Speaker 1: Fifth generation warfare is being weaponized and used against you.
Speaker 1: Now if that sounds scary, well it is. There is
Speaker 1: a new tactic that's being deployed against you, against us,
Speaker 1: and you know it, you can feel it, but you
Speaker 1: can't quite put your finger on it. And this is
Speaker 1: being done on purpose. I am sitting down with doctor
Speaker 1: Robert Malone in one of the best interviews that I
Speaker 1: have had. Super informative and it's super important. We talk
Speaker 1: about what fifth generation warfare is, where it got started,
Speaker 1: how it evolved from first, second, third, fourth, and fifth,
Speaker 1: lots of examples of how it's being used. We start
Speaker 1: talking about the sovereignty. Can you be sovereign in a
Speaker 1: world where this is being deployed against you? We talk
Speaker 1: about how to defend ourselves against this, what some of
Speaker 1: these covert topics are, like limited hangout and then we
Speaker 1: talk about, like I said, how to defend ourselves, how
Speaker 1: to push back, how to ultimately win. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was an amazing conversation and it's one you don't want
Speaker 1: to miss. So Le'squad just jump right in with doctor
Speaker 1: Robert Malone. Doctor Malone, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: me today. It's a pleasure to have you in the
Speaker 1: studio and I can't wait to dig in. You're looking
Speaker 1: You're looking great in your brand new studio. So you know,
Speaker 1: I've been following your work for a long time, A big,
Speaker 1: big fan of your work. I really like the approach.
Speaker 1: It's a it's like an it's a common sense approach
Speaker 1: that should appeal to most people. I know you're kind
Speaker 1: of one of those. You got thrust into the limelight
Speaker 1: I think through Joe Rogan, and then you got censored
Speaker 1: and you got deleted, de platformed, and so you've kind
Speaker 1: of been at the forefront of this, and so I've
Speaker 1: been following your journey. Your substack has been great. We'll
Speaker 1: link to that substack down below. Every So you're a doctor, right,
Speaker 1: you were the inventor of the mr Anda vaccine. But
Speaker 1: the technology, the technology, the technology or not these vaccine Yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: the technology platform. But I just want to I think
Speaker 1: I listened to you in some other interview where you
Speaker 1: talked about your extensive career and the work that you've done.
Speaker 1: And I believe that you said you maybe had interfaced
Speaker 1: with some intelligence communities in the past. Maybe touch on
Speaker 1: that if you have some experience in that. Yeah, So
Speaker 1: you cannot be in by an offense without having touch
Speaker 1: points with the intelligence community. They're all through and through it.
Speaker 1: The tech that was involved in these products, injectable products
Speaker 1: that we are all familiar with, was advanced the MR
Speaker 1: and A tech was advanced through major investments from DARPA.
Speaker 1: DARPA is the Functional Arm for Product Development and New
Speaker 1: Technology Advancement of the CIA. That's what they do. They
Speaker 1: developed the srs of anyone. They actually did invent the Internet,
Speaker 1: and they have an investment arm called in q Tel
Speaker 1: which is funding a lot of the build out around
Speaker 1: this new product. Technology were indirectly referencing because this is
Speaker 1: going to be on YouTube. And so in my case,
Speaker 1: I was brought into this bizarre world of by a
Speaker 1: defense at a key point in time when it kind
Speaker 1: of really jelled, and that was after the anthrax attacks,
Speaker 1: you know one as well as the towers coming down,
Speaker 1: and I had just launched. I'd been an academic and
Speaker 1: an academic entrepreneur and had just launched a new company
Speaker 1: using Norwegian capital called a Noovo. It was using a
Speaker 1: different delivery technology than the positively charged fat technology that
Speaker 1: we know of with these current products and planes at
Speaker 1: the towers. The investors pulled back, they thought it was
Speaker 1: not a good time to be investing in the United States,
Speaker 1: and I was left high and dry and took a
Speaker 1: job with a company that had just acquired the contract
Speaker 1: for all bio defense products for the US military for
Speaker 1: what we call advanced development, which is taking it through
Speaker 1: clinical trials to licensure. So I work there as an
Speaker 1: associate clinical director, which means that I basically had my
Speaker 1: hands in every type of product drugs, antibodies, and vaccines
Speaker 1: that had been in the pipeline for development by the
Speaker 1: US Army, and that at that time was very much
Speaker 1: integrated into the intelligence community. The intelligence community is basically
Speaker 1: set into most of the leadership roles all through the
Speaker 1: bio defense enterprise. And prior to that, remember the bio
Speaker 1: defense enterprise as it exists right now used to be
Speaker 1: the biowarfare enterprise. Just a fun little fact. The US
Speaker 1: government probably spent well. The argument has made that the
Speaker 1: US government has spent much more money on biowarfare than
Speaker 1: it is spent on nuclear warfare. Much of the modern
Speaker 1: infrastructure of biology as we know it is really the
Speaker 1: consequence of massive spending by the US government in biowarfare
Speaker 1: and biowarfare technology. These are all things that I was
Speaker 1: unaware of at the time. I went into that position
Speaker 1: as a clinical director, and then pivoted to really changing
Speaker 1: my whole career thrust, getting out of academic discovery research
Speaker 1: because it was just writing papers. You weren't ending up
Speaker 1: making products and focusing on advanced development and over time,
Speaker 1: at one point I ended up with a business partner
Speaker 1: who is a retired CIA agent and retired US Army
Speaker 1: colonel who had been in charge of some of the
Speaker 1: major bio defense programs for the DoD and he introduced
Speaker 1: me to a variety of other people that were in
Speaker 1: the intelligence community, CIA or otherwise. And this includes Michael Callaghan,
Speaker 1: who is arguably our top expert I now know because
Speaker 1: of Whitney Webb's reporting. Her article about Michael titled darpest
Speaker 1: Man in Wuhan is a classic. I had no idea
Speaker 1: of what Michael's long history was. He's just I just
Speaker 1: knew him as a brilliant scientist, physician who had deep
Speaker 1: knowledge in expertise and connections in the bio defense industry.
Speaker 1: I only later came to understand what his role was
Speaker 1: in gain a function, research, and all the things that
Speaker 1: relate to the current threat. I also knew that he
Speaker 1: was advisor to multiple presidents and that he was dropped
Speaker 1: into a variety of hot zones over time. And I
Speaker 1: first really worked with him during the Abolta outbreak, where
Speaker 1: he was stationed in Africa and at the forefront of
Speaker 1: pushing forward a variety of new therapeutic products, including antibody products,
Speaker 1: and as I recall, testing RAM disappear. Initially and from
Speaker 1: Michael and my old business partner, I met other people
Speaker 1: that are throughout this network, one of whom is currently
Speaker 1: the director of the international organization called SEPI. So I've
Speaker 1: continued until the last three years, and really about when
Speaker 1: I started speaking out, when I went on Brett Weinstein's podcast,
Speaker 1: it was actually the big transformational moment. Continued to work
Speaker 1: closely with the Department of Defense, really at the intersection
Speaker 1: of industry and the government, and became quite a specialist
Speaker 1: in solving problems, complic problems for the government and assembling
Speaker 1: teams and getting them funded to move projects forward, typically
Speaker 1: in the bio defense space, but also in other biologic products.
Speaker 1: So there's a short summary of my touch points. I'm
Speaker 1: not Cia. I'm not trained CIA, but I've dealt with
Speaker 1: these folks quite a bit and learned how to navigate
Speaker 1: a world in which many of the players are trained liars.
Speaker 1: And in order to do that, you have to be
Speaker 1: really adroitit at discerning the tactics that are used, like
Speaker 1: limited hangouts and like a redirection and all the other
Speaker 1: strategies that they use to obscure truth and redirect you
Speaker 1: away from things that they really don't want you to
Speaker 1: know about. That's great, and um, so you've been around,
Speaker 1: you've navigated through this, you've worked closely with them. And
Speaker 1: I think also, I mean, you're you know you're you're
Speaker 1: an academic and your clinical researcher. You've written extensively, and
Speaker 1: so all of those skills also allow you to kind
Speaker 1: of dig into the data, pass through the data, makes
Speaker 1: sense of it, and then write about it, which I
Speaker 1: think all also leads into what you're doing today, which
Speaker 1: I think is great and it explains why your articles
Speaker 1: that you've been putting out are so good, because that's
Speaker 1: what you've been doing for so long. So I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: But there's something that really caught my eye that I
Speaker 1: want to kind of dig into and it's something that
Speaker 1: I think everybody feels. Maybe they don't see it, but
Speaker 1: they feel it. And again, you were a sort of
Speaker 1: a victim of this. And it's something I've been talking
Speaker 1: about for a long time where I believe that the
Speaker 1: next war isn't maybe a hot or kinetic war, it's
Speaker 1: a war of information. And so you've been talking about
Speaker 1: something called the fifth generation of warfare, which kind of
Speaker 1: echoes kind of like what I was saying. I hadn't
Speaker 1: really thought about in those terms. So let's start on that.
Speaker 1: Would you define what this fifth generation warfare is so
Speaker 1: that it's not my name, by the way, it's some
Speaker 1: people get confused about that. I just want to be
Speaker 1: clear in their general General Flynn has a new little
Speaker 1: paperback out that's really small that you can order, easy
Speaker 1: to get through, written for common lay person language, and
Speaker 1: there's also a great summary that's more academic, quite a
Speaker 1: bit longer, that you can get as an ebook on
Speaker 1: Amazon called five GW. And a lot of people get confused.
Speaker 1: Five GW has nothing to do with cell towers. It's
Speaker 1: just an abbreviation for fifth generation warfare. It's a misnomer
Speaker 1: to call it a generation of war. It's really a
Speaker 1: gradient of war, and you can think of, for instance,
Speaker 1: first Gen or that first gradient being swords and knives
Speaker 1: in combat on horses, and you have battle line spears,
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff, and you have centralized control and
Speaker 1: you're battling over territory. Second generation is essentially the Civil
Speaker 1: War in the United States through the First World War,
Speaker 1: where you had kinetic weapons, battle lines, you still had
Speaker 1: central command, you were still fighting over territory, and you
Speaker 1: have propaganda, but the propaganda is not the main thrust
Speaker 1: of the warfare activities. Third gen war can be thought
Speaker 1: of as the innovation of the Germans in the Blitzgrieg.
Speaker 1: One of the key things the German did, and people
Speaker 1: often are not aware, the Magino line in France was
Speaker 1: actually superior technically to the German Blitzgrieg forces. But what
Speaker 1: the Germans had was they allowed tactical flexibility at the
Speaker 1: commander level, so you had a general strategy coming from above,
Speaker 1: but you had tactical flexibility in the field. Think Rommel.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of a key characteristic of third gen
Speaker 1: warfare is you still have propaganda. For instance, the Ghost Army,
Speaker 1: which is still one of the main psyops propaganda divisions
Speaker 1: of the US Army based in Port Bragg, about eight
Speaker 1: hundred soldiers derived from that. So we had the Ghost
Speaker 1: Army deployed to distract the Germans from the landing in Normandy.
Speaker 1: That was the inflatable tanks and there was recordings of
Speaker 1: artillery movements and those kinds of things that were used
Speaker 1: as part of that psyops. Fourth Gen is basically what
Speaker 1: has been developed in response to the fact that we
Speaker 1: now have superpowers and really one dominant superpower currently, and
Speaker 1: so it's a strategy developed for asymmetric warfare in Syria,
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan with the Taliban and of course Al Qaeda
Speaker 1: as examples great examples of fourth gen warfare. I don't
Speaker 1: think the US Army has won a single fourth gen conflict.
Speaker 1: In fourth gen warfare, you have even more of a
Speaker 1: presence of propaganda, and the goals are still tactical control
Speaker 1: of territory, but there's an increasing thrust on propaganda and
Speaker 1: the penetration of a population with ideas and use of
Speaker 1: psy ops and information to convince a population that they
Speaker 1: should go along with the purposes of the aggressors or
Speaker 1: in the case of the asymmetric conflict in the case
Speaker 1: of the Gorillas, etc. But they're still battling over territory.
Speaker 1: Al Qaeda was an interesting situation because with the death
Speaker 1: of Osama bin Lauden, you lost that central control and
Speaker 1: what happened was that al Qaeda devolved or evolved into
Speaker 1: a completely decentralized force. So you had completely autonomous cells
Speaker 1: all over the world, acting based on general strategic objectives
Speaker 1: that were coming from some vague leadership, but each was
Speaker 1: fully autonomous and basically they had the message Americans wherever
Speaker 1: you can. We had roadside bombs, all these kinds of things,
Speaker 1: our fifth gen warfare engagements, and you couldn't really see
Speaker 1: the army, US Army, the US military, the US intelligence
Speaker 1: community couldn't really tell what was the center of al
Speaker 1: Qaeda because there was no center. It was whackamole. They
Speaker 1: would put down this little cell or that little cell,
Speaker 1: but it wouldn't extinguish the total activity. Let's take a
Speaker 1: break on the fifth gen for a second. Just let
Speaker 1: me ask a couple questions in the fourth gen. So
Speaker 1: the fourth gen really kind of went where third generation
Speaker 1: was like, Hey, we have the battlefield, we know who
Speaker 1: the opponents, and you know, we know who's at at
Speaker 1: war here the battle lines are drawn. Fourth Gen then
Speaker 1: kind of went into this guerrilla type warfare. You mentioned
Speaker 1: the Viet Cong, So that's kind of where we started
Speaker 1: seeing this guerrilla warfare, which then kind of led into
Speaker 1: the terrorism, the war on terror? Is that? Is that correct?
Speaker 1: If I frame it up that way. Yeah, that's a
Speaker 1: fair construction in your right. The war on terror is
Speaker 1: part of the justification for the further development of the
Speaker 1: technology that's we now call fifth GENUM. And in fifth
Speaker 1: gen we start to incorporate in a in a real
Speaker 1: significant way all kinds of other operational technology as opposed
Speaker 1: to kinetic weapons. So this this involves for instance, biowarfare
Speaker 1: increasingly uh psyops of course, algorithmic control, information war of
Speaker 1: a variety of different types, including computational aggressive actions against
Speaker 1: computer networks, and um, many claim the current virus that's circulating,
Speaker 1: economic warfare, etc. Go ahead, Yeah, um, you know, I
Speaker 1: remember I remember thinking, you know, obviously we have the
Speaker 1: famous President Eisenhower on his way out warning us about
Speaker 1: this military industrial complex, which I think you have a
Speaker 1: different viewpoint on what We'll get to that later. But um,
Speaker 1: when when we had these wars, we had the Cold War,
Speaker 1: The Cold War ended, and then we had you know,
Speaker 1: this kind of period of peace maybe from nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: to two thousand, like this ten year period of peace
Speaker 1: and probably raytheon and north of gram and they're all
Speaker 1: sitting around like, well, what are we gonna do now, right,
Speaker 1: and like we had this opponent, this this the USSR,
Speaker 1: this opponent, and when it was gone, then what does
Speaker 1: what does the military industrial complex do? And so then
Speaker 1: it seemed like to me and I remember going back
Speaker 1: you know, twenty however long ago, the US thirty years ago,
Speaker 1: and it was like, well, what if we have this opponent,
Speaker 1: we have this uh, this war with a nameless, faceless
Speaker 1: group that can't be identified. Uh, we don't know who
Speaker 1: they are, where they are. We really have no way
Speaker 1: to beat them. And so it's like we almost have
Speaker 1: like the perfect opponent for the military industrial complex, one
Speaker 1: that can't ever be identified or beat. And I remember
Speaker 1: thinking that back then, Um, and that's kind of what
Speaker 1: I guess kind of fits into this right and actually
Speaker 1: kind of goes into this fifth It absolutely does. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that's that's a good way to frame it. That's
Speaker 1: that's perhaps a little more edgy paranoid conspiracy theory version.
Speaker 1: But there's merit to it. You know, just because it
Speaker 1: is you're perceiving a conspiracy doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: I agree that it is very convenient. It has defined
Speaker 1: virtually the entire world's population as potential hostiles and all
Speaker 1: of us as combatants. That's another One of the key
Speaker 1: characteristics of five G is that there is no distinction
Speaker 1: between military combatants and non military combatants. We are all
Speaker 1: in the war. There are no boundaries, there are no
Speaker 1: rules of engagement, there are no ethics, there's nothing that's
Speaker 1: off limits. Anything goes, and it's all about control. The
Speaker 1: battlefield in five G. This is a huge difference. The
Speaker 1: battlefield in five G is no longer for physical territory.
Speaker 1: It is for your mind, your thoughts, your emotions, the
Speaker 1: knowledge that you have. That is the landscape, and it
Speaker 1: is totally utilitarian. The ends justify the means. Anything goes.
Speaker 1: Lying is okay, misrepresenting, It's all for the cause. Anything
Speaker 1: is justified. Yeah. And of course that makes sense because
Speaker 1: we live in an information world today, right, and so
Speaker 1: the war's over information, not so much physical territory. What
Speaker 1: is the limited hangout? Oh, you mentioned that a couple
Speaker 1: of times. I'm not sure what that is. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: we first all learned this intelligence community language from Tricky
Speaker 1: Dick Nixon when on the tapes he discussed the modified
Speaker 1: limited hangout with Haldiman Earlikman, which was kind of a
Speaker 1: fallback position. So the concept of limited hangout, this is
Speaker 1: a well understood term in the intelligence community, and you
Speaker 1: can see it. Once you understand what it is, you
Speaker 1: can see it being used all the time, often in
Speaker 1: political articles. For some reason, Politico seems to have a
Speaker 1: direct pipeline to let's say, intelligence community thought leaders. What
Speaker 1: it is is that when the evidence or the information
Speaker 1: at a topic area that you're not supposed to be
Speaker 1: knowing or talking about becomes overwhelming and it's sufficiently public
Speaker 1: that it can't be denied, then what's done is typically
Speaker 1: to put out stories in which some of that information
Speaker 1: is disclosed in an official source as real. And what
Speaker 1: happens when this is done, everybody says, good heavens, look,
Speaker 1: they finally acknowledge these things that we've all known and
Speaker 1: they've been telling us were conspiracy theories. Remember the phrase
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist was injected into the popular dialogue by the
Speaker 1: CIA as a way to cover up what happened with
Speaker 1: the Kennedy assassination. That's when it entered the dialogue in
Speaker 1: the United States media. So what's done is to put
Speaker 1: out a story that has enough information that's largely already
Speaker 1: known with some other information, but it distracts you from
Speaker 1: the real thing that's left that they don't want you
Speaker 1: to focus on. There was a great example in a
Speaker 1: political article that Naomi Wolf and Steve Bannon got all
Speaker 1: excited about that they were finally acknowledging the weaknesses of
Speaker 1: the vaccine and talking about it as they were talking
Speaker 1: about some other things, and talking about the importance of
Speaker 1: what had been done by the World Health Organization. And
Speaker 1: for me, having been deep in all the data and
Speaker 1: information and politics of what's going on with the international
Speaker 1: Health regulations and the push to get more capital for
Speaker 1: the WHO, I pointed out to Steve that this was
Speaker 1: just another mode if i'd limited hangout or a limited hangout,
Speaker 1: where they were acknowledging some key things and basically setting
Speaker 1: up justification to advance logic for the international Health regulations,
Speaker 1: and this call for not only additional power for the WHO,
Speaker 1: but additional capital and that's pretty much what that's turned
Speaker 1: out to be. So there's an example. There's many examples
Speaker 1: like sort of like a half truth, where you kind
Speaker 1: of throw out a little bit of bait enough for
Speaker 1: them to bite on and then they kind of overlook
Speaker 1: all the rest just so, and it's a distraction technology.
Speaker 1: And there's a number of others that are like this.
Speaker 1: One of the things, I mean some of them. One
Speaker 1: of them in particular is captured in the common comment
Speaker 1: when you're over the target is when the flak is hardest.
Speaker 1: You can think of it as if topic areas that
Speaker 1: they don't want you to talk about or discuss are
Speaker 1: surrounded by an electric fence, and as soon as you
Speaker 1: get close to those topics, you'll get a shock, you'll
Speaker 1: get fact checked, there'll be a nasty article written about you,
Speaker 1: whatever the thing is, you'll get censored. Those those are
Speaker 1: all indicators that you can use to tell where indirectly,
Speaker 1: where there's topic areas that are highly sensitive. One of those,
Speaker 1: for instance, recently is Nordstream one and two and the
Speaker 1: Seymour Hirsh article that was put out in which Seymour
Speaker 1: Hirsch finally said the obvious that everybody has been talking
Speaker 1: about and acknowledging, but no one has felt it was
Speaker 1: okay to actually say regarding the role of the United
Speaker 1: States in blowing up this gas supply for Europe and
Speaker 1: truly setting Europe into a dark winter, that was forbidden
Speaker 1: to be discussed. And yet the president himself had basically
Speaker 1: said we were going to do this if if Russians
Speaker 1: invade uh and they did it, but then they acted
Speaker 1: in all the press, it was forbidden to even discuss it. So, um,
Speaker 1: we have this situation, to your point, conspiracy theory kind
Speaker 1: of thrust into the mainstream by you know, during this
Speaker 1: the JFK situation, which by the way, conspiracy is real.
Speaker 1: M Sam Bankman Freed, the founder of FTX Exchange, just
Speaker 1: got an additional yesterday. I believe it was like twelve
Speaker 1: additional counts of conspiracy charge. So it's actually a thing,
Speaker 1: and it's actually illegal, and so it does happen, and
Speaker 1: then we have so then we have these half truths,
Speaker 1: these limited hangouts coming out, and then we have the
Speaker 1: constant line and the constant gas lighting, which is called,
Speaker 1: to your book, is called lies my government told me.
Speaker 1: And so we have that. So the lies, the half
Speaker 1: truths and then you add in the censorship, the electric fence,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and what is that going to do
Speaker 1: to us? Mentally? Of course we're going to lead to
Speaker 1: wild speculation, right, Like truth is found through open, honest dialogue,
Speaker 1: and so there's a saying it's as a and that's
Speaker 1: also how trust is developed, and trust exactly how trust is.
Speaker 1: There's a saying that ripping out a man's tongue doesn't
Speaker 1: prove him wrong, it only proves you have something to hide.
Speaker 1: So when they shut down the conversation, well, what do
Speaker 1: you not want me to know? And instantly we think
Speaker 1: about that. Right, Let's think about the meaning of the
Speaker 1: term sovereignty, which is often key in many of our communities.
Speaker 1: Many of us think and value and cherish our sovereignty,
Speaker 1: our individual sovereignty, our sovereignty is a nation state. What
Speaker 1: is the meaning of the term sovereignty? Does it even
Speaker 1: have any meaning in a world in which you're having
Speaker 1: highly advanced psychops technology deployed on you to control what
Speaker 1: you think, what you believe, what you feel. Mind is
Speaker 1: no longer your temple. You have no autonomy, you have
Speaker 1: no sovereignty. The term, the concept becomes anachronistic it's completely
Speaker 1: obsolete in a world in which every single thing is weaponized. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's true. I like to think of the word sovereignty
Speaker 1: as me being able to direct my life as I
Speaker 1: see fit. But to your point, if we can't control
Speaker 1: our own minds, if they're constantly feeding us, brainwashing us,
Speaker 1: propagandianizing us, then maybe I don't even know how to
Speaker 1: direct my life that way, because I'm probably directing my
Speaker 1: life in a way they want me to go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you can. This is what makes the five GW,
Speaker 1: the fifth Generation Warfare battlescape so tortuous is because everything
Speaker 1: is moving and shifting. You can't be confident in anything
Speaker 1: that's under your feet. There is no solid ground. Everything
Speaker 1: is totally flexible. You have no underpinnings that you can
Speaker 1: really latch onto. Everything is fluid and plastic, and you
Speaker 1: have these various strategies, particularly as you step into social media,
Speaker 1: where I assert, for instance, Twitter, all of these social
Speaker 1: media applications are weapons and they're also battlescapes that Twitter
Speaker 1: is both a battleground and a weapon. It's not really
Speaker 1: so much a business. I think Elon Musk is grappling
Speaker 1: with that fact right now. And it's actively used to
Speaker 1: control in a variety of ways everything that you think
Speaker 1: can do if you're engaging on it. There's a saying
Speaker 1: the only way to win in fifth generation warfare is
Speaker 1: not to play. As soon as you engage in any
Speaker 1: of the public sphere, now, whether it's just listening to
Speaker 1: CNN or engaging actively on TikTok, you are involved in
Speaker 1: a battlefield where everything is carefully crafted and managed. One
Speaker 1: of the most elegant example the cascade of events that
Speaker 1: happened after the Project Veritas Visor interaction with that honeytrap
Speaker 1: of the young global director for mr Anda vaccine strategy,
Speaker 1: and to just illustrate it, and it illustrates the power
Speaker 1: that's available to these very large transnationals like Visor or
Speaker 1: black Rock or Vanguard, all these entities and the World
Speaker 1: Economic Forum of course, is that within two hours of
Speaker 1: that drop, everything about that young man was scrubbed from
Speaker 1: the Internet and rapidly got scrubbed out of the way
Speaker 1: back machine. So the wayback machine has agreements now with
Speaker 1: the US government that they will pull things off that
Speaker 1: are sensitive according to the US government. Absolutely, and that's
Speaker 1: been going on quite a while. It happened with the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden laptop, and after it was determined that the
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, all of those
Speaker 1: stories from the New York Post, etc. Were scrubbed from
Speaker 1: the way back machine. And then when it became a
Speaker 1: public knowledge that it was in fact what it was
Speaker 1: purported to be, it was a genuine artifact, then the
Speaker 1: wayback machine got caught putting those stories back in. So
Speaker 1: in the case of Fiser, they completely scrubbed the web.
Speaker 1: They shut down any ability to interact with their websites
Speaker 1: unless you were somebody they were following. And then a
Speaker 1: wave of bots and shoals descended on all the social
Speaker 1: media sites that were asserting that the young man didn't
Speaker 1: even exist, that this was all a deep fake, and
Speaker 1: that Project Veritas had been fooled by some third party. Fortunately,
Speaker 1: it came out very rapidly from other Fiser whistleblowers that
Speaker 1: in fact the org chart did show this young gentleman
Speaker 1: in exactly that position of two or three down from Borla,
Speaker 1: and many on the Internet had rapidly gone and grabbed
Speaker 1: all these artifacts of his education and prior activities, his
Speaker 1: LinkedIn page and profile, etc. And so that could be
Speaker 1: counteracted that storyline very quickly by all these other artifacts
Speaker 1: that had already been acquired in that short period of
Speaker 1: time when Fiser was scrubbing it. Then Fiser's pr went
Speaker 1: completely silent until that Friday, as I recall, it was
Speaker 1: before a three day weekend, when they released a press
Speaker 1: release at eight pm, so after the closing bell on
Speaker 1: Wall Street, before a three day weekend, in which they
Speaker 1: essentially acknowledge that what the gentleman had said about gain
Speaker 1: a function research was true. That shows the Oh and
Speaker 1: then the other thing that was lovely was The Daily Mail,
Speaker 1: one of the largest English language publications in the world,
Speaker 1: put out a story about this almost immediately after the
Speaker 1: Project Veritas video drop, and it was removed from the
Speaker 1: web within about ten minutes. That is power to completely
Speaker 1: control the information stream and counteract it in almost real time.
Speaker 1: That's fifth gen warfare, and no one is there's no
Speaker 1: way that you can trace who was responsible for that.
Speaker 1: Was at m I five, was at Feiser, was at
Speaker 1: the US government, There's no way to know. Another key
Speaker 1: aspect of this is, if you think about it, what
Speaker 1: have been the most authoritarian responses in terms of nation states?
Speaker 1: Which ones seem to have been the harshest well, I
Speaker 1: argue that it's the Five Ice Nations, this large international one,
Speaker 1: the one of the longest lasting and most powerful intelligence
Speaker 1: consouris in the history of the world, which is Great Britain, US, Canada,
Speaker 1: New Zealand and Australia. All of these countries have reciprocal
Speaker 1: agreements wherein, for instance, the CIA can do stuff to
Speaker 1: British citizens that the m I five can't. M I
Speaker 1: five can do things to American citizens that CIA can't.
Speaker 1: And for instance, it appears that a lot of the
Speaker 1: edits on Wikipedia that have been so aggressively promoted, just
Speaker 1: not to myself but to many others, are all coming
Speaker 1: from a sock puppet called Philip Cross. Philip Cross somehow
Speaker 1: posts seven days a week, twenty four hours a day
Speaker 1: and modifies Wikipedia sites with that schedule and has been
Speaker 1: linked directly back to m I five. That's what we're
Speaker 1: dealing with. In the UK, it's the seventy seventh Brigade,
Speaker 1: which has a member of Parliament. In the US, we
Speaker 1: have multiple psy ops teams from the US Army and
Speaker 1: we have foyed documents now that have been in the
Speaker 1: lay press from Australia and absolutely quite a few from
Speaker 1: Canada and the UK, including from the Nudge Unit quote
Speaker 1: unquote from the UK. Wow, this goes deep. This goes
Speaker 1: really deep, and I think it's it's easy for people
Speaker 1: to see and back to that. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: just today I even saw another article pop up where
Speaker 1: fires are saying that we didn't do that sort of
Speaker 1: a thing. And then also James O'Keefe all of a
Speaker 1: sudden found himself ousted from the company that he founded.
Speaker 1: That's I think we're a long way from getting to
Speaker 1: the bottom of that story. And that was a great
Speaker 1: lesson in Another key thing that entrepreneurs need to keep
Speaker 1: in mind is your board, particularly for nonprofits, is a
Speaker 1: very dangerous thing, and if you don't control that board rigorously,
Speaker 1: you're at risk. And that risk seems to manifest most
Speaker 1: often when there's a sudden period of achievement. It's very paradoxical,
Speaker 1: but you see it again and again and again with
Speaker 1: these nonprofits. Yeah yeah, all right, So, um, I mean,
Speaker 1: you've made this bigger and even maybe more scary than
Speaker 1: I had even even originally thought. And well, we haven't
Speaker 1: even talked about the Trusted News initiative, which is controlled
Speaker 1: all right, let's talk about let's talk about the Trusted
Speaker 1: News Initiative then, So the T and I was my
Speaker 1: first insight in some have credited me with the one
Speaker 1: being the one that really brought it to common attention.
Speaker 1: Trusted News Initiative was set up in theory to counter
Speaker 1: Russian disinformation intrusion into elections, and in twenty nineteen it
Speaker 1: was transformed into also focusing on those that were spreading
Speaker 1: vaccine disinformation and causing vaccine hesitancy. Remember, all of this
Speaker 1: propaganda and psy ops was gamed out in Event two,
Speaker 1: a one at Johns Hopkins in what's a well known
Speaker 1: CIA spook shop, in a series of war games that
Speaker 1: were sponsored by here I should hit the rim shot
Speaker 1: on my roadcaster sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Speaker 1: and the World Economic Forum, and they basically pre gamed
Speaker 1: out all of this stuff, the propaganda strategies, the authoritarian responses,
Speaker 1: all based on the thesis that we would have a
Speaker 1: highly lethal pathogen and a highly effective and safe vaccine.
Speaker 1: But the Trusted News Initiative was transformed from a election
Speaker 1: integrity to resisting vaccine disinformation and misinformation. And it is
Speaker 1: functionally a trade organization for big tech as well as
Speaker 1: for all corporate media, So they all belong to it.
Speaker 1: Agency France Press, you know, Google, Yahoo, everything, they all
Speaker 1: belong to this organization and it's laid out a series
Speaker 1: of rules in which anything, they're the ones that originate
Speaker 1: the logic that if somebody is speaking things which are
Speaker 1: different from the truth being spoken by the World Health
Speaker 1: Organization or your regional health authority in our case here
Speaker 1: in the United States, that would be the CDC. So
Speaker 1: if you said anything that's different from what the WHO
Speaker 1: or the CDC says about any kind of a public
Speaker 1: health or those medical product that they inject with a needle,
Speaker 1: then you're deemed as a spreader of miss or disinformation,
Speaker 1: which of course, now our Department of Homeland Security so
Speaker 1: kindly has defined as domestic terrorism. So if you're saying
Speaker 1: things which you're different from what the WHO or the
Speaker 1: CDC says, you are defined now by our Department of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security as a spreader as a domestic terrorist. In
Speaker 1: the Trusted News Initiative, rules are that anybody who is
Speaker 1: saying such things should be censored, de platformed, etc. But
Speaker 1: they allow a little backdoor. Members of the TNI are
Speaker 1: allowed to write articles that cross those lines, but they're
Speaker 1: not allowed to syndicate them. So the Washington Post or
Speaker 1: the New York Times can come out with a single
Speaker 1: article like the New York Times did last spring in
Speaker 1: which it said the CDC has become a politicized arm
Speaker 1: of the White House and has been withholding information from
Speaker 1: healthcare providers about the disease and the prophylactic medical product,
Speaker 1: and and that was okay, but it was not okay
Speaker 1: for the Washington Post to republish it, or the Des
Speaker 1: Moines Journal or anything like that, as they usually have
Speaker 1: done in the past. So that's the T and I
Speaker 1: And then I can tell you that in the UK,
Speaker 1: I was just there again two weekends ago, and gb
Speaker 1: News is really scared right now. I think it's Mark
Speaker 1: Stein that got booted out. And that is the consequence.
Speaker 1: They have basically a censorship board that is semi autonomous
Speaker 1: from the government. Used to be part of the BBC
Speaker 1: but has been spun out, And basically they determine what
Speaker 1: you can say and what you can't say. And if
Speaker 1: you say things that the government or this board doesn't
Speaker 1: want you to say, then you will be disallowed from broadcasting.
Speaker 1: You'll lose your broadcasting license or those that say these
Speaker 1: things will be fired. And so what this results in
Speaker 1: is kind of a forward looking self censorship. Everybody becomes
Speaker 1: afraid because they don't really know where the boundaries are,
Speaker 1: but they darn well know that they don't want to
Speaker 1: get deep platformed. Then the other thing that's going on
Speaker 1: in all of this that gets overlooked by everybody. I
Speaker 1: was listening to a lecture from the founder of the
Speaker 1: Babylon b and he really wasn't even thinking about it
Speaker 1: is that advertising has been completely weaponized. It's weaponized through
Speaker 1: the Garm Agreement and ad Sense. So this is how
Speaker 1: Google completely controls content. Is you cannot get advertising dollars
Speaker 1: for your podcast or your broadcast unless you comply with
Speaker 1: the terms and conditions of the Garment Agreement, which includes
Speaker 1: many of these same terms and restrictions in terms of
Speaker 1: what information can be discussed or not discussed. This is
Speaker 1: why YouTube has the guardrails that it has is they
Speaker 1: accept advertising that's come through the ad Sense channel. And
Speaker 1: if you reach the terms of the Garm Agreement and
Speaker 1: reach the terms of the ad Sense agreements, then you
Speaker 1: will lose your advertising dollars. They will be withdrawn by algorithm.
Speaker 1: That's what you're running into. That's why you're seeing these behaviors.
Speaker 1: And the consequence, of course, is that conservative broadcasts find
Speaker 1: themselves selling coffee, structured water, and pillows, whereas you would
Speaker 1: think that, for instance, many conservatives are quite well off
Speaker 1: and you would be seeing ads for Porsche's, Mercedes and
Speaker 1: everything else. In the consumer world. Conservatives buy consumer goods also,
Speaker 1: but it's the garment agreement and AdSense that prevents that.
Speaker 1: Interesting and obviously, as I already said, but being a
Speaker 1: being a YouTube creator, I'm certainly well aware of that.
Speaker 1: And those guard those guardrails again even more now you've
Speaker 1: you've really expanded this situation, and it sounds pretty dire.
Speaker 1: I can understand this fifth generation warfare too. And one
Speaker 1: of the key pieces that I kind of picked up
Speaker 1: on is that, um you don't know where it's coming from,
Speaker 1: who's doing it, or even why. So you feel it,
Speaker 1: you know something's not right, you're not exactly sure why.
Speaker 1: Um So those are key key tactical and strategic objectives
Speaker 1: in five GW is. There is no sense central leadership
Speaker 1: that's readily identified. It's a low energy combat unlike PSAY
Speaker 1: kinetic weapons. You know, there's no F eighteen s or
Speaker 1: and one tanks low energy conflict in which ideally you
Speaker 1: have no awareness even that these ideas are being thrust
Speaker 1: into your thoughts space, and you have no concept of
Speaker 1: who's doing it or why. So, who is the puppet
Speaker 1: master behind the various manipulations that we can all see
Speaker 1: in the COVID crisis. Good luck figuring that out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they who who's they? Right? Yeah, exactly that's and if
Speaker 1: you talk to anybody that's retired out of socom, you know,
Speaker 1: special ops sports, the first thing they tell you is
Speaker 1: you absolutely have to know who your opponent is. But
Speaker 1: in five GW you have no idea who your opponent is.
Speaker 1: Another thing you had talked about was this swarm consensus
Speaker 1: and how it operates at this level of like this
Speaker 1: virtual cast system. And I think basically what the swarm
Speaker 1: consensus is That again and maybe kind of pours into
Speaker 1: this point, which is, we don't know who it is.
Speaker 1: And so now like this swarm say, well everybody's saying it,
Speaker 1: we don't know where it originated, and so then we're
Speaker 1: not able to like point blame to somebody. Is that
Speaker 1: part of what that is well. That's certainly one of
Speaker 1: the aspects as it relates to organizational structures and emerging
Speaker 1: opinions and consensus in decision making in much of American industry,
Speaker 1: and in particular in social media and places like Twitter,
Speaker 1: where in the case of the Twitter censorship, in many
Speaker 1: cases you couldn't you can't really identify, you can't pinpoint
Speaker 1: where that's coming from. And in the case of corporate media,
Speaker 1: you don't necessarily have the director of the CIA telling
Speaker 1: each journalist what they should do, or some functionary from
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security messaging them, but rather you have
Speaker 1: these soft, indirect pressures and then this kind of swarm
Speaker 1: emerging belief system that will come out within particularly certain
Speaker 1: elites that have a tendency to talk to each other
Speaker 1: all the time, which is absolutely the case in modern journalism.
Speaker 1: With corporate media, we've come to the point where most
Speaker 1: of the people involved in corporate media have gone to
Speaker 1: elite schools like Columbia, and they basically have very similar backgrounds.
Speaker 1: They're often coming from a bicoastal environment. Those are the
Speaker 1: ones that go into this kind of media, and they
Speaker 1: have a tendency to all agree with each other and
Speaker 1: talk to each other and believe that the bubble that
Speaker 1: they exist in represents reality. This blends straight into the
Speaker 1: logic of the virtuals versus the physicals, which is that
Speaker 1: we have, particularly a new generation coming up. It has
Speaker 1: grown up in a world in which virtual reality, both
Speaker 1: in a tangible sense indirectly is the norm, where the
Speaker 1: belief is that you are whatever you choose to be.
Speaker 1: Reality is whatever you choose it to be. This manifests
Speaker 1: in things like the trans movement or furies. To take
Speaker 1: it an extreme example, you know, you can be whatever
Speaker 1: you want to be. To stop you on that, I'm
Speaker 1: in California and you can imagine. Obviously we're trying to
Speaker 1: lead the country in the world and progressivism, and in
Speaker 1: the town next to me, they're putting litter boxes in
Speaker 1: the schools. So for anybody that heard him say that, furries,
Speaker 1: now you know what we're talking about. They're literally the
Speaker 1: teachers are putting those into the student's bathrooms. And so
Speaker 1: we saw in Baltimore kids can't pass not one single
Speaker 1: student could pass math. In Chicago, fifty five schools, not
Speaker 1: one single student could pass math or reading. But they
Speaker 1: have litter boxes. Yeah, and so I remember when I
Speaker 1: was a student and there was a lot of discussion
Speaker 1: about cultural relativism, which is kind of a big part
Speaker 1: of what we're talking about. Uh, it was, it was purported,
Speaker 1: it was, it was kind of advanced. The cultural relatives
Speaker 1: divism was all fine and good, but there were some boundaries.
Speaker 1: There were points at which things would just go too
Speaker 1: far if you were to accept, you know, everything as
Speaker 1: being culturally relative. And the boundary that was most often
Speaker 1: cited was African the African practice of cliterectomy, female genital mutilation.
Speaker 1: That was clearly a branch too far. We couldn't possibly
Speaker 1: allow that, that that transgressed on women's rights and should
Speaker 1: not be allowed. But what we have right now with
Speaker 1: the gender reassignment surgery makes uh, cliterectomy look like child's play,
Speaker 1: so um to swarm. I've kind I've kind of talked
Speaker 1: about it like this, like who are they kind of
Speaker 1: like this birds of a feather flock together, right, So
Speaker 1: like if you look at birds flying in formation, it
Speaker 1: wasn't like they sat down and planned that out, like
Speaker 1: Larry you over there and Bob you over there. Like
Speaker 1: the birds just kind of like happened to flock together.
Speaker 1: And so kind of to the point you're saying, like
Speaker 1: they all went to the same schools, they've all read
Speaker 1: the same books, and so they all just sort of
Speaker 1: seemed to kind of swarm or kind of move together,
Speaker 1: and they and they've come out of bicoastal urban environments largely,
Speaker 1: so they've had very similar cultural experiences. You're not seeing.
Speaker 1: This is one of the reasons why that book by
Speaker 1: the Gentleman that had grown up in I figured what
Speaker 1: it was Arkansas, where he was talking about a lot
Speaker 1: of the issues having to do with rural America. This
Speaker 1: is around the last election, last presidential election, and it
Speaker 1: got so much traction. There are hardly any voices that
Speaker 1: are not coming from bicoastal urban elites in corporate media
Speaker 1: right now, which is probably one reason why, of many
Speaker 1: why corporate media is failing as a business model, and
Speaker 1: these diverse menu of podcasters and other alternative media sources
Speaker 1: are becoming the norm. Is it allows people to connect
Speaker 1: with broadcasters and opinions that are far more diverse and
Speaker 1: that represent things more akin to what their belief systems
Speaker 1: are and their experiences are. At the time of this recording,
Speaker 1: there's new reports that the Biden administration is laying down
Speaker 1: the United States sovereignty to the WHO for all pandemic response,
Speaker 1: including not just the response, but including controlling miss and
Speaker 1: disinformation during that pandemic response. Apparently some Republicans are trying
Speaker 1: to amount a charge of pushback on that. Doesn't appear
Speaker 1: that they may have the legal authority to do that.
Speaker 1: What's your take on that? So what are the leading
Speaker 1: Republicans in that? Referring to is Ron Johnson, who's a
Speaker 1: friend and I was corresponding with him yesterday about this.
Speaker 1: He's still trying to get to the bottom and actually
Speaker 1: asked my help to try to sort out what exactly
Speaker 1: is the current status of the international Health regulations that
Speaker 1: are being advanced at the World Health Organization right now,
Speaker 1: and that supposedly they're going to have a meeting, I think,
Speaker 1: on February twenty seventh to discuss So the international Health
Speaker 1: regulations have been put in place for years and years
Speaker 1: and years, and the White House asserts that they are
Speaker 1: not a treaty and that the White Houses the executive
Speaker 1: branches well within its rights to agree to modifications to
Speaker 1: those that would be binding but would not require Senate approval,
Speaker 1: which by the Constitution is required for any ready that's engaged.
Speaker 1: And so the White House appears to be very actively
Speaker 1: deploying a strategy to circumvent authority, constitutional authority in order
Speaker 1: to enable these modifications that would absolutely seed sovereignty, national
Speaker 1: sovereignty to this world organization that you'll recall, mister Trump
Speaker 1: pulled us out of and that many people, I think
Speaker 1: with good justification assert is largely controlled these days by
Speaker 1: the CCP and the Bill and Millonda Gates Foundation. Those
Speaker 1: are major funders. And yeah, the US is the number
Speaker 1: one funder and the Billemillon Foundation is the second largest
Speaker 1: funder for the WHO. And ted ROS appears to have
Speaker 1: been put in place by Bill and Willinda Gates and
Speaker 1: by the CCP. These HRS International Health Regulations were first
Speaker 1: floated I think last February so full year ago by
Speaker 1: USHHS and they were blocked by a Consortium of African
Speaker 1: States and Brazil under its old leadership. LULA is different now,
Speaker 1: but the objection was the loss of sovereignty under these HRS,
Speaker 1: in which ted ROS would be able to the Director
Speaker 1: General of the WHO would be able to declare a
Speaker 1: public health emergency for any topic he wishes and then
Speaker 1: mandate what the actions should be taken by a nation state.
Speaker 1: So there would be centralized mandates or edicts from WHO
Speaker 1: as to what the response should be in a nation
Speaker 1: state to the declared public health emergency we've and if
Speaker 1: a nation state did not comply, the proposal is that
Speaker 1: the World Trade Organization would become the enforcement arm because
Speaker 1: World Health Organization doesn't have any armies or enforcement arms,
Speaker 1: and so if you did not comply with the mandates
Speaker 1: from the WHOW, then you would be subject to economic
Speaker 1: sanctions through the World Trade Organization. So that's the mechanism
Speaker 1: that's being proposed, and we got a kind of a
Speaker 1: foreshadowing of how the mechanics would work with the monkey
Speaker 1: pox outbreak when the oversight panel, the advisory panel to
Speaker 1: mister Tedros, first voted strongly against declaring that a world
Speaker 1: health emergency. Then it was reorganized, additional members were appointed
Speaker 1: that were more friendly towards the LGBTQ agenda, let's say,
Speaker 1: and we're considered to be more specialized in their knowledge
Speaker 1: about monkey pox and that population those patients. And once
Speaker 1: again they met and voted nine to six against declaring
Speaker 1: in a public health emergency, which mister Tedros declared was
Speaker 1: a tie and that he had to break the tie,
Speaker 1: which he did by declaring in a public health emergency.
Speaker 1: So under these HRS that we originally proposed now have
Speaker 1: been modified. But even Ron Johnson isn't quite sure what
Speaker 1: the modifications are. And you mentioned other Republicans. There's seventeen
Speaker 1: Senators that have signed off on that is all to
Speaker 1: the bill to keep the White House from basically seating
Speaker 1: our sovereignty to Tedro's. But under these terms, Tedros could
Speaker 1: for instance, declare that the United States had a public
Speaker 1: health emergency of gun violence and mandate actions which should
Speaker 1: be taken. This may seem far fetched, but it's absolutely
Speaker 1: within his power as defined by the IHR and the
Speaker 1: u n N, who have long had an initiative of
Speaker 1: working to reduce gun violence and the damage caused in
Speaker 1: the United States and other nation states that are perceived
Speaker 1: to have a problem with guns. And that's not that
Speaker 1: far affixed. We saw the CDC in the United States
Speaker 1: has already been trying to take that stance that it's
Speaker 1: a public health emergency. Yeah, because it's all harmonized, it's
Speaker 1: all vertically integrated. So that's where that stands and and
Speaker 1: we do have a executive branch right now that is
Speaker 1: totally comfortable and advocating this strategy, which is aligned with
Speaker 1: the Agenda twenty thirty at the UN, which also includes
Speaker 1: the clause that as a fundamental human right, people have
Speaker 1: the right to migrate to where we're in the world
Speaker 1: they wish to live, which seems to be the driver
Speaker 1: behind a lot of the policy decisions about dropping national
Speaker 1: boundaries borders and allowing free immigration across borders such as
Speaker 1: our southern border. Yeah. Like I said, we've seen already
Speaker 1: the CDC doing that. Now, just for everybody listening for
Speaker 1: a little historical and correct me if you think this
Speaker 1: is wrong. But it seems like under the Obama administration
Speaker 1: this really kicked into high gear. He went around apologizing
Speaker 1: to the US everywhere. He's the one that put us
Speaker 1: into the Paris Accord. He's the one that put us
Speaker 1: into the WHO. And then he even got the UN involved. Oh,
Speaker 1: he didn't put us into the WHO. We were already there,
Speaker 1: but he advanced a lot of new conditions that were
Speaker 1: aligned with Agenda twenty thirty for sure, then even bringing
Speaker 1: the UN into the United States to oversee elections and
Speaker 1: things like that. And then to your point, Trump pulled
Speaker 1: us out of the Paris Accord, wanted to cancel funding
Speaker 1: to the WHO, and then under the next Obama Biden
Speaker 1: admin the very first day, it was putting us right
Speaker 1: back into those things. Yeah, and mister Obama is also
Speaker 1: the one that has notoriously repeatedly stated words to the
Speaker 1: effect that it's necessary sent ship is necessary to preserve democracy.
Speaker 1: This is a different construction of democracy. Underpinning this is
Speaker 1: you know, we don't have a democracy, just to be
Speaker 1: clear on that, Um, we have a representative government, we
Speaker 1: don't have direct democracy. But there's a whole school of
Speaker 1: thought about that involves redefining the term democracy and its meaning.
Speaker 1: Um that is ascribed to buy a lot of these
Speaker 1: globalist groups. Um, that's talking more about democracy as akin
Speaker 1: to social responsibility, like with the ESG scores and the
Speaker 1: social credit system. It's there the word democracy in those
Speaker 1: circles that have their roots in utilitarianism, and I argue
Speaker 1: utilitarian Marxism are are using the term democracy in a
Speaker 1: different way than most people think of it. But they
Speaker 1: mister Obama is clearly has a long history of repeated
Speaker 1: advocacy in favor of information control, in in censorship, in
Speaker 1: order to preserve whatever democracy is as he sees it,
Speaker 1: which is completely amethetical to the Constitution. It's it's a
Speaker 1: complete inversion, but consistent with a lot of the other
Speaker 1: manipulation of words, very or willing that we've seen all
Speaker 1: the way through the last three years. Yeah, I love
Speaker 1: that you started with that. You know, Um, it's not
Speaker 1: We're not a democracy of the US as a republic.
Speaker 1: There I think part of trying to overturn that is
Speaker 1: trying to call it a democracy. But to the point,
Speaker 1: to your point, what you would consider a democracy is
Speaker 1: what the mass wants, what the majority of the people want.
Speaker 1: And if you don't educate the people, if you don't
Speaker 1: allow them to find the information, then how can you
Speaker 1: trust what they vote on? But even more so if
Speaker 1: you don't take into consideration what they want, like you know,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration basically saying all the servatives everybody voted
Speaker 1: for Trump is a threat to the democracy. But it's like,
Speaker 1: if that's what the people want, isn't that the definition
Speaker 1: of democracy? So what is their debt? Well, remember we're
Speaker 1: also simultaneously in this fifth gen warfare Battlescape. So what
Speaker 1: people think they want is highly manipulated. It's basically taking
Speaker 1: advertising technology and putting it on steroids and weaponizing it.
Speaker 1: The technology for manipulating what you think you want. You
Speaker 1: know you crave a McDonald's McDonald's hamburger, good for your health?
Speaker 1: Hell no, but you crave it because we have all
Speaker 1: kinds of technology to teach you that you want fries,
Speaker 1: a shake and a mcburger, right, And it's the same.
Speaker 1: We don't. That's why my point about sovereignty in fifth
Speaker 1: gen warfare, what we think we have in terms of
Speaker 1: free will becomes anachronistic. It's obsolete. We are highly, highly
Speaker 1: manipulable and manipulated, and there are no ethical boundaries. The
Speaker 1: government has politicized every single thing. You can see it everywhere.
Speaker 1: Everything is politicized. Everything is subjected to nudge technology famously
Speaker 1: made you know advanced in the UK, where all information
Speaker 1: that you receive, the broadcast that you receive, the Netflix
Speaker 1: that you look at. We talk about wokeism. What that
Speaker 1: really represents is that every single thing you encounter or touch,
Speaker 1: or feel or sense or taste is manipulated to an
Speaker 1: end of a political objective. By some group or entity
Speaker 1: or persons that you have no awareness of who they are.
Speaker 1: But we've seen from the Twitter files that a large
Speaker 1: number of democratic base operational groups are deeply involved in that.
Speaker 1: And now we have the deployment of AI right, which
Speaker 1: has been actively funded by the US government as another
Speaker 1: tool of propaganda warfare. And as we're looking at chat,
Speaker 1: GPT and these other AIS that are being deployed that
Speaker 1: are going to be by the way, integrated into all
Speaker 1: Microsoft products, YEA looking forward to that. They are all
Speaker 1: biased against conservative points of view. They are just another
Speaker 1: tool to manipulate our mind and thought. But they're marketed
Speaker 1: as as this independent, objective arbiter of truth, when in
Speaker 1: fact AI is notorious for what the starting parameters are
Speaker 1: that you use in launching the program. You can basically
Speaker 1: get whatever you want out of AI based on how
Speaker 1: you set up the parameters. It's just another way to
Speaker 1: fool people. Just on that note, open AI is not open,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's closed and they feed it whatever they
Speaker 1: want to. And so there's lots of tests to show
Speaker 1: how biased it is. Have you seen have you seen
Speaker 1: stable diffusion on what they're doing and it's all open
Speaker 1: source AI and they've been able to compress it down
Speaker 1: into like a two gig file where everybody could run
Speaker 1: their own AI. And they're trying to exactly counter this
Speaker 1: by giving it open eye where everybody could have their
Speaker 1: own that we build on our own. So it's worth
Speaker 1: checking out Stable Diffusion. There was a really good interview
Speaker 1: with Peter Diamantes and the founder of stable Diffusion Ammad
Speaker 1: I forget his last name. Amazing interview. Everyone should check
Speaker 1: that out. But but this is a great segue which
Speaker 1: you just pointed out to the topic that you were
Speaker 1: leading into, which is what can you do about it?
Speaker 1: What can the average person do about it? And what
Speaker 1: you just gave was a great example of a decentralized
Speaker 1: future in which you have independent entities, creating communities, creating applications,
Speaker 1: creating capabilities that are autonomous, and often a key here
Speaker 1: is they have to be decoupled from the cloud. That's
Speaker 1: another one of the great problems that we're now confronting.
Speaker 1: Like this studio. For instance, we're I rely on starlink
Speaker 1: commercial for my up and down and so I'm not
Speaker 1: going over T mobile or some other application, all of
Speaker 1: which gets censored, and the my servers and all of
Speaker 1: the other IT infrastructure here is behind an independent firewall,
Speaker 1: which we're having to upgrade because of all of the
Speaker 1: attacks that we get coming through that pipe. It's a
Speaker 1: big pipe, and our IT volunteers very senior people because
Speaker 1: they've volunteered because they like what I say. I guess
Speaker 1: very kind, but they've never seen this level of attack before.
Speaker 1: So we're now moving into an environment where everybody has
Speaker 1: to basically cocoon themselves if they want to have any
Speaker 1: kind of autonomy or resistance to all this, and we
Speaker 1: have to live in a decentralized world as much as possible.
Speaker 1: This is what George Orwell predicted in one of his
Speaker 1: early forwards to nineteen eighty four, was that we would
Speaker 1: all become manipulated through pharmacology into a compliant passive state
Speaker 1: in a future authoritarian regime of the type that he
Speaker 1: was envisioning, and that the only way he believed that
Speaker 1: we could ever avoid that outcome, that eventual outcome, I mean,
Speaker 1: how pression is that that we're all going to end
Speaker 1: up being manipulated by pharma. The only way that he
Speaker 1: could see overcoming that is to work really hard to
Speaker 1: build a decentralized society, and that, I think is what
Speaker 1: gets us towards the better future coming. There is a
Speaker 1: potential in the human species that's different from this dark
Speaker 1: Fourth Industrial Revolution transhumanism singularity, where the idea of Homo
Speaker 1: sapiens becomes obsolete and we move into a world of
Speaker 1: Homo deus man as God, and we control our own
Speaker 1: evolution and we build ourselves as some kind of a
Speaker 1: bizarre terminator fusion of man and machine and chips and
Speaker 1: surveillance of our brain waves and all these things that
Speaker 1: the World Economic Forum talks about. We don't have to
Speaker 1: live there, and I think this is one of the
Speaker 1: beauties of understanding Fifth gen warfare is at the superficial level.
Speaker 1: If you take the time to read the articles, download
Speaker 1: that ebook from Kendall sorry it's an Amazon product, and
Speaker 1: read about it. It's actually titled five GW and Michael
Speaker 1: Flynn has an even easy it's a super easy reader
Speaker 1: on a fifth gen warfare. Once you go through that stuff,
Speaker 1: you'll never be the same. It's like those of us
Speaker 1: that have grown up with American advertising. We can see
Speaker 1: right through a lot of the garbage they throw at us.
Speaker 1: The poor people in Ghana cants. You know, they haven't
Speaker 1: grown up with it. It's it's like deploying a nuclear
Speaker 1: bomb on third world populations, modern marketing technology and kids too. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well absolutely, But if you lift the technology then you
Speaker 1: can see through it and you can start to become
Speaker 1: more resistant. But if you start to work to master it,
Speaker 1: then you can deploy it yourself. I was lecturing to
Speaker 1: a group in Stockholm, thirteen hundred people out on the
Speaker 1: you know, in the radisson on the water, and talking
Speaker 1: about five GW in a recent talk, and I made
Speaker 1: the point that the battle group in Fort Bragg for
Speaker 1: the US Army that does a lot of the psyops work,
Speaker 1: he's eight hundred soldiers and there was thirteen hundred people
Speaker 1: in the audience. I said, if every one of you
Speaker 1: decides to be a warrior instead of a victim, we've
Speaker 1: got them out manned right away. Okay. The beauty of
Speaker 1: fifth gen warfare is if you learn the technology and
Speaker 1: strategy and you understand this battlescape, you can choose to
Speaker 1: be a warrior as opposed to a victim, and I
Speaker 1: think we can be successful. One of the things that
Speaker 1: is a challenge for all of us right now is
Speaker 1: what are our objectives. The issue is when you take
Speaker 1: a bunch of libertarians, they have a tendency not to
Speaker 1: want to cooperate with each other by definition. And I
Speaker 1: was speaking with Nigel Farage. He actually kind of coached
Speaker 1: me a little bit about three or four weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and then on him again two weeks ago, and I
Speaker 1: asked him about what were the key lessons from Brexit,
Speaker 1: and he said, the problem was we started off as
Speaker 1: a bunch of libertarians and we had no understanding or
Speaker 1: idea or interest in cooperating with each other. And what
Speaker 1: we had to do is define a common set of
Speaker 1: principles that we all agreed on, that wasn't too big,
Speaker 1: that was forward looking, positive, and then we had to
Speaker 1: come up with a name for that. And once we
Speaker 1: had done that, of course, that name was Brexit. Then
Speaker 1: we were able to coalesce around it and get the
Speaker 1: job done. His belief is that we're not quite yet there.
Speaker 1: We don't yet know as a community, a diffused community,
Speaker 1: decentralized community, what it is we really want. What is
Speaker 1: our vision of the future. I think that is our
Speaker 1: biggest challenge right now is to come up with a
Speaker 1: positive vision of the future a morning in America for
Speaker 1: the world that's different from this terminator, mad Max matrix,
Speaker 1: ugly thing that you've all Harari and the wef want
Speaker 1: to quote shape for us in which will in which
Speaker 1: we'll eat see bugs and uh um uh own nothing
Speaker 1: and be happy and live in some sort of a
Speaker 1: technocratic workers utopia in which if they only have enough
Speaker 1: data on all of us, they can run it through
Speaker 1: their algorithms and optimize resource distribution for everybody in the
Speaker 1: world except for them. Well, I think you know. I'm
Speaker 1: a firm believer in individualism. I wrote a book in August,
Speaker 1: released it in August called the Uncommunist Manifesto, and it's
Speaker 1: a counter two. Ah, you're the one behind that. Yes,
Speaker 1: I've seen that book. Yep, yep, I'm the one behind it.
Speaker 1: So appreciate that you've seen it. I le mans send
Speaker 1: you a signed copy so I'll get your info after.
Speaker 1: But but it's a counter to the Communist Manifesto. And
Speaker 1: obviously we we you know, we oppose collectivism and I
Speaker 1: push individualism. But I believe that you know, individualism, we
Speaker 1: should always be concerned with ourselves, but we also share
Speaker 1: in aligned values. So enemy of my enemy is my friend,
Speaker 1: so to speak, right, and so where we come together
Speaker 1: and well, but it's a little more than that, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I Mean, we have this Judeo Christian ethic. It's been
Speaker 1: developed over millennia and time tested in civilization, and for
Speaker 1: some reason we want to throw that away. This this
Speaker 1: this gift that's been given to us by generation after
Speaker 1: generation after generation. Whether you believe it was divinely inspired,
Speaker 1: at a minimum, it represents a time tested way for
Speaker 1: humans to live with each other, which is why they
Speaker 1: want to change history. They don't want us to remember
Speaker 1: how good it was so we go back to that.
Speaker 1: They want us to look back in history as something
Speaker 1: being bad and evil that we don't want to return to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's interesting. So I'm curious and talk about this
Speaker 1: decentralized future. So that's something that I talk about on
Speaker 1: my radio show. I call it the decentralized revolution that
Speaker 1: I believe we're going into. Um. And if you look
Speaker 1: at this, like there's these all these centralizing forces that
Speaker 1: are building up the WEF and the who, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's all kind of one big thing. And when you
Speaker 1: look at what's behind the who or the W and
Speaker 1: don't don't neglect the BISS right, Yeah, the bit you know,
Speaker 1: the the that's at the top. Right, So we have
Speaker 1: the the BIS at the very top, and then we
Speaker 1: kind of have these NGOs kind of in the middle layer.
Speaker 1: That's kind of way I see it. But so okay,
Speaker 1: so let's talk about the BISS at the Bank of
Speaker 1: International Settlement sits at the top. The bankers, and they
Speaker 1: talk about companies that don't go along with this will
Speaker 1: be quote economic roadkill. So they enforced this you talked about,
Speaker 1: um if if they don't go along with it, they
Speaker 1: would use the w t O the trade organization to
Speaker 1: impose economic stactions. But they also use the IMF and
Speaker 1: they won't give them funding and things like that. So
Speaker 1: and this this is what's baked into the ESG score.
Speaker 1: And what I'm hearing is that with the social part
Speaker 1: of that environmental social and governance with the governance score,
Speaker 1: if the executive of your company is donating to causes
Speaker 1: that are unapproved, your G score goes down on your
Speaker 1: S score. Apparently, there are rating groups that are circulating
Speaker 1: that will basically give you the S score that you
Speaker 1: need if you don't have a sufficiently high ESG score,
Speaker 1: you cannot get capital. So, for instance, by definition, if
Speaker 1: you're in the petroleum industry, you cannot have a good
Speaker 1: ESG score. Therefore there's no capital available for wildcatting or
Speaker 1: speculative drilling, or oil exploration or development of new processing plants.
Speaker 1: That all that capital is not available by the very
Speaker 1: nature of your industry. In terms of the escore, what
Speaker 1: I'm hearing is that there are these they're acting as
Speaker 1: little mafias. These rating groups are often populated by people
Speaker 1: that are within those groups that believe they've been disadvantaged.
Speaker 1: We could call that LGBTQ, and they will come into
Speaker 1: your company and say, you will either do these things
Speaker 1: that we want you to do, you will hire these
Speaker 1: people that we want you to hire. You will down
Speaker 1: to the level of you will provide free plane tickets
Speaker 1: so that we can go to protests and rallies across
Speaker 1: the United States. And if you do that, we'll give
Speaker 1: you your high score. And if you don't do that,
Speaker 1: we'll tank your score. And it's basically a shakedown. And
Speaker 1: this is what corporate America is facing right now. And
Speaker 1: none of this has anything to do with maximizing shareholder
Speaker 1: return or profit or product quality or any the other
Speaker 1: normal metrics in business, completely distorting it based on Claus
Speaker 1: Schwab's idea of UM a socially responsible corporate governance structure.
Speaker 1: Which is why I'm hopeful and optimistic and truly believe
Speaker 1: that it fails because it doesn't work that way. But
Speaker 1: how many lives are destroyed in the interim? Oh sure,
Speaker 1: sure it's already happening. But on that so on that thread.
Speaker 1: And I love the fact that you threw out the
Speaker 1: BIS and sits at the top. So the BIS and
Speaker 1: IMF and this economic right and so UM the you know,
Speaker 1: the government, all governments, the United States government continue to
Speaker 1: grow at this massive scale, to continue to send billions,
Speaker 1: one hundreds of billions of dollars to you know who,
Speaker 1: and now one hundreds of billions getting longer through Ukraine
Speaker 1: going and getting into the WF, and so all of
Speaker 1: this money that we don't have, right, we're spent. Well
Speaker 1: let's call it. Let's call it what it is, fiat currency. Okay, So, okay,
Speaker 1: so you nailed it. I'm setting the table here. But
Speaker 1: you know, so we have this fiat currency. They're able
Speaker 1: to print money because we don't have it. The deficit,
Speaker 1: spending billions or trillions of dollars are going into building
Speaker 1: a perfect prison, right printing money, creating a digital panopticon,
Speaker 1: to build social credit core systems and ESG systems and
Speaker 1: economic roadkilling all these things. And so back to this
Speaker 1: decentralized future. Then it seems like the key, as one
Speaker 1: of my favorite economists, Fa Hike said, never be a
Speaker 1: sound money again until we take the thing from the
Speaker 1: hands of the government. But it can't be done by force,
Speaker 1: rather a sly roundabout way introducing something that can't be stopped.
Speaker 1: So I'm curious to get your opinion on what you
Speaker 1: think about the best decentralized money, which is bitcoin. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So this has been one of the bizarre things about
Speaker 1: this long, strange strip I've been over the last three
Speaker 1: years is I found myself in Puerto Rico in Miami
Speaker 1: and at the Bitcoin conference talking to the whales and
Speaker 1: getting tutored by Brock Pierce and others in the editor
Speaker 1: of Well don't don't, don't don't listen to him too much.
Speaker 1: Potential downside here is that in one fell swoop, the
Speaker 1: biss with the governments can make a decentralized bitcoin currency
Speaker 1: illegal and the argument that's made by the bitcoin community is, well,
Speaker 1: blockchain allows us to tunnel through that and they can
Speaker 1: never kill it, and they've tried to kill it in
Speaker 1: the past and they've never succeeded. Um, I hope you're right.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I, uh probably shouldn't even speak about this.
Speaker 1: Uh we just dropped another twenty in kugaron. Um you
Speaker 1: know I think that, Um, we're The evidence seems to
Speaker 1: be that we are heading into on something of a
Speaker 1: horizon like a year or less or maybe a few
Speaker 1: more to a major economic event. There's too many vectors
Speaker 1: that are that are coming into conjunction, having to do
Speaker 1: with things like the social security system, fundum illiquidity, and
Speaker 1: the bricks strategies. I mean, all we have to do,
Speaker 1: and the Saudis are already jabbering about it, is move
Speaker 1: away from a dollar pegged petro exchange to something that's
Speaker 1: pegged to some other vehicle, some of their token to
Speaker 1: use bitcoin language, and suddenly we have a huge surplus
Speaker 1: of dollars washing about in the international account and folks
Speaker 1: will start to unload those dollars and that is a
Speaker 1: significant risk for a hyperinflationary environment, which historically I've heard
Speaker 1: it's been a pleasure to interface with the bitcoin community
Speaker 1: because they've taught me so much, but they do have
Speaker 1: their biases and hopes. But I've I've heard it floated
Speaker 1: that the real predicate to major social unrest and rise
Speaker 1: of totalitarianism historically has been periods of financial instability and hyperinflation.
Speaker 1: In particular, once you have hyper sure, when you can't
Speaker 1: feed your family, everything you thought you knew about the
Speaker 1: nation state becomes obsolete and irrelevant, the legitimacy of the
Speaker 1: nation's state, you know, hyperinflationary environment goes to nothing immediately,
Speaker 1: and then you have anarchy, chaos, revolution, uprising, etc. We
Speaker 1: this the strategies here, and I think this is what
Speaker 1: many people. It's not my you know, Ernest Wolff talked
Speaker 1: about this two years ago that the m one theory
Speaker 1: of the case is the underpinning logic behind a lot
Speaker 1: of the actions taken during the COVID crisis has been
Speaker 1: to set up conditions for a transition. You know, This
Speaker 1: is what the term great reset is referring to, in
Speaker 1: which will transition from the current currency structure to a
Speaker 1: central bank digital currency environment in which you have to
Speaker 1: in order to implement that, you have to have a
Speaker 1: digital ID, We have to have the masters of the universe,
Speaker 1: have to have all kinds of information on all of us.
Speaker 1: They have to be able to control the allocation of
Speaker 1: this digital currency, and they have to be able to
Speaker 1: control how we would spend or deploy it, how we
Speaker 1: would use it, in order to ensure that we have uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the greatest good for the greatest number, and
Speaker 1: from each according to his abilities, into each according to
Speaker 1: his needs. That's that's where this is all going. And
Speaker 1: I hear again and again that the coming economic instability
Speaker 1: that many for C is going to be the ruse
Speaker 1: under which CBDP is going to central bank digital currency
Speaker 1: is going to be deployed. Is this aligned with your thinking?
Speaker 1: So the central bank digital currencies are just fiat currency,
Speaker 1: so I don't believe that it's going to solve any
Speaker 1: of the problems. So to your point, yes, we're heading
Speaker 1: to an economic cliff that's going to be a big problem.
Speaker 1: Switching to a CBDC won't help that because it's still
Speaker 1: just fiat currency. It will be a tool for surveillance
Speaker 1: and control one hundred percent, So it's really bad for us,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't help the government. We can see this
Speaker 1: in Nigeria right now. Nigeria has launched their own CBDC,
Speaker 1: they call it the e Niara, but everyone had already
Speaker 1: started using bitcoin and the government's was trying to incentivize
Speaker 1: people with discounts to use the CBDC, and the people
Speaker 1: are like, why would we do that. It's the same
Speaker 1: Niara that we have now that loses value. It continues
Speaker 1: to buy less and less goods in the future. So
Speaker 1: we already have bitcoin. We're going to stick with bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Now they're imposing the sticks. So they tried to carret,
Speaker 1: now they're trying to stick. So CBDCs don't help the
Speaker 1: government debt or the financial cliff that we're heading to.
Speaker 1: It does help the surveillance state. Back to kind of
Speaker 1: the piece about bitcoin though, is I was a speaker
Speaker 1: at the Bitcoin Conference. I'll be speaking there again at
Speaker 1: the Bitcoin Conference though. If you're listening to this, come
Speaker 1: to the Bitcoin Conference then come check it out, and
Speaker 1: if you want to come back, I'd love to invite you.
Speaker 1: Be careful of what brock Pierre says, because he talks
Speaker 1: about blockchain and cryptocurrency, which is a big difference. And
Speaker 1: so you know the problem going back to Golden by
Speaker 1: the way, they I was supposed to speak at the
Speaker 1: Miami conference, but I was considered to be too controversial,
Speaker 1: and they that's why I ended up just being able
Speaker 1: to talk to the way. Okay, well either way, I'll
Speaker 1: be there. I'm also I saw you at the Freedom
Speaker 1: Fest last year. I was a speaker there. I didn't
Speaker 1: get to talk to you. I'll be speaking at the
Speaker 1: Freedom Fest this year too, if you're happening to be there.
Speaker 1: But anyway, um, you know the problem. I'm a goldbug.
Speaker 1: I love gold, I still buy gold, I still talk
Speaker 1: about gold. But the problem is gold doesn't work in
Speaker 1: any digital age. And so the the attack vector is
Speaker 1: the economic warfare. And so you as a content creator,
Speaker 1: you know you need sponsors, you need money to live,
Speaker 1: and so it's very easy to cut off your your
Speaker 1: your payment accounts, your PayPal account, your credit card accounts. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that was the reveal in Canada with Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: and Christopher Friedland, right, And so as a content creator,
Speaker 1: you could easily set up where you could accept bitcoin
Speaker 1: directly through and that can't be stopped. Now, could they
Speaker 1: make it illegal? Sure, just like they've made drugs illegal
Speaker 1: and look how well that's worked, right, And so they
Speaker 1: can certainly try to make things illegal. History shows that
Speaker 1: making things illegal doesn't really stop them. And when they
Speaker 1: tell you not to do drugs, it doesn't make you
Speaker 1: want to do drugs. When they tell you don't have
Speaker 1: a right to store your money or transact without the
Speaker 1: government stealing from you, then it sort of makes you
Speaker 1: want to do that. So I think they do their
Speaker 1: own marketing for them. So just in the future of
Speaker 1: a decentralized world, knowing that the FIAT money gives them
Speaker 1: the source of all their power, and not only is
Speaker 1: it the source of their power, it's also their weapon.
Speaker 1: There's a tool that we have to counter that. There's
Speaker 1: only one Gold just doesn't work because I can't send
Speaker 1: you gold right now. So anyway, it's worth it's worth
Speaker 1: keeping an eye on. I'm so we're I think we're
Speaker 1: aligned that there are a number of challenges in envisioning
Speaker 1: a decentralized world. In envisioning a world of let's say,
Speaker 1: semi autonomous galtz Gulch entities, um, we could call them
Speaker 1: intentional communities. That sounds fancier than Gultz Gulch, but um
Speaker 1: in a in a decentralized world, which I think is
Speaker 1: the only way we get to a future that has
Speaker 1: a snowball's chance in hell of realizing the full potential
Speaker 1: of the human species is a network to decentralized world
Speaker 1: in in a sense we can see the outlines of
Speaker 1: that and occasionally the glimmer of that potential future for
Speaker 1: humanity in some of the positive aspects of what's happened
Speaker 1: on the web from time to time, uh, particularly before
Speaker 1: it started to be so corporate controlled. Uh. And but
Speaker 1: as you what, I'm what I'm wrastling with on a
Speaker 1: daily basis in this mission of trying to come up
Speaker 1: with a vision for the future that's positive and that's
Speaker 1: you know, part of why that tagline is in the
Speaker 1: book is how do we envision a future using a
Speaker 1: system that has never existed before? And so what I
Speaker 1: find is when we start talking to folks about this,
Speaker 1: what does this future look like? We have to have
Speaker 1: a token based exchange of some kind, because obviously barter
Speaker 1: is not scalable. As you're just saying about gold, you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's gold or grain or other tangibles. It's it's
Speaker 1: just not scalable. We have to have some token that
Speaker 1: we can exchange. I agree that bitcoin provides the best
Speaker 1: current solution to that. We also have to have solutions
Speaker 1: that allow the connectivity between these cells or pods or
Speaker 1: autonomous communities, and that's a real challenge because there's a
Speaker 1: you know, we talk then we start talking about Web
Speaker 1: three and tunneling capabilities and what can we do because
Speaker 1: we really can't afford to build a new web and
Speaker 1: how do you operate that? And you quickly find yourself
Speaker 1: in the landscape of where you're going to have to
Speaker 1: have some form of censorship. We can all agree that
Speaker 1: we don't want to have fragments of snuff films stored
Speaker 1: on our laptops, right and so we find ourselves right
Speaker 1: back in the same place that has given rise to
Speaker 1: our current slice of censorship. Hell, And I don't know
Speaker 1: what the answers are. And when I engage with people,
Speaker 1: I hear things like, oh, we should set up a
Speaker 1: think tank to solve that problem, and I feel like
Speaker 1: slamming my head against the wall when I hear that.
Speaker 1: You know, it's going right back to the same thinking
Speaker 1: and solutions that have failed us. So I think this
Speaker 1: is one of our biggest challenges. And the bitcoin folks
Speaker 1: are the closest to grappling with a lot of these
Speaker 1: things as far as I'm concerned, that they're the most
Speaker 1: free thinkers of the freethinkers that I've encountered. But there's
Speaker 1: still a bunch of intrinsic problems that we have in
Speaker 1: moving forward to this, And as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: what I think I can do is help structure some
Speaker 1: pathways forward for allowing us to help to work on
Speaker 1: these issues. But when I hear people that come to
Speaker 1: me saying, Oh, I've got the solution, I generally want
Speaker 1: to run over. Yeah, Well it's a there's no there's
Speaker 1: no silver bullet, right. There's lots of solutions that we
Speaker 1: need for lots of problems that we have, but certainly
Speaker 1: dealing with the economic weapon, there's a solution for that piece,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't stop all the other problems. To your point, Um,
Speaker 1: I think there's something and I think what you're saying,
Speaker 1: and I would agree with it's very difficult when we're
Speaker 1: in an existing system to imagine a new system, and
Speaker 1: so what we threw up. What we try to do
Speaker 1: is we try to think about how can we take
Speaker 1: what we have and mold and adapt it into this
Speaker 1: different world, and how does that transition look? But we
Speaker 1: have to imagine it's just very difficult to see a
Speaker 1: new system when we're stuck in one. So have you
Speaker 1: ever read the book by Thomas Kuhne called The Structure
Speaker 1: of Scientific That's a good one to add to your
Speaker 1: reading list, given how your mind works. I have not,
Speaker 1: but it sounds like a good one. Thomas Kuhne is
Speaker 1: the one that gave us the language structure of scientific revolutions.
Speaker 1: He's the one that gave us the language of paradigm shifts.
Speaker 1: And what happens again and again in systems is they
Speaker 1: become kind of locked into a given solutions set that
Speaker 1: is useful for solving the problems of the day. And
Speaker 1: then over time it gets optimized to the point where
Speaker 1: it has achieved its maximum value within that existing system,
Speaker 1: and you accumulate more and more and more unsolvable problems,
Speaker 1: which is basically what you're talking about, And then there
Speaker 1: needs to be what will occur at some point in
Speaker 1: time is truly transformational thinking or innovation and you will
Speaker 1: suddenly see this kind of quantum shift or disruption in
Speaker 1: the entire system. This is why, of course, all the vcs,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you have touch points with the Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: Sandhill Road community while they're all looking for disruptive technologies,
Speaker 1: because that's basically saying, we're identifying things that will disrupt
Speaker 1: that structured solutions set that currently exists. And when you
Speaker 1: do that, then you have this huge explosion of new
Speaker 1: innovation that occurs, and that I think is going to
Speaker 1: be what will happen. But you can't predict when it
Speaker 1: happens and where it comes from, but you can set
Speaker 1: up conditions that favor its creation. And that's why I
Speaker 1: recommend that book Structure of Scientific Revolutions to you, is
Speaker 1: because there are certain characteristics that seem to be predictive
Speaker 1: of environments in which these disruptive events can occur. And
Speaker 1: I think that's what the likes of you and I
Speaker 1: can do is to try to set the stage to
Speaker 1: empower and enable this kind of disruptive thinking. And you know,
Speaker 1: with problems comes solutions. And I'm super bullish on what
Speaker 1: happens when millions of entrepreneurs or backs are against the wall.
Speaker 1: So we're starting to see lots of good solutions coming
Speaker 1: out and I'm hopeful in that. Man, we've covered a
Speaker 1: lot of ground. We went way longer than I had intended,
Speaker 1: and there's still so much we could still so much
Speaker 1: we could cover, but we'll have to cut it off
Speaker 1: at some point. Man, you're a You're a wealth of information.
Speaker 1: I've enjoyed listening to you. I recommend everyone subscribe to
Speaker 1: your substacker and a link to that down below, as
Speaker 1: well as your book lies government told me. Anything else
Speaker 1: that you want to say kind of to wrap this
Speaker 1: up or call attention to Yeah, um, it's I think
Speaker 1: it's really important to not just be dark. And we
Speaker 1: just talked about a lot of dark stuff, and people
Speaker 1: that listen to this are going to want to go
Speaker 1: out and shoot themselves. You don't have to be a victim.
Speaker 1: That's the big message here. We have those that have
Speaker 1: been damaged by various medical procedures, those that have been
Speaker 1: damaged by various public policies over the last three years,
Speaker 1: those that have been damaged by the information warfare. You
Speaker 1: can choose to be a victim or you can choose
Speaker 1: to be a warrior. And we've talked about ways in
Speaker 1: which you can become a warrior. You can be empowered,
Speaker 1: you can fight back, you are not helpless in this
Speaker 1: information battleground. If you gain the knowledge of how the
Speaker 1: game is being played against you, you can become a soldier,
Speaker 1: you can become a warrior. And absolutely one of the
Speaker 1: key parameters in fifth gen warfare is it's leaderless. It's
Speaker 1: completely decentralized, which means you can not only be a warrior,
Speaker 1: you can be a leader. And a decentralized leadership model
Speaker 1: is absolutely the most effective in asymmetric warfare because the
Speaker 1: unknown shadow opponents don't know who to hit. One of
Speaker 1: the problems with me being high profile is I take
Speaker 1: a hell of a lot of the flak, you know.
Speaker 1: I talked about the recent Cochrane review that showed that
Speaker 1: masking doesn't work, and the fact checkers were on me
Speaker 1: like flies because of the profile that I have, which
Speaker 1: kind of gives cover for everybody else. But the point
Speaker 1: is that we can all be in this battle, and
Speaker 1: I think that's the way we can move forward. I
Speaker 1: think that's the positive vision that and as George Orwell said,
Speaker 1: we need to move forward in a decentralized way. To
Speaker 1: build that decentralized set of solutions so that we don't
Speaker 1: have to have our children live in this indentured servitude
Speaker 1: dark matrix like vision. You know, that's somewhere between Mad
Speaker 1: Max and a Terminator. You know, we've all seen those movies.
Speaker 1: We don't have to have our kids live in that.
Speaker 1: And I think that's that's the positive, is we can
Speaker 1: be empowered, particularly in this information battleground, that the challenge
Speaker 1: is to not become the enemy. And there are those
Speaker 1: who say they do it to us, and so we
Speaker 1: can do it to them. They lie at us, so
Speaker 1: we should lie at them. They they breach ethical boundaries
Speaker 1: all the time, and so we should be able to
Speaker 1: breach ethical boundaries. And I argue that that is the
Speaker 1: road to help. That's how we become the enemy. This
Speaker 1: is a lesson that's been taught in literature, in the
Speaker 1: in the Rings trilogy, and in everything again and again
Speaker 1: and again. So don't do it. Maintain higher standards, respect
Speaker 1: human dignity, commit yourself to integrity, and build community. Community
Speaker 1: is the thing that makes us resilient and able to
Speaker 1: resist all the propaganda and the other garbage that they're
Speaker 1: throwing at us over man, I love it. That's that's
Speaker 1: my message. Don't be a victim. It's dark and scary,
Speaker 1: but uh and and and and it's and it's and
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a fight, it's gonna be a work.
Speaker 1: But what I believe we win, UM so amazing. Like
Speaker 1: I said, we're gonna link to everything that you have
Speaker 1: down below. Uh man, what a great conversation. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate you taking the time. Thanks Mark, it's been fun.
Speaker 1: I appreciate everything that you're doing. Continue to spread this message.
Speaker 1: We're gonna keep pounding the table on this and with
Speaker 1: that we'll sign it off.