← Simon Dixon Hard Talk
Simon Dixon Hard Talk
This Is the Asset-Stripping Phase | Simon Dixon on GoldRepublic Global w/ Alexej Jordanov
01:56:31
Loading summary
Transcript57 lines
- [00:00]
A
Some are completely subordinate debt slaves. That's what the financial industrial complex wanted to create, which is make you a collateralized debt obligation where you earn just enough and you work your whole life just to pay the interest. And as you progress, you take on more debt and pay more interest and you do that forever. That's the slavery. And this is the game of investment banking. You build all the products around it to subordinate governments, companies and individuals. That's the asset stripping phase. Europe is being systemically asset stripped. And that's why the war with Russia and Ukraine will continue probably for another three years. The end game here is if you look at what Larry Fink will tell you, you will own nothing and be happy. How do you achieve that? And then when you manufacture crisis, each crisis leads to concentrating wealth upwards. And then they want to make you happy. How are they going to make you happy? They can do that by giving you on a universal basic income. And so you reset the world order into multipolarity and build a. Every capital flow in the world is telling me that that's what's happening when you follow the money. People want an easy conspiracy theory of 300 people sat in a room in an organized cabal, there's no such thing as a democracy. Democracies are captured. Almost every government is subordinate to that capital structure. And so they created an operation called operation choke point 2.0 where they created companies that you could destroy to remove credibility. Manufacturer cris, take out all the banks that were servicing the crypto companies and replace them with Wall Street. No personal attack against Michael Saylor. He works for his shareholders. Strategy is doing what it was designed to do, which is create an arbitrage vehicle for manipulating the short term price of Bitcoin, for trying to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible.
- [02:00]
B
Welcome to the Macroscopic Podcast. My name is Alexei Jordanov and today I have the honor of welcoming Simon Dickson. Today is 25 June 2026. Welcome to the podcast, Simon.
- [02:12]
A
Thank you so much for having me Excited to be here.
- [02:15]
B
So Simon, first, since you're also for the first time appearing on our podcast, I would like to dig a bit deeper into your way of thinking, your philosophy, the way you see and perceive the world, so that our audience gets a better understanding on also your main ideas and main takes. So one of the first questions that I was actually wondering is it's a bit more personal. It's about, let's say, the episode where your father's pension was wiped out in the dot com crash. What did this teach you in that moment about the system we live in?
- [02:48]
A
Yeah. So I got into this game of following the money because my father, who, you know, was. He was born in 33, so he lived through the Great Depression and World War II, and he kind of made himself from complete rags to clawing up to becoming a millionaire through blagging. And. And then he lost it all at his retirement age in the dot com boom and bust. So he went through that whole cycle. And I remember what an event it was. He was looking back at his whole life saying, you know, I came from nothing. My father was a bus driver. There were seven of us, you know, seven of us lived off a bus driver salary. And I pulled my way out of it and now where is the money? And he asked me to answer that question because he just didn't understand it. He saw it as a digital entry on his stock brokerage account and then it was gone. And he was like, well, where is that money? Who made that money? What went wrong? You know, he didn't understand how markets fundamentally work. And that was 26 years ago. And I've obsessed over the topic of trying to answer that question. I think I've reached an answer, but I still obsess over it. And that kind of took me to academically doing economics up to master's level, realizing they don't give you the answer. And what I discovered is that the university curriculum is sponsored by those that have vested interests in deviating your attention away from the system. The same what I call financial industrial complex. So then I kind of went into not for profit work and started teaching people about how the banking system, you know, works. But this was after working in the banking system. So I got a job as a stockbroker, realized that my job was just to sell, say whatever you need to say in order to sell stocks. Then I decided how the markets work. So I worked as a market maker where my job was to manipulate the price of stocks in order to fulfill institutional, you know, investment banking orders. Then I kind of went into corporate finance, which was helping companies go public, and understood the whole game of how taking companies public is actually a vehicle for subordinating entrepreneurs and installing boards so that you can control businesses in order to maximize returns. After that game, I kind of got in for the not for profit world, realized that all politicians are owned by the same financial industrial complex. And so I was asking. This was around the 2008 financial crisis. I was asking bank politicians to change the system, but realized the people that were investigating the system were ex bankers that were sponsored by bankers. And so they ain't going to change it. So then I went around trying to create a bank. So I wanted to create a non fractional reserve bank called bank to the Future. And the bank of England told me that I could only build it on top of a bank that already was doing fractional reserve. So you couldn't have a model where you didn't leverage up client assets. So then eventually I found Bitcoin and then started investing in over a hundred of the different bitcoin companies. And then one by one they all became owned by fic because companies like Coinbase went from, you know, a small idea to help people get bitcoin to floating on the stock market for $100 billion. And one by one I realized all of the companies I'd invested in were subordinate to the same financial interest. And so that's kind of. So then I just started creating content, sold my businesses and started working or becoming as sovereign as possible and trying to help people understand how to sit outside the system so that this financial industrial complex can be not get any of your energy and you can boycott the system, you can sit outside the system and try and become more sovereign. So that's my. That brings me up to my 26 year journey of trying to answer the. Of where did my father's money go? One thing that was very fortunate is that I got into Bitcoin at $3 and I was teaching people own more bitcoin every month self custody, it run a node. And that obviously took my father out of dependency and I was able to give him the best life possible until he sadly passed away shortly after. Covid.
- [07:43]
B
Oh my sincere, well since condolences about that. And it's beautiful, it's a beautiful circle of life as well that you've been able to kind of tie back. You lost everything. You lost also quite a lot too, from what I understood during that bank to the future episode, I think was a quarter of a million pounds if I'm not mistaken, and unable to raise from your ashes. So you said one thing about the time that you had as a stock broker was about manipulating stocks or at least having an influence on the price. How did that exactly work?
- [08:22]
A
Yeah, so I was a market maker for small cap stocks on the London Stock Exchange in a market called the alternative investment market. And my job as a. Well, when I was a stockbroker it was just to sell stocks. But you used to ring through to the market makers and try and get them to fulfill an order so interestingly, the broker I worked for was the one my dad lost all his money in. So I managed to get a job there. But you know, my job would be someone would call, they'd want an order, I'd have to find the stock for them. So I'd call the market makers in London and they would have to give me a bid and an offer, which meant that they were obligated to always give me a price. Now when I worked as a market maker, I realized that there's meant to be these things called Chinese walls in the investment bank. And that is, you know, when, when you work in corporate finance, you're doing mergers, acquisitions, takeover deals, and the traders are not meant to know about that. The market makers, because they can build a position, manipulate the market knowing that a deal's going ahead. But every market maker knew about every deal. The Chinese wall failed. But also on the other side of that, there's what's known as a sales trader. So when Goldman Sachs needs to fulfill an order, because they're investing at such size, they need it to be a secret order that is fulfilled over time. And so the sales trader would contact me as a market maker and if I would take on at risk a bunch of the stock that he was trying to buy, then my job was just to push prices up and down until we could get people to sell their stock. And so you would create all these things that look like candlestick charts that people are analyzing, but the lower liquid stocks we were dealing with, where we could basically control the whole market with a few other market makers and often those market, the Goldman Sachs would leave orders with me and three other market makers and then you can see what they're doing. And there's these unwritten rules that you know, that you can push up a price at a psychological level where everyone will have their sell orders, that you can pick up a bunch of stocks and you can crash it down, hit their stop orders, and you would. This is the process of trying to get lots and lots of retail investors to sell their stock so that you can then give it to the institutional investor. And then the institutional investor could then publish research later, would then make it way to the media. And then the media would then be where the stockbrokers kind of fulfill orders for retail investors. So there's always institutions are always ahead of retail and market makers are able to play that game in order to get the stock for the institutions.
- [11:15]
B
So I'm curious before we go into the deeper side of it, because you've also mentioned about IPOs, how would you analyze then what we've seen as probably one of the biggest IPOs ever, the SpaceX IPO, and what interest it served. And how do you, from an insider perspective, see what exactly happened in the background?
- [11:35]
A
Yeah, so an IPO is kind of a mechanism of subordinating a company to the financial industrial complex. What you're doing is you're taking a business and you're turning it into a product. And that product is a share. And so those shares are privately held, but now they're going to be publicly held. And what that means is that it will float on a stock market. And our job would initially be to underwrite that offering, which is where we would get discounted stock. And then we would guarantee a certain amount of stock we had to purchase. And then we would go out to our network of institutional investors and try and sell it to them. But with it, we would construct lots of rights. And the more we could sell, the more rights we would have in the company, and the more we would sell. We would then have a vehicle for managing that, that if we got sold enough, we would then get a board seat. And when you've got a board seat, it means the executives that are managing the company have to answer to a board. Those boards represent the shareholders, and the shareholders have the voting rights. And so the game of investment banking is to turn as many businesses into products, get as many board seats as you can, and get as many voting rights as you can. And the best investment banks have the most board seats, the most voting rights, and are productizing as many of those companies as possible. Once you do that, you then own a piece of the business or proxies for institutional investors, and you have a board that fulfills your goals. And so the executives then work for you. And, and that's kind of the first thing. Then what you do is you load them up with debt. What you want to do is make it where the company has a bunch of debt. Because once you can use the debt capital markets and the equity capital markets, you can subordinate them further. Then what you want to do is you want to load the entrepreneurs and the executives up with options so that they are rewarded to follow the behavior that you'd want them to follow in order to get paid when those options become shares. And then what you do is you load them up with collateralized loans, you give them a loan against their stock that they personally own. Once you've done that, they are fully subordinate to the financial industrial complex and they can no longer speak freely they have fiduciary duties to their shareholders and their wealth is dependent upon compliance with these, these levers. In the kind of more larger companies that are connected to military contracts like SpaceX, where they depend upon Pentagon budgets and government contracts, that kind of goes into the deep state at that stage. And the deep state is where you have these blackmail operations like Jeffrey Epstein and MI6, CIA, Mossad operations in order to make sure that everyone is subordinate to your power structure. And then those companies, those deep state, they kind of happen via military companies. And those military companies are also subordinated to the same financial industrial complex as are technical companies. Now technology is becoming the new lever of power. Who owns the data, who can control the chips, who can send, who owns the control flows, what countries are sovereign and how do we co op them in order to allow for this flow? And so that is the game of investment banking. And if anyone goes against your agenda, then you have a network of short sellers, hedge funds and derivatives contracts that can destroy your value if you get off track. And so if Elon goes too far off track, you can destroy the value of his trillion dollar net worth. Because it's not a trillion dollars of gold that he can send anywhere without government permission. It's not a trillion dollars of Bitcoin that you can just send. It is a trillion dollars of net worth that is dependent upon compliance with the financial industrial complex. And this is the game of investment banking. You build all the products around it to subordinate governments, companies and individuals. And that is the complex that I call the ficc, the financial industrial complex.
- [16:12]
B
So let's break it down a little bit and also make it a bit more concrete. I'm also interested in to do how you perceive the evolution now, where, where this, where did this, this fig started, this financial industrial complex started? Who are the biggest actors and what are their interests at the end of the day?
- [16:30]
A
Well, it started where, where you're from the Dutch Empire. And so the Dutch Empire created the three pillars of this, which is the central banking system, the private limited liability company. And then you have the government which is the piggy bank. So you use the bond market and the equity market to tokenize or securitize every company. You then use the government in order to subordinate them to bondholders through the debt capital market. And then you control the money printer that creates all the money, the central banking system which effectively is owned by the banks. And those banks create currency every time they issue a loan. Now the Dutch Empire created that. And so the mechanism is to leave all the people with the debt through the debt markets where they pay the yield. And then you transfer the government's value over to the private corporate interest, which was the Dutch East India Company. And then you use their military and their naval fleets in order to steal resources from the world. And you do that by having the strongest fiat currency and inflating away other people's currencies. So you destroy the country through currency wars. And the gold standard was a mechanism for making sure that the Dutch guilder had the strongest currency while you invade other countries through the strongest naval fleet to steal their resources and put them over into the Dutch East India Company. Now what happened with that is that the Dutch Empire started to outsource the labor to the British because they were the cheap labor. And then the British learned from the Dutch and then they created the bank of England, the British East India Company, the largest naval fleet in the world. And then they bankrupted the UK government. Once they fully bankrupted the UK government, World War I happened which needed the Federal Reserve. So then we transferred all the value over to the American Empire. The Federal Reserve was created and then you had the private interest was the military industrial complex.
- [18:50]
B
Sorry, why did they, why did they. The Fed was a product of then the World War I. Why did they need the Fed specifically? The Fed, I mean the US was not even that important back then. Why the Fed specifically?
- [19:01]
A
So central banking is a mechanism for bankrupting governments, transferring all the value over to private public partnerships. And the best mechanism for doing that is war. And so if you can, if you can manufacture war, then you have the ability to fund both sides of the war. And then the winner is the one that accumulates the assets from the loser. And so if you look at World War I, you basically had the Federal Reserve was created in 1913. Then Wall street set about funding different ideologies. During World War I, Wall street funded the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia which overthrew the Russian Tsar and replace it with the Western Marxist ideology called Communism. So the Soviet Union was born out of a revolution and that was funded by the same forces that created fake capitalism in America through a debt based Ponzi scheme called the Federal Reserve System. And so those are, you know, if you look back at it, the German central bank, Rice bank was also the governor was one of the brothers of the Warburg family, which was the same person that was the governor of the Federal Reserve. And so what came after World War I is that you created Communism. You created the capitalist model that transferred from the British Empire to the American Empire. And then you engineered after, during that war, you then had, remember the Balfour Declaration, which is where the war the Rothschilds declared Israel. You know, basically what became Israel. And the Rothschild families got from the British government the commitment to create a Jewish state. And that Jewish state happened in 1917, the same year as the Bolshevik Revolution, in order to acquire the resources on oil from the Middle east and from Russia. And so the resources they needed was to fund continue the Industrial revolution with oil. So they installed communism in Russia and they used Israel to create a militia group to destabilize the Middle east so that they can steal all the oil that was needed and partner with Middle Eastern countries. That was World War I in a nutshell. Then you had a pump and dump cycle where you get everyone to lever their assets leading up to the 20s, and then the Federal Reserve rug pulls the system and you create a great depression. You confiscate all the gold, which was 1933, and then you fund fascism. And so Wall street funded Hitler. And so what happened, actually, if you look at it, it was very interesting. When Hitler invaded a country like Czechoslovakia, he would call up the Reichsbank, the Rice bank would call up the bank for International Settlements. The bank for International Settlements didn't store any gold. It used the Swiss Central bank, the bank of England and the Federal Reserve to store its actual gold. So then the Rice bank would call the bis. The BIS would then call the bank of England and say, hey, that gold is now owned by Nazi Germany. And so the bank of England would store the gold for Nazi Germany while fighting a war with Nazi Germany. So that kind of tells you the craziness of it. And then it was that gold that propped up the system that funded the further expansion of the wars. And, and so, you know, and then, you know, who was the war? It was basically Russia and Germany. Russia lost 20 million people. And then you fund basically the next order. And so as a result of that, if you look at the reason I covered that story is because the bank for International Settlements was set up for one purpose. It was to take Germany's debt and manage the reparations that Germany needed to pay from World War I. It was signed in the Versailles palace, exactly where Trump signed the MOU with Iran right now. And the debt was priced in gold. So Germany needed to repay gold. And the only way to repay gold was to print the currency that they controlled at the German central bank. That created hyperinflation, it created the degeneracy of the Weimar Republic. And then that led to an uprising where Hitler arrested the Rothschilds and launched his own central banking system and a labor backed currency that kind of paid, that was a resistance against the Western banking system. But then Wall street managed to fund it and then infiltrate it with the bank for International Settlements and basically confiscate the gold that then led to World War II. And then the winners of the war rewrite history, make it out like it's something different. And then we set the next world order. And that world order was imf, World bank persuading every country to stop converting that currency into gold and instead convert it into dollars via the IMF and then the imf. And then the promise was that if you did that, you'd get a loan from the World bank denominated in dollars, which would then destroy the currencies of everyone that took those loans. Because then you'd launch a currency war. And then, and, and then, but the, the promise was that the dollar will all be, always be backed by gold. So then they said they launched the Cold War, the Vietnamese War, the Korean War, the Vietnamese War, bankrupted the US Government. They came off the gold standard, assassinated King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, then went into the petrodollar, forced them to price in dollars. But the difference was that they had to reinvest it in US debt. And then the yield in the Federal Reserve System would purchase equipment from the military, and then America would set up a base there and that set up the petrodollar and opec. And now we're at the final stage of the bankruptcy of the petrodollar. And so we closed the Strait of Hormuz in order to reset the world order and break the petrodollar and move to the next order, which is what the FIC is repositioning for right now.
- [25:41]
B
You also argue that the power shifted as well at some point from a military industrial complex to the financial one. When did that, in your opinion, what you just mentioned, really occur? And who were the most important actors?
- [25:55]
A
So really complete dominance happened around 71 with the coming off of the gold standard. That's when the FICC financialized, securitized and privatized everything to a massive, a really big degree. But really the FIC were always in charge through the central banking system because they got to create the fiat currency to steal resources. In a Ponzi scheme, there's never enough interest to pay off the debt. So you're always rolling over the debt until the government's bankrupt. That's the game. And you do it slowly so people don't notice it. But really with the creation of the bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund, and the World bank, that created the construct of transnational capital that sits above governments. And so governments were subordinate to transnational capital through bondholders, companies were subordinate through the equity capital markets, and people were subordinate through borrowing to create fiat currency through the banks. Now what was really interesting is the bit that defined that was having the strongest currency backed by gold so that others would destroy their currency and you could weaponize currency wars. Now what happened in 71 is we it came off the gold standard because everyone wanted their gold instead of dollars. They wanted to exchange their dollars for gold. And so America defaulted on that promise. And from that moment, we entered into needing to engineer a covert war to make sure that there was constant demand for U.S. debt and U.S. treasuries. And that was the creation of the petrodollar. That's why you needed the regime change in Saudi Arabia. And George Bush set up a covert operation called Safari Club. And Safari Club groomed people like Osama bin Laden that led to nine, eleven and various other CIA assets that would create all the wars in the Middle east that would then lead to the forever war model and everything that we're kind of resolving and reversing today. But the idea was that if you price oil in dollars, you then need to reinvest it in government debt. That government debt would fuel the military industrial complex, but by having the most stable currency, everyone would need to lend it to the US Government while they launch wars against your currency country. And then you would be forced to spend those dollars back in the American stock market. And then that would be tied loans that would lead to military bases being set up in your country because you either get regime change, subordinated, a dictator installed, or you're able to negotiate and do what Saudi did. Set up something like the petrodollar. Now this all functions as long as the dollar is going up in value. Once people stop having faith in U.S. treasuries and the banking system stops using U.S. treasuries as collateral, then that weakens the dollar and reverses all the chain. And so people end up going into gold or the central banks because they don't want to hold Treasuries, you end up having wars that lead to reasons like confiscation of Treasuries like happened to Russia, and then the whole trend reverses. And this is normally engineered by the FIC because they control the mic. But what actually really created transnational capital dominance to the hyper concentrated degree we have today. It was the coming off of the gold standard and then that led to the financialization and securitization of every company. And, and then from that the, the, the FIC was able to think of the world in terms of global rather than nationalistic. And so they then built up China, built the world's largest manufacturing base and through globalization built China's wealth, which is actually national wealth because China's actually controlled by the government, one of the only countries in the world that's controlled by the government. And so they can't penetrate China. And so as China grew, the order changed. And now that brings us to where we are now, where the military can't, even the American military can't produce a weapon without China. And so, you know, we end up in a changing order at that stage.
- [30:42]
B
I'm not sure if you've ever came across this book of David Graeber, depth to last 5,000 years. You probably read it,
- [30:49]
A
what's it called,
- [30:50]
B
sorry, the last 5,000 years from David
- [30:53]
A
Graebner also I haven't actually read that one yet. It's on my reading list.
- [30:57]
B
I would highly recommend because in this chapter there's something that I think would really also tie in a lot of what you're talking, talking about. And this is what he called the military coinage slavery complex. And he used this example with Alexander the Great, who through his conquest would require I think half a ton of silver daily to pay his army. And funnily enough as well, I didn't notice, but the world soldier itself actually is derived from solidus, which is the gold coin used to pay the troops. So then the idea was that he funded this like the cost of conquering, let's say Persia, so the Persian mines, then forcing enslaved war captives to actually then mine and extract those precious metals to then mint in those billions into coins. And wherever those coins then would be used by the soldiers, they would create economies locally. And this would be like the self reinforcing cycle which today, if you would make a parallel to this in a much more sophisticated way, could be said about the dollar, right. And about what you just said about the depth slavery process of tying people, if it's executives or if it's entrepreneurs or if it's countries on the nation state level. And also now through the digital sphere with the stablecoins, which we haven't talked about yet, but which would be maybe the next iteration of a much more sophisticated global scale. But today I also want to maybe make it more practical. The fic, the Financial national complex is governed by which players today? Is it BlackRock and the other big three or is it much more complex than this? How would you describe this?
- [32:41]
A
Yeah, a lot more complex. So the central banking system, the western central banking system has its own jurisdiction in Davos and so the bank for International Settlements. Depending on the GDP of your country, you become a larger shareholder in BIS through your central bank. So the largest shareholder in BIS is the Federal Reserve. But as you manage capital outflows, you can change the GDP of a country. So America has gone from like 70% of global GDP to about 25%. And so the Federal Reserve is becoming less and less powerful in the BIS system over time. Then you have different types of systems. So I mentioned China. So China is a member of bis, but it is a nationalized central bank that is owned by the government and it has state banking, mini banks, community banks. And so there's thousands of community banks in China, which is a fully nationalized banking system. So the control PBoC and the banking system is fully nationalized in America. On the extreme, the Federal Reserve is owned by the banks and the banks are private companies that are all public. Those public companies receive constant flows of capital via passive investments. Those passive Investments are mainly ETFs, pension funds, endowment funds and foreign capital. And so the owners of those banks as public companies is managed now by ETFs and asset managers. Because now 50% of the stock market is ETF investments, exchange traded funds. So who manages those ETFs? Well, the largest managers of ETFs is BlackRock, State street and Vanguard. Collectively they manage approximately 25, you know, trillion dollars of assets. BlackRock about $14 trillion of assets. Now they then partner with countries that were able to maintain their own resources. And so a country like Saudi Arabia, uae, Qatar, Norway, Singapore and China, they all have the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world. And so they get a seat at the table co investing with the financial industrial complex. But they represent their own because Saudi is an absolute monarchy. And in an absolute monarchy that owns its own resources, it has the, the money is, is owned for, you know, for the benefit of the country. It's not private like the Federal Reserve system, it's not CCP nationalists like the Chinese system. And so when you look at those systems, the financial industrial complex has partnered with sovereign wealth funds. And then the central banking system is the mechanism for trying to get more resources and change those games. So every war is, we're in a constant state of fluid capital that's changing power Right now Middle Eastern power is on the rise significantly as a result of the closure of the Strait of Hormis. Even though it appears that it's declining, it's actually growing significantly as a result of this. And so it's fluid capital in a ruthless game that always tries to have people that are trying to gain more power. And so the FIC changes over time. An example is with the rise of the petrodollar in Saudi Arabia. The partnership with China where China became the largest purchaser. America going to an energy exporter that completely changed the petrodollar dynamics and therefore Saudi got more power. And then what did they do? They floated, remember through the investment bank part of Saudi Aramco, 1 to 2% of Saudi oil production. Then that gave them leverage with the investment banks in order to get a board seat on BlackRock. So the CEO of Saudi Aramco became the CEO of BlackRock, I'm sorry, became a board member on BlackRock. So now he can represent Saudi interest. So now the company BlackRock that manages has 20,000 board seats on every major company and can manage a portfolio of where the war is, when the war goes or not through managing technology like Aladdin. Technology is their AI technology that sovereign wealth funds use, treasury departments use, central banks use, pension funds use. You can scenario plan with BlackRock's technology. If the Strait of Hormuz is going to close and Iran retaliates and these central banks start buying gold, what's the ideal portfolio in capital allocation? And so capital is plugged into the same system that then coordinates via ETFs and capital investments, capital flows. And those flows is where you try and get leverage. How do I get more power over capital flows? And that's the game and that's a constant state attention. People want an easy conspiracy theory of, you know, 300 people sat in a room in an organized cabal. To a certain degree there are powerful people, but that changes all the time. So you know, this is the flow of capital. But almost every government is subordinate to that capital structure. And so people think that they control the system by focusing on the government. When in reality the government and the politicians are owned by lobbies. And those lobbies are different powers within the capital structure, whether it be finance, military, technical or other type of big pharma lobby interests. And so people are just distracted, constantly thinking change a politician, change the game. No, they work for the same power structures that have funded both sides, all sides.
- [39:23]
B
So I mean there's so much I want to peek in terms of Direction now. But if we now look at the situation more precisely in the uk, with Keir Starmer resigning a few days ago, a lot of things happened actually that week, last week, almost on a daily basis. How would you say that this changed in anything? Because you just mentioned that while the players change, but the system kind of does its thing. Anything in the case of the UK in general, like where it's headed.
- [39:57]
A
Okay, so let's pull over some of those concepts and then bring them into the particular case study, the UK at the moment. So firstly, there's no such thing as a democracy. Democracies are captured. They are politicians that say they work for the people when they work for the lobbies. And the lobby system is a pay to play system. You know, you auction off tasks to politicians, and if they fulfill lobby tasks, then they get more money. And when they get more money, they become more compromised. As they become more compromised, they rise to power more. So Keir Starmer was a node for the military industrial complex. He rose to fame as a lawyer. And as a lawyer, he worked with military and deep state actors to try and take down Julian Assange. Julian Assange was creating a portal where they could leak government documents. And those government documents exposed the military industrial complex for the million civilians that they killed in Iraq and all the children they murdered and all the crimes against humanity that they committed. And Julian Assange allowed people, insiders to whistleblow and share what was really happening in these wars. That's a problem. And so Keir Starmer was part of an operation to claim that Julian Assange was a serial rapist. And then they tried to take him out and put him in prison so that they could get the keys that would then take down WikiLeaks. So he proved his value to military contractors in that process, that it was only recently that Julian Assange managed to get free. But by that time he had already risen to power. That's an example. When you look at his networks now, it's best to think of governments, the way people describe Iran regimes. These are regimes. They're not governments, they're not democracies. The media is fully captured as well. The media is there to perpetuate the narrative that the power that pays for all the advertising needs to be portrayed. And they're owned by the FIC as well. And so media is a mechanism for projecting power, for manipulating people into an alternative reality. We all experience that, right? We were in Covid and we were watching the tv and every day we were being paralyzed into not leaving our house because we were being told that we would be a grandma killer if we left our house and didn't wear a mask and didn't do social distancing. And every day we had a clock that was saying how many people we were killing. And it is our fault unless we get a vaccine. And if we leave our house, then it's our fault. That was the highest degree of media manipulation. And then we were showing death in, you know, deaths all around the world. And that we would kill our grandma if we leave our house. That was to traumatize the people into compliance with an operation that was funded by the CIA. Even Tulsi Gabbard said that this was funded via leaks to, you know, to Fauci. And Fauci was funding the lab in Wuhan and building bioweapons. And so, you know, that's an example. But one day, just one day, the death count has stopped. I remember the day incredibly well. And suddenly social distancing didn't matter. There were protests around the world and suddenly protests were okay. And we were told, oh, by the way, yes, everyone's vaccinated. Covid's not a problem anymore. That day was the day that Russia invaded Ukraine. And all of a sudden the media machine switched. No death counter, no social distancing, no problem with COVID nothing. And suddenly we were all told that we need to defend democracy and we are the defenders of democracy against the next Hitler, which was Putin. And so the media machine comes into full kilt and there's regime changes that happen. If you look at the uk, we had Boris Johnson, we had Rishi Sunak, and then we had Keir starmer. We've had seven different regime change over the last 10 years in UK. I don't live in UK anymore. I left UK. But there were seven different regime changes over that 10 year period. And each one of them served a purpose. The Boris Johnson was your lockdown guy and you can follow the money and see the allegiances that he was tied to in terms of big pharma. Rishi Sunak was one of the largest investors via his family trust in vaccines and Medova, the company that benefited from the vaccines. And then when we needed to regime change and he was an ex Goldman Sachs guy. And so when you need to regime change, you basically take their compromise and you expose it. And so you. They're all blackmailed. You know, that's how they come into power. That's how they were selected, not elected. And then the media machine makes you think that you voted them in and then every time they don't serve power to the next agenda, they get regime changed so that people know your regime change happens if you don't service power. So then we had Keir Starmer. And Keir Starmer was a node of the military industrial complex. His job was to make sure that we believed that we need to send all our money while the country is being destroyed. Homelessness is at record highs. Suicide rates are at record highs. Drug addictions are at record highs. Inflation and wealth inequality are incomparable in terms of recent matters. But we need to send all our money to defend democracy in Ukraine. And so billions is printed. We had Liz Truss regime change by the bank of England. In between that destroyed the bond market. And the bondholders put in Keir Starmer. We just had another one of those. But Keir Starmer's job was to play into the Ukrainian narrative, which is a money laundering mechanism for printing money at the bank of England, printing money at the European Central bank, allocating it across to these war zones in Ukraine, and then recycling up to prop up military industrial complex sales and stock market valuations. And then that is, you know, and then there's corruption in between that pays off people. And then they use the media in order to paint Putin as Hitler for as long as they can. Because what did hit, what did Putin do? Peter Putin arrested the oligarchs that wanted to nationalize all the resources of Russia. Sorry. That wanted to privatize all the resources of Russia. He arrested them and nationalized the energy. And therefore he needed to become the next Hitler in the eyes of the west through the media. And so they make a. What you'll get is probably another three years because there's another trillion dollars to be made. They'll fight to the last death of the last Ukrainian. And then eventually Ukraine will be given to Russia and BlackRock. And who was the number one funder through IMF collateralized loans? The bank of England. And so the bank of England ends up with the land, the resources, as will the imf, as will blackrock, and as will Russia. And so they just carve it up, get some of the. Negotiate the rare earth minerals into the technical industrial complex. And as long as you believe the media narrative that you're fighting democracy, then they'll keep going until the last Ukrainian is dead.
- [47:58]
B
And so now if we look at then the EU as a construct. Yeah, you want to say something additionally or.
- [48:05]
A
Sorry, I forgot. Yeah. So we just had the regime change today. Now, what were the operations that were happening behind the Scenes. Well, the big next agenda is so we had military industrial complex, then financial industrial complex. The next one is the technical industrial complex, the tick mcfic tick. So tick are the controllers of algorithms, the controllers of AI, the controllers social credit scores, the controllers of programmable money through stablecoins as well as the technocratic rebuild of the central banking system through central bank digital currencies. It's all about data. It's all about ensuring that you've built your social credit score by continually talking so that they can put you in a, in an algorithm and then they can radicalize you into the most extreme version of you. And so whether it's a white nationalist movement, whether it's an anti immigration movement, whether it's a pro Palestinian movement, whether it's Jewish rights and Zionism, whether it's extreme left identity politics, whether it's far right identity politics, they need to put you in a box and feed you with constant content that turns you in to the most hateful and radicalized version of you that looks to an other while they simultaneously manufacture civil unrest. And they do this mainly with racial tensions, immigration tensions and you know, policies that make you always look at. All I need to do is change a politician because this is their fault or the reason that I'm broke right now is because of those immigrants taking my job. Now this is a business model of war, rebuild demographic change, mix up, shake up and monetize strategic tensions. This is what has always happened. Remember, this is why you fund communism, capitalism, fascism, have a cold war profit from war. Now the military is turning into a technocratic state. There's a battle between legacy military and neotechnical cybersecurity drone, artificial intelligence warfare, AI powered, you know, weapons. And so that is controlled by, by Pentagon rather than funding the Legacy Lockheed Martin, General Dynamic, Raytheon, Google, Apple, Facebook, XAI, SpaceX, you know, Nvidia. And so these are the new, the new tools. And so what is Keir Starmer? Keir Starmer's job was to create extreme dissatisfaction so that we can then have a white nationalist uprising into something like Reform Party or Nigel Farage or Rupert Lowe. And they then say they speak to, they're funded all by the same power structures, but they then speak to the dissatisfied, broke homeless white nationalists that think if only those pesky Muslims weren't in our country, then everything would be fine. So then they vote for them. In the meanwhile, they're stirring up civil unrest through algorithm and the solutions already built. It's the Palantir pre crime police and Surveillance state with pre crime arrests based upon social media scraping integrated into a digital ID and central bank digital currency that siphons value back up to the tic, the MC and the FIC and transnational capital again and transnational capital all mate in Beijing with Trump as their representative, where Xi Jinping was basically meeting with the executives of TIC and FIC in order to set this global technocratic Orwellian social credit score. Central bank digital currency stablecoin, artificial intelligence powered global control grid. And what do you do? You divide and conquer. So what does the FIC do? They asset strip America and send the world into multipolarity. And that's what we're witnessing right now. Global financial centers, multipolar financial centers with a global control grid over it. Tick FIC and then you have MIC that goes out and you can rent transnational capital, can rent the US military and say go get me that Venezuelan oil. That's how the world really works.
- [52:58]
B
And so if you look at the developments also like now more precisely in the UK with the Online Safety act, for example, that bans the access of social media, we had also early on I think a proposal from denmark within the EU to scrap actually WhatsApp messages and encrypted messages to quote unquote, flag against pedophilia and these kind of things. Those are all the narratives that are, I guess if I follow your reasoning and logic actually going to serve this tick the technological industrial complex and to from one side effect and stripping you just mentioned and assets from people where they become the asset. As you, I think mentioned a few times before when your previous interviews and this is maybe the part I want to get into and perhaps take then the Bitcoin example as your Bitcoin as well, one of the OGs and kind of explain how did this financial industrial complex was able to capture Bitcoin throughout the last years and what mechanisms did they use to do so? And where is Bitcoin actually headed as an asset then if it's already been captured?
- [54:11]
A
Yeah, so to close off the whole UK thing. So UK has been manufactured for civil unrest. The technology they're deploying in the UK was already beta tested in Gaza and so what they're looking to build in Gaza as a technocratic surveillance state nightmare is the most extreme version of what they're bringing back home now. Then they beta test it on UK and Europe and then it comes to America and then they privatize it through America because everything is private corporate structure through private public partnerships.
- [54:48]
B
And there's Been Palantir in that case or which company?
- [54:51]
A
Yeah. So Palantir was funded by DARPA and the CIA venture capital arm and it's been building for decades in order to build this now. It tested genocide as a service in Gaza, it tested occupation as a service in west bank, it tested pre crime arrests integrated with healthcare data and Department of Defense data. In UK it did the ICE integrated border, open border, closed border policy from Biden to Trump in US and much of the European Union targeting and in Iran it was used in order to determine and in Gaza who to kill effectively. It was integrated with drones in Ukraine and it is the personification of digital technology for killing people and managing civil unrest and arresting people before they commit their crime based upon pooling together all the data feeds is why the Department of Government Efficiency was set up to get all that data into Palantir and Xai. It's why Elon Musk always focuses on Israeli funded Tommy Robinson and the white nationalist uprising in uk. It's why he funds those types of things. Because Elon is a tick node. He works for tick power and he's subordinated to FIC and he requires mick government contracts and he's levered to the kilt in his net worth so he gets to play trillionaire if he complies. And so yeah, getting back to uk. Yeah. So that's the next is civil unrest, digital ID testing. Let's use social media. They'll, they'll, they create, they create ops. And I'll go through two ones because one that relates back to where we started, Netherlands, where this whole thing started, Dutch Empire. You know, you are in the asset stripping phase by FIC when you get tax policy that doesn't make sense. So if you, for the life of you can't figure out what you do is you make extreme wealth inequality where the majority of people become more socialist and communist. You then have kind of demographic changes that then create extreme tension with the natives in a time when they're trying to blame someone for their extreme wealth inequality. Because the FIC has taken, you know, concentrated wealth upwards and, and then what you do is you asset strip the country for its key assets. The way to do that is you create a tax system where people have to sell their assets in order to pay their tax. Now it makes zero sense because what happens is all the millionaires and billionaires let leave. So most of the millionaires and billionaires there was a match of exodus and from the UK over to UAE and then they set up corporate structures where they can own their assets, exempt from those tax policies as they leave the country. So when you're trying to asset strip a country, what they do is they, they, they lobby the power. The, the narrative appeases to the more socialist communist ideology of it's unfair, we need to tax the billionaires. They then think that's going to lead to tax increases, but it reduces tax revenue. Then you have the justification for IMF interception, austerity, lowering of benefits, increasing of taxes because your tax is reduced while having stagflation, where you're having inflation at the same time as growth that's going down and down and down. So you decrease the growth, you increase the inflation, you increase the taxes on the people that remain. You send the millionaires and billionaires into another jurisdiction and then the corporates are exempt from that tax structure by using elaborate tax structuring where corporations are exempt through organizations like BlackRock and you contributing to your pension. That is how you crash the market for distressed acquisition by private equity in the uk. That's what's happening right now. And then you use the bank of England to roll over the debt for as long as you can. Debt to GDP goes up and up and up and up and up. The debt remains on the people. The FIC receive the yield on it. And then you pump that into the stock market. It's why the UK stock market is at highs as is as it is in Europe and various others. At the same time as being in one of the worst economic positions in the multipolar world that we've seen. That's asset stripping. The same is happening. And so what, when you do things like tax on your assets, you then make it where everyone has to sell their assets in order to pay their taxes or borrow against their assets, which makes them a collateralized debt obligation for the fic. That's the asset stripping phase. Europe is being systemically asset stripped. And that's why the war with Russia and Ukraine will continue probably for another three years. Because that's how you justify reallocating all of that investment. Not into productive infrastructure, but dependency, energy dependency. And then military. And you're seeing like Volkswagen in Germany is now becoming a military industrial complex. You know, all of the factories are being repurposed while they're forced into LNG contracts with American private corporate interest. And they're being told that they need to sanction the only country that can help them, which is Russia, that can give them cheap LNG while simultaneously they're buying renewable energy inputs from China and America's now selling them the energy. So this is systemic portfolio management where you hedge your bets, you use derivatives to profit from both sides and then you use your portfolio of companies in order to manufacture the narrative that is needed. This is a classic divide and conquer operation. And that's why Europe has the stocks are doing well, the debt is going up, but eventually it will lead to austerity, removal of benefits and the distressed acquisition. And in your case in Netherlands you have one of the key nodes of the AI infrastructure which they want, they want to acquire it. You know, that's a very important part of the whole AI chip manufacturing, ASML part of that structure. I think you wanted to talk about Bitcoin. Sure. What was the question again?
- [62:22]
B
But then maybe like if we are already on this topic, because it's also tying in what you said, it was also what Funderlein brought up, I think almost a year ago about the savings and Investments Union, the siu, which would actually then be a way to funnel the European savers money into different programs and different funding schemes, one of them being the funding EU defense and the rearm Europe 2030 program. And that kind of really then goes hand in hand with what you just described. Tying that to the Dutch situation. And I think that's what you're referring is what the parliament for the first time now issuing what in Europe would be the first ever and dumbest maybe policies of all, which is the 36% tax on unrealized gains. I think you also had something similar now that has been introduced in the UK with not unrealized gains but taxes on retirement funds and stocks. So we see that those bricks that are being laid down slowly and as you mentioned is more and more what also some of the guests at Interview Francis Hunt is mentioning as yeah, like governments going into scavenging mode for your hard earned money and building this panopticon type of infrastructure to actually keep control over what flows in and out of that system through this digital idea as well.
- [63:54]
A
Absolutely. And so to close that one, the end game here is if you look at what Larry Fink will tell you who's the interim CEO of the World Economic Forum and the CEO of BlackRock is that you will own nothing and be happy. Is that famous thing, right? How do you achieve that you will own nothing by inflating the cost of living crisis where anyone that's got assets has to sell them to live. Anybody that's got assets is managing them through the financial industrial complex and blackrock you tokenize them all so that you end up with a token and they end up with the asset in custody. And then when you manufacture crisis, each crisis leads to concentrating wealth upwards. If you manage to get on the right, right side of that. They want to manage your assets for you so they get the voting rights through the ETFs and then they want to make you happy. How are they going to make you happy? Well, they can do that by giving you on a universal basic income. And so they'll sell Elon saying universal high income, you don't need to work, we'll give you AI that will get the costs of everything down. But if there's no jobs, we'll put you on a universal basic income and you can live in a utopia and you can rent everything from us and you will just pay, you will be given enough universal basic income to pay the interest on the debt to make sure you can buy the products we want you to buy. But it also needs to be programmable so that we can penalize you for spending money in the wrong direction or spending money and reward you for spending money in the right direction. And we can manage monetary policy by making it where you don't own a house, you have to buy Elon Musk's $7,000 electric house. And you don't own a diesel car, you own an electric car vehicle where if you don't comply, we can shut down your car. And so everything is about controlling the choke points to ensure compliance. Because when you're creating this level of wealth inequality, you know that the biggest risk to you is the people uprising in a communistic socialist movement that takes away private power over to those that think communism and socialism is a good idea. And that then needs to be where you either wait for it to happen or you manufacture civil unrest in a controlled environment and build the control grids. So that's how you will own nothing and be happy if they achieve their plan. Now that ties nicely into bitcoin. And I know that people are very mixed around bitcoin. The reason is, is because it's digital. And because it's digital, it plays into those control grids. And so those that love, that realize you need to exit the system. If you want to hold an asset, you've only got a few ways of doing it. One of them is cash. What's the problem with cash? It gets devalued over time, so you lose your purchasing power. But it's nice for short term expenses if you're, if you happen to not lose all your value in the time before you spend it the other is gold. Gold has preserved its value for 5,000 years. Its suppliers only increase at an average of 1.5% to 2% historically. But most people, when they need to store it at scale, end up giving it to Blackrock and they end up with paper gold instead. Or they end up with a tokenized version of gold, which is you will own nothing and we'll hold the gold for you.
- [67:48]
B
Or you buy a physical gold, that gold republic, and we store it for you on your behalf.
- [67:54]
A
Correct. So then you need to come up with a mechanism for storing your own gold, or you come up with the best type of custodian, where you think they'll give you your gold under the set of legal protection and all sorts of stuff, but it's still difficult. And most people end up storing their gold with someone else under the best set of circumstances where they think they may be able to get that gold in case they need it. And that's the best you can do. Or you have a safe in your house, you earn your own gold and you're autonomous. The downside of that is at scale, it's a big risk and most people can't do it. And then you don't have to pay the fees to store the gold so you don't lose value there. Right. So bitcoin then basically said you can own your own value, but it's digital, you can send it to whoever you want as long as you self custody it. And the monetary policy is enforced by a decentralized network of miners and nodes that can never change it. And so therefore, you know, they'll only ever be 21 million. Bitcoin. People lose it over time when they lose access to the keys. And so effectively 20 million bitcoins have already been mined. There's only another million to be mined. And so you can plan out the monetary policy anytime into the future and know that more and more people will probably lose those Bitcoin because they lost the key or died or didn't plan how to pass it on. And so it is a fixed supply. Now where did bitcoin come from? You know, what, what is the construct? Well, it is open source code, which is an anonymous developer released a white paper called Satoshi Nakamoto and a bunch of developers came around and started being involved in coding it. The early developers were people like Hal Finney and Gavin Andreessen and various others. And anyone can mine those bitcoins, which is geographically distributed around the world now with countries that hate each other. Iran is the largest sovereign Bitcoin miner with nuclear energy mining. Bitcoin UAE is another big bitcoin miner. Russia is America has about 20 different public companies that collectively manage 40% of the hash rate. China has 21% of the hash rate by companies in China. And then it's geographically diversified all around the world, so that network can never be taken down. And it is now the largest distributed supercomputer that exists in the world today. It is also the rules are enforced by anybody that wants to run a node. And it's cheap to run a node. As long as you self custody your bitcoin, you can connect it to a node and then you can verify your own transactions and you can store the entire history and you can contribute to enforcing the rules whenever any of the coders try to change it or the miners want to push and signal a new change. And there's 25,000 of those nodes around the world run by anyone that wants to run one very, very cheaply. And that's 25,000 sovereign people that can control their own value, send their own value, and know that the monetary policy will never change. But it is digital. It does rely upon energy. And so there are choke points. And people look at choke points and say, okay, so Satoshi Nakamoto, this anonymous person, created bitcoin. Why? And you can theorize, I don't know. I've got my own theory of why. But if you go back to that time, there was a movement to try and create digital currencies from the cypherpunk movement. One of those attempts was Digicash. Digicash was created by a guy called David Chom. And David Chom was in Netherlands teaching at a university. Two other cypherpunk cryptographers, one was called Len Sasserman. Len Sasserman was assassinated. What? Sorry, let me correct that. He killed himself and allegedly committed suicide.
- [72:15]
B
He got suicided.
- [72:16]
A
Well, again, my belief, I want to be respectful of the dead and his family, but he allegedly committed suicide one month after the developer that Satoshi Nakamoto handed the project over to, Gavin Andreessen, met with the CIA one month after Len Sasserman lost his life. And so did Hal Finney, the first one to ever mine a bitcoin and contribute to that. Gavin Andreessen, is still alive today, but he went off into another project. He forked off bitcoin and tried to create an alternative version of bitcoin and left the bitcoin community. But the point is, I personally believe that Satoshi Nakamoto was Len Sassaman. There's significant evidence to that effect and I believe that it was created from his mentorship by David Chom in Netherlands. And Hal Finney was the one that most likely was involved in the coding, while Len Sasserman probably released the white paper. Len Sasserman and Hal Finney are no longer with us today. But what was David Chom do? David Chom and Digicash was shut down because they tried to create private transactions on top of the banking system. And because the banks could shut off the choke point, they were able to disappear that project. And I personally believe that they set about iterating through Central Intelligence, stablecoins and central bank digital currencies as digital currencies. And I believe that Len Sasserman may have been involved in that project and he released the white paper as a breakaway movement from those digital currencies and digital fiat currencies that are now stablecoins and CBDCs and released the white paper as a rogue agent from that project because otherwise he was. I don't think it was meant to be open source code on a decentralized network with node operators where anyone can run a node. And that's the antithesis to the digital currencies that are currently being confiscated like Iran's stablecoins you can call tether and have them frozen. And Scott Besant did it. And so I believe it was a breakaway movement with many, many infiltration attempts to try and bring the project closer to centralization. And because I was involved in 2011 when Bitcoin was $3 and got to meet many of those developers and was invited to many of the early squats where Bitcoin coders were working on the code. I've seen many, many of the infiltration attempts by Central Intelligence to try and infiltrate the network and still those exist to this day. But Bitcoin I believe has maintained and preserved its resistance against those and still is open source code with a distributed supercomputer, the largest in the world, that the rules are enforced by anyone that wants to run a node. And now anyone can own their own value still today in self custody, send it to anyone they want without a government, without a bank. And the money supply I still believe will never ever change.
- [76:06]
B
What about the privacy though? Because Bitcoin is pseudo anonymous and we've just talked over a long period of time about how the financial industrial complex is also operating in nodes and chokepoints and exchanges being one of those. And you've just mentioned you've invested in dozens of these companies that have been over, financialized, captured by also Wall Street. We'll talk about this in a bit, but I want to get your perspective on exactly this particular aspect. The fact that people hold Bitcoin. I hold Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the reason why I got into finance. But a part of holding it and all the features that you just described, there's for now not much more I can do because it's locked either in a wallet or if in some cases an exchange which is not recommended, but it doesn't really move and it can be traced through KYC AML procedures. People can kind of know, okay, who owns what on the chain, which shouldn't be really like the original idea was that it's kind of an open garden where people only see wallets, but they don't see who are behind the wallets. So what is your then conclusion to that? Is there like maybe another layer on top of Bitcoin that will solve this or is this not a problem to you at all?
- [77:21]
A
Yeah, so the on ramps and off ramps mean that whenever you engage in fiat currency, you have to play fiat games, which is kyc, AML and all that stuff. But I can send my Bitcoin to anyone I want to and no one can stop that now. Law enforcement exists. I still need to play within the confines of the law. And if I break the law, I break the law and I need to face all the consequences of that. If somebody wants to steal my physical value, they can try and steal it. You know, that law still exists within these confines. But part of the benefits of self custody is that there's a couple of other features that you get where you can run a node, you can also use a coinjoin, and that's completely legal. And one of the first bits of technology that the developers worked on was coinjoins, which is combining transactions with millions of other transactions so that you can have private transactions. And then the next was to set up layer two where you can take the value that you want to spend rather than save and you can transact in a layer two network like lightning. And this is the path that the open source community has taken us down. And if you want to obfuscate your transactions in coinjoins, as long as it's legal in your country, you can do that. And at the moment it is completely legal to do that. So it doesn't circumvent the law, it allows you to control your rails within the legal system that you decide to live in and operate in. And you can't change that Remember, sovereign, I often talk about there is complete subordination on one side of a spectrum, and there is complete sovereignty on the other side of a spectrum. My life has been going from complete subordination to as much sovereignty as I can get. I still live on an island which still has a government and we have a community. And I need to play within the rules of that community, of social behavior and social consensus. And I need to pay the tax and my contribution in the community that I live in. And if I don't play within the confines of the rules of this country, I have to accept the full consequences of the jurisdiction and the legal system by which I live in. I'm still subordinate to the social contract with my wife. I still may have a business that has shareholders. I still may have some money in fiat currency, which means that part of my wealth is subordinate to the bank. And I fully expect them to give me all sorts of problems every time I try and spend it at scale. These are all subordination vehicles. And my in your job and my job is to wake up every week and say, if I take that action, am I more subordinate or more sovereign? And who am I subordinate to? And how do I move towards sovereign in that aspect of my life? And that's the job. And but nobody is fully sovereignty. If you believe in God, then you are subordinate to the rules at which God governs the world, whatever it is. If you are atheist, you are still subordinate to those structures of what you think you know, the rules are of the world. And so all I'm saying is that we are all subordinate to something or someone, but some are completely subordinate debt slaves. That's what the financial industrial complex wanted to create. The concept of debt was originally a mechanism for getting somebody using their labor to repay the debt. And so you actually could use them as slaves and they could work off their debt. It wasn't what we ended up creating a slavery in the west, where we actually took Africans from their island, destroyed their currency, shipped them in chains over to here and say, you are mine. Originally, slavery was the concept of you took out a debt and you couldn't repay that debt. So you were able to work off that debt through your labor and your body. And originally it led to industries like prostitution and all sorts of stuff, because women use their bodies in order to pay off debts. But it was working towards a debt of becoming free from your slave master. It was only the Europeans and the Americans that created a version of slavery where you literally just take people in chains and say, you're mine with no possibility to work it off. You're owned by me. That was a different version of slavery. And so they replaced that. When slavery became illegal in most countries, they replaced it with debt subordination which is make you a collateralized debt obligation where you earn just enough to pay off the interest and you work your whole life just to pay the interest. And as you progress, you take on more debt and pay more interest and you do that forever. That's the slavery that they created to replace the European and American version of slavery that they did to the Africans.
- [82:51]
B
So I want to bring it back to Bitcoin so if I resume it properly, the sense of privacy in that sense that you have through Bitcoin is not as important as the, let's say ability to transact between other addresses or like from. From me to you or from anyone and thereby makes me like gives me a vehicle to operate within different systems where I will be subordinated through a system of choice. Is that, is that a correct way of regaining it?
- [83:26]
A
If I'm willing, if I'm willing to remove all my subordination vehicles I. E Not hold my Bitcoin with a custodian, not hold it in the exchange self custody. It run my own node and use a coinjoin wallet connected to a node in self custody. I've got fully private transaction and I can send that to a lightning wallet and spend it in complete privacy within a layer two network. I know that's a lot of geeky things there, but if you want to be, if you want to be sovereign, then bitcoin offers it. If you want to have paper bitcoin in a BlackRock ETF where Coinbase custody is it and leverages it up and creates more paper bitcoin than bit than actual Bitcoin and you want to be subordinate to BlackRock Coinbase Fidelity and you want to give Larry Fink power, then you can be fully subordinate and own Bitcoin. But the minute you want it private in self custody where you can send it to anyone, that all exists but
- [84:30]
B
you will still be flagged. If you mix it even with coin joints, there will seem it will be marked. It will be marked as a. Yeah.
- [84:37]
A
So when you go back to the fiat currency world, you have to pay fiat currency gains. And so if you want to spend that as fiat currency, then you're back to the same rules where whatever you spend in convert to fiat currency, they'll want to know how you achieve that wealth and whether you achieved it legitimately. And so when you off board into fiat currency spending, then you need your documentation because you're in fiat currency world. But the mo when you want to stay out of fiat currency world, you stay out of fiat currency world. If you use a coinjoin and you can prove that you received that value completely legitimately in the fiat currency world, then you can spend it.
- [85:22]
B
Hotel California. Sorry, Hotel California.
- [85:28]
A
Yeah. And remember, this is about building sovereign wealth outside the system where you don't have to answer to DTC, BlackRock, any, anyone, any custodian. And then when you want to spend it, if you've got significant value because of the fixed supply and you've had a long enough time frame to play out that theses, I can't guarantee it will happen. Not financial advice, but you can go wherever you want. You can go to the country because the value comes with you. Whereas they want you to have subordinated wealth, wealth and a job that is connected to geographical boundaries. And therefore you're stuck in that country and subordinate to their system. With a physical business, a physical job in the physical world, with physical debt in that structure, this goes wherever you want it to go.
- [86:29]
B
Talking about this, so this is the sovereign Bitcoin and then there's the Wall Street Bitcoin, which is Michael Saylor Treasure Companies. And maybe perhaps like a bit of context about also how the ficc, the financial Dasher complex then is trying at least to reign in this sovereign Bitcoin that we just described. How would you then like paint this picture?
- [86:54]
A
Okay, so the FIC doesn't mind two types of people, but they don't want the third type. The first type of person that they don't mind is broke people in debt with freedom of speech. They don't care. You can yap away. You can talk about Epstein, you can say whatever you want. Some countries you can't. Others you can, you can complain about everything. You can say that Trump's a pedophile in Epstein network. Whatever you want to say, they don't mind as long as you're broken in debt, you keep yapping away. Freedom of speech is no threat to their power. The second type they don't mind is wealthy people that are captured by the system. Elon Musk, you know, is a, is a extreme example people where they've got collateralized wealth in DTCC owned custody structures where they're.
- [87:57]
B
So what is DTCC is the.
- [88:01]
A
Is basically you don't own your shares. So if you own a share, you own basically a claim from the broker that you own that share that Broker has a claim against DTCC which is the central clearing, which is owned by the brokers. So it's all promise that you own that share. But in the, in the bankruptcy process, in the breaking of the system, DTCC owns the share, which the broker then owns a claim against DCCC and you own a claim against the broker. So your layers removed from your share, but you don't own them, you just log in and it looks like you own it. Same with gold in custody. You log in and it looks like you own it. But what legal ways do you have to get it? And that's the contract, right? So it's subject to the contract that exists. Same with bitcoin in custody. Any of these custodians, so they don't mind you having all your wealth in custody with collateral, using it as collateral so that you're leveraged with lots of equity that they control and debt and very powerful and very high net worth so that they manage your net worth for you. They don't mind as many of those as possible and they'll capture as many of them where you're on the same team either through shared interest, leverage or blackmail, whatever they need to do, depending on how powerful you are and what game you're playing in. So they don't mind those types of people. What they don't want is people that are free to speak with wealth outside the system, that are willing to speak against the system and reallocate capital and actually drive people to taking capital either away from here or galvanizing these people. Those are the people that they don't want. And so wherever they were, the biggest uprising in those came from the gold community, the cash community and the bitcoin community. So they said about eliminating the cash community by making everything digital banking, centralizing all the gold through central banking. And now they want to do the same to bitcoin. And so they created an operation called operation choke point 2.0 where they created companies that you could destroy to remove credibility. Manufacturer crisis, take out all the banks that were servicing the crypto companies and replace them with Wall Street. So then you got the birth of the finance, the FIC players like Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan creating options markets, derivatives markets, perpetual markets, Silicon Valley invested in all the companies. The companies that were willing to be co opted became public and subordinate. They took a bunch of the bitcoin miners and tried to make them public companies. They then took key people and co opted them. They took a model like Michael Saylor and Bitcoin treasury company to create vehicles for using financialization, arbitrage and securitization to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. Larry Fink and all the others created ETFs where they hold the Bitcoin and you get a paper version of Bitcoin. And then they started to create subordination vehicles through Cantor Fitzgerald by creating Bitcoin backed loans. So you have to custody your Bitcoin with them and then they give you some fiat currency so that you don't sell your Bitcoin, but they hold it for you. And then they created companies that did that. So they went around and took key bitcoiners and said, hey, why don't you put your Bitcoin in a company? Well then take the company public and then you can take all your businesses and reverse merge them into this public offering. They did that with David Bailey, with Adam back, with Jack Mallows. And then you could take key parts of the infrastructure and get them within the FIC control grids. And then they would try and make it where you own a Bitcoin ETF instead of Bitcoin. You would then be incentivized to borrow against your Bitcoin. So you were leveraged to them and you hold it in custody. You would buy a Bitcoin treasury company instead of Bitcoin and and then they can build out their hedge fund network, derivative network and use strategy as an arbitrage vehicle for trying to create an environment of controlling the short term price of Bitcoin using paper Bitcoin just like they did with gold. Now in the long term they can't hold that resistance because it costs a lot and cause systemic risk because eventually people want their physical gold, physical Bitcoin or cash out of a bank. And that creates a run structure on the custodians, the leveraged institutions and the banks. And so you just need a long term game. So what don't they want? They don't want you being a long term investor where you own more Bitcoin in self custody every month. Instead they want you speculating on alternatives. They want you engaging in perpetual futures. They want to turn you into a degenerate gambler. So Silicon Valley funded all the alternatives to Bitcoin and created foundations and created alternatives, models like proof of stake rather than proof of work where they can control it based upon staking. They created the degeneracy industry of meme coins, NFTs alternatives to Bitcoin, Bitcoin hard forks. They infiltrated developers to say let's create divide and conquer within the bitcoin community. You create one that's optimized for cash, they create one that store a value. We'll create a fake version of, we'll create a fake version of Satoshi Nakamoto called Dr. Craig Wright and then we'll get Epstein operatives like Brock Pierce in order to try and infiltrate and invest in company. They did everything they could because they want you wealthy, under their control or with no bitcoin, a degenerate gambler. But they don't want you bitcoin in self custody running nodes through coinjoins where you take some of your fiat currency every month and take it out the system and you build wealth outside the system with a 10 year, 20 year, 30 year plan in order to be sovereign and the exact type of person they don't want. And so they attacked them and many people fell for it. And so right now They've got approximately 3 to 4 million bitcoin in FIC vehicles and the rest of it is still in self custody. And fortunately bitcoin was designed as proof of work which means owning the coins doesn't allow you to control the network. You can leverage them to control the price in the short term, you can't control it in the long term, but you can, you know, you can try and use it to leverage price short term to get people to sell their bitcoin so that they end up with as much bitcoin as possible. And that's exactly what they're doing today. They're using financial engineering to get as much bitcoin as possible, suppress the price so that you get impatient and you sell it and they end up with the Bitcoin or you get margin called and they end up with the bitcoin or you end up with a Wall street wrapper instead of bitcoin.
- [96:00]
B
So now in the case of Michael Celia and strategy, what is now the situation exactly? Because a lot of speculating, oh, this model is now falling apart, the house of card is collapsing. There will be forced to sell bitcoin and so on and so forth. What is your then view on what's going to happen next on that question particularly?
- [96:25]
A
Yeah, I think most people have this one wrong. I'm not a shareholder in strategy and I never will be and if I ever change that, I'll disclose it publicly. And none of the other ancillary financial vehicles around the company as well. Strategy is doing what it was designed to do, which is create an arbitrage vehicle for manipulating the short term price of bitcoin for the hedges and Jane Streets and appointed representatives into the Bitcoin etf. And the goal is to issue as much debt, as much equity and as much structured products to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. And strategy is doing that. And it and it has convertible debt, it has preference share and equity, and it has a structured product and a number of structured products that allows you to arbitrage and centralize as much Bitcoin as possible for the fic. Now most people are focusing on the wrong thing. They think it's going to go bankrupt into chapter 11 and go into a death spiral. Why would FIC want to do that? They got the perfect vehicle for trying to capture as much Bitcoin in there as they can. And strategy is perfect for it. Whenever stretch trades at a discount, you can increase the yield and you can manufacture a narrative that they're going to sell the bitcoin. You can sell some bitcoin and crash the price and then buy it back cheaper. You can dilute shareholders by selling more equity and buying more bitcoin and decreasing their Bitcoin per share when it's trading at a discount or increase their bitcoin per share when the equity is trading at a premium. You've got the perfect arbitrage vehicle for trying to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. If I were fic, I'd keep that going for as long as possible and I'd try and get as much of the debt, as much of the preference and as much as the equity within an etf. So I'd use the ratings agencies to try and get Saylor to say, you do as we say and you'll be included in the S&P 500. You don't do as we say and we'll subordinate your net worth. And then you have to change your behavior in order to change the levers so that you eventually, when the price of bitcoin comes back up, you're including in the S&P 500. And then we'll give you access to the passive flows so that BlackRock becomes the largest shareholder, which Jane street was it's hook, line and sinker strategy. I would keep that alive for as long as possible. And if you look back again, no personal attack against Michael Saylor. He works for his shareholders. His shareholders have board members. He has to do. He has to maximize by fiduciary duty the value of the company for his shareholders. And public companies are subordination vehicles. So he works for fic. And FIC can destroy the value or increase the value in order to change his behavior, to centralize as much Bitcoin as possible. It's the perfect vehicle and you resist by not buying it, by not participating. This is the beauty. We get to boycott the system. You boycott the Federal Reserve System by owning bitcoin or gold. You boycott the custodians and BlackRock by owning it in self custody. You boycott the banks by not borrowing against it. You boycott Silicon Valley by investing direct into localized businesses that build decentralized structures, that fight against their centralized structures. You know, you boycott this centralizing agenda by working on more community structures, more decentralization and building wealth outside the system. So what is it? In the end, it's a boycott vehicle. And it doesn't matter what the price is, because the lower the price, the more fiat currency allows you to buy more bitcoin. So you measure your wealth in bitcoin, measure your wealth in gold. As the price goes down, you get more of the gold or fiat or bitcoin for your fiat currency. As the price goes up, your power within the fiat currency, wealth net worth increases, which allows you to exert more influence from without, from outside the system.
- [101:07]
B
And how does the stablecoins tie into that? Because until recently the Genius act was actually solidifying certain regulations and laws around this. Also a lot of people celebrated the Mina regulations in Europe and all that. But eventually what it does, it's kind of like how I see it is kind of a CBDC disguised under a dollar or just put a different shape to it. But it is de facto's vehicle as well that could enable then those power dynamics to actually get hold on the dollar, which is a synthetic dollar. Actually on a global basis where countries that do not have, well, let's say better currencies than the US dollar, which is the case of many countries that are underdeveloped, would then also be then this grid of control and influence that the dollar can expand on globally. How would you analyze this development?
- [102:11]
A
Yeah, exactly. The stablecoins are just a privatized cbdc. Different rules, different beneficiary, but plays into the same fit control grid. So the CBDCs play into the central banking biz system and they're building a network of CBDCs that connects UAE, China, Hong Kong, Saudi Arabia and Thailand via the Enbridge project, which was created from the bank for International Settlements that circumvents Swift. The Swift system is a CBDC that the Fed has already created for wholesale settlement called FedNow on a blockchain with nodes on top called stablecoins. And so stablecoins will then be integrated with CBDCs so that you can create divide and conquer as you transition away from the dollar dominated world. You have two control grids, you have the network of CBDCs and you have the dollar programized stablecoin. So while Enbridge was building the network of CBDCs from the bank for International Settlements, the Fed and the FIC and the Tick were building stablecoins via Silicon Valley. And if you look back at where did stablecoins come from? It came from a Jeffrey Epstein connected guy called Brock Pierce who was in 2014 infiltrated the Bitcoin foundation, sent for, sent it bankrupt, was the chair and then handed over power to the Bitcoin innovation, sorry, the Blockchain Innovation Lab called bil, which was part of MIT that later was headed up by Gary Gensler, the head of the SEC who was under the SEC during Operation Choke Point 2.0 where the only person he met from our industry was Sam Bankman Fried. But he created a stablecoin that later was rebranded as Tether in 2014 and sold to a company called Bitfinex. And Bitfinex then built out this network of stablecoins that later Alameda Research and FTX under Sam Bankman Fried connected Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate bank and Signature bank via an alternative payment rail. Stablecoin who took down Silicon Valley Bank? Peter Thiel. Peter Thiel came up on a space and said I'm withdrawing my $19 billion of deposit and every startup should do as well. Peter Thiel was the one that was connected with Jeffrey Epstein, communicating via email on how to destabilize the bitcoin community. Split them up into store of value, median of exchange and unit of account. Divide and conquer. Peter Thiel was the one that invested in Blockchain Capital, which was Blockchain, which was Brock Peer's VC fund that later then invested in Coinbase and Blockstream and various other companies. Peter Thiel is the one that took down Silicon Valley Bank. Peter Thiel is the key node in the technical industrial complex. Peter Thiel, Jeffrey David Sachs and Elon Musk were the Paypal mafia. The Paypal mafia that were connected to the founder of LinkedIn, Reid Hoffman and the Digital Garage that were trying to invest via Founders Fund in many of the bitcoin companies that later became controlled by the fic. Peter Thiel has now launched his own bank after Silicon Valley bank that uses blockchain technology. The stablecoin was always the goal. Len Sassman was the resistance against that project that released the Bitcoin white paper and open sourced Bitcoin in a decentralized network run in force by nodes. Because what was digicash? Private stablecoins that depended upon banks banks stablecoins depend upon banks that then buy Treasuries and those treasuries are lent back to the government much like the petrodollar. It's a mechanism for enforcing the treasury backed system. So what did the FIC do? They co opted the Trump administration said that America will become crypto valley and crypto center of the world and created Genius Act. What did Genius act do? Genius act gave any bank that has reserves at the Fed the ability to use those reserves as collateral to issue a stablecoin. The largest reserves are J.P. morgan, then J.P. morgan, bank of America and Citigroup lobbied as well as Coinbase being co opted by Larry Fink. And the company that I created, bank to the Future ended up being sold to Coinbase which then created tokenized securities which is now lobbying for the Clarity Act. Clarity act and Genius act combined give an advantage to banks to issue yield. So then one of the companies I invested in called Kraken in the early days has now got a banking license so that they can issue stablecoins and they're now part of fic. And that's what those operations were to centralize and create a digital dollar that is privatized and programmable, integrated into Palantir's artificial intelligence and Elon Musk's social credit score. That the FIC allowed Elon to borrow against his Tesla stock to buy X gave everyone freedom of speech but not freedom of reach so that we could all talk and be radicalized into the version of ourself that the algorithms control and set our social credit score. And they were all Peter Thiel. David Sachs became the SAR of the Trump administration for pushing forward the AI and crypto policy.
- [108:55]
B
How about Cambridge Analytica back then? What about Cambridge Analytica? Because it's kind of like what you described as well during the Brexit. Is that in the same ties or like what's the story behind that?
- [109:06]
A
Cambridge Analytica was an AI tool for manipulating media to control using the tick in order to control political outcomes. That was used by Facebook. And what was Facebook? Facebook coded a project called Library which was a StableCoin and that stablecoin was then sold to Silvergate bank that created that network that connected Signature Bank, Silicon Valley bank and Silvergate bank into FTX and Alameda Research. The board members of FTX were Sullivan and Cromwell, the bankruptcy chapter 11 lawyers. Were Sullivan and Cromwell. Sullivan and Cromwell were the main lawyers throughout history for the CIA, Mossad and MI6. And FTX was used to launder money via this network to Ukraine for the corrupt part of it. And Scott Besant, when he wanted to target the Iranians, he launched a currency war to destroy the value of Iranian's currency and then confiscated the stable coins. But Iran ended up with the Bitcoin but not the stable coins. Starting to make sense. Stablecoins and CBDCS was always the goal. And Bitcoin was the breakaway open source movement for those that wanted to resist against the digital control grid that Elon Musk paid $250 million to the Trump administration to Craig. And who did? Who groomed J.D. vance, Palantir and Peter Thiel. J.D. vance is not his name. He was magnificently given a VC capital of 50 million by Peter Thiel and was politically funded 15 million by Peter Thiel. And we're being told that he's creating peace in Iran because he's being groomed for the next president because we've moved from MIC to FIC to tic and all of Trump's policies, Department of Government Efficiency, give all the data to tick tariff policy, split the world up into multipolar world and support China. Epstein files crash the dollar in terms of its credibility and all the mechanisms that propped up the dollar in the deep state closure of Strait of Hormuz and war with Iran reset the world order into multipolarity. And what happened right before that? All the executives of TICK and FIC meet in Beijing with Xi Jinping and Xi Jinping said, yes, Elon, you will be able to get access to your rare earth minerals provided you play ball. Yes, Tim Cook, you will be able to manufacture your iPhones in China provided you play ball. Yes, These are a MasterCard. As the CBDC network takes away control from the Swift network, we will allow you to charge fees by integrating into the SIPs network. Yes, Nvidia, we won't buy your chips, but we will continue to create our own version via Huawei that does it 10 times cheaper at 90% of the efficiency. And yes, Trump, we won't sell our treasuries to destroy your bonds and lead you into quantitative easing and having to purchase yields again. Yes, Trump, we know that you've got derivative contracts that far supersede the amount of gold and all the gold is in Shanghai. Yes, Trump, we won't engineer or burst the bubble of the AI Capex that you're currently overspending into. And Release another deep seq moment that destroys the valuations until you've managed to get all the money you need to build out the AI data centers and build the control grid. And yes, the second we want to rug pull that, the Fed and PBOC can do it in a second. We control the market. PBOC and the Fed and the BIS control the market and they're splitting up the world and they can rug pull it the second that they want. So they're engineering via ETFs, capital outflows into emerging markets. And the moment to reset the world order closed the Strait of Hormuz, which required cooperation from America, Iran and Lloyds of London in order to close it. Because in order to get the insurance, to get a shipment through, you need guarantee by the IRGC they won't target you, and you need guarantee by America that they won't target you. On the other side of the blockade, Lloyds of London control the game. And so you reset the world order into multipolarity and build a global control grid. Every capital flow in the world is telling me that that's what's happening when you follow the money.
- [114:45]
B
Well, it was a lot to process, Simon, but I'm glad that you laid this out and I think it's crystal clear. So I think in the coming conversations that we will have, we'll be able to dig deeper into some of those pockets. I want to thank you for your time, for your knowledge, for, for all your explanations and being able to put it so clearly as you did. You also have a YouTube channel that I advise people to follow. You're also very active on X Twitter. Is there anything that you want to share to the audience as a final thought?
- [115:26]
A
Yeah, I try to go with real time analysis on XYZymandixon TWIT and I commit to once a week going live on and following the monetary flows and trying to make predictions or analyze what I got wrong every week in terms of, you know, under this model and sometimes that takes like two to four hours. So then on my blog, SimonDixon.com, i plug it all, you know, into AI and my team creates five minute videos, 20 minute videos and text summaries and documents under, you know, completely free, all of this, there's no sponsorship, no, no business agenda, no upsell, no monetization. I just want more and more people to be sovereign. So I created that within SimonDixon.com for those that don't have the time to go through these really long rants. And then I also upload any interviews I do like this 1 on Simon Dixon, 21 on YouTube.
- [116:24]
B
Again, thanks a lot, Simon, and I hope to be able to follow up with future interviews with you very soon as well.
- [116:31]
A
Okay, thanks for having me.