The Money Is Breaking — And So Is the System | Max Keiser — SF670
True Gold Republic is offering this 2026 Expert Guide free for a limited time. Visit http://stayfreegold.com or call 800-300-4653 to get your copy.Show more ⏰ BE HERE AT 12PM PT / 3PM EST / 8PM GMT ⏰
In today’s show we’re joined by Max Keiser to explore why Bitcoin has become more than a financial instrument and what it represents in a moment of collapsing trust in institutions. We dig into inflation, central banking, debt, and the concentration of power, and ask whether decentralised systems offer a genuine alternative to political and financial control. Along the way we connect money, authority, spirituality, and sovereignty, and examine what happens when systems built on faith in expertise begin to fracture.
ENTER THE REBORN GIVEAWAY — I’m giving away a Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 392 plus $10,000 cash through my new brand, Reborn. I personally use the Methylene Blue Tincture, Methylene Blue Capsules, Bovine Colostrum, and Creatine Powder, and each one counts as a bonus entry when you get them through the giveaway page.
Enter here: https://tryreborn.com/pages/current-giveaway Show less
Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Bran trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Bram.
Got a fantastic show for you today.
I'm speaking to Max Kaiser, the Bitcoin expert and former host of the Kaiser Report, a very popular financial program.
Max Kaiser is here to explain to us the significance of Bitcoin in organizing systems that are outside of the mainstream.
It's Britain is destroyed by a cancer, as inflation means essentially that all of us have got less and less money all the time, unless you're in the absolute upper echelons of society and can benefit from the peculiar global movements and transactions that appear to be taking place, which is beyond the reach and remit of most of us.
We're at a point where something critical has to change.
Max Kaiser's kind of like, I suppose, an evangelist, the self-declared high priest of Bitcoin.
So if you're interested in cryptocurrencies, although I know he hates that phrase, pay attention.
But also if you're interested in the organization of systems outside of the mainstream, a lot of thinkers believe that the best way to approach this revolutionary moment when no one can agree on anything, whether it's the murder of Rene Good or the sympathy that ought to be afforded to an ICE agent that's doing his job, how do you come up with a definitive position on any of these things anymore?
Other than the definitive position is God is great, God is real.
Human government has gotten to the point where it's so adept at imitating God's omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent power that we forget that it's just bureaucracies and institutions made up of fallible human beings and the position of centralization as superior has to be robustly examined before assuming that it's the best way to run any community at all.
Why would minimal government not be the best idea?
Why would direct democracy not be the best idea?
And why would currencies outside the control of centralized banks not be a benefit and an advantage if those were the systems you were interested in pursuing?
If you haven't got Rumble Premium yet, get Rumble Premium Now.
And if you've not tried our amazing reborn products like this fantastic adaptogenic mushroom super coffee with Ashwagandha and Lion's Mane, which sounds like a character from the Lion King and makes you feel as potent as Mustafa, you are my son.
Then you are missing out.
Me mostly, I'm down with that methylene blue baby.
I'm loving that creatine.
Get onto tryreborn.com now and make your purchase.
Let's get now without any further hullabaloo.
I know this is an unusual way to dress.
I mean look at the whole thing.
I mean it's ridiculous.
I've got this on.
It's held together with a sort of an ammo belt.
I'm armed to the absolute teeth for reasons of safety that I'm sure I don't need to explain to you in an environment where people are being regularly assassinated and suffering reputational attacks.
You've got to be ready to fight with the UK deep state plainly on my back.
You've got to be ready for action baby.
And part of the action we'll be taking is the advocation for direct democracy and ways of attacking these disgusting and corrupt systems.
With no further ado, here's Max Kaiser helping us to understand Bitcoin.
And remember, you're watching us on Rumble now, so if you want to make donations or tips using Bitcoin, you can do that directly.
Isn't that right, Jake?
That's right.
Jake, why are you not wearing a reborn hat right now?
I was going to wear it and then I forgot I was going to be on the show again.
What's that?
You've got an unusual head, is it that you've seen it?
Yeah.
But my reborn hat, the one with the camo.
Oh, I like that one.
I love that one.
I like the one you have.
This is a good one.
This is one of my favorite ones.
Yeah, I'm pretty much sure.
You're looking very natural in a hat nowadays.
That's weird.
I just couldn't wear a hat for a long time.
What happened?
Oh, you're American now?
I'm American now.
I've got a truck.
I've got a gun.
I'm reading the art of war as instructed.
Those who use the military skillfully do not raise troops twice and do not provide food three times.
This means you draft people into service once and then immediately seize victory.
You do not go back to your country a second time to raise more troops.
Bear this in mind, Kierstalman, before starting a war against Russia, you lunatic.
At first you provide food, after that you feed off the enemy.
And then when soldiers return to your country, you do not greet them with yet more free food.
Determine whether the enemy can be successfully attacked, determine whether you can do battle and only afterwards raise troops.
Then you can overcome the enemy and return home.
Do not raise troops twice lest the citizenry become wearied and bitter.
This is good stuff, man.
I'm going to read this whole book.
The War of Art is also a good book.
The War of Art?
Why, what is that?
That one's about the process of being a creative, the opposition that you face.
It's not easy.
It's not easy.
If you want gleaming skin, hair and reproductive organs, try this magnificent product.
I just took a glance at my own mid-section and my word, it was spectacular to look at.
It looked like Carmen Miranda's hat.
If you're familiar with her, she's that lady who used to wear like fruit on her head in the 1920s in Paris when Picasso lived there.
Breton, Salvador Dali.
And there was a movement because the First World War had introduced people to so much horror and suffering that it somehow created this sort of explosion of creativity as if to amend for the horrors of the war in recognition that all the people that are telling you that they're the reasonable grown-ups that know what they're doing are actually mad psychopaths.
And I would consider COVID to be a sort of a comparable time.
Not so brutal, obviously, as the First World War, but an obvious example of the deceptiveness and untrustworthiness of the institutions of power across the globe that appear to govern us.
Remember, C.S. Lewis, that great Christian writer, depicts the demon class as a bureaucracy.
Did he do that by accident?
I don't imagine so.
Okay, if you enjoy our content, please subscribe to Rumble Premium.
If you're watching this anywhere other than Rumble, get on over to Rumble right now.
And before Max Kaiser, here's a quick message from one of our partners.
You know and I know that we are living in volatile times of incessant crisis and in such times you need something solid, not ethereal.
You need silver and gold.
Fiat currency is collapsing the world over.
The dollar has never been less used.
True Gold Republic could be your solution.
Here's what separates speculation from pattern recognition.
Gold and silver didn't surge last year by accident.
They moved because confidence in the system is thinning and history has seen this movie already.
Debt expands, currency weakens and people who were told everything was under control suddenly discover it isn't.
Venezuela didn't fall apart overnight.
It eroded, then collapsed.
That's why True Gold Republic exists, not to sell fear, but to explain reality.
True Gold Republic has released a 2026 expert guide that breaks down why gold and silver are rising, what those moves signal heading into 2026 and how physical metals can help restore a measure of financial independence.
This is the same conversation True Gold Republic has been having with Americans who don't want guesses, they want strategy.
Do you want strategy, not guesses?
Get the free 2026 expert guide now at stayfreegold.com or call 800-300-4653.
True Gold Republic believes that preparation isn't panic, it's foresight.
Are you a prepper?
Prepare now.
Go to stayfreegold.com or ring the number in the link and description.
Stay free gold.
Preparation ain't panic, baby.
Okay, please, thank you.
I love it.
I'm from England.
Here's Max Kaiser.
We are joined by Max Kaiser today because Rumble now affords the ability to make donations or tips or perhaps some jargon that I don't yet understand in Bitcoin.
I thought, who better to talk to than the Sultan of Bitcoin, the Emperor of Bitcoin, the El Salvadorean Eldoradian, gold prospector, the miner, the major, in a sense, the stave upon which the tune of Bitcoin is played?
Max Kaiser, thanks for joining us, Max.
Thank you.
Thank you, Faz.
You can just call me the high priest of Bitcoin.
The high priest of Bitcoin.
It's an honor to be with you.
Tell me why it's important and significant that Rumble content creators can now receive Bitcoin directly into a wallet that isn't mediated or in any way brokered in Bitcoin.
Yeah, sure.
Well, people want Bitcoin now.
You know, its popularity has increased dramatically over the years.
And it's also very easy to tip people in Bitcoin because it's electronic.
So you can just send it electronically over the internet at a cost of virtually nothing.
And so those are the two main reasons.
People want Bitcoin and it's really cheap and fast to send Bitcoin.
Jake, tell us exactly what it is that we can do now.
Jake's the producer and contributor to this show.
Yes, it says Rumble, the Freedom First Technology Platform, the largest company in the digital assets industry, today launched the Rumble Wallet, a non-custodial crypto wallet integrated directly into the Rumble platform.
By embedding crypto payments into the video sharing platform, Rumble Wallet eliminates the need for intermediaries like ad networks, banks, payment processors.
Creators can now receive direct, fast, borderless payments from their audience.
Is that innovative, Max, an important?
Yeah, there's no intermediaries.
That's the key phrase of that sentence.
So the payments do not go through a bank.
They do not go through any financial intermediary.
This is important, obviously, because therefore it cannot be censored.
That's why when Julian Assange needed money when he was in the Ecuadorian embassy, people were able to send him Bitcoin and nobody could stop him, even though the credit card companies and PayPal stopped all payments going into Julian Assange.
So Bitcoin saved the day there.
So there's no intermediary.
It's uncensorable.
You cannot stop it.
And people want to be able to send money freely without having any intermediation.
And this is true for individuals, but it's also true for countries, right?
Countries want to be able to send money around the world without having the SWIFT system, which is a way to send money globally.
It's used to curtail money being sent around the world, et cetera.
So it depoliticizes money.
It's just lets money be money.
That's very interesting because to depoliticize money is a pretty radical concept because in a sense, money is the artillery of politics.
The ultimate arsenal of politics is the ability to withhold, withdraw, or enhance.
But you only need to look at American politics.
And if you were to suggest, well, Republican or Democrat, why don't we just not have donations and not have lobbying?
No one's down for that move.
And that tells you where the true power is.
The power is in the currency unit itself, Max.
So do you think that this, significant though it is independently, do you think collegiately with other ideas that are about decentralization, it could be actually revolutionary, i.e. change existing power structures?
Well, absolutely.
Let's talk about this depoliticalization of money for a second.
So Bitcoin does something that has not ever been possible in the history of money in that it separates money from state.
It separates a central authority from money.
And in the past, all money has been going through a central authority in the state, right?
States organize themselves politically.
They have a system of money and that money is controlled by the state.
And it's always been a dream to separate money from state the same way there was once a dream to separate the state from the church, right?
That happened a few hundred years ago.
It gave us the age of enlightenment.
So now we have the separation of money from state, and we have a new age of enlightenment, or as Stacey Herbert likes to call it, a Renaissance 2.0.
And at the kernel of that Renaissance and that revolution is the separation of money and state, because only Bitcoin allows for the network to be entirely decentralized and yet robust, safe, and practical to use on a day-to-day basis for people who want to exchange value over the network.
The thing is with the Enlightenment is whilst no one would quarrel with the evident, observable and measurable benefits of the Enlightenment, whether they were technological or many of the ideological discoveries or at least ideals that emerged from that period.
But the challenge of the Enlightenment is that it ultimately led to positing that human authority is supreme, that the authority of the mind and the authority of reason specifically can't be superseded by any transcendent or divine authority for want of a better term, Max.
And in a way, that has led to despotism and forms of despotism that are not obvious.
We're all aware, oh, no, North Korea isn't that terrible or Rwanda, that was bad.
It's not so easy to say that the UK is despotic.
Now, so whilst an Enlightenment has certainly got positive aspects to it, and I can see that what excites me about Bitcoin and Rumble's embrace of Bitcoin, for example, is that is exactly as you say, it's non-traceable and it's decentralized.
My concern is kind of a continuation of a conversation that we had on stage at the Bitcoin conference in El Salvador.
And something that I've been thinking about since you said it, that you said that the spread of Christianity was afforded by the Roman roads.
And I think that's a very fair thing to have contested, though I've not done any research since then.
I could have done, I could have come back, haven't done some research, really argued with you about it, but I've not done that.
But what I will say is, because I know you think that Bitcoin is itself the resurrection rather than a potential tool for a sort of a more divine expression of power or a truer expression of power, wouldn't you consider it to be crazy if we worshipped the roads themselves rather than acknowledged the roads could be a means by which the true message could be spread?
And do you think it's possible that Bitcoin decoupled from ideology means that the best ideology will ultimately win in the marketplace?
Well, let's go back a little bit there.
So you were talking about the Enlightenment and what maybe we lost from the Enlightenment.
And if I'm hearing you correctly, you're positing that maybe we lost a spiritual connection and a loss of spirituality as a result of becoming technical at that point.
And this whole technical history since then has led to this highly technocracy age, which people would critique.
And I think rightfully so.
But with Bitcoin, when you have individual sovereignty, when you have your own Bitcoin that is unconfiscatable and nobody can interfere with those transactions, there's no intermediary and it's unconfiscatable and it's guaranteed to mathematically increase in purchasing power forever.
What happens is you're letting individuals interact with each other on the basis purely of values that would be completely outside of dogma, cant, or even political theory.
In other words, humans, if left to their own devices, are spiritual beings.
And in my view, Bitcoin allows for that spirituality to blossom because you're removing the authoritarianism that almost always comes with money.
So when you remove the authoritarianism that comes with money and you let individuals who are individually sovereign interact with their own human spirituality, and I believe all humans have an innate spiritual quality, then you're going to see a blossoming of spirituality, not a curtailment.
It actually enhances the goal of what you might call under the rubric of Christian values, not demeans them.
So we're on the same page, but let's give humans the ability to interact without being told how to interact by some central authority.
We know how to interact, Russell.
It's innate in us.
We're loving creatures.
Bitcoin allows that to happen more because we're also curious creatures.
And as curious creatures, we want to exchange value.
We want to travel.
We want to talk.
We want to make a basket made.
Weaver wants to transact with somebody who's raising goats.
How do you do that exchange?
You need something to make that possible.
We call that thing money.
And if that money is uncensorable and unconfiscatable and free to transact, then it allows for me to just talk to you as a human being and we can interact as human beings.
It removes authoritarianism that comes with the state.
Yes, I watched something the other day that said that if like with credit transactions based on ordinary fiat currency, every single transaction, the hundred dollars is being diminished by the ongoing brokerage of these centralized and secondary agencies and that your currency, you're sort of over time, you're incrementally being is being confiscated and you're being robbed.
And it's difficult to quarrel with your centralized.
Let me jump in for a second.
And I don't mean to cause your editor problems by talking over you, but unfortunately, I cannot contain myself.
So in other words, when you have this ability to have people interact without the interference of a state or any intermediary, they're actually transacting in a frictionless manner, which gives them agency in a way that they've never had before.
So this ends up giving some empowerment to not only the individual, but the collective, because everybody in that organization, that tribe, that group, that community is now focused more on what everyone ultimately would rather be focused on, and that is spirituality.
Yeah, you're right.
So, you know, at the moment, El Salvador is becoming sort of a bastion and as we discussed in the conference, a kind of shining city on the hill for this new form of currency.
How's it working out over there, man?
Are people like using it practically?
I just got my Bitcoin country passport.
Look at this.
This is the hottest thing on social media right now.
People are buzzing about this.
Passport is from the Bitcoin office.
It gives you a little guided tour of all the great things that are happening in Bitcoin country.
And what we're seeing here, Russell, is the emergence of what are called circular economies, whether it's in Bitcoin Beach or whether it's in Berlin or several other places.
Communities are seceding from the state.
They're creating their own communities and they transact, they save and they get paid in Bitcoin.
It's all in Bitcoin, saving, getting paid, spending.
It's all in Bitcoin.
And as a result, those communities are flourishing and thriving.
And of course, the state itself under Bukele has reduced homicides down to almost zero.
So you have hard money.
You have Bitcoin in the safest country in the Western hemisphere.
Plus, it's a country that's on the rise.
It's got the GDP is rising.
Tourism is booming.
Construction is booming.
It's really the shining city on the hills.
You say it's coming out of the fourth turning.
I don't know if you cover the fourth turning.
I'll talk about the fourth turning, but it's a theory that you have these 80-year cycles where societies collapse and then are rebuilt.
And I would say that the UK and the US are kind of in a collapse phase.
And you have El Salvador is the first out of more of a building phase.
You know, it's leading the world.
And to your point you made earlier about what I was going to talk about, you talked about how credit creation is what you said a moment ago.
You're absolutely correct in that money right now in the system is created through debt or credit.
When the bank in the UK, when HSBC loans somebody money to buy a house through a mortgage, that money comes from just simply creating it out of thin air.
That's how the money supply expands.
Right now, there's never been more money, fiat money sloshing around the globe than ever before, hundreds and hundreds of trillions of dollars of it.
And you see what's happening with gold and silver and other commodities are hitting new all-time highs because these governments and these banks can't stop issuing all this debt.
And that debt just adds to the overall supply of worthless fiat money.
And against that backdrop, you see the rise of hard assets.
And gold and silver are certainly catching everyone's attention right now.
They're hitting new all-time highs.
Bitcoin has already been onto this for years and it's soon to make a new all-time high as well.
Do you think it's possible, plausible, desirable, even inevitable then, that there could be a secession, as you termed it, admittedly in kind of micro economies within El Salvador, of various communities potentially eventually in Confederacy, seceding from their national authority and declaring themselves independent?
Would Bitcoin be one of the tools by which a community could say, we don't want to be part of the UK anymore.
We want to be an independent, autonomous community run by direct democracy, trading using Bitcoin and being independent when it comes to, say, fundamentals like food, food production.
The aim would be autonomy and self-sustenance.
You know, that other thing you and I share, Max Kaiser, other than, you know, other potential peculiarities and eccentricities is that we both know a little about the 12 traditions.
And I rather like the idea of boroughs being fully independent, except in matters that affect other boroughs or the Confederacy, let's call it, as a whole.
Could Bitcoin be used, Max, as a tool to set up independent communities, not just in El Salvador, as you said, although they're likely collegiate with the El Salvadoran government due to the nature of the project you're partaking in.
In a country that's more adversarial, particularly using your fourth turning analogy there or sort of rubric paradigm, is it possible that we could start to establish communities on that basis using Bitcoin?
Could it become a real threat?
Is it plausible?
Is there a political weapon, even though you say it's apolitical?
Yeah, absolutely.
Is it possible to secede?
And it is, and we're seeing it happen.
What happens is this tendency to overprint fake money goes back thousands of years.
Obviously, we know the story of the Roman Empire.
They were clipping coins.
They diluted the value.
They couldn't pay their soldiers and the empire collapsed.
With the current fiat money world, we see two possible outcomes when you overprint too much fiat money.
Number one is confiscation of gold, for example, as we saw in the 1930s in the United States, and then a revaluing against gold.
That was a confiscation of wealth from the population after the government went too far into debt.
Or they just go to war, right?
War is a great way to clean up your balance sheet because you kill a lot of people.
You give a lot of money.
Create an authoritarian top-down dictatorship essentially, and you go into rationing right, you start rationing food and rationing things, and that's how you deal with with a collapse.
But here now, in the 21st century 2026, we have something that people have never had before and that is unconfiscatable, uncensorable hard money that can only go up in purchasing power.
So those?
So what'll happen, in my view, is that these governments will once again find themselves in too much debt.
They will once again collapse, but this time we'll have all the money.
So, instead of the gold being confiscated, the governments will come to us, the bitcoiners, and beg for money, beg for this thing that can keep them going and, of course, we'll say, get lost.
That seems like right relationship.
Do you want to support me?
No, I don't.
Yes, you do support me and support Rumble premium.
You won't only be supporting me.
You'll get additional access to MUG CLUB that's Crowder's gig, Tim Cast that's Tim Pool's racket and Glenn Greenworld's additional content.
Join us on Rumble premium.
We make content every single week through Rumble because Rumbles support free speech.
When I was under attack from the British government and the British media, Rumble stood firm, yes, of course, there's crazy people on Rumble.
There's crazy people everywhere.
There's a crazy person living under this hat.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to speak freely together.
By supporting rumble premium, you're supporting me and content creators like me.
You get additional content and, what I will say, even more.
Drink down deep on the delicious irony.
In this one, you get an ad-free experience.
If you want an ad-free experience of Rumble, get rumble premium.
In the meantime, stay free.
I was struck then by the um continuum, the etymological continuum between rationing, rationalism and the evidential connection between rationing and control.
And to my earlier point about the enlightenment, is it afforded complete human control through technocracy ultimately, but likely in the kind of states we're talking about as being in decline and potential terminal implosion?
I'll use the Uk as not to offend the uh Americans.
Uh, that you know, you're all American, everyone else in this conversation and like it seems that the Uk is indeed grooming the population for war, legitimizing advancing uh hostility towards Russia.
And do you imagine that part of the motivation is as you described in the particular instance of the Uk and Russia max yeah, they're broke, the the Uk is broke and the United States is broke.
So uh, the United States is trying to buy whole countries to get out of the debt problem that they're in, like Greenland uh, they're trying to tell the central bank to lower interest rates, which is, which is, the absolute opposite thing you should do, because when you have uh, 1.5 trillion dollars a year in interest on your debt and close to 40 trillion dollars worth of debt, what you want to do is raise interest rates to defend the value of your currency by cutting rates.
They're simply going to extend and pretend they're going to increase the debt load from 40 trillion to 100 trillion.
So around the world, these countries go into debt.
Remember, World War II was the result of the reparations Germany had to pay after World War I.
Well, the America and the UK are facing the same problem.
They're paying reparations to the banks and the private equity groups that have stolen all the assets and replaced it with debt, right?
They're off on their yacht in St. Barks on a 300 and 400-foot yacht, but all that money came out of extraction from ongoing enterprises, leaving debt in its wake.
And now nobody can pay for that.
So they're going to go to war or they're going to try to confiscate.
Well, Bitcoiners are looking at this and saying, we can only, our assets can only go up in value in this scenario and it's unconfiscated.
So on one hand, I hate to see this type of conflict coming.
But on the other hand, I'm conflicted because I know that means my Bitcoin's going to $10 million a coin.
So, you know, we'll see what happens.
I saw this coming as you have for a long time.
I read your book, Revolution.
I know where your heart is.
I know you see the problems.
Bitcoin is the answer.
Do you imagine, Max, that people that popularize these ideas and ideas that have a comparable aim become almost by definition enemies of the interests that you described?
Because, you know, when you say 40 trillion in debt, 100 trillion in debt, don't you think that most people, and I'd include myself in this, of course, have become inoculated to that stream of zeros.
You can't even make sense of it anymore.
None of us really under.
I still don't understand why the United States is in debt, why the UK is in debt.
I understand what you've explained and because of how you've explained it, that money is being generated that's not tethered to any sort of object or solidity or trade or commodity and how that ultimately leads to decline and implosion.
That bit of I get.
So do you feel that actually what we're proposing here, aside from El Salvador, a nation that's under Bikali, embraced this ideal as well as so many other initiatives?
Do you feel that it's actually rather a menacing idea when it comes to real power?
Look, I mean, for people who are glazed over when you talk about tens of trillions and hundreds of trillions of dollars and how that would impact their day-to-day life, I have only one thing to say.
When you go to Tesco today, is the basket of stuff you're buying there more expensive today than it was a year ago or five years ago?
Of course.
That's where the rubber hits the road.
You don't have to think about hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of debt.
Just understand that the reason you have inflation, the reason inflation is wiping out the middle class, the reason why basic foodstuffs are becoming unaffordable or housing is completely unaffordable in the UK.
There's a housing crisis.
People cannot get on the housing ladder.
That's because of all this money that's being printed.
That's debased the currency.
The pound has been debased.
So that's where it hits the average person in something called inflation.
The government will tell you inflation is 2% or 3%, but the government doesn't count stuff that's actually going up in price.
They count, let's say, televisions that are made in Asia that are going down in price.
And they'll say, well, see, there's no inflation, but they don't count housing.
They don't count medical care.
They don't count insurance.
They don't count anything that's going up in price that people actually use because they lie, because they're protecting the bankers, because it's a Ponzi scheme, because they're corrupt, because it's fraud, right?
So as if anyone's watched Kaiser report for 13 years, they know what's coming if I continue on this vector.
I can see why you left London, Max.
So, okay, that's really, really interesting and important.
The UK housing crisis, inflation and poverty are as a result of exactly the problems and attitudes and behaviors and actions that you've described.
Max, how is it that they 100%?
You know, in the UK, in the left side of the government, in the left-wing government, they'll say that the problem is that not we're printing too much money, but that we need to allocate where that money goes more efficiently.
We don't want to give the money to social program A.
We want to give it to social program B.
But nowhere in nature is it possible for one entity to hold that kind of sway over the organism.
The only natural phenomenon where one part of society considers itself the ultimate expert and can dictate policy across the entire organism is cancer.
And that's what cancer is.
That's what a central bank is.
That's what Kier Starmer is.
He's a literal financial cancer that's poisoning the country.
But he's not alone.
It's the same for every central bank in the world.
All they have is this tool of printing money.
It's only doing is it's hurting people.
And Bitcoin is the answer because you can't print it.
Yeah, go ahead.
That's good.
I think that's the best point of it all.
You don't have to have a PhD in economics to understand a lot of this stuff.
Honestly, it's too simple that one organization can print money.
Think about it.
They can decide to, I never voted to like, hey, let's print trillions of dollars.
It's like they can print more money, causing more supply, deflating everything.
And then everything else doesn't go up in the same way that it, like your wages, it's inflated over twice as much, I think, in real goods over the last year.
It's called twice as much.
It's called a contillant effect.
There's a name for it.
When you print money, it goes to the friends of the bank first.
They go out and they buy assets like fine art, stocks, gold, and then it gets cycled into the economy.
It goes lower and lower and down into the economy to people who have no assets, but they have higher prices.
So now they just have to pay more for food, but they don't have a yacht.
They don't have an old master painting.
They don't have a diamond bracelet.
They're struggling to survive.
Their prices go up at the same rate as the people who have the first access to that money printer.
However, those people with the first access to the money printer use that increase in asset value.
They don't even spend those assets.
They use it as collateral to borrow money.
They're never spending their own money.
They're just borrowing money from who prints more money to pay the interest.
So they continuously get richer.
Their asset prices continually go higher.
And it's people who don't have those types of assets are continually getting poorer.
It is a pun.
And then, and then, but think about this in comparison to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has a finite supply that it's going to hit.
You probably know the exact date or of the halfenings and all that stuff, but it's going to hit a finite supply.
No one can make more.
It's really a closed loop system that was, I mean, it's brilliant.
And like you think about it, like there's only going to be so much.
So like, and no one, no other organization, you don't have to rely on the goodwill of some organization not to print more because they said they weren't or to be to be fair and just like it's up to the people and it belongs to the people.
I mean, I guess the only way that Bitcoin would completely lose its value if everyone in the world deemed it unvaluable and would not trade it or if every server would not, you know, be online for Bitcoin to handle transactions.
So right, that's exactly right.
In other words, money existed before the state.
Bitcoin separates money from state.
Bitcoin kills the state.
In other words, money existed before the state.
We always had money and the need for money, going back to the top of this conversation.
People who have agency, they want to talk, travel, trade.
They use something as an intermediate.
They call it money.
Over thousands of years, the best form of money became gold because it was portable, it was fungible, it was divisible, and people valued it and it was scarce.
And then in 2009, something better than gold came around.
It's called Bitcoin.
And because it's everything gold does, but it does stuff gold can't do.
So it makes it better money.
So all that money is floating into gold.
Bitcoin is like an invasive species in the global money supply.
It's just all everybody who learns about Bitcoin ends up trading something else that they own, like fiat money.
or some other assets and they dump it and they buy Bitcoin.
And it's almost involuntarily at that point because they want to preserve their purchasing power.
They see the light.
They don't want to have their value inflated away by somebody who can just print money at will.
And usually that money goes into bad programs and malinvestments and it causes lots of problems.
But why would you work hard for money that someone else can print for free?
Yeah.
And Max, do you think some reason that it hasn't had the like full adoption yet is because it was before its time in some ways?
Like technology had to catch up to it and there needed to be the tooling and transactional stuff.
Or is it more like a cultural thing that culture had to catch up to it and understand it?
Well, I mean, the adoption of Bitcoin comes in several different forms.
Here in El Salvador, we have the most concentration of Bitcoin maximalists in the world.
We have the highest penetration of Bitcoin usage in the world.
We have 100% awareness of Bitcoin.
If you have awareness of Bitcoin, you're already starting to think differently.
You're thinking about, you're having a positive thought about the future.
Bitcoin gives you hope because if you own something that you work and you earn and it continuously goes up in purchasing power, you can have hope for the future.
When you're constantly saving at fiat, money that is guaranteed to lose purchasing power over time, you're very depressed about the future.
You start to spend your money as fast as you possibly can.
You spend it recklessly and it's very depressing.
But here, people understand that Bitcoin is a hope for the future.
The entire country has a sense of hope, which you don't find in any other country to this extent.
And as far as just that hockey stick moment that we saw the internet have where it went from 200 or 300 million users to 3 billion users, on that scale, if you overlap Bitcoin with the internet, we're at 1998, 1999.
That's when the internet at that time then skyrocketed and became ubiquitous.
I was in Los Angeles during the internet days.
I had a company, an internet company.
I remember in Hollywood, executives were really ashamed to send email to one another because they thought it was de-classe.
They thought it made them look like geeks.
And they would never put a URL on a billboard because it's too geeky.
You know, we want to be chic in Hollywood.
And then the Blair Witch project came out, which was entirely marketed on the internet.
It made 400, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars with a $60,000 budget.
And suddenly Hollywood became internet.
And that was the explosion of internet globally.
Bitcoin now is at that inflection point where we're months away from going from 300, 400 million users to 3 or 4 billion users.
So, and don't, you know, you want to get ahead of that curve.
You want to be positioned ahead of, you don't want to wait for Bitcoin to be three, four or five million dollars a coin and then decide, I guess it's, I guess it's a, I guess people like it.
I'll buy it.
You know, I mean, I've been saying this for 15 years.
You know, Stacy is the first person to mention Bitcoin on international television in 2010.
It was 23 cents.
Then we started covering in a Kaiser report.
It was a dollar.
We've been saying this for 15 years.
Every single day, people are saying, well, is it ever going to become popular?
Like, how much popular do you want it to be?
It's now, you know, $2 trillion heading to $200 trillion.
You know, hello.
Max, why then is there ever any negative decline in its value or fluctuations that are not positive if the tendency and trend you're describing is accurate?
Because it's the only real price discovery in any commodity that's out there for real.
In other words, with Bitcoin, you have volatility and guaranteed increase in purchasing power.
With the US dollar, you have no volatility, but you're guaranteed to lose money.
So during this period where the globe makes a move from paper money to Bitcoin, of course, it's going to create changes and there's fear.
People are there's fear mongering and they they and it becomes it goes through it's just volatility, but volatility, in other words, is life.
You know, the fish, the only fish that doesn't, that is not volatile in the stream is a dead fish, right?
To mangle that quote, a famous quote that I just mangled, but you get the point.
Volatility is over any four-year cycle, you've made money.
If you can hold your shit for four years, you're not going to lose money.
People who want the thing to be profitable the next day, they're confusing sound investing with gambling.
And unfortunately, we've got gamblaholics in the world today.
Any cycle, any four-year cycle, everybody's up over that cycle and they've been compounding money at 50 or 60% a year.
That's like you're almost doubling every year for 15 years.
If you your shit for more than a day, it's just a matter of people can't seem to sit still for a few years and let the markets adjust, right?
If you jinga, if you pull out a block, the whole tower is shaky.
If you pull out a main, the main support of the world's financial system, which is the US dollar, boom, that jinga tower is going to collapse.
That means trillions of dollars are slashing around, slushing around in real estate, out of real estate, into stocks, into bonds.
So it's a very turbulent sea of $400 trillion worth of assets and $2 quadrillion worth of derivatives is the sea of liquidity that is on planet Earth.
It's very stormy.
And so you see that volatility.
But on all these other assets, that volatility is mitigated by the use of what are called quote-unquote derivatives.
Whereas Bitcoin, it's just a raw price that shows you what's the actual chaos that's going on in the world.
Bitcoin tells you that it falls in chaos because of the volatility.
If you buy the dollar, you'd say, oh, everything is stable and everything's great.
But guess what?
Every year I'm losing 10% of my purchasing power.
Oh, in five or six years, I just, I'm homeless.
Okay, but it was stable the whole time.
I no longer have a job.
I'm homeless.
I can't feed myself, but I got stability.
That's very funny.
What about people like my friend Nick?
Shout out to Nick, my mate in the Marines there, former Marine and now investor.
And people like Warren Buffett that say you've got to invest only in the S ⁇ P, only in indexes or indices.
What about that?
And they use the same argument I know that you used, Max, that over time, it's always increasing.
What's the counter argument to that?
Well, Warren Buffett, you know, his actual annual rate of return over his career is not as good as gold.
If you held gold, you would have outperformed Warren Buffett.
You just made one decision.
I'll buy gold.
Now you're doing better than Warren Buffett.
Number one.
Number two, his performance is not as good as an index fund, where an index fund is just a passive way to just buy every single stock in the S ⁇ P 500.
It's been averaging a rate of return higher than Warren Buffett over the years.
And Warren got into famous battles with John Bogle over at Vanguard, who created the index fund and talking about this for years and years.
So the math doesn't support their contention that the returns generated by what they're suggesting are competitive with Bitcoin, number one.
And that's after, that's before tax and before inflation.
If you take an index fund after tax and after inflation, you're talking about not even beating a money market rate of return.
You do better by just being in a municipal bond where you're not taxed or a money market.
They're not competitive in any sense of the word.
I mean, Warren Buffett over 30, 40 years amassed a large fortune by essentially buying into companies that had.
a very clear, like Coca-Cola, when the Berlin Wall fell down, he thought to himself, you know what?
I bet there's going to be more Coca-Cola sold now that this Berlin Wall came down.
That was his entire investment thesis.
So he bought a lot of, bought a lot of Coca-Cola and held it for 20 or 30 years.
The key to Warren Buffett is that he held on his positions for 20 or 30 years at a clip.
He wasn't trading or gambling in and out of it.
And if you do that with stocks, you're going to do well.
If you do it with Bitcoin, you're going to do incredibly well.
Obviously, since Stacey first talked about Bitcoin, Bitcoin is up something like 30 million percent.
Hey, can you tell us when you and Stacey, your partner there, went from not, can you tell me what it was like your own personal epiphany of having it described?
Because presumably there was a moment.
I don't know if this is the first.
I know you don't like the phrase cryptocurrency, digital currency, whatever is your preferred jargon.
Can you tell me when you went from not knowing about this?
Because I know you're a financial expert anyway, to hearing about it and what your mental process was of, wait a minute, this is fucking brilliant.
Right.
Well, there's two answers to the question.
So Kaiser report, we were covering gold for years because it's an international program.
And by covering gold, you're talking about international money.
So we could talk about finance and economics in every single country in the world because everyone in those countries knows something about gold.
So it became a global sensation, the Kaiser report, dubbed into Spanish and other languages, number one finance show in the world for over a decade.
And then the second point is that when I first heard about Bitcoin, it was introduced to me from Stacey, who told me that, hey, this sounds like what you were doing in Los Angeles, which it kind of is.
So in Los Angeles, when I was CEO and founder of the Hollywood Stock Exchange, I have a patent on a virtual currency, patent number 5950176.
It's the first patented virtual currency and prediction market in the world.
It was later sold to Canterfitzgerald in 2001.
So I already knew about virtual currencies from the gaming environment of the internet in the 90s when I was the CEO of Hollywood Stock Exchange.
I mean, Bitcoin in a lot of ways is a gaming currency that escaped the game and became an invasive species.
The problem with the gaming currencies of that era, of course, is that they're all centralized.
The Hollywood dollar as part of the game that I invented couldn't be traded on the Forex market because we were in control of the Hollywood dollars.
We were the masters of it.
So it would not lend itself against a forex, against a yen or a dollar.
But with Bitcoin, because there is no control, no one controls it.
It's autonomous, can't stop it.
And it's now a $2 trillion asset heading to $200 trillion.
And it's become the darling of Wall Street and billions and hundreds of billions and chillings are pouring into it.
It becomes now a contender in the race to see who ends up as world reserve currency.
And of course, that's going to be Bitcoin.
The dollar, by the way, has never been used less since World War II.
After World War II, 90% of world trade was US dollars.
It's now 40% and heading lower.
The dollar is losing world reserve currency status.
That's another reason why you see a lot of warmongering out of the White House in Washington, D.C., because they need to find a way to shore up their business model since their under fundamental currency unit is collapsing in world trade.
Other countries are moving on.
A lot of them are moving into Bitcoin.
So that's how I got, that's when I saw that Bitcoin was essentially similar to my invention from 1996, but had solved the centralization problem by being decentralized.
I mean, that was when the penny dropped.
And I'm like, oh, wow, you know, that's, they solved the problem.
Is this.
This is, if this works, it's a new asset class and it's going to a hundred thousand dollars.
And that's when it was a dollar.
What, what year?
What year did you?
Well we yeah we, we got into bitcoin.
Uh, Stacy mentioned it in 2010 at 23 cents and then we started buying it in 2011 at a dollar.
Wow that's, that's early on.
So the key thing for you is you understood them kind of gaming currencies, which were, in a sense, parallel currencies with the same potential flaws of any currency.
And then when the problem of centralization was solved, which I'm sure I'm assuming is a kind of a technical problem that you can't really explain to me.
But once the problem of centralization versus decentralization was resolved, you had a kind of a eureka.
Oh my God, this is a potentially unstoppable force.
And so then you were kind of apprised when all of the various phases of discrediting it, laughing at it, saying it was corrupt, saying it was environmentally undersound, saying paedophiles would use it, saying it was a rapist, saying it was a racist.
When all those things happened, you were like, no, no, no, this is because it's going to work.
All innovations that change the world face criticism from the entrenched oligopolists or legacy players who don't want any changes, right?
That's true of the internet.
The internet was scoffed at.
Paul Krugman, who is the economics editor at the New York Times, referred to the internet as nothing more novel than the fax machine, and it would disappear within two years.
So people thought that the internet itself would not survive.
Then they had people who understood that, obviously they become multi-hundred billionaires now, the people at Google and Apple and other companies.
They realize the potential even.
And so then the change happens and we're in a new world.
But you're always going to face, you're always going to face problems.
I mean, when I was working on Wall Street, we had a saying that kites fly against the wind, right?
So to rise up, you know, you're going to go against the wind.
You've got to have that negative for, if you're not getting yelled at and shit on every day, you're doing something wrong.
Oh, man, that's good news because I'm having a hard time, baby.
Max, that's fantastic.
Jerry, from the second you came on here in that adorable cap, I've been thinking we need to have Max Kaiser on the show like at least like once a week.
We need regular Max Kaiser.
We need to resurrect the Kaiser report and we evidently need to use Bitcoin.
Max, thank you so much for joining us today.
You can use Bitcoin right now to benefit me and let's get on with making that transition.
So what, hey, so if I wanted to like buy Bitcoin right now, how would I do it?
What would I tell me what to do from a like, you know, how do I go from zero to 100, baby?
Yeah, well, Stacey, what's the best way to buy Bitcoin right now?
Cash app.
Thanks.
Cash app.
Yeah, cash app.
Cash app.
Cash app.
The answer's cash app.
Say that out of context.
Cash app.
Thanks, Max.
It's good.
Thanks for coming on both of you.
Loves you both.
I hope I get to see you soon in the great shining city or the great shining city, state and state city on the hill there.
And lots of love to you both.
And let's do this again.
Let's do it more often.
I'm always available for you, Russell.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Thanks.
Thanks, Max.
Thanks, Max.
See ya.
As former health agencies contradict their own past assurances, what does the new civil war within the scientific elite reveal about how deeply politicized COVID and science itself have become and how dangerous that corruption of truth really is?
A rupture is opening inside the scientific establishment and it is exposing something many people were told never to notice.
Science is not immune to power.
It never has been.
What is unfolding now is not a sudden crisis of credibility but a long delayed reckoning between an old scientific ruling class that demanded obedience during COVID and a new officialdom that is quietly admitting what was once treated as heresy.
For years, the public was instructed to believe that the science spoke with one voice.
To question official guidance was framed as ignorance or malice.
Debate was not merely discouraged, but morally condemned.
Yet today, the same institutions that enforce that silence are beginning to fracture.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is now investigating deaths potentially linked to COVID-19 vaccines across multiple age groups.
Former CDC director Dr. Robert Redfield has publicly called for the removal of mRNA COVID vaccines altogether.
You know, I really would like to see the mRNA vaccine use curtailed.
And personally, I'd like to see it eliminated.
All right, because I think there's too many unknowns.
When I give you an mRNA vaccine, what I do is I turn your body into a spike protein production factory.
And spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein.
But I don't know how much you make.
And I don't know how long you make it.
I've met Redfield.
He's a decent, good man.
Robert Redfield's position in 2025 would have been considered radical in 2019.
And he's a pretty mainstream and accepted scientist.
These are not fringe figures.
They are the products of the very system that once policed dissent.
The implications are enormous.
If vaccines that were described as unequivocally safe are now subject to death investigations, then the story the public was told was at best radically incomplete.
And at worst, it was deliberately curated to protect authority rather than truth.
This is where the war inside science becomes visible.
On one side are figures like Redfield and the regulators now tightening approval standards, responding belatedly to real-world harm signals.
On the other are the defenders of the old order, such as former FDA vaccine advisor Dr. Paul Offitt, who has condemned stricter federal vaccine approval pathways as dangerous and irresponsible.
The charge is revealing.
Dangerous to whom?
Irresponsible to which interests.
You're always waiting for the other shoe to drop, and it did drop.
I mean, with the mRNA vaccines, there was myocarditis, which is inflammation of the heart muscle, primarily in boys 16 to 29 years of age, primarily after the second dose, primarily within four days, but generally it was transient and self-resolving.
So it really wasn't that bad.
That was a very small price to pay, I think, for that vaccine.
It's a small price to pay for him because he's getting backhanders and royalty checks at the FDA, something that's common practice, I understand, within the various regulatory bodies, actual royalty payments connected to products that they endorse.
That's even when they don't come out of the FDA and take on a job in a pharmaceutical company, as all these people did.
I read that list actually when I did that Maha show.
Check that out.
Look at all these people that have subsequently taken jobs.
And now he's on the TV flogging his book.
To him, from a cost-benefit perspective, it makes tremendous sense.
But if you're one of the dead children, you don't really have a book deal to look forward to.
More just a slow deterioration and potentially eternal life if you've surrendered to the Lord.
But, you know, book deals.
Paul Offitt, perhaps the most widely quoted defender of vaccine safety, he's gone so far as to say babies can theoretically tolerate, quote, 10,000 vaccines at once.
In theory, communism works in theory.
It's an outrageous thing for someone to say that a baby can take 10,000 vaccines at once.
Think of anything that you could do 10,000 of at once.
10,000 bananas at once would be very, very dangerous.
You'd start putting them in bodily orifices that are not designed for that.
It's a ridiculous claim to have made and one that you would probably only make if you benefited financially from babies getting up to 10,000 vaccines at once, which will probably, at the current rate of growth, be the vaccine schedule by about 2030.
Who wants their baby to be put forward for a 10,000 vaccine theory test for dear old Paul Offitt?
They call him fuck Offit because that's what he does once he's been paid.
He holds the patent on an anti-diarrhea vaccine he developed with Merck, Rodotech, which has prevented thousands of hospitalizations in the US.
When you read how much money I'm making, you're going to shit yourself unless you've taken this up-the-but vaccine from Merck.
And future royalties for the vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash.
Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits unknown.
The reason that it's unknown is because if you found out about it, it would make you love Dr. Offit so much.
He'd be in real risk of people taking vaccines that induce diarrhea simply so we could give him that vaccine, then drink his.
Out of love.
There's nothing illegal about the possible conflicts of interest.
That's actually even worse, isn't it?
The fact that there's nothing legal about it.
That's a demonstration of at least one more layer of corruption.
And the entire legislative system supports and endorses it because it's an interlocked bureaucratic grid that ensures that you will never have any money and they always will.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, Every Child by Two.
Every Child by Two, I think, gave away something of their agenda when they named their company Every Child by Two.
And we spoke to Every Child by Two.
What do you think should happen?
Well, to be clear, we think that by the time they're two, not just one or two or some children, but every child should be vaccinated.
Let me just talk to Paul Offitt about how many?
Up to 10,000.
Also, try 10,000 bananas.
Could it hurt?
Every Child by Two and Dr. Offit wouldn't agree to interviews, but all told us they're upfront about the money they receive and it doesn't sway their opinions.
That's right.
That's why people give each other money to not have their opinions swayed.
Today's immunization schedule now calls for kids to get 55 doses of vaccines by age six.
Ideally, it makes for a healthier society.
50 is, by my reckoning, too many.
But then I don't earn any money out of vaccines.
Just colostrum.
Give it a go.
Paul Offit must be thinking, oh my word, 9,950 vaccines to go.
I don't want to ever go on a long car journey with him as he sings his way through 10,000 child vaccines hanging from, I don't know, a pharmacy shelf.
That sort of thing.
Then there is the intervention from another former CDC director, Rochelle Walensky, who recently suggested that if vaccine manufacturers are not protected from liability injuries, they may simply choose not to make vaccines.
That statement should have detonated public debate.
Instead, it passed with little scrutiny, but that's pretty crazy.
If they're only making it for a profit, it tells you what they're up to anyway, even though we all know that's how the pharmaceutical industry is run.
Don't you see how radical revision is required within the medical institutions that we entrust their health to?
They need to have a completely different perspective about what they're doing.
They have to understand what's more that they're supposed to be helping people.
No one minds people making a profit if what they offer is a valuable product, but the idea that the pursuit of product has become so reified and so elite and so extreme that it sort of doesn't matter if people die as a result of taking your product, that's too far, man.
The reason that the vaccine schedule is important is because it informs the policy of the Vaccines for Children's program.
And this is a program that delivers vaccines free of charge to our children who are under and uninsured.
And the reason that that is so important is because we need population protection, whether or not those children have insurance.
And it is that program that I think is at risk based on the schedule.
Let's at least credit Rochelle Walensky for being a kind of gorgeous super villain and apparently aware of it, dressing in Cadbury's purple or as I would have it, late 80s joker purple to really give you a true sense of her bureaucratic anarchic willingness to destroy humanity with a smile.
We acknowledge that there are true, albeit rare, injuries associated with vaccines and when they are adjudicated, those people should merit some compensation for those injuries.
In order to keep our both physicians and our manufacturers free of free of responsibility from that she struggled for a minute to say free of responsibility because some central part of her knows vaccine manufacturers are responsible for their products.
Rare injuries, there is this program that I say humanity coming through there.
She's not able to finish the job properly because she's like, oh, this isn't right.
What I'm saying is not right.
I don't believe in this.
She doesn't believe in it.
She's a child of God.
Implies that products generating billions in annual revenue cannot remain viable unless the companies producing them are shielded from the consequences of harm.
That's not a scientific argument.
It's an economic one.
It's always been an economic one.
Shows you how radical the changes have to be.
The contradiction becomes impossible to ignore when Walensky's past statements are revisited.
In 2021, she said that real-world monitoring finds vaccines are safe for young children.
Since then, the FDA has acknowledged deaths temporarily associated with COVID vaccination in children and has initiated investigations into those outcomes.
Why is there such a stark lack of consistency in arguments around healthcare in the United States of America?
It's generally accepted that it's at least morally dubious to profit from medicine, certainly in the extreme and monopolising ways that's become normalized across US healthcare.
How come that argument is abandoned when it comes to vaccines?
That no one makes the argument that profit-driven vaccine models are likely to lead to vaccines being licensed and protected and granted legal indemnity that may be harmful.
Well, we're seeing the consequences now.
And due to the kind of clarity available as a result of independent media, we're learning about it and we're learning it quickly.
And it's inducing change in a variety of areas, perhaps none more clear than this one, precisely because the science has flipped, precisely because you can corroborate arguments that you might have made in 2019 or 2020 about vaccines and social measures used during the pandemic period with new data that actually verifies and underwrites the perspective of dissenters rather than those that were rolling their eyes and shaming people who were called anti-vaxxers with like nine X's in the middle of the word vaxxer.
Whether causation is ultimately confirmed in every case is beside the point.
What matters is that the certainty once projected was not justified.
The claim of settled science collapsed under the weight of reality, which is actually what science does.
This is not a failure of science.
It's the failure of a politicized scientific class that confused authority with truth and consensus with evidence.
Science advances through skepticism, challenge, revision, conversation, clinical trial, debate.
Those mechanisms throughout the COVID period were suspended in favor of messaging discipline.
The result was not clarity, but fragility.
The moment contradictions emerged, public trust began to rot.
Naturally, the media sits at the center of this crisis.
News outlets are now forced to report official findings acknowledging that vaccines can cause heart damage, particularly in younger populations.
At the same time, those very outlets continue to run glowing nostalgic stories about the triumph of the COVID vaccine five years on.
The tension is obvious and glaring.
Harm is acknowledged in one column while success is celebrated in another, as if the two realities are somehow commensurate.
This contradiction is not accidental.
The pharmaceutical industry is one of the largest advertising forces in American media in 2024 alone.
Drug companies spent 10.1 billion on prescription drug advertising across television, print and digital platforms.
The financial relationship obviously doesn't require this financial relationship, doesn't require explicit censorship, that would be ridiculous.
It creates an atmosphere where certain questions are softened, certain voices elevated and certain conclusions delayed.
What we're witnessing now is not anti-science backlash.
It's a belated demand for scientific integrity.
The public's not rejecting evidence, it's rejecting the idea that evidence should be filtered through political necessity and corporate protection before it's shared.
The war between the old and the new, scientific ruling classes reveals a dangerous truth.
When science becomes a tool of governance rather than a method of inquiry, it stops serving the public and starts managing it.
COVID did not create this problem, it exposed it.
If science is to regain trust, it must be separated from propaganda, liability shields, and media capture.
Uncertainty must be admitted.
Harm must be confronted honestly.
And authority must once again be earned through transparency rather than enforced through fear.
The alternative is far darker.
A future where every public health intervention is met with suspicion.
Not because people reject science, but because they remember what happens when science is used to silence instead of inform.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments, in the chat.
In the meantime, if you can, stay free.
Thank you so much for joining us.
We will be back on Monday with a fantastic show.
As a matter of fact, of course, we'll be looking at the horror of the endless psychopathic news cycle.
Just one scroll of X is enough to tell you that Satan is real.
But then we'll be talking about recovery in our new podcast, Crack On, with Russia.
No, with Joe, Dave, and Russell.
I just defaulted to put myself first, man.
Crazy.
Anyway, it's going to be a good podcast.
It's lovely.
If you're a 12-step person, or if you're in recovery, or if you're interested in recovery, or you know someone that needs to be in recovery, please join us for that because we're all recovering from something.
We're all trying to recover the person we were intended to be, i.e., after the fall, all of us live in sin.
Sin is the state that precedes the action, not the action itself.
Our Lord and Saviour takes the consequences of sin upon himself, making it possible for us to return, to recover, to become the person we were intended to be in the image of our Maker.
Praise the Lord and stay free.
See you next week.
Not for more of the same, but for more of the different.