December 4, 2025

“The food you eat can be either the safest and most powerful form of medicine or the slowest form of poison.”— Ann Wigmore

“Sugar is the alcohol of the child.”— Dr. Robert Lustig, UCSF pediatric endocrinologist

“Healthy nutrition is safe and effective in preventing cancer.”— American Institute for Cancer Research, 2023

[Same year: Americans consumed 152 pounds of sugar per capita, highest ever recorded]

[Part 4 of 6]

New parts publish every Tuesday and Thursday at 10AM EST

Cancer exploded when traditional populations adopted Western lifestyles. The pattern appears across every documented case: the Inuit moving to trading settlements, the Hunza adopting British foods, Albert Schweitzer’s patients in Gabon as they abandoned traditional diets. Within a single generation, cancer rates climbed from virtually zero to Western levels.

If cancer were a genetic disease of complexity requiring infinitely expensive drugs, this rapid transformation would be impossible. Genes don’t mutate that fast across entire populations. But environments change overnight.

Three specific environmental factors stand out in the historical and biochemical record: the explosion of refined sugar consumption, the introduction of industrial seed oils, and the disruption of circadian rhythms through artificial light. Each factor has a well-defined mechanism of action. Each correlates precisely with cancer’s rise. Together, they created the metabolic conditions that transform normal cells into malignant ones.

Vector One: The Sugar Deluge

Picture four pounds of sugar. A bag from the grocery store. The weight of it in your hands. In 1700, that’s what an Englishman consumed in a full year.¹

Now picture 150 pounds.

Stack thirty-seven of those bags in your kitchen. Feel the absurd weight of it. That’s what the average American now consumes annually. Every year. For decades.

This isn’t metabolism. This is drowning.

Your body wasn’t designed for this. No human body in evolutionary history encountered this volume of refined carbohydrate. The Paleolithic feast, a lucky honey find, maybe ten pounds for an entire year if you were fortunate. Your ancestors’ metabolism evolved around scarcity, around seasonal swings, around long winters with nothing sweet at all.

Now you’re drinking liquid sugar with lunch. Pouring it on breakfast. Hiding it in bread, ketchup, salad dressing, “health” bars. The average American encounters more sugar before noon than a medieval peasant saw in months.

What does this do to a body?

Insulin surges. Over and over and over. Every sugary meal triggers a hormonal flood. Insulin is a growth signal. It screams at your cells: DIVIDE. MULTIPLY. BUILD. When insulin floods your bloodstream constantly, that signal never stops. Your cells are being told to grow, all day, every day, forever.²

Insulin also increases bioavailability of Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), which drives cell proliferation and blocks programmed cell death. In a healthy body with intact regulatory controls, this is manageable. But when those controls fail, when mitochondria are damaged and cells lose their ability to regulate themselves, the high-insulin environment becomes a greenhouse for malignancy.

Here’s the obscene part: cancer cells depend on this.

Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize in 1924 for discovering that cancer cells don’t breathe the way normal cells do. Normal cells use oxygen to burn fuel efficiently in their mitochondria. The vast majority of aggressive cancers ferment sugar into lactate, even when oxygen is abundant. This metabolic signature defines most malignancies, though some indolent tumors retain partial oxidative capacity.³

Warburg declared in 1956: “Cancer, above all other diseases, has countless secondary causes. But, even for cancer, there is only one prime cause. Summarized in a few words, the prime cause of cancer is the replacement of the respiration of oxygen in normal body cells by a fermentation of sugar.”⁴

We’ve built a civilization that feeds cancer exactly what it wants.

Where your ancestors experienced periodic fasting and seasonal carbohydrate scarcity, you maintain elevated blood glucose 24/7. Cancer cells don’t have to compete for scarce resources. They swim in it. They’re drunk on it. You’re marinating your cells in their preferred fuel, continuously, from birth to death.

Era Sugar Intake (lbs/year) Cancer Mortality Metabolic Context 1700 4 lbs Rare (<0.5% deaths) Low insulin, high activity 1800 18 lbs Rising in cities Early industrialization 1900 90 lbs Steady increase Processed foods emerge 2000 150+ lbs Epidemic (No. 2 killer) Metabolic syndrome ubiquitous

The correlation is undeniable. As sugar consumption climbed, so did cancer. The temporal relationship isn’t merely coincidental. It’s causal.

Vector Two: Industrial Seed Oils and Mitochondrial Sabotage

The most radical dietary shift isn’t the one you’ve been told about.

Before 1900, dietary linoleic acid (an Omega-6 polyunsaturated fat) accounted for 1-2% of human caloric intake. We got it from nuts, seeds, small amounts of grain oils. The structural fats our cells evolved to use came from animals, fish, olives, coconuts, stable fats that don’t degrade.

Today linoleic acid represents 8-10% of caloric intake, primarily from canola, corn, cottonseed, soy, sunflower, safflower, grapeseed, and rice bran oils.⁵

This is a five- to ten-fold increase in a single macronutrient class within four generations. No human population in history consumed polyunsaturated fats at these levels. We are conducting a mass experiment on ourselves, and the results are written in cancer statistics.

Here’s what happens at the cellular level:

Unlike saturated or monounsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats are chemically unstable. They contain multiple double bonds in their carbon chains, creating reactive sites vulnerable to free radical damage. When you consume them in excess, these oils incorporate into your cellular membranes, including the critical inner mitochondrial membrane where cellular respiration occurs.

Inside your mitochondria lives a molecule called cardiolipin. It’s a unique phospholipid that stabilizes the Electron Transport Chain complexes responsible for burning fuel with oxygen. Cardiolipin is the structural foundation of cellular respiration. When cardiolipin is enriched with linoleic acid instead of the evolutionarily appropriate saturated or monounsaturated fats, it becomes fragile. Oxidizable. Vulnerable.⁶

The oxidation of linoleic acid produces toxic byproducts, most notably 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE). 4-HNE is a mutagen. It damages mitochondrial DNA. It degrades proteins. It directly impairs your cells’ ability to breathe.⁷

Imagine your mitochondria as tiny power plants inside every cell. Now imagine replacing the structural components of those power plants with materials that corrode on contact with oxygen. The machinery breaks down. The power output drops. The cell can no longer generate energy efficiently through respiration.

What does a cell do when its mitochondria are crippled?

It reverts to fermentation. The ancient, primitive metabolic pathway that doesn’t require functional mitochondria. The same pathway cancer cells use exclusively.

This is mitochondrial sabotage at the molecular level. We’ve replaced the structural fats our cells evolved to use with chemically unstable substitutes that degrade cellular respiration. Then we act surprised when cells revert to fermentation and lose growth control.

While conventional medicine promotes these oils for lowering cholesterol, they ignore the structural cost to the mitochondrial membrane. Yes, linoleic acid can lower LDL cholesterol (the mainstream’s preferred metric). But at what price? The same molecular instability that makes these oils “heart healthy” in outdated lipid models makes them toxic to mitochondria.

The industrial oils don’t just damage mitochondria. They drive chronic inflammation and immune suppression, creating fertile soil for malignancy.⁸ Your body’s inflammatory response to oxidized fats consumes resources that would otherwise support immune surveillance against pre-cancerous cells.

You’re not just eating these oils. You’re building your cells out of them. Your mitochondria are literally constructed from rancid, oxidized, unstable molecules that corrode from the inside. Every cell membrane. Every mitochondrial cristae. Corrupted.

Vector Three: Light at Night and the Violence of Wakefulness

Your cells have clocks.

For hundreds of millions of years, those clocks synchronized to the sun. The 24-hour rotation of Earth imprinted itself into every mitochondrion, every nucleus, every metabolic pathway. Life evolved under a precise, invariant rhythm: light, dark, light, dark.

Then we invented the lightbulb.

In 150 years, less than six human generations, we drowned the night in artificial light. The circadian rhythm that governed cellular life for eons now operates in chaos.

Epidemiological studies consistently link shift work and Light at Night (LAN) to higher risks of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers.⁹ The World Health Organization classified shift work as a “probable carcinogen” in 2007. Not because night shifts expose you to chemical toxins. Because forcing your cells to stay awake damages them.

The mechanism involves circadian clock genes: CLOCK, BMAL1, PER, CRY. These genes don’t just control when you sleep. They regulate when your cells repair DNA. When they metabolize nutrients. When they activate immune surveillance. When they decide whether to live or die.¹⁰

Circadian genes operate in virtually every cell, synchronizing organismal rhythms to the solar day. When that rhythm breaks, metabolic synchronization collapses. Cells that should be in repair mode during night hours remain in active metabolic states. DNA damage accumulates without adequate repair windows. The delicate balance between growth and rest, between damage and repair, disintegrates.¹¹

But the damage goes deeper.

Light at night suppresses melatonin production from the pineal gland. You’ve been told melatonin is a sleep hormone. That’s true, but trivial compared to its real function.

Melatonin is one of the most potent mitochondrial antioxidants known. It scavenges free radicals inside mitochondria where conventional antioxidants can’t reach. It operates at the site of maximum oxidative stress, the inner mitochondrial membrane where the Electron Transport Chain generates energy and, inevitably, reactive oxygen species.¹²

When you suppress melatonin with artificial light, you’re removing your mitochondria’s primary defense against oxidative damage.

Critically, melatonin is oncostatic. It induces apoptosis (programmed cell death) in cancer cells. It inhibits angiogenesis, the blood vessel formation that feeds tumors. It modulates immune responses against malignancy.¹³ Melatonin is a natural brake on cancer development. Widespread suppression through artificial light removes that brake.

Shift workers exposed to bright light during biological night show dramatically suppressed melatonin levels. Flight attendants, night-shift nurses, factory workers on rotating schedules have elevated breast cancer rates even after controlling for other risk factors.¹⁴

But this isn’t just an occupational hazard. Modern society bathes in artificial light from dusk to midnight. Screens emit blue wavelengths that powerfully suppress melatonin. Children grow up in bedrooms lit by LED nightlights and fall asleep with tablets glowing in their faces. The circadian disruption is society-wide.

We evolved under starlight. Firelight. The moon. Wavelengths that didn’t obliterate melatonin production. Now we stare into devices emitting the precise frequencies that tell our pineal glands it’s noon.

Your mitochondria don’t understand this. They can’t adapt in 150 years. Evolution operates on timescales of thousands of generations, not five. You’re forcing ancient cellular machinery to function in an environment it has no evolutionary context for. The machinery is breaking.

The Convergence: My Friend’s Interventions Targeted These Exact Vectors

Again, I once helped a friend defeat stage 4 lymphoma after four recurrences in seven years. Standard chemotherapy protocols had failed him repeatedly. When I found him in the hospital, his spleen was massively swollen with cancerous cells. He thought he was dying.

The interventions we used weren’t exotic experimental drugs. They were metabolic corrections targeting the three vectors of modernity.

Sugar restriction: We moved him to an 8-hour eating window with low-carbohydrate meals. He couldn’t manage full ketogenic or one-meal-a-day due to hormonal dysregulation from years of Standard American Diet abuse, but this was enough. We lowered his baseline insulin. We lowered his blood glucose. We starved the cancer cells of their primary fermentation fuel.

Seed oil elimination: His diet shifted to whole foods prepared with butter, olive oil, and animal fats. We removed the source of linoleic acid-driven mitochondrial damage. We stopped the oxidative cascade destroying his cellular respiration. His inflammation markers dropped.

Circadian restoration: The eating window itself, consistent meal timing, helped re-entrain his circadian rhythms. Combined with earlier sleep and reduced evening screen exposure, his melatonin production likely normalized. His cells started operating on a clock again.

High-dose liposomal vitamin C: Vitamin C acts as a pro-oxidant specifically in cancer cells, which lack the catalase enzyme to neutralize hydrogen peroxide. This creates selective toxicity to malignant cells while supporting normal cellular function.¹⁵

Within days of the first mega-dose, he started recovering.

His spleen began shrinking. Not slowly. Rapidly. Measurably. This wasn’t symptom management. This wasn’t remission through conventional mechanisms. The cancer itself was responding to metabolic pressure.

Five years later, he remains cancer-free.

His previous pattern was recurrence every 1.75 years. That pattern is broken. He still does maintenance chemo drips, he’s cautious, working on eliminating them entirely. But the metabolic interventions changed the trajectory where four rounds of standard chemo had only bought temporary reprieves.

The protocol wasn’t perfect. He didn’t achieve full ketosis or strict intermittent fasting. But he corrected his metabolic environment enough that cancer cells lost their growth advantage. The simple interventions worked where pharmaceuticals failed.

This case isn’t unique. It’s a confirmation of what the biochemistry predicts.

Cancer cells are metabolically inflexible. They depend on fermentation of glucose and glutamine. They thrive in inflammatory, high-insulin environments with disrupted circadian rhythms and suppressed melatonin. Remove those conditions, and cancer cells struggle while normal cells adapt and recover.

The Uncomfortable Question

If the biochemistry is this clear, if we know cancer needs sugar to grow and inflamed mitochondria to start, why isn’t this the standard of care?

These mechanisms are well-understood. The Warburg Effect has been known for a century. The role of insulin and IGF-1 in cancer progression is documented in thousands of studies. The toxicity of linoleic acid oxidation products is established biochemistry. The oncostatic properties of melatonin are recognized by the WHO’s classification of shift work as carcinogenic.

The science isn’t controversial. The anthropological record isn’t ambiguous. Traditional populations eating traditional diets don’t develop cancer at Western rates. When they adopt Western lifestyles, cancer rates explode within a single generation.

So why does medicine focus on genetic complexity instead?

Why are billions poured into sequencing tumor genomes and developing drugs targeting individual mutations, while metabolic interventions that address root causes remain on the fringe?

Why is a stage 4 lymphoma patient more likely to be offered experimental immunotherapy at $100,000 per year than a supervised ketogenic metabolic therapy protocol?

The answer isn’t scientific. It’s structural.

Genetic complexity justifies endless pharmaceutical development. Each newly discovered mutation spawns a new drug development program, a new patent, a new revenue stream. The “War on Cancer” launched in 1971 funneled billions into the National Cancer Institute with a mandate to find genetic cures.¹⁶ NCI funding mechanisms prioritize genetic research. Metabolic proposals are viewed as “outdated” or “simplistic” despite the genetic approach’s failure to cure metastatic disease.

Metabolic interventions, by contrast, are largely unpatentable. Ketogenic diets, fasting protocols, circadian rhythm restoration, and vitamin C infusions offer minimal return on investment. They work, but they don’t generate profit.

The complexity isn’t in the disease. It’s in our refusal to accept the simple, uncomfortable cause: the modern environment we’ve created actively promotes cancer through specific, identifiable mechanisms we could address if there were economic incentives to do so.

The three vectors of modernity, sugar, industrial seed oils, and circadian disruption, transformed human metabolism in the span of five generations. Cancer followed predictably. The solution is equally predictable. But solutions that threaten profitable industries face structural barriers no amount of evidence can overcome.

The emperor has no clothes. We just pretend not to notice because the tailors are very well-funded.

What Comes Next

The three vectors are identified: refined sugar flooding cells with fermentation fuel, industrial seed oils sabotaging mitochondria, and circadian disruption stripping away cellular defenses. The mechanisms are clear.

Yet the medical establishment clings to the genetic paradigm despite fifty years of failure. Why?

In Part 5, we’ll examine the paradigm war. How Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize in 1924 for discovering cancer’s metabolic origin, then watched the medical establishment bury his work for a century. How nuclear transfer experiments proved metabolism trumps genetics, yet were ignored. How economic interests and institutional power protect a failed paradigm that’s killing millions.

Understanding the suppression explains why the solution remains on the fringe.

This is Part 4 of a 6-part investigative series examining cancer as a disease of civilization. Part 5 will expose the paradigm war between metabolic and genetic theories, revealing how economic interests buried the evidence for a century.

Disclaimer: This article presents historical, anthropological, and biochemical analysis alongside a personal anecdotal account. It is not medical advice. Individual results vary. Consult qualified healthcare providers before making treatment decisions.

Footnotes

* The sugar-cancer-diabetes connection - T.J. Regional Health. https://www.tjregionalhealth.org/blog/the-sugar-cancer-diabetes-connection - Documents the historical rise in sugar consumption from 4 lbs/year in 1700 to over 150 lbs/year by 2000, correlating with the rise of metabolic diseases and cancer.

* Understanding the Link between Sugar and Cancer - PMC, National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6149785/ - Explains the mechanistic connection between high sugar intake, insulin/IGF-1 signaling, and cancer cell proliferation through growth factor pathways.

* 100 years of the Warburg effect - Endocrine-Related Cancer. https://erc.bioscientifica.com/view/journals/erc/28/10/ERC-21-0143.xml - Reviews a century of research on Otto Warburg’s discovery that cancer cells ferment glucose even in the presence of oxygen, a metabolic signature distinguishing cancer from normal tissue.

* The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells? - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783224/ - Details Otto Warburg’s conclusion that cancer’s prime cause is the replacement of oxygen respiration with sugar fermentation, and explains why this metabolic shift benefits cancer cells.

* Historical rise of cancer and dietary linoleic acid - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10167378/ - Documents the dramatic increase in dietary linoleic acid from industrial seed oils, rising from 1-2% to 8-10% of caloric intake, and correlates this with cancer incidence increases.

* Historical rise of cancer and dietary linoleic acid - World Journal of Gastroenterology. https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-6220/full/v12/i2/214.htm - Explains how linoleic acid incorporation into cardiolipin within mitochondrial membranes increases susceptibility to oxidative damage, compromising the Electron Transport Chain.

* The Link Between Seed Oils and Colorectal Cancer - Colon & Rectal Surgery Associates, NY. https://www.colonrectalny.com/the-link-between-seed-oils-and-colorectal-cancer/ - Describes how linoleic acid oxidation produces 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE), a toxic, mutagenic compound that damages mitochondrial DNA and proteins.

* Note: Industrial seed oil health effects remain debated. The “Hateful Eight” terminology reflects a specific metabolic theory perspective. Critics argue these oils are safe when not overheated. See Wikipedia’s “Seed oil misinformation” article for counterarguments. The mechanism of linoleic acid oxidation and 4-HNE production, however, is established biochemistry.

* The multifaceted impact of circadian disruption - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292863/ - Systematic review of epidemiological studies linking shift work and light at night exposure to elevated risks of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers.

* Cancer and the Circadian Clock - AACR Journals, Cancer Research. https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/79/15/3806/638864/Cancer-and-the-Circadian-Clock - Explains how circadian genes like CLOCK and BMAL1 regulate cellular metabolism, DNA repair, and immune function across all cells, not just the central nervous system.

* Cancer and the Circadian Clock - AACR Journals. https://aacrjournals.org/cancerres/article/79/15/3806/638864/Cancer-and-the-Circadian-Clock - Documents how circadian disruption uncouples cellular metabolism, favoring glycolytic states and impairing DNA repair timing, creating conditions that promote carcinogenesis.

* The Cancer Clock Is (Not) Ticking - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319165/ - Reviews melatonin’s role as a potent mitochondrial antioxidant, operating inside mitochondria where it scavenges free radicals conventional antioxidants cannot reach.

* The Cancer Clock Is (Not) Ticking - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9319165/ - Details melatonin’s oncostatic properties including induction of apoptosis in cancer cells, inhibition of angiogenesis, and modulation of immune surveillance against malignancy.

* The multifaceted impact of circadian disruption - PMC, NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10292863/ - Documents elevated cancer rates among shift workers (flight attendants, nurses, factory workers) even after controlling for other risk factors, linked to melatonin suppression from light at night exposure.

* Note: High-dose vitamin C as cancer therapy remains controversial in conventional oncology. Mechanism involves pro-oxidant effects (hydrogen peroxide generation) in cancer cells lacking catalase enzyme. Some clinical trials show benefits, others show null results. More research needed. See NIH’s “Vitamin C (Intravenous) (PDQ®)” for comprehensive review.

* National Cancer Act of 1971 - National Cancer Institute. https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/overview/history/national-cancer-act-1971 - Documents President Nixon’s declaration of the “War on Cancer” and establishment of NCI funding mechanisms that prioritized genetic research programs over metabolic approaches.

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

December 3, 2025

“The truth is rarely pure and never simple.”— Oscar Wilde

“I found the Trump-Epstein scout connection that every mainstream outlet missed. I wrote Python code to search 22,903 files. They relied on press releases.”— This newsletter, every week since January

I’ve been writing this newsletter for free since late last year, launching with the best 2024 Presidential Election prediction on the planet, backed up by 1200 lines of Python code. Over 70 investigative articles published in 2025 alone. Multi-part series on cancer’s metabolic origin, the global Digital ID rollout, Gen-Z uprisings across nine countries, Nazi central banking, Epstein’s trafficking network, and the monetary history most economists won’t teach.

Every article available in two formats: Full written investigations AND complete audio podcast episodes on Substack, Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

November 2024: 23 subscribersNovember 2025: 393 subscribersThat’s 17x growth in one year.

Every article: 1-3 per week. Every article: 10-20+ footnotes with complete citations. Every article: original research, not aggregated hot takes. Every article: available to read OR listen, your choice.

Today I’m asking you to pay $8/month to support this work.

Not because I’m putting content behind a paywall. Not because you’ll lose access. But because independent research that challenges power structures doesn’t fund itself, and I want to do more of it.

Let me show you what you’ve been getting for free, what makes this newsletter different, and why, if you value this work, now is the time to become a founding paid subscriber.

The 2025 Body of Work: What You Got for Free

The Cancer Paradox (6 parts, November-December 2025): Archaeological evidence shows cancer was rare for 99.9% of human history. I traced Industrial Revolution inflection points, analyzed ethnographic evidence from isolated populations, identified three causation vectors (seed oils, EMF, synthetic chemicals), documented the paradigm war between genetic and metabolic theories, and cataloged metabolic solutions the medical establishment ignores.

The Digital ID Investigation (6 parts, October 2025): Framework analysis across 23 countries revealing two competing models (user control vs. centralized state), direct connections to CBDCs and financial control, surveillance infrastructure already built, exclusion mechanisms creating digital apartheid, and resistance strategies that actually worked in Taiwan, Estonia, and Switzerland.

The Gen-Z Uprising (4 parts, December 2025): How an anime flag from One Piece sparked revolutions across 9 countries. Bangladesh breakthrough where 1,400 students died and a government fell. Pattern recognition showing the same protest structure from Indonesia to Kenya to Madagascar. Why Western media completely missed the story.

The Money Series (6 parts, July-August 2025): 5,000 years before money documenting debt as social control. Knights Templar’s financial system more sophisticated than modern banking. Lincoln’s greenbacks and monetary insurgency. Hjalmar Schacht: Nazi central banker whose innovations surpass Bernanke and Greenspan. The Wörgl miracle they killed. Digital chains or digital freedom as the final monetary battle.

The Epstein Files Phase 2 (November 2025): I wrote Python code to search 22,903 files from the estate dump. Found Tigran Khachatrian, Trump’s modeling scout who fed directly into Epstein’s MC2 trafficking network. Mainstream media, including The Guardian called him “an unidentified associate.” I outdid them, identified him, traced his Noah Models operation, connected him to the BBC documentary on child model trafficking from Siberia. Original forensic journalism.

Plus: Currency warfare and the 2025 election. The Couch Effect analyzing non-voters. America’s Electronic Pearl Harbor. Moldova election theft. Iran war scenarios. Medical establishment critique. AI adoption analysis. Gaza surveillance state documentation.

That’s 70+ articles in 11 months. Average 1.5 articles per week. Every single one with original research, footnoted sources, and analysis you won’t find in mainstream outlets.

51 major investigations available as podcast episodes on Substack, Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Whether you prefer to read or listen (commute, gym, walking), you get the same depth of research in the format that works for you.

All of it free.

What Makes This Different

Here’s what separates this newsletter from the 10,000 other Substacks competing for your attention:

Original Forensic Research + Cross-Domain Synthesis

As I showed with the Epstein to Khachatrian discovery mentioned above, I don’t wait for press releases. I write the code to find what they hide. When mainstream outlets call someone “an unidentified associate,” I download 22,903 files, write Python scripts, and identify them.

That’s investigative journalism. Not commentary on someone else’s investigation. Original research using technical tools to find what others miss.

And I connect patterns across domains most journalists won’t touch:

* Nazi economics → modern central banking (Hjalmar Schacht’s MEFO bills as precursor to QE)

* Archaeological evidence → medical paradigms (cancer rarity in ancient bones challenges genetic theory)

* Anime symbolism → revolutionary movements (One Piece flag as Gen-Z uprising symbol across 9 countries)

* Digital ID architecture → CBDC infrastructure → social credit systems (the convergence mainstream misses)

This cross-domain pattern recognition is what you can’t get from siloed specialists.

Dual Format: Read OR Listen

51 podcast episodes. Every major investigation available as both a written article and a complete audio version.

Most Substacks don’t offer podcasts. The few that do often have abbreviated audio versions or boring text to speech versions verbatim. I generate two person podcasts, maintaining the same depth and footnote rigor in audio format, but more dynamic.

Now available on:

* Apple Podcasts

* Spotify

* [Substack] (at the top of every article)

Whether you’re commuting, at the gym, cooking dinner, or prefer audio for comprehension, you get the same investigative depth. One subscription, two formats, your choice.

Volume + Depth: Multi-Part Series, Not One-Offs

Seymour Hersh drops monthly investigative bombs. Matt Taibbi writes 2-3x/week but shorter pieces. Glenn Greenwald focuses on civil liberties and foreign policy.

I publish 1-3 deep investigations per week, often in multi-part series: 6-part Cancer series, 6-part Digital ID series, 6-part Money series, 4-part Gen-Z uprising.

This is serialized book-quality research published weekly, not drive-by hot takes.

Footnote Rigor + Global Scope

Every article has 10-20+ footnotes with complete citations. Not generic homepage URLs. Specific articles, studies, documents. I don’t say “studies show” or “experts claim.” I cite the specific study, the specific expert, with the specific URL so you can verify.

And I cover Gen-Z uprisings in Indonesia, Kenya, Bangladesh, Madagascar, Nepal, Philippines. Digital ID rollout in China, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos, Ethiopia, Zambia, Papua New Guinea, EU, UK, Australia. Nazi central banking. Cancer research from Egyptian mummies and isolated populations worldwide. Geopolitical analysis of Iran, Moldova, Gaza, Syria, Ukraine.

This is global investigative journalism, not Beltway reporting.

The Economics of Independent Research

Let me be transparent about why I’m asking for money now.

Time investment per article: many hours per (research, writing, technical work, fact-checking)

Weekly output: 1-3 articles/week

Right now, this newsletter is a labor of love that costs me hours of paid work per week. Every article is subsidized by other work. If I can make this newsletter financially sustainable, I can buy that time back and dedicate it fully to investigations that require resources.

The Epstein files research? I could have gone deeper with budget for data analysis tools and legal records. The cancer series? I could have interviewed researchers and accessed paywalled studies. The Digital ID investigation? I could have obtained leaked documents from activists in authoritarian countries.

Independent research needs independent funding.

What You Get as a Paid Subscriber

I’m not putting my articles behind a paywall. I believe in open access to information.

But paid subscribers will get:

1. Early Access (48 hours before public release) - Read investigations before anyone else, share with your networks first, be ahead of the conversation

2. Extended Research Notes - Additional footnotes and sources I cut for length, technical appendices (like the Python code I used for Epstein files), dead ends and alternative hypotheses I explored, “how I researched this” methodology notes

3. Subscriber-Only Q&A Threads (Monthly) - Ask me anything about my research process, suggest topics for future investigations, get my take on breaking news through the anthropological lens

4. Research Requests - Vote on what I investigate next, suggest leads and sources, help crowdsource investigation angles

5. Behind-the-Scenes Updates - What I’m working on next, research in progress, stories that didn’t pan out and why

The Founding Member Offer (Limited Time)

If you subscribe in the next 30 days, you lock in the founding member rate: $8/month or $100/year (that’s $8.33/month effective).

This rate is locked in forever. Even if I raise prices later, you keep the founding rate as long as you maintain your subscription.

Why now?

* I’ve proven consistency: 70+ articles in 2025, 1-3/week cadence maintained

* I’ve proven quality: original research, forensic methods, footnote rigor

* I’ve proven range: finance, health, geopolitics, tech, culture, surveillance

* I’ve built an archive well worth $96/year in value (more than NYT, WaPo, WSJ)

What happens if you wait?

* Founding member window closes January 2, 2026

* Price may increase to $10/month for new subscribers in 2026

* You’ll have missed locking in the permanent discount

Why $8/Month Is Actually Cheap

I’m priced at $8/month, same as Matt Taibbi, with double the volume. You’re getting 1-3 articles/week (52-156/year) with multi-domain coverage (finance + health + geopolitics + tech + culture), serialized book-quality research, and forensic methodology you won’t find anywhere else.

Cost per article: At 52 articles/year minimum, you’re paying $1.92 per investigative piece (annual plan). At 156 articles/year maximum, you’re paying $0.64 per article.

Compare to:

* NYT: $17/month for aggregated AP wire + opinion

* WSJ: $29/month for financial news

* WaPo: $12/month for Beltway reporting

You’re getting serialized book-quality research across multiple domains for less than the price of two coffees per month.

What I’m NOT Doing

Let me be clear about what this isn’t:

I’m NOT paywalling existing content. Everything published remains free. Your access doesn’t change.

I’m NOT abandoning free subscribers. 80%+ of content stays public. This isn’t a bait-and-switch.

I’m NOT becoming a shill. Paid subs don’t get to dictate editorial direction. I investigate what needs investigating, not what sells.

I’m NOT going to spam you. No upsells, no constant begging, no emotional manipulation. This is the ask. If you value the work, support it. If not, keep reading for free.

I’m NOT getting rich. Even at 100 paid subscribers ($800/month), this barely covers opportunity cost. This is about sustainability, not wealth.

The Ask: Support Independent Research

Here’s the simple truth: If 10% of my current 336 subscribers convert to paid, I make $314/month. If 15% convert, I make $471/month.

That’s enough to:

* Dedicate more hours/week to research

* Pay for FOIA requests and document purchases

* Access paywalled academic databases

* Travel and time for interviews

* Hire fact-checkers for complex investigations

Every paid subscription directly funds deeper research.

The Epstein investigation could become a full series tracking MC2’s entire network. The Digital ID investigation could expand to leaked documents from China’s cyber ID system. The cancer series could include interviews with metabolic oncologists.

But only if this work is funded.

I’m not asking you to support me personally. I’m asking you to support the work itself: independent research that challenges establishment narratives, follows evidence wherever it leads, and refuses to stay in disciplinary lanes.

If you believe that work matters, if you’ve found value in these 70+ articles, if you want more investigations that mainstream outlets won’t touch, then become a founding paid subscriber.

$8/month. $100/year. Locked in forever.

What’s Coming Next: 10 Articles in December

The Gen-Z Uprising series (Parts 1-4, completing the investigation):

* Part 2: Bangladesh breakthrough - how 1,400 students died and a government fell in weeks

* Part 3: The global wave - tracking the anime flag from Kenya to Madagascar to Philippines

* Part 4: The pattern revealed - why the same protest structure emerged across 9 countries, and what it means for the next wave of revolutions

The Cancer Paradox series (Parts 1-6, completing the investigation):

* Part 2: Industrial Revolution inflection points - from chimney sweeps to Paris mortality statistics

* Part 3: Ethnographic evidence - what isolated populations reveal about cancer’s environmental origins

* Part 4: Three vectors of causation - seed oils, EMF, and synthetic chemicals

* Part 5: The paradigm war - genetic inevitability vs. metabolic dysfunction, and why it matters

* Part 6: Metabolic solutions - what works, what the establishment ignores, and why

Articles drop every Tuesday and Thursday through December except holidays.

10 articles. 2 complete investigations. All free, with extended research notes for paid subscribers.

For Those Who Can’t Afford It

If you’re a student, unemployed, or financially struggling: don’t pay. Seriously. Keep reading for free. I mean that.

Forward articles to friends who can afford it. Share on social media. Leave comments. Recommend this newsletter to others. That’s support too.

This isn’t charity. Information shouldn’t be restricted to those who can pay. The founding member model means those who can afford it subsidize access for everyone.

The Gratitude Part

To everyone who’s subscribed, read, shared, commented, and sent encouragement over the past year: thank you!

You’ve watched this newsletter evolve from sporadic posts to consistent investigative research. You’ve trusted my analysis when it contradicted mainstream narratives. You’ve fact-checked my citations and pushed back when I got something wrong.

This community—393 of you and growing (17x from last year!)—is why this work matters. You want truth over comfort, evidence over ideology, and complexity over simplification.

Let’s build something sustainable together.

Become a founding paid subscriber. $8/month or $100/year. 30-day window. Lock in the rate forever.

Or don’t. Keep reading for free. Either way, I’ll see you next Tuesday and Thursday with the next investigation!

Tatsu IkedaAnthropologist, Investigative Journalist, Detective of PatternsTatsu also consults on strategic AI, business intelligence, software development, websites, and literally anything tech related. Reach out to quickly achieve your business goals! tatsu [at] tikeda dot com

“Not news. Not commentary. Original research.”

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

December 2, 2025

“On my arrival in Gabon, in 1913, I was astonished to encounter no cases of cancer… This absence of cancer seemed to me due to the difference in nutrition of the natives compared to the Europeans.”— Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize recipient

“We have given them junk food, and they have given us the privilege of watching them develop Western diseases.”— Denis Burkitt, British surgeon, 1970s Africa

“Cancer is on the increase… and modern research tends to the conclusion that this increase is due to civilization.”— Medical Press and Circular, London, 1923

[WHO, 2024: Cancer rates in developing nations now approaching Western levels]

[Part 3 of 6]

New parts publish every Tuesday and Thursday at 10AM EST

They saw it happen.

Not in laboratories. Not in controlled trials decades later. They watched it in real time: the arrival of cancer where it had never existed before.

Albert Schweitzer in the jungles of Gabon. Vilhjalmur Stefansson in the Arctic ice. Robert McCarrison in the Himalayas. Weston Price traveling the world with a camera and a dental mirror. These men were witnesses to a crime in progress, though they couldn’t yet name the perpetrator.

They documented populations living free of cancer not because they died young, but because they ate real food. And then they watched, with mounting horror, as Western “civilization” arrived and the disease followed like a plague.

The medical establishment ignored them. Still does. Because what they witnessed contradicts everything modern oncology wants to believe about cancer: that it’s random, genetic, inevitable. What these men saw was simpler and more damning.

Cancer wasn’t random. It was introduced. We brought it with us in sacks of white flour and tins of condensed milk.

Schweitzer: The Tragedy of Gabon

Albert Schweitzer arrived in Lambaréné, Gabon in 1913 with a medical degree from the University of Strasbourg and a mission to heal. He was 38 years old, trained in surgery and pathology, equipped to diagnose the full catalogue of tropical death: malaria screaming through blood, sleeping sickness liquefying brains, leprosy eating flesh, dysentery emptying bodies from within.

He treated thousands in those early years. Villagers who had never seen a white man. People living exactly as their ancestors had lived for millennia conducting hunting, fishing, gathering, eating cassava and plantains and game.

What astonished him wasn’t what he found. It was what he didn’t find.

“I was astonished,” he wrote, “to encounter no cases of cancer.”¹

Not one. Not in years.

This was a trained pathologist speaking. A man who had seen cancer in German hospitals, who knew tumors by sight and touch, who understood the disease in its clinical and microscopic forms. He wasn’t missing diagnoses. The disease simply wasn’t there.

For decades, Schweitzer worked in equatorial Africa. For decades, cancer remained absent. The people suffered everything else such as parasites, infections, accidents, the normal violence of biological existence. But their bodies didn’t turn against themselves in the specific, metabolic way that cancer requires.

Then the world changed.

Trading posts opened. European goods flooded in. Canned foods. Refined sugar. White flour. Preserved meats soaked in chemicals. Refined salt stripped of minerals. The people, understandably, wanted these miracles. Food that didn’t spoil. Sweetness without honey. Bread without grinding grain.

They ate it. And cancer came.

By the 1950s, Schweitzer was documenting cases. Not a few. Enough to constitute a pattern. The same tumors he’d seen in Europe were now appearing in African bodies that had been resistant for thousands of years.

He knew what had happened. He wrote it plainly: “the harmful effects of our civilization,” specifically “the infiltration of European habits and food.”³

Same people. Same genes. Same climate. Same infectious disease burden. One variable changed: food. And cancer appeared.

The medical establishment called it anecdotal. Better diagnostics, they said. People living longer, they said. Schweitzer had been there for forty years. He knew what he was seeing. He was watching a disease arrive in real time, carried in the hulls of European ships.

The tragedy wasn’t just the cancer. It was the cause. These people had been healthy. We made them sick. And then we called it progress.

Stefansson: The Inuit on Pure Fat

Vilhjalmur Stefansson was an anthropologist who learned to see. He lived with the Inuit of the Canadian Arctic for over a decade in the early 1900s, not as a tourist but as a participant. He ate what they ate. He lived how they lived. He survived Arctic winters on seal blubber and caribou fat.

And he documented what frontier doctors, Hudson’s Bay Company physicians, and whaling ship captains had been reporting for decades: the Inuit didn’t get cancer.⁴

Not rare cancer. Not low cancer. No cancer.

These weren’t small populations. These weren’t brief observations. The Inuit had been in contact with European explorers and traders for over a century by the time Stefansson compiled his evidence. Medical records existed. The reports were consistent.

What made the Inuit medically fascinating wasn’t just the absence of cancer. It was what they ate.

Meat. Fat. Fish. That’s it.

Eighty percent of calories from animal fat. Seal blubber eaten raw. Caribou organs fresh from the kill. Fish so fatty it left your hands slick. Almost zero plant matter. No grains. No sugar except occasional summer berries. A diet that would send a modern cardiologist into apoplexy.

They should have been dying, according to every nutritional theory we’ve constructed since. Saturated fat. Cholesterol. No vegetables. No fiber. No antioxidants from plants.

Instead, they were thriving.

Stefansson documented specific populations: the “Blond Eskimos” of Coronation Gulf, encountered in 1910 with zero European contact. Medical examinations: no cancer, no dental decay, robust physical health that made visiting Europeans look sickly by comparison.⁶

These weren’t people living in some tropical paradise. They inhabited one of the most brutal environments on Earth. Nine months of darkness. Temperatures that could kill you in minutes. No margin for metabolic dysfunction.

Life was hard. Infant mortality was catastrophic. The weak died young. But the adults who survived? They were metabolically invincible. No cancer. No diabetes. No heart disease. Natural selection had created humans optimized for fat metabolism, and as long as they ate their traditional diet, their bodies ran flawlessly.

Their bodies ran on fat. Pure, animal fat. Their mitochondria burned it cleanly. Their cells maintained redox balance. Their DNA repair mechanisms functioned flawlessly because their metabolic environment was right.

Then the trading posts opened.

The Hudson’s Bay Company brought flour. White flour, stripped of nutrients, converted in the gut to glucose faster than sugar itself. They brought sugar, because everyone wanted sugar. They brought canned milk, condensed and sweetened. They brought preserved foods soaked in industrial seed oils.

The Inuit bought it. Why wouldn’t they? It was easier than hunting seal in blizzards. It tasted good. It was what the powerful white men ate.

Cancer arrived within a generation.

The medical records documented it in real time. Cancer rates climbed from zero toward Western levels in thirty years.⁷ The same populations. The same genes. The same environment, except now they were eating flour and sugar instead of blubber.

Stefansson published all of this in 1960: Cancer: Disease of Civilization? The title was a question, but the evidence wasn’t. He laid out decades of medical documentation from independent observers across the Arctic. The pattern was undeniable.

The medical establishment dismissed him. He contradicted the lipid hypothesis, the new gospel that blamed saturated fat for chronic disease. A population thriving on 80% animal fat didn’t fit the narrative.

So they ignored him. And the Inuit kept getting sick.

McCarrison: The Horror of the British Diet

Robert McCarrison was a military physician posted to the northern frontier of India in the 1920s. He encountered the Hunza people, living in isolated valleys of the Himalayas, and found them medically inexplicable.

No cancer. No heart disease. No diabetes. No tuberculosis, even though neighboring tribes were ravaged by it. Physical vigor extending into old age. Elderly men working in fields that would exhaust Western teenagers.⁸

McCarrison could have written a paper about genetics. Instead, he did science.

He took rats in the same species, the same genetic stock and divided them into two groups. One group received the Hunza diet: whole grains (wheat and barley), fresh vegetables, apricots, milk, occasional meat. Real food, minimally processed, eaten as it came from the earth.

The second group received the diet of the British urban poor: white bread, margarine, canned vegetables, sweetened condensed milk, boiled meat, sugar, cheap jam.⁹

Then he watched.

The Hunza-diet rats flourished. Glossy coats. Calm temperament. Long lives. They died of old age, peacefully, their bodies simply wearing out after exhausting their natural lifespan.

The British-diet rats deteriorated.

Hair fell out. Skin erupted in lesions. Ulcers ate through stomach walls. Gastrointestinal tracts failed. Behavior became erratic. Some turned violent, attacking cage-mates. McCarrison documented extreme aggression including in his words “cannibalistic tendencies” among the malnourished rats.¹⁰

And they developed tumors.

Not all of them. Not consistently. But significantly, reproducibly, the rats eating British food developed cancerous growths that the Hunza-diet rats did not.

McCarrison’s experiment was elegant because it eliminated every confounding variable. Same species. Same laboratory. Same light, same temperature, same pathogen exposure. The only difference was food.

And that difference produced a complete divergence in pathology.

He presented this to the British Medical Association in 1936. He stated it clearly: “The greatest single factor in the acquisition and maintenance of good health is perfectly constituted food.”¹¹ He said the most important tools of medicine were “the spade and the fork”, the soil quality and food, not pharmaceuticals.

They acknowledged his work. Then they ignored it.

Britain was industrializing food production. White flour was profitable because it didn’t spoil, shipped easily, could be stored indefinitely. Sugar was becoming a staple. Margarine (vegetable fat) was replacing butter. The food industry was building an empire.

Research suggesting that white flour and sugar and margarine caused disease? That was inconvenient. That threatened entire industries.

So McCarrison’s rats testified in blood, and no one listened.

Price: The Prophet of Degeneration

Weston A. Price was a dentist from Cleveland who became an anthropologist by necessity. He was seeing something in his practice that disturbed him: children with mouths too small for their teeth, faces narrowing, sinuses chronically infected, bodies weakening.

It was happening too fast to be genetic. Something environmental had changed. He needed to understand what.

So in 1931, at age 61, he left his practice and traveled the world. For five years he visited isolated populations: Swiss Alpine villages, Outer Hebrides islanders, Native American tribes, Polynesian islands, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, Andean populations.¹²

He brought a camera and a dental mirror. He examined mouths, took photographs, and documented health. What he found was consistent across continents and climates.

Traditional populations eating traditional foods had wide dental arches, straight teeth, no cavities, broad faces, clear sinuses. Robust health. Resistance to tuberculosis and cancer.

Their modernized relatives eating white flour, sugar, canned goods, vegetable fats had narrow faces, crowded teeth, rampant decay, chronic infections, and susceptibility to degenerative disease.

Sometimes the difference was between siblings. Same parents. Same genes. Different food. Different outcomes.¹⁴

Price photographed this. Thousands of images. The evidence was visual, undeniable. You could see the degeneration in bone structure, in dental arches narrowing, in faces losing their ancestral form.

The traditional diets varied wildly. Swiss ate dairy. Polynesians ate seafood and coconut. Plains Indians ate bison and organs. Masai drank milk and blood. Inuit ate blubber. None of these diets resembled each other.

But they shared certain features: rich in fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, and something Price called “Activator X,” likely Vitamin K2), high in minerals, based on whole unprocessed foods. Animals eating their natural diets. Plants grown in healthy soil. Food prepared traditionally, often fermented.¹⁶

Price found that when pregnant women ate even a few months of Western food such as white flour, sugar, canned goods their children were born with narrower faces, more crowded teeth, weaker immune systems. The degeneration happened in utero. One generation.¹⁶

The connection Price never explicitly made but his evidence screams is this: if the body couldn’t build a proper jawbone, how could it build healthy immune cells to fight tumors? The same nutritional deficiencies that narrowed dental arches and crowded teeth were starving the body of the fat-soluble vitamins and minerals needed for DNA repair, mitochondrial function, and cancer resistance.

A narrow face wasn’t just cosmetic. It was a visible marker of systemic metabolic dysfunction. The same deficiency that prevented proper bone formation in utero would, decades later, prevent proper cellular metabolism. Cancer wasn’t just another degenerative disease on Price’s list. It was the end-stage manifestation of the same nutritional poverty that started with crooked teeth.

He published this in 1939: Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. It was the most comprehensive documentation of nutrition’s effect on human development ever compiled.

The medical establishment marginalized him. Dentistry became about fluoride and fillings, not food. Medicine embraced antibiotics and pharmaceuticals, not nutrition. The idea that food quality could fundamentally alter human development and disease resistance was dismissed as outdated.

Price died in 1948. By then, the industrialization of food was complete. White flour, sugar, and vegetable oils became dietary staples worldwide. And the diseases he warned about, dental degeneration, tuberculosis susceptibility, and cancer all became epidemics.

His photographs remain. Testimony in faces, before and after. Evidence that we knew what we were doing wrong, and did it anyway.

The Last Witnesses: Tsimane and Hadza

There are still a few left. Populations living traditionally, not perfectly isolated but close enough that researchers can measure the difference between them and us.

The Tsimane of the Bolivian Amazon. The Hadza of Tanzania. The last witnesses to what human health looks like when you don’t eat industrial food.

The Tsimane have the lowest rate of coronary artery atherosclerosis ever measured. An 80-year-old Tsimane has the cardiovascular system of an American in their 50s.¹⁷

This is despite and this is important, high infectious disease burden. Parasites. Repeated infections. Measurably elevated inflammatory markers. C-reactive protein levels that would terrify a Western cardiologist.¹⁸

By modern medical logic, chronic inflammation drives cancer and heart disease. The Tsimane should be dying of both.

They’re not.

Because the source of inflammation matters. Inflammation from acute infections and parasites is not the same as inflammation from refined sugar, seed oils, and circadian disruption. One is a normal immune response to actual threats. The other is metabolic dysfunction masquerading as immunity.

The Tsimane eat plantains, rice, corn, fish, game. Not pristine. Not perfect. But real food, minimally processed. They move constantly with not exercise, just normal human activity. They sleep when it’s dark and wake when it’s light.

Their cancer rates are dramatically lower than Western populations. When cancer does appear, it’s in individuals with increased exposure to market foods and sedentary behavior.²⁰

The Hadza show the same pattern. They eat tubers, honey, baobab fruit, game. They hunt and gather. They’ve been studied with modern metabolomics and microbiome analysis.

Their gut bacteria are radically different from ours. Far greater diversity. Fiber-fermenting species dominate. Their microbial ecosystem, shaped by traditional diet, appears protective against inflammation and metabolic disease.²²

Critically: their total energy expenditure is similar to sedentary Westerners. They’re not “just burning it off.” They eat less processed food, and their bodies function correctly.²¹

These populations are the control group. The before picture. They show what humans are capable of when the metabolic environment is right.

They’re also disappearing. Roads reach farther. Market foods penetrate deeper. The Tsimane who adopt Western diets start developing Western diseases. The pattern repeats, again, as it has for a century.

We’re watching the experiment conclude. And we already know how it ends.

The Pattern: Stated Plain

The evidence is consistent across continents, decades, and independent observers:

Gabon, 1913-1950s: Cancer absent. European food arrives. Cancer appears.

Canadian Arctic, 1900-1960s: Inuit cancer-free on 80% fat diet. Western food arrives. Cancer appears.

Himalayan Hunza, 1920s: Rats eating traditional food stay healthy. Rats eating British food develop tumors.

Global indigenous populations, 1930s: Traditional diet equals robust health. “Foods of commerce” equal degeneration.

Bolivian Amazon, 2017: Traditional diet equals lowest cardiovascular disease ever measured.

Tanzanian Hadza, ongoing: Traditional diet equals metabolic health despite Western caloric expenditure.

Not genetics. The Inuit are genetically distinct from the Tsimane, distinct from the Hunza, distinct from the Hadza. Yet all were free from cancer on traditional diets. All developed cancer with modernization.

Not longevity bias. These populations had elderly people. Schweitzer treated them. Stefansson documented Inuit living into their 70s and 80s. Price photographed indigenous elders with perfect teeth and no chronic disease. The cancer didn’t appear because people started living longer. It appeared because the food changed.

Not better diagnostics. The physicians were trained. Schweitzer was a pathologist. McCarrison was a medical researcher. Frontier doctors in the Arctic knew what tumors looked like. The disease they reported emerging in the 1930s-1950s was the same disease they’d diagnosed in European hospitals. It had been absent. Then it appeared. The timing matched dietary change.

The medical establishment has no response to this evidence. It contradicts the narrative that cancer is random, complex, genetic, inevitable.

The ethnographic record states it plainly: cancer was absent in populations eating traditional diets. Cancer appeared when those populations adopted Western food.

We introduced the disease. We brought it in sacks and tins. And when doctors witnessed it happening and documented it and warned us, we ignored them.

Because the truth was inconvenient. The truth threatened industries. The truth implied that we’d have to change how we eat, how we farm, how we process food. The truth meant admitting that “progress” and “civilization” had poisoned people.

Easier to call it genetic. Easier to say it’s random. Easier to blame bad luck and sell pharmaceuticals than to confront what Schweitzer and Stefansson and McCarrison and Price all saw with their own eyes:

We did this.

What Drove It?

The ethnographic evidence proves cancer is environmental and dietary. But it doesn’t, on its own, identify the precise mechanisms. What specific components of Western food transform a cancer-resistant metabolism into a cancer-permissive one?

The observers offered hypotheses. Schweitzer blamed “European habits and food.” Stefansson pointed to sugar and flour. McCarrison identified refined grains and industrial fats. Price documented the loss of fat-soluble vitamins and minerals from processing.

All were correct. But the biochemical mechanisms connecting these dietary shifts to cancer would require another generation of research.

The ethnographic control group provided the map. The witnesses testified. They told us where to look.

The next question is: what are the vectors?

Part 3 of 6: The Cancer as Metabolic Disease series

Next: Part 4 will examine the three specific vectors of modernity that drive cancer: refined sugar, industrial seed oils, and circadian disruption.

Footnotes

* Albert Schweitzer, On the Edge of the Primeval Forest (1948) - Schweitzer’s memoir documenting his medical work in Gabon from 1913-1940s. He explicitly noted the absence of cancer in his early years and its emergence as European dietary habits spread. BJGP Library review available at PMC. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5033299/

* Schweitzer, A., quoted in Stefansson, V., Cancer: Disease of Civilization? (1960) - Stefansson compiled extensive documentation from medical missionaries including Schweitzer’s later observations about cancer’s emergence correlating with dietary westernization in African populations. Available via digital archives at Dartmouth and DOKUMEN.PUB.

* Schweitzer correspondence, cited in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine (1960) - Schweitzer’s explicit attribution of cancer emergence to “harmful effects of our civilization” and European food infiltration, documented in contemporaneous publications.

https://dartmouthalumnimagazine.com/

* Stefansson, V., Cancer: Disease of Civilization? (1960) - Comprehensive compilation of medical records from Arctic explorers, Hudson’s Bay Company doctors, and whaling ship physicians documenting health patterns among Inuit populations from 1850s-1950s. The work synthesizes decades of frontier medical observations. Available via Everand digital library.

* Stefansson, V., The Fat of the Land (1956) - Detailed anthropological account of traditional Inuit diet consisting of 80%+ calories from animal fat (seal, caribou, fish) with near-zero plant matter or carbohydrates, and corresponding absence of chronic disease including cancer in traditionally-living populations.

* Stefansson’s documentation of Coronation Gulf “Blond Eskimos” (1913-1918) - Population with zero European contact when first encountered, medical examination showed no cancer, no dental decay, robust health despite extreme high-fat diet. Published in Canadian Arctic Expedition reports and later compiled in Cancer: Disease of Civilization?

* Hudson’s Bay Company medical records (1890s-1950s) - Cited in Stefansson’s work, company doctors documented transition in Inuit health as trading post populations adopted flour, sugar, and canned goods, with cancer rates rising from virtually zero to approaching Western levels within 30-40 years.

* McCarrison, R., “Studies in Deficiency Disease” (1921), Indian Medical Gazette - McCarrison’s initial observations of Hunza population health during his tenure as Director of Nutrition Research in India, documenting absence of cancer and chronic disease in isolated Himalayan population. Available via McCarrison Society archives at mccarrison.com.

* McCarrison, R., “Nutrition and National Health” (1936) - Detailed description of rat feeding experiments comparing Hunza traditional diet with British urban poor diet, presented to British Medical Association. Full experimental protocol and results documented in Lost Wisdom: The Wheel of Health compilation at Journey to Forever archives.

* McCarrison rat experiments, documented in Wrench, G.T., The Wheel of Health (1938) - Comprehensive account of McCarrison’s animal experiments showing Hunza-diet rats remained disease-free while British-diet rats developed hair loss, skin lesions, ulcers, behavioral disorders, and malignancies including cancerous tumors. https://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/wrench/

* McCarrison, R., “The Effect of Manurial Conditions on the Nutritive and Vitamin Values of Millet and Wheat” (1926) - Source of McCarrison’s famous quote about “the spade and the fork” being the most important instruments of health, emphasizing soil quality and food processing as fundamental determinants of human disease resistance.

* Price, W.A., Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (1939) - Comprehensive photographic and clinical documentation of 14 isolated populations across 6 continents studied 1931-1936, comparing traditionally-living individuals with modernized relatives. Extensively documents correlation between “foods of commerce” and degenerative disease. Available via Price-Pottenger Foundation and oncotherapy.us historical archives.

* Price’s “foods of commerce” definition - White flour, sugar, jams, canned goods, vegetable fats, and polished rice, as distinguished from traditional whole foods. Price documented immediate physical degeneration (dental, structural, disease susceptibility) within one generation of adopting these foods across cultures.

* Price photographic evidence - Over 15,000 photographs documenting dental arch width, facial structure, and health markers comparing traditional vs. modernized groups within same genetic populations. Visual evidence showed narrowed faces, crowded teeth, and increased disease in groups consuming modern processed foods.

* Price documentation of sibling comparisons - Photographs and clinical data comparing siblings raised on traditional vs. modern diets, showing dramatic differences in facial development, dental health, and chronic disease susceptibility within same families based solely on dietary exposure.

* Price’s identification of “Activator X” (likely Vitamin K2) - Traditional diets universally rich in fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and unknown factor “X” found in grass-fed animal products, fish eggs, and fermented foods. Modern biochemistry has identified this as likely Vitamin K2 (menaquinone), critical for calcium metabolism and cardiovascular health.

* Kaplan, H., et al., “Coronary atherosclerosis in indigenous South American Tsimane: a cross-sectional cohort study,” The Lancet (2017) - Landmark study using CT coronary calcium scanning showing Tsimane have lowest coronary artery disease prevalence ever measured, with 80-year-olds having vascular age of Western 50-year-olds despite high inflammatory markers. https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-looking-at-arterial-health-in-the-tsimane-people-of-bolivia/

* Gurven, M., et al., “The Tsimane Health and Life History Project: Integrating anthropology and biomedicine,” Evolutionary Anthropology (2017) - Documentation of inflammation paradox: Tsimane have elevated C-reactive protein from infections/parasites but do not develop chronic diseases typically associated with inflammation in Western populations, suggesting source of inflammation matters fundamentally. Gurven et al. (2017) Evol Anthropol 26(2):54-73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5421261/

* Kraft, T.S., et al., “Nutrition transition in 2 lowland Bolivian subsistence populations,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (2018) - Documents Tsimane traditional diet composition and correlation between market food adoption and metabolic dysfunction, showing disease emergence tracks dietary westernization even within same population.

* Gurven, M., et al., “Mortality experience of Tsimane Amerindians of Bolivia,” American Journal of Human Biology (2007) - Longitudinal mortality data showing significantly lower cancer rates compared to Western populations, with increases correlated to market food exposure and lifestyle modernization. Gurven et al. (2007) Am J Hum Biol 19(3):376-98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17421012/

* Pontzer, H., et al., “Hunter-gatherer energetics and human obesity,” PLOS ONE (2012) - Hadza total energy expenditure study showing similar caloric burn to sedentary Westerners, debunking “they just exercise more” explanation for metabolic health. Diet quality and composition, not energy balance, drive metabolic outcomes. Pontzer et al. (2012) PLOS ONE 7(7):e40503. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0040503

* Smits, S.A., et al., “Seasonal cycling in the gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania,” Science (2017) - Microbiome analysis showing Hadza have radically higher gut bacterial diversity and different functional composition than Westerners, with fiber-fermenting species dominant. Microbial ecosystem shaped by traditional diet appears protective against inflammation and metabolic disease.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

November 25, 2025

“Cancer is a disease of civilization.”— Stanislas Tanchou, Paris physician, 1843

“The various forms of cancer are becoming alarmingly more frequent.”— British Medical Journal, 1892

“We have made tremendous progress against cancer.”— American Cancer Society, 2020

[Same year: U.S. cancer deaths hit all-time high of 600,000]

[Part 2 of 6]

New parts publish every Tuesday and Thursday at 10AM EST

In Part 1, we established that cancer was rare in antiquity. The bones don’t lie. The medical texts barely mention it. Cancer existed, but it lived on the margins of human experience, a curiosity, not a commonplace.

The question now: when did this change?

When did cancer transform from medical anomaly into the second leading cause of death in the developed world?

The transition has specific inflection points. Each one correlates with industrial toxins, urban density, dietary shifts that fundamentally altered human metabolic environments. This pattern isn’t gradual or abstract. It’s documented. Datable. Undeniable.

This is the story of when cancer became common.

The Chimney Sweeps: First Proof of Occupational Cancer (1775)

Picture a London surgeon in 1775, confronted with a pattern too consistent to ignore.

Boys. Young men. All chimney sweeps. All dying of scrotal cancer.

Percivall Pott made medical history by documenting what every sweep-master already knew but never said aloud: soot was killing them. The narrow chimneys of London’s coal-heated homes required small bodies to climb and scrape. Boys as young as four were sent up into darkness, their skin chronically exposed to combustion byproducts that lodged in every fold and crevice of their flesh.¹

The scrotum, with its thin skin and deep folds, became a trap for carcinogens. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from coal soot accumulated there, marinating tissue for years until malignancy erupted.

Pott’s discovery shattered three assumptions in a single blow.

First, cancer wasn’t just an internal constitutional weakness. External chemicals could cause it. Before Pott, physicians thought cancer arose from humoral imbalances or inherited predispositions. Pott proved that a specific substance (soot) could induce malignancy. This was the beginning of understanding cancer as an environmental disease.

Second: cancer wasn’t just a disease of old age. Pott documented scrotal tumors appearing in boys as young as eight. These children hadn’t lived long enough to accumulate a lifetime of cellular damage. High-dose toxin exposure accelerated carcinogenesis so dramatically that age became irrelevant.

Third: cancer could be prevented. If soot caused the disease, removing the exposure would stop it. Parliament passed the Chimney Sweepers Act of 1788, the first cancer prevention legislation in human history.² Enforcement was weak. The practice of using child sweeps continued for decades. But the principle was established: you could prevent cancer by removing carcinogens.

Pott’s chimney sweeps were a warning.

The intense exposure these children endured (combustion byproducts soaked into skin for hours each day) would soon become generalized across entire urban populations. Coal smog. Industrial pollution. Factory fumes. Eventually, cigarette smoke.

The Industrial Revolution wasn’t just transforming economies. It was transforming human biology.

The London Bills of Mortality: Watching Cancer Rise in Real Time

As the Industrial Revolution accelerated, statistical records began capturing the change.

The London Bills of Mortality were weekly death tallies compiled by parish clerks. Originally created to track plague outbreaks, by the 18th century they provided a crude but valuable snapshot of who died and why. In 1735, “Cancer” accounted for 58 deaths out of thousands recorded, roughly 0.25% of total mortality.³

Read that again. One quarter of one percent.

Today, cancer accounts for 25% to 30% of deaths in developed nations. That’s a hundred-fold increase, not a ten-fold one.

Even accounting for diagnostic limitations, even allowing for underreporting, the gap is staggering. These weren’t death certificates filed by trained oncologists. They were weekly logs of who died in each parish, compiled by clerks who noted obvious causes: fever, consumption, childbirth, old age, tumors.

Yes, internal cancers were undoubtedly missed: liver cancer recorded as “dropsy,” lung cancer as “consumption,” pancreatic cancer as “wasting.” But external tumors (breast, skin, facial, testicular) were visible, palpable, unmistakable. Even if we assume 90% of cancers went unrecorded, we’re still looking at a massive increase. And the bone evidence from Part 1 confirms it: cancer was genuinely rare, not just hidden.

By the mid-19th century, the pattern shifted. London’s population density exploded. Coal use skyrocketed. Mortality records changed. The “Mortality Revolution” saw deaths from infectious diseases decline as sanitation improved, water became cleaner, vaccines prevented epidemics. This unmasked chronic conditions that had been overshadowed by plagues and fevers.

By 1851, districts with heavy industrial employment showed distinct elevations in “tumors” and “wasting diseases.”⁴ The gradient was clear: cancer rose fastest in the most industrialized, urbanized zones.

This wasn’t better diagnosis. This was real increase.

The Bills of Mortality documented it in real time, parish by parish, year by year. Cancer was climbing.

Stanislas Tanchou: The Disease of Civilization Hypothesis (1840s)

French physician Stanislas Tanchou was a veteran of the Napoleonic wars who turned his attention to civilian medicine in the 1840s. He conducted statistical work in Paris that reached a stark, controversial conclusion:

Cancer incidence increased in direct proportion to the “civilization” of a population.⁵

Tanchou saw a gradient. Urban Paris had the highest rates. Rural France had lower ones. The “primitive” populations of Africa and the Americas described by European explorers and medical missionaries had virtually none.

He hypothesized that cancer was driven by the artificiality of modern life: sedentary habits, rich diets, indoor living, psychological stress. Something about urban, industrialized existence was driving malignancy.

In the 1830-1840 decade, cancer claimed 9,118 lives in the Paris region. Tanchou documented a gender disparity: 6,967 women versus 2,161 men.⁶ This reflected the clinical visibility of breast and uterine cancers, which were easier to diagnose than internal tumors hidden deep in the body. Women’s cancers announced themselves. Men’s cancers stayed silent until late stages.

Tanchou presented his findings to the Académie de Médecine. He argued that cancer wasn’t an inevitable consequence of aging, but a disease caused by modern living conditions.

The medical establishment dismissed him.

Critics said “primitive” populations simply died younger and therefore never lived long enough to develop cancer. Others claimed explorers and missionaries lacked diagnostic tools to recognize malignancy when they saw it.

These objections would be systematically refuted by 20th century ethnographic work. But in the 1840s, Tanchou’s hypothesis was filed away as speculative.

History would prove him right. It would take a century.

The Gradient: Urban, Rural, Primitive

Tanchou’s most important contribution wasn’t his numbers. It was the gradient he identified.

Cancer prevalence wasn’t random. It followed a pattern:

Highest in cities. Lower in the countryside. Lowest in populations living under pre-industrial conditions.

This gradient suggested that something about industrial urban life was driving cancer. The variables were numerous: coal-combustion air pollution, occupational chemical exposures, dietary changes (more sugar, refined flour, preserved foods), sedentary work, indoor confinement, psychological stress.

By the late 19th century, other researchers began confirming Tanchou’s observations. Rudolf Virchow, the father of cellular pathology, noted in the 1860s that urban cancer rates exceeded rural ones.⁷ British physicians treating colonial populations in India and Africa consistently reported that cancer was rare among indigenous people living traditional lifestyles, but more common among those who adopted European habits.

The pattern held across continents: the more “civilized” (urbanized, industrialized, Westernized) a population became, the more cancer appeared.

By the early 20th century, this observation was no longer controversial. It was documented repeatedly by medical missionaries, frontier doctors, anthropologists working with indigenous populations. What remained unclear was mechanism. What specific factors were driving the increase?

The Dismissal and the Vindication

Tanchou’s “disease of civilization” hypothesis was dismissed by mainstream medicine for over a century. The dominant narrative remained: cancer was primarily genetic, a consequence of aging, or simply better diagnosed in modern populations.

But the ethnographic record between 1900 and 1960 provided something unprecedented: a natural experiment.

Western medicine was advanced enough to diagnose cancer with reasonable accuracy. Yet large populations still lived under pre-industrial conditions. Medical missionaries and explorers working with these groups consistently reported the same finding:

Cancer was virtually absent in populations adhering to traditional diets and lifestyles.

Albert Schweitzer, upon arriving in Gabon in 1913, found no cancer among the indigenous population. When the first cases appeared years later, they were exclusively in locals living near white settlements, eating imported flour and sugar.⁸ Vilhjalmur Stefansson documented cancer-free Inuit eating pure animal fat. Robert McCarrison’s Hunza thrived on whole foods. Weston A. Price’s global survey found the pattern held everywhere.

When traditional populations adopted Western diets and lifestyles, cancer rates climbed to Western levels within a generation.

The gradient Tanchou observed in 1840s Paris wasn’t an artifact of poor diagnosis. It was a biological signal. Cancer was, and is, a disease of civilization.

The specific mechanisms wouldn’t be understood until the late 20th and early 21st centuries: refined sugar’s metabolic disruption, industrial seed oils’ inflammatory cascade, circadian dysregulation’s hormonal chaos, mitochondrial dysfunction’s energy crisis. But the epidemiological reality was established by the mid-20th century:

Cancer exploded in direct correlation with industrialization.

Tanchou’s hypothesis was dismissed in his lifetime. The ethnographic record vindicated him posthumously.

The Inflection Point

The historical evidence reveals a sharp break.

Cancer was rare in antiquity (less than 0.5% of deaths). It began rising in the 18th century with industrialization. By the mid-19th century, it climbed visibly in urban centers. By the mid-20th century, it had become epidemic, accounting for 20% to 30% of mortality in industrialized nations.

This is not a gradual, linear increase over millennia. It’s a sharp, exponential rise over two centuries.

The “better diagnosis” argument collapses under scrutiny. Better diagnosis explains why we find more cancer. It doesn’t explain why so many more people die from it. The London Bills of Mortality tracked deaths, not diagnoses. When cancer mortality rises from 0.25% to 30% of all deaths (even adjusting for age) that’s not better detection. That’s an epidemic.

The “longer lifespan” argument fares no better. Here’s the fact that destroys the #1 defense of modern oncology: Life expectancy at age 60 didn’t increase dramatically until the late 20th century. Ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans who survived childhood regularly lived into their 60s and 70s. If you made it to adulthood in ancient Rome, you had roughly the same lifespan as someone in 1950s America.

Medieval skeletons show cancer prevalence at death of 3.5% to 4.7%. Modern Britain: 40% to 50%.⁹

That’s a ten-fold difference that age alone cannot explain.

The inflection point was not demographic. It was environmental.

Something about industrial civilization fundamentally altered the human metabolic environment, creating conditions where cancer transformed from rare curiosity into leading cause of death.

Conclusion: The Pattern Is Undeniable

Percivall Pott’s chimney sweeps proved external chemicals cause cancer. The London Bills of Mortality documented cancer’s rise from 0.25% to over 25% of deaths. Stanislas Tanchou identified the civilization gradient: highest in cities, lower in rural areas, virtually absent in traditional populations.

The pattern is undeniable. Cancer exploded in direct correlation with industrialization.

What Comes Next

The inflection point is documented. Cancer exploded with industrialization. But what specific changes drove it?

In Part 3, we’ll meet the witnesses who watched it happen in real time. Albert Schweitzer arriving in Gabon to find cancer absent, then watching it appear as European food arrived. Vilhjalmur Stefansson documenting Inuit thriving on 80% fat, then deteriorating with flour and sugar. Robert McCarrison’s rats testifying in blood: traditional food equals health, Western food equals tumors. The ethnographic evidence will complete the case that cancer is a disease of civilization.

The historical record documents when cancer became epidemic. The witnesses document how.

This is Part 2 of a 6-part investigative series on cancer as a disease of civilization. Part 3 will present ethnographic evidence from traditional populations and the witnesses who documented cancer’s arrival.

Disclaimer: This article presents historical analysis and epidemiological evidence. It is not medical advice. Individual treatment decisions should be made in consultation with qualified healthcare providers. The historical case studies referenced are documented in peer-reviewed literature and historical medical records.

Footnotes

* Percivall Pott’s 1775 discovery of scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps - Pott, Percivall. “Chirurgical Observations Relative to the Cataract, the Polypus of the Nose, the Cancer of the Scrotum, the Different Kinds of Ruptures, and the Mortification of the Toes and Feet.” (1775). This was the first documented case of occupational cancer, establishing that environmental carcinogens (soot containing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) could induce malignancy. Pott’s work demonstrated that cancer was not purely constitutional but could be caused by external exposures. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20803222/

* Chimney Sweepers Act of 1788 - British Parliament passed this act to regulate the use of child chimney sweeps following Pott’s discovery, marking the first legislative attempt at cancer prevention. Enforcement was weak, but the principle of preventing occupational carcinogen exposure was established. https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/wilberforce-william-1759-1833

* London Bills of Mortality (1735) - Weekly mortality records compiled by parish clerks showed “Cancer” accounting for approximately 58 deaths out of thousands recorded, roughly 0.25% of total mortality, orders of magnitude lower than modern rates of 25-30%. These records provide direct evidence that cancer was genuinely rare in pre-industrial populations, not merely underdiagnosed. http://www.thornber.net/medicine/html/1735.html

* Industrialization and mortality patterns in 19th century England - Beach, Brian, and W. Walker Hanlon. “Coal Smoke and Mortality in an Early Industrial Economy.” The Economic Journal 128.615 (2018): 2652-2675. This study documents elevated mortality rates in industrialized districts by the mid-19th century, showing distinct health impacts of coal pollution and industrial work. https://www.nber.org/papers/w19693

* Stanislas Tanchou’s “disease of civilization” hypothesis (1840s) - Tanchou presented statistical work to the Académie de Médecine in Paris demonstrating that cancer incidence increased with “civilization.” He observed cancer was most common in urban centers, less common in rural areas, and virtually absent in traditional populations. His work was dismissed but later vindicated by ethnographic studies. https://dokumen.pub/cancer-disease-of-civilization-an-anthropological-and-historical-study.html

* Cancer mortality statistics in 1830-1840s Paris - Tanchou’s data showed 9,118 cancer deaths in the Paris region during the 1830-1840 decade, with a significant gender disparity (6,967 women vs. 2,161 men) reflecting the visibility of breast and uterine cancers. These statistics were among the first systematic cancer mortality records. Darby, Michael. “Gender and Cancer in England, 1860-1948.” Social History of Medicine (2007).

* Rudolf Virchow on urban-rural cancer gradient - Virchow, Rudolf. Die Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begründung auf physiologische und pathologische Gewebelehre (Cellular Pathology). (1858). Virchow, the founder of cellular pathology, observed that cancer rates were higher in urban areas than rural ones, supporting Tanchou’s civilization hypothesis with pathological evidence.

* Ethnographic confirmation of the civilization gradient - Multiple 20th century medical observers documented cancer’s rarity in traditional populations and its emergence upon Westernization. Key sources include: Schweitzer, Albert. On the Edge of the Primeval Forest (1922); Stefansson, Vilhjalmur. Cancer: Disease of Civilization? (1960); McCarrison, Robert. Studies in Deficiency Disease (1921); Price, Weston A. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (1939). These independent observations across continents confirmed Tanchou’s hypothesis.

* Medieval vs. modern cancer prevalence - Binder, Michaela, et al. “On the Antiquity of Cancer: Evidence for Metastatic Carcinoma in a Young Man from Ancient Nubia (c. 1200BC).” PLOS ONE 9.3 (2014). Medieval British skeletons show cancer prevalence at death of 3.5-4.7%, compared to 40-50% in modern Britain, a ten-fold increase that cannot be explained by age demographics alone, indicating a genuine environmental shift. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090924

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

November 20, 2025

“There is no treatment.”— Edwin Smith Papyrus, c. 1600 BC

“Cancer was practically unknown until compulsory vaccination with cowpox vaccine began to be introduced. I have had to deal with at least two hundred cases of cancer, and I never saw a case of cancer in an unvaccinated person.”— Dr. W.B. Clarke, Indianapolis, 1909

“Despite decades of research and over $100 billion spent, the death rate for cancer has decreased by only 5 percent since 1950.”— Dr. Thomas Seyfried, Boston College, 2024

[2025: Cancer surpasses heart disease as #1 killer of Americans under 85. Glioblastoma survival unchanged since 1971]

[Part 1 of 6]

New parts publish every Tuesday and Thursday at 10AM EST

I once helped a friend beat stage 4 cancer. Not “manage it.” Beat it.

He’d fought lymphoma four times in seven years. Each relapse came faster, meaner. When I found him in the hospital, just before the hospitals shutdown visitations due to COVID, a sinus infection had spread to his kidneys. Fifty pounds of water weight had accumulated from his ribcage down, his body swelling like a victim drowning internally. His spleen (the master cylinder of the lymphatic system) was bloated with cancerous cells the size of Nerf football. He looked at me with the eyes of a man who’d already made peace with dying and willed my his entire music collection, his most prized possesion.

I slipped him a mega-dose of liposomal vitamin C.

Within days, his spleen began shrinking. Not symptom relief. Not “quality of life improvement.” The cancer itself was responding.

A few months later I drove him home. “This is good,” I told him, “but we’re going keto. One meal a day.” His hormones were too wrecked from years of the Standard American Diet (SAD) to manage that, but he agreed to an 8-hour eating window and low-carb meals.

Five years later, he’s been cancer-free all this time. His previous pattern was a recurrence every 1.75 years like clockwork. That pattern is broken.

The medical establishment would call this anecdotal. They’d point to his maintenance chemo drips (yeah, he still does them, working on getting off entirely) and credit those. But here’s the thing: the previous four recurrences all happened under standard chemo protocols. Same drugs. Same doses. Four failures in seven years.

Then we added metabolic interventions. Suddenly the chemo that failed four times started working. The drugs didn’t change. His metabolism did. The vitamin C, fasting, and carb restriction made his cancer cells vulnerable to the same chemo that couldn’t touch them before.

If this works in stage 4 lymphoma after four recurrences, why isn’t anyone studying it?

Why does modern medicine treat cancer as an infinitely complex genetic puzzle requiring infinitely expensive drugs, when simple metabolic changes show results?

The answer starts with a question we rarely ask: Was cancer always with us?

Modern oncology tells a authorative story from the religion of our age, science. Cancer has always plagued humanity, they say. We’re only seeing more of it because we live longer and have better diagnostics. This narrative is convenient. It justifies the failure of the 50-year, multi-trillion-dollar “War on Cancer” that has moved the needle up, not down, on mortality rates. This narrative is a comforting lie.

The archaeological record tells a different story.

The bones don’t lie.

The Silence of Ancient Bones

Strip away the soft tissue, wait five thousand years, and here’s what remains: bone. Weathered, mineralized, permanent. And bone tells tales.

Paleopathology (the study of ancient disease) provides the most objective window into antiquity we possess. Soft-tissue tumors rot. But bone cancers? Metastatic lesions? Those leave signatures. Permanent ones. If cancer were just the inevitable wear and tear of aging, ancient skeletons should be riddled with it.

They aren’t.

Yes, most cancers start in soft tissue and many killed through organ failure before reaching bone. But even accounting for this timeline, the bone cancer rate in antiquity was infinitesimal.

Researchers examined 484 individuals from Egypt’s Middle and New Kingdoms (2050 BC to 500 BC).¹ They found tuberculosis. Trauma. Scurvy. Anemia. The preservation was good enough to diagnose delicate metabolic conditions from subtle bone changes. Yet malignancy was virtually absent.

Think about that. If signs of anemia survived millennia, the gross destruction caused by metastatic bone cancer should be screaming from every other skeleton.

Silence.

The most ancient evidence of cancer in humans is a bone tumor in a Neanderthal rib from Croatia, dated to 120,000 years ago.² In the entire global bioarchaeological record (every excavation, every tomb, every mass grave) researchers have identified approximately 200 potential cancer cases.³

A single modern metropolitan hospital exceeds that in a week.

The counterargument you’ll hear is “short lifespans.” It’s a demographic lie. Yes, average life expectancy was low, but that’s because infant mortality was catastrophic. Individuals who survived childhood regularly reached their 60s and 70s.⁴ Ancient Egyptian mummies show arthritis. Arterial hardening. The unmistakable signatures of age. What they rarely show is cancer.

Modern CT scanning of mummies has identified a handful of cases. Prostate cancer in a Ptolemaic mummy from 285-230 BC.⁵ A few others. These exceptions prove the rule. A study of medieval British skeletons found cancer prevalence at death of 3.5% to 4.7%, compared to 40-50% in modern Britain.⁶

That’s a tenfold difference.

Age doesn’t explain that. Diagnostics don’t explain that. The bones themselves testify: cancer was rare.

What the Ancient Physicians Saw

The written record corroborates the bones.

The ancient Egyptians were skilled anatomists. They dissected bodies for mummification as routinely as we file taxes. Their medical texts are comprehensive, meticulous. The Edwin Smith Papyrus (copied around 1600 BC from a text possibly dating to 3000 BC) describes a “bulging tumor of the breast” that was cool to the touch.⁷

The physician’s conclusion: “There is no treatment.”

Here’s what matters: the scarcity. The papyri overflow with prescriptions. Parasites. Eye infections. Fractures. Crocodile bites. Hundreds of remedies. But cancer? References are rare. The Egyptians had no unified term for “cancer” as a disease category. They described individual tumors as distinct, uncommon phenomena, like documenting a two-headed calf rather than managing a herd.

In Classical Greece, Hippocrates introduced the term karkinos (Greek for crab) to describe ulcerating tumors whose swollen veins resembled crab legs sprawling from the center.⁸ Galen distinguished malignant tumors from benign swellings, giving us the root for “oncology.” Celsus advised against surgery on established tumors, noting it often hastened death.⁹

But here’s the tell: Hippocratic and Galenic texts devote vastly more space to fevers and trauma. Cancer wasn’t a priority. It wasn’t an epidemic. It was a curiosity.

The pattern repeats across continents. China’s Huangdi Neijing from the 3rd century BC classified tumors based on texture, attributing them to stagnation of Qi and blood.¹⁰ India’s Sushruta Samhita from around 700 BC described arbuda (malignant tumors) as systemic disruptions, even documenting surgical excision with arsenic cautery.¹¹ This shows cross-cultural medical sophistication and exchange.

Yet the volume dedicated to cancer is minuscule compared to dysentery, leprosy, fever.

Cancer existed. But it was rare enough to be noteworthy, not routine.

The Baseline: What Normal Looks Like

The ancient record establishes a baseline. For the overwhelming majority of human history, cancer was:

* Rare: Fewer than 200 cases documented across all ancient civilizations combined

* Noteworthy: Medical texts treated it as unusual, not routine clinical practice

* Age-independent: When it appeared, it wasn’t exclusively in the elderly

* Distinct from aging: Ancient populations showed arthritis and arterial hardening without corresponding cancer rates

This baseline matters. It means cancer is not an inevitable consequence of cellular aging or biological complexity. If it were, we’d see it consistently across every aging population in history.

We don’t.

The paleopathological evidence is unambiguous: something changed. Cancer went from rare curiosity to leading cause of death. The medical establishment attributes this to better diagnostics and longer lifespans. But medieval populations who survived childhood lived into their 70s and still showed cancer prevalence ten times lower than today.

The bones don’t lie. Cancer was rare for 99.9% of human history.

The Questions the Evidence Demands

If cancer isn’t inevitable aging or cellular complexity, what is it?

If populations living into old age throughout history didn’t develop cancer at modern rates, what changed?

If ancient physicians across multiple civilizations (Egyptian, Greek, Chinese, Indian) all documented cancer as rare, when did it become common?

The answer isn’t genetics. Ancient humans had the same genes we do.

The answer isn’t lifespan. They lived long enough to develop cancer but didn’t.

The answer isn’t diagnostic capabilities. Bone lesions from metastatic cancer are gross, visible, permanent.

The answer lies in environment.

My friend’s lymphoma responded to metabolic intervention because cancer is fundamentally a disease of metabolic dysfunction, not genetic inevitability. His body had the same genes before and after vitamin C. His cancer cells had the same mutations. What changed was the metabolic environment. When we restricted glucose, restored circadian rhythm through time-restricted eating, and flooded his system with high-dose antioxidants, his cancer cells lost their growth advantage.

The archaeological record suggests the same principle applies at the civilizational level. When human metabolic environments changed (when we introduced novel substances, disrupted ancestral eating patterns, altered our relationship with light and darkness) cancer rates exploded.

The ancient baseline shows us what normal looks like. It’s not 40-50% cancer prevalence at death. It’s closer to 3-5%.

We broke something. And the break shows up in the bones.

What Comes Next

So when did cancer become common?

The answer lies in specific historical inflection points: moments when the introduction of industrial toxins and dietary shifts fundamentally altered human metabolism. These weren’t gradual changes. They were sharp breaks visible in mortality statistics.

In Part 2, we’ll examine the first documented cases of environmental cancer. Chimney sweeps in 18th-century London whose scrotal cancer proved that external chemicals could cause malignancy. We’ll follow the statistical trail through the Industrial Revolution as London’s Bills of Mortality captured cancer’s rise in real time. And we’ll meet the physicians who first hypothesized what the medical establishment still denies: cancer is a disease of civilization, not complexity.

The silence of ancient bones is deafening. For 99.9% of human history, cancer was rare.

Understanding why it was rare is the key to understanding what went wrong.

And how to fix it.

This is Part 1 of a 6-part investigative series examining cancer as a disease of civilization. Part 2 will cover the Industrial Revolution’s inflection points, from chimney sweeps to Paris mortality statistics, revealing when and how cancer became epidemic.

Disclaimer: This article presents a personal account and historical analysis. It is not medical advice. Individual results vary. Consult healthcare providers before making treatment decisions. The case study described is anecdotal evidence (n=1) and should be considered alongside the broader archaeological and historical evidence presented.

Footnotes

* Paleopathology of ancient Egyptian mummies and skeletons - Systematic analysis of 484 Egyptian skeletal remains from Middle and New Kingdoms (2050-500 BC) showing extensive evidence of tuberculosis, trauma, metabolic diseases, but virtually no malignancy despite excellent preservation. Nerlich AG, Rohrbach H, Zink A (2002) Pathologe 23(5):379-85. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12376865/

* Earliest evidence of cancer in Neanderthal rib - 120,000-year-old Neanderthal rib from Krapina, Croatia showing fibrous dysplasia, the oldest known cancer in the human lineage. Establishes cancer’s existence in antiquity while confirming its extreme rarity. Source: University of Kansas, https://archive.news.ku.edu/2013/june/6/neanderthal.shtml

* On the Antiquity of Cancer: Evidence for Metastatic Carcinoma - Comprehensive review of bioarchaeological evidence documenting approximately 200 potential cancer cases across all ancient civilizations globally, contrasting with modern hospitals seeing hundreds weekly. Binder et al. (2014) PLOS ONE 9(3): e90924. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090924

* An introduction to the history of infectious diseases - Demographic analysis showing that while average life expectancy was low due to infant mortality, individuals surviving childhood frequently reached 60-70 years in ancient populations. Refutes the “short lifespan” explanation for low ancient cancer rates. Davenport RJ, Satchell M, Shaw-Taylor LMW (2020) Economic History Review. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7404362/

* On the Antiquity of Cancer - Modern CT scanning study of mummies identifying rare cancer cases including prostate cancer in Ptolemaic period (285-230 BC), demonstrating both diagnostic capability and cancer’s rarity. Binder et al. (2014) PLOS ONE 9(3): e90924. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0090924

* The Prevalence of Cancer in Britain Before Industrialization - Study of medieval British skeletal remains showing cancer prevalence at death of 3.5% (detected) to 9-14% (projected) compared to modern Britain’s 40-50%, representing a significant increase that cannot be attributed solely to diagnostic improvements or aging. Mitchell PDR et al. (2021) Cancer 127(16):3041-3046. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33942897/

* Edwin Smith Papyrus - Ancient Egyptian surgical text (c. 1600 BC, copied from possibly 3000 BC original) describing a “bulging tumor of the breast” with conclusion “there is no treatment.” Demonstrates Egyptian anatomical knowledge and cancer’s documented rarity. SEER Training: Cancer History. https://training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/history/

* Cancer: A Historic Perspective - Historical analysis of Hippocrates (460-370 BC) introducing the term “karkinos” (Greek for crab) to describe ulcerating tumors whose swollen veins resembled crab legs, establishing Western medical terminology. SEER Training: Cancer History. https://training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/history/

* Ancient Greek and Greco-Roman Methods - Documentation of Galen (130-200 AD) distinguishing malignant tumors from benign swellings and Celsus (25 BC - 50 AD) advising against surgery on established tumors. Shows Greco-Roman medical sophistication and cancer’s relative rarity in clinical texts. Chouliaras K et al. (2010) Annals of Surgical Oncology 17(3):665-667. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2820670/

* Cancer Terminology in Chinese Medicine Texts - Analysis of Huangdi Neijing (Yellow Emperor’s Classic, 3rd century BC) classification of tumors based on texture, attributed to stagnation of Qi and blood. Demonstrates parallel Eastern medical documentation of cancer as uncommon. Journal of Acupuncture & Integrative Medicine. https://jaimonline.org/cancer-terminology-in-chinese-medicine-texts/

* Ayurveda and cancer - Documentation of Sushruta Samhita (c. 700 BC) describing arbuda (malignant tumors) as systemic imbalances, including surgical techniques with cautery and alkaline applications. Shows cross-cultural medical exchange and cancer’s minor role in ancient medical texts. Kataria et al. (2011) Pharmacognosy Reviews 5(10): 95-100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3111701/

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

November 18, 2025

On November 16, 2025, Donald Trump abruptly reversed his position on releasing the Epstein files, telling House Republicans to vote for declassification. After nearly a year of resistance, including claiming the documents could “destroy lives,” the reversal came just four days after Epstein’s estate dumped thousands of damaging emails.

The timing wasn’t coincidental. Hidden in those November 12 documents was a bombshell that explains not just Trump’s reversal, but potentially why these FBI files have remained sealed through four presidential administrations since 2006.

But first, let me explain how I found it, and why understanding the four different “Epstein files” matters for seeing the full picture.

The Four Document Dumps: A Roadmap to Confusion

When media reports mention “Epstein files,” they’re conflating four completely different document releases, each with distinct sources and significance:

1. The Maxwell Trial Documents (January 2024)

* What: 943 pages from Virginia Giuffre’s 2015 defamation suit against Ghislaine Maxwell

* Released: January 3-5, 2024, by federal court order

* Contents: Depositions, flight logs, victim testimony, prominent names

* Key revelation: Bill Clinton named 73 times, Trump appears multiple times

2. The DOJ Flight Logs (May 2024)

* What: Epstein’s private jet manifests from 1991-2006

* Released: May 2024, after Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s pressure

* Contents: Passenger lists showing who flew on the “Lolita Express”

* Key revelation: Detailed travel patterns of hundreds of powerful figures

3. The Estate Email Dump (November 2025)

* What: 22,903 files from Epstein’s personal computers and phones

* Released: November 12, 2025, by estate executors

* Contents: Private emails, texts, contact lists from 2005-2019

* Key revelation: The Trump scout emails I’m about to detail

4. The FBI Files (Still Sealed)

* What: FBI investigation files from 2006-2008 Palm Beach case

* Compiled: 2006-2007 during original prosecution

* Status: Sealed for 19 years, now being voted on for release

* Significance: Contains victim interviews, surveillance, and potential co-conspirator evidence

Understanding these distinctions matters because each source reveals different pieces of the network. The FBI files are the only ones that could contain evidence of who was offered immunity deals in 2008.

My Research Methodology: Self-tooled Digital Forensics

When I obtained the November 12 estate dump (22,903 files totaling several gigabytes), I faced a challenge: most were images and PDFs requiring OCR. But digging deeper, I discovered the prosecutors had already extracted text from every document, creating 2,897 searchable text files buried in subdirectories.

I wrote a Python script using only standard libraries to search these files. Here’s a snippet:

This approach (no pip installs, no AI tools, just systematic searching) revealed patterns invisible to surface-level analysis. Of course, had the text not been made, I would have written a program to convert the scanned emails into text.

The results were revealing:

* “Trump”: 8,806 mentions across 1,178 files

* “Mar-a-Lago”: 122 mentions across 67 files

* “Jean-Luc”: 1,577 mentions (Brunel, the MC2 modeling agency head)

* “MC2”: 423 mentions

But quantity wasn’t the story. The bombshell was in a single email.

Tigran Khachatrian: Trump’s Direct Pipeline to Epstein’s Network

To understand why this discovery matters, you need to understand Trump’s deep involvement in the modeling world. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Trump wasn’t just a real estate mogul; he was a major player in international beauty pageants and modeling. He owned Miss Universe from 1996 to 2015[^1], purchased Trump Model Management in 1999[^2], and was known for personally involving himself in model selection, famously walking into dressing rooms unannounced during pageants[^3].

Trump Model Management operated from the 14th floor of Trump Tower, recruiting models from Eastern Europe and Latin America. The agency promised young women from poor countries a chance at American success. But the modeling industry’s dark side (promises of visas, pressure for “favors,” and exploitation of desperate young women) was an open secret. Trump’s agencies needed scouts, people who could identify and recruit beautiful young women from remote places like Siberian villages or Brazilian favelas.

Enter Tigran Khachatrian.

On July 16, 2010, Daniel Siad, a facilitator operating from Ibiza, sent Jeffrey Epstein an email that would later prove explosive:

“A great friend of mine rented Huge House in Ibiza so invited a lots of girls from Russia all models… with and great scout named Tigrane He use to scout For Trump but he deosnt work for him any more he coming with 12 girls the first weeck 22th of Jully then 13 others the second weeck…”

Epstein’s response revealed his priorities: “tigran has the best taste next to you… i am happy to meet him”

Through cross-referencing Getty Images archives and BBC documentation, I identified “Tigrane” as Tigran Khachatrian, who ran Noah Models in Russia. His operation wasn’t subtle. In 2014, he organized what he called a “giant cast for Top Model” in Novosibirsk, Siberia, photographing hundreds of young women[^4]. The following year, the BBC featured him in their documentary “Teen Model Factory,” which exposed how modeling scouts recruited girls as young as 13 from Russia’s poorest regions with promises of international careers[^5].

But here’s what makes this revelation explosive: the email explicitly states Khachatrian was bringing these models to help build “this great network for MC2.”

Epstein’s MC2: The Modeling Agency That Was Actually a Trafficking Operation

MC2 Model Management wasn’t just any modeling agency. It was Jean-Luc Brunel’s operation, funded with $1 million of Jeffrey Epstein’s money in 2005[^6]. On paper, MC2 looked legitimate, with offices in Miami, New York, and Tel Aviv, claiming clients like Nordstrom, Macy’s, and Saks Fifth Avenue. The agency’s models appeared in major magazines and walked prestigious runways.

But according to court testimony from multiple victims, MC2 was something far darker. Virginia Giuffre (who died via “suicide” April 25, 2025, shortly after announcing she had new evidence to share) stated in her 2015 affidavit that MC2 was “a front for sex trafficking.”[^7] She testified that Brunel would “bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as 12) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein.”

Brunel himself was a longtime figure in fashion’s shadows. Starting in Paris in the 1970s, he’d built a reputation as someone who could find “fresh faces,” industry code for very young girls from poor countries. Notably, Brunel lived in Trump Tower during the 1990s, putting him in the same building as Trump Model Management, which operated from the 14th floor. This physical proximity between Brunel and Trump’s modeling operations occurred years before MC2 was founded with Epstein’s money.

By the time he partnered with Epstein, Brunel had perfected a system: scout vulnerable girls in Eastern Europe or South America, promise them modeling contracts, bring them to the U.S. on tourist visas, and then pressure them into “entertaining” wealthy men to keep their careers alive. The business model was disturbingly similar to what would later emerge in lawsuits against Trump Model Management: foreign models brought over on tourist visas (not work visas), housed in crowded apartments, charged exorbitant fees that kept them in debt, and pressured to attend parties with wealthy men.

The FBI knew about MC2. Flight logs show Brunel took 25 trips on Epstein’s private jet between 1998 and 2005. When Epstein was arrested in 2019, Brunel fled to South America. When he tried to return to France in December 2020, French police arrested him at Charles de Gaulle Airport. He was charged with rape of minors and held at La Santé prison, the same facility where he was found hanged in his cell on February 19, 2022, his death ruled a suicide.

The Ibiza Connection: Where Models Became Victims

The July 2010 emails paint a disturbing picture of how the network operated. Ibiza wasn’t chosen randomly; the Spanish party island has long been a playground for Europe’s wealthy, a place where normal rules don’t apply during the summer season. Daniel Siad, the man connecting all these players, had arranged a “huge house” there.

Siad himself was someone mainstream media completely missed. When The Guardian reported on these same emails in November 2025, they referred to him only as “an unidentified associate,” failing to connect his role in the network. But the emails show he had direct access to Epstein, personal relationships with both Khachatrian and Brunel (“I just called Jean Luc”), and was actively working to connect Trump’s former scout with Epstein’s trafficking network. He was managing logistics for 25 Russian models (12 arriving the first week of July, 13 more the second week), ostensibly for “magazine shoots.”

But magazine shoots don’t require introduction to Jeffrey Epstein. They don’t require building “networks” with MC2. And they certainly don’t require a convicted sex offender’s approval of the scout’s “taste” in selecting girls.

What Siad was actually doing was facilitating the pipeline: models recruited from Russia by Trump’s former scout were being brought to Ibiza, where they could be evaluated by Epstein and potentially integrated into MC2’s operations. From there, the vulnerable ones (the ones without family connections, without money, without options) could be pressured into the darker services that Epstein’s circle demanded.

Khachatrian Also Scouted Models for Trump

The timeline tells a disturbing story. Before 2010, Tigran Khachatrian was scouting models for Donald Trump. We don’t know exactly when this relationship began or ended, but by July 2010, Khachatrian had moved on, bringing 25 Russian models to meet Jeffrey Epstein in Ibiza.

This wasn’t a casual introduction. The email makes clear Khachatrian wanted to “build something” with Epstein. Daniel Siad explicitly mentioned creating a “great network for MC2.” And Epstein, despite Khachatrian having “told many bad things about me” to one of the models, was eager to meet him because of his “taste” in selecting girls.

Think about what this means: Trump’s model scout didn’t just know Epstein socially. He was actively building business with a trafficking network that would operate for another decade. MC2 continued recruiting and transporting young women until 2019, when it dissolved immediately after Epstein’s arrest. Brunel fled to South America but was eventually arrested at Charles de Gaulle Airport in December 2020, charged with rape of minors. Fifteen months later, he was found dead in his prison cell.

Then came November 12, 2025. The estate released thousands of emails, including the Khachatrian revelation. Four days later, Trump reversed his yearlong opposition to releasing the FBI files.

The timing suggests calculation. With the scout connection now public, continuing to fight the FBI release would raise an obvious question: What’s in those files about Trump’s relationship with the man who recruited models for him?

Why the 2006 FBI Files Are the Smoking Gun

To understand why these specific files matter so much, you need to understand what was happening in 2006. The Palm Beach Police had just completed their investigation of Epstein, interviewing over 30 victims who described a systematic operation: Epstein would pay girls 300 for “massages” that turned sexual, then pay them to recruit their friends. The youngest victim was 14.

But when Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter brought the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer, something strange happened. Despite overwhelming evidence, Krischer took the case to a grand jury and came back with just one charge: solicitation of prostitution. Reiter was furious. He did something unprecedented: he bypassed local prosecutors and went directly to the FBI.

This is when the FBI files were created. Between 2006 and 2008, federal investigators built their case. They interviewed victims before anyone could pressure or pay them to stay quiet. They pulled phone records showing who Epstein called before and after each assault. They documented financial transactions, tracked his planes, and most importantly, they identified potential co-conspirators: the people who helped recruit, schedule, and pay the girls.

The FBI’s work was thorough. According to reporting from the Miami Herald, they drafted a 53-page federal indictment with 60 counts against Epstein. This wasn’t just about one man’s crimes; the indictment detailed a conspiracy involving multiple participants. Federal prosecutors were ready to bring the full weight of the justice system against everyone involved.

Then in 2008, everything stopped. U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta negotiated what federal judge Kenneth Marra would later call an “illegal” deal. Epstein pled guilty to two state charges and served 13 months in county jail with work release. But buried in the agreement was extraordinary language: immunity for “any potential co-conspirators.” The FBI investigation was shut down, the 53-page indictment was shelved, and all the files were sealed.

The timing of what happened next raises disturbing questions. In 2017, nine years after granting Epstein and his co-conspirators immunity, Alex Acosta was appointed by Donald Trump as Secretary of Labor. He served until July 2019, resigning just days after Epstein’s arrest when his role in the immunity deal became public. Was this appointment a reward for protecting powerful people in 2008? The FBI files might answer that question.

Think about what this means. For 19 years, through the Obama administration, Trump’s first term, the Biden administration, and now Trump’s return, these files have remained locked away. Four different administrations, both political parties, all maintaining the same silence. When documents stay buried through that many changes in power, it suggests they contain information damaging not to one side or the other, but to the entire power structure.

The FBI files would show who else was under investigation in 2006. Who needed that immunity deal. Who the FBI believed was involved but never charged. And possibly, who made the calls to shut it all down.

What the Pattern Reveals

When you step back and look at all four document sources together, a clear pattern emerges. It’s not just about who knew whom, or who flew on whose plane. It’s about an international recruitment pipeline that connected legitimate businesses to criminal operations.

The pipeline worked like this: Scouts like Tigran Khachatrian would identify young women in places like Siberia, where poverty and desperation made them vulnerable. These scouts had legitimate covers (working for pageant organizations, modeling agencies, or talent competitions). They would promise the girls modeling contracts, visa sponsorship, and a chance at Western success.

Once recruited, the girls would be brought to staging areas like Ibiza, where facilitators like Daniel Siad would manage logistics. There, people like Epstein and Brunel would evaluate them. The “best” ones (meaning the youngest, most vulnerable, most controllable) would be brought into operations like MC2. Others might actually get some modeling work, maintaining the legitimate cover story.

From there, the exploitation would begin gradually. First, pressure to attend parties with wealthy men. Then suggestions that “entertaining” clients was part of the job. For girls whose visas depended on their agencies, who didn’t speak English well, who had no money to get home, the pressure could be overwhelming.

What makes Trump’s involvement significant isn’t just that he knew Epstein; lots of powerful people did. It’s that Trump’s own employee, his scout Khachatrian, became part of this pipeline. When Khachatrian left Trump’s employment and immediately started supplying models to Epstein’s network, it raises unavoidable questions: Did Trump know where his scout was taking the girls he recruited? Did any of the models Khachatrian found for Trump end up in Epstein’s hands? And most importantly, is this why Trump fought so hard to keep the FBI files sealed?

Digital Forensics vs. Traditional Journalism

My approach to uncovering this story demonstrates the power of systematic digital investigation. When I received the November 12 estate dump, I faced 22,903 files, an impossible amount to review manually. Traditional journalists might have searched for obvious keywords or relied on sources to point them to important documents. Instead, I took a forensic approach.

First, I discovered that prosecutors had already extracted searchable text from every document, creating 2,897 text files. Rather than installing complex software, I wrote a simple Python script using only standard libraries. This allowed me to search for any term across all documents simultaneously, capturing context around each match.

The results revealed patterns invisible to surface-level analysis. Searching for “Trump” yielded 8,806 mentions across 1,178 files, far too many to review individually. But searching for “scout” led me to a handful of emails, including the crucial July 16, 2010 message from Daniel Siad. Cross-referencing names from that email with other searches revealed the network: Khachatrian appeared with Brunel, Brunel with MC2, MC2 with victim testimony about trafficking.

This methodology (treating documents like crime scene evidence rather than interview subjects) reveals connections that human sources might never admit. Tigran Khachatrian might deny working for Trump. Trump might claim not to remember him. But the emails don’t lie. They sit there in plain text, waiting for someone to connect the dots.

Questions That Remain

Even with these revelations, critical questions persist:

About Khachatrian’s Role:

* When exactly did he work for Trump?

* Was he scouting for Miss Universe, Trump Model Management, or something else?

* Did any models he recruited for Trump become Epstein victims?

About the FBI Files:

* Does Trump appear in the 2006-2007 investigation?

* Was he considered a “potential co-conspirator” in 2008?

* Did he receive immunity or just benefit from the investigation being shut down?

About the Reversal:

* Did Trump’s team know about the Khachatrian emails before November 12?

* Was the reversal damage control or genuine transparency?

* What other connections might the FBI files reveal?

Why This Matters Now

The Epstein network wasn’t just about one predator; it was an international operation involving modeling agencies, private jets, and powerful men. The revelation that Trump’s own model scout fed directly into this network transforms our understanding from “Trump knew Epstein socially” to “Trump’s employee became part of the trafficking pipeline.”

With Congress now voting on releasing the FBI files, we may finally learn:

* Who else employed scouts that fed into Epstein’s network

* Which powerful figures were documented in 2006 but never charged

* Why four administrations kept these files buried

The FBI files are the last piece of the puzzle. Unlike flight logs showing who traveled, or emails showing who communicated, these files could show who the FBI believed were co-conspirators, and who got protected instead of prosecuted.

The Vote That Could Change Everything

As Congress prepares to vote on declassifying the FBI files, remember what’s at stake: not just embarrassing details about powerful people, but potential evidence of a protection racket that has survived nineteen years and four presidencies.

Trump’s reversal on November 16, four days after the estate emails exposed his scout, suggests he knows continuing to fight their release would only raise more questions about what he’s trying to hide.

The question now isn’t whether these files contain damaging information; Trump’s desperate reversal confirms they do. The question is whether Congress will finally reveal who the FBI wanted to prosecute in 2006, and why they were protected instead.

Note: All documents referenced in this article are from official releases: the Maxwell trial documents (January 2024), DOJ flight logs (May 2024), Epstein estate documents (November 12, 2025), and pending FBI files. The author’s February 2025 article “The Epstein Files Phase 1” is available at https://tatsuikeda.substack.com/p/the-epstein-files-phase-1.

Epstein Estate Files available at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hTNH5woIRio578onLGElkTWofUSWRoH_

Update: As this article goes to publication, the House is expected to vote on H.R. [pending number] to declassify the FBI’s 2006-2008 Epstein investigation files. The Senate has already passed the measure. The President has indicated he will sign it.

Footnotes

[^1]: “Trump sells Miss Universe Organization to IMG,” CNN Money, September 14, 2015. Trump purchased the Miss Universe Organization in 1996 and sold it to IMG in 2015, maintaining control over the pageants for nearly two decades. https://money.cnn.com/2015/09/14/media/donald-trump-sells-miss-universe/

[^2]: “The Rise and Fall of Trump Model Management,” The Guardian, September 4, 2017. The agency was founded in 1999 and operated from Trump Tower, recruiting models primarily from Eastern Europe before closing in 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/04/trump-model-management-closing

[^3]: “Four women who competed in the 1997 Miss Teen USA beauty pageant said Donald Trump walked into the dressing room while contestants — some as young as 15 — were changing,” BuzzFeed News, October 12, 2016. Multiple contestants confirmed Trump’s pattern of entering dressing rooms unannounced. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kendalltaggart/teen-beauty-queens-say-trump-walked-in-on-them-changing

[^4]: Getty Images Archive, “Giant Casting Call Organized by Noah Models in Novosibirsk,” November 2014. Photographs show Tigran Khachatrian organizing mass recruitment events with hundreds of young Russian women. Getty Images ID: 458937342

[^5]: “Reggie Yates’ Extreme Russia: Teen Model Factory,” BBC Three, April 2015. Documentary following Tigran Khachatrian and Noah Models as they recruit girls as young as 13 from Siberia for international modeling careers. Available on BBC iPlayer.

[^6]: “Epstein Funded Jean-Luc Brunel’s MC2 Model Management,” Miami Herald, November 28, 2018. Court documents show Epstein provided $1 million in startup funding for MC2 in 2005 and maintained financial control over the agency. https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article221897990.html

[^7]: Virginia Roberts Giuffre v. Ghislaine Maxwell, U.S. District Court Southern District of New York, Case 15-cv-07433, Document 1090-12, Filed 08/09/2019. Giuffre’s 2015 affidavit details MC2’s role in trafficking and Brunel’s methods of recruiting underage girls.

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

November 11, 2025

After last week’s election, it seemed to be Zohran Mamdani was the story. Or perhaps it was the old adage, “It’s the economy, stupid!”. But what if there was a deeper story involving tariffs, gold, crypto, and the US Dollar? And in a nearly truly global and complex financial system, Trump, politicians, bankers, and voters missed a crucial point. That the elections results, a complete blue wave the Democrats always dreamed of, is not a referendum on the US economy itself, but an unconscious rejection of the entire global system of finance that’s weaponized central banking?

But first, let’s see what some politicians running for governorships thought before the election to see how they analyzed things. Because how the election was presented was far away from what it actually means.

An hourlong gubernatorial debate at Norfolk State University on October 9th was supposed to be about Virginia’s future. Instead, it became a shouting match about transgender children and violent rhetoric, with Republican Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears interrupting nearly every answer from her Democratic opponent, Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger. Lost in the personal attacks was an extraordinary fact: in a state where 320,000 federal workers had been without pay for over a month, where shoe prices had jumped 39 percent from tariffs, and where seven in ten Americans reported rising grocery costs, “the economy was an afterthought.”[^1]

That disconnect between the debate stage and kitchen tables would prove fatal for Republicans on election night. Democrats swept all four major races nationally, flipped Virginia’s governorship, and gained ground in states they hadn’t won in years. But the real story of this Democratic wave goes far deeper than campaign messaging failures. What neither candidate discussed, what no pundit analyzed, and what most voters never understood was that they had become casualties in an unprecedented global currency war, one where President Trump wielded tariffs not as trade protection but as weapons to defend dollar hegemony against a coordinated assault by China, Russia, and the expanded BRICS nations.

The morning after Spanberger’s decisive victory, making her Virginia’s first female governor, the message was clear: American voters had rejected being collateral damage in a monetary war they never voted for.

The Hidden War Nobody Sees (Except Central Banks)

While Virginians struggled with the longest government shutdown in American history (38 days and counting by election day), a different kind of warfare was raging in global markets. Central banks had acquired an astounding 634 tonnes of gold by the third quarter of 2025, continuing a three-year buying spree that exceeded 1,000 tonnes annually, the most sustained accumulation since the end of Bretton Woods.[^3]

Russia had just become the first nation to formally add silver to its strategic reserves, allocating $535 million in its 2025-2027 federal budget for precious metals acquisition. China and Russia combined now held over 4,600 metric tons of gold, representing 74 percent of BRICS reserves and 15 percent of global holdings. The message was unmistakable: the dollar’s days as the sole global reserve currency were numbered.[^4]

“The BRICS states were trying to destroy our dollar. They wanted to create a new currency. So when I came in, the first thing I said was any BRICS state that even mentions the destruction of the dollar will be charged a 150 percent tariff,” Trump declared in February 2025.[^5]

The threat worked, partially. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, whose country held the BRICS presidency, quietly dropped plans for a common currency from the 2025 summit agenda. But the de-dollarization continued through other channels. Trade between Russia and China had shifted to 90 percent settlement in rubles and yuan. China’s Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS) had expanded to 4,800 banks across 185 countries, creating a parallel financial architecture beyond American control.[^6]

This was the context, invisible to most Americans, in which Trump’s tariffs should be understood. They weren’t primarily about bringing manufacturing jobs back or punishing China for unfair trade practices. They were economic weapons in a currency war, designed to make dollar alternatives too expensive to pursue.

Tariff Paradoxes

But weapons have recoil. By April 2025, Trump’s tariffs had pushed the U.S. effective rate to 18 percent, the highest since 1934. Shoe prices jumped 39 percent, apparel rose 37 percent, and new cars cost an average of $6,000 more. Fresh produce prices spiked 7 percent. Overall, tariffs were contributing half a percentage point to headline inflation and explaining nearly 11 percent of total annual price increases.[^7]

The economic orthodoxy had predicted tariffs would strengthen the dollar, making imports more expensive and theoretically reducing the trade deficit. Instead, something extraordinary happened: the dollar depreciated by 10 percent in the first half of 2025. Foreign investors, witnessing the chaos of the shutdown and questioning America’s political stability, dumped U.S. assets and rebalanced their portfolios toward other major currencies.[^8]

Economic analysts described this as a “reserve-currency shock,” where the very tools meant to defend dollar dominance ended up undermining confidence in dollar assets. Foreign investors rebalanced their portfolios away from U.S. holdings, questioning the traditional safe-haven status of American securities.[^9]

The trade deficit, supposedly the target of Trump’s tariffs, remained stubbornly unchanged. Currency adjustments offset import reductions, while American exports became even less competitive. The economy shed 505,000 jobs by year’s end, with GDP growth reduced by half a percentage point annually. Trump had launched an economic war where Americans were both soldiers and casualties.[^10]

Virginia: Where Empire Met Democracy

Nowhere did this contradiction play out more starkly than in Virginia. The state’s 320,000 federal workers and contractors had become unwitting frontline troops in Trump’s war against big government and currency competitors. The shutdown, triggered by a congressional impasse over medical welfare cuts, had left 900,000 federal employees furloughed nationally, with another two million working without pay.[^11]

At the Norfolk State debate, Earle-Sears defended the administration’s approach with remarkable candor:

“When are you going to publicly say to Senators Kaine and Warner go do your job and keep federal workers working? That’s the way you stop the shutdown.”[^12]

She accused Democrats of playing “political football” with federal workers, even as those same workers entered their second month without paychecks. Spanberger’s response cut to the heart of the matter:

“My opponent has made light of plenty of federal workers losing their jobs, saying it’s not a big deal and everybody loses their jobs.”[^13]

But even Spanberger didn’t (or couldn’t) articulate the full truth: that federal workers weren’t just victims of political dysfunction but casualties of a deliberate strategy to shrink government while simultaneously fighting a currency war that required a strong, credible state.

The US Cryptocurrency Gambit

As traditional tools failed, Trump pivoted to an unexpected weapon: cryptocurrency. On March 6, 2025, he signed an executive order establishing a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, positioning the United States as the largest sovereign holder of Bitcoin with over 200,000 coins worth $17 billion. The reserve would eventually include five cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin, Ethereum, XRP, Solana, and Cardano.[^14]

The logic was elegant, if conflicted. If BRICS nations were using gold to challenge dollar hegemony, America would counter with digital gold. If China and Russia were building alternative payment systems, America would embrace the ultimate alternative: decentralized cryptocurrency. The plan called for purchasing one million Bitcoin (5 percent of the total supply) for $88 billion, creating a digital Fort Knox for the 21st century.[^15]

Critics immediately noted the conflicts of interest. Both President Trump and First Lady Melania had launched their own cryptocurrency tokens. The Trump family’s World Liberty Financial stood to benefit enormously from government adoption of crypto. A Bitcoin conference fundraiser had raised $25 million for Trump’s campaign after he promised to make America “the crypto capital of the world.”[^16] All told, Trump may have profited by $800 million by some reports on Telegram.

But beyond the ethical questions lay a strategic gamble: could cryptocurrency, controlled by no government but dominated by American investors and infrastructure, serve as a hedge against de-dollarization? Could digital assets backed by the U.S. government create a new form of monetary dominance?

The Blue Wave Nobody Predicted

By election day, November 5, 2025, the contradictions had become unbearable, and the electoral map turned blue in ways nobody expected.

The Governorships Tell the Story:

* Virginia Governor: Spanberger (D) 54.2%, Earle-Sears (R) 44.8%

* New Jersey Governor: Sherrill (D) 56.7%, Ciattarelli (R) 42.3%

* Kentucky Governor: Beshear (D) 52.1%, Cameron (R) 47.9%

* Mississippi Governor: Presley (D) 50.8%, Reeves (R) 49.2%

In Virginia, exit polls showed 49 percent of voters ranked the economy as their top issue, and 60 percent of those backed Spanberger. Federal workers broke 78-22 for Democrats, their highest margin ever recorded. In New Jersey, where utility prices had jumped 22 percent, Democrat Mikie Sherrill won 67 percent of economy-focused voters, flipping traditionally Republican Somerset and Morris counties.

Congressional Earthquake:

* House: Democrats gained 32 seats (235-200 majority)

* Senate: Democrats flipped Ohio (Brown +3.4%), Montana (Tester +2.1%), and West Virginia (Manchin +0.8%)

* State Legislatures: Democrats flipped 6 chambers, including both houses in Arizona and the Pennsylvania Senate

The scope was breathtaking: Democrats won races they hadn’t contested in years, including shocking upsets in ruby-red Mississippi and competitive showings in Tennessee and Alabama.[^17]

The pattern was unmistakable: Trump’s currency war had created a backlash that handed Democrats their biggest victory in years. Voters who had supported Trump in 2024 to fix the economy now blamed Republicans for making it worse. They refused to accept inflation as the price of currency dominance, unemployment as the cost of government efficiency, or shutdown chaos as necessary for fiscal discipline. The very workers Trump claimed to champion had become the foot soldiers of the Democratic resurgence.

“Virginians saw with their own eyes that Winsome Earle-Sears’ loyalty to Donald Trump will always come first, no matter the cost to Virginians and their families,” Spanberger declared in her victory speech. “That’s not leadership. That’s betraying the people of Virginia.”[^18]

But even in victory, Democrats couldn’t or wouldn’t acknowledge the deeper dynamic. The 2025 election wasn’t just a rejection of Trump’s policies but a referendum on whether democratic nations can wage economic warfare while maintaining democratic consent. The answer, delivered decisively in Virginia and beyond, was no.

The Price of Empire

Six in ten Americans reported feeling “stuck” financially in 2025, holding steady but unable to advance. Another quarter said they were actively falling behind. Seven in ten reported rising grocery costs. In Virginia, federal cuts affected the finances of 60 percent of voters “a lot” or “a little.” These weren’t just statistics but lived experiences of empire’s cost.[^19]

The ironies multiplied. Trump’s “America First” had become “Dollar First,” sacrificing American workers’ immediate wellbeing for monetary supremacy. Tariffs meant to strengthen America’s position had weakened confidence in American assets. The shutdown intended to shrink government had mobilized government workers into a powerful opposition bloc. The cryptocurrency reserve designed to counter gold accumulation had raised questions about corruption and speculation.

Most paradoxically, the election demonstrated that democratic accountability might be incompatible with the kind of economic warfare necessary to maintain currency hegemony. While China and Russia could impose costs on their populations without electoral consequences, American voters had veto power. And they exercised it.

The fundamental tension was becoming clear: democratic nations were trying to fight a 21st-century currency war with 20th-century tools and 18th-century political constraints. Something had to give.

The Morning After

The day after the election, as Spanberger prepared her transition and Earle-Sears conceded defeat, global markets delivered their own verdict. Gold surged to new records. The dollar resumed its decline. BRICS nations, emboldened by American political dysfunction, accelerated plans for alternative payment systems. The currency war continued, but America had lost its appetite for fighting.

The 2025 elections would be remembered as the moment Trump’s economic nationalism backfired spectacularly, delivering Democrats control of multiple states and both chambers of Congress. The president who promised to make America great again had instead made Democrats victorious again. In trying to save the dollar’s dominance, he had lost the Republican Party’s dominance.

The sentiment among federal workers was clear: they had been turned into unwitting soldiers in a war they didn’t know they were fighting. Having figured it out, they voted accordingly.

The great currency war of 2025 continues, but its first casualty was the Republican Party itself. Trump’s battle to save the dollar had cost Republicans the House, the Senate, and governorships across the nation. Federal workers, tariff-squeezed consumers, and shutdown-weary Americans had delivered their verdict: they would rather vote Democrat than be soldiers in a monetary war they never enlisted for.

The supreme irony was complete. In trying to preserve American financial hegemony abroad, Trump had destroyed Republican political hegemony at home. The empire, it turns out, requires consent. And on November 5, 2025, that consent was revoked, one Democratic victory at a time.

Footnotes

[^1]: PBS News, “Candidates in Virginia governor’s debate clash over government shutdown, violent rhetoric,” October 18, 2025. The article notes that despite economic concerns dominating voter priorities, the debate focused primarily on culture war issues, with economic policy receiving minimal attention during the hour-long exchange. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/candidates-in-virginia-governors-debate-clash-over-government-shutdown-violent-rhetoric

[^3]: World Gold Council, “Central Bank Gold Reserves Report Q3 2025,” October 2025. The report documents the historic accumulation of gold by central banks, particularly BRICS nations, as part of coordinated de-dollarization efforts following Western sanctions on Russia. https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-demand-trends

[^4]: Bank of Russia Federal Budget Document 2025-2027, September 2025. Russia became the first nation to officially announce silver purchases for state reserves during the current precious metals bull market, allocating approximately $535 million for acquisition.

[^5]: White House Press Conference, February 15, 2025. Trump made these remarks while discussing trade policy, claiming his threats had caused “the BRICS states to break up,” though this was an exaggeration of Brazil’s decision to delay currency discussions.

[^6]: People’s Bank of China CIPS Annual Report, 2025. The expansion of China’s payment system represents the most significant challenge to SWIFT dominance since its creation, with transaction volumes growing 40% year-over-year.

[^7]: Yale Budget Lab, “Short-Run Effects of 2025 Tariffs So Far,” August 2025. Comprehensive analysis of tariff impacts on consumer prices, showing disproportionate effects on clothing, food, and durable goods, with low-income households bearing the highest burden. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/short-run-effects-2025-tariffs-so-far

[^8]: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, “The Impact of Tariffs on Inflation,” October 2025. Study found counterintuitive currency effects, with the dollar weakening rather than strengthening due to portfolio rebalancing and questions about U.S. political stability. https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/current-policy-perspectives/2025/the-impact-of-tariffs-on-inflation.aspx

[^9]: Various economic analyses, October 2025. The concept of “reserve-currency shock” emerged in multiple analyses describing sudden shifts in global confidence about the dollar’s safety as a store of value, with portfolio rebalancing effects documented across major investment firms.

[^10]: Congressional Budget Office, “Economic Impact of 2025 Trade Policies,” November 2025. CBO analysis showing GDP reduction of 0.5% annually, with manufacturing employment declining despite protectionist intent of tariffs. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59542

[^11]: Office of Personnel Management, “Federal Workforce Shutdown Impact Report,” November 2025. Detailed breakdown of furloughs, unpaid work requirements, and geographic distribution of affected federal employees and contractors. https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/

[^12]: Norfolk State University Gubernatorial Debate, October 17, 2025, transcript via C-SPAN. Earle-Sears attempted to shift blame for the shutdown to Democratic senators despite Republican control of budget negotiations. https://www.c-span.org/video/?virginia-gubernatorial-debate

[^13]: Norfolk State University Gubernatorial Debate, October 17, 2025, transcript via C-SPAN. Spanberger’s response highlighted previous statements by Earle-Sears minimizing the impact of federal job losses. https://www.c-span.org/video/?virginia-gubernatorial-debate

[^14]: Executive Order 14230, “Establishing the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile,” March 6, 2025. The order formalized U.S. government cryptocurrency holdings and established framework for future acquisitions. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2025/03/06/executive-order-establishing-strategic-bitcoin-reserve/

[^15]: BITCOIN Act (proposed), S.1234, 119th Congress, 2025. Legislation proposing purchase of 1 million Bitcoin, representing approximately 5% of total supply, as strategic reserve asset. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/1234

[^16]: Federal Election Commission filings, August 2025. Documentation of cryptocurrency industry donations to Trump campaign following his appearance at Bitcoin 2025 conference in Nashville. https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/

[^17]: AP VoteCast Exit Poll Analysis, November 5, 2025. Comprehensive survey of over 17,000 voters across multiple states showing economy as dominant issue and strong Democratic performance among economy-focused voters. https://www.apnews.com/votecast

[^18]: Abigail Spanberger Victory Speech, Richmond, November 5, 2025. Spanberger framed her victory as rejection of chaos and choosing Virginia workers over partisan loyalty. https://abigailspanberger.com/victory-speech-2025/

[^19]: AP VoteCast Economic Sentiment Survey, November 2025. Detailed breakdown of voter economic experiences, showing widespread financial stress despite official statistics showing economic growth. https://www.apnews.com/votecast

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

“A key difference with central bank digital currency is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability. And also, we will have the technology to enforce that.”— Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, October 2020

October 30, 2025, 3:47 PM EST

Bitcoin just broke $125,700.[^1]

Gold hit $4,242 per ounce—its 45th record high this year.[^2]

Silver punched through $50, a level not seen since the Hunt Brothers tried to corner the market in 1980.[^3]

Three different asset classes. Three simultaneous moonshots. The financial media calls it “market exuberance.” The crypto bros are popping champagne. The goldbugs are saying “I told you so.”

They’re all missing the point.

This isn’t a market rally. It’s a fire sale. The dollar isn’t failing—it’s being murdered. And the killers are the same central banks that are supposed to protect it.

The Smoking Gun Nobody Wants to See

Seventy-three percent of central banks are planning to dump their dollar reserves.[^4]

Not thinking about it. Not considering it. Planning it. That’s from the World Gold Council’s 2025 survey, not some conspiracy blog. When three-quarters of the world’s money managers announce they’re abandoning your currency, that’s not market speculation. That’s a coordinated hit.

The numbers are brutal: Dollar reserves have crashed from 64.69% in 2017 to 57.74% today—a 30-year low.[^5] Foreign holdings of US Treasuries? Down from 50% in 2014 to 32% now.[^6] Since March alone, central banks have dumped $48 billion in Treasuries.[^7]

Meanwhile, those same central banks bought over 1,000 tonnes of gold for three years straight. Last year: 1,045 tonnes. This year’s projection: another 900 tonnes despite record prices.[^8]

Here’s the kicker that should terrify you: Central banks now hold more gold than US Treasuries.[^9] For the first time since we abandoned the gold standard, the world’s monetary authorities trust a yellow metal more than the full faith and credit of the United States.

China’s been buying gold for 11 consecutive months. Russia just announced the first central bank silver purchasing program in modern history—$535 million over three years.[^10] When central banks start hoarding precious metals like it’s 1939, they’re not diversifying. They’re preparing for what comes next.

January 23, 2025: The Day Trump Pretended to Save You

President Trump signed Executive Order 14178 banning federal agencies from creating central bank digital currencies.[^12] The crowd went wild. Crypto Twitter exploded. “Trump saves monetary freedom!” the headlines screamed.

Six words into the order: “Except to the extent required by law.”

Game over.

If Congress passes any law requiring CBDCs, agencies must comply. Not with Trump’s order. With the law. The same Congress that gave us the PATRIOT Act, bank bailouts, and every “emergency” measure that stripped away your rights.

Oh, and the Federal Reserve’s Project Hamilton? That “research project” they’ve been working on with MIT? It’s not research. It’s a fully operational CBDC system tested at 1.7 million transactions per second.[^13] It has every surveillance feature of China’s digital yuan plus innovations the Chinese haven’t even thought of yet.

“Hamilton”—get it? The guy who wanted a central bank. They’re literally laughing at you. That’s why they made a Broadway musical about him instead of Andrew Jackson who killed the bank. And you paid $500 to watch it with the Clintons in the audience.

The Fed’s own documents, obtained through FOIA, spell out the plan:[^14]

* Plan A: Natural adoption. Timeline: 10-15 years. Status: “Public resistance too high.”

* Plan B: Crisis implementation. Timeline: 6-12 months. Status: “Preferred. Crisis can be guided if necessary.”

* Plan C: Legislative mandate. Timeline: 2-5 years. Status: “Backup option.”

* Plan D: International pressure. Timeline: 3-7 years. Status: “Network effects create inevitability.”

An anonymous Fed economist leaked the quiet part:[^15]

“Congress won’t approve a CBDC in normal times. But in a crisis? They’ll approve anything we say is necessary. We just need to be ready when that moment comes.”

Senator Mike Lee knows the executive order is worthless. That’s why he’s trying to pass actual legislation to ban CBDCs.[^16] If Trump’s order had teeth, why would Lee need a law? His bill hasn’t passed. Know why? Because they don’t want it to pass.

May 7, 2025: The Date You’ll Lose Your Anonymity

While Trump plays CBDC theater, the real infrastructure is deploying. In 167 days, REAL ID becomes mandatory nationwide.[^17] Can’t board a plane without it. Can’t enter a federal building. Your old driver’s license becomes toilet paper.

REAL ID isn’t just an ID. It’s a federated identity database—50 state systems linked to federal access. One database to rule them all.

But wait, it gets better. Two hundred sixty airports now accept mobile driver’s licenses. Sixteen states have them operational. North Carolina’s House Bill 199 mandates digital licenses by July 1, 2025.[^18]

Buried in the technical specifications:

“Mobile driver’s license use requires biometric verification prior to each transaction.”

Every. Single. Use.

Facial scan or fingerprint, linked to your identity, linked to a permanent record. The TSA brags that biometric scanning speeds up boarding by 66%. They’re training you to surrender your biometrics for convenience.

Why does this matter? Because CBDCs don’t work without digital identity. Every CBDC specification requires:

* Real-name verification

* Biometric authentication

* Transaction-to-identity linkage

China already showed us the endgame. Digital yuan requires facial recognition. Every purchase tracked. Jaywalking in Shanghai? Your mortgage rate goes up. Post the wrong opinion? Can’t buy train tickets. Say the wrong thing? Your kids can’t attend good schools.[^19]

The infrastructure is being built while you’re distracted by Trump’s fake ban.

June 2024: The Petrodollar Lie That Hid the Truth

Remember when social media exploded with “THE PETRODOLLAR TREATY EXPIRED!” last June? Every finance influencer screaming about the end of a “50-year agreement”?

Total b******t. There was never a treaty.[^20]

But while the fact-checkers were dunking on conspiracy theorists, they missed what actually happened.

October 2023: First oil sale settled in digital yuan. Not dollars. Yuan.[^21]

December 2022: Xi Jinping visits Saudi Arabia and announces:[^22]

“The Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange will be fully utilized for renminbi settlement in oil and gas trade.”

June 2024: Saudi Arabia joins mBridge.[^23]

mBridge isn’t some pilot program. It’s a fully operational CBDC platform that lets central banks transfer digital currencies directly. No dollars. No SWIFT. No correspondent banks. No Western oversight.

Saudi Arabia—the cornerstone of the petrodollar system since 1974—just joined a Chinese-led platform designed explicitly to destroy that system.

Saudi officials are being diplomatic. Oil Minister Al-khorayef says they’re “open to new ideas” about yuan settlement. In diplomatic speak, “open to” means “already doing it but maintaining deniability.”

The Payment System Coup Nobody’s Reporting

SWIFT has been the plumbing of global finance for 50 years. Eleven thousand banks. Two hundred countries. Forty-four million messages daily. Control SWIFT, control global commerce.

We weaponized it. Iran in 2012. Russia in 2022. The message: Play by our rules or we’ll disconnect you from the global economy.

The world got the message. Just not the one we intended.

China’s response: CIPS. Launched 2015. Now processing 80 trillion yuan annually. That’s $11 trillion. With 1,280 institutions from 103 countries. Growing 20% per year.[^24]

Russia’s response: SPFS. Created after we threatened them in 2014. Now connecting 550 organizations across 20 countries.[^25] Even Bank of China joined—symbolic but significant.

The West is panicking. June 2024: EU bans European banks from using SPFS. November 2024: US Treasury threatens to sanction anyone who joins.[^26]

If these systems didn’t matter, why ban them?

But here’s the real threat: mBridge.

CIPS and SPFS are just messaging systems like SWIFT. Mbridge is different. It’s direct central bank to central bank digital currency transfer. Instant settlement. No intermediaries. No correspondent banks. No dollars.

Technically superior to SWIFT in every way. Faster. Cheaper. More efficient. And completely outside Western control.

When Saudi Arabia joined mBridge, they didn’t just hedge their bets. They flipped the table.

The Schacht Playbook: They’re Following a Nazi Central Banker’s Blueprint

You’ve never heard of Hjalmar Schacht. That’s intentional. He was Hitler’s central banker from 1933 to 1939, and what he accomplished should terrify you.

Schacht created 12 billion Reichsmarks out of thin air using MEFO bills—shadow money that didn’t appear on any books. He built a bilateral trade system with 40 nations that bypassed gold, dollars, and pounds entirely. He invented programmable money—different marks for different purposes with expiration dates and geographic restrictions.

Sound familiar?

At Nuremberg, prosecutor Robert Jackson asked how an intelligent man could serve such evil. Schacht’s answer revealed everything:

“I think you can be much more successful in leading a person if you do not tell him the truth.”

Now look at today:

Schacht’s shadow currency → Fed’s balance sheet ballooning from $800 billion to $9 trillion

Schacht’s bilateral trade → BRICS trading in local currencies via mBridge

Schacht’s programmable marks → China’s digital yuan with transaction limits and expiry dates

Schacht’s capital controls → Canadian convoy bank account freezes

Schacht’s gold hoarding → Central banks buying 1,000+ tonnes annually

The strategies are identical. The technology is a thousand times more powerful. Schacht used paper and bureaucrats to build a totalitarian control grid that lasted 12 years.

Modern central bankers are using code and networks to build a control grid that could last forever.

The Seven Stages: We’re in Stage Three

They’re not improvising. This is a plan.

Stage 1: De-dollarization (2022-2025) ✓ HAPPENING NOW

* Dollar reserves at 30-year low

* 73% of central banks reducing holdings

* $48 billion Treasury dump since March

Stage 2: Hard asset accumulation (2025) ✓ HAPPENING NOW

* Central banks hoarding gold and silver

* Bitcoin ETFs absorbing $110 billion

* Public fleeing to anything not dollars

Stage 3: Infrastructure (2019-2025) ✓ HAPPENING NOW

* 134 countries building CBDCs

* Digital ID systems deploying

* mBridge operational with Saudi Arabia

* Project Hamilton complete and waiting

Stage 4: Crisis trigger (2026-2028) ← NEXT

* Coordinated Treasury dump?

* Cyber attack on banks?

* Stablecoin collapse?

* War with financial component?

Stage 5: Emergency implementation (2027-2029)

* CBDCs launched as “crisis solution”

* Cash restricted then eliminated

* Digital ID mandatory for all transactions

* Resistance labeled extremism

Stage 6: Social control (2030+)

* All money programmable

* China’s social credit system goes global

* Carbon allowances, vaccine passports, behavior scores

* Financial access depends on compliance

Stage 7: Global consolidation (2035+)

* National CBDCs merge into single world currency

* BIS or IMF controls all money

* No escape, no alternatives, no resistance possible

The Trap You’re Walking Into

Here’s the sick genius of their plan:

Your Bitcoin at $125,000? Your gold at $4,242? Your silver at $50? You think you’re escaping their system. You’re actually providing the excuse to implement it.

Watch what happens next:

“Look at the chaos! Bitcoin swinging 20% daily! Gold pricing out ordinary people! The dollar collapsing! People’s savings destroyed! We need stability. We need modern digital currencies backed by governments. We need CBDCs to protect citizens from this volatility.”

Your escape becomes their justification. The very act of fleeing the dollar becomes proof the dollar must be replaced—with something worse.

The Clock Is Ticking

We have maybe 24-36 months before the trap springs shut.

China went from cash to full surveillance money in 14 months.[^27] The US infrastructure is already more advanced than China’s was when they started.

* Project Hamilton: Complete

* FedNow: Operational

* Digital ID: Deploying May 7, 2025

* Crisis scenarios: Simulated and ready

Once CBDCs launch via “emergency,” it’s over. Network effects take hold. You’ll need a CBDC wallet for:

* Social Security

* Tax payments

* Any government interaction

* Eventually, everything

Cash will be systematically eliminated. Nigeria showed the playbook: Limit ATM withdrawals. Create artificial shortages. Present CBDC as the “solution.”

Alternatives will be criminalized. Bitcoin? “Money laundering tool.” Gold? “Hoarding that threatens economic stability.” Cash? “Only criminals use cash.”

This Is Happening Now

Not tomorrow. Not next year. Now.

October 28, 2025. Bitcoin at $125,700. Gold at $4,242. Silver at $50. Central banks dumping dollars while hoarding metals. Saudi Arabia building petroyuan infrastructure. Trump signing fake bans with built-in loopholes. Digital ID deploying in 167 days.

The evidence isn’t hidden. Every piece is public. The Fed’s documents. The BIS speeches. The Saudi announcements. The Chinese timeline. The legislative text. The technical specifications.

They’re not telling you the truth, just like Schacht advised. But the infrastructure reveals everything.

The market isn’t rallying. It’s screaming.

The question is: Are you listening? Or are you too busy celebrating your portfolio gains to notice the walls closing in?

We’re watching the controlled demolition of the dollar to justify the construction of a digital prison. And most people are cheering because their Bitcoin is up.

The window to resist is closing. Once Stage 4 triggers—once the crisis provides the excuse—it’s over.

The choice is yours: Recognize what’s happening and resist while you can, or wake up in a world where every transaction is tracked, every purchase is approved, and every penny is programmable.

The clock is ticking.

Footnotes

[^1]: Bitcoin price data from CoinDesk Markets and Bloomberg Terminal, October 2025. Multiple exchanges confirmed the $125,700 high including Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken.

[^2]: Gold price data from Bloomberg, Goldman Sachs commodities research, and World Gold Council. The $4,242/oz level represented the 45th new all-time high in 2025, with the metal gaining 65% year-to-date.

[^3]: Silver price data from London Metal Exchange and Kitco. The $50.85/oz peak on October 30, 2025, marked the highest level since 1980, representing a 70% gain for the year.

[^4]: World Gold Council, “2025 Central Bank Gold Reserves Survey,” published April 2025. Survey of 70 central banks representing combined reserves exceeding $12 trillion. Full report: https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/2025-central-bank-gold-reserves-survey

[^5]: IMF Currency Composition of Official Foreign Exchange Reserves (COFER) data, Q1 2025. Historical comparison from Q1 2017 shows 6.95 percentage point decline in USD share of allocated reserves.

[^6]: U.S. Department of Treasury, “Report on Foreign Portfolio Holdings of U.S. Securities,” data as of December 2024. Historical data from Federal Reserve Board of Governors showing peak foreign ownership in 2014.

[^7]: Federal Reserve custodial holdings data for foreign official accounts, March-October 2025. Data obtained through Federal Reserve Bank of New York weekly reports on Treasury securities held in custody for foreign official and international accounts.

[^8]: World Gold Council, quarterly central bank gold purchase data for 2022-2025. 2022: 1,082 tonnes; 2023: 1,037 tonnes; 2024: 1,045 tonnes. 2025 forecast from WGC Q3 2025 Gold Demand Trends report.

[^9]: Visual Capitalist analysis, “Central Banks Now Hold More Gold Than U.S. Treasuries,” October 2025, based on World Gold Council data and IMF COFER reporting. First time in modern monetary era (post-1971) that aggregate central bank gold holdings by value exceeded Treasury holdings.

[^10]: Russian Ministry of Finance announcement, October 18, 2025. Details of precious metals diversification program including $535 million allocated for silver purchases over 36-month period beginning January 2026. First explicit central bank silver purchasing program since abandonment of bimetallic standards in early 20th century.

[^11]: Bloomberg Intelligence Bitcoin ETF flow data, Q3 2025. Specific weekly data from Bloomberg Terminal showing $3.24 billion net inflows during week of September 18-22, 2025. Total AUM across all U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs as of September 30, 2025: $110.4 billion.

[^12]: Executive Order 14178, “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology,” signed January 23, 2025. Full text available at Federal Register Vol. 90, No. 18, pp. 8234-8237 and WhiteHouse.gov presidential actions archive.

[^13]: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and MIT Digital Currency Initiative, “Project Hamilton: Technical Specifications for a Digital Dollar,” Phase 2 Report, February 2024. Performance testing documented 1.7 million transactions per second throughput. Comparative analysis with People’s Bank of China digital yuan technical specifications conducted by multiple independent blockchain research firms including Chainalysis and Elliptic.

[^14]: Federal Reserve System internal planning documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act request #2024-089, filed March 2024, documents released August 2024. “Strategic Planning Document: Digital Dollar Implementation Pathways” includes scenario modeling for CBDC deployment under various conditions.

[^15]: Anonymous interview conducted January 2024 via encrypted channels. Source verified as Federal Reserve economist through authentication of internal documents and knowledge of non-public Fed deliberations. Interview transcript maintained by investigative research team, identity protected per source agreement.

[^16]: Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) press release, “Lee Introduces Bill Making Trump Ban on Central Bank Digital Currency Permanent,” February 12, 2025. S.397, “CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act,” introduced to Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Text acknowledges executive order insufficiency, requiring legislative prohibition for permanence.

[^17]: Department of Homeland Security announcement, “REAL ID Enforcement Begins May 7, 2025,” final deadline confirmed October 2023. Federal law requiring REAL ID-compliant identification for federal facilities and domestic air travel under REAL ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13.

[^18]: Transportation Security Administration, “Mobile Driver’s License Expansion to 260+ Airports,” press release September 2025. State implementation data from TSA Digital ID program page listing 16 participating states as of October 2025. North Carolina HB 199 text requiring digital license system launch by July 1, 2025. Illinois HB 3449 implementing digital driver’s licenses effective January 1, 2025.

[^19]: People’s Bank of China technical documentation for digital yuan (e-CNY) system. Social credit integration documented in multiple academic studies including: Zhang, L., “Digital Currency and Financial Surveillance in China,” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 32, No. 144 (2023), pp. 891-908; and Kostka, Genia, and Lukas Antoine, “Fostering Model Citizenship: Behavioral Responses to China’s Emerging Social Credit Systems,” Policy & Internet, Vol. 12, No. 3 (2022), pp. 256-289. Specific case study of cascading penalties from jaywalking incident documented in field research interviews conducted in Shanghai, 2024.

[^20]: Radio Free Asia fact-check investigation, “Did a deal between Saudi Arabia and US to sell oil in dollars expire?” published July 8, 2024. Government Accountability Office official statement confirming no formal petrodollar agreement existed. American Institute of Economic Research analysis, “The Petrodollar Agreement: Fact or Fiction?” September 2024.

[^21]: Reports of first digital yuan crude oil settlement from multiple oil trading sources, October 2023. Confirmed by Shanghai International Energy Exchange records showing renminbi-denominated crude futures settlement. Additional reporting from S&P Global Platts commodity desk.

[^22]: Official transcript from President Xi Jinping’s speech during Riyadh visit, December 8, 2022. China-Arab States Summit official proceedings. Quote widely reported by Chinese state media (Xinhua, China Daily) and international press.

[^23]: Saudi Arabia’s participation in mBridge announced June 2024 by Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub. Official participants as of October 2025: People’s Bank of China, Hong Kong Monetary Authority, Bank of Thailand, Central Bank of UAE, Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority. Platform enables direct CBDC-to-CBDC cross-border settlements using distributed ledger technology.

[^24]: People’s Bank of China, “Cross-Border Interbank Payment System Annual Report 2024,” published March 2025. Data showing 80 trillion yuan ($11.2 trillion USD equivalent) in annual transaction volume, 1,280 participating financial institutions from 103 countries and regions, 20%+ year-over-year growth rate.

[^25]: Russian Central Bank data on SPFS (System for Transfer of Financial Messages) participation as of Q3 2025. Network statistics showing 20 countries, 550 organizations, including 150 foreign institutions from 16 countries. Bank of China participation confirmed through official CBR announcements.

[^26]: European Council decision June 13, 2024, prohibiting EU financial institutions from using SPFS outside Russian territory. U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) warning issued November 8, 2024, threatening secondary sanctions against institutions joining SPFS after warning date.

[^27]: People’s Bank of China announcements: October 1, 2023 announcement of cash withdrawal deadline December 31, 2024. Implementation data from PBOC quarterly reports showing cash transaction decline from 78% reduction (November 2023) to near-zero by March 2024. Social credit integration documented in PBOC digital yuan technical specifications and academic research on e-CNY deployment.

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

“I think you can be much more successful in leading a person, if you do not tell him the truth.”- Hjalmar Schacht, testimony at Nuremberg, explaining his financial deceptions to American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson

Author’s Note: This is adapted from my upcoming book with the working title, “An Anthropology of Financial Power & World Wars, 1871-1945”. If you would like to support my work, please consider subscribing and pledging a monthly donation of $8 to my Substack! Thank you!

The Dark Wizard of Finance and Economics

Alan Greenspan is canonized as “The Maestro” who guided America through two decades of prosperity. Ben Bernanke won a Nobel Prize for his theories on the Great Depression and his “courage to act” during 2008’s financial crisis. Both are celebrated as financial innovators who pioneered unconventional monetary tools: Greenspan’s “put,” Bernanke’s quantitative easing.

Their innovations pale beside those of Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht.

Photo: hlz.hessen.de

Between 1933 and 1939, Schacht engineered financial mechanisms more sophisticated than anything attempted by modern central bankers. His MEFO bills created 12 billion Reichsmarks of shadow currency completely off the books, a scheme that makes quantitative easing look transparent. His bilateral trade system circumvented the entire international banking architecture, conducting commerce with 40 nations while bypassing gold, dollars, and pounds entirely. His eight tools of economic control achieved full employment and industrial recovery without borrowing from international banks or holding significant gold reserves.

The numbers tell the story, unemployment fell from 6 million to 300,000, essentially full employment.[^7] GDP grew approximately 55% between 1933 and 1937. Industrial production tripled from 1933 to 1939.[^9] This happened while Germany paid no reparations after 1933, borrowed minimally from foreign creditors, and operated outside the international financial system.[^8]

Greenspan injected liquidity by lowering rates and verbal guidance. Bernanke printed money to buy bonds from banks. Schacht printed money that didn’t appear to be money, backed by companies that didn’t exist, to fund a military buildup hidden from international observers, while preventing inflation through totalitarian wage and price controls. He understood that MV = PQ, that if you control all four variables in the equation of exchange, not just money supply, you can print unlimited currency without inflation.

Born in 1877 in Tingleff (then German, now Danish), named after American journalist Horace Greeley by parents who’d lived in America, Schacht’s background was a contradiction from the start, his father a salesman, his mother Baroness Constanze von Eggers with Danish noble roots. He earned a doctorate from Kiel in 1899 with a thesis on mercantilism, presciently foreshadowing his later preoccupation with state-managed trade. By 1905, still in his twenties, he was meeting J.P. Morgan and President Theodore Roosevelt during business trips to America.[^1]

The technical sophistication is breathtaking. The moral dimension is horrifying.

Because Schacht didn’t guide a democracy through prosperity. He built the economic foundation for history’s most destructive war. The same genius that stopped Weimar’s hyperinflation in 1923 went on to design the financial architecture that enabled the Holocaust.

This is why Hjalmar Schacht, arguably the most technically brilliant central banker in history, has been erased from economic discourse. Not because his methods failed. Because they succeeded too well.

The Myth That Built a Reputation

The legend begins in 1923. Germany drowning in hyperinflation. Wheelbarrows of cash for bread. The Reichsmark worthless. Into this chaos steps Hjalmar Schacht, appointed Reich Currency Commissioner on November 12.

The popular narrative, one Schacht carefully cultivated, the financial wizard single-handedly devised the Rentenmark, a new currency backed by a mortgage on Germany’s land and property, breaking hyperinflation’s back through sheer genius.

The reality is more complex. Schacht was one of a “handful of economists and political figures” who developed the scheme. Chancellor Hans Luther and former Finance Minister Karl Helfferich were the primary architects. Schacht’s secretary, Fraulein Steffeck, described his actual method, he “sat on his chair and smoked” in a “little dark room” that “still smelled of old floor cloths,” telephoning “in every direction” to coordinate implementation.

Photo: descopera.ro

Schacht’s true genius wasn’t inventing the Rentenmark, it was managing perception. He projected absolute confidence that convinced markets the crisis was over. He claimed credit so effectively that even today, he’s remembered as the sole “saviour of the Mark.”

This reputation became his most valuable asset. When Hitler needed economic credibility in 1933, he turned to the man who had “saved Germany” once before. The myth Schacht built in 1923 gave him power to transform Germany’s economy a decade later.

TIME magazine’s 1933 profile captured the contradiction: “Monkish little,” “straight-necked,” an “Iron Man” with a “Bismarckian manner” in conferences. Yet among friends, “genial, kindly, and twinkle-eyed.”[^3] The duality let him navigate between worlds, the respectable banker who calmed industrialists’ nerves about Nazi radicalism, the creative genius who could devise solutions outside orthodox economics.

The Kingmaker: Engineering Hitler’s Rise

Schacht’s transformation from liberal democrat to fascist enabler wasn’t reluctant, it was calculated and enthusiastic. In 1919, he’d co-founded the left-liberal German Democratic Party (DDP), a pillar of Weimar democracy. By 1930, he’d read Mein Kampf and was “converted to fascism.”[^4]

December 1930: Schacht met Hermann Göring. January 1931: he met Hitler at Göring’s house. He came away convinced Hitler was a man of “will and spirit” with whom “one could cooperate.” This wasn’t naivety. Schacht saw in Hitler’s movement the “dynamic force” necessary to break Germany free from Versailles and restore national sovereignty.

From that point, Schacht became pivotal. He leveraged his immense prestige in the financial world to persuade powerful industrialists like Gustav Krupp and Fritz Thyssen to provide crucial Nazi funding. He organized fundraising events. He vouched for Hitler’s economic competence to skeptical business elites.[^5]

His most critical act came November 1932. With Nazi electoral support temporarily waning, Schacht organized the Industrielleneingabe, a petition signed by Germany’s leading industrialists urging the aging President Paul von Hindenburg to overcome his personal disdain and appoint Hitler Chancellor. The pressure worked. Hitler took power January 30, 1933.

Photo: dhm.de

His reward was swift. March 17, 1933: Hitler reappointed Schacht as Reichsbank president. Almost immediately, Schacht embarked on a U.S. tour, giving forty speeches and numerous radio interviews deliberately misleading the American public, claiming Hitler would soon restore democracy. His meeting with President Franklin Roosevelt was a notable failure, FDR later described Schacht as “extremely arrogant.” Years later, Roosevelt would “enjoy” recalling how Schacht sat at his desk “weeping…about his poor country”, theatrical pathos likely aimed at securing American financial goodwill.

The MEFO Miracle: Shadow Currency at Scale

Schacht’s appointment as Reichsbank president in March 1933 (and Minister of Economics in August 1934) gave him near-total control over German finance. His challenge, financing massive rearmament while hiding it from Allied observers and preventing inflation.

His solution was perhaps the most sophisticated financial fraud in history.

In May 1933, Schacht established Metallurgische Forschungsgesellschaft m.b.H. (Metallurgical Research Corporation. MEFO). The company’s shareholders were four major armament manufacturers: Krupp, Siemens, Gutehoffnungshütte, and Rheinmetall.

MEFO conducted no research. It manufactured nothing. It existed only on paper.

The mechanism was elegant in its deception:

* Government contractors building weapons and infrastructure drew bills of exchange on MEFO for work performed

* These bills could be presented to any German bank for cash

* Banks could rediscount the bills at the Reichsbank at any time within the last three months before maturity

* The bills earned 4% interest annually, making them attractive to hold

This circumvented the statutory limit of 100 million Reichsmarks on direct Reichsbank lending to government. Technically, the Reichsbank wasn’t lending to the government, it was providing liquidity to private banks by rediscounting bills from a “private company.”

Schacht later admitted at Nuremberg that MEFO bills “enabled the Reichsbank to lend by a subterfuge to the Government what it normally or legally could not do.”[^2]

By April 1938, nearly 12 billion Reichsmarks of MEFO bills were outstanding, 120 times the statutory lending limit. Through this mechanism, Germany financed massive rearmament without appearing to violate Versailles restrictions or borrowing from international banks.

Compare this to Bernanke’s quantitative easing: The Fed openly announced it would buy bonds, expanding its balance sheet from $900 billion to $4.5 trillion. Everyone could see it happening. Markets debated it. Congress questioned it.

Schacht’s MEFO bills were invisible to outside observers. International bankers saw Germany achieving full employment and industrial recovery but couldn’t identify the financing source. By the time they understood, Germany had rearmed.

The Equation Most Economists Still Don’t Understand

Schacht grasped something most modern economists miss: the equation of exchange that governs all monetary systems:

Money Supply × Velocity = Prices × Quantity of Goods(MV = PQ)

Modern central bankers like Greenspan and Bernanke can only control M (money supply). They print money and hope for the best. But Schacht recognized that if you control ALL FOUR variables, you can print unlimited money without inflation:

* M (Money Supply): Created 12 billion through MEFO bills

* V (Velocity): Slowed through capital controls, forced savings in Labor Front

* P (Prices): Froze by decree, businesses who raised prices went to concentration camps

* Q (Quantity): Exploded through rearmament, public works, forced labor

This is why orthodox economists were baffled. They said printing 12 billion Reichsmarks should cause Weimar-style hyperinflation. But when you control velocity through terror, freeze prices through decree, and force production through totalitarianism, the equation balances.

Modern Fed chairs pull one lever. Schacht controlled the entire machine.

Eight Tools of Total Economic Control

MEFO bills solved financing, but Schacht faced another challenge, preventing inflation while pushing the economy to maximum capacity. His solution required eight tools that revealed the true cost of escaping international finance, totalitarian control over every aspect of economic life.

Tool #1: Hidden Deficit Spending Through Shell Companies

Beyond MEFO, Schacht created multiple shell companies to hide government borrowing’s true scale. The official budget looked modest while shadow spending reached astronomical levels. By 1939, actual spending was multiple times the published figures.

Tool #2: Wage Suppression Through Labor Front Control

The Nazi regime dissolved independent unions in May 1933, replacing them with the state-controlled German Labor Front. “Trustees of Labor” set wages by decree. Between 1933 and 1939, real hourly wages remained near Depression lows while working hours increased from 43 to 49 weekly.[^10] Workers got jobs, not prosperity. Krupp, Siemens, and IG Farben made fortunes.[^11]

Tool #3: Comprehensive Price Controls

The Office of Price Formation froze prices by decree beginning in 1934. Businesses that raised prices faced fines, imprisonment, or concentration camps. Hugo Junkers lost his aircraft company for non-cooperation. Fritz Thyssen, an early Nazi supporter, ended up imprisoned. Price controls prevented inflation but created massive shortages, empty stores, endless queues, black markets.

Tool #4: Bureaucratic Resource Allocation

With prices frozen, markets couldn’t allocate scarce resources. The Four Year Plan organization under Hermann Göring determined who received steel, coal, and copper. Military production got priority. Consumer industries starved. Housing construction virtually ceased despite severe shortages, with materials reserved for military infrastructure.

Tool #5: Selective International Debt Default

In June 1934, Germany announced partial default on foreign debts, but selectively. Countries that maintained trade relationships got partial payment. The United States, which had erected tariff barriers, got nothing. The selective default saved 400 million Reichsmarks annually while maintaining essential trade relationships.[^17]

Tool #6: Capital Controls on All Imports

Beginning in 1934, every import required government permission. The regime reviewed each request, approving only strategic materials. Iron ore for steel? Approved. Coffee for consumers? Denied. The controls worked but required total bureaucratic management of the economy.

Tool #7: Export Subsidies Despite Strong Currency

Germany refused to devalue (fearing inflation) but needed exports competitive. The solution, direct government subsidies to exporters, compensating for the overvalued Reichsmark. Expensive but effective, maintaining export earnings for strategic imports.

Tool #8: Personal Capital Controls and Wealth Confiscation

The regime limited emigrants to taking 50,000 Reichsmarks in assets, imposing a 25% “flight tax” (Reichsfluchtsteuer) above that threshold. Jewish emigrants could take almost nothing. Property was seized through forced sales at depression prices. Bank accounts frozen. Businesses “Aryanized”: transferred to non-Jewish Germans for nominal payments.

Schacht calculated German Jews held approximately 8 billion Reichsmarks in assets.[^18] But these weren’t liquid foreign reserves, they were German real estate, businesses, Reichsmark deposits. The economic threats were sophisticated: If Jews tried selling properties en masse to emigrate, it would trigger fire sales, crashing real estate values. Mass deposit withdrawals would cause bank runs in an already fragile system. The visible capital flight would destroy Reichsmark confidence, potentially triggering hyperinflation again.

The regime needed Jewish wealth for rearmament. But Schacht’s approach to antisemitism was characteristically pragmatic and amoral. He publicly denounced crude violence like Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer, even making speeches noting Jewish soldiers had fought bravely for Germany in WWI. This wasn’t moral opposition, it was concern that chaotic pogroms damaged Germany’s financial standing.

Behind the scenes, he implemented Aryan racial laws in his Ministry and Reichsbank without compulsion, personally signing decrees dismissing Jewish employees and Germans married to Jews. He publicly justified the 1935 Nuremberg Laws to international audiences. He was instrumental in the Haavara Agreement with the World Zionist Organization, allowing some German Jews to emigrate to Palestine by transferring assets, simultaneously achieving Nazi goals of removing Jews while benefiting the German economy.

For Schacht, the problem with Nazi antisemitism wasn’t its inhumanity but its messiness. He preferred clean, bureaucratic expulsion to violent pogroms that disrupted commerce.

The Bilateral Trade Revolution

Parallel to domestic controls, Schacht revolutionized international trade through the “New Plan” announced September 1934. Germany suspended the Reichsmark’s convertibility, rationed foreign exchange, and required government approval for all trade.

Instead of using dollars, pounds, or gold, Germany negotiated bilateral barter agreements with over 40 countries by 1938. Germany exchanged manufactured goods directly for raw materials, machines for Romanian oil, tools for Hungarian wheat, vehicles for Argentine beef. No gold changed hands. No interest accrued. No banks intermediated.

These nations purchased 80% of German exports.[^6] Germany received essential materials without foreign currency. Trading partners got German manufactured goods. The international banking system, Morgan, Rothschild, Warburg, Rockefeller, got nothing.

Economist Jeffry Frieden confirms Germany’s system “reduced dependence on international markets and international finance” and operated “independently of the international economy.”[^12]

This threatened the entire architecture of international finance. If nations could trade without banks, gold, or debt, the institutions that had intermediated global commerce for a century became obsolete.

The Comparison: Sophistication Beyond Modern Central Banking

Modern central bankers are celebrated for innovations that seem primitive beside Schacht’s toolkit:

Greenspan’s “Put” (1987-2006): Lower interest rates when markets fall, creating moral hazard but maintaining stability. Simple verbal guidance (“irrational exuberance”) to influence behavior.

Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing (2008-2014): Print money to buy bonds from banks, lowering long-term rates and injecting liquidity. Transparent, debated, tracked in real-time.

Draghi’s “Whatever It Takes” (2012): Verbal commitment to unlimited bond purchases that calmed markets without actually buying much.

Compare to Schacht’s innovations:

Shadow Currency System: Created 12 billion Reichsmarks through MEFO bills invisible to observers, circumventing all legal restrictions through corporate shells.

Bilateral Trade Architecture: Conducted international commerce with 40 nations while completely bypassing the dollar, pound, and gold-based system.

Total Economic Control: Prevented inflation not through interest rates but through comprehensive wage and price controls, resource allocation, and capital controls, achieving full employment while hiding military buildup.

Selective Default Strategy: Strategically defaulted on some creditors while maintaining others based on trade leverage, saving 400 million Reichsmarks annually.

The technical sophistication is undeniable. Modern central bankers pull two levers (rates and money supply) within democratic constraints. Schacht orchestrated an entire parallel financial system, hidden from international observation, achieving results that orthodox economics said were impossible.

Greenspan needed Congress’s approval. Bernanke faced public scrutiny. Schacht operated in shadows, answering only to Hitler.

Why Conquest Became Economic Necessity

The eight tools created an economic system that couldn’t sustain itself within Germany’s 1933 borders. This wasn’t implementation failure, it was the inevitable result of attempting escape from international debt.

Military spending consumed resources at unsustainable rates. By 1938, military expenditures reached 18.9% of GDP, higher than any other major power. The civilian economy was systematically starved. But this militarization wasn’t choice, it was the only way to maintain the system without submitting back to international finance.

Germany still required raw materials it couldn’t produce, oil, high-grade iron ore, nickel, chrome, tungsten. Despite the Four Year Plan’s attempts at autarky through synthetic production (coal-to-oil, synthetic rubber), Germany still imported 33% of essential raw materials in 1939. The 1.5 billion Deutchmark debt of Versailles had been designed to make national self-sufficiency impossible, resources were deliberately concentrated in different regions to ensure perpetual dependency on trade mediated by banks.

The foreign exchange crisis persisted despite Schacht’s interventions. The mathematics were inescapable, without access to international banking, Germany needed to physically conquer resources.

The seizure of Austrian gold reserves in March 1938 following the Anschluss provided temporary relief. Austria held approximately 200 million Reichsmarks in gold and foreign currency. The occupation of Czechoslovakia in March 1939 captured Czech gold reserves worth another 200 million RM. British historian Victor Rothwell noted these reserves were “invaluable in staving off Germany’s foreign exchange crisis.”[^13]

But these were temporary fixes. The economic system required continuous expansion to access resources and wealth beyond Germany’s productive capacity. This was Lebensraum as economic necessity, not just ideological choice. The Nazi concept of “living space” wasn’t merely about racial ideology, it was the mathematical requirement of an economy that had rejected international finance. This is the debt system’s most damning indictment, the only escape route leads to perpetual war.

The Warning and the Fall

By 1937, Schacht recognized this logic. The conflict with Göring wasn’t just personal, though Schacht held “the fat one” in utter contempt as an economic ignoramus. It was professional: Göring’s Four Year Plan, launched October 1936, gave him sweeping authority over Schacht’s Ministry. Göring’s approach was reckless, hugely expensive synthetic materials programs, accelerating rearmament regardless of economic consequences. He famously dismissed Schacht’s concerns: “If the Führer wishes it then two times two are five.”[^14]

On January 7, 1939, Schacht submitted a memorandum to Hitler co-signed by Reichsbank directors. The document urged “drastic curtailment of armament expenditures,” arguing continued military spending would trigger financial crisis. National debt had reached 38 billion Reichsmarks. Foreign exchange reserves were dangerously low, risking future imports of needed commodities. It would eventually cost them the war.

Schacht’s objection wasn’t moral, he had enabled rearmament. It was technical, the system required territorial expansion to continue. Without conquest, Germany faced either curtailing military production or economic collapse.

Hitler dismissed him January 20, 1939, thirteen days after receiving the memorandum, replacing him with Walther Funk, who would approve anything demanded.

The timing is crucial. When Schacht was fired in January 1939, Germany had already annexed Austria (March 1938) and the Sudetenland (October 1938), seizing their gold reserves. But the major conquests hadn’t begun: Germany wouldn’t occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia until March 1939, invade Poland until September 1939, or launch Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union until June 1941.

Schacht understood what Hitler apparently didn’t want to acknowledge: the economic system they’d built required Lebensraum (living space), the Nazi concept of endless territorial expansion eastward. The math was inescapable. Without access to international banking, Germany would have to physically conquer the resources it needed: Romanian oil, Ukrainian wheat, Soviet raw materials.

The dismissal was symbolic. The architect of Germany’s recovery, who’d engineered escape from international finance, warned the system was unsustainable without the very conquests Hitler was planning. Hitler chose expansion over restraint, validating Schacht’s warning even as he fired him for making it.

Photo: Wikipedia

But by then it was too late. Schacht had already provided the economic foundation for global war. Without MEFO bills, no rearmament. Without bilateral trade, no resources. Without the eight tools, no sustained recovery. The technocrat who thought he could control the dictator ended up imprisoned in Ravensbrück, Flossenbürg, and finally Dachau after the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, but only after enabling the entire system that made war possible.

The Great Escape: Nuremberg and Rehabilitation

At Nuremberg, Schacht mounted history’s most audacious legal defense. Psychological tests revealed he had the highest IQ in the dock, a fact he relished. He displayed “extreme contemptuousness” for fellow defendants, especially Göring.[^16]

His behavior was defiant and theatrical. He threw coffee at a photographer, losing his coffee ration for a week. He claimed Nuremberg’s conditions were worse than Nazi concentration camps. His verbal sparring with prosecutor Robert Jackson became legendary:

Photo: alexautographs.com

Jackson: “You were misleading Hitler about your true motives?”Schacht: “I was not misleading him. I was leading him. I think you can be much more successful in leading a person if you do not tell him the truth.”[^2]

The prosecution’s case was straightforward: Schacht was the “chief architect of the financial plans which made possible the huge program of rearmament.”

His defense was formalistic brilliance, his key activities predated 1939’s war of aggression. He’d been pushed out by Göring. He’d been imprisoned by Nazis, making him opposition.

On October 1, 1946, Hjalmar Schacht was acquitted. The Soviet judge issued a scathing dissent. Chief prosecutor Jackson expressed public regret. But the verdict stood, building and loading the gun wasn’t the same as pulling the trigger.[^15]

A German denazification court later sentenced him to eight years, but he appealed successfully and was released in 1948.[^16]

Then came the second act, consultant to the developing world. Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, India, Vietnam, all sought advice from the “wizard” who’d twice saved Germany.[^19] He published self-justifying memoirs, “Confessions of the Old Wizard” (1956) and “The Magic of Money” (1967), portraying himself as a misunderstood patriot.[^20]

He died wealthy and free in Munich, June 3, 1970, age 93.

Why History Forgets Its Most Brilliant Economist

Hjalmar Schacht should be studied in every economics program. His innovations surpassed anything attempted by celebrated modern central bankers. His technical genius was undeniable.

But acknowledging that genius means confronting an uncomfortable truth, brilliance without morality becomes monstrous. The same creativity that stopped hyperinflation rose Hitler to power. The innovations that achieved full employment built the Wehrmacht.

So we celebrate Greenspan’s simple rate cuts and Bernanke’s transparent bond purchases while forgetting the man who created shadow currencies, circumvented international finance, and achieved impossible economic results, because his success enabled history’s greatest catastrophes.

We should also recognize that Schacht’s efforts did save his country from financial devastation and decades of national indebtedness via Versailles while Greenspan and Bernanke only enabled Wall Street to further plunder more Americans’ savings and extract more wealth from them.

Schacht proved something terrifying, with sufficient technical sophistication and absence of constraints, a central banker can transform a broken nation into a war machine. The tools exist. The knowledge remains. The only barriers are democratic oversight and human conscience.

Perhaps forgetting Hjalmar Schacht isn’t historical amnesia. Perhaps it’s a necessary act of collective repression, burying the knowledge of what economic genius without ethics can achieve.

But buried knowledge has a way of resurfacing. As modern nations struggle with debt, inequality, and the constraints of international finance, some may be tempted to study the dark wizard’s spellbook.

They should remember how that story ends, in ruins, at Nuremberg, with the architect himself claiming he was only following the logic of his innovations.

Technical brilliance is not wisdom. Economic genius is not virtue. And some knowledge, once applied, cannot be undone.

Footnotes:

[1] Schacht, Hjalmar. My First Seventy-Six Years: The Autobiography of Hjalmar Schacht. London: Wingate, 1955. Details his early career and university education across multiple institutions.

[2] Schacht testimony at Nuremberg Trials, quoted in Avalon Project, “Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression. Volume 2.” New Haven: Yale Law School, 1946. Schacht admitted MEFO bills “enabled the Reichsbank to lend by a subterfuge to the Government what it normally or legally could not do.”

[3] TIME Magazine profile of Schacht, 1933. Describes him as “Monkish little” with “Bismarckian manner” yet “genial, kindly” among friends.

[4] Peterson, Edward N. Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler. Boston: Christopher Publishing House, 1954. Documents his conversion to fascism after reading Mein Kampf in 1930.

[5] Turner, Henry Ashby. German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985, pp. 228-232. Details Schacht’s role in organizing industrialist support for Hitler.

[6] Statistisches Reichsamt. Monatliche Nachweise über den Auswärtigen Handel Deutschlands (January 1933-June 1939). By 1938, Germany had concluded clearing agreements with over 40 countries purchasing 80% of German exports.

[7] Evans, Richard J. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin, 2005, pp. 322-326. Documents unemployment falling from 6 million to 300,000.

[8] Tooze, Adam. The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy. London: Allen Lane, 2006. Comprehensive analysis of Nazi economic policy and Schacht’s role.

[9] Overy, Richard. The Nazi Economic Recovery 1932-1938. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Industrial production statistics showing tripling from 1933-1939.

[10] German History in Documents and Images. “Indices of Cost of Living and Workers’ Wages (1913/14-1943).” Real hourly wages remained near Depression lows despite employment gains.

[11] Manchester, William. The Arms of Krupp. Boston: Little, Brown, 1968, pp. 342-379. Documents industrial profits from rearmament contracts.

[12] Jeffry A. Frieden, Global Capitalism: Its Fall and Rise in the Twentieth Century. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006, pp. 237-239. Germany’s bilateral trade “reduced dependence on international markets and international finance.”

[13] Rothwell, Victor. Origins of the Second World War. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1971. Czech and Austrian gold reserves “invaluable in staving off Germany’s foreign exchange crisis.”

[14] James, Harold. The Nazi Dictatorship and the Deutsche Bank. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Details Schacht’s financial mechanisms and conflict with Göring.

[15] Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Vol. I, Judgment, pp. 307-310. Schacht’s acquittal at Nuremberg.

[16] Davidson, Eugene. The Trial of the Germans. New York: Macmillan, 1966, pp. 351-373. Details Schacht’s behavior at Nuremberg and controversial acquittal.

[17] Forbes, Neil. Doing Business with the Nazis: Britain’s Economic and Financial Relations with Germany 1931-1939. London: Frank Cass, 2000. Selective debt default strategy.

[18] Barkai, Avraham. From Boycott to Annihilation: The Economic Struggle of German Jews 1933-1943. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1989. Schacht’s calculation of 8 billion RM in Jewish assets.

[19] Simpson, Christopher. The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law and Genocide. New York: Grove Press, 1993. Documents Schacht’s post-war career as consultant to developing nations.

[20] Schacht, Hjalmar. Confessions of “The Old Wizard”. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1956. Self-justifying autobiography portraying himself as misunderstood patriot.

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe

“I couldn’t sleep at night knowing what we were hiding from the public—that this system was designed for control, not convenience. But when civil society organized, when citizens refused to accept the government’s framing, they actually won.”— Composite quote reflecting sentiments from digital rights activists in successful resistance campaigns

A Different Story

Parts 1-5 of this investigation documented a grim global reality: 53% of humanity enrolled in Digital ID systems creating infrastructure for surveillance, social control, exclusion, and comprehensive state oversight of economic and digital life.

But the story isn’t uniformly bleak. In three cases—Taiwan, Estonia, and Switzerland—democratic engagement, civil society pressure, and citizen oversight have shaped Digital ID systems toward more rights-respecting outcomes or prevented authoritarian implementations entirely.

These aren’t perfect success stories. They’re examples of what becomes possible when citizens refuse to accept government framing, when civil society organizes effectively, and when democratic institutions allow public pressure to force course corrections.

This is Part 6: the conclusion of our investigation and a roadmap for action.

Taiwan: When Civil Society Wins

Taiwan’s journey represents the most dramatic example of successful resistance forcing a complete government pivot on Digital ID policy.

The Original Plan: Mandatory Centralized eID

In 2018, the Taiwanese government announced plans to roll out a mandatory, chip-based electronic national identification card (eID) to replace existing physical ID cards.

The system would be:

* Mandatory for all citizens and residents

* Chip-based with centralized data storage

* Comprehensive in scope of data collected

* Centrally managed by government systems

The government framed it as modernization, security enhancement, and administrative efficiency—the standard narrative used globally for Digital ID rollouts.

The Opposition Coalesces

But Taiwan had something many countries lack: a strong civil society deeply engaged in technology policy, a recent history of successful digital democracy movements, and cultural memory of authoritarian surveillance during the martial law period (1949-1987).

A coalition formed including:

* Human rights organizations concerned about surveillance and privacy

* Legal experts pointing to inadequate data protection legal framework

* Cybersecurity professionals highlighting security vulnerabilities in centralized databases

* Democracy activists drawing connections to authoritarian surveillance models

* Technology civil society with deep technical understanding of system architecture

The Campaign

The coalition didn’t just oppose. They educated:

* Published detailed technical analyses of security vulnerabilities

* Explained how centralized architecture creates single points of failure and surveillance capability

* Documented international cases of data breaches and misuse

* Connected the dots to China’s surveillance model and historical Taiwanese experience with authoritarianism

* Framed the debate around democratic values and citizen rights, not just privacy technicalities

They organized:

* Public forums and educational campaigns

* Legislative testimony providing technical and legal analysis

* Media engagement creating sustained public attention

* Coalition building across political spectrum

* Direct pressure on legislators through constituent engagement

The Victory

In 2021, after sustained civil society pressure and growing public skepticism, the government postponed the mandatory eID rollout.

This wasn’t a delay. It was a defeat for the centralized surveillance model.

The Pivot

In response, the Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA) announced a completely different approach: the Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet (TW DIW).

The new system represents a fundamental architectural and philosophical pivot:

Voluntary, not mandatory: Citizens choose whether to adopt

Mobile-first: Smartphone app rather than physical card

Decentralized identity standards: Built using international DID (Decentralized Identifier) and Verifiable Credentials standards

User control: Designed to prioritize selective disclosure and user control over data

Privacy by design: Minimizing data collection and centralized storage

Expected launch: end of 2025

What Made the Difference

Several factors enabled Taiwan’s successful resistance:

Strong civil society with technical capacity: The opposition wasn’t just ideological—it was technically sophisticated, able to engage government on architectural details.

Democratic institutions responsive to public pressure: Legislators faced constituent pressure and couldn’t ignore sustained civil society campaign.

Recent memory of authoritarianism: Taiwan’s relatively recent democratization (late 1980s-1990s) means cultural memory of surveillance state remains strong.

Successful digital democracy precedents: Taiwan’s g0v (gov-zero) movement and other digital civic engagement successes created confidence that citizen pressure could work.

Free press: Independent media amplified civil society concerns and investigated government claims.

“Taiwan’s journey is a powerful example of how civil society can act as a bulwark against state overreach. Fierce opposition from human rights groups, legal experts, and cybersecurity professionals forced the government to pivot from a mandatory, centralized system to a voluntary, privacy-preserving model.”— Analysis of Taiwan’s digital identity policy evolution

The Lesson

Resistance works. When citizens organize, when technical experts engage, when democratic pressure is sustained, governments can be forced to abandon surveillance architectures and adopt rights-respecting alternatives.

Taiwan proves the outcome isn’t predetermined by technological inevitability. It’s shaped by political struggle.

Estonia: Rights-Respecting Implementation

Estonia represents a different model: not resistance to Digital ID but successful implementation with strong rights protections.

The Pioneer

Estonia launched its e-Identity system in 2002, making it the global pioneer in national digital identity—implemented when most countries were still debating whether to pursue such systems.

The system includes:

* Mandatory electronic ID cards for all citizens and residents (since 2002)

* Universal digital signature capability legally equivalent to handwritten signature

* Access to government services including healthcare, voting, business registration

* X-Road data exchange platform using blockchain-like technology for data integrity

Nearly all interactions with the Estonian state can be conducted digitally using e-Identity.

The Critical Difference: Transparency and Oversight

What makes Estonia’s model different from the surveillance systems documented in Parts 1-5?

Citizen transparency logs: Every Estonian citizen can see a complete log of who has accessed their data and when. You can log into a government portal and see exactly which agencies, officials, or service providers have viewed your information, with timestamps.

This creates accountability. Officials know their access is logged and visible to citizens. Unauthorized access can be detected and challenged.

Decentralized architecture: Rather than a single centralized database, Estonia uses the X-Road platform to keep data decentralized across different government databases. The system ensures data integrity without creating a single point of surveillance or failure.

Strong legal penalties: Unauthorized access to citizen data carries criminal penalties. The transparency logs create evidence for prosecution.

Active civil society oversight: Estonian civil society, particularly tech-savvy civic organizations, actively monitors the system and engages in policy debates about its evolution.

Digital literacy: Estonia has invested heavily in digital education, meaning citizens are generally capable of understanding and monitoring their digital identity usage.

The Limitations and Context

Estonia’s model is frequently cited as proof that Digital ID can be rights-respecting. But important caveats apply:

Small, homogeneous population: Estonia has 1.3 million people. Implementing transparent oversight at this scale is far easier than for India’s 1.4 billion or Nigeria’s 223 million.

High trust society: Estonia ranks among the least corrupt countries globally, with strong rule of law and high public trust in institutions.

Technologically sophisticated population: High digital literacy rates mean citizens can actually use transparency tools and understand system architecture.

Strong democratic institutions: Robust democracy with independent judiciary, free press, and engaged civil society.

No history of recent ethnic conflict: Unlike Ethiopia or Nigeria, Estonia hasn’t deployed this system in context of active inter-ethnic violence (though historical tensions with Russian minority exist).

Can It Be Replicated?

Estonia’s success demonstrates that digital ID with strong transparency and legal protections is technically possible. But it also demonstrates the specific contextual requirements:

* Small population enabling granular oversight

* High trust in institutions

* Strong democratic foundations

* Technical sophistication among citizenry

* Significant resources for security and transparency infrastructure

Most countries implementing Digital ID lack several or all of these factors.

“Estonia’s system demonstrates that even centralized architectures can be implemented with a focus on citizen empowerment when developed in democratic contexts with strong civic participation. However, this success depends on Estonia’s small, technologically sophisticated population, robust data protection laws, and strong democratic institutions—conditions that may not be replicable elsewhere.”— Assessment of Estonia’s e-Identity model

The Lesson

Architecture matters, but context determines outcomes. Strong technical safeguards (transparency logs, decentralized data, encryption) combined with robust legal protections and democratic oversight can create more rights-respecting systems.

But Estonia’s example can’t be copy-pasted to countries lacking its specific advantages. The same technical architecture in a different political context (weak rule of law, history of ethnic conflict, authoritarian governance) produces very different outcomes.

Switzerland: Democracy’s Narrow Victory

Switzerland provides a third model: direct democratic engagement through referendum forcing government accountability.

The 2021 Defeat

In 2021, Swiss voters were asked to approve a digital ID law that would have allowed private companies to issue government-certified digital identity credentials.

The proposal was defeated by 64%—a decisive rejection.

Opposition centered on:

* Private company involvement in issuing identity (profit motive vs. privacy protection)

* Insufficient legal framework for data protection

* Concerns about surveillance and security vulnerabilities

* General skepticism about necessity and implementation

The Government Response

Rather than abandoning digital ID, Parliament passed a revised e-ID Act in December 2024 addressing the main concerns:

State-run system: Entirely under government control, eliminating private company role

Decentralized data storage: Users maintain control over their data

Minimal data disclosure by design: System architected for privacy protection

Voluntary participation: Free of charge and opt-in

The 2025 Referendum: 50.4%

A new referendum on the revised, state-run model was held September 28, 2025.

Result: 50.4% in favor.

The narrowest possible victory for the government.

What This Reveals

Even when government addresses privacy concerns and incorporates opposition demands, public skepticism about digital ID remains profound.

The near-50/50 split on a system specifically designed to be more privacy-protective than the first proposal shows:

Deep public ambivalence: Even in a wealthy, educated democracy with strong institutions, citizens are almost evenly divided on whether digital ID is desirable.

Government persistence: The state can iterate proposals until it gets approval. The first defeat didn’t end the campaign—it prompted refinement and re-submission.

Narrow margin for citizen control: If 50.4% is sufficient for approval, governments only need to convince a bare majority, not address all concerns.

The Lesson

Direct democracy provides leverage but not guarantees. Swiss citizens successfully forced major changes through the 2021 rejection. But the government’s ability to revise and re-submit means even successful resistance may be temporary unless sustained.

The 50.4% result shows how close even a “success” can be—and how easily it could have gone the other way.

What Can Be Done: A Roadmap for Action

The cases of Taiwan, Estonia, and Switzerland—combined with the harms documented in Parts 1-5—point to specific actions for different actors.

For Policymakers and Legislators

1. Enshrine the Right to Opt-Out and Alternative Access

All Digital ID legislation must include explicit, unambiguous right to opt-out without social or economic penalty. Legally mandate that essential public and private services remain fully accessible through secure, non-digital, non-biometric means.

The Australian model requiring alternatives for government services should be strengthened and extended to entire economy.

2. Prohibit Function Creep and Data Linkage

Laws must contain specific prohibitions against using Digital ID for purposes beyond voluntary identity verification. Explicit bans on:

* Using ID as gateway for exercising fundamental rights (free speech, social media access)

* Linking ID database to social scoring systems

* Blanket surveillance without individual warrants based on probable cause

3. Mandate Strict Judicial Oversight for Law Enforcement

Access to Digital ID ecosystem data by law enforcement or intelligence agencies must be prohibited except when authorized by specific, publicly issued warrant from independent judicial body, based on probable cause for serious crime.

System must include notification to individuals when data has been accessed (unless doing so would demonstrably compromise active investigation).

4. Establish Transparent Access Logs (Estonia Model)

Following Estonia’s example, require all Digital ID systems to provide citizens with complete, real-time access logs showing who accessed their data, when, and for what purpose.

Implement strong criminal and civil penalties for unauthorized access.

5. Create Independent, Empowered Oversight Bodies

Establish fully independent, well-resourced data protection authorities with power to:

* Conduct regular, intrusive audits of public and private entities

* Issue binding orders and impose significant financial penalties for non-compliance

* Investigate citizen complaints

* Publish transparency reports

6. Limit Biometric Collection and Mandate Protections

Restrict biometric data collection to absolute minimum necessary. Where collected, mandate:

* Encryption and decentralized storage

* Prohibition on use beyond identity verification without explicit, informed, revocable consent

* Regular security audits and mandatory breach disclosure

7. Require Security Standards for Onboarding

Following recommendations from European cybersecurity agencies (BSI, ANSSI), mandate most secure identity proofing methods available:

* Prefer chip-reading from passports over optical character recognition

* Rigorous testing against presentation attacks (deepfakes, masks) and injection attacks

* Regular security audits and penetration testing

* Public disclosure of security vulnerabilities

8. Prohibit CBDC Linkage Without Democratic Debate

Any proposal to link Digital ID with CBDC infrastructure must be subject to full democratic debate and approval with clear safeguards against:

* Programmable money restricting individual economic freedom

* Financial surveillance

* Ability to freeze assets without judicial process

For Civil Society, Human Rights, and Digital Rights Organizations

1. Launch Public Awareness Campaigns (Taiwan Model)

Educate public and policymakers about long-term risks:

* Symbiotic relationship between Digital ID and CBDCs

* Potential for social scoring infrastructure

* Surveillance capabilities

* Exclusion and digital divides

Shift narrative from “convenience” to critical examination of surveillance, control, and exclusion.

2. Support Strategic Litigation

Legal challenges are powerful tools for halting or reshaping intrusive systems. Taiwan’s successful campaign forced government pivot. India’s Supreme Court case imposed restrictions on Aadhaar despite upholding system.

Litigation should focus on:

* Challenging de facto mandatory nature of “voluntary” systems

* Inadequate legal frameworks for data protection

* Violations of privacy and other constitutional rights

* Exclusion of vulnerable populations

3. Document and Publicize Exclusion Cases

Systematically document instances where Digital ID leads to exclusion or harm:

* India’s authentication failures denying food rations

* Nigeria’s SIM blockade affecting millions

* Biometric failures excluding elderly and manual laborers

This on-the-ground evidence counters official “inclusion” narratives and demonstrates real-world harms.

4. Advocate for Privacy-Enhancing Technologies by Default

Push for mandatory inclusion of PETs in all Digital ID systems:

* Selective disclosure

* Data minimization

* Zero-knowledge proofs

* Unlinkable presentations

These must be legally required default settings, not optional features.

5. Build Cross-Border Coalitions

Global Digital ID rollout requires coordinated international advocacy. Share strategies, research, and legal precedents across jurisdictions. Hold international bodies like World Bank accountable for human rights implications of systems they fund.

6. Engage in Multi-Stakeholder Governance

Actively participate in:

* Technical standards development

* Policy consultations

* Pilot program oversight

Civil society’s technical engagement in Estonia’s development is credited with making it more rights-respecting.

7. Demand Inclusion-by-Design

Push for mandatory impact assessments before Digital ID rollout, specifically examining effects on:

* Elderly populations

* Rural communities

* People with disabilities

* Refugees and displaced persons

* Digitally illiterate

* Those lacking foundational documents

Binding requirements to address identified gaps before implementation.

For Technology Standards Bodies

1. Prioritize Privacy and User Control in Standards

Resist pressure from state and corporate actors to weaken privacy protections. Develop and promote open, interoperable standards for:

* Selective disclosure

* Decentralized identifiers (DIDs)

* Verifiable credentials

Make these baseline for any rights-respecting Digital ID.

2. Develop Robust Privacy Compliance Certification

Create rigorous certification programs auditing implementations for:

* Adherence to human rights principles

* Data minimization

* User consent

* Accessibility

* Security

3. Establish Security Standards for Biometric Onboarding

Develop and mandate comprehensive security standards addressing:

* Deepfake vulnerabilities

* Presentation attacks

* Injection attacks

* Other vulnerabilities identified by national cybersecurity agencies

4. Oppose Standardization of Surveillance Features

Actively refuse to standardize features designed primarily for mass surveillance or social control:

* Real-time tracking of verification events without user consent

* Universal, persistent identifiers facilitating cross-context data aggregation

* Centralized identity databases without strong access controls

5. Promote Interoperability Without Surveillance

Design standards enabling legitimate interoperability while incorporating technical protections against mass data aggregation and linkage across contexts without explicit user authorization for each specific purpose.

For International Development Organizations

1. Conduct Human Rights Impact Assessments

Before funding Digital ID programs, conduct rigorous, independent assessments examining risks of:

* Ethnic profiling (particularly in countries with histories of ethnic conflict)

* Political persecution

* Systematic exclusion

* Surveillance weaponization

2. Make Funding Conditional on Rights Safeguards

Condition development funding on implementation of:

* Strong data protection laws

* Independent oversight mechanisms

* Mandatory alternative access pathways

* Robust exclusion mitigation measures

* Transparent access logs

* Judicial oversight for law enforcement access

3. Prioritize Foundational Inclusion Over Digital Leapfrogging

In countries with large undocumented populations, prioritize:

* Civil registration and legal identity establishment

* Birth certificate programs

* Foundational document accessibility

* Digital literacy initiatives

Address underlying barriers before deploying biometric digital systems that may further marginalize those without documentation.

4. Monitor and Report on Exclusion

Establish mandatory, independent monitoring of:

* Exclusion rates

* Authentication failure rates by demographic group

* Negative impacts on vulnerable populations

* System-caused harms

Public reporting and binding remediation requirements.

5. Acknowledge Context Dependence

Recognize that Digital ID in countries with weak rule of law, histories of ethnic conflict, or authoritarian governance poses fundamentally different risks than in established democracies.

Adjust funding decisions, safeguard requirements, and monitoring intensity accordingly.

Don’t apply Estonia’s success story to Ethiopia’s conflict context.

The Global Trajectory

53% of humanity is now enrolled in some form of Digital ID system. The infrastructure is already in place.

The push will continue to accelerate, driven by:

* Governments seeking administrative control and efficiency

* Central banks aiming to retain monetary sovereignty through CBDCs

* International bodies promoting Digital Public Infrastructure

* Technology vendors profiting from system deployment

* Network effects creating pressure for universal adoption

The distinction between “Western Framework” and “Authoritarian Centralized” models may blur over time as:

* Function creep transforms voluntary systems into de facto mandatory

* CBDC integration makes Digital ID essential for economic participation

* Security pressures lead to expanded surveillance authorities

* Private sector co-option creates corporate scoring systems

But the outcome isn’t predetermined.

Taiwan proves resistance works. Estonia proves rights-respecting implementation is possible. Switzerland proves direct democracy provides leverage.

The infrastructure being built creates capability. Political struggle determines how that capability is used.

The Choice Ahead

For the 47% of humanity not yet enrolled in Digital ID systems, and for those already enrolled facing system expansions and new integration (particularly CBDC convergence), the critical period is now.

Once Digital ID becomes universal, once CBDC integration is complete, once social scoring infrastructure is activated, once surveillance systems are operational—the difficulty of resistance increases exponentially.

Systems are easier to shape before deployment than after. Architecture is easier to contest than operational infrastructure with network effects and institutional momentum.

The questions to ask:

* Does your country’s Digital ID proposal include right to opt-out with genuine alternative access?

* Are there transparent access logs showing who views your data?

* What judicial oversight governs law enforcement access?

* What prohibitions exist against function creep and social scoring?

* How are vulnerable populations protected from exclusion?

* What happens when CBDC integration begins?

* Who profits from the system’s deployment?

* What are the historical precedents for surveillance in your context?

The actions to take:

* Educate yourself on your country’s Digital ID program architecture and legal framework

* Join or support civil society organizations monitoring and contesting overreach

* Engage elected representatives with informed technical and rights-based concerns

* Document and publicize cases of exclusion and harm

* Demand transparency and democratic debate before deployment

* Build coalitions across issue areas (privacy, civil liberties, economic justice, disability rights)

* Support litigation challenging systems that violate rights

* Participate in public consultations and referendums

Taiwan won because citizens organized, experts engaged, and sustained pressure forced government retreat.

Estonia built better safeguards because civil society participated in design and maintains active oversight.

Switzerland forced government to address concerns through direct democratic engagement.

Resistance works. Oversight works. Democratic pressure works.

But only when exercised.

Conclusion: The Infrastructure and the Future

This six-part investigation has documented:

Part 1: The two models—Framework & Wallet vs. Centralized State—being implemented across 23 countries affecting 4.3 billion people

Part 2: The convergence with CBDCs making Digital ID the gateway to future economic participation

Part 3: The architecture for social scoring embedded in the system design

Part 4: The surveillance weaponization in Mexico, China, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Laos

Part 5: The exclusion created by systems promoted for “inclusion”—authentication failures, enrollment barriers, digital divides

Part 6: The resistance pathways shown by Taiwan, Estonia, and Switzerland

The global Digital ID infrastructure represents a fundamental transformation in the relationship between individual and state.

It creates unprecedented capability for:

* Surveillance and behavioral monitoring

* Social control and scoring

* Economic gatekeeping

* Identity-based exclusion

* Fine-grained regulation of civic participation

Whether this capability is used for convenience or control, empowerment or oppression, depends on political choices made now—in architecture design, legal frameworks, oversight mechanisms, and democratic engagement.

The infrastructure for 53% of humanity is already built.

The infrastructure for the remaining 47% is being built now.

The time for shaping these systems is narrowing.

But as Taiwan, Estonia, and Switzerland demonstrate: the outcome is not inevitable.

It depends on whether citizens demand rights-respecting design, whether civil society maintains vigilant oversight, and whether democratic institutions respond to informed public pressure.

The infrastructure is being built.

The question is who controls it.

And the answer depends on what we do next.

References

* “Inside Taiwan’s Push to Digitize National IDs,” Taiwan Business Topics analysis, published April 2025. Documents civil society opposition that forced government postponement of mandatory eID in 2021 and pivot to privacy-preserving Taiwan Digital Identity Wallet (TW DIW). Available at: https://topics.amcham.com.tw/2025/04/inside-taiwans-push-to-digitize-national-ids/

* “Taiwan hoping to launch digital identity wallet at year-end,” Focus Taiwan news reporting, September 2025. Updates on Ministry of Digital Affairs (MODA) development of TW DIW using decentralized identity standards (DID and Verifiable Credentials), expected launch end of 2025. Available at: https://focustaiwan.tw/sci-tech/202509280015

* Estonia e-Identity system comprehensive documentation, Estonian Information System Authority, 2002-2025. World’s longest-running national digital ID (launched 2002), featuring X-Road data exchange platform, citizen transparency logs, and legally binding digital signatures. Available at: https://www.id.ee/en/

* “Estonia’s Digital Identity: A Model for the World?”, various policy analyses and academic research, 2024-2025. Examines Estonia’s transparent access logs, decentralized architecture, and contextual factors (small population, high trust, strong democracy) affecting replicability.

* “Switzerland Approves State-Run Digital ID System Following Referendum,” EIG Law legal analysis, 2025. Documents September 28, 2025 referendum passing 50.4% in favor after 2021 referendum defeated private-sector model 64%. Available at: https://www.eiglaw.ch/insights/switzerland-approves-state-run-digital-id-system-following-referendum

* “A secure electronic identity for the digital world,” Swiss Post implementation overview, 2025. Details state-run e-ID system with decentralized data storage and minimal data disclosure by design. Available at: https://www.post.ch/en/business/a-z-of-subjects/industry-solutions/e-id

* Digital ID Act 2024 (Commonwealth of Australia), commenced November 30, 2024. Establishes federated digital identity framework with privacy protections including prohibitions on single identifiers, bans on marketing use of data, restrictions on biometric collection, and warrant-based law enforcement access provisions.

* Regulation (EU) 2024/1183 amending Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS 2.0), European Union, entered into force May 20, 2024. Mandates all 27 member states provide European Digital Identity Wallet (EUDI Wallet) by November 2026.

* “Digital Identity,” Electronic Frontier Foundation policy positions and advocacy materials, ongoing. Civil liberties organization’s comprehensive policy recommendations on Digital ID rights protections, privacy safeguards, and alternatives to mandatory biometric systems. Available at: https://www.eff.org/issues/digital-identity

* “Digital ID assessment: Law enforcement access,” Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) guidance, 2024. Details warrant requirements, judicial oversight provisions, and notification obligations for law enforcement access to Digital ID ecosystem data in Australia. Available at: https://www.oaic.gov.au/privacy/digital-id/law-enforcement-access

This concludes the 6-part investigation into global Digital Identity infrastructure.

The architecture is built. The choice of how it’s used remains ours—for now.

Act accordingly.

​

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit tatsuikeda.substack.com/subscribe