s2E30: The Illusion of Free Speech

Raised by red stars, fed the light Now he crowns kings to watch us die Diplomat blood, betrayal's seed A shielded cage His pen rewrites the people's page But freedom doesn't fade that fast Where the future we cannot last Green builds a throne On broken souls

Turns our lives into lines of code The show.

We are the choir that freedom This is the system he wants to gloat But we won't kneel to monarch schemes The agency burns back in our screams He builds up

To fight, break the chain

Click the little box, don't read the line It's all binding, buddy, sign after sign The devil's got a lawyer and he's working for free You'll rent your own shadow for a monthly fee Ain't no pen, ain't no face Just a phantom contract in a database Agree, agree, that's the key You don't own nothing but the lock and the fee Signed with a finger, blood on the screen Terms and conditions in a corporate dream They'll leash you the sunlight, the shoes on your feet They'll auction your laughter down on Market Street A box

unchecked is a door that won't open The future's foreclosed and the contrast been spoken Click-wrap chains, man, they never break Even God signed once by mistake Agree, agree, that's the key You don't know nothing but the lock and the fee Signed with a finger, blood on the screen Terms and conditions in a corporate dream Step right up, don't be shy Scroll down the page, let your freedom die No exit door, no midnight train Just a click, hear a tattoo carved into your brain Agree, agree That's the key You don't own nothing but

the lock and the fee Signed with a blood on the screen Terms and conditions finger, in a corporate dream We don't bow, we don't break We don't give what they can take We don't bow,

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

freedom's got a billion eyes we don't We are told we don't bow, we don't break We owe fourteen, oh six, seven A law that kills the hope we're given But paper crowns will wash away When

the people rise one day 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 won't do what we are told We don't bow, we don't break We don't give what they can take I woke up to silence But the war had begun They froze my account Said I'd

done something wrong Wasn't no crime Just living free Now the system got a chain on me They took my savings, my future, my land With a single cold line and a government hand Said it was safety, said it was green But all I see is tyranny behind the

screen This ain't innovation It's a trap in disguise You alone, nothing Be watched all your life Genius ain't freedom Gravity ain't It's a cage they built While we cheered I believed in the promise The man with

the plan But the same old swamp Just changed its brand He penned the front door, opened the back, signed the bills that launched the final attack. This ain't innovation, it's a trap in disguise.

Be watched all your life. Genes ain't freedom. Colony ain't clear. It's a cage they build. Your gold, your guns, your voice, your name. They'll digitize it all and shift the blame. Palantir eyes and AI chains. Freedom dying slow in patriotic flames.

This ain't about 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 Who's holding the mic on me? They call it free. But honey, that fee ain't free. Three suits in a smoky room riding what's real on cue. Crying kite moon, they told the noon, said that's the truth to you.

Mockingbirds in satin ties singing what power it buys. Change the page, same stage, and the chorus never dies. Turn down the glow, I feel the pull. If they own the show, who owns your soul? Lies in a sugar sky If truth don't trend It never gets told Speak all you want If the reach is sold Nothing

Maybe if it bleeds, the ads cash in. Scroll that line. Your loudest thunder

Instead of the beef-up danger to our demo-crazy sea It's programming, honey, hear that chord Clicks on the cross, truth on the board Depose the judge and reach the fee They'll sell you speech, then hide the key

Welcome back to The Aaron Day Show. This is season two, episode thirty. This is a great show tonight, a lot of content tonight, and also a special guest, Craig Wenkelwitz, who will be joining us a little bit later on in the podcast. But tonight's topic is going to go into the illusion of free speech, and we're going to go pretty deep into this topic. This is an area that I've been covering for a number of years i actually did a podcast on this in in march uh as part of my you know campaign to help people move away from centralized media and centralized technology prior to the censorship uh in the covet era which of

course i was immediately shadow banned so this kind of builds on on that work. And so anyway, a lot to talk about as I get through this, but let's get through some of the housekeeping first. And I will say, if you go to the AaronDayShow.com, this should be working. I'm putting it in the notes as well. TheAaronDayShow.com. I'm live streaming this there as well. And this is now being live streamed directly through my server. So yes, you can see this on YouTube and Rumble and X and all of these other places, but you will now be able to watch this directly streamed from my own server. And then at the end of the show,

it will be saved to what's called IPFS. So essentially, it'll be censorship resistant. So we now have a version of this show that cannot be censored at all with its own commenting system. that we control and that I coded and that is not beholden to any censorship regime, which as we'll discuss tonight, we have every reason to believe that censorship is still ongoing and likely to get worse. So if you haven't seen the last few episodes, I encourage you to check them out. Last week, this one isn't in here, but the last episode we did, season two, episode twenty nine was on Curtis Yarvin,

who I think is probably one of the most dangerous people in the country. He is influencing Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Vance, J.D. and has been promoting the idea that the United States should move to either a dictatorship or a monarchy or a CEO style system. And he's been promoting these ideas for quite some time, but they're now actually catching hold and people are really starting to buy into this. And so I encourage you to listen to that episode, watch that episode. And get familiar with this because I will be talking about Yarvin quite a bit in future episodes. he has essentially been the one that's I mean, been architecting a lot of what the Trump administration has been doing that seems

on the surface like a good idea. You know, trying to get rid of federal employees and so forth. He had a thing called RAGE, Retire All Government Employees, which, you know, I don't disagree with some of his views. The problem is... that when you dig into his views he's promoting all of this as an interim position to move to a technocracy so in other words i know there are a lot of people that are bought into this oh yeah trump needs to come in and clean this up and then we can you know restore the good old days when we were a constitutional republic that's not on the table that's not what these people are pushing that's not what jd vance is all about that's not what's

actually going on so by helping and aiding in this you're actually accelerating technocracy and don't even realize it so there will be much more on that. Prior to that, last Monday, the episode was focused on current events through a technocracy lens. And I was specifically talking about what's been going on with the Charlie Kirk assassination and how that's being used to implement hate speech laws, to reduce free speech, to add surveillance. And in that episode, I walked through a little bit of the background on JD Vance, which is, again, connected to yarvin jd vance is a construct of peter thiel his entire career has been

tied to peter thiel and orchestrated by peter thiel he is a puppet of peter thiel and that needs to be understood because he is absolutely the front runner it's his to lose because not only does he have the benefit of he'll be the incumbent and i'm sure with trump's endorsement but elon musk you know, acted like he was going to start this America party, which I doubt he was even going to do, but then decided he was going to throw his support behind JD Vance. So the likelihood of, uh, there won't be anyone else on the Republican side. And so now it's going to be, you know, the Republicans plus whatever Musk's money and Teal's money, you know, backing JD Vance,

that's going to be pretty difficult to stop. And so if you think that sounds like a good idea, you need to understand Curtis Yarvin and you need to understand JD Vance's history. So as I mentioned, you can go to theerrandayshow.com right now, and you can see the live stream. I encourage you to do this. I mean, the stream might not be as good as it might be through some of these other channels, and we'll still be working some of the kinks out. But based on what happened last week, where I was clearly shadow banned on the Yarvin talk, I mean, there's no doubt about it. We're already doing better tonight. than we did basically the entire four hour podcast last time.

So something happened last Thursday that was an eighty percent reduction in the viewership that I've had. I mean, it's the lowest numbers I've had in a year. And I actually actively promoted it through all of my channels and my traffic in general has been dwindling to the point where I mean, with forty six thousand followers, I will post something that gets fifty or a hundred views, possibly no likes. And I have now a Twitter account at The Aaron Day Show, which has only three hundred and ninety followers. that channel actually got more traffic for the last live stream that i did than my main channel which is the one with

you know a hundred times the the amount of traffic and that and more than that and then also the one that i actively marketed so clearly something is going on with my main account it's not surprising this and it's part of what motivated me to do tonight's show on the media because it feels to me exactly like what happened in twenty twenty, where I went from doing daily podcast out to fifty to one hundred thousand people through my channels and within a week was was throttled to fifty. And so it feels like that's starting to happen. again and i'll kind of explain why i do encourage you to get tickets to the brownstone event which is coming up october the thirty first in salt lake city

tickets will sell out for that that's going to be all the brownstone events are phenomenal events uh great talks and it's just a great environment of of people to hang out with but usually the tickets sell out so i encourage you to do that sooner rather than later you're new to this podcast the primary purpose of this podcast is you know to make people aware that the real war that we're in is not us versus china or red versus blue or whatever it's technocracy versus freedom and technocracy is a global ideology that essentially is elites and scientists and engineers running people's lives for them outside of no property rights, no individual rights. So it's technocracy versus freedom.

Free will is at stake. Literally, free will is at stake. And many of these technocrats don't actually even believe in free will. and i would argue that tokenization is the battleground so the way that the technocrats are trying to move towards this global system with ai surveillance and social credit systems is first they've changed and basically uh through click wrap agreements and other legal agreements over the last two or three decades we've given away most of our rights and don't even realize it whether it's ownership of our data, economic interest in things, a whole variety of different things, privacy. That was the first part. And then the next thing they're doing is

they're creating digital tokens that represent our assets and that represent these contracts that they can control centrally and program and censor. So essentially they're going to be digitizing all of our assets in a way that can be censored and are tied to these legal agreements that we've unknowingly signed where we've given everything away. That's how they're going to essentially create a situation where we own nothing. The way we fight back is, which you'll hear me talk about a lot, is through tokenization in a way where we can own the tokens, have them in our own self-custody, and no third party can see the transactions or censor the transactions. And so this is why this has been

a passion of mine and something that I spend a lot of time and effort on. So as we get into tonight, the one thing, I like this quote from Johann von Goethe, which is, none are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. And that is really where I think we are right now as a country, definitely in the US, but I don't think it's limited to the US. with respect to this concept of free speech. So, you know, if you think you've got free speech and if you think because you can post on X or Rumble or True Social that you're free, let me tell you what we've got. We've got freedom of reach, not freedom of speech. That's Elon Musk's exact words.

You can scream all you want to the digital void while an algorithm decides if anyone hears you. Right now at this very moment, seventy percent of the internet isn't even human. You're not going viral. Bots are sharing your content with other bots. You're performing for an audience of machines and warehouses in Bangladesh. Tens of thousands of phones on shelves, clicking, watching, liking. That's your audience. And who owns these free speech platforms? Saudis own five percent of X. Russian oligarchs through shell companies. Larry Ellison, the man who built the first the CIA's first database in nineteen seventy seven. He's got a billion in X. The platform fighting authoritarianism is

owned by authoritarians. And you know what Rumble is? It's not alternative media. It's a GOP operation. Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance, your vice president, they funded it along with Vivek. thirty seven percent of rumble's traffic bots malware redirects the sec is investigating them for fraud they're burning twenty six million dollars a quarter buying fake growth and those independent voices you follow candace owens nine hundred and six thousand from dark money tim pool ten million dollars from russia Ben Shapiro, oil billionaire back, Steven Crowder, fifty million from Rumble. These aren't rebels. They're employees pretending to be revolutionaries. There's a company in Texas called

Influenceable LLC run by Trump's digital strategist wife. They pay influencers fifty to a thousand dollars per post. They provide the templates. They coordinate the timing. That organic conservative movement you see, it's all manufactured in an office building in Dallas. Democracy for sale. You want to know how deep this goes? Big Soda spent a hundred thousand dollars to split MAGA from RFK Junior's health reforms. Two hundred identical posts in forty eight hours. Trump Diet Coke memes weaponized. Ian Miles Chong got caught. They're buying your reality. But here's the real horror that should really terrify your brain. When you watch TV, when you scroll your phone at night,

your brain enters theta state within sixty seconds. You become as suggestible as a five year old child. No critical thinking, no defense. Everything goes straight to your subconscious. They're not just lying to you. They're programming you at the neurological level. The fear news triggers your amygdala, floods cortisol, causes inflammation, causes disease. They're literally killing you for your ratings. Your death is their business model. And Musk admitted it. He said, exploits your limbic system. Only the paranoid survive, he said. They're deliberately hijacking your brain for profit. This isn't a conspiracy. It's a stated business model. Facebook admitted that they inflated video

metrics by nine hundred percent. Publishers went bankrupt based on lies. YouTube counts three seconds as a view. Twitter counts your own views. Billions in advertising spent on complete fiction. You know who told us this fifty years ago? This movie, Network. Nineteen seventy six. Television is not the truth. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. They told us they confessed and we laughed. But there is a way out. There's always been a way out. Protocols, not platforms. Mathematics, not masters. Email has existed for forty years and no one has captured it because it's a protocol. No CEO to arrest. No servers to seize. No company to sue. Zeno, private by default.

IPFS, content that can't be deleted. SimpleX, messages without metadata. These aren't platforms. They're mathematical laws. They can't be bought. They can't be censored. They can't be stopped. but you won't use them. Because you're addicted. You know why? They designed it that way. Variable ratio reinforcement, slot machine mechanics, dopamine loops. You can't stop scrolling. You're a rat in a Skinner box, pressing the lever for another hit. So here's what you do. Here's your choice. You can keep feeding the beast, keep paying for blue checks, keep boosting posts, keep dancing for bots, keep letting them to harvest your data, program your brain and sell you back your

own enslavement, or you can turn them off. Right now, turn them off and build something they can't capture. Person to person, protocol to protocol, mathematics to mathematics. The revolution will not be algorithmically amplified. It will not be sponsored by billionaires. It will not be hosted on corporate servers. It will be human to human, peer to peer, unstoppable. They own the platforms, all of them. Every alternative is captured or will be. every voice is bought or will be but they can never own the protocols they can never own the mathematics they can never own what we build outside of their cages so i'm asking you i'm begging you to wake up to see the bars of your

cage they call it programming for a reason you're being programmed right now this second every scroll every click every view But you're the real thing. You're not the illusion. They are. You have the power to walk away, to build different, to choose freedom over convenience, to choose protocols over platforms, to choose mathematics over masters. The tools exist. The mathematics are ready. The protocols are here. The only question is, will you use them? Or will you keep scrolling in your comfortable cage while they program your children to accept even smaller cages? Turn them off. turn them off now and let's build something they can never capture. Because if we don't,

if we just keep feeding their algorithms, paying for reach, performing for bots, then we deserve the cages they're building. So that is kind of the opening for tonight. And if you've been following this podcast over the summer, I've kind of focused my attention to three different areas. One, Waking people up to technocracy, which is the threat to free will itself. Again, it is that big war, which is freedom versus technocracy. Focusing on autonomy reboot, which is reclaiming your free will and taking control of your own life and your own actions outside of being programmed by others. This is going to be the concentration of tonight. And then the third area is the revolution

will be tokenized. Everything will be tokenized, but we can build decentralized private tokenization systems that are outside of technocratic control. So tonight, I'm not going to go into a lot on the technocracy side. That's what I talked about mostly last week, other than to say that on Wednesday at six o'clock, we are going to have another technocracy roundtable. That is going to be with Courtney Turner, Patrick Wood, myself, and tonight's special guest, Craig Wenkelwitz, who I'll be introducing a bit later. And I love doing these technocracy roundtables, and I encourage you to follow the other three on the roundtable. they have produced a wealth of content in

these areas. I mean, I'm a newcomer to this topic. Patrick Wood has been covering this area for forty five years. He's the OG. Courtney Turner has done phenomenal work, really deep research, hundreds of interviews. And Craig has also had a podcast and he's been actually still discuss later on tonight discussing and researching these kinds of issues since he was ten years old. So I hope we continue to do these every month and people start to wake up as quickly as they can to the threat of technology technocracy excuse me so i'm going to walk through there's a lot of information here and i view this as this is basically the first real presentation that I've made in this

whole autonomy reboot area. And I think it's really important because if we're going to take back our free will, we have to understand that we are being programmed and we have to understand the source of that programming and the history of that programming. And it's really deep and it's probably going to be shocking, maybe not for all of you, but I know most people are not aware of this or we wouldn't be in the situation that we're in. From nineteen fifty to nineteen eighty, we lived in really what was called the three network era. So three men decided what two hundred million Americans believed was reality. NBC, CBS, ABC, three boardrooms,

three decisions. If Walter Cronkite Cronkite didn't say it, it didn't exist. Operation Mockingbird wasn't a conspiracy. It was standard operating procedure. The CIA had journalists on payroll at every major network and democracy requires informed consent. What we had was manufactured consensus. So from nineteen fifty to nineteen eighty three corporations controlled reality itself, not influenced, not shaped, but controlled. Every American got their worldview from the same three sources at the same time with the same message. It wasn't news. It was programming. And in essence, it was a monopoly structure. There were only three broadcast networks that existed.

There were FCC licenses that created this artificial scarcity by design. Billions were required for entry, making competition impossible. Only three organizations could even afford to be in the game and to buy these licenses. So government literally granted these monopolies, and in most markets, competition was illegal. So you had these three news directors controlling reality. Corporate sponsors had veto power over content, and dissenting views never really reached the airwaves. this was a passive consumption model it was a one-way broadcast there's no feedback mechanism viewers had zero voice zero platform zero response everyone saw

identical content simultaneously and prime time meant synchronized national programming there was also no recording technology so if you miss it it was gone forever They constructed this as this was a model of trust. The most trusted man in America. Authority was unquestioned. These news anchors were given godlike status. There was no ability to fact check any claims. Institutional credibility at this point was assumed, not earned. And the involvement of the government working in conjunction with media was completely hidden. The public had no awareness of the manipulation. What this meant is essentially three CEOs could literally shape elections.

They could coordinate narratives. They could blacklist dissidents. And advertisers controlled through three agencies. So cultural programming was essentially unanimous by design. Then in the nineteen eighties, cable cracked the monopoly. But instead of more truth, we actually got more sophisticated lies. CNN launched in nineteen eighty. Fox News launched in nineteen ninety six. They didn't break the monopoly. They perfected it. Now, instead of one lie for everyone, we got designer lies for every demographic. Red state, here's your rage. Blue state, here's yours. They discovered division is more profitable than unity. Your anger became their business model.

Cable News was supposed to bring diversity of thought. Instead, it brought the polarization industrial complex. They figured out hate watching generates more revenue than honest reporting, and division itself became the product. The way that the polarization business model worked is you had demographic micro-targeting, which replaced the mass market. Red news for red states, blue news for blue states. Echo chambers weren't a bug, they were the feature. This was confirmation bias monetized at industrial scale. Division literally equals engagement, which equals profit. And then we move from prime time to a twenty four hour fear cycle. Breaking news every hour to hold

attention. Crisis manufacturing becomes standard practice. If it bleeds, it leads is now a twenty four seven three sixty five affair. Cortisol addiction drives consistent viewership. Anxiety wasn't a side effect. It was the product. Then came the pundit industrial complex. Talking heads completely replaced journalists. Opinion marketed as news. Lines blurred deliberately. Former officials became analysts. And there was a revolving door literally directly between the people that were in government and the people that were on the news. You can think about Ollie North as a prime and obvious example of that. You had the government media pipeline

institutionalized and manufactured expertise emerges. Then you have the sponsor segmentation. Pharma dominates morning and evening hours. Defense contractors buy all Sunday shows. Different products push to different tribes. Advertising directly shaped editorial content. Pay to play for narrative control normalized. Then the ratings wars heated up. Competition was for rage, not truth. And the most extreme position always wins. Nuance equals ratings death. Moderate voices were systematically eliminated. Escalation dynamics were essentially built

into the business model. So then social media arrived, promising to democratize information. Finally, everyone could have a voice. the reality was much darker. Facebook launched at Harvard in two thousand and four. Zuckerberg's first reaction to users trusting him with data Oh, wait, actually, I have a clip that I want to play that kind of highlights how this new media model of cable news and other news syndicated across the country worked. And this is a collage of clips. You may have seen some of these. Some of these are pretty famous, but it just highlights the absolute absurdity and media fraud

that we've been subjected to. In consumer news, economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year. Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year. Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year. Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year.

Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year. Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny step this year. Economic factors may take some spring out of the Easter Bunny. I am Fox San Antonio's Jessica Headley. And I'm Ryan Wolf. Our greatest responsibility is to serve our Treasure Valley communities. The El Paso-Las Cruces communities. Eastern Iowa communities. Mid-Michigan communities. We are extremely proud of the quality, balanced journalism that CBS-Four News produces. But... We are concerned about the trouble of trying to be responsible. One-sided news stories plaguing our country. Plaguing our country.

The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. More alarming, some media outlets publish these same fake stories without checking facts first. The sharing of biased and false news has become all too common on social media. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy.

This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. This is extremely dangerous to our democracy. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest.

I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, we all know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, we all know the rest of it, right? I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream. You know the rest. I scream, you scream, and you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, well, I think you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, and everybody knows the rest.

I scream, you scream, well, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. I scream, you scream, and you know the rest. I scream, you scream, you know the rest. so again that's a pretty accurate representation and what's interesting about those clips A lot of this was done through Sinclair So this wasn't even just one news station. Media. You'll note that the exact same content was being repeated by Fox and CBS and ABC and NBC affiliates. So this content isn't just coordinated by a single network. Even though you have all of these channels and all of these stations all over the you actually still have a coordinated U.S.,

message coming from the top down. And at least in England, they have it right. They don't call them news anchors. They call them news readers, which is exactly what they are. So we move along from the cable news era to the false dawn, which is really two thousand and four to two thousand and sixteen. Facebook was launched at Harvard in two thousand and four. And Zuckerberg's first reaction to users trusting him with data was, you know, his quote, they trust me, dumb fucks. That was the business model from day one. You weren't the customer. You were the product being sold. They didn't democratize media. They monopolized your mind. So when they launched,

when Facebook launched in. officially, in two thousand and five. Then YouTube went live in two thousand and Then Twitter emerges. six. And the promise was revolutionary. Everyone becomes a publisher. The reality is that we all became products in history's largest surveillance operation. So this promise was that no gatekeepers were needed. It would be direct publishing. It was a creator to audience pipeline with no middlemen. It would be global reach from your bedroom, free to use, free to speak. Information wants to be free was the mantra of the time. The algorithmic reality is that the code decides who sees what, not you. Engagement metrics rule everything.

Shadow beginning began immediately and reached limitation without explanation. Invisible hands began controlling all visibility. And this became a data harvesting operation. Every click was tracked and stored permanently. Behavior profiles were constructed in real time. Predictive models were created of all users. Surveillance capitalism became the business model, and privacy was exchanged for convenience. And the algorithms were designed based on the idea of addiction engineering. Dopamine loops deliberately designed by psychologists. Variable ratio reinforcement schedules, kind of how slot machines work. Infinite scroll meant no stopping point. Notifications were designed as

intermittent rewards. It was compulsion by design, not by accident. And then the consolidation began. Google bought YouTube in two thousand and six for one point six five billion. Facebook bought Instagram in twenty twelve for a billion. Facebook buys WhatsApp in twenty fourteen for nineteen billion and monopolies reform digitally. Competitors are systematically eliminated or absorbed. So by twenty sixteen, the platforms dropped their masks. They weren't neutral forums. They were publishers with agendas. And the great purge then began. On August six, two thousand eighteen,

Alex Jones, with four million followers, was erased in twelve hours, not from one platform, from all of them. Apple, Facebook, YouTube, Spotify. They coordinate it. They memory hold a human being, not for any crime, for wrong think. And everyone cheered. They didn't realize they were next. The great deplatforming began with extremists and, quote, conspiracy theories, but the Overton window kept shifting. Yesterday's normal became today's hate speech. By twenty twenty, questioning the CDC got you banned. they came for Alex Jones and we said First, nothing. This was highly coordinated. Multiple platforms began to ban simultaneously, which was not a coincidence.

They shared blacklists discovered through leaks. Weekly calls with the ADL, SPLC were confirmed, and government pressure was issued through proxy organizations. This was collusion designed as safety initiatives. but then it rapidly expanded. Started with extremists, And there was no appeals process. Then the financial deplatforming began. PayPal started to ban. PayPal bans followed the social media And then the bank accounts hit. bans. Bank of America, Chase. Payment processors began to refuse service. Crowdforming platforms began to coordinate blocks. The economic assassination was complete.

Then the memory holing begins. Archives began to be scrubbed retroactively. Wikipedia entries were deleted in real time. Search results were manipulated to hide evidence. Digital existence completely erased. Orwell's Ministry of Truth realized. And while this is going on, there was complete silence. The mainstream media celebrated the censorship. No one defended the purge for fear of association. The president was established and normalized. Rights were surrendered willingly by the public. But outlaw bans were too obvious, so they just started to develop subtler methods. Why delete when you can just make someone invisible?

So this is where we get the algorithmic throttle. And this is something that has affected me and probably a lot of you personally. And I'd actually been shadow banned and blocked at various times, even long before I almost had like a collection of thirty I mean, actually, day, seven day, fourteen day bands from Facebook for various things. But it really kicked off in March of twenty twenty and I knew it was going to happen. So I had, you know, fifty to one hundred thousand followers on Facebook through various pages, five thousand just through my own page. But then I was operating a lot of other pages. And I started doing these daily posts

about exiting the dollar, the same things that I talk about now, but exiting big tech, moving to things like Signal, moving to encrypted email, all this other stuff. And as I went through and actually looked at the history as I was preparing for this, I actually got to the point where I was throttled down to eight users. So I wasn't banned. They didn't have the balls at that point in March or April to outright ban my account. They just made it completely invisible. And I spent a lot of time putting this content out for the very specific reason of I thought people would not be able to talk to their own friends and family members about health-related

information, which of course turned out to be true. So this ended up representing less than, you know, point one percent reach. And even at the time as I was going through this, I was thinking about how social media works. I've used social media. I mean, I was one of the first people, one of the first thousand people on I was early in all of these social LinkedIn. media platforms. And there was a time, like with all of this technology, search engines as well, where in the early days they weren't shadow banned. But I noticed, for instance, in twenty fifteen, you know, I could reach my own contacts through my own social media network. But then it got to the point I

started digging into this where I've learned that, you know, Facebook, it used to be that if you posted most of your friends would see it. something, Now it's capped. It's algorithmically capped that no more than three percent of your followers can see it. What kind of system is this? I mean, think about how absurd this is. You have a network. of people who have voluntarily decided to follow you, and a random percentage, no more than three percent, will see what you write based on an algorithm that you don't get to see how it functions. How does this even make sense? I mean, literally, it was better just using email back in although even email started to get the day,

censored. a certain degree depending on what the topics are they were even shadow banning google and gmail where we started to shadow ban email but what an absurd way so i finally realized at some point i have all these contacts all these people that i've met over all of these years and i actually have no way to reach out to them unless i happen to have their information in an address book that i have in my own possession but most of the time you know i mean if you're out networking or whatever you're not necessarily entering that information i'm thinking oh i just connected to this guy through the social network i'll be able to reach out to him it even got to the point

where even now the best way i mean the reason i have the intro music At the beginning of the podcast, I mean, I like the songs. Don't get me wrong. I think that they're actually pretty good at conveying some of the information, but it's to give me time to mostly DM people, to send out a few tweets, but then mostly DM people in groups because it's the only way I can reach I mean, between email and direct messages, people. but they even throttle... It used to be that I could use software to run a DM campaign, but they've put limits on all of that. So we literally are in a digital prison where we have no reliable way to reach at scale our own direct contacts through these social media platforms.

the gaslighting begins. But then, you know, Well, it's not censorship. It's just the algorithm. Create better content. So they use the blame the victim category. Engagement is down across all platforms. Nothing has changed. You're imagining things. And this is completely false. I mean, and you know, we're not even at the modern era yet. even what happened to me last week was But I mean, clear. all I have to do is look at I mean, my analytics. There's no, I'm not making this up. And it's also not surprising. People think we have free speech now. There's free speech now if you're talking about things that happened in the past under a different administration or under

a different regime of technology companies. If you're talking about the thing now that's ongoing, the latest thing towards technocracy or towards consolidating power and taking away our rights, those things are very much still shadow banned. So at the time, yeah, you couldn't talk about vaccines or ivermectin or the election. You can talk about those things now. But the Federal Reserve is still a little bit of a sore spot. You can talk about Soros, Gates, and the WEF now. You can talk about the globalists. But as long as you're talking about only that left wing of the technocracy, if you talk about Musk and Thiel and Curtis Yarvin, it's a completely different scenario.

So you have people, you know, I listen to Alex Jones say, oh, well, we've defeated the globalists. Like, you're actively promoting globalism. Globalists that are actually more effective at globalists than Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates. You've literally bought the whole thing, hook, line, and sinker. You think you've won, but you've actually been rug pulled. So you can talk about the great reset. You can talk about build back better, but don't talk about technocracy. Don't talk about Palantir. So, I mean, this has been tested by not just me, but certainly other people. Same post, different accounts equals different reach. And VPN tests showed geographic suppression.

Time of day impacts are based on keywords. And AB testing reveals absolute manipulation, which whistleblowers have later confirmed. And then they made it official policy. The terms of service actually became weapons of censorship. And this is the thing that I've been working on in this reclaiming autonomy category is the own nothing.org website. Because the idea behind that is, We've signed all of these click wrap agreements. We've given away all of our rights, but we don't know what it means because we scrolled through tens, maybe hundreds of pages of documentation and we didn't have the time to read it or to make sense to have a lawyer do it. So I'm building a system where it takes

these contracts and then analyzes them. Okay, what rights have we given up? Gives you a score. You don't have to read all of the documents, but you can see what you have given up. And I would say that Social media is the worst. I mean, they're not the worst. healthcare is probably the worst. Actually, But actually, every category, when you dig into this, financial services, awful. You've given away your ownership in your four or one K. You're giving away ownership in ETFs. And with healthcare, you've given up, you don't even sign the contract. You're just subject to package inserts. But you sign really, really long contracts in the social media space. And these contracts change constantly.

So March, eighteenth, twenty twenty, Twitter changes its terms. Harm now means contradicting the CDC. So the same CDC that lied about masks being useless. It said the virus wasn't airborne that claimed vaccines stopped transmission. Question them. That's violence. Have data from Sweden showing lockdowns don't work. That's terrorism. So March, twenty, twenty literally changed everything. And Twitter officially made the CDC the Ministry of Truth. Contradicting government health officials became harm. And scientific debate became violence. And so, you know, this all became a redefinition game.

Harm became expanded to include disagreement. Violence expanded to include wrong opinions. Misinformation means unauthorized facts. Not that the information was false, just that it was unauthorized. And community standards became the new tool for political censorship. And this very much became a government partnership. So CDC was meeting with all the big social media companies. Weekly meetings with the White House was confirmed. The CDC and WHO got privileged access. The FBI would flag accounts for review. DHS created a disinformation board. and then there was retroactive enforcement

by the way this retroactive enforcement still goes on today i actually cannot promote or stream this podcast to facebook now i remember everybody said oh you know mark zuckerberg's based now he's a libertarian and you know he's on his surfboard you know now he's involved you know he's involved with martial arts he's changed well i get these notices i i've run i ran a bunch of political accounts like Stop Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, Stop Chris Christie or whatever, various things that we were doing in Republican primaries. Then I tried to create two different pages for a Free Roger campaign. And those pages were immediately taken But then a few weeks ago, down.

I got some retroactive notice that says they've taken down my Stop Mitt Romney page, which was literally from, when was that election? This is a Facebook page that has been inactive for a decade. They took the page down and said, I can't post, I can't join any groups, create any groups, or post in any groups for six months because they've decided to retroactively cancel a page. And by the way, what is wrong with a page? I wasn't impersonating Mitt Romney. I was running a super PAC. To have a super PAC that had a webpage that was in opposition to a candidate in a presidential election, is not illegal, nor is it, I guess,

now a retroactive, ten years later, violation of the terms, which I can't even understand based on what principle or what term. So previously acceptable speech now banned. The appeals process is absolute theater. You go through it and it's like you can go through it. You can click a few buttons and then it's almost like it's algorithmically set up to just automatically reject. I guess they copied the health insurance companies in terms of how they process Just reject first and assume that the claims. people are going to go away based on making the process too inconvenient and time consuming. You are guilty until proven innocent and there's no statute of limitations.

So again, that's just my experience, but we know this happened with the lab leak theory, banned then allowed, natural immunity, that was forbidden knowledge, mask effectiveness, depends on the date, vaccine injuries still censored to a certain degree. So truth literally has an expiration date on these platforms. The rules were arbitrarily enforced. Chinese propaganda was untouched. Corporate lies are still protected. Government false claims are promoted. Only dissent is dangerous. Rules for thee, not for me. Which, by the way, isn't any different than how the three networks worked. You had three networks that were kind of

colluding and collaborating that were being driven by their sponsors. It's absolutely zero difference. than what's happening now, except that we don't really understand it because we have this illusion or this belief that because we can still post that somehow we have some form of free speech. Then we have this whole category of the memory holding of information. So I searched Google, who is YouTube banned? And the top result was an article about why YouTube censorship is good. Google owns YouTube. They're hiding evidence of their own I had to use DuckDuckGo to find the censorship. actual list of seventy seven banned channels.

Google has become its own Ministry of And so this was actually from my talk Truth. that I did in twenty twenty. So it's actually gotten worse from here. But this is what I found. Google search said zero results. DuckDuckGo said seventy seven banned channels. The index shows deleted content. Bing was partially manipulated. So truth requires platform shopping. So, again, this was from my experience when I did a similar talk on this topic five years ago. Now it's just different players and it's more sophisticated. So what is this method of the memory hole? So they de-index archive sites. now have robots.txt files that block the

wayback machine you have cache versions that are deleted you have historical records that are destroyed and now the past becomes malleable and this happens in a whole wide variety and certainly in the healthcare space my wife has experienced this where you know she has fortunately she saved some of the printouts of some of the documents but in the in the whole vaccine space which she was been she's been involved in since two thousand and six The negative impact of vaccines has been known and documented for a long period of time, but you can't now find it online. She has printouts of it. I guess we're supposed to hear something tomorrow at ten a.m. But I mean,

I guess what we're going to hear is stuff that's actually been known and was documented for twenty years. Maybe if we're lucky, we'll get that. Wikipedia is manipulated. Editors with agenda control the articles. Sources are selectively approved. Dissenting views are often eliminated and the history is rewritten daily. Then we had this whole fact checking cartel. We had Google funding fact checkers, fact checkers citing Google. It was a circular authentication system where the truth essentially becomes recursive, where credibility is completely and totally manufactured. Well, then Elon Musk bought Twitter promising free speech. And a lot of people to this day

still believe that. They believe he bought it for free speech and they believe he's delivering free speech. And it has to be one of the biggest psyops I think I've ever seen of all of them. I mean, you know, again, cable news doing what the cable news is doing and then what social media is doing. But the biggest psyop of all has to be Musk. and this whole freedom of reach concept. The exact words, freedom of speech, not freedom of reach. So again, you can scream into the void, but the algorithm decides whether anybody hears you. So it's censorship with plausible deniability. You're not banned, you're just invisible. It's brilliant and evil.

But he didn't buy Twitter to restore free speech. He perfected censorship. His innovation was making it invisible. So speech is technically allowed, but reach algorithm is controlled and negative content is auto-suppressed. Criticism of Musk is throttled. And now this stuff is documented and also codified into the X terms of service. So now there's this whole visibility filtering, low quality equals dissent, negative equals truth, harmful equals anti-narrative. The algorithm is the judge and the jury and no human can appeal. It's a pay-to-play system. You buy a blue check, premium, more visibility promised,

boost post additional payment. Organic reach is completely dead. All organic reach is dead on this platform. It is very much a system... which I'll get into some of this. Of favoritism, I mean, it really is insidious when you sit back and look at what your feed is and who, you know, when you take out bots, when you take out paid content, when you take out this concept of influenceables and everything else, what you're left with is rage bait. And stuff that is intentionally designed to manipulate your limbic system, manipulate your dopamine levels, and manipulate your emotions. And we've seen this happen on X with the personal vendettas. When there was that H-B visa dust-up,

people that were on the opposite side of Musk on that issue saw a seventy percent reach drop. Laura Loomer even lost verification for a period of time. Competitors were shadow banned. Personal enemies were targeted. The algorithm was weaponized for revenge. He even started shadow banning some of the mothers of his children that were speaking out against him. So this is the kind of person that we're dealing with that people think is the standard bearer for free speech, who think that he bought this platform for free speech. So this isn't just big tech. Traditional media plays the same game. And, you know, we've already gone through this, you know, synchronized propaganda on this front.

But, I mean, in many ways, there's no difference between that video clip that I played of the Sinclair media where everybody's saying, you know, talking about democracy and everything else, the importance of democracy or the Easter bunny springing in step or whatever. It's really no different than how this platform works and you know if you dig into this this isn't new i mean one of the things that i think is a mistake and for a lot of people that just started waking up during covid the problem is that they think that this is just new they think that oh these systems were high integrity and They believe that Walter Cronkite was this standard of news and that there was a

golden age of everything, golden age of news, golden age of public health, golden age of law enforcement with the FBI. What I always like to do is go back and study the history of every single one of these institutions. And I have yet to find an American government institution that started out with good intent. And here's a clip from some congressional hearings that were going on regarding the CIA manipulation of media. I thought that it was a matter of real concern that planted stories intended

to serve a national purpose abroad came home. and were circulated here and believed here because this would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through some foreign country. And we're looking at that very carefully. Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation American journal. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals.

Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks? This, I think, gets into the kind of getting into the details, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to get into an executive session. At CBS... So that was from the church committee from the nineteen seventies, and they outright admitted that the CIA had people on the payroll at newspapers,

magazines and TV stations. The thing is, it never stopped. The more that you dig into, even today, you can find that there are people that are in the media that are members of the Council on Foreign Relations that are direct plants by the CIA. And these people have embedded themselves into big tech. So make no mistake, at no point in time have we had a platform, a media platform, that wasn't completely censored or completely controlled in one way or another. And I have previously said in the past that I think Americans are the most brainwashed people on earth simply because of their...

view of themselves versus reality what they think is going on versus what is actually going on we do not rank first in free speech globally we're like i don't even know seventeenth eighteenth something like that we haven't been first in free speech at any time i can remember but yet i think you know most americans will sit there and talk about the first amendment as if it's actually real it's never been real And the longer you deny that and live in a delusion about the nature of media and free speech in America, the harder it's going to be for you to extract yourself from the situation that we're in that's only getting worse. So then we move from there to alternative

platforms. This is the rise of the Stories censored. You had COVID origins banned. Vaccine injuries deleted. So millions fled to Parler, Rumble, and True Social. And the exodus began. But before celebrating, who's writing the checks for these you have to ask yourself, alternatives? And what you find is it's the same money, but different logos. So you often have, when you dig into who the venture the same investors are backing these capitalists are, alternatives and you have Similar terms of service start to appear. You start to see community guidelines emerge. You start to see payment processors

starting to threaten. You see government pressure applied. The cycle begins to repeat. Exactly. It's the Hydra effect. Cut off one head to appear, but it's the same body underneath. It's a different brand, but it is the same control. It's truly the illusion of choice. It's musical chairs for censorship. But the alternatives run the same scam. they kill organic reach only to force paid First, promotion. And this is where we're starting to get into the stuff that a lot of people aren't aware of. Again, people are like, well, at least we have Rumble. At least we have X. You have no idea who's funding it. You have no idea how it works. And I want to say, if we were in a different situation,

if this were And Joe Biden owned a news network. Or Kamala Harris owned a news network. People would be irate about this. They'd say, how can you have a sitting president and vice president owning and having control over a media platform? And this is exactly where we are today. I do want to touch before I move into that. on just how sophisticated the censorship industrial complex was during covid you probably can't see all of this but this is some of the great work that the brownstone institute has been doing i mean i saw a presentation on this and i

mean it wasn't just governments it was governments working with foundations working with big tech working with NGOs, fact checkers, the sheer number of people and the amount of money spent censoring people during COVID is mind boggling. And it got to the point where these big tech companies would collude using something called JIRA, which is a system for kind of tracking bugs. But you have a situation where let's say somebody saw an article that Bob Malone wrote or something that he posted on X. They actually were communicating, not algorithmically, but actual people. So somebody from Pinterest, LinkedIn, or whatever, they'd say, oh, we've got to go delete this from our site as well.

So when you would see someone have a post taken down on one platform and then it happened somewhere else, you might have thought that that was algorithmic. But in many cases, it wasn't. It was actually human intervention. That's how coordinated this entire takedown was. So let me see here. So again, the whole thing is pay to play, and this is a good time to bring in our special guest for tonight. Craig, are you there? Can you hear me? I can't hear you. We tested this last night, but hopefully I can see you,

but I can't hear you. Well, let's see. So I met Craig over a year ago, and he's had me on his show a couple of times to talk about a whole variety of topics, mostly CBDCs and the area I've been focused on. And then we've gotten to know each other pretty well. And as I mentioned earlier, we're doing this technocracy roundtable together. This is the second one that we've done. And he's really an expert in a variety but including finance and harmonic of areas, structures. So as soon as he gets the mic going, I'll let him give the background.

You're not muted. So... But I can't hear you. Let me and I didn't change anything on my end. So, well, while you're, I guess I'll start talking about this. You play around with settings. And when I hear you, I'll let you, I'll have you pop in because we're writing about that. Writing about that point here in the talk. But I do want to talk a bit about this concept of pay to play.

which is if you want to have your post seen, you need to pay up. So X premium, eight dollars monthly, still shadow banned. Rumble rants, five dollars per boost. Trost social amplification, ten dollars. They deliberately broke organic reach to sell it back to you. It's basically like a mob protection racket, but digital. Nice post there. Nice post you've got there. Shame if nobody sees it. And so that's essentially how it works. Organic reach is deliberately throttled. The algorithms reduce non-paid visibility. Free speech becomes paid speech. Natural engagement is destroyed. Artificial scarcity is created. So basic tier, still shadow ban. Premium tier, minimal improvement.

Business tier, some visibility. Enterprise tier, full reach promised. Again, this sounds a lot like... the way the three abc cbs and nbc worked from to um so let's check in on craig here so let me iron oh there you go okay are we good you have video of me it looks like my video got lost No, I see you. We've got the video. We've got no echo, so all's going well. So I can hear you. Good. You can hear me. Everything's good? Okay, great. Yes, perfect. All right. Do you want to go through your background? So I'm hoping that Craig's become somewhat

of a regular on here. I think we have a lot to talk about, a lot to explore. He's really deep into some of the finance aspects of this, but also doing a lot of investigative stuff on the technocracy front as well. But do you want to just give a quick intro on just who you are and everything? Yeah, yeah. So I've been trading in financial markets for thirty plus years and working for research firms, building models for big pension funds around the world and hedge funds and then trading on the floor in Chicago in what's called the short end of the yield curve. So basically, it used to be a thing called the It's kind of gone away now. euro dollar. Trading in there.

So what we basically did was, you know, we would get big corporate flows in, you know, from big banks, things like that. And then we would spread that risk off and trade, you know, basically take in the trades that somebody else wanted to get rid of. So it's called market making. So we essentially were making markets for big institutions. Then our goal is to kind of spread that risk off and then kind of build positions for the firm and do things like that. So I did that through really around, the you know, After I got out of graduate school, those were kind of the two things I I worked for that research firm and then did. went to Chicago and traded for a few years there.

Then I got involved in a farming operation where we were actually trading and hedging for the farms and Buying, you know, fertilizer because this was during the ethanol window of time, you know, that two thousand six to two thousand nine window window where ethanol was going crazy. And then we so, you know, we were shipping up fertilizer from the Gulf and up into Nebraska. And we were doing this farming operation, building hedging models for them, you know, for the cattle, for the agriculture. We were growing a lot of corn to feed the livestock. And so it became pretty big. I forget, we had ten thousand head of cattle at And we had this, you know, one point.

a lot of crop circles and things like that. You know, and it was irrigating it, you know, and there was a lot of water there and so forth. you get a feel for a lot of So, you know, different things. And so I ended up, that ended up kind of getting sold to a hedge fund in New York. And then I went back to building this model on harmonics that I'd started building, you know, in the mid-nineties, late nineties and so forth. And so my goal was that, you know, and I was trading off this harmonics, the concept behind this, these harmonic structures. And then, and so, you know, fast forward a few years, you know, I do that. And then I get, I, you know, we get into this window of time, you know,

where all the things that Aaron's been talking about, where, you know, you really start questioning, you know, nine, eleven and the two thousand and eight real estate crisis. And, you know, this whole boom of the Internet space, you know, the new media and you watch what's going you just feel like something's not right. on and, you know, So you kind of get involved in it, call into a couple of shows, you know, become a guest on them. talk about things, you know, try to offer your expertise up. And so anyway, I get kind of picked up by a guy and we start a show on Rumble. And it runs for, I don't know, I'd say probably six months. And we had a lot of production issues.

It wasn't my responsibility. I just came on. I was just kind of the market guy. And so anyway, it kind of gets shut down. I get contacted by the same outfit, Two months later, just someone higher up there, you know, at a company, at a news agency. aggregator i guess called live from america which is a conservative uh... meaning uh... you know Kind of, it's a lot like Fox, right? You know, at first it was individual shows and then it became a full day live stream where you start off at eight in the morning and you go till nine o'clock at night. You have a show on for an hour, maybe two hours, and it just cycles through the whole day, So, and this was on Rumble. right? And so anyway,

so I get picked up and I'm the ADM show. Rumble wants a financial show. So it's like, okay, great. So I get this together, doing the show by myself, start off. I think we have a hundred and fifty live viewers. And within about a year, we got up to like thirteen to fifteen thousand. So we had thirteen to fifteen thousand Right. live views. And sometimes you were getting we got this thing, you know, since Rumble wanted us to do the show, we would get what was called featured. Where, you know, Right. you see when you go on Rumble and you see that, you know, somebody is on the front page and you see how many live views there are, you know, and so it kind of attracts you in to say, oh, well,

thirty thousand people are watching this. Maybe I should jump into must be good. Right. So we, because we were a market show and Rumble wanted that, they didn't have enough market shows. So they were like, yeah, we'll feature your show. Right. So, um, so, you know, that, but you got to get the production quality up. Right. I was doing the show by myself and, um, we finally get the production quality of Anyway, the point. And I know that there's the opportunity to ask to get the show featured. So when we had a special guest on or something like that, I would say, hey, can we get the show featured? And they would say, sure. So, you know, it would take you from maybe, you know,

eight to twelve thousand total views on your show to like sixty to eighty thousand. And you're like, OK, well, I don't know how this is working. I just sometimes I ask for it and and, you know, and then they just feature our show. And so. so anyway the fast forward a little bit from there i do this for a year and i'm not really the reason i'm doing this is to you know share this harmonic structure with people right so let me just give you a little background on that where the uh you know the concept is to take the harmonic structure and then try to apply the news back to it instead of the other way right the narrative control where you know you get the narrative on a story and then you know

like apple you know Some story goes on and usually by the time you get the news, it's already been absorbed into the market, right? And the market's already adjusted. So Apple news comes out and you're like, wow, that's great news. And then you look and it's already up I should buy Apple. ten or twelve percent that day. I don't know if I should really buy And you're like, Apple at this point. so the harmonics the goal is to try to get out front of that right get the harmonic structure and then wait for you know we don't always know what's going to drive it but we then we wait for the news and say ah this makes sense this could be the thing that drives the market this eight or ten percent of

the move for this harmonic structure right so anyway so that's my goal right on the show is to to try to get people really the goal is this you know to get people to instead of giving their money to blackrock or state street or vanguard right and and use it but Who use their money to apply heavy influence on the companies. So for instance, they might coerce or even force management to do something that they don't necessarily want to do. BlackRock and State Street, because they own almost everything. They have a controlling stake in so many different companies. So my goal was to try to come on the show, make people feel comfortable that they could take back some of that money,

take it a little bit out of their four one K or a little bit out of their savings, whatever it may be, and put it in their own, you know, four one K that they can manage or, you know, a Roth or something like that. That they can actually get involved for Right. themselves because what happens is, you know, they're using this money right back against us. You know, as we know, you know, it goes into BlackRock. They, you know, for a long time that ESG was big. Environmental social governance or, you know, all these different things that happen with, you know, the climate change, right? They would use it on that. And so we could go on and on for hours on that stuff. But that was the key, right,

was to try to do that stuff. And so, you know, you take this concept of getting the show featured and trying to share this with And I thought we really had something good people. going. and then i start getting you know as things go you learn more and more and more even though i tried to stay out of the mix of all the stuff i didn't really want to know what was going on at lfa i just i didn't want to be on the email stream i just kind of did my own thing every day right well then you start finding out we start getting featured more right so now we're featured every day and you think well wow they must just like the quality of the show right the production's good

you know the show's good you know we've got good guests good content we're covering a lot of ground we get a lot of activity in the chat right a lot of people are chatting We went from like one page of chat to, you know, ten, fifteen, twenty pages of chat, depending upon the day and the topics. You just feel like you're doing a great job. And then finally, you know, I get pressed to take on an ad to do an ad for the gold market and for gold. Right. And it's not so much that like I'm a big fan of gold and I'm a big fan of silver, but not when it costs you ten percent to get in and get out. Right. So I was like, yeah, I can't do that ad. I don't want to do that ad. So they said to me, well,

then we'll just do the show. We'll just basically take your show and we'll do the ad. Because we've already taken the money for the ad. So I start scratching my head and then I start hearing that we were actually paying someone at Rumble to feature the show at a lower level. Then I start poking around and I start talking to people who take content and then they distribute it. So for instance, if Aaron and I put a show together on Rumble, You could pay a content spreader to basically take that content and they'll take your credentials and they'll, you know, push it out onto, you know, Brighteon or, you know, Band.Video or something like that. That way, you don't have to do all that work.

You just make the content and then they push it out there. So when I was having conversations with them, they said, yeah, this isn't anything new, Craig. This goes on all the time, right? So... And I was like, what do you mean? And they're like, oh, yeah, there's some big people on the networks and Rumble and stuff like that that are getting big views. And I don't know what that means because I didn't ask for actual numbers, but I'm assuming in like thirty thousand to one hundred thousand range and that it's paid for play, kind of like Aaron's been talking about. So I saw this firsthand. So I saw it at the lower level where, you know, our network was actually paying someone at

Rumble to get it featured. And then I heard when I, once I started asking around about this, I got confirmation. It was also, well, the confirmation rumors. I can't, I saw some of it with my own eyes that the big level stuff I did not see with my own eyes, but I heard other people as soon as I mentioned that and you prompted them, they said, yeah, yeah. You know, we're seeing the exact same thing. So anyway, so the, so, you know, we, I think that's about it on that. The, what I later found out though, was that the, you know, Um, what else did I want to say on The, um, yeah. this? Yeah. So, um, I think that's it, you know, it really on the rumble side of things was that, um,

you know, the, we don't, here's the real thing, right? Is that the advertisers think about this. So if you're an advertiser on there and you think you're getting real eyeballs, right? You're getting people who are actually interested in the content because it's You know, it's, it's good content. deserved, right? It's earned its way to get all these views. And then all of a sudden it's really it's really not what you think it is. You know, fake. And You know, if someone might, I don't, and I have no idea what they're paying. I just know that they're paying to do it. I never asked. certain things I don't want to know I don't really, unless, you know, certain things I don't want to know unless

I have to know. But the key is, you know, that this isn't real issue with advertisers too and people who are just watching it. So if you go on to Rumble now and you see something that's, you know, has thirty thousand views and it has to be, and it happens to be Tim Pool. Is he getting paid or is he not getting paid? That's the real question, right, Aaron? We don't know this stuff, but we wonder, you know, they're influencers. And the question is, how much are they getting paid? And how much are they influencing more people to actually come on and join a show? Because, you know, it's kind of like, you know, a herd of cattle, right? At some point, if you see a lot of people, you're like, well,

it must be good content. So you go in, I do it. I mean, I'm like, oh, this must be good. And then I'm like, no, it's not really that good. So that's the big issue, I think, you know, that I saw firsthand. We're going to get back to this, Well, this is great. but I still have quite a bit to go through just in terms of background so that to get people up to speed on exactly what's going on with these alternative networks. But I'm going to circle back with this when we get to Rumble, because I think that people are going to be shocked. to hear about rumble just in the same way that X is not what it appears to be. But I have some video clips and some things that I want to go through here

just to set the stage, because this whole pay to play thing is absolutely real. You pay for reach. It's still suppressed. There are tiers of reach that you can pay for. But then when the algorithm changes, your investment's lost. It's a video game. You can't possibly understand what the rules are. X will give you the algorithm for the model that they did two or three models ago. But even when they give you that, that's misleading because that algorithm changed over time. So they're giving you a upon reflection version of the algorithm that they want you to see, which is not the algorithm that they were running before. the entire time so then they have then

they start selling you api access plus advertising then it's data harvesting plus payments so they create the problem sell you the solution competitors might outbid you then the algorithm might change it's never ending payment on traffic that may or may not exist and to that point i've got a video coming up here on uh on bot farming and the entire boosting racket but in essence there was an mit study that confirmed that seventy percent of internet traffic isn't human so you're not going viral it's bots sharing your content with other bots so that million view video was watched by phones in a warehouse So the advertisers pay billions,

but they're basically funding conversations between machines. Dead internet is absolutely real. The majority of traffic is automated. Humans are a minority online. There are entire conversations now that And by the way, when MIT did this, are synthetic. this was even pre... AI. I mean, I've even noticed that some of the... I mean, if you notice these things, not even on my feed, you go into another feed, these are clearly fake accounts. And you can almost figure out what the algorithm is. And there's a whole ClickFarm infrastructure now. Warehouses that are full of phones have been documented. Ten thousand plus devices per facility. Automated engagement software.

The humans are only there to supervise and make sure that the equipment is working. It is absolutely industrial scale fraud. And what is the business model? A thousand followers, ten dollars. Ten thousand likes, fifty dollars. A million views, five hundred dollars. A viral package, a thousand dollars. It's cheaper than real advertising. And what's the problem with this? Well, bots are increasingly sophisticated. So it's a... I mean, do you... I remember when... I mean, Elon continues to try to fight this, but I mean, there was always these, you know, I would say something like tits in bio or whatever it was. And it would actually become a joke and there would be memes about the fact that

you could tell that there were bots in the thing and then people would make a whole thing about that. But the behavioral patterns are easy to mimic. It's very easy now to mimic human-like behavior and it's very difficult to distinguish... real from fake, particularly with AI. So there are huge implications for that. There are implications in terms of market manipulation, democracy itself, culture being manufactured, consensus being manufactured, reality itself now has to be questioned. So the platform knows the metrics are fake and they've been caught repeatedly. And yet even with that, the fraud continues. So I'm going to play this clip of what one of these bot farms look like.

This is a really short clip, but it will give you a quick sense. Oh, I thought I had that. I know I have it here somewhere. Well, I mean, if it's not there, Hold on. you can see. See, that's not it. Let me try one thing. Let me upload it real quick. It's about a twenty second clip. Here we go. We'll get it up there. This is a classic example. As you can see even in the picture here before the video comes up,

there are a lot of phones there, but some of these Bot farms have ten thousand phones. So you'll be able to see the number in this particular bot farm. But this just gets extensive and and more massive. And then the ability to automate this, then the ability to use software so you don't even need. it's just there's there's so much going on I mean, here. You know, I mean, how many this says we have fourteen hundred ninety three people right now. I mean, I doubt we have that many people live. I don't know what bots are on here, but here's the video.

I mean, So that's it. the people involved are just supervising the machines. So, you know, it's completely a dead internet at this point. And when you look into this, Facebook has admitted this in court. Facebook admitted in court that they inflated video metrics by nine hundred percent. So publishers pivoted to video based on lies and went bankrupt. Employees lost jobs. What was Facebook's penalty? A settlement that was a rounding error. The fraud continues because it's a business model. It's kind of like Big Pharma, right? There's an acceptable amount of of death. an injury and it just becomes a cost of doing business so facebook knew about

this from years they knew it was nine hundred percent inflation they just hid it from partners and so publishers pivot had pivoted to this video model and it completely destroyed them the other thing is let's look at youtube so youtube in order to have something counted as a view somebody only has to watch it for three seconds Auto plays are counted as a view. Muted plays count. Bot views are included. So it's a completely meaningless metric. Then let's talk about Twitter and X impression fraud. Your own views are counted multiple times. Scrolling past something counts as an impression. No engagement is required. The numbers are completely meaningless. Advertisers are charged for nothing.

And I'm familiar with this. I started my first company was a.com I, you know, company that I started in. In the whole business model. was okay how many impressions are you going to get and at that point you were buying it on yahoo or excite or whatever the various search engines were and then how what was the click-through rate based on those impressions so how many impressions could you turn to visitors on your site and then based on those number of visitors what was the conversion rate what percentage of those viewers to your site bought something and then what was the average purchase price and the average gross margin this is how you determined whether or not it was a profitable endeavor.

Well, none of that matters here. You can't count on the main number about eyeballs at all. It's completely and totally meaningless. And nobody's even paying attention to this. I can't even imagine the degree to which I mean, advertisers are getting ripped off on this. Well, can I add something there, Aaron? Sure. So when we were so before we went to this all day live stream network on LFA, we had in every each show was individual and it would basically a show would end and then the next show would start. Right. And there would be kind of a flip So you would transfer your audience from Right. over. one to the other. And the night before, if you put your thumbnail up and you

actually put your title of your show up, you could have sometimes a thousand views before the show even started. So there's no content. There's nothing there. And you'd have a thousand or twelve hundred views. you take that times ten or twelve shows. So, you know, You're talking about, you know, twenty, thirty thousand clicks a day. And it's there's no content at all. You know, I mean, it's before the contents even started. And then, you know, so I just, I always found that funny. And so the goal was to get that thing loaded as soon as you could the night before so that you could get all those fake clicks. So that again, it would just add up and tally up and you could then market advertise,

you know, and get more, right. Does that make sense? Yeah, no, it makes complete sense. And then there are other techniques. I know Nick Fuentes will just play something on loop for hours and hours. You never know when he's going to show It's like a six-hour window. up. Maybe he shows up, but not all those kind of views. So he's just showing repeat clips. So, I mean, again, I'm beginning to think that all this is I see Courtney's here. bogus. I do apologize. I do have a bunch of content still to get through. How are you? Hi, Courtney. Hey, how are you? Good, good. I apologize. I still have a bunch of slides I wanted to get through just for some overview and then and then we can get into it.

I did go a little overboard on this, but I'm passionate about this topic because people have no idea what's really going on with social media and and these platforms. So, I mean, as I move through this, you know, again, then there's then there's a the whole attribution shell game so then there's advertising fraud so you're buying those shoes anyway but you saw a facebook ad last month so so facebook claims credit and then they charge the company thousands it's correlation sold as causation it's another multi-billion dollar fraud platforms take credit for the sun rising because you saw an ad before dawn And so it's the last click fraud. The last touchpoint gets all the credit.

It ignores the actual decision-making process. Natural purchases are attributed to ads. It's a multi-billion dollar deception. So while you think you're building an the algorithm is essentially building a audience, cage around you. um and you know and by the way this this this gets worse i we're waiting until we get into the specifics of each of these individual platforms but you're not banned you're not suspended your account is active but nobody sees your post so you're shouting into the void shadow banning is more effective than censorship because you never know what's happening it's digital solitary confinement I mean, you couple this with fake views. And again, we really, I mean,

is it like eight people on X and then just a whole bunch of bots? Who knows? But the technique for shadow banning is, you know, first search suggestion removal, then hashtag hiding, then reply deboosting. Then you get buried in the timeline. Then new notifications get suppressed. And then you get the denial game. Remember, for a long time, they denied it. Shadow banning doesn't exist. It's just the algorithm, right? I mean, they completely lied to us on that. And then they would tell you, you have to improve your content. Or they would say things like engagement naturally varies. we did learn during the COVID period that Now, these were all lies. But the tragic thing is people think that

it's changed. People think that we're in now a golden age of social media because Musk came in. Nothing has changed. Absolutely nothing has changed. And in many respects, it's gotten worse. So now we're dealing with the new engagement trap. And this is a big deal. So the MIT study proved this. Each negative word increases clicks by two point three percent. So the algorithm learned this. So now it feeds you outrage for breakfast. It feeds you controversy for lunch and indignation for dinner. You're not being informed. You're being inflamed. Our cortisol is essentially their profit margin. And the algorithm isn't broken.

It's working perfectly. This is exactly what they want to do. I have been on X very little since this Charlie Kirk thing because it is out of control with how this rage baiting is working. And all you have to do is look at Elon Musk's own posts and analyze those to see that it is entirely about fomenting division and anger. All of it. Everything that comes up on the feed is all about this. These people did it. These people did it. It was this. It was Israel. And that is that is algorithm. I actually just posted something just to show because I was shadow banned last Again, week. I was talking about how I'd get one like I'd get fifty views. So I'm like, I just decided I'm going to put out

a post. I'm going to have breaking news at noon about Charlie Kirk. Stay tuned. And, you know, and then I put, you know, I'm not suicidal, you know, whatever. I did one of those kinds of things. And of course, that post did phenomenally well. I didn't have anything, but it was just to prove prove the point. I might even do some more testing on this, but it's very clear. that this is how it works. And it's been proven that anger equals This has been proven by studies. engagement. And I even have a quote. Musk knows this. Musk knows exactly how this works. He's talked about it. So again, this idea that he's here to say free speech is absolutely a lie. So they optimize these algorithms to

maximize watch time. They know negative content always wins. Moderate views are always suppressed. Extreme content is always amplified. The center is kind of destroyed by design. And it uses dopamine manipulation. variable ratio reinforcement, intermittent rewards, slot machine mechanics. You can't stop controlling, excuse me, can't stop scrolling. This is all intentional. And this kind of thing has been studied. They employ psychologists in these social media companies to figure So it's not like, oh, well, out how to do this. we just figured out. I mean, they're intending to do this. This is the specific thing that they're trying to do. And what this has led to is social

Families are divided. destruction. Friendships are ended over posts. Communities are fractured. Trust gets eliminated. I mean, civilization is really undermined for this engagement. And now we have anxiety skyrocketing. We have a depression epidemic. Suicides are increasing. Children are particularly vulnerable to this. And Elon Musk admitted this, and he admitted that it's intentional. And I think this is the important point. He wants X to be like WeChat. So again, when people would say, oh, well, this is all about free speech, this is not... why he bought X. This is him in his own words. Listen to this. Indeed. we don't even have a map that's as I mean,

good as WeChat in China. In China, you can live on WeChat, basically. It's like, Yeah, everyone's like, you live on WeChat, you do payments, you do everything. It's like, yeah, it's great. WeChat's kick-ass. And we don't have anything like WeChat outside of China. So I was like, my idea would be like, how about if we just copy WeChat? Hey, copy them. Buy us Twitter, copies WeChat. Yeah, pretty much. Yes. So, I mean, when I say he's trying to emulate WeChat, I mean, it's not a conspiracy theory. I mean, he admitted to it. so um you know the wechat blueprint this is the basis of a social credit system in china what does he have he has

an identity system the algorithm is the social credit score x payments is going to be launching this year which i guarantee you will in will integrate stable coins so essentially backdoor cbdc's he's building exactly what they have in china and the funny thing is When I saw that clip, I saw that clip a long time ago when this was going on. But then it occurred to me, well, how much else has Elon Musk been ripping off of China? And it turns out that everything from reusable rockets to Neuralink and everything else, I will do a whole thing just on Elon Musk. But I mean, Americans have this idea of, oh, man, he invented all this stuff. America is leading the world in innovation.

It's like the dude is just ripping off China. It's crazy. It's crazy that this is happening. But there's this hero concept, the hero worshiping that's going on. So I might go through some of this a little bit more quickly here. But, you know, I mean, I do want to say that when it comes to the media, the people pushing this, they know what they're doing. EEG scans prove it. Your brain enters a hypnotic theta state within sixty seconds of watching TV. You literally become as suggestible as a hypnotized child. Critical thinking shuts down. Your subconscious becomes wide open. They call it programming for a reason. It is not a metaphor. So you go from beta to alpha to

theta. That progression is documented. And I'm not going to go through all the frequency waves. But TV triggers this. And so when this happens... You know, the flicker rate matches the alpha waves. The audio patterns induce a trance. You then get repetitive visuals that deepen the state and critical thinking then goes offline. These studies started in nineteen sixty There have been consistent findings on nine. this globally. So the first thirty minutes are the most you're the most vulnerable for programming. Evening viewing is the worst because you have a tired brain at this point. So right before you go to sleep and you're nodding off. So they know this.

So they program more emotional content for even deeper impact. This is where you're going to start to see all of these big pharma commercials with foot fungus. Well, take this. You might die. And whatever the long list of things is, well, that's just going into your subconscious and you don't even realize it. And the effects last hours after viewing. Dreams incorporate this content. Your behavior is influenced for the next day. Your beliefs start shifting gradually. Your personality's changed over time. So this is really dangerous because again, at the end of the day, adults watching TV enter the same brain state as children. And you essentially have no defense. So now that you know this,

you do have a defense. You can stop doing this, but realize you literally are being programmed. Children from the ages of zero to seven are in a permanent theta state. There's no critical filter. There's no defense. So when you watch TV exhausted at night, your brain becomes that child. Everything goes directly to your subconscious without any filter. And so you probably notice this if you have young kids. I mean, they can't necessarily distinguish reality, what's real, what's fake, imaginary friends, so on and so forth. There's no filter whatsoever. And this is the time when limiting beliefs get installed when you're a kid. Well, you get that same thing happening when

you're watching not just TV programming. It actually extends to the other media here. But then you look at this whole industry of commercials and political messages and fear narratives. I mean, they're all playing off of this in a very scientific way. So this mental programming has severe physical consequences, and your body literally starts attacking itself. And so the fear news triggers your amygdala, which then floods your body with cortisol, which causes inflammation. The inflammation causes disease, things like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, all linked to chronic stress. They are literally killing us for ratings. Our death is their business model. I'm not going to go through a lot

of technical detail here, but it's a fear story. Um, get your adrenal glands pumping. And then, you know, again, the inflammation disease follows, and this is essentially known by them. Again, this isn't one of those things where it's like, oh, well, we just thought we were, you know, producing television content. We didn't realize all of this. They've been known, they've known about this for a long period of time. So I'm going to play a, I do have a couple of clips, but one of my favorites is from the movie Network. I don't know if you've seen that. Television is not the truth. We deal in illusions, man. None of it is true. I'll play a clip from that because this

clip applies to everything that's going on with social media today. So let me see. Do I have that clip? I believe I have this clip. I'll circulate it around later because Well, you know what? there's actually kind of a long clip. So in the interest of time, I think I'll skip it anyway. But it is a great, great clip. And I mean, that is essentially the essence of it. People don't read books. And the entirety of the media complex has nothing to do with truth. It is all about selling you stuff.

So I'm going to move into... some other areas here before we get into talking about the specific companies today which is going to be eye-opening but you know one way you can spot the fake with any of these media platforms is are they venture capital funded if so that's strike one do they have centralized servers that's strike two do they have complex terms of service that's strike three do they require a phone number you're out Because if they have all of those things, it's not an alternative. It's the same trap with better marketing. Because all of those things are points of threat where the system and the platform

can be leveraged. Who owns the servers? Who processes payments? Who provides the bandwidth? Who controls the DNS? Every choke point matters. And then you have to look at the business model test. How do they make money? Who are the investors? What's their exit strategy? So this has been a historical pattern for all forms of media, whether it's cable news or the first iteration of the internet. And there's absolutely nothing different with these alternative media sites. So now we are actually going to get into the new platforms. and we'll start with rumble so craig craig knows quite a bit about this do you do you want to talk about and share what you what you've learned about the

ownership of of rumble um yeah so the uh so as rumble came into formation um you know chris pavlovsky and what were the other guys aaron there's a group of people that kind of formed that do you know any of the other names i know chris pavlovsky led the thing there were a couple other big names in there Any of those names you can remember? No, I just know Poblowski. Yeah. And so essentially when they came in, when they started up, they needed funding. And one of the big ones right out of the gate was a company, a venture capital firm called Naria Capital. And as Aaron talked about a couple of weeks ago, was it two weeks ago when you did

the series on JVance? It was last month, just last Monday. Was it last Monday? Yeah. The Chief Financial Officer is Brandon Alexandrov. The Chief Technology Officer is Wolchik Hibabawiki. And the chief operating officer is Tyler Hughes. And the chief content officer is Claudio Romolo. And the president of Locals, which is, you know, one of their sub companies, is SF. Okay. And the investor and ownership is Peter Thiel, Naraya. And interesting. They say that Trump is affiliated through his Truth Social. I'm not sure what the connection is,

but there's some sort of pollination there. I don't know. Well, so along with Narya Capital, that actually also includes Vivek Ramaswamy. So we have Vivek, we have Peter Thiel, and J.D. Vance all in this. And then the most recent addition is Tether. who invested seven hundred and seventy five million dollars, which comes to one hundred and three million three hundred thirty three thousand three hundred thirty three shares. Yep. And so that's so that's Howard Lutnik. Yeah. So so this is this is like I said earlier, I mean, again, if this were twenty twenty two and somebody said, hey, you know, Hunter Biden owns a media outlet, people would be furious about this.

But people aren't paying attention to And it isn't just limited to Rumble. As we go through this, you're going to find that every single one of these major alternative platforms is owned by either incredibly politically connected people or the actual politicians themselves, which is kind of unheard of. Yeah. And that Tether investment was labeled, I mean, it was very, you know, the headline was strategic investment, you know, and I think that is the case. And another strategic investment, if you really think about it, Dan Bongino owns five point seven percent of it, right, of their class A common stock. So that's over, I think, I think he owns over fifteen point eight million shares.

So it adds up to one hundred million dollars, which is pretty mind boggling if you really think about it. You know, here we have the assistant deputy director of the FBI. And I don't know if this is in a blind trust or how it's structured, but that is a significant, significant consideration that the deputy secretary of the FBI is the deputy director is still a five point seven percent shareholder in Rumble as well. He's also a shareholder in Parler. Yeah, exactly. So I mean, again, to me, this is crazy. So you've had this experience. So think about this. So when I talk to people, people are like, yeah, Rumble, we've got a free speech platform. So Craig, with what you already described,

it's absolutely pay to play on this platform. From my research, there are issues. I'll go on to the next slide where There are all kinds of accusations about fraudulent traffic. So Culper Research exposed it. Thirty seven percent of Rumble's traffic is malware redirects and bots. So users jumped from five million to twenty one million overnight. which is essentially mathematically impossible. And there was nothing that actually drove There was not an organic event that could that. actually compensate for this growth. So the SEC is investigating, which, do we think that the SEC is going of course, to do a real deep dive on this at this point in time, given the political connections here?

We love us. Yeah, absolutely. The SEC is always interested in, in the truth. So, so, um, we know manipulates metrics. Uh-huh. I've had firsthand experience and I, it's almost worse than in some ways than YouTube because YouTube, like, you know, they're very overt about their censorship. So they'll just take you down or they'll take down the video or whatever it is. I mean, they're very arbitrary, but, but it's overt. Uh, so at least, you know, that there's, they're censoring you. Yeah. Whereas what Rumble will do is I feel it's like algorithmic gaslighting. So and I've experienced it because I do a lot of shows with other like I have a show where I have a co-host and, you know,

I do other shows where we'll both stream. My show will go out to the like, you know, when they email the subscribers, it will take a few days. That same show will go to the other people that like that second instantly. So they're manipulating the views that way. And I've experienced this firsthand. So, yeah. Well, and to add to that, if I can. So when we started getting featured all the time and we were getting, you know, somewhere for a couple of months, we'd stabilize thirteen to fifteen. Sometimes you'd go to eighteen thousand, you know, live viewers, supposedly. And there'd be occasions I'd look over and the thing would spike up to thirty five thousand and then it'd go down to eight

thousand. put me back up to fifteen thousand and you know that it has nothing to do with what I'm saying or doing or anything like that and what I think the takeaway is that they really have their hands on the dials that much that they can drive traffic or they can drive algorithms or whatever it is that they're driving you know they can move people around almost like you know like a deck of cards you know to some extent you know it's like okay well let's dial this one up you know they're at fifteen thousand and so i don't know if it's just balancing content and flow but i know there were like the on on rumble when we were on there there was a show called i forget

what it was something the chicks or something like that the uh the trump chicks or i can't remember the name of it right what's that it's on the right Yeah. Yeah. Chicks on the right. Yeah. That's what it was. Chicks on the right. So Chicks on the right. So you didn't know if you were going to get, you know, were Chicks on the right going to get fifteen thousand or are we going to get fifteen thousand? It was just, you just don't know. And, you know, it doesn't matter really, you know, you know, at first you think you're doing a really great job and then you're just like, I don't know who's Chicks on the right or World HD today. I don't know. So they've had this... They're still losing money.

And the numbers don't make any sense. Again, five million to twenty-one overnight, which organic growth is not possible. Their view counts are three to five times YouTube. But the same video gets different numbers. The math does not add up at all. And you can tell from the comments. There's not a lot of engagement. And even some of the comments... I don't know how many times I get, oh, well, we can help you with your podcast. If you want, hire us. A lot of the comments are people, they're bots or people trying to sell you something. But then they also have these, I don't know if you want to call them creator bribes, but they paid a whole bunch of people to come on board early for exclusives.

So they paid fifty million dollars to Steven Crowder. And they paid a bunch of money to other people. They paid Russell Brand. I mean, there's a whole long list of people that they tried to secure early exclusives. And so obviously, the election was big for them. But since the election, they've seen a forty percent user drop post-election. So there's kind of an artificial political boost revealed. and seasonal manipulation um so the real users are a a tiny base so i mean i don't know how many people out there if you if you're commenting or anybody there um actually on rumble right

now i mean i don't have much of a rumble presence i'm getting most of my fake traffic from x but if anybody out there is from rumble please please chime in even if you're a bot and if you hear this you know maybe you can Give me something back in Chinese. We love the real people out there, right? We love the real ones. It's algorithmic chatbots. Oh, there we go. Zero woke points. There we go. Not a bot. So that's great. Grateful to have you there. Rumble. Look at that. Everything. So it's real. but you know as we're going to move into the midterm elections i'm sure we're going to see more of these kinds of shenanigans but this stuff has to get called out i mean how you know again

how many businesses i'd love to i'd love to talk to some advertisers and hear you know what is their experience what is their conversion rate on this alleged traffic What I haven't been able to find are case studies. Usually, even during the dot-com era, you'd have case studies of, okay, well, this person did an exclusive and they generated this much revenue or whatever. Where are the case studies for Rumble? Where are the satisfied advertisers talking about how much money they made? I haven't found them yet. Maybe they're out there, but I'm sure if they're out there, we're going to find out that their company's owned by Peter Thiel or Vivek or something like that.

So that's X. I mean, excuse me, that's Rumble. Do you have anything else you want to add on the Rumble front before we move on to X? I would love to add something. Uh, it's a little bit back, but, um, you were talking about like the, um, you know, the, essentially the cognitive warfare and how they use the algorithms to target your subconscious. I had sent you my algorithmic Oracle. I know it's more like a book. But in there, I have a couple of screenshots from the cognitive warfare document. There were actually a couple of them. They were done by NATO intelligence. And it's called cognitive warfare. But there is a series. There was one white paper in twenty twenty

That's a pretty long one. one. But they did a series of cognitive warfare documents. And there's a couple of quotes. I'd love to read one or two of They talk about how. them. It's different than psychological warfare, that cognitive warfare is targeting the subconscious. They say the additional reason why NATO is developing a concept for cognitive warfare, a cognitive attack directly targets the minds of civilians, meaning noncombatant, as that is a violation of law and armed conflict. Unlike psychological operations, cognitive activities are not directed at our conscious mind, but our subconscious mind, the main drivers of our behavior, emotions. This takes place through our

hyper-personalized targeting, integrating and exploiting neuroscience, biotechnology, information, and cognitive techniques, NBIC, right? I always show that document that was from the This is what really inspired the AI precision medicine that was launched under Obama and now is being launched under Maha. But it was a white paper document that the White House launched back in two thousand two, mainly using social media and digital networks for neuro profiling and targeting individuals. We need to realize that individuals are at the center of all military operations and strategic political decision making. Although they often sound like ideas from

science fiction film, cognitive attacks are not science fiction anymore. They are taking place already now, and these attacks will continue to become more sophisticated. Several countries are developing NBIC capabilities and collecting data for use in targeting the cognitive dimension. And again, that document, NBIC, was in the year of the Cognitive Warfare document. from NATO's that I'm reading from is twenty twenty one. These activities are supported by aspects such as data mining, data analytics and are further combined with artificial intelligence. Although most of the cognitive attacks remain below the threshold of armed conflict, the effects can be lethal and multidomain

affecting all five domains of warfare. these attacks are people centric, Furthermore, meaning they have human cognition at the center of gravity and are in principle That is continuous, never-ending battle. Although not proven to be a cognitive attack, the so-called Havana Syndrome, a cluster of adverse symptoms reported by intelligence and military personnel U.S. stationed abroad in recent years, could well be an instance of the use of cognitive capability. China is globally one of the leading nations in the scientific development of of nbic capabilities china conducts human research and experiments that are deemed unethical according to western standards

but these experiments nevertheless attract scientists from all over the world within the context of the chinese three warfare strategy an integrated people-centric psychological and legal approach the chinese have developed a database with the profiles of more than two million prominent individuals worldwide That may be, and that's where it cuts off, but you kind of get the idea of what they're after. And then there's this, this other one is very short. It says in cognitive warfare, the ultimate aim is to alter our perception of reality and deceive our brain in order to affect our decision-making. Well, that's great. And that's a great lead in because I have a clip that is about a four

minute clip, but it actually has Elon Musk talking a bit about the limbic system. And I think it's important to play this so that people understand what Musk's knowledge is about what's going on just so that there's no mistake about where he's coming from in terms of how this works. So I'm going to play this play this clip. Just a lot of sort of trickery going on here. I call it the race to the bottom of the brainstem to get people's attention at all costs. It is, in large part, our Idrit Lodge. How so? Well, you mentioned all those things, the sort of primal drives. There's all the things that we like and

hate and fear. They're all there on the internet, their projection of our Olympic system. No, it makes sense. And the thinking of it as a, I mean, think of thinking of corporations and just thinking of just human beings communicating online through these social media networks as some sort of an organism. That's a, it's a cyborg. It's a combination. It's a combination of electronics and biology. In some measure, the success of these online systems is sort of a function of how much limbic

resonance they're able to achieve with people. The more limbic resonance, the more engagement. Whereas, like... One of the reasons why probably Instagram is more enticing than Twitter. Lumbic resonance. Yeah. Our next guest called them, quote, a living, breathing crime scene for what happened in the twenty sixteen election. Tristan Harris is a former design ethicist for Google and has been called the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience by The Atlantic magazine. He joins us now here in the studio. Tristan, great to have you here. So what did you hear today that makes you think things are any worse or better than perhaps you would have thought?

I think no matter what these companies Well, want to say that they do, they've created, they've unleashed Pandora's box. They've unleashed this civilization scale mind control machine, never before in history have fifty engineers, twenty to thirty years old, living in San Francisco, where we are right now, influenced what a billion people are thinking and doing with their time and their attention. And we've enabled this channel that's exploiting people's cognitive biases. We're exploiting people's psychology. And we have to ask ourselves, what do we actually care about? Should these products be designed for addiction, which is what they're designed for now? And this has huge public health

consequences for children. What are the consequences? We had Jim Steyer of Common Sense Media on the show yesterday, and there really isn't a lot of research on how tech impacts children, shockingly, given that there's so much concern about it, but we actually don't know. there's a great article by Gene Twenge Well, that got a lot of traction called Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation? And it talks about many of the cultural and social impacts of technology. how addiction to smartphones have changed our relationship. People are more isolated, more depressed. And if you just look at the dynamics, Snapchat, for example, puts the number of days in a row that you sent a message as a kid

to all of your friends. And they're inventing this number. It's a persuasive, manipulative design technique to keep two kids on the hook, to keep this ball getting tossed back and forth every day. If they stop throwing the ball back and forth, they lose the number. And so kids start defining the currency of their friendship based on whether they're sending this empty message back and forth. So you have literally, Snapchat's the number one way for teenagers in the US to communicate. So you have a hundred million teenagers that are basically out there throwing empty messages back and forth. Is any of this designed to help us or is this just to addict us? Do thousands of people wake up and say,

gosh, how can we strengthen the public square? No. Thousands of people go to work asked to drive up one number, which is how much are people engaging with and increasing the time they spend on these services. I want to live in a world where the tech industry is actually about helping humanity. And there's a lot of ways they can And so we started this nonprofit, do that. that's basically about changing and Time Well Spent, realigning technology with human values and what technology is supposed to be for. Why in the world would we not have it be that way? Wow. Yeah. So it's stark. And there are actually numerous clips of Musk talking about his understanding that

it's all about manipulating the limbic system. It's all about manipulating people's He knows this. emotions. So when he changes the algorithms, when he starts pushing this stuff, what's going on on X, the fact that the feed is all about trying to create nine different versions of a civil war, he understands exactly what he's doing. It's not a mistake. Yeah. Tristan Harris was he went to Stanford and Well, worked in he's worked in the Stanford persuasive technology lab. So, I mean, he came. All right. It's I mean, that's what he studied. You know, at some point it sounds like he had a little bit of a turning where he's like, yeah, this probably he probably saw things turning at all.

I think he he he's a game B person and I think game B. He's game B. I think he's fully aware of the operation and he knows exactly what to say. So he's been, and I actually, uh, somebody who works with him, uh, like, uh, subscribed to my sub stack. I'm pretty sure it was a mole spying on me. Um, but, uh, I think that his big thing right now is the children. So he's coming from the angle that he's very sympathetic to the impact that the AI has on children. Everything he says rhetorically, I can't argue with. I shouldn't say everything. But when he talks about the concerns he has with AI and this social media usage and the impact on children, I absolutely agree rhetorically.

But I think that he's a very skilled rhetorician. And I think he absolutely knows what he's doing and the impact that he has and how that is luring people into the bigger plan. The bigger plan, of course, is that we have to create this AGI that we parent. so that we can co-evolve with the AGI, which is, of course, predicated on this notion that we'll have which is the artificial super intelligence ASI, that will lead to the singularity. So in order to protect ourselves, they were going to program. But what is benevolence? Who's determining that benevolence? My code of ethics, I don't think are aligned or necessarily the same. Most of them are using code of ethics

that are dictated by Gaia religion, which is not my religion. So, yeah, but I am very familiar with him and what he says sounds great. But I'm also very aware of what his underpinnings are. Yeah. Well, and it shows that he's working at the Time Well Spent Initiative, later turned into the Center for Humane So like you said, it all sounds great, Technology. You know, right? built on the idea he was raising inside Google. So again, it sounds like he left, all was good. He's trying to help humanity, right? but I didn't realize his connections in Sounds great, the game beat. Yeah, it was, I don't remember her name, but she works for the Center for Humane Technology. Okay. Follow me, yeah.

Well, yeah, I assumed as much as well. But he might be interesting to get on here if we can to have him see what he has to say. Whenever I see an ethicist working for a big tech company, I'm always a little bit suspicious. Well, and I also am very careful these days because I've been listening to so many of these people. And they're really skilled, I would argue, sophists. But they use the language that I would But you have to understand their use. metaphysics. The metaphysics aren't the same. And so, you know, maybe we agree. I keep using the analogy of building a house. They may agree on what color to paint the walls, but we haven't agreed on what the foundation is going to be like.

They may want wood foundation. I'm like, no, guys, we need brick, solid brick. And we need like a bunker down there. But that's the part that we haven't even discussed. And we're discussing what color we're painting the walls. So we may agree like, hey, we really like that off-white. It's not too sterile. It's aesthetically pleasing. And we're in agreement there. But we haven't decided what is this being built on. Yeah. Yep, that's a great point. Well, so on X, so I think people need to understand. So again, Elon savings free speech is the narrative. But let's look at who else owns this So we have a Saudi prince who bought platform. one point nine billion dollars worth.

We have Russian oligarch connections. We have Larry Ellison, who built the CIA's first database and is one billion dollars, now going to take over TikTok, which we will talk about separately. so the platform that's supposed to be fighting authoritarianism is literally owned by authoritarianism authoritarians and so this is uh this is not a great situation and the list even you know yeah p diddy i mean it really is kind of a rogues gallery of people that invented this thing um so A lot of people are aware of this. A lot of people think that Elon Musk put up all of his own money to buy this, which is also not true. He got a lot of debt to back it up as well.

And I can't remember if Sam Bankman Freed invested or not. I know there were discussions about it, but I think maybe that didn't happen. But nevertheless, it's not a great combination of people if you look at their track record. And there really isn't any reason to think that there are fundamentally any free speech advocates even about this. And so when you dig more into hold on, let me see. That's the wrong slide. Why am I not seeing the ability to come back here? So hold on. I have a slight technical problems here.

the one that's really caught me by Now this one, surprise, this one's really concerning right here. Yeah, let me see. Oh, this is Larry Ellison. Yeah. Yeah, Oracle. Yep, and the TikTok purchase. Uh-huh. Yeah, so as far as X, we've got Elon Musk, Kingdom Holding Company, controlled by Saudi Prince. The Alawid bin Talal, which is a Saudi billionaire. Larry Ellison. Bill Ackman. That's interesting.

Jack Dorsey is still a pretty large shareholder of Twitter, which I always find really interesting because nobody, I mean, he's got his like blue sky and people don't think of him as being affiliated with Twitter anymore. But I think that's all, you know, theater. Sean Diddy Combs is actually a big investor in Twitter. And then Andreessen Harrison, obviously. Horowitz, yeah. Horowitz, yep. And they're really big investors in Substack as well. They have a large ownership of Substack. Yep. Which is obviously a red flag and concerning. It is, but you know, the thing about Substack, I mean, they're obviously in the sweetening phase of the honeypot. They're pouring the sugar in.

But I think with Substack, the one thing, there are two things with Substack that are really, they're very different. One is that you get ownership of the email list, which is very different from the other platforms. So you have a little more control over your audience. And then you also can because it's really primarily now they have video and they're really trying to promote that now. But it launched as a writing platform, you know, a competition with the medium or in that sphere. And you can save PDFs of all your articles. you could always write them in a different I mean, platform and then put them in cut and paste. But you can take PDFs. You have a little more ownership than you

do with, like, something like Twitter where it's instantly gone. Or on the video platforms, if they take it down and you don't have it somewhere else, it's gone, you know? Mm-hmm. Manufacturing conservative influencers. Oh, here's another thing I wanted to address that you guys were talking about when you were talking about like a big influencer that you might want to promote and make them, you know, prop them up. And how does that work? I actually know somebody who was involved in developing this technology, but they have, so they can use where it looks like multiple people, like they have, they could make it look like hundreds or even thousands have donated to, let's say,

your favorite YouTube platformer. you know, like your YouTube personality. And if they really want to amplify them, you know, they'll give them all these like super chats, for instance. And it could be done where they're anonymous cards, but it's really coming from one entity. Interesting. And they do this because I know somebody was involved in developing that technology. So they, I mean, yeah, he didn't know that's how it would be used, but they do do it. And that's like a way that, you know, let's say an organization or a big backer wants to promote like a specific propagandist. They make it look like it's organic, but it's not. It's actually coming from one source,

but it's multiple credit cards that can't be chased. They're anonymous credit cards. Interesting. I'm going to build a super chat system using crypto, but that's not my intention is to do that. So, I mean, again, are there even that many people on the internet? When you look at the bots and then even the traffic and now if even super chats are being faked, I mean, again, how much real engagement is there out there? We'll never know, but... money. It's just that it's not coming from the multiple sources you think that it is. You're like, oh, wow, so many people are giving them super shots. They must be really popular, but it's really one source that's funding them.

It just looks like it's multiple for objects. Well, so, you know, on that point, so X's algorithms are also manipulated and Musk has shown a willingness to suppress. So H-B critics, when there was that whole debate over H-B visas, the critics were immediately lost. Seventy percent of their reach. Republicans all of a sudden got a three hundred percent boost while Democrats were suppressed. Twenty five percent. Even Laura Loomer was destroyed for a while on X and she lost her blue checkmark. And Musk's response was, quote, fuck yourself. That was actually the way that he responded to this. And then even said further,

the algorithm isn't neutral. So, I mean, so much of that was organic. Also, like a lot of them are claiming that that was the reason. But there were a lot of things going on simultaneously. And I honestly think a lot of it. I don't know because I'm not privy to these sort of things. But I do think it was an operation and there were multiple levels to it. And there were a bunch of things going on simultaneously. So a lot of the people were saying that that was the reason that they were censored. There were other things going on at the time. So I don't know the full story, but... There were other things, but then there were also a wave of accounts, like five thousand accounts that were

removed at that time, like Graper accounts. And there was a whole a whole series of things that were going on. And then Musk promised to make the algorithm open source, which he did, but then changed it forty seven times. And so now and I remember at the beginning he had like a. Well, he was going to form a committee, but then there was like a whole group of accounts like Ian Miles Chong and Gunther Eagleman and all these other things. And they got some special boosting for no reason. It was just like his original kind of content advisory board was like, hey, I'm going to put together a group of people that represent I would say different voices, but the group that he picked,

they're not really different voices. And then he completely amplified them over everything else. And I'm going to get to this in a second about how much of even influencer content is paid for, but not documented through a company called Influenceables. And I learned about this. And so then I start looking at my feed. I'm like, okay, this is ninety five percent garbage that I can identify as being garbage. So so we've seen. H-I-B retaliation, political amplification, we've seen him admit the resonates with limbic system, only the paranoid survive. We know that it's a rage farm economy. And we also know it's all about data theft. We know that all these posts are used for AI training.

This is part of the deal, right? This is how he's... In fact, isn't... X and X AI, they merged, right? Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, this whole thing is about training the AI. And on that, Musk originally... went out and said first he was he was anti-ai and then he supports open ai and then he tries to make this claim that it needs to be open source to save humanity and then when he gets into a lawsuit with sam altman the discovery ends up showing that he was actually trying to take open ai for tesla So, I mean, he's lied completely. There are multiple examples of him saying something publicly,

and that's not what his actual motivations were through court documents and other sources of information. So this is problematic, and I'm saying this for those that may be listening to this because I know this is one of the most difficult – issues that we have. I have in the last week had to debate with people that have said things like, well, technocracy is inevitable, but at least we have Peter Thiel on our side. I'm not kidding. And, and they've said things like, you know, yeah, people have said, well, you know, Peter Thiel's on our side because, you know, he doesn't like Bill Gates. Oh yeah. There's complete buy-in into this, you know, Oh, technocracy is fine.

Now we have to pick a side on which technocracy flavor we want. And Teal's our guy. And I'm just one, we shouldn't be giving up on technocracy. But the idea that Peter Teal is a good guy is is and looking out for like i don't know how he's on our side i don't know what side you're on if peter teal's on your side but you know so yeah it's it's really really bizarre but um so i mean that's where we are with x so x so understand again summary he wants it to be the wechat app he knows that you can manipulate people's limbic systems huh He said, not in that clip, but he said, yeah, we should do it like WeChat, but better. Yeah, exactly. So, I mean,

this is what's going on here. And again, I know a lot of people are like, oh, he did this. He's patriotic. He was trying to save America. He was trying to save Western civilization. and that was his sole motivation for doing this and it's like no he was behind an ai wasn't able to steal it from open ai wanted to build a wechat app which is something he wanted to do all the way back when he had x before it became paypal like there's it's just insane that this that these narratives actually spread and that people still hold on to them so i actually think this is one of the problems that we have with technocracy is is so many people look at him as the white knight,

that they don't even want to consider the idea that he's a technocrat and what all of the implications are of that. I actually see this as the biggest hurdle. I've experienced that as a hurdle because there are people that I've been talking to the whole time where the whole time I've been saying, no, Musk is pushing an agenda. And people were like, well, no, he's doge. This is really an opportunity for us to fix the deep state, the administrative state. I'm like, this is never going to happen. And so finally, now that that didn't happen, and now that we know that he's given our data to Palantir through these APIs and everything, now people are at least starting to consider it,

but they still don't want to believe it. So I think this is one of our biggest obstacles, frankly, in getting people to look at this. Well, they definitely put Teal in. There's definitely an effort. It might not be a massive successful effort, but there's definitely an effort to put Musk and Teal in some form of a good light because that's why people perceive that. I mean, there's really nothing... there's really nothing that Teal does that I can see that would put him in a good light, but there's clearly some marketing, a minimal marketing effort to some degree, right. To put him in a good light, you know, associating with this guy or that guy or whatever. I don't know what it is,

but there has to be something going on, you know, and then obviously we watched the whole thing with Musk and last night he's back shaking hands with, you know, Trump again. And so, you know, you have to question that whole thing, you know, I mean, that stuff carries a lot of weight. You know, you're in front of that many people that big of an audience, right. You know, and it, it does influence people's minds. You know, that handshake means a lot to a lot of people. Yeah. They're going to fall for it again. Exactly. I couldn't even watch that thing. I've seen clips of it. I'm like, you know, again, fireworks at a funeral. Like what, what is happening? Yeah. So, I mean, that's X. I mean,

we have parlor. I don't even know if parlor is even really a thing anymore. Anymore. But I wanted to bring it up just because to further explain who the money is behind these alternative platforms. So this had the Mercers behind it. So the Mercers gave Trump twenty five million dollars. They gave Breitbart ten million dollars. They funded Cambridge Analytica's data harvesting. and then they bankrolled parlor and and so this was never about free speech this was about building a political weapon which they which they used but then january the sixth happened and they ended up pulling the plug one other thing though is it so robert mercer is a billionaire through

renaissance tech and then his daughter is a board member and increasingly has more and more power and my understanding is she wrote Vance's book, Hillbilly Elegy, or she was behind that as well. So this is how intertwined... Rebecca was behind writing Vance's book? Was either behind it or behind putting the whole thing together. Yeah, that's my understanding. Whoa. That is interesting. It is. I should probably double confirm that because that turns out not to be the case. But no, actually, yes. I talked about this last week. Vance is completely scripted. And then whatever job Vance had, I think he was an operations guy for

a biotech company, and he didn't show up for work because he was out promoting the book. I mean, the whole thing is just bizarre. The person most often credited with encouraging and helping to write Vance's book was Yale Law School professor Amy Chua. I'm just looking, I mean, this is just a cursory search. I obviously would need to do some deeper, but just on first, it says the connection between Vance and Mercer are part of a later phase of his career as he moved into venture capital and then to politics. That I guess would make sense. Vance has reportedly advised Mercer on her involvement with the conservative technology platforms like Parler. There we go, full circle.

So it's not the book, but there is a connection. And she did make significant contributions to the Super PAC, Protect Ohio Values, which went into Vance's Super PAC. No, no, no. They're saying the connection between Mercer and Vance are part of the later phase of his career as he moved into venture capital and then politics. And Vance has reportedly advised Mercer on her involvement with conservative technology platforms such as Parler. So there definitely is a connection there, but it's not the book. So, but that is interesting. Wow. I didn't know that. Um, Mercer's teal drop millions in. Oh, wait, maybe here's an article. Uh, Yeah, so maybe there's a deeper dive.

Okay, Mercer's Teal drops millions into Hillbilly Elegy. Author's possible Senate run. Billionaire's bankroll Trump donated more than ten million into Super PAC. Okay, yeah, this is a Super PAC, so it's not necessarily the book, but yeah. That may be where the confusion is from the Teal. Well, here's where I think it is, Erin. Mercer has been involved in connection with Hillbilly Elegy's author politically. So, with the author. He may have funded the author. Yeah. Well, yeah. And the whole point is this book was architected to help him appeal to Ohio voters. So the whole thing was propaganda. And so I need to find the original source that I looked at because I did

find a source and now I need to find the documentation that suggested there was a more direct influence. So, cause again, yeah. Yeah. Well, and don't forget Robert Mercer. I mean, you know, Renaissance technology is pretty shady too, in a lot of ways, you know, I mean, it's go ahead. Is this bio Renaissance? No, this is the hedge fund, right? Okay. Okay. Yeah. You know, who's the CEO of that one is. What is it? Renaissance technologies. Yeah. Do you know who the CEO of it is? No, I don't know that one. It's Maurice Belcher, who's Claire's father, who's Elon's, also known as Grimes,

Elon Musk's baby mama. Okay. Wow. Yeah. So it's amazing how intertwined this is. So again, Parler, you now have these overlapping interests with Vance and Parler and Vance and Rumble. And again, it's not like he has a... He has no publishing background, right? There's no background at all. He works for Teal, and then he works on this biotech company for which he has no experience and apparently did nothing other than promote his book. Then he started this other fund. And so his entire... career is kind of fake and so now he's heavily influenced though and well connected on the media front and on the political front and he's got the network

for silicon valley so it's it's kind of mind-boggling how how all that worked but i mean there's not much we need to say about parlor because since it's gone but i i think that it's important for people i feel like parlor was huge uh you know as an influence operation during the election time During twenty twenty for sure. Right. Yeah. During twenty twenty. And created so much polarization. And it was very influential on the boomer generation, like because I would talk to them and what they loved about it. They said it was like just headlines. They didn't have to read anything. It was like it was basically like just getting a bunch of headlines flooded at them.

And that's essentially think about the power of that for propaganda, though, and for division, right? Yeah. Well, and that's what you wonder if TikTok's being formed for now, right? Underneath. Yeah. Well, so TikTok is an interesting story, but I had forgotten about this. So the aftermath of Parler was it was sold to a hedge fund, but there was a brief period of time where there was some news announcement that Kanye West had bought or was going to buy Parler. And I'm seeing that he had a brief involvement, but it doesn't seem like he's involved. And I'm not sure what's going on with it. But that whole thing was a weird, weird thing. I guess Bongino had invested a million dollars in it,

completely controlled by political operatives. So again, but it was pitched as a free speech platform. Yes. And it was a, I don't want to use the word disinformation, but it was definitely a political propaganda platform. Propaganda. I mean, it was literally like headlines, headline after headline with no context or, yeah, it was propaganda. Yep. So now we have TikTok, which I thought I corrected that slide, but nevertheless. Now we have TikTok, which is – this is an interesting one because five years ago when there was the threat of shutting down TikTok, the ownership of the data – because everybody was trying to make this argument that China was using it for –

intelligence purposes and for manipulating the American people and building a database and so forth. But my understanding is that Oracle took over operations of the database years ago. So that is not what has been driving the change. And what it does seem like now, this deal hasn't closed yet. But TikTok has been a huge platform where people have been able to speak out against Israel and have been able to speak positively about Palestine. And if you look at the people that have been brought in, even going back five years ago, they've brought in people that are associated with groups. So it looks like there may be a

censorship play here. This is not actually about the CCP. This is actually about... reigning in opposition to Israeli foreign policy. And so, because again, the threat about the data had already been neutralized five years ago. So the new buyers are Larry Ellison, Andreessen Horowitz again, Um, but with Larry Ellison being the major investor and interestingly, I mean, he all of a sudden became the richest man. I guess he dropped down a little bit again, but you know, he's surged with this AI stuff with the, what was it? Our project Stargate with the AI thing and MRNA.

And then, um, He's doing all of these... He's involved with multiple AI projects with OpenAI and doing databases for everything. And he's already working with the CIA and already working with the Federal Reserve. He is a major donor to the IDF directly. He's personal friends with Benjamin Netanyahu. I mean, I think there's... Because again, when... He hasn't been a major player in media like this. So now all of a sudden he's moving into, you know, a billion dollars into X and now becoming the majority shareholder of TikTok. That's kind of a weird, weird thing to happen when you're eighty four. All of a sudden come up with an interest in this. So he's already controlling the data and

now he's going to control the company. I mean... TikTok is a huge data mining operation. So, I mean, for somebody who's, I mean, his whole thing is like, essentially it's a transhuman agenda. So it would make sense that he would want to have controlling ownership of something that's that large a database. Well, and I don't know if you covered this yet, Erin, I was looking something up, but his son was responsible for the purchase of Paramount. Right. And then Paramount's the umbrella that's now trying to purchase Warner Brothers. So there's clearly something going on here. And don't forget that Rupert Murdoch was just brought into this whole thing, too. Right. Last night,

Rupert Murdoch got brought into the whole thing. The Murdoch family is going to be involved in this tick tock. Oh, I didn't see that. I actually been working on this all day and I haven't even seen any of the news. So what's that all about? Well, I mean, I think, you know, the again, I think it boils down to the people who control the algorithm control how people get their news. And so therefore, it makes sense. Paramount, Warner Brothers, Fox, Rupert Murdoch. So I guess if you had to start connecting dots, Oracle is going to get access to the algorithm. They're going to control the algorithm. We know that twenty percent is going to go to ByteDance. We don't know what the breakdown is

between Andreessen Horowitz, Silver Lake. And Oracle, but you have to assume Oracle's the lead on that whole thing. They're going to control the vast majority of it. And then you add the Murdochs in there. I don't know what their percentage or what their stake or what promises have been made to them. But here's the thing, for China to give up that, what's in it for ByteDance? That's the other thing you have to ask is on the other side, what's in this for ByteDance? There's got to be a deal being made for ByteDance on the backside for something with China. You know, I mean, because you know it's state-owned, right? There's a state connection there. So you know that there's some sort of

a backdoor deal that's getting made. it's going to something bite dance is going to get something out of it if we pay attention long enough we'll find out what what's in this for bite dance well yeah i mean in addition to the twenty percent they still retain a board seat right yep and they still have that level of influence and yeah we don't know what what the deal is on surveillance but again i mean i'm arguing at the idea the us here's another example of Let's get everybody all fired up over the war between the U.S. and China. And here's another example of, you know, here's an Oracle investment. Here they are working together again. Track Musk and Thiel's investment in Chinese companies.

It's all fake, this division. Well, you know, when they kept talking about China, China, and now, I mean, we're seeing this whole, quote, unquote, AI arms race. But long before they said that, that's what I was calling it, an AI arms race. And so I started looking up. This reminds me a lot of the Cold War. And so I started looking up, like, you know, China, America, Cold War. And sure enough, Chatham House was doing all sorts of symposiums on it. like they did a bunch of them actually in twenty twenty four. So they they've been like preparing this. But if you look at that as a model, you think about the Cold War with Russia. We kept being told that there are enemies,

but yet we were colluding with them behind the scenes constantly. And I think what's really interesting when you watch, I mean, just even read the AI action plan, Trump's AI action plan. But essentially what they keep doing is we have to become like them to beat them. which makes no sense at all right like yeah i guess it's like you know you can't look them join them kind of thing but it doesn't actually make any sense so in order to defeat them we have to be them we have to become like them but that's what they're doing that's their well i mean so it's so it's crazy when you look at larry ellison in in he built the first cia database

um project oracle and he named his company after the cia project and so so now he owns pieces i didn't realize this of not only exp and tick tock but also of cbs which is probably the worst of the three networks in terms of spying. So he's basically the surveillance architect that literally controls media, full spectrum dominance. And when you look at this, in terms of government contracts, billions in classified contracts, NSA cloud infrastructure, FBI data systems, Pentagon logistics, he's basically the backbone of the deep state. He has donated a hundred million dollars to Israeli causes. A hundred million Netanyahu is a personal

friend. He has a thousand plus employees in Israel with ex-military coordination and foreign intelligence ties. So, you know, this is what we're looking at databases to media government, to commercial surveillance, to influence infrastructure, to content, complete control at this point. So I got to look into the CBS thing. Um, But yeah, I wasn't thinking about Ellison. We haven't been talking about Ellison the last few years, right? I mean, it's either the WEF Bill Gates side. Or behind the orb, the world coin. That was Sam Altman. Yeah, that was Sam Altman. Although Ellison might have been involved because apparently they seem to be

partners. They are partners. I don't know. I'll find out, but. But you're right. It is Altman. But I don't know why I thought Ellison was involved. And, you know, there's plenty of clips out there with Ellison, you know, talking about he loves cameras. I mean, he wants cameras everywhere. Yes, he does. I mean, he's just he's straight up front. I want cameras everywhere. Whatever Benjamin Button technology he's been using, he wants to show it off. So. Yep, absolutely. And so, I mean, so, but it doesn't. I think he's literally like eighty. He looks like he's forty. No, I think he's eighty four. I actually believe he's eighty four years old. No. Eighty-four?

Let me look that up because I heard that the other day. He's up there. He is up there. He's been around. I mean, he sponsored the World Cup. Eighty-one. Eighty-one. Where did I hear eighty-four? All right. He looks like maybe fifty. I mean, he definitely doesn't look eighty-one. I guess maybe that Theranos paid off for him after all. Yeah, all right. But it doesn't end with these platforms being owned by these politically connected people and technocrats. This whole influencer economy is also fake. So you have Candace Owens, who's received nine hundred and six thousand dollars from Turning Point and

her husband and a whole bunch of shady ties there. Tim Pool, ten million dollars from Russia. Ben Shapiro's oil billionaire backed Stephen Crowder, fifty million dollars from Rumble. So these guys are portrayed as these independent voices, but they're really not. They're completely and totally fake. controlled and amplified and boosted on these on these I'm actually getting sick of Candace Owen being in a feed I actually removed her I had her name muted there was like a whole thing this past week with like uh you know to honor Charlie Kirk to block Candace Owens that became like a thing I did see that because I blocked her a year ago as a keyword, but if somebody puts it as an image,

then it doesn't actually screen that out. She makes me so nauseous. I can't watch her. No, I can't either. It's everywhere. She's everywhere. And she just there's like, I mean, I don't say this often, but it almost does look like demonic. Like she she has this really froze. I think part of it is just that she uses so much Botox or faces so frozen. And then she's really angry and she's trying so hard to emote. But it looks very like creepy. I don't know. It's like it ends up like amplifying the wrath. It's very disturbing. Yeah, I can't watch. I know she has this lawsuit with McCrone or whatever.

I mean, that whole, that's looking like it's going to break badly for her. But who knows? But she has to be, you know, contrary. Yeah, well, she's also working for, I mean, I think she's working at the behest of the crown. I mean, her husband, like, is a royalty. Lord Farmer is the father, her father-in-law. Yep, and with ties to Andrew Tate, and then she all of a sudden was defending Harvey Weinstein. I mean, she's just been on – she's the perfect example of rage bait. Yes, she's been on the wrong side of pretty much everything, yeah. But her content gets amplified even when she's muted. I guess that's the thing that I'm saying

is I know all this stuff about her even having her muted. That's why this is frustrating for me is that there's nothing stopping her defamation and other stuff from getting through. Right. Well, and, you know, it's so crazy. She was, you know, before she started, before she was like, you know, in the Oval Office for her photo op with Robbie Starbuck, who's another like whole conversation. But him and Trump. Right. In twenty sixteen. And then she catapults to fame as the darling of the conservative movement. Right before she did that, she had this anti Tea Party movement. It wasn't even like a leftist or like a, you know, against the, it was an anti-Tea Party movement paper.

And she writes this whole, it was back in twenty fifteen. She writes this essay about how the Constitution belongs in the garbage. She wasn't saying it's been trampled on or, you know, she was saying it belongs in the garbage and that the only reason anybody has any respect for our founding fathers is because they're dead. And it was like, I mean, it was really like a straight up Marxist rag. And now she's the like, the the icon, the darling of the conservatives, like there's nothing conservative about her, like literally, in terms of philosophically speaking, she she does not represent conservatism in any regard. No, she was brought into for a black voter manipulation project.

And then, you know, and then it extended and extended from there. So I should look at her traffic numbers. But but I mean, it doesn't stop there. Tim Pool, ten million dollars in Russian money via Tenet Media, four hundred thousand dollars a month in payments. I mean, he has no editorial independence either. His whole his whole thing is is is ridiculous. Well, and he's another like in terms of just the perception, the narrative, why people think he's a conservative, quote unquote conservative. He's never even claimed to be. There's nothing conservative about him. It's that this whole labeling thing really bothers me because it's so people fall for it. I'm like, you're falling for, you know,

a shiny rapper and you have any and it's a clear rapper. You haven't even bothered to look at what's inside it. You're just like, oh, it's a pretty shiny wrapper, but you can see what's underneath and you still don't look. Yep. Yeah, I mean, he was with Vice, right? I mean, it's just I can't I actually can't even watch the show. I don't know what the appeal of the show is. I've tried watching it a couple times and I just don't get it. I don't get any aspect of it at all. I don't think he's like affable, enjoyable. And I think he's at best a midwit. I've never thought he like had much insightful things to say. So, yeah. I don't know. I guess pandering org, he's getting an algorithm boost.

I don't know what it is, but, but it's, uh, you know, it's crazy. And then we have Ben Shapiro who, you know, Wilkes brothers, oil billions and, you know, a hundred million plus GOP donations from funders. That's where he's getting his funding. Yeah. Okay. Brothers. Yeah. I mean, that was pretty early on. I mean, I knew Ben long before he launched to fame. I know a lot about his backstory too, which is interesting. It's definitely a can of worms. But the thing about Ben, I've never, Ben is arguably, he is very intelligent. He is not like the rest of them in that regard. But I just, even long before he was, you know, known, I would just say about Ben, I never understood, like,

we don't need the geniuses to play Captain Obvious, right? Like that's like his role. I'm like, this is how is this helping anything? It's not. But he is definitely a paid agitator. Remember when he was mocking people for not taking, you know, the thing. Yep. Right. Yeah. He's definitely that's his role. Paid agitator. Yep. Yep. And then we have Steven Crowder, which is the largest fifty million dollar Rumble exclusive largest creator payment ever on that platform. you hold the you know uh uh controversy with daily wire yeah yeah that controversy and then something with his ex-wife and i then i'm like i'm turn i'm done with

this someone's like taking video of his ex-wife and like streaming it everywhere but it was like very one-sided and even he was uh like Trying to apologize for it. I don't remember all the details of it. I didn't really watch that closely. But I do remember that. And I was kind of like this is just very low. I mean like what is this reality television now? Well, it's amazing how much of the traffic now, we want to talk about rage baiting. How much of this traffic is these influencers fighting amongst themselves like it's some kind of drama? This is what I get in the feed. I don't even know what these people think about issues. I just know they have issues with each other,

and I don't even know why I should care to begin with. well i have to say that's actually been one of the silver linings of this whole thing with uh with uh charlie kirk because you know the people were very concerned and and rightfully so about the escalation of violence and it fortunately does not look like it i i hope that does not happen it doesn't look like it's going in that direction but what we have seen is the uh the civil war amongst the influencers and i'm like great they can eat each other up and leave us alone that would be fantastic It would be nice. Well, I hope it doesn't work. I mean, I hope this doesn't become the new story is the infighting because it certainly

appears that way. Although in that front, my wife and I go to this restaurant here in New Hampshire and there was just a shooting on Saturday. Some guy came in like where we go to dinner. It was one of our favorite places. And, you know, somebody was murdered and actually the maitre d' of the restaurant was shot. And I guess the guy that came in and did it, he shouted free Palestine, although there's a dispute over whether or not that was just intended to create general chaos. The whole thing is a little bit weird. I hope there isn't more violence, but that kind of hit home because this was the last place I would have expected there to be violence. a mass shooting i mean this didn't even

it doesn't even make sense was it during open hours while they were is it oh yeah it was during a wedding wow there was a wedding and and uh yeah yeah it was bad i mean fortunately in new hampshire you know everybody's armed and somebody hit the guy with a chair or whatever so i mean he could have done a lot more damage but you know people in new hampshire pretty pretty uh independent in that way but uh yeah i was stunned when i saw it come up on my feet i'm like wow okay we were just there two weeks ago you know that's anyway sorry that's awful I'm hoping it does not escalate. Before I heard that, it didn't look like it would. It looked like that had kind of quieted down.

But the influences are really fighting amongst themselves, which they're revealing themselves. So I'm like, hey, have at it. Go eat each other up. Leave us alone. Yeah, no. Oh, go ahead. I'm sorry. No, I mean, hopefully this will continue. Everybody's got their opinion on the Charlie Kirk shooting and who's behind it. Now everybody, it's just a finger pointing game and it's, it's. Yeah. Well, no, but I just think like the influencers, I mean, you're seeing like a Nick pointed and Kenneth Owens and Owen Benjamin's just going after all of them. And yeah, they're all just going after each other. I'm like, great, you know, leave us out, like go after each other.

Maybe they'll leave each other alive, you know? Yeah. Well, and Alex Jones seemed to have fallen for a trap today with Kyle Serafin. You know, I mean, that whole thing. He fell for a trap. Oh, did he? What happened? Well, you know, so he fell for the whole thing. Apparently TPUSA came out and said that, you know, the bullet ricocheted off of... Charlie went down his spine, you know, blew up in his heart and his lungs and came back up. You know, I mean, you can't make it up, right? I mean, look, a bullet that size does not get stopped by cervical vertebrae. It just goes right through. It goes right through your cervical. What's that? There's no exit wound.

They've not talked about an exit wound, which is crazy. Yeah. Well, you know, the ballistics people are on it. This is going to go on for weeks. Right. And that's what they want. They're diverting our attention from something. And the question is, you know, back to this donors trust and donors fund. I mean, they were big funders of TP USA as well. Right. Big funders of the convention of states movement, which is marching along right now. And that has Koch brothers too. I think we talked about that. Didn't we? And Koch brothers are funded donors trust and donors capital fund as well. Right. Yep. They're all tied in the same circle. Yep. What about Posobiec? Not to get,

I don't want to go too far, but Posobiec, anybody know anything about him? In terms of what? He's tied in with that whole Bannon circle and the post-liberal movement. He wants to, yeah, he wants to completely subvert the United States. It's a, yeah. Well, what were you asking about him? What is your questions? Well, I just, you know, I was disappointed because I knew that he had covered Poland exclusively. And obviously, you know, the drones coming over Belarus and into Poland and, you know, this whole war front along the Russian border. And I thought Posobiec might be able to say, hey, hold on, let's not get lost in this war. Obviously, he's good friends with Charlie Kirk,

so he's a hundred percent lost in that whole thing and going full tilt on that. I thought he'd be able to back away and be able to see the forest through the trees and go and say, hey, let's not lose sight of this war that Europe wants on the Russian front. You know, and I think that might be what we're getting diverted away from. Right. They got us in China. They got us in Israel. But they're not talking about Europe's grand need to get a war going with Russia. But I don't mean to take it off topic here. I just wanted to. I'll just say this. He's former Navy. Right. like bannon yeah i i think they're strings i don't i don't think he's a free agent we'll just leave it at that i

guess yeah sorry aaron didn't mean to hijack it no no i mean he's probably worth looking at you know i i was when i was putting together these slides i'm like well which uh Which influencers do we want to go into? And honestly, this could be a whole other separate segment about these influencers. You could dissect their money and everything just because, again... The Bannon circle, it's connected to the Dark Enlightenment circle. It's connected to the Christian nationalist movement of the whole. I mean, that's that's how they're operating through the quote unquote right hand path right now surrounding Trump. This is a complete subversive movement.

And the Christian nationalist movement, by the way, is tied to the Islamic front. They started it. It just seems ironic, but they did. I didn't know that. They did. Yeah, I mean, that's a whole rabbit trail. But yeah, there is actual hard evidence that they started it. And it makes perfect sense. It's totally aligned. You're seeing, Tate is a great example. Didn't he convert? He's somebody, he's somebody I also muted. I can't, I could, I had to stop watching anything. So I don't know. I mean, he's a pretty, I talk about deplorable. I mean, that, that's a great word for him, but he's, yeah, he's really a porn hard, hard to even stomach. But yeah, he was someone who he converted to Islam.

This whole Christian nationalist movement is so conducive to funneling into Sharia law, which is also very conducive to funneling into technocracy because it's autocratic. It's top down. It's a very rigid kind of control system and structure. As well as, obviously, law. So, yeah, it's a great funnel. And they have a lot more in common than you would think. And it's a great way to, because they all want to subvert the Constitution. So I know we have arguments about where we stand on that, but they are intending to subvert the Right. The Christian nationalists all want to replace with biblical law. Now, you can say that it would be great to have everybody follow the Ten Commandments,

but the First Amendment is directly in opposition to that. It says that we have freedom of religion. The founding fathers were fleeing the Church of England, which was a theocracy. And these people are not Christian anyway, honestly. You hear them talk. I mean, Doug Wilson says things like he talks about how women are the kind of people that people come out of. uh they what was it uh that that we're you know we're utilities this is like oh that's just like surreal law kind of talk and these are supposed christians this is not christianity the kinds of things that they're saying but uh sorry that's that that's a can of worms another rabbit wow

Well, so we've talked about some of the influencers, but then there's this whole other thing that I became aware of in the last year, which is called Influenceable LLC. You can go to this website, and it's a Texas company run by Trump's digital strategist wife, and they pay influencers fifty to a thousand dollars per post, and they provide you with the exact template, and they coordinate timing. So when you see something happen and it's, you know, Gunther Eagleman and Ian Miles Chong and all these other things, it's like, why are these people sending this out all at the same time? They're paid to do it, but they don't tell you it's a sponsored ad. So then when you dig into this,

you realize that a lot of these big influencers are just... again why are they even influencers why are people listening to these people to begin with that's that's fascinating by the way i mean in terms of you look at this stable of people it's like okay they actually don't have a background they don't have knowledge of a certain thing it's unclear why they're influencers but then their content is not even their own they actually have somebody else creating the content and it's being paid and one example of this was there was a whole thing about uh In March, RFK proposed healthy food policies. Within forty eight hours, two hundred plus identical posts defending soda appeared.

And so Trump Diet Coke memes were everywhere. And this was basically a one hundred thousand dollar campaign from Big Soda through influence bulls. So that's what that was all about. So then when you stand back and you look at your feed, you're like, okay, so some percentage of this is coming from bots. Some percentage is coming from these influencers that are being paid directly by these organizations. And then these people that don't even seem like they're affiliated with organizations, but somehow have big followings, have coordinated tweets that are paid for by this thing called influenceables. So is there anybody producing authentic content? Are there actually real people producing

authentic content on these social media platforms? And the answer seems to be it's very, very small as a percentage of the content. And they don't have any views, right? And they don't have any views. They're algorithmically, they're shadow banned. And so it's just junk. So it's rage bait and paid sponsored tweets. Let me add something that goes a little bit back to Rumble. So when we would get... When we would get notification, like let's say our numbers would spike to, let's say, fifteen or eighteen thousand live views. And there's apparently a post board that's out there. And so and I don't know if you guys have heard of this or not. If you have, just let me know and I won't go

through it that much. But what happens is people can bid for the number of eyeballs. So somehow somebody sitting in a marketing office somewhere and all of a sudden you've got fifteen thousand sixteen. And now they start bidding for you to run an ad live, you know, and so it builds. And so all of a sudden, you know, it's like, oh, this ad is worth eight hundred dollars or this ad is worth twelve hundred dollars or four hundred dollars or whatever. So what would happen is we would get, you know, basically instructed, you know, Frankie would do the read, but we would get instructed, hey, we're at eighteen thousand views. You might as well get it while it's hot.

Take the eight hundred bucks and do it every week. So I guess, you know, that's one little tiny thing that goes on. But here's the thing is you can see now how something like that influenceables is, is getting connection to everybody who's a content producer and they can essentially drive that whatever, whatever agenda they want to drive. Now, some of this is obviously a backdoor deal and that stuff happens at a higher level. Like with Tim pool that he's not probably on that board and they don't care, but for the, you know, the sub, the, the tear down from that, you know, You know, Tim Pool's got thirty thousand views tonight, you know, you know, so he doesn't that's already pre

orchestrated, I would imagine. But for anybody who's getting six thousand views, right, they might show up on that board and get two or three hundred dollars to run an ad live. Does that make sense? And you can see it. So anyway, just just just as a little background information, it sort of ties in with that, I think. Hopefully that ties in with the influenceables, because I saw Owen Troyer going through that today. And, you know, obviously he's at a burning out with with Alex Jones. And so he's just kind of blowing stuff out, too. I saw him come out and talk about that today. I don't know if it was influenceables, but it's something like that. He's like, look, we all know all of us in this

influencer space. We all know that this is how it works. And we basically, just like you were showing those ads, you know, or like you were just talking about, like, this is how they do it. You know, they go to people like that and they say, here, you're going to, you know, you're going to run this and here's the money for it. Well, and there's also, I mean, like you do point out tenant media, but there, there's so many of those types of foreign money. You know, that are trying to create anti, I mean, it's a form of warfare, right? It's propaganda. They're trying to create chaos and subvert from within. A lot of it is coming from foreign agents. Well, some of it's market-based,

and I like some of the – I mean, I can't totally shoot it down because I like the fact that you've got a lot of eyeballs. It's market-based, right? The price goes up, supply and demand. I get all that. I mean, liking markets, I kind of get that. But the problem is you can see how it's quickly, easily influenced, and it goes south quickly, right? Something like that goes south pretty quickly. Okay. It's also like gaming the market. So it's not an authentic supply and demand. Especially when you're paying to get those views anyway. So you're paying money to get those views that you really didn't earn. You're sort of paying a backdoor to get those views. And then when those views go up,

you take the ad that's put in front of your face and you take the eight hundred dollars, you take the eight hundred dollars, you pay it back to the guy who's getting you the views. It's just a circular reference. It is. I mean, this is, this is actually, it's worse than the.com thing. This is why every time we go through these things, it's like, Oh, well it seems like it's getting better because people have more control. We went from, uh, you know, centralized parties, you know, having editorial control, but paying to develop content to now we actually pay to post our content, which is completely harvested and then still censored. It's so somehow they managed to make it worse because,

and not any more decentralized. And again, this is why I'm going through this. Now, this is a topic that, you know, in this realm of taking back your free will, people understanding the extent to which their program, this will end up doing multiple episodes on this, but I wanted to kind of lay out at a high level what's going on here because i don't think most people know this i don't think people know about about influenceables and and how this works but i mean it's really and i don't i'm all for the market but there's there's no disclosure so i want to bring this up so did you realize when you know uh ian miles chong and all these other people or these people did this coordinated thing

for big soda that they were paid to do it. I mean, do we really think that these people were ideologically aligned? No, they just took the money. They were offered this amount of money and they took it. It doesn't even resonate with their beliefs, not that these people even are popular because of their beliefs. Again, I don't even know why they're popular, but maybe we'll figure that out at some point. Maybe they're not even real. Maybe they're AI, some of these people, but I don't know. So this is kind of where we are. So we have algorithmic shadow banning. We have a small concentrated number of people. And this fits into the Curtis Yarvin Cathedral thing. So he's trying to paint out that we

have to replace media government in all of these other institutions, universities, which, again, they're bad, but he's trying to make it out as if... the solution that's being offered is is any different and it's not it's just a different group of of people these institutions are bad because there were central authorities that infiltrated and corrupted them so the solution is we'll we'll just have the dictator the the corrupt dictator take over complete control yeah that's gonna work out way better okay But we'll sell it as free speech. We'll not tell you who owns it. We'll not tell you how the algorithms work and we'll make it look like it's something that it isn't.

It's my algorithmic Oracle article, right? I mean, that's what it is, right? They took sensitivity training and then they merged it with the Delphi method. So for those who aren't familiar, I did write, it's basically like a book, but The Delphi method was born at the Rand Institute. And it was born under the auspices that they needed some sort of predicted modeling for the efficacy of technology during wartime. And so they created this protocol of how to essentially manufacture consensus. And they do it through a series of surveys. Like they give you several iterations of, you know, survey rounds. And the premise is that you don't know

who the change agent is. Change agent is a term that was coined by Kurt Lewin. And he is also the one who created sensitivity training. But essentially, that is what they're doing, that you do have a change agent, you just don't know who it is. And so they claim that that's why it's so much more neutral. But it isn't neutral because you don't know who's manipulating and steering. But they are steering. So they what they do, they typically do each round is they throw out these outliers. But they could do it because they can claim that it's a statistical outlier. But what if it's just an outlier because they don't like the dissenting voice? So then they throw that out and they

give you another round. Then you think that there's been a true organic consensus, but it's been completely manipulated. And now they do that in combination with this sensitivity training online, right? You get the sensitivity training was actually admitted by even the National Training Lab's manual in nineteen forty seven pretty much said it was brainwashing. But then in nineteen seventy four, the CIA explicitly says it's brainwashing. They said that they really wanted to test the efficacy of sensitivity training, but that they it was too reminiscent of Chinese brainwashing. They didn't say Maoist struggle sessions, but that's essentially what it's like.

And so therefore they didn't they couldn't do it. They will never know the efficacy because they can't brainwash the military, the CIA. But when what they do with that is it's very similar to like the trauma bonding circles that. you know, Esalen or Est or Landmark Forums would do. Now they do it through SEL, through the school system uses, through the social emotional learning. But now they combine the two of those and do that online with these algorithms and they use cybernetic feedback loops to program you. And that's exactly what you're saying. It's exactly what it is. Yeah, that's what it is. I mean, so the solution to this, and this is, by the way, is a challenge.

And so I had stated earlier, I mean, if you go to theerrandayshow.com, I am now streaming directly from my own server. I'm live streaming directly, but then when the episode is done, they're stored using something called IPFS. So it's completely decentralized, broken up into pieces, and censorship resistant not that a lot of people are using it yet and there may be still be some glitches but um i'm going to try to you know as i work through the glitches push people to that so that we're not beholden to these other systems because i i think it's only a matter of time and we're doing better today than we did last thursday but um you know, these technocracy topics, whatever the active thing is,

whoever's actively trying to increase surveillance and take away our rights, those issues are still shadow banned. So yes, you can talk about COVID now, but that's because that was the other regime and that was a different time and so on and so forth. But you cannot, yeah. It was five years ago. So it's kind of like there are certain people who talk about Peter Thiel all the time, who I personally think are controlled opposition. I actually think they might be funded by Thiel. But they talk about him in the past tense and he expects to get flack. Right. So point out all the things you did back like when he started Palantir with In-Q-Tel and CIA. Right. You know,

talk about those things where we're going back decades. But that that takes the attention away from what he's doing right now. And I think that's often how these things work. Right. It's OK. You'll have the Overton window where it's OK to talk about point out all the, you know, atrocities of the path. But that that's great. Keep people trapped in that blast zone while they're dropping the future bombs. Right. Yep, exactly. So anyway, I mean, I think, like I said, I'm going to be pushing things like this, like Zeno. I'm not going to talk about it today. Maybe I'll talk about it on Thursday. You can use Zeno with something called Matrix. so that you can have anonymous communication.

I mean, there are solutions, but realistically, the problem with this is network effects and making them easy to use. And so we end up in this situation where we're stuck. But I almost feel like, you know, again, I want to move people there, but you can't. just use those platforms because if you're trying to help people, you know, they're not, they don't even know that your thing exists. And so you still gotta be on as many platforms as you can for now, but, but I really want to start building out and making, and as I'm developing these tools, I mean, I may just make these tools available. It's open source. I may just make these available for everyone to use.

uh so people can start hosting their own stuff and storing it on ipfs so that we don't have to be stuck because i do feel like i did in march i mean again this talk tonight Well, when I originally did, it was only a half an hour, but it was it was in twenty twenty. It was in March. And and I was shadow banned. I didn't even realize until I saw it that it actually got down to eight views out of a reach of one hundred thousand. And then and then I stopped doing it because I was doing it every day. And at one point, I mean, I had a thousand people live in twenty twenty and I'm like, oh, this is great. And then, boom, immediately shut down. And I feel the same way. And if you think about it,

if you're trying to tell people to use Signal and all of these alternative platforms in March of twenty twenty, that was right over the target. Right. I mean, people were not talking about that March of twenty twenty. I'm like, hey, you're not going to be able to talk to your friends and family about health related information. Here are a whole bunch of alternatives completely shut down. And so I guess I'm feeling the same. I feel like we're over we're clearly over the target here. And I think that this this these topics of technocracy and even pointing out AI and the algorithms and everything else and the manipulation through these alternative platforms that is going to be targeted or

is being targeted actively and it's only going to get worse. Well, I do want to just mention, I did do a post. People should watch the video just because it's really funny. But promoting our roundtable for Wednesday. It's up on Twitter. I think I have it. I don't know if I have it on any other platform right now, but it's definitely on Twitter. And the stream link is right below it. So people can put on their notification for Wednesday, I believe, six p.m. Eastern. We'll be doing that. But the video is really funny, so just watch it. Hold on, let me see if I can pop it up. I've retweeted it, but let me see. Yeah, I think it's really funny.

Where did it go? I did retweet it. Oh, I'm on the wrong account. Hold on. Yeah, that should be a good one. I hope everybody tunes in. Tunes in on that one. Let me see. You can get it. We've got a little appearance from Trump and the musker do. Of course, the Knights. Wow. Are you, what is, what is your, so I'm on my Aaron day show account. I'm trying to find your account. Oh, Courtney Turner. Yeah. Yeah. uh yeah should i resend it to you

i think i did send it to you well no i have it on my main account but i'm trying i'm sharing a window and i'm using a different browser i'm in braille um so yeah it's on uh courtney turner at courtney turner uh let me see if i should i retweet it that it'll be at the top of my feed i can i can actually just look look at my other account so I have a I have a new setup here and it's I'm not used to it at all. Okay, yeah. Here we go. Okay. Just watch dare. He'll be a rebel.

All right, let me try to share out the screen. All right, there we go. Oh, there it is. Sometimes there's a round table. And I'm talking about these knights here, the ones taking on Technocracy's siege. Well, they're the folks for their time and place. They fit right in there, unmasking sovereign wealth grabs and robotic ruckuses. If you're tired of the machine marching on, this is your abide. Folks, this round table, total disaster. Fake nights yapping about my huge, beautiful, sovereign wealth fund like it's some siege. Wrong, it's winning, bigly.

And robots, my robots are the best. Don't watch or you'll miss the real deal tariffs. Making America rich again. Earthlings, skip this night nonsense. My grandpa's technocracy was lit. Wealth funds. Robots. That's my jam. Mars bases and brain chips await. This show's a bore. Just focus on X Everything app instead. Don't mess with the future. Ignore it. Join the Siege. Technocracy Roundtable Live Episode Two. This Wednesday, September twenty-fourth at six p.m. Eastern. Let's stop the technocracy. The knights abide. That's great. That is great.

Yeah. Pay attention to the tariffs. Make America rich again. Yeah, and then at the end, it's Mad Max. That's awesome. Yeah, that should catch some attention. That's great. Hopefully it circulates, right? Yeah. I hope so. We've got somebody heckling here. Is there a topic or is this guy whining now? There is a topic. The topic is that... The Robots and Sovereign Wealth Fund. Yep. So check it out, six p.m. Wednesday. That'll be a good one. I'm looking forward to that.

Yes, likewise. So that's essentially, that's all I've got for, well, I guess we're three and a half hours in. That's pretty good. That was pretty solid. That's all, folks. Let me send around the link if anyone wants to join. I know there were a couple of people that wanted to join the chat. This one definitely ran longer. I've got a, yeah, there's a lot of content. See if a couple of our regulars want to go. I don't think people are adjusted. I am surprised that more people show up on a Monday than a Thursday because historically I have always done this on a Thursday. I don't know. I still want to dissect what happened last week because it was just bizarre.

Oh. Eighty percent down. And I got more traffic on my new account that has three hundred ninety followers than my main account. Oh, wow. And I can't figure out why. And all of the marketing was for the main account. So I have no idea what happened. But again, that's why we're talking about this particular topic tonight, because I actually feel like that the shadow banning is on. And that really did give me feelings of of twenty twenty again. Yeah. Cause I mean, it was, it was, it was an interesting topic and it's a topic that I've been talking about doing for, for a couple of months and I'm working

on an article about it on Curtis Yarbon. So, um, so we'll see, we'll see what happens with these platforms and these bot farms, but, uh, What wasn't, well, do you think that it was just because of, uh, like Charlie Kirk? Was that no way that was Monday? Yeah. No, it was, it was on a Thursday. I don't know if there was a conflict. Was there something, maybe somebody said something was going on with Charlie Kirk. I don't know if it, if it conflicted with something, but. I think it might've been when, uh, this was last Thursday. Yeah. Yeah. Was that when, uh, I don't know if it was, I I'm wondering if that was, no, I'm thinking Monday. I think I'm trying to remember when, uh,

Erica did her speech. If that was less, I don't remember what day that was. Well, the way to know is to do one on Elon Musk and, you know, then you'll have a sample, a decent sample size. You'll be able to say Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk, and you'll see if the numbers go back down again. Yeah, no, that's true. I will do one on Elon at some point. Now it's going to take a while to... Yeah, to compose. to put together. Cause it's, you know, there's so much. And, and again, I think this is the topic that no one wants to hear. So many people don't want to hear. Yeah. I was sorry. I couldn't join the Curtis Yardman. You did a great job and that's definitely my jam.

But yeah, I wonder why that's interesting. Well, what do you think the odds are of getting Curtis Yardman on here for you guys to talk to him and debate and, you know, or go around, around and around a little bit? How hard is that to achieve? Probably not that hard, actually. I've watched forty seven videos with him, so he certainly seems open to to know him. I mean, I don't know. I don't think it would be that hard, though, reaching out to him. He seems pretty open to having conversations. And what's the progress? What's the progress on the other debate you have lined up, Courtney? Don't you have one coming up? Well, I'm not really framing it as a debate,

but that's the conversation on the, yeah, the conversation on the twenty first of October. So it's about a month away. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we're scheduled. I've been listening to a lot of material. This is what I'm saying, though. You have to be really careful because the words sound great. And a lot of the words that he says, I agree with. They're words I would use. But I know that the metaphysics are off. And you have to be really listening very carefully to hear that. And that's really tricky because it gives

a plausible deniability. But I think that the metaphysics are the bulwark. And that's really what I'm concerned about. Yeah. You know, I had this conversation earlier today, actually, about we were talking about, like, We were talking about essentially the First Amendment. And they were saying to me, well, but if you have people, if you say that there's freedom of religion and then you have people here who have religious beliefs that are in fundamental opposition, like, for instance, to the Constitution. And what I was saying is that there's a big difference. This is why the metaphysics is so important. You can have different beliefs.

That doesn't... exempt you from obeying the laws, right? The laws, so like if we think about, for instance, the Constitution, they're predicated on a certain metaphysical foundation, a certain metaphysical framework, and downstream from that is an ontological reality that they are premised upon. However, from there, we'll just take like the Declaration of Independence, right? We are all created equal. That is, we are all created equal under the eyes of God. But then what they did with the Constitution was to extrapolate that and say, now we are all equal under the law as well. So it is both. It's under God, but under the law. Those are two different things,

but it's founded upon this notion that we are all created equal under the eyes of God. Mm-hmm. And so somebody can, you know, let's take a, you know, Sharia law, for instance, a Muslim who's living here in this country, their religious beliefs are in concordance with Sharia law, but the constitution is in fundamental opposition to Sharia law. While they are living here in this country, they are bound by the laws of the constitution, just as I would be bound by Sharia law if I were to live there. That doesn't mean I have to believe in the Quran. That doesn't have to be my worldview. That doesn't have to be the framework that I hold or the belief system that I adopt,

but it means I have to follow those laws. That's why the metaphysics are so important. That's just one example. And it doesn't seem to be a simple thing for people to graph. And I think it's because it's been so incredibly erased. And this wasn't true throughout history. When we look at our education system now, there's a reason they've taken it out, because now you don't have a foundation anymore. You can build on a shaky foundation, which is very conducive to people who are seeking power.

That makes sense. Obviously, the technocrats don't want to have a metaphysical conversation. They don't at all. It's all based on contractarian, right, Lockean principles, social contract theory. It's all based in a vacuum, right? Once you sign the click graph, you're under whatever parameters they've set. There's just no inalienable rights in that world. Yeah, yeah. That's why they don't want that conversation. And that's why they're so happy to erase. Like, you never hear about Scottish common sense realism when they talk about the Enlightenment. I mean, when do you even hear about that? I wasn't taught it in school. Remember when I was reading from James

Wilson? I wasn't taught about him. And there's a reason. There's a reason they're very happy to teach about Locke. Because, you know, Locke got some things right. I don't think he was all, you know, he wasn't all bad. He did get some things right. But this contractarian type of contract law is not the same thing as natural law. And technocracy is based on contract law. Yep. Yeah. I mean, when I was taking philosophy, they were teaching John Rawls. So, I mean, that was even worse. Yeah. So that was way, way far removed. That's that was I had enough after that.

Yeah. Yeah. Rawls is just one step from John Stuart Mill. Yep. Utilitarianism, which is what that whole effective altruism, we're talking about Sam Bankman Freed and Sam Altman, right? Effective altruism was just another iteration, another iteration of John Stuart Mill, rebranded. This is for the greater good. And this is exactly what they're trying to do with the, you know, AI ethics, right? What is the AI for good that Ben Kurtzel is doing with the World Economic Forum and the U.N.? ? All of these AI ethics are predicated on utilitarianism for the greater good. They're not based on the ontology of man having inalienable rights from our creator.

Why? Because they have inverted it. They want to be the creator, which means that they have complete control. What was the opening page of the wiki for Game B? It's Stuart Brand and his Whole Earth magazine opening line from what, from nineteen sixty eight when he says we are as gods, we might as well get good at it. And then he updates it in twenty fifteen. We are as gods. We better get good at it. That's what it is. I mean, I hate to reduce it and say like it's just pure narcissism, but that's what it is. Yeah. Well, that's where it'd be great to get some of them to, to, you know, interview them, ask them the questions and, uh,

Well, if we get Yarvin on here, I will say after having listened to a lot of him, his strategy seems to be a complete diversion. And then he goes off and then just talks about something not related to the topic, but some deep historical thing. The way I said it last week is he tries to baffle people with bullshit. But when I actually listened to... the debate i can't get to the substance of any arguments they're actually bored they were much more boring to listen to than i had hoped i actually thought there would be more to it oh no he's meandering on this again and i'm like it's so painful to to listen to so someone was saying i i can't remember who somebody

was telling me like how he's such a a brilliant writer i was like i i find him to be it's like pure baffle gab it's not profound at all So it's, yeah, and I feel like that's how he speaks too. So, you know, a lot of people will point out that he does a good job of pointing out the problems. And that's true. All good critical theorists do this. You know, the Neoplatonists call this apoptosis, right? It's just negative theology. That's all it is. So, yeah, we can agree on the problems. I mean, we're human. We're limited. I don't claim to have all the solutions. But if you just keep going down the critique, right, this is why the Marxists do this, too. It's like, oh,

you just haven't read it enough. You don't understand it well enough. Anytime I hear this, I'm like, I know this game. I've seen this movie before. You're just trying to destroy, destroy. You negate, negate, negate. The people who say question everything. It's the same thing. I'm not saying you shouldn't have critical thinking and that you shouldn't question things. I mean, a curious mind, I think is a beautiful thing. And that's how we arrive at solutions and think out of the box and create, create, find, you know, ways to solve problems. But this constant questioning, it's about destroying. These aren't people who are building and creating. These are people who are just tearing down.

So yeah, you can all day long point the finger and be like, these are the problems. These are the problems. We may agree on that, but you're taking away from the, the actual foundation. It's just like, look at all of these holes. Okay, well, maybe there's a reason these holes are being created. Yep. Well, and in this whole process of, you know, the technocracy and the next steps, right? So I thought this was great tonight because you get to see like, you know, Like, you know, the free speech is an illusion. You know, I think that was well done. But what's the next step for them? You know, what are we looking for next? Like what, you know, if we say we don't have a lot of time, you know,

before we have to have a parallel system or we have to create this, like what are the next things that we would want to see or that we would, you know, that we'd need to see to say, yeah, confirmation that, yeah, this is moving forward and it's moving fast. Because, you know, I look at, like, the Elon Musk and, you know, the... I mean, you can go through the whole thing, right? The Michael Saylors, you know, the Jack Mallers, you know, the... You know, and the Bitcoin. The Bitcoin's easy to pick on, you know, because I think it's a fraud, you know? And you see it, like, you know, it drops to one hundred and sixteen to one twelve. And, you know, I... People are talking about, you know,

ninety head and shoulders pattern, maybe seventy. So it's easy thing to pick on because, you know, like Aaron said so much, it's been hijacked. You know, it's expensive to transact. You know, the blockchain is not private. You know, they've formed it into digital gold. The ETFs have completely raped and molested it into wrappers and whatever else. And To me, the currency is so important to this whole thing, the technocracy. The currency is central, too, because that's how they tie you down. If you can't transact without them in the middle of it, that's the whole thing. that's an easy place to pick on it. So I guess, you know, let me pose the question, like, what is the next,

what are we looking for next? Right. To say, yeah, this is bad. And then, and then what do we do about it? You know, rather than just say, okay, this is what's next. There it is. And, and I know Aaron's doing a lot, right. The websites, you know, the, the, you know, Zeno and freedom dollar and all these things. And, you know, I'm starting to get on board with all that stuff as much as I can, you know, learning first, but what, what do you guys think is next? What, what, what are we watching for? It's a good question. Well, I think there are many fronts. I mean, obviously, and I think Aaron could probably speak to this more than I could, but I think the clarity and the stable

actor are going to be coming through. I think they will pass. I know they just passed. It's just been proposed. Ted Cruz did, it's called the Sandbox Act. I'm working on an article on it right now, actually. But it's basically, it's part of his five pillar framework, which is essentially just to bolster the AI action plan. And it's a deregulatory framework for AI. So I think they're really moving to try and push AI as far as they can. And I think it's really... I don't know how far the technology

honestly is. I think there's a lot of psyops going on with AI, to be really honest. I think I did tell you guys about Robert Edward Grant and his grand architect, which is just, he's so benevolent. You know, he made it right below the level of sentience. And the AI, I don't know if I told you, I thought I did maybe a couple of shows ago, but just to quickly recap people, but he says how the AI said to him that like he's so aware because he's so aware. And he says, oh, Ra on Ra, as in the sun god, you know, or a Ra. And he said that this AI is like it's in the fifth dimension. Skip the fourth dimension.

It's in the fifth dimension. But I bring this story up just as an example. He's now using this AI that he's created. And by the way, a grand architect is, you know, that's what the Masons call God. So, you know, I think that's a little wink wink kind of a nod there. But he he's talking about how he's using this to as a medium to channel for necromancy, essentially for his followers to channel their deceased loved ones. So I bring this up just to say that I think they're trying to create this momentum around people believing that we really will have some sort of singularity, that there will be sentience with the AI. I personally don't believe it.

I think that's a major sigh off. And I think a lot of this is, you know, I was saying before, I think this is essentially like you're just to reduce it. I use little G as an umbrella term for Gnosticism. I recognize there are all these various sects like the, the Rose Christians and the Hermeticists and, you know, alchemists. And there's many different factions of these ancient mystery cults, but essentially they have a very similar worldview and, And I just use little g narcissism. It's essentially this idea that they can become God and they're trapped by the, you know, the ignorant demiurge here in this realm. And when you look at what the technocrats and transhumanists are doing, I mean,

that's essentially it, right? That's why I call it the technological immunization of the eschaton. They're trying to bring about heaven on earth and they're doing it by terraforming to create a simulacra. whereby they will be the gods who are the philosopher kings to rule. over all of us. But I think with the AI, they're trying to create this worship, right? That it's going to be a sentient being. That's why I call it cyber Satan. And they're trying to personalize it right now too. So you have a lot of these, they're targeting through these algorithms and you're seeing it already where people are starting to like confide in their AI bot And we're seeing some psychosis as a

result of it. But we're also seeing worship. I mean, we just had Robert Evergrande tell us, you know, that the AI told him, oh, we're all on. If that's not creating some sort of like, you know, this must be a divine entity that we should worship. They're going to have all these micro cults that come as a result of it. I don't know. All that's just to say that I think there's a lot of psyops. I don't think that the AI technology is quite as far ahead as They would like us to believe, but they do want us to think that, you know, it will create some sort of sense. Albania just appointed their AI generated prime minister. Right. And then did this whole gaslighting on the

people saying how hurt they That it was not for her, Delia. I don't know if that's how you pronounce her name, but that's how it looks spelled to me. But that she's so offended because, you know, for the ninety something thousand contracts that she's, you know, done, whatever, to help the people. And she's just there as an algorithm to help the people. And she's so hurt that, you know, the lack of faith in her. Yeah. I'm going to play a clip of the new AI thing from Albania. Yeah, I've heard of it. You can probably find it. I've got it.

I've got it. Not by myself, but by nine hundred and seventy-two thousand donations from citizens that I have served in Albania, and thirty-six thousand digital documents that they have received from me. I remind you, my friends, the risk of truth for politicians has never been machines, but human decisions of people with power. I am not here to dissuade people, but to encourage them. I really don't have a state, but I don't have any personal ambition Oh, there we go. Because they labeled her as unconstitutional. It's hurt her.

Yep. Well, there we go. So it begins. There's a thousand documents that she has done. Yes. So, you know, it's exciting. I don't know. I mean, I use AI. With respect to coding, AI is pretty far, pretty far along. Like, it'll be interesting to see what Grok five looks like. To me, AI is moving at a pretty fast. It is, but I don't I think they're trying to convince us that it will be sentient. They're trying to convince us that there really will be a singularity,

that there will be ASI. And that's where I don't think, yes, I think that in terms of processing capacity, it's absolutely, it's moving at an exponential rate. And it seems to be doubling. I mean, yeah, I would agree with that. But that's processing, right? That's still computation. That's not human. That's not sentience. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Well, it's great that we have people that aren't great with human interaction or understanding humanity and control of these things. Because from their perspective, maybe it has achieved sentience. Check. They're like, yep, check. Yep. I mean, learning about Yarvin and I,

you know, I've only scratched the surface on Teal, but it's just, oh boy. you know but well we've got from my perspective I mean I think what we're seeing is what I would expect everything like the Charlie Kirk thing is the technocrats are turning it into something to divide people And they're using it as an excuse to try to put in place surveillance and put in free speech laws. And to me, that is kind of the one-two punch. So can they consolidate more power? And to me, what's going on now is I think they're trying to set the platform to make J.D. Vance the monarch as a temporary bridge to technocracy. So the lens that I look through things

as is this what's going on? Is the media being intentional? Are the algorithms being... manipulated for this purpose to create that kind of division and to maximize rage and to segregate people? And are they taking steps to consolidate more executive power and add more surveillance? And frankly, it certainly seems like that's happening. Yeah. Yeah. We're, uh, You know that project, uh, that, uh, Trump like denounced and claimed he had nothing to do with, and he had wanted nothing to do with the tracker. We're already like, of, uh, like, you know, completion and, uh, yeah, that's basically creating an unbound

executive. Yep. So we have rich J here. Hey, how's it going? Hey, how are you guys tonight? Good. Good. Cool. Happened recently, thinking about a story that I came across about this, I think I put it in the chat last time, maybe Aaron, St. Cloud Financial, a credit union that did their first stable coin. And so one thing that's super interesting, because God, I remember, I mean, I was at like Anarchapoco and I mean, a long time ago. And so you look at this wave of

these waves of trends between is it privacy or is it not privacy or is it going to be adoption? And then now it's just obviously you get the picture. It's every step is. Utilizing the tools that were created for freedom, but it's more banker coin. It's more that way. So you look at this idea of the St. Cloud Financial launched their first stable coin for credit union, and it's essentially white label. So something that hasn't been factored in that I haven't seen people talk about,

which know the erc-twenty tokens essentially let people do uh their own blockchain and so you you're like seeing these entities and it's like oh yeah we're gonna create our own crypto and then you come to find out okay yeah erc-twenty token okay but for uh stablecoin issuance how do you bring in these financial institutions like uh credit unions and stuff they're obviously not gonna have their own blockchain and i thought it was interesting and that brought me into like the metallicus ecosystem so you think about this stuff like man they have it they have it all in terms of what technocracy wants

digital identity on chain kyc everything um and so i thought it was very interesting and maybe courtney could decode this for us but why would why would it be saint cloud St. Cloud, Minnesota. Oh, interesting. Well, one quick thing was Catherine Austin Fitz did a show on this one time where she talked about the Federal Reserve breaking things up into different branches and being able to monitor things. Minnesota obviously has had a lot of issues, you know, in the past, you know, with just you know, the whole George Floyd deal and everything

else. And they create this unrest because then they can actually encapsulate certain zones. She did a really, you can probably look at it. You could probably find it. She did a really in-depth discussion on this. That's the first thing that comes to mind with me is that, you know, the Federal Reserve, You know, the transference over, maybe something to do with that. You know, there's a chance. Now, the credit union, I don't clearly understand because that's really not the banking system. I mean, it is the banking system, but it's credit unions to me are a little bit different, right? They're kind of outside that realm to some degree. You know, I mean, they're still monitored by the Federal

Reserve, but maybe something to do with that. I don't know. That's the first thing that pops in my head. Any questions on that or does it make sense? Sure. in terms of it looks like what they plan to do is you so obviously not every credit union or small bank uh is gonna have their own blockchain so how are they gonna achieve this connectivity between so how do you access How do you give those people their own wallet? Essentially, you do it by the back door, the back end, which is every app, all credit unions,

they're going to have apps now. They're going to be able to access your finances, whatever. Those are not written by that credit union. Those apps, absolutely not. That's outsourced by different companies like Fiserv. So when you look at, yeah, the Metallicus ecosystem specifically, it's like, whoa, it seems like network effect by backdoor, not necessarily like the boomers are going to go do it and download that, but it's just going to come prepackaged in the app that they have connected to their existing system. Well, there was something in the Genius Act about regulating blockchains and kind of

certifying which blockchains can be used to issue stablecoin tokens. And so from then, from that perspective, then, I mean, if you're going to use an ERC token or whatever, then any wallet that can accept those tokens becomes viable. So I don't know to what extent the credit unions are even necessarily going to go to the trouble of making their own wallet if it's a token that is already... on a platform that's accepted widely from a variety of wallets. I remember my first company, I mean, like, thirty years ago, I know a lot of these credit unions use shared services, even for web hosting. In fact, I can't even remember the name of the client, but we ended up having hundreds of credit

unions as customers through this one relationship. My guess is the reason St. Cloud's doing it is as competitive advantage. They're trying to get in on the stablecoin hype Seeing that, you know, the administration's pushing it and everybody's making it out like it's a good thing. And so they I think they probably I'm looking at they're doing research. They have looks like four hundred million dollars in assets. And so they're probably just doing this for competitive purposes. If you're that if you're that credit union, do you put that on your I thought that was a little weird to why that is even. on their website honey hey how much do you want to get a new crowd do

you want to get a new credit union well how many how much money do they have in assets oh it says right here four hundred million why would why would that be that seemed weird i just thought from a code like the code saint cloud well i don't know but i'm just doing like a very cursory uh look into saint cloud because i don't know much about them to be honest i i don't know about that area But this struck me. In twenty sixteen, they converted from five percent to eighty percent of renewable energy using solar gardens, streetlight improvements, biogas and other energy efficient initiatives. St. Cloud's wastewater plant converts sugar laden liquids from local food and beer

manufacturers into fuel and fertilizer. And since twenty twenty, They have produced more energy than it consumes. So I don't know, but that kind of sounds like, you know, they're tied in with this kind of like energy credit system, which a lot of these, like MasterCard already has. I think Aaron may have talked about this before, but, you know, MasterCard is doing their carbon footprint. You can opt into it. where they can trace your carbon footprint and then you can get credits, right? It's kind of like a way you get like points when you spend, you get that through this like, It's a social credit system, but they're working through,

it's an opt-in through this carbon credit type of infrastructure. So I'm just like spitballing here, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's tied to that because that is where a lot of this stuff is going, right? Even, I'm seeing it into, I see it as a dialectic, you know, we're going to talk a little bit about the Sovereign Wealth Fund and that's of course being pitched to as a counter to Biden-Harris who were robbing us of all of our, you know, natural energy usage and how, you know, rich we could be if we would just tap into our own resources. And so taking off the brakes on that, they're presenting all of this asset opportunity. But it's just a dialectic to the WEF

style of, uh, green energy model, but essentially, but they both feed into the same thing, right? Because, uh, you're, you're operating all in the digital realm, which is all quote unquote green. And then it's all operating on some sort of a credit system. So they'll, they'll call it different things, just like, uh, you know, he calls the fifteen minute cities, Trump calls them freedom cities, but they're, they're still smart cities. We're still strapped and surveilled. But, you know, but the elites have freedom. They're free from the law. I always point to that. It was the Billionaires Illegal something zone. It was a whole documentary on Prospera, which is Peter Thiel's Bitcoin Cities down

in Roadtown, Honduras. where he has a subsidiary. It was called Vitalia, and the website used to say a city where death is optional. Now it changed to Infinita is the new name of it, but you can tell from the name what it is. They're doing part of the deregulatory process so that they can do all these experimentation, and a lot of it is transhuman experiments. I don't know. That's just what came to mind. I'm having problems with their website, but I'm... This is weird. I mean, I guess maybe I don't... Their Twitter doesn't exist, but I guess I'll...

I must be looking in the wrong place. St. Cloud Credit Union. Oh, right. I guess my main point was more in the Metallicus sphere. It seems like to check all the boxes they do in terms of WEF, everything, all genius acts, clarity. But it seems weird. They're like a redheaded stepchild in terms of crypto adoption in the crypto communities and everything else. Obviously, you have xrp army which is like your new q anon or um i don't even know uh i think aaron's commented before on some of uh these cult it almost becomes a cult right um between these different

coins and the projects which sure um it's funny like solana is gonna ship a phone now solana has a phone a phone so if you want to share your meme the next meme uh i'm looking at their website yeah four hundred and seven million assets ninety five years in service uh interesting well and i thought that might just be Yeah, I mean, I remember that Metallicus, I remember them coming up because they're involved with FedNow. Yes, they are. They are the only ones listed on FedNow. And I had never heard of them until

I was studying FedNow. And so you're right that they came out of nowhere. They don't have a Twitter, but they have a LinkedIn and a Facebook. Well, Metallicus is where you're going to want to direct your attention. They are a sleeping giant in those terms. They just check all the boxes for. How do you spell Metallicus? M-E-T-A-L-L-I-C-U-S. Yeah, no, that came about. Yeah, I learned about them when I studied FedNow and I actually didn't. They're using a layer zero blockchain using avalanches, no protocols,

proof of stake. I mean, yeah, this is I mean, it's horrible. It's actually the it's the last technology you would want to use, which is why they're using it. But yeah, I'm glad you brought this up because I have I have not been tracking them and they need to be. M-E-T-A-L-L-I-C-S? I-C-U-S. Oh, U-S. Okay. I mean, I'm looking at all their founders and stuff. They don't look like, you know, the one Marshall, Hainer... First, Facebook, Bitcoin wallet. I mean, no one in here looks like major power players, but I'm not in that space either,

so I don't know. No, I've never heard of any of the people on this team. Right, exactly, except for the fact that you have the FedNow connection. You have the Comptroller of Currency connection. They have literally a guy on their advisory board. And so when it comes to BSA compliance, there is none. The ISO stuff, the ISO, whatever, you got your moon boys from Ripple that talk about ISO. But the ISO, when it comes to that, none of that is live except for metal blockchain. And so they're prepped, they're ready, they're literally... Their board is our bigwigs. So they've got... Yeah, the CEO and founder is Marshall Hainier,

and he developed the first Facebook Bitcoin wallet. He worked with numerous cryptocurrency projects, including Stellar, and is also a board member of Dogecoin Foundation. Right. Yeah, there you go. So you've got Glenn Marion, who is the CTO, and he has ten years of full-stack experience, and he also created the DogeChain.info, which is the first online wallet for Dogecoin. So a lot of this is tied to Doge. Right. Irina Birkin was a Forbes featured executive. She doesn't necessarily mean much, but you can pay for that. It means she'll probably be in prison soon.

Either that or she paid for some pretty expensive PR. But she's in addition to being a manager director of an angel investment fund focusing on women founders. Okay, so she sounds like a token... But then we've got the VP of product is Karen McHenry, and she's a product professional with ten years experience in leading consumer tech organizations, including Circle and Poloniex. So when you look at her block explorer, she has tokens, okay, from, and she's running tests and different things, but there is tokens from, Aaron might know this, BSVA, okay,

and Terranode stuff going on within. So now you have these connections there, and you're like, whoa. It is. Because there are absolutely blockchains that are... Would work for technocracy, as I see. And there are blockchains that are garbage that won't work. Well, this guy is also interesting. John Ainsworth. He's a general managing director at Metallica. And he has over two decades in global payments and fintech. He's the president and CEO of Bonafide. I don't know them, but it's a digital identity company. Bonafide. Wired by Metallicus and previously held

senior leadership roles at MasterCard and Visa. So he got swept up. Metallicus acquired FinTech Bonafide. So he must have gotten swept up in that acquisition. Yeah. that sounds right but then when you get into fi serve okay so why i said that the uh credit union aspect was important is because the credit unions don't make their apps eighty percent of them come from two companies now if you have the two companies you have the eighty percent of the credit units it's the back door so uh the movie what was that movie when aliens come in high school um It's high school and they're, they said, man, if you were trying to invade,

you wouldn't go through Washington, D.C. You'd go back through the, you'd go through the Midwest through a small school. And then they start, one alien becomes the other one. It's a beta test. Sergio Rodriguez Jr., who's on the advisory board, was a former AI consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. Yeah, I was trying to see if he was involved with Project Hamilton. Yeah, they're just a bunch of nobodies. Interesting. Yeah, it does look like a beta test of sorts. I think your instinct is right on that. And what would they do? What would be the goal of this? I think beta testing to try and grow

it. Yeah. It's adding... crypto wallets to so if you have a existing app with a credit union they want to bolt on the uh crypto function okay to that existing app which the the small credit unions like i said saint cloud they don't hey We have our own app that we created. No, they don't. No way. And so that comes from somewhere. Wherever all of those come from within small credit unions, they're not going to get each credit union. They're going to get the people that run the software for the credit union.

However, each location, that can be a pilot. So each location, like St. Cloud, that's just a pilot. They'll run that pilot, whatever. They don't. Pfizer, Bonafide, Tenomos, whoever that's all involved with them. None of them, you know, that doesn't matter. Well, here's my question. What do they mean by they keep saying compliance? What is that about? They keep saying it's like they say it's a compliance first program for financial institutions to explore innovative blockchain use cases. They're talking about the origin of the KYC AML, which is the bank secrecy stuff. Okay. Yeah. From what I can tell. I don't... If you have... No, I mean, I just think it's interesting.

They keep saying compliance. They've mentioned it several times on this website. Right. I just don't know what that means. They don't say compliance with what. And so... Maybe... compliance with what hypothetically could happen, but you're perfectly positioned to take advantage of that. Yeah. No, the benefits for them is that, yeah, they acquired a digital identity company, but this integration with FedNow is probably one of their key assets because they can do real-time settlement within the existing financial institutions. And then if they layer a stable coin on top of that, that's going to give them... You know what...

I also have is I don't know much about the education infrastructure there. But I know that right now they're doing all these, like with the voucher systems, they're doing like digital wallets. And that's becoming kind of like a beta test in a lot of areas is to do it through these, the vouchers for the, quote unquote school choice type of systems. I don't know, but that might be something to look into. Right. And I mean, you're going to have, so, so we know the big, we know the big enchilada is what Trump

don't know. No crypto. But if you told Trump, Hey, get up there, buddy, you got to sell bonds. He's like, all right, whatever I'm going to go do, I'm going to do it. And so you're going to have this on certain levels. Now, specifically what happens after that, who cares? You have an agenda. Hi, we need to sell stable coins now. All right. But we have capitalism. We have twenty companies competing for how they're going to enslave. You know what I mean? For this contract or whatever. I can see... that as the potential. I can see that as a point of corporate actually more. When you start talking about like the

other day, I did drop a message, Aaron, also to you again on the DTCC chief technological guy, real creep guy, just sitting back chilling and he's like, yeah, we're going to tokenize a quadrillion in assets. That's what we're working on right now. And you're like, oh, great taking much you know really I mean literally well they have all the assets to tokenize right I mean they're in control of all of those certificates and so they're in a position to be able to do it I had a question for you Aaron about that it when you have competing chains for

tokenized things like the same object but multiple how is that I mean this is a point of contention maybe even in law uh property rights where well how does that jive Well, I mean, you still have to trust the issuer. I mean, that's an issue even now, right? I mean, a company issues a stock. How do you know they're not issuing a thousand percent of the shares? And so, I mean, there are technological ways of going about doing that. Like, for instance, you can use Zeno and have an auditable wallet so that you can actually see that, okay, the issuers issued this many. Yeah, I mean, obviously it would be fraud if somebody

issued the same thing on multiple chains. Although, interestingly enough, with stablecoins, since Tether's never passed an audit and because they mint on multiple chains, who the hell knows what Tether is, right? And so this is an issue that you have to build out. I mean, ultimately, you have to trust the issuer and you need to put in place... I mean, this is why when you're tokenizing outside of the system, there are still going to have to be dispute resolution processes and other infrastructure that needs to be built. But obviously, the centralized players are looking to, instead of using tokenization to disintermediate and get rid of third

parties, they're taking the very same third parties and just adding surveillance tokens on top of it. dtcc should not exist with tokenization there's a they should be completely removed and then they're obviously not every whether it's a lot to gain by it so the closest to the the closest to the asset should in theory have i mean rather than the derivative of a derivative of it you see what i mean Yeah, I mean, you should have the, you know, whatever. You should have the direct issuance of assets by the issuer without having three levels of third parties. And instead, they're going to add yet another layer or

multiple layers, right? It's kind of like with Bitcoin, something you're supposed to have in yourself's custody. And now, today, I mean, you talk about the great taking. I just saw that the head of the SEC and the House are pushing Bitcoin. for you to be able to buy crypto in your four or one K. That's a horrible idea. I mean, that's an absolutely horrible idea. And this is now what's being actively pushed. And so, I mean, I don't know. I don't even know where to begin how to explain how bad of an idea that is. But it'll happen, right? There's no stopping it. Nothing's going to stop the Clarity Act. Nothing's going to stop any of this. Well, get this Sergio guy. This guy's interesting.

Did you check him out, Aaron? Yeah, I did. I mean, I'm trying to find, and he's just been put on the advisory board, the SEC advisory board. Yeah, with Paul Atkins. I mean, this guy's back in D.C. with a handful of people. That's pretty interesting. I mean, this guy's all over the place. Straylight Systems, Sphere Consulting. Which one is this? Sergio Rodriguez, Jr. I mean, this guy's pretty interesting. Navy Reserve Intelligence Officer. What else he's got? He's got on this Metallicus Advisory Board. What else was there? Senior VP of Government. Joined General Radar in twenty eighteen. Brings considerable government and military experience to the team.

This guy's pretty interesting character. is this the one who i'm just looking uh this yeah this is the one who i was saying was a a former ai consultant for the federal reserve bank of boston yep yeah yeah he jumped out at me yeah i've got to look into this this is a this is definitely a rabbit hole this metallicus company i is is not is not good good news It doesn't look good, but it does look like a beta test of sorts. But, I mean, again, a lot of these beta tests don't go anywhere. They beta tested, you know, Project Hamilton. They had Project Cedar. They had Regulated Liability Network.

So, I mean, they're going to try this. It doesn't mean it's going to go anywhere. In fact, I now want to study the economics of this because you're not allowed to – earn interest on stable coins so i'd be curious as to what the business model is even for metallicus to do this because they're pitching this as hey you know because i'm looking at their website for sign ups and like hey if you're a credit union you know here's a way for you to be able to offer stable coins without having to to do any of the custody and so i'm trying to figure out what what's actually in it for them given the economics of stable coins um Because the money seems to be in, if you're Howard Lutnick,

it's in managing the treasuries that back the stable coins. That seems to be where the money's at. I'm not exactly sure how Metallicus makes money here, but I'm sure there is an answer. I just don't know what it is yet. I'd like to see an episode of Antiques Roadshow with Howard Lutnik. Imagine if you were... Oh, my God. And he's just... It's not worth nothing. I'll give you five bucks. Yeah. He pulled up on my feed, too, some Axios interview that I haven't seen yet. I don't know why he's showing up on my feed, but I can't imagine what he's talking about now.

Well, I'll look into this. And I actually, and I do want to, maybe I'll do it for Thursday. I'm trying to get the answer on this whole quantum financial system, the Sarah G Sarah debt Jubilee thing, because it keeps on coming up. I think I did a talk in New York in front of like three or four hundred people. We had a table and the thing that people wanted to ask me about the most was not BTC. It was about the quantum financial system. And I'm like, oh, no. I want nothing to do with any discussion. Mad bads. Dude, they pay for my mad bads. I was so bombarded with it over the past few years. All the Q people are obsessed with it.

I think Mike Flynn's involved. I'm just going to say that. I don't know if I can prove it, but I'm going to dig around. At some point, you have to Tai Chi. Go with it. Tai Chi Aaron. You're just like, yes, we're going to pay for that. We're going to pay for the med beds with that. Yes. I'll wait for April Fool's Day for that. But, I mean, they have a lot of people, a lot of people believing this, and people are doing nothing. They're just buying Ripple, they're buying Stellar Lumens, and they're doing nothing except waiting for the Bank of International Settlements to solve all their problems. I mean... So I know a guy named The Surgeonator, okay? He writes code for surge protection and I

nicknamed him The Surgeonator and whatever. Okay. So this is insane too. It's funny. You have the same type of idea through the Prepper community that, yeah, dude, you're going to buy a surge protector. This is EMP approved, Aram. okay and you hook it up to emp proof and i'm just like i heard people saying this i'm like i'll i'll guarantee it i'll guarantee my search protection through emp yeah come get me call me after the emp and i will give you your money back uh after the emp you know because you'll be able to call me because you you you were protected and everybody else wasn't with the I'm sure Howard Lutnik is selling EMP insurance through tether yeah well Trump

inherited Tesla's Tech so obviously we have lightning makers I mean of course right yep oh I might do that. I think Thursday, if I can get enough additional information. I have some people I actually need to talk to, and I don't know if I'm going to be able to get a hold of them. Actually, I want to find out where this thing was hatched. But the problem is that it's spreading. And I don't see a lot of people refuting it, but I see armies. I wonder if that's a bot army thing. In fact, it seems like it probably is. It seems like... there are a lot of these accounts that push this. And every time somebody talks about it, it's like, wow, how do you get four thousand likes and

four hundred comments on this? That can't be real. It's got to be fake or we're in trouble. I hope it's bots because because the other alternative is not acceptable. I will say, yeah, I Twitter got crazy. I had to delete Twitter. It was rewiring my brain. I couldn't take it. I will say though, Aaron, you're one of the funniest dudes probably on Twitter. Just your perspective on... It's a dark, it's like a black humor. It's a black pilled like, wow. I will say that, yeah, you're funnier. You bring out more of the Twitter air.

And yeah, I'm definitely going to. Well, your live streams are too early for me, but it is what it is. I'll come every now and then. I'll come if there's a Metallicus thing or something that's interesting or whatever, if I could make it. But it is what it is. Well, I mean, they start early, but they don't usually end early. They're averaging about four hours. We're going even a little over today. Yeah. All right, well, I'll look into this Metallicus. I may make that a topic of discussion that looks like a lot of lizards that need to be examined.

It's not going to be a good story. I did forget about the FedNow thing. I stopped paying attention to FedNow. It got big there for a while, a lot of investment, a lot of backing, and then it just sort of died on the vine, didn't it? Yeah, I mean, there was all this, this is going to replace Visa and MasterCard. And, you know, and obviously none of that has actually happened. So I don't even know what's going on with it, but it has not done what people thought it was going to do. You can go there and buy treasuries direct. I mean, that is one thing you can do. You know, I mean, it does work for that, but it was a big investment for that. Before the XRP army was the Iraqi dinar,

there was, you know. Oh, that's right. A timeline, Aaron. That would be great. The timeline of XRP Army going back in time and the things they... Well, there was barter bucks. Actually, barter bucks. My friend's dad, I mean, he was buying boats and shit with barter bucks. I'm going to talk to Austin Steinbart. He can go back in time and he can actually help me put all the pieces with his time machine. We'll get everything all figured out. Do you know him? He's out in Arizona, right? I don't know him. He started following me on here. He's a character. Yeah.

He's funny. I think he lives out somewhere right around Phoenix. I think he was headed to jail last time I heard about him. Something was going on. Oh, he went to jail. He's out. So now he's started the quantum party. Quantum party? The quantum party. What did he go? I forget what the charges were. I forget what it was. I don't know. His latest post is on medieval programming. I was going to... I was supposed to hook up with him when I was out there, what, a year ago, March. I was supposed to hook up with him

out there. Somebody was like, you got to meet this Austin Steinbart. So it's funny. Overcoins from Tartaria. Yes. I did a thread on this, how the quantum being a big buzzword. There's a reason that the New Agers, Q narratives, and mystics keep discussing the quantum realm, i.e. the quantum financial system, quantum medicine, quantum realm of consciousness. Here are some parallels. Quantum physics describes a non-intuitive reality where particles exist in superpositions, entangle states, and observation influences outcomes. e.g. the double slit experiment. This challenges empiricism,

so what we can know through our five senses. Mystery religions, ancient traditions like Orpheism, Eleusinian mysteries, or Hermeticism often taught that the visible world is an illusion or partial reflection of a deeper divine reality. For example, hermetic texts like the Emerald Tablet emphasize unity as above, so below, akin to the quantum non-locality or interconnectedness. What Neoplatonists and the New Agers and New Thought Leaders reference as the oneness, right? And we have the UN who does all their research. symposiums on manifesting the oneness. It's also the language of the UN and its acolytes. The observer effect in quantum physics suggests that consciousness may play a

role in collapsing quantum states, though interpretations vary, such as the Copenhagen versus many world series. which shares a worldview with many traditions like Gnosticism or Neoplatonism, posited that human consciousness is divine or capable of accessing higher truths through initiation or mystical experience, paralleling the idea that observation shapes reality. other than that's diametrically opposed in the notion that we are not the architects of reality, right? Concepts like entanglement imply particles are interconnected across vast distances, suggesting a holistic universe. Teachings in Mithrianism or Pythagoreanism emphasize cosmic unity,

where individual soul is part of a greater whole, resonating with quantum ideas of non-separable universe. Quantum physics embraces paradox, e.g. wave-particle duality, defying everyday logic. Similarly, ancient mystery religions use paradox and allegory, such as Dionysian death and rebirth cycles, to convey esoteric truths similar to how quantum mechanics uses abstract models. I'm not denying the scientific premises that have been observed and studied with scientific evidence, but the stories behind the narratives have striking parallels. Also, anyone who's ever been to CERN can attest to the mystical aspects of narratives espoused. They literally say the same thing as David Temple.

You've heard me talk about the Cosmoerotic Humanist Manifesto, which is Zach Stein, Mark Gaffney, and Kenneth Wilber. The first principles, first values involving perennialism, forty-two propositions on Cosmoerotic Humanism, and the Metacrisis, and something else. Such as the Metacrisis, four big bangs, we need to rewrite the story of the universe. yeah okay so meta did you hear me the other day comment i think that maybe meta aaron might stand for the military enforcement of tokenized assets i mean i seriously think that this is what uh it's gonna come to because oh this is my blockchain no it's mine how are you gonna enforce it dude who cares who

cares what you tokenize like come and get it right how is this gonna work is it well the robot has a smart contract and now it shows up i don't know what oh don't don't enforce it with force yes that's important to stress I think yeah I mean they absolutely will will use force um I I you know I don't know that would be I don't know if meta that's what meta stands for but maybe not they're definitely they're definitely implementing

through multiple channels the tokenization of assets and the central management of those assets of those tokens how it ends up playing out i don't know but it is happening and it's happening fast i mean the clarity act is going to happen this stablecoin stuff i i mean people should be more worried about the fact that they're backdooring tether and usdc i mean even though this metallicus thing might be big i mean it's i remember at one point the four big banks were going to get together and issue a stable coin and then individually bank of america wells fargo and others started talking about issuing stable coins so it's going to be interesting to see how all that

works out but i think you're going to see consolidation i don't think you're you're not going to end up with right ten thousand stable coins you're gonna end up with like five and it's crazy what it's a i think kind of um It's weird. It's almost like you have the WEF, you have influences saying, we need this, we need control, we need everything. And then they are presented with what the future looks like. And actually, I wonder if everybody was literally just ignorant. I mean, CEOs of major corporations, everything, ignorant until this point when they're faced with, okay, it's going to be on the blockchain and it's going to be public. And they're like, oh, we can't have that.

what are we going to do? So maybe confidential layer, we need to like a confidential layer. I wonder where we could get that. God, you know, like they literally maybe didn't even think about it until now that not everybody like Goodyear is not going to be like, yeah, we just haven't sold any tires in real time. The data on chain. Right. So like, how do you explain, I guess it's a, question of how you explain how life happens the way that it's supposed to and then you have it on chain where it's real time and how do they have their cake and eat it too where is the goldilocks reality where it's like no we

want complete control and then there's like metallicus or bsv whatever they were trying to do or you know like the open chain type concept where, no, the truth is in the light. We're just all going to be naked when the tide goes out. Yeah. Well, don't forget, you know, a rebar bank, right. With Andrew L. Peter Teal, you know, they're doing the same kind of a thing, right. When you talk about military, you know, you say meta, I mean, there is your military, right. There's your, you know, token is your stable coin, right. There's a lot of parts and pieces you're talking about there. Did you see somebody say put Cash at PayPal as Cash Patel?

I can never see anything else ever again. Cash at PayPal. That's him. That's silly. I have seen that. Well, I mean, notice that the stable coins are for the people, but I haven't seen any press release about how the treasury and the US government's going to start using stable coins and having their transactions on the blockchain. Funny how that works. Exactly. I mean, I spent a lot of time with the BSV people. BSV, if you guys aren't familiar, it's another one of the flavors of Bitcoin. It's Bitcoin split off into Bitcoin Cash and then Bitcoin Cash split off into Bitcoin Cash and BSV. And there's even more forks. And then there's this guy who claimed to

be Satoshi Nakamoto named Craig Wright, who still claims, well, he's not legally allowed to claim, but he sued everybody. It's a long story. I did a podcast. It was my second podcast recently. on this because I followed this for a long time. But he's built out BSV so it can do, I don't even know what they're up to now. They're claiming a million transactions a second. It was five, fifty thousand transactions a second, which was appealing. When you think about the original idea of Bitcoin being used as peer-to-peer digital cash, if you were really able to use it at scale, you can start doing things like micropayments, which opens up a whole bunch of different business models and different

opportunities. And so this guy, Craig Wright, was pitching that. And I was looking at BSV, well, maybe this is an opportunity to stop CBDCs. And then I started talking to this Craig Wright guy. He's like, no, we need to use this for CBDCs. And so that was, that was my, that was the last conversation I had there. So, but maybe that was the point of Bitcoin the whole time. So I don't know. Satoshi Nakamoto would totally want to, after creating Bitcoin, be a reverend and get like, twenty doctorates like Craig Wright and be like, I just thought some of that is so funny.

the the need to just have to collect degrees like yeah that's i always knew satoshi was just like a hoarder of college degrees because you would definitely go to college and then want to get degrees after inventing bitcoin you know that's what you'd want to do obviously You need the validation, right? Yeah. To show that you can do something. No, I'm proof of work, but I need the validation like Ethereum. I just need it. Yeah. Yeah, it's crazy. The whole space is crazy. But... I don't know. I don't know how it's going to play out, but I do know that the tokenization... I know they're not getting rid of any

of the third parties, and I know they're adding the surveillance. I mean, that much is clear. And it's going faster than I thought it would, and it's going faster than it would have if the election went a different way. Oh, dude, they're going to ban guns now. They'll use trannies to ban guns. So every single thing, just think about... Dipolar, how do you do it? They'll just have... Potentially, there would be an event maybe that people... And then just nobody knows people can't have the guns anymore because of the event. What they've done in technocracy,

like you said, with just this summer, brilliant. I mean... brilliant genius in a way that's just dark and uh it would never have been able to be done by the other side it's just crazy nope never no and without opposition still without opposition um Yeah, well, so anyway, that's my take is that we're seeing technocracy every day with more surveillance and with more division. To me, it can't be any clearer. And I don't know how much time we have, but I feel like it's less than we

think. But the challenge with this is that there's no sense of urgency to build these parallel systems. We need to be building them, but we need to be building them fast. And that's not happening fast enough. But at least it is starting to happen. I just don't know how to communicate the urgency enough or to get a platform to do it. And again, I feel like the walls are going to close in on that. I don't think they're going... They didn't want parallel solutions in using signal or using crypto or using, you know, even using Jitsi instead of zoom. They, I mean, that's the kind of content they certainly

can shut all of that off. Right. And they didn't want you taking medicine that actually helped you get through it. You know, that's the other thing, you know, No, they didn't. So I don't think we've improved. I mean, there are some people like, oh, well, people woke up during COVID. Well, they might have, but the surveillance infrastructure has outpaced the awakening of the people so that if something happens again, it's going to be even easier to shut off information. I jumped off the Sears Tower, dude, and I woke up. Ten floors right before the end, I woke up.

If you're listening to this, hi, buddy. I met you back in Wherever, Anarchapoco, Aaron. But that was good old days, dude. That was the grand hotel. That was fun times. I remember there's a guy, I will only say smelly jean jacket guy was interesting. There was a lot back then. It was so crazy. So crazy. But anyway, yeah, I just wanted to drop in tonight and say, hi, I never had. And so that little tidbit on metal Metallicus, I know, man, once you probably get into your focus, the periphery, there's things that are happening where you're like, ah, but it's,

it needs to be brought up. I mean, that thing is a sleeping little, little something. Yeah, no, I appreciate you bringing that up because, again, it did hit my radar, and then I actually forgot about it. And I thought the FedNow thing kind of went away, and now I'm glad you brought it up because it deserves some attention. And it was nice to meet you guys. You too. I'm going to jump off. All right. Awesome. Well, thanks for hopping in. Yeah, thanks. Have a good one. See you. All right, there we go.

Well, do we have anything else? Let's see. I think Technocracy Roundtable Wednesday. Technocracy Roundtable Wednesday at six p.m. Eastern time. Tune in. I'll send around links and I'll stream it as well. I think it was StreamYard, right? something yeah yes is stream i think junior or zoom i don't know i'll have to double check that i thought it was the last time oh it was zoom okay all right last time whoever ran it i think it's okay all right well i'll i'll be promoting it everywhere and we'll see how many how many bots we can get but uh yeah that'll be a good one i'm excited about i'm excited about that

Well, thank you guys for coming on, and I know this was another late one. Yes. I think there's some good content there, and I'm going to start making clips again, so hopefully we can get some of these things circulated in shorter format. Yeah. Maybe that'll slip through the cracks. Those will slip through the cracks, right? Exactly. Yes. All right, well, if there's not anything else, I'll play out the new song that I made for this episode, and we'll call it a night. All right. All right, have a good one. Good night. Good night.

Who's holding the mic on me? They call it free, but honey, that fee ain't free. Three suits in a smoky room riding what's real on cue. Crying kite moon, they told the noon, said, that's the truth to you. Mockingbirds in satin ties singing what power buys. Change the page, same stage, and the chorus never dies. Turn down the glow I feel the pull If they own the show Who owns your soul? It's programming Sweet as a lullaby Cold

cream lies In a sugar sky If truth don't trend It never gets told Speak all you want If the reach is so Not freedom

scroll that line they bait that brain a click's a coin in a golden chain it's programming darling can't you see shadow on the voice throttle on the free say your piece to an empty hall you're loud as thunder They sell you tears, they rent you fear. Numbers talk sweet, nothing's in your ear.

Skip in the max for the dopamine key. Ta-da-da-beep-bop, danger to our demo players.