March 7, 2026 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
46:34
Stefan Molyneux on Alex Jones Mar 2026!
Stefan Molyneux details his censorship on the Alex Jones Show, attributing it to elites using war and fiat inflation to suppress truth-tellers. He contrasts coercive taxation with Bitcoin's fixed supply as a shield against state theft, linking Epstein's suppression to Rothschild-style manipulation of wealth from youth to old age. Molyneux argues DEI initiatives target white Christian males to reduce birth rates for an international socialist technocracy, while feminism fuels state dependency. Ultimately, he predicts an inevitable Iran war to distract from exposed high-society crimes as governments run out of money and impose wartime restrictions. [Automatically generated summary]
And my best friend who passed away last year, he told me back then, he said, hey, you got to check out this guy.
He has a podcast.
His name is Stefan Molyneux.
I remember watching a lot of these podcasts and thinking, you know, this is interesting.
This is some good libertarian info.
And I remember Stefan eventually blowing up and having a massive YouTube channel, having a massive reach.
And then suddenly censorship hit hard.
Hit me.
I know it hit Alex and it hit Stefan tremendously.
But thank God we got all of our channels and our stuff back, or at least most of us, except Alex have.
Stefan Molyneux, welcome to the fourth hour of the Alex Jones Show.
Thanks.
I appreciate it.
Nice to be here.
So let's get into the trek and the struggles that you had.
I know that you had a massive channel.
I remember watching it for a long time.
You hit over a million subscribers.
And then the censorship hit.
How did that hit you?
I mean, not as hard as some, harder than others.
I lost most online presence, payment processors, and so on.
But, you know, you adapt.
You kind of know it's coming.
Like I was in the game in 2005.
I was like the third maybe user of YouTube or something like that.
So you kind of get a sense that it's coming.
I'm a philosopher.
I've studied the history of philosophy extensively.
And this is what happens to truth tellers, particularly when they gain some traction.
What happens is you start to do good in the world.
You start to encourage people to do good in the world.
And that, boom, like that interferes with the designs of evildoers.
And they wish to silence you.
Those that they cannot answer, they wish to silence.
Now, society has progressed to the point where we're not just dragged out onto a hill and hung or garretted or shot or set on fire.
Now they just kind of silence us.
But in those years, and they were amazing years, man, absolute peak humanity, 2005 to 2015.
What a wild west, free-range liberty unleashed, no gatekeepers direct to the population, syllables thundering from the sky like the farts of Zeus.
You could do anything, say anything.
The power, the freedom was amazing.
Of course, it's a party that can't last because you're allowed to have freedom as long as you don't affect change, right?
You're allowed to have free speech.
You're allowed to say, well, I'm against the war.
But if they can just print money and go to war anyway, you're allowed to have the syllables that surround you as long as they don't change anything that the powerful want to do.
So the moment that people started actually changing things in the world for the better, man, you got to get that toilet plunger on the face and you've got to silence them down.
So it's kind of something that I prepared for.
I kind of knew that it was coming, but I was certainly very happy and proud of all that I did before and the stuff that I've been doing since.
You had a tremendous influence.
I mean, everybody I know, you know, from Sam Hyde to, you know, my best buddy that passed away, like everybody listened to stuff on Maloney for years, a tremendous reach.
Not that you don't, but I'm glad to see you back and many others, you know, getting their handle, getting their channel and whatnot.
So let's go back to the situation with the dollar and we'll get into Bitcoin and all that in a little bit.
But, you know, I remember early on you were hammering this issue that we're never really going to get out of these problems until we fix the money problem, until we fix the issues like the IRS and the taxation as theft.
You were an early, early, early exposer of all that.
Remedy Through Love00:06:31
How did you learn that?
What was the thing that kind of tipped you off to the fact that we're actually controlled by the money printer and the wars?
And we'll talk about this war as well, because I think it relates directly to this issue of the declining dollar.
Like what, how did you wake up to that?
Because you were way ahead of the curve.
Well, it's funny, you know, I was thinking about this the other day.
So it's a great question.
Thank you.
So when I was in my early teens, I know that sounds ridiculously precocious, but it is a fact.
So in my early teens, I had a history teacher who was kind of interested in communism, capitalism, socialism, and he would describe these things fairly neutrally and so on.
And I remember it's sort of an instinct that people have that when he said, when I was maybe, I don't know, 13 or something like that, he said to the whole class, well, you know, don't forget you're going to get your pensions when you get older.
So taxation makes sense from that.
And everybody laughed at him.
Now, I'm not just talking about the mathletes who could do the math and understand that the pensions weren't going to be there, but everyone just kind of laughed at him.
The very idea that in, you know, 50 or 60 years, the government was going to keep its word to us was ludicrous.
I mean, the idea that governments would do that because we all had the authoritarianism in school that was kind of unproductive.
We had a school system that didn't care about what we wanted, a school system that teaches you absolute, complete, and total wasteful nonsense.
The studies are that 98% of what you learn in school outside of basic reading, writing, and arithmetic is gone, baby.
It's absolutely gone by the time you leave school.
And by the time you leave school, I guess you know what an opposite angle theorem is and you know what a triangle inequality relation is, but you don't know how to start a business.
You don't know anything about the system you live under and you don't know anything about taxation.
You don't know anything about morals, but you've learned a lot of useless administrivia.
And of course, as society has fragmented, because we used to, of course, have a Christian Enlightenment, a combination of Christianity and Greco-Roman reason.
We used to have that society so you could teach those values.
But as society has fragmented more, teaching moral values becomes more and more difficult.
And more and more people get upset when you teach moral values in school.
Because if you teach Christian values, then other religions get upset.
So you basically have to carve out all moral content from education and replace it with absolutely mind-numbing, useless stuff.
So I remember thinking just even at the time, there's no way that the government is interested in our long-term interests as school kids because they're not even interested in our short-term interest.
I remember when I was a kid, the teachers all said the same thing: you know, if effort matched ability, man, you'd be an A-plus, which is kind of like, well, why am I not putting in any effort?
Maybe there's something wrong with the system.
Maybe the system that's completely unresponsive to what children actually want is emblematic of a government that doesn't really care about what citizens want.
And, you know, study after study has kind of proven this, that governments, they do what they want.
They'll give you the fig leaf of voting.
Voting is a suggestion box for slaves.
And so they'll give you the fig leaf of voting, but they're just going to do what they want.
And most Americans don't want to go to war in Iran, going into war in Iran.
You don't have to go to the citizens and say, hey, man, I really want to go to war in Iran.
Can you sign me a check for $15,000 so we can go do it?
Because then people could say no.
When I was an entrepreneur and I wanted to found a software company, I went hat in hand to people that I knew and asked them to invest money.
And if they'd have said no, there wouldn't have been business because it's voluntary.
But if the government can just borrow and print and create out of thin air the money they want to pursue their agendas, what on earth would the votes of individual citizens or the preference of individual citizens mean at all?
And it is coercive.
If you say no, bad things happen.
And I'm not a big fan of that kind of violence or any kind of violence for that matter, except maybe a little bit of self-defense.
Yeah, I think, you know, the hardest thing for the public to understand and even for intelligent people, because they intentionally sort of wrap economics in a bunch of, you know, cutouts and scams and confusing terminology.
But really, when you understand it as like a giant sort of onion ring of theft and that the war becomes the health of the state, I think we're at this juncture once again, where kind of going back to like Operation Enduring Freedom or Desert Storm or whatever.
Like we saw the same thing 20, 30 years ago, where when we have these significant economic downturns or problems, war becomes the health of the state.
Why is the dollar declining?
Why is war the health of the state, Stefan?
So war creates a situation of unity.
It creates a situation of being under threat.
And when people feel scared, they flock to authority.
This is why almost the entire business of government and the media is to constantly poke you with these little tasers of fear, anxiety, terror.
You know, the global warming stuff and the deadly viruses stuff and the COVID stuff.
And their purpose is to keep you constantly nervous, constantly anxious, constantly on edge, because then you feel like you need authority.
And so war is the health of the state because it allows the state to grow.
It allows the state to impose restrictions on the liberty of the individual that it never really would be able to do in peacetime.
And the state is also the health of war.
Because I gave a speech in Europe many years ago, Bitcoin versus War, which basically pointed out that if the government can't just create money, but actually has to go hand in hand to the population, you can find out if the population actually supports war or not.
But if they can just create their own money, they can leap over.
It's sort of like your boss tells you what to do, but if you win $20 million in the lottery, well, the boss doesn't really tell you much because you've got all this money and the government can type whatever it wants into its own bank account so it can go and do whatever it wants.
And of course, people love war.
There are psychopathic sadists that are in charge of a lot of what we do and they love disassembling human beings.
There is a cruelty that is absolutely inconceivable to me.
Like I'm the guy who will swerve and endanger his life to avoid a squirrel on the road, but there are other people who enjoy raining down Thunderblood Zeus tomahawks from the sky to people who have no control over their environment, i.e. the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Syrians, the Kurds, you name it, right?
And so there are brutal people up there, and the existence of evil makes the state very challenging.
Psychopathic Sadists and Cruelty00:03:05
Because if we have evildoers who want to impose their will violently on others, what is the remedy to that?
I don't think the remedy to that is to give them a virtually unlimited budget to achieve all sorts of violence throughout the world with no repercussions.
And that's sort of a problem I've been puzzling over for many decades.
I want to get to the issue with Bitcoin and perhaps why it's superior to gold, because I think a lot of people are going to immediately say when they hear you mention Bitcoin, well, that's that internet money.
That's not a thing.
Every time I bring this up, well, it ain't a thing.
Well, Facebook's not a thing, right?
You don't go find Facebook under a microscope.
But before we get to the sort of the mechanics of that, what do you think was the main reason that they targeted your channel and your outlets?
Do you think it was because you were going kind of hard into the necessities of what builds Western civilization, what builds a healthy civilization?
For example, having borders, not allowing infinity migrants in.
What do you think were the main things that were really tipping the establishment to take you down?
Well, they didn't like Trump, and they really, really, really wanted that 2020 election very, very much.
So to the point where they'd be even suppressing the Hunter Biden story, which, you know, people say, was the election rigged or whatever?
Well, sure.
I mean, we know that for sure in America because the Hunter Biden story suppression swung the election to Biden.
We know that from the exit polls, that 17% of people would have changed their vote if they'd known about the Hunter Biden story.
So suppressing that changed the election, and that was an artificial form of censorship.
So why did they target me?
I mean, there could be any number of reasons.
Lord knows I gave them a lot of excuses, so to speak, but I would assume it's because Trump won in 2020 by 70,000 votes.
And those who had every individual who had been pushing back against the lies of Trump, I mean, I certainly had some sympathies for Trump, but I thought Trump in particular was a great way to talk about the falsehoods of the media.
I mean, the media has lied about me a lot as it tends to about, I mean, the media lies about good people all the time.
It's, for purposes, a smear campaign.
And so when I saw the media lying about Trump, I was like, well, let's expose these.
So I did a whole series of videos called The Untruths About Donald Trump.
And, you know, Trump won by 70,000 votes.
And I suppose they targeted people that they perceived as pro-Trump, where I was more anti-lies than pro-Trump.
So there was that.
Of course, I was very passionate about Brexit and so on.
And so I would assume it's just a wide variety of people who can count and run the math and were fairly unscrupulous about their aim at power.
Let's get into a little bit of that Bitcoin topic there because this one is always a challenge to try to convey the truths about Bitcoin versus the lies that are out there because every time Bitcoin takes a significant dip, it's over.
Fiat Currency's Cost00:13:48
It's dead.
It's going to zero.
Of course, we know that that's not going to happen.
We've been hearing that since the beginning of Bitcoin.
I want to give you props because it was you and Max Kaiser that were talking about Bitcoin way before I actually got into it.
You were there 2011, very early.
So you understood what this was.
You understood the mechanics of it.
Why it's actually the opposite of the Keynesian sort of Fabian socialist model that we have today in economics.
What would you say to somebody who's still skeptical who thinks, well, why would I want something like gold or physical?
Not that you can't have gold.
You can have gold.
Gold has its positives, but why Bitcoin over gold?
Yeah, I mean, both have their value.
I mean, everything in life is a trade-off.
So there are benefits and costs to both.
Gold, of course, is expensive to store.
People spend about 3% of the value of their gold every year to store it.
It's very expensive to transport.
It's illegal to transport in most instances across any kind of borders.
It's easily seized by the government.
And it's all subject to fluctuations, of course, because if they find some big new deposit of gold or, you know, they go out to asteroids, something like that, or an asteroid crashes with a bunch of gold, then that's going to be highly variable.
So, yeah, I mean, there are pluses to having gold, I get, that is tangible and physical and fungible and all that kind of stuff.
But it's expensive to store.
It's expensive to move.
It's subject to seizure.
And that's not even theoretical.
That's happened a bunch of times in American history in the 30s and in the 70s and so on.
And so there are pluses and minuses to gold.
There are pluses and minuses to real estate.
I mean, people who invested in real estate, say, in Tehran, are probably not feeling that their investment is doing very well at the moment.
And of course, if you invest in real estate, then you have property taxes, maintenance, and so on.
And if you rent it out, then there are other costs with bad tenants and legal issues and squatters.
And every investment has its positives and its minuses.
The general criticism of Bitcoin is that it's based on nothing.
It's based on nothing.
You say real estate, you can live in it.
And gold is like dual or triple or quadruple uses, electronics and jewelry and other sorts of things that people can use it with.
But that's kind of odd to me.
So saying that something is really specialized and that's a problem, Bitcoin is entirely designed to solve a number of problems in currency.
Number one, it's capped at 21 million.
There will only ever be 21 million Bitcoins.
And there's actually fewer because there are estimates that 20, 30% of Bitcoins have been permanently lost.
People have just made mistakes or forgotten things or died with their seed phrases in the wind.
And so, yeah, there's a bunch of stuff that has been lost.
Bitcoin is fixed.
It's limited.
It's almost infinitely divisible.
It is validated around the world by a bunch of networks.
And you can walk across, you can have $100 million in Bitcoin and you just have to remember 12 words and you can walk anywhere in the world and have your money.
And there's no costs to store it.
You don't even need to store it on a computer if you don't want.
So there's lots of advantages to it.
It's, you know, the difference between physical mail and email, right?
Oh, email has no value because it's intangible.
It's like, well, yeah, but because it's intangible, you can squirt an email from here to Dubai in about half a second, whereas a physical letter is going to take a lot longer and be more expensive and so on.
So there are pluses and minuses.
And I don't mean this with your audience at all.
I actually have a great deal of respect for your audience, but generally boomers feel uneasy around Bitcoin because how do boomers get their money?
Again, you know, current audience accepted.
Boomers get their money by stealing from the young.
They get their money by not depositing much into their social security or pension schemes and then pillaging the entirety of the young.
And it's the first time where we have this, you know, this is where the myth of vampires comes from or something, ancient people sucking the blood of the young and so on.
And that's all pension schemes.
So why do boomers, ooh, I don't know, I don't know about that Bitcoin.
It seems newfangled and funny.
It's like, well, yeah, because if you had a pension scheme based on Bitcoin, you couldn't pillage the young.
Fiat currency, you can pillage the young.
Fiat currency, you can print money, you can transfer money from the young to the old.
Because, you know, there's nothing in the old age pension scheme, just a bunch of dusty treasuries and IOUs.
There's no money there, the money that was taken by the government that people really supported the government taking.
There's no money there.
It's all gone, right?
So where do you get the money to pay the pensions?
You just tax the young, you inflate the currency, you borrow.
You can't do any of that with Bitcoin.
So Bitcoin's a little bit of this kind of thing to the slightly undead boomers that are enjoying feasting on the fading lifeblood of the young.
So yeah, Bitcoin is limited.
And Bitcoin fundamentally is moral.
See, morality is based on scarcity.
We don't really have property rights for air because air, except if I'm in the room rambling, air is largely an infinite resource.
So we don't need to have property rights for air.
We have property rights for things that are scarce.
And Bitcoin is scarce, which means people have to weigh pros and cons.
They can't just print money and do whatever they want.
They have to ask for permission.
They can't steal either directly or indirectly through the most vicious form of theft, which is inflation.
They can't do any of that.
They actually have to negotiate, be honorable, be virtuous, respect property rights.
All of that is undermined by fiat.
So Bitcoin, by reimposing limitations on currency, allows us to actually negotiate in society for our values rather than just have psychopaths type whatever they want into their own Bitcan, into their own bank account and do whatever the heck they please.
You actually have to go to people.
You have to ask things.
You have to negotiate.
It's a fundamentally virtuous.
Now, people say, ah, yes, well, we could have a gold standard.
And it's like, well, yeah, but we tried that, right?
We tried that.
Humanity has been trying gold standards for thousands and thousands of years.
I've got a presentation online, The Truth About the Fall of Rome, which is sort of pointing out that Rome had a gold standard.
It had a bronze standard, a copper standard, and all it did was just debase the coins.
And so the gold standard is you constantly dilute everything.
And so the gold standard isn't magical.
You need to return the power of currency, which is the biggest power in the world, really, since it drives all political power.
You have to return control of the currency to the people, or we're just shouting at clouds trying to get them to do what we want.
On that point, one of the constant criticisms of late in regard to the fact that Epstein had a degree of involvement early on in funding some coding, and then there was the fake email where Epstein claimed with just land to be the creator and to be Satoshi.
We know that one was a fake one.
Obviously, it had two twos in the email itself, which was obviously drawn.
It didn't even look like a real email.
But what would you say to the people who arena, the sort of recent Epstein emails in regard to Bitcoin and crypto?
To me, it looks like Epstein was just interested in sort of spraying money everywhere to see what would hit.
And if something popped off, then it worked.
But that's a different thing from being able to, quote, control or to code Bitcoin.
Epstein had nothing to do with that.
It's also a public protocol.
So you can't really write a backdoor into it.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And there's a very powerful question.
It's really the essence of philosophy in many ways.
There was an old philosophy professor who was asked by a student, how's your wife?
And he said, compared to what?
And in philosophy, the question compared to what is really foundational.
This is virtuous compared to what, right?
This is true compared to what, right?
So compared to what is really, really important.
So if people say a bad guy put a little bit of funding into the foundation of Bitcoin, therefore Bitcoin is immoral.
You're saying, oh, so immoral people having something to do with currency makes that currency immoral.
Okay.
That's a fine principle.
Let's apply it universally compared to what?
Okay.
How many virtuous people are currently running the fiat currency system?
How many people are using the fiat currency system to create the largest thefts in human history, to transfer money from men to women, from the young to the old and so on?
And what happens if you decide not to participate in the fiat system?
See, you cannot do Bitcoin all day long and nothing bad will happen to you.
Try stepping outside the bounds of the fiat currency system and you get all kinds of Muammar Gaddafi Libyat and Saddam Hussein Iraq and Lord knows what's happening in Iran, which doesn't have the general central bank of every other country.
So if people are going to say, well, we have to look at the people who are running the currency system or are originating the currency system and we have to make sure that they're perfectly virtuous, fine, let's look at fiat a whole lot further and sooner and deeper than anything to do with Bitcoin.
Welcome back to the Alex Jones Show.
I'm your guest host, Jay Dyer, jaysanalysis.com, Jay Dyer on YouTube.
We are talking to Stefan Molyneux, freedomain.com.
You can also find him on Twitter under Stefan Molyneux.
Stefan, let's get back to the topic.
We were discussing economics.
We're discussing wars held to the state.
Did you get a chance to go very deep into the Epstein files?
Do you have thoughts on this?
Because it kind of suggests to me that the way government really runs is kind of a supra international organized crime syndicate that's able to manipulate, compromise, and even assassinate those who don't go along.
What do you think?
Yeah, I was talking about this.
Of course, Mike Cernovich and the Miami Herald were very fundamental in getting this information out.
And we were talking about this way, way back in the day.
And I've been following that quite closely because there is, of course, this great mystery.
What kind of system do we live in?
And there's what we're told about the system that we live in, right?
The general narrative that we have a social contract because we have a vote and we can choose our leaders and we can change our leaders and the leaders have to listen to us because we are the voters.
And, you know, that's the general, I say, fairy tale that we get when we are children, and it has about as much reality as any of the other Grimm's fairy tales, a very Grimm fairy tale, I suppose.
So then we get to become adults and we vote, and we notice that no matter what we vote for or who we vote for, the outcome generally tends to be the same.
As they say, the Democrats are just the Republicans in more of a hurry.
And so there's this general tendency towards more and more control, more and more regulation, more and more bureaucracy, higher and higher taxes, more and more debt.
And there doesn't seem to be any particular way to stop or reverse this, particularly when a culture goes into what seems like terminal decline after about 250 years.
It tends to be quite common across all cultures for reasons we can get into if we want.
And so there's this disconnect between theory and practice.
This is the way our system is supposed to work, but it doesn't really work that way at all.
And we sort of feel like this is an old reference, but, you know, Lucy in Peanuts of the Football, like taking the, she says, oh, Charlie Brown, come kick this football.
And he says, oh, you're going to just pull it away.
And so this sort of rug pull or this, this Lucy football pull is kind of what happens.
And so we all have a question.
Now, the leftists have this answer, which is not too bad, which is to say the government doesn't listen to you.
The government listens to sort of big corporate interests and so on.
And the donors and the people who are heavily invested in controlling the government for the sake of their own economic advantage in particular.
And that's not a terrible answer, but it doesn't really explain why the more free market aspects of the government would make their decisions.
Now, of course, with the Republicans, you get much more fundamentalist Christianity.
And with more fundamentalist Christianity, there is a weakness to the narrative about the Middle East and the protection of Israel and so on.
And so that's partly why you get that foreign involvement, particularly in the Middle East.
So I think Epstein came along and there was this fascinating window into why the system doesn't work the way we're told that it works.
Or to put it another way, it works in exactly the way that it's supposed to work, but it's not the same as what we're told in the way that it works.
And so the idea, if this is the case, and we probably will never find out for sure, but if it is the case that Epstein had his various houses and his ranch in particular was never searched, but his various houses and brownstones, if he had them wired for video and sound, and the typical guess about how it works is something like you bring people over, you have underage girls that look older, they're made up, and then you get the men drunk or women, I guess for that matter,
and then you end up with them in sexually compromised positions with these underage girls and it's filmed and then you own them.
You just have them because you say, listen, you can't quit and you've got to do what we say or, you know, unholy heck is going to thunder down upon you from the legal skies and you will end up like Gollum in the base of the mountain.
So if that's the way the system kind of works based upon blackmail and deception and control and so on, that would go a long way towards explaining why, for instance, in the Western world,
Why People Are Forced Into Stocks00:08:45
the citizens have wanted a wide variety of things for quite a long time, including things like reducing mass immigration, improving the healthcare systems and lower taxes and so on, and less foreign involvement and lower wars, lower foreign aid and so on.
Because if you can't solve the problems at home, you shouldn't be spending money overseas.
So this is what the people want.
And it all seems quite reasonable and normal and exactly how society was not a few decades ago.
And nobody gets it.
So who's getting out of the system what they want if it's not the citizens?
And if we look at the Epstein thing, and it's just one of many possibilities, I don't think they need Jeffrey Epstein anymore because everyone's digital fingerprint can be used to control them now.
But it certainly would go a long way towards explaining to people why the system, quote, works the way that it does, why the general population is kind of ignored and why people don't get what they vote for.
And that was, and the big thing with Trump, of course, was to try, it was a last dish effort by the population as a whole to try to get something that they wanted, right?
So Trump's going to build a wall, Mexico isn't going to pay for it, can deport all of these people, no more foreign wars and so on, and lower taxes.
And, you know, it's not, of course, the end of the term.
So it's hard to know for sure.
But certainly so far, the deportations are relatively low.
The border wall has not been completed.
Of course, the invasion of Iran, or at least the war against Iran, is underway, which is absolutely brutal for a variety of reasons.
And I think that people are processing, and I myself feel a sort of genuine wave of sadness about this whole situation because people are saying, well, Trump was an outsider.
Trump was independently wealthy.
Trump has been investigated up the yin-yang, and they don't have anything on him because otherwise he would have been locked up long ago.
And he does Does seem to be a genuine populist.
He's been talking about this stuff for decades.
And you could not, in a sense, design a person who would break the cycle of ignoring the voters while promising the moon.
And the fact that Trump appears to be crumbling into a deep failure to change things means that if one of the most popular guys in the world, who's incredibly charismatic, strong-willed, and a billionaire to boot, if he can't break the cycle and listen to the people, I think people are going to, well, I think they already are, falling into a furious, a very serious state of despair and confusion.
But don't worry, there are moral philosophers like myself to catch you when you fall and to explain the way forward.
Well, I want to see what you think about this, something that ties a couple themes together.
For example, we have our first part of the discussion about banking and essentially fiat currency and the structure of that sort of swindle, I think you could say.
And I was recently revisiting Rothschild's biography, which discussed the famous Waterloo incident.
And they were bragging in the biography, authorized biography by Morton that, yes, the story was actually true.
We did get advanced intelligence, and this allowed us to then sort of buy up the London Stock Exchange for pennies on the dollar when it crashed based on advanced intelligence.
And then some of those emails I thought were very, like you said, a window into this system, how it works with advanced intelligence, where, for example, Epstein is describing to Arianda Rothschild, to others, that when there's this crisis in this region, we have advanced intel.
We can get in and buy it up.
We can, you know, get the bailouts.
You know, when the bailouts happen, we can have a fire sale.
We can buy up places in Greece for pennies on the dollar.
So it seems like there's a connection between the oligarchical, nefarious intelligence operations that Epstein seems to be involved in and the banking system and the structure of that swindle for the last several hundred years.
Obviously, as you said, this goes back to the ancient world.
There's nothing new about money clipping and debasing the currency.
And there's nothing new about sexpionage and this kind of honeytrap stuff.
But is there a connection between the banking fiat swindle and organized oligarchic intelligence crime?
Well, I actually started my career in the tech world as a programmer at a stock trading place.
And there was millions of lines of COBOL code.
And I was fairly responsible for designing and implementing programs to attempt to give them any kind of advantage in the marketplace.
And I'm going to try and keep this brief because it's a lot of information to compress and get across.
But the stock market was originally not designed for the everyday person.
The stock market was designed like professional poker players.
You don't just wander off on the street and sit down across Ben Afflick and say, I'm going to take you on, brother.
Right.
So the stock market was designed for people who knew the business, who knew how to invest, and who understood the risks and were able to hedge them and were financially and mathematically and numerically literate.
Now, the problem is, of course, lots of people, billions of people around the world are forced into the stock market against their will.
And they're forced into the stock market because you can't just leave your money sitting in the bank because the endless termites of fiat inflation will eat away your actual life, your actual life.
You work for 40 years, and by the time the end of that 40 years has gone, 20 years of those have been a slave.
You've been eaten up.
You've been torn down.
You've been enslaved retroactively.
That's what inflation does is it steals the excess of your past labor to use to feed the more of control and war.
And so people have to go into the stock market, though they don't want to.
It's like saying, well, why would you get into a lifeboat in the Arctic?
It's like, because the Titanic is going down.
You've got to go somewhere.
You've got to save your money from somewhere.
Our money used to be gold, which you could store indefinitely.
Now it's like grain.
You've got to use it, use it or lose it.
And so you have to go into the stock market.
Now, because there's so many, many, many trillions of dollars in the stock market that have no business being there, but it's just fleeing.
You know, like if there's going to be some sort of natural disaster, everyone crowds into the gym in the local high school.
Well, that's people fleeing the natural disaster of fiat currency theft and they're just herded into the stock market.
Now, because there's trillions of dollars, like, you know, like a squid trying to feel for some food in the crevices of a coral reef, there are trillions of dollars sniffing for every short-term opportunity to make the tiniest sliver of profit, which means that information has become staggeringly valuable.
And of course, you could just ask Nancy Pelosi about that.
So if you have, you know, there are trading firms that have moved their entire office to be one mile closer to the data centers because it gives them a tiny nanosecond advantage in their orders, right?
So the amount of information profit that is out there because so many people are herded into the stock market as refugees from the degradation of fiat currency means that information, and this is political information in particular, right?
What the government is about to do.
Are they about to pass some crypto bill?
Are they about to raise, as they were threatening to?
And I think they backed down to tax unrealized capital gains.
I think that was in the Netherlands, right?
So the tiny slivers of information and literally being one 100th of a second faster than everyone else has meant that this information is worth more than the entire economy in terms of profit.
And so when you have intelligence agencies and you have insider information, the amount of profit that you can make is so enormous.
And it seems like everyone except Martha Stewart gets away with it.
And so with that level of profit and that level of unenforced accountability, you can't enforce it.
You can't possibly know everything that everyone knows ahead of time.
And so that is just such a massive amount of profit with such a minimal amount of risk that it seems to me that most governments and intelligence agencies now are largely focused on getting those tiny slices of information that can be the difference between making $100 million and losing $100 million.
And it seems to me utterly unenforceable, particularly if it's worldwide.
And of course, last but not least, Bitcoin fixes this.
Power Dynamics & Exclusion00:10:06
Yeah, exactly.
And again, Bitcoin is the solution to a lot of these financial problems.
And when you really understand the mechanics of it, not that I do, I've been studying it for, you know, since 2017, much longer.
There's always more to learn.
There's always more to understand about this amazing protocol.
It's almost like a gift from God, you could say, like Max Kaiser says.
But I want to talk a little bit about the solutions that Western civilization offers.
Only Western civilization, I think, could have produced something like Bitcoin.
You wouldn't get it from an Islamic civilization or something like that.
And I think there is this rush to destroy Western civilization.
I know a lot of your podcasts over the last several years, going back to the late 20 teens, you covered a lot about Western civilization.
Is it intentionally being destroyed by certain nefarious forces?
Do they want to bring us into a kind of international socialist technocracy, you know, something akin to Brave New World?
What are your thoughts on that?
Is that too conspiratorial or do you think there is a plan for that?
Yeah, and it's funny, you know, because people talk about the term conspiracy theory.
I'm sure your listeners know that this was just invented by the CIA to discredit things.
So the term conspiracy is a very real thing.
It's an actual term in law, and people can be charged and convicted of a conspiracy to commit crime.
So a coordination to commit some criminal activity.
So you can't say that there's no such thing as conspiracy theories when it's literally a term in law that is used to put people away for decades.
Of course, powerful people are going to coordinate their interests.
I mean, is it a conspiracy if two wealthy people say, let's meet at this particular place for lunch at noon on Tuesday?
And they show up.
Oh my gosh, of course they coordinate.
I mean, just to meet up and do things, they have to coordinate.
So yeah, as far as destroying the West, I would say the West, yes, in general, but in more particular, it tends to be white Christian males.
And I wish it wasn't.
I sort of hate to bring race into it, but it's inescapable because as a white male, white males tend to be small government, while white males tend to be free market.
And white males in particular tend to be free speech, which is really the absolute treasure. of the West, all the way back from John Milton writing Areo Pegidica, the first robust, full-throated defense of free speech in the 17th century.
We have been working to develop free speech.
Currently, of course, under complete destruction in Britain, which has like 80 times the conviction rates than Soviet Russia does for, oh, sorry, than Russia does for speech.
So white males in particular, you throw in the spicy Christian source and you get the most robust opposition to communism.
Communism and Christianity have been opposing forces really since the mid-19th century when communism, which is the latest iteration of a wide variety of socialist schemes.
There's a Spenemland thing that went on in England in the 16th century, which was from each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Works great in the family.
It's terrible in politics.
And Spenumland, of course, destroyed various sections of Europe, sorry, of England, in terms of economic productivity for hundreds of years in the same way that the mass inflation of the gold coming in to Spain from the New World destroyed the Spanish economy for about 400 years because it drives all of the smart people to other places.
And so as a whole, you have a big issue with the currency undermining.
You have a big issue with Christianity opposing communism because communism says that there's economic determinism and Christianity focuses on a free will in order to have moral responsibility.
You have to have free will.
Whereas, of course, communism says that everything is determined by your relationship to the means of production and you're just a big giant copy-paste blob of Star Trek unitard indistinguishability.
And so Christianity is under attack, of course, as an individualistic, moralistic, universalistic philosophy and morality.
White males, white males in particular, and I'm thinking about England has spent a couple of hundred years killing off its most violent, its most aggressive, its most sociopathic, its most psychopathic.
Like 1% of the population got wiped out every year.
And that weeds out the crazies and weeds out the super violent, which makes for a more peaceful civilization, of course, as we're finding out, a little bit susceptible to foreign invasion.
And so, yeah, there is an absolute, if you want to gain control, Christianity is in the way.
If you want to gain control, white males are in the way.
So, of course, what do you see the most of is attacks upon white males.
We are designed to be excluded from the economy.
We are designed to be excluded from higher education.
And of course, excluding people from the economy and from higher education keeps us out of the spheres of influence.
We're excluded from the arts.
There hasn't been a white male short story publication in some magazines for well over 20 or 30 years.
And so keeping us out of the arts, keeping us out of the economy.
If we can't get jobs because of DEI hiring requirements, you can't found families, you can't pay for families, which reduces the birth rate.
So yeah, it absolutely is a soft attack upon the continuation.
As you know, white people a little over 100 years ago were like 30, 40% of the world population.
And now the number of white women of childbearing age are 2% of the world's population.
And half of those are going to remain single.
So we're really down to 1%.
It's an absolute catastrophe because if we value diversity, we shouldn't be diminishing any particular race in these artificial ways.
So yeah, it is a huge issue.
And the only thing that I can say is that it will encourage people to move more towards entrepreneurship.
And of course, I've been encouraging all my listeners to look into Bitcoin and to become entrepreneurial.
And I've given lots of advice about all of that sort of stuff.
But yeah, I mean, I think it's indisputable when you see the numbers declining and they say, oh, institutional racism.
It's like, well, yeah, I mean, you don't need to make it up.
The institutional racism is very clear.
Don't hire white males in particular.
And if you fire them, never rehire them.
And that is very foundational to family formation, the continuation of European culture.
And yeah, I mean, there is no question that we're in the way of what they want to do.
And unfortunately, a lot of people are siding against whites and white males.
And the only thing I can say is if you get your way, boy, you'll miss us when we're gone because things get very bad.
It's going to be a brutal brutal world.
Yeah, it's going to be a very brutal situation where your local imam is telling you a much more top-down type of structure versus what you had when you had more liberty under Christianity.
I want to ask you about feminism too, because I know you've critiqued feminism for a long time.
In fact, some of your first things that I heard from you back in the day were critiques of feminism, which kind of opened my eyes to, wait a minute, I was seeing this in my university classes, you know, this anti-white male ideology being sort of browbeaten into the students by all the professors, male and female.
How does feminism fit into this?
Why is it so integral and crucial to this socialist technocracy that they want?
Well, I mean, feminism is not about equality.
Feminism is female supremacy because there's no limit at which women say there's too many of us.
We need to bring more men back in like 60, 70 percent of undergraduate students are women, and nobody's saying, Whoa, whoa, we went too far, right?
So it's just female supremacy.
There's no talk to it, and it has nothing to do with female happiness for sure, because as feminism has advanced, female happiness has declined significantly.
Feminism fundamentally is about one thing and one thing only, which is that women who get married want smaller government.
This is very statistically true across the West as a whole, because when women get married, and particularly if they stay home, then they want the government to tax their men less so that they have more family income and they can then provide a lot of the services that the government provides in their own community, charity and support, and healthcare support and so on.
And so, if women get married, they want smaller government and they want lower taxes.
If women are single, one of the biggest voting blocks for leftism is women.
And of course, sadly, they were instrumental in the overthrow of the relatively free Iran in the late 1970s and the influx of the Imams.
And so, if you keep women single, they want bigger and bigger government because they profit from taxation.
So, married women lose out their family income through taxation.
Single women receive government money through taxation.
And so, if you want to grow the government, you absolutely have to turn women against men because then the women will stay single and then the women feel vulnerable and they're nervous and anxious about the future.
And they need their health care and they need their artificial jobs and they need their retirement pensions and they need all of that sort of stuff.
So, keeping women single is foundational to growing the state.
The war on the sexes or the war of women against men is foundational to the health of the state.
And, I mean, of course, I'm married.
I have a wonderful wife.
I have a lovely daughter.
I want all women to be happy and healthy and well-off.
And the best way for them to do that is to get married and have children.
That is by far the happiest metric that women can possibly achieve, which is exactly what you would expect from how we've evolved as a species.
We didn't evolve to create useless PowerPoints.
We evolved to create wonderful human beings.
And that makes both men and women happy.
And of course, the happier people are, the less they need the government.
War and Happiness00:00:43
Yes.
Amazing interview.
Last couple seconds here.
Thoughts on the war with Iran?
Was this a war to distract from the Epstein files?
Was this a war because the dollar's dying?
Was this a war merely because Israel said so?
Do you have any thoughts on Iran war before we close out?
Sure.
So, yes, certainly it seemed almost inevitable that once crimes in high society get exposed, you go to war.
When governments start running out of money, which they always do, they always go to war because people will accept restrictions in wartime that they wouldn't accept in peacetime.
And of course, there's a lot of profit that comes off of war.
And I think that society is like that.
Indiana Jones, a door coming down.
You got to reach in and grab the gold before it all goes to hacker.