Elon Musk, Dark Enlightenment, and the Coming Fight Over AI | Ep. 23

You're rightly observing that powerful interests want control of new things, because new things give you opportunities to consolidate power, give you opportunities to consolidate wealth. Of course, that's always been true. The place where I'm not sure that you've made the cell with me is the sort of unified field theory nature of this wherein you say all of it is by design, all of it is for a purpose, all of it is with one goal in mind. If you look at someone like Elon Musk as an example, he's certainly making the world in very material ways a better place in real time. When I interact with these sorts of people, I realize that they're people. They're not shadowy figures with some sort of omniscient power. It is not necessarily the case to me that Elon Musk is inventing autonomous driving in service of a grand technocratic vision. Are you just describing reality and ascribing to reality a motive? Patrick Wood, Courtney Turner, thank you for being with me. Thanks so much for having us. Thank you so much. Has America's constitutional form of government been replaced by a ruling technocratic elite? It seems that way. Exactly. We've been run over last year with all these arch-technocrats in Washington DC from Elon Musk, David Sacks, people like Michael Crazius, all these people, they're all billionaires, by the way. That's never seen this in the history of our government. But yes, it seems technocrats have kind of taken over the landscape. You write in your book Final Betrayal about technocracy and it's both how it's unfolding in the government currently and where you think it's going to lead. But for people who aren't familiar with this concept at all, what is technocracy? Well, in 1937, Technocratic Magazine described it as the science of social engineering. And then they go on to say that there's no place for politics, politicians, racketeers, or racketeering. Essentially, they did define it as a science of social engineering, but they also talk about the technique, the North American technique, which is, interestingly enough, when Trump keeps talking about acquiring Canada, Greenland, South America. When you look at the study course, the technocrat, the technocracy-ink study course that Hoover wrote, the front cover is actually this map of the North American technique. And they talk about how all of the ownership would be put into the technique. So nobody would own anything. There would be no private property. They would manage everything as a technical problem. So it's essentially a society that's run by engineers, scientists, managerial experts. And it was a response to the Great Depression. So it's not a political system, not a religious system, although now they're using those to make the three-legged stool so they can, you know, achieve power, essentially, and so they can implement their system. But at the time, it was a response to the Great Depression. And they saw that the problem was that we were living in scarcity, but that the scarcity was, it was a false scarcity that was imposed because of the price system. And the price system was, of course, the free market. So we have to do away with that and we will replace it with energy credits, which are very reminiscent of you might have heard of carbon credits today. It's kind of the same concept that they would, you know, through all the data collection, they would be able to survey all the energy and a lot. Energy such as gets from birth to death. So it's a finite fixed credit that cannot be transferred. It cannot be extended and that would replace the price market. And now we would live in abundance. So when you hear people like Elon Musk talking about how we're going to have a universal higher income because we're all going to live in abundance. Yes. Yeah. The first thing I'm bothered was the head of the technology ink in Canada from 1936 to 1941. So Josh Holderman. Exactly. We need to make that distinction that there's a generational thing going on here with Elon Musk and his grandfather for sure. He's the only representative in this technocratic class today that has that kind of connection. But his grandfather was head of Canada's technology movement. And fundamentally what you're saying is that technocracy is a belief that democratic systems, that political systems, even religious systems, that they're all inefficient, they're all flawed. They can be replaced by rule by experts, by people who know better than the rest of us know. How do you get from 1930s reaction to the Great Depression? And what was obviously was in many ways a failure of government, was a failure of elected representatives trying to influence things that they did not understand when the incentive is not in those instances. The incentive isn't to achieve some sort of positive outcome from the system is to achieve electoral primacy, which often those two things contradict. How do you get from that sort of early 20th century technocracy concept to the things that you talk about in your book today, to the dark enlightenment, to AI, to the kind of technological advancements on which modern technocracy would be premised? What's the intellectual through line from point A to point B? Number one, we have a connector which was a big dupe Brzezinski in 1978, or excuse me, '68, when he wrote a seminal book called Between Two Ages America's Roll and the Technotronic Era. This was the book that caught David Rockefeller's attention. And Rockefeller was looking for a way, I'm sure at this point, how to figure out how to get convert his cash into resource management rather than just cash itself. He was a chairman of Chase Bank back in that day, obviously one of the biggest banks in the world. So Rockefeller wasn't that astute, like Brzezinski was a strategist, master strategist. He's probably one of the most brilliant people in the last century. And I didn't agree with anything he said, I'm just saying. He's a brilliant guy. Brzezinski was working at Columbia University when he wrote that book as a professor of political science. He was there for several years before that. And he certainly had access to all the technocrats at Columbia University in the first place. That's where all started in 1932. And so there was an intellectual thread going through him, especially. And there was others, but he was kind of the key guy. When he introduced this to Rockefeller, Rockefeller declared when he created the Trilateral Commission in 1973, he declared we're going to create a new international economic order. Plain is day. We didn't know anything about technocracy back in that day. There's no no frame for us to even understand it. But we know now that we can see the thread looking backwards. Things like, well, 1974, when I just that a few months after the Trilateral Commission was formed, they said, okay, here is a new international economic order. The United Nations immediately, like six months later, passed their own resolution saying the same thing. We're going to create a new international economic order. Well, that's not the coincidence I'm sure. But then, and a few years, they created agenda 21 and they went on to create a 2030 agenda and all this stuff, the climate change and the environmental movement. They tried to reform the world, if you will. They said, well, agenda 21 was the agenda for the 21st century. And here we are in the 21st century. So we see the thread coming through efforts by Rockefeller to kind of give the contagion to the United Nations to take it globally. And we look at what's going on and now that the technology is caught up in the last 20 years. This thing's been just on steroids. >> Help me strong man the argument in favor. If this really was born out of the excesses of early 20th century economic policy, why wouldn't we want experts to be in charge of the economy? Why wouldn't we want experts to be in charge of science? I mean, presumably if you had a hard attack today, you wouldn't want a faith healer. You'd want someone who went to med school. You want someone who's studied the questions that they're trying to solve. >> I love technology. I'll say it right out. I really do. I've been steeped in technology all my life since I got out of college. And when technology serves me, I love it. When it wants to control me, I hate it. And just imagine if there was a thousand Anthony Fauci's running the country right now. [BLANK_AUDIO] remember back when he said, when he stood up, basically said, I'm science, you know, you can't attack me. You know, so, you know, this is the attitude these people have that, well, you peons out there, you can't understand what we're dealing with on it with our PhDs, whatever you can understand it. So you just stand, stand aside, unless, let us make all the good decisions for you. This is crazy. This is not even anti, it's anti-human at that point. So what I throw back, in any case, I love technology, but don't control me. You know, don't put the hooks on me to tell me what I'm going to do in the future or even now. Not only that, but it's exacerbated by the technology itself. So it's one thing when you have ruled by philosopher kings, which is problematic in of itself. And that's essentially what the experts are, right? They've asserted themselves that the top of Plato's divided line, they have the new esus, and, you know, we're stuck in the doxa and just staring at the shadows on the cave. So they're doing that. But once you have the technology, that's the infrastructure that's set in place. When you program a code, it becomes exponential. So whatever input you're getting, that magnified out. So these people, these philosophers kings who know better than all of us, what we need to do with our everyday lives, you know, our health, our education, every step of our lives, every decision that we want to make, they think they know better than us. They're making these programs that are going to be like a exponential magnification of whatever it is they put in. So it's not just them telling us what to do. Now it's, and you can't argue with it. Like you think that it's difficult to argue with people in negotiate and we have lawsuits, you know, especially in this country, particularly in the churches, you know, and you try to settle a lawsuit even with family. That's pretty difficult, difficult to negotiate, trying to go cheating with a smart contract. That's not going to happen. And these smart contracts are programmed to be recursive. So essentially, they build upon themselves and they're essentially writing their own code. So that can get pretty scary. Well, I don't want to jump ahead in jargon. If we're going to talk about a smart contract, what is it? This smart contract is so, is essentially, it's a, I'll put in very practical terms. A lot of the, like, click wrap agreements that we already have. Like you, you, Twitter or you, you know, another social media platform or, or an AI or, or even your, you know, when you go see your doctor, you have these agreements. And once you're already in the portal, it's just updates, right? You just click, I consent to these terms and services. That's essentially smart contract. And on the back end, there's all of these codes that are running and then updates. You know, and so you update your next iOS if you have an iPhone and it already updates those terms and services. So you can't negotiate with that. I mean, if you, if you decide you can say, okay, I won't click the terms and services, but then you can't use the perials as a lockdown. The proponents of technology. What are they trying to achieve? What's the affirmative good that they're trying to bring into the world? We're wishing, we wish we knew. Well, I'm veal facetious. And their minds, most of them, they think they're doing something good for humanity. But they never consulted with humanity. That's the problem. They're just doing what they do without any, without any consent from the people at all, even our Congress. And we see the technology sector, the tech to crack sector is at odds with the political systems right now. And you can see it and all their actions. There's, there's a disdain for regulation, for oversight, for accountability. They hate that. So the politicians are left, you know, are, these are the people that are supposed to protect us, right? They're supposed to take care of a society. The technocrats have just gone off on their own, yeah, they've just gone off on their own tangent. They're going, oh, this is a good thing to do. Why wouldn't they agree? You know, they, they, I, I, this, this sounds crazy. I've talked to people who believe, really believe that. Well, what, what are you rejecting for? This is going to be good. Where you're going to get abundance. So you're going to get, um, you're going to be happy or, oh, nothing, and you'd be happy. And, uh, what's, what's not to be happy? Well, come to love our servitude and Huxley-Dravenewer. And then we'll be very happy. Well, you know, basically, I, my, my whole thing has been even since the, well, my early days have started studying the trial out of commission. These people have no right to turn over our country into the hands of other people that, that had no relation to us at all. They basically hate the, the, the constitutional republic. And now it's called democracy. That's not really accurate, but, you know, see one of the sand. They, they think that the democracy and constitutional anything is just a waste of time is broken. We need to get rid of it. We need to just take, take, turn to the whole system over and get a monarch or, you know, a charge, some, some king or something to take, take charge of everything in the society. Well, we fought a war on this 250 years ago, you know, to get rid of the monarchy and all the excesses that were, that were plaguing the people at that point. Yeah, and even that monarchy that we fought a war to escape from was only barely a monarchy at that point. I mean, you know, George III is easy to blame because he's the face of the British government at that time, but it was a parliamentary government that the monarchy was largely the vestigial and not in the same way that it's vestigial now, but it was largely vestigial even, even then. So, you know, we're modern monarchists are talking about going back to something that isn't just, they were not only 250 years removed from, we're a thousand years, so on. They're talking about the Byzantine Empire. They're talking about taking it far back indeed. How, how does this modern technology, as you see it, intersect with things like the darken lightenment? How does it intersect with political figures whom we might know? I mean, I think there's sort of two ways we can talk about this. There's the Silicon Valley actual technocratic figures who you might want to talk about, and there's these political figures who also seem to be advancing it. What's the, where do they meet? Let me answer it first, and then you tell them about the darken lightenment, okay? One of the criticisms that were that was leveled at the Technocracy movement in the 30s and 40s by people in the movement, they said that Howard Scott and M. King Hubbard, two founders of the movement, Technocracy Inc. They said they were, they would not be successful and they weren't successful, but they weren't, they would not be successful because they had no political wrapper. They had no political strategy to navigate politics, even though they were, they wanted to get rid of all politicians. That was probably a valid criticism at that point, because they stood outside of the political system through, through rocks at it, and they couldn't get anything done. So there was, there were loggerheads. Well, this, this type of situation we see the criticism today, well, if they have to, if they're going to be successful today, they have to have some internet interaction with the political structure. In other words, a wrapper around technocracy to deal with the politicians and get rid of them once and for all. So here, here we now, we have the darken lightment. That's kind of, I think this is an attempt to make a political philosophy fit technocracy and it actually has. Yeah. So the darken lightment was coined by Nick Land. Nick Land was writing out of the CCRU back in the 1990s at the CCRU with Cybernetic Culture Research Unit. It was a department, a branch of the philosophy department at Warwick University. He started it with his partner, Sadie Plant, she was a cyberpunk feminist. And so they were, they were studying very kind of a cult esoteric types of cultural cyberpunk type ideas. But he, he was really the father of accelerationism. And so accelerationism, it started out as very much a left wing Marxist kind of philosophy. He was a disciple of Gutary and Delus and they had a whole concept of extra territorialism, which is where he derived his ideas about capitalism. And so this accelerationism now, if we fast forward, it has split into two camps, the left accelerationists and the right accelerationists. And we'll go into too much detail on all of that because I can get a lot into the weeds. But the left accelerationists are the ones who keep talking about like the post-war future. We're just going to live in this utopia where the robots will do all the work for us and we don't have to do it. Everybody's going to become an artist, apparently. And then the right wing ones are the ones who are really in favor of using it to push capitalism to its end degree that we should use technology. to advance capitalism because it's going to reach in a pockle of de-state anyway. And so we just need to take all the regulations off so we can accelerate it. Interestingly enough, the right accelerationists see Nick Land as their father. And he says both of them are crazy. They suffer from human delusionalism. And so it's really a delusional humanism, as he says it. But essentially, you know, that he believes it's a post-human world. And he coined the term dark and light men in 2012. He wrote a manifesto called the dark and light men. And it was a big footnote to Curtis Yarvin. Curtis Yarvin's been blogging since 2007 under a Mention Small Bug, unqualified reservations, he now has his gray mirror blog. But Curtis Yarvin was very anti-democracy. And of course, we're a constitutional republic, but that includes us as well. He's definitely against constitutional republic also. It was earlier than that that Peter Teal, who calls him his household philosopher, had set up a private salon in his home and introduced him to Herman Hopp. And that's where he derived a lot of these very anti-democratic kind of philosophical ideas and became very passionate about it. He came up with this concept called rage, retire all government employees. This is very much the backbone of what became doge. And a lot of people were very excited about doge. And I do think there was an opportunity there. They were exposing some of the corruption, and bloated, wasteful spending. And I think people should have stood up and said something about that, which in many ways I think was a lost opportunity. But that wasn't really the goal of doge. The goal of doge was to retire all government employees and replace them with AI and machine a technocratic system. So he believes that right now, there's a lot of fight against-- he's captures everything in the left right kind of-- dialectical paradigm. And the left is very woke, and we need to push back against that. And so he says that we're run by what he calls the cathedral. And the cathedral is, of course, academia, the media, the anti-chema sphere, all of those various pillars of society, and they're all very woke. And so we need to push back against those and create neo-cameraism. So this is this idea that we should be run not like a country that has three branches of government. We need a CEO-style monar to run the SOV Corps. The SOV Corps-- Nick Langhulls at Dove Corps, or P-Calls at SOV Corps, but essentially the same thing-- SOV Corporation. And this is essentially a concept of a network state. So the network state was a book written by Bellagy Schroner-Ballson. And it was predicated on Peter Tiel's Seat Steading Project. Peter Tiel put $1.7 million into the Seat Steading Project that was kind of reminiscent of Gillian Maxwell's Taramar. It didn't go over very well. But then Bellagy picked it up and said, no problem to get that off the ground. We just have to get the network states up first. And then we can crowdfund for these international city states, essentially. But the network state, as he defines it, is a disillusion of geographical nation states in favor of ideological cyber network states. So you'd have this SOV Corps, as Curtis Jarvan calls it, which would essentially be the technique. All of the resources would be managed by the SOV Corps or the technique. And Nick Land is much more overtly post-human. He says that it's a strange thing to wrap your head around because he calls it retro-tronic. So essentially, a lot of people, when they think about a post-human world being run by machine, they think, oh, the humans are creating this code in their programming machine that are going to take over the world for us. That's not really how he sees it. He essentially sees that as inevitable and that they are going to use us as the human nodes that will be comprised of this future system. He's very overtly post-human. Whereas Curtis Jarvan is more subtly post-human, but he talks about, I have the quote, but I can paraphrase it for you. Essentially, he says that the most humane, he said the best humane alternative to genocide would be not to liquidate the war, is not virtually or physically, but to essentially put them into these virtual reality worlds where it would make him go insane. But he doesn't really know because he's living in the metaverse, essentially. So it is a very post-human system, but he thinks that's better because not everybody deserves to be in the real world anyway, not everybody. The philosopher Keen should rule, and the technology will do a better job and will be much more efficient. So there's a lot of esotericism in the conversation. A lot of people who aren't familiar to the average person watching the show, a lot of people who don't seem directly connected, I mean, a lot of what you describe, I might respond and say, yeah, there's a lot of people out there with cookie ideas. People want to try all kinds of new things. Probably most of it never gets out of the ground. Probably they can't work together and actually achieve their ends. The world's complex and messy. People are deeply flawed. We've dealt with utopianist ideologies before. I don't mean to diminish them. I mean, communism managed to kill 100 million people in the last century. Alone. Alone. And what you're describing in some ways just sounds like almost an inverse of communism. If communism says science exists, and economies exist to serve the state, it sounds to me like what you're saying is the state exists to serve science. Or the state exists to serve the expert driven systems that are being created. But okay, all well and good, these exist. What relevance does this have to us today? In your book, you posit that the Trump administration has somehow brought this, brought this to bear on us in a way that we've never seen before. That the final betrayal you're describing is the betrayal of the second Trump term. So really ground this in reality for me. What has happened in the last 18 months since the election of 2024 that makes you believe technocracy is no longer a theoretical idea that some crackpots in the 30s came up with. And people at Columbia University and at Peter Till's breakfast table have been amusing themselves with. How is something that we should actually be concerned about? I wish, I agree with you by the way that there have been all kinds of groups through history that have talked about stuff. That's free speech in a way. People can talk about crazy ideas. But when they have, when they achieve the money or the power to do something with their ideas, then we should pay attention with their doing because maybe these aren't the ideas that we want to implement on society, right? This is what's happened with these technocrat class has snuck up on us. They've gained monetary power and now political power as well. And when we talk about political power, well, we see, for instance, Peter Till with Trump in 2016 holding his hand and saying is all good. In fact, he was the first technocrat that attached himself to Trump. He says he's a libertarian. He's not a libertarian. But that's what he says. A lot of people just gravitated. Always Trump was embracing the libertarian party or whatever. Well, that wasn't really true. But when Trump was elected now in 2024, we see all of this, this, this click as descending all of us. These were the haters of the American people, formally, who were censoring everybody in sight, people like Twitter, Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, all these people who we hated what they were doing to the society. All of a sudden, they're all on the Trump bad wagon. Elon, even Elon Musk, he stood up on the stage with Trump and said, I'm not just maggot. I'm not regular mega. I'm dark mega. Okay. Well, so we see all of a sudden there was a mass defection to Trump with these arch technocrats, all of a billionaire. This is incredible that we'd never seen this in the history of our country. Billionaires basically taking over everything in Washington, DC and Trump's a billionaire as well. Certainly that, the connection with money. So, the technocrats have exerted their will, so, singularly, they have this political wrapper now that is appealing, by the way, to a lot of young people today who have no hope for owning anything in the future at this point, probably all the under 30 crowd at this point, they've lost hope for anything good in life. And they're following after this Peter Teel, Elon Musk, the world, and they're looking to them to solve the problem. But what they're bringing in is basically the destruction of a political system. This is not speculation at this point. destroying our political system from within, with a with an ideology that wants to get rid of all the political structure, just like in the 30s, and replace it with engineers and scientists to run everything. This is not what we want in America. This is, I'm sorry, it's just we do not want this in America. This also spends spells the end of private property. Well, America was built on private property. Well, explain to me how it spills the end for private property. Well, back to Curtis Yarman. Curtis Yarman wrote and remember, Curtis Yarman is just a Pipsqueak in my opinion. He was sponsored by Peter Teal. Peter Teal was a guy who understood the criticism from the 30s and 40s. We didn't have any political wrapper. Let's do this with Curtis Yarman. But what Peter Teal and all the click in Washington DC now, they're marching to this ideology, so we need to get rid of the political system and a jack booted CEO to run the country like a startup company. And well, that's crazy. But beyond that, Yarman and Teal said, well, we need to move all the private property in the country into the ownership of the technique or the soft core. That's in plain type. I mean, you get this is exactly what they said. Well, let me push on you for a minute, you're talking about the richest people in the world. Yes. Wanting to get rid of private property. I mean, these are the great beneficiaries of the system of capitalism and of the system of property ownership. How does it make Peter Teal's life better not to own $26 billion? How does it make Elon Musk's life better not to own three-quarters of a trillion dollars as he probably does now with the value of SpaceX, which is not fully materialized yet. It goes. I won't be the end of private property for them. They own the infrastructure. So, you know, when I talk about the smart contracts, that's essentially how this is all contractarian. So as much as I would agree that that Peter Teal's not really a true libertarian, what they are doing is exploiting libertarianism because libertarianism is based on locking contractarianism, right? It's voluntaryism. And so on the surface, you know, that sounds great to a lot of people, but it actually subordinates natural law that the constitution was predicated on. Because you're now entering into the agreement, which you sign on the dotted line, but you essentially sign over all of your rights. And you've agreed to do that. The problem is that you've agreed to do that, so that you can access to society. And so, yeah, there, I mean, right now, they're busy building their bunkers underground. They're not getting rid of their private property. But we do outline a lot of what we are aligning in the final trail is the regulatory infrastructure that's being set up. So when you talk about like the constitution being eroded, essentially, it's being eroded through this protocol layer. This is something I'm not a lawyer. This is not my arena, but I keep trying to sound the alarm to those who are, she paid attention to this because the way they're doing this is a it's a protocol layer on top of the constitution. And that's through these various systems that people have access to. So there needs to be something done about that. I don't have the answer on that and just putting it out there for anybody in the audience who might. But we go through in this book really in real time what these various executive orders, the stream of executive orders, the one big beautiful bill, all of these policies that the Trump administration was putting into place that make this effectuate like this becomes a reality only because of the regulatory infrastructure that was put in place. And a lot of what they're doing is setting up the future for a tokenized society. And when things become completely tokenized, especially when it's asset based tokenization, there is no ownership anymore. And that is really this is what was happening with the the Genius Act that was signed. Initially, the clarity act was actually part of the Genius Act. It was the bankers who pushed back and so they pulled it out so that they could get the Genius Act signed. So we have the Genius Act now the clarity. So what is the Genius Act and what is the clarity? The Genius Act is around the stable point, the cryptocurrency. So I remember Trump got into office and he said that we're not going to have the central bank digital currency. He kind of ran on that. That was one of the things that you know people were really excited about. Okay, good. He's going to push back against that, push back against the UN, global. But you know, what the case we make is he kind of presented a Haguelean dialectic where he got rid of the central bank CBDCs, but he proposed the commerce back digital currencies, which are essentially the stablecoins. And so he's created the regulatory infrastructure for the stablecoins to be you know, backed so they could be tender and they could be utilized legally. And while he was busy doing that, he also was setting up his own. He called it the truth dollar, the USD one. And again, to appeal to the kind of more libertarian mindset, right? We were canceled. So we're creating this new our own freedom truth dollar, which all sounds great, fantastic marketing. But I so could have sent them on that. But this is part of the world liberty financial that was set up. And it is mostly a gold sovereign wealth and money actually they put 500 million dollars into it and exchange for chips that we sent over to them. And this is all part of the whole board of piece that was that he set up. But essentially he's making it so that we're paving the way for us to be transitioning into a digital currency system. So it's not central bank digital currency, but in some ways it's worse than central bank digital currency because central bank digital currencies actually do have more checks and balances than a Congress back digital currency would have. Yeah, not to mention too that the central banks never had a view of creating asset tokens, asset based tokens. This was exclusively the idea that the Trump administration came in with. And you have to look at people like Michael Kratzius and David Sacks, especially David Sacks, who was representative. I'm sure a lot of the tech bros in Washington DC when he when he said we have to have asset tokenization. This was a major feature of this alternative, the privatized system at this point. And to ask your question, by the way, why would they want to do this in the first place? It's all about access. When when when when you have a system of tokenization, where the value is lifted out of the land or whatever the asset is, hotel or acreage or whatever, when the value is lifted out and split into a zillion pieces and then sold around the world, there's no traditional property ownership at that point. Who owns that property? What you can't say is the people that hold on the tokens is not down. Well, is it the people that originally owned it? We'll know that out of the picture at this point. They maybe they're living in that property or maybe they have some connection to it, but they can't do anything with it. Substant. How is this fundamentally different though than publicly traded stocks? You know, that's a lot of people have complained about publicly publicly. There is a difference though because publicly traded stocks still have the UCC title eight code. So most people don't own the physical claim, but you can. So like let's say you've got a portfolio and you're you have a manager and they have all your various positions, you can actually get a physical deed for each of those positions. Most banks won't advise you to because it makes them more difficult for them to trade. They they have to then get that paper from you. So it takes more time. So a lot of your workers will advise against it because it slows things down for them. But you can do that. When things become digital, there's no, you don't actually own the deed. You no longer have it. And it was a recent change through the UCC title 12 code that where they change this. So that's the big shift. So yes, I mean a lot of people argue that on the stock exchange already, I mean the great taking is well underway just, you know, by sheer, you know, way that by way of how that system already works. But when you shift it over to digital, they're taking into another step where you just don't have any access. Well, I was a young stockbroker. That's how I started out after college. I was a stockbroker for several years and we understood all about certificates of ownership. And it was very common. Most people would request that their stocks are certificate sent to them. Maybe, you know, 100 shares is something they buy it and they get a certificate. They can hold on to that certificate and that's their claim against it. Well, you don't see this today in almost all cases, the securities are never issued specifically. They're held in trust, if you will, silently, quietly, digitally, doesn't matter. You'll never see that except your ownership is only expressed on a ledger somewhere. That you won't well, that's my portfolio over there. I had that that I have all this value and the hundreds of shares Whatever, but you don't really you don't really own them Outright you can't hold them in your hand You have the same same problem when they're when they digitizing gold to this a big thing today to digitize gold with tokenization Well, you can hold gold you can buy it from a dealer and say I want it in my hands I want to see it. I want to bury it on my own backyard if it's digitized if it's tokenized You'll never see the gold you have a claim against it, but that claim with tokenization Now that that claim the rules of that claim can be changed at will by the owner of the system This is the problem as long as everything is working great and you know you have your you buy your gold today And you have tokens whatever and you say well, I'm a rich man. I have gold You're never gonna see that gold you're never gonna eat it. You won't spend it like money And this is the problem. This is what's going on with this the whole financial system right now By the way just last week This headline came out Unbelievable here's here's what the head head headline says here's why Nasdaq And the owner of the New York Stock Exchange are putting the $126 trillion equity market on blockchain That the official owner of the the stock exchange said oh We're gonna go we're just forget the old the old system will operate But we have this new system now that will operate on top of it To make tokens out of every asset in the world This is this isn't credit. This is snuck up on people. They don't they and there's no terms of service Then we can agree And it's crazy I think we were talking earlier. I'm telling you about the natural asset company This is basically the natural asset companies iteration 2.0 And we did all just explain very briefly. It's a they called them the next natural asset companies and this was the SEC proposed to put a new class of assets on the New York Stock Exchange So we just completely illegal, but that's what they were proposing There was a group called the ieg the entrance at exchange group that partnered with the SEC in order to to propose this new asset class on the New York Stock Exchange It was mostly backed by the Rockefellers But the idea was that they were going to capture all of the world's resources and commodify them So literally the air we breathe it sounds ludicrous and I remember the little kid when you know Nestle was starting the the whole bottle of water industry and I was like this is such a scam And I was like next they're gonna like sell us the air we breathe well They were trying they were literally trying and this was back in 2024 I found out about this It was actually the night that I was supposed to do a radio show and I canceled that sort of crying like literally You know seeing my husband like this land is your land. I'm like bawling like they can't do this And I went you know everywhere trying to sound the alarm on this and I don't take cold credit for this at all But I thought for sure they passed it through because they thought they were going to make upwards of 500 million dollars on this commodification through carbon sequestration carbon credit is carbon offshoots And so they I thought for sure they would just pass it through but what I knew is that 25 State Attorney General had made a legal case for why it's illegal And so people had submitted comments and I was just selling people Submit as many comments as possible, you know I showed them my comments and you can just cut and paste just say I agree with this To make it really easy because I knew that anybody who submitted a comment would have a legal recourse in a class action lawsuit So many people flooded them with comments that they actually rescinded the proposal the next morning on the near-sockies to the SEC with Drew their proposal But of course, you know they you always have to stay vigilant. They just rebrand And this is the rebrand of that because when we talk about how they're you know the trilateral commission said they want to capture all the world's resources that includes us as human capital So this is really a step to in that direction where they're tokenizing 126 trillion dollars on the near-sock exchange BlackRock is already tokenizing real estate Larry Fink has said he wants to do anything that can be Will we token? I how are you? Howard Lucknick has said the same thing. They're lusting over this because it means that they it's just a complete consolidation of wealth upward Where they will own all the physical asset and we will be like You know video game players in a game gamified society where we have tokens in a cybernetic organism And I know that sounds a little bit abstract for people when I say cybernetic organism It's really will be it's a social credit on steroids right will be rewarded for certain behaviors and penalized for others And you'll get tokens if you you're good to be No, this is this is interesting Your tokens are carried in your smartphone By and large your wallet is on your smartphone So what happens if you lose your smartphone You throw you know put it in the toilet or something and you get a no You get a chip at then you don't worry about that You're describing a lot of things that are happening um I don't know that it's necessarily the case that they're all happening for the reasons that you're suggesting that they're happening like you're It seems to me that you're accurately observing Rapid change happening in our in our society some of it political some of it not political at all some of it technological um You're rightly observing that Powerful interests want control of new things because new things give you opportunities to consolidate power If you opportunities to consolidate wealth of course that's always been true um But you're the place where I'm not sure that you've made You haven't made the sale with me is The sort of unified field theory Nature of this wherein you say all of it is by design all of it is for a purpose all of it is with one goal in mind When it seems to me is someone who has operated in the political space for a long time um You know, I've never been invited to to Peter Till's house for breakfast by the lots of people who have Uh, or have been invited to Austria to attend one of his conferences or Italy to attend one of his conferences um, you know, I know people who You know, I've I've sat on this sofa with Howard Lutnik and talked about Business and politics before the sofa was not in this place at that time um And when I interact with these sorts of people I realized that they're people They're not shadowy figures with some sort of omniscient power You know half of them hate each other Half of them are so confused in their own thinking just like most of us are That we speak out of both sides of our mouth all the time and so you could very easily draw It'd be like jerrymandering a little bit You know, you could turn my the district that is jerry me into a democrat district if you just traced it Exactly the right way and cut out all the other things that I've said you know Then you would be able to make a really compelling argument that I'm a part of something that I'm not Necessarily a part of you know if you look at someone like Elon Musk as an example You know Elon Musk is A once in a generation innovator he's Certainly making the world in material ways a better place in real time You know the guy is sent probably within the next decade He's gonna be making the blind to see in the death to hear him. It's fairly remarkable the kinds of Innovation cities putting in and you know as a guy who drives a Tesla The worst thing about driving a Tesla in the year of our lord 2026 is that I think they're kind of dumb looking and there's only four body styles and yet I'll never be able to drive anything else because my vehicle drives me everywhere. I don't drive my Tesla my Tesla drives me the world the world fundamentally altered as a result of this and Obviously those changes invoke in all of us a Kind of on wonder on the one hand and the kind of fear of the future and the other because For example every time I sit in my Tesla I'm aware that my daughter likely won't ever learn how to drive my daughter is very young That's not a value choice that I'm making I'm not saying driving is bad I'm not saying I'm obviously driving is empowered human freedom in enormous ways in this country It's not a value judgment to say my daughter won't drive It's a recognition of reality that self-driving has changed so much just in the last 24 months if I project out 11 years to when my daughter will be 16 It's just impossible to me that by that point She'll be driving and then you go well, what does that mean for human freedom if my daughter doesn't drive a car What does that mean? So all of those concerns I understand But those concerns exist They exist without a motive and otherwise they exist without trilateral commission 2.0 You know sitting Sitting at Peter Teal's table plotting a future in which no one owns anything And everyone's happy and then I'm not saying of course there are There are transnational academic groups and of course Of course, but that always exists. The trilateral commission didn't take over the world. They did what they did and they exerted enormous influence. They still exert enormous influence. There's a hundred other groups of academics or influencers or culture shapers or billionaires or the Yellowstone group that meets every year. All these organizations, the poor will always be with you. The utopian will, utopianist will always be with you. Experts who think that they're smarter than you will always be with you. The guys who are trying to control it all will always be with you. And again, I'm not trying to minimize it. Sometimes these people come to power and they do unbelievable amounts of damage. But more what I'm saying is that it is not necessarily the case to me that Elon Musk is inventing autonomous driving in service of a grand technocratic vision. As opposed to, we live in a moment where these technologies are possible. The most ambitious people are reaching for the very hardest problems to solve. The self-driving is an enormously hard problem, getting mass into space at a cheaper price, enormously hard problem, helping the deaf to hear in the blind to see an enormously hard problem. That's just one guy that we just spoke about who's done those three things. The most ambitious, the most intelligent people are always going to strive to answer those hard problems. What evidence is there that the motive pre-exist before the actual things that are occurring? In what world can we prove that the motive is actually motivating the reality and not the motive is just sort of trying to take credit for the reality as it's happening or maybe co-op the reality as it's happening? Yeah, I'm going to go on this. I have a lot of thought of what we're doing and I'm going to think first. I have a lot of things to say on this. I think both are true, simultaneously. It's actually one of the things that I really try to screen pretty loudly about, and it's not very popular, is a lot of people who actually think they're who are aware of this philosophy of technocracy and darken lightment and some of the other ostensibly opposing philosophies but are actually a conduit to the same. A lot of these people think they're fighting it and I keep saying you're actually building it. I had written the Exit and Build Tesla's World Brain article and Tesla had this vision that there would be a wireless world brain. This was long before H.E. Wells's World Brain. It was long before Vernansky, Loroi and Shardane had their World Brain or Ryzer's Sensorium. Of course, now we have the Cosmic Arotic Humanists. This idea is non-new and it has a very long history. What I've been seeing is that a lot of these people who are just thinking they're solving problems. Along them are very free-to-minded. They think they're using their ingenuity to solve problems and bring more freedom. They're actually helping to build this arguably, if you put it in biblical terms, a beast system. I'm not saying these people are being controlled by some puppet master. There's no shadowy room where they're all congregating and saying we're going to build the beast system. Those say people are brilliant people who think that they're championing freedom, they're solving problems, but they're actually a conduit to build this interconnectivity. I talked about the La Jie Schroner-Boffen. He wrote the network state. Very important thing that he wrote, a hands-off chapter where he says it's decentralized towards a decentralized center. This is exactly what H.D. Wells said would be the conduit to World Brain. He said the decentralized ganglia of information, which was the academic institution, the media. Today that's arguably the internet and the technological infrastructure that becomes interoperable and builds the world brain. I think that is very much at play. A lot of these people, and a lot of these people, genuinely, they're not thinking, "Oh, we want to control everybody because we're maniacal." A lot of them think that this system is a better system. Even Nick Land, who I know sounds quite esoteric, right? He's got a concept called hyperstition, which literally means, I mean, it's totally sci-fi. He's a disciple of Julius Ebola. It is esoteric. It is occult. He has this concept, hyperstition, which is where you take fictional ideas that catalyze reality. He literally thinks that this future system is the next evolution for humanity. It is the better version of what we have today. He's not thinking, "We're going to oppress people." He's not thinking that we're creating this control grid where everybody is going to be a slave. He's thinking, "This is the bright future." Yes, simultaneously, there are people who are today, members of the Sri Lattero Commission. Of course, there are these secret and not-so-seeker groups anymore, who are actively working to build. There's something called the Participatory Framework for Global AGI, and there is a constitution that they're developing for Global AGI. Now, the people who are developing this think they're protecting us from the potential dangers and risks of AGI. Of AGI, they think it's going to be sentient. I personally don't hold that belief, but they do believe that. They think that there are some problems that might arise if this sentient being goes rogue. But a lot of the members are people like Ben Gertzel, who wrote A.I. for good for the world economic forum and for the UN and people who are like a Mariana Bozeman, who is a member of the Club of Rome. You've got these people who get together. You read this blueprint for this constitution. In the end of it, they talk about because they subscribe to the narrative of climate change and climate crisis. And then, of course, humans are the polluters of the world. We are the problem. This is what the Club of Rome admitted in their Global Revolution, document in 1992, that the 1972 limits of growth was propaganda, that it was a lie, because they needed a common enemy. And, of course, the enemy of the Humanity, the man himself. But they subscribe to it. They believe that this is true and we need to fight to protect planet Earth, you know, the Gaia worship. And so, if you read through this, though, they say that we need to parent the A.I. so that it's benevolent A.I. And then at the end, they say that the A.I. might actually have to be the ones who are given decisive powers because they will have better ethics than humans do because they're better stewards of the planet. So, I bring just one example of something like this to show you that, yes, there's some people, you know, like the trilateral commission members, like Rockefeller, who wanted to attain all the world's resources and consolidate them for wealth and power and control. So, those people do this. And then there's others who are really seeing this as a solution to problem. The problem arises that, you know, I'll bring up one more example, Robert Mueller, who is the Assistant Secretary General of the UN for four decades, right? He would talk about how the, you know, the UN was created under the auspices that we were going to have a world peace. Okay? But he would talk about peace. And essentially what peace means is that we have to obliterate the opposition. You can't have your vision of utopia might be directly, diametrically opposed to my vision of utopia in order to have your utopia, but I have to be wiped out. And so that's peace, essentially. And they don't see that as being evil. They're trying to bring about the best vision for what they see the world. My problem is that when you take this philosophy, it's mechanistic. It's post-Thuman. It's anti-human. I mean, you know, the quote from Javins explicitly says that. So all this long-winded way of saying, I'm just trying to give several examples that both exist simultaneously, people who are, you know, filled with ingenuity and creativity and brilliance, trying to solve very real problems. But and also people who want to amass more power, wealth, control, simultaneously, but ultimately this philosophy and this, and now the technology, which didn't exist at the time when this philosophy was incorporated a technocracy ink. But now the technology makes it possible to be a reality and our freedoms get. But doesn't, doesn't the technology, because the technology that like you, there's no, said there will never be sentient AI because the people who tell us that there's going to be sentient AI, don't know that there's a God and that he made the universe for man. So they're like, they're smarter than you and they're smarter than you and they're smarter than me. And you know, I'm glad when I asked my computer, you know, how to tie a tie, I'm glad that they invented it, not me because they're a lot smarter than me. And now my computer can tell me how to tie a tie. But they're also idiots because they fundamentally don't know what the universe is. And so they, they think you could upload a soul to a cloud and we would all live forever when the reality is we're in sold bodies. And if you uploaded a cloud, there wouldn't even be a universe anymore because there'd be no man to observe it. Like, in some ways, I find all that very charming. Like, it's charming to me that Elon Musk is kind of dumb, you know, but he's the smartest guy's probably on the planet. And again, if I, if I ever go blind, I'll be really glad that Elon Musk will come stick a wire in my head and, you know, I like technology when it works for me too. But they're all their ideas about AI are almost like charmingly naive to me. And so I don't fear them because reality is going to get a vote and reality is not going to give us, we're not God and we're not creating the next better creature, like that's not what's happening. But everything you just outlined about about how all this technology plus coupled with their potentially good or bad intentions make technocracy possible in a way it wasn't in the 30s. I would push back on that only by saying yes, it also makes communism possible in a way that it wasn't in the teens in 20s. Part of the one of the huge failures of communism is information complexity. They, hubristically, didn't understand that price is a great mechanism that man has evolved to help us understand economic information complexity. You don't have to know how much toilet paper they need in my little hometown of Slate and Texas. Price solves how much toilet paper they need. But AI can now solve that problem. Data centers in space will soon be able to solve it. I like, that is happening. We're not going to stop data centers from getting better. We're not going to stop computers from getting smarter. We're not going to stop AI from getting more intelligent. And so if I were, instead of being Courtney Turner, if I was Bethany Turner, and I was very focused on the study of communism. And the study of not only Marxism is an economic philosophy, but communism in practice, political communism. Then I think what I would see, as I looked out of all the emerging technology, is that Elon Musk is solving information complexity. Elon Musk is from a socialist country. He wasn't born and raised in this country. He has ties to socialism. Obviously, what these guys are trying to do is implement a communist structure using all of this technology. And we're just right on the brink of falling into communism. So I suppose what I'm saying is, again, I think you are describing accurately phenomena that are occurring. But are you superimposing onto this broad range of things that you observe? A very, a almost like theological universal field theory, whereas someone from a different point of view could also plant their unified field theory of everything. You know, the great communist plot to take over the West, or the great secular plot to take over the West. Because obviously all these guys are secular, obviously they all reject. We're observing the exact same phenomena, but we're ascribing to it a different kind of grand puppeteer. And the, the secondary question is, if that is the case, couldn't we also lay over all of this hope? Couldn't we lay over all of the new technologies that are emerging? Yes. The possibility, humans every time there's an enormous change. Humans use it for good and humans use it for bad. Usually the bad shows up first. You know, the printing press comes along and someone says we should write the Bible in the vernacular. The first thing that we do is Europe falls into 30 years of murder. A Christian start murdering each other for 30 years all across the continent. And so one would imagine that if we were sitting here, you know, shortly after the advent of the printing press, we might say it's all over. The printing press is the tool of the devil to turn Christian against Christian. We're all going to start murdering each other the end of the world. But you get, you know, four centuries, five centuries on from the printing press. We're all very glad that the Bibles in the vernacular, it's been used by God. Amazing. It's been used by Christians amazingly. Presumably there's a world where something similar happens with all the technological and cultural shifts that you're observing where yes, they will be used. You know, the internet comes along. The first thing we do is take the naked videos of each other and put them on the internet. That's man, the first thing man always comes up with is pornography. Like let's go, but we can take pictures. Let's say pictures and naked girls. We can put pictures in magazines. Let's print pictures and naked girls. We put on the internet. Let's put on the internet pictures and naked girls. But that's not the only thing that the internet is given us or the only thing that the magazine is given us. Is, is, can we, is there any world where we can lay over all of these phenomena a more hopeful outlook than than the one that you're describing? Well, let me just let me say I spend my my entire career after college searching for a unified theory. This is what I discussed with Professor Anthony Sutton in 1978 and forward. This was a basis of our book that we two volumes of a book we wrote on the Carlotta Commission sold 75,000 copies. I mean, an amazing, an amazing, amazing, what a book back then. It's an amazing book. And when I, as I, as I followed the trial out of commission over the years, you see when they took over the government Jimmy Carter administration. Could have been a member of the commission. Yes. Pardon? Who, I'm just, I'm only thinking about the fact that not everyone watching and knows the trial. Well, I know. But Jimmy Carter had been a, a Jimmy Carter was a trial out of commission. President, at that point, he was a member of the trial out of commission. Walter Mondale was a member. Carter brought in, so being a Brazinski is his national security advisor. But then he st, st, stuffed his cabinet with members of the trial out of commission all the way. In subsequent years, and, and of course, from their point of view, it wasn't ever about politics. They said that back then. We're not about politics. Well, we just took over our government. How, how can I be by politics? Well, looking, I know now it wasn't about politics. They were trying to get control of the economic engine of the world. So they did a lot of damage in even in the, the 70s. But beyond that, every president, subsequent has had a touch with the trial out of commission and the important positions like the president of the world bank six out of nine and members of the trial out of commission. The US trade trade representative nine out of 12 have been members of the trial out of commission. And you can't make this stuff up all the secretary's, secretary's states all along the way. They've been members of the trial out of commission. There's a common thread that, that just projects economic control, not political control. They were never about politics in the first place. They're about economic control. This thread is continuing into today. And when we, when we talked, for instance, about agenda 21, where did that come from? The, the, the whole doctrine of, of sustainable development was written up by a member of the trial out of commission by the name of a European, grew Harlan Bruntland was a, is she's hailed as a mother of sustainable development. She wrote the doctrine in a book called Our Common Future just before 1992. And was she writing that for our own, you know, education or whatever? Or was she writing policy for the trial out of commission? I suggest it wasn't for the trial out of commission. So I've looked at this, all this, this, this trend. It was never political, but we want to talk about politics. Everybody wants to talk about politics. They don't want to talk about economic policy just by itself. When these people are ebbing and flowing over the history of 50 years now, 60 years almost, you see the same, the same things happening today that happened back then. And when you separate technology from technocracy, they're not the same. Not at all. Technocracy is a, is a, a banner. It's a bat, guana crazy, the, not, not a theology, but it's a crazy system that wants to flip the world on its head. Technology is a separate issue, even though they've used, they're using technology today and evil ways. There's other ways. Yeah, it benefits us. I have a, I had heart surgery a few years ago. I'm really glad. I had talkers and they, they figured out how to do it and put stents in or whatever they did. I don't know what they did, but you know, that I'm really glad somebody was there to do that for me. But that's technology is not technocracy. Technocracy is an economic system. Pure and simple. It's goal is to take over the economic control of the world and all the resources in the world or be will be turned over to the, the, the, the technique, if you will, or the, whatever, the global common trust or whatever you want to call it. And then you and me will not have access to that in a principle way. We'll have, we'll rent stuff. We'll rent our house and their cars and their subscriptions to our Tesla's and whatever. It'll all be pay, pay, pay per view for us. But then that those people at the top of the system, they will have access to this resource pool in ways that they can manipulate it any way they want to to control society. And I'm, I'm talking food, water, even air possibly. But you know, all the things that we, that we, that, that modulate our lives today. They want to mess with that. This is an economic policy that's outside of political system, and it really is outside the technology as well. If they didn't have technology, they'd find another way to do it. But it just so happens that technology benefits them, especially the creation of AI. How has the ascension of Donald Trump? Understand all these people have surrounded him. He's, I think some of the people who were, for example, in the rotunda during his inauguration, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos. I sort of suspect that those people were there almost as living versions of a head on a pike. Like Donald Trump put them there to show that he could put them there. Certainly others though were there because Trump represents some sort of opportunity for them. You know, Elon Peter Teal, that group without question of book, influential David Sacks within the administration. The book posits that the sort of populist movement that brought us Donald Trump's second term has been co-opted by that small group of people. If that's the case, how much responsibility rests with Donald Trump and politically speaking, what can the average person, for example, the average person who voted for Donald Trump? What can they possibly do going forward? There's Trump, the president of a political system. There's Trump who has economic activities in the world. The separatism just for a matter. Okay. As a president, he does things in our country that may or may not benefit us, but some people say, well, he's done some good things along the way. And we would give kudos down for doing anything politically. But economically, he's a pursued another agenda that has really nothing to do with politics at all. Just just as an example, when he went to the world economic forum to create the board of peace, he didn't do it as the president of the United States. He did it as a private citizen. This has never happened in history. People legal scholars are trying to figure out, can he do that? Is that really possible? Is it legal? There's no precedent for him to do that. Since he's set up the board of peace and declared who the directors are, he's the chairman for life with the rights to succession. He's supposed to pick his successor before he dies. I don't know how you do that, but whatever. May the lion in one time. I know. There's a will somewhere. I'm sure it is. It's for world monarchs. I think about it. But now, President Trump has injected himself into Gaza. Gaza was not mentioned in the original document, by the way, but they pick Gaza as their first makeover, like the board of peace. So now they're looking to establish a governance layer in Gaza that will be purely tectocratic and nature. There'll be no Congress, no elective representatives of the people at all. And the architecture is going to be a series of 15-minute cities. It will be smart cities. It will be like geofence zones. Exactly. Digital IDs. They'll be complete control, surveillance. You won't be able to move anywhere. And then on the other hand, he's brought him as company, world liberty financial that's a private organization is owned by Trump and his associates exclusively. As nothing to do with the president of the United States at all, this is an economic thing. USD1, his brain is being brought into Gaza as a financial system for the whole, for the whole Territory. And not only that, but that would be the payment system where everybody gets a wallet, electronic wallet, and they get credits. They work, do a job with a get credits by groceries sort of that sort of thing with their electric electronic wallets. But just last month, he announced, they announced as private citizens that they were establishing an asset tokenization division. This is new. That was not seen back in that, you know, even in 24. So now they have the whole package together to tokenize everything in Gaza, and that's your intention. And he's set up basically kind of the fife term, if you will, he would be the king of Gaza. I don't know if that's not appropriate, but the king of Gaza, he's it. He's in charge of everything that's going to go down in Gaza. As a private citizen, he has the right to do that, I think. But as the president of the United States is this activity, if this this class of activities to serve the Middle East, the Gulf States, is this going to make it is somehow this makes America great again. See, there's no connection between the two. We have Trump, the politician, then we have Trump as a technocrat. You have to separate the two. Well, somebody would say, well, he can do whatever he wants to do. Maybe when he's out of office, he'll move the Gaza and be the king of Gaza. That's possible, I suppose. I don't know, but he's obviously shifting his, he economic focus into the Middle East. And again, maybe, maybe it's legal, maybe it isn't. Legal scholars will figure it out eventually before it's too late to do anything about it, but nevertheless. This is the dichotomy that we're left with and to view this man, is he for us or is he doing to something else? And he's like a part-time president to do good things for the country. And then he's a part-time technocrat to do something for the interest in the world. I questioned this personally. I don't know where the dust is going to settle on it, but I don't like it personally. I think it's wrong that he should do something so radical, especially in the Middle East. And then remember, this is another fact that we didn't discover until just like two months ago. Before the inauguration, there was a, the so-called spy chic in the UAE, invested $500, $500 million into world liberty financial. That wasn't not to disclose at all before the election or the inauguration. But now it came out. All of a sudden, here's an arch, kind of a technocrat slash Islamist, the brother of the king in the UAE, fabulously wealthy. He's in charge of their sovereign wealth fund and other funds, whatever he had money coming out of his ears. He invested $500 million into Trump's company, making basically Trump and this guy partners. 49%. That's what he, that's the stake this guy came in at. We see all the money that Trump has solicited from the Middle East now. I think it's $2 trillion now and counting to invest into our infrastructure in our country for things like project stargate, building all these I.D. data centers, centers where that's plaguing people all over the country at this point. You have to ask questions. Is Trump a technocrat on one hand and then he's the president on the other hand? I can't ask it completely, but it's disturbing to me. I want to add just two things to that. One, people are talking about the inclusion cause, I'm clause of the constitution that that's where that could be a violation. I'm not a lawyer, that's just what I'm hearing legal scholars discuss right now. And then also with Gaza, the tokenization, I just want to bring this up because it's relevant because people are often into it, which is how it's an often, you know, you're wrong of communism, essentially opting into your own tyranny, but they don't see it that way. So they're being given the equivalent of like $5,000 to exchange in tokens for their real estate. And this is how this, so it looks like it's being set up as kind of a testbed. I mean, I can't say that definitively. I don't know what the future holds, but it does look like they're kind of experimenting to see how they could impose some sort of a technocratic infrastructure. And again, I will just caveat that you're right. I don't think that everybody who is involved in this has a, you're sitting in a shadow room like thinking their puppets and we're going to make everybody slave. They probably think that this is a good system. I mean, it's a, you know, they've been decimated. They're thinking they're going to restore it and they're, you know, you're going to have these beautiful high rises. Trump is saying it's going to be the new river era of the Middle East, you know. So I'm sure in many ways it'll be the lap of luxury, but people won't have ownership. And they're actually offering to see to their ownership so they can be a part of this system. And so you could see how that could roll out and go beyond the Gaza test bed. Our vice president is closely associated with Peter Teal. I want to be careful how I say that because I don't want to perhaps overstate it, but worked for him. It was supported in his bid for the Senate by him. $15 million in the Senate. And whereas Donald Trump's politics seem to me to be fairly non-ideological, Donald Trump seems to me to be a pragmatist to the extent that he's a technocrat in the Middle East, you know, that he has his order of the garter or whatever of other noblemen who are going to go rule Gaza. It's very easy for me to see that in purely economic terms with a guy like Trump. Like, oh, Donald Trump figured I had to leverage the presidency to get a half a billion dollars out of the sovereign well-funded and the UAE and then to go get some free beachfront property and on the Mediterranean. Yeah, that seems like Donald Trump to me. Like I can completely under I don't like it. I'm with you, but it's kind of baked in. You knew what you're going to get when you elected him. You certainly knew the second time. You certainly knew when he launched his own cryptocurrency on the eve of being elected. Like, if you didn't see Donald Trump as being economically self-self-interested, then you were always lying to yourself about the reality of Donald Trump. It's one of the great ironies of history that we as the great populist savior of the country, we elected a guy with a solid gold toilet on his own 767. Like, the world is replete with contradiction. JD Vance, those strikes me as very ideological. You know, he is, as you know, he plays it close. He isn't Reagan. He's not out giving speeches that are like, here's my ideology on display. He's not rallying people in that same way to a ideological vision. But the longer he's on the public, the longer he's a public figure, the more it seems that he's a some degree of post-liberal. He said it. He's a post-liberal Catholic convert probably heavily influenced by Catholic integralism, although he's never claimed to be a Catholic integralist. Post-liberalism and integralism tend to be pretty closely linked. If you look at the other people with whom he publicly associates, they all seem to be of that ilk. And that is a very ideological movement. You could say it's a post-American movement. It seems more like a pre-American movement. It's a, you know, he has certainly never said anything like he questions the founding of the country. But a lot of his fellow travelers have brought a call to that. I have called it into question. How does the pragmatism of Donald Trump, the post-liberal Catholicism of JD Vance, the sort of Straussian libertarianism of Peter Till, the monarchism/techbro, pragmatism of a Yarvan. How does this all coalesce into one unified ideological movement in your view? Or does it? Is it only unified in its outcome? This is what we're explaining in the final betrayal. Did anybody have any idea what we would be talking about today before the election? I can't imagine anybody in the Maga movement who even conceived what was going to happen at all. And since this is all happened, we're, we can discuss it today and ask these questions. But the betrayal, this, this was not a question in my opinion about broken promises. We've dealt with broken promises every election. I don't care who you are. There's broken promises, but people say stuff and they can't fulfill. This was not that. This was an outright betrayal of the popular, popular movement who were expecting him to make America great and execute policies to make us great in America. This is done the opposite. This is tearing America apart at this point with these ideology. Well, we'd let's try a monarchy on first sites. You know, we're not going to do that. This our constitution is just fine. The way it is, well, it's really is underdressed for sure. People are just ignoring it all over the place, including politicians and judges and everybody else. But that, this is the, I think this is the most significant living document that we've ever had in the history of the world. And this was what Donald Trump was elected by these people in the Magah movement. I think mostly they marched in that channel, if you will. So this is, this has been a betrayal of the American people. And at this point, hardly anybody is aware that it's even going on because they're still looking at the political side. They want to argue about politics, this bill, that bill, you know, whatever it might be. But the questions we're dealing with today that we're just discussing in this right here is who knew who knew that this would be this way. But it's crazy. And my opinion is just crazy. Well, will you be able to, and I don't want to presume how you voted in the past. Would you be able to vote for JD Vance for president? No, I wouldn't. So I said right. How would I want? Would you be willing to vote for whomever it is that the Democrats are going to put up in order to stop JD Vance from becoming president? Probably not. At this point. I don't have a problematic very much. So I do want to address your question about like all of these supposed disparate groups and how do they converge? I don't think it's coordinated. Although I will say I think sometimes they recognize, you know, you'll play ball with your enemy because you have a common enemy. And I think that's mostly what's going on is they're all post-liberal. You know, some of them are specifically ideologically post-liberal. JD Vance has explicitly said he's a post-liberal. But a lot of them have some commonality. There are threads that are shared, but they are different groups. I mean, there's post-liberals in the Protestant camp, you know, the CREC are essentially post-liberal. And they're very aligned with these technocrats. I mean, there's integralism on the Protestant. Absolutely. He's still integralism. Like there's the Highland Rind project, which is right on the border of Kentucky and Tennessee, right? Peter Shield involved in that. And it's essentially a network state for Christian nationalists. You've got a lot of overlap with these groups, but essentially, what they have in common is that they want to destroy the constitutional republic so that they can either replace it with an autocratic technological system, technocratic system, or a Christian nationalist theocracy. They have different flavors, but essentially, they are all, you know, it's all a top down. It's not a constitutional republic with the new or checks and balances and our pluralist system. So they serve each other when it's convenient, and they will align with each other in many instances. But I don't think there's like, you know, a one puppet master, but then pulling the string saying, let's all work together. So this may be largely economic. You say that people like to talk about politics, not economics. Part of the reason is because we have a thing that we can do in politics, and that's votes, right? The current front runner to be the next Republican nominee to be president of the United States, you would not support. Nor would you support likely any of the Democrat, potential Democrat nominees. That means that the thing that you have, your vote, to try to stop what you see is the evil of the advancing, the advancing technocracy. You don't currently have the ability to avail yourself of that tool. That would leave, I would think if I'm watching this at home and being exposed to these ideas for the first time, that would leave me feeling very hopeless. The one thing I can do, you're telling me there's not currently an application for that thing that would qualify this just a little bit, because I'm. I've preached this for many, many years for people to think global, but at local. Where the action is today is should and should be in your state and in your city and your counties. There's so much good that people can do other than shaking their fist at the TV, whatever they can do so much good in their local communities with their city councils, with their county commissioners, with their state representatives, whatever. These are people that live in your neighborhoods, right? And you should, if you don't avail yourself to educate down to be their friends, whatever support them when you can and get rid of people by voting for the good ones that understand their role to protect us as the people of their state. At this point, this is my opinion. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this. I think the federal government at this point has gone rogue. And I say that on multiple levels. So we saw it even before probably with the stuff that happened during the, even the Obama administration, people said that about agency, they've gone rogue. Well, the whole government at this point is just gone rogue and it's overrun with these arch-tectocrats and they have their own agenda right at this point. The state should have exercised more discretion to stop this in the first place. But they're not at this point. They're falling prey for it. So I'm not discouraged for local politicians or the political process. But if these technocrats are successful of destroying our political system, we're really screwed because that's the only thing we have to discuss the political discourse, right? That's the only way that we can rectify anything in society is through political discourse. If we can't do that, free speech is over for sure. And who are you going to complain to if you don't like something? Well, it's just too bad. You just have to go along with it. Back to the machine. Yeah. There was a lady in California recently that she got a notice from, I think it was state one or some big insurance company where her house was insured. She come to find out a drone has flown over her house, took a picture of her roof, sent it to the company that analyzed her roof with AI, the picture, high-res picture. And the insurance company took this data from a third party and they told her if you don't, if you don't put on a new $20,000 roof on your house, we're going to cancel your insurance policy. She says nothing wrong with my roof. No inspector came out and looked at it and didn't talk to me, didn't knock on the door. I would have let him in. See, I got a good roof. Who does she complain to? She has nothing to do except call three on your side, the TV station, you know, they complain somebody up there may be pay attention. But this is the condition that we find. Decisions made for us by higher ups who have no grace, no latitude, no discretion. They say, "Oh, that's too bad." You got. You can't negotiate. Even Larry Ellison, when he's the founder of Go Oracle, everybody knows who he is now at this point. But Oracle CEO stood up with Project Stargate with Sam Altman and Masha, whatever's name is, and the president. And he said, "Oh, we're going to use AI to give you a blood test to figure out if you're going to get cancer someday." And we're going to give you 48 hours. We'll give you a one-off shot, man manufactured by AI. And it'd be a wonderful thing because you'll be protected from that cancer in the future. And God bless you, sort of thing. Well, okay. So if you don't want to do that, if you don't buy them, get this one-off shot for you, based on messenger RNA. What do you get a second of pain? You see. You can't. There's no other set. And what if you don't want to take the shot? You keep your shot. I'll just be fine. But now the check box, you know, you're going to be marked as a protestor at that point. So 10 years later, you get in trouble with cancer. And they say, "You know what?" You're not going to treat him. I mean, you can forget him because we told you. Or, you know, what's going to happen? Well, this is crazy stuff. But this is the kind of, this is kind of the AI-controlled world that we don't want to live in, for sure. Where these decisions are just made out of our control by people we never met who set all the rules of the system in the first place. Yeah. And I do want to say though, in terms of like the federal system, there, I think we still do have power. But what if our power is bringing information? So a lot of people have no idea of JD Vance's connections or that he's even said he's a post-liberal which is diametrically opposed to the Constitution, right? And a lot of people don't know that. So I think-- But also a lot of people who you-- I don't want to-- a lot of people use terms like post-liberal or integralist. And they might not even know what that means? A lot of other people might not know what that means. But I'll go further. I think a lot of people use them in this moment as a sort of identity, kind of tribal belonging. And they don't even really know what that means. Yeah, absolutely true. And I have a lot of Catholic-- young Catholic friends who will say that they're integralist. I don't think they are integralist. I think what they are, what they're trying to communicate is their faith is important to them. They think something's wrong with the government. They think, of course, we need Christian-- our Christian beliefs and ethos to influence how we engage civically. Sure. And they don't know that, well, no, you're actually-- in your language, you're affirming an actual worldview, something that's actually been shaped and crafted and has intellectual leaders like from you all and these guys. And yeah, they don't know what that means. Yeah, so-- I think that's true. But I think that making people aware, and if they could understand, oh, wait, that's what he believes. And that would influence how he might run the country. And that doesn't align with my view of a future America. Then maybe my shift, the support that he would have. And I know that's actually already starting to happen. I know you can say it's online, but online does actually, unfortunately, influence a lot of the physical domain. Politics is downstream of Twitter. Yeah, kind of. Yeah. Unfortunately. So I think that we're already seeing a bit of a shift. And I've seen a lot of people now supporting Rubio. I've tried to warn people about that. That's Larry Ellison's guys. So you basically have the battle of the protégies of the Technocrats, Cheels Guy and Larry Ellison's Guy, which I ultimately they might just put one as, you know, the president, the other as the VP. But my point is really just that by-- they put people out there and then they gauge the public's, you know, their sentiment. And if they're not getting support and they don't think that that's going to run, that's going to be successful in the primary, they might put somebody else up. And so that is-- it doesn't sound like a lot of power. But that is power. And that's something we can do. We can bring the information to people. It's their choice. They get to do, you know, they may say, oh, I love that he's a post-liberalist. I mean, I don't agree. I would not like them to take that position. And I would hope I could be persuasive enough to talk them out of it. But, you know, that's their prerogative. But I think that that is something we can do. If people can't do anything about something they don't know. Do you have hope for the future of the country? Or maybe I should say, do you have hope for the future of humanity? Yes. A lot of people are discussing this right now, especially some people inside the AI industry themselves, you know? They're blowing the whistle. They guys, you need to stop. You need to stop step back and, you know, survey the landscape and figure out what's going to happen here. There's a lot of disturbing factoids right now going forward of labor, robots, and that sort of thing. It's going to be certainly, it's going to be chaotic. Well we've had a lot of chaos in the future and the past I'm sure. But, you know, I like your comment that most Americans don't know what they think. You know, they really don't. They use terms that they have no familiarity with the kind of archibunker type of thing, you know? Whether it uses word and it's totally out of context. That was a funny sitcom, by the way. Before the 2024 election. most Americans would just think, and you know, I just like to get the government off my back. Yeah, you know, I just, would you just cool it on Washington? Dow down the regulations and you know, solve inflation. I want a job, I just, you know, I want to support my family. I like to take a vacation once in a while. That's, I think probably most Americans were just thinking very primary type thoughts, you know, for their own survival. They probably would not understand half of what we said here most of them don't, what wouldn't have a clue. One of the things that, that Courtney brings to the table is her back around philosophy. I appreciate that. We discuss these things. Most people don't care, and they probably won't care about the future. We can talk until the cows are done, not the eating, but these things have to be discussed in a rational manner so we can figure who, what, what, what is the playing field at this time? What, what's in people's minds? Most of the people, when they read this book so far, the comments on, on social media and the comments I've gotten email, most readers who got the book in the first place were shocked to find out. I didn't, I didn't have a clue. I didn't have a clue. And how dare Elon Musk stand up on the national stage with Trump put on a black mega hack and say, I'm not just regular mega, I'm dark, gothic, mega. He said. Yeah. And that was the only clue that anybody had what was going to happen after that. The dark enlightenment came in. What is he? Is Elon Musk on board with the dark enlightened? You bet he is. That's why he put that high hat on the first place. So, you know, the American people are going to try to figure this out. Most of them will never figure it out. Some could make a difference. I'm sure some, some legislators are catching on and state legislators, especially catching on. They're taking steps to try to put up a legislative or a rule system to keep the carnage out. This is the big deal when the big beautiful bill wanted to limit states rights and said, no, you states, you can't regulate AI. Well, that, you know, the technocrats, that that was their thing. They didn't want anybody else to do it. The state should have just said, you know, yeah, you guys just stick it. We're going to do what we do. We're the states out here. We give you the charter, not the other way around. We'll do what we want to do. They should have taken the uniformly. They should have taken the bull by the horns right down to make whatever safeguards that they wanted to put up to prevent AI from causing damage into society. Well, maybe this is going to happen at this point. But, you know, probably the outcome will be decided by maybe five to 10 or 15% of the people. That's always been the case, even in the revolution at revolutionary days, right? It wasn't everybody. Everybody was not on board for the revolution in the first place, right? But the outcome was good. And probably the 5% to 10% were the thinkers. They saw through the other, the machinations. I might, my name's sake of Patrick Henry. By the way, I'm a Patrick. He was invited to one of the cotton little Congress. And he said, there's something going down there. He said, I smell a rat. I love that phrase. I smell a rat. So there was lots of rats operating in that day, for sure. Like there is today, I'm sure. But the outcome was settled by people who were sincere and they're desired to help humanity not to screw it over. I would say I am definitely hopeful about the future of humanity. I believe in the goodness of human nature. And I think that people have always been very creative. And people, there's been-- and we just described the revolution. There's always been oppression. There's always been bad faith actors. And there's always been unintended consequences that are very deleterious to the future of humanity. And somehow we've survived. I think that the problem that's happening now is that I'm part of the reason why this book was so important and does to write is because much of this can occur without the regulatory infrastructure. So really, when I was saying that it's a protocol layer, so it's on top of the Constitution. So the body of laws that the Constitution codifies are really a legal codification of the metaphysical principles that are embedded in the Declaration of Independence. And the problem with what's happening with this regulatory infrastructure and all these policies and essentially the user economy, right? The user society, the-- it's the fourth industrial revolution. You own nothing. You rent everything that acts us. The problem with that is that it sits on top. And it can't fully be implemented without all of these policies being put in place. So it was really important. This was in real time that we were writing this. I remember back and forth, they just wrote this executive order. They just signed it. I don't know what the outcome will be. So do we put this in? Basically, just like we can't predict the future. We know this just happened. So it was in real time, but that we see what needs-- the groundwork that needs to be laid. And a lot of-- because it is an economic system, you brought up complexity earlier. A lot of what's going on with complexity is complexity science, right? This is Santa Fe Institute. And this comes out of Los Alamos, this is all-- they're using swarm intelligence kind of theories. And the whole premise behind it really was to create a new economic system, a digital system. And that's so they can build the cybernetic organism. And that's what they're doing right now. But they can do it unless all everything's in place. So I think that there's always gaps. People-- the best laid plans of Myseman, as I like to say, are hope is that we get the information out. I don't know if we can-- I left my crystal ball at home as I like to say, so I don't know what'll happen. But I do know that even if-- even if you believe this is inevitable, which some people might say, you know, revelation predicts this, I would say that still one, a noble cause is always worth fighting regardless of the outcome. That's incumbent upon us to do so. We know if we see a threat, it is a dust to be the power of the era and to warn people. But I would also say that there's always impokets, right? Because they need our consent. We have to opt into this. And that's really how these things get executed. Is they make it appealing. They make it sexy. They make it convenient. And if people don't know what the ramifications of those actions are. So I think in pockets, there's very practical things that people can do. When you start to met at locally, that doesn't always mean vote. We saw in 2020 a lot of the mom of theirs saw what their kids were learning on the Zoom. And they were horrified. So many of them who never had any political ambitions wanted nothing to do with school boards, started going to school board meetings, got very involved, and said, this is horrifying. This is not what I want my children to be learning. And they made a huge impact. They made it different. We're seeing this with farmers. We're seeing it with farmers all over the world, actually. They're rising up. And they're pushing back. There is a whole initiative that is tied to the NACS, it's called the Climate Smart Commodity Project. And they have put hundreds of billions of dollars into this initiative. And what was interesting about it is a lot of farmers pushed back. They put $41 million into Farm Journal magazine. I can only imagine that that had to be about propaganda, because I'm not sure what else they were doing with Climate Smart Commodity Project. Why you need $41 million to farm journal. But a lot of the farmers pushed back. And it wasn't because this is just a great just to push back and completely illegal. They pushed back because there weren't-- it was a policy that was put in place in September of 2022 around ESG for the farmers. And they didn't have a way of tracking their greenhouse gas emissions. They said, we can't comply with this, because they have no way of tracking. Don't worry. Climate Smart Commodity Projects to the rescue. Somehow, they're going to measure all of their greenhouse gas emissions and decide what they can do on their own land, which has regulated a lot of farmers out of business. This is something locally you can get together with your local farmers and say, we will not allow Climate Smart Program. Climate Projects in this area. And don't forget the banks. The banks are pushing out, pushing the back against tokenization. Yes. There-- Mendocely. The whole banking system outside of the JP-- JP Morgan's in the world. The savings alone. the regional banks, these people are in a pickle right now because if they say, totally what's on their mind about tokenization, they'll cause a run on the bank. They'll be out of business. So they're pushing back quietly through lobbyists and, you know, we see this, but the public doesn't see this. They're saying at this point, the banks are saying, if you proceed with this tokenization nonsense, you're going to drive us all out of business, all out of business. And they're freaking out. They pushed back. So originally the Clarity Act was part of the Genius Act. And they had to take it out in order to get the Genius Act passed. And now they're trying to get the Clarity Act passed. And what is the Clarity Act? The Clarity Act is what regulates the stablecoin. So they want to tether it essentially to the dollar to make it, you know, back to have a fiat back by a fiat, you know, because that's, yeah, totally legitimate. But that's what the Clarity Act would be centered around. And it was actually the banks who even the second time push back and it hasn't been passed yet. I mean, I, they're going to try really hard to get it passed, but we're hoping who would have thought that the banks would be our allies in this. Well, the two most powerful forces on, on this plane of existence, right? One of them is God's sovereignity. Thank God. And the other is self interest. And so finding places where people self interest can be brought to bear to prevent these sorts of things. I think that's probably our best hope. Patrick Wood, Courtney Turner, thank you guys for being with me. Thank you. My pleasure. Great to be with you.