Boyle argues SpaceX’s IPO was priced not for perfection but for “science fiction,” issued at Elon Musk’s dictated $135 a share — roughly 100 times sales versus Google’s ~8x and Facebook’s ~10x — despite the company burning about $5 billion a quarter, growing only ~15% a year, and already falling below its listing price to erase roughly $1 trillion in market cap. He contends the deal was engineered around forced index inclusion (NASDAQ 100 within 15 days, Russell 1000 within 5), a tiny ~5% float with under 1% actually trading, and analyst price targets of $300–$1,000 published just as DOGE gutted the SEC and the post-Enron “truth in analysis” rule was quietly repealed. Boyle frames all of this as institutional erosion turning the US into a “submerging market” where individuals like Musk and Trump grow strong as institutions weaken, and where “financial nihilism” pushes priced-out young people into prediction markets that are ~90% sports betting.
SpaceX’s 100x-sales valuation: Boyle calls the $135 price shockingly high for an unprofitable business burning ~$5 billion a quarter and growing only ~15% a year, invoking Scott McNealy’s old warning that even a 10x-sales stock would take a decade of zero-cost revenue to repay — SpaceX, he says, would take a century. He argues the sprawling TAM claims (enterprise AI via a ~3.5% market-share Grok, point-to-point rocket travel, Twitter replacing banks) exist only to justify a price otherwise impossible to support.
Forced index inclusion as an exit ramp: NASDAQ added SpaceX to the NASDAQ 100 within 15 days and FTSE Russell added it to the Russell 1000 within 5, waiving the usual one-year seasoning period; Boyle cites a Reuters report that Musk made the NASDAQ listing conditional on early inclusion. This created a guaranteed forced buyer (index funds), letting IPO holders offload at the inflated price, with firms like Millennium reportedly making billions on the trade.
Shrinking floats and crypto-style token games: Only ~5% of SpaceX was listed and, with key holders locked in, Boyle estimates under 1% actually trades — a setup he and a commenter compare directly to crypto, where a tiny float is issued, pumped, and sold into. He argues these practices, once confined to lawless crypto markets, have now gone mainstream in US equities.
Deregulation and the XAI roll-up: Every major bank issued price targets of $300 up to $1,000, timed near the inclusion date, which Boyle finds reminiscent of the Henry Blodget dot-com scandals — except the Sarbanes-Oxley “truth in analysis” rule was repealed ~6 months ago and DOGE has defunded the SEC’s fraud enforcement. He notes Musk bought Twitter plus Grok (XAI) for ~$250 billion and pinned SpaceX’s valuation on it, meaning “either those investors were ripped off or the new ones are being lied to.”
Institutional erosion and financial nihilism: Citing Manoj Pradhan’s line that “in emerging markets institutions are weak and individuals are strong,” Boyle warns the US is sliding that direction, tracing the trust collapse to the unfair 2008 bailouts that birthed Occupy, the Tea Party, and crypto. He ties the prediction-market boom (Polymarket, Kalshi — the latter oddly regulated by the CFTC as a “commodity”) to young people feeling priced out and betting to “10x or zero,” and flags the UAE parking money in Trump’s World Liberty Financial stablecoin ahead of semiconductor approvals.
Responding to a viewer who asks whether the US should “domesticate” cocaine production to “take advantage of the addiction,” Zeihan (calling the premise “dark”) argues it is agronomically impossible because coca is one of the least frost-tolerant plants on earth, demanding year-round subtropical-to-tropical heat, 1–2 meters of rain annually with no dry season, and acidic, well-drained soil — conditions met only in the Andes at ~3,000 feet or, if industrialized, tropical zones like Indonesia, whereas even Florida gets occasional frost that would kill the crop. He adds that every study he has seen shows any savings on law enforcement or gains in tax revenue would be wiped out by higher health-care costs and worker absenteeism, so there is no economic or environmental case. He closes with a dark aside that a destructive drug the US actually could produce domestically is fentanyl — makeable in a garage from precursors available at almost any chemical company in the world’s largest chemical-producing nation — before telling viewers not to do either.
The viewer’s premise: A Patreon supporter asks whether, since people will use cocaine anyway, the US should domesticate its production and profit from the addiction. Zeihan flags the idea as “dark” and reframes the response around practical and economic feasibility.
Coca’s finicky agronomy: The plant needs year-round tropical temperatures and dies completely from even a light frost, requires at least 1–2 meters of water a year with no dry season, yet also needs acidic, very well-drained soil so it isn’t waterlogged. These contradictory demands make it one of the hardest crops to site.
Where it can actually grow: The two viable options are the Andes at roughly 3,000 feet — low enough to avoid frost, steep enough to drain — or industrialized cultivation in flatter tropical zones like Indonesia with engineered drainage, ruling out dry-season regions like much of Brazil. The US has nothing suitable, since even Florida gets periodic frost and points north lack the water and reliability.
The economic case against: Zeihan says every study he has seen shows that whatever is gained from lower enforcement costs and higher tax income gets wiped out by higher health-care costs and higher worker absenteeism. On that basis he concludes there is no economic case and no environmental case — the simplest answer is not to use cocaine.
The fentanyl aside: If the goal is a domestically producible drug that destroys the body and mind, Zeihan says fentanyl fits: it is made from precursor materials available from almost any chemical company, the US is the world’s largest chemical producer, and it can be made in a garage. He immediately adds the caveat that people shouldn’t do fentanyl either.
Evan Rachel Wood alleges that Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner), whom she began dating at 18 while he was ~37 and married to Dita Von Teese, subjected her to years of coercive control, daily emotional abuse, and physical and sexual abuse, including her claim in the documentary Phoenix Rising that a music-video scene shot when she was 19 amounted to being “raped on camera” while she was given absinthe and left without a nudity clause. She describes cult-style manipulation tactics she says he studied from books on mind control and Scientology — the love-bombing “wounded artist” persona, “the mask” he put on for cameras, isolation from family, food deprivation, and a branding ritual in which she carved an “M” near her genitals — culminating in a night she says he tied her up, whipped her with a Holocaust-relic swastika whip, shocked the welts, and told her she had to be “willing to die” for him. Wood also indicts Hollywood’s sexualization of child actors and notes the LA DA declined to prosecute (citing statute of limitations and evidentiary hurdles), while she helped pass California’s Phoenix Act, which expanded the domestic-violence statute of limitations from 1–3 years to 7, and Manson ultimately dropped his own defamation suit against her.
The relationship and coercive control: Wood says the relationship began when she was 18 and Manson was ~37 and married, and describes ongoing surveillance (reading her phone and emails, assistants tailing her), sleep deprivation, threats against her family, and food control where she says she couldn’t eat unless he did. She cites the statistic that domestic-violence victims leave on average seven times before escaping, and says she developed complex PTSD, turning her LA home into a “fortress” with a steel vault door and safe room.
The music-video rape allegation: Wood alleges the scene, still on YouTube at the time of the interview, involved her being given absinthe at 19 with no nudity clause or SAG protections in place, and that a crew member later said Manson had asked for underwear that could be easily removed. She says the crew walked off set disturbed, and the host states on camera that he would contact YouTube to get it taken down.
Narcissism, “the mask,” and cult tactics: Wood says Manson kept books on cults, mind control, manipulation, and Scientology, and wooed her with an “Edward Scissorhands” wounded-artist persona amplified by his real grievance over being blamed for the Columbine shooting. She describes watching “the mask” physically go on before interviews and a branding ritual — he carved an “E” into his chest and coerced her into carving an “M” near her genitals, which she likens to the NXIVM branding under Keith Raniere.
The “most dangerous night”: Wood alleges Manson lured her over by threatening suicide, then tied her up while she was naked, showed her violent imagery, whipped her with a whip she says was a Holocaust relic bearing a swastika (noting she is Jewish), shocked the resulting welts with a “violet wand,” and framed it as a test of whether she was “willing to die” for him. She says she broke free only when pain made her jerk hard enough to snap the prayer kneeler.
Hollywood’s exploitation of child actors: Wood argues “human beings are the product and children are the product,” noting she was making out with a 23-year-old at 14 in the film Thirteen and had her first sex scene with Edward Norton at 16, that child-labor and age-of-consent norms are effectively suspended “as long as it’s on camera,” and that many child stars end up dead. She invokes the Coogan law, films like Cuties and Blue Is the Warmest Color, and argues no one is immune to having their will broken.
Cut through the clutter and mainstream media noise. Get free, concise dispatches on vital news, videos and opinions. Delivered to Your email inbox daily. You’ll never miss a critical story, guaranteed.