Bill Ottman, co-founder of Minds.com—a decentralized social platform using Noster protocol—explores how cryptographic identity and relay nodes resist censorship, even amid copyright debates and government surveillance like PRISM or the Restrict Act’s 20-year VPN prison threats. With 5M users, Minds avoids Google Analytics, instead monetizing through ad commissions, contrasting closed-source giants like Twitter, which Ottman claims suppresses external links to manipulate competition. Their discussion extends to AI risks, from propaganda to medical diagnostics, and the secrecy surrounding UFO/UAP disclosures, where controlled leaks (e.g., Pentagon revelations) fuel distrust. Ottman critiques ideological tribalism in debates like abortion or climate change, where experts cherry-pick data, while Rogan questions why governments hide potential extraterrestrial observation if it exists. Ultimately, they argue decentralized platforms and full transparency are essential to prevent censorship from distorting truth or stifling progress. [Automatically generated summary]
Actually, in Noster, there's work that we're involved with now on integrating Noster with torrents so that more heavy files, video and rich media can be shared over the network.
That's one of the weirder things about what's happening with the internet is that Essentially, as time goes on, it becomes more and more difficult to control what's just ones and zeros.
As they're out there, the bottlenecks between people and information, they're getting broader.
It's getting more and more difficult to stop things.
And I think as time goes on, it'll be impossible.
I don't think there'll be any stuff.
I think In the future, like anything, I have a feeling that we'll have zero privacy in the future.
I have a feeling that all of this encryption and all this stuff, I think it's all going to be invalid once quantum computing is ubiquitous.
I just have a feeling that there's no way you can stop information when...
Technology moves past where it is now to some place where basically anybody could get access to anything at any time and then the problem becomes how do you control money when that happens because money in a lot of I mean, a lot of it is just ones and zeros.
And the only thing that stops you from being able to steal it or transfer it is encryption.
When you don't have any more encryption and anyone kind of has access to anything that's online.
So, Arrow, All Domain Anomaly Research Office that...
In the NDAA recently, there's all these UFO pieces of language.
And Christopher Mellon, who you've had on, is kind of really knowledgeable about this.
I learned a lot of this from him.
Anyway, the reason I'm talking about this is I think that intelligence and secret information, as it transcends through the corporate world and the government world, it's all kind of interconnected.
And the same types of models are used.
So...
But anyway, Arrow is...
The NDAA that recently passed now gives all these whistleblower protections to people to come forward, which is an absolute game changer.
And Arrow is this new office that's like decently funded, I think like 11 million a year or something like that.
They're doing an audit, basically, of the government on these issues.
And I think that it correlates to surveillance to me, at least in speculation, because, like, what is this system?
Like, if they're here, which I don't know, but that is surveillance.
And, you know, it's just all compartmentalized and we don't know what's going on.
Yeah, I don't know all the specifics of Pegasus, but, you know, we also know everything from Snowden and the PRISM program, which, you know, maybe was winded down a little bit.
I remember I heard some of that stuff got rolled back, but realistically, no.
And I mean, I think a lot of people endorsed it righteously being concerned about TikTok.
You know, that's what was so sneaky is, you know, they enrage you to then support this disaster.
Yeah.
And it's just like we can all agree that there's a problem with TikTok and that there's, you know, the Chinese government having access to all of this data is problematic.
But, like, there should be an encrypt act.
Like, encrypt everything, but you can't go around banning apps.
But my concern is if it wasn't for social media, that act, which was kind of ironic, right?
If it wasn't for social media and people sharing this and becoming outraged and people discussing this, it would have slipped right through like the Patriot Act did.
The Patriot Act existed in a time where there wasn't social media.
And people weren't really aware of what they were pushing through until it was too late.
So we run a centralized infrastructure, but we interface through delegation, delegated cryptographic events signing.
That's happening in the background, but our app feels like...
A normal social media app.
Mastodon, the way that that works, is federated instances.
So there's all of these different instances with different URLs and there's like 20 people on each one.
But there is sort of some interoperability between the instances because you can subscribe to somebody on another instance from your instance.
But it's not fully decentralized.
It's federated.
And the problem is that you don't own your identity.
So if one of those instances goes down, you're screwed.
Your stuff is gone.
In Noster, which is like an architecturally different setup, and there's other protocols similar to Noster, But it doesn't matter if the website goes down.
You just pop over to another one, upload your key, and all your stuff is there.
And that's why we like it, because it keeps us in check.
Because our users can now basically, if we fuck around, They'll bounce.
And they can take their stuff.
Because the social graph, specifically, is the key.
Because you spend a decade getting all these followers.
It's your life!
People spend their lives doing this.
And then to be able to just get taken out by YouTube is so devastating and unethical.
Well, it's really creepy, too, because many of the things they took people out for have turned out to be true.
There was a lot of things that they were labeling as disinformation or misinformation, which are 100% proven fact now.
And people lost their accounts.
And there's no recourse.
They're not going to reinstate you.
And that was a problem also with Twitter.
That for the longest time, if you said anything that was contrary to whatever the narrative was, whether the government was pushing it or the CDC was pushing it, anything contrary to that narrative, you would get fucked.
But the reason Alex was banned was because he confronted...
It was actually for something he did off Twitter.
So he confronted this journalist, Oliver Darcy, in a line at some event.
And he was, you know...
Being Alex Jones, sort of ranting at him.
And then Twitter said, oh, you're bullying this guy, and this is not acceptable behavior, so you're going to leave.
But then when I remember the exchange with Elon and whoever it was that was asking, it was that he hadn't been let on because of the Sandy Hook stuff, which is not the same.
That's not even why he was banned.
Right.
You know, it's not easy.
I understand, you know, the politics of it.
And he probably has Tim Cook being like, you know, we're not going to advertise if you have Alex Jones.
But I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't seem to me.
Because he could win the argument if he would just let him back on.
Well, there's a lot of people that I know that are famous that publicly announced they were leaving Twitter.
And one of them I really love.
And I was like, why are you doing this?
I didn't even say anything to her, but I'm like, why are you doing this?
This is so dumb.
You're just doing this because this is the thing that everyone feels like they're supposed to do.
Hey, well, Twitter's kind of fucked now, so bye.
No, it was fucked before.
It's less fucked now.
Yeah.
Are there people that are going to say things like what I showed you earlier today, which is hilarious, and someone posted to Kamala Harris after she said something about the assault ban?
That shit's important.
It's important to have people mock people.
Like, I'm sorry if it hurts someone's feelings, but that shit's important.
Yeah, and I think the way that Elon handled that was great, because obviously you need a specific example to back up an argument.
However, I sort of think the whole premise of the conversation is wrong.
This war that Twitter is at with all the think tanks, and I think it was the Institute for Strategic Discourse that had actually compiled the information that the BBC guy was talking about.
And there is information there.
There is data showing, you know, hate speech XYZ has increased.
However, This is the wrong conversation.
It's not...
The existence or even rise of hate in the presence of that content on an app is not...
You're not just trying to ban hate.
Banning hate does not stop hate.
And this is what the peer-reviewed research shows.
So trying to bully Elon and Twitter for...
Look, even if there was a bump of hate speech since it became a little bit more free...
I mean, it seems like that's a potentially understandable intermediary effect to happen while things reorient.
Like, we open up free speech, we open up the valve a little bit, okay?
Because we think that this is going to be healthy for society long term.
So let it bump a little bit.
We need that.
We need to see what we hate or what other people hate.
So basically mandating that social media companies have the submit these policies.
So we would have to we would they would force us to write a policy on hate speech.
And then additionally, we would have to, on a biannual basis, submit analytics about all of our moderation data.
Which, honestly, we're already transparent about our moderation data, so that's largely public anyway.
We have a jury system.
And we have in-house moderators, but it's a huge burden.
It's crazy that they would expect companies to submit all that and then have these arbitrarily, well, actually not arbitrarily, specifically chosen categories for policies that are clearly politically charged.
And Newsom, when he came out and announced this law...
It was very, you know, we have to stop hate on social media and misinformation and disinformation.
Protect society.
Protect democracy.
No, you know, you're not protecting democracy by stopping free speech.
Right, because there's no checks and balances in place if something turns out to be accurate, where then whoever put out that disinformation initially Like, if someone posts something, like say, masks don't work, and they get banned off of Twitter, and say, oh, this is in response to the CDC's...
But if it turns out that masks actually don't work, the CDC doesn't get punished.
Which is kind of fucking crazy.
Because if they're the ones that are setting these guidelines and these guidelines turn out to be inaccurate and people get banned off of social media for arguing with these guidelines, there's no repercussions.
There's nothing, you know, just these people are fucked and there's no recourse.
Well, and also, like, why wouldn't the CDC be punished then?
Well, shouldn't they be banned?
Or shouldn't they be, like, have a strike against them?
But they're not.
It's like, it's really frustrating because you're dealing with narratives that are oftentimes 100% propaganda.
And they're not backed by science.
It's just like some things that people say.
Like Rachel Maddow was on television telling everybody that this vaccine stops the virus in its tracks.
If you get vaccinated, the virus can no longer affect you.
It can't affect anyone else.
It stops and we can get out of this thing.
Well, that's not fucking true at all.
And that person, there was no repercussion other than public mockery, which continues to this day where whenever she posts something, people post that video.
We actually had to take a little haircut because we, you know, and we're trying to be as honest as possible.
Because, basically, we had been counting that people who, you know, fail...
Data is hard.
And so people who had, like, tried to sign up were, in our data, showing as signed up.
So, you know...
Backed it up a little bit.
But the point being, we don't use any closed-source proprietary analytics tools.
So like the temptation when you're running a startup, trying to create an app, is to just go to the, you know, Silicon Valley display case of Google Analytics and customer.io and all of these surveillance tools. And analytics tools that are very powerful and can give you very precise data about what's going on. But
we have refused to use any of those tools because when you put Google Analytics on your website, you are becoming Google.
You are now part of Google's tentacles.
And you're basically handing over all that user data to Google.
And our whole foundation has been...
Fully open source and just don't take shortcuts.
Our growth path is healthy.
It's happening.
We're continually growing, but I don't care about the pace of growth as much as the quality.
We do machine learning.
We're starting to do AI, but we're doing it in an open source way.
So, like, in the AI wars right now, you have, like, open, quote-unquote, open AI, which isn't, you know, it's barely open.
They don't share much of what's going on, and they shroud that in some sort of, like, oh, we're, you know, we need to protect you, and we need to not let this get out of control, which maybe there's an element of truth to that.
But then there's a whole other part of the AI world, like, with stable diffusion and stability, and we're, it's all open source, and it's being done in the open, and everybody has access, because As you see all this AI stuff coming about you, do you think that How do you feel about that?
Do you think that you should be compensated in a way?
When we talk about AI, like displacing work, you know, on a mass scale, I think that we do have to have a conversation about these companies and, you know, where they're getting all their data and, you know, who's getting compensated.
So I actually prompted chat GPT and asked it, you know, do you have the rights to the data that you're using?
And it said no.
It said that we do not have access or rights to all of the data that we're using.
And that, you know, that could become more of a concern over time.
I posted this.
And so what does that mean?
You know, because what are they doing?
They're scraping the world's use of language.
All the data, all the imagery, everything.
And so when we talk about OpenAI becoming, you know, a Worth hundreds of billions of dollars probably.
It's fastest growing app in the history of the world.
So we have Minds Plus, Minds Pro, similar in functionality to Twitter Blue, but you get more reach, more exposure, verified, and more video upload, HD. And you pay monthly?
But that, you know, think of if you're doing it in a traditional business way.
Like, we're going to build a sales force.
And bring on a bunch of sales reps and send them out into the world and help sell our product and give them a commission.
You know, maybe typically a company, if they're trying to do a sales force, you know, maybe 20% commission, maybe 10 to 20% commission if you sell something.
We're just like, well, I don't really want to manually hire everybody.
Like, why wouldn't we just offer this crazy commission to our whole community?
And, you know, the people who do it on Minds are much less, like, annoying advertisers and more so just artists and people trying to get the word out about their stuff.
People just find us organically looking for alternatives to big tech.
I mean, people are sick of this shit.
This is insane.
Everything has gotten totally out of hand and it's just unapologetic.
With Facebook and Google, you know, they're just not, they're not leveling with everybody.
Like, okay, so We understand that there's horrible content on the internet.
Let's deal with this and not erode freedom of speech.
I would love to see Sundar Pichai or Zuckerberg or Tim Cook have more of a balanced conversation about this, but it just seems like whenever they talk about it, it's like they're posturing.
It doesn't feel real and they're really acknowledging Even like the academic conversation with regards to censorship because the academics are saying that censorship causes increased radicalization.
You know, look, companies will say, oh, we couldn't share our secret sauce.
You know, that's what makes us competitive.
But...
It's just really not true.
You can use software licenses as well that restrict people.
So you can still be transparent.
For instance, there's this really cool app called Uniswap, which is a decentralized protocol for crypto.
So you can swap tokens, and there's no intermediary.
And they used a time-delayed GPL. GPL is general public license, one of the most famous free software licenses.
But they basically said, look, we need to be transparent.
No one takes anything in crypto seriously unless it's transparent and audited.
So we're going to make it so that we're showing you all the code.
You can make sure we're not spying on you, doing anything sketchy.
But if you're a commercial entity, you cannot fork our code and compete with us for the next two years.
So they basically were giving themselves a head start.
The license that we use is the GPLv3, which says that anyone can do whatever they can.
And people do.
There are other versions of mines around the world, people running it and having their own social network.
But if they make changes, they have to share those changes with the world.
So it's referred to as copy left in kind of the copyright world.
It's basically that, yeah, you have to, it's sort of a pay it forward.
I borrowed from you.
I'm going to use that to build my business.
Yeah, I'm going to sell it.
I'm going to make a ton of money.
But, you know, the development that I did, I also have to share.
And there's many others.
I mean, there's even licenses that are way more restrictive but still provide the transparency.
There's ones that are just read-only.
Like, listen, you can read this and see it, but you cannot touch it.
You know, that would be a step in the right direction for Facebook.
And the thing is that they know about this power dynamic because they do create tons of open-source tools.
React.
Facebook created React, which is one of the most popular JavaScript frameworks.
Angular was made by Google and tons of databases and back-end tools.
These big tech companies do contribute a ton to open source, but they only do it on the stuff that are developer tools.
Because they know that the developers will only use their stuff if it's open source.
Developers are never going to use something that they don't have control over.
So it's like this very intentional game that they're playing.
Their main apps, they're not transparent about it all, but they know that they need the developer energy.
So, you know, I think that they should just do it.
And the great thing, even though the Twitter algorithm's not, you know, there yet, I think that Elon is, when I saw that happening, I would just say...
It's like one of the big guys dipped their toe in the water.
But it really has to be someone like Elon, who's eccentric and insanely wealthy, who's willing to go out on a limb for $44 billion and overpay for a company and then sort of like fucking throw it upside down.
I mean, just, but that, don't underestimate, and I know you don't, but the fact that he did that, I think it sort of paves the way for other people up on his level to start being more real.
It was all around the Jan 6 stuff and, you know, extremism type reasons.
Meanwhile, all that content is on Facebook and certainly on other platforms that were on AWS. So do you think that that's just sort of like a PR move to ban Parler?
Partially.
I don't know all the specifics of the back and forth between them.
I don't know if they were given warning or the ability.
But the thing is, even if they were, it's like what Amazon would have been asking, take down this content or you're going to have to leave.
You know, that would be violating what they were trying to do with free speech.
You know, because there's a group of companies now that are like pro-free speech platforms, which are gaining dominance.
It's awesome.
You know, you've got Rumble, you've got Parler, you've got Mines, you've got, you know, there's a bunch of them.
And...
But unfortunately, the waters get muddied because, you know, Rumble uses Google Analytics.
They are totally closed source.
So they're doing some of the speech stuff right, which is absolutely essential.
And so, again, it's a huge step in the right direction.
I actually had a back and forth with Chris, their CEO, and he said that he would be open to some open source stuff, except he's been icing me on a couple emails recently.
But I think that this open source issue needs to be honed on.
We can't just let the next wave of free speech companies be doing all the same shit that big tech was doing on the technological end.
We can't just let them keep doing the surveillance, keep doing the secrecy.
We're not moving forward if that is where we ultimately end up.
But what I'm hoping...
So we're core developers at...
Well, we contributed what's called a NIP, which is a Noster Improvement Proposal, which is the framework which could enable a site like Twitter or Rumble...
Or any of them to integrate Noster like we do.
So you don't have to be fully decentralized, but you can integrate NIP 26, which is delegated event signing, so that your users have an escape hatch.
That's really all people want.
People are going to keep using Twitter.
Just because a fully decentralized option exists doesn't mean people are going to stop using Twitter.
And I feel like that's kind of what Elon has in his head.
Because he even, Nostra was on the, remember when, like a couple months ago, Twitter came out with this policy, like we're banning links to Instagram, Facebook, and Mastodon?
So they're aware of this system, but I think that they're thinking about it the wrong way.
There's a fully pure Noster client called Domus, which is super nice, and it's a great option.
You know, fully decentralized options don't have a ton of functionality.
You know, they don't have the notifications.
They don't have a lot of the discoverability of stuff.
There's serious limitations with fully decentralized stuff that's never going to be able to compete with more of like a centralized option where you can do all this fancy I think that this idea that we need to push out decentralized competitors is really just the wrong state.
Elon repeatedly says, we need to maximize public trust.
And I do believe that he believes that and wants that.
And that's why he's trying to be more transparent.
But maximizing public trust...
Is about, you know, give people their own keys.
And then, you know, that's going to hold the company accountable.
And then if, you know, Twitter messes around, they can go pop over someone else.
Let's say if someone did something like that, and you had all your posts on Twitter, and you've been on Twitter since 2009, and Mines gives you the ability to port your shit over to there.
So, I mean, that's a very strong word that he used.
And I don't know all the details, but what I know is that, so Substack is largely powered by Twitter's API. Which means API application programming interface.
It's basically a developer tool set so that websites can integrate with API. You see login with Facebook, login with Twitter.
You have tweets embedded in Substack.
The API is how you facilitate that.
And Twitter has been locking down its API. Because...
It's been, quite frankly, probably costing them millions of dollars because when Substack makes an API call to Twitter, that costs Twitter money.
So Elon's perspective is, okay, we're hemorrhaging money.
I'm speculating.
I don't want to put words into his mouth.
But I think that he's locking down the API because...
It's costing them so much money to be supporting all these websites that aren't paying them.
And it's also part of the fun of the chaos of Twitter under him.
You've got this one incredibly intelligent, super eccentric guy who happens to be one of the richest people on the earth.
And he decided to take over the...
And he did it very specifically because he thinks it's a threat to democracy.
That having this censorship and having this...
This control over the access to information and the narrative which is what you're previously you were getting and it's like we see it with YouTube we see it with these other social media networks where someone has a problematic opinion they get shadow banned and ghosted and they Their algorithm gets fucked up, their access to new subscribers gets fucked up, and there's real-world consequences.
There's also demonetization, right?
YouTube's got this really sneaky thing that they do where they just demonetize things, and so you self-censor because you don't want to get demonetized.
I was friends with someone who was an executive at Google back in the day, and what she described to me was that if they didn't, and they were in negotiation and doing business with China, and she said, if we don't do this, they're just going to copy it.
They're basically just going to rip off Google.
And so we're in this battle to either appease them with their rules and have it go over there and have some things like Tiananmen Square be censored.
Where you can't access information about Tiananmen Square.
It's just like, well, it seems to be a situation where we kind of have to do that or they're just going to copy Google.
It was in like 2009 or no maybe like 2011 and you shared this viral video that was going on in Mines of this like quantum levitation disk.
I don't know if you've ever seen that.
It's like if you look on if you just search like quantum you know superconducting levitation And you had just seen that, and this was way before we knew each other, and you had just shared that.
You know, obviously they're favoring native video, native content, they're favoring Twitter Blue, which is, again, some of it makes sense, but, you know, don't piss off the journalists.
I mean, when we were first starting, because we have over a million followers on our Facebook pages, and we would drive crazy traffic back in the day.
Just posting viral videos and cool articles, and we had journalists on, and we would post their stuff.
So much traffic.
Millions and millions of users a month hitting the site.
And then Facebook was just like...
And then, boom.
But we always knew that we didn't want to be...
It was a nice-to-have thing.
The reason we do what we do is because we didn't want to be relying on them.
But it just goes to show how much power they have.
I mean, they can literally wipe out Jobs and people's livelihoods and companies just overnight.
That's what happens.
If you're not favored and you don't play the algorithm game, it's so sickening and worrying about the algorithm.
It's like people just worship this thing and you kind of have to for survival because you're trying to succeed, but then what are you really spending your time doing?
It's an interesting discussion in the stand-up comedy community because a lot of comics are trying to game the algorithm.
And you hear these discussions.
I was talking to a friend of mine that was telling me about these comics at the cellar that were having this conversation where they were trying to figure out, like, this is what you do to get the algorithm.
This is what you do to go viral.
This is what you do.
This comic, who's like an established comic, who's like, this is fucking gross.
I don't want to have any part of this.
Just make the best shit you can make.
Don't do this.
And so then you see people that become sort of captured by this idea.
There's some guys that do it where it's an art form, like Mr. Beast.
He's figured out how to do it in a way that's really kind of fascinating.
Because he really knows what words to use, what images to use, and that there's an actual science to it.
Like, watching his interview with Lex, the way that his brain works, it's like everything is being processed through how does this play to the algorithm.
I mean, they're allowed to have their perspective on it.
And yeah, I mean, obviously that's the take.
Like, you're not doing anything, so shut the fuck up.
But people who aren't doing anything are also allowed to chime in on stuff.
And they can look petty, and they can look foolish, or they can have really good points.
You know and that makes you but that's the beauty of what we have today There's so much dumb shit involved in social media and there's so much bickering and hate and there's so many people that are addicted to it It's elevated their anxiety level and they're all on medication now because they're fucking tweeting 12 hours a day There's a lot of that going on but if you can figure out how to manage yourself and manage it Now we have access to information at an unprecedented level,
where something like the Restrict Act gets picked apart by brilliant people on Twitter, on Facebook, on Instagram, on everything.
And that's so valuable.
So we have to figure out a way to preserve that.
And to have this kind of thing today It has never existed in human history.
Never.
Not one time has there been a time in human history where a person could tweet about a thing and it could be shared by millions of people and all of a sudden the conversation about this subject changes.
So you have a public narrative that's being pushed forth by these propagandists, and then someone comes along and says, actually, this is what's really going on.
And Twitter will fact check, and then people will chime in.
And this is a beautiful thing.
I mean, it's really an amazing thing.
So with all the bad that comes with social media and all the weird shit that it's doing to kids, it's just not good.
When you see, like, someone will post something and then you'll see someone has a very specific response, And then if you take that specific response and Google it, you'll see hundreds of verbatim exact responses from people that look like real people.
You go to their site, there's a picture of them smiling.
There might even be a picture of them with some fucking AI-generated kids.
It's really weird when you look at someone's feet.
I've looked at someone posting something controversial and then look at someone who has what seems to be like, well, this is a suspicious take.
And then I'll go to their page and it's all suspicious takes.
And occasionally the retweets and the retweets of things that go along with the narrative that they're posting, but it seems like very calculated.
And then you realize this person has 30 followers.
Do you ever try to look at it from where we're standing now with the chat GPT influence, the AI influence, all this different stuff, all the deepfakes?
Suspictions multiply as Nord Stream sabotage remains unsolved.
Intelligence leaks surrounding the sabotage of the pipelines have provided more questions than answers.
It may be in no one's interest to reveal more.
What?
But...
That's wild.
I mean, you literally are in the business of revealing more.
I mean, that's what you're supposed to be doing.
If the United States government is engaging in something that is potentially dangerous to the human civilization because we can start a fucking nuclear war because of this, if you don't report on that, that's going to allow more of that shit to take place.
I can't believe those words were printed and they're still there.
How can that be where we're at?
In terms of where it's going, Honestly, I think that we are on the precipice of A whole new paradigm and level of access to information that is just going to be like a total shift in humanity.
I think we're getting closer.
And I mean that with regards to classified information coming out, corporate secret information coming out.
It's happening.
I mean, what we're seeing from the Twitter files, which Elon just...
Just did.
He became a whistleblower on himself.
Yeah.
And, I mean, the amount of information that that gave us and they were denying it for years and gaslighting everybody.
It's so dark and they don't have any punishment on the table.
Which is really crazy.
You know, when you saw Vidya, like, testifying, and she had to kind of admit things that they've said in the past that were not true, it's really fascinating to watch that.
Because the ramifications of that, they're so—it's so dangerous.
It's so dangerous to limit the truth and deny the truth.
And when you're something like a social media network that is basically the town square for the world, and you're doing that, and you're doing that based on your ideology, and you're doing that based on input from intelligence communities, It's
And if Bitcoin adoption is occurring in these other countries, I mean, So, even as a hedge, you know, our country should be stockpiling.
What if all these other countries and it blows up and it becomes the global reserve currency and then the U.S. is just out of luck because we didn't participate because we were trying to be, you know, too heavy-handed with it.
It doesn't mean that, like, Bitcoin and the dollar can coexist and should coexist.
Like, it's not necessarily one or the other.
But, I mean...
Yeah, we just need a new wave of politicians who are going to open up.
Maybe it's nothing, but what do we know about UFOs and where does this go?
unidentified
As I said, what we know is what we gleaned from all of the data that has been discussed.
UFOs are real?
Yes, UFOs are technologically sophisticated.
They have performance characteristics.
The five observables are sort of well documented.
But they also have very profound effects on some people, or they have superficial effects on other people, but they do have effects on people.
So going forward is to combine both of those, is to study UFO performance and, you know, the hope is that out of UFO performance Can come theoretical physics, which will eventually translate into engineering.
Does our government have downed UFOs from unknown origin that they've been trying and are trying to reverse engineer and exploit those technologies to understand the physics and understand that technology?
I mean, the type of whistleblower protections that are available, like I hope we can expand that so it's not just for UFO related stuff, but also for surveillance to protect the Snowdens and Assange's of the world.
Like we need we need that.
And that's why I think that this office is going to be successful.
It's because, like, you can't the people who are doing the black projects.
We need to have reassurance that they're not going to be screwed after coming forward.
And so, you know, this type of legislation is so key.
I had an exchange with Mellon recently, and he actually told me to mention this.
He was saying that Lazar should come forward through Arrow.
No.
Sorry.
So, because why not?
I mean, if he was involved, then he could participate in that organization.
And put it through, because that's the channel that we have now.
Well, I mean, based on the testimony from, you know, whether you're talking about Roswell or particularly the one that I've been just loving deep in the rabbit hole is the Virginia incident in Brazil.
I mean, that is completely mind-blowing.
James Fox did an epic documentary about it, Moment of Contact.
You know, there are military whistleblowers in his documentary which say that the U.S. flew in and transported – I can't believe I'm about to say this – but bodies and materials.
Like, in this documentary – There's aliens running around all over Virginia, Brazil.
The whole wing of the hospital where it occurred because the smell was so bad that and this is this was reported independently from the guy who saw the crash.
Everyone said that it smelled like ammonia and sulfur just like And they couldn't get it out of their system for weeks.
And so, you know, there's record of the hospital, you know, doing this, like this renovation.
And I don't know, the speculation was saying that it's like maybe like a skunk or something, like a skunk.
Everyone said that the smell was so horrible that they couldn't get it off their bodies.
They had to demolish the whole wing of the hospital.
Virginia is very similar to Roswell.
When you go to Roswell, it's like UFOs.
It's a tourist attraction.
You go to Virginia, there's huge UFOs everywhere.
It's like the culture.
At this point because the whole city was basically locked down.
They had like hundreds of people all over the city that saw military checkpoints or know somebody who was directly involved.
And like, you know, I approached obviously agnostic on what is happening, but it's like you don't have hundreds of people saying exactly the same thing just out of nowhere.
I mean, yeah, it could be some sort of government.
But it was like the mayor of our – did you see Moment of Contact?
Well, James says that there is, and that he's, you know, on top of it to try to find it.
But, I mean, evidence is a spectrum.
So, you know, physical evidence, you know, people died.
So this guy, Charizzi, so they confronted this guy, Eric Lopes, who, with this guy, Charizzi, I think Carlos Charizzi, they basically were police who, like, captured, apparently, allegedly, one of these things.
And they talked to this guy's sister.
Who died, like, a week after grabbing this thing.
And, you know, she has a death certificate.
And, like, the cause of death was unknown.
He had this, like, super weird infection.
And so, you know, I would consider a death certificate, you know, based in, you know, he was a state worker.
He grabbed it and then apparently he got a cut or something, infection, and he died.
They confront the other guy who was driving the car, Eric Lopez, and he threatened to kill them when they go on his property.
It's so crazy.
But it's more so like it seeps into the – when something seeps into the culture that deeply, like it did in Roswell and, you know, like it did in Brazil, I just – I tend to feel like there's something there because of just how overwhelming – you know, so many people saw the craft, so many people – We're involved.
It's just it's either the most ridiculous hoax of all time, which why would you even like who would do that and why?
And so it's like when you're when talking about Occam's razor, you know, the simplest is the most likely answer.
I feel like Occam's razor in both cases of Roswell and Virginia are That something actually did happen.
Yeah, Roswell has some weird stories about bodies.
You know, bodies and little caskets and stuff like that.
But it's just like there's so much attention to these things and there's so much hype that I always wonder.
Like how much of this is just people feeding off of the narrative and the stories and the fact that this is like an exciting thing to talk about and how much of it is that they want it to be real?
I mean, that certainly is the reason for a lot of people in the UFO world that they can just milk it and they get speaking gigs and they were contacted and, you know, it's a life.
And that's something that whenever there's a speculative phenomenon like that, it just seems like you're always going to get a bunch of bullshit artists.
But, you know, the type of specific evidence that I'm interested in seeing more of is like, okay, so if the military witness claims that, you know, U.S. Air Force came and transported something, like, there are probably records somewhere of these flights.
So, like, that's the type of thing that's just inaccessible to us.
Ryan Graves doesn't have, like, a physical interaction with them.
He basically, what he said was they upgraded their equipment and then immediately they started seeing things that are defying what they understand to be the laws of physics and what are currently known methods of propulsion and The way these things are able to operate and stay stationary in 120 mile an hour winds and things along those lines.
He was pretty convinced that this is something outside of our realm of understanding.
And then there's the Commander Fravor instance, which is very bizarre because it's multiple witnesses, video evidence, the equipment that they use to detect it.
All of it rings true.
It all works correctly in that this thing was able to go from 50,000 plus feet above sea level to 50 feet in less than a second.
They don't know what the fuck it is.
They don't know why it behaved the way it behaved, the fact that it was blocking their radar systems, the fact that this thing… They knew where they were going to go.
Yeah, it went to their cat point, which is their predetermined location where they were supposed to meet up later.
It went immediately to that.
The fact that this thing operates with no visible method of propulsion and that it moves at these insane speeds, it would turn human beings into jelly if they were inside of it.
It was a biological entity inside of that.
Which makes you think, like, okay, are these drones?
Are these, like, super sophisticated drones that some black ops project's been working on for a long time?
Mellon thinks that it's a post-biological probe, and that the gray, you know, the traditional kind of gray, because that's what they were described almost exactly in Virginia, the drawings of it, the renditions of what the witness saw looks just like the gray, except it was brown with red eyes.
You also have to think, why would we assume that there's only one version of this thing?
If we look at the cosmos, that this gray alien with the black eyes is the only one that exists, wouldn't there be some sort of parallel evolution?
I mean, my take on where human beings are headed seems that we're headed into some sort of an integration with technology.
It's already integrated into our lives to the point where it's inescapable.
And then what if it becomes physically integrated?
And what if when we're looking at declining in Sperm counts, the human beings are becoming more feeble and weaker and there's all this weirdness with gender in our culture.
And as technology advances, this obsession with gender and the lack of gender and gender being a social construct and the decrease in testosterone and penis sizes and actually, didn't they say penis sizes are going off?
Yeah, I think that within the transhuman path, there's multiple branches.
So it's not as if it's all sort of this degradation.
Though I typically...
Like, I'm in no rush to integrate, you know, Neuralink.
But if I had Alzheimer's and I was faced with that, see, that's everyone can be a skeptic and say, I would never put that in my body until the moment that, you know, some incurable disease is suddenly fixed.
by it yeah well yeah parallel paralysis that's what's gonna be a big one people that can't use their limbs and also now they can and then the thing is it's gonna if if it does do what Elon thinks it's going to be able to do which is radically alter your access to information and change your ability to process information and it's going to give the people that adopted a significant advantage Not just a significant advantage, but an almost insurmountable advantage without it.
And then everyone's going to do it, just like how everyone wears clothes.
Someone invented clothes because it's way better.
You can survive outside, you know, with the fucking down parka on and wool undergarments, and you could live in a way that you could never live without it.
So it's much more sustainable to use clothes.
So everybody eventually put on clothes.
I mean, clothes are a form of technology.
We were all wearing them.
You can't go anywhere without seeing people in clothes.
And that sort of, like, it is an invention.
And we don't think of it that way.
We just think of it as clothes.
But it's a method that we have devised in order to walk on sharp surfaces and in inclement weather.
And we protect ourselves physically and biologically from that.
If that is just one step in the human's invention that sort of removes us from the biological limitations that we currently have, that's going to keep going.
And it's going to keep going and the end point seems to be integration.
And, you know, there's going to be a fork in the road where, see, like, I just would...
Neuralink needs to be open source.
I don't know how, like, putting something in my brain that can just, like, switch me off, that I can at least unleash some computer scientists on to audit it, make sure, like, okay, is this going to do anything to me?
I mean...
That's the thought process that I go through when I ask, like, would I integrate?
Yeah, but what if it becomes a thing that becomes very easy to acquire?
The other thing is it's also there's a haves and have not aspect to it because the people that are early adopters, if it is effective and it does work, you will have a massive advantage over everyone else.
If it really does change the way your mind is able to access information and the way your mind is able to process And, you know, imagine having the computational power and the access to information that ChatGPT has, but instantaneously in your mind.
That seems to me where it's all headed.
And it just doesn't seem like it's going to stop.
It seems like everything keeps moving in this general direction of integration.
The most impressive part was how well it read and interpreted the blood test results.
It simply transcribed the CBC test values from a piece of paper and it gave step-by-step explanation and interpretation along with the reference ranges which I confirmed all correct.
Well, the question is, like, are you going to need doctors?
Because it seems like you're going to need surgeons, but are you going to need general practitioners that can disseminate information based on test results when they're not even that good at it?
And they have, like, 15 people coming to their office and everybody's got five minutes and...
You know, and they have student loans to pay and the insurance to pay.
And also all they have is what they've absorbed in terms of the amount of research and information they have.
And that varies widely between...
The doctors, because some doctors are more studied, and some aren't, and some are specialists, and some aren't, and some have, you know, done an incredible amount of work on certain subjects, and some of them are completely ignorant of it.
You ever try to talk to a general practitioner about vitamins?
You could put up some sort of like factchecker.org bullshit website when you put out a bunch of propaganda and it sucks that information off the web and uses it at least to flavor an answer.
Well, that's probably going to be better with ChatGBT 4.5.
So what you're dealing with is like a constant improvement upon this resource that has, in a relatively short period of time, revolutionized the way people get access to answers.
They have some of the best training data in the world.
It's just the most accurate real-time language use in humanity.
So they're probably going to come out with something cool.
And then you've got a bunch of other folks.
There's an open alternative chat GPT called Colossal, which is decent, but they're still reliant on some small parts of chat GPT. But yeah, I mean, it's, you know, with what we're seeing, there's more than meets.
There's a lot of business drama happening behind the scenes, you know, with the subsec stuff, with the open AI stuff.
And, you know, I think that I just don't buy into the whole secrecy is going to save us mentality.
And I don't see OpenAI saying, okay, at this point, we now believe this to be safe enough to release.
I just think that they're going to keep hoarding.
And when really they should give us a path to when it's...
If we're going to be relying on them, they're getting so powerful so fast.
They need to give us a path to when it's going to be transparent and also why are you doing all this bias?
And I think there should be rev share baked in for humanity.
Why not have – rather than have the government fund UBI, why not have the billion-dollar tech companies that are taking everybody's data give everybody a little rev share on it?
If they're using your data and it's actually being processed and used on a regular basis, give everybody a little bit.
You can still be rich.
You can still become a huge company.
That's your mindset.
Yeah.
But to be honest, it's...
It's not just me.
That is what is going to be smart for them.
Elon even is doing monetization on Twitter.
They're working on it.
They're trying to do encrypted messages, apparently.
Ultimately, what's best for the community is, I think, better for the corporation long term, unless they want to fight this war, which they're going to, and maybe they do.
But it seems to me like this is the first rumblings of cyborgs.
This is the first steps that is going to force our integration.
Because if this does become something you can access instantaneously in your mind with some thing that you put on your head or something you put in your head, I don't see people not taking that.
I think there's probably going to be multiple versions of it.
It's going to get better and better, which is why you, A, don't want to be an early adopter, but maybe you do because those are the people that are going to be able to get access to the second version of this and the third, and it's going to become progressively more and more powerful.
Really wonder like when we're talking about aliens we're talking about these creatures Maybe that's a natural course of progression for intelligent life that intelligent life eventually realizes there's limits to biological evolution but technology Allows you to jump start and pass bypass all those limitations radically quickly where the the versions that are created by human beings once AI Is able to take over and
make better versions of it.
It's gonna make a better version of itself.
It's gonna continue to evolve to the point where I mean you you really become something that's completely different than a human being and Yeah, and it's a question of, you know, do I want to live?
And like for what you were saying about, you know, where is the disclosure process taking us?
I think that there is real possibility for social unrest and the global economy.
This is most likely the reason that they're taking their time letting information out because religion, the global energy economy, I mean, if these things are real, And they're powered by some, you know, propulsion system with a new form of energy that is, you know, near limitless or whatever it is, then what does that do for the economy?
Suddenly all the top largest energy companies in the world are just irrelevant.
If you had to speculate as to, like, imagine if there is some large worldwide wholesale disclosure of information, like if invasion is imminent or some sort of undeniable event takes place, how do you think that plays out?
And so, but yeah, there's something going on where they're, you know, in some senses being bold, but they're not being bold enough that it, for some reason, is able to take hold and just all of human society says,
okay, We can't not talk about this anymore because what'll happen now is there'll be all these, you know, New York Times article, Pentagon leaks, and it's like, whoa, can we, like, stop and talk about that for five minutes before we just go back to life?
But don't you think there's like an information overwhelming aspect to this?
That it's just overload of data and you're just constantly inundated by new stories and new things and there's so much to talk about and think about that it's very difficult for one thing to stick.
Unless it's like a nonsense thing that people get excited about, you know, like this Bud Light nonsense.
Like, you know, Dylan Mulvaney is in the spokesperson for Bud Light and now people are shooting Bud Light.
And, you know, my take on it has been like, yeah, I think that person's a silly person and a tension whore and a fucking weird person to be a cultural lightning rod.
They're obviously just a narcissist, but...
Why aren't you freaking out about all these other things that are happening?
Why are you not freaking out about the Restrict Act?
Why are you not freaking out about what's happening with ChatGPT?
Why is everybody freaking out about this dumb thing with Bud Light?
I think it's coming and we just need to stay on it.
What else matters?
I don't want to die without knowing.
Because if that information exists and we're living in a world right now where there are People in, you know, D.C. or, you know, elite figures in the government who do—it's basically multiple civilizations coexisting.
There's people with access—because when you digest certain new breakthrough information, which, you know, humanity has done repeatedly, I think that changes who we are.
It changes how we interface with the world.
It changes all of the decisions that we make.
And so— We know that we're living in this almost like information caste system where there are people with access and people without.
And so that does exist.
Whether that includes actual aliens, I don't know.
But it exists for...
All kinds of issues that absolutely matter to our existence could be dealing with energy technology, could be dealing with corruption, you know, major geopolitical events that would totally change the trajectory of the world.
So I'm just like not comfortable not knowing and having these people that I don't know who they are and why do they get to know?
They're drinking, and Nixon says, hey, you want to see some fucking crazy shit?
And he takes him to whatever Air Force base where they have a downed UFO. And that he has access to see this, and he sees alien bodies, and that this is something that the government has always had.
And they've had this thing.
And Gleason, you know, there's speculation as to whether or not he really did have that conversation with Nixon, but there's no speculation to the fact that he built a fucking house that looked like a UFO after that happened.
What do you think would happen if human beings absolutely knew that we do have UFOs from another world, that we're back engineering and we're trying to figure it out, that we have been in contact with alien civilizations, we are being monitored?
You know, the UFO folklore is, of course, that once we drop the bombs, that all of a sudden they start showing up, which totally makes sense.
Like, okay, there's a detection that these people, these beings on this planet, they've entered into this new phase of understanding of technology, and they can harness the atom, and of course they use it as a bomb.
Now, they're using it as nuclear power.
They're using it in all these different ways.
And we have to make sure that they safely transition to the next stage of evolution without complete total destruction, which would send them back to, at the very least, the Stone Age.
And then you're dealing with a, you know, tens of thousands of years of, you know, reinventing everything and getting back to the state where they were at now and give them another shot at doing it again.
So maybe that's why they showed up and maybe that's why they're monitoring us and that's why they're here.
That it's a bridge.
And they're just here to make sure that we don't fuck everything up.
So that this is a very delicate and precarious process that exists with all intelligent life forms all throughout the universe.
And that we're at a stage just like, you know, there's speculation and there's people openly discussing that some primates, lower primates, have entered into the Stone Age.
They're using tools.
They're using things.
And this is very similar to what they think happened to human beings.
That over the course of millions of years, they'll eventually become like us.
And that this is just a natural process that exists where intelligent life forms learn things slowly at first, and then eventually incredibly rapidly, which is what we're seeing now with AI. It's totally logical.
And the way that we interface with species below us is, you know, sometimes we're fascinated by them and want to learn about them and study, but other times we're like, eh, a squirrel, okay.
So, if I was an alien life form, a superior intelligence from some other galaxy or some other part of the universe, I would 100% be concentrating on integrating this new species into the galactic network, if there is one, you know, and then, you know, helping them get to this next stage.
I mean, maybe life is fairly rare.
Maybe intelligent life is much more rare.
And maybe this thing that we're seeing is like these rare nuggets of some very precious thing that exists in the universe.
And so they seek it out.
And they recognize that this is the thing that brings them to the ultimate next stage.
And those, you know, actually Annika Harris, Sam Harris's wife, wrote a cool book, which I also haven't read, but I know about it.
It's called Conscious, and it's all about panpsychism, which is cool coming from her because she obviously is rigorous.
If you're going to be married to Sam Harris, you probably need to not be full of woo.
And so she kind of explored, and I listened to some podcasts with her explaining it, and So this is a real thing that's getting taken seriously.
It's not necessarily physically provable, but you can't actually deny that it's a possibility that consciousness is sort of the engine of everything.
So philosophically, when you're arguing against materialism versus fundamental consciousness, The materialists, they kind of arbitrarily try to point to when consciousness emerges.
But how can you pick that point?
Because if all matter is evolving and eventually becoming complex enough to have conscious properties, But still, show me the exact time when you consider something conscious.
Because there's plants, there's all kinds of microbes.
Is it when it's reactionary to its environment and trying to preserve its own life?
Or is it when it's interactive and conscious to the point where it's communicating?
Is that when we decide that it's conscious?
Is it when it's able to manipulate its environment like we are?
I mean, we obviously prioritize our consciousness above orcas because what we're doing to orcas is fucking horrific and accepted in some strange way that, you know, you can go to SeaWorld and watch something that might be as smart as us do tricks for fish.
You know, like why are we willing to do that?
That's clearly a conscious thing that has a language.
And yet we're like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Stay in the pool, bitch.
It's weird what we do and what we prioritize as consciousness.
We seem to have like a caste system of our own where we decide that we only favor things that are able to manipulate their environment.
I mean, but that's way beyond, I think, you know, orca.
It's like, that's so, maybe to other people, they don't consider orcas conscious, but I feel like that's, like, a certain type of person that really hasn't looked into this at all.
You know, look what we saw in terms of variants from COVID, like these vaccine-resistant variants that popped up like almost instantaneously, you know, that these viruses recognize where immunity is and they figure out a way to move around that immunity and become more contagious.
There's also, you know, the words we use matter, like, life and conscious are a little bit different, you know, because something would be considered alive probably earlier than most people would consider conscious.
So some of the panpsychists like to...
Talk about experience.
You know, is the matter having any sort of an experience?
And sometimes that's a little bit more digestible for people.
And especially people that support a woman's right to choose.
They don't want to think of it that way.
But it's undeniable.
I had a conversation with someone online once a long time where Richard Dawkins was saying that there's no difference between a human fetus and a pig fetus.
I'm like, what are you talking about?
That's a ridiculous way to look at it.
A human fetus has the potential to become a human being.
That could be your neighbor.
It could be your best friend.
It's going to turn into a person.
If someone doesn't intervene or if it doesn't die, it's going to become a person.
Pig fetus is going to become a pig.
They're very different things.
You could argue that a pig is intelligent because they are.
They're calculated.
They do things.
They're smart.
They're smarter than dogs.
Is your dog conscious?
I think my dog's conscious.
I have conversations with him.
He knows when it's time to eat.
He knows what I'm saying when I ask him if he wants to play.
He knows.
He's fucking conscious.
He's just not at the level that a human being is.
But that's also because he doesn't have the hardware.
Yeah, I mean, with the pro-life, pro-choice debate, it just feels so shallow, similar to the climate change debate, where it's like, obviously human life is precious and we should preserve it as much as is humanly possible.
And guess what?
Yes, if you choose to have an abortion, yeah, it's killing something.
You're killing something.
You know, whether or not people should have the legal right to do that in certain circumstances, I'm not someone to answer that.
But like, it would be so much more of a healthy conversation if we could agree at least on what we're talking about.
But we're not worrying about is that, like, based on, you know, millions of years, like, who knows?
Right.
So it's like, I feel like some of these debates are just arguing about the wrong things.
And it's just, we need to reset some of these conversations to just find the place where we can agree on one thing and then make progress from there.
Because I think that a lot of people who are pro-abortion Like Louis and Chris Rock who made those bits, which are, you know, kind of crude bits, but they're at least honestly acknowledging what's going on.
But that's the purpose that humor does serve in those ways is it makes you laugh at something that is kind of like you leave there going, has this got a fucking good point.
It was funny, but there's actually there's some truth in that.
And if it didn't have truth in it, no one would be laughing.
And that's the test of it all.
It's like, does it resonate with that part of your mind that recognizes these inconsistencies?
And there's also another problem with both the pro-life, pro-choice and also the climate argument.
That they become embedded in ideologies.
So they become these dogmatic things that you cannot question.
If you're a part of this group and you want to be accepted by this group, there's essentially two groups.
There's one group that believes in guns but also believes that babies Are sacred.
It's like very strange.
You know, they're in general pro-military and pro-killing bad people, but also they think all life is precious.
It's fucking, it's wild, but it's also, you know, if you don't give up your gun, people with guns will take your guns and they'll have all the guns to make sure that you don't have guns.
Thomas Sowell had a great point about that, that intellectuals will oftentimes compartmentalize and ignore evidence.
We're talking about brilliant people that we rely on to be the voice of reason or the voice of intelligence and fact.
When it comes to certain particular arguments that they'll align with only the facts that support their case or support their position.
And if it doesn't support their position, they'll conveniently ignore it.
And, you know, we see that with almost everything.
We saw that very clearly with the discussion about COVID. And whether or not metabolic health is important and whether or not other treatments are important or whether or not you should accept the narrative that there's one binary argument and that there's one answer and that this is the only answer to solve this problem.
And clearly that's not the case and not true.
It was represented across so many different demographics, so many people that were similar but did different things, had better outcomes.
So there's also this weird thing that human beings almost automatically do, is they try to find the most convenient answer and the answer that supports their pre-existing conditions, their pre-existing positions rather.
Yeah, it's weird how COVID seems far away now, but history books are going to look at that as, you know, the largest scale psychological experiment on humanity that's ever occurred.
I mean, literally billions of people behaving I mean, you know, it used to be like Stanford Prison Experiment, you know, the elevator experiment, you know that one?
Where like people, everyone in the elevator is turned the opposite way of the door, and then people who walk in just turn and face the other wall just because everybody else in the elevator is doing it.
I mean, billions of people doing that type of behavior now.
It's hard, though, because you can't know everything and you want to be able to trust experts and defer to scientific consensus, which isn't even really, shouldn't be a thing.
It's scientific consensus along people that are willing to accept the Proposed narrative by these very corrupt organizations that you could follow a very clear Paper trail of money and influence that led them to these decisions Like the lab leak hypothesis is one of the best examples of that where there's literal email actual actual emails that show people thinking that it came from a lab and then there is discussion with other people that don't think it came from the lab and And then
there's money that gets exchanged where they get these grants and they've changed their position.
And it's very weird.
And no one is discussing it in any mainstream source where they're saying, hey, we've got a real fucking problem with this and this is the problem, this is how it happened.
It takes independent journalists and people that are very brave that get censored, they get removed from YouTube, they get banned from Twitter.
And these are the people that came out and had a problem with this.
And a lot of them have rock-solid credentials.
A lot of them are established doctors and scientists, and they're saying, like, here's the problems, and why aren't we addressing these problems?
And these people are getting, you know, these pejoratives labeled on them.
Like, they're anti-vaxxers.
They're conspiracy theorists.
They're fools.
You know?
It's very strange.
But we did watch it.
We did witness it.
And some people learned from it.
And some people developed a new healthy sense of skepticism about public narratives.
And other people are just – they're still – they have their heels dug in.
Why don't you believe in science?
Like what science are you – what are you talking about?
Science is data.
I don't believe in data.
Are you looking at all the data?
Because I bet you aren't.
Let's discuss some of that data.
And then when you see the panic on their face, when they're forced to discuss this data, and they're forced to discuss these inconvenient realities, it's fucking fascinating.
If Russia invades, that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine again, then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.
But this is actually one of the things that makes me not believe in aliens, is that unless the current administration is just so in the dark about what is going on on our planet, I would think that if the government was actually in on this and aware, they wouldn't be going around blowing up pipelines.
Like, wouldn't...
Government relationships with aliens mean that they have some semblance of understanding of how to behave?
Yeah, but it doesn't seem like you're ever going to stop this...
Control of natural resources and this grasp of power that human beings have.
And if you're engaged in that, and that's a gigantic part of the economy, of international relations, why wouldn't they continue business as usual, even with the knowledge that UFOs exist?
Well, but even if we don't, if the behavior that we're exhibiting is just reckless, blowing each other up, destroying the planet, that's gonna not make us look good to them, in which case maybe they would start messing with us.
I don't know.
It just seems like it doesn't...
If there's a higher level of, like, beings that are higher than us, I would not be risking playing these earthly games.
I think they're risking our planet by – if aliens were going to get hostile, I feel like they would much more likely get hostile to humans who could potentially fly out into the universe with nukes and spread our devastation.
I would imagine that if they're watching and they're observing that this is business as usual for the human race, if they were going to intervene and step in, they would step in if we employed nuclear weapons and we were really at the risk of destroying ourselves.
This is like a little slap in the face on the schoolyard.
This is not as horrific as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Right now it's gotten to the, oh, there's this thing that flies really fast and goes into the water and doesn't make a splash.
The fuck is that?
I don't know, but...
It's a lot of fucking oil, and we've got to get that oil, and there's a lot of resources.
We've got to control those resources, because if we don't, China will.
If we don't, Putin will.
If we don't, this and that.
And we have to maintain our control, and we're the world's leader, and we're this and that.
It's just business as usual while this is all happening.
In this very weird way where the Pentagon discusses it, but not very specifically and not gives you all the information and just says, I can't talk about it.
My concern is that it's a distraction and that this is all black ops stuff and these are drones and these are some things that we have the capabilities of utilizing and that we've created and that the United States citizens don't need to know about and the world citizens don't need to know about and this is a massive Advantage that the people that are in control of these technologies have over everyone else,
wouldn't it be better to say these are from another world and we don't have any idea?
As an AI language model, I do not have personal beliefs or opinions, but I can provide you with information based on the topic of extraterrestrial visitation.
As of my knowledge, the cutoff date of 2021, there's no conclusive evidence that definitely proves the existence of extraterrestrial life or that we are being visited by beings or crafts from another world.
While there have been many claims of sightings, abductions, and encounters, these have often been attributed to misinterpretations of natural phenomenon, hoaxes, or psychological phenomenon.
However, some scientists and researchers continue to explore the possibility of extraterrestrial life and the potential for interstellar travel.
The search for extraterrestrial intelligence, SETI, is an ongoing scientific effort to detect signs of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe while initiatives such as Breakthrough, Starshot, aim to develop technology for interstellar travel.
In summary...
While there is no concrete evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, the search for extraterrestrial life and the possibility of interstellar travel remain topics of scientific interest and investigation.
The leaks are escalating, which, you know, obviously you don't want it to be...
And this is why the government should start the process of, like, an actual disclosure, you know, opening up FOIA, Freedom of Information Act, much further, making it much...
Setting us on a path to get the information because otherwise we're going to keep getting these leaks and it's going to be worse for them.
Well, listen man, I appreciate you and I really appreciate what you're doing and your thought process behind all this and that you're stuck to these ethics.
You've stuck to them from the very beginning when you formulated this company and you're still doing it.