Maloney is going to go to war with Brussels

over the future of Italy's money and its economic and political future, but doing so for American purposes. With American backing. Whether they, you know, how that, how that, how that plays out, I don't, and I'm still really thinking about this. Part of the reason why I have to go soon is I need to sit down and chat with a friend of mine over in Italy

and get a sense of what's going on. So tune in a couple of weeks and I'll probably have some more nuanced thoughts on this. But it's a very complicated situation. So that's what I think is going on with the book. And they may be wrong about that. That could be the exact opposite, that he knows that Europe is going to blackmail the Italians, crash all the banks. and then leave everything from the money to pick up

and then see her thrown out of office and lynched in the ensuing destruction. Without American support, she's going to get roasted. With you saying Davos installed the Pope, or something along that lines. I mean, Pope Benedict never advocated. And you can't abdicate it.

It's against the rules. like you can't he advocated but you can't advocate being pope you can die i mean this is the go through the the catholics have been talking about this for years it's just sincere like this guy is the usurper pope he's not the real pope benedict's still pope to by by by vatican law he's still pope but he was deposed in a coup and this shitbag marxist was installed if you're and i and i barely understand this stuff but i know that i know that that's the that's the argument. Well, I definitely have all the legal,

they have some of the legal details like. That's fine. That's fine. To my brain, once again, if there's aunt, I am one of those. I'm running around. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. I get it.

When you say that, like if you're a faith-based person in that, in that faith, should that not scare the living hell out of you? Of course it does. You should hear how, I mean, the Catholics that I've talked to him about this room. fuming mad.

How isn't this a bigger, maybe it is a big story. Once again, it is a big story. How is it not a bigger story? Because who controls the freaking media? The very people that we're talking about. Who do you think controls all your media? It's the same people. The MI6, the British aristocracy,

and the European aristocracy. They didn't control our media. That's just starting to change. man that's a scary thought like once again sorry i the media thing i mean who's who who who i who controls who gets who gets to have a microphone on twitter like one of my disciples phil gibson this morning right before we got on said i i i guess i must have pimp maloney too hard on on twitter this morning because i just got i just got you know i just got put in Twitter jail for it for saying nice things about Georgia Malone.

Okay. That's what he said. I read the tweets. I'm like, okay. And they put them in jail. Or Twitter jail. Let me ask you this, Tom. If somebody's listening to this, and certainly here in Canada, if they're listening to

my show, they know all about how media only talked about one bloody, you know, like, it was so. One side of the equation. Yeah. Not even one side of the equation. It was like one variable in the fucking equation. It was unbelievable. It is.

It's crazy. Tom Woods calls it the 3x5 index cards of allowable speech. Let's say somebody is listening to this and goes, holy shit. What is Tom reading? Where is the, what is Tom looking at? Can you give a couple, can you, and I know that is. No, I'll tell you, no, I'll tell you. This is just years of honing your political instincts to be able to read between the lines.

You can't read something and get this. I mean, you can. You can read individual. I mean, you can read a lot of different places. Sorry, sorry. I get an idea. But what you really have to do is just like read between the lines of what's been said. Sorry, I'll rephrase that. I didn't mean a book. I don't mean like, here's the book, read this and you get the grand plan. More. What, what does Tom pay attention to? Is it, is it certain interactions? Is it certain world events? It's certain, it's certain things coming out of certain places. It's knowing who works for whom. It's knowing that, for example, for example, The Washington Times works for the neocons on K Street, but the Washington Post works for the CIA. It means, seriously, and the New York Times. It means that the Hill is the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

It means that you have to know that Politico and the Huffington Post are useful. It used to be a Huffington Post and Axios and all them work for the American establishment. You have to realize that the week of the standard, you know, the whole Bill Buckley set, they are, they're a neocon rat. You know the American conservative is mostly libertarian and most kind of Pat Buchanan-style paleo-conservatives, but they've been marginalized. You have to know who these people are to know what's coming through. You have to know that oilprice.com, for example, if you want information about the oil industry, is equally telling you the Russian side of the story and the MI6 side of the story. Like, seriously, like when you read an article at oil price, for example, which is a very good site, we need to know that Irene Slav talks to the Russian side of the equation. And, you know, Cyril Wittershoven and Simon Watkins are freaking literal MI6 agents.

And then you have to know that Stratford is, Stratfor is, you know, is run by George Friedman, who's a CIA asset. And that 75% of the stuff you read in American, on American foreign policy, on American foreign policy comes from Stratford talking points. And then they just repeat them. And then you've got to know what Davos is. And you can see from the concentration of what the talking points are, whenever, you know, within the Overton window of that week.

You go, oh, well, the call came out. Call George Maloney far right. Bring up her and make sure that you tie her directly to Mussolini. Okay. But we never hear, we never hear about Ursula von der Leanderland and her Nazi roots, right? Even if it's, you know, even if it's tenuous, even if it's not really real, even if it was just that he was, her grandfather was like every other middle-aged German, got drafted into the army and was an Nazi, right? The there Monarch was a Nazi. Doesn't mean anything. This is guilt by association? Or is it? Okay. Does it matter that, you know, Victoria Newland, the undersecretary for European

affairs, effectively the second most powerful person in the U.S. State Department? You know, grandfather was, you know, was a Ukrainian Jew who was killed by Russians. Does that matter? Is that important? Kind of is. Because personnel is policy. So the words that come out of various people's mouths matter. The people who that mouth and say the words at a particular moment in time matter. Timing is important. Like everything is important.

And you just have to like be in this fight so long that you can see it that way. That's my job. My job is to go, oh, that's what I. Your job is to go out and produce something great today that serves mankind. So I free up your day so you don't have to spend four hours a day like pouring over the stuff trying to start to be no it's like having me on once a

month and like get the download and then go on and go on about your life and go you know produce soybeans or not soybeans go produce you know you know cows and pigs and you know fix roads and make sure the electoral lines are working and someone get and get out here to fix my freaking DSL service it would be awesome and i'll pay you for it like you know that's what we that's the world we have to live in and these people are are absolutely you know they think that the only way we're going to survive is species is to do away with capital formation and then institute global communism. They're nuts. They're insane.

It's what we got. It's reality. Is it going to work? No. Is it going to bankrupt millions, hundreds of millions of people? Yes. Is it going to start a world war very likely? Are we going to be better off on the other side of it?

Most likely. I mean, seriously, it's not like I'm not telling you, I'm telling you there's this hope and that there's this hope and that there's, There's a path forward that gets us to the other side somewhat with our liberties intact. But it doesn't mean that it's not going to suck because the only way out of this is through it. You can't circumvent it. You can't go around it. Some of us can.

You can, you know, expat. You can do some other things. Sure. And capital will do that. A lot of people are moving to Mexico. Some people are moving to Paraguay. So a lot of people are moving to Florida in the hopes that the Santhas takes the side of the union. I mean, like there's all sorts of things going on.

But, you know, concentrate. But it's the old libertarian idea of the free state project. Concentrate people of like-mindedness in an area and change the polypoles. The free state project as a concept failed in New Hampshire or, you know, in practice, failed in New Hampshire because getting the libertarians to agree about anything. It's like, you know, like, I don't know. It's like trying to, it's like trying to put spilled milk back in the bottle. But because I hate to use the phrase hurting cats because it's old. but the concept is not a bad one because you're seeing people do it now.

You're seeing a mass exit as the places where they're still saying it. Well, I appreciate you coming on, Tom. I got a couple extra minutes here where we're going to do the final question of the show. But I really appreciate you coming on. And I can already hear the audience when they tune into this saying you need to come back on. So that means Tom, I'm going to have you. back on and and we'll continue to let you do your thing because it's been a it's been a quick hour but the final question goes like this uh first off shout out to to crude master uh Ethan

Tracy McDonald been supporters of the podcast since the very beginning and the question is he said if you're going to stand behind something then stand behind it what does Tom stand behind it's a good question I stand behind my principles and I stand behind my analysis um I believe in people. I really do. It's a really good question because there's a hard way to frame it. Because what do you mean by stand behind? I have an amazing,

I have curated an amazing group of people as my patrons who teach me as much as I teach them. So I stand behind my ability to stay mostly humble in the face of the hostile universe and the fact that I don't know everything. I may sound informed, but I know nothing. And you have to remain humble in the face of all the information. You're doing your best with bad information.

And you have to realize that there are solutions out there that you've never even considered. And you have to trust that those solutions may possibly get implemented. And every intervention into the market incentivizes somebody to find a workaround. and eventually that a workaround will overwhelm the interventions and cause that system to eventually be done away with. I don't care if we're talking Uber, getting rid of taxi medallions, or even, or the arguments that Bitcoin Maxelmans make about Bitcoin of fiat money, like is the common part of the day, the big one for the day.

But doesn't matter what it is. Even if we're talking about, you know, trying to destroy all culture, right, and all things that give people comfort and, you know, a way of navigating which they're clearly going at at every level. Like, they're trying to destroy all of our cultural institutions, the concept of even heroics itself they're trying to do away with. I stand behind the argument that people are more than capable of producing unbelievable things despite all of this nonsense as opposed to having given into the nihilism that people suck because they do this to each other. when you look around the world today and you see the amazing things that people are continuing to do to each other and for each other in the face of the people doing all of these things to each other that's what should give you not hope because i don't like the word hope because hope is one letter away from cope and it's the most negative of human emotions just it's that what you have when you

have nothing else it should inspire you to continue to get out of bed in the morning and try and figure out a way to serve your fellow man. Because if you can serve your fellow man, you're serving yourself. The essence of free market economics, as the late Great Gary North used to say, is service. So I stand behind my pledge to service

to serve people as best as I can. And then let the chips fall away they may. I'm not going to be right about it. But the only thing I can do is try and, you know, arrogate and curate to me people who can help me and cure it. those ideas into a workable form that sometimes I can't even do. There's so much to talk about.

There's so many ways to have to justify, you know, the argument that may be so far removed from somebody's frame of reference. At first you have to like, okay, well, what's happening here? And I have to go back and explain for half a while. And it sounds like I'm being elliptical and not answering the question. But really what I'm doing is tracing the backstory, right? And but I have to stand behind that. And I have to try and figure out what's, what's coming next.

And if we can do that and we can, you know, remain reasonably generous, we'll get through it. Well, these people are, these people are nuts. I mean, they really are. They're just insane. I've really, I've really enjoyed this, Tom. I, I pretty much sat back at, you know, as the audience is probably thinking, I just sat back and took it all in. I really enjoyed you coming on and giving me an hour this morning. and I want to make sure that I hold true to getting you out of here on time so you can carry on with your busy day.

But I do mean it. We'll have you back on because it's been a real fast hour and a thought-provoking hour, I would say. The audience is going to and that's what you look for in podcasting world. That's what you want. Well, yeah. I mean, I live by two adages, right? One is be interesting or be ignored and the truth sells itself. right and you have to provoke thought in people even if they don't like it especially if they

don't like it because it's that's what takes people out of the comfort zone and gets them to start doing what einran always said is just to check your premises uh rand was you know wrong about a great many things and whatnot but she was not wrong about that is einrand like every like everybody else in the world is a mix of good and bad things right and you know um her personal philosophy I find, you know, mostly uphorne, perversion of the non-aggression principle and libertarian ethics and all that. But she's not wrong about, you know, always checking your premises. And so that's what I hope to do when I do one of these. And then we go from there. And then if you have any questions or comments, or you think I'm a jerk or you think I'm an idiot or, you know, whatever,

that's cool. If I triggered you, well, you should really think about why you're triggered and not that I triggered you. And I'm not that I triggered you. And I'm not. the bad guy. Because invariably, when you get triggered or I get triggered, it's because it's something about us personally that we haven't addressed personally. So when I listen to Ursula von der Leyen speak and I'm having like flashbacks to my mom, it's me. But that's okay. I know what that looks like and I know that's evil. We need to deal. But it's still triggering, but understand where that trigger's coming from and then work with it. So there we go. Appreciate it. Yeah. Thanks, Tom. Thank you.