Welcome to the Independent Media Alliance. We're here
today for, I believe, our 4th panel to
discuss something that is a very terrifying topic.
At least, just speaking for myself that I've
already expressed everybody in this panel. This is
something that genuinely unnerves me. And this is
the conversation of the
the Bitcoin reserve currency conversation, Donald Trump's announcements
and how this will be used going forward.
But the intersection of this topic around the
idea of artificial intelligence, around the idea of
CBDCs,
things like, you know,
intensive carbon tracking ideas, things that really
are the antithesis of freedom, which is the
main point of why we're discussing this. There's
a lot of overlap to this topic around
financial benefit, which I'm sure we all enjoy
when that comes about. But the idea is
that these things
the idea of Bitcoin itself or the idea
of cryptocurrency, at least as we understand it,
was designed as something to counteract the system,
and it seems to be merging. And that's
something that really is
obviously concerning for a lot of people that
know where this was really meant to be
used
in the context of freedom. So I'd like
to start today and round the conversation of
the reserve currency for those that may not
know what this means, where Bitcoin plays into
that. And so today joining, we have Jason
Bermas, Steve Poikkanen, and Catherine Austin Pitts. How
are you all today?
Hey, Rob. Thank you for doing this.
Thank you. Good to know. My pleasure. I
mean, I think we're I think we all
see this to be a very
important conversation for life. I think for things
that we don't even really understand where it's
gonna go just yet. So let let's go
and start, Catherine, if you will, with the
conversation of the reserve currency and why you
see this as a concerning discussion.
So actually, the the immediate conversation is not
about using Bitcoin as a reserve currency, but
using it as, quote, unquote, a strategic reserve
asset. So we all know about the the
oil petroleum reserve as a strategic asset. So,
and this came up
in government when you wanna float a very
a very
sort of new or aggressive policy, you'll have
trial balloons.
And the first trial balloon I ever saw
on,
on the government making very big money bets
on Bitcoin was at a
crypto conference in Aspen in 2017.
And it was one of the most terrifying
proposals I've ever heard, but seriously,
at that point, not serious.
And then I heard a new trial balloon,
from,
RFK, from Kennedy
at Bitcoin 2024.
And then,
a lesser
a less frightening one from Trump when he
spoke at Bitcoin 2024, which was in Nashville
in the summer of this year.
But then we see more. And as soon
as the election was over,
legislators
I know who've been working on financial freedom
were suddenly inundated
with a campaign
to aggressively
persuade the states as well as the federal
government
to buy Bitcoin.
Now let me step back. I just published
a review
of Roger Ver and Steve Patterson's book called
Hijacking Bitcoin. Have has anyone here read that
yet?
I've not. I took a note of it
when you put it up there, though. That
looks like something that you would I I
can't recommend enough because it describes how
Bitcoin
moved from a
an idea that could have built a really
great global payment system that really could help
people be more free
and literally got hijacked
into,
something that was relatively illiquid. And
what I would say as a financial professional
was sort of managed and governed in a
way that would make it a very useful
tool for speculative
pumping and dumping, which is what, in fact,
we've seen.
But let's talk about what the proposal is.
The proposal is
that the states
and the federal government,
announce very significant long term buying programs of
Bitcoin
and proceed to buy Bitcoin and hold it
on their balance sheet as an asset.
Now one of the things that that is
happening at the same time
is we'd see a discussion of the federal
government either auctioning,
privatizing, or monetizing its real assets on its
balance sheet. So it's land and mineral resources.
In fact, we had the,
Howard Lochnick, who's the was the transition co
chairman for Trump,
and now is the nominee for commerce,
who is,
anyways, talking about how don't worry about the
$36,000,000,000,000
of debt. The government has $500,000,000,000,000
of land and mineral resources. And we know
that people are very interested in aggressively getting
resources as we've seen in Western North Carolina
and Eastern Tennessee, Lahaina, other places. Anyway,
so how would this work?
Essentially,
what you would see if the government announced
a long term buying program of Bitcoin,
it would help drive the price up dramatically
and hold it there. It would make it
possible for people with large positions
to get out of their,
their positions at a high price
in a market
that would be liquidity
would be created by the government purchases. If
they try to liquefy their Bitcoin
holdings right now, it would dramatically,
affect the price
and make it
I I would say it would be impossible
for them to really get out of their
current positions
in any kind of decent price because it's
a relatively illiquid market.
But,
but what that would do, the way the
government would get the money is either by
taxing,
you know, a population, most of whom the
majority of whom don't own any Bitcoin.
It would tax them and it would sell
debt to their retirement funds
and then take that money and invest
it in Bitcoin,
putting Bitcoin on the balance sheet.
Now one of the proposals is that the
Bitcoin
people with large positions will be able
to not only sell into that program, but
do it on a secret basis
and do it on a tax free basis
if they buy real estate.
So essentially, at the root, what you're talking
about is a is
a is a crypto
for real asset swap swap,
in a way that's gonna artificially pump up
the price of the
crypto or the Bitcoin and and artificially depress
the price of the real assets.
Now why is this important?
Right now, if you look at what's going
on in the financial system,
we've had decade after decade of creating paper,
creating paper, creating paper.
And in fact,
right now, what the the people running the
financial system want is they're trying to grab
the real assets.
Okay? And so this is a way to
to exit your Bitcoin,
and and get a hold of the real
assets, if you will. And I have to
tell you, it's the,
I don't think it's gonna happen. I think
too many sound heads are gonna try and
stop it. But if it did happen, it
would be
the biggest financial scam yet at the federal
government. And,
and I say that as knowing that during
the bailouts, we had $23,000,000,000,000
go out on the bailouts, and we have
$21,000,000,000,000,
missing now from the federal account. So we
have almost 50,000,000,000,000,
you know, of financial scams so far that
we know of, and this one would be
worse. This one would be bigger.
So and and, normally, I would say, I
can't imagine the hubris it would take to
propose this,
and yet
it's being proposed. And somebody's spending a huge
amount of money
to generate this kind of astroturf and interest.
So, now I do wanna mention, you know,
many people believe,
and I wanna go back to the fact
that Bitcoin
the original
Bitcoin
could have been something really great.
So and, you know, and in theory,
it it can always be brought back to
that. But one of the attractive features of
Bitcoin
is that, essentially, that it was limited in
the amount that could be created.
If you look at how it's been hijacked,
particularly the addition of ETFs into the market,
I assure you, you can counterfeit Bitcoin all
day long.
So so,
you know, one of the most attractive features
of Bitcoin
in terms of how it's being governed and
managed, in my opinion, is completely gone because
now Wall Street's got the bit in their
teeth.
Right. Well, I see I really wanna touch
on the natural asset company part that you
mentioned there, which I think is a really
central part of that. I at least want
your opinion on how that plays in. But
really quickly, do you think in in your
mind, since this is seemingly being rolled out
under the Trump and Vance administration, is this
something that you think that they're aware of?
Or is this something that they're, you know,
in your opinion being played with? Or or,
you know, how do you see that?
So Trump
first of all, there are many different parties
who understand that the real land and minerals
of owned by the federal government are very
valuable. So if you go, we have our
review of hijacking Bitcoin, but then we also
have a description of of basically the Bitcoin
strategic reserve scam.
And, and in it, we have a clip
of Howard Lutnick describing the fact that the
US government has 500,000,000,000,
yeah, 500,000,000,000,000
of land and mineral resources.
If you
the Trump administration in 2018, at the same
time they approved FASB 56,
also approved the same year also approved a
process
for the geological
survey to map out
the into all minerals on federal lands in
the entire United States. I think they're doing,
in fact, all of North America, not just
federal lands. And it's the mapping survey gives
them the ability, I'm told, to go from
the ground level down 3,000 feet.
So, you know and they they are looking
for rare earth. They're looking for lithium.
They're looking for significant amount of of resources
you need to build the control grid,
whether it's the lithium to make the batteries
or the energy
to fuel the AI.
So,
so I think
I think, you know, and and we have
a serious problem in America
with what I call plunder capitalism and the
private equity firms.
So I think the world of investment is
100%
clear
on the value and importance of all those
real assets, and they understand what can be
done with them, good and bad.
So I think I think at the top
of the investment food chain, there's absolute clarity
in what's going on. And if you look
at the trial balloon I heard back in
Aspen in 2017,
you know, they've been playing with this for
a long, long time. I mean, I've always
believed that that that the
Bitcoin and crypto was a a way of
prototyping
the control grid and getting sort of the
freedom fighters helping you do it.
Yeah. That that is a really terrifying aspect
of this to,
Mark Goodwin from Unlimited Hangout.
He wrote in a in his chain series,
just to quote him really quickly, he said,
I must unfortunately now conclude that the emergence
of this system, discussing what we're discussing, immediately
after the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent
phase shifting adoption of Bitcoin by the institutional
authors and beneficiaries of the pandemic's financial stimulus
was the work of a modern intelligence community
that has merged with the Silicon Valley technology,
Meridian, since at least the 19 eighties, but
unbashedly
since the formation of the CIA's
venture firm In Q Tel just before the
turn of millennium. And I think this is
a really difficult thing
because at the same time, I think that
just like anything like the Internet, I believe
that there are possible positives like you're saying.
The origin point is So so let me
bring something up. I don't have you have
you ever read Tim Wu's books?
He ran to the governor,
I don't know, about 4 or 5 years
ago in New York. I think he's a
professor at Columbia, and he wrote a wonderful
book,
about info if somebody just looks at it
for a search engine, you'll find the name.
But how for the last 150 years,
a new information technology will come out. There's
this unbelievable great period of blossoming
where entrepreneurs see the potential of the technology.
They get really excited.
They prototype. They do a lot of things.
And then suddenly, wham.
You know, the the hand comes in and
suddenly things are centralized,
and the technology contributes to more central control.
And and you have this blossom
control, blossom control, blossom control. And he marches
you through a 150 years
of technology
serving
centralization
when in fact, you know,
each innovation is is followed by a period
of entrepreneurs discovering how,
in fact, this could make us more prosperous,
freer,
everything. And so so you have this tension.
And I just think we're in a cycle
that's been going on for quite,
you know, for more than a century at
least.
Yeah. I agree. I think Mark made a
similar point as well in that series about
the idea of, like, the free market and
how that's abused. Like, not that the free
market is a bad idea, but that it's
taken advantage of in the same way with
this decentralization
where it's sort of a a ploy to
get us to believe that's the direction when
really, like you're saying, it just continues to
cycle us back into a control structure. And
that's that's the so, I mean and by
the way, feel free to jump in out
if you have any thoughts on this. Like,
so where do you see that being like,
how do you circumvent that? Because, obviously, decentralization,
I think, is where we should be aiming,
but it seems like there have gained how
to make us fall right back into the
same trap every time. So here's what's very
interesting. There was a
a wonderful book that I read many several
decades ago by a professor at Michigan University,
Robert Axelrod. It's called The Evolution of Cooperation.
And when computers first came out, he started
to do simulations.
And and the question he asked was,
how could
a society simply
evolve
to an economy of peace out of,
you know, everybody making individual choices?
In other words, how could we,
through our culture and daily transactions and lives,
choose enough people choose peace to to bring
about their, you know, a peaceful society.
And what he discovered was the condition precedent
to doing that
was transparency.
And and the transparency
was needed
was I needed to be able to tell
that Ryan was a bad guy and Jason
was a good guy.
So and and so I would shun Ryan
and embrace and try and get my daughter
to marry Jason. Right?
And and it was simply people would shun
the bad guys if they could see who
they were.
And I think one of the things that's
been the most effective about
media and the mind control and propaganda and
treatment and all of that kind of stuff
is it's got people thinking that our enemies
are,
you know, we we admire and crave attention
from our enemies
and disdain our friends. Right? We've got it
upside down.
So, you know, to me, one of the
things we need to do is to bring
transparency
to what is really going on and who's
really doing what
so that the average person can start to
make intelligent choices.
Yeah. I agree. And I think it's rooted
in the idea I I would agree that
people are inherently good by and large. I
do agree with that. And I think that's
why always pretending to be good, and that
comes to the point where I would agree
with you. That if if we had double
picture that that would drive our choices in
the in the in the that direction, I
would argue. But I think that's the circumvention.
They're aware that that would be the case,
so they trick us into believing we're taking
the right choice, which drives us back in
the same control. But this goes back as
far as you can Here's the one thing
because
I wish I did believe people were good.
I've seen so much
training and programming to encourage people to believe
they have to go along with what's gonna
win.
So, you know, Keynes used to say,
the beauty contest
didn't pick the most beautiful woman. They would
pick the woman that they thought the other
judges would think was pretty. Right? It's like
the stock market. He was describing the stock
market as a beauty contest.
And,
generally, many Americans go along with great evil
because they think those guys are gonna win.
And they've just been, you know, sort of
conditioned that way for many, many decades.
Yeah. I think that's exactly what we're seeing
right now in the world today. But let
let bringing this back by the way, if
you guys have any thoughts on what's been
said so far, feel free to jump in.
I was gonna bring it into this. Let
me let me just jump in on, what
you said about whether or not this administration
knows what they're doing and whether this could
be malicious.
I don't think Trump himself really has any
idea
about the crypto system. You got to remember
while he was kind of pandering to the
libertarians
and the Bitcoin bros, he said, we're gonna
make all the Bitcoin in the United States.
Obviously, that's not how it works. Right?
At the same time,
I don't think JD Vance is an idiot
when it comes to Blockchain technology,
etcetera.
I do expect,
you know, that Peter Thiel influence
to be in this as well.
And the other thing is,
you know, when you look at digital currency
altogether, you know,
I I've been around the Bitcoin game
since it started. Right? I remember I was
having Max Keiser on my show before it
was a dollar. And, you know, we were
talking about USBs
and keys and secure you know, all the
things before there were even real exchanges when
it really was
kind of this individual to individual,
proof of work,
concept.
Right? And there's this whole other industry around
it. And now, with Bitcoin and Ethereum, by
the way,
being adopted on the ETF market,
that's a huge game changer. And I would
also argue
there are more things with Ethereum
and the sub coins and subcontracts
that you really have to worry about when
we are talking about artificial intelligence,
command
control, etcetera.
I think bitcoin
itself is more like
a value stock. Right? Like like that's that's
the new digital gold if they put that
in.
Other avenues are gonna be different things. Now,
whether or not that's fast tracked with this
administration,
remains to be seen. I think there will
be pushback, but I think you're gonna see
huge manipulations
in the markets. And the thing is,
you know, I've talked about this for years.
We've already kind of had
a global digital currency outside of the blockchain
for a very long time through the International
Monetary Fund. It's known as the SDR, the
special drawing rights unit. As soon as they
made it into zeros and ones and then
literally zero accountability
of where that money goes or comes from,
it's created out of nowhere,
you were on a path
to something that even goes beyond a global
federal reserve. Right? And nowadays, you know, this
is an old thing, but they're running, you
know, refugee camps on the blockchain.
So, you know, this is a World Economic
Forum deal, but it's through the IMF,
and basically your biometrics as you've seen, and
this end of the spectrum was really beta
tested during the war of terror when we
were doing this in Iraq, Afghanistan,
but this is where they're going to find
work.
This decides,
where they're going to sleep at the refugee
camp, and they talk about how much money
it's going to save and how it's going
to be your passport, your exam certificate, etcetera,
and they've exploited regions,
that are the most exploitative. Right? These are
refugees
under this guy. So, they've already got this
kind of in a global beta for a
while. If this gets brought to the United
States on any level, I think it's bad
news, Brown.
I also think when you're talking about
But we isn't
it boring in the United States?
I mean, we're already throwing people off of
bank accounts. We're already messing with their transactions.
Yeah. We're already doing the equivalent of sanctions.
We're
I mean I would argue the only difference
is we're not on the blockchain with it
yet. Right? Where every single transaction
now
like,
we talk about parallel economies all the time.
Right?
Those exist in some direction. Like, I got
kicked off a GoFundMe.
I can do a buy me a coffee.
Right? There there are certain ways. But like
you said, with banking systems,
with PayPal,
Venmo, etcetera, you're you're a 100% right. It's
already in the United States. But if it
comes to the level of say a world
coin, I'm not sure if you're aware of
that coin, but that's what Sam Altman, yeah,
where
your digital biometrics
are now not only hooked into your identity,
but all of your financial and social transactions.
It's all and that's when you can get
it on,
a minutious
scale of resources.
And the scary thing about the artificial intelligence
to me
is a lot of people, you know, and
again, this extends beyond the Trump administration, and
the Trump administration is now absorbing this is,
the CAIO
program that's already out there. And that's the
chief,
artificial intelligence officer program
that
is already being implemented in all companies that
not only use utilize
AI software, but hardware. Right? We already have
presidential
actions
on how this takes place,
and and the deal is this.
Governments are completely
exempt of any audit,
and every other
one
is audited, and your chief AI intelligence officer
has to be at a certain security level
above top secret and go through a course.
So now if you're even involved in this,
you have government regulation from the outset. So
there is no real competition right now.
That is extremely
frightening to me that the only people exempt
are the intel communities
and basically
these advanced military programs and subcontractors. Oh, can
I make that make a little bit more
frightening for a second?
Please. Because the federal government
for many decades has refused to obey the
financial management laws
and has promulgated policies that allow them to
keep secret books.
And not only then keep secret books,
but the large contractors and banks
in combination with the national security and classification
laws keep secret books. Okay?
So the whole infrastructure,
public and private, is keeping secret books
while the private infrastructure is basically taking over
government operations
while collecting tax.
So so now we have a
tax collecting
banking and corporate infrastructure with the power of
government
with no financial disclosure and completely
operating outside of the financial management laws. And
it's teamed up with with international organizations like
the BIS who have sovereign immunity.
So you basically have
a group who are getting close to controlling
all the money on the planet,
who
have basically created an infrastructure that says they
don't have to obey any laws.
Don't worry though, Catherine, because Elon Musk and
Vivek Ramaswami
are going to save us.
Alright. Listen. Hey. Let's get into that real
quick. I do wanna kinda talk about that
a little bit.
You you guys know the deal that
I'm in these conservative circles all the time
and I'm around these people that really do
hero worship these guys. Right?
At the same time,
I do wanna believe that Rama Swamy is
gonna cut some of these bureaucracies.
I I I, again, I'm I'm very hesitant
to believe we're getting the 911 documents.
Right? Yes.
Okay. Let me just challenge you on this.
Sure. I used to be hopeful. I didn't
say he's gonna do it.
No. I'm not hopeful for the good thing
to happen. I I don't think it's a
good thing.
Okay. Oh, good. That's perfect. Go ahead. So
let me let me explain why.
You know, for a 100 plus years, we've
had a balance of power where the central
bankers run monetary policy and the bankers,
because the central bankers are really owned and
controlled by the the New York Fed and
their members. It's controlled by their members. Okay.
So so you have the bankers controlling monetary
policy, and you have the people's representatives controlling
fiscal policy.
Okay?
And the growth of the deep state has
paralleled
more and more government operations being moved out
of the hands of the civil service into
private banks and corporations,
you know, which was exploded by the executive
order from,
you know, promulgated by Bush under Reagan that
said private corporations can do highly classified
secret things,
you know, financed by the government, which connected
the stock market and driving the stock market
up with the treasury market on doing lots
of secret stuff. And then we're off to
the races.
And that's what drove the deep state up.
So the civil service, by and large,
does what they get written orders to do
with some exceptions. Okay?
If you don't like what they're doing, change
the written orders.
If they're acting in corrupt ways, you reform
it.
But they report to congress and they follow
what congress does.
If you replace them with big tech contractors
and more Amazon, Oracle, and Google,
guess who they're gonna report to?
Yeah. But doesn't it kind of already?
Isn't that the problem?
No. No. But let me challenge you on
that because if you look at the group
ridiculous crazy stuff has been stopped
by civil service who refused to break the
law.
So let me give you an example.
When I became assistant secretary of housing,
I was required by law to run the
single family mortgage insurance fund on a self
supporting basis.
Okay?
When I got there, it turns out I
couldn't get the financial information on whether we're
making or losing money because the account is
reported to a different assistant secretary.
I spent 3 months fighting and lobbying, and
I got them moved over to report to
me. And then what I discovered is the
critical amount of data that I needed to
make sure,
1, I knew what was going on and
I fixed it, so I was in compliance
with the law, was controlled by a defense
contractor who refused to give it to me.
And so literally, even though
I had the authority and I was I
had fiduciary responsibility,
I couldn't enforce the law because I had
a private contractor
refusing to give me the basic data on
my own operation.
Okay?
So so and that is the deep state.
That is the rise of the deep state.
So the idea that you're gonna replace the
civil service, which doesn't cost a lot in
the scheme of the money pouring out of
the government, You know? And we'll talk about
how you save money, but you're gonna replace
the civil service
with private contractors who are gonna make things
better.
It is the deep state has risen by
private guys taking over government operations.
You're you're just gonna you're gonna finish off
the coup. Once you get a 100% of
those operations into big tech and the defense
contractors,
you can reengineer the whole government
like that all within all digital systems.
And then But aren't they already there in
a lot of respects? Like, we talk about,
like, Google. Right. You know something?
K. So so if, you know, if you're
in the emergency room and somebody says, well,
he's almost dead.
Right? You're not dead yet, and we can
save you.
But but,
I think turning the government over
to to the very thing that has made
things steadily worse and made the you know,
given the deep state all its power, you
know, before you take this final step. Because
when you take that final step, you are
saying, okay, Congress doesn't control the government. The
central bankers control fiscal policy.
And then with with a digital ID and
digital currency, you're just boom. There you are.
You're into
the control grid, and it's the end of
the constitution.
Mhmm.
Go ahead, Jason. You have some thoughts you
can tell. Go ahead. Well, one,
I still think that you gotta get it.
Like, for instance, if you look at something
like DHS, yeah, there's a bunch of subsidiaries
with fusion centers, etcetera,
but we were getting along fine without it.
And we still had things like border patrol.
Well, but but that's not getting rid of
the civil service. That's getting rid of functions
that the federal government shouldn't have.
Well, that's what I'm hoping. When when I
say for let's get back. Well, but wait
a minute. You know, because
when when I say I wanna cancel programs
and I wanna cancel funding for programs, that's
very different than saying I wanna kill the
civil service.
Mhmm. When when you Again, I'm not necessarily
saying that you should get rid of all
civil service. I'm not super libertarian in that
regard. When I see not only just the
intelligence communities,
but so many of the contractors. Right? Like,
my argument would be this. We already have
a really dangerous plausible deniability circle. Right? And
we saw that especially
with the COVID 1984 nightmare.
Now if Google, a company
that was seed funded by the CIA through
In Q Tel,
Right? That was the number I mean, if
you wanna describe a technopoly right now, I
don't know how you could get beyond there.
Right? It is the number one search engine
in the world. It has the number one
operating system on most devices in between Android
phones and Chromebooks. Chromebooks,
which are basically mandatory
in,
most schools now cradle to grave,
they have contracts with the NSA.
They have contracts with NASA over the last
decade on artificial intelligence
and its supremacy.
I mean, you go through the list. Right?
They they have a immortality
division, and that's not even talking about the
Lockheed Martins of the world, but that
right there. And, by the way, they're the
number 2 search engine in the world, which
is the number one video platform in the
world, YouTube.
So now you say because it's on the
stock market, it's a private company, and they
can do what they want. But they're obviously
in collusion with the government on so many
levels that at the very least, you already
have all these conflicts of interest.
You talked about transparency.
We don't have any criminal culpability for either
the government or their contractors.
Right? And I guess this is the always
the question that I ask people when we
get down to it.
How do we get some criminal accountability
on any of these executive levels, whether it
be
on a corporate level,
on an NGO level, or on a government
level? Because nobody can answer that to me.
Right? Like, I interviewed Giuliani about a month
ago. Okay? And he's got a book out
there, and it's called the Biden Crime Cartel,
and it's the blueprint
for prosecuting the Biden crime family.
And, like, I open up with, like, as
we're talking about, But, Rudy, no one's going
to jail. That's not a real thing.
And, you know, we kind of, well, his
brother could be prosecuting his son. I go,
no one's been to jail
since I ran Contra, and they all got
slaps on the wrist. And I'm like, they
made the face of it, Oliver North, who
wasn't the face of it. He got book
deals and became a millionaire, and he starts
laughing. I'm like, that's not how you discourage
it. And I'm like, the one other person
in on the executive level that I can
name over the last, what, 2, 3 decades
that went to jail was Scooter Libby, who
took the fall on Enron, another one of
those
corporate subsidiary government things, and I go, Trump
pardoned him.
So what are we talking about here? Like,
I'm with you. Like, I think the way
that you do have a peaceful, productive society
is that level of transparency.
We've had the opposite of that for a
very long time. And I
go go ahead. Go ahead.
So I feel like I'm monopolized,
but
the US economy is addicted to organized crime
and war, and it's not in Washington. It's
in every one of 31100
counties.
So I I don't know, Ryan, if you
wanna play the red button video.
It's 30 minutes.
Oh, the one you recommended for I'm sorry.
But but it's I'll tell it quickly.
I was giving a speech long ago, and
I was talking about the Iran contra,
testimony in Congress.
And,
and,
a spokesperson for the Department of Justice told
a reporter I was working with at the
time on the hearings that,
that the US economy wanders 500,000,000,000 to a
$1,000,000,000,000 a year of all dirty money. That
was as of 1998, so the the number
is much bigger now.
So I was at a conference. I was
speaking at a conference that of people who
get together once a year to talk about
how we can evolve our society spiritually. So
they're very
well educated, very committed to ethical learning. Anyway,
so I said to this wonderful group of
people, what would happen if we stop being
the global money laundering leader? And we had
a little conversation. And they said, well, you
know, the stock market would go down because
that money would go to Hong Kong or
Zurich or London and leave New York Stock
Exchange.
And, you know, we'd have trouble financing the
government deficit because, you know, and our taxes
might go up, our government checks might stop.
I said, okay. Let's pretend there's a big
red button up here in the lectern. And
if you push that button, you can stop
all hard narcotics trafficking in your city, your
county, your state tomorrow that's defending the people
who
control 500,000,000,000 to a $1,000,000,000,000
a year and the accumulated capital they're on.
Who here will push the button? And out
of a 100 people dedicated to evolving our
society spiritually,
only one would push the button. So I
said to the other 99, why would you
not push the button? And they said, we
don't want
our government checks to stop. We don't want
our taxes to go up, and we don't
want our IRAs and 401ks to go down
in value.
So if you're the president and you know,
let's make Brian the president on January 20th.
He walks into the Oval Office, and he
says to his political, you know, his Karl
Rove political guy,
you know,
Karl Rove is gonna say to him, okay.
The American people will spend several $1,000,000,000 to
get you elected, mister president. They all, you
know, they want payback. They want their guard
they want their community block development grant. They
want their COLA increased. They want their defense
contractor.
And you turn to your secretary of treasury
and say, okay. You know, how am I
gonna get the money? And secretary of treasury
is gonna say, well, you better be nice
to the people who control 500,000,000,000 to a
$1,000,000,000,000 a year or 30 money and the
accumulated capital they're on.
So if the American people won't push the
red button, how is the president supposed to
push the red button?
Right. Well, so let me let me bring
this back to the focal point of the
conversation today. But I think this is important
because, ultimately, what you're highlighting there is that
the system is broken. Right? I mean
Go ahead, Christy. Be before you do, though,
I just wanted to make a point,
in regard to what Jason was saying about
the intel community.
There's going to be a shift to
make it more private than public. It started
under Trump's first term. And so you're going
to see even less accountability
among the intelligence
community going forward because there's gonna be a
private
forward facing entity
that has
public
funded money that's going to make it even
more nebulous than it currently is. Black budgets
be damned and everything else along with it.
And that's something that the whole 2 year,
security clearance thing,
it's going to populate
a
massive explosion in private intelligence firms
because everybody's going to have a new hire
every year or 2 to make sure that
they've got the latest,
you know, overlapping security clearance along with some
people on the board that had theirs grandfathered
in in perpetuity.
And that's what's going to be the
new entity,
of intel the intelligence community going forward from
what I can tell, at least. Yeah. And
real quick, we can keep talking about this.
I just wanted to probably just kind of
fold it back into what we're saying is
what's interesting. The the way that we started
this point was about saying that we hope
that they will ultimately do this. Catherine comes
in to say what that wouldn't even be
good. And I so it's an interesting kind
of circle back to this. But what's what
I think the important point is,
hypothetically saying that they're gonna do whatever we
each individually decide is the best path. Right
now, all we can do is go, they
said those nice words. Right? So that's kinda
the point. We don't have any idea what
actually comes to pass after January 20th, whether
they change their mind, whether something else happens,
whether the democrats won't let them, whatever the
narratives are. But I I would say this.
We wanna make sure
that congress controls
governmental
operations,
not the central bankers and intelligence agencies.
In a state of society, yes. If we're
gonna have elected representatives.
Right. So so I I don't want a
financial coup where the bankers control both monetary
and fiscal policy because that's Checkmate, and we're
gonna be in a slavery system.
So,
you know, I want I want fiscal policy
still controlled by congress. It makes a huge
difference.
Well, I think the point was that Jason's
highlighting that that's what they're at least proposing
they're going to be doing is
reducing government spending, government increasing government efficiency by
getting rid of useless programs. I just don't
think that's what's gonna happen. I think let
me ask you this, Catherine. If they did
do what they're promising, is that what you
were saying? You don't think that those would
amount to what they're claiming or that they
are saying that they're So doing something different?
What is the number one expense in government?
Let let's let's look at the big expenses.
The number one expense is we're poisoning the
American people.
So health care costs are exploding
because we are intentionally employ poisoning American people.
That's number 1.
Okay? Number 2,
we are spending a fortune to run
a global empire,
and that global empire is not is increasingly
uneconomic.
The third thing is we have interest on,
debt, not because we need to issue debt,
but because we choose to have a debt
based currency as opposed to treasury just issuing
the currency.
Okay?
So if you if you if you wanna
save money and, you know, we're spending a
fortune to support international organizations
like the WHO and the Paris agreement, and
we ought to just walk away from all
of them.
So so
and and finally, the biggest cost
is,
is if you look at how federal money
works in every one of the 3,100 counties,
that money is being spent and invested to
control
not to produce a healthy
civilization
and and a healthy economy.
So radical reengineering
bottom up of how federal money and credit
is used
could produce incredible wealth, incredible wealth.
But, you know, it it it wouldn't be
you have to you're gonna need to have
freedom to do that. You can't
you know, tyranny right now, if you look
at how much money we're spending on implementing
the control grid,
just if you dive deep into the federal
budget, words cannot express how expensive the control
grid is.
And from an economic standpoint, it's a complete
waste of money
unless, of course, you're the, you know, the
1,000 top people
and and you wanna, you know, you want
more billionaires
and you wanna consolidate control, but you you
are building billionaires by shrinking the pie.
Right. Well, so, I mean, bringing this back
into the conversation of Bitcoin in general, so
I think this is an interesting kind of
tie in right there is the idea that
so the the original concept is the peer
to peer no no trusted third party middleman.
It seems as if the US government is
sort of inserting itself as that middleman. Is
that what I do I read that correctly,
Catherine?
So
I don't I I wouldn't say it's the
federal government because it seems to be
a mixture of public and private.
Mhmm. But but essentially what you're doing is
you
you you're taking something that could have been
a great global payment system,
you know, on a private basis, and you're
turning it into a pump and dump mechanism
that's allowing you basically to pull off
multiple pumps and dumps that that help you
with control
also make you money. And if you can
if you can engineer a tax free secret
exit
into government money,
you know, you can get out at a
at a high and use that money to
buy real assets.
So from a financial standpoint
to the people doing it, it's quite attractive.
Now it's gonna
you know, you're basically gonna go gonna wipe
out a lot of names in the retirement
funds.
Mhmm.
You're cutting a little you're cutting a little
bit out. Property of of the US retire
It sounds like you're making an important point
as to let you know you cut out
right there about the yeah. I know you're
coming back in right now. Because I know
you've mentioned before about the retirement funds. So
go back to that.
It's it's basically a way of emptying out
the retirement funds
and giving that money to the people doing
this so they can basically
buy up all the government land and and
mineral resources.
That's why I call it a you know,
it's it's basically an an unreal asset swap
for real assets, but it's how they get
their hands on the real assets.
So you see this is only about that
or is it 2 parts? Because obviously, that's
a very manipulative way to use this now,
but is it also partly because of the
way that they can opt in and control
the coin forward?
Let's look at not just Bitcoin, but crypto
and and the digital system. So
I think what they wanna do is they
wanna build a
control group, all digital monetary system.
So,
and, you know, it can be public or
private.
A CBDC
done by a central bank in the United
States the central bank is still a creature
of congress, and it still has
legal responsibilities
to Congress and transparency
responsibilities and disclosure
responsibilities
to Congress.
If you can do the crypto private,
then it's you've got a digital control grid
that's really dark and much more secret,
you know, much more private and and much
more dangerous.
So,
you know, but I I what I see
is the people pushing for an all digital
monetary system. You know, they're they look pretty
organic to me trying to figure out which
way they can do this, how they go.
Mhmm. So,
you know, so Trump is saying, you know,
he's he's not,
he's against the Central Bank CBDC, but,
you know, I've yet to see him clearly
embrace a policy of being against private CBDC.
Right. I've got the one on the screen
about his his, you know, personal World Liberty
Financial.
You know, so it it are these would
you argue these are the same?
Could that itself become the private coin we're
talking about or something like a JPMorgan coin
or something like that?
No. I I I think you're gonna need,
you know, you're gonna need a Bitcoin. You're
gonna need a Ripple, Ethereum.
You know, I I think Ripple and XRP
is the most likely.
But but it and it doesn't have to
be 1. It can be multiple.
Right. So Yeah. Because Swift is gonna process
it all as one one,
Bank of International Settlements token. That's what the
SWIFT people said at the beginning of or
I think it was the end of last
year. They said they have the infrastructure ready
by 2025
at the latest, but they were projecting this
year to have the the
grid basically built.
Right.
Jason, you had mentioned XRP before we got
started in that same vein. You wanna touch
on that? Yeah. And one of the reasons
that I mentioned XRP is because it's been
openly floated by the World Economic Forum. It
is really what you could call
a meme coin, if you will. In other
words, there's no proof of work concept, and
there's no finite
supply.
This would be essential
in creating a fiat system of command and
control.
And look, it's up.
Were you seen in the past
when Bitcoin has exploded, a lot of the
altcoins
have also gone. You know, you could, you
know, say that Ethereum kind of rode that
wave. Not this time around. Right? And we're
obviously hitting record highs close to a 100
k. Most of the altcoins
are not doing well. XRP is doing alright.
Whether or not that translates,
into it being adopted,
I don't know. There are a lot of
pump and dumps out there. And and that
superseded,
government regulation.
Right? You have what are called whales
that will collude behind the scenes together.
I'm not gonna say there hasn't been corruption
in the crypto market. There has been plenty.
I also think that there has also been
over government regulation of a lot of these
things. And just like
any system
of
currency command control and eventually
resources,
you have winners and losers that are picked.
And if you don't outright pick them, you
end up buying them out. Right? Or you
end up going against them politically or through
the government. That's what's really scary about this
whole thing. You know, again, I've been talking
about Bitcoin for a long time.
I don't believe in the legend of Satoshi.
Right? I know that,
HBO just did that documentary where they claim
they found the founder of Bitcoin.
I've always kind of alluded to the fact
that I feel like this was a Pentagon
slash DARPA project,
that they wanted people to adopt. I don't
I don't know whether that's the case, but
I certainly
give that more credence than some super spooky
guy that just somehow has evaded
all of this and created this phenomenon of
new technology that's now been adopted globally.
Right?
And especially because we all we've all been
talking. When I say we, anybody that's been
in this kind of quote unquote
global governance,
new world order space
of a global
digital currency that eventually
is embedded in you some way.
And
a lot of that has already come to
fruition on a very small scale level. We
just haven't seen it implemented globally.
And, really, the the scary thing is
the ability to micromanage,
right, everything
through crypto,
through things like smart contracts, etcetera.
And then in real time through AI,
manage that information and do whatever they like
with it. Because as they tell us that
we're running out of energy, and we have
to watch our carbon footprint, you know, we
were discussing this,
before. The AI centers for
Amazon and Google are openly gonna be powered
by nuclear reactors.
We don't get to use that technology. Right?
But all of a sudden,
these multinational
corporations that are also subsidiaries
and government contractors
are gonna be able to utilize that technology.
It's food for thought.
Well, you bring up an interesting point that
brings me to what I was gonna talk
about next is this conversation.
Now this is actually one reason why I
think that the Bitcoin avenue seems the most
likely, even though I can clearly see the
same points you're making about and even as
Catherine points out that it could be more
than 1. But this is interesting on the
note that that there is a obviously, I
think Bitcoin allows that kind of, outsider perspective
where you feel like you're fighting the system
while being part of the system. Right? But
on top of it, that this is something
I've been researching for since
for a couple weeks now when as this
been focused in my my mind. And it's
about this idea, as I've referenced before, that
in the white paper itself,
it references something that says, quite often, and
it it simply repeats, as long as honest
nodes control the network. And that's what this
is talking about. The study you can see
here
is discussing the idea of blockchain 51% attacks.
Meaning that, essentially, it says the system this
is quoted from the white paper. The system
is secure as long as honest nodes collectively
control more CPU power than any cooperating group
of attacker nodes. And it gets into the
idea of what this means, and it just
says a 51% attack is when a malicious
actor controls a sufficient percentage of the network's
computing power. So you're you're talking about the
ability of powerful entities to have access to
power that we wouldn't And being able to
utilize that to essentially be able to not
just control whatever that would mean, but manipulate
it, to double spend and for things out
there that, you know to manipulate it so
it's not honest, it's not accurate. And so
I find that a really concerning dynamic,
specifically because
a lot of the community, both financially gaining,
but also that they wanna believe Bitcoin is
what it could have been, at least if
we're if this is what it is right
now. And that, you know, I think we
all, people in this field, see XRP as
we've it's been called the Fed coin for
how long. Right? So it's already kind of
tainted. This adds up for me in a
very alarming way. Did they already have the
power collection? They're already amassing support. Like, I
think BlackRock has almost 500,000
as what? 21,000,000 total full floating. The government
itself has, what is it, a million, most
of which pulled from, like, Silk Road, whatever
else. So that seems to be amassing all
of those things. So I want you guys
thoughts on that if that kind of indicates
what we're talking about. What you're saying is
that a select number of players have
significantly
lower cost of goods,
significantly lower cost of capital,
and the ability to create fiat
bitcoin or fiat crypto,
you know, and and and in huge amounts.
At which point it's game over and we're
back to the same
place we started, which is we don't have
a financial problem. We have a governance problem.
Right. And that governance problem is just just,
you know, repeating itself in the crypto space.
And it's like you said earlier, Catherine. It's
the, you know, feigning decentralization,
but it's this kind of cycle you kept
discussing where they're using that. They get us
to invest at a time when it works
for them to kind of problem reaction solution
us right back into a new fiat system,
which is what that seems like to me.
Right. And we haven't mentioned, but we should,
the fact that stablecoins
now are being used to extend the treasury
market.
Mhmm. And and it's very clever, you know,
and it's working very very well for both
treasuries and the stable coin guys.
Yeah. I pulled up an article from Whitney
here earlier.
Trump embraces the Bitcoin dollar stable coins to
an comma, stable coins to entrench US financial
hegemony.
Again, it's kind of where we see this
all
going in that direction. You know? So if
you guys have any more comments on that
one part of it, I'd like to talk
about the artificial intelligence overlap to that. Because
Can I mention one other thing? Mhmm. Because
I you know, because I've seen this happen
on many financial cycles. But I think the
the Bitcoin and the crypto financial cycle has
been the most painful.
Because what you see is is you have
a small group of people
who wanna prototype how to build a digital
control grid.
And they figure out a way to get
the smartest, most talented,
most desirous of freedom freedom fighters in the
world to to do their prototyping and figuring
out for them. Right.
And and it's watching
it's watching
that
talent wasted
that's so I find so painful.
Yeah. Can I just speak to just one
other aspect we really haven't hit on that
was a big sell
for Bitcoin
was the idea that it was your Bitcoin
and nobody could take it from you unless
they had your keys? Right?
That's not a real thing either.
You know, when I talk about,
you know, picking winners and losers, anybody can
look this up, but I think it's about
a year ago now.
In fact, they thought that the the initial
reporting when the movement of this Bitcoin happened
was has Satoshi shown his face because it
was such a massive amount of Bitcoin.
But what had really happened is you had
these 2 guys in Germany
that way back in the day were running
a pirate site, you know, where you could
just download things. And they were only, they
they weren't even taking Bitcoin as a payment.
I think they were taking multiple cryptos, but
they were taking the money and immediately
investing it in Bitcoin.
And it was something like $2,000,000,000
in Bitcoin these two guys had. They arrested
them. They put them in a room, and
they took their Bitcoin. Mhmm. Because guess what?
You're going to give your Bitcoin up when
your hand is on the table.
And one finger goes,
and the next finger goes, and it's not
a real thing. Well, for the right to
go, for those listening. Regulated.
Well, it's just like, hey. Alright. You're off
the grid. You're not on Coinbase or the
big trading sites. You got it on a
thump. Whatever.
At the end of the day, if you
get in trouble and whatever entity, whether it's
a government or a corporation
or a mafia
or a family member, whatever,
if your life is more valuable than the
Bitcoin that no one will hold ever again
unless you give up those keys,
99.9%
of the time, I think you're giving up
those keys. But in all fairness, that applies
to just literally any situation we wanna put
it through to. So it's the same dynamic.
There are here's the difference.
You could sit there and threaten me all
day, and I I own a private jet
on a runway.
You probably can't extort that from me. It's
a physical thing. There's all sorts of things.
This is digital.
As soon as I give you those keys,
you're it's anywhere. Right? It's you're as anonymous
as before. You know what I mean? So
that's a little bit of a difference. But
just the government stepping in, and you talk
about asset forfeiture,
these guys weren't convicted of anything.
They were accused of a crime. They don't
even get to use the Bitcoin assets they
have to defend themselves.
You know, that's a very, very scary thing.
I just wanted to point that out as
well.
I agree. I think it's an excellent point
to include. I mean, it speaks to the
illegitimate nature of our government in general and
how they would abuse it. Here's the thing.
The way you control
financial transactions is by controlling the people
who operationalize
or own those financial transactions.
And the speed at which they can assert
control of the people
is astonishing, and you just gave an excellent
example.
So
Yep. You know, it the technology cannot save
us
from a secret governance system. It's the secret
governance system that has to be dealt with.
100%. And that's a good point to make
the the argument. You just point out that
it's the same we should be skeptical of
where this goes. And what whatever is presented,
even if it becomes the solution we all
want, we should still be skeptical. It's the
same point with with the Internet. The Internet
was presented, DARPA, is is,
Jason pointed out. And, clearly, we are using
it to push back even though clearly it
is used in some ways to suppress us
and control our lives. So it's always a
mixed bag. Just question everything.
You can't solve a political problem with a
financial product.
Right? I agree. I mean, if you have
a if you have a government system that's
not working for you
and is above the law and is lawless
and behaving in criminal ways,
changing the financial products that they and we
use isn't gonna change anything.
I agree. I just simply meant it can
be a tool that can be useful. And
so, yeah, obviously, what we're talking about is
not falling back into the system. And and
you could even argue that's part of this
manipulation,
to taunt us and float this idea in
front of us where it gives us some
measure of pushing back, but ultimately still cements
us inside the new control structure, which, Catherine,
you make this point often and I agree.
We're stepping into another phase here where once
we pass this barrier, they might as well
just come out and be like, too late.
Here, this is what we are. Now you
can't do anything about it. And I kinda
sense that's where this goes. And so that
that's that's kind of why biggest worry about
the Trump election dynamic. That's what my pull
premise was. This is a different time, and
I get the positives, the RFK side to
it. But that might very well be put
out in order to make us think that
you know, just to pacify us for the
next step and not to get into all
that. But I think that's part of what
this may be, and that's another reason why
Bitcoin stands out to me as maybe next
step in that regard.
So, Ryan, I wanted to mention I think
I've sent it to you, but if I
haven't, I will,
or anybody else who wants it. We're publishing
our sort of tour de force we've been
working on for 2 years
called what the states can do building the
legal and financial infrastructure for financial freedom.
Mhmm. And basically,
a very detailed blueprint of all the different
things in the United States the states can
do
to protect against central financial control and transaction
control.
And there are many, many things the states
can do because we still do have
under the Constitution,
the states have powers that are not delegated
to the federal government are reserved to the
states.
And they have the resources and the constituent
support
to do things. And what we describe are
sort of all the different areas of where
they can take action. But we also list
what
proposed and passed bills states have, you know,
had proposed or adopted
and lots of information about what's going on
in the states. And there are enough people
in in enough states who are beginning to
realize, wait a minute, really is this bad,
and we're gonna have to take action. And
we see the states moving all across the
board to do that.
So
there are plenty of things we can do,
but if
if instead of doing those things, we get
the states to buy lots and lots of
Bitcoin,
you know,
we're in real trouble. I'd love to have
you on my show to talk about that
in a little bit more detail.
Okay. We So I have your email. Can
you make sure your email's in the chat,
and then I'll email you a copy of
the document?
For sure. Yes, please. Here's the, Cynthia Loomis
reserve, you know, reserve legislation she put forward
about Bitcoin. I think it was before this
Nashville discussion, but definitely is
coming that direction. So I'd I'd like to
talk about this in the context of artificial
intelligence sort of finished today. And I think
that what concerns me, and we can play
some of these clips from the Anderson,
Joe Rogan discussion,
It's it's it's really concerning how almost I
mean, it's perfect to come off what we
just discussed. The idea of how,
you know, the the floating of an idea
that makes us feel like these are the
resistors. These are the outsiders. They're pushing back
and falling into this trap. And so let
anyone wanna start on that in general before
I go into what I have to say
about it, the idea of artificial intelligence that
overlaps with Bitcoin and how you see that
playing out? Any thoughts on that, guys? I
mean, I see I I was gonna say
that, you know, Ryan, for 3 years now,
I've been saying that they're going to put
Trump
in specifically because
it's going to the he's the necessary puppet
to build up the infrastructure for the digital
prison with Elon Musk stepping up to the
tune of $40,000,000
a month and Peter Thiel's golf club being
announced as the vice president.
And,
you know, the rest of the, like, true
technocrats,
the the he surrounded himself with, and then
the Trump kids
push
into not just the crypto sphere, but all
of these other, you know, online media,
you know, streaming platforms,
stuff like that. You really start to see,
the push for not just
large language model based
information and media aggregation because all of it's
gonna go through we the WeChat of the
west anyway
in in, you know, Elon's platform.
But that's also a tie into
all of the cryptocurrency.
It's where you're gonna communicate. It's where you're
gonna pay bills. We're gonna do all of
that.
And it seems to be
fairly obvious at this point that whatever
the department of government efficiency is going to
be, it's gonna be a huge push
for,
AI to replace
the bureaucracy.
They've made that pretty clear. I mean, even
in recent interviews, they've discussed that exact point
that artificial intelligence is gonna be a part
of the efficient I mean, this was obviously
the open door to that. Right? To figure
Rogan's talking about it like it's a good
thing on the show now. Well, yeah, let's
let's go ahead and play that clip then,
and we'll let's let's see the first one
anyway. And so this is one of the
reasons discussions with Mark Anderson
discussing this about, you know and really kind
of point the finger, which we should, by
the way, in every other administration before this
where that's been possible, but discussing how these
things have been go they've been trying to
use these things to control our lives.
Well, general intelligence will be will emerge. And
who knows how that affects I I've said
publicly, and I'm kind of half joking Yeah.
That we need AI government. Yep. You know?
I it sounds crazy to say. Yep. But
instead of having this, like, alpha chimpanzee that
runs the tribe of humans Yeah. How about
we have some, like, really logical
fact based Yeah. You know, program
Yeah. That, you know, makes it, like, really
reasonable and equitable in a way that we
can all agree to. Right. Let's govern things
in that manner. Right. So you can actually
simulate this today because you you can go
on these systems, shed GPT or a lot
of these others. And you can you can
ask, you know, how should we handle issue
x? How should this be relevant? We've done
that. Right. How should the Department of Energy
do whatever, nuclear policy or whatever? And and
what I find when I do that is
I discover 2 things. Number 1, of course,
these things are these things have the same
problem social media has had, which is they're
tremendously politically biased and Right. That's on purpose
and they they need to fix that and
that's gonna be a big topic in the
next several years. But the other thing you
learn is if you can get through the
political basically bias and censorship, if you can
actually get to a discussion of the actual
issue, it's you get very sophisticated answers. Yes.
Right? And very logical, very straightforward, and it
will explain every aspect of the issue to
you, and it'll take you through all the
pros and cons. Yeah. And, you know I
mean, it might be the way to go
Yeah. Which is so horrifying
for people to think because
everyone's worried about the Terminators taking over the
world and, like, if that's the first step
as we let them govern us. Well, look,
there's nothing stopping a politician from using this.
There's nothing stopping a policymaker from using it,
you know, as a tool. Right. You start
out at at the very least, you start
out using it as a tool. There's nothing
to prevent. You know, like, for example, I
think military commanders in the field are going
to have basically AI battlefield assistance that are
going to advise the most strategy tactics. Yes.
Right. How to win conflicts and then it'll
start to work its way up and then
they'll be doing, you know, war planning.
And then if you're a general, if you're,
you know, a sergeant or a colonel or
a general, it's gonna just mean you perform
better. Yes. And so maybe there's, like, you
know, the human them sort of man machine
kinda symbiotic relationship. And you and you could
imagine that happening more in the in the
policy process and in the in the political
processes.
So can I hit on a few different
things on that? Right? Absolutely. So
I watched that clip the other day. Number
1,
AI and warfare is already in.
Lavender is is utilized. It's it's a, you
know, westernized
5 eyes thing. Alex Karp,
who's, if you want to call, Vance, his
golf club is really Thiel's right hand man.
He's out there openly talking about it even
at places like CES.
Right?
So, we're already in that reality. I'm not
saying it's a good reality.
Where I fear we're going is more of
the AGI
military
where you have like a persona that you're
maybe you're not seeing it right away, but
you're hearing it, and you might even think
it's a real person, and you're referring into
it as general or colonel, and it's instructing
you in real time on the battlefield.
I don't think we're that far
off from that.
I think when we talk about the bias
that's built in, that's the scariest part. Right?
So so let's let's get into a couple
things that he said that I think were
correct there.
Ultimately,
especially in the very beginning, things like Grok
and Chat GPT
have a have a baseline narrative or a
directive of the great narrative of the day
to try to direct you into. What do
I mean by that? So
I asked Croc
about myself, and in the very first sentence,
it lied about me. Right? It said that,
I had, you know, I was this wacky
guy and that I had questioned the existence
of certain people.
Like, I I had said certain people didn't
exist. So I challenged it on that. Right?
I said, wait a minute.
Who has Jason Bermas,
specified didn't exist? And so then now it
gives me a little tirade how I question
the events of 911
and flight 93 specifically.
Now, I've never said that there weren't victims
on that plane or the hijackers weren't even
on there. I've questioned, you know, what exactly
happened on it. I've questioned the evidence such
as, I don't know if you guys have
ever seen it, but the red bandana
that they said that one of the hijackers
wore, that they presented in court that has
no blood on it, has no dirt on
it. You know, things like of that nature.
So I go, wait a minute. So you're
telling me he questioned an event, but never
whether or not somebody actually exists. Then it
apologized to me.
And it said, oh, well, you got it
right. So, he mentioned the Department of Energy
in particular, and I think that's an interesting
thing. Because if you think about it, in
some regards, AI could probably be more efficient
if the Department of Energy wasn't also involved
in radiologically
and biologically
experimenting on the human populace and document it
to do so.
So it's not going to take that part
of the narrative into account. Here's the other
problem with AI.
We talk about transparency.
What baseline information
does the AI that you and I interact
with have? Right. It only has things that
are declassified. Right?
So anything that's classified or above that level,
it's not even going to be fed in
a large language model unless it's a privatized
one by a contractor,
a government agency, etcetera.
And unfortunately,
you're not really gonna be able to compete
with that, especially when you're forced to put
basically an agent of the government
inside of your company.
Right?
So
the problem with AI governance is
in a way, we already have it. Like
he was saying, you can run all these
models now. You don't think
that the government you talked about the Musker
Du. Right? Old Muskington. I mean, he is
the defense contractor,
and I've kind of pontificated
that I think that the Adrian Dittman character
is more than likely an AGI
most of the time. I'm not saying a
person couldn't be involved, voice modulator, etcetera. That
will eventually become a product
because that's the next thing. Right? GPT 4
o. I just wanna say that GPT 4
o is so close to human like that
Alex Jones now does large segments on his
show where he's interviewing
GPT.
Right? And that line is only gonna be
blurred further. Go ahead, Claire, Catherine. So let
me just
because there's there's 2 issues going on. 1
is the efficiency and utility
of AI as a tool. And so the
way Mark was talking about it, he's talking
about
a tool that can make us smarter, faster,
better, but under human governance. So let's go
back to Lavender.
The power of Lavender
is that that members of the IDF
can systematically
engage in genocide
and violations of international law with no personal
liability because they didn't pick the targets,
the software didn't. Exactly.
And so
what we're looking at is is using AI
to relieve
individual humans of responsibility.
And what that does is it makes it
possible to control centrally
and stay safe from the mob.
Because the mob can't see a human being
that's taking responsibility,
you can blame the I AI. The machine
did it. Okay?
And that's a way of, you know, the
great Oz hiding behind the machine
and and relieving them of any responsibility,
whether not just in the court of law,
but in the court of popular opinion.
There's a very interesting
video that we had on the Solari report
of a Cambridge student asking Peter Thiel about
lavender,
and he literally almost pisses in his pants.
It's a frightening thing to watch.
Clearly, you've seen it because it dawns on
him that he is going to be held
responsible
in the court of popular opinion. He's not
gonna get away with it, and he's terrified.
Well, I mean, think about what this does
psychologically
and spiritually to the population too,
especially anybody who is one of those drone
operators. Like, it's designed to sever your connection
with humanity.
It's designed to sever your connection with nature.
That's where we've been, you know, as a
a species been pushed into an accelerated
ace
over the last 5, 6, 7 years.
And this complete and total,
you know, inversion
of what is natural and this complete and
total separation and then segregation
through
winnowing information bubble of what we become as
a a global populace,
is is that's why these people are walking
around with the kind of sentiment that they've
already won, that they can go ahead and
admit what they are and who they are
because they've got a little snapshot
of what that looks like every day on
Twitter, every day on Instagram, or wherever else.
Yeah. Good point. The predictive part of this
is, I think, far far more terrifying we
realized. Let me put I've grabbed that clip
just since we actually talked about it right
before we went live and I figured it's
a it's a entertaining thing to play based
on this point, then I'll make some comments
on it. What do you think about the
use of artificial
intelligence or lavender
by the IDF in
identifying
Hamas targets? And secondly, do you agree with
Elon Musk about that the population decline is
a risk for humanity?
Look. I yeah. I'm not I'm not,
you know, I
you know, with without
without,
going into all the deep you know,
I'm not on top of all the details
of what's going on in Israel because my
my bias is to defer to Israel. It's
it's it's not for us to to second
guess
every, everything.
And, I believe that
broadly the IDF gets to decide
what it wants to do and that they're
broadly in the right. And that's that's sort
of the the perspective
I come back to. And if I if
I fall into the trap of,
arguing you on every detailed point, I'm I'm
actually gonna I would actually be conceding
the the the broader issue that, the Middle
East should be micromanaged from Cambridge. And I
think that's
just simply absurd.
And so I'm not I'm not gonna concede
that point.
Wow.
That's just wild. There you so very clearly
tried to sidestep the main point in that.
And I would say I agree with Catherine
in the idea that, you know, like Eric
Schmidt pretty, you know, famously said a I
think a year or so or maybe a
couple years ago that we'll get to a
point at some point, I'm paraphrasing, that AI
will be making decisions like this. And it
may seem morally unsound, but we have to
trust the AI because it knows better, which
is just how terrifying. You know? And so
I agree that there's another mix Let me
tell you something. Go ahead. You know, so
my nickname for the top of the of
the global governing system is mister Global.
Mister Global is never gonna delegate his power
to the AI.
It's just not gonna happen.
It's just not gonna happen. So
so, you know but the AI is gonna
be a tool to make
governing much safer and much easier on a
highly centralized basis.
The only point I was gonna make is
that clear where I was going with that
is that Peter that, Eric Schmidt was saying
this. I I think setting it up to
be obvious that whatever happened will be able
to fall behind that. And I think, you
know, I do think that makes the most
sense. But at the same time, even if
it ultimately did become something that was real,
it could still be as I think Jason
said earlier, you know, if you're inputting the
wrong data that ultimately controls the output even
if it is still artificial intelligence. And we've
talked I think we've all talked about this.
And so it's a really, you know, the
idea that we want the good AI versus
the bad AI is just part of this
fake duopoly dynamic that we're always stuck in
or clearly should be asking for something other
than that. Now one thing that I think
is the most terrifying to me, and we
have a couple more clips on this, but
is how this could possibly intertwine with Bitcoin
itself or whatever ends up being the kind
of blockchain
dynamic. Because I I mean, Jason, maybe you
could speak to this since we were kinda
briefly saying before. It's not that, technologically and,
again, I'm still trying to wrap my mind
around a lot of these technological ideas. It's
beyond me in a lot of ways.
It's not as simple as saying it is
art it's they're they're very different. Some would
argue it couldn't even become
artificial intelligence, but it's about how this can
be evolved to something much larger than a
cryptocurrency.
And I think that's the bigger concern for
me is that I can already see this.
For example, one of the things that I
pulled up, you know, they they they're already
beginning to use these things in regard to
mapping out, like, the car the price. Right?
What will happen next? But it's building more
than that. About using these blockchains, specifically Bitcoin
in some cases, to do things beyond that,
like artificial neural networks and so on. And
so, we'll start with that. If you guys
have any thoughts on that and how that
might intertwine, whether it's Bitcoin or something else.
Alright. I thought he was serving it to
you, Jay.
I mean, when you look at
neural networks.
Right?
Let me go back, and I talk about
NASA all the time. Right? And I often
talk about Dennis Bushnell,
his future strategic warfare document,
2025 from July of 2,001.
Bushnell,
in one of these interviews,
starts talking about when he
sends, you know, his minions out to get
information, where do they go? They go to
Google. Right? And he called it the de
facto brain. Now, rather nonchalantly,
he goes, there's going to come a point,
rather soon
where
basically
these large language models are going to absorb
every single communication.
They're gonna read every email, every social media
post,
etcetera.
And then from that,
it is going to build profiles on all
of us. And I think
when you talk about Blockchain
and the micromanaging,
number 1, if you get to that kind
of social credit currency standpoint,
you can use smart smart contracts to regulate
the heat in your house, the water pressure,
you name it, if it's actually built into
that grid. That's why I'm a big proponent
of not having these type of systems online
at any point. You know, we talk about
these cyber attacks. I think it's insane
that somebody can remote into a power plant
or a bridge or a dam. I mean,
you go down the line, that should not
be allowed.
But
on top of that, you know, I talk
about the AGI things.
What really frightens me is that
they can build AGIs
surrounding you and detach you from reality even
more. In other words,
you're gonna start interacting with things that aren't
human a lot in the next 5 years.
Where they're not even gonna advertise to you
that you get to talk to a person,
it's gonna be GPT 10, or it's gonna
be a different thing. And it's gonna be
so human like, forget about it. And then
you're gonna have the social media influencers that
are a 100% AI. I even I haven't
even gotten to the scammers and things like
that. And that's really where these kind of
networks of information
get personalized and extremely dangerous. Because if you're
on these devices too much, and I would
argue
at some level, you're gonna get manipulated just
like we already are and have been forever,
whether from a magazine ad with subliminals or
a commercial we watched or, you know, those
type of things.
On such
a such a nuance level, it's gonna be
very dangerous. And there's gonna be people that
gravitate towards it. Right?
So that's gonna build I talk about a
post truth world, but it's gonna be even
harder to fight the narrative when we've already
already been told, all already been told, that
like you said, AI is smarter. It can
do it better. And in a lot of
cases, we're gonna see it actually do it
better. Right? And then people are gonna be
tricked into that. So
when you're talking about the neural networks based
on Blockchain technology
and the fact that if you move it
to digital, you know, everybody's gonna be on
a device like this or if they get
their way internally. Right? We're seeing the return
of AR devices on a mass level. Remember
when they tried to launch Google Glass, it
didn't go?
Now I can buy a $300
pair of Ray Bans.
Okay? And it's got pretty much all the
functionality.
It doesn't look as crazy. It lasts even
longer. So now that information,
forget about just everything I've typed and done
on social media
and posted, including something like this where you
saw my mannerisms and you heard me talk.
Now, you're literally gonna get what I'm seeing
for hours at a time.
My entire peripheral. Right?
We're gonna be in a new place
really, really soon, and
I think, obviously, this is also a step
to transhumanism,
on a level a lot of levels. I
know there are some people,
and I and I don't go this route
because I can't prove it, and I have
no idea how viable it is. But, you
know, there are patents out there where eventually
when you're not only merged
with some of this bio nano tech, you
become a system of energy. Right? So, you
know, forget about whether that's real. The Internet
of bodies is real. Okay? So now if
you have a biosensor, if you've got the
smartwatch
on, that information is being involved in building
these networks.
Can it be utilized in a positive? Sure.
All this technology is a double edged sword,
but when you have bad people at the
top, and like Catherine said, mister Globalist
is never gonna be subservient to his power.
There will always be a handful within the
predator class
that oversee and have oversight over this. Now
the question is whether or not they can
do that in a manner where there is
no accountability and no one challenges their system.
Right?
On a meaningful level.
Maybe. I hope not. I hope we can
challenge it. I hope that's kinda what we're
doing here. Right?
Yep. Well, here's another example of the you
know, for an obvious very early step. Because
my worry is where this gets larger. We're
talking about using a this is UAE blockchain
powered carbon tracking. Right? You can see how
easily these things get out of control whether
it's presented in a different way or not.
And I think that's what my biggest concern
is in bringing this to the idea of
things like Prospera, which I think is an
obvious fake libertarian, like, technocratic nightmare. And I
think the idea is they're using Bitcoin. That
was the main point. Or they're using Starlink.
You know? And then we have the idea
of Donald Trump and his freedom cities. You
know? Where was that? Right here. Anyway, the
the one of those are what we're gonna
get into is that that that there the
overlap of all of that. And I think
that, you know, just as a general point,
I'm worried about how that kind of intertwines
even to the point of whether it's floated
as something that's not what it is. But
I think all that we're discussing today makes
it very obvious that
the the the hope of whether or not
these people do what they say they do,
as Catherine points out, even if they do
those things might not be what we want,
but we should be
holding up for action, I argue. And I
think all of this stuff is going in
the wrong direction, quite frankly. I guess I
could ask on the way out when she
has anything else you wanna get into about
whether this would be different if Kamala Harris
was in power. Not to make it a
partisan thing, but to make the larger point
from my perspective, and I'll start, I don't
think it would be. I think the same
thing would be happening. Because I I always
do have that different perspective.
I think it would have been fast tracked
or streamlined more. I think that this thing
is barreling through on some level no matter
what. I think with the Trump administration, it
is gonna play, I think, towards Trump's ignorance
and the propensity
of him putting all these tech people in
there. Look, we've had this discussion a 1000000
times. It's another show, but Musk is a
cutout. Right? I mean, come on. He can't
be on social media all the time and
running Neuralink,
SpaceX,
The Boring Company,
X, go down the line. There's so I
mean,
they call it rocket science for a reason
because it's really effing hard. Alright?
Like, that would be, like, the only thing,
but he is saying a lot of the
right things at the same time. Like he
said, Starlink is an information center
system. It's also a warfare system. That's why
the concentration
of the most of the satellite dishes are
in Ukraine right now. You know,
that alone is dangerous. He already got the
contracts for the next spy satellite system. He
already launches the current spy satellite system. But
he's an outsider, guys. That's gonna fucking Yeah.
He's just an outsider.
Look. Again, I understand
why people get tricked into that. So look,
as far as the overarching thing, does it
stop?
No. But I think it's on an acceleration
level
that's maximized with more of the same regime.
Right? Because Biden's not running anything. He's running
into the jungle not knowing where he is.
Kamala Harris didn't run anything. It would be
an extension of that. I do think
that Trump at least recognizes
the dangers
of globalism,
of things like the climate change agenda,
the Trans Pacific Partnership,
etcetera, where that's gonna be pushed by the
other administration. Whether or not anything meaningful happens,
I don't know. You know, I'm also,
of the belief that he really did get
shot in the ear, and the second attempt
got real too. I know there are some
people that don't believe that.
I I think that if anything
woke him up enough that these guys are
bad people and maybe there is something bigger,
that would be it. But, hey, man.
I'm on the rodeo train. You know what?
I like empirical evidence. I'm a forensics
guy. I'm also not a guy that's afraid
to say what I don't like. So, like,
I can't stand the fact he's still out
there talking about the Syria gas attack in
Douma that never happened. Right? And and Soleimani
and all the other stuff. I I like
to believe
that his mea culpa for Operation Warp Speed
is trying to get Bobby Kennedy in the
HHS, the guy that's called both the hate
and lies shot and the virus itself, bioweapons.
Right? That's a pretty big move. I prefer
to work on Israel and get another discussion.
Yeah. No. They all suck with the military
industrial complex, but at least I
look, with these maniacs that are in office
right now,
I think World War 3 is a real
possibility.
With Trump in
office, I think it's less of a possibility.
You guys do have 2 questions. We're gonna
promise it.
Like 25 to 40% less. Because I don't
How are we gonna end the show with
that kind of a statement? We're gonna talk
for 5 hours.
Right? Oh my goodness. Look, I'll say I'll
say this, man. I I don't think Kamala
Harris was ever
a legitimate
candidate. I think that they knew that they
couldn't run Biden going back to when they
nominated Biden,
that he was gonna be a one term
president. I'd firmly believe, and I've said it
from day 1. The I mean, I was
saying this in 2020,
2021.
They're going to pull Joe sometime relatively close
to the convention.
They're going to install Harris.
She's set up to lose because everyone hates
her, and you have to have
Trump 2.0
for all of the infrastructure
to hit those agenda 20, 30 goals. You
couldn't get that done as much under Harris,
not with the digital prison grid,
not with the way that they've already set
up Elon Musk as a disposable
defense contractor.
Because, again, it's not like he actually made
a single Starlink or StarShield satellite. It's not
like he's ever actually made any of the
products that he's the face for.
The he's actually kind of just
a weird little goofball who should be playing
Diablo 4 all day, which is apparently what
he does because he's the best in the
world at it. You know? Unbelievable.
It's all that's unbelievable.
It's so because I'm sure because the while
running all these companies, because that perfect we
all know how long this takes. I mean,
come on. Yeah. No. It's No. I I
think what what's interesting and I'll give you
the last word on this stuff, Catherine. I
think just, you know, obviously,
we should all hope that these people wanna
do what we think is the right thing.
I mean, nobody that's that's the interesting dynamic
in this kinda conversation is it comes back
to where, you know, it's like we look.
When we say we hope hope they should
succeed, I think we all anybody honest does.
But it's about being realistic about where they
come from, what they're really doing, what their
actions are showing. And I I think right
now, we should have that hope, but realize
that every single step so far has been
a dramatic
step in the wrong direction, even what they
promised everybody
in in the base. You know? And I
think that's very obvious. So with what we're
seeing with the bitcoin dynamic, with all the
things that are happening, I don't know why
they're not the most obviously on guard with
everything they were just calling out. And so,
again, I hope for the best. I'll be
right there with you, Jason, if it goes
the right way. And I I I we
should all be happy about that but I
feel bad about where it goes so far.
And I think it's giving us, you know,
bad indications for where that's gonna go. So,
Catherine, if you wanna say anything on the
way out about what we've talked about today
or So I you know, I just have
to say in closing, I've
what I wanna say is I've really enjoyed
this conversation.
And I've really enjoyed,
you know,
getting a chance to talk with Steve and
Jason. But
I see
all over Europe, all over the United States,
all over the world, people who wanna be
free,
including people who
have assets, who don't wanna end up with
no assets in 2030.
And all I can tell you is that,
you know, when you spend time with those
people, you have a much better time. My
favorite quote for 2024 was a doctor in
Switzerland who's building a parallel health system. He
said
the currency of the future will be relationships
of trust.
And, and when you have a political problem,
it's people who can solve it and and
people who can build new systems and new
governance systems. And all I can tell everybody
listening to this is the reason I believe
freedom will will ultimately win is because we
just have a better time.
So I've really enjoyed it. I can't thank
you enough, Ryan, for pulling this together. I
know it's a tremendous work, but I really
appreciate your leadership. And
I just can't imagine when I listen to
you that,
I know an AI can can process faster
than you can, but nobody can inspire me
and make me laugh, as they say something
really intelligent the way you can.
Thank you. So I'll take the keywords every
time.
Thank you, Catherine. I really appreciate that. And
I do I think this was a great
conversation. And, you know, I I think that
this is important that we have obviously different
opinions, you know, and that we continue to
flush these things out. And and, while hoping
for the best, obviously, but I think this
conversation is obviously concerning with what we're on
the precipice of, about the Bitcoin dynamic, the
AI conversation, the great reset. I just hope
people are on guard. That's all I want.
Just question what's coming, be skeptical of it.
The thing I keep saying on my show
is
even if you believe in Trump, whoever you
believe in, that should be the person that
you hold their feet to the fire more
than anybody because you expect more from them.
You know? And that's what I really wanna
see as we go forward is that we're
being very critical of these people. So, we
have a lot more coming in general on
on the IMA. Our our the site should
be up reasonably soon. That's still being built.
We just want it to be perfect and
done right. We should be seeing an uptick
on some of these panels coming your way.
I believe we're looking for 1, in early
December.
And so just keep your eye out for
more of this. I I think there's gonna
be a lot more coming from this in
general and all of our individual platforms. So
thanks for all everybody for being here. Oh,
sorry. I had the reverb. I thought somebody
was saying something. Thank you all for being
here. And, as always, question everything. Come to
your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.