Best recent interview of Tom Luongo. (My views on geopolitics and what is happening—this will be a very long post, but I hope people will stick with it until the end.)

My recent post focused more on abstract concepts of human manipulation, and I apologize for that. However, I believe people should also understand these abstract ideas.

In this post, I would like to discuss an interview with Tom Luongo. I have posted his videos earlier and he was also a guest on The Duran. Of course, I do not fully agree with Tom, but I still respect him very much. I previously mentioned that I only understood the economic system up to the introduction of the Petrodollar, which I believe is the biggest scam and trick on humanity in history. However, I do not fully understand the Eurodollar system. What fascinated me about Tom was that he was the only one recognizing the competition between the Euro and the Dollar—essentially, between the ECB and the Fed—which I think he is correct about.

In a recent post featuring his video, I expressed a wish that he had been introduced to Carl Oglesby’s book The Yankee and Cowboy War, which would explain to him that while Davos and the globalists which are now based in the EU were originally created by the Rockefellers in America.

I noticed that he has changed his stance, though I know it’s not because someone forwarded what I wrote. Nevertheless, I am happy that he has shown some concern. My views are closer to those of Whitney Webb, whom Tom often criticizes, as he has admitted. He frequently tries to discredit her, but interestingly, in this video, he finally gives her some credit. That both surprised me and made me very happy.

15:18

“Let’s start with cutting the taxpayer burden. You know, this is part of the concern I’ve had about AI and all of this for quite a long time. I don’t talk about it much, but Dexter White and I have a lot of conversations behind the scenes about where this could be headed if we’re not careful in how we handle it. It can lead to a very dark future.

And while I give her a lot of [ __ ] for this, I will give her some credit—this is part of what’s driving Whitney Webb and the work she’s been doing. But at the same time, I think never considering the positive side of the equation isn’t a particularly balanced way to present the information.”

Whitney Webb and I share the same position, so we see what is happening and are pleased that USAID is being exposed. We support some of the actions being taken. However, unlike Tom, we do not believe that these wealthy and powerful individuals are doing this to create a better world or to help ordinary people. While we agree with Tom that they want to dismantle the current system, we suspect they are doing so not to benefit the public but simply to replace it with a new system that serves their own interests. In my opinion, this new system could be even worse.

The key difference in our views is that Tom sees central banks as the problem, whereas I disagree. In my opinion, the issue is not central banks as institutions but the fact that they have been privatized and are controlled by private entities and individuals rather than the state. To quote Mayer Amschel Rothschild:

“GIVE me control of a nation’s money supply, and I care not who makes its laws.”

We have given away our states’ ability to control money creation to private institutions and individuals, and this is the real problem. In my opinion, the issue is not the concept or existence of central banks themselves but the fact that they are not owned or controlled by the state.

This problem was addressed in one of the videos about central banks that I posted, which explains how the IMF forced most of the world’s largest central banks to be privately owned and controlled by private entities and individuals rather than the state.

How Central Banks Have Seized Power Over Our Societies (The Story of Japan and What I Think Will Happen in Europe)

1:27:44

“It turns out that the evidence for central bank independence, which was relied upon in the Maastricht Treaty, derived from a single study commissioned by none other than the European Commission itself. This study, published in 1992 under the name One Market, One Money, purported to demonstrate that central bank independence led to low inflation.

James Forder, an Oxford academic, has since demonstrated that this study was manipulated to obtain the desired result. The story we're being told by central banks simply does not add up, and there is evidence that central banks operate differently from how they would like us to believe.

Around the world, central banks hold significant yet little-understood powers. Often independent, unaccountable, and obscure, they operate in the shadows, yet their actions affect us all. In almost all countries worldwide—and with considerable help from the IMF—central banks have become totally independent and, in practice, unaccountable to any democratic institution. Their accountability to parliaments is usually minimal and, in effect, meaningless.

Whether it is the Bank of Japan, the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, or the European Central Bank, examples of central bank deception abound. In the United States during the 1920s, banks were encouraged to create money and give it to speculators. The resulting depression convinced freedom-loving Americans that a decentralized federal system without strong national controls could not work.

In the 1990s, the Japanese were persuaded that their economic system—which had brought considerable prosperity and equality—needed to be transformed into a so-called free-market system. And while Japan's transformation was not yet complete, central bankers struck again with an IMF-led raid on the Asian Tiger economies.

The present European debt crisis is yet another example of central bank deception. Creating a public consensus for structural reform by purposefully engineering a recession and then needlessly prolonging it constitutes an abuse of power. Do citizens really want to be manipulated in such a costly and dishonest manner?”

1:21:52

“Why would the United States make demands on foreign nations in the name of the free market when it has no intention of enforcing the same rules within its own borders?

The Japanese and Asian financial crises illustrate how economic crises can be engineered to facilitate the redistribution of economic ownership and implement legal, structural, and political change. Today, similar events are unfolding in the Eurozone.

Countries within the Euro currency bloc have forfeited their right to a national currency, handing this power to the European Central Bank (ECB). With me here in the studio is Richard Werner, a professor at Southampton University. Richard was an advisor to the Bank of Japan and the Ministry of Finance at the end of the bubble era in the 1990s.

What advice would you give to the ECB? They meet tomorrow—what would you tell them?

“Well, they need to focus on the quantity of credit creation more than interest rates. The ECB has a lot to learn from its past mistakes because it didn’t carefully monitor credit creation. In Spain and Ireland, there was a massive credit expansion under the ECB’s watch, yet they failed to address it.

"Interest rates are uniform across the Eurozone, but the quantity of credit cycles varies greatly. In 2002, the ECB instructed the Bundesbank to reduce its credit creation by the largest amount in its history, while telling the Irish Central Bank to print money as if there were no tomorrow. What do you expect to happen? Same interest rate, but different growth—Germany faced a recession, while Ireland experienced a boom. What variable tells you this? Credit creation.”

From 2004, under the ECB’s oversight, bank credit growth in Ireland, Greece, Portugal, and Spain exceeded 20% per year, leading to skyrocketing property prices. When bank credit fell, property prices collapsed, developers went bankrupt, and the banking systems of these countries became insolvent.

The ECB could have prevented these bubbles, just as it could have mitigated the ensuing banking and economic crises. However, it refused to act until major political concessions were made, such as the transfer of fiscal and budgeting powers from individual sovereign states to the European Union.

In both Spain and Greece, youth unemployment has surged to 50%, forcing many young people to seek employment abroad. Greek doctors, whose education was funded by Greek taxpayers, now work in Germany.

The deliberations of the ECB’s decision-making bodies are secret. Any attempt to influence the ECB through democratic debate or discussion is explicitly forbidden under the Maastricht Treaty.

The ECB operates as an international organization beyond the laws and jurisdictions of any individual nation. Its senior staff carry diplomatic passports, and its files and documents cannot be searched or impounded by any police force or public prosecutor.

The ECB is widely recognized among economists as one of the world’s most powerful yet least transparent central banks. However, its former president, Jean-Claude Trichet, dismissed concerns about transparency by simply asserting that there was no problem.”

This explains what I am talking about. Central banks themselves are not the problem; the issue is that they are not owned or controlled by the state and democratic institutions.

This is where I differ from Tom. While we both see that this system and the globalist Malthusians are under attack, unlike Tom, I do not believe that people who do this want to fix it and create something better. Instead, like Whitney Webb, I suspect they want to replace it with something even worse. I addressed this in another one of my posts.

Catherine Austin Fitts — Using Bitcoin and Stablecoins to Expand Dollar Dominance with Whitney Webb (Digital AI, Digital Money, AI, Economic Crises, and the Americanization of Europe)

“In the 1990s, there was an effort to encourage hedge funds and offshore funds to balloon their balance sheets with treasuries. It was essentially a game to create large new markets for U.S. treasuries. It seems like the same strategy is now being applied with stablecoins.”

58:11

“We were discussing this the other day: who really built the Federal Reserve? It was the infrastructure providers and bankers—Morgan, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and the railroads—coming together with Wall Street. They created the Fed. So, who is going to make the new Fed? It will be the people dominating the infrastructure: the issuers, the entities running Ethereum and Bitcoin, the companies holding Bitcoin, and those owning the associated infrastructure.

Central bankers might believe they still have ultimate control, but the reality is shifting. In the U.S., as in other countries, the Federal Reserve is owned by private entities. The eventual move seems to be eliminating central banks in places like Argentina under Javier Milei or possibly in the U.S. under Trump. Many libertarians cheer this development, but the critical question is: what will replace the central banks? The answer might be something worse—a different type of private bank with even less oversight.

If the private forces controlling the Federal Reserve could bypass existing “red tape,” they would have unfettered control over the money supply. This aligns with ambitions openly stated by figures like Peter Thiel, who advocate for removing the state from money issuance and handing control to private entities. This would result in a system of “warlord central banking” or cartel banking.

Their strategy appears to involve a phase-shift dialectic. They present central banks as inherently flawed and then offer a “solution” that is arguably worse. For instance, Milei speaks at Davos to a room full of billionaires, promoting free markets. Of course, billionaires cheer—after having plundered the world, printed trillions, and bought up assets, they now own the infrastructure for everything: wheat, oil, the internet, and more.

In this scenario, many support dismantling the central bank and dollarizing economies, allowing foreign entities to dominate critical sectors. They advocate selling lithium and land rights, pushing toward commodity-backed coins instead of treasury-backed stable coins. Once they’ve amassed the wealth, they shift to a deflationary system to consolidate their position.

This is the dialectic they’ve created: public institutions are vilified, while the private sector is elevated. Figures like Tucker Carlson criticize the CIA, yet entities like Palantir, Citigroup, and private sector players remain unchecked. The public sector is being demolished to shift control entirely to the private sector.

It’s important to remember that the current mode of governance is a public-private partnership. This transition is not about decentralization but about consolidating power in fewer private hands. Ironically, while the Federal Reserve system has a degree of decentralization with multiple banks, the emerging model—dominated by entities like Paxos, PayPal, and Tether—might be even more centralized. Custodians like BNY Mellon will still control much of the infrastructure, making this system even less transparent and accountable.”

I agree with this assessment more than with the one Tom is discussing, and in my opinion, this is what Tom is missing. While he believes this is being done to create something better, both Whitney Webb and I see it as an attempt to create something worse.

Currently, central banks are owned and controlled by private institutions and individuals, yet there is still a small degree of control and transparency. What they are doing now is trying to dismantle even that limited oversight. They want to replace central banks with a system of "warlord central banking" or cartel banking.

Tom, like many others, is too optimistic, whereas Whitney and I take a more realistic view. We acknowledge that these wealthy elites are not dismantling the current system to benefit ordinary people; rather, they are replacing it with a system they control, rather than the globalist Malthusians, and it will be even worse than what we have now.

I'm not even sure if they are truly fighting the globalist Malthusians, given that their goal is to create a system that is even more centralized, controlled, and opaque — something the globalist Malthusians would also likely support. The truth may be that the globalist Malthusians are behind all of this and are simply reshaping the system in a way that serves them even more.

However, it ultimately doesn’t matter whether the globalist Malthusians are orchestrating this or if another group is trying to replace them. Either way, the new system they aim to implement is even worse.

The post I linked before, "How Central Banks Have Seized Power Over Our Societies (The Story of Japan and What I Think Will Happen in Europe)," also discusses another crucial issue: structural change.

“The Japanese and Asian financial crises illustrate how economic crises can be engineered to facilitate the redistribution of economic ownership and implement legal, structural, and political change. Today, similar events are unfolding in the Eurozone.”

I wrote about this before, and in my opinion, it is happening right in front of our eyes. This "structural and political change" aims to implement more neoliberalism in the US and introduce Thatcherism in the EU. In other words, it is about dismantling the last vestiges of socialism in the EU, which have provided simple people in the region with a high standard of living. The elites do not like this because it cuts into their profits, and they claim that the EU is not competitive. In reality, what they mean is that it is not profitable enough for these oligarchs. It’s not that the EU isn’t profitable for them — it’s just not profitable enough. They want to exploit people in the EU the same way they do in the US and the rest of the world with their neoliberalism. This "structural and political change" is well illustrated in this short video, using the example of the DODGE department.

5:09

“It's really interesting—and if you want to talk about the peasant mindset, let's talk about it.

If you think Elon Musk gives a fuck about you—if you're a working person—if you believe this piece of garbage, who pays around 3% of his income in taxes, is rifling through the government's payment systems to help you, I'm sorry, but that is a peasant mindset.

I don’t want to call you stupid because I genuinely want to win you over. If you think that way… I consider most people stupid, so I’m just nonpartisan about it.

But if you look at how these people operate and come away thinking, Wow, Elon Musk is rifling through these systems to help me, you really need to rethink that. I'm sorry, but do you really believe that? Do you honestly believe that?

No, it's a PSYOP. If I could just have the screen for one second—Doge is a PSYOP. Doge is a giant PSYOP. A lot of people in this space like to pride themselves on sniffing out PSYOPs, giving themselves credit for exposing them. Well, that’s exactly what Doge is—a PSYOP designed to manufacture consent for libertarianism and hyper-capitalism in the new tech era.”

This is the structural change and Thatcherism that I am talking about. Elon pays 3% on his income or even less sometimes, sometimes even paying no tax at all. Now, he wants to make the government efficient. Does he attack those tax loopholes that allow the ultra-rich to pay almost no taxes and make them pay at least the same level of tax as working people? Of course not. Instead, what the DODGE department decided to attack, in an attempt to increase government efficiency, is to attack the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau so departments that protect ordinary people from rich assholes like him.

Now, in Europe, AfD, which is supported by Elon, serves the same purpose. I even saw it in my country, Poland. We have a huge company here called Inpost that delivers packages, and its owner is now meddling with our state. Just like AfD, he is supported by Elon. Guess what the first thing they want to change to increase the efficiency of the Polish economy is? They want to reduce the minimum wage because poor people in Poland are earning too much. This is the Thatcherism I was talking about. AfD will also bring this to Germany. God save us from the stupid people who will vote for them.

There is another angle that people do not connect, and in my opinion, it’s very important. It’s the migrant crisis. I have argued before that the migrant crisis we now have in the EU and the US is not an accident; it was intentional, just like the economic crises, to introduce this “structural and political change.” They understand that some people will not go along with this, so to ensure that this "structural and political change" is implemented, they intentionally created the migrant crisis in the EU and the US at the same time. They made sure that only right-wing parties, which will bring about the "structural and political change" they want to implement, are acknowledging this crisis they created. This way, if you want to acknowledge and fight the migrant crisis, you are forced to vote for these right-wing parties, which will bring about the "structural and political change."

If you live, for example, in Germany and have left-leaning economic views but you see the migrant crisis and want to fight it, the only parties that acknowledge this crisis are right-wing parties like AfD, which will bring Thatcherism to the EU. This is why they intentionally created this migrant crisis, and this was its goal.

I wrote before that they created imaginary Communism and Leftism in the EU and blamed the migrant crisis on this imaginary Communism and Leftism in the EU, and the same is done in the US. All this is to make people believe it and make them vote for right-wing fascist parties that will bring more neoliberalism and more fascism — so, Thatcherism. By the way, I am not talking about ideological fascists, but economic ones. The EU is not communist or left; it’s fascist. HOW CAN YOU CALL A STRUCTURE THAT MAKES AMAZON AND OTHER BIG CORPORATIONS PAY LESS TAXES THAN THEIR SMALL COMPETITORS - COMMUNIST OR LEFT? IT’S FASCISM!!! But for them, it’s not fascist enough, and they want to make it even more fascist. Not ideologically, but economically, by making it work even more for and on behalf of corporations.

Meanwhile, no one sees it, which for me is terrifying. By the way, we have an increased number of terrorist attacks in the EU and US, which fuels even more hate for migrants and helps implement this "structural and political change." So, are those attacks coincidental? I don’t think so! Of course, what is happening in Palestine is antagonizing the migrant population, but I suspect that behind all those attacks are our Western Intelligence Agencies, just like they were behind 9/11, the London bombing, and all the attacks that happened by then. They are not only failing to stop these attacks, but in my opinion, they are engineering them to fuel resentment for migrants and to fuel the migrant problem, which will later help them implement those “structural and political changes”— so this economic fascism, this Thatcherism I’m talking about. These elites survey us all and have AI to analyze it, yet somehow are not able to stop these attacks. People, think logically about this!

Okay, let’s go back to Tom Luongo.

1:00:07

“I followed this story in great detail the entire time Nord Stream was being built. For six years, I covered every twist and turn of the story and how various forces were trying to stop it from happening.

Nord Stream 2 emerged from the cancellation of South Stream, which then turned into Turk Stream. It all ties back to the EU's Third Energy Package, which requires that energy sources coming into Europe be "unbundled"—meaning the same company cannot own both the pipeline and the gas supply.

Originally, Nord Stream was finalized through a deal brokered by Gerhard Schröder, the former chancellor of Germany, who became the CEO of the Nord Stream 2 consortium. The pipeline was 50% owned by Gazprom, with the remaining 50% split among five major European oil companies—Shell, Uniper, Wintershall, OMV, and one other I can’t recall off the top of my head.

However, the Polish Constitutional Court struck down that structure, ruling it illegal under the Third Energy Package. At that point, many believed Nord Stream 2 was effectively shut down. But instead of giving up, the companies involved simply restructured the deal. The five European oil majors, who were originally set to invest their share, instead loaned the money to Gazprom. This allowed Gazprom to retain full ownership while the European firms acted as financiers of Nord Stream 2.

Now, that pipeline will likely be sold—probably to an American company—as part of a settlement process. It will likely be done at a good price, with a mutually beneficial arrangement. Putin will likely get a favorable deal on rebuilding costs, and in return, the West may secure a favorable deal on rare earth materials. You can already see the framework for a deal forming—it's just a matter of ongoing negotiations.”

This part is important; it also mentions my state, Poland. It touches on another key issue that I’ve written about before but didn’t provide evidence for. Specifically, the statement “Nord Stream 2 emerged from the cancellation of South Stream, which then turned into Turk Stream.” I argued before that there were alternatives to Russian gas and Nord Stream, but those alternatives were stopped by Germany and Davos. They planned to use Russian gas as a way to control all of Europe by making Europe dependent on Russian gas, which would be distributed by Germany. This would allow Germany to maintain a monopoly, which would increase their profits. At the same time, since they would be distributing Russian gas to the rest of Europe, they would ensure Germany got the best price for energy, as the rest of Europe would buy gas from Germany at a higher price than Germany pays themselves. This would make sure Germany's economy was the most competitive, thanks to a lower energy price than the rest of Europe. The people of Poland saw that, and not only people in Poland but also the rest of Europe saw it and didn’t like it. This was tied to the Davos and Germany's project to make Europe independent from the US, which is why the US opposed it. However, at the same time, following this project would have meant turning Europe into a neo-colony of Germany, in which Germany would have had almost full control. This is why we have the war in Ukraine—it was the purpose of this war. We were not able to stop Germany from following this project in a normal way, so we contacted the US and helped them create this war. But its main purpose was not to destroy Russia; it was to destroy Germany and its neocolonial project, and thus prevent their attempt to turn Europe into their neo-colonial project. The biggest victim of this, besides the Ukrainian population, was Germany. We simply sacrificed Ukraine in order to destroy Germany. Ukraine became our sacrificial lamb, serving the purpose of destroying the German neo-colonial project. I supported Germany's attempts to make Europe independent from the US, but at the same time I don’t want Europe to be independent from the US only to end up under the thumb and control of Germany. If Germany truly wanted an equal and free Europe, they would have supported alternatives to Russian gas, like the earlier mentioned South Stream, which would increase competition and improve energy prices. But at the same time, it would remove Germany’s monopoly, reduce their profits, and reduce the control that energy monopoly would give Germany over Europe. So, in reality, Germany wanted to make Europe independent from the US, only to make it dependent on Germany. This is why the Ukrainian project got the green light by other European countries. I describe it as shooting yourself in the foot to shoot Germany in the head. Even if it hurts the rest of Europe, it will hurt Germany the most, and that’s why it was done. By the way, we need to remember that behind this German neo-colonial project stood Davos and those Yankee Globalists Malthusians, who, in my opinion, were responsible for Covid. So, by weakening Germany, we also weaken Davos. This neocolonial project of Germany, which we stopped, was also a Davos project.

This was the purpose of the Georgia war and the Ukraine war. It wasn’t so much targeting Russia as it was targeting Germany, which was oppressing all of Europe. I’ve mentioned it many times before: the question of what Europe will do frames what Germany will do, as the rest of Europe doesn’t matter. Meanwhile, nowadays, when the question of what Europe will do is posed, no one considers Germany, since they no longer matter.

Again, back to Tom. He mentioned the Trump assassination attempt and assumed it was real. I’ve written before regarding the Trump assassination attempt, and I will say this: THOSE PEOPLE DON’T MISS!!! I’ll show this short video again:

This is from 2015, while the assassination attempt happened in 2024. Until I see the ballistics report and the bullet used in Trump’s assassination attempt, I will not believe this.

I would also like to point out that while Trump was hit in the ear once, multiple shots were fired, yet no other bullet hit Trump or his bodyguards, who were trying to protect him. Why did the shooter hit Trump once but fail to hit him again — or even his bodyguards — if the goal was really to kill him? If the shooter truly intended to assassinate Trump, the bodyguard who threw him to the ground should have also been hit.

This, along with the fact that we still don’t have the ballistics report on those bullets, makes me believe that Trump’s own people staged the attack. In my opinion, it was an inside job — not to kill Trump, but to ensure he wins the election.

I will say it again: THOSE PEOPLE DO NOT MISS!!!

1:06:19

“I actually make this point in the podcast I just published, and I’ll reiterate it here to put a fine point on it.

Last year, I started using the term "Evil Corp Central." Evil Corp Central consists of multiple verticals—Davos, the British Remnant, the Chinese, and other groups. It operates like a loose consortium, but under a unified structure. Think of it like Microsoft: there’s the Windows division, the Office division, and the division nobody listens to, even though they develop cool tech. That’s where products like Zoom and Windows Phone went to die, despite their innovation, while Ballmer milked his cash cows.

Each of these verticals needs cash flow. Where does that cash flow come from? It comes from the leveraging of money through the City of London and various financial mechanisms. USAID, for lack of a better term, has been the "M0" of the globalist project—it’s their primary cash flow source.

On the balance sheet, this means a steady stream of income, largely at the expense of U.S. taxpayers, though Europeans, Canadians, and others contribute as well. In the U.S., it’s easier to track because we've had a political shift that’s exposed some of it. This money—just from USAID—amounts to around $46 billion annually. But that's likely a conservative estimate. If you factor in the Department of Defense, the State Department, the CIA, and other agencies, the real figure could be closer to $300 billion per year.

This money isn’t funding innovation—it’s being used to stifle it. It’s being spent to suppress wealth-building opportunities, divide societies, and fund color revolutions, flash mobs, and various forms of political and social disruption. It bankrolls movements and initiatives that ultimately work against stability and genuine progress.

So, here’s a simple question: What happens if you cut off that funding? Without that cash flow, they would be forced to start spending money out of their assets. Think about what happens when you lose your job—you have to dip into savings until you find another income source. That’s the situation they would face if the money stopped flowing.”

This is an important part with which I agree. I have written many times that China is not communist — it is part of a globalist capitalist cabal. Tom calls it a communist cabal, but in reality, it is a capitalist fascist cabal. However, just like me, he recognizes that China is part of it.

I have used the example of COVID to explain and prove this. There is all this BRICS propaganda and talk about China being communist and somehow different, but I have asked before: WHAT WAS THAT DIFFERENCE DURING COVID? COVID should have shown people that this globalist fascist capitalist cabal operates on a global scale.

While I do not agree with Tom’s assessment of the goals and what is happening — as I mentioned at the beginning of this post — I understand the economic system up to the Petrodollar system, but I do not fully grasp the Euro-Dollar system, which Tom understands better than me and, I would even say, better than most people. This is proven by the fact that he is the only one acknowledging the difference and competition between the ECB and the Fed.

So, while I believe Tom is incorrect about the ultimate goal of what is happening, his deep understanding of this system helps us understand what they are doing and how they are doing it.

1:14:50

“If we do this, they’re going to react like this. When they react like this, then we do this. And when they react again, we already know how they’ll respond, so we do this next. That’s how they’ve been playing them, literally since November 6th, and they keep falling for it every time because they don’t have any other playbook.

I think Trump is coming to liberate the entire West. I don’t think this is just about America—I think he’s coming to free the Scots, the French, the Germans, the Hungarians, the Little Englanders, all of them. I think he understands what this moment means. He’s striking at the absolute root of the issue.

If you want to put Israel back in the box, you have to remove British and French influence from the Middle East. There is no other way around it. That’s where it has to start. If the United States and Russia were both to pull out of the region and leave it to its own devices, the British Remnant and the old European colonial powers would simply move back in and start playing their empire games again. The only way to stop this is to bankrupt them at the same time, preventing them from stepping in. That’s the necessary order of operations—both must be taken down together. Only then will the players in the region be forced to deal with each other on their own terms.

That’s exactly what Trump is already doing with this new deal—this so-called "free association" idea where control of Gaza is being reassessed. Yet, the Libertarians freaked out, thinking he was about to send troops in. They completely misunderstand his negotiating tactics. He’s been doing this for 45 years, and yet, after 12 years of watching him, people still don’t seem to get it.

He wrote a book explaining his methods. Everyone who has ever worked with him has said the same thing: he’s better at this than anyone they’ve ever seen. He understands money, and more importantly, he understands weakness.

I recently watched a great video where a woman who worked with Trump talked about how no one she’s ever met can sniff out weakness in a negotiation like he can. He walks into a room, talks to someone for 30 seconds, and instantly knows their weak points. Then he shifts strategies on the fly—he’s brilliant at it.

And now he’s motivated. Maybe it’s personal ambition, maybe it’s something else—who cares? Who cares if he’s a bad man? Who cares if he’s moral? That’s not what matters. What matters is that he has the right skill set to do the right job.

We’ll sit back and watch him do what he does. When he makes a mistake, we’ll hold him to it. That’s how it should be. Don't buy into madness, don’t force mRNA on people, don’t push digital IDs—those are my lines. But until those battles materialize, he’s crushing it.

Maybe this is all part of some shock-and-awe strategy, and maybe there’s a bait-and-switch coming later. If that happens, then six months from now, we’ll say, "That motherfucker," and we’ll adjust accordingly. And yeah, I hate to say it, but we’ll continue the grift.”

This part again highlights the difference between Tom, Whitney, and I. Whitney and I do not believe that rich and powerful people will ever try to help poor, ordinary people. In my opinion, yes, they are attacking the current system, but not to replace it with something better — instead, they want to replace it with something even worse.

And while I think Tom is on the wrong side of all of this, we can still learn a lot from his analyses.

1:20:05

“I can always tell when I’m being emotionally abused. I don’t know about you, but that’s my superpower. When I sit down with my therapist and talk through these things, it’s obvious where it all comes from. It’s not hard to see.

I’ve spent my entire life reinforcing that kind of thinking, getting better at sniffing out that kind of manipulation as quickly as possible. I surround myself with people who help refine my worldview and give me the tools to sharpen that skill. That’s what I do.

I don’t know if it’s really a superpower, but if it is, great. If not, then maybe one day I’ll be able to step away from all this and just write books or play bad jazz. Maybe I’ll hang out with my goats again, get a new herd, and go be a bad dairy farmer like I used to be. Whatever.

Matt Odell, who co-hosts the weekly show and is a partner at the fund, and I talk about this all the time. We focus on Bitcoin news and education, but we both look forward to the day when we can just go live our lives, take care of goats, and not have to worry about all of this.

Because honestly, doing this is exhausting. Keeping up with it all, staying ahead of the game, seeing all the angles—it’s exhausting.

Dexter White and I talk about it behind the scenes. We think back on all the time we’ve spent analyzing these things, preparing for this moment. It’s wild to realize just how much of our lives we’ve dedicated to this instead of building something tangible.

I used to be a chemist. In another life, I could’ve been a high-energy physicist, solving fundamental problems of the universe. That was the path I was on. And yet, here I am—doing this.”

I wrote something similar in my last post. I could have focused on abstract philosophical subjects, which were well received — just like Tom says he could focus on the "fundamental problems of the universe." But as I mentioned in my post, by focusing on these abstract philosophical problems, I wouldn't be helping to fix the world.

Tom is also right when he says:

“Because honestly, doing this is exhausting. Keeping up with it all, staying ahead of the game, seeing all the angles—it’s exhausting.

Dexter White and I talk about it behind the scenes. We think back on all the time we’ve spent analyzing these things, preparing for this moment. It’s wild to realize just how much of our lives we’ve dedicated to this instead of building something tangible.”

The same applies to me. Instead of building something tangible, I have spent a huge amount of time trying to understand the human mind and what is happening in the world. And he’s right — it is exhausting.

While Tom says his superpower is being able to tell when he’s being emotionally abused, my superpower is seeing truth, lies, and nonsense, and logically connecting the dots to find the truth. But I don’t see myself as better than anyone else — I pay a huge price for it. I haven't experienced a lot of things in my life. I know so much about the world, yet I don’t know anything useful. I don’t even know how to change a tire, fix things at home, cook, or do taxes. I have literally zero life skills, but instead, I understand how the world works.

I might be highly intelligent, but I’m also messed up in the head, and I have huge personal struggles. My intelligence came at the cost of other things. So, for anyone reading this, please don’t mistake me pointing out the flaws in others’ views or stating what I believe to be true as me seeing myself as some kind of superhuman with special powers. I am not better than anyone else—because all my intelligence came at the cost of something else.

I wrote before that if you think you’re better than others just because you’re more intelligent, then you’re not actually intelligent — you’re just an intellectual, and that’s something different. I believe I am intelligent, and because of that, I understand that I am not better than anyone else, since everything I have come at the cost of other things.

In the end, I will leave you with these quotes:

“It is man's intelligence that makes him so often behave more stupidly than the beasts. ... Man is impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world. Unfortunately, he is not quite intelligent enough, in most cases, to find correct explanations. So that when he acts on his theories, he behaves very often like a lunatic. Thus, no animal is clever enough, when there is a drought, to imagine that the rain is being withheld by evil spirits, or as punishment for its transgressions. Therefore you never see animals going through the absurd and often horrible fooleries of magic and religion. No horse, for example would kill one of its foals to make the wind change direction. Dogs do not ritually urinate in the hope of persuading heaven to do the same and send down rain. Asses do not bray a liturgy to cloudless skies. Nor do cats attempt, by abstinence from cat's meat, to wheedle the feline spirits into benevolence. Only man behaves with such gratuitous folly. It is the price he has to pay for being intelligent but not, as yet, intelligent enough.” ― Aldous Huxley

“You should not honor men more than truth.” ― Plato

I also want to say that I’m disappointed that there are no comments under my posts. I want to argue my ideas — if you don’t agree, I want to debate with you about it. I don’t want comments simply stating that I’m wrong without arguments that I can respond to. People misunderstand discussion and debate.

“The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress.” ― Pensées de J. Joubert 

There are no losers in discussion and debate. If I am able to defend my position, I only strengthen my ideas. If someone proves me wrong, I am not losing—I have learned something new and gotten closer to the truth. The purpose of discussion and debate is not to win but to find the truth.

“Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses.” ― Christopher Hitchens

“Most coders think debugging software is about fixing a mistake, but that’s bull****. Debugging’s actually all about finding the bug, about understanding why the bug was there to begin with, about knowing that its existence was no accident. It came to you to deliver a message, like an unconscious bubble floating to the surface, popping with a revelation you’ve secretly known all along.” ― Elliot Alderson (Mr. Robot)

“Knowledge will make you be free.”

― Socrates

+

“Knowledge isn't free. You have to pay attention.”

― Richard P. Feynman

=

“Freedom is not free, you need to pay attention.”

― Grzegorz Ochman

Please pay enough attention, or else we are all doomed!

"In my childhood, I was constantly whispered so-called wise proverbs: 'Don't blow against the wind!' 'You can't break through a wall with your head!' 'Don't reach for the sun with a spade!' Later, I came to the conclusion that strong will, energy, and enthusiasm can break these very rules. And now, as we face great tasks in the continued building of the Polish state, we need people who can stand against the old wisdom of these proverbs." ― Józef Piłsudski