The Man Who Predicted The Iran War: The Next 9/11 Will Target Your Bank Account! | Professor Jiang

I think there are a lot of people who do not like what I'm saying. I am one of the most polarizing figures in the world right now, but I'm trying to prepare everyone. What I want to explain to you today, Stephen, is why the world is collapsing. Having studied patterns of history and global supply chains, I now recognize and have a framework to predict the future. I brought three, four, five predictions structured around 9/11.

So what are your predictions? I've been dying to know.

My first prediction: if there is another 9/11 attack, it will be an attack on the US financial infrastructure. Imagine one day you open your iPhone and you're looking to buy a coffee, and all the money your bank

If there is another 9/11 attack, it will be an attack on the US financial infrastructure. Imagine one day you open your iPhone to buy a coffee and all the money in your bank account has been wiped out, with no word on when or how long it will take to retrieve it. I believe that's what makes Americans most vulnerable and therefore the most easily traumatized.

What's prediction number two?

That Lionel Messi will become president of Argentina.

I wasn't expecting that. And do you think Trump is going to have a third term? Let's take a friendly bet and say $100 that Trump gets a third term. There'll be a siege to New York City.

Prediction three: my third prediction is—

Are you sure? You don't think the US would actually do that?

I understand a lot of this is going to be extremely pessimistic, but we are living in a time of not just war, but also the regression of civilization. We've basically hit the height of technological advancement.

The word "collapse" you use there is a strong word.

Yes. I am positive that we are seeing the collapse of civilization. All the suffering we might have seen on television is coming to us in our lives, and the world is essentially running out of time. I will paint a clear and simple picture of what is about to come.

What would have to be the case for none of these catastrophic things to take place?

Professor Chang, what is front of mind for you at the moment? Your energy is giving me some things on my mind.

I think that we are living in a time when the world is collapsing. What I want to explain to you today, Stephen, is how we got to the world that we are in and why it is collapsing.

The Petrodollar System

The first thing I want to explain is the petrodollar system, which is the basis for the global economy. Let's go back to the year 1945, the end of World War II. The United States was dominant and would manufacture goods for Europe and for Japan, which had been destroyed in the war. So the United States said: we will lend you the US dollars to purchase the goods that we will export to you, but you have to promise to pay us back in gold.

The United States became complacent and was spending money it shouldn't have been spending. It went from a credit nation to a debtor nation. So in 1971, Richard Nixon said the US dollar would no longer be pegged to gold. The question then became: if the dollar is no longer pegged to gold, what is its value? Nixon had to create demand for the US dollar.

Three things happened after what is called the Nixon shock. The first was the creation of the petrodollar: Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East agreed to sell their oil only in US dollars, so if you want to buy oil and energy, you need US dollars. In the late 70s and early 80s, China said the same thing: if you want our cheap manufactured goods, you have to pay in US dollars. In the mid-80s came something called the Plaza Accord, where Japan agreed to take all its savings and buy US treasuries.

Essentially, they're buying a promise from the US. All of this is based on promises. The US dollar is a contract, a promise: China promises to give you manufactured goods, and Saudi Arabia promises to give you oil. This petrodollar system created the world we live in today.

Semiconductors and Global Specialization

This is a semiconductor, the basis of all technology and all computers. There are three critical elements in a semiconductor: silicon, gallium, and germanium. There are many more elements, but these three together allow semiconductors to achieve almost impossible technology — precision missiles and satellite communication are all based on these three elements working together.

Why we have these three elements in place is because of this global system. About 60–70% of the world's silicon comes from China, 70% of gallium comes from China, and 90% of the world's germanium comes from China. The process works like this: the United States, mainly in California — Nvidia or Apple — designs very advanced semiconductor chips to power the iPhone or video games. The chip design is then sent to Taiwan and Malaysia for manufacturing. The Netherlands and Japan create the machines to print these semiconductors — a Dutch company called ASML manufactures lithography machines worth $400 million each. These machines and the chip design go primarily to Taiwan, but also Malaysia, to manufacture the chips, and the chips are then sent to China to be put into appliances.

So when you see this semiconductor, you're not just seeing a piece of metal and plastic — you're really seeing the world converging together. Remember this formula, because it will help us explain how the world works:

Technological progress is correlated with specialization × globalization.

It's very simple: all technological progress is premised on more countries being able to specialize, and on those countries being able to trade freely with each other. What makes this all possible is global trade, supported by two things. The first, of course, is the US dollar. The second, most important thing is US military hegemony.

Hegemony meaning?

Meaning there is no peer competitor. There is no one who can challenge the United States in control of the seas.

So you're coming now to the point of why you think — because the claim at the top was that the world is collapsing.

Exactly. I bring this all up because we need to appreciate what technological innovation is. If technological innovation is specialization times globalization, then we are living in a time of not just war but also the regression of civilization.

In other words, my argument to you today is that we've basically hit the apex, the height of technological advancement. We cannot go any further, because in order for technology to progress, you need greater specialization and greater globalization. But what we're seeing right now — this war in Iran — will cause a chain of events that will force all nations to become much more general. You will see a decline in specialization, and they'll become much more nationalistic. They will need to create self-sufficient supply chains, so you will see a decline in globalization, and therefore technological progress will have to decline.

The word "collapse" you use, though, is a strong word.

Yes.

Is that the word you meant?

That's exactly the word I meant. We are not living through World War II, and we are not living through a shifting of the global order. We will live through, over the next 20 years, the collapse of civilization itself.

The collapse of civilization itself?

Yes.

Are you sure?

I am positive that we are seeing the collapse of civilization.

Asked to define what "the collapse of civilization" actually means — since people might read it as a weaker dollar, less innovation, or rising prices — the speaker points back to World War II. For those living in Europe or Asia, it genuinely seemed like the end of the world, with tens of millions dead. Yet at the same time an emergent superpower, the United States, was powerful enough at war's end to create a new world order, financing and defending what is called Pax Americana. We are now seeing the last days of Pax Americana.

One might ask whether China, Russia, or Israel will emerge to replace it. But the historical record shows that systems and empires in decline do not go willingly.

The closest historical analogy to today is the Bronze Age collapse. The Bronze Age resembles our own period because the entire world was globalized: making bronze required both copper and tin, found in different parts of the world, which drove global integration. But over time that integration produced massive inequality, debt, and polarization — so when the system collapsed, the entire world collapsed at once.

The Bronze Age cascade

What actually happened? A perfect series of crises caused a systematic collapse:

1. Climate change altered weather patterns, leading to famine, primarily in Europe.
2. Migration: starving people moved to areas with food — mainly Anatolia and Egypt.
3. Overwhelm and cascade: the migrants, known as the Sea Peoples, overwhelmed the systems of Egypt and Anatolia, destroying traditional hierarchies and authorities and triggering a cascading effect in which the entire world lost order.

Once that happened, the very fundamental elements of civilization disappeared.

Applying the analogy to today

Painting the scenario forward: the war in the Middle East is only expanding, drawing in more and more countries. Since the last conversation, essentially all of Iran's proxies have been brought into the war — including the Houthis, who occupy part of Yemen.

The Houthis are a group in Yemen that is aligned with Iran. Yemen is a country divided along tribal lines, and the Houthis are one of its tribes. Two things make them hard to defeat. First, they live in the mountains, so it is almost impossible to dislodge them — Saudi Arabia tried for five years and failed. Second, they are Shia Muslims. About 90% of the world's Muslims are Sunni and only about 10% are Shia, and because they are the minority, the Shia have historically been more fanatical. They believe in martyrdom, so the Houthis will fight to the death and are not afraid of dying.

The third thing to appreciate is that the Houthis control a critical choke point, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait at the entrance to the Red Sea, through which a great deal of trade must pass. Iran has already closed the Strait of Hormuz, and the easiest and cheapest way for Saudi Arabia to get its oil to East and South Asia is by sea — so Saudi Arabia cannot actually transport its oil.

The Houthis are the first group now involved in this war. Then there is Hezbollah in Lebanon, which is now fighting Israel; it is also a Shia group and therefore very fanatical. In addition, Iraq has Shia militias that operate as their own independent militaries. So four forces have been brought into the war: Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah, and the Shia militias in Iraq.

This matters because they span the entire Middle East. We are now seeing an expansion of the war, and over time more and more nations may have to be drawn in to protect their own interests.

The questioner notes that growing up during the Iraq war, there was always fighting somewhere in the Middle East, and eventually peace came to Iraq, the war wound down, and ISIS was decapitated—so the conflict just moved around a bit.

What's happening today is very different from 2003. Back then, the United States went in to decapitate Saddam Hussein and his government, which was easy because that government was not very popular among its own people. America specializes in shock-and-awe military tactics.

The problem today is that there are four different groups: the IRGC in Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Shia militia in Iraq. They are decentralized, fanatical, and share a similar eschatology—a similar religious framework.

The US military is not very good at fighting guerrilla insurgents, as shown in Afghanistan and Iraq—two "forever wars" where the United States spent trillions of dollars over 20 years trying to squash insurgents and failed miserably.

Because these four groups are coordinating but decentralized, this war can only expand over time. Saudi Arabia feels threatened by the Houthis, so it has recently signed the Mecca Accords with Turkey and Pakistan, meaning the three countries must now come to each other's defense. Saudi Arabia will likely be the first to invoke this mutual defense pact against the Houthis, bringing Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia into the war to try to dislodge them. But the Houthis in their mountain retreat are almost invincible.

So this war can only expand. In response, the Houthis can destroy Saudi Arabia's energy infrastructure—they have ballistic missiles and drones, and Saudi Arabia is a giant lake of gasoline ready to be blown up at any time.

Active Coordination and Great-Power Backing

The questioner pushes back: in the early 2000s there was al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, and Hamas—lots of militant groups—so how is this different?

The difference is active coordination. Al-Qaeda and ISIS worked separately, but today three proxies—the Houthis, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Shia militia—all report back to the IRGC in Iran. And critically, both China and Russia are supporting Iran in this conflict: China through the Belt and Road Initiative, transporting goods to Iran through that corridor, and Russia through the Caspian Sea. In theory, Iran could fight this war indefinitely, because there is a clear alliance in place to ensure Iran and its proxies can withstand it.

The Petrodollar System at Risk

The Middle East is the heart of the petrodollar system. It takes barrels of oil from the GCC countries and transports them to India, Pakistan, China, and Japan. East Asia then turns that energy into manufactured goods and consumer electronics for the world, priced in US dollars. China, Japan, and the GCC invest their excess savings in the United States, which allows the US to focus on innovation and create places like New York City, the financial center of the world.

The whole system depends on free trade. Once the oil stops flowing, China and Japan can no longer make the manufactured goods they need to export, and the United States loses all those recycled dollars. The three biggest buyers of US Treasuries—the three biggest financiers of the US economy, including the AI bubble—are Japan, the GCC, and China. So we could see a cascading effect in which the system collapses within a few months.

One of the reasons it's hard to believe the world is going to collapse — and I'll be completely honest here, people can take this as they take it — is that I was reading about the Bronze Age collapse after you mentioned it. What I pulled up says: "The late Bronze Age collapse was a rapid, violent, and widespread societal breakdown that occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean between approximately 1200 and 1150 BCE. Before the collapse, the region was heavily globalized. Major superpowers like the Egyptians were deeply interconnected through diplomacy, royal marriages, and complex international trade networks. But within a span of just 50 years, almost every significant city in the Eastern Mediterranean was destroyed, and many were never rebuilt." There's a map I'll throw up on the screen showing this breakdown.

Here's my honesty: as a 34-year-old, I've lived a very charmed life.

Charmed life.

Yeah. As it relates to history and the things that have happened in history. So when we hear that society will break down, that there'll be civil collapse, we Gen Z's and millennials don't really have a reference point. Our parents and their parents have reference points from World War II in the 1940s, but we don't. So it all seems like, "that can't happen to us."

You're absolutely right, and I think a lot of the issue is that the world has been constructed in a way to maintain the privileges of Western populations. You say we've lived a charmed life — well, if you lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, you did not live a charmed life, because the United States came and attacked you for no particular reason and destroyed the very infrastructure of your society. Even today, Iraq and Afghanistan are engulfed in political violence, war, and political assassinations. If you were a child in Iraq or Afghanistan, or even in Africa, you've never known peace, stability, and prosperity.

The inequality in the world is stark, and we in the West have been extremely privileged to be sheltered from a lot of the chaos. In fact, the US empire is designed to ensure its populations never have to suffer the tragedy and suffering of other people. What I'm trying to say is that this US empire is breaking down, and there's nothing we can do to stop it. All the suffering we might have seen on television is coming to us in our lives, and we need to be aware of it.

When you say it's coming to us in our lives — the same political violence, the same chaos, the same political polarization that has infested the rest of the world — do you think war is coming to our

Asked whether war is coming to our shores—because we now live in a post-nuclear-bomb era, and that seems to have created, in a weird way, a bit of peace between superpowers—the speaker answers: yes.

He says he wants to go to the screen and paint a picture of our global supply chains, and what it means for them to break down, using a few maps. These maps, he hopes, will give a clear and simple picture of what is about to come.

When pessimism began

Asked if he has always been pessimistic about the future, he says no. He became very pessimistic after Brexit and the election of Donald Trump. He explains that he was an immigrant who grew up in a very poor family—his father was a dishwasher for 30 years before retiring; they were so poor they couldn't afford a car and never took vacations. But he worked hard, got into Yale University on a full scholarship, and from his perspective the world was perfect: a meritocracy that rewarded talent and hard work. He believed the world was governed by reason, logic, science, truth, and good people.

When Brexit and Trump's election happened, he was traumatized. Brexit was the British people turning away from globalization; Trump's election was, from his perspective, the American rejection of meritocracy, reason, truth, and order. It told him that what he believed about the world didn't really work, and it forced him to reflect deeply on why the world was breaking down. Those events led him to today: he is trying to figure out patterns of history and principles of society that help us better understand ourselves.

That's why he drew the formula: traditionally, innovation was understood as coming from universities. But having studied history and global supply chains, he now recognizes that no technology just comes from specialization and globalization. This is not only an analysis of the current world but a framework for predicting the future—if, in a time of war, commercialization and globalization break down, then in theory technology should break down as well. He is trying to figure out how and why we are where we are today.

I wear this Bon Charge face mask for 15 to 20 minutes a day while sitting in the chair. It boosts collagen production, helps with fine lines and blemishes, and improves my complexion — which means more people listen to the podcast because I look better. It's professional-grade equipment in a small box, and it's non-invasive. Having sat here with so many of the world's leading health professionals, there are things I repeatedly hear work and some I'm skeptical about — this is one of the things almost all of my guests have confirmed works. It's really, really effective.

They offer fast, free shipping worldwide with easy returns and exchanges, a one-year warranty on all products, and HSA and FSA eligibility for tax-free savings of up to 40%. You can get 20% off sitewide when you order through my link at bondcharge.com/doac.

Much of the reason most people haven't posted content or built their personal brand is that it's hard, time-consuming, and we're all very busy. If you've never posted before, so many psychological factors stop you: what people will think of you, whether you're doing it right, whether what you're saying is absolutely stupid. All of this results in paralysis — you don't post, and your feed goes bare.

I'm an investor in a company called Stanto, which you've probably heard me talk about. They've built a new tool called Stanley that uses AI to look at your feed, your tone of voice, your history, and your best-performing posts, then tells you what you should post and makes those posts for you. You can also just use it for inspiration — sometimes that's what we need when thinking about a post for our social channels. Building an audience has fundamentally changed my life, and I think it could change yours too. I'm inviting you to give the tool a shot and let me know what you think — just search coach.stan.store to get started.

Building semiconductors requires a globalized economy. There has been a lot of talk about China controlling key elements: China manufactures about 70% of the world's silicon and controls about 70% of rare earths. What people don't appreciate is that this works both ways. China exports a lot of silicon and rare earths, but it also needs to import a lot of helium to sustain its semiconductor manufacturing, because helium is a cooling agent that makes the manufacturing process possible.

People also think China has a monopoly on rare earths, but America has its own chokepoint: Spruce Pine, North Carolina. That area has a monopoly on high-quality quartz, controlling about 90% of the world's supply, which is also needed in the silicon manufacturing process. So if these nations stop trading with each other, technology would cease to progress.

Food and fertilizer: the North–South divide

It's not just semiconductors that depend on the global supply chain—food does too. There is a stark contrast between the North and the South. The North produces most of the world's fertilizer, while the South—primarily Africa, the Middle East and South America—imports a lot of it. Ammonia is a key component of fertilizer, and most ammonia production plants are in the North of the world: Canada, the United States, Europe, China and Russia. So the global South is dependent on the North for food. In a time of war, when global supply chains break down, the North might lose access to fancy wireless smartphones; the South will face famine.

Water: the next flash points

Why does this matter? Because the world is rife with conflict. The main issue we will face in the next 20 years is not oil—it's water. The map shown here tells us where the next major geopolitical flash points are: red on the map means water scarcity issues, and those red areas tell us exactly where wars will erupt.

Even the United States has water scarcity issues in the West. Colorado, California and Arizona are fighting over the Colorado River, which supplies most of their water. The Middle East is almost like dynamite ready to explode, and war there will aggravate all the tensions in the region. India itself is facing water shortages, which brings it into conflict with China. This one map tells you where the next geopolitical flash points will be—places most likely to see war, conflict or political violence in the next 20 years. Northeast Asia is another major flash point, with Japan and North Korea located there.

Once war breaks out, there are third-order effects causing conflict to spread around the world.

Demographics and migration

Another important map shows fertility rates around the world. Africa has the world's highest fertility rate, followed by the Middle East—they have the most children per couple.

Why is this a problem? Because if you go back to the previous map, this area is also where there is the most geopolitical tension. If more and more children and young people are born here, they have no choice but to migrate—and where will they migrate? Probably to Europe.

You might think Europe should turtle up—build walls and prevent migrants from reaching Europe. But Europe has its own problem: the aging crisis. The fastest-aging populations are in the most developed nations, including Japan, Europe and North America. An aging population needs cheap health care and nursing, which means letting in more immigrants to service the aging population.

The result is domestic conflict: more migration into Western societies brings migrants into conflict with native populations, making civil war, political violence and even revolution possible.

Collectively, these maps paint a very grim picture of the world we are living in.

Right-wing parties are indeed surging — Reform in the UK, the AfD in Germany, MAGA in the United States, and Vox in Spain. In theory, these countries become much more right-wing and then block immigration, since that is those parties' main policy platform — and that should stop the civil war.

The problem is: what do you do about your aging population?

"Robots" is the obvious answer. But what we're seeing is a breakdown in global supply chains. Robots depend on copper, which comes from Chile, Peru, China, and Australia — all pretty far from Europe and the United States. You also need lithium from the lithium triangle, again far away, silicon that is mainly manufactured in China, and rare earths that are likewise really manufactured in China. So in theory you could use robots, but when global supply chains break down, you have to find the cheapest way to resolve the labor shortage — and the cheapest solution is immigration. People are much cheaper and much more expendable than robots.

I know this is scary and depressing. But what if the United States were able to win its war with Iran and conduct regime change? Then the problems are solved: Iran comes under US control, and we're back to globalization — oil flows to South and East Asia, those countries manufacture goods and recycle their profits into the economy, and with all that money AI innovates to the point of AGI, solving the world's problems.

What happens next with the Iran situation?

Unfortunately, it has now lost momentum. Let me explain what is most likely to happen. Iran has several proxies positioned at key chokepoints: the Houthis control the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Hezbollah can threaten the Suez Canal, and the Shia militias can also threaten the Mediterranean.

From a game theory perspective, what Iran should do next is take the initiative and disrupt all global trade simultaneously. The reason is that the US empire is based on the petrodollar and on global trade. If global trade is disrupted at all these points at the same time, there is no way for the United States to respond.

How could they disrupt global trade?

What Iran could do is start attacking randomly across the region: Iran could attack Saudi Arabia, Iraq could attack Israel, Iran could attack US forces, and Hezbollah could attack the Suez Canal. The point of this is to create uncertainty and chaos in the global trade system.

That matters because the global trade system is built on confidence, which is what drives insurance. If you're an insurance company and you conclude that these actors are completely out of control and the United States has lost control of the situation, you can no longer insure global shipping. And if you can't insure global shipping, global shipping ceases to work.

This is a madman theory, and it's Iran's best play moving forward, because the United States does not have the military capacity to respond to a coordinated random strike across the Middle East.

So is this your prediction? Is this what happens next?

I don't want to make that prediction, because there are lots of factors I don't know. First, I don't know the political situation inside Iran. Certainly the IRGC would want to do this, but there are political factions within Iran who would consider it too provocative, and it's possible the entire world would unite against Iran if it did this.

Asked for his prediction on Iran and what happens next, the speaker said it will only escalate, though he doesn't know how. Iran's trump card — "to use a pun" — is to start disrupting global trade. But the United States has a response: attacking Iran's critical civil infrastructure, including desalination plants and power plants. He argued this would be worse than using a nuclear weapon on Iran, because without power plants, the people of Tehran — a city of about 10 million — face starvation, since much of the food supply is refrigerated. This is how the war becomes almost civilization-destroying: if Iran completely disrupts global trade and the United States destroys Iran's power plants.

The interviewer called that scenario horrific and inconceivably horrifying for innocent Iranians caught in the middle, and asked whether he really thinks the US would actually do it.

"I think the United States will be forced to do it." Pressed on this, he said that according to game theory, they will be forced to behave this way. The formula, he argued, is that the more power you have, the less imagination and empathy you have. Killing millions of Iranians is not seen as too heavy a price — it's all worth it to maintain the empire. Hubris leads you to believe the gods favor you and that you will ultimately win and triumph in this great struggle.

The interviewer then raised the question of whether this would create a huge migration crisis.

The interviewer asked whether this would create a huge migration crisis, with people fleeing Iran into Europe because they are starving.

Exactly — and not just Iran, but Africa as well, because those regions have lost access to cheap energy and fertilizer. All of this would drive migration into Europe that would overwhelm the European social fabric and the European state. In fact, this has already been happening at a much slower pace since 2014, when the United States, for whatever reason, chose to destroy Libya and cause civil war in Syria, which caused millions to migrate into Europe. As you remember, the Europeans, in their generosity, accepted all these migrants — which has led to tremendous social friction and political tension in Europe today.

The interviewer then summarized the prediction: the US won't win this so-called war in the Middle East because it can't defeat Iran and its proxies, and the situation will continue to escalate.

Yes — and other actors are already being drawn into the war. The most recent news is that South Korea has authorized a naval contingent to go and try to secure the home moves.

Asked what he would do if he were Donald Trump, the guest answered: "I would push all in. I would start attacking power plants in Iran, because if I take any half measures, I would just look weak and I'm only going to create more problems. I would only incentivize Iran and its allies to be more provocative, to be more aggressive. So if I'm Donald Trump and I'm in this situation, I would just push all in."

The interviewer noted that this would theoretically end up killing millions of Iranians. The guest replied that once such a war is started, it has to be won — "I can't lose this war. I refuse to lose this war." He acknowledged the concerns, but argued that this thought experiment offers the best window into how such leaders think: because of so much power, they lose the capacity to imagine different possibilities and to have empathy for the suffering of people in the world.

Couldn't Donald Trump just hold a big press conference and declare, "We won this war in Iran. We've destroyed their military and their naval bases. It's done, and Iran will no longer have nuclear weapons"?

The entire petrodollar system rests on two things: the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, and the aura of inevitability and invincibility surrounding the US military. If the US looks like it can be beaten, its image is sufficiently tarnished.

Asked for predictions, the guest offered three, structured around the approaching anniversary of 9/11 in New York City — "three fun but horrifying predictions." Prediction number one: there will be a siege of New York City.

The logic behind this prediction starts with Trump's third term. I was here last time and said Donald Trump will get a third term, and he's been joking about it and talking about it a lot. So let's imagine what happens if he actually does.

You would have a lot of angry people, especially in the major cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and New York City.

The constitutional obstacle

We should probably pause there, because there is a constitutional ban on serving three terms. The primary barrier is the 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 after Franklin D. Roosevelt won four elections. It establishes a strict term limit, and its text explicitly says no person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.

So how could a third term happen? Two possibilities:

1. A national emergency forces the president to suspend the constitution, and he could theoretically then have a third term.
2. In 2028 he runs as vice president with Don Jr. at the top of the ticket; after the election, Don Jr. resigns and Trump becomes president. There's nothing in the constitution that prevents that.

To be clear, there isn't anything in the constitution that allows the US president to suspend the constitution in a national emergency. But presidents have acted unconstitutionally before: during the American Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, a constitutional right. During World War II, Franklin Delano Roosevelt did many unconstitutional things, such as interning the Japanese population in camps. The Supreme Court could do nothing against this, because a lot of US politics is convention—agreed-upon norms. If a president decides to screw those conventions, there's nothing anyone else can do about it.

From revolt to siege

So, just for the sake of argument, imagine Trump gets a third term. The democratic cities would be in open revolt: they would refuse to pay taxes to the federal government and would not welcome ICE federal agents into their cities. That creates conflict between local law enforcement and federal law enforcement.

Historically, when that happens, the US president usually thinks he has a responsibility to quash the insurrection. Over time, this would lead to the siege of New York City: federal forces, along with possibly militias from other states—red states that favor Trump—would try to besiege the city by cutting off its food and water supply. This would be a conflict that could go on for years and years.

Q: And what year would that take place?

2028. It could happen right after Trump secures his third term.

"Do you think Trump is going to have a third term?"

"Do you want to bet? I think he'll get a third term."

"How much do you want to bet?"

"Let's make it a friendly bet and say $100."

The other speaker notes he has done this before: a couple of years ago, after Trump lost the election to Joe Biden, two random guys on Facebook — a platform he doesn't even use — insisted Trump would stay in power and offered him a bet of £1,000 each, with people queuing up. He accepted, and they actually paid him $1,000 each when Trump left office; he gave the money to charity. So he's more than happy to make another bet.

"Yeah, let's do it. $100. And you're betting that Trump gets a third term?"

"Yes. I think he'll be in power after 2028. Is that fair?"

"When's the election?"

"The election should be November 4th, 2028. But I didn't say he would win the election — I just said he would get a third term."

"So you're saying that he will refuse to leave office or find another way to remain president beyond the inauguration?"

"Yes. I'm saying that on January 21, 2029, Trump will still be in the White House."

"Okay, I'll take that bet — if everyone's clear. And please do remind me to cash in, lads."

"$100 may not be worth anything at that time, but that's $100."

The siege scenario, assuming a third term

Again, this is just assuming for the sake of argument that Trump is in office in his third term. There will be political violence across the United States, primarily in New York City. If the federal authority is being challenged by a city or local state authority, the president will take this very seriously and send in forces to quash the insurrection. Other cities may be much more compliant, but New York City has a very charismatic mayor in Zohran Mamdani — and you don't want to mess with New Yorkers; when they get angry, they get really, really angry. So if Trump gets a third term, he thinks a siege of New York City is very likely.

"He would almost be 83 years old."

"We say that, but look at the amount of energy he has. The guy eats cheeseburgers every day, gives a press conference almost every day, and is always on social media tweeting out something stupid — for example, he's tweeted that all of North America is now the USA, and he's talking about taking over Canada, Greenland and Cuba. I don't know where he gets his energy, but he seems really energetic."

He contrasts this with Obama: in 2008 Obama was a handsome, young, vibrant man, but eight years later he came out of office looking decrepit, having aged at least 20 years. Trump, for whatever reason, has not aged that much — "hair dye and fake tan," the other speaker quips.

There's something really strange about Trump: a lot of US journalists in Washington DC have his direct personal cell phone number and can call him and talk for an hour. He's the president of the United States, and an average Washington journalist can call him and talk to him for an hour a day. Journalists who go to the White House to interview him say things like, "We tried to leave an hour ago, but he made us stay and talk some more — he would not let us leave." He's extremely energetic and he loves the attention.

Prediction two: another 9/11?

"Okay. What's prediction number two?"

"We are approaching the anniversary of 9/11, and a lot of people fear there will be another 9/11 attack on the United States, because there are a lot of actors who are very angry at the United States and may want to seek vengeance against the American people. In that case, if there is another 9/11 attack on the…"

If there is another 9/11-style attack on the United States, I believe it will be an attack on the US financial infrastructure.

My reasoning starts with what 9/11 was: an act committed by terrorists to traumatize the population into self-destructive violence. The attackers targeted the symbols of American power — the airplanes, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the White House. For a long time, Americans believed these were symbols of American invincibility, so seeing them destroyed traumatized many, many people.

The goal was to traumatize people into self-destructive violence — they wanted vengeance. So they went to the Middle East, fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, then attacked Iraq, and the war spread to Syria and Libya. Those twenty years of forever wars in the Middle East have been very destructive for the United States: a huge fiscal deficit, a loss of military prestige, and a lot of corruption in Washington DC.

So if you're a terrorist looking at 9/11, you'd want to do the same thing — traumatize people into self-destructive violence. But flying planes into new towers doesn't work anymore, because people have been normalized to that kind of violence. How else can you induce trauma?

Consider a thought experiment. One day you open your iPhone to buy a coffee, you scan it, and it doesn't read. You assume there's a problem with the bank and call them, but you can't get through. After hours of frantic anxiety, you finally learn there's been an attack on critical US financial data servers — all the money in your bank account has been wiped out, and no one knows when or how long it will take to retrieve it. Would you feel concern? I'd say you'd feel more than concern: a lot of anger, anxiety, and frustration.

"That must be hard to do — surely taking out the financial infrastructure for everybody, long enough that people feel real-world consequences." Would you say 9/11 was hard to do? Yes. I can imagine attackers managing this; there is a certain creativity to these people, and I would not rule it out.

So if another 9/11 happens, what we may see is the destruction of the US financial infrastructure, which would drive millions of people into a mad frenzy. You've worked your entire life to save up $2 million for retirement — and that money is gone.

Working for yourself used to be a massive, massive risk, but that world has completely changed. If you've got a business idea that you can't stop thinking about, you owe it to yourself to at least try and make it happen. That's where this show's sponsor, Shopify, comes in. Their smart platform includes everything you need to start selling and get the idea off the ground: a drag-and-drop editor, an AI sidekick to help you, and analytics — you don't need to be an expert to get going.

Shopify's best-in-class checkout makes sure you're getting paid from day one. It helps more customers finish their purchase because the checkout is so efficient and saves their info for next time. Personalized checkouts like that mean more conversion and a faster-growing business. Nothing kills the early enthusiasm for a new idea like a first step that's difficult, complicated, or expensive — and you need to save time and money so you can focus all of it on growing the actual business. That's what Shopify gives you.

Head over to shopify.com/bartlet and start your free trial right now.

The guest said at the top of the conversation that he had been having difficulty getting back into the United States recently.

He explained that he considers himself one of the most polarizing figures in the world right now, and that many people dislike what he says. The Iran war in March made him famous, and he feared that fame would annoy and frustrate many Americans. So he decided not to travel to the United States at that point, because he could be held in detention by customs or deported. That period was extremely scary for him, and he refused all offers to come to the U.S., even though quite a few people wanted him to fly over for interviews.

Over the summer, as the war died down, he flew to Canada to be with his family in Toronto and decided to try entering the United States from there. On August 5th, he went to Toronto Pearson airport around 7:00 in the morning for an early flight to Los Angeles. He told customs he was going on the Theo Von show and would be in the United States for two weeks—all true. At customs, the immigration officer asked many questions, which he handled smoothly, until the officer asked, "Do you have a travel letter for your son?" His 8-year-old son Chris was traveling with him, and he didn't know what a travel letter was. It was 7:00 in the morning and his brain wasn't working; the officer told him to call his wife, but she was in the shower. The officer then sent him to secondary inspection to verify that his son was traveling with him willingly.

In secondary, with his flight at 8:30, he waited about an hour, worried they would miss it. During that hour he texted his wife, who sent him the birth certificate and all the materials needed to prove Chris was his son. At the very last minute he was called, resolved the issue, and repeated that he was going on the Theo Von show for two weeks.

Once in the United States, other podcasts contacted him for interviews, and he traveled around the country—forgetting the two-week promise to immigration authorities. As a Canadian citizen, he doesn't need a visa to enter the U.S., and if you say you're staying two weeks but stay a month, it's usually not an issue. He returned to Toronto and came back to record this podcast.

Yesterday, though, despite being prepared with the travel letter and his son's birth certificate, he was still sent to secondary. He believes what happened is that things he said during his podcast interviews angered some really powerful people in the United States. Much of what he said related to the Clean Break memo, published in 1996, which laid out a plan for how Israel could become the dominant hegemon in the Middle East. It was written by a study group that included Richard Perle and others; those two went on to work in the Pentagon under the George W. Bush administration and, along with Paul Wolfowitz, were the chief architects of the Iraq war. He named these people and explained how the war in Iran follows from the Clean Break memo, with the goal of establishing Israel as the regional hegemon—and he thinks this is what got him into trouble.

Asked why he thinks that caused the trouble, he said that as a Canadian he is usually not bothered when entering the country, so being questioned suggests that some top officials requested he be placed in secondary every time he enters the United States. He also points to his friend Max Blumenthal, a well-known U.S. journalist who was in Iran covering Khamenei's funeral. In response, a social media influencer named Laura Loomer demanded his arrest, and when Blumenthal entered the country—a U.S. citizen, by the way—his devices were confiscated. Blumenthal is now suing the Department of Homeland Security for illegally confiscating his devices.

I think we live in a time when, unfortunately, the empire is in decline, and because of hubris and arrogance, they are trying to silence their critics rather than accept our constructive criticisms.

Absolutely. They never told me why I was put in secondary, but he hinted that every time I come to the United States, I will be put into secondary to make sure I'm coming for legitimate reasons. He also hinted that once my I-94 expires in six months, they may not renew it—meaning they will not allow me into the country anymore. I hope I come back to the United States. I have the deepest admiration for the American people; I think Americans are the most open and generous people in the world. But at the same time, I do appreciate that we are living in very interesting times.

Prediction three.

My third prediction is that Lionel Messi will become president of Argentina.

Oh wow. I wasn't expecting that.

I wanted three new predictions that were fun and interesting for us to discuss. Here's my reasoning: Argentina is working very closely with the United States and Israel at this moment. You're a British citizen, so you'll appreciate that Argentina has recently demanded the return of the Falklands, and Donald Trump has voiced support for Argentina.

So I'm asking myself, why are they so concerned about the Falklands? And not only that — if you've been following the news, Javier Milei has become very close with Benjamin Netanyahu. Argentina and Israel have very strong relations. In fact, Argentina is welcoming Israeli investment and immigration. Apparently, if you're an Israeli citizen going into Argentina — you can fact-check this, but from what I understand — you have immediate access to their healthcare as well as their pension, which makes no sense, since they're not Argentine citizens.

The reason I think Argentina is working so closely with Israel and the United States is that there's almost a civil war in Israel right now, between messianic Jews who believe this war in the Middle East will usher in the end times and the coming of the Messiah, and secular Jews who think these people are insane. The only way to resolve this conflict is by exporting secular Jews elsewhere — and Argentina seems like a very good place to send them.

But then you ask: how do you get the people of Argentina to accept this massive immigration from Israel, given that Israel is not very popular there? I think the best way is to make Messi president. His popularity would be enough to let all these Israelis into the country — combined with the reclaiming of the Falkland Islands. The god of Argentina becomes president, and Argentina reclaims the Falklands from the British. I apologize to you as a British citizen.

It's okay. I like Messi.

The guest predicted that China and Japan will go to war. Asked why, he said that every Chinese person believes this. While the West widely assumes China will eventually invade Taiwan, he argued that if you actually go to China, no Chinese person and no Taiwanese person believes this, because it is not how China conducts its foreign policy. China does not invade other countries, and in recent history has not been that aggressive — its last war was with Vietnam in the early 1980s. But in China today, everyone believes China and Japan will go to war.

Geography explains the conflict

Using a map, he argued that conflict between China and Japan is inevitable at this point. The two countries are fundamentally different: China is a self-sufficient land power, historically agricultural, while Japan is a sea power dependent on resources from abroad. To survive, Japan historically engaged in piracy, and the Japanese have always been fairly militaristic, with a warrior culture and constant internal wars. The Japanese people are also extremely resilient and cohesive because Japan's geography is unstable — frequent earthquakes and tsunamis force them to work together to survive.

This matters because the war in Iran is affecting both countries. China will probably have to de-industrialize, but if Japan does nothing, it could cease to exist within 50 years. Japan depends on energy, imports and resources from overseas, and it has the world's most elderly population. In a time of war, when the United States can no longer provide protection, Japan would need to create resource colonies — and historically, Southeast Asia has been Japan's main resource colony. Without Southeast Asia, the United States becomes Japan's main benefactor, a position Japan wants to avoid. In World War II, Japan got most of its energy from the United States, and when the US embargoed Japan, Japan was forced to declare war on it. The US could supply all of Japan's energy needs today, but that would make Japan completely subservient. So Japan wants access to Southeast Asia's resources.

The Taiwan problem

The problem is Taiwan, which sits right in the middle of the South China Sea. If China and Taiwan reunified, China would gain the option of embargoing Japan — blockading it. He stressed he is not saying China would do so, only that it would have the option, and Japan sees that as a threat to its existence.

When the host asked whether such an embargo would cause chaos, with Japan attacking China, he repeated that he was not saying China would embargo Japan, only that it has the option. Pressed on whether China will attack Japan, he clarified: "No, no, no, no. I'm saying there's a conflict between these two nations." He confirmed he considers the conflict inevitable and explained how it would play out.

Japan views the Taiwan issue as vital to its national security interest — exactly what Prime Minister Takaichi said a few months ago. When she made that statement, China overreacted: before, millions of Chinese tourists visited Japan each year, but now most are not allowed to go. It is very likely China and Japan will have a conflict over Taiwan.

The key point, he concluded, is that war benefits no nation there, because all chaos would break out. What each side needs to do is create leverage to negotiate better terms.

Japan's strategy is to avoid confronting China directly, since China is too powerful, and instead build alliances that could challenge or even embargo China. Japan is forming alliances with the Philippines, Australia, and India, and together these four nations could in theory choose to embargo China even without the United States. What Japan needs is access to Southeast Asia, because that will be the main source of its resources going into the future—that is the scenario playing out now.

China does not want to come into a conflict with Japan, because China is seen as the big bad dragon in the region. If China is seen as too provocative, that would incentivize all of Southeast Asia to gang up on it. You can see the potential alliance of India, Southeast Asia, Taiwan, the Philippines, Australia, South Korea, North Korea, and Japan versus China.

The way to resolve this issue is to use a proxy to threaten Japan and develop more leverage over it in negotiations—and that proxy is North Korea. North Korea has the potential to shell South Korea, because most of South Korea's population lives within 20 minutes of North Korean territory; in theory, North Korea could flatten Seoul in just a day. Most of North Korean artillery is positioned along the border. North Korea could also lob missiles into the Sea of Japan and rattle the Japanese.

This is the dynamic being played out: Japan, through its proxies—primarily the Philippines—is challenging Chinese naval dominance in the South China Sea, while China uses North Korea as a proxy to threaten South Korea and Japan. Over time, as the United States retreats from the Asia-Pacific, this conflict between China and Japan will get worse and worse. The main reason is that it is in the strategic best interest of the United States to foment as much tension between China and Japan as possible.

The suggestion that rising tension between China and Japan could compromise Taiwan gets a blunt response: who cares? The United States, the argument goes, doesn't actually care about Taiwan itself. What matters is semiconductors — and even there, the American interest points in a different direction.

What Trump wants is for the Taiwanese to move their semiconductor industry to the United States, and that is already happening: TSMC, Taiwan's main semiconductor company, is building what the speaker believes is a $20 billion new factory in Arizona. So if a conflict between China and Japan makes the region increasingly unstable, the Taiwanese semiconductor industry would be forced to relocate to the United States — which would be in the best interests of the Americans.

The conversation shifts to Europe and the question of whether Russia might invade the Baltics. The starting point is the current situation: NATO and Europe are supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia, with most of the fighting in eastern Ukraine, where Russia appears to be gaining territory even as Ukraine is widely praised for fighting back effectively.

What has changed the contours of the war in recent months is Ukraine's use of drones to attack Russia's energy infrastructure. Before, the conflict was contained to eastern Ukraine and didn't affect ordinary Russians—in fact, it was helping Russia's economy because Russia could still export its oil around the world. Now the drone strikes on Russian refineries are causing economic pain for the Russian people, making Putin increasingly unpopular.

From Russia's perspective, this means the real enemy is not Ukraine but NATO Europe. The drones are manufactured in Germany, the UK, and elsewhere, so in theory Ukraine could fight this war indefinitely because its manufacturing hub sits in Europe. Europe is also providing Ukraine with effectively unlimited financing and intelligence. Russia concludes it cannot win a war of attrition over time, since Europe's manufacturing capacity is well protected behind the NATO alliance.

So Russia's strategy is to provoke NATO and Europe into coming into Ukraine directly—to force them out of their shell. Evidence of this is the growing conflict between Germany and Russia: in early August there was a drone attack on Libig airport, which the Germans blamed on Russia. In response, Germany closed the Russian consulate in Bonn and expelled certain Russians. Russia retaliated by closing the German consulate in St. Petersburg, and Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said Russia is in a situation similar to 1941—when Germany invaded Russia.

In other words, Russia recognizes that if it leaves Europe alone and fights only in Ukraine, it will lose in the end. It must therefore provoke Europe into mass mobilization to defend Ukraine, and one way to do that is by striking critical manufacturing infrastructure within Europe.

Asked whether Russia's next move is to attack inside NATO—in Germany, the UK, and so on—the speaker says it has no choice; it has to do this.

But couldn't Russia simply make a deal with Trump instead? A deal is being attempted right now: Jared Kushner is reportedly trying to broker one between Ukraine and Russia. The question is whether the United States wants peace between Europe and Russia or war between them. From a gameplay perspective, the answer is that the US is better off with war. Why? Because if there's war, Russia can't sell its energy overseas, and the United States then has a monopoly on energy.

The objection is that this causes global instability—a war in Europe would impact the US in a big way. The reply: then why did the United States invade Iran? Because they thought it would be an overnight Venezuela situation—decapitate the leadership, everyone rises up, and you end up with a favorable leader subservient to you.

That, the speaker says, is exactly how the empire thinks—a formula it has already used. Applied to the European situation, the same logic runs: Putin is a paper tiger, very unpopular at home, so if the war is forced on for another two months and Russia's energy infrastructure keeps being attacked, eventually people will rise up and overthrow Putin.

So does Trump want Ukraine to win, or does he want Ukraine to keep doing what they're doing? Trump personally doesn't care, because the more war there is, the more the Europeans are forced to rely on American energy.

If you're Putin, what you need to do is force the Europeans into war in Ukraine. There is really only one path to victory in this scenario: causing instability and violence in Europe. The idea is that if you force Europe to mass mobilize, the people would rather overthrow the government than agree to take up arms against Russia. That's a theory, but Russia has exactly one path to victory, and that is to cause as much instability and violence as possible within Europe. The best way to do that is by forcing the Europeans to mass mobilize their population.

For that to happen, Russia first needs to declare total war. Total war means the mass mobilization of your society. What's important for us to appreciate is that so far Russia has not declared war on Ukraine — it is a "special military operation," which means Russia is relying on volunteers to fight this war. In a time of total war, Russia could mobilize its entire population, and we estimate there are at least three million reservists in Russia ready to be called up to arms. Mass mobilization in Russia would force mass mobilization in Europe, and this is how the war will most likely turn out.

It sounds like there's a lot of conflict on the way — there's an acceleration underway.

The question posed was: what would have to be true for us to sit here in 2036 with no conflict between China and Japan, the Iran situation cooled off, and the Ukraine war either frozen where it is now or regressed — the "clean break" memo that changed history having never mattered?

The 1995 worldview: neoliberalism and the Washington Consensus

In 1995 — the relevant memo was published in 1996, when Netanyahu came to power in Israel — the dominant model of history was neoliberalism, the Washington Consensus: if people just traded with each other and consumers just bought goods, there would be peace forever. Bill Clinton was the main proponent of this idea, and to achieve this vision of global peace he promoted the Oslo peace process, which sought a two-state solution in the Middle East — Palestinians and Israelis living side by side.

The thinking at the time was that once peace came and a two-state solution was created, Israel and Palestine would start trading with each other, be brought into the GCC, and become part of the global supply chain. Once prosperity arrived, they would have no need to ever hate each other again. This was simply how policymakers in Washington understood the world. It had worked in China, Japan, and Germany: Japan and Germany were highly militant nation-states, but once they were allowed to trade and their consumers got air conditioning and SUVs, they became peaceful. So why not do the same in Israel and Palestine?

The clean break theory

Asked to state the clean break theory in a sentence, the professor explained: Netanyahu came to power arguing that Israelis can never trust the Arabs not to hate them. They have been promised this land by God, and whatever they do, the Arabs will always see them as enemies. So screw peace, screw compromise — become the regional hegemon, because that is the manifest destiny written in the Bible. This was the clean break memo, and its three major pillars have all been achieved today. The first pillar: stop the Oslo peace process and give no more land to the Palestinians, on the premise that they will hate you regardless, so do not treat them nicely.

When the interviewer asked whether he was saying the pessimistic outcomes could be avoided by the clean break theory succeeding, he said no — his point was that in 1995 a theory already existed, neoliberalism, offering a solution to the Israel-Palestine issue, and if it had been followed through, we would live in a very different time. What would have had to happen is that the United States pressured Israel into seeking peace with the Arab nations. This was feasible because Israel is dependent on the US for technology, financing, and arms — it is the biggest recipient of American foreign aid.

The memo itself

For those wanting to know what the clean break theory is: it is called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," a prominent 1996 policy document prepared for Benjamin Netanyahu by a study group led by American neoconservative strategists. Asked whether Netanyahu read the memo, the professor replied that he commissioned it.

He commissioned it. The key objectives of the Clean Break are, as you said: first, abandoning land for peace, which advocated moving away from the Oslo Accords framework and shifting to a posture of peace through strength and "peace for peace" without giving up any territory. Second, regional dominance: it recommended transcending the Israel–Palestine conflict by focusing on weakening regional adversaries, specifically advocating the containment or removal of hostile regimes in Iraq and Syria, and dismantling the Iraq–Syria–Hezbollah axis. And lastly, preemptive action: it urged Israel to abandon defensive containment policies in favor of proactive offensive strategies. That's exactly what Israel is doing today, and what it has done for the past 30 years — it has promoted regime change in Syria and in Iraq.

So the conclusion is that to stop this sort of conflict escalating, they have to reverse course with this strategy?

The US needs to contain Israel. Yes. But what I'm arguing is that it's too late, because you've already unleashed these structural forces that will collapse the global trade system, in which case it's every nation for itself. You've already created the conditions for Japan and China to go to war. You've already created the conditions for Germany and Russia to go to war. You can't put the genie back in the bottle again.

Asked what advice he has for ordinary people who aren't involved in politics and just have to figure out how to live their lives amid the conflict they see in the news, the professor said the best advice is to believe in God.

He described himself as a product of the meritocracy: the best education in the world, he said, teaches you that the world is materialistic and that God doesn't exist. As a result, in his 20s, 30s and 40s he was a deeply angry, depressed, frustrated person — if God doesn't exist, there's no order or structure to what's happening, just chaos, and there can be no hope or light in chaos. But because he married a wonderful woman he considers an angel and has three beautiful children, he came to believe there is a plan, structure, order and reason to the world. That true belief in God is recent — only the past two years.

When the interviewer suggested this meant everything would be okay, he agreed, but with conditions: you need to believe in God and focus on your family, and then it will be all right. He was not saying to focus on protesting in the streets or elections instead. If you believe in God and focus on your family, sometimes you're compelled to take action. Because he believes in God, he lives by one simple principle: speak the truth. That's why he's on the show and why he spent the past month going on so many podcasts — it's important that people know the truth. If you really believe in God and focus on your family, you have a personal and moral responsibility to speak the truth; if you know what's going to happen, speak it. When asked what good it will do, he said it doesn't matter — faith compels you to live, speak and spread the truth. Believing in God doesn't mean sitting back, hiding in your room and playing computer games all day. If you truly believe there's a plan, you have to take action and participate in the world — why else would God create you?

Asked why God is letting wars and conflict happen — Russia and Ukraine, the Middle East, other things breaking out — he instead answered a question about the path to wisdom: struggle, pain, failure. When the interviewer asked whether we could have the wisdom without them, he laughed and asked, "Well, or could you?" We have many lessons to learn. But if you are truly a spiritual person, you're thankful for this time, because this struggle and suffering will allow us to transcend ourselves. Are we here to make a lot of money and drive fast cars, or to learn what it means to be truly human, what love is, and to develop a deeper connection with God? He thinks we're here first and foremost to be truly human — living a life of love, empathy and imagination. That returns to his formula: if you have too much wealth, fame or power, it's impossible to truly have imagination, empathy and love.

How do you correct this? You create a world of crisis, because in a crisis everyone is forced to look deep down and ask what is truly important, what gives happiness, what gives life meaning and purpose. He thinks the answer is love for the people around us, and that we will all come to it. Once we do, that is the great spiritual awakening that could possibly redeem all of humanity.

Asked what pertinent thing was front of mind that they hadn't discussed, he said they had talked about the coming conflict between China and Japan, and he worries a lot about that.

The interviewer raised AI as a topic that overlays all the earlier stories—robotics, energy, semiconductors and chips, the US–China rivalry.

The professor answered by returning to global supply chains and a formula he considers essential: technology equals specialization times globalization. In a time when global supply chains are breaking down in a time of war, AI cannot make the leap into AGI. Instead, AI will be repurposed as a control grid, rather than developing the intelligence needed to reduce scarcity, solve humanity's most pressing medical problems, or address climate change. It will be repurposed to monitor and surveil all of us.

The interviewer agreed that surveillance is coming regardless: governments will be increasingly interested in and capable of monitoring everyone all the time, because cameras already exist. In New York City, cameras are everywhere—they're just a little dumb and don't talk to each other. With AI, they all can.

The professor agreed that this is the most likely trend, but stressed that the coming crises will accelerate it: in a scenario like a siege of New York City, Palantir would use the opportunity to develop autonomous drone warfare controlled by AI.

Asked whether surveillance is his big concern with AI, the speaker said that is not the risk he sees. The bigger risk is how AI can cheapen the human experience—how it is almost dehumanizing. What people like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel are saying is that computers are so much smarter than us. It could be true that AI will eventually do mathematics or medical diagnostics far more efficiently than we do. But ultimately, we as humans are here to love, imagine, and be kind to other people—that is the human experience. If we focus too much on AI, it diverts and distracts us from our true mission, which is spiritual growth.

What gives him hope

Asked what gives him hope, he answered: only his children. He came on the show because of Chris. Honestly, without children he doesn't think he would be this successful, because he wouldn't have much purpose and meaning in life. At the same time, he believes that without children, having suddenly become famous, he would have become corrupted very fast—he would have focused on fame and tried to make as much money as possible, since without children the only purpose in life is competition against others, proving he is materially more successful. He would have chased money through his fifteen minutes of fame. Now that he has children, he is far more concerned with building a legacy for them and setting a good example.

Not worried about his son's future

Asked whether he worries about Chris's future, he said he is not worried at all. His wife and he have loved Chris to the best of their ability, and that love gives him the confidence to live his life to the fullest. They see Chris every day as a gift from God.

But if the world is collapsing, as he put it, and Chris lives in that world—is he not concerned? Not at all, he replied, because we are here to have a spiritual awakening, and all these crises will induce deep reflection so we can fulfill our purpose.

He doesn't know why Chris is here. When Chris was two years old, he told them, "Mom, Dad, I'm from another world," named that world, and said he was just an alien visiting them. He and his wife weren't surprised—they said they knew he was an alien who came here to experience humanity, with all its faults and problems. They see him, love him, and will do whatever they can to empower him on his mission, because ultimately it's his life and his mission, and they can never control him.

Love is about trust. Love is about liberation—liberation from your own anxieties and from the need to control others.

The host explained the show's closing tradition: the last guest leaves a question for the next guest, not knowing who they're leaving it for. The question left for the professor was, "What is your biggest challenge and how are you working on fixing it?"

His answer: "My biggest challenge is my fear, my doubt, my paralysis. I went to the US border yesterday, and now I'm afraid that I will never be allowed back in the United States after I leave. I'm afraid that I might get banned from a lot of countries, because all I do is talk trash about different countries. I've talked trash about China, about Canada, about the United States. If I got banned from all three countries, I'd be in a lot of trouble. And so my constant challenge is to maintain my faith in God, maintain my faith in my family, and maintain my faith in my purpose."

The host replied that he hoped he would, and complimented his son, saying the vibe he got from him was curiosity — he had just met him in the green room playing with Play-Doh and toys, and from those fifteen seconds it was clear he was going to be a very smart young man. The professor answered that his son was a gift from God.

The host closed with an outro: YouTube's AI-driven algorithm, based on your viewing behavior, claims this next video is the perfect one for you — different for everyone watching — and suggested checking it out.