➡ The text discusses the cyclical nature of power shifts and wars in human history, and how they contribute to societal evolution. It suggests that wars, while destructive, force societies to adapt and evolve. The text also highlights the current shift of power from the West to the East, particularly from the U.S. to China, and predicts a potential conflict between these two superpowers. It emphasizes that these power shifts and conflicts are not voluntary, but are driven by complex cycles and forces beyond human control.

➡ The article discusses the current geopolitical situation, focusing on the U.S., Russia, and China. It suggests that America’s inflated stock prices and denial of potential issues have led to a delusion about the future. The article also discusses the “Kondratiev cycle,” a theory about economic cycles, and how it might predict conflict. It suggests that Russia, having rebuilt its military strength, is likely to continue on a path of aggression, and that China may soon follow suit.

➡ The text discusses potential conflicts involving Ukraine, Iran, and China. It suggests that Ukraine was pressured into a situation that weakened its defenses, possibly due to a deal between Trump and Putin. It also predicts that Trump will have to take military action against Iran due to their nuclear advancements. Lastly, it warns that China is preparing for war, with a focus on Taiwan and potentially Australia, and that the U.S. is not adequately prepared for these conflicts.

➡ The article discusses the potential threats of nuclear warfare and financial vulnerability, including cyber attacks on banks and the vulnerability of cryptocurrencies. It also suggests that the West may be too weak to resist submission in the face of these threats. The author believes that the COVID-19 pandemic was a weaponized product from a weapons lab, designed to increase Western debt and weaken its ability to rearm. The article also discusses the need for stronger leadership and better preparation for potential conflicts, including the importance of individual resilience and democratic action.

➡ The article discusses the potential for conflict between NATO and Russia, focusing on the strategic importance of dominant air power and the risks of deploying ground troops. It suggests that Russia’s advanced electronic warfare and drone capabilities could pose a significant threat to NATO forces. The article also explores the possibility of a NATO proxy war in Ukraine and the potential implications of Article 5, which could trigger a collective response if a NATO member is attacked. Lastly, it discusses the strategic moves of the Trump administration, suggesting that it may be trying to force Europe to confront Russia while the U.S. focuses on other regions.

➡ The speaker believes that certain political leaders, including Trump, have made decisions that negatively impact their countries and benefit Russia. They suggest that these leaders may be under Putin’s control. The speaker also discusses their predictions for the economy, suggesting that the dollar is in trouble due to tariffs and that a debt crisis is looming. They believe that the current state of the US equity market is due to money printing, not effective policies.

➡ The article discusses the potential economic impact of Trump’s policies, suggesting they may lead to financial hardship rather than prosperity. It also discusses the rise and fall of cryptocurrencies, comparing them to a bubble, and suggests investing in precious metals and wartime economy-related companies. The author warns about potential gold confiscation during conflict and discusses the importance of location for storing wealth. Finally, the article explores the concept of ‘preppers’, people who prepare for potential crises, and suggests that being proactive and adaptable is key to survival.

➡ The text discusses the importance of community and collective action in facing threats and challenges. It suggests that people who are prepared and adaptable, often with an outdoorsy mindset, are better equipped to handle threats and ensure survival. The text also emphasizes the need for effective leadership that serves the people and promotes a healthy exchange of energy. Lastly, it introduces the concept of ‘lateralization’ as a tool for societal evolution, suggesting that wars force lateralization and creativity, which then fuels societal progress for several decades.

➡ The speaker encourages people to learn from their past experiences and use that knowledge to make better decisions in the future. They believe that by understanding how different topics interconnect, we can better predict and prepare for future events. They also mention a recent article on their website that explores this concept in more detail. Lastly, they express gratitude for the interview and encourage listeners to visit a website for survival gear.

At the end of an empire cycle, empires really show what they really are. America is the last of the Western Christian empires of 500 years of dominance. The power shift is huge. These shifts are never voluntary. No one gives up their power and wealth, really. We are using wars to socially evolve, but it doesn’t end until one side dominates. And all we know is this war has started. Putin is committed to war. The fundamental goal is to break NATO. That wedge is being driven right the way through to crack it asunder. Trump is going to have to bomb Iran.

They are making a nuclear breakout. They’ve got at least seven units. The Chinese plan to inherit the world. China committed itself to building a wartime economy. It’s built a fortress economy. And they have set themselves up to go to war. Their whole country is on a war footing. The dollar is really in trouble. Tariffs do not strengthen currencies. They do not strengthen economies. Tariffs are destructive and highly inflationary. There’s a lot of economic trauma to come and people will become poorer and America’s enemies will become emboldened to act throughout this whole process. I’m not convinced our Western leaders are strong enough nowadays to take very hard decisions.

We’ll see. World War three is already happening. This is a house of cards and it is in the process of collapsing right now. You’re going to see an economic crash the likes of which we’ve never seen. Now, I must forewarn you. This video challenged me intellectually in a way that I don’t think I’ve been challenged for a long time. It’s very densely packed and thought provoking. The editor of this video, AKA the Communist cameraman, has probably worked on hundreds of videos of this nature. But this is probably the first time he expressed a genuine concern and state of urgency after he completed editing this video.

I would invite you and even challenge you to watch this video as many times as is required so you can fully scrutinize and appreciate the depth and brilliance of this theory. Without further ado, let’s get to the video. Hi, folks. Canadian prepper. Here today on the channel, we have David Muren. He’s a physicist by trade, also a former hedge fund manager and the author of several books. His main focus has been finding and understanding collective human behavioral patterns that comprise the study of human systems, systems behavior. Now, while that might seem like a mouthful, he’s going to explain exactly how his theory, and I hope he’s going to be able to explain in simple terms that we can comprehend it within the hour that we have here today in order to understand exactly how we can use his predictive model to determine what might be around the corner in terms of World War iii, geopolitics, the rise of China and just the time of transition that we currently find ourselves in.

He has some notable works like Breaking the Code of History and I believe it was that book that predicted that World War III would start in 2022. He also had another book recently written called Red Lightning, how the West Lost World War III to China and how things were going to culminate around the time of, well, 2025. So what is your high level overview of of things? Are things getting better or are they going to get worse? Well they’re going to get worse. But let me just give you some theoretical background before I bring you to that difficult realization.

On one of your videos, you know, you quite rightly described the word entropy. And this theory really is came at the in the last four years, whereas breaking the code of histories theories came after 9 11. So as a physicist you always look for UN field theories as in simple things that explain everything. And very simply we live in a universe of entropy. So if you drop your matches and they fall out your box, you know, they go to disorder. So everything around us goes from order to disorder. And the enemy of our DNA is time and entropy because actually it works upon our DNA to kill it, to prevent the perpetuation of our genes.

So humans have come up with like every living thing, strategies to cope with and be anti antientropic. Our process is to create human societies because individually we attempt to be anti entropic. We order our world around us, but collectively we have a force multiplication. So the driver behind why we socially organize ourselves in the way that history is unfolded is because we are seeking to be anti entropic. That’s really important because there’s some twists in turns in this story. So the first observation I made after 911 was was that an accident or was it basically an indicator that America wasn’t going upwards for 100 years of democracy, but in fact was in a stage of decline? And I use a lot of price data in my hedge fund work and that price data didn’t go back far enough for me to say is that the end of Western civilization or not and has it ordered? So I created a model that reverse engineered the psychology you see in markets into a self organizing system which I called an empire cycle and I called it the five stages of empire.

And basically as populations expanded, they were forced to self organize. So regionalization took them up the Curve of power as a population grew and they got to a stage usually where they were led at that stage by what I call lateral or linear leaders. Now I’m going to split this difference right here so we can get down to it. I think humanity started off as hunter gatherers and they were lateral because every day they had to adapt and they had to compensate to make sure they fed to themselves. Then we had an agrarian revolution, which was about predictability, about regularity.

And a more linear way of thought happened when humanity suddenly swelled into a much bigger population. The legacy of that, I would argue, is that we have about 30% of lateral genes in our societies and 20% of linear genes that are happy to be part of a bigger system, to be subsumed and follow process. Perhaps more likely live in cities, for example. But most importantly, if you take those constructs, if you live near the sea and you make your living from the sea, the sea forces one to be natural, to be lateral. It’s an area where lateralization is continued because it’s a multivariable domain.

So seafaring societies are more lateral than land faring societies. And the result of that was if you go back to Athens and Sparta, Sparta was a land power where land was more dominant and had a hierarchy and a king. And in Athens they evolved through sea power, individual responsibility and democracy. So therein is the fundamental struggle in society between democracy and hierarchy, which we’re going to follow this thread through our conversation. And for democracy to work, it’s usually led by lateral people initially who believe in self responsibility for the individual. At the peak of regionalization, the system is usually quite linear.

It’s established and it’s crusty. So it goes through the first civil war, which is really about how to lateralize itself. So if we think about wars as a social engine to lateralize and the winner becomes more lateral as a result, and the loser the smaller. If they’re given the same size, the linear one can’t adapt or create new battle strategies as fast. The system comes out of regionalization, or the civil war of regionalization, and it suddenly expands, propelled by population, propelled by innovation, prevented by lateralization. And that series of battles is almost algorithmic. The speed of expansion is breathtaking.

And the modern day equivalent is find me someone. In 2001, when I articulated that China was going to be the next superpower, who really believed America could ever be challenged. Twenty years later, it’s not even been challenged, it’s been surpassed in many ways. And that has surprised everyone because it’s A nonlinear change brought about bilateral evolution. The system then expands, can’t go any further, and starts to mature. And as you move through maturity, all the enemies have disappeared. There’s economic stability and plenty at the core. And of course now the linear people can start to have a bigger play because they start to create political structures and institutions.

And the maverick lateral people who built it are not really welcomed anymore. So one by one they’re thrown out. And at the peak of the cycle there is a hidden civil revolution where now the linear people start to dominate by the building of institutions. And because, because there is stability in the empire, they don’t have to adapt or show adaptation. They can just be far more powerful through their ability to relate politically. And that starts to decline. You move into overextension, the system stops generating real wealth, it starts to money print in some shape or form to compensate.

And overextension and decline are the accelerations of that process. And by the time you get to the bottom of decline, the system’s totally linear. It’s had a few lateral fightbacks of extremely bad, like Nero was, for example. People are unsuitable to be in power, like Trump is today. And the system implodes on itself. That’s one five stage cycle. All right, guys, so as some of you know, Canadian Prepper is a fully independent channel. We don’t have sponsors and we’re beholden to nobody. You can help support us by supporting yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com I know that in an emergency, having the right gear can make all the difference.

This is why I’ve tested and curated the best preparedness products on the market, so that you can be confident and ready for whatever comes your way. Now back to the video. Let me try to summarize this for viewers or even myself. So we have this oscillation between linearity and laterality where you have societies become more and more predictable and linear in their thinking as a result of centralization forces and success and growth and power. And ultimately because that which perhaps got them that success in the first place ultimately is their undoing. And they’re challenged by more lateral forces.

Yes, so as I said, you exactly, you’re getting to the next stage. So as a system starts to go into atrophy, becoming more linear, less adaptable, less real product, and in fact less anti entropic, other systems rise up and of course they rise from smaller status, but they’re highly lateral and they absorb all the best practices of the old system and then adapt new, better systems. And so what’s happening is we are using wars to basically ensure that humans remain anti entropic and adaptable. We are using wars to socially evolve. And my book Breaking the Code of War, which comes out this summer, explains how war is an integral part of human evolution because it forces lateralization and forces continued adaptation and maximum anti entropy.

So the first thing we’ve got to realize, wars just don’t break out. We can’t just ignore, we don’t want to have wars. We have wars because we evolve. And for example, if you take America under the Biden regime, uber linear, uber stuck and broken. A system like that can’t regenerate itself. It’s trying through Trump, but for various reasons, it’s chosen a lateral leadership that doesn’t serve the people, only serves himself. So there’s a pitfall. Whereas if you chose the linear leadership, they would have served the people, but they were unable to serve them. Well, a real devil’s choice, which is often what happens in decline.

And the backdrop of that is China and China’s rising. But there’s a bigger story here. It isn’t just America. In America’s time frame, there is a super Western Christian empire which started with the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch, the French, the British, the Germany tried twice, and then America. It is a sequence of social organizations based on the meme of Christianity, starting with Catholics, ending up with Protestant sea powers. And so America is the last of the western Christian empires of 500 years of dominance. That means that the power shift is huge. And on the other side, China isn’t just on its own.

It’s the second of the recent super Asian empires. And Japan was the first. So back 20 years ago, when people say, oh, they’ll never, they’ll never challenge us, I kept saying, actually they did. This system challenged the west through Japan, and we had the second World War in the Asian basin. And China is the second version of that. So there are, it’s no longer just simple systems of organization. There are now bigger super systems. And those super systems have more continuity and longevity as a result. And what it is is a product of social evolution where we are finding unconsciously ways to keep anti entropy at higher stakes for longer.

And that’s the fundamental mechanism we’re looking at now, this shift of power, which I called the great shift 20 years ago from west to east. These shifts are never voluntary. No one gives up their power and wealth freely. And there is another cycle which is really critical. And this was first spotted by a man called Kondratieff. And he spotted this 54, 56 year cycle which produces commodity inflationary periods and therefore bond price increase drops and conflicts at the peak. And I remember because one of my threads in my life has been study of military history and the other thread has been the profession of finance.

When I found this intersection between the two, I was fascinated and I studied, I found the low in 2002 and basically traded it very effectively. And at the same time I was caught with this premonition that if I was correct, then somewhere around 2022, before the peak, which was going to happen in 2030, we could expect a conflict of hegemonic proportions. And the timing of that conflict is essentially between China and America. Now, I’ve evolved my ideas since I read Kondratiev and I think it’s a more complicated picture. So the real picture is the big cycle is 108 to 112 years.

Now these cycles, I best can describe them as pulses of entropy. I don’t know where the entropy comes from, but it pulses into the human system and it takes a hegemonic challenge and it turns it into a live war by the increase of entropy in the system and friction. So if I go back and look at the big cycle of 108, 112 years, you can see the challenge by France to Spain. You can see the British challenge to France in the Napoleonic wars, you can see the challenge of Germany to Britain in the First World War, which only finally concluded the end of 1945.

And we’re at the stage where China and its axis of autocracy is challenging democracy, which actually started in 2022. And what’s key in this subtle process is the entropy peak is not where these wars start. They start as the entropy builds and builds. So in the Napoleonic War, the entropy peak based on commodity, which was about 1808, but the war started 10 years before. If you go to the First World War, the peak was in 2120, but the war triggered in 1914, six to seven years before the peak, which is why recognizing the peak will be somewhere around 2030.

I called 2022 as a starting point nearly 20 years ago, recognizing that function. And we are now in that process. And this is the sobering thing, these entropy, these pulses start the war. They’re like the starting gone on a massive wrestling, mass wrestling, mud competition. But it doesn’t end until one side dominates. So it didn’t end until 1815 when Britain dominated France totally, which created Pax Britannia. And it didn’t end really against Germany until 1945 with a pause in between, because only then was Germany destroyed and a new order came about. In that case, Britain was exhausted, Germany didn’t succeed, and America and Russia to some degree stood into the gap.

But a new order was created which we call Prax America. So what we’re looking at is what the next order will be. And all we know is this war has started. And what’s key about it is these wars often start relatively slowly because you still have to tool your societies up and you have to create wartime economies and you have to mobilize. So when people say the casualties don’t represent World War I or World War II casualties, I would argue one and a half million casualties in Ukraine. And the broad depth of the conflict in the Middle east definitely fits the early hinterland phases of a global conflict, which everyone will recognize only when the Chinese make their movement, which they are preparing for and are ready for.

So that’s the overall construct of where we are. I mean during World War I and definitely World War I, I mean they didn’t think of it as World War I. Right. So it was only in hindsight that they were able to bracket it and put this label in. They called, they called it, they called it the Great War. The Great Wars. You’re so right, Nate. Yeah. And what’s very interesting about it too is there was massive denial. You’ve got to remember if we cast our time back, that Prussia and Germany was actually Britain’s closest ally against the French.

And that relationship continued sometime into the mid sort of 19th century. And we had a German royal family and we had industrial links with them and people thought that we couldn’t go to war because we were economically entwined and no one thought anyone would challenge Britain written as the great power. So there was real denial coming into 14 and then suddenly the first shop was fired. And if you look at market behavior, only then did markets respond. As we entered into it now, we had had a 10 year arms race in a way that really was relevant.

And so people knew about that was a dreadnought race challenging Britain’s great naval power. And there was also massive construction of armies by France and Germany in the multi millions, 5 million each. Now when you go to where we are right now, we’ve seen total wall denial, but we’ve had some additive problems. Number one is the linearity of money printing because all our leaderships have been so linear from Obama to, to Biden that they could not, and the system around could not even imagine anything but the railway tracks. They thought Was the future ahead. So we’ve got linear denial taking place.

And then the other thing is that because America printed so much money, it inflated stock prices and stock prices create dopamine and there is no cortisol to flow for people to go, oh, there’s something wrong with this picture. So the level of delusion that America’s going through is 10 times bigger than Britain in 1914 because of those other two factors. Yeah, it’s interesting. So what was it that really tipped you off that 2022 of all years was going to. I mean, I understand it factors into the Kratov cycles and these other cycles that you talk about, but was there something else about 2022? And you know, clearly the Ukraine war started in 2022, which could ultimately be what delineates the beginning of World War III in some people’s minds.

Although some would say it even started sooner than that. It appears as though Europe is getting ready to mobilize for war. Everything seems to be falling into place with respect to this idea. And there’s definitely a inevitability to this sort of conflict. As you say, it’s the result of these two different opposing forces within the system. And. But was there something else that. And are you surprised by your prediction that it was so on point? Well, there were some more dimensions to it. I mean, I figured that we would, we, you know, war would break out anywhere between 10, eight, six years before the peak of 2030.

So you know, 22 was the natural place. And of course I could see China rearming and becoming an equal of America in the Asian basin. I could see it deploy new weapon systems like carrier killing anti ship ballistic weapons, which I call asymmetric weapons of hegemony. Challenge weapons as designed to destroy the power base of the existing hegemony. And so I was warning in 2018, it really was happening in front of our eyes that they were preparing to destroy American carrier power to take the Pacific. But there was another part that really started to fit in as time moved from 18 to 19 20.

The Kondratiev cycle has three phases on each of the movements from trough to peak. So there’s an A wave which was from about 2002 to 2010, 10, 11, and then a counter trend B wave where commodities get cheaper and then essentially a surge at which point they surge into conflict and keep going. Now I recognize that actually if you modeled the ussr, you could model the Cold War around one contrative cycle because the west is a consumer cycle and the Russians are a commodity producing society. So what happens in a Kondrat of Cyclops as you move to say, the 75 peak commodities produce huge revenues for the producer, but they create huge inflation for the consumer.

So if you go back and interview people in 1975, their views of how we’re not even sure we can beat the USSR, their economy seems bulletproof, we’re suffering from 50% inflation, our military doesn’t have any edges. We’ve just come out of Vietnam where we’ve been troused. It was a pretty depressing look. But actually, if you think about it, that was all about the wealth created by commodities for Russia and the poverty for the west created by inflation. And that was America at absolutely the peak and the strongest part of its cycle. So then the decline of the USR was basically the back end of commodities.

And the Americans would always say, well, we worked with the Saudis to suppress the oil price. I think they were pushing the barrel downhill because the downhill momentum of the contractive cycle, then prices got lower. And then of course, we know by 1990 it bankrupted the USSR with a big fixed standing army and no revenues. Now it started all over again in 2000, and only in 2007 did Putin start to become belligerent. And he has some reasons he wasn’t welcomed into the West. There are things that we should have done early on I think, to integrate them.

But by 2007, he had really started to have wealth again. He didn’t need the eu, he had commodity wealth. And he was becoming belligerent. And so he got belligerent into 2011. And then he had that horrible drop where he must have thought, I’ve gone too early, when oil collapsed, and then it went back up to 120. And in that period he recapitalized his military and was able to move in 2014 at least into the phases of Ukraine and Crimea. Now I knew that the contractive cycle would see a trough somewhere in 2020. And therefore, if we didn’t have a rapportion with China before 20, I mean Russia before China in 2020, when they were weak, we were never going to have one when they were strong.

And then we’d have a spike, low, higher commodity prices. And suddenly Russia became a problem because it became wealthy and assertive. And sure enough, that happened. And that was why when we went through the run up into February 22, I warned six months beforehand with his language, his posturing with the weakness on the other side, war was 95% inevitable and he was going to invade. And that was strengthened by obviously the other predictions about 22. But I also had layers of ongoing real time information. So I was absolutely certain he would do what he did. And yet in the Western world, they were surprised.

Now, they were partly surprised because he configured his invasion force not as you would do with the fighting elements of the front. He put the fighting at the back and the cooks at the front, which was designed to see Western intelligence and didn’t expect any resistance. And the combination of the wrong formation entering in and the resistance and the weapons had been provided by the UK were really quite significant. And their own use of artillery and drones to find targets changed the course of that conflict, as we know. And so you’ve also said that you think that Russia or any nation in this war mobilization mode is condemned to continue along that trajectory to the point of either a collapse or dominance.

And so in Russia’s case, you think that they have no choice but to continue moving forward. And why is that exactly? Well, I mean, you can imagine you have a peacetime economy and you transition, you mutate into a wartime structure. And the wartime structure you have people in franchise who are paid for the factories that produce weapons. The system basically is focused on how it produces weapons and weaning it off it is really difficult unless you have treasure that you can then redistribute for as a victor and bring back into the system. If you’ve taken someone’s land or riches, you can find a way to come off the, the, the high.

But in this case, I don’t think he can. He’s made a full wartime economy and all he’s going to do in the piece is just keep producing weapons to become stronger. And in the meantime, he knows that the Chinese will, I believe, soon act because he’s very close to Xi. So this MAGA idea that America can seduce Putin away from Xi in Kissinger too, is just not going to happen, I’m afraid. They’re too closely bonded together right now. So that, I think has been used as a shield for Trump to do some pretty nefarious activities. And I don’t think it’s ever going to happen.

So I think we can assume that Putin is committed to war. He is committed also to using his levers through Trump to separate America from NATO, because that’s one of the fundamental goals that started with Ukraine is to break NATO. And he knows that as long as Trump is in power, operating the way he is, that that wedge is being driven right the way through to crack it asunder. And that changes his strategic picture Because Europe isn’t really ready to fight. It has, it requires on force multipliers from America to work and 55% of all weapons in NATO come from America.

But that’s not evenly distributed. It’s the key weapon systems that are force multiplier enablers which the Americans provide. So he is really his strategic goal. Polls are looking really good. He must be feeling very good about himself. Although he’s lost a million of his own men or so, he has gained the process of splitting or fail splitting apart NATO and America. So do you think that’s going to be actually enduring? Because of course Trump has a four year term and it’s hard to say how much of that is, is real or just bluster in terms of the US withdrawal from NATO.

Because on the one hand we’re seeing a lot of talk about how there’s a back channel rapprochement between Trump and Putin. But on the other hand we’re also seeing the recommencement of arms flows, intelligence sharing, sanctions, imposition. And as much as there, it seems as though they’re almost stringing this whole charade along for public consumption. It doesn’t appear as though in a material sense anyways that that’s actually manifested as anything like in terms of suspension of arms. I think there’s, there’s a piece that’s quite appalling that manifested and that is, you know, obviously if Zelensky, I’m sure was going to agree to whatever he would needed to agree to that day at the White House, he was obviously bullied before he sat down and he was clubbed in public.

And what’s interesting about it, that gave Trump the justification to ultimately close down intelligence sources. Now intelligence sources is really a very mild word when it comes to American support in Ukraine. We’re talking about AI systems that manage their battlefields. We’re talking about every aspect of how they fight being dependent on that American systems provision. And so when it was shut down, and I think it would, Putin knew it was going to be shut down. If you look at how the pincer in was conducted in Kurt Kursk, he managed to concentrate his troops in the time when it was shut down and catch the Ukrainians by surprise when they were blind.

I think the coincidences around that should really be looked at because very swiftly they’ve lost a huge bargaining chip. So I suspect here that what we’re looking at some agreed dance between Putin and Trump which involves the surrender of Ukraine effectively. And the only thing that’s changed in that is Europe is trying to mobilize to say we can’t afford to see Ukraine surrender because it’s our front line. And that’s the wedge that Putin has created between America and NATO countries in Europe. Definitely. You know, you could view it that way. I mean, I’ve heard some OSINT analysts say that the, the logistical lines were compromised weeks in advance of the shutting off of intelligence.

But what do you think the outcome of this is going to be like, if you could maybe look forward in the next six months? Like, what are your models, predictions? So I think that it’s a great question. So I, I want you to envisage a world sitting on a stack of dynamite, because that’s how I see it. And there are a number of fuses that have been lit. So one of the fuses goes to Ukraine. You know, if we do get peace, I do not think we should have European peacekeepers extended beyond the NATO lines out front without a sky shield.

I don’t think Putin will allow that to happen. But even if we do, we’ll lose that expeditionary force somewhere along the line, and it overextends us in the way that we defend NATO lines. So there’s a danger there of really wholesale conflict. The next one, which is probably even sooner, is Trump is going to have to bomb Iran. They are making a nuclear breakout. They’ve got at least seven units, atomic units, able to move, make a bomb. We’ve got to assume that the technology of miniaturization was given to them by the Russians in exchange for Shia drones and other dynamics.

And so Trump has to act. And this precursor strike series against the Houthis is to remove the back end so that the naval forces are free to operate just off the Gulf, because they’re going to have to operate from that space. It almost seems like a very convenient transition because of course, now I’m not sure if you heard Trump’s tweet today, but basically associating the Houthi attacks with Iran and saying that if the attacks continue, they’re going to be attributed to Iran. And there are Iranian warships in the Red Sea also. So this could be a potential flash point and a bridge into that conflict.

You’re exactly right. And instead of just launching into bomb the Iranians, they have done the right thing because the Houthis have systems which are threatening to the Red Sea and unraveled American maritime hegemony. So it is appropriate to start there. But I am really intrigued by how quickly the touch paper linkage has been lit and the Iranians are busy saying, not us, boss, we didn’t do it, but we know they did it. So I think this is the precursor to the strikes on Iran from America and the idf, which will be very significant. And the only thing the Iranians can do is try and block the Gulf.

And that’s a different force structure. But they’re going to try and do it. And when they try and do that, there are other dynamics with China that I think we have to be very wary of. Because the third piece of late fuse is that I would argue that from 2020 onwards, China committed itself to building a wartime economy. It’s built a fortress economy. It’s stockpiled all its raw resources for over three years. It’s built an EV car system, not because they like environmentally friendly cars, but because they can use coal power stations and they get the coal indigenously, so it makes them independent from oil.

And they have set themselves up to go to war. Their whole country is on a war footing. Their ship manufacturing capabilities are off the charts. And I must say that recently the use of the invasion barge structures is just one of many things. If you follow their weapons development and deployment, you don’t build invasion barges to go on holiday. You build them like we did Mulberry Harbors to invade someone else. And so it’s very clear what they’re going to do with those barges. They’re trying to open up the 12 beach options on Taiwan to many beaches to build logistical chains.

But we should be very aware it’s not just Taiwan. This recent trip by a type 55 destroyer, almost a cruiser, it’s a huge ship and it’s accompanying frigate, the 54 Round Australia Signals really where China is going. And if Chinese generals and admirals could interview Japanese generals and admirals from the Second World War and say, what was your biggest mistake? They would say, we didn’t take Australia because that allowed America to fight back north of Australia across the Pacific and ultimately win the Pacific war. If Australia and New Zealand are taken all the way down, there is no way America can get back in the Asian basin.

And I believe that’s their strategic goal in phase one of their conflict. And I think we’re very close to it because otherwise they’re going to go bankrupt because of the gap that was a demand gap created by a wartime economy. That gap has created a slowdown of their economy and all sorts of problems. So he will be forced to do that. So you think they have a limited amount of time to initiate their plans and that that will be the first phase of the plan. Not Taiwan. No, no, Taiwan will be first. But from Taiwan you’ve got to expect the whole thing to spread, literally.

And, and I would argue that if I was a naval planner and this was the basis of Red Lightning, is that you, you invade Taiwan and you know the Japanese navy is going to enjoy join in. If the Japanese Navy joins in, the American Navy has to join in whether it wants to or not because it can’t afford to lose Japanese naval power. So you end up fighting Japan and America over Taiwan. Very clear. So why not just go straight to go? Why not build a mass rocket force designed to destroy everything that sits and moves in the first 24 hours of combat? And once you do that, you move to Taiwan.

And that’s what I think they will do. That’s what Red Lightning was about. The use of hypersonic weapons and anti ship ballistic missiles to saturate all of the defense systems. And it’s interesting because the U.S. navy was very reluctant over the past few years to really accept it was vulnerable and has always kept a carrier in the region. Whereas the US Air Force decided that cabana, it couldn’t keep its planes there because every time it war gamed it lost them in the first 20 minutes. So it doesn’t keep anything cabana flies it in and redistributes it other airfields and creates distributed air power.

So the reality of how vulnerable American forces are is clear. And since the US the Chinese Navy has been expanding. The US Navy has not been expanding and its maintenance rates have actually been deteriorating. So its combat power has been deteriorating. And so they haven’t responded well to the challenge over the past few years. I mean the elephant in the room here is nuclear weapons and various technologies which might skew these cycles. There’s numerous existential risks today that perhaps weren’t present at earlier times in these cycles. You know, things like just the rapid spread of pathogens or the interconnectedness of global finance and cyber attacks and nuclear weapons.

How are these things going to potentially skew the outcome of what otherwise is a fairly predictable cycle in terms of how at the moment the predictable cycle is that the west loses. So we’re not looking good. We haven’t preemptively deterred any combat capabilities for the Chinese. We haven’t prepared for the, the conflict the way they have. So we’re not looking good. I do think that when, you know, people say to me, what do you think about nuclear weapons? I think the Chinese plan to inherit the world. They don’t plan to inherit ashes. So the biggest constraint on Putin’s random threats was always China.

And once that we put the use of a single weapon according to his strategy of escalate, to de escalate onto the rung of mutual destruction. He was never going to do anything. And Biden was cowed when he should have been brave. And that was one of the key shapings of the battlefield in Ukraine is the cowing of Biden and Jake Sullivan, the National Security advisor, to not respond and to respond belatedly. And it actually was incredibly successful in creating a no win result for the West. So I think nuclear warfare is probably the greatest threat is when Western powers realize they’re losing, losing and their choice of destroy everything or accept submission.

And they’ll probably be too weak to do anything but accept submission. I think in the future, I hope it’s otherwise. And I do have some optimistic things for you to talk about about the game changers. But you’re absolutely right about financial vulnerability. I mean, if we could we lose our banks, for example, the cyber attack, how do we pay for anything? And I think the markets are very vulnerable. We saw with North Korea stealing a bunch of cryptos and how vulnerable cryptos are to be bearer bonds and taken away. I think the whole crypto structure is absolutely peaked.

As I called in late December, we won’t see anything like it. I think the US Stock market’s peaked. I think the dollar is on its way down, and I think US Bonds and all bonds in the Western world are on their way down. That three things all together that represent the collapse of a system. And under those conditions where there’s lots of entropy, there are lots of things that break with respect to pathogens. One of the topics which I covered extensively was expanding systems, exporting diseases to other countries. And it highlighted something which I felt the Chinese would be doing, which was seeking cheap weapons of asymmetric advantage, of which biogenetic weapons were clearly on the list.

And I described it, and that meant when the pandemic first appeared in December 19, 2019, I was very quick to recognize it was a weaponized product, wasn’t zoonotic at all. It came from a weapons lab. And I still argue its singular purpose was economic constriction to ensure Western debt went through the roof and we couldn’t use debt to rearm. I don’t think it was an accident. I think it came after the trade wars had shaken the tree and put them back a bit. So I think we’ve already, already been subject to a pathogen and it’s amazing to me that really that’s not discussed in the stream of aggression that we’re seeing from the autocratic powers.

And the way we responded and our response was shaped through the UN and China to think that lockdowns were the suitable mechanism. And lockdowns led to basically debt going through the roof. Britain spent £400 billion just surviving something it shouldn’t have spent that money on. And if we’d use it in defense, Russia wouldn’t be getting out of bed in the mornings. So it was very successful. So you think that, just going back to the nuclear question, that nations will have this tacit agreement not to use nukes and keep it at the conventional level because the negative outcome is so dire for both that they would be compelled to keep it at the level of just using conventional weaponry, is that I think certainly the Chinese are looking to expand into the world to dominate it, and they want to inherit it, not destroy it.

And you think the more might if they think it’s futile. Well, and the way the west has to use weapons on its own territory because it’s been invaded. And that’s always been an issue. You know, in the Cold War, Thatcher and Reagan were hardcore about that. And you know, the center of Europe would have been decimated in the process, but they said they would do it, which acted as a form of deterrence. I’m not convinced our Western leaders are strong enough nowadays to do. To take very hard decisions. And they might not be after 10 years of a conventional struggle that’s basically eroded, you know, our very best and fighting will.

We’ll see. I mean, actually thinking about it, what happens if you survive longer? You lateralize. If you lateralize, you usually end up with better leadership. So the longer you last, the more you evolve into a war fighting, adaptable nation. Look at Ukraine, you know, look at. Look at how they survived. It’s quite remarkable. And all of their commanders and operators are lateral. And I know so because I’ve had to lecture some of them at a senior level and I’ve discussed this idea of what happens between a peacetime army and what happens between a wartime army and a transition of lateralization.

And how when you send your initial peacetime army into conflict full of linear leaders, how disastrous it can be because they lose vital assets. And there are things and dynamics which I’ve designed which encourage systems to adapt before you go to war, not on the cutting edge of conflict. So there are things we can do to make ourselves more prepared, and we need to do and I think, you know, thinking about the whole prepping construct and self resilience, I think it’s critical everyone become resilient and that essentially we take responsibility for what it’s like. If you could go to Ukrainian and say, what would you have done before the war broke out? I bet you would have said, I would have stockpiled, prepared and I’d like to have, you know, done certain things which would have endured me through this process.

But I think we need to do more than that. I think for all the people that have mindsets to want to prepare, which is exactly where my mindset is in terms of articulating this to you all. It’s also about having a voice in democracy to making sure you talk about it to your friends and the threat and the danger and see it coherently and demand leaders and politicians hear it. Because I think the great thing about democracy is that we can spread our ideas and they cascade down through the group and then suddenly there’s a new idea in the system and politicians do respond.

So we as the people need to demand our politicians have a much more robust response to this threat that we’re facing. So with these peace talks with Trump and Putin, obviously Putin perhaps becoming more lateral in his thinking. Trump is a manifestation of this lateralism. And is there a potential for these talks to go in the other direction? It appears like there’s a lot of can kicking down the road going on here. It appears like they’re trying to stall and because they know that ultimately they’ll be at an impasse, I predict. But you’re saying that you, you think that it’s, the plan is for Ukraine to concede territory and that Europe is going to put troops in Ukraine and what happens after that? So, so, so let’s.

I, I think you, you’ve assisted very astutely. I mean, Putin is being maximalist. He wants, you know, to keep going west and if he can delay it and keep moving forward, he will. The only way there’s going to be peace is if Trump forces Ukraine to do as Putin demands. That’s it. There will be no flexibility from Putin. It’s an illusion. And so basically Trump is caught. Having said that, he will create peace and he has to constantly put pressure on Ukraine to surrender. And if Ukraine resists with European support, then the war continues. And for example, they’ve created a long, a long range Neptune missile.

It was a maritime strike missile. Now it’s a long range adaptive missile. It now can hit Moscow. They don’t need authority from Britain America or France, they can start with that long range duel without political interference, which takes away all sorts of elements and the dynamics we’ve seen. I cannot see the Ukrainians surrendering because they’re expected to surrender their statehood, their independence and sit there and wait for the next Russian attack. It’s just not in their interest. So they will keep struggling and fighting for as long as they can. Then the only issue is whether Trump does exactly what he did before.

He turns around and says you can’t have anything and turns the intelligence off. So I think we’re going to get down to those sort of moments and that’s where Europe is trying to step in and trying to play an important part. But it’s a paper tiger. It does have one capability I would add and I suppose if I was on the table thinking about strategies. NATO air power, if you take away US Air power, is strong enough to take on and literally dominate Russian air power. So a sky shield of European planes over NATO, over Ukraine I think is something we should have done at the beginning.

And with American fighter, fighters and bombers, that’s a completely like done yesterday deal. But even without America, I believe the Tornado and the Eurofighters, the Rafaels and the Gripens, even if you’re allowed to, the F16s can still create a shield over Ukraine. I think that’s probably the one lever Europe has because sticking 30,000 boots on the ground is neither here nor there. In a war full of a million on each side, the only thing that’s going to do it is dominant air power. But you don’t think that would elicit, I mean clearly that would be a red line for Russia, wouldn’t it? Well, the whole point is it’s Putin isn’t going to accept any Western forces peacekeeping on the border because the whole reason why he went to war was to push NATO and Europe further west, not to have a creep suddenly eastwards.

So to me that’s a non negotiable for him. Wouldn’t the air defense no fly zone be equivalent in terms of its severity of NATO commitment and when it as easily elicit a negative Russian response? Well, absolutely. I mean, look, Starmer’s working on the basis that Russia allows those troops to be be there and he’s not. So it’s very interesting. I think they’re slightly deluded in their planning unless there’s some secret part of this we we can’t see. And I do not think that we should be projecting small forces of European troops out on a limb just like we did with the BEF in the first war and Second World War, because we just lose them and then your whole mindset is overextended in the wrong place.

You’re not inside NATO alliance. So I think it’s very dangerous and I don’t think Putin will let it happen. And even if you did, I don’t think we should do it the way he’s suggesting. We should only do it with air power because that’s flexible. I don’t think boots on the ground up, they anchor us in a way that’s very dangerous. On the way they’re talking now, it’s supposed to be a. I can’t remember the exact term. It was a reaction based force. Yes. A coalition of the willing. But I mean, you know, reaction based force or where you go, it’s neither here nor there because it’s.

If you put heavy forces in, they have problems moving. The current NATO force structure wouldn’t last well on the front line because without dominant air power, because of the drones that the Russians operate and their electronic warfare is very sophisticated. And again, Ukraine has managed to catch up and supersede them in many ways. But EW is not prevalent across NATO forces on the ground. So I think we’ve slightly got our heads caught in the. We used to be the dominant boil the block and we’re not anymore in that space, but we are in the air above.

So that’s the only lever I think that the Europe Europeans have. Yeah, I think it’s, it’s not, it’s very possible for there to be NATO troops in Ukraine. And because of this Article 6, which basically allows for an attack on NATO forces outside of NATO territory that would possibly preclude any further involvement of NATO outside and it would just turn into a NATO proxy war. Is that something you think is possible where the whole Article 5 thing is so gray over this? I mean, you know, let’s just say Britain puts his whole army at the front and Russian attacks it.

So does that trigger Article 5 that British forces now been attacked by the Russians? I mean, that needs to be defined and I think think any ambiguity will be tested by Putin. And I think in some ways maybe the planners are hoping that that clause is going to trigger it, but there’s a real danger it doesn’t. And the other nations say no, nothing to do with this. So I think we’re in really dangerous ground. And my overall observation is the kind of thinking we’re seeing is not on a grand strategic basis. It’s just basically politicians in a Reaction.

How can you contemplate in, say, Britain, as Starmer is putting troops on the ground when you haven’t even increased your defense budget and your defense forces are in a lamentable state? What signal are you sending Putin if you turn around and said, right, we’re going to get 5% capital spend, which is what I think we should do, and 5% per annum? We’re building up our forces, and as a downward payment to our commitment, we’re putting these guys to the front. Now, that means something. But this pretending and grandstanding that Starmers is quite disgraceful. It follows Blair and all sorts of the people behind where they’re committed.

They won’t spend money on defense, but they commit defense to wars and localized areas. Thinking it gives them political kudos. And I’m afraid we are going to get a hiding to nothing doing that. It does appear that Trump and the United States have a vested interest in at least freezing the lines. When you look at what’s happening, you know, this is having a deleterious effect on Russia in terms of its ability to. To output its resources, which are its bread and butter. And you have a lot of duplicitous moves from Trump in that while he is seemingly, perhaps, opening these lines of communication with Putin, at the same time he wants to, you know, weaponize Greenland and he wants to, you know, get up there in the Arctic seaway.

He’s doing a lot of things that are, strategically speaking, opposed to Russian and are working towards limiting the Russian sphere of influence while at the same time pretending to be, you know, this peacemaker. So I’m not entirely sold on the idea that he is antithetical to European interests. It seems as though what’s happening is that the Trump administration is trying to. To force Europe to take on the role of, you know, fighting the Russians because they’re going to be preoccupied with Iran and the Indo Pacific. Look, I think kicking Europe out of its sleep was something I was completely in favor of because Europe has been asleep and they needed to wake up and spend more on defense, not just for the Russians, but also the Chinese threat.

And so in that goal, I totally allow aligned. But there are constructive ways to do that. There are ways where you say, guys, we need you to do this. We spend $34 billion on European defense. That’s roughly what America spends at the moment with its forced deployment. So we would like you to pay the $34 billion to us if you want us to stay here. And we expect you to go to 3%, because we’ve got to go to Asia and deal with China. We’re right on side, but we encourage you to do it. That’s completely. But breaking every bond of trust within a NATO construct where no one Trusts anyone, where MI6 is wondering whether it can share its Russian intelligence with, with, with, with Putin, with, with Trump because he’s so close to Putin.

These things break the fabric of defense and our collective interests. So, and with respect to Greenland and Panama, one of the predictions I made with Trump was first of all, he would seek an imperial form of rule. And it’s quite interesting how if you think of personal relationships and the point at which they break up, it’s then that we are very clear who’s on the other side of the equation. We understand each other and we’ve obviously decided there is no longer a way to work together and we separate in the same way. At the end of an empire cycle, empires really show what they really are.

And America has been a shadow empire. It’s been a very sophisticated form of wealth extraction by using a defense footprint and a dollarized footprint inside it. And it’s extracted wealth to its core. And that’s why call is an empire, because all empires do that. They take things from the outside and bring them to the core. And how they do that has become ever more sophisticated. Britain being the most sophisticated colonial system and now even more so America with the shadow construct. But there’s something that Trump represents and that is true imperial imperialism. The idea, I’ll take you, I’ll have you, you’ll do this, you’ll do that, which is coming at the end of the final stage of decline.

And what struck me about Greenland that was far more concerning than perhaps people had thought is that China had a first, second and third island chain to defend its homeland, and then it turned it on its head in terms of how it wanted to expand through those phases to get out of the Pacific. I think Greenland and Panama represents the lastest defense like line that America wants when it sees it losing all its external influence. So, and, and that is really significant because I interpret it as. It is much as he’s promised to make America great, America is collapsing and he is ensuring it collapses.

And that’s a last ditch defense line to ensure you control the Iceland Pharaoh’s Gap, which is where ships come out of if they’re Russian and Chinese. You have obviously land between you and the north. You have resources, but it’s a defensive line, a natural one, down to the Panama Canal. So I think much as there’s lots of bloated puffing about expansion. There’s some really serious signs of the inner defense line, which is really a more realistic proposition with the way he’s structuring his policies to force the decline of America very rapidly. Rapidly. And I would just add to this.

I. Angela Merkel was a lovely old granny. She looked really like paternally lovely and maternally lovely. And yet, if you look at the evidence of 20 years of her decisions, she came from East Germany. She followed in the line of Schroeder, who basically ended up living in Moscow because he was a patsy. And all of his. Her policies, when you look at it, pulled Germany and the EU downwards. They were always what I’d call, you know, entropic. So I would conclude that she was on the wrong side. She wasn’t, actually. She was under Putin’s control. And there’s a lot more discussion about that than there was before.

And in studying, people look at what they do, not what they say. So if you look at Trump’s long record right now, his record with Russia is terrifying. If it was anyone else, they would be clearly on the other side. And it’s only because we can’t believe a president could be so under the control of another agency that is our enemy that it’s so hard to comprehend. But I’ve made a huge list. And one of the things I’d suggest you guys do is that intelligence is everything in life. And I built my system so I could see further ahead than others and understand what was happening to us.

And I’m sad to say it’s been quite prophetic. So I must be somehow understood how we really do interact. And I publish a thing called Marinations, and you can buy them for the pace of a newspaper, and they give you predictions and understanding about what is really happening to us. And when you go to one of the predictions called Trump the British, I lay it all out, and it’s so extensive, it’s difficult to dismiss. It’s difficult to dismiss it. And I’ll give you an action. Why did Trump allow Britain to give away the Chekhov silence? Really, it’s not in America’s influence or interest.

It’s a disaster for Britain. We shouldn’t even be pursuing that idea. And with a belligerent Trump with America first attitude, why did he let us do that? I would argue that somehow or another, it was a gift to XI from Putin, because I cannot think of any other reason that that would have been allowed to happen. With even the remotest logic that Trump says He portrays, and there are numerous things like that. And just to play the. The devil’s advocate, is it possible that Trump is just utilizing a strategy of more affable diplomacy in an attempt to kind of keep your enemies closer? Or is it really.

Is it? Because it seems as though with his withdrawal from the INF treaty, you know, giving Ukraine Javelin missiles, the sustained delivery of arms, it seems like there’s a lot of contradictory stuff here which isn’t signaling that he’s going all in on Putin’s side yet, you know, so, like, there has to be some. So. So, okay, so just imagine this, right? You. You are someone that has two agendas, and, you know, the one you say is on the surface and what you really want, if you just go straight from A to B to C, everyone can see it.

But if you meander backwards and forwards, people get confused. Confused sufficiently. For example, if you look at what he did with Zielinski, he pummeled Zelensky, he closed off their arms, and he closed down their intelligence. Absolutely breathtaking. And then when finally he let them out of the coop and the stand and the cursed salient has been collapsed, he turns around and says, okay, so those guys there for peace, you, Mr. Putin, have got to move. And he appeared strong for a moment, and you’re thinking, oh, great, the strong man’s back. But it just disappears really quickly.

And I bet you after tomorrow’s conversation, we’ll be back to the suppression of Ukraine. So you really got to look at the. The average direction of travel, not each location. And because they’re averaging out towards one outcome, the surrender of Ukraine and the favor of Putin. And so it’s a very clever strategy. He’s a narcissist, he’s grandiose, and. And he’s smart. He’s also a bit impulsive. So unlike Putin, where every step, he knows what he’s doing. If I were to put a grandiose narcissist like Trump, I call him messianic because he believes he’s now divine alongside a.

A grandiose psychopathic leader like Putin. Putin will win every time because he is control over his emotions, which Trump doesn’t do. He’s strategic, and he’s really cunning, and he has the training of being a spy. And I suggest that something, some form of contramat, Something that happened in the 80, 1987 period allowed them to get their teeth into Trump, and they’ve never, ever let go. Well, even with this announcement of the supposed phone call between Trump and Putin tomorrow, Putin was Very reticent, reserved about declaring this, whereas I think Trump just immediately blurted it out on Air Force One.

It’s kind of like, you know, it’s proper Tourette’s and he’s even got a social media platform where it goes from brain mouth to mid platform in about two seconds. Yeah, I don’t even know who’s like controlling all those tweets, if it’s him or if it’s because there’s a lot of weird manipulation happening, especially in the crypto markets. As I’m sure you’re familiar with Trump Coin and Melania Coin, you had maybe just to shift gears a little bit here, you had said that you thought that bitcoin had topped out at 110 and that bonds were going to crash, that the market was going to crash.

Everything is in a wildly overvalued bubble at this point. How do you, what did you use to inform that perspective? And I guess, you know, what is the safe haven? I’m thinking towards the lines of precious metals and things like that. But what are your macroeconomic predictions moving forward? Okay, so I’ve described to you the big picture system models that I built. And I also have a series of market models and that is I use a series of pattern recognition systems which are fractals, believe it or not. Lot of the ones I use in the five stages of empire in price.

And I look at every sector, you know, six big macro sectors, 80 markets within it. And it’s a whole holographic dynamic across all time frames. Now the reason why that’s important and being a principal investor’s experience is I’m not like an academic who likes to spout off about things because I think that human societies are anchored also in their market behavior. So I need to see the behavior of markets aligning with some of these bigger predictions about conflict dynamics. And I’m seeing them all over the place. And so I was able to predict, for example, the high in the dollar back when we had that whole sterling crisis with trusts.

And that was the high in the dollar which I called the last great high before the dollar imploded. And one of the key patterns is in sterling or cable. There’s a phenomenal like 10 year pattern which tells me the sterling is going to 170. And when it was down a 1, I was able to buy it 105 against the lows. Been long ever since that thing is going to 170. Which means that same for the euro is going up, means the dollar index is going down. It means that Canada is going to appreciate against the US Dollar.

The dollar is really in trouble. And I can see why. Because tariffs do not strengthen currencies, they do not strengthen economies. There’s not a single piece of experience in history that tells anyone in history who reads history that tariffs are beautiful. Tariffs are destructive and highly inflationary, and both sides lose. In the case of China, I fear that Trump’s tariffs on China will be much like the oil embargoes of America to Japan were in 1940. They force China to go to war sooner because the margin of their economy gets worse. So I think that’s a very dangerous catalytic dynamic in bonds.

Well, we’ve been in a bear market since inflation kicked off back in 2021. That was a high. Again, I was able, a big turning point is able to call. And this turning point is going to keep with us into the peak of 2030. So interest rates are going to go up and up and up. And just to give you some measure of them, 10 year rates are about 15% in 75. And the peak of this cycle is going to be much higher than the previous cycle. And on top of that, there’s basically a debt bust coming with the states that can’t afford itself.

So expect interest rates to really get out of control and equities. Well, the US Equity market is really interesting because it is a product of pure money printing. And this is the irony. It’s not about great policies by Biden, not great policies by Trump. It’s about continuing to print money to keep the system alive through leverage to compensate for lack of adaption and loss of real productivity. And we’ve come to the end of the road. And it’s ironic that Trump always valued himself by how high. The stock market had nothing to do with his policies. It was just to do with how much money was printed in the system.

And now we’re in the reverse, the opposite. It’s about to happen. So Trump’s personal esteem and the measure by which he likes to measure himself is about to call him. And even if the group around him and MAGA and his supporters still believe that his idea about making America great is going to work, the markets are going to call time. And they are calling time because the great thing about delusion is reality catches up. And I’m afraid his policies are deliberate, eluded on all historical basis. He just believes in them. But that doesn’t mean they have substance.

And the markets are about to show him that that’s not exactly the case. So I think there’s a lot of economic trauma to come. America won’t be made great, it will be made impoverished and people will become poorer and America’s enemies will become more able to embolden, to act throughout this whole process. So where do you go with your stuff and why did I believe that crypto, for example, had reached a high? Well, fundamentally, crypto is a sort of safe haven in a dollar declining story. But it’s really just a liquidity player. What people did with all their extra money.

The idea that it was going to become something wonderful and amazing, the idea got basically connected to what I would call, sorry, I’ve got an escaped cat trying to get to the door. The idea that cryptos were essentially going to be this. If they see crypto’s appeal to lateral people, and lateral people have been ejected from a linearized society and feel very different and frustrated because they weren’t accepted and they could see the society going in the wrong direction and they weren’t included and they weren’t ever validated. So they, you know, basically were the first to jump on it as a new paradigm.

But it was no different from a tulip bubble. And it has the most perfect price analogy systems. And in my insider head fund that people can subscribe to if they’re asset managers, I managed to explain what was going to happen, predict the high from 50,000 would be 109. It reached 109 and now we’re going back sub 50 to sub 30. The bubble is broken. So where do you keep your money? You keep your money in precious metals, which is something I’ve been advocating for a number of years now. And that’s paying off very handsomely. And you don’t have any bonds.

And you think about the economy migrating to a wartime economy. That means if you’re invested in a handbag company, you might not do so well. But invested in a boot company or a fleece company or sleeping bag company, anything that big used in conflict, you have every chance of survival. So there’s a paradigm shift taking place here that people need to wake up to. And I think I also had heard you say that you thought that gold confiscation, am I correct, that that could possibly be? Yeah. So you’ve listened really well. So right now it’s the place to be.

Right? But there’s a moment when you’re in conflict and the nation is needing gold to hold its financial dynamics together, where the nation confiscates the people’s gold. So you need to be aware about where that point point Is again, you know, that’s part of my study and work. I’ve done extensive studies of the wartime financial behavior in World War I and World War II, which are available to professional investors on my site. And it’s a really amazing piece of work that links behavior into cycles and shows you exactly what I think will be happening in as we accelerate into this conflict.

So it’s really a minefield. You can’t just do one thing. You’ve got to be in phase with the various steps and you’ve got to keep moving and step to one side and then the other because it is a moving feast as conflict unfolds. Have you given any thought to the movement of the gold from the LBMA to the United States and what the reasons for that are? Well, I think Europe is less secure than America, quite frankly. Yeah. You know, there’s a large ocean between and we’ve got one enemy which isn’t that far away, and you’ve got an ocean between both of your enemies, which is Russia and China.

So you are in effect the quintessential equivalent of Britain in, in, you know, medieval Britain had an island and had a big moat. So, you know, it’s a safer place. I always laugh when I meet clients who say they keep their money in, sing their gold in Singapore and I almost want to laugh and say, what part of that do you think is secure? So locations are really key. And I guess lastly, just with respect to the prepper archetype as a manifestation of lateralism in a time of deteriorating linearity, what are your thoughts of the prepper? Because I actually see two types of preparedness.

One is born from that dopamine seeking linear mindset where it’s just like this gluttonous, you know, consumption and hoarding of stuff, you know, hoping that the stuff and the material aspect is going to see people through, which is better than nothing, I suppose. But then there’s also the, the other more lateral aspect of it which is perhaps more rooted in skills, learning self reliance, learning how to think more flexibly and, and being less functionally fixated in the way that we are and have been groomed to be. Because face it, in order to be successful and to kind of go along, to get along in our world as it’s currently structured, you have to kind of fall in line, right? So unless you’re willing to go all the way, as Bukowski would say, you probably are not going to succeed in a lateral fashion, you know, unless you’re really committed to whatever it is you’re doing.

But with preppers, you know, it can work both ways. And there’s. There seems to be two kinds of preppers. There’s like that panic prepper who’s, you know, they hear bad news and they’re running out to get toilet paper. And then there’s the people who are perhaps more proactive. Like they have some inkling that something isn’t right about this system. It’s almost like, I don’t know, I’ve been trying to find a hard science to it, like, as to why preppers manifest. Were there preppers 100 years ago when these cycles were taking place? Place where there’s some people who are, you know, I mean, you have the majority who’s going to be incredulous to these changes, but then you have like, this minority of people, it seems.

And not to say that we’re exceptional in any respect, but just that there’s a minority of people, it seems, that are always, you know, just a little bit leery of, of the situation. What do you think? What are your thoughts on. On how preppers fit into your theory? So I’ve been, I was never been more excited to be on your show, actually, when you reached out, because I believe that, you know, there’s a huge portion of your audience who are lateral because preparation is about adaption and being able to think ahead and be able to extrapolate away from where you are now to another situation.

And, you know, in declaring my views, I am obviously pretty lateral in the way I think and, you know, my architecture, I am in favor of adaptation and lateralization. And so part of when I look at. And I’m going to digress, but come back to your question because it’s quite important for those of you who are lateral and say, well, why don’t I like Trump? Some of his policies are what the policies I would have, they’re lateral. But my concern is that being lateral is not enough. The discharging of the responsibility of power is about am I serving the people I lead or am I serving myself? And so the problem for me is that Trump is serving himself, not us.

And that’s a failure of leadership. And he also has a character type which always leads to destruction of everyone else in my historical studies. So I am disappointed that he occupies the lateral peg when we need lateralism in our Western society, societies. So that puts it down to us and individuals. So as preppers, and you describe them as two forms, the. Oh, my goodness, there’s a pandemic coming. I’m going to get My toilet rolls. Well those guys will do it like within 24 hours but they can’t see further ahead. So the people that are planning with greater continuity and investment, I would say you’re pretty all natural and I hope that today’s idea years have given you some framework.

And from my experience most lateral people actually think this way. Just my work gives them a better framework to think and to put the meat on the bones that they intuitively felt. And my guess is that lateral people are self retired. I mean lateral preppers are self reliant so they value the idea that they can look after themselves or should do and they think about conditions therefore that they tend to be more outdoorsy, more self capable because you know the linear inverted commas cog in an urban environment couldn’t as you said in one of your videos, open a tin can.

Whereas natural people tend to be in an outdoorsy scent, very capable and adaptive. I think we are the gene line of hunter gatherers with the gene line of warriors between whether we went into the services or not. And so I think we with that mindset I would expect, you know, I’d be interested in your audience’s feedback. I think the way I’ve described things, you guys will go, well I’ve always been concerned, that makes sense to me and now I understand the threats that I really have, not the fears I had. And now I need to focus how I cope with those threats.

Whereas a linear prep will go, God, that’s really terrifying. I’m going for my toilet roll now. I mean I’m just, it’s terrifying and I can’t comprehend it, but I need toilet roll. So I think if you just look to the way two mindsets listen to this particular discussion, they would be very different. One will have fear and immobility and panic and the other is going to have a. Okay, now I know my threat, now I understand what I face, how do I guard against it and how do I ensure continuity. And maybe I do need to look further in just how I survive because in fact this, this is so much bigger than anything.

I can survive singly then. Now I need to work as a normal individual with other individuals towards a better, bigger cause which is mobilizing our society to protect itself because it’s not going to be enough to just be single survivors. Yeah, that’s a good point. The panic prepper is very in their own way, they’re, they’re in their own, you know, selfish sort of mindset. Whereas if you can calmly explore this through, through the rubric that you’ve provided, then you can also start to ask, well, how do we you actually reconstruct? And you can actually look at it more pragmatically and look at it through the, you know, through the eyes of a community, as opposed to which you’re inevitably going to be a part of.

And I think what sometimes happens is preppers get somewhat isolationless in a microcosm of, you know, perhaps some of, you know, Trump’s isolationist policies in a way, and that we feel as though that we have to do it all ourselves when the reality is it, it is a largely a group effort. I mean, you know, nomads, hunter gatherers, are going to be in smaller groups typically, so perhaps that’s where that comes from. Agrarian societies foster, you know, much larger, more centralized, densely populated societies. But there is, I think this will give people some justification and some vindication in terms of those feelings that they’re having with respect to prepping for this, because they are real, they’re rooted in possibly even physics, you know, so it’s not just, it’s not just a bunch of, of, you know, exaggerated probabilities.

It’s no, this is, this is, this is empirically based on a cycle that’s very clear and that, you know, just continues to get worse. So the entropy in this cycle will only get worse into 2030. So there’ll be no lovely golden piece or I was surprised by that, or something good happens at these vault faces of entropy. It’s always the chaotic option that manifests less. And so don’t expect. Now, if we’re having this conversation in say, 2032, I’d be thinking gone over the peak. Maybe we might get lucky. Maybe, you know, there is some luck, the good things that will happen.

But right now we need to be prepared for lots of bad things sequentially. And we need each other. We’re humans, we’re social. I talked about collective anti entropy. We’re most powerful when we work together. We’re not very powerful individually. And so we are designed to work as a collective. So building collectives that are, that have shared ideas. And I think that really, and I go back to it because I think this is so important is the people I most wanted to reach out to are the lateral sector of society. And my vision was if I could get 10% of the population, which is a third of the lateral population, to think the same way, you could click your fingers and it would transmit to everyone else simultaneously.

The challenge is I know that when lateral people listen to me, who are Trump followers? They turn around and said, you’re a Trump baller. And they just literally say, I don’t want to speak to you. I would like to ask one question of you, and that is really simply, is when you examine a relationship and you close your eyes, does the energy flow to you or away from you? And in a healthy relationship, it oscillates. It goes to you, back to you, to you, back to you. And then you have a healthy relationship with this apartment partner or a friend.

But most importantly, leaders are meant to serve the people they lead. And if the energy is flowing to them through aggrandizement and veneration and appeasement, as we’ve seen already evidenced in the Trump administration, something is fundamentally wrong. They are feeding off the people they’re meant to lead. And I always feel that, you know, words defy that description. But if you can use your intuition, fruition, it’s a really good guide to ask the question, are you being well led? Well, I’m sure we’ve ruffled the odd feather too, but I would say on the whole, my audience is quite open minded to these sorts of things.

And while there’s most certainly a lot of people who view Trump as the lesser of evils, I think that they’ll be receptive to generally what you’re saying here. So I thank you for coming on. And, and what is the next book that you’re writing? So I think it’s probably my. The thing I was really meant to write all along, but it was a long journey to, to do the study, to do it. It’s called Breaking the Code of wars, and it essentially explains how we use wars to evolve. As I mentioned at the beginning, wars force lateralization.

Lateralization forces adaptation and creativity. And then the whole system after a war coast for another seven 70 years on the legacy of creation and lateralization until the system linearizes again. So my point of the book is, until we realize we’re using wars to evolve, they’re going to keep happening, and they happen in cycles as I described. So a, if we start to understand how to break those cycles by not reaching that cycle point of risk at a point of disarmament, by having deterrence at key moments, being conscious we’re evolving that way, and then creating, I would argue, ways to force lateralization in a peacetime environment, encourage a more lateral society through our education, and ensure that there’s oscillation, routine, lateral and linear leadership, all sorts of social engineering.

But we are not going to stop fighting until we become aware of why we fight. And that’s part one of this. This book is part one in a whole sequence of understanding wars in a completely different way. But I. I think hopefully it gives humanity a tool to think differently about ourselves. Absolutely. Well, you’ve given me a lot to think about today and where else can people find more information about you? I know you have a YouTube channel, or at least one in your name. Is that your own YouTube channel? Yeah, yeah, I have my own YouTube channel.

So you can see some of the things there. It’s a bit behind sometimes, but if you go to my website, davidmorin.co.uk you will find that is the center of everything I do. So all of you know alerts about. If I’ve had interviews, you can go to the media section and see it. But I really encourage you to actually think about this, be better informed and have better advanced intelligence. And I created a thing called Murinations and you can subscribe to Marinations Gold on the site and they are updates about what is going to happen and what is happening now through the filter of the system I’ve described.

They have turned out to be really powerful. I don’t talk so much about financial markets, although I let everyone know the high of Bitcoin took place in just in December and the end of December. So some of those key things I’ll let people know about massive study of conflict and wars and about the imminent bombing of Iran, for example, or peace and the following. And there’s an awful lot of warfare and psychology, all the things you really need to understand what’s happening and be ahead of, of the curve and be informed. I’ve even covered things like UAPs, because UAPs are linked to national security.

There’s so everything that I think is important to work out what’s coming next, I share. In the context of this framework, they are powerful. The feedback is, you know, they will change the way you think forever. And if you want to buy a newspaper, it’s better than a newspaper and it’ll tell you what’s coming up. And I do the scientific thing of working out what ends been right and when I’ve been wrong. I learn from my lessons, I share those lessons. But my idea is to give everyone the same construct I’ve created so we think and join the dots differently.

Once we do that, things that did surprise us don’t and once we understand what’s constructive, we have better choices to replicate constructive behavior. So I think if people take the time to do that, they’ll literally See things that drop out they didn’t expect. Yeah. And I would encourage people to listen to this twice because I know I’ve had to listen to a couple your talks twice because you know your stuff and you talk very quickly and. But it’s been incredibly informative and I look forward to seeing how this actually, you know, transforms with all of the, the new phenomena, be it AI or automation and how all these new things are going to factor in.

So I’m looking forward to that book. But there’s a, there’s a. Funny enough, there’s a piece that came out last week on my website and it’s called Internet Connected World of Global Forecast and it looks at every topic, the ones you described, and how they interrelate to each other topic. So it’s actually a holistic way of thinking about a three dimensional hologram and how information is linked, which is how my mind works. And I try to share that with people so they can see the depth of work around that and see things differently. They may not, they may just confirm.

Leave it to a first principles physicist to try to explain to us the future, to predict the future. Anyways, David, thanks a lot for coming out. We greatly appreciate it. Thanks for being a great interview and spending the time to look at my work beforehand. I really appreciate it. Take care. The best way to support this channel is to support yourself by gearing up@canadianpreparedness.com where you’ll find high quality survival gear at the best prices. No junk and no gimmicks. Use discount code prepping gear for 10 off. Don’t forget the strong survive but the prepared thrive. Stay safe.
[tr:tra].

See more of Canadian Prepper on their Public Channel and the MPN Canadian Prepper channel.