S2E26 First Principles for Human Systems

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. Creality ain't clear.

It's a cage they built while we cheered. I believed in the promise. But the same old swamp just changed its brand He 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 hid the keys Roger, via one-oh-nine years In-framed up, engineered with fears We won't let them fade away We will shout their names today

Follow the law, you 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 now!

Free, free them now! 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? Prints signed by ghosts in suits, white coats, offshore loot. Epstein Island, Santa Fe, secret pay, recruit the youth. Gamey code and mantra, chant of conscious evolution. Metamask for technocrats who harvest data like communion. Noah's fear surveillance, tell our dreams in several racks. Pearson, Teal, bankroll to stack, AI gods on proxy tracks. edit sins with crisper pens. They weaponize redemption, Code of spirit, keep the shell, Ghost in the genome, code on the throne. rewrite the meat to fit their ends. Who won't tomorrow when the seeds not our own? Pray in the data, kneel to the screen.

We'll be right back. 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 guy when the cold out? Lift your chest up. Ghosted.

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 ghosting the machine they boast. They dress it up as law and order. But it chains across the borders.

We don't We are told we don't bow, we don't break We owe fourteen, oh six, seven A law that kills the hope we're given But paper crowns

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. welcome back to The Aaron Day Show. All right, This is season two, episode twenty six. I apologize for the change in time that's happened repeatedly with this particular episode. I'm in Washington DC today and have been for a couple of days. So the logistics, I had some technical issues on Monday.

And then yesterday I was at a hearing, my wife and I were at a hearing. And the hearing went a lot longer than we thought a couple of hours longer. So just didn't have a chance to, uh, to do this. I have a little bit of an echo on my side. So I brought my computer and a whole bunch of stuff here to DC and I'm trying to figure out which window I have this playing in. I think we found the culprit. All right. There we go. Excellent. Finally fixed. So anyway, I apologize for the delay. This is going to be a very interesting episode. I've talked about this issue on several of the podcasts. And in particular,

we talked about it last time, this whole idea of first principles for human systems. And after chatting with some people and talking during the podcast, but then after, there does really seem to be interest in this concept. And so I'm trying to formalize it a little bit more. So tonight's discussion isn't going to be necessarily about any of the first principles themselves, but instead about creating a process by which the community can understand determine which first principles we should discuss and then who should be discussing them because one of the big points of this is it's not going to be me talking about this my role in this is going to be as a moderator but I want

to bring in frankly people that are more knowledgeable about whatever each individual topic is and then create a format for really an intelligent discussion that has community involvement and interaction. I think that's the best approach to take. So I've got several slides and a whole thing about that. We'll get into that in a bit. I want to get through some But before then, of the other topics. If you didn't catch it, please check out last episode, season two, episode twenty five. This is really a major episode about Zeno and is really focused on solutions. I mean, I know often on this podcast, I talk about technocracy

and I talk about what the issues are and what we're up against. And I usually also talk about the solutions to a certain degree, but this episode was entirely focused on the fact that now the Zeno ecosystem has developed to the point where we really do have a fighting chance. And there have already been a number of major projects launched on Zeno. And now basically an infinite combinations of other projects can be built as well. And I announced the website freedomforge.io, which I'll discuss again today before we get into the heart of the matter. But this is a really important issue if you want to get caught up on what Zeno is all about and get a very brief overview of all

the different applications that have already been built on top of Zeno. And then the week before that, we did top ten science technocracy is already here. And I think those signs just keep on adding and increasing, frankly, It's almost hard to keep up every day. on the surveillance and everything that is going on. We're going to have a roundtable, I believe, next week. Or maybe it's the following week. but with Courtney Turner I'll have to double check again, and Patrick Wood and are going to continue to do that on a monthly basis to stay on top of the technocracy issue. And then we have a special... So I've moved the timing. So you wouldn't know it yet because we've only had one

consistent week of it. But the Aaron Day Show now... will be on Mondays and Thursdays at six PM Eastern time. And because Monday's episode was moved to today, we're still going to have tomorrow's episode. And tomorrow's episode is going to be why voting doesn't matter in twenty twenty five. And we're going to have a special guest, which is my wife, Eileen Day, who has worked on activism and In fact, political stuff. that's how we met in twenty twelve. But she was doing that long before we met, as was I. And so I want to share our experiences or we want to share our experiences that go back decades. I mean, I've actually been close to Republican Party politics for thirty years and I want

to outline exactly why I don't think it makes any sense to spend time looking for political solutions. And I know a lot of times there are people, younger people that get into politics that have a view of how this works, which is kind of naive. It's kind of Mr. Smith goes to Washington or it's not grounded in how things actually work. It's grounded in how they think it works. And so I want to at least share our experiences in being heavily involved in a really meaningful way. at the federal level and at the state level and at the local level and so my my point in this is so that you don't make the same mistakes that we've made and also don't spend a lot of time looking for a

political solution when there probably isn't one so I'm excited about that one and I hope a lot of you are able to join that one for the q a especially those of you you know I'm thinking dan o'neill and others that have also been involved in politics and who I've talked to recently that have come to many of the same conclusions and so I think the q a and that one will be very important to kind of share even more stories because I see a lot of people going and making the same mistakes over and over again and and not making any progress and we're frankly out of time for repeating mistakes particularly based on the rate at which technocracy is accelerating.

So as I said, why am I in Washington DC? Because I just said voting doesn't matter. And obviously I talk all the time about how much I hate Washington, D.C. But the reason I'm here was to support and also listen to Brownstone fellow Toby Rogers. And if you're not familiar with Toby's work, I encourage you to check it out at brownstone.org. You can see his writings there. You can also, he has a sub stack. I have an incredible amount of respect for Toby's knowledge and expertise on this matter, but also his passion for for this matter and you will find I mean he's been researching the links between autism and vaccines for a number of years and

I'm going to play a short clip because we were at this hearing yesterday you might have heard about the hearing it was actually it went on for hours longer than we thought but it was if you were going to be at a hearing this was probably the one to go to aaron siri was there toby rogers was there there was some guy representing the healthcare industrial complex from Stanford who was there. This was a hearing led by Senator Ron Johnson. And then also Dr. Robert Malone was there and he had a cameo at the end to challenge some of the defamatory statements that were made by Senator Max Blumenthal. So, I mean, I'm sure you've probably seen some clips all day. They've been going viral

about this particular topic. But I want to play a real short two-minute clip to give you a little glimmer of what Toby's all about because he's a terrific guy. Let me explain how all this works. This is right in my wheelhouse. This is what I study. I follow the money. Autism is a political economy problem. These are all political economy problems. So let me explain how this works. Thus far, government has failed in response to the autism epidemic because of regulatory capture. Rather than protecting public health, regulators have advanced the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. That's pretty straightforward. Science and medicine have failed in response to the autism epidemic because of

epistemic capture. And what I mean by that is that the pharmaceutical industry has captured every step in the knowledge production process in science and medicine. Big Pharma controls what is studied, how it is researched, and what qualifies as evidence. Now this capture permeates every level of the system. Medical textbooks and curricula are influenced by financially conflicted academics. Universities and department chairs hold substantial pharmaceutical ties. Most clinical trials are conducted by for-profit contract research organizations in China and the third world. A large share of scientific journal articles are ghostwritten. The pharmaceutical industry spends over twenty seven

billion dollars annually on drug promotion and continuing medical education. Standards of care are authored by conflicted physicians. So from the first day of medical school to the final years of practice, doctors live inside an epistemic bubble engineered by the pharmaceutical industry to increase its profits. Senator Blumenthal and Dr. Scott only pay attention to captured science, science that's controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. The correct answers, the best science is happening outside of that epistemic bubble. The entire system of knowledge production in science and medicine needs to be overhauled to liberate it from the biases and distortions imposed by

the pharmaceutical industry. So he went on to describe his analysis. he has a Brownstone article If you see, where he went through literally every study that's been done related to autism and just broke down the fact that there is no proof linking it to genetics. And he's come up with pretty definitive proof that autism is caused by mostly vaccines, but then some other toxins, other environmental toxins. And so phenomenal work. Now, do I think this is going to be changed at the political level? Not likely. But what I do think is if millions of people can watch this hearing and see Toby lay out the arguments,

then my hope is that it causes people to wake up and take personal action regarding But also in understanding how big pharma actually operates, because I think what he described epistemic capture is is absolutely phenomenal and it's accurate. Basically, we have a whole scenario here where doctors are. trained and get certification. And the curriculum is basically drafted by Big Pharma. And everywhere down the chain, all of the information is... So you actually have an industry of people who believe that they're practicing science and not realizing that they've been essentially indoctrinated by Big Pharma. And so phenomenal information.

The whole hearing was great. But if you're not familiar with Toby's work, I encourage you to check that out. I'm not going to go through all of the events coming up, but some that are of note. I highly encourage you to check out the Brownstone Institute's fifth annual conference and gala. I'm pretty sure Toby will be there. Speaking, I'll be speaking. That's going to be in Salt Lake City. These are great events. I will say one other thing. I mean, this whole hearing yesterday, it was – there were probably – twenty people there that were affiliated with the Brownstone Institute. it was amazing how many people in I mean, the in the in the audience and that are part of this

are affiliated with the Brownstone Institute. So the Brownstone Institute is one of the only places where you can even talk about these types of issues. So it's pretty, pretty exciting to see that. And then also I have coming up on the twelfth, which I guess is two days from now. There's a prerecorded thing that I did, but the Crypto Vigilante is having an online summit about what matters most in crypto. So a lot of great speakers there. I'll be at a different Brownstone Institute event. And then we'll be at the Chris Martinson event on the thirteenth. An update on our political prisoners. I'm sure if you're listening to this, you heard that Charlie Kirk

was murdered today. And this is... This impacts me personally. So I first met Charlie Kirk in twenty fifteen when I was working on some political stuff. So he actually collaborated with me with the Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire and on our national convention in twenty fifteen. And then he's been a real strong advocate for Roger Ver in his case. In fact, the shirt that you are or excuse me, the picture that you're seeing right there with Roger with the tape over his mouth and everything, that picture was actually taken from, I took that from a video, which was his interview with Charlie Kirk.

This was before he did the Tucker Carlson interview. And then I actually had that turned into a shirt. So half the time I'm actually wearing a t-shirt with this picture on it and it actually comes from the Charlie Kirk episode. So it is a devastating loss and I'm not going to spend a lot of time talking. I don't know. of information about I don't think we have a lot exactly what happened yet, but I mean, what a, what a horrible loss for everyone. And I mean, I didn't agree with Charlie on everything, but he, I agree with him on a lot of things and he was definitely a friend and definitely an ally. So it was just terrible news. And there's no, I don't have any other updates on Roger's case

other than the hearing is a little over a month from now, the rescheduled multiple times hearing in LA. So as soon as I have more information on that details, I will let you know. I haven't bought my plane ticket out to LA yet or my hotel, but when I do, it'll be, they will be refundable. And I certainly will give everyone more detailed information as we get closer. Also, I encourage you, no updates, but Ian Freeman is still in prison for eight years, lost his appeal. His last resort at this point is the Supreme Court. So I think it's important that we get some momentum around his online petition. So please visit freeiannow.org so that we can get those numbers up.

And then, of course, Roman Storm. was found guilty uh hasn't had the sentencing phase yet that I'm aware of but uh he still needs financial support I think solana I believe just announced they solana foundation five were contributing the hundred thousand dollars but he still needs money the other two don't need financial support but they do need uh support uh in other ways just to show indication of you know sharing information about their case and signing their online petitions but roman needs financial support He's already spent over five million dollars in legal fees fighting the federal government, and he has an appeal in front of him. So if you can, please help out and donate

at freeromanstorm.com. So for those that are new to the Aaron Day Show, the whole premise of what this is all about is that I believe that the big war that we're in is technocracy versus freedom. And what is at stake is free will itself. And then I would argue, and the reason that I had the episode last week and the reason I talk about Zeno so much is that I think tokenization is the key battleground for this battle. Because what's happening right now is what the technocrats are doing is they're creating digital tokens that represent everything that we own. So that's what a stablecoin is. That's what a CBDC is.

But they're now moving into other areas with, for instance, the Clarity Act. They're moving into the realm of tokenizing our stocks, our bonds, our commodities, our gold, silver, everything, financial instruments, our homes. And by tokenizing these in the way that they are, they can be programmed, tracked, and censored. by authoritarian regimes, which is of course the point and it's the reason that they're doing this. And so the reason that I've been so keenly interested in Zeno is that Zeno allows you to tokenize assets and trade them in a way that is completely private. No third party can track the transactions and that can't be censored.

So you basically can trade these tokens, trade your assets and hold them in your own self-custody and no outsider can know about these transactions. That to me is not the only solution, but probably the most potent solution that we have in fighting technocracies. This is why I spend probably a third to half of my time talking about and trying to build solutions and using solutions. I mean, to that end, this entire trip to Washington, DC, the, um, little experiment that I'm running is I'm using a zbeck debit card which I announced a couple of weeks ago the master card that you can load xeno and freedom dollar onto directly and that you can

connect with your apple wallet or google wallet and basically you can now spend anywhere mastercard is accepted but it's an instantaneous load of the card uh the kyc is really light I mean technically they ask you for an address but it's they don't even verify the address it's not a full heavy kyc process and so so far the hotel that we're staying in I got hotels.com you know was able to get a rental car I do all of that other stuff using this card so so far so good and this is great for me if you have been watching this you'll know I've been not account since but using a personal bank oftentimes even though I mostly hold xeno or freedom dollar in the past I've had

to convert to other cryptocurrencies if I had to use a debit card or buy gift certificates or something like that now I can do pretty much everything with just xeno whether if I'm not buying things directly with xeno or freedom dollar I can now use the zback debit card I can now buy gift cards directly through xeno x dot io so I am almost a hundred percent now not only crypto but I'm almost a hundred percent the xeno ecosystem so that's very very exciting news One thing that I want to do before we get too much into this. So I've been launching all these websites and you know, they're still in the alpha phase, but I'm going to, let me pull this up right now.

So I guess it's already, it's already being shared. that's not the one that I want to share. Actually, So you can go to the AaronDayShow.com and I have the link. I'll post it in here. It's just the AaronDayShow.com. And this is where I'm putting all of the past episodes. But I will show you as well. I'm moving to do... Some other things as well. I want to make this a, a place that everybody can go to, to not only see all of the old episodes, but to live stream the new episodes as well. And I'm going to ultimately

host this in a decentralized manner, probably using IPFS. I won't go into all the details there. But the point is I want to build a community around this and I want to start pushing people to this site because there's a pretty high probability that this stuff is going to become more censored. The things that I talk about, central bank, digital currencies, the federal reserve are already fairly shadow banned topics. but beyond that and you know and I know this talking to people like catherine austin fitz and chris martinson as well I mean they even know at this point if you're going to put those kinds of terms in you're you're not going to see a lot of that go go viral but um but I also

want to add more interactivity to it as well I'm going to be building some features into the aaron day show that also embed various aspects of xeno into it and I'm I'm not I'm going to talk about all of those now, but I'll give you one example. I don't know if you've seen some of these sites where they do super chats, where you can pay, you know, to, to donate to the cause or to have your particular comment read aloud or whatever. I'm building something that allows you to do that with Zeno, Freedom Dollar, and then also privatized Bitcoin, Ethereum, and BNB through Confidential Layer. So that's one example of something that I want to build into this. But I want to move

ultimately to making sure that we have a more interactive community and that we're not dependent on these big tech platforms because it turns out these big tech platforms are all run by technocrats. So it's only a matter of time before I think this gets cut off. So again, this is an alpha version of this site. that you're seeing here, but you can create an account. You can sign into the chat. You can see I just worked on this today and you can actually submit comments here. And I'm going to integrate these into the stream yard as well. In fact, when we get to the Q&A section, you'll see that we can do this. And so when you go to this website, if it's live, you'll see a red blinking

thing at the top. But then you also see this is where you can see all of the past episodes. I've indexed all of the episodes by various tags. So you can sort and see, for instance, okay, I want to see Roger Veer, which episodes was he involved in? And Now you can click on that and get a sortable view this way. We have full transcripts. You can link to all of the places where the episodes live, YouTube, Apple, Rumble, Amazon Music. I'm still getting caught up on uploading to Spotify and other things and also link to X. And then, I'll have them downloaded on a of course, decentralized service that's not any one of these.

You'll be able to see and search the entire transcript, and then we'll be able to have accounts. You'll be able to use your account to actually post comments. So a lot of times when you do these online live things, you actually... lose the comments. They go away when the talk is over. So I have this as an ability, a way for us to keep the conversation, the dialogue going, even when the live stream is gone. So the whole idea here is you can see, so you can set up an account now. I encourage you to do it. You can set up an account and you can make comments.

My wife's shaking her head, but it worked. I saw that you set up an account, so you should be able to Check your email. Okay. Well, anyway, I encourage you guys to try to create an account because this will be important later on. If it doesn't work, I'll get to it. Probably not during the live cast, I'll fix it. but maybe it depends on other people participate in the Q&A, but it should work because I actually tested it. this morning so um and that actually will tie into our first principles discussion so I encourage you to take a look at that and to start participating and I really do want to encourage people to migrate towards this because this is going to be the absolute key moving

forward is to make sure that we have our own our own tools Then I want to also say, I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this either, but last week on Thursday, I launched freedomforge.io. Again, these are all alpha stage. Alpha stage means it's just, you know, hardcore people that understand that there are bugs. And by the way, I'm developing these things kind of in real time. I'm working on these things up to the point the podcast launches. So a lot of the new features are that new. But I'm going to share... the uh this the freedomforge.io and show you something that you can now do with that uh it's I'm going to be adding many

things to freedomforge the whole point of freedomforge is to be able to learn about oops not only what's going on with the entire xeno ecosystem but it is also to start building and incubating new projects. Because as I've said many times, technocrats are building anything that the from a centralized perspective can be built in a private, decentralized way using Zaino. So they're trying to consolidate and control food. consolidate and control healthcare. They're trying to You could build a healthcare marketplace, a medical tourism marketplace, global, that's private, that is completely decentralized with a reputation management system. You can connect all of the

farmers of the world together and create a global marketplace with private transactions for buying and selling food, again, with a reputation management system. So I want to start... incubating these projects or advising on them or just giving away the ideas it's not the important part isn't that I own any of these things the important part is that to educate people first and foremost that all of these things can be built so again you can create an account at freedomforge.io which which is important for the guides and for some of the interactive features it's all free there's no there's no payment or even a premium model um So you can pop in here and I'm going to if you do that,

I encourage you to look at the start here area. the idea behind this is this is kind of all right somebody's just getting involved with xeno for the first time what do they do and I'm going to end up creating a lot of these guides there's going to be a whole library of guides and the guides will have step-by-step walkthroughs they'll have videos I've done workshops in the past I'm going to continue to do workshops but what's more important is you know I want to have really easy to use tools to help get as many people online as quickly and efficiently as possible. I'm still going to do the workshops, but I may make the workshops more. They may even be two day events. or three day events where

not only are people learning how it works, but maybe people are getting maybe we do hackathons, maybe people get together and and connect with one another to form businesses on Freedom Forge. That's a whole other thing. And I'll talk about that because I want to get your input on these workshops and what exactly should be in them. But if you go to the start here area, you can see the really quick four step process. OK, so what do you do first? Well, you choose your wallet. so there are links to the five main wallets that you can now use with xeno cake wallet bitcoin.com edge wallet xeno desktop wallet xeno mobile wallet so you can click download those get those set up I'll add

links ultimately to videos for each of these but let's say you pick the xeno mobile wallet okay now that downloaded the wallet you have it set up you've done that you've What's the next thing to do? OK, well, now you want to acquire Zeno. So there are a couple of steps for that as well. In guides, you can buy Zeno directly. If you're in Europe now, you can use something called DFX, where you can, without KYC, buy Zeno even using Apple Pay. So this is new. This is a new relationship announced a couple of weeks ago. You can use Alchemy Pay to do direct fiat to Zeno with credit and debit cards. unfortunately it does have KYC This is a, or you can use an exchange like Mexi to acquire Zeno

directly alternatively. And this is what I recommend. You can do it however you want, but if you already have crypto of one form or another, if you have Bitcoin or if you have something that you want to move into a private realm I've given you three different options here there's excelix which I which I you know recommend I have the most experience with you can swap I don't even know how many cryptocurrencies it has now not just xeno but you can you know swap like over a thousand different cryptos um and they also have freedom dollars so you can swap your bitcoin for or monero or whatever whatever crypto it is without any kyc so you basically take the crypto that you currently have it has a

little form and you say right I have bitcoin I want xeno it gives you an address to send your bitcoin you give it a receive address for your xeno and then the transaction is done it usually takes ten minutes or so Zeno.exe and Trocador are two other options for that. So this is, you know, again, this is the basic guide of how to get involved. Download a wallet, either buy it directly, swap an existing crypto for Zeno. Pretty simple. So let's say I went through this process. I used Exelix. Okay, then what's the next process? The next process is send a private transaction. I'm gonna add more videos and And again, everything for that, but let's say, okay, you have some Zeno in it,

now you've got a wallet, you send some Zeno to somebody and then boom, you've completed the guide. you've set up a privacy focused wallet, So now at this point, you've acquired Zeno without KYC, you've sent a completely private transaction. Congratulations, now you've joined the counter surveillance economy. So this is just one guy. And if you watch the episode from last week, you will see there are so many things that have already been built on Zeno. So this isn't a when I first started talking about this in May, all we had was a mobile wallet. None of the other wallets, none of the other tools like confidential layer, Freedom Dollar, none of that existed. The ability to use a debit card,

all of that is is brand new. But I really think at this point, Zeno is ready for prime time and ready for mass adoption and ready for mass building. So I'm realizing you might not have even seen what was going on there. So go to freedomforge.io. Again, that's not the main purpose of this particular episode, but I wanted to make sure that everyone understands that that site has actually been upgraded a bit and have completed some more of the functionality. I'm still calling it Alpha. So once we do our testing, some of the hardcore folks, then we'll go to beta. And that means we'll publicly talk about it and tell people, well, we think we've worked out the kinks, but still want more feedback.

So it'll be a while before we're at version for these things. So if something isn't working, let me know and understand. I expect things aren't working. So I also want you to understand and have the anticipation that this isn't a final project that you're helping me as an early person involved in designing and creating these tools to help onboard people to a private parallel economy. As we get into tonight, so I've talked about the fact that last year, long before the election, I gave a talk and the talk was America one point O is over. We need to build America two point O from first principles. And I like the talk.

I thought the talk maybe would have gotten a little bit more of a positive feedback from the group. But most of the people that I spoke to were still believing in the existing political solution. And as I thought about it more, it's not even so much that the focus on these first principles should be dedicated to just fixing America or that America should even be fixed. principles and applying the importance of first them to any kind of human system, whether it's the federal government, a local government, whether it's to AI, whether it's to network states, even if it's to your own personal framework, your own personal constitution of how you look at the world and how

you guide your life. But I do want to read one thing from that talk I wrote a little kind of declaration against technocracy it's not important like I'm not I'm not even pushing this or publicizing this but I wanted to give you a sense for at least where I was coming from with this and a lot of these ideas do still So it's here our declaration, no surrender to technocratic tyranny. We, the free people of this land, declare our resolute independence from the suffocating vision of a one world technocratic regime. We reject the chains of determinism where algorithms dictate our lives and centralized power dictates our choices. We refuse to be herded into

a future of manufactured scarcity where owning nothing is deemed happiness and eating bugs becomes the norm. great reset they tout as a trojan horse concealing the destruction of individual liberty we denounce the chilling whispers of free will is an illusion for it is the fire that fuels our dreams and the forge of our destiny we will not be complicit in the slow erosion of our freedoms we will not bow to the dictates of fear disguised as security we will not trade our birthright of individual responsibility for the shackles of a planned existence Our principles are carved not in stone, but in the beating hearts of free men and women. They are not static edicts, but ever evolving guides

for navigating the complexities of our world. We will debate, challenge, and refine these principles with open minds and fierce hearts, ensuring they remain instruments of liberty, not instruments of control. Our vision is not a frozen utopia, but a vibrant tapestry woven from individual choices and aspirations. We will build a world where free will reigns supreme, A world where innovation thrives on the shoulders of a million dreams and where human potential explodes unfettered. We will create a society where prosperity is not manufactured but earned and where happiness is not granted but cultivated through individual pursuit. This is our declaration, not of war, but of independence.

It is a call of action, not for blind obedience, but for engaged discussion and passionate debate. It is a clarion cry for individual liberty echoing through the ages, defying the darkness and illuminating the path to a brighter, freer future. Join us, raise your voice. Together we shall build a world worthy of our dreams, a world where first principles are not etched in stone, but etched in the boundless potential of the human spirit. So that was what I was shooting for. That was essentially kind of my motivation for even doing the original talk and again I'm not I don't even want to focus this maybe those things are right maybe they aren't but in the overall talk I was

talking about well I guess I'll get into the slides on this because there's there's quite a bit to get into but again what I was talking about is we need to talk about nobody talks about first principles when you look at where we are in political discourse no one is going back to fundamental ideas we are so far removed and I'm going to make some parallels between our discourse politically philosophically and even what happened to bitcoin because I actually think bitcoin is a bit of a microcosm and of what happened in the united states and I'll explain how and why but I think it's important to kind of note what what happened with both the u.s and with Bitcoin, and what I think is about

to happen with AI. And there's a pattern with all three, which is that ultimately they become profoundly degraded. And they become degraded because of this abandonment of first principles. and and I'll get into this I mean first principles by the way first principles can change uh you know there are discoveries that happen where you may even need to reconsider your first principles but when you're in a situation where you haven't refuted the underlying first principles and you end up with this creep in this change anyway that becomes problematic and one theme that I think it

matches this pattern with america with bitcoin and ai is that not only are the principles of abandon but they end up moving towards the opposite the exact polar opposite of what the original principles were And in the case of these three things, I think they're all moving towards centralization and technocracy, actually, in an interesting way, but authoritarianism at a minimum. So what are first principles? I mean, there are certainly a lot of different first principles. In physics, you may have the law of thermodynamics. In mathematics, you may have various axioms. You know, in biology, you certainly have certain first principles. There is something that's unique about human systems, though,

which is that we actually choose the first principles with respect to the others. I mean, look at something like gravity or whatever. I mean, that's not something you choose. It is a it's something that just is. But when you get to talking about human systems, we actually select our first principles, which is a unique feature, which, you know, is kind of dangerous as well, because you choose poorly. or you abandon the first principles, you can end up in a whole heap of trouble. Why they matter? Well, the reason first principles matter is because if you don't have them, you don't have some underlying core DNA for whatever it is that you're doing, systems will tend to drift

from the original purpose. And you will find that power tends to concentrate naturally. And mission creep becomes inevitable. In fact, the end conclusion, usually when you abandon first principles, is the capture by opposing forces. Kind of a complete inversion. And you can see this time and time again. But as I said, there are some times where the first principles may need to change because we've learned about something. There's been a change in our understanding. There was once a belief that Wealth creation and the economy is a zero-sum game,

and that's not true. You can actually create more wealth. There was a belief that machines or animals are just machines, but in reality, they're sentient beings. And you might not even agree with what I'm stating here about these things. That's not even what's important. We're not even debating these specific points, but I'm just trying to use some examples. One other is that people debate is over the nature of reality itself. Are we living in a materialistic deterministic world? Are we living in a quantum world? world and a world of information and a world of probability. So when you have those kinds of shifts in first principles and understanding, then you should question

your first principles. In other words, you should hold on to your first principles, but you should be open-minded to always considering them if there's new information. And if there is new information that suggests that the first principles are no longer valid, then you should probably rethink a lot of things. And I went through this process myself in where I really started questioning everything about my own worldview. And I was one of these guys that left brain guy that thought, well, I'm an objectivist and everything. And, you know, a very materialistic view. My, my wife, my wife kind of helped push me down a different path, looking at me over here. You can talk about,

talk about that tomorrow. But, um, But then I started to question everything that... I thought, oh, well, I don't buy into any of these other belief systems. And then finally realized, well, no, I have my own set of belief systems. I bought into... the materialist view I bought into these other things and I thought it was you know largely scientific and that you know it was all completely evidence-based and and now as we've learned trusting the science is something that hasn't just gone awry in the last four or five years since coven when you really dig into it for pretty much our entire life it's been um captured I mean actually as toby rogers said epistemologically captured

The knowledge itself has been captured. So you're going through these schools, you're going through these government indoctrination centers, or even no matter how far up, in fact, the higher you go up, I would argue, the greater the indoctrination. But we've been indoctrinated to believe that this is science and that this is based on evidence. And it turns out a lot of that is also manufactured. So then you have to really rethink everything. But I want to make this parallel between Bitcoin and the United States, just from the standpoint of, I guess, providing a framework for how to look at things, which to me is important because I think most of the conversations that we have,

whether it's about politics or whether it's about crypto, are two or three layers removed from the fundamental problems we should be talking about. We're talking about trivial things that are built on the flawed abandonment of core principles. And so it almost doesn't even matter. Most of the debates that we have don't even matter what the outcome is because we're not addressing core principles. So you could argue that America's, and again, I don't even want to debate whether this is true or not, but that America had, you know, first principles that were built on kind of the Declaration of Independence on the ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You could call that our, in crypto terms, people talk about L-one, like the L-one blockchain. Well, there's an L-zero. There's what was the core driving principles? What were the first principles before you even wrote code? What were the first principles before you even drafted the constitution? Because the constitution and the code for Bitcoin came out of first principles. And I'd argue in the case of America, those first principles were the declaration of independence and some other founding documents and that with bitcoin the l zero for layer zero fundamental layer for bitcoin was the white paper drafted by satoshi nakamoto that called for a peer-to-peer electronic cash

system for peer-to-peer transactions. I mean, there was a pretty clear outline, pretty extensive, well-written document explaining what this was all about. The Declaration of Independence, our core founding documents, pretty much laid out an ideology, which was very novel at the time. And by the way, when I say this, things like America One.O is over. take that to mean I mean you know the revolutionary war period this is my favorite period of history and and something that I've I've been very passionate about until you realize how far how far the inversion has gone because what we are today is completely the opposite of what was talked about in these founding documents I mean completely the

opposite when I talk about this all the time our sixteen million word tax code all of these agencies and everything else and all the laws and regulations are completely counter to and everything else these the four foundational documents and so people get confused by this because They heard the rhetoric, they heard the propaganda, or it wasn't even necessarily propaganda, although it was propaganda taught about what America was. by the time it was being They taught how America was founded and then believed that that's what it still is today. And that's problematic because we have people going around that think that America is what it was intended to be, not what it actually is.

And that's actually a common thing that happens in FLAW. would argue with bitcoin as well so you have you know again let's just say I'll call the declaration of independence america's l zero the bitcoin white paper bitcoins And so then you have this layer one solution. And I would argue that the Constitution represents the layer one. It is the kind of transcription of the first principles into a set of rules, into an explicit set of rules, into a Constitution. And in the case of Bitcoin, the white paper was turned into code or described code. So in other words,

this is what it's supposed to be. This is what it's supposed to do. peer-to-peer cash system. Bitcoin is supposed to be a And here's how it works. Here's how proof of work works. Here's how it's decentralized. Here's how the economic incentives work. This lays this out. Unfortunately, what happened was you could argue that, well, so the Constitution then became a living document. that certainly crept and crept and crept way away. I probably should include this. I have this meme that I usually share that shows the entire Bill of Rights, how the first ten amendments have been completely wiped out. And so it's become this living document that's not even tied in any way, shape,

or form to those foundational principles. And you could argue that the code of Bitcoin now no longer reflects white paper and the original vision and first principles of bitcoin either it's gone from peer-to-peer digital cash to this hijacked digital gold narrative it's based on manufactured scarcity it's actually kind of a technocratic system at this point and has almost nothing to do with the original white paper and again what I'm describing here applies to other systems. This isn't unique to the United States. It's not unique to Bitcoin. In fact, what I'm describing is what typically happens. This creep,

this abandonment of first principles, or in many cases, there were no first principles. I guess I should say that as well. And then you end up in the situation where you have the inverse of what you started out with, but many people still believe it's the original thing, even though it's the inverse. Then you have what are called layer two built on top of layer one. So all of these build on one another, right? So you have your core principles, then you have your initial set of rules based on those principles. And then you start building applications on top of the the rules and and so in this in this case you see that um you know for instance in the case of of

the u.s now you have these agencies you have this fourth branch of government you have a deep state you have an administrative state you have things Large blocks of the way that the country operates aren't even in the Constitution itself. So not only is the function that they're providing not tied to the first principles, it's not even accounted for in the Constitution itself. These things weren't even created or contemplated. And they work outside of the entire rule set. This is probably one of the biggest problems that we have. And when we talk tomorrow about why politics doesn't work, we had this so-called clever system of checks and balances. But the checks and balances

were supposed to be on these three branches of government. We have a fourth branch of government that has massive amounts of power that's not accounted for. and isn't in the checks and balances system. We have an entire large function of the way our government operates that there are no checks and balances. So while there may be, you could argue how well the checks and balances work amongst the three branches, they don't even apply to the fourth branch, which is why we have no ability to get rid of them because the checks and balances amongst the other three branches make it practically impossible for you to change that fourth branch because you have all of the division back and forth.

The whole point of the checks and balances system was to intentionally slow things down. You had this constitution that granted certain rights to the federal government, and everything else went to the people. certain rights to the states, And then now we've gotten to this situation where we have these other things that operate completely outside of that system that don't even factor that kind of thinking into it. at all and then you have things similarly with bitcoin you have absurd things just as the you could argue certainly that the deep state and all of their agency rules that aren't laws that they can still implement and so forth uh you well now you have absurd things going on

in bitcoin you have like for instance lightning network lightning network completely violates the underlying core principles of of bitcoin the whole point of bitcoin was not to rehash all of this now but miners secure the network they solve these math puzzles and then if you're if you solve the math puzzle you add the next block of transactions to the blockchain it's an immutable chain and every ten minutes new transactions being added and the way money as a miner and secure you're supposed to make the network and keep it decentralized is by earning these transaction fees well by artificially limiting the block size miners no longer make any can't make a living off of transaction

fees lightning network is a second layer application on top of the l-one That involves people sending transactions to one another, but there are no transaction fees involved from the base layer. So it actually further destroys the economic model of the layer one. And people are sitting there saying, well, yeah, but here's this great way of doing It turns out it is also all these things. centralized and it destroys the underlying security of the L-I just in the same way that administrative agencies hamper the Constitution, go against the Constitution, and then destroy the ability of the government to function. So you end up with unconstrained growth. So anyway,

I wanted to use that just as an analogy, the L zero L one L two, because to me, just as I was thinking about it, it's like, okay, So what's the solution to this? Which is why I gave the talk and why we're even doing this now. Because by the way, there isn't a, I don't have the answer. I have a series of questions and I think a lot of people have questions. And so we should start talking about those fundamental first principles. We can also talk about, you know, if, you know, a lot of people come to this, well, you know, America is great. The founding fathers were onto something and, you know, Their first principles were right. We just veered from them. I tend to now keep a much

more open mind about that because it was almost two hundred and fifty years ago. if if you have an For instance, understanding of the world, which I'm not stating how accurate or true this is, but if you went from a materialistic deterministic view to a quantum view. That would actually have implications in how governance might work. So there are some fundamental things that have happened in the last two hundred fifty years that we should at least review and start from first principles as opposed to starting with a how do we fix the L one? this is why in crypto and it By the way, took me a long time to get there. A lot of people get stuck in crypto. where they look at the white

paper of Bitcoin and they look at some of the different aspects of the white paper. Well, you're going to have proof of work, you're going to have this, you're going to have this. And then every crypto project is evaluated on the basis of these individual components of the L-one on how Bitcoin was operated. But in reality, Maybe you should go back to first principles and maybe decide that, hey, some of these things are not necessarily ideal. Maybe proof of work isn't the best way to do this. Perhaps proof of stake could So you don't have to start even be better. with even the first principles of the L-one or the L-zero of Bitcoin. And a lot of people get caught because then

everything gets evaluated against Bitcoin as the reference. And I think that rather than doing it that way, you should go to first principles with crypto as well as first principles with broader governance, even when looking at and examining something like the United States. So what happened to the United States? And again, this is just one perspective on this. But I mean, I would argue that we went through a situation here where we had the promise of And then we had the, think about it. Think about the Declaration of Independence. Look at what was in the Declaration of Independence and then look at where we are now. We had the capture. The first capture, I think, happened in nineteen

thirteen with the creation of the Federal Reserve. Then we had abandoning the gold standard in nineteen seventy one, and now we're literally in a situation where we have digital programmable money. That is fiat that's controlled by the state. And we have all of the surveillance. I mean, when I talk about it, I'm not going to rehash all of the reasons I think we already have a technocracy, but Palantir database of Americans, a hundred and fifty billion dollars recently allocated in addition to everything else we were spending for militarization of the police, more AI surveillance, backdoor CBDCs, real ID, which is a digital ID. What does any of that have to do with the Declaration

of Independence? What does any of that have to do with the core founding principles of this country? What does any of that have to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Any of it. It's completely inverted. And so it's important to recognize that so that because a lot of people say, well, you're not patriotic or whatever. It's like, you know, dude, we've done the we're the inverse of what we are. And you're celebrating it as if it's seventeen seventy six. Not to not to use too many Alex Jones references, but I mean, we are nineteen eighty four and people are representing nineteen eighty four as seventeen seventy six. That's dishonest and it's not helpful.

It's not helpful to have your head in the sand and claim that nineteen eighty four is seventeen seventy six. And we've talked about, you know, similarly with Bitcoin, then I've already touched on this. You had the promise of the white paper. People were excited about it. I was excited about it in twenty twelve. And a lot of other people were passionate about it because we came off of the financial crisis in two thousand and eight. We saw what happened with the banks. We saw what happened with the bailouts. We saw what happened with the war machine. And then as more people started to learn about G. Edward Griffin and the creature from Jackal Island and the fact that, hey,

this is not an isolated event. These central banks have been creating wars and funding both sides for years. This entire situation is ridiculous. And so Bitcoin comes along and here's an idea and here's an ability to have money separated from states, separated from banks. Censorship resistant with no third parties. What a great idea. Then all of a sudden things happen. In twenty thirteen, a shift begins and then it splits off. And as documented in hijacking Bitcoin, as documented in some of my articles and some of my talks, because actually hijacking Bitcoin really only covers up to twenty seventeen. Bitcoin has been, I think, hijacked more since twenty seventeen. But you can at least learn

where the initial transition happened. You actually had people with ties to the intelligence community. You had people tied to MIT and to Jeffrey Epstein. You had people tied to the Bilderberg Group and traditional finance that supported the creation of a CBDC while hobbling Bitcoin and making it so that it couldn't be used as peer-to-peer digital cash. This happened. And now... We're at that inversion point. I started, somebody sent me, actually a listener of this podcast sent me something last week. He said, you know, he said, from time to time, I watch these Bitcoin maxi podcasts just to see what's going on. And he sent me a link to one and I watched it. And, you know,

and then I'm actually going to build like a scraper to scrape the transcripts of all of these maxi podcasts now to see if they're all like this. Excuse me. But you watch these, excuse me. You watch these Bitcoin Maxi podcasts. Now all they're talking about is, well, gee, we hope Michael Saylor's company strategy gets listed to the S&P five hundred so that more people can have ownership of strategy, which is a holding company for Bitcoin. So we started out peer to peer digital cash you have in your own self-custody to engage in commerce all over the world. to podcast after podcast about people talking about, I hope some company that doesn't even hold the Bitcoin themselves,

they hold it through another company, gets listed on an exchange so that then ETFs can pick it up so that the people can buy the ETFs that own part of the company that doesn't even have custody of the Bitcoin that's at Coinbase. We're now four layers removed from the individual even having bitcoin in their possession and now people are thinking about it not even as something that you use but it's something that you just hold because somehow we're going to defeat government tyranny by holding something through a blackrock etf or through some treasury company again it is a complete Inversion, it's not just that it was hijacked. It is now a complete inversion because now

Bitcoin is not the answer It's not the answer to to central banks. authoritarian governments. Why? Because it's all trackable and it's slow and it can be surveilled. So now the US government has two hundred thousand Bitcoin. China has almost two hundred thousand Bitcoin because they seized it through civil asset forfeiture. You think you're going to defeat the United States if they can track all of your coins? And then when they threaten to throw you in prison for the rest of your life, you're not going to hold on to your keys. And then the governments are going to end up holding more and more. It's not a tool of freedom. It is now the absolute inversion of that. And, you know, again,

I've been examining this, not even just the U.S., but I've been looking at trends. And, you know, one other trend, and we'll talk about it tomorrow, is that, you know, a lot of people that say, well, you know, it's defeatist. You should focus on we can save the U.S. and so on and so forth. Find me an example in history. I've researched this and I've talked to other people that study this thing where a nation or an organization has gotten to this level of corruption where the ship has been righted. There aren't historicals. There's a four-stage capture pattern here. There's an initial revolution. There's initial success. Then there's infiltration. And then there's inversion. This happens.

This is like, again, it's a repeating pattern. And I would argue that at here is that the core cause least part of my argument of this is either the lack of first principles or the abandonment of first principles. But nevertheless, this pattern happens. Look at every empire, nation state, Look at Rome. fiat currency. They go through this same capture pattern. I don't subscribe to the idea that this just is what it is. I think these are things that can be fixed, but this is normally what happens. So I'm going to give a couple of examples here. The point of today is not to have a debate about the first principles themselves. I just wanted to throw these out as examples of what

first principles are. Because again, I want to start a dialogue here where the community contributes and suggests first principles on the website. We vote them. Then we bring in people, nominate people to come in and be engaged in the conversation on this. And then, you know, by the way, people may come to different conclusions. We may have five or six talks on a topic like free will. And, you know, some people might take away that we don't have free will. But at least if whatever you're doing is built on your first principles that you can then test and go back to, that would be an improvement on what we have. Related to even network states, and I'm glad Sterling Lujan came on last week,

Because the original idea by network states wasn't what Balaji and these guys are now actually doing and implementing. I mean, it has much more of a cypherpunk And it's now been kind of co-opted by, feel to it. arguably, by technocrats. There's already been an inversion within the network state movement. But what isn't happening that I'm seeing with these necessarily a foundation on network states is first principles. And I might not agree with the first principles that they pick. But I'm suggesting that they're not even having a conversation. about first principles. I would argue nobody is having In fact, conversations about first principles. Just look at any political

story in mainstream media or even online. What are people talking about? I mean, we end up in these things about, oh, it's all about then, you know, culture wars. And it's about Bud Light. It's about this. None of it is about any fundamental ideas. And the outcome of whatever the debate is, is a layer two solution where even if you resolve it one way or the other, you're not even talking about first principles which is why I'm trying to move to having a conversation that matter moving conversations moving to conversations that matter about important topics that can actually you know fix the situation that we're in or open up actual experimentation because there's no way

we're going to fix this by moving around on the periphery so I would argue that you know free will is the foundation of all all freedom although I should open that up for discussion as well. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but I will say through, it's not even just a left brain thing. There's now kind of more of an intuitive thing where I truly believe free will is the basis of what we're fighting for. here and and needs to be defended but if you were going to have a conversation about this you know it would be humans possess genuine agency and choices create responsibility and this is

a an important point but the counter view to this which and I actually think most people and you know whatever we can do polling on this but I think most people believe we have free will certainly people that are religious, I mean, but if you actually start kind of backdooring into all of this, you will find that most people do believe in free will and they're not aware of the fact that what has been going on for the last fifteen years, what people have been pushing in terms of technocracy and globalization is they don't believe in free will. They believe in determinism. They believe in technocratic management,

and they believe in nudging people based on scientific principles into certain behaviors. And related to that, they don't even believe in rights. So I think this is an important issue. You should be able to make your own mistakes. I mean, again, the whole point of this, if you look at it from an individual free will perspective, you should be able to make, making your own decisions, including making mistakes is part of the growth process. And the other alternative view to this suggests that doesn't value it at all. Doesn't value your consciousness or your free will at all. It's all about the material outcome of the situation. So again, if free will wins,

we have a completely different outcome. And if free will wins, by the way, you can't predict the outcome. You have eight billion people exercising their free will and making their own decisions. You can't predict how things will turn out. If determinism wins, We'll probably get wiped out. We wind up being in a technocracy and then the technocrats will fight over themselves. But if the determinism wins, then you can expect at best a situation where you have a technocracy where you're no longer able to make your decisions. Your decisions are part of a social credit system. They're already defined for you in terms of what choices you can even make. Those are limited and controlled by

scientists and engineered and tied to a digital monetary system, probably tied to energy credits. And that's assuming that we are allowed to even exist under this model, because once you understand that determinism and technocracy doesn't value the individual or individual rights or free will, then when you start with that as a framework, because a lot of people will say, well, technocracy won't happen. It violates the constitution. You're missing the point. The technocrats don't care about the constitution. They don't even accept that as a starting point. So if you get to this point where the only thing that matters is the end goal and not people exercising their own free will,

then do you even need people? Are they necessary? Or would we get a better outcome with far fewer people and more AI systems that can make better decisions. That's literally what's at stake here. And I would argue that another foundational principle could be around And again, property rights. I don't even want to spend a lot of time on this because I don't want people to take away that this is the important thing or even that these are the most important issues to talk about. I just wanted to put out a couple as an example. But do you have the right to your own property, your physical property, your intellectual property? a complicated issue as well. And that's actually kind of

But if you don't, then basically this also fits directly into the technocratic model as well. And actually, let me pull something up here. I'm missing a... Bear with me one second. I had a few notes on this. I had the wrong document here. So as we look into this,

Okay. So you have multiple different types of property, right? You have physical property, you have digital property, intellectual property, biological property, and even temporal property, your time, your labor, your attention. So what are the opposites of this kind of property ownership? It's state ownership, it's collective property, it's a stakeholder model. It's literally, you will own nothing. I mean, that's essentially what we're dealing with here. Those are the two holes of this. And so, so again, this property rights thing in conjunction with the free will thing is, is how we end up with owning nothing, right? So the twenty thirty agenda, you own nothing and be happy.

Everything is a service. It's a subscription economy. Everything is under central control. The propaganda that's used ownership is a burden. You know, we need to have a sharing economy. It's for the planet. It's all about equity and equity requires redistribution. So what are the methods for this? Well, the methods are inflation that destroys savings, taxes that claim production, regulations that prevent ownership, and digital systems that enable confiscation. So who are the players with this? I mean, the players are, they're numerous, and that's the other thing I'm building that technocracy graph database, but it's the WEF, central banks, big tech platforms, government agencies,

NGOs, And people like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, JD Vance. And there is a right and left wing polarity even to this agenda, which we talk about often. But the right and left still ends up with technocracy, still ends up with no property rights, still ends up with no free will. So some examples of this, Netflix, you don't own movies, Spotify, you don't own music. Adobe, you don't own software. Tesla, you don't own your car software. John Deere, you can't repair your tractor. So again, not to dwell on these two examples, but I thought these were two pretty easy ones to put up as examples, particularly relative to

the technocracy versus freedom overview. So how does this all come about? What is the approach? We talked about the four different stages of how something goes from a revolution, perhaps with or without first principles, to the aversion, the inversion. We have a five-front attack with respect to this property rights issue. So how do physical property attacks work? Well, you have civil asset forfeiture. in which you're guilty until proven innocent. this applies to a whole variety And again, of different areas, not just your home through eminent domain. I would argue property taxes are also a form of physical property attacks.

Zoning restrictions are environmental regulations to a certain degree, but even again, Bitcoin and the Bitcoin strategic reserve is a physical property attack. And it's a pretty easy physical property attack when you can track all of the Bitcoin and you have Chainalysis doing this. organizations like Well, it's a digital property attack. Platforms own your content. There's no data portability. Your account can be suspended. You can be deplatformed. You can be shadow banned. What's a financial property attack? Well, you have CBDCs with expiration dates, programmable money like stable coins,

which also could have all of the expiration date. You can only use them in certain places, a level of programmability where it's not even just, you could have bail-ins. Like in Cyprus, years and years back, they actually had a situation where they just confiscated half of people's savings. I mean, you can do that digitally now. stable coins or with cbdc's interest rates you could you could have negative have capital controls property attack mandatory what's a biological interventions mandates for things like the covid vaccine no informed consent we talked about this a lot and this ties into the own nothing project and database I mean, you're subject to these package

inserts that are all fine print, and if you actually unrolled them, if they were legal, it'd probably be a fifty page legal document. You never even sign it, but you're subject to it. We don't have informed consent. I actually just saw a little bit of a diversion yesterday. RFK said, now if you're doing big pharma ads, now you have to disclose all of the side effects. And so the thing is, we become so numb to listening to this that it doesn't matter. And all it's going to do is it's going to give an out for Big Pharma. Oh, well, they listed it in the ad. So now the Big Pharma ads thirty seconds to one are going to go from being minute and people are going to shut off the rest of it.

And then if there's ever any issue and you try to sue, you heard the whole they're going to say, well, commercial and you heard all of the list of everything. You know, my wife, my wife pointed that out. You have biometric surveillance. You have DNA databases. Who knows what's going to happen with this? Twenty three and me and then public health overrides. Public health overrides are always, I would argue, biological property attacks. And I would argue that they're always malicious. I mean, I've said it before. I'll say it again. I think it's evident that public health is a death cult. I mean, by design, intentionally, it does not have good intentions. What is a temporal property attack?

an income tax is a claim on your time. Well, Inflation steals stored time. Regulations waste time. Compliance wastes time. And bureaucratic friction wastes time. So these are just, again, some examples of in this realm of property rights, this is a first principle, what's going on in that regard. And then we could go through voluntary association. And I'm going to go through these kind of quickly because more importantly, and I hope people make it for the Q&A because I know that since the time has been shifted a couple of times, come back to doing this one again. we might end up having to But voluntary association,

I think this is a big one. So what is the principle? The principle is all legitimate relationships require ongoing consent. Entry by choice, exit by right. So how do you enter by choice? Well, through mutual agreement, through clear terms, through informed consent, through no coercion. How do you exit by right? You can leave any time, no permission needed, take your property, no retaliation. Why does this matter? Without exit rights, every relationship becomes slavery. Marriage, employment, citizenship all require the right to leave. And this is what I would argue as a first principle. What is the spectrum of voluntary?

There's true voluntary, join and leave freely. There's coerced choice, agree or starve, take the vaccine or lose your job. Manufactured consent, which I think is a big one, which is manipulated agreement. And I've talked about this a lot with these click wrap agreements. I mean, are you really agreeing if you have to, if it would take you, now I would argue two hours a day, not just one, two hours a day, every day of the year, just to read the agreements that we signed through these click wrap agreements. you can't really do And by the way, anything about it if you don't like them. So, um, so yeah, that's, that's, I would argue that that's manufactured consent. And then the last is on the

voluntary spectrum. The lack of voluntary is complete pure force, no choice at all. So, um, there are kind of four doors showing the different exit types true exit you can leave freely no penalties take your profit or excuse me take your property and examples quitting a job in the free market there's blocked exits barriers preventing leaving bureaucratic obstacles, technical lock-ins. So for instance, if you try to switch from an iPhone or switch from a technological device, there are a lot of hurdles that make that difficult. There's penalty exit where you can leave,

but you'll be punished. Exit taxes. I mean, Roger Ver, this is a perfect example of what he's dealing with here. That's the ultimate solution. example of a exit penalty is if you decide you want to leave the united states you are in a situation where you essentially have to value all of your property and then pay a percentage of that amount all at once right before you leave you forfeit benefits so yeah renouncing u.s citizenship is a big one of an exit penalty and then no exit is one where you're completely trapped can't leave it's a prison slash slavery system like like north korea but modern examples, social security, you can't opt out medical licenses. You must join a guild public school.

You have to pay regardless of whether you have kids. It's the social contract that you never signed. So, you know, again, we have a spectrum of choice here. We have these, uh, So you have mandatory systems like Social Security, the Ponzi by force, Medicare, no opt-out, Obamacare mandate, public schools pay anyway, selective service, draft registration. You have professional cartels, the Bar Association, medical boards, teaching certificates, union shops, licensing rackets.

You have the social contract, never signed, can't negotiate, terms change unilaterally, no exit clause, born into bondage. And then you have no competition allowed. Post office monopoly for letters, currency monopoly, education monopoly on accreditation, healthcare monopoly for prescriptions, and justice monopoly for courts. So again, these are just a couple of examples, not here to even necessarily debate these, but I'm giving examples of types of topics that we might want to have further conversations and bring people that know more about them than I do and that have different perspectives on them. I mean, obviously, I'm giving you my viewpoint on some of these.

these first principles apply again I I when I started this I started it from the concept of you know the election was looming and I'm like this election doesn't matter it's over we need to start building something new and then I I lost my attachment to necessarily it being about saving the us and started thinking more about it more broadly and we really need to bring these kinds of first principles to if you want existing governments if you were going to try to fix the united states I would argue that the best way to go about doing it would be to begin to have a debate about first principles as opposed to you know debates about which side you like in the epstein saga

or the other things that we tend to talk about nothing to do with first principles. politically that have I think that first principles apply and are really important to network states. I like what Sterling is doing in terms of working on coming up with best practices and sharing ideas and tools for I would argue the L ones, how you actually implement a network state. I think that if you had first principles, you had a kind of a layer below that where you provided an open platform for people to debate and discuss first principles. I think that would be useful for that, for that as well. I think it's completely needed in AI governance. There's stuff going on with AI that,

where they've already made a decision. The technocrats that are leading the charge on this already have definitive ideological viewpoints, and they already have first principles that they're operating on. And they all have agreement on what those are. So what you're seeing going on now is the crafting of rules for AI that I don't think anybody would agree what was actually going on. with if they understood But it definitely trends towards centralization towards more authoritarianism and and it definitely moves towards not value valuing individual rights or free will at all and this is going on in a very quick way and when you start

digging into what the people believe I mean elon musk is a technocrat we've talked about that I will do a whole separate episode on lot of people that have no that because there are a idea about musk They think that he's saving the world, he's saving free speech. They don't know about his explicit push for technocracy and his ties to technocracy and his grandfather and everything else and what he's pushing. They're buying the propaganda. But you look at Sam Altman, you look at the guys behind Anthropic, which were funded by Sam Bankman Freed. He was a big investor in that. There's a big effective altruism angle to Anthropic, which is clawed. And I view effective

altruism as the ends justify the means. Again, it's something that literally doesn't value free will or individual rights at all. So all of the major players behind the centralized models for AI, now there are models like what Mike Adams is doing and there are others, there's Venice.ai, but in terms of, but none of those people are involved in shaping government policy regarding this. Whenever you see a round table at the White House and you see people being introduced, you're going to see the CEO of Google, the CEO of Microsoft, you're going to see Elon Musk, you're going to see Sam Altman. You're not going to see Mike Adams. You're not going to see Eric Voorhees. are part of the discussion.

Those are not people that And they're not the ones that are drafting the laws and putting in the liability shields and everything else. So I think a first principles approach to AI is good. I think even for a personal philosophy, I mean, I've heard the idea of people putting together their own individual constitutions. I think it was a good exercise for I mean, people to take an inventory of, well, okay, what are your first principles? What are your core beliefs? Do you have any? are you reevaluating those on a regular basis? And these can also be applied to community protocols. I mean, I talk about, you know, this in the context of America, two point O, but this could apply at any level.

This could apply to a local government. It could apply to a local organization or association. So I'm going to switch back now to one of the, to the Aaron day show website. and what I want to do is let me see if I've got this right here show you what I've created related to this concept which is again I've given you a couple of ideas of things that we might want to talk about. Are these the right things? I don't know. I, and I don't want this to be about me driving this. I see somebody who's already added Oh, something. So if you go to the Aaron day show.com,

I'll put in the direct link here, the Aaron day show.com forward slash principles. you can get a sense for for how this site operates and what I'm going for here and by the way when we get to the q a I'm open to even feedback on this approach but I just wanted to start somewhere because what I'm what I'm getting at and what the intention is is to have the community discuss what they think are the important first principles. And for the community to nominate people to discuss those first principles, I'll moderate or co-moderate. I may even bring in other people to help co-moderate those discussions.

And then, you know, over time, we'll build up a library of discussions around these topics where the community can also participate in the Q&A, both of the speakers when we have discussion and then afterwards so the whole point is this is to start an ongoing discourse on these topics there's no I expect this to be something that you know I do this podcast twice a week so you know roughly eight times a month I'm thinking about you know maybe this is something that we do once a month is have one of these and we just keep it going I mean I I don't see a you could have a lot of talks on this. You could have, you know, you could have different discussions just on free

will on any one of these topics. And so, but I want this to be something that people participate in. So when you go to the Aaron day show.com print forward slash principles, you can see an area here. You can log in and create an account that's necessary. You can see what's in there, but if you actually want to submit your own principle, if you want to nominate a speaker, If you want to comment on any of these first principles, you need to create a free account. Again, it's completely free. But I've structured this where it's like, okay, well, here are, you can see now we have two principles. There's free will. Humans possess genuine agency to make choices that aren't entirely

predetermined by prior causes, genetics, or algorithms. Without free will, there's no moral responsibility. No justice system makes sense. And technocratic nudging becomes justified. If we're just biological machines following predetermined patterns, then algorithmic governments and behavioral manipulation are logical. Free will is the foundation that makes human rights, democracy, and personal accountability meaningful. So that's one. You can vote that up or down. You can nominate a speaker. to be a part of the discourse, part of the conversation that we ultimately have on that. So again, you can move it up or down. Free will. So I see, did I just do that? Okay, free wills plus one.

Then we have somebody, I submitted that one. Someone else submitted self-funding social productivity. The value of an individual's voluntary contribution of energy, talent, and creativity to society should not be based upon other people's appraisal of that contribution. It's absurd to corral people's potential until someone else is willing to pay them to contribute. The act itself of contributing socially productive labor should create the reward, payment, credit, money, currency, whatever. A vast array of currently unpaid services could then receive the reward they deserve. Voluntary services would flourish and raise the quality of life for all. There would be no such thing as unemployment,

as other people's money would no longer be required to contribute talent and energy to society. So, again, an interesting topic. Haven't thought through that one yet. I'm sure there's a lot to unpack there, but it's great that that's been submitted. And again, you can create, you can log in right now and add your own principle. You can vote or up or down these principles, and then you can submit a speaker. I've already nominated... Courtney Turner to participate, to be one of the speakers on the topic of free will, given her extensive background on this topic and the fact that she not only writes about it, brings others on to talk about it, but she actually hosted a

summit on cognitive liberty. So that's why I dominated her. But again, my point in all of this is I don't know what all the first principles are. I don't know who all the people are that the best people are that we should bring into this. I'm looking for your help. And I want this to be a community project. This is something that, again, is far beyond. whatever I could create. I'm not even going to be participating in, And again, other than as a moderator, the discussions themselves. So this is, so I really, my hope behind all of this is that we really start to have meaningful, because I will say, I don't know where there are these meaningful conversations. Look at, what is social media?

I mean, think about it. Social media now, these are algorithms that are actually largely designed to feed data into AIs for the technocrats who run them. And they use all kinds of techniques like rage different algorithmic baiting and everything else. There's no intention algorithmically in even conversation that I'm describing. having the kind of And you're certainly not going to get it through the mainstream media. Now, sadly, what we're discussing here is something that this is what universities used to be about. Universities used to be about people trying to pursue the truth and having these conversations. And now I would argue that they have turned into the opposite of that. They have,

academia has turned into the inversion of itself. academia used to be revolutionary, right? Academia used to be where people discussed ideas. And the whole idea behind tenure was that it gave freedom for people to pursue the truth on topics that were, you know, perhaps maybe taboo or were against the grain, but that needed the space for pursuit and deliberation and discussion. Sounds like a great idea. Now, Tenure is where people go to basically get a free pass to push indoctrination. It's become the opposite of it. So we're not having these kinds of debates.

And as Toby said about Big Pharma and about medicine, medical schools, PhD programs, research, clinical research, this stuff isn't tied to pursuit of truth. This stuff is tied to truth. the economic interests of big pharma largely. So I'm hoping this is a platform for us to be able to have these ideas. And anybody can contribute. Again, I want this to be broadly. So don't look at the examples that I gave or whatever I just flimsily put out here. When I did my original talk, my original talk was only fifteen minutes. And as I was going through my notes, I actually covered a lot of ground of kind of like, well, here are some first principles. Here's what I think were

first principles at the founding. maybe they're right maybe they're wrong here are even some of the original elements of you know in the constitution you know I was kind of going through and trying to dissect where did we go wrong and so whatever this has been meandering in my mind for a few years now is is is doing something like this one of the other things is I kind of modeled this off of um free to choose which was this series that milton friedman did where he would do his own ten or fifteen minute almost like documentary on a topic And then he would invite a panel of people to come on and discuss or debate it. It wasn't a formal debate and it wasn't just one other person.

It may be five, six, seven people with different views on the topic. And then they would talk about that topic. And I always thought that was a great format because we don't have that anywhere. Media is structured. I went through, when I had my first company in the nineties, I hired a PR firm and I actually went through media training. and and people will tell you this and then having been involved in politics if if you if you're engaging in politics and you're trying to win not you're there trying to authentically communicate values or principles then they'll tell you well you know you have to get your talking points down and whatever you're asked as a question ignore what the question is

and just use that as time to say whatever you're going to say so now the debates that are structured Or you have one minute here, two minutes here. You maybe get to make three minutes as an opening comment. And then everybody then just adopts this same tactic of, all right, well, this is airtime. So I'm going to use this as a platform to say whatever I want to say, whatever my talking point's on. There's a complete absence of exchange of information. It's literally a rapid fire propaganda contest. And so it's unfortunate. I used to watch some debates. I mean, I think I've talked about this before. There's this debate with Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry against some people.

The topic of the discussion was, was the Catholic Church a force of good? for the world or not. And it was like a three hour You can find it on YouTube. debate or whatever. That was a great debate. in terms of actually how it was I mean, structured and they actually did this cool thing where they pulled people before and then pulled people after to see if people change their minds. And actually people change their minds, which is unusual because I've been to debates at like, for instance, freedom fest where they would do this, you know, what's your opinion going in and going out. And literally there was no change. Um, and so anyway, I've, I've just been trying to think about how to take the

best snippets of some of these different approaches and then put it into a community driven platform where maybe we can get some of this stuff going. So, um, in any event, I think, so I encourage you to go to the Aaron day show.com forward slash principles. There may even be some bugs, uh, uh, with the registration. I think most of them have been worked out. At least it worked. earlier today, you can check your spam filter, there may be some issues with you know, depending on how many people sign up, there may be a little bit of a delay, you actually will get a you have to confirm your email address in order to to confirm the account. So Anyway, with that said,

I think I'm about ready to open it up. I'll put the link. Again, it's possible no one shows up for this because this timing and the day got complete. I'm elated that there are almost fifteen hundred people here now because I didn't think I didn't think that we'd see much of a turnout given that it's the wrong wrong day entirely and it's been rescheduled twice so grateful for everybody that showed up I'm going to send links around to some regulars that join this but um but in any event this isn't america two point oh it's human systems you know x.o so multiple experiments parallel paths continuous evolution I I'm not pushing

The only agenda that I have is that I look around me and I think that people are largely having discussions, discourses, debates, whatever it is, on irrelevant topics where they're focusing on the layer two agenda. And no matter what the outcome is of that particular debate, it doesn't change or address any fundamental understanding or discussion about first principles. And because of that, everything is decaying. institutions are in this inverted point, And I think most of our not just government institutions or political institutions, but even businesses. I'm old enough to remember when Silicon Valley... was about innovation and people thought Silicon Valley was and it largely

was somewhat libertarian in the in the nineteen eighties. California was was Republican, but but as a subset of California, Silicon Valley was more on the libertarian side. Now, these guys are funding, most of the funding for venture capital firms comes from public sources, whether it's pension funds or universities. And they're essentially incubators for the military industrial complex or big pharma. And they heavily rely on now government contracts. I mean, to that end, I'll just add as a Little sidebar, you may have seen the news

today that Larry Ellison is now the richest man in the world. He's just surpassed Elon Musk. And what a lot of people don't know, I've talked about this. He actually powers, Oracle powers the Federal Reserve. and he's also working on this operation stargate or whatever it is with open ai and everything else so he's working on targeted mrna solutions for a variety of health conditions he has made public statements about he's all for surveillance capitalism and he's all for pushing that I

mean he's eighty four years old And if you look at him, he looks like he's fifty. I'm sure he's spent a ton of money getting there. I mean, he's probably maybe one of these that's, you know, using the blood of young children and whatever it happens to be. But the thing is, you know, complete technocrat, completely openly pushing this agenda. So we see that Courtney Turner is going to join in at some point. Let me send around a couple of. other links here I'm hoping craig uh can make it also we've been trying that for So anybody can join. I know we've had some really interesting conversations on here.

And it's a pretty diverse group of people. I have not, I will say that I've been, sites and doing all this stuff, as I've been building these I am so far behind. I haven't created any clips. I used to do, I used to create, I don't know, ten to twenty short clips per episode because this podcast usually runs three or four hours. I haven't done any clips since I did the forty day fast for roger I haven't done any clips since episode thirteen so we're you know thirteen fourteen episodes in where I haven't even created the clips but one of the most exciting parts of the uh of doing the clips are some of the clips and discussions that come out of this Q&A. So, so far it's been pretty good.

We haven't had to boot anyone. Here we go. There's Courtney. Hey, how are you? How are you? I'm well, thank you. I'm great. Awesome. Yeah, I love this. I've been listening. I missed a couple of spots, but I was able to catch most of it. So yeah, I like where this is going. Awesome. I'm going to try something here that, uh, so I created this, the day and day show and now there are user accounts and, and now people can watch the live stream right through the website. Um, and I'm trying to see that. Hold on. there should be the ability to display the comments

from people on the website here as well. So let me see if I can get that to work. It's been a crazy, crazy few days. Yes, it has. I think for everyone. I can't believe this Charlie Kirk thing. I know. Well, I can believe it, but it's, yeah, it's really tragic. He's thirty one years old. To me, that's like a kid. I mean, that should be condescending. I mean, he's really young. Like, that's it's crazy.

He is really young. And the thing is, the first time I started, I interacted with him. I worked with him on some political stuff and it was actually twenty fifteen. So he was only twenty one at the time. Yeah. I had a little bit of Yeah. interaction with him as well. When I was out in L.A., I was part of a group called they called themselves Smear at the time, the Santa Monica Young Republicans. But we did a lot of events and we hosted him a few times, like when he was first starting out. So, yeah. Crazy. Crazy. All right, there we go. So I've got it. It works. Not that anybody is logged in or that anybody has an account, theerrandayshow.com and you but if you are at are watching the live

stream at theerrandayshow.com site and you are commenting, your comments will now pop up here live. So, so far we have my comments from testing it from this morning. So did you, I don't see a comment from you on there. Did you comment on the, on the live stream? On the live stream? Hold on, let me see. I may have... Nothing like developing on the podcast live. Oh yeah, I see. You said I am in. So let me... All right, I think I have a configuration problem. Okay. Yeah.

Very cool though. So this is connected to the website? So it's from the different streams, like on YouTube? this one is from the actual comments No, from registered users of the site itself. Oh, okay. So what I'm trying to move towards is to move away from any reliance on any of these platforms. I'm going to be streaming So ultimately, not even through YouTube, but I'm going to try to use this decentralized platform. ipfs thing so that so that we have a so that we're not subject to big tech at all yeah it's one of the options so what what is the website for this it's aaron it's the aaron day show.com the aaron day show okay and the more important thing

is that I created a, there's a tab on there for principles and, and this is where people can submit first principles, vote on first principles, nominate people to discuss this a little bit because you brought up, Okay, awesome. uh, So you brought up free will. And I would argue free will is under metaphysics. And I actually think metaphysics is where it starts. Metaphysics, ontology, and then first principles. I would not put free will as a first principle. I would say that that's where does free will come from? True. Right? but if we're going to have a debate Well, about it and somebody comes up with a position that we don't have free will,

Right. Well, then then they have different metaphysics. That's why they don't think we have free will. That's why we're doing different metaphysics. I can I can create a category for metaphysics. I'm hoping I actually one of the other things I'm going to add here is pulling. I wonder if people know what metaphysics is. So for those who don't know what metaphysics is, it's just like a philosophical term for, you know, the study of reality. Like what is the context of reality? And then downstream from that would be ontology. And ontology is the study of being, what it is to be. And usually related to humans, right? We're usually talking about what it means to be human. But it is really just the

study of being itself. Excellent. Hey, Craig, how are you? Hey. Good. How are you guys? Good. How are you? Let me turn some lights on in here. Good. I feel like I'm in a cave. I mean, good for being in Washington, D.C. So I just joined in. Good. I hadn't really I was out running a bunch of errands. So I'm just kind of catching up on where you guys are at. But love the conversation so far. Yeah. Yeah. So like for Aristotle, like a first principle would be the law of non-contradiction.

So like something can't both be and not be simultaneously, right? It either is or it isn't. Just an example to concretize what the law of non-contradiction is. But that comes downstream from metaphysics, right? It's the structure of reality. Yep. Yeah. All right, well, I can add those in for categorization state. Because you were talking about how some people might argue that free will doesn't exist, right? So then you have to get underneath that. It becomes a conversation about metaphysics, which is what has been completely taken. You were talking about how universities used to have these conversations. Well, I mean, elementary school, you used to teach metaphysics.

They completely took it out. It's now out of it's out of education, academia. It's out of even just colloquial conversations. Even families don't really discuss it anymore. And where you would expect to have it would be in religious communities. And even they really don't discuss it anymore. So people aren't taught. Most people don't even know what the word metaphysics means. It's not their fault that that's the society we live in today. That is definitely the case. And again, I would argue a lot of the religious institutions I was talking about, the inversion, institutions have become a lot of religious the opposite of what they started out to be. I mean, now you have a lot of woke policies

being pushed by churches. You had where a lot of the churches came out on COVID and lockdowns. I mean, some of these things are it's incomprehensible related to the, the core purpose of these originally these organizations. Absolutely. Antithetical to, to what it means, like antithetical to everything the Bible stands for is what these churches were pushing. Yep. All right. Yeah. I'm, Yeah. I'm changing this site in real time as we're doing this. So this is, this will be a, this will be interesting. Which site is this Aaron? The Aaron day show.com. Okay. a couple of things that are important, And if you go there,

you can watch the live stream there, but more importantly, there's a tab for principles and this is where people can submit topics. Maybe I'll call it topics but the topics for instead of principles, discourse and then also nominate people to participate in those discussions. Yeah. I'm good. I'm signing up. It's telling me I can only

request it after seven seconds. You can only request it after fifty seven seconds. OK, I have a this is these are some of the things we'll be working through. I can only I can only sign up one per minute right now. I put these OK, I put the safeguards in there so that the emails don't get thrown into spam. So I'm trying to kind of work through this. I'm not trying to complicate things. This is why I call it an alpha. No, I just want to remind everybody, this is alpha. I mean, I'm, you know, development in production I'm literally doing live while on a podcast. So this is not a best, not a best practice, but we're, we're, we're doing it anyway.

I know the feeling that's what you got to do sometimes, right? You just got to find a way to get it done. Yeah. That's great. Yeah. So, yeah. So I'm glad I thank you for, for showing up. I mean, I had to reschedule this twice, so I didn't know that if we would get much turnout at all. I mean, we have far more people than, than I thought for this. That's awesome. I, Yeah. I had something tonight and it got canceled. So it worked out. Yeah. Excellent. When I really enjoyed the one, was it Friday? Thursday, last Thursday. That one was great.

Excellent work, Aaron. Thank you. There have been so many developments on the Zeno thing that I just finally had to do a full episode on it. And I know it's a lot to cover. I did talk about at the beginning of this episode, freedomforge.io, which is another site that I've launched that's in kind of the alpha stage as well. But there are how-to guides. So how to pick a wallet, how to... by Zeno and there are going to be a lot more. I'm going to be building out a library of free tools and resources. And then the other idea behind it is to be an incubator for creating projects because we need to create counters to every one of these technocracy threats. So everything that they're

building centrally, everything that they're trying to centralize with transparency is an opportunity to build in a way that's private and self-custody and outside of these systems, but it's hard for people to understand this. And so I want to create a site to help connect people and ideas. And I may even create some prototypes of how it works and then give it to people to run with just, just to plant the seed a little bit further, even than just, you know, suggesting an idea. Right. Yeah. Right. Well, I have a couple ideas. Yeah. I can't wait to get with you on it and see how we could actually plug it in, you know? So some of them may, Did we lose you?

Mid-sentence. Yeah, I don't know what happened. He's still showing us there. Hopefully he'll pop back in. There we go. I think I lost you guys. I think I was getting a call. you were so we didn't catch what you were saying my back or am I still lost you don't know you're you're back you but we didn't catch what you said because it was mid-sentence we lost you are you craig you there

are you hearing us no okay I think he's having some uh Perception issues, I guess. Yeah. Hopefully I'm pretty happy. This is a, I'm obviously I'm in a hotel So I'm pretty happy that the room as well. connection worked for the live stream. And it looks like. Here we go. There we go. Okay, great. Sorry about that. My daughter's just starting to drive and she was out tonight on her own for the first time. And she was just calling me, letting me know she got to. I think that's what blew me out of the room. So sorry about that.

But yeah, No worries. I don't know if you heard my question, Erin, in terms of like, oh, so I was asking about like, I've got a couple ideas for products and services that I think, you know, that I'd love to take to it. How, well, I'll have to get with you on that. But are you pretty good about the connection between taking an existing product that we could use you know, on a, on a existing website or, you know, um, and then bringing it on to Zeno, is it, what's the process? Because I, I'm almost thinking like for some of the subscriptions, I would like to force people to actually use Zeno rather than give them the option. Does that make sense? Yep. Um, there are some underlying tools.

So I've, I've written a plugin for WooCommerce, which is used with, uh, wordpress like eight million so you can you can plug that in and you can take xeno and I need to update it to be able to take um confidential layers uh privatized bitcoin and freedom dollar and everything else so I'm in the process of doing that it's a little bit more subscriptions and that it's difficult to do not it's not like you have somebody's private key on file that you can Ding, but that is an area that we can probably come up with a solution for and need to come up with a solution for, which is how do you handle subscriptions but retain all of the privacy? Okay. And by the way,

I don't want to be the one creating all of these products, but this is where we can use this FreedomForge site to... list these projects and then if there's enough demand for them then then have them built also so I that I want that website to be a collection for developers investors entrepreneurs people in the ecosystem to get everybody everybody together to help work on these things yeah Well, I have a couple of coders that work for me doing mostly like SQL and C sharp and, you know, some fairly heavy duty programming stuff. And, you know, I was talking to them about it and showed them a couple of clips from it. And they're pretty excited about it, too. I mean, they think it's great.

And they I think they could be helpful in the whole process, you know, because I mean, I could probably fumble through it, but they're much more skilled at me than doing stuff like that. So. Oh, no, we definitely need more developers. I mean, I'm not coding. When I started my first company, I did some development, and then I ended up taking the CEO role. And so I've been not I have not been doing programming for thirty years. So getting back into it was not It actually wasn't even my first choice. It was kind of somewhat out of necessity. Although I will say AI does make it so that you can be a pretty mediocre coder. And then all of a sudden, once you structure it right, it's amazing how much

coffee you can produce. But we definitely need many, many, many more developers working on this. The challenge is most of the developers in Zeno, I mean, they're hardcore privacy, but there aren't any people with that expertise. I mean, if you think about it, there aren't that many privacy coins. And the level of knowledge you need to do this kind of coding is actually pretty small. So most of the developers that they have are working on the core infrastructure and trying to keep it ahead so that it doesn't get cracked and to always stay ahead of all the threats. And so you don't need that level of expertise to build on top of it. They've created APIs, but we do still need to

find people to know about it and to get them up and building. Okay. Yeah. So it's telling me that I have created an account and that an email is waiting for me, but I don't see one. And I checked my junk. I don't know if it's taking a delay. It might be a delay. Just so you know, it's not, I mean, no rush to do anything about it. Just so you're aware. Did you have a big delay in getting an email? Yeah. Okay. So my wife is saying she had a delay as well. Okay. That's what I figured. Yeah. Okay. Good. We're real, real time debugging here on the air and Asia. That's the beta test phase, right?

Well, this is the, yeah, this is the alpha test. I'm calling this the alpha. Yeah. Great. Well, yeah. Seven minutes. Okay. It took me up. After I clicked on the email, I still couldn't log in, which took another seven to ten minutes to log in. All right. So my wife's saying it took seven minutes. Roughly to get the email and then another seven minutes or so for it to work, to be able to log in with that account, which is weird. It didn't happen, of course, for me when I was testing it this afternoon, but we'll work out all the bugs. Okay. Somebody else figured out

how to get in and actually already submitted a principal, so I know it is working. Hopefully it's just there's so much overwhelming demand for this that we can't. Yes. That's great. That's a good problem. So I don't know where we want to go. So I'm updating. I will update. I will add metaphysics. And again, everything about the structure of it, I just wanted to get a placeholder here. The general idea is people propose topics. People propose people to talk about those topics. And then we have those conversations. And then people can actually interact, submit questions while the conversations are going on. And this just becomes a

place where people go to have these kinds of fundamental discussions that aren't happening anywhere else. That's really all there is to it. That's great. I think metaphysics are a really good place to start. Metaphysics, ontology, and then first principles are downstream from there. So I've already nominated you to participate on the free will discussion, but do you have any other thoughts on who else we could get to that conversation? Hmm. So is it online conversation or is it how is the conversation being organized? Well, I just put it as free will and I put

the description on the website under the principle. And then I believe people can comment even on that so we can refine what that means and ultimately get to get to the point where, OK, what is the title of the discourse? and then nominate people to actually be a part of the discussion. And I'm thinking anywhere from two to four people. And I can moderate, or depending upon the topic, other people can moderate. In this one, I nominated you to be an actual, one of the main people talking about the talk. Of course, you could be a moderator as well, but in this one, I think you have excellent domain expertise. Well, thank you. I appreciate that. Yeah, I'm happy to.

So, yeah. So I'd be commenting in the on the under where it says first principle, where it says free will. So is that how that's how the conversation will be? The conversation will ultimately be a hosted talk, right? It'll be a live interactive talk. Great. And then there will also be comments. People can comment. During the talk, after the talk, it's meant to be an ongoing discussion or however you want to phrase that. But the whole point of this is just to determine what topics we should talk about. So it's to get feedback on what topics to have and who to have in those live discussions. So we're going back to that level to see, rather than just me saying, oh,

let's talk about this, this, and this. I mean, I have certainly thoughts on what some key issues are, but what do I know? And I did get a lot of comments and emails back. Usually when I send emails out, notifying people to podcast, I actually usually get zero response. It's been kind of eerie. But on this one, I actually posed a question like, what do you think is the most important first principle? And a lot of people actually responded, which I was excited to see because people are actually very interested in this and want to contribute. So I'm hoping we get the website stuff figured out and we get a lot of people contributing ideas and nominating speakers. Awesome.

Did you see a theme to some of the responses? Was there kind of a consensus there or was it, was there a lot of different broad spectrum ideas? There were a lot of broad spectrum ideas. I mean, one of them was actually this idea of self-funding social productivity, which somebody submitted into the chat, which was out there. The idea of the value of an individual's voluntary contribution of energy, talent, and creativity should not be based on other people's appraisal of that contribution. I'm not sure how that works, by the way. I'm not endorsing this concept, but I'm just saying that that one was out there. And I'm going to actually look through my emails right now and see what some

of the others are. what some of the others are. Freedom in all it encompasses. Autonomy from big pharma and the medical cartel. Privacy. Each person has the right to control their own health interventions, but this is included in your example below. a specific plan and specific architecture, read it, digest it. I can build it. Okay. This is somebody I've talked to before. In fact, this might even be related to the self-funding social productivity. Um, let's see.

Free will God's greatest gift to us has been hijacked through evil forces. Oh, here's the, so they actually listed a poem, um, It's nice. Do not do unto others what you do not want done to you. So, you know, it's a broad... And again, the difficulty with this is we need to frame it. It's like you said, okay, is it metaphysics? Is it ontology? Is it philosophy? Is it first principles? I mean, we still have a categorization piece to it. And a lot of the feedback, these are specific... instances that relate to a first principle or relate to metaphysics but trying to get back to the these core ideas is going to be tough this is why I threw out some examples just because you know it's kind

of like what I'm doing with the freedom forge thing where it's like here here's some things you can build on it but you can literally build anything so I'm trying to open this up and will probably as we do more podcasts kind of frame this differently and push people to this site so since this site is launched I'll send around an email to everyone and hopefully we can get some interactivity if I fix the login issues and and some consensus will emerge um you know I'm going to be at this brownstone thing it sounds interesting I was looking at that it looks pretty interesting Yeah, so I'm going to speak to them. I don't know if I'm going to – I'm speaking at the event.

I don't know if I'm going to speak about this or if this is going to be an appropriate thing to talk about on stage. There are going to be four hundred people there, but maybe it is. If it is, I'll slip it in, but I definitely will talk to people about it offline. And related to this, obviously we've talked about Brett Weinstein before. Is there a – I'd like to, if I get time with him, maybe frame or propose a topic. Mm-hmm. Sure. Um, in, in terms of, well, what are you thinking? Well, I don't know. I'm actually, I'm more, I'm asking. So if, if in, in studying what he's, what you know about what he's been doing, is there a metaphysical concept or discussion?

I actually may, maybe would he be a good person to have to talk about free will? He'd be a great person to talk about free will. I do think it's a metaphysical premise. I mean, that was my argument in the Epstein article, is that the metaphysics are, I mean, they're fundamentally opposed to my metaphysics. Yep. Yeah. My metaphysics are, you know, that we are not the architects of reality. Reality exists outside of us. There is a created order of things. There's a fixed nature, a natural order. The Latin term would be reverum natura. I do believe there is a creator. He's endowed us with the

gift of free will. And he gave us this gift of free will because we are rational beings with the capacity to adjudicate morality. And the free will is a gift, but it's a vehicle to pursue virtue and morality. Yeah. How would you steer that, Courtney? I mean, if you were talking to Brent, how would you steer that conversation? Like, or would you just open it up and let him go? Or would you kind of steer it in the direction with kind of an outcome or not necessarily an outcome, but a, you know, an end point, you know, some kind of a, you know... Well, I mean, with the Epstein article, if we just take Brett alone, his whole founding is upon

the Darwinian notion of evolution, the theory of evolution. And I would argue that that's a contestable theory. That's not fact. And he's predicating really this whole concept of how we can design the next operating system for civilization based on this notion of Darwinian theory. So, I mean, I would, I think that's a... Well, so maybe, maybe Darwinian theory is the debate or discussion topic. That's definitely, I think it's up for debate for sure. And that, I mean, that's tied to metaphysics as well. So... Yeah, that's where we go with all of it. That's why I did that section five,

which I know a lot of people didn't really have a whole lot of interest in. But my point really was that their philosophical underpinnings only lead to transhumanism and technocracy. That's where they go. They have no place else to go because they are constructivists in nature. You know, they're not predicated on the notion that reality exists outside of us. They think they can be the architects of reality. Now, whether they're aware of this or not, I don't know. But that is actually what they're exposing. So yeah, so I think it is important. I don't know if you had a chance. I think I sent it to both of you, the back and forth I had with Jordan Hall.

He has said that he wants to do a podcast. And, you know, I think he's very clever. I think he's really good at rhetoric. So a lot of the words sound like he's coming from the same place that I am, but I can hear the metaphysics are different. And so, yeah, that's really where it goes to transhumanism and technology. You know, I keep talking about how it's a, I call it the technological immunization of the eschaton. And I know that's a mouthful for some people. You know, people who might be more religious might be familiar with eschaton, right? And the immunization of the eschaton is just a political concept for, you know, bringing about the end times.

And people want to bring the end times because they think, you know, then we're going to have heaven on earth. This is the concept. And I call it the technological immanentization of the eschaton because I think they feel that if we can terraform, essentially, you know, create transhuman beings and a simulacra of Earth that they think we'll have a heaven on Earth. I think it will be a you know dystopian hellscape that's that's my opinion uh but it is a simulacra that they're trying to create and for those who aren't familiar with simulacra this is a term uh coined by bulgar he was a French philosopher but it's a the best way I could explain it is if you take like an

orange right this is uh you know something out of nature it's real uh we can bite into it we know oranges are are real. I believe they're, you know, part of God's creation. And then you want to make orange juice. You still, it's still coming from orange, right? So it still has the, the real thing in it. You might squeeze out, maybe you leave out some of the pulp, but you, you leave it. It's, it's really from the fruit. Maybe you might add some water or sugar, you know, but it's pretty close to the real thing. Then you want to make some orange candy. And so now you make some chemicals that kind of taste like orange flavor. You don't really use any orange if you do very, very little.

And now it's just like it's this replica of what orange is, but it really has no connection to the original thing anymore. That would be a simulacra. OK. So now as this stuff gets formed, right, so as a thesis gets formed, right, so, you know, all these topics that you guys were talking about when I jumped in and then, you know, it's going to go on the website and then things are going to get filled in over time. And then so that forms some sort of a kind of a pathway of, you know, a road, right, in a direction, you know, explaining what technocracy is as you write this book, Aaron, and as you write more papers, Courtney, and things like that. But then we take the technocrat side of things

and we have a parallel road. Is there a way to like, do you think, are you thinking Aaron, there's a way to put this together where people could come in pretty quickly and look at this and see like, okay, I see, you know, like at this checkpoint, you know, you know, here at this node on, you know, the free will side of things, you know, here's the Darwinism side of things, you know, and you don't mean where it's a quick, where people can get up to speed quickly. I mean, is that, are you thinking that way, Aaron, or is that, and I'm just trying to kind of think about how this lays out over, you know, the next three months, six months, nine months. And we know we're in this

race for explaining this. And, you know, I know you're working hard on that book and I know Courtney's always working hard on things. How does that come together? Do you think where we, where we show this, where people can come in pretty quickly and get up to speed with what, you know, where we're at on this stuff? Well, I'm not trying to push people necessarily in a, Particular direction. I mean, these are going to be open. We don't know what the outcome of the discourse is going to be. Right. Where I came out with this was I started out with the idea of we need America two point oh from first principles and we need to reexamine where we went wrong.

And was it was it at layer zero, layer one, layer two. And then as I. got to thinking about it more and it was exploring network States and everything else. Like we just need to have these first principles discussions and then people can apply them however they want. You may, you may have people that listen to a couple of discourses on a topic and different people come out with different conclusions. Somebody might say, well, I, you know, I believe this Darwinian approach and that informs what they're doing. The important thing from my perspective is I just, I think it would be helpful if whatever people are doing, whether it's developing your own individual constitution,

how we approach a discussion about AI, how we might fix this country, how you might operate yourself with an individual constitution, that people are having that discussion from, from first principles. That's the main point. So I'm not directing an outcome. I certainly have my own thoughts on what's critical and what's important. But I also think it's important that we have these open discussions because they're not being had anywhere. I don't know where these discussions are being had. So this particular part of this, which I think I'm going to try to do once a month. So one out of eight of my podcast is going to have this as a component to it. This is just an ongoing...

Fundamentally important thing. One of the other things that I said is first principles don't change very often, but this isn't like a scientific principle. The one thing that's different about first principles is that we choose them. I mean, as opposed to like gravity's gravity, some of these scientific concepts, they are what they are. But when it comes to these human systems, we actually choose them, which is unique and different. And sometimes... We choose things based on first principles, but then we have learning that causes us to actually change our understanding about first principles. That shouldn't change very often, but it does happen. And when it does happen,

that's always a good point to rethink everything. You know what I mean? When you have those kinds of important things. So I'm not... Again, I'm not pushing an agenda. I just want to have a platform to have these conversations with the hope that then people start whatever it is that they're working on. They're working on from first principles because no one's operating out of first principles or things are being pushed from first principles and people aren't aware that they are being done from first principles and don't know what those first principles are. And that will be exposed to part of this as well. Okay. Well, so we're doing these technocracy roundtables and we have, you know,

we're putting together a list of different things we want to go through and, you know, we'll come up with some sort of a, I don't know, a pathway or a conclusion at some point of the technocracy, right? Some sort of at least a pathway where we think this is going, you know, Darwinianism. I mean, Courtney knows all these terms, but the network state and then this and that and all these other things that they're taking, they have a pretty clear path, right? The technocracy must have a pretty clear path. They learned from the nineteen thirties. They've learned through time. They have this pathway. I mean, are we going to sort of challenge those nodes, you know, these points in time where

they're checkpoints? Is that part of the thing? You know, like, how do we how do we measure our thoughts and apply our thoughts back to this pathway that they're on? You know, does that make sense? Is that. Do I need to do I need to go further on that or is that sort of. I didn't catch the last part. Yeah, well, so I think the technocracy has a very clear path. yeah I think that they're you know they have a beginning point whatever that was they have an end point they have a process process that they're in somewhere along that pathway and there's obviously nodes like we could pick out points in time okay this is where you know they rolled out this you know this uh you know

set of laws you know under reagan and you know you could do it on a timeline basis you could do it on just an event structure you know events that occurred or timeline So they clearly have this and we could call out these nodes. This was an important point in time because of this or that. As we open up this and debate and challenge and open up this to thoughts, like Aaron was just saying, with no direction in mind, can we find a way to apply that back to the technocracy to challenge it? Does that make sense? We're actually challenging their pathway, assuming that we know what it is or we can sort of detect what it is and then apply some of all these thoughts, everybody's ideas backward,

just I don't know that's the way my mind works is I'm developing things you know is like okay here's where I'm trying to get to here's where I think things are going and then I'm open for all kinds of thoughts and ideas you know to how you get there does that make sense so I I would I would like to see curtis yarvin and harari actually participating in some of these down the line so so the point is I mean to get them actively engaged in the discourse because I want people to see what is underlying these systems. I want people to see and understand what technocracy is all about and see what these people actually believe in espouse because they're not ashamed of it.

This is not a situation where They're being covert about it. He says it all the time. We have no free will. That's a thing in the past. It doesn't exist. Although he says that he's going to upload the very thing he says we don't have to the cloud. He's going to upload our consciousness that we don't have, which I'm not sure how he reconciles those two things. I'd love to hear that from him. So, so yeah. So I think, so those comments get made as offhanded comments and then they get put in memes or whatever, but I actually, but we don't have long form discussions about that. I mean, because they're usually clips from longer form. I mean, he does say them and it is contradictory.

I don't know how, like I'm being genuine. I don't know how he reconciles those two. How does he say we don't have free will, but he wants to upload our consciousness to the cloud. That's the, it's an oxymoronic statement to me. So I actually would, I have not heard, maybe I've missed it, but I have not heard him reconcile those two. I would like to hear that. How do you reconcile that? So yeah, so I would hope that what this discourse does is cause people to actually start thinking about these things because right now nobody's thinking about these things in these terms. And I think once people see these topics being challenged, people are going to be like, wait a minute,

that's what they mean by this? Right. And so then I think naturally what's going to come out of that is people, you know, I'm making a whole bunch of assumptions here, but my assumptions here are that when people see these ideas actually being challenged, Discussed in longer format, not just discussed, not as part as, you know, there's a there's a one sided presentations, right? You don't see Harari debating. You don't see Curtis Yarvin debating. Once you actually see. I think it was Monday. What? He did. Curtis Yarvin just did a debate. Who did he debate? It was E. Glenn Wilde. And it was very much like left and right side very much.

Um, yeah, I think it was Monday. It was the sixth. So whatever they were at. Yeah. Um, Saturday, maybe Saturday. No, no. Uh, it was, it was, Oh, maybe you're right. Okay. Yeah. Microsoft's Glenn. While. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and, uh, Oh yeah, it was, uh, It was Jarvin, you know, talking about like his, how he, so Glenn brought up that quote, he didn't actually put that part of it, but you know how he said like the humane alternative to genocide is to virtualize humans. He brought up a different part of that quote, but it's essentially that quote.

And Yarvin defends it. I mean, this is what he believes. You know, it's a, yeah, free will only for the elites. Everybody else should be controlled by the CEO dictatorship, the monarch. And he thinks that really is the best way. And he thinks he's perfectly justified in it. But yeah, it was an interesting debate. I don't completely agree with, you know, Glenn Weil was kind of the left-hand path of the debate. But he did say that he does not support network stays. So I was glad to hear that. He said it's techno feudalism, which I do agree with. I don't think there are. I don't agree with your stance that it was co-opted. Balaji is pretty clear about who he stands on.

He doesn't claim he created it. I just the concept of network states that is it's the same all around. You just have different flavors of it. So, you know, again, the analogy that I would use is like you have ice cream. And you, but they're all made with, you know, toxic chemicals. None of them are made with the real stuff, like real, you know, natural cream, sugar. And they just have different flavors. So you, you know, people who want strawberry, people want chocolate, vanilla, but it's still all the same poison. And that's that, that is really, we can debate it. But to me, there is no, it's just different types of net worths. So you might have your, your vegan one, or you'll have your

a carnivore one you can pick either one of those but you're still in the concept still the same I think I think you could have a network state that is actually built on on solid foundational principles I I agree with you that they've gone a certain way but I don't agree that they were always that way I mean sterling was working on this stuff on on these concepts of network states before that the term was coined into now polis polis is totally game b I I mean even the you can talk it's a post-malachian system I mean that's literally game b terminology it's total that is what it is um so I looked into that I have not done a dive onto logos so but I'm I'm

guessing it's based on the language I heard him use it's very much predicated on that framework which again, it's a constructivist framework. So, and it's based on, he said himself, it's based on Lockean contractarian principles, which is not natural law. And he did start to come around to that. I know it sounds like natural law, but it's not natural law. Natural law, again, we have to go back to metaphysics. Where does natural law come from? What is the natural order of things? Where does that come from? Well, so again, it sounds like there are a lot of topics to have a longer form discussion on. And there's some great, I mean, you know, again, Sterling would be a great one to have.

Sure, yeah. And I hope he's in the right place. You know, I don't think he's like a malevolent person or, you know, I don't agree with him on a lot of foundational things, but I think he means well. So, yeah, I think you'd be a great person to have these discussions with. And so, again, I just wanted to kick this off, and then we can start to collect the topics, collect the people, and then just see how it goes. Again, I don't have a – this isn't one of those – I don't have an outcome in mind. In fact, this is something – I was kind of demoralized when my talk was not – there were a couple of people that really liked it and were really engaged in it, but the fact that in this

group there wasn't more interest in it, there was more of a – Let's focus on, I'll call it the L-two, fixing the administrative state is not going to fix the drift from first principles, right? And so I'm like, all right, well, if this group isn't interested in it, then probably no one is. But it turns out that's not true. So again, I know this one is more abstract, but in many ways, I think it could end up being one of the more powerful parts of this. I think it's one of the very, like, I don't want to say the most important, but in many ways, I actually think it is. I think it's foundationally important. These are the people are trying to, I think I used this example last time too,

but I feel like people are trying to create a house. Like they've got a blueprint for a beautiful home, but they haven't built the foundation yet. And they haven't agreed what the foundation is even going to be. Is it going to be brick? Is it going to be concrete? Is it, I mean, what is the foundation? What does it look like? What is it made out of? How is it structured? And you're trying to build on top of that and you haven't gotten that squared away. That's what it feels like. Absolutely, is what it feels like. Or there are others that, you know, and again, have these technocrats had this conversation? Or I know you get in Silicon Valley a lot of groupthink. So have a lot of these ideas

just gone unexamined, which I think is probably the case. I actually don't. I actually don't. I think it's just that they've inverted the metaphysics. I think they had these conversations all the time. So Zach Stein, Kenneth Wilber and Mark Gaffney, they the three of them are known as David Temple. And it's kind of funny because they said the reason that they picked the pseudonym David Temple was because they didn't want any ego involved. But if you read this thing, you would think that's kind of funny because they create this whole like new anthro ontology of man. Where we can become homo universalis. So it's a little hubristic in my opinion. But what is it called?

It's called First Principles, First Values of Evolving Perennialism, Forty-Two Propositions on Cosmoerotic Humanism. This is a complete inversion, in my opinion, of the natural order of metaphysics. But they very much are aware. I think they know exactly what they're doing because those metaphysics allow them to be the constructors, right? They become essentially the gods or they're the philosopher kings who will control and rule. So it's very conducive. to them in that way. So I think they do know. Are there people who are true believers and they don't have an awareness of that? I'm sure there are. The best propagandists are true believers. It's like we think about a salesperson.

You don't want to hire a sales guy who's just a slick talker. You want a sales guy who really believes in the product because he's going to be the best sales guy. So a lot of propagandists really do believe what they are selling. But I think they also know, and that's why they create this. But evolving perennialism is the complete antithesis of free will, of the metaphysics that give us free will, I should say. Yeah. Why could it be that, you know, they have a plan and they're still figuring it out to some extent. So they bring in people like Harari and Yarvin to, you know, debate obviously smart people that they find and they have these you know they listen to them challenge them put them in

awkward situations see how they deal with it you know and and from that they help form you know the foundation right no because I just get concerned you know watching markets and watching you know the meeting in the white house last week where you've got thirty three tech specialists sitting around the table with president trump and you know you've got mark zuckerberg you know two feet on his right and you know melania and then you have um You know, Bill Gates, two feet on the left, you know, and and you think about this, you're like, I mean, you know, Mark Zuckerberg paid four hundred twenty million dollars. You know what I mean? To steal the election, you know, with the drop boxes.

And then, you know, Bill Gates, obviously the whole covid scam and however many other things he's been involved in. And then, you know, then you know that, you know, Zuckerberg spending fifty billion dollars on this Hyperion project in Louisiana, which is five gigawatts, which is five times the energy needed in Denver, you know, to run all of Denver's electricity. And I think they have to have some sort of a foundation, right? To be plowing ahead with this kind of assets and resources and things like that on the whole AI front and all this technology. And then I think like, okay, so what is Harari's role? You know, what is Yarvin's role? And I don't know Yarvin as

much because I just haven't seen as much. I'd love to watch that debate, you know, that he just had, especially with Microsoft. That's even more fascinating to me because I want to see like, I want to see the interaction and, you know, the human emotion and what's going on. I mean, I'm glad you mentioned that because I haven't seen it, but I'd love to see it. I just, I'm wondering like, what's that? Yeah. They were very professional and cordial with each other. A little too much or? Like too cordial? No, it wasn't. They really disagreed. But it was, you know, it was actually about the ideas. The audience got a little rowdy. I think some people got kicked out, actually. Okay.

Well, that's good. We love that, right? Yeah, I get what you're getting at. You know, Yarvin, Yarvin the character. I mean, I think Yarvin, it was also a construct in some ways. Teal very much platformed Yarvin, right? He invested in his Urbit project, which was a variation of a network state. And this was a while ago. And I think and Teal calls Yarvin, you know, the household philosopher. And he says that and Yarvin says that Teal is very enlightened. I mean, they've got a great bromance going there. So I think that Teal has platformed Yarvin. I don't know that Yarvin would be the name that he is without Teal.

And so. I I think he was instrumental I can see why but I think that they saw him as being very useful and they so they platformed him but his ideas are not I mean he didn't originate all of them right nick land preceded him so the dark enlightenment and uh nick land coined that so this uh and nick land is I mean his ideas are really wacky uh you know he's got a concept like talk about non-grounded in reality talk about metaphysics again right He's got this concept, he calls it hyperstition, where he calls it the catalyst for manifesting reality. So he's like read a few too many sci-fi books and done a few too many mind-altering drugs, in my opinion. And he thinks that we can

create our own reality. We just manifest this into existence. And he talks about, like, technoplastic beings. He coined the term GovCorp. It's very similar to Yarvin's SovCorp. But he used the term GovCorp initially. I mean, I could give you a long list. But, you know, Lan's ideas are also very influential to this whole dark enlightenment movement. And it comes out of this whole, you know, like a cyberpunk movement. He was a part of the CCRU. It was called the Cybernetic Research Culture Unit out of Warwick University. It was part of their philosophy department, along with Sadie Plant.

And she was like a cyberpunk feminist. And the two of them created this CCRU division. So, yeah, they have some. And so obviously it's based on cybernetics. We've got this whole and cybernetics is an outgrowth of like the whole, you know, like MKUltra period. Yeah. So systems theory and socio-technical systems. That's a lot of terms. We don't need to go into all of this, but that's where it comes out of. Yeah. But it's a little bit like, you know, you're painting that, you know, the ceilings and these, you know, famous churches and somebody's putting up the money for these people to do that. They don't necessarily know what the outcome is going to be, but they're like, OK,

this is a great painter. Let him go to town up there. Pay them, you know, pay them, you know, because obviously one person didn't paint all that. you know I mean it's a process you know it's like okay this person's in charge of laying out how this is going to go together and then they get a bunch of people up there with scaffolding and they start painting on the you know the top of these chapels and so forth but somebody's fronting that and that's similar is that a similar analogy to what's going on now in terms of It's like, okay, let's, we need to paint this. We need to create a foundation. We need to create a direction. Let's fund this Yardman. Let's fund this, you know, Harari.

Let's fund, what was the other name you mentioned? A couple of the other ones. Yeah. We don't know philosophers unless they've been funded, right? Like, I mean, philosophy is actually a lucrative field. Ask me how I know. You know, if you've heard of them, they probably have some handlers who've been funding their efforts. Yeah. Yeah. And we think Teal's funding Yarvin. There's a good chance Teal's funding Yarvin then. Yeah, a very good chance. He funded his Urbit project. So we know going pretty early on, he was behind him. So yeah, I would say he kind of put him on the map. And we can assume that Harari is getting funded through different sources, books, book payoffs. Right.

Because he had that book that was sponsored by Obama. You know, and then we also know the World Economic Forum. Right. So you're a great funnel for like laundering money. Right. And propping people up because you can buy a million copies of a book. Right. Oh, look, he's a seller. Right. And they have these ways of doing this where like they have distributed credit cards. They can make it look like it came from, they do this with online personalities too. They can make it look like, oh, all these people just donated to their YouTube. And really it's like one entity that's funding them with these distributed anonymous credit cards. Yeah. That makes sense. That fits. Yeah. It totally fits. Yeah.

Yeah. It's a big club. Isn't that what George Carlin said? Yeah, yeah. But we have to ask the question, it's not so much about the philosophers who are being propped up. Yes, we know that they're being funded, but the question is why? Why are they useful? Why is that philosophy? So I don't look too much at what is being said. I don't look at the rhetoric. I look at what is the function. What does their philosophy do operationally? And then we can trace backwards why it's useful, because what does it do? And so that's why I go back to it's like, these metaphysics that lend themselves to technocracy and transhumanism. So. Yeah.

Yep. Makes sense. Makes sense. Yeah. Oh, sorry. I was on mute. We have some comments here. I haven't been a little remiss in going through these comments. So we have Ethan Cohen, natural law is the way. like you said free will is true freedom and with great freedom comes great responsibility it's our duty to adopt first principles that respect the free will of all people rich jay says meta military enforcement of tokenization of assets that's a good one I like that I'm just I mean sadly it's accurate unfortunately uh ethan says the law of cause and effect as metaphysics

Christopher Freeman, I think Brett would be good to talk about free will for sure. He would also be a good person to talk to you about how kinds of systems you're considering might evolve useful for troubleshooting. Thoughts on that? Well, I mean, in terms of troubleshooting and how systems evolve, that's what he's doing with Game B, right? They call it a new operating system for civilization. But I think that before we get to that, I would want to go to free will and have a discussion about metaphysics because that'll reveal where metaphysics what his thoughts on the nature of reality are. And then we can figure out downstream from there. Because until we can have a

solid grounding on that, everything else is, again, trying to build a house with no foundation. And then you get to the conversation like Sterling and I were having, you know, it's a, we're talking over each other or kind of like, you know, it's like shifts in the night because we're trying to build this house. We haven't agreed on the foundation yet. So I personally would prefer to get there first. And we may find that we have completely different metaphysics, which is what I suspect we'll find. You know, I mean, I think he's an atheist. So I'm going to guess that the metaphysics are pretty different. Yeah. Well, that's logical, right? Start with the foundation,

establish the foundation first, right? And then it's easy to apply the other stuff, you know, without that makes total sense. I mean, it's so logical. So I love that. Yeah. So logical, but it's not that easy. Oh, I'm sure it's not easy. I'm sure. Yeah. But it's a good approach, right? The key is you got to have the right approach and then chisel away at it, you know, until, until you get there. And that's, that's, that's the beauty of it. I think it's the right track makes sense. Yep. Well, so we'll have to work a little bit more. I don't know if here, maybe even offline about even what to, what to propose or even how to frame the, even how to frame these discourses. Right.

So there's like, there's like, there's a, here's the question on offer. And, and like I said, I'm going to see him this weekend. And if I don't have time to see him this weekend, I'm gonna see him again at the end of October. So I would kind of want to work through how to, What that would look like. What that would look like. And then we might want to do a dry run of the, obviously I want to get some of the technical elements worked out here as I'm working behind the scenes to get the, people are actually setting up accounts. So I can say this, there are actually a lot of people that have set up accounts. So I'm pretty happy about, pretty happy about that. Ethan Cohen says as much as

open discussion is great, the people carrying this out don't seem to care about discussion before taking action on their beliefs. Well, I mean, look, they don't necessarily need to have – I guess the question is what they're doing does involve force. But I wouldn't necessarily think that if I were to do something, I would have to have a public debate about it. I mean, I might do that anyway, but I don't think that that's an assumption that most people have. That, okay, before I implement A, B, and C, I need to have an open discourse about it. On the flip side, though, these people seem pretty confident in themselves. And I bet we're going to get a higher hit rate over time

on people being willing to engage in these conversations. Because I think they're pretty sure about their beliefs. I think they are, too. Yeah. My concern really with a lot of these people and, you know, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical, but I think a lot of them are very skilled in sophistry. And so I do think some of these Yes. How do I say this tactfully? I think there are operations, you know, like let's just take the Epstein network. I think it's pretty common discussion to, you know, say and we've got a lot of evidence saying that he's tied to some sort of intelligence network. Right. You know, we can argue about the specifics, but it kind of looks that way.

Right. So if he is, then there's a plan, there's an operation. And a lot of operations work through epistemological warfare, right? It's information warfare. And so this is what I was saying about being very skilled with the rhetoric. So they might say something, but they might use a term like realness. And so it sounds like something I would say, but what they mean by it is completely different because they're coming from completely different metaphysics. And I've seen some of these people do this, where they're trying to merge things that don't merge, like the metaphysics of Plato and Aristotle and Spinoza, They are actually very different,

but they try to syncretize this. This is perennialism, right? This is what theosophy does. This is the UN religion. We're trying to syncretize these religions that are not necessarily compatible, but they cherry pick elements of it and then they make a big soup out of it. So my concern is like how much good faith there would be and that it would be a genuine discussion without the sophistry. That's a great point. And this is an issue for me, too, to think about in how to even structure these to make sure that that kind of thing doesn't happen. So how do we suss that out? And actually, with this hearing yesterday, this kind of came up because there was the person representing, I would argue,

big pharma in this whole panel about COVID and autism and specifically on autism. And this guy made all these big claims like, vaccines have saved a hundred and forty fifty four million lives and three point two million lives were saved because of the covid vaccine and everything else. And then Aaron Siri proceeded to say, look, this is part of the problem with these debates is it's the terms that they use and it's the way that they calculate it. For instance, you know, one of the Toby Rogers was trying to make the point. And so was Aaron Siri that vaccines are never tested against They're always only tested against other vaccines.

They're never tested against a true placebo. And the guy that was representing the other side said, well, no, there were these six hundred and sixty one studies that were this. And then They proceeded to have an argument about what you were just describing. There's not a common definition of terms. They use weasel language. And so by the time they deconstructed and Senator Ron Johnson did a good job as well, the way that they computed the one hundred and fifty four million to three point two million, even what they defined as a relevant control group, it was all made up. They weren't acting in good faith. They were absolutely fudging the definitions purposely. So the question is,

in moderating these things, how how to moderate them in a way Where as part of the process, you try to get an agreement about the definition of the terms as you're discussing them. Yeah. I think that's very important. And I mean, that's the first principle of philosophy, right? You have to define the terms. And it's also a debate as well. You need to know what are the terms, the parameters that are set in order to have a true debate, right? To have a true debate. And nobody is used to a true debate. People have not had a true debate in decades. in decades right all of the debates are like I was saying earlier it's okay you're gonna get one minute you're gonna get one minute

and all everybody says is whatever their talking points are there's no even intention of good faith or defining terms or you know whatever even trying to get to truth they're not pursuing something they're just presenting they're trying to uh present something so that's that's not a true uh it's not a pursuit I think that's what we're seeing. So it's just two people trying to essentially win a popularity contest. Usually it's not even really about the ideas, you know, even making the best argument oftentimes. But yeah, but they're not in a genuine pursuit of the truth. So if you look at a, you know, discourse, that's people, they might have different opinions. And I don't encourage people

to katao unless they're truly convicted, you know, like their mind has actually been changed by evidence presented. And that's perfectly valid. And I respect and welcome that. But you can have a discourse where people have very different opinions. They're coming from different places, but they're both genuinely seeking truth. They're seeking the real answer. Where does the truth lie? And that requires a level of humility. It requires a willingness to face your own cognitive dissonance. It requires a willingness to admit you might be wrong. It also requires a willingness to admit that you may be right, but you haven't formulated your argument in a cogent way. So that's what a true

discourse would allow for. Right. Well, it also would mean no agenda, you know, and so you'd have to have somehow where you'd vote people out who you see someone coming in with an agenda and the people could say, no, we see through this. There is an agenda here. You know what I mean? And you're out. Right. I mean, at some point you got to have the ability to basically kick someone out of the if you if you feel a repetitive agenda and you like Aaron said, you suss it out. You're like, wait a minute. So what you're saying is this. And, you know, but when they're not willing to. Like, again, if you're not going for the truth, you'll sense it pretty quickly. Right. And that there's an agenda.

That's the key, I think, is differentiating between two people really going at it to arrive at some, you know. discovery of, you know, discovery, right? Progress, you know, but you have an agenda, you don't really care about progress. You know, you have an agenda. But I'm also open to, I think that there's merit in exposing the fact that someone has an agenda, right? So sometimes you can get somebody to, using their own words and let them speak long enough to show themselves, reveal where they really stand and what their agenda is. And I think there's value in that. Then other people can see it. You've opened the lid, right? So I think there is value in that, but it's not always easy to

do because oftentimes when you're dealing with people who have an agenda, a lot of these people are very skilled rhetoricians, right? They're very skilled at manipulating language and making things sound good and building the rapport. So that's where it gets very tricky. And they're not going to give up on where they're going. So you almost wonder if, you know how when they do the, you know, we get used to these debates and then you have the meter, you know, going in the background where you, you know, you get a read from the people. I don't know. I mean, it'd be fun to see if there isn't some way to get a read from the people like, you know, because if you're

one-on-one with someone who has an agenda, it's very difficult. to single-handedly dismantle that agenda or expose it. But if you have a lot of people in the background who are saying, look, this is clearly an agenda. We're calling it out. Does that make sense? It's hard to do it by yourself sometimes. Yeah, I agree. It's very hard to do it by yourself. Yeah. Figuring out how to do something. I originally had conceived of this as being a debate and then thought better of it, but actually having it as good because then it, then it becomes, well, whoever did the best performance. And then I actually even started thinking about, we get into these things where, okay,

it's a poll who won or even on, on an issue where, You may come out, you've changed your mind somewhat, but with what we're talking about here, some of these ideas, there may be multiple discourses on one subject over time. And the idea, I think it's okay that people maybe change their views over time. That is left out of any kind of anything that we have. I mean, everything is structured as a black and white, yes or no debate, short, you know, whatever happened here is the definitive end of it. But I think you're right. I want to figure out a way to structure this. But it does need to be fair. I want the debates to be fair. And it is truly – I'm not trying to guide it one way or the other.

In fact, with some of this, what I realized as I was going through this, I don't know – I came to the conclusion I don't know what the answers are to some of these things. And I actually started thinking about American first principles versus modern challenges and how – how the foundational principles might apply to something like AI. And there's some interesting edge cases here. And, you know, where I came out of it is, you know, we need to have some important conversations here. There's a lot that hasn't been explored. Yeah. And I certainly don't have... many answers at all and so I you know let's create a format to to to try to get some understanding and but it is going to be tough and

it's going to be nuanced and it's going to be challenging and I don't want it to be something where like people are harassed and then no one wants to come on right I mean, yeah, no, like I'm operating in good faith. You're operating in good faith. We don't want people to feel like this is it's not an ambush. You know, it needs to be. It's just tricky because there are people who will present themselves as operating in good faith who aren't. And they're very, they're very masterful. So that's where it does get tricky. But I think if there is some structure to it, that that'll be helpful. And I do, I agree, there are some real challenges with, you know, modern times and AI and creating some

guardrails but I do think it starts with getting under some of these foundational concepts if we can lay some of the background work so I do think going back to the founding metaphysics is really a good start you know at least for in this country I don't know about in the rest of the world of course my hope would be that we could set an example um But if we could restore that, and then the AI guardrails are predicated on those metaphysics, and of course downstream from that would be the ontology and the first principles, then I think that we would have some checks and balances against where this AI is going, where some of this transhuman and technocratic

agenda is going. But it would require peeling back a lot of layers. So and I don't see any. This is easy. I'm not saying like this is a smoking gun kind of, you know, like a one shot deal kind of thing. It's I'm not suggesting that at all. But I do think that's where it needs to start. And I think there's a reason they took that out of schools. I think there's a reason even churches have inverted it. Right. This is not this is not accidental, in my opinion. I think this is by design. They don't want us to have these conversations and they don't want us to have an understanding of the metaphysical grounding that led to the Declaration of Independence. Because if we did, we would defend it,

I think. Yep. When I always think of natural law, you know, I had a law class, a business law class, and I remember a great professor, one of my, I don't like that many professors, but I really did love this professor. And we talked about this, you know, in terms of, you know, you're driving down a road, maybe it's a good example, maybe it isn't. And you're doing fifty five miles an hour. Well, if it's a sunny day, sixty five is fine and the streets are dry and there isn't a lot of traffic. But if it's snowy and rainy, then forty five isn't OK. You know, I mean, so that's the that's us making our decision. You know, as you're watching, you know, someone debate and you're saying,

wait a minute, this guy is trying to go sixty five and forty five. Right. Is where they really should be. People know this. People sense it. You know, you kind of know what's right and wrong. You know what your car can do. And then you also add in different cars. Right. Some cars can handle sixty five. Some can only handle fifty five. Right. Older cars can't. Newer cars can. So, you know, there's a lot of these different variables that come into it. I think, you know, that's how I always make. Does that make sense in how I'm framing the natural law component of this? This is, again, based on this is the nature of reality. Right. So you still have you've got this with humans, too. Right.

I mean, I'm not going to win any, you know, Olympic running competitions like it's just never going to happen. I could train all day, every day for the rest of my life. It's just not going to happen. That is that was not my gift. Right. There's just natural things. There's reality. And so this is true of humans. But the other thing that's true of humans is that we are able to adjudicate, right? So we are able to make decisions because we are rational beings, because we can extrapolate things about reality and about the nature of reality. So we can make logical conclusions like, It's raining outside and I'm

in a car that's not that stable. I probably shouldn't go ninety miles an hour right now, even if there were no speeding laws. Right. Just for my own safety. This might be a bad idea. We can make those decisions because we have the ability to, you know, adjudicate and discern truth. Right. And the founding fathers probably went through some kind of a similar process that mimicked that. Right. You know, that's kind of the I know it's simplistic, but they had to go through some kind of a process like that. Right. They did. And they went through lots of discussions and debates. And I mean, every word in those documents was very meticulously planned. And it's not, that's not my inference.

I'm not, you know, speculating. We know that because we've seen all these various drafts. We have recounts of them arguing over what words should be used. So we know that, I mean, we've got the You know, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists who went back and forth and back and forth. So, I mean, they really did. This was not done on a whim. And it wasn't just a bunch of people who sat down and said, yeah, I agree. We're all in agreement. Let's go. It was not like that at all. Lots of arguments. And these are very difficult concepts. I mean, if you're to truly pay attention to them, if you're to really give them the weight they deserve, they're not simple. Right. Yeah.

Well, the one I always remember is, you know, I think it was Adams and Jefferson, right? That debated over the central bank, right? The central bank coming out of Britain, England. And they said, and Jefferson said, we don't want it. Adams said, we have to have it. And basically Jefferson said, okay, we have to have it. We have to have it expire naturally. Versus, you know, people voting because if people have to vote, they're not going to do it. It's no different than in the nineteen eighties when we started running deficits. You know, it was a great idea. Right. You know, Art Laffer and, you know, Reagan and whoever else was in that room said, yeah, let's run up these deficits.

You know, it made sense. Right. It's a return on investment. It made sense. But the problem is we never stopped and paid the money back. You know what I mean? It was tough. It spirals out of control. And that's, I think, what Jefferson was saying, you know, even back then he's saying, look, we can't let this get out of control. It has to naturally expire because we don't know who's going to be here to facilitate the ending of this. Does that make sense? You know, so we have to expire on some expiration date. And of course, at the time, you know, it also made sense why he was advocating for a national centralized bank, because he wanted national sovereignty. And that was, in many ways,

a defense against tyranny from external forces, right, to have some sort of a unifying force. currency. And so you can see why both arguments, and at the time, what was it, like, seventeen colonies at the time? I mean, it wasn't fifty states back then. So it was much smaller, much more manageable. And, you know, not to say there wasn't corruption then, but it was not at the magnitude that there is today. So, yeah, these are difficult questions. Right. Then I brought up Justice James Wilson last time. And, you know, mostly he's been completely taken out of the education system. Nobody hears about him anymore. But he was one of the one of six founding members who

signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And he actually changed the wording. He was the one who changed it, I believe, to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And it was because he was changing it from a more Lockean, contractarian principles to, you know, principles founded in natural law. And that was very important to him. So, yeah, they were having these discussions back and forth. And I think they're very important discussions. But the problem is today, most people aren't even aware that they had those discussions. So, yes, we may have some challenges in the material realm that are different. They didn't have AI back then. But I think that if we had had

those foundational conversations and even been taught the discussion that they were having, and not just the words back and forth, but what does that mean? Why were they having these issues? You know, go back to the roots. If that had been taught in schools, I don't think we would be where we are today. I really do think this is by design. And this is to strip us, it's to duracinate us. If we're, you know, like cut off from the roots, If we are cut off from our roots, then we're essentially enslaved, right? We don't know where we come from. So we're orphans that are easy to control is essentially what happens. And I think that was the purpose.

Yeah. Well, and I think it fits so well, you know, with what Aaron's saying is that, look, if one point O is done, we can't resurrect that. We really have to go to two point O because, you know, it's it's it's cooked. Right. I mean, you're really right. There's no there's no coming back from that. So if that's the case, then really we should go back to how they did it to create two point O. Right. At least use some of those founding principles. Maybe that would help us in our natural law. you know, guidelines and so forth is to study what they did. You know what I mean? And say, okay, that won't work. This will work. Maybe I, you know, I don't know where we get to that quickly.

Cause that's a whole, you could turn that into a lifetime study right there. Just bringing the federalist papers. You know, but how do we get that? How do we extract something like that quickly as a framework and say, OK, this is kind of how we think they did it, you know, and come up with some sort of, OK, how would that apply to today as we invent two point O, you know, of America? Well, in terms of like we think how they did it, I don't think we have to guess that much like we have there. We have their argumentation back and forth. So we know where they were coming from. It's just that that has been taken out of the conversation. It's not taught in schools. It's not taught in even in

higher learning in academia. You know, it's not taught in most families don't teach it to their children. It's just been completely eradicated and wiped out. So how can you defend a nation that you don't understand? If you don't understand what it was built upon and how it was built and what it's supposed to be standing for, how can you defend it? You can say, you know, we're done. At one point, it was done. And I think it's largely because we've been completely deracinated. I think that was the purpose of this education system was to brainwash us, to cut us off from our roots, to take metaphysics out of the conversation because it was predicated on very specific metaphysics.

But I think if we reintroduce that, I don't know that you'd have to start over. But I think we need to start with reintroducing it. I think that's where you need to go back to. Again, I just don't think you can build a new house when you've got a shaky foundation or you have no foundation. Well, I'm going to talk tomorrow night about why I think voting is irrelevant. And essentially, maybe I reframe it as why America One.O is done just from the standpoint of how the system actually works what voting from the standpoint of know it's kind of people have this view of it's mr smith goes to washington or this is how a bill is made and it's not how it actually works we now have

as I was saying earlier in the conversation if if the declaration of independence and we had you know these these foundational first principles then layer one was the constitution layer two is this administrative state and all of these other things that are even disconnected from the constitution which itself has crept as a living document and we're not even None of the stuff that we're able to do through voting even addresses L zero. It also doesn't even address L one. So if you looked at the effort of what would be required to do that, I'm what I'm suggesting in all of this is by having the kinds of conversations that we're talking about here. Yes. If somebody wants to try to

fix America one point oh from the output of this, they can. If somebody wants to try to create a network state from first principles, they could. If you wanted to try to do this, apply it at once. your local level or even at a personal level, all of this information I think is useful for all of those use cases. There are multiple use cases for this. I personally don't think, and I'm going to outline tomorrow why people should not spend time on voting because you're just spending time in a rigged system dealing with layer two that, that, that, and I'll be able to articulate this better. It's, it's, um, but, um, I would say is that the constitution is not a living document.

It was never supposed to be. I mean, this was it was supposed to be codified, not living, evolving, growing. You know, this is why I say, like, I actually don't even subscribe to a lot. The Bill of Rights is probably where we should have stopped. I mean, you're talking about this administrative state. The administrative is straight back to what was it? Administrative and Procedures Act of nineteen forty six was like if we didn't have many nails in the coffin before that, that was really like death to America. I mean. Any kind of concept of America was gone after that. So, I mean, I agree with you. It's been trampled on over and over and over again, but it was never intended

to be a living document. It's not supposed to evolve. It's supposed to be, you know, like it's a constitution, right? What does it constitute? And it's solid. It's not supposed to change. And I made the parallel with Bitcoin where there was a white paper that outlined the fundamental principles around how it was supposed to work, how the incentive system was structured, how it was going to be decentralized, what the intent was. And I actually think what happened to Bitcoin is a microcosm of what happened to the United States, but it's the same tactics. It's the same process by which it got inverted. So in many ways, it's a great case study to see, but it's the same outcome.

The outcome ended up being inversion. It's just that this happened not in two hundred and fifty years, but in sixteen years. But I think, you know, is there in general, how do we prevent this? Because this isn't abnormal. This is what usually happens. I documented earlier. It's like this normal kind of four step process. process by which things become inverted. It starts out with, there's a revolution, then there's early success, then there's infiltration, and then there is inversion, right? And so, you know, again, there's a lot, a lot of different directions. I do, I, the reason I'm going to do the podcast tomorrow and have my wife on is just, I want to share with people

what my actual experience is over thirty years because I see new people getting into it and they have a naive, utopian view of how politics actually works and so they're entering a game where they don't even know what the rules are and then they're spending all of their time on that and they're not doing anything to either improve themselves or to create something new from first principles. So it's a complete and total diversion of energy and resources. And this is why I put into the title, it's like the fooled again, you know, like the badge or fell for it again or whatever. And I mean, that's kind of how I look at it. And it comes from personal experience of I used to naively think, oh,

yeah, we're going to do this. And, you know, we're going to try it this way and everything else. And it's just go back to the Tea Party and everything else. And it's just now it's somebody joked the other day. It's like, OK, so we're going to repeal Obamacare now. Right. Since we have the Republicans have complete control. No, of course, nobody's even talking about that. We're moved on. We've moved on to something completely. We're not talking about the Internet of Wearables. Yeah, the MABA. That's where we're at. That's where we're at, and it's not going back. But anyway, I wanted to do that just so that I could get it out of the way. And then the next time somebody says, well,

why do you think that? Or it's just like, okay, watch this episode, and then we can move on. I'm not going to spend time on that. Of course, I say that here after spending time in Washington, D.C. at that hearing yesterday, which was great, and I do encourage everybody to look at it. And I really respect what, again, Toby Rogers is doing. But to me, the solution is not going to come. Washington, D.C. is not going to change. Public health is not going to change. But hopefully people will wake up to what's going on and stop complying with the death cult. I mean, honestly, the fact that people allow this to go on, well, I'm going to comply with this. They're killing you.

The entire medical field is based on all of the ideas in it, all of the training, all of the certification. Everything is funded by Big Pharma. There's no pursuit of truth. The whole thing is a scam. Anyway, so I see direct from Phillies here. Actually, Don came in earlier and then left. Don, I put him in here and he was on mute. I do appreciate Don. Don sometimes is... A little negative, but that's fine. Certainly it can be negative, but we've had problems getting him onto the chat with mic issues. So Don, if you're still there, if you're listening, you can pop back in again. I did add you in, but you were on mute the whole time. And then I've added in here

direct from Philly. So George, do you want to chat? Hello? Yeah, I'm just listening. I'm trying to multitask. As usual, but, uh, I'm enjoying the conversation. Well, direct Phillies heard me talk about this kind of stuff for how long? Um, since, uh, since the mid nineties. Wow. Yeah. You're far more refined now and, and highly focused. So, you know, game time. Well, I don't know if it's refined and focused. It's still pretty out there. But nevertheless, yeah, no,

this has been a it's an ongoing thing. But now there are people that want to talk about this stuff. This has been kind of a. That's exciting. That's exciting. And I'm grateful that, you know, people are listening and you guys are here because it's been a long slog to get people to to want to engage on any of this. And again, we talked about this, as you were saying, with the educational system. I mean, who's even who even has a. framework to be able to engage in this conversation these idea every idea that we were talking about okay what's metaphysics what is this I mean a lot of people now have never read the constitution don't know what the founding documents are at all they don't even

know what a first principle is they don't know what philosophy is and And I'm not, by the way, suggesting that this is going to be mass market. It's not like the founders, yes, I mean, they published a lot of this stuff, but it's not like there were millions of people engaging in these conversations, right? It was a small number of people that were actually doing the back and forth. So, you know, I'm not expecting this to be, this isn't like we're trying to program this for a TV hit. That's not the expectation here. Exactly. Yeah. Well, just jumping in on what was said there, I think, again, I don't think this is a novel idea, but the survivors in politics are the ones who

can extract the most money and know how to play the game, right? So that's no surprise. But then I think the... You know, the vote, back to the vote, is I think we only get to vote on things that they don't care about. The things that they actually care about, we get no vote, you know. And so, you know, just taking current events for a second, you know, a couple weeks ago we get the thing in Minnesota, and then we get the girl on the train, right, you know, the Ukrainian girl. Then today we get Charlie Kirk, and tomorrow's nine-eleven. I don't think it's a coincidence. Does anybody think this is coincidence? Well, let me add to that real quick. I think that's the right question, Courtney.

And that's where I was going with this is I talked to a friend of mine from Indonesia. Right. And he's a let me put it this way. He's worked with the government and he knows how to handle himself quite well. OK. And he was like, yeah, this is no coincidence. He's like, this is there's a plan here. And, you know, Charlie Kirk was the perfect hit. Perfect hit. And and why are they doing this? Like, I'm going to talk about this in my show in the morning tomorrow about how like is this all again the same old magic trick. Right. And I don't want to make it sound like death and killing is magic. Right. But the point is, you know, is it all a trick to get us to look over here while the

troops get moved in across the Russian border? And I I look at this from an economic perspective. And hopefully this ties in with the whole political thing and how this all gets played, because, you know, with the current events, I look at this whole thing with with Europe, I think they wanted to carve up Russia in five different parts for a long time or whatever, you know, because they need and they're broke, right? They're absolutely broke. They need the money. And I just, you know, again, hopefully this ties in with the politics. And does that make sense, Courtney? I know you were ready to go. I didn't want to cut you off, but I don't think it's a coincidence at all.

And I just think that, you know, we're going to find in three weeks, we're going to ask ourselves, wow, you know, like people are going to say, like, I was watching Fox or I was watching this or I was watching that. And how did all these troops end up on the border in Russia, right? Because I was caught up watching Charlie Kirk get shot in the neck thirty five thousand times. You know what I mean? Right over a two day window of time. You know, so I don't know. Thoughts on that? Yeah, I mean, I don't think it's a coincidence. I mean, obviously, I'm not privy to what goes on behind the scenes. So I'm not saying this was certitude. But I do think that it's not a coincidence that these,

what was like a day apart, essentially. And I think that both of them are very much, they're charged incidents that are politically charged incidents. Yeah, very divisive. And I think that they really want some sort of a civil war. And so I think they want people to be, yeah, I think they want retaliation. And so this is a great way, one right after the next. And, you know, I keep hearing with Charlie Kirk, it's like, oh, this is the left and the left is so violent and blah, blah. I don't know. It could be the left. What I will say is I, it was clearly a very skilled marksman. So, I mean, we just, based on the facts on the ground,

this was not a random like amateur who was just like, oh, I don't like his politics. It was not that. This was somebody very, very skilled, knew what he was doing. Likely it was somebody, it was part of a team that he was you know, set up to do this. And really, with political dialectical warfare, you know, it's not because it's not ideologically driven as much as it is, you know, to get the division, to get the two sides fighting each other. So, you know, it could be by, you know, set up by the left, or it could be really just a, You know, someone behind the scenes, you know, in that circle that wants both sides fighting each other. You know, that's not to make light of it.

It's a tragedy. He's thirty one years old. The father has two young kids, you know, beautiful wife like that. It's a tragedy. And so was it for, you know, that Ukrainian girl. She was very young as well. I believe from the little I saw the story, they were homeless, they were refugees. You know, this is, I don't want to make light of it, but I do think that these were being used for dialectical political warfare. And I, that doesn't mean I know who's doing it, but I think that's the motive. If I could just interject, can I, I'm going to run to the restroom real quick. If you guys don't mind, I will be back very shortly. No worries. Yeah, that's my thought. If I might make a comment, uh,

that I think the best message that I can give uh people I know is similar to the message I gave them when above them wanted to go to january six and I warned them that it was possibly going to be a psyop and not turn out the way people first thought uh I would has I would recommend people really consider going to a rally because there is a lot of anger and that can be uh manipulated And at the end of the day, I think Aaron's on the right path here that we need to build an alternative because the only way to win this battle is to opt out.

I'm not an opt-out person. I'm all for people building parallel systems, but throwing your hands up and walking out is never my path. But I will say this. I think that regardless of what people think of what happened, I really hope people understand uh, do not retaliate, uh, because I think that's exactly what they want. They want some sort of violence. And, uh, I I'm very concerned about that. I just really hope people keep their wits about them and that we don't see, you know, that kind of reaction. Yeah, I agree. I was speaking to somebody earlier today that, uh, gets their, their news, uh, unfortunately through traditional media and, uh, and they, uh,

confided to me that a lot of the other people they know are very riled up and that he was hearing that people would overreact. Not his words, mine. Yeah, I agree. The overreacting is not the way. Yeah. there was definitely some angry people out there today as a result of that. And again, you know, it is, you know, it's a terrible event and it's what, what's really bad is the, you know, we just live in this world where, you know, the video gets played and over and over and over again, you know, and it's, it's, it's a very gruesome, it's a, it's a shocking to the conscience video, right? That's, it shocks the conscience, you know,

and, And the problem is we're getting sort of conditioned to that, you know, between the girl with the knife and the, you know, that's, that's shocking to the conscience as well. You know, the same thing that happened in Minnesota. I mean, shocking to the conscience, you know, nine, eleven was shocking to the conscience, but there's nothing about that day that, you know, as a, as a physics, mechanical engineer, chemistry guy, there's nothing about that day that makes any sense. And we're going to go through it tomorrow and we're going to have to stand there. And I feel, you know, I feel duty to the country to honor the, people that die but I do not feel duty to honor you know

I mean anybody who was involved in that and clearly it was a I I don't know I don't know how you guys feel but clearly to me it was a scud missile that went through the pentagon you know I don't think there's I don't think that's a hard that's a hard I'll put it this way I'd be happy to debate some people on that one and I think I could keep natural law in mind as we do that the point is you know the uh you know, it's just very hard to go through these windows of time when you watch these events occur that are shocking to the conscience. And yet we see troops moving in on Russia and we're going to end up finding out that, you know, again, civil war, world war. I, it's just, I,

I just feel world war is coming because. But how much more, how, but how conducive is a civil war to world war? Oh, I think it. You weaken us then. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I think it feeds right in because, you know, it's the mentality, you know, it's the, it's the acceptance of these things that are shocking to the conscience, which leads to five thousand dead, ten thousand dead, a fifty thousand dead, a hundred thousand dead. And you just, you just start accepting it. Right. Because it just, it just changes the whole, you know, how your mind functions. You know, it's, it's shocking. It's all shocking to the conscience. Right. It lowers the. Anyway, I'll leave it at that. Mind control. Right.

That's what it primes you for. Right. Well, I mean, how long is it until Palantir is going to be providing surveillance for speaking engagements? How long until Palantir benefits from what happened today? Both the Civil War and World War provides a great pretext to roll in more technocracy. It's great on both sides. Why? Because people are going to be fearful. Oh, well, in order to restore peace. I mean, this is how we got so many of these... dystopian systems that we have and even organizations was out of World War II, right? Well, we have to make sure that we value safety over freedom and we have to do everything that we can to prevent nuclear holocaust. And so therefore, you know,

welcome all of these new institutions that have grown out of control. And so... I mean, I was working on getting the podcast ready, but do we have any information on who did it? I mean, I know they arrested that one guy and he didn't do it apparently. Yeah, but Cash Patel did say that the FBI had found someone. They didn't say who, at least the latest update I saw. There was no information on who it was, but they said they did find the person. Oh, well, that's interesting. I know. Yeah. But I don't know beyond that. I mean, maybe there was information since, but I haven't seen it. I'm sure they'll reveal that and then craft the narrative however they want for maximum impact.

But I mean, I mean, just I'm looking at my feed now and it's, you know, Laura Loomer's got to post one of Charlie's last tweets. You know, Islam is the sword of the left. Islam is the sword the left is using to slit the throat of America. So now everybody is using it to divide on whatever round. Right. So now we're going to have, you know, we're not going to have one civil war. We're going to have fifty civil wars because if you were going to have a civil organization, so they want the chaos. Right. It's just people fighting each other. They don't it doesn't have to be split down the middle. They just want people fighting. Yeah, and I think this is going to do this.

I mean, honestly, I mean, I think about, I do a lot of public speaking. I'm going to be in front of four hundred people on Saturday and then another four or five hundred people at the end of October. I mean, it does make you wonder about this kind of thing. Is this going to become more commonplace? Well, and you're saying things that people don't want to hear, right? That's the other thing, right? You know, you think of Roger Ver, you think of, you know, Ian Freeman, right? You think of these people, you're saying things that people don't want to hear. And so you definitely have to let, I mean, you can't be afraid, right? But you have to definitely let it enter your mind.

And let me just add one more thing. You know, this is kind of a, uh, So I did a lot of studying on, you know, being in markets, I did a lot of studying on a lot of the traditional traders, you know, from the nineteen twenties, nineteen thirties, again, maybe connected to the technocracy, connected to, you know, the Great Depression, quote unquote, and World War One, World War Two. Right. The intermediary period of time between there. And we just happened to hit a harmonic. We just happened to hit a full upside harmonic structure at sixty five seventy four in the S&P five hundred. And for those of you who followed anything, you know, that's what I do is follow these harmonics.

And I and I've been saying this signal came in the end of March, March thirty first. And I've been tracking this, you know, in the show day after day after day, you know, and saying it should get to the sixty five seventy four. And that's where we got to today. And you see all this turmoil coming. And again, back to price and time. Right. market masters like WD Gann or, you know, even you could use Fibonacci analysis, right? Price and time when the Gann used to say WD Gann used to say when price and time square changes inevitable. And that's essentially what we may have here is price and time squaring. Okay. In a harmonic pattern and a harmonic structure. And we're topping out at

sixty five seventy four. And we're seeing this this turmoil rise. Right. So, again, price and time squaring changes inevitable. I just I just want to throw that out there because, you know, This is what fascinates me to do what I do, which is study these markets and try to relate it back to what we're doing here. You know that there's something else going on. Maybe this goes back to the natural law component. Right. Like there's something else going on here that we don't quite understand. You know, I've made a life study out of this. And, you know, I'm just fascinated that today the S&P hit the sixty sixty five seventy four on the S&P futures contract for September. So anyway, so sweet.

So what are you saying is going to happen now with the markets? Well, so I'm saying that there's changes. So if we hit this full upside objective, OK, this happened again in twenty nineteen, twenty twenty when we went through the repo crisis before COVID. And I was saying the same kind of thing. Like I was watching something's going to happen. You know, you see, you know, obviously you'd heard of event to a one. You saw the, you know, the whole repo crisis thing where the yield curve inverted and, you know, it forced it basically forced the Treasury to come out and say, OK, we're going to offer the Fed Federal Reserve ten to one leverage. We're going to put up all this money and we're going

to give them ten to one leverage. So they basically cleared the deck for some kind of expenditure, you know. And I think that expenditure ended up being, you know, COVID, right? They basically, again, shocking to the conscience, open the gates, open up the money, right? Allow, get people ready to spend a bunch of money again, whether it's a war, whether it's COVID, whatever it is. What I'm saying here, Aaron, is that I think at the sixty five seventy four, we're watching to see what happens at this full upside objective. So think of it like state changes. You have, you know, you have solids frozen, then you have liquid, then you have gas. Right. And so when these markets,

they tend to respond a lot like that. There's similarities to chemical changes of state. And so that's where we're at at sixty five. Seventy four change is inevitable. OK, are we going to explode? through this harmonic structure. If we do, it's basically like going to a gas. If we if we hesitate and hover at this sixty five seventy four, there's a very good chance that a top is in place and it could be a very long lasting top, maybe the top, maybe the top of all time for America. Right. I know that's a bold statement, but you can't rule it out. I can't really put percentages to it, but I would probably split it in thirds. Right. And I don't want to sound like this. OK, well, that's great.

You're saying it could stop here. It could blow through. It could. The key is we want to watch this like a line in the sand. What happens here? Does the market stop and hesitate? If it blows through, Does that make sense? Do you have any other questions? Because I think change is inevitable. I guess that's the point. Something's going on here where change is inevitable. I'm calling for a market top, personally. I could be wrong, but I see a lot of things. I've been laying out the structure, coming up with all the reasons why we could be coming to a top. The housing market, this, that. There's a lot of different things. We could go down a list of twenty different things, but

I'm just saying this harmonic structure is a natural law type of a phenomenon that picks up on the harmonics of eight billion people on planet Earth, supply and demand, and how markets are reacting. We could be at a top here, and it could be the top. It could be the top for... the stock the u.s stock market of all time right so so based on these harmonic structures when will you know like what more do you need what's the next trigger point for you to to be able to say yes this is the the top or or which direction it's going to go yeah so what I would say is you know if we don't go through sixty five seventy four in this s p five hundred that's step number one Step number two would be

some sort of a divergence, right? Which means, you know, essentially like a baseball, you know, you hit a baseball, it's going toward, you know, out going toward, you know, the, the, you know, the fences and it's, you know, but when it hits its peak, right, the mathematics, the mathematics behind this is peaked out, right? Something, the velocity has changed, right? The slope has changed, right? It's now gone flat. And now it's on the other side. So if we see that and we see some sort of a burst of energy, okay, like, you know, we had Oracle earnings last night, right? Oracle comes out, we can, we could open up a whole floodgate on that. Larry Ellison becoming

wealthier than Elon Musk, you know, Larry Ellison, you know, the database bros, and this guy's not a good guy, right? This goes right into Palantir cameras and everything else. But this guy's now one of the top wealthiest people with control of Oracle and And that's what really drove this thing to an all-time high, you know, the Oracle earnings, along with other things. That was the last. And I kept saying, like, we're looking for some last little event to polish off this, to basically push it up into the sixty five seventy four. So right now there aren't many people. Most people are complacent. They're not thinking we're at the top because we just keep grinding higher day

after day after day. This is when I get concerned. Right. One complacency, super high, too. We hit this harmonic structure. If we don't go through sixty five seventy four and we essentially hold here, it's a line in the sand. So then what do we do? We start looking to see. Do we start breaking? prior lows do we start looking then we look at technical patterns it'd be great if we had another um harmonic structure but it's not likely to come after this big of a move this was like a thirteen percent move up you know in this harmonic structure so what what we would be looking for is that it doesn't go above sixty five seventy four that would be a dead ringer that that you know

that some kind of a top is in place Then what do we look for? Here's what else we look for psychologically, right? On the way up, they sell fear all the time, right? Every pullback, fear, fear, fear. But the buyers come in, okay? If we start seeing them sell hope, okay? So again, now we see violence start to erupt and the stock market start to go flat, go sideways, go down a little bit. They're gonna start selling hope. The mainstream media will start selling hope. That'll be the big psychological thing that people need to listen to Instead of them selling fear to us on the mainstream media, they'll start selling hope. Okay. That will be another indication. Um, you know, and then,

and then it just gets into technical, right. You know, we don't, you never know, like, right. I mean, unless we get a harmonic structure, we get some kind of a structure to manage the risk against. You don't really know, like, is this the top and where's it going to go? We just know that this could be a top. It could be the top, right. Based on all the things we're talking about again, you know, America, one point O potentially over, are we going to get America two point O or are we not going to do it? And technocracy is going to take over, right. And the top is in place. we see this happening also in private equity right if you if p I've been kind of harping on this too like

it's an exit strategy right bitcoin is kind of an exit strategy too right aaron you've been talking about this they're trying to draw people in so that they can exit and it makes bitcoin makes no sense to me right especially after talking to you same thing with private equity right they're looking for ways to exit we have the head people at carlisle group I'm forgetting his name right now. But one of the top guys at Carlyle Group said, look, we're moving. He said he's seen three big financial shifts over his lifetime, his career. Jeff Curry's his name, Jeff Curry. So if anybody wants to look, the clip's probably about two, three months old. You can probably find it. But he says he has an

interview with Bloomberg and he just comes out and says it like, I think there's a big shift taking place. All of our private equity money is moving out of the U.S. It's moving into Europe to get behind the war effort. Right. So private equity is going to go in and they're going to buy little mom and pop munitions companies and they're going to start ramping it up. Germany just spent a ton of money. Right. They just broke their debt break. right so again we see again the world's all connected I guess is my point I'll kind of leave it at that unless you have questions I mean I don't want to just keep going on on this but does that does that help answer some of the questions aaron

or at least ask present more questions for gas I I have a question yeah all right so uh think about them what you will, but I try to follow recent interviews from Martin Armstrong. And the one thing that he says that resonates with me is that with all things considered capital flight, this is my interpretation, capital flight out of Europe into either our stock market or wherever they can get that money out of there is the drum war, a drum, uh, the, the, The drums of war increase. There's going to be more capital flight.

Yeah, like I think Martin Armstrong, like, you know, look, I've had my issues with Martin Armstrong through the years. But all in all, you can't ignore what he has to say. And he and on this, I think he's well on currency. The guy knows currency back, you know, to the Byzantine era, maybe before that, since the first current he knows currency really, really well. He also understands war because he's his models. He's got a couple of different models that he uses to call war, civil, internal war, external war, kind of like Courtney was saying, you know, civil war can easily bleed over into world into world wars. And he's been calling for that for quite some time.

And he stayed true and steadfast to that. Like, look, we're going to have civil disruption, civil war, and we're going to have global war. And we haven't seen that very often. Right. If we look through history. So, yes, I agree with that capital flight. And, you know, Aaron and I, Aaron's been on my show a couple of times and we've talked about the failure of the dollar. Right. The dollar will ultimately fail. But I think it could actually fail on the upside. Right. And the reason for that is, you know, kind of like what you're talking about, capital flows. People get confused. They start running for the hills. Where are they going to run to? Well... Fortunately, the U.S. is divided by ocean.

So we still have some advantage, you know, I mean, over getting drawn into this. So Europe would probably take the beating out of the gate and the U.S. would get what capital flows potentially. I mean, there's a lot of ways this can go and we just sort of have to watch it unfold. But, yeah, I'm I'm on I'm in the camp of of Martin Armstrong that it looks he's been doing a great job every day. He's posting something on board and he does interviews. I mean, I don't like what he's saying, you know. you know, in my heart and soul. But I think I, I sadly, I think he's probably onto something and I think he's probably going to be fairly correct on this, which is sad. I just wanted to say

something very quickly. So apparently it's seven o'clock, my time, central time. Kash Patel said that the subject in custody has been released. So the second subject after interrogation by law enforcement, our investigation continues, will continue to release information in any interest of transparency. But yeah, that's the second suspect has been released now. I want to read something. So Roger Ver hasn't posted in a while and he just posted. And as I said earlier, the image I always show of Roger and one of the t-shirts that I wear is a picture of him with a tape over his mouth and with Ross Ulbrich on his shirt. And that picture I took from his interview with Charlie Kirk,

which was his... Charlie Kirk has been a strong advocate for Roger. So Roger says... My friend Charlie Kirk was assassinated today. Many people are saying violence is never the answer. The truth is the government has organized violence being used against peaceful people, and politics is just arguing about when, where, and how that violence should be used. So it's only natural that people resort to violence when arguing over politics until we reject the idea that the nation state has any moral authority to use violence against peaceful people. So... yep yep wow yeah this is

this is I'm just I I so they don't know who did it I mean how hard can this be you so utah let's think about this utah another what it was on the roof of a building that much they did identify it was from the roof Two hundred feet away. Is that is that what they're saying? Two hundred yards. Two hundred yards. Yeah. I mean, that's not hard, Aaron. I mean, I can I'm pretty accurate out to eight hundred yards. I have friends that are accurate out to fifteen hundred yards. You know, I mean, I that's not hard for someone who's well skilled. It's not. But it's someone who's trained. That's not like just a random. It's somebody that has taken the time.

to be able to do that. But yeah, he may or may not be a marksman. Right. He definitely has some skills. He is, though. Yeah. I don't think it's organic. I think a lot of people think, oh, it's just like some random person who didn't like his politics and was angry. I don't. It's possible. I just don't. think so that's not what my gut says I think it was much I don't think it was organic well it's just peculiar right these events minnesota the girl getting stabbed, you know, maybe it's all, maybe they're all independent events and they're all coincidental, but I just don't think so. It just,

something doesn't feel right to me on it. Especially like I said, for me looking at markets and seeing the harmonic structure get hit today, this morning, you know, on the back of Oracle, you know, on the back of, you know, I don't know, it just too much going on right now. And my antenna are up, you know, and so I'm just trying to give a fair warning, you know, Well, it's also convenient, right? I mean, does it, I always look at like, what's the result of it? Like what would be the purpose and how, who does this serve? Well, yeah, I mean, I'm just looking through my feed. Even my own friends are on different sides of trying to explain why this happened. You have somebody,

you have Laura Loomer saying that it's because he was speaking out against, against, the Arabs and then you have other people, you know, like Mike Adams saying, well, you know, he was starting to connect the dots on Epstein. So, I mean this, so within one person, you have the ability to create a massive amount of divisions on a lot of sides of the issue. Cause I, I mean, I, I like Charlie Kirk and I agree with him on some things. I don't agree with him on a lot of other things. He's polarizing in a variety of different ways. Yes. But I think polarizing is the key. And the same thing with the train incident. That's very polarizing. Oh, yes, incredibly polarizing.

Multiple issues, right? You have the race issue. You have the whole Ukraine issue. I mean, yeah. Yep. You know, I think this is going to be a watershed moment. I think we're going to see a big change in a variety of ways out of this. This is going to create... Huh? Huh? I'm hoping not, but I fear you might be right. I'm hoping not, but I'm just looking at this. I don't know how it's going to go, but it is polarizing in so many different ways. And I can't predict what's going to happen, but I do predict that this is going to create massive chaos. And this is going to build in a variety of different ways that we might not be able to predict,

but this has a lot of ramifications in a variety of different areas. I agree. Yeah. Well, if anybody gets a chance, you know, just Google WD Gann and when price and time square change is inevitable and see what you find. You know, this guy was one of the best traders of all time. Um, actually very religious person too. He wrote a lot of books on, you know, um, some interesting religious viewpoints. So he wasn't just a trader, but he was very skilled, very smart, very studious. I mean, probably one of the best, probably one of the best traders of all time in the markets. And, um, and just check that out, see what you find, you know, I mean, when, when price and time square

change is inevitable. And I think that kind of fits. Yep. I'm looking them up right now. And also astrological influences. Interesting. Well, I mean, look, I agree with you. But, of course, I've thought that the market was going to collapse since two thousand and eight. I can't even imagine or I haven't been able to understand why. It's still going the way that it is. And I mean, for instance, right, every asset is in a bubble. Everything is worse. We're actually worse than we were in two thousand and eight in almost every asset category in terms of being overpriced. And we've got all these other inflation things. And then we have the jobs number thing that came out. But I guess for me that I

resigned to the fact that it's in some ways the fact that people are ignorant about how these things work and don't pay attention, which allows it to go on longer. And it's the fact that the market is largely controlled by institutional sales at this point, right? It's like people own stocks through these third parties, through these ETFs, through these other mechanisms. And so I don't know how it's been able to go on as long as it has, but it does certainly seem like we're at a massive, massive inflection point. And you're right about the diversion even with Russia. I mean, I was looking at that. A few days ago, and that story is not mainstream at all. Now, all of a sudden,

we might be jumping in, in a position against Russia, backing NATO, and no one's talking about this? Article four? Yeah. Article four, article five, Turkey's going to get pulled into this. We know Turkey's been an issue for a long time, right? It's a NATO country with really no NATO relationship. I mean, Turkey tries to play every side of this. So, again, Jack Posobiec's been calling for issues with Poland. You know, a lot of people have been calling for issues with Turkey. So watch those two as hotspots. You know, I mean, I think the thinkers have been calling for that and the structures there for Turkey to be a big issue and for Poland. Um, and it, you know, we could go on for hours on

that whole story, but the point is like, there are these, we got a lot of hotbeds cooking right now and it's very, very concerning. I'm just watching the video. It does look like people are saying that he was wearing a vest, like a Bulletproof vest and that it bounced off the vest. Which is interesting. Oh, wow. I know. I mean, it doesn't change anything, but it is interesting. Yeah. And it does look like that. Yeah, it looks like there is something that blocked, like it hit, and then it ricocheted back. Yeah, ricocheted off of the vest. I guess you can't rule out two shooters, too. I mean, one hits the vest, one hits the neck. I mean, again, probably not, but...

It doesn't look that way. I mean, I'm not analyzing it all that carefully, but it does kind of look like it bounced, like it ricocheted. It doesn't look like a multiple. Yeah, I saw that. I'm not a forensic. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we won't fight. You know, this is one of those things where we never found out anything about the Trump shooting. I know. I know a lot of people have been saying that. That's come up quite a bit today. You know, to me, anytime the FBI gets involved, it means it's a cover up. Like we do better crowdsourcing this than we would actually having law enforcement get involved. Well, no, I think it's a cover up, too. But that's why I said I don't think it's organic at all.

And now the FBI has gone through two suspects? Yeah. Interesting. That is very interesting. And to be able to quickly discount them. Yeah. After questioning, they were dismissed. I don't know. All this surveillance, all these techniques and everything that they have, there was security there, and they can't seem to ever figure this out. And again, we still don't know about the Trump shooter, right? What did we end up hearing? We ended up hearing the guy had a bunch of cell phones with numbers and contacts with people in different countries. Nothing has ever happened with this story. They just pushed it. No. Rich J says everyone in a Black Rock commercial is now a suspect.

He probably was some MKUltra kid, but yeah. Yeah, that wouldn't surprise me. Although it is interesting, too, when that first suspect came out. I mean, even I saw it. There are a lot of boomers that have been radicalized, like that No Kings movement, whatever that was. I was surprised about who was participating in that. I was in Palm Springs at the time for Freedom Fest, and I was surprised. It was an unlikely and different group of people protesting. Yeah. The boomers were the hippie movement. I mean, they led that protesting movement. They did, but they haven't been very active lately, right? No, but it makes sense that you would

radicalize them. They get them all... They remember it, and then it's probably like nostalgic for them. Yeah, no, now they're radicalized. But interestingly, they were radicalized against the right, which I guess makes sense historically from the sixties, but then they were the ones that became the me generation. They were neocons. Neocons isn't really right, right? They have a lot more in common actually with the left. They're progressive. No, that's true. Yeah. That's true. Well, I mean, I don't know. So, Craig, I'll be interested. I'm going to try to tune into your show tomorrow to see. So what do you think is going to happen tomorrow? Do you think the market's

going to react based on this, Charlie? Good question. No, the futures markets tonight, the futures markets are pretty calm. I mean, we came up just shy of the sixty five seventy four. So I wouldn't be surprised to see another run at it. Start to see that exhaustion occur. Watch the bond market. Right. The ten year note in Bloomberg and other, you know, all the other financial channels have been for about a week. Right. They were talking about how rates were going to rise, you know, panic, trying to sell panic. But, you know, we've been calling this nonstop at one eleven ten. Right. The ten year note looks like it's going higher, which means, you know, the Federal Reserve probably, you know,

Cook's probably going to get go to the Supreme Court. Probably, you know, it's indicating that we're going to get lower rates. Right. How we get there. I don't know. But it looks like we're going to get lower rates as all we say about one eleven ten on the ten year note. The dollar looks OK. Looks, you know, they trash it every chance they get. But again, the dollar is holding technically very, very well. Um, you know, it's not pretty, but it's holding. So those are the key markets, right? This S and P five hundred, the tenure note and the dollar. Those are the key ones you want to look at for the economy. You know, if we start to get into other things, obviously you can add commodities,

gold and crude oil, you know, gold's obviously racing, but it's at a two, six, one, eight extension, which, you know, if we look at, you know, Fibonacci numbers and geometric, you know, natural law type numbers, sacred geometry. Two, six, one, eight's a potential stopping point. And I think that's it, what, thirty seven. So another thing to watch in the gold market might be this thirty seven. Let me get the level here about. Right around thirty seven hundred thirty seven hundred silver, we're looking at forty three to forty five dollars somewhere in that range. And, you know, that's a confusing one because we have the gold silver ratio. Gold could hold up and silver could actually rally here.

If we start to see the stock market turnover, that's normal. Gold tends to stop rallying in the industrial metal, something like something a little more industrial like silver would rally. And we have this crazy out of whack gold silver ratio at one hundred to one hundred ounces of silver to one ounce of gold. That's got to kind of come off a little boil a little bit. And then the other things to not forget about, too, is live cattle, feeder cattle. Right. They've been going up, hitting record highs, not for good reasons. Right. Because, again, this, you know, back to Bill Gates and these people taking advantage. cattle off the market, you know, trying to starve us out, you know, I mean,

trying to take away protein sources. then you look at like corn corn's just completely beaten down I think corn is a decent place to watch too from a global perspective again war right you know what would they do we'd start we wouldn't be transferring grains like we normally do if if we started creating war zones you know in boundaries you're not going to get the trade that would be one of the first places to look is corn did we start corn's really depressed right now so is wheat somewhat um you know wheat was really reactive to the ukraine russia war I mean wheat had a huge spike you know from four dollars a bushel to fifteen dollars a bushel as soon as ukraine russia war

started and now wheat's pretty pretty tame you know I mean soybeans are depressed um it's just a very interesting point in time and again you know are we at that point where price and time you know squared right price and time meet up and change is inevitable and it sure feels like something's going on right now Oh, boy. Yep. Well, crazy, crazy, crazy times. Well, I I want to try to start wrapping this up because I'm going to do another podcast tomorrow and I've got to try to figure out how to get ready for that because we're going to be leaving the hotel and driving so

forth on the way to Polyface Farms. But Are there any last comments or questions or thoughts that people want to share before we close this out? Someone said everyone in BlackRock commercial is now a suspect. Yeah, I think that's fair. Yep. Yeah. Interesting times, right? Yep. All right. Thank you again, Aaron. Good night, everyone. Yep. Good night. And I just want, I just wanted to say, you know, thank you everyone for joining. And I know the timing and everything was all screwed up, but please check out the Aaron day show.com and

click on the principles tab. I definitely want feedback. This is going to be a user generated process and platform. Gotten my email by the way. So I'm maybe I'll try another email, but yeah, just so you know. Interesting. Okay. Well, there may be some technical problems. I will obviously have some time between now and tomorrow to try to address that. Cause I do see, I do see that we got a lot of signups, but it was just feedback, like no pressure. I know you've got a lot going on. So yeah. Oh, no, but I want to make sure it works because I've noticed a lot of people have signed up, but maybe a lot of people didn't get the email. So we will work on that and work on moving this towards

our first one of these. It'll probably be in a month, roughly a month. I mean, we'll see how this kind of comes together. I want to make sure we get enough feedback, structure it right, and then I need to figure out how to structure the format and everything. But I'm excited about this, and I think this is going to be an important thing to do. And if you, if you're, I know you said this weekend, you might talk, right. If you want to reach out to me offline, I'm happy to talk to you. Okay, great. Yeah, no, I will do. And, um, you know, usually I have time to talk to him, but this is different because it's going to be a farm. So usually the events that I have, they're smaller or whatever.

And I get it, get time to talk to him. I don't know if it's going to happen this time or not. So, uh, but I will reach out and, uh, thank you. Thank you again for your participation and, and input. Um, to everyone on here. I think this was great and more exciting things to come. Awesome. Thank you. Good to see you. All right. Good to see you. Have a good night. 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 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 feared 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 Can't hide the truth in paper lies Freedom's got a billion eyes We don't buy

We won't do what we are told. We don't bow, we don't break. We'll sing them loud We'll light that flame

Roger, we will stand for you Ian, we will fight it through Roman, your code will run Freedom's right We won't do what we are told We don't bow,

we don't break We don't give what they can take