s2E21: Epstein's Technocratic Plot - from DNA Seeding to AI Godhood with Courtenay Turner

The trees are towers now Steel roots in the cloud Every branch is a wire tapping prayers Every shadow a mirror coded to follow You chase a signal Was it ever really there? Halfways, pulse like heartbeats, neon moss beneath my feet Breath fogs and captures shapes, algorithms stalk the street I reach for freedom's silhouette, she flickers then she fades Just a ghost in packet streams, rerouted through the raids Beacon burns in pixel mist, governments disguised as grace Quote protect and serve,

while they fingerprint your face I run through clearing after clearing Echoes promise almost home Only find another firewall Dressed up like overgrown stone Signalling the pines Calling me by name Through the static vines I run but never claim Freedom feels so close But slips like phantom lines I lost inside the cold. I'm searching through the night. Yeah. White noise profits, preaching love and selling silence in disguise. Dangled data driven halos

monetize our lullabies. They redraw the border late at night. Cartographers of fear turn the forest into ledger lines. Audit every year. Say, Come closer. The siren knows salvation in the feed Plugs a dream straight in the vein Patterns every need I follow voices, found the void There never was a guide Just my shadow running circles While the system watched me hide Scan, bytes, brand Every breadcrumb builds the cage Trace, route, no doubt Every search becomes the stage Clip, wings, clip, vote Clip the roots beneath the trees If the forest is the network Who decides what you can see? Signal in the palm Calling me by name Through the static lines I run but

never claim Freedom feels so close But slips like phantom light Maybe the girl was never there Only the one that keeps us living Maybe the map was always blank Only the running makes it vivid But I'll keep chasing through the pines Until the signal turns to dawn And

the forest learns my song Whose fingerprint is on the cold? Whose breath inside the mold? A billion dollar prayer answered in a petri dish. Tell me, is that heaven? Or just a hostage with a halo?

Blueprints signed by ghosts in suits, white coats, offshore loot, Epstein Island, Santa Fe, secret pay, recruit the youth. Game encoded mantra, chant of conscious evolution, metamask for technocrats who harvest data like communion. Noah's fear, surveillance, tell our dreams in server racks. Pierce and Teal Bank wrote a stack, AI gods on proxy tracks. They weaponize, redempt. Code of spirit, keep the shell, rewrite the meek to fit their ends Ghost in the genome, code on the throne Who won't tomorrow when the Pray in the data, kneel to the screen, seeds not our own? it's freedom

the devils they serve dopamine selling the sky on swapping our doubt for reserve anti-rivalrous sermons match the prophet in the plot while drones Lost in an NFT traded for service labs. Upload the conscience. Auction the flesh. Legislate death through a silicone mesh. Run that test. Bet your breath. Who's your guy when the cold out? Lift your chest up.

marketplace and the souls If the future's a aren't clearance, remember, a bargain with a ghost still costs you your breath.

I woke up to silence But the war had begun They froze my account Said I'd done something wrong Wasn't no crime Just living free Now the system Got a chain on me They took my savings My future, my land.

With a single cold line and a government hand. Said it was safety. Said it was green. But all I see is tyranny behind the screen. This ain't innovation. It's a trap in disguise. We watched all your lies. Genius ain't freedom. Creality ain't clear.

It's a cage they built while we cheered. I believed in the promise. But the same old swamp just changed its brand. He penned the front door, opened the back, signed the bills that launched a fire.

This ain't innovation It's a trap in disguise You'll own nothing Be watched all your life Genes ain't freedom It's a case they build while we chill Your gold, your guns, your voice,

your name They'll digitize it all then shift the blame Palantirizing AI chains Freedom dying slow in patriotic flames This ain't about safety It's control in disguise With your ID, your face, your tears, your time They wrapped it in stars, sold it with pride But freedom's bleeding out

From the inside DEFCON won And they call it peace But I still got breath I still believe We can break the code, escape the scheme Turn this nightmare back into a dream

Welcome back to The Aaron Day Show. This is season two, episode twenty one. We have a phenomenal guest tonight and a very timely topic. I've been looking forward to this for quite some time. In fact, I've been doing nothing but binge watching and reading all of her content for the last week in preparation of this since she published her article about Epstein. and transhumanism and so this will be coming up soon but this is really going to tie together a lot of the concepts that we've been discussing and she's a first-time guest I've been on her show a couple of times but I hope this is the first of many appearances because she has absolutely phenomenal content not only on

technocracy but also on what we can do to reclaim our free will which is in fact her focus as well so if you're following the show you know that's pretty much what I've been saying as well. So we'll get to that in a second. Just a few housekeeping things beforehand. I encourage everybody to check out last week's episode, which was an interview with Mike Adams. And we talked about AI and the fake manufactured division between the United States and China and went into a whole bunch of different topics there. Podcast ended up being like five and a half hours long, but the segment with Mike was only about an hour. So I encourage you to check that out. very relevant even to the

conversation that we're going to be having tonight and then the episode before that was about the genius and clarity act which is extremely important and just to set the stage here I I think I would I could argue pretty effectively that technocracy has accelerated by about five years since Trump won the election. And the biggest issue with this is not only that it's accelerated, but that most people are cheering it on. And so that episode goes into detail specifically on tokenization, not only with respect to money, but soon to be the tokenization of our stocks, bonds, commodities, and actually the tokenization of U.S. assets and making those available for sale.

Last week, I talked about the fact that I had done some interviews with some mainstream reporters. And one of the stories actually hit this week from the Daily Mail. I shared it earlier, but frankly, external links don't go very well. But actually, I was pretty pleased with the story. I spent about four hours with this reporter. And this was about Howard Lutnick and his involvement with... tether and the fact that essentially his firm is managing all of the treasuries that back tether which is now the largest stable coin and under the control of this genius act so he is singularly the probably the biggest beneficiary of the genius act but as it turns out I've been digging

deeper and deeper into this you know I think that there are ties and we'll talk about this tonight with howard lutnik and epstein and I think there's a lot more that goes on here but look at that article I encourage you to take a because it did touch on the epstein connection and some other things as well quick update on our political prisoners of war, crypto prisoners of war. There's no movement that I'm aware of in Roger Ver's case. He is still in Spain, still fighting extradition, and his hearing date has now been moved to October the By the time that happens, it'll be a year and a half into this entire process. And he's still facing one hundred nine years in prison.

So when people when Trump claims the war on crypto is over, frankly, I have no idea what he's talking about, particularly with respect to the people that have been the most influential. at promoting the initial use of cryptocurrency, which was a replacement for currency or central bank currency. central bank digital As we discussed last week, Ian Freeman lost his appeal. It took them six months, roughly, to come back with, you know, we're rejecting the entirety of the appeal. So his next stop is actually the U.S. Supreme Court. So he's in prison for eight years. and it is a manufactured case against him.

And actually, the charge that ended up sticking was a conspiracy to commit money laundering. And conspiracy, somebody actually told me, conspiracy is what they charge you with when you're not guilty of anything. It is kind of a catch-all that they can use federal government can use to work around the constitution and so sadly it's very effective because it's very nebulous so that's why ian is in prison and then sadly this week we learned that roman storm received a guilty verdict out of on one of the three charges and lo and behold it was a conspiracy to laundering or operating commit I believe money conspiracy yeah it involved not having a money transmitter license and

conspiracy so I think it was it was also the same charge essentially that ian uh So Roman's looking at five years, and I believe it's possible the government may be able to retry one of the charges because it was a unanimous verdict. I'll have to look into that. So anyway, that's the update there. Quick thing on events. Next event's coming up, the Brownstone Polyface Retreat. through the thirteenth that uh september the twelfth event is sold out so I guess there's not a lot of point of talking about that and the day after that I'll be at the peak prosperity annual summit here in new hampshire looking forward to that with chris martinson and then this just came out october the

thirty first through november the first the big annual brownstone event is going to be in salt lake city so I encourage you to if you're interested in that event which should be a phenomenal event Get your tickets now because these Brownstone events are selling out very quickly. So to set the stage for this, to recap, the whole focus of everything that I'm doing is around this idea that the biggest threat that we face right now, as frankly, as civilization, as humanity is technocracy versus freedom. and and what's at stake is actually free will itself I happen to think that tokenization is one of the primary battlefields for this which is why I talk so

much about cbdc's and tokenization and I do think that there are privacy-based solutions that we can start to develop parallel societies that are outside of this technocratic state which is why I'm interested in xeno and talk about that a lot but nevertheless Free will is what is at stake and technocracy is the big threat. And part of the problem with it is that it's so complex. There's so many people involved, so many organizations involved. And I think a lot of people just take the opinion that, well, people couldn't be that bad. I think that people underestimate the intentions of these people. and the organizational capabilities. And so we're going to talk about that tonight.

The three areas, again, that I'm focusing on are waking people up about technocracy, helping them reclaim free will, and then building alternative solutions. So with that said, I'm going to bring up Courtney Turner. How are you there? Hey, yes, I'm here. How are you? Great. So I'm so excited about this. And I, you know, I've been actually, it's been hard to put together, you know, usually I don't put a huge amount of preparation. into these podcasts I mean if somebody's written a book you know maybe I'll read the book but in this particular case based on the article that you published last week about epstein and this whole transhumanist agenda I have been doing nothing but

watching the podcasts and reading all of your stuff and then in preparing for this the most difficult part is where to begin if the audience doesn't know anything how do you even begin to tackle this issue without it one becoming an eighteen hour podcast or two becoming two in the weeds so I thought for this one what we do is make this one a little bit more higher level one maybe introduce who you are and then talk at a high level about technocracy and then just touch on the Epstein aspect of this is a good foundational piece that we can then hopefully build on in the future Sure. That sounds great to me. Yeah, I always say like with my podcast, I feel like it's kind of like college courses.

They build on each other. So if you jump in the middle, I mean, you can, but it's hard sometimes. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And by the way, I'm not wearing these glasses. this isn't an Elton John impersonation. So, you know, I'm doing this to block blue light. So I've really I've I've I've. I truly believe part of the technocratic plan is to use blue light in one way to hijack our dopamine and everything else. And I've been the kind of computers for forty five person that's been using years and it's messed up my circadian rhythm. So that's why the weird glasses. I get it. Yeah. It messes with me, too. My husband's been telling me I seem so rude because I yawn a lot when I'm on podcast.

I'm like, it's lights. They're messing with me. They're messing with all of us. Absolutely. Absolutely. So I guess the first question is, how did you get into this entire rabbit hole? This particular rabbit hole? Well, all of it. Technocracy. When were you awakened to this whole thing? The fact that things weren't quite what I thought they were. I lived out in Santa Monica, California during twenty twenty when everybody was locked down and I was born with kind of a unique set of circumstances. So I learned how to speak by reading lips. I work bilateral hearing aids now, but I actually didn't get hearing aids. I was almost six years old. I am also blind in one eye. I had heart surgery when I

was one years old. I was born with hypotonic limbs, fine graphic motor impairments, stunted growth. They told my mom that the best she could hope for me was to find a very nice institution for me to spend my life. Fortunately, they were wrong and my mom did not believe them. But in twenty twenty, when everybody's faces was covered, I found myself incredibly depressed and isolated and frustrated because I didn't realize how much all the coping mechanisms I spend my entire life developing were through nonverbal communication until those are completely stripped from me. And so I was also, I was coaching, I was coaching at a couple I was a CrossFit coach. of different gyms. I was also an aerial

acrobatic performer and I would do speeches mostly on like the philosophical aspect of movement. I talked about movement as a metaphor for life and using your physical training as a teacher to help you overcome adversity in other areas of life. And I would use the aerial acrobatic performances as a way of proving to people nobody thought it was. what was possible when And of course, in twenty twenty, I found myself jobless and all of my events were canceled. And now I couldn't talk to people or communicate with them because I had no clarity of speech. And of course, I was the problem because I had a naked face. So it was a very difficult time for me. Literally, I had a woman chase me down the

street wearing a mask and screaming at me. that I was a murderer. she was carrying a knife and But meanwhile, chasing after me. So this was not the best of times for me. But I had people talking about podcasts and some people who had heard about my story. This sounds really funny now, but somebody said to me, like, oh, you know, you need to be on Rogan. And my response was, well, why? What's a Rogan? Why do I need to be on it? I know who Joe Rogan is for the record now. But at the time, that's like how clueless I was. I had no clue what a podcast was. I had dated a guy who was a YouTuber. I didn't realize that this was a bigger sphere. I really was just clueless,

not paying attention, not awake. And then a bunch of people had suggested you should start a podcast, mostly because I was posting a lot of articles online, presenting information that I you know, just didn't think was controversial at all. But I learned very quickly that you could post an apple on social media and people will spend all day, all night arguing with you that it's really an orange. um so right that's kind of how that works uh so people said well you've got a lot of ideas and thoughts on things you know maybe you should start a podcast and I was like oh that sounds horrifying but I started listening to podcasts I thought oh well maybe I can actually have you know

one-sided conversations I could at least hear voices so I started listening to these podcasts and Then it dawned on me that it would be a way that I could have naked face conversations and naked face meaningful discourse might actually save my life at this time. So I made a commitment for six months and I asked a bunch of people, I told them I might not even air the show, that it was really just for me. I really was just desperate to be able to talk to people and people really enjoyed it. And it was really gratifying for me. And after six months, I heard some of those and then I decided to continue. And it was, I guess, my B kind of like, you know, I make this joke all the time

that it took me forever to Then I found the high speed find the train station. rail and I'm still scrambling to try and catch up. I didn't realize, you know, you don't know what you don't know. And I didn't realize just how asleep I was. The first few weeks of the podcast, I started out with a very kind of political mindset. And I kept saying, you know, if we could just get the right people in office, we could fix this whole mess. And my whole framework was that these Republicans were behaving as controlled opposition for the left. And what the heck was wrong with them? What's going on? And then after a few weeks, I was like, oh, They were designed to be no, no.

controlled opposition for the left. Ah, okay. I see what's happening now. And so I started going down some rabbit holes. And in that it was I started the podcast in twenty twenty, but it was I started in twenty twenty one. It was like a very beginning of the year. I think I aired the first one maybe in December of twenty twenty. But I at some point in like the end of twenty twenty, a friend of mine had sent me this video. And during that year, it was like midnight was when everybody had, you know, very pressing matters, you know. concerning the entire world that needed to be solved. So of course, I was not going to sleep. Not that I was going to solve the problem, but I wasn't going to sleep.

So I had a friend who sent me this video of Dr. John Coleman's Committee of Three Hundred speech. right? And it's actually still on YouTube, surprisingly enough. But he said, have you ever heard of this? Have you ever heard of him? And I said, no. And he said, then call me back. you have to watch this and So I watched it and then immediately started searching anything I could find on him. And I found that he's got their teen books and one of them was retailing for almost five thousand dollars. And I said, whoa, this was on Amazon. Now I think it's twenty five. I actually have the physical copy now because I was able to get it for I think two dollars extra twenty dollars,

for shipping or something much more affordable. But at the time, I was like, I said, oh, my gosh, what is it they don't want us to know? So I found a free copy online, which, you know, might have been edited version. I don't know. But I read it three times in a week because it was so riveting to me. And it just encapsulated so many of the industries that I had personally been immersed in and realizing that Tavistock had been such a key instrument in infiltrating those industries. So I was an actress and a producer. So, you know, and I learned about how they infiltrated through the culture and how, socially engineering masses you know, through culture, culture creation.

They were obviously involved in, you know, philosophical movements. There's a lot of intersectionality with the culture. Pun intended, but with the Frankfurt School, kind of codified intersectionality and identity politics. And of course, the field of psychology, you know, was very much their wheelhouse. And when I was in high school, I wrote two eighty five PhDs on dream analysis. And they were very much dissertations like I did field study the second semester presented before panels of neuropsychiatrists. And so I was very immersed in that field and in my academic career. And then in I also did a few independent studies in philosophy and I ended up majoring in philosophy.

So it was just kind of like very much a paradigm shift. Oh, my gosh. Everything I thought was so is just not so. And so it just sent me down. I spent the first two years of my podcast really, you know, covered a wide range of topics. Obviously, the whole medical freedom was very important to me, given my circumstances. But I also spent a lot of time researching Tavistock and social engineering and medicine. psychological warfare um and yeah so when you look at this trajectory of how things have been steered it just everything points to technocracy it's this is the ultimate control grid so and they a lot of the social engineering you know I had studied a lot of the new age movement which is

very intersected with the psychology also the whole humanist movement and positive psychology And that all paves the way, you know, you don't think they're related, but really it's like the left and right hand path. And they both, you know, it's a dialectical churn towards the Omega point. And it really steers into technocracy. They claim that they're not, but they are. Yep. Well, I mean, that actually brings up a good point. So you're writing a book. Am I correct? That the title is Hegel's dialectic as Gnostic machinery. Is that the title? It's Hale's Dialectic, a Gnostic Jacob's Ladder, and a Machinery of Control. Okay. Would you mind unpacking that? There's a lot just in the title itself,

but I can't wait for this. But there's a lot, just to give people a high-level overview, because I want to kind of frame your background and how you got into this. It'll make it a lot easier to understand, some of the material as we get I think, into deeper discussion. Sure. So, yeah, so the title alone, I know, it's a mouthful. But my thesis is that Theko was really speaking in Aesopian language. And one really great example of this is that he talks about how the Gevelte Weiss, which is the world spirit, is going to end in this radical freedom, which, of course, means that... You know, we're progressing towards the state, which is God. And of course, humans can have no actual

individual freedom without complete subservience to the state. So it's kind of all an oxymoron. But he says that it's rational. And obviously he's saying in German, but he says rational is speculative. And he says speculative is no different than mystical. So I think that's a big tell that he's speaking in a Safian language. And this is very much rational. a signal to the initiated. But I see it as he talked about, a lot of people are familiar with thesis, antithesis, synthesis, right? That's a very popularized kind of codification of Hegel's dialectic, except that Hegel actually never used those terms, not even the German equivalent. That was really Ficke's notion of the dialectic.

And it was actually Ficke's interpretation of Kant's dialectic. And Hegel rejected both Kant and Plato's notion of the dialectic because he felt it was too abstract, too intellectual. He wanted something that was really more of a methodology, something that could be utilized to help advance the world geist, the spirit towards the absolute, which is very similar to like Teilhard de Chardin's vision of the noosphere, the omega point. That's that world spirit. And I do think it's really understand the distinction important for people to because he uses the term freedom And you hear that from a lot of these, I would argue they're occultists, but people like Barbara Marks Hubbard,

who I talk about in this article, and she talks about radical freedom. But when they say freedom, they mean freedom as a radical end and it's a collective end. So it's not talking about free will. The free will is, you know, I believe a gift endowed by our creator, but it's not an end. It's a vehicle for virtue and morality. So it's not an end result. And this is individual. So when they say freedom, they're talking about more of like a Nietzschean will to power or a Crowleyan dilemma, you know, do without wilt type of radical freedom. And it's collective. So what Hegel actually said was he said abstract, negative, concrete. And the negative is this, in German, it's a term called Aufheben.

And Aufheben is this oxymoronic word that means to lift up and preserve while simultaneously canceling and tearing down. And so, you know, the Frankfurt School kind of ran with this and codified the notion of Aufhebende Kultur, which we are mostly familiar with now as cancel culture. So it's this idea, but that really gives you a good example, an essence of what it is, because it's this idea of something being hollowed out. But as it's hollowed out, it continues to spiral. Hegel talked about a spiral. So this spiral towards the omega point. And the way I see it is that it's an inversion. So It's an inversion of Jacob's Ladder, the biblical Jacob's Ladder. So this is because he

believes this notion of being like trapped because we don't have the gnosis. Right. So as you keep going up the rungs and I see Alf Haven as the rungs on this Jacob's Ladder that guide you towards the Pleroma. or, you know, the world geist, as he calls it. And it's this collective end. So each time you're going up the ladder, though, it's a synthesis, but it becomes more of a simulacra. You have the essences of each, but it's no longer authentic to what it was. And it's guiding towards, you know, it's being steered toward a very specific place. So I don't know if that simplifies it. Yeah. There's a lot in there. I'm actually looking forward to the book.

When do you think it will be published? I think we're going to have some time in September. I've gotten a lot of things along the way. So it hasn't been quite as quick as I thought it would be. I always take on these things and I'm like, oh, this is going to be really quick. And then it ends up being, you know, like a three-page thing that turns into basically a book. Yeah. I know the feeling. Every time I go to write an article, it ends up being five thousand plus words. I actually tasked myself with writing a five hundred word article once and it didn't work. This was supposed to be short and it's eighteen thousand words. I had somebody telling my algorithmic or Oracle one.

I think I sent you that. So a bunch of people asked me if I could make that available in print. And I was like, oh, So I started formatting it. I guess I could look into it. And it's a hundred and twenty pages in book format. I had no idea. I'm like, it's an article. Why do you need to print it out? Yeah. Sounds like you've got a whole series of books you could publish. So you have that. And then you also, last year you had a Cognitive Liberty Conference, which a friend of mine, Josh Stileman, attended and said it was absolutely fantastic. But I understand like a thousand people showed up for this. Is that right? I don't know. We couldn't fit a thousand people in the room.

It was actually, it was very small. But online we've had over a thousand. Okay. Online we've had, I think we've had a few thousand actually online. Yeah. So it was a very small space. So we couldn't fit that many people in the actual space, but we did have an online viewing. So, yeah. What was the genesis for that conference? Cause I love that concept. when Josh told me about it and I In fact, had another conference that I was speaking at, but this is actually right up, right up my alley. Because again, cognitive liberty and free will, which is, we're talking about which is the way out of this, but how did, how did that all come together? So when I very, I, and I really should go back

and watch my very first episode, but in my first episode, I talked about how, you know, there's this, like, basically I think the agenda is this, uh, It's like leading us towards a transhuman post. It's like a social engineering of the masses to steering us towards a transhuman leading to post-human world. And that what I thought was really a jeopardy was the free will of humanity. And I remember saying this on the very first podcast I did like that from the beginning. And when people would ask me, what's your podcast about? Because I talk about so many And I was like, different topics that it was really hard to distill it. I'm like, well, if I had to pick one thing, it's that I think we need

to preserve the free will of humanity. I mean, that sounds so crazy to say, but that's what I felt was in biggest danger and the thing we really needed to address. But in so much of my research, what kept coming up for me is this dialectical warfare. It's always, you know, turning, it's, you know, divide and conquer, turning people into as many factions as possible, warring factions as possible. And a lot of people don't understand the nature of dialectical warfare. Because as I just tried to explain, Hegel is a little verbose and complex. you know, And, you know, a lot of people haven't studied philosophy. So it's, I don't think that it's too complicated for people.

I just think that we're not trained enough. And it's an operating system, right? Philosophy is an operating system. So if you're trained on a That's how I think of it. Mac operating system, it seems easy once you learn it. But if you're a Windows person and you try to switch over to Mac, it looks like you're learning a new language because you're not in that operating system. But the thing about an operating system is it's also a container. So you really can't do much outside of that operating systems, particularly like Mac is a really good example of that. Windows, you have a little more leeway, you know, for people who are tech savvy. But you're inside that operating system.

So it's a container. And that's why it's so useful. And I, you know, so I kind of went back to my roots in philosophy because I was wondering, like, these people are just, you know, pontificating, coming up with ideas. Somebody's funding them. philosopher unless they've You don't know of a been promulgated. And so why are these people being promulgated? Why are these ideas being promulgated? So that's something, you know, I really went back and looked at. And this psychological warfare was just something that kept coming up. And I thought it was really important to be able to do something in a conference format, especially in person. I think those are important.

I had a large online audience as well, You know, yes, because not everybody can make it in person, in my case, in that particular context. conference, we actually had a small space, we wouldn't have even been able to fit that many people. But I do like the idea of, you know, bringing people together in person, I think that is really important. And to help people to break down these concepts, because this is, it's warfare. And I, you know, people argue that it's fifth generation warfare, sixth generation warfare. I think we're already in Because people often leave out a lot of these, uh, biological components and the cybernetic components. And I think that that's ramped up exponentially,

especially in the past few years. So the more that people can recognize it, I think the more ammunition we have to be able to defend it and defend our cognitive liberty, because that's really what they're trying to hack If they can hack our own mental faculties, our own critical thinking skills, which they've done a fantastic job of dumbing down the education system and brainwashing and indoctrinating people and breeding people for compliance and obedience rather than actually developing critical thinking skills. then they really have complete control. They can brainwash us, which I think is what they've been doing. So that really was the genesis of it. I was just hoping that the

more aware people are, I mean, the first step to defeating a threat is to recognize it's there. And if people know that they're being intentionally brainwashed, then maybe we can start to do something about it. Okay. Well, I hope you have another one of those conferences because this is an area that I call it autonomy reboot in my kind of three pillars. But it's something that I've spent a lot of time thinking about, which is that the issue is that first and foremost, people don't even realize that they've been programmed. I mean, we've all been programmed in one way or another. either when we were young, before we were seven, anything that came in was kind of put into our subconscious.

And then we have government schools, then we have media, now we have tech and people aren't even aware that it's going on at all. There's not even, that recognition and so I've thought about actually putting together a website where it's walking through all of the different institutions and organizations that have been programming us just as a way to make people aware but then I've spent a lot of time recently thinking about this idea of informed consent and because I'll tell you it's interesting we we sign all of these click wrap agreements for everything now actually it's not even just computer software it used to be okay you had a microsoft license or whatever but now it's a

rental car agreement now it's your contract for your stock broker right average person signs a basically everything the hundred and fifty of these a year and of course no one reads it because You couldn't. It would actually take an hour a day, three hundred and sixty five days a year if you would actually go through that process. And by the way, it doesn't even matter because you can't do anything about it. There's no ability if you don't like it. your only options are to not sign it. I mean, But all of the agreements have what's called boilerplate language. So you're going to end up getting the same. It's not like the Bank of America agreement is different than the JPMorgan Chase.

It's the same basic term. So I've thought, well, first, if we can make people aware of how they've been programmed, but then secondly, I want to figure out a way to visualize without having to be a lawyer, just how many of our rights we've given away and to make it something very easy to show people what's already happened because I would argue we're already ninety percent in the digital prison and then it gets that now we're starting to talk about free will is it actually really consent it's technically legal right because we sign these things but this seems kind of like a bit of a cheat if we've indoctrinated everyone to just blindly sign these things with the understanding that they

can't do anything about it anyway like I think that there's a really interesting question about about whether people have actually given their consent. I think that's totally valid. conditioning us for the smart contracts. And I think it's I think that's really what it's all about. Because these things keep upgrading, right? And there's always these new additions to it that very few people actually read them, as you said, because you couldn't, I mean, the amount of time that it would take would be ridiculous, you would be spending all day reading these contracts. there are people who do go But people, through and they'll find like the new line, like, oh, now this is giving away your address.

Or now like when you on the various apps, right? So I think that is kind of preparing us for the smart contracts. I think it's also a way that they can kind of use your property rights against you because you're essentially entering into a contract about ownership, but you're giving up all your ownership. And most people don't realize that because they think that they have ownership, right? They think they own whatever content, they own their equipment that they're operating through. They own the stock portfolio. It's a whole nother conversation, you know, how much they don't necessarily own. But they have this perception of ownership. they're actually the product But really,

more than they're the owner of anything. I think a lot of it is, again, programming. It's not only are they, you know, stripping us of our liberties as they update all of these contracts. They are. But they're also conditioning us, I think, as you said, very much so. To own nothing and be happy. Well, yeah. Well, so that's part of what I want to do I don't know. with this. It may be a website, but I want to actually go through to be able to show the average person that, you know, you'll own nothing, right? You won't be happy, but you'll own nothing. You already don't own anything. You're already, you're already ninety percent of the way. You've already given this up.

You already gave away your voting rights to BlackRock and Vanguard. And if there's a financial collapse, you're actually going to lose your financial stake in these financial instruments as well. That's already been done legally. now what's happening through tokenization through things like the genius act and the clarity act is as you said smart contracts plus centrally controlled tokens they're going to be able to you know within one crisis basically take everybody's you know assets and and then put in place a new system the infrastructure has already been put in place the legal stuff has already been done I would argue for most of what people think they own. And now it's moving into the

technical implementation phase and people are clueless about. I agree. I think it's really scary. They definitely are moving it so that I think the only way that we'll own nothing and we'll be happy will be if we're all drugged into loving our servitude and Huxley's Brave New World. I'm not sure about the happy part. Otherwise, But I think we're, yeah, it's like ninety five percent there on the you don't own anything. But it's the illusion of ownership. I think that's the thing that's so showing people how little they already. You know, one of the things I bring up all the time is a property that like a land. Unless you have a land patent, Right. you have to pay taxes.

So essentially you rent your your property from the government. I mean, that's not ownership. It bothers me so much. Like just to wrap my head around that, it like really bothers me because people think they own it. But what happens if you default on your taxes, your property taxes? The government seizes it. So you're renting it from the government, which is illegal, right? It's unconstitutional. But somehow it's a game that is completely rigged and that's what they play anyway. They get away with it. Oh, yeah, no, they've gotten away from it. I argue we lost the Constitution I mean, probably before nine eleven, but definitely, definitely at nine eleven. So you went through you went

through this and I know we're we're already kind of getting into time, but it's OK to lay the groundwork here. So Tavistock was really it sounds like your first big foray into all of this. And if you wouldn't mind, because what I've found is a lot of people don't know what Tavistock is. Could you give just a really quick overview of Tavistock and just maybe describe some of the incredible social engineering that they've been involved with that people might not be aware of? So there was the British War Sure. Propaganda Bureau, also known as the Wellington House. And colloquially, it was called the Lie Factory. And this was a during the First World War was to create a lot of the

propaganda necessary to breed the acquiescence from both the British people and the American populace to engage in what they called the Great War at the time. And they had at that very first meeting, they had something like twenty five very famous literary authors. I was very upset to learn that Kipling was part of this. He didn't make it to the first meeting, but he was part of the pamphlets that they did until nineteen thirty five. They kept it secret, actually. But the poem, If, is still to this day my favorite poem. even though he was a propaganda ad. I stand by it, I read that at my dad's funeral. Did you? Wow. Yeah. I'm sorry for your loss, but yeah.

Oh, it was like, you know, thirteen years ago now. But still, now, you know, it's bad news that Kipling's on the list. I know. That's how I felt. I mean, it was my favorite poem. I actually had a classmate from elementary school reach out to me a few years ago and say, I read this to my daughter. Like, I remembered you reading it in, you know, maybe third or fourth grade or whatever it was. it was like my all time favorite. So, yeah, So I I'm still I'm not giving that up. But anyway, so there's a lot of evidence. certainly there was a lot of You know, overlap in the players that went on to the Tavistock clinic. You know, it's not like a smoking gun, but it looks very much like

the British War Propaganda Bureau kind of seeded this Tavistock Clinic. The Tavistock Clinic opened in nineteen twenty and it was around the auspices that, you know, during the First World War, there was all these post-traumatic stress that the soldiers were incurring. They called it shell shock therapy at the time. And so they created an infrastructure to do all of this testing and research around shell shock and devising therapeutic treatment. The person who donated, it was in the Tavistock Square, but the person who actually donated the building was the Eleventh Duke of Bedford. Herbert William Russell, I think that was his name, but he was related to Russell of Russell and Taft

who created the skull and bones and Taft was related to our president Taft. So just to give you a little sense of kind of some of the connections that were involved. And they were, these were people like Edward Bernays, certainly Sigmund Freud, a lot of you know the whole idea of propaganda manufacturing consent right that's what polling was all about uh we had kurt lewin he was known as a frankfurt school refugee he created the concept of change agents he also created sensitivity training which the the national training labs which opened posthumously. It was after his death, but it was he kind of spearheaded that. And it was in nineteen forty seven.

Their manual actually admits the sensitivity training is brainwashing. And then again, in nineteen seventy four, the CIA had the documents saying sensitivity training is brainwashing. So he created this concept of sensitivity training. And then we've got people like John Rawling Reese who create the shaping psychiatry by war. So World War II, we get this injection of funds for the, you've got the clinic, which is mostly focused on the individual and group therapy. And then we've got, and of course, because everybody's so traumatized from the first world war. So now every, you know, we have to treat the patients, but essentially they were figuring out, they're calculating the

breaking points so they can figure out how to, You weaponize them. That's that's kind of what it looks like. And then we've got World War Two, where this is when they structured it was actually called Operation Phoenix and they gutted everything to restructure. This was based on the war office selection boards that were working in conjunction with the British military. And it was Wilford Byen. and Eric Trist, who had come up with these concepts of creating leaders, leaderless leaders was what Byron called them. But these would be leaders, essentially change agents, that could be utilized as military leaders, assets, so forth. And these testing protocols that they came up with were

then utilized for Operation Phoenix when they got an injection of funds from the Rockefellers to create the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in nineteen forty seven. They got the funds in nineteen forty six. They opened up in nineteen forty seven. And this now with the focus on a more broad scale. So now after World War Two, out of the ashes of World War Two, the phoenix rises and now everybody's a patient. So kind of they justified, you know, doing mass scale testing on, you know, everybody because everybody's traumatized. And they were very involved in like the, the sixties counterculture movement. Alan Trist, who is Eric's son was actually the producer for the Grateful Dead.

the Gregory Basin who was You know, involved in all those LSD experiments was working alongside Artie Lang, who was a Tavistock psychologist. So you've got all of these, they had, they opened up the, the, A.K. Rice Institute in the United States in nineteen fifty seven. That was based on the work of Wilford Byen, who was doing some really crazy kind of research with the Attachment Studies, along with Bowlby, they were also doing, his leaderless groups concepts was like, he had two. One was the workplace group, which was kind of more normal, collaborative, kind of working. And then the other was the basic assumptions group,

which essentially is where everybody becomes a hive mind. And there is no, you know, individual in the product. But the Institute was very focused on like corporate culture. They created human resources. Of course, Edward Bernays earlier created PR, although I would argue Willie Munzenberg was largely responsible for that. But a lot of people aren't very familiar with Wooly. And so the Institute is still going today. They have their Least Sister Conference every year. And if you go to their website, they say it's an awakening organization and Gnostic Reticulus, now is your time. We are recruiting you and they're going to teach you all about praxis. And they have this on their website.

And they do their group dynamics. But the group dynamics, of course, this was also tied in with the human potential movement. Esalen, right, all of their, the EST workshops were a spinoff of this, which is essentially just like the group dynamics or sensitivity training on steroids. But Esalen, of course, they were tying in drugs with all of that as well. I don't know if that gives you a little, there's so much to it, but that's a quick, not so quick maybe, but an overview. Well, no, I mean, hours and hours on this, I know we could talk for but what I find is, you know, if you're listening to this, people probably haven't heard of Tavistock. And so you should, I would actually go to

Courtney's sub stack, which I've got a banner running at the bottom of the page and, and check out her work there and actually dig into this because most of the cultural movements, you know, well, I guess since, you know, world war one had been manufactured and, and, And we're talking about the Beatles. We're talking about infiltration of movements, things like MKUltra. And by the way, Project Mockingbird, none of it stopped. So even to the extent that some of the information was exposed, maybe through congressional hearings or some kind of right-to-know request, The funding never stopped and they never even claimed And so imagine with all of that it stopped. the powerful techniques and

the infiltration that Courtney just mentioned, imagine what's happened if you increase your budget and now you add technology. Now you add the internet. Now you add AI. Now you add algorithms. And it's a frightening thought. And again, we're well along the way in a digital prison, and we don't even realize it, nor do we understand the roots. And it's very difficult to get comfortable with the fact that there are people that would actually do these things. I think that's probably the biggest challenge that I've found for people is that they want to believe. And you know what? It makes sense as a decent human being that you would want to believe in, you know, the best of humanity and

the best in other people. And it's hard to, it's hard to imagine that you have people that would use, you know, something like a war and shell shock as a justification to begin doing experimentation and on everyone by the way that reminds me george carlin did a really good skit kind of talks about the sensitivity trait he did a whole rant on why is it now called post-traumatic stress disorder instead of shell shock it just is kind of a whole interesting thing about how we've morphed language to kind of move away from what's actually going on but that's uh neither here nor there master of it if anybody just wants a little fun experiment go look at dsm-one and look at dsm-five they are not the

same at all and most of it has been uh changed for legal purposes and for I manipulative purposes much would argue very more so than really because they've discovered new uh things about human nature I I haven't seen that all these diagnoses have left had led us to a much healthier mentally sound population so well my understanding is the dsm is like there's no biological marker for for almost all of the conditions that are outlined there and that these conditions are determined by a board of psychologists and psychiatrists that Magically, all of the solutions are that you have to go see a psychologist or a psychiatrist for X number of visits, right?

It's actually a pretty horrifying proposition, the whole mental health field. And I know somebody that I'm close to is like, thinks Freud is a hero. And I'm like, Freud is not a hero. Look at Freud's background. It's not a- This is like a Tantra guy who like very into Tantra. occult. He was obsessed with cocaine, themselves and his patients. experimenting with I mean, really the whole genesis of the fields of psychology, I know that this will upset people. I'm not saying that everybody in it is a bad person. There are lots of wonderful people who are really trying to help others, but the genesis of the field is literally like occultism. It's like it stems from mesmerism.

It's trying to manipulate other people. Jung was a Mithrian. He dreamt, he had these visions that he was the leo competus. I don't know how you say it, but the lion godhead and that represents Satan. And he would talk about the quaternity and the fourth godhead is Satan. And he would envision that he was this lion godhead and that he so he himself became and he would say that it wasn't a dream, like this was real. I mean, he was and he was a Mithrian. That's not compatible with, you know, I don't know what most people would think of as a good doing good. So, yeah, it's a myth. So how did so how did you Very, very true. get into technocracy? How did when did you learn about the kind of the

formal technocracy movement in all of this? So really early on, like I said, my first podcast, I was talking about how there was a transhuman agenda. So at the time when, you know, this was a twenty twenty, twenty twenty one and everybody's talking about like the woke movement and the transgender movement. And I had pretty much refused to getting embroiled in it because it felt like dialectical theater, to be really honest. And the big indication to me was the intellectual dark web. Everybody kept, I mean, even on Wikipedia today, like you look at it, they say they're right wingers. who in the intellectual dark And I'm like, web is a right winger? I mean, maybe you could say Ben Shapiro,

but even he's a neocon in my book. not really like conservative. And, So I was like, this is ludicrous just because they're arguing that a man's a man, a woman's a woman. This does not make somebody politically right wing, like conservative, certainly not. This is just basic biology and we shouldn't be arguing about it. But I could see the dialectic that it created. And of course, this whole transgender movement, I'm not saying that it's not terrible what they're doing to children. I think it's mutilation. I mean, I think it's truly evil, honestly. But to me, it looked like this was really about a bigger agenda of transhumanism. So that's when I really started diving into what is

this transhuman agenda and where does this stem from? And when you start diving into that, you start seeing all this like, I mean, it's stuff that sounds like dystopian science fiction, and I get a lot of flack when I talk about it, but the research is there. there are universities all over the I mean, world that have a whole generation of people that are learning synthetic biology, that are learning the Internet of Nanobio thing. And I'm not privy to declassified documents. I'm sorry, to classified documents. I can only read the declassified and public research. So I don't know exactly where they are with all this technology. But the fact that they're training this many students

across the world indicates to me this is at least something they're very invested in bringing to fruition. So when you start looking at that, there's such an intersectionality, right? You can't really extricate transhumanism and technocracy. They're very intertwined. So I started to look at what the infrastructure was that they're trying to create. And a lot of it did look create a digital control grid for like they're trying to a virtual reality I call the technological monetization of the eschaton um you know that I think they're trying to create a simulacra here on earth uh that to them is a heaven on earth to me it's more like a hell on earth uh probably a dystopia I don't I don't

think this is going to be too uh pleasant for most of us but it's a complete fabrication they want to terraform everything And part of the way to do that is creating an infrastructure where they completely surveil, where they data mine everything they possibly can. And they use that, use cybernetic feedback loops. And that was another part of it. you can't really study all of the I mean, Tavistock, MKUltra and, you know, not touch on like the Macy conferences and cybernetics. And so that kind of leads you into where we are now with all of these cybernetic feedback loops. And again, A lot of that, I think I agree with you. The tokenization is kind of once that's in place there,

they have complete control. They can, you know, surveil anything they want, but they can also program really almost anything. So, yeah, I don't think it was like all at once kind of thing. There wasn't a, you know, it wasn't like my Tavistock moment. That was a very big like light bulb moment for me. The technocracy stuff was really just because I realized there was a huge transhuman agenda. And so I started looking into, well, how are they going to achieve that? Yeah. So I had my path to this was I saw some of my friends were being targeted in the intersection of crypto and liberty. And I realized it was because they wanted to shut off alternatives to push CBDCs.

And so I just kept on pushing. Okay. who's behind cbdc's and who's behind this and I just kept on asking the question over and over and over again because it's not you know it wasn't president biden who's behind cbdc's it's all of a sudden the hundred and thirty four countries all realized you know there over the world and then I really is a they right I mean people argue about who the they is but then I you know I got to you know okay the Trilateral Commission and the WEF and everything else and I actually reached out to Patrick Wood and you and I are going to be doing a panel with Patrick here soon uh this month which yeah which he's he's awesome and I can't wait for it for the for that

podcast but I actually contacted him as I was working on my book I said hey you know do you know who's on the Trilateral Commission I just contacted him he knows he knows And he does. He's been tracking this for forty years. So he sent me a PDF document with all of the current members of the Trilateral Commission in North America, Europe and Asia. And so I just kept on digging back and back and back. And, you know, do we know all of the answers? We don't know all of the answers, but actually to lead into kind of what I've been doing since I read your article is. I'm just going to pop this up here real quick. If you haven't already, this is a must read article. This is on Courtney's sub stack.

It's the Epstein transhumanist conspiracy. this is like eighteen And as she said, thousand or whatever. It's a huge it's a huge article. And the article might be a two thousand words, but yeah. Yeah, it's massive and it's incredibly well-researched. it has me going down all kinds And again, So I've been doing nothing of rabbit holes. but reading your stuff and then going down and researching and cross-referencing other things. And so to really try to peel back the onion and find out what all this is about. So I'm not going to go through, obviously, all the whole article because that wouldn't even be possible. But what I wanted to do was maybe start this by framing this as,

So Epstein is a big deal for reasons that I think people don't understand. I think people look at him as, yes, he's a horrible person and he's involved in this child trafficking, whatever you want to call it, blackmail operation. But the bigger question is, why is he doing this? And where did he come from and who's pulling the strings? Because I don't think Epstein is not the mastermind of this. Epstein was kind of a, of a front person. Yeah. But he's connected to things that people are not aware of. And there are things that push the big major pieces of the technocracy agenda and the transhumanist agenda together.

So I don't know if this is a good question to ask or not, but who do you think is behind Epstein? And I'll share some of my thoughts just based on some of the research that I've done. But who do you think is ultimately driving this whole thing? It's a great question. I don't necessarily think it's a one person. There's all this speculation about the intelligence community and his ties. And I do think he has intelligence ties. And when you start looking into the intelligence community, really, like, I think that they're They're kind of a mafia is kind of how I look at them. My friend Matthew Crawford has a great slogan for it, an acronym. He calls it MOBS,

the Military Occult Banking Syndicate. And I kind of think that encapsulates it quite well, actually. But I do think that there are, so when you're talking about the military industrial complex, there's obviously it's very expensive to do a lot of the things they do. So there's a lot of ties to the central banks, certainly like the banks of international settlements. We start going down that rabbit hole. You start finding there's, you know, these very powerful families. And so it's I don't see things. I do think there is a quote unquote they. But I don't think that they is as simple as people would like it to be. people I make the joke that the You know, only game people learn how

to play when they were growing up is pin the tail on the donkey. It's like, you know, if only life and the world were that simple, like there's the enemy, go get them, you know, just like shoot the dart and that's it. I don't think things work quite that way. And if you think about the mafia, I think it's a really good analogy because, you know, The mafioso, right, the godfather of the mafia doesn't do his own bidding. He's got people, he's got hitmen doing his dirty work for him. And that's kind of what happens. And they have rings on rings structure. So it is a web. It's a very intricate web. So I know this is a long winded way of saying it, but I do feel like there's, you know,

that there's this kind of consortium between the banks, the intelligence community, these very powerful, wealthy families. like in my Phoenix Conspiracy article, You know, I made Peter Thiel kind of the grandmaster architect. But of course, I don't think he's the head puppet master. He's only a billionaire after all. I mean, I don't have billions of dollars. That's a lot of money to me. But to a trillionaire, it's not, you know. So I think the trillionaires are probably pulling more of the shots than he is. But yeah. Yeah, all that to say, I feel like there is also just kind of a shared worldview. I do think there's a lot of these families subscribe to kind of these ancient mystery cults.

And I think that worldview is very much pervasive throughout. So, yeah, but I don't know. I'd love to hear your thoughts. Yeah. Well, the one thing that I've found, I don't, there's not a, it's the same thing. It's a, it's a network of people, but it certainly predates Peter Thiel. So there's a, there's a kind of a new guard that's involved in pushing this, but, but actually it's the same old guard that has been pushing it for, for decades going all the way back to the trilateral commission. And, and where, you know, well, Right. which it predates, yeah, you have technocracy ink even before that, but you have kind of the modern day but, version of this. What I found is,

interesting about Epstein is, and again, I'm just saying this, I'm sure you know all of this, but I think a lot of people don't know this. So Epstein started out as a math professor. And so how did he end up in this situation? What's really funny about this. So Epstein was a college Okay. dropout hired by Bill Barr. Donald Barr is a Sorry, yeah, Donald Barr, Bill Barr's father. And he was hired at Dalton High School to teach math and physics. This is a college dropout. And then he then Donald Barr wrote this book is called Space Relations. And it's all it's like the aliens come and traffic the humans. And it's almost like Epstein and Ghislaine, but they're aliens, right?

And then he sets Epstein up with this like a wealth fund. I don't know if it's a hedge fund or, but some sort of a management fund. And he only had like millionaires and above like starting out. So yeah, there, there's that. he ended up at Bear Stearns. Yeah, you know, And so it's just it's this weird thing that doesn't make any sense based on his background. It's just like, OK, this guy pops in out of nowhere. But what I found is so Ghislaine Maxwell's father, Robert Maxwell, has all of these ties to two intelligence agencies, to Mossad, to MI-Five, MI-Six, and was actually heavily involved in operating software companies that sold software to China. it's actually a pretty interesting story.

Like, background on maxwell himself and so he also had a pergamon press right the publishing company and pergamon is a seat in uh like in hell that's what I mean so yeah yeah well it's it's like the the peer of satan yeah Wow. Well, yeah. Okay. So that gives you some kind of indication. So the Maxwell thing. So Maxwell has a lot more information than anybody can even possibly imagine about everything that's going on. And not to go off on a whole bunch of different directions, but she was one of the most prolific posters on Reddit. I think she may be tied to like a billion dollar Bitcoin transaction. There's a whole backstory there.

But when you dig into epstein okay there's what people see publicly but epstein was on the board of the trilateral commission at some point he was on the board of the council what I put that in my article that trial yep and he was on the he was on the board of board of the council on foreign relations and he had all of these other ties he's even tied to howard lutnik I actually think there's a whole interesting dynamic here with Tether and Brock Pierce. And there are ties with Epstein and Peter Thiel. So this guy was all over the place. But again, he's kind of like the money manager. one thing that I found interesting I mean, researching this is that

he was giving crypto advice to Brock Pierce, which makes no sense because Brock Pierce was involved in crypto long before Jeffrey, like Jeffrey Epstein was not a known player. Right. In cryptocurrency. Brock Pierce was set up from Bannon. I mean, he was like, he was a child actor. He was really, really young when they had him. Like he was the, the like Bitcoin prodigy. He was really young. And then Bannon ended up running the company. He handed it over to Bannon. Bannon, of course, has the Office of Naval Research ties. And then, of course, Brock becomes a big crypto guy and sets up crypto space in Puerto Rico. where there is that whole

Roosevelt naval base there. I don't know. very interesting ties there. There's some very, But now Brock is also involved in this whole United Independence movement. So that's also really interesting, right? He was a huge funder in that movement with Christopher Life. And they're now doing their Operation Phoenix, where they're going to flood Congress in twenty twenty six with, quote unquote, independence. But I really think that they're using third way politic to usher in the technocracy. Yeah, I agree with that. And he was also heavily involved. And in fact, you can see what's going on. So Brock was one of the first investors in Tether. So this is why when I bring up, so this gets wild,

but basically you have Howard Lutnick, whose firm is now managing all of the treasuries for Tether. And that relationship went back to twenty seventeen. And you also have a weird situation where Peter Thiel had invested in Cantor Fitzgerald, Lutnik's company. And you have all of this overlap with Brock Pierce attending Epstein events. I mean, it's a really interesting... intersection of people I actually had an experience with with brock pierce where I my first tech company that I started I was about to take public and we had this fancy you know boutique investment bank called lazard frere in new york uh that was working with us and they'd agreed to take us public

and we were drafting all the documents and it got cancelled because we would have been the second internet ipo they ever did but brock pierce's company den digital entertainment network had this whole massive underage sex scandal people had to flee from the united states and everything else and it literally it actually destroyed my window I had to go and completely restart the process and by that time it was too late and everything else so that was my first experience with with brock pierce wow that's not the most pleasant uh experience well he was he also created a round table media which I just think is very interesting because of the name Like think about the Cecil Rose,

the round table groups, right? That tied to the Council of Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Committee. so I think it was an interesting Yeah, choice of names, yeah. It's an interesting choice of names. I've also been told he's, he's infiltrating the Maha movement in a big way. And I've heard independence. So I really think the whole medical freedom movement is game B. I know that's a bold claim, but I kind of feel like, and I had this theory a while ago and again, I can't prove it all. Is this just like a theory, but you know that the Knights of Malta used to be the Knights of hospital year. And so even today their exoteric messaging is that they do medical charity and

And I think that they're very involved in steering this medical freedom movement because it's much like the intellectual dark web where it shifted the Overton window. Because traditionally, a lot of people who were, you know, not in terms of unborn children, but in terms of like taking experimental drugs, they were very my body, my choice. a lot of what you might have You know, thought of as like the the crunchy moms or the hippies. And I don't mean that to be derogatory, but that's kind of how you think of them. They did their own homeopathic tinctures. And most of those people voted on the left, or they didn't vote at all, right? They were anti-establishment. And then suddenly the

medical freedom movement comes in and all these people got slapped with the right-wing label. They were like, oh, now I'm a conservative or a libertarian or You know, I vote Republican. And a lot of them are really baffled. And they said, OK, well, I guess now I'm a Republican. That's what we do now. But that was a great way of shifting the Overton window. But now you've got this whole United Independence movement and they're all tied in with RFK and the Maha and now Maha. is saying that it's really MABA. And I couldn't believe that. He actually uses the term Accelerate. It's Make America Biotech Accelerate. So now we're just taking Nick Land philosophy and

incorporating it right into this whole, medical freedom movement, what was supposed to be but it's really all about the AI precision medicine. I did warn about that before Trump even got into office. I was really concerned they were going to revive this AI precision medicine, which Obama tried to roll out. And I think underground, he did a good job of You know, he made a lot of headway, unfortunately, but. So I want to get into, so I don't have the definitive answer on, um, on Epstein other than just to say, to make people aware of there, there are all these vast con, uh, interconnections, but, but to this point, the Rockefeller family funded a lot of these organizations.

So the Rockefeller family, um, and I guess it's David jr. he's certainly not as vocal Now or whatever, or frontward facing, but all of these organizations, um, that the Rockefeller family put in place are still in place. And so these, so these are still largely organizations that are, that are pulling strings in a coordinated way. And like you said, that they all have kind of a similar occult philosophies. But, but look, you know, they didn't go away. You know, there may be a new guard, there may be Peter Thiel, there may be Elon Musk, but the old guard is, is very much still there and very much still active. I think they're just grooming because they're going to pass at some point.

So they need a new guard to carry out their their visions and execute their plan. And so speaking of these occult kind of beliefs. So, you know, Tether invested seven hundred and seventy five million dollars into Rumble, right? Well, do you know how many shares they bought? They bought one hundred and three million three hundred and thirty three thousand three hundred thirty three. Of course they did. Yeah. Well, it's yeah. Tether is a whole rabbit hole. We won't go through all that now, but I've been unpacking the Lutnik thing because I think Lutnik is being prepped for being kind of Epstein two point oh in a way. He has a lot more power.

than people think and it came out of absolutely nowhere and it's a it's a fascinating story he went from he invested in tether had no political experience and then ended up in arguably one of the most powerful positions which was the head of the transition team where he's essentially vetting the cabinet And he threw his own name in for treasury. he's managing the treasuries for Tether. So he's like, And then he actually tried to angle to make himself the head of the treasury secretary. He ended up getting commerce, but he still ended up pushing the bill anyway. I mean, it's like, why did that happen? And so it turns out there are ties to Teal. And the whole thing gets really incestuous.

But it's really, if you're a... maga person or whatever like this isn't there's a coordinated set of activities and people that are pushing technocracy and it's going faster under trump than it's ever gone before and I and I'm not saying that trump trump is not the mastermind of it but the technocrats are I think driving the train but they have complete access through Trump. And people need to be aware of this in a real way. So I kind of wanted to tee this up now. So kind of on technocracy. So this is amazing. And I want to say this as a disclosure. So Brett Weinstein is a fellow at the Brownstone Institute, along with me. I actually see Brett several times a year.

And I've had conversations with him. In fact, I've come to like him. And he's actually been helpful with some things. And so I wasn't even aware. I've only met him once in person, but yeah, he was very nice. He's a nice guy, but people have had... I've seen people... directly question well hey how did you come out of nowhere why are you on tucker all the time and everything else but but nevertheless um I was pretty alarmed by this because you know regardless of how well I know him you know technocracy is is still the number one enemy of freedom that so that doesn't change and so keep this in mind as we're having this conversation I I want to talk to brett about this I mean I in fact you know

Because he reached out to me. So the way I found this was because of his Rescue the Republic speech. The first part of the speech, he talked incessantly about the West. And I found that so bizarre because it's Rescue the Republic. That's pretty specific, right? I mean, yes, the United States is a byproduct of Western civilization. Of course, I care about Western civilization. I care about the whole world. But the republic is specific. That's the United States Constitutional Republic. And so I thought it was odd. Why is he talking about the West through this whole thing? And then he gets the last five minutes and he talks about how when Ben Franklin was asked, you know the very famous like,

line what type of a government is this sir and he says it's a republic if you can keep it and he says it's a republic if you can phoenix it and we need to phoenix the republic this just like it it like followed me you know I was just like what what is he talking about and so I started doing some investigation and then I found uh this whole game b concept and I was like whoa what what is this uh so that was actually really my uh kind of like foray into all of this but The reason I brought it up, sorry, was just because he, I guess, saw that. I don't know if it was that one he saw, because I've done literally dozens of videos on Game B. But he said that he was traveling, so he couldn't listen,

but he was alerted to my Game B presentation or something or video. And he said he's reading the transcript. but please remind me where we've met. And he said, And I responded. And I told him we met, you know, it was a... combat the who in Geneva. And I said, I'm happy to talk to you and clear up any misconceptions I may have on or off air, you know, but he never responded. So, well, I'm going to see him. I'm going to see him at this. I'm going to see him at least twice this year, but probably more, but I have a good relationship with him. more times, And again, I will say this. My suspicion is, that he has good intentions, but that, you know, I don't necessarily think that

free will is primary. And that, in my opinion, it needs to be. And so I think that there may be an opportunity to have a discussion. So this is kind of the way that I approach it, this whole subject. But with that said, maybe we could frame this by the left versus right dialectic with respect to technocracy. And could you talk about that? And then maybe... because I went to their because I know it's hard wiki and everything else could you give a really easy I tried to do a reminder did you see my half an hour that was minute video but yeah I did supposed to be a five but assume that nobody knows about game b because I think that that's probably fair to assume that that's most people

unless they've already familiar with your material you're the main source um because as far as I know So describe the right left dynamic with technocracy and, and, and what game B is simply in relation to that. So, and for people who are interested in I really dive into the left more on this, right hand path in the Phoenix conspiracy article. So the way that I see it is that we've got opera and just to be clear, it's that they operate through left and right hand paths. It's not so much ideology because the spectrum, I think a lot at this point in time, it's much more about a, you know, marketing to target audiences. And it really is about the philosophical or ideological roots, unfortunately.

But that being said, operating through the right hand path, as you said, you know, they're surrounding Trump. And I think that they are, you know, not that I was any fan of Kamala and Harris, but I think they're rolling out the technocracy much faster under Trump than they could have under Biden and Harris. And largely, they're hijacking the energy of MAGA. And it's because they're using this right-hand path, which is really this dark enlightenment philosophy. The dark enlightenment came out of Curtis Yarvin, who was propped up by Peter Thiel. He had his Erbit project that Peter Thiel invested in, I think it was back in in, and he calls Yarvin the household philosopher.

And Yarvin says Thiel is so enlightened, so they've got a whole bromance going there. And then we've got Nick Land, the accelerationist, who is also a dark enlightenment proponent. And he was a philosopher who created the CCRU, Cybernetic Culture Research Unit. It was part of the Warwick University, philosophy department at along with Sadie Plant, who is a cyberpunk feminist. So he's got some very, very dark kind of strange ideas. But essentially, this right-hand path is using the archetype of the patriarch, very disciplinarian. It's part of why they use, I call it Christianese because I don't really think it's real Christianity. But they use that because they know it appeals to the

right-hand path that tends to be more that audience tend to be more traditional. A lot of them are Christian. So the language sounds appealing to them. They're, you know, a lot of them are into, you know, very like a, they're using that archetype. So it's a disciplinarian, it's autocratic, it's muscular, you know, like the manosphere kind of essence. And so that's the right hand path. And in terms of technocracy, the dark enlightenment is all about top-down, autocratic, hierarchical structures where they want to create a sob corp. That's what Curtis Yarvin calls it. Nick Land calls it gov corp. But essentially, it's this idea that Curtis Yarvin says we have the Americans, we need a reboot.

And by the way, this is really interesting, just a little quick side note. But in GovCorp, So the day before nine, eleven, talk about the Constitution being trampled on. They did at the Edge Foundation. They did a reboot civilization event the day before nine, eleven. There's keep that in the OK, yeah. back of your mind. so yeah um but so they he talked about in uh where he had that rage poster behind him curtis yarvin says we need a reboot of the government and that americans need to get over their fear of the dictatorship and we need to embrace it and we need a ceo who's going to be a tech king And who's going to rule like a monarchy because, you know, in a startup company,

the CEO is the dictator. And he said, that's what we need. And he was, he actually did a whole blog on his gray mirror substack talking about how excited he was for Trump to return for two point O and that he was going to be the CEO of the country and create, you know, run it like a corporation and that, In a corporation, the only focus is profit, right? So he's got these kind of ideas where we're not going to have geographical nation states anymore. It's really going to be these Sov Corps or Gov Corps, as Nick Land calls it. Nick Land also talked about technoplastic beings. So he's really leading us towards a post-human world. They have some very, those are, that's the right hand path

towards technocracy. And, you know, because it is dialectical, maybe, you know, to put it in really concrete terms, think about a fork in the road. And one road is this beautiful tree line streets, maybe it's palm trees and beaches. And the other road is mountainous and, you know, stones and some greenery. And it's whichever scenery you'd prefer to have as you're driving towards the technocracy, because they both end up there. So the left-hand path is working through Game B, and they use the archetype of Divine Mother. So a lot of them subscribe to the Gaia religion, the whole climate crisis narrative. They worship the earth. So instead of worshiping a creator,

they worship the creation. They believe that we can co-create with God, that we become essentially self-apotheosis. They are... A lot of them are very theosophical in nature. Now, not all of Game B, it's not a monolith. So, you know, there are various thinkers and different ideas of how we get there. But a lot of them are disciples of people like Barbara Marks Hubbard, who, you know, her intellectual mentor was Teilhard de Chardin, who had the vision of a noosphere. So they're very theosophical in nature. So that's kind of the left-hand path. And game B, my one-liner elevator pitch, if you would ask me, is it's scientific socialism that's steering us towards technocracy.

To explain it a little bit longer, and I'll make it brief, but just for those who are not familiar with it, what their whole premise is, is that we are currently in game A. And they believe that Game A is too competitive, it's too rivalrous, and it is going to lead. So both, and really, if you look at accelerationism, Game B is left-hand accelerationism, and Dark Enlightenment is the right-hand path of accelerationism, because they split into two. Nick Land, he started out as a Marxist. He ended up being, I would say, still a Marxist, but he was a right-wing accelerationist. So the, but they very much, both of them believe that, you know, our current civilization is doomed to fail.

There's going to be an apocalyptic moment. Game B calls it the metacrisis. And so a lot of the, for Game B, a lot of it's predicated on this climate narrative, you know, that we're destroying our planet. You know, they're all in lockstep with the seventeenth sustainable development goals. In fact, many of them, there are many of them who are members of Club of Rome or working with Club of Rome. So they're, you know, NUN affiliated types of organizations. So they even have a B-Labs, which Jim Rutt says is a great part of ProtoBees, creating ProtoBees. And B-Labs have an SDG adapter where you can get your B-Labs scores. And there's six thousand companies already in this.

It's not, you know, like a. a fringe thing, Patagonia. I mean, names you'd know, like Ben and Jerry's who claims that they're not an ice cream company. They are an activism organization. They just happen to sell ice cream. So Game B, they believe, right, that our current civilization is Game A and that it's doomed to fail. It's apocalyptic. We're going to reach this metacrisis and we've got to avoid the metacrisis. So they say that Game B is, is anti-rivalrous. And now all of this is predicated really on Darwinian theory, whether it be, you know, the more spiritual social Darwinian, like the Barbara Marx Hubbard disciples, or whether it be biological, which would be like Brett Weinstein,

right? He is more of an evolutionary biologist who subscribes to the biological theory of evolution. And so they believe that we have to move. So I call it like the technological age of Aquarius because it's all about creating collective intelligence. We need to kind of merge into one, create a noosphere. And a lot of the technologies they talk about are talking about exactly that, creating collective intelligence. So yeah, I, if that kind of a little teaser of it, but we can, we can go further, but I've talked for a while, so. Well, I think that's a great explanation. So this should be on everybody's radar. And I'm certainly going to talk to Brett about this. They have a wiki that has

all kinds of information and broken down into four quadrants. And I've started to go through it. I mean, honestly, it's just there's a lot to unpack. It isn't a simple thing to get at. I know one of the concerns that I always have with things like this is that these kinds of elite movements tend to not work well and they don't work well because they're, they believe that they're smart enough to be able to control the unknown, which, which actually, if you value free will doesn't even make any sense, right? I mean, if you, if you actually value free will first, then you shouldn't be trying to predict outcomes. And yeah. Oh no, no, sorry. Continue. And I'll, I'll jump in after.

So usually when this happens, you know, you have a lot of people that are well-intentioned, but no matter how smart they are, they're not smart enough to predict the almost infinite amount of unknown out there. And so it's usually driven in some way by fear. You mentioned using the climate stuff, which, by the way, is completely manufactured. The Club of Rome manufactured climate. I have a quote in there from the Global Revolution document. Yeah. Yeah, there's actually a quote from in the document. They needed a pretext. So now, I mean, if you have a kid that's been in public school who has all this anxiety about the fact that they feel that, you know, they've been indoctrinated

with this belief. Yeah, they're destroying the planet. So now you have people that don't want to have kids and that now have this fear that they're destroying Earth. And it's all based on a lie. And so I think that's an important point to know. But, you know, manufacturing scarcity is almost always one of the justifications used by elites to take centralized control of power. Always. Yes. Well, and as far as the good intentions, I've also sectioned, section five is on that. So my, my premise in section five is that the, you know, very simply put the road to hell was paved with good intentions, right? That's the aphorism, but I go through the

philosophical underpinnings. And so to me, I'm a lot less interested in people's intentions because I You know, I'm not inside their head. They could have the best of intentions. As I said, I've met Brett. I didn't spend a whole lot of time I mean, with him, but he seemed like a very nice guy. You know, I don't have anything personally negative to say. But what I will say is that the philosophical underpinnings that are in this movement, and I've listened to an exhaustive amount of their videos. bloviating because that's what it feels like. I mean, they made their own language. It's all jargon. So once you know the jargon, you're, you kind of, it all sounds the same. It all sounds like Madame

Blavatsky and Alice Bailey, by the way, because it comes from Barbara Marks Hubbard. So, and I'm very versed in that lingo. So I picked it up pretty quickly, but you just, you hear them. They're very long winded. They're very bright. These are very smart people. So I'm, this is not, I'm not, you know, being pejorative in terms of their intellect. That's But the philosophical underpinnings all lead to technocracy and transhumanism. It's basically rule by philosopher kings. So I don't care how well-meaning you may be, these philosophical underpinnings are not commensurate with free will, and they end up in transhumanism and technocracy. And that's my concern. So you may have the grand

vision that you have found the solution for all of humanity's problems, even though people have been trying for millennia, right? They've got all the answers. But these answers all end in eradicating free will. I mean, when you talk about collective intelligence, some of these technologies I've heard them talk about, like NOMAP, they actually say inhabiting the noosphere. I mean, some of these, the liminal learning portal, like all these game B ancillary groups, a lot of them talk about the noosphere. so you're talking about creating like a, Like, okay, you know, intellectual, like, you know, global brain. This is HG Wells. Yeah, to understand that world so I think it's important for people

brain and HG Wells and also the noosphere. Could you talk about that just in a really high level? Because I think people really don't know what the underpinnings of this is. Sure. So we have a... So H.G. Wells, he wrote many books, right? The Open Conspiracy, that whole War of the Worlds was kind of based on him, which was Tavistock, actually, who did that experiment with the Rockefellers, right? Who was a roommate at Dartmouth with, who was the guy who was working for NBC. I'm drawing a blank on his name, but yeah, all sorts of weird connections there. Wells writes this world But so H.G. brain book and he talks about how the ganglia of the information institutions are going to be the conduit

to the world brain. So like the academic institutions, the media. And I would ask everyone today, what is the information institutions today? I would say it's the internet, right? It's technology. And he said that that's what would lead to the world brain. And so it would all be decentralized. And it was the decentralization of those institutions that would lead to the world brain. They would be the conduit. And so I keep harping on this because they keep saying decentralized, right? They talk about the decentralized autonomous organizations. decentralized technology using Holochain. They talk about But Holochain is you have little, it's holons, right? So it's like little

whirlpools inside the big ocean. It's all interconnected and it's all going to be interoperable. It's actually even more integrated than what we have now. And they say that. So they're constantly contradicting themselves. They say how we're too siloed now and that's why we should have these Holochains. Then they also say how it's going to be also decentralized. And to me, it's just oxymoronic. But that was H.G. Wells. And then we have... Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and he was a Jesuit priest, and he had this notion of the omega point, which is kind of like Kurzweil's singularity, where we would reach a point where everything becomes all interconnected.

And so it's essentially everything is one. And he was talking about it from nos means the mind. So the interconnected, essentially creating a global brain. And I think, interestingly enough, just to really paint the picture, one of the evolutionary leaders, Bruce Lipton, who is also kind of integrated with this Game B space, he talks about how he uses the spiral. Of course, it's always the spiral towards the omega point. They love their spirals, spiral dynamics. Barbara Marks Hubbard has her, crisis is our birth, a spiral of the universe and all of the crises. But he talks about how we start off as amoeba, single cell organism. And he said, it's the membrane that makes

them so intelligent. But then we get the multicellular organisms and they're even more intelligent because they have more membrane. And then we've got humans and we're so intelligent because we're a complex multicellular organism and we have so much more surface area of membrane and that's why we're intelligent. And then he says, we have an opportunity. We could either go extinct, or we can choose to co-create and co-evolve into the next stage of humanity and what does he say that that's going to be it's the super organism of humanity and guess what the membrane is he says it's the internet so this is essentially creating the noosphere so and this is built on buckminster fuller

he had this concept of like the biosphere the noosphere is the next layer so Well, I mean, this is important for people to know. And yeah, this is not the correct use of decentralization. Decentralization is not everybody feeds their data into a central system. But you just have multiple nodes that are all feeding into one thing. That's not the purpose and that's not the point of decentralization. And unfortunately, this is the direction that AI is. is going and you know and you want to talk about left right and everything else this whole us versus china is is I've been spending a lot of time researching this this is one of the most made up concepts around which is okay well let's make

everybody in america you know fear china to the point where now we have ai policy and crypto policy that's using national defense as a justification for building out data centers and centralizing control of ai and centralizing control of cryptocurrency when in reality when you study what's going on and this is an interesting link you have peter teal has all kinds of relationships with china so does elon musk all of these organizations and certainly rockefeller all talked to they work the groups that we've together and it was um kissinger that opened up trade with with china and and so certainly all of what the approach plan under nixon yep Yeah, exactly. So have been pushing this.

And so, so we're sitting here, people are buying that. This is this big division and the technocrats are laughing. They're, they're sharing technology behind the scenes all over again. And what's so funny about this. So I did, it's not like a ha ha funny, but I did a video. I think it was like in the beginning of the year or trying to, think of like what was going to you know, be things we should look out for this year. And I was like, I think we're going to be in an AI arms race. And so I started looking up. I'm like, I feel like it's Cold War two point oh with China. And the Chatham House actually did several symposiums on it. They did a bunch of symposiums on like Cold War between Russia.

I mean, sorry, between America. I'm thinking, you know, the original Cold War between America and China. And it's all about AI. And then when you read Trump's AI action plan, that's basically what he says. Yep, exactly. And so people are falling for it. Don't fall for it. I mean, again, read Courtney's work, and I'm going to be doing more to raise awareness on this topic. But the more I dig into this, I mean, you actually find also that Israel is often used as a point for technology transfer between the United States and China. So when people try to say there are all these export controls and everything else, well, there's kind of a workaround. And actually,

this ties into Maxwell and even Epstein. um and so there's a whole thing going on behind the scenes here that is not us versus china it's all full speed technocracy and it's all using the manufactured right left dynamic and so um I think that this is fascinating with game b and I I know I don't want to take two I mean it's already nine forty two so I don't want to I'm okay it's up to you so I'm fine. I just don't want to. Okay. So I want to dig a little bit more into this because I, so then I've started watching quickly on the China note. people need to remember that like now, I mean, right now was a Yaley. He was part of that Yale and China program. So it was really like the

skull and bones entity that's training him in those type of struggle sessions and dialectics. This is, people think that it's all China on their own, but China wouldn't have the power they have today without us. And I don't think it's just us. It's really that whole infrastructure, The Anglo-American establishment, right? the consortium of the five eyes. I think it's a much bigger infrastructure than, you know, yeah. Oh, it's much bigger. And I talked about this last week about and I played some of the video clips and my actually my premise was I actually think Americans are the most brainwashed which I know made a lot of people angry. people on the planet,

But part of the analysis here is that. China is leading in sixty out of sixty five technology categories. We are completely unaware of what's going on in China. We just assume, for instance, that Musk is the leader in all of these categories. Something that was funny, though, I decided because when Musk bought Twitter, he said he wanted to model it off of WeChat, which, of course, is the base. It's an everything app in China that's kind of the basis of their social credit score. So I'm like, well, wouldn't it be odd if Musk was ripping off all of his concepts from China and just literally rolling them out here? And then so then it turns out everything from reusable rockets to

Neuralink to everything else, there's an actual predecessor in China. And when you start looking at this, we think that Tesla is leading in electric cars, but there are multiple companies now in China. And in fact... uh chinese companies are winning in europe and now they're they're taking you know market share over market share in china we have no idea what's going on here and we I think we're stuck in this nineteen eighties mindset which I think trump just fully embodies like I think I think trump is like he is like an iconic stuck in the eighties and it's almost like his world view of what's going on is from the nineteen eighties and a lot has happened in forty fifty

fifty years and so I encourage people to Just go to YouTube and Google things like China electric vehicles, China robotics. There are factories that are completely run by robots in China. So we're sitting here saying, oh, yeah, I just saw this general dynamics thing. It's like we're getting crushed. We're actually losing in quantum computing, and we're probably going to lose in AI. And again, losing doesn't matter because that's actually made up anyway. just on the basis of the electrical grid, China will get there first. But that's all kind of, that's all kind of by design. They already have all the AI precision medicine stuff too, by the way. But yeah. Yeah, they do.

So I encourage you to just take these individual, any area that we claim dominance on and just go and look, just Google whatever that category is and then China, and then your mind will be blown. Um, so I, I'm going back to this game B thing. So I, I've started to watch these videos now about, um, uh, what is it? The man economic Manhattan project. And I'm watching Eric Weinstein videos. Like I don't need, again, the hardest part for this, getting ready for this was trying to figure out where to contain this. But one, one area, what I want to go back to was, um, this event where uh brett brett posed a question which was can humans set a non-evolutionary course and then eric weinstein posed

the question what happens when we learn our table that was the end of it but yeah yep so was that what kicked all this off and then the question was uh unprecedented happen when does something we finally uh unveil our own uh source code When we learn our source code. So did that kick off B&B, do you think? Yeah. So that question was in twenty eighteen. That was part of the Edge Foundation. They were both contributed to the twenty eighteen final question. So they did this. I think they started. Was it maybe twenty fifteen? But every year they would do a series of questions. you know, where these scientists got together, brilliant minds, and they would pose like the final question for humanity.

And both Weinstein brothers, do they pronounce their name Weinstein and Weinstein? I've heard them say Weinstein, so I don't know. But to be honest, I don't know. I've heard them say Weinstein. So I've been saying Weinstein. Hopefully that's right. But yeah, so they both posed those questions and it was in twenty eighteen. But no, game B was spawned. There was this economic Manhattan project that Eric Weinstein had proposed and it was in partnered with the Edge Foundation at the Perimeter Institute. And this was kind of a response to this. So similar to like technocracy, right? Technocracy was a response to the Great Depression. And now we've got Eric Weinstein's got his response to the,

you know, financial crisis of two thousand eight. And he puts together this big event and he was speaking at the event. And so it was kind of the soft launchpad for because Jordan Hall calls him the rabbi of Game B. because he was kind of the orchestrator of getting all the people together. And at that event is when Jordan Hall, who was invited by Seb Paquette, who is also a Game B proponent, he's Canadian, and he's very involved in these circles. Lee Smolin was also involved in coordinating this event with Brett Weinstein. I'm sorry, with Eric Weinstein, but eric insists that brett and jordan meet so they had you know some conversations but it wasn't until this that's

in but it wasn't until jordan hall and jim rudd were both at the santa fe institute So Santa Fe Institute, Jim Rutt was the chairman of Santa Fe Institute and Jordan Hall was on the board of trustees. And so they started to have these meetings. It was called the Stanton meetings, Woodrow Wilson Stanton, Virginia. And, uh, they, they, they have these meetings and it was really, uh, very politically minded. They were trying to create what was called the emancipation party. So talk about very similar to what the United Independence are doing right now. It was a very similar kind of a platform and they were trying to create this, uh, And I have the link to that, you know,

reforms that they wanted, which were a variation of a universal basic income, universal health care, a lot of these types of platforms that they were trying to bring forth in their emancipation party. He said it was the fifth meeting, I think it was, where because Eric kept trying to get Brett and Jordan to talk. and thought that they would have some great ideas. And it wasn't until, he says, third or the fifth meeting, I don't know if it was the but at the Stanton meetings, where they really started to mull over these ideas around what became Game B. But the Emancipation Party didn't really take off. The way Jim Rutt explains it is that he could get the boomers were all in.

They were super excited. And he said, I think we could have corralled like Gen X. I'm paraphrasing. That's basically what he's saying. And then he said, but the millennials love the platform, like what they were presenting. But they were such anarchists that the whole notion of a political party was an enactment of them. we can't have a political And he said, well, movement without the millennials. So they kind of tossed the idea of the political movement. But Jim Rutt and Jordan Hall and a couple of others were much more of the framework that it needs to be institutional reform. But there were other people in this movement who felt that it was much more important to prioritize

spiritual evolution. And these were the disciples of Barbara Marx Hubbard. So they did split at first, but they reconvened. And it was Thor Muller who, you know, he's a branding guy. He wrote that book, Get Lucky, Planning Your Business. And he said that they should use Game B for branding purposes, keep that name. And so they did disperse. Jim Rutt says they went into spore movement. I don't remember like how he worded it, but spore something, spore dynamics or something. And so they kind of dispersed. And then it was around like, like, they really started to, you know, convene again. And then you had Brett Weinstein, Andre Rogan mentioning Game

B very publicly on a huge platform. You had Daniel Schmachtenberger was starting to, you know, his Consilience Project. Jordan Hall was tasked with Deep Code, which is kind of unveiling the problems, discovering what are the you know, problems with Game A and starting to figure out how we could move towards this Game B. Jim Rutt wrote his A Journey to Game B. I think he wrote the first one in And that interestingly enough, the blueprint says that the early bees will be in twenty forty five, which I think is really interesting timing because when does Ray Kurzweil say the singularity is nearer? And when is the AI World Society Centennial of UN?

Twenty forty five. So it seemed like an interesting number to me. But yeah, so that's kind of the genesis of it, but it did really spawn out of the, that was the early days of them meeting and having conversations was right after that event where Eric Weintraub, and you can find that speech. The Edge Foundation has the speech, or you can go, the Wayback Machine has it too. Yeah, no, this is fascinating. And he doesn't say Game B in it, but he doesn't say Game B, but go on, yeah. Yeah, no, this is fascinating stuff. I've been watching some of these clips, and so, you know, I would have thought that brett saying game b is just kind of like oh well here's a theoretical concept I'm

just giving you a generic way of looking at this because I mean game a I don't know that I would characterize game a in the same way but clearly what we have isn't working and has been corrupted so it's to to come up with some game a game b metaphor makes sense but then it turns out it's actually my but it's a lot more than that it's this whole but it is a movement with all these people and organizations and concepts and everything else and so that that really opened my eyes to a lot and now I'm doing a whole deep dive now I now my understanding is that eric and brett have had a a split I I I think they don't talk anymore or whatever so I you know I and I and I will take that

at face value because I certainly know I I wouldn't want to take someone's sibling's views and necessarily apply it to the other sibling. So even though they might have started the intellectual dark web thing together, everybody does have free will and who knows which path they take with this. But I wonder... on this political front now because you mentioned brock and the pierce and the independent movement but then you mentioned the right left dynamic so so what do you think is going to happen now politically because you have musk with his america's party which I think is the right that's going to be the clearly the right path well no I have different thoughts on it but okay Yeah.

Um, so yes, Okay. I think they had like a split over the unity, uh, party, which is very similar to the emancipation party, the United independent movement. Um, but interestingly enough, if you listen and I did link it in my article, if you listen to, it's like an eight minute video where Eric Weinstein is talking about how he coined the term intellectual dark web and the story behind it, it's all game B lingo. He uses like anti front, anti, uh, Yeah, anti-fragile, like there's just like all these, you know, jargon and it's all game B. But anyway, so what do I think is going So you've got this United, on with this movement? what I think they're capitalizing on is,

they point out a lot of problems that yes, are very valid problem. And one of the problems is that we have kind of this, uh, Hegelian dialectic operating in our political infrastructure. even George Washington warned us I mean, against the two-party system, right? So this is not something that is too far-fetched. A lot of people are starting to feel very frustrated. They call it the uniparty, the two-party duopoly. Two party illusion. We've got all sorts of names for how frustrated people are with this system. And it does seem like they play ping pong. You've got the pendulum that just swings back and forth. But really what I think they're doing is they're pushing people to the

extremes so that they can turn the dialectic. and this is so that you they can then come in and say oh we've got the center for you this is third way politics and anthony giddens I did an article called technological uh age of aquarius third way dream or digital dystopia spoiler alert I think it's a digital dystopia but um but you know I talk about third way and this is uh anthony giddens wrote the book on third way. He's a Fabian socialist. It's a Fabian concept. And he says it's a radical center. So I think they're like, oh, look, I mean, even Elon, when he was talking about his party, he said, we need a centrist party because, you know, these people are crazy. And of course,

a lot of people that resonates for them. They're like, oh, yeah, I don't want to be identifying with these crazy loons on either end of the extremes. I want to be, you know, I'm a sane, rational, moderate. And that sounds very appealing, but his term is radical center. This is not the center. And he explicitly says it's always left of center. Anthony Giddens says it has to be left of center for their social and emancipatory goals. So I think there are... capitalizing on this frustration people feel with the two-party system. And they're saying, we've got a better option. It's this radical center. But the radical center that they're concentrating, collecting people and steering them towards,

I think is really all centered around technocracy. So I don't think it's so much about, I don't think there, because there's an overlap. There's some on the right, there's some on the left. But if you look at who jumped on board immediately to support Elon, it was Andrew Yang. And his slogan is not left, not right, it's forward. He's a technocrat all the way through and through. And then who did he consult with? So he's got the left Curtis Yarvin. progressive and then he's got Curtis Yarvin, who's supposedly right. That's why I say they operate through left and right hand path, but it's not really so much about ideology. And I think you've got a lot of overlap in the movement,

but the United Independence, you've got Charles Eisenstein, who was the campaign manager for RFK, but he's also a Game B person. He's the one who wrote the book on sacred economics, which is the whole principle behind this, like regenerative economics, gift economics. They have all sorts of different terms. Donut economics, that's Raworth's term for it, but they're all very similar concepts. And this is something Game B championed You've got Christopher Life, who is the head of this United Independence Movement. He had his One Nation Party and he did the United. He did the Independent National Convention and Brock Pierce was a major donor. to help him organize all of

this and he's a full all-in game b person so yeah so I think you've got overlaps it's not just it's really they're trying to concentrate a radical center but I do think it's steering towards technocracy and a huge part of why I think that is because they're all talking about using like quadratic voting or liquid democracy it's all blockchain stuff yep Yeah, no, I mean, it's that there's a lot to be said about that. And interestingly, so Musk, he's when he bought X, his propaganda was that, you know, at the time it was mostly left oriented. Which is interesting because Yep. I remember back in the Tea Party days, you know, Twitter's where all of the Tea Party people went and it was right,

but then it did shift dramatically to the left. So he came on board and what He's saying he wants to was he saying? target the eighty percent in the middle. And then when he started America's Party, he said the same thing. It's to target the eighty percent. One of the things that I think is fascinating about this, though, is the issue that Musk is using as the wedge issue is Jeffrey Epstein. That is the whole shooting match. And so he started, if you think about it, and he's been very clever. He started by saying, well, Trump isn't releasing the list because he's on the list. Save this tweet or whatever the comment was. And then sure enough, I guess the FBI just redacted Trump's name a

hundred times in the documents. And then he came out and said, oh, and by the way, Democrats and major Democrat donors are also on the list. So this is the thing that he's using to push people into this. But what are the ties between Epstein and Game B? Oh, so there are a lot, but I'm trying to think and I just tried to look it up because I can't remember what it is, but there was actually a psychological like programming like tied to the whole like nudge unit, you know, Thaler and Sustine, right? Sustine, yeah. Yeah, Cass Sustine that Elon Musk did a training at under Epstein. So I can't remember the name of that.

Wait, what? Yeah. There's like a whole psychological programming training. Let me see if I can find it. But while I'm looking for that, the name of that. So Epstein has a lot of ties because mostly through this EDGE Foundation, but also through a lot of things he funded. Like he was funding the Santa Fe Institute. And now it's indirect, but he was funding at the same time that Jim Rutt and Jordan Hall were there. And I had always wondered, you know, because I was like, well, they're both Santa Fe. Like, I wonder, right, New Mexico is where Epstein's Zorro Baby Ranch was. So I was kind of like, was there any... And that doesn't necessarily, that's not like a smoking gun that, oh,

he was then funding Game B, but... It was during the same time. And he was funding the Santa Fe Institute, which complexity theory is largely what Game B is predicated on. It's this whole notion that we're going to have these emergent civilization, right? It's all about emergence. And in fact, Daniel Schmachtenberger created the emergence think tank. They have their website is what is emerging. And they did the spinoff of that was the liminal version. I forgot the name of the event, but I think liminal something, liminal something, twenty, twenty five. They had their event. then there's like the liminal learning portal that came out of that but yeah that's the whole concept it's all based on

systems theory and complexity theory so that the ideas where he was funding the the seating ground for that because that's what santa fe is all centered around um so then there was uh obviously the edge foundation where the weinstein brothers had posed their question and that to me just seems very very telling because both of those questions are very much related to Game B. And then, let me see what were some of the others. he was tied to so many that And then, I mean, were much more just involved with like transhumanism and technocracy. But really, it's the idea, what I was really trying to point out was this notion

of the ideas of transhumanism and technocracy and how he was so invested in funding all of these and the overlaps between them. Yeah. But yeah, and also the Economic Manhattan Project was, I would say that's like kind of an early launching pad for Game B. And so Epstein was directly involved with that through the Edge Foundation. I'm sure maybe people listening were aware of this. The number of connections here is absolutely overwhelming to all of these things, to these technocratic institutions. I didn't even realize that that tied to Musk. That's absolutely mind-boggling.

So it's interesting that we're going to make Epstein the issue. And meanwhile, Epstein has been probably one of the most influential people in modern times at actually pushing technocracy, which is what they're going to deliver up as the solution. So keep that in mind, that that's actually... actively what's going on now. I do want to bring up one point, and I've said this on this podcast before, but it bears bringing up in context of everything else here. And this might make even more sense because Bitcoin maxis are irate every time but it's undeniably true. I bring this up, uh epstein so first of all we now know that somehow epstein was giving crypto advice to brock pierce so

again put that take that into consideration like why you know why was that happening so that means that epstein was much much more involved in crypto from a much earlier time point which we now know as well I mean he none of this was really public facing it's not like epstein was out giving talks on this but what we also know is epstein funded mit he funded harvard and he funded he funded joy ito at mit and he also funded joy ito privately in his garage ventures venture capital firm So, for those of you who don't remember, Joy Ito was the guy who, at one point when the Bitcoin Foundation tanked, which,

by the way, Brock Pierce was the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation at some point. I now need to go back and look at the timetable. He was on the board of directors of the Bitcoin Foundation, and then he ended up becoming... the ceo but I think he bitcoin foundation after became the ceo of the this interlude period where mit essentially took over funding of the developers so the bitcoin foundation which was started by five people roger veer was one of them this was basically a non-profit where people got together because bitcoin's an open source protocol there's no funding for it so you know people got together and thought well hey you know maybe we can prevent this thing from

being hijacked and we can come up with a way to pool our resources to make decisions about funding. Well, there were some issues that happened internally with the Bitcoin Foundation. One of the board members had legal issues, then they ran into some financial difficulties. And so MIT then came in and for this gap period, funded developers. And so this is the period of time where Bitcoin basically started shifting the narrative from being digital cash that you use for daily payments to digital gold. And not only did that narrative happen, at the same time this narrative was happening, Joy Ito was funding through Garage Ventures, companies that were involved in Lightning Network and Segwit,

which are technologies that essentially cement this idea that we're giving up on people using Bitcoin for day-to-day transactions at the base layer. And now we're going to create these other technologies on top of that. So Joy Ito was involved with that. Epstein funded part of the Garage Ventures thing. And then at the same time, Ito's group at MIT was working on all three U.S. CBDC pilots. They worked on, and the most important one to talk about is Project Hamilton, which is a retail CBDC pilot. And this project was a collaboration between MIT and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. And it had, as one of the co-authors of the white paper, a guy named Corey Fields,

who was a Bitcoin core developer. So those of you out there listening to this who are like, well, you know, that we had the fork wars and, you know, the small blockers won. Understand that what was going on at the time. is the same people that were pushing this narrative and making changes to bitcoin were simultaneously developing cbdc's there was one I don't know if I'd call it an interview but there was an article written in decrypt magazine and there was a lengthy quote from epstein where epstein said well I don't see you know bitcoin as a essentially a medium of exchange I see it as basically digital gold so the one time he chimes in on this is that this crucial period

where this change is going on. And he just so happens to be funding privately and through MIT, the guy pushing these changes. And then Brock Pierce ends up being the CEO of the Bitcoin Foundation afterwards. So I think that there's a lot more. So now you have Epstein involved in transhumanism and genetic research in Game B and then Bitcoin. And then also at CBDCs. Yes. And so there were a couple of other connections to GameBee. There was also the Singularity Net, which has been Gertzel. Right. So and Jim Rutt has spoken on there, a bunch of GameBee people. In fact, the one I just did a show on, the analyst Smithman was doing shows on Singularity Net. So there's definitely a

connection to GameBee there. And then, of course, through Peter Thiel. Right. Because Eric Weinstein was the. manager for his fund, and Epstein had invested in that as well. And the name of the class was the Economics of Scarcity, and this was part of a behavioral psychology, like behavioral economics course, and Musk took this course. But it was kind of teaching people. I mean, it was being taught. I believe it was by Thaler. One of their other courses was like, why is impossible not to nudge? But yeah, it was Richard Thaler. Yeah, it was Richard Thaler's course, so. Yeah. Well, actually, I had a company that was

incentives to reward people offering financial for improving their health. And the company was destroyed by Obamacare and a whole bunch of other things. But one of the things that I was up against was people were pushing this Thaler stuff. They were pushing something called Stick, where it was the opposite of using financial incentives to reward people. It was where you would enter into a contract with someone. And if you didn't hit your goals, you had to pay someone. some amount of money. And I just remembered like, yeah, who's going to sign up for this at scale? And people didn't sign up for it because it was a stupid idea. But nevertheless, it's really weird.

It's weird watching how influential these people become. And these academics with really bad ideas end up, well, then there becomes this kind of groupthink within elite circles where it's like, oh, yeah, yeah, we're going to take this bad idea. This is why this stuff doesn't work, by the way. This is why you end up with Leschenko causing the starvation of millions of people in the Soviet Union with his innovative technique for growing wheat. This is why the Great Leap Forward didn't work in China. And this whole idea of elites thinking they're smarter than everyone and then using science to solve everybody's problems, this has been tried. And I don't see anything different now because some

of these same people that promoted this stuff were wrong on issues like COVID and other things. And they certainly aren't putting They're not putting free will as a primary. And this is a bit off topic, although not really. So I used to run an organization called the Atlas Society, which promoted Ayn Rand's philosophy. I've definitely changed since then. And that was a whole weird experience. But one of the guys that I worked with, it's a guy named Ed Hudgens. He's now the executive director of Humanity Plus. Oh my gosh. Okay. Wow. Humanism organization, for those who don't know, that's what it was originally.

Well, what is, and I've heard you talk about this and I wanted to bring it up because, because it, it struck a nerve with me because I've actually, I know Ed and I've had a lot of conversations with him and he's been in. And so I'm, I'm trying to describe, I'm trying to figure out how people get into this track. So, I mean, Ed's background is, I think he went to Catholic university and then at some point something happened. He switched, he became an atheist, heavily involved with Ayn Rand for a long time, but then he ended up, uh, getting involved in in transhumanism which I mean um Max Hubbard I mean this is like communism like there's nothing about humanity plus that is tied

to objectivism or free will it's it's actually the opposite and I've and I'm trying to understand how somebody gets there right Well, I mean, objectivism isn't necessarily like the, it's not rooted in much, right? And I understand the appeal. I mean, I read Ayn Rand when I was in like elementary school and high school, and I really loved the Fountainhead and At the Shrugged. And I think there's some merit to some of the principles, but it's, In a way, it's kind of constructivism and self-apotheosis. Like, it's not rooted in anything. There's no plumb line for the philosophical... There's no presuppositions to anchor you. So it's really all just, like, you are your own self-governing entity,

and you... So essentially, you're your own god. So I... Not to say that that directly leads you to transhumanism, but it's a much more slippery slope than if you were rooted in something that has a strong teleological, ontological, metaphysical framework. So I think, but a lot of people come into this transhumanism with, I mean, I was just, I was listening to like people like Bostrom and, you know, their whole premise is that it's kind of going to happen anyway. And so, you know, and humans are going to be, we're going to go extinct because we're destroying our planet. A lot of it's rooted in that. And so there's so much advantage to being a synthetic being,

right? Because we're not anchored to this planet, right? They could be interplanetary. They can take us to Mars. If you're a machine, they're talking about how much more advanced they'll be with quantum computing. So You won't be limited by pesky human mortality and limitations and, you know, how slow we'll be in comparison. I think people get sucked in. It's really I hate to frame it that way, but it really to me is it's this like it's constructivism and it's self-apotheosis. It's this idea that you can become gods. And on the front page of the game, that's what it says. It's Stuart Brand. Like right, right there, like the entry of this wiki, it's Stuart Brand, his opening to the Whole

Earth magazine is, we're as gods, we better get good at it. That was nineteen sixty eight, his entry to the World Whole Earth magazine. And then in twenty fifteen, he updated it like, you know, something like a. we are as gods who might as well get good at it. You know, Daniel Schmachtenberger says, now we have the power of gods, but we need the love and wisdom of God. But who determines what, like what parameter is going to set the heuristics for what that love and wisdom is, right? That, I mean, that's the question. So this is where it gets really disturbing because even people with really good intentions, I mean, I listened to Annalise Smithson, Part of this, who is,

she created Earthwise and she's part of this participatory framework for a global AGI constitution. And of course, we've got like, you know, people who are tied to the Club of Rome in this. And it's a very disturbing document where they're telling us how we can parent AGI so that we can co-evolve with it. which is by the way, how the movie Megan two point O ends, which I found so creepy. I was like, this is literally game B. And then I read this document. I'm like, okay, here it is. But these people think that they're doing good. They're like, well, we're gonna create the benevolent AGI. So we're gonna parent it. You know, this is gonna happen, but we have the,

I guess they think they have the gnosis. but they think they have the I don't know, way and they're going to teach it so that it can be benevolent. But who decides what's benevolent for everybody? Ben Goertzel's AGI for Good, that's the ethics for the world, the AI ethics for the world. But he's working with the UN and the World Economic Forum. But who determines what is good? I mean, to me, is it going to be like Stuart Mill's utilitarianism, just like for the greater good? Is it going to be effective altruism, which is just a rebrand of that? Like who's going to decide and by whose metrics? So they talked about in that document that we actually might have to be subordinate to AI because

their information capacity processing, their information processing capacity, sorry, AI. might surpass ours and they're going to be better stewards of the planet because we're doing so much harm to the planet that we might have to let them set the AI, the ethics for the AI. I'm like, wait, really? So now humans, I mean, talk about eradicating free will, but they really think they're doing good. I think There are people who are Machiavellian. They just want control and power. I do think those people exist. And I think a lot of them are pulling the big strings that we might not see. But a lot of these people who buy into it really think they're doing good. I just think that their

fundamental ontological framework is flawed. And a really good, I'll finish with this and let you chime in, but a really good framework, I think, really simple for people, and just to make this is I have my beekeeper analogy for the United States. I talk about, they say, if all the bees go, the world will cease to be. And so I say, America is kind of like the beekeeper. If America doesn't stand, because if America goes, the world follows. And if America doesn't stand for the free will of humanity, that it's done. And so I think it's incumbent upon the people of America to stand for the free will of humanity. But I think it's kind of, you know, that's kind of what we're

seeing is that these people, they're... not their ontological framework is flawed. And if you look at the Declaration of Independence, which I think there are many wonderful places all over the world. I've been fortunate to travel to many of them. There are incredible people doing incredible things, but there is no other place in the entire world that has a document that is codified in writing what the Declaration of Independence did. And that is an ontological framework that says we were endowed with inalienable rights from our creator, and those rights are the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. And I think if we can anchor to that, we'll be getting closer to

preserving free will. The closer we get to dictating that we, you know, philosopher kings and tech kings are gonna dictate what's best for everyone, I think we're getting pretty far away. Well, I actually gave a talk on this and it fell flat. The talk was, my talk was America one point O is over. We need to start over from first principles. But I actually went through and explained. I mean, I use the analogy of if the Declaration of Independence was kind of the spirit of it, that the Constitution was the operating system. But the operating system has become so corrupted that it has nothing to do with the original intent or even what the original operating system was.

And then the conclusion that I came to, though, was that we need to protect free will primarily. And the thing is, I agree that I think most of these people have good intentions. I know Ed Hudgens at Humanity Plus has good intentions. It was literally the World Transhumanism Association. That's what it was before it got renamed, but go on. Yeah. Yeah, but I don't think free – but free will is not – these are atheists, and free will is literally not – and they're largely materialists. And so free will isn't important. So to them, it actually doesn't matter at all. And if that isn't what you're starting with from first principles,

then technocracy makes sense if – you don't believe in free will and you believe in determinism. It actually is the logical conclusion of where you get if those are your first principles. So I think these are people that are operating out of first principles, many of them largely with positive intent, but I think they have the wrong first principles. I completely agree. Yeah. And that is why I did that whole fifth section. And I really tried to distill it so that the philosophical jargon doesn't overwhelm people. I've really tried to break it down. I used the language, but then I explained what those terms mean, you know, in layman's terms so that people can get a handle on

it because I think it's so important. I think it's what people need to understand. And that's largely what my Hegel's dialectic and Gnostic Jacob's ladder and a machinery of control is about as well, is really driving home this point of what is free will. Because I agree with you, they invert it. And a lot of times they talk about freedom, but freedom is not free will. Free will is not an end. They're not the same. It is a conduit. It's a vehicle to hopefully choose virtue and morality, right? You know, if you subscribe to a... you know, monotheistic worldview, you know, like a Judeo-Christian type of framework, then, you know, God wants you to choose good and wants you to choose him,

but he doesn't force it on you. It is never forced. And, you know, just to pose the other side, I mean, if you subscribe to a biblical framework that Satan wants to be chosen as well. That's why all these Luciferian types of frameworks and infrastructures are opt-in. It's opt-in tyranny. They want you to choose it. They would rather not force you. That's why you do the informed consent, right? So you're checking that box. You're like, yeah, I'm going to be a slave. I'm choosing it. And it becomes opt-in to your own tyranny because he wants to be chosen too. So I'm not telling people they have to subscribe to that framework, but I think it's important for people to understand it.

Well, I will say this. So this is absolutely true. I've heard this on multiple occasions. One of the biggest pushes for Maha is informed consent. And that is a trap because when you have elites getting together with lawyers and policy experts to determine what informed consent is, you're going to end up with a fifty page document of legalese that people don't read. It's going to be just like everything else that we have. And so it's kind of a, it's interesting to think about that. Are they intentionally trying to use the premise of informed consent to basically get people to give up their free will at knowing that they're doing it through obfuscation and legalese?

I think so. I really do. I mean, that's a hard thing for me to say. Again, I can't judge intent. I'm not inside other people's head. But from where I'm sitting, it kind of looks that way. Because if you really wanted people to have true informed consent, you wouldn't send them a document in legalese that's like, you know, print this big that, I mean, most people over four can't read anyway without putting on their glasses, you know. So it's just, and most people under that age have not been taught that legally. They're not familiar with it. They're living in soundbite world. So I think that if you were really to do true, genuine, informed consent where you were concerned about the

people understanding what they were signing, you'd make it very simple. It would be very short. You don't need pages and pages of legalese to tell people what they're consenting to. So, yeah, I think that the only conclusion from that is that they don't want people to know and they want people just to sign it because it's easier. And because in order to function, you know, in a society where you bank and use apps and, you know, whatever the other things you're signing away, your free will and all of your liberties and all of your. really your property and ownership and you becoming a product that that's part of how that system works. So people will do it because

it's much easier than fighting it. So, so I think I am going to do this. I'm going to launch a website and I'm going to try, this is, I'm going to use AI for a good purpose, which is to educate people and come up with visuals to show what you've already given up and to translate what these things mean. And then maybe even a way where people can go and upload before they sign something. Hey, Take this link and put it in here and we'll spit back in human language what this means based on whatever. I don't know what all the dimensions are, but here's what it does for your privacy. Here's what it does for this. Give it a score, right? Like a little dial, a little widget and

simplify all this and take back informed consent as a concept. Because what I do see happening is I think that these elites are going to try to centralize informed consent. And by centralizing informed consent, that's how they're going to tip everybody into this new system. Follow chains, right? So you're going to have your digital twin because they keep saying it's agentic, right? It's agent centered, which means that it's human centered, but it's not. It's your digital twin. You're going to have your digital twin that's interoperable with every single platform. And so it's a one click. One stop shop, you sign, and then you've informed consent to everything. And it's all now interoperable,

interconnected. You can't opt out of anything anymore. But then I've got a recursive smart contract that constantly updates. People keep telling me, like when I talk about the network states, they're like, oh, but it's voluntary. I mean, you can choose which one you like. And I'm like, really? Once you enter with a smart, you may be able to choose which one you want to enter. But once that smart contract is in place, good luck getting out of that one, buddy. I don't know about that. Well, I had a good friend of mine who I've had on this show who I'd love to introduce you to. His name is Sterling Lujan. And he's big into network states. But from a different standpoint,

which is that he actually went to the Balaji's first whatever one in Singapore and everything. He actually goes and visits these. He's created a nonprofit to try to help. consolidate best practices and to try to actually work from a technical solution on this issue of making it easy to go in and out of network states. I've had a lot of conversations with them, Now, and unfortunately, which you already know, a lot of these network states that are... Now, if you have network states, you can't... Part of it is that you can't control what people are doing, right? It's allowing people to voluntarily choose. Unfortunately, there's a bias towards technocracy, right? A lot of these are being set

up as technocracies, which is not great. So I've seen the list of network states. I'm kind of like, yeah, okay, is that even an improvement? I'm not even sure it's an improvement. It could be an improvement, but that hasn't been the implementation. But the stuff he's working on, he definitely is... taking the he he values free will okay and and so so the approach he's taking and he's a very thoughtful guy so I'd be good to introduce you to him and because part of this is you know I love to we're not going to be able to do this on this this call but we should brainstorm more about what we can do for solutions in terms of not only waking people up, but helping people with

tools and figuring out how we're going to reclaim free will. I don't know if you have more time. So there are questions. I usually do like a live Q&A and you don't have to stay around for all of it because sometimes it gets... Right before you do, I just want to let people know, though, if they haven't read Balaji Srinivasan's Network State, it is predicated on Peter Thiel's seasteading concept, which is very reminiscent of Gillian Maxwell's Terramar. But he also in it, he keeps saying it's decentralized, but he says it's towards a re-centralized center. So he actually says it's like H.G. Wells. It's decentralized, so you can re-centralize it. That's true. That re-centralization is a

big theme and a big concept. And, you know, so I can't thank you enough for coming on. And by the way, I'm going to continue. I'm going to read all of your stuff. It's going to take me a while, but it's just absolutely phenomenal. And I encourage everyone listening to this, subscribe. And by the way, sign up. I'm a paid subscriber. Thank you. Here's one thing that I've found, which is that I haven't found anyone yet that... is actually fighting technocracy that has any institutional support um it's kind of a similar pattern people find out about this once you find out about it you can't not talk about it and warn people if if you have any concern at all but it turns out that you know the

people that you're speaking against are all the people that have power and they're the people largely that control a lot of the social networks and a lot of the platforms and so please consider supporting her sub stack and check out her website as well. It's just, it's very important stuff. And I, you know, again, I've, I've learned a phenomenal amount and I can't wait. I mean, again, it's actually, some of this is eyeopening because I actually know not just Brett. I mean, I know some of these other people and I'm looking at this. I'm like, like, I'll give you an example. I was at a, some Liberty conference where Peter Thiel was talking about seasteading and, um like a long time ago I

mean this must have been well over a decade ago and at various points in time things look look one way I have since learned from a interactions and everything variety from direct else this whole idea that peter peter teal has never been a libertarian never been a libertarian he may have been inspired by nietzsche and ayn rand early on but he's not he's not a libertarian at all he's it's just that is I've never seen him really support libertarian causes, libertarian candidates. That's not actually part of his MO. So the fact that he's been able to effectively use that as a front is alarming. I have a couple of real quick questions, like short answers, and then I'll bring some

people up if you're open to it. So what would you say one word to describe Game B? One word? Yeah. Hmm. One word. Well, all right. I guess I'd make a couple words. My one-liner is scientific socialism steering towards technocracy. That's my very short, like, that's pretty short. Scientific socialism. Yeah. Steering towards technocracy. Yeah. So scientific socialism, right, is the theory that capitalism is going to, you know, it's going to fail, you know, end up in socialism. They are kind of advancing it towards those ends. And the solution for them is technocracy.

Now, they do. There are many of them who say they're anti-technocracy and they are anti-transhumanism. But again, it goes back to their first principles because that's where it ends. And a lot of them are talking about using various technologies. Like there's already a Game B DAO, which is decentralized autonomous organization. They have Game B NFTs already, right? That's what the film initiation to Game B, which is so telling, right? It's an initiation. It says everything. But the end of it is, you know, where they open the hand and you see the coin. And if you go to the website, you can get their coins. So I mean, they talk about like Holochain is a technology that no map was

something that's out of the game B community. They renamed it to S seven, about technological but they're all talking solutions to this problem of game a. So, yeah, I mean, they would probably say it's like Omni win-win is there like one word, but I'm going to say scientific socialism steering towards technocracy. All right. Epstein catalyst or distraction. I would say both. But well, and I'll just give you one line to answer why I say that, because I think the distraction is, I'm not saying that the trafficking and the sex scandals aren't terrible. You know, I know people who've been trafficked, and that's, that's truly horrific. But I think that that's kind

of a smokescreen for the bigger agenda, which was this transhuman techno technocratic agenda. So I'm looking at these questions and they're kind of stupid. I'm going to change it and ask one. If you could ask Brett Weinstein anything, what would you ask him? I think I would ask him, do you think that I have a lot of questions for him. Well, it doesn't have to be one. I mean, if you've got a couple. I have a couple. So, I mean, my first question really, I think, and this is probably going to meet some cognitive dissonance for him because

he's an evolutionary biologist, but the whole notion is kind of predicated on Darwinian theory. But it is still a theory, right? It's widely contested in many arenas, certainly in religious communities, it's widely contested. I know it's very accepted and adopted. You know, they adhere to it in many scientific communities. But so what if it turns out that the theory is wrong, and then you're predicating this game B because you want, because of the theory of natural selection in parents? inherently like that that breeds competition and so well what if it was wrong and so we don't need to move into this anti-rivalrous um but then my second big question I'll just give two because those

are my that's kind of a one big one I think the foundation of it has flaws right it's based on a theory um but then the second is that uh What if your vision of this really, they call it protopia, but it's kind of utopian. And what if it leads us down a path that's even more dystopian? What would his thoughts be? Even if they have this beautiful vision. So what are his thoughts? that it could lead down a Is there any possibility really dystopian path? Well, All right, good. hopefully I'll get a chance to ask him these things and then I will try to invite him on because I think the best thing is to have an open conversation about these things.

And I'm grateful for all of your work and frankly shocked at the depth of your research, but also on how far this has gone. And you're really the only one talking about it, other than people that are in it themselves. Yeah, the advocates. Exactly. Great. Well, so we've got one person so far. be a couple of other people I know there were going to that usually chime in. Let me just send out a link. And then we have a few questions by text. questions in the chat, And if you want to ask feel free to do that as well. Let me do one thing. Okay. So we have, and by the way, I'll bring people up. I don't know this person, three D cow. So please be respectful.

If you're not respectful, I will, I will drop you from the stage. We've never had any issues with that before, but you never know. These are heated topics. Oh, peak prosperity member. Okay. Hi, three D cow. I'm bullish now. How are you? Hello, three D cow. Can you hear me? Okay, well. I guess. Tom Preston- pretty cow you're in I see your MIC is your MIC is not muted So if

you if you have a question feel free to to chime in and I guess, in the meantime I'll go back and look at some of these comments. Tom Preston- Right here we go. Tom Preston- thoughts on distribution and understanding that private ownership has a moral obligation to be steward of the land. So I'm all in favor of private property. I think that people should absolutely defend their ownership of anything they own. And private property is absolutely important. I don't think it's a bulwark against technocracy. In fact, I think they're using private, like, like property rights ownership as a means of steering us into technocracy.

This is why it's really, it has to be about first principles. It's really an ontological framework. When you start talking about you get into kind of contract law property rights, And remember, all contracts are going to be replaced by smart contracts. That's their goal. I'm not saying hopefully it's the best laid plans of mice and men. Right. We're here to try and stop that. But that's what they want. Is it all to be done through So you're not you think it's smart contracts? hard to negotiate with the human once you're trying to negotiate with an algorithm. I don't know. Good luck with that one. So. But that's property rights are all predicated on contract law. So it's not about ontology.

It's not about your being. And that's really what it should stem from. So I'm in favor of property rights. I think you should defend them. You know, if I were in a position to buy land, I would want to get like a land patent and, you know, really the most secure ownership possible. but uh so I'm all in favor of people doing that and defending those rights but they need to understand it's not a defense against technocracy and in fact it's being utilized to steer into it so good good great great answer all right let me see here I'm trying to this one's in a lot of pieces I'm trying to see if I can distill it um all right I'm going to read this but COVID is a myth and lie.

COVID tests were to sample your DNA, hence why PCR uses DNA and COVID is supposed to be MA. So they'd have to even turn the sample into DNA, but they simply lied and just took your DNA sample and said they were looking for some magical fake invisible pathogen. Why do you think they announced spending five hundred billion of computer programs and databases for everyone's medical records and personalized medicine using your DNA? Why do I think they announced that? Yeah. I don't know if this is supposed to be a rhetorical question. Okay. They already had the, so I guess it's already answered. They already had the plan. They've already taken people's DNA samples and have been playing with it.

Well, I think they're trying to do as much data mining as they possibly can and do as much research. I think that whole genomic project is very, very curious. I have no idea what they're doing with it, but they spent a fortune on it and we have very little show for it. So. I mean, just slightly off of this, do you know what happened to Twenty Three and Me? I remember it went bankrupt and then somebody was going to buy it. Do we know what happened where that data ended up? BlackRock was going to buy it. BlackRock? I thought so. Or maybe it was a consortium. Yeah, I thought so. I'll double check on that, but that's what I thought. Or some company tied to BlackRock. Yeah, maybe I'll look it up.

But that was my understanding. that was a really weird story By the way, because I kept on following that. So it had all these high profile investors and VCs and all of a sudden at some point, everyone on the board resigned, which is pretty unusual. In fact, it's very unusual. So it ended up with just the founder running this thing for some period of time and again I don't know what the outcome was she was trying to raise money and then some biotech company was going to buy it and I think that fell through and then I didn't follow what happened but it is pretty frightening I know a lot of people started going on and trying to delete their account as if you know there's not a

backup of the data right I mean you know yeah um I think they gave you an option that if you wanted to take it and then have it deleted, that you could do that. I don't know if that's, yeah. So the company that bought it, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they, I don't know if they have some sort of ties to BlackRock. That's what I thought I heard. But it's TTAM Research Institute, a nonprofit led by Twenty Three and Me, co-founder, CEO Anna Wojcik. completed the acquisition of twenty three and me for three hundred and five million through a court or supervised bankruptcy process. And that was in July of twenty twenty five. And this followed an earlier bid by Regeneron, pharmaceuticals,

interesting, Regeneron, which had agreed to buy Twenty Three and Me for two hundred fifty six million in May twenty twenty five, but without bid by TGAM. And the sale included substantially all of Twenty Three and Me assets. So, yeah, all the data and its personal genome service, research service and telehealth subsidiary, Lemonade Health. So I don't know. I don't know who this the acronym stands for. I guess it stands for twenty three me. OK, I don't know. Interesting. Well, so we need to find out. I think it'd be fascinating to find out. So it said it was a nonprofit that bought it. So so basically the founder went and formed a nonprofit that.

purchased out of bankruptcy for three hundred and five million dollars the assets of twenty three and me I I think whoever owns that that is going to be a fascinating that's a rabbit hole to go down yeah that's a rabbit hole wow I I can I I can't even imagine all right um let's see what we have here this is another long one I'm trying to distill it Let's see if there's a question there. All right, Dr. Inseminated Thousand Women. All right, hold on. Craig said, Max Fisher, Les Wexner, Epstein. That was his, when we were talking about who's kind of behind the scenes.

So I guess he thinks Max Fisher. Okay, let's see. What do you both think about Brett's brother, Eric? You want me to go first? You want to go first? So there's a really weird, I think a lot of things and now I'm starting to watch more of what he has to say and you know, his grand theory of everything. And I watched his Manhattan economic Manhattan project thing. But somehow, He's out there talking about Epstein as if he's like the

hero in the story about Epstein and not really disclosing the ties and involvement with Epstein around funding. And I find it odd that he seems to get away with that. And I don't know why that happens. And so I think a lot of things about them, but that's the thing that comes to mind the most that I'm kind of uncomfortable with. And I do wonder the background. Are there any ties to intelligence? What's the overall connection here? And I don't have an answer to that, but the whole thing seems... really odd so that's yeah I'm aligned with that so we've got there's a lot of questions I've got yes so he's recently saying how he thinks epstein is a construct and that and he

his justification is that epstein is not a disgrace financier but he's uh someone who's clearly controlling and steering science and that he knew way too much about his work Eric said that about Epstein for somebody who shouldn't have known about his work. But meanwhile, he's here at the Edge Foundation asking final questions. So he's clearly and he was doing the Economic Manhattan Project back in two thousand nine. So it's odd that he thinks Epstein should not know of him or his work. That's very curious. And then we have I did outline this. with the intellectual dark web and you know I can't say that for sure that it's a an intelligence operation but it certainly looks like

an influence operation and actually and I did put the quotes in here that uh andrew cohen from manifest nirvana he's an integralist right ken wilber integralism um he talks about how uh He doesn't use the words influence operation. He certainly doesn't say intelligence operation. But he does say that it was like an emerging, a project for emerging Game B. So it basically alludes to it being an influence operation for Game B. And then we have the intellectual deep web, which was definitely Game B. I mean, that was a spinoff for Game B. And that was started by David Fuller, who did documentaries for BBC. And one of his early documentaries was on Jordan Peterson. So and then there's also

Eric Weinstein worked for the U.N. from two thousand to two thousand two. He wrote that document, the migration replacement for all for the benefit of all, which basically became a blueprint for the U.N. and for what we're seeing now with the infiltration of all the migrants into Europe. And a really great book on this topic is The Milner Fabian Conspiracy. They go into quite a bit of detail on this and how they infiltrated through the West, but certainly through Europe. So that's interesting. he was working at a teal capital, right? And then, of course, He was managing a at teal's fund so that's also very curious he's because teal seems to be whether or not he's the

ultimate puppet master he's definitely an architect he was a master chess player since he was five and he was like a chess champion and I I think he picked his people and he's grooming them so that he can have his uh moles who are you know going to be big players so it seems like there's a possibility that eric was one of those that was groomed I don't know I don't know. I've never met him, so I don't have any. And he doesn't have the same kind of, you know, Brett has a very warm kind of demeanor about him. Like he kind of comes across as like a self-deprecating kind of dorky. I don't mean that to be derogatory at all. It's very endearing, actually, you know. So I think he's kind of more

unassuming that way. I mean, both of them are obviously very bright characters. But Eric comes across a little bit more in your face. He's a little bit more brusque. And so I don't think he has the same kind of role. But yeah, it looks like whether or not they're aware of their roles, I could see how they could be utilized. We'll put it that way. Yeah, no, Brett is very nice. And I've had nothing but good interactions with him. Eric does come off as a little bit more arrogant. One of the things that I'm curious about is – and I haven't spent – his theory of everything, whatever this thing is. And I haven't spent the time because I know it's a rabbit hole that's going to

take a long time to go down. I just remember seeing something in my ex feed about – Somebody who did a whole analysis of it, and then it's Eric going back and forth with him. But I wonder what that theory says and how that fits into game B and how that might be used. And again, I don't know enough about it to be able to comment. I don't know if you've looked into it much. I haven't looked into it enough. I know there are a lot of physicists and mathematicians who have said that it's a complete lie. Folly, they say that, you know, they think he's a fraud. I'm not saying that I haven't done enough research to make that claim. But I will say, I think it does seem to be

related to this source code question. And he talks about in an interview, he talks about how. The source code, if we were to learn our source code, would be like a Skynet moment for humans. And he says he's a little concerned about it, but he's also talking about us having a Skynet moment, which, again, is the noosphere. So, you know, this is where it kind of goes back to first principles. But I don't know. I haven't done the deep dive on what that theory is, but there's a lot of controversy around it. So it would be interesting. Yeah. Well, that'll be the new one to tackle. So here's a question that's interesting, that's fascinating. Is one brain concept related

to we are all connected and one with God? Actually, before we answer that, I... I think it's interesting, these channeled works like The Law of One and Seth Speaks. And I went through a phase where I was kind of researching everything. And I'm really interested in, you know, was that a CIA operation? Because that, you know, you never know what is planned. You know, is Tavistock behind this? I mean, I don't know if you've looked into this stuff. But anyway, his question was, is the one brain concept related to we're all connected and one with God? Yes, except that I would say it's not the God of the Bible. So they're talking about God as in like the New Asians

would call it source, like that's what theosophists call it. So it's this idea that it's a monistic theory where everything is interconnected. So it's a like Mother Earth, that we're all part of God. But essentially, it's pan-antheistic. So new thought is more pan-antheistic. New age is a little bit more pan-theistic. But it's this idea that we're all part of God. And then the pan-antheist is that the God is actually in us. And then if we can achieve the gnosis, through the theology, the divine work, that we can become God's So, yeah, it is, but not biblically. Just, yeah. Got it. They seem to be borrowing

from this concept. Okay. He says, pushback, Erin. There is a race to AGI between U.S. companies versus... China. Again, I'm going to be documenting a lot more of this because I've been looking at the funding and a lot of the technology transfer. And frankly, the WEF is a big platform for all of this. there may be a pushback between the I mean, companies that are working towards AGI, but it has nothing to do with the countries themselves. And so, I mean, I've always argued that It's probably the internal battle for control that's going to tear down technocracy. I mean, Technocracy Inc. had a civil war. They had their own issues early on. And so a lot of these people

are pretty emotionally unstable. I mean, if you look at Peter Thiel, he is a really dark person. background growing up he was one of these guys where it's like oh he was really smart but he's a loner I mean he's the kind of guy that you know when you see people interviewed after a something it's like that's school shooting or the way that they describe him and then he has all of these you know what he did with Gawker when he was outed for being gay and then Yeah, funded funded Hulk Hogan's lawsuit. And then and then I guess he had a boyfriend who just he's married, but he had a boyfriend who just committed suicide, I think, in twenty twenty three. And there's a whole weird thing about that.

But the boyfriend, I guess, said that, you know. Teal treated him like he was a doll. And there was just no closeness, intimacy, He had quite a bit to say depth. and then ended up dead. I guess he showed up at one of Teal's holiday parties where the husband was there. And then Teal berated him in front of a bunch of people. And a few days later, he ended up dead. the problem is that you dig into Anyway, this and it's like, okay, well, do we have... We have some people that have probably some underlying issues that need to be addressed. And unfortunately, are they taking out their... Have you ever seen that meme where Bill Gates gets hit with a pie? And it was in that moment,

Bill Gates decided to kill everyone on the planet. It's kind of like somehow... a lot of these technocrats have that similar background. So I don't necessarily see them always being buddy-buddy. For instance, Peter Thiel fired Elon Musk at PayPal. So you never know how this is all going to end up. So maybe there is some competition amongst the technocrats as to how they're going to carve up the pie, but they've agreed on a direction, their own minds have a view and they probably all in of how much control they're going to have, and it can't all be true. think whenever you have like these dark triad personalities right they have massive massive uh egos and uh they're so a

lot of times you have in fighting because they they want they want total control and power um so you're always going to have conflict I I think a really good example of this is uh You know, people think that like Hitler and Stalin were fighting over ideology. No, it was not a matter of ideology. Like they were both rooted in Marxism. They were arguing over who was going to rule the world. And Hitler wanted his version of nationalism where Germany was going to take over the whole world and he would rule the world. And Stalin wanted Russia to take over the world and he was going to be the king of the world. So, I mean, of course they were in competition, but people can make this

mistake thinking it's about ideology. the ideology was quite similar. They were very much aligned on most things. There are nuanced differences. But that's the same thing that happens, I think, in most of these arenas. The shared worldview is the glue that holds them together. So even though they might be fighting, having infights because they're fighting over power, they're competing with each other over who is going to be the ruler of the technocracy. Ultimately, they're all vying for the technocracy. Yep, absolutely. So that's one thing to keep in mind. And I think that plays into this whole AGI conflict. And I'm starting to dig into, all right, who's in control of the

Politburo in charge of this stuff within China? Because it's not just the... the president it's it's obviously it's a it's a different structure and and jack ma and all these other people so I I'm actually starting to spend more time digging into what's going on in china because we've gotten so used to just assuming that it's people from the us controlling the technocracy and that's actually not true but it's they're all but they're all interconnected china's not operating in isolation china's operating uh I mean we kick-started it we we opened up the technology transfer we have all the relationships we're sharing technology there's all this overlap I think better understanding and

articulating that is going to be important I mean remember when gavin newsom invited you know like rolled out the carpet finally the streets were clean in california or whatever just because he wanted to make a good impression and remember all these world leaders that were like oh we really um were really uh envious of the china response to covid and you know how well they were able to firmly take power and you know use their authority to keep their people safe and so you know again there's this it's all manufactured this division uh deadheaded I see you're there I don't know about three d cow we still can't hear you I don't know if you're still there but I see deadheaded

um you're muted so if you want to ask a question oh there we go yeah hey guys how are you Well, a few things, actually. I mean, we could talk about Epstein. We could talk about cognitive freedom, I was wondering, things like that. have you seen any of the work by Dr. Donald Hoffman? You're not familiar. Is Hoffman kind of the simulation theory guy in California? He's out of California, yes. But, well, you say simulation, it's self-imposed simulation, which, of course, it is. We only see what our language allows us to see. We know that. Babies see a lot more. People with different languages have different views and actually can see different things.

But yeah, fascinating. I mean, he recently, the only Lex Friedman interview I was able to watch all the way through was with him about three years ago. And then I recently watched a new interview with him. It was the guy, something of a CEO is the name of his channel. He does some really good work. uh podcaster and he had him on recently um but that you being philosophers wondered how if you had uh had heard about him but I I see definitely should I the courtney you know yeah fascinating stuff have you ever read any of the synopsis on that castaneda carlos castaneda ever

talked about with don juan mathis's teachings No, I'm not. Really? Did I sent you one time, Aaron? Okay. Oh, I guess it was a few weeks ago. First time I was on a while ago, um, a link to a, uh, at the university of Hawaii, which was a breakdown on that, uh, philosophy. Did you ever get a chance to dig into that? I have not had a chance to dig into that. My something that I learned about back in the eighties. Let's see if I got a link for it here. Um, yeah. And, um, the work of donald hoffman has just totally uh validated that for me I just uh dropped a link in there

Well, let's go back to Epstein real quick. Are you familiar that he did a huge conference? Well, when I say a private conference, he owned not only Little St. James, but the other island next to it, which was a bigger, more public item. And I think it was two thousand four with like fourteen or twenty four of the top physicists around the world. And then had a private event on Little St. James following that. It was all about gravity. Yes. So he did on Little St. James. He had he did a mind shift conference. And I have that linked in my article. I talk about mind shift conference. That's okay. Yeah. Which I find fascinating that he was, Yeah. you know, on that subject.

Did you, have you looked into his, his, he had a company, I think it started out as financial services group. it switched names in two This was in like, thousand seventeen. But it was an AI company for medical data mining. He, he, uh, And he started, yep. there's articles of incorporation. Actually, uh, I got a link to that too. it's at the New York times is where the, Uh, the, the PDF is. But, um, yeah, he, in, in two thousand, he started the company as a not-for-profit, um, past all that. And then it was for, yeah, they were in two thousand seventy AI mining where, where he was getting access

to all the medical databases. I don't know. Yeah. But that was incorporated down in the Virgin Islands also. Interesting. Mindshift Conference, one of the guys who was there was Maury Gelman. And he was the founder of the Santa Fe Institute. So, again, that was where that connection came in. Brock Pierce was there also. Oh, I got to look more into Brock Pierce because I just don't know much about Brock Pierce. I know you. Are you guys familiar with Helion Energy, Sam Altman's and Peter Thiel's fusion company? A little bit. Yeah. they're delivering a neutronic I mean, Yeah. fusion to Microsoft in twenty twenty eight.

That's over unity ten plus. Yeah. So and that's a that's a signed contract. And we know that that the military's had this for. ten years that we know of. More than that, actually. Fifteen. Yeah. And they're talking about putting nuclear power on the moon when we've got this. they're talking about nuclear power Well, for all of these data centers. Well, that's what this is for. Microsoft's data center. If you read the contract, the fusion. So, if they're going to deliver fusion, unlimited fusion energy in two and a half years... What the hell are they talking about nuclear for? Yeah, I don't know.

Well, I mean, having a contract and actually delivering it are two different things. Yeah. have you been to the website to look Well, at this stuff? I'm pretty deep into it. No, I haven't. Have you looked at any of Ashton Forbes' research on fusion? I've seen some of his stuff, but I haven't gone into detail on his stuff on fusion. Yeah, it's legit. I mean, he's putting up the studies. He's putting up the scientists. He's putting up everything there and showing you the background, bringing up the conferences. You can go see it. Oh, is this Ashton Ford, you said? Forbes. Forbes, Ashton Ford. Okay, MH-三七. His conclusion is that that

plane was teleported by military craft. Out of existence. I know it sounds crazy, but if you go look at what he's got, it's the most detailed scientific research I've ever seen on any one of these types of strange subjects. And two years ago, he would have told you the same thing. You're crazy. Hmm. And I mean, but they, he got it down to, he knows the exact cameras, how they're configured on what drones that Reaper drones they were on. He found the, the leaker of the video. He proved that the video can not be fake scientifically. I mean, and he's got, uh, the, the leaker quit and, and changed his name.

And then he goes to starts digging into the actual science and he shows it here. Yeah. Um, Who's the company that just got the contract for the railroad on the moon? Big military contract. You'd know the name as soon as you said it. You know, they just signed a contract to put a railroad on the moon, right? I saw that, and then I didn't know if it was real or not. I actually thought that was a fake story at first. It's absolutely real. I looked at it. Damn, I can't think of the name of it. But it's one of the huge military contractors got it. Raytheon? I don't know. No, it's not Raytheon. It's a two-name thing.

They work a lot out at Skunk Works, too, although that's not them. um I I can let you if you google that you can uh um railroad on the moon contract it'll come up but that's the con um they're the ones and he names the scientists behind it and then he's on he's on podcasts with are you familiar with the physicist dr you we um Last name is W.E.I. First name. Why you fast? Oh, I love this guy. You know, really, really good. He's validating all of Ashton's conclusions. So and even naming the guys that the guy that did this

and validating. Yeah, that's what that guy's working on. So. Everything's a lie, right? I don't believe anything. Everything's a lie. Religion's a lie. Food's a lie. Light's a lie. I got my glasses on, Aaron, because I think I turned you on to Dr. Jack. You should get Uncle Jack on. Oh, no, I've been following Uncle Jack for a while. But, yeah, well, Yeah. we need to have a talk about Bitcoin. Yeah, he's a maxi. He's a maxi, but he does have some interesting stories about the Federal Reserve and the FBI. And actually, even on Bitcoin himself, he actually claims that Len Sassman was Satoshi. In fact, he's been trashing Michael Saylor So the interesting thing is he's a maxi,

and everything else. but he also does acknowledge some of the problem areas. Yeah, he's a truth seeker. So with Bitcoin, this is interesting. So Mihaela Uluru, I don't know how you pronounce her name, but she's a SingularityNet ambassador who is interviewing Annalise Smithman. And she's the one talking about the decentralized governance for the global governance, which is like an oxymoron. But she said that Satoshi Inoue, gave, she was at, was it Stanford or MIT? I think it was MIT. She was at, and they, no, maybe it was Stanford. I'll look it up. But that they gave out Bitcoins to all of the students for free.

And she was one of them. They just gave a bunch of Bitcoin. I backed that. I don't know. Have you guys heard the theory that who is the guy that received the very first Bitcoin transaction? Hal Finney. He died. Yeah. Hal Finney. Now, supposedly he had a couple of programmers, friends that created this game. And one of their name was Satoshi. The other one's name was Nakamura or something like that. And they. I've heard that. Yeah, I've heard that there. That's that's one that's a I don't. little out there for me. there's there's a movie being worked Yeah, on that. And I talked to a guy that that has actually talked to his family members. And there's a whole there's

a whole backstory that, you know, he had some computers and and one of the he said, you know, nobody can touch this computer, whatever. There's a whole there's a whole drama behind it. Um, maybe it's him, but then, then he said some other things that are kind of counter to, to that narrative. I mean, you know, whatever we can, we can speculate on who it is. The lens Sassaman argument actually makes some sense. Uh, the way that Jack laid it out and I'm going, I've got to watch that again, but the timing fits and the guy ended up dying like shortly after Satoshi stopped talking to people. And this guy did have the background, uh, to be able to do it. So, um, but nevertheless, uh, you know,

it was hijacked. I don't know whether it was, it might've been nefarious to begin with. I mean, I'm not even sold that it could have been the NSA to begin with, but it wasn't MIT. And this is from like one of the, a video where they're interviewing her. And she says Satoshi Nakamoto put them all together into this wonderful infrastructure called blockchain. So I was there from day one. I was at MIT when they gave Bitcoin for free to students to start companies. So yes, I can say that until now, it's been really great journey. And many of those companies, including Stellar, are very successful. All right. Well, that's interesting because Stellar, the guy who started Stellar

was actually the guy who founded Mt. Gox, which was the exchange that ended up getting hacked. Now, he left and this other guy took over. But then when he left... Mount Gox, he started Ripple. He started XRP. And a lot of people don't know, but he hasn't been involved So actually when Roger Ver got involved, for a long time. it was just that guy that he invested in. That's how, that's what XRP was. Now it's a whole bunch of people tied to the NSA and they brought in people that were like Larry Summers, I mean, at one point their advisory board was like a WEF advisory board or something. It was horrible. But then that guy went off, I can't remember his name right now, and then started Stellar.

And there's this marketing campaign that people buy, which I swear that there's a quantum financial system and there's going to be a reset. And it's always XRP and Stellar. And it's all BS. And it really gets me wondering who's it's so many people believe this. There are people that are there are high up Trump people. I'm not going to say who the guy is, but they're like you. It was like promulgated through Q. Yeah. Yeah. Well, and I think, so Patrick Wood has said that the debt might be a way that they could leverage this. I mean, I hope it doesn't happen. But I was like, oh my gosh. Well, if that happens, I think that all the people

who were told this lie, that there was going to be a debt jubilee, because that's what Jassar and Asar is, then they're all going to be, as soon as the quantum system rolls out, they're going to jump on board. Because they're getting a debt jubilee, but they're going to then tokenize everything and seize all their assets. And they're going to do this willingly because they're like, oh, yeah, it's a debt jubilee. This is what we were waiting for because Q told us. Yeah. Yeah. You get rid of all your debt. You get rid of all your liabilities, but you also get rid of all of your assets. That's the little trick. I believe that's funny. But they are falling for it. And I've actually tried to

argue with people about this. I'm like, watch the people behind the Jasara and Nasara thing. This thing was debunked a long time ago. This is insane that you're believing this. And then I think it's interesting that it's the same guy that started XRP and Stellar. And I got to dig into that a little bit more. Yeah. You don't think there's a nugget to truth to some of that though. I mean, I'm not saying all their, all their debt's going to be wiped out, but they're going to use some sort of financial catastrophe to try and push us onto the, you know, what, what do we have accounts directly with the central banks? It's going to end up being one global energy credit based system.

So now what we've done is people didn't like the idea of a central bank digital currency. So now governments are taking over stable coins, which in many respects, I hate the Federal Reserve, but this is almost worse. Because it was announced yesterday that China is now looking at a stable coin. And so who ends up backing this? Again, all of this moves towards a single global system. So at some point, what you're doing is you're tokenizing everything and you're making it so that all of those tokens interact and are interoperable. and then are able to be centrally controlled and we're moving like at light speed towards that there's been more damage done in that direction in the last

seven months than in the last four years and then I think in eight years if if uh if you know harris or biden had won and the thing is it's gone completely without any fight or acknowledgement of what's happening Catherine Austin Fitz, I know you've read her stuff, her Fifty Things for the Global Control Grid that Trump's doing. Great article. Yeah, she's spot on and always has been. I've been following her for a decade or more. Yeah. By the way, I pulled up your thing. Southern Trust Company is what Epstein started in twenty twelve. And it looks like that like basically funded himself. Right. Yeah.

But if you look through that toward. Yeah, that turns into late. And that document actually had some wonderful tells you all his his affiliations because he he brags about him. I think on page twenty four. DNA data mining service with ambitions to analyze genetic material raked in over two hundred million dollars thanks to tax breaks. And, you know. And then apparently one of the geneticists linked to the funding later became a key figure in Biden era national DNA surveillance initiatives. Yeah. Yeah. So that woman who I was telling you about who was at MIT when they gave her the Bitcoin to start company, she's the president of Impact Institute for Digital Economy,

Technology Alchemist Innovating at Nexus, AI, Internet of Things, Blockchain, Awarded Research Chair, Professor of Artificial Intelligence. And she was one of those people who was doing that global document, the Constitution for AI. Wow. Is it the impactinstitute.org? Am I looking at the right thing? Yeah, Impact Institute. Impact Institute for Digital Economy is what it is. Okay, here we go. Got it. Wow. early in well look at that

world economic forum yep and he's also an advisor on the consilience project this consilience project was started by daniel schmachtenberger and jordan hall game b wow it's like everywhere I turn it's uh there it is Well, you know, Roy Cohn, his mentor and best friend, who was obviously, Roy was Trump's thing. You know, if you've heard any of the recent Whitney Webb stuff and all the real estate businesses that Trump bought from Cohn when he died, that were all being used for sexual blackmail and things like that back in those days. Court, you were going to early in the interview when you guys were talking,

you were going to mention something all like the PayPal mafia kids when they were like twelve, thirteen, fourteen. They were in some I don't want to say it was an experiment or was it a class out in California? It starts with an M or something. You didn't actually get the naming it. But I think it was Sam from SRI linked. But all those guys like Musk and the Silicon Valley guys and girls, it was like when they were twelve or thirteen or fourteen, took this experimental class. And it was a behavioral class, something tied to MKUltra. And I thought you were going to mention it earlier.

I was talking about the economic No, behavior class that he took under Epstein. Thaler taught it. Oh, OK. But interesting. I wasn't aware of that, actually. That's very interesting. You know, obviously, that's what some researchers say. I haven't put a put a document. I haven't seen any evidence of it. That doesn't I mean, I might just not have seen it. But that's interesting. That's never come up. I know that. But you know what? I mean, Teal grew up in Germany. Well, he moved to the United States, but he was born in Germany. The Musk is from South Africa and he moved all over. He was in Canada and then he Right. came to the States for college. So he was here later.

So, I mean, that seems a little odd. And it may not have been Musk. It may have just been several of the other ones. I want to say like Sergey Brin and people like that. You know, I know that there is a program, CTY, to that. it's through Johns Hopkins, Center for Talented Youth. And that is right around twelve. So I was actually in it. And it's like when you're twelve, they give you I don't know what they do now, but at the time it was like they give you the SATs. And if you score over twelve hundred at twelve, they recruit you for this program. But it was tied to GATE, which was, you know, like the CIA Gifted and Talented Education Program. So I know there's that,

but I don't know if they were. I mean, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'll have to do some research. Yikes. So I went to this Duke talent identification program one, one summer. And actually I was talking to my son about this. That was AI programming. So I got to find out what the origin of that, that is now, now that you bring it up. What's so funny about it? I mean, I didn't know about this, like, CTY program. I have completely forgot about it. Like, I have no recollection of the entire Like, program. I think there was some sort of an MKUltra because I literally forgot all about it. I only remember the first day. And the only reason that I even know that I did it was

because when I was cleaning to move out of California, I found, like, you know, a letter from my mom and a little screen, you know, picture of this letter, you know, And my mom was saying how proud she was. And then there was this letter of them recruiting me, like welcoming me, saying I had been admitted. But the interesting thing about it is that the CIA tried to recruit me when I was seven. And I always thought those were totally separate things. But I've talked to like a monarch programmer. those are definitely related. He's like, oh, no, I mean, I have no idea. I didn't go. I, my, my mom said no, but, but they do try to recruit me. So, so yeah, you gotta, the CIA tried to recruit

How did that work? you when you were seven. How did that work? So they came into the school. I remember it really well. They came into the school. They told us it was the police and that they were going to put on a skit for us. And I was raised like you're supposed to be really good friends with the police and they're your buddies and say hi and all that. So I was excited. Oh, they're going to put on a play for us. That's great. And so they did. But it was really odd because we didn't sit and watch. It was like everybody was kind of dispersed. It was just not laid out like a theater. So it was very strange. And I had like a weird feeling about the whole thing. But then they called each

student down to the principal's office. And they said, you know, we want you to tell us what you saw, like what happened. So I did. And I, you know, but I gave a lot of detail, like I told them exactly what everybody said, I kind of repeat repeated the whole scene and what people wore and what color nail polish the girls are wearing. And some of the guys had their hats backwards. And So I gave all these details, and apparently they called my mom. They were like, your daughter has an eidetic memory. about recruiting her for the CIA. We'd like to talk to you And my mom was like, you know that she's visually impaired, hearing impaired. I don't really think she's a candidate.

And they were like, oh, no, no, we're not concerned. And they tried to flatter her, like tell her that it's a huge honor. They don't recruit children, which we know is a lie. We've seen the declassified documents. But apparently they pursued for like nine months, and she had to keep hanging up on them. Wow. That's frightening. Yeah. Good mother. But yeah, they were doing all sorts of studies. Yeah, exactly. But what's really interesting is that people have told stories about being in these gifted and talented programs. And they have weird memories of them doing all sorts of experiments. For me, I just don't remember it at all. It's like they did an amnesia kind of thing on me.

I don't remember it at all. Now I'm looking, I'm not happy that I'm looking this up now. Tip was part of a broader U.S. ecosystem of gifted programs like GATE and public school that critics now viral label as grooming pipelines for elite networks. Yeah, there's a lot of research and theories about it. Because it was just odd. Like now you've got all these people who are talking about their experience in it. And a lot of them remember, they remember like wearing headsets and weird kind of like sound stuff. And I don't know. People have strange memories from it. I just have no memories. Yeah. All right. Well, I'm going to dig through this now. Wow.

I'll do this offline. I'm looking at this. what in the hell am I looking at here? I'm like, So what I do remember about it is we programmed in this language called Clips, which I've never heard of before. I don't remember even what we were programming. But I remember that the professor was like, I could be slightly off on this, but he was like, and already had a Ph.D., And so it was a really weird. I mean, I think about it now. I mean, this was. Nineteen eighty nine, nineteen ninety. So, I mean, who was I mean, I in nineteen ninety. Right. So so now I'm like, oh,

now it's a little bit spooky. So I'll get I'll get back on that. Yeah, I'm curious. I want to hear. Yeah. You know what you find. Yep. And it would be interesting to find out who else was in that program. Yes. Totally. That would be fascinating. And what are they doing now? Exactly. And are we allowed to know? That's the next question. But yeah, this woman is fascinating. She's also the chief AI alchemist. That's her role at Singularity.net. And then she's a pioneer peer at GameBee. And she was recruited by Jim Rutt. the president of Impact And then, of course,

Institute of Digital Economy. So, yeah. And HyperCycle was what she was. And then the Consilience Project, which is also Game B. But, yeah. I'm going to do some more digging on her and that whole constitution. Because that's creeping me out. thinking it might be good to create like a a mind map and a timeline website for all of this because it's really hard to to keep all of this stuff I know together and and it just there's so much to go we needed we need a gis survey map with timelines you know just you're exactly right at the people connections like the way um linkedin

Used to be, back when it first opened, you could click on a CEO, show you all his prior connections, all the executives that worked for him at different companies, and you could just map out corporate. It was great. Back before it became a social dating site. She has a book, and this is interesting. It's from Bitcoin to Burning Man and Beyond. I might get that. We're going to get the Esalen Institute involved in this. I think so. Well, the Aspen Institute, she was at the Aspen Institute, which is connected. the Aspen Institute used to be You know, the Aspen Institute of a, what was it, of a human, a secular humanism.

They changed it. She was Aspen Institute leader, Big Data Futures. That was in twenty sixteen. But yeah, they changed the name. And I think it's because the Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism was a religion. And so they dropped that. So now it's just Aspen Institute. Oh, yeah. Huh. I'm not looking at her list of publications here. This is. Huh? Wow. So much to go through.

We need and we need a network, a visual graph network of all these people because it really goes so deep and so far back. Yeah, we need a mind map. and it's everybody now. I mean, God, it's crazy. What's, what's, uh, who, who's, you know, everybody on both sides. So guys, I'm going to bow out. Great, great evening. Thanks so much. All right. Thank you. Well, I mean, it's, yeah, there are a few other, few other comments here, but I know it's getting late. Three D cow is still there. Not, not chiming in. Um, I think it's, you know,

so starting with free will as a first principle is interesting because I know a lot of the questions get into, well, how are you going to handle this or how are you going to handle that? And obviously, if you're starting with first principles, you're going to get to a So everybody's worried about different outcome. AI and what economic dislocation and there are a whole bunch of paths on that and, you know, that lead to UBI. I mean, there are some actual challenges, right? How do we deal with everything that's going on with robots and everything? But it has to be done from first principles. it's going to turn into an Otherwise, absolute disaster. Yeah.

Well, it could turn into the extinction of So, yeah. humanity. I think that's likely the case. So I see I am for I am. Yes, please discuss distributism. AGI in China will use UBI and be centralized. AGI in U.S. will be corporations with forty percent or fifty percent unemployment and a six society except for an elite few. Yeah. big thing for people to understand is Well, that it's not going to be just UBI. UBI is universal basic income. It's going to be CBI, which is conditional based income. So it's all conditional. So you if you are a good doobie, then you might get your allotted tokens where you don't actually own any assets, but you might get some

tokens and then you can play with those tokens. But if you're not a good doobie, then, you know, you might get those tokens completely unallotted. you know, pagan or you may have demerits for the next month too. Well, I think this goes hand in hand with this site that shows the but equally over fifty rights that we've given away, percent of our health care now is provided by the government. We've already been moving in this direction anyway. So if you look at the number of people on food stamps, the number of people getting benefits, we've already kind of crossed a pretty significant threshold with that so it's not going to be very difficult and you're already seeing things like well we're

going to give people some money back from the tariffs right so it's like okay well more conditioning for ubi or the big celebration a couple days ago that eight states now have banned sugary drinks from ebt cards which is more programmable digital money and and they just keep on doing it so in fact I think the important thing is to take a step back and say this is the real situation already we're already over fifty I'm gonna guess we're already over fifty percent in terms of of that and that will be an eye-opener because people are still sitting around thinking that we have all this freedom and pointing to other countries not realizing that it's already been done here and

certainly not knowing what they've given away contractually through these agreements yeah and of course that that that's always the uh the way they entice them right it's uh like maha oh yeah these sugary drinks are bad so we shouldn't have them be spending their ebts on sugary drinks but it's their free will they you know You would like people to make good choices, but people don't always make good choices, and those are their choices to make. Exactly. And so, you know, we went, how is that medical freedom? It's not. Yeah, it's not at all. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right about the medical freedom thing is just, boy, that has turned out to be the opposite of what I

think people were certainly cheering for. Me too. It feels like an operation. I don't know if it started that way or if it was hijacked, but it's certainly looking like that's the result. Yep. Well, I know it's getting late. There weren't any more kind of live questions. I really appreciate this. This has been a wonderful conversation. And we've got twenty eight hundred people live, which is good. And hopefully more will share. Please like and share this. Please help get this information out. I know these topics are not probably. looked upon yeah they're probably not looked upon happily by the algorithm and so uh anything you can

do to share would be would be great but do you have any any final thoughts and also I was going to say we we have this when is our thing with patrick wood I'm trying to find is it twenty-seventh or twenty yeah I think it's twenty-seventh uh let me double check that yep twenty-seventh all right so the twenty-seventh I believe it's at five p.m Um, well, anyway, I'll say I'll send around, but that's going to be an exciting one. So we're going to be able to, to really dig more into, into the roots of technology, uh, technocracy. I actually just signed up for his, he has an online course now. It's some twenty five hour. Awesome. So bootcamp. So I just signed up for that. So I'm looking forward to

going through that. Um, but anyway, any final thoughts? Um, Hmm. I don't know. I mean, I definitely, yeah, for free wills, first principles. My closing thoughts, you know, I always like to give people some hope because I feel like I'm, you know, the bearer of doom. So because these topics are so dark. But I don't feel all hope is lost. We still have free will. And I think the most hope is really at the local level. So what I really encourage people to do is to figure out we all have, I believe, unique gifts, strengths, talents, right? And we also have unique passions. And I think we should let our passions be our guide into where we're going to take action. and find people locally who

are like-minded, who are excited about something you're excited about, and start to push back on these technocratic encroachments. So just to make it concrete for people, I'll give a couple of examples. There might be some moms out there who are very concerned about all this tech ed, which is data mining your children and using cybernetic feedback loops to program your children and brainwash your children. So maybe get together with some other concerned parents in your local school board and create some bills against some of the tech ed. that's like one example of what You know, you can push back. Maybe you're somebody who is a farmer and right now they're rolling out.

They've put the USDA has put three point one billion dollars into climate smart commodity projects. and you know this is like where we get the tagging the cows ears and uh you know they're measuring your greenhouse gas emissions and this all spawned from trying to meet like a esg requirements that the farmers should have pushed back because the sec had no purview to mandate this but that's actually not why they pushed back the farmers pushed back because they had no metrics of measuring their ESG. And so, well, they've got the solution. They've got all of these technologies where they can measure your greenhouse gas emissions and you can comply. So what you can do is you

can ban those locally. You know, county or town and say, you can get together with your we do not want any of these. And we're going to start, we're going to create bills where you cannot have any of this technology, you know, on our farms. You know, those are just two examples, but just to make it really concrete for people, There's a lot people can do. And I think at the local level, I think people get very excited about like federal kind of action or even state action. I'm not saying you shouldn't, you know, wherever you can make a difference. Obviously, I encourage you to do so. But I think we really have a lot more power at a very local level. And it really starts with saying, no,

we do not want these surveillance metrics. We do not want these technologies and just push back. Very well said. Do not comply. Yeah. And it can work, although we've got a limited window of time because Palantir is going to do everything they can to between Palantir and Neuralink. But we still have time. So so let's get it done. Well, thank you again. I can't thank you enough. Just incredible information. Where can people find you? So they can find me at CourtneyTurner.com. And I spell my name like Courtney. It is pronounced Courtney. But for those of you who are looking at it online and trying to type it, it's Courtney. So C-O-U-R-T-E-N-A-Y-T-U-R-N-E-R.com.

And that is where you can find all of my various podcast platforms and social media, ways you can connect with me, ways you can support my work. And then, of course, also go to my Substack. where all the articles we're talking about are. And that is at CourtneyTurner.Subsac.com. And I also put all of my podcasts there first. So you get early access and you get ad free if you're a paid subscriber. So I greatly appreciate any support. So yeah, there's ways you can do that. Thank you. And thank you so much for having me. I truly enjoyed this. This was really fun. No, it was my pleasure. And thanks for staying so late. My God, it's eleven thirty. So we definitely definitely

put in some extra time here. So I appreciate it. And I look forward to I'll talk to you, if not before, when we do the the panel with Patrick Wood. Yes. Looking forward to it. Have a great night. Awesome. Bye. You too.