Hola Libertinus,

This week, we’re looking at two different kinds of risk—one economic, one existential—and what it means to manage uncertainty in an unpredictable world.

First up: Trump. Love him, hate him, or just trying to price in the chaos, his economic moves are a masterclass in uncertainty. West breaks down the trade-offs, from tariffs to Treasury yields, and whether Trump’s playing 4D chess—or just rolling the dice with the global economy.

Then there’s a different kind of risk: the people who promise to save us. Zach takes us inside Peter Thiel’s worldview, where the apocalypse is boring, the Antichrist is a smooth-talking bureaucrat, and the real threat isn’t destruction—it’s the “solution.” Because if history teaches us anything, it’s that the scariest words in the English language are still…

“I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

So grab a drink, settle in, and let’s connect some dots—because in a world of uncertainty, the biggest risk is assuming you have it all figured out.

🗞️ DISPATCHES

Trump Risk Tracking

The new Trump admin has come in real hot the past few weeks.

There's so much happening everyday it's hard to keep up with, but in broad strokes, I've been pleasantly surprised.

Elon has been given the authority to start in on the huge lift of dramatically reducing government expenditures.

Conceptually, I'm a big fan, but the facts about the situation are still unclear - there seems to be very little verification of many of his claims about reducing costs.

Also, there is some concern about DOGE just becoming a tool of cultural warfare rather than substantively reducing the deficit.

I will withhold judgement in either direction until verifiable data becomes more abundant, but I'm optimistic.

My biggest concerns with the new admin have been centered on 1) Trump's desire to limit independence of the Fed, and 2) his penchant to market tariffs as method of generating income.

Why have I been worried about these things? Because I want to grow my wealth.

I'm not a fan of the Federal Reserve, I don't even think it should exist, but assuming we're going to have a central bank I believe Jerome Powell has done a pretty incredible job managing the money supply.

He's successfully navigated geopolitical turmoil and COVID without things spiraling out of control.

Yeah, sure, inflation got a bit higher than I'm comfortable with, but understanding the true destructive capacity of hyper inflation and deflation, we made it out OK all things considered.

During the peak of inflation fears, I met and individual who was so firm in his conviction that hyper-inflation and the collapse of the US financial system were right around the corner that he was living off of credit cards under the belief all the debt would soon be inflated away.

I haven't seen him since.

But why would Trump want to influence the Fed?

For the same reason all national leaders want to - so he can drop rates, have asset valuations soar, and boost his approval rating.

Why is this a problem?

Because it would lead to unmitigated inflation that would have to be dealt with by whoever steps into office next.

Luckily, Trump has been unable to find a way to influence the Fed, and has instead turned his attention to keeping 10 year Treasury yields below 5%.

In the words of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent "He is not calling on the Fed to lower rates. He believes that if we ... deregulate the economy, if we get this tax bill done, if we get energy down, then rates will take care of themselves and the dollar will take care of itself."

This is great because it means that Trump wants to focus on setting up a situation for legitimate economic growth via deregulation and increased supply, and not just pumping assets via the money printer.

Crisis averted - this is probably the best outcome we could reasonably expect from a politician.

Now, onto tariffs.

From a purely economic perspective, tariffs have always been a bad idea, and they always will be.

When importers of goods are subjected to an arbitrary tax, they will pass that tax along to consumers in the form of price increases.

This means consumers have to pay more and markets are less competitive - not good.

In his first few weeks in office, Trump threatened tariffs against Colombia, Mexico, Canada, and China.

In response, these countries threatened retaliatory tariffs, but let's be honest, was anyone really scared by this?

What's interesting though is that Trump was using these tariffs as a negotiation tactic rather than as a long-standing policy; almost treating them like "sanctions-lite".

And it worked - Colombia, Mexico, and Canada all made concessions to Trump in the arena of border control and immigration policy, and the tariffs were either paused or lifted.

China is a bit more complicated, but Xi Jinping is in talks with Trump and it seems like something will get worked out.

Also, notably, tariffs against China were set at 10% while tariffs against Colombia, Mexico, and Canada were set at 25%.

All was good in the world - it seemed like even Trump had realized that broad, longstanding, tariffs would be bad for the economy and he would just use them a a negotiation tool moving forward, but then...

Steel and aluminum tariffs.

On February 10, 2025 Trump placed a 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imported to the US.

Again, from an economic perspective tariffs are always bad.

But, I appreciate that there are other concerns facing national leaders than just economic performance.

Domestic production of steel and aluminum is important for national security, which provides some justification for the tariffs.

It is a trade off though - we're sacrificing some economic efficiency for some national security.

Sure, people argue that domestic production of steel and aluminium will mean more jobs in the US; and while that may be true, it also means higher input costs leading to higher expenses for consumers.

Effectively, it is just redistributing wealth from domestic consumers to domestic producers.

Some people argue that we have to place tariffs on these goods to remain competitive because their production is being subsidized in other countries.

Think about that for a minute - other countries are paying money so the US can have cheaper steel and aluminum?

From an consumer's perspective, that sounds like a great thing.

Regardless of how much you value economic efficiency compared to national security, this newest set of tariffs begs the question "should we expect more broad, long-standing tariffs?"

I personally wouldn't want to make big bets in either direction.

I plan to manage my risks like I always do, via strong diversification in a balanced portfolio.

Sure, Trump's focus on deregulation could lead to a boom in economic prosperity where domestic stocks soar.

He could also introduce enough economic uncertainty into markets that things trade side-ways for extended periods.

Tariffs could dry up supply while demand soars and prices shoot through the roof.

Trump, even more so than most politicians, is hard to predict, so solid risk management is more important than ever. ~West

The Narrow Path Between the Apocalypse and the Coming of the Antichrist

Billionaire. Thinker.

Purveyor of the finest kept men.

There are many ways to describe Peter Thiel, but perhaps the most unexpected is that he believes we’re threading a razor-thin path between the apocalypse and the rise of the Antichrist.

Yes, that Antichrist.

The apocalypse is pretty banal: nuclear war, AI gone wild, environmental collapse. The usual suspects.

But the real danger, according to Thiel, isn’t annihilation. It’s the person who claims they can save us from it.

Thiel loves to reference 1 Thessalonians 5:3, when the Antichrist woos the masses with promises of “peace and safety.”

The Antichrist isn’t the destroyer; he’s the "fixer."

He’ll talk about stability, sustainability, and security.

He’ll promise to protect us from AI, climate change, pandemics, and “dangerous” ideas.

He’ll say things like, “We just need a little more cooperation and a little less freedom, for the sake of humanity.”

Sound familiar?

For Thiel, totalitarianism disguised as “a better society” is the real endgame.

A world ruled by the Antichrist?

It’s neat, orderly, and completely inescapable. An all-knowing, all-seeing system of control designed to keep humanity “safe.”

So what’s the first thing the Antichrist needs to crush to make it all work?

Freedom.

More on that in a moment.

To really understand where Thiel is coming from, you have to understand his intellectual mentor—René Girard.

Thiel didn’t just read Girard; he studied under him at Stanford and has spent the better part of his career applying Girardian concepts to everything from tech startups to geopolitics.

At its core, Girard’s “mimetic theory” argues that human beings don’t know what they want.

Instead, we copy the desires of others—which, inevitably, leads to conflict.

If two people (or groups, or nations) want the same thing, they’re going to fight over it.

And when the tension gets too high, society has a simple way of resolving it:

Find a scapegoat. Sacrifice the scapegoat. Call it justice. Move on.

This is how religions, cultures, and political orders have kept themselves intact for thousands of years: a common enemy, ritually murdered to ameliorate intra-group competition.

And what better enemy than the one thing standing in the way of blissful unity?

Freedom itself.

The Antichrist isn’t necessarily a single person—it’s a ideology of control. And one of its most effective modern-day manifestations?

Wokeness.

Wokeness—in its current, metastasized form—functions like a religion.

And while woke religiosity isn't a new idea, here’s where it gets interesting:

For Thiel, freedom is the ultimate scapegoat in the modern woke sacrificial cult.

Everything wrong with society—every injustice, every harm—can be traced back to one fundamental problem:

People are too free.

They think, speak, and act in ways that aren’t centrally controlled.

And if only we could fix that—regulate speech, regulate thought, regulate consumption, regulate everything—then we could finally have the perfect, oppression-free world.

This is why, to Thiel, woke ideology isn’t just a bunch of silly campus nonsense, it's a creeping form of totalitarianism.

The Antichrist won’t march in wearing jackboots.

He’ll arrive with DEI & ESG committees.

With speech codes and “harm reduction” policies.

With algorithmic censors that nudge, shadowban, and deplatform all the wrong ideas.

The woke religion convinces people that freedom is violence, so they beg for their own chains.

Speech that challenges progressive orthodoxy? Harmful.

Meritocracy? A tool of oppression.

Free markets? Inherently exploitative.

You can see how the same logic applies to climate change and the push for environmental “justice.”

People driving their own cars? Harmful.

Consuming meat? Violent.

Owning land, using resources, even choosing to have children? Selfish, destructive, unsustainable.

The answer, of course, is always the same: restrict the individual, expand centralized control.

If only we restricted people more—forced them to become entovegans, rationed their electricity, monitored their carbon footprints—then we could save the planet.

If only we could force people into a more sustainable way of life, then we could finally have climate justice.

And if someone asks why we’re giving up our freedoms, the answer will be simple:

Because freedom is dangerous.

In fact, freedom is violent.

It allows people to think and act outside the narrow boundaries of ideological orthodoxy, which is offensive, harmful, even oppressive to the victims—whether those victims are marginalized groups, or the planet itself.

And so, freedom must be sacrificed. For peace. For safety. For justice.

But here’s where it gets real dark:

The most effective authoritarianism doesn’t crush freedom—it convinces people to fear and reject it.

It makes them believe that the path to peace is through submission.

That self-censorship is a virtue.

That giving up their privacy is “responsible.”

And once that happens?

The Antichrist doesn’t need to take power. We’ll hand it over willingly.

So what’s Thiel’s biggest fear?

It’s that the threat of apocalypse will be used to justify a system of control so totalizing that we forget what freedom ever felt like.

We won’t need a brutal police state. We’ll become our own enforcers.

When they promise “peace and safety”… those chains won’t tighten themselves. ~Zack

That’s it for this week.

In the end, it always comes down to risk.

Trump’s economic moves may be bold or reckless—it depends on how well he plays the game. But if you want to navigate the chaos, you need to hedge your bets and prepare for volatility.

Thiel’s warning, on the other hand, isn’t about short-term market swings—it’s about the deeper human impulse to trade freedom for security. The greatest risks aren’t always the ones we fear most. And history suggests that when people are afraid enough, they don’t just accept control—they demand it.

So the real question isn’t whether the future will be chaotic. It will be.

The only question is: have you priced in the chaos—or will you get wiped out?

Sic semper debitoribus,
~ West & Zack

👍 Enjoy this email? Please consider moving it to your primary inbox, and if you’re really feeling generous, hit “reply” and let us know what you think. Even one word will suffice. These steps will ensure you actually get the newsletter and email providers like Gmail don’t relegate us to your spam folder.

First time reader? You can sign up right here.