Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 2, 2024 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas

01:27:25

Will Trump Take Us Into A Total Technopoly?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the Independent Media Alliance.
	We're here today for, I believe, our fourth panel to discuss something that is a very terrifying topic, at least just speaking for myself, that I've already expressed to everybody in this panel.
	This is something that genuinely unnerves me.
	And this is the conversation of the Bitcoin reserve currency conversation, Donald Trump's announcements and how this will be used going forward.
	But the intersection of this topic around the idea of artificial intelligence, around the idea of CBDCs, things like, you know, Intensive carbon tracking ideas.
	Things that really are the antithesis of freedom.
	Which is the main point of why we're discussing this.
	There's a lot of overlap to this topic around financial benefit.
	Which I'm sure we all enjoy when that comes about.
	But the idea is that these things...
	The idea of Bitcoin itself or the idea of cryptocurrency, at least as we understand it, was designed as something to counteract this system.
	And it seems to be merging.
	And that's something that really is...
	Obviously concerning for a lot of people that know where this was really meant to be used in the context of freedom.
	So I'd like to start today and round the conversation of the reserve currency for those that may not know what this means, where Bitcoin plays into that.
	And so today joining, we have Jason Bermas, Steve Poikinen, and Catherine Austin-Bitz.
	How are you all today?
	Hey, Ron.
	Thank you for doing this.
	Thank you.
	Good to be here.
	Yeah, my pleasure.
	I mean, I think we all see this to be a very important conversation for, I think, for things that we don't even really understand where it's going to go just yet.
	So let's go ahead and start, Catherine, if you will, with the conversation of the reserve currency and why you see this as a concerning discussion.
	So actually, the immediate conversation is not about using Bitcoin as a reserve currency, but using it as, quote unquote, a strategic reserve asset.
	So we all know about the oil petroleum reserve as a strategic asset.
	And this came up in government when you want to float a very sort of new or aggressive policy, you'll have trial balloons.
	On the government making very big money bets on Bitcoin was at a crypto conference in Aspen in 2017. And it was one of the most terrifying proposals I've ever heard.
	But seriously, at that point, not serious.
	And then I heard a new trial balloon from RFK from Kennedy at Bitcoin 2024. And then a lesser, a less frightening one from Trump when he spoke at Bitcoin 2024, which was in Nashville in the summer of this year.
	But then we see more.
	And as soon as the election was over, Legislators I know who've been working on financial freedom were suddenly inundated with a campaign to aggressively persuade the states as well as the federal government to buy Bitcoin.
	Now, let me step back.
	I just published a review of Roger Veer and Steve Patterson's book called Hijacking Bitcoin.
	Has anyone here read that yet?
	I've not.
	I took a note of it when you put it up there, though.
	That looks like something that's worthy of use.
	I can't recommend it enough because it describes how Bitcoin moved from an idea that could have built a really great global payment system that really could help people be more free.
	And literally got hijacked into something that was relatively illiquid and what I would say as a financial professional was sort of managed and governed in a way that would make it a very useful tool for speculative technology.
	Pumping and dumping, which is what, in fact, we've seen.
	But let's talk about what the proposal is.
	The proposal is that the states and the federal government announce very significant long-term buying programs of Bitcoin and proceed to buy Bitcoin and hold it on their balance sheet as an asset.
	Now, one of the things that is happening at the same time is we'd see a discussion of the federal government either auctioning, privatizing, or monetizing its real assets on its balance sheet, so it's land and mineral resources.
	In fact, we had Howard Lucknick, who was the transition co-chairman for Trump, and now is the nominee for commerce, who is...
	Anyways, talking about how don't worry about the $36 trillion of death, the government has $500 trillion of Land and mineral resources.
	And we know that people are very interested in aggressively getting resources as we've seen in Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee, Lahaina, other places.
	Anyway, so how would this work?
	Essentially, what you would see if the government announced a long-term buying program of Bitcoin, it would help drive the price up dramatically and hold it there.
	It would make it possible for people with large positions To get out of their positions at a high price in a market that would be, liquidity would be created by the government purchases.
	If they tried to liquefy their Bitcoin holdings right now, it would dramatically affect the price and make it, I would say it would be impossible for them to really get out of their current positions in any kind of decent price because it's a relatively illiquid market.
	But what that would do, the way the government would get the money is either by taxing a population, most of whom, the majority of whom don't own any Bitcoin, it would tax them and it would sell debt to their retirement funds and then take that money and invest it in Bitcoin, putting Bitcoin on the balance sheet.
	Now, one of the proposals is that the Bitcoin people with large positions will be able to not only sell into that program, but do it on a secret basis and do it on a tax free basis if they buy real estate.
	So essentially at the root, what you're talking about is a crypto for real asset swap.
	In a way that's going to artificially pump up the price of the crypto or the Bitcoin and artificially depress the price of the real assets.
	Now, why is this important?
	Right now, if you look at what's going on in the financial system, we've had decade after decade of creating paper, creating paper, creating paper.
	And in fact, right now, what the people running the financial system want is they're trying to grab the real assets.
	And so this is a way to exit your Bitcoin and get a hold of the real assets, if you will.
	And I have to tell you, it's the...
	I don't think it's going to happen.
	I think too many sound heads are going to try and stop it.
	But if it did happen, it would be the biggest financial scam yet at the federal government.
	And I say that as knowing that during the bailouts, we had $23 trillion go out on the bailouts and we had $21 trillion Missing now from the federal account.
	So we have almost 50 trillion, you know, of financial scams so far that we know of, and this one would be worse.
	This one would be bigger.
	So, and normally I would say, I can't imagine the hubris it would take to propose this, and yet it's being proposed and somebody's spending a huge amount of money to generate this kind of astroturf and interest.
	So, now, I do want to mention, you know, many people believe, and I want to go back to the fact that Bitcoin, the original Bitcoin, could have been something really great.
	So, and, you know, and in theory, it can always be brought back to that.
	But one of the attractive features of Bitcoin is that essentially that it was limited in the amount that could be created.
	If you look at how it's been hijacked, particularly the addition of ETFs into the market, I assure you, you can counterfeit Bitcoin all day long.
	So, you know, one of the most attractive features of Bitcoin in terms of how it's being governed and managed, in my opinion, is completely gone because now Wall Street's got the bit in their teeth.
	Right.
	Well, I see.
	I really want to touch on the natural asset company part that you mentioned there, which I think is a really central part of that.
	I at least want your opinion on how that plays in.
	But really quickly, do you think in your mind, since this is seemingly being rolled out under the Trump and Vance administration, is this something that you think that they're aware of?
	Or is this something that they're, in your opinion, being played with?
	Or how do you see that?
	So Trump, first of all, there are many different parties who understand that the real land and minerals owned by the federal government are very valuable.
	So if you go, we have our review of hijacking Bitcoin, but then we also have a description of basically the Bitcoin strategic reserve scam.
	And in it, we have a clip of Howard Lutnick describing the fact that the US government has 500 trillion of land and mineral resources.
	The Trump administration in 2018, at the same time they approved FASB-56, Also approved for the same year.
	Also approved a process for the geological survey to map out all minerals on federal lands in the entire United States.
	I think they're doing, in fact, all of North America, not just federal lands.
	And it's the mapping survey gives them the ability, I'm told, to go from the ground level down 3,000 feet.
	So, you know, and they are looking for rare earth.
	They're looking for lithium.
	They're looking for a significant amount of resources you need to build the control grid, whether it's the lithium to make the batteries or the energy to fuel the AI. So I think, you know, and we have a serious problem in America with what I call plunder capitalism and the private equity firms.
	So I think the world of investment is 100% clear on the value and importance of all those real assets, and they understand what can be done with them, good and bad.
	So I think at the top of the investment food chain, there's absolute clarity of what's going on.
	And if you look at the trial balloon I heard back in Aspen in 2017, you know, they've been playing with this for a long, long time.
	I mean, I've always believed that Bitcoin and crypto was a way of prototyping the control grid and getting sort of the freedom fighters helping you do it.
	Yeah, that is a really terrifying aspect of this.
	Mark Goodwin from Unlimited Hangout, he wrote in his chain series, just to quote him really quickly, he said, I must unfortunately now conclude that the emergence of this system, discussing what we're discussing, immediately after the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent phase shifting adoption of Bitcoin by the institutional authors and beneficiaries of the pandemic's financial stimulus,
	It was the work of a modern intelligence community that has merged with the Silicon Valley technology, Meridian, since at least the 1980s, but unabashedly since the formation of the CIA's venture firm, In-Q-Tel, just before the turn of the millennium.
	And I think this is a really difficult thing, because at the same time, I think, just like anything like the internet, I believe that there are possible positives, like you're saying.
	Right.
	So let me bring something up.
	Have you ever read Tim Wu's books?
	He ran for lieutenant governor, I don't know, about four or five years ago in New York.
	I think he's a professor at Columbia.
	And he wrote a wonderful book about, if somebody just looks at it for a search engine, you'll find the name.
	How for the last 150 years, a new information technology will come out.
	There's this unbelievable great period of blossoming where entrepreneurs see the potential of the technology, they get really excited, they prototype, they do a lot of things, and then suddenly wham!
	You know, the hand comes in and suddenly things are centralized and the technology contributes to more central control.
	And you have this blossom control, blossom control, blossom control, and he marches you through 150 years Of technology serving centralization when, in fact, you know, each innovation is followed by a period of entrepreneurs discovering how, in fact, this could make us more prosperous, freer, everything.
	And so you have this tension.
	And I just think we're in a cycle that's been going on for quite, you know, for more than a century at least.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think Mark makes similar points as well in that series about the idea of, like, the free market and how that's abused.
	Like, not that the free market is a bad idea, but that it's taken advantage of in the same way with this decentralization, where it's sort of a ploy to get us to believe that's the direction when really, like you're saying, it just continues to cycle us back into a control structure.
	And that's, that's the, so, I mean, and by the way, feel free to jump in if you have any thoughts on this.
	Like, so where do you see that being, like, how do you circumvent that?
	Because obviously decentralization, I think, is where we should be aiming, but it seems like we have gamed how to make us fall right back into the same trap every time.
	So here's what's very interesting.
	There was a wonderful book that I read many, several decades ago by a professor at Michigan University, Robert Axelrod.
	It's called The Evolution of Cooperation.
	And when computers first came out, he started to do simulations.
	And the question he asked was, how could a society simply evolve to an economy of peace out of You know, everybody making individual choices.
	In other words, how could we, through our culture and daily transactions and lives, choose enough people choose peace to bring about a peaceful society?
	And what he discovered was the condition precedent to doing that was transparency.
	And the transparency was needed was I needed to be able to tell that Ryan was a bad guy and Jason was a good guy.
	And so I would shun Ryan and embrace and try and get my daughter to marry Jason, right?
	And it was simply people would shun the bad guys if they could see who they were.
	And I think one of the things that's been the most effective about media and the mind control and propaganda and treatment and all of that kind of stuff is it's got people thinking that our enemies are...
	You know, we admire and crave attention from our enemies and disdain our friends, right?
	We've got it upside down.
	So, you know, to me one of the things we need to do is to bring transparency to what is really going on and who's really doing what so that the average person can start to make intelligent choices.
	Yeah, I agree.
	I think it's rooted in the idea, I would agree, that people are inherently good, by and large.
	I do agree with that, and I think that's why I'm always pretending to be good, and that comes to the point where I would agree with you, that if we had a full picture that would drive our choices in that direction, I would argue, but I think that's the circumvention.
	They're aware that that would be the case, so they trick us into believing we're taking the right choice, which drives us back into the same control, but this goes back as far as you can look.
	Well, but here's the one thing, because I wish I did believe people were good, I've seen so much training and programming to encourage people to believe they have to go along with what's going to win.
	So, you know, Keynes used to say the beauty contest didn't pick the most beautiful woman.
	They would pick the woman that they thought the other judges would think were pretty, right?
	It's like the stock market.
	He was describing the stock market as a beauty contest.
	And generally, many Americans go along with great evil because they think those guys are going to win.
	And they've just been, you know, sort of conditioned that way for many, many decades.
	Yeah, I think that's exactly what we're seeing right now in the world today.
	But bringing this back, by the way, if you guys have any thoughts on what's been said so far, feel free to jump in.
	Let me just jump in on what you said about whether or not this administration knows what they're doing and whether this could be malicious.
	I don't think Trump himself really has any idea about the crypto system.
	You got to remember while he was kind of pandering to the libertarians and the Bitcoin bros, he said, we're going to make all the Bitcoin in the United States.
	Obviously, that's not how it works, right?
	Right.
	At the same time, I don't think JD Vance is an idiot when it comes to blockchain technology, etc.
	I do expect, you know, that Peter Thiel influence to be in this as well.
	And the other thing is, you know, when you look at digital currency altogether, you know, I... I've been around the Bitcoin game since it started, right?
	I remember I was having Max Keiser on my show before it was a dollar.
	And, you know, we were talking about USBs and keys and secure, you know, all the things before there were even real exchanges when it really was kind of this individual to individual proof of work concept, right?
	And there's this whole other industry around it.
	And now with Bitcoin and Ethereum, by the way, Bitcoin, Being adopted on the ETF market, that's a huge game changer.
	And I would also argue there are more things with Ethereum and the subcoins and subcontracts that you really have to worry about when we are talking about artificial intelligence, command control, etc.
	I think Bitcoin itself is more like a value stock, right?
	Like that's the new digital gold if they put that in.
	Other avenues are going to be different things.
	Now, whether or not that's fast-tracked with this administration remains to be seen.
	I think there will be pushback, but I think you're going to see huge manipulations in the markets.
	And the thing is, I've talked about this for years, we've already kind of had A global digital currency outside of the blockchain for a very long time through the International Monetary Fund.
	It's known as the SDR, the Special Drawing Rights Unit.
	As soon as they made it into zeros and ones and then literally zero accountability of where that money goes or comes from, it's created out of nowhere, you were on a path to To something that even goes beyond a global federal reserve, right?
	And nowadays, you know, this is an old thing, but they're running, you know, refugee camps on the blockchain.
	So, you know, this is a World Economic Forum deal, but it's through the IMF. And basically your biometrics, as you've seen, and this end of the spectrum was really beta tested during the War of Terror when we were doing this in Iraq, Afghanistan.
	But this is where they're going to find work.
	This decides where they're going to sleep at the refugee camp.
	And they talk about how much money it's going to save and how it's going to be your passport, your exam certificate, etc.
	And they've exploited regions that are the most exploitative, right?
	These are refugees under this guy.
	So they've already got this kind of in a global beta for a while.
	If this gets brought to the United States on any level, I think it's bad news brown.
	I also think when you're talking about AI... Isn't it already in the United States?
	I mean, we're already throwing people off of bank accounts.
	We're already messing with their transactions.
	We're already doing the equivalent of sanctions.
	We're...
	I would argue the only difference is we're not on the blockchain with it yet.
	We're every single transaction now.
	We talk about parallel economies all the time.
	Those exist in some direction.
	I got kicked off of GoFundMe.
	I can do a buy me a coffee, right?
	There are certain ways.
	But like you said, with banking systems, with PayPal, Venmo, etc., you're 100% right.
	It's already in the United States.
	But if it comes to the level of, say, a world coin, I'm not sure if you're aware of that coin, but that's with Sam Altman, yeah, where...
	are now not only hooked into your identity, but all of your financial and social transactions, that's when you can get it on a minutia scale of resources.
	And the scary thing about the artificial intelligence to me is a lot of people, and again, this extends beyond the Trump administration's The Trump administration is now absorbing this.
	The CAIO program that's already out there.
	That's the Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer program that is already being implemented in all companies that not only utilize AI software, but hardware.
	We already have presidential actions on how this takes place.
	The deal is this.
	Governments are completely exempt of any audit and every other one is audited and your chief AI intelligence officer has to be at a certain security level above top secret and go through a course.
	So now if you're even involved in this, you have government regulation from the outset.
	So there is no real competition right now.
	That is extremely frightening to me, that the only people exempt are the intel communities and basically these advanced military programs and subcontractors.
	Go ahead.
	So can I make that a little bit more frightening for a second?
	Sure, please.
	The federal government for many decades has refused to obey the financial management laws.
	And has promulgated policies that allow them to keep secret books.
	And not only then keep secret books, but the large contractors and banks in combination with the national security and classification laws keep secret books.
	Okay?
	So the whole infrastructure, public and private, is keeping secret books while the private infrastructure is basically taking over government operations while collecting tax.
	So now we have a tax-collecting banking and corporate infrastructure with the power of government with no financial disclosure and completely operating outside of the financial management laws, and it's teamed up with international organizations like the BIS who have sovereign immunity.
	So you basically have A group who are getting close to controlling all the money on the planet, who have basically created an infrastructure that says they don't have to obey any laws.
	Don't worry though, Catherine, because Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are going to save us.
	Listen, hey, let's get into that for a second because I do want to kind of talk about that a little bit.
	You guys know the deal that I'm in these conservative circles all the time and I'm around these people that really do hero worship these guys, right?
	Yeah.
	At the same time, I do want to believe that Ramaswamy is going to cut some of these bureaucracies.
	Again, I'm very hesitant to believe we're getting the 9-11 documents.
	Jason?
	Right, yes.
	Okay, let me just challenge you on this.
	Sure.
	I said hopeful.
	I didn't say he's going to do it.
	But go ahead.
	No, hopeful for the good thing to happen.
	I don't think it's a good thing.
	Oh, good.
	Perfect.
	Go ahead.
	So let me explain why.
	You know, for 100 plus years, we've had a balance of power where the central bankers run monetary policy and the bankers Because the central bankers are really owned and controlled by the New York Fed and their members.
	It's controlled by their members.
	Okay, so you have the bankers controlling monetary policy and you have the people's representatives controlling fiscal policy.
	Okay?
	And the growth of the deep state has paralleled more and more government operations being moved out of the hands of the civil service into private banks and corporations, you know, which was exploded by the...
	Executive order promulgated by Bush under Reagan that said private corporations can do highly classified secret things, you know, financed by the government, which connected the stock market and driving the stock market up with the treasury market on doing lots of secret stuff.
	And then we're off to the races.
	And that's what drove the deep state up.
	So the civil service, by and large, does what they get written orders to do, with some exceptions, okay?
	If you don't like what they're doing, change the written orders.
	If they're acting in corrupt ways, you reform it.
	But they report to Congress and they follow what Congress does.
	If you replace them with big tech contractors and more Amazon, Oracle, and Google, guess who they're going to report to?
	Yeah, but don't they kind of already?
	Isn't that the problem?
	No.
	Well, let me challenge you on that because if you look at like a Google...
	Ridiculous, crazy stuff has been stopped by civil service who refused to break the law.
	So let me give you an example.
	When I became Assistant Secretary of Housing, I was required by law to run the single-family mortgage insurance fund on a self-supporting basis.
	When I got there, it turns out I couldn't get the financial information on whether we're making or losing money because the accountants reported to a different assistant secretary.
	I spent three months fighting and lobbying and I got them moved over to report to me.
	And then what I discovered is the critical amount of data that I needed to make sure, one, I knew what was going on and I fixed it so I was in compliance with the law, was controlled by a defense contractor who refused to give it to me.
	And so literally, even though I had the authority and I had fiduciary responsibility, I couldn't enforce the law because I had a private contractor refusing to give me the basic data on my own operation.
	And that is the deep state.
	That is the rise of the deep state.
	So the idea that you're going to replace the civil service, which doesn't cost a lot in the scheme of the money pouring out of the government, and we'll talk about how you save money, but you're going to replace the civil service with private contractors who are going to make things better?
	The deep state has risen by private guys taking over government operations.
	You're just going to finish off the coup.
	Once you get 100% of those operations into big tech and the defense contractors, you can re-engineer the whole government like that, all digital systems.
	But aren't they already there in a lot of respects?
	Like when you talk about something like Google, right?
	No, you know something?
	So if you're in the emergency room and somebody says, well, he's almost dead, You're not dead yet, and we can save you.
	But I think turning the government over to the very thing that has made things steadily worse and given the deep state all its power...
	Before you take this final step, because when you take that final step, you are saying, okay, Congress doesn't control the government, the central bankers control fiscal policy.
	And then with a digital ID and digital currency, you're just, boom, there you are, you're into the control grid, and it's the end of the Constitution.
	Mm-hmm.
	Go ahead, Jason.
	You have some thoughts I can tell.
	Go ahead.
	Well, one, I still think that you got to get, like, for instance, if you look at something like DHS, yeah, there's a bunch of subsidiaries with fusion centers, et cetera, but we were getting along fine without it, and we still had things like Border Patrol.
	Yeah.
	Well, but that's not getting rid of the civil service.
	That's getting rid of functions that the federal government shouldn't have.
	Well, that's what I'm hoping.
	When I say...
	Well, wait a minute.
	You know, because when I say I want to cancel programs and I want to cancel funding for programs, that's very different than saying I want to kill the civil service.
	Well, again, I'm not necessarily saying that you should get rid of all civil service.
	I'm not super libertarian in that regard.
	But when I see not only just the intelligence communities, but so many of the contractors, right?
	Like...
	My argument would be this.
	We already have a really dangerous plausible deniability circle, right?
	And we saw that especially with the COVID-1984 nightmare.
	Now, if Google, a company that was seed-funded by the CIA through In-Q-Tel...
	Right?
	That was the number...
	I mean, if you want to describe a technopoly right now, I don't know how you could get beyond it, right?
	It is the number one search engine in the world.
	It has the number one operating system on most devices in between Android phones and Chromebooks.
	Chromebooks, which are basically mandatory in most schools now cradle to grave.
	They have contracts with the NSA.
	They have contracts with NASA over the last decade on artificial intelligence and its supremacy.
	I mean, you go through the list, right?
	They have an immortality division.
	And that's not even talking about the Lockheed Martins of the world, but that right there.
	And by the way, they have the number two search engine in the world, which is the number one video platform in the world, YouTube.
	So now you say because it's on the stock market, it's a private company, and they can do what they want.
	But they're obviously in collusion with the government on so many levels that at the very least, you already have all these conflicts of interest.
	You talked about transparency.
	We don't have any criminal culpability for either the government or their contractors, right?
	And I guess this is always the question that I ask people when we get down to it.
	How do we get some criminal accountability on any of these executive levels, whether it be on a corporate level, on an NGO level or on a government level?
	Because nobody can answer that to me, right?
	Like I interviewed Giuliani about a month ago, OK?
	And he's got a book out there and it's called The Biden Crime Cartel.
	And it's the blueprint for prosecuting the Biden crime family.
	And like I open up with like as we're talking about, but Rudy, no one's going to jail.
	That's not a real thing.
	And we kind of, well, his brother can be prosecuted and his son.
	I go, no one's been to jail since I ran Contra.
	And they all got slaps on the wrist.
	And I'm like, they made the face of it, Oliver North, who wasn't the face of it.
	And he got book deals and became a millionaire.
	And he starts laughing.
	I'm like, that's not how you discourage it.
	And I'm like, the one other person on the executive level, That I can name over the last, what, two, three decades that went to jail was Scooter Libby, who took the fall on Enron, another one of those corporate subsidiary government things.
	And I go, Trump pardoned him!
	So what are we talking about here?
	Like, I'm with you.
	Like, I think the way that you do have a peaceful, productive society is that level of transparency.
	We've had the opposite of that for a very long time.
	And I guess that...
	Go ahead.
	Go ahead.
	So, I feel like I'm monopolized, but the U.S. economy is addicted to organized crime and war, and it's not in Washington.
	It's in every one of 3,100 counties.
	So I don't know, Ryan, if you want to play the red button video.
	It's three minutes.
	Oh, the one that you recommended?
	The red button story.
	But I'll tell it quickly.
	I was giving a speech long ago, and I was talking about the Iran-Contra testimony in Congress, and a spokesperson for the Department of Justice told a reporter I was working with at the time, On the hearings that the U.S. economy launders $500 billion to $1 trillion a year of all dirty money.
	That was as of 1998. So the number is much bigger now.
	So I was at a conference.
	I was speaking at a conference of people who get together once a year to talk about how we can evolve our society spiritually.
	So they're very...
	Well-educated, very committed to ethical living.
	Anyway, so I said to this wonderful group of people, what would happen if we stopped being the global money laundering leader?
	And we had a little conversation and they said, well, you know, the stock market would go down because that money would go to Hong Kong or Zurich or London and leave New York stock exchange.
	And, you know, we'd have trouble financing the government deficit because, you know, our taxes might go up, our government checks might stop.
	I said, okay, let's pretend there's a big red button up here on the lectern.
	And if you push that button, you can stop all hard narcotics trafficking in your city, your county, your state tomorrow.
	That's offending the people who control 500 billion to a trillion dollars a year and the accumulated capital they're on.
	Who here will push the button?
	And out of 100 people dedicated to evolving our society spiritually, only one would push the button.
	So I said to the other 99, why would you not push the button?
	And they said, we don't want...
	Our government checks to stop.
	We don't want our taxes to go up, and we don't want our IRAs and 401ks to go down in value.
	So if you're the president, and, you know, let's make Ryan the president on January 20th.
	He walks into the Oval Office, and he says to his political, you know, his Karl Rove political guy, you know, Karl Rove's going to say to him, okay, the American people have spent several billion dollars to get you elected, Mr. President.
	They all...
	You know, they want payback.
	They want their community block development grant.
	They want their COLA increase.
	They want their defense contractor.
	And you turn to your Secretary of Treasury and say, okay, you know, how am I going to get the money?
	And Secretary of Treasury is going to say, well, you better be nice to the people who control $500 billion to a trillion dollars a year of dirty money and the accumulated capital they're on.
	So if the American people won't push the red button, how is the president supposed to push the red button?
	Right.
	Well, so let me bring this back to the focal point of the conversation today, but I think this is important because ultimately what you're highlighting there is that the system's broken, right?
	Before you do, though, I just wanted to make a point in regard to what Jason was saying about the intel community.
	There's going to be a shift to make it more private than public.
	It started under Trump's first term.
	And so you're going to see even less accountability among the intelligence community going forward because there's going to be a private, forward-facing entity that has public-funded money that's going to make it even more nebulous than it currently is.
	Black budgets be damned and everything else along with it.
	And that's something that the whole two-year security clearance thing...
	It's going to populate a massive explosion in private intelligence firms because everybody's going to have a new hire every year or two to make sure that they've got the latest, you know, overlapping security clearance along with some people on the board that had theirs grandfathered in in perpetuity.
	And that's what's going to be the new entity of the intelligence community going forward, from what I can tell, at least.
	Yeah, and real quick, we can keep talking about this.
	I was just going to kind of fold it back into what we were saying is what's interesting.
	The way that we started this point was about saying that we hope that they will ultimately do this.
	Catherine comes in to say that wouldn't even be good.
	So it's an interesting kind of circle back to this.
	But what I think the important point is...
	Hypothetically saying that they're going to do whatever we each individually decide is the best path.
	Right now, all we can do is go, they said those nice words.
	So that's kind of the point.
	We don't have any idea what actually comes to pass after January 20th, whether they change their mind, whether something else happens, whether the Democrats won't let them, whatever the narratives are.
	Right.
	But I would say this.
	We want to make sure that Congress controls governmental operations, not the central bankers and intelligence agencies.
	In a state of society, I would agree.
	Right.
	So I don't want a financial coup where the bankers control both monetary and fiscal policy because that's checkmate and we're going to be in a slavery system.
	So, you know, I want fiscal policy still controlled by Congress.
	It makes a huge difference.
	Hmm.
	Well, I think the point was that Jason's highlighting that that's what they're at least proposing they're going to be doing, is reducing government spending, increasing government efficiency by getting rid of useless programs.
	I just don't think that's what's going to happen.
	Let me ask you this, Catherine.
	If they did do what they're promising, is that what you were saying?
	You don't think that those would amount to what they're claiming or that they're saying that they're doing something different?
	What is the number one expense in government?
	It's got to be the military, right?
	Let's look at the big expenses.
	The number one expense is we're poisoning the American people.
	So healthcare costs are exploding because we are intentionally poisoning American people.
	That's number one.
	Okay, number two, we are spending a fortune to run a global empire And that global empire is not, is increasingly uneconomic.
	The third thing is we have interest on debt, not because we need to issue debt, but because we choose to have a debt-based currency as opposed to Treasury just issuing the currency.
	So if you want to save money, and we're spending a fortune to support international organizations like the WHO and the Paris Agreement, and we ought to just walk away from all of them.
	And finally, the biggest cost is if you look at how federal money works in every one of the 3,100 counties, that money is being spent and invested to control, not to produce a healthy civilization and a healthy economy.
	So radical re-engineering bottom-up of how federal money and credit is used could produce incredible wealth.
	Incredible wealth.
	But, you know, it wouldn't be...
	You have to...
	You're going to need to have freedom to do that.
	You can't...
	You know, tyranny right now, if you look at how much money we're spending on implementing the control grid...
	Just if you dive deep into the federal budget, words cannot express how expensive the control grid is.
	And from an economic standpoint, it's a complete waste of money unless, of course, you're the thousand top people and you want more billionaires and you want to consolidate control.
	But you are building billionaires by shrinking the pie.
	Right.
	Well, so, I mean, bringing this back into the conversation of Bitcoin in general, because I think this is an interesting kind of tie-in right there, is the idea that – so the original concept is the peer-to-peer, no-trusted third-party middleman.
	It seems as if the U.S. government is sort of inserting itself as that middleman.
	Is that what – do I read that correctly, Catherine?
	So I wouldn't say it's the federal government because it seems to be a mixture of public and private.
	But essentially what you're doing is you're taking something that could have been a great global payment system You know, on a private basis.
	And you're turning it into a pump and dump mechanism that's allowing you basically to pull off multiple pumps and dumps that help you with control, also make you money.
	And if you can engineer a tax-free secret exit, Into government money, you know, you can get out at a high and use that money to buy real assets.
	So from a financial standpoint to the people doing it, it's quite attractive.
	Now, it's going to...
	You know, you're basically going to wipe out a lot of means of the retirement funds.
	You're cutting a little bit out, Catherine.
	It's a bank robbery of the U.S. retirement fund.
	It sounds like you're making an important point.
	I'll just let you know you cut out right there.
	Did you hear me now?
	Yeah, I know you're coming back in right now.
	I know you mentioned before about the retirement fund, so we'll go back to that.
	It's basically a way of emptying out the retirement funds and giving that money to the people doing this so they can basically buy up all the government land and mineral resources.
	That's why I call it a, you know, it's basically an unreal asset swap for real assets, but it's how they get their hands on the real assets.
	So you see this as only about that, or is it two parts?
	Because obviously that's a very manipulative way to use this now, but is it also partly because of the way that they can...
	Yes, so let's go back and look at...
	Let's look at not just Bitcoin, but crypto and the digital system.
	So I think what they want to do is they want to build a...
	...all digital monetary system.
	It can be public or private.
	A CBDC done by a central bank in the United States, the central bank is still a creature of Congress and it still has legal responsibilities to Congress and transparency responsibilities and disclosure responsibilities to Congress.
	If you can do the crypto private, then you've got a digital control that's really dark and much more secret, you know, much more private and much more dangerous.
	So, you know, but what I see is the people pushing for an all digital monetary system, you know, they look pretty organic to me trying to figure out which way they can do this, how they go.
	So, you know, so Trump is saying, you know, he's not, he's against a central bank CBDC, but, you know, I've yet to see him clearly embrace a policy of being against private CBDC. Right.
	I've got the one on the screen about his, you know, personal world liberty financial, you know, so would you argue these are the same, could that itself become the private coin we're talking about, or something like a JP Morgan coin or something like that?
	No, I think you're going to need a Bitcoin, you're going to need a Ripple, Ethereum.
	I think Ripple and XRP is the most likely.
	And it doesn't have to be one, it can be multiple.
	Right.
	Yeah, because SWIFT is going to process it all as one Bank of International Settlements token.
	That's what the SWIFT people said at the beginning of...
	I think it was the end of last year.
	They said they'd have the infrastructure ready by 2025 at the latest, but they were projecting this year to have that grid basically built.
	Right.
	Jason, you had mentioned XRP before we got started in that same vein.
	You want to touch on that?
	Yeah, one of the reasons that I mention XRP is because it's been openly floated by the World Economic Forum.
	It is really what you could call a meme coin, if you will.
	In other words, there's no proof-of-work concept and there's no finite supply.
	This would be essential in creating a fiat system of command and control and And look, it's up.
	Where you've seen in the past when Bitcoin has exploded, a lot of the altcoins have also gone.
	You know, you could say that Ethereum kind of rode that wave.
	Not this time around, right?
	And we're obviously hitting record highs, close to 100k.
	Most of the altcoins are not doing well.
	XRP is doing all right.
	Whether or not that translates into it being adopted...
	I don't know.
	There are a lot of pump and dumps out there.
	And that superseded government regulation, right?
	You have what are called whales that will collude behind the scenes together.
	I'm not going to say there hasn't been corruption in the crypto market.
	There has been plenty.
	I also think that there has also been over-government regulation of a lot of these things.
	And just like any system of currency, command, control, and eventually resources, you have winners and losers that are picked.
	And if you don't outright pick them, you end up buying them out, right?
	Or you end up going against them politically or through the government.
	That's what's really scary about this whole thing.
	You know, again, I've been talking about Bitcoin for a long time.
	I don't believe in the legend of Satoshi, right?
	I know that HBO just did that documentary where they claim they found the founder of Bitcoin.
	I've always kind of alluded to the fact that I feel like this was a Pentagon slash DARPA project that they wanted people to adopt.
	I don't know whether that's the case, but I certainly give that more credence than some super spooky guy that just somehow has evaded all of this and created this phenomenon of new technology that's now been adopted globally, right?
	And especially because we've all been talking.
	When I say we, anybody that's been in this kind of quote-unquote global governance, new world order space of a global digital currency that eventually is embedded in you some way.
	And a lot of that has already come to fruition on a very small-scale level.
	We just haven't seen it implemented globally.
	And really the scary thing is The ability to micromanage, right, everything through crypto, through things like smart contracts, etc., and then in real time through AI. Manage that information and do whatever they like with it.
	Because as they tell us that we're running out of energy and we have to watch our carbon footprint, we were discussing this before, the AI centers for Amazon and Google are openly going to be powered by nuclear reactors.
	We don't get to use that technology, right?
	But all of a sudden, these multinational corporations that are also subsidiaries and government contractors are going to be able to utilize that technology.
	It's food for thought.
	Well, you bring up an interesting point that brings me to what I was going to talk about next is this conversation.
	Now, this is actually one reason why I think that the Bitcoin avenue seems the most likely, even though I can clearly see the same points you're making about – and even as Catherine points out that it could be more than one.
	out that it could be more than one.
	But this is interesting on the note that there is a, obviously, I think Bitcoin allows that kind of outsider perspective where you feel like you're fighting the system while being part of the system, right?
	But on top of it, that this is something I've been researching for a couple of weeks now, as this has been focusing on my mind.
	And it's about this idea, as I referenced before, that in the white paper itself, it references something it says quite often, and it simply repeats, as long as honest nodes control the network.
	And that's what this is talking about.
	This study you can see here is discussing the idea of blockchain 51% attacks, meaning that essentially it says the system is quoted from the white paper.
	The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.
	And it gets into the idea of what this means.
	And it just says a 51% attack is when a malicious actor controls a sufficient percentage of the network's computing power.
	So you're talking about the ability of powerful entities to have access to power that we wouldn't and being able to utilize that to essentially be able to not just control whatever that would mean, but manipulate it to double spend and for things out there that, you know, to manipulate it so it's not honest, it's not accurate.
	And so I find that a really concerning dynamic, specifically because a lot of the community, both financially gaining, but also that they want to believe Bitcoin is what it could have been, at least if we're, if this is what it is right now.
	And that, you know, I think we all, people in this field, see XRP as, it's been called the Fed coin for how long, right?
	So it's already kind of tainted.
	This adds up for me in a very alarming way that they already have the power collection.
	They're already amassing support.
	Like I think BlackRock has almost 500,000, has what, 21 million total floating.
	The government itself has, what is it, a million, most of which pulled from like Silk Road and whatever else.
	So that seems to be amassing all of those things.
	So I want your guys' thoughts on that, if that kind of indicates what we're talking about.
	What you're saying is that a select number of players have significantly lower cost of goods, significantly lower cost of capital, and the ability to create fiat bitcoin or fiat crypto.
	And in huge amounts.
	At which point it's game over.
	And we're back to the same place we started, which is we don't have a financial problem, we have a governance problem.
	And that governance problem is just repeating itself in the crypto space.
	And it's like you said earlier, Catherine, it's the, you know, feigning decentralization, but it's this kind of cycle you kept discussing, where they're using that, they get us to invest at a time when it works for them to kind of problem-reaction-solution us right back into a new fiat system, which is what that seems like to me.
	Right, and we haven't mentioned, but we should, the fact that stablecoins now are being used to extend the treasury market.
	And it's very clever, you know, and it's working very, very well for both treasuries and the stablecoin guys.
	Yeah, I pulled up an article from Whitney here earlier.
	Trump embraces the Bitcoin dollar stable coins to, comma, stable coins to entrench US financial hegemony.
	Again, it's kind of where we see this all going in that direction.
	You know, if you guys have any more comments on that one part of it, I'd like to talk about the artificial intelligence overlap to that.
	Can I mention one other thing?
	Because I, you know, because I've seen this happen on many financial cycles.
	But I think the Bitcoin and the crypto financial cycle has been the most painful.
	Because what you see is you have a small group of people who want to prototype how to build a digital control grid.
	And they figure out a way to get the smartest, most talented, most desirous of freedom fighters in the world to do their prototyping and figuring out for them.
	Right.
	And it's watching that talent wasted that I find so painful.
	Can I just speak to just one other aspect we really haven't hit on?
	That was a big sell for Bitcoin was the idea that it was your Bitcoin and nobody could take it from you unless they had your keys, right?
	That's not a real thing either.
	When I talk about picking winners and losers, anybody can look this up, but I think it was about a year ago now.
	In fact, they thought that the initial reporting when the movement of this Bitcoin happened was Satoshi shown his face because it was such a massive amount of Bitcoin.
	But what had really happened is you had these two guys in Germany that way back in the day were running a pirate site.
	Where you could just download things.
	And they were only...
	They weren't even taking Bitcoin as a payment.
	I think they were taking multiple cryptos.
	But they were taking the money and immediately investing it in Bitcoin.
	And it was something like $2 billion in Bitcoin these two guys had.
	They arrested them.
	They put them in a room.
	And they took their Bitcoin.
	Because guess what?
	You're going to give your Bitcoin up when your hand is on the table.
	Right?
	And one finger goes, and the next finger goes, and it's not a real thing.
	All right?
	And if the government wants to regulate it, it's just like, hey, all right, you're off the grid.
	You're not on Coinbase or the big trading sites.
	You got it on a thump, whatever.
	At the end of the day, if you get in trouble, and whatever entity, whether it's a government or a corporation or a mafia or a family member, whatever...
	If your life is more valuable than the Bitcoin that no one will hold ever again unless you give up those keys, 99.9% of the time I think you're giving up those keys.
	That applies to literally any situation we want to put it through.
	100%.
	Here's the difference.
	You could sit there and threaten me all day, and I own a private jet on a runway.
	You probably can't extort that from me.
	It's a physical thing.
	There's all sorts of things.
	This is digital.
	As soon as I give you those keys, it's anywhere, right?
	You're as anonymous as before.
	You know what I mean?
	So that's a little bit of a difference.
	But just the government stepping in, and you talk about asset forfeiture...
	These guys weren't convicted of anything.
	They were accused of a crime.
	They don't even get to use the Bitcoin assets they have to defend themselves.
	You know, that's a very, very scary thing.
	I just wanted to point that out as well.
	I agree.
	I think it's an excellent point to include.
	I mean, it speaks to the illegitimate nature of our government in general and how they would abuse it.
	Here's the thing.
	The way you control financial transactions is by controlling the people who operationalize or own those financial transactions.
	And the speed at which they can assert control of the people is astonishing.
	And you just gave an excellent example.
	You know, the technology cannot save us from a secret governance system.
	It's the secret governance system that has to be dealt with.
	100%.
	And that's a good point to make the argument.
	You just point out that it's the same.
	We should be skeptical of where this goes.
	And whatever is presented, even if it becomes the solution we all want, we should still be skeptical.
	At the same point, the internet was presented, DARPA, as Jason pointed out, and clearly we are using it to push back even though clearly it is used in some ways to suppress us and control our lives.
	So it's always a mixed bag.
	Just question everything.
	You can't solve a political problem with a financial product.
	I mean, if you have a governance system that's not working for you and is above the law and is lawless and behaving in criminal ways, changing the financial products that they and we use isn't going to change anything.
	I agree.
	I just simply meant it can be a tool that can be useful.
	And so obviously what we're talking about is not falling back into the system.
	You could even argue that's part of this manipulation, to taunt us and float this idea in front of us where it gives us some measure of pushing back, but ultimately still cements us inside the new control structure, which, Kathryn, you make this point often, and I agree.
	We're stepping into another phase here where once we pass this barrier, they might as well just come out and be like, too late.
	This is what we are.
	Now you can't do anything about it.
	And I kind of sense that's where this goes.
	And so that's kind of my biggest worry about the Trump election dynamic.
	That's what my pull premise was, is that this is a different time.
	And I get the positives, the RFK side to it.
	But that might very well be put out in order to make us think that, you know, just to pacify us for the next step.
	And not to get into all that, but I think that's part of what this may be.
	And that's another reason why Bitcoin stands out to me, is the Next step in that regard.
	So, Ryan, I wanted to mention, and I think I've sent it to you, but if I haven't, I will, or anybody else who wants it.
	We're publishing our sort of tour de force we've been working on for two years, called What the States Can Do, Building the Legal and Financial Infrastructure for Financial Freedom, and basically a very detailed blueprint of all the different things in the United States the states can do to protect against central financial control and transaction control.
	And there are many, many things the states can do because we still do have, under the Constitution, the states have powers that are not delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states.
	And they have the resources and the constituent support To do things.
	And what we describe are sort of all the different areas of where they can take action, but we also list what proposed and past bill states have proposed or adopted, and lots of information about what's going on in the states.
	And there are enough people in enough states who are beginning to realize, wait a minute, it really is this bad, and we're going to have to take action.
	And we see the states moving all across the board to do that.
	So, there are plenty of things we can do, but if instead of doing those things we get the states to buy lots and lots of Bitcoin, you know, we're in real trouble.
	I'd love to have you on my show to talk about that in a little bit more detail.
	Okay.
	Can you make sure your email's in the chat and then I'll email you a copy of the document.
	For sure.
	Yes, please.
	Here's the Cynthia Loomis reserve, you know, reserve legislation she put forward on Bitcoin, I think was before the Nashville discussion, but definitely is coming that direction.
	So I'd like to talk about this in the context of artificial intelligence sort of finished today.
	And I think that what concerns me, and we can play some of these clips from the Anderstein, Joe Rogan discussion, is it's really concerning how almost, I mean, it's perfect to come off what we just discussed, the idea of how...
	You know, the floating of an idea that makes us feel like these are the resistors.
	These are the outsiders.
	They're pushing back and falling into this trap.
	And so, anyone want to start on that in general before I go into what I have to say about it, the idea of artificial intelligence that overlaps with Bitcoin and how you see that playing out?
	Any thoughts on that, guys?
	I was going to say that, you know, Ryan, for three years now I've been saying that they're going to put Trump in specifically because he's the necessary puppet to build up the infrastructure for the digital prison with Elon Musk stepping up to the tune of $40 million a month and Peter Thiel's golf club being announced as the vice president and the rest of the true technocrats.
	That he's surrounded himself with.
	And then the Trump kids push into not just the cryptosphere, but all of these other, you know, online media, you know, streaming platforms, stuff like that.
	You really start to see the push for not just large language model-based information and media aggregation, because all of it's going to go through the WeChat of the West anyway.
	In, you know, Elon's platform.
	But that's also a tie-in to all of the cryptocurrency.
	That's where you're going to communicate.
	It's where you're going to pay bills.
	We're going to do all of that.
	And it seems to be fairly obvious at this point that whatever the Department of Government efficiency is going to be, it's going to be a huge push for AI to replace the bureaucracy.
	They've made that pretty clear.
	I mean, even in recent interviews, they've discussed that exact point that artificial intelligence is going to be a part of the efficiency.
	I mean, this was obviously the open door to that, right?
	Rogan's talking about it like it's a good thing on the show now.
	Let's go ahead and play that clip then.
	And this is the first one anyway.
	And so this is one of the recent discussions with Mark Anderson discussing this about, you know, and really kind of pointing the finger, which we should, by the way, in every other administration before this where that's been possible, but discussing how these things have been, they've been trying to use these things to control our lives.
	Perhaps.
	General intelligence will emerge, and who knows how that affects – I've said publicly, and I'm kind of half-joking, that we need AI government.
	It sounds crazy to say, but instead of having this alpha chimpanzee that runs the tribe of humans, how about we have some really logical, fact-based program that makes it really reasonable and equitable in a way that we can all agree to?
	Let's govern things in that manner.
	Right.
	So you can actually simulate this today because you can go on these systems, ShedGPT or Cloud or these others, and you can ask, you know, how should we handle issue X? How should this be run?
	Yeah, we've done that.
	Right.
	How should the Department of Energy do whatever, nuclear policy or whatever?
	And what I find when I do that is I discover two things.
	Number one, of course, these things have the same problem social media has had, which is they're tremendously politically biased and that's on purpose and they need to fix that.
	And that's going to be a big topic in the next several years.
	The other thing you learn is if you can get through the political, basically, bias and censorship, if you can actually get to a discussion of the actual issue, you get very sophisticated answers.
	Yes.
	Right?
	Very logical, very straightforward, and it will explain every aspect of the issue to you, and it'll take you through all the pros and cons.
	Yeah.
	I mean, it might be the way to go, which is so horrifying for people to think, because everyone's worried about the Terminators taking over the world, and like, if that's the first step, is we let them govern us.
	Well, look, there's nothing stopping a politician from using this.
	There's nothing stopping a policymaker from using it as a tool.
	At the very least, you start out using it as a tool.
	There's nothing to prevent.
	For example, I think military commanders in the field are going to have basically AI battlefield assistants that are going to advise the most strategy, tactics, how to win conflicts, and then it'll start to work its way up, and then they'll be doing war planning.
	And then if you're a general, if you're a sergeant or a colonel or a general, it's going to just mean you perform better.
	So maybe there's like the sort of man-machine kind of symbiotic relationship.
	And you could imagine that happening more in the policy process and in the political process.
	So can I hit on a few different things on that, right?
	Absolutely.
	So I watched that clip the other day.
	Number one, AI and warfare is already in.
	Lavender is utilized.
	It's a westernized, five-eyes thing.
	Alex Karp, who's, if you want to call Vance, his golf club is really Thiel's right-hand man.
	He's out there openly talking about it, even at places like CES, right?
	So we're already in that reality.
	I'm not saying it's a good reality.
	Where I fear we're going is more of the AGI military, where you have like a persona that maybe you're not seeing it right away, but you're hearing it, and you might even think it's a real person, and you're referring to it as general or colonel, and it's instructing you in real time on the battlefield.
	I don't think we're that far off from that.
	I think when we talk about the bias that's built in, that's the scariest part, right?
	So let's get into a couple things that you said that I think were correct there.
	Ultimately, especially in the very beginning, things like Grok and ChatGPT have a baseline narrative or a directive of the great narrative of the day to try to direct you into.
	What do I mean by that?
	So I asked Grok, About myself.
	And in the very first sentence, it lied about me, right?
	It said that I had, you know, I was this wacky guy and that I had questioned the existence of certain people.
	Like, I had said certain people didn't exist.
	So I challenged it on that, right?
	I said, wait a minute.
	Who, as Jason Bermas specified, didn't exist?
	And so then now it gives me a little tirade how I question the events of 9-11 and Flight 93 specifically.
	Now, I've never said that there weren't victims on that plane or the hijackers weren't even on there.
	I've questioned...
	You know, what exactly happened on it?
	I've questioned the evidence such as, I don't know if you guys have ever seen it, but the red bandana that they said that one of the hijackers wore, that they presented in court that has no blood on it, has no dirt on it, you know, things of that nature.
	So I go, wait a minute, so you're telling me he questioned an event, but never whether or not somebody actually existed.
	Then it apologized to me.
	And it said, oh, well, you got it right.
	So he mentioned the Department of Energy in particular.
	And I think that's an interesting thing.
	Because if you think about it, in some regards, AI could probably be more efficient if the Department of Energy wasn't also involved in radiologically and biologically experimenting on the human populace and documented to do so.
	So it's not going to take that part of the narrative into account.
	Here's the other problem with AI. We talk about transparency.
	What baseline information does the AI that you and I interact with have?
	It only has things that are declassified, right?
	So anything that's classified or above that level, it's not even going to be fed in a large language model unless it's a privatized one.
	By a contractor, a government agency, etc.
	And unfortunately, you're not really going to be able to compete with that, especially when you're forced to put an agent of the government inside of your company.
	Right?
	So the problem with AI governance is, in a way, we already have it.
	Like he was saying, you can run all these models now.
	You don't think that the government—you talked about the Muskerdew, right?
	Old Muskington.
	I mean, he is the defense contractor— And I've kind of pontificated that I think that the Adrian Dittman character is more than likely an AGI most of the time.
	I'm not saying a person couldn't be involved, voice modulator, etc.
	That will eventually become a product because that's the next thing.
	Right?
	GPT-40, I just want to say this, GPT-40 is so close to human-like that Alex Jones now does large segments on his show where he's interviewing GPT, right?
	And that line is only going to be blurred further.
	Go ahead, Catherine.
	So let me just, because there's two issues going on.
	One is the efficiency and utility of AI as a tool.
	And so the way Mark was talking about it, he's talking about A tool that can make us smarter, faster, better, but under human governance.
	So let's go back to Lavender.
	The power of Lavender is that members of the IDF can systematically engage in genocide And violations of international law with no personal liability because they didn't pick the targets, the software did it.
	Exactly.
	Okay?
	And so what we're looking at is using AI to relieve individual humans of responsibility.
	And what that does is it makes it possible to control centrally and stay safe from the mob.
	Because the mob can't see a human being that's taking responsibility.
	You can blame the AI. The machine did it, okay?
	And that's a way of, you know, the great Oz hiding behind the machine and relieving them of any responsibility, whether, not just in the court of law, but in a court of popular opinion.
	There's a very interesting video that we had on the Soleri report of a Cambridge student asking Peter Thiel about Lavender.
	And he literally almost pisses in his pants.
	It's a frightening thing to watch.
	Clearly you've seen it.
	Because it dawns on him that he is going to be held responsible in the court of popular opinion.
	He's not going to get away with it.
	And he's terrified.
	Think about what this does psychologically and spiritually to the population too, especially anybody who is one of those drone operators.
	It's designed to sever your connection with humanity.
	It's designed to sever your connection with nature.
	That's where we've been...
	You know, as a species been pushed into an accelerated pace over the last five, six, seven years.
	And this complete and total, you know, inversion of what is natural and this complete and total separation and then segregation through winnowing information bubble of what we become as a global populace.
	That's why these people are walking around with the kind of sentiment that they've already won, that they can go ahead and admit what they are and who they are, because they've got a little snapshot of what that looks like every day on Twitter, every day on Instagram, or wherever else.
	Yeah, good point.
	The predictive part of this is, I think, far more terrifying than we realize.
	I grabbed that clip, just since we actually talked about it right before we went live, and I figured it's an entertaining thing to play based on this point, and then I'll make some comments on it.
	Do you think about the use of artificial intelligence or lavender by the IDF in identifying Hamas targets?
	And secondly, do you agree with Elon Musk about that the population decline is a risk for humanity?
	Look, I'm not, I'm not, you know, I, you know, without, without going into all the, you know, I, I'm not on without going into all the, you know, I, I'm not on top of all the details of what's going on in Israel because my, my bias is to defer to
	It's not for us to second guess everything and I believe that Broadly, the IDF gets to decide what it wants to do and that they're broadly in the right.
	And that's sort of the perspective I come back to.
	And if I fall into the trap of arguing you on every detailed point, I would actually be conceding the broader issue that the Middle East should be micromanaged from Cambridge.
	And I think that's just simply absurd.
	And so I'm not going to concede that point.
	Wow.
	That's just wild.
	You so very clearly tried to sidestep the main point in that.
	And I would say I agree with Catherine in the idea that, you know, like Eric Schmidt pretty, you know, famously said, I think a year or so, or maybe a couple years ago, that we'll get to a point at some point, I'm paraphrasing, that AI will be making decisions like this, and it may seem morally unsound, but we have to trust the AI because it knows better, which just, how terrifying, you know?
	And so I agree that there's a level- John, no, no, no.
	Let me tell you something.
	Go ahead.
	You know, so my nickname for the top of the global governance system is Mr. Global.
	Mr. Global is never going to delegate his power to the AI. It's just not going to happen.
	So, you know, but the AI is going to be a tool to make governing much safer and much easier on a highly centralized basis.
	The only point I was going to make is that where I was going with that is that Eric Schmidt was saying this.
	I think setting it up to be obvious that whatever happened will be able to fall behind that.
	I do think that makes the most sense.
	But at the same time, even if it ultimately did become something that was real, it can still be, as I think Jason said earlier, if you're inputting the wrong data, it ultimately controls the output, even if it is still artificial intelligence.
	And I think we've all talked about this.
	And so it's a really...
	The idea that we want the good AI versus the bad AI is just part of this fake duopoly dynamic that we're always stuck in.
	We're clearly should be asking for something other than that.
	Now, one thing that I think is the most terrifying to me, and we have a couple more clips on this, but is how this could possibly intertwine with Bitcoin itself or whatever ends up being the kind of blockchain dynamic.
	Jason, maybe you can speak to this since we were kind of briefly saying before...
	It's not that technologically, and again, I'm still trying to wrap my mind around a lot of these technological ideas.
	It's beyond me in a lot of ways.
	It's not as simple as saying it is.
	They're very different.
	Some would argue it couldn't even become artificial intelligence.
	But it's about how this can be evolved to something much larger than a cryptocurrency.
	And I think that's the bigger concern for me is that I can already see this, for example, one of the things that I had pulled up.
	They're already beginning to use these things in regard to mapping out the price, what will happen next.
	But it's building more than that.
	About using these blockchains, specifically Bitcoin in some cases, to do things beyond that, like artificial neural networks and so on.
	And so we'll start with that.
	If you guys have any thoughts on that, how that might intertwine, whether it's Bitcoin or something else.
	I thought he was serving it to you, Jay.
	I mean, when you look at...
	Neural networks, right?
	Let me go back.
	I talk about NASA all the time, right?
	And I often talk about Dennis Bushnell, his future strategic warfare document, 2025, from July of 2001. Bushnell, in one of these interviews, starts talking about when he sends his minions out to get information, where do they go?
	They go to Google, right?
	And he called it the de facto brain.
	Now, rather nonchalantly, He goes, there's going to come a point rather soon where basically these large language models are going to absorb every single communication.
	They're going to read every email, every social media post, etc.
	And then from that, it is going to build profiles on all of us.
	And I think...
	When you talk about blockchain and the micromanaging, number one, if you get to that kind of social credit currency standpoint, you can use smart contracts to regulate the heat in your house, the water pressure, you name it if it's actually built into that grid.
	That's why I'm a big proponent of Of not having these type of systems online at any point.
	We talk about these cyber attacks.
	I think it's insane that somebody can remote into a power plant or a bridge or a dam.
	I mean, you go down the line, that should not be allowed.
	But on top of that, I talk about the AGI things.
	What really frightens me is that they can build AGIs surrounding you and detach you from reality even more.
	In other words, you're going to start interacting with things that aren't human a lot in the next five years, where they're not even going to advertise to you that you get to talk to a person.
	It's going to be GPT-10 or it's going to be a different thing.
	And it's going to be so human-like, forget about it.
	And then you're going to have the social media influencers that are 100% AI.
	I haven't even gotten to the scammers and things like that.
	And that's really where these kind of networks of information get personalized and extremely dangerous.
	Because if you're on these devices too much, and I would argue at some level you're going to get manipulated just like we already are and have been forever, whether from a magazine ad with subliminals or a commercial we watched or those type of things.
	On such a...
	Such a nuanced level, it's going to be very dangerous.
	And there's going to be people that gravitate towards it, right?
	So that's going to build, I talk about a post-truth world, but it's going to be even harder to fight the narrative when we've already already been told, all already been told, that like you said, AI is smarter.
	It can do it better.
	And in a lot of cases, we're going to see it actually do it better, right?
	And then people are going to be tricked into that.
	So When you're talking about the neural networks based on blockchain technology and the fact that if you move it to digital, everybody's going to be on a device like this, or if they get their way internally, we're seeing the return of AR devices on a mass level.
	Remember when they tried to launch Google Glass, it didn't go?
	Now I can buy a $300 pair of Ray-Bans.
	And it's got pretty much all the functionality.
	It doesn't look as crazy.
	It lasts even longer.
	So now that information.
	Forget about just everything I've typed and done on social media and posted, including something like this where you saw my mannerisms and you heard me talk.
	Now you're literally going to get what I'm seeing for hours at a time.
	My entire peripheral, right?
	Right?
	We're going to be in a new place really, really soon.
	And I think, obviously, this is also a step to transhumanism on a lot of levels.
	I know there are some people, and I don't go this route because I can't prove it and I have no idea how viable it is, but, you know, there are patents out there where eventually when you're not only merged with some of this bio-nanotech, you become a system of energy, right?
	So...
	Forget about whether that's real.
	The Internet of Bodies is real.
	So now if you have a biosensor, if you've got the smartwatch on, that information is being involved in building these networks.
	Can it be utilized in a positive?
	Sure.
	All this technology is a double-edged sword.
	But when you have bad people at the top, and like Catherine said, Mr. Globalist...
	Is never going to be subservient to his power.
	There will always be a handful within the predator class that oversee and have oversight over this.
	Now the question is whether or not they can do that in a manner where there is no accountability and no one challenges their system, right, on a meaningful level.
	Maybe.
	I hope not.
	I hope we can challenge it.
	I hope that's kind of what we're doing here, right?
	Yeah.
	Well, here's another example of the, you know, for an obvious very early step, because my worry is where this gets larger, but talking about using this is UAE blockchain powered carbon tracking, right?
	You can see how easily these things get out of control, whether it's presented in a different way or not.
	And I think that's what my biggest concern is, and bringing this to the idea of things like Prospera, which I think is an obvious fake libertarian, like technocratic nightmare.
	And I think the idea is they're using Bitcoin.
	That was the main point, or they're using Starlink.
	You know, and then we have the idea of Donald Trump and his freedom cities.
	You know, where was that right here?
	Anyway, one of those we're going to get into is the overlap of all of that.
	And I think that, you know, just as a general point, I'm worried about how that kind of intertwines, even to the point of whether it's floated as something that's not what it is.
	But I think all that we're discussing today makes it very obvious that the hope of whether or not these people do what they say they do, as Catherine points out, even if they do those things, might not be what we want, but we should be Let me say this.
	Because I always do have that different perspective.
	I think it would have been fast-tracked or streamlined more.
	I think that this thing is barreling through on some level, no matter what.
	I think with the Trump administration, it is going to play, I think, towards Trump's ignorance and the propensity of him putting all these tech people in there.
	Look, we've had this discussion a million times.
	It's another show.
	But Musk is a cutout, right?
	I mean, come on.
	He can't be on social media all the time and running Neuralink, SpaceX, The Boring Company X. Go down the line.
	They call it rocket science for a reason because it's really effing hard.
	That would be the only thing.
	But he is saying a lot of the right things.
	At the same time, like he said, Starlink is an information system.
	It's also a warfare system.
	That's why the concentration of most of the satellite dishes are in Ukraine right now.
	Yeah.
	That alone is dangerous.
	He already got the contracts for the next spy satellite system.
	He already launches the current spy satellite system.
	But he's an outsider, guys.
	Yeah, he's such an outsider.
	Look, again, I understand why people get tricked into that.
	So look, as far as the overarching thing, does it stop...
	No, but I think it's on an acceleration level that's maximized with more of the same regime, right?
	Because Biden's not running anything.
	He's running into the jungle not knowing where he is.
	Kamala Harris didn't run anything.
	It would be an extension of that.
	I do think...
	That Trump at least recognizes the dangers of globalism, of things like the climate change agenda, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, etc., where that's going to be pushed by the other administration.
	Whether or not anything meaningful happens, I don't know.
	I'm also of the belief that he really did get shot in the ear and the second attempt was real too.
	I know there are some people that don't believe that.
	I think that if anything woke him up enough that these guys are bad people and maybe there is something bigger, that would be it.
	But hey, man, I'm on the rodeo train.
	You know, I like empirical evidence.
	I'm a forensics guy.
	I'm also not a guy that's afraid to say what I don't like.
	Like, I can't stand the fact he's still out there talking about the Syria gas attack in Duma that never happened, right?
	And Soleimani and all that other stuff.
	I like to believe...
	That his mea culpa for Operation Warp Speed is trying to get Bobby Kennedy and the HHS, the guy that's called both the hate and lie shot and the virus itself, bioweapons, right?
	That's a pretty big move.
	They all suck on Israel.
	Again, another discussion.
	Yeah, they all suck with the military-industrial complex, but at least I... Look, with these maniacs that are in office right now, I think World War III is a real possibility.
	With Trump in office, I think it's less of a possibility.
	I don't think we're off the table by any means.
	I think it's like 25 to 40% less.
	Because I also think he's not the smartest.
	We're going to talk in five hours.
	Oh my goodness.
	Look, I'll say this, man.
	I don't think Kamala Harris was ever a legitimate candidate.
	it.
	I think that they knew that they couldn't run Biden going back to when they nominated Biden, that he was going to be a one-term president.
	I'd firmly believe, and I've said it from day one, the, I mean, I was saying this in 2020, 2021, they're going to pull Joe sometime relatively close to the convention.
	They're going to install Harris.
	She's set up to lose because everyone hates her.
	And you have to have Trump 2.0 for all of the infrastructure to hit those agenda 2030 goals.
	You couldn't get that done as much under Harris, not with the digital prison grid.
	Not with the way that they've already set up Elon Musk as a disposable defense contractor.
	Because, again, it's not like he actually made a single Starlink or Starshield satellite.
	It's not like he's ever actually made any of the products that he's the face for.
	He's actually kind of just a weird little goofball who should be playing Diablo 4 all day, which is apparently what he does because he's the best in the world at it.
	Unbelievable!
	That's unbelievable too!
	While we're running all these companies, because we all know how long this is.
	I mean, come on!
	I think what's interesting, and I'll give you the last word on this stuff, Catherine, I think just, you know, obviously we should all hope that these people want to do what we think is the right thing.
	That's the interesting dynamic in this kind of conversation, is it comes back to where it's like, when we say we hope they should succeed, I think we all, anybody honest does.
	But it's about being realistic about where they come from, what they're really doing, what their actions are showing.
	And I think right now we should have that hope, but realize that every single step so far has been a dramatic step in the wrong direction, even what they promised everybody in the base.
	You know, I think that's very obvious.
	So with what we're seeing with the Bitcoin dynamic, with all the things that are happening, I don't know why they're not the most obviously on guard with everything they were just calling out.
	And so, again, I hope for the best.
	I'll be right there with you, Jason, if it goes the right way.
	And we should all be happy about that, but I feel bad about where it goes so far.
	And I think it's giving us, you know, bad indications for where that's going to go.
	So, Catherine, if you want to say anything on the way out about what we've talked about today?
	So, you know, I just have to say in closing, what I want to say is I've really enjoyed this conversation.
	And I've really enjoyed...
	You know, getting a chance to talk with Steve and Jason, but I see all over Europe, all over the United States, all over the world, people who want to be free, including people who have assets, who don't want to end up with no assets in 2030. And all I can tell you is that...
	When you spend time with those people, you have a much better time.
	My favorite quote for 2024 was a doctor in Switzerland who's building a parallel health system.
	He said, the currency of the future will be relationships of trust.
	And when you have a political problem, it's people who can solve it and people who can build new systems and new governance systems.
	And all I can tell everybody listening to this is the reason I believe freedom will ultimately win is because we just have a better time.
	So I've really enjoyed it.
	And I can't thank you enough, Ryan, for pulling this together.
	I know it's a tremendous work, but I really appreciate your leadership and I just can't imagine when I listen to you that I know an AI can process faster than you can, but nobody can inspire me and make me laugh as they say something really intelligent the way you can.
	Thank you.
	So I'll take the humans every time.
	Thank you, Catherine.
	I really appreciate that.
	And I do.
	I think this was a great conversation.
	And, you know, I think that this is important that we have obviously different opinions, you know, and that we continue to flesh these things out while hoping for the best, obviously.
	But I think this conversation is obviously concerning with what we're on the precipice of, about the Bitcoin dynamic, the AI conversation, the great reset.
	I just hope people are on guard.
	That's all I want.
	Just question what's coming.
	Be skeptical of it.
	The thing I keep saying on my show is...
	Even if you believe in Trump, whoever you believe in, that should be the person that you hold their feet to the fire more than anybody because you expect more from them.
	And that's what I really want to see as we go forward is that we're being very critical of these people.
	So we have a lot more coming in general on the IMA. The site should be up reasonably soon.
	That's still being built.
	We just want it to be perfect and done right.
	We should be seeing an uptick on some of these panels coming your way.
	I believe we're looking for one in early December.
	And so just keep your eye out for more of this.
	I think there's going to be a lot more coming from this in general and all of our individual platforms.

▲