Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

Eric X. Li’s exchange with John Pilger lays it out plainly: voting in the United States is mostly political theater. Parties rotate, slogans change, new faces come and go,but the core policies stay tied to money. Why? Because wealth runs the system. Billionaires, lobbyists, and financial elites shape the... rules, while voters are given the illusion of choice. Real power isn’t in elections,it’s in boardrooms. The pattern is obvious. Trump filled his circle with billionaires, cut corporate taxes, and blurred the line between policy and business. Democrats do the same thing with cleaner messaging. Obama’s Wall Street bailout didn’t punish anyone,it protected the same financial interests that caused the crisis. Different branding, same structure. The system isn’t failing,it’s doing exactly what it was built to do: protect the top tier. China runs a different model. The Communist Party doesn’t rely on campaign money or pretend elections control wealth. Leadership stays consistent, policies shift when needed, and long-term planning actually happens. That stability helped drive rapid industrial growth and lift massive numbers out of poverty. And China isn’t “capitalist” in the Western sense. Markets exist, but they don’t run the state. Wealth is managed, not obeyed. Billionaires don’t set national direction. So the contrast is simple: one system claims democracy while serving wealth; the other openly prioritizes state control and focuses on outcomes.show more

Richard

184,196 subscribers

26,835 views • 4 months ago •via X (Twitter)

News & Politics Education Finance

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

“This isn’t a redistribution of wealth. This is an investment in the future.” Trump’s Treasury Department Secretary’s counselor Joseph Lavorgna addresses concerns I have with the 'Trump Accounts' program: “The money is going back into the capitalist system. It’s not consumption. When we think ‘redistribution,’ we’re thinking giving people money to spend. This is money to invest. The only way we’re going to be able to deal with the debt situation is to grow, and to grow fast. It’s a way to build wealth, have a stake in the system and generate policies that are positive for the corporate sector because the corporate sector is the one that hires people, and giving people the American Dream, the ability to reach a higher rung. The cost over a 10-year period is just under $15B. That’s not a lot for a real payoff for people to have an incentive in the system for the US economy to thrive.”

“This isn’t a redistribution of wealth. This is an investment in the future.” Trump’s Treasury Department Secretary’s counselor Joseph Lavorgna addresses concerns I have with the 'Trump Accounts' program: “The money is going back into the capitalist system. It’s not consumption. When we think ‘redistribution,’ we’re thinking giving people money to spend. This is money to invest. The only way we’re going to be able to deal with the debt situation is to grow, and to grow fast. It’s a way to build wealth, have a stake in the system and generate policies that are positive for the corporate sector because the corporate sector is the one that hires people, and giving people the American Dream, the ability to reach a higher rung. The cost over a 10-year period is just under $15B. That’s not a lot for a real payoff for people to have an incentive in the system for the US economy to thrive.”

Glenn Beck

49,059 views • 8 months ago

"If you go back to 9/11, when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade 7 countries in 5 years,' ...[those] were the countries [whose] central banks were not on board to do programmable money... I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a conversation with Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) posted to YouTube on February 27, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Fitts: "Since 1913, the United States has had a governmental structure where the central bank, the Federal Reserve, which is the Board of Governors in Washington, and the 12 central banks, manage monetary policy. So they basically, working with the banks, run the financial transactions. The New York Fed runs the governmental accounts, they control the government bank accounts. "And their policies of fed funds, interest rate and money onto the reserve tracks affects the money supply and basically the money supply and how the money works, okay? So it's more complicated than that because they have lots of regulatory functions, but the people vote for their representatives. "So whether it's the State House or the Congress, they vote for elected representatives from their jurisdiction and area. And those people decide fiscal policy, which is what taxes do we collect, what tariffs do we collect, what bonds do we sell and raise money, and how does that money get spent? "So my representatives, your representatives, are determining fiscal policy, and the bankers are determining monetary policy. And it's a balance of power between the people and the bankers. Now with the digital control grid and programmable money, the bankers can assert control of fiscal policy and they can just decide what the taxes are and take them out of your account. And they can essentially determine the rules of how it all gets spent. "And so it's a very— it's sort of a financial coup d' etat that over time they want to assert complete control of fiscal and monetary policy. And essentially the legislatures will go to being sort of show and tell or go out of business. We're moving quickly in that direction where the legislatures in every country are becoming less powerful, in many cases irrelevant. "So here's my theory though. If you go back to 9/11, and when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade seven countries in five years,' what you were talking about were the countries where those central banks were not on board to do programmable money, and their governance structures were not on board with essentially because of Epstein, I'll call it the Rockefeller–Rothschild model, there was an effort to say, okay, we're gonna basically assert control of the central banks in those countries. That's my interpretation. "And I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." Carlson: "How? Wait, it's not about their nukes?" Fitts: "No. Well, Iran's central bank counts. One of the reasons it counts is because their oil and energy is very important, including for China. And that's very important in the BRIC system. What the BRIC system is trying to do is to create independent payment systems. "But if you're going to come out with programmable money with digital IDs that are interoperable globally and programmable money that that controls in each jurisdiction centrally. You can't afford leakage, and so you've got way too much leakage in the system to proceed with what they're trying to do. "And Iran is, and the BRIC nations are a sticking point and certainly Iran's oil feeding China gives China greater independence."

"If you go back to 9/11, when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade 7 countries in 5 years,' ...[those] were the countries [whose] central banks were not on board to do programmable money... I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." This clip of Catherine Austin Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, investment banker, and founder of the Solari Report (The Solari Report | Catherine Austin Fitts), is taken from a conversation with Tucker Carlson (Tucker Carlson) posted to YouTube on February 27, 2026. ---------------Partial transcription of clip--------------- Fitts: "Since 1913, the United States has had a governmental structure where the central bank, the Federal Reserve, which is the Board of Governors in Washington, and the 12 central banks, manage monetary policy. So they basically, working with the banks, run the financial transactions. The New York Fed runs the governmental accounts, they control the government bank accounts. "And their policies of fed funds, interest rate and money onto the reserve tracks affects the money supply and basically the money supply and how the money works, okay? So it's more complicated than that because they have lots of regulatory functions, but the people vote for their representatives. "So whether it's the State House or the Congress, they vote for elected representatives from their jurisdiction and area. And those people decide fiscal policy, which is what taxes do we collect, what tariffs do we collect, what bonds do we sell and raise money, and how does that money get spent? "So my representatives, your representatives, are determining fiscal policy, and the bankers are determining monetary policy. And it's a balance of power between the people and the bankers. Now with the digital control grid and programmable money, the bankers can assert control of fiscal policy and they can just decide what the taxes are and take them out of your account. And they can essentially determine the rules of how it all gets spent. "And so it's a very— it's sort of a financial coup d' etat that over time they want to assert complete control of fiscal and monetary policy. And essentially the legislatures will go to being sort of show and tell or go out of business. We're moving quickly in that direction where the legislatures in every country are becoming less powerful, in many cases irrelevant. "So here's my theory though. If you go back to 9/11, and when Wesley Clark said, 'We're going to invade seven countries in five years,' what you were talking about were the countries where those central banks were not on board to do programmable money, and their governance structures were not on board with essentially because of Epstein, I'll call it the Rockefeller–Rothschild model, there was an effort to say, okay, we're gonna basically assert control of the central banks in those countries. That's my interpretation. "And I think one of the reasons we're seeing so much tension around Iran is because Iran right now is the big leakage in the system." Carlson: "How? Wait, it's not about their nukes?" Fitts: "No. Well, Iran's central bank counts. One of the reasons it counts is because their oil and energy is very important, including for China. And that's very important in the BRIC system. What the BRIC system is trying to do is to create independent payment systems. "But if you're going to come out with programmable money with digital IDs that are interoperable globally and programmable money that that controls in each jurisdiction centrally. You can't afford leakage, and so you've got way too much leakage in the system to proceed with what they're trying to do. "And Iran is, and the BRIC nations are a sticking point and certainly Iran's oil feeding China gives China greater independence."

Sense Receptor

21,162 views • 5 months ago

$The Setup: A Secret Pact with China In the shadows of global power, Donald Trump and Chinese leadership have forged a secret alliance. The 34% tariffs China imposed on the U.S. aren’t retaliation—they’re a staged act in a geopolitical drama. Trump and China are partners, targeting the real enemy: the European/UK financial elites, known as the “deep state globalists.” These elites control institutions like the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, manipulating global markets to siphon wealth from the U.S. through trade agreements and financial schemes, keeping America economically subservient while they hoard riches offshore. Trump, aware of this since his first term via classified briefings, knew a direct attack on these elites would fail—they’re too entrenched, shielded by political puppets in London and Brussels. So, he devised a plan: use China as a proxy to create chaos in global markets, forcing the deep state to reveal their weaknesses in a high-stakes economic game. The Chess Game: Tariffs as a Market Trap The 34% tariffs from China, paired with Trump’s threat of 50% tariffs, are designed to disrupt the global economy. Trump knows the European/UK elites have billions invested in U.S. and Chinese markets. By staging this tariff escalation, he forces them to react—moving money, adjusting portfolios, and exposing their strategies. It’s a chess game, with Trump three moves ahead. Step 1: Create Panic. The tariff threats spark market volatility. U.S.-China trade stocks—like tech and manufacturing—plummet. The elites, fearing losses, shift assets to “safe” havens: gold, cryptocurrencies, or markets they control. Step 2: Track the Moves. Trump, with U.S. intelligence loyalists, monitors every financial move, logging transactions and offshore transfers. The elites think they’re outsmarting the chaos, but they’re walking into a trap. Step 3: Strike When Vulnerable. Once the elites overcommit, Trump and China “resolve” the trade war on April 9th, 2025, with a surprise deal. Markets rebound, but the elites, having bet against the market, face massive losses. Trump’s allies in the U.S. and China buy up devalued assets—companies, real estate, and more—at a fraction of their worth. The Endgame: Dismantling the Deep State With the elites weakened, Trump dismantles their power. The “other countries” he mentions—Russia, India, Saudi Arabia—share grudges against the Western financial system. Trump forges new trade alliances, bypassing the European/UK-centric order. The deep state loses control of the IMF and World Bank, which Trump reforms into America-first systems, rewriting global finance rules. The Secret Alliance with China: A Double Bluff The twist: China isn’t the enemy—it’s Trump’s partner. They’ve allied to take down the European/UK deep state. China gains new markets and a weaker Western system, while Trump breaks globalist control, fulfilling his “Make America Great Again” vision. The tariff war is a distraction, hiding the real plan. Why the Deep State Falls for It The European/UK elites underestimate Trump, seeing him as impulsive, not strategic. They believe the tariff war is real, reacting predictably and exposing their vulnerabilities. Trump’s rhetoric about China’s “abuses” is theater, keeping the public and media distracted while the real game unfolds. The Wildest Twist: A New World Order With the deep state’s empire in ruins, Trump and China reshape global trade, dominating as partners. The European/UK elites are sidelined, their influence shattered. Trump’s “negotiations with other countries” form a new economic bloc, excluding London and Brussels. The deep state scrambles to survive, while Trump cements his legacy as the man who toppled the world’s invisible rulers—under the guise of a trade war.$

The Setup: A Secret Pact with China In the shadows of global power, Donald Trump and Chinese leadership have forged a secret alliance. The 34% tariffs China imposed on the U.S. aren’t retaliation—they’re a staged act in a geopolitical drama. Trump and China are partners, targeting the real enemy: the European/UK financial elites, known as the “deep state globalists.” These elites control institutions like the Bank of England and the European Central Bank, manipulating global markets to siphon wealth from the U.S. through trade agreements and financial schemes, keeping America economically subservient while they hoard riches offshore. Trump, aware of this since his first term via classified briefings, knew a direct attack on these elites would fail—they’re too entrenched, shielded by political puppets in London and Brussels. So, he devised a plan: use China as a proxy to create chaos in global markets, forcing the deep state to reveal their weaknesses in a high-stakes economic game. The Chess Game: Tariffs as a Market Trap The 34% tariffs from China, paired with Trump’s threat of 50% tariffs, are designed to disrupt the global economy. Trump knows the European/UK elites have billions invested in U.S. and Chinese markets. By staging this tariff escalation, he forces them to react—moving money, adjusting portfolios, and exposing their strategies. It’s a chess game, with Trump three moves ahead. Step 1: Create Panic. The tariff threats spark market volatility. U.S.-China trade stocks—like tech and manufacturing—plummet. The elites, fearing losses, shift assets to “safe” havens: gold, cryptocurrencies, or markets they control. Step 2: Track the Moves. Trump, with U.S. intelligence loyalists, monitors every financial move, logging transactions and offshore transfers. The elites think they’re outsmarting the chaos, but they’re walking into a trap. Step 3: Strike When Vulnerable. Once the elites overcommit, Trump and China “resolve” the trade war on April 9th, 2025, with a surprise deal. Markets rebound, but the elites, having bet against the market, face massive losses. Trump’s allies in the U.S. and China buy up devalued assets—companies, real estate, and more—at a fraction of their worth. The Endgame: Dismantling the Deep State With the elites weakened, Trump dismantles their power. The “other countries” he mentions—Russia, India, Saudi Arabia—share grudges against the Western financial system. Trump forges new trade alliances, bypassing the European/UK-centric order. The deep state loses control of the IMF and World Bank, which Trump reforms into America-first systems, rewriting global finance rules. The Secret Alliance with China: A Double Bluff The twist: China isn’t the enemy—it’s Trump’s partner. They’ve allied to take down the European/UK deep state. China gains new markets and a weaker Western system, while Trump breaks globalist control, fulfilling his “Make America Great Again” vision. The tariff war is a distraction, hiding the real plan. Why the Deep State Falls for It The European/UK elites underestimate Trump, seeing him as impulsive, not strategic. They believe the tariff war is real, reacting predictably and exposing their vulnerabilities. Trump’s rhetoric about China’s “abuses” is theater, keeping the public and media distracted while the real game unfolds. The Wildest Twist: A New World Order With the deep state’s empire in ruins, Trump and China reshape global trade, dominating as partners. The European/UK elites are sidelined, their influence shattered. Trump’s “negotiations with other countries” form a new economic bloc, excluding London and Brussels. The deep state scrambles to survive, while Trump cements his legacy as the man who toppled the world’s invisible rulers—under the guise of a trade war.

IWNH

352,284 views • 1 year ago

🌍 GLOBALIST CARNEY JUST SHOWED HIS HAND Mark Carney didn’t defend Greenland. He defended the system. The same globalist architecture that answers to unelected institutions, not nations. The same crowd that prioritizes “process” over security — and Beijing over Washington. Carney rushed out talking points about NATO, Denmark, and “partnership” the moment President Trump made one thing clear: America will not surrender the Arctic to China or Russia. That’s what this is really about. Greenland isn’t ice and snow — it’s power. Missile corridors. Rare earth minerals. Control of the northern gateway to North America. Trump understands that. Carney doesn’t — or worse, doesn’t want to. Instead of standing with America, our closest ally, Carney defaulted to globalist script: • multilateral control • institutional vetoes • endless committees • no decisive action Why? Because Trump’s move shatters the globalist model — the one Carney built his career on. A model where nations wait for permission. Where security is outsourced. Where China quietly expands while the West debates procedure. Trump speaks in reality. Carney speaks in bureaucracy. This isn’t about Greenland’s “choice.” It’s about globalists losing control of the board. And Carney made it clear which side he’s on. Not America. Not sovereignty. Not strength. The system.

🌍 GLOBALIST CARNEY JUST SHOWED HIS HAND Mark Carney didn’t defend Greenland. He defended the system. The same globalist architecture that answers to unelected institutions, not nations. The same crowd that prioritizes “process” over security — and Beijing over Washington. Carney rushed out talking points about NATO, Denmark, and “partnership” the moment President Trump made one thing clear: America will not surrender the Arctic to China or Russia. That’s what this is really about. Greenland isn’t ice and snow — it’s power. Missile corridors. Rare earth minerals. Control of the northern gateway to North America. Trump understands that. Carney doesn’t — or worse, doesn’t want to. Instead of standing with America, our closest ally, Carney defaulted to globalist script: • multilateral control • institutional vetoes • endless committees • no decisive action Why? Because Trump’s move shatters the globalist model — the one Carney built his career on. A model where nations wait for permission. Where security is outsourced. Where China quietly expands while the West debates procedure. Trump speaks in reality. Carney speaks in bureaucracy. This isn’t about Greenland’s “choice.” It’s about globalists losing control of the board. And Carney made it clear which side he’s on. Not America. Not sovereignty. Not strength. The system.

Jim Ferguson

37,326 views • 7 months ago

Pax Americana Is Collapsing: Trump as Yeltsin-Gorbachev, Brzezinski’s Plan Fails, and the West’s Financial Bubble Heads for Oblivion Sergey Glazyev: Unfortunately, the change from one system of management to another — I call this change from one world order to another world order — is going through a world war. And Americans are doing the same as the British did 100 years ago, trying to maintain their geopolitical dominance. They were trying to do this by creating conflicts all over the world and putting competitive nations in a struggle with each other. So Americans are doing the same. They introduced a trade war against China and a financial war against Russia. They supported the Nazi regime in Ukraine. They undermined their competitors and satellites in Europe. Finally, the idea maybe was to concentrate capital and power, but in fact, the result of this is the collapse of Pax Americana, and you see everything is going on according to the theory of long cycles. The transition period usually takes maybe 33–35 years, or one third of a century. The previous transition period started with World War I and finished with the collapse of the British Empire, maybe in 1947. But the final point was the Suez Crisis in 1953 or ’54, when Britain and France wanted to get control again over the Suez Canal, but the Soviet Union and the United States didn’t support this — from both sides — and everybody understood that the world changed. It became a new world system; I call it an imperial world system with a few superstates which divided the world between themselves. The present transition period started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is finishing with the collapse of the United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of the decrease in efficiency of the Soviet planning system, which the Chinese partially inherited. The collapse of Pax Americana now is explained by the decline in efficiency of the American financial system, which created financial bubbles instead of growth of production. But the point is that the leaders of the previous cycle really do not understand what is going on, and they’re trying to maintain their leadership through wars, using any instruments to maintain their dominance, but it doesn’t work in the situation when these states are losing their efficiency. And you see, I call President Trump like President Yeltsin and Gorbachev together in one person. So they really try to maintain their dominance, but in fact, they undermine their leadership by their own actions. And unfortunately, they are trying to implement, as I mentioned, the Brzezinski plan, which was focused on Ukraine and Iran, but it doesn’t work. And it was quite clear that these two conflicts will not lead to the results that Western geopoliticians expected. They expected that the Russian political system would collapse after the hybrid war started with the West because of sanctions, because Brzezinski thought that Russian oligarchs are very powerful and will change the power if the West introduces sanctions. But that didn’t happen, because Western politicians do not really understand the nation’s psychology: if our country is under any aggression, the population becomes concentrated around the power and supports the power, as well as in Iran, we see the same situation. So this plan didn’t work, but it was quite clear that it would not work, and it’s a pity that Western politicians really do not understand this and are trying to continue this kind of crazy policy in spite of the fact that the cost of this policy becomes higher and higher.

Pax Americana Is Collapsing: Trump as Yeltsin-Gorbachev, Brzezinski’s Plan Fails, and the West’s Financial Bubble Heads for Oblivion Sergey Glazyev: Unfortunately, the change from one system of management to another — I call this change from one world order to another world order — is going through a world war. And Americans are doing the same as the British did 100 years ago, trying to maintain their geopolitical dominance. They were trying to do this by creating conflicts all over the world and putting competitive nations in a struggle with each other. So Americans are doing the same. They introduced a trade war against China and a financial war against Russia. They supported the Nazi regime in Ukraine. They undermined their competitors and satellites in Europe. Finally, the idea maybe was to concentrate capital and power, but in fact, the result of this is the collapse of Pax Americana, and you see everything is going on according to the theory of long cycles. The transition period usually takes maybe 33–35 years, or one third of a century. The previous transition period started with World War I and finished with the collapse of the British Empire, maybe in 1947. But the final point was the Suez Crisis in 1953 or ’54, when Britain and France wanted to get control again over the Suez Canal, but the Soviet Union and the United States didn’t support this — from both sides — and everybody understood that the world changed. It became a new world system; I call it an imperial world system with a few superstates which divided the world between themselves. The present transition period started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and now is finishing with the collapse of the United States. The collapse of the Soviet Union happened because of the decrease in efficiency of the Soviet planning system, which the Chinese partially inherited. The collapse of Pax Americana now is explained by the decline in efficiency of the American financial system, which created financial bubbles instead of growth of production. But the point is that the leaders of the previous cycle really do not understand what is going on, and they’re trying to maintain their leadership through wars, using any instruments to maintain their dominance, but it doesn’t work in the situation when these states are losing their efficiency. And you see, I call President Trump like President Yeltsin and Gorbachev together in one person. So they really try to maintain their dominance, but in fact, they undermine their leadership by their own actions. And unfortunately, they are trying to implement, as I mentioned, the Brzezinski plan, which was focused on Ukraine and Iran, but it doesn’t work. And it was quite clear that these two conflicts will not lead to the results that Western geopoliticians expected. They expected that the Russian political system would collapse after the hybrid war started with the West because of sanctions, because Brzezinski thought that Russian oligarchs are very powerful and will change the power if the West introduces sanctions. But that didn’t happen, because Western politicians do not really understand the nation’s psychology: if our country is under any aggression, the population becomes concentrated around the power and supports the power, as well as in Iran, we see the same situation. So this plan didn’t work, but it was quite clear that it would not work, and it’s a pity that Western politicians really do not understand this and are trying to continue this kind of crazy policy in spite of the fact that the cost of this policy becomes higher and higher.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

68,126 views • 4 months ago

Graham Platner: “We should never tax someone into poverty. We should also still raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Bezos wants us to think if you raise his individual taxes, that money isn’t going to pay for all the things you want. That’s why we’re not raising it just on you. We’re raising it on all 930 billionaires in the US. It’s why we’re also not just going after your income, but the wealth as well. The wealth they sit on, the wealth they never actually bring into the real world so they never pay capital gains on it, but they borrow against it so they can have liquidity. Of course Jeff Bezos is gonna tell us if we raise his taxes things won’t get better. He doesn’t want us to raise his taxes. He’s a greedy person. That makes perfect sense to me that he would say that. He’s just entirely wrong and self-serving”

Graham Platner: “We should never tax someone into poverty. We should also still raise taxes on billionaires and corporations. Bezos wants us to think if you raise his individual taxes, that money isn’t going to pay for all the things you want. That’s why we’re not raising it just on you. We’re raising it on all 930 billionaires in the US. It’s why we’re also not just going after your income, but the wealth as well. The wealth they sit on, the wealth they never actually bring into the real world so they never pay capital gains on it, but they borrow against it so they can have liquidity. Of course Jeff Bezos is gonna tell us if we raise his taxes things won’t get better. He doesn’t want us to raise his taxes. He’s a greedy person. That makes perfect sense to me that he would say that. He’s just entirely wrong and self-serving”

Marco Foster

685,709 views • 2 months ago

Ray Dalio explains how financial repression begins once the debt problem gets out of control. It starts with a simple reality: One man’s debt is another man’s asset. Government debt is not just a liability for the government. It is also the asset sitting inside pension funds, banks, insurance companies, foreign reserves and portfolios. But here is the problem. If those bonds do not offer a good real return after inflation, investors stop wanting them. So yields rise. And when yields rise, the government’s debt burden becomes even harder to manage. That is the trap. At some point, the system cannot tolerate true market-priced interest rates anymore. So policy steps in. The Treasury keeps issuing debt. The Fed is pressured to help absorb it or suppress yields. Inflation is allowed to run above bond returns. Taxes on capital and wealth rise. And savers are slowly paid back in money that buys less. This is financial repression. It does not look like default on paper. But in real purchasing power terms, it is a slow default on savers. That is why Dalio keeps pointing toward gold. Because when bonds stop protecting real wealth, capital starts looking for assets outside the paper promise system. The core message is simple: The government needs cheap funding. Investors need real returns. Both cannot win at the same time. And historically, when the debt burden becomes too large, policy chooses the debtor over the saver.

Ray Dalio explains how financial repression begins once the debt problem gets out of control. It starts with a simple reality: One man’s debt is another man’s asset. Government debt is not just a liability for the government. It is also the asset sitting inside pension funds, banks, insurance companies, foreign reserves and portfolios. But here is the problem. If those bonds do not offer a good real return after inflation, investors stop wanting them. So yields rise. And when yields rise, the government’s debt burden becomes even harder to manage. That is the trap. At some point, the system cannot tolerate true market-priced interest rates anymore. So policy steps in. The Treasury keeps issuing debt. The Fed is pressured to help absorb it or suppress yields. Inflation is allowed to run above bond returns. Taxes on capital and wealth rise. And savers are slowly paid back in money that buys less. This is financial repression. It does not look like default on paper. But in real purchasing power terms, it is a slow default on savers. That is why Dalio keeps pointing toward gold. Because when bonds stop protecting real wealth, capital starts looking for assets outside the paper promise system. The core message is simple: The government needs cheap funding. Investors need real returns. Both cannot win at the same time. And historically, when the debt burden becomes too large, policy chooses the debtor over the saver.

Macro Liquidity by Sunil Reddy

11,723 views • 2 months ago

When the Fourth Turning Begins, Markets Reprice Trust And Not Just Assets The Dow to Gold ratio isn’t about calling the top in stocks or predicting a crash next week. It’s a long arc signal about confidence. When the ratio is high, it usually means investors are comfortable owning claims on future growth in stocks, earnings, promises. When it rolls over and trends lower for years, it’s usually because that confidence is fading and people start preferring assets that don’t depend on anyone else keeping their word. Gold doesn’t need earnings, policy support, or growth assumptions. It just sits there. A falling ratio is the market quietly saying that it trusts certainty more than optimism right now. Why The Turning Matters What stands out on this chart isn’t the volatility, it’s the duration. Every major decline in the ratio wasn’t a quick panic; it was a multi year repricing tied to a broader shift in the system. Stocks didn’t always implode overnight. Sometimes they went sideways for a decade while gold did the work. That’s the part people miss. You don’t need a dramatic crash for this ratio to fall hard. You just need an environment where real returns on financial assets are capped, diluted, or slowly eroded while uncertainty keeps rising. How This Lines Up With A Fourth Turning Mindset This is where the historical lens helps. Periods that later get described as crisis eras tend to share the same feel where institutions lose trust, policy becomes reactive instead of principled, and stability gets prioritized over efficiency. In those moments, markets stop rewarding growth narratives and start rewarding durability. That’s exactly the backdrop where the Dow to Gold ratio tends to compress. Not because people suddenly hate stocks, but because the system itself is being renegotiated on who pays, who’s protected, and what really counts as wealth. My View The chart is whispering regime change. It’s telling you that the next decade may look less like the last one, less about compounding returns and more about protecting purchasing power through uncertainty. Whether that plays out through lower stock prices, higher gold prices, or a long stretch of frustration in between, the message is the same that when confidence becomes scarce, collateral starts to matter more than stories. If you want more information on The Fourth Turning this was Neil Howe interview with Adam Taggart on his podcast Thoughtful Money® back in May.

When the Fourth Turning Begins, Markets Reprice Trust And Not Just Assets The Dow to Gold ratio isn’t about calling the top in stocks or predicting a crash next week. It’s a long arc signal about confidence. When the ratio is high, it usually means investors are comfortable owning claims on future growth in stocks, earnings, promises. When it rolls over and trends lower for years, it’s usually because that confidence is fading and people start preferring assets that don’t depend on anyone else keeping their word. Gold doesn’t need earnings, policy support, or growth assumptions. It just sits there. A falling ratio is the market quietly saying that it trusts certainty more than optimism right now. Why The Turning Matters What stands out on this chart isn’t the volatility, it’s the duration. Every major decline in the ratio wasn’t a quick panic; it was a multi year repricing tied to a broader shift in the system. Stocks didn’t always implode overnight. Sometimes they went sideways for a decade while gold did the work. That’s the part people miss. You don’t need a dramatic crash for this ratio to fall hard. You just need an environment where real returns on financial assets are capped, diluted, or slowly eroded while uncertainty keeps rising. How This Lines Up With A Fourth Turning Mindset This is where the historical lens helps. Periods that later get described as crisis eras tend to share the same feel where institutions lose trust, policy becomes reactive instead of principled, and stability gets prioritized over efficiency. In those moments, markets stop rewarding growth narratives and start rewarding durability. That’s exactly the backdrop where the Dow to Gold ratio tends to compress. Not because people suddenly hate stocks, but because the system itself is being renegotiated on who pays, who’s protected, and what really counts as wealth. My View The chart is whispering regime change. It’s telling you that the next decade may look less like the last one, less about compounding returns and more about protecting purchasing power through uncertainty. Whether that plays out through lower stock prices, higher gold prices, or a long stretch of frustration in between, the message is the same that when confidence becomes scarce, collateral starts to matter more than stories. If you want more information on The Fourth Turning this was Neil Howe interview with Adam Taggart on his podcast Thoughtful Money® back in May.

EndGame Macro

61,369 views • 8 months ago

China is the second largest market in the world, so of course businesses want access to it. The problem is they don’t play by the same rules. For years, companies have dealt with intellectual property theft, uneven legal systems, and an environment where American businesses don’t get the same protections or leverage Chinese companies receive. That’s the real dilemma, how do you do business with a market that many now see not as a partner, but as a strategic competitor? That’s why tariffs and tougher policies have become part of the conversation. This isn’t about the Chinese people it’s about the actions and ambitions of the Chinese government.

China is the second largest market in the world, so of course businesses want access to it. The problem is they don’t play by the same rules. For years, companies have dealt with intellectual property theft, uneven legal systems, and an environment where American businesses don’t get the same protections or leverage Chinese companies receive. That’s the real dilemma, how do you do business with a market that many now see not as a partner, but as a strategic competitor? That’s why tariffs and tougher policies have become part of the conversation. This isn’t about the Chinese people it’s about the actions and ambitions of the Chinese government.

Kevin O'Leary aka Mr. Wonderful

26,275 views • 3 months ago

Alex Krainer (Alex (Sasha) Krainer) draws the sharpest possible line: the real conflict is not between nations, but between two opposing systems of economic governance. One is the British free-trade system of extraction, concentration of wealth, and forever wars. The other is the national system of political economy — the American System of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln and Henry C. Carey. “The conflict in fact is between the western colonialist system and everyone who rejects colonial subjugation. The war in Ukraine, war against Iran, genocide of the Palestinian people, the buildup to the war on China, the uncontrolled migrations, and many other social, political, and economic crises are all merely different battlefields of the same great conflict. What are these two opposed systems of economic governance? One is the British system of free trade. The other is the national system of political economy. It is often referred to as the American system because it was pioneered by American leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln’s chief economic adviser, Henry C. Carey. In a nutshell, the national system seeks to create protective barriers to foreign trade in order to give domestic manufacturing a fighting chance against foreign competition. It also accumulates capital at home, investing it into manufacturing, infrastructure, education, research and development, innovation, culture, and other uses that raise society’s standards of living. By contrast, the British system of free trade extracts wealth and concentrates it. It seeks to remove all barriers to the worldwide free flow of capital, always in pursuit of the highest possible return. With free trade, nations are obliged to compete for investment capital by systematically depressing wages, job security, pensions, healthcare services, and education. Other costs which cut into returns on capital are infrastructure development, social spending programs, and protection of the environment. Therefore, competing for investment capital entails progressive slashing of all these cost items down to the bare bones. In that sense, the British free trade system amounts to a competitive race to the bottom. In his 1851 book The Harmony of Interests, Abraham Lincoln’s economic adviser Henry Carey contrasted the two systems, opening with the words: ‘Two systems are before the world.’ Carey’s prose is rather long, but it could be summarized along seven key dimensions: 1. Trade versus production. One system directs capital and draws labor towards trade and speculation. This tends to depress wages and erode prosperity. The other system fosters production of goods, services, and infrastructure. It leads to higher wages and rising standards of living. 2. Raw materials versus finished goods. One system favors mass production of raw materials and cash crops for trade. It systematically impoverishes farmers and reduces their employment. The other system favors production of more refined, high-quality products, enriching their producers. 3. Exporting produce versus enjoying it at home. One system sends mass-produced bulk abroad, sometimes even causing famines in the producing economy. The other system organizes labor to satisfy domestic demand and produce an abundance of diverse high-quality products at home. 4. Concentration versus dispersion of wealth. One system concentrates wealth and power in a few hands in great commercial cities while depleting and impoverishing the rest of the nation. The other system enriches those engaged in production and disperses wealth more evenly across society. 5. War versus moral and educational growth. One system compels the productive sector to fund fleets and armies. The other directs the same means for moral and intellectual growth of the people in their nations. 6. Stable communities versus population replacement. One system requires a large low-skilled labor force that accepts work with low wages. It predictably resorts to a mass influx of immigrants. The other system raises the standards of living, prosperity, and security of the native labor force. 7. Universal war versus universal peace. One system gives rise to universal forever wars. The other strives to preserve peace. Let’s condense these seven points even further. One system favors production of raw commodities in bulk. It lowers living standards, concentrates wealth in few hands, impoverishes the workforce, and favors population replacement, militarization and forever wars. This is the British system of free trade. The other system favors production of diverse quality products at home, enriches their producers, raises the standards of living, disperses wealth, fosters stable communities and favors stability and peace. This is the national system of political economy — or the American system. Its aspiration is sovereignty and independence. Free trade’s aspiration is globalization and unipolar hegemony. The contrast between the two systems could not be any starker, and the record entirely validates the way Henry Carey characterizes them. And we’ll see from actual historical examples where one system or the other was implemented and from the ways that they changed the societies in question.” Two systems are before the world. One produces prosperity and peace. The other produces poverty, migration and perpetual war. The choice remains.

Alex Krainer (Alex (Sasha) Krainer) draws the sharpest possible line: the real conflict is not between nations, but between two opposing systems of economic governance. One is the British free-trade system of extraction, concentration of wealth, and forever wars. The other is the national system of political economy — the American System of Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln and Henry C. Carey. “The conflict in fact is between the western colonialist system and everyone who rejects colonial subjugation. The war in Ukraine, war against Iran, genocide of the Palestinian people, the buildup to the war on China, the uncontrolled migrations, and many other social, political, and economic crises are all merely different battlefields of the same great conflict. What are these two opposed systems of economic governance? One is the British system of free trade. The other is the national system of political economy. It is often referred to as the American system because it was pioneered by American leaders like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln’s chief economic adviser, Henry C. Carey. In a nutshell, the national system seeks to create protective barriers to foreign trade in order to give domestic manufacturing a fighting chance against foreign competition. It also accumulates capital at home, investing it into manufacturing, infrastructure, education, research and development, innovation, culture, and other uses that raise society’s standards of living. By contrast, the British system of free trade extracts wealth and concentrates it. It seeks to remove all barriers to the worldwide free flow of capital, always in pursuit of the highest possible return. With free trade, nations are obliged to compete for investment capital by systematically depressing wages, job security, pensions, healthcare services, and education. Other costs which cut into returns on capital are infrastructure development, social spending programs, and protection of the environment. Therefore, competing for investment capital entails progressive slashing of all these cost items down to the bare bones. In that sense, the British free trade system amounts to a competitive race to the bottom. In his 1851 book The Harmony of Interests, Abraham Lincoln’s economic adviser Henry Carey contrasted the two systems, opening with the words: ‘Two systems are before the world.’ Carey’s prose is rather long, but it could be summarized along seven key dimensions: 1. Trade versus production. One system directs capital and draws labor towards trade and speculation. This tends to depress wages and erode prosperity. The other system fosters production of goods, services, and infrastructure. It leads to higher wages and rising standards of living. 2. Raw materials versus finished goods. One system favors mass production of raw materials and cash crops for trade. It systematically impoverishes farmers and reduces their employment. The other system favors production of more refined, high-quality products, enriching their producers. 3. Exporting produce versus enjoying it at home. One system sends mass-produced bulk abroad, sometimes even causing famines in the producing economy. The other system organizes labor to satisfy domestic demand and produce an abundance of diverse high-quality products at home. 4. Concentration versus dispersion of wealth. One system concentrates wealth and power in a few hands in great commercial cities while depleting and impoverishing the rest of the nation. The other system enriches those engaged in production and disperses wealth more evenly across society. 5. War versus moral and educational growth. One system compels the productive sector to fund fleets and armies. The other directs the same means for moral and intellectual growth of the people in their nations. 6. Stable communities versus population replacement. One system requires a large low-skilled labor force that accepts work with low wages. It predictably resorts to a mass influx of immigrants. The other system raises the standards of living, prosperity, and security of the native labor force. 7. Universal war versus universal peace. One system gives rise to universal forever wars. The other strives to preserve peace. Let’s condense these seven points even further. One system favors production of raw commodities in bulk. It lowers living standards, concentrates wealth in few hands, impoverishes the workforce, and favors population replacement, militarization and forever wars. This is the British system of free trade. The other system favors production of diverse quality products at home, enriches their producers, raises the standards of living, disperses wealth, fosters stable communities and favors stability and peace. This is the national system of political economy — or the American system. Its aspiration is sovereignty and independence. Free trade’s aspiration is globalization and unipolar hegemony. The contrast between the two systems could not be any starker, and the record entirely validates the way Henry Carey characterizes them. And we’ll see from actual historical examples where one system or the other was implemented and from the ways that they changed the societies in question.” Two systems are before the world. One produces prosperity and peace. The other produces poverty, migration and perpetual war. The choice remains.

🅰pocalypsis 🅰pocalypseos 🇷🇺 🇨🇳 🅉

44,858 views • 5 days ago

The effective way to get billionaires to toe the line, is to arrest and jail one of them. Russia had a problem billionaires who thought that they controlled Russia and the Kremlin. They had a feast during Yeltsin’s rule. Putin came to power and they believed they could do as they please. In the video below, a group of billionaires close their factories in protest. Putin called them to a meeting and forced them to reopen the factories. One particular billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at the time Russia’s wealthiest man, arrogantly believed that he could defy Putin and do as he pleased because of his wealth and influence. He was arrested and jailed for 11 years; and his companies expropriated by the State. Russia today has no people of rogue billionaires. We have a problem of rogue billionaires in this country, particularly the Oppenheimers. An investigation can find some criminal wrongdoing on them. It is important to make an example with one family that believes it runs affairs of this country. We won’t have a problem of “markets” in the future.

The effective way to get billionaires to toe the line, is to arrest and jail one of them. Russia had a problem billionaires who thought that they controlled Russia and the Kremlin. They had a feast during Yeltsin’s rule. Putin came to power and they believed they could do as they please. In the video below, a group of billionaires close their factories in protest. Putin called them to a meeting and forced them to reopen the factories. One particular billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky, at the time Russia’s wealthiest man, arrogantly believed that he could defy Putin and do as he pleased because of his wealth and influence. He was arrested and jailed for 11 years; and his companies expropriated by the State. Russia today has no people of rogue billionaires. We have a problem of rogue billionaires in this country, particularly the Oppenheimers. An investigation can find some criminal wrongdoing on them. It is important to make an example with one family that believes it runs affairs of this country. We won’t have a problem of “markets” in the future.

Sentletse 🇿🇦🇷🇺🇵🇸🇱🇧

206,063 views • 2 years ago

When people say things like ‘Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect them’ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who aren’t rich, don’t want wealth taxes. Wealthy people like it or not, are amongst the most economically productive people in our country, the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of our income tax receipts. The top 1% are responsible for approx 340,000 jobs in the economy etc. Wealthy people are also best placed to restructure their tax affairs to avoid wealth taxes and the most geographically mobile in our country, leaving for them is as easy as rearranging dates in their calendar. There is a wealth of comparative data from other countries showing wealth taxes are economically damaging, difficult to implement, expensive to administer and never raise the levels of taxes promised. There is no country in world that has ever raised anywhere near the £25 billion cited as the potential amounts that would be raised from an annual wealth tax. If the wealthy leave that impacts our tax base, which inevitably means that everyone else who isn’t wealthy, has to pay more tax. If they leave they will shift their strategic focus and capital to wherever they go, which means that money that would otherwise would have been invested in the UK will go elsewhere. This is precisely why other countries like Italy have tax regimes specially designed to incentivise wealthy people to come, they understand that having wealthy people is great for tax receipts, job creation and economic growth. It’s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people don’t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They don’t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isn’t even clear in his own mind why we need wealth taxes. His commitment to wealth taxes is ideological rather than evidence based. In the interview he explains that there’s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes aren’t needed for raising tax revenues but are principally for reducing wealth inequality. So you mean to tell me the goal is the force some of the most economically productive people to leave so that we can all be poorer collectively but be more equal? In a country where 53% of households take more out of the state in benefits than they put in, what do you think will happen to the tax burden for working /middle class people if the top 1% leave or restructure their tax affairs in such as way that reduces their exposure to the UK. We are already at a post world war high when it comes to the tax burden and we are in real time seeing the damage it is doing to business and investor confidence in the UK economy. Yet you somehow think that levying even more taxes will have no impact on ordinary people?

When people say things like ‘Why are people worried about wealth taxes that will never affect them’ it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works and why even people who aren’t rich, don’t want wealth taxes. Wealthy people like it or not, are amongst the most economically productive people in our country, the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of our income tax receipts. The top 1% are responsible for approx 340,000 jobs in the economy etc. Wealthy people are also best placed to restructure their tax affairs to avoid wealth taxes and the most geographically mobile in our country, leaving for them is as easy as rearranging dates in their calendar. There is a wealth of comparative data from other countries showing wealth taxes are economically damaging, difficult to implement, expensive to administer and never raise the levels of taxes promised. There is no country in world that has ever raised anywhere near the £25 billion cited as the potential amounts that would be raised from an annual wealth tax. If the wealthy leave that impacts our tax base, which inevitably means that everyone else who isn’t wealthy, has to pay more tax. If they leave they will shift their strategic focus and capital to wherever they go, which means that money that would otherwise would have been invested in the UK will go elsewhere. This is precisely why other countries like Italy have tax regimes specially designed to incentivise wealthy people to come, they understand that having wealthy people is great for tax receipts, job creation and economic growth. It’s very disingenuous to assume the reason why people don’t support wealth taxes is because they believe they will one day be in the 1%. They don’t support wealth taxes for the most part because they understand they simply do not work. Zack Polanski is a dangerous man who isn’t even clear in his own mind why we need wealth taxes. His commitment to wealth taxes is ideological rather than evidence based. In the interview he explains that there’s a lot of the wealth in the city of London yet at the same time maintains that wealth taxes aren’t needed for raising tax revenues but are principally for reducing wealth inequality. So you mean to tell me the goal is the force some of the most economically productive people to leave so that we can all be poorer collectively but be more equal? In a country where 53% of households take more out of the state in benefits than they put in, what do you think will happen to the tax burden for working /middle class people if the top 1% leave or restructure their tax affairs in such as way that reduces their exposure to the UK. We are already at a post world war high when it comes to the tax burden and we are in real time seeing the damage it is doing to business and investor confidence in the UK economy. Yet you somehow think that levying even more taxes will have no impact on ordinary people?

D 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

86,441 views • 3 months ago

Marc Andreessen just said what no politician will ever admit. The ideology that claims to protect the working class is what ensures they never leave it. Rogan: “We just assume that everybody who makes an incredible amount of money stole it.” That assumption isn’t accidental. It’s load-bearing. Remove it and the entire redistribution framework collapses. Because if wealth is created and not taken, the builder isn’t your enemy. And if the builder isn’t your enemy, you don’t need the politician who promised to fight them on your behalf. Andreessen: “Jeff Bezos is the obvious counterexample. Every time you do the one-click and the thing gets delivered to you two hours later at the cheapest possible price, saving you and your family a lot of time and money.” Bezos didn’t take from the economy. He expanded it. Every transaction voluntary. Every customer better off. Every dollar of his net worth is proof someone chose his service because it made their life easier. The economy isn’t a vault with a fixed amount inside. It’s a system that grows every time someone builds something people want. The fixed pie is a lie. And it has to be. Because the moment you accept the pie grows, you have to ask why you aren’t growing it yourself. That’s the question the ideology exists to prevent. Andreessen: “You can compare and contrast to other countries that have more draconian policies. And the result is they’re much poorer.” Every country that punished creation got less of it. No exceptions. Rogan: “That’s the weird thing about the whole socialism thing, is that it’s never worked ever, and they just go, ‘Well, it hasn’t been done right.’” A century of data across dozens of countries. Same experiment. Same collapse. The ideology doesn’t update because updating would end it. The people pushing redistribution aren’t solving poverty. They’re managing it. Solved poverty doesn’t need a program. Doesn’t need a department. Doesn’t need a politician who campaigns on it every cycle. Poverty is the product that funds the bureaucracy built to eliminate it. When a founder reinvests instead of extracting, that’s not avoidance. That’s deployment. Every dollar reinvested becomes a job. A contract. A supplier. A chain of downstream opportunity that vanishes the moment someone confiscates it at the source to fund a program that will never solve what it was designed to manage. The freest economies produce the most prosperity. The most regulated produce the most dependency. That’s not a coincidence. Dependency is the business model. Free people who build don’t need the system. The system needs people who don’t build. The greatest theft in the history of economics was never committed by a billionaire. It was committed by every ideology that looked a capable person in the eye and convinced them they were helpless. The most dangerous thing you can do inside a redistribution framework isn’t to resist it. It’s to succeed without it. Because one person who builds their way out of nothing, without permission, without a program, without the system, is living proof that everything the ideology told you was a lie. And that proof is the one thing the framework cannot survive.

Marc Andreessen just said what no politician will ever admit. The ideology that claims to protect the working class is what ensures they never leave it. Rogan: “We just assume that everybody who makes an incredible amount of money stole it.” That assumption isn’t accidental. It’s load-bearing. Remove it and the entire redistribution framework collapses. Because if wealth is created and not taken, the builder isn’t your enemy. And if the builder isn’t your enemy, you don’t need the politician who promised to fight them on your behalf. Andreessen: “Jeff Bezos is the obvious counterexample. Every time you do the one-click and the thing gets delivered to you two hours later at the cheapest possible price, saving you and your family a lot of time and money.” Bezos didn’t take from the economy. He expanded it. Every transaction voluntary. Every customer better off. Every dollar of his net worth is proof someone chose his service because it made their life easier. The economy isn’t a vault with a fixed amount inside. It’s a system that grows every time someone builds something people want. The fixed pie is a lie. And it has to be. Because the moment you accept the pie grows, you have to ask why you aren’t growing it yourself. That’s the question the ideology exists to prevent. Andreessen: “You can compare and contrast to other countries that have more draconian policies. And the result is they’re much poorer.” Every country that punished creation got less of it. No exceptions. Rogan: “That’s the weird thing about the whole socialism thing, is that it’s never worked ever, and they just go, ‘Well, it hasn’t been done right.’” A century of data across dozens of countries. Same experiment. Same collapse. The ideology doesn’t update because updating would end it. The people pushing redistribution aren’t solving poverty. They’re managing it. Solved poverty doesn’t need a program. Doesn’t need a department. Doesn’t need a politician who campaigns on it every cycle. Poverty is the product that funds the bureaucracy built to eliminate it. When a founder reinvests instead of extracting, that’s not avoidance. That’s deployment. Every dollar reinvested becomes a job. A contract. A supplier. A chain of downstream opportunity that vanishes the moment someone confiscates it at the source to fund a program that will never solve what it was designed to manage. The freest economies produce the most prosperity. The most regulated produce the most dependency. That’s not a coincidence. Dependency is the business model. Free people who build don’t need the system. The system needs people who don’t build. The greatest theft in the history of economics was never committed by a billionaire. It was committed by every ideology that looked a capable person in the eye and convinced them they were helpless. The most dangerous thing you can do inside a redistribution framework isn’t to resist it. It’s to succeed without it. Because one person who builds their way out of nothing, without permission, without a program, without the system, is living proof that everything the ideology told you was a lie. And that proof is the one thing the framework cannot survive.

Dustin

24,741 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸 YES, THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY GIVES WASHINGTON THE LAST WORD ON ELECTIONS. WHY DOES NOBODY TALK ABOUT THIS?! States run the show on election day. But the Constitution never gave them the final say. That power sits with Congress and the federal government, and Trump just reminded everyone of it. He laid out the logic clean and simple. "A state is an agent for the federal government in elections." An agent works under someone else's authority. It does not get to write its own rules and ignore the standard. If the agent fails, the principal steps back in. That is exactly the argument Trump is making right now, and it is not some radical new theory. It is the actual structure the founders built. He named names too. Detroit. Philadelphia. Atlanta. Cities with a long, ugly track record of election chaos that somehow never seems to improve no matter how many complaints pile up. He also brought 2020 back into focus, saying the facts still surfacing point to rigged and crooked conduct in these same places. States administer elections. Fine. But administering is not the same as owning. When administration turns into repeated failure and corruption, the federal government stepping in is not an overreach. It is the Constitution doing exactly what it was designed to do. Americans do not want chaos dressed up as states rights. They want elections they can actually trust.

🇺🇸 YES, THE CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY GIVES WASHINGTON THE LAST WORD ON ELECTIONS. WHY DOES NOBODY TALK ABOUT THIS?! States run the show on election day. But the Constitution never gave them the final say. That power sits with Congress and the federal government, and Trump just reminded everyone of it. He laid out the logic clean and simple. "A state is an agent for the federal government in elections." An agent works under someone else's authority. It does not get to write its own rules and ignore the standard. If the agent fails, the principal steps back in. That is exactly the argument Trump is making right now, and it is not some radical new theory. It is the actual structure the founders built. He named names too. Detroit. Philadelphia. Atlanta. Cities with a long, ugly track record of election chaos that somehow never seems to improve no matter how many complaints pile up. He also brought 2020 back into focus, saying the facts still surfacing point to rigged and crooked conduct in these same places. States administer elections. Fine. But administering is not the same as owning. When administration turns into repeated failure and corruption, the federal government stepping in is not an overreach. It is the Constitution doing exactly what it was designed to do. Americans do not want chaos dressed up as states rights. They want elections they can actually trust.

Bill Mitchell

32,631 views • 1 month ago

I heard that Milei's speech at the WEF champions freedom, so I listened. It doesn't. It seeks to move power and control from governments to corporations if you listen carefully and that’s happening anyway. What he doesn’t say is that governments and corporations are owned by the same global Cult. So either way the same cabal is in control. The obsession with economic growth for its own sake is classic free-for-all, child-like economics, in which the strongest, most wealthy and powerful, prevail without the most basic checks and balances. Economic growth is merely the amount of money spent on goods and services. So all the negative things that we don’t want to happen are ticked as positive by economic growth if money changes hands and profits are made. ‘Freedom’ to be exploited by billionaires without redress is NOT freedom. Corporate monopolies with unchecked power is NOT freedom. He talks about ‘capitalism’, but what he is describing in truth is cartelism. It’s barely one-dimensional. It’s the playground. You challenge white with black and black with white while the Cult sits laughing in the shades of grey controlling both. Milei is a child in a grown-ups’ playground appearing to challenge power while handing it over to the already super-powerful. Which do you want? The ‘free’ (rigged) market tyranny run riot or state-dictated communist tyranny? Neither, thanks. I’m an adult. I want freedom and justice for all, not the few, and whether it’s Milei or Schwab the few get the spoils and the rest get the crumbs and the tyranny.

I heard that Milei's speech at the WEF champions freedom, so I listened. It doesn't. It seeks to move power and control from governments to corporations if you listen carefully and that’s happening anyway. What he doesn’t say is that governments and corporations are owned by the same global Cult. So either way the same cabal is in control. The obsession with economic growth for its own sake is classic free-for-all, child-like economics, in which the strongest, most wealthy and powerful, prevail without the most basic checks and balances. Economic growth is merely the amount of money spent on goods and services. So all the negative things that we don’t want to happen are ticked as positive by economic growth if money changes hands and profits are made. ‘Freedom’ to be exploited by billionaires without redress is NOT freedom. Corporate monopolies with unchecked power is NOT freedom. He talks about ‘capitalism’, but what he is describing in truth is cartelism. It’s barely one-dimensional. It’s the playground. You challenge white with black and black with white while the Cult sits laughing in the shades of grey controlling both. Milei is a child in a grown-ups’ playground appearing to challenge power while handing it over to the already super-powerful. Which do you want? The ‘free’ (rigged) market tyranny run riot or state-dictated communist tyranny? Neither, thanks. I’m an adult. I want freedom and justice for all, not the few, and whether it’s Milei or Schwab the few get the spoils and the rest get the crumbs and the tyranny.

David Icke

1,575,924 views • 2 years ago

David Friedberg: “AI is the new lightning rod for fear and divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control.” “Peter Thiel said this best. He's like, ‘Look at all the money that's going into AI, there's really only one company that's making any money, and that's Nvidia.’” “Like at this point, the jury's still out. We don't even know what AI is.” “It's sort of like when the internet was happening, everyone thought these fiber optic switch companies were going to make all the money.” “Turns out that was wrong. It was the end applications that made all the money.” “And they competed in many different markets. from Google, to Amazon, to Uber.” “You can go down the list of all the beneficiaries of the core infrastructure technology of the internet that was built out.” “So what is really going on?” Well, AI is the new lightning rod for fear and for divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control.” “Which is where these politicians are trying to drive the populace and the voting conditions in the United States.” “And that's what's going on right now.” “There's a lot of fear about, ‘Putting this data center in my town is gonna do X or Y or Z,’ with no real conversation about the truth of that matter.” “There's a lot of fear about wealth creation being aggregated in the hands of a few when as we saw with the internet, it benefited the many.” “And that fear mongering is a very similar tactic that we've seen in the prior generations where policies were misstated, fear was used, and then voting control allowed folks to come to power that were looking for power.” “So I think it's just the lightning rod at the moment.”

David Friedberg: “AI is the new lightning rod for fear and divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control.” “Peter Thiel said this best. He's like, ‘Look at all the money that's going into AI, there's really only one company that's making any money, and that's Nvidia.’” “Like at this point, the jury's still out. We don't even know what AI is.” “It's sort of like when the internet was happening, everyone thought these fiber optic switch companies were going to make all the money.” “Turns out that was wrong. It was the end applications that made all the money.” “And they competed in many different markets. from Google, to Amazon, to Uber.” “You can go down the list of all the beneficiaries of the core infrastructure technology of the internet that was built out.” “So what is really going on?” Well, AI is the new lightning rod for fear and for divisiveness that ultimately breeds compliance and control.” “Which is where these politicians are trying to drive the populace and the voting conditions in the United States.” “And that's what's going on right now.” “There's a lot of fear about, ‘Putting this data center in my town is gonna do X or Y or Z,’ with no real conversation about the truth of that matter.” “There's a lot of fear about wealth creation being aggregated in the hands of a few when as we saw with the internet, it benefited the many.” “And that fear mongering is a very similar tactic that we've seen in the prior generations where policies were misstated, fear was used, and then voting control allowed folks to come to power that were looking for power.” “So I think it's just the lightning rod at the moment.”

The All-In Podcast

241,146 views • 8 months ago

Joe Rogan says Trump is not the answer in 2024: “Here's the real problem. Republicans won't be the solution either, kids. The problem is people in a position of power. The Republicans seem like they are your solution, but it's just because the people in power right now are the Democrats. Whenever the Democrats are out and the Republicans are in, everybody is dying for a Democrat.” “It's just the same structure with a different face.” It’s crazy how short people’s memories are. The Biden administration has been such a clown show that people now believe Trump and a red wave will be a solution to their problems and disregard what it was like while Trump was in office. Then in 2028 after another Trump clown show people will be hoping for a rational middle of the road Democrat and blue wave. The cycle is never ending. The only way to break the cycle is to change the system. The only way to change the system is we start voting with our hearts not party. We start voting with a candidate we most align with and completely disregard what political party they designate to the side of their name. The only way we change anything is if we all individually take the leap in 2024 and vote for someone we truly believe in.

Joe Rogan says Trump is not the answer in 2024: “Here's the real problem. Republicans won't be the solution either, kids. The problem is people in a position of power. The Republicans seem like they are your solution, but it's just because the people in power right now are the Democrats. Whenever the Democrats are out and the Republicans are in, everybody is dying for a Democrat.” “It's just the same structure with a different face.” It’s crazy how short people’s memories are. The Biden administration has been such a clown show that people now believe Trump and a red wave will be a solution to their problems and disregard what it was like while Trump was in office. Then in 2028 after another Trump clown show people will be hoping for a rational middle of the road Democrat and blue wave. The cycle is never ending. The only way to break the cycle is to change the system. The only way to change the system is we start voting with our hearts not party. We start voting with a candidate we most align with and completely disregard what political party they designate to the side of their name. The only way we change anything is if we all individually take the leap in 2024 and vote for someone we truly believe in.

End Tribalism in Politics

2,566,483 views • 2 years ago

After 12 years in this market, this was the first time I seriously questioned whether it still made sense to stay. Nothing has been working. No real narratives. No money is being made. And everywhere I look, the message is the same: move to AI. But when I actually started digging into AI, I realized something most people are missing. AI doesn’t replace crypto; it actually depends on it. Because the world we’re moving into isn’t humans transacting with apps… It’s AI agents transacting with each other, 24/7, at a scale we’ve never seen before. And that creates a completely new problem. How do you process millions of tiny payments between machines, across borders, instantly, with no trust between parties? The current financial system simply can’t handle that. The fees are too high, the rails are too slow, and the system was never designed for this kind of activity. But crypto was. So the way I see it, we’re not early to AI. We’re early to the infrastructure that powers it. That’s the real opportunity, and the reason I’m not leaving. I break down the full thesis and how I’m positioning in today’s video. [link in comments]

After 12 years in this market, this was the first time I seriously questioned whether it still made sense to stay. Nothing has been working. No real narratives. No money is being made. And everywhere I look, the message is the same: move to AI. But when I actually started digging into AI, I realized something most people are missing. AI doesn’t replace crypto; it actually depends on it. Because the world we’re moving into isn’t humans transacting with apps… It’s AI agents transacting with each other, 24/7, at a scale we’ve never seen before. And that creates a completely new problem. How do you process millions of tiny payments between machines, across borders, instantly, with no trust between parties? The current financial system simply can’t handle that. The fees are too high, the rails are too slow, and the system was never designed for this kind of activity. But crypto was. So the way I see it, we’re not early to AI. We’re early to the infrastructure that powers it. That’s the real opportunity, and the reason I’m not leaving. I break down the full thesis and how I’m positioning in today’s video. [link in comments]

Ran Neuner

97,027 views • 5 months ago