Professor Jiang: "They're Planning It!" The Draft, Trump's Third Term & Who Gets Sent To Die First

Professor Zhang, welcome back to the Jagno podcast. - Thanks, Jack. - Yeah. Professor, I wanna start with a letter that leaked inside the US military a few weeks before we shot our last podcast. A soldier filed a former complaint saying his commander told troops that quote, "President Trump has been anointed by Jesus "to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon." Now, you've previously stated that we're already in World War III, but I wanna ask you a different question. Like, who inside the American military actually wants the world to end? So, I think from a geopolitical perspective, it's very hard to appreciate the war from a realist perspective. So, in the school of geopolitics, there's something called realism, which is say that nation states fight over interests. And the most famous quotation from the school is, Henry Kissinger who said that, "There are no permanent friends just permanent interests." But if you look at what's happening in Middle East, nothing really makes any sense from a realistic perspective. So, the question is, why did this war start and why are they fighting and where's this war going? And a lot of people are saying that this war was fought in order to deter China because China is trying to build a built and won initiative. And so, it's trying to create a system to counter Paxamericana to counter the American trade system. And they're doing that by trying to align themselves with both Russia and Iran. So, the United States fierce this grand military trade diplomatic political alliance between Russia, Iran, and China because if they were to unify, they really could control the world, right? Because then it's pretty easy to access Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and the Asia-Pacific. And then the United States would be embargoed and trapped in the Western hemisphere. And something called the Heartland McKendor thesis, and this is a pretty well-known idea in geopolitics. But there's certain problems with this theory when you apply it to analyzing what's happening in the Middle East. First of all, China has been working very hard with the United States to come to a remedy to this war. So, you remember there were six weeks of heavy bombing, and then you ran, in the United States, signed an MOU memorandum of understanding, which was a ceasefire, a lieu in order to come to a permanent peace. And the question at that time was, what did Iran sign this document? What did Iran stop its offensive? Because Iran was actually putting a lot of economic pressure on the GCC, on the United States, and on the world. So, Iran was essentially within the war. And what I've been saying is did was not enough to stop Iran from bringing on the offensive. So, my argument is what I believe is that, only because China intervened and asked Iran to agree to a ceasefire, did Iran agree? First of all, China is Iran's largest purchaser of oil. Trying to buy about 90% of Iran oil. Also, trying to provide a security guarantee to Iran. And basically, the security guarantee is, we promise that the United States is going to negotiate in good faith. The United States does not negotiate in good faith, then we'll support you in the next phase of the war. Okay, so I think that's what happened. So, the question then is if China knows that the United States wants to embargo China, why would China agree to help the United States come to a broker's ceasefire in Iran? The answer is because both the United States and China are very dependent on the little big economy. They're both status quo powers. So, China gets a lot of energy from Iran, but it gets most of its energy from the GCC, from Qatar, Saudi Arabia. So, this war was hurting China economically, and that's why China wanted a ceasefire. So, the traditional understanding that the world is now a war between China and the United States doesn't make much sense. I think China and the United States are partners in trying to maintain the status quo, which is a pact in North Korea. Okay, so, the idea that this war was started to embargo China, doesn't really hold water. Another theory is, the United States started the war in order to control the world's maritime choke points, as well as access to oil. And there's much more validity to this argument. You know, Richard Methurst is most famous proponent of this argument, which is say like because of this war, because of attacks on global refineries, not just in Russia, but also in Australia and other places, the world is becoming much more dependent on the worst hemisphere for energy needs, especially the Asia Pacific, Japan, China, South Korea. And as you may know, recently, Trump announced that the United States and Venezuela have signed a major oil agreement where the United States will now develop Venezuela's oil supply. And so, with oil being cut off from the GCC and with Russia at war, then really, if you're a Japan, China, South Korea, if you're the world, you now are going to be dependent on the western hemisphere for your energy needs, okay? There's a problem though with this argument. It sounds very good, but there's actually a problem when we actually analyze it, okay? So, things that, which Methurst is not thinking of an account is, with this war in the Middle East, yes, it's causing Europe and Asia Pacific to shift to reliance on the United States for its energy needs, but it's also causing the collapse of the global economy. And so, I'm not sure if you even know something called the Japanese Yankei trade, but have you heard of this concept? No, okay, so the Japanese Yankei trade is this. For the longest time, Japan suffered from deflation because its real estate market was overinflated and its consumers didn't have much money to spend. So, it suffered from deflation, lack of demand. So, to start this problem, the Bank of Japan gave out interest-free loans to Japanese banks and corporations at zero percent, okay? So, loans at zero percent. And the idea was that they would then take this money and reinvest it back in the Japanese economy or give out cheap loans to Japanese consumers. They didn't do that. What they did instead was they started to buy financial instruments overseas that offered stable returns. And the most stable financial instrument was the US Treasury bonds, which offered about 5%. So, these banks, these corporations, Japanese, were taking zero percent interest loans and then buying US Treasury's and other financial instruments that offered 5% a year. And this is something called the Japanese Yankei trade. It's important because the Japanese are the ones who are providing liquidity to the global economy, right? So, the Japanese are the ones who are financing the American lifestyle, basically, right? So, Japan has basically put about $3.5 trillion into the global economy, primarily the US. So, Japan holds about $1.1 trillion in US Treasury's. This is important because the American economy runs on debt, right? So, you look at some things like the AI bubble, the private credit bubble. It's all debt being recycled thanks to the Japanese. Because of this war in the Middle East, Japan has lost its main supplier of cheap energy. It was getting a lot of its energy needs from Qatar, OMG. And so, because of this, investors are afraid that the Japanese economy will suffer a great deal. And so, therefore, they've been bending against the yen. And so, we've seen a collapse of the yen. And so, when this happens, the Japanese government has no choice but to repay to it a lot of this liquidity back into the Japanese economy in order to save the yen, okay? And this is a huge problem for the United States because that means that Japan somehow forced to sell a lot of US Treasury's. They may not sell a lot of US Treasury's, but they will not buy more US Treasury's. And right now, the United States has $40 trillion in debt. And the major problem is the interest on this debt. If people are not buying US Treasury's, then they're forced to increase the interest rate on the Treasury's in order to track more buyers. But they do that. That makes the interest payment unsustainable. Right now, it might be 2 to 25%. But to make it more attractive, it needs to go to 5 to 6%. Right? Just do the math. that. That's like $2 trillion a year and interest payments alone. So the United States is in a lot of trouble. So yes, the United States may seem to benefit it because of what's happening in Middle East. But actually, if you think about it in a long term, the United States is heading towards a sovereign debt crisis. So that's issue number one. There's another issue, which is more important, which is the idea of demand destruction. So let's just say your Japanese and the longest time you're used to like air conditioning, driving SUVs, going on to vacations a year, right? Well, if the yen is sinking and you're not able to access cheap energy, it doesn't mean that you pay more for cheap energy. It means you reduce your standard of living, right? It means you just don't turn on air conditioning. It means you don't go on vacations. And once you do that, once you give up that consumer lifestyle, you destroyed your demand for consumerism, you don't go back, right? Because you didn't focus. Then you asked yourself, was it really making you happy to go on vacation, maldeves and take Instagram photos? Or was I happier being with my children and being with my friends? Well, being with friends doesn't cost you any money, going to maldeves cost you a lot of money as well as consumes a lot of energy. And you recognize that you don't want I was better off just being with my friends. That's demand destruction. And that's terrible for the United States because their entire power base rests on more more people trying to aspire to the middle class lifestyle, right? So in the long term, demand destruction as well as a sovereign debt crisis in the United States, this is much more problematic for the United States than anything else. So it's self-defeating. So the Richard Metters thesis doesn't hold water either, okay? The first thesis, it's done to embargo China, not really because the United States and China are working together to save the global economy. Can you define embargo China? Embarご China means just cut China off from the world, right? So China is an export-oriented economy. So what China does is it takes resources like oil and wheat and minerals and then it's factories then transforms them into manufacture goods sell to the world. And this is problematic because China doesn't have its own consumer base. Its own people don't have any money to spend money. So if you embark on China, the Chinese economic collapse is onto itself. So just to go back to the original segment around like who wants the world to end, you implied that there's a certain group of people that wants a trade alliance between America, Russia and China. Is that right? No. So there's a certain good people who believe that Russia, Iran and China want to form a grand trade alliance and then blow out the United States from the world, right? Because Russia, Iran, China together are able to offer Europe cheap energy and cheap consumer goods. And who offers that right now to Europe? So for the longest time, Europe was dependent on cheap Russian energy and then it was dependent on selling expensive German cars to China. So Germany had the best deal in the world because Germany would take cheap Russian energy and then get Polish contractors to help build cars out of cheap rate. And then it would sell expensive BMWs and Mercedes to China at a high profit margin. But since Trump's trade war with China and since Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Germany's economic model has essentially collapsed. And so Europe is facing a lot of economic turmoil because Europe depends on the Germany, Germany economy. Okay. So again, from a realist perspective, what's happening in the world makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So now we have to switch perspectives and ask ourselves, what's really going on here? And that letter that you read offers a clue, which is say that they're showing individuals scouted throughout the US government, military and national security apparatus, who are very religious and they see this war as eschatological, meaning that this war will lead to a series of events that fulfill political prophecy and will culminate with the return of Jesus, the end of the world, and the coming of heaven on earth. How many people actually believe this and is this just contrained to US borders? Question, do you ever wonder why nothing feels interesting anymore? I mean, that's how I used to feel about sports, like I put on the game and about five minutes in, I'd end up scrolling on my phone and look up at the end to see who won. But now every time the game's on, I literally can't look away from the screen because of this app, prize picks. It's a daily fantasy game where you look at teams and individual player stats and pick more less based on how you think they'll do in a specific match. Like right now I'm obsessed with Seiko and Barkley so I threw them in my lineup and now every time he touches the ball, I'm absolutely locked in and that's the part I actually love about it. It makes watching football way more fun because every single play I've got something to root for. And right now prize picks is doing this thing called stack September where they're dropping a new promo every single day. You get guaranteed picks every Monday plus profit boost and daily discounts throughout the month. So if you're going to try prize picks, this is probably the best time to do so. Download the app today and use the code Jack Neil to get $150 in lineups instantly when you win your first $5 lineup. That's code Jack Neil to get $150 in lineups instantly if you win your first $5 lineup. Run your game. But anyway, guys back to the podcast. How many people actually believe this and is this just constrained to US borders? So let's look at the United States. So Christian evangelicals make up about a quarter of the US adult population. That's a lot of people, tens of millions of people. Christian Zionism is a belief system within the Christian evangelical movement which is about 10% of the total. Okay. So that's a lot of people. So one really important figure in the Christian Zionist movement is him is John Hadji and he wants to call Christians united for Israel. And these are Christian Zionists and they have about seven million members. And not only are they love them, but they're extremely fanatical. So for example, why is Israel such a hot button issue in Congress? Why is it that you have so few politicians who dare to come out to speak against Israel? Well, APAC is a factor. Another factor are these Christian Zionists, right? If you piss off APAC, they won't fun you or they'll fund your opponent. But if you clip piss off the Christian Zionists, they will go and protest outside your office. They will sit outside your office and these are your constituents. So you have to see them. They will call you every single day and complain and says like, why are you between Jesus? And so these Christian Zionists know how to make these congressmen really suffer. An important fact I learned recently. Tell me if this is true. If you're a congressperson, a sitting congressman in the US, you have to speak to your constituents or donors, like people who would donate to you for four hours every single day. Is that true? Have you heard this? So what people don't appreciate is that congressmen are they're working for their donors and their constituents, okay? So in other words, the congressmen, the congresspeople, they're not focused on policy issues. They focus on pleasing their donors and their constituents. And they're in Congress in order to promote the interests of their donors and their constituents. So if you talk broadly about how it is not in the best interest of the United States to work with Israel, that is true abstractly, theoretically, generally, but it's not true at a level that matters to these congressmen, okay? Because all they know is when they go and have these town halls, the Christian Zionists are the most outspoken. All they know is when they turn against Israel, APAC puts them on a black list and no one's going to give them any more money and their opponent will be financed and they'll be primaryed. And that's exactly what happened to Thomas Massey. Thomas Massey was representing his constituents, literally for the past 20 years, extremely popular figure. And then three individuals. They were Miram Adelson, Paul Singer and John Paulson, all three billionaires. They were allowed to put money into the Kentucky primary. They did not even constituents, okay? They don't even live in Kentucky. They made have never been to Kentucky. They were allowed to put $30 million into the race to primary, massive, and he lost. And it was the most fun head brace of all time, right? In the house, yes. Yes, that's right. As a primary, yes. Eschatologies are obviously competing with each other, but there's points at which they converge, and that's pretty much your predictive model. So it's really important to appreciate is, there are different eschatologies out there, okay? There is the Jewish, Messianic eschatology that is supported by a fringe group of Zionists, okay? So again, all these eschatologies are supported by a very small minority of people, but really important to appreciate. I don't think people appreciate this enough is the world is not run by logic or reason or truth. It's run by people who will fight and die for what they believe in. If someone's going to bust his ass to do something, he or she will probably get it. And yes, it does goes against the solid majority. But the majority are silent. They're not doing anything. They're just maybe at most going online and leaving YouTube comments at most, whereas these people, and again, these are my own minority, maybe one or two percent of the top total population. The ones who are working their ass off and getting their neighbors to go vote, they're the ones organizing, they're the ones doing ballot harvesting, they're the ones raising money, they're the ones who are working not in day in order to advance their cause, and they're working together, okay? And that's how the world works. It does not run on who speaks the best or who has the most logic. It's run by people who are the most energetic and who are willing to work together to advance their cause. I don't have this written down, but let me ask you a dumb question. So I was taught a version of this in school. So imagine it's, who knows, Donald Trump versus Gavin Newsom 2028, in those of the candidates that are selected in the Meeveau between them, who selects those candidates. Is it US citizens in your view? Oh, it's almost never US citizens who pick the presidential candidates. It's always a convergence of vested interests, right? So the Democrats have their own interest groups. The Republicans have their own interest groups. And the candidate is often a compromise among these powerful factions within the different, within each party. And the most influential people behind each of those share an eschatology? I would say there are maybe different groups, okay? The first group is perhaps the capitalist, the transnational capitalist, okay? So I'm talking very generally and simplistically for the sake of clarity, for the sake of analysis, okay? It's things are never as simple because most people donate to both parties, the Democrats and Republicans. So there's a lot of convergence between these two parties. But for the sake of simplicity, let's just say there are these different interest groups, different factions within the, within these even parties. So the Democrats are traditionally referred to as a party of the chieftains, okay? So these are different groups that have actually no convergence. But they come together every four years because it benefits them to support a democratic candidate. And these groups include Wall Street. They also include the national security apparatus. They also include the professional managerial class, the coastal elite. They include the working class. They include minorities that have historically been vulnerable, for example, like women and blacks and Latinos and gay groups. So these groups have actually nothing in common, right? So, but they come together four years and they together, their party bosses select the candidate, right? And the example is how in 2016, Bernie Sanders won the popular vote. If it were democratic, Bernie Sanders would have been the candidate. But we know from the leak Democratic National Convention DNC emails that they were going to rig the convention for Hillary Clinton. And so 2016, Bernie Sanders was railroaded. In 2020, it was also railroaded. Because if you go back to the events of 2020, what happened was that Bernie Sanders had won the Vada by a majority. And at that point, it was clear that Bernie Sanders should have won the nomination. Biden did not have a national organization. He did not have much financing. But what happened was James Clydeburn, Democratic Congressman from South Carolina, he endorsed Biden. And then Obama's team came out to support Biden. And most importantly, most of the candidates dropped out together. So Pete Buttigieg and McClubber talk they dropped out together. Consoling the vote behind Biden. Elizabeth Warren stayed in in order to divide the left vote, okay? So that was completely made fact. That was completely orchestrated. And that allowed Biden to take the nomination. So it was a if it were a popular vote, then Bernie Sanders would have won easily. But clearly, there were party elders who were manipulating things behind the scenes that allowed Biden to win the nomination. 2024, there was not even a primary, okay? So the idea of democracy in the Democratic party, it vanished a long time ago with the defeat of Bernie Sanders. In fact, you can make the argument that the Bernie Sanders insurgency was so powerful that it rattled the Democratic Party leadership. So they created checks and balances to ensure that never again, well, some like Bernie Sanders be able to challenge the authority of the Democratic Party leadership. And the point and contrast, the counterfactual is what happened in the building of party in 2016, right? If we put in a party, did the same thing as what the Democrats did in 2016, then Jeb Bush would have been a nominee in 2016. It would have been a Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush campaign. But instead, the Republicans practiced democracy. They let the voters aside. And Donald Trump was able to triumph. Remember, at that time in 2016, Donald Trump was not the majority choice. He only had about 20 to 30 percent of votes. But he outperformed everyone else. It was a billy-fought contest. And because of that, in the general election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the energy levels were completely different. You go to the Donald Trump rally, 50,000 people there, people lined up for hours and hours. It was a huge party. People were generous. They were giving out pizzas to everyone. It was a huge party. People loved being at these rallies. You could not say the same about Hillary Clinton's rallies. Hillary Clinton's rallies were manufactured, staged, and heavily orchestrated, right? So, regardless of what you think about Donald Trump and the Republican Party, they do practice democracy. They do practice grassroots democracy. The Democrats do not do that, okay? So, the Democrats are just a collection of interests. And because there's no grassroots democracy that allows certain groups to dominate over the other groups, right? So, if there are grassroots democracy, maybe the minority groups, maybe the working class voters, the union groups would hold more sway because they can deliver the votes. But without the grassroots democracy, then Wall Street, the professional managerial class and the national security apparatus, they have more power because they're able to solicit more donor funding, okay? So, I think the Democratic Party, it is basically controlled by a out of touch elite, people like Obama and Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton's. And so, the Democrats are the party of the Chiefs, okay? Then you have the Republican Party, and they say that the Republican Party is a party of the Church, meaning unlike the Democrats, there is a certain ideology. There is a certain philosophy underpinning the Republican Party. And now, with the rise of Trump, the Republican Party basically revolves around Donald Trump. And there are other interest groups at play. You have the Silicon Valley, oligarchs, Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk. You have the Zionist law. lobby, you have the National Security deep state, you have Main Street, you have a lot of business people, a lot of oligarchs. So that's how these two parties are. Those people didn't choose Donald Trump to win the primaries in your view. They didn't, but they practiced grassroots democracy in 2016 and that allowed Donald Trump to emerge. Why would they practice that? That's a really good question, okay? So I think it's because the Obama's and the Clintons, while in office, they were able to consolidate a lot of power to themselves. And so in 2016, the Democratic Party leadership was pretty unified, right? The Republicans' hands were very divided. Why? Because George W. Bush, his administration, was a disaster, right? Because the Iraq war divided the country. People don't appreciate this, but there's a lot of anger surrounding the Iraq war. So when George W. Bush left office, he left office extremely unpopular. He had no authority in the Republican Party anymore. He went home to Texas and he painted for the rest of his life, and good for him, okay? But he could not pull strings in the Republican Party anymore. And the previous Republican president, his father was basically seen now and old and he couldn't exert much influence. And the people around the father, people like Dick Cheney, sorry, Donald Rumsfield, they were all discredited because of the Iraq war. So in 2016, the Republican Party was extremely divided, right? Because why did Donald Trump appeal to the grassroots? Because he said to George W. Bush on a television debate, and I'm not sure if you remember this, but he said to George W. Bush, your brother, create this mess, your brother is the one who took us to war in Iraq. And he should never have done that. I would have done that. And he should apologize for doing that. And that just spoke the hearts of so many Americans, okay? So during that time, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump were speaking the hearts and minds of the average American who was fed up with Wall Street, who was fed up with the one Iraq, who was just fed up with Washington DC, the corruption in Washington DC. And but the difference is the Democrats were able to quash the Bernie Sanders insurgency. The Republicans were not able to, because the Republicans did not have a figure as charismatic as either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama to rally around. And Jeb Bush was not charismatic, right? So that's fascinating. Thank you for breaking that down. That makes a lot of sense, actually. And I wanted to ask just to set up this conversation, is there any one prediction that you've never made publicly before? One prediction we can talk about is I see a growing alliance between Israel and India. That I really didn't see before. And I think it could really change a lot of things around the world for the next 10 years. Israel has always had a problem. And the problem was there were not that many Israelis. There are 7 million Jews in Israel, two million Arabs. And that's why Israel has always been very anxious about its future. Because no matter how fast it grew, the Arab nations were going a lot faster. And so if you just let things take their course, the Palestinians would eventually outgrow the Israelis. And that's why there were many Israeli politicians who were afraid of a two-state solution. They also were afraid of their own minority demographics, did not favor Israel. And Israel had the technology, the capital, and the poor will to dominate the Middle East. But it always lacked the population, right? How did you control how do you go about controlling the Arab population? Do you need a high population to maintain influence? Right. So I think the issue is just long-term what happens. Right. So you go back to the Roman Empire. And you're right. The Romans weren't that many people, but they were able to control a vast empire for a lot of policies, dividing rule, elite, co-optation, and all that. There's some problems with the Israelis. Okay. First of all, many Israelis have a supremacist mindset, which would just say that the Jewish people are superior to the Arabs. And therefore, these two people should be separate but equal. And you're always going to have problems in the long term. The other thing is we know what elites do over time. Over time, why empires collapse is they elites refuse to have children. That was the biggest problem facing Rome for most of its history. Really? Yes. Once it achieved a certain power, Rome, the people stop having kids. And this was an issue as early as about, I would say, during the time of Julius Caesar. And consumerism relies on a growing population. That's an important. No, no, no, elite control requires a growing population. I mean, if you're the elite and you want to maintain power, you need to have kids. Look, if you or your child grew up watching social media and have noticed that you have some kind of mental health issue from it, anxiety, depression, or body dysmorphia, you're going to want to hear about this. See, recently, a jury ordered meta and YouTube to pay millions for their role in designing and promoting addictive platforms. They knew for a fact that their apps could contribute to serious mental health issues, but did not disclose the risk to users, meaning that they were putting profits over people. And this recent historic verdict underscores the consequences of those decisions. Now Morgan and Morgan is stepping up to hold these platforms accountable for the harm they caused. So if you feel like this applies to you, you may be entitled to a potential recovery of over $1,000. And if you want to find out if you qualify, just take a short quiz at JackNale.com/Morgan. Again, that's JackNale.com/Morgan or you can scan the QR code on screen to take a short quiz to find out if you qualify for $1,000 in potential recoveries. But anyway, guys, back to the podcast. If you're the elite and you want to maintain power, you need to have kids. And if the elite woman, especially the woman have become hedonistic and they don't have kids, it's very hard to make them have kids. So I mean, the fact of the matter is, if you give woman at the time a choice, they would choose not to have children. Why? Because each time you had a kid, and people don't appreciate this, okay? But he said you had a kid. You're basically playing Russian roulette because they didn't have sanitation back then. And they'd have birth control. So they, you know, they were supposed to have a lot of kids because the kids, most of them would die during childbirth. So in our age, with the most advancing technology, to maintain population levels, each woman needs to have 2.1 children, okay? Back in Rome, they need five to maintain their current population levels. Just to maintain equilibrium. Not to grow the population, but just to like maintain a status quo. Five kids. Why? Because half of them would die before the age of two. And worse, chances are, if you were a woman, if you had five kids, you would die. Okay? So if you're a rich woman from a powerful family, and you have the choice, you would say, I don't have kids, okay? And this is this historical fact. But even today, even with, you know, sanitation and nutrition, and the guarantee that delivery will be safe, most women refuse to have kids. Why? Because it's a huge burden on them. First of all, it's painful, okay? But it's also a huge burden. Why should they be responsible for raising children while the man can go frolock and have experimental, actual, middle affairs? And I think that's why there's so much sympathy towards Lindsey Clancy, the trial right now. Yes, ever know she did it. And it was terrible what she did. But there are many women in the United States who are sympathetic towards the idea, why should she be the one? on shoulders with like three kids. What does a husband do? What is the value of the husband in this relationship? Okay, so historically, this has always been a problem if a society becomes wealthy enough to give a woman a choice. I mean, the reality is, right now Israel is the only developed nation in the world where women were educated choose to have more than two kids. That's an amazing accomplishment, but it will not last than that to the next generation. We know this just from a study of history. So to solve this problem, Israel needs to create a compliant population that they can control, okay? You can't control the Arabs because they're Muslim. They remember what you've done to the Palestinians, but if you were to bring in the Indians into the equation, well, this change is completely. Has this been done in history through the British Empire? Like, is this history repeating itself in any sense? I mean, you can argue that the British Empire did this by colonizing Australia, Canada, the United States, or with India specifically. The British Empire was first and foremost racist, right? So it saw China and India as places to be colonized and exploited, but they were not considering moving their population to Canada, Australia, the United States. Now they will, why? Because we live in a time of transnational capital. So the way that people empower think is, how do I maximize return on my investment? It's that simple, right? And if you go to like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, these places and your investor, you're like, you see yourself, wow, these white people have had a very good life for the past 40, 50 years. That just made them lazy, complacent, and arrogant, and stupid as well. And if I invest my money in Australia or Canada or New Zealand, I'm probably not gonna get a good return on my investment. We're talking about trillionaires, by the way. We're not talking about like millionaires, okay? If you're a millionaire, you don't care. You just go in your buy a house, you retire. You're good, okay? But if you're a trillionaire, you're like, I need this country to grow and show in GDP in order for me to justify my investment. And the population is not doing, is not working hard. The, even Canada, the great ambition of young kids who are white in Canada is to like, big bread. It's not to start a factory. It's not to make a lot of money. It's to be big bread, to be free, to be happy, to, you know, to find your two million purpose in life. Well, you're a investor, like, screw that man. I can have that crap going on. So what do you do? You replace the population. You bring in the Indians. Why be the Indians are poor? And they're going to work their ass off in order to make money in order to bring their entire family over from India. And that's what we're seeing in Canada right now. You go to Toronto, you go to Niagara Falls. If you go to Niagara Falls 10 years ago, they'd all be like hamburger shops. And they were not that nanny, okay? You go to Niagara Falls today, at least a quarter are Indian restaurants. I'm assuming there aren't that many Indian tourists in Niagara Falls, but there are a lot of Indians who are busing their ass in order to make money, to send their kids to a good school, right? And we know how much hardworking immigrants are than the natives. Now, you can say that, okay, yeah, but the natives, they're more law-abiding and their work is more conscientious. That may all be true. I don't care if I'm a transgender capitalist. If I'm a true, and I don't care, I want the return on an investment. I want growth no matter what the cost, right? Canadians are like, we have to protect the environment. We have to focus on the family. We have to maintain our traditions or politeness. If you're a transgender capitalist, that's all in the way of growth, the environment. No, school environment, school family, school traditions, school all that, just grow. Just work your ass off so I can, you know, have a higher return investment. And that's how the word works. - What's the thesis exactly on India? What do you suspect? - Right. - So, let me progress and historical context, okay? The analogy is China. How to try to become rich? China is something really simple. It just transfers, it's young people who work in the fields to the factories. It's as simple. There's no, there's no, it's not complicated what China did. All China did was move people, young people from the fields to the factories. And the fields all you're doing is growing food to feed your family. You go to factories, you're making manufacture goods for the world, and therefore China becomes rich. You understand that, right? Is that simple, right? Okay. Now, that's a simple explanation, but also we have to appreciate that China also had the infrastructure and the centralized planning to make this possible because in order for this to happen, you, first of all, you need to educate your young people to a certain degree so that they're literate so that when they go to the factories, they can follow orders. You also need a pretty good transportation system to move people around, you need favorable government policies so that entrepreneurs will come and open factories, you need a logistics hub so these goods can be moved around the world. And so it's impressive what China did. Okay, so that's how China got rich. India cannot do the same thing. Why? Because India is a corrupt and chaotic democracy. I'm not saying this is a bad thing. I'm just saying this is the reality. So India cannot actually order its young people to go work in factories like China did. India cannot invest millions to build factories and a logistic hub because most of this money will be stolen. Okay, I'm not saying this to the right India. I'm just saying this is how India works. So if you're India and you are facing the same situation that China faced in the 1980s, which is a booming young population, well, it's both a blessing and a curse. So right now in India, there's something called the cockroach revolution, the cockroach protest. I'm not sure if you know what this is, okay? So what happened was that there's more and more young people in India because of the booming population. And so they're very anxious about the future. And the only path of social mobility in India is really the school system to do well on the national examination and get to a very good college. But there was evidence of corruption in the national examination system. So millions of Indians protested and officials called them cockroaches. Like why are you protesting? What right do you have to protest? And the protest is like fine, we're cockroaches, but we're still going to protest, right? So India has a huge problem that you have like tens of millions, maybe hundreds of millions of young people have no ethnic prospects. But you cannot become like China, become the factory to the world. So what do you do in order to capitalize on these young people? You send them abroad, right? You send them to Canada, you send them to Russia, you send them to Ukraine, you send them to Europe. Who cares? Just send them everywhere, right? And where in the world, where are these people most welcome? Israel. Why? Because Israel right now is trying to implement the greater Israel project, which means that they have control over a vast territory. And they need to replace the local population, the Arabs, the more compliant population, which is the Indians. So what country will they send them to? Everywhere, Libya, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, everywhere. And are Muslim populations against that? Are there certain sects of India that are Muslim? There are, there are. But we're talking about the Hindus, right? There's going lines between Zionism, which is believed in the greater Israel project, and Hindutva, which is believed in India controlling South Asia, which includes Afghanistan and Pakistan. So it's really interesting. But if you go online and you look at all the nation of world, which have a net, fairly rating of Israel, there's only four. OK? There's only four nation of world where the population has a net, fairly rating of Israel. They are India, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana. That's it, these four. Three are in Africa, one is in South Asia. But everywhere else in the world, the majority of people do not like Israel. Got it. When next 10 years, you will see a ground lines between the Sinus Calf. - Capital and Hindu labor. - I was just gonna ask about India's intelligence arm because I think I saw from, I was in Andy Boosterwante that their intelligence infrastructure was actually like one of the best in the world. But do you think that's accurate from your assessment of their activities? - I don't know if they're one of the best in the world, but I know they're active because within India, there are lots of movements that are separatist. Most famous are the sheikhs. And the sheikhs want their own homeland in India. And the Indian government has always seen them as a major threat. The sheikhs are heavily present in Canada. They have a huge presence in Canada. And there have been targeted assassinations against chic leaders in Canada, orchestrated by the Indian intelligence services. And this is all factual. And this has caused a lot of friction between Canada and India in the past. - I have a few predictions that I think you might agree with. We'll just do a greater disagree. And then I'd love for you to explain any of the ones that you agree with. Do you think the West will solve its aging crisis that the way Japan will as in people are going to volunteer to be euthanized? - No. - Do you think the first nuclear war will start over an attack that never happened? - No. - Do you think governments will ever introduce a birth draft or people are forced to have kids? - No. - Do you think elites will stage an alien invasion? - Yes. - Tell me about that. - So let's walk the first one, okay? - Yeah. - What's the first one? - The West will solve its aging crisis the way Japan plans on it by eliminating its older population with voluntary euthanasia. - Okay. First of all, there's no plan right now by any nation to promote voluntary euthanasia for the elderly. There's certain nations, for example Canada, that has induced voluntary euthanasia programs that they've been aggressively promoting in Canada's called MADE. And so, but it's not targeted for the elderly, it's just targeted for poor people. I mean, they're targeting poor people, they're targeting people with any sort of terminal illness, like cancer, just because they're trying to reduce strain on the overall social welfare system. But they're not targeting rich elderly people, and that's the root of all social problems in the world, rich elderly people who refuse to surrender power and their wealth and who just won't die. So, Japan is not in discussing promoting voluntary euthanasia because for the Japanese, that would be so disgusting. And so again, Japanese values, they couldn't possibly accept it. What I have said in my past is eventually, all nations be forced to make a choice. Do you want to maintain your elderly population, which basically means rat utopia, I'll explain to you what rat utopia is, or do you want to euthanize the elderly? And what I think, what I said was, when all nations are given this made this choice, only one nation may choose to euthanize the elderly, and that would be Japan. Every other nation will absolutely refuse to euthanize the elderly, okay? So, let me explain what rat utopia is, and how it would apply to our world, and then explain to you why only Japan would make this choice and every other nation would not make this choice, okay? So, rat utopia was an experiment conducted by James B. Kahun in the '60s and '70s, and he did this multiple times. But he wanted to know what a world of abundance would mean for humanity. If we escaped poverty and death and danger, and we could create a utopia, what would it mean? How would humans do in such a utopia? And so, he basically took a room, as big as this room, okay? Just a huge room, and he set up for a rat colony. And this room was free from predators, and it had unlimited water as well as food. And so, the rat could just focus on breeding, and just living whatever life they wanted, okay? They were in rat paradise. So, at first, this experiment went well, but it took, it didn't take that long before things started to get wacky. And so, what happens in nature is, male rats would fight over a female rat, and the alpha rat would get the female rat, and the other rat would just scurry and go off somewhere else, and they might get picked off by a rat, by a hawk, or they might just die, or they set up a colony, okay? That's what happens in nature. The problem is, in a rat paradise, there are no predators, there's no disease, there's no hunger, but there's also no escape. You're stuck in this room, right? So, yeah, the alpha rat would go and have his children, have his family, he would live happily ever after. The other rats had nowhere to go, so they would scurry, they would get together in a corner, and they had nothing to fear, there were no predators, they could eat, and they could drink, but they had nothing to do, they had no social status. So, they got angry, and together, they would go attack the alpha rat, and his family, and then the alpha rat eventually would get exhausted, so he's spending too many rats at once, and he would run off, and just say, "School, that's family, I'm outta here." Then the female rat, she becomes traumatized by all this violence, so she starts attacking her own children, seeing them as a threat, she has PTSD. So, now the young rats are now off by themselves, and they join these gangs, and eventually, what happens is that these rats can't advise each other, and also, these rats are together, they start engaging in homosexuality, and also some weird things, okay? So, what does the experiment tells us is, more than food, more than sheltered, more than safety, all conscious beings strive for status among their groups, and they can achieve status, then they rebel, they use violence in order to achieve status, and eventually, this violence over one society it breaks down. So, James Pak Bikahun, for 20 years, tried many different iterations of this experiment, and every single time it ends in the rat pop clips, okay? Does that make sense? Okay, so now we're gonna apply this to our world. So, I was in Los Angeles, and I went to Skid Row, and I'm like, wow, this is interesting. This is a future, guys, okay? Because imagine a world where you have these baby boomers, and they should have died at 70. They will live to 100 easily. They should be tired at the five, 60. They're still going on. Chuck Grassley's 92 years old. He's still in Congress, he's still a senator. He's fourth in line to be president of the United States. Chuck Grassley, 92 years old. Still a U.S. Senator, and he's fourth in line to be president of the United States. If Donald Trump dies, you have JD Vance. If JD Vance dies, you have Mike Johnson. Mike Johnson dies, you have Chuck Grassley, okay? That's not implausible. So, like, it's kind of scary to think about. But you have these baby boomers who have been in power for too long. They refuse to give up power. And there are no opportunities for young people, and so young people are forced to listen to and meditate, and try to get rich online and gamble on cryptocurrency. But it's very much like this rat utopia, it's a scenario. And this persists, wasn't going to happen is this, okay? 10 years, 20 years down the road, what's literally happening is, you have these gay communities of rich, out of people, who are, and these are fortresses, protected by own private security. While all around the U.S. cities, you have Skid Row, growing and growing. It does allow me to pop glips, right? I'm not sure if you see the movie, "Elisium," with Matt Damon. Okay, "Elisium" is a science fiction movie where the elite have literally skyrocketed off into space and they live in paradise, a transhumanist paradise where they've access to the best healthcare. So they never have cancer. And down on Earth, everyone is living on Skid Row. It's a zombie of pop glips. And so, that's the future, we're heading towards, unless we resolve the elderly issue. But we cannot resolve the elderly issue because the baby owners have all the power, they have all the money, they have all the authority. Can you imagine, like anyone in America saying, like, "I need to kill him, my grandfather." No, it's gonna do that, okay? So, what's your side eating is heading towards utopia. And in fact, you can argue, what's your side eating is already in utopia. The elderly live in their own fortresses, and the far removed from the reality of everyday life. But the other problem with an aging population is the side becomes much more authoritarian. Because if you're, like, 70, 80 years old, you're like, "I would prefer it if these young people didn't make any noise." That's what I'm saying. but old people want, they want peace and quiet, right? So what, what do they want? They want a police force. That's heavily funded and heavily weaponized. They want more rules. They want children to stop having children, right? Because like, what's even worse than young adults? Young children, okay? So, and so, and then they force society to stop funding schools, to stop funding programs that would help the young and fund things that only benefit the elderly, for example, health care, okay, pension. So, that's the way where society is heading, okay? So, all which societies are facing the same problem. And I'm saying that Japan is the only society that would make the choice. Japan would choose to euthanize their elderly. Why? Because Japan of all the research societies in the world are the most screwed. Japan has very little resources. It's run by huge enemies like Japan and Russia, China, and the Koreas have always had animosity towards Japan. And unless Japan resolves, it's elderly population issue. Japan could seize exists in 40 years time, all right? So, that's why I think Japan may make a choice and it will be the choice of the elderly. And I say this because I'm not even been to Japan, you've been to Japan, right? Japan's just a unique society. You know, they say there's four economies in the world. There are four types of all the economies in the world. There is develop, just developing, there's Argentina and there's Japan. Japan is just weird because it's just a cohesive society and there are shinto. So, they see, they're led as spiritual and they see a direct responsibility to keeping the land clean. So, for them, collective responsibility always matters more than individual achievement. And you can say, well, that's bad because Japan's not a very creative dynamic society. But it's a really nice place to live if you're Japanese. I would much rather live in Japan than I would want to live anywhere else. It's a very clean, very orderly, very safe society. I mean, children, as young as six, could just write a subway by themselves. Imagine that. I have kids. I would like, wow. Oh my God, I would be in heaven if my children could every day go write a subway by themselves. And everyone would look after these children, make sure they're safe. So, I think that the Japanese people have a sense of collective sacrifice. They love Japanese culture. They love the land. So, I think that they only would make the sacrifice, but nowhere else in the world would they only make the sacrifice. That's my reasoning. What would you guess is the average age of the people that hold the most power in the world? 65 to 75. That's fair. Did you want to address the birth draft or the nuclear war? Or did you want to go for aliens? Okay, the idea of the birth draft, okay? Right, okay. And just to restate the idea of governments would introduce a birth draft where people are forced to have kids. Yeah. So, you would only introduce a birth draft if you lack labor, okay? So, the idea is, humanity has been depleted so much that you need a force woman to have lots and lots of kids. So, think of the headmaid's tale by Margaret Outwood, okay? That's really what you're referring to, right? A headmaid's tale world where women are seen as reproductive devices. That won't happen. And the reason why is there are places in the world where the population is booming, okay? And these places are Africa, the Middle East and India. These places will suffer from mass migration over the next 20 years. Why? Because they're completely screwed. All right, so first of all, these places are all heavily overpopulated. Second of all, they lack water, they lack resources. Africa, Middle East, India, they all, they suffer from drought. And third of all, these places cannot sustain their populations. They require access to cheap energy as well as fertilizer. Guess what this war in the Middle East is doing? It's cutting off fertilizer and cheap energy to these places. Over time, you will have starvation and famine, especially in Africa, which will cause civil war, which will cause mass migration northwards to Europe, right? So you could, if you lack labor, choose to implement a birth trap. But if you got these hundreds of millions of popular fleeing famine in Africa and elsewhere, you don't need a birth trap. You can just absorb this immigration. And you won't absorb this immigration because you need to, you need this population in order to work as slaves for the elderly. You need people to take care of the elderly. You need nurses, right? You need home care. You need cheap labor. And so you will just choose to let these immigrants into your country. - Yeah, I think an important concept to understand, I believe you've covered this in correct me if I'm wrong about it. But the way you used to grow an empire was expand land, get control more resources. But today it seems like it's import people. - Right. - The easiest way to grow an empire is actually to control trade routes. - Okay. - Okay, so the reason why you don't go out to resources is it's painfully asked to actually mine, control, and develop these resources. You're brought off, you're brought off just being a pirate. - Right, so maritime is more important. - That's right, that's right. You control access points, you control roads. Okay, that's what the Mongol Empire did. That's what the Roman Empire did. That's what that British Empire did. That's what all empires do. That's what empires are. Empires are able to exert control over key maritime choke points. - Now, I never crossed one to that until now, but that makes sense. There's a popular trend online about a year ago. It was like all roads lead to Rome. I don't know if you saw that. - That's right. - That's references this idea. That's what empires do. Empires, they facilitate trade. And they build roads, they build ports in order to facilitate trade. And they collect the tax based on trade. And that's the easiest way to end an empire and to grow it. - So you think elites will stage an alien invasion? - Okay, so let me explain how power works for us to appreciate why the elites must stage and alien invasion. So people don't appreciate this, but like money is fake. Okay, money doesn't do anything. Okay, so let's go back to the time of Samarians. So from most of human history, people practice egalitarianism. Why? 'Cause there was not enough people to go around. There might be 50 people, 20 people. You couldn't have an elite because everyone had to work in order to sustain the village, right? But as the population grew, you had an elite why in order to manipulate the land in order to feed more people. And that usually involves irrigation, canal building, okay? So now you need to divert part of your population from the fields to canal building in order to grow your city, to grow your population. But you need to feed them. So how you fed them was by using ration cards, okay? And that's the birth of writing. It doesn't make sense, okay? Ration cards. So rather than you go to your own food and then feed your family, you go work in the canals and we'll give you ration cards. Okay, and that's really, really how we developed the idea of money, okay? But the key point here is this, the value is not the ration cards. The value is the labor this person produces. You're using ration cards in order to, incentivize this person to create labor, to use his energy, okay? And that's what money is. Money by itself is useless. Money is only useful if you're able to incentivize people to work hard to obtain it, all right? So we are now facing a huge monetary problem. The huge monetary problem is there's way too much money in the system. So imagine back to Samaria if they, for the reason, decided to print too many ration cards. No one will work anymore because they'll be like, wait a minute here, I have 100 ration cards for one day, which means now I can sell it to my friends, which means I can give to my kids. My kids don't have to work anymore. I can just save my ration cards. I get 10 ration cards. I only use one a day. I got nine so I'll do it. I'll just let my kids inherit my ration cards, right? You have too many ration cards. This system breaks down Same thing today where you have too much money flowing around and the system breaks down Why are young people like screw this system? I'm not gonna work for the man. I hate my corporate gig I'm gonna go gamble on cryptocurrency the reason why is they think the parents are rich Right Like it's very common for these baby boomers like these middle class baby boomers Do we sitting on like three million dollars five million dollars in the bank cash that like the stark Investments that are worth a lot of money. They have their own house, which they think is worth a lot of money So they think that my children my grandchildren are good, which means they don't have to work All right, so in this scenario, it's hard for you to exert authority and pressure on the population In which case you need to destroy this wealth and historically there've been two ways to destroy a lot of wealth really quickly The first is for financial collapse, which I which I think is coming and then war Okay, but when you do these things when you destroy wealth because you have no choice in the matter otherwise your population will not work You have a problem like how do you control people now? Right because when people like see their wealth destroyed they get very angry. They get very Um emotional and they might rebel against you. So you need an event You need a reason To corral the population and make them obey you and um There are different possibilities, okay? They're different possibilities. So let let's just list them, okay? One is A great enemy that you must fight to liberate humanity and before Um, you had things like fascism Communism Today you have China The problem with China is no one is afraid of China Okay, it doesn't sell You say to the American people the Chinese are gonna come and take us over and then we're gonna like You know, I was a school and there was this Chinese kid in my class and he was on a threat to me Like and like have you seen a map trying to count far away man. It doesn't sell man communism sold the not sold Okay The Islamic terror is sold But not China it doesn't sell all right, and we can go over the reasons why but China does not sell it will never sell So China is not on the table, okay? So this external threat this great enemy they can't manufacture All right Another possibility is the promise of Paradise Right, so so that's how communist works the idea is you sacrifice for 20 years and then we will achieve abundance and then we'll have um Paradise on earth and That is what ag is Right if you think about it ag is a promise of eternal salvation and redemption If we just invest in it enough today So let's just go all in and ag and then we'll be good This doesn't work either because people hate data centers Okay, people hate not only data centers, but people hate Oh Okay, these people are not charismatic people refuse to follow them to heaven So ag doesn't work So Now you like one of my other options So aliens may not may or may not work, but they're kind of desperate China's not working ag is not working. Let's try aliens And hope for the best and you mean as the Distraction for let's go over the logic The system of money as a means of incentive and control is no longer holding Because there's too much money in the system and there's really no value in money Okay, I mean like Honestly in the 70s and 80s a dollar would be worth a lot If you offer the kid a dollar to like um do a newspaper route He'd be very happy Now you offer the kid $100 a day to do a newspaper route he probably will say no Okay, I mean like most kids So the value of money has Gone way down and people say what inflation no, no, it's just like people sense of money Is longer as strong as it used to be Okay money is no is no longer as seen as as valuable as before Okay, that's and and and we go over The reasons why okay, but like what kids want to do nowadays is make as much money as possible Within a month or a year and then retire That is the new American dream Whereas before it was understood that you you need to like work hard for like 40 years and then you could be rich Am I am I wrong? It's very accurate. Yeah, okay, and that just shows you money is no longer Um money longer works as a means of control Okay So in order to reassert the power of money in order to reassert Um the power of the elite you need to destroy a lot of wealth So you and you needed to cost a destruction, right? But once you cost a destruction you need to impose a new mechanism of control And um their different possibilities Um the first possibility is an external enemy that the people can rally rally around They want that to be China. It's not working or The dream of a paradise. That's a GI. That's not working either Okay, so another possibility is an alien invasion to make people afraid To create a one-world government because only a one-world government can be spawned to an alien invasion Hmm, and you think aliens are real? I don't think aliens are real. How would they do that? Um, so That's a really good question, okay, but let's go over what we know about aliens so far So um Not a lot not a lot, okay, so but like Um for decades there were stories of alien abduction Of you know people In world cancers being adopted by like little green man Okay, so there's quite a few stories like that There have been lots of uh reports of spacecraft that Defy the loss of physics, the defy the loss of gravity and often it's these military pilots who witness this um spacecraft that is able to travel And accelerate at an incredible speed and that defies his understanding of modern physics We also hear people like Caracrosson talk about how um The spacecraft are actually embedded in the oceans and they come out of the oceans, okay, so Um, and the White House has been talked about you have owed UFO disclosure for the past few months And they say that they will actually um disclose the UFO files at at at some point Um, so this is what we know which is not a lot So I don't think aliens are real And uh before I used to believe aliens were real because when I was a young person when I was a teenager I read a lot of science fiction. I watched a lot of star star track And I played a video game called starcraft And I was really big into aliens. I really wanted to like explore the cosmos And now I think it's all nonsense and the training point was when I realized The moon landing was faked when we didn't actually go to the moon Um lots of Evidence suggests we did go there's lots of evidence. We did not go, okay, but but but let me give you my reasoning as to why we didn't go Usually my first reason is usually when there's a major technological breakthrough Our world changes dramatically So I think of World War II the man on our project and how that led to the computer revolution The transistor revolution and how it basically led to the world that we live in today, right Nothing came out of the moon landing revolution. Nothing They lost all the technology All the telemetry data and the video footage They lost it all but we'll start from scratch, okay, so Um the fact that we didn't have major Consuming innovations that came out of the NASA Um space Missions makes no sense to me film making Um, okay, I mean sure Um That's point one point two is For the past 50 to 70 years depending on who you talk to. There's been no major breakthrough in physics theoretical Physics, right? So if we're able to go to the moon, it's often because the theoretical physics have enabled us to develop the technology to go to the moon. So my question is, okay, if you look at the Manhattan Project, there were certain breakthroughs in theoretical physics, which enabled us to build a nuclear bomb. But why is it that the moon learning do not provide new insights into physics? That makes no sense to me. And I know you can cover up the technology, but you can't cover up the theory because scientists need to work in an open environment, okay? And that's why I also don't believe we have secret alien technology. Because if we did have secret alien technology, that would change your understanding of theoretical physics, which would be discussed in academia, not in the general public, but among elite members of science. And it's not being discussed, which tells me there's been no secret alien technology discovered in our lifetimes. We would see changes in theoretical physics and we have not. So that's why I don't think aliens exist. That's why I think the moon learning was fake. And that's why I think we don't have access to secret alien technology because there's been no real changes in our everyday lives brought about by this technology. And we haven't seen any real changes in our condition of our cosmos in theoretical physics. Yeah, so I think aliens are fake and so they'll fake an alien invasion. Do you think there would be more likely to fake an alien invasion or more likely to fake maybe some non-real messianic figure like a messiah? That's a really good question. And I think there may be a blurring of these two. So if you are able to fake an alien invasion, you can also fake the return of God, the return of Jesus, okay? I mean, just my logistics, organization, perspective, it's really the same project. So I think we're moving towards is a period of tremendous suffering, tremendous agony brought out, brought about by a perfect storm of crises, okay? You have financial collapse. But you also have the possibility, the very strong possibility of blackouts in the United States very soon. I'm not sure if you seen this, but Donald Trump, if you look looking at his White House statements, his major concern is not the one Iran or the one Ukraine or a possible or China, the White House has been saying that the major threat is to the homeland, domestic security, okay? And what do they mean by that? They usually mean attacks on American infrastructure, which includes the electricity grid, which includes data centers, which includes the financial system. So the reality is that right now Americans are very happy with the way things are. You've got runaway inflation. Gas prices are going to go or will skyrocket. The economy is entirely built on the AI bubble. Once I collapse this, you have millions of people losing their jobs in a livelihood. So you need to distract people. You need to shift the blame. And false flag attacks on the electricity grid makes perfect sense, I think, right? If people-- That's the one thing people actually care about. Is there electricity going up? Well, well, you starve electricity. You can't, imagine if you live in New York City, okay? Where in New York City not, right? Do you know what would happen if there was a blackout? You would starve, right? Your fridges don't work. And your fridges don't work. All the food goes rotten in a day. Where are you going to get your food from? And also, by the way, you have like 10 million people in New York City all who need access to food and water. Do you think there will actually be a blackout? I think they're planning it, yeah. I think if you look at the recent White House statements, they have basically foreshadowed or forecasted the possibility of blackouts. Yeah. Do you think that'll be 2027? 2028? I think that's a good, good time frame. I think we'll be soon possibly around the midterms, possibly around the general election in 2028, right? Now, people don't appreciate this, but you know, when a politician like Donald Trump really screws up, meaning he takes, and the United States, to this unwinnable war in Iran, when he is threatening to invade Canada, when he is causing all the domestic turmoil in the United States. Again, this is human psychology. People don't appreciate, but voters, people become even more emotionally attached to him. Does that make any sense to you? They call it the Stockholm syndrome. Right. Right. So when he's painted as evil, people like him more, is what you're saying? No, people don't like him, but people are now dependent on him. Right. Right. Because the Stockholm syndrome is these bank robbers in Sweden. They go rob a bank and they hold the hostages. They have hostages for a long time. And over time, what they discovered is the hostages become more, the hostages are more attached to them than they are to the police. They see the police as a threat now. Okay. So it's very weird, but we have lots of examples of this where, you know, like these women who suffer from domestic abuse, they love their husbands even more. Not because they like their husbands, but because they are now emotionally dependent on their husbands as a source of security and safety. Right. Right. Because I know it sounds weird. It's very hard to explain what's going on. But I think that we as humans, when we are afraid, we want security. And so we will latch on to the person who we feel can provide security. And that often means a thug that often means a gangster. And Donald Trump is a gangster. Okay. So imagine we're in 2028. And the United States is completely utterly fucked because this war in Iran has gone sideways. They're now ground troops in Iran. Maybe not a lot, maybe 10,000, okay. But they're kind of trapped. And there's no, there's a draft being called. And there are protests all around the United States calling for Donald Trump's impeachment. If you are just an average American, okay. And you see this entire world going to shit. And you have a choice between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. Who'd you pick? The gangster. The gangster. Okay. Now let me ask you this question. What have a choice between Gavin Newsom and Donald Trump? Who would you pick? The W. No. Not the W. You don't know. If it were between Obama and Donald Trump, who would you pick in a time of crisis? Yes. I'm not sure. I would pick Donald Trump because there's a picture of Obama when special forces went after or someone bin Laden. Have you seen this picture? Can you find it? There's Barack Obama situation room or someone bin Laden. This one? That's it. Yeah. Look at his face. Do you really want this guy to lead you in a time of war? So this is for context. I'll pop the photo on screen. This is after he learned what? No, no, this is doing the right. Special forces went into Pakistan and there's a live stream to the situation room in the White House. Biden was there, the VP, Hillary Clinton was there at the 6th sake of a state and Obama was there, the president. He looked, I mean, he was completely out of his element, whereas Biden, Hillary Clinton were like, yeah, yeah, we're getting him. Okay. You need a psychopath to lead you in a time of war. Obama is not a psychopath. Trump is a gangster. You want a gangster in charge. So it's really strange. Okay. And people don't appreciate this, but this is like this basic human psychology. If you want to sense your politics, if you want to sound the world works, you need to figure out basic human psychology. And so the more problems Trump caused, the more the American voter becomes dependent on him emotionally. And that's why he's doing this. He understands his basic human psychology. You think all the sets him up to be reelected? Well, he's in a third term. How so I can't really say, but I think I predict he gets a third term. You kind of insinuated that there will be a national draft. You've noted that there's already legislation in place for people ages 18 to 25 to be automatically be registered for the draft. Trying to December, yes. And that's in December. So I'm in that. I'm going to connect a couple different ideas that you told me on our last podcast and elsewhere. Let me know what you make of all this. So in April, you said a legal immigrants would be offered citizenship to fight America's next war. You said every man 18 to 25 gets automatically registered for the draft, and this is pulled straight out of the government databases. And elsewhere you've called Palantir, the company that builds those databases, more powerful than E.S.K. If Armageddon is counting or is already happening, what kind of people do you think will be drafted for World War III? So one thing that I've recently learned is this year, and it's the first time I've been like 10 years, the United States military was able to fail its recruitment quota. It did it very early. And you're like, wait a minute. Why is it before they couldn't fill these recruitment quotas, but now they're able to do so. They offered hefty bonuses before. What's the difference between before and this year? And I think it's just because you have a lot of illegal immigrants who believe that to say the United States, I need to join the military. There are lots of young people who see the economy and like, I don't have that much job prospect so I'm not off joining the military. I'll be very honest with you. If you're a young person and you're not rich, your best option for next 10 years is to join the military today. Go to your recruitment office and set up today. Why? Because the natural draft is coming. If you volunteer now, you'll have an option of where to go and what to do. This is what they didn't get now. If you volunteer, you could choose a pen, push a job. But if you were drafted, you were sent off to Vietnam. So if you want to be smart and if you want to protect yourself and your family, I would say you're a young person and again, if you're just like a normal person with very little career prospects and you find this out rich, your best option is to join the military today. The draft, don't think of it as being sent off to Iran. Think of the draft as a bureaucratic solution and a ton of economic collapse. So think of the 1930s, the 1929, the stomach collapse, 1930s. You have millions of people unemployed, so what does the government do? The government basically drafted everyone and had them work for the Tennessee Valley Authority, basically getting jobs. So that's what I think the national draft is. You've got these young people, what I'm going to do to the bureaucratic solution is just to draft them and teach them some skills and happen to do something. Okay. Again, if you join the military now, you're going to be a much more advantageous position than if you were to wait to be drafted. The difference is, let's just say you join the military today. Well, in two to three years' time, you would have built up enough experience to be sent off to be a commissioner in Venezuela, or Columbia, or Canada, or who knows, okay? But you would stay within North America. If you wait four years until this war in Iran gets really, really bad, then they need to send cannon fodder to stop the debt damage to send you, okay? So those are your two options. You join now. You'll be a colonial administrator in Canada, or Venezuela in four years' time. You wait four years, and you might be sent off to Iran, because this warning ran will only at worst. It will not end. Do you think I'll be more likely to send off to the Iran War if I watch Professor Zhang videos? You're absolutely right, so Palantir is everywhere, and they are tracking what you do online. And there's a huge question. I was just like, why is it doing COVID? There's a huge social media crackdown. But today, with the world going to shit, with the one I ran, people like me are just allowed to speak our minds. And not only that, but we're often promoted on social media. And one theory is, they're trying to track people and try to figure out their thinking and their intentions and their motivations, right? So before they wanted access to your library card to know what books you read, well, now all they need is your browsing history, right? Did they actually do that? They would access people's library records? 9/11, they demanded to see people's library history and the librarian said, no, fuck off. So yeah, I mean, it is entirely possible, like they are just allowing people to go wherever they want and post whatever they want in order to create a psychological profile on that person, to figure out where to put that person when a draft comes. Obviously, the most outspoken, the most opinionated will be the first to send off to die. And the most obedient, the most compliant, may be given a bureaucratic position somewhere. But honestly, I don't know what, watching my videos, how that we translate it in the pound tear database, because I mean, I've done a lot of meetups and I met quite a few of my fans. It's pretty diverse group of people, man. And I feel as though people watch my videos are more savvy, more aware than other people. And it's very hard to categorize my followers. Whereas I think if you follow Nick Fuentes or something like that, it's pretty easy to categorize your mentality, love to set up a conversation with you and Nick. Yeah. I would love to do it. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. It'll be a conversation, I think, not the bait. So you're talking about the AI bubble on our last podcast. You predicted a major market crash by the end of this year, who actually decides when the AI bubble will pop. And do you think that's something that happens before the end of this year? My personal feeling is these market crashes are not organic, don't happen by accident. Often they are engineered in time to maximize the benefit of certain groups. The example is the 2008 great financial collapse, the supply bubble it burst. And when it burst, it allows individuals to profit greatly. So John Paulson was an edge fund manager. His company made $20 billion off the supreme crisis. And I think it was an engineering event because I live in China. And the real estate bubble did burst. But the market didn't collapse because the real estate market burst. So it's perfectly possible to actually paper over these events and just let them continue naturally. Let's use your kind of factor and say, let's just say the government did not allow the market bubble to burst. What would have happened instead? Well, rather than Lehman Brothers going bankrupt, no sorry, Lehman Brothers did not go bankrupt. Bear Stearns went bankrupt. But Lehman Brothers was under a lot of stress. Lehman Brothers did. Yeah. So Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers went bankrupt. The government could have bailed on everyone. Okay. Basically it said, we'll cover both the losses of Wall Street because you're too big to fail as well as the homeowners because we wanted to save the American middle class. We wanted these homeowners to still have a house. Okay. So basically the government comes on bills on everyone. And if the government chose to do that in 2008, the United States would be a very different place. And you would have the sort of global polarization, the inequality and the sort of the spear that you have today. And that's basically what happened in China where the start market did collapse, but homeowners just lost value. They didn't lose their homes. Thank you very much. states, homeowners lost their homes. So the question then is, why did the bubble burst and the answer is to benefit a certain elite that is able to control the policy levers of Washington DC. And John Paulson was a member of this elite, but I mean, so it's going in sacks, because remember, Goldman Sachs actually profited from the supreme crisis, not only because it bet that the supreme recalouts, but also they were able to absorb a lot of assets in the aftermath in the fallout. And you can, you can make the argument that Goldman Sachs and others engineered the collapse. I'm not sure if you ever saw them with a big short. Yeah, so Michael Burry had this bet with Goldman Sachs, right? The bet was very simple. Goldman Sachs agreed to bet with Michael Burry that the supreme market would never ever collapse. Okay, default would not reach a certain point. Okay, and remember how Muggle Burry won the bet, but he could not get in touch with Goldman Sachs. And eventually, Muggle Burry was able to get in touch with Goldman Sachs and Goldman Sachs says, we're ready to honor our agreement. We're ready to tell you you won your bet and we're ready to give you money. And we're sorry for the delay. Muggle Burry is like, you're not sorry, you just waited, you just waited this long because you needed time in order to trick other people to take the other side of the bet so you could profit. Yeah. Okay, and that's how financial markets work. It's not a fair game, it's completely rigged. There are predators and there are prey. If you control the policy apparatus in Washington DC, you're backed by power politicians, you are the predator. If you're everyone else, you're just a prey. You will lose money eventually in the system. Do never bet against the market because the market is rigged. So I think we are facing a similar situation. The question is, when does the AI bubble burst? Okay, theoretically, it can choose to never ever burst, right? Because the difference between the supply and bubble, no, AI bubble is the supply and bubble, you had too many defaults. You had too many homeowners who could not pay the mortgage and this cost a contagion throughout the system. So there was always a point when the bubble was going to burst naturally and what they did was engineer a point where the leak could benefit the most. And who bought all those houses? Well, probably equally part of the house is, right? Right. So the AI bubble burst theoretically. Let me finish off a point. Okay. The AI bubble is different because it's almost like a circle jerk where these companies are just supporting each other. Now, the problem with the AI bubble is they need continuous investment for them to sustain themselves because it's so costly to run these data centers. But theoretically, they could keep on going for a very long time, right? They will burst the bubble maybe when the next year, why? Number one, problem number one is they were getting a lot of investment from the GCC, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait. Now, they've lost access to all this liquidity. Okay. So they're not able to refine as fast as they used as they used to. Okay, that's problem number one. Problem number two is these data centers are causing a lot of money. Okay. And the problem number three is they're not found as a sustainable business model. Okay. So they need to build more data centers when they're not able to generate enough income, just justify these data centers. And they're losing investment investors because of the war in the Middle East. Okay. So they want to engineer a collapse in a way that forces the federal government to come in and bail them out because when that happens, when the government takes over these data centers, they're able now to socialize the losses and prioritize the gains. So OpenAI is not able to generate income because they have to absorb the cost of the data centers coming comes in and they declare these data centers, military installations, then OpenAI is now profitable. Right. Okay. So so that's the play. Okay. So they have to do this, but they have to do it in the they have the time it in a way in which they are able to play the market. They're able to maximize their gains. Their Cronies are able to short the market and get a lot of winnings. But they also need the Trump administration to come in and bail them out. And I think all the pieces are already in place. It doesn't matter like when now. Right. And on the debt crisis itself, you referenced two laws that are quietly meant to resolve it. Do you think Americans will be forced to use digital currency when the AI bubble burst? Okay. So the United States has $42 in debt. So if you are in Washington DC, you ask yourself, how can I resolve this debt issue? Okay. And the current strategy seems to be twofold. The first is you make others dependent on you for energy. Right. So Japan, China, South Korea need to buy OMG from you in order to feel their economies. And they have to do that by you with US dollars. Okay. That's one solution. And the solution is through cryptocurrency. And the idea here is what you want to do is you want to offload your debt onto the average retail consumer around the world. All right. So right now you're a Chinese person. You've got a lot money in the bank, but it's a minimum B. You don't want your money in a minimum B because it doesn't grow. Okay. You would rather have your money in US dollars. It grows a lot faster. And you're able to have more options with the US dollars. Come and say I'm not going to allow you to buy US dollars because I would cause a collapse. I'll do me a B. Right. So what's a workaround? A workaround is the government allows you to buy certain could the currency that is backed by US treasuries. And these examples include circle and and tether. And when you do that, what you're really doing is you're basically buying a share of US treasuries. So let's work around. Okay. Yeah. And because of that, now you're able to refinance the sovereign debt. Will that work? Probably not. Probably not. And the reason why is the United States has a huge problem. The problem is we are at the end of empire. We are. The United States is an empire in decline. And so people have become speculative. They become extremely selfish. And they're pretty exhausted. Meaning people are going to do the least amount of work in the shortest amount of time for the quickest return. Right. The example is Venezuela. In theory, Americans can go and develop the Venezuela oil industry. And in a long term, this benefits everyone. It benefits the Venezuela population. It benefits the American people. But that's a lot of hard work. And it's a very long term investment. Right. Because you first have to build infrastructure. That might take five years. So rather than go and do it yourself, you think I'll just sell the right to the Chinese and have them do the work. Right. But then the Chinese are like, yeah, but I can sell to another company to go do the work. Okay. So I want to tell you a story that really happened in China. They illustrate the mentality of the global economy today. So in a province called Guangxi, it's a very poor province. But businessmen was having dispute with his partner. So we decide I'll hire a hitman to kill my partner and Palm Saw. Okay. And this is a real story, by the way. It's been reported pretty widely in China and around the world. He goes to hitman and offers a guy. I'll just make up the numbers. Okay. Maybe 100,000 US dollars, which is a lot of money. And the hitman's like, of course, I'll go do it. And the hitman's like, yeah, I can go do it. But why don't I get another hitman to go do it? For $50,000, I'll pocket the $50,000 myself, okay? So then, the second businessman gets $50,000 to go kill that partner and he's like, that's all I'm money, but I can go do it, but wouldn't it be better if I got someone else to do it for me? And I'll pocket the difference. So then it goes to a third person. And now, it's $25,000 to go kill the partner. And the guy's the same thing. Now he goes to a four person and I'll give you $10,000 to go kill that partner. And then the guy's like, yeah, I could go kill that guy for $10,000, but I think they go to the partner, the truth, he'll give me more money to rat everyone out to the police, right? So he goes to the partner and the partner calls the police. The police will go rest all for it, man, as well as the business person. That's the true story. And this is, I think, a perfect illustration of how the global economy works today. So it's not about getting the job done. It's about how to rip each other off and do as little work as possible to generate as much money as possible. That's the amount of everyone today. And like, you can't have that, right? That's why all solutions lead to disaster because no one's really serious about getting the job done. Everyone just wants to rip off the other person. - Is there a name for that concept? Is it like the law of least effort or something? - You know, we shouldn't make something up. I don't know. - I feel like I read about it the other day, but that's really fascinating. I think that applies to a lot of concepts. - There's something called the Peter Principle, but that's about incompetence, whereas this is just about greed and laziness. So there's incompetence, there's chupers, but there's something completely different. This is just taking pleasure and joy and being as lazy as possible. And that's the stage we're in today. Which means like, what are solutions that you have? This will just blow up in your face. Nothing will work because the people responsible for implementing a solution will just screw it up, right? That's why this healing invasion, I think, will be to the disaster. That's why I think trying to resolve the sorrow and death crisis will end in the disaster. I mean, you look at the entire Trump administration and it's just been one scam after another scam. That's all they care about, right? How this war is going and I ran no one cares, but the people around Trump, what they care about is, am I able to play the markets, right? And they made a lot of money playing the markets, right? And you look at the Trump family. They've made a lot of money on these cryptocurrency deals, right? They made a lot of money on these drone deals. So they're the first family. So Evans is going to do what they're going to do, which just means Evans is going to scam each other. Do we learn to show what's going on? You can use eschatology and you can use the scope of realism and geopolitics, but it's just so much better to appreciate we're all human beings. We're all going to behave like human beings. And you need a pretty basic grasp of human psychology. If you really understand what's really going on. How many of your predictions would you say are just analysis of something you already observe going on and then forecasting it to the future and saying we're going to do more of this? You absolutely right. Everything I do is pattern recognition. That's all I'm doing, but people don't do that. Whereas I do, yes. Yeah, how do I know they would attack Iran for sure? Because it's just part of a pattern, right? I don't know why Trumped with Drew from the JCPOA. I don't know why he moved the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I don't know why you recognize the Golden Heights as part of Israel. I don't know why he promoted the Abraham Accords. I don't know why he killed, you know, Kassam Salamani, but it's a pattern. You just keep on moving. You get the attack on Iran. [BLANK_AUDIO]