Welcome to another IMA panel, the Independent Media
Alliance. Today, we are discussing a fantastic article
by Catherine Austin Fitts in regard to the
coming digital control grid. Now we've all been
doing a lot of work in a lot
of different ways discussing sort of the building,
you know, I mean, the the great reset
essentially. Every single data point around that conversation
that seems to have continued
under the US government of today. And so
we wanted to discuss today the different points
of where that's been building, what we can
see, and talk about the possible solutions around
each one. So thank you all for being
here today. We wanna kick this off with
Catherine Austin Fitts, telling us about her article,
and then we can go through the point.
So go ahead, Catherine.
Yep. Well, you're muted, Catherine.
Still muted, Catherine. Yep. Okay. Here we go.
Thank you, Ryan, and thank you for pulling
us all together and gathering us this way.
I recently published an article called,
Wait, let me just get back to it.
You threw me off there. Oh, I'm sorry.
Wait a minute.
The fast approaching digital control grid a checklist
of Trump administration
actions to date
when trump,
right after he was inaugurated
he did a press
conference with several big tech billionaires
and
announced,
initiatives
the Stargate initiative to put together data centers
all across the country
and combine it with mRNA,
injections.
And it was clearly a major step forward
in building an AI,
engineered control grid.
And he announced energy policies that would support
it.
And
so I put together an article literally in
the first couple weeks that showed all the
different things the Trump administration
was doing
to build a a digital control grid.
And, what I discovered with that article was
that
many people,
you know, they see the individual pieces, but
they don't see how they come together
in a control grid, which completely
overruns The US constitution
and changes our fundamental
governance structure, including moving control of fiscal policy
and taxation
to the central banks. And so,
ever since that article, I've been tracking and
just amazed
both at all the things they're doing to
build the digital control grid,
but also all the things they're not doing.
If you if you were serious about reverting
the corruption
in the last four or five administrations,
they're not doing any of those things.
So or or I should say not,
they're not doing very many of those things.
They've done a few things that, in my
opinion,
you know, create great headlines, but they're minor.
And so I put up, a new piece
where I just extended the old piece and
I had,
I I went sort of through my summary
and then I went through different categories. The
first, let me just describe the categories.
The first was money. The second was the
war on cash. The third was financial disclosure,
which to me is a major, major issue.
The fourth was digital IDs. We've never seen
an administration more aggressive on digital IDs, which
we know is the next big step to
building the control grid.
And then,
digital payment,
systems.
And then,
finally, let me go down the Internet of
bodies, and that gets into the mRNA, telecommunication
systems,
changes in assets and how federal assets are
managed, and finally energy, because we know
that the digital control grid is unbelievably energy
consumptive.
And then finally,
looking at both budget, federal reserve and some
other minor things. And,
you know, by gathering everything together, it was
funny. I kept asking,
people kept asking me about why do you
think they're building the digital control grid. And
Ryan, literally the list got so long that
I found myself doing interviews and for, you
know, forgetting to mention one. So I thought,
okay, I need a checklist.
So this is Catherine's interview checklist, or that's
what it started out at. But as you
can see, there is extraordinary
number
of items, and this is this is not
an accident. People say, well, we're sure Trump
doesn't know. Of course, he knows. This is
obvious.
Anyway, so
my hope is that there because there are
so many real solutions,
you know, but they all require us getting
out of the pendulum between
what I call the political version
of your food choices, McDonald's or Burger King.
Mhmm. You know, your your political choices are
not,
you know, one part of the party
versus the other part. You know? We have
real choices,
but we have to just leave the, you
know, the pendulum between the different parts of
the uni party behind.
And my hope is that this will help
people see the different parts
of the digital control grid coming and understand
their time is much better spent,
you know, instead of watching TV and being
entertained by Donald Trump. It's much better spent
stopping the real ID
or working with state legislators to do things
to protect financial transaction freedom. Anyway, so that's
my introduction. I really appreciate all you guys
coming together
to talk about this because anything we can
do to help people see
how these different pieces snap together in a
literally a digital concentration camp. And the more
people who create friction and refuse to go
along the better off. We all are
Couldn't agree more and since we got everyone
here now, we can go through the quick
roundabout here We have jason burmas today ian
davis on the top right steve boykinen kitt
knightley in the middle katharine austin fits derrick
bros And, you know in general today, katharine
is any any spot that you'd like to
start on in regard to the list or
should we just start with the top with
money? I I would start down because we
sort of go inside out but perfect.
Let's start with money and and
essentially destroy you know, ending currency as we
know it. Yeah. Well, as you write in
the the basic summary, all and all digital
currency and monetary system is essential to institute
a digital control grid. So different than the
actual digital monetary system around it all, the
specific digital currency dynamic. And you mentioned the
the genius act, which I was looking over
a second ago in regard to the, you
know, kind of like the state of coin
admitted the legislation that's going forward. So So
anybody want to jump in and kick it
off? I mean, obviously, if it's out, can
I just mention one thing on the genius
act?
So so trump has made a big deal
about, you know, we're not doing cbdcs and
we're canceling cbdcs and people think that has
meaning
Mhmm. But if you look at the CBDC,
it would have been done by the Fed.
So primarily, the lead would have been the
New York Fed. And if you look at
the Genius Act, it's just saying all the
guys who own the Fed
are going to create subsidiaries and do stable
coins, which is You know is basically programmable
money with less oversight by congress So it's
sort of, you know, meet the new boss
same as the old boss There's you know,
it's it's a different version of cbdc
Right. That just but worse as you're pointing
out. There's less oversight, so it's the same
problem, but far, you know, there's there's a
worse version of it, which is such a
way this always goes where they give you
something everyone wants to push back on. Usually,
you get, like, a less bad version that
you accept. This just seems like a worse
version, but it's more of a kind of
a shell game. So anybody wanna jump in
on that topic? You know? Digital IDs, like,
you know, the way it all or I'll
also specifically, sorry, back to digital currency in
particular and how we see that going. Any
thoughts jump to mind for anybody? Well, you've
seen a a the rise of Brock Pierce.
Right? Jeffrey Epstein's good buddy and Tether
kind of taking a a major
foothold
in what is going to become
not necessarily like
CBDC,
but the face of
US Stable Coin
going forward.
And there's been, what, $700,000,000
invested and then another round of several hundred
million dollars invested, all the position Tether. And,
again, Brock Pierce
in this particular position of leverage.
And
we're
kind of finally seeing, like,
the the merger of
PayPal mafia
and cryptocurrency
all wrapped in
with a nice tight federal
bow.
And did anybody vote on this? Was anybody
asked about this? Did anybody give an opinion
to where it may be in the contrary
of no, I would rather not have my
entire financial system
be on a blockchain where at the whim
of some bureaucrat, I can have my entire
life shut off. I don't I don't think
any of this occurred,
but it's still happening.
And the people that are assembled here and
a handful of more people are about the
only ones willing to say anything
at the expense of algorithmic reach or, you
know, the expense of our shows or whatever
else we're we're trying to put out.
Yeah. I I I how do I do
this?
Well, you know, I'm not sure whose feedback
that is, but there is some feedback.
I would say this. I mean, right now,
you know, we're in the first three months
of the administration.
I think it's pretty obvious or it should
be to most people that inflation is going
nowhere.
And I really don't know how it could
really go anywhere after after they printed all
that money up during the COVID nineteen eighty
four nightmare.
I think that the talking points of going
into Fort Knox
and, the New York Federal Reserve are great.
I don't think they're ever going to come
to fruition.
I also believe that most of us kinda
saw the head butting of Powell and Trump,
in these rates. And all the while, what
what's happening right now? Gold is exploding as
a hard asset. Silver is doing very well,
and Bitcoin is back on the rise.
And I would
imagine with the right economic turmoil and headline,
we could see Bitcoin actually not go to
a million. You know, those people are always
going high, but maybe reach a high of
a hundred 20, hundred and 20 5 thousand.
What does that mean for the next, you
know,
market in crypto? I think you see Ethereum
and all these meme coins explode. In fact,
Trump, I I just saw a report today,
is gonna be having a meeting with the,
top holders of his meme coin. Right? Remember
when Trump came out
and that just exploded? So I think there's
gonna be a lot of exploitation
on that level as they move more people
into the comfort of using this device on
the blockchain.
For instance, Venmo,
PayPal, you can buy Bitcoin on there right
now. You know what I mean? And I'm
sure that's going to go into more and
more crypto.
I think they will hedge their bets. And,
you know, kinda like we talked even before
the administration took place, we all
know that a digital currency is part of
the plan. So that's gonna be pushed forward.
I mean, to imagine it would not be
when Peter Thiel was such a huge part
of the push at the very end of
this administration
getting in, You have Vance, etcetera.
I don't know what the public's gonna think
about it. I mean, I think if you
keep it so people
can still afford things
and you still have the rhetoric on television,
Unfortunately, I don't know how we get back
to a a a pushback on that. I
I don't believe anybody here thinks that we're
gonna get an honest
audit of the Federal Reserve, etcetera. I'd love
to see that. You know, I there's been
talks of Ron Paul. Those talks went away
very, very quickly.
So, unfortunately,
you know and in this very, first part,
Catherine talks about an AI and crypto czar.
You know, one of the things that wasn't
really highlighted in the article that's extremely concerning
to me
is that, well, AI is a buzzword.
We have we've not taken out the government
fascistic aspect of AI in that the chief
AI AI officer, artificial intelligence officer program,
is still going. And that means that our
government
is literally involved at the defense department level
on every company developing both software and hardware
in this regard and essentially,
decides how far it goes. I mean,
all these companies are being audited by the
government. And, again, the only ones that are
beyond this audit are government agencies. It says
it right in the CAIO
doctrine. Anybody can read right now. So that's
extremely also concerning
when we're talking about cryptocurrency because they are
gonna end up going hand in hand. You
know, I don't wanna take too much more
time, but,
unfortunately, in this regard,
I don't necessarily
know how you slow this down.
And instead, I think that people are going
to have to navigate it
by, you know, multiple investments in multiple things
and really hard assets and resources
like actual
physical property, like you've done, Ryan. You know,
owning your own home, owning your own piece
of land, knowing your neighbors, etcetera,
creating your own barter type systems, which still
do exist in pockets of The United States
outside of these big cities that they don't
wanna tell you about, even in the big
cities as well. So that's kinda my thoughts
on the monetary system. I I would love
to believe that we're gonna have some kind
of, quote, unquote, golden age and economic boom,
but I only see really that economic scale
out up
if people start adopting
the, the digital grid. Right? Then they'll give
them a little bit of a bone to
encourage other people to get on the train
before they pull the rug out. Mhmm.
Mhmm. I'd like to jump in real quick
if I can. Can you guys hear me
okay?
Yep. Cool. We'll like
Yeah. Catherine, thank you for putting that together.
I was just looking over. I hadn't had
a chance to look at it before today,
but I think it's a great summary of
everything going on and for people to really
get a grips of the the role that
the Trump administration's playing. I just would wanted
to add two things. One,
just to for a brief moment to say,
I told you so, and go back to
some articles that I wrote at the last
American Vagabond
prior to the election. And, you know, a
lot of people didn't wanna listen, pointing out
all the connections with Peter Thiel, the connections
with Elon Musk, of course, military industrial complex,
etcetera, etcetera.
And, thankfully, more and more people, I think,
are listening. Of course, there's the die hard
MAGA folks who aren't gonna hear anything we're
saying regardless. But I do think even those
who are optimistic and skeptically voting for Trump
or, you know, just didn't like Harris or
whatever and felt this was the only choice
they could make are now starting to see
a bigger picture.
I'd also like to point to, I don't
know if you already have it pulled up,
Ryan, or not, but we just published a
new article I wrote at the last break
of Vagabond
yesterday called the Palantir welcome to the Palantir
world order, which kind of picks up on
the threads that you were pointing out, Catherine.
There's just one area I did want to
to mention just in terms of the finances.
I found a report from ProPublica talking about,
Peter Thiel, a Peter Thiel funded company as
well as connected to all the usual players,
Andreessen Howards and, David Sachs is in there.
The company you guys may have heard of
called Ramp, which is a financial company. They
focus on doing AI software for businesses,
kind of helping them analyze their their finances.
And I've seen more and more people using
this company, but ProPublica
is reporting that there have been four private
meetings recently with Ramp executives and the Trump
administration's,
appointees to the general service administration,
which obviously focuses on federal contracts.
And you look into who who Ramp is,
of course, they're funded by Pierre Teal through
the founders fund in seven different rounds.
They also have,
Keith Robos, I think is how you say
his name, Khosla Ventures,
with also Thrive Capital, which is, of course,
Joshua Kushner, Jared Kushner's brother, Trump's son-in-law.
And then eight VC, which is a venture
capital firm funded by Joe Lonsdale, who is,
of course, another cofounder of Palantir with Peter
Thiel and Alex Karp. And so the General
Service Administration, which handles federal contracts, is now
potentially going to partner with Ramp, which is
a total Peter Thiel
cabal fund company to start handling,
some of their federal contracts. So just another
piece of that puzzle of how
this,
you know, the the Thiel acolytes and those
connected in that whole universe are are getting
further ingratiated there. I also wanna point out,
we did report it last American Vagabond months
ago, and I know we talked about on
our previous panels here.
The the role that Howard Lutnick is playing,
Steve,
mentioned,
Brock Pierce. Brock Pierce. But Howard Lucknow as
well is a big component of this and
a big piece of the puzzle. His connections
to Tether,
of course, him as commerce secretary.
Again, I I say it half jokingly, but
also, like,
I told you so. We told you so.
The information was all there. So no big
surprises for me, but, hopefully, putting it together
in this format that you have, Catherine, as
well as the article I just put out,
which similarly tried to just summarize all these
different areas that we're seeing Peter Thiel connected,
companies and, of course, Palantir directly. Palantir partnering
with the IRS.
SpaceX and Palantir are saying they're gonna build
the Golden Dome over America.
Palantir helping ICE find,
immigrants and
probably more people in the in the future.
And then as I mentioned, the the payment
platform also, Peter Thiel is getting involved with
nuclear energy through a company called General Matter,
which is starting to partner with Department of
Energy.
Yeah. So just there's so many examples, and,
of course, that doesn't even get into Israel
and the connections
there. So, I mean, even going beyond just
the focus of the digital aspect, which is
obviously a big cornerstone of the puzzle, we're
seeing Palantir and Peter Thiel and the whole
PayPal mafia
all up in the the federal government in
various contracts in different ways.
Most definitely. And and, well, I think we'll
we'll there's a surveillance point where I'm gonna
definitely bring a lot of that in in
regard to Palantir in particular to total information
awareness, like, obvious kind of development. But and
and excellent points in general. To the actual
ramp point you brought up, and I was
curious if, Catherine, or anybody else, what your
thoughts are on this. Because I had this
pulled up in in the overlap to the
digital currency conversation.
Now, you know, any real financial dynamic like
this would be just one more way they
could kind of co work you into that.
But I wondered, Catherine, anybody else, if you
have any thoughts on this further. So I
just wanted to jump in because,
and pick up on a couple things that
that Derek said.
One, if you look at
if if you and I were if this
group of people were to go into the
US government and say, we're gonna get to
the bottom of where the fraud has been
going on and and stop it,
we would have gone to HUD and DOD.
If we said we're gonna build a social
credit system to control,
what we would do is we would go
to the treasury payment data, the Social Security
payment data, and the IRS payment data, which
is exactly where they went like a heat
seeking missile.
And and we would basically
download that data and,
and provide it to
our partnership
between
Musk's AI company and Palantir.
And if you read the wired reports, that's
exactly what they did.
So, you know, at one point, Naomi Wolf
said that's a trillion dollars worth of data.
And in fact, if you look at high
quality payment data of that kind,
you know, I don't think that's an unreasonable
estimate.
So,
so
if you look at the data game, they
are clearly building,
you know, the control grid. And Palantir's role
in this is critical, which is why I'm
so glad you guys have published this
recent piece. I also wanna mention something else.
Does everybody remember when when we would send
over,
pallets of cash to Iraq? Mhmm.
Okay.
Stablecoins
working through mobile payment systems
are the new
pallets of cash
that are gonna go global.
So this is just like one company used
to tender for the stock of another company
in the market.
The US is planning using stable coins, which,
of course,
bring more money into the dollar and the
dollar market share.
They are literally, through the mobile payment systems,
gonna try and tender
for as many citizens worldwide as they can
get into the system.
And if you look at some of the
planning, not only do they plan to send
out the stable coins, but they're planning on
issuing,
it looks to me, like massive amounts of
credit. So literally everybody over the around the
world can borrow money
in stable coins, and
and then they get you on the stable
coin platform. So it's it's it's gonna be
an and they think they can get billions
of people moved into the dollar channel through
stablecoins.
And and if you look at their sort
of vision of where the dollar system is
gonna go, it's absolutely critical. So this is
a completely global game. The other thing I
wanted to mention is right now,
inflation was caused
by the massive injection by the Fed during
the going direct reset.
But the thing that is pushing inflation now
and is gonna continue to push it is
deglobalization.
Deglobalization
is very
inflating as the real cost of goods sold,
but it's happening on the real side,
real asset side of the balance sheet. And
I think part of what they're hoping to
do is match it with this unbelievable
flood
of stablecoins
and and credit that they're working on, which
is, I mean, if you think we're in
a a
ridiculous
debt bubble now, where do you see this?
This is gonna be something else.
I wanted you to be getting real quick
on Theo just quickly,
because you mentioned the nuclear aspect
of of the investments. We also have to
remember that Theo was essential in the rise
of Facebook.
You know, obviously, Palantir is concerning. You mentioned
Alex Karp. Bilderberg's coming up literally, I think,
within the month over in Switzerland. I'm gonna
be keeping my eye on that. But one
of the things that has been downplayed
is the fact that we've had Meta now
announce that they're building a data center in
Kentucky almost the size of Lower Manhattan.
And they'll have all the energy in the
world, again, to run these AI data centers.
Well, it's Meta,
it's Google, etcetera,
that have now invested in these mini nuclear
plants that they are going to have supposedly
on-site.
So they plan on powering these things
with mini plants
around these areas. So remember what I just
said. These centers are are the size. Go
go watch the map overlay
of Lower Manhattan. How big this will be.
Think about that for a moment.
That type of technology is now going to
be fast tracked, not for you and I,
not for cheaper power, but for AI
driven
authoritarianism.
I mean, that's that's a legit point that
no one seems to be talking about. And,
again, Theo was essential
in the come up of Zuckerberg,
Facebook,
Meta,
everything.
And just one more point on social media.
You know, we had that executive order, and
I was very skeptical of it in the
beginning. I think we did a forum on
it We're we're gonna stop the censorship of
social media.
Where's that? That's not real.
Even yesterday,
I posted, you know, I've got dead kids
in my feed every every day. I don't
know if you guys saw it, but twin
girls, four years old in Gaza,
dead. I reposted it. I said, hey.
You know, when am I gonna stop seeing
dead kids in my feed? I had people.
And now they weren't in The United States
Of America, but they're not allowed to even
watch that video in Europe
and places in, South America. They it's just
they comply, and that's x. That's supposed to
free speech platform with his musk or nuts
friend. So I'll I'll stop my little tirade,
and I will allow somebody else to comment.
Yeah. You're going back to, what Catherine was
saying there about, you know, the the the
global nature of this. And, obviously, we're talking
about the the impact of people like Thiel
and Musk and Anderson and people like that
in American politics and, you know, their impact
and leveraging the Trump administration.
But if you go back to, I think
it was 02/2009,
Thiel wrote an article where he spoke about
his ambitions to create, and this is a
direct quote, a new world currency.
Mhmm. Well, if you if you It it
was 2010, and we just played the full
text of it on the show yesterday.
Yeah.
So so the the notion of creating a
new world currency
with using dollar backed stable coins,
I think that if you you can look
at,
a plan, I think, that was that was
that was at least being thought about in
2019
in terms of making it a practical
plan. And that's something that I always refer
to as a a speech that Mark Carney
gave at the g seven Symposium in Jackson
Hole in 2019,
where he spoke about this notion of what
he called a synthetic hegemonic currency.
Now
shortly following that,
speech, that's when Facebook, which obviously Thiel was,
you know, instrumental in. And I think I
think,
Zuckerberg, when Thiel left the board of face
of Meta, but when it had become Meta,
he I think he was quoted as saying
that, he considered Teal to be a mentor
in, business,
in in industry, and in life.
So so Zuckerberg was obviously impressed with Teal.
And
this notion of this synthetic
hegemonic
currency,
Carney said that there were options on the
table. So, you know, I mean, the you
know, things like central bank digital currency, but
also in particular,
a stablecoin
started by
Facebook in Facebook,
called Libra, which then became Diem.
And that and that,
stablecoin,
funnily enough,
Facebook itself in an SEC filing I keep
saying Facebook, but I can't remember quite when
they became Meta. But,
but in an SEC filing, they openly stated
in that filing that they didn't think that
the, Libra project would work
because they realized that the regulation wasn't in
place to allow it to work.
So,
also, when you think about their the people
like Teal that have got a a they're
very close to
people that that, obsessed with this notion of
something called accelerationism,
which is wrapped up in this notion of
something called the dark enlightenment and all this.
They believe in creative destruction of markets. They
think this is an important tool to be
deployed.
Well, if you look at Libra,
that looks
like an aggressive attack on the monetary system
in terms if you consider the the monetary
system to be a market,
that was an aggressive attack on that and
certainly on the traditional role of the central
banks in terms of them being able to
issue money,
that,
you know, this this that that created
the
the framework for the regulatory,
process.
And, you you know, we have people like
Thiel and and and Zuckerberg were meeting in
the with Trump in the first during the
first his first administration
in private for private meetings
when Zuckerberg was being quizzed about Libra
in front of the in front of the
world and in certainly in front of the
senate and and, you know, in front of
various committees.
They were having private meetings,
and lo and behold,
shortly after those meetings,
the the DM project, which it had become
by then, suddenly became it was initially, it
was gonna be backed by a basket of
currencies, and then it was backed after these
meetings, it was suddenly going to be backed
one to one pegged to the dollar to
you to US to the US dollar.
Well, when you look more closely at the
notion of
interoperable
currency, which is what,
the Bank for International Settlements has been absolutely
obsessed about for many, many years,
We've already seen
things like what a a team at Warwick
University.
They've already
onboarded,
in The US
using
from Fiat to a stablecoin, a USDC stablecoin,
so this is circles.
And then offboarded at the other end in
France
directly in euros
in real time
across borders
with very, very, very low transaction fees
with a transaction
that absolutely tracked exchange rates between by naught
point naught 2%.
So that naught point naught 2%
was
more than saved,
you know, was more than covered by the
by the extremely
cheap transaction fees. So that so they are
building,
I I suggest, and I think that the
The US move towards
US dollar backed stable coins is very much
part of this.
They are building a global network of interoperable
digital currencies.
And I think when we the more that
you look at it, when you look think
about what Carney might have been talking about
when he was talking about a synthetic hegemonic
currency
is that
rather than rather than having,
and it and it you know, and he
was very much concerned about protecting the power
of the dollar as well. And, clearly, with
people like Thiel backing things like Paxos, which
is a which is a a 1 to
1 US dollar custodian of of its digi
digital stablecoin.
Things are moving in that direction,
and it would seem that, you know, that
in all likelihood,
a US dollar denominated stablecoins
are going to be the dominant
kind of currency in a new model of
international monetary and financial system, which is gonna
be
wholly synthetic
and and therefore, they truly control.
So, Ian, let me ask you a question.
It looks to me like they're building this
parallel track with stable coins
so that they can bypass a lot of
the national controls in the current banking system.
So you're looking
in in a funny kind of way, you're
doing same old same old. You're just skipping
all the different toll booths.
Is that fair to say? Yeah. I mean,
I I I think things are still up
in the air. I think there was there
was a there was a a notable,
exchange between Auguste and Carston
and,
I can't remember her name now.
She's an academic. LeGarde.
Oh, no. No. That's the one I know
what you're talking about. Yeah. She was an
she was an academic, and and he was
saying that, you know, if if we're gonna,
have these stable coins that are backed by
US treasuries, why shouldn't we just,
you know, use CBDC
wholesale
CBDC
to you and and, you know,
trade assets as we normally have, but just
use wholesale CBDC. And her response to him
was,
well,
why should we bother with this third party?
Why why do we have to trust central
banks with all their strange biases?
Why So why can't we trust why can't
we trust,
Paxos? You know? No. So I'll tell I'll
I'll tell you why.
Right now, under the law, the Fed's problem
is it cannot do cbdc without authoring
authorizing legislation,
and it still is under the rubric of
con
congress.
And it's one of the reasons they're trying
to get a constitutional convention. It's one of
the reasons they've been trying to wiggle out
but right now
The fed has too many disclosure obligations and
congress still has jurisdiction
And that is a real sticking point. If
you have to go get legislation and admit
what you're really gonna do. And stablecoin is
a way to
do the same thing because it's the owners
of the New York Fed who are gonna
control all the stablecoins. It's just, you know,
it's just and there's one layer removed between
congressional oversight,
and you can have a lot more secrecy
and and wiggle out of congress.
That's why.
Yeah. No. Definitely. I mean, if you think
about the implications
of what Trump was talking about in terms
of freedom cities,
so the this notion of these deregulated anything
goes,
sort of free for all development zones where
where the multinational corporations can
research and develop to their heart's content,
then, you know, companies like Tether,
will be able to do whatever they want
with regard to the development of their stable
coins within those freedom zones.
Literally literally beyond the well, it seems like
from from what they've suggested, beyond the jurisdiction
of the federal government,
if if they establish these, quote, unquote, freedom
cities.
So
so they are they are they are trying
to create a privatized
a a totally privatized
international monetary and financial system,
I I I think.
I think and I think you're right. And
the question was whether these sustain these development
zones, whether Prospera dynamics or not, are are
actually just another part of that same agenda,
and they're just being, you know,
you know, presented that way. Like like in
Prospero using Starlink with the same, you know,
Teal funded, you know, they're they're I think
it's kind of like trial balloons for the
same problem. And and it's the the they're
using cryptocurrency. It's all kind of the same
thing. But I think you're right. The way
you can see this developing is clearly from
a globalist perspective. I would I wanna point
out that from from Facebook
and Libra, like, imagine if that was Iran
that did that, you know, where they just
allowed this to go. You know, it's it's
clearly being allowed. And what I think is
interesting to what Catherine was bringing up in
her in her article, the the genius act
itself is I think you were kind of
alluding to clearly
highlights that only the federal entities are the
ones that allowed to now do this, and
they're just kind of taking control of the
dynamic within it all. And I think that
in coupling that with the real ID national
identification,
you know, all the it's just I don't
I don't know why people people can't see
how this is developing whether or not they
want to admit that this is their plan.
It is the same agenda, which is kinda
like the larger thing we're talking about today.
I don't know if, Kit, you wanted to
have any comments on this. I I did.
I I just I just was gonna say
that if you look at the history of
the the central bank digital currency issue, like,
it explodes in 2020, and I think it
was quite interesting.
We got to the point in, like, late
twenty twenty one, early '20 '20 '2 where
basically something like a 50 of the 94
global nations are all developing their own. And
the stick in the mud on this issue
was,
weirdly enough, usually The United States. All these
countries were publishing reports saying digital currency is
gonna be great, and congress would publish reports
saying, you know, yeah, but
it might not be so great.
I think there's there's lots of issues that
go into that. I think some of it
was a fear from, like, the the empire
head nation that it would undercut,
their legislative power. And some of it is
the odd position that America is in, like,
economics wise where they they use a lot
more cash than a lot more West than
a lot of western
countries do.
And so
you have the sort of transition rebranding. As
Catherine said right at the beginning,
basically, they're gonna do a central bank digital
currency. They're just gonna they're gonna call it
something else. And as Ian pointed out with
the
the,
interoperable issue,
They're gonna do a global currency, only it
will be called a 50 different things.
It's a very much a question of linguistics
and branding more than anything else.
Yes. Well, let me also just really jump
in. I think also technology.
And what do I mean by that?
You know, if these people had their way,
and, Catherine talks about the Internet of bodies
pretty extensively in the article, they would love
the Sam Altman
Worldcoin
brand, where in order to actually transact on
this thing, you give up your biometrics
out of the gates.
So while you're right, I do believe it's
gonna be, you know, a 50
different things.
I think that they're gonna integrate different types
of technologies. And just like you see with
the consolidation of everything, they will weed out
the ones that are less efficient
and less surveillance and then ultimately
try to get even beyond
what Altman is doing with Worldcoin.
Yeah. And usually by some rationalization by, you
know, demonstrating why the ones that don't spy
on you are not working as well, the
efficiency dynamic and, you know, justify it in
that way. And there's also the there's the
question of,
how you get people to go along with
it as well. Because, like, I know just
from if if we have something called the
digital pound in this country, we don't yet,
but we will. And if we have it
and you have to give up your fingerprints
or your thumbprints or your retina scans or
whatever to use it, people will be much
more likely to give that up for a
digital pound,
which is an extension of something they know
than for the global world coin, which is
an which is a brand new thing they
don't. Right. So you sort of have to
use that language to get people on board.
This is a digital dollar. It's like the
old dollar, and you need your fingerprints.
Yeah. They they it it's the same with,
they've got this notion of what they call
vendor agnostic.
So so, with digital ID products,
the the United Nations certainly and the World
Bank likely used to use this term vendor
agnostic products.
So it so it's independent. The then the
the the creator of the product is independent.
It's not part of any kind of
of of, collected
network or anything like that.
Despite the fact that they talk about everything
being interoperable in terms of its,
shipping readable,
messaging exchange systems. So already, they've started talking
about ISO ISO
two zero two two compliant digital ID products.
So even though they're all produced by different
people, and then they, you know, they look
different, they say, you know, somebody might be
using real ID, somebody might be using a
European driving license, or whatever.
They all they're all made by different companies,
IDEMIA
or or whoever.
But they're all they all have a mix
an exchangeable
machine readable data so that that can be
exchanged.
And and the world and the the, you
know, the World Bank have already tied toyed
with this ID four d idea of having
a universal
ledger
for all digital ID, which would just simply
gather up this data from all digital ID
products. Well, with regard to stable coins, they've
already
there are already stable coins that have been
issued,
with and I and I was struggling to
remember the the the names of them, which
are
using the same kind of what we might
call vendor agnostic technology,
I. E. That they're all built on platforms
and on and on blockchains,
which have but but to a to an
agreed standard in a mixed in a and
I think Swift have already
spoken about, you know, the stable coins that
could adopt this inter interchangeable
or inter optimal. 2023.
Yeah.
Yeah. So it's a it's another ISO another
ISO or or standard
for machine readable digital interchange, you know, information.
And there are stablecoins that are already compliant
with that. So so you so this notion
of a of a kind of global network
of
of vendor agnostic,
digital currency products,
all all working together. And if the Bank
for International Settlements gets its way
interchangeable across borders instantaneously,
you start moving to a situation where
you know, I mean, I I've questioned whether
even what the value of things like a
reserve currency would be in such as in
such a system.
Because reserve currency is based on what's already
been stolen,
Ian.
Like, you you I mean, you you know
that. You know that.
It's it's based off of what's already been
thieved. And then going forward,
anything that's described as a stable coin
just means regime approved.
It doesn't mean that there's any actual stability
to it.
It just means that, you know, the overarching
economic
sphere
that's been in control for the last, you
know, many centuries
is still in control.
That's all a stablecoin
means. Yeah? Catherine, I know you wanted to
chime in.
Oh, I just wanted to mention
one of the things you see that's very
interesting. So we have,
lots of collections of short videos up at
Solari, and I put a link in the
chat to the financial transaction freedom
videos. It's about a hundred short videos starting
out with the famous one of Carsten's basically
saying we can make the rules and enforce
them centrally. But the second one is neil
cash kerry a former treasury official
who,
used to be or is now president of
the minneapolis fed. I don't know if you
you can you play it ryan? It's only
a minute.
You're muted ryan.
The Carson one?
No. The second one. Okay. Go and keep
talking. I'll grab it.
Okay. So so what you're seeing is the
more and more people start realizing how this
stuff really works,
you're finding all sorts of people with very
successful careers or wealthy in America saying, wait
wait a minute. We
if we don't have our fundamental freedoms, they
they can take all our assets, and they're
starting to realize that they're on the menu.
And here you have a president of the
of one of the 12 federal reserve banks
saying
Americans should never do a CBDC.
And
and for the reasons yeah. Same reasons. I'm
sure he would know why they should never
do, you know, interoperable
and programmable
stablecoins. Anyway, if you wanna play it, Ryan,
it's just a minute, and it's very impactful.
Yeah. I just noticed in the chat, Jared,
you do you wanna count it before if
you have to if you have to be
on here? I could wait till after, Catherine.
K. Let's play this first. Asking anybody,
anybody at the Fed or outside of the
Fed to explain to me what problem this
is solving.
I did I can send anybody in this
room $5 with Venmo right now.
Right? No, seriously. So what is it that
a cbdc could do that venmo can't do?
Is that it? No. That's not it. Is
there any reason
it stopped?
No.
Don't know what let let me, go ahead
and yeah. It seems to be playing in
the background paper. Let me remove it really
quickly and add it again, see if that
works. Well, let I'll bring up Derek's article
if you wanna talk about this there.
Oh, sure. Yeah. I I don't wanna intrude,
but I wanted to go back just briefly
to the point that, Ian was making about
the freedom cities. This was reported earlier in
April by Reuters
about,
of course, Ken Howery, who we pointed out
months ago is connected to Peter Thiel, and,
you know, they've got him now in the,
the position of ambassador for Denmark, which is,
of course, part of their desire to make
Greenland part of The US as they build
the tech native North America.
This report is just showing how I think
you mentioned Ian, did you mention Praxis?
I think you did. And I did. I
because I didn't. But yeah.
Okay. Well, so this ties into some of
the companies and some of the things you
were talking about. Praxis is one of the
companies. There's also, another one called
Promos, I think it is. And, Promos Promos
Capital. And this is tied to Andreessen. It's
tied to Peter Thiel, tied to Lonsdale. Again,
the whole PayPal mafia.
But what this article is just talking about
is that these discussions are already ongoing,
and that whole cabal is already one of
the places they're planning to do it, and
this may be one of the reasons besides
resources they're so interested in,
Greenland.
Apparently, they're already in discussions. According to the
article, Praxis cofounder Dryden Brown told Reuters that
companies have already approached them about helping them
to establish
a so called freedom city in Greenland.
And, yeah, this is, you know, just part
of that overall move. So whether or not
it happens in The US or The Trump
and his team really do try to take
control of Greenland in some capacity,
these ideas are being discussed. And it's the
same people tied to,
Prospera and Honduras, which Ryan mentioned.
You have, what's his name? Friedman, the, grandson
of Milton Friedman's involved in that. Patty Friedman,
I think. Joe Lonsdale, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk,
of course. So, yeah, these discussions are ongoing.
And then I just wanna insert one other
thing before I do have to head out
in just a couple of minutes, because I
I've was reading some of the comments and
I know that
people in all of our collective audiences
maybe know some of these details, if not
all the details,
and if not all the specifics.
And they're, I think, counting on us
in some ways, maybe
unnecessarily,
to also think of solutions. You know, what
are we actually gonna do about this? Because
we're decide describing a world that each of
us know there is no existing
within it and still maintaining freedom and privacy.
That there has to be alternatives. This is
what I've tried to focus on quite a
bit.
So I just wanna encourage everybody who's listening
to this to take heart that, you know,
these the Independent Media Alliance is about trying
to raise awareness and talk about things that
you might not be hearing from others in
the mainstream alternative media, but we're also very
much aware of the need for solutions. I
know Catherine's focused on this as well over
at Solari and others have. So, you know,
we don't have the perfect answer for you
and your life necessarily. Everybody's got different resources,
financial situations,
desires,
etcetera, etcetera.
But, absolutely,
we need to resist these systems as much
as possible, whether that's at the airport, whether
that's real ID stuff, whether that's, you know,
just checking out at a Amazon store at
the airport that they want you to use,
you know,
check touch free everything. You just have to
resist these things in all the ways you
can, big and small, including using cash, including
rejecting the systems that they're trying to put
before us. And I do think local community
is is super key on that because I
don't know if any of us can do
it in isolation. It's gonna take us coming
together. I I don't think there's very much
hope of any sort of political solution to
prevent what we can see is on the
horizon.
So if we're gonna, you know, if we're
not gonna wait on that and not just
trust the plan, then we need to count
on ourselves, count on our communities, our churches,
whatever it is you got, your own family,
extended family, and really start having these hard
conversations. So find the people near you who
care, who can see what's going on, and
start having those conversations. And then more more
importantly, start coming up with an action plan,
or what do you what what where's your
red line in the sand? You know, what
are you willing or unwilling to do,
if it means maintaining privacy and freedom into
the long term, not just for your life,
but for the coming generations. Because if you
don't know where that line is, then the
next thing you're just gonna accept the digital
IDs when they roll out, you're gonna accept
facial recognition at the airport. And then before
you knew it, all the things you've been
watching podcasts about and watching documentaries about for
years are are gonna be your reality, and
I don't think anybody wants that. So I
just wanted to throw that in there. I'm
glad you brought it up, Derek, which is
what's funny we discussed before starting at one
of the central parts of today was to
discuss the solutions. What's funny is we we
we haven't even gotten past point one. It
just shows you how much information there are
around so many different things, and so we
can just use that as a segue. I'll
play the rest of that clip. Hopefully, that
plays for you, Catherine. And then we can
talk about the potential solution
idea. Okay. Okay. Specifically for the digital currencies.
We'll see if this plays. Asking anybody,
anybody at the Fed or outside of the
Fed to explain to me what problem this
is solving.
A digital I can send anybody in this
room $5 with Venmo right now.
Right? No. Seriously. So what is it that
a CBDC could do that Venmo can't do?
And all I get is a bunch of
hand waving. I get a bunch well, maybe
it's better for financial inclusion.
Maybe it's better for cross border remittances. Maybe.
Is there any evidence that it is? And,
you know, they say, well, what about China?
China is doing it. Well, I can see
why China would do it. If they wanna
monitor every one of your transactions,
you could do that with the central bank
digital currency. You can't do that with Venmo.
If you wanna impose negative interest rates, you
could do that with the central bank digital
currency. You can't do that with Venmo. And
if you wanna directly tax customer accounts, you
could do that with the central bank digital
currency. You can't do that with Venmo. So
I get why China would be interested. Why
would the American people be for that? Good
question. What do you have, Catherine?
Okay. So here we have the president of
one of the 12 fed Federal Reserve Banks
in 2023
at Columbia saying we should never do a
central bank digital currency.
So,
I think one of the reasons the Fed
has been slow walking this,
you know, number one is they have to
get legislation, and they can't get legislation without
telling the truth about what they're really up
to and having a a debate that they
can't that they wouldn't win before the election.
But the other thing is you have many,
many people in,
you know, throughout the institutions of The United
States. You don't, you know, they don't want
their grandchildren to be slaves.
So I think, you know, the more
the more knowledgeable people get about what's really
going on, the more
you're gonna you're gonna see real friction in
the system, and that's positive.
So I agree. Yeah. I I'd love to
jump to just solutions and and to the
very end of the article to to kind
of piggyback on what Derek was talking about
on kind of it's it's gonna take more
than one person and many people coming together.
And then Catherine
in the,
in the chat talked about states
being able to change things.
So here I am in Iowa,
and one of the things that just visually
and verbally bothers me that I actually share
with my nieces, they see me physically get
angry, is when I see the spraying in
the skies. Right? I I don't include them
in much,
but when I see that, boy, that makes
me angry. As you know, I put out
a film in 2013 called shade the motion
picture,
going over the bioengineering, the geoengineering,
Bill Gates, all this stuff.
And here we are.
So the reason I bring it up with
solutions
is kind of a frustration point as well,
but people coming together. Here in Iowa, just
about two, three months ago,
my,
state senator, a representative named Jeff Shipley, who
I've had lunch with, is a very good
man,
actually
brought legislation,
anti geoengineering
legislation,
to the house, to the state. And people
got to speak and the whole nine, and
they tried to ban it. Now my friend
Todd McGreevy,
he runs a, print publication here called the
RC Reader since 1994,
and he went, he spoke there.
The Democratic opposition
came to speak. Todd was very familiar with
this gentleman. He was kinda surprised that he
was here. He was wondering why he was
there.
Well, he had his whole little canned speech
ready to go, and that canned speech goes
like we've heard so many times.
There is no evidence
that this is actually happening,
but
if they are doing this to protect me
from global warming,
I wanna be safe.
So
in basically a paragraph's time, they go from
it doesn't exist
to if it's good for me and I
think it's good for me, we're gonna do
it anyway.
So to me, yes, we can change things
as a state,
but we're still in the baby steps of
something that everybody in the world can look
up and see.
And, you know, I was on with Gareth
Ike,
a couple days ago. And right before the
show, what does he bring up to me?
The,
United Kingdom and European legislation that they're gonna
begin to block the sun openly.
And I'm like, hey. Join the party, pal.
They're just doing it here for thirty years,
and nobody see and I even I've said
this to other people, and I wonder.
If I were to run for governor of
Iowa
and win, could I stop this? Or is
it just so far up the military industrial
complex where I'm just gonna get a big
f u? I don't really know the answer,
but I do know the again, the answer
that Derek and Catherine
talked about are at least the first steps
in trying to change this overwhelming system, and
I'll leave it there.
Well, you you have to stop it where
it starts.
And
we have a little bit of proof of
this
out here in California.
There was a pilot program out of Harvard
in 2022
where they were like, let's just
spray,
you know,
silver iodide
into the atmosphere.
What could possibly go wrong? And a bunch
of people went, no. You can't do that.
So they said, okay. We'll relocate
the program
to the deck of the USS Nimitz
in the Alameda Bay, and then we'll spray
silver iodide
into the atmosphere.
And all of the people in the immediate,
like, Alameda County area were like,
what are you doing?
Well, you know what? Why would you do
that? I just gotta do it really quickly.
Let let's do just for since we're the
beginning of the conversation, let's bring it back
to the focal on digital I on on
digital currency. And we can and but the
good point to bring to the broad point
of, you know, in a general sense, how
we can effectively create change in anything like
this. And I think it is important to
highlight the fact that I think as you're
highlighting, Jason, almost all of these, in my
opinion, supersede the idea of even a federal
government. That's my personal opinion and from a
globalist sense. And really, it's really look at
it that way. But it I I'd like
to get some solutions focused specifically on the
digital currency dynamics. So the Americans or anybody
else in the world who is feeling forced
into the idea of digital currency, what are
our proposed solutions for finding a way around
that? And and as Catherine pointed out, from
a state perspective, states' rights, that's one way
to look at it. But anybody else wanna
jump into that? I think, you know, I
would support, you know, something that Catherine's spoken
about a lot, and that is just carry
on using cash. Just refuse just use cash.
Oh, oh, not even carry on using cash.
Make a point
of using more cash when it comes to
for a second, Phil. If I wanna go
to the UFC tomorrow in Kansas City, Missouri,
0 cash. I don't even get a ticket.
So no that. Listen. There's no credit in
the menu. If I want and I and
I agree This is not 01.
it's not zero one. Yeah. If if you
look at how cash works,
if you use and insist on cash every
time you can, wherever you can,
you push it back. It's not zero one.
So I'm not saying don't go to the
UFC.
Although it's a good idea to say to
the UFC guys, what are you trying to
do? Bring in digital slavery and push back
on them? No. Really. You're right. I gotta
in digital slavery and push back on them?
No, really. You're right. I gotta tell you,
I have watched
so many people in our network
get off the couch. They knew nothing about
state legislators. They knew nothing about the local
school board. They knew nothing about they have
gotten legislation
passed.
They have gotten bills passed protecting cash.
They have gotten debanking
stopped in their states.
They have gotten
so much
done. If everybody would just get off their
couch and pick the one thing or two
things they could do and use cash whenever
they could and stop financing and supporting the
people doing this, stop going to work and
building the control grid. There would be an
absolute revolution.
And it it it is is nobody wants
to get off of their couch. That's not
there are
there are tremendous number of people getting off
their couch. I work with them every day
all over the world. They get off the
couch, and you know something? They're having fun.
They are having a good time. They are
that's how we find each other. These are
all really important things to to digest with
all this. And I I completely agree with
everything you said, Catherine. But you know it
was in our conversation in the past. I'm
much more I I tend not to lean
into the legislative direction because I feel like
it's harder. But I agree with you. It
it doesn't have to be the legislative direction.
Everybody has to do what gives them energy.
So, you know, you could be starting a
farmer's market. You could be gardening. You could
be whatever you need to do to build
local resilience and to network with other people
that create local resilience and shift the money
and the time and support out of the
the other the pro centralization
team into decentralizing. Everybody should do what gives
them energy. I no. That's what I said.
I agree with you. It's my point. But
I mean, the just explaining, prefacing what I'm
about to say by the fact that's why
I I tend not to lean that direction.
So I that being a good thing to
do, and I agree that people should be
doing it. However, I think the in my
opinion, the primary directive is I I get
the direction
from like a Larkin Rose, Derek Rose kind
of perspective is to act in, like, spend,
you know, vote with your dollar in that
sense. So I would say, don't go to
the UFC. Not because you don't like it
or you don't wanna support the UFC, but
that's how you vote in this world right
now. Right? You don't go or whatever else
by then that's what Kathy is saying. You
you prove to them that that that's more
about important to you. You know? But also
You heard Ryan Christian just pirate that like
a regular American.
I don't know. I want to go with
this at one point out.
My go first.
Honestly, my first,
you know, experience with this was about a
year and a half ago. And then, like
I said, this is in Kansas City, Missouri,
Red State, by the way, everybody,
where I went to Illinois.
And it was, just before they were gonna
have the DNC there. I went to the
venue with cash in my hand
thinking I could get a physical ticket. When
I went to the booth, they said no.
No. No. And they
do it through a text message, and a
QR code would not accept my money. Then
inside, I can't get a pretzel for money.
It's
every major league baseball
event now. It's every, like, every major sporting
event
is like that. No cash.
You have to have a QR code. Have
to download the app.
It's like you're
whether or not you're being conscious of it,
you're being herded
into
this digital
control grid, then
it's gonna take a whole lot of people
to go, hey. Wait a minute. That's dumb.
No. I'd rather not.
I'd rather not do that. This seems
completely
ridiculous
before anybody's gonna bulk,
but we gotta make them bulk. We really
do.
Yeah. I I think my Sorry. What's ironic
about that, of course, is that the like,
what's gonna remain still a cash business
is gonna be a black market weapons and
drugs.
Those were only created to launder money for
the federal government in the first place.
So they they they they can't completely kill
cash because they need it.
Yeah. Well, Catherine had a point. Go ahead,
Catherine.
Okay. So I'm just I'm just moving over
to put this in the chat.
We have a section
up on our financial transaction freedom website called,
turtling for cash.
And,
a wonderful subscriber in South Dakota
got,
legislation passed to the state legislature this session
saying that school sports events had to take
cash.
And because I agree, the sports is a
big place where the Alright. Let me stop,
Catherine.
Let me stop you because I do, a
platform elite. Cost me about 3 to $5,000
for a private this is private.
And in the OTBK Sports Center. Now when
they really wanna get you, and they do,
and you say that there's an ATM right
there. Now most of them are cash. Twice
this year, if I wanted to go to
the volleyball tournament that I already paid for,
they have a QR code. It is a
two day pass. No. No. Jason, I understand
that. What I'm telling you is will be
on you rules. That's all for
sure. I know I I know I know
about
how difficult it is. What I'm telling you
is,
I know you can raise the percentage of
cash you use in your daily transactions if
you want to, And it matters. You don't
have to do it. It's not zero or
one.
Okay? You do thousands of transactions a year.
Okay. The other thing I wanna bring up,
just because you're in Iowa and I told
Brian I wanted to bring this up. I
just did a wonderful interview that we'll publish
in two or three weeks with Pat Militech.
Oh, Militech. Good buddy of mine. Yeah. So
who was a UFC champion,
and he has a business called Soil Savers,
which I think could rock the world because
he's figured out basically
how to spread probiotics
on your land that can heal a lot
of chemical damage and a lot of toxicity.
Mhmm. And it's quite remarkable. So
they're I'm, you know, that's a good friend
and a very smart guy, and, we have
we went and saw a a film together
last week.
Soil saviors again, that that goes back to
even the geoengineering
and what we're putting in our bodies and
what we're breathing and eating. Right. But that
could be that could really help. So so
Pat likes to just do it. He doesn't
wanna go deal with the state legislator.
So, you know, so his his thing is
to just do it, and it's great.
But, you know, imagine
we we got a bill passed in Tennessee,
the first state that stopped geoengineering.
When Daniel Goodrich brought that legislation to the
state, I said, you got a 1% chance
of getting this passed.
And she got it passed and signed into
law. And I'll tell you why. I was
there three weeks ago, and they're still spraying.
Of course, because you can't enforce unless
Right. You know, I'm gonna slap you guys
around the head here. So so
she, she, she took it. I said, you
got, you got no chance, but, you know,
sometimes it takes seven years of breaking down
the walls to, to get a good
enforcement going in Tennessee.
So some guy from California came to lobby
against the bill
and he starts lobbying about how it'll cut
into his profits.
And suddenly all these legislators said, oh my
God, I thought this was a conspiracy theory.
And he completely
freaked them out and they ended up passing
the bill. Now
first step, and it needs many more steps,
but they can only enforce unless you take
off and land in Tennessee.
Or Okay. From layers of the elevation too.
But if you if you look at how
we get things done in Tennessee,
you know, you pass the first bill. That's
like 5%. You pass the second bill. That's
5%.
And it takes years. And you've seen,
you know, Frank Nicely, who is the master
legislator in Tennessee.
He would take seven to ten years to
get something
really done, and it would take multiple layers
of legislation.
But that's part of how you educate people
and get them to to really change, but
you gotta start. Yeah. Which is my point
is that obviously is important, and I agree.
We have to keep doing that, but I
I'd rather try to get more immediate action
going while we're doing that too. You know
what I mean? Because I So absolutely.
Absolutely. I just put in a link to
our article.
I wanna stop CBDCs. What can I do?
But it and it's the same. We've got
done a whole bunch of shows with Twyla
Bras,
on financial rebellion on c h d tv
about how you stop the real ID.
And I think the most important thing to
stop right now is the real ID.
Well, why don't we use that in transition
since we really have only, you know, gotten
to the currency part of this? And I,
you know, I doubt we'll get to every
single data point. So I say what we
focus on is is next to that real
ID focus because that's connected and then the
Stargate kind of infrastructure of it all. So
on the idea of the digital ID, real
ID, say back kind of, like, ecosystem that's
being built. I mean, from a US perspective,
but it's happening everywhere as well.
Anyone wanna start on that? Any thoughts? Jump
to your deep minds. I just like to
ask the question out there. How do you
describe it to somebody that wants
to have voter ID and explain to them
that you don't necessarily need a federalized,
quote, unquote,
real ID. What you need are state IDs
at at at the base that are not
involved in that system. Because I think that
we all want people to be citizens of
The United States that vote and have a
system for that. And I don't think that
we're anti
identification. But when it gets to the federal
level and whether or not you can travel
and the embedding of these,
different RFID and eventually biometric systems. Obviously, that's
what we wanna push back again. So, Jason,
why is the registration process not
you have a registration process wherever you are.
You register to vote. That's it. That's your
that's your system. What But, you know, they
usually do it through the DMV. And, you
know, they also lie to you all the
time and tell you that if you don't
get this specific identification No. I mean, I
mean, why why does anybody think you need
another ID
The laws are To protect to protect election
fraud. Yeah. I mean, the election fraud is
a problem, but it's got nothing to do
with the absence of of IDs. But but
how do you convey that to people? And
then when you go into states like New
York or California, etcetera, that are inherently corrupt,
even Illinois, which is right I mean, like,
it's a mile away from me. That yeah.
Well, you're right. But, I mean, obviously, those
ones,
to me, are are more important because it
doesn't allow you to take charge at the
local level. Right? For your senators, your congressmen,
your state senators, a lot of that and,
you know, I don't believe that New York
is necessarily a blue state. You know, as
much as I don't like Lee Zeldin, I
have a hard time believing that Kathy Hochul
won in a free and fair election. Right?
So how do we get a system of,
quote, unquote, voter ID that is
essentially federalized? And and I'm not saying you
can't do this, but convey it through state
IDs. You know as well as I do
in New York. I mean, they push you
right through.
I was showing my buddy my, my you
know, it was the enhanced license that got
me into Canada or Mexico.
And, you know, my my IO ID is
a little bit different, but I did get
the federal one that has the star in
it. No. I didn't. People don't even yeah.
Most people don't even know that you have
an option to opt out of that and
just get a regular state ID.
So so is this just Not after May
7 because I understand. Yeah. Yeah. Is this
just we have to get the information out,
and then we have to just actually enforce
the laws that are already on the books
and expect that to people that we don't
need to see?
I would I would say if you if
the question is how do I show someone
that wants
digital ID to stop voter fraud, you know,
what what would be a good thing to
to show them to explain to them why
that's not necessary?
Maybe show them that video of Elon Musk
speaking about six months ago
saying how important it was that all voting
was done with
a paper,
bureau bureaucracy because that that would cut out
the potential for voter fraud.
So he's while he wants voting
process itself to be done using manual counts,
as in human beings checking
bits of paper that someone's put across him,
because he considers that to be far safer
than using any kind of digital system.
Why not then?
If that's his idea, why does he not
also advocate
having, you know, traditional
types of registration
done through a human run bureaucracy.
So, you know, for years and years, we
had paper driving licenses. So why don't we
what if if if the issue is security,
then what's wrong with paper driving licenses? They
seem to be far more secure than digital
driving licenses.
So Hold on, Jason. Hold on. Let me
jump in a sense. I wanna get in
for that first point. So the idea here
is that and I agree with you. It's
important to highlight that, you know, any like,
people I'm sure disagree, so we shouldn't say
everybody. But anybody who wants to uphold the
law in this regard would say that you
have to have an ID to vote and
that has to be verified. That's obvious. Right?
So I think we agreed to that. The
point though is that this is a manufactured
problem to justify the solution they want, and
we all know that's how it works. Right?
So we're dealing with something in regard to
you know, the point is, as Catherine was
alluding to, there's laws in the books already.
And, you know, I'm not a statist, so
the idea is we're forced to live in
this regard, and so that's what we're discussing.
But the point is those laws are on
the books that already apply to this problem.
So the idea is that if the issue
of immigration has been applied to rationalize
why we need something new, all we need
is the current enforcement and not point out
Democrats who are actively avoiding that or arguing
that we shouldn't be. And so that's the
problem. Not that we need a new layer
of things for them to ignore, right, to
justify the new digital ID. So that's the
bigger thing for me. So I just wanna
lay that out there because I think the
the the solution being presented is is a
bait and switch. So But let me just
say this also because, again, you know, I
voted this year, and I'm in Iowa. And,
yes,
again, I had an ID, but then we
talk about paper verification.
Right? And the polling was not paper.
So now they've brought in this new system
where I sign on a pad with my
finger that looks almost nothing like, you know,
my actual
signature, but that verifies me, and then I
get my paper ballot.
So so it you know, again,
we have so many things to do to
push back. I want the paper system all
the way through. Right? So in other words,
the ballot I get,
I don't I don't even think I signed
that. Right? So that doesn't have my signature
on it. So it would be very, very
easy to go in there as somebody else
with something you know, they barely looked at
my I don't even know they'd looked at
my ID. I'll be honest. I think I
said my name, they asked me my address,
and maybe I handed somebody my ID for
a second, and then I digitally signed. I'm
with you. I want all paper all the
time. I want physical identification,
etcetera.
But, again, I think the issue is even
with that, are we gonna have the same
type of corruption
in in these states where this absolutely happens?
Because we still have you talked about the
machines. We still have the damn machines counting
these things with fractional voting. Right? You know?
Like, that's a that's a whole not I
don't know that the Save Act does anything
to stop that, but I would ask what
is the solution
to get to? I mean, we're so close
to the midterms right now. Forget about, you
know, 2028. '20 '20 '6 is right around
the corner. And at least in this country,
I think that that that does make a
significant difference. So I'll open the floor to
anybody that wants to retort to that.
Well, I just I'll just add before anyone
else jumps in that I think the point
again is that, you know and not whether
not that I necessarily agree with the laws
in the books, but the laws that are
there to be enforced would already address the
problem. And that's kind of what we always
keep seeing is that they're just not like
like, even with every I mean, I wanna
alert you to some larger conversation, but the
idea that they're putting things forward and trying
to solve the problem when the problem is
just simply already acknowledging the law that's existing.
And I think that's a constant game that's
being played. So I think we all agree
with that problem, but the solution should not
be a digital ID or really as the
real ID compliance. Or really the bigger point
for those that don't think it's digital ID,
I nationalize information. We've all talked about that
as a conspiracy topic and how tied that
is with new role order and all these
different conversations. So it's interesting that it finally
gets pushed forward by the people that would
otherwise be calling it out, which is how
this always seems to go. So that's, I
think, important.
Well, but it it
parallels gun laws, doesn't it? People say we
need stricter gun laws because of criminals using
guns, but
there are already laws to stop criminals using
guns, and they ignore them. So you bring
in strict the gun you bring in strict
the voting rules, and the people that break
the voting rules will just break the voting
rules. I mean, they ignore the rules already.
New laws aren't gonna make any difference. Right.
And I think that's the crux of it
is that if you're like, you're addressing adjacent
is that, you know, what's gonna stop them?
Nothing. And corruption does not stop because of
a new law class like you're talking about.
They're already corrupt. So they're gonna find their
ways around it as best they can. That's
why just the point is to acknowledge that
they're violating that instead of trying to go
around it. You know, and, you know but
that's how government works, it seems. But, you
know, so I think that's and before I
go to the next part, anybody else have
any comments on on that discussion point?
Okay. So let let's jump in into the
next the point that, you know, the connection
to that, which is the,
I guess, the larger database. You know? The
as you wrote in the and I'll bring
it up for to kinda set the point
as you wrote in the article, financial data
and payment systems and artificial intelligence. So, again,
there's still no connection points for all development.
And you just wrote as the summary, to
build a digital control grid, digital IDs must
link with programmable money and in interoperable systems
across multiple platforms
integrated with central credit and surveillance systems, and
that that is Stargate, essentially. So kind of
what we already went over in a lot
of ways, but any other points to to
start that off?
You know, the only thing that I would
say technology wise that wasn't covered in this
article,
I would say is the artificial scan that
is constantly being put up by the defense
department and SpaceX.
Right? So, you know, we talk about in
this, the doorbell cams
and that type of surveillance.
But when you look at what Starlink really
is, it is that global digital information scan.
And, you know, the ride along program on
SpaceX used to put up the Blackjack satellites.
I know that Derek actually did a a
couple of extensive pieces talking about the, new
spy satellite network that has been directly
created by Musk. So if I were to
just, like, interject anything into this, it's that
we have the militarization
and the surveillance of space going to an
extremely
new level.
And what they're selling the public on
is Katy Perry going 60 miles up to
the Karman line and the idea that we're
going to Mars. Like, Trump literally said it,
I think, two days ago again, that we
better get to Mars before the end of
our administration. None of that's real.
Like, the these rocket systems
are defense department
programs, and they
fully
wanna great integrate this information system, this information
skin into not just the Internet of things,
but the Internet of bodies. And and let
me just say this about the Internet of
things. We are starting to see
that mini revolution in The United States of
self driving cars.
Phoenix is a big hub for this, and
I did not know it. My buddy went
out there a a couple weeks ago and
took one of the robot cabs. They're everywhere
there. You know? So we're now starting to
see
the automation steps
of this control grid come into fruition at
least on a smaller scale. And and I
think a lot of that is going to
be driven
by the technology that is in the sky
and really not talked about that much. I
mean, even when you think about the people
that were sitting there at the inauguration,
Bezos is sitting there. Right? Well, Bezos also
is another one
of these guys. Amazon
are building these artificial intelligence information centers and
trying to opt for this nuclear technology as
well. So this is a big part of
the fourth industrial revolution that people aren't talking
about, The surveillance in the sky, the integration
with AI
on the ground, and then utilizing,
what I think will eventually be these mini
nuke plants in order to do so.
Yeah. The the world the World Economic Forum
have already spoken about what they're calling the
trillion dollar opportunity
of, Earth observation satellite industry.
So,
a kinda leading technologically on that is, you
know, companies like Satterlogic that Lutnick has invested
in.
The so the idea is that, you know,
we think about satellites kind of observation in
terms of its, you know, physical observation, like
some sort of camera looking at the ground
so that you can see an image of
something. But they're talking about using it using
it for harvesting data,
particularly from
the Internet of things, Internet of bodies,
bringing this together into one kind of cohesive
system
that will take data globally from all these
devices that we're using,
monitoring our energy usage. I mean, with it,
there's already they've they've you know, the idea
of the cryptocurrency
powered smart home has already been developed.
You know? So so we are moving towards
a point where
things like the Earth observation
industry
is gonna be a key player in kind
of the management and collation
and the AI analysis of that data. So
the a the AI analysis of the data
that they're gonna gather on a global scale,
you know, will be worth in itself will
be worth
well, the World Economic Forum call it a
trillion dollar opportunity because, obviously, I mean, if
you're developing any kind of of industry or
any kind of technology, then that data will
be extremely valuable. Now we're already seeing companies
like,
X moving into selling their user data. So
they they they openly trade their user data.
Now supposedly, it's anonymous, but, nonetheless,
you know, the data that has been harvested
by things like the LLMs that are that
are harvesting up all of our kind of
interactions online, and it is everything.
It's every comment we make. It's every it's
this video.
It's
it's all being gathered and harvested to try
to train these LLMs.
And once those LLMs are trained, then they're
gonna be used for and similar AI systems
are gonna be used to an to analyze
fit the data that is gathered by things
like the Earth observation satellite systems. So we
who and I and I think that one
of the things that they're doing at the
moment is that there there are a number
of competing technologies that they're playing off against
one another
to see which one comes out on top.
Now a lot of that will be down
to investment, but a lot of that will
also be down to, you know, kind of
technological efficiency as well. So when when they
when they've got a cohesive system and and
a winner emerges,
then that will be, you know, the kind
of a kind of monopoly on the on
the data that they are gathering.
And then they've already talking about the concept
both in the five you know, both financial
and digital ID of this notion of the
universal ledger,
which will be,
you know, a centralized ledger of all data.
So,
you know, I mean, that that is the
ultimate kind of centralization
of authority if you've got access to that
data.
Funnily enough,
it's being sold to us as decentralization.
So all the all these all these new
systems that are coming out are being these
competitive systems that are decentralized,
and there's all these vendor agnostic companies that
are competing
because it's just a kind of kind of
free for all that's gonna enable
a brave new world.
Unfortunately,
the
the the nature of that decentralization
is, if you like, creating nodes on an
on a blockchain
network
that is gonna enable the centralization
of, particularly, the analysis
of all that data.
That's that's what they're constructing.
So I just wanted to mention one thing
because I I don't see
how this vision works in terms of energy
consumption
unless you bring out breakthrough energy or you
depopulate
or both. Mhmm. Or both. Yeah. I mean,
that's the
Everyone they're already talking about in order to
meet the projected, and it's the international IEEE,
I can't remember what that stands for. But
they their their last kind of, assessment report
of where we would be by 2050.
I think currently,
the,
the total global use is something like '26.
I'm gonna get this horribly wrong. 26,000,000
gigawatt hours
per year, and that's gonna that's gonna double
to, you know, more than 50 by 2050,
which they've calculated is the equivalent of adding
a nation like Japan
to the energy
to energy consumption
every year
between now and 2050.
So that's the scale
of the of the energy increase, the energy
generation
increase
that we would need if
this was actually gonna happen,
which means, as you quite rightly say, there's
only two parts of that equation, Catherine, isn't
there? There's there's either gotta be
a hell of a lot more nuclear power
stations or some sort of fundamental
energy breakthrough.
Through. Or Well, they've we they've had the
breakthrough. They've had the breakthroughs. They just haven't
applied them.
Well, it's not just list of us, but
we see multiple people
talking about how they're gonna be lived to
a hundred and 40 five. We saw the
president's
son-in-law say
His generation was gonna be the last to
die or or they are we're gonna live
forever
So, you know, so that's even more environment
stress. Let me just mention one thing I
was looking at a group. So I have
a screen,
investment screen company. I was looking
at a list of the stocks that had
performed the best over the last year just
out of curiosity.
One was a software company. I ended up
going in, and it turned out that one
of their lines of business was digitizing the
forest. So they were planning on
spraying sensors,
you know, like on the entire Amazon and
collecting data on every living thing in the
forest. It was called Internet of forest. And
I just said, you know, these guys have
every ruse you can think of to create
the suck up data. It's unbelievable.
That's insane. I've never heard that. I mean,
that's and that's just that has to Do
do a search for the Internet of forest.
You'll pick it up. Well, I was gonna
make that point actually before I I go
to something else is that what's interesting
is the Internet of bodies
is actually the old conversation. Right? So we're
well, this is from 2,019.
Right? And so they're talking about the Internet
of bodies. The Internet of things was the
interconnection. Like, we're beyond even this. We're at
Right. We're at a bio nano things and,
like, so we're getting to the point to
where we're still being pointed to something. It's
always like the deflection. Right? They give you
what was happening twenty years ago while they're
moving on to something else. And I think
that's what this really is. Because Right. Well
beyond that. And you can't do what you're
talking about with the trees without something like
smart dust.
Right. Yeah. That's that's wild. And so that
really shows you so let let's bring that
to the larger kind of what I see
as the Palantir
or whatever you want. I think Palantir is
the obvious point. Or Oracle is obviously involved,
but the portal information awareness, CI overlap, Palantir,
where we're seeing this sort of all encompassing.
As we've been highlighting in every aspect, this
consolidation
of information, of surveillance. I mean, I've got
many things pulled up of, like, the IRS
overlap, the immigration OS they rolled out, you
know, all these different massive consolidations of controlled
surveillance and information.
So let's kind of end on that general
point. I don't know how much time you
have, Catherine, if you wanna start. So I've
got one minute.
So, you know, I think it's a little
bit like the, you know, the old stories
of the gold rush where everybody sees an
opportunity to make money
by centralizing
and creating more data and centralizing. We do
know now I've been told many times that
the guy who has the best AI is
the one who can
who can provide it with the highest quality
the most highest quality data
because it really develops on the data. And
so, you know, this is part of a
of a gold rush. And, of course, it's
allowed because carrots and sticks, it takes it
takes you where the centralizers wanna go. But
I I do wanna point out
that, you know, whether it's the energy question
or many other questions,
you know, I just see
that that the centralizers
have enormous problems.
This is gonna turn into one of the
greatest cluster you know whats. I mean, it
already is.
And I think that's why what Derek said
about, you know, focus on the actions you
can take
and building local resilience and just doing it
every time you can just do it. If
enough people do that, it has tremendous
opportunity because I think their vision,
it it as an economic matter and as
a matter in alignment, well, it just doesn't
make sense.
You know, this is way too psychopathic
to work.
So I I I just
Yeah. I mean, I could see why everybody's
rushing for the gold rush, but at some
point, just remember the guys who made money
on the gold rush were the guys who
made the blue jeans. Right.
Right.
Anyway, gentlemen, it's always a pleasure. Thank you
very much, Ryan, for doing this. I can't
tell you how much I appreciate it because
the more I again, the more we can
help people see the overall picture,
I think the more people who will start
to, you know, look for real solutions and
and back out.
Anyway
Absolutely. And great work on this, and looking
forward to the next one, Catherine. So thanks
for joining. Have a great day.
Thanks, Catherine.
I would just like to add on top
of that, you know, in the the interesting
what Catherine said, doesn't that make you worry
that maybe this is the worst version that
hides the one that comes it's usually how
that feels. Right? Where it's like, they're showing
you this crazy idea so people go no
to that and then quietly roll out the
one that's a little less bad behind it.
You know? I don't know. Just any thoughts
on her last point there.
You know, I I mean, obviously, with the
Internet of body stuff, you know, that's something
you mentioned Smart Dust.
Well, we're in year 20 plus of that
being, like, used by the military industrial complex
openly. Barely
talked about. And I think that that's a
a big problem. I would encourage people to
go read, a book now. I think that's
about a decade old. I think it might
even be 2013,
and that is First Platoon by Annie Jacobson.
And that story actually,
revolves around smart dust and its utilization,
by a unit in Iraq to target a,
quote, unquote, terrorist threat
that they end up at the last minute
not killing based on this technology that would
have been the wrong one.
I do wanna talk about
AI based killing because we've been mentioning Palantir,
and we've been mentioning Peter Thiel. Probably my
clip of the year so far
is when Peter Thiel gets asked about lavender
and the Israelis
using that
to target, what is it, 34,000,
quote, unquote, terrorists. And Thiel is
extremely the most uncomfortable I think I've ever
seen him in my life on video.
His face gets beet red. He stutters. He
stammers. You can see the inflection in his
voice and and the way his his jaw
is moving that he's very uncomfortable with that
question
Because when you do peel back any of
the basic layers of who they targeted,
it it was basically people that were in
group chats. Right?
People that knew people that were supposedly, quote,
unquote, Hamas terrorists.
And then you look at the overall military
targeting.
We have to remember,
you know, the IDF
utilized the technology that blew people up in
broad daylight in public in nonmilitary
situations.
Is this what we wanna promote
with Palantir and Lavender?
And even more crass,
and I would say openly militaristic,
is his right hand man
in this,
Palantir project, AKA Alex Karp. He's the one
going to the consumer
electronic shows. He's the one talking about these
things very, very blase. And I think also
about six months,
he just bragged openly how this thing was
gonna be utilized globally, and they're the ones
that have oversight, Period. And you know as
well as I do, that doesn't mean the,
quote, unquote, United States
has oversight.
This is
a company
that is heavily embedded in Five Eyes, which
means what?
Israel,
The United States,
The United Kingdom,
really our allies as well on top of
Australia and Canada. Right? Because when we talk
about what's going on in Yemen, do you
think Palantir is not involved there?
I mean, come on. Oh, we now together
basically in every field of war that we
can see right now. And that is extremely
problematic, not just because it's being utilized
overseas,
but because it's also being utilized domestically.
And the question is,
how much more implementation of that are we
going to see now that we've legitimized this
idea
that even gang members in The United States
are part of terrorist groups? People accused people
accused of being gang members in many cases
without any due process or verification. So that
adds to that point where you can just
go, this is what I think it is,
and people are
verification. So that adds to that point
where you can just go, this is what
I think it is, and people are literally
going, that's enough. The president can decree that
you're something with no due process and get
rid of you or, like you're saying, maybe
a drone strike. These are these are real
plot points. This is why I've always said
we don't just block criminals are criminals. Right?
This terrorist word
is is utterly been overused, not just through
the Trump administration, but even before that. We've
kinda placated this I to this idea of
domestic terrorists. Right? There's a whole
subsection of conservatives that wanna call Antifa a
terroristic organization. It's like, woah, buddy. You know,
again, if an individual
or a group commits crimes, that does not
necessarily make them terrorists.
And when you take the word terrorist, you
are taking out, like you said, all of
due process. And that Let's even just go
back to the word criminal, though. Right? Because
it's the same principle. Right? Whether whether you're
accused of being criminal or a terrorist, the
point is whether it's an illegal alien or
anything else under the constitution, therefore, due process
to prove those things. And so I think
this is a really good overlap to what
we're talking about with this Palantir or whatever
else, or or we're discussing
surveillance, identification,
you know, cataloging of information that then is
used against you in ways where potentially as
we're seeing as Trump has floated five times
now, the idea of sending Americans to a
foreign prison. You know? And so this all
and this obviously comes and I we don't
have to get into that larger conversation unless
you want to, but it clearly it clearly
overlaps being as how Palantir is using justification
of highlighting people in immigration and surveillance, and
it's all building in the same direction even
if people agree with the outcome of this
or how they're doing it, which I think
is flatly constitute unconstitutional. But it's an interesting
thing
about the conversation about what the doge has
been doing is that I can't remember who
wrote the article, but they did they described
it as posthuman
because they were they were using AI essentially
to decide whether someone was efficient or not.
And then and then
potentially firing them based on an AI AI
made decision. Or did you Which which which
is which
is if you apply that kind of same
thing to,
you know, the notion of whether or not
somebody is which they are doing,
the the notion of whether or not somebody
is, quote, unquote, a terrorist or whether they
should be deported for alleged criminal activity
based upon an AI
assessment of available data,
then then we are moving into it is
it is not unreasonable to say that we
are moving into a posthuman world
because because,
you know, those are the kind of decisions
that surely must be taken, as you were
saying, Ryan, as following
a a a due process,
not not not based on AI's assessment of
a of a due process. And one thing
I think that we are in very much
danger with all this conversation about AI
is overestimating
its actual capability.
Yes. Or a way of that. Yeah. Because,
I mean, we are we are we are
being told that it's capable of so much,
but it's also incapable
of a tremendous amount. Things that human beings
can do in a split fraction of a
second,
AI is nowhere near capable of doing. So
so, you know, we are being kind of
led into this idea that ultimately there will
be a singularity.
Sentient.
There's no there's no reason to think that
that's any that isn't something that is on
the horizon at all.
What we've got is massive data harvesting
and analytical
programming
of,
you know, programs that assess that data. It
might be highly complex, and it might be
able to mimic things like human speech. But
it but it's not
some sort of amazing,
you know, kind of,
aid to the kind of forward forward march
of humankind.
It's quite the opposite. So, you know, we
you know, well, there's no reason why we
would
ever
want to even contemplate the idea of a
posthuman future, why why would we, as human
beings, ever contemplate that? Yep. It's the great
reset. When the Maggot great reset or whatever's
happening now. Ryan, there was a couple points
that I did wanna jump in, on what
you said because I think that when you're
talking about,
you know, exiling criminals or rounding them up
you know, first of all, under the guise
of immigration,
I'm much less sympathetic to people that aren't
United States citizens, and I'll just put that
outright. However, if you're going to deport them,
you don't send them to Guantanamo Bay.
Okay? And for me, that is a big
issue
that you have a black site involved in
any of this process. Right? And I do
not like the legitimization
of something that should have been shut down
which should never been reactivated in the manner
it was post
war of terror. You know, a a facility
that still holds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
and the other accused nine eleven member twenty
plus years later, and the public had some
kind of a problem and outrage that they
might have cut a deal with them when
we didn't see any of the evidence presented,
when we didn't see what was going on
in these military tribunals, when you can outwardly
say, obviously, they did not get due process
in the case of a fast trial as
we're twenty plus years later.
And now bringing that into the immigration process,
one, like you just said, is heavily automated.
You know that it's heavily automated. You're a
%
right with those. And I think that people
need to understand that process
has been going on for a very long
time. And, actually, there have been specific units
in NASA. I used to play videos of
the guy talking about this. How, like, every
eight to sixteen months,
they would they would bring people in with
the next level of artificial intelligence. And and,
essentially, these people would train half the amount
of the staff
by those people that would then be let
go in favor of this automation
and AI
promise. Right? And when we look at AI,
the next realm of AI is gonna be
essentially driven by quantum computing.
Microsoft
just announced their first commercial
quantum chip, if you haven't seen it. Mhmm.
There are new breakthroughs with Google and NASA
in AI.
They've been working on this in two two
plus decades. And as far as he talks
posthuman,
I think one of the next pushes in
the, quote, unquote, transhumanist
movement
is to integrate
human biological,
tissue into a lot of these operations to
dehumanize us further via organoids.
Are you guys familiar with the, organoid movement
right now?
I'm not. No. But I'd like to jump
in back to the first point you made,
and we can come back to that because
I think it's look. We can end with
this general idea of this overlapping transhumanist kind
of direction that seems to go in.
But I think that it's important that these
two things are together because Ian's point with
the artificial intelligence, the idea of how it's
being automated, where it's
going to a point to where we can
then like, even as Eric Schmidt said in
the podcast, like, years ago paraphrasing that one
point will get to a future where AI
is making decisions that may seem immoral, but
it'll know better. That's that is what he
said on a podcast a while back, which
is horrifying is that we need to establish
now that these basic fundamental
sending someone to El Salvador or anywhere else,
let's be clear, illegal immigrant or American, there's
no basis in law precedent of any kind.
That's that's illegal. Now we can have that
discussion going forward. It seems you agree with
that, whether that could change, but right now
that's the reality. But sympathy is not required
to have somebody to have their constitutional rights
acknowledged. Right? So an illegal immigrant, let's make
this clear for those watching, has constitutional rights
most
most importantly, due process. That's been ruled on
by the Supreme Court in the countless times,
Reno versus Flores. Scalia himself said it was
fair amount that due in in in regard
to
deportation in particular, due process was fair amount.
Judge Knapp's been talking about this a lot.
The reality is you can just ask Rock
in in generalize, you know, they don't tell
you that. The point is that it's weird
we have a conversation today with people out
there online, not saying anybody here, is arguing
that immigrants don't have constitutional rights. I find
that insane because it's simply not true. So
bringing back to the point about how it's
being used, this is what I think is
important, is that they know people have been
conditioned to be less sympathetic about certain circumstances,
so they use that to get people to
accept the
undermining of their rights rather than lack of
acknowledgment. And so all that together is super
important because we're being edged into a position
where AI is gonna start making those decisions
based on the precedence that they're making now.
And I think that's wildly dangerous. Right? So
I think that that larger conversation needs to
be had about the manipulation of these things
that are fundamental now for the technocratic society
that they're building around us as we go
forward. So take that where you'd like.
And that's,
that's just considering that the AI system works
as it's supposed to work. And I use
technology all the time, and it doesn't. You're,
you know, in in this in this automated
system, you're a calmer or a typo away
for being convicted of a crime that you
didn't commit, that somebody with a name very
like yours did
or something like that. And this is something
nobody is willing to really think about is
that there is there are limits to competence
and there are limits to capabilities, and that
itself is a threat. There isn't just a
an like, a malignant,
deliberate,
proactive threat. There is the threat of a
system that doesn't recognize the importance of the
human element.
Yeah. Well, and I'll add one more thing
to it in general is that, you know,
see, again, where it's going is that if
we're at a point where a power structure
can simply go, you are this thing. Right?
You are an illegal alien, let's say, and
be able to remove you without process.
How can that why couldn't that just happen
to an American? And you go, oopsie. You
know, now he's away. Because there was no
process in which they had to prove that
was the case. Now these are very basic
fundamental things that we're losing sight of in
the world today, and I think it's designed
to get us okay with that before we
have this massive shift into something where, you
know, we're now dealing with machines or algorithms
or whatever we're talking about as, James discussed,
algocracy, right, which is where this is going.
You know? But to to bring it back
to your larger point, Jason, is that the
overlap to all of this, this transhumanist technocratic
future that they're definitely pushing us into, All
the points on our article showing how this
is happening under this administration. But to be
clear, it's not unique to partisanship. It's been
going on for a very long time. So
let's end on that. You know? Yes. You
brought up and and different points around that.
Yeah. So, you know, I just kinda wanna
end on
you know, I talked about I I often
talk about the other end of transhumanism.
Right? Like, human beings merging with technology, whether
that's
brain computer interfaces
or other types of tech. They've now kind
of reverse engineered that. So what organoids
are is that you take mitochondrial
stem cells,
and then you grow artificial
brain tissue
that is then integrated
into traditional
electronics. And I know this sounds totally wild,
but they've already,
again, been creating these things, for all for
over half a decade. In fact, you can
get a kit.
And I played the, like, I played the
the stem cell lab kit. Here's how they
do it. And it's it's a lot of
CRISPR tech and things like that. Your boys
like magazine. I'm just kidding. If if listen.
If you go watch the video, the music,
I am bobbing and weaving. It's very much
like that. So I I had a conversation
with, Greg Autry of NASA about this because
they're also utilizing this technology on the ISS.
Here's how commercialized it's become. And I had
no idea about this guy. I'd never heard
of him before.
Alvin Lussier.
This guy was a very experimental
composer
where even in 1965
in a public forum,
he had electrodes
put onto his brain. And from his brainwaves,
he was able to conduct
a a full kind of like orchestra. You
know? Is it super impressive?
Somewhat. I mean, the drums are going. You
know? It's something to behold.
He's been dead for four years.
They did this process
where they took his stem cells, created the
organoids,
and two weeks ago, they had a live
concert of supposedly and I don't know how
much hokum this is.
It's a private video if you wanna actually
watch it, but you can see the post,
and there's news articles on it
where this dead person,
his, you know,
mitochondrial stem cell brain tissue
had its own concert four years posthumous.
So
I think they're gonna try to legitimize this
technology
with the quantum technology and the other things
moving forward
as they try to integrate us into the
machines. And I think what this does is
this dehumanizes
us further,
and it puts less and less
emphasis
on our biological realities. That's all I'll say
about it. Yeah. I mean, I definitely I
think we all see different parts of that.
How soon you know, it tends to be
that they make it look like something that's
twenty, forty years away, but it's gonna happen
in a week. You know? But we have
to just pay attention to these things. Right?
Because these are definitely I I would argue,
I guess, at least in the narrative as
or the the presentation
is that that's a little bit more on
the fringe of the conversation, but that usually
in my mind means there's more of that
happening than anything else. You know? It's just
pay attention to how alarming these things are
and how much is tied in with these
central players in the background, in the different
studies. Like, even going back to people like,
you know, Charles Lieber, Bob Langer, and the
COVID time frame. You know? These the stuff
they've been working on, like Jason's talking about,
goes back a long way. And it does
dovetail with things like nanotechnology
and optogenetics and you know? And I actually
think we're well beyond that today. That that's
what we're seeing, like, ten, fifteen years ago.
So, yeah, definitely worth conversation. Do you guys
have anything you wanna
Yeah. I mean, I mean, I think the,
you know, when you got someone like Thiel,
who's,
you know, very close to this notion of
the dark enlightenment and and very close to
Yarvin,
it's tempting to think that our futures
that they may have in mind where we
meld with technology will be somehow beneficial for
us. I mean, on its face, they would
argue that we need to do this this
neo reactionary movement is very much part of,
would argue that we need to do this
in order to be able to cope with
the singularity that they say is inevitable.
But when you look at look more deeply
into it, where they the the, you know,
one of the kind of foremost thinkers in
that neo reactionary movement, a guy called Nick
Land, calls us techno plastic beings.
And the reason that he wants us to
become techno plastic beings is so that we
can pay our sovereign rent.
Because in the in the post in the
post
in the post singularity world that they that
they warn against but are hell bent on
on creating,
That, you know, one of the problems they'll
have in the with new kinds of, of
industry and new kind in an AI controlled
system,
you know, with perhaps more limited employment, is
how do how do we how are we,
the people who they who Nick Lan calls
inarticulate
pros,
teal calls us the unthinking demos.
How are how are we gonna be useful?
So we merge
into into this system that they've got in
mind, basically, as kind of like subroutines
in the overall program that will be running
their their technocracy.
So what they I think it's important to
stress that the people that are
pushing this, we we might call them the
neo reactionaries or the technocrats or whatever you
wanna call them,
they despise humanity.
They they they do they are of the
traditional
eugenicist,
useless eater
persuasion.
These are that's that's where that's how they
envisage
where we will be in the future. And
I think going back to something you said,
Ryan, about this kind of notion of bait
and switch. So let's take the issue of
digital ID.
I I think a big part of the
of the Trump administration's
success
has has been because,
in in terms of election success and in
terms of the popular support that he's enjoyed,
is because people thought that, you know, he
represented something you could call it techno populist
where they're they're standing up to the global
overreach of things like the WEF and,
you know, the UN and these kind of
organizations which Americans are
fed up of being under the under the
kind of rule of groups like the World
Health Organization and so forth. And so he
makes all these bold statements and pulls the
pulls The US out of organizations
like that and out of the Paris accords
and all this kind of thing to much
much fanfare and everybody agrees.
But the problem is if you're if you're
a globalist that wants to sell digital ID
to a population,
it's pretty easy if you, you know let's
say that the what we if we use
the traditional kind of political kind of spectrum
that we're given left and right,
let's say that you've already convinced the left
that they need to adopt digital ID in
order to stay safe.
They need to adopt digital ID so that
their carbon footprints can be tracked.
They need to adopt digital ID so that
they don't, you know, they don't die of
a disease if they cross a border.
This is this is this this the cell
has already been relatively
successful
for the traditional left that I would argue.
How do you get the liberty minded,
small c conservative,
traditional right on board with that? Well, you
just sell them the same product, but instead
of saying that it's for protecting the planet,
you say it's to fight illegal immigration.
Right. It's the it's the same product.
It's just it's just a different sales pitch.
So that's that's really what the what what
I you know, how I see what's happening
is happening. It's you know, the the notion
of the freedom city.
There's no difference between the notion of a
freedom city and a fifteen minute city.
One comes from the globalist
so called, quote, unquote, globalist elite, and one
comes from the new neo reactionary
elite.
But it's the same thing. A 15 city,
a free city are the same thing.
So, you know, it's it's it's people people
get on board because
they they're behind the person that is selling
them the idea.
Not not that the idea is fundamentally any
different. It isn't.
This is why I tend to think the
in least in this country, but really anywhere
in the world, the false binary, which doesn't
always have to be too despite the name.
Like, you know, the idea of that concept
clearly is the biggest
block to any real change, like, especially in
The United States speaking as American. Like, it
is so obviously like you're talking about. There
are people that would otherwise be pushing back,
and then they flip the script and they
do it a little different way. And then,
you know, and and it continues to oscillate
like that. And right now with this administration,
which I see is no different than the
previous, just the continuation a different way for
a new flavor, is doing all that through
it with all these different agendas, whether it's
bringing down the failed thing we all start
to see to, you know, make it look
as if change is happening to really just
replace it with something worse
or the, you know, repackaging of the same
problem with a different cell. It's literally everywhere.
And that's why it's so important for people
to look beyond, you know, not their ideals
and and values that they may see as
conservative or liberal, but, like, the larger politicized
team sport politics of it all because it's
it's it is you know, you think about
the woke mind virus, it's a partisan mind
virus. It's literally in our face everywhere. That's
my opinion, speaking for myself. But, you know,
I think that's that's a very good point
to kind of wrap on in general. But
I and and you guys, any other points
you guys wanna include on that? I was
just gonna rattle off some things on the
article before we wrap up today.
And we're gonna let no need to shout
out? Nothing else, guys? Alright. Well, I'm just
generally point out, you know, make sure what's
funny is we started, like, the the point
was and I don't I I don't know
why I didn't immediately recognize this would not
happen for how much we have to talk
about, but to go through each one of
these data points and discuss the issues and
also the solutions around them. But, you know,
we got to the, the digital money part
of it. There's plenty more as you noticed
in in part.
The war on cash, digital monetary system, financial
disclosure, the Doge overlap, the failure so far
of the different things that haven't happened, Real
ID, Stargate.
And then, of course, she got into the
Internet bodies. We briefly touched on it. But
the assets part, which we didn't get to,
which I ref I looked at Katharine's work.
It's really important to understand how this, you
know, the Lutnick part of this and the
financial side of it is playing out in
regard to the,
the tariff overlap as well as she highlights
and they'll kind of lie around it. Also,
the,
energy discussion, as she points drill drill, baby
energy policy from Trump, but also the budget
in general, which is what I was just
saying about the tariff overlap and how it
seems to be offset by other actions that
are being taken. And, you know, hey. Maybe
it'll end up positive, but to wonder whether
that was always kind of the plan is
the point. But then she also has others
at the bottom, election fraud, organized crime, weather
warfare, geoengineering, as we were referencing before. A
well written article. And I would argue she
herself would point out that this itself doesn't
even truly address the the real scope of
this problem. There's many other points we could
include. But thank you all for for joining
today and, you know, any anything else you
wanna leave on the way out in general?
I just I think it's in, you know,
a good time to
discuss these things. Thank you for being here.
I'd also just say she did throw in
the Epstein files and, I think a good
assessment there. You know, there's a whole another
ball of corruption that I mean, people should
be being prosecuted for the evidence that they're
going through. And since we're not seeing that
look. I don't think we're gonna see those
files in full because if we did, obviously,
it would have to be preceded by
real indictments,
real criminal trials, and then prosecutions
for that evidence to come into the public
arena. So So I would just encourage people
to read this, but realize, like you said,
no matter how extensive it is, I mean,
we just talked for two hours on a
lot of points that were not even included
in this, and we could've gone on for
a much longer period of time. Yeah. I
I'd just like to reiterate what Catherine said
as well during our conversation earlier,
and that is that it's not an an
all or nothing situation that we find ourselves
in.
We can make decisions every day in our
lives that move us to towards the destination
that we wanna go in.
That may mean accepting some inconvenience,
and it may mean,
you know, not being able to do things
like go to a sports event or something
like that. You know? It it it might
mean those kind of sacrifices, but you but
it all
amounts to
what matters to you. What do you think
is really, really important?
And if you think that sacrificing your freedom
is not important,
then fine. You know, that's that that's that's
a a choice that you make, but then
you have to live with the consequences of
that. And I and I think that, you
know, it's gonna be very difficult or something
Steve was saying.
Billions of people are not suddenly going to
start, you know, not not using not using
their cards and not using the you know,
and and not using all the modern conveniences
that they've become accustomed to. That's not that's
not gonna happen.
But I think if pockets of communities
start building and and, funnily enough, we can
piggyback on something that has been just called
the network state
because there are there are aspects of the
network state that was written by Balaji,
Srinivasan
that that, that that that there might be
something to that. So creating creating pockets of
communities that commute that that communicate with each
others like nodes on a network, but the
exchange goods and services and trade
necessarily
outside of the system.
That kind of thing could start could start
building some sort of resistance to what is
happening. But more importantly than that, for the
people that are involved in that kind of
thing,
personally, you're you're already making a stand against
the against the kind of encroaching tyranny.
So so it's not all or nothing. We
still have to use our cards if we
buy something from Amazon,
but we can use cash
You've said buy from Amazon?
Just before that. No.
Yeah. Yeah.
Yeah. But, you know, so so we can't
so we can
we can make a difference by focusing on
what we do every day.
Here. Here.
Yep.
I would also like to add to really
just bring something back that Catherine did say
just before she left.
She says she doesn't think it's possible
that they can do what they want to
do. And I would tend to agree, and
I think this it might be it might
seem sort of passive compared to other solutions,
but I genuinely think as much as I
pointed out incompetence as a threat.
Incompetence is also a source for optimism.
I simply don't think they have the ability
to do
the system they want to implement on a
full wide scale and have it be foolproof.
I'm a big believer in the war of
the world's defense, which is essentially
this they will be rejected. Like, in
spoiler alert, war of the worlds. But in
the end, the aliens are killed by bacteria
from this planet, not by us. They just
can't live here. And I don't
believe that this system can exist.
I don't think it can be there and
not have people simply slip through the cracks
and be left alone.
Yeah. And I I really do I mean,
I see it all the time. People will
simply go on without it.
I certainly hope you're right. And I I
do think it's worth, you know, at least
leaning into in hopes that that's the reality.
But, you know, I think the the problem
is whether they're trying to change the reality
of our world, our existence in order to
make that be able to be possible. You
know what I mean? Like, we're watching a
transformation of the human species if there are
at least the attempts they're in in the
long term plan. So I think the whole
point is that in every possible way that
we can, if you recognize this problem, it
behooves us to try to make a difference
in our lives. If it's the smallest things,
whether it's voting with your dollar or speaking
out about this, starting your own show, or
completely pulling out of society, you know, all
these things are things out there to consider
or just, you know, talking about these things.
I will I will and and and the
point I
know the Catherine point of Steve again, you
know, it's interesting is that I it's easy
to fall into the idea, the belief, and
maybe it's right that no one's gonna do
that. You know, people are lazy. They don't
wanna do it because we know that's a
a part a large portion of this conversation.
But I do always lean in even if
it's just wishful thinking, and I do think
I see it the writing on the wall
everywhere. I think we all do. But at
least a growing number rapidly growing number of
people are beginning to question
gen like, basic
fundamental things of the control structure. And I
think, again, that's largely why this is a
time for them to transition to something new.
So I think it's worth leaning into that,
and you give I I think we should
give humanity the benefit of the doubt in
a lot of ways historically, but I think
people are better than we give them credit
for. And I think that the system knows
that, which is why it's always presenting itself
as good and altruistic and fighting for freedom
and liberty when they don't have to. Right?
If they believe that we were all bad,
then why would they want you know, I
think there's a there's a it's a it's
it shows the the game. But I'll I'll
end with in general about the
the where we are now, you know, that
I think what keeps happening is the partisan
game flip flops. And and one side points
to the other, one side points to the
other, and calls for accountability for never wanting
the full accountability. So right now, as soon
as go forward, I think a lot of
people are like, you know, why is Bill
Gates or Fauci or anybody else? Or as
you pointed out, all the different things that
we know of Epstein or all the they
were telling all these people are stealing Social
Security numbers. Why isn't nobody in jail? There's
so many different points being made about things
that you claim you can prove, and it's
this isn't unique to to Trump. This is
a a partisan thing. The idea that clearly
there should have been something happening by now.
There should have been something happening in Biden's
history, but it doesn't. It it progresses.
So that doesn't mean you have to completely
displease yourself or, you know, break all the
views you have, but just recognize what that
shows you that ultimately that this is not
going at least right now in the direction
that they're always telling you it's going to,
and at least ask why that may be.
And then go through Catherine's article, and, hopefully,
you'll put the dots together.
But thank you all for tuning in today,
and I'm I'm looking forward to some more
IMA panels coming up soon. Scott. We have
the website still being built from Odysee at
the moment, and, you know, see, it has
been delayed a bunch, but there's a lot
going on there. So, hopefully, that'll be out
soon. And, from KeyLab side of it, thank
you all. As always, question everything. Come to
your own conclusions.
Stay vigilant.