Plundering the Crisis Economy with John Titus

crimes ever in this episode of Unlimited Hangout we hope to help dispel some of that ignorance with the 2008 economic crisis. The unusual relationship between the Federal Reserve and BlackRock began with Blackrock becoming a government contractor and informal quote, unquote advisor to the Treasury Department. At the time, concerns were raised at this new role in the public sector for Blackrock would imperil

taxpayers. As the asset manager was likely to place its main driver, generating profit for its private sector shareholders over positive outcomes for the public and the Treasury, even when those concerns were proven right just a few years after the crash. That didn't stop the government from again turning to Blackrock during the next major downturn after 2008 that downturn, while often framed as beginning with the declaration

of covid 19, as a global pandemic in March 2020. Had really begun months earlier in September of the previous year, when the repo market went haywire, forcing the Federal Reserve System to intervene. The Fed's intervention, little did the public know had been conveniently designed by Blackrock not long before the repo market started to go crazy.

That Blackrock design policy, known as going direct, would begin well before covid, but would use the pandemic as cover to execute the largest wealth transfer in our nation's history. Yet very few Americans are aware of the scale of this more recent theft, particularly because the media, including much of the independent media that railed against covid era, policies, either declined to cover the story or remains unaware it even happened with major politicians now claiming a

major US debt crisis is on the horizon. Today, we turn to the person who broke the going direct story, John Titus, to explain what Blackrock has done and what it will likely do

during this apparently anticipated next downturn. We will also discuss the manufactured bank consolidation wave that began with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and how Blackrock covid era antics have enabled that, revealing how many of the economic calamities of the last few years were intentionally created by those who successfully sought to consolidate control over both the financial services industry and the public sector entities

that ostensibly regulate them. John Titus is the founder of the best evidence video channel found on YouTube and other platforms. He is also a frequent contributor to Catherine Austin Fitts Solari report, where he co hosts the money and markets podcast. Also, as I alluded to a moment ago, he is the original author of the expose that revealed the Blackrock designed

going direct policy during the covid 19 crisis. And has also forensically exposed a variety of financial crimes committed by Wall Street and the Fed, often in tandem over the past several years. Welcome back to unlimited Hangout, John. It's great to have you today.

story. I think the person who actually broke it was Pam Martins of WallStreetonparade.com, what I did was was, was explain the connection between Blackrock paper dealing with the next downturn in 2019 and what subsequently happened both on the Fed's balance sheet and on banks balance sheets, and that's something that I was out there alone doing, because so many financial commentators and so many monetary commentators insist to this day that

quantitative easing is merely an asset swap, meaning it stays in the banking system at the wholesale level when that fact is incorrect and has been refuted by the Federal Reserve itself, and it was refuted in the wake of the pandemic. Anyway, we can get into that when the time comes. Let's talk about BlackRock. Though BlackRock, like you say, is the world's largest asset manager, to be clear, they are. A bank, they're a financial institution. They're they're those two

entities are different. Banks are materially different than non banks. Non banks are include you and me. When we lend $20 we reach into our pocket, we pull the $20 bill out, we are dispossessed of that money when we lend it, we kind of kind of lend on the piggy bank model. Banks don't do that. When a bank lends $20 whether it's a commercial bank like Bank of America, or a wholesale bank or a central bank like the Federal Reserve, they don't they don't reach into their pocket to get

the money. They create that money out of thin air and lend it out against an asset, and that is where Blackrock comes in. So BlackRock, technically, yeah, they were involved with the Treasury in 2008 but their real role in the pandemic, when, when they when Blackrock went big time, was when the Fed created out of thin air, and immediately, as soon as the pandemic began, the Fed basically ginned up $5 trillion

of reserves out of thin air and bought assets. And when they did this in early 2020, through the next six or eight weeks, the Fed bought assets from non banks, and that was new during the global financial crisis. 2008 2009 the Fed, pretty much was bailing out banks, and it was buying assets from banks, not from non banks, but in 2020 it started buying all these assets

from from non banks, and that was Blackrock's plan. So So in August of 2019 at the biggest Federal Reserve conference of the year in Jackson Hole Wyoming, which is hosted by the Kansas City Fed. BlackRock has a paper called dealing with the next downturn, and in that paper, Blackrock says, hey, you

know what? There's going to be another downturn, and when there is Federal Reserve, you're going to need to buy assets from non banks, which is a departure from what the Fed did during the global financial crisis of oh 809, because you're going to need to inject money, helicopter money, they called it into the commercial banking system, and lo And behold, a month later, the New York the overnight repo market in New York begins to

melt down. The New York Fed intervenes. It begins buying assets from non banks, and that continues through January of 2020 up through March 2020 of course, in March of 2020 around March 10, the World Health Organization declares a worldwide pandemic, and the Fed immediately goes nuts and says, You know what, we gotta, we gotta buy all these assets. Now, what the Fed did not say when they made the announcement in connection with the pandemic was, we're gonna, we're buying

the asset from non banks. But that's what they did. And you can see that very clearly. I've made video after video after video of that showing that the Fed was buying money, buying assets from non banks, which had the effect of for every dollar the Fed bought in assets, it also increased by $1 the amount of money in the commercial banking system going into the

pandemic. If you added up all the checking and savings accounts in the US, the commercial deposits, there was 13 and a half trillion, when it was all said and done, topped out at $18 trillion that was the Fed's asset purchase program, and that was managed by BlackRock. BlackRock was brought in by the Fed to manage the purchase of assets. The Fed signed a waiver saying, oh, you know, it's no problem. You can actually buy BlackRock. You can, you can order us to buy your own

assets. Isn't that great. So you, you're buying assets that you own with, with, with money that we created. A thin air. You buy your own assets. What a sweet our deal. And no problem, because we're signing a, you know, a legal waiver to let you do that. So it really wasn't like a theft in terms of, it was a bank robbery with a gun to people's heads. It was really along the lines of Blackrock had big time insider knowledge and leveraged the living be Jesus out

system of reserves and of money, of retail facing money. And I think when you talk about the repo market, it might, it might be helpful for listeners that are maybe coming in from, you know, knowing things are messed up, but don't exactly know the mechanisms. Here, it might make sense to do a brief overview on, you know, the creation of reserves and how private capital, you know, money creation is sort of. Innately,

this private, public partnership. And you know how the Fed and Treasury make reserves, commercial banks make money, and then what the repo market actually is, and why the repo market exploding in September, you know, six months before lockdowns. You know why that's that's sort of important. So is that? Is that too broad of a question here? But did you mind just kind of going over, yeah, take it away.

from. The Fed buys assets from primary dealers, and so you so if you went to the Fed, even if you could go to the New York Fed, say, who'd you buy the asset from? They're going to give you a list of 24 primary dealers, and that's not really

who they bought the assets from. Um, anyway, let's talk about, let's, let's talk about the two tier system, because that's the more important component, and that's what distinguishes pandemic quantitative easing, what the Fed did during the pandemic, from what it did during the during the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis, banks were in trouble. Okay, all the banks, I don't care. I don't care what JP Morgan says. JP Morgan was as dead broke as the rest of them.

That whole notion is just a lie. Jamie Dimon is actually the first video I ever made was October 5, 2013 called bankster baseball, where I show that JP Morgan was just as broken. Jamie Diamond's line of Congress, they were all broke the banks. And so what the Fed did then was they bought assets from banks. And when do you do that? Banks don't use checking and savings account like you do. They have special tokens with the Fed. You and I,

bank at commercial banks. Banks don't do that. Banks, Bank at the Fed. The Fed is the bank's bank, and the Fed to help people do their banking with the Fed. They don't use like checking savings accounts. They use reserves. They just consider reserves like tokens. And so when the Fed was buying assets from JP Morgan and Citigroup, what the Fed was do was create, say, a billion dollars of these tokens, these reserves out of

thin air, give them to the banks. Give them to JP Morgan Chase or Bank of America, and in exchange, the banks would hand over an asset to and mostly it was two thirds. Roughly it was two thirds treasuries and 1/3 mortgage backed securities. And that made the banks liquid. Okay, because there wasn't a lot of asset trading at that time. That was one of the problems was

that the markets had seized up. Everything was liquid. Well, reserves are highly liquid, but that swap there of reserves for assets stays within the banking with within the banking system. At the wholesale level, there's no effect of that transaction at the on the commercial deposit level, your bank account doesn't go up, my banking account doesn't go up. There's no the money supply at that retail level is unaffected by the Fed's

purchase of an asset from a bank, okay? But now you go to the pandemic, and the Fed is no longer it's not buying assets from banks. Banks aren't the ones in trouble, like you said, Mark, it's really, in theory, it's businesses that are in trouble because they're being shut down in practice, not so

much. But the point either way is in 2020, the Fed begins buying assets, not from Citigroup, but from non bank, institutions like, say, Tesla, you know, big, big or or from hedge funds, that would be another non bank, financial institution. And when you do that, when the Fed does that, because say, let's just call let's just say, I use Tesla as an example. Even though I don't, I have no way of knowing whether they bought assets from Tesla. I'll use Tesla as an example.

Tesla does not have an account at the Fed. Okay, so, so how does the Fed go to Tesla and buy an asset? Tesla doesn't have an account at the Fed. They can't accept they can't the tokens don't mean anything to the Tesla. They're like, Chuck E Cheese tokens. The Tesla's like, what? What is this? So the way that transaction works is, no, seriously, that's, that's, they don't have an account of the Fed,

sheets need to drum roll balance out. And so when that liability is created at Wells Fargo, it takes the form of a $1 billion credit to Elon Musk's bank account or his checking account at Wells Fargo. And now everything balances out. Elon Musk got rid of his $1 billion asset in exchange, he now has a billion new dollars in his Wells Fargo account. So Elon's all

checked out. He's all squared up. Wells Fargo is squared up because it's got a billion dollars of new reserves on one side of his balance sheet, the asset side, it has $1 billion of liabilities in the form of a new $1 billion credit in Elon Musk checking account. On the liability side, and the Fed's balanced out because it's got whatever a billion dollar asset it got from Elon Musk, which is in the custodian of which is BlackRock, and it's got a billion dollars of liabilities,

called $1 billion of reserves. So every it's a three way transaction, and that is the essence of pandemic. QE, I wrote, I did video after video of it. And finally, the Fed wrote a paper saying, yeah, that's, that's, that's how things work when we buy assets from a non bank, and that's what went on, and that's, that's what drove, as I say, the bank, the money supply in the banking system from 13 and a half trillion to $18 trillion that's where your inflation came from.

All these other bogeymen they point to nonsense. It came from buying assets from non banks. And Mervyn King, the former head of the Bank of England, threw the Fed under the bus and said, Yep, that's the Fed's fault for buying assets from non banks. Wow, interesting. And that that's, that's what you need to

know. Because what it means is, if it's for, insofar as Blackrock is concerned, it means, okay, well, they're managing a ton of assets, and we don't know how many, but they're, you can rest assured, the world's largest asset manager was brought in because they're going to be managing, you know, pretty much the world's largest QE program ever. Number one, number two, as I said, they fed signed a waiver allowing Blackrock to take both sides of a trade. So what's to

prevent Blackrock from investing in Tesla? Right before they go and plunk, you know, a billion dollars in the Tesla stock answered nothing blocked them to do that. You know, there's the conflicts of interest bound up in this are just amazing. But yet it went forward with very little scrutiny or, and I must say, very little understanding by people who write about financial matters. That's what, that's what got me stop saying this is just, they're stop saying this an asset swap.

That's that's the answer that you would say every time, like, well, there's not gonna be inflation. It's just an asset swap at the wholesale level. It's like, No, it's not an asset swap. It's a third, three way transaction involving a non bank entity that has the effect of mirror, mirroring and

replicating the creation of reserves. So if you create a new a billion dollars of new reserves to do an asset purchase from a non bank, you are, by definition and necessarily, also creating, in parallel, $1 billion of new bank money in the banking system. So stop saying it's merely an asset swap. And yet to this day, I see renowned financial writers parroting that very line, and it's completely false, and the Fed says it's false. It's unbelievable. Yeah,

Blackrock were buying their own ETFs within this program. And I think that maybe would be a good opportunity to kind of talk about, maybe, like, what an ETF even is, and why this is sort of dominated, you know, since oh eight, when Blackrock actually bought the iShares brand from Barclays after they denied a

government bailout, you know. Now, you know, the ETF is kind of like the most popular vehicle for investment, because it's such a it's such a great opportunity for these managers to basically just index and just create a pricing mechanism and then sell, you know, shares of something that they don't actually have to really do too much underlying work for. So,

yeah. So, so why has the ETF kind of exploded? We can get into bitcoin stuff and whatever, but, but really, Blackrock went from, you know, not, not messing with ETFs at all, you know, and, oh, wait, to now being the largest ETF manager in the world. And I think the ETF mechanism plays into some of this stuff. So maybe just kind of overview it, yeah.

you know, in the electronic car, ETF, or whatever it is. And so it really is expanded the participation of retail money in the stock market. But notice that it's, it's being managed by

professional money managers like BlackRock. And so it has the effect of it to me, it's, it's really a control mechanism more than anything else, because if you look at, if you go to the 10k filings that every, or even 10 Q filings, but certainly the 10k filings of companies that are traded on the stock exchange, you know, every, every year, they have To make file annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and one of the parts of the annual report is called

proxy statement, which includes a statement of beneficial owners. And so you can go company by company, by company by company, and see who wants this company and to what degree. And when you do that, I don't care what the company is. If it's a company of any size at all, you're going to see the same names again and again and again. The names are BlackRock,

fidelity, State Street. There's all these big asset you know, state Street's a bank, but they're they're kind of weird, but they're a bunch of different companies, but they're asset managers, and so if you think about that, if you have and the numbers that are typical, the numbers you typically see, even with huge companies, and so far as their ownership is concerned, are 789, percent right around there. And you you know, okay, well, this company, that's a lot of leverage to have over a

publicly traded company. I mean, if you own 9% of the company, and realistically, you gotta peel back another layer, like, well, who owns BlackRock, who owns the company? It's, you know, you can only peel that onion back so far. But even at 9% that's an enormous amount of control over a company, because you can threaten, we'll dump your stock and tank your stock price and destroy your bonus, you know, overnight, and it's

this. And when you talk about a cabal of companies, just take, you know BlackRock, you know fidelity, and a couple others. Those, those asset managers, own easily, north of a third of the company. So it's really, to me, it's a control mechanism that's those companies need to get in line because a, a company like Blackrock can dump the stock, and B because a company like Blackrock is in bed with the Federal Reserve, which is

setting monetary policy. So it to me, the ETFs are part and parcel of a larger control system in the US financial system.

Peter Thiel. But Peter Thiel destroyed Silicon Valley Bank period, full stop. That's Peter thiel's baby. He did that? Heath moved all of his money and all of his company's money out of Silicon Valley Bank, and it destroyed that bank. The testimony on the record is that $13 billion moved out of 10 accounts in Silicon Valley Bank in six hours. That's Peter Thiel. He wrecked that bank. $42 billion moved out of that bank in a day, and that's what wiped the bank out. Now, how is that

possible? How can that much money that never happened during the during the global financial crisis? You know, it took two weeks to move something like $16 billion out of, you know, one of those west coast. Banks. And that was, that was the worst one, but two weeks versus six hours. And the answer is, it was enabled by the killer whale accounts. Because when the Fed comes, like I said, back to the billion dollar example, when the Fed comes to Peter Thiel or Palantir and says, Hey, you know

what? We want to buy an asset from you. You've got a you've got a billion dollar Treasury there, we're going to buy that from you. And Palantir is like, well, we can't accept reserves. We don't take those stupid tokens. Well, you know, we back with Wells Fargo, and the Fed goes to Wells Fargo, and they give them the money. Well, now Palantir has a new billion dollar account at Wells Fargo in the commercial banking system.

That's a lot of money. And normally, in a normal situation, people don't hold on to bank accounts that big because they're uninsured. Only $250,000 of that is insured in the bank. So what do you do? Well, the whole, the whole thing you do is you, you put it in the treasury market, because treasury, you know, it's the government and it's not insured either, but if the government goes belly up, you've got much bigger problems

than your assets. So that's that's people that people don't keep that much money in the bank because it is uninsured and because they're not getting an interest rate on it. So what happens is, all these people are out there with these billion dollar accounts, and north of a billion dollars, it's like, well, I don't why are they maintaining these accounts? I mean, I could see somebody keeping a billion dollars in a bank for, you know, a week or a month or whatever, until they

get their ducks in a row. But that's not what happened these companies like Palantir or Peter Thiel, they left it in the bank for a long time, and then they transfer it out all of a sudden. And when a bank, when you transfer money out of a bank, you know it's a liability to the bank. And so it would seem like

that's a good deal for the bank. The deposits leave liabilities leaving but that's not the way it works, because when they when they send out of liability to another bank, they need to send a corresponding asset, and the corresponding asset is reserves. So deposits leaving is a big problem because, yeah, it's gonna, it's gonna drain your your your liability side by a billion dollars, and somebody transfers that much money, but it's gonna drain your asset side too. And that's the problem.

That's what. Why? Because people don't keep that money. They keep they keep assets on hand, in theory, balancing out their liabilities. But in practice, a lot of those assets on the asset side of a bank's balance sheet are illiquid. They don't move that fast, and so the sudden departure of a lot of money can send a bank like Silicon Valley belly up, and that's exactly what happened. But Peter Thiel did that, and that entire thing was enabled by pandemic QE, by the New York Federal Reserve,

that that's exactly how that crisis happened. And no one talked about that, despite the crystal clarity of the Congressional Record on that point. I mean Mark Warner and of Virginia, senator from Virginia, and he said, Yeah, the record shows that $13 billion left that bank from 10 bank accounts in six hours. How does that happen? That happens because of QE, because the Fed was buying assets for non banks. That's how that worked. Yeah. It's

fact that he is essentially the pin that popped Bear Stearns. He pulled a bunch of money out, in sort of killer whale fashion, out of one of Bear Stearns, like most over leveraged funds, knowing that it would go over if he under, if he did so. And of course, he has intelligence affiliations. And then shortly thereafter, I found out that the head of sovereign risk at Lehman Brothers at the time of the oh eight crash, and when Lehman went under, had been a top figure at the CIA just like a

year or two prior. Her name was Jeannie misick, and I think now she's like, one of the top people the Council on Foreign Relations. So, you know, it kind of makes you wonder when, when one considers, sort of like the well documented overlap between Wall Street and the intelligence services and things like that.

If you know, maybe there's other forces sort of prompting, what ultimately are these bank consolidation waves and things like that, which is, ultimately, you know, what the result of, one of the main results of, oh eight was, I think that's exactly right, yeah. And then, of course, the regional banking crisis. So yeah. Do you have any thoughts on that?

takedown of those banks. And they were big time banks. So regional bank is a bank like it only operates in Mississippi. Sure. You know, Silicon Valley Bank is all over. But as far as the connections to intelligence, I look at it, those are interesting connections, both Epstein and Lehman Brothers. Lehman Brothers story there, and this is pretty much borne out by the record too. The Fed, they could have bailed out Lehman Brothers, but chose not to that was that was a hit, that was a

grudge that Hank Paulson had against Dick Fuld. It's pretty well known that that was just a grudge match there. The Fed could have bailed that out that that story that they didn't have

legal authority is absolutely ridiculous. Um, but the significance of the intelligence in any kind of military is that the banking, the central bank in the US, to my way of thinking, the central bank, modern central banks, really, since 1694 have been top dog in every country they're in, and the reason for that is that you know the money issuance, it's, it's, it's the primal sovereign power, over and above military power, because you need the money to prosecute the war, And it keeps everybody

happy, because a war is a big project, and it requires a lot of money. It requires a lot more debt in a debt based monetary system. So the bankers are the lead guys. You know, if you researched Epstein, I've looked at hundreds of pictures of Epstein, how many central bankers do you find in the photographs of people around Jeffrey Epstein? Zero? Why? Because Jeffrey Epstein's, he's, he's a control operation. He's a blackmail operation. That's why, and the Fed knows better than to

get involved with that guy. You see treasury secretaries. You see Larry Summers there. You see Bill Gates. Do you see any do you see Tim Geithner there? Do you see? Do you see? Do you see Bill Dudley there, or Ben Bernanke or Donald Cohen? No, you don't see those guys. They're smarter than that. They know better. They've been warded off of that. To me, the central

banks are the dog and everything else is the tail. So when the central banks need policy implemented, they'll go through the military, they'll go through the intelligence agencies, but they're the ones calling the shots. Don't kid yourself about that. I mean to me the significance of Epstein and all this he might have been around during the Bear Stearns thing.

Bear Stearns was, for sure a hit and for sure a takedown. But to me, when I look at Epstein, i i look back to one event that happened, and we've already talked about it, and that's the passage of TARP. Because on September 29 four days before tarp passes, it fails, it gets voted down in the house, and then magically, 55 people change their vote. From No, we're not going for tarp to yes, we're all in favor of TARP. How'd that happen? Some people say, including Joseph Stiglitz, well,

there was an auction hell, and people were bribed. I call BS on that. I think that the gun was put to people's heads. Moreover, if you watch capitalism, A Love Story by Michael Moore, that movie's not that good, but I'll tell you something, it's worth its weight in gold because it's got two interviews in there, one of Marcy Kaptur, who was there at the time of TARP. She voted no both times. And Elijah Cummings, from Maryland, he voted no once, and then he voted yes. Michael Moore interviews

him. He never. Michael Moore never mentions the fact that Elijah Cummings switches his no vote to Yes, but he did. But Cummings did that. And when Cummings is interviewed, he said, you know, Michael Moore says, Hey, what's up? You know? Why did you know what's what's going on in this country? And Elijah Cummings just says, there's some dark, dark forces in this country. These people are up to no good. And Marcy

Kaptur herself said that bailout reversed from no to yes. That was, that was run from the highest levels, like an intelligence operation, like the military operation. So if I'm sniffing around Jeffrey Epstein, I'm sniffing around those 55 no votes that got flipped, because I'm telling you, they weren't just bought off. Some of them were coerced off, no doubt about that.

this? Because that's an interesting thing. I think about the pandemic in 2020, is that a lot of these killer whale accounts are all being created at zero interest rate. You know, moment, a zerp environment where, you know, maybe it would make slightly more sense outside of the obvious insurance issues to keep, you know, billions of dollars in a bank, because you can't really earn this, this rate anywhere else, but by the time this, you know, regional bank, you know, crisis sort of

happened. You know, the Fed is raising rates faster than ever in the history of the United States, even faster than Volcker's. You know, double digit raise, right? You know, after the severance of the, you know, the Nixon shock, basically, in the 80s. So, so, why? So, why would we do this,

you know, and I say we obviously very liberally here. Why would the United States as an intelligence military operation want to create these huge debt bubbles and pop them and then bail them out, basically, with, with with taxpayer money or the creation of new reserves? Is there some sort of economic advantage to doing this? Is this is just an inflation play where we need to basically inflate away our debts? Do you have any any insight there as to why? You know we would, we would do this?

Why would we? I'll take

we'll blow your brains out. Those banks are now bigger. They have even more leverage. Now let me explain something. The reason those banks have that leverage is that the what I said, it's the commercial banking supply, money supply that if you have a bank, let's just take JP Morgan Chase. It's got now it's ballpark $2 trillion in deposits that that's $2 trillion of money. If you erase that from the system, you can, you have a problem on your hands. You You have a lot of people who aren't

going to have money. You're you can. You can now measure in hours, the amount of time it's going to take for cities in your country to start burning down. And that's the leverage those banks had in 2008 you give us $700 million 100 million dollars, would burn your cities down because you can't afford to lose us. We have all that money, and people don't understand

that, and they've gotten even bigger. And for sure, Silicon Valley Bank and others going down could have been part of a process of rolling, you know, big banks in the even bigger banks and that that that is one potential answer, but I don't find that answer altogether satisfying, and it may be the jury is still out on that. Why does it make sense, though? To what you the question is, have the debt get bigger and bigger and bigger like it is, and then pop the bubble and all that

that's been done for hundreds of years. That's just what banks do is because money in in the Westerns, really throughout the world now, because money is created as dead in the form of loans, the money supply is at interest, and you don't have, you never have enough money to pay off the debt, and so you leave the control over the money supply in the hands of private banks. And private banks have done this for years. I mean, they create bubbles, and then they pop the bubble. The Great

Depression is probably the foremost example. They pop that bubble, but they know what they're doing. They know in advance this is going to happen. They short the companies that are going to go down, and then when the bubble pops, they buy the assets for pennies in the dollar. That's an that's an old, ancient formula. Okay, to me, though, the better question is, why is what's going on now? Going on and what's going on now is, you alluded to it earlier, is the interest payment on the

US debt is becoming massive. It's north of a trillion dollars now the the interest payment on the US debt is bigger than the military expenditures in the US so what? So what is going on? Because everybody knows that once, once your interest payment exceeds your income, it's bought. Game. I don't care if you issue the money or not. If your interest payment is bigger than the amount of income you have, you're done. You're

mathematically, you're gone. So why is this going on? And I think the answer to me is, and I'm working on a series now on, this is the US is being forced into a crisis situation, whether that crisis takes the form of a fiscal slash, monetary crisis, due to massive interest payments and due to the fact that we create money out of we create money as debt, or due to, say, a World War The US is being forced into a situation where radical

changes are going to be offered as a solution. And I think one of the things you're seeing now is you're seeing attacks from all quarters on the US Constitution, and that's of grave concern to me, because I know what they're after. The fact is that despite all the Fed sins, okay, it's one of the most transparent central banks, and it's actually the most transparent central bank in the world, and the transparency is due to the Constitution. It's a byproduct of the US

Constitution, because the Fed is a creature of Congress. How did the Fed come into existence? It came into existence from the majority of the House and the majority of the Senate voted it in 2000 in 1913 and the signature of Woodrow Wilson went on the ACT. It was created by a simple majority in both houses. The Fed can be dispensed and dispatched and eliminated just as easily. Majority of the house, majority Senate, Secretary, President, and it is gone. The Fed is a creature of

Congress. It's a creature of elected representatives. And for that reason, that constitutional reason, there is transparency into the Fed. I mean, name another central bank in the world that's lost FOIA lawsuits repeatedly in the federal courts, I can't think of any. And so we have a great degree of transparency into the Fed. Now, don't, don't go, get me wrong, it's not like, you know, the fact I would not call the Fed

Mr. Sunshine either. But there's more transparency into the Fed than there isn't, to say, the EC, the European Central Bank, where the Jesus over there, it's illegal for for legislatures and for people Members of Parliament to even offer input to the central bank. I mean, it's an it's a fortress over there. They have no transparency. They have window dressing transparency. You know, the ECB issues these reports and puts on these dogs

dogging pony shows. But they don't have to do that. They just do it because they don't want to look bad compared to the Fed. Okay, so the Fed is the most transparent bank in the world due to the US Constitution, and that, to my way of thinking, is what the powers that be need out of their way. They need a new regime where, you know, force branch or government to enable the Fed to have true independence. They have the Fed's independence now means independence of the executive

branch. That's what independence of a federal agency means legally in the US. That's not good enough. They need independence from the government, independence from nation, independence from Congress. I think that's what they're after. And I think these crises are all headed in the same direction, in the direction of emergency, in the direction of emergency powers to to be declared, to suspend the Constitution for the very reasons I just gave you. Yeah,

Peter Thiel, pretty significantly. And Peter Thiel for a very long time, in addition to being a long time CIA contractor, his you know, mission, arguably, for much of the past few decades has been about privately issued money and changing how money is issued. And also he was involved back when PayPal was first created, and sort of wanting PayPal to be a broker of, like a new global currency and all of that stuff.

So it may be related to sort of some of these discussions that have come to the fore with the push to digitalize money, and the potential of how that would play out if the two tier system is maintained in that sort of all digital future, and instead of just of, you know, banks being able to create money out of thin air, what about people that are able to produce, for example, a stable coin, or something like tether, for example, the biggest dollar stable coin, as you know, able

to essentially create, you know, billions of tethers, you know, with really little transparency.

which is which is public. So there's some degree of transparency into, say, the New York Fed. There's cases like Bloomberg versus Pittman, and I'm sorry, uh, Pittman versus or Bloomberg versus the Federal Reserve, and Fox News versus Federal Reserve, where there's some measure of transparency,

even into the private Federal Reserve Banks. Now contrast that with the transparency that's available into somebody like Peter Thiel or Palantir, it's pretty much next to zero, and that's what federal the central banks have a long history of saying what we really want is windowless walls into our system. We don't want any sunshine in here at all. And I think Whitney, when you're speculating that the private creation we already have, the private creation of money in

this country, big time. Go look at the federal reserve balance sheet. Last time I checked their seven, seven and seven and a half trillion dollars of it created by private entities. But there's some measure of transparency due to the US Constitution. However you you get, you start getting involved companies like Oracle and Palantir and, you know, Bezos, all these guys, they all got CIA connections, don't they?

any of those others is there? They're private entities. You can't get, you can get into their SEC filings, but they don't, they don't really tell you that much,

But a lot of this, right, you know? And I think that this is where I sort of, you know, this is where I sort of start to call CBDCs, at least when it comes to the US dollar system as sort of a red herring of census, where, where, I actually think, you know, the US government really doesn't want to deal with the hassle of having a retail facing digital currency, and they want to keep this private, public relationship with private entities, as we've kind of seen, you know, Whitney, I think,

really broke the bubble for a lot of people with, you know, a lot of her reporting on on some of these, like, you know, private companies that really aren't private companies, you know, like a Facebook or something coming, kind of coming out of, you know, these CIA projects or DARPA projects. You know, Oracle, as you mentioned before, is another great example came out of the CIA as Project Oracle. You know, that that's really what, and now it's running the biggest database in

the world, you know, Fancy that. That's, you know, kind of makes a lot of sense, but, but this idea of, well, let's do it in the private sector, because we actually, you know, we can hide

a lot more in the private sector. We can restrict customer access in the private sector, whereas what you just said, you know, the Fed actually, you know, can't do a lot of that stuff as much as they've, you know, really, you know, waged, you know, financial terrorism, of course, across the world, in a lot of ways, with their interest rate manipulation and yada yada. You know, they're actually decently decentralized. You know, 12 nodes is actually pretty good for, you know,

versus a Wells Fargo dollar or something like that. So I guess I am curious, you know, in this, this sort of framework, you know, how do you look at the cbdc play? Do you see it being, you know, not to lead the witness here, but do you see it being more as like a reserve token, sort of the digitalization of the reserves moving around? Is that sort of what fed now is sort of this interbank settlement network,

not a retail facing thing. Do you see it still staying in the in the banks, private entities having these available programmable money? Or do you actually see sort of a retail facing government issued currency coming out anytime soon?

Switzerland, that there that that truly is a fortress. You're not getting anything, any information out of that bank that they don't want you to have. But Carson's gets up in October of 2020, and says, you know, the great thing about $100 bill, the great thing about cbdc is, compared to $100 bill or 1000 peso note, is, you know, those, those cash, we don't know what people are doing with the cash. You know, they could be

spending on whatever they want. But with cbdc, we have absolute and total control to enforce the rules and the technology to enforce the rules, he loses his mind, but that was four years ago where he's touting the control mechanism that is cbdc. Four years a long time. And are we really any closer to getting

a cbdc? What people forget is in that same conference from the IMF in october 2020, Jerome Powell was on that conference call too, and he said, Well, you know, sounds great Carsons, but you know, we've, we got a constitution in the US, and we've got, we've got to take into account a lot of things.

And he said in another conference, we need enabling legislation from Congress. Again, we get back to that transparency, you know, monster that, from the Fed's point of view, they don't want that transparency, but they gotta have it to get just to get the caught between the rock and the hard place. They want the cbdc, but to do it, they gotta lay a congressional record that everybody can look at in a bright light a day. So they're stuck between a rock and a hard

place. In the meantime, you have all these private forms of, kind of pseudo money growing up from the very people who are now on board with, you know, Bitcoin and digital money, right? And so I wondered whether it's going to come out. I think that you're, they're going to definitely introduce it the way it'll come out, is there? I you know, look, let's be let's be blunt. Everybody knows there's a crisis coming, and when it happens,

there could be a lot of people pushed to the edge. And I think at that time, because these systems, like fed now have been prototyped, you're going to see some form of universal basic income and digital money coming out from the wholesale level, from the Fed, whether it's called cbdc or called something else, I think you'll see it introduced then as a way to dip their toe into that water and get the project going and kind of do what they've done with the financial crisis. You know, the

financial crisis kind of crushed its way upward. It started with the bottom rungs of society in terms of wealth and money, and it's steadily turned its way upward. And I think you'll see the same thing with cbdc. It'll be rolled out as a measure that's sold. They're already doing. It is sold as a means for inclusion that we're helping people who are, they're so poor they don't even have a bank account. That's how they kind of try to sell it. That same

have this problem in the US called the Constitution. I think you know, the kind of approach that they're planning to take is very similar to how they got around the constitutional protections that would have prevented warrantless spying on Americans after 911 where they pitched all of these public sector spy programs and there was outrage, and so they basically privatize those like, that's where, you know, Facebook

came out of, and Palantir also. And essentially, you know, those private entities are accumulating the data and then, and then selling it or sharing it, you know, with the intelligence agencies and the government. And so, you know, let's take $1 stable coin like tether can collect, collect that kind of data that would afford, you know, if it's a Carson's hands, for example, total control, right? But it to the public, it looks like it's a it's separated from that, you

know, public sector from the public sector. But in reality, you know, tether has been very open that they have formally onboarded the FBI and the Secret Service to its platform are willing to freeze anything that the Treasury wants them to. So they'll seize and and freeze people's assets and money and

wallets whenever the US government comes calling. But it enjoys this sort of reputation abroad, particularly in the Global South, that it's not the US government, and it's a way to bank the unbanked, for people that don't have access to dollars in their home country, or they have rapidly inflating local currencies, like in Argentina, and it's really becoming a very covid, a rather covert way to dollar raise the world, dollarize the world. And really we have, you know, even

people that I know you're familiar with, like our. Our good friend Larry Summers has essentially been pretty overt about that, I don't know. So it seems like they're kind of repeating that same play that was very successful with the with the whole US warrantless spy apparatus, sort of becoming

a public private partnership. It seems like a lot of these digital dollars that already exist are looking to do that as well, and looking for this new what's likely to be some sort of regulation and stable Coin World next year, hoping to, you know, sort of be the king of the castle of these digital dollars that seem like they're going to be, sort of the retail facing

cbdc equivalent of the US. And actually, Trump, when he spoke earlier this year at the Bitcoin Conference was very much embraced that, that vision, I guess you could say that he was going to bring in stable coins, and notably the co chair of his transition team, Howard lutnic of Cantor, Fitzgerald. He's like a major, I guess, Baron, you could say, of US government in the treasury market. He's also one of the main custodians of of treasuries, because there's a direct relationship with tether

in the treasury market. So it seems like this is kind of where it's it's shaping up. Well,

pay to upkeep. You know, the the US military, you know, we're a zombie company you would never invest in the United States right now. You take us out back and Old Yeller us, but they have to make the Treasury market, you know, sexy again. And I think, you know, one of the fastest growing

hey, wouldn't this be a great idea. The Fed could buy the treasuries in that way, all those interest payments would No, I'm not, I'm not kidding. Wow, wow, there will the federal does buy the Treasury, the newly issued treasuries, and because the Fed, by law, has a turnover, its profit to the US government, those interest payments just can be recycled back to the government. Because Because the law requires the Fed to turn

over 90% of its profit back to the US government. All those interest payments you got to make on the debt, they're going to go to the Fed and then pass back through to the US government. So didn't they read that? Is that a great plan? That's everything's hunky dory. Don't worry about that at all.

liabilities for dollars. Then when there's a crunch, you know, that those liabilities increase demand by flowing back into, you know, legitimate dollar assets. Do you Do you think that any of that is sort of economically sound, this idea of, you know, spurring artificial demand for dollars, you know, kind of inflating through this de facto monopoly and on oil in a post Bretton Woods scenario. Or is it just purely, you know, the US Treasury is the most liquid market in the world. The US

Dollar is just the best money. Do you see this sort of being a political, military play or just simply Gresham's Law, best money winning? Well,

to treasuries and get an interest rate. I mean, Alan Greenspan testified in early 2000s he says, You can't retire the debt because so many people are holding debt overseas and but they you can't pay them enough to part with their precious treasuries. You. He said that. So that's a big part of it, but another part of it is what you said along the lines of

the petro dollar. I found out doing money at markets with Kat Austin, Austin Fitz this week, as we were getting ready for the show that Iraqi oil has the revenue they get from that is deposited directly in to the New York Federal Reserve account. I like, well, I didn't know about that. How did that happen? Well, it happened as a result of the next executive order. I think it was an article in the cradle or the intercept one of those.

There was an executive order signed by Bush in 2003 and signed by every presidential administration every year since that time that says, Yeah, we have to take care of the Iraqi country that we destroyed, and our way of taking care of them is to take care of ourselves. And you're depositing that money into the New York Fed. Yeah. So the New York Fed and the central bankers will do everything in their power, and then some to extend their control over the system. And the petro dollar,

for sure, is a big part of that. Yeah,

1694 when the Bank of England. I was started by a pirate named William Paterson.

just so beyond brazen, I guess. But it's like, Pac Man, I guess I'm kind of reassured to now it always started off with criminals, and not just like, became that way, like, it's kind of nice to know, in a weird way, that a pirate began it, you know,

useful for my thesis, or our thesis for saying that. But you know, one of the critical you know people that you know really, really shaped the Trump administration. Mnuchin comes in. He recommends Powell, you know, they, they change all of these things, you know, Mnuchin is a former one West guy,

Rubens case, or whatever. So, so, you know, the, I think the big thing that a lot of people you know, kind of, you know, as we're getting ready for election season, Insanity, and it's really, you know, kind of popping off here, there's this, there's this amnesia, for whatever reason, of Trump's role in the in the fiscal stimulus, in the lockdowns, in pandemic, in The in the bringing in of these private sector goals to basically rewrite, you know, the private, public relationship of

capital creation. Why do you why do you think all of these crises keep happening right over election years? Why is it that, oh, eight is during this transfer of Bush Obama? You know, why? Is, why is covid pandemic happening? You know, is it sort of this obfuscation of blame? Is it just a complete coincidence? Obviously, that's a big question, but I

part of a deal. Well, what's

sort of deal made. Well,

anymore? Because they got rid of the laws that said banks had to be within, you know, in other states, you know, they dissolve Glass Steagall. So, you know, we saw this, you know, again, I think the deal making thing is, is really fascinating, that's a

great answer to a very complicated question. I would say, so as we're, as we're gearing up here, Howie Latinx chairing Trump's transition team, you know, as we're getting ready for this, you know, again, arguably, you know, simulated crisis, that that is controlled demolition these have all been controlled demolitions. You could argue, you know, What? What? What should our listeners here be preparing themselves

for? You know, what's what? What do you recommend folks to do as we're kind of going into this, this deal making gestation period, that is, you know, the every four year cycle here, what would you recommend people do? I

prosecute them, too big to jail. So with no rule of law, that means there's no rule of law means there's laws preventing theft of your assets, the confiscation of your property, that's all out the window. So divesting things that can't be taken from you with your knowledge. Number one, the other thing is, at the same time, you should leave partisan politics at the door, because it's not going to do you any good. It's

not going to inform your understanding of anything. The more time you spend on partisan politics and using that to inform your view of how the money system work, that's time wasted those partisan politics are going to lead you into a parking lot in Alaska when it comes to trying to understand how the system works, you need to let that go at the same time you do that, though, you got to keep the pressure on these politicians, because they will respond to public pressure. They

will respond the outrage. There was a point in the wake of the global financial crisis, after the tarp passed, people were so angry about tarpassing and so angry at the bailout that the calls against it, the calls against the bailout and all that ran over 100 to one. This is born out in congressional testimony. 101 is a massive amount, and that is why the Fed buckled again and again and again to Congress, because Congress had angry people behind them, and it scared the Fed to

death. That's what they don't want. So keep the pressure on.

and change. Here comes Obama. He's going to drop more bombs than Bush and print more money, but, and Citibank running his thing, but, but hey, but he got a Nobel Peace Prize. Well, we got it, but he got a Nobel Peace Prize. Henry Kissinger, though it doesn't really mean anything, right? Yeah, yeah. I'd rather not have a Nobel Peace Prize at this point. But, like, there was this unbelievable co option, you know, through these, like, very, very interesting, you know, media plate, you know, kind of

dialectics. And I think we're seeing that again, you know, there's this whole counter narrative of people coming up that have now just, you know, they literally became famous being, you know, covid dissonance. And rightfully so, to many degrees. And now they're saying the only solution we have to Biden's inflation, and, you know, the border crisis, or whatever, is Trump. And so they're presenting, again, this, this false dichotomy, you know, immediately, yeah,

run by Blackrock people. And I believe Kamala is top advisor on her campaign, is one of those same Blackrock guys from the Biden administration and now facing the next, next downturn. You know, it seems kind of likely that you know either way, Blackrock is going to get called back into have some other sort of scheme as it relates to how you know, the US government

should respond. But there seems to be either like intentional amnesia or just like no interest in really covering that this is like a bipartisan theft, and I think it's really interesting when you look at, oh, wait, how angry people were using covid 19 as cover for what happened with going direct has, you know, been really successful, because people on the left can't call it

out, right? Because so many of them, you know, fell for a lot of the major aspects of covid policy that were based on flimsy or no evidence, right? And then people on the right, you know, can't really talk about the complicity of Trump without sort of undermining a lot of the campaign points that they like to promote, like him being anti establishment or or whatever. So,

going to die in front of your TV barking. That's how you're gonna die. Stop doing it.

the way. And at the same time, telling their regulators, do not let this crisis be known, this crisis that doesn't exist, that we're saying doesn't exist in the savings and loan crisis.

Please don't, you know, say that it was deregulation that led to it, and please don't tell anyone that it happened, because it would be this big about face of our partisan politics that we ran on, you know, this deregulation push, and now we're here, and we have this huge, you know, the basically, the the insurance, you know, group that you know was responsible for backing, you know, the savings and loans are like $150 billion

you know, insolvent. But we can't say that. I think that there's a really interesting parallel to the Reagan economics, this deregulation, to the Trump era. And I think the biggest sort of, you know, Trump, of course, is a master of of misdirection and of rhetoric. And he comes out and he says, you know, in in during his administration, you know that Bitcoin is, is, you know, kind of, it's phooey, it's, it's BS, the dollars, that is the king. That's what I care about. And,

you know, Bitcoin is a bunch of hot. Air. Digital assets are a bunch of hot air, but, but what is he actually doing again? He's having Mnuchin come in. Mnuchin brings in the Brian Brooks, who is a former VP and executive at Coinbase, the biggest Bitcoin exchange in the United States. He brings them in as as the acting, you know, the head of the OCC basically the biggest, you know, I guess, kind of head, head litigator, basically, or for, for the financial markets, and he sets policies. That's

allow banks to hold these things. Now we're seeing, you know, Trump's former money manager, think putting out this Blackrock ETF, which is the fastest growing ETF in history.

announcing that he's issuing his own private currency. So we're in this, we're in this strange, you know, Twilight Zone, but basically the Blackrock ETF is now onshoring Bitcoin to an extreme degree, a 22 billion worth while the leading candidate who kind of set up all of this stuff in his previous administration is coming out saying they're going to pay for the $35 trillion debt using Bitcoin, using crypto, And they're going to dollarize the world using stable coins, using

these private bank digital cars. He

using stable coins or something like that. But you're right in the sense of, you know, of course, they could never you can't pay dollar denominated debt in something other than dollars unless, yeah, you agree to it, ridiculous,

Deposit Account, that's not really money. Legally, that. That's why you're an unsecured creditor of the bank, because it's not money, right? If there's money, you'd have it in your hands. You'd own it, and you know, there wouldn't be a Counterparty, but you don't own it, which is why you need insurance on it in case the bank fails and the money goes Bye, bye. Real Money doesn't do that. So the bank credit money isn't

isn't truly money. It's credit, and it created a thin air. And so it's like, well, as long as you're going down that road and letting private parties create quote, unquote money out of thin air, why not take it out a level to non banks and let them do it too? Right? So I think that there's a lot of merit to your thinking along the lines of this whole system is tending toward more and more privatization of parties creating money and unregulated parties creating, quote, unquote money. We've

gotten away from money, right? You know, that's why you need the regulation to begin with, is that they've given a sovereign you know, the right to coin money is right in Article One of the constitutions. Congress has the right to coin money and regulate the value thereof. Um, but right there, it's a sovereign privilege, and everybody's known as the

sovereign privilege, back to predating Aristotle, right? But as long as you let private banks do that, well, then you got to regulate them, because you've handed over a site, you've delegated out, you farmed out a sovereign right? And now you got to keep your eye on them. But if it gets more and more farmed out and far. Of a way, you've got a bigger and bigger problem, because you have no more opacity, less transparency built into that system. That's a that's a real problem. I thought

about that too. You guys raised it. Yeah,

been around for about a decade. You know, in 2018 2019 when, you know, Facebook came up with this idea, and the US government didn't really care about Bitcoin that much, because it innately, kind of can't be a payment system that can be used by 3 billion people, 4 billion people, but Facebook has 2.2 billion active users in a month. And so three weeks after Facebook announces they want to do, you know, hey, we want to

make private currency. You know, they're in front they have to testify in front of Congress. Now, again, I think a lot of this is, is the US intelligence state sort of, you know, pretending to feign, oh no, this is hurting the dollar, when, obviously, I think it really isn't. But this idea of payments, and, you know, you know, billion users versus, you know, you know, what Bitcoin kind of can't do, is very

fascinating. But to your point, I think of the you know, people are forgetting what money really is, you know that I think brings into the cbdc play really interestingly, because if a if a government is creating a directly issued cbdc in your account, it relies on a settlement mechanism of another party. It's basically a checking account to be able to actually settle, you know, a cbdc between parties. It's relying on, on a trusted, a trusted settlement network, which is not how m m

zero works. That's not how base layer money works. A Treasury note doesn't rely on that. A bank note, a coin, doesn't rely on it's a liquid, exchangeable, you know, medium of exchange, correct, but, but a checkings account, you know, which is, you go up the chain to m2 or, or however that there's, there's innately trust in the system. So, do you think that that sort of is, you know, can a government create m zero in a digital form? Is that even possible?

not by the Treasury, there's a debt associated with it. So, yeah, it's money, but it's, it's somewhat impure, and that it came money, a debt. Debt came attached to it, okay, but in either case you don't, there's no settlement involved. Settlement is only involved when you've got an IOU, like a like bank credit. In other words, your bank account is technically an IOU from the bank to you. What is it that the bank owes

you? Well, one of two things, either it owes you Federal Reserve notes if you demand them, or because that's why it's called a demand deposit account. Or if you transfer, say, $1,000 to another bank, it owes the other bank $1,000 in reserves for that transfer. But that then that's, that's what gets you into the note. The issue of settlement is it's an IOU, it's not really money. And thus, because it's an IOU, you necessarily have two parties involved. You necessarily have

somewhere in the chain settlement involved. Can a bank? Can it? Can have currents? Can a government issue directly, digital money?

instantaneous advantage over everybody else. I mean, because if you can issue money, why work to buy somebody else's business? Just gin the money up out of thin air and buy the business with your liabilities of your IOU, and put the business on the asset side of your balance sheet. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. We're done. That's why it's set to do the advantage of the people who issue the debt, to have the debt based monetary system if you're just issuing money. Me, there's no

corresponding asset. You just said, it's just money that's put out there. Historically, money like greenbacks under Lincoln were put out there. They're, you know, they're paid into existence, and they're accepted because they're accepted for the payment of taxes and duties and fees. That's, that's just how it's done. But when you issue the money, you know, what are you getting in return? You're not getting an asset. You're getting services of soldiers, for example, do you follow me?

Yeah. Whereas a debt based monetary system, the debt is issued, you know, the money is issued against assets. Now, a lot of times those assets are simple, IOUs from customers, but a lot of times there's other commercial paper anyway, I

don't, I don't know. I have a problem. I don't think the people who run this system are going to be one of abandoned the debt based monetary system anytime soon and face in favor of a pure money system, because the pure money system doesn't offer them any inherent advantages over everybody else.

You gotta remember the people running. You have to remember that the people running the monetary system, they rely on and need the advantage of an unfair of a tilted playing field, and that tilt is provided by the interest that comes with the issuance of debt based money. That's their inherent advantage, and I don't see them giving it up anytime soon.

cryptocurrencies that it defines as securities. And a lot of these actors we've been talking about over the course of this podcast have a very well established track record of

manipulating the price of certain commodities. So what would happen, for example, if at the advent of whatever this dollar debt crisis will be, and how it will play out, what would happen if they manipulated the price of Bitcoin to high enough levels that it would enable them to pay off 35 trillion or whatever, dollars, since bitcoin is most often priced in dollars.

it's going to take to do that, right? Yeah, good luck. Yeah,

rapidly dollarizing. I think the internet is, taking away power from sovereign central banks and giving people in these countries in the Global South, if you will, the ability to have access to dollars. But I think the way that maybe they could do it and is through sort of capital requirements, and they can basically manufacture consent by the with these FinTech firms and say, Hey, you want to hold, hey, Tesla, you want to hold 10,000

Bitcoin on your balance sheet? You know we're going to say that it's a liability. You need to have an equal amount or even more dollar denominated assets on your balance sheet. You know, through capital requirements, whether it's Basel three or or just, you know, general, the the accounting boards that they use right now, you know, we can basically force, you know, these firms that want to hold massive amounts of Bitcoin to also hold

in equal part dollars. And so I think there is a way to sort of lever that consent and I agree, we're probably not going to get Japan or China, you know, to take a trillion dollars worth of bitcoin, but, but there's a chance that we could get say, you know, a Tesla Palantir, a PayPal, a Facebook, you know, These groups that have worked with Bitcoin in the past that are very likely connected, or are connected to the intelligence state, and most of the Bitcoin is held by people

right located in the US, or like a Blackrock ETF buying, you know, $22 billion of Bitcoin since January. You know, there is sort of a setup here where they they could basically. Manufacture that consent through regulation. Yeah, kind of Yeah. What do you think about that? Yeah,

it as as a liability. Yeah, I was mentioning Howard just because he had, you know, basically put out this video where he was saying, hey, you know, as as the custodian for tethers treasuries, you know, and as Cantor Fitzgerald, which, you know, I think at one point, was responsible for like, 70% of all volume in the treasury market, you know, one of these 25 authorized participants in the with The New York Fed primary dealer, yeah, excuse me. He came out and said, you know,

hey, banks don't want to touch this stuff because of this antiquated accounting rules. There was bipartisan support. It got to Biden's desk. He vetoed it. But for now, we have to hold, you know, this ridiculous amount of dollars to be able to hold Bitcoin. So no bank is going to want to touch it. We need to fix it. So, you know, he's now the chair, you know, by of Trump's transition team. Obviously, Blackrock is now

moving heavily into Bitcoin. The Kushner's themselves, who you know, were a huge part of the first, you know, Trump administration were part of the Libra Association through Thrive capital. You know, they've, they've, you know, speculated on creating sort of a US dollar stable coin. There's this kind of infamous email from Jared to Steve Mnuchin about a Sam Altman post, who's, you know, another T acolyte, basically describing the concept of a US dollar stable coin, and how that could

be helpful for for us hedgeman. So there is a lot of kind of movement here, of, I would say basically the founding of, essentially a new, you know, Federal Reserve of sorts, being going into this, the issuance of tokenized dollars. And, you know, we're seeing PayPal move into the stablecoin game. You know, we're seeing more and more companies like Blackrock that are these huge infrastructure pieces of the US economy, pivoting from going, you know, against Bitcoin, to now being

suddenly for it. Trump is now saying we're going to make Bitcoin the crypto capital of the world and retain dominance, which I think is an important piece there. So the retaining of the dominance, not, let's go get dominance. It's we have, we do dominate this, this system already. So as as you know, we've, we've clearly talked about, you know, money is a private, public thing. Money has also been digitalized for a long time, but now we're moving in new world where there's private

issuers of crypto assets, of tokenized assets. So how do you see, you know, basically this, you know, this push of everybody online, through covid, through pandemic, through shutdowns. Now, now we're here. The Public Square is now becoming a monetary network, essentially,

was last week. They they made an exception for the Accounting Board. I think it's 121 that they allowed BNY Mellon to be able to custody, which is, you know, like the Bank of banks, basically to to allow them to custody crypto without having to have the dollar

switch to happen. They're sort of slowly letting in, you know, their sort of King made information bank, you know, Anchorage digital to be, you know, that was sort of, you know, it's advised by PayPal founders, you know, it's really, you know, kind of connected to this intelligence state. Now they're letting BNY Mellon kind of start to do it before they sort of unleash this, this wave. So I do think they're kind of

doing it selectively. But it will be very interesting to see when a JP Morgan, which, again, is heavily involved BlackRock and JP Morgan were doing this, this, this like tokenized settlement network with privatized versions of Ethereum. They were playing with these things. So I think we will see shortly. And I think, you know, I think the Trump administration will be incredibly important for establishing these rules. And they kind of already did.

And that's a trend that we're seeing with the majority of the new private issued blockchains, that they're really just dollarized, you know, methods for issuing dollars basically. What does that mean? Dollarized? Dollarized in the sense that, you know that their main, the main volume on, you know, because these are just communication settlement ledgers, right? They're really a blockchain. Is just a ledger.

It's basically just, you know, Microsoft Excel, but everyone can log in and, you know, make changes, but only, only once. They can publish new states, but not reverse old states. It's a mutable ledger. So the ledger is now being used predominantly to dis volatility of dollar denominated assets between parties. Does that make sense?

forward. And I think it's going to be really interesting to see the timing of that regulation in relation to this upcoming crisis that's essentially been acknowledged by, you know, major politicians, like, for example, former Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, basically told The Wall Street Journal and I think, some other prominent outlet, that basically it's assured within the next, like, three three years, or something like

that. And obviously they have ways of manipulating the time frame to either make it longer or shorter, and they may do that depending on what kind of regulation they want to have. So for example, if they think they could get it passed or certain regulate the regulation they want passed in a time where there isn't a crisis, they will do that. But if the regulation they want would not be passable at any other time during, except during a major crisis, where rational thought goes out the

window and people are like, What have you done to my money? Or something like that? I think we could end up seeing a lot of potential regulations come through that would seem kind of maybe far out, you know, now, at this point of time, that could sort of further, you know, the trends that we know this stuff is going to, you know, go along with things like greater centralized control for these people, more financial surveillance for the little people, you know, various other

things that are sort of assured, no matter how they go. But I think you know the timing of the regulation is going to be really important, as you know, in terms of how you know crypto or Bitcoin, and as you know, Trump had theorized, or has claimed, he might be able to pay off the debt with that. I think you know it might relate a lot to the sort of legislative measures that either come before that crisis or like shortly after it makes itself known. Because when there's, you know, a major

crisis in the guns to people's head. Look, we talked about earlier in Oh, wait, you can get things passed that you normally would not get passed in another type of situation that

parties even external to themselves. So they want to be able to sit in a lockbox and with with a remote control and control everything outside, and have outside not being able to control anything inside. The whole reason you're talking about regulation and stuff like that is that the system I'm describing does not exist now due to laws, due to democratic principles, due to elections and due to control of people along those lines. Once they have that lockbox control I'm talking

about, they don't need your consent. Well, what

transparency in the next administration? You sort of had this fielded by RFK JR and some people in the Trump circle, I suppose, that have been, you know, big supporters of, you know, spoken at Bitcoin and other crypto conferences and things like that. So what if they claim to be fully transparent and are like, here's our ledger of extreme accounting transparency, but it's the fake public ledger enabled by fab 56 so I think that's another scenario that we could potentially see the first,

yeah, but what if you change your mind? How do I how do I get the information? Can I see you in court? What, you know, what are we talking about here? That's, that's the question is, when push comes to shove, how do I get the information out of you? Answer that, you know, regardless of who the issuer is. Well,

ability to sell that data. There's, there's sort of a great perversion of the blockchain as being, you know, the Savior and this altruistic thing of, you know, the big bad central banks. And, you know, here, here we go. We get to, you know, take, take the, take the money back, quite literally, but it's an open ledger, and so that transparency is, well, the first,

years, it cuts in half. It's issuance. And people always say, Oh, well, in the first four years of Bitcoin, it was only libertarians and cypherpunks, yeah, it's only the good guys. And it's like, no, I guarantee you the second the shit went live, but the US intelligence state was looking at it. If they didn't put it out themselves, I think it's actually, really not that important, who actually came out with Bitcoin, but rather where it's going. That's that's the more important thing.

create crises. That's how the Great Depression was created. Gold gets shipped around all the world. So the name of the game there with gold and control is the powers that be hold all the gold, or they hold the vast majority of it. And

are, they're, they're manipulating metal markets. You know, they're paying, you know, you know, a little bit of money to make a lot of money. You know, it's just an expense. You. In their business. We tried

you custody it and all this crap, right? But, but these are known market manipulators, exactly

BlackRock, of course. But you know, you look at the mechanisms and what they actually do to

to have, you know, fallen for it this time? Yeah, or develop some sort of amnesia, you know. So as it relates, you know, to all of this, I don't know if if kamala's campaign has listed any potential Treasury Secretary picks. And I know that it was reported that Trump had been considering Jamie Dimon and Larry Fink, and then walked those back and said he was not.

But the only person Trump is named as a likely candidate for him, for for the Treasury is a guy named John Paulson who you may know, yeah, because he made the biggest windfall in the oh eight crisis. But he did so by engaging in basically a criminal conspiracy with Goldman Sachs, the Atticus thing. Well, do you

want to explain that and why? Maybe it's not a good idea to have someone you know, the most successful criminal of oh eight, be in charge of the Treasury Department before another major fiscal crisis, perhaps.

default swaps. So what Paulson, John Paulson, did, is for Goldman. He went out and picked out assets. In other words, debts, mortgages and whatever packages, mortgage backed securities that he knew were going to be bad, so that Goldman could then turn around and take out credit default swaps on that debt, and he put together a package. That's what he did. His whole thing, was a, was a, was a, was a massive crime, Abacus and Timberwolf and they and Goldman knew that they were bad

assets. Again, that's congressional tests, but they

deep in that he was an enabler of that. That's not who you want in any you don't want him as his local dog catcher, much less treasury secretary.

maybe less so regulators, but I think so too. And, yeah, it's, it's, it's very disturbing that a lot of these folks are, you know, being floated after, you know, you know, allowing criminal activity to occur. It's, it's pretty wild, yeah, but

Thanks to you, Mark, and for everyone that tuned in to listen, hopefully you've learned a lot more about the brazen, you know, criminals running our financial system, and hopefully, some of the things discussed here can help arm the people who have been listening with what to expect over the next few years. And perhaps, you know, help them prepare however they see fit. And you know, just like John said earlier, about investing in

yourself, you know, that tends to. The quote, unquote financial advice that isn't really financial advice that I also give physical things that will keep you and your family afloat, whatever that means for you. If things get really crazy, you know, we're not here to pump our bags or chill anything in particular to the audience, just, you know, try and take care of yourselves, given a lot of what we've discussed here, when things get hairy, it's best to be, you know, prepared in

some capacity. And really one of the best ways to be prepared, according to people, you know, I've talked that lived through economic collapses in Argentina, for example, mental preparedness is very important, so you don't panic when things get strange. And I think that will hold true for what we can expect over the next few years as well. So with that being said, thanks again to everyone. If you listen to this podcast and enjoyed it, please share it widely. Consider Supporting if you feel so

inclined, we would appreciate it. And yeah, thanks very much, and we'll catch you all on Our next Episode.