The Freedom Movement Funded Its Own Prison

Welcome to a special edition of The Aaron Day Show. Before we get into tonight's main program about the war on crypto, the Clarity Act, and our political prisoners, we're doing something special. OwnNothing.org is more than a website. It's a movement against the forces stripping away your property rights, your financial freedom, and your autonomy. Every movement needs an anthem. We've narrowed it down to four incredible songs, and we're going to play all four of them right now. Then it's your turn to decide. Head to ownnothing.org to cast your vote. Plus, for every hundred people who vote, we're giving away twenty-five Freedom Dollars to a random voter. Let's listen to our four finalists.

First up, Tom and Mary Johnson. This song tells the story of everyday Americans fighting back against a system designed to dispossess them. Listen closely. Whoa, whoa, whoa Tom and Mary Johnson, Maple Street's a-ninety-nine He's at the kitchen table, six a.m., the screen's blue light She's got the smart speaker listening every whisper, every prayer The daughter's face lit up at midnight by the tablet's empty stare

Signed a thousand agreements, never read a single line Said you were long nothing, it was always the design Tom checked his retirement, thought he had it saved away But he's just holding now, oh, used to banks get paid first when it breaks He bought the coin that promised him, set his family free But every transaction on the chain was there for all to see Got the diagnosis Found the records

They've been sold They want us to own nothing Not our health Our wealth Our soul Then one night At the kitchen table Hands around the coffee cup Tom looked at Mary And Mary looked at Tom And both said That's enough Now they're trading private coins, no ledger they can read.

Money that can't be frozen, transactions they can't see Daughter's learning in her kitchen, not a screen that steals her soul Son knows how to build things on nothing they control Found a thousand other families, wallets laid but names unknown If you already own nothing What you gotta lose?

They already took it all What's left for you to choose? You can sit and wait for permission Or you can finally move Then build everything We got nothing left to lose We'll own nothing but our freedom Building where they cannot see We'll own nothing but tomorrow

Our second anthem is called Sovereign Ground. It's about standing firm on the land that's yours that no government or corporation can take from you. Remember, vote at own nothing dot org. Every click you make Every form you sign Every cent you take They're watching all

the time Every word you speak Every thought you share They're building up a cage And you don't even care But we see through the screen now We're breaking from the machine now Building something they can't take Sovereign ground

We'll see you next time. But they don't know

Breaking from the machine now Building something they can't take Sovereign ground Sovereign ground

Third, we have Taking Back Tomorrow. This one's about reclaiming the future they're trying to steal from your children. Your vote matters. Head to ownnothing.org.

It's time to wear my future Click by click Never saw the walls until now

Can you feel it rising? Can you see the light? We've been sleeping too long Now we're all ready for the fight We'll take it back tomorrow We're standing strong and growing We're the ones who dream From the frozen

bank accounts To the censored spoken word They thought they'd keep us silent Thought we'd stay inside the hood But parallel economies arise The system builds on paper and we're gonna burn it all. We're taking back tomorrow.

We're standing sovereign ground. We're building in the ashes of a world that let us down. They said we'd own nothing. We'd forget what

One by one, we found each other Hand in hand, we built together They can freeze our money, they can shut the doors But they can't break the spirit of what we're fighting for We're standing sovereign ground We're building in the ashes Of a world that

let us down They said we know nothing We forget what freedom means But we're the ones still standing We're the ones still dreaming We're the ones who dream

And finally, Turning the Page, a song about closing the chapter on their agenda and writing our own story. After you hear this one, go to ownnothing.org, pick your favorite, and cast your vote. twenty-five freedom dollars for every Remember, hundred voters. Woke up this morning, phone already in my hand. Scrolling through the feed before my feet hit the land. Signed away my data, never read a single word.

Gave them all my misery. Something's stirring in the cities and the town. Sleepers are awakening. The program's breaking down. We're taking back our time. Money is money,

it's a chain around our wrists Programmable permission slips they give us to exist But parallel economies are rising from the ground When the old world starts to crumble, that's when we'll be found The architects of capture never saw us coming through A million little exits, and we're building something new. We're taking back our time. We're taking back our minds. We're building something new. While the system falls behind.

They own the feed but not the skies They build a world of ones and zeros But we're flesh and blood and sovereign heroes We're taking back our time We're taking back our minds We're building something new While their system falls behind They said we'd own nothing and learn to love the cage. But every line they wrote, we're turning the page.

Those are your four finalists. Now it's time for you to decide. Go to ownnothing.org right now and vote for the anthem that speaks to you. Share this with everyone you know who believes in property rights and financial Own nothing? freedom. Own everything. No. Vote now. All right. Welcome back to the Aaron Day Show. This is season three, episode four. It seems like this hasn't happened for I almost forgot how to get the podcast like a month. up and running here today. So welcome back, everyone. And as a reminder, the show, we've moved back down now to one time a week. So the show will regularly be Thursday at six PM.

Trying to do this twice a week is a bit much typically since they end up being usually three or four hours. But on top of that, as you will see, we have a lot of projects brewing, launching at various phases, as well as a lot of travel and speaking coming up. So I want to make sure that we, we have a quality podcast every week and, you know, you know, hopefully we'll be able to get more interactivity as well. More people, participating in the live chat at the end as well. And I encourage you, if you had an opportunity to listen to those songs, we're going to be doing this for each of the six sites, picking kind of an anthem. I have a ton of songs. I mean, I pretty much listen to music that we

create all the time in the background while I'm working. So there's just a constant stream of new And then we kind of curate a top music. And then we're going to put it up list. for... for a vote so we're starting with the own nothing.org website which i think is going to be kind of the lead website that links to all others It's essentially a site that allows you to do your own diagnostics and figure out your own sovereignty score. So how much of your own money do you own, your own property, your own attention? What are you looking at in terms of government surveillance, education surveillance, and so forth? And so...

Now, of course, the diagnosis is part of the exercise, but the more important part is then to provide tools and a network of resources. Some of the resources we're going to but most of the resources will not be create, us. We're going to be bringing in other solutions and helping people figure out, based on where you are, how you can increase your sovereignty. So as an example, one thing you can do is move. And I know for a lot of people, that seems impossible. And for some people, it may be impossible. It's easier than you think. If people are concerned about liberty, I don't know how you could stay in New York City, for instance. But even if you can't move physically,

you're going to be able to learn things like you can form trusts and legal You can shop jurisdictions. documents. Even if you're physically located somewhere, you can actually engage in commerce and use legal services that have more favorable terms in a different state. This is just one example. Obviously, moving is one, but figuring out which technology you use, uh once you understand that you don't own the money in your bank or you don't own your four or one k then you can diversify into assets that you actually own and have in your own self-custody on and on and on so i think this is going to be i wanted to create something that that everybody could use and that could help people no

matter where you're at so it's not an all or nothing oh i have to move here i have to do this big change everybody can start making small incremental changes so that's why we We picked that one. Tonight's episode may turn out to be the most important one we've done so far, at least in terms of it being a tipping point. If you haven't followed this show much, the whole purpose of everything that we're doing is to warn people about the big threat of technocracy. And the way that I frame this is that we don't have a battle of red versus blue or black versus China, U.S. it's really a battle of freedom versus technocracy.

And free will is literally at stake. It's not metaphorical. Under a technocratic form of organization, you know, essentially you have scientists and engineers are now increasingly AI making decisions for you from the top down using social credit systems, digital currencies, CBDCs, AI surveillance to enforce it all. And this is an ideology that started almost a hundred years ago, but really has only picked up steam recently because of advances in This is not the kind of, uh, technology. thing that you could implement if you didn't have the internet or you didn't have the ability to track or implement this type of system.

And technology is a dual-edged sword. it can be used for freedom or liberation, On the one hand, or it could be used for complete tyranny. And unfortunately, we are headed down the tyranny path. And I've spent the last three, almost four years, first starting off warning people about central bank digital currencies and the idea that if you had money that could be tracked, programmed, and censored, through central authorities, that that would be the gateway to these other systems. And in researching that and understanding what's going on in the US and abroad, I then realized that CBDCs are just one part of a broader technocratic system.

So what I've been doing is we have, my wife and I have been going around the US and then we've been traveling more overseas, not just warning people and educating people about technocracy, but teaching them how to exit the system so that you don't get stuck in it. How you can use, for instance, instead of getting stuck with the CBDC, you can use a privacy coin. Or more specifically, now that we're dealing with these stable coins, which are tokenized fiat, a digital token that represents the dollar that can be programmed and tracked. We have as a counter to that Freedom Dollar, which is an algorithmic stable coin that's not backed by the US dollar that can't be tracked and can't be censored.

So we've been doing workshops and really trying to help people and to scale up the effort just around awareness and then also helping empowering people to take action. Unfortunately, we're kind of in a worst case scenario right now, which is we're in the process now where we're going through rapid tokenization. So if CBDCs or stablecoins are tokenized fiat, What is going on right now in the United States Congress is they are aggressively pushing the Clarity Act, which was an act passed first in the

House, and now there are two versions of it in the Senate, and eventually they'll reconcile this. But essentially what this will do is it will create CBDC-like surveillance, all of that tracking. But it won't just be applied to money. it will apply to everything that you own, every asset, commodities. So when we talk about commodities, we're talking about just not just gold and silver, all of your investments, food, energy, So money represents five percent of all of the assets on earth and it's these other categories and other commodities that represent the rest. This legislation will essentially

centrally control and tokenize all of that. And I've been warning about this. My book, The Final Countdown, talked extensively about tokenization. It talked about efforts that were going on with the Bank of International Settlements, a project called Regulated Liability Network. And a lot of people were worried. that this would be something that we would have pushed upon us through the UN and maybe the World Economic Forum. And in many ways that actually maybe is true. However, it's actually happening without resistance in a way. And what the technocrats have figured out

how to do is to do it privately. So you take private solutions, but then put those private solutions under government control and government surveillance. And it has been progressing without resistance. Right now, this bill that they were almost going to vote on a couple last week. I think it was last Thursday. The intention was to actually pass this Senate Finance Committee version on Thursday. It got derailed at the last minute. I'm going to go through a lot of And tonight, the details on this. This is the hill to die on. This is where... I have been putting all of my time and effort, but now we are facing it head to

head. The things that I've been worrying about and warning people about are now tangibly mainstream news. The tokenization of assets and how that's going to happen was one of the two main themes at Davos this year. And no, this is not pro-freedom. This is not pro-crypto. Your number is not going to go up because of this form of tokenization. This kind of tokenization is how you end up owning nothing. I mentioned the own nothing site, which started out as a tool to help people realize what rights they've given away with these click wrap agreements that

we sign, like, two hundred of them a year. Microsoft agreement, Netflix agreement, rental car agreement. your stock brokerage account, everything. Nobody reads any of it. And when you do read it, I actually shared a post and it is up to like five point six million views. it was a an analysis of X's new Ironically, terms of service, which says they can take your data, use it to train their A.I., they have ownership of that information they can turn over your information including dms to government entities at their discretion if you try to figure out how their algorithms work to figure out how censorship might work that is a

violation of terms of service if you have a dispute all disputes go through one court in a place in texas a small town in texas and the maximum damages that you're eligible for, I think it's something to either a hundred dollars or two hundred dollars. So anyway, this, that post went viral, but these click wrap agreements are kind of the, the initial groundwork for the advancement of technocracy, because first we gave away our rights legally and, Then they create these digital tokens that then represent our assets and our rights through these ClickWrap agreements. And this gives them an incredible amount

of power and leverage to program, transfer, do whatever they want with all of our assets at scale. So when I first published my book, I was warning people about various pilot projects. Now, this is just moving at light speed. And the funny thing is, people think that we beat the WEF. that we defeated Klaus Schwab. Well, the new head, the new chair of the WEF is Larry Fink. And Larry Fink is talking about tokenizing all assets. They're saying, now I've been saying this for six years, that everything will ultimately be tokenized. Tokens don't have to be a bad thing.

In the same way, digital currencies don't have to be a bad thing. Privacy coins and the original intention of Bitcoin of separating money and state was a brilliant idea. Unfortunately, rather than having that approach gain momentum in Steam or argue it was hijacked, that the technocrats have gotten a hold of And so what we're getting pushed through that. at scale is the centralized authoritarian version of tokenization. So the stuff I wrote about in my book, the timetables here are actually accelerated. So this is one of those things where people who thought I was nuts when I wrote the book and then ran for president

to bring awareness to this issue, I was not... I was not pessimistic enough about how quickly technocracy is growing and how quickly they would roll this out. And the real trick has been to just basically switch the branding and to make it look like it's populist, even though it's literally the same technocratic firms and people pushing it. So this is... absolutely critical this is kind of the end game so when you think about the memes that people share where it's like okay you know you see somebody going to the grocery store and their credit card is denied or their payment is denied because

of something that they said we're talking about the ability to shut off everything that you own not just your money and that is being rolled out excuse me this is uh technically already happening. And now they're pushing it as a matter of policy and they have presented it as pro-crypto. They've presented it as pro-American. Pro-innovation. And so it's like most things in politics. The actual truth is the opposite of their So tonight, language. I'm going to go through quite a bit

I'm going to talk about the Genius Act, of information. which is part of it. There are really four pieces of legislation here. The Genius Act, the Clarity Act, and then these two bills in the Senate. I'm going to talk about what they mean, what the timetable is, and what we can do about it. I will say I've gotten some traction. I had a tweet analyzing the bill that came out of the Senate Finance Committee. That one got six hundred and fifty thousand views. I have tons of interviews lined up. I probably have at least ten interviews lined up so far. I actually just found out today. looking in my inbox of people that I don't follow or that I have a ton

of other requests. And I was wondering... Then I put out another post last night because the agriculture bill came out related to this tokenization scheme. And that post has over a hundred thousand views. And so what's interesting about this is... I'm one of the only people that has been talking about this consistently for a long period of time. And yet I've wondered, because I have seen a lot in my social media, in my posts, in my feed, about people supporting this legislation. I'll look at a tweet that's got a thousand likes or, you know, five hundred retweets, and then you'll see these people sharing

And what it turns out, this stuff. which I'll show you the analysis of, Almost all of this is fake. There is a network of hundreds of former government employees that worked for the SEC, which regulates securities, stocks and bonds, and the CFTC, which regulates commodities. There's a revolving door. Those people are working now for crypto firms. They're working for banks. They're working for lobbying companies. There's millions, tens of millions of dollars being spent on the lobbying effort. Much of the traffic that we're looking at, it's bot driven, it's fake.

So in going through this, even in my own tweet that did over half a million views on this, Almost none of the comments were against what I was saying or in support of the bill. It was very few and very far between. And then when you dig into who's behind the account, you'll find out, oh, they're associated with a whatever, digital chamber of commerce or one of the groups. There aren't many people that are speaking in favor of these bills that aren't getting paid or fake, which is interesting in its own right. So, I'm not necessarily optimistic that we're going to stop the bill, although we might. We might be able to have an impact

because there's infighting and because there are delays. And if we can teach people what's in these bills and move beyond the political propaganda and explain to people what the political propaganda is, give them simple guidelines so that they understand what this means, then we might be able to have some impact. But in the end, of course, the whole point is still we have to exit these systems. The root of the problem, whether it's a stablecoin or a CBDC, fiat is the root cause of that system. So we need to exit that. And we need to exit a lot of these other systems. And so I'm going to go through this now. Feel free to chime in with any questions.

If you would, please like and retweet this. We're at about viewers right now. And I think because I was gone for a week and a half or so, I know a lot of people were emailing me saying, Oh, hey, are you not doing the show now because you're running for Senate or whatever it So I think many people aren't aware of happens to be. this. But I think this is probably one of the most important shows, if not the most important we've done so far. And this is the launch point. So everything from here is going to be focused around everything that we've been talking about of the different, you know, technocracy Atlas and OSR and all those those are all solutions to this other things,

centralized tokenization thing. It's just that they're now accelerating that. So, so we don't have until twenty thirty. We really have this year to get enough people building parallel systems to where we can scale because Digital IDs are going to be rolled out to over half of the globe by twenty twenty seven. In fact, real ID is expected to be fully digital in all fifty states by twenty twenty seven as well. So this is so this is real. So we are in the kind of the final stages here. So I know some of this is complicated. This is part of why they're able to pass it.

Because some of it is technical and there's a lot of buzzwords and propaganda and everything else associated with it. And they've done a hell of a job of making this look like it's patriotism and crypto. Just like they have people convinced that Bitcoin is freedom money when it's now trackable surveillance money. digital gold. So there's so many layers to cut through to even get somebody to understand the current assessment of where we are. So I'm going to try to go through this. I have these slides, but I was working on the article all day. So I'm probably going to skip around a bit. Now, before I get into that, I do want to say that there are

some events coming up that I want to make you aware of in case you want to catch them. I'm going to be in Mexico. uh let me see what the dates are on this i think it's february the eleventh through the fifth fourteenth or i can't see because this thing is in the middle um hold on let me that's that's really annoying um february the twelfth through the fifteenth in mexico city i'll be speaking at minaratopia and i'm sure at this point most of my conversations are going to be some version of what we're going to be talking about tonight Although usually I like to talk about the Tonight, unfortunately, solutions. I have to talk a little bit more about the problem and the threat because

it's imminent. this is one of my favorite events. So anyway, So if you can get to Mexico City, Great community. I encourage you to do it. Doug Tooman, who we both co-sponsored a tent. at pork fest i'm a huge fan of doug he puts together he and his wife put together a fantastic event and mexico city is a low-cost place to travel so um you know if you're thinking well this might be too expensive for me uh check it out check out the flights they're probably less expensive than you think and uh easier to find I'm then going to be speaking a couple I have anywhere from two to four talks of times. at Anarchapoco, which is in Puerto Vallarte this year at

a nice resort. So that's February the through the twentieth and then on the twenty second, I believe, of February, the Sunday after this event, I'll be speaking at the Crypto Vigilante. I think it's a one day conference. It's related to this. It's kind of an extra add on to this conference, but that's a great group. You might have seen my interview with Raphael, which was one of one of the better interviews that I've done. So that's going to be more of a crypto focused portion of this. Then in March, March the sixth through the seventh, I'm going to be in Lisbon, Portugal at the Parallel Society Conference. And so Sterling Lujan invited me to this.

You may remember he was on the show last year and has been delving into network states and really probably knows more about this topic. than anyone I know. So this is going to be a great event. I'm looking forward to this in part because I don't know most of the people. It's going to be truly educational for me. I'm going to learn quite a bit and meet some new people. I encourage you to look at that event because it's part crypto and then it's part art and music. So it is not just a... lectures or anything like that. It's actually kind of a very creative event. And then I will be giving a keynote

speech of one form or another at the Libertarian National Convention, which is May the first through the twenty fifth in Grand Rapids, Michigan. So this is going to be all of the various libertarian chapters from around the United States. So I'll be speaking, but there's also going to be a crypto corner there that Zeno is sponsoring. So Zeno is going to be there. The Zeno ecosystem, the entire ecosystem. So you're going to have Zeno, Freedom Dollar, Confidential Lair, everyone there. And they've got basically an entire section of the convention right off of where the main convention is happening. I think that's a great opportunity for...

introducing that group. I went to the Libertarian Convention a couple of years ago when Trump announced that he was, well, at that time, going to commute Ross's sentence, but ended up giving him a full pardon. And, you know, the thing about it was people cheered that but then most of the rest of the on, time, people were chanting, end the Fed. That was probably, certainly the most popular rallying cry of that group. So I think if all of the libertarians across the country be made aware of the fact that you know you don't have to end the you can end the fed by not using the dollar by not participating in it and so i think freedom dollar and xeno and confidential layer will be exciting to

introduce to that group so in any event that's um quite a bit of a you know monologue here before we get into this but That's what's going on. And so I hope there's an opportunity to see some of you at these events. I know many of them are going to be live streamed. But some hardcore people, obviously, at these events that are focused on exiting the system, focused on privacy coins, privacy technology, and libertarian philosophy. So with that said, even though I'm going to be at the Libertarian Convention tomorrow, my political campaign, which I, you know, I'm still exploring, I haven't decided, you know, which if I am not going to run as a Republican or Democrat,

but I don't know if I'm going to be an independent or a libertarian. So the fact that I'm speaking and participating in that conference isn't necessarily an indication of how I'm going to run if I run in New Hampshire. And that would be purely for strategic I mean, ideologically, I'm reasons. Well, usually I would say I'm mostly but I've had issues in New Hampshire where libertarian, there are left libertarians and I don't sign up for left libertarians. So I guess it depends on what's going on within the party. So, all right. So with that out of the way. um let's get into the details here and i am going to have to navigate a little bit back and forth between these

documents but we have two bills going on two main bills so you can really look at it as genius and clarity and the genius act already passed so the genius act which i have talked about many times as being a backdoor cbdc That is passed. That is signed into law. We have a backdoor CBDC. you can go to the Freedom Dollar website. And in fact, I was just looking at this the other day. They have a tracker that shows you big things that are going on with respect to stablecoins like Tether and USDC being seized. They're being seized constantly because, again, they're transparent, they're trackable, and now they're under this Genius Act So... regime.

Check out Freedom Dollar website and check out that tracker and stay on top of It's pretty eye-opening because what I'm that. seeing is kind of an escalation in stablecoins being frozen and confiscated. it's just a little bit of a background. So again, And part of this also, I had to change. I was up until about four in the morning working on this article. I had the article almost done. And then the Senate Agriculture Committee dropped their version of the bill. So let me explain a little bit about how this works. So the Genius Act, again, it's the stablecoin bill. It's the backdoor CBDC bill.

Then there's the Clarity Act, and the Clarity Act is for the tokenization of all other digital assets that aren't stablecoins. And that breaks into two different chunks. The way that those types of assets are regulated today, there are two kind of competing groups here. You have the SEC, which is really kind of out of the Senate Finance Committee, And that's stocks, bonds, that type of thing. And then you have the CFTC, which comes under the Agricultural Committee, which is, again, the CFTC manages commodities. So you would say, well, why the Agricultural Committee?

Well, commodities, food is a major commodity. So you already have... These big regulatory regimes, kind of before you even think about tokens, we have, believe me, an excess of regulation in all of those I've spoken at length about more about the areas. SEC than the CFTC, but just how absurd it is. Unless you are what's called an accredited unless you have a certain net worth, investor, You are ineligible to invest legally in startup companies because the government thinks that they're protecting you. This is what they say. They say, we want to protect these poor,

innocent people from being fleeced by these early stage investments. In other words, you don't get the opportunity to invest legally. in Amazon or Nvidia or whatever company, when it's a startup and the shares are one cent each, you don't get that opportunity. You have to be protected from that. But you know what? You can buy all the lottery tickets you want. And so the SEC has always been about protecting the incumbents, protecting investment banks, protecting venture capital firms, protecting private equity. Now we're just moving into a new realm where which is tokenization and tokenization could have been a great way still can i mean i guess if you do privacy

tokens and kind of look at this from a xano approach and defy which we'll get to could have been a uh leveled the playing field there i this was something i was always fast the reason i like tokenization is from my own experience as an entrepreneur raising a whole bunch of money. I raised money from my first company. We had one hundred and eighty. They're called angel investors, small investors. And I think we raised something like fourteen million dollars. And this this was a over a number of years. Which was pretty unheard of at the time, because this was like the mid nineties and we had to go through all this paperwork. Every state you get a new investor,

you have what are called blue sky laws. You have to have An investor questionnaire where, you know, the investor proves to you that they're accredited, which it used to be they could just say they were accredited, sign a piece of paper, investor. Oh, yeah, I have a net worth that meets this. And it's kind of a back then it was kind of by the honor system. because of more financial surveillance and Now, because of the incumbents wanting to truly lock people out, there's now more actual verification of, do you have those assets? Do you make that amount of money? So one of the reasons I was interested in tokenization is the ability, if you could raise money outside of the

SEC, this would empower small businesses, right? This would be a huge win for the individual entrepreneur. You don't have to have a company that needs twenty million dollars worth of capital from a venture capital. If you have just a small mom and pop business, now you could have investors that could easily invest in your company. And I knew from my own experience of how difficult it was for me. I mean, I know it's almost impossible Because it could cost twenty five, thirty thousand dollars just in legal paperwork to get the documents in place to Well, be able to raise money. if you are bootstrapping a company and you're trying to get your company off the

ground, now you have to come up with. I mean, this is truly how this works. You have to borrow money from friends and family or use credit cards just to pay the legal fees to comply with the documentation so that you can get then only accredited investors. which if you have a small business, large investors may not be interested in it because they're trying to put a lot of capital to work and make a return on a large amount of capital. You may have a perfectly good business that could generate a reasonable rate of return, but it doesn't fit the criteria of these institutional investors. And so now you're sitting here paying all this money in legal fees and then trying

to, it's a horrible system. So tokenization could have improved that. And in fact, in many ways, we had the ICOs that happened in the crypto field, which of course there were some bad actors, but at the same time, it was really cool because you were seeing experimentation. You were seeing some scams, but you certainly see scams with the SEC as well. And I will point out that Bernie Madoff at one point was, I believe, in charge of the SEC or was involved with the SEC or was involved with one of the... and ran one of the stock markets. So, I mean, the... Like in most cases, the laws don't protect the individual or the investor. They're there to protect...

And so tokenization was a kind of a potential end run on that. And that was what was exciting early. Well, the SEC cracked down on that. And they cracked down on that in a big way. And Biden, it happened before Biden, but Biden really tightened the screws. And I've spoken about Jeremy Kaufman and what happened to him with his company Library, which was he was targeted by the SEC. And he had kind of an edge case because the thing he was selling arguably wasn't even an investment token. It was a utility token, but he was targeted because of his politics. He was targeted because of his political ideology. But in any event, now with the Clarity Act coming out of

the Senate Finance Committee, they want to take the horrendous out of date laws that benefit the incumbents in the non-tokenized space then apply that and even ramp up further surveillance and tracking through tokenization so it's completely destroying the value and the fundamental point of tokenization and in the agriculture committee with the cftc they're now trying to do the same thing they want to take the laws and their power that they have before this whole tokenization thing came about. And they want to grow their departments and they want to grow their power. So now what's going on with the Clarity

Act is you have the Senate saying, well, we don't like the Clarity Act. Essentially, we want more We want more tracking. And the SEC people want more control over the tokenization aspect. And the CFTC people want more control over the tokenization. So in essence, in some ways, you actually have a bit of a... of a turf war but in the end the cftc and the sec are going to expand in power and the financial surveillance on all of our assets now which will be tokenized will be will have even more tracking more programmability. I mean, we're talking about,

and I'll get into some of the details We're talking about real time tracking of the bill. with five year history of look back of all of the transactions. So they're, they're monitoring who is doing what in real time and holding those records for five years. so for most people they don't know how bad the system was pre-tokenization it is a technocratic nightmare post tokenization so we'll get into more of that again as i said this Issue for me, I dropped my entire life to warn people about CBDCs and tokenization. And I didn't think that the tokenization

aspect would happen at this speed and without... resistance. So, and again, not with real support, AstroTurf support, but there's no resistance. And it's because people just don't know. So again, this isn't just about your money. This is about your house, your car, your retirement account, your groceries, all of it. So these people are now in Davos. And I'm seeing this stuff on my feed. Oh, the CEO of Coinbase is at Davos. He's telling bankers that Bitcoin is the future. And he's really giving it to them. And we'll dig into this.

He was one of the biggest funders of the legislation. Coinbase was. Directly and through other organizations. their purpose for the regulation is not to improve your freedom or to improve your privacy it is to create a regulatory barrier that makes it difficult or if not impossible for small cryptocurrency exchanges to be able to comply with the government so i have been beyond frustrated watching people put him on a pedestal. But then again, when I dug into it, I find out they're largely not even real people. He's likely funding fake traffic to prop

up his own narrative. So no, Brian Armstrong from Coinbase, Peter Thiel and Alex Karp from Palantir are not infiltrating Davos. It's the other way around. And in some ways, what's happening is Armstrong is using crypto and the hype around crypto to negotiate him getting a ticket and having a seat at the table at Davos, not to change it, but because he wants to be a part of it. And this is the... I've said this before. Early on... When Bitcoin came about after the financial collapse, people looked at these bankers and central bankers with disgust.

And it turns out it's actually envy. These people want to be them. They don't want to fix the problem. They don't want to replace them. or in any way transform it they want to become part of it so it's not the defeat of technocracy it's a victory lap and i don't have it here but i do have pictures and you can see them on x of armstrong uh at davos i also have a picture of him with nancy pelosi um and what and the kinds of things that they've been doing from a lobbying perspective are disgusting they're also incompetent at it that's a whole other But, you know, again, I don't want to dwell on it too much, but the early participants in Bitcoin would would I'm sure are mocking this or

they would be if they hadn't been co-opted well, by it. So. So in the end here. So we are the product. So he's not there to protest. He's there to get a seat at the table and we are the product that he's selling. And so again, what this comes down to, once you start tokenizing assets, you now have the ability to track and program and censor these tokens that represent assets at a very, very granular level. And so what this means is real-time trade

surveillance. It means five-year transaction records, data sharing with foreign central banks. So if you are of the opinion that this is a pro-America thing and that somehow we're defeating the globalists, part of all of this involves sharing the data internationally with foreign central banks. And it includes emergency freeze and liquidation powers. So even if you believe in the administration or whatever that means, I think it would be foolish for someone to think that even if you believe that your guys are the good guys and they're not. But even if you believe that, you're one election away from realizing you've just handed over the ability for

any regime to have the ability to program and control everything that you own. That should be frightening. If that doesn't concern you from a technocratic perspective, I don't know what will or what does. So... So this is what's going on with the bill coming out of Tim Scott in the Senate. Then you have the CFTC bill coming out of the Agriculture Committee, Senator by the name of Boozman. And in this model, the CFTC has exclusive jurisdiction over all spot transactions in the marketplace. Your crypto can only be held by government

approved custodians. every employee must individually register And some of this is kind of nuanced, with the Fed. but I've talked about this years and years ago, but you have licensed broker dealers and you have a whole bunch of different people that work in this financial industry. And now more people have to be registered with the Fed, even that work within these financial firms that are these intermediaries. So in essence, what we're saying is, If you are going to have any of these digital assets, the CFTC controls it. You have to get it through a custodian. And there's more surveillance and tracking even of the custodians themselves.

Now, there's a big debate on this. One of the things that people complain about with the summary is that I said basically self-custody is dead. It doesn't mean self-custody is illegal. I'm not saying self-custody is illegal. you still can individually have your own keys. But what difference does it make if the minute you buy something or interact with any of these exchanges or other entities, your information is tracked and then communicated with foreign central banks and throughout an entire network of people globally, right? So it's kind of like I say to these Bitcoin maxis that are like, well, they can't take my keys.

And it's like, okay, well, the US government has three hundred thousand Bitcoin. How did they get them? If they can track what you have and they can come in and threaten you with throwing you in a cage or you give up your keys, so far, most people give up their keys. That's usually kind of the way that it works. So I'm trying to... People are trying to spin all kinds of things. Well, at least this protects self-custody. This is literally some of the talking points here. And I want to take a step back and say, we've had self-custody for If this is supposed to be pro-crypto legislation, why are we losing rights? Why are we getting more surveillance? Why are we losing privacy?

How is this pro-crypto? Pro-crypto for who? Oh, just because it's clear now? Is it better to be clear that you have no rights and no privacy than for it to be vague? This is literally one of the things that they're selling as one of the selling features of this. So it's... So you'll see me posting a lot on And I will say this. this. I challenge anybody to... Well, not anybody. I don't want to waste my time. I will challenge Tim Scott. I will challenge Boozman, Brian Armstrong, any of them, all of them at the same time to debate on this. They'll never do it. But happy to debate them. Happy to debate these lobbyist firms and these talking heads in the digital chamber

of commerce and all these other people. They'll never do it. But if you want to help, tag them and say, hey, debate me on this. Because the way that they're trying to pigeonhole and say, well, it's not that bad. No, everything's tracked. you can still have your own keys, but you can't spend your money anywhere without it being in this complete dystopian system. And by the way, You can have self-custody for now, and I'll get to that in a second as well, because I want to talk about political language and how politics actually works. And I want to cut through the propaganda and the bullshit, because I'm fed up with it. I don't know if anybody actually buys it,

but they must, because politicians... keep on doing it. So I'm going to go through a dictionary of terms used by politicians and explain what it actually means so that we can stop allowing them to use these as rah-rah terms that get associated with positive benefits for the people because they're not. So together... The Finance and Agriculture Committee bills create the following. Every transaction is tracked. Every holder is identified. Every custodian is licensed. Every employee is registered. But it's not regulatory clarity. It's the end of financial privacy.

So I'm going to go... Well, hold on. I actually want to take a step back. I'm going to switch it back. I'm going through this long document here. And I want to make a different point altogether, which is... So one of the things that... Hold on, let me try to find the right section here. Okay, here we go. So this whole idea, and I've never heard this kind of language described before. I mean, it was called the Stable Coin Act,

or it was called the Genius Act or whatever it happens to be. the Clarity Act, But now they're calling it the Market Structure Bill. If you see Cynthia Loomis or whatever, she'll say... Well, we're going to pass the crypto market structure bill. we're going to pass the crypto market Trump will say, We're going to be the best place in structure bill. the world to do crypto. So I'm going to question the premise. First of all, markets don't need structure. Markets emerge. Adam Smith called it the invisible hand. Billions of people engaging in voluntary exchange, serving individual interests, collectively producing outcomes no central planner could achieve. This has been able to happen throughout

history, throughout economic history, without any Senate committee required. So my first question is, why do we need congress to structure a market and by the way when it comes to congress structuring a market let's look at their track record these are the people who covered up jeffrey epstein's crimes for decades while he trafficked children to the powerful these are people who ran up thirty eight trillion dollars in national debt which is the equivalent of a hundred thousand dollars for every man, woman and child in America, including the ones who can't vote yet.

These are people with constitutional power of the purse who've presided over a ninety six or ninety seven percent loss in the purchasing power of the dollar since the Federal Reserve Act was passed. So that means a house that cost thirty three hundred ninety five dollars in nineteen thirteen now cost four hundred and twenty thousand dollars. These are the people who openly engage in insider trading, buying and selling stock based on information they receive in classified briefings, then exempting themselves from laws that would imprison you for the same conduct. You see Nancy Pelosi for details. These are the people who maintained a secret taxpayer-funded slush fund to

settle sexual harassment claims against members of Congress. The Office of Congressional Compliance paid out seventeen million dollars between nineteen ninety seven and two thousand and seventeen to silence victims of congressional predators. These are the architects of market structure. How does that make sense? Make that make any sense? I would argue the market doesn't need structure from any centralized authority based on force at all. But if you did buy that premise, let's look at the track record. These are the worst people in the world to serve this function. And I will say this. I don't know if you guys remember this guy. Senator Ted Stevens from Alaska.

I remember he would talk about the internet being a series of tubes. Well, these guys aren't much different. I mean, Tim Scott's understanding of how cryptocurrency works and the purpose of having decentralized peer-to-peer commerce is not indicated in any talk or writing that he's put forward. These people are not qualified. And I know this personally, when I ran for president, I spoke with Cynthia Loomis. I gave her my book. I spoke with Warren Davis. I gave him my book. I spoke with Ron Wyden, Ted Cruz. I've spoken to a bunch of these people. Even Ted Cruz admitted he doesn't know much about crypto and he's light years ahead of everyone else in the Senate.

He admitted they don't know what they're doing. So then these people saying that we need market structure from these people, What is the rationalization? And so I know you might be saying, well, hey, look, your principle, this is an ideological thing for you, but pragmatically, we need structure. How are we going to protect people? let's look at the history on that. Well, I say, Not only do we not need market structure, we should be repealing existing laws that are in place, like the Bank Secrecy Act. So let's talk about the Bank Secrecy Act, the first major piece of legislation

passed by Congress to regulate this financial industry. The Bank Secrecy Act which includes the know your customer, anti-money laundering laws, all the forms, everything you have to fill out. It costs financial institutions, sixty one billion dollars a year for compliance. That's not government money that is passed to us. Well, those of us that use banks. in higher fees, lower interest rates, and reduced services. So every time you have to wait three days for a wire transfer or you get asked for an ID to deposit cash, you're experiencing this friction. And in twenty twenty three, financial institutions filed over four million or what are called suspicious

activity reports. And I've talked about this a lot. You know, any transaction over ten thousand dollars, the Treasury Department automatically gets a report. And this floods government databases annually. Okay, well, so what is the argument that was made? The argument that was made at the time for this was the to stop organized crime. It's to stop money laundering. It's to stop terrorism. Okay, well, how'd that go? Of the suspicious activity reports that are examined, only four percent receive any law enforcement follow-up. A bank policy institute found that ninety to ninety five percent of people reported

in these suspicious activity reports were likely innocent. But their financial lives were flagged and they are permanently recorded for suspicious activity that wasn't reported at all. So billions are spent. Millions are surveilled and the system catches almost nothing. The money laundering goes completely unimpeded. Some examples. Wachovia Bank laundered three hundred and seventy eight billion dollars for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels between two thousand and four and two thousand and seven. Not million, billion. The largest Bank Secrecy Act violation in history. They admitted to serious and systemic

violations that moved cartel cash through the American financial system for years while filing all of the required reports. What was the penalty? They paid one point nine billion in fines, the cost of doing business. The executives who oversaw the laundering, they got promotions, not prison cells. JPMorgan Chase managed Jeffrey Epstein's accounts for years after his two thousand and eight conviction. They paid two hundred ninety million to settle claims that they facilitated his trafficking operation. CEO Jamie Dimon still running the bank. And in fact, there was a law that no single U.S. bank could hold more than ten percent of

the deposits in the United States that was waived. The largest bank by far in the United States and blowing through any kind of any laws or framework. They are too big to fail. He's still attending Davos, still writing crypto regulations, and still now actively participating in hijacking Bitcoin. So this is a system that works exactly as designed. Banks launder hundreds of billions, pay fines for continuing to operate, and the executives face no personal consequences. So for anybody... Because I know a lot... And I don't blame people for this because... do i expect the average person to realize

that you know fiat currency is a ponzi scheme and that these bankers are uh the whole system is institutionally captured and so on and so forth no i mean they they you know went to public school probably got indoctrinated and um you know and believe that there's integrity in the system and they they believe that the government is there to help protect them and keep them safe They've been taught that, but it's not accurate. So the Bank Secrecy Act is a disaster in terms of friction. It catches almost no crime. The crime that it does catch, people get a slap on the wrist. It's useless. Now, let's contrast that with, say, what happened to Ian Freeman.

Ian Freeman operated a Bitcoin exchange in New Hampshire, helping people sell cryptocurrency peer-to-peer. He had an opinion letter from an attorney, which, by the way, is rare and hard to get. Attorneys don't like putting their neck out there. So a lawyer put together an opinion letter stating he didn't need a money transmitter license. So he actually tried to comply with the law, got a lawyer to say he was complying with the law. So he served real people seeking financial privacy and financial freedom, and he processed roughly ten million dollars in transactions over a few year period of time. The same government that let Wachovia walk for laundering three hundred and seventy

eight billion dollars for cartels gave Ian Freeman eight years in federal prison. The same system that promoted HSBC executives after eight hundred and eighty one million in cartel laundering convicted Freeman of unlicensed money transmission and then his appeal was denied. He still sits today in a federal cage. while Jamie Dimon prepares his remarks on responsible stablecoin regulation at Davos. So this entire... situation is absurd. We do not need market structure. The market structure that has been put in place increases crime and it punishes

innocent people, period. So I'm sick of accepting the argument. Most people accept the argument that, well, of course we need common sense, bipartisan legislation. I've seen no evidence of such thing ever having existed, but certainly within this financial realm. But there's a deeper question. Even if the members of Congress were saints, which they clearly are not, even if they were honest, competent, and genuinely motivated by public good, they still have no legitimate authority to structure voluntary exchange. When two people agree to trade something value for value, what gives the third party the right to

insert themselves in that transaction? And to be clear, what's happening here is very simply a case of They hijacked Bitcoin, and now they want to hijack tokenization. They want to hijack Ethereum. Essentially, you could look at it as this is an attempt to hijack Ethereum in a really simplistic way of looking at it, but to make an analogy. and turn that over to BlackRock and JPMorgan Chase. That's essentially what's going on. And maybe they'll throw a bone to one guy like Brian Armstrong. Maybe there'll be two big exchanges, crypto exchanges, which, by the way, watch. What will end up happening is if this continues, if they're allowed to,

if they pass the Clarity Act and they pass all this stuff, Coinbase ends up getting acquired by JPMorgan Chase or Fidelity or one of these And then in the end, other things. we will have just the same financial institutions, except now the underlying infrastructure is more trackable and more programmable. That's effectively what's going on here. So I'm not going to go through... I could go through a lot of this. I'm not going to talk about Bitcoin again. It'll be in the article just as a rehash, but I'll stick to... Other than the fact that Bitcoin will be subject to probably the CFTC based on how this is going.

And again, more tracking, more surveillance. There's no upside. There's no good piece of news. So this idea that it's clarity... and clear rules of the road. if the rules are you no longer have Well, any economic freedom or privacy, why are people signing up for clarity? We should be repealing these monstrous regulations that are in place that are ineffective, not adding more. what's interesting is when you look at Now, who's behind these bills. So, and I will, in fact, I will show you this now. I'm going to jump off here. And by the way, if you have any questions while we're

doing this, feel free to ask, because I know I'm touching on a lot of stuff there. And part of this requires questions. to truly understand it, to walk through some of the history. In this article, I'm dumping all of this stuff out. And I'm not necessarily expecting a lot of people to read ten thousand, twelve thousand, fourteen, however long it ends up being. It's the size of half of a book. But I wanted to put it out there for a reference so that people could refer to it and could see the entire thing in context. So rather than just be presented with political propaganda where, well, we've got to do something, we need rules of the road and all Certainly, the other tactics.

It's important for people to understand the history of where all this financial regulation came from, what the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of it has been, and even the morality of it to begin with. We need to be having those kinds of questions. We have too many surface questions that assume that the things that came before it We're right, just, legal, constitutional, any of those things. And every time, if you've listened to the show a lot, you realize I tend to try to dig and find out what the source is of everything to the extent that I possibly And I've never been pleasantly surprised can. by, oh, wow, this was a well-intentioned, competent thing from the beginning.

That hasn't happened yet. I'm looking forward to being surprised one day. But it certainly is not happening yet. with the financial regulations coming out of congress now when we look at the lobbying uh the crypto industry spent fourteen point six million dollars lobbying for deals that do one thing build the surveillance state while crushing any competition that might compete with them that's what brian armstrong is doing He is the largest funder of this, but you're looking at an entire industry that spent fourteen point six million Now, dollars. I'm going to show you on my campaign site.

I have put together a bills section. And let me see here. If you separate out the window here. All right, good. All right. Twenty twenty six dot com forward slash So there's a day. legislation or you can just click on Now, bills. what I've done here is something interesting. So I'm analyzing all of these bills. from a variety of different dimensions. The most important one is I'm trying to measure where they are on kind of a technocracy scale. So we examine these bills based on surveillance expansion, financial control, identity requirements, the centralization of power, the erosion of due process,

corporate state fusion, and emergency powers. And a higher score is worse, right? So a hundred is the worst you can get, zero is the best. This... digital assets bill out of the Senate, it gets a seventy two out of one hundred. And the short summary of it is two hundred and seventy eight pages of regulatory clarity that builds the surveillance state. That's effectively what is what's happening here. And we've talked about, again, all the stuff that's happened, mandatory surveillance, so on and so forth. DeFi is in the crosshairs. There's a lot of of propaganda around DeFi. There are a lot of people saying, oh, this is great.

This offers the ability for DeFi to finally exist. It doesn't because it basically sets a set of criteria and defines DeFi in such a way that almost none of the large players in DeFi actually meet the criteria. So it's DeFi positive in name only. once you look at what the full criteria are. And I'll go through that maybe if we have time a little bit later. Now, what I've done though, in addition to summarizing the bills in this way, I've indicated who profits, but then we walk through the lobbying war. So who's funding this? I want to know the organizations. I want to know the people. We have to get on board with this.

One of the things that drives me nuts on this is... We don't know who writes these bills. Cynthia Loomis did not write the Genius Act. I assure you, none of the politicians, Tim Scott did not write any bill, okay? you can figure out who wrote these bills. Well, And in this instance, we have for this Clarity Act, for the Senate Market Structure Bill, and I guess this actually is kind of combined for all of the Clarity Act. We have fourteen point six million coming from the crypto industry. Fifty six point seven million coming from the banking industry. Guys, they're working together. This is a combined piece of legislation. Now, let's dig deeper.

Who is involved in this? So we have we have two hundred and forty former officials. In the government, we have thirty one from Treasury, twenty eight from SEC, a bunch from the CFTC, so on and so forth. So, again, this is the revolving door. You have a group like the Digital Chamber of Commerce. So these are the people that are involved. And here are the specific names. I won't go through all of them now. But make yourself familiar with these people. These are the people pushing the strings. Again, Tim Scott doesn't know a damn thing about crypto. He didn't write a single word of this bill.

These are the people that wrote the bill. And many of these were people that were in government and now they're out of government working for crypto firms or working for banks, getting paid a lot of money to pass laws to use the force of the state to suppress innovation and to crush our privacy and freedom in the marketplace. So... I'll point out some of the names here. I'll point out one name. We have Larry Summers. Now, Larry Summers is a fascinating guy. He was a former Clinton Treasury Secretary. He was Obama's National Economic Council director. But here's the other fascinating one. It turns out that he came up in the Epstein leaks.

Recently, a bunch of emails came up and he resigned. He was on the board of OpenAI and he resigned from the board of OpenAI. But it turns out when you dig into this further, Larry Summers was apparently the heir apparent to Jeffrey Epstein. So these are the kinds of people by name that are involved in manipulating the system and in pushing this legislation. Now, I've not seen a lot of people put this kind of information together on a bill. Usually, it's just the surface level. Oh, yes, somebody says this is pro-America. They throw a name on it that means the opposite of what's in the bill. And then that's it. There's no depth to it.

But then dig into... The individual groups themselves, the digital chamber of commerce, crack and ripple. You can look at another big area here, which is just fascinating, is the media. So as I said, I was starting to get... I was like, God, are people that stupid? Is there really this much... organic passion about passing surveillance legislation that gives the control of innovative tokenization technology and crypto to banks in like one or two centralized exchanges is they're really passionate about it so it turns out when you dig through this and let me uh

i want to skip ahead to the part of the article so i get this accurate as to exactly who was involved. But you have... Many of these crypto publications are owned by crypto firms or are substantially run or have substantial advertisers who are beneficiaries of this bill. Or these bills, I should say. So let me give you an example. So Coinbase spent... Fourteen point five million on advertising across crypto publications in twenty twenty four. Same publications that covered genius as an industry triumph. And, you know, there's nothing illegal about, you know,

people buying ads or whatever. That's not the issue. But I noticed this before in crypto during the ICO age. I was actually looking at doing an ICO and looked into what all was involved in it. And back in that time, in like twenty seventeen, You basically would pay a crypto publication to write something, to write a positive review, but it looked like it was editorial. It wasn't, here's a sponsored ad. It's, we're going to take somebody that we claim is a journalist, give him two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and then he's going to write a series of articles that look like they're actual investigative journalism to pump You're a crypto project. So crypto journalism is the worst.

I mean, obviously, all journalism is bad. But I mean, this stuff doesn't even pretend. There is not a... that I'm aware of... highly reputable objective source. And let me give you the breakdown here. Now, all of this is going to be in the article. And so I want you to understand that. But CoinDesk is owned by Digital Currency Group. CoinDesk published twenty three articles on genius between introduction and passage. Zero mention of the fact that DCG's investments are in a compliant, stable coin infrastructure. Zero noted that DCG portfolio companies

benefit directly from regulatory barriers that exclude competitors. Zero quoted critics of the surveillance provisions. Fourteen articles, zero disclosures, perfect compliance. So if you're sitting there and you're like, oh man, CoinDesk, that's the top shelf, that's like the whatever, the Wall Street Journal of crypto, understand this is what you're dealing with. There hasn't been a single article. And by the way, hey, Coindesk, have me on. Let's have a debate. Bring me on for a debate. Any of these publications are welcome to have me on if they want to hear the other perspective. But again, they're not interested in providing the perspective. So you may think that the top tier...

Crypto journalists are all for this and therefore it must be good and understand it's a hundred percent biased because the owners of those publications have a direct vested interest in it. You have Decrypt, which is backed by ConsenSys, ran eighteen features on stablecoin legislation. ConsenSys, which builds Ethereum that benefits from permitted payment stablecoin designations, appeared in zero conflict of interest disclosures. The coverage consistently framed regulatory clarity as unambiguously good without examining clarity for whom. The Block, venture-backed by crypto funds, their coverage quoted the same twelve industry insiders across thirty-one articles.

The insiders' companies all stood to benefit from genius passage. The Block's funding comes from firms with identical interests. The circle completes itself. So on and on and on, and I have more examples in here, but this, it was actually very... I actually, I came away in some respects relieved by what I learned through this. Because, you know, I guess I bought some of the hype. I'm sitting out here looking at my feed thinking, my God, there's actually big public interest for this. It's all fake. All of the big news stories are fake. And it doesn't stop... at just the content itself, which is biased and they're essentially

ads dressed up as journalism. But then there is all kinds of evidence that a lot of the bot activity, which even Musk, I don't really give him credit, but when he cut down on some of the bots, a lot of this was related to the fact that whenever something would come up relative to the legislation, you'd see massive spikes. In fact, I want to see if I can get... I had some interesting stats on here. There's so much information in this article. It probably could be like ten articles, to be honest, maybe even sixteen articles. I'm going to put it out at once, but then I'm actually going to break this up into different pieces because there are so many interesting facts throughout that

are just absolutely mind-boggling. Let me see if I can find the information relative to Media complicity machine. Actually, I might be looking at the wrong version of this, but it was something like, you know, a hundred thousand new accounts were created, you know, immediately following the beginning of the discussion of some of these bills. Like it's just, it's blatant bot activity. And, you know, I certainly, you know, if anybody wants to come on the show and take the other side of this or

whatever, I'm happy to hear that as well. I'm not finding a lot of takers. I'm going to be on doing more Xspaces. I did something with BeInCrypto. I'm doing an interview tomorrow. So I am going to be doing some of this, but I don't find it likely that you will find me on Coindesk. So in any event, I've done this for all of these bills. So you can see the Genius Act. You can see all of these different versions. If you want to see how this actually breaks down, you know, the beauty of this is this was just like, okay, everything that I built for own nothing to analyze click wrap agreements, you can kind of take that same knowledge and same understanding and apply it to government bills.

So the idea is, you know, again, yeah, I know people aren't going to read a the people who vote on it, but it doesn't take that long to read this and to see the conflicts of interest, see who the players are, see a simple score, and understand how this will impact you and your life. So let me hop back here. And again, happy to answer any questions here. We went through the revolving door. But, you know, this is something I've mentioned this. It's immediately inflammatory when you say it. I did the whole America one point is over episode.

And but we really are delusional about this, because if you look and you say, well, China's got a CBDC. Well, what we're talking about by tokenizing these assets centrally, by tokenizing commodities and everything else, not just money, we're talking about tokenizing and centrally controlling two hundred times the amount of assets that are controlled in a similar fashion in China. That's what we're talking about here. This is how big this is from a surveillance perspective. so um so i you know i i've hit on the the the a lot of

the big points here i mean we're kind of excuse me long into this that the the article i've got i'm just just scrolling through it actually takes a considerable amount of time but The takeaways here are that this adds surveillance across the board. It empowers more government. It involves real-time analysis of transaction information, sharing that information with foreign governments. It's completely bought and paid for by both the crypto and banking lobbies. who themselves are run by the revolving door of former government officials. And the propaganda is coming from crypto

media that is owned by companies that directly benefit from the legislation who have actually put zero of the alternative view on this. This happened with the Genius Act. I remember I was on with the Mises Caucus. I did a podcast with them about the Genius Act. And when they had me on, they went to look it up. And I'm like, I was one of the only people that they could find against the Genius Act. They went to Google or whatever. And the whole first page was all of these so-called legitimate publications. And then there's me with this Brownstone article and people seeing what I'm posting on X. I'm like, why am I the only guy... out here. And now I understand why. And the answer is this.

One, this is complicated. I mean, you already have to know about this stuff and care about this stuff. And there's no money in it. Right? I mean, they're paying... They have a seventy million dollar budget. I don't have a budget for this. There's no ROI For me to do this other than the ROI for me to do this is that technocracy is a fundamental threat to free will. And if we lose that, we lose everything. This is why I don't care about whatever the economic gains may or may not be. I mean, I'll see people, well, hey, listen, if this legislation happens, at least the number will go up. It's like if you've given up your privacy and ownership of your assets for a

temporary increase, which may not even happen, in your crypto holdings that's not a good trade-off but again i'm not blaming anybody for this because i'm realizing that this information is not available anywhere i've as i've said i've spoken to these people in congress directly in person i've given them my book they do not understand any of the technical aspects of crypto They don't understand any of the history of crypto. They have been persuaded by maybe wealthy people in crypto that tell them a good story and they haven't seen any other information. And I've got to say, this is kind of like with Bitcoin. Do I really blame a politician for not knowing that Bitcoin was hijacked if the

guy that knew the most about it was thrown in prison and nobody ever got distribution of his book? How would they know about it? Now, they're still wrong. They shouldn't be legislating this. They shouldn't be putting out an allegedly pro-crypto agenda without knowing what it's about. This is why government shouldn't regulate these things to begin with. But I do understand how we got here. So the question then is, what do we do about it? So like I said, this article... that I am putting out so far. I'm hoping I'm not going to add more, but it has forty eight references. It has sixteen sections. It goes through a whole variety of things. And there is one section that I am

going to go through because it's more it's not about the technical aspects of the legislation. It's about how to actually view the political process itself and how to view political propaganda and so i want to kind of dispel what these terms mean when you hear them so i'm going to walk through some of these because i think this is this is really important and i'm going to turn this into memes I want to try to make this funny. I want to try to make it catchy just so that we can start framing the debate. Because I remember I got on here and I did my podcast. You'll see I was pretty passionate when I was watching C-SPAN and watching them

debate the Genius Act. It was just propaganda after propaganda. I'm like, are these people... really that clueless? But Orwell had a quote, political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. And, you know, Orwell nailed it. Eighty years ago, Politicians don't lie the way normal people lie. Normal people lie about specifics. I wasn't at that bar. Politicians lie through vocabulary itself. They've built an entire dialect where every virtuous word means its opposite, where protection means control, clarity means complexity, and innovation means asking permission. So here's kind of the decoder ring on

this. And, you know, I'm not tying this into my political campaign because, as you know, I'm just here to raise awareness about technocracy and our crypto political prisoners. But when somebody says bipartisan, this is great bipartisan legislation. Bipartisan means when lobbyists on both sides of the aisle have figured out how to get paid. Bipartisan is when the banking lobby and the crypto lobby have come up with an acceptable deal to both sides and gotten paid. Bipartisan doesn't mean both parties agree to something that's good for you. It means both parties receive sufficient contributions to stop arguing. When legislation moves fast with wide margins,

you're not witnessing democracy overcoming division. You're witnessing the moment the checks were cleared. By what authority do they claim your bipartisan approval? You weren't consulted. You weren't involved. And so this is very much the case as we've discussed with the Genius and Clarity Act. Regulatory clarity itself means clear lines of fire for prosecution. Clarity in Washington never means making things easier for you. It means making enforcement easier for them. Every time they promise to clarify the rules, they're drawing cleaner sight lines for the agencies that will prosecute you. The fog wasn't the problem. The fog was your cover. Who gave them the authority to illuminate

your affairs? Nobody you elected to protect you. So that is a big deal here with the Genius and Clarity Act. It divides crypto into three state approved categories, digital commodities, investment contract assets, and permitted payment stable coins. So every exchange broker and dealer must register with the appropriate agency or face prosecution. So you're no longer in a regulatory gray zone. You're in a neatly mapped kill zone. They didn't turn on the lights to help you see. They turned on the lights so the snipers could aim. Clear rules of the road. Clear rules for who gets crushed under the wheels. When politicians promise clear rules of

the road, they're not building a highway for you. They're building a toll road owned by their donors. The rules are clear. Pay up or get run over. The road leads exactly where they want it to lead, which is through institutions that file reports to the government and pay lobbyists to write the next set of rules. Who authorized this road? Who asked if you wanted to travel in it? Consumer protection. That's the other big one. Consumer protection is surveillance rebranded as a public service. They are not protecting consumers from risk. They're protecting incumbents from competition. The consumer gets protected right into a system where every transaction is logged, every counterparty identified,

and every pattern fed into government databases. Protected from what? From privacy, from options, from escape. Market structure. Market structure is a rigged system with official blessing. Markets don't need structure. We talked about this earlier. Markets emerge through voluntary exchange. When politicians claim to structure a market, they're not organizing chaos. They're deciding who wins and who loses before the game starts. The structure isn't a framework. It's a fix. By whose authority do they presume to structure voluntary exchange between consenting adults? Another one of these phrases, industry input. Industry input is a theatrical hearing where the script was written months ago.

Congressional hearings aren't investigations, they're performances. The witness list is curated. The questions are pre-approved. The input that matters happened in lobbying firm offices before the first gavel fell. The hearing exists so congressmen can clip videos for the campaign ads and so lobbyists can justify their retainers. Your input was never in the script. You weren't cast as an extra. You were the laugh track. Responsible innovation. Responsible innovation is innovation that has been declawed, defanged, and asks permission before existing. Responsible means obedient. Innovation means whatever survives the compliance gauntlet. When they praise responsible innovation,

they're praising innovators who don't threaten anyone powerful, who file the right forms, and who hire the right lobbyists. The irresponsible innovators, the one who actually change things, get prosecuted. Then the prosecution becomes the justification for more rules requiring more responsibility. So here's the question nobody asked. Who gave them the authority to define responsible? No one. They took it. Financial inclusion is mandatory surveillance rebranded as access. So financial inclusion sounds like helping the poor access the banking system. It's actually about eliminating the last spaces where people can transact without government observation. The unbanked often chose that status

deliberately, preferring cash privacy to digital tracking. Including them means forcing them onto monitored rails. Welcome to the system. We've been watching you. Who asked if they wanted to be included? So here's the quick thumbnail decoder ring for political speech. Bipartisan means the lobbyists got paid. Clarity equals clear lines of fire. Clear rules equals roadkill. Protection equals surveillance. Structure equals rigged. Input equals theater. Responsible equals obedient. And inclusion equals conscription. So lastly, before we open this up to Q&A, I do want to talk about the war

on crypto. This whole thing to me... So remember, we had the war on crypto as the whole premise. Trump declaring that the war on crypto was over. I would argue... The Genius Act, the Clarity Act, these four bills actually extend the war on crypto. He still has an opportunity to end the war on crypto, but he hasn't. He's doubled down on the war on crypto. And I hope by now... with my description of these bills and i encourage you to view the bills yourself certainly i've put together these tools to analyze these bills but read them yourself understand them yourself and um you know it's it's in your best interest to do so given that if this passes then in

a very short period of time everything that you own is going to be able to be centrally controlled and programmed and censored by multiple third parties, including foreign central banks. So in this entire context with the war on crypto, and I'm grateful that Ross was pardoned, but we still have Ian Freeman waking up in a federal prison this morning. His crime was selling Bitcoin to willing buyers without demanding their papers first after having gotten a letter from an attorney saying he didn't need to get their papers first. And I've compared his situation to what happened with Jeffrey Epstein and JPMorgan Chase. It's not even close.

Roman Storm, his prosecution, exposes the regime's next target, privacy software itself. He was convicted on August the sixth for writing code, not for using it, not for promoting it, but for writing it. Again, the war on crypto is not over. We are adding massive surveillance while throwing people who wrote open source code to protect our Fourth Amendment right. We're throwing those people in prison. Storm's co-defendant, Alexey Perdsev, was sentenced to sixty four months in the Netherlands. It's not American overreach. It's coordinated international persecution of privacy developers. Understand it is global.

I actually saw Alexei Pertsev speak when I was in Amsterdam. I mean, the U.S. has a very long arm, as we certainly saw with Roger Ver as well. Tornado cash... processed over seven billion in transactions before the Treasury Department sanctioned the protocol in August of twenty twenty two. The Treasury later delisted the smart contracts in March of twenty twenty five. But the prosecution still continued. Storm still awaits sentencing and had a, you know, whatever. He was in the Southern District of New York. The whole thing was stacked. He's not even from New York. Like it literally is a rigged. Now, Tornado Cash operates autonomously through immutable smart contracts.

Storm cannot control who uses the protocol any more than Satoshi controls who uses Bitcoin. The code runs itself. But compare this to the amount of money that we talked about earlier with Wachovia and HSBC. We're not even on a similar scale. So... Mathematics doesn't negotiate with senators. It runs on every node in every country beyond every jurisdiction. The function executes whether Roman Storm is free or incarcerated. The prosecution is theater. The code is permanent. Keone Rodriguez and William Hill learned that building privacy tools makes you an enemy of the state. The Samurai Wallet founders were arrested April of twenty twenty four and charged

with conspiracy to commit money laundering. Rodriguez was sentenced to five years on November the sixth. This is very recent. Hill got four years on November the nineteenth, twenty twenty five. What was their crime? Honest marketing. Rodriguez and Hill advertised privacy is a feature. Samurai's website promoted transaction mixing and IP address protection. In the regime's view, advertising privacy proves criminal intent. Meanwhile, every bank in America advertises security while handing your data to the government on request. Chase promises to protect what matters while Fargo sells, quote, peace of mind. They're advertising the opposite of what they deliver.

Rodriguez and Hill advertise exactly what they delivered. They're in prison for it. Prosecuting Rodriguez for Samurai is like prosecuting the inventor of curtains because someone changed clothes with the blinds closed. The software was non-custodial. Rodriguez and Hill never held user funds. They couldn't stop specific transactions any more than the curtain maker can stop you from addressing. So build privacy tools, go to prison. And I'm not going to talk about Roger's case, but I will say this. All five of these men should be pardoned. Freeman, Storm, Rodriguez, Hill, and Veer. None of them should be in cages or under prosecutorial control from Trump's

DOJ. The war on crypto is not over. This is the war on crypto. These were the innovators. These were the people that promoted freedom, voluntary trade, privacy, and were honest in their dealings. the fact that these people are still under these circumstances is a clear sign that the war on crypto is not over. So again, I'm going to dig further because I don't know if there's any, if anybody's out here listening to this, you know, do you disagree with me? Do you believe, sell me the idea that the war on crypto is over. If you believe the war on crypto is over, What is your argument for this belief?

Do you believe that this complete financial surveillance and control of money and all of your assets and the expansion of the federal government and data collection is winning the war on crypto? Do you believe that open source developers promoting privacy and writing open source code being imprisoned? is winning the war on crypto. I want to understand the argument. I've studied this a lot. I've dug through, I've read these bills and I think I've got a pretty good handle on this and I'm not seeing what the optimism is or what the case is even for the US even progressing on this. What we're progressing and what we're becoming the dominant player in is

financial surveillance. That is the area in which the U.S. is excelling, just like we excel in two other areas, the largest national defense and the highest or second highest now incarceration rate. Our winning in crypto may be related to financial censorship and financial surveillance. I don't think that's a win, nor do I think that that's particularly American, but I guess people could debate those ideas as well so look what are we going to do about this i you know i can even go on cynthia loomis i mean she didn't write the genius act a coin center did and the cryptocurrency

industry's twenty one point five five million dollars in lobbying wasn't a donation it was an invoice And so let's look at what happened here. So Loomis owns Bitcoin, not through an ETF or a fund. She holds it directly. And she championed the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, a proposal requiring the U.S. Treasury to purchase Bitcoin and hold it for twenty years. The theory it will pay off the national debt. So the math. Bitcoin would need to go up fifty X from current prices while the government that debased the dollar ninety six percent since nineteen thirteen suddenly becomes a competent long term investor. The reality is that Loomis is asking American taxpayers to pump her portfolio.

She is the Republican Nancy Pelosi, except Pelosi had the decency to trade stocks on inside information. Loomis wrote legislation requiring the government to buy her assets. That's not insider trading. That's actually capture with extra steps. And it's not just one bill. It is a coordinated legislative assault. and we've gone through the crypto side, and I've got even more data. Again, this thing is rich with data. I told you I'd bring the receipts. When you see the article, we've got the name of who all of the banker lobbyists are, who the crypto side is, the whole, all of it. All of it's there. I mean, it's not hard information to get, but it's just,

it turns out the crypto publications that are owned by these crypto firms aren't publishing this. Who would publish this information? CNBC? So... You know, in the end, in the end, here's what happened. So, seventy six organizations registered to lobby on digital asset legislation in twenty twenty four. So this isn't democracy. This is a silent auction that we weren't invited to. Here's what the winners got. The banks got protection from stable coin competition and they got this through interest prohibition. So if you have a stable coin, you can't earn interest. Coinbase and Circle got a regulatory moat

that eliminates smaller competitors. Traditional Finance got guaranteed custody contracts on every digital dollar. The CFTC and the SEC got expanded jurisdiction and budgets. And compliance attorneys got a guaranteed revenue stream. By the way, some of the law firms involved in this, I even lay this out, they earned two thousand dollars an hour for this work. Here's what the losers got. Privacy developers got prison sentences, small builders got compliance costs they can't afford, users got surveillance infrastructure on every transaction, and taxpayers got a senator's portfolio pump disguised as policy.

So Loomis keeps on calling the Genius Act historic, and she's right. It's the first time in American history that a senator wrote legislation requiring the government to consider buying assets she personally owns, while simultaneously creating a regulatory framework guaranteeing her donors control of the market, while the banks that caused the two thousand and eight and the crypto companies that claim to oppose them jointly drafted the implementation rules. That is indeed historic. So anyway, with that said, I know this was a lot. There's actually quite a bit more, but I'll save this for the release of the article. But in my opinion, this is pretty cut and dried.

I would love to see the counter arguments. I'm waiting for people to, uh, to state their case. There've been some people that have, I've been going on, I'm now, I wouldn't say trolling lobbyists, but I'm cutting pasting sections of this article and, you know, and putting it as a response to some of these lobbyists that are putting out the pro pop and they will not engage. even though my responses are actually getting decent reaction, not a single one of them has engaged. So we will take note of that. Maybe I'll come up with a scoreboard. Maybe I'll just put all their faces on here and we'll do a public display of outreach to each of these people and ask them a series of questions publicly and

see what their answers are. This is a complete scam. It is a complete astroturf fabricated scam. There is no large-scale public support. Now, generally speaking, there's no awareness. I mean, the truth of the matter is, I'm also not saying there's an army of people that are opposed to it. Realistically, it's complicated. It's Congress. Most people have lives. The people are trying to put food on the table given the declining value of the dollar and everything else and tariffs. So people don't have a lot of time for this, but, but there isn't organic support for it. It's all fake. So I don't know what we do with this, but what I will say is this time

and I've, On this podcast in the past, I've said I'm not ready to do some of the bigger interviews. We've talked in the past about Tucker Carlson or some of these other platforms. And I didn't want to do those in part for a few reasons. having gone around the country and given countless interviews done countless podcasts my own and others um i realized that that a lot of this information is almost too removed so it's kind of people like you know they tune it out entirely they don't even have a framework but the other thing is i've given a lot of talks and you know people the responses that scared the out of me that is that is an actual that's kind of an

exact response that i get which is not It's the truth. You should be frightened. If you listen to what I said and you fact check what I said and you look into these bills and it turns out what I said is true and you confirm it, you should probably be pretty frightened. But my goal isn't to go around frightening people. My goal is once you understand all of this, you realize you're not going to win playing in this game. You have to exit these systems. This is why we need privacy coins like Zeno. We need... algorithmic privacy stable coins like freedom dollar to counter stable coins and cbdc's we need marketplaces medical tourism marketplaces like osara so that

you can get out of insurance that doesn't actually protect you from catastrophic care and you know on and on and on and on we need to build all of those things but now now i am ready to take this particular message As far as we can, as quickly as we can. And the reason is, one, I think we now actually have some solutions. So it's not all fear. There's a lifeboat. Because if you go to somebody who's like, hey, everything that you thought about how these things works was a lie and you're screwed. And then you don't provide them an outlet. You're actually contributing to their paralysis. They're going to be probably more likely in that instance to just kind of Throw their hands up.

I've seen that happen. I've heard people say, well, you know, there's nothing I can do about it. We'll wait for our AI overlords and, you know, whatever. There's almost a whole set of propaganda around that. There is hope. There is always hope. And we do have free will, but we have to exercise it and we have to exercise it now. So now I am ready to roll this out. So I'm going to try to go to... Tucker Carlson and wherever. I'm going to continue to expand to get as large of an audience as possible because the reason is once all of our assets are digitally tokenized and can be programmed and shut off and controlled, everything that we own, we have lost any,

we've lost any leverage or any ability to negotiate. And it makes it a lot more difficult to exit and build. And we are now reaching that point. Twenty twenty six is the year we have to onboard enough people. And again, you're never going to get a mass. This isn't a mass audience. I'm not expecting a fifty percent awakening. We're just at that stage where we need early adopters. But in order to get enough early adopters, we need to cast a bigger net. So here's the thing, everything that I'm doing, everything that we're doing here, this is, this is authentically me. Obviously it's not, you know, This isn't the most polished podcast or whatever that you're going to find.

But this is me authentically communicating what I'm learning. And I'm not going to use their tactics. I think the thing that we have is authenticity. So... You know, it's interesting. I ended up getting on to Mike Adams' show on Decentralized TV because somebody I know on Telegram reached out to him and said, Hey, I think you might be interested in what this guy has to say. He wrote this book about CBDCs. And that's how that happened. That's how I got introduced to Mike. And now... I've had Mike on multiple times. Mike has had me on multiple times. We're collaborating on things and it just happened because, you know, somebody who's not, not like he's not part of Mike's team.

He's literally just somebody who's been a, uh, uh, fan, fan of Mike's and who watches the show. And that's how, that's how that came about. I have not done any outbound, uh, reach, uh, or marketing all of the podcasts that i've done everything that's happened so far has happened organically and i want to continue to do that but it does help so so for those of you like wow this should i wish this message would get to more people you know if you have some places that you think that i should you know venues i should be on i encourage you to authentically in your own voice reach out to those people send them an email send them a note on social media That's, I know I actually get probably four or

five requests a day for people who want to be a guest on this show. And this keeps on increasing. And you know what? You're usually horrible. It's somebody who has like, they have some agent or they've created a fake AI agent or whatever. And it's like, here's this, it's like, oh, well, I really watched your show and we think this would be a great fit based on your show. And then it proceeds to list somebody who would be completely irrelevant based on the themes of the show, right? Yeah. And so that's fake. I don't respond to that, right? This is what is happening right now. So if you guys... So in your own voice can help. When this article... Somebody asked,

where will your article be published? I believe it'll be published on Brownstone. I hope it'll be published on Brownstone. They've published all my stuff so far. I hope so. I'm pretty sure Brownstone will publish it. So that is my... preferred venue I think Brownstone is a great venue for this frankly it's one of the only places around that actually publishes the truth and controversial topics and so they're certainly getting targeted right now by politico and by the mainstream press and everything else i just saw something it's it's always funny to see the way they try to characterize jeffrey tucker and everything like that so my preference would be uh and i think it'll probably

be the brownstone institute and hopefully you know brownstone has big reach now uh on all their channels and their emails and so part of the thing is like i've been writing this article i've actually probably been writing this article for months um but jeffrey often says well when you're gonna write something because it's been like nine months. So this is actually kind of the culmination of most of a lot of our episodes, a lot of the research that I've been doing for months. And the reason that now is the timing is just how quickly it's accelerated without opposition. I mean, we're now, they're now saying it could pass. I mean, it was supposed to pass the Senate finance

committee last Thursday. So it didn't. Now we have like a month. So we have a month of, based on what's going on with Davos and with the way that all this stuff, we have a month to get the information out, but we have to do it authentically. We're not gonna do it with bots. We're not gonna do it with fake, but I need your help. I need your help sharing this podcast. I need your help sharing the article. And I need your help trying to connect me directly. I mean, I can reach out to people. I know how to reach out to, you know, for instance, like Tucker Carlson, four or five different ways. I'll think about how to do that. But the best part of it is if it's authentic.

And I want to continue that trend. Because now that you see through it, now that you know that most of these articles are fake, actually authenticity can go a long way. Authenticity and actually just the willingness to take action. So I think... This is a window to expose all of this, to expose that, unfortunately, Again, I love crypto as a tool for freedom. And now in this privacy specter, but most of crypto has been compromised. And now you're seeing the unholy alliance of big banks and big crypto exchanges. And there's confusion because people view the big crypto exchange as being crypto for the little guy. And it's not that.

This guy's just trying to get... his seat at the table at davos and so we have to point that out but they don't have real they don't have real support they only have they only have fabricated support and i'm going to continue to track them and do what i can to identify uh improve increased bot activity as well i mean we just need to destroy this fake narrative when you put all this together larry summers and two hundred different you know former government executives and the revolving door and all this stuff. It's just, you know, it's all there. And it's not like it was hard. This is public information. I mean, these firms have to register. So it's not like I, you know,

I went James O'Keefe and, you know, went underground and, you know, did a sting operation here. This information is available. It's just that most people don't look at it. And, um, and put it together. And admittedly, you know, this is kind of, the articles, I'm trying to make it not dry, but it is long. But it's going to be the reference material. And then off of that reference material, we can, we can plug away at the different pieces. Hey, you know what? We've got technocracy Atlas now. Maybe we, maybe we take some of the tools that we have a technocracy Atlas and apply it on this, on, on some of these bills and some of this legislation and track down, you know, who's writing these bills.

I've always thought that, people should be asking who's writing the bills. That should be something that is knowledge, that is required to be known. And I don't know if people care enough, but in this particular case, Once you see that Brian Armstrong is there, he's now trying to negotiate. They're trying to negotiate the terms over, you know, will stable coins be permitted to have interest or not? And they've already structured it through the Genius Act so that, you know, essentially it's easier for regulated banks to become stable coin issuers. It's much more difficult, if not impossible, for a new entrance. So banks have already gotten the leg up.

um by being in a preferred position to even be able to legally issue stable coins and now we're they're fighting over this other thing well the whole point of crypto is peer-to-peer voluntary exchange freedom and the people and the ability for people all over the world to be able to engage in commerce not the ability for one or two people to sell out everybody else and become a banker. So anyway, so Leah writes, I'd love to see you as a guest on the Corbett Report again. I did ask him to have you on. I hope he saw it and does. Yeah, you know, yeah, I actually just did an interview with Ernie Hancock. I've been on with Ernie, I don't know, six or seven times.

And consider Ernie a good friend. And Ernie is on once a week or once every other week with Corbett. So, I mean, I could ask him. And, you know, we had a good, we had a great interview. So, my guess is he'd probably be up for it. So, that's a great suggestion. I will reach out. And if you want to join the live convo, I'm putting the link in now. I'm realizing I'm now getting notes that there are people waiting for this link. So here's the link to the live chat if you want to join. Certainly you can continue to type in your questions or comments. Hopefully that wasn't too redundant. It was tough for me because I was

jumping around. various aspects of of the article and there are so many different things that i want to talk about i think the framing though of this political language if i hear clear rules of the road and common sense by part what is common sense but give me an example of what a common sense bipartisan piece of legislation is that didn't fleece the american people i'd love to see one example a single example So, all right, bear with me one second. Oh, and again, a reminder, go to ownnothing.org and you can pick your favorite anthem for ownnothing.org. We have four.

different choices up there. And, you know, every hundred people that vote, I'm going to give away twenty five dollars worth of Freedom Dollar. So that's another big benefit as well. Let me. I sent this to a lot of people. Hold on. I'm trying to find. Oh, this is crazy. All right, there we go. Hey, Craig, how are you? Good, Aaron. Can you hear me okay? Yep. All right, good. No echo? Not yet. We're good. Okay, good. Give it time. I'm sure we'll find a way to make an echo. We cracked the code. Season three was the key.

Great job tonight. Good stuff. Great job on the CFTC and SEC stuff out of the gate too. I've dealt a lot with more of the CFTC, but good stuff in there. That was great. Good background on that. Yeah. I mean, it's, you know, and I know, and I know people don't, you know, most people don't have a background in this. And so I, I know the odds are against us because you got to give a lot of, a lot of the backstory here. Well, and I think you're right. The CFTC seems to be gaining power because it's the commodity side of things, right? This SEC is the security side. The CFTC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they're the commodity side of it. And that's what this stuff is going to

fall under is the commodities. So we have to watch that pretty closely to see. You know, what's going on with it and who's falling in, what the infrastructure is behind all that too. How big is it going to grow and how are they going to support it? And so we'll be watching that. And certainly nobody's taking the position of we want it under our wing so that we can reduce the size of government. That's right. They're all taking it saying, how much money can we get from this? How much revenues can we get from this? I think the real-time surveillance and connection with foreign central banks is just... And the other thing is, I will say, I didn't put this in the list of political terms, but

But the longer this goes on, the worse the legislation is going to be. This is kind of like whenever there's a government shutdown. People get excited about a government shutdown. And then in order to stop the government shutdown, they usually have to increase spending because they have to buy off some congressmen. So it's like, yeah, we'll reopen the government, which was about... The original purpose was to cut the budget, but we're going to reopen it by giving this guy an airport. So I've never seen this work out where... where the people benefit the longer the negotiations go on. Yeah. Well, as they say, the Christmas tree bills, it starts off a Charlie Brown Christmas

tree and it ends up Rockefeller square. That's a good one. All right. Let's see. I know Dan said he wanted to, uh, Dan O'Neill was going to pop in. We have, uh, And I sent a lot of these. I'm trying to sort through the list here. Yeah, I think maybe using the technocracy atlas or figuring out related to the fact that we're talking about the next technocracy roundtable being about free speech. And given the podcast that we did together

about free speech, I think this tracking of these publications and their funding... I knew that these crypto publications were largely funded by insiders. But man, when I got to doing the analysis, it's like, yeah, Not a single interview. And this was what was troubling me. I'm like, how is this crypto industry so stupid? Do these people really not understand this? That they're not even addressing the financial surveillance angle? And it turns out that the reason is that no one with that viewpoint was permitted to publish. And my guess is that a lot of the traffic for these crypto publications is also fake. I'm not even kidding about this. So I looked at doing...

an ICO in twenty seventeen and at the time there was like a whole process for this and it would cost anywhere from a quarter of a million dollars to a half a million dollars to do an ICO and what you had to do was you would have to get a smart contract you would have to get the smart contract audited Then you would have to pay for exchange listings. And then you would have to pay as part of the package. And there were even companies that would bundle up all of these different pieces as part of a solution. You would buy articles in these major crypto publications, not ads, articles written by supposed journalists. So crypto has never... I'm unaware of an objective crypto publication.

I don't think such a thing exists. And so, of course, I guess it just didn't dawn on me that, you know, here we are almost ten years later. And I guess they didn't all of a sudden become Woodward and Bernstein. They've... They've continued in their ways. And so I want to dig into learning how to figure out how much of their traffic is bot traffic. Because, by the way, if you've noticed this as well, some of these things, you go to the comments now and clearly the comments are bots. They're just like... And basically, whatever they told the language model is, hey, take whatever the quote is and make a positive affirming statement about it that's only one sentence long.

right and it's just because the comments are trash they're just like it's you know it's it's it's there to be a compliment to collect followers or to provide social proof to boost the original post i want to dig in on that i want to really learn how that works because i because i you know i think the number of people that are actually supporting this bill is or any of these bills is incredibly small well like we were talking about you know it's um This, it has been covered, right? I have seen Loomis and a few others on Bloomberg or CNBC talking about this. but they don't go into depth. It's almost like they're just covering it, right? They're just covering the headline and

very briefly below the surface. So that way there's no real understanding of it. Nobody really knows what to ask about it. Like you said, they change it to the market structure bill, which is confusing because people are watching the Genius Act. Anybody who's sort of watching this, they're watching the Genius Act, they're prepared for the Clarity Act, and then they come out with a new name for it. And it's almost like they it's a very clear intent to not pick up on what this is, you know. And then obviously we have Greenland going on. We have Davos going on. You know, we've got Trump suing JP Morgan. Right. You know, we've got we got plenty of other things that distract us headlines.

And I'm sure there'll be another one tomorrow morning. You know what I mean? And another one this weekend and another one on Monday and Tuesday. You know, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, when do we circle back? Ukraine, Russia. There would be one, right? Solve Ukraine, Russia, whatever that means. And it's complete distraction away from this. And this is really significant. I mean, what you're covering here, I think, is very, very foundational as to where we're headed over the next five to ten years. I mean, this is very, very significant, this bill and the work you're doing on this. So I think it's being covered up. I want to figure out how to take this long article and put it into memes

and simplify the explanations. When I'm writing a thing, I'm like, oh, what if they don't understand what a commodity is? And then I start putting in examples and then it's like a hundred pages. So that's not going to help either because you can simplify it. But if your simplification of it requires that much time, then you actually have done yourself a disservice. So it's tough trying to figure out how to take this material. But I'm okay with doing one foundational article and then doing smaller things off of it where you can always point back to this as being the framework. Because I don't know of any, I don't know of another one like that. I don't, again,

I haven't seen a comprehensive analysis from this perspective. I did, I ran my article through a different AI to see how it evaluated it, right? To see, and you know, it's like, well, you know, Grok was trying to tell me I wasn't being objective about it. And then it started using rules of the road. It actually started using some of those political terms. And so I'm like, are you kidding me? You want me to believe... You want me... The premise to be that I should accept what the other side at face value that these political terms actually mean what they say? Provide the evidence for that. There's no evidence to believe in these things. So anyway, but... But yeah,

I couldn't find any other real comprehensive research. And part of it is that one of these, you know, this last bill was just released last night. But again, nobody has an economic incentive to challenge this. I mean, I guess maybe people that are shorting something, although I don't even know how that would play out, because what would you be shorting? I don't think this bill is good for crypto. Yeah, that's hard for me because I don't, I mean, I trade a lot of markets. You know, I've got, I don't know, thirty to fifty markets that I trade and they're all commodities. I mostly trade commodities, you know, from metals to the to crude oil to the debt markets.

Well, you could call that financials, but they're still in the commodity realm. You know, the futures markets are and equity markets. Those are fall under the CFTC in the futures markets, futures commodities. But, you know, you're right. Like, I don't know who would be incentivized to trade this. I mean, remember, the Bitcoin and Ethereum are both traded. They were put under the futures agreement. you know, window, but it was impossible to trade, right? Because Bitcoin was five Bitcoin. So you had to post like at the beginning when they first made Bitcoin a futures market that could trade. One, it didn't make sense because it closed at five o'clock on Friday and Bitcoin kept

trading all weekend. So you'd get these brutal, if you carried a position over the weekend, you would get a gap up in the, you know, Bitcoin would make a move over the weekend and you'd be screwed with a gap in the markets. right because you're closed from friday until sunday night till the futures markets open back up you know for forty eight hours or so that was number one number two you'd had to post like a hundred thousand dollars in margin to trade one bitcoin futures contract which is insanity like why would you do that when you know and now granted you were getting five bitcoins so you were you know but but normally the concept behind futures markets is you know you post up a margin

And that allows you to trade, you know, sixty two thousand bushels of wheat for fifteen hundred dollars, you know. And so, you know, and you have different components to that market. You have speculators, small speculators, large speculators, and then you have commercials and hedgers. And you basically the commitment of traders is. there's a commitment of traders report that comes out and breaks that stuff down. And it tells you where the small speculators, where the large hedgers and where the big commercial interests like the car gills, or, you know, so you've got the car gills, you've got the hedge funds, and then you have the small speculators and a farmer would even fall under the

category of a small speculator. So a farmer's got, you know, a hundred acre farm and he thinks he's going to pull out, you know, however many bushels of soybeans or weed or corn or whatever it is. And he'll look out in the future and say, well, gosh, I'll take six dollars a bushel for my corn because my input costs are two fifty. I'll lock that in today. You know what I mean? I'll lock that in. So he sells that he sells a futures contract on the future to hedge his future production. You know, that way he can lock in his three dollars of gain. And he's like, look, as long as I deliver this corn or this wheat or whatever it is, I'm going to get paid and I don't have any risk. Right.

So even they get fall under the category of a small speculator. And so if you think about that and take that concept with the farm and the commodities and the corn and stuff like that and a farmer, and now you take it over to a financial instrument like Bitcoin, and you think like, who has the interest to sell that futures contract and defend that position? I don't know of anybody, Aaron. I don't know of anybody, like you said, I don't know of anyone who's willing to take a stance on this. There's just, I don't know who it is. Maybe a hedge fund or something like that, but... Well, I posted earlier today, I said, you know, maybe we can settle this situation about banks versus the exchanges.

If everybody takes their money out of JP Morgan, everybody takes their money out of Coinbase, their crypto off of Coinbase, and let's see how solvent they are. Wouldn't it be nice to have that voice? If you get on Tucker, you could say that. But you got to do it in mass. Otherwise, it's just a couple... We're just a couple fools taking our money out. It has no impact. That used to be a thing in crypto every year. People would stress test exchanges. And I can't even remember what the date was. But that was actually a normal thing. That's gone. But that was like... Eric Voorhees and OGs that have a lot of crypto would do that every year. That was a normal practice.

These exchanges aren't required to have reserves. If you look at the history of crypto exchanges, it's not great. Even the big ones tend to collapse either through hacks or rug pulls. And I don't think there's a requirement that they have full reserves. I mean, that's not even a requirement. Although to say that it's like, well, you know, banks don't either. Right. So it's so, um, well, the way it works on the future side, and you were talking about this a little bit at the beginning, um, you know, the surveillance component of it, there is some logic to, you know, all the components in the, in the chain. So when we're talking about those different, uh, you know,

the commercials or the large hedgers or speculators or the small speculators, um, have a you have a broker and that broker is going to hold capital right so they're a buffer for the exchange right so the exchange their job is to match the buyer and the seller right it used to be a physical contract now it's just an electronic digital contract it's been that way for you know at least you know at least twenty years twenty five years pretty much since the floor went away and um in mass, right? When it went away in mass. And then what happens is you get these, you know, these components in the middle, you know, these futures merge, what are they called? Basically entities where, you know,

people trade through, you know, they're brokers. And so they have to hold certain amounts of capital and they're in chart and they're, and so what it does, it provides a huge buffer for the exchange. um and you know because it's if somebody gets if somebody blows up right if a small speculator a large hedge fund or something blows up it goes back to the few that's who it is fcm your futures clearing merchant and so that's who they're surveilling in theory that's who if they were to come out and defend if someone were to come out like you said you challenge someone to come out and make a defense on this if someone were to come out and make a defense that's one of the places you would go is

you would say well we have to have surveillance over this because that's our that's our layers of protection You know what I mean? We have to have this futures clearing merchant in there. It's going to provide this layer of protection for the exchange so that the exchange doesn't blow up. You know, only if some small entity below basically provides a buffer for that hedge fund or whoever who had... And we had this happen with John Corzine. Remember him? He was a Goldman Sachs guy. Then he went to... Yeah. MF Global. Right. And essentially the futures market had never really had a chance of blowing up until he got a hold of it. And he you know, he went past all the regulatory again,

you know, rules for the not for me. He was able to go buy all that stuff and essentially try to, you know, exert his will over a market. He got crushed. And it just locked up, you know, there were a lot of brokerages that were essentially insolvent for a couple years. And because they just locked everything down, people couldn't access their money. So... So that would be the case, right? A guy like him, that would be the case as to why we need to add surveillance to all this stuff. However... So the whole point of decentralized finance is you don't have any of that risk because you actually have people... You can use the technology and have people engage peer-to-peer. Right.

And so part of the other part of the agenda here is to kill DeFi because DeFi is a threat to all of these custodians and all of these middlemen, which, of course, was the original point of crypto was to disintermediate and get rid of these third parties. So it's now an attack. They're trying to make it like DeFi is the risk. DeFi is a risk because their system is inefficient, has third parties, has all these buffers, has all this other stuff, and it's unnecessary with the new technology. And so they want to shut that down. And in fact, I was going to say, this is the most contentious part because there are a lot of people that are like, oh, well, is DeFi going to be okay?

So I want to pull up, if I can find it in this article, it's not easy to... Let me try the search function here. What the criteria are for being considered... truly decentralized so um you know that's the this is what people that don't understand politics they don't realize that once they put in the infrastructure in the surveillance They can make rule changes without even making law changes and can wipe out all. So they might sell you on the fact that, oh, yeah, you know, we'll do a carve out right now. But to override that carve out is something that they can do with the flick of a pen in the future. And they don't realize that they're being set up and groomed for this.

So I don't know why anybody in DeFi would, based on the whole purpose of DeFi, want to engage with the government. But that's, you know, neither here nor there. So let me try to find, here we go. Oh, I said they called it the Clarity Act because the DeFi Destruction and Developer Imprisonment Act was focused group poorly. I'm going to make sure I'm looking at the right. All right, here we go. So here we go. The decentralized exemption that isn't. So to qualify as decentralized under Clarity, a protocol must meet specific tests.

No single entity can have unilateral control. No issuer can have meaningful influence over operations. The governance must be genuinely distributed. Well, so if you look at that and then you look at the actual DeFi protocols, you have Uniswap Labs, which controls the most front-end interface for most user access. OV has a core development team. Compound has a governance token. So in reality, the big players in DeFi are not exempt. And so again, this is one of those things where They'll pay lip service. What's the term that they use? Grin fuck. They'll grin fuck you as they're doing the negotiations. And they'll say, oh, yeah, here,

we've got this little carve out for you. And then all of a sudden at the last minute, they add one little sentence and it wipes out all of DeFi. What leverage does DeFi have at this table here? They have none because there's nobody advocating for DeFi. Coinbase isn't advocating for DeFi. Coinbase is a centralized exchange. They want DeFi to be defined in a way that benefits them in their position and that creates a regulatory moat that no one else can comply with. That's clearly what Armstrong is doing, and he's the largest funder of this. So even engaging in this process, you've lost. If you went into this thinking you're going to be able to cut a good

deal with Congress, you've already lost. You didn't even know you were the fool on day one. Let me know if I'm correct on this. We're at such a point of innovation and it's moving so fast that people who want to be crooked with social media and with a little bit of a staff, a couple programmers, people who understand social media, know how to work the system, they can create any propaganda spin they want on it. Right. And that's exactly what they're doing here. Right. It's, you know, they're stacking the deck in their favor

and then they're backing it up. They're, they're filling in behind with all the bots and everything. Right. And they're making it look totally legitimate, but there might be absolutely not one human being who understands what they're doing. And, and they're just getting carte blanche full runway to do whatever they want with it. Is that, is that I'm waiting to find a single person that isn't paid for or a bot to defend this legislation. A single person. Yeah, well, that's kind of their MO, right? We were talking last night on the technocracy roundtable, which we're going to restream, actually, but we were waiting for, we didn't want to compete with you guys. But yeah, we're going to restream.

We wanted people to watch you. But yeah, remember I was talking about how the USDA put in, you know, for the Climate Smart Commodity Project, like it was a huge amount of money, but forty one million dollars went to Farm Journal. I mean, what other reason could there be other than propaganda? Like, how does that have anything to do with Climate Smart Commodity Projects? Yep. It's their M.O. in every arena. That's how they control. Right now, there's also this same process, but you know that David Ellison took over Paramount. Larry Ellison helped him fund in order to

buy out Paramount. And now they're continuing to try and get Warner Brothers so that he can get CNN. It's really about getting CNN. They already have CBS. So I just bring this up because this is a similar thing where they're just trying to control the narrative. How do you control narrative? You control narrative through the media. Ellison already has TikTok. So he has that arm of the social media. And of course, you know, as a, what's his name? Zuckerberg is busy screaming about how, you know, the China bad. Meanwhile, they have this whole feedback loop going where, you know, Meta collects all the data. It helps to build their training models. And Oracle is creating that infrastructure.

So, I mean, it's just back and forth, but they use these narratives in order to advance their agendas. It's very effective. It's an art. We talked about when Craig and I did the episode about this, this company called Influenceables, which was started by an ex-Trump, part of Trump's campaign team. And they basically run these campaigns where you pay influencers to post, to coordinate posts, but without flagging that it's a sponsored post. And so this is an example was given when I don't know, RFK was doing something about canceling food stamps for sugary drinks or something

like this. I guess the... Snap. Yeah, the Snap thing. The soda companies got together and had a whole bunch of influencers at the same time publish a thing saying how ridiculous it was. But I wonder how often that happens. I mean, you look at these accounts like Cat Turd and some of these other things on here. A lot of those tweets are just sponsored tweets that are not labeled as sponsored tweets. Yeah, well, I mean, I've experienced it and sometimes it's bots and sometimes it's real people who are being paid to respond. And you get a variety of these depending on what, you know, depending on what entity it is. But when I was in my battle back and forth, you know, at the end of last year,

I experienced that. And I know some of them were bots because you would go to their, and this was on Substack mostly, but you would go to their Substack and they had no history, like not even reads. I mean, there are people who don't post on Substack, but they at least read, right? Because that's what Substack is. It's mostly, I mean, now they have videos and they're creating TV. They're branching out, obviously. but primarily it's a place for people to go and read other things so if you're not a content creator then you're at least reading something and all of these would be empty like had never posted anything before okay I'm like okay this has to be a bot but they came after me

and they had lots to say to me like oh I'm sure that's totally organic you know that that's just yeah Well, I'm going to dig more into this because, again, I'm on a quest to find a single general member of the public that supports this legislation. Yeah. And then even the ones that are lobbyists, where you know they're lobbyists, if you respond to them, I mean, and not just troll them, if you actually give them a thoughtful response, they're like, well, here's why this is a good bill. And then you give the counterpoints, you'll never get a response back. Yeah. Yeah. I wanted to address what you're talking about with the DeFi, because that's something I've actually

been following quite a bit because of all my GameBee research. And that was a huge buzzword because it's part of their DAO infrastructure. you know, decentralized autonomous organization. And I kept noticing whenever I'd look into it, that it's not really decentralized finance, which is what it was supposed to be. You know, they have different requirements for what actually makes a DAO, but oftentimes, sorry, what makes DeFi, but oftentimes when they're talking about DeFi, they mean anything that's on blockchain, which isn't really decentralized because it's transparent. So, you know, And then one of the other definitions is that it's smart contracts. And I think that's hugely problematic.

I'm not saying that it always has to be, but it can be. And it's very misleading because it means that within that smart contract, who's setting the code? Who's programming it? And is it recursive? And how is it being set to update and to change? And then some of the others are like that it's not decentralized yet, but that eventually it'll be centralized. So this is one of the reasons that I like Zeno is that you can actually do, you can swap tokens. I can swap a token with you from your wallet to my wallet without a third party, without a smart contract. And it's private. Like this is a kind of, but this is not, this is not, a lot of people are not doing this. In fact,

almost no one's doing that right now. You're right. Most of what, a lot of DeFi have been scams and there is a lot of centralization to it. And there have been smart contracts. And one of the big things that was popular early on was to have an anonymous developer. And then it turns out the anonymous developer wrote the smart contract with a back door and got caught. And when they found out the identity of the person, this was somebody that was involved in another one of these things before. So there's a history here. Yeah. Yeah. It's a buzzword that is very deceptive. And their big buzzword is decentralized. And we know that a lot of these things are being decentralized towards a

re-centralized center. I mean, that is the... Balaji Srinivasan, right in his book, says that. He has a whole section on... on how it's decentralized towards a re-centralized center. And when you think about what they keep talking about, they keep talking about how this is the, you know, the quote unquote experts who are, you know, the top scientists in the AI industry. But what they keep, the terms they keep using are socio-technical, which sounds way more complicated than it is. You know, I did a show on the origins of that going back to Tavistock. But I mean, it's all the social media that we experience day to day. I mean, everybody is very familiar with it,

whether they know the term or not. And then cyber physical. And that is exactly what it sounds like, right? It's like VR, right? We're in this immersive kind of experience that's interfacing with the cyber world, the VR, virtual reality kind of a world. And then cybernetic organism is what they want to create. But they say that the way that this will be done, and of course, it is to create Tesla's six G world brain. Tesla didn't say six G. I am inserting that. But he did talk about a wireless world brain. And they say that this will all be done through smart villages. And the smart villages are these DAOs or network states or companies.

uh you know the whatever there's so many different names of them the freedom cities and so all of these so i think they're using these terms but they're it's like i really love what you did with the definitions that the politicians use because they have they have a list of words but when you look up their glossary their definition is different intentionally than the words we then definitions we know those words mean Absolutely. Well, so, again, Balaji's not the... He's kind of hijacked network states. There are common things going on here, right? There's... Which... Which is why it's tough because most of crypto now is either surveillance crypto or stablecoins.

And now it's tough because I think Bellagio is kind of hijacked. But I didn't mention this yesterday. I'm going to be speaking at the Parallel Systems Conference in Portugal in March. So that's going to be really interesting for me because I don't know any of the people there. But it's going to be a bunch of projects. So I'm going to be able to... I'll learn a lot. I'll have a lot to report back. I'll be very curious to hear about that. Yeah, definitely. I mean, whether he's hijacked it from a branding perspective or not, it's still an outgrowth of the seasteading concept. And we know what that's all about. And he says in his book that once the network states are up and running,

they can revive the seasteading project. And they are. They're working on that. And that was, you know, Teal's brainchild. he put i mean for him it wasn't that much money it was like almost two million dollars which i know is a drop in the bucket to him but you know it's a sizable amount into this and it was a total flop it did not take off uh but now they are reviving it and they it's just so they can have their own little billionaires playground where they're not You know, they're not beholden to any of the nation state laws. But what you're seeing that's very concerning is you're seeing Trump is championing this, but only under his branding. He's calling them freedom cities. So, I mean,

he's already saying that Praxis, which these tech bros have said, is like the model, the ultimate blueprint for a true network state. And Trump is saying that it's going to be a freedom city. So, you know, the fact that he's on board with it, when you start to, and when you look at the players who are on board with the proxies, I mean, it is Teal, Andreessen, it's, you know, all of these tech bros. Well, and you saw what they did today, Kushner. Did you see him talking about Gaza? I mean, the whole, I mean, they have drawings. I mean, it's, this is like way under, this is like, this is, it's almost ready to break ground. They're clearing rubble and they're ready to break ground on this thing.

Yeah, it's a point plan. I actually started to write an article on it several months ago, but I didn't have a chance to finish it. But they have a twenty point plan and it is literally a blueprint for a test, a beta test for another technocracy. I mean, it is a surveillance state infrastructure. That is what that is all about. And so is what's going on in Ukraine. And I don't think you can ignore the fact that Ukraine has been slated to be the central node when they talk about these, whatever you want to call them, you know, C-forty cities, smart cities, fifteen minute cities, network cities, whatever you want to call them. You know, they're all these smart cities,

essentially umbrella, you know, freedom city, if you will. But they outline that they're all going to be connected. They're going to be various nodes on a grid. And they keep saying Ukraine is the central node. That is the central hub for all of them. And it is the testbed for this technocracy to be the helm of this AI world society. And that they've been very explicit about. They keep saying that, you know, it's been torn down like with the war and we have to funnel all this money to rebuild it. It sounds a lot like tear it down to build back better. Yeah. Oh, exactly. Yeah. Why Ukraine? Do you know why Ukraine? Do you have any background on why Ukraine would be the central node?

I have some theories. I don't know exactly, except that I know that they already have a lot of... It's always been kind of a corrupt hub for money laundering. I mean, it's where a lot of those biolabs were. Right, right. They already have like a black market infrastructure there and they have a lot of control. But beyond that, I don't really know. I know they already have the technocratic infrastructure set up there because of the war. But beyond that, I'm not entirely sure. Yeah, I didn't know if it had anything to do with the energy, you know, and the contract. It could have something to do with the energy being, you know, right there by Russia. And we know that Europe's wanted access to

Russia for since World War Two. Right. I mean, that's yeah, they went in there trying to get energy. They needed it and they got smoked. You know, they didn't have a choice, you know, so. And also just the geographic location, I think, is a component as well. Yeah, I do think that's valid. I mean, they had that whole proxy war back when it was in twenty fourteen and it was in Ukraine. So, yeah, I think that there's definitely a lot of components, but I think the energy and the geographical location are definitely factors. But yeah, that's what they're building. So those are the next two. It's going to be Gaza and Ukraine. And I think they really are doing the

testing with all of this technology in the war right now. It's both Oracle and Palantir that are running the show. It's not one or the other. It's both of them. When it kind of fits with the rhetoric, what you're saying, right? If you want Ukraine to be first, then you say, we're going to solve this Ukraine-Russia war day one. I come into presidency. But you really don't solve it for a year. But you go into Greenland and you solve that in two hours. Right. You know, you show up in Davos and boom, by twelve thirty, you know, post lunch, it's solved. Right. It's a little irony to that. Right. There's something that doesn't just add up. It's a little disproportionate, I guess, in my mind.

Relationship with Putin and Zelensky, you know, they love him. And but yeah, it's just going to take a few more years to figure it all out. Did anything happen today? I was writing this thing all day, so I have no idea what happened at Davos today. Was there anything exciting? What were the big things today? Well, Kaya Callis. I don't know if you know who she is. She's second in line behind Ursula von der Leyen. She was on today talking about, she's the real like warmonger that's driving a lot of this war component. You know, she was on a lot today. She was all over the place. I'm trying to think who else. So obviously Larry Fink was out. Mark Rupp was out talking.

Letnick, he made his rounds again today. And then I think Kushner and Witkoff actually left this morning to go to Russia to try to negotiate this thing. So that could come out first thing. They could have some quote-unquote resolution by Sunday or Monday. How nice and tight, right? All while this whole thing goes on with the market structure bill and we're all diverted away from the attention from, you know. Yes. They're very busy with their board of peace. Yeah. The board of peace. That's right. And that was big today, right? Courtney board of peace was big today. They were a lot of discussions over that. A lot of faces, a lot of names and faces around the board of peace.

And yeah, that's getting big quickly. It does. Yeah. Yeah. Any thoughts on how that ties in? The Board of Peace? Oh, I think it's all about building the technocratic blueprint in Gaza. I think that's really largely what that's about. Isn't that Kushner and Tony Blair? And Tony Blair Institute is involved in rebuilding Gaza as well. Yep. And Ajay Banga of the World Bank. Can't forget that he was one of the initial founders. And Marco Rubio. And who else was in there? There was five initial people. Rubio. Kushner, Witkoff, Ajay Banga, and somebody else was a big name in there too. I can't remember who else it was,

but it was like five of them right out of the gate. But now it's like thirty. It just grew like overnight. It's like thirty members now. Billion dollar entry fee, right? Isn't it a billion dollars to join the Board of Peace? Yeah, bargain price. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But yeah, all while this is, this regulatory infrastructure, the ground is being laid for it. I do think the tokenization part is so important for people to wrap their heads around. I was thinking about it today in terms of, if you just think about even the word tokenized, token, right? Like the etymology of the word,

it comes from the, in ancient Greece, it means to show or to teach. And that has kind of a, I mean, if you think about it authentically, obviously, you would think a true teacher or mentor. But if you think about it in modern times, there is kind of a social engineering kind of component to that, right? To teach, to direct, to show. And then, of course, over time, it has evolved to mean a symbol, right? It's a representative. So just inherent in that definition alone, we already have the hollowing out of any kind of ownership. Because it now is a symbol. It represents something, but it is not the thing itself. It's not the tangible thing, like the physical thing.

But then also, I think that most people, when they hear token, they think of games, right? Like a video game or like, you know, an arcade game. You have a token. Yeah, it's friendly, right? It has a friendly connotation to it. You know, like fun and good times, fun times, right? It's fun. But not just fun. I mean, if you think about a game and you think about where they really want to go with tokenization, they keep... And I keep trying to drill this into people. They keep using the term cybernetic organism. What is a cybernetic organism? That is... Cybernetics are feedback loops. So how do you get a feedback loop, a cybernetic feedback loop? You have to... data mined from the people,

and then you use that data in order to control them, to very personally control them. Because you now have targeted information on that person, whether it be the biometric data, biological, I mean, the genomic data, when they get that really refined, that's the most kind of permanent and, you know, I think that's where they get the most control because it is so permanent. You know, it's your... Yeah, biological data. And it's not just you. That impacts your whole family and your posterity, right? But I think when you think about it that way, they're trying to bring people into an ARG. It's like an artificial reality game where people are building the reality together, but it's a game.

So you will be incentivized for certain behaviors and de-incentivized for other behaviors. And meanwhile, you own nothing. But, you know, if they can pacify you with some Soma, maybe you'll be happy. Yeah, well, again, we already have representations for things. We already have shares that represent things. And we already have centralized databases that serve as references for ownership. So the part about tokenization isn't that it's a digital token that represents something else because we already have electronic versions that represent the ownership of things. It's the fact that... in the way that they're implementing it it's programmable and controllable

centrally that's actually what makes it worse to me worse but there's an aspect of it that's better from in the sense that databases are centralized and can be hacked and can be changed so that so there there are some elements of tokenization that are positive but like like everything else i mean we got to figure out why all these technologies get hijacked in a very similar way a lot of them start out with a hey this is going to be something that's going to liberate people and allow people to have more voluntary engagement and then it gets into the hands of the authoritarians and it turns into this dystopian nightmare this seems to be a consistent theme and

we haven't figured a way to stop that yet It's definitely a consistent theme. But I can't escape the game, the gaming, because I think video games have been such a large component of the intellectual preparation of the battlefield. And they have really, they've prepared people and conditioned people for that kind of a immersion in a tokenized, gamified society. And especially as we start to evolve into this next generation of the Internet. You know, right now we're in Web two. Web three will completely change the way that we interact and interface on the Internet. And when you start, you know, incorporating things like spatial computing and, of course, technology,

that comes down the pike. And they're already talking about, you know, VR. I mean, that was Curtis Yarvin's whole, remember, his humane alternative to genocide is not to liquidate the war. It's to put them in a virtual reality. You know, that's, I mean, they've said this. They're pretty explicit about it. He's certainly not the only one. And I don't even think he came up with that idea. I think that's derived from other, you know, others that preceded him. He's just... he codified it in that sense you know with that quote which was pretty shocking um you know just the way he worded it was so dystopian but i i think that's where they're taking us and they

they talk about it already when you when you listen to these uh you know kind of uh symposiums on web three and uh in the various fields take for instance like telehealth they keep saying how it will be an immersive experience i mean you may not be talking to an actual human doctor But never mind that. But you'll have a real, you don't have to be there because you'll feel like you're walking in. They're talking about it in finance. Craig, I don't know how much you've seen this, but they keep talking about how spatial computing is going to revolutionize finance because humans don't deal with just numbers. We have to be immersed and see it visually and actually feel the experience.

And so they're now talking about how we're going to be inside the graph with these virtual reality and spatial computing models. So I think things will really change quite a bit. And so the gamified aspect, I think, is very significant. Well, let me read this. We have the two big blockchain peer-to-peer prediction markets, PolyMarket and Kalshi. And this ties right in with that, right? And I keep saying somehow this is connected because this comes up all the time. And so here's PolyMarket. This is the definition of it. It's a blockchain-based peer-to-peer prediction market where users bet cryptocurrency on the outcomes of real world events from politics and sports to pop culture using

shares that reflect the probability of each outcome. Functions like a crowdsource forecasting tool leveraging collective intelligence to generate highly accurate probabilities. So if you think about this from the user perspective, it fits right in with what you're talking about, the gamification of all this. But it also feeds these AI engines because now they have essentially a sentiment reading. They know where everybody's bias is. So when markets reach extremes, this is a market. When markets reach extremes, beware of the crowd sentiment at extremes because they're usually wrong. And that's how they can take everything, right? They can tokenize. They can essentially tokenize everything,

right? Our essence. You know, I mean, ultimately all down to our last little, you know, every thought we potentially have, it all goes into this because that's really what they're monitoring is our thoughts and our behaviors. Yes. That's exactly right. And that's why they, you know, with all of these data mining, you know, and tracking modalities, they're not just tracking what we buy and what we say. The camera is always on. They're watching our facial expressions. They're studying, you know, the inflections in our voice and how that changes and, you know, the emotional response. I don't think they'll ever be sentient, contrary to what they'd like us to believe,

but they really want to be able to mimic that type of human emotionality. And they're also going to be shifting into a meaning kind of interpretation versus just words. And that will play largely into this. But that was actually what I was thinking about, the polymarket, which is just betting on futures, right? And so it's not just the betting, but it becomes an arc, an artificial reality game. And then they can also steer, right? Because they have all that information. And as you said, it feeds the AI. So not only are they collecting all that data, they can also then steer us based on that data, right? And they can really tap your emotion with markets. They can tap your fear and your greed.

They can tap your emotion very, very easily. Very easily. Yep. Yeah. It all depends on intent. I mean, you could have gamification that, that isn't bad, but I, you know, what is their intent? Well, yeah, but, you know, I would say, like, relegate that to the real video game. That doesn't have to be bad, you know? But when you're starting to have a gamification of the real world, who's controlling that? And why, what is the purpose behind that? That's the question. That is a good, that is the question. Well, while all this stuff's going on this week, Aaron, Hester Pierce, right? The SEC commissioner was out talking about the New York stock exchange readies for

twenty four seven trading of tokenized stock. Then we get ice, right? International Continental Exchange. So we have Kelly Leffler, right? Her husband is the owner of ice. She's in the small business. She's the secretary of small business. And here we have this guy, Michael Leffler. blog run internet intercontinental exchange vice president of strategic initiatives says also new york stock exchange builds venue for twenty seven trading of tokenized etfs okay and then we had um who was it else who else was out this week um I thought I saw the FTC guy, right? The future, the Federal Trade Commission guy, he's clearing the regulatory framework. I mean, he's like anything that comes through

here, we're going to basically jam it through here. So the FTC is clearing the pathway. I mean, they're clearing the pathway for some big, big things in twenty twenty six and twenty twenty seven, I think. So I have to go back to this just because I spent a lot of time on it. And this is where I was originally spending time on tokenization. ICE invested in T-Zero. which was Patrick Burns' thing. And I've noticed that they made their announcement about their tokenization platform, and it doesn't seem to have anything to do with T-Zero. So I always thought that they bought T-Zero to shelve it, and I suspect they probably did, because I'll have to look into how they're

implementing their platform. Have you seen any of the details of their trading platform yet? I haven't yet. I mean, I probably should now that you bring it up. It seems like something I should logically pursue, but I haven't. Yeah. Because that was just bizarre. I mean, you know, I mean, Patrick Byrne was trying to figure out how to disintermediate the bad guys and disintermediate the New York Stock Exchange. Right. And get rid of short selling and then it ends up getting a strategic investment. Then they don't even end up using it. Right. So I've always considered what happened to Overstock to be probably the second biggest rug pull in crypto after Bitcoin.

And don't forget GameStop. You got to throw that somewhere in the top five. That's got to be in there somewhere. Yeah, probably. Yeah. GameStop. Yeah. I mean, how people stay with Robin hood. I don't know, but you know, he's over in Europe going crazy with these, with these betting markets, you know, like he's, he's been, he's been finding every crack and crevice he can integrate himself into in Europe and, So I think about this in terms of the U.S. and Europe, and I see what's going on in Europe. And, you know, you think back to hard times, you know, you think back to, you know, I don't know, the Depression or something,

and people turned to alcohol, right? I mean, that was the Bronfman family, right? You know, and the legal booze running and so forth. And so you wonder now if this gambling isn't going to be some sort of a substitute, you know, as Europe, because Europe is essentially heading into a depression here. I mean, they're very close. I mean, in two thousand and five, the U.S. and Europe were about the same in terms of global consumption. I think they were both sitting around twenty five percent. U.S. is now at twenty eight. Europe's like seventeen, sixteen, seventeen percent of global consumption. So they were essentially equal size in two thousand and five, two thousand and ten.

But Europe has completely fallen apart. And a lot of this is because of the path they've taken with this climate climate change agenda. Right. You know, they've gone windmills, they've gone they got rid of the nuclear, they got rid of coal. And now they're hosed. I mean, they're in deep, deep trouble, you know, and they're pushing for this war. You know, I mean, you can see France, you know, they look how quickly they responded when we said we were going to take Greenland. You know, it was almost like immediately they're sending troops there. You know, they're definitely panicked right now. And so anyway, back to Vlad Tanoff, I think this guy, you know, and GameStop, how anybody...

stays with Robin hood, you know, the free platform, you know, nothing's free. It's so costly, you know, being the product. Yeah. Yeah. It's, it's free, but he'll take your soul, you know? Right. Yeah, exactly. Well, you know, maybe we can use the technocracy atlas to... I want to investigate this XRP. I mean, we talked about Nasara and Jathara, but this XRP thing, I'm looking at it again, and everybody's like, you know, the Bank of International Settlements is going to work with XRP. Now somebody's got a, you know, Ripple, Visa, PayPal, Swift. These have got to be fake accounts. But at the same time, there are so many. Like this story about XRP, this story was...

you know, in twenty eighteen or whatever, it's going to go to seven hundred and eighty nine dollars, which would be greater than the total market capitalization of all of the assets on Earth. And people believe that you have a whole bunch of people sitting around and then all of a sudden on TikTok videos, people are talking about seven hundred eighty nine dollars. And it's like, I want to know who the marketing team is here. I mean, or who's behind this? Because, by the way, I'm pretty sure Larry Summers was involved at some point, but that's a whole other story. other situation. But this is another one of these stories. People are, people keep on saying that, you know,

all of the banks are going to settle using, using ripple. It's like, there's no, there's no evidence of this. There hasn't been for seven years. So is that a trial run? What's your take on that, Aaron? Is that a trial run? Were they just testing it out? I mean, is that like a, or was there, is there something structural to it? I don't, I don't, I could never connect the dots with that one. I was told by somebody that basically what was happening was XRP was paying banks to do a pilot, and then the pilots never went anywhere, which is kind of an unusual way of going about doing a pilot. But again, this has been going on for years. I've seen no evidence of XRP being used.

Because when I was looking at CBDCs, what was being pursued was something called Regulated Liability Network, which was a project. The lead of the platform for that was one of the first four Bitcoin developers. And this was to create a framework for central banks to be able to settle with one another tokenization platform. But none of it had XRP. And I've looked at all the different... CBDC projects going on around the world. XRP is not involved in it. I mean, you can go to the Atlantic Council thing and you can actually dig through and see. They're not there. So I don't know what it is, the hype. Yeah.

We should look into that. I mean, your gut's probably correct when you say you want to circle back to that XRP. We should check it out and see if we can't figure out more about that one. Well, I mean, this has been going on for years. We're talking about seven, eight years now. They've been saying the same thing and nothing's happened. And it's one of those things like the debt jubilee where people have been saying, oh, Monday, they're going to announce. Yeah. One day, the Bank of International Settlements is going to announce they're using XRP for the settlement. It's very specific, and it's the same outcome, but the dates shift. But But people buy it.

So I got really kind of demoralized when I did that Nasara Jasara thing because I was looking at the videos and they're like a lot of these old people that have been buying into the scam. So people that aren't getting medical treatment because they've been told that med beds are around the corner and that they're going to have all of their debt wiped out. People that stopped paying their mortgages because they were told this. And it goes on for years. And so but but then the comments from people. So the same scam artist would come up and put up a new video and then people would be writing, well, you know, I'm still praying, you know, for this. And it's like this.

And there are all of these comments. I'm like, are those bots? I mean, maybe those are bots. But I mean, it seemed like real people. I mean, there definitely were real people that were filing for bankruptcy and not paying their bills that there are documented. stories of that but it almost seems like they truly is the bigger the scam and the longer it goes on people don't want to admit that they were scammed so they'll go in for ten fifteen years on some of this stuff Well, I think it's also because there's so many tentacles to the scam and it's not always I don't think it always starts off with like, OK, this is a long range vision, but it starts to morph, take on and they they usurp the

opportunity. But you see this with a lot of the cute hearted kind of stuff. There's just so many different arms of it and they just keep reviving it. I'm seeing this with the... Right now, there's Promethean Action, which is basically an extension of LaRouche. I mean, Lyndon LaRouche passed away. But his wife, Helga, is still very active. She runs the Schiller Institute. And the Promethean Action is just his disciples. But they've taken this really cute-hearted, like, trust the plan. They're very supportive of Trump. But they keep talking about how... He's, you know, he's fighting globalism. He's going into lion's den, but he's the lion. And I'm like, no,

he's part of the plan. He's building the technique. I mean, this is just ludicrous. But the amount of people who have bought this lie, hook, line and sinker. And they're all just like, yeah, he's playing Tendi chess and just sit back and trust the plan. And it's crazy to watch it. It's like, wow, it's literally just an extension of the same cue narrative. It's just morphed a little bit. I'm just bringing this up. It's another example. But I think that's kind of what happens. You've got, you know, this really... big psyop. That's this hook gripping lie. But then they sprinkle a little bit of truth in it. You know, this is my ice cream cone analogy. And they sprinkle these truths.

And so, you know, they're talking about how the cartels fund the oligarchy. Now, I don't dispute that. I mean, that's kind of historic fact, you know, but that doesn't mean that he's going after the oligarchs. It means he's building the technique. I mean, I don't know how much more evidence we need of that. We wrote a whole book on it, but just in case you need evidence on that. I digress. more people need to read that book is my opinion a lot more people need to read that book thank you i mean three and a half hour audio if they can't read it exactly yes i highly recommend the book so i i picked up ten and handed a bunch out i need to pick up another ten or twenty and hand more of them

Definitely. I mean, there are a lot of references. We want to go dig deeper, but I feel like there's no excuse. It's literally, that's like a long drive, you know, three and a half hour audio. Yeah. Yeah. When I think hope springs eternal, you know, that's the thing. I mean, I think they feed off of that, you know, and so people who don't have the knowledge, what's the next best thing? Hope, you know what I mean? Hope and prayer. And so it's a filler, right? I mean, if you can't, if you either can't understand it or you don't have the time to understand it or the energy to understand it, you fall back on hope, right? And that's essentially where I think a lot

of that stuff with the XRP and like Aaron was saying, you know, with seven, eight, nine, keep hoping. Or maybe it was five, eight, nine. I don't remember. Yeah, whatever. But I just, I, Well, I think, I mean, if you actually look at the psychological definition of hope, hope is about knowing something in your future and knowing that you have control over it. So really what they're selling is hopium. It's complete falsehood. These people don't have any control over these narratives that they're buying. You know, they're just like, oh, yeah, we'll just sit back, trust the plan. You know, Trump's the savior or whatever. whatever, you know, they're being told that they're buying into.

But that's not real hope. I mean, real hope is like I can see something in the future and I know I have some power over that. I have some agency. And that's what real hope is. So this is a, I actually think it's a demoralization tactic because what happens when these people, it's one thing to be like so blinded and you're just blindly worshiping or believing in something. And then what happens when it doesn't come through? You're like completely dejected. You know, you put all your eggs in that basket and you, and you had no, you just went on blind faith. So I really do think in the end is actually a demoralization tactic. It's kind of like, I mean, this is a total left turn,

but I think it's kind of like what they're doing with Candace Owens. You know, it's like, she's so off the rails that the people who are, you know, following her, like, you know, just like blindly following her, are going to be discredited. And I think they'll be so demoralized when it turns out they realize she's like this, you know, paid actor, essentially. And they're going to be, oh, well, we can't trust anybody or anything anymore, you know, because I believed that and I put all my faith in, you know, she had the answer. I mean, it's just a one-off example. But, you know, I think that's what they do. I think in the end, they're really demoralization tactics.

I want to find out who's behind it. The people that I see doing the videos that are convincing the other people, do they know that it's a scam or are they just one more layer in it? Who's really pushing it? Because it seems like it's either really sophisticated or really idiotic. I actually am not sure which. Well, in the case of the Promethean action, I actually think it's really sophisticated and I think it's very heavily funded. But some of the others might be purely idiotic. I never underestimate, you know, the potential of that. It seems like throwing one drop of toxicity into a pool of independent journalists and you discredit all of them. You know what I mean?

Because here's a black lady. I mean, think she's the perfect candidate for this. She's a female, you know, she's black, you know, she's, you want to, you really want to get behind that. And then all of a sudden you get let down and you get a rug pull and it's just, it's a, it's just a drop of toxicity. And so you discredit all alternative media, right? People just lose hope. in the whole you know independent media type thing so that's it it's a perfect play right if you really want to be like negative yeah i know i'm a little cynical i apologize yeah i mean it's i think it's accurate it's sadly But I feel like being realistic, it's not really so much that I'm cynical.

It's like when you're realistic, you can kind of start to see the landscape. Then you know what you're dealing with. And then you can have real hope because then you can look at the things you do have some possible agency over and the areas that you can control. And that gives you actual hope. Because you can navigate. Yeah. At least you can navigate it, right? Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I hate to do this. I've got a two-and-a-half-hour drive tonight yet, and I think I want to beat the snowstorm. Actually, I'm not sure if the snowstorm is... They keep fluctuating on how much snow we're going to get, but yes, there does seem to be a storm brewing. Now they're saying it's going to be mostly

ice, which is probably worse, but yeah. At one point, I checked in. It was going to be the storm of the century, and then I lost track of what was going on today, but I... It's gone up and down. They told us that we were going to get like over two feet, which is crazy for here. They're saying maybe five inches, but then we're going to get a lot of ice. But ice, like I said, is actually worse. So, yeah, we went out to the stores earlier this week and already all the shelves were gone. Wow. Yeah. Yeah. I'm looking at this. So. So anyway. So we should probably get going before. Safe travels. Thank you guys both for hopping on. I'll be talking about this a lot.

I just see that Cynthia Loomis claims that there's some deal, but she says that all the time. I can't believe she gets away with this, by the way. Truly. Now there's a... I don't know. He's worse than Nancy Pelosi. She is worse than Nancy Pelosi. And how is it not called out? Is that possible? It is possible. It really is possible. I mean, it's not just insider trading. It's, yeah, we're going to force people to buy this, and then we're going to regulate. It's horrendous. I was talking to somebody today about, can you imagine that people were demoralized by Nixon's behavior? Can you imagine that?

He'd be winning ethics awards today. so i think he he does over many today actually a tragic commentary on our time but you know yeah it was very mild in comparison Yeah. Well, thank you both. And I'll be back next Thursday. So we're only doing this now one time a week. So next Thursday at six p.m. And the article should, I don't know when the article is going to be out. I probably have another day of editing and then I have to send it to Brownstone. And I don't know how it's going to take them. It's long. So I need to cut some of it. Oh, good luck. I look forward to reading it. But the cutting part is usually harder for me than the writing. Oh, yeah.

Editing takes me five times as long, at least. It's just tragic. The article I wrote for the New American, it was like, I mean, writing it was no problem. Editing took forever. And they kept it. They were so strict about how many words you can have. So it was like I just kept cutting and cutting. I think I ended up being like sixty words over and I was like, you can take them out. I can't even see it anymore. All right. Well, thanks, guys. We'll talk soon. Thanks for doing this, Aaron. Important stuff. Great work. Thank you. Have a good night. Good night, Courtney. Good night.

Started with one photo, one connection, one name Ran it through Google images, reverse searching, no shame Found three more photos, found a flat log, found a date Cross-referenced with public records, now I'm up to weight Tagged it in the Discord, someone found the company Someone else found the offshore, count and believe Someone else found the board members, the donations, the chain Now we got forty cents becomes two becomes ten becomes more truth has an air rock effect we can't ignore every connection reveals ten more doors this is the cascade this is the score truth cascade watch it domino one investigation leads to another watch it go truth cascade we can't stop the flow every cover

We extracted the GPS from the location from the property records found the LLC from the shelter Truth Cascade.

They try to compartmentalize, separate the scandals Keep the connections hidden but we're digital vandals Taking down the walls between their separate lives Watching the cascade reveal the enterprise Truth cascade Watch it dial me, no one investigates

Cascade Cascade True Cascade Started with one photo Ended with five hundred connections That's the Cascade That's the power