Leave The USA Before 2030? - CIA Spy On World War 3's Timeline | Andrew Bustamante

Duration: 15:58 2828 transcript words EN summary

Video summary

The conversation begins with an analysis of Ray Dalio's economic theory regarding historical cycles, which posits that empires follow a predictable 100 to 150-year trajectory ending in collapse and war before a new order emerges. The speakers note that the United States appears to be at the end of its century-long cycle, characterized by internal division, massive debt accumulation, hyperinflation through money printing, and the rise of a competing superpower. This framework is contrasted with Kondratiev's wave theory, which identifies cyclical patterns in economic expansion and conflict occurring roughly every 25 years that are expanding over time. According to this model, humanity is currently approaching or has reached a peak period of global conflict around 2024–2025, suggesting that the era of relative peace following World War II may be concluding as nations compete for dominance in an evolving geopolitical landscape. A significant portion of the discussion focuses on potential flashpoints for future wars, specifically centering on China's strategy regarding Taiwan and Hong Kong. The speakers argue that while traditional military invasion is possible, a more likely scenario involves China utilizing legal maneuvers similar to those used in 2019 with Hong Kong to legitimize an administrative takeover of Taiwan without immediate large-scale bloodshed. By altering laws within its jurisdiction, Beijing could establish the legal foundation for enforcing Chinese law on the island and deploying police or military units under international cover such as UN resolutions. This approach mirrors historical "bloodless coups" seen in Southeast Asia like Thailand, where political shifts occur through administrative control rather than direct combat, potentially exploiting peak division within American society during an electoral cycle to minimize resistance from a confused public. The dialogue also addresses the complex economic entanglements that complicate any military response to such events, particularly regarding Taiwan's dominance in semiconductor manufacturing. Although China designs its own chips and possesses significant market share in production facilities, it relies heavily on Taiwanese technology for advanced chip fabrication, which holds approximately 98% of global market share. The United States' current strategy involves initiatives like the CHIPS Act to bring manufacturers such as TSMC back to American soil to reduce dependency. However, the speakers highlight that business interests with mainland China are significantly larger than those tied specifically to Taiwan, creating a dilemma where economic cooperation might persist even if political tensions escalate. This reliance on technology and trade suggests that future conflicts may be fought through sanctions and legal restrictions rather than purely kinetic warfare, challenging traditional notions of national security. Furthermore, the transcript explores historical precedents for American unity during times of crisis, drawing parallels between World War II successes and past internal fractures like the Civil War. The speakers emphasize that Alexander Hamilton's concept of "American primacy" was rooted in maintaining a unified nation from coast to coast as essential for long-term global influence, noting that previous conflicts were often unpopular but necessary to preserve national integrity against monarchical oppression or fragmentation. While modern media narratives focus on condemning Russia and supporting Ukraine with weapons and training, the speakers point out that resources like trained soldiers are finite and cannot be replenished quickly enough to sustain a prolonged war effort indefinitely. Additionally, they observe fractures within NATO alliances, where countries like Belgium and Hungary have not fully condemned Russian actions, indicating that global unity is far from absolute despite Western rhetoric. Ultimately, the conclusion of the discussion shifts focus toward long-term legacy planning rather than immediate political events over the next two years. The speakers encourage individuals to prepare their families, businesses, and financial structures for a world where China may become the economic superpower by 2033 according to various economists. They warn that while the United States might retain its status as an economic and military power in some scenarios, the nature of conflict will evolve alongside technology and human thinking, making predictability difficult despite established cycles. The overarching message is one of caution regarding a potential decade or two defined by intense geopolitical competition, urging listeners to safeguard their legacies against uncertainties that could arise from shifting global orders and escalating international tensions involving major powers like China, Russia, India, and Brazil within the BRICS bloc.

Read the full video transcript

This This to me is goes back to what I did not expect to be the theme of this conversation, but how hilariously predictable humans are. So, Ray Dalio takes a very economic view of the world, and he's like, "Oh, hey, by the way, what he calls the big cycle is so predictable that he broke it down into six phases, and every empire has gone through these six phases. They last for roughly like 100 to 150 years. America's basically at the end of the 100-year cycle, um and phase six is total collapse, war, basically, and the old world order falls apart. There is usually a violent war, and then a new world order is established. And we're like clockwork on the cycle from a money perspective, from a division perspective, like everything just lines up. So, you have to have an internal populace that is divided. Uh you need to get yourself over your skis from a debt perspective, which we've done. You have to start printing money like crazy, and there has to be a new superpower on the rise. Like, it's the the stage is set, and the stage was set in World War II, which is how we became the dominant power, to your point about waking a sleeping dragon. Sleeping dragon woke up, but now uh we're in trouble. So, that's my overly simplistic view of why this worked. It was sort of a fluke, uh not a fluke, but it was we we hit the cycle at just the right moment when the British Empire collapsed at the end of World War II, um because of our geography, we weren't destroyed by bombs, so we come out of the war pretty much unscathed. So, we ramp up all of our production capabilities. We absolutely um crush it. We help win. We create the nuclear bomb. Like, just a lot of things come together, and so then we're established as the world reserve currency. Um because it's not like we weren't divided before then, but we got to really enjoy a a hot minute of prosperity. Mhm. Does that seem like the right breakdown of why we could overcome our differences previously and now we can't? Like, how do you Yeah, I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's wrong at all. I think that it's interesting to me because it sounds like Ray Dalio, uh one of the reasons you respect him so much is because his analysis is based in economics. And he he's put his money where his mouth is. Economics and economists have long been viewed as the true predictors of future prosperity. At CIA, we lean heavily into economic studies. Economic experts, economic analysis, the the law of economics, cuz the law of economics is that of the law of scarcity. One of the first and most underrated economists out there was actually a Soviet economist, a guy named Kondratiev. Kondratiev created what's known as the Kondratiev wave, the Kondratiev Kondratiev cycle. That cycle essentially puts us uh it explains the pattern of uh interstate conflict or intrastate conflict, where where countries compete, actually go to war with each other. And it and it puts it on about a 25-year cycle. 25 years to a peak in conflict, 25 years to a a drop in conflict. And then as the wave continues, like most waves, the actual uh peak of the waves expands. So, it goes from being 25 years to 25 years to then 32 years to 32 years, and you start to see this longer, slower wave, right? But, it's still a wave uh it's still a wave form. The next peak of conflict, according to Kondratiev's wave, against the United States' point of view, happens in about 2024, 2025. Oh, great. So, we now have multiple economists basically saying that there's a peak coming, a peak of conflict coming. And that conflict for the Kondratiev wave is a peak of popular conflict and unpopular conflicts. So, we're coming off of an unpopular conflict, right? Afghanistan and and Iraq largely turned into an unpopular conflict at the end, right? And the wave between when that started and when the next wave is coming is right in that 25-year mark, right? So, according to Kondratiev, we are very we are not only coming up on a period of conflict, but it will be popular inside the United States. So, people will rally behind that conflict. That doesn't mean we're going to win. That doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be in our best interest, but it does mean, to your point earlier, that we might see that moment where everybody kind of comes together again. I think part of the reason that we were able to be successful was because of the same rules of economics that you laid out from World War II. Our country Well, uh hugely unpopular. Western expansion was hugely unpopular at the time. The Civil War, nobody wants to see the Civil War again. Most people would say the Civil War was a traumatic and horrible, you know, loss of life. At the time, there was no other option. Abraham Lincoln had no option except to pursue Civil War because he knew that the presidents before him had been working to create a single solitary nation that had national security from coast to coast. We can say it was a fight for states' rights. We can say it was a fight for slavery. We can say it was a fight for lots of things. And those are all so true, but they may not be the number one reason why the why the Civil War was so important. The Civil War was so important because we needed to remain one unified country from coast to coast to have American primacy in the long run. American primacy is a concept that was created by Alexander Hamilton. Really? American primacy is not new. Mhm. There's an entire society out there called the Alexander Hamilton Society that's focused on on preserving the ideals of Alexander Hamilton and the founding fathers who all believed that a strong United States meant a strong world. Because they saw and lived through the oppression of living under a monarchy, right? If you look at the top five wealthiest countries in the world right now, the top five wealthiest countries in the world, two of them are democracies. The other three are monarchies. Right? So, the idea that democracy is the solution to all wealth and success hasn't really been proven yet. We're still outnumbered by monarchies, right? So, what is the future hold? The future will be will be conflict is coming. Multiple economists have pointed to it. You can see the writing on the wall, what my wife and I call the writing on the wall. Conflict is coming. What will that conflict look like is the bigger question. You talked earlier about how, you know, you and I might be of the same ilk when it comes to are we already engaged in World War III? Is World War III coming up? What will that World War look like? There is conflict coming. There is no reason for us to think it will look like it looked in World War II. If anything, conflict has proven to us that it evolves and changes just like technology and just like human thinking, right? But it's still predictable because it takes human beings to wage war. I don't think I'm answering your question very well here, but these are all This is where my brain goes. So, my question is do you see this uh as a a conflict with China? Does it become open warfare? Is this going to be over Taiwan? Like or the Russia-Ukraine thing spills over into something? How do you see this playing out? So, my honest my honest anticipation, what I expect will happen, is that China will make a legal move on Taiwan. What China did in Hong Kong was legal first. They changed the laws in Hong Kong. They changed the laws in China, which then changed the laws in Hong Kong, which made it legal for them to go in and and take Hong Kong by force. In 2019, right before COVID hit, the whole world watched and it happened. And the whole world complained and threw a fit and leveraged sanctions and said it was unfair and unjust and everything else. And then the Chinese did it anyways. And now here it is 2023 and most people don't even remember what happened in Hong Kong just 4 years ago. Now they're watching what's happening in Ukraine. Now in Ukraine, some people say that what happened in Ukraine is that the world rallied behind Ukraine by giving them weapons and giving them training and giving them resources. The most limited resource in Ukraine is Ukrainian soldiers. It's not tanks or guns or howitzers. The thing that will run out first is Ukrainian fighters. That's like it's been it's a shame to me to watch what's happening because the Ukrainian fighting force is putting up such a valiant fight. They're doing everything they possibly can to equip every war fighter to be worth 10, 20, 30, 50 Russian fighters, right? But that's their most limited resource. They're not going to be able to create more Russian fighters in the next 3 to 5 years. You just can't You can't turn a 5-year-old into an 18-year-old. So the that's the resource. That's the the clock that Zelenskyy knows he's fighting against he's racing against is not a clock of fighter jets or or missile defense systems. It's how am I going to find enough fighters? And NATO and the West know that they don't want to put their boots in Ukraine fighting the Russians because that's all it would take for the Russians to basically say, "Hey, NATO allies are killing Russians. So now Russia can kill NATO allies." And because Russia is a nuclear power, they essentially have the same part the same trump card that we had in World War II. So, nobody in NATO wants to mess with that Trump card. Because when you have an animal cornered, Yeah. it does amazing things, right? So, what I see happening is China will make a legal move on Taiwan. What legal play do they have with Taiwan though? They They have a number of legal plays. First of all, do you know what the American official American stance is on Taiwan? It's something like um we're we're not going to do anything, but don't like touch them. It's so like bizarrely vague. Yeah, it's called the one China two systems policy. Essentially, in the eyes of American policy, Taiwan already belongs to China. Interesting. So, then China also has acknowledged with Taiwan, you have your own system, but you're still part of the mother country. This is Hong Kong 2.0. Hong Kong 2.0. And over the stretch of like what is it, 80 miles from coast to coast between between southeastern China and Taiwan? So, it's it's sticky, man. If If China makes a legislative move that basically forces the Taiwanese system to then say, you are now communist, right? They could have the legal foundation to do that. And then a legal attack is very similar to what they did in Hong Kong. That goes to court systems. That doesn't go to bullets, right? And then when the legal system starts to go in their best interest or in their favor, now China has legal grounds to basically have Chinese uh police officers enforce Chinese law inside Taiwan. This whole process, what the hell is the United States going to do? There's no missiles, there's no guns. You can drive through the straits all you want. It's a legal issue. It's not a military issue. So, I anticipate China making a legal move on Taiwan that will be supported by key members in the UN. Why? Because how many of the BRICS are in the the the leading countries in the UN, all of them. Right? If you look at the Ukrainian conflict now, the news media oversimplifies everything. So, media says that the UN passes resolutions that condemn Russia. That's true. And the UN passes resolutions with a large majority. 140 countries, you know, condemn Russia. That is also true. What they're not telling you is that the countries who are not condemning Russia are the largest, wealthiest countries in the UN. Mhm. China is not condemning Russia. South Africa is not condemning Russia. India is not condemning Russia, right? Even inside NATO, you have Belgium and Hungary who are not condemning Russia. Really? So, even NATO is not unified on this. Wow. Right? China's seeing all of this, and China's seeing it for what it really is, not for what American media is telling the American people it is. And the American media isn't They're not trying to, you know, they're not trying to lead us astray. They're just trying to run a business. They're trying to get people to read their newspaper, click their links, see their ads so that they can have They can pay their employees the next pay cycle. That's all media's trying to do. It's not They're not trying to lead us down the wrong path. So, once there's an administrative takeover in Taiwan, China has all the rules that it like all the cover it needs to basically just shipping to start shipping National Guard troops, police officers, even military units over to Taiwan. And now Taiwan belongs to China in a bloodless war, very similar to the bloodless coups that we've seen multiple times in places like Thailand or all over Southeast Asia, right? That's how I see it happening, and I see it largely happening in the lead-up to the 2024 election because China is going to benefit from a very confused American base. peak division. During peak division in an electoral cycle. Wow. That's so distressing because that feels very plausible. Uh okay, so we have a lot of business interests there. So, what will our reaction be? Cuz my first thought was our reaction will be, "Oh, maybe that's the best way for this to happen. We can be like, "Ah, we don't have to go and commit our American lives to it." Uh, they did it just like Taiwan, or sorry, just like Hong Kong, where we'll, you know, rant and rave and say this is a problem and how dare you and sanctions. But ultimately be glad that we're not sending people to die, but do we have enough business interests there that, especially in in, you know, sensitive areas like chip manufacturing, where we can't let it go. Our business interests with China are significantly bigger than our business interests with Taiwan. Wow. Taiwan has the market cornered on semiconductors, but that's not just for the United States. They have the market They have 98% of the market share in semiconductor manufacturing. Who designs the semiconductors? We do. Mhm. We have all the IP. They just have the plants. That's why one of the big initiatives in Biden's CHIP Act is to actually bring, uh, T- TSMC, TMSC, I forget the name of the country, or I forget the name of the company, the main manufacturer in Taiwan, to actually bring them to the United States. So, they're trying to build manufacturing plants for the Taiwanese company here in the flyover states in the United States. So, that we can just bring that tool God. This is going to be a fascinating 10 to 20 year period. Absolutely. You just nailed it right there. It is going to be a fascinating decade to two decades in the future. So, that's what I want to focus on. That's what I encourage my clients to focus on. It's not about what happens now or in the next two years. It's about what are you going to do so that your family, your business, your financial legacy, your individual legacy is safeguarded for what the world could look like 10 to 20 years from now. The the world could look like the United States is still the economic and military superpower. It could look like that. So, you may not have to change much. But, according to economists, by 2033, China will be the economic superpower. That's not far away. Guys, if you like that clip with Andrew Bustamante, trust me, your brain is going to be melted by the entire episode. You can click here to check it out. You're going to love it. And this is this is where I believe the the public disdain for CIA comes from. CIA recruits us, and another one of the lessons they tell us,