S2E24: Wake Up: Digital ID + Palantir

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 code 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. Crevity 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 banned 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 they said it's for safety they said it's for peace

but they put the cage up first then they hit the keys roger v one oh nine years ian framed up engineered with fears roman roll code made privacy strong We won't let them fade away We will shout their names today

Follow the law, they still put them in chains. Freedom's the target, control's the game. Change the face, but the hand's the same. Catching the ball, while they curse your name. Free them!

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 decoded mantra,

chant of conscious evolution, metamask for technocrats who harvest data like communion, know it's fair surveillance, tell our dreams in server racks, Pearson Teal Bank wrote a stack, AI gods on proxy tracks. propens, call the spirit, keep the shell, rewrite the meek to fit their ends. Ghost in the genome, code on the throne, rule tomorrow when the seas not our own. Pray in the data, kneel to the screen, it's freedom

Tentalk profits, profits I love, but silence the devils they serve. Swapping our doubt for dopamine, selling the sky on reserve. Anti-rivalrous sermons, master profit in the plot. While drones carve halos in the air for those they chose to swap. Bot has pipeline. paradise 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 god when the code out lives your chest though

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

we don't break We don't give what they can take We don't bow, we don't break We don't give what they can take Roger stood with fire in his hand We went built a haven on free land Roman wrote the code they fear the most Now they're ghosts in the machine they boast They dress it up as law and order But it chains across the border

Freedom's got a billion eyes. We don't. We are told, we don't bow, we don't break. A law that kills the hope we're given.

Every cage they try to build Will break when voices won't be still Roger, we will stand for you We will fight it through Your code will run

Welcome back to the Aaron day show. This is season two, episode twenty four. Thank you for joining me today. As you can tell, this is a completely different day and a completely different time. So we are changing up the format and we're actually adding an extra day. So moving forward, The Aaron Day Show will be on Mondays and Thursdays at six p.m. Eastern time. And there are a lot of reasons for that. There's quite a bit of content to go over. And, you know, I've been working this summer over a new strategy on how we can combat technocracy. And as you'll see in the next couple of episodes, I'm going to lay out, you know, some tools that we can all use to help push that further.

So tonight we're going to be talking about ten signs that technocracy is already here. So for the past few years, I've been warning people that technocracy is coming. But when I stepped back and took a look at what's happened just in the first eight months of the Trump administration, I'd argue technocracy is already largely here. So we need to accelerate our sense of urgency and start working on solutions. So that's going to be the Main topic for tonight. But then I'm also going to talk about one exciting development with Zeno. Thursday's episode is going to be dedicated almost exclusively to Zeno and a new website that I'm launching regarding Zeno and building projects on Zeno.

But I am going to talk about one very specific development tonight. which is the launch of a debit card that you can use with Zeno and Freedom Dollar that is a non-KYC debit card, which is a game changer. I used it today and I'll show you how it works and everything. I highly recommend it. It's an absolute game changer. And then I'm going to talk about the form.

Well, I have no idea what just happened there, but anyway, we're back. I have no idea why that kicked out, but As I was saying tonight, we're going to talk about the Ten Science Technocracies here, and I'm going to go through and walk through a new Zeno debit card and also talk about some of the changes that are coming to the Aaron Day Show. Just for some housekeeping, I'm going to go through. Last week, I talked about the Own Nothing Rebellion and announced a website that I've developed called own nothing.org that allows you to actually track your these click wrap agreements that you're signing and actually see what rights you've given away from an information perspective

privacy perspective um economic interest perspective and so I continue to develop that site it's it's in the alpha phase but I think this is going to be an important point to wake people up I think the way that they're rolling out technocracy is they've already made the changes legally over the last two or three decades. So they've already basically shifted our ownership of all of our assets. And centralized tokenization is the way to facilitate that basically with the click of a mouse button. And so this is going to be an important initiative moving forward. On the topic of technocracy, last week I had the honor of being a part of the Technocracy Roundtable.

I encourage you to take a look at this. You can see a link to it. I mean, scroll down on my feed, but also Courtney Turner's feed, either on X or on Substack. This was a roundtable with Courtney, Patrick Wood, who is the O.G., on technocracy. Myself and Craig, we went at it for a couple of hours and have decided that we're going to continue to do this on a monthly basis. So I will report back with the new time for the next month. But I think this is a very important roundtable because this whole technocracy topic is not understood widely at all. And it is probably the most important threat that we face in terms of free will. Just a quick update on events.

I have the Polyface Brownstone Retreat coming up on September the twelfth and the thirteenth. Then I will be at the Peak Prosperity Annual Summit on the fourteenth. So that event goes from the twelfth through the fourteenth. I'm going to only be there for the last day because of an overlap. But I love both of these events. and I'm a huge fan of uh of jeffrey tucker and brownstone obviously and chris martinson as well so I recommend both of those events and then I'll be at the brownstone annual conference in salt lake city I'll be speaking at that as well I'm speaking obviously at all of these events I encourage you to get tickets if you're going to go to the brownstone

annual event these things have been selling out all of these brownstone events are selling out in very short order. So they're going to be four hundred people at the event, Polyface Farms. capacity is for this event, I don't even know what the but it will sell out. And these really are some of the best events out there. I mean, when I when I look at, you know, all the travel and all the events I've done over the course of the last year, I'm going to pare down a lot of the events. But brownstones are events I will always go to. So one other event that's also going on September the twelfth. So I just pre-recorded a video for this, but there is the Crypto Vigilante Online Summit,

which starts at eleven a.m. on September the twelfth. So I encourage you to check that out at TCV Summit dot com. I have a talk in there about technocracy, but there are a ton of great speakers. And I encourage you to go to the TCV Summit website and check out the agenda. And as usual, to do a quick update on where we are, I don't really have any new news, but our political prisoners of war are still under attack. So Roger's circumstance has not changed. He is still stuck in Spain. I don't even know, day four hundred and eighty something or ninety something at this point facing extradition to the U.S., facing a hundred and nine years in prison uh so I don't know what uh I don't

hopefully something will happen I mean again if the war on crypto is over then I don't know what's going on with with these cases why these cases haven't been addressed the next actionable step with roger's case is there is a motion to dismiss hearing that is going to be in la on october the twentieth so this has already been rescheduled three times I've already you know I always warn people to buy refundable plane tickets and refundable hotel reservations, which is what I've done and I've had to utilize the refund. And so hopefully the situation will be resolved before then. But if not, I think it's really important that if you can show up in person, that we do show up in person. And also,

if you haven't already and if you're new to the show, please go and visit freerogernow.org and sign the open letter in support of Roger. He's almost at a hundred thousand signatures. These signatures matter. The signatures are really important. One of the reasons that Ross Ulbrich is free is because through the work of his mother and everyone else in the community, there were six hundred thousand petition signatures collected on behalf of Ross. And that is one of the reasons that Trump pardoned him because real political movement and he saw that there was a deeply about this issue. a lot of people that care So we need to do this with Roger and all of our political prisoners.

So freerogernow.org. It only takes about ten seconds to fill out the form. The same with Ian Freeman. Ian Freeman is in prison for eight years. for also manufactured charges it ended up being conspiracy to commit money laundering which you know conspiracy is this general charge they give you when you're not guilty of anything And they just want to find a reason to violate your rights and put you in prison. And so Ian is there for eight years. He has he filed an appeal. I went to the appeal hearing with my wife and that was completely rejected. So the next legal battle for Ian is actually the U.S. Supreme Court. So Ian also needs more signatures on his petition. So I encourage you to go to

freeiannow.org and sign that petition as well. And then there is Roman Storm, who was just found guilty of, I believe, conspiracy to commit money laundering. He wasn't convicted of all of the charges and he wasn't he wasn't convicted of the charges that carried the largest sentences. But he is looking at prison time and he has substantial legal fees. So he's raised over five million dollars so far. But I mean, he's used most of that. So the other two are not looking to raise money, but but Roman does need financial support. So please consider going to free Roman storm dot com and supporting him. Roman Storm. And I hope you guys like the song. A couple of the songs at the

beginning are all related to these crypto prisoners of war. I really like the last one that I played before this started. I think it's really important that we continue to raise awareness on this. And if you look at the commonality of Roger, Ian and Roman, is that these are three people that are innovators, that were promoting fundamental american values around privacy and innovation and all three consulted lawyers before engaging in the activities that they were ultimately charged with so in all of these cases these guys thought they were doing the right thing and went above and beyond to make sure they were doing the right thing so they were targeted for political reasons and

the political reasons were Initially under the Biden regime, Biden was pushing executive order one four zero six seven. He was pushing a CBDC and he knew that, you know, people wouldn't want a CBDC. So you need to crack down on decentralized cryptocurrency and privacy alternatives. And so that was another part of the executive order. So these, these folks were targeted because they were effective at promoting the use of cryptocurrency and privacy tools. So they didn't do anything illegal. They didn't do anything wrong. rather than they actually promoted something that actually provided freedom and privacy for the world. So keep that in mind. And so the prisoners of war

are still being targeted. And the war on crypto is by no means over. So just as a high level. OK, I see Sterling. So Sterling, yeah, I'm going to go through a talk here and then I'll bring you guys on. There's a Q&A at the end of this and I invite people to come on for the for the Q&A. I'm going to go through a quick talk tonight or hopefully fairly quick talk tonight and then we'll open it up to a Q&A. But just to do the framing here, you know, I've spent a lot of time. examining what's going on with technocracy and I wanted to figure out how to be more effective because we are in my opinion losing even though we're making gains we are not making gains relative to how

quickly the technocrats are accelerating so I spent a lot of time this summer trying to figure out well how can I become more effective and how can I help more how can I help other people become more effective, help amplify the voices of other people in this movement. And so I'm putting what I'm doing into three different buckets. One is waking people up to the threat of technocracy. The next is helping people realize that we do have free will and you can reclaim it and providing tools to do that. And then the third is building decentralized solutions. So the overall framework here is I believe that we are in a battle of technocracy versus freedom. And what is at stake is free will itself.

And the main battleground for this is actually, of all things, tokenization. Because what the technocrats are doing now is they're tokenizing all of our assets, starting with money, which is what CBDCs and stablecoins are. It's tokenized money. money that's put into a digital token that can be centrally programmed, tracked, and censored. And they're on the way to do that with all of our assets, with our stocks, bonds, commodities, our homes, everything that we own, they want to tokenize. And that will give them the ability to program and completely control it. So tokenization really is the battleground. And with Zeno, we have the ability to create an alternative to that.

We have the ability to privately tokenize assets in a way where you can trade them, keep them in your own self custody, and your transactions are completely private from third parties. And so this is why this is such an important issue for me. And this is why I've been so eager to support and build and talk about projects on Zeno. So I'm going to do a very quick overview on technocracy. If you've been listening to me, you already know generally what technocracy is. But technocracy is essentially a new world order. It's essentially a system where you don't have property rights or individual rights or even free will. It's one in which elites pick scientists and engineers.

to make decisions on our behalf. And the biggest shift with technocracy is changing the whole economic order from being a system based on price, based on supply and demand, to having a currency based on energy credits. And this whole ideology and this whole approach was started in the nineteen thirties. And so this is what this is all about. I'm not going to go through this here, but there's a debit card or excuse me, a credit card, a MasterCard, that you can already get today that tracks your carbon usage and shuts off when you use too much carbon. I'll get into this. Larry Fink has been pushing tokenization and also the energy credit concept as well. But I really encourage you...

to look at the work of patrick wood I learned about technocracy from patrick wood and in particular when I was writing my book you know the final countdown a couple of years ago I actually reached out to him and he sent me an entire database of of all of the members of the trial idol commission this guy has been studying this issue for forty five years he's written three books uh at least three books he has a website technocracy.news and he has a technocracy boot camp which I've recently just completed. And I recommend you check this out. This is kind of like a college level course on the whole history of the technocracy movement, the philosophy behind it, all of the mechanics,

phenomenal research. So I highly recommend this. And once you learn about technocracy, like this was the case with me, once I realized what was going on here, I couldn't not tell people about it and put my best effort forward to warn people about it and to put together alternatives to stop it. Courtney Turner is another absolutely phenomenal person in this space. I had her on a couple of episodes ago, and she is really passionate about defending free will and is really well-versed in technocracy. I encourage you to take a look at her sub stack and all of her videos. She's done hundreds of interviews and some just incredibly meticulous research on this topic.

So it's important that people understand what's going on there. And by way of background, you know, a lot of people were fooled by Elon Musk. A lot of people, even libertarians, were excited about this idea that, oh, we're now we're going to have, you know, the richest man in the world. He's successful. He's great at technology. government more efficient. He's just going to make And when you study the history of Musk, you find out he's actually a technocrat. You find out that his grandfather was the head of the technocracy party. in um in canada and was actually kicked out of canada um and musk has actually stated on multiple occasions publicly on on twitter he wants mars to be

a technocracy he has talked about ubi he's talked about energy credits this is his ideology so we'll talk about this today uh in more detail but he is really driving this and people are falling for it because they don't understand what it's all about. They don't understand the difference between technology and technocracy. From an ideological perspective, you have Curtis Yarvin and Yuval Noah Harari who are really pushing the movement. They're kind of the pseudo-intellectuals that are pushing the ideology. Harari's doing it from the left and Curtis Yarvin is doing it from the right. But you get to the same point. They both are pushing a technocratic system. That is the end game for both.

So don't get caught up in the manufactured division, kind of like we have Republican versus Democrat or US versus China. None of that matters. This is all about pushing technocracy, just using different language and different propaganda to get there. Peter Thiel is one of the largest players in this movement and has ties all over the place, which we'll get into some of those today through Palantir, through now a contact of his who's the interim CDC director, J.D. I mean, he actually may be one of, Vance. if not the most powerful people in pushing this technocratic vision. Vance is also pushing a J.D. technocratic vision and is essentially a puppet of Peter Thiel.

if you're not aware of this you know the the history first of all jd vance's entire backstory and history has been manufactured and scripted uh he his first job was working for peter thiel out of college then he started an investment fund that peter thiel invested in then peter thiel put into his senate campaign fifteen million dollars one who introduced and then peter thiel is the J.D. Vance to President Trump. So he's essentially Thiel's hand-picked guy. He's also heavily influenced by Curtis Yarvin. And if you look at his investment portfolio, it's all technocracy. It's all robotics. It's all of this kind of stuff. So I'm going to go through

quickly the ten signs that technocracy is here because I want to put a real sharp point on this, that this is not something – that is off in the distant future. Because when you hear something like, oh, well, we're going to have a system based on energy credits or whatever, people think that it's really far-fetched, but it's not. In fact, they've laid the groundwork, as I said, legally, and now they're actually implementing aggressively So one of the first examples of technocracy being here was this recent appointment. So we had this whole Maha movement. Everybody was excited about it. Medical freedom. We were going to finally get government out of health care. At least that was the

general understanding, at least to me, of what medical freedom meant. what we're getting is we're getting... And instead, We're getting AI and we're getting Silicon Valley starting to infiltrate the administration. And we're getting a more proactive public health infrastructure. Yes, we're cleaning out some of the other players. But I will tell you, replacing big pharma with big tech is not a flex, nor is it necessarily an improvement. So, you know, recently... I believe the CDC director was fired and put in his place was this Jim O'Neill, who is another direct puppet of Peter Thiel. I mean, he has huge Silicon Valley ties. He was the managing director

of Peter Thiel's Mithril Capital from twenty twelve to twenty seventeen. He's collaborated with Thiel on a number of different projects. And so so again, this isn't with all of this, What you have to understand it's kind of like what we talk about with Musk. This isn't about making government more efficient or, excuse me, about reducing the role of government. It's about replacing people with technology, but you still have the functions of government. And that's a really important distinction. You know, I'm going to bring up... We have Sterling Lujan here, and I'm going to bring him up. Normally, I don't. I usually wait for the Q&A, but I figure... Might as well bring him up

for this now since he's here, and I know he's in a different time zone. Hey, Sterling, how are you? Yo, Aaron. Thanks for inviting me, man. Sorry I ran a little late and I didn't find the link because I'm really intelligent. Great to be here, brother. I've caught a good chunk of what you said so far, and you're on point. Happy to be here to discuss the topic as well. Awesome. usually what I do is I go through the Yeah, presentation and then we do the Q&A and I didn't specify enough. So, you know, I don't know how much time you have. I just want to get through a few of these slides and then maybe we can do the kind of open it up. I just want to give people some background here. Sure.

Take your time. I have some time. You can finish your presentation and then we can chat. Awesome. Sounds good. Well, so the first part of this was, again, All right. this Jim O'Neill being put in charge of the CDC. Then we have all kinds of AI-driven health mandates that we're looking at now. So there are all kinds of hearings, and HHS is aggressively implementing AI across agencies. for health management and cybersecurity. And in his confirmation hearing, he emphasized using AI and telehealth to fix healthcare. And again, I don't mind, I use AI obviously extensively, because you can tell from the music at the beginning, but this is, it's different when it's being forced from the top

down from government. And that is essentially what we're getting here, which is not medical freedom, it's force. The next part of this is, again, a lot of people were celebrating. Well, OK, I'll jump to this. I don't know if you've noticed this, but the last couple of days, it keeps on getting reported that J.D. Vance has made all these statements that, oh, if something were to happen to Trump or if Trump were in ill health, he's ready to take over. And I will argue that this was always. The intention that this entire thing has been scripted to push J.D. Vance into this role. And to put a finer point on this, you may recall that Musk stormed off and acted like he was all pissed off

because they didn't implement the Doge savings. And then he started this America's party. platform for America's party, And when you look at the the first two items on the platform were the application of AI to defense and then the application of AI to make the government more efficient. And if you go through and look at it, it was essentially an outline for a technocracy party. But just last week, Musk decided that he isn't going to move forward with the America's Party. And instead, he's decided he's going to endorse J.D. Vance, which I said in July, it was going to happen. This was always what was going to happen. It was a it was a fake out. So we are basically in a

situation where we already have a technocracy. Trump is basically being controlled by various factions of the PayPal mafia. And then the heir apparent is a direct teal puppet. We have the Genius Act, which I've talked about this and there are multiple episodes about this, but the Genius Act is essentially a backdoor CBDC. We have taken twenty seven trillion dollars a year in popular private stable coins like Tether and USDC. and now put it under the control of the united states congress and the federal reserve and it is the united states congress primarily that's responsible for for financial surveillance the federal reserve is horrible but when it comes to things like know your customer

laws anti-money laundering laws the Bank Secrecy Act, the Patriot Act, all of the things that are already being used today to surveil and program our money, that came from Congress. So it was really interesting to watch these hearings we're protecting Americans where they're saying, well, from communist Chinese level surveillance by passing these bills and by passing the Genius Act. And in reality, what they did was they took a private solution and actually gave it CBDC level surveillance. And they did it all so that they could sell US treasuries by forcing these stable coins to be backed by only U.S. So this is something that Treasury. the Treasury Secretary has said he'll be able to use

to sell probably at least two trillion dollars worth of U.S. Treasuries. funding more war and So they're going to be tyranny around the world and at the same time adding financial surveillance to what was a private solution. And then you now have, I don't know about if you guys have seen this, but there are a lot of people, you're like, oh yeah, the globalists have lost and we won and Klaus Schwab retired and everything else. And if you actually look at what's going on, I mean, again, we've already talked about some of the ways in which technocracy is accelerated, but now Larry Fink is the co-chair of the WEF. Well, I will tell you, Larry Fink is much more toxic and much more capable

of pushing technocracy than Klaus Schwab. Klaus Schwab was an academic. but he didn't have a lot of capacity to implement things. Larry Fink is probably one of the most powerful people in the world and controls trillions of dollars worth of assets and has political connections all over the world. So the WEF has not shrunk in size or importance. And the other thing is, when you look at this, Fink has been talking a lot about, and I played in a previous episode, a clip from Davos, where he talked about how excited he is about the tokenization of stocks and bonds well I mean if you think that he's talking about this because he's excited about giving people economic freedom you're

mistaken uh he's talking about this a tokenized stock stock market and bond market will still involve third parties like blackrock they're not going to give up their control or give up their position or give up their business model in fact it's going to add cbdc level tyranny to these other assets and so so he's actively pushing this and people are celebrating this as as though this were about innovation and it's not and by the way I mentioned one of the key elements of technocracy is pushing an energy credit backed global currency well fink was heavily involved in esg and a lot of people said well you know we defeated esg because all of were backing off from that a sudden you know people

they're bringing it back they're just changing the branding fink is still pushing So you're going to see this. ESG. So there's a there's the momentum has not stopped. It's just changed marketing, kind of like we went from CBDCs, which are really bad to now other countries are talking about adopting stable coins. Well, this isn't a victory because the stable coins are going to have CBDC level surveillance. If you have five stable coins instead of one that's issued by the central bank, that's not really a win from a financial surveillance perspective because they're already able to monitor our existing banking system. As I've mentioned before, we have a situation where you have these suspicious

activity reports where if you spend more than ten thousand dollars, a report automatically gets sent to the Treasury Department. And just on a whim, a couple of months ago, the Treasury Department decided, based on a directive from Trump, that they wanted to crack down on thirty zip codes in California and Texas. So they reduced that threshold from ten thousand dollars to two hundred dollars. This was done with a memo from the Treasury Department. No law had to be passed. No blockchain had to be implemented. No new technology was required. A memo was all that was required to automatically send reports on any transaction greater than two hundred dollars and thirty zip codes.

So you have to understand how digital and highly surveilled our existing system already is. We also now have a digital ID. So real ID, which started in twenty or two thousand and five, it took them twenty years to implement this. There were always pushbacks, always delays. I've never gotten a real ID because I mean, every time I just assumed they were going to kick the can. Well, Trump gets elected and then, you know, a couple of months later, They finally implement it. Real ID is digital in eight states Well, and growing. So this is actually the digital ID. And when you take this in conjunction with what's going on with Palantir, building a database of Americans and connecting in IRS data,

they're going to take that data and they're going to marry it to your Real ID. So this is a digital ID AI surveillance system. And again, where's the resistance? People are actually celebrating. this if this were done under a different administration there would have been outcry there were people but there's been absolutely no resistance to any of this none in fact it's passed and it's been cheered all along the way then we passed this one big beautiful bill which I would argue is the patriot act two point oh if you if you look at the details of the one big beautiful bill, there's like a hundred and fifty billion dollars in there for the further

militarization of the police and more AI surveillance. And, you know, just some of the items Here, you know, thirteen billion in state local grants, six point three billion dollars for militarized operations, one hundred and forty five million for AI and unmanned systems. And understand every time they pass legislation like this, every time they add new surveillance, look this up. When it comes to financial surveillance prior to nineteen seventy, there was no financial surveillance. There was no know your customer. None of this existed. and they've added the bank secrecy act the patriot act even the cares act they've added all these things and at no point when the emergency that caused them

to pass the legislation passed do they go back and reverse the surveillance you can research this yourself so whatever ai surveillance all the drone technology all the militarization of the police everything that's being added under this patriot act It'll be weaponized against us. It'll be weaponized against people with a different ideology when there's a new administration in place. They're not going to retire the technology, nor will they stop the surveillance. That's literally not how government works. And Palantir has just gotten out of control. And you have to understand that Peter Thiel is a co-founder of Palantir, but they basically have their tentacles in everywhere.

It's now a four hundred and fifty billion dollar company. And they're involved with everything from providing information and support to Ukraine, to Gaza. they're involved on an I mean, international basis. If you hear their CEO, Alex Karp, He'll talk about openly cheering on, supporting, you know, those particular, you know, oppressing those regimes while oppressing Gaza. I mean, he'll talk favorably and joke about that. And then he'll talk about how glad he was that they were able to put down some right wing movements in Europe. And then they're involved with predictive policing and this type of thing with local law enforcement. And now they're working on the database of all Americans.

And so this is again, is this better than Raytheon or Northrop Grumman? I mean, the military industrial complex is horrible and we should be getting rid of it. But replacing it with Palantir is not a win for freedom at all. In fact, it's the exact opposite. And then now we have, I believe, the National Guard potentially being mobilized in twenty different states and Washington, D.C. And again, they're talking about it in terms of illegal immigration. But I just remember during people were talking about Trump's first term, ten days of darkness. and the idea that they were going to implement martial law round up all the pedophiles and then have military tribunals and execute these people on

closed caption tv and and people were cheering this on people were actually cheering on martial law Think about how horrifying that is. And so now you have people. So now apparently it's perfectly fine to have a digital ID. It's perfectly fine to have a digital currency. It's perfectly fine to have AI surveillance through Palantir. Perfectly fine to have the National Guard and the militarization of the police. No one is resisting this. So I would argue we've lost five years. I think the technocrats have actually accelerated at least five years in the first eight months. And more importantly, with zero resistance. episodes ago about how I'm I talked a couple of building a site and I

showed a prototype of it that basically to help us fight back against the technocrats. I mean, Palantir has all this data on us. what information do we have about the technocrats and so I've built a graph database I'm calling it kind of an open source version of palantir because one of the challenges with the technocracy movement is whenever you get into these conversations everybody wants to discuss well who is the they well it turns out you can figure out who they are and it it's not a particular religious group it's not any it's it's a network of people that have a shared ideology and they have different backgrounds and some of the players change over time, but some are actually have

been consistent for decades. And so it's important to actually map this out. And so I'm providing a tool to do that. And this really fits into this whole trying to help people wake up to technocracy, which is here's gonna be a way for you to visualize what's going on and who the key players are and to kind of make sense of this all. So that's the quick, you know, ten signs that we already have technocracy. I mean, again, all of the things that people were complaining about with Bill Gates or Klaus Schwab as something that they might do in the future have already been implemented. and are being rolled out in a deeper way without any resistance. So that's the technocracy

takeover side of this. On the autonomy reboot side, I'm not gonna go much into this today, but I mean, the whole idea here is what we're trying to do is fight for people's free will, for people's ability to make their own decisions in their own life so that you don't get into this technocratic system where you have no free will. All of your decisions are determined by a social credit score through AI surveillance and tied to this digital currency. But a lot of people don't realize they actually have free will. I mean, we're programmed by a lot of outside influences, whether it's government schools or mainstream media or increasingly big tech algorithms. So in order to reclaim our free will,

we have to recognize that we have been programmed, uninstall the programs that are already there, and then moving forward, become vigilant so that we are exercising our free will and conscious of the decisions that we're making throughout our life. So this is kind of the initiative. I launched something last week that's still in the alpha phase. It's called the Own Nothing Index. You can find it at ownnothing.org. I'll put that in the in the notes the whole point on this is it's an ability for you to be able to put in a link to these click wrap agreements that you've signed now this is alpha in fact I wouldn't even necessarily recommend uh using this at this point because I haven't had a

chance to do too much on in the last week but but the whole point is you can see oh I I don't I gave my rights to this I don't you know like as an example with the contract that you have with your bank They can sell or share your customer information. They can shut down your account without cause with just thirty days notice. They can change the fees and terms and conditions without your consent. That's just one example. And as I've gone through this, each industry has its own laws. And so this isn't a situation where it's like, well, people like, oh, well, we need the rule of law. it turns out when you actually look Well, at a contract, The contract is basically a bunch of people in the

industry that lobbied Congress to standardize terms to make it so that there's very little for you to actually negotiate. It's not a contract of where the parties are actually interacting with each other. It's all of these other third parties. And I'm going to document visually how this works. But the whole point of this is, as I've started researching this, we already own nothing. I would argue we already have given up eighty percent of our ownership in our data. in our financial ownership, in all aspects of this through these contracts. And people are just largely unaware because they've signed. It now looks like probably two hundred and fifty of these agreements per year,

and nobody can read them because of how long they are. So more on that as the weeks progress. But what I'm really dedicated to doing is providing tools that help people and empower people to understand what's going on. So one last segment before I open up the Q&A. On Thursday, I'm going to have an entire episode dedicated to Zeno and building tokenized alternatives. But I do want to talk about one really exciting development that just has happened in the last week because I think it's a game changer in terms of usability and to help people begin moving out of the fiat system. And this is an integration with something called the Zebek Network. So there's now a... MasterCard that you can load

your Zeno and Freedom Dollar onto directly with no KYC or it's not no KYC, but it's light KYC. I mean, you have to enter an address, but it doesn't even validate the address. So it's basically a prepaid reloadable debit card. that you can use directly and then you can upload it. You can use it with Google Pay or Apple Pay. I've talked about this before because Now, I put out a tweet about this and people are like, well, these are just third parties. And remember, there's a continuum here. So the technocrats want a system where there's a single global currency that's tied to energy credits and it's a complete surveillance system. they don't have that yet they're moving in phases

and the phase they're at right now is taking stable coins and putting them under control of of the banks and then working government and central towards things like tokenizing our other assets like with the clarity act with stocks and bonds and commodities and where we are is of course we'd love to be in a position where Everybody's using privacy coins and privacy tokens directly peer to peer without any third parties. But we're not going to get there in one step. So this is a great intermediate step because it gets people downloading wallets, using wallets. And so it provides one more step towards where we're trying to go and then understanding where they're trying to go.

But it's really simple to do. I actually set this up. I'm going to show you just the steps involved in this. I mean, you go to the Zebix site, you pick a card, you either have a reloadable card or a one-off card that you use, fill out your email address, password, first name, last name. Again, you put in your address, but they don't even verify the address. I mean, you probably should put in your own address. I'm not giving legal advice here, but... uh you put in an address and then you have an account and then what you do is you connect that account to your xeno wallet you use the desktop wallet and you use something that's called the companion to connect your wallet directly into

zevic and then you load the card well I will tell you this was like this was really straightforward and then once the card is loaded you upload it to you can connect it to apple pay or google pay And then every time you can just go in here and add more funds. Well, I mean, I've been living on crypto since twenty nineteen and dealing with debit cards is usually a pain in the ass. I mean, to be honest, usually I have to swap one crypto for another. I can't use privacy coins directly. You've got to swap to something else. And then there are all these delays. I mean, and sometimes the delays are like hours. I mean, I've been in situations. I remember I was in Mexico. we've got to wait to go to

It's like, all right, well, dinner before these funds clear. And I thought, well, the funds usually clear right away. And it was like, okay, two hours, three hours later. So it actually impacted your plans. This was instant. I mean, I literally moved to Zeno just to Zeno today onto my card and then took my kids out and bought coffee. And the transfer was instant. By the time I left the door, the funds were on the card. And then I did tap to pay at Dunkin' Donuts. And that was it. So this is me using my phone and the card from within my Google Wallet in this case. And that was it. So I will tell you, again, I push for... Simple. p to p transactions as much

as possible but sometimes you have to use debit cards this is hands down the easiest solution that I found it's the quickest in terms of being able to load the card and and again you're able to do it directly with xeno and directly with Freedom Dollar. I'm going to play a short video clip. It's like a thirty second video clip from Brie Teresi showing you how she used it. So hold on one second. Hey, guys, Let me pop this. I'm at a coffee shop and I want to show you how easy it is to use Xeno or Freedom Dollar wherever you go, simply through Apple Pay. So I have my MasterCard right here. This is loaded up with Freedom Dollar and I'm literally just going to tap and pay and this

transaction will be totally private. It tastes so much better when it's private. So again, really easy to use, really exciting. This is going to help in a massive way with adoption for Zaino. So tune in on Thursday at six PM. So I'm actually launching an entire website that is going to have guides for Zaino, how to use download wallets, how to use all of these different tools. The ecosystem is huge. It's going to have a signup form for workshops, which I'm going to start doing again. But then the most important aspect of this site is I'm going to start

educating people about and advising and funding and incubating tokenization projects because people often say to me well how am I going to make money in crypto how do I make money in this parallel economy and the way that I look at this is everything that exists in the centralized world needs to be recreated in a private way through private tokenization so we need a private version of the stock market We could build a global medical tourism marketplace built on Zeno. We could build a global food marketplace built on Zeno. I mean, literally, it's an unlimited amount of opportunities. But what I've found the barrier has been is that a lot of people in crypto only think about

tokens as being about memes or nfts meme coins or nfts and that's not true but it's urgent that people understand what's going on writing a book about it here this is why I'm building the site and doing this and I might even want and if other people don't give away the ideas for build the projects I'll free because all of this stuff has to be built And if some people won't build some of these things, like in the healthcare space or food freedom space, I'll actually incubate it myself. But my goal isn't to own all of these things or necessarily build all of these things. My goal is to make it known that these things can be built and support the building of as much of it as possible.

So please tune in on Thursday at six p.m. This is gonna be a really exciting one. I'm really looking forward to launching this site and giving people these tools so that we can onboard people much more quickly. So with that, I see we have Sterling and we have Courtney Turner. So I will turn it over to the to the group chat and if others want to join. feel free to do so. I'm putting the link in the comments. Again, I know I'm pretty happy that we have as many people on as we do, given that it's a new time, new day, and it's Labor Day. But my favorite part is this Q&A. So, hey, Sterling. Hey, Courtney, how are you? Hey, doing well, thank you. How are you? That was a great presentation.

Oh, thank you. You're welcome. Doing really well on my end. Courtney, good to see you. Nice to see you, too. Actually, I'm really glad that both of you are here. This is exciting because I've actually talked to Courtney about you, I think probably every time that we've done a podcast, because she's been talking quite a bit about network states as it relates to technocracy. And I know you and I have had this conversation. So I'm actually thrilled that you guys are both on because I think we're going to be able to cover a lot of ground in that area. Oh, awesome. Yes, I'm looking forward to that. I'm very concerned about the network states. I really appreciate what Aaron was saying about the

different flavors, the left and the right, and how they're just marketing it to different audiences. But ultimately, you know, all roads lead to the same place, which is the technocracy. And with the network states, I think that's where we really see it. we've got Trump and his freedom cities. You know, on the right, I did a whole article called The Path to Mass Surveillance. And I outlined all the different names that they have for these various fifteen minute cities. So they've got like, you know, the C-forty cities, which is the U.N., like Sustainable Development Goals agenda. They've got the obviously the fifteen minute cities. Trump's Freedom City.

We've got this thing called Civium Project, which are for people who don't want to be in actual city, but they're still in like a network state concept. That's part of Game B. But there are so many of these and they just give them different names and there's slight nuanced differences, but mostly the biggest difference is the marketing. And I think it's really kind of the umbrella of how they're able to, or at least how they're going to attempt to get people, you know, The whole agenda, they say, is the dissolution of the geographical nation state in favor of this cyber ideological network state. And a lot of people are really championing it and especially using the libertarian banner.

seeing is become very effective, That's what I'm really which isn't really libertarian at all. I think it's a pretty they're just using that banner because they think it's a broad scope where they can capture the most people. So. Well, OK, there's going to be a lot to unpack here. I'm glad I'm actually glad you're here as well, Courtney, because we have a ton to discuss. So let's see. I think where I can start is there's a lot of people working in the quote unquote network state space. And that's just one of the terms that we use to describe a similar phenomenon. Bology notoriously coined the term, Right. wrote the book, The Network State. But. So his vision is just one vision,

and I think a lot of us would argue that that is indeed a technocratic outlook, right? Because the way that he has structured it, the idea is that there's one founder or one person who's a part of that, and then they implement whatever their vision is for a particular society onto those structures, right? Yeah. There's those of us in the space – like I work in the space – But we're not referring to these as network states. We're referring to them as cyber states or parallel societies or parallel communities or parallel institutions. And our vision is more crypto-anarchic, The shirt, crypto-anarchy. right? So the idea is to push back against surveillance and to undermine to some degree

the state apparatus. At least that's my view. But I think it's very important that we discuss this because the discussion is multifaceted. There's a lot of different aspects to this. So just an example, and I'll give a few. So Logos.co, Logos is an organization that's working on building infrastructure that's all privacy and anonymity enhancing with the the ultimate goal to roll out a cyber state and let's be clear this these ideas did not originate with the technocrats I want to be very explicit about this the original ideas were were thought about and they came to fruition through the work of timothy may who wrote notoriously the crypto anarchist manifesto But he also wrote a piece

that's rather obscure called Libertaria in Cyberspace. And in this, he unveiled this vision for having this community of what Bruce Sterling said, islands in the web that have strong encryption guarantees, that have strong anonymity-enhancing properties. that allow hackers who are trying to push back against the state apparatus and violent structures, they have room to work. This is what DarkFi also referred to as a dark forest infrastructure. So there's those of us who are actually working on a plan to develop these cyber states, both digitally and physically, that is antithetical completely to Bology's idea of a network state. So there's a bit of a and this is not to discount what you said,

Courtney. There is certainly the Yarvin-esque, right? We're all here familiar with There's a Yarvin-esque Curtis Yarvin. vision that people like Bology, Trump and a lot of the other technocrats have taken to heart and are trying to implement. But that is not the only way that this these ideas can go or that they can drift, And so I'm really glad that right? there are those of us who are on the crypto anarchist cyber, cypherpunk into this. I think another important thing to mention that a lot of us who are developing the tooling to push this cypherpunk vision forward, we're also very happily pushing cryptocurrencies like Xano, Monero, et cetera, as a part of the economic

institutional setup that these cipher states have. So I do very much recommend taking a look at Timothy May's work. Recently, Jared Hope, the founder of Logos, wrote a book called Farewell to Westphalia that's going to be out pretty soon. And these are all, of course, diametrically opposed states. to this technocratic vision. And I'm personally staunchly opposed to Balaji's. Well, I say staunchly opposed. I want to be clear. There is some nuance here. A lot of the things that Balaji said in the book are good, but a lot of things he also said are erroneous. So there's that. But then I think on the back end, we do have to take into account consideration that he's worked with peter till and

a lot of these connections are through peter till and aaron has pointed that out my friend derek bros has pointed that out and those are some concerns we certainly need to discuss but uh my my main point my overarching thesis here is there are good actors in this space so we shouldn't throw the baby out with the fluoride water that's all well I what do you what do you think the name of it is logos what uh logos logos.co Logos.co. Okay, I'm not familiar with it, so I have to do a little bit of investigating into what they're actually doing. When you mention Balaji and Peter Thiel, I mean, the whole premise was based on Peter Thiel's seasteading concept, actually. And he talks about that.

he even says that he thinks In his book, seasteading still has legs, pun intended, kind of ironically, but he still thinks it can be revived. He said that once we get the network states off the ground, then, you know, crowdfunding for a cruise ship won't be a big deal and they can have the seasteading concept. So it's very much linked to Peter Thiel, both in terms of the the concept, the ideology. I would even argue probably some of the, you know, financial ties as well. to some of these network states I mean his whole prospera is essentially a network state not prospera has the subsidiary uh it was called vitalia they changed it vitalia's slogan on the way back but it says

and you can still find it a a city where death is optional and now they changed it it's called infinita now but so he's got his network state so I'm not familiar with this logos co I would have to look into it I don't doubt that there are good actors my big concern though is that if you're dissolving a geographical nation state to create some sort of a cyber state, then there has to be a control locus. And even if it's a small group, sorry. Sorry. So even if it's like small groups,

there still would have to be infrastructure like guardrails because once you have the technology that's controlling it, then it doesn't matter how well-meaning people are. You know, that's the saying goes, right? The road to hell was paved with good intentions. So I don't doubt that these people have really good intentions and they're trying to create some sort of a defense that's freedom oriented. But I would just need to see. I don't know much about it. So I need to know exactly how the infrastructure is being set up and what are the guardrails, the checks and balances against the power and against the technology. Because a smart contract of any kind is just...

you know, going to be problematic. So one of the things that's Yeah. really important to consider that I didn't mention in my first monologue or diatribe is that there are a lot of us who are on the actual freedom end of this push for cyber or cyber states. We all take to heart this idea of exit ideology, this idea of exit ideology. And so one of the primary guardrails, especially that we try to not only build into our tech, but also into our ethos, into the character and the spirit of what we're building, is the notion that people should be able to leave of their own volition. They should have an ease of exit, which is what we don't have in the U.S.

and a number of countries around the world. So this is one of the key... components that we're trying to build in. Of course, the how of that is a difficult question to answer because certainly there are some players who are creating network states or cyber states who may not eventually want people to exit. Because if you can't exit, then the ramifications are totalitarianism, surveillance state control, all the problems that we have right now in the first world. So the thing that we really have going for us right now is that if people do build these territories, digital or otherwise, and There are other – well, I guess the point I'm getting at is there are

people who are building it for freedom and there are people who are building it for control. So this represents a competitive situation where people can leave the places that they don't like, correct? So that's one of the key points here. The other thing that I want to mention is – You know, I think Bology and a lot of these other folks are going to keep pushing their ideas. But I think we're going to continue to see network states of different stripes proliferate. Another thing I wanted to mention is the comment on Prospera. So I've actually been to Prospera a number of times. I know the people who are involved. I do understand that Till at least in part funded it. But the people who are

actually there are libertarians, and they are real libertarians, and the work that they're trying to do is legitimately good work. They founded that. location so they could have a sandbox, So they don't have to deal right? with US regulations. So, but to your concern, you know, is it going to iron itself out as an actual place of libertarianism? I am also skeptical and cautious about that because there's already been some, you know, minute issues around, this is a whole conversation here, but because what we were gonna get into is how the governance is actually structured. My concern is a lot of these new network and cipher states don't have a political sense-making or a

collective rule-making process that will create the better praxis for engaging in those communities. And that is where things like zero-sum dynamics, corrupting influences, and skewed or warped incentives manifest. So this is one of the things I did, organization called Polis actually founded an Labs that is geared to actually helping solve these problems so that we don't end up in the same situation in the technocracy. So the concerns you bring up, Courtney, are the same concerns that I have. It's the idea that even if you have all the good intentions of the world, it doesn't mean that we're going to create, you know, a quote unquote realistic utopia or some kind of better place to live.

We have to actually research and study how that human behavior is happening on the ground And we have to be able to implement the structures and the institutions that benefit our highest good and our best wisdom. Yeah, absolutely. So with PROSPERA, I mean, I haven't been there, but from the research that I've done, it's quite a hotbed for a lot of transhuman kind of experimentation. So, yeah. And so there's that. And I think that's part of why they wanted to escape some of the regulations was so that they would have the freedom to do some of these experiments, which they could not do in the United States. And then when you're talking about some of these,

like that it is more libertarian and there are people there who are really, you know, ideologically entrenched in that mindset. I don't doubt that either. I find that I have I like the spirit of libertarianism. I like the spirit of the freedom minded people. But philosophically, I find it actually quite problematic because there is no there really is no checks and balances. There is no that and that's exactly what you're saying is a problem, right? That how do you come to this governance and how do you come to where are the guardrails going to be? And a lot of that stems from the philosophical presuppositions. And I think I wrote an article actually on the philosophy, the philosophical

underpinnings of libertarianism. And again, I'm very sympathetic to it. I love the spirit of it, but it's really rooted in Kantian principles. And that ends up being it's constructivist. So there isn't an ontological reality that it's rooted in. and so it becomes the the self becomes a governing entity and that becomes problematic when it's fine in a small group if you're all aligned right but if you start to have a bigger group where you need some kind of checks and balances, because typically even the, the best of intention, the people who really get along, you're going to find that they, you know, you've got conflicts and how do you resolve those

conflicts and how do you resolve them in a way that is, you know, does not dissolve the self, but that does not prioritize certain over, you know, the wellbeing. So, Yeah, it's not an easy solution. I'm not claiming to have the answer, but I do think a lot of it does come down to those kind of ontological philosophical principles. Yeah, I'm going to respond to this and maybe we can let Erin have a word. But I think first I'm going to do two things. I'm going to steel man the case for libertarians first, and then I'm going to say what my position currently is on this, which I think you'll probably agree. feel – I think you'll feel good about, I think you'll agree. right?

So the libertarian would typically say as long – the rules in a libertarian or a voluntarist society would be the idea that we all have some kind of contractual arrangement, It's hardcore Lockean right? contractarianism that drives a libertarian society. And the thing about that is it's a – they're voluntarily – uh-oh, I lost you guys, I think. Are you here? Okay, the video went down, but I can't see you guys or hear you guys, Okay, so I'll continue talking then. I guess. So in a libertarian society,

everyone technically should have a rule set or there should be rules because they have contractual agreements and everybody's opting in. The problem with thinking about – it's a bit ironic – But if we think about what are the guardrails, well, right now what the state is doing, what the technocrats are doing, they believe in their heart, at least the ones who are not outright sociopaths, that they are implementing the guardrails. And the guardrails are some kind of massive surveillance panopticon. But the reality is that's not the case. So in my opinion, what the guardrails are is massive experimentation. And now here's the answer as I see it or the thought process as I see it.

I'm a panarchist. And what that means is that everybody should be able to live wherever the hell they wanna live. And then they should be able to opt into whatever kind of governance service they want, whether that's libertarianism, whether that's anarcho-syndicalism, doesn't matter what kind of community or what kind of society it is, they should have the ability to opt into that. And how we try to figure out the guardrails is that we allow those people to iron out whatever kind of mutually agreeable contracts that they want. or find another means to solve problems or come to terms with the collective sense making that's embedded in those communities and they have to have what we can call a

communitas some type of mutual understanding regardless of where that community is because we're all different this is the the epitome or the apotheosis of what we can call cosmopolitanism we're all different we're all unique we all have our needs and values and so we should be able to opt into those kind of communities this is what the cypher state To me, movement represents. It represents a transitory phase. We're moving from these gigantic nation states that kettle everybody together and then expect everyone to get along, and then they put these laws as rules. a blanket over the whole community and we've seen the disastrous consequences of that rolled out over the last few centuries in its

most explicit bloodiest nastiest form so what's what's got to happen is that we actually need to allow these different cypher states to bloom and to grow up but this doesn't mean they just have to be cipher states by the way I'm also a fan and this is a bit of a tangential component of this but people should be able to opt into any kind of community they want whether it's based in tech or not I know a ton of people who run intentional communities derek for instance has the conscious agora which is an intentional community in Mexico that he's been building out, which isn't necessarily tech-focused, but it is sort of libertarian-esque, and he's got like a vegan sensibility to the rules,

and that's fine. The idea is that everyone should be able to experiment with whatever type of community they want to experiment, whatever rules they want to experiment, and then we should be able to... find and tweak which ones work best, to provide those or deliver and then we should be able those to the different kinds of communities so that we can increase human flourishing and collective betterment and we can stop all these zero-sum games and zero-sum dynamics. I think what this ultimately represents, Aaron and Courtney, is the dissolution of of this idea that we have to have a left-right paradigm, that we have to have people constantly at each other's

throats over some political trivialities. And the reason that they're trivialities is because we don't actually have to be embedded in those kinds of systems if we're only able to opt in to the communities that we want to live in. So this is what these communities are supposed to represent, the vision provided by the technocrats, those who think that some kind of mega surveillance leviathan is the answer is completely erroneous and wrong and I think goes against all of our moral sensibilities and I think we all definitely agree with that even if we did disagree on sort of the particulars okay monologue monologue over I'll let you I I try and get quite a bit so I'll let you if you have

something you want to add harren I think Sterling knows more about this topic. In fact, you're writing a book on this, right? On network states. And he's experienced firsthand more of these. He's visited these around the world. And I'm intrigued by this concept. And part of, in fact, I had Sterling on last year, I think it was the last episode or second to last episode of the year. And I've had many conversations with him about network states. Last year, I gave a talk before the election about the premise was basically that America one point O is over. And then my my talk at the time was that we need to develop America two point O from first principles. And so I walked through

where did we go wrong? Did we go wrong because the Constitution was right, but it just was, it was denigrated or was there you know, something fundamental about the first principles? Have we learned anything in two hundred and fifty years that if we debated it might might change how we look at things? But then I got into thinking about this. I'm like, well, why do I really want to save America? as an entity right like that's actually not even what I'm interested in either I'm just more interested in having these debates about first principles and I thought what was maybe missing in some of the I think what sterling is doing is amazing in terms of with polis labs and trying to

be analytical about looking at governance structures and what works. I think it would be useful to have another layer where we're providing a debate format. I don't even know what the format is. I proposed at the time kind of an online debate format, but where we actually get people talking about first principles. And then as people are working on building their their network states, they can actually have the benefit of the back and forth and the discussion about these critical points. And one of the things that I became the most alarmed about what's going on with technocrats and the technocratic influence in network states is there seems to be a lack of any concern about free will. Yes.

And so I think that that's a really great place to lead into. So you had brought up like Lockean contracts. I actually think that's kind of where the Constitution went wrong. I think a lot of the founding principles of the Constitution, we had talked about this in the roundtable. When you go back to the Declaration of Independence, it goes back to the fixed nature of man. Right. Like that we are not the creators of the universe ourselves. And therefore, we don't create, we don't, we're not the, we don't create the constructs either, right? There is an actual reality outside of us. And that is really, those are the principles that the Declaration of Independence was predicated on.

I always go back to, you know, the beginning, you know, the very famous line that we were endowed with inalienable truths. inalienable rights from our creator, rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I think it's so important. It's a very profound concept. And when I say profound, I mean, here in the United States, we're so used to hearing it, although many aren't really even taught it. it actually means. And they're not taught what and the reason that it is so important it's really the only when you say like why save america it's the only place in the entire world that has a document that has codified that notion there is nowhere else in the world that has ever

codified that in writing and it is a really really profound statement that we were and part of this is is an understanding that there is a creator we are not the creator I'm not telling people what to believe what religion you know that's a we have the first amendment that's freedom of religion but it is an agreement that we were endowed from a creator that we are not the creator we are not god and we were endowed with free will Which means, you know, and a lot of people don't really understand this concept of free will. They think about freedom. Freedom is a very popularized concept. And when you read a lot of philosophers, they're really speaking in very Asapian language.

I've done extensive work on this. And they talk about freedom. They mean it as a collective radical end. That is not the same thing as free will at all. Free will is about the individual. And it is a vehicle. It's a conduit for morality, for virtue. And this is why in a biblical framing, God wants to be chosen. He will not force it on you. So all of these quote unquote Christians who are saying that we should have some sort of theocracy and that we should force it upon people. Yeah, that is not even Christian. You know, that the first principle of Christianity, I would argue of Judaism as well, and many monotheistic religions is that there is a creator who has endowed us with free will.

So I know this gets a little bit heady and philosophical, but I think it's really important that people come from this perspective. This is where our founders were when they were trying to figure out what the best structure was. And I actually think that, you know, I think Locke is, you know, that's where we kind of become the we become the constructors. the contractors, And I think that that's actually flawed. It leads to a lot of problems. So, yeah. And I'm all for, you know, people can experiment. And with communities, absolutely. I think, you know, people can enter and leave and have autonomy over what communities they want to join, just the way you would over

any kind of a group you join, or a religious organization, or a gym. You should be able to enter, you should be able to leave. I'm all for that. But when you're talking about a government structure, You're now taking something that we have these, you know, geographical nation states, and in many ways they are a bulwark against this global type of tyranny. When you start talking about technology replacing that, no matter how well-meaning, there's definitely a potential for it to funnel into some sort of a technocratic kind of a control when it's the government, I'm not saying that there's a you know, problem with having these various communities online.

We have them now, you know, um, and to have like private ones that, they're great things that can be done, I mean, they're, replace government with technology, but when you're trying to I think it's a slippery slope. Yeah, I would, comment on replacing I would agree with that government with technology. I, you know, the interesting thing about this though, is I think a lot of people, they. they compound the idea of network state with just technology. There's a lot of people, I wanna be clear too, there's a lot of people out there who are working on different projects where they're not necessarily putting technology first. I think most of them probably are because that's,

the tragic truth it's all it's both tragic and good the truth of the network state movement is that it was largely seeded by crypto people because they were the ones who had the funding to actually do it so of course there's going to be a strong technology bent to that particular movement and it's it's infrastructure but there are people now who are starting to think about well we need more of the human element we need more of the you know more compassion more kindness more uh identity stories more stories in general more of a humanitarian aesthetic built into these so that is definitely coming and there's more people of them a number of people interested in that I'm one

even derek and intentional community folks who have a like low-tech vibe they also are very much interested in this so I just want to say and I think this is for the greater audience too that this is a very a nuanced situation and it's currently unfolding right now we don't have all the answers and we certainly don't have all the understanding of the direction that it's gonna go. But I do know this, I know that you guys are definitely right in your concerns that some various form of technological totalitarianism could take root as a result of this and really already has in a lot of ways. But I think one of the primary solutions or one of the only solutions that we have to this

is to actually start creating, is to exit these governmental systems that aren't working for us and find new solutions. And this is speaking to this idea of whether contracting philosophically is wrong or right for the sake of argument. What matters is that we do create petri dishes and we're allowed to experiment with different ways of being. And maybe as a result of this, we innovate new ways of living and learning together. Personally, for me, I think it's hard to divorce the idea of contractarianism from anything because any kind of agreement that we have, whether it's written on paper or it's something that we voice with another person or between parties,

that is still a kind of contract, right? When I agree that something belongs to me and something belongs to you, and that we're not gonna fight over that, that's a kind of contract, right? It's not an explicit contract. It's more of a verbal agreement that is contractual in nature because you have a mutual and shared understanding. And the reason why this part is important to me, because as a panarchist, as we think about creating all these new governance modalities and services, as different people start to build those out, people are opting in to certain rule sets and communities that they agree with that is contractual in its nature but I also want to be kind of clear when when I talk

about this it's a bit of a different variation or form than a typical voluntarist or libertarian would talk about when they talk about contract I think it's in a very limited scope with just in the in the context of a maybe a community but this is more of like an overarching vision of where we're going there's not a Another way to put it is that it's not laden with values, right? It's not saying that this – it's not about morality, right? It's not about right or wrong. What it's about is the fact that we each choose what communities we are part of. And so it's a bit more of a practical thing, I think. So I think a lot of us tend to get caught up too in – moral argumentation of

what's wrong or right. This is what happens, of course, between our anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists, right? So my whole thing is trying to figure out how we can escape that dynamic because it's super toxic. Nothing is more toxic than politicking and tribalism. And the only way to solve that is to spread out these communities. But there's one more concept here. I could go on a while about this. Another thing that's really important, I think, to fleshing out the new social setup is that we have to keep our communities as flat and as decentralized as possible. I think one thing that we probably agree on is that the larger communities often get, the more tyrannical or more

prone to zero-sum gaming that they can be. And just a couple of recommendations on reading for this topic, because it's just something that I'm going to talk about offhand. But so The Breakdown of Nations was written by Leopold Korr, and he goes into some detail about this fantastic book. And then he's an anarcho-primitivist, but he has a good point. Kirkpatrick Sell wrote a book called Human Scale Revisited, and it's all about keeping things minimally small and to the human scale because it allows us to connect. Yeah. Yeah, it's the Dunbar number, which is one hundred fifty or less. I just wanted to just make one point on your when you're talking about contract. When you talk about like a

contract between one person and another, you're talking about natural law. That's not what happens when you're making a contract for a government or a social contract. They're very, very different things. So, yeah, I agree with that. Right. Social contracts, not a contract. So I and really what I'm Yeah. arguing is the difference between natural law and human nature. And you also brought up zero sum games. And I think, unfortunately, that's kind of a reality. And this is, again, my point is that we can think about utopias, but utopia literally means nowhere. So I you know, a lot of people may criticize the the structure of the United States, the original structure.

I'm not even talking about what's happened now, but it was designed by humans. So it's going to be flawed. We are not going to have a perfect system. What I would like to see, I think that what they were driving at with the Declaration of Independence and with the founding was actually pretty darn good. And what I would like to see is something that acknowledges human nature, and does the best with that not something that is thinking about you know the ideal kind of situation because as much as it would be great that's just not the reality of human nature replacing humans with unless we're going to be robots so you know which is where they want to go and that that's what I'm trying

to avoid so yeah Sure. Just a quick comment and let Aaron and I think whoever – Dan O'Neill is popping in over now. There he is. I just want to make it clear that I wasn't – I'm not sure you were necessarily directing this at me or not, Courtney. I didn't get that vibe, but I just want to be clear that I – I'm not a utopian dreamer or thinker. What I am personally for is rapid and rampant experimentation in societies and communities, and then exploring and experimenting to figure out what works best. So I'm very much data-driven and research-driven on trying to determine what type of society works to deploy those models or better and then being able those prototypes for people to leverage and

to implement it by no means suggests that we're going to be perfect. I do. I would contend that governance quote unquote is an unsolved problem and that the closer we get to solving it, the more human flourishing that we're going to have. Well, what I think about this subject is, um, I think Adam said in the second inaugural address, the constitution is only meant for a moral people. Well, um, The basis of morality is don't hurt people, don't take their stuff. When we have fifty one percent of the people voting to kill, steal and maim the other side. Now, I do think that we've gone past the point of morality. So I do believe Ernie Hancock is right. We need to decentralize down

to the individual level if we can. It might be hard to get to that point. It's also a reason why I do like the Zano project. I like the whole privacy aspect. It's pirate money. It's also freedom money. It's what, um, currency is supposed to be. Um, and, um, so, you know, natural law, I guess, um, I think the constitution is common law, which is a derivative of natural law. Um, as Mark Passio would say, uh, don't hurt people. I'm sorry. He would say, um, um, take, do no harm, but take no shit. Now, um, We've become a very passive, immoral, obedient people. During the COVID regime, you see people walking

everywhere just because around with masks on they were told to do that. And if we exit as many of these systems as we can, we're going to become healthier. We're going to have better lives, more prosperous. And I think that's how the creator wanted it to be. I don't think these systems are designed to do anything other than enslave us in many ways, including the food system, the medical system, the monetary system, the war machine, all these governments. So that's kind of what I'm thinking about this, but it's fun being on this episode with you guys, some heavy hitters. So I'm going to be quiet, but that's kind of what I think about the whole morality of the governments these days.

I want to add one thing really quickly to that, what you said, like it's for a moral people. That was Jefferson who said that. The founders also felt that the education of the citizenry was really important. It was so that they understood their ontological being, like ontology just means being, right? The nature of their being. And that they understood morality is derived from that, right? Again, it goes back to free will. Free will is the vehicle for morality. But we're not taught anything like that at all these days. These days we are brainwashed. We are completely indoctrinated and alienated from any kind of metaphysical teaching. So I would agree, you know, it's really difficult now.

You know, that was what our founders said, that self-governance could only happen if the citizenry were educated. But that's what they meant by education, not what we're receiving today. So sorry, I just wanted to add that. But yeah, go on. Well, yeah, I mean, we've never had that with public education. I mean, government education from the beginning has always been about indoctrination. Of course, they weren't, I don't think, referring to government education. They were just referring to the fact that the people but not necessarily by the government. should be educated, Where I've come out on this is I used to spend a lot of time on politics. And actually, my favorite period in history

is the Revolutionary War period. But then over the last few years, I've just gotten to the point where I'm kind of like, all right, well, I believe in free will over determinism, love over fear, decentralization over centralization, abundance over manufactured scarcity. But I don't know that that's not necessarily a political – ideology and as I started going down this america two point oh from first principles what I realized is I don't have a solution I what but rather a whole series of questions and I I and I think debates that need to be had on these issues and on these topics so I'm not even I'm at the point where I don't even necessarily want to form an opinion because I know I

don't know enough about it and I know some of the areas where I don't know enough about it but I probably don't know all of the areas that I don't know enough about. And that my guess is that other people don't know about these areas either. So how do we get to the point where, I mean, you mentioned the founders wanted an education that was talking about metaphysics. Okay, well, we should have a discussion about metaphysics. We should have a discussion about... free will. How do we set those conversations up? What is the format for that? That's something that I'm interested in is how do we create a format to have these conversations so that everybody can benefit from it?

And not from the perspective of I know what the answer is going to be, but how do we bring the right people together to conversation on these issues? have an engaging I think a really good start would be to study some of the founding period, which most people are not taught. And when they're taught, they're taught very inconclusively. They're often taught Locke, Hobbes, you know, Cicero. They're not taught the Scottish common sense realism. And most of them were actually very instrumental in the Declaration of Independence. You know, they were somewhat in the Constitution as well, but primarily the Declaration of Independence. And this is largely the the foundational principles

upon which our country was founded. And I think they make a really good case for independence. I hate to use this word, but ironically, sense-making. But they make a really good case for it that is metaphysically grounded where you don't have to be a believer. I mean, if you are, then it would be a very logical, you know, continuity, but you don't have to be, but the metaphysics is shared. So I would say that that's probably a really great place. I would like to see that reintroduced into the education system. I encourage people to, I just did a long post actually on Justice James Wilson, who I was not super familiar with at all.

And it was actually kind of embarrassing because I was never taught him in school. And he was one of the few, I think one of only like six people to have signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He was one of the first Supreme Court justices. And he was very influential on creating the, you know, the ideas that shaped the Declaration of Independence. I'll see if I can find it. You guys want to jump in while I'm looking for it. Yeah, I mean, I can. I can talk a little bit about what we were discussing earlier. I think it's really relevant, the notion of a social contract. which is one of the problems with Right, traditional or typical constitutionalism.

It's the idea that – and this is something that Lysander Spooner in his books broke down, I think, quite well, this notion that you can't bind a group of people in posterity to some document that they don't agree – that's the nature of a social contract. It's like we have this constitution, and now you just have to agree to it. That's not explicitly opting in, and this is just a – To add to your point from earlier, Courtney, that that's not indicative of being a community of freedom where people can interact opt in and opt out of their own volition this is one of the reasons why I think more and more people need to learn about and understand and come to terms with the

notion of exit right exit and build that's been a rallying cry and a clarion call for a lot of people in in our tech community and tech circles for a long the longest time and I man I just I hate how the lines get so uh muddied or blurred between the actors who are trying to do good in our space, and the ones who don't have a good motive behind what they're working on. So I know that the onus is on us to make that more clear as we continue to push forward, because a hundred percent with what you guys are saying, the problems of the world, the problems of this rising technocratic tyranny that seems to be taking over everyone's mind and the propaganda that is happening as a result of that,

is just so so trenchant so being able to push back against that is really important and there are good actors in tech working to do that I think education has got to be a key component to of everything and that's one of the reasons I appreciate aaron's work so much because I can think of no no one better to educate people on the technocracy than than aaron so appreciate your work my man So I'll read this to y'all if you want. So I said I wasn't taught and I'm embarrassed to about Wilson in school, admit that I only recently learned of his role in American founding, largely, I think, to the Palmorem. But I asked AI for a little overview, and then I go through a couple of things that

really stuck out for me. But I'll just jump to the overview that it did. Justice James Wilson was a Scottish-American founding father, legal scholar, jurist, and statesman, born on September near Kerr's Pife, Scotland, to a Presbyterian farming family. He studied at the University of St. Andrews, Glasgow in Edinburgh, influenced by Scottish Enlightenment thinkers like Francis Hutchinson, David Hume, and Adam Smith, but did not earn a degree. Immigrating to Philadelphia in seventeen sixty five, he tutored at the College of Philadelphia, which is now known as the University of Pennsylvania, received an honorary Master of Arts and later an honorary LLD. It's also really interesting

just to think about that, like how many of the leaders in our history who didn't have official degrees. Right. Like you could take the bar in most states up until actually not that long ago and be a lawyer. Like you didn't have to go to law school, which is a total indoctrination factory, just like med school and all the others. But he became a. So he became a prominent figure in early American jurisprudence, professor of law in College serving as the first of Philadelphia starting in in seventeen ninety, where he delivered lectures on the Constitution attended by President George Washington and his cabinet appointed by Washington in seventeen eighty nine. Wilson was one of the

original six associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, serving until his death in August twenty first seventeen ninety eight in Eddington, North Carolina, after a stroke. A later life was marred by financial ruin from speculative land investments during the panic of seventeen ninety six to seventeen ninety seven, leading to two cents stints in debtors prison and evasions of creditors while on circuit duty. Initially buried in North Carolina, he remains were reentered in. Philadelphia's Christ Church heard in nineteen or six. He played a pivotal role in America's founding, emerging as a key intellectual and political figure during the Revolutionary era. Seventeen seventy four,

he published Considerations on Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament. This is a pamphlet arguing that the colonies were not subject to the parliament laws due to lack of representation, which influenced the revolutionary thought on par with works by Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Elected to the Continental Congress in, he initially hesitated, but ultimately voted for independence, signed the Declaration of Independence in , one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the US Constitution. During the revolution, he served as a Colonel, later Brigadier General in the Pennsylvania Militia from , defended loyalists in legal cases and acted as an

advocate for General Francis in America. He survived the seventeen seventy nine Fort Wilson riot, where a mob attacked his home over accusations of loyalist sympathies, resulting in casualties before troops intervened at the eight seventeen eighty seven Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Wilson was a dominant force, speaking one hundred and sixty eight times. second only to Governor Morris, and serving on the Committee of Detail, which produced the first draft of the Constitution. He advocated for a strong national government rooted in popular sovereignty. This popular sovereignty is a very important concept that our country was predicated upon, opposing equal state votes.

He actually came up with the Electoral College and unitary executive, a single president elected for a short term with veto power and accountability to the people. Wilson crafted... the electoral college system for a presidential election and adopted after modification. judiciary with the national He helped frame the Supreme Court and presidential nomination powers and supported the three-fifths compromise, counting three-fifths of enslaved people for representation despite his personal anti-slavery views, but he viewed it as a pragmatic necessity for the union. union although he later did disavow it he opposed adding the the bill of rights which surprised me I actually am a big fan of

the bill of rights um he argued that the constitution enumerated powers already protected unlisted rights but that's because back then the people were taught about their inalienable rights which people today are not. People do not have any concept of inalienable rights or metaphysics. Wilson also influenced the preamble's wording and emphasized broad congressional powers. Post-convention, his October six, seventeen eighty seven state house yard speech defended the Constitution and was widely reprinted, aiding Pennsylvania's ratification as the second state to approve it. And he later helped draft the Pennsylvania's. Seventeen ninety state constitution. As Supreme Court Justice.

Wilson participated in early landmark cases. Including Chris Colm and Georgia. Which affirmed federal jurisdiction. Over state. Later overturned by the eleventh amendment. And others clarifying constitutional powers. Like taxation and treaty. Scholars like Max Farrand. And Andrew McLaughlin. Rank him as the second most influential framer. after James Madison crediting him with shaping a national government based on the people rather than the states. Just because it's really this concept of popular sovereignty. So anyway, that was a little bit of trivia, but like, I mean, this just goes to the point that I don't know how many people were even familiar with them.

I mean, I wasn't, so maybe it's just me, but most of us are not taught how we got here. And we're certainly not taught the school of thought that led to the founding principles that are predicate, that are the principles that shaped the Declaration of Independence, so. No, we certainly are. Sterling had to go. And I just want to say I'm really grateful for Sterling for joining. And as I said, according to what I've been saying to you, he knows more about network states than anyone I know because he's literally visited them. He's been working on technology in covering these areas. And I'm looking forward to having him. He said he'll come back on periodically, which I think is terrific

because there's a lot more. to unpack here. And he just said his last comment. I don't even know what time zone he's in. I think he's probably in Europe or something, so it's probably really late. But his last comment was, strong national government is not a good thing, though. It implies control and a lack of ease of exit. Thanks for sharing, though, Courtney. If you want to get a sense of how we think, check out our blog at Polis. This is the latest post by Suzanne, which is highly relevant to today's discussion. That's in the private chat. He's put that link Okay, send that to me privately. I'm happy to explore. I mean, I'm not familiar with, you know, I'm only familiar with the

ones that are more popular that I have access to. So yeah, I haven't heard of logos. I haven't heard of this polis. So I'd love to take a look at it. And I don't doubt he knows a ton about this and that he's, you know, fighting for freedom. I can clearly hear that. I personally have some philosophical kind of conflicts with it. But OK, sure. And that's good. And by the way, these are the kinds of conversations that we need to have. And I would go back to I wrote this. I'm actually now looking at this document that I wrote when I did my America two point oh is over. And I actually I was spent more time on it than I thought. But I wanted to go back and question all of the first

principles and everything, even revisit everything leading up to the Declaration of Independence and actually have those conversations, not assume that they were right. Maybe they were right. Maybe they weren't. Those should be questioned. Everything should be. open to debate and discussion. The approach that I took was we shouldn't necessarily take the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution as a given, as something that needs to be tweaked. We should actually go to fundamental first principles. The founders believed that man was inherently selfish and greedy and all these other things. Well, is that true? Do we believe in free will? From a scientific perspective, materialism,

Newtonian physics was the cutting edge science of the day. Does our changing understanding of physics, such as it is, affect that and what does that mean for governance models and again I don't have answers to any of these things but what I did do was I documented a long list of questions and it occurs to me that just what happened here this just happened spontaneously sterling happened to jump on and I wanted you guys to talk for a long time so this just happened uh kind of arbitrarily but maybe we should start even structuring some of these q and a's a little bit more I mean they just they've started out as just hey I talk for a while and then whoever wants to pop in

pops in but you know um we might we might make more ground if we we even make these more thematic Sure. Yeah. And I mean, I'm very open. I certainly don't claim to have the answers. And I've been actually doing quite a bit of thinking about these philosophical concepts and how how do we then implement them? Because, you know, it's great if people, you know, have a foundation. And I think that's the start. But then what do we do with it? How do we then execute both governing structures as well as technology? that are governed by them. And, you know, when I say govern, I know that seems to be not

a favorable word to people, but I just mean, you know, that that's what's the underpinning, you know, that's what's guiding it. So we do, I think it needs to be rooted in some sort of a, you a realist framework. I think that's really important because again, I know he says he's not a utopianist and I think he truly believes that. But a lot of what I'm hearing sounds like utopia. I mean, this kind of eradication of zero sum games is, You know, it's very reminiscent of this like Omni win win kind of structure. And I'd love that. I just don't think that's a reality. And I don't think that we can we should frame an entire system on something that's not realistic.

So, I mean, I could be wrong. Maybe humans are not inherently selfish and maybe humans are not. I don't think they're selfish in like a we have this negative connotation. But I do think that there are some certain truths about humanity. And I think that those need consideration when we're to be taken into creating any kind of a system. So I think those need to be debated because I think vigorous debate about that's what we need a because I don't have necessarily an answer to that. I mean, I could argue, are people inherently selfish and all these other things? I don't know. Maybe it's programming. I don't know that if it's... Is it actually inherent? Is it inherent in what way? Is it genetic?

Is it the DNA? Or is it programmed? And again, I don't have the answer, but there's a whole series of questions that we could pose on this and then bring in people to discuss it and research it. Because I think we're missing this entirely. And what's actually happening is the technocrats don't believe in inalienable rights. They don't believe in rights at all. And most people are unaware of this. I think most people... might fundamentally, even if they didn't study it, believe that they have some inalienable rights. Then they have no idea that the technocrats don't value that at all. This is why we end up with this clash so often where people, you know, will say well the

technocrats can't do this because of the constitution not realizing that the technocrats don't care about the constitution and it's already been trampled so they're sitting there resting on what they think their rights are without even understanding what those are not realizing that the the enemy that we have here doesn't they're laughing at us they don't value they don't value these things at all. They don't value property rights. They don't value individual rights and they don't value free will. So, you know, I'm going to, I'll probably write up an article. I was meaning to do this. And now I'm looking at how long these notes were that I had. I'm like, I think I got into one of these

things where I'm like, okay, this is going to be a short book. And then I think I got sidetracked by something else, but I do, I do think it's important. And I think, you know, maybe we have a forum here to start having some of these conversations. Cause I thought, you know, so far tonight's fascinating conversation. Okay. As always. Right. I think it's super, super important. lost in our culture, I think it's what's been certainly in our education. I think that's by design. I think in order to control us, they have to deracinate us. So when you say they don't believe that we have any inalienable rights, I think that's absolutely true. And they think they are the, you know,

I would argue they think they're the Gnostic elect that should rule over us because they have the Gnosis. I mean, they have the scientific know-how, they have the technology, they have the, they're able to wield the power. And so therefore they are the philosopher kings who should rule over us. I think they truly believe that. And some of them may actually think it's for our own good. I mean, what was it? It was Sigmund Freud, Anna Freud. Anna Freud would say that Yeah. people are not capable of making their own choices. I mean, she really thought the masses just weren't capable. And so she thought she was doing a good thing by actually brainwashing us with propaganda.

Because, of course, I mean, we're just not competent. We can't make our own choices. So we need to have the brainwashing so that it's done for us. You know, and of course, all the propaganda, all the marketing and everything. That's how it was done. But I think some of them really believe that. But I think for us, if we're going to fight against that, we need to understand why, if we have inalienable rights, why do we have inalienable rights? And what is that predicated on? And how do we defend them? So I think the conversation is incredibly important. And again, I don't claim to have the answers. I've been really trying to think about this from that perspective.

And then even then, what do we do? Like, how do... I guess that needs to be dealt with first. But from there, so maybe deal with that first. But then from there, you know, what kind of a system do we set up? What kind of technologies and how do we create those guardrails? So, yeah, I think it's incredibly important. Yeah, and it's kind of going on multiple. So what Sterling's working on is saying, well, look, we need experimentation. And experimentation going on. And there is a lot of And unfortunately, if you were here, I'd actually say this. I mean, in a way, I think Balaji has hijacked network states in the same way that Bitcoin was hijacked. And so now there's this conception of network

states as being this overtly technocratic thing, which isn't actually where the roots of it are. But essentially, he was the one who wrote the book called Network States. And so he's now associated with his version of it and his branding of it, which is unfortunate because now... We're in the situation where you've got to unwind all of that other stuff. But you can work on the experimentation side, but we still need to have these more fundamental conversations about the nature of man, free will, and all of that other stuff. And the funny thing is, academia used to, in theory, be for this, but it is so not that. These conversations don't go on in academia at all. The higher up you go,

In the latter, the more indoctrination it is. There is no debate or discussion about truth. People aren't talking about those things anymore. That's a really sad, sad thing. That's one of the things that I actually like about the Brownstone Institute, structured is it's kind of like, yeah, the way that it's okay, this is where you're supposed to be. You know, there are so many people that are missing truth. the search for truth, the search for meaning any of this, where do you go for that? And there really isn't anywhere. That's, it's really, uh, really sad. And I think by time, yeah, unfortunately. Well, I think what they got going on right now is, um, we have, uh, the people with the

pitchforks attacking the people with the, uh, torches. And then, uh, every four years we switch on, uh, who's in charge. And the problem is, is that, uh, The administrations keep on doing the same exact thing. So the voting booth does not work at all. We're moving faster and faster into tyranny. I mean, everyone can keep on doing that if they want. I like to call myself a voluntarist in the steps of Ian Freeman. But I think that if we just keep on using the voting booth as the only tool to get freedom, and that seems to be the majority of the so-called freedom movement, it's, uh, we're failing, we're failing very fast and we need to pick up different strategies. Um,

so that's what I see going on right now, especially with the whole Trump movement, this huge MAGA movement that was, um, taken from the Ron Paul campaigns and everything else before that. Now everybody's just sitting back waiting for Trump to save the day. But right now we got Peter Thiel and Bill Gates running everything in every which way. So, um, I don't see this as winning. And, um, That's just kind of how I look at things right now. Yep. Yeah. No, I agree. I, as I've stated, I voting doesn't work. Um, and, and you can document why, I mean, in terms of, we don't have an educated pot. I mean, not only are people not educated and talking about metaphysics, I mean, people don't even know the

three branches of government. Like we're so far removed. They don't understand any of the, any of the concepts that, at all and it's been big data driving get out the vote and now when you add in ai then it's just the outcome is algorithmic but even who the candidates are is pre-selected so it's a it's a nothing process but I always go back to I think the biggest problem that we have is that people have been giving up their free will and not even knowing it. And so how do you know, that also has to be addressed. This is where I've divided what I'm doing into these three things. And it's kind of unmanageable. You know, I was like, well, I'd love to be able to just focus on one thing.

But I realized we have to do all of these. So I'm trying to figure out how to make tools that can empower other other people to scale this up. And and the free will one is a is a big one. And people don't are not aware of the degree to which they've been manipulated by institutions and then increasingly by algorithms. They literally just don't know. I mean, to me, the biggest rug pull of all is the belief that X is a free speech platform. that is truly remarkable and there are smart people I know very smart people that truly believe that that actually believe that elon musk saved western civilization by by buying x and twitter and making it a free speech platform and

it's not true and you can see it he's overtly the the algorithm changes that he makes or if he goes into a tantrum when people were saying things he didn't uh, like about H one B visas, or when, some of the mothers of his you know, children were speaking out, he silenced them, cancel accounts. Then they changed the terms and conditions of the contract to basically say that they, they can do that. He, he, he has worked into the, his click wrap agreement, the fact that he can change the algorithm as he wishes. This is not free speech. This is the illusion of free speech. And so, um, But how many people are really talking about this? Most people still. This is the biggest challenge.

This is why I wanted to do this, you know, ten reasons I think technocracy is already here. People do not get the Musk thing at all. That's so strange to me. Musk is just like a very cursory I mean, look at his whole history. It's very transparent that he's. a full-blown technocrat, and he always has been, and he was indoctrinated. I know some people argue with me that his grandfather passed when he was really young, but that it really has no bearing on the matter. he was very much influenced by his I mean, grandfather. As you had mentioned earlier that, he wants to bring the technique on Mars. you know, He's already, and I kept saying, no, he wants to put the Technate here,

exactly where the map of the Technate was supposed to be, this whole North American Union. But he's already pivoted. He's already said he's done with Mars. He's like, we've got to focus on here. And yeah, you want to build the Technate here. His grandfather, yeah, you had mentioned had been kicked out um, he was kicked out and then he started the, uh, he was kicked out of the technocracy and that got shut down. And then he started the social credit party. I mean, like that's literally what it was called, the social credit party. Um, but yeah, I think he was, and then kicked out of Canada after that. So, uh, that was the, they moved, uh, they moved here. They moved from South Africa, Canada.

I think there was somewhere else in the middle, but Anyway, yeah, his whole history. And then, yeah, now he's supporting J.D. Vann. But they are doing very interesting maneuvers. I'm really, really curious to see what happens with this Operation Phoenix, you know, that they're doing with the United Independence. This is their plan. For those who are not familiar, I have links to it in my Phoenix Conspiracy article. And I laid out, you know, what their blueprint is. But there are links in there to their Google Docs where they talk about how their plan is to flood Congress for the midterms of twenty twenty six with what they call, quote unquote, independent.

They all seem to be technocrats, though. This is a technocracy. RFK is at the helm of this. We remember RFK's manager was his campaign manager was Charles Eisenstein. Charles Eisenstein wrote the book on sacred economics. So they're now talking about gift economies, but it's all using technology. You know, it's under the banner of it being like crowdfunding and, you know, very egalitarian. It sounds lovely, but I am very disinterested in nice sounding words. I want to understand the operation process. Operationally, how does this translate? What are the ramifications of these nice sounding words? What does it actually do? How does it function? That is much more important to me.

Well, I think we need to set up some, I hate to even call it debates, but we need to set up some discussions. with people on this. We talked about before, I'm going to see Brett Weinstein in eleven days and it'd be great to have him come on and have a conversation. Because maybe there's... disagreement or maybe there's some nuance or who knows. I actually don't know what the answer is, but we should try to get it all out in the open and figure out how to have discussions because it does seem like what is happening is there are these monolithic movements and networks of groups of people pushing an agenda and nobody's talking about what the agenda is. Yes. And it's being soft sold and

nobody's even talking about necessarily the fact that I mean, you've documented it, it's a movement. but it doesn't look like it's a well-coordinated thing. It is pretty coordinated, right? I mean, there's a lot of organization behind it, but it looks like, oh, well, just, hey, you know, here's some nice sounding things and organizations that are doing it. I don't know if I sent you, did I send you my correspondence back and forth with the Jordan Hall? No. Oh, I have to send that to you. I thought I did. No, I'm looking through. I have not sent it to you. I will send it to you. So we're supposedly scheduled for a podcast in, in October, October, October, October, October,

October, October, October, And so, yeah, we're that, that should be very interesting, but he was arguing that, you know, I'm a, Just like he actually called this schizo posting is what his words were, actually. But so he explained that I'm just, you know, making loose strings and attaching them to each other. And, you know, I made it very clear in the article that it's about shared underlying philosophical underpinnings. That's really what it's about. But he he wanted to have a conversation, I think, about power and which I'm not really interested in discussing how power works. But I thought it was very interesting in bringing that up. He says to me that. He said that Jeffrey Epstein

may have funded the Santa Fe Institute while he was there, but that he actually funded more. He gave the Santa Fe Institute more funding, more money during that time, and that he doesn't think he influenced them at all, but that what it does do is give you allies in very high places. I was like, well, that's very interesting. I mean, that's quite revealing, actually. But yeah, it's an interesting conversation back and forth that we had in the thread. So I will, yeah, I'll send that over to you. But yeah, I think these things should be asked out. As I said, I don't claim to have all the answers, but I did lay out the documentation pretty clearly. It's very clear where all

the funding trails are and how these people are interconnected. And it is a movement. And this movement is very much tied to this United Independent movement. Christopher Life started the Independent National Convention He's, you know, the One Life Party, which is tied to Barbara Marks Hubbard, the, you know, One Nation Party, as well as the One Evolutionary Church, I think it was called. these people are all So, yeah, I mean, interconnected and they're very, very intertwined. This is not, you know, just a bunch of people separately. He was saying that Daniel Schmachtenberger was very tangential. I don't know how he's tangential. And I'm like, Like he's got a whole series

on war on sense-making, but I think what's going on is they're pivoting. So he talked about phase three, which he says he has nothing to do with, but I think they're just changing the branding. So they might not call it game B, but they're talking about liminal spaces. They're talking about the emergence, the consilience project that he and Daniel Schmachtenberger has focuses on these concepts. So I think the branding may change, but as far as I can see, the movement hasn't changed. Yeah. So we actually have a lot of comments. I haven't been going through all of them. But one thing I forgot, I was going to launch a website on this podcast and I completely forgot to do that.

So I actually, if you don't mind, just do that real quick. I can't believe I forgot this because I've been working on it all week. So I have... this is rough and I've been doing all of the work on this myself so when you go and look at the site understand like the other side it's in alpha mode I and I I'm just I'm a big fan of just getting minimally viable products out there and then just building fast because we don't have a lot of time but I did finally build a website for the aaron day show as as we're now ramping this up and because there wasn't a home for this and actually a lot of you know my all my episodes aren't even uploaded to spotify and a whole variety

of other things so I'm in the process of automating all of that. But when you go to the air and day show.com, you can see, you know, the latest episodes and, you know, I've indexed all of these we've in, episodes by tags so that you can sort all of the episodes. You can search the episodes and you can click on an episode and, you know, link to it. Uh, you know, whether it's YouTube or Apple, Amazon music, Rumble, uh, um so there's a lot going on there I'm going to build a community around this as well so even what we were talking about in terms of you know maybe we'll put up a an area for people to post topics and we can have people vote on topics and and even have comments have

a discussion integrated into this as well one of the things I'm planning on doing is posting the podcast to IPFS so that we have a version of this that is not, you know, sensible at all. And so I'm, I'm looking at how to roll that out and to build some more interactive features. Cause I really like this interactive part of it. And I want to, you know, see what we can do to make it even more, uh, interactive so and then this is the place where you can go and see that my other podcast appearances and events and all that other stuff so it's still a little rough but at least there is something there and I encourage you to check it out and there's also isn't this isn't working yet but this is

where people can you know book me on other shows and then I'll have an area for for booking guests, although I am going to keep the guests focused in these areas of technocracy, reclaiming free will, and building decentralized solutions. I do get a lot of requests for people to come on the podcast, and I'm not going to do anything that isn't directly related to the topics at hand, because these are really important topics. There are millions of other podcasts on there, but I want to remain focused on this. So anyway, I encourage you to check it out and, you know, give it another week, but you can still, you know, start to play around with it and see. I mean, we've done thirty six episodes and

I think I've been on. Well, I don't even have them all indexed, but ninety other podcasts. And so. So that's a good start with that. So I can't believe I forgot that. But nevertheless, here we are. And I'm launching another website on Thursday. So I have not been sleeping much. I do feel like my video is not working either. There's a real sense of urgency. And as I said at the beginning, I've spent a lot of time this summer trying to figure out how to become more efficient at getting the word out and trying to work on building these solutions because we're not winning. I mean, as much as we're making inroads, we're not making as much progress as the technocrats. Oh, yeah. We're not winning.

This is definitely not. I know you were saying about the MAGA movement. I mean, I think it was totally hijacked. I'm not saying that there weren't necessarily problems to begin with, but they used the MAGA movement. When I talk about MAGA, I'm talking about the people, right? not the not the the ruling body not the the government people uh but you know like the masses who were supporting maga they hijacked their energy in order to roll out the technocracy I mean that's really what it looks like yep and they don't even know and they're they're unaware they're still unaware they're still cheering the cheering the stuff on and if it had klaus schwab's name on it they would be furious they

would be protesting well the white have it so don't worry Yeah, exactly. Trust the plan. We're all good. Yeah, exactly. Well, so some of these, some of the comments, geographical compression of different beliefs and lifestyles into cities overpowers any community you favor or belong to. These are further back. These are like almost, yeah, forty-five minutes ago. Conflating morals with Christianity is weak unless you've forgotten North American history. Manifest Destiny was after the Declaration of Independence. Yeah, I'm not following that. I mean, no one was conflating morals,

and we weren't talking about Manifest Destiny either. Yeah, I don't know what that is either. We've got I Am For I Am. Hey, you can join, by the way, if you're still listening, I Am For I Am, if you want to pop in. the Articles of Confederation had Yes, solid merits. Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution created a centralized monster. Let's see. I would prefer the Anti-Federalists more so than the Federalists. when you go to a big gun So it's funny, show now or Freedom Fest or any of these big festivals, they have the Convention of the States tables. they're big tables they're well funded and I always ask these people do you really think that if you actually get all these

states to sign on rewrite whatever you think you're going to rewrite and somehow accomplish this without being hijacked by the left even though they control everything but accomplish your goals uh let's just say you why wouldn't they just follow the first version of the constitution that no one follows anyway or the bill of rights So it just, there's so many people in the so-called freedom movement wasting their time completely. And I wish they would be doing more things like what you're talking about, Aaron. And so that's one of the big observations I've seen in my travels in a lot of these freedom circles. Yeah, I did a show. Actually, we did it. I think I did it on Dr. Lee Merritt's show,

or we might have done it on the Dangerous Games. But talking about this Convention of States, I think that is a terrible idea. And we just even look at who's behind it, too. I mean, it's very concerning. And this idea that somehow it's not going to be hijacked is, I think, also very naive. But even if it weren't, I think it's really problematic just at its core. Yeah, I mean, I agree. It's incredibly problematic, and I think it's designed to be hijacked. I remember being at a And I'm like, well, if this guy is pushing this

and this guy's pushing us, I know that they don't have the same agenda. So what's this thing actually going to turn out to be like? And, you know, I'm sure it's the worst of all worlds. Yes, that's my guess as well. So let's see, we've got voting harder doesn't work voting with our wallets and feet have power. I mean, I certainly agree with with that. I mean, you know, this is what this is what I say, like, you know, my viewpoint has been I've actually been less even concerned about whether it's finding a network state or whatever, I then just, you know, trading with people voluntarily whatever, using these alternative solutions. I don't need a lot of you don't need a huge

infrastructure for that. You can just engage in voluntary transactions with people without asking for permission. And that seems to be working I mean, I know it's not the end. working okay. A lot of people want more structure, but you can just opt out of systems and you can just build these other alternatives. And this goes into, it doesn't solve all the problems, but even something like having escrow agreements where two people that don't trust each other can engage in a transaction and the funds aren't released until both sides are satisfied. I mean, that doesn't solve every potential variation of disagreement, but it actually does cover a lot of basic cases

without a lot of overhead. So, you know, I think, I mean, Dan, to your point, I mean, I know we know a lot of the same people politically. I mean, libertarian, the libertarian party's a dead end. I mean, there's no movement there at all, and it's all wasted energy. So where do you end up at the end of it? Well, most people don't improve themselves. They haven't reclaimed their free will. They're not working on any alternatives. They've just played a rigged game badly. Yeah. And that's absolutely what's going on with that movement, in my opinion. you also have after the two thousand Well, eight banking collapse, Bitcoin was supposed to fix everything. They were supposed to be

take down the central banks and bring government back to the people and permissionless money and everything else. And now it's turned into, you know, let's comply. Freedom is bad. Let's let's let's have as much regulations as we can, according to You know, the IRS. And so the whole privacy coin community, Zano, Monero, I guess, Pirate Chain, whoever else. These are projects that I think are actually trying to cause freedom. And I think they're worthwhile. But there's a lot of this other stuff is just complete nonsense, wasted time. But I still think we need to Yep.

figure out how to, I'll write something up and we'll obviously share it and see if we can figure out a way to start structuring some of these conversations and bring, bringing in people to, again, I hate to, whenever I hear debate, it's, I just, I'm so used to now what the political stuff has been where it's like, okay, I'm going to, you know, here's the process. You're going to come in with You're not going to respond your talking points. to what the other person says. You're just going to say what you want to say. And it's just, it's all ridiculous. It's just, it's propaganda and commercial. So I don't even want to call it a debate. Maybe a discourse. How about that? A discourse.

So as opposed to a dialogue, which is really just a manufacturing consensus. But a discourse is where people may have differing opinions and they're willing to have a genuine good faith discussion and hash some of them out. Yeah, I like that. That's a better word. Ed McLean says, you know some of the coolest people on God's green earth, Aaron. It wouldn't certainly be nice to mix and match some of them based on thematic topic. He thinks back to the Rechtenwald and Mark Passio episode, for example, and how awesome that was. that was a very good episode that we had. Yeah, Yeah, we talked about doing another one of those, and that would be fun. I am more solution talk.

Brainstorming is what people are hungry for. I hope so. Are they? I mean, I guess that's a test. Yeah, I would think so. I hope so. I actually don't have a sense for that. I was kind of deflated when I gave Again, this America One.O talk because the group that I was giving it to, in my opinion, should have been the kind of group of people that would be interested in these kinds of topics. And they weren't. They were interested in the existing system. And, you know, RFK is going to win, right? Like, literally. And so it was hard to... Take two or three steps back and say, hey, we need to really discuss

some of these foundational issues. I found it difficult to get people to want to engage in that. I hope people are interested in, you know, solution talk. I agree with solution talk, but do people solution to what problem? Yeah. Yeah. I think people need to have a better understanding of what is the problem. And I think some of these foundational principles really would need to be hashed out. I mean, I would argue, like, I think I obviously have a stance on where they lie. But I'm open to being wrong. But even if I'm correct, let's just hypothetically say, most people are not versed in them at all. I mean,

the conversation of metaphysics is just not taught in school. It's been completely taken out. I think we've been completely deracinated from any understanding of our nature, our origins, our history. And I think that's by design. If you don't have roots, you can't grow, right? You can't, they keep talking about human flourishing. What do they really mean by human flourishing? If you don't have roots, the tree can't flourish, right? So I think it's the opposite. I don't think they want real I think that's a term and human flourishing. it's really the inversion. Human flourishing is often attached. I mean, when we hear it from the World Economic Forum and UN types,

they're talking about transhumanism. They're talking about human augmentation and they call it human flourishing. But even when you hear it from, you know, some of the more spiritual types, they're talking about ascension. And unfortunately, those who don't ascend are going to have to be cold. So it's that that's not what human flourishing is really about. So in my opinion, anyway. That, you know, that's great. Maybe you should try to get Ed Hudgens on who's running that humanity plus thing now. Cause I, I had, I know he was always a big proponent of, of he, when he left the Atlas society, he was trying to push this whole he was, human flourishing movement.

So the question is, what is that about? And it's probably even then it is materialistically based and it is based in transhumanism. That conversation needs to be had. Nobody's having that conversation. And I talk about him a lot based on when you brought up Humanity Plus. I'm like, oh, wow, he's running this now. I'm like, okay, we should maybe see if we can get him to come on and have a conversation about that. That would be fascinating. Yeah, let's do that if he's willing. I would love that. I mean, it was literally the World Transhumanist Organization. That's literally what it was. Yeah. And I tried to find the link to the Human Flourishing Organization because there's a Humanity

And they are partnered with the Human Flourishing Project. And the only link that I could find between the two is Harvard. So Harvard is doing this Human Flourishing Project with the Humanity II.O. And then, of course, Harvard also works with the Humanity Plus. There's so... Ed McLean says the ultimate network state was modeled about two thousand years ago, and it is the biblical Christian church model, which was not the corporate structure that most of America is familiar with. The biblical model was much more decentralized. It's true. Yeah, that is very true. It was decentralized, but again, that goes back to the metaphysical conversation right there.

There was an understanding of our of our origins, that there is a creator. who endowed us with free will, that we are not God. You know, so there's some shared ontological truths that are rooted in that worldview. So, and that is kind of what the founders were talking about was having this understanding of, in order to, and having that be educated to the youth in order to be citizens. back then the term citizen was very I mean, different than what it is now, right? They were talking about active citizens. It wasn't, not everybody was granted citizenship. I mean, I'm not advocating that we revert back to slavery or where women can vote, can't vote. That's not what I'm saying.

But I think it is worth noting that when they talked about the citizenry, the educated citizenry for self-governance, it was very different than what we think of citizens now. Now it's just everybody. I mean, even people who aren't citizens that seem to be able to participate in that of whether, you know, that's a legitimate or not is a different conversation, but you get my point. Yeah. um don finley basic human nature is adaptability in a toxic environment they will adapt with some of the most immoral and evil actions but the same people in a positive environment are capable of kindness and love yeah I mean I don't know the question about human nature is an interesting one I I I don't

I've had different views at different points and um I I'm Interested to pursue it more, I guess I would say. But, you know, certainly that's a view. I am for I am, a hundred percent. MAGA Energy was hijacked. I mean, without a doubt. Yep. And it's one of the most confusing things. Seems glaringly obvious, and yet it's not. But, yeah. But there's no acknowledgement by these people that they've been hijacked. that's the part about it that is just... I mean, confusing to me uh trump's uh uh post today I I don't think so no oh uh let me see if I oh yeah the one

about the cooperation warp speed yes yeah yeah that was interesting I mean, whoa, like, I don't know what that's setting up for. Like, is that some sort of plausible deniability kind of a thing that they're trying to frame? I mean, I don't know. I'm certainly not privy to these sort of things. I can only speculate. But that was quite the statement. Yeah, he says, it's very important that the drug companies justify the access of various COVID drugs. Many people think that they are a miracle that saved millions of lives. Others disagree. With the CDC being ripped apart over this question, I want the answer and I want it now. I have been shown the information from,

I won't name all the companies, you know, and others that is extraordinary, but they never seem to show those results to the public. Why not? They go off to the next hunt and let everybody rip themselves apart, including RFK Jr. and CDC trying to figure out the success or failure of the drug companies. C word work. They show me great numbers and results, but they don't seem to be showing them to many others. I want them to show them now to the CDC and to the public and clear up the mess one way or the other. I hope Operation Warp Speed was a brilliant, as brilliant as they say, he puts it in all caps, as many say it was. If not, then we all want to know about it

and why. Thank you for your attention to this very important matter, President Bush. What? Five years later, four years later, whatever. Yeah. Okay. After even saying, you know, this is early as this year that it was the greatest achievement of his first term. Yes. So I would, I would love to see why doesn't he reveal the information that he was shared? He, if he, if they shared information with him, then why doesn't he share the information that he received? You would think that could be a start. You could start with that. Right. Um, I bet you're right. Maybe he's setting it up so that, you know, he can claim that he was lied to. Right. I think that's what this is all about. Yeah.

But yeah, but yeah, I mean, at this point it's, it certainly can't, it's not going to come out in a positive direction. And so, but I mean, at this point, does he even care? I mean, it's not like he's going to run again. So even, you know, I wonder what the framing for, you know, for the public, for the public sentiment. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. We replaced all the bad guys. We replaced the P company. And now, you know, and now we have Palantir and all of the biotech companies that JD Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy and Peter Thiel are investing in because they're the good guys. Those are the white hats. So, you know, we just cleaned out the bad apples. Trust AI, trust the plan, trust big tech.

AI actually wins. That's going to be the action plan. It actually seems like the action plan because that's the most frustrating part about Maha is that it's not medical freedom. They're trying to now push big tech and they're pushing AI as opposed to saying, hey, government shouldn't be involved in this. Well, they're not. They're actually pushing their own positive agenda. And I didn't expect that. Really? actually. I warned about it. I was kind of screaming from the rooftops and a lot of people were mocking me for it. But I said that he's a huge fan of precision AI medicine and that, you know, Obama did the precision medicine initiative and that he was trying to revive it. But of course,

there's that like converging technologies document that goes all the way back to the government rolled out. So, you know, it's not new, but he's been a huge advocate for this. So I was very, like, suspicious all along. And I kept saying, I was like, I love the message. I mean, Maha is a message we should all embrace. It's incumbent upon each of us, right? It's not the government's job to make America healthy again. We should be doing that. we should embrace this message. And I was like, Let's lobby. I mean, we can lobby locally to get rid of, at least in your local area, Get rid of all of these, you know, Red Lake Forty and whatever it is. So I absolutely love the message.

But I kept warning that he was going to use that to smuggle in this whole technocratic precision AI medicine agenda. But now he's literally saying he actually tweeted it. He said that. Maha really means Maba. And that just killed me. I'm like, he literally used the word acceleration in this acronym. Make America biotech accelerate. It's like they say the quiet part out loud. What? What's going on here? Yeah, no, it's a rug pull. And again, I don't know what we need. I don't know what the mechanism is to get people to become aware that their movement's been hijacked. I mean, I guess this theme actually is the same with Bitcoin. It's the same with Maha. I guess we should do some research.

Historical research on how do you get a movement to recognize that it has been hijacked? That's a good research project. I'm going to mark that down. So if you look at Julian Assange, for example, he had a plea guilty under coercion to the Espionage Act. when all he did is he was a news reporter, a journalist reporting, and he released the WikiLeaks. And Edward Snowden, another person that released a lot of information and helped the These people are still being persecuted. American public. Roger Ver, Ian Freeman. But if you look at Julian Assange, for example, with the Espionage Act,

that's a direct assault on the First Amendment itself. And this guy is still not able to come to this country because he'll be under the threat of being arrested. So like in the movie, the matrix, the woman in the red dress, everyone's super concerned about like, uh, Sydney Sweeney's jeans or whatever else the big topic of the day is. Meanwhile, some of our biggest heroes right now are rotting away in prison and they've done nothing but, um, but good stuff. And, um, you know, purely American stuff, at its core and they're rotting behind uh, Everybody should be up in arms, bars. signing their petitions, getting these guys out and make that more of a big issue versus a lot of other

stuff that's going on too. Yeah, I agree. I mean, that is another part of the process is that there are people that think the war on crypto is over and don't realize that the main POWs are still being persecuted and it's not even being recognized. A lot of people are actively pushing it under the rug saying well let's not talk about this and then somehow the argument becomes well you know yeah sure it's stable coins and sure it's hijacked bitcoin but it's the same it's still adoption which is a one of the most bizarre arguments hey the the thing that's that I've heard where it's the exact inverted opposite of the thing that we were pushing for people are using that so let's just go

along with it because it's in the related space of what we're doing think about I mean dan how often do you hear that because to me that's one of the most common things that I hear in the crypto space well anyway I'm trying I'm actually trying to find I'm just trying to do a quick ai doesn't have a quick uh response to this on throughout history movements that have been hijacked I mean really so much I think one of the points that you were making with like Sidney Sweeney's jeans and what not so much of this is done through these culture wars I mean it's really so much distraction and it's so transparent how they're

funneling into the technocracy from all sides all of these culture wars I mean I can go through them but like that would take some time. But that's really the point of it. It's all funneling right into the technocracy. everybody else in the meantime. And it's distracting That is a very good point. That is where people are That kind of leads into Don spending their time. Finley's last comment, which is, Four point five billion adults, twenty five plus use the Internet. How many attend any online discussions? Herein lies the problem. So how do we get people to engage in these more substantial conversations when it's true? They'd rather make it about Bud Light.

They'd rather make it about Sydney Sweet. It's really easy for now. The question is, are those things naturally viral? And is that what people are actually interested in? Or is that algorithmically driven? I think a lot of it's algorithmically driven. I mean, they're promulgating certain things that, because they're, I mean, there's a whole document on it from NATO on cognitive warfare. There's several documents on cognitive warfare. And actually in my algorithmic Oracle article, I linked a bunch of them and I took some screenshots that are in there from a couple of their documents, but they talk about how using heightened emotions is really effective.

So it gets people arguing with each other, which gets people to stay on those platforms longer. And if you think about it, I mean, it's like a television, right? When you watch the news, anybody who's ever studied broadcast, they tell you outright, like, this isn't about informing people. This is about selling products. So you are just entertaining them long enough so that they can sit through the ad. That's the whole purpose. And it's the same thing. It's just now switched to social media. They want you to stay on their platform. And how can people be encouraged to stay longer? You get them into a heated discussion. And how do you get people into a heated discussion?

You push their buttons about things they're passionate about. That's what they do. get them up in arms about it. And I guess it's easier to sydney sweeney than it is about discussion around free will unfortunately that seems to be where we're at yeah although I guess maybe we just need the right the right marketing for it for the for the concept I think you know but yeah well I always say I I think we all need the un's marketing team whoever they hired is really they're they're superb yeah um going back and forth through windows here. Oh, we've got more comments here.

I'm trying to scroll through here. Global economic model takes precedence in formulating people's ideas, beliefs, and moral spiritual development. Sure. I mean, I think, yeah, I think we kind of did address that in a way. I think one of the best examples of a voluntary society is the Amish. They don't send their kids to the military. They don't take the medicines. They don't eat their food. They don't do anything that the government wants. They seem to thrive. They seem to do very well within their communities. And they're probably one of the most well-known groups

that have done this. And I think as COVID came along, a lot of people started looking at them as an example. They're also very wealthy, they're healthy, and they're doing a lot of things the right way. And they just totally disengage from all the systems that most common Americans engage in. And we need to start looking at communities like that as examples. And I think as time goes on, these communities are going to thrive. Are you frozen or are you there? I'm actually trying to figure out why this keeps happening. I got a new camera set up, so part of what I'm doing

is... I wonder if you have a... Does your camera need... Does it have a fan to turn on? I don't know, actually. It doesn't have a fan. I think it might be related to the internet connection. I'm going to get a wired connection. I got a four K camera. It's not doing four K right now, but I noticed, and it's really weird. I have no problems with bandwidth. Right. Except when I do my podcast, I never get this little signal indicator issue except when I'm doing my podcast. So I'm just going to do a, hopefully by Thursday, I'll have a hard wire connection. Just do the hard wire. It does make a difference. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't know where we were at.

Was this on like a teaching this foundational spiritual principles? I don't, Oh no, you were talking about voluntarism. Well, I think it's a philosophy of don't use force and aggression to obtain your political or material gains. Everything's voluntary between two parties, and that seems to work very well. Now, as far as it being utopian, I think the current system we have of trying to vote them out is more utopian than disengaging from these systems. I am happy whenever I see something good happen,

but it usually doesn't work out. Like when I see the Trump tweet today, he's probably just backtracking on because of all the deaths that are happening right now and all the outrage going on within all the turbo cancers, autism and everything else. Maybe Maha is bringing a light to that. That's a good thing. Um, so there, you know, from a volunteerist point of view, the people that want to engage in these political games, um, you know, Angela McArdle was able to negotiate getting Ross Ulbricht out of jail, you know, Bravo to her. I hope she's able to do that with Roger and, uh, Ian and, uh, and all the other crypto prisoners too. Um, but, um, for the most part, um,

it's very hard game to play and I don't see it working very well with a lot of other, a lot of other people. I mean, what do you guys think? Is there any hope in this political system at all? Well, I mean, obviously there isn't. I think that there needs to be experimentation with different models. But I'm going back to where I am not wanting to even specific is that I think we put forward anything need to debate these first principles because I'm not sure of them myself. I mean, what I thought was the case seven years ago is different than five years ago. I'm genuinely open-minded about some of these things explore some of these topics, and think we need to

but then also in a way where I'm not looking for a single solution, right? That's the other part of this that often people get caught up in where it's kind of, you think about the Bitcoin people that say, well, you know, We want freedom, and they're against CBDCs and this monolith, but yet they're maximalists. So they're actually searching for and believe in only a singular solution. I doubt it's likely that there's going to be a singular solution, but I feel like what is missing... And by the way, I think this is true with the libertarian community, which is... You know, voluntarism, of course, I love the idea of voluntarism. that's the way that I choose to be. And I mean,

But I also know a lot of people in the libertarian community that like freedom and don't like responsibility. So they're the first people that will tell you that they just want to be left alone. And then but then their actual personal behavior changes. It goes against natural law, and they actually go against any personal responsibility. And Dan, I'm sure you've seen that as well. That's rampant in the libertarian community. In a whole variety of ways. That is human nature, which is why I am not a voluntarist. Yeah, sorry. But I don't necessarily think that that's human nature. I think that it could very well have been programmed to be that way. I don't know if that's an inherent thing,

because I could also argue that there are people that get drawn to libertarianism because they had a run-in with the law. And so it's not that they were ideologically libertarian. It's that they're pissed off that they got caught. And so they want freedom for the thing that they got caught on. But that doesn't carry over in any way, shape, or form broadly or in any philosophical principle. Right. Yeah. There used to be a saying, what's the difference between – a volunteerist and a libertarian is six months. But the problem is most people never actually go to that point. That's what's going on for ten years. Everybody just wants the freedom that they want. Guns or they're anti-war,

but they don't really care about medical freedom. To actually take freedom to its ultimate purpose of volunteerism and responsibility, like you said, and looking out for another man. Even the Hulk Hogan theme song. fight for the rights of every man. If you remember that song that he came into the ring with, it wasn't just about yourself. It was about everybody fighting for the rights of everybody. So, you know, rest in peace Hulk, but he was one of my favorites and I love that theme song. And then it's one of the best natural wall song that you're ever going to find. But I think this goes back to the fact that there isn't necessarily a lot of talk about metaphysics even

within the libertarian community either, I think at all, yeah. right? I don't know if they would be inherently, yeah. Well, where there is, and so this is where you end up getting into objectivism, and there are some different pockets of that, but even within libertarianism, when I was running the Atlas Society, The percentage of people that are in the libertarian space that are, I would say, objectivist is pretty small. And then the percentage of people that are even debating and talking about those kinds of philosophical ideas is small. So... So again, I come back and we need to have some of these more fundamental conversations and nobody is versed in it. I'd love it. Yeah.

And I have more research to do, more work to do, dive into it because it's not where I was educated at all. And I don't have the answer. Even if I could unpack all of those, I don't know where to go with them. So I think this is a very important conversation. I'm all in. Awesome. But yeah, I mean, Dan, have you seen that as well, though, with the libertarian movement? I mean, am I off on this? Because I will tell you, at various points, this is why I kind of exited politics and activism in twenty eighteen, twenty nineteen, because I kind of got sick of this, because in theory you have this conception that, yes, you're here fighting for whatever it is, individual rights and freedom.

And then you find out that the actual movement is comprised of a lot of grifters and people that aren't They're not philosophically aligned with anything, actually. Yeah, exactly. Just nihilism. I think the original libertarian movement was supposed to be a resistance against the gold standard, I guess, the Bretton Woods, nineteen seventy one and the Vietnam War. And it wasn't they weren't supposed to win elections and they weren't supposed to. It was never meant to be something where we're just a little bit Democrat and a little bit Republican, a little bit of both. um this is a movement that's supposed to be teaching people about freedom um and

different decentralized decentralized choices in life uh how to remove yourself from these systems and uh when you look at the libertarians and the presidential candidates that they run I mean even joe jorgensen's running around with a mask on in telling everyone to stay safe I mean that was um terrible and then um you know you look at uh a lot of the candidates running, they don't really represent, I guess you could say, voluntarist philosophies. Libertarianism, I guess, has been hijacked itself by I agree with that, yeah. whatever side. So, you know, but if it's truly meant as a platform just to resist and

protest stuff and get it going, like right now, there's some people within the libertarian movement trying to use this party and the platform to get Roger Ver out and Ian Freeman, that's a worthy goal. And if that can actually accomplish its goal, that's going to be way better than anything else. But to think that we're actually going to win the presidency or anything like that is completely ridiculous. And then what happens when you try to win, you soften your principles. You start giving in on this, giving in on that. you have a candidate that And then before you know it, doesn't really represent freedom very much at all. I think the last presidential candidate Um,

from the libertarian party was pushing mass and vaccines and all sorts of crazy transitioning kids that doesn't represent many people I know. And, um, So I understand where you guys are coming from. Because if you really look at the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, then yeah, it's not in opposition to it. It just may not be what you envision when you think of what your libertarian principles are. There's no actual philosophical libertarian principles that would actually refute that. But I understand what you're saying. And I do think it was hijacked. But I very much see that right now, especially with the techno-libertarian movement.

That's what Peter Thiel is doing. Well, I think it was hijacked. And then there's the other question of, why did it need to be a political party? okay, well, I mean, if it wasn't about engaging in electoral politics, then, okay, we have think tanks. libertarian think tanks. There are a whole bunch of And that's where the whole thing gets really confused. Now, you could use your position in a highly contested two-party system to use the leverage of being a third party for a specific set of purposes. But that doesn't seem to be what the plan has been or how it's worked historically. So I don't know. Structurally. But even the think tanks have been hijacked. If you look at what's going

on with Cato and Reason and the whole response during COVID by all the Beltway libertarian groups that have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of funding, it was awful. Are you familiar with Mont Pelerin Society? Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Well, all those think tanks are an outgrowth of the Mont Pelerin Society, which was an outgrowth of the Walter Lippmann Colloquium. So this is largely Koch Foundation money. Right. Yeah. These are effectively controlled opposition organizations. So, yeah, you could debate about, you know, the origins of them and what their intentions were. But pretty early on, once they were put under that banner. they they've been effectively controlled

opposition that I would argue that's what they do. It is not in any way conservative and people think it's conservative. I mean, it's literally there to create like the unbound executive. That's what they're working on right now. A hundred percent. Ernest Hancock ran for national You know, chair of the libertarian party in they did everything they could to stop this guy. Big money came in and then they switched the platform, the national platform to get rid of two planks. It said that no CIA or FBI agents are allowed to run for office or be officers in the party. And they got rid of those. And then Bob Barr became the two thousand eight presidential candidate.

He was a former CIA agent. So as far as it being hijacked, I think in two thousand four, that's probably when we can put our finger on what had happened before that. there was a lot of fantastic libertarian candidates spreading the message for quite some time. Ron Paul was one of them. Ron Paul was great. I'm not sure I would say there were so many others, but Ron Paul was really great. He was pretty constitutionally rooted. He was, but he actually is a voluntarist. He actually said... In, uh, when he, uh, ran in the Republican party, he wasn't planning on winning. He's just using that platform to get his message out. Remember the Giuliani moment?

Yep. Yep. I remember. So, you know, he told, he was told by Giuliani to apologize to the whole country for what he said about, um, what's going on in our foreign policy and us not minding our business. And he said, I'm not apologizing for anything. I sincerely believe. that our foreign policy is making our country more in debt and more dangerous every day. But again, this is, I mean, what he said is really no different than George Washington said. George Washington said that too. I mean, he was, remember this was a proto-Nineteen Thirteen, right? In Nineteen Thirteen, it was actually the Tavistock Institute, back then Tavistock Clinic, the British War Propaganda Bureau,

it was the Wellington House. which I can't say definitively that it was Tavistock, but it looks like that's what Tavistock became, what became Tavistock rather. But in any case, it was under the British War Propaganda Bureau that they created this narrative where they weaponized the term isolationist. This was because they wanted to get the Britain and American populace on board with entering what they call the Great War. And they had that, like the Four Minute Men, they had all these propaganda campaigns outfits at work to do this. And this was, but the term isolationist was It was in nineteen sixteen weaponized back then. where they did the massive campaign against the term.

So, I mean, that was all this just to say, though, that I mean, prior to Woodrow Wilson, the term isolationist was very American. It was kind of like mind If it's not your war, we're not in it. your own business. Yep. Yeah. Yep, no foreign entanglements. I am for I am, actually, as a string of things here. I'm at the point where the best solution is to move to a community that share a lot of my same principles. In other words, segregation. System is too large, too corrupt to fix. The best option is to develop a community that can be an example to be emulated post-collapse. I'm done with DC and all its ilk. Okay.

I can't disagree with that. And I know he's had some personal experiences with this too recently that I know probably informed that decision. It's just definitely corrupt. yeah I'm actually uh so someone just sent me this article that they wrote and uh you don't have to go through it now but I think it would be great to to go through if we're going to discuss the founding principles uh or just you know the nature of man in general uh it's called america's metaphysical axiom one human nature and the limits of law and uh It talks about the origins of the Declaration of Independence, we hold these truths to be that line, self-evident that all men are created equal and now

by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Obviously, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And he talks about how this is an axiom in ontological equality, equally rooted in the foundational nature of being grounded in our shared nature and the imago Dei, the image of God in humanity. equality means equal moral standing Here, and jurisdiction under law, not sameness of talents or outcomes. Yeah, I won't read all of it now, but I think it would be a great thing to go through and then we could discuss it. Yeah, no, that sounds like a great, great one. I haven't read that either, so.

There's so much to cover. I mean, there's so many different tracks. Just even kind of outlining where to go with that. But I hope this gets some traction. I'll create something on the Aaron Day Show site where we can take these topics and put them up there and get people's feedback on them. And then maybe figure out who to even bring on to talk about these topics. Who... um and how to structure all of that because I think that you know there's an inexhaustible number of directions to go with this for sure I'll tell you what I need to I need to take a break for about one minute do you guys mind I'll uh no you you do that yeah all right I'll be right back

Well, I'll read just this paragraph here. So the analysis is the Declaration's self-evident truth coheres with Aristotelian Thomas' first principle, the philosophical synthesis of Aristotle's logic with Thomas Aquinas' Christian philosophy and Scottish common sense realism, the philosophical school that trusted ordinary human reasoning to discover moral truth. To be human is to possess a rational nature. The rational framework of humans is characterized by the intellect, Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, and the will. This framework allows man the ability to know truth and choose the good, as such applies to all cases within its scope.

That all persons are equal due to their possession of powers of intellect and will fixes the standard against all which future laws are measured. Her fuller exposition of how Aristotelian Thomas realism and Scottish common sense philosophy provided the metaphysical foundations for American consciousness political thought in contrast to Lockean nominalism, the philosophical view that universal concepts are merely means rather than real features of reality. See the American Epistemology Institute article entitled The Fixed Star or Shifting Sands, Reclaiming America's Realist Foundations. American, yeah, American epistemology. And then he has the foundations of equality, shared nature,

the common human essence that binds us together. Imago Dei, the divine image reflected in humanity. Moral standing, equal ethical value and rights under the law. Defining equality. Equality of nature, which is an axiom that one human essence, equal moral standing under the creator and equal jurisdiction of law. So it's both, right? It's a metaphysical claim that we are equal under the eyes of God. But then it's also that to carry that out into the earthly realm is that we have equal jurisdiction under the law. Equality before the law, equal protection and due process for all persons sharing that nature, not equality of outcome or ability.

Outcomes and talents vary by contingent causes. Obviously, the axiom promises equal standing, not sameness of results. Pretty self-explanatory. The statutory contradiction, the seventeen ninety naturalization act. Given this metaphysical foundation that all humans possess rational nature and therefore equal dignity, how do we account for America's early legal departures from its own axiom? The most glaring example emerges just fourteen years after the Declaration. Quote, any alien being free white person must be admitted to become a citizen. This is the Naturalization Act of seventeen ninety. Congress enacted a racial prerequisite that directly denies the universal scope

established by the founding axiom. When human laws apply universal principles to specific circumstances, they must remain faithful to those principles' core meaning. The act violated the requirement by limiting naturalization to free white persons. It's based legal distinctions on accidental characteristic, a non-essential trait that doesn't define what something fundamentally is. race rather than essential human capacity for reason and moral choice. This is kind of a specification that corrupts the law's purpose. The Militia Act of seventeen ninety-two enrolled every free, able-bodied white male citizen reinforcing the same error in another domain. This contradiction was not accidental.

It reflected a competing philosophical framework that would undermine America's realist foundations. Continental enlightenment intrusion when reason serves prejudice. How American legislators working within a generation of the Declaration's universal axiom justifies such blatant contradiction. The answer lies in competing influence of continental enlightenment thought. which some founders attempted to merge with America's Aristotelian, Thomas, and Scottish realist foundations, a synthesis that was metaphysically contradictory due to the law of non-contradiction, a thing that cannot be both, a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time. This reveals a contradiction

in merging two opposite approaches to human nature. One uses reason to discover the essential quality of all humans as rational being in the Imago Dei, and the other uses reason to construct hierarchies that divide humans by accidental characteristics. I was just reading from it while you were gone. I think the key theme of what you Well, just read was morality. And I think the King of France and some of his, I don't know, I guess you could say ambassadors to the United States early on in the seventeen nineties, early eighteen hundreds to find out why is America so successful? And they came back with reports saying they're the most moral, hardworking people that I've ever seen.

And a lot of these a lot of these communities were homeschooled, local school people uh they they didn't have um large media uh they didn't have any of these systems that we have now controlling everybody and I think that um that might be a way um a path like we need to get back to that you know uh homeschool your kids don't take their medicines get strong you know um you know use fasting as a tool um you know don't um eat all this stuff that's uh You look at a lot of people nowadays, they don't look like they're ready to resist anything. A lot of people are on multiple medications, vaccine injured, and that's because they keep on following the same stuff.

So if we get back to our roots, that might be the morality of what America first was. That's what we really need to do. Yeah, I think there's a lot of merit to that. You know, I actually when I went to my state capitol, I was advocating against the school choice initiatives because they're really coming after the homeschools. That's really what they're doing. They want everybody to be under the banner of government education, whether you're in private school, parochial or homeschooled. And, uh, the argument that I actually used was, uh, the founding fathers. I said, would you argue that they're, you know, erudite? And of course they all, yes, yes. You know? And I said, well,

how many of them do you think had any formal education? They didn't, they didn't have schooling. They were, uh, most of them really, they, they read, um, and they were very versed in the Bible. Not all of them were believers, but they, they read and, you know, that's a foundation for, for, critical thinking. So I think it served them. If we look back, I mean, I remember when I was rereading the, uh, anti-federalists and federalist papers pretty a few years ago, I was really struck by the uh, anti-federalist and I had always had an affinity for them, but rereading them, I really, uh, took to them and I would share like segments with a group of friends who are very well-educated.

Most of them have, you know, advanced degrees and, uh, They could not read it. And if they could, they couldn't comprehend it. And it's kind of mind-boggling. That was fourth grade reading level back then. Yep. I missed some of this because we blew a fuse and so my audio cut out. So that was a bit of a shocker. I just caught the end of this. Okay, so I was reading from, and I didn't finish it, and we can certainly like pick a time to really go through it, but it's this document. A friend of mine started something called the American Epistemological Institute, and in this article is America's metaphysical axiom,

one human nature and the limits of law, and he starts off by talking about the Declaration of Independence and the axioms in it, and then he goes on to talk about some laws that were only like fourteen years later that already violate their own axioms. And his argument is that the reason for that is because they're merging Aristotelian, Thomist, Scottish common sense, realist philosophical principles with continental enlightenment philosophy principles. And that those are in direct juxtaposition to each other. So it already, it violates the law of non-contradiction, thing can't be and not be which just says that a simultaneously because it's a competing principle.

It's competing notions of what it is to be human, essentially. It's competing ontological principles. A is A. Yeah. Like breezy stuff, so yeah. We solve the world's problems, yeah. Yeah, and I'd love to read that. Yeah, I'll send it to you. I think it's definitely worth discussing. I mean, the way he laid it out here, I think was it was meant to be very kind of like quick and punchy for the masses. But there's a lot in here that could definitely be unpacked. So I'll send it to you.

for the masses you know when I think about reading for the masses I'm not even sure what that is now now that they're going to change the sat because the you know the writing section people don't read enough for the writing section so they're getting rid of that they're changing the format so what um you know what's really interesting about that actually is so with social media they did these studies. And, you know, I've been saying this for a while that the people keep talking about how AI is going to create a huge disparity between in wealth, right? You're going to have people who are like the super wealthy and then like the people who are forced to be on the

conditionally based income, you know, that kind of disparity. But what I've been very concerned about on top of that, because that's concerning, obviously, but most people are screaming about that already. So I don't need to necessarily highlight that. But what I'm very concerned about is that I think there's going to be a huge discrepancy in intellect. In cognition, because you're going to have the people who are not given foundational tools and they outsource everything to AI. have the other people who leverage it. And then you're going to And that's going to give them a huge advantage. And the analogy I used was like with calculator, if you never learn foundational math.

and you just use a calculator, but you never learn the basic principles, right? The foundation in order to not just memorizing like addition, but learning those principles subtraction, in order to be able to figure out long division, for example. If you never learn that and you only use the calculator, the chances of you being able to do applied math, right? Advanced kind of math is almost zilch, right? You're going to have some sort of a hole because you didn't get that foundational training. But if you do learn that and then you use a calculator, you could expedite that advanced applied math. And it's the same kind of thing. But what was really interesting was that there

was a study done and it was talking about how people's memories are really being... deteriorated by using the AI because they use it like a search engine. And so instead of remembering, it's like they don't want to waste their mental space memorizing. So they just, oh, I can just look it up. But what people don't realize about memory is that the reason why memory is such a large portion of IQ testing is because memory is what enables you to do pattern recognition and and to connect and integrate things. It's what makes you interdisciplinary, because if you have the memory, you can build on top of it. So it's not just like rote memory.

People think like, oh, you can rattle off some facts. Well, that's not very impressive. But if you remember, then you can connect it. You can connect the dots, essentially. And people are losing that skill because they're outsourcing to AI. That's concerning. Yeah, that is concerning. That's actually one of the weak points of AI itself is the context window. How much of a conversation can AI even remember itself? This is one of the problems that people run into with AI is that once you've run out of that context window, it starts hallucinating and it forgets. So, I mean, this is happening with people. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So I am for I am question, will AI and automation

bring about abundance with or without a technocracy controlling us and property? Great question. That's the question, isn't it? Yeah, that would be a good debate topic as well, actually, or excuse me, discourse topic. And if you talk to Mike Adams, it depends. I would say that the default right now, based on how AI is trending, is certainly towards technocracy. It doesn't have to. It's just the same with digital currency. Yeah. If we go down the Bitcoin CBDC government regulated stable coin trap, then it's going to be a technocrat solution. If we go down the Zeno Monero path,

then it's going to be a different outcome. So there's obviously free will involved here in what the outcome is. But I would say if you look at AI, it's overwhelmingly technocrats that are pushing it. I mean, this is the case. What do you have? You have Musk, you have Sam Altman, and then you have Anthropic, which was aligned with Sam Bankman Freed and Effective Altruism. If you actually look at the larger companies that are pushing this, they're all technocrats. And so then you have Mike Adams with his Enoch AI, and there are some other models out there. So it is possible. But then you get to this question of what's it going to be like?

There are clearly huge productivity gains. I mean, I can say myself, I mean, to your earlier point, and it's actually an issue. I've actually figured out a way to structure a virtual corporation where it's like, okay, I've recruited a management team, a virtual management team, and I'm simulating making decisions I'm like okay I'm a hundred x more productive here but if I didn't know how to do that then you know you wouldn't have any access to this but then it's almost to a point where like okay if I want to scale this up how would I even hand this off to somebody like it's actually to that level and so the bigger question with these productivity gains is Who's going to control that?

This is why these UBI questions are coming up. And I don't know what the decentralized, I actually don't know what the decentralized version of this or the decentralized solution is to this. I have no idea. I don't know. I do think that, yeah, it's a tool. And I think that avoiding a really useful tool is not the answer, right? But it is very concerning because who's controlling all of it? And they're language learning models, right? So they're being trained and they're being trained very specifically. And I mean, some of them are being trained towards collectivism, towards globalism,

towards Gaia religion. A lot of them are being trained that way. So, and that's being trained as what's That's what's, you know, benevolent. for the benefit of all. And that's why they come up with all of these, like you brought up Sam Bank and Friedman and effective altruism, which is really, it's just John Stuart Mill repackaged, That's just rebranded utilitarianism, right? which is for the greater good. How many times have we heard for the greater good? You were supposed to wear a face diaper for the greater good, right? Take experimental drugs. It's for the greater good. You know, we had concentration camps for the greater good. Like, you know, at what point do we say

maybe this wasn't for the greater good? But that's always what it's under the guise of. And really, if you look at it from a, again, the metaphysical principle, when you think about free will, and certainly if you think about it biblically, it's very clear that we're endowed with free will because the individual is the priority. It's not the collective, it's the individual. So that's what we really need. We need to get back to those roots so that we can have tools that enhance individual growth, productivity, creativity, and not the collective global institution technocracy that they're trying to roll out.

But I don't know necessarily what the answer is other than to have more competition And I know that sounds like a very free market capitalist kind of approach. But I do think that having more, I know a lot of people creating their own language learning models. And I think that's great. Those will be trained. And, you know, obviously they're, whatever the input is, there is what they're spitting out, but it's great to be having more options. I think that that's a, I know that Mike Adams has one, you know, but I know very like, you know, not the main people who are doing this as well. And I think that's great. Yeah, and I'm working on some things like that as well because it

really is all about the data set that it's trained on. And the large models are not trained on – I mean, it is a very – and again, it still kicks out information. New York Times, Wikipedia, Grok even prioritizes these sources. You have to dig – unless you know what to ask, you can't get the other alternative information out because it's weighted as not being as trustworthy. Oh, yeah. I told you when I did that show, I had asked one of the AIs, you know, for some, like, help in researching. He said, we don't support conspiracy theories. I cannot help you. You refuse to help me because you do not support conspiracy theories. Like, oh, okay. Well, so there's a battle on this.

I use AI to generate images. And actually, ChatGPT is the best for that. Yeah, he's the best for images. But ChatGPT half the time won't create images. And then last week, Google came out with a new thing. And it's even worse. So Google has this new banana something interface, which is great for images. But I'm like, hey, I will need a map of here's Peter Thiel and do a... red spider web with these connections or whatever I'm sorry I can't do that I thread it's just like one mean I can show you the thing after another I switch to the next prompt next and it's just nothing so it's worse than chat gpt gpt's loosened up a little bit but it's it is um it's amazing what it

would allow it would allow the image of of curtis yarn and harare but it would not allow anything negative or I would even call it negative anything accurate about peter taylor musk it wouldn't generate the images I thought that was fascinating that is fascinating and this is chat gpt No, this one was Gemini. It's this new banana model, which everybody's been talking about this, where you can upload your own picture, and then you can edit it by typing to it. So you can put a picture of yourself up and say, hey, change the background to Cancun, and it's amazing. I mean, it actually works incredibly well. If you want to edit any... of your own pictures it's it's phenomenal but if you

want to just it's and it's completely accurate it's it's beautiful how it works it's just that you can't talk about any technocratic concepts and have it do anything well that's not going to be that helpful for me then no we we use uh ai like to help generate kind of the initial concept and then uh we put it into canva and end up like doing it kind of manually but from there so yeah yeah I do a lot of adobe same thing with kind of adobe I'll put a put an image in there but but nevertheless you know I mean I am before I am to your point I mean we we need more of these decentralized models that are trained on different data sets because this is another one of those areas

where we're not winning and by the way Anthropic and these other organizations, they meet and they have advisory boards and they come up with their codes of conduct. Anthropic has a constitution. This is where everything first principles, that we're talking about, not only applies to governance, it also applies to AI governance. It does. These conversations are fundamental there as well. And they're not being had because it's complete groupthink. Of course. they're being had in reverse so I have an article coming out soon I'm I'm like I'm very slow with these things um so but I I have an article on that uh participatory framework for an agi global constitution and they they absolutely

have all these foundational principles are embedded they're just inversed they're inversed from uh at least what I value I I recognize I'm not the barometer of you know morality or anything um but you know they're inverse to what I believe should be the first principle I mean I keep talking about that document the david temple document which looks like it's a blueprint for the clump room I mean it's not but zach sign was inducted into the club of rome and he's one-third of david david temple it's a Zach Stein, Mark Gaffney, and Kenneth Wilber. But what is the title? It's First Principles, First Values of Evolving Perennialism, Forty-Two Propositions on Cosmoerotic Humanism.

So, I mean, right in there, right? They have their first principles and first value, but it's of evolving perennialism, which is diametrically opposed to my metaphysical beliefs. I mean, it's literally the antithesis. So yeah, they absolutely do this. And it is embedded in most of these technologies. I mean, they're working on a, It's called like Kirin or something. what was this? But this is the AI that the UN is talking about using. I mean, so they understand this. But it's just that, in my opinion, their values are inverted. Yep. Yeah, I'm looking this up now.

So again, and this is going to be, these principles are embedded in click wrap agreements. This is another one of these examples where this, again, these are in the agreements that you sign when you're using AI. So they've already had these conversations. They've already laid this stuff down. No one's had a conversation about it. And so now it's embedded in everyone's lives. And, you know, did you consent to it? I mean, you know, yeah, you click the button. Did you read the hundred page agreement? No. But the AI agreements are bad. I mean, again, I'll be dissecting these sector by sector because what's important to understand about these agreements is the laws that were drafted in these

industries by the industry groups. Once you understand the collusive nature of it and that essentially they've all just gotten around the table and said, we're just going to put this in hey, look, as a boilerplate agreement. Everybody agrees to it. They've locked out any dissent. And so it doesn't look good. And I'll be able to say more once I do more of the analysis of these contracts. But right now, for IAM, your question on this, based on the way the agreements are structured right now, it's ninety five percent technocratic, I'd say. Yeah, I actually maybe when you're further along in that, I can ask her if she would But I have a friend who's a want to come on. lawyer who's she says she's

been written most like many of these click wrap agreements. And she didn't she had no idea that she was actually, you know, funneling in the technocracy. But I've talked to her about it and she's like, no, you're totally right. So she might be interesting to talk to you. yeah I would love to once I get further along because well I mean again I mentioned before I did it myself I mean I I just thought hell okay well this is a way for me to reduce my sales cycle and then when I look back at my own agreements what are the agreements involved hipaa they involved all this other stuff and I'm like oh wow this is like forty pages of of all of this all of this stuff and huh sign your life away yeah

sign your life away and um and you know and we even knew it's like well okay this is a way to reduce friction so that you didn't have to get the lawyers involved and and then this is how society operates with everybody signing thousands and thousands of pages of agreements and rights and then everybody giving away all of their just nodding and smiling well this is just the way that it is and it's just insane when you consider what is going on it should not be the way that it is And it is completely against. And I think, Dan, you were talking about the responsibility that people don't want to take. And I think that's how we got here, right? So when you talk about the American experiment,

the big part of the puzzle that people seem to have forgotten is it was an experiment in self-governance. In order to self-govern, that means we had a responsibility. People keep talking about, oh, there's no... You know, hope in the, you know, the governance system now, the Constitution's dead. it was supposed to be self-governance. Well, That meant that in the First Amendment, people always think it's freedom of speech. But that is in there. It's also freedom of religion. It's actually freedom of religion first. Freedom of speech is downstream from that because it's a byproduct of that. and then it's supposed to be that we have the right to peaceably assemble and redress grievances when do

we redress grievances when you read the operation right we just let it go we're like oh we're powerless like the whole system's corrupt we just throw our hands up and that's how we got here But if you read the Declaration of Independence, I think it's maybe thirty five times. I'd have to I should count it. But they keep seeing usurpation. That's the word they keep using. I'm sorry. Like, where are we at now with our usurpation of power? Right. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. Yep. Um, so, okay. So then I am frame says if yes, we must work to steer the course. if this is back to technocracy If it's, controlling AI, if yes,

we must work to steer the course towards this abundance void of central controls and soul life of abundance. That is the incentive we must use to fight against tyranny. Um, Yeah, I think, again, I guess I would argue that in pushing systems like Zano and some of these alternatives, it's promoting free will first. I don't even know how to describe, how to even describe abundance, when I think about this, because then we get kind of trapped into this. That's what technocracy was. Isn't that what Elon Musk keeps talking about? We're going to have abundance. What does abundance mean? Yes, we're not going to have universal basic income. It's going to be I can't remember the language that he used,

but it's not going to be basic income. It's going to be like huge income, right? Everybody's going to have abundant income. It's not going to be like this small amount. It's not minimum wage. Minimum wage is like millionaire level today. That's what he's implying. with this and it's and you know I always think of that movie wally where they're you know where they're up out you know outside of earth and everybody's you know floating around in their in their chairs that is essentially the technocratic materialistic vision of abundance their chairs with their screen right yep yeah their vr headsets yeah I mean we're you know we're there pretty that's turning out to be a non-fiction but weird so

many of them are yeah A cultural homogenization is a prerequisite for a technocratic state. Religious or heritage-based principles are not allowed. They will make up their own religion. That is true. I mean, Harari's talked about that. there is no protection of religion. Yeah, again, There's no First Amendment concept in a technocratic state. It doesn't value those things. And it's very much atheistic. No. Harari and Yarvin are both atheists. I mean, They are. Yeah, technocracy is, but a lot of, so that's why I say it's the two, the right hand and left hand path,

because, you know, yeah, you've got the Hararis and who are, and Yarvin, sure, who are atheists, but Then you've got all of these like spiritualists or I would argue, I mean, it's not my place to judge, but they're using Christianity and they're not necessarily, it's not necessarily recognizable as Christianity. We'll just say it that way. But we've got those two also factions who are vying for technocracy. And there's a slogan from Esalen, which is the no religion religion. And I mean, Esalen's like a hotbed for intelligence. We know they literally had their hot tub diplomacy. You can find this on the CIA.gov,

by the way. Like they had a hot tub diplomacy paper where they talked about how they were basically it was like with the Soviets and how they were going to. make peace than sex, drugs, and rock and roll. We're going to heal the world. But it was a collusion agreement while we were in a Cold War, by the way. I put it in air quotes because so much of the Cold War was really collusion with Russia, not war with Russia. But yeah, so I mean, that was out of Esalen, the Hot Tub Diplomacy Agreement. And I don't remember what year that was, but yeah, so they... But that's their slogan. And you see this out of the spiritualists. In fact, I just saw, there was an episode, it was five years ago,

with Jordan Hall and Jonathan Berbecki. talking about the no religion religion. And I was like, oh my God, they literally use the Esalen slogan. Of course, now Jordan has converted to Christianity and he's talking about using that to solve the Metacrisis. Metacrisis seems to be the new name, one of the new names that the Game B banner is operating under. But I don't know how they can be commensurate because Metacrisis is about the Gaia religion, which is pantheistic and Christianity is not pantheistic. And it doesn't worship the creation. It worships the creator. I'm reading about this hot tub Yeah, There's a lot to go through there now. deployment. Yeah, it's funny. It's like, that's real.

Yeah, it's real. I think that Christ was the manifestation of natural law itself. And that one verse in the Bible says, Please correct me if I got it wrong. Someone brought a coin up to him and says, is it right to pay taxes to Caesar? He said, whose picture is on that coin? They said, it's Caesar's. He said, give the Caesar what is Caesar. Give the God what is God. In ancient Aramaic and Hebrew, that meant God gets everything. Nothing is left over. It goes to the government. So most religions now are completely co-opted. And I don't think they teach this kind of stuff. Christ rejected a lot of the offers. He basically treated everyone very well.

The Sermon on the Mount helped one another. And this kind of spirituality doesn't really exist in modern religion because most modern religions are basically coincide with a lot of the government's. And a lot of the political strategies and everything else. Government above the religion puts a government literally above God. So the church violates their own principles by entering into them. And what are most, most religious institutions are five Oh one C three in this country. Yeah. A hundred percent. You're right about that. Yeah. And, and the founding principles have found the first civilizations in, in America here. that were doing so well and thriving.

They didn't have any of these structures. These people came to America to be free and to, you know, they didn't have government schools, but they read the finest works. They studied. They were very intelligent people. So, you know, as we continue to lose our principles and not follow the examples that we're supposed to be following, this is what we get. I think so. Yeah. Well, we're going to bring it back right here. Um, it, it can be, it can be reclaimed, but yeah, it's, it's, uh, not, not trending, not trending well. Um, let's see. Problem is tyranny owns and

controls the technology that produces the abundance. We've already, already been through that. Okay. Um, I am for I am. The solution seems to be towards segregation. Courtney, you're so brilliant. I can listen to you for hours. Thank you. Ultimate nightmare technotheocracy. Yes. Yes. And that is very much being pushed. I mean, that's the whole I have a whole section in my Phoenix conspiracy article on the The Theo Bros and how they're working with the Tech Bros. They are trying to merge the two.

I actually just saw Doug Wilson wrote a book on sex bots. Oh, really? I haven't read it, but I'm like, Yeah. that's fitting. I'm just double-checking that I was right on this. I guess there was a murder, a homicide at Burning Man? I just heard that. So related to this topic, because, I mean, there's your, you know, technotheocracy embodied at Burning Man and body discovered nine fifteen on Saturday. Corresponding with the festival's central wooden

effigy known as the man. Unidentified white male, thirty five to forty six feet tall, weighing two hundred pounds. They're not even revealing any information about this. They just say it's a homicide, which, you know. I guess there's no update from whenever I saw the. There was like a red blood or something, but that's I saw a picture of. But no, they didn't release much information. people die burning man every year it's crazy like there's always some like really bad things that happen at burning man um if you're interested in uh like kind of the history and the whole cultural movement and how uh I guess the operation of burning

man because that's what it is at least that's what I would call it um it's really an op it's a you know social engineering op but uh Carl Teichrib does really great work on that. He's written many articles. He goes underground and talks to all of these various groups. Who is it? Carl Teichrib. T-E-I... D-H-R-I-B. I've done a couple of shows with him. One of them was three hours long. I'll send it to you. But yeah, he's wonderful. And he goes undercover. He's been to the World Parliament of Religions and really studying how they're creating this synthetic and syncretic one world,

like theosophical religion, in order to usher in the global governance. Wow. Yeah. like how do you go undercover with that and he has like these conversations with all these people and he's like a very religious christian uh so he's having a conversation with all these like you know I mean they have like ayahuasca religion there you know so wow so yeah this is good this is another fun rabbit hole this is yeah I'm gonna check that out this looks fascinating Fascinating. Yeah. I mean, Burning Man is literally, it's how they indoctrinate Silicon Valley. All sorts of technology is birthed out of it. I would argue it's trauma-based mind control.

It's really an induction, initiation. And we know about the drug dens and orgies and all of that, but Yeah, but it's really, it's beyond that. It's really a social engineering project. Yep. Well, it looks like we're running out of comments. We've got people. Well, we've been on here for three and a So this is, this is Dan's coming back. half hours. It looks like Dan. Okay. I thought you dropped out, Dan. Yeah, I know. I probably will have to get going soon, though, because I have a meeting that I postponed,

but yes. Well, thank you for doing that. And as always, it's phenomenal having you on here. These conversations are great. And I'm really glad that Sterling popped in because I think that there's going to be a lot that comes out of that on a lot of discussions. I know every time I meet up with Sterling, it's somewhere outside of the country at an event. And he tells me about all of the things that he's learned directly participating in these network states. And it's just absolutely fascinating. Yeah, I would love to hear more about it. I'm going to look into the ones he talked about, the one you sent me, and then the Logos one. Yeah, Polis Labs and Logos. Yeah, Logos.

And he's involved – I think he started – polis labs he's involved in both actually right but I I but I think I think he started polis and he started it specifically to address the the kinds of concerns that that you've brought up because he's as you can see he's very he's frustrated by the fact that that balaji is kind of hijacked and he's worried about it as well and um so there's a there's a lot to a lot to explore here and and learn more about I think Yeah, I think so too. Well, I look forward to that. All right. Well, yeah. So let's, well, I guess we'll game plan for the next time and see about getting some of these conversations on founding principles.

I think it'd be great to dive into that. Yeah, I'll think about that. I'll shoot something over and then maybe put something on the website and see what people are interested in and we can start adding that. I'm doing this now twice a week. And again, So we're going to do this on Thursday at six o'clock. The focus there is going to be on Zano and I'm launching yet another website that explains how people can start building alternatives on Zano and give some project ideas and teaches people about the entire process. ecosystem so I think people are going to want to check in on on that I've been working on that one for a long time and um kind of retooling and there have been so many developments

on the technology itself that you know I now I'm ready to kind of go out and give people tool kits to onboard them otherwise it was a little too difficult before um oh sorry dan had to jump off all right Well, I think I will too, but yeah. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Thanks for coming on. Talk to you soon. I'm going to play one song on the way out, but you don't have to stick around for it. The opening songs are awesome. This is my favorite one so far. The funny thing is people thought AI is going to take the tech stuff first and not the art, but I'm finding that I'm listening to some of my own music now.

That's great. I think it's some good music. I know people have some issues with it, but I think they do a great job. Me too. All right. Well, thank you very much, and I'll see everybody on Thursday at six o'clock. Have a good night. Good night. We don't bow. We don't break. We don't give what they can take. We don't bow. We don't break. We don't give what they can take. Roger stood with fire in his hand. We went and built a haven on free land.

Roman wrote the code they feared the most. Now they're ghosting the machine they boast They dress it up as law and order But it chains across the border Can't hide the truth in paper lies Freedom's got a billion eyes

We are told we don't bow, we don't break. A law that kills the hope we're given. Every cage they try to build Will break when voices won't be still Roger,

we will stand for you We will fight it through Your code will run

We don't give what they can take