S2E6 Stablecoins are Backdoor CBDCs

They've been feeding us these lies Since the day that we were born That we need them to protect us That we can't survive alone But baby, that's a fallacy A chain around my mind Been blinded by their promises While freedom's been denied, oh Critical thinking broke these chains Opened up my eyes to see the game No

need for rulers telling me my worth I'm taking back the power that is mine Just move. The truth has set me free at last.

Government ain't nothing but a cycle. Heading toward tyranny. They militarize the police force. All preaching about democracy But fuck that noise I see the truth now Their power's built on fear Voluntary system shows

I'm taking back the power that is mine by birth This fallacious belief in their control Has been weighing down my goddamn soul But I'm free at last, free at last Breaking out of their system fast No, no taxation Free at last, free at last This fallacious

belief is gone I'm finally free Oh darling, I'm trapped in a grid so tight Tether USDC, they dim my light Sax and a lap, hey Paul's old game Stable and genius, they fan the flame Oh darling,

I'm trapped in a grid so tight Tether USDC, they dim my light. Sachs and Dallaire, PayPal's old game. Stable and genius, they fade. No more control, our hearts will sing Freedom's our vow, let freedom ring No more control,

our hearts will sing Freedom's our vow, let freedom ring They scheme since thirties, darling, oh my Energy credits, a dark lullaby. Social credits, creep IDs in view. Genus act past, Striebel's here too. Flicker in the grid, oh, we'll break free. BTC, XMR, Zay.

Control our hearts, we'll sing Freedom's all about Let freedom ring The screen's my cage, the dollar's a chain Every move washed, it brings me pain Paypal shadow sex pulls the line There's circle tracks to find my mind. Oh, flicker in the wind. Oh, we'll break free. B-T-C-X-M-R. Hey, no darling, you and me.

No more control. Our hearts will sing. Freedom's ours. Flicker in the grid Our love survives We'll dance through the dark Keep hope alive Rise up, rise up Our future's clear Break the chains We'll have no fear

Thank you.

Oh, sorry. I just realized my mic. Can anybody hear me? Let's see. All right, so here we go. Let me start with that again. This is Aaron Day. This is Season Two, Episode Six. today we're going to be talking about stable coins as backdoor cbdc's this is a very timely and important issue based on a couple of developments just today that really indicate that we're moving in the wrong direction in terms of financial surveillance and and how digital currencies are going to be rolled out not only in the united states but globally as well so this is going to be a a real kind of refresher and update on all of the work that I've been doing in the last couple of years and then

basically how it culminates to where we are today, which is actually in a worse position than we were even prior to the election. And I know this will surprise a lot of people because there's all this enthusiasm about Bitcoin and Bitcoin strategic reserve. And we have all of these politicians and people from venture capital talking about how America is going to dominate in the world of crypto and stable coins. But it turns out when you read what they're actually doing, it turns out they're kind of implementing all of the programmable digital censorable cash that people were worried about when it was Klaus Schwab and the Bank of International Settlements talking about it.

The only difference is this time, competent and can implement the people are actually it unlike the people in the Obama administration. So just a little bit of housekeeping. before we go into the main presentation. And by the way, after this presentation, I'm going to open it up to kind of a discussion Q&A, but also interactive discussion. If you were on a couple of days ago, we ended up running kind of late on that. But I've invited a few people. And if you're interested as the live discussion afterwards, well and you want to join Just send me a note in the comments and I'll send you a link on that. Last week, the focus of the, or excuse me, actually two days ago, the focus of the podcast

was on stopping Biden crypto lawfare. And this remains an ongoing problem. I encourage you to listen to or watch that episode because while some aspects of the Trump administration are dropping some of the cases, it's usually there are civil cases and it's involving the SEC. None of the people that are really the OGs that were charged criminally under the Biden administration. And I'm talking about people like Roger Ver, Ian Freeman, Roman Storm, the Samurai Wallet guys. None of those cases have been dropped yet. there's really been no indication In fact, that they're top of mind or that there's a lot of activity on that. And so we need to raise awareness. can listen to that episode

you can also go to daylightfreedom.org and there's an entire section of the website on stopping biden crypto lawfare and I actually lay out the specific cases and links to each of the individual websites so that you can actually help these people out on a on an individual basis I want to talk about a couple of events quickly that are coming up my next speaking event is Actually, this isn't true. I need to add another one. I'm actually speaking at Shannon Joy's event at the I actually need to update that. end of this month. That's going to be in Rochester, New York. So I'll get that out shortly. Then after that, I'm going to be going to Amsterdam and speaking at ETHDAM, which is a conference

that's not focused on really Ethereum. there are a lot of folks there In fact, talking about privacy coins and just broader market adoption. So if you can check that out, I highly encourage it. As far as other events, right after this ETHDM event, Roger Ver has a motion to dismiss hearing in LA. This event is May the twelfth at one thirty PM in the United States District Court in LA. I will send out more information as we get closer to this. One thing is if you haven't been to a federal court, hearing. These dates change a lot and they change because whether it's the prosecution or the defense may have some legitimate reasons, or in this instance, it's in LA.

So who knows, there could be a fire, a natural disaster, any of a number of things. And so I encourage you to go, but if you do go get refundable tickets and a refundable hotel, because hopefully, by the way, they'll just drop Roger's case or he'll get a pardon. before then as well. So that's always an outcome that we're certainly hoping for. And one other point to bring up, when you cannot record in a federal court building or a federal courthouse, you can't record at all, whether it's the hearing or anything else. And so they'll let you store your cell phone with them upfront. I would not recommend that. I would recommend just not bringing your cell phone to the courthouse

at all so again more details forthcoming on that also I'm going to be gone next week but when I come back we're really going to start moving very aggressively on porkfest I'm co-sponsoring along with doug tooman and monerotopia the largest tent at porkfest and so we're going to have an entire week of talks they're going to be focused on privacy coins and not just monero but broad you know more broadly monero Zeno, Confidential Layer, the privacy gold coin that I'm working on called Karma, many other people. It is literally a big tent event at Porkfest where we're going to have an entire week of talks and discussions.

But not only that, if you've ever been to Porkfest, people are basically buying and selling from one another the entire week, not using fiat currency. a lot of the really early adoption I mean, for Bitcoin I mean, I'm talking about real OGs like Roger Ver, Eric Voorhees, Charlie Shrem. I even met Vitalik before he formed Ethereum at Porkfest. I mean, so this is really Porkfest. These events are really leading edge in terms of adoption. And I think what we're hoping is that this year we're going to kind of wind back to the twenty twelve energy of Porkfest, where people were really excited about. cryptocurrency as a way to uh upend central banks and central bank tyranny and to

be used as an alternative to cash on a day-to-day basis we're hoping to bring that energy to porkfest and last year actually that was already kind of the case most people were have already been moving away to from transparent blockchains to privacy coins of all sorts and so porkfest before or not this if if you've been to is going to be They're going to be as many An incredible event. as two thousand to three thousand people there. And so just hundreds of topics on many different hundreds of talks on many different topics. It's actually family friendly now as well, which it's been interesting. I've been part of the Free State Project for sixteen years now. So it's amazing to see. I mean,

How it's grown. there are almost as many kids at Porkfest as there were now as there were total attendees when I first attended. And so it is it's probably the biggest Liberty event in North America and possibly the world at this point. So that's June the sixteenth through the twenty second. tickets now because there's I encourage you to get your a really good chance it'll be sold out. And you also, if you're not interested in camping, there are other alternatives, but you want to check into those hotels or Airbnbs. You're going to want to jump on that as soon as you can. As I talked about last week, I've updated our website, daylightfreedom.org, which now is up to date

with everything that's going on. My primary focus now is still actually raising awareness about CBDCs and stablecoins and digital currencies. and educating people on alternatives, but also have added this area of working on ending Biden lawfare and in particular helping people and raise awareness on criminal cases that are at the intersection of liberty and crypto. And so you can find out about all of that at that website. And you can also see all of my interviews, podcasts, all of my articles at Brownstone. Everything is here now. And I will say this podcast. So I've been pretty heavily shadow banned in the last two weeks or actually just the last week.

So my like right now we have seven hundred and eleven people live. You know, it was it's typically three thousand or at least it had been last week, the week before. And so the something's happening. I'm clearly, clearly shadow banned. But I encourage you, if you can, to sign up for my channel at Spotify, iTunes, YouTube, Rumble, just because most of the traffic that I get actually comes from X and those other channels are actually pretty weak at this point and I want to try to build that out so that we can we can get the word out. So for tonight we actually have a pretty substantial agenda and a lot of material to go through. Some of it you may have heard before, although I've tried to

update it and actually put even some more color on it. So it should be entertaining nevertheless. And the focus is, as I said, on stable coins as a backdoor CBDC. So what I'm going to walk through tonight is really defining the real threat and demystifying some of the confusion between where the actual tyranny comes from. I mean, in terms of Is the real threat that the digital currencies are issued by the central bank? Is there something more going on there? Because you actually have the government, you have the central bank and you have commercial banks. And I'm going to try to clarify the meaning of all of that. I want to talk about the end game again and remind everybody about why we're

concerned about. these digital currencies because they're part of programmable digital money as part of an overall control system that includes social credit scores and vaccine passports and digital IDs. And so I want to make sure to update everybody that that mission hasn't changed. The goal of technocracy hasn't changed. Even if the election has changed here and you're hearing different verbiage and propaganda. The rest of the world is accelerating on CBDCs, and then the US is actually moving forward on these stablecoins. I'm going to reiterate that we already have a digital dollar, and there was actually a development today that I'll be able to discuss that highlights just how

programmable and trackable our existing money is, in case people have some thought that our money being programmed and tracked is something that's in the far future. It's already been that way, and in fact, what is already going on with the existing financial system and banking system is what people fear CBDCs are going to be. And then it actually will get much worse from there. I'm going to talk about Trump's ban on CBDCs and whether that's about freedom or whether that's a Trojan horse and whether that's just marketing. I'm going to discuss stablecoins, what they are and how they're the new frontier for control. cronyism within the Trump I'm going to talk about administration as it

relates to stablecoins. And in particular, there are two main stablecoins out there. There's Tether and USDC. And as I'll show you, Both of those organizations have very close ties to the Trump administration, and some of them have gone back for years. And so, again, what I'm stressing here is, and I'm not suggesting that there's even a conspiracy, but what I am saying is this administration is actually capable of getting things done and actually working on and building things. One of the reasons that Biden was so unsuccessful and that Klaus Schwab was unsuccessful, Klaus Schwab's an academic. He actually doesn't know how to do anything. And Biden was also completely ineffective,

regardless of what his intent was or even the intent of the people behind him. He was good at lawfare, but he didn't exactly have the tech all-star team surrounding him. But in this case, as you'll see, Trump is surrounded by people that have the capacity to roll out these kinds of technocratic systems and have the desire to do so as well. I'm going to reiterate that how fragile fiat currency is and that the issue with all of this you know we can go through and say well stable coins are bad uh cbdc's are bad commercial banks are bad what's the solution and usually people get into this mindset of well you know the global reserve currency is going to move from the dollar to bricks

or to somewhere else and what my argument is and what I have been saying for quite some time is that fiat currency never works it has a zero percent success rate And what we really need to be focusing on is I go through this information and you might be floored by some of it and you might become angry by some of it. What I'm not suggesting is congressman because they don't care. that you call your we live in a complete state of cronyism. I mean, And so, I mean, unless you have the capacity to bribe your congressman, they're not going to change their tune. half of these people are promoting I mean, Bitcoin strategic reserves while holding Bitcoin. or have relationships with

the people behind the scenes or the organizations that are pushing stablecoins. You're not going to be able to push through that with information because the people in Congress aren't interested in facts or the truth. Unfortunately, that's just how it works. But why I am laying out this information is because there are things that we can do. Namely, stop using these fiat currencies and start moving into alternatives as quickly as possible. Privacy alternatives, privacy coins, gold, silver. But the need to do that is actually more urgent as I will lay out. So the basis for some of this, and if you're not familiar... with my work so I wrote a book called the final countdown I wrote this a

couple of years ago and uh you know the title was crypto gold silver and the people's last stand against tyranny by central bank digital currencies I mean this is still very much an issue and so um some of to present tonight is the information I'm going actually from that but then you can go to the brownstone institute or you can go to daylightfreedom.org and you can actually see some of the articles that I've written uh that that actually build and are part of the basis for the discussion tonight um this so I I want to take a step back and and tell you what the end game is with this And I wrote an article about this. It's on Brownstone. It's you might own nothing sooner than you think.

And I've basically what I've laid out is how the technocrats plan on getting to this situation where we own nothing. And the process for it is actually pretty straightforward. The first phase is countries are going to implement CBDCs or some form of digital currency. Then what they're going to do is they're going to create platforms. In fact, it's called regulated liability network. They're actually building these things out where they're going to digitize and tokenize all of our other assets. So money is one form of asset. It represents about five percent of global assets. But our stocks, our bonds, our homes, our cars, everything else represents the other ninety five percent.

And so what the intention is, is to tokenize those assets And put them on the same platform with CBDCs. So now they'll be able to track and sensor and program not just our money, but all of our other assets on a common platform. And so the U.S. is building out one of these regulated liability networks. Japan is, Europe is, etc. And they're designing these so that they interoperate. Well, what that means is at the end of this you have one single global ledger process, that has everybody's assets digitized on it that can be centrally programmed and controlled. the actual purpose and the Furthermore, intent of this and the end game is to move to a global digital currency where the

digital currency is backed by energy credits. So this has been the kind of the goal and the dream of technocracy now since the nineteen thirties. And what I want to do is I want to show you a video clip that just came out. This is Derek Brose put this together. And I really encourage you to follow his work. he actually put on the People's Reset, If you don't, but he just released a video yesterday about technocracy. And I've talked about this, about technocracy, basically the form of government where elites pick scientists and engineers to make decisions for everyone. But he actually has a great video clip that I want to show you so that you can see what it's like in more detail.

So let me pop this up. As a technocrat, let's dive in. In the early twentieth century, a movement began to develop around a political theory known as technocracy, a system wherein management of governments is handled by technical experts, often involving technology-focused solutions. Early proponents of technocracy claimed that the concept would lead to resources and the better management of protection of the planet. However, this system of governance by technological experts and their technology would also involve a loss of privacy as well as centralization of power and the management of all human behavior.

Although the term appears to have been largely forgotten the technocratic philosophy and influence can be seen everywhere in our modern digital world. Already beginning to arrive at the huge civic auditorium where a large receptive audience turned out to hear Howard Scott as he warned of an impending crisis in America's domestic and foreign affairs. One of the most influential proponents of technocracy was a man named Howard Scott, a writer who founded the Technical Alliance in New York City in nineteen nineteen. Scott believed that business owners lacked the necessary skills and data to reform their industry and thus control should be handed over to engineers.

The technocrats publicized their vision of a centrally planned world via books, speeches, clubs, and political parties. This resulted in a brief period of popularity in the US and Canada and the years following the Great Depression. As politicians and economists searched for a solution to the financial calamity, the technocrats imagined a world where politicians and business owners were replaced with scientists, engineers, and other technical experts who would manage the economy. However, in the nineteen forties, mainstream interest in the technocracy movement seemed to dissipate. The ideas that underpin the technocratic vision received the notable endorsement in nineteen

seventy when political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski released his book, Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technotronic Era. Brzezinski will be familiar to long term researchers of the ruling elite. Until his death in twenty eighteen, Brzezinski was a diplomat who ran in the same circles as David Rockefeller and former Secretary of State and accused war criminal Henry Kissinger. Brzezinski served as advisor to several presidents, from Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. He was also a member of the Atlantic Council, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Although Brzezinski's book Between Two Ages substituted the term technotronic for technocratic,

the depiction of the future is the same, scientific and a world in which the technological elite centrally plan the lives of all humanity. Essentially, Brzezinski's vision is a technologically advanced authoritarian-style collectivism wherein individual liberties are subordinated to the apparent needs of the collective. When we examine the world of twenty twenty-five, we clearly see the signs of technocratic influence. For example, we can see this influence in the wealthiest companies and the most influential CEOs. These individuals are running companies that have amassed large amounts of financial wealth as well as unfathomable amounts of digital data on all of their customers.

From Jeff Bezos at Amazon, Bill Gates of Microsoft, Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook, Elon Musk of Tesla and SpaceX, we can see the technocratic ideology. These men and their colleagues in various technological industries wield immense power through their companies, wealth, and cultural influence. These individuals have enough money, resources, and connections to shape elections, geoengineer the climate, and cause dips in the stock market, to name a few examples. They are the technocratic class of you So I thought it was really, that was great work by Derek Brose. This is actually a small

segment from a longer, a fifteen minute clip actually that he had that goes into more detail about Peter Thiel. So I encourage you to check him out and he has actually the full video available for free on X and on other platforms. So I'm very grateful that he put that together because I think that he did a great job of actually framing what technocracy is all about and how we really are in a situation right now with a lot of the people that are surrounding the Trump administration are absolutely technocrats. I've mentioned this before, Elon Musk has tweeted on three different occasions about his desire to, when we go to Mars, is to install a technocracy. So a lot of what he's doing

with Doge right now I like and appreciate because he is truly exposing a lot of the fraud and corruption. My only concern is that it gets replaced with technocracy because we already know he's a technocrat. His grandfather was the head of the technocratic party in Canada. So this is a real threat. So this isn't like a pie in the sky thing or even a conspiracy theory. We are truly in a situation where people are pushing for uh the globalization of everything and the creation of a single digital currency backed by energy credits and um and I I talk about this a lot because you hear me talking about xeno you hear me talking about tokenization I've been working on tokenization since I've

been tokenizing and trading all kinds of assets and it's because whether you like it or not everything is going to be tokenized the question that we have is A token is just a digital representation of something. But in essence, a token can be an improvement over the current system, which is everything is currently in centralized databases that can be hacked. and where you can actually edit or delete entries. And in some respects, tokenization offers significant improvements for this in terms of security and enabling new commerce in a variety of different ways. But like everything with technology, there's a freedom component to it. And there's a tyranny component to it.

And you probably heard me talk about this time after time. But here's the issue. And I've said this. This is the frustration that I have with people in the crypto community. Because when I say tokenization, what most people think is they think NFTs or meme coins. Because by and large, that's almost exclusively what it's been about for crypto. But BlackRock and the large Wall Street players and central banks for the last several years have been working on a different form of tokenization. They have been, as I said, working on figuring out how to tokenize all of our assets, our stocks. our bonds and everything else. And so we're essentially not deploying this great

technology where we actually had a jump on it. Sixteen years ago, we haven't been using it for real commercial applications. We've been using it for, and I don't care if people do these things, but I mean, we've been doing these, you know, zero sum games, Ponzi schemes and things that are, you know, they're entertaining, right? I, I, I considered a form of gambling, but there's no, there's no voluntary commerce in which both parties win coming out of, out of meme coins and so while we've been obsessing on that this is what larry fink and black and black rock and others have been doing um are you planning on issuing any either meme coin tfs or anything like that now that the animal

spirits seem to be very much a lot I think the sorkin coin should sorkin coin we got to do a squat coin we've talked about a squat coin yeah I don't know Are you fascinated by this, by the way, just the whole phenomenon? No, I'm not. You know, as a huge believer of crypto and blockchain and tokenization, I mean, I want the SEC to rapidly approve the tokenization of bonds and stocks. That will simplify things, make things easier. Some of the tax on BlackRock, BlackRock would never have to vote on a proxy vote anymore because every owner or record would be notified through a tokenization of equities. And it would save more money for more people. It would bring down the cost

of ownership of stock and bonds. So those are the type of financial reforms we need. So there you see it. I mean, so Larry Fink is not interested in meme coins, but he's interested in blockchain technology as it relates to the multi-trillion dollar financial services market for stocks and bonds and derivatives. In fact, I think if you add up derivatives, stocks and bonds, it's like one point two quadrillion dollars. It's actually the largest asset class on on Earth. And so So he's jumping on that. He's looking for this kind of regulatory approval. But I will tell you, I've studied these things. I've written about it in my articles and books. You're not going to be able

to self-custody your tokens, your stocks and bonds. They've already... figured out a way or what they're working on and building out these keeping the same third structures is they're parties that keep the stock market inefficient. And they're just adding them on as a layer on top of programmable tokens. And so this is moving in the wrong direction. And they've been investing hundreds of millions of dollars on this. And so you've probably heard me, I've been pretty animated about this, but we're at the point right now, I was at a conference in Miami and somebody played this clip. it was I think it was the day this In fact, happened. And there were two other

talks and everybody was like all excited. They're like, yeah, Larry Fink is interested in tokenization. It's like, yeah, Larry Fink is interested in Proposing tokenization where it's a path to how we'll own nothing and be happy because it's going to provide the tyranny aspect of tokenization. And so this is real and this is a critical component of technocracy is the interplay between tokenizing assets and then tying those. to central bank digital currencies or stable coins, which, as we'll discuss later, there's really not a difference between the two from a practical standpoint when you're looking at surveillance and programmability. But lastly, and I've talked about this a

lot and you've probably seen me show you this. So if you say, well, you know, they want to change the whole economy. They want to move away from a price based system to an energy credit based system. Well, that's impossible. How are they going to do that? they've been talking about it since Well, the nineteen thirties, since the beginning of the technocracy movement itself. But they've moved beyond talking about it. And I've mentioned this Doconomy MasterCard before, which is a an actual product in the marketplace that people sign up for that shuts off when you've used too much carbon. But rather than me just talk about it, I'm going to show you their own commercial about this product.

In two thousand and eighteen, the United Nations released an urgent report emphasizing the need to cut carbon emissions in half by two thousand and thirty in order to avoid an irreversible climate crisis. The average consumer in Sweden courses around ten tons of carbon emissions each year, of which sixty percent is linked to consumption. Later in two thousand and eighteen the economy, a Swedish fintech took on the challenge and launched to a mobile banking service for everyday climate action. The two app is connected to a credit card that enables users to track and measure the carbon footprint from

each purchase and to compensate for its impact day by day. This spring, Doconomy took its fight against climate change one step further by adding a premium credit card to its offer. But instead of introducing a premium credit card with the typical benefits that encourages further mass consumption, Doconomy did the opposite by launching DoBlack, the world's first credit card with a carbon limit. Simply put, it's the first credit card ever to stop you from overspending. Not based on your available funds, but rather on the levels of CO₂ emissions caused by your consumption.

DoBlack helps you track your climate impact and ensures that you reduce it by fifty percent in line with the UN two thousand and thirty recommendation. The core purpose of Do Black is not only the ability to measure the impact of your consumption, but also bringing it to a direct halt, making it a radical tool against climate change. For years, credit cards have put a limit on our credit. Do Black puts a limit on our impact. so so this is real and you know you might be horrified like I am in watching that

video clip because what's actually horrifying about it is that that people signed up for it voluntarily and this has been a part of the indoctrination in our schools I mean if you actually talk to like if I talk to my kids my kids are fourteen but if you talk to uh the younger generations they are learning about climate alarm climate alarmism in school to the point where it's actually creating uh anxiety and you know I mean basically schools are teaching people this idea that you're the carbon that needs to be reduced or otherwise you know the the planet is going to self-destruct and so that kind of messaging and indoctrination works and this is how you end up with

some product like this doconomy uh mastercard but what you have to understand is I then started looking into this a little bit more they did a pilot with this but you can go to mastercard's website and you can see the list of all of the partners that they have working on these green initiatives so they're tracking carbon and for years they've been building this infrastructure so this is why whenever you buy an airline ticket now it tells you the carbon impact there are some places where you can go where you'll see a receipt Even if you go to a restaurant that gives you carbon impact information. So they have been behind the scenes for years putting in place what they need in

order to start measuring carbon credits or carbon output so that they can move towards a carbon credit based system. So this isn't now something that's like a technocratic approach. dream that will never be realized this is something that you know because of the internet because of ai because because of a variety of other things blockchain technology in cbdc's this is something that's a a real tangible product that they're moving to in the marketplace so against we are up against this is what we're up still this movement towards more centralization Movement towards one government, movement towards one digital currency, and movement towards a global platform where all

of our assets are digitized and can be programmed and then tied to things like social credit systems with AI surveillance. That is where things are moving. And you can actually see that as you travel around the world. So again, setting the stage, that is the problem. And that remains the problem. And the election... didn't change that at all. But I want to talk first and foremost about what the confusion is with this. So when When Trump says, sign an executive order, there will be no CBDC in the United States. And as I mentioned before, I was partially responsible for this in a very small

way by when I ran for president talking to Vivek. Vivek read my book. We talked numerous times about CBDCs. I tried to get Vivek to sign an In fact, anti-CBDC pledge before the primary in New Hampshire, but he had dropped out. Then I was trying to get him to get Trump to sign the anti-CBDC pledge. And then what he did do is he pushed Trump to come out in New Hampshire against CBDCs. And the problem is that now everybody is complacent about this because they think that all of this tyranny is now done and that the good guys won. Well, here's the problem. The problem is that when we talk about this dystopian plan for a global digital currency and where all of the nation states are

connected together and all of this is programmable, you have different entities that are actually putting the blame on each other for their role in all of this. You have commercial banks, you have the federal government and you have the Federal Reserve. And it turns out and I hate the central bank. The central bank should not exist. The Federal Reserve should not exist. It is a useless, unnecessary third party. It is an entity that basically they print money out of thin air in a database backed by government liabilities. And then they manipulate interest rates to control the supply of money. intentionally causing people to default so that they can steal people's real assets

on money that they printed out of thin air backed by the force of the state and collected by the IRS. It's an absurd system and it needs to go. But when it comes to the actual financial surveillance. It's not the central banks that are pushing this. It's not the central banks themselves that are pushing for tracking people's behavior. That hasn't been really how any of this has worked. As I said, the Federal Reserve is the Federal Reserve. They basically want to control the money supply, get a cut on every financial transaction that happens in the world and then to be able to, by manipulating interest rates, control the supply of money and take over people's assets. And these are people that

will commit genocide. They'll foment both sides of war just for an extra five percent yield. They're horrible people. However, when one of the things that I find the most frustrating is I'll see a politician say, I said, Ted Cruz, I talked to Ted Cruz. He's like, well, yeah, It's like, you know, he put forward a bill. we've got to stop these central banks from acting unilaterally. We need to protect American citizens from financial surveillance. surveillance that we have All of the financial came from Congress. So the Federal Reserve isn't going out of their way to figure out how to track or monitor. It's not even in their best interest to do that. It's not in their financial

interest to do that. They're not the origin source for this. I've identified thirteen different federal government programs that are used and involved in monitoring and tracking people's financial transactions. And so you have subpoenas and court orders. You have financial intelligence unit requests. You have the Bank Secrecy Act. You have the Patriot Act. You have intelligence gathering. You have something called a national security letter. So the government can come in, they're monitoring all of your transactions using the Patriot Act, bulk data collection from the NSA and everything else. And they can come in and say, hey, we want to shut you down and we're investigating you.

And you can't talk to anybody about it, including a lawyer. This is what a national security letter empowers the government to do. There are suspicious activity reports. There's civil asset forfeiture. There were data sharing agreements with other countries. mutual legal assistance treaties, SWIFT monitoring, IRS monitoring using AI. This all exists today. So when somebody says, oh, yay, central bank digital currencies, we're not going to have that doesn't change any of this. That doesn't change any of these programs. This doesn't change any of the surveillance. In fact, if you removed the central bank and let's say we had a model moving forward where the treasury was issuing money directly

with no person in the middle you'd probably have more tyranny because you would have the government having direct control an immediate control over all of these, all of the surveillance. I was at a conference in Dallas in twenty thirteen and I spoke with a number of these people. I spoke with Senator Ron Wyden from, I believe, Oregon. And because the talk was the panel was about CBDC's opposition to CBDC's. And there are a bunch of people at this event and there was like Cynthia Loomis was there and Ted Cruz was there and Warren Davidson was there, a whole bunch of these other politicians. And I'm like, well, I'm surprised Ron Wyden is there. Well, Ron Wyden is there is because,

you know, his view is, well, yeah, he doesn't like the central bank either. He wants the government to be able to explicitly. uh control the issuance of of money and wants to be able to control its use and its distribution so so getting rid of the central bank does not get rid of digital tyranny getting rid of the central bank does not change the technocratic vision of digitizing all of our assets and putting these things into a common framework and so I think it's critical to point that out because people don't understand that everybody thinks that the central bank The central bank is a useless, is the bad guy. horrible third party. But if you get rid of them, you still have all of the

negative aspects. of controllable, programmable digital currency. And then on top of that, as I said, you had Spider-Man, you have all these three parties pointing fingers at each other. Commercial banks go out of their way to work on their own policies and go above and beyond what Congress tells them to do or anything that comes out of the Federal Reserve. And one area where this is truly notably the case as it relates to debanking. And while, yes, there was a kind of Operation Chokepoint, a lot of the discretion. And when you actually look at where most of this debanking came from, you're going to find JP

Morgan Chase comes at the top of the list, find Bank of America as well. and you're going to then And they were going after people for very specific, targeted political speech. So this had nothing to do and this wasn't even led by Congress. with the Federal Reserve, Three examples of this are Melania Trump, Kanye West, and Dr. Joseph Mercola. So I say all this because state-issued money is the problem. And whether it is issued through commercial banks, whether it's issued through stable coins, or whether there is a central bank in the middle, it doesn't matter. The root of the problem is going to be the government. But then we have to look at the fact that with the

current system that we have, it is the largest banks that own the Federal Reserve. So the banks that are engaging in the worst behavior in terms of debanking, they are JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank. Those are the four largest banks. And these are the banks that are WEF partner companies. These are the banks that were pushing the ESG agenda. These were the banks that were ahead on DEI. So this entire ecosystem of the government, the central bank and the commercial bank is broken. It isn't just the central bank. So that's a boogeyman that Trump has been able to say, well, these are the bad guys. This is what you needed to worry about.

And it isn't what you need to worry about at all. you need to worry about the In fact, government and you actually need to worry about the Trump administration, which which I'll get into shortly. But I do want to play a short clip of this debunking just to show how bad this is. Here's a clip from Kanye West. I'm lit. You know what I'm saying? I'm lit. JP Morgan, I put a hundred forty million dollars into JP Morgan and they treated me like shit. So if JP Morgan Chase is treating me like that, how they treating the rest of y'all? That's outrageous, yeah. And this murder was with Chase accounts. Yeah. I am outraged by the time That's what I'm saying. people always they want to calm it down.

Because no matter what, you didn't break no law. I didn't break a law. I didn't break a law. judge or jury on anything. The bank shouldn't be a But this is it's like a social contract. Candace Owens has a word for I'm forgetting. But it's basically like they told Candace Owens she couldn't hang out with me. You know. So again, we've got three different groups of bad actors here. So this is important to know as we move through the rest of this presentation and start talking about stable coins. And so I wanted to clarify that so that, you know, so you move beyond this idea that it's the central bank that's the focal point of the problem because because they're not you can remove

the central bank you still have the same problems but they want to give an update cbdc's and so I often if I on the global state of was doing my workshops this would be an animated map and you'd see what's going on and you know as of last year actually they haven't even updated this yet it it still says that there are a hundred and thirty four countries globally working at various stages of development on cbdc's and that this represents ninety eight percent of the GDP of the world. Now, if you pull the United States out of that, OK, now it's one hundred and thirty three countries representing seventy two percent of the GDP. And as I will explain, the U.S. is essentially working on

the same effectively what you get out of a CBDC through stable coins, but overwhelmingly the majority of the world and the majority of global GDP is working on CBDCs. Not only are they working on it because of Trump's stance, And it's not because they're threatened by the fact that Trump isn't doing a CBDC. I think they're looking at the fact that we're pushing into stable coins and that stable coins as programmable money are going to give the United States a level of control. Imagine if we have programmable stable coins and Trump decides he wants to place tariffs on this country or that country. that all of a sudden becomes Well,

something that's easy to do with a programmable stablecoin. So I want to play a clip to show you that Europe and other places around the world are now accelerating their CBDC efforts. On your second point, I tend to share your views. Nature doesn't like vacuum. And we started working on the digital euro way back, actually when I started my term, five and a half years ago. And I'm not claiming, you know, parental, parentality on the digital euro because my colleague Benoit Coeuré had already committed a speech on this

matter before I arrived, but I certainly carried on with that project. And subsequently Fabio Panetta on the board and then Piero Cipollone who has replaced Fabio have taken the lead together with a very, very good team which is focused on accelerating the pace and hopefully campaigning enough with all the stakeholders, meaning European Parliament, meaning European Council, meaning European Commission, so that we can eventually, not put to bed, but put to reality this digital euro.

The deadline for us is going to be October. of twenty-five, and we are getting ready for that deadline, but we will not be able to move unless the other parties, the stakeholders as I call them, Commission, Council and Parliament, actually complete the legislative process without which we will not be able to move. And I think it is critically important, and it seems to the agnostic or the sceptics, it seems to be more relevant and more of an imperative now than ever before, both on the wholesale and on the retail level, both.

So there you have it. The EU is targeting October of this year to roll out a CBDC. And what she said was that it's important to do on both sides, retail and wholesale. And what that means is to replace cash for day-to-day transactions amongst the people of the EU. And then wholesale is for doing cross-border transactions and for financial institutions to interact with one another. So clearly this is a It's a global agenda and it's now on an accelerated timeframe. So again, the election didn't fix that. It's not like Trump said, we're not going to do a CBDC and now everybody else is saying, we're not going to do a CBDC either. well, It's the reverse. They're actually saying we're going to

accelerate our plans for CBDC. Israel, it was just announced last week or ago that they're a little more than a week accelerating their plans for a digital shekel. So they have put forward that plan as well. And so, you know, every week there's more news on this front. And as I have discussed in previous articles, you know, they're not just starting looking at CBDCs. Even in the United States, the United States started working on a CBDC in twenty eighteen. And the retail CBDC that we have, this Project Hamilton, was a collaboration between MIT and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It actually had one of the Bitcoin companies. core developers, a guy named Corey Field as

one of the co-authors of the white paper. So if you ever hear a central banker say, well, we don't know if we're working on this or whatever. what it actually means is we've spent Well, millions of dollars. We've been working on it for five years. We've already got a pilot that works and now we're just refining the final technology. Well, this has been going on globally now with, you know, one hundred and thirty four countries involved all around the world. one of the things that I've stated Now, over and over again, and I will have an update today to even prove this point, is that in essence we already have a cbdc so I I mentioned this earlier when money is created it is

created when the federal government issues an iou to the federal reserve and then what the federal reserve does is they create an account um and they create money out of thin air in an oracle database now I mean I could go off on the fact that you know the fact that oracle's first client was the cia and everything else that really doesn't matter but the point is oracle is a database and the federal reserve uses an oracle database and all of the bills that the federal government pays come out of an account from the central bank through an oracle database so by very definition of looking at the words that is a central bank digital currency it's also very programmable but

banks and commercial banks we also have commercial create their own money out of thin air backed by liabilities held in this Oracle database. And they use Microsoft databases and Oracle databases and a whole combination of databases. And here's the thing, Oracle databases and Microsoft databases are programmable. They have been programmable forever. this is what runs most of the economy. I mean, most economic activity runs on As I said, centralized databases and Microsoft and Oracle are the two leading databases. And so to explain how our money is programmable, account or a flexible spending account, If you have a health savings this is money tied to a bank account.

And so the largest provider of HSAs, it's a bank. And so literally they have millions of customers and you get a debit card and that debit card is pre-programmed. So you can only use the debit card to buy certain health care products at certain times from certain locations. Maybe you can use it at Walgreens, you can't use it at CVS. Or maybe you can use it for flu-related products, but you can't use it for this. So the whole point that I'm trying to make is that is programmable money on the existing system that we have. So people confuse other things about this. There's nothing that says that a CBDC has to be on a blockchain.

It just says central bank digital currency. It doesn't say... blockchain digital currency. So if we already have digital currency and it's already programmable, then we're in a real semantic circle jerk if we're sitting here thinking that we don't already have a CBDC because we do and it has all of these dystopian features. The other thing is this ties into some of the concerns Trump administration that I've had about the what you know rfk came out and said you know he wants to make it so that people on food stamps can't use uh you can't use food stamps for junk food you can't use food stamps to buy sugary items so of course I started looking into that and all right well how do

food stamps work well food stamps are also debit cards. They're issued at the state level. I think the largest provider of these cards, by the way, happens to be JP Morgan. And they're programmable. So when RFK says, well, yeah, we're going to make it so that people on food stamps can't buy Coke, can't buy Takis or Doritos or junk food or whatever it happens to be, people are like, oh, yeah, this is a great idea. We're going to make everybody healthy, not thinking about the fact that This is one more example of where we're now cheering on more programmable money using our existing system, which is already part of a central bank digital currency. Again, money's already trackable.

It's already censorable. I walked through that. But I'll play very quickly a short clip from RFK where you can hear him talking about this. Federal funding of the SNAP program, for example, and of school lunch programs could be a driver for helping kids. We shouldn't be giving sixty percent of the kids in school processed food that is making them sick. We shouldn't be giving, we shouldn't be spending ten percent of the SNAP program on sugar drinks. So we have a direct ability to change things there. We also So again, that's one area where this is happening. Now, this is something that just happened

So when I sent out this alert, today. this really highlights how programmable and trackable our existing money is. So just today, The US Treasury announced that the threshold for currency transaction reports has been lowered from ten thousand dollars to two hundred dollars for Americans living in thirty zip codes in California and Texas. So let me unpack that for a second. So right now, you may or may not be aware of this, but if you actually engage in transactions of more than ten thousand dollars, they're automatically reported to the Treasury Department. So this is this is already one of the things So when I when I listed the baked into law. thirteen different ways

that we're being tracked, literally we're being tracked. And this started with the Bank Secrecy Act in nineteen seventy. This is we're under the guise of anti money, money laundering laws. This is when they first started putting these things in place. And so they've added more and more and more surveillance. And so they're already tracking our transactions over ten thousand. But now today, the Treasury announced that No longer is it a ten thousand dollar threshold. It's two hundred dollars. Now, of course, similar to this snap. You have Maha people saying, oh, great. You know, we're going to make it so that programmable money can't be used to buy junk food. And now there's going to be

a segment of MAGA that says, oh, this is great. Look at this. Presumably, if this is in California and Texas, this is probably tied to illegal immigration. This is probably tied to deporting people and a whole variety of things related to this. And so people will cheer this on. But the problem is, what if it's a politician you don't like? What if it's a cause that you don't like? So people didn't like the debanking under Biden. Well, I mean, some of these activities and some of the things that are going on right now, it's the same type of activity. It's just in a different direction. You just happen to agree with the policy. So this just highlights, and I'm glad in a way that

this came out today so that I can actually... use this as a way to educate people on the fact that, yeah, these surveillance systems already exist, and this is how easily they can be changed. The Treasury Department can literally just announce, and then all of a sudden, like this, now they're able to track every transaction over two hundred dollars in these thirty zip codes. So this should be particularly alarming. So this highlights that, you know, again, our money right now is trackable, but it also shows and this was concerned about is that, you know, is one of the things that I if you're not coming at this from a principled perspective, if you're not looking at whether you believe in the

Constitution even still exists or not, but if you're looking at it from the standpoint of rights, or even natural law. What we have is a situation here where people are just completely changing, not changing their minds. They're just going along with something because now it's part of the in-group. Like for instance, I saw yesterday and I haven't watched news for a long time. But Sean Hannity has been a someone who has railed against the environmentalism and electric cars. And then yesterday he went out and bought a Tesla. And so, you know, so we have this situation where to me, this is why I think we're seeing we're going to see a hyper acceleration of not only trackable digital currencies,

but even digital IDs and everything else. And they're going to be they're going to use things like tariffs they're going to use things like illegal immigration and unfortunately it won't even run into any opposition so um so that that is a real concern so now I want to talk about what stable coins are and why I think they're a threat and in many ways a bigger threat even than cbdc's based on the actual state of their development and who's behind all of this And to make it very clear, I'm going to start off at a high level and then I'm going to move to more levels of granularity. But it is one hundred percent the policy of this administration to push stable coins.

And it has been stated over and over again by Trump and by members of his cabinet that America is going to lead the world in crypto, but then it's actually then morphed recently into we're going to lead the world in stable coins and that that is going to be how we're going to enter this golden age. And so I'm going to show you these quotes just so that it's not like I'm not like I'm not connecting dots. I'm not sitting here. I'm not like, oh, Right. I think this might happen or I'm projecting that I piece these things together. These are their actual quotes. from the administration. So from David Sachs, who is our crypto AI czar, who was part of the PayPal mafia, he was the chief operating

officer of PayPal and has been a venture capitalist investing in all kinds of digital currencies and everything else. His quote is, we'll foster stable coins, but only under strict rules. we have Scott Pezent, the US Treasury Secretary, stablecoins must be secure and compliant to protect the dollar's global standing. And this is an important point. Trump has been very adamant about the fact that we're going to make sure that America retains its status as the global reserve currency. And I'll talk in the end about how that, you know, again, that never ends well, but nevertheless, at least you know what Trump's intentions are. There aren't, there's not a lot of, there's no speculation here

about what's going on. And then you have and there's going to be a Howard Lutnick, lot that I'm going to say about him later in this talk, but he is our US commerce secretary. And his quote is, we're going to use digital assets to pound forward. And Donald Trump is leading the way. And when he said this, this was actually in the context of stable coins. And so they really do believe that stable coins are the way to go. And just to clarify, again, a stable coin is just, it's a digital token. where you know one one token equals one dollar so it's basically a digital token that is backed by dollars or treasuries that that equals one dollar so it doesn't well I have more to

say about this later but the whole point of crypto was to have peer-to-peer digital cash that didn't have central banks didn't have central authorities and that would enable people to engage Now what we've done is we've taken fiat, in commerce. we've taken the dollar, which has lost ninety eight percent of its value since nineteen thirteen. And now we've added a layer of technology on top of it that is programmable, trackable, also hackable. And so we've actually managed to take fiat and make it more risky, but also more heavily weighted in surveillance, which is a huge loss in terms of what cryptocurrency was supposed to be about.

There are two competing bills right now related to this. Last year, there was a Bitcoin conference in Nashville and you had all these politicians. RFK was there. Trump was there. Cynthia Loomis was there. And they talked about all these things, a Bitcoin strategic reserve. And they started to talk about the stable coin bills. And then this became part of the first one hundred days of Trump's administration was to put in place. stablecoin bill legislation now the way that this was propagandized was and these are always buzzwords but it's like well we need to provide rule of the rules of the road what the market wants is clarity And the market doesn't actually want clarity.

The existing incumbent players want clarity. The people, the entrenched interests want clarity and more accurately, they want enough time to be able to buy enough political influence so that rather than being disintermediated or losing their market position, they figure out a way using the state and using laws to take over the innovative technology. That's always what those things So there is a stable act that was introduced on February the sixth. You have Representative French Hill from Arkansas, who's the chair of the House Financial Services Committee. And then you have a guy named Representative Brian Stile, who is a Republican from Wisconsin. He's on the House

subcommittee focused on cryptocurrency. So that's one bill. That's not the main bill. There's another development as of today, which is called the Genius Act. And it was introduced on February the fourth. And from the very outset, this was the bill that had a target passage date of Trump's first one hundred days. So by the end of April. And I will say today they just had a vote and it did change. get out of committee. I think it was a vote of eighteen to six. So now this genius act, stablecoin bill, is going to move to the full Senate for a vote. And the main people behind this are Senator Bill Hagerty, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Cynthia Loomis. If you've been following me for a while,

you may have heard me talk about a Loomis-Gillibrand bill. Because for the last two years, in twenty twenty three and in twenty twenty four, Loomis and Gillibrand had put forward legislation that addressed stable coins and addressed a lot of these topics before. And if you heard me talking about it, I was not very charitable, I guess, in my analysis of it, because these bills basically gave. more control to banks, more control to the Federal Reserve for oversight. And then they specifically targeted decentralized finance, DeFi and algorithmic stablecoins, outright bans on those. So I've been very critical of this. The Genius Act is actually worse.

It actually has tighter regulation. And it's very clear, and I'll go through the specifics of what the intent is for this. But somehow they made it worse. So they went from the standpoint of where you might think, well, Loomis-Gillibrand, it's a bipartisan bill. But Biden was president, so they were probably just trying to get something through. And it was probably something that wasn't ideal, but they thought it might be feasible politically. And then now Trump wins and there's Republican majorities and they actually made it worse and more dystopian. This is going to be hard to see. I'm going to put this up, but I'm going to explain at a high level what the impact of this is.

And this kind of compares the Stable Act and the Genius Act. reconcile these two bills. And eventually they'll But in essence, there are common themes for both bills. So big banks exercise and get more control over stablecoins in both of these acts. Now, the Genius Act is focused only on payments so the use of stable coins again a coin that's where one coin is backed by one dollar um the genius act focuses on the use and payments to buy and sell things uh but does leave some area for for things like defy so people that are doing decentralized finance or even doing cross-border category of different payments there's a whole

things those things are not considered payments the house bill actually uh controls all aspects of stable coins not just the use of stable coins for payments and so the stable act will actually just crush decentralized finance it gives more control both to regulators and to the oversight there are all federal reserve for kinds of reporting requirements and so this is one of these typical deals where you know the reporting requirements are so high And because you have to be a registered financial institution, then what that's going to mean is any private stablecoin companies are going to have to be acquired by large banks in order to be able to comply, which is what I think the

intent of all of this is. But it's going to be it's going to stifle innovation because of all of the reporting and audit requirements that are put in here. It's going to you know, again, stablecoin issuers unless you're a bank. it's going to be bad for It's going to be very damaging to the DeFi ecosystem. Again, it pushes CBDCs in a way because, now you do have a programmable form again, of money that is tightly regulated by the government and overseen by the Federal Reserve. So it doesn't matter if the currency is issued by... programmable digital From our perspective, from a privacy perspective and from a surveillance perspective, I don't care whether Jerome Powell issues the digital

currency or Jamie Dimon from JPMorgan Chase issues it. It's the same from the standpoint of charity. I mean, it's bad for privacy because it's all these bank secrecy laws, anti-money laundering laws, KYC laws. So if you've ever had to deal with crypto, I mean, even getting on an exchange now, you have to go through biometric identification and everything else. And so now this is going to become... So it's going to become more the norm. difficult to use stable coins than it is even to use a bank account or use a use a crypto account. There's an aspect of this where it seems to me that and I'll get into this. There are. This bill to me is all about giving complete control of

stable coins to large banks. But there are two private players, USDC and Tether. And I think the Senate bill was designed with a carve out to allow Tether to continue to to exist because it allows foreign issuers to still be able to to issue these currencies, whereas the House bill does not, so there's even more control. So, but again, they're gonna reconcile these bills. And when they reconcile these bills, you always get the worst case scenario. You always get more regulation. So arguably this is good for, you know, Monero, Zeno and Bitcoin. I mean, to the extent you're, you know, making your Bitcoin private,

it is going to be good for those that are actually interested in using alternative currencies, because this is, both of these stable coin bills are going to increase the tracking and programmability of the dollar. it is the digital dollar in I mean, tokenized form. So that is where we are. And I encourage you, if you don't believe me, you can read these bills. I'm writing an article. I'm finishing up the article. I've actually written it, but I'm editing it now for the Brownstone Institute. So everything that is in this talk is going to be there with links but you can download the state both of these bills and you can either read them yourself or you can run them through

ai or do both which is what I did the the genius bill is only fifty seven pages and you can skim through a lot of it but it's in there and in black and white so this is not not great if you're you know interested in privacy so again I I go back to where people are celebrating that Trump is against the CBDC, but what is the practical effect of that if they're hyper accelerating stable coin bills? And Biden was incompetent at pushing CBDCs. He was great at lawfare, but he had no ability to actually push through or get a CBDC implemented. As you'll see here, I mean, the people that are behind this pushing the bills, funding the bills, and then even companies

like Tether and USDC and their ties to the Trump administration, they will be able to get this done and they will have these rolled out this year. And in some cases, some of these private stable coins already exist, but they'll probably be subsumed by or will be even more tightly regulated by the federal government. So I'm going to walk through now some of the Trump administration ties to stable coins. And I'm not trying to make up a conspiracy theory here. The main point of me actually pointing this out is just to show you for how long people at Tether and USDC have actually been working with people in the Trump administration and how much influence they have at this point in time,

just so that you don't walk away from this thinking, oh, well, none of this is ever going to happen because it's been happening. And I wanna take a brief step back understand the influence of Because it's important to the PayPal mafia on the Trump administration overall. So the PayPal mafia, this is a group of people that worked at PayPal and related companies. You may not know all of these people. These are famous entrepreneurs and famous investors. But I'm going to point out a few of them. One, Elon Musk was a co-founder of PayPal, along with, excuse me, Peter Thiel. And so, of course, we know Elon Musk's ties to the administration and what

he's doing at Doge. But one thing that I think is very important for people to think about and to put on the radar, Elon has announced that X is going to be rolling out X payments this year. What they've been doing is they've been working on getting money transmitter licenses in all fifty states. So you can imagine a scenario here where if we have stable coins, one or more stable coins, and then X payments integrates that, then all of a sudden you're logging onto X. And if you go through the process of getting your blue check mark or whatever, you're already going through a identification process through a company tied to Israeli intelligence. And then you're gonna be using X payments,

which is something that will likely be integrated with one or more stable coins. And so I want you to just start thinking about what the implications of this are. in the broader context of this move towards technocracy. you have Peter Thiel, So you have Elon Musk, who is all over this administration. He hasn't not been public about it, but Peter Thiel is the co-founder of Palantir, which is one of the largest contractors to the CIA. Peter Thiel is the reason JD Vance is the vice president. He actually introduced JD Vance to Trump and actually lobbied and pushed for that to happen. And so, you know, he's been a big proponent of obviously digital payments and technocracy as well.

And you can watch that other Derek Brose piece. And then you have down here, David Sachs. So David Sachs was the chief operating officer of PayPal. He is now the AI and crypto czar for the United States. And he's also heading this digital assets conference. And he's been the one stating that America is going to lead the way. So the PayPal mafia is is all over this administration. So to give you a Quick summary of each of these companies. So Circle is the company that owns USDC and just a little bit of background about that. So again, USDC is a digital coin that's always worth one dollar. They currently have a market

cap of about twenty five billion dollars. Now they've raised over a billion dollars from big investors like Goldman Sachs, Visa and BlackRock. And Goldman Sachs was one of their very early investors. And unlike Tether, which I'll talk about in a minute, they do audits. So at least that's a plus. So they do audits and proof that they actually have the assets underlying the token. So that, you know, if I say a dollars, one token's worth a dollar, then that means I actually have the dollars to back that up. So they do audits for that. But I want to note that at one point in time, USDC had three point three

billion dollars in Silicon Valley Bank. So. I think that these stablecoin ideas Again, are ridiculous because the core problem is fiat currency itself, which which always fails. Now you're adding technical risk and other risk on top of that. But they had three point three billion dollars in one bank. which means that that would have only been FDIC insured for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. As I recall, I've been trying to find the clip. David Sachs was literally, I think, on a podcast or on an interview crying about Silicon Valley Bank. So when you watch these VCs like Jason Calacanis and these people on the All In podcast or whatever, remember when that bank was failing,

they were crying everywhere, writing op eds for The Wall Street Journal. They all got bailed out. And Circle is one of the companies that got bailed out. So I say this just to, one, show how risky stablecoins are, even worse than fiat, but then also to show how rank the cronyism is here. And I'm going to read this just because I enjoy writing this. It was cathartic for me to write this response. This is Jeremy Allaire. He is the CEO of USDC. But I wrote this response to this just because of how absurd even the concept of stable coins are. But he put out this tweet, tap to pay using USDC on iPhones incoming soon. Wallet devs, start your engines.

To which I wrote, the sheer unadulterated gall of it all. The cryptocurrency revolution, we were told, was all about freedom, about liberation from the shackles of the existing financial order. about the creation of a new peer-to-peer system of exchange unencumbered by the suffocating grip of third-party intermediaries. Bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, was supposed to be the embodiment of this ethos, a decentralized, trustless, and permissionless system in which transactions could be conducted directly without the need for banks or governments or any other parasitic middlemen. But alas, it seems the ideals of the early cryptocurrency enthusiasts have been utterly betrayed.

The latest innovation to be touted by the cryptocurrency crowd is the integration of USDC, a stablecoin pegged to the value of the US dollar, into Apple's iPhone via the tap to pay feature. This, we are told, is a major breakthrough, a game changer, a revolutionary development that will bring cryptocurrency to the masses. But let us take a step back and examine the sheer mind boggling complexity of this innovation. In order to use USDC on an iPhone, one must first have an iPhone, which is, of course, a product of Apple, one of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. Then one must have a wallet app, third party company and which is developed by a which must be approved by

Apple before it can be installed on the iPhone. And then, of course, there is the USDC itself, which is issued by a consortium of companies, including Circle and Coinbase. And which is backed by a reserve of U.S. dollars held in a bank account subject to all the usual risks and uncertainties of the traditional financial system. of third party So let us count the number intermediaries involved in this, quote, peer to peer transaction. Apple, the wallet developer, Circle, Coinbase, the bank holding the reserve, and of course, the U.S. government, which guarantees the value of the dollar. This is not a peer to peer system, my friends. This is a Rube Goldberg machine, a complex and convoluted

system of intermediaries, each taking a cut, each adding a layer of risk and uncertainty to the transaction. And what of the risks, you might ask? Ah, the risks are legion. There's the risk of Apple's iPhone being hacked or compromised in some way. There's the risk of the Wallet app being buggy or insecure. There's the risk of Circle or Coinbase being hacked or going bankrupt. There's the risk of the bank holding the reserve being insolvent or experiencing liquidity crisis. And of course, there's the risk of the US government itself defaulting on its debt or experiencing a catastrophic loss of confidence in its currency. this my friends is not a recipe for freedom or

liberation this is a recipe for disaster a catastrophe waiting to happen and yet the cryptocurrency enthusiasts will tell you this is the future that this is the way forward that this is the solution to all of our financial woes so I you know again I read that because I think that actually pretty clearly articulates why how far off base we have gotten even with these stable coins and these are private stable coins um before they get merged into the banking system and regulated under these genius and stable coin bills. So let me talk a little bit about USDC Circle and their So first and foremost, ties to Trump. they just donated a million dollars. They made a million dollar donation to Trump's

inauguration committee. Now we can take a step back. Trump's previous treasury secretary is a guy named Steve Mnuchin. And Mnuchin overlapped with this guy named Brian Brooks at a company called One west bank brian brooks later became coinbase's chief legal officer so this is this tells you this is really interesting this brian brooks guy so he was pushing a digital dollar by circle which was co-founded with coinbase and the center consortium pegged one to one for the dollar. He was Coinbase's chief legal officer. And then he became the acting comptroller under Steve Mnuchin in the Treasury Department in

twenty twenty and was pushing private digital currencies and boosting USDC's growth. So so the ties to USDC, literally involved one of the top people at USDC working in the Treasury Department, actively working to promote a digital dollar. So this is not even a new concept. This is something that has been going on for quite some time. So that's Circle. Tether... also called USDT, is also a digital coin that is pegged allegedly to the dollar, where one tether equals one dollar. It is by far the largest player in this space. They have a market cap of one hundred and forty billion dollars. And their investors are even shadier.

It's a company based in the British Virgin Islands. It has Brock Pierce. You can look into his background. Sam Bankman Freed was an investor. And then more recently and more alarmingly, Howard Lutnik, his firm, he was the CEO of Cantor Fitzgerald, just invested six hundred million dollars in Tether and manages all of Tether's treasuries. So all of the assets that Tether claims are backing the one hundred and forty billion dollars worth of tokens in the marketplace are being managed by the firm owned by the guy who's now the US Commerce Secretary. That's a little bit of a conflict. Importantly, Tether has never been able to complete an audit

And on numerous occasions, they've run into issues with this. They were fined forty one million dollars by the CFTC in twenty twenty one for misleading investors about their reserves. And in fact, in the time period that the CFTC examined this, Tether only had reserves about twenty seven percent of the time. uh so it wasn't fully backed one to one and they've had ongoing legal problems they had an issue that they also settled with uh the with the state of new york and on ongoing probes into money laundering risk the other thing is they've there's a heavy correlation and intertwined between tether And I could have this big whole diagram on this, but essentially one of the

large investors in Tether is also an investor in Bitfinex, which is a large cryptocurrency exchange. And there was an analysis done that's debated, but that suggests that well over half of the increase the pump in the price of Bitcoin in twenty seventeen was due to tether. Now, I want to paint a scenario here for you. So imagine this. So we are know that we already know that the dollar in the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air backed by nothing. But what if tether is also printing fake tokens, not even backed by fake fiat? And then that is what's being used to pump the price of Bitcoin. So there is speculation that that's happened.

of Texas actually did an Somebody at the University analysis about this. And so it's conceivable that we're dealing with a meta Ponzi scheme here. I'll talk a little bit more about Howard Lutnik. And so the conflicts on this are incredible. So not only did his firm make a six hundred million not only did they manage the treasuries, dollar investment, But they've never passed an audit, but yet he's actually come out. He's come out and basically said, well, Tether has the reserves. Basically, he said, trust me, bro, on one hundred and forty billion dollars. And to me, in a way, it wouldn't be surprising. I encourage you to look at Whitney Webb and CoffeeZilla and you can dig

into this some more. There's Bitfinext, which is an account on X. There's a whole bunch of information about the backgrounds of the people in Tether and kind of the whole thing. origin of this. And I mean, it is beyond shady. The other thing is, Lutnik is the commerce secretary. So focusing on forming trade relationships with other countries. Tether just relocated to El Salvador. So there's a whole bunch of stuff going on here. And I will tell you, we may very well have in the makings, if you've ever seen that movie, The Big Short, we may be in the middle of the big short two point zero. And the thing is, with political connections like this, this is the kind of

scenario that leads to, you know, if Tether all of a sudden blows up, then the government gets involved and there's something like TARP and then the Federal Reserve ends up bailing it out because this is how tightly intertwined now the administration is on multiple angles. And so, you now have a commerce secretary, the treasury secretary and the AI cryptos are all pushing this same agenda. So it's going to be really hard for these people to admit if these things turn out to be a scam or that maybe this isn't a good idea. So again, another reason for a red flag. The other thing that from the standpoint of stable coins being like CBDCs, Tether and CBDC are already

kind of programmable, trackable, freezable, and they're already working with the feds. This has been going on for years. Now, you'll look at some of these examples this sounds legitimate. and you may say, well, hey, And some of these may be legitimate cases, but Tether froze twelve million dollars in twenty twenty four related to an alleged scam. They seized one point four million on some other case involving an unhosted wallet. USDC had a crisis. And actually, my understanding is The Federal Reserve, well, the Federal Reserve did step in and bailed out Silicon Valley Bank and part of that bailed out USDC. Had Silicon Valley Bank not been bailed out, USDC would have been bankrupted.

uh we've had usdc tornado cash freezes russian funds blocked tether froze four hundred and thirty five million dollars worth of wallets so again my my point here is um this is programmable digital money so so this doesn't so so these stable coins are not exactly um providing extra value and if if you're looking at these I think the administration and everybody is looking to say, well, we're not doing CBDCs, but we're doing stable coins. And then people are not questionable. What is a stable coin? What does it mean that it's a stable coin? Is that better or worse? I mean, how is it? Would it be worse if the Federal Reserve was issuing the token versus a company like Tether that may not

even be backed one for one, but still can do all of the tracking and have all of I don't know. the money frozen? You tell me. But to me, It isn't very clear that this is a more advantageous situation. Now, when I analyze these bills, I will tell you, this is just a prediction. So this is pure speculation on my part. But in particular, looking at the bill in the Senate, which is likely to be the dominant bill, and it's definitely the bill that will be passed first. I think these bills are designed to make it so that in the end, Tether ends up being acquired by JPMorgan Chase and Circle USDC ends up being acquired by Goldman Sachs. So then what you're going to have is a situation where

you have a programmable digital token issued by a large banking institution, the same banking institutions that have been involved in debanking and doing all of the other things that people don't like. with even tighter regulation under these bills. So this is a very unfortunate circumstance. Whether this turns out to be the outcome or not, I don't know, but it certainly looks like it. And the reason I came up with this analysis is just simply based on The size of Tether, one hundred and forty billion dollars. But the fact that the compliance requirements under these bills and the fact that you have to be a regulated financial institution will make it so that they have to partner

up with with one of these banks. Now, imagine a situation like this. And this is why I want people to think kind of outside of the box of just saying, oh, well, we don't have a CBDC. I don't have anything to worry about. imagine Trump comes in and abolishes Well, the Federal Reserve, and then the Treasury starts issuing directly to JPMorgan Chase after it acquires Tether. Is that a better outcome? I mean, again, we don't have the third party in the middle taking a cut, but the lens that I'm looking through this is, tracking programmability and it being the gateway to social credit systems and integrating with this global platform where all of our assets are tokenized

so if you get rid of the federal reserve and you have the treasury issuing uh security tokens through jp morgan chase through tether that I'm arguing is not any better at all than having a cbdc But it is more likely to actually get done, and it is more likely to get done in a very short period of time, not in decades. But if the ECB is working on their CBDC by October, I wouldn't be surprised if we don't have something more substantial with larger banks issuing or some of these mergers happening by October of this year as well. That's why I put urgency behind this, because We're very quickly going to

be in a place where everybody has just accepted CBDC level digital tyranny without questioning it or understanding it because a different label was put on it. So now the question is, what is the solution? And I go back to, and I wrote an article about this as well. We already have a CBDC, but there are levels of tyranny. And my article was Fifty Shades of Central Bank Digital Tyranny. We're already at this kind of level two in the middle. where systemic bondage, where we already have widespread surveillance. It's already digital. There are increasingly restrictions, which, again, we're seeing with things like the food stamp program or with what Trump did today. The end game worst case

scenario is one global digital currency, complete surveillance, all of our assets digitized. But we're already kind of DEF CON three. We're not like we're not sitting here worrying about something that might we're in the middle of it right now. We're boiling. We're the frog boiling in the pot right now. The solution to this remains the same. And in fact, what I'm trying to do is the challenge for me is a year ago, people were concerned about CBDCs and people were starting to wake up learning about central banks. They were starting to learn about privacy coins and everything else. And then literally they just shut off. And so the response that I get from people is, oh, yeah, well,

Trump said we're not going to have that. So now they're not looking into any of this. They're not understanding what any of this means. And if you look at what the politicians say versus what is actually in the bills, it's all propaganda, which last week I also touched a bit on the Bitcoin strategic reserve. That's also propaganda. They're making a claim that there's no taxpayer money involved, which is one hundred percent false. And I've documented that and I've tweeted about that as well. But it's complicated because now it's more things to explain to people. Um, so I am still, you know, I'm working on new workshops and figuring out a way to make an online workshop so that we can

onboard more people. Uh, I still recommend cake wallet, which is integrated Zeno. So you actually have multiple privacy coins in one easy to use wallet. There is something called confidential layer that should be launching this month that will allow you to, um, take your bitcoin bitcoin cash in ethereum and bridge it into xeno so now it's private so now it's not on the surveillance ledger where it can be tracked I did talk a couple of days ago about the fact that you know often people in crypto and bitcoiners will say oh I lost my keys in a boating accident and it turns out that actually isn't even a valid excuse now that they can actually track people's ownership through chain analysis,

you're actually not going to be able to pull that off. And in fact, in the future, if you lose your crypto and you don't report it, you may end up having liability related to that. So privacy remains important. I'm continuing to work on the Karma, which is the gold-backed privacy token that you'll be able to redeem one for one for gold, but that has the privacy, excuse me, and other features of Zeno. And so, you know, you can learn more about all of this. So the updated daylightfreedom.org website has information about all of this. So all of the up-to-date articles on CBDCs, stable coins,

which will be published soon. I'm going to do another one on the Bitcoin strategic reserve. And then this also contains up-to-date resources on what I'm using in terms of recommended wallets and that kind of thing. All of that is available for free. My purpose in doing this is to just get people to stop using fiat currency and to stop the spread of whether it's central bank digital currency or stablecoin. I guess I need to come up digital currency. with a new a new acronym instead of calling it CBDC tyranny. But nevertheless, there is still CBDC tyranny and the seventy two percent of the rest of the global GDP is moving full speed ahead. So I'd love to open this up for four questions.

I actually did send some links. I was going to get some people to come on for an interactive Q&A. If anybody wants to come on and join live, I can I can give you a link for StreamYard here. In fact, I'll put it in the notes here. So I would definitely love to get feedback on this. I know there's a lot of information I mean, in this and this is the problem with this is you've got to explain what is a stable coin? What are these relationships like? What is this bill like? It's easier if you can just say, oh, well, the central bank is going to issue a currency and it's going to be one thing and it's going to take over. This is now more difficult to explain. But the threat is is worse

than under Biden, because, again, we could have these things all implemented. know starting this year as opposed to way out in in the future and the only way to combat it is and you know actually I thought I had a interesting there's a whole series of slides that didn't come in here but but I have talked about it before so fiat currencies have a zero percent success rate the average fiat currency only lasts for twenty seven years there are seven main reasons that a fiat currency fails mismanagement or corruption whether it's economic or overexpenditure on the military, competition, technology, et cetera. And usually when a currency fails,

Zimbabwe, whatever it happens to be, Argentina at various points in time, they've had... Again, eventually it hits everyone. But usually when a currency fails, it's for one or two out of the seven reasons. through the list of the seven, And if you actually go the US is... flashing bright red on all seven. And so we keep on having this process where we flip from one global reserve currency to another, expecting that somehow that's going to give us a different result. If it fails a hundred percent of the time, And it doesn't. then maybe we ought to try a different approach. And the different approach is to separate money and state. The reason I'm doing the gold token is

see if we ever get an audit of Fort Knox. And it'll be interesting to I suspect we probably won't. But the problem is state-based money. Even when the nation has gold and backs their currency by gold, what ends up happening is they just decide arbitrarily, well, we need to increase the money supply. We want to buy more things. We want to bribe more voters. And so they just abandon the gold standard. So that's happened not just in the United States in the early seventies. commonly what happens and so the idea is well what if you had a currency that had nothing to do with the state nothing to do with government spending nothing to do with politicians whose purpose is is just to

be a currency that anyone anywhere in the world can use for um for peer-to-peer cash and for daily transactions. And so I'm actually saying, I just realized I didn't send out a link. I'm gonna have a couple of people join to do kind of a interactive conversation, but I did put the link to the StreamYard in the notes. So if you wanna join as well, happy to talk about this. I'd love to get some feedback and just, I wanna make sure, this was clear and that what I said actually made any sense because I'm sure it was a lot in a short period of time. So I want to make sure that people understand this material because there's a lot of propaganda out there. Hi, Dan.

How are you? Hey, Aaron. How are you doing tonight? Good. Great show so far. It's good. I went through a lot of material. This was kind of an update of everything that I've been talking about for the last couple of years. But with the big update on what's going on with stablecoins, even as of today, the accelerated push for stablecoins and the fact that the Treasury Department basically just said, you know, so under current law today, Any transaction over ten thousand dollars gets flagged and sent to the Treasury. They just today changed the rule so that in thirty

different zip codes in California and Texas, they reduced that threshold from ten thousand dollars to two hundred dollars. So what that means is, you know, most transactions in these thirty zip codes are now being directly tracked by the Treasury. And so it's important because I always harp on the fact that we already have a central bank digital currency, that we already have all the surveillance. And that move today by the Treasury Department highlights that. And now with the stable coin bill. that's going to give control of stable coins to the banks with oversight by the Federal Reserve, we are going to effectively get what everybody was worried about under Biden with CBDCs,

except it's going to be issued by Jamie Dimon and JP Morgan, or it will be merged. Tether and USDC will merge in with one of the larger banks, and then we're going to end up with the same dystopian nightmare. Thanks for the show, Aaron. This is great. You're really summarizing a lot of the things that I don't think most people have been able to wrap their head around. The big question now is what can people do today, tomorrow to prepare for alternatives? It's to start using alternatives. during the talk and I hold One of the things I said to it is like the whole purpose of this,

people ask me all the time, oh, why don't you go testify in front of Congress? It's because Washington DC is not persuaded by information. That's not actually what is driving this process. There's a lot of money that has gone into effectively funding a lot of these congressional campaigns. A lot of these elected officials now own these cryptocurrencies. So nobody's going to have any interest in actually changing course just because the facts are inconvenient. And in fact, further to this point, cynthia loomis and the loomis gillibrand bill which was the precursor to this genius bill she's been very adamant against privacy and you will hear

everybody rally around this idea of we have to have all of these protections in place to protect against terrorism and money laundering that is like the trigger word that is like the oh we're gonna get get the fear of god into people about if we don't track all of this stuff we're gonna have terrorism and money laundering. The reality is, as we've learned, the Treasury Department spent four point seven trillion dollars and didn't actually take notes or document where the money went. So we don't even know where all of the payments went. We also know that the person that was in charge of disbursements basically never said no to anything. And it turns out the Treasury Department was

directly funding terrorist activities. So the problem that we have is we were supposed to have this constitutional form of government where, you know, the role of the federal government was explicitly defined as to what their area was and everything outside of that either goes to the states or goes to the individuals. But then on top of that, we have the Fourth Amendment. where privacy is critical. And somehow this is morphed into, if you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about, kind of mentality. And it works. So there are a lot of people that just actually believe this now. And there's no evidence that the bank secrecy laws or the anti-money laundering

laws have done anything to actually stop money laundering or terrorism. The original bill was passed in nineteen seventy, the Bank Secrecy Act, and the purpose of it was to stop organized crime. Well, guess what? It didn't work. So we're sitting here now. We're talking about how bad cartels are and how bad everything else is. Well, wasn't that taken care of with the Bank Secrecy Act? And of course it wasn't. So when you look at what they were trying to do in nineteen seventy. And then what the effect was, added all of these costs, the effect was they've all of this tracking, all of the violation of our constitutional rights, and they haven't stopped any criminals. And they've added an

incredible cost and economic burden to the economy. So anyway, the point of it is exit the dollar, start using privacy coins, start using gold and silver. That is the answer because the root of the problem isn't the central bank. It's the central bank and the government and the commercial bank. It's all three of them. So getting rid of the central bank does not get rid of digital tyranny, does not get rid of programmable money, and it does not stop the halt of technocracy. You had mentioned a confidential layer on the Xano blockchain. could they potentially... Is that like a wrapping, like people would wrap on Ethereum or with DeFi,

or is that something different? It's basically a bridge. There are nodes, so it's a... There's no third party involved. It uses threshold signatures. I'm not gonna go into all the detail of it, but basically it's gonna be as easy as you'll have a wallet and you'll connect, I wanna go from Bitcoin to Zeno within the wallet. And it will basically lock your Bitcoin. And then on the other end, you'll have tokens that represent your Bitcoin. with no third party in the middle. It's an actual blockchain itself that is decentralized with a bunch of nodes that actually make that entire process happen. But the key to it is that the fees are actually low because a lot of the stuff,

when you're talking about wrapping something with Ethereum, then you now you're dealing with a smart contract that can be hacked. bunch of different fees. And then you have a whole I think the fees for this are like point five percent. So it's it's dramatically less expensive. And then just to go through the process, there's no third party. There's no smart contract. It's an instant thing that you can do within the wallet and then you can actually spend your your bitcoin with the privacy features of xeno which is the same essentially security model and privacy model as monero and I would imagine my next question would be more for xeno developers so we but if can you touch on whether

or not holders of other coins would be able to get on that confidential layer Of other coins Yeah meaning like you know XRP or you know whatever You know the hot coin Of the month is for other people For right now, the focus was just on Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum. They may add more. I think that there's some complexity and some issues related to... It's probably not going to be something where they're just going to add the hot coin of the day just because it's a lot of work and then it's actually taxing on the system that might raise fees for some of the other stuff. But they might. But for right now, I mean,

if you look at the market caps of... Bitcoin cash and Ethereum, that actually gives you a lot of purchasing power that will then be able to be spent in a private way. All right. So if I'm hearing you correctly, Cake Wallet holds a bunch of different privacy coins. And before some of these laws come into effect, that might limit. And I realize you're not a lawyer or whatever, but so people should start getting and using privacy coins and get private as quickly as possible. Well, yeah, you should get private as quickly as possible if for no other reason that what we've learned is a lot of people don't realize how

trackable their Bitcoin is. And I know we talked about this the other night, but I mean, I've had multiple people in the last ninety days that I've dealt with that have have gotten involved in situations where there is there's chain analysis being done and there's kind of legal processes going on where people are actually looking at this. and looking at these transactions and tracing the blockchain. And so there are all of these new forensic people involved and now they're mapping out the blockchain. So it's become important in Bitcoin and people may or may not be aware of it, but they certainly should be when The reason they should be aware of it is that the U.S. just announced a Bitcoin

strategic reserve that is funded by two hundred thousand Bitcoin that was stolen through civil asset forfeiture. And that shows you what you need to know about the ability for Bitcoin to be tracked and for people to be able to. Confiscate it through legal mechanisms, there is another guy that that They tracked his Bitcoin. They knew it was his Bitcoin. And he refused to give up his keys. And so they're now fining him ten thousand dollars a day until he turns over his keys. And so so it's going to be critical that that people move to privacy coins or start bridging their transparent coins into this.

Because, look, you have to be concerned about you have to be concerned about The Trump administration, it doesn't matter what the administration is, but look at what Trump is doing. If they're going to change the programmability of food stamps, and then they're going to start adding new tracking and reporting on everything over two hundred dollars in thirty specific zip codes, we're clearly moving towards more surveillance and more programmability, even under Trump. So even if you have a bullish scenario of Trump, Trump is moving more towards more programmability and more surveillance. So they can pretty much, you know, anybody that says they lost their Bitcoin in a boating

accident at this point, they can track that down, freeze it. And at this point, hunt these people down with the BTC. Yeah, yes, that's exactly right. Now, I mean, if somebody mined Bitcoin and then never spent any of it and then they claim they lost it in a boating accident, OK. But I mean, at some point, if you want to use it, it's going to be tracked and and so and you know we're not very far away from a situation where you're going to have to register your bitcoin we we already got last year in the irs regulations you have to start reporting your self-custody crypto holding so it's not so you know they're all of this legislation and all these politicians talk about the

fact that they're going to protect self-custody but that doesn't mean they're going to protect information about your self-custody assets. In fact, it's the opposite of that. Well, OK, great. Now I've got a self-custody asset and the government knows everything that I spend because it's tracked on a public blockchain. Why is that exciting? I see we have a two hundred dollar reporting to the Treasury, then that also applies to things like Venmo, Zelle, Cash App. I mean, if those services are tied to bank accounts that are in those zip codes, then presumably, yes. I don't know for sure what's involved in tracking the

existing system other than the thirteen different programs that I laid out for how our existing financial system is already surveilled. Somebody wrote they do everything that they accuse we the people of inversion world. I mean, this is exactly true. The Treasury doesn't account for their money. They fund terrorists. And then we have to comply with biometric screening and report to the IRS anything over six hundred dollars through Venmo. I mean, it's it's backwards of what it is supposed to be. And it's not like they're actually and it's never about catching criminals. It's always about control. That's been the whole push. Even from the head of Bank of International Settlements for CBDCs,

the whole push is not about convenience. It's about control. We have a new guest on here, Don Finley. Hi, Don. Hey there. How's it going? I really appreciate all the work that you're doing. First of all, thank you. Thank you so much. Right from your first book, it opened my eyes to what's really going on. It's amazing. I had no idea. been a monetary reformer for thirty years and I wonder if you could address the the fundamental problem of all money systems is that they're based in debt yep so you can you can craft a new weapon a new handgun

put in a new model make it out as gold or silver or whatever but unless you get into the underlying problem that all money is debt that carries the burden of interest that we rent everything from, it doesn't matter whether it's a government or whether it's from corporations, because both are in the money game and both are printing money and charging interest and enslaving our lives by this burden that we have to carry around. So this is a perfect opportunity. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. to actually get enough people interested in thinking about what would

be a better system to introduce the idea of a debt-free money system and do a jubilee and release people from all the existing debt and start all over again. What do you think? Can you get into this? I don't know what the exact solution is. What I've been looking at recently are this idea of network states. I'm certainly a fan of separating money and state. And I think that having money tied to government and tied to the issuance of debt, well, it doesn't work. It's never worked. And it's a bad idea. And it always ends the same way because it is based on debt. Politicians always move towards spending more money. And so it's this debt-based

money that creates the boom and bust of nation states. So I think just separating money in state and having money that isn't actually tied to government is an And there's another thing interesting approach. going on with network states where you have people that are getting together that have a... common interest, common ideology, and then forming communities, first virtual communities, and then going and looking to find actual sovereignty. And so this is an area I've been in. So do I have an answer? I don't have an answer. I have a This is what I'm exploring because this is what I think this is interesting. I think this is I think the idea of more decentralized states where states are

experimenting with different kinds of models is it's something that I'm very curious about and I'm researching more. But it doesn't answer all of the questions of what do we do with what we have? What do we do with the debt that we have? What do we deal with the existing nations? I mean, there's a so it's certainly not a there's no silver bullet there. But this is where at least my intellectual curiosity is going. Right. Well, I'd like to humbly offer an opinion that you can find on my substack. Okay. What's your substack? It's a pretty unique opportunity where people themselves create the money supply. So there's no government. It's actually money represents money.

productive community focused work that you've already done. So you perform labor, you get a receipt that becomes the new money. And so it's based on time, it's based on genuine output that benefits people other than yourself. So it has to be community focused and it has to be productive. Anyway, it's a totally radical different concept that A, people create the money themselves, B, that there's no debt involved and there's a whole credit concept renewal uh yeah what what's your what's your sub stack sub

stacks um my name don findlay dot sub stack let me call it up and give you the right one gratitude It's hdppsdonfinley.substat.com. And there's like the last seven, eight articles. I've really been diving into this, trying to get it out to a broader public. And like I said, I got introduced to monetary reform back in the nineties, ventured off to Paul Hellyer's cottage for a weekend and he blew my mind. He had assembled people from

the States and Canada. Paul Hellyer was the, what do you call it? Vice Prime Minister in those days, whatever he was called, I forget. He also ran our Navy and Armed Forces. So it was a high level meeting with a lot of very clever minds. And since that time, I've been trying to live up to my commitment that before I die, I solve what could this life have been like had we not been captive by the bankers and the users who put the chains on us with this debt-based system.

So please have a look at it. And what we really need, I think, is you know this opportunity to start from scratch again well for god's sakes let's let's dig into the fundamentals of what is money supposed to be first of all and how can we get it to to serve everybody yep I agree well I signed up for your sub stack and I will I will take a look because I mean certainly um one of the things that I did last year I you know I I gave a talk on this to a thought would be interested group of people that I and they weren't and this was before the election and you know my premise was you know america has clearly fallen off the rails and

it's it's not just a matter of we've deviated from the constitution but there's a question of well let's go back to first principles and let's go back to the founding principles and what were the main ideas that they were debating even prior to codifying them in the Constitution. And I couldn't get people to engage in that. There was almost this, well, the US system was the best system there could ever be and don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. But then when you look at it, it's like, well, we've already thrown out the Constitution and I think we've already thrown out most of the founding principles. So have we not? I mean, maybe it's possible that in two hundred and fifty years we

have not learned anything fundamentally new that from, you know, from a first principle perspective would would change the outcome. I find that hard to believe. And that's why I've gotten really interested in these network states and in a particular guy named Sterling Lujan. Who writes about this? He has a great sub stack as well He speaks about these concepts all over the country. He's working with a couple of organizations one called polis and another called I'm not remember the name of it. Anyway, he's working on technology to help empower Network states and so very very excited about that Do you know of any networks that are operating on a

time-based criteria for money? I don't. And I know that a lot of these, you know, I will say I'm very worried about technocracy. And honestly, some of the people that are working on these network states, I think, might actually end up implementing a technocracy after all. But I mean, I don't have to agree with the And part of the whole point network state. of the network state is You're doing experimentation. You have a lot of different approaches. But not that I'm aware of. I mean, there's one in Singapore. There's one that Brian Johnson is working on, the guy that does all of the biohacking. In fact, a lot of the network states that are forming are communities

that are interested in solving a particular type of problem or other. so um but not that I'm aware of but I I'm going to check in with sterling I'm actually going to do an article on network states for brownstone just to give it just an introductory article because most people aren't familiar with the concepts but then sterling is actually going around the world visiting these network states and he's writing a book which I I've had him on my podcast before and I'm gonna I'll have him on again and I'm really looking forward to his book because he's he's living it. So he's actually going out and experiencing network states, and he's working on technology for network states.

And then he has his own organization that is working on trying to help network states come up with best practices. Because if you think about it, most Most governance throughout human history has been, well, here's a family that had power. I mean, it was done by force. Nobody was sitting down saying, well, hey, scientifically, this is the best way to... Here's the best practice for governance. Nothing was really generated from best practices. Most of it was generated from force. And so... There's a lot of experimentation that can be done. I certainly don't have the answers. And in fact, my outlook is that I don't think there is an answer. I'm more for more options, more choices.

Yeah, I believe that the government has been taken over. We're no longer ruled by a democracy that puts the public interest first, the common public interest of the average working family. And it's, you know, it's difficult. I was born early enough that I witnessed, I lived through the time of exception, which I classify as the period between the end of the Second World War and about the mid-seventies, where all boats were rising. You know, the money, a good portion of the money here in Canada, anyway, up to twenty percent was created by our Bank of Canada, interest-free and loaned to

the government. There was no inflation that resulted from it. Inflation was low during that period. And we built the infrastructure that sustained Canada and allowed us to grow. So all the roads and airports and hospitals, the only reason we could afford them was because they didn't come out of tax money and because they were financed interest free. And today that's gone. We've completely lost it. Nobody even talks about it. They say, oh, well, the government can't just create money. of thin air because it'll be inflationary well that's exactly what the banks do is create money out of thin air and then they make it worse by adding interest on

top of it so it's even more expensive yep so you know we really got to get back to fundamentals about a who is money supposed to serve and who is the government supposed to serve and what's the best way to get off this interest bearing debt bearing trap and liberate people Can you guys hear me or am I clear on my mic? Yeah, I can hear you. So Ian Freeman, it was on the air, uh, talking about Bitcoin and, um, uh, one of the biggest activists in the whole world. He had satellites in Africa, Asia, two hundred radio stations across the United States telling everyone use Bitcoin, be your own bank.

Uh, don't take part in your own oppression. Um, and, I think he had Bitcoin ATMs a few places in Concord. And so this guy is one of the best activists, but you see how they targeted him. And then there's another guy, Roger Revere. He comes out with this book, hijacking Bitcoin. He gets arrested maybe three weeks after that in Spain. Now these are some of the biggest activists in the whole world. targeting the central banks with some of the best information on like solutions on what to do. And it looks like they're just rounding these guys up, putting them in jail, making an example out of them. And so as far as solutions go,

is there anyone better than Ian and Roger? That's the kind of question I'm wondering right now. Well, this is what we're trying to build. This is what Daylight is trying to do. So this is part of my motivation for this is to literally go around the world teaching people how to do this. So onboarding merchants, onboarding individuals, building marketplaces, building gold-backed privacy coins. This is the whole purpose of what we're doing. But there isn't anyone better and they were shut down for that reason. They were targeted because biden signed an executive order that authorized the cbdc and also authorized a crackdown of crypto in the same executive order and the reason for the

crackdown on crypto was to remove competition so the reason that people like roger and people like ian were targeted first is because they had been the most effective and they were kind of the you know ground zero for the beginning of this but we can all step up and do two things. One, we can try to get them out of prison and get them out of their situation, which is the best thing that we can do to help hyper accelerate adoption. And then the other thing that we can do is not be afraid of the chilling effect that the lawfare that they've experienced was intended to have. I've taken it as kind of a personal mission to say, okay, you want me to not engage in cryptocurrency and you are

putting these guys out there as an example to say, don't do cryptocurrency. So I guess given my personality, that emboldened me to say, you know what, I'm gonna go around the country and teach people how to do this. So those are the two things that I can come up with, but I'll tell you, there are reasons. but it's been problematic even even for ian and roger if you look at what's happened with that in the early days I learned about crypto from ian and roger but crypto's been hijacked there are fewer people using crypto even before their legal problems the because bitcoin was hijacked and turned into this digital store of value narrative people stopped using cryptocurrency

And so the problem is that when I go around trying to get people excited about doing this, there are a lot of people that ideologically originally signed up for crypto as something that you could use as an alternative to the central bank. And now they're kind of like joining the central banks now they're cheering on black rock they're giving money to politicians so that the taxpayers theft is used to buy their bitcoin or confiscated through civil asset forfeiture so the problem is the people that should be our greatest allies are not and now we have to go find new early adopters that uh that you of it originally but know weren't weren't part they're there and it's just uh it it takes a lot of

extra effort to find them and a lot of extra effort to build tools that are easy enough to use where you can actually onboard them quickly enough and have retention. I see John Bush is here. Hey, John, how are you? There you go. Can you hear me? I see John Bush, and you're not muted, so... It looks like he's frozen. Oh wait, hold on a second. I guess he was on there twice. Hold on. Hey, there you go. Can you hear me? All right. I can hear you now. Cool. Hey, yeah, man, keep up the good work,

You're just absolutely Aaron. crushing it on this front. And it really is a critical, a critical space to be involved in. And and I'm totally with you because, you know, I've been was in the crypto since twenty twelve, twenty thirteen. I was at that Perkfest, too, where Vitalik was walking around and then Eric. and Roger and Charlie. We're getting people onboarded. And it's wild how the space has changed so much, unfortunately. There are still the cadre of agorists and anarchists that are wanting to create a parallel economy. But a lot of the momentum kind of got shifted into the number go up. But it is really challenging too.

And it's easy... People think that we're just gonna be able to spin up all these alternatives out of nowhere if we need to, when the pure need arises. But as you point out, the need is already there. And it does take like boots on the ground activism. to identify merchants and to go talk to those businesses and to accept crypto in your own business, right? It's not the easiest thing to get someone set up and onboarded. I would encourage people as far as activism goes to like identify, let's identify core needs Needs before wants. And a big one is food, of course. So like a great piece of activism would be to identify local food

producers or people that sell food that you know of and see if you can get them set up on Monero. I know there's like the Beef Initiative. They're all into Bitcoin and the Lightning Network and stuff, which is better than nothing, at least. But I think we need to get more people onboarded. onboarded to monero and try to use it as much as we can um but it's not easy it takes work I honestly don't think that we'll be able to get the mat like mass adoption I think that we may already be strategically beat on that front but we definitely have a whole lot of people that are that are agorist that see through this the the lies and the deception and I think it's important that we organize amongst

ourselves start trading amongst ourselves the education piece is important I think we can get mass adoption Well, after we get innovator adoption and early adopter adoption. What's frustrating about this is we're sixteen years in and we actually now have to go back to innovator. And that that's that's a that's unusual. And that's the that's the challenge. But I agree with you one hundred percent about the going after the needs. You know, in other words, one of the things I think we need is a marketplace, but that's not Silk Road for drugs, but that's Silk Road for the base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. So food and health and all the other things that's user friendly.

And I've added that to the list of something that you could build on Zeno. So with escrow accounts and one of the things that is powerful, everything else, but we still need some of the tech development to happen is you know, confidential layer will allow you to take your Bitcoin and Ethereum and Bitcoin cash and make it private. And then you're going to be able to spend then imagine if you could spend your private versions of those currencies in marketplaces and through merchants that accept the bridged private versions of those assets. And so There's kind of a roadmap developing, but, you know, and Dan, I think to your point, the barrier here is we've got to connect the dots and

have easy to use solutions for merchants and for consumers. And I think with Roger and Ian as well, I mean, they've run into those problems. I know Roger's always been an advocate. He's invested in all kinds of different bit pay payment processors. It's funny. I just saw a thing today that I liked that somehow came up in my feed from a uh, February of last year at some touch to pay thing. And there was a video of Roger testing. I think it's called it. I don't even, I've never used it, but, uh, I saw there was a video I liked from, from, from, uh, February of last year, but we haven't cracked the code yet. People are using Venmo. Right. People are using, uh, they're using these stable coins.

And so it is all about UI and there's, there is somewhat of a, within the privacy community, there's almost a, uh, cohesion around, well, you know, We're kind of outcasts. we are cool. And so having it be hard is kind of like part of the cost of entry to being in the club. thing is like that, I'm not saying the whole but there is an element of that. And we've got to get around that if, if we want to have reasonable adoption. Do you think that the any pay guys consider coming back to the United States? I don't know why they would. Because everybody that has been been targeted under Biden lawfare criminally is

still suffering. There's been no relief. In fact, I mean, we talked about this two days ago. So and it's actually part of this whole talk today. So Trump has said, we're going to be Bitcoin. we're going to be crypto, But what has he done so far? He started a Bitcoin strategic reserve based on civil asset forfeiture, which is theft. And he's promoted stablecoins, which are backdoor CBDCs. They've given relief to people that were sued under Biden by the SEC in prioritization based on the amount of money you donated to Trump's campaign. So I don't know why anybody would come back to the United States or would build something here. If you are concerned about

privacy and building peer to peer cash, because this administration has not indicated any interest in those things. Furthermore, they've made it so that meme coins are legal, but you still can't invest in a company. You can't buy equity. You still have to be a high net worth individual. You still have to pay tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees. It's still true that unless you're wealthy and unless you can work through the existing process, so you can't, You know, you have to be protected from investing in Amazon or an AI startup, but you can put all the money you want in meme coins that are by definition Ponzi schemes. So, you know, I don't know. I think something would

actually have to change before they would consider that. Now, the question also is, like, what is the value backing all of this stuff up? In most cases, it's a dollar. Some cases, it's gold. But gold is a cyclical reference to dollar. Gold's value is determined in dollars, and dollars are determined by the amount of gold. So it's like the cat chasing its tail. They're both dependent, interdependent in the same thing. So what's the value of a dollar? What's the value of a yen? What's it based on? It's a notion in motion. It's not tied to anything in reality.

Well, there is no intrinsic value. Things are always priced based on what the market thinks something is worth. Exactly. So is that the best that humanity can come up with? we'll just let the market decide and what's the decision based on it's based on what's best for me the most I can squeeze out of somebody well the market's based on a a collectively, it's based on people dealing in their own self interest. The problem is, the reverse of that is technocracy, where people think that they can actually design something for everyone. And that usually turns out to be much worse than markets. I've yet to see an example

of where people have out engineered the market. I know that Ernest Hancock Yeah, I know. calls it catalactics. Things are worth exactly what they're worth. Yep. So that's true. So I don't know. I don't know what, you know, again, there's a lot. There are so many things changing. The impact of AI, I think, is not fully well appreciated or understood. And it could be a great thing or it could be a bad thing. I think for me, most of these things tend to break down the lines of decentralization versus centralization and freedom versus tyranny. I think that those are generally the

the big dimensions. And so I like some of the decentralized AI, but I don't think people understand how profoundly AI is going to impact things. And usually people immediately get into this mode of, oh, well, this is going to replace me. It's going to be horrible. But usually that turns out not to be the case. Usually technology, just because you can't think of the new opportunities that are created by a new enabling technology doesn't mean they exist. And usually they're more numerous, but it depends on how the technology is rolled out. But I looked at this thing today. One of the things their agents Let me see if I can find the newest one. It was, excuse me,

a Chinese company called Manus. and it's a general ai agent you basically type in what you want and it will continue to iterate and go through the process and not just give you back output of what you should do it will actually do it so you can tell it to build a website and that that solves a b and c problem and it will figure out how to solve the problem and then they'll actually figure out the website and configure the website then they'll actually And so the next level of AI are going to be agents and you're going to have agents talking to each other. There's a lot of things going on and there are implications for this because there are substantial productivity

enhancements that come from this. And there is a real question of at what point So much of economics and so much things is based on the idea of scarcity. A lot of scarcity is manufactured, but there's a certain level of once you get to a level of technological sophistication where we do kind of move from scarcity to abundance. And I don't know what the answers are to any of that. And there are a lot of problems related to all of it as well. So there's a lot of murky stuff ahead. But it is fascinating to see what's going on in AI and in crypto. Totally. And the other thing that's important is who gets to design what's in AI. What are the parameters of

knowledge that are allowed to be included? That's very important. Well, this is, again, where I think the market is the best solution for this and decentralization is the solution for this. Because the last thing that I would want are the elected blackmailed people in Congress determining that. Those are the least effective people at doing this. The corporate crowd are just as bad, though, or worse. In fact, they're indistinguishable now. Well, some of them are indistinguishable, but it depends on what you're what you're using, because I can use Venice AI or I can use Mike Adams as Health Ranger is releasing his. It's kind of like with crypto. Yeah, there really aren't good venture

capital backed corporate crypto projects, but there are numerous crypto projects that are that are fantastic and that are very innovative. like Monero and Zeno and others. They're not corporate, but they're certainly not government. And they are very decentralized and they're open source projects. And so the top-down thing is, again, to me more worrisome because then you end up with a situation where you're picking experts and the whole expert thing has turned out to be a fallacy. So it's, you know, So again, I think with AI, the decentralized approach is great. The reverse of that is terrifying.

Open AI, anthropic, Google's AI. But of course, the funny thing is, I'm old enough to remember doing startups when Silicon Valley used to be kind of libertarian leaning. And I've actually talked to some people about this. I mean, there was a time you know actually even in the eighties where I mean california didn't turn into a completely blue woke state until after the eighties and some of the original vcs there um are are unrecognizable compared to the people that are that are there now but it gradually drifted and some of that drift and a lot of people don't know this is because a lot of the venture capital firms get their money from public sources of funding. And the public sources of

funding actually have ties and strings attached. So a lot of the VCs are even in California because the largest investor in venture capital firms is the California pension system itself. And they'll say, well, we'll give your venture capital firm one hundred million dollars, but you have to only invest in companies that are within this radius of whatever, San Francisco or L.A. or within California. And you have to meet these social guidelines. Well, none of that was actually implemented. the case that that wasn't how this worked you know going back to the eighties and so now we have a situation where what we call venture capital is actually mostly owned by public pension funds and

university endowments which I would argue is not not really very capitalist hey aaron I got a question about mrna vaccines with uh ai technology and palantir and forty billion dollars passed on the first day of the Trump administration. Do you know anything about this technology, what it does and its relationship to Palantir? I don't. I actually haven't heard that one. I think the thing that I heard that was even more terrifying than that was the five hundred billion dollar Operation Stargate project, which is Softgate, Oracle and OpenAI. And and Larry Ellison from

Oracle in the press release talked about how one of the uses of. the five hundred billion dollar investment was going to be to apply AI to mRNA technology. But I wasn't familiar with this Palantir piece. I'm not surprised, but I'm not I don't know anything about it. I might be wrong about the Palantir piece. But I think the forty billion dollar mRNA AI, it might be behind Palantir. I don't know who else would be behind it. And I know Palantir is, aren't they a military AI company? Yeah, I mean, they are an AI company.

They work with the CIA. They work with law enforcement agencies around the United States. I mean, they're getting to the point where they're working on, you know, tech that's involved with like pre-crime systems. Actually, their CEO is a guy named Alex Karp. He lives in New Hampshire. And one of the other things that's happened, and I had in the presentation, I talked about the PayPal Mafia. and the impact that the PayPal mafia has on the Trump administration. The PayPal mafia, all of the people that were associated with PayPal are Elon Musk. I mean, there's like a dozen of them, but Elon Musk and David Sachs and Peter Thiel are the three big ones and they have massive influence.

The only reason J.D. Vance is the vice president is because of Peter Thiel. Even Hulk Hogan being at the Republican National Convention and doing that speech, Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan. Peter Thiel was outed as being gay by Gawker magazine. And Peter Thiel was so pissed off about it that he funded a lawsuit where there was a sex tape released by Gawker involving Hulk Hogan. And so Peter Thiel behind the scenes funded the lawsuit to bankrupt Gawker and was successful at it. So Peter Thiel is so wired in behind the scenes that people have no idea how much influence there is there. But in addition to Palantir, there's an association

of like six different AI companies that got together at the beginning of the year and decided that they're going to start competing and bidding as a group for defense department contracts to compete with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, and all of the other companies. And so it's really insidious and it's pretty frightening actually. Yeah, it's kind of like a lot of these sci-fi movies like the Terminator, the Matrix. It seems like they had the year to two thousand twenty nine and in a lot of these. But it's kind of scary how real life is shaping up to be like a sci-fi movie sometimes.

Yeah, no, it is. I mean, if you one of the rabbit holes to go down is to look at robot technology. And there are now competing, you know, Musk says, I think within the next two years, they're going to be like a billion robots or something. I can't remember what all that was. But you actually look at these Boston Dynamics has been showing the evolution of of their robots. And now it's gotten to the point where. There was one that I saw last week that that mimics the in fact, I think it's called Clone. where somehow you're involved in the creation process and it actually maps to all of our bones and muscles and like it imitates the actual, the other person.

And there's Andril, there's, uh tesla robots and google also is working on a robot and then they're tying these things into like open ai and grok and I've seen where they're getting some of these examples intricate I mean they can do dishes but then they actually have fine capability to be able to like pick up a grape without bursting the grape and so um so this could go either really well or really bad I I actually one of the funny things is there's there's a whole Theme that seems to be that a lot of people that I know they're like they're like doomers where their assumption as well You know, we got to go to little house. It's all about survival. It's all about little house

in the prairie I've got to grow my own food. That's the direction and it's headed in and and I feel like you know okay well that's one approach but I could also see you know you could program a robot with best practices for farming and have the robot do the farming I mean is the is the essence of of humanity that we should spend ninety percent of our time on subsistence is that the maximum expression of free will I I don't think so But certainly technocracy is the negation of free will, because once you have scientists and engineers and central planners making decisions for you, then you actually are not exercising your free will. You are following a control

system and like a social credit system. So that's where that line between freedom and tyranny comes into play with AI, with digital currencies and with tech in general. Yeah, it's getting very dangerous, dangerous. I don't know, what's your take on the chance or likelihood or wisdom of considering a third way?

It's always been either capitalism or communism, that's it. and under the communism you have you know socialism and under capitalism you can even go as far as fascism and technocracy but it's always those those two polars north south you got to choose one or the other the ballot parties political parties have lined up in the same framework so that you got to choose one or the other. What if there was another one? What if we introduced a third pole that had neither capitalism or communism, was individualism and localism and bringing back the idea that people,

individuals are born sovereign by giving that gift from creation. They don't have to borrow it from government or claim it from government by birth. And they should be the supreme authority over their lives, not everybody's lives. authority to tell anybody else what to do, And they don't have the but they have the supreme authority over their own life. And you take that and you broaden that by going locally. into your environment and your municipal structure and making that the next tiered down from, so individualism is supremacy and no one has the right to tell you what

you must do or how you must live or what you must inject into your body or any of that crap. And then from there, the next level is local municipality level where you can actually reach the people that are around you physically and face to face and make decisions at that level and basically usurp the power of federal governments and provincial governments and fold them all into a local administration. and get rid of most of government? I believe that the answer is neither government nor corporate, but it's basically consumer, it's individual rule,

which free markets were supposed to be, but we never had free markets beyond the first, until Rockefeller introduced his ideas and we lost it in the early nineteen hundreds. But that's the most viable like, a fair way to get along peacefully and socially because capitalism and communism are certainly not social. They're antisocial. I mean, I don't know if I don't know if actual free market capitalism is antisocial, but I will say this. So I went to I spoke at the G. Edward Griffin's Red Pill Expo. And he gave a talk on he's

been working on a project to to push kind of what you're talking about, to push for localism and to get people involved at at the town level. And I'm in New Hampshire. I'm part of the Free State Project. I've gotten involved in politics at every level, ranging from running for school board to running PACs to running for president. Like it's been a wide range. And the conclusion that I've come to is that this localism approach, it might work, but it's probably not going to work unless you have like minded people. And I think what you find is that I know a lot of people that are in localism find themselves in the situation where they're outnumbered nine to one politically.

And so this is why I like the idea of network states because I actually think that you need to find your people that are ideologically aligned in order to find a place to have some form of localism. The problem with localism is it's dependent on provincial and federalism. in order to exist. And that has defined in people's minds what's realistic, what's possible, and should I support this? Is it realistic? Is it possible? Or is it a waste of time? So you have to change the concept of federal and provincial as well, or state. And then local becomes the

most efficient way to administer directly to the people in that locality. Well, yeah. So, I mean, I think that, again, there are experiments like this. There's, there's Liberland, which I don't think I'm going to be able to speak at it, but there's Liberland and there are, there are some projects, there's some stuff going on and, Honduras, there are some places. I would argue in the United States that your best shot at this would be in New Hampshire if you got a group of people together. There are some towns that are small enough. For whatever reason, the Free State Project hasn't done this. Most people live in these big towns where they're outnumbered politically. Most of the hardcore

political activists are in towns where they lose almost every election. Occasionally, they'll win one, but they won't They won't have control of a school board. They won't have control of a town council. But there are some towns that are small enough that you could move five hundred people, a thousand people, and you could actually have a pretty good run of it. But again, to me, it's all experimentation. A lot of this is, you know. Thinking outside of the box, and so many people think narrowly about, they don't think about anything outside of the country they were born in, and they don't know anything about it. There's so many people in America that think that America is the freest

country in the world and all this other stuff, and I'm telling you, they clearly haven't traveled. There's a lot of stuff going on in Mexico. There are a lot of intentional communities and kind of different political structures that are kind of running on their own outside of the existing structure. I'm not saying that Mexico's ideal for a whole variety of other reasons, but there are pockets of things. there are probably more of what we In fact, would call network states that have been around for a long time, just not on a blockchain that nobody talks about because they're actually just self-sufficiently running on their own and probably want to be left alone and not have their

story publicized. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, well, the problem is they're still dependent or confined by the money system, all these federal, national, and international barriers that are set up that are the control grid, that are the money system, that are the decision makers, the Googles and the Apples and the government and the military and all that crap. with that framework in place there's very little room for um you know individual or local freedom so my idea is that you have to like the best tool if the if the problem is a national

international um problem which it is because we've been brainwashed into thinking about what money is and what politics is and what government is. And we've been propagandized all through our lives into thinking this is reality, this is how it works, and you're an idiot if you think otherwise. So until you get to that core, if that's the root of the problem, solution has to be to go to then the root of the that core and say, okay, this is wrong. We need to rethink the whole bloody thing. Now, I would have said right up until five years ago that this is impossible. This is impossible. We're too entrenched in our

way of thinking. But COVID brought up so much new awareness of how unjust, unfair, how, like George Carlin says, it's a big club and we ain't in it. Most people... would never have heard that or understood what that means. But since COVID, like millions of people have woken up. And so now might be the opportunity to actually go into that big question and say, okay, is what we've been told in history look, and what we've been told in tradition and all that, really the best way that we can live as a species? Is it even sustainable

enough for our species to continue on the path that we're going and, come up with a better system and you know, get everybody to think seriously about it. And that's the problem I've found from surveying people and starting up groups and, you know, doing on the ground action is that the, you can start an idea and you get some early adopters and it starts to grow, but then growing beyond that, you, you hit this hurdle of, well, most people just, they don't, they don't, they can't think about stuff like that. They're too busy in their lives or it's, it's too big for them to think about. Yeah. I've been talking about this

since about and it actually started when I got involved with this blockchain project called Ravencoin. I don't know if you're familiar with Patrick Byrne. He was the CEO of Overstock. And his idea, he was one of the first retailers to take Bitcoin through Overstock. And he was gonna pivot the entire company. He was gonna sell the e-commerce business and go all into blockchain, but not I'm going to buy a bunch of Bitcoin and hold it. But he viewed blockchain technology as a way to create a blockchain tech stack for human civilization. So you could apply blockchain to voting, supply chain, capital markets, fundamental pillars of society, all of the kind of the but that become corrupted

by third parties. And so by having kind of a transparent blockchain, you can get rid of those third parties and then perhaps rebuild civilization. So I've been I've been talking about this, working on technologies and everything else. And to your point, I can tell you there are not many people that want to talk about this. And there are people that I would think that are kind of on the cutting edge that would want to talk about this. And people are really, really entrenched in preserving the existing systems. And they do not want to go out of their comfort zone into thinking about, oh, well, what if this breaks down or if this system... You know, it's like we've got to restore the republic.

We've got to fix America. I think we need a good video or series of videos or, you know, presentations that actually, you know, some of the best documentaries like Big Picture Company, Com, they... cinema qualities, professional quality videos that portray what life could be like if we got rid of say debt and interest and government and taxation. We don't need any of that bullshit. If we empower people to trade fairly amongst themselves, it will be a huge transformation that will be immediately interesting to everybody.

Well, I will tell you where I'm actually pulling it up right now. This was from February twenty two of last year. And so there are kind of two So one of the things that I realized is, issues with this. you know. And this is the challenge that we have. When we're essentially competing with technocracy, because technocracy doesn't allow for other systems to coexist alongside it. When you look at the WEF and UN Agenda, it's actually about controlling and regulating all assets and everything on earth, the land, the air, the sea, everything on it is centrally controlled. So part of how I even got into this,

fighting the CBDC issue is I realized that unless we actually remove enough energy from that system, cause that is their control point, then they're just going to dominate whatever. But then what I, but then where I got with it was I went down this first principles thing and, you know, kind of, all right, let's, so my idea was there, there's some things that I liked that I've, that I've always, that I always go back to that I found to be really fascinating I liked um uh watching like a decent debate like william f buckley versus gore vidal or something like that but then there was something that uh uh milton friedman

did he he had that series free to choose And what he would do is he would do these things where he would present something, a video, like he had that iPencil video to show everything that was involved in that. And so he'd do his presentation. And then he would have a panel of people that would discuss that didn't agree with him necessarily from all sides of it to actually critique and have a conversation about what he was doing, an actual thoughtful conversation. In some ways, this is how I've structured this. I haven't figured out how to do it, like to have people come up and do this kind of like interchange that we're having right now after I present something like I just presented.

But that's the model, because I always thought that was a really fascinating approach of, all right, well, here's my thing, but then let's have an open discussion about it. And then let's let other people do this. And so I thought, All right. Well, I don't know the answers. In fact, and I don't even want my goal isn't to create a single answer. I don't even think that they're, you know, again, the technocrats want one solution. I like the idea of there are millions of different solutions. I don't necessarily want to enforce like think that I'm going to find the best one and that should be enforced on anyone. But what I what I thought about was the idea of actually creating a Web site.

where you would actually take first principles and you would have people debate on those first principles. You'd take some concepts like liberty, equality, republicanism, federalism, limited government, rule of law, in your case, capitalism, communism, and have people on different sides debate those things. so people could watch the debate, And where people, then they could participate online on the debate. You could even rate where, like this idea of, you know, so often we have these debates. There was one debate that was just incredible. It was Christopher Hitchens and this other guy versus the Catholic Church. I can't believe I'm not remembering his name. He's a comedian, Fry, Stephen Fry.

So it was Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens versus some people from the Catholic Church. And it was like and the question that was posed was, is the Catholic Church a force of good for the world or not? And they debated for like three hours. But like it was this it was it was an incredible debate, first of all, back and forth. And then the crowd at the end, they voted at the beginning as to what what they thought. And then they voted at the end to see how their opinion changed. And I thought, you know, is what if you had these debates where what would be interesting where let's say you had a debate on capital, you had not just one debate on capitalism, you had a series of debates

on capitalism and where people could actually change their opinion over a long period of time after seeing multiple debates. do right now is like this snapshot. Because everything that we And so many of debates are style points or it's like I've got zingers, like political debates are now useless. But what if you could actually have a thoughtful debate that turned into a conversation that was kind of a rolling thing. Needless to say, this idea has not found any interest yet. But part of the reason I want to do it is because I don't want to impose. I really don't know. Part of the problem is, so right now, you said a lot of people woke up because of COVID. I would say that

they've maybe opened an eyelid. But one of the things that is, and I guess I consider myself lucky. I didn't consider it at the time, but I kind of, most people wake up because they've gone through a crisis or two. And I had the opportunity to go through three and I went through a major one right before COVID. right before COVID. And so I went through this whole process of, you know, everything that I believe is bullshit. I've been lied to about everything. And then when you let all that go and forgive yourself for being fooled, then you're like opening up to exploring all of these new things that you've never considered before. And right now I feel like we're at this point where

with COVID people are, are, are saying, I think that the, this is probably the mainstream of people that are recently awake is that that something bad happened during covid but there's a restore point prior to cove like if we could just go back to where things were before because the bad things happened in not realizing that it's fundamentally flawed and it's much deeper than that and it's hard to get people to cross that which is why I think this idea that I've had trying to get people to talk about first principles, the reaction that I've gotten to it is, it's been a lot of, well, the Constitution is the best thing. We don't want to throw the baby out. Let's support RFK.

Let's support these politicians. This is the way forward. And this is from people that that you would think we're on kind of the cutting edge of this stuff. And where I came out with it is nothing is mainstream. Everything starts with innovators, like two and a half percent. So just focus on the two and a half percent. Don't worry even about the mainstream. Because the mainstream is controlled by gatekeepers who are are people that if you you probably notice this these are not exactly the problem it's the mainstream and all the solutions have to deal with the mainstream or else they won't get anything other than you know small little communities isolated that are that will be run

over absolutely run over and nobody will participate in from the from the mass majority you can't ignore the mainstream the main stream is what has to be fixed But the way mainstream gets fixed, it's like this with products, companies, and ideas. So it's kind of like we were talking about crypto. So the issue with crypto is, okay, early adopters and innovators, if you use the technology and then you make it user-friendly and easy to use, then you can go mainstream. But nothing ever starts mainstream. So there's a sequence to it. And the sequence is never – It's never start mainstream. So to me, why I like network states is it's almost impossible. Once people are debating ideas,

then it's all speculative because it could be, well, I came up with this idea, but this idea is bullshit or it's untested. I don't have any proof of it. But if I actually try something on a small scale and I actually get a proof of concept, if there's a network state and I can show you what it's like, then now there's something where it's like, okay, well, Do you want a fifteen minute city or do you want this? But I'm actually showing you something that exists as opposed to talking to you about something that's abstract because thanks to our buddy Rockefeller, people have been conditioned to not think abstractly. They're better at being kind of machines. So anyway. So in that debate,

did the opinions of people change from the beginning to the end when they did the second vote? Yes. Yeah. No, it was it was actually it was a shift. It was a it was a major shift, which, by the way, I've been in other debates where they've tried that. And usually it's no shift. This was a definitive shift. This was actually a you know, I would not want to debate against Christopher Hitchens or Stephen Fry either. I like Christopher Hitchens is has a as a way with with words, but it was a definitive shift. And and so I so I actually find myself just, you know, this is kind of nerd that I am. I actually look for those kinds of debates. Like I like I guess Gore Vidal and William F.

Buckley weren't great debates. Some of them actually turned into a little bit of slop. But we don't have debates or even discussions anymore. We have no format for it. It's people with talking points. But I like the debate that Donald Trump just had with Justin Trudeau. He said that he's going to let Canada sing their national anthem after they agreed to become the fifty first state. And then he told Greenland that he's taking their whole country. And that's it. There's no they're not going to get anything for it. So I just asked Rock, what is this all about? So Rock said that there is a rare mineral called neodymium, which is essential for electric motors and technology.

It's located in Greenland. Yep. So, interesting. There are a lot of rare earth minerals in Greenland. That is all Greenland is about. I can only imagine what Gaza has. Trump is technocracy in motion. He's the Trump card of technocracy, I'm afraid. He is and I'll tell you it's it's really hard to convince people of this and and now I feel again I feel you know Dan knows this Dan Dan worked with me on helping to put together some of these workshops and everything and we had a We had a lot of interest and people were actually

focused on this issue. And then a lot of people have put all of their faith in these white knights. Trump or Elon are the combination of the two. And this is why I wanted to do this presentation today and this article, which is that It's factually there in black and white what's going on. Look, you can tell what Trump has said. He wants the dollar to be the global reserve currency. He's doing this stuff with tariffs. They don't want transparency. His treasury secretary has said that it needs to be compliant. It needs to be trackable. His treasury secretary is already increasing reporting requirements on these thirty zip codes. it's not a speculation as to where this is going.

It's actively going there. And then there's actual bills that have just passed committees that have been drafted. They didn't just draft these things. This, the original drafting of this thing was twenty twenty three. And the direction of it has never been towards the direction of individual rights or privacy or anything related to the Constitution. It's it's it's all been about the way I look at Trump is, you know, his mentor was what that that lawyer, I can't remember his name, or Roy Cohn. who was a mob lawyer for the, I think all five of the mob families. And then he was involved with a whole variety of, he worked with Joe McCarthy. Interestingly, he worked, he died of AIDS and was gay,

but then he actually worked for causes that were anti-gay and anti-AIDS. And so this was Trump's mentor. And so Trump kind of runs, he's running this stuff like a technocratic mob boss. Yeah. Somebody called him a billionaire playboy, takes the most powerful job on the planet, a billionaire playboy. And I don't think he's himself. I don't think he's super intelligent. In fact, I don't think he's very intelligent. He's smart business sense-wise, but I don't know. He might be. He might be. You know what I'm hoping with Trump is,

I'm not a Trumper or anything like that, but I'm just hoping that, you know, he's a businessman. He's an ego guy. He's the biggest actor in the whole world. He had that show that was the number one rated show. So I'm thinking maybe from an ego point of view, he's just really pissed off at all these people that just happen to be, you know, tyrants and authoritarians and everything else. And maybe, you know, he's just after all these people, maybe not for the right reasons. But, you know, it's not it's never going to end well because like what Aaron said, the technocracy is coming here. It's just a sideshow, a lot of this stuff. But that's kind of how I look at it. Yeah, it's here.

That's for sure. Like Aaron says, it's here. It's not coming. It's being rolled out every day. Yeah, it is at rapid speed. I mean, Trump's talked about, what, fifteen new cities, which, you know, OK, why is this a fifteen minute city? The tie in with Greenland and everything else. Yeah, no, it's tough. And and and people are stuck within that system. So now they're like, well, you've got to work within the system. This is the only way you can do it. And look, the problem is I've spent thirty years in politics. I know you can't work within the system. So there are a lot of people that are new to politics. And this is true of a lot of the Maha people. There are a lot of the Maha

people that are very well-intentioned, have been very passionate, but don't know how politics works. So they actually have no idea that they're just about to get completely chewed up. And I said on the podcast a couple of days ago, if you've ever seen the show Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister, I should probably put in some clips. There are standard excuses that this Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister show is a show in the UK. There was a battle between the administrative state and the elected officials. And with, you know, really good banter back and forth, kind of, you know, this was, you know, England pre whatever's going on in the last twenty years or thirty years. And but the dialog is

completely relevant to everything that's going on right now. And so you can you can see the excuses. And we've already we've already moved beyond, you know, like Maha. So so I said, so here are the top ten excuses for why things won't happen right so why they're not going to do anything on vaccines anything rome wasn't built they're not going to do in a day and neither are lasting solutions we're laying the groundwork for future success these things take time to get right we're navigating unprecedented challenges the system wasn't designed for quick fixes We need bipartisan support to move forward. We're prioritizing long-term stability over short-term wins. The complexity of the issue

requires careful study. Budget constraints limit what we can do right now. Change is a marathon, not a sprint. We're already seeing that, even with these Epstein files. The Epstein files, I had a separate list before they even said they were going to put out the list, and it's already happened. We already got the redaction for national security. And now the next thing that they're going to do is they're saying, they're actively these are now well, active investigations. So they're going to redact more of the information and they're never going to give it to us because they're going to claim it's ongoing and they'll never actually pursue it. So it's like this anymore.

They may have got rid of it all. You know, I don't. daily they're destroying literally millions and probably billions of documents and emails through the government all the the health industry the the the uh the what do you call it the trade ministry everybody is destroying documents because it's been so corrupt and they don't want to get caught they don't want it public yep Yeah, and so that's the state of things. So So when people like, Oh, this is our last chance to save this. I always like, so what is the path to success? Like, what is it that they could actually possibly do? And the other part of the problem is that there are a lot of these well intentioned people

think that we actually have a constitution and we haven't had a constitution for a long time and the administrative state and the people at the top of government do not follow the same rules so they also believe that we have a constitution that applies well what we don't so if you play by a set of rules that the other people are not playing by then you're not going to win and that is that is essentially what's what's happening right now right well a big part of the problem is the information control and that's how they got us into this mess in the first place and if we if we can't crack that one but certainly in politics politics would change dramatically if um political financing changed

and if political financing was controlled so that political parties couldn't just uh solicit unlimited capital and spend and propagandize the whole nation and control television, radio, command people's attention and public opinion. You could easily control that by simply passing a law that says, okay, A, as a responsibility for us a nation granting a license to a TV or radio station or an information provider that during an election you will provide free of charge

equal time for all the candidates and in combination with that limit the amount of, first of all, no corporate funding at all. Nobody except individuals are allowed to contribute in any way to any kind of campaign and set a limit on how much they're allowed to go. Now, suddenly the whole power of money is no longer influencing what people get to hear and encourages people who really right now don't have the money. They have the ideas, but they don't have the money to even contemplate.

I think in, uh, there was Ross Perot and, um, you guys, uh, correct me if I'm wrong. He was a billionaire that just wanted to have like a white chalkboard and explain to everybody that they're all getting screwed by inflation and the federal reserve and whatever else. And, um, and I apparently, uh, he didn't have enough money to rent, like NBC news from like eight to nine o'clock at night, like once or twice a week. Um, so after that happened, I guess they banned this from ever happening again. And now, um, there's no more debates and no third parties are allowed and the elections are fairly rigged, but, um, I hope I don't sound too conspiratorial here though, but, um,

Well, all that stuff has to be brought under control. The government should serve the public interest. That's what it was intended with the Constitution. Partially. More so than never a hundred percent was certain individuals' points of view and ideas were more important. than the common public. But generally speaking, government was supposed to look after its citizens, not look after it, but treat their citizens fairly and create opportunity for them. But that's all gone aside now. It's only the moneyed people that are important and

public policy is not necessarily anything to do with public opinion and controlling public opinion is essential to get away with what they're doing so we've got to break that we've got to we've got to break you can't do it all the time but you can certainly do it during an election by controlling the propaganda that goes out about the candidates and encouraging new candidates to come in Yeah, I mean, that won't work. I mean, there is still a free speech issue. And then there's the fact that at this point, I shouldn't need a license to create a social media platform. What if I create a decentralized media platform? Do I have to get a license for that? I don't think that you can

regulate that level of reach. And by the way, you'd end up with part of the issue with this ends up becoming even in examples because there is a public funding option, but you still have to meet minimum thresholds. You still have to raise a certain amount of money. You still have to pull in a certain way because otherwise you could have a situation where you have a million people running for political office. If you had to give a million people the same access, then actually nobody would get any information. But all that aside, I think that there's one of the big issues I'm reading this book now, the breakdown of nations. And I've seen this in corporations as well. The idea of a country with

three hundred and thirty million people is unworkable. I think the number is like one hundred after one hundred and forty people, you kind of start to begin to have breakdown. And so, you know, to me, the idea of of writing the ship or even the idea of having a political entity with three hundred and thirty million people is is unworkable to begin with. But one of the reasons I think we can't fix the situation that we're in right now, and this is when I was talking about foundational principles as opposed to the Constitution itself, the whole thing was based on the idea that you would have an educated population. The average voter now, something like seventy one percent of Americans can't

identify the three branches of government. If you look at the civics test scores of eighth grade, I think only twenty eight percent pass. So it's one of those things where it's like like we have people and you see some of these people embodied by a guy. I'll go on the. go to the beach or go down the street and start interviewing people and asking them questions. And people don't know who the president is. People don't know who the vice president is. But that's not the standard for it. Even based on like civics tests, like we, I don't know how you fix that because we literally have what I call no to low information voters. And when I spent a lot of time doing political activism,

I'll tell you how bad this is. Because you can get into, well, there's debates and giving people airtime. But what about doing mailers? So now if you're running a super PAC or you're one of these political parties, and Obama was really the one who paved the way and started leading for this, they have thousands of data points on every voter. So they know what magazine subscriptions you have. They have lists of issues, a hundred issues, and where you stand on this. And they could do targeted social media posts. They can hire... Influencers, they have, you know, even programs to try to get, you know, influence your next door neighbors to influence you. The amount of, and the sophistication using

data and AI in elections right now, you know, it's so programmed in. I don't even know how you unwind that, but it's really bad. If people knew that, because I've done this, I had a super PAC and I licensed one of these databases for the state of New Hampshire. And I had all this data. on every citizen in the state. And people have no idea that this stuff exists and it's not that expensive and most political campaigns have it. Yeah, and they've even talked about, well, we don't even need elections because we can predict with AI how people will vote and it's just a waste of money. So there you go. That's where we're heading, man. Palantir's all over that.

Pre-voting. Well, that's part of the control. People don't know what's going on because they're not exposed to it. They're exposed to entertainment and sports and superstars and fear and CSI and the worst entertainment to pollute their minds and make them fearful and succumb to government authority. That's what they're exposed to. And so, yeah, it kills your creativity. It kills your purpose of life. And, of course, the school systems and the universities now, they certainly don't encourage debate or controversy or independent research at all, really.

So it's no wonder. But we've got to get to the people on the street. And the only way to get to them is to control that bloody mainstream media. I don't know. It's a huge problem. Oh, it's a huge problem. This is where I go back to, you know, if we can start getting some proof points with network states, then we can show people not one alternative, because, because it is. So I mean, this is the problem, like, I will say when I went through my whatever you want to call it midlife crisis, or whatever, pre COVID, you know, there really is that understanding that you know, there's what you know, there's what you know you don't know, and there's what you don't know you don't know.

And what you don't know you don't know is the largest part of it. And so if you're able to let go of what you think you know is being what defines everything, then you can really explore a bunch of these alternatives. This is one of the problems. So I've been in the Liberty community and, you know, I don't know, ANCAP, whatever you want to call it. I've been in this community for a long time. And one of the challenges is, that you know you have the wef presenting fifteen minute cities and what we're what what we're offering ideologically is literally unlimited potential it's literally whatever you can imagine is the potential but people but people would rather have the fifteen minute

city than think about what's possible or even have the framework to think about infinite possibilities let's define more clearly for them our problem is we can't define clearly what it is we're we're talking about And we can't present it in a way that captures the, this, you know, well, I would, well, I would say that it is, it is infinite potential. Is that what is what we're offering? It is that vast, but, but people don't know what that means. So you've got to show them some concrete examples. I did a survey study just in Canada here, just out of curiosity. And I took our, our GDP and. and found out that the number of hours of work, labor,

physical labor, like on payrolls that it takes to generate that GDP. And I divided the GDP by the amount of work hours that went into it. And on that basis, if you value and you can, it doesn't matter what the GDP is. We produced it collectively by our labor, our society wide labor. You know what the average income would be if we divided it evenly? It's over a hundred thousand dollars. It's about in Canada, twenty thousand dollars. it's about a hundred and So that's the kind of thing that should be like most people. If you check Stats Canada, ninety percent of the population, over ninety percent of the

population in Canada makes less than that. There's a clear advantage, a clear benefit to people if they believe that it's possible. And that's the touchstone right there. You have to show them that it is possible. But if you could get them to believe, why would they be against it? You would have a super majority if you ran a political campaign that said, we're going to pay you. You're going to pay yourself by doing productive work for society. And you're going to have the equivalent of over a hundred thousand dollars reward for doing it. Nobody's going to tell you what to do. The other problem is the credit. Like, I don't know enough about Bitcoin or

any of these alternative systems to understand if they even address like credit. How do you get credit to start something? to finance. I mean, there are things that you can do with decentralized finance and there are alternatives. I mean, and one alternative, and this is something that I mean, don't have free markets to your point about how we here based on venture capital. I mean, if you didn't have the SEC and everything else, then there's an infinite number of different private financing models that could be developed and could be like crowdsourcing. Like crowdsourcing, but even like there are different models, like there's a royalty

capital model where it's like, okay, well, you're giving somebody some money, but you're taking a percentage of their gross revenue until you hit a certain predefined return. There are all kinds of structures that are not different creative viable because of the SEC and because of tax policy. So you could have cryptocurrency, you could have DeFi, and then you could have all of these other funding mechanisms that could come about. But, you know, again, this is why I'm for as many network states as we can get and with experimentation because... When we talk about this, I mean, again, when I'm looking at what's going on with AI, I talk to my kids about this. My kids are fourteen.

And so like there's this big issue of their twins. And so it's it's so what should they study? And it's like, OK, well, are you going to study STEM? Like any any anything? So I show them AIs. I actually just helped my daughter with her. She had to do it for biology class, design an experiment to try to. help people that are post-stroke to regenerate brain cells and everything else. And I popped into a couple of different AIs. not only did we design a study, And by the time it was done, but I actually created an AI song for it, which of course, I drive everybody nuts with these AI songs. But I'm kind of like, so there's this aspect of, well, And it's like, yes, but then... this is cheating.

you're not going to be like In the future, doing arithmetic by hand is not going to help you in the marketplace. You're not going to move forward with that. But then on top of that, we really are moving to an age of abundance. And this is where control over AI becomes interesting I mean, if we have AIs that if we already and problematic. have something where you can type in a prompt and it'll create a business plan, execute the business plan, create a website, figure out how to start taking money and accepting money, then, you know, the the GDP and the productivity of the nation is going to be overwhelming. I mean, we essentially could be in a complete state of abundance

and related to this idea of people changing their thinking. And this again, this is why this is why I'm really hesitant to want to push solutions on. I don't want to push solutions on anybody and certainly not overall solutions. But to me, We are so our personalities, at least in America, are so tied up with and our identity is so tied up with how we make a living that like the idea of, well, what if you actually didn't have to worry about your basic needs? Then people are like, well, then I would have no purpose. But I think that there's an aspect of we've through. externalization of media school and everything else like we don't really pursue with curiosity the

fundamental questions of who we are and why we're here I mean that some of the big fundamental questions about the nature of reality the nature of consciousness we don't even look at because we've we've penciled ourselves into a my my identity is tied to being a cog in an economic wheel that we don't even questions we're at a point where pursue these other We could actually start pursuing those questions because there's so much productivity and so much of an increase in abundance that is facilitated by this technology. But we're not in control of it. So we're still dependent on an employer. A vast majority of people are still dependent on an employer. And so they're threatened by that.

And their thinking has to become more narrow than questioning what's the purpose of life and what's my potential. My potential is to get up tomorrow morning and go to fucking work. And this is where the problem becomes. This is why people start talking about UBI. I mean, in Alaska, people are people get a thousand to two thousand dollars per year, which isn't a lot. But it's based on this distribution of dividends from the oil. And and so so there is this is why UBI is a UBI is a fascinating topic because I mean, I dislike UBI. because it would be distributed by the government. And that's like, that would be the basis for a control system tied into everything else.

But when you actually look at the history of UBI, Thomas Paine was actually the first one to kind of suggest the idea and Milton Friedman suggested really kind of ran with it as well. His idea was that you would have a negative income tax. So in essence that if somebody wasn't making any money, they would actually have a negative income tax rate and they would actually receive money from the system. The problem with UBI is that we have these technocracies that are tied to all these social credit systems. And to me, actually the biggest tension point that we have it's the problem that I have with elon musk elon musk I like these first principles thinking I actually do like that but his first

principles are physics which means that his entire belief system is based on it's actually based on materialism and Newtonian physics. Well, if that's actually your first principle's belief system, then technocracy is actually the logical conclusion that you would come to. But let's say, for instance, consciousness is actually primary. Let's say it's not about materialism, then you have a completely different outcome. And the problem is that different outcome can't coexist alongside technocracy. So when I start talking about foundational principles, I actually think the foundational principles of the United States going into the Constitution were based on Newtonian physics

and based on scarcity. And that may not be where we're headed soon. And I have no idea how to answer any of the questions that I just posed, but we are going to have to deal with those questions. But I do remember being completely horrified watching an interview with Sam Altman from open AI from like a year ago, where he was talking about the fact that they actually have an AI that's been running on for a while on solving these particular problems. So they're, they're already for, they have a long running like project going on with an open AI to figure out how to solve UBI and all of these other issues, which is, Based on the bias of open AI, that bothers me because I don't think we would be

happy with that outcome. Well, I think the foundational principle is once you're born, you have a right to be here, right? I mean, that's about as basic as you can get. Once you're born and you're alive and you're a human being, you have a right to be here, just as much right to be here as anyone else. if the rules of the game in this Now, monopoly called is that you need money to survive, and you have a right to survive, then you have a right to money, period. You shouldn't have to work for someone else to get it. You have a right for it. And that's where UBI comes in very strong and can

defend that principle. And from that point, you still have to provide the incentive, the capitalist incentive for people to be rewarded for their contributions to society, productive contributions, not illegal stuff now and destructive stuff, but productive, producing things for the benefit of others should be rewarded. On top of that, you have a right to be here. And I think UBI is an excellent idea as well. to set a bar so that there's a whole range of people. And we don't need a whole lot of people now with AI and robots and all this technocracy. They're talking about,

with all these people? what are we going to do How do we keep them alive? Should we keep them alive? Do they even have a right to be here? This is insane talk, but this is what the discussion has turned around to. Yep. It has. So there are fundamental questions and debates that go even around materialism versus not and everything else. But we're not having those debates. Nobody's having those debates. And to me, this is why I wanted to do this first principles thing, because I think the conversation that we're having right now and kind of some of the series of topics, this needs to be a broad based open discussion that people are having. Exactly. And, and, and nobody wants, I mean,

I guess you're here. So, so we've got, we've got a couple of us, but like literally I've been struggling to have this conversation and, and I drive people nuts with it, but. Well, people don't know that this conversation could even exist until they hear it and then they will get interested and they'll think about it. But apart from that, you know, it's gotta be, they've got to be exposed to it. So we need a, I don't know, we need some kind of show that isn't a crime drama or, you know, soap box talk or star celebrity worship, something that is first principles. Maybe that's the name of the show. Why don't you start a show first principles and get on a TV

Well, I don't think that would get on TV, but we could do it here. we've got fifty five hundred people now. I mean, you know, I mean, it's not because, again, I actually don't think it's going to be mainstream. I harp on the fact that there's a quote. I don't know if you've you've heard me. I've got to find it. I've. Let me pull it up, but I found it to be true from. My. Hold on. from my life experience in business, but in politics and in every discipline. Let me see if I can pop this up. So the quote is basically,

presented with a theory when an audience is that is one level above their understanding, they find it inspiring. When the information is two levels above their comprehension, they fall asleep. at three levels they become angry and when the data reaches four levels above the level of the audience they want to kill the presenter wow Who said that? This was a guy by the name of Dr. Charles Tart. He's a... Oh, yeah. If you're familiar with him, he's a psychologist. And I believe he was involved with Russell Targ and some people that were involved in some pretty interesting things. But I actually do find that quote to be accurate. And actually, I found that when I ran for president, I actually...

I mainstream media didn't want to cover me anyway. I mean, you mentioned the whole getting access. I, you know, you could get onto the, I only wanted to get onto the debate stage to warn people about CBDCs. I wasn't actually serious about running, but they have this process for, you have to get this many donors and you have to, to get at least a certain percentage in a poll. Well, the problem is I couldn't get anybody to even include me in the poll, even though I'd run for office before in New Hampshire and actually gotten enough votes to that would actually meet the threshold I I they actually literally wouldn't include me in the poll so you couldn't be included but

but what I did do so but I did a lot of podcasts and a lot of niche podcasts and everything else but I remember I did a mainstream radio show it's not a big radio show and and and I started talking about some of these some of these ideas I started talking about uh you know, meditation. I started talking about a whole variety of things and, and literally, uh, I mean, it was just slammed with, with criticism. People literally didn't even want to entertain it at all. And I think that there's a lot to this. So again, I think it's okay to build momentum and I'm okay with building momentum, but I'm even having a hard time building momentum on this idea within communities that I would

think would be interested in. And that's, that's the, um, That's a challenge. But you know, I may do a first maybe I'll do a first principles segment for this show or do an offshoot of it. Because, you know, some people are interested in it. I think about Patrick Byrne and But I mean, his blockchain tech stack for human civilization, and he just got crushed, he got shoved out of his own company. And then they Then they shut down and basically destroyed all of the valuable stuff that he was working on, which I think was actually intentional. And then he went off and then he spent all of his time fighting this election integrity issues and everything else. And so in my opinion,

he was working on stuff that was interesting, this solution, which is blockchain tech stack. And then he ended up focusing on all of this surface level stuff related to elections, which is a shame because he was actually building something He even called it a hot swappable blockchain tech stack for human civilization. So in other words, his view was, well, let's try to save America. But if we don't save America, here's the plan B. And then the plan B, he abandoned. And then now, you know, so everybody that I know is distracted on this. Everybody thinks... RFK is going to fix things and Elon is going to fix things. And we're losing because I think we could get agenda twenty thirty by twenty

twenty eight at the rate we're going. Yeah. Yeah. How do you access AI to ask questions and and get it to do these assignments, assign tasks? I can't all I know is go on Google I mean, and type something in and then hit the Ask AI and it comes back and you can chat with it all night. I've done it. But how do you get it to actually begin like you were talking, doing work for you, building a website? So this is a new thing. It's called, what is it, Manus or whatever. I don't have access to it yet. It's invitation only. I signed up for it, but I've watched some YouTube videos about it. I guess it's the... The whole theme on AI for

this year is it's the year of agents. It's going to be the year where AI goes from helping assist you figuring out how to do things to actually doing things. And there was an example of this, which I think the example was fake, but I heard the OpenAI CEO talk about an example of imagine you're going to do an event in a city or even something like you're going to go to dinner and you have all these dietary restrictions. Well, I mean, if you're going to call to call three hundred restaurants would be impossible. But in the future, you're going to have an eye, your own eye agent where you're going to say, hey, this is my specification. And essentially, when your eye agent is

calling all of these people, everybody else will be using eyes. So you're going to actually have a situation where in ten minutes AI agents, three hundred AI agents are going to be able to talk to each other and you're going to get back kind of a compiled answer to whatever it is that meets your your needs and requirements. This was one of the examples that was talked about that like this year is something But this Manus thing kind of that could be there. came out of left field. Let me pull this up again. I think it's. M.A.N.U.S. M-A-N-U-S dot com? It's Chinese, so let me see if that's what the URL is.

Manus dot I-M, actually. M-A-N-U-S dot I-M. I-M. Okay, cool. Thanks. Check it out. See, we could ask AI to tell us how to, or actually to do it for us, change government and wake up the people. Yeah. As far as I can tell, the waking up is an inside job, but it's one of the things that I actually showed this. I'll show it again. There's like a group mind movie. I got into doing meditation and then realizing we're all programmable beings. Sure. And we're mostly like from

the time we're zero to seven, Whatever comes in, we don't consciously filter it. And so these become part of our subconscious beliefs. And then we go through all these layers of indoctrination. But it is possible to reprogram your subconscious. And the way to do that is to get into the brainwave state that you are at from zero to seven, which is essentially an alpha state. brainwave state and there are ways to do that through meditation there are ways you can use biurnal beats where you have one frequency in one ear and one slightly off in the other ear so you basically entrain to the difference between the two and if you set that for alpha or theta or whatever then you can

So you can program yourself, right? So it's TV programming. So instead of the idea of I'm going to watch what Hollywood says, or I'm going to watch what the CIA says, I'm going to program my own movie. So instead of watching big pharma ads that scare me into thinking that my toenails are going to fall off, I'm going to create a, here's a vision for what I want. So you put yourself in that meditative state and then you watch your own movie, basically. Program yourself. And I spent some time, so this was all pre-COVID, and having been involved with the Liberty community here, and I've seen other Liberty communities, I've noticed, I'm not saying that this is where they went,

but then even studying some of these movements, the self-improvement movements, or even some of like Osho it's like everything turns and everything else, into a sex cult. Or you look at some of these other organizations. So I'm like, how do you not have that happen? What if you had a group mind movie? And where, you know, and so we came up with these kind of like affirmations for what a group, just like a peaceful, voluntary community that is caring and, you know, self-feedback. We had this whole thing put together, this whole movie. And that was actually what I was doing pre-COVID. and um I did I mean didn't get anywhere with it I talked to a couple people you know and and tried to

get into the um the self the the self-improvement part of it and the self-improvement part of it always has as part of it kind of realizing that you have these subconscious beliefs and then tapping into that and reprogramming it it's just that it tends to be that the groups that are offering the ability to help you reprogram yourself have a tendency to try to program you on their own behalf. And so how do you not do that? So that was part of... By the way, I still don't have an answer, but that was an area that I was kind of looking at. But then in doing a lot of these things, I've found that most people do come to these revelations or go through this process

because they had some crisis and myself included right so when we talk about waking the people up on the one hand I'd like to say hey well how do we wake everybody up but then I I I can't say that even from my own experience and other have woken up they didn't people that I know that do it without going through hell first and Do you have to go through hell first? Is there a way to do it? Is there a way to wake people up without having to, you know, hit some really negative... The other thing I've found that works the best is to not preach and not present like you know and you have a solution that everybody... You're a genius and everybody else needs to hear it. The way to approach people

is to have a discussion with them and respect that they're... point of view is equally valid as yours but to ask enough questions that like question it challenges the every time you ask a person to think a little bit deeper of how to answer and put into words what they believe and if you use that tool to and craft it in a way that guides them through your questions to question their own beliefs so that they can answer your question. You can eventually get to a place where they've, they might see a crack in logic and start to,

then they'll go from there on their own. But if you alienate them right off the bat by trying to, preach to them and tell them you know what best and it gets into a controversy you've lost them you lost them in the first fifteen seconds probably but questioning their beliefs so digging deeper and deeper so that they have to dig deeper into their own beliefs to find the answer to communicate to you then they might it might trigger a revelation that's that's all I've found And that's where I got to that Charles Tartt quote where I'm like, okay, so based on that, I've only got so much time trying to find people that are three or four levels of awareness away and trying to, to, to,

that's not where you're going to have a lot of success finding people that are kind of one layer or maybe two layers away. That's why I don't even try to, I don't even want to go mainstream. The last thing I would want to ever do is like, is be on Fox news. or be on MSNBC because I did the net effect of it would be, it would be, it wouldn't wake people up. It would be outraged and it would turn into some manufactured thing. which is kind of part of part of I that's, the process. So I'm, I'm, I'm okay with that, but it's, but it is kind of working, um, working at trying to find people You know, that are that are that are ready for it. This is why I say I think

COVID woke people up, but not enough. And a lot of the people that are now I'll call mainstream alternative media are there. They all have this characteristic of they just woke up yesterday. And so now all of a sudden they're the they're the you know, they did the wrong thing. Ninety days ago, but they just woke up. And so now they're the front end of telling everybody else what their big revelation is. And the problem with that is that they're still five steps behind. Right. And where this plays into technocracy is, you know, if your view is this is one of the things that was frustrating to me is a lot of people that thought Fauci was now that Fauci is not there,

you know, we don't have any issues. And it was it was this it was a bad apple. And like that's not going to that doesn't even address like in the in the org chart like fauci's four layer layers down yeah and um so trying to to unravel that but but then you know and then I'm kind of like yeah well you know whatever I I'm again I'm not looking I don't know what the solution is for everybody and even the things that we've talked about there's so many So I've had intellectual exercises with myself around these founding principles and it's like, OK, well, let's throw a eye at this. How much of like I actually think part of what was wrong with with the US is that it was I came to this

and I'm not I don't necessarily know if this is right because I came to it intuitively. But but to me, like the battles of free will versus determinism, love versus fear, abundance versus scarcity, and decentralization versus centralization. And that may not be fully right. And then I went back and looked at, well, how did I come to this? Because just at some point, I'm like, well, these are the big things. And I'm not sure if that's entirely right. But I actually, nevertheless, I went through the exercise of applying that and looking at the founding principles. And I think there's a lot of the founding principles of America were actually based on fear and and based largely

on scarcity particularly the the the justice system that we have here and so this is this is why when we go back if we were having these first principle debates it would be all over the map and there are all these abstract concepts I have no idea where it would lead and I don't know if I'm right on my I don't also trigger a lot of infighting by the people that are participating so that it breaks down into nothing but a waste of time If you have too many different points of view in the same room, you've got chaos. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, that is absolutely true. And then in the liberty community, if there are a hundred people, then there are a hundred and fifty different opinions.

I have a theory on reality. This is kind of based on Newton, whose theory of relativity, or not Newton, Einstein's theory of relativity. So in our life from the moment I was born, actually before I was born, from the moment I was conceived inside my mother to where I am now, there's probably been several trillion factors, incidents, things that have affected me in my development and in both physical and cognitive to get me to what I believe I know and who I am today. So if there's no possible

way that anybody on earth, two people on earth have had the same trajectory. So if we're all on independent trajectories, we may have shared a lot of the same circumstances, but we haven't had the same teaching sequence since we were born right so there's absolutely no possibility that two people are going to think the same way or have the same ideas about things and even their even our language you know what what we define as words when we speak we think we know what we're saying may not be what the message that people are receiving when they hear those same words. We chose the words really

carefully because our trajectory of knowledge has brought us to choose those words, but we might not even be talking the same language, right? Yep. No, that's very true. So the theory of relativity holds, I mean, he proved that it's all in the, from the viewer's perspective, even light and time, it's all relative. So certainly knowledge is, and anyone who believes they have absolute knowledge about anything is just a fool, an idiot, you know, who's so pumped up on their own ego and ideas, hubris. It's, I don't know, it's marvelous.

It is marvelous. Yeah, no, it is. And there's a lot, a lot there to, to explore with, you know, even with quantum physics and, and, and the fact that, you know, do we live in a consensus reality? Is this a simulation? Uh, I, I spent some time doing meditation, looking at the Monroe Institute stuff and stuff. And I, and I don't have any answer. I've explored a whole bunch of stuff. I have more questions than answers. I don't, yeah everything you learn triggers more questions right so you you get more and more confused the more you learn yeah no that's that's absolutely true and then I'm kind of like ah well whatever I'm But I am pretty adamant that technocracy, I think anything that

removes free will seems to me to be a rude issue. But anyway, there's certainly a lot to discuss. Well, we're getting on here. It's been three hours and forty-four minutes. do you have any last comments or Dan, questions? No, you guys have been rocking it pretty good. I'm listening to your conversation and thanks a lot for putting this together tonight, Aaron. So thank you for joining. Yep. And I thought this was good. We ended up with fifty six hundred people, which is actually good. I'm grateful for that because this was an important one. So hopefully,

hopefully people got some value out of the information and we can start getting the word out. How do you download the Cool. recordings that it says it's doing? Do you know? Well, so I'll end this stream, and then I'm using a piece of software called StreamYard. So it's going to be up on Rumble and YouTube and Spotify and iTunes, and then it'll also be on X. And then if you want to download, This conversation portion will be too? yeah. Yeah. Okay, because I'm on StreamYard too. I just wondered if there was a way to download just this portion.

It says, oh, no, stay in the studio until your recordings are uploaded, whatever that is. I don't know. I don't know anything about this program. So, yeah, I'll just go to Rumble and download the whole thing. And and then I'll do clips from it, too. Yep. I'll use an AI thing to generate clips that I'll, you know, I'll put out at some point, although I'm so backlogged on this. But I think there are a lot of really good, good thoughts and exchange. I actually like this, this interactive. I don't like doing I struggle doing the presentation part where I can't see who I'm talking to. and there's no interaction so I have no idea like I bunch of information but I can put together a whole

it's not helpful for me to put together if people if I'm not presenting the information in a in a way that is intelligible and I and I'm not getting any feedback it's rough for me so I actually like the interactive part more than any of it yeah it's superb okay well thanks very much for all you do again and thank you forward to talking some more Thank you very much. All right. Have a good night. You too. Bye.