Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 29, 2021 - Viva & Barnes

02:07:31

Viva Frei "Sidebar" George Gammon End of Year Holiday Special

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Where am I looking?
	I need to find my camera.
	I need to find my mic.
	I'm in my mother-in-law's studio yet again.
	And the backdrop is beautiful.
	I'm using an O-ring for the light.
	It's her...
	I can't show what it is, but it's her art O-ring light.
	And I hate O-rings because when you look at them, when the O is over your eyes, you look like you're possessed by the devil.
	So I'm trying to angle my head down.
	So that I do not see the O reflection in my glasses.
	And I did not have Winston.
	I didn't have Pudge.
	What I do have to start off this stream, I am not promoting any product.
	I am just showing you my brother's beautiful, my brother-in-law.
	His beautiful La Chaufferie Milton.
	This is a limited edition.
	Let's see if we can do this here.
	It's a limited edition thing where they have the pear in the bottle.
	People.
	And limited edition, apparently it costs $250 a bottle.
	So I'm not allowed drinking it.
	I'm just allowed looking at it.
	And the pear's in the bottle.
	Now for anyone who doesn't know the answer, does anyone know how they got the pear in the bottle?
	Take your guesses if you can.
	They grow the pear in the bottle.
	They put the bottle over the branch where there's a bud.
	And they grow the pear in the bottle.
	Which is amazing.
	Now, hold on one second.
	No.
	I'm never getting...
	I don't know where my camera is.
	Let me just see where my camera is.
	It's right here.
	I recognize it's getting to the point of crazy looking.
	I'm not cutting my hair.
	I am not cutting my hair.
	No.
	Viva, break the rules.
	Have a drink.
	Well, I have my Peter Rabbit.
	This one's a ceramic cup, not a plastic one.
	And I am...
	I have something in it.
	Grandpa's cough syrup.
	And by the way, I see Barnes in the backdrop.
	So we actually have Barnes in for the show.
	So it will go from a...
	It will not be an ask me anything.
	We'll put that one off for another day.
	Tonight, maybe we'll take some questions.
	But we'll discuss some stuff.
	And I don't know if we have a guest.
	But there is stuff to discuss.
	Ghislaine Maxwell conviction?
	Okay.
	We're going to get to that in a second because I got some questions.
	What else was there in the...
	Oh.
	What else was there in the news?
	Oh, I forgot.
	Viva, where did you grow your pear?
	Oh, I get it.
	I get it.
	See, this one I got.
	I read through it.
	Let the fro flow.
	We shall.
	We shall.
	I'm not dirty, but I might be a hippie.
	I might be going back to my roots.
	Yeah, there's some stuff going on that's interesting in the...
	In the Lawverse, we're going to talk with Robert and we're just going to see where this goes.
	This will be the last sidebar of 2021.
	And my goodness, May 2022 be the year the world starts to regain its bearings.
	Wearing a sweater because my mother-in-law's studio is not heated all that much.
	Oh, you know what?
	I'm going to talk about this briefly in a second.
	I'm going to bring Robert in for this.
	Let's get this going.
	For all standard disclaimers, Super Chats, thank you in advance.
	YouTube takes 30%.
	Not a right of entry into the conversation.
	I may or may not read them.
	Do not get angry if I don't.
	Yada, yada, yada.
	No legal advice, no medical advice, no election fortification advice.
	We are simultaneously streaming on Rumble, where you can support us there with Rumble Rants.
	Rumble takes 20%, so it's better for the creator, better for the platform.
	You can also find us on Locals, vivabarneslaw.locals.com.
	Let's bring the Barnes in.
	Robert, how goes the battle?
	Good, good.
	Okay, there's a little bit of echo.
	We're going to see if that is as bad or if it was just a one-off.
	Let's see something again.
	How are you doing this day, Robert?
	Check, check.
	How's that working?
	It's good enough.
	I think it's a reverb, not an echo.
	Ah, okay, yeah.
	I'm still on the road in Tennessee.
	Alright.
	Robert, I don't want to talk about this.
	Except to say that the Jack Murphy thing and the quartering, I don't like anything that happened there.
	Robert, we haven't talked about this.
	I don't know anything about this.
	And I don't even know if you want to talk about this.
	But I'll just say my piece and then I'm going to move on.
	And Robert, you can say your piece.
	I don't like anything about the situation.
	I think the quartering and Jeremy is going to regret what he did.
	Not in a cynical sense.
	I think he's going to feel bad for what he did because I don't care if it was right.
	Or wrong, or Jack did these things in the past.
	It was more akin to a public execution for no good reason, as opposed to any legitimate...
	Going after Jack Murphy, nobody's perfect.
	Period.
	And everybody has some dirt, some bad things that they've done in the past, which they may have overcome, which they may have ignored, whatever.
	But Jack Murphy is not, let's just take an example, Justin Trudeau.
	Jack Murphy is not a politician.
	Jack, as far as I know, whether or not I agree with everything he's said or done in the past, promotes a positive message today.
	And it's my same thing with Cernovich.
	For whatever his foibles in the past, he's promoting a positive message today.
	And so whether or not one could do what Jeremy did...
	I don't know that one should have done what Jeremy did.
	Jack lashed out at, what was it called?
	Yeah.
	Fine.
	Okay.
	That's what that was.
	That's the extent of where it should have gone.
	Where it went to, I think, is public execution for show and not for necessity.
	And I think, you know, Jack has been, he promotes a good message today.
	That cucking article that he wrote, okay, fine.
	I know how I would read that if I'm not reading it like a federal crime, and that's how I read it.
	But again, you're eviscerating an individual who is, as far as I can tell, promoting a good message today for things they did five years ago and for reacting badly in real time.
	I think Jeremy will not feel good about what he did in the long run.
	Robert, do you want to add to anything of that?
	I previously represented Jack in a separate context when he was targeted by Antifa-related groups because he'd spent a lot of time building up the charter schools for mostly poor African-American students in the District of Columbia.
	And then he was targeted by Antifa for his politics to run him out of that job and ultimately was run out of that job.
	I wrote a book, From Democrat to Deplorable.
	I gave him some advice during that stage.
	And he never developed in a litigation or anything else.
	So I'm kind of limited in saying anything beyond that.
	And I think the current controversy, I don't get how it has current bearing in the sense that it feels like drama.
	I know Jeremy Cording and other people are like, well, I don't want to get...
	And to his credit, Jeremy said he doesn't want people canceled or anything else.
	He has just a...
	He just is not a fan.
	That's fine.
	But I don't see the great, grand significance of why what Jack Murphy wrote six years ago or what his personal life is has any great bearing on the public agenda of today.
	So I'm sympathetic with your perspective on that.
	Yeah, I think the Star...
	What's her name?
	Star Wars girl?
	Yeah, she did an interesting little breakdown.
	And Elijah Schaefer and the Blaze and Sidney Watson.
	I don't know.
	I know Elijah barely.
	I don't know Sidney Watson at all.
	So it struck me as a lot of noise without...
	What is it?
	Sound without fury?
	Or what's the word?
	Something like that?
	I don't know.
	All I know is that Jeremy did say he's been accused of being a drama chaser and he admits to being that to some extent.
	But you know what?
	I think I said Nick Riccata did a whole breakdown, but I mean, you know, Nick needs filler for his nightly show, you know, and daily show too, so he even put it that way, and I'm sure lots of people could have handled it differently in lots of respects.
	I don't have a dog in the fight, as they say, and not going to say much in general just because he was a former client.
	Okay, and I didn't know that, and I probably wouldn't have asked, but thank you for letting us know.
	I just say, like, you know, I read his book.
	And I had the discussion with him.
	I have my own personal perspective.
	I have my own thoughts about Jack as an individual.
	Like we said during the stream, I got the impression he was angry, but angry is not necessarily a bad thing.
	He promotes certain messages that I'm not into.
	Now, does that then lend into a public, is the word evisceration, like a drawing and quartering of an individual to destroy everything that they have become?
	Whether or not you think they deserve it, whether or not you agree with their messages, it's not the drama I'm into.
	So that's where we'll leave it, people.
	We don't need Phil or Robert.
	We need to get to the law stuff, not the drama stuff.
	Although there's some drama in this.
	And nothing against Nick.
	Nick has fun with stuff and the rest.
	So nothing against anybody that is part of it.
	But I just don't see the broader social significance of somebody's personal life.
	A few years ago, or five years ago, or whenever it was.
	And just so that nobody calls us politically biased, this is far different than a president of a country with a very questionable history.
	A true public figure.
	And I think some of the...
	Discussions and conversations.
	Yeah, I think that there wasn't a charitable approach maybe by a lot of different people involved in the matter.
	But it just struck me as it's like, why should I care so much about this?
	It wasn't self-evident to me why I should.
	No, and I say the more gruesome the public execution, the more justified the crime has to be.
	Running for president, if you have skeletons in your closet that Jack has, okay, fine.
	Maybe then it becomes a matter of public interest.
	To destroy someone for the sake of destroying them when what they're doing now, by and large, seems to be putting out a good message for people to follow to better themselves.
	Whether or not you even agree with that message, you might be destroying that which need not be destroyed just for the sake of internet drama.
	Speaking of drama, however...
	Whomever, whomever, whatever.
	This is public controversial information.
	This is a man who developed, who is the inventor of the idea for the mRNA vaccine in its first instance, and has been very, he's part of one of the leaders of the medical project.
	Full disclosure, I work with him on the Unity Project, raising issues.
	He's one of the lead medical advisors to the Unity Project, and working with him on developing legal strategies to contest.
	Public opinion strategies to contest the vaccine mandates in particular, especially as to groups that he thinks it's not a good medical policy or good public policy to be requiring or even encouraging vaccines for certain groups.
	And he himself has been vaccinated.
	He himself has said he thinks for certain groups it makes sense for certain risk categories.
	He just doesn't think it should be universally applied because he understands more than anyone.
	Or as well, at least, as anyone, the risks that are associated with mRNA vaccines.
	This is an experimental gene therapy being relabeled the word vaccine because the CDC decided to change the definition of vaccine for the first time and meaningfully reverse it for the first time ever, really, in the sense of suddenly you can apply the label vaccine to something that doesn't vaccinate.
	It may reduce.
	It's a therapeutic drug.
	It may reduce consequences, but it doesn't prevent infection.
	It may reduce the probability of infection.
	That's still open to public debate.
	I think we can agree.
	It, by and large, reduces severity of symptoms when taken.
	Hopefully, hopefully.
	Alex Berenson has an article out today that shows a huge medical database and a report buried in the report was data that even raised questions about its degree of efficacy, even as to hospitalizations and deaths.
	Really unbelievable.
	Twitter is suspending one of the leading medical critics of vaccine mandates, who is the inventor of the very technology of this vaccine, novel experimental vaccine.
	This is the first ever mRNA vaccine in history.
	And he's probably better situated to discuss it and debate it than probably anybody.
	And what he was suspended for was just pointing out what Pfizer's six-month clinical trial data actually showed when you dug into it.
	And all he did was quote from the report.
	I mean, you know, quoting Bobby Kennedy was kicked off of Instagram for quoting from government databases.
	Dr. Malone is now kicked off of Twitter for quoting from Pfizer's own clinical trials of this vaccine.
	And it shows the absurdity of it.
	And to be frank, much more consequential and important than Jack Murphy's video habits.
	No, I know.
	Look, people are saying he's a grifter.
	He's an alpha male.
	First of all, I don't know what an alpha male behavior is.
	If you think he's a grifter, don't buy his book.
	You don't get grifted.
	That's how the democracy of voting with your dollar works.
	But Robert, two things.
	Am I wrong?
	I was trying to think of the definition of fascism, and I look it up.
	Is fascism, technically speaking, not the marriage of big state?
	With big corporation and media censorship.
	Is that not the typical definition of fascism, or at least the true definition?
	Yeah, the merger of corporate and state power.
	And part of that corporate power being media power.
	I mean, those elements fit the classic historical application of it, yes.
	We literally have, and we know this now through lawsuits, through admissions, through Psaki, through Biden.
	We know that we have the government.
	Poking, you know, cajoling big tech, or sorry, not big tech, but social media to censor based on preferences, reputable news sources, etc., etc.
	We now literally have people who are not doctors, booting people who are doctors, not RFK, but Dr. Malone, from social media platforms.
	If it's not at the direct behest, it's at the very least at the nudge, nudge, wink, wink of the government.
	I mean, are we not living through true fascism at this point?
	I mean, it's aspects of it, no question.
	And especially, I mean, Twitter does this a week after they got sued by Alex Berenson.
	I don't think we actually discussed that on Sunday.
	I think it was one of the ones we didn't get to.
	It was Alex Berenson has brought a suit against Twitter in California in federal court.
	And I think it's federal court.
	And I think I put it up at our locals board, a copy of the suit.
	So you can read it yourself, but it brings up the theories that under traditional common carrier doctrine as applied in California law for more than a century, Twitter is violating that common carrier duty, and the question is whether that common carrier provision applies or whether Section 230 preempts it as well.
	So his case will test that because that precise question actually, to my knowledge, has not been litigated.
	The other thing that Berenson was able to show that probably people didn't know in advance is that high-ranking executives at Twitter specifically promised him that they would not be censoring him for his opinions.
	And they apparently just lied for an extended time period.
	So a week after Alex Berenson sues them for censorship concerning public discussion or public debate of COVID-19 policies, they get rid of probably the most prominent medical professional.
	You know, you have Peter McCullough and others, which have been very big as well.
	But he's in a unique space, Dr. Malone, because, again, he invented the technology that undergirds this mRNA vaccine.
	And, you know, there's no better person better equipped to speak to it than him.
	And just when he's being effective, they remove him.
	By the way, Spice Rack, it's literally in the works right now.
	We're trying to figure out the wording.
	But Robert, this is the question.
	There has been some discussion timeline-wise as to who Robert Malone was, when Wikipedia was updated, because this is like the true 1984 battle is getting your information when the information is accurate before it's been bastardized or modified.
	There was this discussion that Wikipedia had listed Robert Malone as the creator or one of the co-creators, co-inventors of mRNA technology or mRNA vaccine technology.
	Then it became known that, or the argument was then made, that no, that wasn't always the case.
	That was an edit that was undone.
	And so it becomes this battle back and forth as to when was it the legit sourcing versus the modified sourcing.
	And a great example was back with...
	Gretchen Whitmer, what was it, 45, 86-45.
	And then Wikipedia allegedly modified the term of 86 to remove killing from it.
	And then the question was, when was it added in the first place?
	And you get into this battle of information.
	Do you know Malone's credentials, as far as you understand them, set aside Wikipedia, whatever, what are his credentials in terms of actually playing?
	A meaningful role in developing mRNA technology.
	Not just meaningful.
	He was the founder of it.
	He was the creator of it, the originator of it.
	People have looked into this in detail and were able to substantiate that beyond doubt.
	They tried to claim otherwise for a period of time, but then people with the know-how did a deep dive and were able to disprove the critics of Malone pretty easily.
	That's why you only see...
	Occasional indirect references to it, all of a sudden the media backed off of that narrative.
	And mostly they went to trying to ignore Malone.
	And Malone continued to be very effective at raising the question.
	And again, because he comes at this, he's not an anti-vaxxer.
	He's not someone who's opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine.
	He's not opposed to certain groups getting the COVID vaccine.
	He's just saying the risk-reward ratio changes depending on your individual health status and your age and other demographics.
	And he was very well equipped to speak to this.
	And that's why the system couldn't have a voice like him raising questions.
	And this goes back to, we now know, this was part of government conspiracy, to put it frank, to shut up high-profile critics because the FOIA releases show that Fauci was instrumental with other people to be critical of people like Malone.
	They targeted anybody that had Nobel Prize winners, award-winning doctors and scientists.
	And when those people were coming out being critical, it terrified the medical political establishment that was for these particular policies.
	And we now have their emails saying that they're going to do hit jobs on these people.
	And that's clearly what's been taking place.
	And it's accelerated because, you know, you had this week, Fauci recommending prohibiting Americans from their constitutional right to interstate travel by conditioning that right upon taking this experimental vaccine.
	Who appointed, who elected Fauci to make policy?
	Like, they're doing it in Canada, except Canadians don't seem to care.
	Hey, bubble, certain provinces, you have your maritime bubble, you have your mid...
	Country bubble, you have your West Coast bubble, and limit your constitutional rights as though they never existed in the first place.
	I need to get the book, The Real Fauci.
	I did an interview today with Laura Lynn on her channel on Odyssey, and I noticed that she had the book on her desk, and I've been meaning to do it.
	It'll be my audiobook for the holidays.
	So they kicked Malone off Twitter.
	Is he still on Facebook and other meaningful social media?
	I don't know.
	I don't know, to be honest.
	Bless you.
	Bless it, Robert.
	And you're drinking a freaking Rockstar?
	Yeah, exactly.
	Is that the coffee one, too?
	It's silver.
	Pure zero silver ice.
	Those things are so disgusting.
	I mean, I say that, but I drink Red Bull.
	But those things are just too big.
	The Red Bull...
	At least they're small.
	But you're a Red Bull guy, right?
	Yeah, I have a soft spot for Red Bull.
	But only one, and only the small cans.
	The big cans...
	I'll be up all night, even if I have it at like 2 in the afternoon.
	So what is the status of Berenson's lawsuit against Twitter?
	It was old CEO that made the warranties and representations and new CEO that booted him, or was it the old CEO that he was booted under the old CEO?
	I mean, he was booted while that executive was still there.
	So it was a high-ranking executive that he—I don't know if he identifies his name in the suit, but it was a high-ranking Twitter executive that kept giving direct promises, hey, continue to build your Twitter audience and continue to communicate through Twitter because we won't be suspending you for these statements, questioning the institutional narrative.
	Then, of course, they reversed course and did that anyway.
	And it's interesting that Substack is becoming this really, it's like Locals, it's like Rumble, it's becoming this alternative speech platform that is really, a lot of interesting voices are on there.
	You're getting some of the best data and information from there these days.
	You know, someone we had interviewed before, the author of the dossier on the Substack.
	Had a big article today confirming what we've been talking about and what I've talked a lot, particularly on the locals board, which is that there is no FDA-approved vaccine available in the United States for COVID-19.
	That one is still unavailable.
	It's the emergency use authorization one that's being distributed.
	Though apparently high-ranking officials with Biden's Defense Department are going in and relabeling it.
	The emergency use author in putting the label of the FDA-approved one in direct violation of federal law.
	It's supposed to be a crime, but apparently it's okay if you're doing it for vaccines and with this Biden administration.
	For the greater good, Robert.
	So this is actually a question that Laura Lynn asked me today on our podcast, and I couldn't answer it.
	But RFK, and I believe it's in his lawsuit, was explaining why, in his view, they were trying to promote vaccination among children.
	And his perspective was that that had to do with the pharma companies benefiting from immunity where they get it under EUA, but when it goes mainstream, they no longer get it.
	So they have to go for children's use because even if it's used in adults, if it's used in children, it gets immunity.
	But I didn't understand that because I thought there was still immunity.
	Even with FDA approval, you just had to go through the fund for injury if there were an injury.
	What did I misunderstand there?
	It's basically, here's what's clear.
	If you are on the children's mandatory list, children's mandatory vaccine list, and if you are on the emergency use authorization list, you have complete immunity, no doubt.
	If you're not on either one of those lists, it's unclear.
	So the PrEP Act maybe gives immunity, maybe doesn't.
	Pfizer doesn't want to be anywhere near that gray space.
	So they have complete immunity as long as it's being distributed under the emergency use authorization.
	For people out there, It's now been more than four months since they approved a full FDA biologic licensed COVID-19 vaccine.
	And when it happened, all of us were like, well, then why are there any emergency use authorization vaccines out there still?
	Because by law, once there's a biologic licensed approved vaccine, they have to revoke the emergency use authorization vaccine.
	So how do they get around it?
	They said, well, the biologic licensed one isn't available yet.
	But don't worry, it's coming.
	That was four months ago.
	And Pfizer has basically made clear they have no intention of getting it out there anytime soon.
	And what we said at the time, Bobby Kennedy, Children's Health Defense, myself and others, Meryl Ness, who's been covering this for a long time, these kind of issues, was key, was a lead medical researcher challenging the anthrax experimental vaccine back in 2001 that became the subject of litigation at Dovey Rumsfeld.
	And for the military and for soldiers, and there's soldiers who took it that still regret it, that believe it caused certain health consequences they were unable to get remedy for.
	But if you looked at the logic of what they were doing, our prediction was they're not going to ever have a Pfizer, the full FDA biologic licensed approved vaccine.
	They're not going to put it out on the market until it's on the kids list.
	That was our prediction, because you could see what they were doing for legal reasons.
	And so far, we've been proven correct.
	And the media just lied about it, because the media said, well, it's medically interchangeable.
	But it's not legally interchangeable.
	So, that's what matters.
	It's very funny.
	It's legally distinct, is the way the FDA put it.
	Yeah, exactly.
	One, you're screwed.
	Well, medically interchangeable or functionally interchangeable versus identical are two very different things.
	I wish Candace Owens would have followed up with this question for Trump.
	If there's no injuries from the vaccine, as Trump apparently claimed in the interview, I mean, that's what happens when you, you know, he is in a bubble of his own these days.
	Why do they need immunity?
	It's my problem from day one.
	I will never trust a drug that has legal immunity.
	Because you don't need legal immunity if it's really safe, do you?
	No, and I noticed we were demonetized, but I think we've said too many buzzwords, and this will get to the manual review.
	This is not medical.
	It's amazing, but our sidebar from last week somehow got monetized.
	That covered every verboten topic on the planet.
	I mean, look, I don't argue.
	I know we said words that are triggering things, but this is one thing.
	This is not about the COVID vaccine.
	It's a known fact.
	Any needle in the body, even if it's pure saline, any foreign body being introduced into a body can trigger reactions.
	So to pretend that any vaccine or any medical intervention is without a potential reaction from the body, it's stupid.
	There's no other word for it.
	It's stupid and naive.
	So the only question is, what are the likelihoods?
	What are the odds?
	The joke is that...
	There's a disease which someone in my family had called GBS, Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is your body attacks your own nervous system and it actually can paralyze you to the point of killing you.
	But at the very least, in the example, in our family case, an individual was in the hospital paralyzed on a respirator and over the two years regained function of the body.
	Now, that can be an adverse reaction.
	To a vaccine, but that can also be an adverse reaction to the illness that a vaccine is intended to treat.
	So these things, just to pretend that they don't exist is one thing, but to put them in perspective is just a matter of fact.
	So to say no potential whatever is untrue, it's only a question of what's the likelihood.
	Well, it's as Aaron Rodgers, NFL quarterback, put it on, I think it's Pat McAfee's show.
	I think I have the last name, right?
	The former punter for the Indianapolis Colts who just got a very lucrative deal from a sports betting company.
	And what he said is, when you can't dispute the science, it's not science, it's propaganda.
	And he's just making a common sense observation.
	And it turned out, apparently, some NFL players' means of obtaining a vaccine card, Antonio Brown and some others decided to be a little creative, and I guess it didn't come from an official vaccine card.
	As to the critical drinker, yeah, he's definitely invited to do a future sidebar.
	Yeah, for sure, for sure.
	I love the fact that you read these while I bring them up.
	What was it?
	You just said something about...
	Aaron Rodgers and Antonio Brown.
	No, not being propaganda.
	I say this with deference and respect for religion.
	But if you can't question something, it's not science, it's religion.
	And now religion has a purpose.
	Religion has a purpose of guidance, structure, adherence.
	The significance of faith is that it's faith.
	It's not faith if it's based purely on math.
	You can't contradict it.
	You can't argue with it.
	And that's the fundamental difference between science.
	They both have purposes, but different ones.
	And when science becomes religion, that's not good for science.
	If religion were to become science, that wouldn't be good for religion.
	They both have their place in life.
	But unquestioning science as infallible or immutable, well, that turns science into blind faith, religion, or ritual.
	It's by definition not science.
	The whole point of science is to question things, is to challenge things, propose a hypothesis, and contest the hypothesis.
	So it's not science when somebody tells you you must believe in it.
	And so that's the giveaway.
	And here we got Viva.
	This is Britt Cormier.
	This is Viva.
	I have been listening to RFK Jr.'s book daily during my workouts.
	It is somehow both depressing and motivating at the same time.
	Depressing when you see, hear the details.
	But it does motivate me to think different.
	Look, I think the black pill moment has to come before the white pill moment.
	Or the red pill has to come before the white pill.
	What is the status of Berenson's lawsuit?
	It's infancy stages just filed.
	There's been no response.
	No progress.
	No nothing.
	Correct.
	And all Trump suits did ultimately get moved to the Northern District of California, as we predicted.
	And they're all subject to motions to dismiss.
	Currently, we'll see what happens.
	I love the motion stage.
	When Robert says we, I love being included in his predictions.
	It makes me smarter by association.
	And Malone gets booted.
	What's he going to do?
	Contest?
	You know, scream into the night sky and that's it?
	No, I mean, he's instrumental as part of the Unity Project, and while Twitter was an important platform for him to reach people, I think he'll continue to find additional ways to reach people, and I'll be in discussions with him about that probably pretty soon, too.
	I'm not going to read this.
	I'm just going to leave it up, and everyone can assess on their own.
	By the way, we are going to get to Ghislaine Maxwell, obviously.
	Of course.
	Have you considered a supplement and water filter salesman?
	We did a great sidebar with the one and only Alexander Emmerich Jones.
	It was great.
	Remonetized after manual review.
	When I hit that button, I watched it again.
	I said, did we do anything that I think runs afoul of the rules?
	I said, no, we didn't.
	YouTube did the right thing.
	He was in good spirits.
	I think you see a different side of Alex Jones.
	Alex is a great dramatist, natural in front of a camera or behind a microphone.
	But you see, I think the part of him that people don't see as much of that don't follow him on a regular basis is the very serious side to who he is.
	Very high energy and very serious side to him.
	Because he can be humorous.
	He likes to have fun.
	He likes to have jest.
	He likes to do the dramatic.
	But the people that really know him, that follow him in detail, understand the thoughtfulness that goes into his understandings.
	He may use hyperbole and the rest because that's the nature of effective communication frequently, but you see the more fuller intellectual side of him, extraordinarily well-read side of him.
	I mean, I'll be talking about some documentary I saw from 1967 about how they were manipulating information by the government and so on and so forth, and he'll start quoting it to me right back.
	I mean, it's incredible.
	I'll tell you this, Robert.
	I am such an idiot that last week, when we did our sidebar, and I had put together the top five or the top ten moments of our...
	Sidebars of 2021.
	I put it together.
	I had all of them lined up, and then I forgot to get to them during the video, during our stream.
	That was one of them.
	And my wife was watching it.
	And, you know, we had looked into the gay frogs beforehand.
	And my wife was like, yeah.
	Other than the way he's describing it, it's scientifically accurate.
	Then we got into the, what was it?
	Cell towers controlling your mind.
	Or thought control.
	And then it became a question of semantics.
	If something can...
	Interfere with your sleep.
	If someone could knowingly interfere with your sleep, you wouldn't call that thought control, but you would certainly call that psychological interference.
	And so it becomes a question of...
	Behavioral control.
	And at some level, behavioral control is thought control.
	And even if it's just to destroy you to the point of causing sleepless nights, that's a form of control.
	Absolutely.
	And now we don't sleep with our phones in our room.
	We don't look at the screen in as much as possible.
	20 to 60 minutes before going to bed because it changes your brain frequencies.
	So in as much as he's hyperbolic, it was an insightful, enlightening stream.
	I know he's vilified and hated by people who probably have never heard more than 10 minutes of what he's ever said.
	I found it amazing.
	I mean, didn't we start these like in February, almost a year ago today, the thereabouts, the sidebars?
	I think so.
	I mean, my memory is shot, Robert.
	I don't even know.
	I didn't...
	I don't know what day of the week it is anymore.
	I just know that I'm in my mother-in-law's studio doing streams with you, and I love it.
	Someone had asked, what do you think of Kim Potter's smiling mugshot?
	I didn't see it, but I did see the smiling mugshot of the Florida woman who disemboweled her boyfriend after smoking crystal meth because she thought he had spirits in him and she had to release the spirits.
	Her mugshot, Google it.
	I don't know if it was Florida.
	That might have been my own preconceived stereotype.
	Her mugshot was a Christmas card image.
	Smiling, hair well done.
	You wouldn't know that she was accused of having done what she just did.
	And the memes were, don't even do crystal meth once.
	Let me see what we've got here.
	I know you've covered it previously, but is there any real chance that Whitmer trial is thrown out because of the question?
	Robert, I put out the video yesterday.
	They're asking the same judge to dismiss the indictment who sentenced Ty Garvin subsequent to his plea deal.
	It's a big fat 0% chance snowball in hell, right?
	Yeah, it's very unlikely that the judge takes any remedial action, unfortunately.
	But they preserve the issue for appeal, they educate the court in moving forward, and they set up the case for trial.
	And they got very important arguments before the court of public opinion, all of which were critical.
	On our discussion of, you know, there's even more push.
	What we talked about on Sunday was that there was going to be this push by Mark Elias and Democrats to try to disqualify and throw out Republicans that they want to label insurrectionists on the grounds of what happened on January 6th.
	And now there's Congressmen officially calling for that.
	But I've seen some incredibly bad legal takes by people who report to be lawyers or legal minds on law Twitter, unsurprisingly.
	Law Twitter is where you go to unlearn the law.
	But basically saying things like, oh, there doesn't need to be a vote and all this other stuff.
	Again, you can go research for yourself.
	I'll put up on the locals board the opinion by Chief Justice Chase.
	It was his sole opinion, so it's not a binding opinion, but it was a pretty clear guiding opinion, which said you have to be criminally convicted of insurrection first, and then there has to be a separate independent.
	due process finding none of which they're anywhere they no one has even been criminally accused of insurrection related to january 6th in terms of the actual criminal proceedings they're turning due process into doo-doo process but a bing bada boom man and you said duty before and i i mentioned it um by the way let me bring this one up because i now know what the name means because someone messaged me and says by the way mike oxlong Is the same thing as the other Mike last name.
	Now, if you say fast enough together, people, you'll get the joke.
	I get the joke.
	And Mark Myward says, New York is voting on Jan 5th to detain, quote, health threats indefinitely and vax against their will.
	Which they said was never.
	When I was talking about it almost two years ago, a special edition American Countdown show I did for a couple of weeks for Alex Jones during the peak of this madness was, you know, predicting.
	That what you can see coming is mandatory vaccines.
	What you can see coming are detention camp ideology.
	We've now seen that in certain parts of the world.
	And what New York legislature is considering is expanding the quarantine power to you don't have to be sick to be quarantined.
	You just have to have a health official label you something and they can deprive you of your liberties.
	I mean, that's going to lead to more constitutional challenges.
	That's why...
	There's going to be major pressure.
	They're pushing so hard so fast with crazier and crazier rules.
	The mayor of New York, de Blasio, who's on his way out, said that you now need to check your housekeeper or anybody who works in your house, plumber or anybody else, because you're their employer for purposes of the vaccine mandate in New York City.
	And so you can't allow your nanny to be a nanny or your housekeeper or anybody working in your house for any reason to come in and work unless you double check their vaccine passport first.
	I mean, this is insanity upon insanity upon insanity.
	While Biden is saying, you know, really, we can't win.
	We can't do anything at the federal level.
	Well, what are all these mandates then?
	While he took a vacation to Delaware and, you know, after his Let's Go Brandon little episode.
	I think there'll be, this is all, from our perspective of those who oppose the mandates, I think all this helps with getting the Supreme Court to invalidate this, because they're seeing that there's just no limits.
	Another George W. Bush appointee said that the Oklahoma National Guard could have a vaccine mandate forced upon it by determining that there's no fundamental right against forcible medical treatment, which is directly contrary to controlling Supreme Court case law.
	Shows you how much.
	You knew where the judge was going by his beginning sentence about how scary and scary and scary COVID is.
	And this is what happens when you have senior citizens.
	He was a senior judge.
	Senior citizens presiding over opinions that this is about health risk to them.
	They want to force things on kids because they're worried about what can happen to them because they're the only category of people at risk.
	Robert, I had this insight today.
	First of all, Gam is in the background, so we're going to bring him in in a second.
	Ah, sweet.
	George Gammon is in the house.
	I hope he's comfortable talking about the Glenn Maxwell conviction.
	But everybody who was sitting out there saying, this is all for the greater good.
	It's for your neighbors, yada, yada.
	It's disguised selfishness because the people now that I'm, the only ones that I'm now seeing saying this are the ones who themselves feel vulnerable.
	And feel that everyone around them has to compromise their own corporal bodily integrity in order to preserve their own sense of safety.
	And it's gone the exact other way around.
	When anybody says it's for the greater good, it's new speak, selfish talk, for this is for my own good, for my own sense of well-being.
	And like you say, you're asking...
	We're not making fun of old people.
	We're just remarking on a demographic.
	The judges adjudicating these questions as to risk exposure and, you know, threat to life are the ones who are at risk themselves in the most meaningful sense that they are perhaps the most directly and immediately impacted by their own decisions on the very questions they're adjudicating on.
	And when you said it before, and I never appreciated it really.
	They should disqualify themselves in as much as the judges in Washington should disqualify themselves from anything related to the insurrection, because they were the objects of that insurrection, and if they were, they can't adjudicate on it.
	Now, hold on.
	Gammon now seems to have been...
	He's in two of the streams.
	I'm going to drop one of these.
	No, I don't want to ban you.
	I want to kick from studio.
	No, no, you don't.
	I'm not kicking anybody.
	Son of a gun, I did.
	Okay.
	Bringing him in.
	George, can you hear us?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Oh, man.
	So, I've never met you before.
	I'm surprised this was happening.
	Everyone in the chat now, by the way, this was supposed to be a solo, winging it, ask me anything, as if I'm interesting enough to have any questions that could be interesting enough to answer.
	And now it's turned into a bonafide, legit sidebar.
	George, first of all, everyone in the chat, tweet this out.
	Let's go share the message so we can get people in, and then we will get there.
	Before we even get there, let me just bring this one up so no one accuses me of being an insensitive member of the tribe who's being glib with historical atrocities.
	The old expression was Arbeit Mach Frey, which is work sets you free, and that was what was on the front of the camps.
	In Quebec, our government literally said, in a different language, vaccines will set you free.
	And I believe I might have actually said at the time, Vaccine Mach Frey, which is half of my last name.
	George, first time meeting you, first time talking to you.
	Elevator pitch for anybody who doesn't know who you are.
	Who are you?
	And let's take it from there.
	Well, I'm someone that started a YouTube channel in 2019 about macroeconomics and looking at it from a standpoint of Austrian economics and from a standpoint of freedom, liberty, free market capitalism.
	And the channel exploded.
	It's got 300 and...
	40 or so thousand subscribers.
	I've got another channel that I started a few months ago called Rebel Capitalist.
	And that's where we do five to seven videos a day, four to seven videos a day, just talking about the issues that matter to, I think, a lot of Americans and a lot of people around the world.
	And that's just pushing back on authoritarians and central planners.
	And where are you from?
	Originally born and raised, family history?
	Yeah, born and raised in Portland, Oregon.
	And then I moved down to Phoenix in the early 90s and then just kind of started my entrepreneurial journey in the late 90s.
	Most of the businesses that I started failed, as you can imagine.
	But then after all those failures, I got pretty good at it.
	And I ended up retiring in 2012 and started investing in real estate.
	And that's when I really got into macroeconomics.
	And it became a passion, maybe even an obsession of mine would be a better word.
	And then in 2019, I started that channel just to get my views off my chest.
	You know, it was funny as I did a public speaking engagement the other day, and Dr. Ron Paul was there.
	He was speaking prior to me getting up there on stage, and he was talking about how he or why he got into politics.
	And he said, really, he just had all these ideas and he was very passionate about them.
	And he just wanted a way to get them off his chest.
	And I said, boy, that's just, it really resonated with me because that's the exact same reason I started the YouTube channel.
	And we are, people in the chat, we're going to discuss Ghislaine Maxwell.
	I'm just trying to figure out, do we do it right now or work it in later?
	But George, what is macroeconomics for anyone out there, such as myself, who doesn't fully appreciate?
	Yeah, so macroeconomics would just be looking at things from a 30,000-foot level.
	So instead of analyzing the balance sheets of a business or maybe how...
	Businesses interact with one another and the consumer at a very local level, at a community level, at a neighborhood level, at a city level, state level.
	They're looking at, okay, what's the effect of the Fed keeping interest rates at 0% for 10 years going to be on not just the U.S. economy, but the global economy?
	How is the Eurodollar system, which is just the system of banks outside of the United States that create dollar-denominated loans, how is that $30 or $40 trillion of global dollar-denominated debt that resides outside of the United States on the balance sheets of corporations, how is that going to affect?
	The dollar long-term.
	And if the dollar goes to, let's say, 100 or 120 on the DXY, which is a measurement of the dollar against a basket of other currencies, most notably the euro, how is that going to affect inflation in the United States?
	And if inflation rises in the United States, how is that going to affect demand?
	What's that going to do to the stock market?
	If the stock market goes up or down, what's that going to do to the economy in Japan?
	What's that going to do to the Chinese economy?
	Another great example would be what...
	It's happening with Evergrande in China.
	Most people have heard about that, the implosion in the real estate market, which is 30% of their GDP.
	How is that going to affect the United States economy?
	That's macro.
	Yeah, I always describe George as someone who takes topics that can be technical and academic and makes it both accessible to a wide audience.
	You don't have to have read all of this economic underlying materials to get valuable, accessible information from George's presentations, and it's actionable, something that you can do in your everyday life.
	At any stage, you don't have to be super rich to get...
	The benefits of this.
	You don't have to be a big investor to get this.
	There's practical advice that's out there.
	Simple things.
	And things like having, I think he calls it a plan B. I call it an exit plan, however you do it.
	Having some contingency plans in place in case the proverbial hits the fan.
	Now, speaking of which, I think when you first talked, you were down in Columbia.
	How did you first get involved in international real estate?
	And how did everything that happened with the coronavirus lead to...
	To, you know, changing physical, geographic, temporary location.
	Right.
	So in 2015, that was another macro story, too, by the way.
	2014 or 15, oil was down below 30 a barrel, and I thought it was cheap at that time.
	So I wanted to go long oil, but I didn't know anything about it.
	So I was in Ecuador at the time, and I saw, well, this Colombian peso.
	Is loosely tied to the price of oil because it's a majority of their exports.
	So I thought, well, you know, if I buy the bonds, it's still kind of tied to the currency and I don't really want to go along the currency itself as a direct play on oil.
	I don't really know how that works, but I do know about real estate because I've been investing in real estate since 2012 and I got pretty good at it.
	So I thought, well, if I can buy some real estate that's denominated.
	I'm focusing on something that I know well, but at the same time, it's kind of a derivative of the oil market.
	And so I said, well, let's go into Columbia and give it a shot.
	And I started investing there.
	I brought my team there from Ecuador and I fell in love with it.
	It's just from a personal standpoint.
	The returns were great.
	So that's just kind of a double whammy.
	But just from a personal standpoint, I love the people.
	I love the weather.
	I love the food.
	The cost of living is sensational.
	It's just a fantastic time or a place to spend time.
	Now fast forward to 2019.
	I actually did a TV show there called Vida en Remodelación.
	So the Remodeling Life.
	And this was just a kind of reality TV show like HGTV.
	I produced it and I was in it, believe it or not.
	And then we kind of took that team.
	And once we got done with season one, we parlayed that into the YouTube channel and kind of the rest is history.
	But in 2020, when we had the COVID, I started talking about that in January of 2020 because buddies of mine like Chris Martinson.
	Dr. Chris Martinson, we're talking about it, and I've got a ton of respect for him.
	And so I'm like, well, if Chris is talking about this, I need to pay attention.
	Also, my good friend Eric Townsend, who has a podcast called Macro Voices, started talking about it.
	So that's when it got on my radar.
	And then Columbia went into lockdown mode.
	I believe it was in March of 2020.
	And you couldn't even leave your apartment.
	And most of the housing there.
	Our high-rise apartments, because it's down in a valley.
	There's not too many single-family homes.
	So, you know, I had a great place, but not to get locked in it, you know, 24 hours a day.
	So I didn't want any part of that.
	And I wanted to get out, but I tried to...
	You couldn't even cross the state border.
	And they canceled all flights.
	So you literally were completely stuck.
	So I tried to get a private plane.
	And I couldn't get that.
	I even tried to rent a yacht to take me from Cartagena in the coast, anywhere in the Caribbean islands, you know, just to get out so I could maybe get a flight back to the United States or just a flight to somewhere where there was some freedom.
	And I couldn't do it.
	And so finally, I got a humanitarian flight.
	Out of Colombia, because you had Colombians that were stuck in the United States and gringos that were stuck in Colombia.
	So once a month, they would have a Spirit, I think, Airways or Airlines flight that would go from Fort Lauderdale to Medellin, and then from Medellin back to Fort Lauderdale.
	So I got on that, and then in the interim, I did some research as to which...
	The area, if any, in the world had some degree of freedom and some degree of normalcy.
	And that was St. Barts, just a little teeny island in the Caribbean and a very rich island to say the least.
	But a good friend of mine who's a former hedge fund manager named Hugh Hendry lives there.
	And I basically just text him and told him the story and said, Hey, are the gyms open?
	And he goes, You mean the gym?
	I said, I don't care.
	And he goes, yeah, everything here is open.
	You don't have to wear a mask.
	There's no lockdowns or anything.
	So that's where I went.
	What's the cost of living on St. Bart's?
	I mean, it's nice if you're isolated, but to get a can of orange juice is going to cost $15.
	Yeah, it's not just the food that really gets you.
	It's the rent.
	I mean, it's staggering.
	My friend Hugh has a couple of rental properties there, and I don't want to disclose what he rents them for.
	But let me put it to you this way.
	During the high season, which is kind of the winter there into January, February, if you have a very nice place, which is most of the places there, you're renting it for six figures per week.
	Wow.
	Okay, I'm going to bring this back to Canada for a second because back last year there was, I forget who he was, it was someone affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada who was the one tweeting out, this Christmas we've got to celebrate differently.
	You know, stay home and celebrate with your family.
	It's not good.
	We all have to do it together.
	And he pre-recorded that video and then tweeted out while he was in St. Barts.
	And I remember St. Barts by name.
	So how the heck are these Canadian politicians Affording these places, even for vacation, six figures in American dollars or in Bartanian dollars?
	No, no, no.
	It's U.S. dollars.
	The currency in St. Bart's is American dollars.
	That's what I...
	Yeah.
	No, it's got to be...
	I think it was euros.
	Boy, I was there for two months.
	You'd think I'd know.
	I was just using my credit card, so I didn't even pay any attention to it.
	Okay, never mind.
	That leads to a whole other line of questioning.
	Yeah, so that's phenomenally interesting.
	You had to escape from Colombia on, what did you call it?
	Humanitarian flight.
	Yeah, that's what they called it.
	Holy crap.
	And then sneak all the way into St. Bart.
	Now, did you ever like this for...
	Aspects of this, we've discussed, you could kind of anticipate if you followed certain people, if you followed the agenda of people like Bill Gates and some other people, you could see some of this coming.
	But still, the scale and the scope of it has been shocking.
	Was it kind of just out of the blue to you to see this happen to so many parts of the world?
	Everybody put up their own Berlin Wall all around the world overnight?
	No, it wasn't.
	It was rather shocking.
	But as far as the spread of COVID, that was not.
	Because I was looking at the numbers.
	And back then, you know, Chris was, Dr. Chris Martinson, was pointing out the R0 value.
	And when you looked at the R0 value and how quickly it was spreading and the exponential growth, you kind of just do the math and you're like, okay, well, this is going to impact the entire world.
	And, you know, back then, you didn't know how...
	I mean, I was even talking about, well, listen, this could really impact the hospitals.
	This is not the flu.
	This is something that, you know, we need to be concerned with.
	But even back then, and I think this pertains to everyone's life today and into the future, I was able to, I think, make the right calls because I always tried to focus on principles.
	Because back then, you know, I'm talking about March, April.
	I mean, you knew this was bad.
	You knew this was going to be a pandemic.
	I remember my friend Chris Irons, who runs a podcast called QTR, Quote the Raven.
	And he was coming out and saying that Japan might even cancel the Olympics.
	And I remember people were just telling him, oh, you're a tinfoil hatter, you're a conspiracy theorist, you're this, you're that.
	And I'm like, no, this could happen.
	You know, if this thing does have an R-naught value of five or six or whatever they're projecting at the time, we could see this get really, really bad.
	And so during that time, you know, I was being interviewed by a lot of podcasts and they thought, well, what, you know, you're talking about how this could get bad.
	This could, we could see martial law.
	And even in the United States, we could see them going to lockdown.
	We could see, you know.
	Who knows what could happen?
	But from an economic standpoint, we could just see utter devastation.
	But then this is transmittable.
	What do we do about hospital capacity?
	I was getting all these questions.
	And again, back then, especially at the beginning, you just really didn't know how bad this was going to be.
	But the one thing I always said, because I'd really try to think this through because so many people are hanging on your word.
	A social media influencer, if you want to use that term.
	I mean, you've got a lot of responsibility to make sure that you're not just telling the truth, but really thinking it through and using critical thinking.
	Because a lot of people are going to rely on you to do some of that critical thinking for them, unfortunately.
	That's just the way it is.
	So I thought, you know...
	I think it's just best to stick with my principles here.
	And I don't know what's going to happen.
	I don't know if this is airborne Ebola.
	Because, again, back then you didn't know.
	But I do know that the government shouldn't get involved.
	The government should give us the statistics.
	They should give us the data.
	They should be honest.
	They should be humble.
	When they don't know something.
	And then if they think they know, they should tell us, but they should give as much data as possible to the people and let them make a decision as to whether or not they want to close their business, whether or not they want to keep it open, whether or not they want to go outside, whether or not they want to go over to grandma's house.
	You have to leave it up to the individual because if you don't, even if this turns out to be really, really bad, which fortunately, you know, it didn't turn out to be as bad as it could have been back at the beginning.
	If you allow the government to get involved, the cost is going to far outweigh the benefit in the long run.
	The one thing you mentioned, in terms of imperfect data making such rash decisions, first of all, they never needed to impose martial law because the people imposed it on themselves.
	But when it comes to making those decisions, and I said this from the beginning, you don't make these types of decisions based on imperfect information.
	You only shut down the world.
	When you know that you absolutely need to.
	Other than that, you don't shut it down on the fear of.
	You shut it down knowing that this will happen.
	And we got it all backwards.
	But by this point in life, George, you're already established, right?
	How did you get yourself established economically, socially by the time of the outbreak?
	And what did that look like in terms of how you got to where you were by the time this pandemic destroyed the world?
	As far as after I retired?
	Well, how did you get to the position where you could retire pretty young?
	Oh, well, a lot of trial and error.
	A lot of failures.
	In fact, I don't know who said it, but it's very, very true.
	You can look at someone and however successful they are today is an indication of how many times they've failed in the past.
	And so it's just being stupid enough and having enough Unjustifiable confidence in your own ability just to keep doing it over and over and over again.
	And finally, you kind of get the hang of it.
	And I started multiple businesses, consulting businesses, an ad agency where we're doing media buying, as an example.
	That was the first one that was kind of profitable.
	Then I had a convention business that took me to 2012, and that's when I decided to kind of hang it up.
	That was the last business that I had.
	And then when I started in 2012, I knew nothing about investing at all.
	I mean, zero.
	But as an entrepreneur...
	I wanted to be kind of in control of my own destiny.
	I would never want to delegate that to a financial planner.
	And that's when I really started to really get into investing to try to figure out how to invest my own money.
	But then that's what took me down the path of macro.
	And that's what I became very passionate about.
	But it was just basically kind of the entrepreneurial journey that you've heard so many times where, you know, you've always got an idea.
	Zero dollars up to about 10 million in revenue.
	Once it got past that, I was horrible.
	And I always told people, once you get to a point in the business where you've got to hire an HR person, that's when it's time for me to leave.
	But that's a trial and error thing too.
	As a successful entrepreneur, you first and foremost have to put your ego aside.
	And you just have to be honest with yourself as far as what your strengths are and what your weaknesses are.
	And then once you figure that out, then you've got to really just try to do a lot more of what works and a lot less of what doesn't.
	And that's something I learned about myself very, very early, is that I don't like red tape.
	I don't like bureaucracy.
	And running a business with 10 employees is much, much different than running one with 50. And that's much different than running one with 100.
	And that's way, way different than running one with 1,000.
	Those skill sets are completely, completely different.
	So that's one reason why, toward the end, I was able to make a little bit more money, because I just realized what my skills were, and I tried to emphasize those skills and kind of just downplay the ones that, or downplay the, or try to stay out of the environment where I knew I would not be successful.
	Now, one of your fun economic experiments was working at McDonald's.
	Can you explain that to people?
	Yeah, that was something that I just got fascinated with creating content.
	I get very passionate about things, and I want to get things off my chest.
	One of the things that just made me so frustrated, 2015-2016, was the people that would say, That we need the government to come in and increase wages.
	We need the government to come in and do this.
	We need the government to do this and that.
	And as if there's no hope for people.
	And that was one thing that really got underneath my skin was this message that, and I don't care if you're left or right or whatever, but the message of...
	That's very pervasive now, especially, but was also pervasive back then, is telling people that there's no hope for you.
	That you cannot achieve anything without the help of the government.
	And just, you know, if you start feeding people this message, when they're kids especially, and they hear it over and over and over again, they completely lose hope.
	They don't even try to be successful in life because they think that there's no way that they can.
	And therefore, the only way that they can improve their lot in life is just to elect or vote for someone that's just going to give them freebies, which in my opinion just makes things worse on net balance.
	So that was really annoying to me.
	So I said, how can I move the needle here?
	And I was looking at creating content online.
	So I said to myself, and I was in Tucson actually helping out my younger brother, and I won't go into great detail, but I had a lot of time on my hands, let's just say that.
	So I'm like, well, I'll just start a vlog where I kind of track my progress, and I kind of just do these videos, and I'm going to go out, and I'm going to start from scratch.
	And I think that what I was doing is I set up with $5,000 and a vehicle and an apartment.
	And that was my starting point.
	And from there, I was going to try to parlay that into a million dollars, just getting a minimum wage job.
	I was going to show and I was going to just really kind of track the whole history of the project to show people that it could be done.
	So I didn't have any preference as to what minimum wage job I got.
	But the only place that would hire me, I thought that was really funny.
	I put in like 20 different resumes and no one would even give me a job interview.
	And I'm like, man, that's weird.
	I suspect the reason was that you're overqualified.
	I don't know.
	I didn't really go into my resume.
	You know, I didn't say that I was retired.
	Self-made millionaire on my resume.
	I didn't go into that.
	I tried to, you know, just do something that might look appropriate for a resume for someone.
	And I just kind of, you know, I told him the truth.
	I said, hey, I'm just in Tucson.
	I'm just here helping out my younger brother.
	So I'm just looking for work.
	But the only place that would hire me was the local McDonald's.
	Well, you might sound like a serial killer if I'm just being objective, George.
	Helping out my brother, you know, bury some things in the backyard.
	Sorry, sorry.
	I just need to make some humor there because that's actually kind of funny.
	You couldn't get a job anywhere, but you get a job at McDonald's.
	And you're going to do this to show that you can work it up to something more than just a job at McDonald's.
	Yeah.
	So what I was doing, and then I was working Uber.
	So I'd work the McDonald's gig like four days a week or so.
	And then in all my off time, I would just work Uber.
	To bring in that money to grow my savings as quickly as I could.
	And I just had the cheapest apartment I could find in Tucson.
	It was just some crack house that I think I was paying maybe $400 a month for or something like that.
	And I kept track of everything in one bank account.
	And what I did is I even had a little promo video.
	And I called it Minimum Wage to Millionaire.
	That was the name of the project.
	And what was funny about that is...
	The first couple days that I was working at McDonald's, they said, well, we're going to put you on the cash register, work in the drive-thru.
	I said, yeah, okay, cool.
	What they do is they give you a brand new till where they've got a set amount of money in there for change.
	Then when you get done with your shift, you bring that to the manager and they count out and see if you're up a penny or up 25 cents or down or whatever.
	If you're way off more than, you know, three nights in a row or something like that, they say, hey, you got to get better at this, right?
	But no one is ever, you know, spot onto the penny because you're just giving so many people change.
	You got to do it all in your head.
	And so the first night I gave her the thing and she tallied it up and she looked at me like she had just seen a ghost.
	And she said, I cannot believe this.
	I said, oh, what is something wrong?
	And she says, no, it's perfect down to the penny.
	I've never seen this in my entire life.
	I said, okay, maybe I might be kind of good at math.
	I don't know.
	From that day on, they had me work in the cash register every single night.
	Every single night that I work.
	I was able to save up a bit of money.
	Then I started flipping trucks with the money that I saved up.
	I was doing that instead of the Uber because that was far more profitable.
	And I got to a point where I think I had maybe $20,000 or $25,000 in the bank, starting with five, just working a minimum wage job and paying all my bills and expenses, by the way, because I had it.
	Kept in just one bank account.
	Paying everything with the McDonald's.
	Basically what would happen is the McDonald's job would pay for my expenses and then the Uber would pay.
	That's how I kind of saved up the money to start flipping the trucks in the first place.
	And that was a skill set I had already had.
	So that was what I was doing.
	I was just documenting the whole process and I was going to turn it into this vlog and release it on the world.
	I still have a lot of the raw footage.
	About six months into it or so, my brother needed more help, and I had to move him to another area.
	It was obviously my number one priority, was my brother's health.
	And so I had to stop the project and kind of just put it on pause.
	And then when I got my brother situated, then I couldn't go back to Tucson because they needed me in Medellin to focus on some of the real estate projects.
	And that's pretty much when I got into the TV show.
	But all things lead to the next.
	The minimum wage to millionaire, I probably never would have done the TV show.
	And if I wouldn't have done the TV show, I probably never would have done the YouTube channel.
	And I wouldn't be talking to you right now.
	So it's kind of...
	Things happen for a reason.
	And it's amazing.
	I'm going to say this so that people don't get too upset.
	At exactly one hour and 15 minutes into this stream, we're going to talk about Ghislaine Maxwell, whether it fits into the conversation or not, people.
	So don't worry.
	Second thing.
	I'm going to ruin you, George, for everyone else watching.
	You remind me of Phil Dunphy from Modern Family in demeanor and in speech pattern and delivery.
	And now I feel like I've known you for 10 years.
	Okay.
	I don't know who that is.
	Oh, Phil Dunphy.
	He's the real estate agent, but the father in Modern Family.
	One of the best shows ever.
	Okay, cool.
	And the Fed.
	And that reminds me that you are currently suing the Fed for an audit.
	Is that not correct?
	A FOIA request.
	Yeah, so hopefully it won't get to a lawsuit.
	But yeah, we've got a FOIA request with our good friend Robert Barnes here.
	You notice how I'm segueing this into another federal lawsuit, which is going to be of interest.
	But that's the segue.
	So you filed the FOIA request for the Fed.
	Sorry, what are you asking for from the Fed?
	Well, I think a better question would be maybe what we're not asking for.
	But the genesis of this was, how was it?
	Maybe a year ago, Robert?
	Something like that?
	Yeah, or I think of it as pre-pandemic, but no, I guess it wasn't because we met up in Vegas.
	Yeah, and I remember we had to wear a mask.
	Yeah, that's right, to give the steak out.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	But yeah, I was in Vegas, and I just text Robert.
	I said, hey, let's go grab dinner.
	And so we went down to my favorite steakhouse in Vegas, which is at the Palazzo.
	It's a place called Cut.
	And Robert and I were just enjoying great conversation.
	We were probably there for three hours just talking back and forth.
	And I brought up the Fed violating the Federal Reserve Act when they came in in March of 2020.
	And dropped interest rates down to zero and announced that they were going to do QE infinity, and they were going to set up this special purpose vehicle to buy corporate debt and junk bonds.
	And I said, how can they do that?
	That is in such a violation of the Federal Reserve Act, and CNBC doesn't call them out on it, or Bloomberg doesn't call them out on it.
	It's completely illegal, and it's obvious to anybody that's even willing to look at it for more than five seconds.
	And, you know, people would argue that, well, if they wouldn't have done that, the whole economy would have gone into recession and whatnot.
	And I said, okay, well, that may be true.
	I think that's debatable.
	But what's the cost there?
	And what's the constraint on the Federal Reserve?
	I mean, the Constitution is supposed to be the constraint on the federal government, and the Federal Reserve Act is supposed to be the constraint on the Fed.
	And we can't just have these central planners going around and just doing anything they want with absolutely no constraint, because that puts us on a very, very slippery slope.
	So I said, Robert, you know, how can we push back against the Fed?
	What can we do?
	He says, well, we could do a FOIA request to try to figure out exactly what they did during 2020.
	And then we can look at what they actually did.
	And then we can look at the law, the Federal Reserve Act, and see.
	Number one, if they violated the act, which I think is completely obvious.
	If they didn't violate the letter of the act, they definitely violated the spirit of the law.
	And you guys would know more about that than I would, obviously.
	And so I said, yeah, let's do that.
	The FOIA thing, how do we do it?
	So that was kind of the genesis of where we are today.
	And I think maybe a month or two we should get a response from the Fed.
	Yeah, we got our initial response that said they just needed a little bit more time.
	I mean, the interesting thing is, as soon as we publicly announced the case, the next week, the Fed announced changes in the rules and how to do FOIA requests.
	For the first time in like six years.
	So, you know, maybe that was coincidence.
	Maybe it wasn't.
	There are no coincidences and there are no conspiracy theories, to quote Steve Cannon.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	And then later on, after the first set of requests got submitted in, we requested information about stock trading and a whole bunch, basically everything.
	What we had is we had a bank auditor review everything that the Fed should produce if he was auditing them like he audited banks.
	And so we incorporated that, plus the information George had, plus information people had sent in to us.
	And basically had a long litany of requests.
	And basically to audit the Fed by foying the Fed.
	And so their response is, at this point, they're not refusing to produce.
	They're saying we just need a little bit more time to produce.
	But after our first set of requests also got submitted, whether it was coincidence or not, is when the information came out about several of the Fed.
	Board members doing their own little insider trading deals related to the pandemic.
	That was some of the stuff that we requested for the FOIA.
	So I don't know if we triggered something in there or not.
	But it's also the utility of this.
	What most people didn't know is until 2009, it was assumed that you couldn't FOIA the Fed because the Fed has this quasi, maybe we're private, maybe we're public, maybe, you know.
	Kind of routine to avoid legal accountability is what it really is.
	To have all the power of the state without any of the accountability of the state.
	But in 2009, Bloomberg and some other people sued to get some specific records related to what they did in 08. And the court said, no, the Fed is subject to FOIA and the individual branches are subject to FOIA.
	And that shocked them all.
	They thought they could hide and tell information in certain places that would keep them outside of FOIA.
	But no one has ever followed up on that until now.
	So this is the first major attempt to audit the Fed through FOIA.
	And we should, any time now, they said that they needed an extension until the end of December.
	So we'll see if we get something in the next week or two, or they start begging for another extension.
	At some point, they run out of time for an extension.
	We can sue them to force them to disclose.
	But then they can be subject to additional costs and whatnot.
	So my guess is we will get something, but we'll see how much it is.
	But it'll be fun.
	But I tell people, if it goes south or sideways, it wasn't my idea.
	It was all George's idea.
	I saw a chat that said, snakes don't have armpits, and I can't find it now.
	Oh, son of a gun.
	Well, whoever said snakes don't...
	Oh, here it is.
	Here it is.
	Chris Firestone.
	First of all, funny, and you got me.
	And I'm trying to kill 30 more seconds.
	We've got Rick Clark.
	Check out Herb and Rye.
	Great Vegas steak restaurant.
	They've got a 50% off steak drinks happy hour.
	It's off the strip, 5 to 10 minutes.
	Thank you both.
	And the Fed.
	I'm looking up the light again, not the camera.
	The question I have leading into the segue.
	I was told the Federal Reserve is neither federal nor a reserve.
	Discuss amongst yourselves after we talk about Ghislaine Maxwell.
	One hour and 15 minutes in.
	George, you may not have much to...
	I don't know if you're going to have any sharp, very opinionated opinions on the matter.
	That's terrible.
	But Ghislaine Maxwell, people want to know.
	Robert, I guess you're going to have to feel this one.
	Was convicted on five of the six counts today.
	We cannot ignore this.
	We're going to do it.
	We're going to talk about it.
	People are going to learn.
	Convicted on the five of the six counts.
	Cernovich tweeted out today, this feels like the end of The Godfather.
	It's all wrapped up nice and tidy.
	Go into a cabinet and we'll watch you next year.
	Nothing more to see here.
	And I say they have successfully finished the greatest cover-up through prosecution ever.
	When Biden was running for president, Trump was asking, who built the cages, Joe?
	Who built the cages?
	And I'm sitting here saying...
	Who were your clients, Ghislaine?
	Who were your clients?
	And we're never going to know.
	Robert, first things first.
	And George, if you have anything you want to add up to this, what do we think about this conviction?
	And what do we think about this ending to a saga and whether or not it goes any further from here?
	I mean, I doubt it will.
	I thought it was a very effective cover trial in that they managed to make this.
	The narrative will now be that Jeffrey Epstein was just a pervert and Ghislaine Maxwell was desperate to placate him and he rewarded her with money.
	For placating his perversions and that that's it.
	And that there was no broader blackmail, no broader extortion, no broader intelligence agency involvement.
	In particular, in the case of the fact that both of them had deep ties to the UN and various UN activities.
	And Epstein himself, I don't know if you ever looked at it, George, the other people that have, like Eric Weinstein and some others.
	Supposedly, he made all his money as a hugely successful trader, and yet there's very little evidence of that, very little footprints of that.
	It appears more to be a cover story than it does to be the actual source and origin.
	Of his money.
	It appears that, you know, the blackmail basically was disguised somehow as trading cash, as trading gains.
	But the, but yeah, and I think, and you're already seeing the media kind of repeat that narrative.
	The official narrative is Ghislaine Maxwell just helped Jeffrey Epstein, who was a bad guy, do some bad things to some young girls.
	Not that there was any ties to any other political actor of any type or public official.
	Or anyone else.
	So I think they neatly wrapped it up.
	I mean, she was guilty, so it would have been hugely embarrassing to have any acquittals come out of that case.
	It took quite a while to get to those.
	Don't know why it took so long to get to five out of six guilty verdicts.
	But I think it was the right verdict from that sense.
	But I think the cover-up trial is now finished and there's a bow on it.
	And that's kind of the end of it.
	And it's how powerful people stay powerful.
	And that the system, even when they're prosecuting the culprits, they manage to leave the real culprits out of the equation.
	Much like...
	2008, you know, it was like they go after a little Chinese bank is the only bank they went after in New York related to everything that happened leading the buildup to 2008 as if the big banks had nothing to do with it.
	And of course, the biggest criminals are really located at the Federal Reserve anyway.
	And one question, Robert, before we will discuss this on Sunday regardless, but the sealing of the file.
	Now, I couldn't find any articles specifically saying that the file was sealed, but I understood that after the conviction, Ghislaine Maxwell filed sealed.
	Is that the case or am I missing?
	I don't know.
	I don't know.
	She may have filed something sealed, but not that I know of.
	All right.
	Well, I mean, look, everyone knows what we think about the Ghislaine Maxwell.
	George, not to put you on the spot, do you have any opinions on the Ghislaine Maxwell trial or conviction?
	Or should we move back onto the Fed?
	Well...
	Not specifically regarding the trial.
	I defer to you guys for that.
	You're the pros.
	I see it just glancing at it from time to time, but I haven't gotten into the nitty-gritty just because it's not my focus.
	My focus is on economics and the freedom and liberty and pushing back on the mandates and those types of issues right now.
	But one thing...
	That I think ties into this case is something I've been talking about on the Rebel Capitalist channel quite a bit lately.
	And this is the idea of the general public putting their faith and trust in the politicians and those people who are in charge of these institutions, such as Fauci.
	You know, such as Walensky, or such as a lot of the people that were loosely tied to this case that you guys are talking about.
	And if you look at the politicians, and it's just not on the left, it's on the right, it's most of them, it's 99% of them.
	And especially if you look at the people that are in charge of these institutions, they have contradicted themselves so...
	Many times.
	And they have openly lied to people.
	They have told them that, you know, you should do this.
	And two weeks later, they say, you shouldn't do this.
	And then they say, well, I had to lie because if I didn't lie, then people wouldn't have done what I wanted them to do.
	I mean, Fauci's come out and said this.
	Biden's come out and said this multiple times.
	I even did a story today on student loan debt.
	And going back to the campaign trail when Biden was coming out and saying that he was going to forgive $10,000 at a minimum of every person's student loan bill.
	Well, what happened to that?
	So my point there was, if this was a person in your personal life that was lying to this extent, you would get them out of your life as quickly as possible.
	And to think that not only are the average Joe and Jane, the average CNN viewer, if you want to call them that, not only are they not completely ignoring what these people are saying about health, but they're also taking it further to where they're trusting them on what type of foreign substance they should inject into the body of their five-year-old.
	It's bizarre on a whole new level.
	And I think that this case and the people that...
	They have talked about being involved with this case.
	Maybe they weren't prosecuted, but other people.
	These are people that today the average CNN viewer is looking to and kind of delegate their thinking and delegate their health decisions to, for not only themselves, but their children.
	And I'm like, how on earth can you trust that person to that degree?
	Jordan, I want to bring this up.
	Leon's Law says, I lied to you for your own good.
	It's rhetorical.
	But it's quite literally, tell me something.
	If it's true, good.
	If it's a lie, just tell me why you lied and we can move on and I'll accept the reason for which you admit now that you lied to me.
	It's a classic abusive relationship.
	And this is tongue-in-cheek, but it's true.
	But Robert, sorry, what were you going to say?
	Yeah, I was going to say the one of the things I think is that people in the independent economic space were more alert to a certain degree to the probabilities of so-called experts lying in the public health space than I think other people were in the sense that if you understand CNBC is not the reliable author or narrator of what's actually happening economically.
	How much do you think that prepped you for Knowing that what's coming down the pike might not always be in our best interest.
	That's huge.
	In fact, I never really connected those dots.
	So thank you very much.
	But yeah, for someone like myself that has been incredibly skeptical of mainstream economics, Keynesian economics, let's say, and a lot of people that would fall into the kind of Austrian school or Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, and some...
	Bob Murphy, Tom Woods, people like that.
	We have been talking about this for a long, long time where you sit here and you listen to the mainstream media and you read these articles.
	Let me give you an example.
	I just read an article today.
	I did a story on it from The Guardian where an economist, a mainstream economist that's actually a professor at one of these universities in...
	In Massachusetts, came out and said that the way we need to tame inflation right now is through price controls.
	It's like, what are you talking about?
	How can that...
	How can those words come out of your mouth in anything that's other than a joke?
	I mean, we know what price controls do.
	They reduce the supply.
	They reduce the quality.
	And when you lift the price controls, you have a massive spike in inflation, far higher than you otherwise would have seen.
	It's exactly what we saw in the 1970s.
	It's exactly what we saw in the 1940s.
	So my point is we...
	In this space are very accustomed to pushing back and being very skeptical of the mainstream narrative because the mainstream narrative is almost always wrong.
	Almost always wrong.
	When you're listening to scenes, it's just nonsense.
	It's drivel.
	And you know that it's wrong.
	It's right there in front of your face daily.
	And so if you're living that year after year after year, and then I think to your point, when something else comes up that's maybe not specifically, I would argue it's probably the biggest macroeconomic event in our lifetime.
	But it's not usually within that wheelhouse.
	You see the exact same jargon.
	The exact same tactics that instead of just the Keynesian economists, the Paul Krugman types, the people at the Fed, the central planners lying to you and just making all these mistakes and not having a clue what they're talking about, or maybe there's even malicious intent there.
	Now you see the exact same MO, if you will, with our health officials.
	You're able to call that out very, very quickly.
	And George, look, I don't want to be accused of one thing, which is soft stuff with no concrete practical application.
	Let's just say people now want to start hedging their bets.
	So, you know, price capping is bad.
	Price fixing is bad.
	Printing money is bad.
	I saw people, I'm so reluctant to even say the word Bitcoin because we saw what happened to Eric Hundley, the second he mentioned cryptocurrencies.
	What do people do now?
	Where do they hedge their bets in terms of inflation, in terms of buying things that are going to retain value, or dare I say, appreciate in value?
	What do people do right now to try to maximize the money they've saved above and beyond making more money than what they're making right now?
	It's a very difficult question because when you look at ever-increasing rates of inflation, what that does is it forces you out the risk curve.
	So let's just say that the risk-free investment right now would be a U.S. Treasury 10-year.
	Well, that's trading at 1.5%.
	So if you just assume that inflation is running at 7, that's CPI at 6.8, headline CPI.
	And we know darn well that's wildly understated.
	So let's just say that it's running at 15%.
	I'm sorry?
	CPI?
	The CPI, yeah.
	Consumer Price Index, which has changed over the years.
	And I think they're going to change it again.
	The Biden administration has already talked.
	The way they're going to solve the inflation problem is they're just going to change how they calculate inflation.
	But that's a good point, Robert.
	That's another thing that we in this space...
	The econ geeks like myself and Peter Schiff is another good example.
	You know, we have seen this nonsense just constantly for years and years and years.
	So when you see the BS over here, it's very easy to see the BS over there as well.
	But back to your earlier point, it's extremely difficult because when you get inflation running at, let's say, 10-15% and the risk-free...
	Investment is a 10-year treasury trading at 1.5.
	There's a delta there of, let's say, 13.5%.
	You've got negative real interest rates of, let's say, 13.5%.
	If you just put your money in the bank, cash, or even bought that treasury, you're going to be losing a massive amount of purchasing power every year.
	Just think about that compounded over five years.
	What ends up happening is people have to go, if inflation is at, let's say, 3% or 4%, Well, now they can go from a treasury to, let's say, a real estate.
	And at least you're going to be keeping up with the rate of inflation, most likely, with real estate.
	But then if inflation goes to 7%, well, now you've got to go from real estate, now you've got to go to growth stocks like Facebook, Google, Amazon.
	Well, that's a lot more risk.
	There's a lot more downside there.
	And then if you've got inflation going from 7% to, let's say, 15%, now all of a sudden you can't keep pace with Facebook, Netflix, and Google.
	So what do you do?
	You have to buy an NFT.
	Or you have to buy a cryptocurrency, like an altcoin, like Shibu Inu or something.
	And you've got to keep going.
	A non-fungible token.
	Yeah, it's a non-fungible token.
	So what this is, I mean, it's...
	It almost sounds like a joke when I'm talking about it, but these things are trading for millions and millions of dollars.
	It's just because there's so much capital going in and buying these things because people are just starving for return because they're just getting eaten alive by consumer price inflation.
	So a non-fungible token is just basically, it's like a JPEG.
	It's just a little picture of...
	I use the example of my thumbnails that people see on my whiteboard videos.
	So it's just a picture, a thumbnail, and it's me with kind of a bobblehead.
	And then I'm saying something about, let's say, quantitative easing.
	That would be an example of something that would be an NFT.
	And a lot of these NFTs have traded for $10, $20, $30 million.
	And that's all it is, is a JPEG.
	And it's nothing.
	And people say that it's just digital art.
	So if a Monet is worth $50 million, and why wouldn't this be worth $50 million as well?
	And because you're the only one that gets to keep it, and you have the rights to it.
	You could sell it, but it's nothing.
	It's completely digital.
	I'm not saying that there's not value there, but I'm saying that this is incredibly risky.
	You've got people that really need the money.
	For their retirement, as an example.
	And they've got to take money out of their 401k and go into something like an NFT where there's just massive downside.
	I mean, a lot of those could flat out go to zero.
	It's very similar to like the dot-com bust.
	But this is a result of what the Fed's doing because they've kept interest rates so low and the government's come out with all this deficit spending in 2020 that the Fed monetized.
	Right?
	The Fed monetized that, so that means that there's dollars, more dollars, that are circulating in the real economy chasing goods and services.
	This drives up the price, which makes, like we said earlier, people going further and further out the risk curve.
	And then when they come out and they give the stimulus checks, the PPP, they don't make people pay their rent or their mortgage payment.
	They have these child tax credits, which is just basically more stimmy checks.
	And then they also are kicking the can down the road with the repayment of student loan debt.
	It's another story I did today, where initially they came out and said, okay, three months, and you don't have to pay your student loan debt.
	We're two years into this, and they're still kicking the can down the road.
	And the Biden administration just moved the bogey to, I think, May of 2022.
	And especially if inflation is running hot then, I think that there's a good chance they could completely wipe out the student loan debt.
	So that means that there's just more purchasing power that's going into these.
	Highly, highly risky assets because they're just trying to maintain their purchasing power or maybe even increase their purchasing power because there's no real good job opportunities out there because the government has decimated the economy by making...
	Hundreds of thousands of businesses shut down.
	And now they're talking about how one of the reasons that they're using for price controls is because corporate profits are at an all-time high.
	Well, yeah, that's talking about publicly traded companies like Amazon.
	Their profits are at an all-time high.
	But the dry cleaner that's on the corner...
	That got shut down and is now out of business because of lockdowns.
	Their profits are not at all-time highs.
	So you give all these people this money, so you keep demand at the same level, or you increase the aggregate demand in the economy, and then you shut down hundreds of thousands of small and mid-sized businesses, then the only place people can buy stuff is at Amazon.
	So then you have all the power going to these megacorporations.
	It's just basically a subsidy from the poor and middle class to Jeff Bezos.
	The other aspect of this is the shifting globally, like in the sense that you've highlighted that places like Colombia can't just go and print a bunch of cash.
	A lot of countries around the world can't do that.
	And you had a recent episode that highlighted that the IMF appears to want the Fed to raise interest rates, which could have the trigger effect of a lot of countries that have debt problems basically becoming owned by the IMF.
	It becomes almost another version or variation of the Great Reset.
	Yeah.
	In the sense of how this develops.
	Can you discuss some of that in terms of this lockdown was something that a lot of countries, well, we really couldn't afford, but poorer countries really totally couldn't afford?
	That's right.
	That's right.
	And the economic devastation and the death that was created by the lockdowns, I think far exceeds the death from the actual, what I call the survey sickness, you know, COVID.
	And remind me to get back to that question on what people can do.
	I kind of just completely went off on a tangent there.
	Before we get there, I want to say one thing.
	I brought up Dapper Dave 2021.
	He said, buy stocks in company.
	Let me share my failure stories because I haven't had many, if any, successes on the market.
	I bought in Nortel.
	I bought GM.
	I bought Kodak.
	Those are my blue chip companies where I lost all my money.
	I bought a lithium company where for one evening in my life, I had money.
	I had a lot of money.
	And then it went bankrupt and I lost all that money.
	That was my higher risk one.
	And then I bought, this is where I get into lesser amounts of money, but buying stocks in company, like you say, it's an interesting thing, but there's the risk in that.
	And then the issue becomes, what risk are you trying to hedge against?
	And when you say buying bonds is great, you get 1.5% yield.
	No, it's not great.
	No, no, no, it's not great.
	You buy 100 bucks.
	And at the end of the year, you'll have $101.50.
	Great.
	Inflation is 5.5% or whatever, 6.5% normally or not normally.
	So you've lost 5%.
	That's what I'm taking away from the bottom line here.
	So buy the government bonds.
	You're not even keeping up with inflation.
	You're losing money.
	Keep it in the bank.
	At least you have your money, but you're losing your full inflation rate.
	Buy stocks.
	Okay, what stocks do you buy?
	Blue chip companies.
	Have lower yield than higher risk companies.
	So buy high risk companies.
	Buy high risk, you lose them.
	What percentage of the companies go bankrupt within the first five years?
	80%?
	Yeah, but let's go back in time here.
	Because a lot of people think that stocks are a great inflation hedge.
	And they can be, but sometimes they're not.
	I'll take you back to the early 1970s.
	And from 72 to 74, we had significant consumer price inflation, but yet the stock market went down by 50% in nominal terms.
	And then let's back up even further.
	So you said that, well, you invested in this company, in this company, in that company.
	Why did you do that?
	Why didn't you just keep the money in the bank?
	Because I'm an idiot.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	But let's just tease this one out because it's very important.
	I thought the stock would go up because it's a blue chip company.
	What could happen to Nortel?
	What could happen to GM?
	What could happen to Ford?
	And they went bankrupt.
	Kids around?
	They fucked all the common shareholders.
	They restructured.
	Everyone who had their secured money did not get screwed, and I got screwed.
	Yeah, but at the core there, subconsciously, you had money sitting in the bank, and you're like, I need to do something with this.
	Because this is the only way that I'm going to increase my purchasing power.
	And if I leave it in the bank, then it's going to have the same, if not less, purchasing power in a year.
	And it's going to have way less purchasing power in 10 years or 20 years.
	So subconsciously, you were motivated to do something with that money.
	You're motivated to go out that risk curve.
	So now let me just give you an example of the late 1800s in the United States.
	That was a time frame when we had very healthy deflation.
	Prices were going down by about 2-3% per year.
	This was a result of productivity.
	While prices were going down by 2-3% per year, you could get about 4% in a savings account.
	Nominal wages were increasing as well as nominal GDP.
	If you think about this, back then, you could just put your money in a savings account.
	And you would get a real 7% return per year.
	We don't have a calculator in front of us, but if you compound that, if someone was saving today, let's say, even $10,000 a year, and you got a 7% return on that, and that compounded over 20 or 30 years, we wouldn't need Social Security.
	Your standard of living would increase dramatically.
	And how much risk are you taking?
	You've got your money in a savings account, a bank.
	So you wouldn't subconsciously, you wouldn't have had that desire to take a flyer on Kodak or take a flyer on XYZ Blue Chip Company.
	Why would you do that when you're getting a 7% real rate of return just by keeping your money in the bank?
	And you're increasing your purchasing power that way.
	That is the devastation or one of the many devastations of inflation.
	And that's why, at the end of the day, it's not just a stealth tax on the poor and middle class like Friedman talked about.
	It's actually, it destroys their purchasing power over the long run because it sucks the retail investor into these bubbles.
	That eventually are going to crash.
	And when they do crash, all the smart money, the hedge fund managers, the Bill Gates and Warren Buffetts, they're long gone.
	They're the ones that are selling to all of the retail investors on the way up.
	And then it's those people who are holding the bag.
	And we saw this happen during the GFC.
	I mean, look at that.
	Was Warren Buffett buying houses at the peak of the market in 2007?
	Absolutely not.
	All the smart money was buying...
	It was fading the market.
	It was fading retail.
	And it's all these people that get sucked.
	They have this FOMO, fear of missing out.
	And they get sucked into this.
	They take their life savings of $25,000, $50,000.
	They put it on a house because they think they're going to get rich or they think this is the way that I'm going to increase my purchasing power above and beyond inflation.
	And the whole thing comes crashing down and they lose absolutely everything.
	And this is, again, a transfer of wealth from the poor middle class to those rich people who have the assets because the Fed comes in, creates more money.
	If you want to use that term loosely, that creates more inflation, which was the problem to begin with.
	And see, this is what people just don't understand, and they need to get their head around it so they can make better financial decisions moving forward into the future.
	So now, specifically, what do they need to do?
	They need to realize that the U.S. government is $30 trillion in debt, and that's only going to go up.
	So the only way that the government can bail themselves out...
	Is by either defaulting on that debt, which is very unlikely, or defaulting it through inflation by paying it back with cheaper dollars.
	So if you assume that we're going to get significant price inflation into the future, right now you can borrow at 3% or 4% to buy a house with a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
	I don't think you can do this in Canada.
	But in the United States, you can.
	But see, this is, again, very, very difficult.
	You're playing with fire because you're dealing with a housing market that's at all-time highs.
	And there's no disputing the fact that the housing market in the United States is in a massive bubble.
	But if you look at the property as a liability on your balance sheet and the debt is actually an asset, I think you could increase your purchasing power more with that paying it.
	the loan back with cheaper dollars than what you could on the liability side with the property value in nominal terms going down or maybe just going down in real terms.
	So My point there is, if you have a house in the United States right now, just make sure you've got a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage.
	That's the easiest thing you can do.
	You've got to own some gold.
	You've got to own some silver.
	I would suggest owning a little Bitcoin to have some purchasing power outside of the banking system, not necessarily as an inflation hedge.
	It might work.
	It might not.
	Kind of the easiest thing that the normal person can do.
	But, George, not that I've been looking into this, but I've been looking into this.
	But, like, in Canada, interest rates, we remortgaged our house, I don't know when, a year ago?
	We're paying, like, 1.3% or 1.4% interest rate on the mortgage.
	Looking at the states, oh, by the way, we only had to put down 10% on our house.
	You look to the states, you've got to put down 20% to 25%.
	Interest rates are maybe twice that.
	Or twice in raw numbers, which is going to be more exponentially based on crude.
	I mean, yeah, I see how you can lose everything.
	You dump down 25% and rates or prices are through the roof.
	So you put down a million bucks on a house, hard cash, or say $500,000.
	You're paying an interest rate of 2%, 2.5% if you're lucky.
	And things blow up.
	How are we not back to the...
	The GFC was a great financial crisis of 2008.
	How are we not one step away from that in real time now?
	Well, we are.
	But today it's far worse.
	Because back then, at least we had an economy, a real economy, that was by no means detached completely from the financial economy, meaning from asset prices.
	But it wasn't...
	As attached to it as it is today.
	So let me give you an example.
	In Colombia, or in I'm sure several countries that you guys have been to, you can imagine what would happen if the stock market went down by 50% in Colombia.
	No one would know.
	No one would even care.
	I don't even know if it would make front page news.
	If the stock market goes down by 50% in the U.S. and stays down by 50% like it did in Japan, When they had their crash in 1990, the stock market in nominal terms still hasn't got up to the point where it was in 1990 in Japan.
	If that happens in the United States, our economy is done.
	It's absolutely done, especially if you have an environment, again like Japan, where stocks go down by 50% and stay down, and then the housing market goes down by 50% and stays down.
	That is such a large...
	Chunk of the purchasing power of the average American, just what's in their 401k and their home equity, that if you take away that purchasing power, especially in an economy that's 70% consumption, the rate of consumption declines dramatically, and therefore the economy goes into, I mean, we're looking at a 1930s type of Great Depression.
	And what's interesting is it doesn't necessarily have to be a deflationary.
	It could be an inflationary depression where stocks and houses crash up, not down.
	And that's where they're going up, let's say, 5% per annum.
	But the rate of inflation is 20%, 30%.
	So you're still losing a massive amount of purchasing power.
	And the net result is very...
	Similar, even though you're getting there two completely different ways.
	That's what we're dealing with right now.
	We've got this economy that's been completely financialized.
	Unfortunately, I always use that example of a hot air balloon.
	In a healthy economy, the real economy should be that balloon, and the basket should be the stock market.
	Or the housing market.
	But what we have in Canada and in the United States especially is now that hot air balloon is asset prices.
	It's the stock market.
	It's the real estate market.
	And the basket is the real economy.
	So if we have a crash, if that hot air balloon deflates the stock market or the housing market, that real economy is going to go right down with it.
	And that's the position we're in.
	Now, usually, now the pushback there is they say, well, George, that doesn't matter because the Fed is going to step in and print money.
	The government's going to step in and print money like they did in 2020.
	And they're going to prop it up.
	They're not going to allow the stock market to crash.
	But see, what they don't understand is now we're in a completely different environment than we were during the GFC.
	Why?
	Because we've got consumer price inflation doing this, going completely parabolic.
	So how can the government come in and create another $5 trillion?
	Or how can the Fed come in and expand their balance sheet, do more quantitative easing, when this stokes the inflationary fire to prop up the markets when we've already got inflation going from 5% to 6% to 7%?
	And now you've got to put yourself in the position of a politician.
	The three of us know darn well that these people are sociopaths.
	That's the flat-out truth.
	And their only objective is to get re-elected.
	That is it.
	That's their number one priority.
	That's their only priority.
	And these people would gladly crush the entire economy just to get re-elected.
	They have no conscience about it whatsoever.
	So if you're one of these politicians and you have this insatiable lust...
	For power and control.
	And you know that the best way to not get reelected is to have inflation going parabolic.
	You go back to Nixon as an example when he implemented price controls in 1971.
	Inflation was only at 4% back then.
	Four!
	Today it's almost at 7%.
	So why did he do that?
	Can you stop, George, and just say the difference between 4% and 7% is not 3%.
	Can you explain that to people?
	No, it's 3%.
	Yeah, the difference...
	When you go from 4% to 7%, though, is that a 3% increase or is that a 90...
	Almost double, right.
	Yeah, that's a 3% increase in absolute terms.
	Right.
	Now, as far as, you know, if we went from...
	Well, you're talking about consumer price inflation.
	Yeah, so just in absolute terms, that's an increase.
	So we're 3% higher than they were when they implemented price controls in 1971.
	So my point there was if it was bad enough to implement them in 1971, it's definitely bad enough from a political standpoint to implement it in 2022 or maybe 2023.
	And so, you know, I think that what happens is the Fed starts to raise rates like they said that they're going to do in 2022.
	That brings down the stock market.
	And then the government comes in and says, oh, no, no, you can't do that because that's the entire economy.
	And the Fed says, OK, well, we'll do quantitative easing.
	And the government says, oh, no, no, you can't do that because that's going to create inflation.
	And if you create inflation, we're not going to get reelected.
	So then the Fed says, okay, well, I can't do anything.
	And if that's the case, the whole house of cards is going to come crashing down.
	And so then they take the – really, they only have one option left, and that's price controls.
	And that's what I was talking about earlier.
	And that's why I'm, you know, it's not really a prediction.
	There's no certainties, only probabilities.
	That's why I think there's a good chance that we see it into 2022 and 2023 because these politicians just want to get elected.
	But that's really the pushback against them doing it this time around and them trying to prop up the market is they've really painted themselves into a corner.
	Where they can't just willy-nilly come out and print $5 trillion without doing the very thing that the politicians don't want to do.
	And can you also explain to people the risks of digital currency?
	Because we're seeing different moves afoot to go to a governmental-controlled digital currency and what power that means the government could have over people.
	Particularly if you look at Bill Gates' idea, which is that you'd have What happens when the government controls digital currency in that manner and means?
	Well, there's a lot of things that happen there.
	Most people see it from just kind of a Big Brother Orwellian standpoint.
	Because in order to have a central bank digital currency...
	Most people say, well, the dollar right now is a digital currency, so who cares?
	What they don't understand is in order for that to take place, all of us would have to have an account at the Fed.
	So right now, the only entities that have accounts with the Fed are really these large banks like J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, etc.
	And the government.
	They have something called the TGA, which is the Treasury General Account.
	Our bank accounts are liabilities of the Federal Reserve, just like our bank accounts are liabilities of Wells Fargo or B of A or whatever your local bank is.
	So what happens is all of us and all businesses, corporations, big, small, midsize, they'd all have to have an account with the Fed.
	And I think the way they do that is through universal basic income because they just say, hey, guys, in order to get your UBI, you just have to download the Fed app.
	And by downloading that Fed app...
	That automatically gives you an account with the Fed.
	So they create these bank reserves that are denominated in dollars.
	That's what they deposit into your account.
	And that's what you can start spending in the real economy.
	But then what happens from a big brother standpoint is imagine right now all of your transactions go to your local bank and you get your statement every single month.
	Kind of centralized, but there's a lot of different banks that are giving you those statements.
	So Wells Fargo isn't privy to your bank statement if you're banking with B of A. But if we're all banking with the exact same bank, then that bank has access to quite literally every single transaction that is occurring daily within the entire economy.
	And then if they are...
	Giving these, let's just say, tokens, like FedCoins, we'll call them.
	If they're the ones, and they're traceable because now they've got to ban cash, right?
	So now we're all using these FedCoins that are interchangeable with dollars.
	Then they're able to not only track them, but they're able to control where, when, and how they're spent.
	And not only...
	Where and when they're spent, but how quickly they're spent.
	So let's just say that they needed to increase the rate of inflation to bail out the government and people weren't spending those dollars fast enough to create the inflation they needed.
	Well, then what they could do is just say, well, all of the money in your bank account, you've got to spend that within the next two weeks.
	Or this UBI check that we're giving you this month, you've got to spend that in three days.
	So people go out and they spin, spin, spin, spin, and this creates consumer price inflation, which increases the tax receipts collected by the government.
	So they're, in essence, paying back their debt with devalued dollars, just like you'd pay back that 30-year fixed-rate loan with devalued dollars.
	So this gives them just a tremendous amount of control.
	But I think where they're going with it over the long run is just using it to...
	Create a socialist utopia.
	Because not just with the social score.
	I mean, I definitely think they're going that direction to Robert's earlier point.
	But if you think about your typical central planner, they want to control the means of production.
	But they go back and look at communist Russia as an example.
	They say, okay, well, what went wrong there?
	One of their biggest problems is they didn't have price signals.
	They didn't have any data.
	Because they were all, ironically enough, they set the price of, or they controlled the price of everything.
	That wasn't a free market byproduct.
	And therefore, they couldn't allocate resources very well.
	And those resources were wasted.
	And that's one of the things that collapsed the entire economy.
	And why is it ironic?
	Because I think they're going to do price controls here in the United States, which would effectively do the exact same thing.
	But, you know, these economists and these central planners at the World Economic Forum and the IMF, we talked about them earlier, they go back and look at what happened at Russia and say, okay, well, they had a good idea.
	We like communism.
	We want to have a socialist utopia, but we got that darn problem of price discovery.
	How do we solve that?
	Well, what you can do is if you're collecting all of those transactions in real time going into the Fed for the entire economy, you layer over artificial intelligence.
	So then you let the artificial intelligence crunch all the numbers and all the data that you're getting from billions and billions of transactions daily.
	And then you have the artificial intelligence tell you how to allocate those scarce resources with alternative uses.
	Now, I'm not saying this will work.
	This will obviously be a complete disaster.
	But I think in their minds, that's how they get to a socialist utopia.
	That's how they get to controlling the means of production without having to have free marketplaces.
	George, I want to bring this chat up for your protection, for mine, and to answer the question.
	What licenses does George hold?
	Is he registered to give financial advice?
	Is what you're giving financial advice, but for everyone's own cover your ass, George?
	Is this financial advice and what are your credentials so that anyone can take it or disregard it at their leisure?
	Yeah, you got to disregard everything.
	It's not financial advice at all.
	I can sit here and tell you what I do or what I tell my family if they ask me a question, but everyone's circumstance is different.
	Even when we were talking about a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, for a lot of people, that might make sense.
	For some people, it doesn't make sense.
	So you've just got to use what I'm saying as kind of an educational tool to go out and make your own decisions.
	As far as what qualifications I have, absolutely zero.
	I almost flunked out of high school.
	I've never taken a finance class.
	I've never taken an econ class.
	I've never taken a business class in my life.
	None.
	So I'm probably the last person that you want to listen to from a standpoint of qualifications, if that was your only metric.
	From a standpoint of studying this stuff and getting into the weeds...
	I'm pretty qualified there.
	It's an amazing thing.
	I say this without judgment to the question.
	What we hold as the standard of credentials, I've grown to disregard.
	The best credentials are to not have credentials.
	The reality is that you haven't been brainwashed into a certain mindset.
	So I guess I have two questions.
	One would be kind of a wrap-up question, but before that...
	I'm actually somewhat surprised that the Biden advisors, and many of them are MMT believers in modern monetary theory and things of that nature, they seem to have been truly caught by surprise that the net effect of a combination of lockdowns, creating a wide range of supply issues and other issues,
	and all the little stimmy checks and then encouraging people to open up Robinhood accounts, listening to TikTok financial advisors, how to get rich quick overnight, quit your Uber job, you'll be fine, that that wouldn't cause I think because they only live in their own little internal credentialed world.
	They only watch the CNBC and they get the institutional media coverage and whatnot.
	They didn't understand how novel and experimental and risky all of these strategies were going to be and that inflation historically has been the predictable problem.
	Well, they just didn't use common sense, Robert.
	And that's probably one of the advantages that I have in never taking an econ class is I actually use common sense where they kind of forgot about that in high school.
	So what they did, and it wasn't really the MMT crowd.
	I think it was more the Keynesian.
	They get hyper-focused on aggregate demand.
	That's their whole worldview.
	It's all about aggregate demand.
	Demand, demand, demand.
	They saw an environment where we're locking people in a cage and people aren't able to go out and make money.
	Therefore, they said if we just give them enough money to make up for what they're not making at their job.
	Then, therefore, aggregate demand stays the same, and therefore, we shouldn't see significant price inflation.
	But what they're not doing is they're not looking at the supply side of the equation, because price inflation is not just about demand.
	In fact, you could have demand going down, but if you have the supply of stuff, goods and services, going down at a faster rate, you're still going to have price.
	You're still going to have increase in prices.
	And so, you know, the Keynesians are really kind of philosophically between a rock and a hard place because they want to sit there and talk about the benefits of government intervention and, you know, borrowing money and printing money and sending it out to the STEMI checks and, you know, to create this aggregate demand.
	And they think everything is kind of a trickle-down effect as long as people have the demand to buy goods and services.
	But what they...
	But unfortunately, they don't like to acknowledge that the more you get government involved, the more they're going to distort the economy.
	The more they distort the economy, the harder it is for entrepreneurs to produce goods and services.
	And if you get the government involved with all these other ways, you're going to decrease the level of goods and services being produced by a society.
	And therefore, if you keep aggregate demand the same, Which they did.
	That's when you're really going to see price jump.
	In fact, they increased aggregate demand.
	If you look at the balance sheet of what I call the non-bank entities in the real economy, such as the average Joe and Jane, small business, mid-sized business, etc.
	When going into the pandemic, in their checking accounts, and this is a chart that they have on Fred, they had about $1.2 trillion.
	In total, in the checking accounts for American households in aggregate total.
	All right, today, that's at $3.7 trillion.
	So think about that for a moment.
	Just in 2019, $1.2 trillion.
	Now, it's over $2.4 trillion higher.
	And then the next question becomes, okay, well, how many more?
	Goods and services do we have?
	Because if you would have had an equivalent increase in the amount of goods and services, you would not have had consumer price inflation.
	So what we did is we actually had a decrease in the amount of goods and services while you're adding $2.4 plus trillion to the balance sheet of households in the United States.
	And then you sit there and scratch your head and wonder why we have inflation.
	And this is back to your point, Robert.
	How could these...
	Professionally trained economists not see this, and it's just staggering.
	Why?
	Because they're Keynesians, they really get hyper-focused on aggregate demand.
	And I would assume that most of them did not understand how many dollars would actually be created through the government deficit spending, because they don't really understand the relationship between government deficit spending and the Fed monetizing the debt, because they're accustomed.
	To the deficit spending being financed through the selling of bonds to the general public.
	You see, so if the bonds are sold to the general public, then what's happening is they're extracting those dollars and then they're spending them back out.
	So on net balance, you don't have an increase in the dollars.
	But see what happens when the Fed monetizes the debt.
	And this is because Keynesians really don't understand money at all.
	But what they don't understand is when Janet Yellen...
	Or, yeah, Janet Yellen in this case, if she issues $100 billion in treasuries at auction, and if the Fed buys those, well, they're not taking those dollars out of the economy to begin with.
	What they're doing is they're printing the bank reserves that are denominated in dollars to buy those treasuries from Janet Yellen.
	Money goes into the TGA.
	That's a liability of the Fed.
	But when Janet Yellen sends out that $100 billion worth of checks into the real economy, now all of a sudden, you've increased M2 money supply by $100 billion, where if that would have been a normal transaction, where the public would have...
	Bought those $100 billion of the bonds and it was not monetized by the Fed, the dollars would have come out to begin with.
	And like I said earlier, that would have been a net wash.
	But this is what the Keynesians, they just don't understand.
	And most mainstream economists, and 99% of the people that you see on financial media, they don't understand money.
	They don't understand dollars.
	They don't understand how they're created by the monetization, by the Fed, by the deficit spending.
	They don't even really understand how they're created by the commercial banking system.
	So they had no idea what really would happen to aggregate demand.
	They didn't understand that that increase or what they were doing would increase the dollars by $2.4 trillion.
	And then they completely ignored the supply side of the equation.
	And to answer your question in a long-winded way, that's why they made the mistake.
	Robert, before you get into your end question, I want to bring up two, which I think might work us into it.
	I've got about another minute in there.
	I've got to get to another deal here.
	Sorry.
	Adorno, ask the question.
	Crypto.
	What's stopping the Fed from crushing crypto like Bitcoin?
	The notion of decentralization.
	What government in their right mind would allow that and not get their tax money?
	Crypto centralizing it.
	Yeah, I think it's a very nuanced question.
	Because I think if Bitcoin remains just a digital kind of reserve asset or just a digital asset like gold, a digital gold, if you will, I don't think it really...
	I think it's actually beneficial for the governments because it bails them out because it's more financialization, more aggregate demand.
	But if Bitcoin starts to maybe give a little bit of a competition to the dollar...
	Then that's a whole different set of probabilities.
	Go ahead.
	To let you go, the last question, people were asking about White Pill.
	To me, the White Pill has been the number of intelligent, smart, creative people that have come together over the last several years, and you've helped put a lot of them together at the Rebel Capitalist Pro presentations and all the rest.
	Could you let people know where they can go to get more intel and more information and more content?
	Because I think that's the White Pill for me, is that more people are better informed today than maybe they've ever been as we face extraordinary...
	That is the upside right there, Robert.
	You hit the nail on the head.
	These difficult times and this push towards authoritarianism has brought so many great minds.
	I've been very fortunate to be a part of that with Rebel Capitalist Live.
	This is a live event I do twice a year.
	People can check it out at rebelcapitalistlive.com.
	The next event is in Houston, January 7th through the 9th.
	You can look at our speakers.
	We've got Ron Paul as an example.
	We had you at the last one.
	We've got Chris Cole, Lynn Alden, Robert Kiyosaki, a great buddy of mine.
	We've got Richard Werner.
	Who actually invented quantitative easing when he was a consultant for the Bank of Japan back in the 90s.
	A lot of people like that.
	Now, I've actually got someone that used to work at the Fed, Joseph Wang, who was in charge of quantitative easing.
	When the Fed was actually buying the treasuries and the mortgage-backed securities from the banks, he was the one that was actually doing the transactions.
	So he's just going to be awesome to kind of, you know, get some intel from him and how the plumbing actually works.
	But the magic there is that so many of us have come together that probably would not have come together unless we would be living through these difficult times.
	I mean, I think about guys like you and Kiyosaki.
	As an example, for Robert Kiyosaki, who wrote Rich Dad, Poor Dad, he's become a very good friend of mine, and I had the opportunity to introduce him to you, and that was because you came out to our event.
	I introduced Robert.
	I introduced you to Jeff Snyder, who I think is the foremost expert on the repo market and the global dollar monetary system, and someone who's definitely an advocate for freedom and liberty.
	That is for sure.
	And, you know, Robert Breedlove is another person that you met at Rebel Capitalist Live, you know, someone who's an expert in Bitcoin.
	Just all these people are coming together and building this network.
	You know, and it's not just that.
	It's Dr. Chris Martinson, you know, another good friend of ours.
	You know, we probably would not have met Dr. Chris Martinson if it wasn't for this craziness that we've been dealing with.
	And so I just see this network of really awesome people that value freedom, liberty, and free market capitalism just growing and growing and growing.
	And I think there is tremendous, tremendous power.
	And that's one of the things that makes me very optimistic about 2022 and moving forward.
	All right.
	Now, George, I want to say our proper good advice afterwards.
	I'm going to end with this.
	Decentralized knowledge, because I think that's what we have here on the interwebs.
	George?
	Amazing this turned into a true sidebar.
	Robert, thank you as always.
	Everyone in the chat, thank you for tuning in.
	Share this away.
	Clip stuff.
	Put it on social media.
	George, we know where to find you, but stick around.
	We're going to say our proper goodbyes.
	Everyone in the chat, we have a stream coming Sunday, so enjoy that.
	Happy New Year to everyone.
	Merry Christmas.
	It's late, but happy holidays.

▲