TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @FinanceLancelot
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
WATCH: Secretary Ali Larijani of Iran's National Security Council discuss the Iran war with 60 Minutes prior to his assassination this week. https://t.co/s5TGIqbbXN
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
What interesting timing for the U.S. Director of National Counterterrorism to resign.... right? Joseph Kent must know the false flag Israel has planned and doesn't want to be blamed. https://t.co/or03TXDZ66
reSee.it AI Summary
FinanceLancelot claims Epstein influenced BTC in 2011 and XRP in 2014, alleging elite NSA-backed manipulation and rapid liquidation after exposure. ZachRector7 counters that XRP involvement is false and accuses Lancelot of spreading FUD via Austin Hill. Lancelot retorts that BTC is an NSA experiment, not XRP. Shamsulazhara thanks CIAtoshi NSAmoto for creating Bitcoin.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Interesting seeing Jeffrey Epstein was involved in $BTC back in 2011 and $XRP in 2014. It seems the wealthy elite were behind this entire NSA experiment. Now that they're exposed they're liquidating as quickly as possible. https://t.co/fZGGhBLqcE
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Bitcoin has always stopped at the 300 week moving average, around $52k. What will really scare long-term $BTC HODLERs is if it breaks through that level and continues downward to $20k or lower. The crypto ETFs & Michael Saylor marked the end of the adoption curve. https://t.co/qNsvlS8NPl
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
BREAKING: Bitcoin falls to $78k as the collapse accelerates. $BTC is now in the 2nd leg down that could potentially last for 12-18 months. https://t.co/z0SvDEzswZ
@ZachRector7 - Zach Rector
@FinanceLancelot No involvement in XRP. Please correct your post. This is Austin Hill actually spreading FUD about XRP to Epstein and MIT Media Lab,
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
@ZachRector7 Being involved in trying to crush it. I've been clear BTC is an NSA experiment, not XRP. https://t.co/CQyFlGluuU
@shamsulazhara - Shamsul Azhar
@FinanceLancelot @ZachRector7 Thank you CIAtoshi NSAmoto for creating Bitcoin https://t.co/5uU6EQzn3y
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 discusses the origins of Bitcoin and raises a provocative claim about who may have created it. The assertion begins with the question: Was Bitcoin created by the CIA? And, given early involvement in mining, could the speaker be in the CIA as well? The speaker then presents a line of reasoning based on what they learned about the Bitcoin source code. They state that it was created by somebody in the NSA, and they support this claim with what they describe as evidence found in the randomizer. The speaker notes that there are many methods that are certified to be free of backdoors, and these methods are stated to have been checked and rechecked and certified as backdoor-free. In contrast, Satoshi did not use any of these certified methods. Instead, Satoshi chose an obscure method that wasn’t certified, which led many developers to scratch their heads.
The discussion then references Snowden and his release of information indicating that the NSA had backdoors to all the certified randomizers. According to the speaker, with enough data, the NSA could reproduce the random number that a user actually chose. This leads to the implication that the NSA could break codes and effectively break securities, including “getting your Bitcoin.” The speaker emphasizes that Satoshi chose the one randomizer that did not have a backdoor, and they question how that would be possible. The closing questions reflect skepticism about the likelihood of such a choice being lucky, with the speaker stating, “Did he get lucky? I don’t think so.”
In summary, the speaker presents a chain of claims linking Bitcoin’s creation to the NSA, arguing that certified randomizers reportedly free of backdoors exist, that Snowden revealed NSA backdoors in those certified methods, and that Satoshi’s selection of an uncertified randomizer supposedly avoided backdoors. This leads to the concluding suggestion that Satoshi’s choice was not a matter of luck, prompting the final question about whether luck played a role.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Was Bitcoin created by the CIA? And since you were early mining it, are you in the CIA? Well, I think that based on what I learned about the source code, it was created by somebody in the NSA. The evidence of that is the randomizer. And so there's lots of a certified method that's stated that they don't have any backdoors.
They've been checked and rechecked, and they're certified to not have any backdoors. Yet, Satoshi didn't use any of them. All the certified methods used this obscure method, which wasn't certified. And a lot of developers scratched their head until Snowden. When he released that, oh, yeah.
The NSA had backdoors to all the certified randomizers. With enough data, they could actually reproduce the random number that you actually chose. So Does that mean they can So they can break Yeah. Break codes? Technically, they can break Yeah.
Break all the securities. Get your Bitcoin, basically. But Satoshi chose the one randomizer. They didn't have a backdoor. How is that possible?
Did he get lucky? I don't think so.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
People are still confused why $BTC tanked so quickly. The Epstein documents revealed it was created by the NSA & promoted by the Epstein's wealthy elite If that doesn't scare you I don't know what will. It will bounce, but ultimately it's going to $0 to implement the new system https://t.co/u96o6oogM3
Video Transcript AI Summary
Together because they are completely interlinked. Epstein is linked with Howard Lutnick, our commerce secretary whose firm manages the treasuries that back tether, the largest stable coin. And Brock Pierce, who was Epstein's crypto adviser, who was a cofounder of Tether and was the head of the Bitcoin Foundation before it collapsed, and then MIT took over the developers is right in the middle of this. So in essence, the endgame of this is what they have figured out as a way to have a backdoor CBDC where they specifically profit.
I'm starting to call this now the creature from Epstein's Island because in the end, what are we getting out of this? We have something called USAT, which is the new official stable coin that complies with the genius act. So we have a situation where it's a digital token backed by fiat, backed by treasuries that can be programmed, tracked, and censored. And the biggest financial beneficiary is Howard Lutnick's firm. They managed to create so think about it this way. He's managed to create a central bank digital currency where only one firm profits from all of the fees for managing the treasuries. This is the biggest financial heist probably in human history.
And it is connected directly to Epstein and Brock Pierce and the hijacking of Bitcoin. That's how they're linked. Now, do I think were they playing five d chess and this is what they thought was gonna happen? I don't know. May be if so, it's very clever or were they opportunistic about it? But make no mistake about it. These government regulated stablecoins are backdoor CBDCs in not in the sense that they're issued by the central bank, but in the sense that they are controlled and surveilled by the government and tracked by the government, which after all is the thing that people are worried about with CBDCs. The concern isn't really so much about the central bank. Of course, the central bank is complete unnecessary third party, but financial surveillance comes from Congress. All of the bank secrecy laws, all of the tracking and the suspicious activity reports, this is Congress. This is not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not initiate any of that. So this is in many respects worse than the creature from Jackal Island. This is worse than the creation of the Federal Reserve itself because what it's done is created a digital dollar where one political member of a cabinet, his family and his company is the biggest single beneficiary.
One of the things that came out of the Epstein file is Lutnick's claim that he was disgusted by Epstein and had nothing to do with him after 2006. The emails show Lutnick emailing Epstein coordinating to visit Epstein on Epstein's Island with his yacht and with his family. There's another email showing Lutnick contributing $50,000 to an event that Epstein was running. Lutnick flat out lied, and I will have to check whether that was under oath about his relationship and association with Epstein. He was a next door neighbor of Epstein and bought his house from Epstein. The connections here are overwhelming.
It's so much data to map that I'm using AI to start making initial connections, then humans correct. How do these pieces fit from a timetable perspective? This is game changing. Epstein's hijacking of Bitcoin has not been widely acknowledged, and some Bitcoin Maxis resist this information. I urge people to do their own research, not to rely on spin. Look into Epstein's emails via Jmail and other sources. The information is out there, including the Epstein files, and the article I wrote for Brownstone at brownstone.org with screenshots of emails. Do your research. Don't accept a single influencer's take. Epstein literally funded changing the Bitcoin protocol to make it digital gold, yet there is no indication he actually held Bitcoin. This warrants investigation.
Roger Ver, once a prominent Bitcoin advocate, has described hijacking in his own book, and his later treatment suggests suppression. The broader point is that there are deeply interwoven connections among Epstein, Lutnick, Pierce, Tether, and the Bitcoin ecosystem, with implications for who profits and how governance and surveillance could unfold.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Together because they are completely interlinked. Epstein is linked with Howard Lutnick, our commerce secretary whose firm manages the treasuries that back tether, the largest stable coin. Okay? And Brock Pierce, who was Epstein's crypto adviser, who was a cofounder of Tether and was the head of the Bitcoin Foundation before it collapsed, and then MIT took over the developers is right in the middle of this. So in essence, the endgame of this is what they have figured out as a way to have a backdoor CBDC where they specifically profit.
I'm starting to call this now the creature from Epstein's Island because in the end, what are we getting out of this? Yeah. We have something called USAT, which is the new official stable yep. Tether stable coin that that complies with the genius act. So we have a situation where it's a digital token backed by fiat, backed by treasuries that can be programmed, tracked, and censored.
And the biggest financial beneficiary is Howard Lutnick's firm. So they've managed to create so so think about it this way. He's managed to create a central bank digital currency where only only one firm profits from it, from all of the fees for managing the treasuries. This is the biggest financial heist probably in human history. Mhmm.
And it is connected directly to Epstein and Brock Pierce and the hijacking of Bitcoin. That's how they're linked. Now, do I think were they playing five d chess and this is what they thought was gonna happen? I don't know. May maybe if so, it's that's very clever or were they or were they just opportunistic about it?
But make no mistake about it. These government regulated stablecoins are backdoor CBDCs in not in the sense that they're issued by the central bank, but in the sense that they are controlled and surveilled by the government and tracked by the government, which after all is the thing that people are worried about with CBDCs. The concern isn't really so much about the central bank. Of course, the central bank is complete unnecessary third party, but financial surveillance comes from congress. All of the bank secrecy laws, all of the tracking and the suspicious activity reports, this is this is congress.
This is not the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not initiate Yeah. Any of that. So this is a so in many respects, this is worse than the creature from Jackal Island. This is worse than the creation of the Federal Reserve itself because what it's done is created a digital dollar where where where one, political member of a cabinet, his family and his company is the biggest single beneficiary.
It's it's it's outrageous. It's absolutely outrageous. Now one of the things that came out of the Epstein file, Howard Lutnick said well, I think when he was going through his, like, confirmation or whatever, he said, oh, he was disgusted by, Epstein and didn't have anything to do with him after 2006. The emails show Lutnick emailing Epstein coordinating to visit Epstein on Epstein's Island with his yacht and with his family. Like, there's a there there's another email that shows Lutnick contributing 50,000 to excuse me.
Epstein contributing $50,000 to an event that Lutnick was running. Lutnick flat out lied, and I'll have to check to see if that was under oath about his relationship and his association with Epstein. I will say also, he was a next door neighbor of Epstein and bought his house from Epstein. Right? So the connections here are are kind of overwhelming.
And and by the way, it's so much data to map. So I'm taking all this data and scanning all of it and scanning the pictures and everything else, but then you have to actually use the AI to start to make some initial connections anyway that humans can then come in and and kind of correct. But, you know, alright. How do all of these things fit together from a timetable perspective? How do the people fit together?
And I'm telling you, man, this is game changing. And and, again, people weren't even thinking about I've been the only one or one of the only people associating Epstein with the hijacking of Bitcoin. So this was not a major story. And people were telling me for the last two years, oh, it's a conspiracy theory. And now what Bitcoin Maxis are saying is, oh, well, that's old news.
Let me tell you something. And, you know, if if you're listening to this and you're a Bitcoin Maxi, you're seeing a lot of propaganda because, to be honest, if if you're someone that's a Bitcoin Maxi and you're and you're not even willing to look at this Epstein information and you're trying to spin it, those are people that are gonna lose their reputations will never recover from that. Mhmm. There's a certain point after which, like, if you're not willing to look at new information and that new information happens to be that this this was, absolutely hijacked by by the least ethical people on the planet, then then those people are kinda doomed. So I suggest everybody don't listen to me.
Go look yourself. Go and look at the Epstein files. Go to there's something called Jmail. My Technocracy Atlas is doing a similar thing where we're creating, like, an email, like, a Gmail drop Gmail box where you can look at Epstein's emails as if you were, Epstein's. You can sort by sender.
But Jmail already exists and does that. Look at the information and put the pieces together yourself. I've written the article for Brownstone at brownstone.org. You can search for my name. It's on the front page right now.
But I actually have the screenshots of the emails in there. Please do your research on this. Do not accept another Bitcoin Maxi influencers spin on it. You you so what so one of the things people are saying is, oh, well, well, you know, you know, bad people use money. You can't because a bad person uses it, it's an open source protocol.
Right? So you can't say that the protocol's bad just because bad people use it. That's a terrible argument. Epstein literally funded changing the protocol. And what's interesting is Epstein did one interview in, I believe, 2017 where he talked about that Bitcoin wasn't a currency, but it was a store of value.
Understand that before 2017, that was not the common understanding. So the only thing he publicly states about it is that it's a store of value. But when you look, as much as he spent all of this time and all of this money making it a store of value, there's no indication that he actually hold a Bitcoin. So why would somebody invest money to change a protocol to make it digital gold and then themselves not actually be a holder? Doesn't that isn't that interesting?
You know? At least doesn't that warrant investigation? And I will tell you, with these documents out here, there are people that are connected to this directly, that have pieces of these information. I mean, I know people that were involved with the Bitcoin Foundation. You know, Bruce Fenton's a guy who I've I've known for a long time.
He's a freestater and everything else, and he's he's out there saying, well, Epstein's involvement, he had nothing to do with it. Bruce Fenton was the executive director of the Bitcoin Foundation when it collapsed, and the devs moved over to MIT. He doesn't address that when he talks about this being, you know, ridiculous, and and Epstein couldn't have interfered because it's open source code. So I'm really strongly encouraging people to do their own research. Don't take anybody's word for it.
Don't even take my word for it. Go and look at these source source materials. But but whatever you do, you've gotta look into it. Like, you're gonna you're gonna regret, skimming over this, because you don't wanna wake up one day and find out, oh, wait. I was sold a hijacked story by Jeffrey Epstein and Howard Ludnick and Brock Pierce, and you can look up Brock Pierce's background.
I I have history. My history with him was when I started my first company, I went to go take it public, and we were the second in line with this investment bank. And the IPO was shelved because his company, Digital Entertainment Network, was accused of being involved with child trafficking, and all of the founders had to leave the country, which tanked the reputation of my investment bank and actually closed the window for me for an IPO. That was my first experience with this. Look at who these people are.
Look at all of the interconnections and ask questions. Oh, is this whole digital gold thing? Was this just contrived? Because many people don't know that Bitcoin was is supposed to be a currency and was used by a currency as a currency, that people were buying plane tickets through Expedia, that people were buying things through overstock.com and from Microsoft directly as a payment mechanism in 2017. The vast majority of people that have gotten involved in Bitcoin since 2017 don't even know any of that happened.
Mhmm. They don't know the history. And why? It's because I've got behind me the book hijacking Bitcoin because the people that have been trying to set, you know, send the alarm bells on this have been prosecuted by the federal government. They've been silenced.
Literally, Roger Ver is the best person on the planet to talk about this. He was Bitcoin Jesus. He was involved with Bitcoin in 2010, first investor in the ecosystem, first investor in exchanges, point of sale systems, and he wrote a book about how it was hijacked. And three weeks after it was published, he was arrested in Spain and threatened with a hundred and nine years in federal prison for tax issues that were from 2014. So there's been an effort to suppress this.
So people don't know this information, but that in the information now is out there, and I'm hoping that this, the Epstein files, cause people to take a step back and think and do research and deliberation.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Interesting seeing Jeffrey Epstein was involved in $BTC back in 2011 and $XRP in 2014. It seems the wealthy elite were behind this entire NSA experiment. Now that they're exposed they're liquidating as quickly as possible. https://t.co/fZGGhBLqcE
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Bitcoin has always stopped at the 300 week moving average, around $52k. What will really scare long-term $BTC HODLERs is if it breaks through that level and continues downward to $20k or lower. The crypto ETFs & Michael Saylor marked the end of the adoption curve. https://t.co/fQT572kgbs
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
1929 sure sounds a lot like today doesn't it? I didn't realize the Soviet Union survived the depression relatively unscathed because they were centrally planned economy That explains why Project 2025. Collapse everything then claim centrally planned Technocracy will save us. https://t.co/7M0EneCA4T
Video Transcript AI Summary
Tariffs and the farm aid rationale dominated public discussion in the late 1920s. Hoover, running for president in 1928, pledged higher duties on agricultural imports and summoned a special session of Congress for selective tariff revision. The tariff debate centered on helping American farmers and equalizing production costs, but when trading partners retaliated, farmers actually lost more from higher costs on imports than they gained from price increases for their products, most of which faced little foreign competition. An American Farm Bureau Federation study showed American farmers would gain $30,000,000 from tariff increases and lose $330,000,000 in higher costs. The House passed the act in May 1929. If the United States wouldn’t buy abroad, others couldn’t earn dollars to buy Americans’ goods or to meet interest payments on American loans, and by September 1929 Hoover’s administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners.
Some countries protested, others retaliated with trade restrictions and tariffs of their own. American exports to protesting nations fell 18%, and exports to those that retaliated fell 31%. Scholars debate whether the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the stock market crash of October 1929, since it wasn’t signed into law until the following June, though others argue investors anticipated its effects. If investors anticipated the tariffs, they might have sold stocks; exports fell from $7,000,000,000 in 1929 to $2,500,000,000 by 1932.
Federal spending rose from $2,600,000,000 in 1929 to $3,200,000,000 in 1932. The tariffs didn’t help the American farmer: trade accounted for 17% of farm income before the tariffs, and farm exports were slashed to a third of their 1929 level by 1933. On the eve of the crash, the United States was in seemingly good shape: productivity-enhancing innovation was abundant, and management practices were being revolutionized (Ford paid workers well; Alfred Sloan’s GM management reforms, RCA’s tech boom—its stock rose 940% between 1925 and 1929, with a peak PE of 73). Yet only 3% of Americans owned any stock, and about 1% owned enough to maintain a broker account, so the Great Depression could not be blamed solely on a stock bubble or tariffs.
By 1920 the U.S. held about 40% of the world’s monetary gold; France increased its share to 17% by 1929 and 22% in 1931 as other central banks tightened to stem gold outflows. Deflation spread as monetary gold accumulated abroad; by 1930-1933 prices fell sharply. The deflation was the most dramatic the U.S. had experienced, with prices dropping an average of 7% per year, and the wholesale price index falling 33% from 1929 to early 1933. As the depression deepened, unemployment soared, and GDP plummeted. Hoover’s public optimism contrasted with the collapsing economy: production fell 9.3% in 1930 and 8.6% in 1931; by June 1932 GDP was 55% below its 1929 peak. The global downturn lasted a decade, with the Soviet Union’s planned economy appearing comparatively untouched. The era reflected a transition from a largely rural, agrarian society to a more urban, industrial one, increasing vulnerability to market volatility.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Even faster. Food exports had been falling, but the value of food imports from abroad was actually very small. Overall, The United States was a huge exporter, and these tariffs made no sense whatsoever. Herbert Hoover, who was running for election in 1928, pledged that as part of his program to help farmers, he would seek higher duties on agricultural imports, and once elected he called a special session of congress for the purpose of selective revision of the tariffs. Public discussions about the tariffs centered on helping the American farmer and equalizing production costs at home and abroad.
These arguments couldn't have been more wrong, as once trade partners retaliated, farmers ended up losing more from increased costs on items they import than they gained from price increases for their products, most of which faced almost no foreign competition anyhow. An American Farm Bureau Federation study indicated that American farmers would gain $30,000,000 from the increases in agricultural tariffs and lose $330,000,000 in increased costs. Hoover's special session dragged on, and the House of Representatives eventually passed the act in May 1929. If The United States wasn't going to buy goods from other countries, there was no way for other countries to earn dollars to buy from Americans, and more importantly no way to earn dollars to meet the interest payments on American loans. By September 1929, Hoover's administration had received protest notes from 23 trading partners.
Some countries just protested, while others also retaliated with trade restrictions and tariffs of their own. American exports to the protesting nations fell 18%, and exports to those who retaliated fell by 31%. Many scholars have argued that while the Smooth Hawley tariff had disastrous economic effects, that it can't be blamed for the stock market collapse of October 1929, since it wasn't signed into law until the following June. Others argue that investors were aware the tariffs were in the pipeline and would have tried to anticipate the likelihood of the act passing and its expected economic effects. If investors did anticipate the effects of the tariffs and sold their stocks, they might have been wise to do so, as exports fell from $7,000,000,000 in 1929 to $2,500,000,000 by 1932.
Federal spending was only $2,600,000,000 in 1929 and reached $3,200,000,000 in 1932. The tariffs didn't exactly help the American farmer either. Trade accounted for 17% of farm income before the tariffs, and farm exports were slashed to a third of their 1929 level by 1933. On the eve of the crash, The United States was actually in good economic shape. There was no shortage of productivity enhancing technological innovation, which meant that the same amount of labor now produced significantly more goods.
Businesses like Ford were doing well and were able to pay their workers well. America was applying science and invention to industry like never before, and even management practices were being revolutionized by men like Alfred Sloan at General Motors. RCA, which was the hottest tech stock of the 1920s, rose by 940% between 1925 and 1929. Its PE ratio at the peak was 73, which is high, but we have also seen higher and for slower growing companies. The stock bubble encouraged a rush of new IPOs.
It is not true, however, that everyone was speculating madly in 1929. Just 3% of Americans owned any stock at the time, and only around 1% owned enough stock to keep an account with a broker. The majority owned only a few shares. The Great Depression can't be simply blamed on the bursting of a stock bubble or the imposition of tariffs. Real life is, of course, a bit more complicated than that.
By 1920, The United States held around 40% of the world's monetary gold. France had been accumulating gold too, and its share of the world's gold supply rose from 9% in 1927 to 17% by 1929, and reached 22% in 1931. Before the crash in 1928, the U. S. Fed was worried about its loss of gold and also about the ongoing boom in the stock market, and so it hiked interest rates to stop the outflows.
As The U. S. And France accumulated more and more of the world's monetary gold, other central banks took measures to stem the outflow of gold too. In country after country, these deflationary strategies began contracting economic activity, and by 1928 some countries in Europe, Asia, and South America had fallen into recession due to a shortage of money. More countries' economies began to decline in 1929, including The United States, and by 1930 a depression was in force for almost all of the world's market economies.
Contrary to popular beliefs, the twenty nine crash was not a two day event, instead it was a long rolling downward slide that went on for weeks, from September 3 until November 13. There were brief upsurges after some of the worst days, but down and down it went. A week before Black Thursday, Irving Fisher, an economics professor at Yale, announced that The U. S. Stock prices had reached a permanently high plateau.
Given the growth in productivity and technology, it was reasonable for earnings to only trend higher, he said. The stock market had unfortunately been slipping for over a month at that point, and on Black Monday dove 13% in a day, falling a further 12% the next day. Over the next three years, The U. S. Stock market declined almost 90%, reaching its low in July 1932.
The market didn't return to its prior peak until November 1954, over twenty five years later. This collapse, if it didn't actually cause, it coincided with the start of the worst economic shock in the history of the industrialized world. In The United States, economic output collapsed by a third. Unemployment reached 25% or closer to 33% if a modern definition of unemployment was used. The depression was a global catastrophe that saw prices and output decline in almost every economy in the world.
Only Germany saw as severe an economic decline as in America. International trade shrunk by two thirds as countries tried to hide behind tariffs and import quotas to defend their internal economies. The Soviet Union, with its planned economy, was the only country that appeared to be unaffected. The deflation that took place in the first three years of the Great Depression was the most dramatic deflation that The U. S.
Has ever experienced. Prices dropped an average of 7% per year between 1930 and 1933. Deflation led to business bankruptcies, bank runs, and rising rates of unemployment. Between the 1929 and early nineteen thirty three, the wholesale price index fell 33%. President Hoover, in trying to boost American spirits after the crash, told journalists that the fundamental business of the country, that is the production and distribution of commodities, is on a sound and prosperous basis.
A year later in 1930, he told Americans that prosperity was just around the corner, and he likely believed it at the time, as recessions and depressions had always come and gone within a year or two. Other than during the First World War, business activity had fallen in only seven of the last 60, and the only two year setback had been 1907 to 1908. Historically, the average annual decline in real GDP during a slowdown was 1.6%, and the worst decline had been 5.5%. This time around, it was a lot worse. Production fell 9.3% in 1930 and a further 8.6% in 1931.
At the very bottom in June 1932, GDP was 55% below its 1929 peak, so roughly 10 times worse than the worst example that had been seen up until that point, and rather than lasting one or two years, the downturn would last a decade. Even during the boom of the 1920s, American economic growth had been below its long term growth trend starting in 1870 when The United States was in its hyper growth phase. A number of recessions and depressions had hit The United States during that prior period of growth, but the historian Robert McElvain in his excellent book The Great Depression notes that each slowdown over that period had hit harder than the prior one. He argues that as The United States became less agrarian and more industrial, less rural and more urban, an ever increasing percentage of the population became susceptible to the vagaries of the market economy. In the less industrial era, Americans had of course been victims of economic collapse, but they had mostly been able to feed themselves and their families during hard times as they were mostly farmers.
By the 1930s, Americans were more dependent on wages as the nation had industrialized. Urban working class people who rented their homes and worked in factories found themselves in desperate straits when they lost their jobs and couldn't find new ones, and over time there were more and more of these people, and the population was sensitive to economic conditions rather than growing conditions.
reSee.it AI Summary
Conversation centers on Bitcoin’s origins and control, including claims of NSA/CIA involvement and Epstein funding, and concerns about Wall Street, ETFs, derivatives, and regulatory capture aiming to destroy it. Counterpoints stress the open-source base layer with no backdoors and that digital currencies are an inevitable shift. Debates critique cash and precious metals as practical options, warn of a future programmable government currency, and highlight self-custodied Bitcoin as a preferred exit.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Let me explain $BTC. It was created by the NSA, rolled out as a CIA hive-mind experiment to see how millions of people would innovate it. Crypto adoption was pushed by Epstein among the elite & criminals, then the plebs. The experiment is over. Now they're ready to destroy it. https://t.co/IvbNeIKHQa
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
“If you knew who was really behind Bitcoin. Really behind $BTC. You would run as fast as you f**king could to sell it.” "When the real 'founder' of Bitcoin comes out... $BTC will go to f**king zero." https://t.co/FP7A1y8j9S
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Interesting seeing Jeffrey Epstein was involved in $BTC back in 2011 and $XRP in 2014. It seems the wealthy elite were behind this entire NSA experiment. Now that they're exposed they're liquidating as quickly as possible. https://t.co/pWwQgkXetV
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The Bitcoin ETFs, derivatives & Michael Saylor style "crypto treasuries" were just a way for Wall Street to capture $BTC & destroy it. That's the reason the government was so willing to accept "alternative currencies" to the Dollar. Regulatory capture = planned destruction https://t.co/s87rTu0ibB
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 argues that it won’t be that everybody starts selling, but that new buyers stop buying. As the price falls, the true believers—hardcore Bitcoiners—won’t be phased by moves from 60,000 to 40,000 because they’ve seen it before and Bitcoin always comes back. The people who bought into the Bitcoin ETF, however, may be the first to exit; they were the last in and will likely be the first out. They aren’t long-term HODLers but traders, and if they were real Bitcoin people, they would have bought years ago rather than waiting for an ETF. The hype around the ETF could become a problem when it starts to sell off.
When price declines occur historically, there’s often a large influx of Tether, whether counterfeit or not, and Tether buys Bitcoin, helping to form a bottom. But with ETFs liquidating, the ETF holders must take Bitcoin they own into the spot market and sell it, and buyers must pay with real dollars rather than Tether. If there aren’t enough buyers, a large drop could occur. The speaker envisions the next Bitcoin crash starting with the ETFs selling, driving Bitcoin down with market orders to get out by the end of the day—no limits, no waiting, just exit.
If the ETF selling drives Bitcoin down to 10,000 (not 20,000), charts would show Bitcoin below previous lows, with the trend broken. This could shake the confidence of hodlers, who might question whether it will come back and consider selling. As the price falls, fear could rise with pleas like “Oh my God, I better get out before it’s worthless,” leading even diehards to contemplate salvage rather than sinking with the ship. Some holders entered at much lower prices and could still sell at 5,000 to realize profits, though fewer people exist with such low cost bases. They may choose to turn a profit or cut losses.
The speaker notes that the current dynamic shows high confidence, with people convinced they’ll get rich and dismissing FUD. They criticize public figures like Peter Schiff or Warren Buffett as boomer misperceptions about Bitcoin, expressing annoyance that some people see them as not understanding, while others claim the speaker has studied Bitcoin and chosen not to believe it, insisting they didn’t drink the Kool Aid.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Right? So I think it's not going to be that everybody starts selling. It's going be that new people stop buying. And then as the price really starts to fall, maybe, you know, I don't think the true believers, the hardcore Bitcoiners, they're not going to be phased by Bitcoin going from 60,000 to 40,000. Right?
They've seen that before. Been there, done that. Right? Bitcoin always comes back. That may not be the case for the people who just bought into the Bitcoin ETF.
So I think they're going to be the first ones out. They were the last ones in. They're going be the first ones out. They're not long term HODLers, even if they bought the one with the symbol HODL. They're traders, I think.
I mean, if they were real Bitcoin people, they would have bought years ago. They wouldn't have waited for an ETF. They got kind of suckered into it by the hype and the promotion, and they thought they could make some money. And that's going be a big problem for Bitcoin too, when the ETF starts to sell off, because you know, if you go back and look at prior Bitcoin crashes, you always have a big influx of Tether. There's a lot of Tether, whether they're counterfeit Tether, we'll see, but Tether comes in and buys up Bitcoin and that puts in a bottom.
But when the ETFs start to liquidate and now they have to take the Bitcoin that they own into the spot market and sell it, the buyer has to pay with real dollars. They can't pay with Tether. And there may not be enough of those that want to buy Bitcoin. And so I think that the next Bitcoin crash is going be pretty big because I think it's going to start in the ETFs and it's going to exacerbate the decline when you have all these market orders, sell me Bitcoin at the market, whatever the price is, no limits, just get me out by the end of the day. I have to get out.
No, I can't wait until tomorrow. I have to be out today. And then all of course the buyers are like, well, I'm not buying everybody steps away and it's a trap door. But so let's say now the ETF selling drives Bitcoin down to 10,000, right? Not 20,000, not 10,000.
And now you look at these charts like, a minute, Bitcoin just went below the previous low. It's now lower than it was five years ago, six years ago. The trend is broken. I think at some point you're going to shake the confidence of the hodlers who are going to be like, you know, I don't know if it's going to come back again. Maybe this is different and they're going to want to sell.
And as it goes down, then you get the fear. Then you get, Oh my God, I better get out before it's worthless. Right? Even the diehards are like, I'm not going down with this ship. I mean, there are some people that say they're going to go down with the ship, but let's see what happens when it's actually sinking and they're, you know, up to their neck.
Are they really going to, you know, finish and drown? Or are they going to try to salvage something? Because, you know, there are people too that still bought in at much lower prices. They can, they can still sell Bitcoin at 5,000 and make a profit. There's not that many people left anymore that, that have a cost basis that low, but you know, they, there are going to be some of them.
Are they going to let that turn into a loss or are they going to sell? So I think the whole dynamic can change. Right now, everybody is very confident, very sure of themselves. They're all going to get rich. Everything else is a bunch of FUD, tune it out.
Guys like Peter Schiff or Warren Buffett or any person who talks sense is just a boomer who doesn't get it. We're trapped in the stone age. I mean, I just laugh online. All these people, Peter Schiff is smart about so many things, but he's an idiot about Bitcoin. It's like, no, if I'm smart about everything else, why would I be so dumb?
It's like, well, if Peter only studied Bitcoin, so you think I haven't studied it? You don't think I haven't looked at it? They just can't accept the fact that I'm a smart guy who has looked at it, who has studied it, and just doesn't believe it. I didn't drink the Kool Aid.
@GeneralpattonS - GeneralPatton’sGhost
All due respect what is the alternative? Correct the CIA made it. The government also made the Dollar and the internet. Should we all stop using those as well? Also true that Blackrock, Wall Street, and the derivatives were designed to centralize as much as they can because that’s the only way they can have any control over it. Also true that Epstein funded it. None of that changes the base layer, open source protocol. It cannot be changed without a majority vote, there are no backdoors, there is no central point of failure, and it’s global so one government cannot control it. Thinking you’re going to stop the shift to digital currencies is wishful thinking. That ship sailed. Nobody carries cash anymore, and the regime is purposefully causing hyperinflation to destroy it because the j banker party is over. And the only option will be the government bailing people out with a programmable, track/trace, social credit currency. Bitcoin doesn’t do that. If it did they would be promoting it. Tether doesn’t that. Anyone with paper or digital IOUs for gold/silver is just as fd as the people holding fiat. Actual gold/silver and property are great, until you want to transact or transport them, or until the government wants to confiscate them. So again what would you suggest is a better option? Honestly? Because people like @SimonDixonTwitt has more experience with the banking system than anyone, and he’s extensively broken down that bitcoin held in self custody is the best option to exit the system. If you don’t buy it, the elites will. And since it’s instantly and easily transported, as well as finite so as they hyperinflate the dollar they will pump millions into it so they can exit the system.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Let me explain $BTC. It was created by the NSA, rolled out as a CIA hive-mind experiment to see how millions of people would innovate it. Crypto adoption was pushed by Epstein among the elite & criminals, then the plebs. The experiment is over. Now they're ready to destroy it. https://t.co/IvbNeIKHQa
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims that the NSA created SHA-256, the algorithmic procedure behind Bitcoin. While browsing Twitter, they found a 1996 paper titled “How to Make a Mint, the Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash,” which they state was written in 1996 by the NSA. They note that the author of that 1996 paper about electronic cash was Tasoki Akamoto, which they say sounds like Satoshi Nakamoto, the credited author for the Bitcoin paper in 2008.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Get up, NSA created Shaw two fifty six, which is the algorithmic procedure behind Bitcoin. And everyone said, I'm crazy. I don't know what I'm talking about. Then I'm coming across Twitter, and here is a paper from 1996. And the paper was called how to make a mint, the cryptography of anonymous electric cash.
This was written in 1996 by the by NSA. And you know, coincidentally, who the author of that 1996 paper about electronic cash. Do you know who the author was? It was Tasoki Akamoto. Doesn't that sound like Satoshi Nakamoto, who is the credited author for Bitcoin paper, which was in 2008?
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
“If you knew who was really behind Bitcoin. Really behind $BTC. You would run as fast as you f**king could to sell it.” "When the real 'founder' of Bitcoin comes out... $BTC will go to f**king zero." https://t.co/FP7A1y8j9S
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Interesting seeing Jeffrey Epstein was involved in $BTC back in 2011 and $XRP in 2014. It seems the wealthy elite were behind this entire NSA experiment. Now that they're exposed they're liquidating as quickly as possible. https://t.co/pWwQgkXetV
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
“If you knew who was really behind Bitcoin. Really behind $BTC. You would run as fast as you f**king could to sell it.” "When the real 'founder' of Bitcoin comes out... $BTC will go to f**king zero." https://t.co/FP7A1y8j9S
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0: If you knew who was really behind Bitcoin, you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it. I know. 100%. And when the real founder of Bitcoin comes out, it is my humble opinion and there's nothing humble about me. Bitcoin will go to fucking zero. One day. And microsecond.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If you knew who was really behind Bitcoin, really behind Bitcoin, you would run as fast as you fucking could to sell it. I know. 100%. If you knew who owned Bitcoin or who started Bitcoin, you and you had Bitcoin, you couldn't sleep at night. I know.
100%. And when the real founder of Bitcoin comes out, it is my humble opinion and there's nothing humble about me. Bitcoin will go to fucking zero. One day. And microsecond.
Like that.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Interesting seeing Jeffrey Epstein was involved in $BTC back in 2011 and $XRP in 2014. It seems the wealthy elite were behind this entire NSA experiment. Now that they're exposed they're liquidating as quickly as possible. https://t.co/fZGGhBLqcE
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Bitcoin has always stopped at the 300 week moving average, around $52k. What will really scare long-term $BTC HODLERs is if it breaks through that level and continues downward to $20k or lower. The crypto ETFs & Michael Saylor marked the end of the adoption curve. https://t.co/fQT572kgbs
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Holy shit! Jeffrey Epstein was telling Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to speak with $PLTR founder Peter Thiel and infiltrate the company with Israeli intelligence. https://t.co/DaxdRNmlOl
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses notable figures and firms in Silicon Valley, focusing on Peter Thiel and the venture capital world. They begin by mentioning two cyber companies, Lookout and Palantir, and note that Palantir is Peter Thiel’s company. The conversation clarifies the spelling of Palantir and Thiel, though there is some back-and-forth about the correct letters. The speaker indicates that Thiel would put you on the board of Palantir, expressing that Peter Thiel is one of the best they’ve never met, and mentions that Thiel is expected to come here next week.
The dialogue shifts to Andreessen Horowitz, the venture capital firm co-founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. The speaker explains that Andreessen Horowitz pays Larry a million dollars a year to advise them. The firm is identified as Andreessen Horowitz, with the correct spelling of the names confirmed. The conversation then asks what the firm is, and the answer given is that they are lobbyists. The speaker notes that Andreessen Horowitz are the biggest venture capital people in Silicon Valley, asserting they are bigger than Sequoia or Kleiner Perkins, describing them as the “new” power players in the industry.
A broader characterization is provided: these two entities—Palantir (Peter Thiel’s company) and Andreessen Horowitz (the prominent venture capital firm)—are highlighted as pivotal players in the tech ecosystem. The speaker emphasizes the influence and reach of Andreessen Horowitz by describing them as the biggest venture capital people in Silicon Valley and comparing them favorably against other legendary firms. In closing, the speaker remarks that these two companies are key players to consider, suggesting that involvement with them would be significant within the next three weeks if there is a potential departure or change in status.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He he thought there was two cyber companies, Lookout and even though I know Peter I've never met Peter Thiel. And everybody says he sort of jumps around and acts He looks he's on drugs. Yeah. Yeah. He looks under drugs.
However, has a company called Palantir, p a l l e n t e t I e r. Palantir is Peter Thiel's company. And look out Palantir, p a l a n t I e r? Yes. How do you write Tilly?
T h I e l l h I e l. Yeah. L l y? No. P t h I e l l.
Uh-huh. Okay. So he thought that Peter would put you on the board of Palantir. Peter Thiel is one of the best I've never met him. He's gonna come here next week.
Uh-huh. So I wanted to talk to him. Alright. Talk to you. Okay.
He and Andreessen, it's called Andreessen Horowitz. Andreessen Horowitz, that's what that means. They pay Larry a million dollars a year. Just to advise Andreessen and? A n d r e e s o n, Andreasen and Horowitz.
And Howood? H o r o, Horowitz. Horowitz. Oh, Horowitz. Yes.
What they are? They're lobbyists. What what they are They are the biggest venture capital people in Silicon Valley. What? Bigger than Sequoia or Kline of These are the new Kline of Perkins.
Everybody these are the smart boys. Yeah. So those two companies right away in terms of I said that we need in the next three weeks if you're gonna leave.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
If you still don't believe 🇮🇱 Israel is in complete control of the 🇺🇸 United States government... Watch this from 6 months ago. https://t.co/iJLnCJDhjO
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The 2022 use of the "Emergencies Act" to seize people's bank accounts wasn't a mistake... it was a trial run. 🇨🇦🇨🇳 https://plandemic.com/plandemic-3-the-great-awakening/
Video Transcript AI Summary
The transcript claims that some believe Canada is becoming tyrannical, referencing the Emergencies Act and frozen bank accounts of protestors. Some compare current events to a communist dictatorship.
The People's World called for massive federal government action. Protests demanding policy changes are considered worrisome. Justin Trudeau is accused of weaponizing the banking system against peaceful trucker protests and is criticized for admiring China's "basic dictatorship."
The transcript then shifts to the World Economic Forum (WEF) and Klaus Schwab, claiming his father's company used slave labor for the Third Reich. The WEF is described as a private organization where world leaders and elites meet in Davos. Schwab is said to be proud of shaping world politics and his global young leaders program is accused of infiltrating cabinets.
The "Great Reset" is mentioned as Schwab's solution to global issues, with his mission being to replace independent governance with a one-world government and central bank digital currency. This agenda is described as a quasi-communist scheme leading to enslavement due to increasing indebtedness. Millions of Americans are allegedly priced out of buying homes.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They're trying to say They're trying to scare people.
Speaker 1: Scare people.
Speaker 0: It's communism. Venezuela, Trump says. You're they're gonna be living in Venezuela. I grew up in Canada. I'm here to tell you that this bullshit line that you get on all of the political shows from people is that it's a failure.
The system is a failure in Canada. It is not a failure in Canada. I never waited for anything in my life. I chose my own doctors. My mother never paid for a prescription.
It was fantastic. And I just got back from Vancouver. I keep hearing this, like, Canadians are so nice. Canadians are so nice. They can be nice because they have health care, because they have a government that cares about them.
Speaker 2: In Canada, the authorities say there's now a state of perversion.
Speaker 0: Since riot gear swept through Canada's capital.
Speaker 3: Today, police in Ottawa used
Speaker 4: pecans and pepper spray. They just trembled on me. Look what you did to her.
Speaker 3: Medical wait times in this country are longer than ever.
Speaker 5: The cost of living just keeps climbing.
Speaker 6: There's a socialist coup unfolding in Canada, and we taxpayers are funding it. In the recent years, lot of Canadians have been watching their once well regarded country become what some are even calling tyrannical.
Speaker 7: A country previously hailed as the most free and democratic in the world.
Speaker 1: Now the People's World, the official West Coast newspaper of the Communist Party, ran this rather interesting editorial. What is needed now is an effort that begins approximate the magnitude of the problem. As a minimum, such a program should demand massive emergency action by the federal government.
Speaker 8: The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act.
Speaker 7: It gives unprecedented power to the Canadian federal government.
Speaker 9: As of today, a bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order.
Speaker 10: If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow-up with financial sanctions and criminal charges.
Speaker 3: Banks have already started to freeze the accounts of people involved in the protest.
Speaker 11: Please get out. Immediately get out. Intimidating people in a church during the Passover. Unbelievable. Growing up under communist dictatorship, I have been warning Canadians that that's what's coming.
I could smell it. I could see it at every corner. We will not put up with this anymore. We are fighting back.
Speaker 8: Protests, public protests are an important part of making sure we're getting messages out there, but using protests to demand changes to public policy is something that that I think is is is worrisome.
Speaker 12: Okay. So here we have the Prime Minister of Canada saying that, yes, we have a highly functioning democracy and they have the right and freedom to protest. However, if those protests are used to demand change in government policy, then no.
Speaker 8: The small fringe minority who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country.
Speaker 7: Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau claims to be following the science, but Trudeau's science often comes in the form of this bizarre authoritarian technocracy.
Speaker 13: I think that Justin Trudeau stepped on the landmine when he weaponized the banking system in Canada against the truckers. Those peaceful trucker protests, you know, their most violent act was honking their horns. Horns. And in retaliation, they had their access to their bank accounts, and anybody that supported them in any way had their access to bank accounts eliminated. And at that moment in time, we all came to realize what was really going down.
Speaker 14: Even with Sun TV watching for any slip, he was asked which country he most admired and referred to China.
Speaker 15: The level of admiration I actually have for China, because their, you know, basic dictatorship is allowing them
Speaker 16: I applaud China for stepping up excuse me. I applaud Canada. I'm you can tell what I'm thinking.
Speaker 3: A prime minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy should not be allowed to speak in this house at all. Mister Trudeau, please spare us your presence. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Canadians know where I stand. This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with.
Speaker 5: While Justin Trudeau makes a compelling case study, he is not the only dictator on the rise. Under the new rules provided by the COVID nineteen emergency, many other elected leaders were empowered to show their true colors. Interesting how they all marched in perfect lockstep while chanting the same slogans.
Speaker 8: This pandemic has provided an opportunity.
Speaker 16: Here we are now with an economy in crisis, but with an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 2: It's certainly a major crisis, but it also offers us a unique opportunity. Unprecedented opportunity. To rethink and reset.
Speaker 3: The great opportunity for reset. Opportunity for us to reset. For a reset.
Speaker 5: It's almost as if they all attended the same school of thought and studied under the same professor.
Speaker 2: Some people would say this revolution is characterized by the fight of robots against human beings, and we will win this fight.
Speaker 5: Professor Klaus Schwab was born in 1938 in Ravensburg, Germany, where Nazi crimes against humanity were committed. His father, Eugene Wilhelm Schwab, was the managing director of Escher Weiss Ravensburg, a company that used slave labor to manufacture weapons of war for the Third Reich. While Claus's father was at the helm, the Nazi party awarded Escher Weiss Ravensburg the title of National Socialist Model Company. Years later, Claus Schwab joined the board of directors at Escher Weiss Ravensberg, where he played a key role in the development of South Africa's nuclear weapons program during the darkest years of the racist apartheid regime. Today, Klaus Schwab is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 17: If you'd like to meet the people who are supposed to repair the state of the world or give a piece of your mind to the bankers who helped get us into this mess, we can tell you where to find a lot of them. The World Economic Forum.
Speaker 5: Founded in 1971, the World Economic Forum is an international private organization which receives billions of tax free dollars from its members and their global enterprises. Every year, the WEF brings together its members with world leaders, big pharma executives, tech titans, Hollywood Celebrities, Media Personalities, and Internet influencers to meet in the secluded mountains of Davos, Switzerland.
Speaker 17: It is a tiny town folded into the Swiss Alps, a village where you could bump into Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the head of Google, and the Queen of Jordan all in one place. A lot of reporters cover the forum, but few get inside. It turns out there are two Davos', one you see and one you don't. After hours, there are hundreds of private parties where deals are done. People who can't be seen together in public can meet here.
Speaker 2: Your royal highnesses, excellencies, distinguished heads of state and government, the future is built by us, by a powerful community as you here in this room.
Speaker 4: Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, is particularly upfront and even proud of his ability to shape and influence world politics.
Speaker 2: I created the community of global shapers as a means, as a force to shape our common future.
Speaker 4: And, of course, their global young leaders program is a grooming ground so that when they ultimately infiltrate cabinets
Speaker 2: We penetrate the cabinets.
Speaker 4: They will likely tend to govern a certain way.
Speaker 2: Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.
Speaker 4: The names in the countries he mentioned ended up being some of the most dystopian and authoritative during this pandemic.
Speaker 2: Names like miss Merkel, Vladimir Putin, and so on.
Speaker 4: Other names? Jacinda Ardern, Sebastian Kurz, Mauricio Macri, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Ma, Gavin Newsom, Stephane Bancel, Chelsea Clinton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sanjay Gupta, doctor Liana Wen, Alexander and Jonathan Soros, George Soros' sons, and several of the Rothschilds. And, of course
Speaker 2: Now who could represent such a world better than you, prime minister?
Speaker 5: In 02/2014, Klaus Schwab called for the great reset
Speaker 2: We need a great reset.
Speaker 5: Which he positioned as the solution to the world's most urgent issues. The dark reality of Schwab's agenda is detailed in his best selling book, COVID nineteen, The Great Reset. His endgame mission is to replace independent governance with a top down control, one world government, and a central bank controlled digital currency.
Speaker 6: When they say, you'll be happy, what they mean is, you'll be enslaved. That's why they're talking about a great reset. That's why they're talking about introducing this quasi communist, quasi social ist agenda. They know we've run the course where we cannot continue down the path of the ever increasing indebtedness because we have a generation that quite literally cannot afford to buy a house.
Speaker 0: Millions of Americans are priced out of buying a home.
Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening - Official Full Movie - Plandemic Series Official
Witness the culmination of truth-seeking as PLANDEMIC 3: The Great Awakening unravels the layers of corruption and unveils a path towards a brighter future. Prepare to be inspired, awakened, and empowered to take a stand for liberty.
plandemic.com
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Maxime Bernier of the People's Party of Canada 🇨🇦 just did an interview on Tucker Carlson.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 1 asserts that Trudeau destroyed Canada economically, socially, and culturally, particularly through authoritarian COVID-19 measures and vaccine passports. Speaker 1 regrets not being vaccinated, calling it the best decision of their life. Speaker 0 suggests Trudeau systematically destroyed Canada, possibly on purpose, through actions like the MAIDS program.
Speaker 1 claims Trudeau is a socialist and globalist who doubled Canada's debt in ten years, reaching $1.2 trillion. Mass immigration, combined with multiculturalism, has led to societal fragmentation and a decline in GDP per capita. Speaker 0 questions why Trudeau isn't in jail for these actions.
Speaker 1 advocates for an inquiry into COVID-19 policies and a moratorium on immigration and mRNA vaccines. They criticize current political leaders for pandering to ethnic communities and supporting policies detrimental to Canadians. Speaker 1 states that Canada's democratic system does not produce democratic results. They claim globalists are destroying western countries like Canada by pushing mass immigration.
Speaker 1 criticizes both Trudeau's Liberal party and the Conservative party leader, Pierre Polyyev, for similar policies on tariffs, immigration, and climate change. They accuse them of prioritizing foreign interests over Canadian citizens. Speaker 1 expresses concern over Chinese interference in Canadian elections and the presence of disloyal members of parliament. They advocate for a moratorium on immigration, citing strains on infrastructure and the economy. Speaker 1 says Canada has no gold reserves.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Now that Trudeau is gone or sort of gone, like, what was that? Who was he working for, actually?
Speaker 1: I can tell you, Tucker, he was not working for us, for Canadians. He did destroy our country economically, socially, and culturally. You know, what he did to us during COVID nineteen, that was an authoritarian government. I don't know if you you remember that, but I did an interview with you after
Speaker 0: Very well.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I was handcuffed and put in jail for a noncrime just in the summer of twenty twenty one because I was speaking about freedom in a park in Manitoba. And he did impose on us also a vaccine passport. I wasn't able to travel across the country because I'm not vaxxed and you know? But what what he did to our country
Speaker 0: Do you regret not being vaxxed?
Speaker 1: Oh, no.
Speaker 0: Do you ever think I really wish I'd had the COVID vaccine?
Speaker 1: No. No. That was the best decision in my life.
Speaker 0: Me too. I totally agree. Sorry not to make others feel better. So he went about it so systematically. He got the government to pay for killing your citizens through the MAIDS program.
Like, everything he did seemed designed to destroy Canada, like, on purpose. If you wanna destroy the country, you would do what he did. Why do you think he did that?
Speaker 1: You know, he is a socialist for sure and a globalist, you know, and the World Economic Forum for for him was, you know, the great thing, you know, the and they were promoting socialism and globalism, And nobody imposed that philosophy on us, on Canadians. Trudeau was very pleased with that, and he decided to put legislation in into place, into force in Canada in line with that philosophy. And, you know, for him, he was spending money like, you know, like it was for it was, you know, not a big deal. Actually, what he did, he was able to double the debt that we accumulated over one hundred and forty eight years. He was able to double that in ten years.
So our debt
Speaker 0: went He doubled the debt in ten years.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The debt that we accumulated over one hundred and forty eight years, it took him ten years to do that. So we the debt was $600,000,000,000 and he doubled that to $1,200,000,000,000. And he said, you know, deficits are okay. When you have a deficit, you know, it's a way to stimulate the economy.
But we know that, you know, you cannot stimulate the economy with borrowed money. It's a sedative for the economy. So now in Canada, we are in, I believe, in a recession. Our standard of living is going down. Actually, what he did with mass immigration, that was, you know, his dad was a big proponent of multiculturalism.
You know, every culture are equal. So and he did that in the nineteen seventies, that philosophy, and now we have a legislation in Canada promoting multiculturalism. But add that with mass immigration, you have the perfect storm. You have people who are coming to our country and you don't ask them to integrate into our society. You can keep your culture.
You, you know, don't integrate into our society. We live in the ghettos, and we have ghettos in Canada also. So a lot of people came to Canada, and, you know, the economy was growing because of the the growth of the population. But, you know, the population was growing faster than the economy, so our GDP per capita went down the last ten years. So we are poor today in Canada if you look at what what we had ten years ago.
And it's because of Trudeau. It's because of mass immigration. It's because of big spendings. That's the that's the legacy of Justin Trudeau.
Speaker 0: Tens of thousands of Canadians killed themselves during his time. Mean, if there's one measure of happiness, it's like you don't kill yourself. Yeah. So if you have Canadians killing themselves, tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of
Speaker 0: them, then that so my question is why isn't he in jail? And we're all excited to send all these people to jail. Andrew Tate must go to jail or whoever, but, like, I don't understand why Justin Trudeau's not in jail for destroying an entire nation.
Speaker 1: But the good news right now, he's not in government anymore, but we still have the Liberals. But we need to have a real inquiry about everything that happened during COVID nineteen. These people must be responsible. And you're right. And now they are not.
It's like they want to turn the page about what they did to us during the COVID hysteria. For them, you know, that was okay. That was not okay. We had a charter of rights. They did not respect our charter of rights.
And, you know, look at the freedom convoy. The freedom convoy. For me, that was not a protest. That was a celebration of who we are as a Canadian. We decided, okay.
Now we will end that authoritarian government peacefully. And what Trudeau did, he invoked the the emergencies act. Yes. That's an act that he used in times of war against us, against freedom fighters. And, you know but at the end, we were successful because, you know, a couple of months after that freedom convoy, all these authoritarian measures, you know, they disappeared.
And these politicians were not saying it's because of the freedom convoy, but it was because of the freedom convoy. People were fed up at that time. And, you know but I cannot I cannot understand why everybody is saying in Canada, that's okay. Just forget that. Forget what happened to you during COVID nineteen.
You know, we need to we needed to do that because to protect yourself. But we know that that vaccine was not safe and effective, and we are still promoting the mRNA vaccine in Canada right now. We're we're doing it in The United States too,
Speaker 0: and I don't understand why.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And our proposal on that is a moratorium. We want a moratorium on immigration, a pause on immigration, no more immigrants for a couple of years until we fix the problem of mass immigration, and also a moratorium on these mRNA vaccine.
Speaker 0: We would like that too. You never kinda get what you really want, do you?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But you need you need to fight for that. You need to fight for that.
Speaker 0: So what is Trudeau doing? I mean, there are many people responsible, I would say. I actually am one of only Americans who's interested in Canada and really loves Canada because I live near Canada. But and so I've followed it, and I think there are a number of people, not just in Trudeau's party, but in the in his coalition party who are responsible. But he's the most responsible.
So what is he doing now?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to know Tucker.
Speaker 0: But he just gets to, like, walk around Canada free?
Speaker 1: Oh, he's still free. Should people in prison for
Speaker 0: opposing him.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you, he needs a lot of security when he's
Speaker 0: I bet he does.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Oh, yeah. You know? And look, we are fed up with the liberals. And right now in in that electoral campaign, it's all about there's only one subject now.
It's not you know, I wanted to add that this election to be on mass immigration. That must be the most important. It is destroying our way of life. You know? And when I'm speaking about mass immigration, people don't understand that last year in Canada, we had 1,300,000 foreigners coming to our country for a country of 40,000,000 people.
That is mass immigration. And Well,
Speaker 0: that's that's an invasion.
Speaker 1: Yeah. 97% of the growth of our population last year was coming from mass immigration. This is the replacement doc theory, but it's It was not a theory. It's a reality. It's a it's an yeah.
Speaker 0: The Canadian population, like the American population, the European population replaced.
Speaker 1: That that's what is happening in our country right now. And, you know, the immigrants that are coming here, the foreigners that are coming to Canada, you know, are coming from countries that doesn't share our western civilization values. So it's more difficult for them, and they don't speak English or they don't speak French. They cannot integrate into our society. That's a big problem.
That's a huge problem. And now you have the housing crisis because of that. Too many people, all these people need a roof. So but but the solution is, you know, it's question of supply and demand. You just have to stop the demand, and that will solve the housing crisis.
Of course. But, you know, Polyyev, the leader of conservative party, like the Republican party here in in The US, but they are not conservative. They are conservative in name only. Like, you know, the
Speaker 0: Pierre Polyyev.
Speaker 1: Pierre Polyyev is the leader of the conservative party.
Speaker 0: Like a true fraud to me, like a pretty sinister fraud.
Speaker 1: But, you know, he's doing a campaign against Trump. They don't want to do a campaign to help Canadians and put our country first. Now it's all about, oh, the tariffs and, you know, we need to do counter tariffs, but that's killing us.
Speaker 0: Because stopping immigration from India and Pakistan? This First first, please.
Speaker 1: Yes. First. That that's
Speaker 0: But that's not even a consideration because No.
Speaker 1: They are pandering. They are pandering. They the liberals and the conservatives are pandering to these ethnic communities for votes. So that's why they don't speak about ending mass immigration. Actually, Polyev said we need to have 250,000 foreigners a year plus international students plus temporary foreign workers plus refugees, that will be about 1,500,000 foreigners over three years.
That is mass immigration. In the middle of a mass immigration crisis, we cannot afford that. We cannot. That's the swing So can I say,
Speaker 0: like, again, just to the question I asked about Trudeau, I'm gonna ask the same about Polyev? Like, who's paying him to do that? That's not I mean, no one's benefiting. Maybe maybe people from Bangladesh are benefiting. Okay.
I'm not against them, by the way. I understand. I'd move to Canada too if I lived in Bangladesh, but I'd no one in Canada is benefiting from this, so why would Polyev and Trudeau be embracing the same policy that everyone hates and is destroying Canada?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You have a point there. 70% of the population in Canada, the last survey, are saying no to mass immigration. We must end mass immigration. So your question is, if these politicians want to be elected, how come they are not listening to the population?
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: Because they are, you know, there's 343 writings in Canada, and that's a parliamentary system. So they're looking at different writings and they want to have support in different writings to be able to have a majority. But in a lot of writings, there's a majority of foreigners or immigrants and they want to have their support. But the new immigrants, so they are asking for having their family here in Canada with them. When I'm speaking about family, it's not the immediate family, mother, father, and and children.
No. It is, you know, your uncle, your grandmom, granddad, brothers, sisters, so the entire family and they want them here in Canada. So they're saying, Reunification of family will do that for you. You'll be able to bring all your family here in Canada. So because of the electoral system, they're looking to win some writings to have a majority, and that's why they are not speaking for Canadians.
They're speaking for different people in different writings
Speaker 0: So we see where
Speaker 1: they have a majority there.
Speaker 0: So what you're really saying is that a democratic system does not produce democratic results. We have these democratic systems throughout the West that have for fifty years done the opposite of what their populations want. Yeah. So it's it's a democratic system without democracy. That's the way it feels to me.
Speaker 1: And when you have another point of view like us, the people's party, about that, they try to cancel you. They don't want you. They don't you know, the mainstream media in Canada, they won't it's like I don't exist as a a a populist party in Canada. So so they don't want our point of view to be out there. So I need to do podcasts and, you know, being with you and traveling across the country and being my campaign on doing my campaign on social media.
That's the only way to be out there. And they know if more people can understand our position, we will have more support, but they don't want that. You know, all these they're globalists. The the the I'm the only one who's fighting for the sovereignty of our country. For them, you know, more people would be okay.
And for me, let just have that pause, you know, we're destroying our country.
Speaker 0: Globalists, are they? Because they're not doing this to China and Africa and The Middle East. They're not saying those nations need to invite a lot of people from different parts of the world. They're so it's not actually global.
Speaker 1: It's only one side.
Speaker 0: It's anti western. Yes. They're saying that there's something about a majority white Christian country that's inherently threatening, and we're gonna destroy it. And that's kind of, not kind of, but it's exactly what they've done around the world.
Speaker 1: Yeah. What what did did that in France, in UK, in Germany, and now in Canada.
Speaker 0: Yeah. So you've got basically Russia left. Yeah. And, of course, that's the country they hate most. So it it is a tell.
Like, they're not screaming at chairman Xi to let in a bunch of people from Nigeria. It's, like, not even on the table. They're not even demanding Japan do that. It's just Canada, UK, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and The US, and that's it.
Speaker 1: That's it. And and what they're doing, you know, if you are a leader of a nation, your first responsibility is to work for your people. And it's immoral what they're doing right now because they're helping foreigners more than Canadians. Of course. What what Potiev, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and Carney, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, they are saying on mass immigration, we will solve that.
We will build more houses for them. So what they are doing, they want more foreigners, and that's why they're building more houses. But that's not to solve the housing crisis for Canadians. No. That's you know, they are putting their energy to be sure that foreigners will come to our country, and they will have a roof.
I'm saying, no. Just stop that, please. Let's work for our people first.
Speaker 0: But why do they hate I mean, look. In the end, you'll understand motive by action. Like, how does someone feel? I don't know. Let's watch what he does.
Yeah. So if you deny your children food, you probably hate your children. Yeah. You can say whatever you I love my children, but if you're not giving them dinner, you hate them. Why do and so they clearly, Polyev and Trudeau and Carney really hate Canadians.
Why is that? Why?
Speaker 1: They what they like, it's power. It's it's you know, I I wish I have the answer to that, but they are telling you the opposite. They're telling you that they love you know, Tucker, they're in that trade war with US right now. Yes. Polyyev and Carney are saying to us Canadians, we love you.
We love you so much, Canadians, that what we will do, we will impose counter tariffs because Trump is bad. President Trump is very bad, you know, and we want to keep our country united. We are a sovereign country. We love you. We will impose a new tax on you, 25% on everything that you are importing from The US.
I told you, the inflation is high in Canada. Our standard of living is going down, and they add to that a new tax 25%. And they are telling us it's because we love us. They love us. Sorry.
And so it's crazy. And and, you know, they're they're okay with that. And the former prime minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, I was with him. I was a conservative before. I was elected for thirteen years.
I was a minister of foreign affairs and industry minister under the Harper government. I resigned, and we created our the people's party in 2018. But Harper just wrote a letter in the national post in Canada Three Weeks ago. And he said, we need to do that trade war with US dollar for dollar. And, you know, you're 10 times bigger than us.
We won't win a trade war against The US. That's true. And he said, dollar for dollar. And he said, yes. It will hurt us Canadians.
And, yes, we may start a recession, but that's okay. So what I'm telling Canadians, no counter tariffs. It's a tax that you impose on Canadians and Canadian businesses. You must stop that. We must have a deal with president Trump as soon as possible, and we are able to do that if we put everything on the table.
But for Carney and Polyeff, no. That's okay. And actually, last week about these tariffs, Carney said, okay. We will impose another tariffs on the car imported from The US. And he said the government will be able to raise $8,000,000,000, and we will give that to big corporations because they are affected by these tariffs.
They cannot export their products to The US. So what he's telling us? I will take $8,000,000,000 for the poor consumers with that new tax. You Canadians consumers, you will pay that, and I will give that to big corporation, taxing the poor and giving that to the rich. That's that is the policy of the liberal government, and Polyev is okay with that.
That's crazy, and that is killing our economy.
Speaker 0: Why would a government spy on its own citizens? Well, of course, because it doesn't trust its own citizens because it's afraid of its own citizens. When you're spied on, you're not free. No privacy. No freedom.
So cameras everywhere, recording devices always around you, these are reminders that you have no control over your government or your life. Civil liberties exist only at the behest of the people in charge, which means they don't really exist at all. We're sorry to tell you this, but big tech is using these same tactics on you, the consumer, who's actually the mark. They watch and track everything you do online. They hover over you like a dark cloud, and you can't get rid of them.
Well, unless you take extraordinary steps. Except unless you have ExpressVPN. ExpressVPN gives you privacy, which gives you freedom. It sends all of your online traffic through secure and encrypted servers. It blocks data brokers from watching what you're doing.
You have privacy again in there for freedom. It hides your IP address. That means nobody can track what you're doing online. Again, you are free when you have privacy. There's a reason ExpressVPN was ranked number one, the number one VPN by the experts at CNET, also at The Verge and US News.
It really is the best, and we use it here. Now you can get an extra four months of ExpressVPN for free. Just scan the QR code on this screen or go to ExpressVPN.com/Tucker. Get four extra months for free. That's ExpressVPN.com/Tucker.
How much support does Polyev have?
Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, both of them are about tied in the in the polls right now, but I don't know what will happen.
Speaker 0: Are there real differences between them?
Speaker 1: On tariffs, no. The the the
Speaker 0: On immigration, no.
Speaker 1: On immigration, no. On climate change, oh, that's a good one. You know, Potiev is supposed to be a conservative. It's supposed to know Our position, the People's Party, is to withdraw from the Paris Accord
Speaker 0: Of course.
Speaker 1: Like Trump. But for Potiev, the conservatives, and the liberal, there's a climate emergency in Canada, and we must do everything.
Speaker 0: Because it's too cold in
Speaker 1: Canada? Oh, yeah. Maybe. Yeah. It's too cold.
Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's still pretty cold in Canada.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The cold. So it is a little bit cold. But that being said, yeah, for for Potty Ave and Carney, they wanna impose a carbon tax because Canadians don't want it. So they are listening a little bit to Canadians, but they wanna impose more regulations on businesses.
They wanna impose other taxes to fight climate change and to be able to achieve the Paris Accord goal that we that we have. And at the same time, look at that. CO two for them is a pollutant. You know, CO two is not good, and we need to capture the CO two. So they're giving billions of dollars to a new technology to capture c o two and put the c o two down in the down in the ground.
So it's so bad for joke. Yeah. It's like a joke. But, you know, Tucker, there's one natural technology to capture CO two.
Speaker 0: Yes. There
Speaker 1: is. This is plants. Trees. Trees. Plants.
It is food for plants. We need more CO two. We don't need to capture CO two and put it that in the ground, but they will spend billions of billions of dollars that we don't have
Speaker 0: to do Their children. And they're also hamstringing your country, preventing it from being rich on the basis of its abundant natural resources, which Canada has. Like The US, like Australia, has amazing natural resources, and they're basically saying we're not allowed to use them because the Chinese don't want us to. It does seem like China controls your country. I'm just like
Speaker 1: Well, speaking about China, Cease Cease is our secret service, and they did an investigation. And they said, that's not me. They said it that our election in 2019 and 2021, we had Chinese interference in our elections. The Chinese Communist Party was giving money to some candidates from Chinese origin. So it's happening in our country right now, but Polyyev is okay with that.
And they said also there's MPs, member members of parliament in the Conservative Party of Canada and in the Liberals Party of Canada who are not loyal to our country. They said it. And we know we want to know the names of these people, but Polyev and Carney and Trudeau before that, they don't know. It's secret. We won't tell you who these people are.
So we have member of members of parliament in the parliament in Canada where their first goal is to help their country of origin, China or India. So that is happening because of mass immigration. If you have all these people who are coming to our country, they are not they are not part of this country. They're coming here only because of the economy. They want a better future economically, but, you know, they don't share our values, and their loyalty is where with their country of origin.
Of course.
Speaker 0: So You've had political assassinations that have nothing to do with Canada at all, and we have the same problem here. You know? Everyone's yelling at each other about The Middle East. We've got nothing to do with The Middle East. Yeah.
I a lot of people who have got a lot of strong feelings about The Middle East that have nothing to do with America at all, and we've got these massive protests. People yelling at each other about these faraway countries. It's totally nuts as our population withers and dies. But you have the same problem, and you've had, you know, Sikh Indian rival. I don't even understand some of it.
I'm not interested.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not interested.
Speaker 0: I think I should be interested, but but you've had people killed over this.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm not interested also. They are coming here, and they're bringing their internal conflicts, the conflicts of their country of origin on our street. They're doing that in Canada right now. So, you know, speaking about the Middle East, I'm not pro Palestine.
I'm not pro Israel. I'm pro Canada.
Speaker 0: And I feel the same.
Speaker 1: So so we don't have we don't have to do anything over there. And our position is, you know, we won't we don't we won't have any impact on the the politics in Middle East. That's you in The US who will have the greater impact there. So that's why I'm saying, I don't want to speak about that. That's not our issue.
And same thing for the war in Ukraine. The war in Ukraine, I was the only leader saying, no. We must not participate in that war. But Podiev and Trudeau at that time and now Karni, they are pro war, and they are pro, you know, the the war in Ukraine. And, actually, right now, president Trump, he's doing the right thing, try to have a peace deal with Russia.
And we in Canada are saying to Zelensky, we'll give you more ammunitions. We'll give you more resources. Let's have that peace deal. You know?
Speaker 0: And they're always I noticed every time I see your political leaders, they're always talking about some They've got very strong views in The Middle East. It's like a massive debate in Canada. You know, I I'm kind of agnostic on it personally, but I just wonder what does that have to do with Canada? They spend so much time talking about it.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We must not talk about that. Absolutely. We must talk about the real issues. You know?
No more climate change. No more Paris Accord. No more World Health Organization. The globe the UN, the global compact on migration. Canada signed that compact.
So that's why, you know, for the UN, migration is okay. Everybody can go in any countries and, you know, living there. You can be a citizen of Canada. No. It's a privilege to be a Canadian, and that must be it.
But, you know, with that mass immigration, it is not a privilege anymore. We we don't do anything.
Speaker 0: It's sad because it was I mean, Americans always made fun of Canada, but in a sort of sweet way, and I think Canada's Canadians a lot of Canadians always resented The United States cause it's this huge country. Right? You know, I get I get all that. But in real life, Canada was always a very sweet, nice country and beautiful, truly beautiful country. And you have this disastrous ten years where your life expectancy goes down, your standard of living goes down, the country really starts to fall apart and become authoritarian, the opposite of the sort of sweet Canadian culture you remember.
And then your option your option is a guy who actually agrees with the tyrant who destroyed your country. So it's it's almost like it's like our system. It's like we have Obama who's clearly, like, hates America, terrible for America, but our option is John McCain and Mitt Romney who agree with Obama. Yeah. It's like it all seems fake, kind of.
Speaker 1: No? But we are the only option for Canadians. That's why I'm telling Canadians. We are the populist, and we can do a populist revolution based on free markets and respecting Canadians and working for Canadians. But, you know, that revolution will come in Canada.
Like in UK with Nigel Farage, you know, he had 15% of the vote at the last general election in UK. He was able to elect only six candidates. But now in the polls, if you look at the polls in UK, he's leading these polls, so that's good for him. And you have Marine Le Pen in France. I hope she'll be able to be a candidate for the presidential election.
So so that that movement started here in in The US with Trump, and it it is coming to Canada that that we are we are representing that movement. But, you know, it's these two leaders are the same. I call them, you know, the uni party, liberals of conservative, the LibCon party. That's that's the same on the most important issue. And now in that election campaign, they are using slogan.
Polyev is losing, so I'm I'm here for you. You know, I'm I'm I'm gonna put Canada First. He's saying that seriously by saying more war in Ukraine, more mass immigration, you know, he's not speaking about ending the deficit.
Speaker 0: No. Climate suicide.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Climate suicide and all that. And, you know, our enemy is Trump, president Trump.
Speaker 0: And so you said you can't get on Canadian media, which
Speaker 1: is Mainstream media.
Speaker 0: It's state media. Right? I mean, doesn't doesn't your government subset of give money to the media?
Speaker 1: CBC. CBC and Radio Canada in French, one point two billion dollars. But the federal government is giving also $800,000,000 to order, you know, media, mainstream media, CTV, global mail. And so we we will cut that. We want, you know
Speaker 0: Why not have a free media? Why That's state media is for North Korea. Right? Isn't
Speaker 1: that Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Like, free countries don't have state media, do they?
Speaker 1: That's why we want to cut that spending. If Radzioux Canada or CBC, they're going bankrupt, that's it. That that's that's okay. You know? That's the free markets.
But they are the propaganda arms of the federal government, these mainstream media. And, you know, the narrative on COVID, and now you have at that time, during the COVID hysteria, you know, you didn't have the other narrative on on mainstream media. And now the narrative is we must save our country from Trump. You know, we are independent. We just need to have a good deal with president Trump.
And so that's the narrative right now coming from the mainstream media.
Speaker 0: What so can you get your message? Like, how do how do you get your message out in Canada?
Speaker 1: Today with you. Wait. Is that right? Oh, yeah. You know?
Speaker 0: You gotta fly to The United States.
Speaker 1: I absolutely.
Speaker 0: Do Canadians look at social media?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. That's the future. You know, I'm the only leader of a national political party in Canada who is doing podcasts.
And PolyEV and all these other they won't. They cannot sit for an hour, two hours, and having a discussion. They cannot do that. So but the new way of doing politics, Trump did it. President Trump did it and, you know, was successful.
You need to have a discussion and explain your point of view and your political philosophy, political position. So I'm doing that. I'm the only one, and it's helping. Yes. It's helping.
And I think
Speaker 0: How are you treated by The Globe and Mail in CBC and Radio Canada? I don't exist. They don't even mention you?
Speaker 1: I don't exist for them. I don't. And actually, look at that. I was supposed I did participated in the the leaders debate in 2019. We created that party in 2018.
'20 '19 was our first election, and I did participated participate in the leaders debate against Trudeau at that time. But in 2021, they created a new rule, and they said, okay, Bernie, now you don't have the right. And that commission, that leaders debate commission, it's only to exclude. They exist only to exclude the people's party. And at this election, I was supposed to be able to participate in the national debates that will be next week, but they changed the rules just to exclude us.
So that's not fair. That process is not fair. They're so afraid of our ideas. They don't want us to have any traditional platform.
Speaker 0: That's frightening. Right. Can you raise money?
Speaker 1: Yes. We have generous by using, you know, our emails and our members and yes, we have money. We are able to raise money and I want to thank our donors. They're very generous. And so you need to be a Canadian citizen to donate.
And if they want to donate, they can go on our website, people'sbodyofCanada.ca. Click donation. That will help us.
Speaker 0: Where are the French in all this? I always felt I you know, most Americans made fun of the French Canadians. I know a lot of them. I have a lot of French Canadian friends. I live near French Canada, and I I've always liked them, and I have always defended them, and I always liked them because they defended their own culture and their own language.
They're a little hard to deal with, you know. The rest of the French always complain about them and their license plates in Quebec and all that. But I always thought when it came right down to it, the French Canadians would defend their land, their culture, their language, their history.
Speaker 1: And they're they're doing that right. Are they? I hope so. Yeah. They are doing that right now.
Look at at the provincial level in Quebec. There's the party, the separatist party, and a young charismatic leader is the leader of that party. And the election at the provincial level in Quebec will be in 2026. And he's speaking about separation, and separation is growing in the polls right now. Why?
Because of Trudeau, because of mass immigration. The Francophone are looking at it. All these immigrants and foreigners that are coming to Quebec and Canada who don't speak French, they cannot integrate in the Francophone cult culture. Yes. So so there's they don't like that.
So they're looking at the party Quebecois, and the party Quebecois is winning in the polls right now. And the leader said, if I'm the new premier of Quebec, a year after my election, I will do a referendum on the independence, the sovereignty of Quebec. So it's it's back now because of mass immigration. And in Alberta, they are so mad about Ottawa and, you know, because they cannot export their natural resources with, you know, climate change regulations against the whole oil and gas industry. More more Albertans are separatists now.
So I'm telling Canadians, we are the only hope for this country. If we want to save this country, the People's Party is there because we will respect our constitution. We will have a radical decentralization. Alberta will be able to do that. We won't participate in the Paris Accord.
We won't participate with these globalists at the UN or the World Economic Forum or World Health Organization. So we'll be a real independent country, but Ottawa will be a smaller government that will be only in charge of its constitution constitutional responsibilities and not interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Now you have that separatist movement in Alberta because of the federal government that is, you know, telling Albertans what to do, and Albertans don't like it. And I understand that.
Speaker 0: Do you think there's a chance that Alberta joins Montana?
Speaker 1: You know, they can stay in the country, and I hope that they don't stay in country if if the people's party position is adopted in our country, if we win because we will have a radical decentralization, and I believed and we respect their jurisdiction, provincial autonomy. And I I hope that it will stay. If not, they will want to be independent or they can be the first fifty first state. I don't know. But that being said, my goal is to unite this country.
And with our policies, we will. But if we go with Polyev or or or Carney, that would be the end of this country in couple of years. And, actually, Preston Manning Preston Manning was the leader of the reform party in the nineteen eighties. And that at that time, you know, West the western Canadians were very mad at Ottawa with with Trudeau, and they had that regional political party, the reform party. And very successful, and after that, the reform party did merge with the Canadian Alliance, and after that, the Conservative Party of Canada.
So the reform party does not exist anymore. And and our platform, it's about 90% of the reform, more autonomy, less government, you know, fiscally responsible. But Preston Manning said two days ago that, you know, if if the nothing's changed in this country, it would be good for Alberta to separate. He's saying that as the former leader of a party who try that party that tries to have Western back in Canada, you know, by by changing Ottawa and that he was not successful. And now he's saying to Albertans, you know, yeah, separation, I'm okay with that.
If Ottawa doesn't do anything for us, that would be the only solution. But we need and that's why for me personally, I decided to jump into politics in 02/2006 to have a federal government that will respect our constitution, that will be a smarter government, that will have a real free markets, but that is not happening.
Speaker 0: Now we're sure you've heard plenty of those free phone promises from America's biggest wireless carriers. If those deals sound too good to be true, it's probably because they are very often too good to be true. They come with layers of fine print requiring you to sign up for four lines plus activation fees. Plus, plus, plus, this, that, the other thing. You don't even understand what you're signing up for.
And by the time you're done, you've paid for that free phone, three x. It was a pretty expensive free phone. It's kind of a scam, honestly. Our wireless company is called PureTalk, and it's got a much better and much more straightforward offer, and it comes with no strings whatsoever attached. With a qualifying plan of just $35 a month, you get legitimately the brand new Samsung Galaxy a 26 for free.
It's actually free. There aren't hidden costs. You're not signing up the rest of your life or promising to name your kid after them or something. From virtually indestructible gorilla glass to next generation camera lenses, the phone has basically everything that you want. All you need to do is switch to PureTalk.
$35 a month for unlimited talk, text, and 15 gigs of data with mobile hotspot, all on America's most dependable five g network. Go to PureTalk.com/talker to claim your free Samsung Galaxy with qualifying plan when you switch to PureTalk wireless by Americans for Americans.
Speaker 1: Do you
Speaker 0: know Justin Trudeau personally?
Speaker 1: I had a dinner with him when I was in parliament and when he was in the opposition a long time ago, and, you know, he's full of himself. But, you know, he's a funny guy. But on
Speaker 0: He oh, he's charming in person?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. He's charming. He's funny and, you know, but actually, it's all about himself. Yeah. It's all about himself.
Speaker 0: Is he Fidel Castro's son?
Speaker 1: That's a good question. We need to have a DNA on that.
Speaker 0: Do do do people in Canadian government believe that he might be?
Speaker 1: But Canadians some Canadians believe for sure. Oh, actually, yes. And, know, that's on social media. You can see the
Speaker 0: So it's not just a crazy theory that could be true, you think?
Speaker 1: It can for some, it's crazy. For some other, it is not.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: But it's it is a real question.
Speaker 0: Certainly looks like it.
Speaker 1: He looks like it. Yeah.
Speaker 0: One of the I'm not for socialized medicine, I guess, but
Speaker 1: But I don't
Speaker 0: have really strong feelings. I just want something that works, I guess, is what I
Speaker 1: But it is not working in Canada.
Speaker 0: Well, it's just sad because you would go to Canada. I've spent a lot of time there hunting and fishing. And even the conservative Canadians said, you know, we've got this great health care system, and they were so proud of their health care system. I mean, they really were. I remember very well.
Thirty years ago, they would always tell you, and they were a little bit insecure and defend, know, we're we're Canada. We're a real country. They're always like, But we have this great health care system, and they really were proud, I think. Yeah. Were they?
Speaker 1: But that's not the case right now. They were that's not the case right now because the waiting list for surgeries, you can wait a year. So it and, you know, we are spending a lot of money for health care, and that's not functioning.
Speaker 0: So but do people feel like it's not working in Canada?
Speaker 1: Yeah. More people. Actually, oh, yeah. More people. So they're ready.
My position is for every Canadian to have an insurance, everybody will have an insurance, and they will be able to choose if they can go to a private hospital or a public hospital. Like in Sweden, like in European countries, they're spending less on health care, but they're more effective. For us, you know, we need to put more competition in the system. So and that would be a mixed system. We don't have that right now.
You know, there's in some provinces, like in Quebec, you can have, you know, private clinic that can do some surgeries. But, you know, all across the country, we need to have more private delivery of health care services, and we don't have that. And so more Canadians now understand that, and they're ready for that reform. But establishment politicians won't speak about that. Right.
It's a taboo subject to to to ask for more private delivery of services.
Speaker 0: But the system itself doesn't work very well. Right?
Speaker 1: Doesn't work. Doesn't work.
Speaker 0: Immigration must be putting huge strain on that system.
Speaker 1: That's why and that's me. On that system, on in our infrastructures, on health care, on Schools. Housing. All that. Housing.
It's it's that must be the first priority for us in Canada and for the mainstream media, the mainstream politician, is not. We are you know, with the liberals, we are going, you know, driving into a wall. And with the conservative, we are driving into a wall but at a different speed.
Speaker 0: That's that's sad. Same here. I'm not a conspiracy person, but, like, if every, quote, democratic system in the West has the same outcome, which is two parties that fundamentally agree on the big issues but pretend to hate each other while the real concerns of the population are ignored, you gotta wonder, like, how did every country in the West wind up with the same fake system? Like, honestly, how did that happen?
Speaker 1: Yeah. We must admit that the the the globalist organizations and the World Economic Forum, they they have huge influence. They they are think tank. They are promoting their socialist globalist ideas in Canada and other countries. And you have our elites.
They are going to Davos. They like that. And they're, oh, that's a good idea. They think that they know better than us what is good for Canadians. And, you know, they want to fix everything, and, you know, a solution to every problem must be a governmental solution, must be a a solution that is coming from the government.
But the government is the problem. We have too much government in our lives. So so that that's a problem in in Western society right now. Mass immigration, big government, big deficit, high inflation, all that must change.
Speaker 0: Do you have friends or family who've left Canada?
Speaker 1: I know people. Not family, but I know people. They decided and it it's business people are saying, you know, I don't want to invest in Canada right now. There and our private investment is going down, and you need investment for economic growth. Of course.
So so, yeah, some people are leaving the country, but my goal, I'm telling them, stay in Canada, do the fight with me. Together, we can do that fight. You know? We will win that battle of ideas. We have the best ideas based on individual freedom, personal responsibility, respect, small government.
We have faith in people. We don't have faith in a big fat government. So stay with stay in Canada. Fight with me. And and, you know, that's the fight.
We need to win that fight.
Speaker 0: Why did they take all your guns away?
Speaker 1: Oh, Trudeau did it. And he was very successful to do that. You know, Trudeau doesn't want us to defend ourselves. And that's why in our platform, we have the the Castel doctrine. You know, you must be able to have a gun.
You must be able to defend yourself and your property with that. We need to change our criminal code for that. And our position as a political party, we will repeal every legislation that Troudeau put in to be sure that he will eliminate all the guns. But for him, you know, and and for the conservative also on guns, they're dangerous. People are are not responsible.
They must not have guns. So that's why we have very tough legislation on guns in Canada.
Speaker 0: I noticed
Speaker 1: that don't respect property rights on gun. You know? The federal government can decide tomorrow and with a new regulation, this gun is illegal, and the RCMP or police will go and seize your gun.
Speaker 0: You're very heavily armed. I've had a couple of encounters with Canadian law enforcement over the years, bad encounters, and, boy, they're heavily armed and very aggressive. Very aggressive. They're not the kind of polite Canadians you think about. RCMP is like not anyone to mess with.
They seem like a military force to me.
Speaker 1: Alright. But now they're a work organization.
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: The leader of the RCMP, they work. You know? You know, that you know now in the RCMP and in the Canadian forces, you can be a a soldier for us without being a Canadian citizen. What? Without being a Canadian citizen, you're a you're an immigrant.
You can be part you can participate in the Canadian forces.
Speaker 0: So you're not a citizen of Canada, but they'll hand you an automatic weapon.
Speaker 1: And defend our country that you don't know.
Speaker 0: But a Canadian citizen can't have a gun at home. But they'll give some foreigner an automatic weapon, a fully automatic weapon.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Very dangerous one. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Speaker 0: So that suggests, like, they don't have good plans for you. That's not a good sign. Right?
Speaker 1: That is not. That's that's why we need that revolution. You know? We need to change the leadership at the Canadian forces and RCMP, having real people, promoting people because of their competent competence. You know, the DEI in Canada, it's it's killing everything.
Trudeau gave
Speaker 0: Still?
Speaker 1: Oh, still. Trudeau is the Liberals are giving a lot of money to third party organization to promote DEI.
Speaker 0: Anti white policies. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely. And they're doing that. And, you know, they would they they're gonna promote people based on the color of their skin in in in the government and in the Canadian forces based on your sexual orientation.
We must not do that. You know, it's against the western civilization values. We must promote meritocracy. So I'm saying instead of DEI, it must be not diversity, but unity. Instead of equality, it must be it must be, you know, everybody must be equal before the law.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And that that's part of our values. And, you know, inclusion, You want to have people who are not competent to do something in in the government or in the Canadian forces. It must be based on meritocracy. That's and that's why, you know, what Trump is doing, what president Trump is doing in The US, fighting that, it's great because our mainstream media now in Canada, they have to speak about what is happening in The US, and they're speaking about what president Trump is doing, you know, promoting meritocracy and ending all that woke ideology. And so that is part of the narrative now in Canada.
So more people understand what is DEI? What is the woke ideology? Because when I'm speaking about that, and, you know, it's part of our program for the last six years. When I'm speaking about that, the mainstream media won't cover me. So now they are speaking against a little bit the DEI because they're speaking they're they're telling us what Trump is doing in The US.
But for them, it's very bad. But at least they're speaking about that and so people can think, yeah, you know, promoting people based on your competence must be the thing that you must do.
Speaker 0: We're always looking for cool companies that make products that make you feel better, and that's how we ran into Boncharge. Bond Charge offers a wide range of products that improve your physical condition, help you sleep better, perform better, and center your mind, recover faster, maintain energy, etcetera, etcetera. They make blue light glasses, red light therapy, a lot of different products like this. And they help you address the trials of modern life effortlessly and naturally. Now, one of the things they make is a sauna.
We could go on and be boring about sauna, take one every single day. Boncharge makes a sleek infrared sauna blanket. It's got a similar effect to a finished sauna, but without the intense heat. It's an easy and comfortable thirty minute session you can enjoy while relaxing with your family, talking to people, reading, and it leaves you feeling refreshed and slightly euphoric, but in a good healthy way. It's a great addition to your wellness routine.
You may even drop a few pounds doing it. Boncharge ships worldwide. Boncharge is b o n c h a r g e, offers free shipping and allows for easy returns and exchanges. So go to BondCharge.com/Tucker. Use the coupon code Tucker to save 15%.
I I wonder at a certain point, and clearly Trudeau and Polyev and the rest of them, Carney, think this too, but, like, how far can you push people before, you know, they respond in an unreasonable violent way? Mean, if this wasn't cannabis any other country, I would say, boy, they're gonna get a revolution if they're not careful. Like, you can't oppress people like this. Yeah. You can't offer them suicide instead of health care.
You can't flood their societies with foreigners. You can't destroy their standard of living. You can't throw them in jail for expressing opinions without provoking, like, a violent response. Are they worried about that? Is that why they took your guns away?
Speaker 1: If they're worried about that. You know, I'm not worried about that as a leader of a
Speaker 0: I'm against violent revolution just for
Speaker 1: the record. I'm against also that. No. It would you know, the revolution will come when people would be ready and and it's happening right now. You can see the change.
You can see we have more support as a new political party. People understand the battle that we are doing. And I I believe it would be a quiet revolution. They're gonna say, you know, enough is enough. And that that that will happen.
But as soon I don't know. It may be in couple of years or couple of months. We we never know.
Speaker 0: But you see throughout the West, the democratic system controlled by authoritarians, excluding people from the system you see with Marine Le Pen right now. In France, You were just you knocked out of the debates for Jeskou in Romania. Arrested Yeah. For running on a populist position, the most popular politician in the country, and he's arrested because because he's the most popular. Yeah.
So they're basically denying people a democratic outlet for their frustrations. They're saying, even your voting. This country, they stole the twenty twenty election, obviously. They're basically not allowing people any way to express their views at all, and that seems like a scary thing to do.
Speaker 1: But we can have another freedom convoy in Canada that was very successful. And, you know, that was successful because at the end, we were able to stop these draconian measures on us with that freedom convoy. So maybe something like that can happen. A very peaceful protest in Canada saying to our politicians, enough is enough. It can happen.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Who is Carney? Can you explain who Mark Carney is?
Speaker 1: My god.
Speaker 0: He's the leader of the Liberal Party. He was the replacement for Trudeau.
Speaker 1: He's he's the globalist in chief. You know, he was, as you know, Tucker, the special envoy on climate action and finance for the UN, And he wrote a book about climate change and and, you know, imposing a carbon tax. But now he's a politician, and he knows that it is not popular to impose a carbon tax. Canadians are They don't want to pay more taxes anymore, so he said, I wanna impose a carbon tax. But he is an part of he is part of the elite, you know, with the UN and the World Economic Forum.
And for Canadians right now, he's like, you know, that's a Trudeau two point one. But, you know, he looks more competent because he was the governor of the Bank of Canada. Actually and he's he believes in printing money out of thin air that we can have deficit and, you know, the Bank of Canada will buy Canadian bonds and so like they did during COVID nineteen. I'm waiting for him and Polyair to tell us when they will balance the budget. As I I know what president Trump is doing in The US with the doge doge.
It's a we need to do the same in Canada. We need to do the same. And I said that in 2020, we need to have a department of downsizing the government. We need to do that. But he is a big spender, and for him, you know, and and Polyev spending money, money that we don't have, it's okay.
That is creating inflation, and we are paying the inflation tax in Canada right now.
Speaker 0: What kind of support does does Carney get from new Canadian citizens, from immigrants?
Speaker 1: He has a lot of support from the mainstream media. Now, you know, the mainstream media is promoting him. You know? You can read the news in Canada, since the the beginning of the electoral campaign. And Carney, you know, it's always the way that they present Carney in the news.
It's always the the more favorable way. So that that's good for him because now, you know, if you look at the polls, he's doing well, but I don't trust these polls anymore. And but with the population, with that narrative, they're looking for somebody that will save the country against president Trump. The campaign is not between, you know, Kearny against Polyev and, you know, they are fighting against each other. No.
Both of them are fighting against Trump with the tariff and their, you know, their fake patriots. They're fake patriot. They're using that. They're using the fear of the tariffs and the economic situation in Canada and to to promote themselves Of course. With with a fake patriotism.
Speaker 0: And and there is preexisting sensitivity about The United States. I mean, that's part of what it is to be Canadian. There is a love of the this is my read as an observer of your country. There's a love of The United States. A lot of Canadians love The United States, but there's also resentment because it's just so big and it's right there.
Yeah. And and that resentment is real. I mean, I've always felt it when I'm in Canada, and they're basically and Trump has allowed them to do this. I mean, let's be honest about it.
Speaker 1: But we must understand what president Trump is doing, you know, the global view of all that. He started with tariffs. That's okay. It's a way for him to negotiate. We must not do counter tariffs in Canada, but the end goal is to repatiate the manufacturing industry in US.
And, you know, he wants to make America great again. He's fighting for you guys, for Americans. I want to do the same in Canada. I'm fighting for Canada. I'm fighting for Canadians.
So it's okay to to want to have the manufacturing sector back in The US. For us in Canada, we just have to be more productive and lower taxes to businesses, having a more productive economy, a real free trade across the country. There's a way to do that for us to keep investment here in Canada, but our our policies are not efficient anymore. And there are too many taxes, too many regulations, and so but what what president Trump is doing, the the real solution for that and the problem, it's because of your daughter. As you know, Tucker, the daughter is the world's world's reserve currency.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And because of that, you have the Triffin dilemma. So, you know, your daughter is very strong and other countries need your dollar because, you know, to for international transaction to buy oil and gas, they need your dollars. So you are exporting your dollars and, you know, your your your exports exports are very expensive and not competitive because your dollar is so strong. Exactly. The demand for your dollar is very strong.
So and and your imports are very cheap. So the way to solve that to be able to export is to end the the dollar as the world reserve currency. But that that would that would mean means a very tough transition
Speaker 0: Yes. It
Speaker 1: does. With inflation. All these dollars will come back to The US and that will create inflation. So we need we need to end that, you know, fiat currency and going back to a gold standard. And that's why I believe, you know, gold gold is coming to US right now.
And I think something will happen. We'll have a monetary reset or something will happen. And here in Canada, we are not in a good position because our central bank, the Bank of Canada, doesn't have any gold reserve. So if we have a new monetary system
Speaker 0: You have no gold reserves?
Speaker 1: No gold reserve. Why? They they sold all that. We
Speaker 0: have sold your gold reserve?
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. We have a lot of your treasuries, but we don't have any gold. No. We are the only central banks, the only one in Western Western words who that doesn't have any gold.
Speaker 0: But don't Canada's a huge gold producer.
Speaker 1: At least at least we can produce gold.
Speaker 0: Yeah. A lot of gold. Yeah. You have actually some of the deep I think you've got some of the deepest gold reserves in the Canadian Mint.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Of course,
Speaker 0: your your gold 1 ounce coins are currency or or investment Yeah. For people around the world. That's interesting.
Speaker 1: But our central our central bank doesn't have any gold.
Speaker 0: So so Who thought that was a good idea?
Speaker 1: I don't know. But, you know, they they decided to solve all that couple of years ago. And so and now we are in a very bad situation because I believe that, you know, the the role of the US dollar will be very different.
Speaker 0: Yes. That's
Speaker 1: will happen to solve your problem about, you know, the manufacturing
Speaker 0: It's a blessing and a curse. No. That's right. Yeah. Having the world's reserve currency is and once the war in Ukraine started and sanctions were used as a as a weapon, the dollar was used as a weapon, it was the end of the long term.
It was the beginning of the end of the US dollar.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The diarization is coming, it's happening right now. It's a question of time, but I understand that president Trump wants to do the transition, but it it it will hurt. It would be difficult.
Speaker 0: Yes. It will.
Speaker 1: And and I, you know, I agree with him about his end goal to have manufacturing sector back in US. I want the same in Canada, and so we must have a real a good economic policies. And, you know, the way to solve that, we have our Bank of Canada did the same thing like the Fed during COVID nineteen. We printed a lot of money. Now we have that inflation.
And and I'm the only politician who's saying, you know, we need to have a zero inflation target with the Bank of Canada. Our Bank of Canada has a target of 2% inflation every year. 20% inflation, Tucker, is bad. 2% inflation is bad. We need to have zero inflation like that.
Everybody will keep their purchasing power. And so and and and if you want to have that, you need to have a balanced budget. So we balance the budget in first year. We tell the Bank of Canada a zero inflation target. We have surplus, and all the surplus must go to to lower taxes to Canadians and, you know, a flat tax on business, no more capital gains tax.
That's our proposal for Canadian to have a better and a more productive economy. Polyev won't speak about that. Carney won't speak about that, but we need to tackle that. President Trump is doing that right now. He's trying to do that right now.
There's a cost to that, but at least he's not kicking the can down the road
Speaker 0: For
Speaker 1: like everybody did before him.
Speaker 0: If you have debt levels at the level that Canada does, certainly in The United States, much bigger debt than Canada's, you the government needs inflation. Yeah. The government creates inflation because they that's the only way to get out of the debt. Right? Yeah.
Yeah. Yeah. No one says that. No. No.
This is like a product of choices that our policymakers consciously make in order to, you know, inflate down the debt.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But that's that's what happened after the second world war. In Canada, you know, we had, in the nineteen forties, we had ten years of inflation to pay for the the debt that we had after the war. So now, you know, not only The US, Canada, and all Western countries, you know, have huge debt, huge deficit, so something will happen. So and, you know, we will have to reevaluate gold.
We may have a a kind of a gold standard, but inflation is bad for the population. It's good for government because they can print money, print money, and, you know, giving us a lot of a lot of gifts with, you know, paying for a lot of programs. But, you know, that is creating inflation. And now you have inflation in The US, and we have inflation in Canada, and we may have that inflation for the next five, ten years. That's a way to deal with the debt.
And I'm saying that, you know, the deficit of today are the taxes of tomorrow or the inflation of tomorrow. So the inflation is coming, is there, and it is coming. And when you have inflation, what will happen after that? Interest rate. They will have to go up.
So we are in a very difficult situation, Canada and US and and other, you know, Western countries right now. So that's why what Trump is doing by all these tariffs is asking all these country come and have a negotiation. But I believe the negotiation won't be on tariffs. It will be of a new monetary order. We need that.
Speaker 0: I think that's right. And it's inevitable. You know, we're getting it. De dollarization is real, and it's and again, it's just inexorably can't stop it. So it does seem big picture if you're just looking at the world.
A lot of these conflicts are about resources. Yeah. Like, physical things. Yeah. Oil and gas, iron ore Yeah.
Bauxite, grain, gold. I mean, right, uranium. Canada has a lot of not all, but a lot of those things, some of the deepest deposits in the world, water. Canada has massive amounts of fresh water. So I'm wondering what's happening to all your resources.
Is anyone paying attention? You I mean, because China needs the resources Yeah. To fuel its manufacturing. Asian broadly speaking, Asian needs those resources. Are they still under Canadian control?
Speaker 1: It's a good question because China tried to buy some of our resources couple of years ago, and at least the federal government did stop that. So, yes, it it is under our control. But the problem is not who is controlling our natural resources. It's we are not able to exploit them with our regulations and taxes. The last ten year the ten years, the Trudeau government told, you know, the industry, the mining industry, oh, you know, oil and gas, we need to get rid of that.
It's not it's not clean, and we cannot exploit that. So he put a lot of regulations. We cannot have pipeline. We cannot exploit and and export our natural resources. No pipelines.
So and that's that's the problem. It's the regulations and the fact that the federal government is doing everything to stop the exploitation of our natural resources. Trudeau did everything to do that, and he was successful. So now we don't have any pipelines. And so we are send sending our oil and gas to you guys, to The US at a discount because we cannot have access to another to other markets.
So good for you, but bad for us. So we need to do that. And we are this country, Canada, can be a great country if we have the right policies.
Speaker 0: So I I don't I mean, it's very obvious that climate change has been going on since the beginning of time. Right? The climate we had glaciers, now we don't, etcetera, etcetera. The climate is always changing. Natural phenomenon are responsible for the overwhelming amount of that change, not human activity.
Like, that's just science. Yeah. Anyone says otherwise, a freaking liar. Yeah. I think over 90% is caused by
Speaker 1: Yeah. And we we need more c o two?
Speaker 0: Exactly. But, like, a country like Russia, which is slightly more rational than the West, I would say, looks at climate change and says, well, wow. This is good for us because we're a really cold country Yeah. And huge parts of our of our country are inaccessible because of cold. And if it gets warmer, that's, like, good for us.
Yeah. That would be especially true for Canada. There are whole parts of Canada. I mean, Canada's, like Yeah. Much bigger than The United States, and Yeah.
Everyone in Canada is 50 miles from The US border. Like Yes. Why wouldn't, like, Hudson Bay be a I mean, there's so much opportunity in climate change in Canada. Does anyone ever say that?
Speaker 1: Yeah. But, no, it's bad. No. It's bad climate change.
Speaker 0: But how is it bad if you're Canada? I don't really get that.
Speaker 1: No. It it is not bad, but for them, it is so bad that we must fight that. And you it's so bad that we think that we can control the climate. You know, it it it's crazy. You know, we can we, human, can control the climate by, you know, regulation and things like that.
It's so complex that we cannot, but but there's no climate emergency. Can you understand that?
Speaker 0: Well, but also there's we can't control the climate.
Speaker 1: Yeah. We can't. You're right about that. Because we're not God.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Canada was a religious country. Even when I was a kid, the French Canadians were very religious. They built all through the, you know, Northern New England. There are all these
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah. You know, temple cathedrals built by
Speaker 1: Catholics.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Big time. Yeah. And now they're all empty, sadly. But and those cities are all African.
But but, anyway, there was a time when Canada was a very religious country. Now it seems like one of the most nonreligious atheist countries in the world. Is that your
Speaker 1: But we are not promoting our history as a country with that multiculturalism act. You know, you can come here and, you know, know, and and keep your your culture and don't integrate to our society. But that being said, in our constitution, it is written in our constitution that this country has been built on the supremacy of god and the rule of law. That's part of our constitution. But, yes, actually, the we freedom of religions exists in our country, and I'm okay with that.
But I I hope that we can promote our history. You know, this country, Canada, has been built, we know, with a settler from France France, from UK, from and and with indigenous people. But the new immigrants who are coming here, they don't know the history of this country. You know, I'm traveling across the country and I deliver a speech and they told me, Maxime, you're an immigrant also. I'm not an immigrant.
I'm a settler. You know, my descendants are French. You know, I'm not I I didn't I didn't come to this country twenty years ago. You know, my roots are deep in this country, in Canada. So so we need to that's why we need to stop that mass immigration and and promote our history, our value, our value, our culture.
Speaker 0: Plate, say, in Quebec?
Speaker 1: What does that mean? I remember. I remember.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So We need to remember.
Speaker 0: Remember, it seems like.
Speaker 1: No. We don't.
Speaker 0: So last question. How does this mean, it does seem like any country, ours definitely, US definitely included, reaches a tipping point with population where there are just too many people who have no roots in the country Yeah. That have different alien agendas, and it basically becomes unmanageable, there's sort of no turning back. The country can never be what it was. You can't make it great again.
Mhmm. How far is Canada from that?
Speaker 1: I'm looking in UK right now, what's happening there, and in France. We are not there, but we are near. If we you know, I said ten years ago, we need to have a maximum of 100 not ten years, eight years ago. We need to have a maximum of 150,000 immigrants a year. Didn't and at that time, I was racist because I was speaking like that, but I was not.
And, you know, and now I'm saying we need to have that moratorium because, you know, we had mass immigration. But if we don't stop in in ten years, I I told you, you know, one point 97% of our population, the growth of our population is coming from immigration. If we have that two, three, or five years more, you know, trouble will trouble will be on the street more often than they are right now. So answering your question, Tucker, we are near. We are near that, you know, we may lost our country.
And that's why I'm saying, you know, I want to save this country, and we, the People's Party, are the only the only hope for this country. Let's stop that mass immigration, have time to integrate all these people, and, you know, it will we will be able to regain our country. But if we don't do that, I'm scared. I'm scared for the future of our country.
Speaker 0: Well, your Canadian refugees are always welcome here. I mean it. I'm I'm gonna continue my defense of Canada as a as a really
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm nice weather. So here it's very I like cold
Speaker 0: weather, so I I love Canada. Maxime, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, mister. Appreciate it. That was fun.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The 2022 use of the "Emergencies Act" to seize people's bank accounts wasn't a mistake... it was a trial run. 🇨🇦🇨🇳 https://plandemic.com/plandemic-3-the-great-awakening/
Video Transcript AI Summary
Claims are made that Canada is becoming tyrannical, with a "socialist coup" unfolding, despite previously being hailed as free and democratic. Some view government actions, like invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing accounts of protestors, as evidence of this shift. Concerns are raised about Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's admiration for China's "basic dictatorship" and his government's response to trucker protests.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) and its founder, Klaus Schwab, are discussed. Schwab's past, including his father's involvement with a company that used slave labor during the Nazi era, is mentioned. The WEF is described as an influential organization that brings together world leaders and elites in Davos. Schwab is portrayed as aiming to "shape our common future" and having the ability to "penetrate the cabinets" of world governments through the WEF's global young leaders program. The "Great Reset," advocated by Schwab, is presented as a plan for a one-world government and a central bank-controlled digital currency.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: They're trying to say They're trying to scare people.
Speaker 1: Scare people.
Speaker 0: It's communism. Venezuela, Trump says. You're they're gonna be living in Venezuela. I grew up in Canada. I'm here to tell you that this bullshit line that you get on all of the political shows from people is that it's a failure.
The system is a failure in Canada. It is not a failure in Canada. I never waited for anything in my life. I chose my own doctors. My mother never paid for a prescription.
It was fantastic. And I just got back from Vancouver. I keep hearing this, like, Canadians are so nice. Canadians are so nice. They can be nice because they have health care, because they have a government that cares about them.
Speaker 2: In Canada, the authorities say there's now a state of perversion.
Speaker 0: Since riot gear swept through Canada's capital.
Speaker 3: Today, police in Ottawa used
Speaker 4: pecans and pepper spray. They just trembled
Speaker 0: on me. Look what you did to her.
Speaker 3: Medical wait times in this country are longer than ever.
Speaker 5: The cost of living just keeps climbing.
Speaker 6: There's a socialist coup unfolding in Canada, and we taxpayers are funding it. In the recent years, lot of Canadians have been watching their once well regarded country become what some are even calling tyrannical.
Speaker 7: A country previously hailed as the most free and democratic in the world.
Speaker 1: Now the People's World, the official West Coast newspaper of the Communist Party, ran this rather interesting editorial. What is needed now is an effort that begins approximate the magnitude of the problem. As a minimum, such a program should demand massive emergency action by the federal government.
Speaker 8: The federal government has invoked the Emergencies Act.
Speaker 7: It gives unprecedented power to the Canadian federal government.
Speaker 9: As of today, a bank or other financial service provider will be able to immediately freeze or suspend an account without a court order.
Speaker 10: If you are involved in this protest, we will actively look to identify you and follow-up with financial sanctions and criminal charges.
Speaker 3: Banks have already started to freeze the accounts of people involved in the protest.
Speaker 11: Please get out. Immediately get out. Intimidating people in a church during the Passover. Unbelievable. Growing up under communist dictatorship, I have been warning Canadians that that's what's coming.
I could smell it. I could see it at every corner. We will not put up with this anymore. We are fighting back.
Speaker 8: Protests, public protests are an important part of making sure we're getting messages out there, but using protests to demand changes to public policy is something that that I think is is is worrisome.
Speaker 12: Okay. So here we have the Prime Minister of Canada saying that, yes, we have a highly functioning democracy and they have the right and freedom to protest. However, if those protests are used to demand change in government policy, then no.
Speaker 8: The small fringe minority who know that following the science and stepping up to protect each other is the best way to continue to ensure our freedoms, our rights, our values as a country.
Speaker 7: Liberal prime minister Justin Trudeau claims to be following the science, but Trudeau's science often comes in the form of this bizarre authoritarian technocracy.
Speaker 13: I think that Justin Trudeau stepped on the landmine when he weaponized the banking system in Canada against the truckers. Those peaceful trucker protests, you know, their most violent act was honking their horns. Horns. And in retaliation, they had their access to their bank accounts, and anybody that supported them in any way had their access to bank accounts eliminated. And at that moment in time, we all came to realize what was really going down.
Speaker 14: Even with Sun TV watching for any slip, he was asked which country he most admired and referred to China.
Speaker 15: The level of admiration I actually have for China, because their, you know, basic dictatorship is allowing them
Speaker 16: I applaud China for stepping up excuse me. I applaud Canada. I'm you can tell what I'm thinking.
Speaker 3: A prime minister who openly admires the Chinese basic dictatorship who tramples on fundamental rights by persecuting and criminalizing his own citizens as terrorists just because they dared to stand up to his perverted concept of democracy should not be allowed to speak in this house at all. Mister Trudeau, please spare us your presence. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Canadians know where I stand. This is a moment for responsible leaders to think carefully about where they stand and who they stand with.
Speaker 5: While Justin Trudeau makes a compelling case study, he is not the only dictator on the rise. Under the new rules provided by the COVID nineteen emergency, many other elected leaders were empowered to show their true colors. Interesting how they all marched in perfect lockstep while chanting the same slogans.
Speaker 8: This pandemic has provided an opportunity.
Speaker 16: Here we are now with an economy in crisis, but with an incredible opportunity.
Speaker 2: It's certainly a major crisis, but it also offers us a unique opportunity. Unprecedented opportunity. To rethink and reset.
Speaker 3: The great opportunity for reset. Opportunity for us to reset. For a reset.
Speaker 5: It's almost as if they all attended the same school of thought and studied under the same professor.
Speaker 2: Some people would say this revolution is characterized by the fight of robots against human beings, and we will win this fight.
Speaker 5: Professor Klaus Schwab was born in 1938 in Ravensburg, Germany, where Nazi crimes against humanity were committed. His father, Eugene Wilhelm Schwab, was the managing director of Escher Weiss Ravensburg, a company that used slave labor to manufacture weapons of war for the Third Reich. While Claus's father was at the helm, the Nazi party awarded Escher Weiss Ravensburg the title of National Socialist Model Company. Years later, Claus Schwab joined the board of directors at Escher Weiss Ravensberg, where he played a key role in the development of South Africa's nuclear weapons program during the darkest years of the racist apartheid regime. Today, Klaus Schwab is the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.
Speaker 17: If you'd like to meet the people who are supposed to repair the state of the world or give a piece of your mind to the bankers who helped get us into this mess, we can tell you where to find a lot of them. The World Economic Forum.
Speaker 5: Founded in 1971, the World Economic Forum is an international private organization which receives billions of tax free dollars from its members and their global enterprises. Every year, the WEF brings together its members with world leaders, big pharma executives, tech titans, Hollywood Celebrities, Media Personalities, and Internet influencers to meet in the secluded mountains of Davos, Switzerland.
Speaker 17: It is a tiny town folded into the Swiss Alps, a village where you could bump into Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the head of Google, and the Queen of Jordan all in one place. A lot of reporters cover the forum, but few get inside. It turns out there are two Davos', one you see and one you don't. After hours, there are hundreds of private parties where deals are done. People who can't be seen together in public can meet here.
Speaker 2: Your royal highnesses, excellencies, distinguished heads of state and government, the future is built by us, by a powerful community as you here in this room.
Speaker 4: Klaus Schwab, the founder of the WEF, is particularly upfront and even proud of his ability to shape and influence world politics.
Speaker 2: I created the community of global shapers as a means, as a force to shape our common future.
Speaker 4: And, of course, their global young leaders program is a grooming ground so that when they ultimately infiltrate cabinets
Speaker 2: We penetrate the cabinets.
Speaker 4: They will likely tend to govern a certain way.
Speaker 2: Nobody will be safe if not everybody is vaccinated.
Speaker 4: The names in the countries he mentioned ended up being some of the most dystopian and authoritative during this pandemic.
Speaker 2: Names like miss Merkel, Vladimir Putin, and so on.
Speaker 4: Other names? Jacinda Ardern, Sebastian Kurz, Mauricio Macri, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Ma, Gavin Newsom, Stephane Bancel, Chelsea Clinton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Sanjay Gupta, doctor Liana Wen, Alexander and Jonathan Soros, George Soros' sons, and several of the Rothschilds. And, of course
Speaker 2: Now who could represent such a world better than you, prime minister?
Speaker 5: In 02/2014, Klaus Schwab called for the great reset
Speaker 2: We need a great reset.
Speaker 5: Which he positioned as the solution to the world's most urgent issues. The dark reality of Schwab's agenda is detailed in his best selling book, COVID nineteen, The Great Reset. His endgame mission is to replace independent governance with a top down control, one world government, and a central bank controlled digital currency.
Speaker 6: When they say, you'll be happy, what they mean is, you'll be enslaved. That's why they're talking about a great reset. That's why they're talking about introducing this quasi communist, quasi social ist agenda. They know we've run the course where we cannot continue down the path of the ever increasing indebtedness because we have a generation that quite literally cannot afford to buy a house.
Speaker 0: Millions of Americans are priced out of buying a home.
Plandemic 3: The Great Awakening - Official Full Movie - Plandemic Series Official
Witness the culmination of truth-seeking as PLANDEMIC 3: The Great Awakening unravels the layers of corruption and unveils a path towards a brighter future. Prepare to be inspired, awakened, and empowered to take a stand for liberty.
plandemic.com
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
FINALLY people are admitting the Federal Reserve & bank cartel caused the 2020 financial crisis, intentionally releasing "the virus" to cover it up! 🥳 Only now it's too late, because they're about to do it again...
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Federal Reserve has destabilized the economy and operates with a lack of transparency. Money is a medium of exchange and unit of account; banks profit through fractional reserve banking, creating new money via loans. Central banks, like the Fed, allow governments to spend beyond their means, creating a "fiscal illusion."
Prior to the Fed's creation, the gold standard restrained government spending. The Fed was established in 1913 to stabilize the banking system, but the 1933 Banking Act expanded its power, forming the Federal Open Market Committee to manage monetary policy. The Fed's actions lead to boom and bust cycles, intentionally cheapening the dollar's value.
The shift to fiat currency in 1971 caused economic uncertainty and stagflation. The Fed's inflationary policies create winners and losers, benefiting the government, large corporations, and political elites at the expense of the average American. Financialization has exploded since going off the gold standard. The Fed's low interest rates inflated the housing bubble in the early 2000s, leading to the 2008 crisis and new interventions.
The Fed responded to the 2020 pandemic with inflationary tools, further expanding its power. A Fed-controlled digital currency could magnify this power, enabling control over spending. Austrian economists advocate for ending the Fed, limiting government intervention, and abolishing fractional reserve banking, favoring a market-driven money supply and a return to sound money, possibly linked to gold.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Fed has made the economy more unstable than it was before the Fed.
Speaker 1: They, the keeper of the keys of the magic kingdom of money, would rather you didn't understand.
Speaker 2: They would like to be thought of as the problem solver that shows up and puts out the fire. But in fact, they're really the arsonist that started the fire to begin with.
Speaker 3: For over a century, The United States financial leadership, guided by its central bank, the Federal Reserve, has acquired immense control over the economy. Yet the Fed's dominant role on the global economic stage and its impact on everyday Americans often goes unexamined. It's time to look behind the curtain at this pivotal institution to see how it works, how its decisions have affected our lives, and if we need a Fed to secure our financial future. Before we can dive into deeper analysis of the Fed, there are several fundamental concepts and historical events which are important to understand. The first of which is what is money?
Speaker 4: So economists look on money as the general medium of exchange. That is that everyone sells the things that they produce or they sell their services for something that everyone else will accept.
Speaker 0: For thousands of years, human civilization settled on gold and silver as the main sources of money.
Speaker 4: And in modern society, everyone accepts money. But it's also a common unit of account. And what we mean by that is that it's a pricing unit. So everyone prices their goods and services that they desire to sell in terms of money, which makes it easy for people to compare the prices of different goods.
Speaker 3: So where do banks fit in?
Speaker 1: People observed that it was cumbersome to carry this around, so bankers came into existence, and bankers would issue a piece of paper that says it's a claim on gold. Whoops, that's a monetary original sin right there.
Speaker 0: When banks were invented, they're basically the warehouses of gold or whatever gold that you had, you would be given a certificate that you could use to redeem the gold or whenever you wanted it back.
Speaker 4: Money's a commodity, like any other commodity, and it has a supply and demand. In The United States, that's the good old dollar bill. Also checking deposits, which are claims to dollar bills held by banks. Well, the role is to make it easy for people to exchange.
Speaker 3: How do banks make a profit? With fractional reserve banking, it involves creating new money out of thin air, but
Speaker 5: it comes with risks. Fractional reserve banking is just the idea that banks keep a fraction of deposits in reserve. So like somebody walks in and makes a deposit, what they actually do is they take that money and they use it to finance loans that they make to other people, business loans, mortgages, that sort of thing.
Speaker 4: Let's say they can lend out 90%, that they're comfortable with keeping $1 for every $10 that people will deposit. So you can write checks up to $1,000 on that checking deposit, but at the same time, there's 900 more dollars in circulation than there was before you made that deposit. So in that case, they immediately create money.
Speaker 3: That new money can then be loaned out by the originating bank and deposited into another bank, which can then loan out a portion of those deposits.
Speaker 5: It means that enough depositors could come to the bank requesting the money. The bank would come up dry. They wouldn't have all the money there because they'd use the money to to finance those loans.
Speaker 3: Now you may be asking yourself, where does the government fit into all this?
Speaker 6: So if we look around the world, we find almost every country has a central bank because central banks are really handy In creating the Bank of France, Napoleon said, I want a bank that'll always lend me money. And that's what all governments want, spend more money than they have.
Speaker 4: That's the way they get reelected. If it's financed by taxation, people immediately realize that it's coming out of their own pockets.
Speaker 0: And the way it works in politics is the politicians love the Fed because it creates, what economists call a fiscal illusion, a sort of promise of something for nothing.
Speaker 5: If everything is guided by all of this money printing and no bank is overextending itself, the whole system is working together and not expanding. That way, the whole system is sort of a cartel.
Speaker 4: In other words, all the banks inflate together because they're all under the umbrella now of the Fed.
Speaker 3: Prior to the creation of the Fed, people were using gold as money, and the gold standard was a constraint on government spending.
Speaker 1: People will say that the dollar was backed by gold. No, it was defined as gold. Very important. Very important distinction. It was defined as a way of gold.
And, it was codified in 1900. Gold Standard Act in 1900. People walked around with $20 gold pieces, in their pants pocket. You know, gold was a functional currency.
Speaker 0: You weren't gonna experience financial disaster if, if that's what the system was about. And importantly, it restrained the ability of government to do what governments now do is just spend like Santa Claus.
Speaker 4: And so in the beginning, that system seemed to work.
Speaker 3: If the gold standard worked, why did the government create the central bank we now know as the Federal Reserve? Responding to the pressures of special interests that rose out of the Progressive Era and after years of regional and local banks failing due to fractional reserve banking, in 1913 the Federal Reserve Act was passed by the U. S. Congress and signed into law by President Woodrow Wilson.
Speaker 1: The Fed came into being with every legislator promise that the gold standard remained.
Speaker 4: The Fed was only supposed to be a lender of last resort. It was only to prevent mass bank failures.
Speaker 5: And the goal was to stabilize the banking system, stabilize all the booms and busts that they were seeing.
Speaker 3: The act created 12 regional Federal Reserve banks to serve distinct geographic areas of The United States. It required every national bank to become a member and hold stock in their respective regional Federal Reserve Bank.
Speaker 1: Each Federal Reserve Bank is a corporation. Every bank in the district must subscribe to shares in the respective reserve banks in proportion to the capital of that private bank.
Speaker 6: Federal Reserve Banks are banks. They have balance sheets. They have loans. They have investments. They have deposits.
They have borrowed funds. They have capital. It's like a bank.
Speaker 3: To manage the system, the act established a seven member Federal Reserve Board, now known as the Board of Governors. The supposed intent was to provide stability, banking expertise, and a diverse range of perspectives.
Speaker 6: When the Fed was created, the secretary of the treasury was William Gibbs McAdoo, and he gave a great speech at the time in which he said, now that we have the Fed, financial booms and busts have ended. The Fed has made all of this only in the past, and we're entering a new world where this won't happen.
Speaker 0: Then the crash happens, and they find out they lost their job. They lost their business.
Speaker 3: In 1933, Congress passed a new banking act supposedly to restore confidence. This act set the stage for the ever changing evolution and increasing power of the Fed. It created the Federal Open Market Committee to manage the Fed's open market operations and formulate monetary policy.
Speaker 1: So the Federal Open Market Committee, which consists of all the governors and a selection of the respect reserve banks, so these dozen outposts makes interest rate policy.
Speaker 2: And those basically involved buying or selling short term government securities.
Speaker 0: The president appoints the chairman of the Fed. Well, it's it's kinda like rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. You could call this institution the Fed or you could call it the government money printing apparatus, but it would create all the same problems.
Speaker 1: I think now that boom and bust is the wrong figure of speech. I think that we should use fires and, fire departments putting them out. And the Fed serves a dual purpose. It is both the arsonist and the fireman.
Speaker 3: The Austrian business cycle theory says that credit expansion leads to economy wide distortions. This means resources are misdirected toward unsustainable projects. This creates a boom and bust cycle, where an unsustainable economic expansion built on misdirected resources is followed by a sharp decline.
Speaker 1: The Fed came into business before you knew it, it was doing the government's work of inflating the currency.
Speaker 2: When someone is manipulating the unit that we're all using, that that's gonna have adverse consequences.
Speaker 1: The Fed actually intends to cheapen the value of your money by 2% a year. It's kind of this monetary that's giving 2% off the top of whatever you think you earned.
Speaker 5: We still have financial crises. We still have booms and busts.
Speaker 1: This is the government getting into the act.
Speaker 3: And get into the act they did in a big way.
Speaker 7: I have directed secretary Connolly to suspend temporarily the convertibility of the dollar into gold or other reserve assets except in amounts and conditions determined to be in the interest of monetary stability and in the best interest of The United States.
Speaker 6: So in '71, they might have done other things like raise the price of gold, say, well, dollars are worth less, but instead they just said, no, we're not paying, so tough luck. But it was tough luck for the world because that allowed in a pure paper money world, that is to say currency which has no intrinsic value, could be created with no link to gold or other precious metals in peacetime.
Speaker 2: It's all fiat currency. It's all just paper.
Speaker 1: What is fiat money? Fiat money is the opposite of the inherently valuable gold coin. And thereafter, from that data to this, the dollar has owed its value to habit, to confidence in this great country.
Speaker 3: This shift to a fiat currency created dramatic economic uncertainty as foreign exchange markets became volatile. Prices ballooned. Higher costs led to job losses. The combination gave us a new financial term, stagflation, and that became a defining feature of the decade.
Speaker 6: And in the middle of that, as a result of the nineteen seventies inflation, then under Paul Volcker, the Federal Reserve forced up interest rates to break the inflation and to break these bubbles.
Speaker 3: In the nineteen eighties, these interest rates and a weak economy made it more difficult for governments and banks to repay their debts, contributing to the savings and loan crisis and the debt crisis in Latin America.
Speaker 6: And when that great inflation finally stopped in the eighties, we had a lot of markets which had come to rely on the inflation of asset prices and on the printing of money.
Speaker 3: Why would the Fed want to use inflation to create winners and losers?
Speaker 0: The reason is somebody profits from it. And if somebody's profiting from it, somebody else is losing by it. And it's a really good example of
Speaker 5: what the Fed does in a general sense, which is they they create winners and losers. It means that the Fed has fundamentally altered the makeup of the economy.
Speaker 4: The Fed creates inflation, and it does so not just because it wants to see prices rise. Because if all prices rose, there'd be no reason for inflation. But in the real world, when money's injected into the economy, some people get it first.
Speaker 5: So as as soon as you take on this ability to to bail out some people, it means that you are saying you get to be the winner, and everybody else who doesn't get bailed out, they get to be the losers.
Speaker 3: So who are the winners?
Speaker 4: They're not elected officials. To some extent, they're doing the bidding of elected officials, Fed bureaucrats, but they're rearranging our lives by by messing with with with the money.
Speaker 5: The government is always the winner because when the Fed is printing up new money, it it means that the government can benefit. It means that the government is they're the first spender of
Speaker 2: the brand new money. So large corporations, not small corporations. Large banks, not small banks. And then the political elites that sort of control the political system. The people who get the money first are also the same sort of people who have the most influence on the Fed itself.
Speaker 0: Politicians can offer this program, that program to benefit everybody, and they don't have
Speaker 3: to raise taxes. Now who are the losers?
Speaker 2: The average working American and their family unit is who really pays the price, during this cycle of boom and bust, that the Fed is supposedly saving us every time.
Speaker 5: It's Econ one zero one. You can't get something from nothing. Physics one zero one as well. And so what that means is it's it's the government taking, and it's the cost of that is going on to everybody else.
Speaker 2: Going off the gold standard took away that certainty, and it injected the Fed with more power, which has created more uncertainty.
Speaker 6: Now when they print up the money to pay for the loss, that's effectively a debt of the US government.
Speaker 2: So every time they tell us that they're solving a problem, what they're really doing is rescuing their own reputation from what they previously brought on.
Speaker 6: Unless you're the Fed, you can't stay in business and do that.
Speaker 3: When it comes to the economy, it seems crises and the Fed go hand in hand.
Speaker 4: The Fed has always used emergencies to expand their powers.
Speaker 5: And so as we have more crises that are generated by the Fed and the banking system, it gives them a foundation for new interventions. It gives them a chance to grab more power.
Speaker 3: In the wake of the crises of the late twentieth century, after the country went off the gold standard, the financial sector exploded in size as the country shifted away from industrial production. The growing dominance of finance over other sectors of the economy became known as financialization.
Speaker 1: So financialization is the treatment of finance not as the means to an end, but as an end in itself.
Speaker 2: It doesn't really produce anything by itself. It just helps us with financial matters, with investing, with raising capital, with allocating savings, those kind of things. So we're talking about stocks, bonds, banks, and so forth.
Speaker 5: So you can see the financialization of the economy and how the finance, insurance, and real estate companies, that sector has exploded, especially since we went off the gold standard.
Speaker 1: These dominant Wall Street banks are now cartels empowered in that regard by the Federal Reserve itself.
Speaker 3: And in the new millennium, the Fed seemed to assume a more aggressive role.
Speaker 4: The economists in the late nineties and early two thousands to begin to talk about the fact that we were in a great moderation.
Speaker 6: What we found out that the great moderation really was was the great leveraging up, the great inflation of money.
Speaker 0: And so they use language like that, as do all government bureaucracies, to make things seem much more pleasant than they than they really are.
Speaker 4: The Fed used the argument that, well, we have to make sure that unemployment stays low and that production stays high and that growth is going along at a good pace.
Speaker 0: The Fed doesn't do anything but but drop interest rates and and and print money. That's all it does. Every time they create a bubble and the bubble bursts, their response is, well, we need to create another bubble.
Speaker 5: The Fed worked to push interest rates down below the natural rate, and this is where we saw the housing bubble being inflated.
Speaker 2: And, basically, the Fed created a housing bubble after 02/2001 with very low interest rates and a lot of moral suasion for people to buy houses and to be invested in housing. And the American people responded.
Speaker 3: So what was the role of big banks and Wall Street in all of this?
Speaker 2: We had people in Wall Street, New York banks, who had never even experienced a Fed interest rate hike, never in their entire career. It had only been going down.
Speaker 5: And so that encouraged them to take all of those risks. They were making all of these loans. They were helping blow up the housing bubble.
Speaker 8: So they put money in the economy and the Fed and everybody looks, the government's rich now and this sort of thing. And before you knew it, there was a big bubble and the bubble was supported by people who wanted a house and get their interest rates low.
Speaker 4: Now what do you do then? If you try to increase the money supply, that pushes prices up. That causes the worse inflation. On the other hand, if you try to tighten money, that causes a recession, and and that turns into a full blown downturn.
Speaker 9: This could be the most serious recession in decades, and that means life, as most Americans know it, is about to change, in some cases dramatically.
Speaker 4: What happened in 02/2008 was that some of the big investment banks, the ones that are most closely tied into government, were affected. And those people are the movers and the shakers. They're the ones that contribute to campaigns.
Speaker 2: The Fed undertook these policies as an emergency measure to address what they themselves had all created.
Speaker 3: 02/2008 brought a new crisis and the Federal Reserve started using new tools and programs it had not used before.
Speaker 4: They made it seem like this is a crisis that's affecting all of us.
Speaker 5: So now instead of the Fed targeting a particular federal funds rate or a range of federal funds rates, now the Fed is changing the supply of reserves in the system through open market operations.
Speaker 4: And so they came up with all these different ways of injecting new money into the system.
Speaker 0: Using partially some tax dollars and some just money printing by the Fed to give all these big banks billions of dollars.
Speaker 6: And they started buying, but even more radical than that was they started buying mortgages. They bought the Fed bought mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities.
Speaker 5: They started buying mortgage backed securities as opposed to just government debt. They were intervening in bailing out specific corporations. So it's not surprising
Speaker 2: that we saw a big run up. The price went up regardless of the value of the company or the value of the bond or the value of the land or the value of the real estate.
Speaker 4: So that was a change where they were brazen about what they were doing, open about picking the winners. They're receiving the new money first, and they're receiving it at lower interest rates than they would have been.
Speaker 2: And the Fed, since that time, has been operating with just one new policy, one surprise policy after another.
Speaker 3: The Fed's new policies took it deep into previously untouched areas of the economy. This resulted in an everything bubble of inflation where prices for a wide range of assets and goods and services were constantly increasing.
Speaker 4: So there's nothing wrong with prices in general going up or down. It's just that when the government is in control of of the money supply, it can use that up and down of prices to benefit certain groups.
Speaker 5: In an inflationary environment, your incentives are to consume. Your incentives are to to unload the money as soon as you get it, and go buy things. Any amounts of money that you've accumulated that's not invested or used to buy consumption goods is gonna be losing value in this permanent inflation that we have.
Speaker 6: And both the bubble and the problems are really the result of this unprecedented and, in my view, unwise mortgage financing effort of the Fed of making itself into a giant savings and loan.
Speaker 5: The way that regular consumers become increasingly indebted, they've got to get those loans from somewhere. And so Wall Street definitely gains as a result of the Fed's money printing.
Speaker 0: These bailouts socialize the losses. So they create a system with the banks of the profits are mine, the losses are on you, the taxpayer, and that's horribly destructive of the whole free market system.
Speaker 5: So each crisis that they cause gives them a chance to to grow even more. And with each crisis, the Fed is is gaining more and more power. And as they gain more power, they intervene more and create even bigger crises.
Speaker 3: As if that wasn't enough, in 2020, the World Health Organization announced a pandemic.
Speaker 6: We had a virus go around the world, and much to everybody's surprise, it caused a financial collapse.
Speaker 2: Everybody's attention moved completely away from what was going on in the marketplace and in the economy, and everybody was focused solely on the virus and the shutdowns and what was happening to businesses and jobs and the economy.
Speaker 4: For a long time, during the lockdown, people didn't really spend that money or they spent it on Amazon and not on brick and mortar shops, and that forced prices up tremendously.
Speaker 2: And so it's quite natural that most people associate the recession that we went through at that time with the virus rather than with the Fed.
Speaker 3: The government's message was that the global economy was collapsing due to COVID, and the Fed responded with its inflationary tools. We were
Speaker 2: headed downhill when COVID hit. And then when COVID hit, well, the government decided to spend trillions of dollars to keep the economy going. And the Fed accommodated that by basically printing trillions of dollars.
Speaker 1: So the Fed is a the Fed bought everything that wasn't nailed down and did took a hammer and stripped some of those nails away, it was an all purpose, all front bailout.
Speaker 6: But when the crisis was over, they didn't stop. They went right on.
Speaker 5: And so now they're lending indirectly to specific companies, and it's it really is a systemization of the, too big to fail concept. Permanently. It's a great example of the way that the Fed has ballooned in power.
Speaker 6: But the misconception is that the Fed somehow knows the economic future, the financial future, and therefore knows how to manipulate it through manipulating interest rates, through manipulating supply of money, through buying, as they have bought trillions of dollars of bonds and mortgages.
Speaker 3: The Fed's buying had far reaching ramifications for the financial world, but did they consider who else would be affected?
Speaker 1: The free market economies are, peopled by human beings.
Speaker 5: When you see higher prices at the grocery store, when you see higher energy bills, when when you see higher prices anywhere, you should be thinking about how that loss of your purchasing power is the government's gain.
Speaker 0: And so the the Fed induces people to consume now, live for the present, and not worry about the future.
Speaker 4: The step by step process by which money spreads throughout the economy and impoverishes the people who get the money late or those people who are retired and on on fixed incomes and never get the new money.
Speaker 5: One group that would certainly be harmed would be younger generations.
Speaker 4: The people on Main Street didn't get it. They didn't benefit. In fact, they were hurt.
Speaker 2: Young people, Gen Z, etcetera, what they're facing is not just a Fed that can inflate the money supply out of thin air and evaporate anything that they've been able to accumulate.
Speaker 4: When the Fed increases the money supply, especially in the amounts and the ways that it did so during COVID, that it really redistributes wealth. And it redistributes wealth away from the middle class, away from Main Street towards Wall Street and Silicon Valley.
Speaker 3: When wealth shifts this much,
Speaker 2: there was always chaos. Everything just sort of broke at the end of COVID.
Speaker 8: The big picture there is the monetary system facilitates this continued buildup of the combination of corporations, corporatism, and the government.
Speaker 5: What this means is that there's one group who will definitely benefit by acquiring acquiring all of this capital, whereas another group is they always have the the short end of the stick. So you you can definitely see that there are some sectors that are closer to the beginning of this chain of of spending. At the very front is the government.
Speaker 0: And then the Fed gets rewarded in in various ways after that. Because the way the Fed finances its own salaries is when it when it buys bonds, it prints up the money, free money, counterfeit money, buys bonds with it. And so that money goes into the banking system. That's how the money supply increases. But in terms
Speaker 5: of like, who's first, who's second, who's third, that's not something that we can pinpoint exactly. But we can definitely say that there is a wealth transfer. There are benefits to being at the beginning, and there are costs to being at the end.
Speaker 6: Think of the government together as being both the treasury and the Fed. One, so as the Fed loses money and just borrows more money to finance its losses, it's just running up the debt and it's a cost to the taxpayers.
Speaker 5: We should definitely be more upset about the institutionalized inflation, the fact that inflation is a permanent feature of our economy.
Speaker 3: Using inflation to enrich some while impoverishing others seems to have become the Fed's ultimate weapon.
Speaker 1: People feel that inflation, which is a systematic depreciation of the currency. But, to put that in context, the Fed actually intends to cheapen the value of your money.
Speaker 0: That's why the politicians like it. And also the Fed they use the Fed as a whipping boy. When things go bad, when the rebel bursts, they call in the chairman of the Fed and they lambast the Fed chairman and and his associates there and and shift the blame to to them. So what what it means
Speaker 5: is that we've got this Leviathan central bank. We've got this bank that has taken on huge powers and is always shifting. One implication of that is that it makes it really difficult to predict what's gonna happen because it means that you have to not only forecast the market, but you have to forecast what the Fed is going to do and also how the market will respond to the Fed.
Speaker 1: And it's like a mood board, you know. They'll say we expect the inflation rate to be thus. We expect growth to be the following. And it's always wrong because the future is a closed book.
Speaker 3: Now it seems like the future of money is ramping up toward a Fed controlled digital currency. Is a central bank a digital currency with its value fixed by the Fed a good thing or a threat?
Speaker 5: The Federal Reserve as it exists today has a ton of power, and it would just be magnified tenfold, a hundredfold with a central bank digital currency.
Speaker 4: It posed a large threat to American citizens because then they can program these things so that they can neutralize them if you were trying to buy goods that the government doesn't want you to spend money on.
Speaker 5: It it means that they could have programs in it. You can buy certain things, but not other things.
Speaker 1: A digital currency would be so helpful to the Fed. If they don't like the way you're spending money because they'll see you spend it, that would be the Fed's window into your life.
Speaker 5: So if perspective is that in a crisis we need to stimulate spending, we will tax you a certain amount at the end of this time period if you haven't spent your money. So what I think they're doing is they're priming the pump. They're trying to talk about the pros and the cons of the central bank digital currency idea. And I think the idea is for them to roll it out during the middle of some crisis in the future. And people will think back and they'll say, oh yeah, this is fine.
Speaker 1: The Feds own digital currency, like Bitcoin without the fund.
Speaker 3: With so many ways of manipulating the money supply and financial sector, the Federal Reserve now has far more power than ever before.
Speaker 1: So the Fed has virtually nationalized the financial system.
Speaker 6: Who approved that? How did that get made formal? The answer is they just said it themselves.
Speaker 5: That way the whole system is is sort of a cartel. The whole system is is working together.
Speaker 0: It's all kinda like the scene at the end of the movie, The Wizard of Oz, they where the the great wizard is finally there and and everybody's in awe. And then all of a sudden, the curtain is pulled back by the dog, and and you and you see the phoniness of the whole thing.
Speaker 3: So the real question is, is the Fed really the fireman or the arsonist?
Speaker 2: They come in and say, well, we'll cut interest rates. You know, we'll bail out the banks. We'll, you know, bail out the stock market. We'll bail out foreigners. We'll do all of this.
When in effect, they're the arsonists that started the fire to begin with.
Speaker 4: It sets the fire by starting off printing new money and injecting it into the economy to drive prices up. Then when it sees prices rising, the Fed itself jumps in and claims that it's trying to balance unemployment and inflation, when in fact it's really not the firemen that's protecting them from the flames of inflation.
Speaker 0: And so for hundreds and hundreds of years, people have understood the danger of government control of money. So it makes it uncertain even for an individual when whenever the government creates price inflation and and does that to our money.
Speaker 8: What has happened, the leaders in this country, the people who control the financial system and the financial system and the whole works, they work on a basis of immorality.
Speaker 4: But it is the arsonist and it continues to be the arsonist in the guise of
Speaker 3: a fireman. It's a crazed fireman. The financial world under the Fed seems to have evolved into madness. Is it time for a new approach?
Speaker 8: So we live in very, very dangerous times, mainly because we've allowed the Fed to control the world monetary system. And just because you have debt and turn it into money, that does not mean real wealth.
Speaker 6: And while they're guessing, they create great inflations and booms and busts.
Speaker 3: Inflation, booms and busts. The results of excessive government and the ramifications of these cycles of instability were identified by an influential economist in 1912.
Speaker 5: So the boom bust cycle, a term that we use to refer to Austrian business cycle theory, and it was developed by Ludwig von Mises in his book, The Theory of Money and Credit.
Speaker 4: Mises was one of the first economists to fully explain that when money is introduced into the economy, prices don't all go up at once, and and and people's incomes don't go all up at once.
Speaker 2: So if you have an entity working behind the scenes manipulating the value of that monetary unit, then that's gonna cause, that's naturally gonna cause some kind of trouble.
Speaker 5: Basically what it says is that in a unhampered market economy, this works fantastically. So people decide to save and people decide to consume and the balance of that interaction gives us a market interest rate and it gives entrepreneurs good information on what lines of production to pursue.
Speaker 4: Austrian business cycle theory doesn't predict the timing. Some people say that's a flaw, but it's not really a flaw because people have free will and they can spend their money or not spend their money as they see fit.
Speaker 2: Austrian economists following Mises have always placed a very high priority on money because it's the one thing we all have in common. We all use money. And he realized that central banks in manipulating money and manipulating credit induced this artificial boom. And the consequence of that is the economic bust or what we call now the recession. Murray Rothbard expanded on Mises' Austrian School economics.
In his works, he advanced the idea of limiting government intervention and abolishing fractional reserve banking. The importance that Austrian economics brings to the general economic table is that we think money is very, very important and the natural stability of the monetary unit is very important for everyone in society.
Speaker 0: Murray Rothbard, who was one of the cofounders really of the Mises Institute here, once said that, you know, if government got in the business of making shoes early on, people would be saying, well, who would make shoes? The government has always made shoes. And the the same thing goes for the Fed. A lot of people think, well, yeah, the Fed has always been in control of the money supply, but it hasn't.
Speaker 4: Rothbard even more pointed out that an increase in the money supply does not benefit society. It benefits some at the expense of others.
Speaker 5: Whenever you're in control of the printing press, whenever you're in control of how much money there is, you're going to create winners and losers.
Speaker 4: There is no social benefit from increasing the money supply. Any money supply is sufficient to allow people to trade for all the goods and services they want to, but just at a lower price.
Speaker 3: Will government leaders ever do what it takes to stop the inflation?
Speaker 4: Inflation is what you see on an everyday basis when you go to the supermarket, when you stop at the gas station, it's all around you.
Speaker 8: The real evil tax is the inflation tax because it hits the middle class and the poor.
Speaker 2: When I look out there, I see a lot of government debt, a lot of private debt, and a lot of things working against the free market economy, working against free trade, an inability and almost an unwillingness on the part of the players in the system to seek out peaceful, cooperative solutions to emerging problems and rather to use those emerging problems to their politic their own political benefit.
Speaker 3: What should we do with the Fed? The country's political central bank.
Speaker 0: We went for a long time without without a central bank. And, you know, think about it. Let's put all the money in the hands of politicians in a secret organization that is never allowed to be audited.
Speaker 8: The government's a mess. The fan's a mess.
Speaker 5: We should get back to a system in which money is out of the hands of government.
Speaker 0: It's a political game. That's why whenever a congressperson like Ron Paul would argue for auditing the Fed, the entire banking industry would rally around and send millions to both political parties in Washington to kill it, to kill the bill, to audit the Fed.
Speaker 8: No. We we don't need a Fed.
Speaker 5: And what that would mean is we would get the money supply that the the market can bear and the market would produce. If you
Speaker 8: mess around with interest rates, people do dumb things. They buy too much stuff or build too many buildings or cars, and that's through the creation of the bubble, and that always has to has to be corrected.
Speaker 4: A life without a Fed is constant growth and slowly falling prices, which benefits the entire population, including people on fixed incomes, who are really hurt by inflation. Take away the power of the Fed to ever buy anything again, because that's how they print new money, by buying assets in the market.
Speaker 2: We can end the Fed's power and activities today. We can take them completely out of interest rate setting policies. We can take them completely out of the money creation process today.
Speaker 6: And you, Fed, you're not the decision maker here. You shall not drown mankind in a flood of paper money.
Speaker 0: If Mises were here today, I think he would be full on in support of ending the Fed altogether.
Speaker 1: If the Fed ended and with it ended the pure paper dollar, it would be left to all of us politically and individually to evolve a new system.
Speaker 6: What kind of money would the people like imposed on them? Well, how about sound money?
Speaker 4: People should be able to write contracts in terms of monies, gold, silver, foreign currencies, that that they voluntarily agree upon.
Speaker 6: So you can view this as very closely intertwined with the freedom and independence and responsibility of the citizens having a sound money on one side versus a perpetually inflating currency which favors the ever expanding power and spending by deficit, financed by inflation, of the government. So this is really a profoundly important political and constitutional question.
Speaker 4: I think these are steps back to the gold standard or a commodity money standard.
Speaker 1: The gold standard, was, was a constraint. It was the marker of the government's commitment expressed or implicit to honor the integrity of the currency. Now I say integrity. Integrity is a moralistic work, but money is work, and work is heartbeats, and heartbeats are finite.
Speaker 8: You have to take a life risking surgery to get your cancer out of your belly, and that's the only thing that we can do. Economically, you just get rid of the Fed if you want to have sound money and a healthy economy. That doesn't sound so bad.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Funniest people are those who think the '20 crash was caused by a virus. The banking system was already collapsing Sep '19 forcing the Fed to start REPO interventions like '08. The system only collapsed when the Fed pulled REPO away 2023 is the same game plan with BTFP & OCE 🤫
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The Fed admits guilt of causing the 2020 crisis by pulling the Emergency Repo rug at exactly the worst possible time, despite the banking system being on life support since Sep 2019 The Repo rug was pulled right after Powell attended the Bezos party 🤫 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/what-happened-in-money-markets-in-september-2019-20200227.html
What Happened in Money Markets in September 2019?
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.
federalreserve.gov
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The Dow Jones peaked on December 4th and has been rolling over ever since. So far very similar to September 1929. https://t.co/5Zd5BAJBNB
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The 1929 collapse began once the month rolled over on Sep 4th. I bet Gary Gensler is going to make the $SMCI announcement on Tuesday December 3rd. Dow $DJI is currently above the 125 yr resistance trend. The last time this happened was August 1929. Is it "different this time?"🙃 https://t.co/TplvFyrrYX
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Roaring Kitty is just pumping & dumping $GME again after telling everyone to buy & hold the entire way down from $80 three weeks ago. https://t.co/ebqCYHdcEJ
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
When Roaring Kitty tweeted about $GME on May 12 it opened at $38 but collapsed to $27 before heading higher. Today is June 3 swap rollover so they'll need it as low as possible. The large move may not begin until end of day. Something to keep in mind. https://t.co/sNff75uXAb
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The common view among GME people is that it's different this time, which is fine. So let's consider that by looking at the charts. If it's "different this time" why do the technical charts look the same? 🤔 In 20 days you guys might get another swing at this (maybe). https://t.co/CWr2ZZLjJp
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Unemployment clearly shows we've been in the same economic cycle since 2010. It never ended. We haven't had the real crash yet, but it's coming.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Israel struck back right on Options Expiration.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
"I'm worried that Trump is going to get us into a war with Iran" - Biden 2020 https://t.co/UipLCAvh9u
Video Transcript AI Summary
The world has changed due to Trump's actions. Many Americans, including independents and some Republicans, recognize his misrepresentation and fear he may lead us into war with Iran. The upcoming election holds significant importance.
Translation: The world has changed because of what Trump has done. Many Americans, including independents and some Republicans, are aware of his misrepresentation and fear he may lead us into war with Iran. The upcoming election is crucial.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The world has changed because what Trump has done. And the American people, including independents and some Republicans, know how bad he is, know how much he's misrepresented, know how he's getting close to getting us in a war. I said, does the walls close in in this man? I'm worried he's gonna get us to war in Iran. Unfortunately, I may have been right.
The fact of the matter is there's a lot at stake in this election.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The last time the Federal Reserve contracted the global Dollar supply by this much was in 1929 when they wanted to fundamentally change the system. They intentionally kept the supply tight for years to accomplish this. https://t.co/cmpl7aFAfT
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Alan Greenspan gave away the game plan years ago. US isn't going to default on its debt. They're going force everyone else to default on theirs by rates & Dollar shortages. When everyone is forced to sell US Treasuries they'll buy them below face value. https://t.co/pkUn9Wf1ww
Video Transcript AI Summary
The United States can always print money to pay off any debt it has, so there is no chance of default.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is 0 probability of the fall.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Jordan Peterson spills some uncomfortable truths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycDUU1n2iEE
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion revolves around the potential negative impacts of the COVID-19 vaccine, particularly on young men with myocarditis. The effectiveness of the vaccine in reducing transmission and severe outcomes is debated, with one side emphasizing its benefits and the other questioning the motives of pharmaceutical companies. The conversation highlights concerns about the vaccine's safety and the role of the government in promoting vaccination. Ultimately, the debate centers on the balance between public health and individual rights.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: See economic disruption and there's plenty of reason to believe that some of that is the case but the other obviously glaring possibility is that injecting billions of people with a vaccine that was not tested by any stretch of the imagination with a thoroughness that it should have before it was forced upon people also might be a contributing factor partly we because we know that it led to a rise in myocarditis among young men. And we also know that there was absolutely no reason whatsoever to ever recommend that that vaccine was delivered to young children whose risk of death at COVID was so close to 0 that it might as well have been 0.
Speaker 1: When you're talking about a disease, the risk of death isn't the only thing that you worry about for the disease.
Speaker 0: Also, you're talking about transmission? Well, because that was another thing that the We can talk about transmission. Yeah. But it didn't do anything to transmission.
Speaker 1: Absolutely did because it decreased the transmission getting affected. It didn't destroy it didn't get rid of transmission, but it reduced transmission. But it was a
Speaker 0: claim that it would get rid of transmission.
Speaker 1: Take one reading of one single quote, I think that Oh, I'm so sorry. Biden said one time where he said, no. Come on. I've heard so many times because I'm gonna say, oh, you can't take anything Trump says seriously. Biden one time on the news said, if you get the vaccine, you won't That is so soon.
Which was it? No.
Speaker 0: Do you know that our prime minister in Canada deprived Canadians of the right to travel for 6 months because the unvaccinated that were going to transmit COVID with more likelihood than the than the vaccinated. So this wasn't one bloody statement. This was, like, a third government that was
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is there wasn't a statement given that if you get vaccinated, there is a 0% chance of transmitting the disease. The idea is that vaccines were supposed to help because it reduces it reduces your hospitalization, reduces death, and it reduces transmission hopefully by making it so that people don't get sick or don't get sick for as long. All three of those things, the vaccines did exceedingly well. They continue to do that to this day. But especially for the first variant, and then the Delta variant, the vaccines helped immensely here.
They were tested. The myocarditis rates are like 7 out of a 100000 injections, and the myocarditis is generally acute. And it's generally not as bad as even getting the coronavirus itself, which will lead you also to having a virus.
Speaker 0: Side effect than side effects that have caused other vaccines to be taken off the market before.
Speaker 1: That So put it 7 out of 100000 rate of acute myocarditis or pericarditis is not a worse, side effect than any other vaccine. I think that is a completely acceptable given that the disease itself is more likely to cause myocarditis or pericarditis. Yes.
Speaker 0: I don't think the data suggests to support that presupposition anymore. The latest peer reviewed study show that that's simply not true, especially among young men.
Speaker 1: The the so there is an age bracket of young men where the elevated rate of myocarditis, acute myocarditis from the vaccine might have been higher, but we're talking about, like, 3 or 4 cases per a 100000 people. And, again, myocarditis programs are generally acute conditions. They don't last at the very point.
Speaker 0: I told you at the beginning of this conversation that the progressive leftists were on the side of the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 1: It's not about being on the side of the pharmaceutical companies. It's about
Speaker 0: Really?
Speaker 1: 1 really. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: But I see so what I see what I see as the unholy part of that alliance with utopians willingness to use power to impose their utopian vision.
Speaker 1: Well, then what do you
Speaker 0: have to do exactly? Would you explain it? Because the leftists should have been the ones that were most skeptical about the bloody pharmaceutical companies. And they jumped on the vaccine bandwagon in exactly the same way that you're doing right now.
Speaker 1: Pharmaceutical companies have helped us tremendously throughout
Speaker 0: the Right. There we go. Fine.
Speaker 1: No. Like Modern Medicine hasn't.
Speaker 0: No. I don't think so. That you're just wrong. They're utterly pricey. So you don't think that the pharmaceutical companies who dominate the advertising landscape with 75% of the funding are corrupt.
Speaker 1: I don't corrupt is a very
Speaker 0: broad No. No. No. It's
Speaker 1: not corrupt. Do you think that pharmaceutical with
Speaker 0: a tinge of malevolence, willing to extract money out of people by putting their health on the line? Do you don't believe that?
Speaker 1: Do you think that we get effective drugs from pharmaceutical companies?
Speaker 0: Not particularly.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
"From 2019 to 2023, deaths from colorectal cancer rose 17% among those 15 to 44 in that time, four times the population-wide increase. Uterine cancer deaths rose 37% among 25-to-44-year-olds; they rose 15% overall." Gee, I wonder what the cause is... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/mar/26/princess-catherine-is-one-of-many-more-young-adult/
Princess Catherine is one of many more young adults with cancer
It is called early onset cancer. And the Princess of Wales, diagnosed at 42, is part of an unfortunate new trend of more and younger cancer cases.
washingtontimes.com
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
BREAKING: GameStop shares fall -9% after they unveil bizarre plan to allow CEO Ryan Cohen to gamble company assets on other stocks 🤪 The new policy will also allow Cohen to personally invest in the same securities as the company... 🤔
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Next week: ○ China's Xi visiting U.S. Nov 14-17 ○ Inflation Rate Nov 14 ○ Consumer Price Index Nov 14 ○ Retail Sales Nov 15 ○ Producer Price Index Nov 15 ○ VIXpiration Nov 15 ○ OpEx Nov 17
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
This is all before the government potentially shuts down on November 17th
reSee.it AI Summary
The US is taking measures to counter China's potential dumping of $859B US treasuries, aiming to discourage it. By restricting Dollar supply, destroying crypto exchanges, and raising rates, they are prepared. This would lead to a spike in Dollar demand, allowing the US to print and buy excess treasuries, causing borrowing costs to skyrocket for China. The US seeks a gradual separation from China's economy to shift supply chains to India. However, China's low birth rate and rising youth unemployment pose challenges. China faces a tough choice: a slow decline or potential conflict.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Yellen was questioned about China suddenly dumping $859B US treasuries due to war Few understand the US has already been preparing for this event which is why they're restricting the Dollar supply by destroying crypto exchanges, raising rates & have $2.5T in Reverse Repo waiting https://t.co/i15kQYfB06
Video Transcript AI Summary
In a recent select committee exercise, the concern was raised about China potentially invading Taiwan and dumping $859 billion in US treasury securities. The speaker asked how the US is working with allies and the Federal Reserve to handle such a situation. The response was that specific exercises are not being conducted, but the National Security Council is consistently concerned. The speaker encouraged the Treasury to prepare for this scenario and collaborate with the Fed and allies.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: China and and the Taiwan Strait scenario. In our select committee work, we did a tabletop exercise, and in response to sanctions against a Chinese scenario where there would be an invasion of Taiwan, the scenario was that China, the 2nd largest foreign creditor of U. S. Treasuries, would dump that $859,000,000,000 in treasury securities. How are you working with our allies internationally and also the Federal Reserve, to deal with a situation where China would dump that volume of treasury securities overnight.
Speaker 1: So we are not engaging in specific, exercises to address Address such a risk, but the United the United States, the National Security Council, is certainly concerned On an ongoing basis
Speaker 0: Madam Secretary, I would encourage Treasury to make preparations and, and, and be on the ready, for that scenario, and work with the Fed on that and our allies.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
By preparing for this event the US has effectively discouraged it from happening. US treasuries can only be sold for Dollars. A spike in Dollar demand would allow the US to print & buy all excess treasuries China would then see borrowing costs skyrocket, destroying their economy
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
The US wants a slow decoupling of US & China economies so they can transfer supply chains to India Problem is China's birth rate prevents them from having sustainable internal demand & youth unemployment is 20% & rising China is in trouble. Either a slow bleed or they go to war
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
If everyone is selling U.S. treasuries at fire sale prices, the U.S. will simply buy up all of its own debt with the skyrocketing Dollar. You can't default on your debt if you own most of it, thus resetting the cycle of U.S. debt being the most stable in the world 🤫
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
FX Crisis... right on schedule. Everything coordinated to hit at the same time.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
"The Great Taking" by David Webb A detail explanation of the financial crisis preceding The Great Reset. HT to @KruipendeT https://thegreattaking.com https://youtube.com/watch?v=IIoGu692a64…
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker discusses the book "The Great Taking" and its implications for the global financial system. The book reveals that securities ownership has been replaced by a new concept called a "security entitlement," allowing account providers to use investors' securities as collateral. This system enables the collateralization of all assets in times of crisis, potentially leading to a future where a small elite class owns everything and the rest of the population is enslaved. The video also explores the ownership of land by the Crown in the UK and the potential for a global revolution to dismantle existing institutions. It emphasizes the financialization of the system, the importance of building self-sufficient parallel systems, and the need to consider investments with zero counterparty risk. The video concludes by urging viewers to take action, build communities, and be aware of control measures and media collapse.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everybody. Welcome to the Parallel Systems broadcast. I'm your host, Mike. And tonight, I've got quite an episode for you. We're going to be reviewing, or should I say, looking at a book that was recently released called The Great Taking.
And this is really the counterpart to The Great Reset, as you're going to find out tonight. Now, this book is probably one of the most disturbing books I've read in years, many, many years. In fact, it could be the most disturbing book that I've read in my entire life. I've read some pretty disturbing books, but this one's up there. It's certainly up there.
And that's because of the implications of this book. If you understand this book, then you understand that something absolutely catastrophic has been set up, almost like a controlled demolition. Now, I know on this channel we talk a lot about The controlled demolition of the financial system. I've been talking about it from the very beginning, so I've always believed it was going to happen. And I've done my best to show you the wires of this.
And in the very least, I've done my best to show you that Even if there is no controlled demolition, there is going to be a collapse anyways because the system is so warped and destroyed by debt. So, what this book actually does is provide us with a key piece of the puzzle that I have not been able to find myself, but I have had my own suspicions, but this book really lays it out. It shows a key piece of the puzzle. I first heard about this on Doug Casey's take. So Matt and Doug have a fantastic YouTube channel over there, and they did an episode about this just the other day.
It was about 15 minutes where they gave their take on it. They both read it. I read it immediately. The next morning, I read it in one sitting. I couldn't put it down.
And afterwards, I felt exhausted, and I needed a stiff drink. And I think if you're going to watch this episode, I would advise you get 3 stiff drinks ready, 1 for right now before you hear the subject to get you ready. 1 whilst you're reading it and probably 1 at the end as well to put you to sleep because you might struggle to sleep after hearing this one. So, I'm I'm going to leave it there for the introduction. I'm not going to be editing this one.
We're going to do it Bill O'Reilly style. We're going to do it live. We're just going to go straight into this one And hopefully, I'll pick up on all of the key topics. I've got a little list in front of me. So, we'll be bouncing back and forth between this screen and the screen with the camera, so we're gonna do that now.
We're gonna go through it, and I'm gonna get my websites open. Oh, hey, here we go. Let's get ourselves into a light mood. Get your stiff drink ready, and, we'll just get ourselves into a nice, mellow mood because after that, it's all downhill, I'm afraid to say. We will leave you with a I can't do it.
We'll do it live. Okay. We'll do it live. Fuck Do it live. I can go write it, and we'll do it live.
There we go. That's me tonight. I'm I'm mister Bill O'Reilly. We're going to do it live. Okay.
So the first thing that I want to show you is the website, thegreaptaking.com. The book was written by a man named David of Rogers Webb. Now, that might not mean a lot to most people because I don't think David Rogers Webb is somebody that has ever sought publicity. He is certainly a very accomplished person according to the prologue, which we're going to get into in a second. But if you go to thegreattaken.com, you can find his book is for free.
He's put this out as a matter of public service, I would say, And you can download the PDF or you can buy a soft copy from a website if you really want to, but I would advise you just get it. It's only 130 pages long. You Can read it in a couple of hours, and then you can reread it again and again and again, if you want to. Going into the backstory of this person, David Webb. So he tells you in the first chapter, and I'm going to lay out kind of step by step.
So don't worry, we're going to get to it, the main part of it. But I just want to tell you a little bit about the author. So far as we know, He was somebody that was managing money. He came from just a regular background. He appears to have been right up there with the best of them in terms of hedge fund of End Management.
He has a few, incidences throughout his career where he was in the presence of people like George Soros, he got offered a position at the Rothschilds. He was managing 1,000,000,000 and he took funds from, he says he took funds from 30, 40,000,000, 50,000,000 all the way up to the billions. So clearly, a very accomplished past and now costs. You might say, Well, maybe he's a fraud, maybe he's a liar. I'm I'm a pretty good damn researcher.
I can usually find that kind of stuff out. I didn't go crazy on this one because the book itself is what we're focusing on, not on the author, but I did do a little bit of research. And I found an article, from 2003, February 4th. You You can see up here that it says, Webb Strikes Out With New Hedge Fund, and it talks about how this fund manager called David Webb, same name, Hopes to raise about 1,000,000,000 in assets for his Verus Investment Management, which also includes about 2 dozen of his former colleagues. And it talks about how this Mr.
Webb, who was 43 David Webb, he prefers to stay out of the limelight, which would actually I resonate with what the author of this book, The Great Taking says. He says that, I prefer to stay out of the limelight. And he also says that He has a great reputation for delivering double digit returns, and people were scrambling to put money with him. Now, interestingly, when I read his book, if you go to the early chapters, where he's talking about his past. He does actually mention that in 2000 and what year was it?
2003, he set up his own fund, and he did it in January 2003. And what it says actually in the article is that it's February 2003 and that this man, David Webb, has just set up his own fund. So that would actually line up precisely with where this David Webb was putting his own timeline. So I just wanted to put that out there just to say that I did do a little of due diligence just to look into it. And it does seem to me like David Webb is a legitimate person.
Surprisingly, there's actually a of David Webb's in finance. There's a number of people out there who are quite high up, but I do think this person is who he says he's, at least from first of Glance. He certainly knows his stuff. As I went through the text, he's clearly extremely bright. I would love to speak to this man.
He's clearly an extraordinary talent, as somebody who has managed an awful lot of money and done extremely well. So I just wanted to give a little bit of a biography on the author. When I read the book, he was making some extremely good market observances, which I don't think just your average person is going to know, so I'll leave it there for that one. Okay, so let's go to the next part of it. So, what is the book actually about?
Well, the book is telling a story that David actually uncovered himself through his own work. And what he's talking about is that there was a number of things that that he started to notice in terms of the legislation around securities, and we're talking equities, so stocks, but also bonds as well, but particularly he's talking about equities, which really alarmed him. And what this legislation was doing is it was turning the equities that you own. So let's today that you have a stock portfolio. You've got a load of silver and gold miners.
I would imagine that you assume that you have property rights over those shares that you have been given property rights. That's what we all assume. And what David shows in his book to start with, because he goes through it step by step by step, but he shows that to start with, that's actually not true. The law has been changed. The law is being changed, so now you have an interest in those equities.
Now, what does that mean? Well, I would say it's the same as property rights in the UK. In the UK, if you look at the land laws, the registry, what you find is that people don't own their land or house outright. It's actually owned by the crown, Whoever the Crown Are to You. Some people believe it's the king.
Some people believe that the king is just a puppet for financial interests. And if you go back throughout history, financial history, you'll find that that was the case ever since the Glorious Revolution, as it's called, when William and Mary will put on the throne, William of Orange. And after that point, it was the moneyed men that were in charge of England. Now, we know that, I've just done an episode on the formation of the Bank of England on my podcast, The Parallel Mike Podcast, and if you listen to that, you'll find out that story. So in England, it is actually legally not your house.
The house is owned by the Crown. Now, you have an interest in that house, which means you can live there. You can pass it on. It's Yours. However, at any point, that house could be confiscated from you because you don't own it.
Now, if you don't believe me, you can actually go look at the Land Registry Act of 2002, and you can read it. It says, The only absolute land owner in the UK is the crown. Now, everyone else has an interest in the land. That means you're a Saif on that land. Now, like I said, it's not being enforced right now, but it could be.
It It could be enforced at any point and you'd have no legal recompense because you wouldn't have anything in law protecting your rights. It's there. Now, if you don't believe me, Here's another example. If you die tomorrow in the UK and you had no heir to pass on the house to, do you know where it goes? It goes back to for The Crown because it's their land and their house originally in law, so it goes straight back to them.
Then they can sell it, then they can use it. Now, I know I'm getting off topic, but I just want to put Something out there, I want to make it clear that the law matters. Legislation is extremely important because if you look at the legislation, That is how it will be followed in a time of crisis, such as a person dying with no heir. Well, where does it go? Well, it goes to the law and they look at it and they say, okay, now it's actually going to go to the original owner of that land, which is the Crown.
Then they can sell it. They can do what they want with it. So you need to understand these things that the law is what everything else rests upon. So any new legislation that we are not aware of makes us ignorant of what might happen to us in the future. And that's what David is pointing out in this episode that I'm going to be talking about in his book, The Great Taking.
He's pointing out that the legislation has been silently and quietly changed over the past few decades to make it so that all of your equities are now like that land, that at any point they can be taken from you and used in another way that you are not aware of. It's not your property anymore. Now, this is far more consequential probably then, the land act in Great Britain, because we have a stock market that is about to collapse. We've got a Fiat Ponzi scheme. I've shown you the pyramid many times.
In fact, I'll put the pyramid up. I will do a little bit of editing. I'm not going to lie. I'm going to do a tiny bit of editing, but I'm going to put the Ponzi pyramid up because I want to show you just how this one looks. In fact, let's get it up now.
Okay. So we've got this graphic in front of us, and this is one that I made, but it's based on John Exeter's pyramid, and I just updated it as to how I saw it in the modern era. And you can see at the top, there is derivatives and unfunded liabilities of 2 to 4 quadrillion. Well, why it matters that the legislation around equities has been changed is because this pyramid is now set to collapse. Everyone who has been watching my channel will be well aware of this.
And if you're not aware of it, you can go back and watch the previous episodes on this Ponzi pyramid. I've got an episode called Pyramids of Ponzi or something along those lines. You can find that and you can find out what this pyramid represents. But what you have to understand is at the top, there is an awful lot of these things called derivatives. Now, to give you an example of what a derivative is, a derivative is essentially a financial instrument for which there is no underlying collateral or backing.
So for example, let's take this, gold bracelet here. This gold bracelet is a 1 ounce gold bracelet. It's mine. I own it. However, somebody else could come along.
And they could say, oh, I see that gold bracelet. I'm going to make a bet with my friend that the value of that gold bracelet goes up, and his friend could say, no, I think it's going to go down in the next, 6 months, let's say, for example. And then they could make a bet on it. They don't actually own the gold bracelet. I own the gold bracelet, but they're making a bet on it.
That's a derivative. That's a very simple way of looking at derivative. Now, there is no limit to the amount of derivatives that can be made and there is no limit to the amount of different trades. And if you think about all of the different trades that could be made, we've got commodities, we've got equities, we've got interest rates, bonds, all of those things. We've got probably trillions of different trades that could be made, different ideas for trades.
Well, derivatives are being made constantly on all of the commodity complex, on all of the equities, on the whole investment sphere, there are derivatives being made and those derivatives have no backing. So the people making those bets don't actually own the underlying stuff. Now, the problem with that, of course, is most of these derivatives are actually being done by banks that hold your deposits. So that means that it's not just 2 people, and if one of them fails, the other one has to lump it and they lose their money because the person's gone bankrupt. No.
These are the banks that contain all of the world's wealth on deposits. And if just one of those banks goes down, let's take Deutsche Bank, for example. Deutsche Bank have about 60,000,000,000,000, 70,000,000,000,000 in derivatives. Now just put that into context, the wealth's GDP in 2011, this is something that's written in this book, The Great Taking, was about 76,000,000,000,000. So just 1 bank has derivatives to the value of the entire wealth's GDP just a few years back.
I think today, we're closer to 100 110, 120. Now, if you imagine, all of these banks have these derivatives. What happens in a financial crisis while those derivative Portfolios Blow Up. Now, all it would take is just for 1 of those banks to go under and this whole debt Ponzi pyramid in front of you would collapse from the top down. Those derivative books would blow up.
That would blow up the banking sector because all of those derivatives have counterparties. So that means if 1 person defaults, the whole system defaults. It's so interconnected. This is the hyper financialization and de regularization of the system that has taken place when they repealed Glass Steagall. This is why the system now is rigged to fail.
So if just one of those banks goes, the whole thing goes. That's it. The financial system of The Wealth Has Gone. Now, I know this, and I think you know this too, and they know this, and that's the important thing to understand. They know this.
They understand that the system they've created It's Set TO Fail. And after 2008, when they took interest rates to record lows, they inflated the Everything Bubble. They took us to the end game. They knew where this was going. And so they have been setting up for the end game.
They've been setting up for the collapse of Exodus Pyramid, which you can see in front of you, and they're now getting ready for the next system, which we know will be central bank digital currencies and a complete rewriting of the social contract. In fact, they're trying to take us back to what It's called The Great Reset. And The Great Reset is essentially a form of neo saftum. And if you understand that that's what The Great Reset is about, it's about drawing you and taking you back to a form of Neo Saturn, where you have an elite class, a very small elite class that own everything. They own all the land, doing all the resources, doing all the means of production, and then they're going to use that ownership to enslave you because they're going to tell you what you can and can't have, and and they're going to put you in a system.
And now they've got the technology added to that system. So if you go back to Soviet Russia, they tried to dominate people's lives totally, but it was very difficult because they didn't have the technology. So they had to use lots of spies, listing devices, but ultimately people could get out of it in many different ways. Well, that's not going to be the case this time. So, they're setting up for that, and if you see that, then you'll also understand that something has to be done to ensure that everyone goes down with the collapse of the pyramid.
That's the goal. It has to be because you can only enslave people if they are dependent on you. If they don't need you, if they've got wealth, well, they're going to be fine. So the trick It's going to be getting people trapped inside this pyramid, and this is where the great taking comes in. So, I had to do this introduction for people who are not aware of what's going on, just as a preamble.
Now, let's get to the book. Okay, so I'm just going to read you a passage from chapter 1. This is the introduction, and I'm going to actually read you the quote that he I'd see. I had a lot of Sun Tzu quotes. And for people who haven't read Sun Tzu's The Outer Wall, I would strongly suggest you read that book because it might help you make a little bit more sense of what's happening right now with this epistemological war against us, the masses of humanity.
And the quote goes like this, Supreme Excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Very simple. The easiest way to win is to not face your opponent directly, it's to break them before they even know they're in battle. Okay, here's what he's got to say. What is this book about?
It's about the taking of collateral, all of it, the end game of this globally synchronous debt Humulation Super Cycle. This is being executed by long planned intelligent design, the audacity and scope of which is difficult for the mind to encompass. Included are all financial assets, all money on deposit at banks, all stocks and bonds, all inventories, plant and equipment, on Mineral Deposits' inventions and intellectual property. Privately owned, personal, and real property financed with any amount of debt will similarly be taken as will the assets of privately owned businesses, which have been financed with debt. If even partially successful, This will be the greatest conquest and subjugation in WELD history.
We're now living within a hybrid war conducted almost entirely by deception and thus designed to achieve war aims with little energy input. It is a war of conquest directed not against other nation states, but against all of humanity. Now, another part of this book that I just wanted to fair back to is in the prologue where he talked about his meeting with George Soros in the early 2000s because this is actually quite relevant. I carried into the meeting a single piece of paper. This was a graph showing that the growth rate of U.
S. Capital spending had blown through 5 standard deviations above the mean, that's significant, having never in history broken above 3. I explained that this meant there would inevitably be a historic bust. Sarvis looked closely at the paper, then he looked at me and he said, this is good. He stood at the paper further, looked at me again and said, this is very good.
He did not disagree with me about the bust, but he did say, They cannot allow equity culture to fail. I said, what can they do that they haven't already done? He said in answer, you don't know what they can do. So in such a moment, even George Soros spoke of they. Who are they?
That's an important question. Who are they? Who are the people that control this? Again, I've done episodes on this on my podcast. I can only speak about it so much because Let's face it, nobody actually truly knows who they are.
We can look at how certain things were done. We can see the hallmarks of they. We can see The clues and the trail of they, but ultimately, there is probably a certain amount of distance you want to keep yourself from whoever they actually are. What we do know is that they have created the largest Ponzi scheme in human history, and the collapse of this scheme is going to be used to Head It Is All Into a Totalitarian Future. And that is something that this person, David Webb, mentions multiple times in this book.
Now, another thing that I just want to point out before we get into The actual equities part is that one of the key metrics that David measures as a market analyst is the velocity of money. And he talks about how throughout history, The velocity of money has been telling us when we are heading towards a out and out crash. So he talks here about in the early 19th century leading up to the Great Wall, There was a collapse in the velocity of money. We saw it collapse. Then within a few years, the Russian, Austro Hungarian, and Ottoman empires ceased to exist.
Now, in my recent episode of the podcast, I talk about how when the Bank of England was fast created, following that, Britain was used to start the mechanisms that would bring down other nations that were on debt free systems. I'm talking about systems where there was no central bank lending, of fiat money at interest. And it just so happens that Russia was one of them, and also the Austro Hungarian Empire was another. So it's interesting that that was the, trajectory of war after Britain got the Bank of England. So you have to understand that story to understand how we got to where we are, and also to understand the arc of history.
Goes on to say, The German economy was destroyed. Then following that, we had the Great Depression, the Second World War, and the slow collapse of the British Empire. No populations were unscathed and there were no winners, or were they? While there was widespread deprivation, Selected banking interests took the collateral of thousands of banks which were forced to close, as well as of a great many people and businesses large and small, the indebted. In the U.
S, gold held by the public was confiscated, but most importantly, closely held, curative, private control of central banks and money creation was maintained, as was the aforementioned control over society's key institutions, including political parties, governments, intelligence agencies, armed forces, police, Major Corporations and Media. And I will add to that, that after the 2nd World War was when we had this host of global institutions, the NGOs, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, they were all formed on the back of this. So, that was when we started to go to this global system, which right now is looking to be the global system that's going to be supplanting all of our nation's sovereignty. So it's interesting. You have to understand the timeline here.
So look at this chart here on the velocity of money, just to highlight David's point. And again, like I said, it kind of identifies that David really does know what he's talking about. The first collapse you can see here was going into the Panic of 1907. The Panic of 1907 was something that was orchestrated by the banking cartels. So we're talking the major banking houses, the Warburgs, the Rothschilds, the people who controlled the Bank of England and were desperate to set up the Federal Reserve or a central bank in America.
They were not happy that they had been rebuffed by the politicians numerous times. They'd had a number of attempts at creating a central bank and failed. This is actually part 2 of my most recent podcast for members. I go into the entire history of central banking in the US. It was an epic episode, and I think you'll really love it.
So if you're interested, please do check that out because it will give you a lot of information. But what happened was they orchestrate the Panic of 1907 and used that as justification to the nation that a central bank was needed. Of course, they had their little meeting on Jekyll Island in 1910. All of the world's of international financiers were there, where they conspired to create the Federal Reserve, and that was done just a few years later in 1913. What happened after that?
Well, we had World War I, where it just so happened that all of the gold, outside of the US got sent to the US, so that really did capitalize The Federal Reserve, it gave it a lot of gold. Isn't that interesting? Just a few years later, all of the Wall Street fans, yes, they made a mint too. They made a killing on World War one. It was very, very lucrative.
Then what did we have? Remember, the Federal Reserve said when they were making their charter that they would have a period now of Prosperity with no Booms and Busts, where we had the Roaring 20s and then the Greatest Financial Collapse in Modern History Leading TO the Great Depression, which absolutely wiped out, millions of families, and we're actually going to talk about that later in the show. But I just wanted to show you this chart. It just gives you, Again, a little bit more credence that this person who wrote this book really doesn't know what it's talking about, although it doesn't actually matter because everything in this book, The Great Taking, Getting excited. You can actually go and have a look at all of the original source documents so that you know this person is telling you the truth.
He's not making it up. Now, if you look at this chart here, you can see the velocity of the M2 money stock as it stands right now. It starts in 1960. Just look at this. The velocity of money has been collapsing ever since 2008.
In fact, it started to collapse after the .com crash, and it never recovered. It's been collapsing ever since. So how has the Global Financial Systems survived since 2000. How have they managed to survive when the velocity of money has been collapsing? Well, I'll tell you how.
This is how. Money creation. If you go here, 2,000, look at that, and look how high the money creation has gone since the year 2000. That's how the money creation has been going up. The velocity of money has been going down.
Now, that's been good because as the velocity of money went down, it stopped hyperinflation because velocity of money is absolutely critical to a hyperinflation. It's when the velocity of money gets very, very high. But what you have to understand is we are reaching record lows for the velocity of money, and they're only going to be able to paper over that. But what's going to happen now how inflation is going to take off. So velocity of money will start to rise, but that will be going into hyperinflation.
The only other option is an out and out of Debt Collapse, and that would be this coming crashing down. Now, ultimately, that's where it goes. Whether they can squeeze in a hyperinflation fast, Well, that's up to you to decide. Do they just veer us off the cliff into a debt collapse? They could do, if they are ready to do that.
If the system is rigged and ready to go, Then they might decide to do that. You shouldn't ever discount the fact they could do that. People think it's only hyperinflation. No, they might do the hyperinflation best to buy themselves of some time. That's what I think if I had to edge one side, but I wouldn't put anything past it.
If they're ready to go, if If they've got a plan, it could be that a cyber pandemic happened and brings down the system, then it goes straight to a debt collapse. So we have to, Have to, have to be thinking risk management because we could go left or right here. Nobody actually truly knows. All we know is the whole thing has become quite psychotic. We're in the really crazy psycho stage, and we know that because look what happens between 2020 and 2022, and look at what continues to happen.
We are living in the period of permanent crisis. The velocity of money has now contracted to a lower level than at any point during the Great Depression and World Wars. Once the ability to produce growth by printing money has been exhausted, creating more money will not help. It is pushing on a string. The phenomenon is irreversible, and so, perhaps announcement of the Great Reset has been motivated not by global warming all by profound insights into a 4th industrial revolution, but rather by certain knowledge of the collapse of the fundamental monetary phenomena, the implications of which extend far beyond economics.
Something has been planned for us, but not for the reasons you have been given. How might we come to know something about the intentions of the planners? Perhaps by examining their preparations. And so now, that is where we will go to. Of it.
And we're going to start with the Chapter number 3, Security Entitlement. Now, this is extremely important. The greatest subjugation in world history will have been made possible by the invention of a construct, a subterfuge, a lie, the security entitlement. So what does that mean? Well, I'm just going to read you this quote here and then I'm going to go through it step by step.
Let's say that you have purchased a vehicle outright for cash. Having no debt against the vehicle, you believe that you now own it outright. Despite this, the auto dealer has been allowed by a newly invented legal concept to treat your car as his after and to use it as collateral to borrow money for his own purposes. Now the auto dealer has become bankrupt, and your vehicle, along with all the others sold by the dealer, are seized by certain secured creditors of the dealership, with no judicial review being necessary as legal certainty and T was previously established that they have absolute power to take your car in the event of bankruptcy of the dealer. Now, to be clear, I'm not talking about your kind, illustrating the horror and simplicity of the lie.
You are led to believe that you own something, but someone else secretly controls it as collateral, and they now have established legal certainty that they have absolute power to take it immediately in the event of insolvency, and not your insolvency, but insolvency of the people who secretly gave them your property as collateral to begin with. It does not seem possible, but this is exactly what is being done with all tradable financial instruments globally. The proof of this is absolutely irrefutable. The whole thing is wired to go now. So this is laying out the case that all equities, every single stock that you think you own, is no longer your private property.
And he goes on to explain, and I'm not going to go through all of the legal documents because I think you owe it to yourself to read this one for yourself, but trust me, I've looked at the documents firsthand, and he's absolutely correct. What's happened? There's no absolute ownership anymore. What you have is a security entitlement. And what that means is that you can own the security, you've gotten impressed in the security, but it's not absolutely yours, which means other things can be done with it.
Now, what are those other things? Well, that is where we're going to go to next. And here, he lays out the key facts. Ownership of Securities as Property have been replaced with a new legal concept of a security entitlement, which is a contractual claim showing a very weak position if the account provider becomes insolvent. All securities are held in unsegregated pooled form, securities used as collateral, And those restricted forms that you use are held in the same pool.
So here's a really interesting part. Essentially, when you buy a stock, When you buy some shares for example, you buy 100 shares in Newmont. Your provider let's imagine it's Hargreaves Lansdowne. That's one of the biggest in Britain. Let's imagine your provider, you put the order through with them, they now buy the shares, but those shares are not handed to you in a segregated account.
Those shares are not yours. They're not locked in some kind of vault with your name on it. Those shares are added to a pool, and all of the owners of those of Jazz have their shares in there too. So anyone else who has bought it, and I shouldn't use the term owner actually, all of the other people who have a security entitlement, All of their shares, let's imagine a 1,000 of us buy a 100 shares today, all of our shares are now pulled in this giant pull. Now, that means that nothing is exclusively yours, and that pool now has other people with claims over it that can use those shares for other things.
That's what he's talking about. Your shares are in a pool, so you might see them on your screen as part of your portfolio. That's just showing you what you have an entitlement to. All account holders, including those who have prohibited use of their securities As collateral must, by law, receive only a pro rata share of residual assets? We're going to get to the collateral thing in a moment.
Revindication, I. E. Taking back of one's own securities in the event of insolvency is absolutely prohibited. Now, this person, David Webb, He has extensively searched for a get out where he could have his shares in his own possession, that his shares would not be a part of this system. And what we found was that across the entirety of the world, in the U.
S, in Canada, and in Europe, everyone has changed their legislation to be in line with one another. That's the key. That's the trick actually. That's the sell. That's the big red flag.
Account providers may legally borrow pooled securities as collateral to collateralize proprietary trading and financing. So what does that mean? Well, that means that all of those shares in that pool can now be used by other people, more important people than you or I. Now, what are they using it for? Well, they're using it as collateral for other things, so they can put it up for collateral, for example, for a loan for a trade with another bank for a derivatives position.
Doesn't matter. They've got priority. It's not your stuff. It's not your money. It's like when you put your cash in a bank.
It's the same thing. When you put your cash in a bank now, what did you learn from my channel about bank bail ins? The legislation is already there. So So in the event of a financial crisis, that cash is not yours. That's marked.
It's earmarked for somebody else. It's in law now. So they're setting us up for the collapse of the system, and they're putting you at the very bottom, which means you'll get nothing. You will own nothing. And will you be happy?
I don't think you will be. Time for another stiff trick. Safe Harbor is your secured creditors' priority claim to pull securities ahead of account account holders. So this means that there are secured creditors. These are the priority.
Now who do you think they might be? Well, those are the big banks, the J. P. Morgans, The Deutsche Bank, and I'm guessing an elite list of clients at the very top, they are the ones, that is the they that George Soros spoke about. Those are the ones to whom everything will go in the collapse.
The absolute priority claim of secured credit is to pull client of Kerry's has been upheld in the courts. There's legal precedent, and he shows that in this book. Account providers are legally empowered to borrow pool securities without restriction. This is called self help. Oh, my.
As we will see, the objective is to utilize All Securities as Collateral. So what you'll find is that they have given very interesting terms to this whole process. So they use things like words, Self Help Harmonization. That sounds really nice. Who doesn't need a bit of self help and a bit of harmonization?
Well, let me assure you, the harm Anization is the 1st part we're going to be focusing on, the harm. And he has this conversation here that he prints, and it's from a March 2006 meeting with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and it provides a detailed response to a questionnaire prepared by the Legal Certainty group. And they were looking to the Fed to tell them exactly how they do it. So we're talking about this collateralization, and it says this. Question, Where securities are held in pooled form, for example, a collective securities position rather than a segregated individual position, Does the investor have rights attaching to particular securities in the pool?
So if you're in that pool, if you bought some shares, do you have special rights relating to your securities that you own in that pool. Fed answer, no. No, that's it. That is a little bit more. The security entitlement holder has a pro rata share of the interest in the financial asset held via securities intermediary.
This is true even if investor positions are segregated. Question. Is the investor protected against the insolvency of an intermediary, and if so, how? Fed. An investor is always vulnerable to a securities intermediary that does not itself have interest in a financial asset sufficient to cover all of the securities entitlements that it has created in that financial asset.
If the secured creditor again, that key term, who's the secured creditor? Who are they? If the secured creditor has control over the financial asset, it will have priority over entitlement holders. If the securities intermediary is a clearing corporation, the claims of its creditors have priority over the claims of entitlement holders. Okay.
So that's important to understand that this has all been laid out, it's all been discussed, and over the past 20 years, it's been ramping up till the point they got their ironclad of legislation in place to ensure that everyone's assets are going to be pulled. Now, what you have to understand is this pull is no longer just Your broker pulling its own assets. No, no, no. This pull is a global pull. They've created a system where all of the assets I put into this global pool from which the secured creditors, I.
E. The mega banks and these special interests, Can take those shares and use them as collateral against the collapse of this pyramid here, against the collapse of 2 to 4 quadrillion in derivatives. So what you have to understand is they've created a system where they can go into this system at any point And take shares from that system and put it up as collateral, and those shares could come from South Korea, they could come from New York, they could come from Liverpool and Britain, they could come from anywhere. They can just take those shares from any country at any point. Now what you have to understand is that there is no backing for this.
So you have no insurance. In fact, they created something that they're going to say is insurance in the event that that system fails, which of course it would in a market collapse. If you have 2 to 4 quadrillion in derivatives that are blowing up, No amount of money on planet Earth could backstop that, so that means everything will get sucked into the collateralization. Just think about that for a second. Absolutely everything, every debt, every house, every equity, every bond, Every piece of equipment that factory or business owns that has been bought and financed, absolutely everything is now being set up to be collateralized.
It's all been put into this system. Then in the event of a financial crisis, all of that stuff that I've just mentioned, all the houses, stocks, Bonds, everything, everything will then be drawn out by the Secured Creditors to use as collateral. So what this suggests to me is that there is somebody at the very top of a pyramid. Everything else sits underneath of it. All of the banking institutions, all of the brokerage firms, everything sits underneath that.
All of the banks. It doesn't stop at the banks. There's somebody at the top, a secured creditor. They own everything underneath it, and they have now a big massive collateral base. So when the system fails, All of that collateral will then go to the banks.
So it will go to all of these mega banks. And if you've got 2 to 4 quadrillion in derivatives and all the other stuff, there will be no amount of collateral tool that can fulfill those failed contracts. There's too much there in the system. So that means all of that collateral goes to who? Well, it will go to the banks, but then it of Go to the Secured Credit is at the top, somebody in the shadows, I guess.
They'll own everything. You'll own nothing. Now, you You can ignore that part of it because even if it just goes out of your hands, that means everything is taken from you, the whole lot. Anything that you do not own outright we'll be taking from you. Time for another stiff trick.
Okay. Let's get back to this one. I told you you'd need 1. In fact, I lied. I said you'd need 3.
I think you'll probably need more than 3. Let's get back to this one. I've got some more quotes here. Some markets treat securities like money. The U.
S. And Canada based their law on the concept that investors do not own securities, but they own securities entitlements against their account providers instead. The advantage of this concept is the potential increase in the amount of assets available as collateral, but critics view it as a threat to stability of the system because the assets sent based on the same underlying resource. And this is from a document that was, from the European Commission's Director General of Internal Marketing Services from 2012. So there was discussing this.
As a result of the demand for collateral, securities are increasingly regarded by market participants as a funding tool. So that's not your investment, that's somebody else's funding tool. These trends reinforce the market trends to treat securities like money with significant implications for ownership. I'd say so. This works well until a bankruptcy cares if the account provider defaults.
A client Client with a May Contractual Claim Becomes an Unsecured Creditor. Let me just repeat that. It works well until bankruptcy occurs. So it works well when everything is normal, but the moment we have problems, it doesn't work. So it doesn't really work well, does it?
And it's like it's like your marriage my marriage worked well until I had an affair. You know, it doesn't really work like that. You have to look at both sides, and it says, if the account provider defaults, a client with a mere Either defaults, a client with a mere contractual claim becomes an unsecured creditor, meaning the client's assets are, as a rule, tied in the Insolvency Estate, and it is obliged to line up with all other unsecured creditors to receive its assets back. You're not getting those assets back. 100% you are not getting those assets back.
When this Ponzi scheme collapses, and I'm so glad I've got this graphic because I need to keep track. This is the perfect graphic for tonight's episode. When this collapsed, there is no going back. The only way back from this Would be a global revolution a la Bob Moriarty, what he said in his recent interview on my show. That's the only way out of this.
Would be a global revolution, whereby every legal structure is torn down because the only thing that would allow us to get back any semblance of wealth would be to disregard and destroy every legal structure on planet Earth because it's illegal structures just that are being used to enslave you. That's why the law is so important because everything is owned through the law. All of the land in the UK is owned by the Crown. How? Through the law.
All of this system, all of this collateral that they're going to rob, how is it happening? Through the law. So the only way out of this would be a global revolution and war to destroy every single institution and structure on planet Earth to start again. Now, I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like fun time. That sounds like a difficult future, and, of course, I've been talking about the potential for that here on the channel, but I think probably this episode is really going to bring it home for some people.
So another stiff trick, and he ends it by saying this, clearly, the European Union director for general internal marketing services fully knew the above in 2012. In the next global financial panic, what are the chances is that there will be much of anything remaining in these pools of securities after the secured creditors have helped themselves. There will be a game of musical chairs. When the music stops, you will not have a seat. It's designed to work that way.
Chapter 4, Harmonization, and we've got another Sun Tzu quote here. Those skilled at making the enemy move do so by creating a situation to which he must conform. They entice him with something he is certain to take, and with laws of ostensible profit, they await him in strength. What was the purpose of seemingly out of control financialization? What was the purpose of creating this?
This didn't have to happen. We had Glass Steagall in place, but before that, we had systems built around sound money. If you go back to the medieval period, there was a 500 year period where prices pretty much didn't go anywhere. Commodities went up and down only based on demand and supply, but it wasn't based on the monetary system. It wasn't based on fiat money inflating the system so people could earn a good salary.
In fact, if you go back to Roman times, it cost about 7 ounces of silver to buy your annual food. And if you fast forward the next 1500 years to medieval England, the same thing was true. 7 ounces of silver would still buy you your annual food. So what changed? Well, I'll tell you what changed, central banking and fiat money.
The banks have done this to us. But why did we allow it to get so hyper financialized? Why is every pension in the UK not in real assets, not in things that cannot be destroyed? But why is every pension in the UK the entire future wealth that people are going to depend on when they retire? What they believe is going to give them a happy retirement where they can spend time with their family, with their grandkids, they can go on holiday, they can play a bit of golf.
That's the dream. That's what they have been lured with their entire life, to push themselves to do a job that they can't stand, a career that takes them away from their family, from raising their own children. That is the one hope, the one dream. Why did we allow that whole thing, that whole future. All those dreams and hopes to be put into a Ponzi system and everything else.
Well, I'll tell you why. It was for this. It was for what comes next. It was knowing that that would allow a certain group to take all of the wealth whilst that system was in play, And then leave everyone else with nothing. And he continues, An imperative has been created that certain secured creditors must be given legal certainty to claims of clients' assets globally without exception.
With the further assurance of near instantaneous cross border mobility of legal control of such collateral. The global push for Conformers to the U. S. Model for achieving such certainty and mobility began in earnest more than twenty years ago in the aftermath of the .com bust. Financial instability and the threat of collateral shortages were used as justification.
Deliberate efforts were sustained globally over many years. People were paid to do this to betray the vital interests of their own people. It was done fast in the U. S. And then demanded globally under the name of Harmonization.
Perhaps the emphasis should be on harm. The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities Held With an Intermediary was drafted in 2002 and signed in 2006. It's an international multilateral treaty intended to remove, globally, legal uncertainties for cross border securities transactions. So just to explain, The idea was created, and then the effort was put in place to ensure that the whole world would be a part of this system. One world system.
Sound familiar? Well, yeah, this is the One World system that's going to happen in the collapse. It's all going to become very real, very quickly because everyone has already drafted Uninstalled the legislation. It's there. It's being done.
The I's are dotted. The T's are crossed. It's done. The convention introduced a newly invented conflict of laws rule to be applied to security transactions, especially collateral transactions, namely the Place of the Relevant Intermediary Approach or PREMATT. This was designed to avoid problematic national law, that tricky national law.
They don't like national law, do they? Which might allow owners to recover their assets taken by a creditor as collateral. By setting the place of law in the account agreements with intermediaries, that means that you have signed up to this without knowing. When you Have Signed Up With Your Account. In fact, what I would advise you do is tomorrow, call up your broker and ask them.
Write down the names of these laws and legislations. Ask them, what would happen in the event of a default? Ask them, are my assets being used as collateral? And make sure you get official documents from them telling you, you want something on a piece of paper. I guarantee you they won't give you it.
And I don't think the pastor on the phone will tell you either, but Just do it as an experiment and get back in touch with me. It'd be really good to know that. I can tell you I've already checked, and I can find nothing. I can find nothing. All I can find is the laws, but I can't find nothing in the accounts.
But I would imagine that I signed up to that unknowingly. The objective of legal certainty for creditors was to be pursued by other means. Where they could not easily change problematic local law in which investors had property rights to securities they structured around it. That is what lawyers, investment bankers, and apparently government officials are paid to do. And he talks here about the steps that were in place.
Like I said, I think you need to read this one for yourself. I'm not going to go into it, but he does mention here that he actually tried to warn people in 2014. And he says that he had arranged to speak at a hedge fund conference in Zurich, And he told professionals all about this, and he says that when he finished speaking, there was complete silence. And in the coffee break that followed, He asked one of the people, So, what are you going to do about it? Because he was hoping to drum up some kind of activism to change this because, of course, it's absolutely diabolical.
And the person said that, yes, he understood, but when asked what he was going to do about it, he said nothing. And when asked, Why? Why are you going to do nothing? He said, My clients don't know about this, so they don't care about it. Simple.
They don't care about it because they don't know about it. Now you do know about it, so this is probably our only shot. Our only chance is to share this message, and I would share this video, go watch Doug and Matt on Doug Casey's take, listen to their take on it, go read the book, share the book with people. That's what you have to do. That's all we can do.
Then it talks about the central security depository, which sounds like of an American 3 letter agency. And speaking of 3 letter agencies, he did actually mention in this book that he wrote, David, that he was speaking about this publicly late. And he got invited by a person to go, have a meal with him to discuss his ideas and this whole topic. So So he did and he went and he explained everything. They spoke for hours.
Then the person said, Would you like to go for a beer with me? So he said, Sure. David went for a beer with him. Then in the middle of the conversation, the man just stopped and looked him dead in the eye and said, does your family know that you're sharing this information? And he was essentially giving him a warning, and that was the end of the meeting, just like that.
And it seems like this person was probably from Intelligence. So that tells us something too. That tells us that this information they don't want people to know this information. It seems. Like I said, you can read the book yourself.
You can take what you want from it. I'm just giving you the information. So It says here, the central security depository. Well, this is a pivotal part of it because what they've essentially done is create a massive database so that everything can be harmonized, and this whole system can be looked at from a 10,000 foot view, and they can start to move, Extract all that collateral, extract all of your assets, and put them wherever they want. That's what this system's all about.
So there's the national ones. So every country now has one of these, and then there's the international one, the ICSD, and it says here it's linked to national CSDs And it handles securities lending and collateral management. Did you know that existed? Did any of us? I never.
It goes on to say, as noted by European Securities and Market authority. CSDR plays a pivotal role for post trade harmonization efforts in Europe, And it enhances the legal and operational conditions for cross border settlements in the EU. Now, I'm not going to go into that one, too much, but I did want to show you this document here. What you can see here is how it works. He shows, this is from the Bank of International Settlements.
He adds this to his document, And it shows you how they are using this, and it takes you through it step by step. You can find this in his footnotes. It's very well footnoted. And this is how it's working now. So you can see on this chart here how it's all working.
On the top, you've got all of the different market participants. So you've got equities desk in Tokyo, fixed Income Desk Tokyo in London, Derivator's Desk in London, Equities Desk in New York. Now these are the people that we're buying our financial investments from. So when we're buying equities, we're buying them from them. Now when we buy those equities, what they are then doing, you can see if you go to the next level, is they're putting it into this middle part, the collateral management service provider.
Now that's like a database, so then they're putting it into the database along with the rights. So we don't have the rights. Our institutions have taken those assets that we bought and they've put it into the system. Now, they're being handed off to another level to the custodians, Custodian A, Custodian B, and Custodian C. And you can see there's all these arrows shooting down.
So these arrows are going down, And then they're going to the custodians. Now what's happening? Basically, what's happening from there is the collateral, which is our assets, is now being given to the collateral takers. So our providers are the collateral givers, and right at the very bottom, you've got the collateral takers, and in between, you've got the mechanisms that they've put in place to move these assets around. Now, who are the collateral takers?
Well, you can see here it says repo counterparties, securities lending counterparties, bilateral derivative counterparties, Counterparties for Other Trading Activities, CCPs for Margin Requirements. Now, just going back to this, I don't buy derivatives. Why don't I buy derivatives because I want to protect myself from those toxic financial products. I don't want to be a part of that. It turns out I am a part of that because any assets that I buy, and the equities that I buy are being used as collateral for other people that have zero risk management and they're exposing themselves to God knows what in the derivatives markets.
So it doesn't really matter about my own risk management in that instance. You know, I can risk manage my portfolio. That's fine. I can do very well with the portfolio, But until something goes wrong, then I find out that actually all of those equities are now not there, and I can't sell them because they've been handed off as collateral. So you see how it works?
This will only transpire once the system comes into some kind of structural damage, once it starts to fall apart. That's when you'll realize All of this actually already existed. You'll wake up. All of a sudden, it's gone. He talks here about how all securities have been now used as collateral.
That was of the objective and hence, to have the real practical means to take all securities as collateral. Comprehensive collateral management systems have been implemented, which is showing us the transport of all securities cross border through the mandated linkage of CSDs to iCSDs. So that's the systems. We've got our national ones, we've got the international ones, we've got the puppet masters at the top, we're just sending them left, right, and center. Goes on to say, where the risk of the derivatives complex is concentrated, the supposed demand for this enormous undertaking is not being driven by true market forces, but by Regulatory Contrivance.
Now this is a really important part because he says that there was no evidence of scarcity for collateral, And market participants were not experiencing a shortfall, but demand for collateral assets was being artificially created and intensified by Regulatory Fear. So it was not market driven. They were doing this for a purpose. Now, that's key because what it's showing us It's that what's happened has been driven by some false. It wasn't a natural occurrence.
It wasn't because there was a need for it. It's because somebody Awesome group was pushing this forward. And he mentions derivatives here. He says, Derivatives are financial contracts on everything imaginable and even unimaginable for most of us. They may be modeled on real things, but are not real of themself.
They're untethered from physical reality, but can be used to take real things as collateral. This is the subterfuge, the end game of it all. And I'm gonna leave the final words to mister David Web is his book, so let's leave the final words to him. He says, In the past few years, you've been living within an escalating hybrid war. Globally, we have witnessed of Ovett Media Control and Propaganda Campaign Censorship, including arrest of people speaking in public, monitoring of all electronic Vacations and Physical Contact Tracing.
Yeah, I can vouch for that. My YouTube channel's trajectory was very high to begin with. It's doing very well, got a lot of support all of a sudden. My ratios and averages went down 40%, 50% because I started to speak about certain political situations. I started to speak out against certain things, and ultimately it destroyed the channel.
Now I get less viewers than I got when I had the channel for a couple of months and had maybe 10% of the subscribers. What's going on? It's called Censorship, you know, that's why I created a podcast and left here. That's why I advise people to join me on my Patreon. Yes, Patreon can disappear, but If you do that, you'll get into my private Telegram group, and should anything happen, I will put all of my content on my website.
I do have a member section Right now, it's for part 2 of my podcast. If you really like my podcast, you can become a member there and get part 2. But in the event of out and out censorship, that will be the last bastion. That'll be where I just put all of my financial stuff as well. I do have Rockfin.
I would advise you go to Rockfin and subscribe there because that is the place where people are not being censored right now. Of rockfin.com/parallelsystems. My podcast is Parallel Mike Podcast. You can download that on any app. And like I said, if you check Check out my Patreon even if you just subscribe at the lowest level, but I would subscribe minimum of £4, then you can get the Telegram group.
But even if you just subscribe at the lowest level, At least you will be alerted if anything changes and if this channel disappears. Sadly, that's what we have to do, and we all have a, obligation to support the things that we like the most. And it doesn't have to be my channel. I'm a member of the channels that I like. The reason I say this is because this is serious stuff, everyone, and this could change at any given moment because, you know, there's a lot of parasites in the world, there's a lot of them at the top of this system.
We cannot become parasites ourselves. I've actually had experience of that since I started the channel, and sadly, you know, no, we have to all actually contribute in some way. Some people contribute by putting themselves out there and saying these things and putting these things in the media, trying to help one another. Some people contribute nothing, just negativity. They want everything for free.
People tell me sometimes that my episodes are too long or that they don't like how I do it. It's like, Yeah, I don't care. Go away. I don't want parasites. We need to support one another.
We need a community to be built. And ultimately, I'm only interested in people that are willing to build that community alongside me. I'm not interested in people that are just, consuming. I need people that are gonna take action. Okay.
Rant really is over now. It goes on today, Brutally enforced lockdown and requirements for the thing. Like I said, I'm probably gonna get this video taken down. People being beaten, handcuffed, and arrested, even in their own homes, suspension of health care services. It goes on and on.
Government's dropped all pretense of democracy. They were emboldened to open despotism. There were no functioning checks on this power. The car has provided no effective recourse to the public. I will make a startling assertion.
This is not because the power to control is increasing. It's because the power is indeed collapsing. The control system has entered collapse. Now you'll have heard me say this many times in the past few weeks, that when this system comes down, when this collapses, that's not increased control, that's a power vacuum. The increased control is central bank digital currencies.
It's complete dependency. They need the complete dependency because the power vacuum is going to be so big. Their control system ends. That's it. It's over.
The whole thing, 1000 of years to get to the central banks, all that, it's gone. The system's bankrupt. That is not more power, that's less. That's going to take us to a power vacuum. That is why parallel systems are so important, because if we build them now, we will not become completely dependent.
Of course, it requires people to be actually thinking and critically thinking to understand what is taking place, and most people, they're not understanding. In fact, they're doing quite the opposite. However, He's absolutely correct in his assertion. The power is going to end for a moment, and that's why they want to usher as fast as they can into a new system. But look at how many people I'm starting to take notice.
I can say from my Patreon that a lot of people have taken notice the past year or 2, and thank God You know, that's our best hope. He goes on to say their power has been based on deception. There are 2 great powers of deception. Money and media have been extremely energy efficient Means of Control, but these powers are now in rampant collapse through. You know, people don't watch the old media, the people who do watch it are dying out.
The most successful podcast now is Joe Rogan. You know, just think about that for a second. The traditional media is done. It's over. Even the Parallel Systems broadcast has caught a bit.
Even I've got people watching me in my, little enclave over here. So That's what's happening. People are finding their tribe. They're finding the people, the individuals who speak to them, you know? So everyone's going to have somebody who resonates more with them.
I talk about certain topics and I talk in a certain way. Other channels talk in a different way for me. I've mentioned it a few times. I pretty much only watch 2 shows. I watch Palsades Gold Radio when I've of time.
Listen to Doug Casey and Matt Smith. That's it. I don't have time for anyone else, but they speak to me the most, so that's who I watch. We all have the people who speak to us the most, and that is why we're all linking up too. If you look in the alt media, everyone is linking up now.
You know, I've linked it with so many cool people the past year, independent reporters researchers, that's why I got a podcast. I didn't just want to link up with people in finance because, unfortunately, There's a lot of people in finance. Whoever is blind is the rest of them. All they care about is money, making more money. They have no interest in freedom.
They have no real interest in parallel systems. They have no real interest in understanding what's going on. All it's about is about trading your money. That's not good. That's not gonna help us.
And those people will probably go down with the system because they won't have self sufficiency. They won't have the means to grow their own food. They won't have connections you know, across the world with other people who understand what's happening. So that's one of the reasons why I went into a podcast so I could reach out across the spectrum, not just in finance, but to people everywhere. Building a community, an international one.
It's absolutely critical. That's what we're doing on my Patreon. That's what other people are doing, and we're all linking up, and it's extremely important. Goes on to say, but these powers are now in rampant collapse. This is why they have moved urgently to institute physical control measures.
However, physical control is difficult, dangerous, and energy intensive, and so they are risking all. They are risking being seen. Is it not a sign of desperation? Where will they hide when they have all of the assets, when they have damaged all of humanity and caused billions to awaken through suffering? They promote the belief that they are all powerful.
They are not. All they have is the power to print money. The rest, they've percept from humanity. Never before has the system benefited so few at the great expense of so many. Is this not inherently unstable and unsustainable?
Physical control as opposed to rule by deception requires enormous energy. Can this be sustained while destroying all economies and abusing all people globally? They do not know how to build back better. Look at their footprint around the world, the destruction, The Economic Devastation. When it comes to the real world, they're exceptionally good at one thing, effing things up.
So, I'm going to leave it there for this one. I'm going to just flip my screen around, back to the graphic. And Yeah. So listen, That's a lot to take in, and I would advise you read the book. And ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you own equities or not.
That's not the message here. The message here is that the system that we've been looking at, this inverted pyramid and I always said to people that your equities are going to go down with the ship one way or another. And I use the example of Russia. Recently in Russia, when they went to war, there was a lot of those companies that were no longer able to be traded on the London Stock exchange. So we're talking Russian companies.
I actually owned one of them for a time, and the people in Russia, they got locked out of their brokerage accounts. They couldn't sell. People outside of Russia Could Sell. They had a set amount of time, and those stocks collapsed overnight, so 85%, 90% overnight. They were trading at just like 5% of the value they were just a few later.
Now the people in Russia couldn't sell, and by the time the stock market in Russia opened again and their brokerage accounts allowed them back in, that already been wiped out 95%. There was nothing they could have done. And I actually spoke to somebody. Well, no, sorry. I didn't speak to them.
I listened to somebody speak, who was from Russia, and he said that he got almost wiped out in his equities. You know, not all of them, because some of them didn't, but many of them. And he lost a significant amount of money. Fortunately, he was risk managing, and therefore he managed to survive that, and it didn't destroy his portfolio. Now, the key term there is risk management.
Does this mean that we sell all of our equities tomorrow? I don't know. I think that's an extreme position, but this is an extreme situation that we're discussing. How could we survive something like this? Well, I think he's right in his assessment that whatever they try and do, What they're attempting to do is going to fail.
That's my honest assessment. You know, I've thought about this. I've thought about a lot of it. I'm very intuitive as a person, and he talks about his own intuition. My intuition is it fails, but how it fails is critical.
You can fail in a global takeover and still destroy lots of people. You know, you can still have, millions of people or billions of people perish. There's all kinds of things you can do when you've got the levers of power and you are purposely trying to destroy. And We've all seen this, you know, I saw this a long time ago. I'm sure a lot of people who listen to this channel have seen this, and therefore, we've took as much action as possible.
So let's just focus mainly on the investment part for now. In terms of the investment part, how would you survive it? Well, ultimately, you really have to go back to Exodus this pyramid. I'm going to have to get it up one more time. And this is why this graphic has been so important to me to show this is because if you go back to Exodus Pyramid, you can see there's something at the bottom, 0 counterparty risk.
Everything else in that pyramid has counterparty risk, and therefore it can be used as collateral. Now, you might say, well, I don't have any debt. Well, if you don't have any debt, then yes, that is the most secure above the 0 counterparty risk. So I've part of the bottom line, debt free found on it. It has to be debt free.
If there's debt or mortgages on it, that will be put into the collateralized system, and And you don't know where it's going to end. Remember those machines where you put a ball in at the top and there's all the pins and it kind of bounces around, and there's the little slots at the bottom? You have no idea which one it's going to land in. Well, That's it. And most of those ones at the bottom are going to be bad.
There's like it's going to be like 1,000 or 100,000 would lose on it, and maybe 1 with win. I don't foresee that being a good sell. The debt if there's debt there, that should be dealt with, you know, and I'd take that seriously. I'd really think about it. I'm not going to tell people what to do, you know, but you have to think about it.
Debt free, farmland, forest, self sufficient homesteads. I mean, self sufficient homesteads, could they come and kick you off your land? They could try. I think there's a lot of people out there where, yeah, that'd be the end for them. They'd be like, No, this is my place, and I'm protecting it.
Now, I would point this out, during 2020, they installed some new laws in Great Britain, and I'm sure they did it in other countries. I know they did it in Europe too. That I probably did in the US. I would like to hear it, check it out in the US too, but they implemented some new laws where they said if they believe a house, If they believe a house has somebody with infectious disease in it, they can tear down the house. So this was a part of the draconian new laws that they implemented.
They never took it off the books, it's still there. That means they can go to any house and say, Oh, you've got whatever it is that we're telling you you've got, The House Comes Down. Now You're Going TO Live in the City in a Smart City. So those things could happen. Yeah.
You really have to take notice of what's happening in the world, everyone. You have to take notice of the laws. I don't want to end this 1 on a downer. I'm going to have 1 more stiff drink. My final thrift nah, I'm going to go, I'm going to go drink another one.
I've got 1 in the fridge and, yeah, this is 5th rig time for sure, but you really have to think about these things when it comes to investments. I mean, what can you do? Matt and Doug, on their show, they talked about investment in real estate. Yes. But I mean, I guess if this future transpires, I mean, No one's going to be renting those places.
I mean, the cities are going to be chaos. It'll be pretty bad, or maybe not. Maybe they implement really strong controls and people accept it, and only certain Places About in the ghettos of the main city, but outside in rural places, you'll be okay. You know, at some point, you've got to think the people, who Have the ability to enforce things, so that would be the military and police. I mean, how much are they going to allow to happen to if they see their families being taxed off of their land.
Are they going to go out and do that? I don't see it. Particularly not if you're in a country where there's a lot of people who are still farmers on rural communities. So, you know, you have to think these things through. You have to get yourself the highest level of resiliency and safety possible.
You have to think about counterparty risk, of gold and silver outside the system. I think it's never ever been more important. Some people add to that Bitcoin too. I did do a podcast on Bitcoin, so you can check that out if you want to have a better understanding of the risks that might be there. And if you listen to the most recent episode of the Parallel Mike Podcast, Vampire Bankers, The Central Bank Scam, that is all tied into this.
That tells you how this was created, and I'm going to put the link in the description for that. Also, you can check me out on Patreon. You can check me out on my website. I I do the wealth preservation consultations, and I've got something else to talk about in those consultations now, although I always spoke to people about how in this collapse, the equities portion is, Yeah. You don't want to be there.
So, and what that means in the interim period, well, that's something to think about too. So I'm going to call it a wrap for tonight's show. I hope you enjoyed this one. Please let me know in the comments section what you thought of this document. Please let me know how you're and respond to it.
And, yeah, thank you for listening, and I will see you all in the next one. And enjoy that stiff drink that I know you're going to be having before bed tonight.
The Great Taking
thegreattaking.com
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
This is how bad things are in Canada right now. The government destroyed the economy through taxation & immigration. Now it's just one giant zombie nation. Many other countries like Australia, New Zealand & Europe are in the same boat. I don't see how they recover from this.
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the COVID-19 pandemic, Canada's housing market was heavily impacted. The Bank of Canada lowered interest rates, leading to increased borrowing for home purchases. However, when inflation hit, interest rates were raised, causing mortgage costs to rise. Variable rate mortgages became more expensive, affecting a third of Canadian homeowners, while fixed rate mortgages also faced higher interest rates upon renewal. To avoid a housing bust, banks extended the length of mortgages, resulting in some Canadians having mortgages that will take 70-90 years to pay off. The combination of high housing prices and interest rates has made it nearly impossible for first-time buyers to enter the market. Canada's population growth, driven by immigration, has strained the economy, healthcare system, and housing supply. The country's political parties lack plans to address the housing crisis, and the situation is expected to worsen before action is taken.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And the situation has gotten much worse since the COVID nineteen pandemic. During the pandemic, once again, the Bank of Canada dropped interest rates to 0 and Canadians began borrowing to buy houses faster than ever. Between 2020 and 2022, house prices in Canada soared by 50%, then inflation came along like it did in many other countries and the Bank of Canada did what other central banks around the world did. It started raising interest rates. This has had a nasty effect on Canada's housing market.
Unlike in the US where you can get a mortgage for 30 years with a fixed interest rate. In Canada, mortgages last 5 years and then have to be renewed at a new interest straight. You can also choose between a fixed rate for that 5 years or a variable rate that goes up and down with interest rates in the economy. During the pandemic, variable rate mortgages had lower interest rates than fixed rate mortgages. With house prices so high, many buyers chose the variable rate.
About a third of Canadians have variable rate mortgages where the interest costs can go up and down every month. When the Bank of Canada started raising rates, 1 third of Canadian mortgages instantly started to get more expensive plus the remaining fixed rate mortgages all come due within 5 years. Meaning, even people with fixed rate mortgages are now being forced to refinance with much higher interest rates. This put the squeeze on Canadian consumers. Many began to panic.
But Canada's banks, wanting to avoid a US style housing bust, came up with a novel solution. They started increasing the amortization length of mortgages. That is the amount of time it takes to pay off a mortgage. This lowered mortgage payers monthly payments, but it also extended the length of those mortgages by a lot. Because the amount of money being borrowed is so high, many Canadians now have mortgages that will take seventy, 80 or even 90 years to pay off.
This is not a joke. This is what Canadians are facing today. The dream of owning a home has become the night mayor of nearly permanent debt slavery and all it took was a hike in interest rates. Meanwhile, for first time buyers, the price of Housing combined with high interest rates has made it impossible to buy a home. People are still buying homes, but those buyers are existing homeowners who can leverage the wealth in their current homes to buy investment properties or their corporations buying homes out from under families.
A recent analysis found that at current house prices and interest rates. Only 10% of Canadians could actually afford to buy a house in today's market. No wonder Canada's homeownership rate is falling from 70% a decade ago to 66.5% today and it will almost certainly keep falling. Canadians are being squeezed out of home ownership 1 household at a time. Adding to the problem is a growing housing shortage.
Canada's federal government, led by Prime Minister Justin to Trudeau of the Liberal Party recently increased Canada's immigration levels to around half a 1000000 newcomers per year. But on top of new permanent residents, Canada also takes in hundreds of thousands of foreign students and temporary foreign workers every year, most of whom end up staying in the country. The result is that Canada's Population is now growing at a rate of 1,000,000 per year, a huge number for a country of 40,000,000 people. Canada's population growth rate is one of the fastest in the world on par with some sub Saharan African countries. And the thing is Canada's sluggish under investing economy can't keep up with this population growth.
The economy literally cannot keep pace with the population. And in the second half of twenty twenty two, Canada fell into a per capital recession. Its economy is still growing overall, albeit slowly, but on a per person basis, it's shrinking. There aren't enough jobs and there's not enough economic growth to keep everyone in the country as wealthy as they were before. Rapid population growth is also causing Canada's once beloved health scare system to be strained to the limit.
None of Canada's 1,000,000 new arrivals per year are able to work as doctors because Canada doesn't recognized foreign medical credentials from most immigrant countries. The country lost a lot of health care workers during the pandemic. Many of them due to stress or because they disagreed with the vaccine mandates that the government run health care systems imposed. And today, the health care system is gaining almost no new workers even as the population explodes. Equally bad is that Canada doesn't have the construction workers to increase the housing supply to keep up with the population growth.
Canada is able to build about 200,000 new homes per year, maybe 200 and 40,000 if construction companies go all out, but that's nowhere near enough to house a 1000000 new residents per year. And economists say there aren't enough direction workers to build more than that. A recent report from Canada's mortgage insurer estimated that the country needs to build 5,800,000 new homes in the next 7 years. It's on on track to build around 2,000,000. And all those new immigrants coming into the country, virtually none of them are going to work in construction.
Canada's immigration is based on a point system that values high skilled labor that is people with a college or university degree. That means Canada gets high quality immigrants and who can contribute a lot to the economy, but it doesn't get construction workers. With the housing shortage getting worse every day, apartment rents are soaring up 30% in Toronto in just the past year. And so the country is stuck in a game of musical chairs where the lowest earning people are being pushed out into the streets and homelessness is growing by the day. The worst part is that there is no political will to fix the problem.
Canada has 4 major political parties. Five if you count the separatist block Quebecois and none of them have any plan to seriously increase the supply of housing. That's because at this point, with the cost of land and construction fraction so high, they can see that the government doesn't have the money to fix this problem. It would take 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars of borrowed money to build those 5,500,000 homes and at today's interest rates, the government can't afford it. Not to mention doing something about housing affordability means house prices would come down and no politician wants to alienate the 2 thirds of Canadians who still own a home and are happy with their massive equity gains.
At the same time, none of the political parties are willing to cut the immigration rate. Anytime a politician suggests lowering immigration levels, they're accused of being racist and xenophobic. This is despite the fact that a majority of Canadians, including immigrants, think the government's new immigration levels are too high. In other words, Canada's political leadership is as stagnant and out of ideas as its business community. In the coming years, we can back to see Canadians dying of preventable diseases, families being forced to live in the streets, and politicians who simply turn their head and pretend the problem doesn't exist.
Sadly, Canada's crisis will have to get much worse before the country realizes it has to take action. And if you're thinking of immigrating to Canada, we have 3 words for you. Don't do it.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Here's gold +20% vs oil +450% the past 3 years. Even with the Federal Reserve printing $5 trillion, inflation has eaten up all your profits in gold the last 3 years. You're actually losing money holding it.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Current unrealized losses in the US banking system is -$1.8 trillion out of only $2.2 trillion capital With corporate taxes due Sep 15 & possible gov shutdown Oct 2, the general public has no idea the banks are already insolvent entering a nightmare liquidity scenario in October
Video Transcript AI Summary
US banks are facing significant losses due to the decrease in value of securities and loans caused by rising interest rates. Estimates suggest that the overall losses for the US banking system could reach $1.8 trillion, making many smaller banks insolvent. The higher rate regime is considered a major threat due to the current high levels of debt, which were not present during previous periods of high interest rates. The combination of negative supply shocks, reduced growth, and inflation, along with high debt ratios, creates an unstable economic and financial environment. Central banks' attempts to achieve both price stability and financial stability are challenged by the systemic risks and potential insolvency faced by banks. This situation is expected to lead to a credit crunch, tightening of credit standards, and a significant impact on the real economy.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And for the overall U. S. Banks, you have about $620,000,000,000 of unrealized losses on the securities out of a capital of $2,200,000,000,000 and for some of the regional banks, the number are much higher. But it's not just the securities of lower value. Many of the banks had issued loans like mortgages at fixed rates at 30% 30 years when interest rates were 1%, while right now there are 3.5 or 10 year treasury.
So the market value of those assets is also down. People have estimated, therefore, the overall losses for the U. S. Banking system for the rise in interest rates, both on securities and loans are equivalent to 1,800,000,000,000 out of a capital of $2,200,000,000,000. Hundreds of the smaller banks are literally insolvent.
So that's the fundamental problem. When interest rates go higher, the value of securities and loans is lower and then we have mass liquidity and solvency problems.
Speaker 1: Your recent book was called Mega Threats: Ten dangerous trends that imperil our future. And I wonder if this is among them. You know, interest rates at 5% or even 6% Don't seem like a mega threat. We've had rates as high as 20% in recent history in the early eighties, but we have so much more debt Now than we did back then, which means carrying costs are much more painful. Is this higher rate regime a mega threatner, Yael?
Speaker 0: It is because in 1970s, when we had the stagflationary shock the led to inflation and recession, debt ratios in advanced economies were only 100% of GDP private and public debt. Today there are $420,000,000. So we have the worst of the $70,000,000 in terms of negative supply shock, reduced growth and cost inflation and we have debt ratio that are much higher than after the GFC crisis. And during the GFC crisis, we had a debt problem, housing debt, mortgages, bank debt, but we had negative demand shocks and a credit crunch that led to deflation, so we could do massive monetary, fiscal and credit easing. Now we're entering a session and financial instability having to raise interest rates because the inflation is too high.
So we get inconsistency in a trilemma. We cannot achieve price stability, maintain economic growth, have financial stability at the same time. So eventually, we'll have an economic and financial crash.
Speaker 2: I mean, central banks say they can do those 2 things. Good morning to you, Nouriel. They say that they can have financial stability and they can, control monetary policy because they're policy because they're different levers dealing with different problems, you doubt that?
Speaker 0: Yeah, there's this separation principle that says We're going to use the interest rate policy for price stability and we're going to use liquidity to backstop the financial system and have financial stability. But that occurs only when the problems of financial system are purely liquidity and limited to individual institutions. When you have a systemic problem and there is a risk of insolvency, and by the way, an economic recession is going to lead us from duration and market risk to credit risk, you cannot essentially lose liquidity support of the banks as a way of backstopping the system and there's an inconsistency between price stability and financial stability and we're headed towards hard landing, a credit crunch and significant amounts of losses, both for debtors that are facing much higher nominal and real rates, but also for savers and creditors because rising interest rates reduces the market value of their creditors assets. So you have financial instability, price instability and economic instability.
Speaker 2: You used the phrase credit crunch and we all threw around the term credit crisis in the late 2000s. We know that, that led to the financial crisis and everything that followed. How bad do you think this credit crunch gets this time around? We heard the Fed uncertain and many voices uncertain about How much we see a pullback in the offering of credit?
Speaker 0: Well, most of the financing to SMEs and to households in the U. S. Occurs not from the large money center banks, but from these regional banks and these regional banks are in trouble. There is deposit flight, there are insured deposits, there are fundamental security losses. There will be a tightening of credit and credit standards, left even more cautious, they left to raise capital.
So they're going to lend more. Credit growth is going to probably go from 10% annualized to close it to 0 and therefore a good chunk of main street and Middle America is going to be subject to a significant credit crunch That's going to exacerbate the risk of a harder landing of the real economy.
@FinanceLancelot - Financelot
Charles Schwab owes 130% of their total equity capital to short duration FHLB loans that have to be paid back soon. Total assets $350 billion... There's your September Lehman Brothers. https://t.co/Rr492EJgeN
