← Simon Dixon Hard Talk
Simon Dixon Hard Talk
The Great Capital Rotation: AI, Bitcoin & The Financial Industrial Complex | Simon Dixon Hard Talk LIVE
04:29:03
Loading summary
Transcript199 lines
- [00:01]
Simon Dixon
Hey, hey, sovereign wealth builders.
- [00:02]
Simon Dixon here and welcome to another episode of Simon Dixon Hard Talk Live. We're not in the studio, so the sound's not perfect, maybe the Internet's not perfect, but the show must go on. Today we're going to be discussing the great capital relocation. We're going to be talking about AI, we're going to be talking about bitcoin,
- [00:24]
we're going to be talking about the
- [00:25]
financial industrial complex and we're going to tie it all together as usual. So as always, we're broken into two parts. Part one, I'm going to be giving some updates of what happened this week in terms of the AI bubble. We had a big crash in the price of bitcoin. Maybe that's your first time. So we're going to be discussing bitcoin financialization and we're going to also be going through the great capital relocation, how to understand these trends. And then in part two, we're going to go over to an interview that I recorded in the studio. So the sound will be a bit better, but that's going to be the managed transition and we're going to be going through war, bitcoin and the end of the petrodollar, which was on Bitcoin Archives podcast. And so let's jump straight in with part one. Right, so we're going through a bit of a managed capital reform and I think this is done if you're a long term listener or new, we've got a lot of new subscribers, but when we follow the money and you'll get used to this format if you're new, we always trace it to the flows that are happening within the financial industrial complex and the different mod, you know, markets. What I think we're witnessing in general terms while we zoom in every single week, but when we zoom out, this is not a collapse in the traditional sense. So everyone's always looking, you know, for the collapse. It's not a panic, it's not happening all of a sudden. But I believe that America as the global empire is being basically repositioned in the world into a regional power while we transition to a world of multipolarity and that's not adversarial, where the financial industrial complex represents America, it's absolutely managed. When I follow the capital flows by the financial industrial complex who are looking to asset strip the west, reposition it through fiscal dominance and then manage capital outflows into a multipolarity. And we've always said you need a big event, a theatrical big event. In order to manage that transition. And so this is something that's happening in cooperation with the financial industrial complex and that takes decades. This is something that will probably only happen once in our lifetime. We have to look back in history to understand what this is and what this looked like because we don't get to experience more than one of these. And so this is cyclical and generational but because we've never seen it, we can only look back in history and then adjust accordingly. But they you got to really think in terms of politicians think in terms of election, election cycles. I've often talked about the different in game theory we have finite games and
- [03:29]
we have infinite games.
- [03:31]
So countries that operate within a non democratic system, they're able to develop a 100 year strategy. Everyone always gives the example of China in the ccp. They went through a century of humiliation and they put together a century, a century long strategy. That strategy went through Maoism and communism, over to the Dang reforms, over to Xi Jinping right now and everything in between. And so but within democracies they are by design a delusion in terms of who's actually in charge. Because the financial industrial complex can play a game in decades. You know, you don't reform or regime change or have an election for the fic key players. You know, Larry Fink gets a long term, a blackrock, Jamie diamond gets a long term at JP Morgan. Now they can be regime changed if they don't cartel to the shareholder class. But as long as they're playing game, then they're able to keep their role. But in terms of politics they have an even shorter term time frame. In the case of the US they have a four year election cycle with a two year midterms. And so anytime they try and deviate from the financial industrial complex strategy, they have to get funding and they have to bow down to the lobbies. And so this cycle ensures continuity of strategy. So most people don't know who's in charge. They're distracted with the politicians, the presidents, the prime ministers. But behind the scenes it's capital that controls the world. And at capital has board members. And those board members have a bit of a, you know, a rotation between politics, between the fic, between different companies. And as you go up the compromise network in these cycles, you're able to be a reliable player. And as long as you continually, you know, add more value to power then you go higher up the leverage cycle until eventually you may be in a position where you have to be in an Epstein network where there's vast compromise
- [05:53]
in order to climb.
- [05:55]
And capital is what determines that. And so capital in flows, their flows increasingly drive policy. You have a network of non governmental organizations, you have, you have think tanks, you have lobbies, you have technology that drives capital portfolios. And because I've got so many new subscribers today, a bit of this is going to be a bit of a recap. But we're going to die into everything that happened this week and make sure we tie in the bitcoin crash, the flows with the AI bubble, the deal that was announced with Iran, on, off, on off and everything. But just as a quick recap, I want this to be educational too. Now the place where I paste all this is SimonDixon.com so you can catch up on old ones, you can binge there.
- [06:44]
And there's summaries of everything as well.
- [06:46]
You can pick the subject that's right for you. But just as a quick recap, what is the fic? What is the financial industrial complex? Well, it's the asset managers that manage your pension, your insurance, your endowment funds, sovereign wealth funds, treasury budgets, whatever it may be. It's investment banks that securitize and financialize individuals, Silicon Valley startups, mature companies, tokenized, securitized financialized derivatives and every single commodity currency, debt, bond market, capital market. It's also central banks and that they provide the infrastructure that socializes all the losses when the risks go off the scale and privatize all the gains. And eventually you use the government through the corporate debt markets as a piggy bank where you control policy through lobby, you set policy through non governmental organizations and corporate sponsored think tanks. And then you have an auction where politicians senate congress, even in the deep state. You have the judicial that can be bribed under certain circumstances, depending on how far into the deep state you get. You also have corporate treasury networks and so institutions like Berkshire Hathaway, like Apple, that have vast reserves that they look to invest. You have the private equity industry, so distressed buying of assets, you can manage it as a portfolio. They're often public companies with the shareholders, with the same shareholders in the derivatives markets. You can profit from markets going up and down through the hedge funds. Then you have the ability to destroy a country. You know, take out a country, take out a leader, rebuild as well. And that's all financed through and executed by the military industrial complex. But they're all public companies with board members. They have access to the intelligence networks, MI6, Mossad, CIA. Then you have the technical industrial complex, the TIC. Now I've created a new one, which I'm just going to try on you. Let me know in the comments section whether you think this is appropriate. Many people are asking me, what about Big Pharma? What about other types of the food industry which is increasingly becoming subordinate to fic? Well, I put this into a new category that are trying to create a bit of a catch all, what I call the subscription industrial complex sick. And so the sick is essentially the business model that the FIC want you in. They want you earning enough money so that you're paying all of the subscriptions to their companies. And they also want you through mortgages, to be a debt slave, through student loans, to be a debt slave, through credit cards, to continually be paying their interest on money that they get to create at the commercial banks. And they want you delaying consumption but locked in to subscriptions. And this is really why they do the food poisoning industry as well, the poison industrial complex, let's call it, because they want you subscribed to a therapist every single month, subscribe to prescription drugs, subscribe to deep state illegal drugs and their drug trafficking networks. And so really the whole thing is to destroy you into a debt slave. They make you think that slavery is not a thing. But if you're subordinate to them, you're in debt to them, you're subscribing to them for everything, then you are the perfect customer for them. And it's why they create universities and colleges in order to build these subscription model debt slaves and put them through the cycle. And so they don't necessarily, you know, sell products, they essentially sell subscriptions, whether it be a mortgage, whatever it may be. You know, they don't create owners. That's the most important thing from it. The World Economic Forum, you know, Kyle Schwab very famously put out a video and said, you will own nothing and be happy that this is a subscription industrial complex. They want to create subscriptions, they see you as a product. They want to generate reoccurring cash flow, they want to create money as debt because they get to do that. They effectively want you to be a collateralized tokenize everything. And right now AI is pushing that. It's moving to the tokens model. So everything you do is subscribing to tokens, particularly within these corporate structures as well. Anyway, the main thing is to monetize dependency is to monetize access. You will own nothing and be happy. And why it matters is effectively the FIC is increasingly, you know, the one that's settling all the terms and it increasingly prefers These subscription revenues and these long term because they can raise finance against long term subscriptions. So if they've locked you into a 20 year mortgage, they can use that as collateral, package it up as a mortgage backed security, financialize, securitize and when those go wrong they can sell those debts off or put it in extreme circumstances like the 2008 financial crisis on the Fed's balance sheet, the Fed is then owned by the banks. The banks get a 6% dividend and they get to create money, take risks and put it through this flywheel of debt slavery and debt repayments.
- [12:30]
And they can then if they're managing
- [12:31]
your assets like your pension, they can charge custody fees but you hand over the voting rights to them. This was the etf, you know, exchange traded funds, you know, don't pick what shares you are, give me all the money, I'll get the voting rights, I can have some proxies and but this also gives us influence where we can put a board seat and we can put, you know, we've like BlackRock has 20,000 board seats. Each board member is across 10 different companies. And then you can manage policy because the executives like Elon Musk, like Tim Cook, like Jamie Dimon, they work for the board, the board works for the shareholders. The shareholders are the capital. And so it is the shareholder class that sets the terms and then that trickles all the way down to the government and then transnational networks like the central bank of central banks, the bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, the sovereign wealth funds that are co opted into this transnational capital structure, they get to charge asset under management fees. And so BlackRock is managing about $14 trillion of capital. They get reoccurring AI subscriptions which is the new thing. Even one of the most important softwares is a software called Aladdin. And that's where $25 trillion of assets of central banks, treasuries of governments, sovereign wealth funds are all being used and you know, using the AI of blackrock's Aladdin. And so if you ask it for a scenario plan then everyone can be told the same scenario plan. For example, how do I allocate capital if the Strait of Hormuz is closed up until June, July? And so this way you can dictate capital flows and you also have the ETF money and you also have the managed fund money and you create this illusion of who's in charge and everyone focusing on politics rather than capital. And this is why people get, you know, fall in for this trap time and time Again, cloud subscriptions as well, financial subscriptions. The goal is to basically make it where you don't own anything and they get to control the asset. This is what they're trying to do with Bitcoin at the moment, this is what they did with gold. The goal is reoccurring cash flow where they custody the asset and they also get to use nation states as platforms. So countries no longer serve their people, they serve the platform, they serve the fic. And this is the lobby structure that I talked about as well as policy being written by think tanks and corporate sponsored non governmental organizations. And so America in this transition, the USA is not a country, it is the host of the financial industrial complex. Prior to this it used to be the uk. The UK was bankrupted through this process. They privatized all the assets through the British East India Company. They used the bank of England to socialize the losses and privatize the gains. And when the government was bankrupt through the guilt market, they, the bondholders were the fic. And so they use this structure to use the military industrial complex, the largest naval fleet, in order to change the order, acquire resources, put them in the investment bank, financialize, securitize and you know, and indoctrinate people into this belief. The free market capitalism is doing this. It's an invisible hand. And really when you go back pre Adam Smith, you realize that there was a lot more to these economic theories and economic thoughts when it was combined with sociology and off the topic anyway. But anyway, the US in this world, when it's collapsed into a regional power in a multipolar world, is just really a military fortress. It is a for rent militia, much like isis. You can rent ISIS in order to make it look like they're invading for religious reason reasons. But they work for the intelligence network, Mossad, MI6, CIA. The soldiers are just people that may not know who they work for. Most people don't know who they work for because they can't follow the money all the way through. But the US military is a militia for rent by transnational capital. As it was in Britain, as it was in the Dutch Empire when this model was created. It's a military fortress. It also is a legal fortress. So you know, by being able to influence policy, by, by being able to deregulate, by being able to control, they create a legal fortress where they can hold their intellectual property but then push it through via some of the British Empire army, sorry, islands, you know, like Cayman island and British Virgin island and various other things. So it's Like a fortress for intellectual property where even through regulations there's regulatory capture. You know, they just do the crime and pay the fine. That fine pays for the towers of the sec. It also keeps out competition from the smaller players and it monopolizes upwards where you know, you can have this regulatory capture. Now the whole thing with the military fortress is you get to pretend it's national security. When national security applies, you can use words like terrorism, domestic terrorists. When you use these words you're able to opt out of all of the Constitution, first Amendment, second Amendment. And the further you can go through, you know, these different carve outs, you can, can basically use the word national security to in increasingly protect, you know, the financial industrial complex, the fic. You can also use the budget of the Pentagon to create defense ip, privatize it, manufacture entrepreneurs and then use DARPA funding and these different CIA intelligence networks or Department of Defense VC networks in order to push out technology, privatize it and then you can privatize the gains from the things that the people paid for. They get the debt and the stock market gets the value. So you get these defense IP. Palantir is a classic example. SpaceX, Tesla as well a Google. You can look back at all these histories and you can see a fantasy entrepreneur story of being created in the garage while intelligence networks are basically siphoning off. Then you have different jurisdictions like Israel, in order to do the real illegal stuff that you need to pretend is someone else. They get to have this plausible deniability story. And then you can use things like the Palestinian laboratory to commit genocide crimes against humanity. It benefits, you know, you create religious narratives and that allows you to recruit an army, get population growth and then funnel the IP back and it goes back into the US stock market, laundered and cleaned while all the crimes against humanity were committed globally through these proxies like Ukraine as well.
- [20:21]
And you know,
- [20:26]
so yeah, you, you, you can use that as well. AI infrastructure is the classic tool that's being weaponized right now into this AI bubble. You can weaponize chip manufacturing in order to negotiate the world order, the multipolarity with sovereign wealth funds that want to build data centers. And so strategic supply chains become important. You get these sanctions, different types of assets and companies that become geopolitically strategically important. And therefore you can use the media in order to create a narrative of why you should bail them out while people it's too big to fail. For example, one of the biggest one in the AI bubble at the moment is tsmc. So they're building, you know, they're building these, these, these centers in Arizona, but that's China's territory as well. And so while China, the Reese I, last week I, or a couple of weeks back I covered the whole China Shanghai meeting. But you can build out these Arizona fabs using tsmc. If you can strategically get enough leverage over that, then you can put billions spent through money printing, which was the CHIPS act, the people pay the bill through the national debt. You pump the stock market, you pump the share price valuations and really you get this concentration of wealth that happens over time. But you know, they're relocating some of this chip production because it's a national security so that it can be negotiated into this multipolar world. The growth may be elsewhere, it can happen anywhere. But the asset protection remains in the US And America. So effectively, just like Britain, when people look at karma, they're like, does he work for us or is his job to create a narrative that means you can print money, buy weapons, send them to Ukraine and make us think we're defending democracy while people are struggling, while pensions are being, you know, downgraded, while the, you know, services infrastructure is not being built. Your asset, strip the country, use it for what it is. And the people still buy into politics thinking that something else is happening. So this is the future of the US economy, very similar to the UK economy. You may have the growth there, but the growth isn't distributed. The reason that they do that is because they use the figure gdp, Gross Domestic Product. Gross domestic product can be government spending, it can be consumption, whether it's by the rich or someone else. And it can be your net imports or exports, your capital account surplus or deficit. Now America runs a capital account deficit, which means that trillions and trillions of dollars. In fact, right now we're almost $70 trillion of the flows of money into the bondholders, the equity holders. Real estate is actually foreign owned. And so this is how the bondholders rule, this is how the shareholders rule, and this is how you get this situation where FIC is able to take over through globalization, financialization, tokenization, securitization. But if you look at the figures right now, GDP is currently, it's been revised just this year in America from 2% to 1.5%. Now there is a rule in this debt based Ponzi scheme. It is that you have to have growth higher than the average cost of the national debt. And so America right now is going into having its growth, its GDP revised down from 2% to 1.5%. The 70 year average GDP growth in America is 3%. So what's propping up that? Well, it's actually just AI and data centers as I've been covering on previous broadcasts. And so the whole economy is these AI and data centers. The average government debt cost right now, last time I looked was, was approaching 3.5%. So if you've got growth as being revised down to under a percent and it's all AI data centers and that requires significant investment from transnational capital and private credit and the financial industrial complex, but the average cost on the debt is approaching 3.5%, then you're in a doom loop asset stripping phase. That's when the politicians have to give a narrative that make the people think something else is happening. That's the MAGA narrative. We're rebuilding our manufacturing while they're building robotics and AI data centers and that's the whole economy. You know, it's not rebuilding a manufacturing base, it's creating the technology that's going to replace the humans and that's all the growth. And so the government is there to create, you know, the, the, the, the narrative. And the government in what we're at right now, which is called fiscal dominance, is where the government spends more and more and more into propping up the stock market. So one way of doing that is create a war. And you can get massive debt, massive spending into the military industrial complex. You can create a national security issue, I. E. China's going to win the AI arms race or we need to get data centers in space before Russia dominates space. And so you can use the media in order to push out that narrative. Then you can increase government spending. In the Trump administration, this is called the big beautiful bill. And so in this time period, basically government spending is up from 27% of gross domestic product to now 38%. And so that's approaching essentially how China runs its economy, which is the narrative that Americans are told is the enemy. Communism. They call it whatever you want to call it, and it's not communism, but this is the increase in a fiscal dominant stage. Increase the debt, put all the value into the stock market, which the rich benefit from, while those that are turned into collateralized debt obligations, they just increase their share of the national debt and the inflation goes at a higher rate than their wages. That's when you get the environment that we're experiencing at the asset stripping phase. Now, if you look at it American right now, the consumption, the consumer economy is about 68% of all GDP in America. So consumers have to spend, which is why you get the sick. The subscription industrial complex, because they're trying to even launch 50 year mortgages. They're trying to make you consume into the future so that they can raise finance and use you as collateral in the financialization markets. This way you can sell revenue forward by having these assets. By getting you to spend into the future, it becomes an asset in itself that they can financialize and securitize. But where is all the spending coming from? Well, 50% of that, 68%, almost half of the economy, let's say 40% of the economy is driven by the top 10% of wealthy people in America. So the economy is for the rich at this stage. And if you're not in that club, then you're not part of the economy.
- [28:14]
You know, they can put you in
- [28:16]
a concentration camp like they, you know, what do they call them? These, these different outskirts places. I forget the name right now. Maybe someone in the comments, Embankment or something. I've forgotten the name. So it will come to me later. You know, and you saw that then you see a lot of that. And then what do they do? They sell drugs and gambling into those communities which are deep state operations protected by the CIA. So when they say they're coming after drugs, they're not. They're just changing the supply chains because that's how the deep state is funded. Drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons trafficking. Read a book called Operation Gladio by Paul Williams to understand how this is done via the Vatican bank and various other things through the CIA. So whenever you get a narrative, they try to put an ethical cloak on what's happening to make you buy into the system for longer. But what, what else do the top 10% get as a benefit of them spending their money? Because they're in this club where they own 92% of the stock market's wealth. So 92% is owned by the 10%, which is where the national debt is propping up. And so this is when you get this extreme K shaped economy, this extreme wealth inequality where Effectively the bottom 90% are increasingly spending on the sick. The subscription industrial complex, that's your mortgage, your housing, if all your income is going on your housing, your food, which they're now even turning into a subscription service, your energy, then they can price you out of the market, they can make you compete, then they can tokenize it, do carbon credits, various other things and interest payments on your debt. That's most people. And so you work for the sick, which is owned by the fic, the Financial industrial complex. And so this is the asset stripping exercise, this is corporate concentration. And who owns these large multinational corporations? Well, it's in the name, it's multinational, it's transnational capital, it's global in nature. So America is just a, you know, a, a platform, as is uk, as is Australia, as is Canada, as is the European Union. If you can put them all into one package European Union and then you can install unelected officials that work on NGO funded corporate policies, then you can regime change, you can do as you wish. Now it doesn't always go to plan, which is why you've got the derivative markets. You hedge your bets, you bet on the market, go these operations going well, badly, and then you make fees every single time anyway because it's your money, it's your pension that is actually paying for this. The collateral is you if you're on the wrong side of this cycle. So 1% of you know, these, these, these, these fees that, that are generated and these terms that are generated are propping up 82% of all revenue right now. And so you've got within the corporate, these corporations, you were concentrating wealth up to like 10 companies. Now 40% of the stock market is like seven technology companies. And so, you know, the top 1% of all the firms, they generate 82% of all the revenue. So what we're doing is we're concentrating up into monopolistic power, asset stripping and resetting the world order while you think changing the politician matters. That's why I've always said you vote with your money, opt out of that system. But the top 20 firms in America generate 50% of all sales. And in the AI bubble, you're starting to see right now that they're just sending contracts to each other. Every time they print a new contract, they get to print it forward through creative accounting and call it gdp, which increases their valuation, which helps them subordinate the executives through corporate options. And so, you know, most people just don't know who's in charge. And so corporate profits rather than, you know, are basically near their record highs at the moment. As you enter into this fiscal dominant stage, the economy has never been more concentrated in terms of its history. And that's exactly what happened to the British Empire, the Dutch Empire, when it was the British East India Dutch East India Company asset stripping phase. And then they changed the host to America with the Federal Reserve. There is a savings crisis across America and the saving rate is about 2.6% at the moment and that's the lowest since 2022, you know, post Covid as a result of the economic shutdown, consumer spending is rising faster than income. So people are spending on debt, they're substituting through debt. If you're on the wrong side of this, or they're on the other side of this and they're benefiting through that consumer spending in their share prices. And so Americans are increasingly spending their savings right now in order to survive, which turns them into a subscription industrial complex product sick. And that is the debt crisis that we're experiencing not only on the governmental level, but also on the lower half as well. And so the economy is for the rich right now. That is what it is. And those are the asset holders. And your debt is propping up their asset value. Now you're probably, if you've got any savings, if you're in savings, you're holding it in a bank that's losing value as a result of this fiscal dominance. Money printing and the banks get to create the fiat currency every time they issue a loan. So they need a debt in order to create that currency. And so this emulate, you know, this, this kind of interest plus the, you know, the mandatory spending through prescriptions is projected to basically exceed the tax revenue by 2031. And so if you combine that all together, if you take the entitlements that the government needs to spend, then you add the interest, then you add the monetary spending that has already been committed. This is going to pass tax revenue by 2031. So BlackRock knows this. The financial industrial complex knows this. So what do they do? They asset strip and they reset the order. They look for the next growth cycle, they engineered the next growth cycle which requires taking the assets, deploying them while America seems strong and then negotiating into a multipolar world. And that's what I think we're witnessing right now. Now many countries around the world know how the game is played because they've been on the wrong side of the bomb. They were installed, many leaders were installed by the FIG through this process. But net interest is, is projected to reach 5% of the entire GDP. Now that is catastrophic levels and it's not growing at the same speed. And the only growth is data centers which is replacing humans with AI and robotics. So the real big question is what is, you know, the actual plan here? And if you don't know the plan, then you're going to be just on the wrong side of this because the politicians ain't going to tell you and the media is going to tell you it's something else because The FICO and ZAM as well, you know, they can control media. These are public companies. Many of the times you see a private source says that may be CIA, that may be Mossad and maybe MI6, it may be any of these things. So what is the actual plan? Well, the actual plan is to reset the world order. All of the capital flows are telling me that that's what I've been covering over the long time. If you're new to the show, welcome, you can go and binge in the previous ones or you can carry on. I try to do a bit of mix of what's happening at the moment, but the current thing that I've been covering week by week by week was I believe the engineered operation of the closure of the straight of Amus, which was partly done by FIC because it was insurance of shipments that required guarantees from either the IRGC in Iran or US on the other side of the blockade. And so the FIC was able to determine through insurance that they're not willing to insure. Now you can look at the cause and effect and we can debate that, but I believe that those in power wanted the straight of almost closed and Trump works for that power. And so when you get all these delays, it's just narrative delays because the F once it's closed, so they can out price people, they can asset strip, they can reset the world order and then can negotiate into this new world order. And so the straight up for Muse was the management of the transition, which has been a multi decade operation. Every single crisis becomes an asset stripping exercise that concentrates wealth higher up into the fit, whether it be long term capital management, whether it be the dot com boom and bust, whether it be the global financial crisis, whether it be Covid, whether it be the Russia, Ukraine invasion, whatever it may be. But one answer may be that the financial industrial complex requires periodic geopolitical events to manage a transition. And I believe from having read many, many different covert operations that these events are engineered. And you can either believe that or not they can weaponize it as it happens. But the game is a foundation of a Ponzi scheme called the dollar. You know, when it's integrated into the FIC and the central banking system, this is mathematically guaranteed to happen. You know, it's inevitable, it's predictable, it's guaranteed, it's happened in the past, we just haven't seen it, we're living through it right now. And so the, the temporary closure, you know, of the Strait of Hormuz has basically created exactly that Opportunity, reprice everything, Force majeure, contracts. Use the war in order to destroy and rebuild. If you've read a book like Confession of, Of an Economic Hitman, you'll be very familiar with this model. War is engineered because they profit from the war, financing the war, selling the weapons, the, the average person pays for it through money printing. And then they get to rebuild, renegotiate, and get the resources. This is a model I've covered on Simon Dixon Hard Talk for a long time. And so energy shocks are perfect for this. They create the volatility. Volatility is how the FIC make money through fees. Customers come to them to manage the volatility. And you know, this is the volatility that creates the policy flexibility and the ability to control the system to a greater and greater degree. So crisis is built into the system. It's engineered. And we know that because that's how US Foreign policy, British foreign policy, has always worked. You know, you engineer militia groups, you engineer war, you, you regime change, you infiltrate revolutions, you manufacture violence, you use the media to create a narrative, and then you go get the resources, and those resources end up in the hands of transnational capital. But you call it national security or you call it nationalism, and people have a very warped vision of what is actually happening here. But policy flexibility basically creates the opportunity for capital reallocation. And this was a big one. This happened in the British Empire with the Suez Canal, and now it's happening with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. So why does this actually matter? Well, this temporarily interrupted all of the capital, you know, relocation strategy that was underway prior to the closure of the Strait of Horiz. There was a strategic weakening of the dollar relative to other currencies, relative to gold, relative to silver. There was the, the yields on bond markets were going up, which is makes the more stressful situation. And you had the stock market and the national debt going up as well. And so this sets up the game for fiscal dominance, and that is the strategic weakening. Effectively. You, you're sacrificing dollar as world reserve currency, which shrinks America into regional, and then you can negotiate into multipolarity. Trump's done all of that. You know, he did Doge, which was giving all the data to the technical industrial complex that was needed for this police and surveillance state, global surveillance, Rails and Grid and AI Center. Fiscal dominance paid for it through operation Stargate. And it was the BlackRock portfolio companies that benefited from that. You then had the big beautiful bill which increased the military budget, technical budget, and created the set of circumstances that helped finance in their crisis moment because there was a private credit squeeze which we've been watching and is still going on right now. Then you had tariffs which made everyone negotiate into bricks. It signaled to the world America is an unreliable partner. And it reset every relationship for the financial, technical and military industrial complex. We then had the release of the Epstein files which strategically weakened how this system works. But it didn't reveal the main players at the top of the figure. No one was accountable to it. And then we had the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and this Iran war. If you've been a long term listener, you'll know that I said that Trump was selected for this role to go to war with Iran. And so we were expecting this and we've been covering that as well. At some point I got bits wrong, you know, that I thought this would be not as big as it was, it would be like the 12 Day War. But you can go through the history. I public everything, I publish everything on the blog. But what has happened? Capital has now moved into everybody needing to hoard their oil, which prices, you know, which means that you've got this oil price spike. And then you had all the other types of energy liquefied natural gas which is a key component of this AI electric vehicle trade. You got increased defense spending, you got and you know, you had safe haven assets that people were pushing those capital outflows into. And so prior to this war you saw that emerging market stock markets were outperforming the S P while the S P was being pumped up by the Fed ETF flows and media manipulation and narratives. And the same was happening with the currencies backed by commodities. So you can see that when you follow the flows and follow the money. This is where I develop my view of what I thought was actually happening. This is the fiscal dominance asset stripping phase. And so before the straight off Hormuz, what was actually happening? Capital was being routed towards emerging markets into multipolarity. You had Yuan settlement volumes were on the rise. You had brics financial rails that were being built infrastructure into a multipolar world and it was expanding. You had this massive gold accumulation by central banks that was accelerating and had a really, really big pump. You had US capital dominance was effectively being gradually weakened even though the markets were strong. You had foreign stock markets outperforming. You had capital outflows via ETFs. You had currencies that were strengthening relative to the dollar depending on where the financial industrial complex was taking us. So my thesis was that these tariff revenue, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, these different events and once it fully reopens again, we're going to see normalization into where we were prior to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But you got the reset and I covered it week by week by week of what was happening as we covered on SimonDixon.com you can see that on my YouTube channel. But the long term transition was interrupted by the closure of the straight of Hormuz. Do we get this global reset energy repricing Much of the crisis that we're going to see from shortages and various other things, but it was not reversed. And so once we get, once the FIC is ready, we'll get the opening of the Straight of a Moose. Now what's it doing is negotiating into the rebuild contracts within Iran. And so trans this is the transition that we're witnessing. But it uses these crisis in order to get leverage and watch exactly what's happening into Iran right now. What you'll notice is that Iran is essential in both the energy side and many of the other. So was selling discounted oil to China and sanctioned countries were performing this vital role of discounted oil being purchased via UAE which I've been covering the different flows. And that discounted oil was only able to get dollars to gold, gold to oil. And then that gold would end up in Shanghai, which is one of the different flows that we've been doing. But when we get this opening, we're going to have a future monetary system. And you can see all the events that happened. We had the OPEC which was half of the petrodollar. We had this CBDC network called Enbridge. We had OPEC having to reprice much of its oil reroute. And I started to see that there seems to be an orderly fashion. America and Russia were getting the LNG contracts. Then we get the opening up. And when America gives sanction relief to Iran, there'll be a managed transition outwards integrated into opec. While the rebuild contracts of Iran, the Gulf countries, all the damage is rebuilt, which means reorders and a reordering of the monetary system. So what I always look for is what is reconstruction economics. You know, whoever pays this was the IMF model is the one that gets the leverage. And so geopolitics when you have these wars, the rebuild contracts really, really set what the world order looks like. So many people find this hard to believe, but you can co opt factions of power in order to have More of a theatrical war. The deaths are real, but the strategic targets are very strategic. And I think we're witnessing one of those right now. U.S. bases, energy infrastructure, you know, in Gulf countries within Iran. And we see, we see that throughout the new routes and the new ports and everything. And so the long term thesis I've been covering is that the Middle east is moving to a change, regional stability rather than the forever war, because it was always put into war by design. And so what did we have this week? Well, let's get into what happened this week. So US striked some energy infrastructure within Iran again. Iran retaliated by attacking strategic targets within Bahrain, within Kuwait and within Iraq. And those are going to need to be rebuilt, renegotiated as well. We also had a little bit of member whatever the media says that's what somebody wants you to believe, it doesn't mean it's true. It means that some faction of power is trying to make you believe that. And so we had a really bizarre story about Netanyahu who was thanking Congress for something called section 224 which formalized basically the COVID relationship. Both Israel and US are subordinate to military, which are both subordinate to FIC. And so the Mick uses Israel as an outpost and radicalizes, uses the religious narrative in order to create groups like isis, Al Qaeda to build the IDF through saying it's the, you know, Jews need protecting. And then the neocons in America use evangelical Christianity to radicalize people into thinking that you need to protect Israel. And so, you know, these power structures are more than happy to weaponize religion. And so they formalize this U.S. israel military integration. They were already integrated. Come on, MI6, Mossad, CIA, these are the co authors of many of the operations, whether it be from 911 to what happened in Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan, these manufactured wars that were part of this model of destroy, rebuild, acquire resources, destabilize, you know, and these were all integrated anyway. But it's kind of like a mask off moment. I've said that in order to manage this transition you need to acquire Israel and all Israeli assets. So I've been looking at all the privatization programs. I've been following the money the economy is out, you know, is, is decoupling from the stock market just like it is in America, just like it is in uk, just like it is in the European Union. That is the asset stripping exercise. And who's dying. A lot of the capital is coming from the Gulf. So this is ownership via acquisition. And we're seeing that happen through uae, India and other stuff. And I always cover the different deals. But look at what's happening with Iran. In this deal there was an announcement. So we get this back and forth memorandum, understand? Ignore everything that's happening publicly. That's how to appease the relative people. Whether it be the, you know, the FCC via the Israeli government pleasing Israelis or the FIC via IRGC, or the Iranian government appeasing Iranian factions or whether it be the FIC appeasing, you know, the neocons and the evangelical Christians that have been pushing up through military funding. This is, it's not left or right. Trump's not taking on the system. Trump is more thick, aligned. I've always said about, you know, Biden was more mick aligned, but Obama was one of the people that this is a continuation of strategy. If you look back at the previous deals, there was the jcpoa where effectively $1.7 billion that Iran prior to the revolution was going to spend on the US military industrial complex was seized. And so there was a deal via JCPOA in order to release that money. Now the reason it happened is because the court was about to say that this is unlawful. And so to get ahead of it, Obama signed a deal and there was a release schedule that ties upon it. It's not a gift. When you hear about these reparations or this funding to Ukraine, it's always done via a fund, via contracts. Even all the funding to Israel, the funding to Israel is spent back into the mic. The funding that happens with Saudi Arabia, they have to. The petro dollar itself was you put you price oil in dollars, you then you're not going to hold dollars in a bank because a bank is a Ponzi scheme. So then you have to buy Treasuries. Then you become a bondholder. When you're a bondholder, you are in the Federal Reserve System. Once you're in the Federal Reserve System, the yield you receive is spent into defense contracts in order to prop up the US stock market. And you have this cycle. And so when people stop buying lending to the US Government and start buying equities, which the sovereign wealth funds are doing right now, they're acquiring the country. That comes with influence, voting rights, the ability to control the FIC or partner with the FIC to a certain degree in a partnership. So none of these things are gifts. That 1.7 billion wasn't a gift. It was Iran's own money. That was sanctions. The sanctions are a weapon. Confiscate the money and try and get a regime change. That then spends the money to prop up the US stock market, keeps the debt based Ponzi scheme going while the Americans pay the bill. It's a money laundering operation. So these frozen assets were the settlement, that was the negotiation. And so you know this, what happened under Obama is that there was some cash delivery and then that happened and continued into the Biden administration. And all it showed is that US was the dominant hegemon at that time. You know, the US dollar had no alternative rails. That's why all these alternative rails were built in order so that Russia, China, Iran could push back against the system and Iran could try and get some of its money, get some sanction relief and end up in the situation that it's in right now. And so what you noticed in the memorandum of understanding and when an investment banking deal is done, you have a letter of intent, a memorandum of understanding, then a term sheet, term takes a long time to negotiate. Memorandum of understanding makes sure everyone's on the same page. Letter of intent is public communication for the first time. And so I believe the MoU has already been signed. But we need to get the right narrative for all the parties to give back to their respective people to manage this transition. Because really it is the shrinking of the us, the handing over of the Middle east into West Asia, it's a major, major deal. But part of it was that There was a 300 billion dollar reparations that I guarantee you, just like the border peace deal with Gaza, it will be structured as a fund. And with a fund, who are the equity holders? If it is the Gulf countries then this is decolonization, this is resetting of order. Who funds those Gulf sovereign wealth funds? Who's the largest purchaser of energy? It's China. So China's part of transnational capital. So when you see a 300 billion dollar reparations, it's not a gift, I guarantee you. And we don't know the details yet, but I'll be following it, it's a reconstruction fund and I'm pretty sure that it's going to be financed by the Gulf and by the fic. And so this is not direct cash to Iran. When you set up a fund, you, what actually happens is that you end up with contracts. And what are those contracts? Those are investments. What are those investments? It is the opening up of Iran to the FIC on GCC terms normalized by China. This is how I was able to create a long term projection for what was happening here over the years. And this is why I knew that this Wasn't business as usual. This wasn't the forever war model. This would end via Saudi Arabia hold out clause of Palestine, Israel being a useful asset to the mic. Now if we weren't in that environment where China was rising then I wouldn't have predicted any of these things. I would have said this is just the forever war and Israel is the proxy for the military doing, committing crimes against humanity, destabilizing the region and then negotiating these different contracts. But what is this going to be? This is going to do well. It's going to be. Iran doesn't have the money to fund all this infrastructure rebuild. So this is going to be the finance and the rebuild and it's going to be ports, it's going to be energy infrastructure, it's going to be everything that was destroyed. It's going to be telecoms, it's going to be housing and you know who gets paid with that? You know, and this is the engineering that happens. It's going to be the same firms that have always done this, you know, the, the Halliburtons. It may be done covertly via a fund, but that's the purpose of these funds, to obfuscate what's happening here. And so most people just won't know it until it actually happens. But it will be the energy majors that are going to be rebuilding. It's going to be probably defense contractors. It could be a mix of China, Russia and western transnational capital. It will be telecom providers. It will be and this is a core thesis, this is the model of it. And this is how you get regional stability when you're meant to get regional stability rather than the, the forever war model. So how does it actually work? As I said, as a quick recap, the first invoice is the war. The war is profitable. I said this is a stock market stimulus. When people said it would crash the stock market, I said no, this is going to have impact on other markets, the bond market, but then that can lead to a big print. Socialize the losses and privatize gains and then you can bankrupt small businesses. You can push wealth up to the K shaped economy and you can destroy some of the consumption and push the sick, the subscription industrial complex. But the second invoice is once the war is done, that's the reconstruction and that's just one transaction. That's how this model works. Follow the money, it tells you the truth. Ignore the narratives. It's not about saving women's rights, it's not about protecting the Iranian people. If you believe any of that you're a useful idiot for power and you're paying the bill and the two invoices of the war and the rebuild is going to be paid for by you, while the profits will be socialized and privatized into the fic. And so what we're watching is who gets the contracts. And when you look at who gets the contracts, you can see what the world is looking like and ETF flows. This is why I follow the money and everyone else is, you know, focusing on the geopolitics may get it wrong. I may misinterpret the data, but you can certainly get it better than listening to the media and thinking that the politicians are telling you the truth. Who gets the fees? Who gets the rebuild contracts? Don't.
- [60:29]
Who?
- [60:30]
You know, don't ask. Is Trump an idiot who won politically? His job, they don't care. His job is to find the narrative that makes him look okay. But he works for fic. He's middle management. His job is to get the contract for the fic. And so you should all always be asking, you know, who gets paid commercially. And once you figure out that, then you can see what this was really about. And so this is really capital reallocations into a multipolar world, which helps us understand what's coming next. And this can be understood that before the Strait of Hormuz, you know, disruption happened. All the flows were going into emerging markets and that was accelerating this transition to a multipolar world. US basically the funding outflows. And you can look at that via following what BlackRock ETFs are. And it was BRICS infrastructure that was being built and that was what was expanding. It was yuan settlements that were rising. It was the dollar that was going down in value as a result of these. It was GOLF partnerships that were increasing. You had energy within Texas that was 100, you know, 70% owned by Qatar Energy and 30% by Exxon. You had subsidiaries that are benefiting from the likely refinement of Venezuela, which was a subsidiary of Saudi Aramco in Saudi Arabia. And so my view was that the Strait of Horus was the temporary disruption that interrupted all of these trends. And once the energy markets are, you know, they'll go back to where they were, there'll be higher prices, but it will transition back to what was happening before the issue. But every crisis concentrates power upwards and you get the force mature on contracts and everything that happened. And so emerging market capital flows will resume. BRICS integration will resume again. Yuan settlement will grow and Resume again as it was prior to that. And so this is multi polar capital that will resume and Middle east is going to be rebuilt and the reconstruction contracts in that phase are going to really determine what was really going on here. And I think it's going to be built by the Gulf Cooperation Councils, the financial industrial complex and they are increasingly aligned in order to buy the end of the forever war, which requires a Palestinian state, and then Israel has to change its role to what it has always been, which is the mic. The MIC needs to be compensated with a new war, which is Europe and the police state in America. And so stability has always been the price that you have to pay. That's the negotiation. These take a long time and that's the historical context of this. That's what the Dutch East India Company did, that's what the British East India Company did. And that's what Black Rock and Vanguard and State street are able to do today through this new structure is neo extortion. And it's, you know, it's, it's a, how the system actually work. It's managing, you know, the, the, the change and managing the decline of the US Empire because the growth can come from somewhere else and you can have profit from regional stability in the West. The mo. This is, you know, the modern parallel of what they did before. And you know, it's kind of the, the same process if you study history. But we find it very hard to think that that actually happens today because it's different tools. The tools that are used today are capital markets instead of ships. And that's why I always follow the exchange traded funds and currencies and FX markets because the ETFs are really how BlackRock and I covered it earlier. Technology called Aladdin AI is able to reallocate massive, massive, vast pools of capital. This is done through exchange traded funds and exchange traded funds make capital relocate and it is frictionless now. And so if everyone's handing their money over to blackrock, State street and Vanguard and they're all shareholders in each other and all capital, all the big sums of capital is using Aladdin technology, managing $25 trillion of assets, then ETF's is your vehicle in order to do what they used to do just with currency wars. You can still do currency wars, but you can reallocate capital accordingly. And BlackRock and Vanguard today can move billions instantly. And so this is why Aladdin AI is very, very important is BlackRock's portfolio allocation and its risk management platform. And this is the new British East India Company, let's call it the American, I don't know, the American transnational capital experiment, because it doesn't have patriotism, is this global in nature. And it's one of the most intentional capital allocation systems that exists in the world today. And most people don't even follow it or follow those types of flows. And this is how I, you know, this is what we cover, this is what we do here. It monitors trillions and trillions of dollars of outflows. Who's IT used by? Pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, as I said, in basically influential corporate treasuries, asset managers of all of all types and all sorts of. And it is people using their ETF positions, scenario planning and what Aladdin can allocate between US equities or emerging markets and the different types of equities, treasury bonds, different debt structures. So you control debt, capital markets, equity capital markets. You can even do it with corporate bonds. And that's why they issue share options in order to capture, you know, and through board seats. You can even do it with commodities. This is gold ETFs, commodity ECs, defense ETFs. You can do it at the, at the sector level, energy ETFs, AI ETFs, technology ETFs, AI infrastructure ETFs. And this is why the markets are not efficient. They're manipulated, they're controlled, they're manufactured. And who you think is in charge is not in charge. You've even got semiconductor ETFs, one of the most important commodities in the supply chain country ETFs. Even Bitcoin ETFs. And this is why I was always warning people about the different types of impact of the Bitcoin etf. And people were cheering it along. We got a very good example. Ever since the financial industrial complex have been involved in Bitcoin. They built a Bitcoin complex which I've been covering throughout that is used in order to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. And you fight back with self custody, you know, and, and so follow the ETF flows. And the ETF really reveals what, what capital is accumulating right now. And that tells you what the geopolitics is and what capital is also distributing and defending because media defends share prices that are geopolitically and strategically important. What different types of sectors are being favored over others, what sectors are losing liquidity and what risk is increasing. So you can look at the Bitcoin ETF inflows and outflows and see what the FIC is doing now. It doesn't mean that they're trying to destroy Bitcoin because they have a use for Bitcoin in custody. They want as much Bitcoin in custody. And so why are they doing that right now? And this is how you have to have a longer term strategy while everyone else is trying to trade, make quick money. But you don't control the capital. It's the capital allocators that you, you can, you know, get a much, much better narrative as well. What narratives are being funded, which narratives are being, you know, abandoned at the moment. You, you know that that is determined by ETF flows, for example, outflows in India. But many people thinking UAE is being destroyed. There were inflows into UAE during this war as well. So that was a movement from retail to institutional, whether institutions were dumping in India. That means that there's a structural realignment that's happening here. And so what we are seeing today is a realignment. And so AI is attracting all the capital, all the capital needs to build the data center infrastructure build out. And that is sucking up all the capital. Because this is probably the biggest capital requirement that I've ever seen that semiconductors that need, you know, Nvidia chips and TSMC and AM SL and all the different things Samsung that we covered in previous episode. But it's all, all the, all the capital is being attracted into data centers. And that's the source of the private credit market that is working right now because people need to sell assets in order to buy new assets. That can create liquidity challenges. So defense is attracting capital right now into this wartime economy. Energy is attracting capital, gold was attracting capital. And these things were happening prior to the war. So the capital knew what was coming next. And so did the gold capital and the sovereigns, so did the Bitcoin ETFs. And so we can look at the different, you know, outflows that are happening right now. And you can see that this is an accumulation phase. If you were dollar cost averaging, then you would have been, you know, you've got two ways of doing this. You can either try and have your capital in the right place at all times, which is a very hard game, or you can accumulate into weakness knowing that Bitcoin will be needed as part of this multipolar transition. And so that's why I don't worry about it. And I've always told people the easy strategy if you want to be sovereign is own more Bitcoin every month, regardless of price, then it doesn't really matter. As the price goes down, you get more Bitcoin for your money. As the price goes up, your fiat currency net worth goes up. Chillax, you get to do it in self custody. And there's all the, you know, the boycotts and everything you get to do as well. But you could see that there were emerging market allocations leading up to this as well. And all the things that I said that made up the analysis. The, the important distinction is when ETF allocations change and when it is combined with a narrative change, then you get capital flows that change and that's what drives market. But you know, at the moment, bitcoin supply, you know, if the bitcoin supply is not changing, that's what's different about bitcoin. With everything else you can engineer more debt, more equity in gold. It's, you can find more gold but you know, it's, it's pretty fixed at 2% per annum. But with bitcoin it never changes. The supply is known 100. So you can only financialize and create paper Bitcoin, which is what I was saying Wall street is doing. And this is why strategy emerged out of nowhere. This is why the bitcoin treasury company emerged out of nowhere. This is why we had Operation Choke 2.0 to take out the ecosystem. And you can see the connections between those that were taken out and intelligence connections. I did that with Celsius later when I did the understanding FTX and various other things. You can see the banks that were taken out and what happened. You had a regime change as Biden took him out into Trump. We're going to be crypto capital building out the police and surveillance day, pretending it was going to be done. Bitcoin strategic reserves for the government. No, they're not there to protect the government or help the government. They're there to asset strip the government. And so there will only ever be 21 million Bitcoin. But what are the key lessons that we can learn from this whole thing? ETF tells you where the FIC is allocating capital. And so self custody Bitcoin tells you where, you know, the monetary scarcity resists against the fic. And so all of my audience, they own bitcoin in self custody, they boycott the fic. And so the final, you know, lesson is Aladdin can direct capital. And the reason they wanted to do that with bitcoin and create the bitcoin ETF and then centralize as much bitcoin as possible through Micro Sailor and strategy is so that they could build a bitcoin derivative complex around it and do the same game so that they can decide when to allocate capital into and out to viraladdin into Bitcoin. And so once you know that, you know that the short term price is being manipulated, I don't think they want to lose that. Because in a multipolar world, bitcoin is an important tool. There's kind of two tools. You can manage this transition. You create bubbles and then the Fed can determine how capital flows, whether you bail out the system, whether you socialize losses, privatize the gains. But also you can push bitcoin flows, gold flows, which is what they what happened leading up to this as well. And so ETFs can be direct capital, narratives can be direct capital, but they cannot, you know, create more bitcoin. So instead they created a narrative and that was what strategy is. And I've been saying that all along, people get very upset about that. But when you follow the ETF flows to understand the cycle, you understand that self custody bitcoin survives the cycle because they can't control it. It's the definition of what Bitcoin was created to do. So all they can do is try and get you to give up your bitcoin, hold it in custody, borrow against it, trade shitcoins, do an alternative version, trade futures, perps, all options, whatever it may be. But at the same time, when you look at this, because you know, people say I didn't do it because it's manipulated, but you can't change the supply. And that is unique as an asset class, which is why you can only have a long term strategy. And so the Fed manages this transition that we're witnessing right now. The tools that they have, they have interest rates. So right now, Trump regime change the Fed. We have Kevin Walsh. Kevin Walsh is via his shareholders of the Fed. He's the chairman and his board, as it were, the fomc, which consists of a bunch of banks and also, you know, lobbied politicians that represent the fig. They sit around the table and the chairman, Kevin Walsh reads the script. People think he controls the world. You know, people think he's in charge, but his chairman is to read the script. He can do things, he has power, he can influence it, but he has the tools right now. So people think like the treasury and the Fed emerging and Trump's taking on the Fed. I mean the whole game is set by the Fed at the moment. You can determine whether to do quantitative easing or quantitative tightening is move to a covert quantitative easing by buying short term bonds it, you know, when the bondholders are, when those rates are being pushed up because there's more and more inflation, then it's only the Fed that can buy it through qe. They have different types of liquidity facilities to repo markets, increase liquidity or decrease liquidity. They can provide, you know, market support to Treasuries at the end or they can decide not to. This is what happened in 1929 when they created the bubble and then they decided to blow up the bubble and the Fed engineered that whole process that transitioned from the British, you know, empire over to the American empire after the Fed was created as part of its function. And it can also, you know, influence volatility as well whether there's a volatile transition or a smooth transition. And you know, it can socialize the losses, it can privatize the gains. And guess who the Fed used in order to determine when it gets bailout money, how to allocate it. Blackrock's Aladdin. Guess who the treasury was using during COVID during the stimulus checks. BlackRock's Aladdin. So it feeds into the, the technical industrial complex and FIC algorithm that determines the capital outflows. And of course they self deal build out their own concentrate wealth upward. And I believe right now the AI bubble as it is a policy tool, it is being used right now to engineer this transition. So the AI bubble can become a policy tool. Do they bail it out? Do they not? Do they increase the balance sheet? And that's what I think is happening right now. So the bubble, you know, burst can effectively decide whether there's going to be qe, whether there's going to be some kind of emergency facilities, whether there's going to be a liquidity injection, whether there's going to be a market intervention. And the playbook has always been inflate bubbles as we did in 1929. This can be financial bubbles. You allow them to, you know, blow up as they did with mortgage backed securities which by the way the CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, created those mortgage backed securities as he was part of the Bears turns Lehman Brothers network. They've got regime change and concentrated into JP Morgan and blackrock and various other flows. Or you can allow a correction to happen which is where you can justify the intervention. And this is the concentration exercise. So the Fed's in charge of the game. But who is the Fed owned by? The Fed is owned by the banks. And the Fed is the largest shareholder in the bank for International Settlements, which is Transnational Capital, which has a network of Central banks that are all using Aladdin as well. And so this is why I believe that the FIC is the one doing the transition to multipolarity and it's trying to restart the cycle. And so my thesis is, and we'll keep analyzing the capital flows, is that the Fed does not stop the transition. The Fed is managing the transition. The Fed acts as the stock arbitrator, as it were, while the financial industrial complex reallocates the capital, which is done via the equivalent of the Dutch East India Company, the asset managers as well. And so where does Bitcoin fit into all of this? And what's happened this week? How does it come? So let's go through, you know, today capital has been rotating away from Bitcoin into AI. Now that doesn't mean that that won't happen, that that doesn't change in the future. Because in a transition to multipolarity, you go through the cycle, tomorrow, capital can rotate from AI back into Bitcoin. And so some people see them as correlated assets, some people don't, and people get confused. It is a tool. The centralized version of Bitcoin is a tool for fic. Once we entered into this world, the self custody, Bitcoin is a tool for you and everybody else. And this is why ETFs matter. These ETFs as I've said, is a capital allocation mechanism. It can help you determine the future based upon these algorithmic flows. And the machine basically currently pulling money out of Bitcoin, you could see that There was about $4 billion leading up to this of capital outflows. What does that mean? You don't know when they're going to change the engine. So you can buy into weakness and relax, you don't control these flows. And they can later drive these massive inflows into Bitcoin, which is what they were doing prior to this. That is a mechanism for them trying to use corporate treasury companies, which was created by another fake node like Strategy and Counter Fitzgerald, which tried to create others as well. And they can determine the point of sovereign adoption as well. And so the key points is that today's Bitcoin weakness does not mean that there's an inevitable fleeing of capital. It is cyclical in its nature.
- [83:40]
Yeah.
- [83:41]
So it just really, what can we read right now? The etf, Bitcoin outflows just tell us that this is where the capital is being directed right now, out of Bitcoin and into AI. And so today's ETF flows, even Bitcoin, as we said, and that's why the price is being engineered down. And at the same time Wall street vehicles are accumulating as much Bitcoin as possible. So we've got more going into, you know, companies like strategy that has built a whole complex around it. So tomorrow's ETF flows can leave AI and they can come back to Bitcoin. And I believe they will, the same allocation narrative will be weaponized, but they don't control the long term price as well. And so once you understand this, it's not about being a trader, it's about being a longer term investor and harnessing the benefits of this. And you know, Bitcoin is currently a source of the liquidity for this AI bubble. Now what does this AI bubble actually need? AI is currently where all the liquidity is long term. That can change because remember what I told, I talked about how China has the frontier model which is 10 times cheaper and this capex may be completely bad allocations of capital. And, and that's when self custody Bitcoin allows you to not be involved in these structural rug pulls where the paper version of the asset is not backed fully by the actual asset. And so the allocation vehicle can just change. The underlying scarcity does never change though. So the AI bubble is basically right now leading up to this, it needed, it raised about $400 billion in six months. As I said, it was the source of all growth. America would have been in a recession without it. But right now, leading up to the SpaceX IPO which I said last week when we went through, it is essentially an AI company dressed as a space narrative to justify the valuation. It needs another $225 billion still required. And the IPO goes live next week. Anthropic released their filing and open AI is coming up as well. Last year only 16 of that amount was raised. And so we need 6 times 6x that amount. That's why we're getting Bitcoin ETF outflows. Now on the narrative side, they're saying it's going to zero, it's all dead. But approximately $4 billion was the outflows in May, which is why this capital rotation was happening because it, you know, it was Aladdin was reallocating towards AI. Now you could have done that or you could have just bought Bitcoin into weakness. Value your wealth in Bitcoin, hold it in self custody, boycott the system, don't leverage, don't borrow against it. And the further the price goes down, the more Bitcoin you can get with your Fiat currency. If you're earning fiat currency every month. And that's the way that people that want to exit and boycott the system, they can do that rather than cap. Playing the capital reallocation and following all the flows and doing all the stuff as well. It's the easy thing. It's the equalizer that everyone can do. So the capital needs to come from somewhere and it comes from other people selling their assets. So AI is attacking all capital right now. That's what we're witnessing. And bitcoin is part of providing some of that liquidity. And so my idea here is to try and help you not panic. I've been through 16 years of this. In fact, I always said I've seen my $30 bitcoin crash to $3. I've seen my $20,000 bitcoin crash to $3,000. I've seen my $69,000 bitcoin crash to $17,000. I've seen my 125,000 bitcoin now crash 50% to $62,000. And the strategy that equalizes everything is the people that genuinely are wealthy, we're just buying it regardless of price every month and not caring about any of that. So. So I want to cover strategy for a bit. It seems like it's a company. It's always whenever I just share how the architecture of strategy and how it's a tool for centralizing as much bitcoin as possible for the financial industrial complex. Every time I cover it, I get a rabid following of celebrity worshiping crazies on X and they get very offended. You know, I just discuss architecture, follow the money and explain what it is. And it is a tool that if it could succeed, it would centralize as much bitcoin as possible. If it could, it would centralize 21 million bitcoin. It can't, but it would if it could. And that's not good for bitcoin. And so people just need to understand that if you are thinking the strategy is your friend, it is a fake tool and it is a arbitrage vehicle. Owning bitcoin in self custody is Bitcoin owning strategy is supporting the financial industrial complex in creating an arbitrage tool. There was recently, I think the Jeff, one of the team from Strive, one of the products of strategy. He did a debate with Coffeezilla and I think he's the chief risk officer. And I also tweeted out and put some posts out there and Matt the CEO came in and said, why don't you do a debate and our team is seeing if we can make that happen. I've accepted the debate publicly. I think they wanted us to go on their channel. I'd like a moderator and we'll see if we can make that happen. I've got nothing to hide. I'm more than happy to say this. It's just architecture. It is what it is. People want to add all this emotion and celebrity worship and all this stuff on top, understand when you follow the money, you understand compromised networks leverage Networks are built in order to subordinate. And anybody that works for strategy, whether they know it or not, is a subordinate of the financial industrial complex. This is a Wall street vehicle as part of a complex designed to creating the tools and derivatives and arbitrage vehicles that can manipulate the price of Bitcoin via this bitcoin paper suite of products. And so what is strategy? I'm going to cover it in this episode right now because the reason that the price of bitcoin went down was part of a media narrative. That media narrative was strategy. Selling 32 bitcoin an insignificant amount of bitcoin relative to how many they have. I think last time I checked they have about 850000 Bitcoin and they're trying to get as much as possible. But what are the different products that exist within strategy? So firstly there's the equity. Now the equity is simply an arbitrage. It's an arbitrage between the bitcoin held on the balance sheet because the operating business isn't that big, just happens to provide intelligence services and data services. But the, the asset, the big asset is a number of bitcoin that they hold on their balance sheet. And throughout its history it is traded at a premium to that asset value is known as the net asset value. And the premium is the, you know, the, the premium above the M nav. And the M nav went to a peak of 3 and is now about 1.23. What that means is that when you're buying shares in strategy, you're paying for a bitcoin, a Bitcoin per share, 1.23 times the value of if you just bought that bitcoin. And so you're paying a premium to buy bitcoin via counterparty risk. And that arbitrage is the game. That arbitrage is what allows as much bitcoin to be centralized as possible and play that game. In order to get that bitcoin they launched different products. Originally they started launching convertible notes because then they could go out to fic nodes like corporate debt holders and offer them higher returns for higher risk. They also offered a preference stock rather that for some reason they're calling digital credit, as if we haven't seen a preference stock before. And they're just really offering what investment banks has always done and what my department in the investment bank used to do when I worked there is structured products. Google is using them, other people is using them. But when you combine them with the complex that was built as a result of operation choke point 2.0, when you combine it with the ETF and the ability to arbitrage between these different vehicles, Bitcoin essentially becomes, and strategy becomes a vehicle for this arbitrage. And so the weakness that we saw leading up to this was that into the AI bubble there was $4 billion of outflows from the Bitcoin ETF and capital was rotating into AI, as I said. And Bitcoin was basically transitioning through strategy and these different structures. And so over time these different structures were built and the latest structure is something that they're calling Strive. So while the market is funding this whole AI build out, Bitcoin has become a source of liquidity, as we previously said, for the funding of AI. And it's a bit of the build out which Google has also been doing, you know, with their stock and debt. At the same time, Nvidia, you know, home AI chips has been launched and so now you're starting to see these different types of AI. We also covered the China trade, that they have the frontier models that can do things significantly cheaper and that, you know, Google, the different things we've been covering. Google may be dominating the West. We have this AI bubble. We're probably going to have a lot of M and A. China has been increasingly dominating AI infrastructure. They met in Shanghai. All the things we, we covered. We've had David Sachs in the Trump administration, he was pushing out deregulation of AI. I think there was an executive order saying that they'll, the government will review AI, which is just ridiculous because the government is, you know, a subsidiary essentially of the fic. And you know, all of this was happening, this whole narrative that I've been talking about are transitioning to this one world corporate tick dominated AI infrastructure. And that obviously takes the precedent as well. And so we're seeing this, this trend in the AI infrastructure. We're seeing the capital outflows of Bitcoin into these alternative networks. And at the same time we see a hedge fund FIC node, Michael Barry, who's putting out different data around the structure of why they think this is an AI bubble as well. So what Michael Barry said as well, and then I'll tie all this together, is that Nvidia is selling about 4, $5.4 billion of chips to a company that does nothing other than buy those chips called Valor. And Valor is owning all those different chips. And then those he the accusation was the XAI is using those chips via this shell company and Nvidia now injects 1.9 billion dollar into equity into this company Valor. And then Apollo was providing the debt. We're getting all this stress in the private credit market. They've been borrowing the money in order to do it as well. So it's leveraged as well. And then there was a company called Athene that basically owns the exposure to this different elaborate vehicle. It's done via Bermude Bermuda and I think it's via that it was showing anyway. And there's basically 103 billion dollar level three assets. You can go see the post. And there's approximately 16x leverage in this trade. And so Barry's you know, sorry buries which was the guy from the big short that was leading up to the MBOs. Now remember they have controlled opposition in these types of different processes. So Larry Fink knew that their MBOs
- [98:00]
were going to blow up.
- [98:01]
Bari blew the whistle, took the short trade via the hedge funds and then you have the Fed that socializes the losses and privatizes the gains. And so Bari's conclusion is basically that Nvidia is booking revenue and fudging the books. Apollo's getting a bunch of the fees via this complex and Xi Xai is getting the compute power. And they this is basically a reverse carry risk into a highly leveraged trade. And basically Bari was came out on his tweet calling it a fi. And so we're getting this whole like AI bubble set up. Controlled opposition, socialize the losses, privatize the game. The AI bubble is being inflated to a large degree. Leverage is already layered into the whole top structure. We're getting all this private credit market that is then connected to the banks. We got all of these different structured products that are already being built. Pension money is already being allocated and rotated into the trade. Larry Fink came out and said you're going to fund the AI build out through your trade. So the financial industrial complex is basically, you know, really aware and repeating, you know, this, this whole model and is looking a little bit, you know, it's looking like that structure is being set up prior to the 2008 global financial crisis. Now leading up to this, we had the whole Bitcoin versus gold thing. Why gold was accelerating, had a really big run up while Bitcoin was weakening. And the reason is, is because states trust gold, the FIC was managing capital outflows. Central banks, all shareholders in the bank for International Settlements, they were all increasing their gold position. Gold's got 5,000 years of history. It's not the same as Bitcoin. There was sovereign accumulation. Now countries like Iran were mining Bitcoin. Countries like El Salvador and the Kingdom of Bhutan were looking at building Bitcoin strategic reserves as experiments. But it's not being used by central banks. Great. It will be used. I don't want it to be used. The Czech Republic was experimenting with it. I'd rather it doesn't. But bitcoin is for anyone. And so you can't stop it. You can only understand the structure. And so this ETF arbitrage between Bitcoin and gold was happening leading into the massive inflows by blackrock into Bitcoin. Because Aladdin technology was recommending that everyone needs an allocation into Bitcoin. And we had this buildup of the different Treasuries. This is where Michael Saylor emerges. We get the Bitcoin treasury company and concept being built. And remember, these are all finite games, whereas central banks are kind of infinite games. They work on these longer term time frames, whereas these finite games are shorter term time frames as well. And so gold has sovereign buyers, which is why we got that big inflow into gold. And it was based upon central banks and we had Treasuries. The market cap of all Treasuries held by a central bank became less than the market cap of all gold that was being held by central banks. Now Bitcoin had this big accumulation phase. Prior to that we were on our four year cycle and then we had this big accumulation into treasury companies, BlackRock and ETFs. Then you started seeing companies like Cantor Fitzgerald and JP Morgan build derivatives complexes, try and build more treasury companies. And you had different types of financial products that were coming out of strategy. And so the long term Bitcoin thesis still holds, but the short term price could be understood by understanding the ETF outflows. And at the moment, states aren't buying Bitcoin. So there's no point looking at any of those flows. The states will probably end up buying Bitcoin and they will probably need it as a natural reserve asset in a multipolar world. As I said, I'd rather they didn't, but you can't stop it. And so bitcoin can become the type of architecture that manages these world reserve assets when people can't trust the gold and people realize that there's many more paper derivative gold contracts in the west and most of the gold is in Shanghai, Switzerland and various other pieces. But the question isn't like, you know, if it will happen, it's more when it will likely happen. As I said, I'd rather it didn't, but it doesn't. So what did strategy do this week? Well, it decided that it was going to sell 32 bitcoin, which is what really kicked off the correction and the crash from, you know, down to about. I think it went to a low of about $60,000, $62,000. I wasn't following it. As I said, I've been traveling. But I think it was in order to change a narrative that he had built up before. His previous narrative was bitcoin, I will never sell the bitcoin. Now, why did he change the narrative? The reason he changed the narrative, and this is the architecture I want people to understand, is because he wants access to the passive inflows of the S&P 500. What does that mean? It means you want to be included in the index, as does SpaceX right now. That's why they change rules. If you're a trillion dollar ipo, you can get into the index that gives you the passive flows. Why do they want the passive flows? And what have you got to do? You have to bow down to the fic, the indexes, the S P, which is one of the control vehicles for getting access to BlackRock Capital, BlackRock ETF flows. So this is one of the ways that you become subordinate. So strategy has been building out this capital stack that makes it more and more subordinate. I already said earlier, what is the equity structure? So it starts with, I have an equity, I have a company. The company was a long term public company that was revived out of nowhere. And suddenly, you know, the person that didn't like bitcoin likes bitcoin. People can change. Fine, okay, but he created this arbitrage vehicle and the arbitrage vehicle was let me load up the balance sheet with bitcoin and then I'll keep selling equity. I'll sell shares in the company while the company is valued at a higher rate than the amount of bitcoin that we hold on reserves. Then he started loading it up with debt. And now you get subordinate not only to equity hold holders, but also to convertible note holders, and that is people that invest in debt. A convertible note is a debt product where you borrow money and it converts to equity based upon the terms of the contract. And so now you could get people that want higher returns through debt and they could then, you know, get a higher return. And then strategy could use it to buy Bitcoin and then they increases the position of Bitcoin and then that Bitcoin then has equity that's trading at a higher value. I said at its peak it was about three times the net asset value. So people were buying shares at three times the value. Now this whole model worked very well in an upward market because the notes would convert to equity as Bitcoin is rising. But when the market was switched to ETF outflows, there was new products that were built. And so we had what we're now calling Strive, the preferred stock. So previously it was all about the equity arbitrage. MSTR would basically sell equity above the M Nav, the value of the Bitcoin, it would have the big premium, but now it's about 1.23x that needs to be protected because the profit comes from the premium. The arbitrage. The arbitrage needs to be protected. It is trying to get people to buy shares for more than the Bitcoin's worth. And what is the side benefit of that? If you're constructing a complex? Well, those people may not own Bitcoin, they may do this instead and it may be tax advantage to do that within a pension structure. And so therefore they get allocations towards Bitcoin via the ETF and via strategy. But as you issue more equity, it accelerates dilution. And as you accelerate dilution, you get more and more equity. And so you're selling more and more stock above the asset value. And you just keep doing that to buy as much Bitcoin as possible. And Michael Saylor did that for as long as possible. But it's the arbitrage, he's an arbitrage company. This is a, for bitcoin, long term capital management type of structure. And so the goal is to increase Bitcoin per share. So you'll keep selling equity for as long as you can until you've increased Bitcoin per share. And then it verges, until the arbitrage is, is, you know, a smaller premium rather than a larger premium. But that's what must be protected. It's the premium that must be protected because everything kind of depends upon, you know, preserving that premium. And so you Push out a bunch of narrative out there. Suddenly he's included on all the podcasts. Suddenly, you know, it's. The whole complex is around that. But the push that he was pushing was we buy and we never sell. And his whole thing was, bitcoin will hit $1 million, we're never going to sell, we're going to hold it forever. And he started framing it as pristine collateral. And because it's going to go to a million dollars, everyone should borrow against their Bitcoin. And so, you know, this kind of narrative of what bitcoin will do because it's a fixed supply asset, what it may do supports the premium. And so who does? And I would just simply point out who does Saylor serve under this architecture? Well, he serves his shareholders. His shareholders, not only that, and his bondholders and the rating agencies, which are all nodes in the fic. And so this is a FIC incentive structure. It is a structured product and it is the arbitrage that does it. And so then out comes the convertible note. And so this gives, you know, cheap borrowing in an upward market where that debt can then convert into equity, which dilutes the equity as it gets converted. And. And you borrow as much as you can. But as you borrow more, who are you borrowing from? You're borrowing from the corporate investors and Jane street and known actors that are involved in the appointed representatives of the Bitcoin ETFs. And as more and more people are buying up the narrative of borrow against your Bitcoin, what are they doing? They're borrowing against their Bitcoin. Who does that? Well, Strive does that. Jack Mallows and various other companies. And so you push those into a bitcoin treasury company and then you get them to raise more money. And then you borrow from Tether. Tether, who's holding the treasuries. Those stable coins are part of the privatized central bank digital currency. And so, you know, he's pushing out bitcoin collateral. As more and more people use bitcoin as collateral, you can now margin call people by controlling the price. And this creates a bit of a flywheel as well. And so he started paying down the debt as people started saying, you know, he borrowed against one of the banks that went bust, which was, I think it was Silvergate. Yeah, Silvergate. Not Signature. I think it was either Signature or Silvergate. You can correct me in the comments, but you issue more debt, you buy more Bitcoin. As bitcoin rises, then the equity rises with it, then the debt converts as the Equity rises. And so when that stopped working as a vehicle and it dilutes down and you get more and more to a smaller premium, you launch a new product. And what was that product? It was a structured product. And that structure product is called strc. So everyone starts talking about that. What is that? Well, you have a product that's meant to be valued at $100, and you pay people a yield. That is, you pay them an interest or a dividend. It's actually a dividend because the term is being confused. You know, people are changing between yield and dividend, but equity has a dividend, debt has a yield. In traditional jargon, sorry about all the jargon, but the price is designed where it's meant to stay at a hundred dollars. So if basically the price, you know, goes below $100, you can either buy it at a discount to try and push the price up, or you can encourage other people to buy it. How do you encourage other people to buy it? You raise the dividend or the yield. But every time you raise the dividend or the yield, that applies to all of strc, which has already raised billions and billions of dollars. So your cost of capital, the more times the price goes below. And this week it went to about $94. You have to pay a higher yield in order to get people to buy it. If you can't buy it yourself. And so what are you doing? You are creating a big ginormous arbitrage vehicle. Now, where does that yield actually come from? Now, let's say that the price goes above $100, then you can lower the yield, and that will lower your cost of capital. So it works both ways. But the way that the product works is it's being sold as distributed digital credit, but it is actually just a preference share. And we've seen these before. And the reason that's important, because anyone that reads the terms knows that the dividend can be canceled. It can be canceled at any time if it chooses. And the cost can compound every time the price goes below 100. And you need to incentivize someone through a higher and higher dividend. And so, you know, this is the, the, the kind of the, the structure that has been built around this product. Now you have a constant narrative that supports the premium, the premium supports the structure. And then selling, you know, weakens the narrative. And so when selling weakens the narrative, you get a flywheel in that direction as well. And so basically, Sailor has engineered a structure that basically becomes a tool for the financial industrial complex and the ARBITRAGES that is incredibly difficult to unwind. And where is the dividend coming off from, from all this preferred stock? Well, the only way to get it is to either sell Bitcoin or sell equity. And so now you get accusations of Ponzi. I don't think it's quite a Ponzi. It has the ability to get there. It's a structured product with lots of risk. But you have to sell the Bitcoin in order to pay the dividend or you have to sell the equity. And the equity has to sell at a premium in order to maintain the reason to purchase the equity. So the premium is the product in this situation, and Bitcoin is really the collateral behind the product. And so what do people start doing? Well, Jeff goes out and starts talking about how Bitcoin is the collateral and Strive is the money. They're now saying that a security is the money. A security is subject to all sorts of regulations, held in custody, not a product you can own. But what if you could create a custody relationship where now the custodian holds it? And that custodian might be Coinbase, who's another public company. And that public company is now a fake node. And maybe it's in the ETF via BlackRock. And then maybe you can get away of holding it in custody. What if you tokenize it? And so now you start pushing products that say, we'll hold strife, but we'll pay a higher yield or higher dividend. And you do exactly what happened in 2021. You start building in higher and higher yields. This is exactly what happened in amateur hour in 2021. And you get this big financialization. And so now suddenly Sailor starts changing his narrative. He's saying, oh, Ethereum can be used in order to wrap defi layers around this product. So now he starts helping the Trump administration on crypto, not Bitcoin. So you see the mission creep, you see how the FIC drives you into this. And why do you. Why would you sell 32 bitcoin? Because you're trying to appease the credit rating agencies. So this is exactly why you do it. And then that led to the first crash to normalize the market that happened here. And then that can trigger off the defi all wrapped around strategy. And strategy is ripped around strive, and Strive is wrapped around a custody relationship. And that custody relationship is wrapped around Coinbase, and Coinbase is offering futures markets, all sorts of stuff. And so this is exactly what I was warning about, and this is what I said will create the next correction now so far we have seen a 50 correction when everyone was telling me Wall street getting here is adoption. Now I'm just explaining the architecture. Now at the same time Cantor takes all the different parts of it. So not just wrapping Michael Saylor around strategy, that was a public company that got into bitcoin but now it starts taking the bitcoiners and wrapping them around Wall street and now their narrative will change. So we've talked about Adam Back. Adam Back owns Blockstream. Blockstream got some Epstein funding back in the day. They've employed developers. Some of those developers have left because they talk about how they think certain parts of developers are compromised. Now it's a public open source boardroom and you know, we get the, the public gets to, you know, different entities to allocate what developers get different funding. So fortunately it's all decentralized there. But when you put a centralized private company, I can bet you what comes next. Blockstream will be acquired into this public bitcoin treasury company, bstr and so now funded by, you know, Tether and, and so now you're taking all of these parts of the ecosystem and trying to centralize them. Did the same with Jack Malice, what was announced he owns Drive Strive, allows you to borrow against your bitcoin. Now Tether bought out Softbank Cancer. Fitzgerald is the, the, the investment bank. Howard Lutnick connected to Epstein, all that type of stuff that we've always covered and Jack Malice gets wrapped into it. So now you've got the ability to have margin calls. I covered in previous blogs the role of Jane street and the appointed representative. What did they do next? They wrapped David Bailey in a bitcoin treasury company. He's got a hedge fund in bitcoin. He's got, runs a bitcoin conference company. He runs Bitcoin magazine. You put all that into a bitcoin treasury company and now you've got all these emerging structures that are basically bitcoin backed leverage and now you're trying to get people to put it in their pension and all this stuff. Stuff. So you're trying to centralize as much of the parts of the ecosystem. Now fortunately there's a rampant self custody community in bitcoin. Fortunately the structure is decentralized, distributed supercomputer open source code with alternative mechanisms for funding developers. Anyone can run a node that enforce the rules and so the self custody community kind of fragments and you get the paper bitcoin community and the paper bitcoin community have the tools via strategy in order to engineer this complex and so now they control the inflows and outflows by a blackrock Aladdin and that's the short term price. So we have to deal with that situation. That is the thing. But it is now paper Bitcoin is a structured product in that and treasury companies are part of that ecosystem. And this is kind of like a collateralized debt obligation. When you start getting people to borrow against it and you create incentives. And what are those incentives? They want you to give your Bitcoin to them. But the reason I talk about Bitcoin in self custody is, you know, people get upset about it because this is how we resist and this is how we maintain our sovereign ability to operate outside the system and boycott the system as well. So BlackRock gets all the assets under administration fees. Now Coinbase gets the custody fees and other parts strategy or say, you know, they get the arbitrage fees, Canta gets the investment banking fees. The banks get the Bitcoin you know, back lending ability to create, you know, fiat currency to get you to Bitcoin, get their Bitcoin. And Jane street controls and manages the short term price and liquidity so that they can decide whether you get margin called or not. That is just the reality of how it is today. And the way to, to win that game is for you to understand that game. So when they're manipulating the price down, which they can't do forever, then you accumulate into weakness. When they're managing the capital flows up, you accumulate into weakness and the value of your cheaper Bitcoin goes up in value and you have a long term plan, you hold it in self custody, you don't borrow against it, you don't mind fiat currency with your Bitcoin you don't hold in custody. And I get it, sometimes you might need to do an allocation and again reality kicks in. But this is the ideal here. And so the core point is that the financial industrial complex never stops financializing assets. This is the same for all assets. And it financializes, you know, housing, it financializes bonds, it financializes commodities. And it's the largest contributor to the US and British economy. And the service based economy is financial services. It financializes artificial intelligence compute, it will now you know, it financializes bitcoin. But paper bitcoin is not bitcoin. And that's why I cover these things to help people understand the market structure. And so anyway, we had a few more stories this week and then we're going to wrap it up and go into one of the interviews. Mt. Gox moved approximately 110,422 Bitcoin this week. And so that's new bitcoin that's be entering the market and it will probably be distributed via Kraken. I know that for anyone that's a long term listener. You said do you remember there was that story that came out a few weeks ago where some of the old wallet addresses sent a bunch of bitcoin
- [123:18]
to,
- [123:21]
to freeze addresses. And so when you send your bitcoin to a freeze address it's a special address where the bitcoin contact be retrieved anymore. I reckon that's part of this Mt. Gox side where it was connected to some of the Silk Road bitcoin because Kraken was managing that. And so I was saying look at whether it's connected to Kraken. And it was and it was some of the old addresses from that now we get a movement of some of the Bitcoin from Mount Gox and that was worth about $739 million. And so anyway I think this is because I'm as you know I'm a seed investor in Kraken. I invested in over 100 companies as we were building the ecosystem. I've been selling them down because of these, you know, trying to free myself from many of these captured companies. And Kraken's about to go public so it will become a FIC node as well. But strategy anyway sold these 32 Bitcoin at the same time. You got some of these bitcoin moving from the Mt. Gox days which was a 2014 bankruptcy from people that believed that paper bitcoin was bitcoin. We've seen this time and time again even in Bitfinex. I became a shareholder in Bitfinex by helping creditors that when there was a hack of about 120000 Bitcoin because when you have bitcoin in an exchange his paper Bitcoin they promise to repay you bitcoin. So anyway this is what it what happened this week and this is why the bitcoin price crashed. And this is the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that you know, through these collateralized mechanisms the short term price of bitcoin is captured through fic, the financial industrial complex. It's learned how to financialize bitcoin and and it doesn't need to control the protocol because it can't. So I talked, you look at my blogs where I talked about when they tried to infiltrate the developers with Epstein Networks and when Jane street was attacking the price when there were alternative versions of Bitcoin. I wrote a critique on hijacking bitcoin. All of these are on my blogs for those that want to go deep into it but they couldn't hijack the protocol. And so that's what the FIC would want if they could. And so instead they build the paper, Bitcoin's part about it. And whether he knows it or not, whether it's deliberate or not, Sailor is that guy. And you can see through incentives, the narrative shifts. It shifts from never sell bitcoin to have more bitcoin than you're selling to. There's no second best to wrap bitcoin products in yield on defi, on Ethereum. And this is the cycle that happens when you go through these subordination through fiduciary duties, architecture and structure. And it all goes back to the fiat currency Ponzi scheme. And you know, Bitcoin created a mechanism for escaping that, but you have to hold it in self custody. But what do they want you to do? They want your bitcoin in custody. They want you borrowing against your Bitcoin by issuing you alone so that you're subordinate. They want you to buy it through an ETF structure. They want you owning MSTR exposure or strc. They want perpetual futures gambling up and down on the price. They want you, you know, they want their struck, you know, subordination revenue as a subsidiary of the financial industrial complex for the subscription industrial complex. And so this is so they can earn custody fees, asset under administration fees, financing fees. And my view, today's bitcoin weakness is not a failure of bitcoin. It is evidence of where capital is currently being directed because Bitcoin is here to stay. And that's why I believe people need a longer term strategy. The AI bubble is attracting the capital right now. The bitcoin financialized, you know, financialized trade is why they're pushing the price down so that they can try and get as much bitcoin and they have the control of the short term price in order to do that. But the long term scarcity thesis remains unchanged. So what you should be doing is the opposite of what they want you to do. In conclusion, let's get to the end of this. I hope you enjoyed my little bit rant, which is always longer than I think it can be. And then we'll move over to the interview. Self custody of bitcoin if you can. Once you self custody you can learn how to run a node later. Don't get caught up in perfection. Start with a hardware wallet you can get better and better at this and just dollar cost average. Own more bitcoin this month than the previous month or previous week or previous day, however you want to do it. Accumulate through volatility to the upside or the downside. Don't try and get fancy and trade and think you're going to figure out where the top and bottom is. And the best way to do that in the downtime is to measure your wealth in Bitcoin. You can do the same for gold if you don't buy into this whole thing. But measure your wealth in bitcoin, which means as the price goes down, you get more bitcoin for your fiat currency and then you can chill. You know, think in terms of at least a decade, depending on how long you got, decades if you're younger, but not minutes. Because that's what they want you to do. They want you high time preference. It's an economic concept, you know, not low time preference. Your high time preference is your thinking in terms of, you know, how quickly you want to get to cash, how quickly you gamble. And it's always fiat currency thinking that drives you that because the value of fiat currencies are designed structurally to go down. So my final thought as always is follow the incentives, follow the contracts. I'll be continue to do that each and every week. Follow the debt, follow the custody, follow the fees, follow the capital flows and of always follow the money. Who gets paid, which custodians are going to get paid out of this, who are FIC agents. Once you understand that, then you can self custody your bitcoin and do the opposite of what the FIC wants you to do. So that's a wrap. In summary, the main show that we've quoted today is that what did we call this? The great capital relocation. We went through AI, we went through Bitcoin and we went through the financial industrial complex. In part one we did parts of the AI bubble, the bitcoin financialization and the gate, the great capital relocation. And now we're going to move over to part two, which is a third interview I did. I really want to give a shout out to Bitcoin archives and Archie, I think the algorithms haven't been sending him some love, so make sure you subscribe to his channel. We did a third interview and in part two, this is the managed transition. We went deeper into the latest in the war, the latest into some of these parts of bitcoin and most importantly the end of the petrodollar and some of the architecture. And so we're going to head over to that interview right now. Just before we do that. If you enjoyed this, welcome to all new subscribers. What I tend to do is I go through long form content mainly for me and I help you record this so that I have to document it, think through it and then hopefully you understand it too. My team and Azad will push us through to AI and then the AI will chew out a 5 minute whiteboard video and a 20 minute longer form, slightly shorter content. Pull out a blog. I put all that on SimonDixon.com in case we get taken down by any of these centralized social media networks. As a backup you can please do subscribe to me. If everyone that watches subscribe to me, we'd be able to spread the message further. Also in case I get taken down by YouTube, you can follow me on Rumble. I also stream this on X at Simon Dixon Twit and I also give real time analysis on X. So make sure you follow me over there. And if you need to break this down, you want to listen to all the content but you need it in bite side junks. You can always download it on Spotify and Apple podcasts where you can download it, listen to it on the plane while you're driving, listen to it in pieces. And in case everything goes wrong, we got the backup on SimonDixon.com so make sure you've signed up for the Simon Dixon Hard Talk membership portal. We're going to revamp it. There's a bunch of goodies that you can exclusively get there. I never monetize. No business upsell, no sponsors. I don't change my message. I've tried to remove as many subordination networks as possible and I'll send you an email once a week to make sure you're up to date with the latest stuff that's happening. Happening as a thank you. So with that in mind, always remember you're alive at one of the most interesting, crazy, exciting times. I'm traveling at the moment. You probably got some of the cause in the background and it's going to be great for some, it's going to be really hard for others. I want you sovereign and I think this is a call for me to end so that you can help as many people as possible. So enjoy the interview and I'll see you this time next week. Peace.
- [133:44]
Interviewer
Simon Dickson, welcome man.
- [133:46]
Simon Dixon
Thank you for having me.
- [133:47]
Interviewer
Simon, there's a lot going on in the world. Can you tell us a little bit about who really runs the world and what that structure is to that framework, yeah.
- [133:56]
Simon Dixon
And Bitcoin has always been macro geopolitics. Like it was a resistance movement against the central banking system, you know, so it's always been that. And it really needs to be understood in that context. And that's the reason why, you know, I found it because I was analyzing how I thought the world work based upon genuine power dynamics. Because most people think of like governments being in charge and most people think of media as a tool for sharing news or holding governments to account. I found that both have been captured by private corporate interest. And so the main interest is complexes. And so this was very famous. The military industrial complex is a word that people understand. And I realized that actually there isn't just a military industrial complex which consists of a bunch of very important companies across uk, Germany, France, us, Israel, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamic, Raytheon and BAE Systems and Elbate Systems. These companies, they have a very well defined business model. The first time I really understood it was reading the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which kind of tied it together from somebody that was involved in going around countries using war as a mechanism for acquiring resources, subordinating countries, enforcing currencies upon them so that it would then lead back into capital markets. And then there would be a network, a cortocracy as it were, that would benefit from rebuild contracts, technology contracts, subordination contracts, and extracting resources that were needed to grow industries. As things had evolved round about the 80s, the Financial Industrial complex had become a bigger player than the military industrial complex. The reason is because all of those companies are public companies and they have capital requirements. And so their share price is subordinate to really a constant flow of capital, money printing and media manipulation to define narratives. And when you understand that, you realize that there's a whole complex. And in the financial industrial complex, it consists with at the base layer, the banks that create fiat currencies every time they issue a loan. They're vehicles for getting companies and individuals in debt. Then on top of that there is a investment banking layer which securitizes and financializes anything and creates derivatives and leverage contracts that subordinate businesses and governments through financial weapons of mass destruction, as it were. And leverage is the key vehicle. And that's the key vehicle. Now because it's leveraged in nature, it has a guarantor, which is the central bank. And so whenever anything goes wrong with their bets, you can create pump and dump markets. But these institutions, because they're subordinate individuals, companies and governments, they become too big to fail. And so through this mechanism, a central bank can socialize the losses across all the people and privatize all the gains and then use those funds in this complex in order to control governments, to control media, turn them all into securities and subordinate them through these different debt instruments. And then finally, the layer on top of all of that is the asset managers. And so by managing everybody's money, all the government's money, all the central bank's money, all the sovereign wealth fund's money, all the pension funds money, all the endowment funds money, all of these different pools of capital, they actually can decide and influence where capital goes. And the interesting thing is that it's global in nature. So whereas a military industrial complex used to be connected to a country and had somewhat of a nationalistic vision to get the resources back into the corporate interest in that country, the financial industrial complex is apolitical and transnational in nature. It has very important partnerships with sovereign wealth funds all around the world. It has companies like BlackRock, State street and Vanguard at the asset management layer, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs at the investment banking layer, bank of America, Citibank at the retail commercial banking layer. But then it's also all around the world, transnational and global. And even these central banks, they're all shareholders in one central bank called the bank for International Settlements. And then they put capital around the world through the IMF and the World Bank. And these are all transnational in nature. And one of the very important things that they funded and subordinated was the technical industrial complex. So as the military became more cybersecurity, artificial intelligence, social credit scores, data, programmable money, stablecoins, CBDCs, various other things, technology became, in a sense, more important, potentially more important than capital. And so there's this emerging battle between the legacy military, which has now kind of morphed into the technical industrial complex. Google, Facebook, Palantir, Apple, Microsoft, and then all the global competition as well around that. But all of them need capital. They're all public securities, they all need debt instruments, and they all have derivative complexes around them that can make or break the share price, destroy the wealth, or create the wealth for compliant entrepreneurs. And so in this hierarchy, whenever I analyze, I don't analyze in terms of is the media telling me the truth? I analyze the media in terms of who's funding it and what do they want me to believe, and what is the reason for that? Not that it's true. Why are they pushing that narrative now? What agenda does it serve? And whenever I look at a politician, a politician is simply somebody that works for a lobby which is the interest of the thick MC and tickets. So I'll call them that from now on.
- [140:50]
Interviewer
So we'll just recap. So the military industrial complex builds the weaponry and the systems. The financial industrial complex finances that. They're in charge of capital. And then we've got the technological industrial complex and they're building basically the technical layer, what we see on the Internet and with AI now as a new emerging sort of technical layer.
- [141:12]
Simon Dixon
Control grids.
- [141:13]
Interviewer
Yeah. Okay, interesting.
- [141:14]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, so they're the control grids. They, they govern. We're all spending all of our time staring at a screen, a laptop, an iPad, and everything we do is providing data for these control grids. And we have to. There's no opt out of that. In order to be productive and function today, you have to maximize that as an individual or as a business. So this is a capture control grid.
- [141:44]
Interviewer
Well, actually, if you do opt out and there are various tools where, you know, you've got to go to some lengths to do that, that's actually cause for suspicion. There was a professor in the States who was, who came on the suspicion because he was taking walks without his phone. And so as that campus and his department was being monitored, they started to wonder why his phone was never leaving his office. And then as a result of that, he became a suspect in an investigation. And I, I think they trumped up some charges about him leaking some classified information as well. He may have been in some sort of program, but yeah, it was just the fact that he wasn't taking his phone with him was cause for suspicion. So you can imagine sometime in the future where like, police pull you up and they're like, phones, please. And you don't have your phone. It's like, well, we have to detain you now because we're. Why don't you have your phone?
- [142:43]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And there are countries at which that is really becoming more and more prevalent, particularly in the UK and Europe at the moment. And so, you know, that's kind of the state of many affairs. And other countries around the world where they beta test this stuff, but it's moving westward and it's coming home, as it were. And yeah, these are. So when I think of politicians, I just think of they work for lobbies, but they have to create a narrative of why they're working for the people. So the whole job of a politician is to be useful for lobbies, but generate a narrative to make the people think you're working for them. And the degree at which you're successful of that gives you Access to more lobby money. So if you can serve the lobby to a greater degree and make people believe you're working for them, then eventually you become somebody that may be a presidential candidate like Trump. So he has a cult following called maga, but he serves the financial industrial complex. And he has the ability to produce a narrative that makes these people think he's working for them while he's working for them. And that is somebody. And in order to get to that level of success, you also have to be compromised.
- [144:06]
Interviewer
Well, it's really interesting you said that because especially during on the example of a Diary of an Economic Hitman, where it's always about the resources, always about control of resources. And yet every single war is sold on these sort of liberal humanitarian grounds of spreading democracy. Human rights, protect the children. And we're seeing that right now. Where the men media narrative pushed for the war in Iran was what is it for the people of Iran?
- [144:32]
Simon Dixon
You know, we're liberating the people we care about. Women's rights.
- [144:35]
Interviewer
Exactly, Women's rights. And you know, you see these images of Iran before, before the, the Islamic Revolution, so to speak, and you're like, hang on, why are we always pushed a particular image of Iran? It was only since the war that we're starting to see people posting videos of everyday life in Iran. And like, that doesn't look too different from where we live, to be honest with you. Like, their shopping centers are like our shopping centers. Now, of course they, there are many things that are different from it, but why is only such a small angle push to dehumanize an entire region? And it's just the differences between what that industrial complex framework that you, you know, the network of interests, what they push and what they seek contrasted with how those wars are actually sold to the general population, which is always, we're helping the people. Yeah. You know, we want, we want girls to go to school and such and such. And he's like, hang on a minute. Iran's got a higher literacy rate than we do. They've got a, you know, most of their university graduates are women, most of them. It's like by a significant margin. And they have women in all sorts of professions as well. Now, we can criticize many aspects of Iranian society and the ruling structure as well, but not exclusively. We can't just do that exclusively and focus on the things we don't like and then go, well, let's go to war then.
- [146:03]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And there ain is your understanding of the media so that the media is a captured tool that is used in order to create narratives, you know, through, you know, whenever you read an article and it says an unknown source, you know, well, who is that unknown source? Is that a CIA? Is that an economic hitman? Yeah, you know, who is it?
- [146:24]
Interviewer
Well, interestingly, as Trump was nearing one of his many deals, I think the initial ceasefire agreement, and one of the mainstream media journalists asked him, aren't you betraying the people of Iran? Yeah, and I just, I was, I was gobsmacked by that. Do you think the people of Iran want their nation to be destroyed and bombed? Is that what you're thinking?
- [146:48]
Simon Dixon
Absolutely not. Because there are paid agents as well to create narratives. And so if you look back, the interesting thing is we can look back at history, at declassified documents, and see what's really happening today. And so everything that happened today in Iran happened in 1953 and it's declassified. And it involved the CIA, it involved MI6, it involved them actually going into the country and shooting people, manufacturing civil unrest, color revolutions, controlling media in order to portray somebody that they had already set up to be the next leader, which was aligned with British and British Petroleum's interest. And so when you're being told a story, we're exporting democracy, we're standing up for rights, this is just acceptable narrative. And all the politicians play into it because they work for the lobby. And so they're either in a compromise network at the highest level, like an Epstein style network, where they have something on them, or they're just simply in the grooming phase, which is someone like J.D. vance, who was groomed by Peter Thiel, he was given VC capital, they changed his name, they made him out like he was a veteran or something. But he works for Palind here and his job is to get government contracts and data if he ever succeeds. And if he doesn't, you initially give him some money. And his job is to be useful for the lobby and create a narrative that relates to the people. And if he succeeds at that, then he gets more funding. But where are even the policies written? The policies are written by a network of non governmental organizations and think tanks. And so if you want to look at any of the policies, they refer to research, but they capture the universities and colleges as well. And so the research that the things that get published at the university college level serve a corporate agenda. Does it push vaccines, does it push this type of drug innovation and research, does it push people into focusing on a particular school of economics that encourages debt? Keynesian economics, you know, classical economics, which Encourages central banks as a, as a tool, you know, so then you have
- [149:11]
Interviewer
the intellectual framework for the, for the agenda.
- [149:14]
Simon Dixon
Yes, and these are, you know, it starts right at the very beginning at the school level. The education is infiltrated. Then you end up at college and university. And what do you end up with? You end up with an indoctrinated base of research that is corporate sponsored in order to get into the publications that give it the credibility. You've got professors which you can capture through these networks as well. And then you've captured all these different tools. Then that research is used to push out non governmental organizations and think tanks. And then those think tanks are funded in order to achieve a particular corporate agenda sponsored by that company. Then it makes its way to the captured politicians. The politicians put it forward as changes that need to happen. But you need a media narrative to make it look like it's something. A classic example is the Club of Rome, 1968. Rockefeller funded covert think tank and policy institution. They wanted to do depopulation. They also were the same group that said let's make global warming something that we blame it on the people because all the actions that you're taking is causing the global warming. So research was created and then you had Inconvenient Truth and Al Gore documentaries. You radicalize a bunch of people into believing that this is because of us and our action. And then you create left and right narrative where you can fund both sides to, to the same outcome but with a different thing. And then the people are all distracted saying I'm a radical left, I'm a far right. Then the economic thought comes along with that. Communism, capitalism, socialism, these are all constructs of the same architecture. And there's a very sophisticated brainwashing mechanism that is indoctrinated into us at the captured education level all the way through to university and colleges. And we buy into these ideologies. But in the end there's like, just like China there's a, you know, say on top of this there's a financial industrial complex that never changes, you know, and the policy goes across politician to politician. And even the whole concept of democracy, it was again something you can buy into as an ideology. But it never does what it says that it's going to do because there is a uni party agenda by financial powers that are doing a multi decade strategy. The transition from one empire to the other is a century long strategy. That's how the Chinese Communist Party does. But it's over. This is covert and so you end up with the same thing. And so what, you end up looking around the world. When I look at geopolitics, I look at which countries manage to keep the resources that give them negotiation leverage. And so if you look at Saudi and Iran, when I'm analyzing them, I'm saying, do they have a manufacturing base? Do they have their own military industrial complex? Do they have national resources, oil, which will obviously be indoctrinated into your mind. Oh, that's communism, that's oppression. And I'm not saying that they're not. Because when you're constantly being infiltrated by external forces and you have the threat of being overthrown, and you might be an implant in yourself, because these leaders are groomed, the dictators are groomed, you know, they're installed. Shah is an example. US interest. Some people believe that Khomeini represents British interest from his times when he was with MI6 in France in exile. Some people have different thoughts. These are all very deceitful mechanisms. But when I analyze a country, I'm like, how sovereign can they be? And how much negotiation leverage do they have to fend off the empire? And that's why you always see whenever a country is about to be attacked, the main financial weapons of mass destruction that are used is the FX markets, the currency markets, the stock markets, the bond markets, and sanctions as a mechanism for subordination. And then you install, at the most extreme, if you can't, if you can't replace the leader with a puppet or a dictator, then you destroy the economy through sanctions, currency wars and inflation. And if you can't get the resources, then at the extreme, you then go to the blackmail networks. And if you can't get them that way, which is why you end up with countries with dictators where all the money is concentrated in the power and the people have nothing. You know, in, in Africa, the many different countries in Africa with the lots of resources. And then at the end, if somebody defies Gaddafi, you know, in Libya, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, then you send the MIC in. And the goal of the MIC is a very sophisticated business model as well. It's not destroy the country to get the resources. It is business. It is a stock market stimulus in order to spend as much money as possible. So you then might think, well, I'm part of the empire, I'm okay with that. But no, the scam is on you too. So the scam of central banking, and this is what drives us into a bitcoin conversation and a monetary conversation. You realize that the job of Miktick and Fic the job of FICO is to turn individuals into collateralized debt obligations through student debt, through credit card debt, through mortgages.
- [155:43]
Interviewer
So lifelong debt slaves, lifelong debt.
- [155:46]
Simon Dixon
You earn enough money to cover your interest, but your wages never go up at the same rate as inflation. So you're always getting further and further behind unless you work harder, harder, harder, harder, put more in. And then eventually, if you want to beat that cycle, you either have to become an investor or a business owner. Once you become a business owner, you need their capital, venture capital, private equity. And then if you succeed, you become a public company, then you get access to debt, capital market, and then you're fully subordinate where you own like 5, 10% of your company, you have a board that's installed by the asset managers, you have regulatory capture and you climb that ladder where the governance takes over. You no longer have your own company. And then of course, socialize the losses and privatize the debt is, if it all goes wrong, just dump it on the government. And so the government has to do the bailout. The bailout removes any concept of free market capitalism that we were taught we were doing in the universities, without pricing, without corrections. But what happens with every crisis that they manufacture? Wealth concentrates upwards and upwards and upwards and upwards. And those on the wages end up further and further down until eventually it creates the type of environment of civil unrest because wealth inequality is too far too great. And then they work on the next operation, which is change the empire. Hedge capital, manufacture civil unrest, build a police and surveillance state, build control grids, and then destroy the economy. And by destroying the economy, we get to take all those resources, put them somewhere else, buy them on the cheap asset, strip them, and set up the next game.
- [157:43]
Interviewer
So we've gone through the various industrial complexes, military, financial, technological. Do you view the deep, deep state as being a competing center of power with those various complexes? Or do you also think that's part of government which is captured?
- [158:01]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Think of a mafia. There is an overarching structure, and your job is to preserve the structure. But then you've got egotistical maniacs that say, I want to overthrow the mafia. And so a new power structure can be created within these shadow power structures. And so somebody might want to dethrone Jamie Dimon from JP Morgan. So they create their own game of how to achieve that, and then they try and capture people into that new game. So on top of this,
- [158:34]
the whole
- [158:34]
game is preservation of structure, which is why everyone has to be compromised to rise to the top. You know, it's like in the mafia, you have to shoot someone as your initiation so that they've got you, you know, and then the higher you want to go, the more compromised you have to be.
- [158:48]
Interviewer
So A company like BlackRock, though, they're a relatively new entrant into this game, but now they're pretty much one of the most dominant forces in the financial industrial complex. How does a company like that emerge and then entrench itself as basically one of the top players?
- [159:04]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, so BlackRock emerged in the 80s and I think it was decided that previously the main mechanism was currency wars. I think they wanted to test a model of capital wars. And so BlackRock today has several key assets which make it more important than other nodes in the fic. One of them is they simply got more assets under management. And so there is a competition between BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, Fidelity and foreign nodes as well to get more capital. And that's a ruthless game. You can play that game and you can try and dethrone another asset manager and become top dog. So there's competition there. There certainly is, but there are chosen. And this is where the tick comes in. If you look at the history of technology, it tends to be somebody. So an executive is not the top dog. They work for the board, the board works for the shareholders. So the shareholder class of the top, then you've got the board which work for the shareholders and then you have the executives. So Larry Fink is the CEO, very important character, public facing, but works for the board and works for the shareholders. And so his job is to get as much assets under administration. And then the tick, you get to select the type of entrepreneurs and board seats that can take government Pentagon funded technology that was innovated for killing people and privatize it. So Palantir, Google, Teslas, all of the innovation, Apple, all of the innovation behind all of this was created through Pentagon budgets for killing people. And the MIC would test it all around the world and then there would be a private public partnership set up and you would groom your entrepreneur that was going to get access to that technology, whether it be space technology, whether it be gps, whether it be Palantir military technology. And you're going to slowly so the military use it first and then you create companies where your job is to commercialize it and roll it out to everybody else. So then you get an iPhone, then you get a laptop, then you get GPS with maps and everything. And so your job is now to roll out where you've got the data on everybody, but you're still Subordinate to fic, you get a public company. And so the technology is kind of transferred into a public private partnership. The founding team are groomed and they rotate as well. So BlackRock has 20,000 board seats across all the different major companies around the world. What else do they have? They have a technology which they were developed and grew within that structure. And this is whether it's covert over natural market, not quite sure. But they ended up with Aladdin.
- [162:17]
Interviewer
So tell us, tell us what Aladdin is first.
- [162:19]
Simon Dixon
Aladdin is all of the best data of every market that is utilized by every single fund manager, every single bond trader, every single hedge fund, every single central bank. Not every single, but you know what I'm saying a lot. Most central banks, most sovereign wealth funds, most treasury departments, most endowment funds, most pension funds, every major pool of capital. In fact, if you take the customers, it's $25 trillion of capital that is subscribed to Aladdin. And Aladdin is the most sophisticated financial artificial intelligence that exists in the world.
- [163:04]
Interviewer
But how does something like that get a grip? With such market dominance, where are all the other major players with their models? And so, for example, we're looking at the AI companies, right from OpenAI to Google. DeepMind was for the longest time presumed to be in a position to dominate AI for a decade or more. And that was one of the fears that led Elon Musk to funding OpenAI initially as a. As a charitable charity fund, and that's since been commercialized by Altman. But at least there was competition that emerged. And then from OpenAI there was the founder of Anthropic who left. And now Anthropic is a serious challenger to become the number one AI company in the world. With blackrock's Aladdin. Why haven't we seen the emergence of another model to challenge that? Because if it's data and then it's sort of AI technology that runs that, surely there's enough talent in the world to develop alternative models to compete with that as well.
- [164:21]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, and it's because of the subordination layer and network. So you got the board seats. So now remember, the executives answer to the board. Then you've got the public venture capital funds, you've got nodes like Founders Funds in Silicon Valley, all the Peter Thiel stuff. Their job is to scoop up everything, like all the potentials, groom them, Then you've got capital requirements. So even if you're at the venture capital level, where you think you'll go into Founders Fund, Founders Fund is highly leveraged in the private Credit market and leverage buyout market as well. So even Peter Thiel, that looks like the billionaires that everyone's talking about, their net worth is subordinate to FICC because it consists of public companies, access to capital, access to debt markets at cheaper rates which give them their edge in order to maybe have the VC money so that then they can find the best and then install their board members. So as soon as you get capital, you get their board member.
- [165:26]
Interviewer
Right.
- [165:27]
Simon Dixon
So this is the slow mechanism for doing it. So you've got the board, then you've got the capital flows at the public level. So this is where BlackRock made some really interesting moves. So BlackRock, through its network of connections in the 2008 global financial crisis, was contracted to manage who goes bust and who gets bailed out and access to the capital that would fund it. And so we had the biggest bailout event. And who did BlackRock end up acquiring? They ended up with legacy London ETF flows, which was Barclays had to sell their ETF division to blackrock and they got access to the capital to acquire it. And so BlackRock was a transfer of wealth to the US stock market from the UK stock market. And so this was. They ended up with all of the legacy ETF fund management flows from the previous empire. And you need to manufacture a crisis in order to get that. So if you're connected to the Fed and then the Fed gives you a contract to manage the global financial crisis bailout and you put all of the assets to favor Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and BlackRock, which is effectively what happened then they increased their power, they increased their capture, which increases their lobby ability, which increases their connections in the shadow networks. And what are the ETFs? ETF means that there are people all around the world that are saying, I don't want to pick what stock to buy, just give me the S&P 500. And I don't want to deal with any of these complicated. There's more ETFs and stocks now. And so you passively say, give me exposure to this. Then blackrock says, sure, here's a product, but give us your voting rights, we might give you some proxy system and you want one of our board members to manage your interest. And so BlackRock is a mechanism for soaking up all the capital and getting the voting rights and the board seats. So now you've got companies like right now We've got a SpaceX IPO and they're changing the rules. Elon is saying if we're $1 trillion IPO we want to be included in the index from day one, which means you get the blackro capital from day one. That wasn't the rules before. We're changing the rules. And so now you've got these trillion dollar IPOs.
- [168:13]
Interviewer
So tell us about what the rules were before. I think there's a certain number of days you need to trade.
- [168:18]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And that's another control grid. Right away there's regulatory capture, which is do the crime and pay the fine. If you look at every crime you do with the regulator, it just ends up with a fine where you end up making more money by doing the crime and paying the fine. But the indexes are a big factor. And if you look back at all of these structures, like even the sec, it's a private corporation, the Federal Reserve is owned by the banks, the settlement layers, DTCC for the shares, it's all owned by the banks and the clearinghouses. So if you look down to the shareholder class, they've captured the whole thing. It's just very. But yeah, the indexes are. It gives you really big influence over capital flows. And so by including a company in an index, you're going to get a structural bid every single day, you know, from all of these flows of passive money, but managed by the ETF provider.
- [169:19]
Interviewer
There are a lot of funds in the world that are mandated to invest. Invest. Yes, Certain percentages based on the index weightings. And that's when you refer to passive flows.
- [169:28]
Simon Dixon
Yes. So somebody using BlackRock Zadin, the largest pension fund manager, you know, managers in the world, or sovereign wealth funds, they're just simply saying, yeah, for this profile of client, what is the right mix of debt and equity and alternative commodities or something like that. And they're all just vehicles for managing that. And their job is to beat the index. And if they underperform the index, they get taken down and replaced by somebody else. And so this is your ability to beat or underperform or overperform. The index is the determination of whether you succeed or not. And often it's based upon inside information. So we're seeing right now around the Iran war, ginormous capital flows that predate every single truth social post. That's the financial industrial complex connected to the administration that knows what Trump's going to post before he posts it. And that's why you can look at the markets and determine, is this a real war, is this a fake war? What are the real insider saying? They're saying that this is managed transition. You can look at all the capital flows and predate the narrative and then this gets back to the original conversation. I don't listen to what they say, I listen to what they want me to believe. I look at the money and the capital flow and then you've got two indicators. What are the politicians lying to you about? And everything's a lie. And if it matches capital then it's the truth. If it doesn't match capital then it's a lie which is 99% of the time. And who, which different media outlets are connected to which faction of power because there are, you know, these are competitive games that happen. But the index fund is really a new tool for currency war. So getting back to why blackrock. Well I will never be able to answer it conclusively but it looks like there was an element of grooming and selection in either BlackRock got to that position or was groomed from day one to be in that position. But now they got $25 trillion of assets that every fund manager can scenario plan. So you can go to blackrock's Aladdin and say what's the most likely outcome and likelihood of the Strait of Hormuz closing? And if it does and if it lasts for this long, that long, this long, how should I allocate my capital? And so BlackRock will push it out to the network and then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. And so they got 25 trillion which is why we got fake markets and all the media outlets around public companies as well which are fully captured for narrow. It's why Nvidia let's stop talking about earnings per share, let's stop talking about PE ratios. We need to capture the narrative to say we are in an AI arms race with China and if we don't
- [172:34]
Interviewer
put
- [172:37]
Simon Dixon
data centers in space then for national security we're going to lose the AI arms race and China's going to rule the world. And it's Norwellian central bank digital currency, authoritarian regime.
- [172:50]
Interviewer
Well it was interesting you just mentioned that because just last week we saw Kevin o' Leary go on the the airwaves and his argument against every every concern was well, do you want China to win? And so someone's expressing concern about mass unemployment and he's like well do you want China to win? And it's like hang on a minute, if I can't put food on the table, why do I give a shit if China's winning? Because I, I've lost. Yeah, like who do I like? I'm not cheering for anyone on the TV set. Yeah, I need to put food on the table. I need to buy a house, I need to raise a family. I need to do all these very essential things to my humanity and my reason for being. And you're prompting me to cheerlead for one entity over another. So what difference does it make if I'm unemployed and destitute, if my country wins?
- [173:40]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And FIC is masters at setting up a game theory and setting up incentives to drive capital and outcomes in the direction that they need because they also have access to the deep state. Because the deep state was the construct of the military industrial complex. And the deep state are able to, if you can't capture them through funding, then capture them through blackmail. And if you can't capture them through blackmail, capture them through violence. And if you can't, and if they still don't, then just eliminate. And so you get assassinations.
- [174:29]
Interviewer
Well, we saw that with Charlie Kirk. I know a lot of people have theories. My theory is they killed him. Who killed him? Vested interests killed him. I don't think it was a lunatic, someone from the far left fringe or whatever. I think that was an assassination.
- [174:45]
Simon Dixon
Well, here's the sophistication of this as well. They know how to weaponize everything because this is like multi decades in the making. So leaving people guessing around what happened to Charlie Kirk is also a monetizable data set where you get everyone putting their theories on what happened. You're feeding the algorithm. That's data. It's really interesting data that can be used to manipulate in these operations as well. Also when to destroy an empire or make an empire by revealing how it works. So we're at the revealing stage at the moment because the FIC is investing in a multipolar world. The Tick is investing in a one world government current control grid with China.
- [175:36]
Interviewer
So let's get into that. You've done a fantastic job of laying out the groundwork and the framework for analyzing what we're about to go into now, which is what is essentially happening in the world. And Charlie Kirk is a perfect example of what for us to lead into that discussion. Because we've seen a demonstration of what happens when you go up against these industrial complexes and oppose one of their agenda items. We are now in the midst of a tenuous ceasefire between Iran, Israel and the United States. You have a very interesting take on what's happening there. And let me just say right from the outset I find it fascinating. I think many of the outcomes that you've shared with me previously, I think they're going to happen. I'm not so sure that it's all theater, because that's one of your claims as well, is that a lot of it is managed theater to get to an outcome that's predetermined. Can you tell us, first of all, tell us what you're seeing. Why, why did this war start in against Iran? Why did United States and Israel, led by Israel, start this war, launched this war on Iran and where do you think it's going?
- [176:55]
Simon Dixon
So you got to get a bit of history of Iran. You know, Iran is a country that wanted to utilize its oil so they didn't have to tax its people. And it wanted to remain a sovereign country with 6,000 years of cultural history. And it's had, you know, many attempts to try and overthrow its previous Persian empires. And so it's got all of that historical context. But the world that's useful to us really only comes into play around World War I, World War II and the post empire that's being dismantled now. And so Iran wanted to effectively went through that transition from British Empire to American empire and then a revolution in order to try and preserve its own nationalistic interest. And so that's the entire history of Iran in its simplest form. In the context of what we're discussing around that there's lots of things, ideology, there's lots of emotion, there's lots of the narrative that you were taught and all sorts of stuff. But in the simplest thing, if we get it down to this framework. And so in 1953 the CIA and MI6 engineered exactly what we saw today. Currency wars, inflation wars and using weaponizing media in order to kill people and blame it on the ruthless regime. And then the ruthless regime is defending against in Today Mossad, mainly MI6 and CIA, which turns you into, it's a self fulfilling prophecy because you're constantly on the defense of defending your, your power structure.
- [178:46]
Interviewer
Well, we've seen that with, you know, there was a concerted effort since admitted by Israel's intelligence agencies that they were supporting and prompting a so called uprising in Iran prior to the launch of the war. And you know, they provoked that. And then the state reinforces law and order because you've got a bunch of people firing, you know, kamikaze drones and RPGs and you know, they're going out onto the street with, with weaponry. Yeah, well of course any country would, you know, reinstate law and order. But then that was used as a pretext for the war supposedly because Iran killed 30 or 40,000 civilians which, which never happened.
- [179:32]
Simon Dixon
And you know, it's Disingenuous. Because if you want to compare one where it was genuine, Syria is an example of one where it was planned properly. And so, you know, Turkey funded the rebels, it's got state sponsorship.
- [179:49]
Interviewer
The rebels being effectively Al Qaeda.
- [179:52]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So it's, you know, these different groups, they rebrand themselves continually. They're just, they're just paid militia that the highest intelligence agency can run. And they come with a religious narrative so that you can hide what they're actually doing. And so if you look around the world, all this ISIS, Al Qaeda, M23, M13, they're just people that the soldiers probably think they're working for something else. But at the leadership level, they're funded by state sponsors, and those state sponsors have agendas. And so the game of all these different groups is they're open to anyone that is able to recruit them. And so those infamous Hillary Clinton email leaks where she was celebrating, we got Al Qaeda. And Julian Assange, which is a bitcoin story as well, with WikiLeaks, he revealed this through whistleblowers that wanted to anonymously share documents to reveal how the system really works. And ISIS is a terrorist factory that is manufactured by Western and Israeli and Mossad assets.
- [181:07]
Interviewer
It wasn't apparent at the time, though, that was very effective propaganda to brand them as a very sort of Islamic driven and oriented organization. But then you had the entire Middle east, in terms of the populations of the Middle east, like, aghast at what they were doing in the name of Islam.
- [181:25]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And so, like in the Western narrative, what do you. It's crazy, you know, and if you speak to any Muslim, you know, I don't know Muslims that support isis, like, you know, but even then, these are the victims of war, who's had their children massacred, their grandparents massacred, and they've been radicalized and they've been in torture and they've been tortured and they are in, you know, at the state level, like you, you create, you create these cults that, where they think is Islam, but actually they're in some radicalized cult. There's cults in, in Islam that are like connected to the royal family and the Crown and stuff, where you have to worship king, like these uk, The UK royal family. Oh, yeah, I, I met, I met like a guy that was brought up in a, in a, in a cult, like a Pakistani cult, that believed that his interpretation of Islam that he was taught, you know, was that he's meant to worship the crown and the royal family. So they, they, they weaponize religion has always been the tool. So like, you know, Christian crusaders didn't have much to do with Christianity. You know, it's, it's, it's just a galvanizing force and cults and so. But it creates a very convenient, convenient narrative because in the west you can do false flags like 9, 11, you can radicalize the local population. Even though Osama bin Laden was groomed by the CIA via Saudi intelligence, connected to a Wahhabi tribe, which is what you think Islam is, but that was a manufactured tribe to weaponize Islam with a bunch of people that had been groomed into a cult and told, by the way, this is what you know, some of them might be illiterate, they don't even know what you know. You, you take even like different books, literatures that aren't the Quran, Hadiths, and then you say, by the way, this is our Hadith, that's our tribe, that's our call. And then it's got nothing to do. And they think that this is the word of God or something.
- [183:28]
Interviewer
It's a very sort of modern invention. The Wahhabis sort of. I don't know if we call it a section.
- [183:35]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, yeah.
- [183:36]
I mean, Correct.
- [183:37]
And I don't want to be disrespectful of all because there are genuine Wahhabis that have got nothing to do with ISIS as well. So it's a very sophisticated thing, but it requires a lot of local knowledge and a local grooming and a local operation. And then that's funded. This is why, this is why getting back to the Syria and Iran situation, the disingenuous part of it, uprisings never happen and these groups never succeed without ideology. Has to be state sponsored or corporate sponsored. And so the state is sponsored by the corporate and it goes down this network. Plausible deniability, NGOs and all sorts of stuff. But those weapons, these are expensive operations. They have to recruit this army, they need the weapons that requires human trafficking, weapons trafficking, it's often funded by sex trafficking and drugs trafficking. These are the deep state operations. This is why all of those illegal activities are state sponsored. The cartels work with the government.
- [184:36]
Interviewer
Well, I thought that was really obvious with isis, because out of nowhere. So there was al Qaeda for 10 years or whatever it was, right. No one had ever heard of any other group. And then almost overnight they emerged with tens of thousands of fighters, thousands of Toyota mounted machine guns and basically fully equipped militia to then take over suaves of the Middle east and you know, do away with all those borders. It was only when you know, it was, it became evident what was happening. And then finally Russia came in to defeat them in Syria and in Iraq that they were sort of put down. It was obvious to me that that was an intelligence led operation. It was, it was never an organic thing.
- [185:22]
Simon Dixon
And if you follow the money, okay, so you got Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden was groomed in a, in a covert, let's call it think tank, which was an intelligence corporation called Safari Club. Safari Club had members from Saudi intelligence, various other intelligence groups, French intelligence, British intelligence, and it was really founded. The main member was Bush. And so Bush groomed through Safari Club,
- [185:57]
Interviewer
Bush Senior, who was the head of the CIA at one point. Right.
- [186:00]
Simon Dixon
Not only the head of CIA, but what's his actual. Where did he come from? Oil tycoon. This is oil wealth. And so there you go, it goes right back up. So you've got oil wealth, then you've got captured government, then you've got intelligence apparatus, then you've got mic, then you've got covert operation, then you groom an enemy, Osama bin Laden, you create Safari Club. If a leader's not cooperating, you assassinate them. That was King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. You then get the petrodollar constructed, feeding back into the fic, like paying the dollar being propped up by US Treasuries. What happens when Saudi buys those Treasuries? They're in the Federal Reserve system and the yield on those Treasuries purchases defense contracts from the mic and then they end up with a base and then they end up being able to defend the oil and hence you end up in the situation. Now that's one country you can go to every single country and these operations. So Saudi, I just explained then you have Iran.
- [187:09]
Interviewer
So Iran, you were explaining that they wanted sovereignty over their resources to look after their people.
- [187:14]
Simon Dixon
Yes.
- [187:15]
Interviewer
And that was in.
- [187:16]
Simon Dixon
And they had a democracy and they didn't like the British intelligence and BP didn't want them to have a democracy because then the people might decide, yeah, and they've got a remnants of a democracy now. It's a theology with a democracy underneath it. You have absolute monarchies with, you know, and dictatorships with the allies of the West. But Iran is the closest to a democracy in the Middle East. I mean, you know, they always playing Israel as the poster child. But even this one.
- [187:48]
Interviewer
That's a really interesting point you just made because when the media solely focuses on Iran, it picks out the things that, you know, that are easy to be, to find objectionable. Let's just say, but it's only when you sort of broaden the scope and you say, okay, but we're also allied with countries who are far worse on those things that you point out as being objectionable. So if you want to talk about human rights, there are countries in the Middle east who. And around the world who are far worse on that count than Iran.
- [188:24]
Simon Dixon
Absolutely.
- [188:24]
Interviewer
And they're allied to us. They're far less democratic, and they're allied to us. And so it doesn't make sense to
- [188:31]
Simon Dixon
me that it's easier to control a dictator than a democracy.
- [188:35]
Interviewer
Yeah. And we're going back to, you know, the difference between the narrative sold to the population versus the pretext for the war. What is. What is the. The. The pretext. Sorry, the subtext for the war. What is the. What is the real reason? And going back to what you said before, it's always resource control.
- [188:52]
Simon Dixon
Always. 1953 is an interesting year as well for today because not only did they do the queue to replace the democracy with the west, the Shah. And the Shah was aligned with British Petroleum and American interest in order to do this model to extract all of Iran's resources and make sure that it was utilized for the West. But that was also 1953. I define as the absolute end of the British Empire. And that was marked by the Suez Canal, where the Brits couldn't defend the Suez Canal from Egypt, which was a pan Arab nationalist uprising. And, and, and that was 1953. The end of the British Empire was marked by the moment when Egypt was able to. To show. To demonstrate that the world's biggest naval fleet could not protect the canal. So anyway, in Iran, they installed the Shah. The Shah was brutal. His job was to extract resources for Western interests. The nuance in the story is that people look for a bit of a cartoon character. But people change over time because as power changes. And this is the bit that I think people struggle with. This network of FIC is really based. Blackrock's winning right now because they got the most assets under administration, but that can change. And so it's very fluid and they, they try and dethrone each other. It's a game of throne up there. You know, they. But the system preserves so that you can change. There's no. It's a mafia. It doesn't matter. You know, you. You can. There's a. There's a brutal game there. But the Shah, over time kind of changed his interest as well. Everyone knows that Israel is an implant that was created from the British Crown and The Rothschild family in order to destabilize the region after the French, the Russians and the British broke up the Middle east through Sy Speko and tried to destabilize the region, put all different types of people, create artificial borders that would guarantee war revenue and war profits for the MIC for century.
- [191:14]
Interviewer
Sykes Pico for people at home is just a regime of. They basically invented new borders to define countries that had never really existed before.
- [191:22]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So it was an agreement between French and British powers of how to split up and create all these countries called Iran, called Saudi Arabia, called Syria, called Lebanon. You know, they just literally drew lines that they knew would make the most tension that could have the most potential for divide and conquer and split resources that may have been known or may not have been known. Potential resources in order to absolutely ensure that they could never unify around those resources and install dictators that made up the monarchies. But just because a monarchy was installed by the British Empire in the beginning, it doesn't mean the world doesn't change. And this is the bit that people forget to recognize. So, you know, the Shah started to push back against Israel and because power dynamics were changing. And now if you look at it today, what's changed? Well, the rise of China is the whole change. The whole change is that America is energy independent. If you factor in Canada and Mexico, but it doesn't need any energy from the Middle East. Who needs energy from the Middle East? China does. Does that change the equation? If you are part of a fic, if you're so you as Saudi Arabia, you got your own oil, as Qatar, you got your own lng, but most of it's being bought by China. Then you're thinking, what's this whole petrodollar thing? What am I doing? So I've got all this legacy. There's a defense, you know, there's a base here. I've got this relationship that's maintained the status quo. I'm going to change my strategy probably because America is not buying our energy anymore. In fact, rather than buying their bonds where I'm lending our dollars to them to uphold a power structure, why don't I just buy their companies and just buy their shares?
- [193:25]
Interviewer
This is a sort of a golf perspective that you're. The Arab Gulf perspective that you're talking about.
- [193:30]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Back to Iran.
- [193:31]
Interviewer
Yeah.
- [193:32]
Simon Dixon
So then Gulf side, they just started buying their shares. And what comes with shares? Voting rights, board seats, influence. That's what changed. And so now the MIC, through FIC has to cooperate with sovereign wealth funds, which which are funded by China. All right, so now you've got transnational capital and there are leaders in every country and those leaders are either complying with the FIC or not. And depending on your compliance with the fic, you are either eliminated or we launch a war or we figure out a deal. But that's now for transnational capital. It's not for America, because the MIC was nationalistic. The MIC is subordinate to fico. FIC is global and its money is coming from the countries that kept their resources. So the countries that kept their resources, that fund the sovereign wealth funds are part of fic. And the biggest node in that is the manufacturing base of China. So that kind of changed everything. But anyway, so then you had a revolution in 79 which was, you can look at documents like Iran Contra affair, I won't go into it too deeply, but you had an uprising that made sure that the nationalized oil was protected. And they invested significantly from previous elite alliances with the Shah and the west and America. They had a significant military industrial complex, but a nationalistic military industrial complex. Now under the Shah, the military was for the preservation of the extraction of resources for Western interests. Under the post revolution, you had national resources with the IRGC and you had a theocracy. And so it's kind of like the perfect tool, right? The theocracy is very easy, easy to criticize in the eyes of the west in a media narrative. And you had effectively 40 years where Iran could say death to Israel, death to America. Iran could enrich nuclear, their uranium, highly enriched uranium. And it created the perfect justification for Mick, because on one side you had Israel, on the other side you had Iran and the Islamic revolution and the irgc. And they would constantly say things that would justify in the eyes of the west how Iran is trying to kill Americans and kill Israel. And then you can weaponize it to say Jews and all that type of, you know, BS that we had to unwind. And Israel had the constant justification. So then what would Iran do? Well, Iran would decide, well, now that we're sanctioned and our economy is being destroyed by the west, we're a target of currency wars. We want to keep our military, we want to keep our national resources. We've built our own independent banking section that's not integrated into the bank for International Settlements. They built all the tools to remain sovereign. And that's a big problem because they also partnered with China and China had the manufacturing base and they also partnered with uae. UAE created the sanctions circumvention mechanism whereby through the Gold markets, oil markets, you could convert your dollars and you can end up with yuan in China. And so the uae, China, Iran became like, and via Hong Kong became this whole preservation of a sanctioned circumvention network that it was also protected in partnership with mafia groups as well, whether it be the Russian mafia that allowed for all these shipments to go through. So now you had this whole covert structure that was set up. And interestingly once they hit like later they started using their nuclear program to mine Bitcoin and now they're launching insurance services based upon multi signature bitcoin contracts. So this whole rails and then what did UAE do? UAE set up a network of central bank digital currencies with bis and that circumvents SWIFT as well. So while you've got multiple things that are happening here, right, you've got weird thinking about how CBDCs are programmable horrible money, but from their mechanism, this is a way of preventing sanctions and taking back power from Swift. And so all of these currency rails and alternative rails have been built. Now what does FIC do? In that whole time FIC is thinking, ah, we probably can't stop this, let's start hedging. Let's use the US MIC while we can to destroy countries and get much as much debt in there and as much tick contracts as we can. Let's try and get our algorithms, data centers, Nvidia chips, whatever we can. And so they're playing a whole portfolio. They're not an America first agenda. And Iran has kind of become like the Iran and Israel and Iran funding resistance against genuine oppression. Like what's happening in Palestine, what's happening in Lebanon, what's happening in Iraq. They created a whole economy of weapons trafficking to these oppressed groups to create resistance for genuine ideological reasons. But from Iran's side, if they could resist and make them very powerful like Hezbollah, then they could have negotiation leverage in the new world order which is being currently negotiated. And they have several very important points that they can use and weaponize. And one of those was destroying the global economy through the closure of the Strait of Hamus. But it's not as simple as it sounds because if you're the FIC and one of your nodes is Lloyds of London, then you know that actually insurance market is a vital part of the component of getting shipments through the Strait of Hormuz. And so you could cooperate with a faction of power within Iran. And that's when the simplistic nationalistic kind of ideology breaks down because there are simply factions of Power that aligned with other factions of power. And that's not necessarily nationalistic as we've seen in the West. And so through these global networks you can have Lloyds of London might have cooperated in closing the Strait of Hormuz. Why? Because it created an energy repricing event and a crisis. Who does that benefit? Well, we know from COVID global financial crisis, long term capital management, it creates a socialize the losses, privatize the gains. And anytime you can create inflation crises, you can price everyone out of their assets and you can concentrate wealth upwards. And so it benefits power in the west at the same time as working with other powers in the Middle east that may not want the US in the region anymore that were funded by China, who normalized that with Iran.
- [201:29]
Interviewer
So let's just stop there and have a bit of a recap because the way I read it, I think Iran has never really been forgiven by the United States and Britain for defending its sovereignty and overthrowing the Shah who was imposed upon the country. And as you said, there's a little bit of nuance with his reign perhaps in that he did change some of his positions and perhaps became a little bit more hostile towards, for example, Israel during his reign. Towards the end of his reign.
- [202:00]
Simon Dixon
As he should.
- [202:01]
Interviewer
Yeah. And so throughout that sort of thing, 30 or 40 years, Iran has been punished and constantly antagonized. First of all, with the Iran Iraq war that the west was playing both sides essentially and the whole world was told not to give Iran any kind of weaponry. I recall, was it Zarif, the former foreign minister, who Iran's foreign minister was saying, we begged the whole world for any kind of weaponry, any kind of missiles to help us defend ourselves against Iraq, Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And no one came to our rescue, which was the genesis for their missile program that's now been effectively demonstrated.
- [202:52]
Simon Dixon
And the west gave Iraq chemical weapons, chemical weapons to terrorize the Iranians.
- [202:59]
Interviewer
So a lot of the people you see now, the Iranian politicians you now see on the global stage, they were guys who actually fought in that war and they were injured through chemical weapons attacks that were financed and provided by the West. So they have a long history of, you know, combat and managing this conflict. So we have that and so we bring it to the present day conflict. There was no war and then suddenly there was war. Why now?
- [203:32]
Simon Dixon
Well, I believe that this is where we talk about theatrics and people don't like that word because they think that I'm talking about people engaging in theater which maybe I Just need a better word. Wars are real in the sense that Mick Fic and Tick don't care about killing people. Like there's even depopulation agenda, all sorts of stuff. Like they don't care about killing people. Like there's, there's no humanity here. This is just balance.
- [204:01]
Interviewer
You're not undermining the seriousness of the war. My understanding is that you're saying that there are larger forces at play which render what is to happen as a foregone conclusion.
- [204:14]
Simon Dixon
So one, one way of looking at it is in order to, to protect yourself from sanctions, they had to create shadow networks that involved integrating with Russia that often then go into the drug trafficking routes and weapons trafficking routes and then you have this moral idea in your mind of what that means. But no, they're dealing with reality, survival. This is what you inflicted upon us and this is how we survive. This is how we do it. Now you could start with they're drug traffickers and stuff and start there. We saw that on October 7, right? You start with these people are just, I won't say the words because for the algorithm, but all the things that they were accused, forgetting about the entire history. So if you start at a strategic moment, you control the narrative and then you've got everything that you did in the operations of the past, 9, 11, all that stuff. And people in the west have got no idea that ISIS was like Iran's number one enemy. But in their mind this is the same thing. They're all Muslim, they're all like, yeah, because that was that. You were meant to think that way. You know, the whole operation was to make you feel that way. And that's how you recruit an army. That's how you justify a war. There's no other way of doing it because you have to maintain and preserve your local narrative. Because the truth is that you are the terrorists and you can't tell people the truth because you are terrorizing for resources in a game of Thrones. And so you need to put acceptable narrative on top and always create another. And so yeah, bringing it to today. So if you start at that point, but there is genuine resistance, there is genuinely a country that has asymmetric advantage to defend itself from invasion. It has allegiances with Russia and China. It has technology that kind of breaks the previous empire. And there were documents in the US National Security that talked about the closure of the Strait of Hormis and what they would do. And they scenario planned it and they knew exactly what would happen and they knew that Iran had drones and they knew that Iran had missile capabilities. And so everything that happened was known of what could happen. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't go on a direction that's unknowable. Of course you can, and you adjust to that. And that's why you have derivatives markets to bet on every outcome. But because you can't get everything right,
- [206:58]
Interviewer
I think the, the point you're making is Iran hasn't done anything that the United States, the Pentagon in particular, did not anticipate the possibility of. In fact, the, the, the Chief of staff, Joint Chiefs of Staff, what's his name, General Kane, he actually warned of everything that played out. Yes, but they went ahead anyway.
- [207:19]
Simon Dixon
Yes.
- [207:20]
Interviewer
Because they were sold the idea that
- [207:23]
Simon Dixon
one,
- [207:26]
Interviewer
the, the protests that were happening was, was a sign of people wanting to rise up and overthrow the regime to. That if they killed her and Ayatollahi, that, that, that, you know, killing the head of the snake, so to speak, would cause instability in the regime and it would fall apart.
- [207:45]
Simon Dixon
And that actually it would create unification.
- [207:49]
Interviewer
That's right, yeah. Yeah. Well, sorry. They knew that it would create unification in terms of. The defense establishment knew that. The Pentagon knew that. But at some point, at some meeting by somebody. I'll leave you to speculate. Trump was sold the idea and he bought into the idea that those things would happen, that it would be a very quick operation, and all we had to do was topple the head of the regime. That would create enough instability to encourage people to go onto the street and cause an uprising that would eventually lead to regime change. Yeah. Now, we know that the Pentagon did not believe in any of this, but net Netanyahu and Israel sold that story to Trump convincingly enough for the war to be started.
- [208:39]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Now this is where I try and go a layer higher of the deception. So that's the current story, which is we're controlled by Israel and therefore we're doing this because Trump is allegedly engaged in a compromise network with Jeffrey Epstein, and somehow Mossad is able to persuade CIA and Pentagon and the military to take actions. And somehow the CIA just doesn't know this would happen. But, But Mossad does, I don't think.
- [209:13]
Interviewer
No, sorry, just to be sure. I don't think that's what happened. I think they simply convinced Trump and he just told everybody else they're going in.
- [209:22]
Simon Dixon
Well, I believe Trump doesn't have the authority because he's controlled by his lobbies. And when I look at the game right now, Netanyahu is a mcnode and Remember, Israel has lobbies. Everyone thinks the buck stops at Israel. But who lobbies Netanyahu? Who lobbies the politicians in Israel? And some people come to the conclusion that that's just the top of the power structure. It's actually the mic, the FIC and the tick. And so Israel was a node of the mic. Trump is more aligned with the FIC because although he's doing everything that looks like a neocon, he's not a neocon. He was brought in to I believe, manage the transition of the world into a multipolar world and manage the transition to a one world technocratic government with China. And his job is to do deals, his job is to make that transition. So he has to appease the mic. The factions of power aligned with this, give them a bunch of profit, let them blow up a load of bombs. But he's working for fic. And what does FIC want? My underlying assumption when, when I look at capital markets, they want multipolarity, TIC want one world government, FIC want multipolarity. And the MIC are just legacy aligned with the US being the empire that rules the world, which is very aligned with Israel because the Greater Israel Project was destabilize the region, cy spell extension in order to make sure that the Middle east can ever use their resources and compete with America and the dollar and the petrodollar. And so that, that's Israel's role now. Israel's role now. We move into a world dominated by China where they're all aligned with China. So if I were China, I would go to Iran and I would say, I'll keep buying your oil. We'll demonstrate how sanctions don't work. But we've got to, we've got to expel Israel from the region because they represent the US micro. And we've got to end the forever war because I want to invest in the Belt and Roads initiative across the entire region. I want you to grow as an economy and I'd like you to buy all my products and our manufacturing base and keep supplying us with oil. I don't mind how long this goes on for because I'll keep buying it at 30% discount. That's helping us. We're getting more gold in Shanghai while the west has just got derivatives contracts. We don't mind that. And so they're playing a two way game. If Iran continues to be sanctioned, they get discounted oil and more gold that are coming through these routes. But if Iran can expel the US from the region, then you get fixed Vision, which is transnational capital, which is aligned with China as well and integrated with the Gulf countries. So I'm looking at this and I'm looking at Trump administration one, what did he do? He assassinated Qassim Soleimani. Qassim Soleimani was the person that put together the resistance network and the weapons trafficking route. He got eliminated and Iran reacted very weakly. It was very theatrical from what I'm saying.
- [212:38]
Interviewer
They didn't do anything.
- [212:39]
Simon Dixon
Yes, well, they did a tit for tack. I think they, it was a symbolic
- [212:43]
Interviewer
attack US base that they were pretty pre warned that was abandoned and there was not much done.
- [212:49]
Simon Dixon
That's what I call theatrics. It means it actually happened.
- [212:51]
Interviewer
But that was a face saving measure though, rather than anything else.
- [212:55]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, well, what we want to do is we want to project our belief about what it is on top. So we have all this emotion of defending against imperialism, the injustice of the Palestinian cause, the how Israel, what they have done and the lies and the deceit. We've got all that in our mind and we connect that to the action.
- [213:18]
Interviewer
Well, it's the human element again, which is why, yeah, that's always pushed to us to sell a wall because that's what as people, that's what we care about, we care about other people.
- [213:28]
Simon Dixon
And, and that's what I always have to do. I, I always say I wear two hats, I wear a humanitarian hat and I wear an analytical hat and they're completely opposite. When I put my humanitarian hat on, I was, I'm, I'm, I was deeply impacted by what we've been witnessing in Palestine. I'm not the same human being on the human level, like I've witnessing a genocide in 4K in real time. And I showed up every single day. I've got friends that died, you know, I've got, I will never see the world the same. On the human element, I'm a different person.
- [214:06]
Interviewer
The thing that stunned me most about that was the contrast in responses between ordinary people and the total indifference by institutions to just lie in their faces about what was happening there.
- [214:19]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, absolutely.
- [214:21]
Interviewer
I was stunned by that. To see that in real time and not just read about it as some kind of history. We're talking the eu, various German political leadership, all throughout the eu, in fact, all of the countries. It's not fair to just single out Germany, although they were probably the most egregious example.
- [214:39]
Simon Dixon
Yeah.
- [214:40]
Interviewer
And the European Union and it's like actually, like this is not representative of the sentiments of the people in Europe actually. Or any part of the world.
- [214:50]
Simon Dixon
Every day I force myself to watch things that I never thought a human should ever watch in their life. And I said to myself, every day I don't want to watch this, but they're going through it and the least I can do is watch it and in the luxury of my own home, experience how it's changing me as a human. They're actually going through it. That was their child.
- [215:17]
Interviewer
Yeah. I've never seen anything that comes close to what I saw in Gaza.
- [215:24]
Simon Dixon
And the worst thing is this has happened all along and they hid it from us. You know, we don't know the world. The story we were told in every war is completely one sided bs, you know, and so you learn how it is. Now then I step away from humanitarian. I say analytical. What's going on here? What's the capital flows? What leads to this? What what does? Whose agenda does that serve? And that's very inhumane. And so the impossibility of analyzing this situation is that everything I just did prior to when you just saw me as the real person was me being analytical. And that's a different person to the person that changed inside as a result of experiencing the death of so many people and their families. But the analytical side says that China has the capability and the plan to decolonize the Middle East.
- [216:36]
Interviewer
It seems to be happening without them, though.
- [216:39]
Simon Dixon
Well, because China doesn't do pr. China just does. And so this brings us to the Beijing meeting. But I believe China executed the whole thing with their allies and China is aligned with both Iran and Saudi Arabia. And I believe there was a very large degree of coordination around what is going to be destroyed and what's going to be rebuilt and by who.
- [217:10]
Interviewer
All right, so help me make sense of this because my observations are a little bit at odds with that, but not entirely. So there could be. I think there's an opportunity to reconcile what you're saying with, with what I've seen so far. When this war was launched, Saudi Arabia and some of the other Gulf countries, they aided and abetted the attack on Iran. And it was only when Iran demonstrated its ability to defend itself and by inflicting significant damage. And at first what they did was while it was significant, they were very restrained. They didn't, I think, as Professor Pape says, they didn't just shoot through the escalation letter. They said, you've done a certain amount of damage to us. We're going to demonstrate to you that we can also damage you. And if you keep going, you know, that there are other targets that would impose a catastrophe on, on your country. And so as soon as they demonstrated that, I think the first country that came to their senses was Saudi Arabia. And there were some instances of what appeared to be false flag attacks to make it appear that Iran was continuing to attack Saudi Arabia. But I think their communication lines clarified that. But the UAE went hardcore, doubled down in their alliance with Israel and United States against Iran. And it's only until perhaps this week, this past week, that the UAE has put out some statements through prox, various proxies demonstrating not a full backdown, but perhaps a moderation of its stance against Israel. And we're yet to see where that leads to as well. So can you help me reconcile what I see with your view and where it's going?
- [219:03]
Simon Dixon
So I think there's a degree of good cop and bad cop that is paid amongst transnational factions of power. And so there's no such thing as Iran in strategy. There are factions of power. There are factions of power within the IRGC that benefit from continual strategic tension between Iran and Israel. There are other factions of power within IRGC that share a changing dynamic. This is why I remember I spoke to my friend, one of my Iranian friends that I work with a lot. He's British, but he's got an Iranian background and his parents are in Iran. And I said, look, what's the perception of the irgc? And he said, you know what it really boils down to? There's a whole economy around the irgc and if you work for it, then your financial interest benefits from it. And if you don't work for it, your financial interest doesn't and you're oppressed and you're not making any money and you're in the worst economic situation ever. He said, mostly it's just preservation of their own private interest. And I looked at that and said, that's the same in all politics, right? The boomers are voting for Trump because they want their stocks and real estate to go on up. And the others are voting for Kamala Harris because they don't think they're ever going to own a house. And that's how politics works, right? You look at your individual situation, you say, am I benefiting from this or not? And that's how he described what, you know, there are people that benefit from, they've got jobs, they work there, they're trying to maintain their household and their wealth and their. And then they got business interests. And those business are involved in oil trade, banking and different trades. And so you get at the incentives level when trying to understand that. And so there's a whole faction that wants the status quo, there's a faction that would benefit from change, and then there's every individual country's interest and who are they subordinate to. And right Now, Iran is 100% economically subordinate to China. That's just a reality. You can't change that reality. And their second largest trading partner is uae. Really second large. Their first largest trading partner is China. Second largest trading partner is uae. And UAE provide all of the infrastructure to allow Iran to circumvent sanctions. So there is a reality element and a theatrical element as well. The same happens between Saudi Arabia and uae. I often talked about how they're making it look like they're in a battle, but they're divvying up power in a very coordinated way. It looks like to me that Saudi gets Yemen, UAE gets Israel to recognize Somaliland, Turkey gets their assets protected in Somalia. UAE gets their port protected in Somaliland. The Horn of Africa is protected. That's a vital trading route. But you've got to resolve the straight of Hamus. And so when you look at it from this perspective, you realize World War three is not possible.
- [222:21]
It's not possible.
- [222:23]
And then you look at China and US and you realize the McVick and tick are dependent upon China in every aspect of their business model.
- [222:33]
Interviewer
Yeah, well, the United States can't even go to war without.
- [222:36]
Simon Dixon
Exactly.
- [222:37]
Interviewer
Production.
- [222:37]
Simon Dixon
Exactly. So then you say there's reality by following monetary flows and then there's theatrics. And the theatrics is, remember, it's also done covertly and overtly. You segregate. Who knows, it's on a need to know basis. Right. That's the whole intelligence thing. So most people think that they're fighting a moral resistance, defending the, you know, whether it's the Shia narrative. Excuse me, Whether it's the Palestinian cause, whether it's. That's what most people are defending. But then you've got the COVID and the COVID people want to say sell out. Or they use these very emotionally charged words like, are you saying they're a sellout? No, I'm saying they came up with a plan based upon the reality of, of the situation. And I think China said, here's the future of the region and it's going to be great. You got to, you got to, you know, we got to show and embarrass America. The F said, we make shitloads of money out of the closure of the Strait of Hamus, Iran said, we're going to be able to embarrass America. China said, we're going to have our moment. The Gulf countries said, we get to reconfigure here and we'll hedge our bets. And you can look at all the transactions, all the transactions say everything that happened was known by China, known by Iran, known by Russia. And you can see the whole sequence in terms of what happened in Europe with the Nord Stream Pipeline, what happened with Russia, Ukraine, what happened with Venezuela, what happened with Iran. You can see that's a long term, multi decade strategy all the way through. So to me, right from the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abraham Accords, all the things that happened there, all the way through to the current war, I believe that part of the negotiation was to close the Strait of Hamus, agitate a war and execute what needs to happen in order to move to the new world order. And that new world order was planned with the FIC transnational capital, China and the influence they can push upon the Gulf countries, Iran, Israel and everyone. And they knew that there are people that need. If you go back to Iran, you say, who needs to go in order to make this happen? And a faction of power within Iran will have an opinion on that. And that faction of power may be the government aligned with China. And they'll say, this person, this person, that person, that person. Never going to happen. Can you find a way where we eliminate them or you eliminate them? And China says, okay, I'm not saying this is what's happened, I'm just saying I imagine that this is how it might work. And they say, well, why don't we outsource it to Israel and Israel needs this. Why don't they kill that person? You kill those bases, you retaliate like this and war game it out. Someone had a business plan and that might be someone's business plan. It doesn't mean that that business plan works because there'll be resistance against it and someone that does a false flag and tries to take it in a different direction. But I believe someone's business plan was to end up exactly where we are right now. And I personally believe the MoU has already been signed. And I personally believe in that MOU there would have been. Trump needs this narrative, Israel needs this narrative in order to not have civil unrest and the IRGC to maintain its power structure because we don't want to turn it into chaos. They need this narrative. And I know this just at the individual level, as an investment banker, when we would do any deal in an investment bank, we would sign. This is when you say this, this is what you're allowed to say. If you violate that, that's a breach of NDA, the deal's over. And so you would literally plan out the whole public communications and the whole strategy of when you're allowed to speak to your staff, what you're allowed to say to your staff. And so to me, if it works at that level, why wouldn't it work at that, at the geopolitical MOU sovereign level? And so right now I believe an MAU has already been signed. A deal will be done.
- [227:15]
Interviewer
So let's, let's talk about that deal. I'm interested in how this war with Iran is going to resolve and if we can start perhaps between at the top China and the United States. That's a top level that I see. How do you. So what's going to happen between them that's going to influence how this whole affair resolves?
- [227:36]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So if you look at the entire Trump administration, from the tariff war to the meeting in Beijing that we just had, that reveals it all. The tariff war was obviously for anyone that actually did the analysis, going to drive everyone towards brics and China. It was going to lead to taxes on American businesses because they're an in border. It was going to lead to a power vacuum that would concentrate wealth up to transnational capital and it was going to cause stress in the export dependent countries to renegotiate deals. And every renegotiation ended us closer to a multipolar world and America being a regional power, everything he's done has deconstructed everything that made the US empire by its covert empire and signal to the entire global south and the Middle East, America's not a reliable partner. China is every single thing. Now, on the narrative we said Trump's an idiot, he's crazy, he's maga, he's nationalist. Everyone makes their own narrative and those are engineered very carefully. But in the end, what happened? They met in Beijing. And who came Trump with executives that answer to boards and shareholders in transnational capital that make up about a trillion dollars of net worth. From the McTick and FIC, the mic were kind of left behind because there was Boeing there and some of the. But the more sensitive ones are left behind. You're the patriots. But it was tick and fic. Tick and fic have no allegiance to America. And so they were all there. And Trump gets off the plane and Xi Jinping doesn't meet him. Okay, what do we Interpret by that. And then he goes through a ritual with loads of children with Chinese flags waving. And then he goes with to meet Xi Jinping. And you had the executives behind Trump with Xi Jinping leading the way. And then you had the dinner afterwards and the public press release with Trump on a lower chair and Xi Jinping on a higher chair to make it. That was not signaling to America or American audience. That was a signal to the rest of the world. This is the new power. So that was all laid out. You don't go to a meeting in order to start a negotiation. You go to a meeting for photos. Geopolitics is just optics. When it becomes at the press level, that's not okay, we're going to start negotiating. What are we going to do? That's we've been negotiating and now we've hit a checkpoint and now we need a photo op to tell the rest of the world. And so that meeting was the photo op. I call it a check in meeting. Just like throughout the whole Iran side, there were check in meetings, there were negotiations before the war, there were negotiations during the war, there'll be negotiations after the war. And they're checking in. And all the people that were at the negotiations before the war in Iran are still alive today, still the same people, you know Arachi, you know Galavant. So, you know, you've already seen and they're creating the. We fought till the end. We did everything. We broke the empire. They had to do a deal, we crushed them. That's what you need for preservation. Right. On Trump's side, he needs a different narrative. He needs, we force them to do it. And that's not working too well right now. So he needs this final Hollywood movie. He needs something that says we did it because I forced them to do it. And he hasn't quite got.
- [231:38]
Interviewer
There was an admission actually that kind of leaked out of the administration is that the people who are managing the negotiations on behalf of Trump have told the Iranian side, just disregard anything he says publicly. Because that's to massage the domestic audience to the message. See, we got the truth so that we can, we can actually manage this outcome. So there seems to be like two tracks of information flow. One on the inside that's saying that's dealing with the reality of who, you know, who won this war, really. I mean, the war was over in the first week, to be honest with you. And so now they're sort of negotiating how to manage the perception of the outcome for both parties.
- [232:18]
Simon Dixon
Correct.
- [232:19]
So there are factions of power. The Mick and the FIC and the tickets in America that don't necessarily want this war to end until China says so. And they have to. And so they're happy to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed for as long as possible because big Oil and Big LNG are getting new contracts. The stock market's crushing. It is loving it. You get the opportunity to destroy other countries and concentrate wealth upwards. You get to price out people with inflation. This is concentration of power dream. Trump's power structure doesn't want the strait open, but it's bounded escalation. They don't want oil prices at like $250 that destroys everything globally. The bond markets are really determining whether America is going to be able to refinance its debt or not. And the stock market's loving it. So what is he trying to price? What's really happening here? I think Trump needs to time the opening of the straight up amuse with the SpaceX IPO and the OpenAI OPO and the Anthropic IPO, because those are going to make and break the stock market. And the bond market's showing distress right now. And it's almost like I need stocks to do well. And these IPOs are everything. We flipped the entire world upside down for AI and robotics. I need liquidity. Massive liquidity. Let's get the straight open and time it with that.
- [233:56]
Interviewer
It does feel all of those IPOs have been orchestrated to coincide at the same time.
- [234:02]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. And so we rush all them through and they're going to make or break the stock market. They have to succeed. Needs massive liquidity. Like massive. I'm a little bit split about whether they're trying to do a buy the rumor, sell the news and crash scenario or they've got a lot more to go. I'm slightly thinking they've got a lot more to go. But if they. When they need to. When the Fed needs to, they need to engineer the crisis. So we got the regime change at the Fed, we got Kevin Walsh, and they need a big print. The only solution to America is a big print. 7 trillion. 10 trillion. The AI bubble is the perfect story for a bailout narrative. So they're building all of that. They have to get the Fed to buy the bonds because yields are going insane and foreign investors are all selling their Treasuries. Even Japan's doing it now. And if UK goes into crisis and they start selling and Europe, that's a problem. They even had to give UAE an FX swapline to stop them selling their bonds. So you can't have anyone. You can't let them sell their bonds. So the buyer has to be the Fed. So I think they're timing a pump and dump cycle. I'm not sure of the exact timing of it. I think they want the opening of the Strait of a Moose to coincide with the IPAs. I think they've already signed the MAU. And what happened right after the Beijing meeting? Xi Jinping did one thing and one thing only, exert that Taiwan is a red line. That's semiconductor chips. That's the AI chips.
- [235:42]
Interviewer
Trump all but conceded.
- [235:43]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, Trump came out even before the meeting. America canceled a $13 billion mic contract with Taiwan right before the meeting and signed off on selling some more Nvidia chips to China, which China declined. So everyone that was at that meeting needed China. And so they were there to make sure. Are our supply chains okay? Apple is saying, are our factory's lights going to be on? You know, I know you've got Huawei, but are you going to continue to allow us to make iPhones? Elon was saying, am I going to be able to get our rare earth minerals? You know, I know that we need that. The whole Congo thing and M23, that's all the cobalt that goes into the batteries and EVs, and there's tension between the different powers there and the African side, but that's a deviation. Am I going to be able to get my components? So every single one that was there. Visa, MasterCard. Okay, so you've got 122 countries connected to SIPs now. You've got UAE doing central bank, digital currencies. You got Iran leading in leaning into Bitcoin. Are we going to be able to integrate our Rails into your Rails in this transnational cooperation? This was really just the Tick. That meeting was a meeting between the Tick, the fic, and China. And that's the one world government layer. AI layer. These are the two powers making sure that the myc, FIC and Tick get their components. And Xi Jinping said, taiwan's our red line. Don't touch Taiwan. And so they put together a plan, which is, how do you get your chips? How do we get our chips and we get Taiwan? Let's not go to World War. We're not going to World War. There was never a plan to go to World War because Mick needs China, so it doesn't make sense. So, and then what happened right after the meeting is you got managed shipments coming out. There was like about 20 to 30 shipments immediately. And the Straight started opening Bit by bit by bit, there was more and more shipments every single day. And then there's manager managed theater around the mou. So we're just leading up to the exit narrative. What's Israel gonna say? What's Iran gonna say? What's America gonna say? Do we need another escalate to de escalate? I don't know. But it will be theatrical if we do. Because they haven't got anything that indicates that this is Iraq or that they're going to do a ground invasion or that any of that's even. None of it's possible. And everyone knew before this that none of that's possible. There's no, like we accidentally found this out by trying. Because Trump's stupid and he's just signing like doing things and logging into Truth Social every day. His job is to look like he's doing the MAGA narrative.
- [238:49]
Interviewer
What's going to happen to the petrodollar?
- [238:51]
Simon Dixon
There's two components to the petrodollar. The second half of that is the purchase of US Treasuries. And so they gave UAE an FX swapline. An FX swapline is a very exclusive club that no one in the Gulf has ever been invited to, not even Saudi Arabia. And that was a club just for the bank of England, the bank of Japan, the European Central bank, the Swiss Central bank and the bank of Canada.
- [239:23]
Interviewer
What is the swap line?
- [239:24]
Simon Dixon
Okay, imagine so UAE has $250 billion in treasuries and $2 trillion in assets, vast majority being a chunk of it being AI and American equities. And that all of the major Magnificent Seven and all of the most important companies in America. An FX swap line says that your central bank can deposit some of your local currency at us and then the Fed will create some dollars and you get those dollars collateralized by your currency. And so we'll take your currency now in uae, it's pegged to the dollar. So that's a very low risk trade. But you're handing over to UAE the ability to create dollars like the bank of Japan. That turns UAE into a global financial center like the bank of Japan. That's a very exclusive club that they don't give away. If you're doing that for someone like Argentina, like they did Argentina, currency risk is off the scale. UAE dinar is pegged to the dollar. So this is just enhancing the financial center in Dubai with a narrative of they're doing it in distress. Why? Because they're getting retail to sell all their assets. And blackrock's buyer no More. The ETF of UAE is going up and the institutional ownership of UAE is going up. That's a FIC managed transition. They're building their financial center in UAE by manufacturing a crisis, doing the same in India as well for brics. So FIC is building the multipolar layers. BRICS penetration through India, UAE penetration into the gcc. So they got their swapline. Now what Scott Bessant said is that UAE came out and said they did some very strategic moves. Everyone was saying UAE's dead, no one's going to go back. Okay? That leads to retail selling. You even saw that in the gold to bitcoin price. People were selling their physical gold, buying bitcoin and you could sell your gold at a discount so that they could get out of UAE and all that stuff. But prior to that they'd already signed. They got the Enbridge project, the network of CBDCs. Now they got the Federal Reserve dollar creation mechanism. They got Abraham Accords that allows them to buy Israeli assets. Netanyahu's been privatizing many companies. UAE's been buying them. India's been buying the ports in Israel, UAE's been buying the defense shares. Gulf have been buying up Israel which gives them voting rights, board seats, control. Everyone is led to believe Israel's ruling the world. They're buying them, they're buying America, they're buying Israel, they're doing it with Chinese money. Then UAE also signed an energy pricing pact with BRICS for oil and then left opec. OPEC was the petrodollar. OPEC was the mechanism for pricing oil in dollars and buying U.S. treasuries that stay at the Fed and enforce them to use the treasury yield to buy defense, prop up the US stock market, the mic. If opec, if UAE leaves and they've got an agreement with brics and what happened prior to this? Iran, Egypt and UAE and Ethiopia and Saudi as an observer joined brics. That all happened prior to this. So again, the public narrative is that Saudi Arabia and UAE are at it, but this is breaking the petrodollar bit by bit. Now they don't want to break it, they definitely don't want to break it. Like they want to be the Gulf countries and Iran, they want to be the central. This is a compelling vision. China's got the manufacturing base, America's got the capital markets. We sit in the middle. So who's going to control the petrodollar and the petro yuan? Well, what happens with Iran? If you give Iran sanction relief now they're not selling their oil to China at a 30% discount through the COVID UAE rails. Now they're going to have 2 to 4 million barrels of oil to come to the market. Is that going to be priced in yuan or is that going to be priced in dollars? Is that going to be priced in bitcoin? Is that going to be. The stablecoin suddenly got seized. The defi contracts got frozen. The bitcoin remained. And so what we're doing here is we're getting UAE as a network of central bank digital currencies. Iran is a bitcoin haven and Saudi Arabia is the head of the gcc. You know, because they've got the good cop role, UAE gets the bad cop role, Saudi gets the good cop role. Saudi looks great. They saved the crisis. They managed to get the alternative pipelines past the Strait of Hormuz. You weaken the Strait of Hormuz, but they get sanction relief. And everyone builds their alternative pipelines and alternative rails. OPEC has effectively expelled that, has killed the petrodollar in a managed transition. Where who at the end of this, depending on what the MoU says, depending on what the end deal says with Iran, Iran, UAE and Saudi control the petro Yuan and the petrodollar. And that's really big. That's a really big change. China doesn't want just Saudi having the power. America doesn't want just uae. The FICC doesn't want just uae. They want to penetrate. So now you've got UAE represents the fic. Saudi and Iran competing powers that China can manage for the Petro Yuan and petrodollar. To me, that's the perfect construct of a managed transition away from the petrodollar. And the petrodollar is what gives America its power today.
- [245:45]
Interviewer
What happens to United States military bases in the Middle East? Will they be rebuilt?
- [245:52]
Simon Dixon
So they were originally set up for the MC forever war model, which is the goal of a forever war is simply to spend as much money as possible, get the Americans to pay for it, the Brits to pay for it, the Europeans to pay for it. And the money goes into the stock market through defense contracts. And the idea is that war is more profitable than defense. But eventually you transition from the forever war to. To defense, real defense. And real defense means you're not there to agitate a war. You're there to ensure that everything's working nicely and you're protecting the investments that the FIC has made. And so those bases needed to be destroyed and rebuilt. And I think they're sat around a table with a term sheet between the fic, the China Belt and Road Initiative and the Gulf sovereign wealth funds. And the FIC is negotiating. What's the split? To make sure we don't need to bomb each other and we have regional stability. How much money can we make out of regional stability with a normalized Iran, no more resistance, the Gulf countries and a weakened Israel. And that's a very compelling vision. That's why you don't need the resistance anymore, if you're moving to that. But how do you change the previous narrative? You have to have economic contracts that tie everything together. That's why you're not going to get a sudden deal. This is 30 day, 60 day, 90 day, 2 year. This is an M and A deal. This is.
- [247:26]
Interviewer
You mentioned about the resistance axis. You've got Hezbollah and various proxies, as they're called, that Iran supports. How can it be possible for them, for Iran to accept the possibility of not supporting them if you have so many unresolved issues? You have southern Lebanon effectively taken over by Israel. Gaza is reoccupied now by Israel. You have the west bank currently being, it's basically annexed, let's face it. When the new regime came into force in Syria, Israel took immediate opportunity to take land, including and up to Mount Hermon and the ski resorts there. A lot of people don't know that Syria has a ski resort, ski resort, mountain. It seems unlikely to me that Iran says, okay, Syria is gone and will not.
- [248:27]
Simon Dixon
I think Iran did say that already. There's no way that Turkey could have done that operation without China, Russia and Iran agreeing to.
- [248:35]
Interviewer
You okay, interesting.
- [248:37]
Simon Dixon
Not possible.
- [248:37]
Interviewer
Okay. And then what happens to the rest of that?
- [248:40]
Simon Dixon
So Syria is, is Turkey and gcc. I think that's already done. They put a placeholder in. You know, get your ex ISIS guy. But remember, he's not, he's not ideologically aligned.
- [248:52]
Interviewer
So you don't think Iran will, will resist that to reassert itself on, on Syria?
- [248:58]
Simon Dixon
No. Okay, so Syria is just. There's a placeholder and his job is to just be a placeholder and make sure it doesn't turn into chaos. And this is why. What do you do? You need to kick the can down the road a bit because these are big issues. Like, big issues. So Iran's issue was right, we've signed a deal, but they had a holdout clause around Lebanon. That's an acceptable public narrative. You know, I'm not dumping the resistance and we're trying to include it in the deal, but we're being forced to take them out, you know, so you have that public tension. I believe that Iran's already stopped supporting Hezbollah. I believe that factions of power in Iran allowed that pager attack to happen. I believe that October 7th was meant to happen. I don't think these were organic moves. I believe the helicopter that regime changed the Iranian government was an inside job.
- [250:13]
Interviewer
Oh, you're talking about the crushing, the
- [250:15]
Simon Dixon
mountain, crashing of the helicopter. Right. The reason is if it were Israel or if it were real, you'd have an uproar. When a government is very quiet about an assassination or a helicopter that falls down with their own government, then sometimes that means it's an inside job. So I think Iran has regime changed itself in order to preserve the type of government that is still IRGC, but is aligned with China's vision of regional stability. And there are people in there that are very influential factions of power that needed this to happen covertly and they're no longer alive today. And so I think factions of power within Iran did an inside job. And the reason there's subtle things. I remember we talked about Syria, that Syria I believe couldn't have happened happened without Iran, Russia and China agreeing to it. Just like Venezuela couldn't have happened without Iran, China and Russia agreeing to it. Because they were all prepared. China was lining up all of its oil and you could see all the movements prior to the Venezuela operation. That was agreed from my perspective. And that's what these check ins are. They're resetting the maps. They're saying you're going to get Ukraine, we need another three years of war. War. Russia, we need to make another trillion dollars. We need to destabilize Europe and vassalize them. You're going to have Taiwan, let's settle. What are we going to do with chips? Okay, well we need a bit of a brain drain. So we'll have the CHIPS act, we'll build some new plants in Arizona. Some of the people that are more, the Taiwanese that are more American centered, they'll come over here, will brain drain Taiwan. The rest of them that are more China aligned because Taiwan's going to be China. So therefore the ones that are preparing for the future, they're going to be China aligned. And you let them, you know, and we do the whole Huawei integration and build our own chips. And then eventually we do what we did in Hong Kong, we just get more aggressive. And America, you ain't going to do shit because this is the world order. And in exchange for that, we'll give your Companies, we'll give Elon what he needs, we'll give Apple what they need. But on China's terms, you can have our manufacturing base, but we get to copy everything. We get to do what we need. We get to accelerate, as China has always done. Apple, you can build your iPhone here, but we're going to get the people that are building iPhones to build Huawei as well. You know, we're going to get the people that are building Teslas to do BYD too, You know, and now we're accelerating at a faster pace anyway, so we're on our own track. And that's why you've got to come to the table, because we could get rid of Apple now. We could get rid of, we could kill your stock market. China can structurally break the commodities market, all the derivatives contracts because they got all the gold. They could break the bond market by selling their Treasuries and investing in Belt and Road. And it could break the stock market by showing what Deepsea can. Huawei's capabilities are 10 times cheaper, 90% of the efficiency and everything's produced here. And we could chuck you out. So we could break your stock market, bond market and commodity market, come down here. And all we've got to do is figure out what to do with Taiwan. Then we got to figure out what we're going to do with Iran. And what we want is we want a Middle east that is now West Asia and that means that we're going to Israel. You're no longer there to destabilize the region. You've got to figure out what your new role is. And remember, Israel has a lobby of Israel. Most people think Netanyahu is in charge. Netanyahu is a paid agent and all the politicians in Israel are captured by the same lobby power that has captured America. So it's the corporate interest that's ruling the game and that's transnational capital.
- [254:30]
Interviewer
They do seem to have an independent view. Sorry, a view that's independent of the industrial complex, as you've laid out, that is still expansionist and that sort of.
- [254:42]
Simon Dixon
But private. It has a very state owned.
- [254:45]
Interviewer
Okay. It has a very big origin though. So it's like deeply embedded in culture, the theology, the history. And they even wear that, you know, that Greater Israel patch on their uniforms. Right. So it is a kind of a historic vision and a mission for them to reestablish that.
- [255:02]
Simon Dixon
Oh, absolutely. That is the, the public narrative to recruit soldiers. But who owns the assets in Israel? Look at the Israel ETF blackrock State street and Vanguard. What does Israel. Where does all the money from Israel go? Back into the US Stock market. Israel is a plausible deniability story for American Mick to commit crimes against humanity. And when they need plausible deniability and a divorce, they can just say it was them, it wasn't us.
- [255:32]
Interviewer
When does Syria get genocide?
- [255:34]
Simon Dixon
America did that genocide.
- [255:36]
Interviewer
So when does Syria get its land back? The recently acquired land? I'm not even talking about Golan. Right.
- [255:41]
Simon Dixon
The Golan land. So what happened with Syria? So they put ex ISIS Jelani in. He's a GCC Turkey puppet funded by Turkey. He immediately went to meet Trump in the White House. Trump introduced him to BlackRock, State street and Vanguard and Citibank and JP Morgan. He turned down the IMF lane and immediately started divvying up what does the FIC need to invest in to achieve regional stability with Gulf money and China's Belt and Road initiative. And so they're divvying up the transactions and they'll say, well, we'll invest, but you've got to make sure that these factions of power don't have an uprising. The old Assad connected power structures. And anytime you need some help, we'll just manufacture a narrative. You're killing the Christians, we're killing the Muslim, whatever. Tucker Carlson says, we'll just create a narrative that helps you get rid of those factions of power and do some massacres or something. But his job is to achieve regional stability for Syria and negotiate the right balance of Gulf money, Turkish money, FIC money, and Chinese money, as is Egypt right now, as is Turkey. And they're coming after the currency.
- [257:11]
Interviewer
So the issue of their land is still at the forefront of my mind.
- [257:16]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Fic's trying to get as much as they can and they want to front run the deal. And then they'll do sanction relief in order to make sure that they get the returns on it.
- [257:24]
Interviewer
It.
- [257:25]
Simon Dixon
But they'll allow, you know, maybe a bit, a tiny bit for the Syrian people, but it's. It will be GCC China and FIC owned, I think. And Turkey. Turkey doesn't have the money. Turkey's got the muscle. Golf has got the money, China's got the ability to. To build. And the Syrian people get the last part after all the insider deals have done with fic.
- [257:58]
Interviewer
Hmm.
- [257:59]
Simon Dixon
But it will be a regional stability model which would be significantly better than what it was.
- [258:04]
Interviewer
And southern Lebanon, how's that going to be resolved?
- [258:07]
Simon Dixon
Okay, that's the hardest. So Iran invested most in Hezbollah. Hezbollah. So what they're doing, I think they're buying time. So the current game is when Israel does a ground invasion, they get wrecked by Hezbollah and their tanks get destroyed. And when Israel comes in by the air, Hezbollah is what they do is they come in by the air, they kill civilians, they destroy civilian infrastructure, they make 1.6 million Lebanese lose their home and then that agitates a reaction from Hezbollah. That's the current game at the moment right now. So I think Israel is being weakened and Hezbollah is being weakened at the same time and then eventually it will go into a political process that integrates Hezbollah into the Lebanese army. They've already got, you know, representation within. So just like the Houthis signed a deal with Saudi Arabia in Lebanon, in Yemen, sorry Lehman, Yemen. I'm losing my mind. Just like Hezbollah, sorry, the Houthis signed a deal with Saudi Arabia in Yemen and now they're going to be integrated into the political process. Once is the appropriate time and they didn't get involved. They could have, you know, they could have closed the Red Sea at the same time as straight up for me then, you know, we're kind of in a real war, right? That's, that's kind of. We're all at it, we're all fighting. That's a non theatrical to me. This is way more planned and bounded escalation hitting strategic choke points and trying to get better negotiation terms. So Lebanon it ties into. I believe there needs to be a regime change in Israel. So they're going to blame Netanyahu for everything. At some point they're going to reveal that October 7th was allowed to happen. There's going to be civil unrest in Israel. A lot of Israelis have already started to invade Argentina, Ukraine, Thailand and Cyprus. Cyprus is completely invaded by Israelis. You talk about the Muslim invasion in uk, this is the Israeli invasion in Cyprus. My friends in Cyprus are saying it's not a nice place at the moment.
- [260:28]
Interviewer
Why? Because there are tensions between local population and the Israelis moving there or.
- [260:35]
Simon Dixon
Well, Cyprus is a difficult place, right. It's got the Turkish part, it's got the Cypriot part and it's got the British base. And now you're getting the Israelis like all coming in in droves and it's a small place, you know, and really small. Yeah, yeah, it's a really small place if you've ever been. And yeah, you know, just like, just like they're ratcheting up the whole immigration demographic changes around Europe and UK at the moment. You know, this is causing some issues within Cyprus and there was a Whole tit for tack around whether US could use the British bases in Lebanon and all that stuff. We're starting to see Europe. I keep jumping around, then we'll get back to Lebanon. But there was a regime change in Hungary and so Erdogan. Is that his name?
- [261:24]
Interviewer
Erdogan is in Turkey.
- [261:25]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. Who's it in Hungary?
- [261:29]
Interviewer
I didn't catch Orland.
- [261:30]
Simon Dixon
Orban. Orban. There we go.
- [261:32]
Interviewer
Viktor Orban was ousted. He lost the election.
- [261:34]
Simon Dixon
Yeah, yeah. Now remember, he's really important because he was selling his vote to Russia, which was stopping the unanimity vote in the European Union to release the Ukrainian funds to be used the Russian funds to be used by Ukraine.
- [261:50]
Interviewer
Gotcha.
- [261:51]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. But he was also selling his vote to Israel. So he was stopping the sanctions of the west bank by European Union. Those are all kicking off now. So now you've regime changed. Hungary, European Union is actually doing some interesting stuff. Firstly, Germany's now start to take all of its manufacturing base and build its own military industrial complex. So the old car manufacturing, a new brand coming. We got a couple of IPOs coming up for German military companies. So, you know, BlackRock starting to diversify into a German military industrial complex. As a result of destroying the manufacturing base and the energy crisis, they're starting to sanction Israel on West bank side. So there's a political process that's starting there very strategically, I think, at the right time. And you get the Russian money for Ukraine. And now Ukraine's getting more aggressive than ever in destroying energy infrastructure and agitating Russia further and further. So I think they negotiated another three years of war, I've always believed to destroy Europe and really destabilize Europe. And Russia's going to get Ukraine and blackrock's getting all the land negotiations. The IMF via the bank of England collateralized all the land in Ukraine. They'll end up with all the grain and stuff. And so I think they've divvied up what's going to happen to Ukraine, but they need a few more years of war to steal all the resources. And even there was that leak where America said we're going to use Ukraine to the last Ukrainian, you know, and that's becoming a reality. That's how brutal the Mick are.
- [263:40]
Interviewer
Yeah.
- [263:41]
Simon Dixon
And then you get the whole theater between NATO and Trump, you know, and now all of a sudden every government in Europe that's in a crisis needs to spend 5% of their budget on weapons. Yeah. And it starts to build a. So what, what I think Mick fic and tick are doing and then we'll get back to Lebanon. MCVIC and TICK are building from all multipolar world. They're vassalizing countries and building MCFIC and Ticks globally so that they can integrate them. And the only country they can't penetrate is China. So they need to negotiate with China and they'll make much more money by connecting all the payment and financial rails and they're using US assets to get as much leverage as possible. The US military is a for rent militia for the FIC right now. They say go, just go create chaos there and then get us more penetration there so that when America's a regional power we've got our multipolar layers all set up and that's what's happening. Cuba's next, I guess. But with Lebanon, I think you need to get rid of Netanyahu to blame shift. And I think the next leader of that feels inevitable.
- [264:53]
Interviewer
You just feel like that's going to happen. He's going to be the scapegoat even. Even though the next layer of leadership and pretty much most of the political establishment is in lockstep with everything he's done.
- [265:02]
Simon Dixon
Yeah. So we'll enter into a political process that will look like the next leader is a, is a radical Zionist as well, because that's how you can get the vote. You want to galvanize the radical Zionists in Israel that are more radicalized than ever as a result of all of this. And Iran got that. You know, that was a big loss for Israel. Once this deal is signed. So you regime change Netanyahu, you put a new leader that looks like they're going to be like Netanyahu or a smolder or a gevir like or everything. You use their disgusting rhetoric, push it out in the media so that everyone hates Israel, strategically weaken it, the stock market gets all the value, privatize everything and then the Gulf countries come in and buy. And so what did Trump do? He said we got a deal but everyone needs to sign Abraham Accords. What does that do? Now every country in the Middle east is now on a new negotiation track with FIC McIntyck. And so he's now saying they've all rejected that though. They've all rejected. And Saudi came out and said what it always has said, yeah, will do it, but only if there's a viable, sustainable solution to Palestine. So Saudi is good cop. Saudi gets to say we're committed to Palestine. Europe gets to start going aggressive on West Bank, Israel gets acquired by UAE in the Gulf countries and India, they become a puppet regime for McFictick. But under regional stability, with a new narrative, a rebranded Israel, Palestine becomes a state. And then slowly.
- [266:51]
Interviewer
You think that's going to happen?
- [266:52]
Simon Dixon
Yes, that's going to happen. I'll bet anything on that. Palestine will be a state, but it will be owned by the gcc. And so all of the investment, if boredom, peace still persists, so all going to be golf money and no one invested but the Gulf. And they're going to say, well, we want it on our terms. And so they're going to buy as much influence over Israel, they're going to fund the rebuild of Palestine. And the west bank is going to be strategically weakened via EU narrative in exchange for them complying with war and everything that needs and destabilization. So the bank for International Settlements gets everything, pushes it out to its network of central banks, they go multipolar. And I think eventually in the next five years I could see this one's more speculative, but let me put a bit of hope in here. I could see a one state solution with an Arab majority, whether it will be called Israel or whether it would be called Palestine. Maybe it's a two state solution, but I reckon over the next five years we're going to see that whole destabilization campaign of Israel, that Greater Israel project is being pushed to the limit right now to give FIC more power because Netanyahu has switched his position. He doesn't work for Mick anymore, he works for fic. And so his job is to get as much land into these negotiations to do what he's always done, which is when he gets land, when Israel gets land, they negotiate normalization in exchange for returning the land. But it was always under the forever war model. So they were always manufacturing a narrative for war. I personally believe that China does not want an Israel that represents the MIC in the region. And I think China has the leverage to enforce it. You're just not going to get the press release.