S2E36: Silicon Valley's Dark Enlightenment Coup with Courtenay Turner

Fingerprint is on the [Music] Wh. [Music] A billion dollar prayer answered in a patriish. Tell me, is that heaven [Music] or just a hostage with a halo? Uh yeah. Uh blueprints signed by ghost and suits. White coats offshore loot Epson Island Santa Fe secret pay recruit the youth game code of mantra chant a conscious

evolution metam mask for technocrats who harvest data like communion no fear surveillance tell our dreams and server racks pierce a teal bank roll the stack AI gods and proxy tracks they weaponize redemption edits with crisp pens of spirit keep the shell we write the meek to fit their ends ghost in the genome code on the throne tomorrow when the seat kne to the screen is freedom of or a scripted routine. [Music] On the throne tomorrow [Music] [Applause]

[Music] prophets, prophets I love, but silence the devils they serve. Swapping our doubt for dopamine. Selling the scound reserve anti- robberous sermons master the profit in a plot while drones carve pay halos in the air for those they chose to swap bot pipelines crime belief influencers echo the creed ID weep spinning the feed complexity cloak the greed edge foundation last questions answer the hidden labs paradise lost in an NFT traded for service labs upload the conscious auction of flesh legislate death through a silicone mesh run that test bet your breath who's your god when the cold out lives your chest Stop on the drone tomorrow [Music]

on the throne tomorrow. [Music] If the future's a marketplace and the soul's on clearance, remember a bargain with a ghost still cost you a breath. [Music]

Oh, [Music] beautiful love. [Music] We built our walls for 50 years to keep the empires out. But now the crown is forged within of algorithms and doubt. A signature at midnight. The pale

of kings disguise. A sovereign crown of numbers. An empire digitized. Shadows on the marble walls. Whispers in the dome. The fire burns in secret holes. The kingom takes its throne. Trillion dollar frozen horse rolling through our gates. Mars made of money reing on our face. Freedom sold for silver. The crown is all history repeats itself. Heat. Heat.

Heat. [Music] Kuwait laid a fire on 53 with oil turned into gold. Desert kings became the lords their empires bought and sold. From city bro to sovereign streets the bankers bed. The horse was strong in silence while the people slept instead.

Steing blood and stone the empire beats the flame from east to west. The story is long. The song is still the same. Troen horse running through our gates. Maring. Fre. The crown is born. History repeats itself. The lesson never learn. If falling is the future, the land fall

with fire. Better broken in the daylight than our empire. Heat [Music] up here. Trillion dollar horse storming every wall.

A sovereign crown of battle. The rise before the fall. Freedom sold for silver. The crown is bought not earned. History repeats itself. The lesson never learned. The throen horses waiting. The crown of kings eternal. [Music] [Applause] [Music] [Applause]

[Music] I walk past the man where the cold numbers ring, past the market The mirrors that ask me to sing, a spark in my pocket, a converse of gold says, "Step in the daylight and walk on your own. [Music] [Applause] They're in our shadows. They're leasing

our names. Selling us comfort in our cold chains. The truth is courage like a kind you can actually whisper [Music] of history.

I'll pay with the freedom no has no one. [Music] They promised us safety for the price of our breath. A small little window that stares us to death. But handshake and steel in the hand still purchase the living. They don't understand.

Ra over the turn styles of dat [Music] we'll cut one at the end. [Applause] [Music] There's a key made of silence, a code made of trust. When the panopticon trembles, it falls into dust. Countdown

the seconds till the signal is clean. We'll settle our debts where the ledger can't see. Heat. [Music] Heat. [Music]

Heat up here. Jesus will teach me raise up the ladder of daylight higher than higher than the turn styles of data. [Music] real

hands on silver and steel raise up daylight through the haze. Freedom's not something you rise. I'll pay with freedom. No tyrant can spend the road has no exit. We'll cut one at the end. And when morning remembers the names we forgot will be richer in daylight. [Music] than any they

[Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Applause] Oh, [Music]

hey. [Music] They told me it was safer. Just a simple code to sign a number for the future, but it didn't feel like mine. >> Said the world was getting smaller, just a finger away. But I can't hold my children through a screen of DNA. >> Oh, it's easy to surrender when they promise you the sky.

But freedom dies in comfort, one consent at a time. I won't sign my name in cold. >> I was born in blood and soul. You can take my data. You can read my eyes, but my heart's still mine to hold. I won't sign my name in cold. [Music] I'll shine my >> They say it's just identity. They say it's just the way. But every skin's a promise that our

souls will fade to gray. >> No more numbers on the altar. No more saints of silicone. We were meant for love. Not long. You can wrap my face. You can mark my tone. But you'll never write my song. The melody belongs to every heart that's still holding on. I won't sign my name. I was born in my soul. Every day they weren

down with fire. Fire. Oh, I'll sign my name in cold. No sign. >> I'll sign my name in life. [Music] Let the record show I was free. Then my name was written in love, not circuitry. [Music]

Welcome back to the Aaron Day Show. This is season 2, episode 36. Tonight we're going to be talking about the dark enlightenment exposed. And we are going to have back uh Courtney Turner who's a great friend of the show and one of the best people on the planet in terms of exposing this entire topic of technocracy. And this theme tonight is based on an article that she recently had published which is very timely and lines up with a lot of the things that um that I've been talking about well for the last you know couple of years but more importantly the last 60 to 90 days have been really emphasizing these themes and so very excited to have her on. Uh before we get to that just some

housekeeping. Uh, I encourage everybody to check out the last episode, season 2, episode 35. And I'm starting to break these up. You know, I think the general flow is going to be on Monday, we will probably do something that's focused on either exposing technocracy or, you know, something related to, you know, regaining your personal autonomy. And then on Thursday, we're going to make it solutionsoriented with, you know, an expose on something related to the Zeno ecosystem. and how we can build parallel solutions that are private and outside of the existing system. So, we'll see how long. I mean, it's not going to be hard and fast that I'm going to follow to that, but that's

generally uh the approach that I want to take primarily because at this point, I have to say that what's gone on in the last 90 days, technocracy is accelerating so quickly. I mean, in terms of not only the Genius Act and stable coins, but Real ID, what we have going on globally with digital IDs being rolled out all over the globe, the UK, 17 different countries rolling theirs out, passing laws at the same time, representing three billion people, the infiltration of AI in healthcare, and kind of, I would argue, the hijacking of the Maha movement. It's really going at lightning speed. And on top of that we have also the emergence of a sovereign wealth fund which is further

consolidation of power in the executive branch which is kind of a transition point to full-on technocracy. So it's moving so quickly that while it's helpful to expose what's going on um it's also somebody's saying the volume is too low. Hold on. Hopefully that's better. Um, so it's important to expose that, but we have to actually build parallel solutions now because they're actively rolling out technocracy. They're no longer planning technocracy. They're no longer just simply talking about these things. This isn't UN agenda 2030 as a concept. This is digital IDs and Palunteer AI surveillance and so forth all being

rolled out. So this is why it's important that we start to hit the exits. And last week the focus was on uh Freedom Dollar, which I will get to in a second. The weekend uh excuse me, the episode before that, season 2, episode 34, we really focused on this whole digital ID situation, which I highly encourage you to watch or even just skim through the transcripts of because this one even shocked me. I mean, I follow this technocracy stuff full-time and even I got blindsided by the fact that digital IDs are being rolled out. And while you probably heard about what the UK is doing uh and everybody was shocked by that, but that's not the most shocking news. The most shocking news is

that Real ID is 11 is already digital in 11 states. It will be digital in 20 more states by the end of the year. Mexico has rolled out is rolling out in Q1 of next year nationwide digital ID tied to a QR code and biometrics that will be required to be enforced by uh in addition to the state employers. So this is this is live and and now we have 17 other countries who work with the same three vendors rolling out digital ID fully by 20 by the end of either next year or early 2027. So this isn't a lot of people think about this as these as 2030 initiatives as if they're going to be live by 2030 and that's actually not the case. So this stuff is moving ahead

full steam and a lot of people were caught off guard by that. And then the previous week we talked about uh Trump's sovereign wealth fund which is something that's completely anti-American. the idea that the government is now making investments in companies like Intel and uh numerous other companies, lithium Americas and others and really moving to tokenize the nation's assets and sell those off. Howard Lutnik is in the middle of this. It's a horrifying prospect because sovereign wealth funds control about 7% of the global wealth. And if you actually look at the breakdown of who controls this, these are usually dictators or monarchs. That's largely the type of regime that's

doing this. And they are one of the primary funding sources right now for Agenda 2030. So definitely uh catch up on that because it's a key portion and key element of of pushing technocracy forward. Now, related to what I talked about in the last episode, I'm giving away $220 worth of uh freedom dollar uh and I'm giving $11 to 20 different people. So, basically, when a hundred people sign up, I'm going to pick 20 out of the 100. So, you have a one in5 chance of winning $11. And the reason it's 11 freedom dollars and not 10 is I want to make sure you had enough to be able to not only receive the freedom dollar, but you can actually set up a nonkyc debit card called the zebit card, and that's

enough to meet the minimum to load onto your card. So, what you will be able to do with this giveaway is receive a privacy stable coin that's not backed by the dollar and you will be able to load it onto a nonKYC debit card that you can spend at a 100 million merchants anywhere in the world. And I to me this is a powerhouse combination that shows what we can do as we start migrating away from these centralized controlled systems into private alternatives. And so, I encourage you to check that out. Let me if you go to the aarend dayshow.com website right nowregister is where you go to set up but I'll I'll see where we are. So we're at 81 sign up so far. So we're down to you know 19

left and then that will trigger that. So whenever whenever that happens I mean I'm going to do the giveaway whether that is you know today or whether it's tomorrow or you know the end of the week or whatever happens to be once we hit that trigger number. And I encourage you to uh share this with your friends and your relatives. All all you have to do is register an account and then I'll have your email address and I will pick 20 emails at random. So this is very exciting exciting news. I'm not being paid to promote this. I'm doing this because everything about this show is about exposing technocracy and then coming up with counters to technocracy. And I think this is one of the best

toolkits that we have. I also encourage you to check out the Aaron Day show. I did quite a bit of of updates. As if you've been listening to the show, we're going to be rolling out by the end of this month five total websites uh related to this is kind of our new strategy moving forward in in November. And uh so I've been working on these things and they've been in various stages of development, but I spent a lot of time on the air and day show and some of the things that were added over the weekend as a lot of you uh requested information about where you can get the songs. And so there's now a music and memes tab on the website and you can actually see a you see this music

player. you can actually play all of the audio songs right there on the site. And then you can also scroll down below that and see kind of the video version of it. I mean, it's not really video. It's more of an image with, you know, kind of an audio visualizer on it. Some of these I may turn into videos. It depends on how much how how much people like them. But anyway, you can play the music, you can share the music, you can also vote on it. So, if you have a registered account, you can actually vote thumbs up or thumbs down on the songs. And in that same area, there's now a memes tab. So, I have started to create memes for each episode, as well as the slides that that

I have, you know, like what we're going through today. I'm going to be putting all of the slides and all of the memes on there as well, which you can also rate up or down or whatever, but also share. So, the idea is that, you know, sometimes this podcast goes on for quite some time. It can be, you know, three, four, five hours. Obviously, not everybody's going to listen to that, but we want to get the content out there in as many different formats as possible. I will also soon be doing clips as well. So, there's that. Also, at the website, there's a discussions area. So, there's uh really the ability to have discussions on all aspects of the site. You can have discussions on the various

episode pages. You can have discussions about the memes. You can have discussions about anything in the site. So obviously I'm doing this uh freedom dollar giveaway to to also help promote getting people enrolled in the site. And the reason for that is and as we're seeing right now with these numbers, we have 357 people live. This is a a very small number. And I am being incredibly shadowbanned particularly. You know, I was usually getting 3,000 5,000 on the live stream. And what has happened is the more I've talked about technocracy and the more I've gone directly to the heart of the matter, which is that, you know, Elon Musk is a technocrat. The people that control

Rumble are technocrats. The people that control the platforms that I'm distributing this on uh don't like this content. So, you may think that you have freedom of speech and that, you know, the war was won, but it was not. We have freedom of reach. And while you might be able to talk about COVID because it's a topic that's five years old, you can't talk about the actual tyranny that's going on right now. And that is technocracy and that is what is going on with um the algorithmic censorship. That is what's going on with the enhancement of AI surveillance and digital IDs and trackable stable coins and so forth. And so these are the topics that people should be talking about, but as you've

probably noticed, all you ever see outside of content that's just pure bots are is just pure rage bait on whatever the topic of the day is. And so one of the reasons I created this site is, you know, I'm making all the videos available in a way that is censorship resistant. and I want to start pushing the discussions there and really building a community around this so that we don't have to worry about being censored. I actually put out a lot of content. Um it sound is very echo that doesn't all right. I haven't actually changed I haven't changed any of the settings. So I I'm not sure why why it would be an

echo. Um, well, I guess we'll we'll keep going. I I don't know how to Maybe when we get when Courtney comes on, I'll play around with the audio a bit. Um, but I'm not, you know, I thought I had the sound figured out and we have a whole new system here. So, not sure why that why that's happening. If anyone else is hearing an echo, please please let me know. No echo. So, Courtney's not hearing an echo. So, I I don't know. I So, it sounds pretty It sounds good on my end. I it I think all the settings are right. So I'm not sure sure sure what's happening there. In any event, um I want to push more and more of this to not only the Aaron Day Show website, but also the other websites like Freedom

Forge and Daylight Freedom Foundation and Own Nothing and so forth simply because I feel like I felt in 2020 when I started doing videos in March of 2020 encouraging people to move to decentralized social media because they were going to start censoring due to COVID. And within a week, my reach, which was 50 to 100,000 people through the different channels I was broadcasting to, was hard limited at 50. And I feel like that's beginning to happen again now. So my traffic, if I look at it, it's down 80%. And it's not the quality of the uh the content. It says audio sounds okay, just sounds like you're in a large room. Well, I am in a large room, so I should probably figure

out a way to moderate that at some point. Um, so in any event, please check out the aerodyshow.com. Please register for the freedom dollar uh giveaway and I encourage you to, you know, get an account and to start commenting and I'm going to add more features for register. Usually it's completely free. I'm not going to charge money for this. The purpose of this is not to monetize it. The purpose of it is to actually be able to have ongoing conversations and to begin to build a community. So the other thing is we have an event coming up which is the Brownstone Institute annual conference in Gala. I'll be speaking at that. Um I think there still are some tickets left but probably not many. Uh

this is going to be all the Brownstone events are terrific events and I'm I'm looking forward to this. We're actually going to be sponsoring this event uh my wife and I through Daylight Freedom Foundation. So we're going to be rolling out these five initiatives and kind of making this our official launch point. Not that there's anything major that we're doing there differently. We're just going to have a table essentially. But uh but that really marks a transition point. They call it the great transition and and it's the great transition as well uh in terms of really upgrading the work that we've been doing for the last three years and moving into overdrive because

as I've said if you're new to this program, the entire purpose of this program is to fight. We're we're in the big war which is technocracy versus freedom. And most people don't know what technocracy is, which is why um grateful that we're going to have Courtney on tonight, but uh you know, technocracy is an ideology. It's a it's a new way of organizing society where scientists and engineers make decisions for people. And it's not one that values property rights, individual rights, or even free will. And the original idea of it was to have elites pick scientists and engineers. But now the upgraded and expanded view of this is to actually replace the scientists and engineers

with AI. And I'm not anti- technology at all. In fact, if you as you know or if you you will know, I mean I use AI very extensively all over the place. But it's a question of who controls the AI and for what ends. And I think once you understand the people behind these big companies that are pushing this technocracy, once you learn more about Palunteer and Curtis Yarvin and X and so forth, you'll realize that this is really an assault on free will itself. And I'm arguing that tokenization is the battleground. I've been working on tokenization since late 2018, which is creating digital tokens that represent assets. But my entire approach has been that tokenization can be a tool to

increase freedom because it gets you out of our current system which is run by centralized databases. Our current system is almost is almost all largely electronic. Commerce is already largely electronic and it uses centralized databases that can be hacked and manipulated and the entries changed by third parties and that happens all of the time. and tokenization offers the ability to get rid of some of those security features and allow for increased trade. However, like everything else and like all technology, it's it it could either be used for freedom or it could be used for tyranny. And unfortunately, the tokenization that's going on right now is tokenization like CBDC's or stable

coins, which are backdoor CBDC's, which are digital tokens that can be programmed, tracked, and censored by third parties like government and other third parties. It's not even just limited to government. Some of these industry players have intermediaries like our stock market has some something called DTCC. And you know, the idea behind tokenization was to get rid of those intermediaries. And unfortunately, what's happening is we're getting the tokenization, but we're not getting the freedom. We're actually keeping those same third parties involved, and they actually have more control over our assets. So, one of the things that I've been arguing is there have been changes

made contractually. We have given up our rights through what are called click wrap agreements over the last couple of decades. And what these digital tokens are essentially going to represent are these contracts where we've given away our rights. And once everything's moved to this tokenization system, they're going to be able to transfer and shut down our assets. And we will find out that we own nothing at the click of a mouse button. Although I'm arguing we already 80% don't own anything anyway and probably have a lack of understanding of what we actually own based on the contracts we've already signed. And so because of this, I've focused a lot of effort on Zeno, which

is an ability to tokenize assets where you're tokenizing them privately. You retain custody of the tokens and you can trade them without anybody being able to track your transactions. And so our efforts are largely in these three areas. One, warning people about technocracy and encouraging people to wake up, which needs to happen now. Again, we're running out of time. watch the last I'd say six episodes and you'll see the evidence there and the data piling up not about what people are talking about doing but what they've already done or laws that they put into place or technologies that have already been built. The second part of this is really autonomy reboot. And this is

probably the most important of all, which is that we have to recognize that we have free will and we have the ability to make decisions for ourselves to control our own thoughts, our own emotions, and our own actions. And the the problem is that uh if we're not conscious of the fact that we have free will, we will be we're subject to be programmed by third parties, whether it is media or entertainment. or politics or increasingly and this is probably the most dangerous of all social media algorithms and technology which is basically you know designed to manipulate our dopamine levels designed to manipulate us into moving in a certain direction. So realizing that we

can opt out of those systems and take back our own free will is the key to any success in this enterprise. And then the third area is the revolution will be tokenized. So, this is actually building systems um out of uh private systems. Uh I've got a couple of things here. There's a typo on that other one. I'm going to be announcing and writing some articles up about. I want to put together some scoring systems to show how we're doing. One of the things that I've noticed is that people seem to think that we are a lot freer than we are and that we have more time than we actually have. And one of the things that I have been saying and arguing particularly after doing a deep dive

into Curtis Yarvin is that there's been a big push to kind of ex strengthen the executive branch and give the executive branch power and it's being couched as which you know this part of it is correct. The government has gotten out of control. We have a administr we have a deep state and an administrative state that isn't called for in the constitution. and there's really no way to manage it. So, so what people are saying is well, we need to empower the executive branch to be able to fix those things and to be able to uh you know, as Curtis Jarvin says, rage, retire all government employees. And that may sound good in many respects. Some of it sounds good,

you know, to me as somebody's for for limited government. The problem is the people that are pushing this narrative do not intend to roll back the constitution. So there are a lot of people right now being fooled into believing that if they help and they help push, you know, and just support and trust the plan and support Bobby and support all these people that what's going to happen is we're going to reduce government and we're going to go back to the way things were. That's not going to happen. And unfortunately, the people that are working on that are not working on building alternative solutions. Whereas the technocrats are bu not only designing their systems and replacement

but they're implementing the systems actively. So I've got a a monarchy level system which I'll outline what the points are uh you know in the different categories and tiers and I'll put that out for public comment and I also have a technocracy level. So this is kind of like the defcon five system that we have. But I think when you actually see the list of where we really are in terms of what we've already given up, how much surveillance there is, and then what's going on with when I say monarchy level, I mean we are, you know, we're in a situation right now where the Trump administration is is doing so much through executive order, violating and just, you know, going beyond the law.

And now we have the creation of a sovereign wealth fund where this is being done in a way where it's designed to have to be to have control really rest at the executive branch as to how the sovereign wealth fund works. And so this is a building situation. And so what we're going to do is document where we are on this monarchy scale. But keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is a that Trump's bad or that Trump's trying to be a monarch. In reality, this is all designed and queued up for JD Vance. It's not even for Trump, who has been kind of constructed by Peter Teal and others for this position, groomed for this position to usher in technocracy. Um, and then one other one more thing

before we bring Courtney back up. Uh, we've been doing these technocracy roundts every month. Uh last month we covered robotics and we covered sovereign wealth funds. On October the 22nd at 6 pm we're going to cover what I think is probably the most important topic of all which is where we are with AI in healthcare today. And if I can I've been working on the own nothing site which is the site where you know you can basically put in your click wrap agreement that you've signed. You can paste the link or paste the text and then it will actually show you how how much you owe, how much how many of your rights have been taken away. There's a whole scoring system behind it. And I've

been working on this and what I've decided to do is to just launch with health care the health care sector because it's probably the worst and and the largest and with an emphasis on AI health care so that you can analyze these agreements because people are not aware of the extent to which AI is already being used to make health care decisions to decide claims for insurance and where it's not only that the AI is being used to determine to accept to reject the claim. But if you have an appeal, the appeal goes to be AI. There's actually no human intervention. These things are happening now and it's much more widescale than you would believe. And again, I'm not anti-AII,

but there's there are big questions around um who's driving these things and who's governing the policies and what happens if the AI makes a decision. If a person makes a decision, there's liability. Well, what happens if the AI it makes a faulty decision and the only person you turn can actually appeal to is the AI. What do you do with that? So, there are profound implications. So, that's going to be a very exciting uh episode. So, tonight we're going to let me make sure Courtney has the right link. I believe I sent her the right link. Let me see. Um, all right. So, we'll bring her up. And you know, Courtney's been on before. Um, if you're

not, follow her. She's at courtney.com. Follow her Substack. Uh, Courtney Turner on Substack. Phenomenal content. I subscribed. I recommend uh being a paid subscriber. This this uh being in this space doesn't uh doesn't pay technocrats that. And so, I encourage you to follow her work. as I said and is one of the top people in the world in terms of researching and explaining what's going on with technology. Hi, great to have you back. >> Hey, thanks so much for having me. >> Um, yeah. No, my pleasure. So, you know, and by the way, hopefully people out there are liking and sharing this. I

think last you were on was holiday as well. I think you were on Labor Day. >> So, so I don't know. I'm getting like a choppy. I'm not sure if it's on my end or your end. It might be mine. So, we I guess we'll keep talking and see. Sorry. It's just like >> Oh, you know. Is this any better? >> It is much better. Yeah. >> Okay. I think I'm >> Okay. I'm glad I I said something. >> Yeah. >> Oops. Okay. All right. This should This should be a lot better. I think I figured out what the problem was. I had I had another mic going. Oh, okay. Yeah, that's >> even though it was a way it was set up for Eileen and I didn't uh didn't unplug it. So, my my apologies. Hopefully that

>> No worries. >> Excellent. >> Cool. Yeah. So, good to be here. Yeah, great intro. So, >> yeah, lots lots of stuff going on. Do Do you feel that things are accelerating or is it just me? >> Yeah, I I think they're definitely accelerating. I I think they feel like they have a lot of the momentum behind them. So I think they feel pressure on one hand, but I think they also feel like the infrastructure is there and so now they can just like really ream it through. Um but yeah, as you were saying, like this isn't about I think a lot of people start to feel like, oh, you're attacking Trump. It's like no, this infrastructure was in place long before Trump. I I think it's just that

it would have been harder, I think, to push some of this stuff through if we had the left in office. Uh just because I think a lot of the quote unquote right, uh you know, or people who may identify as being on the right were more awake to and resistant to the fourth industrial revolution, Claus Schwab type narrative. So to see it coming from the left, I think they would have been making a lot of noise. Uh but now, you know, we have uh uh Daddy Trump pushing it through. And so they're I I'm shocked because, you know, some people who I really, you know, respect and would think are would be a little bit more resistant to some of this are, you know, the things that they would never have

accepted and tolerated under Obama. They're pretty much cheering now. And I I've even pointed that out to them. I'm like, wait, so this is literally the same like for instance AI precision medicine. And like this is the same initiative that Obama had and you were very upset with it under Obama, but now that it's RFK, it's this is great. Like I How do you Yeah. How do you comport that? How does that make sense in your head? >> I don't know. >> Yeah, this is trick this is very tricky. I And I I think this is I mean you bring up bring up the point that, you know, Maha was was probably intended to do this, but I I know a lot of people that are in the medical freedom community

that were not talking about AI. sure or wearables and and there's a big sense of well you know we're making improvements on vaccines and so what you know so people are excited about that but they're not realizing that what is being implemented behind the scenes is even worse than that it's it's a complete takeover of all health care and medical data and centralization of it it's the opposite of medical freedom and so it's it's tough because people want to celebrate the wins but they don't realize that they're fighting the battles of the past while the tyranny of the future is here now. >> And that's exactly how it works. Uh my friend uh Steven Coglin had this really

great graphic uh where he talks about dialectical political warfare and he shows like a missile that's flying over. I I've posted it many times, but it's like a missile flying over and then there's all these like bombs that get dropped and and it's under these missiles. And so the bombs are all these narrative warfare and people are busy fighting, you know, the the dialectic is fighting about what happened in the blast zone like five bombs ago and they're busy planning the next like 20 bombs and there were already 10 bombs ahead and everybody's still arguing about, you know, five bombs ago. It's a great uh, you know, uh, pictorial representation, I think, of exactly

what's going on. I I see this all the time. It's very, very frustrating. And I think a lot of that is uh you see that with the culture wars too, you know, not that I don't think that culture is important. Of course I do. I think values are very important, but I I feel like people get very much trapped in that conversation while they're marching on with policy and, you know, building this digital goolag and everybody's like, "Oh, well, you know, my culture is better than yours." And okay, great. go find people who align with your culture and, you know, be merry there, but let's fight against the things they're doing now. >> Yeah, that is a tough one. And there's

also a a I think maybe it's that they've done such a good job with the marketing of the technocracy here. I mean, because you can say something like, well, we don't have a CBDC. We're not going to be like communist China. And then you pass something worse like the Genius Act, which takes something that's really popular that people are doing $27 trillion a year worth of transactions, which are stable coins, and you put it under the control of Congress, which is the entity that's responsible for financial surveillance. And so, but because it's complicated and because they're good at branding, um, they're able to they're able to pull it off to the point where people are

cheering it on, not realizing it's the exact same thing, if not worse, than what they were railing against when they thought it was Claus Schwab and Bill Gates. >> Yeah. So, when you talk about like Maha, I did think that it was kind of part of the plan all along. And of course, now he's talking about make America biotech accelerate. And I the the part accelerate just kills me. Like just saying it every time. I can't get over it because there it's like that's the quiet part out loud. They're talking about accelerationism. So when you say do you feel like things are accelerating and speeding up? I do. I think that's that that's their philosophy. That's the philosophy of Nick Land. Nick Land

actually coined the dark enlightenment. It was Nick Land who coined it. uh you know building on Yarvin, but the accelerationism was his you know philosophy long before uh you know Jarvin was even blogging and so this idea now that maha really means ma we should make America biotech accelerate um I was concerned about it just because I saw him talking about precision AI and I know a lot of people feel like Nicole Shanahan is you know a hero and she's coming out against all of this now But she was, you know, she's uh uh she was married to Sergy Brin and she was a huge proponent of all of this stuff. And I I know I sound super cynical, but I have a really hard time trusting these people

who uh come out with the very popular narrative and look like they're the the ones uh who are speaking out. You know, they're they're the rebels now when they were very involved in helping build it. It's it's difficult for me. So, you know, hopefully she's really uh legit and she's had a change of heart, but she was all in for AI precision medicine. >> Yeah, I I've noticed that too that these people that become the new influencers are the people that were on the wrong side of this their entire life and then just woke up, you know, within the last 6 to 12 months and then those are the people that are mainstreamed on all of this. It is a bit suspicious for sure

and looks a little bit coordinated. But well, before we dive into your article, what made you decide that now is the time to write about the dark enlightenment? I guess it's not just now. You've been talking about this for a while, but but why the why the uh I guess doubling down on the urgency now. >> Um well, so they had asked me to write this. So I've been writing about the Dark Enlightenment for for a while. And I guess uh the new American wasn't uh you know super um on top of technocracy for a long time. And uh I I guess they approached uh Patrick to write some articles and they were like we need to cover technocracy and uh they were talking about the philosophical movement

and he had recommended he said well Courtney would definitely be the one to tackle that end of it. And uh so I yeah so I wrote it and I I figured that the angle that I took I I think you might have had a chance to look at it hasn't come out quite yet but the angle that I took is really I thought might be very relevant for it's not going to be appealing to everyone. Uh even they told me they said that when I spoke to one of the editors he said that he was a little nervous that it might be very difficult uh for you know a lot of people but that he they really want to take on this type of material. I I agree. I think people we should elevate not you know cater to

the lowest denominator. I think that's been part of the problem with our education system. Everything is it's not that people don't have the capacity. I I don't think that you know the population has uh intrinsically become on the whole dumber. I think they've intentionally dumbed people down. So their attention spans are more limited. they don't have the foundational tools to be able to build and layer on top of uh you know so that's a byproduct of a failed education system so I think it's really important that we tried to elevate people in terms of you know the vernacular the uh types of uh thought processes so I thought that the new American would be a good

place to drill down some of the founding principles and the the metaphysical origins of the founding documents and how this movement uh which really did in many ways I believe hijack I don't think that obviously it's not Trump or MAGA that you know uh spawned this but I think they harness the energy of the MAGA movement to create this dark enlightenment right dark MAGA and I actually think dark MAGA is a nod uh you know I can't prove this this is my analysis this is my interpretation but I think dark maga is a nod nod to the dark enlightenment and I talk a little bit about this in the article there a gray mirror article from Curtis Yarvin on his

that's one of his more recent substacks you know he had unqualified reservations which was his blog that he started in 2007 and it's uh quite extensive I mean he's written hundreds and hundreds of pages on that blog and most of it's available online I think you can buy the physical copy as well which for people who are interested in this sort of thing I encourage you to do so because you know anything that's uh in the digital space can either be scrubbed or edited. So I I do encourage people if you have the means and the interest to purchase the physical copy uh you know yes that's a patronage to him but I still think that it's important to have that material the uh the scholarship should

be available for people in the hard copy. So, uh, but he's been writing for a very long time. Some of it is paywalled and or some of it's actually been put scrubbed, but you can still find some of it on the, you know, wayback machine, which I've made links to for people in many of my articles. Um, but this was his gray mirror and he talks about uh, you know, they're always using these sci-fi types of references, the Lord of the Rings references. And he talks about the, uh, higher elves, uh, the dark elves and the higher elves. And the whole uh, concept of the dark elves is that they're supposed to seduce the higher elves. That's their role. It was a a blog about how you can only lose the

culture war. And again, you know, when it comes to diagnostics, a lot of times I agree with him. You know, he's not always wrong about the diagnosis of the problem, but it's much like the the game B people, a lot of times I think they point out very valid problems. Uh the solutions we we have a difference of opinion on uh on both sides. I'm not aligned with their solutions on either end, but yeah, he talks about how it's the role of these dark elves to seduce the higher elves. And that's kind of what I think the dark MAGA role was, right? You had Elon wearing his dark MAGA hat. And I think it's a signal to the MAGA elite, MAGA initiates that they're seducing them with this uh

accelerationist kind of philosophy and that you know all the fancy tech that they're they're bringing and the uh you know the the the way they present it is that this is going to bring opulence and uh you know abundance for everyone and why would you want to be behind but you don't want to be behind the eight-ball on this. You're going to get on board. So it's very they it's seductive type of language uh and seductive type of uh messaging and I think that that was their role to seduce elite MAGA and through that I think they very much have harnessed the energy of the MAGA movement in order to usher in this very pernicious and when I say pernitious I mean it's subversive to everything the

United States stands for. So, so for those hearing dark enlightenment for the first time, how would you summarize it in the simplest of terms? Obviously, we're we're going to build into this and get into more than if you were going to give like the the 30 second or one minute >> 30 second pitch is that that we're going to replace the constitutional republic and all its checks and balances and we're going to create a CEO style uh monarchical structure that is run by AI. >> Okay. Well, that yep, that's a good that's a great summary. Um, and and and I think that the big issue is that a lot of people are aligned with the need to fix the

deep state, the administrative state, and everything else. And they they think that it's a temporary situation being done to restore the Constitution. This is what I see as the biggest issue is that people don't realize they're actually putting their energy towards accelerating technocracy. They actually think that they're putting their energy towards restoring the constitution. I think that's the heart of the matter. >> Well, and I think you're absolutely right and that's why I say they've harnessed the energy of MAGA. So MAGA was sold restoration. That's what I mean not everybody but a lot of people who are cheering MAGA were thinking we're going to get a restoration of the

Constitution. We're going to go back to some of the founding principles. Make America great again. What makes America great is that we do have these unique founding documents uh you know that are founded on Judeo-Christian metaphysics that codify what it means to be human. That means that we have inalienable rights and that the job of those pieces of paper is to say that we are going to defend those inalienable rights using our free will. We will exercise our free will to defend life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that the only role of the government, government is a terrible word. It should have been a protectorate, right? The that's the only role the government was supposed to

serve theoretically, right? Was just to protect our inalienable rights so that the government could not infringe. That obviously didn't happen. And I think a lot of people who were excited about Make America Great Again were thinking that's what we were going to go closer to. I mean, I don't know if we they thought overnight it was going to be a complete, you know, restoration, but I think people were thinking we're going to get back to some of those American roots. And so it h and so when they started to see, oh, we're having a slashing of bureaucracy and, you know, we're getting transparency of this bloated, you know, uh, ridiculous runaway spending. I think people got

very excited. Oh, look, look, it's happening. He's talking about getting rid of the IRS. They forgot. Wait, this is all predicated on dark enlightenment philosophy. You know, Yarvin talks about rage. Retire all government employees. The next part of that is replace them with AI. >> Yep. Yeah. That is that is the that's the important part to realize. It's not you, you know, yes, the bureaucracy is bad at, you know, again, my, as I said in the intro, I think we should replace largely the bureaucracy with nothing, but that's not what they're intending to do. So, the actual role of government will expand even though there will be there won't be as many people involved.

>> It's going in the wrong direction. And and a lot of libertarians are even fooled by this. And so it's it's now you've mentioned Curtis Jarvin and Nick Land and I've talked about Curtis Jarvin a fair bit but I have not talked about Nick Land and he's an he's really important to understand in all of this and this whole accelerationist movement. Can you give us a quick sketch on who these guys are? >> Yes. So Nick Land uh he's been at this for a very long time. He started the CCRU which is the cybernetic culture research unit. uh it it was a part of the Warwick University philosophy department and this was back in the early 90s I think 1993 maybe it was

early 90s I'm not exactly sure uh but he started this with a cyberpunk feminist Satie Plant and this is where a lot of these ideas respond obviously you know centered around things like cybernetics was a huge part of it uh he's a huge kind of sci-fi I I honestly and I I really don't mean to sound borative when I say this but this is somebody He's done a lot of drugs. So, you know, this is a he he I I feel like he doesn't always adjudicate fact from fiction all that well. And he actually has a term that's called hyperstition, which is like this idea that you're going to manifest uh you know, the imaginary in as a catalyst into reality. So this is

somebody who's living very much in the imaginary world and thinks that we can uh you we can make that reality and I I'm all for you know creativity and uh onenuity those things are great uh but you know I don't think I can just think things that are fictional into reality. So uh but that that's an actual term he uses called hyperstition. So he they had he was coming up with a lot of these ideas and he was a big proponent of this philosophy called accelerationism. They're kind of a left and right accelerationist. Uh the left were much more inspired by people like uh Deloo and uh Gerard. Um and he and they you know much more Marxist in origin and he

originally was part of that branch but then he became part of what they call the right accelerationist and they believe in harnessing capitalism using technology to push capitalism to the nth degree. He actually talks about capitalism as being like this alien force and I I don't know exactly what he means by that. I don't know if he's talking in terms of super supernatural or but he says it's like this alien force and uh that has like taken this hold and it is going to become apocalyptic. And so he believes that we should just push it to the apocalypse. We want to bring it's kind of again like I talk about technological imminentization of the escaton and

that's kind of what he's saying that you know we should bring about the end times. We're going to bring up about the end times of capitalism. push it as far as it can possibly go until it implodes. And technology is going to be the conduit to do that. So we want to make that happen as soon as possible and then he wants to bring about essentially it's a posthuman future. So he's a very you know while Yarvin talks about AI and this very uh you know autocratic top- down hierarchical and it is transhuman in nature because there's just no other place it can go. uh but he still has this notion of you know this more of like a philosopher king scientific dictatorship where land is actually very

posthuman. Uh he talks about a concept called technoplastic beings which is just what it sounds like. It's like the synthetic biology mergence of the biodigital convergence type of uh concepts. we're going to have organic material uh you know synthesized with inorganic material machines essentially and uh he's an extropian so he's very uh much a proponent of uh human augmentation through technology he's he's got some very interesting ideas and uh I know they were they did that episode on Tucker recently Conrad Flynn I think that was quite the social engineering project in my opinion um but even Nick was and his response to it. I I listened to

a podcast where he talked about it and his response was what a great storyteller Conrad was. I like wow that says everything. who he was, you know, really uh, you know, lauding him for his storytelling capacity and his talents. And he says, you know, he got some things a little bit wrong, but, you know, I we'll clarify, but he So, I I think that was the purpose of it is kind of to, you know, I I use the ice cream cone analogy. I talk about how there's like a hook gripping lie. That's the ice cream cone. It's really delicious, but it's not made with like real material. You know, it's not the good stuff. It's like chemicals and poisons, but it's really yummy. You want to eat it. And uh

then they they sprinkle, you know, the sprinkles and those are the truths. And you get so many sprinkles like you keep taking bites of this ice cream cone and like, "Oh, here's the truth. Here's the truth. This must be true." Before you know it, you've eaten the whole ice cream cone the with the hook gripping lie. And I I find that's kind of how a lot of this stuff works is they they've got, you know, it's it's steering. So there were truths in there, but there were also some fiction. Yeah. >> So you you will see a lot on X people that have E forward ACC in their in their bios and that stands for effective accelerationism, >> which my understanding is it's not

directly Nick Land, but it's kind of from, you know, it emanates from him in a way, his intellectual grandchild, I guess. >> Yes. Um so it's kind of like uh um what was it? Uh effective altruism kind of yeah downstream. Uh so yeah but it's very very similar. It's this idea of like uh you know with you're going to get rid of all the government regulations and you're going to accelerate the technology as fast as possible. Uh, and a lot of it is much more um centered on AI, although I would I don't know how that's really all that different than accelerationism. But yeah, it's it's it's pretty similar. I

I'm trying to look what was the I think the big difference has more to do with the political uh end of it. You know, they they tend to be more focused on uh like solving environmental uh crisis narratives. uh like you know I I say narrative because you know they they've created the the narrative around the climate crisis but you know like the SDG 17 sustainable development goals is much more centered around that using technology like green energy. Um that that's my understanding of it. >> Yeah. >> More ideologically rooted than accelerationism is really just this idea that we want to you push capitalism to you know apocalyptic state. >> Yeah. I mean, I think more at least what

I've researched is that land is is kind of pushing for a posthuman singularity, whereas the effect of acceleration is claim to be post human or excuse me, prohuman. So, that's >> that's one of the one of the >> well they claim that we we need to be have you know support this ideology otherwise the planet's going to go extinct including the humans. So they're they're doing it under the oposes of uh saving the earth and the humans in it whereas yeah Nick land is very posthuman. I mean he's really believes in taking us to become technoplastic beings. So, so, so to discuss this and and I think why this is particularly relevant, I think you write that there's this was

once a fringe philosophical theory, but it's now really a white the White House playbook, >> which is a pretty which is a pretty shocking claim, but again, with what you said with your short description of what what this is, and it's essentially install a monarchy to to usher in, you know, AI. Um, >> how did this how did this happen? How did it go from being an obscure thing that people were talking about in Silicon Valley or on blogs to now a White House playbook? >> Well, before I answer that, I'll just say there is actually another episode uh or like a article on his gray mirror, Curtis Jarvin. Uh this was back in uh when was it? It was before at the end of

Trump's last term and uh he was talking about essentially how uh his vision for Trump winning again and how he could become the the CEO monarch and so they this whole plan for Trump to come in and be the unbound executive and he laid it all out. Uh so he I feel like they kind of have created this blueprint and they you know it's really this this concept of an unbound executive which again so anti-American. We have three branches of government. It's these checks and balances that are you know uh enshrined in our constitution and he wants to get rid of that. And if you look at project 2025, which I think is more than halfway done now if you look at the tracker or

maybe it's at halfway. It's a it's pretty far along. But remember Trump kept saying, "I denounce this. I have nothing to do with it." Right? And like all the MAGA influencers are like, "Yeah, that's just like some sort of anti-Trump trope." Meanwhile, what are we seeing now? I mean, the the whole school choice initiative that he wants to make national, which is blatantly unconstitutional, is literally one of their top initiatives for project 2025, of course, because it's straight out of the Heritage Foundation. So, I wanted to add that. But, so why do I think this happened? I I think that yes, it was very much relegated to very fringe esoteric. I mean, Nick Land is at, you

know, Warwick University out of the UK working with this cyberpunk feminist and, you know, doing these very kind of it very occult. I mean, he's a huge proponent of uh people like Ebola. It's very Lovecraftian in his writings, right? And his whole mindset. Uh, and when you look at his old like even that numogram and you look at like his websites, a lot of it's been scrubbed, but he actually has occult sections. It's like in it. He has demonology. I mean, this this is very it's straight out of a cult. Um, so this is very fringed stuff. This isn't like what the masses, especially not back in the 90s, like mainstream was not, oh, let's look at like esoteric occult uh philosophies.

And then Curtis Jarvin was kind of, you know, he he was starting to gain some traction as like an alt-right figure. Uh, a lot of that Bannon crew is kind of adjacent and I talk about that in my article because he's a traditionalist and a traditionalist with a capital T. Uh, so this is again Ebola type of philosophy and uh they they believe in hierarchies. This is a very mystical type of philosophy. it it would be very much aligned with a lot of the postconstitutionalists, the post-liberalists uh that we're seeing now who are are gaining much more prominence. Uh but it's just not to be confused with lowercase t this is capital T traditionalism and they believe in like the caliuga which is

this uh kind of like a very uh dystopian cycles that's going to be apocalyptic stage which what does Nick Lan talk about? Let's bring about the apocalypse. So, they're they're very aligned. Uh, but there were there was some traction in these alt-right circles, uh, Bannon adjacent like Cernovish, some of those kind of circles. Uh, but it was still French. And I think Peter Teal really helped elevate Yarvin. I think that, uh, you know, he invested in his project. He calls him the house philosopher. Yarvin uh pays back the you know accolades telling him that he's so enlightened. He actually held at his own home Peter Teal hosted a salon with Herman Hop who is

one of the biggest influ influences on Curtis Curtis Yaran that helped Curtis Yaran to discover that you know democracy is is a failed project and we need a new uh solution. Now the United States is never a democracy anyway. So it's kind of uh you know uh we're starting on false premises anyway. But yeah, a lot of that was inspired by Herman Hop who he would never he met through Peter Teal. Peter Teal was I so I think a lot of his rise to prominence is actually through Peter Teal and now we're seeing so much of that through the um Trump administration with Silicon Valley. I mean I feel like Peter

Teal definitely has his hands in almost all of you know Silicon Valley. Well, yeah. So, you have Peter Teal, you know, being influenced by or influencing Garvin. I guess there's a question around that. And then you have JD Vance being a complete construct of Teal. >> Yeah. Well, I don't know that I I think they influenced each other in terms of philosophy, but I think in terms of prominence, I don't know that Yarvin would have had the prominence and the credibility without Peter Teal's backing. That's kind of my interpretation. I I don't I don't know. That's just my assessment from what I can see. >> I just I'm looking here actually the project 2025 tracker were at 48%

overall. So 3 318 objectives being tracked. Uh 34 agencies uh be involved in all of this. And so you can actually go to project 2022.observer observer and see this for yourself. So this is you know pretty substantial. I mean that you know that's so yeah this is pretty big influence even for for heritage. And again I look at some of these things and I'm not it's not necessarily even a bad thing. A lot of the things on here are good things until you realize that it's a vector for bringing in technocracy. That's the part about it that >> not only that but it it's really creating this unbound executive which yes they want technocracy to be the the

head of uh but an unbound executive is I mean it's antithetical to everything that the United States is founded upon. So I mean we don't want the executive pr you know they that that was that whole narrative like Trump is going to be a dictator. Remember remember when they were complaining about that and now they're tearing it on. They're tearing on when it's their platform. But what happens when the other side's in power and they're using the unbound executive to push through initiatives that you don't support that? People never think of that. They're so shortsighted. It it really is like football, you know? They they want their team to win and they don't think about the consequences. I'm

like, okay, if you really uh think about this in terms of there's a reason the constitution was structured the way that it was and that that framework was created because sometime you get the you know the things that you want and sometimes you don't but overall if the checks and balances are in play then you're never going to have theoretically the idea is that it's not going to grow out of proportion right you're not going to have you're not going to have a dictatorship so this idea of the unbound executive is really I it I find it really scary. We should not have you I don't even like the idea of the executive orders, right? That that to me that's not constitutional. It should not

be like, oh, we just signed uh you know a onepage document and now the president has all this power. Like no, if it is, it's supposed to be for a finite period of time and mostly I think only to reverse the damage of, you know, that was unconstitutionally executed previously. That should be it. But yeah, so but you are correct. Most of these initiatives are technocratic in nature. And you know, I bring up the school choice one because uh that was a huge of course the heritage foundation is all in on that. And that uh initiative is all about technocracy. It is uh from cradle to gray putting the child onto the blockchain ledger using these uh you know these all these teched devices so

that you can create cybernetic feedback loops to track and trace the child and then program them using the data that they've mined from the children. it to me it's one of the most evil things possible and all these parents are yay school choice and it's like you hear the word the marketing is just so clever who could argue with choice but they don't mean you have choice already you have a god-given right to educate your child as you see fit I may not agree with how you decide to educate your child but that is your right it is your child when what they want is government choice that's not choice that means that you have like you can choose from uh three flavors and

they may all be poisonous, but that's what you get. And it's going to be government controlled, governmentr run, and it is really literally to put every child on the blockchain ledger. So, I'm interested in that because I mean here in New Hampshire, we have a a big school choice movement and and they've structured it so that I mean you can get I don't remember the the what the threshold is, but but up to a certain amount of money in the budget each year. You can use a certain allocation of taxpayer money for any school of your choice, not just a government school, even homeschooling. Well, it it becomes government school once uh you're taking money because there are there's strings attached.

>> Well, this is what I I I so I got heavily involved in this and this is what I was I was always arguing which is that what's going to end up happening is that private schools are going to be destroyed and that ine inevitably what this is going to do is is eliminate choice. And people would disagree with me actually. I mean, I was heavily involved with recruiting people and everything else um on this issue and I'm kind of like, guys, what do you think is really going to happen? You think if you put this in um it's not going to be weaponized against you? Like, what's the track record for this? And I made the parallels to what happened with healthcare and Medicaid expansion and

everything else. I actually called the school choice bill Medicaid expansion for education >> and a lot of people hate me for it in in New Hampshire. But what what's interesting is and I'm not sure what the theory behind this is. I'll tell you. So Patrick Burn is heavily involved in this. In fact, Milton Freriedman was a huge advocate for school choice. And >> I'm not surprised. >> And when Freriedman died on his deathbed, he actually put Patrick Burn in charge of of the his Milton Friedman Foundation. And so Patrick's been a big >> uh ally, supporter, and and funer of a lot of this. And I don't I mean I have a lot of different opinions. Um he's kind of all over the place, but I I don't

view him as a technocrat. I don't agree with him on on everything. Do you think that there's a certain degree of naive by on the part of some of the people that are pushing this where they actually think that it's one thing and it's something else or do you >> Absolutely. I So I when I was in sixth grade, I created a board to advocate for school choice. Um now I was very young. I obviously did I didn't know like you know a fraction of what I know now at all but I grew up in a a town that was a pretty small town and that didn't have a high school and so it was adjacent to a bigger town that had a high school and it's very cliche that town had railroad tracks and you know one side was much

nicer than the other and uh so the school was of course in the side that was you know not very safe for many people to enter and not a good education. And I had friends who from my you know nursery school who and from other you know activities who went to other schools that were actually in closer proximity to me though like in terms of mileage those schools were much closer to me and they were much better schools like a better education safe you know environments that kind of thing and I just being you know a naive 12-year-old didn't understand. I would say to my parents this is really silly. I don't understand why. Why can't I just go to one of those? I mean, it's closer. I

could almost walk there. I could take my bike and get to school, you know. And uh, of course, they explained that this is not how it works, you know, and there the districts and taxes and all these things. And I said, "Okay, well," and my dad started to explain to me that there was this movement for a voucher system and then parents would have choices. And of course, this does come from the libertarian uh, schools. It makes sense. Milton Friedman was very tied in. Remember the Walter Lipman colloquium is what became the Mont Pellerin Society and this is where a lot of these uh libertarian groups were formed. And unfortunately, you know, I I have philosophical issues with it from the

beginning, but I definitely have issues with the CO money initiatives. You know, that that's not even true libertarianism at all. Um but yeah, so it makes sense to me. and the Heritage Foundation was uh heavily funded by the same sources and they have been as far as I can see a real controlled opposition outfit and they've been supportive of this initiative from the beginning. But so it makes perfect sense that a lot of people who you know they they hear choice and they think they're getting choice but the problem with it is that this has been a very welllaidout and documented plan. Charlotte is a beat I would argue and actually Anthony Sutton to some degree too uh are probably the best

sources as whistleblowers on this. Uh Charlotte is worked under the Reagan administration and she blew the west whistle on the best project. This was the better education under technology program, right? And uh so she really blew the whistle on how what they were doing with school choice had nothing to do with giving parents choice or you know uh you know elevating the education opportunities. This was all about creating global citizens that were part of a global technocratic workforce. She didn't use the term technocratic but when you look at what they were doing she did talk about putting every child into a computer. That was back in the 80s. So I think a lot of people hear the

marketing and it's very enticing. They're great. They're very clever with their marketing. So, I don't fault all the parents, but at this point, I I tend to have a little bit less grace because the information's been out there and a lot of people just have so much cognitive dissonance, they don't want to listen. But what they are doing, and you see this with what they're doing with the homeschoolers, because even in my state, my quote unquote red state, I I've been to the state capital fighting with them about this, and they keep telling me, well, you know, we're the Republicans. We're the good guys. Why are you arguing with me? And you know, I I've told them as politely as I possibly

can that I don't really care if they have an R or D in front of their their names. I I care about what, you know, this is doing to restrict our inalienable rights. And uh so they're but they are very much in favor of these vouchers. And even the homeschoolers have to fall under one of four categories. There's no true homeschooling in my state. You don't you can't just like teach your child as you want to. you still have to fit into one of these categories. The one that has the most freedom is this uh category 4 which is like religious schooling. You're still under an umbrella. You still have to be part of an umbrella. But this means that you still have to be a part of all the public private

partnerships. That's the whole point of all of this. So you you're limited to what resources you can use, what materials you can teach. The tests still have to comply, right? You still have to that means you have to teach for the test. that they're teaching, you know, critical race theory or whatever garbage they're teaching, you still have to the Common Core curriculum, which Common Core, how much does Common Core look like World Core curriculum? World core curriculum, this is Robert Mueller's plan. It was out of his uh 2000, I think it became like 7,000 ideas. He fancied himself quite the visionary. Um it was supposed to be 2,000 ideas but it in there he talks about the world core

curriculum which he explicitly says is predicated on the works of Alice A. Daily uh who wrote education in the new age and she also wrote the externalization of the hierarchy where the whole that was where the 10point plan for executing uh the new world order bringing the new world order to fruition was in Alice Bailey's writing she laid it out and of course education was one of the uh foremost initiatives and that this is this uh world core curriculum where we can uh achieve uh Robert Mueller called it planetics but this is all about creating global citizenship And now we've got common core or Charlotte called it communist core. And Charlotte also said, and I I

can't confirm this, but Charlotte said that every president has to uh like swear on the Heritage Foundation Bible in order. Now, I can't vouch for that. That's what she said, but I wouldn't be surprised. It kind of looks that way to me. >> Y it definitely does look that way. Well, I I you so we have a lot of these parallel I think actually putting a lot of these things together. It it's kind of like people who think that an HSA is is healthcare choice. It's no. It's a social credit system tied to a digital cash that's programmable. I mean, it's the IRS you it's the IRS telling you what you can and cannot buy with a certain percentage of your money through

digital money that can be tracked. And people think that that's freedom. And it's the same in in a way with choice where it's it's the illusion of choice. you think you have choice, but no, you get to pick from these five buckets. And and it's only going to go get worse, you know, again, because even if if as Republicans are in, it may look one way, but then when the Democrats get in, what those choices are, those flavors will change. And so it's going to be a constant you're but it's never going to move towards freedom. It's going to be within a narrow band of this group's special interest in this group. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Pendulum swing the dialectic marches on. Yeah. For the Omega point,

which is a singularity. >> Yeah. Which which by the way, I mean that's separate, but I saw Ray Kerszswhil is made the rounds today. >> Oh. >> Uh with his updates on merging with AI by I I can't remember the he had 2029 is one date and then 2030 is another. He said, "We're going to have nanobots that will uh be injected into us that will then connect us to the cloud and then we'll all be integrated." This is actually very popular today. I mean, I didn't spend a lot of time online today, but there his clip has been viral all over the place. So, he's making a a resurgence on on his Singularity uh thing. So, I'm know I haven't watched the whole video yet. I I actually just

saw the thumbnail of the the dates and so forth, but um people should become familiar with this. >> Yeah. >> Because a lot of a lot of his predictions have been accurate. I mean, he's actually been writing about this stuff for for decades and and then he was the head of so I don't know if he's still at Google or not, but he's been kind of the big futurist >> singularity.net, right? Um, yeah, he's uh, so he says 2045, right? Or was it 2040 that he says the singularity? >> Well, it was 2020. I I thought it was 2030 at some point and then there's something else at 2045 and then as of today there was some, but you know what? I'm going to pull I'll look for it while while it was

>> I I know he says that the actual singularity was either 2040 or 2045. What's interesting about that is that uh we had the the centennial of the UN is 2045 and that's when they say that the AI world society which is the artific artificial world intelligence society uh that that's supposed to come to fruition. This is where they say that uh the Ukraine will be the central node uh for all the interconnected hubs of like the C40 cities, all the smart cities will be interconnected but through Ukraine. Ukraine will be like the central node. Um so that's 2045. Jim Rut actually said that he thinks like the game B protoame B will be 2040

or it was 2045. It was 2045. Yeah. Um which I thought was interesting. And then uh I have an article I'm working on hopefully by the end of the week on on him and he has a really interesting background. He did this piece two pieces recently on uh metaphysics and he basically just hollows out metaphysics not metaphysics at all. It's complete nominalism constructivism which is very conducive to technocracy as I laid out in the uh you know dark enlightenment article uh for the new American. It's very conducive because it's all constructivist, you know, it's all uh yeah, there's there's no anchor. Um so yeah, and then Kerszswwell and then there's also uh Dimmitri, I never

pronounce his last name, uh but he also talks about the singularity uh the Russian guy and he says 2045. So, we have the 2045 marker. A lot of people and then there was also another like uh I'm blanking on him, but he was a some sort of like prophet like a Nostradamus type prophet and he also said 2045. So, yeah, that's seems to be >> Yeah, I'm looking I'm looking at it here. So he gave an October 9th acceptance speech for an award at MIT and he predicted achieving longevity escape velocity by 2032 where medical advances extend life expectancy by more than one year annually. He then described nanobots entering the brain in the 2030s to connect human cognition to

the cloud leading to full human AI merger by 2045 that could end. >> So there you go. >> Yeah. 2045 that and that's the singularity. Yeah. He says the singularity will occur in 2045 and he made that prediction in his 2005 book the singularity is near and now he says the singularity is nearer. He has this new book. >> Well, so this thing is everywhere. So this post it's I mean it's all over all over my feed. So >> okay useful for people to to take a look at. Uh when we talked about uh Teal, when have you been able to trace when Musk started to I mean I I saw him wear the Dark Maga thing, but before that I had I had not heard him talk about

Yarvin or anything else. It wasn't until this recent episode. Have you found anything earlier than that with Musk and either Yarvin or the Dark Enlightenment or anything like that? >> Well, wait, have I found anything earlier than what? than than the this last election when he when he was wearing the hat during the campaign. That was the first time I saw him do that. Have you found anything earlier in terms of him associating himself with those ideas? I I think he's been aligned with those ideas for a much longer time, but I haven't seen like I Dark Ma was such a I I feel like that was a much more overt nod, you know, whereas previously I mean he's been talking

about things like UBI. He's been talking about creating a technate, you know, he would say on Mars, but I mean, you know, he was talking about here on Earth. Obviously, he's given up on the Mars thing already, by the way. He's like, "No, no, no. We want to build the technate here. Um he's yeah I feel like a lot of his ideas have been very much aligned the accelerationism he's all he's been in favor of accelerationism for I I I would say at least a decade as far as I know but I think older than that. So I yeah I think it's just when he when he wore the dark maga hat that was when I think people start putting that together because a lot of people weren't familiar with dark enlightenment

right that most people had never heard of it. It was a fringe kind of a movement. It wasn't something that was in the mainstream. I I found it hilarious. I saw this little clip. I mean I don't really watch uh CNN but you know there was a clip where they were saying how there's this really you know strange philosophy. It's called The Dark Enlightenment and it's by this guy Curtis Yarvin. You know, he blogs as Menchius Mullebug and you know he's been writing for over a decade but now it's really concerning because he has so much influence on the Trump administration. I was thinking to myself 2007 it's been almost two decades but who's counting? Apparently not you. Like you know

>> Yeah. No, this this stuff goes back a long time. And and again, I think people have been fooled by a lot of this and and one big area where people have been fooled is Doge. I mean, do do you think that there was a dark enlightenment angle there from the outset? >> Without a doubt. Without a doubt. I think that that was all about dark enlightenment philosophies. Uh I I think it was almost to a tea is what how they were Curtis actually said that uh he didn't feel like they were taking it far enough. Like he was very disappointed with them. He thought they kind of he said the same thing about Trump. like he had such an opportunity but he's kind of uh you know h halfway half done it like

he he's not taking it seriously. Well, and and so in a dark enlightenment context, Doge was successful because what came out of Doge was connecting Palunteer to federal government databases, right? So that is that is part of that strategy. It's not so much about the cost savings, it's about the power consolidation and moving to this technocratic infrastructure. And in that regard, it was a wild success >> and normalizing this idea of efficiency. Right now, I I'm not saying that I I champion inefficiency. Don't mistake me. We we have enough of that with the administrative state. I'm not endorsing that. But it's to normalize that term that and you know, put that in the

forefront that we're we're moving towards a more efficient but efficiency is code for technocracy, right? It's replacing things with algorithms with machines. uh it's no longer dealing with the uh you know the inefficiency of humans is essentially what Curtis Jarvin keeps saying you know democracy waiting for humans to deliberate you know that's just so inefficient and so that's what I thought it did a really good job of not not again not that in a positive way but it was very successful operationally of normalizing that notion >> it's it's very successful and to this day it remains problematic I gave a speech a few weeks ago to to a group of people and they they came up and they

said, "Oh, they they were convinced that Elon Musk, you know, was a savior." Elon Musk is, you know, he didn't buy X to save free speech. He didn't, you know, he didn't push Doge to eliminate the the deficit. And and they're really not even open to the idea. They're so far gone onto this this white knight strategy that >> I mean, it's provable where his ideology is. I mean, not just his grandfather, but even what he stated, as you said, he stated explicitly UBI. He stated explicitly en energy credits has been a big thing of his also. So he is 100% publicly in his own words aligned with all of these concepts and people don't want to hear what the ramifications of

that are. And I still haven't figured it out. I mean usually people sometimes if if people are willing to go back and and do some research but I mean I guess maybe you know maybe we should do something. Maybe we'll do a round table on Elon Musk or put together some like a >> Yeah. I mean, I've been I I think when it first started, it was like 2021 and I was doing anti- Elon Musk uh kind of uh trying to warn people about his history, about his ideas. And it it was just crazy to me that people, you know, they just have such an like an idol worship. I And you know, you saw this recently. So, I talk a lot about the medical freedom movement, how I think that it was at the very least h, you know,

hijacked, but very likely created as an off to move the Overton window. And the way that I explain this is that if you look historically, just as in terms of the marketing, right, people who identified as being on the left were typically medical freedom people. They were the the crunchy moms who would never dream of using toxic chemicals in their house and you know buying anything but organic and you know they weren't crazy about pharmaceuticals maybe if you know unless it was necessary. These were the typically people who identified as being Democrat. They voted on or they were anti-establishment. They didn't vote at all. And then the medical freedom movement comes in and all of a

sudden they're like slap this label. They're right-wingers. And a lot of them were actually confused by it. They were like, "I've never voted, you know, right-wing in my life, but okay, I guess now I'm a right-winger." And you had the same thing happen when uh they were having those riots against Tesla. You suddenly saw all these quote unquote Republicans rush out to buy Tesla. I mean, what happened to the, you know, we don't support electric vehicles. Um, but when Elon said, we have to defend Elon. So, I was like, "Wow, how quickly did you just abandon all of your convictions to go?" >> Yeah. I remember think I remember seeing Sean Hannity buy Tesla and I was like,

"This is this is insane. This is just absolutely ridiculous." >> Ridiculous. Yeah. So, I think it's the idol worship, which is also crazy to me to see it from Christians because uh I think idolatry is like, you know, we're not supposed to worship idols, right? That that's in the Bible. So I yeah it's strange to me they don't see it they don't see it at all. >> So as as we move through this so uh Jarvin talks about something called the cathedral which is universities media and bureaucracies working together. Can you explain this concept and why it matters? >> Yes. So as you said it's universities it's like the establishment right these uh this academia a really great book

he's not wrong I mean really great book is uh cloaking uh gown and they talk about like the connections between uh the academic institutions and the intelligence networks and uh you know certainly academia has been infiltrated I would say from the get-go like that was kind of the purpose was to create this body of legitimacy where we can indoctrinate. And I'm not saying that that no good has ever come out of academia. Obviously, you know, that would be a false statement and the you know too broad a brush to to stroke. But we we have certainly seen at this point they're completely ideologically captured and they are indoctrination institutions. We know very publicly

about operation mockingb bird and how the media has been completely uh you know co-opted and uh in lock step uh with ideological and uh intelligence operations that's literally operation mockingberg was an intelligence operation and I think we see that now through even the indie media and social media this is become kind of like the the counterintel pro to operation mockingb bird and it it is still very much lots of foreign entities, a lot of domestic uh you know I I would call them counterstate uh infiltration uh that are working to either directly fund or algorithmically boost uh a lot of these social media and indie not independent

not truly and not like you and I sitting here like truly independent but indie you know where they're still funded and they have the opices of being uh independent but they're they're really not. Uh so I think that that's when he talks about this uh consortium, you know, and how they're kind of working together to promulgate uh narratives and agendas. I don't think that that's false. Uh but he has very much this uh it's an obsession with power. So he's always talking about how the left is all about power. Well, I'm sorry, but uh hate to burst your bubble there, but I've seen the right, you know, be pretty consumed with power, too. I think that's a more of a a personality profile and uh

a byproduct of corruption rather than and you know of human nature uh which they don't seem to think is a a real thing human nature. uh but yes so we we we see power on all sides I don't think but they are their argument is very much this uh mindset like fight fire with fire the two wrongs make a right and so we need to fight back with you know our long march through the institution right this was that uh Frankfurt school kind of notion of uh Antonio Grahamshy uh cultural hedge money they didn't actually use the term long marsh through the institution but it was this idea uh taking from the Fabian socialists who were incrementalists. That's where they get their mascot of the tortoise and of

course their code of arms is the wolf and sheep's clothing and nod to the Hegelian dialectic. Uh but you know that incrementally slowly long range uh penetration interdirectional uh kind of infiltration and that through that we would infiltrate all of these institutions and they've been very very successful. And so he's kind of advocating we need to uh move towards neocamealism which is you know like hyperfascism on steroids. So we're going to move away from this cathedral that he believes has been ideologically uh captured by the left and we're going to have neocamalism which is essentially this top-down autocratic uh type of governing body that's uh monarchical and

hierarchical. Yeah, I I mean the fighting fire with fire thing is is is true. I mean this is what's problematic. It's like we don't like these guys. It's it's actually more envy, right, than they're looking at this enviously not looking at it as something that is wrong. It's something that they wish they were participating in. And I did I think it was episode 30 or 31 >> which was a whole deep dive on on media. And I Craig might join us later for for the Q&A, but uh you know Craig I met Craig. He has a had a show on Rumble >> that was doing well at 15,000 plus live viewers a day and you know he he realized and uncovered >> that Rumble it's a pay-to-play model. So

you know what gets put on the front page of Rumble drives and determines what your traffic is. And that is 100% paytoplay. And on top of that, you know, as you mentioned earlier, but I went into detail as well, 70% of the traffic it it's it's all bots. In fact, I think Ruffle is currently being sued because if you're an advertiser and 70% of the traffic is bots and then the way that they accumulate calculate views is like, okay, somebody was on this page for two seconds, >> then you know these advertisers are probably thinking, oh wow, this person had 30,000 views. And in reality, it was like 60 actual people that spent five minutes on the episode >> and that's not what's being amplified.

So then you dig through this and you're like, wait, Rumble's controlled by JD Vance, VC Ramaswami, Howard Lutnik, the whole thing is a right-wing operation. Truth media is is is controlled by Trump. And so now we're in a situation where yeah, you can complain about the media being uh biased, the mainstream media being uh to the left, but people are not studying the right. And and what's worse is that it's subtle what's going on on the right when you're just algorithms and when it's this whole freedom of reach concept where you don't understand how the reach is is calculated, but then people have an expectation or belief that what they're dealing with is the public square and

free speech. That's worse than something being blatantly biased and blatantly editorialized, right? Because it's subtle and and people >> gaslighting. I feel like So that's the thing with Rumble. I always feel like I'm being gaslit because and I know this because we we do a lot of the production. So, I have shows that I'm on where we live stream with people who have, you know, larger audiences and do you I we'll obviously have set ours up because we we're producing it and then they'll want a stream key, right? And so, they're going to put it out to their channels, too. And they'll get preferential like we see the numbers. It's a preferential uh slot. And so, I'm

I'm being algorithmically deboosted like right off the bat. And then here's the other thing they do that's very interesting is so uh my you know how Rumble will send out like an email when your uh thing goes live. So for them they'll get it immediately. It'll go right out and we know because we get it. Mine will go out maybe two days later. Wow. Really? So and it feels like gaslighting because you can't really It's so subtle. I'm like I'm being gaslit by like a a platform. >> Oh yeah. No, that's and that's absolutely the case. And I think mine is like 3 days later on Rumble and it's it's you know so this is the case across the board and so do we have more free

speech? No. I I actually think that we're more siloed and track trapped than ever and but people feel like we won people. This is this is kind of why people aren't fighting back against stable coins or fighting back against AI infiltration and healthcare because they think well we're making progress on a vaccine related issue and they're not realizing that the bigger war is being lost that these things that we were fighting against. It's like, well, you know, we might not have the Twitter uh, you know, the FBI directly connected to to X anymore, but but we have an almost worse outcome. I I don't know if you've noticed the algorithm on X. I mean, again, my traffic is down 80%.

>> Mine is Yeah, mine is. I I haven't tracked exactly what it's down, but it's it's definitely down. Yeah. >> And and I know it's the content isn't isn't If anything, the content's better. and we've upgraded the production quality and everything else. And so, um, there was a brief spell where they did change the algorithm and I think that they didn't calculate how many people muted you or blocked you or something and I hit posts that were reaching a million and a half plus and then that got shut off and now I'm like, you know, a couple hundred people out of 40,000. So, it's it's bad. And the the challenge is that how do you how do you combat that? Because literally all of the channels

are controlled by frankly the party of the dark enlightenment. If you look at all of those big channels now that everybody thinks are free speech, they're actually dark enlightenment. >> Most yeah, all the the quote unquote free speech ones are dark enlightenment and then the other ones are, you know, the left which are tied in with the UN and the global digital compact. So uh so that that's not free speech either. Um yeah and the other big problem is this social proofing concept right so we the algorithm has amplified cult of personality and so I mean that's a very much a tribal you know part of human nature I I I wish it wasn't so but this

is why when people advocate for like the free market it's so easy to co-op and manipulate the free market I'm not saying that we shouldn't have free market uh but people think that we genuinely have free markets. They think that it's not rigged, but it's totally rigged and it's so easy to manipulate because people are, you know, tribal in nature and people do worship idols even though they shouldn't. And so we get all these little micro cults and you get these little cult leaders. And what I've noticed is that there is this very, again, talk about subtle where people notice when things are getting deboosted or they notice when they're getting they're Pabloian, right? So it's like

when they when they're getting boosted, they want more of that. It's like, "Oh, I got my dopamine fix. I got my dopamine hit. I'm going to keep chasing that hit." And so the things that are not getting that, they're it's creating these uh reward circuitry systems where people are amplifying things that are very much benefiting the system, you know, or trapping people in distractions and, you know, dialectics. And then you've got things that I I would argue are pretty important and they're they're not being incentivized. And so yeah, that's I'm seeing that. >> Yeah. And I'm seeing this I mean with AI some of these video models that have come out recently and there's an ability

to use these agents to automate your workflows. And so there are people that are putting out that, hey, download this and then you can use this process which will basically create viral clips of fake people with product placement and then it'll it'll create like a hundred different videos, then automatically post them, then check the analytics and then figure out which ones do the best and then amplify those. So that most of a lot of the content that you're seeing now on social media is completely fake and you can't tell anymore. uh these 15 to 30 second clips on Tik Tok, you can't actually tell if they're AI based on the new Sora model, it it's indistinguishable and the

ability to embed product placement. So, I mean, we are dealing with a completely artificial environment where now you have people using AI to try to manipulate and or not manipulate, figure out what the algorithm wants and then they're pushing that content. So, most of what we're seeing is just Yeah. slop, frankly. >> Yeah. Slop. Exactly. and 15, you know, 13 seconds, whatever, is not I mean, you could sometimes you can tell something's AI, but when it's that short, nobody can tell. And it's gotten so it's getting better and better all the time. So, it's getting more deceptive all the time, you know. And I I'm just going to throw this out there. This is a probably not going

to be a very popular opinion, but I you this is not a judgment on people. I'm not a purist about, you know, beauty trends and whatnot, but I am seeing so I've always thought the transgender thing was always about transhumanism. I never thought like from the I'm not saying what they're doing to the kids isn't terrible, but from the like as soon as I saw it, I was like, this is about transhumanism. That's what this is about. And if you look at a lot of the plastic surgery, it's very much geared towards like the transgender, right? That's a It's almost like even for the straight people, they're trying to make them look like drag queens essentially. You know, it's so like dramatic. I I

know I I'm not Some people have beautiful work done. Is this not to be a judgment on people's decisions and some people look great? You know, that's not that's not my point. My point though is like that if you look at it, it does move in that direction, right? And now what we're seeing this trend where they start to look like AI. I mean their faces are so frozen it's like it's not human and I have seen some of these of course you know in the entertainment industry it's very prevalent right and you see some of these actors and personalities and in still fix pictures like they may look beautiful and I you know no shade like I'll I'll admit that like I'm like wow they had really great

work done they look incredible but then you see the video and they don't look human it's like it's creepy they look like AI and I'm like are they trying to norm normalize like robots merging with humans. That's what it looks like to me. >> That's a very good point. I Yeah, I've seen a lot of the ma masculine chin. Yeah, the chin on women and yeah, some of the like hyper exaggerated and of course that stuff goes viral. >> Yes, >> that's a good point. That's a very good point. Um >> that very well may be the case. I wouldn't be surprised at at all. I I just wanted to harp on the fact that because if you're listening to this because some of these concepts, so the

idea of a CEO monarch sounds like it's from a dystopian novel, but I just hammer home that that people are actually that are in the current administration, you know, people people that are tied to the heritage. They're actually actively promoting this. This is not this isn't even hidden anymore. This isn't a like a joke or a hyperbole of what's going on. I Curtis Yarvin actually was in a debate where it was the subject was something like, you know, why America should have a dictator. I mean, they're they're not hiding or mincing words. This isn't temporary expansion of executive power to address A, B, and C. It's a direct call for uh CEO, monarch, or dictator.

>> And now you're seeing all these movements start to converge, right, under this concept, right? we had these the post-liberals, the most postmillennials, uh this Christian nationalist movement who are vying for a theocracy. A and then you have the the dark enlightenment like openly saying they want a a monarchy. So you're starting to see all this intersectionality of these what appear to be disparit groups and they're now converging and you're seeing them openly converge. Uh, right. You're now you're starting to see podcasts with Alexander Dugan and Nick Land and Orin McIntyre, right? It it's like I could have predicted this. Uh, maybe I did. I told you, you know, this is where it's

going. And you see people like Andrew Tate converting to Islam, right? Because what is this conducive to? It's very autocratic, top down. What is Sharia law? And then I know you know the uh financial system. I mean, they're like the number one in fintech, like even with the the Western world. So, they're they're moving in that direction, not because they care about the Islamic people, but because it's conducive to technocracy. And you know, people it's I I believe in free will. That means that you have a right to believe whatever, worship whatever you want. That is a not for me to say. I I I pull that conviction very dearly and I truly believe in it. However, uh you know, we have to

consider that America is not founded upon that. We have free will. So, you still have to abide by the laws. At least that's how it was set up. I'm not saying that's been so effective because, you know, it's been kind of trampled on. But those laws are not commensurate with a monarchy. They're not commensurate with Sharia law. They're not commensurate with a theocracy. But all of these things are very conducive to technocracy. So I want to take a kind of a different direction here. So the enlightenment gave us reason and progress and equality. What is it that the dark enlightenment people don't like? What do they find offensive or what's their beef with the enlightenment?

>> So they they don't like the idea of equality. They want a hierarchical structure. Monarchy is a hierarchy, right? uh they want a scientific dictatorship run by uh it's run by essentially it's run by AI on this the you know the surface but who's programming that AI? So it's a they they believe that certain people should be the philosopher kings and they should rule essentially. Uh so they so so they're fundamentally opposed to the notion that all men are created equal and should be seen as equal under the law. They they disagree with that fundamentally. uh they don't believe in uh liberalism in the sense of uh tolerance. They they want conformity. Everything has to subscribe to an

autocratic rigid structure that is this CEO monarch. Now they talk about how there's you know uh you can free enter and exit like that. You know you don't like your Saab Corp. Nick Land calls it GVC Corp and that and Garvin calls it Saab Corp. It's a sovereign corp but you know government corp. It's a all network state concept. It's essentially the same. Uh but they say you can leave, but I I don't know how you're going to negotiate with a smart recursive smart contract. Like that to me just seems I don't know about all that. And where are you going to go? I mean, do you think that tyranny doesn't exist in these uh like cyber uh you know, monarch run CEO states?

Like you still need digital ID to enter. you still need some sort of digital currency that they could program and track and trace and surveil. Uh you still have to abide by whatever kind of a a smart contracts they install. So I yeah I don't know to me that's our system is far from perfect but I don't think technocracy is the solution. >> Well I agree I I think technocracy is not the solution either. This is why the first principles project that we're starting is because I think that a lot of the network states and a lot of what's being proposed people aren't really thinking about this and they're not human centric. I mean this is one of the issues with what's going on with

if you don't put free will and humans first then you get a pretty dystopian out outcome. I mean, and this is kind of you look at the conclusion of what Nick Land has to say and and then what happens with with Ray Kerszbile's scenario, you know, so if if you're not actually having these conversations about your foundations, then I I think we're going to see a lot of uh dystopian outcomes. >> I think so, too. Yeah. I I don't want to live in a world of technoplastic beings. That does not sound good to me. >> No. No. Well, and I mean I just did want to touch a little bit more on land. So when he says posthuman, what does he what does he mean? >> I I think he really means like a a

transhuman but leading to posthuman world. So in the transhumanist community, there's a lot of uh variety, right? That they'll it's like all these types of movement. They have quote unquote splinter groups, but their tilos is the same. Ultimately, it all goes to the same place. So I I usually see it as a not to argue that they're they don't have nuance differences, but usually it's a battle for power more than it is really ideology, but there is a a group of transhumanists that subscribe to what's called posthumanists. And there's a there are actually handbooks on posthumanism. Now, I don't know who they think is going to program these uh machines when their humans are gone. I

guess at that point it'll just be so recursive that the machines will just program each other as their thought. That's their or the or the machines will achieve sentience is what they believe. I I think some of them do actually believe that. But yeah, he really believes that uh we need to keep pushing this uh you know accelerationist so philosophy push uh the capitalism to its apocalyptic state. We use technology to do that and he is an entropess. So he believes in entropionist sorry uh so he believes that we should use technology to uh enhance humans. So essentially transhumanism where we'll merge with machines. So this uh notion of like synthetic biology uh you know um a bio

uh synthesis type. It's a biodigital convergence is essentially what it is. We're going to merge organic material with inorganic. And I think his term technoplastic being is a very uh evidence of that. Very much evidence of that. So he thinks that we're going to end up in a point where uh you know he he has a document is called hyperracism. And the hyperracism is where he talks about like we shouldn't be arguing about racism versus anti-racism. That we need to move beyond that into this hyperracism which is essentially genetic selection. So it's like it's it's a form of eugenics. Elon Musk is very much a proponent of this type. You know, people were championing again like they think

they're winning. They're like, "He's a needle. He's pro- needleism." And I'm like, "Yeah, but he's talking about like synthetic wounds and like you know, Robo uh wounds and using genetically breed, genetic breeding, which is eugenics. So uh that he's very much a proponent of that concept and that eventually will lead to posthumans because the humans are going to be you know bred out essentially. He believes in a a hierarchy and the machines will achieve a higher level of intelligence than the humans. And so uh that's yeah where we're going to be moving into this posthuman state. And there's like I said there are different degrees of that. Some people truly believe that it's

completely posthuman. I don't really understand how that works though. That to me is just somebody has to program the algorithms, don't they? >> Well, I think there's I I think all like I I always look at these technologies as again having a freedom versus tyranny component and I I'm curious as to how I mean because where do you draw the line, right? So people get stances, people get you know surgical procedures for you know hips and knee replacements and everything else. So, so where where is the dividing line and at what point >> is it a good idea or a bad idea or does it fundamentally destroy what's the line between you know where humanity gets destroyed? Where's the line with respect

to whether you have choice in the endeavor at all? I actually just saw something that uh in my feed uh today, although it might have been old, but he actually said that that the purpose of Neurolink is ultimately to augment humans. It's not just to to solve certain diseases. the the clip was recycled today or maybe actually just came out today. But um but he's actually, you know, stating that the point of Neurolink is not just to cure disease A, B, or C, but it is to a path to the evolution of humanity itself. >> Of course, they they always present it as a curing disease first, right? Because that's much more palatable to people and people get very excited. I've

had this conversation with friends of mine actually pretty recently. Oh, I love that they're using this technology. They're going to cure all these diseases. I'm like, and they're going to eradicate humans. We're they're fundamentally going to change what it means to be human. Remember Klaus Schwab said this. He said that the fourth industrial revolution does not change what you are doing. It changes what you are. He meant it. When you all know Herari talks about how surveillance goes under the skin, he means it. I don't know why people don't take them at their word. They mean what they say. Pay attention when they are talking. They mean what they say. That doesn't always

mean they can do what they say, but they mean what they say, right? So, um, and then I I was just going to say with the Were you gonna say something? I I'll let you go. >> No, no. I mean, I've got plenty of stuff to say, but go ahead. Nothing nothing in particular. Keep going. >> Um, yeah. So, with the um posthumanism, you know, they're moving towards where obviously everything's going to be controlled by uh machines is a huge part of it, right? supplanting human governments, running things through machines and AI. But I draw the line like people because I've had this conversation a lot with people, you know, they'll use me to try to play to my uh vulnerabilities and they'll say,

well, you know, you're hearing impaired, like, you know, do you think that hearing aids make you transhuman? No, I don't at all. I'm very grateful for the technology that enables me to have this conversation uh without like completely straining. Uh you know this is uh I I'm very very significantly hearing impaired. I can read lips but you know on a screen like this it would be very very difficult. It's small. It helps to see your face but you know just do this solely dependent on lip reading would be very difficult. Hearing aids enable me to be able to hear you and have clarity of speech. I'm incredibly grateful, but I don't think that changes my I'm not like, you know, I'm not like a robot

now. I'm not transhuman superhuman. Most people have, you know, it just kind of helps uh, you know, with some things that were challenging for me. And I think the same thing with like hip replacement you brought up or a pacemaker. I don't think of that as transhuman. But now when you're starting to talk about technology that's putting a chip in your brain and gives you capabilities that normal humans would not possess, to me that's transhumanism that you're changing what it means to be human. >> So yeah, I think this is these are categories for having a lot of we need to be having discussions about this because we are the fundamental nature of humanity itself. I mean these are not

present in these conversations. Now I happen to think on the other side I think AI is actually moving faster than people think and and I from my own experience in the last 90 days I saw yesterday Peter Diamandis who of course you know obviously is going to be pushing these things and he's starting to bring up the UBI thing again but I I think it's legitimately >> I think it is the case that um the productivity gains plus robotics are going to we we have fundamental questions that we need to figure out how to solve. uh about how how the economy is going to work because these these technologies are they're acceler I mean I've been involved in technology I mean

I've been using computers since I was five but I started a tech company when I was 19 so I've been around tech for a long time and I've never actually seen this amount of acceleration ever just in the last year I I think it's actually ahead of ahead of schedule and so there are implications for all of this >> sure >> and unfortunately the people that are at the as far as policy is concerned are all technocrats and there isn't there's there isn't a voice for kind of a pro-human pro- free will at the table. That's not actually part of the conversation. If you if you look at the ideology of the people that run all the big AI companies, they're pretty aligned.

>> Yeah. Very aligned. And whether they're I mean right now we're seeing the dark enlightenment because they're operating through the right-hand path. Uh but these technocrats who are operating through the lefthand path that they're happy to operate through whatever path I mean uh Elon was historically mostly a democrat most of his life right he just uh found an opportunity here and he's aligned with the dark enlightenment so he's you know these ideas are not political technocracy as you know you know initially was not a political movement it was an economic movement but I think they understand that harnessing uh the energy of these political itical movements and these religious movements

and you know uh synchretatizing them with the uh economic movement is where the real power is. That's and the fact that they're having so much success in that regard is what's most concerning to me because that means they're closer to actually taking real hold once they take hold. I mean, I don't know how people escape that kind of control. You know, right now I I I know you talk a lot about how we've already lost so much of our freedom, and I don't disagree with that, but at the moment, we still have free will. I know a lot of people are brainwashed. A lot of people willingly abdicate their free will. Um, a lot of people, uh, you know, are so terrified

of taking responsibility that they don't exercise their free will or they're too concerned with appearances or whatever. The list goes on and on. But at the moment, we still have free will. when they start implanting chips into people's brain when they start uh executing these remote control and they don't have to implant a chip you know but these remote control type of interface brain interfaces free will is not in the question anymore free will has been usurped at that point so that's really right now while we have it people need to exercise what they have and they need to understand what it is >> I I agree with that. I think we still have free will. I I don't think we have

a lot of political freedom, but but the the the >> the political the ability to enforce they don't have the ability to enforce the tyranny that they would like to enforce yet. And so we still have the ability to ex exercise free will even within a system that might not technically want us to be able to exercise our free will. And we do have we do have uh time, but I will I I sense increasing substantially increasing pressure and a lot of it is coming from AI and and I'm not anti-AII. I because again I I use a lot I think it can actually enhance free will but I can also see how if it keeps moving really quickly and people aren't involved in a discussion about the implications of how

it's applied and whether or not you have a choice in if or how it's applied. That to me is probably an even bigger point of discussion than even the political part. I think the AI part is is completely accelerating. want they want to replace all all human government with AI. So I mean that's the political discussion. I you know it's a again I don't dispute that our current system is flawed. Any system humans create is going to be flawed. We're fallable. You know we're we're flawed beings. But I think it is far superior uh it's far superior to any other system I've seen quite honestly. And it's far superior to being run by AI. And that is what they're trying to do. I mean, we've

already seen Albania with their AI minister. That's just a little taste. I mean, that's nothing compared to what they want to do. The AI World Society has a whole blueprint where they talk about completely supplanting all governments all over the world. There aren't going to be nation states anymore. That's part of their plan. And it will be all run by AI. And now, I know I brought this up before, but it's worth repeating, is that they have digital summits in almost every state in the United States. Why are they having digital governance summits? We still have humans. I I know some of them are corrupt and we don't love what they do, but right now we still have humans. Why

are they doing digital governance summits? >> Well, exa exactly. And actually so I would say that and actually this isn't a counter to that but I will say that where AI is I will often create like a simulated advisory board a and I'll do this to examine a particular topic where I'll assemble a virtual advisory board of actual people living or dead but but where it's trained based on their data and then and then ask them a question and then have them weigh in on on their opinions of it and actually have a debate back and forth. And I will tell you the answers you get back are pretty good. And by the more you train it. So this is why I'm I'm not advocating for government which has force

>> to be used with AI like this. But but what I will say is it's it is pretty interesting to watch because you can actually get input free from any it sounds bizarre but political motivation. So you can take people that have a certain set of skill sets and you can actually get what the essence of their contributions and knowledge are in a particular area without any political maneuvering. It's kind of it's kind of fascinating to see. But I again I don't think we should have government run by AI. But I but I AI is further along a and the rate at which it's it's being trained and then able to actually even expand and accelerate its rate of learning is pretty impressive.

>> Yeah. Oh, it's moving quickly. And so there are questions again as to how this should be applied because because and I was going to say this relative to your article, you talk about you quote Yarvin proposing to virtualize undesirable people. >> Yep. >> So essentially imprisoning them in VR. So the I have a couple points in here from from what you write about that are important for people to understand about what's at stake with the technocracy and how they're going on. So is he serious about this? Was he serious about >> Yes. So I I you do have to go to the way back machine from the for for this one. It uh I have linked it in my Phoenix conspiracy article though. Uh so if you

people are interested they can go to my substack and find that article. I linked where he talks about it. So it is from a patchwork a positive vision which is part of his unqualified reservations but I can't find that anywhere online that does seem to have been scrubbed and but it's on the archives. It's in the way back. Um but yeah, so he says that in a humane alternative to genocide would be to virtualize humans. And so he says that essentially you put them in like a VR kind of scenario where uh they don't know reality from virtual reality and uh so they think that they're having you know a grand old time and that this is this is the most humane alternative to

genocide. I to me this is one of the most horrific quotes I have ever read. I mean the the lack of respect for humanity, the lack of Yeah. I don't know. It's just inhumane to me. I don't think it's humane at all. I think it is so incredibly inhumane to think that you could just virtualize humans and that somehow uh this is a great alternative. But yeah, it's from his document, a patchwork positive vision. So it's like p he's talking about patchworks governments essentially you know the >> well you also he also mentioned the token cast system so we actually divide society into elves hobbits dwarves and orcs or orcs is this is this a serious governance proposal

>> yes this is a very serious governance proposal of course and that that's in one of his grey mirror articles um so on his grey mirror substack yeah absolutely this is uh exactly how we should run he wants a complete cast system and you know this is just this is such a it's an elitist mentality. I I I truly believe we are all created equal. That doesn't mean we have equal strengths and gifts and talents or you know we we're we're all different but I I I believe uh I believe under the eyes of God we're all equal. There aren't certain people who should be lording over us, right? Uh and I know people argue about government and how you know government is giving

authority. You're uh delegating somebody to have authority over you. That's actually not at all how the constitution was uh structured. This is the problem with eradicating metaphysics from education. So people think that that's what it's about. It's not. That's not the role at all. the it's supposed to be that you are hiring them for a position to represent you and when they fail you were supposed to hold them accountable. We don't do that. We've gotten so far away from that. And and I'm not saying the system isn't incredibly corrupt at this point. But everybody wants to do this when when they decide that that's what they're going to do. They go to the highest level. They're like, "Let me

climb to the top of the mountain and do this." I don't really think you're going to have that much luck at this point, you know, operating in the federal apparatus, but people could get active in like their local, you know, county. They could get active that they're talking to their sheriff. They can talk to their the school board. We saw how effective the school board, uh, you know, opposition was actually over the past few years. We've seen a lot of momentum and people having real success with that. We've seen people have success, you know, the farmers rising up. So, I I think that's it's supposed to be holding them accountable. It's not you're not giving up your uh authority

and having somebody take authority over you. We're humans. That means we have inalienable rights. Nobody has the right to lord over you. >> Yep. I I agree. Unfortunately, the technocrats don't. So, people need to be aware of this because we've got to get uh we've got to get a seat. these inalienable rights need a seat at the table and they they're missing that's I'm seeing that all over the place. It's really not part of it and this is moving very quickly. So um so you argue that the dark enlightenment is fundamentally opposed to America's founding principles. You actually already covered that. Um so you emphasize humans as being in God's image >> another day. Yeah.

What why is this theological point crucial to understanding the threat? >> I think it's crucial to understanding the the threat because it's a foundation. So I don't believe that you have to be religious. You don't have to uh believe in the the Bible. You don't even have to believe in God. Um but the the metaphysical anchor of this notion that we are not God. Therefore we are not the architects of reality. There is a creator who is not us and therefore we are are a part of we're I believe we're made in his image right that's what a mo day means made in his image so we're creators but we are not the creator so reality exists outside of us and because

we are intelligible rational beings this is part of why we have free will is because we can adjudicate morality so the free will is a vehicle for us to be able to pursue virtue and morality but we We're rational beings. So, we're able to know truth. We can discern it. But that doesn't mean we create it. We conform to it. We conform to the reality around us. You know, no matter how much I want to, I cannot walk through the wall. I I can't do it. Like that that wall is there. And so I I have to conform to that. That means that if I'm going to run in a short room, I have to be prepared to stop or be prepared to get very hurt. And that is we conform to reality. We don't create reality. And

this is such an important notion because if you think about once you start to invert that, right, that when I talk about like the people who talk about co-creation, right? We're going to co-create with God. It's a Gnostic inversion. We become God. Those people are giving a lot of room, epistemological room for the technocrats. The technocrats are now going to create a system that architects reality. And this is why I have trouble with even contractarian uh principles is the Lakian principles because now you're everything is subordinate to the contract instead of being subordinate to being the natural law and the inherent in our being is

that we have inalienable rights. So th this uh idea of us being uh made in the image of God, not being God, not creating reality, that reality exists outside of us. So the constitution, the declaration of independ independence was predicated on these uh you know Judeo-Christian metaphysics, biblical framing. They wanted freedom of religion. So this means that you don't have to believe in any of this. But now the laws that they have constructed the constitution are predicated on these metaphysics. So you we are all created the theological concept is that we are all created equal under the con under the eyes of God. But now the constitution has drafted laws that says

we are also created equal under the law. And but it comes from this metaphysical the and theological concept. And that that's why it's so important because without it they can they decide they're the gods. That's essentially what this why I call technological imminentization of the escaton. They're creating their heaven on earth. There is no heaven on earth. It's going to be a in my opinion it's going to be a dystopian hellscape. But they're trying to create a similocra. It's not it doesn't comport with reality. They're creating a simulation a simula of reality. It's not the real thing. But if you uh have that metaphysical foundation, it doesn't give them the power to do that. >> They're not

>> Well, is it is it not possible for a transhumanist to be in the image of God? >> No, it's not possible. >> It's not There's no What's the clear What's the clear dividing line? How do you What's the line, I guess? because they're now taking over the role of the creator, right? We are made in the image of God. We are not the creator. We don't create the world. We don't create reality. Reality exists outside of us. The transhumanists want to take over the role of God. They're changing what it means to be human. They're changing what our existence is. So yeah, it's not possible to be uh it that that structure

that order no longer exists. They're taking on the role of God. >> Okay. I guess I I'm I'm not sure where the line I I think this is a line of demarcation thing. >> The line of the demarcation. So when we talked before about what transhumanism is, right? So the line of where when you're changing what it means to be human, when you're violating the essence of humanity, I believe that's where the line of transhumanism is. So to me, uh, somebody getting a hip replacement, uh, a a pacemaker, these things do not violate, you know, humanity. Like that's you're still very much human. I that that's I from my perspective, I I think that that's something we could mostly

agree on. I don't I know people will argue that's transhumanism. To me, that's ludicrous. If somebody is uh somebody walks with crutches when they're injured, are they transhuman? Like, to me, it's just silly that people are trying to make that argument. I think that that's just uh straw manning. I don't think it's a very legitimate argument. When they're starting to change fundamentally what it means to be human, then I think that's transhuman. So, now you are violating somebody's essence of humanity. you you've now taken it over and you are deciding that you are the god you are creating new beings when humans uh we create more we procreate we create humans we don't create another species

we don't create a a new uh a new world and that's again when I say like they're terraforming the world they're create everything synthetic it's not making the most of uh the the nature that exists right you can take a there's a huge difference between making a hybrid of two plants, right, and then creating a new species altogether. It's completely different thing. It's a very different thing to uh enhance what is already there, you know, by using by, you know, putting things together and taking the things that are inherent in nature than to create something that is entirely new. So that's Yeah. So to me I mean the

transhumanist cannot be uh immag this is an area for a lot of topics of discussion under the first principles. I I think about what what the the definition of humanity. I think we could do a lot on this and there's a lot to explore here because it's uh >> um so I'm not going to beat beat this to death because I know we're already getting kind of long into this, but I may add a add a principle on on that because I think there's some interesting >> interesting conversations to have here. Um >> um let's see here.

You distinguish between inherent rights and revocable permission. Mhm. Exactly. >> So why is this so critical? >> Because if the rights are inherent then they they cannot be revoked. Right? That's that's a whole concept and that that is also in our founding documents, right? That the the our rights are inalienable rights. They're not privileges given. Uh they're not rights granted by government. But once you start to have revocable permissions, that's what we have. That's the whole contractarian uh system is where uh the contract takes precedence over natural law and it now it you no longer have your inalienable

rights. You've abdicated them to the contract. So remember when I was talking about the analogy I used of the wall, right? I don't make up the reality. I have to conform to I can know reality and I can I have to conform to it. I don't design it. The wall is there. If I want to try and run as fast as possible and I am not prepared to slow down, I'm going to bang into that wall. I don't get to change that. That those are that's reality. And so when you start to talk about uh the contracts that you talk about like the cl the click wrap contracts all the time, right? We are now conforming to an artificial reality and we are now abdicating our we're we're completely turning over our

inalienable rights and saying okay now what takes priority are these contracts that becomes the law not the natural law. This is what's this is so important and this is really like this is why when I say you know I'm all for property rights however property rights and contract uh law is what the technocrats are using to usurp our inalienable rights and that's why I say people really need to be very cognizant of the difference and this is again uh you know goes back to the creator creation distinction we are not gods there is a divine order ream natur right the natural order of things and I I think that that is really important it's like

you know it doesn't matter what you believe in but I think that in the United States that's why the constitution I believe is our hope and our bull work because it was predicated on those metaphysics so regardless of what you personally believe or practice in your own home you still have to abide by the laws that were predicated on those metaphysics and those metaphysics are defense against the techn democracy. They were they're a defense against uh tyranny when upheld. They haven't been upheld in a very long time. But when upheld, they're a defense against tyranny, but they are also the defense against technocracy. And as far as I can see, I don't see another defense. I just don't.

I see that there as humans, we have these inalienable rights and we have free will and we need to be exercising it. and that the Declaration of Independence declared that, you know, that it's to defend our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You're not valuing life when you decide that you can make uh robo wombs and synthetic life. That's not valuing life. Life is precious. We don't get to just make it out of thin air. And it's not just merging with machine. There's something very unique and precious about life. You either value it or you don't. Well, very well said. So, we should try who who would we get to to discuss the opposite point on this.

>> So, maybe I'm I'm looking at this is what I'm looking up right now. I'm trying I guess would this be Nick Bostonramm maybe or >> Oh, yeah. Nick Bostonramm would be totally opposed to my uh but I don't think but he's not somebody who believes in a creator creation distinction. But yeah, it's just a completely fundamental different different worldview. Yeah, >> I think I think it'd be good to try to get a roundt on that um >> at some point. So, yeah, I'm gonna update I I hope people are looking at the ardayshow.comprinciples and submit some principles and some topics to discuss because I think there's a lot a lot here and a lot of different perspectives to to examine.

And again, what what people have to understand is that there's not a debate being had right now. There aren't multiple points of view. what's actually being pushed through is is this position that's kind of anti it doesn't believe in natural law that is that is the standard position arguably right now of what is driving this technocracy and I think most people would disagree with it if they understood >> yes >> what is happening so I think to try and you know again it'll take a while I mean it's it's >> I don't know when the first one of these roundts is going to happen but you know I want to you know put it together and see how it forms organically, but I'm hoping we can get uh people to

participate and and try to explain their position on this so that people can see what's what's actually happening here and understand what's happening and the implications for it. >> Yeah, absolutely. I I think that would be great. And I I think you're going to see that that's really where it is is the fundamental world view difference. You know, I I just put out an article on my substack today and it was a response to someone who didn't understand why Spinosa would be in opposition to a biblical framework or what or the constitution and I was explaining that it's Spinosa is a determinist and a monist. So there is no creator creation distinction in Spinosa's worldview and

there is no and and it's deterministic. So you don't have free will. Right. And so many of these game B people that I talk about are obsessed with Spinosa. They, you know, they they pay it's practically like they're doing a seance to Simonosa. So, you know, that's how they uh justify things like a collective intelligence. But both sides are doing it, right? So, you you you just have it coming from different angles. The dark enlightenment is advocating for the same kind of a uh no sphere. it it's just that it's coming from a top down. They say you're going to have different options, but in practicality, is that really how it's going to operate? I think they're

talking about creating the technate. I right now we're seeing Trump uh you know, in his AI action plan, he's talking about exporting the techn to the rest of the world. So he's telling us we've got to compete with China uh because you know they're winning this AI AI arms race and they're you know uh essentially creating like a a transhuman technocratic. He didn't say those words but right we have to compete with them because that's what they're doing. So what's the solution? We should be become them to beat them, right? No. Yeah. It's just it's all about power, right? We'll just take the power. But what happened to free will? What happened to everything that we were supposed to

stand for? The whole concept was that we are free. We have inalienable rights. >> Yeah. You don't hear him talking about that. >> No, you don't. >> You really you really don't. Um I've got a few I mean I've got a lot of stuff that I know pretty long into this, but it so let's look at some current policy uh connections related to this dark enlightenment concept and just three. Project Stargate, Butterfly Revolution, and the Rage Strategy. all of those but which whichever you think. So, so the rage we're seeing, I mean, I think Doge was a really good example of this rage concept, right? That retire all government employees and uh yes, I'm all in favor. I think the

Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 was a major abomination. Uh blatantly unconstitutional. I I would be very much in favor of getting rid of the administrative state. However, that's not what it's about. It is about replacing it with AI and the CEO style monarch, right? Because a monarch, the CEO of a company has a company's best interest at heart and they're going to know what's best for the company. News flash, a country is not a company, right? That's a Yeah. So, it's not a dictatorship. They It should not be in my opinion. And uh I don't think that that's the best uh evolution for our current problem. That that's rage. And I think that's uh you know that Doge is a

really good example of where they wanted to go with that uh the butterfly revolution. So he believes that in the his 2012 speech where he talks about rage he also talks about this government reboot. I mean he talks about it many times but that's one of his very famous moments talking about a government reboot. And this is where he famously talks about how Americans need to get over their fear of the dictator and we have to have a reboot of the government if we really want to see uh some sort of change in America that we should do a complete like gutting of everything and reboot it so that we can have CEO style monarchy and be replaced with neoamealism which is just you know his

fancy way of basically saying that we're going to become a monarch and a top autocratic kind of institution. Um, and it is very uh, you know, it is very fascistic. He's talking about harnessing the institutions uh, so that you know now that we're going to take control of them to serve their interest essentially. It's going to be technocratic interest because I'm not seeing any discussion of uh, the people. He's already said he's an elitist. I mean, he's made that pretty clear. So the people are not uh really it you know in the conversation. And then what what was the other one? The >> the other one was the project Stargate. >> Oh yeah. So Project Stargate is uh you

know that's the $500 million uh plan. And there we see uh people who are not just dark enlightenment. They I would argue they're all accelerationists. uh they're all in favor of using technology to uh push capitalism to the nth degree, but they're definitely not all dark enlightenment figures, but they're very much pushing a technocratic agenda. You know, part of that we're we're seeing things like the precision AI medicine is part of that program. Obviously, Palunteer is a huge part of that initiative. A lot of defense uh contracts are u part of that. And so they're using all sorts of AI AI technology um you know AI drone type of technology. Yeah. Project Stargate is very very

concerning and it's huge. >> Yeah. 500 billion and I think maybe even expanding. >> Yes. And the deregulation uh is a kind of part of all the deregulation of so this again they use a lot of marketing that's very uh appealing to like particularly libertarians, right? They love hearing that we're going to deregulate get out of the the government's going to get out of the way. But really what they mean is the government's going to get out of the way so that the technocrats can take charge. They're not saying so that we can have you know creative uh you know onenuity of the people and uh innovation. That's that's not what they're talking about. >> So on the devil's advocate front, so our

current system is broken. Um >> very much so. >> And maybe we need radical solutions or how how do you I mean I've documented this. I'm going to do more on this as well. I I don't even know when you see this with other countries, other empires, companies, organizational structures, you don't find examples of where things get restored. They usually collapse. >> I know. >> So the question is, so what is the actual alternative that we can offer? Now, of course, what they've done is they've said that democracy failed and therefore we need monarchy. >> We're not a democracy. I I know which is which is which is the argu that they're making a a flawed argument. But >> yeah,

>> the question is the what what bothers me the most about this is that we're in a position where um people agree that there's a problem, but these are the only guys actually proposing a solution. And a lot of the people, like I said, a lot of people are diverting their attention to actually helping install this monarchy technocracy thinking that it's going to restore the constitution. and they're not spending any time working on what an alternative might be. There's almost no one working on an alternative. It's a whole bunch of people working within the system not realizing that they're actually supporting technocracy. That to me seems like what's the actual state of play?

So, what do we do about that? >> I I agree with that. Well, I think, you know, I I I I know people say, well, education, but I really do think education is a huge part of it. Uh so firstly doing things like this informing people what is techn technocracy what what is the dark enlightenment what what are what's the fourth industrial revolution what's the fifth industrial revolution that they say we're already in what are these ideas what does kashwab mean when he says it doesn't change what you're doing it changes who you are surveillance goes under the skin you've all know a horari what do these things mean I I think it's important for people to understand these aren't like

lofty idea these are things they are really implementing here and now and in some cases already have implemented. So I think education is really important and education as to why this is problematic. What does this mean for our future? Uh you know we see what's happening in Europe and the digital ID and you know what are the ramifications of that and we do not want that here at least I do not want that here. Um I do think education also educating the youth is really important. I think there you know I know I sound like a broken record but there's a reason metaphysics was taken out of the discussion and again you don't have to be religious. Most of this was predicated on Aristotle, right?

Aquinus did uh, you know, Christianize Aristotle's beliefs. But most of this idea of there being the a creator creation distinction, this idea of us having a tilos, you know, that we're action and potential, right? That we we have purpose. These are Arisatilian idea. This idea of, you know, virtue coming from you are what you do, right? You it's it's not about what you think. It's a about taking action. The these concepts are not inherently uh traditionally religious. But you know, I would argue that Aquinus did Christianize it and a lot of what our uh system is predicated is on on that. But I think teaching children these ideas is

very important. They have a sense of, you know, what where free will is derived. you know what it really means to have free will, why our rights are inalienable and should not be infringed. Uh, and that because they're the future and if they don't know it, I mean, this is part of how they've been able to trample on the Constitution. When you looked at our founders, they talked about how it was education was so important. It's not because they wanted people to know fancy words and, you know, be able to, you know, do fancy math. That's not why they thought it was so important. They said it was important for a moral citizenry so that they would understand the

essence of humanity and why they were defending liberty and that that was intrinsic to self-governance. You could not have self-governance without that understanding that foundational understanding. Um and morality is derived from that right because that's what free will is a teologically oriented towards is virtue and morality. So I think that's a huge part of it. And then in terms of I I talk about I know you know you believe like the system is completely failed. We need to like scratch it a new and I'm not saying that I don't you know feel that our political system is incredibly failed and corrupt. But people actually have a lot more power than they realize locally. And I I

think people should be taking action and there are very specific things that people can be doing. I there's no reason to have AI in schools. Like why is AI I mean does a first grader need to be training AI? Do they need to be part of this like cybernetic uh data mining experiment where they're being mined and then uh programmed as a result? I I don't want that for my children. Like that that's horrifying to me. I think parents really need just put their feet down. We saw that they were actually quite effective in 2020 uh pushing back against some things they didn't like in the curriculum and I think with this AI they should be doubling down even more. That's where people really need to take

action. There are things like the farmers our food is becoming completely synthetic. I mean talk about terraforming humanity. Like most of what we eat isn't actually real food anymore. It's more chemicals than it is food. like people and then you know take uh you know self-reliance wherever people can I think that's a huge part of it too right the people who are builders and who can create alternative currencies like you're working on who can create uh who can farm for themselves and build and have uh you know natural products I think that's a huge part of it yeah beyond that I think people need to learn about technocracy and find out where they can push back against the initi

atives that are being put forth. There are bills that can be created to to put a stop to it. Even if it's in little pockets of areas like in, you know, a district like, okay, we cannot have any of this technology in this area and create a sanctuary. >> Yeah. So, I was actually talking to Ernie Hancock about that because I know you were on on his show as well. You know, so part of the issue is and when we redo this podcast, there have been a lot of like even in New Hampshire for instance, people don't talk about it in New Hampshire. They they only talk about the wins. And by the way, most of the wins that they talk about are related to school choice, which is interesting in

and of itself. And so on and so forth, but what you see is the official headline is, and I love New Hampshire for for different reasons, but not for politics. But you what you'll see is, well, we're the, you know, the freest in the country, and then they'll lead with this um school choice thing. But what they won't tell you is that New Hampshire was one of the big states opposing Real ID but ultimately caved. What they won't tell you is that, you know, for being a state that was trying to fight back against Obamacare Medicaid expansion, they caved and then people that were originally against it were trying to co-authored a bill to make it permanent. And so, but here here's why

they lost. And I'm I'm saying this because it it it it fits into the narrative of why the political part isn't that great when you dig into why. So there was a big movement. 24 states came out against Real ID. I think it was Montana and Missouri were originally big anti- uh digital ID, Real ID. And they caved because of COVID and they caved because of federal funding. And so the problem with this is because I ran for school board and as an example one of in what I thought was the one of the most Republican towns in New Hampshire which is supposed to be the freestate in the country >> and and what I will tell you I I could go on about I won't go through all of it

here but I mean ended up being you know harassed, stalked, people filming me, mailers sent out throughout the entire town, people bashing me on public access TV. It's it was the most cutthroat thing. And I'm sitting here looking at this. Well, what we found is that this school actually was had the um international balora program from the UN. >> I mean, it doesn't get any worse than this. And when you actually start studying where this whole push for pronouns came from, it actually goes to the UN. They've been implementing this through. >> And so, this was going on in in my in, you know, my school district in in Bedford, New Hampshire. And what you find is that, you know, in a lot of

these smaller towns, the largest employer is the school district itself. >> And so what what I found is even where we've gotten local wins, the question you should ask yourself isn't whether they're wins, it's have they been sustained, >> right? >> And you'll find when you dig into that, it doesn't look good. So the the reason that I'm I'm even laying all this out is having spent a lot of time on this and Ernie has well as well. We didn't start out like this like 20 years ago we were like oh yeah is that if if you're going to do it even when you geographically concentrate in a state with a huge movement of people that move here your stuff still gets wiped out by the

federal government at the state level and very little sustains even at the local level. Now you could concentrate it. It comes down to if you are going to do the political strategy, it it has to be local and you actually have to and you have to concentrate because I I talk to people all the time like they're like, "Yeah, we got to do a local strategy." I'm like, "You're in New York. >> Like you're you're in a you're in a place where you have 50 people that are really diehard and you're outnumbered by 70,000 people. It doesn't matter how passionate you are about it, you're not going to overturn and overcome that inertia in that in that state. So I, you know, and I just I would just say we

should be if we're going to do political stuff, we got to be really >> it's got to be really local and concentrated. I that's why I say things like your school, right? Or it could be a bunch of homeschool pod like we're going to create. We saw the opposite with like CHAZ and you know remember in 2020 the uh I forgot what the other one was but these sanctuary states right it was the opposite. it would be you know radical leftists who were throwing riots and it was complete disaster but they created sanctuary states and people can do that in the reverse like in this zone there is no AI there's no climate smart commodity projects there there's no

school choice we can educate our children as we see fit uh there is you know whatever it is that you and you know that you agree upon on but put some actually make some legislation like we're do not infringe is the main theme really and I I think people can concentrate and do that but it has to be local. This is what I'm talking about where yeah the analogy I used with Ernie was I'm like whenever people start think politically they're like they want to climb Mount Yusede before they figured out how to run up the hill in their on their own street. I'm like, start. It's so cliche and I don't align with Jordan Peterson on a lot, you know, but but like make your own bed before you decide

like what the policies of cleaning all the homes in the United States are, you know, like let's start there. >> And I think people have some power there. We actually have a lot more power than people realize. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> The other thing when you talk about like COVID, it a lot of it is about funding, right? So, if people had just said no to covering their faces, I truly do not believe they would have done the experimental drugs. That was a beta test and people failed miserably. And they were mandates. They weren't laws. They were mandates. But people could because they don't understand what it means to have inalienable rights. That's autonomy over your body. Like really, if

you were to tell people to take their bodily waste and shove it back up, like you would say, "Um, no, I'm good. Thanks." But that's what they did. That's what we expel our bodily waste through our breath. And they're like, "Yeah, yeah, no. I should breathe that all day long. Keep shoving that back inside. I'm just going to inhale it." You know, it's uh I I don't mean to be crude, but I mean, really, that's what we did. And people just gave right in. And if you just said, "No, this is my body. It's a temple. I do not I I I do not comply. >> Yeah, I do not comply. That's I I believe that everybody that we should start there, right? If people just start there, then maybe we can do some of the

other stuff. That is the most >> the most important thing. And I'm just I was looking this up in the background now because I just remember when I was running for school board and then some of some of the after I ran and uh was talking to the supposed one that we had one out of five guys that was supposed to be on our side. And that person of course caved >> and I asked why and the reason why was because the federal government was threatening uh funding for special needs programs based on this other issue. And this actually gets weaponized all of the time. So people don't realize how how strong the federal government is even at the local level. And this is stuff and

I've seen this even you whatever we whether it's cell phone towers or whatever. It's amazing to watch watch how this stuff gets twisted. So just uh >> it's interesting because uh your state is actually the only state I don't know if it's still true but it was true as of 2020. I haven't looked into it since then but as of 2020 is the only state where you don't have seat belt laws >> and so okay. So it's still true and do you know why all the other states could it was because they said that they will pull the funding for uh the infrastructure for roads and right but your state said okay go ahead do it and that's what people can do you can do that and there are other ways the state

should not be getting federal funding right this is how they this is how they destroy federalism it's supposed to be 50 United States it's not supposed to be you know the government that doss out to its little, you know, children. That's not how the system was created. But it's how it's been destroyed and that's how they seize the power. Oh yeah, that we hold the purse string. So yeah, good luck, you know, but then you're not going to get your your goodies. Okay, we don't want the goodies. We're going to figure out how to have a self-sustaining economy and we're not taking the goodies that have strings attached. >> Yep. Exactly. Yes. When we can say no, we have to stay say no. And and

honestly, even New Hampshire has not done well in this regard either. We didn't do well on digital ID. We didn't do well on um Medicaid expansion. I mean, we don't do well on these big huge massive things. And then we celebrate these small things >> and we celebrate seals. No, it drives me nuts here. you you why remember one year it's like okay the federal government expanded its reach you know greater than at any point but we were pushing a you know no licensing requirement for hair braiding laws and it's just I talk about a a lack of strategy or or looking at the bigger picture and >> yeah no it's it's it's it's really really really frustrating >> to watch and it's a common this is why I

don't even I don't even participate at the at the local level here because I just got to the point where and then you see new people move here for a particular reason. They have a pet cause. They vote wrong on all the big stuff just so that their bill which is which is negligible in impact can get a study commission. It doesn't even get passed but they're okay with it just progressing to that point. And this and so once I realized that people that supposedly moved to New Hampshire to be you know a part of this movement to you know restore the whole point of the free state project was to promote government as the sole function being the preservation of life, liberty

and uh property. I mean this was the whole basis of it. You actually signed a statement of intent when you moved here. And I I can tell you that most of the people that are free stator that got elected ended up violate violating their statement of intent. That's for sure. So, well, so one >> didn't learn it. That's why I keep going back to how important it is to have this foundational understanding. I I don't know how many people would violate it if they really understood it. >> That's true. That is very true. I So, the question is, well, I mean, we won't have time for that now, but how do we educate people? How do we get Can we get 15 second Tik Tok clips that they're

going to teach people um about free will? I maybe I mean I don't know. I I I it is a challenge to break through given how as you lay out the educational system is becoming even more technocratic and that is I haven't really thought about it in those terms and that is that's that's true and that's frightening because you have people that think that they have true choice but they're actually pushing a kind of a common agenda. That's this is the problem all over the place with financial stuff, with healthcare, and everything else. It's we actually have a situation where people think they're fighting for freedom and they're they're not. They're actually pushing uh a narrow subset of choices and

thinking that that's a win. >> Exactly. That's exactly right. And that that's why I think it's like you can't just uh you need to get to the root, right? We talk about like root cause medicine versus just putting band-aid with all the alopathic medicine. Now, even the alternative space, they're just doing alopathic medicine, but it's with supplements or neutrautical. And there's a time and a place for that. I think there's a time and a place for even alopathic medicine, but not at the expense of trying to get to the root cause. That's how you're really going to solve the problem. And I I really feel like that's the same thing here. It's metastasized so greatly that you do have

people who are deluded. They think that they're fighting for freedom, but they're actually advancing the agenda. They're advancing tyranny. They're advancing technocracy. >> Yeah. So, one last thing. So, if we don't understand and counter the dark enlightenment, what do you think America looks like in five years? Or is that even too far out? I mean, you could even maybe do it. >> I It's not looking good. We're really headed like for a very fast crash kind of burn uh where you know the phoenix rises and it's a the im emoleation of the phoenix right and it rises I keep using that analogy and it's going to rise in this kind of very uh tyrannical form I I don't think it's good at all

people need to learn what the dark enlightenment is they need to learn what the the other side is too because the other side is going to I'm afraid of that people will will wake up to the dark enlightenment and it's so dark. I I mean it's like very few there are Satanists in the world, right? But most people will choose Luciferianism if they if they have to choose the two. Um you know who who can argue with love and light, right? The theosophical love and light. That sounds wonderful. I want the warm nurturing divine mother embrace. And I I think that's what people will rush into. And it will be an optin tyranny system under you know the illusion of decentralization

the illusion of free choice and it's but it will be every bit as tyrannical and it will all be like Fabian social ethics where if you have to sign up for the social impact finance you know the 17 sustainable development goal you have to subscribe to Gaia religion forget day I And it's, you know, it's going to be Gaia religion is the ruling force. And so, you know, it's either right now that's what it's looking like. Either we're going into this dark enlightenment where you're going to have the philosopher kings program the algorithms and you are going to be living in these uh essentially technoms, right? We'll be surfs in these uh in

technofudalism or we're going to be in this uh completely globalized uh technocratic system that's under the guise of being good to the planet and uh you know the the AI for good, the benevolent AI that's going to lord over all of us because we're we're just not good enough stewards of the planet. Neither one's a good scenario to me. I I I'm opting for like the system we have right now is very flawed, but I I would prefer that over any of those options. >> Well, I don't know if we can restore this. I mean, we I we're going to need to come up with something else because I don't know that you can rewind, but but again, this is what we're looking at. I mean, we're looking at the right or

left-hand path here of technocracy is bleak and those are the only two choices that are being presented right now. >> Yeah. >> So, um I guess we got to get on having an open discussion on this and figuring out what else to do. But I do I thank you for for this. And so the article people are going to be able to read this where the New American are you going to be able to repost it or >> I I don't know if they're even doing a digital. This was like their uh physical copy. They said it's going to print in November. Uh so I think a couple of weeks out and uh I I don't Yeah, I think you have to sign up at the New American you can buy it. Um, but yeah, I think it's a physical copy. I'll ask them if

they're doing a digital online. They might for their I know they have like subscribers. They might have digital version as well, but as far as I know with the physical, you know, analog old school, very anti-technocracy. Um, but I will be writing uh something on these kind of founding principles being a it's not necessarily on the dark enlightenment specifically, uh, but the founding principles as a bull work against technocracy. I'm writing that for uh the Christian Post and that should be out in a few weeks. And uh I've written quite a bit on technocracy. Also the book uh that I'm writing with Patrick Wood, we I we have a whole section on the dark enlightenment in there as well. So um yeah.

>> Excellent. Stay stay tuned for that. And um great. Well, I'll open it up for Q&A. I don't know if you have more time to stick around. Um >> yeah, send around a couple of links here. Uh >> I mean, we're up to 1300. I, you know, again, usually this should be around 3,000 or more. So, I have no idea what's going on or how to how to repair this. But this is why again, I'm going to say go to the dayshow.com and sign up, register an account, and at least so that I can also uh email you so that you can find the show is going on because >> uh people are not getting notified. It's almost impossible for me to market this. If I if I send out, you know, notices in advance, maybe two 300 views. I mean

it's you know >> it's really rough. So we are doing this. So this podcast has switched to now Mondays and Thursdays at 6 PM >> but that's most people are not used to the new time format because >> but so anyway we I am going to be consistent with that and we're going to uh to keep going with that. So >> so with that I've sent out a few links and I know I thought I think Craig might uh might pop in. I was >> okay >> earlier. We do have some comments here, >> right? >> Going back a while. So, let's see. Wall Street Military Industrial Complex on board with the plan. >> You know, is it I I'll tell you, I I I have something. I was watching this. Dave Smith popped into my feed somehow

and I was watching a clip that that that he had. I think he was discussing something with Nick Fuentes and you know so a lot of libertarians are are buying into the that the that the real battle here is with the neocons which I think >> yeah I know it's so weird like like that was a very old like yeah that that was a long time ago >> there's a long time ago so I I I it actually got me to thinking why does he really where did that come from and why is that like that is so removed from what the actual threat is that how do you even how do we even introduce I guess this goes back to people need to understand about technocracy and how critical it is and and how the degree to

which people do not understand it's about technocracy because if you're making the argument that this whole thing is about neocons you are >> you've lost the plot >> completely lost the plot I don't even know where to begin to how would you if you were writing a letter to him how would you even start it in terms of how far off he is like I I don't even know how to frame this I was floored to be honest. >> Um well that's a very good question. So for the whole neocon discussion, a really great movie on this is it's called arguing the world. Uh it was a documentary uh about the New York intellectuals and you know the the Troskyites essentially who had come into

the United States and they became you know the they literally became the communist party like USA uh in 1918 I believe it was. Um, but they there was a splinter movement in them, right? There was a Irving Crystalall who became kind of like the father of the neocon movement. >> And so you're seeing I mean this is really a branch of uh communism and it's not what we're up against now. And I I got into a bit of a tiff with she's wonderful. I know she meant well uh but somebody a friend of mine had posted in response to the UN uh talking about their like you know their IDs they're talking about all these like digital surveillance kind of movements and uh

she said communism and I said it's technoc this is technocracy and then you know but I so I had put my own post explaining that communism and fascism are horrific they are responsible for hundred hundreds of millions of atrocities throughout history. I am not condoning them. I I don't have a single good word to say about communism or fascism. However, if you read the works of people like Brzinski, who I I don't agree with. I I mean, I never say never, but I I don't think there's a word that I agree with him on. Um I think he was a pretty maniacal kind of figure. Um same with Kissinger, who by the way holds the same position as Marco Rubio currently. Um but uh nothing to worry about there

at all. You know, everything's sure kosher on the up and up. It's all going to work out. But both of them wrote extensively about how we would see these ideological clashes of like the East and the West. Uh they didn't necessarily explicitly say communism, fascism would fight each other to emerge a technocracy, but that's pretty much what they alluded to. Both of them did in their writings and quite extensively. And you know, this is very typical Hegelian dialectics that they intentionally ferment. So that's what you're seeing. You're seeing people revive these old tropes. So they're trapped in the blast stone so that they they can be back there discussing

fascism versus communism while they're marching on with a technocracy that has elements of both as you see right. Uh we've got the Fabian style social ethics and the AI for good that uh B uh Ben Girtzil is uh doing with the UN and the World Economic Forum. And then we've got uh this dark enlightenment which is very fascistic. It's got a lot of fascist elements but ultimately it's technocracy. It's it's ruled by it's alocracy. It's going to be ruled by algorithms. This is not Yeah. So the these people were arguing about the neocons. I also think it's a bit of like there's this whole trope about the boomers and a lot of the boomers were the neocons, right? And so it's a way of

creating this uh societal and generational clashes and that so that creates a lot of dissent when really I I mean the boomers could get on board with we need to fight technocracy. Do they want their grandchildren living in a digital gouag? I don't think so. But this is a way that they can create that dialectic and blame the boomers. They're the neocons. And I I think it's really they're they've so lost the plot. >> So So this goes to I mean to your point I algorithmically this must be what is being pushed. I mean because there's stuff I mean I will tell you you know I I have muted Candace Owens and I've actually taken her off as a as a keyword and and her stuff still appears. I I I

can't get her out of my feed. And so so again, some of this stuff, so even the fact that the the Dave Smith Fuentes thing, I mean, they are fmenting that and you clearly can't talk about technocracy. Every every time I talk about technocracy, it drops off. Now, maybe it's because people don't know what it is, >> but actually that that doesn't make sense because >> Yeah, >> that was actually what I was told. So when I um you know when I had posted my post talking about that I I was told that they the they used the word communism because it more people understood it and they didn't like communism so it was like a more palatable a way to reach more people and I I don't know I mean I don't think

technocracy is so complicated for people. I think I don't know that as many people know it, but I don't think it's it's not like this very uh hard to understand kind of concept. It's a being run by technology where and it's where you have no control. It's a very yeah alocracy just doesn't seem like a difficult concept to me, but it's not. What I really think it is is that it's not algorithmically favorable. And so people feel like they're getting boosted when they talk about things like communism or neocons. And so they talk about that because they think they're they're getting rewarded. So they feel like they're doing something worthwhile where they think they feel like if they

talk about technocracy that that's not understood and they won't get the same kind of reward. But I could be wrong. I don't know. It's just strange to me because I don't really think technoc. not a difficult concept to understand. >> No, it's not. It's not a difficult concept, but I've been surprised by people that should know better who don't who don't. I So, it that's it's it's been eye openening to me how many people confuse it. I mean, they get some elements, but they just think it's it's using technology to make things more efficient. They're not aware of that that it's an actual ideology. And a lot of people even on the libertarian side think that it's just

they don't get the difference between reducing the size of government and the role of government. They they actually and they don't even understand that the way that technology is going to be applied will expand the role of government. And this is completely lost. I again I don't listen to Dave Smith that much because I I've not found his his stuff to be particularly educational. But but not only was he stuck in this neocon thing, but he was also sitting there talking about, well, you know, maybe JD Vance isn't such a bad guy. Like like he's so far removed from what is actually going on that >> it's shocking. I So, how does he get how does he get the uh the reach that he's getting?

>> Oh, he's being boosted and he's being platformed, >> right? Yeah, he's being platformed on like, well, didn't Tucker have him on? And >> Tucker and Joe Rogan and everybody everybody has him on. And it's like, okay, so this guy's talking about 20-year-old foreign policy. >> Yes. >> You know, and and this is Yeah. >> Oh, I was going to say, but it's a great way to keep the attention off, keep eyeballs off what's actually going on. And it's also very triggering, right? Because now you've got you've got all sorts of people who are going to be upset by it, right? You've got people who are going to get on board and say, "Oh, yeah, yeah, he's saying the right

thing, the right thing, and then you're going to have other people. So, you're creating a dialectic, but meanwhile, everybody's they're stuck in that blast zone that's like 20 bombs ago, and they're not paying attention to what's actually going on now." I mean, I find this even with like Peter Teal, you know, it's very appropriate. It's very acceptable to criticize Peter Teal and I think he knows he's going to get I actually think he even funds people to talk badly about him. Um but you're not talking about what he's doing right now or they are but in a limited hangout right yeah you talk about him being funded by Inqutell and Palunteer. They're not talking about all of these

like weird things he's doing like his dialogue. That's a secret group that finally leaked 20 years later. I mean, he's got a secret society, guys. Like that's kind of a big deal. Um, and what does dialogue mean? It means dialectic. And he's I when people say like, "Oh, that's just a coincidence." I'm like, "These people are too smart." I I never fe I never give credit to just like ignorance in that regard. like they're very strategic about why they name things the things they do. And I mean all a lot of his companies are named after Lord of the Rings, right? Palanteer, the allseeing eye. Like he knows what he's doing. I don't think it's a coincidence. Uh but yeah, he's

got this dialogue thing. He's got this Acts uh 17. And I mean this is again where we're talking about using uh religious movements to help uh lend credibility. right now it's divine mandate and so it lends this kind of and now he's got a Christian veneer when he's the furthest thing from a Christian but he he's now wearing the banner and so he's able to deceive a lot of people and I these are the things people should be talking about and all of his uh king making because I think he is doing a lot of very strategic king making um but yeah I mean this is where I think we see this all the time where they they promulgate these people to the forefront

to get narratives circulating and to get arguments and discussion, but it's the eyeballs aren't on what needs to be discussed and what needs to be stopped. >> Yep. Yeah, I know. I should dig into this dialogue as well. I'm looking at this right now and it's um I wasn't even aware fully of this. I I will do one on on Teal. It's going to take a long time to research to kind of and then to be able to >> so much >> put it into a thing. But I I I I do think he's he is one of the people playing playing chess and putting a lot of pieces in play. >> He's a master chess player. He he was like a master from a young age. Yeah. And I think he looks at the world like a chess board. One of his rules is no

competition. So he basically doesn't enter something unless he thinks he's going to dominate it. >> Yep. No, I've read I've read zero to one and I've actually you know some of the stuff he even says I don't disagree with but sure at the same time there's u yeah this >> his ties with the builder yeah he needs to be kind of mapped out in a way easy for people to understand with you know some visuals and everything else because I I >> there are a lot of people that are are celebrating I I remember when I did something that was anti- Palunteer and then I actually had a bunch of people trolling me, which usually doesn't h I mean, you I usually don't get trolls,

which those you know you're deep being deboosted. >> Oh, you're lucky. I get that. >> But then it turns out it was people wanting to push the stock and I mean, it was a coordinated campaign of people that were were actually trying to amp the stock and then that went away. That went away after a while. >> Okay. But um I but yeah to to actually even put together a chessboard and try to map out how he might be viewing the moves even from the standpoint of the the people that he supported um politically, but then also from a from a startup perspective and everything else and to kind of map out if you looked who all those people are and what they're doing, what might the move be

strategically? What might he be trying to put put in place? That would be a fun intellectual exercise. >> Yeah. Well, uh, even in my Phoenix Conspiracy, I talked about him funding like the arts in, uh, was it Diamond Square, right, in New York City? >> Yep. >> And if you look at them, they're almost all of them come from like communist backgrounds. And two of them are the the Red Scare podcast is are part of them. Yeah. But very interesting. Like why is he funding this like fringe arts movement? He he doesn't do anything just willy-nilly, you know. I think he's he's he's got a plan. So, and arts have been historically very uh instrumental in moving the needle. So,

>> well, yeah. Who was I talking to recently that, you know, he he instructed Elon Musk not to spend his billions on charity. I mean, he's he's kind of he's explicitly anti- uh charity in a way. So, so yeah, he wouldn't he would not be doing this without strategic purpose. So, I think if you could just lay out and figure out where he has what all of his tentacles, it would be interesting just to look at holistically and say, "Oh, okay." >> You might be able to to come up with some interesting >> interesting patterns. Well, I've sent the link around. We'll see if if anybody pops into the uh to the live stream tonight. Hopefully, you know, hopefully. >> Yeah. And I don't know if uh while we're

waiting for that uh it's possible that your mic is not connected like to the StreamYard settings. >> Um not connected to the stream No, it's connected. Why is it okay? >> Is it still not >> I I'm just hearing that it's sounding a little bit different, but it might just be a setting. Yeah, like it's coming from somewhere else as opposed to from that mic. I know you said you had another mic that you disconnected, so that's why I was asking, but >> yeah, I just I disconnected. Oh, did I disconnect the wrong mic? Is that I guess that the question? >> Yeah. Okay. >> I I don't I don't think No, that can't be the case because I'm I'm hearing myself and so >> Okay. If you're hearing yourself through

them then no, there might just be a setting or it might I don't know. >> Yeah, I will I will clearly have to investigate. Uh >> you sound fine to me, but yeah, that was what I heard. So, yeah. >> All right. I I'll figure this out for time. >> Um so so somebody said um a guy I know just moved to Mexico six weeks ago and he said nothing about a digital ID there. Uh he actually left the UK because the unfolding tyranny there and decided to move to Mexico. Well, I mean I you know presumably he did his homework, but I'll tell you I mean I know people that live in Mexico that that are talking about it and not about what's going on. >> They've had it for a long time. like

it's tied to their bank accounts. >> It's been tied to the bank accounts and now the complete >> QR code thing will be in full effect >> in uh in January or excuse me in Q1. So it's a significant problem. I don't know. I I you know I I wouldn't move to Mexico. Interestingly, I had four conferences in Mexico last year and now I'm not, you know, now I don't want to go to Mexico because the the war on drugs thing is going to turn out badly and I they're probably going to start targeting tourists. So, that's actually going to be problematic. >> And now we might not be able to go to Europe. >> Yeah, Europe's off the list. I I've actually I've actually posted I'm like

I'm not going to Europe. I'm not doing the >> biometric thing. I I don't know if that's is that enacted or just proposed. >> Yeah, I I think there's Well, they're saying I I think for American specifically that you you can't enter without biometrics and I'm like I'm very glad we went uh for our honeymoon. So, I'm I'm glad at least we got that. But that's uh I I wouldn't want to live in Europe. Although I there there's a part of me that wouldn't mind having a home in Italy, but but they're Yeah. Now they've just gone full. Yeah. >> Yeah. My my wife and I went to uh we went to Spain in 201 19 before COVID. So

that was nice. There was some political protest at the time, but it didn't affect Barcelona. That was nice. And >> I went to Amsterdam this year, earlier this year. it now. I mean, I certainly wouldn't go back to Spain uh since the Roger Roger Ver thing, which by the way, I did not mention um I was going to do that at the beginning, but >> there was a New York Times article that that stated that Roger has a tentative deal with the US government. And the reason I'm not parading that and making a big deal out of that is that one, it's tentative. Mhm. >> Two, Roger has not told me that a deal was done and nor has he made an official statement. So, I'm not by the I'm not

going to rely on the New York Times and I will tell you that I can guarantee you that he would not use the New York Times as his his preferred mechanism for getting this information out. So, my guess is that something's going on uh hopefully in the right direction. And if it's written about in the New York Times, it's written to try to derail it because I've ignored the New York Times, who has reached out to me on a couple of different things, not not even just Rogers thing. They actually reached out to me on another thing. And I mean, I'm at the point where I no longer subscribe to the idea that there's no such thing as bad press. I I absolutely do not believe that anymore. And I believe we

have a hostile media. So I I don't do the Wall Street Journal or Bloomberg or anything else. I'm done with that. But >> right, >> so I'm I'm optimistic that something's going to happen, but until I can actually shake Roger's hand off of Spanish soil, it's not done. And so, you know, so that's all I'm going to say on that. I don't have any inside knowledge, but the fact that >> um I haven't heard means that it's not done in my opinion. I would have heard. So, >> right. >> Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there. >> Yeah. No, I would not take it from the New York Times. No, no, no. The New York Times has not been great this this whole time. I mean, they've again, it's been interesting

watching the the hit pieces and the the way that they've targeted things. It's I I'm sure there's a a big movie there at some point on this whole ordeal with Roger. Just mindblowing to see. Um, and there are certain people in the media that, yeah, no, really deliberately wanted to try to tank things and paint things in a negative light, which is why I didn't do any interviews because I looked at it, I said, well, you know, what are the odds that they're going to paint whatever I'm doing in a positive light and will it help? And I came to the conclusion that it's not very likely that they're gonna put a positive spin on it and that so I don't want to, you know, this is a guy's life. So I'm not

so interested in being in the New York Times that I would want to damage in any way this guy's freedom. So um anyway, so just just so that people know because a lot of people are going out, you've got to read I mean when the headline says tenative deal, understand that means tenative deal, >> right? >> And so there are a lot of people going around saying, "Oh yeah, this deal's done. Congratulations, blah blah blah blah blah." tentative and is not conducive to congratulations unless you're congratulating him on a tentative deal, but that's not what people are are congratulating on. So fingers crossed, but I would say I'm going to try to not generate any speculation. Uh other than

people were planning on going and attending his motion to dismiss hearing on October the 20th in LA. And so obviously that's not happening. So I want to make sure people aren't booking tickets for that. But outside of that, you know, I don't know anything. But the fact that the New York Times article is out there doesn't necessarily mean anything definitive either. So wait, let's let's wait and see what happens. >> Right. Right. Hopefully. >> Hopefully. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So So anyway, yeah. So this guy's friend in in in Mexico. Well, you know, I hope he looks into it because it's it's there, right? I mean, and I, you know, I wouldn't want to be in Mexico at this

point. Between that and what's going on with their president and then the the war on drugs thing, this is not going to be a great place. No live for a while. >> I don't think there is another place. I mean, I really feel like this is the last bastion. And there is a reason why it is. >> So, this is why I I keep harping on it. We that we need to uphold it. They they would love nothing more than to subsume the United States into this technocratic global initiative. But so far, I mean, I I'm not saying that we haven't that we've done a great job, but we are we're further behind than a lot of other places. I don't >> I think I think we're leading I mean, we're leading with real ID. We're

leading >> we're leading in building the infrastructure but in terms of uh the the mandate and the impact on our day-to-day lives it's actually uh still behind right so there they may not have the infrastructure as far advanced right that that's what Trump said in his AI action plan he want to export the the stack so all of our technology all of our uh you know the the blueprint that we create he's they're exporting it. So, I think we're leading the the way in that regard, but in terms of like our day-to-day, we still have a lot more freedom. And I I'm not saying that we don't have freedoms that have been you serves. We absolutely have. And I, you know, I

think that that's that's our fault. It's because people haven't stood up, right? I I go back to the the 2020 because it's a really great example. Had people just said, "No, I am not covering my face." you know, then we would not have they wouldn't have had all those mandates. They would not have gotten as far with the experimental drugs. I I don't think they would have I don't think they could have, but people complied. So that that's how this works. We keep giving up a little bit more, a little bit more, and they just keep taking. But in terms of we still have a lot of freedoms. We still have free will here. I mean, they in many places you can't they have complete control in Sweden. You you

don't you can't use cash. The only people who use cash are are the criminals. Like it it's illegal to use cash. They completely crack, surveil, and control every spending here. That's a complete violation of Fourth Amendment. I'm not saying that they don't do it to some degree. >> Oh, they already do. They already do it through. >> But you still you still have some autonomy. I mean, you can buy things you want to buy. I mean, you still have some freedom here where I but I think it's well I'll I'll do a podcast on that because I I think we're more than 80% gone and and where not not will be in the future but like again particularly on the currency side you know I started

off fighting CBDC's and then when I realized how our money works technically I'm like all right well basically already have a CBDC and they're going to add stuff that's worse and and people don't realize how much they're already tracked and >> they're already tracked but we're not controlled like when was the last time that you went to purchase something and you couldn't purchase because you violated social media or you you you did some you weren't a good doobie. >> Well, I mean, I was debanked in 2012. Most of my friends have been debbanked. So, I I don't use banks. This is why I don't I I don't use banks anymore because of this. So, >> so people get debbanked, but they can

still if they were to go to a store and hand cash, they could still hand cash. This is what I'm saying. Like in a lot of places in the world, you couldn't do that. You don't have that luxury. You are able to use your uh your digital currencies in a lot of places and still have the freedom. You couldn't do that in a lot of places in the world. This is what I'm saying. like you still have some I'm not saying that we're not tracked and that I I mean I I've I've been deplatformed in a lot of places too. So I I get that but it's not it's not to the extent where in a lot of other countries like it's completely controlled. >> It is but again we've lost more than

we've given up more than we have left. >> I agree and that's our fault. We've given up >> and again my point is I don't want to I don't care about fixing America. I'm going to transact regardless of what any government does anyway. That's actually the approach that I'm taking. It's the same with with health. Like I I'm not going to participate in their mandates and I'm also going to exit the system entirely. I I don't think that the answer is to try to fix the federal system, which again I'll outline what you would actually have to do to be able to do that. And if you look at what the technocrats are doing versus where we are in terms of understanding how the process even works, it's an

unbridgeidgeable gap. It's it's a waste of time probabilistically to spend time in that area. >> Um so I mean we need to show people what it looks like if you do actually have freedom and the ability to exercise free will because people don't have that as an example. If your example is well we've lost 80% of our rights but we're better than the people that have lost 100% of their rights. That's not really a proof point for being able to seeing what things look like when you can exercise free will. Well, if the technocracy goes into effect, you're not going to have the option of your alternative systems. They'll have complete control. >> Well, it depends on what the systems

are. Again, this is this is a bigger it's a bigger thing that's going on with building alternative systems. I mean, you may be talking mesh networks and cryptography and everything else. And again, my argument is enough people have to exit the system >> or we're going to default into technocracy. And because again, you're not I don't I've yet to see an example in history where you can reverse something. And this is true of nations or corporations when it get most well historically all get to a point where they they go through a cycle and they get to the point where we're at and and uh doing a turnaround. There's not really an example of that, which isn't to say that it isn't possible, but I

would argue we're kind of worse than a lot of places are when they get to that end state. I mean, when you look at how uneducated voters are and all of the other hurdles, I mean, I I don't see how you're going to how you going to fix it politically. I I could outline how the voting works, how the how the what the amount of money that would be required, the you're actually up against big data and AI even with with voting. So like the idea that people are going to wake up, how are they going to wake up if all of the information sources are blocked off and they've been indoctrinated for three generations. >> I I think the indoctrination is a huge part of the problem. Yes.

>> And that so that time so how much time do we have? three years, five years max. So if you're going to change some of these underlying fundamental systems to be able to change the larger organizational governance system, there's there's not a time frame that there's not time to do that. That's not feasible. You can exit though, and if enough people exit, it doesn't even have to be a lot of people because their system requires 100% compliance, then at least you can show people an alternative. But if we can't show people an alternative, they'll default to technocracy because they literally have no other choice. >> Well, I definitely think people should not comply. I I think that's a I mean I

I said that from day one that that's how we got into this mess. It's because people complied. >> Well, not being able having Yeah. Having choice is important, I think, for people to not comply, >> right? But I mean we we've complied on so much that it's uh people need to start with like really basic things. I mean if people can't comply over what to do with their own physical their physical body I mean then uh you know in terms of alternative systems there there's a lot people can do with just saying no to really basic things. And this is this again it does go back to the metaphysics. Like if you understood that and you understood what your rights were, you would not comply with somebody

telling you, you know, you have to take experimental drugs. You would not comply with somebody forcing you to cover your face. You would not comply with somebody telling you to use uh you know, I mean, talk about just even the currency system when they they did that. You would say no. like this is not this is a violation of my rights. I'm not going to use some sort of madeup control system. I mean that's what a fiat currency is. It's just a madeup control system. >> Yep. >> It has no intrinsic value. So I understand that's what we're operating on now. But I mean the pro uh dollar at least has some more value than these the tokenization that they want to execute.

I'm not saying tokenization has to be that way, but that that is where they're going. this this doesn't have intrinsic value. It's like a fiat backing up a fiat. I mean, it's it's complete like, you know, imaginary. >> This is like a meta ponzi. I like this is this is crazy what we have right now. And and now we're getting to the realm of people creating the president of the United States has a stable coin. This USD1, can you believe this $2.6 billion market cap stable coin? The president's family has this. Like, how is this even possible? It's a token backed by other paper. It's crazy. And um like it's >> it is peak bubble, peak peak corruption. I have no idea how. But what what I've

struggled with I mean again I wrote a book, ran for president. I've gone all over the place trying to explain this. And the biggest problem that I've had isn't even explaining to people why they should worry about what's what might happen in the future. It's getting people to understand what exists now. Most people have no idea how money works. They don't have a clue how the Federal Reserve works. There's there's not a >> like money. >> People think it's actual federal in in entity and it's not. >> They think it's a federal entity. Some people think that it's still roughly backed by gold. Like like seriously, when you and these aren't even I I would even call these uneducated people that

I've been in front of like they're they're they're probably on the you know top 25% which is scary. And then when you go back and look at what people what the curriculum is, >> right? >> Even in when I went when I went to college, even when you take economics, I mean, nobody actually teaches you how the Federal Reserve works or how money works. You you get a whole bunch of theoretical models about how economy should function with perfect information, a whole variety of other things. It's like it's like that movie Back to School with Rodney Dangerfield. Like what they teach you even in economics is is is irrelevant and actually dangerous and not accurate,

>> right? And so I when would people I mean I remember and I'm sure they don't even do it now. I at least remember I think in third or fourth grade we had a class on here's how to balance a checkbook. Well I mean nobody teaches you that you're just doing arithmetic. >> I never even had that. >> Yeah. Well so so here now we get to be good good little cattle you know writing down in our you know in our book how much our our debits and credits but nobody's teaching you what money is. That's actually not in a curriculum anywhere. So, so then I don't get mad at people for not knowing this. Then I really because then I came to the conclusion of where would people have

heard this information. You have to dig to find this information because it's blocked off. And so if you live in a world where everybody just assumes, oh well, the dollar's always been the global reserve currency, you know, in the time that everybody's essentially been alive and this is what everybody else is doing, no one would even think to question it. And so you would so of course you sound nuts when you're talking about this. And so that's an even a bigger barrier. And this is just money, right? I mean, it's actually the same with healthcare, educ every one of these areas is the same. >> Sure. >> Um, so it's a challenge. It's and we don't have a lot of time. So I'm I'm hopeful.

I I'm grateful that you came on and I hope more people uh, you know, once you start to learn about technocracy, you have to do the whole fire hose because then you realize how all of it's connected and then things don't seem to be surprising. Then then actually as things happen you're like oh of course this is >> like duh >> yeah this is part of how this works but then we got to equally get into uh >> so you talk about alternative systems like I don't know why you can't build alternative systems and still restore it was never the job I mean there's nothing in the constitution that says there should be healthcare I mean this is not that so there's no reason you can't

restore the constitution and people can build alternative infrastructure there's actually nothing in the constitution. I mean, Hamilton created the national bank, but I mean, it's not the constitution doesn't say that there should be doesn't talk about the the currency system, right? So, it's a I I think we can have alternative systems without I mean certainly like healthcare I think that's a definite and that's how they in every s every country that they have uh turned into a tyrannical uh system they've done it through healthcare. It's always been through healthare. >> Well, we're we're already at more than 50% of health care being paid for by the federal government. My argument is you

may start out with you may come up with the conclusion after going through the first principles discussion and everything else that what we need is the constitution again, but you would be better off starting over than thinking that you can unwind what we now currently have and restore it to being a constitution. That's that's my point because it is so far removed and the things that they that they've implemented like I think the Constitution's been gone for decades. >> It has been but it's been gone because we have let it go. So I I what I'm saying is there's no I have no problems with building uh new systems, new institutions, new systems. I I think healthcare is a really good example.

There's nothing in the Constitution that talks about healthare. So why wouldn't we create new alternatives to the current health care system? It is a violation of the constitution for there to be federal healthcare. That's actually a violation of the constitution. So the you can uphold the constitution. The constitution is about protecting our inalienable rights. So it it should be it the the idea of a government was I think a horrible term control the mind. It it should be a protectorate. It is to protect our inalienable rights. There's no reason why you can't be building parallel systems while still restoring and upholding the constitution. What has happened is everything has become so uh

bloated and we've had such an infringement upon our our rights and that's because the constitution's been violated. It's not because of these institution. These institutions are a violation of our constitution. So build new systems, build alternatives, build parallels, build communities, and you know, become resourceful in whatever way possible. I'm all for that. I mean, I'm not advocating school choice, which is the federal uh, you know, school system, right? I'm saying the opposite. Take it back. The Constitution says nothing about education. The idea that we think that the government should have any role in our education is actually flawed. The constitution does not say that. State

constitutions have added that that they need to provide some sort of uh you know education. But that's state-to-state. >> There's nothing constitution that that they have to provide education. >> Well, I I understand. So, I'm going to build a parallel systems anyway, but I but I do but they have to be done privately because it's kind of like whether it's a particular need for hospitals or the way the the FDA will shut down people that are are engaging in things that aren't through their regulatory apparatus whether it's constitutional or not it's not constitutional but they will throw you in jail anyway and they will shut you down >> and so so you know and the problem with

this is now again now that over half of Americans health care is from the government >> I know >> there's no real way to break that I so my my point is it's going to collapse I I think it is going it is collapsing. It's actively collapsing. I mean you look at social security, you look at the health care system, it's actively collapsing, you know, bu build a parallel system. Um because otherwise >> I think that it should be private but not corporatized. So that's actually what they're advocating right now. They're advocating for privatizing everything but they're doing it through these like super national corporations. Uh so if it's going to be private, it

needs to be truly private. You know, the government has no role in your healthcare. I I that absolutely people need to take back like the idea of maja make America healthy again. That should have been an individual project be individuals should be taking ownership of their health and those who are in the industry should be building institutions not mega corporations but you know mom and pop institutions that are taking ownership of health. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. This is what I'm saying. So we're going to create a marketplace where starting with medical tourism where people can just go wherever they want buy healthcare and there's a reputation management system there and there are

other things that you could build. I I if I were >> you couldn't come up with a system as bad as the healthare system we had if you started from scratch today. It's absolutely backwards. The the incentives are wrong. Everything about it is is wrong. Um and so yeah I'm not I this is the thing about having a marketplace. The whole point of the marketplace is that you know you do have independent people that are able to engage in transactions without think of all of the layers that are involved between you and your healthcare from the standpoint and by the way actually this is what I'm so I'm taking the ownothing.com thing >> and the first thing I'm gonna the

segment I'm going to cover is healthcare and it's going to cover the package inserts which you don't even sign and then insurance agreements PBM agreements um pharmacy agreements but then I'm going to look at all this AI stuff as well. And then I'm going to see if I it's going to be hard to try to document, but when you actually see everything that's involved and you making a health care decision, it's insane. You are completely out of you're you're a side note in your own healthcare. Like like I mean they talk about, you know, stakeholder capitalism. My god, you actually apply that to health care and you're you're like a your your opinion matters 1% in the

whole pie of everybody that's involved in healthcare from the standpoint of the information flows and the money flows and the outcome comes. It's it's ridiculous. Then you throw in that bioethicist. I mean it's just >> you couldn't come up with anything this bad. >> It's really truly unconscionable. I have a friend who was in nursing school and uh she this was during COVID so she was bringing up how uh you know questions about somebody who has autoimmunity and they were this was actually not even about you know the Kufid uh shots this was like just uh in general and she said but what about if someone has autoimmunity and they said yeah yeah that's fine and she said well no no in

the insert it says that that's a contra indication and it can be fake needle and uh they so of course this doctor who's the professor is arguing with her and she the professor holds up like a you know the the the consent form that you signed. She said no no it's not in here and she said no no no I'm not talking about that I'm talking about the insert. Now, this doctor had never read the insert. >> Yep. >> Never read it. And she shows the insert because she's a good student, like trying to learn how she can help her patients, her future patients to nursing school. And uh she shows her right on there and she actually got kicked out, got kicked out of the program. they

found some sort of loophole uh like I don't know it was like a religious school and so like through the like scholarship somehow they were able to the the long and short of it is she gets kicked out basically for asking questions about an insert that the doctor had never even read the doctor that's supposed to be the teacher. >> Yep. Yeah. That's the welcome to the nature of nature of healthcare. So I I think that yeah there are all kinds of alternatives here. Um, and again, we're going to pursue them. I, you know, I've even thought about, yeah, you know, just practitioner based connect to people and allow them to share their own information amongst themselves. I mean,

that's better than this, this failed clinical trials that are fake and, you know, the data is not even realistic and all the approval process like, you know, we've actually cut out people's ability to yes, this is my own body and here's what worked for me to share that information. >> You know, that's so interesting. I won't share like too much personal details but you think about like in you know older times women very much uh you know had communities and shared a lot because women were usually in charge I mean historically like you think about nursing it's very much a a maternal kind of a a role and so a lot of the medical communities it was like women sharing

their struggles and challenges and then you know taking that and practicing And I, you know, I was discussing stuff with a friend of mine who is uh we were struggling with some similar uh health issues and it really dawned on me how removed this is. Now we outsource everything to a so-called expert who doesn't even ask us anything about our personal history, background. uh you know you may fill out an intake form but I mean it's as impersonal as possible and a lot of doctors don't even read the intake forms and because they don't have time to they're not incentivized to I mean they don't get their insurance if they don't turn you in and out in 15 minutes and so it but it really was

interesting like the what we were able to uh learn just from comparing notes and you know our own personal experiences and the research that we had done and just you know our innate intuitive experience erience as well, which has some value. I'm not like a super woo woo person, but there's something to be said for like what you personally experience and what your your own body tells you, you know? So, and we we've gotten so far removed from that. >> We have and that's that's incredibly powerful information that is completely taken out of the system. I mean, again, I I think about how much progress we'd actually make if people could just share share their own stories

and and everything prevents people from doing it. HIPPA prevents people. HIPPA is not there to help pre help you protect your data. It's there to protect doctors in the existing system. It makes it creates friction and so you know again though not I'm not saying there's a single answer. I'm saying let letting people voluntarily engage in different things and >> communal >> commun will be will be >> just even during 2020 like 2021 how many people if there was some sort of a a a forum where they could communicate with each other and share the results that they had had without being uh conditioned by a doctor who was incentivized to give medicine right they're making money off of that but if

somebody had said oh I had this reaction. They were gas lit. So that so a lot of people didn't put two and two together. Oh wait, I had this reaction immediately after I had this medication and they didn't put that together because the doctor gas lit them and told them that that was ludicrous. But imagine if there was just like a forum where people could go and they were sharing these kind of experiences with each other. Then maybe somebody else would say, "Oh, maybe I don't want to do that or maybe I don't want to do it again." >> You know? Yep. Yeah. I mean, and again, something as basic as that and of course what actually happens is you do stuff like even as I'm putting together the

site for the own nothing and I'm going through and looking at this. It's like, okay, you can expect, you know, these healthcare companies will sue you for they'll try to sue you for defamation. And I think I mentioned this before. I went to this thing called the World Health Congress in 2005 and there was a doctor up there saying, "Well, we shouldn't have uh reputation management systems or scoring systems because the people are too stupid to understand what level of care they're getting or or to understand the complexities of their situations. It's going to be unfair to doctors that are working on hard cases relative to others." And so like so this is you know th I mean we saw what

happened even with that whatever that movie the insider with was trying to go after the tobacco company. I mean these people will use These people will use absolutely draconian tactics and they're not they're well if they're willing to kill their own customers then certainly you know killing whistleblowers isn't out of the question either. There's there's there's a lack of ethical standard here somewhere. So, so we we truly so this requires having platforms that that offer privacy and offers people the ability to to share information outside of that watch line because you have not only the government but yeah the corporations have have become >> corporations absolutely

>> yeah because when when they talk about privacy and uh you know like private companies that's what they mean they mean these mega corporations that that's our country was founded on small business mom and pop doctors used to come to your home. Yep. They did. They did. And it was still less and it was significantly less expensive than than what we have now. So >> I know. >> So we have we need to enable this. We need to enable people to be able to engage in voluntary commerce with one another. We don't have that at all. We have mega corporations and we have the government. Um, and you know, and this is the, you know, again, even if they get rid of some of these COVID, uh,

mandates, the largest purchaser of the COVID vaccine is still the federal government through Medicare, Medicaid. I mean, nobody's talking about that. It's like, okay, you got this accomplished, but look at what's still going on here. Okay, you're not forcing people to do it, but you're still buying it and you're, you know, it's like this the healthcare thing is that personally because my my second company was destroyed as I've said before by Obamacare, but you go through that and um learning how the whole process works from the inside and and most people have no idea how the incentives are structured. Yeah. >> Because you couldn't conceive of it. >> You really couldn't conceive of how

badly structured the system is. And you know, we talk about how bad the claims are, the processing. You know, insurance companies make money by being inefficient at paying claims and holding on to the money and earning interest. No business would survive if it were unless you had government protection. There's no market where being inefficient would be something that would cause you to become a a big company, right? A successful, profitable company. It's it's in reverse. Now, they're going to add AI to that. I was just going to say, oh my gosh, so people think that these mega corporations are inefficient and that, you know, they're saying AI is going to be efficient. Oh, good luck.

I anybody who's dealt with like I had to deal with Xfinity recently. Everything is automated. It t you can't get a human and so you can't get anything done. You're just get you're given the runaround. you go from one AI portal to the next AI portal and it's like well what if none of my questions fall into this category. I I have at some point gotten a human and it was like was not efficient with the exact opposite of efficient. It took me like an hour to get human and then the human you know there's a lot of problems there too. A lot of these humans don't speak English and um but this is AI is not going to be efficient. Well, I mean, it'll be it'll be efficient in denying claims and then

when you appeal to it, it'll deny your claims again. It'll be efficient from that perspective, but it won't be efficient in terms of actually resolving a problem, right? It'll be an efficient uh at executing people and and denying them their their rights. I I think it's going to be fascinating that on October the 22nd that the digging into the AI and health care even in the present system, people understand what's going on there. It is the well it's the I mean in terms of customer service it is the like most inefficient. You're not getting any kind of service. Our customer service has gone downhill already and any kind of automation of customer service makes it that much

worse. So when uh you know Nick Lan and Curtis Yarvin talk about how uh you know it'll be just like dealing with a company you know and uh you'll if you you don't like your service and you can you know you can uh complain. How does that work when you're dealing with AI? I I found it incredibly frustrating. This this is not efficiency. It's very efficient at eradicating humans. That's what it's efficient at. >> That is true. That is true. Well, we will we will get into that into detail. Yeah. October the 20. >> All right. >> Well, we've been going now for a while, almost four hours. I I put out the link again. I guess no, nobody wants to to join the Q&A today. I'm surprised. I I

know some of the some of our us normals are are uh >> normal people that join are traveling. I guess it is it is a holiday today. Although >> um so but a little disappointed we didn't get a little bit more interactivity uh on this but um but it is a it is a Monday. It is a holiday. So >> Columbus Day. Yeah, >> Columbus Day. >> And I think it's also Canadian Thanksgiving. Yeah. >> Oh, there we go. So >> I don't know. But yeah, Columbus Day. So maybe people are busy. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, >> well, any final thoughts? >> Uh, yeah. No, I mean I I I will say like

I am not opposed to building parallel systems. I mean, all of the things that you've talked about are not in the Constitution anyway. We should not be looking to the government to solve them. The government should not be fixing our education. The government should not be fixing our health care, our medicine. I I mean all of these things are things people should be we we should be taking it back. So in a way like these kind going back to smaller where it's not public private partnership that's a violation of the constitution too. Uh these mega corporations we were supposed to have antirust laws actually. So these monopolies not constitutional. So actually everything you're talking about

is very commensurate with restoring the constitution. the country was founded on small business. That that's actually how this country was built. >> Well, I mean, I will say so I mean New Hampshire, we have the right to secede in in in our constitution. And so I mean so I to me I I think that we need because trying to fix the thing on a federal level based on just where the country is >> fix anything on a federal level. Yeah. >> Right. But I think we've got to demonstrate that that you know these principles can work because right now nobody nobody you can't see the Constitution in action. What you're seeing is something that's not the Constitution. So I mean again this is

why I'm in New Hampshire. Although as I said I'm I'm kind of even pessimistic about about doing it at that level. This is but again yeah we've got to build the parallel systems. We got to show people that that it can work and then we've got to wake them up to the imminent threat of technocracy. the >> current threat of technocracy, not the future threat, the ongoing accelerating threat of technocracy because it's here now. >> Yes. And I mean, people need to push back in every way they possibly can. You know, that that's a that starts with not complying. You know, do not sign up for what whatever measures are being encroached. I I think people just need to push back wherever they can. You

know, I know everybody wants a smoking gun. one solution. It doesn't work that way, right? That this problem is so multifaceted. We didn't get here with a smoking gun, right? That's not how we got to this problem. We got here over like generations and generations incrementally. So, it's just wherever you can draw the line, draw the line. And I say that really needs to start with so cliche, right? Like your own personal body. Start with you, your mind, your body, your autonomy. Start there. your family, your kids. Like, there's no reason that your kids should be training AI. Like, I just don't like don't don't buy them these plushy Grock dolls. Don't let them do it in their

education. Do not sign them up for tech, you know? These are And then your community, go to your community, right? Like, wherever you can get together and push back. Like, I think farmers can push back. I think parents can push back. There's there's a lot of things people can do to push back against from a on a very personal level and I think that's where the the most success is had. >> I I agree. >> All right. Well, where can people find on that note? I'm going to play a song we will not comply on the way out. >> This one was for uh the uh the episode that I did stating that Maha has been basically hijacked. So, I'll play that one on the way out. But any final final

words or where can people find you? Uh, you can find me courtney turner.com. I spell my name like cou.com. That's the best place to find all of my podcast, my various social media platform. Uh, my Substack is a great place to support my work. Uh, I do have places on my website as well. Uh but my Substack has all of my podcasts are early access and ad free uh for my paid subscribers and uh my writing is there as well. So you know my my article that was I think yesterday was on Spinosa and why he is so conducive to technocratic uh encroachment and we see that so many of the technocrats love Spinosa. So um I

know like the philosophy sound it it people don't tend to like philosophy. I I I personally you know I was a philosophy major so that is my background but that's not why I it's I'm not doing this for you know intellectual masturbatory purposes you know I'm doing this because it is through these I think of it as like operating systems and it's through these philosophies that they have operational success you know as I always say like if if if you've heard of a philosopher they were probably funded you know philosophy is not a loop lucrative field and if you've heard of them posthumously it's because they serve an agenda. So we have to ask why what is the operational success? Why are

they promulgating these philosophies? And uh you know in a lot of these cases we see they're very conducive to technocracy to tyranny to empowering uh elites and uh yeah we we need to push back. >> Excellent. All right. Well on that note I look forward to seeing you. great article and thank you for coming on as usual and I'll see you on well probably talk to you before but if not in you know nine days on October the 22nd at 6 pm. >> Looking forward to it. Thanks so much. >> Have a good night. >> You too. Bye. >> Tick tock. choose.

[Music] They sold you hope with a velvet flame wrapped in the stars, but it feels the same. Heroes with halos drawn in smoke. Whisper freedom while tighten the yoke. I taste the static. I see the snare. Freedom on paper, ashes in there. If love is consent, if choices of prayer, why are the doorways guarded by air? Gates of silence, walls of glare.

Don't ask for permission. >> Just breathe and say no. Oh, the blue light. >> Let the wild seas grow. Raise your hands and fire with the stor winds blow. We won't comply. Won't comply. Won't comply. Won't comply. Sing mirrors chains or ladders. Genetic veins wearables whisper I still oy palente angels counting your days they call it healing I hear the gears turning our

pulse into shadow tears if truth is a river then break the down find the healers with the lanterns in hand gardens and roots and medicine stand don't ask for permission Just breathe and say no. Cut the tethered heavens. Feel the courage. So write your name in lightning on the midnight road. We won't comply. Won't comply. Won't comply. Won't comply. Three light eyes in a crown of glass.

Genius rails where the shadows passity chains on the things you own. Exit the grid or become their throne. Stop war. If falling is foose [Music] now. Don't ask for permission. >> Just breathe and say no. >> Like a parallel lantern everywhere you go. Fing [Music] where the wild heart.

We won't comply. We won't comply. Don't ask for permission in cold in pockets of medicine. Hand after hand till the signals grow. We won't come by. We won't comply. Three years

now.