Speaker 1: All right, welcome back, folks, and joining me now is
Speaker 1: Courtney Turner. Courtney Turner dot com that is spelled co
Speaker 1: u r t e n a y Turner dot com
Speaker 1: like Courteney but Courtney, and she hosts the Courtney Turner Podcast.
Speaker 1: Thank you for joining us, Courtney, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for having me. It is a pleasure. And of course, uh,
Speaker 1: we were talking during the break and you said, you
Speaker 1: want to talk about Game B versus the singularity and
Speaker 1: how people are kind of shaping the narrative and how
Speaker 1: we're moving forward towards the future. So I'd just like
Speaker 1: to get you to kind of break down Game B
Speaker 1: for the listeners and the viewers, since I was fairly
Speaker 1: unfamiliar with it myself, so I imagine that it is something
Speaker 1: that people could use an explanation on.
Speaker 2: Absolutely.
Speaker 3: So I know a lot of people are probably a
Speaker 3: little bit more familiar with the Dark Enlightenment currently because
Speaker 3: a lot of those figures are surrounding Trump administration, so
Speaker 3: that has come to the forefront. What I have proposed
Speaker 3: is this thesis that they're kind of behaving as a dialectic,
Speaker 3: but they're both fomenting the technological singularity. I see the
Speaker 3: game be as a little more of the appealing to
Speaker 3: like the less leaning, a little bit more spiritual theosophical
Speaker 3: camp and the dark Enlightenment is obviously the more authoritarian,
Speaker 3: kind of techno fascist gov Corp type of appeal. And
Speaker 3: you know, the joke I kind of make is that
Speaker 3: it doesn't really matter if you have a mummy issues
Speaker 3: or daddy issues. You know they're they're going to give
Speaker 3: you a pink or blue comfort blanky. Just pacify either
Speaker 3: one of you. So and if you have both, they'll
Speaker 3: give you both. Know they'll they'll they'll give you the
Speaker 3: managed synthesis. So Game B. So for those who are
Speaker 3: not familiar with Game B, they call it a new
Speaker 3: operating system for civilization. It is actually not new at all.
Speaker 3: And it's my contention that the intellectual dark Web was
Speaker 3: influence operation of sorts for Game B, and this has
Speaker 3: been pretty much corroborated in there's an article on Manifest
Speaker 3: Nirvana where Andrew Cohen. He doesn't use the words influence operation,
Speaker 3: so I'll just caveat that those are my words, but
Speaker 3: he does pretty much say that they laid the groundwork
Speaker 3: and brought it to the forefront, and they were preparing
Speaker 3: the intellectual landscape for this concept of Game B. Now,
Speaker 3: Game B doesn't actually exist yet, but it's been in
Speaker 3: the work since twenty eleven. In twenty eleven, Jim Rutt,
Speaker 3: who was the chairman of the Santa Fe Institute, he
Speaker 3: had met Jordan Hall at the Santa Fe Institute as well,
Speaker 3: and they collaborated to create this concept. Originally it was
Speaker 3: centered around they had something called the Stanton Meetings in Stanton, Virginia.
Speaker 3: They brought along people like Brett Weinstein, who I'm sure
Speaker 3: a lot of your audience is familiar with, to start
Speaker 3: a new political party. They called it the Man a
Speaker 3: Patient Party. So one of the concepts in Game B
Speaker 3: is a concept I'm seeing really kind of sprout up everywhere.
Speaker 3: It's this trans political movement. It's this idea very appealing
Speaker 3: to people who believe that we have a two party illusion.
Speaker 3: You know that they play dialectical game between the left
Speaker 3: and the right. I'm not denying any of this, by
Speaker 3: the way, but the third way I'm not sure is
Speaker 3: the better option. So they're appealing to those who, you know,
Speaker 3: recognize that the shoe sizes get kind of pitted against
Speaker 3: each other like football team and that they're presenting this
Speaker 3: one nation type of a movement, and that's actually one
Speaker 3: of the parties. One nation party, so that it was
Speaker 3: like a Christopher Light had the United Independence. There's a
Speaker 3: lot of overlap of all these things, but this was
Speaker 3: the Emancipation Party and it didn't really take off. Mostly
Speaker 3: the way Jim Rutt explains it, he's kind of the
Speaker 3: grandfather of this concept of game B But the way
Speaker 3: he explains it is that the boomers are all in.
Speaker 3: He said that the exers he could kind of corral,
Speaker 3: but that the millennials loved the platform. It was very
Speaker 3: much aligned with, like a Bernie Sanders type platform. You
Speaker 3: can still see their reform page. They talk about things
Speaker 3: like a UBI. Both camps do, by the way, right
Speaker 3: the Dark Enlightenment camp talked about that as well, because
Speaker 3: of course, the robots are going to replace us, and
Speaker 3: so what are we going to do. We're not going
Speaker 3: to have any jobs, so we need a UBI.
Speaker 1: That is one thing they both agree on. They both say, oh, yes,
Speaker 1: the robots are coming for your job. But one of
Speaker 1: them seems to be a bit more exuberant about it
Speaker 1: and the others seem more thoughtful, like, oh, well, it's
Speaker 1: going to happen. It's not great, but it's going.
Speaker 3: To happen exactly that's exactly right. They tend to be
Speaker 3: a little bit more. They claim they're more pessimistic about
Speaker 3: technology and they're non in favor of transhumanism. However, if
Speaker 3: you look at these group of thinkers, most of them
Speaker 3: are in the tech venture art up space. You know,
Speaker 3: Jim Rudd had something called the evolutionary Software. That's actually
Speaker 3: why he was brought into the Santa Fe Institute. It's
Speaker 3: why he was bringing all these evolutionary biologists into the
Speaker 3: Stanton meetings back in twenty eleven. He was also the
Speaker 3: a CEO of Network Solution. He was on the ground
Speaker 3: floor of venture capital fundraising for what became T Mobile,
Speaker 3: and Jordan Hall is very similar. He was originally our
Speaker 3: Jordan Green Hall. A lot of these characters change their name.
Speaker 3: I'm still not sure why that is. They rebrand you know, concepts, names, companies.
Speaker 3: All that seems to change with time. My favorite, I
Speaker 3: always joke is that there was a no map technology,
Speaker 3: which I'm pretty sure Jordan Hall was involved with. He
Speaker 3: doesn't explicitly say that, but he talks about the concepts
Speaker 3: of hollow chains, and it sounds exactly like what no
Speaker 3: Map was. But one of the originators of No Map,
Speaker 3: which became S seven Foundation, changed their name from Andrea
Speaker 3: to Tan. I still haven't figured out why Tan, but
Speaker 3: it then cracks me out every time.
Speaker 1: So probably just general obfuscation, you know, they like to
Speaker 1: hide what they're doing, and it makes it harder to
Speaker 1: keep track of who these people are and what's going on.
Speaker 1: They can continue to work on different projects. Just general sneakiness. Probably, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think.
Speaker 3: It makes it harder to find the trail and I
Speaker 3: end up spending a lot of time on the wayback
Speaker 3: machine trying to trace the you know, like Peter Thiel's project,
Speaker 3: he has Prospera, right, a lot of the people are
Speaker 3: familiar with those bitcoin cities that he's doing in Honduras. Well,
Speaker 3: the subsidiary of that was Vitalia, where and on the
Speaker 3: website it said, you know, it's a city where you
Speaker 3: can make death optional. However they've now changed it to Infinitia.
Speaker 3: But there's overlap here because Jordan Hall has spoken at
Speaker 3: the Startup Society Foundations, which is held It's a conference
Speaker 3: that's held at Prospera and four years ago he talked
Speaker 3: about game B startups and network states. Recently, within the
Speaker 3: past year, he did a much shorter presentation on network
Speaker 3: states and this, you know, kind of gamebee concept, but
Speaker 3: he's converted to Christianity. Year ago, they talks about liturgy
Speaker 3: and how that can be used for essentially for communitarianism,
Speaker 3: which I'm pretty sure is not what liturgy is about.
Speaker 3: But he also talks about it was a podcast not
Speaker 3: too long ago he talked about how Ephesians Poor teaches
Speaker 3: us the collective cognition, which again I'm pretty sure is
Speaker 3: that that's not how I read it. Anyway, you can
Speaker 3: make your decision that that wasn't my reading. Uh so, Yeah,
Speaker 3: so game B they talk about it as a new
Speaker 3: operating system for civilization. This Emancipation Party did not get
Speaker 3: off the ground because the Millennials, as Jim explains it,
Speaker 3: loved the platform, but they decide they were such anarchists
Speaker 3: that the concept of a new political party was an
Speaker 3: anethma to them, and so Thorn Mueller was part of
Speaker 3: this Stanton meetings group and told them they should keep
Speaker 3: the name game B for branding purposes. So they kind
Speaker 3: of left the Emancipation Party launched concept and they moved
Speaker 3: forward with this game b Idea and Jim Rutt has
Speaker 3: written a manifesto like a Journey to gamebe He wrote
Speaker 3: it in twenty eighteen, but he keeps updating it and
Speaker 3: it's a pretty lengthy document of his prediction. And it's
Speaker 3: pretty interesting because he says that twenty forty five is
Speaker 3: when these proto game bees will come to fruition. And
Speaker 3: I think that's just an interesting time mark because what
Speaker 3: do we have in twenty forty five? We've got the
Speaker 3: AI World Society, which is the UN centennial partnership with
Speaker 3: the Boston Global Forum based on the book that Michael Ducaccus,
Speaker 3: the former governor of Massachusetts, wrote, and it's called Remaking
Speaker 3: the World towards an Age of Global Enlightenment. I do
Speaker 3: think that's a nod to the New Age movement. When
Speaker 3: you look at the website, the semiotics very much indicate so.
Speaker 3: And this is of course the vision for the centennial
Speaker 3: of the UN, where an Artificial Intelligence World Society will
Speaker 3: take over. Sounds a little like the Singularity to me,
Speaker 3: what do we have? Ray Herzwell saying the Singularity is
Speaker 3: a mirror? When is it? It's twenty forty five. So
Speaker 3: I thought it was a very interesting Marker timestamp that
Speaker 3: Jim Rudd is saying twenty forty five is when we're
Speaker 3: going to have these proto vis. So game Beat does
Speaker 3: a lot of them are disciples of people like Barbara
Speaker 3: Marx Hubbard. Barbara Marx Hubbard was a She visioned herself
Speaker 3: a futurist. She was. She led this concept of a
Speaker 3: conscious evolution. The foundation was funded by the Rockefellers. Some
Speaker 3: of her disciples have written a manifesto on cosmoerotic Humanism,
Speaker 3: so this would be yes, it's the first Values and
Speaker 3: first Principles on Evolving Perennialism, forty two propositions on on
Speaker 3: cosmoerotic Humanism, and it's a three. I know.
Speaker 2: They said it was a synchronistic, synergistic experience. This is
Speaker 2: how Mark Gafney describes it. He and Barbara had this
Speaker 2: vision all at once.
Speaker 3: And it was just this super sex moment that about
Speaker 3: and Mark Gaffney has an Aeros mystery school. They're very
Speaker 3: explicit this is not about sex, you know, even though
Speaker 3: that's what aeros. That's the type of love Roos is
Speaker 3: supposed to be. And of course super sex has the
Speaker 3: word sex literally in the name, but they say that's
Speaker 3: not what it's about. It's this radical love affair with
Speaker 3: the universe.
Speaker 2: But Mark Gaffney is one of the authors of this
Speaker 2: Cosmoerotic Humunists manifesto.
Speaker 3: You can find it at the Office of the Future
Speaker 3: dot com. You know, it's pretty easy to predict the
Speaker 3: future when you plan it.
Speaker 1: That's so we see that over and over again where
Speaker 1: they make themselves out to be profits despite the fact
Speaker 1: that they've just been working behind the scenes continually to
Speaker 1: bring about the thing.
Speaker 2: Subtexts, Yeah, there architecture, no visionaries or maybe visionary, but
Speaker 2: not profits. Yeah, so he so they it's yeah, Mark
Speaker 2: Gaffney who's working on his aeros Mystery school. He's doing
Speaker 2: cross promotion with Aubrey Marcus on this and he talks
Speaker 2: about how we have to revive the ancient mystery.
Speaker 3: So is very much signaling that this is an initiation.
Speaker 3: Interestingly enough, there is a film called an Initiation to
Speaker 3: Game B. So they do very much create. I keep
Speaker 3: saying I need to create a sorcery because they redefine terms.
Speaker 3: This is a theme we see with all of these
Speaker 3: types of people, right. Jorden Hall actually has a document
Speaker 3: on Mediums called on Sovereignty, and he explicitly says sovereignty
Speaker 3: is isn't what we typically think it means. You know,
Speaker 3: it's not about nation states having you know, autonomy, and
Speaker 3: it's not about individuals magically being able to make their
Speaker 3: own decisions. So he has redefined the term. And that's
Speaker 3: just one example. But they so this cosmo rodic humanism.
Speaker 3: Their Disciples of Farmer Marks Hubbard is zach Stein, who
Speaker 3: is also involved in the Game B film The Initiation
Speaker 3: to Game B. He was inducted to the Club of
Speaker 3: Rome last year. Another one of the filmmakers for GAMEB
Speaker 3: is Nora Batesen, daughter of Gregory Bateson, and she's also
Speaker 3: a Club of Rome member. And then we have Daniel Schmockenberger.
Speaker 3: He is he's one of the founders of it's now
Speaker 3: called Quality of Life, but it was called Neurowhacker again
Speaker 3: the renaming, and his brother James Schmockenberger, has launched this company.
Speaker 3: But if you look on the website, it's something like
Speaker 3: sixty board members and everybody and all the game thought
Speaker 3: leaders are in it, and so are people like all
Speaker 3: the evolutionary leaders people like the Bronk Chopra are on
Speaker 3: this neurohacker now quality of life. So it's a Danish Schmockenberger.
Speaker 3: And then who was the other one, Oh, Kenneth Wolber,
Speaker 3: of course, Kenneth Wolber. You know his developments of altitudes.
Speaker 3: That's based on Claire Grave's spiral dynamics. It's also based
Speaker 3: on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Abraham Maslow is another
Speaker 3: interesting character that definitely falls in line with all of
Speaker 3: this and kind of paves the way. He had a
Speaker 3: document called Politics three that was published posthumously in nineteen
Speaker 3: seventy two, and it was published by Robert Canter and
Speaker 3: Willis Harmon. Willis Harmon it was the president of the
Speaker 3: Institute of Noedic Sciences for two decades, and he was
Speaker 3: also one of the lead researchers and editors on the
Speaker 3: Changing Images of Man document that was done in partnership
Speaker 3: Stanford Research Institute. And he used his assistance name Marilyn
Speaker 3: Ferguson to popularize the ideas in that and that was
Speaker 3: called The Acquiring Conspiracy, so people might be familiar with
Speaker 3: that book. And so these are kind of the disciples
Speaker 3: of that school of thought. Barbara Marks Hubbard was at
Speaker 3: of course, also an intellectual disciple of T. R. J.
Speaker 3: Shardain Right who coined this term of the no sphere.
Speaker 3: He wasn't the only one, you know, there was Vernatsky
Speaker 3: and there were several others, but he was very much
Speaker 3: a thought leader in that space of, you know, outlining
Speaker 3: what the nosphere would be. And you see that theme constantly.
Speaker 3: So this is what I'm this is what I'm proposing,
Speaker 3: is that we have these different flavors of something. While
Speaker 3: Game B is presented as being very decentralized, kind of grassroots,
Speaker 3: but I caution people to remember H. G. Wells said
Speaker 3: that the conduit to the oral brain would be the
Speaker 3: decentralization of information institutions. Of course, back then it was
Speaker 3: the academic institutions. But what are the information institutions today?
Speaker 3: I would argue, it's the Internet, It's the technology. And
Speaker 3: in Belagie Shrina Austin's book on the Network State, he
Speaker 3: actually does say that. He says he doesn't talk about
Speaker 3: ag Wells, but he talks about how it's all going
Speaker 3: to be decentralized. You know, we'll have a dissolution of
Speaker 3: geographical nation states in favor of ideological network states, but
Speaker 3: then later they will be recentralized. So he even says
Speaker 3: it in his book that that is the purpose. But
Speaker 3: right now they're very much appealing under the banner of libertarianism.
Speaker 3: You know, I would argue that's what Peter Chield is prospera.
Speaker 3: So there's overlap between these two groups, right that Peter
Speaker 3: Chield usually thought of as being more of the dark
Speaker 3: Enlightenment camp, but we're starting to see some convergence between
Speaker 3: the two. And I just really keep saying that to me,
Speaker 3: it looks like you get a buffet, like a book
Speaker 3: buffet of poisonous ice cream. You can't see all the
Speaker 3: poisonous chemicals that are in there, but you know, you
Speaker 3: might see your favorite flavor. So if you prefer chalcolatere
Speaker 3: for first strawberry or vanilla or whatever flavor, that they've
Speaker 3: got something there for you.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, you can pick your preferred salesman for
Speaker 1: this globalist insanity. They have many different faces that they
Speaker 1: love to market with. My producer Lance has been telling
Speaker 1: me about this past week. Just recently, they Google released
Speaker 1: a self improving AI that was able to not just
Speaker 1: improve itself but on an algorithm that has been used
Speaker 1: for decades, and so there's diminishing returns right now. But
Speaker 1: this is a sign of things to come. This sort
Speaker 1: of thing is coming down the pipeline and it's going
Speaker 1: to becoming faster than people think it is. So it's
Speaker 1: also interesting to me that they're pointing at twenty forty
Speaker 1: five and they also have another other agendas which are coming.
Speaker 1: They want to come to fruition in twenty thirty five,
Speaker 1: whether it's technological, and it seems that that ten year
Speaker 1: timeline would give them more than enough time to implement
Speaker 1: these horrific policies, bring them to fruition and have people
Speaker 1: get fed up with the current status quo and to
Speaker 1: welcome just about anything to get away from what we
Speaker 1: currently have with the you know, way the globalists have
Speaker 1: managed things. And of course they love to think in
Speaker 1: these long term timelines. That's one of the areas that
Speaker 1: they excel in. They plan things out in terms of
Speaker 1: decades at minimum. They sit there with you know, in
Speaker 1: their clouded back rooms and they work together in these
Speaker 1: very incestuous sorts of groups where they all tie back
Speaker 1: into one another. So it is very interesting to me,
Speaker 1: as you said that is a twenty forty five where
Speaker 1: they're looking at the singularity happening. So I would be yes,
Speaker 1: I would be very surprised if it didn't even accelerate
Speaker 1: from there.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, yeah, I think it will accelerate from there.
Speaker 3: I think they're really laying the groundwork right now, and
Speaker 3: they're laying it out in so many different ways to
Speaker 3: appeal to different people. So another modality is of course
Speaker 3: the financial system, right and we're seeing a lot of
Speaker 3: that discussion currently where people are cheering the fact that
Speaker 3: Trump has put his executive order against cbdc's and I'm
Speaker 3: glad he did, but now he's talking about things like
Speaker 3: the stable coins, and he've got the Stable Act marching forward,
Speaker 3: the Genius under the Genius Act, And what we have is,
Speaker 3: I think it's much harder to sell some of this
Speaker 3: top down kind of centralized authoritative financial system like a
Speaker 3: central bank digital currency. A lot of people in the
Speaker 3: West and particularly the United States, I think a lot
Speaker 3: of people have kind of wakened up to the potential
Speaker 3: tyranny that could arise as a result, and so there's
Speaker 3: I think too much pushback to roll that out. But
Speaker 3: they can do it under different banners, and of course
Speaker 3: in the dark and Lightenment variation, we have things like
Speaker 3: the gov Corp. Right, a lot of people are very
Speaker 3: excited about things like DOGE and you know, there, I'm
Speaker 3: all in favor of efficiency, in favor of transparency, expose
Speaker 3: all the bloated apparatus and the bloated spending. That's all great. However,
Speaker 3: behind that is this concept of the dark Enlightenment, which
Speaker 3: is rage retire all government employees. What do they want
Speaker 3: to replace all those government employees with? They want to
Speaker 3: replace it with robotics and AI. And they're pretty explicit
Speaker 3: about this. This is not you know, maybe hidden the
Speaker 3: plain sight, but it's certainly not hidden. Yeah, and you know,
Speaker 3: they have made that pretty clear. I'm hoping there's opportunities
Speaker 3: in that window before they're able to roll that out,
Speaker 3: and people should absolutely seize whatever opportunities arise. But I
Speaker 3: think they need to be aware that that's where they're headed.
Speaker 3: And I think a AI managed system could be way
Speaker 3: more tyrannical than any fascist or communist type of approach.
Speaker 3: Not that I'm in favor of any of them, but
Speaker 3: I do think the technocratic, you know, regime that they're
Speaker 3: trying to roll out is very very dystopian. Now they're
Speaker 3: trying to do for people who are not in favor
Speaker 3: of a gov Corp type of situation, which, by the way,
Speaker 3: I think also people don't necessarily recognize that, or if
Speaker 3: they do, I'd like to just highlight the fact that
Speaker 3: this gov Corp is privatizing everything. So I think a
Speaker 3: lot of people champion that because they think that that's
Speaker 3: going to be more freedom, and they have this notion
Speaker 3: of it being capitalistic in a free market sense. But
Speaker 3: it's much more gov Corp, not so much free market
Speaker 3: where the little guy can have a startup business. That's
Speaker 3: not what they're talking about here. People like Curtis Jarvin,
Speaker 3: who helm this Dark Enlightenment movement, have even said America
Speaker 3: needs to get over their fear of the dictatorship because
Speaker 3: that is the best system. I might be paraphrasing, but
Speaker 3: basically what he said. So these figures are it's they
Speaker 3: fashion themselves philosophers. Although I have read their material, this
Speaker 3: is a you know, it's not any great philosophy, and
Speaker 3: it's very poor writing, quite honestly, But somehow the intellectual
Speaker 3: is eat it up. I'm not sure how, but maybe
Speaker 3: in a sound bite society, it's very appealing to have
Speaker 3: these long bloviations about, you know, our dystopian future. But
Speaker 3: in the more game be with the kind of libertarian
Speaker 3: type of umbrella they're advertising tokenized it. It's still a gamified,
Speaker 3: tokenized economy, but it's more under a banner of something
Speaker 3: like communitarianism. They keep they keep mentioning West's book on
Speaker 3: scales and so and dumbar and they so they have
Speaker 3: this vision that you have to have communities that are
Speaker 3: less than one hundred and fifty people because they say
Speaker 3: that more than one hundred and fifty people you need bureaucracy.
Speaker 3: And so with the smaller communities you could have put
Speaker 3: theoretically you could be devoid of bureaucracy. However, what's going
Speaker 3: to replace that bureaucracy. It's the same thing as the
Speaker 3: gov Core. It's going to be done under. Jordan Hall
Speaker 3: talks about hyperstructure and he says that you know, bitcoin
Speaker 3: would be an example of hyperstructure, but he's really talking
Speaker 3: about is blockchain. And he says even more than Bitcoin,
Speaker 3: he's an advocate of you know, proof of work types
Speaker 3: of blockchain. So things like Qui network is something he's
Speaker 3: a big proponent of. But it's still this concept of
Speaker 3: having things like tokenized gamified economy where things are where
Speaker 3: assets can be fractionalized, and people think that sounds great.
Speaker 3: They're marketing it and selling it to you as Oh,
Speaker 3: so I could have a partial ownership of something if
Speaker 3: I can't fully afford to own, you know, a piece
Speaker 3: of real estate or a piece of art or whatever
Speaker 3: that asset might be. They're talking about tangible assets, but
Speaker 3: you would like to think the example I you is
Speaker 3: you'd like to think that family members and loved ones
Speaker 3: could share assets. But unfortunately, this is why you know,
Speaker 3: estate lawyers exist because it doesn't always quite work out
Speaker 3: that way. So, but that's what they're talking about. They're
Speaker 3: talking about a tokenized economy, and that could be just
Speaker 3: as you know, draconian and tyrannical. You know, you still
Speaker 3: need an idea to enter a digital ID. You still
Speaker 3: have some sort of a social credit system within that community.
Speaker 3: I'm sure that if you do something that they decide
Speaker 3: that doesn't but forget if the community doesn't like it,
Speaker 3: but it did not comply with the smart contract that
Speaker 3: has been instituted, right because it's a hyperstructure. They want
Speaker 3: to take people out of the equation. And so now
Speaker 3: you're going to have these smart contracts. Who are They're
Speaker 3: already programmed, they're already coded. You can't negotiate with a
Speaker 3: smart contract. So I'm just trying to point out that
Speaker 3: that they're really presenting things in these different flavors. And
Speaker 3: it's not to say that everybody involved is like a bad, evil,
Speaker 3: monioacal person trying to control the world. I think some
Speaker 3: of them are just utopianist. You know, they have a
Speaker 3: very romanticized vision of the future and they think they're
Speaker 3: smarter than everybody else. So of course they're the ones
Speaker 3: or in some cases they're more spiritually evolved, right, they
Speaker 3: believe in the spiritual eugenics as well.
Speaker 1: I know no one has gotten it right yet, but
Speaker 1: we're going to be the ones that do it. We're
Speaker 1: more advanced, We've come a long way, which is continually
Speaker 1: what these people tell themselves every single time. But yeah,
Speaker 1: what you were saying about getting people out of bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: while it does sound like a good idea, at least
Speaker 1: with people there's a chance for mercy. You can potentially
Speaker 1: appeal to their humanity when you get a computer involved
Speaker 1: that there is no chance for that. It is simply numbers.
Speaker 1: It will look at what is said and done in
Speaker 1: the law and it will just apply that ruthlessly. There
Speaker 1: will be no chance for it to have mercy upon you.
Speaker 3: That's right, Yeah, that's exactly right. And you also have
Speaker 3: to consider that any kind of an algorithm has been
Speaker 3: programmed who's doing the programming, It's only going to magnify
Speaker 3: whatever that person's worldview, biases or you know, intention was,
Speaker 3: And so even if they have the best of intentions,
Speaker 3: it may not align with yours.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, we see that over and over again. Just
Speaker 1: how rapidly the ais have been shoved full of biases
Speaker 1: from the people who are coding them, programmed to adhere
Speaker 1: to whatever the prominent worldview of the moment is. And
Speaker 1: just got to comment another one from our producer these
Speaker 1: stable coins and sees presenting them is just CBDC under
Speaker 1: a different name. That is a public private partnership with
Speaker 1: his cronies. Yes, they are already positioning themselves to be
Speaker 1: the first ones to make a killing off of it
Speaker 1: if it goes through. They want to make sure that
Speaker 1: they always make their money first.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, that's exactly right. So yeah, I am very
Speaker 3: concerned just because I feel like they keep finding new
Speaker 3: ways to appeal to, you know, the resistance, and I'm
Speaker 3: just trying to sound the alarm so that people are
Speaker 3: not you know, it's not for me. You may think
Speaker 3: that this is a utopia and that is for you
Speaker 3: to decide. That it's not for me to decide, but
Speaker 3: you should be aware that they do believe in things
Speaker 3: like collective intelligence and that is this so you know,
Speaker 3: when you look at the Game B it's kind of
Speaker 3: they're talking about a collective intelligence created through consensus, and
Speaker 3: I would argue kind of brainwashing. There's actually Jake Ruse
Speaker 3: when he's talking about the game buh, you know, initiation
Speaker 3: to Game B film, they have these they call it DialogOS.
Speaker 3: So I think dialogue has drifted very far away from uh,
Speaker 3: you know what used to be the Socratic method and dialogs,
Speaker 3: and now I think, especially since the Delphi method, it
Speaker 3: has come to me in consensus built, consensus building. In
Speaker 3: Game B they call it sense me, and they're they're
Speaker 3: always having these various dialogues. But in this one, Jake
Speaker 3: rus was talking about how he's working on a Disney project,
Speaker 3: and he's going to have to Trojan Horse Game B
Speaker 3: through this project. So essentially, you know, in coldcate through
Speaker 3: the culture aka socially engineered the masses, you know, brainwash
Speaker 3: them with this concept. So it's they're presenting it his
Speaker 3: bottom up, where the dark Enlightenment people are presenting it
Speaker 3: as you know, more of an outright technocracy, you know,
Speaker 3: in line with like a Elon Musk's grandfather, Josh Hattleman,
Speaker 3: was a you know, leader of Technocracy Inc. In Canada
Speaker 3: from nineteen thirty six to nineteen forty three, and you know,
Speaker 3: run by Howard Scott initially, so this concept that you
Speaker 3: build a technique, but it's still both of them have
Speaker 3: this idea of kind of power blocks. One is you know,
Speaker 3: more of a grassroots bottom up that is being operated
Speaker 3: through network states in the cloud, and then the other
Speaker 3: through these you know power block regions right techniques that
Speaker 3: are very similar to the glove of Rome's you know,
Speaker 3: globalized adaptive regionalization map. It's also very similar to that,
Speaker 3: but again it's all still going to be run through
Speaker 3: what technology and the Internet. And I'll just say one
Speaker 3: more thing. I think you want to say something, but
Speaker 3: the evolutionary leader of Bruce Lifton, who I believe he
Speaker 3: was on the Quality of Site as well. But he
Speaker 3: talks about how we evolve, and right he says, we
Speaker 3: start off as these amba. He uses the spiral analogy,
Speaker 3: which is not a coincidence. This is spiral metaphysics versus
Speaker 3: like a plum plump line, sorry, plumb line metaphysics right
Speaker 3: where we have reality anchored. And I know a lot
Speaker 3: of people are probably familiar with the spiral analogy from
Speaker 3: Hegelian dialectics. So I'm actually in the process of writing
Speaker 3: a book on Hegel's dialectic is called Hegel's Dialectic, a
Speaker 3: Gnostic Jacob's Letter and a Machine of Control. And I
Speaker 3: have a little preview on my substack for anybody who's
Speaker 3: interested in getting a sneak peek at what I've got
Speaker 3: so far. But it's he talks about it, and he
Speaker 3: uses the imagery of the spiral, and he talks about
Speaker 3: how we start as amieba, and that amieba are so
Speaker 3: intelligent because of their the membrane that's where they get
Speaker 3: their you know, the intelligence from. And then we you know,
Speaker 3: evolve into these multicellular organisms and they're more intelligent because
Speaker 3: they have more membrane. And then he says humans are
Speaker 3: complex multicellular organisms and we're so intelligent because we have
Speaker 3: so much service area of membrane. And then he says,
Speaker 3: we have this potential to co create. This is the
Speaker 3: term you hear from a lot of these conscious evolutionary
Speaker 3: figures like Barbara Marx Hubbard, this idea that we are
Speaker 3: going to co create. It's a very gnostic type of concept,
Speaker 3: but we're going to co create. And he says that
Speaker 3: we can will either go extinct or we can co
Speaker 3: create and will evolve into a super organism of humanity,
Speaker 3: and that the membrane for that organism is going to
Speaker 3: be what the internet. So again we have this nose
Speaker 3: for your concept, pointing us towards the technological similarity.
Speaker 1: Yes, uh, just it's interesting the way they put that,
Speaker 1: the way they act as if technology is a democratizing force,
Speaker 1: whereas technology is these types of technologies are incredibly expensive.
Speaker 1: Ais are enormously expensive to create, an enormously expensive to
Speaker 1: run on a large scale. So it seems to me
Speaker 1: that it is inherently undemocratic and that it gives these
Speaker 1: you know, these multi billionaires that believe in this a
Speaker 1: huge leg up and selling it as democratic seems slightly
Speaker 1: disingenuous to me, as if it's just kind of a
Speaker 1: sales pitch, like, oh, it's democratic. But realistically, how are you,
Speaker 1: as an individual or a small group of you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred or one hundred and twenty five people going
Speaker 1: to compete with someone like Elon Musk who has multiple
Speaker 1: billions of dollars to you know, run these sorts of
Speaker 1: things and utilize them to their full potential. It seems
Speaker 1: even less democratic than other, you know, than normal when
Speaker 1: it comes to how much money can influence this type
Speaker 1: of society.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and with this trans political movement, they talk about
Speaker 3: using uh, you know, AI and they using technology for voting,
Speaker 3: which is I'm putting everything up on the blockchain, so
Speaker 3: you've got like the quadratic voting, rank choice voting. They're
Speaker 3: very different, various different uh you know offerings of this.
Speaker 3: Uh there's the conviction voting, but and the genra it
Speaker 3: talks about liquid democracy of Barbara Marx Hubbard talks about
Speaker 3: syngistic democracy. But all of this is couch in language
Speaker 3: that makes you think that it's a very direct democracy, which,
Speaker 3: by the way, I'm not in favor of anyway. That's
Speaker 3: why our founding mothers created or public, not a democracy,
Speaker 3: because they knew that a democracy meant a mob rule.
Speaker 3: So it's you know, it ends up being quite tyrannical
Speaker 3: and barbaric in many cases, as they saw in ancient Greece,
Speaker 3: and that is why they did not craft a direct democracy. However,
Speaker 3: they do talk about it being much more direct in US.
Speaker 3: But you're using AI as so, and you're using technology,
Speaker 3: which one do we think that there's going to be
Speaker 3: no kinds of corruption involved? There, no manipulation. What do
Speaker 3: we see with the voting systems? Now right, we've already
Speaker 3: had those kinds of challenges. But also you're having AI.
Speaker 3: It's really AI replacing government, that's really what you're seeing.
Speaker 3: And they talk about this in the AI world society.
Speaker 3: They say how all governments are going to be supplanted
Speaker 3: and replaced through AI. And so in this case they're
Speaker 3: just talking about it in a more again grass roots
Speaker 3: like you're going to opt into this system. But we
Speaker 3: already have this. We have in several states they're doing
Speaker 3: these summits and in my state, I believe it's this
Speaker 3: month and it is on a digital governance and there's
Speaker 3: already a chant gpt gov which you have to be
Speaker 3: a government official to enter the portal, and they're doing
Speaker 3: these symposiums on digital governance and how we're going to
Speaker 3: use AI and digital yeah government.
Speaker 1: So well, yeah, it just gets scarier and scarier as
Speaker 1: they move to integrate these things. And we've seen just
Speaker 1: the budget build that they're working on passing would prevent
Speaker 1: states from regulating AI themselves. It would be completely up
Speaker 1: to the auspices of the federal government. They would be
Speaker 1: able to do whatever they wanted in the state would
Speaker 1: have no say in it. One of our listeners was
Speaker 1: just pointing that out. We talked about that yesterday, but
Speaker 1: it's just again incredibly scary that they're continuing to centralize
Speaker 1: this stuff. And you know, just what was it. The
Speaker 1: FDA is moving to utilize AI to approve rugs now,
Speaker 1: I believe I believe we covered that last week. So
Speaker 1: it is just they are moving at a very very
Speaker 1: rapid pace towards this again push to incorporate AI into
Speaker 1: all aspects of the government. And as you're pointing out,
Speaker 1: they then want to phase out the human component, which
Speaker 1: on the surface, as we said, sounds good because you know,
Speaker 1: less bureaucracy. You think that's a good thing. You know,
Speaker 1: we're spending less on people, we're spending less on salaries.
Speaker 1: But we are then completely at the mercy of these algorithms.
Speaker 3: Yes, exactly. And the algorithms are using cybernetic feedback loops, right,
Speaker 3: that's what they're busy data mining. And we see this
Speaker 3: in every sector possible, right. We see this with the
Speaker 3: education system, we see this with just consumerism. That's usually
Speaker 3: how it's marketed that you know, they're just getting information
Speaker 3: to understand your behavior so they can give you the
Speaker 3: best ads that you want to see.
Speaker 1: Just it's a perfect widget for you. That's all it's about,
Speaker 1: you know, just making sure that you can fulfill your
Speaker 1: consumerist dreams. And we've got people Oh no, just got
Speaker 1: a comment again for the reducer. Dough is minimizing government
Speaker 1: but maximizing governance, which is a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: They were reducing the number of people but maximizing their
Speaker 1: ability to parse the information that they skim from your life.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a it's gob corps. So they're really privatizing
Speaker 3: control no longer in the government, which you know, outside
Speaker 3: of the classified kind of black ops types of government operations.
Speaker 3: Things are actually fairly transparent under the government, right you
Speaker 3: can go and look up what they're doing. Theoretically you
Speaker 3: should be able to address your grievances as well, and
Speaker 3: you know they're that's that's at least how it's structured.
Speaker 3: I'm not saying so is how it functions, but it
Speaker 3: is how it's structured. A private company does not have
Speaker 3: to disclose anything, so that's really what they're doing. They're
Speaker 3: taking it all out of the government and trying to
Speaker 3: put it into Silicon Valley and where they will have
Speaker 3: the control and into these mega corporations. So I think
Speaker 3: something for people to consider is what happened in twenty
Speaker 3: twenty where you know, if you went into your mom
Speaker 3: pop shop, oftentimes if you didn't like some of the mandates,
Speaker 3: you could negotiate with the owner, right they might have
Speaker 3: they might be aligned with your views, they may not,
Speaker 3: but they would make a decision and sometimes you would
Speaker 3: have some leeway there. But if you went into a
Speaker 3: big box store, they were subject to these incentives that
Speaker 3: were really being coming down the pike from things like
Speaker 3: the World Economic Forum, the UN aligning with ESG and
Speaker 3: the seventeen Sustainable Development Goal. And that's actually we have
Speaker 3: these B corps, which you know, Game B is very
Speaker 3: much a proponent of. There's already six thousand B corps
Speaker 3: and some of them who will they're big companies that
Speaker 3: you'll be very familiar with. It's like Ben and Jerry's
Speaker 3: or Patagonia. Ben and Jerry's famously said that they are
Speaker 3: not an ice cream company, They're an activism organization. They
Speaker 3: happen to sell ice cream, but of course, of course
Speaker 3: they have to be an activism organism so that they
Speaker 3: can meet their ESG adapters, so that they can get
Speaker 3: high scores in there on their B corporating. So we
Speaker 3: have that's the problem is that it's going to be
Speaker 3: incentivized for these big corporations who are tied in with
Speaker 3: the central banks, the IMF, and THESEUS NGOs like the
Speaker 3: World Economic Forum, the one.
Speaker 1: Yes, it's amazing how we've seen it trickle down, not
Speaker 1: just Ben and Jerry's is an absurd example of how
Speaker 1: they implement They Every single one of these companies has
Speaker 1: been brought on board with implementing these ideas in every
Speaker 1: single aspect of your life and pushing them on you.
Speaker 1: I mean, the gaming industry is a tremendous example of that.
Speaker 1: I know most of our audience probably doesn't play video games,
Speaker 1: but still the gaming industry is overrun by people that
Speaker 1: are obsessed with pushing the current ideology and implementing them
Speaker 1: into games and putting that in front of a younger
Speaker 1: and younger audience, to push that on them and to
Speaker 1: make it their model for the world. Because when you
Speaker 1: get it in front of a person at a young
Speaker 1: age before they're able to critically think, it embeds itself
Speaker 1: in there. It bypasses critical thinking since they didn't have
Speaker 1: it at the time, and it makes it very very
Speaker 1: hard to dislodge because since they didn't reason themselves into
Speaker 1: that position, it's very hard to reason them out of it.
Speaker 1: And I have a comment here from one of our listeners.
Speaker 1: They want to know about the Internet of bio nano things.
Speaker 3: So the AI World Society talks about the Internet of
Speaker 3: Varno bio things and they say how it will all
Speaker 3: be connected through the six G technolog and of course
Speaker 3: the Internet of NanoBio things is operating through humans. It's
Speaker 3: being powered by humans. The University of Amherst, Massachusetts disclosed
Speaker 3: their study on six G technology and how it is
Speaker 3: powered through humans. I did a recent substack. It was
Speaker 3: called the Past to Mass Surveillance and Technological Singularity, and
Speaker 3: I outlined the and I'm sure I've left out some,
Speaker 3: but I do go through a lot of them. There's
Speaker 3: the Internet of thing, Internet of bodies, Internet of NanoBio things. Right,
Speaker 3: this is a nano technology. And just to stop on
Speaker 3: that for a second, people like Charles Liber were very
Speaker 3: instrumental in this type of research. And you know, when
Speaker 3: you've all know Harari talks about how twenty twenty is
Speaker 3: the year when surveillance goes under the skin. I think
Speaker 3: he meant it, and we have. Charles Liber was working
Speaker 3: on injectible technology that would create a self assembling nano
Speaker 3: bought technology, and people often forget that he was partnered
Speaker 3: with Elon Musk on the neuralink. He patented the neural lace,
Speaker 3: which is that self assembling mesh technology. So that's the
Speaker 3: Internet amundo bio things. I think it's very concerning. Unfortunately
Speaker 3: we don't know as much about it as one would
Speaker 3: like because I think a lot of it is under
Speaker 3: classified documentation. That doesn't mean that it's not real. We
Speaker 3: have a lot of white papers that indicate there is
Speaker 3: a lot of research and development in this field. We
Speaker 3: also have Albert Burrella who Pfizer, who is talking about
Speaker 3: how you can have a medication that you would take
Speaker 3: and it would have a sensor to know if you
Speaker 3: needed to take your next dose, and it could you know,
Speaker 3: alert you to this. Apparently Embellify already uses this technology,
Speaker 3: which is a pretty common drugue, so people can look
Speaker 3: that up. Don't take my word for it, but I
Speaker 3: did do some research and I did that is what
Speaker 3: I found. Then we have, of course the Internet behaviors,
Speaker 3: and there's a white paper document on this, and Internet
Speaker 3: behaviors is a little bit concerning because this is kind
Speaker 3: of the soft technology of brainwashing and programming and mind control.
Speaker 3: You know. Of course, the Internet of NanoBio things could
Speaker 3: potentially with the brain interface, be more of a hardware
Speaker 3: kind of control. The Internet of everything. This is where
Speaker 3: they connect a network connecting people, processes, data, and things
Speaker 3: to entable enable. Sorry, intelligent I put that in air
Speaker 3: quotes decision making interaction because yeah, you know you have
Speaker 3: to understand what intelligent decision making means. It means like
Speaker 3: automated AI driven Internet medical things, and of course you
Speaker 3: know this is they were doing a lot of research
Speaker 3: on this in twenty twenty with the wireless body area
Speaker 3: networks in the hospitals and whatnot. But this is you know,
Speaker 3: even more overlaid things like pacemakers. Typically the patient is
Speaker 3: aware that there's an external interface, and it's usually couches
Speaker 3: being for your own good and in some cases it is.
Speaker 3: In some cases it really does help people, and it's
Speaker 3: great that they can be alerted if you know something
Speaker 3: where to go awry. In other cases, we have to
Speaker 3: wonder what if they can control? Right? What did the
Speaker 3: Technocrat magazine of nineteen thirty seven, They said that technocracy
Speaker 3: the definition is social engineering. They also said that the
Speaker 3: purpose of surveilling is to control, So we have to
Speaker 3: consider those cybernetic feedback loops and the role that they play.
Speaker 3: Then we also have the Internet of Industrial Things, which
Speaker 3: is industrial settings that are connecting machines and system to
Speaker 3: optimize manufacturing operations. I think this will play a huge
Speaker 3: role in robotics. And we have the Internet of smart cities. Now.
Speaker 3: The net of smart cities very much ties to this concept.
Speaker 3: You know where I'm talking about the dark and lightment
Speaker 3: versus game B. We have a whole branch and that's
Speaker 3: really what this article was about, was we have all
Speaker 3: these different types of smart city. Of course, the AI
Speaker 3: World Society talks about how we'll have these s forty cities,
Speaker 3: which are all under the guise of saving the planet
Speaker 3: because we have a climate crisis that we have to address.
Speaker 3: You know, so this of course means we can't breathe
Speaker 3: because carbon dioxide is a menace to the society, although
Speaker 3: anybody who took third grade science knew that it's literally
Speaker 3: the life molecule. But you know, I digress and the
Speaker 3: Club of Rome actually admitted it was propaganda. I have
Speaker 3: this quote in my book. They admitted that it was
Speaker 3: propaganda because they're Limits to Growth document. This is where
Speaker 3: they say that humans are the enemy of humanity because
Speaker 3: you know, we were polluting the environment. In their Global
Speaker 3: Revolution document in nineteen ninety two, they say that they
Speaker 3: had to get a common enemy for man to rally behind,
Speaker 3: and so of course they decided that who's the enemy
Speaker 3: of humanity, it's man himself. Of course, because we are
Speaker 3: the polluter. They pretty much admitted that they so that
Speaker 3: they could get us on board with this agenda. So
Speaker 3: that's but the Internet of smart cities, the c forty cities,
Speaker 3: of course, the fifteen minute cities. A lot of people
Speaker 3: are familiar with those or are couched inconvenience. You'll have
Speaker 3: everything within fifteen minutes and you can walk to you know,
Speaker 3: and there's some merit to that. But of course the
Speaker 3: part they leave out is all the technology that interconnects
Speaker 3: and makes everything interoperable. But then we have like Freedom Cities,
Speaker 3: which you know, sound wonderful. Who doesn't want a Freedom city?
Speaker 3: I want to live in Freedom City until you realize
Speaker 3: it's just another name for a fifteen minute or a
Speaker 3: smart city.
Speaker 1: They love naming it the exact opposite of what it
Speaker 1: actually is. You know, they gave us this the Patriot Act. Oh,
Speaker 1: it sounds wonderful. I'm a patriot. I love by country.
Speaker 1: And then you actually look at the Patriot as like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is the most unpatriotic thing that's ever been put
Speaker 1: into Congress. You know, it's like, oh, of course they
Speaker 1: love doing that. It's just this easy, easy slack requells
Speaker 1: almost speak.
Speaker 3: It's literally or William Dole speak. Yeah, yeah, we have
Speaker 3: the Freedom Cities, and that is very much more of
Speaker 3: a dark Enlightenment kind of concept, right these because it's
Speaker 3: all about the deregulations. So this is very appealing. It's
Speaker 3: like what prosper is essentially, it's very appealing to these
Speaker 3: you know, tech oligarch rose who want everything deregulated. They
Speaker 3: can you know, make their rules and it's very conducive
Speaker 3: to to their initiatives. And then you have in Game
Speaker 3: B something called the Civium Project, which also sounds great.
Speaker 3: It's very utopian in my opinion, but unfortunately utopian means
Speaker 3: nowhere unusually results in dystopia when implemented. But it's this
Speaker 3: idea that we you know, we move out of the
Speaker 3: cities and we it's they very much glorify like the
Speaker 3: indigenous populations, and you know, they Roman they forget that
Speaker 3: it was kind of barbaric and that it actually was
Speaker 3: quite competitive because Game B is supposed to be non rivalrous,
Speaker 3: unlike Game A. I call it the Age of Aquarius
Speaker 3: of technology. You know, they want us to move into
Speaker 3: the collective, collaborative cooperative and they say Game A is
Speaker 3: just too exploitive and extractive. But they're going to take
Speaker 3: the technology and extract that from game into Game B.
Speaker 3: And so in these civium projects, they move out of
Speaker 3: the city and it is a you know, glorifying more
Speaker 3: backward kind of a lifestyle communal. Again, however, you have
Speaker 3: the technology from game that connects everything, so you're in
Speaker 3: a network state, although you're you may be living more
Speaker 3: in you know, connection with the land and with people,
Speaker 3: which you know, sounds like the best of both worlds,
Speaker 3: except that you know who's controlling it, and even if
Speaker 3: it's AI controlling it, how much freedom does that really
Speaker 3: afford you? So that would be the Internet of smart cities.
Speaker 3: And of course at the AI World Society they talk
Speaker 3: about how Ukraine is going to be the central node
Speaker 3: for all of these various smart cities, and they've done
Speaker 3: several symposium talking about how we have to rebuild Ukraine
Speaker 3: because it's a central hub for all of this. So
Speaker 3: that's why we have to give them so much money
Speaker 3: and you know, build them back because they've been torn down,
Speaker 3: so they have to build back better. So you can
Speaker 3: go look on the website they have all these symposiums.
Speaker 3: People watch that for yourself at AI world Soociety dot
Speaker 3: net or the Boston Global Forum has a bunch of
Speaker 3: videos on it. As well. And then there's the Internet
Speaker 3: of wearable things, this I'm sure a lot of people
Speaker 3: are familiar with already very much marketed to the health
Speaker 3: fitness crowd, you know, with the smart watches and the
Speaker 3: you know, the rings and you know, all of the
Speaker 3: heart rate kind of tracking, heart math, which was actually
Speaker 3: one of Barbara Marx Hubbard's projects that was a large
Speaker 3: funding from the Rockefeller Foundation. And you know, some of
Speaker 3: it's great, like helps you with meditation, and you know
Speaker 3: that that part's pretty innocuous. But they talk about creating
Speaker 3: global coherence through heart read and now they're talking about
Speaker 3: heart brain coherence. So that's got its own connotation there,
Speaker 3: which sounds to me like they're trying to use technology
Speaker 3: to moment this, you know, global consciousness no sphere concept.
Speaker 3: And then we have the internet robotic things, which I
Speaker 3: think will be much more pervasive in the next coming years.
Speaker 3: I'm sure I've left other things out, but yeah, I
Speaker 3: don't know if that answers their question.
Speaker 1: That was fantastic, Gay, You covered so much ground there,
Speaker 1: But that's part of the way they get these things
Speaker 1: through is they smother you with the sheer amount of
Speaker 1: their projects. It makes it very very hard to keep
Speaker 1: track of what's going on, since there's just you know,
Speaker 1: tens hundreds, thousands of different ways they are working to
Speaker 1: advance this agenda all at once, with numerous little people
Speaker 1: in different organizations all over the place. And as you
Speaker 1: were saying, they're talking about this as a oh, this
Speaker 1: is going to be a non competitive world order. We're
Speaker 1: all going to be very peaceful. We're all going to
Speaker 1: just you know, be lase a fair about everything. Anytime
Speaker 1: anyone starts selling you a sort of utopian worldview, I
Speaker 1: begin to question it because it seems they themselves don't
Speaker 1: understand human nature, or hoping you don't understand human nature,
Speaker 1: and that we are inherently you know, we prioritize ourselves
Speaker 1: and you know, our family first. As a general rule,
Speaker 1: we are selfish by nature. We tend to always go
Speaker 1: after our needs first, and if someone else gets in
Speaker 1: the way of that, we see them as the enemy
Speaker 1: the other and we will do what we can to
Speaker 1: get what we need. And if that impacts someone else negatively,
Speaker 1: that's that's a secondary concern. And people that tell you
Speaker 1: that we can get past that again, they just don't
Speaker 1: understand human nature. As a Christian myself. I believe that
Speaker 1: is part of our you know, it's built into us.
Speaker 1: It is down deep. You cannot get past that. That
Speaker 1: is just part of who we are. And these all
Speaker 1: these yes, all original sin, all these utopian ideals, look
Speaker 1: past that and pretend that it is just something we
Speaker 1: can you know, therapize away or however you want to
Speaker 1: get rid of it. They imagine there's a way that
Speaker 1: we can make ourselves all just these good little care bears,
Speaker 1: and we're going to live in this utopia where we
Speaker 1: all routinely, you know, everyone looks out for each other
Speaker 1: all the time, and they never have their own self
Speaker 1: interests first, which just does not exist. It does not happen.
Speaker 1: And so any utopian ideology is inherently doomed to fail,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, and so it's always scarier to me.
Speaker 3: I couldn't agree more. And you know, if you think
Speaker 3: about the un their extoteric veneer is all about peace making, right,
Speaker 3: that's there. But if you really scratch beneath the surface
Speaker 3: as to why, there was a great video. It was
Speaker 3: posted about ten years ago. It might be older than that,
Speaker 3: but it's still on YouTube with Robert Mueller, who was
Speaker 3: the Secretary General for the UN for four decades. He's
Speaker 3: the one who created the world Core curriculum for education
Speaker 3: that has become commoncre or Charlotte, he loves to call
Speaker 3: a communist core in the United States, and this was
Speaker 3: predicated on the works of Alice Bailey and her book
Speaker 3: Education in the New Age. But he talks about how
Speaker 3: we have to have peace, and when you really listen
Speaker 3: to what he's saying, this is why you can't have
Speaker 3: free will. I mean, he didn't say the free will explicitly,
Speaker 3: but this is what he's talking about. This is why
Speaker 3: we have to have the consensus. This is why we
Speaker 3: have to have the no sphere and collective intelligence, because
Speaker 3: if we have free will, your version of utopia, even
Speaker 3: though utopia means nowhere and usually results in dystopia when
Speaker 3: attempted to be implemented. But let's just say your fantasy,
Speaker 3: your version of utopia might look radically different from mine,
Speaker 3: doesn't make you a better or worse person. But we're different.
Speaker 3: We have different ideas, we have different brain chemistry, we
Speaker 3: have different makeup, we have different circumstances. You know, all
Speaker 3: these different variables that make us. The beautiful uniqueness of
Speaker 3: each human being. But our utopias could be radically different,
Speaker 3: and therefore they are are intrinsically in competition. And this
Speaker 3: is why we have competition, this is why we don't
Speaker 3: always agree, and sometimes those disagreements manifesting grave tensions. And
Speaker 3: so the umbrella of peace, while it sounds beautiful, and
Speaker 3: who doesn't want a peaceful world, in order to create
Speaker 3: that and to achieve that, they have to eradicate the
Speaker 3: free will of humanity. And when they talk about, you
Speaker 3: know how this will liberate us and create freedom, I
Speaker 3: think this is really very much at the core of it.
Speaker 3: It's a spiritual dichotomy because you have free will, as
Speaker 3: I believe, was endowed by our creator, this beautiful gift.
Speaker 3: And it's not an end. It's a vehicle. It's a
Speaker 3: vehicle to pursue virtue and morality. So we have the choice,
Speaker 3: but it's not an end. And the way I think
Speaker 3: a lot of these occultist, esoteric types of groups that
Speaker 3: may be couched in more quote unquote rational philosophy see
Speaker 3: it they talk about it's really a collective end. So
Speaker 3: think about like you know Aleister Crowley's Thelemma where he
Speaker 3: talks about do with thou wilt, this radical freedom to
Speaker 3: do with Thou wilt or Nietzschean will to power, or
Speaker 3: Hegel who talks about the spirit of the geist right,
Speaker 3: the world's spirit, and how this is progressing towards the
Speaker 3: rational absolute. This is so that we can have the state,
Speaker 3: which is equivalent to God in his view. But he
Speaker 3: says humans can achieve no freedom at all without complete
Speaker 3: subservience to the state, which is God. So there's just
Speaker 3: a couple of example. If I see this theme constantly,
Speaker 3: and it's very misleading because people like hey are de
Speaker 3: Chardaine talk about freedom, Barbara Mark Pubber talks about radical freedom,
Speaker 3: but they don't mean the same thing as free will.
Speaker 3: And so I think that's you know, but it's all
Speaker 3: under you know, whether it's the UN or whoever it
Speaker 3: is that's trying to put it under the manner of peace.
Speaker 3: I think we need to really understand what are the
Speaker 3: implications of that.
Speaker 1: Yes, it sounds great, Yeah, that is a very good point. Again,
Speaker 1: it could be a Haxtromana sort of ordeal where they
Speaker 1: come in and they make peace by wiping out everyone
Speaker 1: that's making trouble in their eyes, And that seems to
Speaker 1: be the way these globalists always operate. If you're going
Speaker 1: to cause them problems, they want you out of the way. Well, Courtney,
Speaker 1: we've just got a few minutes left. I have thoroughly
Speaker 1: enjoyed our conversation. You have given us so much to
Speaker 1: think about and the just I encourage everyone to go
Speaker 1: check out your website Courtney Turner dot com. And of
Speaker 1: course you're on substack. Is that also under Courtney Turner. Yes, fantastic, and.
Speaker 3: It's that Courtney Turner. So it's Courtney's substack but spelled
Speaker 3: like Courteney. Yes, it is Courtney. It's spelled qurterene.
Speaker 1: Soo you are t e n a y Quurtenay Turner.
Speaker 1: In these last few minutes, I would just like to
Speaker 1: ask you if there's anything else you want to get
Speaker 1: out there, and you know, tell people again where they
Speaker 1: can find you. Courtenay Turner dot com, Courtney Turner on substack.
Speaker 1: Is there anywhere else people should look for you? I
Speaker 1: know you've got a podcast, the Courtney Turner Podcast. What
Speaker 1: else should they be looking forward to from you? I
Speaker 1: know you said you have a book coming out.
Speaker 3: I do so I actually just released it's on my substack.
Speaker 3: So for my pay subscribers, it'll be there. They always
Speaker 3: get the early access and they get it at free,
Speaker 3: so that's just a little treat for them. But I
Speaker 3: just did a symposium. It's part of my Cognitive Liberty
Speaker 3: series with Patrick Wood and Ian Davis and David Hughes
Speaker 3: on technocracy and resisting technocracy hopefully so we can preserve
Speaker 3: the free will of humanity. So that is up on
Speaker 3: my substack. It will be available for free on all
Speaker 3: of my other platforms. Rumble is the big video platform,
Speaker 3: but I'm all the audio ones as well. I do
Speaker 3: post on YouTube, but it's really just a preview because
Speaker 3: I'm on my fifth channel. They don't love me that much. Unfortunately,
Speaker 3: we're not the best of friends. So I just put
Speaker 3: a preview on there that goes straight from my substack,
Speaker 3: and so it is already up on there. So I
Speaker 3: encourage people to check that out because it's fantastic. They
Speaker 3: are brilliant minds, really doing great work. My substack is
Speaker 3: a way that you can support the work I'm doing.
Speaker 3: And then yes, I have a book. I'm hoping it
Speaker 3: will be launched this summer. I will most likely be
Speaker 3: self publishing it, but it is on Hegel's Hegelian dialectics.
Speaker 3: I call it a gnostic Jacob's ladder and a machinery
Speaker 3: of control. I go through the ancient mystery religions and
Speaker 3: how they pave the way for Hagel's dialectic and talk
Speaker 3: about why it is relevant today because I think typically
Speaker 3: people are caught in these dialectical traps. And you know,
Speaker 3: I say the wizard's circle, which is not my term.
Speaker 3: I mean they use that term, and I think it's
Speaker 3: really they are. They kind of cast these spells through
Speaker 3: words and through language. But what people need to understand is,
Speaker 3: and if you read the works of people like Alice Bailey,
Speaker 3: they explicitly say that that they have one exoteric message
Speaker 3: for the masses, and then what they are really doing
Speaker 3: is initiating people into their esoteric vernacular. And you know,
Speaker 3: so it's for people to understand that they do speak
Speaker 3: and this is Soppian type of language, and that if
Speaker 3: we can recognize the games that we're playing, then hopefully
Speaker 3: the spell will be broken and we can step outside
Speaker 3: the wizard circle and preserve the free will of humanity
Speaker 3: is the hope that we because they seem very bent
Speaker 3: on eradicating that so yeah, my substack, Cortney Turner substack
Speaker 3: and my website are great ways that you can find
Speaker 3: me and I'm usually accessible on all the social media
Speaker 3: platforms and my website as well.
Speaker 1: So awesome. Well, thank you so much, Courtney. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate you talking with me today. And again, the information
Speaker 1: was fantastic. I thoroughly enjoyed getting the download from it.
Speaker 1: And so we are going to take a quick break
Speaker 1: and we will be right back, folks. In a world
Speaker 1: of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Speaker 3: You're listening to the David Knight Show.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, folks. The screen split is still up, but
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today. It has
Speaker 1: been a pleasure to host the show for y'all. I
Speaker 1: see we have a tip Twilight Shadow. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: That is very very generous. Travis. We love y'all's hope.
Speaker 1: Pops is doing well. He is doing better, so thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your prayers. We cannot thank you
Speaker 1: enough for that. Tunnel Lord one three thirty seven tunnel
Speaker 1: Lord leete. Hey, Travis, do you plan on having the
Speaker 1: gaming stream later this evening? I don't think I'm able
Speaker 1: to do it this week. We still haven't fully gotten
Speaker 1: anything worked out. It's just been kind of in the
Speaker 1: ether that we've been discussing. It is something I want
Speaker 1: to look into, not necessarily just gaming, but maybe just
Speaker 1: sort of a more casual hangout discussion of whatever is
Speaker 1: on my mind at the time, so not as focused
Speaker 1: on the news, maybe about movies or TV or just
Speaker 1: ranting about things that have annoyed me during the week perhaps,
Speaker 1: But yeah, doing some gaming would be fun. So if
Speaker 1: you guys have any strong feelings on that, I'll again.
Speaker 1: I'll pull you guys again on Monday and we'll get
Speaker 1: some more ideas. But that is what I'm thinking, just
Speaker 1: a chilled hangout sort of stream. But I want to
Speaker 1: make sure that it is something that I could still
Speaker 1: provide you guys with some insights on things with or
Speaker 1: at least you guys could have fun with. So as
Speaker 1: we close the show out today, we've got a minute left,
Speaker 1: I again just want to thank you all so much
Speaker 1: for all the prayers and ask that you continue to
Speaker 1: pray for our dad. He still needs them. Oh, we
Speaker 1: have a comment from Nights to the Storm at Whistler.
Speaker 1: Are you the one who puts together the videos for
Speaker 1: the commercials. Yes he does. He does all of those
Speaker 1: sorts of videos, so he's done a great job with him.
Speaker 1: But again, thank you all so much for what you
Speaker 1: have done this week with your prayers and with the support.
Speaker 1: It has been truly amazing to see the outpouring of
Speaker 1: love and just cannot thank you enough. We asked that
Speaker 1: you continue to pray for us, especially for my dad,
Speaker 1: that he would receive healing for his speech and for
Speaker 1: his left side, and that he would be back in
Speaker 1: this chair soon. So thank you all so much for
Speaker 1: joining us this week. I will see you all Monday.
Speaker 1: Have a good weekend.
Speaker 3: Wait a minute, where am I?
Speaker 4: Sorry, Jefferson. The scoundrels who put America on Central Bank
Speaker 4: Fiat currency used our heads on there coins as some
Speaker 4: sort of trophy. Despicable. This is outrageous, Washington. I spent
Speaker 4: my life fighting centralized power. Now the Federal Reserve monopoly
Speaker 4: parades us around on their monopoly money. Tell me there's
Speaker 4: some good news to all this. Well, there is a
Speaker 4: coin they can't control, one that isn't backed by the FED,
Speaker 4: but backed by the Fed up the all New David
Speaker 4: Knight Show Commemorative coin. Now patriots can support a show
Speaker 4: that won't sell out with a limited edition coin that's
Speaker 4: sure to sell out quickly.
Speaker 3: They say, money talks, and this coin has something worth
Speaker 3: listening to.
Speaker 4: The truth doesn't need inflation only support