Speaker 1: The Supreme Court is in session and they are changing
Speaker 1: everything as we know. We see globalism right now is
Speaker 1: literally falling apart, but wef is crumbling and the US
Speaker 1: is going back to the gold standard or else there
Speaker 1: could be a civil war. Well, these are some of
Speaker 1: the topics that we are going to talk about today
Speaker 1: with returning guest Tom Luongo. Now, Tom is a geopolitical
Speaker 1: and market analyst. He's the publisher of the Gold, Goats
Speaker 1: and Guns newsletter, podcast and blog. More importantly, Tom is
Speaker 1: an out of the box thinker and he's able to
Speaker 1: connect dots that most people don't see. And of course
Speaker 1: he backs it all up with a very strong track
Speaker 1: record of making actionable calls on markets with uncommon accuracy.
Speaker 1: With a decade of experience as a newsletter editor and
Speaker 1: a contributor for Newsmax, Tom Lawongo pushes the line between
Speaker 1: politics and markets with a lot of fun and brutal honesty.
Speaker 1: So let's go ahead and just jump in with Tom.
Speaker 1: Let's just jump in Tom Luongo, Gold Goats and Guns Podcast,
Speaker 1: asked newsletter a wealth of information, someone that I turned
Speaker 1: to regularly. I read your blogs, subscribe to your stuff,
Speaker 1: and everyone else should do as well, as we're gonna
Speaker 1: link to that down below, gold goats and guns. The
Speaker 1: name sort of tells it all will come back to
Speaker 1: why he's giving up the goat farming in a sense.
Speaker 1: But you've been on my channel multiple times, so listeners
Speaker 1: should know who you are. But let's just jump right
Speaker 1: into it, because about a year ago, I think it's
Speaker 1: maybe been since we've caught up. It's been a while.
Speaker 1: You've been sort of on the front end a lot
Speaker 1: of these trends. And one of the things that we
Speaker 1: had talked about was sort of the growing administrative state,
Speaker 1: deep state, whatever we want to call that, and the
Speaker 1: tentacles that they've had in and one of these things
Speaker 1: about this Chevron doctrine, And I think maybe we had
Speaker 1: seen that the Supreme Court was going to rule on
Speaker 1: that at some point, and that just happened. Now there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different takes on this, so let's get
Speaker 1: your take on this. So the Chevron doctrine, Supreme Court
Speaker 1: ruled on it. What are your thoughts on that?
Speaker 2: Well, the Chevrone difference was handed down in nineteen eighty four,
Speaker 2: and as far as I'm concerned, it's probably the most consequential.
Speaker 2: This is the repeal of it is probably the most
Speaker 2: consequential well, okay, the ruling itself was probably the most
Speaker 2: consequential advancement of the tyrannical state in the United States
Speaker 2: since marbar versus Madison, or down maybe the dread Scott decision.
Speaker 2: It was terrible. It literally literally unbalanced the three branches
Speaker 2: of government such that the officers of the executive branch
Speaker 2: could tell the officers of the judicial branch of the
Speaker 2: judges what to do and how to how to adjudicate,
Speaker 2: and how to interpret laws written by the legislative branch
Speaker 2: Congress that didn't actually want to take responsibility for the
Speaker 2: laws that they wrote. So it drove an entire, massive,
Speaker 2: massive regulatory truck, you know, down right over all of
Speaker 2: our constitutional rights, and the courts were literally unable to
Speaker 2: do anything about it. They were forced to defer. And
Speaker 2: that's not the Sebron doctrine, it's the Chevron deference. You
Speaker 2: had to defer to the three letter alphabet agencies or
Speaker 2: the five letter alphabet agencies or whatever, and which you know,
Speaker 2: then sporify like mushrooms after a rain storm, you know.
Speaker 2: And that's what we've had for the last forty years.
Speaker 2: Literally it's the mechanism by which to turn the United
Speaker 2: States from a constitutional republic into an unlikely technocracy, frankly
Speaker 2: indistinguishable in the European Union. And like, as far as
Speaker 2: I'm concerned, good riddance it was. It's always been the
Speaker 2: thing that this is one of these things that's been
Speaker 2: sitting around in my back of my head for years.
Speaker 2: Dexter White and I, you know, we've been friends forever.
Speaker 2: We've talked about how bad Chevron was. And he's the
Speaker 2: one who brought it up to me about a year
Speaker 2: and a half ago that there were court cases winding
Speaker 2: their way through to make their way to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: Now with thelast time you and I talked about it
Speaker 2: and I brought it up, I said, you know, you know,
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court was supposed to adjudicate on this last summer,
Speaker 2: but they didn't. And I think the most important thing,
Speaker 2: the most important take on this is not that Chevron
Speaker 2: wasn't going to be overturned. Okay, it was the when
Speaker 2: was the Supreme Court going to feel secure enough? And
Speaker 2: it's you know, in reality, not djure, but you know,
Speaker 2: in reality, the fact though safe enough to actually you know,
Speaker 2: hand down decision like that because it's literally going against
Speaker 2: the entire political juggernaut that is pushing the United States
Speaker 2: and the entirety of the Western world into this you
Speaker 2: know shnah of communism, and that's all it is. It's
Speaker 2: just communism, and it's which is the ultimate technocratic state
Speaker 2: is My friend Alexander mccuris reminded me of about six
Speaker 2: years ago. He's like, we were talking about this stuff
Speaker 2: and he said, you know, I started, you know, going
Speaker 2: off in the EU, and he just reminded me it's
Speaker 2: like the original technocratic state was the USSR, and all
Speaker 2: they're doing in Europe is trying to perfect it and
Speaker 2: they and all they're trying to do here in the
Speaker 2: United States is is transported over here to destroy us
Speaker 2: in the process. And I'm sorry, this is clearly obvious
Speaker 2: to me from the day the WEF came out during
Speaker 2: COVID and said you will you know, own nothing and
Speaker 2: be happy. That was their coming out party. That was
Speaker 2: their way of saying, we own you and there's nothing
Speaker 2: you can do to stop it. Now, every conversation that
Speaker 2: you and I have had, Mark, it's the first time
Speaker 2: you had me on which was you know, a great
Speaker 2: which was a great service you did me when you did.
Speaker 2: And we've had since then, and when I've had you
Speaker 2: and Alex on my podcast and we've all we've talked
Speaker 2: about these things. Is that was there or is there
Speaker 2: the existence of a counter veiling force within the United
Speaker 2: States power structure that would just say nuts to this
Speaker 2: and we're and what would be? And all I was
Speaker 2: thinking thinking about was, well, what would the conditions be,
Speaker 2: what would have to happen in order to start that process? Well, clearly,
Speaker 2: the only you know, the the military industrial complex wants this.
Speaker 2: They love this, Congress loves it, Davos loves it. Everybody
Speaker 2: loves it. Until you get to a point where you realize, Okay,
Speaker 2: the only people who can't make any money at under
Speaker 2: Klaus Schwab's vision of the future are the US banks.
Speaker 2: And so at some point you had to say to yourself, Okay,
Speaker 2: everybody's pushing up towards their existential threat. Right. The banks
Speaker 2: are looking at the destruction of the private formation of capital.
Speaker 2: The Defense Department FINT is looking at the existential threat
Speaker 2: of having to fight Russia over Swampland at eastern Ukraine
Speaker 2: and or other places around the world. And they're not
Speaker 2: ready for it. We're not ready for it, like the
Speaker 2: whole country's has been hollowed out, you know, conceptually. And
Speaker 2: Chevron was the heart of this on not allowing any
Speaker 2: any deviation from the bureaucratic path and the technocratic path.
Speaker 2: And I think that's why this is so unbelievably monumental.
Speaker 2: It starts the process of saying, you know what, no.
Speaker 2: And this is the interesting thing about what the Supreme
Speaker 2: courtse that'll turn the micro over in just a second,
Speaker 2: which is the following, which is it said, Okay, the
Speaker 2: cases that have been adjudicated under Chevron aren't going to
Speaker 2: be overturned, but every one of them can now be
Speaker 2: potentially re litigated, okay, because Chevron should have never been
Speaker 2: in place in the first place. So it's not going
Speaker 2: to repeal any of this stuff. What it's going to
Speaker 2: do is going to force on a case by case basis,
Speaker 2: all of these all of this thirteen fourteen thousand cases
Speaker 2: that are out there, they're all going to they can
Speaker 2: all be realigated because all somebody has to do is
Speaker 2: find harm of the you know, of that policy, and
Speaker 2: then the government is going to have to justify what
Speaker 2: they did without being able to use Chevron as their justification,
Speaker 2: and they're basically they're they're just saying no card. Okay.
Speaker 1: So in a constitutional republic, we have a constitution that
Speaker 1: sort of a lot of people have this mis construed
Speaker 1: and they think that it sort of gives us freedoms
Speaker 1: or gives us rights, but instead it actually limits what
Speaker 1: the government can actually do. And the problem that we've
Speaker 1: seen escalated over time, but specifically through COVID is we
Speaker 1: saw the government come in and make all types of
Speaker 1: rules and regulations. I'm in California. Of course, Newsom tried
Speaker 1: to be at the forefront of that, and they put
Speaker 1: all types of crazy mandates, which who knows what that
Speaker 1: even is right in place, and then you know, I
Speaker 1: had arguments, and, like most people around the world, maybe
Speaker 1: lost a lot of friends over this, because all of
Speaker 1: a sudden you start to see who was on separate sides.
Speaker 1: And I remember specifically one conversation I had and my
Speaker 1: neighbor was like, well, this is the way that our
Speaker 1: government works. I don't think it's against the constitution. You
Speaker 1: do think it's against the constitution. I was very strong
Speaker 1: about that, and he was strong in his opinion and
Speaker 1: he's like, so it goes to the courts, and the
Speaker 1: courts will tell us is this to the Constitution or not.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen unfortunately through the COVID stuff. Years later,
Speaker 1: the court said, hey, what you did was unconstitutional and
Speaker 1: so you couldn't have done that. Unfortunately, we have a
Speaker 1: couple of years worth of damages. And in the case
Speaker 1: of the Chevron doctrine deference here, I'm guessing that's what
Speaker 1: you're saying is sort of the same thing. The Supreme
Speaker 1: Court now has basically said, hey, look, you guys don't
Speaker 1: have this power. This is unconstitutional. You couldn't have done that.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't have done that, You didn't have the power
Speaker 1: to do that. However, the damage is done, and so
Speaker 1: what you're saying is it doesn't unwind all those things.
Speaker 1: But now a lot of these companies who do have damages.
Speaker 1: So the case specifically was a small fishing company or
Speaker 1: something like that. I mean, they had massive monetary damages,
Speaker 1: and so now they may be able to go sort
Speaker 1: of come back and relitigate that and maybe get some
Speaker 1: of that money back.
Speaker 2: Well, they're definitely going to to have to they should
Speaker 2: absolutely under Chevron. Uh, the Fisheries Department or whatever. I
Speaker 2: don't know the exact four letter agency. I don't remember.
Speaker 2: The acronym doesn't matter. You know this seven hundred dollars
Speaker 2: a day uh fee that they were charging for monitoring
Speaker 2: this poor company. Like whatever finds have been racked up,
Speaker 2: like those go away, they're not gonna pay them. And
Speaker 2: any finds it or any not fines and you know,
Speaker 2: or or fees or anything else, they're not gonna pay
Speaker 2: them because it's been overturned.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: And any find and any finds indoor fees that they've
Speaker 2: paid previously should be paid back to them, including all
Speaker 2: their legal costs and everything else. Like this is this
Speaker 2: is the way this is supposed to work. You don't
Speaker 2: get to you know, it's like we've been living under
Speaker 2: this this this this this this rubric of they get
Speaker 2: to people with money, and people and government with power
Speaker 2: get to just you know, just get to file suit
Speaker 2: against you for whatever. They just we just indicted Donald
Speaker 2: Trump on thirty four charges of eating a ham sandwich
Speaker 2: for all intensive purposes. And yet this is and I
Speaker 2: make a Murray rothbrog reference when they when I do that,
Speaker 2: this is you know, they just think, well, this will
Speaker 2: just pack this, will this overwhelm you with with money,
Speaker 2: with with law, with legal problems that you can't afford
Speaker 2: to even face. And that's how we're going to keep you,
Speaker 2: keep you down. But then not only did they have that,
Speaker 2: but they also had the deck stacked completely in their
Speaker 2: favor so that there was no recourse to our rights.
Speaker 2: Like the constitutional Republic fundamentally ended with Chevron. It was
Speaker 2: the final like blow when you really stop to think
Speaker 2: about how uttered, unutterably tyrannical Chevron was. Unelected. Mid wits
Speaker 2: with power at any random agency could feather their own nest.
Speaker 2: If it's just if you want to be like like
Speaker 2: like g nolly evil, you can have some you know,
Speaker 2: third class functionary over at BHF and just you know,
Speaker 2: just steal money, just shake people down. Well you know what,
Speaker 2: it would be a real you know, it's just mafia stuff.
Speaker 2: It'ld be a real shame if your business went under
Speaker 2: because we've levy to find against you every day unless
Speaker 2: you paid me five hundred bucks. Like this is what
Speaker 2: this That's exactly what this was. And it was so
Speaker 2: very freaking obvious and so at the very least what
Speaker 2: this really means to me is the following. As I
Speaker 2: said at the beginning, what changed to allow the court,
Speaker 2: who put off this decision for a year? What changed
Speaker 2: that finally allowed the court to say, you know what,
Speaker 2: we can rule on this and our children aren't going
Speaker 2: to be murdered, because that's the reality of the situation. Okay.
Speaker 2: Like for the last four months, they've been building a
Speaker 2: public case about why sam Alito and his wife need
Speaker 2: to be murdered. All right, they were clearly laying out
Speaker 2: a path to activating Antifa to go after sam Alito
Speaker 2: and Clarence Thomas. And now after Chevron and the Trump
Speaker 2: immunity decision, they're all running around going, oh, well, that
Speaker 2: gives Joe Biden, you the the the power to just
Speaker 2: off Trump and be done with it, and they can't
Speaker 2: do anything with it. I'm like, really, have you did you?
Speaker 2: Did you fail third grade? Reading? Really? Did you? Did
Speaker 2: you fail? Like reading Article two and article three of
Speaker 2: the of the of the Constitution where the president's enumerated
Speaker 2: powers are or whatever whichever article it is I don't
Speaker 2: quite remember off the top of my head, but like,
Speaker 2: I don't see that as one of the president's enumerated
Speaker 2: powers he can just legally, you know, murder American citizens
Speaker 2: because he disagrees with them. He doesn't have that power.
Speaker 2: Last I checked, the king had that power. So these
Speaker 2: people are not only are they evil, they're stupid and
Speaker 2: evil and it just needs to end. It just we
Speaker 2: just need to look at them at this point and go,
Speaker 2: that's enough. You don't get to you literally don't get
Speaker 2: to speak anymore, and we get to laugh at you
Speaker 2: and we get to shout you down because you people
Speaker 2: are done. This is wrong. It's one reason I'm done
Speaker 2: with the short and I'm done with the struggle session, Mark,
Speaker 2: I really am. I'm just done with even caring about
Speaker 2: giving them, you know, the benefit of the doubt on
Speaker 2: any of this. They're all just sick, evil, twisted, fucking assholes.
Speaker 2: That's it done.
Speaker 1: One of the things I've argued with, you know, the
Speaker 1: attack on freedom of speech, is that you know, they say, well,
Speaker 1: certain people shouldn't be able to say these things, but
Speaker 1: it's like we kind of need them to say these
Speaker 1: things so we can see how evil they really are.
Speaker 1: And they're sort of showing themselves right now. I'll be honest,
Speaker 1: I was completely shocked. I told my wife some of
Speaker 1: the stuff and she shouldn't be shocked either, but I
Speaker 1: told her some of the stuff that was coming out
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and she couldn't believe it either. I mean literally,
Speaker 1: we have like prominent people like head of the BBC
Speaker 1: call in for like the president, assassinate people, send in
Speaker 1: sealed Team six I saw right, Like, I mean all
Speaker 1: of these things, I mean, like what, like where does
Speaker 1: this even come from? And the fact that they're able
Speaker 1: to say this stuff out loud is just it's just unbelievable.
Speaker 1: It's amazing how far and how fast we've come in
Speaker 1: such a short period of time, especially when this is
Speaker 1: the group of people that are calling for the censorship
Speaker 1: of people because you might say things that might offend people,
Speaker 1: and now they're openly calling for assassination and murder.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know, Well that's the thing. It's always been
Speaker 2: this way and it and you're you're completely right. This
Speaker 2: is who these people always were, right, And the fact
Speaker 2: that they're now having to deal with the fact that
Speaker 2: we disagree with them and we have a little bit
Speaker 2: of it and we have like the legal standing now
Speaker 2: and they just say, well, no, we just need to
Speaker 2: kill you all. Like really, we always knew this is
Speaker 2: what you wanted to do, something new. We've always known
Speaker 2: this and we're now thankfully now you're just showing everybody
Speaker 2: who you actually are. I mean, Keith Overman has been
Speaker 2: like been telling everybody that just just shoot everybody for
Speaker 2: years now for all intents and purposes. And same thing
Speaker 2: with the Nero and all the rest of these is rotten.
Speaker 3: Up and also you know, threatening to be Anakin singer
Speaker 3: and like Liz Cheney, and they're all because they're all
Speaker 3: scared to death of actually being They know that they're guilty,
Speaker 3: they know that they have now been exposed, and now
Speaker 3: they're literally freaking out because for the first time they
Speaker 3: actually have to fight on a level playing field, when
Speaker 3: before that they always just got this, you know, sit
Speaker 3: there in virtue signal.
Speaker 2: They're sagging tits off every day and tell and tell
Speaker 2: everybody it doesn't matter if they're man, boobs or otherwise,
Speaker 2: that you know, we are the keepers of the holy
Speaker 2: and you are not. And you are you know, you
Speaker 2: are the plorable, outcast and unclean and you just have
Speaker 2: to take it because we don't have to listen to you.
Speaker 2: They never had to listen to us. And now you
Speaker 2: can tell you you can tell that their overreaction. They're historyonic, literal,
Speaker 2: over the top reaction of oh no, now it's okay
Speaker 2: to call for the murdering of the presidential Republican presidential candidate,
Speaker 2: excuse me, or anybody else who is okay, well, just
Speaker 2: needed to start murdering everybody or pack the cord or
Speaker 2: everything else. Why Because it's just it is who they've
Speaker 2: always been, and they're now unbelievably scared because they know
Speaker 2: the jig is up and they know it's all going
Speaker 2: to roll against them, and they don't know what else
Speaker 2: to do now.
Speaker 1: So we shouldn't be that shocked because I mean, they
Speaker 1: openly called for everyone who voted for Trump to go
Speaker 1: through re education camps the majority of Americans or should
Speaker 1: be go be re educated. I mean, that was that
Speaker 1: was pretty extreme, So it shouldn't be so shocking, but
Speaker 1: it is. Some of the theying is that this Chevron
Speaker 1: doctrine effects, which is basically everything every every one of
Speaker 1: these government administrative states you mentioned, A few of them
Speaker 1: are sort of now reeling from the effects, but some
Speaker 1: of them, specifically in regards to bitcoin, we saw that
Speaker 1: there has been sort of the Biden administration has been
Speaker 1: utilizing some of these administrative companies in regards to the
Speaker 1: way that they use power, demanding bitcoin minors to you know,
Speaker 1: release information about how much power they use and things
Speaker 1: like that, and so sort of weaponizing the energy the
Speaker 1: EPA against bitcoin and weaponizing the sec against it at
Speaker 1: the same time. So do you think this rollback sort
Speaker 1: of really pulls back that press they've been put in
Speaker 1: on bitcoin in regards to a couple of those those agencies.
Speaker 2: Oh, sure, absolutely, without a doubt. And it's not just bitcoin.
Speaker 2: Bitcoin's only one aspect of this, but of course it's
Speaker 2: like everything else. Look, they wanted to They always were
Speaker 2: going to use climate change as the means by which
Speaker 2: to beat us into giving up everything that we enjoy
Speaker 2: about living in the first world. That was always the point, right.
Speaker 2: Their Their goal is to their goal is literally to
Speaker 2: replace us with AI and you know, robots and all
Speaker 2: the rest of it, and then that they can have
Speaker 2: a nice, simply controlled world and they don't have to
Speaker 2: deal with you know, the dirty meat space that is,
Speaker 2: you know, human beings. And that's fine. These are people
Speaker 2: who are disembodied left brains, if you you know, if
Speaker 2: you follow email Gilchrist, they believe the model is the world,
Speaker 2: and then they believe that they can just create whatever
Speaker 2: reality they want and then impose it on the rest
Speaker 2: of the world. They won't be able to do that now,
Speaker 2: So yeah, like they're not going to be able to
Speaker 2: tell us like we're going to be able to roll
Speaker 2: back and get light and get light bulbs that don't
Speaker 2: burn out or make us crazy like the LEDs there.
Speaker 2: We're going to get toilets that flush and actually get
Speaker 2: rid of our waist. They're going to we're going to finally,
Speaker 2: we're going to get cars that don't suck, Like that's
Speaker 2: the first one. We're going to get car that don't suck,
Speaker 2: which is in the car industry. I've been ranting about
Speaker 2: this for years. The car industry was at the epicenter.
Speaker 2: It was at the nexus point of all of these
Speaker 2: different mechanisms of control, because without a functioning auto and
Speaker 2: transport industry, you have no energy transport. Without energy transport,
Speaker 2: you have no food transport, no commodity transport, no commerce,
Speaker 2: no this, no that, no bank, no no, no private banking,
Speaker 2: none of it. It's all rests on the ability to
Speaker 2: transport goods and services and human beings to and where
Speaker 2: they need to go in order to turn what is
Speaker 2: into what will be like this is basic economics. One
Speaker 2: oh one. I hate to use that term, but you know,
Speaker 2: we're dealing with communists, so we kind of have to
Speaker 2: go back to that, to the basics. So yes, so bitcoin,
Speaker 2: they were absolutely going coming out bitcoin from like four
Speaker 2: or five different directions, not including the least of which
Speaker 2: is and And by the way, this is going to
Speaker 2: sound like a criticism, but for example, as all of
Speaker 2: this is happening, a guy who I actually really like
Speaker 2: and would love to see take over as for Ron
Speaker 2: DeSantis as governor of Florida, Matt Gates putting forth the
Speaker 2: idea that cute that Americans could pay their taxes in bitcoin.
Speaker 2: What do you want in your mind? That's like the
Speaker 2: greatest centralization of the bitcoin ever, because what do they
Speaker 2: want to do. They want to they want to block
Speaker 2: off all the whales that we're sitting on, all this
Speaker 2: bitcoin that the government doesn't control. They're gonna they want
Speaker 2: Elizabeth Warren to to get past unrealized capital gains tax,
Speaker 2: force these people to sell, cut off all of their
Speaker 2: their mechanisms by which to convert them back in the
Speaker 2: dollars so that they can pay their capital gains tax
Speaker 2: and pay everything else. No, they just want to No,
Speaker 2: just give us the big deal, because then and then
Speaker 2: they control the bitcoin. Then they can start controlling the
Speaker 2: protocol and every and they can start attempting to control
Speaker 2: the protocol. Not saying that they can, folks, for all
Speaker 2: the maxis in the audience, I understand how bitcoin works.
Speaker 2: What I'm saying is from their perspective, they think that
Speaker 2: they can control the bitcoin, they can control the value
Speaker 2: of it, the price of it, and everything else. And
Speaker 2: in some ways they're not wrong, and you and we
Speaker 2: all need to make our peace with the fact that
Speaker 2: these people are evil, and then you have to think
Speaker 2: like them in order to figure out what they're trying
Speaker 2: to do. So Bitcoin was being attacked from like multiple angles,
Speaker 2: and I was like, no, mac As, I'm not paying
Speaker 2: my Yeah, I don't consider it a privilege to pay
Speaker 2: my income taxes in bitcoin. I think that's actually the
Speaker 2: dumbest thing imagining. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know, good, good money drives out bad
Speaker 1: and there's the opposite of that, and so you want
Speaker 1: to save in the good currency and spend the bad currency.
Speaker 1: So spend your Fiat's right. It's why pre sixty five
Speaker 1: nickels or quarters and dimes are no longer in circulation anymore.
Speaker 1: People have saved those and spend the post.
Speaker 2: One Well, dimes and quarters were the ones that were
Speaker 2: quarters that were silver. It was only nickels were actually
Speaker 2: called nickels because they are seventy five percent nickel in
Speaker 2: twenty and.
Speaker 1: They no longer have nickel only for three years.
Speaker 2: It was only for three years during World War Two
Speaker 2: that we actually we actually produced silver nickels because we
Speaker 2: needed the copper and the nickels so bad to fight
Speaker 2: the war that we didn't care about the silver.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it was fast, but nickel or longer nickels are
Speaker 1: no longer nickel either. But I want to come back
Speaker 1: to this point that you said about why are they
Speaker 1: coming out now now? Something I've been talking about since
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one is how we were approaching peak centralization
Speaker 1: and the pendulum is swinging back towards decentralization. And a
Speaker 1: lot of people I talked about the blowoff top of socialism,
Speaker 1: and a lot of people back in twenty twenty one
Speaker 1: and twenty twenty two are like Mark, you're out of
Speaker 1: your mind. I mean, the WEF is getting more power,
Speaker 1: the BIS is getting more power, the IMF is getting
Speaker 1: more power. And it was, but I could already start
Speaker 1: to see the cracks, and that's what I was, looking
Speaker 1: at the cracks. But now it appears the dam is
Speaker 1: completely busting and open. We see the sort of maybe
Speaker 1: the tide turning against klaud Schwab himself. We'll come back
Speaker 1: to that. But coming back to the point, you said why,
Speaker 1: or you said, do you think that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: now feels secure enough to come out on this? So
Speaker 1: what does that mean? Why are they now secure enough?
Speaker 2: That's a great it's a great question. And yes, the
Speaker 2: whole cloud swab, nuts and slots thing coming out at
Speaker 2: the exact same time even more prima facient evidence that
Speaker 2: I've been saying since twenty twenty one. You know, my
Speaker 2: partner next to White said it to me the other day.
Speaker 2: You called the shot in twenty twenty one that Powell
Speaker 2: was off the reservation. You called the shot, You pointed
Speaker 2: at the you pointed at the at the short porch
Speaker 2: in Yankee Stadium, and then you hit the home run.
Speaker 2: I'm still like, okay, yeah, maybe, okay, but let's play
Speaker 2: this out, we're not here today, if Powell doesn't implement
Speaker 2: SOFUR during the Trump administration, if Trump doesn't put a
Speaker 2: whole bunch of Circuit court judges in that are actually
Speaker 2: half way reasonable during his term. Remember, those are really
Speaker 2: the only two things that Trump did, other than keeping
Speaker 2: us out of war with Russia, which is a secondary point.
Speaker 2: But those two were probably, in hindsight, the most consequential
Speaker 2: things that Trump got done during his first term. During
Speaker 2: the first season of the Trump Show, because the courts
Speaker 2: set up Chevron and SOFER sets up where we are
Speaker 2: today with interest rates and the money and money and
Speaker 2: everything else, and the and the the capital markets. So
Speaker 2: the Democrats have always planned on getting rid of Joe Biden.
Speaker 2: Let's not kid ourselves, Okay, they understood, they've known, like
Speaker 2: we've known for years that Joe was never going to
Speaker 2: run for reelection or that they were going to have
Speaker 2: to figure out a way to get him off, you know,
Speaker 2: off the stage. Biden and his family, of course, don't
Speaker 2: want to leave the stage because they are so corrupt.
Speaker 2: The only thing keeping them out of jail right now
Speaker 2: is the fact that he's president. Okay, So of course
Speaker 2: Joe Biden wants to continue being president of the United States.
Speaker 2: But so they set up this debate for the day
Speaker 2: before the end of Q two in the capital markets, right,
Speaker 2: so Thursday night, Q two is going to end on
Speaker 2: Friday afternoon at five o'clock so that the world can
Speaker 2: see that Joe Biden really is decompensating faster than anybody ever,
Speaker 2: anybody ever thought, and all of a sudden and I
Speaker 2: and I don't for for for for the record, I
Speaker 2: don't think that the trolls at CNN were acting and
Speaker 2: the and the after really a debate pity party. I
Speaker 2: think I think I think that they're only I think
Speaker 2: they're told what they're what they're told what they're supposed
Speaker 2: to do, and they actually don't watch anything. I think
Speaker 2: they see all the same clips that are sanitized and
Speaker 2: given to them. You know, I really do. Because the
Speaker 2: best way to sell the the flip the needle scratch
Speaker 2: of oh my god, Joe Biden is like is insane
Speaker 2: is for them to actually believe it themselves. I mean,
Speaker 2: if I were, if I were scripting this, if I
Speaker 2: were directing this movie, they would not be actors in
Speaker 2: that moment. I would have them be honestly shocked and
Speaker 2: have their me medic collapse and their world completely change overnight.
Speaker 1: Right, Ben Hunt put out a piece I believe it's
Speaker 1: epsilon theory, and put out a piece about common knowledge
Speaker 1: or general knowledge and sort of talked about how everybody
Speaker 1: knows it privately, but nobody wants to talk about it,
Speaker 1: sort of the emperor wears no clothes, so to speak.
Speaker 1: Everyone knew the emperor was naked, but once someone set
Speaker 1: it out loud and then they knew that everybody else
Speaker 1: knew the same thing, that they could start talking about it.
Speaker 1: And that's maybe sort of like this, like everyone sort
Speaker 1: of knew Biden was like that. Obviously some of us
Speaker 1: openly spoke about it, but some of them didn't. But
Speaker 1: once it was out in the open and then everybody
Speaker 1: saw it, there was just no way they couldn't talk
Speaker 1: about it. Something like that.
Speaker 2: Right, So that's the first part of the setup. And
Speaker 2: so we knew this was coming. It was on the schedule,
Speaker 2: And people have been asking me all day and all
Speaker 2: the last couple of days, like why did Trump even
Speaker 2: you know, agree to this debate knowing full well that
Speaker 2: you know this is a setup in order to get
Speaker 2: rid of Biden. I'm like, because the best way for
Speaker 2: him to win is for him to let them show
Speaker 2: Biden for what he is, let them attempt to replace him,
Speaker 2: and then watch the civil war within the Democratic Party
Speaker 2: as all three, four, five, six different factions with the
Speaker 2: Democratic Party, and I think there's at least three you know,
Speaker 2: you know, fight amongst themselves until we figure out what's
Speaker 2: gonna you know, who's gonna gonna win. And this is
Speaker 2: exactly what Dexter White and I talked about in the
Speaker 2: latest issue with the Gold, Goat and Guns podcast. We
Speaker 2: did we did this like on Sunday afternoon, and I
Speaker 2: put it out last night, so I think they knew
Speaker 2: it was coming, they knew what was getting set up.
Speaker 2: And the Supreme Court right at the end of their
Speaker 2: legislation of their session, then dumped everything on the market,
Speaker 2: everything all at once, and then the war the War
Speaker 2: Street Journal puts out the nuts and Smuts campaign against
Speaker 2: Kyles Schwab. It's all coordinated. There are no coincidences here, okay,
Speaker 2: and we've all been focusing on Chevron right and the
Speaker 2: Trump thing. But and I didn't. I didn't catch this.
Speaker 2: One of my patrons caught it, and he called me
Speaker 2: out and he's like, dude, how could you miss this?
Speaker 2: I'm like, because I'm busy, and the life, the life happens.
Speaker 2: Thank you for pointing this out to me. The jacker
Speaker 2: Se case about the SEC is actually more is actually
Speaker 2: almost as consequential because there in that one, you know,
Speaker 2: the SEC brought fraud charges against this hedge fund manager
Speaker 2: ten years ago and then you know, and find the
Speaker 2: crab out of him and claimed that their administrative star
Speaker 2: chamber courts were good enough to you know, adjudicate against
Speaker 2: this guy have and the Supreme Court is like, uh no,
Speaker 2: that's a jury by his peers issue. And the legal
Speaker 2: decision on this is very is actually very interesting because
Speaker 2: the SEC. And I'm not a constitutional scholar, so I'll
Speaker 2: get like the the article and section numbers wrong, but
Speaker 2: they were trying to argue one section of the Constitution,
Speaker 2: the executive branch, versus the another article of the Constitution,
Speaker 2: which was enumerting the you know, which was enumrating like
Speaker 2: the legislative branch. And so they were trying to mix
Speaker 2: those two things together in order to get what they wanted,
Speaker 2: and they got away with it for years, again thanks
Speaker 2: to Chevron. So the two of those things together. Really
Speaker 2: that's the like the Judo esque you know, body slam reversal,
Speaker 2: complete reversal. And so now all of a sudden, we
Speaker 2: actually have the possibility of getting government of buying for
Speaker 2: the people out of the court system because the because
Speaker 2: the administrative state has been you know, literally gutted, and
Speaker 2: now we can go back to a jury by you know,
Speaker 2: we can go back to trial jury and they can't
Speaker 2: just you know, find us and take all of our
Speaker 2: money and bankrupt this all because you know, we looked
Speaker 2: at somebody sideways, or we put out a mean tweet
Speaker 2: about Ursula Vanderline, which this is the funny part about it.
Speaker 2: It's like we're at the point now where if we
Speaker 2: say mean things about European leaders, like they send people
Speaker 2: to our doors, they send the f b I to
Speaker 2: our house, Like fuck is this ship?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 2: Seriously, are you kidding me? Like, I'm not allowed to
Speaker 2: say bad things about giebra hofstat I'm like, what, why not?
Speaker 2: He's completely odious. There's nothing, there's not a thing about
Speaker 2: that human being that is in any way mannership before redeemable.
Speaker 2: And yet I'm supposed to sit here and defer to
Speaker 2: him because he's a public figure.
Speaker 1: What do you what do you kidd eat heat from
Speaker 1: the Netherlands.
Speaker 2: Yeah, the Netherlands, that guy with the bad teeth and
Speaker 2: the you know this Hord.
Speaker 1: I want to I want to literally like the like.
Speaker 2: The like like the perfect example of the odious eurocrat. Yeah,
Speaker 2: like he's like he's like like my pinnacle. I gotta like,
Speaker 2: I gotta get Ai to.
Speaker 1: Give me some like Godzilla means I want to come
Speaker 1: back to the Europe and the EU. But just so so,
Speaker 1: you're saying that the Supreme Court finally felt safe enough
Speaker 1: to do this and sort of in the fog of war. Uh,
Speaker 1: sort of at a time when the the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: which has been openly attacking them, threatening them even right
Speaker 1: we saw with an overturn of Roe v. Wade, I
Speaker 1: mean actual physical threats and so forth. So at a
Speaker 1: time when now there's all this dysfunction in fighting, they
Speaker 1: figured now is a safe time because they're too preoccupied
Speaker 1: with themselves. Is that what you're saying.
Speaker 2: No, Actually, when I again get lost in all the
Speaker 2: details and you know, wanting to like stand out my
Speaker 2: soapbox and complain about your bloodless eurocrats. No, the point
Speaker 2: being is that if you believe my argument that the
Speaker 2: FED and our banking system is not down with the
Speaker 2: common turn, then they have finally gotten the things together.
Speaker 2: They've got all their ducks in a row, and they
Speaker 2: finally tapped the scotus on the back of the shoulders
Speaker 2: to John Roberts, don't worry, we have your back. Take
Speaker 2: these people the fuck out. And what happened yesterday The
Speaker 2: State of Florida unleashes all of the Epstein. Yeah, the
Speaker 2: documents that have been sealed for sixteen years. Like, if
Speaker 2: this isn't all a major shot across every bow there is,
Speaker 2: I don't know what else to tell you. I mean, Mark,
Speaker 2: like you, I call peak Davos. Back in twenty twenty one,
Speaker 2: when they tried rolling out Omicron and it failed like
Speaker 2: a went over like a led Zeppelin, I'm like, this
Speaker 2: is over. Yeah, this is only going to get worse
Speaker 2: for them for them from here because they don't because
Speaker 2: they've lost the illusion of that. Everybody's broken the illusion
Speaker 2: and it's collapsed and everybody's like, Okay, I'm just over
Speaker 2: this shit and now I want to get back to work.
Speaker 2: And you know, it was just a matter of watching
Speaker 2: whether or not Powell could continue to drain them of
Speaker 2: their vitality. I either euro dollars that they levered up
Speaker 2: a zero percent for fifteen years, and then they watch
Speaker 2: Jenny Yellen running yield curve control and all this other stuff,
Speaker 2: and it's just all what I've seen for the last
Speaker 2: three years is nothing but reregard actions from them. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and their pivot is war in Ukraine, and war in Taiwan.
Speaker 1: And war everywhere China, and war and war work were
Speaker 1: everywhere one of the only ways out of the situation
Speaker 1: that we're in, moving more towards the macroeconomic lens. Now
Speaker 1: you talk about the FED sort of weaponizing against the
Speaker 1: euro system, if you will, the banking system, And just
Speaker 1: for everybody listening, if you want to know more about
Speaker 1: that whole thing, go back and listen to some of
Speaker 1: our previous interviews. I'm going to link them in the
Speaker 1: in the show notes down below because they're still relevant
Speaker 1: if you want to kind of understand this from a
Speaker 1: better level. But let's just say that in this situation
Speaker 1: that we're in right now, with super high debt to GDP,
Speaker 1: unsustainable debt, fiscal spending is now dominating, you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: the FED and central banks can do, and we're sort
Speaker 1: of the rock and hard place have continued to get
Speaker 1: closer and closer and closer. Maybe the only real way
Speaker 1: out of this is, I mean, super high inflation. Right,
Speaker 1: if we can have enough inflation to push the growth
Speaker 1: level up. So this is what I'm thinking.
Speaker 2: So maybe we have.
Speaker 1: Maybe we have high double digit inflation for three four years.
Speaker 1: We pushed the GDP the productive side up a little bit,
Speaker 1: bring the debt to GDP balance back down a little bit.
Speaker 1: We have Biden talking about and now you know, the
Speaker 1: news media has been saying that if if President Trump
Speaker 1: comes back, we're gonna have this inflation bomb. And knowing
Speaker 1: that we need the inflation bomb, could Trump be the
Speaker 1: scapegoat that it would be put in place? They already
Speaker 1: told us there's going to be an inflation bomb, then
Speaker 1: they unleashed the inflation bomb to bring back balance in there.
Speaker 1: Could that be something.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna I'm going to push back on that. Yeah,
Speaker 2: I think that we're going to continue to have inflation.
Speaker 2: There was a summit this morning at hosted by the
Speaker 2: ECB between Jerome Powell, the head of the Brazilian Central
Speaker 2: banker's name, I don't you can't remember, and I probably
Speaker 2: couldn't pronounce it even if I did remember. And Christina
Speaker 2: Lagard and Powell and his remarks had like Powell like
Speaker 2: he did with the Guard at the green Sea Summit
Speaker 2: back in early June before he you know, used the
Speaker 2: five basis points to change the world when you pushed
Speaker 2: the RP rate, the reverse rebuild rate five basis points
Speaker 2: about the Fed funds rate. Two weeks before that he
Speaker 2: did that. He told everybody at the green Sea Summit. Look,
Speaker 2: I'm the head of the Federal Reserve. I have a
Speaker 2: dual mandate for stable prices and full employment. Climate change
Speaker 2: is not my thing. And Leguard lost her mind and
Speaker 2: was angry, Well, I got news for you this morning.
Speaker 2: My people all got a chance to watch this today.
Speaker 2: I didn't. I was actually busy doing other things and
Speaker 2: all of my patrons were just watching this on CNBC
Speaker 2: and cackling as Powell just said, we don't see inflation
Speaker 2: coming down to blow two percent for until the end
Speaker 2: of twenty twenty six, which is which is a way
Speaker 2: of saying dog whistling. Oh, by the way, fuck, there
Speaker 2: are no rate cuts coming, okay, If anything, there are
Speaker 2: rate hikes coming now.
Speaker 1: I believe the power took it from the now fron angle.
Speaker 2: But go ahead, but oh no, no, absolutely, I know,
Speaker 2: I know the inflation neists want to believe that Powell's
Speaker 2: like trying to wiggle his way out of it. No,
Speaker 2: that was a clear signal we are not going to
Speaker 2: cut interest rates because is no need for us to
Speaker 2: do so. And moreover, he talked about the labor market.
Speaker 2: He said, the labor market is is yeah, it's not good,
Speaker 2: but it's not terrible. And he's like, we're going to
Speaker 2: go through the pain that's necessary. And Leguard was absolutely
Speaker 2: bonkers man. And then when she was asked a whole
Speaker 2: lot of hard questions that she couldn't answer because and
Speaker 2: then Gulesby came out, the Austin Goulsby came out and
Speaker 2: said say, after, well, you know, if we if we
Speaker 2: measured inflation the way the Eurozone does, yeah, we'd be
Speaker 2: at two percent. But we don't. And it's already understated
Speaker 2: an effect. Another way, when when you listen to fed head,
Speaker 2: when you listen to FED people talk, you have to
Speaker 2: understand the bias and the speak. They're never going to
Speaker 2: tell you the truth. Is like any politician it's like
Speaker 2: any hockey general manager. They always talk in you know,
Speaker 2: in platitudes, and you have to understand how to read
Speaker 2: what they say. It's like reading diplomatic cables, which again
Speaker 2: my friend friend Alexander Mercuriz is far better at than
Speaker 2: i am. And that was a clear signal to everybody
Speaker 2: that Penwell's not changed in course unless he absolutely has
Speaker 2: to be. And there's something that breaks within the US
Speaker 2: financial system, and we are not showing any signs whatsoever
Speaker 2: of that happening. What we're seeing is continued movement by
Speaker 2: Janney Allen to attempt to do yield curve control through
Speaker 2: the treasury departments. She just did a POMO thing this
Speaker 2: afternoon and bought back a bunch of treasuries maturing in
Speaker 2: twenty thirty six. So what she's doing, she's buying the
Speaker 2: long end of the curve and she's selling the short
Speaker 2: end of the curve. That's her yield curve control. She's
Speaker 2: been selling tos and buy and tens, or biasing the
Speaker 2: market in terms of buying and selling twos and tens
Speaker 2: for two years now in order to keep the long
Speaker 2: end of the European yield curve from blowing out. Where
Speaker 2: it belongs, because Leguard needs the German ten year to
Speaker 2: stay around one point six to one point eight percent
Speaker 2: below that of the US tenure. So if we start
Speaker 2: getting a bear steepener trade in the uscield curve, Reguard
Speaker 2: is absolutely screwed in every way, matner, shape and form,
Speaker 2: because at the same time, that's going to put downward
Speaker 2: pressure on the euro, which is then going to feedback
Speaker 2: into oil prices and they're gonna have inflation come back
Speaker 2: like you would not believe in Europe, and she's going
Speaker 2: to look like a complete and utter idiot, which she is.
Speaker 2: She is a political animal. She's not an economist. She
Speaker 2: was placed in power in order to affect a particular
Speaker 2: policy because she's ruthless and she's good at it. But
Speaker 2: she's also a moron when it comes to she's gonna
Speaker 2: fight like the world's bond traders. I mean, I already
Speaker 2: know that the central banks are like, try to move
Speaker 2: all the markets all the time. Fine, but at some
Speaker 2: point markets are stronger than that. And what I think
Speaker 2: is the following To go back to your point about inflation,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying we're not going to continue to have inflation.
Speaker 2: We are as a matter of fact, inflations, we're gonna
Speaker 2: have another round of it. It's going to show up
Speaker 2: in energy prices and then move forward. Why because the
Speaker 2: Biden administration is run out of oil to sell out
Speaker 2: of the SBR, to manipulate oil prices. I did a
Speaker 2: podcast with a young man named Ben Kelleran recently and
Speaker 2: we went over the state of the oil industry, and
Speaker 2: he brought up to me the importance of the fact
Speaker 2: that the United States has changed the definition of what
Speaker 2: constitutes a barrel of oil in terms of oil weekly
Speaker 2: oil production statistics, meaning they're more biased now towards natural
Speaker 2: gas and natural gas liquids than actual crude oil. So
Speaker 2: the United States is still nominally producing thirteen million barrels
Speaker 2: of oil a day, but a lot lower proportion of
Speaker 2: that is actual crude oil. Okay, So that's biasing the mind.
Speaker 2: That's again management and perspective economics to bias Brent crude
Speaker 2: traders and WTI crew traders. Now Brent is sitting here,
Speaker 2: opens up Q three and immediately pushes towards eighty seven
Speaker 2: dollars a barrel, while the euro is struggling to maintain
Speaker 2: one of seven. All of these things together point to
Speaker 2: the exact same problem. You have that and you have
Speaker 2: political unrest in Europe. You have the Brits going to
Speaker 2: the polls tomorrow, You've already got the French going in
Speaker 2: the midst of an election. Like the fiction that German
Speaker 2: buns are less risky than American treasuries is ludicrous. It's
Speaker 2: bald face the ludicrous on the face of it. And
Speaker 2: the only reason it's we still accept it is because
Speaker 2: everybody other than Powell, and to a lesser extent, the
Speaker 2: Bank of Japan have been lining up to prop up
Speaker 2: this failing system known as the Euro and maybe they're
Speaker 2: doing it for their own reasons. Maybe that's why the
Speaker 2: ricks Bank, you know, and Sweden cut interest rates. I
Speaker 2: know why the Swiss National Bank cut interest rates because
Speaker 2: the Germans, because the bundes Bank told them to. Okay,
Speaker 2: but when you when you see it this way, you
Speaker 2: can't unsee it. And I think the way out of
Speaker 2: this in the lad long run is a Trump restoration,
Speaker 2: and that's again soil coin flip is the whether he
Speaker 2: makes it to January twentieth or whatever, and a reworking
Speaker 2: at the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury end or
Speaker 2: the Treasury Department such that gold gets remonetized, and that's
Speaker 2: what's coming. What's gonna come is we are going to
Speaker 2: use the gold reserves as a means by which to
Speaker 2: bring the debt to GDP ratio down nominally. I want
Speaker 2: to remind everybody one hundred and six percent, that's nice, pikers,
Speaker 2: compared to what we did during World War Two. We
Speaker 2: walked out of World War two with a two hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty percent debt to GDP ratio and Institute of
Speaker 2: Bretton Woods.
Speaker 1: We were also on a equity based monetary system and
Speaker 1: on a debt based monetary system.
Speaker 2: Well kind of we were again exactly, we were on
Speaker 2: a gold based monetary system where gold was trading around
Speaker 2: the world at thirty five hours an hours, which was
Speaker 2: a completely lot. So what happened over priced dollars relative
Speaker 2: to everybody else went out into the world to rebuild
Speaker 2: the world after World War two, which is actually what
Speaker 2: built the American Empire. It's what killed our trade deficit
Speaker 2: with Europe, killed our trade surplus with Europe. It caused
Speaker 2: the gold window to be closed in nineteen seventy one.
Speaker 2: It was brilliant. It was an actually brilliant long term
Speaker 2: play by the European globalist to suck all the capitol
Speaker 2: back out of the United States back into Europe. And
Speaker 2: it's worked perfectly. And they thought they were going to
Speaker 2: be able to then keep control of that all reserve
Speaker 2: and keep live or in place, and keep pricing dollars
Speaker 2: to their advantage as opposed to ours, and eventually take
Speaker 2: us over. And we said no, and that's where we are.
Speaker 2: And then you know, now it's just a matter of
Speaker 2: fighting as to who's going to win. Because if we
Speaker 2: don't do this, Mark, and this is the last point,
Speaker 2: and I'll turn the microphone back over. If we don't
Speaker 2: do this, the bricks are going to do it anyway,
Speaker 2: and then we're screwed. And then we're going to be
Speaker 2: forced to do it. So we can either lay the
Speaker 2: ground foundation for it today, getting rid of Chevron, getting
Speaker 2: rid of the SEC's ability to getting rid of all
Speaker 2: of this stuff, and then going to Judy Shelton's gold
Speaker 2: back treasury bonds or gold back tips, basically her plan,
Speaker 2: which is what Trump wanted to do back in twenty seventeen.
Speaker 2: I got blocked by Kamala Harris and John McCain who
Speaker 2: high fived on the Senate for to block her nomination
Speaker 2: to the Federal Reserve Board. If we I've talked about
Speaker 2: this many many times, If we if that's what's in process,
Speaker 2: it's out there. Shelton's already talking about this like no, no, no,
Speaker 2: not twenty twenty four, twenty twenty six, We're going to
Speaker 2: do this. Like the evidence, the circumstantial evidence is all
Speaker 2: there that this is all going to get done, because
Speaker 2: if we don't do it, when Mbridge gets turned on
Speaker 2: and the bricks and the bricks institute, the unit and
Speaker 2: all this other stuff, once that happened, they're not going
Speaker 2: to be able to hold the gold price down. The
Speaker 2: gold price is going to go to seven eight nine
Speaker 2: thousand dollars an ounce over the course of the next decade,
Speaker 2: and that is going to change our relationship of the
Speaker 2: size of the Fed's balance sheet relative to its hard
Speaker 2: asset pool. And I firmly believe that we'll wind up
Speaker 2: in some kind of negotiated settlement and the world breaking
Speaker 2: off into blocks and domestic versus international versions of the
Speaker 2: currencies similar to the yu won everybody's going to go
Speaker 2: to the yuan model. By the time this is over,
Speaker 2: by the way, and then the Europeans are the ones
Speaker 2: who are desperately trying to stop this from happening because
Speaker 2: they understand the having the forcing the world in an
Speaker 2: open capital account with them controlling the primary central bank
Speaker 2: that issues the reserve currency is their superpower. They ran
Speaker 2: it with the Brits, they ran it with us, and
Speaker 2: they want to run it with Europe through the IMF
Speaker 2: and the UN and it's not going to happen. The
Speaker 2: bricks have already walked away from this in the United States,
Speaker 2: and there's there are powerful forces when the United States
Speaker 2: are setting things up to walk away from this as well,
Speaker 2: and all that has to happen that we get political
Speaker 2: control over the United States and we stay out of
Speaker 2: World War three.
Speaker 1: That's interesting that you throw that out there, and I
Speaker 1: want to have you walk us through mechanically how that
Speaker 1: would work. But just to kind of set the stage
Speaker 1: for this, you've mentioned that we're either going to do
Speaker 1: it first or we're going to do it later, and
Speaker 1: so kind of set the stage for this. I've been
Speaker 1: following Luke Grammin's work for a long time and he
Speaker 1: talks about this quite often and and basically what we're
Speaker 1: seeing is this is already happening through and especially the
Speaker 1: big news about Saudi Arabia and whatever, the end of
Speaker 1: the petro dollar, whatever it is that they're doing, certainly
Speaker 1: moving to this m bridge product, this the CBDC bridge,
Speaker 1: if you will, which circumvents the entire you know, dollar,
Speaker 1: swift system, the correspondent banking system, all these things. Why
Speaker 1: people say the dollar can't be replaced, Well, it can't
Speaker 1: be replaced easily because of the corresponded banks and the
Speaker 1: swift system. But we could just build a new system
Speaker 1: that doesn't require that, and that's sort of what this
Speaker 1: m bridge is. But what China's doing is then allowing
Speaker 1: sey Saudi Araba to trade in yuan and then recycle
Speaker 1: those surpluses into gold through their gold markets, and that's
Speaker 1: what's pushing the gold price up in the Shanghai markets,
Speaker 1: et cetera.
Speaker 2: Right, there's a lot, there's a lot to unpack. And
Speaker 2: for those who have not followed the stuff that we've got,
Speaker 2: Vince Launchi and I have done. Vince and I over
Speaker 2: at vbl's Goaldfix have done a series of podcasts on
Speaker 2: my podcast going over a lot of these things. So
Speaker 2: I've got hours of content trying to explain this stuff
Speaker 2: in mechanical terms, and we're not going to be able
Speaker 2: to get unpack that all here.
Speaker 1: I'm just yeah, let's just talk more mechanically as to
Speaker 1: what the US would what it would look like for
Speaker 1: the US to actually remonetize gold. What would that look like?
Speaker 2: Right, Well, it would look like the way I just
Speaker 2: described it, which is that Shelton would Shelton's our argument
Speaker 2: is that, look, we can offer a we can offer
Speaker 2: a treasury bond redeemable and a certain percentage of gold
Speaker 2: or completely in gold. And it could be a thirty
Speaker 2: or fifty year tips. It doesn't have to be a
Speaker 2: you know, a five or two that would be insane,
Speaker 2: that would bankrupt the country. But you offer a long
Speaker 2: dated treasury redeemable in treasury gold, either a five percent
Speaker 2: or ten percent or one hundred percent or whatever. I
Speaker 2: don't know what the what the market is going to
Speaker 2: demand of us, Okay, I don't. I don't care about that.
Speaker 2: I just know that if you offer a two percent
Speaker 2: nomenal coupon, or even in Shelton's argument, you don't even
Speaker 2: offer a coupon. You just say, look, we're gonna give
Speaker 2: you we're gonna give you gold. We're going to it's
Speaker 2: a promise to pay you gold. I don't think that
Speaker 2: would fly with the market. I think you've got to
Speaker 2: offer at least a dollar base, a small dollar based
Speaker 2: coupon payment to give people the cash flow that that
Speaker 2: BONDMST investors would want. And then you know, some kind
Speaker 2: of gold cover clause at the at the at the
Speaker 2: back end, so that when you redeem the bond you
Speaker 2: can take you know, you give the government ten thousand
Speaker 2: dollars and and say ten percent of it is convertible
Speaker 2: in the gold at the at maturation. Okay, great. That
Speaker 2: means you're gonna get nine thousand dollars back on one
Speaker 2: thousand dollars worth of goal. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: the price of gold will have risen. You're gonna when
Speaker 2: you execute the contract, you're gonna get x amount of
Speaker 2: gold back at current prices. You're gonna get that at
Speaker 2: the at the end. So if one thousand dollars of
Speaker 2: gold is roughly say point four ounces, right, then you're
Speaker 2: gonna get nine grand back plus point four ounces of
Speaker 2: gold regardless of what the gold price is. The gold
Speaker 2: price could be twenty thousand dollars an ounce at that point, right,
Speaker 2: and so that adds to your effective bond heield. You
Speaker 2: get say a one or two percent, Say you get
Speaker 2: a two percent coupon rate in dollars payable and ten
Speaker 2: percent gold after thirty years, you know, in actual gold today.
Speaker 2: So you're selling the gold, right unless, of course, you
Speaker 2: call those bonds in. You know, after you've repaired the
Speaker 2: balance sheet. And how do you repair the balance sheet.
Speaker 2: You repair the balance back on the price of gold
Speaker 2: to go from twenty four hundred dollars ounce it's twenty
Speaker 2: four thousand dollars an ounce. That's how you do it,
Speaker 2: and you incentivize everybody to do it. So guess what
Speaker 2: the Chinese are going to do this. The Chinese have
Speaker 2: a massive ship pot of goal, so to the Russians,
Speaker 2: by the way, so to the Turks, so to the Indians.
Speaker 1: And they're they're already and they're it's in process.
Speaker 2: Right there, and they're going to settle their internal trade
Speaker 2: through mbridge in the unit with a forty percent gold back.
Speaker 2: The unit is going to be forty percent gold back.
Speaker 2: Forty freaking percent, not four percent like it is in
Speaker 2: the United States or zero percent is in Canada in
Speaker 2: the UK or five percent is this in in the EU?
Speaker 2: And I'm using that that coverage rate versus M two.
Speaker 2: By the way I'm saying is that like you know,
Speaker 2: or even the Fed's balance sheet doesn't really matter, Like
Speaker 2: they're kind of similar. So you they're going to be
Speaker 2: at forty percent. Meaning what they're going to use the
Speaker 2: unit for is it's not going to be a currency.
Speaker 2: No one's going to trade in units. They're going to
Speaker 2: trade in rupees and yuan and rubles and deer am
Speaker 2: and all the you know, Saudi and all the rest
Speaker 2: of it. But they're going to settle through mbridge their
Speaker 2: trade in the units, and they're going to have and
Speaker 2: they're going to note their trade balances and their accounting
Speaker 2: will be done, and it'll just be a blockchain ledger,
Speaker 2: just like a blockchain. Actually that's all a blockchain actually
Speaker 2: is anyway, it's just a ledger and so for and
Speaker 2: that's how they'll settle up their trade balances versus their
Speaker 2: trade deficits, maybe on a quarterly or annual basis they
Speaker 2: need to so at the end of a year, you know,
Speaker 2: India owes Russia fifty tons of gold and then fifty
Speaker 2: tons of gold because it is on a freaking ship
Speaker 2: or a plane and goes to the and go and
Speaker 2: get sent to Moscow. But they don't settle up on
Speaker 2: a daily basis with this, okay, and then it's under
Speaker 2: it's in India's best interest at that point too, if
Speaker 2: they don't want the gold to leave to invest in
Speaker 2: Russia in such a way that they, you know, the
Speaker 2: route ruble internal trade is closer to balance, and it's
Speaker 2: going to enforce a kind of trade discipline that we
Speaker 2: should and they're gonna do that. It's happening now. In
Speaker 2: order for that to happen, they will need a lot
Speaker 2: more liquidity in the gold market than they currently have.
Speaker 2: Twenty four hundred dollars an ounce is not enough even
Speaker 2: at you know, even if the Chinese actually owned that
Speaker 2: twenty thousand tons that Jim Rigards says they've had, or
Speaker 2: the Russians have twenty thousand dons, which I believe, I'm
Speaker 2: not disagreeing with Jim. Even if all that's true, they
Speaker 2: still need you know, a three or four x the
Speaker 2: gold price in the West, especially in Europe. I don't
Speaker 2: think the feed is fighting the gold price anymore. Okay.
Speaker 2: I don't think mister Slammy works in New York anymore.
Speaker 2: I think he works in Frankfurt. Okay, And I'll tell
Speaker 2: you why I watched the I watched the gold No. Well,
Speaker 2: mister Slammy being the guy who comes in and beats
Speaker 2: on the price, beats on the overhead. My friend Eric
Speaker 2: youung On On on Twitter calls him mister Slammy, and
Speaker 2: I think it's hilarious and it's a great description. But
Speaker 2: where you know, all of a sudden, like you know,
Speaker 2: sixty million tons silver drop on the market in five minutes,
Speaker 2: that's mister Slammy. Mister Slammy used to show up at
Speaker 2: eight thirty like cockwork in New York during the last
Speaker 2: gold bull market, and certainly during the BERNACKI fellon, yelling
Speaker 2: you fellon that's a great before it had slipped. I'm sorry,
Speaker 2: so the Bernanchi fell in years. I'm going to use
Speaker 2: that from here on out. Mister Slammy would show up
Speaker 2: at eight thirty like conckwork, like during the Asian trade,
Speaker 2: gold would be up, would be kind of wander around.
Speaker 2: During the European trade, no one really cared, and an
Speaker 2: eight thirty would come in and the gold market and
Speaker 2: the gold price would get bombed on whatever reason we
Speaker 2: get bombed. And as Bill Murphy and the GADA guys,
Speaker 2: Bill Murphy and Chris Powell worked out during that entire time.
Speaker 2: They published a paper after the last gold bull market
Speaker 2: that if you sold the New York if you bought
Speaker 2: the New York Open and sold the New York clothes
Speaker 2: from the beginning of the gold bull market to the
Speaker 2: peak of twenty eleven, you had a lost seventy percent
Speaker 2: of your money, even though gold went up six percent,
Speaker 2: because that's how powerful the New York bearish internal daily
Speaker 2: trade was. Now I'm seeing that same trade starting at
Speaker 2: three am. What's three am, Well, three am New York
Speaker 2: time is Europe. It's the European opener. Three or two
Speaker 2: o'clock is the European open. And then you see gold,
Speaker 2: you see US treasury bonds get bid, you see you
Speaker 2: see all sorts of pinky stuff happening. And then eight
Speaker 2: thirty happens. The New York markets start to open. Gold
Speaker 2: and silver catch a bid, oil catches a bid. People
Speaker 2: start selling treasuries again, and they're like, what in the
Speaker 2: hell is going on here? It's clearly leguard running and
Speaker 2: others running an operation there. Mister Slammy, Now this is
Speaker 2: not to say that at particular times during the month,
Speaker 2: end of the quarter, when or end of the month,
Speaker 2: when you know options on op X and futures futures,
Speaker 2: options on futures expiration that mister Slammy doesn't come out
Speaker 2: in New York. He does, but it's not the Fed
Speaker 2: anymore doing it. It may be a bullion bank that's
Speaker 2: in trouble, it may be BofA, it may be JP Morgan,
Speaker 2: but it's not the Fed. The Fed is setting everything
Speaker 2: up for a return of a remodernization of gold. They're
Speaker 2: gonna allow the price of goal to rise a couple
Speaker 2: hundred dollars here and then we'll go up two hundred
Speaker 2: bucks and then down one hundred and up two hundred
Speaker 2: bucks and down. And you see, this is what's happening
Speaker 2: China is the demand out of China is enforcing a
Speaker 2: massive arbitrage on a daily basis between Shanghai price and
Speaker 2: the New York and the London price, anywhere from five
Speaker 2: to thirty dollars on any given day. If that doesn't close,
Speaker 2: that's because they can't source the physical gold. My friend
Speaker 2: Vinjelachi has gone about at length on multiple podcasts, not
Speaker 2: just mine but Arcadie Economics Palisadsville Radio. Vince has been
Speaker 2: doing the rounds. He's been doing a great job so
Speaker 2: understanding the mechanics of this. The Fed, I don't think,
Speaker 2: wants a lower gold price anymore. They're not trying to worry.
Speaker 2: They're not worried that the dollar is being embarrassed by
Speaker 2: a rising gold price. They're actually worried about the dollar
Speaker 2: rising too far, too fast while they hold interest rates
Speaker 2: high because it's setting up capital in flight into the
Speaker 2: United States. So letting the gold price rise actually helps
Speaker 2: blunt and allow the strengthening of the dollar to happen,
Speaker 2: which has been happening, to happen more manageably at the
Speaker 2: same time, so that that's happening over there. Who's the
Speaker 2: one that doesn't want to rise in gold price? Europe? Why?
Speaker 2: And it has not. Europe should want the exact same thing,
Speaker 2: because they've got twelve thousand tons of gold, they've got
Speaker 2: an unsustainable debt situation, their central banks are all underwater.
Speaker 2: They should want the same thing the Fed does, but
Speaker 2: they don't. And the reason they don't is because they
Speaker 2: are truly the colonialist powers of old that they've always
Speaker 2: been listen to them politically, Mark, this is so very important.
Speaker 2: They're the ones pushing for war with Russia. They're the
Speaker 2: ones putting the Estonian Prime Minister in as the top
Speaker 2: diplomat who wants Russia destroyed, humiliated and broken up into
Speaker 2: two hundred countries. They put Ursula Vanderland and you all
Speaker 2: freaking Nazi they kept her in charge. Why all the
Speaker 2: warmongers are in Europe. They're the ones all pushing to
Speaker 2: create a new effectively like maginal line on the an
Speaker 2: eastern border between Poland and Baylor, US and Ukraine. They're
Speaker 2: the ones pushing for this. They're the ones trying to
Speaker 2: put as many trip wires in place, including the Brits,
Speaker 2: in place, in order to force NATO in the US
Speaker 2: to come to their aid after they picked a war
Speaker 2: ground war with Russia. Why because they expect the United
Speaker 2: States to come in beat Russia and then they get
Speaker 2: to run the exact same plan that they ran after
Speaker 2: World War One and World War Two, which is, if
Speaker 2: you keep the price of gold down and you humiliate Russia,
Speaker 2: then you can impose unbelievable reparations on them. Listen to
Speaker 2: what they say. Russia has to pay for the rebuilding
Speaker 2: of Ukraine. Russia has to pay for this. Russia has
Speaker 2: to pay for this. Russia is wrong. Russia is gonna
Speaker 2: pay pay, pay, pay, pay pay. It's no different than
Speaker 2: what fucking Churchill did after World War One. And it's
Speaker 2: no different what Dide what we did with Brett with
Speaker 2: Breton Woods after World War two. You, after the war's over,
Speaker 2: you re establish the market rate of gold at the
Speaker 2: pre war rate and then impose reparations on the aggressive country,
Speaker 2: the beaten country that has forced to pay back in
Speaker 2: overvalued currency relative to their goal. It's exactly why they
Speaker 2: want to set this up. So they don't want the
Speaker 2: gold prices for five six, seven thousand dollars an ounce.
Speaker 2: Russia would be able to pay those reparations even if
Speaker 2: they lost the war. They wanted a two thousand dollars
Speaker 2: an ounce because they want Russia to pay, and they
Speaker 2: have not giving up this dream of extending their colonial
Speaker 2: rule into the twenty first and twenty second century. This
Speaker 2: is how they believe that they're going to beat us
Speaker 2: and impose all of this stupid CBDCs and all the
Speaker 2: rest of their their minority report with more Germans. They're
Speaker 2: convinced to this. It's still up in the GANT chart
Speaker 2: at fucking Globalist Central. It's city. You're right there and
Speaker 2: you watch them every day run the gam chart and
Speaker 2: they don't realize that they're losing. Going all the way
Speaker 2: back to what we talked about the being in this conversation,
Speaker 2: So that's the layout, and now we just talk about,
Speaker 2: you know how they're going to lose, because they are
Speaker 2: going to lose.
Speaker 1: Well, we're certainly seeing kind of back to the points
Speaker 1: that we both made earlier about sort of the rise
Speaker 1: or globalism fault starting to crack, starting to fall apart,
Speaker 1: the WEF Klaus Schwab starting to fall apart, and really
Speaker 1: all across the world we see this whatever I hate
Speaker 1: these labels, but for using their terms, this right wing
Speaker 1: wave sort of speak right where basically the people populism
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it, nationalism. You know, they're
Speaker 1: done with the immigration, they're done with these environmental things,
Speaker 1: like the people are just done with this. So the
Speaker 1: appetite is changing really quick if and they can't get
Speaker 1: the censorship in fast enough to kind of quell that.
Speaker 1: If you will, I want to kind of start wrapping
Speaker 1: this up, but let me just ask another question. So
Speaker 1: that's an interesting take, and I love it so remonetizing gold.
Speaker 1: The US may want to do that because they realize
Speaker 1: it's inevitable, which we've already discussed, and I agree it's
Speaker 1: already happening. And even if Russia goes down, it doesn't
Speaker 1: stop China and the bricks from doing it, although, but
Speaker 1: potentially taking down if they if they take down, if
Speaker 1: they take Russia down, they kind of put China in
Speaker 1: their place. Maybe that might be a goal.
Speaker 2: That is that, that is there, that is their thinking.
Speaker 2: And I will say that moreover it because I know
Speaker 2: this is primarily a bitcoin podcast, and I do want
Speaker 2: to I want to. I want to want people to
Speaker 2: understand I already believe that bitcoin is a tool of
Speaker 2: the Feds, the Federal Reserve. I mean to underscore the
Speaker 2: sofa and the treasury market. If you look at if
Speaker 2: you're listening really carefully, you'll realize that. Look, I always
Speaker 2: thought Teather was a scam years ago, but today I
Speaker 2: don't think Tether is a scam. I think Teather works
Speaker 2: for the Federal Reserve to liquefy the bitcoin market to
Speaker 2: create the kind of liquidity necessary to keep bitcoin trading
Speaker 2: properly and to provide a hot money sink and marginal
Speaker 2: flow into and out of the US treasury market. I
Speaker 2: think it's a very important thing. Tether now holds one
Speaker 2: hundred and ten billion dollars with their US treasuries. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't haven't looked at Teather's market cap recently, but
Speaker 2: it's big well, and most of it is being held
Speaker 2: in short term For the.
Speaker 1: US dollar stable coin is certainly a way to spread
Speaker 1: the strength of the US dollar across the world.
Speaker 2: Uh, you know, so a lot of maintain it, well,
Speaker 2: I would say it. Maintain it. Let's just let's see, okay,
Speaker 2: maintain it.
Speaker 1: Well, you have a lot of people in these countries
Speaker 1: dealing with high inflation that aren't able to get to
Speaker 1: actual US dollars, but they can get the US dollar
Speaker 1: stable coins. And so we're starting to see the US
Speaker 1: dollar stable coins kind of filling in the blanks to
Speaker 1: where the US dollars aren't able to get to, if
Speaker 1: you will, and then and then to the point that
Speaker 1: you're making then those US dollars stable coins then get
Speaker 1: parked in treasuries. Uh, pretty pretty good deal.
Speaker 2: Well, actually, now that you say that, Mark, that's actually
Speaker 2: a really really good point, and I'm glad you brought
Speaker 2: it up because it just popped into my head. Oh,
Speaker 2: that's what the international version of the dollars is going
Speaker 2: to look like. It's gonna be tether. Yeah, the domestic
Speaker 2: dollar is going to be the dollar that you and
Speaker 2: I use on our daily basis, and eventually we're gonna
Speaker 2: wind up with some version of Heather being the international
Speaker 2: the euro dollar dollars sell. Yeah, the euro dollar and
Speaker 2: it's but it's going to be completely out of control
Speaker 2: of City of Alongain.
Speaker 1: So I'm just kind of going back to this. So
Speaker 1: in order for this to work, in order for the
Speaker 1: US to sort of preempt this move remonetizing gold, if
Speaker 1: like I said, it's already happening, Uh, does us want
Speaker 1: to do it before or after? Is kind of the question.
Speaker 1: And so I think in order to kind of in
Speaker 1: order for this to work out the way that you're
Speaker 1: kind of framing it, then Trump has to win if
Speaker 1: the if the Democrats are able to hold onto power,
Speaker 1: then this then uh. And and to frame it up
Speaker 1: and putting words in your mouth but from our previous conversations,
Speaker 1: some of the people inside the US government are part
Speaker 1: of the Eurozone. So the Biden administration, right, and so
Speaker 1: the goal of the Eurozone with the Bide administration is
Speaker 1: just keep the Democrat Party in power. If Trump gets
Speaker 1: into power, then you think this remondtization of gold happens.
Speaker 1: If it doesn't happen, then this all star to fall apart.
Speaker 2: Well, what will happen then is that the country will
Speaker 2: have to break up. And then they win anyway, because
Speaker 2: then what they get is the fracturing of the US
Speaker 2: treasury market. Who's responsible for the dead of Florida and
Speaker 2: Texas and all the states in between.
Speaker 1: Lee, Well, the red states are going to all be
Speaker 1: and looking good in the blue states are all going
Speaker 1: to be bankrupt.
Speaker 2: Well, but that's the point. It isn't And if you're
Speaker 2: and if you're just to use the phrase that everybody lives,
Speaker 2: if you're a eure trash ship bag communist and you
Speaker 2: don't want the and you don't want capital to flee
Speaker 2: Europe under this scenario where the European Union is failing
Speaker 2: politically and financially and morally and culturally and every other way,
Speaker 2: and that's your job, and that's your goal, and that's
Speaker 2: what's up on the charted global central Well then yeah,
Speaker 2: then the ultimate target is the US treasury market. How
Speaker 2: can you continue to push how can you continue to
Speaker 2: undermine the validity of the US Treasury bond and the
Speaker 2: and guarantee the coupon payments? Is the United States? Has
Speaker 2: I've said it many times though, what's the United States superpower?
Speaker 2: We've never defaulted on our debt? Well, I don't count
Speaker 2: the Revolutionary War debt. Sorry I'm not going there, but
Speaker 2: in modern times, we've never defaulted on debt. Europe's defaulted
Speaker 2: on a debt many times. The Europe, the British of
Speaker 2: issued consoles like they've all done it. They've all changed
Speaker 2: the government and said, you know, that's it, We're done.
Speaker 2: We don't honor those debts anymore.
Speaker 1: Whereas not counting nineteen seventy one, obviously.
Speaker 2: No, I'm not, because we didn't default on our debts.
Speaker 2: We just decided to not pay them in dollars, pay
Speaker 2: them and pay them in gold US treasure. We're talking
Speaker 2: about treasury buns. We have never defaulted on our treasury bonds.
Speaker 2: We've always paid the coupon payments. Okay, Now, whether we
Speaker 2: whether the currency was, what the Kurment diustry was redeemable in,
Speaker 2: and what those current treasury bonds meant and what they
Speaker 2: were actually claimed for. Okay, fine, fair, you can argue
Speaker 2: that point. But we've always from a mark player perspective,
Speaker 2: we've always paid our debts. Now, if you break that
Speaker 2: trust with the market, it's never coming back. And the current
Speaker 2: situation with the current clown world thing happening on Capitol
Speaker 2: Hill and all the and all of this stuff, it's
Speaker 2: never coming back. So that can't happen. And that's why
Speaker 2: they that's why they've pushed this secession arguments, why they
Speaker 2: pushed this irreconcilable differences argument on us. And I got
Speaker 2: news for you, dude. This is no different than what
Speaker 2: they did in the twenty years leading up to the
Speaker 2: war between the States, or what we got down here
Speaker 2: in the South, like the call the recent unpleasantness. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is what the British and the French did. They
Speaker 2: they manipulated the freaking board to get the South and
Speaker 2: the North to see themselves as mortal enemies when they
Speaker 2: were the ones doing it, and they were the ones
Speaker 2: with the treaties signed behind everybody's back, and how they
Speaker 2: were going to carve the South up and everything else.
Speaker 2: It was obvious what they were trying to do, and
Speaker 2: it should be just as obvious to people today when
Speaker 2: you see what they did. Go back and look at
Speaker 2: that what was going on back then, and you'll see
Speaker 2: the exact same thing happening today. And you know it's
Speaker 2: who they are, it's what they've always done. Their history
Speaker 2: is on this is very clear, very clear, and you
Speaker 2: know it's how they operate, it's how they color. If
Speaker 2: we have the superpower of having never really defaulted on
Speaker 2: our debt, I'll use it. I'll qualify with really and
Speaker 2: we have the best legal system for beginning, for starting
Speaker 2: your government, for starting a business, i e. Were the
Speaker 2: best offshore tax haven in the world, still right, and
Speaker 2: all of those things right. If you undermine all of
Speaker 2: that stuff, then we lose all of our superpowers. Well,
Speaker 2: what's britain superpower? The Color Revolution. They've been doing it
Speaker 2: for three hundred years.
Speaker 1: Folks, superpower, But we got it from Britain.
Speaker 2: No no, no, no, no no no no no no no no.
Speaker 2: That is the that's the that is the lie. The
Speaker 2: British have been doing this for three hundred years. They
Speaker 2: taught it to us. They've been doing it forever. In
Speaker 2: a day, I'm go back through British history. It's so
Speaker 2: unbelievably clear. The British perfected the color Revolution model. They
Speaker 2: sold it to us. And now we, as conscientious Americans
Speaker 2: were ashamed of what our country has become, have grafted
Speaker 2: that shame onto our own country forgetting the fact that yes,
Speaker 2: that's absolutely correct, and you should feel shamed for what
Speaker 2: we've become in many ways. But we don't have to
Speaker 2: go there and that we didn't do. We're not blameless.
Speaker 2: But we can reform. We know what to do. The
Speaker 2: Constitution is stole the law. The Supreme Court just gave
Speaker 2: us a whole bunch of decisions that put that took
Speaker 2: power away from the administrative state. Yeah, let's do it now.
Speaker 2: Are you gonna put your big boy pants on and
Speaker 2: get the work done or are you going to sit
Speaker 2: and complain about it?
Speaker 1: That's my Pointyeah, So we have Globalism is cracking apart.
Speaker 1: We see it from many standpoints. It's even shifting inside
Speaker 1: the United States as well. And we are the US
Speaker 1: either is going to return to gold before or after
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. And if that doesn't happen
Speaker 1: because of Trump losing the White House or the let's
Speaker 1: just say the Democrats holding onto power, then civil war
Speaker 1: becomes the next probable step.
Speaker 2: Then then some form of dissolution of the US as
Speaker 2: a fifty cent compact is on the table. Yes, sadly so,
Speaker 2: and nobody wants that. Nobody should want that. No matter
Speaker 2: how much of a narco libertarian you are at heart,
Speaker 2: and I'm one of them, I know you want, like
Speaker 2: at some point, you want the move towards decentralization of
Speaker 2: capital markets. You want the restoration of individual rights and
Speaker 2: sovereignty and all consumer sovereignty and all of these things.
Speaker 2: Want these things to happen, but they have to happen
Speaker 2: in a particular order, and you know they have to
Speaker 2: be done in such a way that they do no harm.
Speaker 2: I remind everybody when Ron Paul ran for president two
Speaker 2: thousand and eight and twenty twelve, he's like, We're not
Speaker 2: going to get rid of Social Security tomorrow. We're not
Speaker 2: gonna get rid of Medicaid tomorrow. We made promise this
Speaker 2: to these people, and we're going to hold hold to
Speaker 2: our promises, but we're going to also promise to sunset
Speaker 2: these things and get rid of them and restore a
Speaker 2: constitutional republic, sound money, decentralized power. And you know what
Speaker 2: the quote unquote founders gave us as our birthright. Yep,
Speaker 2: they didn't give us anything. They just they just produced
Speaker 2: a canvas on which we were supposed to maintain it.
Speaker 2: As as Ben Franklin said, what do we what was
Speaker 2: birthday a republic?
Speaker 1: If you can keep it all right, well let's let's
Speaker 1: wrap it up with that. Tom always such a fun conversation,
Speaker 1: wealth of information. I remember on one of your podcasts,
Speaker 1: I forget the name of your guests, but you're going
Speaker 1: deep into London and the UK, and you know there
Speaker 1: are tentacles that they've had into Canada. Yes a long time.
Speaker 2: It was.
Speaker 1: It was mind blowing to me. Uh okay, Richard Poe.
Speaker 1: So for everybody listening, if you want to go deeper
Speaker 1: into these things, check out Tom's podcast, Gold Goats Guns.
Speaker 1: A ton of good information on all this stuff so
Speaker 1: you can have a better understanding and a different lens
Speaker 1: to sort of view the world through. We're gonna link
Speaker 1: to all his stuff in the show notes down below.
Speaker 1: And with that Tom, we'll ahead and wrap it up.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much.
Speaker 2: Thanks man, it was good talking to you, good catch
Speaker 2: up with you. As always, enjoy