Speaker 1: All right, what's up. Welcome everybody. We're live today special guest.
Speaker 1: We haven't had Courtney on in a while, but she
Speaker 1: is live from the Chicago Comic Con as one of
Speaker 1: the biggest supporters of the Furry convention that's going on
Speaker 1: up there, and she's a huge fan of Frodo and
Speaker 1: Sam and Lego, Les and all of the hobbits that
Speaker 1: are in the circles of Mensius Moldbug. Today, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be talking about that's all being stupid. By the way,
Speaker 1: we have an odd topic today, probably something you didn't expect.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be technocracy. But Courtney has done a lot
Speaker 1: of in depth research and information into subjects that probably
Speaker 1: not a lot of people are that familiar with. We're
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about the Dark Enlightenment. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about the circles of Peter Teel, their interest and
Speaker 1: influence from the Lord of the Rings. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about the technocratic takeover. But before we get into
Speaker 1: Courtney's recent research and her articles on substack, let's do
Speaker 1: a little bit of a stepping back, because the audience
Speaker 1: over here had grown quite a bit, and we may
Speaker 1: have some people I was on a comedians podcast the
Speaker 1: other day and I just sort of launched into this
Speaker 1: and the first thing he said to me was like, whoa, wha, whoa,
Speaker 1: what is technocracy? So we probably have some people that
Speaker 1: don't even know what this is. So Courtney begin with
Speaker 1: telling us, first of all, what is technocracy, the origins
Speaker 1: of it, the overview of it.
Speaker 2: So technocracy started in the nineteen thirties as a response
Speaker 2: to the Great Depression. Actually this was their solution to
Speaker 2: create abundance. And the very famous you know, Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: his grandfather was Josh Hattleman, was actually the head of
Speaker 2: Technocracy Inc. In Canada from nineteen thirty six to nineteen
Speaker 2: forty nineteen forty one, right before it shut down. And they,
Speaker 2: in their own words like in there, and I think
Speaker 2: I might have that if it's not in this most
Speaker 2: recent articles, in my last article, but I actually have
Speaker 2: the screenshot from Technocrat magazine in nineteen thirty seven. They
Speaker 2: say themselves that the definition of technocracy is social engineering.
Speaker 2: So of course it is really you know, where you
Speaker 2: have the scientific elite will control everything. And they had
Speaker 2: this vision back then, but they didn't have the technology
Speaker 2: that we have today. So I think back then the
Speaker 2: ideas were scary enough. I think that that was it
Speaker 2: was definitely enough to be concerned about back then. But
Speaker 2: today it's very concerning because we have the technology, we
Speaker 2: have AI, we have you know, all of this, that
Speaker 2: we have the potential for a completely tokenized world, not
Speaker 2: just economy, but really make everything tokenized. And to me,
Speaker 2: that's their end game, and I think it's the most
Speaker 2: most scary aspect of all of it. But yeah, so
Speaker 2: that's the kind of cliff notes of it. They also
Speaker 2: say themselves that the data of mining, the surveillance is
Speaker 2: for the purposes of control, So just in case any
Speaker 2: of you know, it's confused about that, that's their own
Speaker 2: words all the way back in the nineteen thirties. And
Speaker 2: the platform is very progressive, so they're aligned with things
Speaker 2: like ubi's you know, they call the energy credits, and
Speaker 2: you can find in their manual you'd have to go
Speaker 2: to the wayback machine, but you can find the Technocracy
Speaker 2: study guides and they talk about the energy certificates, which
Speaker 2: are basically carbon credits today in the language of the UN.
Speaker 1: So, yeah, now that's a great history. And you know,
Speaker 1: as we know in this channel, we've gone into a
Speaker 1: lot of the predecessors to modern technocratic movements. We've looked
Speaker 1: at Jeremy Bentham and the idea of penopticism. We've looked
Speaker 1: at the writings of H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Lord Birkenhead.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to spend too much time on all that,
Speaker 1: because we've covered a lot of that over the years.
Speaker 1: Of course, key texts would be things like Bertrand Russell's
Speaker 1: Impact of Science on Society, and I'm just holding this
Speaker 1: up for the benefit of the audience who may not
Speaker 1: bear with these texts. I know Courtney is familiar with them,
Speaker 1: Scientific Outlook by Russell as well. And then really important
Speaker 1: would be the writings of HD Wells that are not fiction,
Speaker 1: because when you get into books like New World Order
Speaker 1: or AHG. Wells's Open Conspiracy, we find out that technocracy
Speaker 1: isn't a.
Speaker 2: World brain world brain, because that's could they keep couching
Speaker 2: everything in decentralization. We'll get into that, but the world
Speaker 2: brain is actually even GAIND references.
Speaker 1: It, so yeah, exactly. You know. Jaq got to Lee's
Speaker 1: two thousand and six book Briefits for the Future, gets
Speaker 1: really deep into what he thinks world brain will become
Speaker 1: and what it'll do. So let's fast forward to now.
Speaker 1: And now I've got Teale's book over here, zero to one.
Speaker 1: He's got a whole chapter in there about the NSA
Speaker 1: and how they were happy to you know, have Pallenteer,
Speaker 1: and Pallenteer might have had a hand in helping to
Speaker 1: find Osama bin Laden and all this, which I think
Speaker 1: is a bunch of nonsense. But also in your new
Speaker 1: piece here you talk about three things Game B. You
Speaker 1: talk about the Dark Enlightenment, and you talk about the
Speaker 1: Network States digital secession. So let's walk through what these
Speaker 1: three things are because I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: who maybe even know about this topic, they probably don't
Speaker 1: know about Game B.
Speaker 2: Sure, so I had to frame this as you know,
Speaker 2: they tend to work through regardless of what you think
Speaker 2: of the political spectrum, they tend to work through left
Speaker 2: hand right hand paths, right and game right. So Game
Speaker 2: B very much operates through, at least from my estimation,
Speaker 2: the left hand path. The Divine Mother. They're concerned about,
Speaker 2: you know, their their gaya worshiping yah, yeah, exactly. You know,
Speaker 2: they're concerned about the sustainable development goals and the climate right,
Speaker 2: Greta type stuff, Yes, exactly, So that's very much Game B.
Speaker 2: And there a lot of the people in Game B
Speaker 2: are disciples of Barbara Marks Hubbard, so you know there
Speaker 2: who is an intellectual disciple of Tar day shirting concept
Speaker 2: of the nosphere. In Game B, the term is collective intelligence,
Speaker 2: so they don't use the term nosphere specifically, but it's
Speaker 2: the same concept, same idea. And actually some of the
Speaker 2: technologies they talk about and some of the they call
Speaker 2: it DialogOS, which is basically like dialogues for consensus making.
Speaker 2: They also have a term called sense making, which is
Speaker 2: also dialogues for consensus making. But they talk about how
Speaker 2: they do talk about terms like the nosphere inhabiting the
Speaker 2: intellectual nosphere, so they are pretty overt about those sorts
Speaker 2: of ideologies and how they're aligned with them. So that's
Speaker 2: kind of Game B. And to give a little backstory
Speaker 2: on Game B, since a lot of people might not
Speaker 2: be as familiar with Game B, although it's not new
Speaker 2: at all, Game B spawned out of the you know,
Speaker 2: twenty tens era back. Actually, I've learned a little bit
Speaker 2: more since I started researching all of this. I've seen
Speaker 2: some of the you know conversations with Jordan Hall, who
Speaker 2: is one of the founders of Game B, talking about
Speaker 2: how he he called Eric Weinstein the Rabbi of Game B.
Speaker 2: And they met at the Perimeter Institute when Eric Weinstein
Speaker 2: was giving a speech. He was giving a speech a
Speaker 2: post you know, two thousand and eight financial crisis, and
Speaker 2: actually in that speech he talks about Plan A and
Speaker 2: Plan B in terms of economics. So I think that
Speaker 2: was kind of a little foreshadowing of what was to come.
Speaker 2: But he insisted repeatedly that Jordan Hall meet with his
Speaker 2: brother Brett Brett Weinstein, and the way Jordan explains that
Speaker 2: they really didn't hit it off too much in the beginning.
Speaker 2: And there was also simultaneously these Stanton meetings in Stanton, Virginia,
Speaker 2: where Jim Rutt was hosting these Really they were centered
Speaker 2: around creating a new political party called the Emancipation Party.
Speaker 2: The Emancipation Party was very much in the vein of
Speaker 2: like the Forward Party of Bernie Sanders movement. You know,
Speaker 2: they wanted things like the UBI, universal basic healthcare, those
Speaker 2: types of things, and so they met Jordan Hall and
Speaker 2: Jim Rutt met at the Santa Fe Institute. Jim Rutt
Speaker 2: had been recruited. He was chairman of the Santa Fe
Speaker 2: Institute for a while, but he fell into that because
Speaker 2: he was working on a software called the Evolutionary Software.
Speaker 2: And that's part of how Brett Weinstein got brought in
Speaker 2: because he's an evolutionary biologist and Jordan Hall was there,
Speaker 2: and so they started doing this political movement. The way
Speaker 2: Jim Rutt explains it is he says that he could
Speaker 2: get the boomers on board. They were all in, you know,
Speaker 2: they loved it. He said gen X, he could persuade them.
Speaker 2: But he said the millennials loved the platform, but they
Speaker 2: were such anarchists that the notion of a political party
Speaker 2: was an anethema to them. And he said, well, you
Speaker 2: really can't start a political movement without the millennials. So
Speaker 2: he didn't think that there was much hope and it
Speaker 2: wasn't going to take off the way that he had hoped.
Speaker 2: And Thorn Mueller, who was part of these Stanton meetings,
Speaker 2: had said keep the name game B for branding, and
Speaker 2: so they did and they kind of split because the
Speaker 2: way Jim Rut explains it is that he's, you know,
Speaker 2: a hard scientist. You know, he's a complexity theorist. I
Speaker 2: might think otherwise, but you know, we'll take his word.
Speaker 2: He you know, he's very mechanistic and he's a complexity
Speaker 2: system theorist, and that's hard science. And some of the
Speaker 2: others were a little bit more woo. These are like
Speaker 2: the Barber Marks Hubbard disciples, people like Mark Gaffney, Daniel
Speaker 2: Schmocktenberger who are in this movement. And they've reconvened though
Speaker 2: in like the twenty thirteen twenty fourteen they you know,
Speaker 2: decided to move forward with trying to create Game B,
Speaker 2: which they call a new operating system for civilization, and
Speaker 2: so they proceeded. And I had this theory that the
Speaker 2: Intellectual Dark Web was an influence operation for Game B
Speaker 2: and I actually found an article in Manifest Nirvana from
Speaker 2: Andrew Cohen and he pretty much says that he doesn't
Speaker 2: use those words, those are my words. That's a little
Speaker 2: heavy handed. I don't think you would say it was
Speaker 2: an influence operation, but that's pretty much what he says.
Speaker 2: He says that the Intellectual Dark Web he laid the
Speaker 2: groundwork for the audience to acquiescence to the ideas of
Speaker 2: Game B. It kind of seeded that ground. So that
Speaker 2: is a game B and we can go into more
Speaker 2: of the details on it. But then through the right
Speaker 2: hand Path and a lot more people are familiar with
Speaker 2: it because so many of them are influencing the and
Speaker 2: surrounding the Trump administration currently we have the Dark Enlightenment.
Speaker 2: And I thought it was so funny because it was
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks ago CNN did this little short
Speaker 2: clip about Curtis Jarvin. He said, there's this blogger. He's
Speaker 2: been blogging for over a decade. I'm like almost two,
Speaker 2: but who's counting? Apparently not them, so that he said,
Speaker 2: but it's very concerning because he has a lot of
Speaker 2: influence on the Trump administration, which is true, and the
Speaker 2: Dark Enlightenment operates, when I say right hand path, more
Speaker 2: of the patriarchal kind of autocratic, you know, very kind
Speaker 2: of muscular type of energy, and they are very influential
Speaker 2: in the current Trump administration, which is supposedly a right
Speaker 2: hand path. Right he was under the Republican banner, and
Speaker 2: they really want to create you know what they call.
Speaker 2: Curtis Jarvin calls it the soft Corps. Nick Land, who
Speaker 2: is kind of the advanced this concept of the dark Enlightenment,
Speaker 2: also known as the neo reactionary movement. He was also
Speaker 2: the regenitor of the Accelerationist movement and he calls it
Speaker 2: gov Corp. But they're essentially very similar concepts, just operating
Speaker 2: under different marketing banners. I would say, you know, the
Speaker 2: game b is more of your soft power kind of
Speaker 2: opt in tyranny, where you have the illusion of everything
Speaker 2: being decentralized and you have complete voluntary you know, authority
Speaker 2: and sovereignty, personal sovereignty and agency. But they are going
Speaker 2: to create this collective intelligence and that it will be
Speaker 2: recentralized that way and through the Dark Enlightenment. It's more
Speaker 2: of a top down In fact, Curtisy Jarvin himself says
Speaker 2: that the problem with America is it needs the government
Speaker 2: needs a reboot, and that we need to get over
Speaker 2: our fear of the dictator and it should operate like
Speaker 2: a CEO running a company that he is the dictator.
Speaker 2: And so that's kind of his concept, the idea of
Speaker 2: retire all government employees, he calls it. Rage was very
Speaker 2: influential on this doge operation of out.
Speaker 1: Have you seen the movie that The Watchmen, based on
Speaker 1: the Alan Moore famous graphic novel, I don't think I
Speaker 1: have no Yeah, in that story, Moore, who with himself
Speaker 1: was kind of a committed Croleyan, he has this character
Speaker 1: named Ozamandias, who is this tech sort of well, he's
Speaker 1: like a business ceo, mogul magnate, and his idea is
Speaker 1: kind of like it's time to just kind of take
Speaker 1: over and let you know, ceo tech philosopher kings run everything.
Speaker 1: And it kind of gets into this idea of like
Speaker 1: it's not explicitly technocracy, but it's kind of like a
Speaker 1: it's sort of like that, and it's kind of a
Speaker 1: The idea is that he needs to massively depopulate, you know,
Speaker 1: the planet, like half of the planet needs to go
Speaker 1: away so that we can have a time of peace.
Speaker 1: And so it just this vision reminds me of what
Speaker 1: Alan Moore is kind of getting at. And I think
Speaker 1: the key point here that a lot of people I
Speaker 1: want to be very clear about being nuanced, because you know,
Speaker 1: my audience is going to take issue with some of
Speaker 1: the things that that you're going to argue, which is fine,
Speaker 1: not a big deal. I think that, for example, I
Speaker 1: want to get into the Christian nationalism part because I
Speaker 1: want to be really precise, I believe that the ideal
Speaker 1: government should be in a Christian majority society, laws that
Speaker 1: reflect the belief system of the majority Christian people. That's
Speaker 1: my position. That does not mean that I think that
Speaker 1: we need to sort of subvert take over the country,
Speaker 1: change everything, reboot everything into some kind of like Byzantine
Speaker 1: theocratic model. I don't think any of that's realistic. I
Speaker 1: also believe that a lot of the movements that would
Speaker 1: come forward as Christian nationalists, Protestants and these kinds of people,
Speaker 1: I would never trust those movements. I would assume that
Speaker 1: those movements are from the outset, probably co opted or
Speaker 1: funded or created. So, because most movements, you know, don't.
Speaker 1: They don't come out of nowhere. Movements generally have funding,
Speaker 1: and if they are generally organic, typically they can easily
Speaker 1: be bought and taken over. So being very precise, I
Speaker 1: do believe in the form of government of a kind
Speaker 1: of Christian monarchy where there's limitations on the state. I
Speaker 1: do not believe that today's Christian nationalist movements represents some
Speaker 1: authentic vision of something that I would support, although I'm
Speaker 1: sure there's many people that are sincere in that. I
Speaker 1: just know from my Protestant background that a lot of
Speaker 1: the goofballs that I was involved in as a young
Speaker 1: Protestant who believed in this sort of Christian nationalist stuff
Speaker 1: are just clowns or Feds or worse. So being very precise,
Speaker 1: then where we come in here with Courtney's point, which
Speaker 1: I think we would a lot of people ascidis will
Speaker 1: probably agree with, even if they take issue with some
Speaker 1: of the pro Enlightenment stances of the article. The puppet
Speaker 1: master type tech people they know these movements and these ideas,
Speaker 1: and what they want to do is seize upon the
Speaker 1: trends and where the winds are blowing to steer that
Speaker 1: into something which in the case of say, you know,
Speaker 1: Curtis Jarvin, seems to be just another kind of atheist,
Speaker 1: nihilist Nietzschean techro control grid as well. I mean, is
Speaker 1: that kind of what we're getting you're getting from your research?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And it gets way worse when you add Nick Land,
Speaker 2: because Nick Land is pretty much a straight up occultist.
Speaker 2: He was a one of the forerunners of the CCRU,
Speaker 2: which is the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University.
Speaker 2: And there's I have some links actually that are really
Speaker 2: hard to find. I did quite a bit of digging
Speaker 2: in the way back, and one of them is like
Speaker 2: Xenosystems dot demon dot UK. And he's got all sorts
Speaker 2: of ideas about you know, essentially demon type using fictionalized
Speaker 2: kind of labels, but very much demonology in order to
Speaker 2: influence the direction of the future. And he's very influenced
Speaker 2: by people like love Craft and Evola, Julius Evola, and
Speaker 2: he had this whole idea of technoplastic beings. He has
Speaker 2: this idea of you know, accelerationism just for people who
Speaker 2: are not familiar. Is essentially this theory that he thinks
Speaker 2: capitalism is doomed, it's going to fail. He's not a
Speaker 2: proponent of it, but he thinks that we should use
Speaker 2: it in order to push it to its nth degree
Speaker 2: so it can reach it to apocalyptic state much faster,
Speaker 2: and that we should use technology to do that. And
Speaker 2: so that's what his whole thesis is around.
Speaker 1: It's that we're quick question here. Now. We've done some
Speaker 1: interviews with BX on Twitter. I don't know if you're
Speaker 1: familiar with her, but she's come on Info Wars with
Speaker 1: me a few times, I think, and she's been on
Speaker 1: with Harrison Smith too, and she talks about accelerationism having
Speaker 1: a lot of overlaps with these sort of online satanic cults.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's also kind of going around here
Speaker 1: going on here as well? Is there a sort of
Speaker 1: I mean, I get the impression from I don't know
Speaker 1: Nick Land's philosophy that well. I did hear him on
Speaker 1: a couple podcasts of some friends of ours, and I
Speaker 1: don't think they were I think they were just talking
Speaker 1: about Nietzsche. They weren't really going into accelerationism. But it
Speaker 1: seems like the idea is pretty wicked, like, oh, let's
Speaker 1: collapse everything quicker so that we can have the new
Speaker 1: thing come in. But the thing about that is like
Speaker 1: what they want to bring in is probably going to
Speaker 1: be worse than the worst parts of what we have now.
Speaker 2: It's way worse. And I mean, Nick Land brings through
Speaker 2: this really dark fantasy. He brings to fruition, the vision
Speaker 2: of what would be this transhuman leading to a post
Speaker 2: human world. His concept of technoplastic beings is basically you
Speaker 2: know this like synthetic biology, man merging with machines kind
Speaker 2: of a vision. So it's just transhumanism it's transhumanism, and
Speaker 2: he lays the groundwork through, you know, a more mechanistic
Speaker 2: type of philosophy. Actually, he has a term the mechanistic desire,
Speaker 2: which you know, he talks about the future of humanity
Speaker 2: is going to be reshaped by and eclipsed by technology,
Speaker 2: so essentially the singularity, right, that's a that's his whole vision.
Speaker 2: But he's he's really really dark. So yeah, I would say,
Speaker 2: you know, Curtis Jarvin comes from his parents were you know, communists.
Speaker 2: He's more of a nihilistic kind of yeah, atheistic, that's
Speaker 2: more of his framework, and he looks at things very
Speaker 2: it's bizarre, but it's also very it's linear in a way,
Speaker 2: you know, like you just have a CEO. He's a dictator,
Speaker 2: he runs everything, and you know, this is just kind
Speaker 2: of black and white type of operating in a vacuum
Speaker 2: type of philosophy and theories. Whereas Nick land Is, I mean,
Speaker 2: he's pretty dark. The c CRU his his partner, was
Speaker 2: founded by Sadie Plant, who's like a cyberpunk feminist. So yeah,
Speaker 2: I have a.
Speaker 1: Lot of such But maybe then again, maybe it's not
Speaker 1: an odd pairent.
Speaker 2: You know, I don't think it is because of the concepts,
Speaker 2: you know, like the concepts of hyperstition, or we're going
Speaker 2: to use hyperstition. It's like where we're going to use
Speaker 2: fictionalized ideals in order to create reality. So everything is
Speaker 2: kind of it's just not rooted in reality. And that's
Speaker 2: a common theme I find with all of these things,
Speaker 2: like all of the concepts that I've laid out, particularly
Speaker 2: in this article, is it's not rooted in reality. It's
Speaker 2: it's what I call spiral meta physics as opposed to
Speaker 2: a plumb line. It's not anchored in anything. And I
Speaker 2: think that that's so important because the whole goal of
Speaker 2: these technocrats and now they're merging it with religion. And
Speaker 2: I'll touch on that, you know, to address what you
Speaker 2: pointed out with the Christian nationalism, and I agree with you.
Speaker 2: I don't think they're authentic. I think it's ve near.
Speaker 2: It's a facade. They're using it because you know, that
Speaker 2: concept of the three legged stool. They need the religious
Speaker 2: component in order to especially since they're operating currently in
Speaker 2: the right hand path, which tends to be comprised of
Speaker 2: more religious orientation.
Speaker 1: One question when you use the term dark enlightenment early
Speaker 1: on are you referring to when the New York Times
Speaker 1: put out that article a while back, when it was
Speaker 1: like Peterson and Sam Harris, and I forget who was
Speaker 1: sitting around this big table or using this? Is this
Speaker 1: more specifically like tech bros.
Speaker 2: No, they were probably I don't know what reference you're using,
Speaker 2: but they were probably talking about the dark and Lightment.
Speaker 2: I mean, the dark and Lightenment comes from Curtis Yarvin.
Speaker 2: It was called the neo reactionary movement. They called it
Speaker 2: n r X, so it's a neo reactionary.
Speaker 1: This I do know about. But I just think when
Speaker 1: I hear dark Enlightenment, I think of that. It was
Speaker 1: a famous New York Times piece and they had a
Speaker 1: picture of a dinner meeting with Joe Rogan. I think
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan was there, and it was like Peterson and
Speaker 1: Sam Harris. Let me see if I can find it.
Speaker 1: And maybe maybe Curtis Jarvian was even there. I don't remember.
Speaker 1: Let me see who was at this New York Times. Oh,
Speaker 1: excuse me, excuse me, I'm mixing this up with the
Speaker 1: intellectual dark Web. I'm sorry, I'm mixing up my terms.
Speaker 1: Never mind, that was a nineteen but actually some of
Speaker 1: these people overlap, right, Like, isn't.
Speaker 2: There some intellectual dark web was an influenced operation for
Speaker 2: game B and there is? Yeah, so my mistake carry No,
Speaker 2: that's a I would say dark Maga has a lot
Speaker 2: of ties. I think that they're parkening to the dark
Speaker 2: and lightement.
Speaker 1: Is that that was? That was Teal? Right?
Speaker 2: That was Elon Musk.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah, I'm totally forgetting Elon's part. Like I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of I'm looking at your article and I got Peter
Speaker 1: Teal and you know, I'm thinking about Jarvin and then
Speaker 1: like I'm telling forgetting Elon Elon.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I I in this article, I talk about
Speaker 2: Peter Chilo as being kind of like the grand Master Architect. Now,
Speaker 2: I certainly don't think that he's like I think there
Speaker 2: are puppet strings above him. Uh, you know, he's only
Speaker 2: a billionaire. Like that's a lot to me. But like,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't think he's running the world. But
Speaker 2: he's what we can see, you know, I can speculate
Speaker 2: about the strings that are being pulled above him. I
Speaker 2: know he has some like over state ties. There's obviously
Speaker 2: his whole military industrial complex affiliations, and I think there's
Speaker 2: some habsort access there, but you know, for what we
Speaker 2: can actually see, I was focused more on the tangible.
Speaker 2: That's also what we have some agency over, right, you know,
Speaker 2: I can we can only you know, speculate otherwise. So
Speaker 2: uh but yeah, so I talk about him as kind
Speaker 2: of and he's also the overlapping between the two groups.
Speaker 2: So when I was saying that they're not rooted in reality,
Speaker 2: there's not you know, like a it's not a plum
Speaker 2: line where they're anchored to anything real. I think it's
Speaker 2: so important because what essentially they want to do, in
Speaker 2: my opinion, is they want a technological imminititization of the escaton.
Speaker 2: So they that's how I see it, Like I think
Speaker 2: that you know, they're whether they you know, don't think
Speaker 2: they're going to heaven, or they don't know what happens,
Speaker 2: or they're just complete nihilists. I don't know what their
Speaker 2: worldview is. I can speculate, but I'm not in their heads.
Speaker 2: But I think that they want to bring create heaven
Speaker 2: on Earth, and so they have to make a simulacra
Speaker 2: and that's what this whole transhuman agenda is all about.
Speaker 2: And in order to do that, you have to disort
Speaker 2: people's perceptions of reality. You have to have a constructivist
Speaker 2: worldview in order for that to functionally operate. And I
Speaker 2: think that's why these philosophies are so incredibly important for
Speaker 2: their agenda.
Speaker 1: They're all they're all rooted in some form of relativism
Speaker 1: where you kind of create your reality. And when you
Speaker 1: talk about the sort of hyperstition and the influence of
Speaker 1: these different I mean, are you quite literally saying like
Speaker 1: they're literally taking Lovecraft and Tolkien and like saying, let's
Speaker 1: use that as a way to actually create this reality.
Speaker 1: Like like they're basically sci fi dorks that are saying
Speaker 1: we're gonna set up like a sci fi future and
Speaker 1: we run the ship.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And like one of his terms is shug up.
Speaker 1: From Lovecraft.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and that's like a huge term for Nick Lambs,
Speaker 2: So yeah, I know he's literally I mean almost all
Speaker 2: of Peter Thiel's companies are named after like right, volar
Speaker 2: and yeah, volunteer.
Speaker 1: And then you've got what's the one that the lucky
Speaker 1: guy runs underill, which is the sword that that's.
Speaker 2: Has invested in. Oh interesting, Yeah, Epstein invested seventy million,
Speaker 2: and I think it's now like one hundred and forty
Speaker 2: or maybe yeah, maybe it was forty million, it's now
Speaker 2: one hundred and seventy million, something like that. Yeah, so
Speaker 2: they were partners on that, but yeah, so there. So
Speaker 2: I kind of see those two as like the Hegelian poles.
Speaker 2: But the synthesis is the network states and the network
Speaker 2: states are kind of the umbrella because all of them
Speaker 2: operate under network states, even if they don't call them
Speaker 2: network states. So in Game B, they have a term
Speaker 2: called Scivium, the Syvium Project, and I had done one
Speaker 2: of my sub stacks. I outline that it was the
Speaker 2: path to mass surveillance, and I talk about all the
Speaker 2: different fifteen minute cities, the smart cities, the c forty
Speaker 2: cities for the uns AI World Society, right, and then
Speaker 2: they have But the way the analogy that I use
Speaker 2: is it's kind of like if you had a buffet
Speaker 2: of ice cream, but it's not made with any of
Speaker 2: the real stuff, Like it's all chemicals that are not
Speaker 2: so great for you. But they're going to give you
Speaker 2: all different flavors to choose from. So if you like strawberry,
Speaker 2: if you like you know, chocolate, vanilla, blueberry, whatever it is,
Speaker 2: you can pick your poison and it'll be in a nice,
Speaker 2: pretty rapper for you. And that's kind of what they do.
Speaker 2: So a lot of people are not on board with
Speaker 2: the fifteen Minute Cities, so don't worry. The Trump supporters
Speaker 2: can get the Freedom Cities.
Speaker 1: Well, this reminds me of did you. I'm sure Crypto
Speaker 1: ties into this too, because I remember there was a
Speaker 1: while there where Metallic from Ethereum was pushing the idea
Speaker 1: of freedom city, so I think that was his term too.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's referring to the same thing
Speaker 1: that Trump was talking about, but it was freedom cities,
Speaker 1: where you're going to have essentially the whole city, a
Speaker 1: smart city built on and around Ethereum. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't know that that will ever actually come to fruition,
Speaker 1: But did you encounter anything like that where Crypto ties
Speaker 1: into it?
Speaker 2: Yes, hugely, So it ties in across the board with
Speaker 2: Peter Scheel, He's got his prospera right. This is the
Speaker 2: Bitcoin Cities in Vatan, Honduras. And there's a really interesting documentary.
Speaker 2: I forgot the exact name of it, but it's something
Speaker 2: like the Illegal Billionaires.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'll watched a documentary on this it's like a
Speaker 1: little bitty tiny place that doesn't even have any hardly
Speaker 1: anybody living there yet.
Speaker 2: Well they yeah, I mean it's not super populated. But
Speaker 2: there's a lot of controversy because.
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with this now, I know what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: And they there's like this one. They're doing a lot
Speaker 2: of kind of transhuman experiments there because they don't they're
Speaker 2: not subject to any you know, laws that they make
Speaker 2: their own laws, and they can do all this quote
Speaker 2: unquote life extension under the banner of life extension, they
Speaker 2: can do all this experimentation. They had one where in
Speaker 2: this documentary they showed that there, uh, they use like
Speaker 2: a VR headset and it creates basically like a psychedelic
Speaker 2: trip yeah through yeah, through these headsets. So yeah, so
Speaker 2: and the subsidiary of Prospera it was called they Oh,
Speaker 2: this is another thing. They always rebrand They're always changing
Speaker 2: their names, their personal names, their names of their companies.
Speaker 2: We saw this with Neurohacker. Is now quality of Life.
Speaker 2: That's a game b affiliated kind of operation under the
Speaker 2: guise of like you know, basically life extension and wellness.
Speaker 2: But then we've got Prosperous subsidiary was Vitalia, and if
Speaker 2: you go to the way back you can still find it.
Speaker 2: And it says come to you know, a city where
Speaker 2: you can make death optional. And now it's called Infinita.
Speaker 2: And these are all yeah, it's bigcoin cities. There's Bitcoin Nation.
Speaker 2: This the whole concept of all of these network states
Speaker 2: is that everything will be run based on whatever your
Speaker 2: flavor of cryptocurrency would be.
Speaker 1: Yeah, right, I noticed too, like when you go to Prospera,
Speaker 1: now there's links to like here's a guy's discussion where
Speaker 1: he says, I went to Prospera to edit my DNA
Speaker 1: so that I could live for forever. It's like, come on, dude,
Speaker 1: that's so ridiculous. I mean, yeah, it's like they're they're
Speaker 1: going to and we've been talking about this for a
Speaker 1: long time. I know you have too, Like the idea
Speaker 1: of these smart cities, which were planned a long long
Speaker 1: time ago. It's almost like they're going to have like, oh,
Speaker 1: this will be where the CEOs and the entrepreneurs come
Speaker 1: to live in their freedom city. But to me, I
Speaker 1: would never trust this, not because I doubt bitcoin. I'm
Speaker 1: a big believer in bitcoin, but this is just some
Speaker 1: guy's idea of getting a bunch of influencers and entrepreneurs
Speaker 1: onto some transhumanist island. It's like, you know, the plane,
Speaker 1: the plane, the plane, you know, fantasy Island, but it's
Speaker 1: like fantasy island with it's like Peter Thiel's Fantasy Island
Speaker 1: or something which sounds like a horror movie, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it sounds very dystopian to me. The other thing
Speaker 2: that people need to recognize is that they couch this
Speaker 2: all in very I have issues philosophically with libertarianism, but
Speaker 2: they I don't even think that they are authentically libertarian,
Speaker 2: even if well, a.
Speaker 1: Lot of these people, yeah, they're not really.
Speaker 2: Even holding to that even what libertarian claims to be.
Speaker 2: They're not so, but they're using that banners. They use
Speaker 2: the terms like decentralized and like uh so when they're
Speaker 2: talking about these concepts, I think, you know, they keep
Speaker 2: using terms that would appeal to more libertarian minded people,
Speaker 2: and I think it's because they're trying to capture the
Speaker 2: people who weren't captured through either left or the right.
Speaker 2: Right now, they're going to put the libertarian kind of manner.
Speaker 1: Oh, this is how Silicon Valley was built up, was
Speaker 1: the whole ethos was libertarian, but it was actually essentially
Speaker 1: a militre industrial complex thing.
Speaker 2: Exactly with overlapping with things like burning Man and the
Speaker 2: whole theosophical drugs. Right. So, but they use terms like voluntary, right,
Speaker 2: So that's very appealing to somebody who might be a
Speaker 2: quote unquote voluntariost. But what they don't recognize is, and
Speaker 2: they never mentioned this, is once a smart contract is
Speaker 2: in place, I don't know, good luck, buddy, Like I
Speaker 2: don't know how you're exiting that one. Like you don't
Speaker 2: negotiate with a smart contract. You can try and negotiate
Speaker 2: with people, and that doesn't always go as well as
Speaker 2: you might hope. But shoot, with a smart contract, especially
Speaker 2: one that's recursive, right, once it's been put in place
Speaker 2: and it's recursively implemented, then it's just going to be
Speaker 2: exponential as to whatever code has been inputed. So I
Speaker 2: find that really concerning, and I think a lot of
Speaker 2: people have this idea. It's a very Pollyanna kind of
Speaker 2: notion that oh, well, you know, if I I go
Speaker 2: into this network state and it's my my carnivore network state,
Speaker 2: or I decide now I like I want to be
Speaker 2: a vegan, I'm going to go into this one. I
Speaker 2: don't think it's going to be quite that fluid, and
Speaker 2: I don't think that it There's also the I think
Speaker 2: the mistake that people make thinking that somehow you're going
Speaker 2: to have more freedom just because it's a you know,
Speaker 2: smaller community. But do you think that you violate the
Speaker 2: roles of this uh, you know community, this network state
Speaker 2: that that's going to go well for you? You think
Speaker 2: they don't have like stasy networks.
Speaker 1: Offering well I was going to say, I mean, how
Speaker 1: do we know this isn't just some you know call
Speaker 1: that's running it. And then the private security on the
Speaker 1: island basically the answers to the oligarch that runs the island.
Speaker 1: So it's like, I mean, what's under the guise of
Speaker 1: libertarian freedom is literally going to be like a you know,
Speaker 1: technocratic dictator island. Is really is what this sounds like
Speaker 1: it turning into. And I don't I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: because of some you know, vast principled idea of what
Speaker 1: the ideal system should be, but rather human nature has
Speaker 1: a tendency to want to to dominate, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean it's Libido Dominondi to a degree. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that I agree with everything Augustine said, but falling
Speaker 1: human beings have a tendency to, you know, to be
Speaker 1: corrupt when they get extreme amounts of power. And what
Speaker 1: appears to be a very supposedly freedom based situation, I
Speaker 1: would just be very I mean again, it's like if
Speaker 1: I'm going to this island where supposedly it's based around freedom,
Speaker 1: but you know, Peter Thiel owns like a private security
Speaker 1: come Many that runs the island. I mean, who has
Speaker 1: the power there? Really?
Speaker 2: Yes? Well, and let's not forget I wrote. It's a
Speaker 2: very long piece. It's called the out Algorithmic Oracle, and
Speaker 2: the whole premise behind it is the origins of the
Speaker 2: Delphi method come from sensitivity training, which is essentially brainwashing,
Speaker 2: but and does have military roots as well. You know,
Speaker 2: Naval Intelligence Research and Kurt Lewin have a stock. But
Speaker 2: then the Delphi method kind of codified this into a
Speaker 2: much more kind of systematic, mechanistic type of operation through
Speaker 2: RAND Corp. And now what we have is essentially the
Speaker 2: Delphi method and sensitivity straining on steroids through algorithms. The
Speaker 2: cybernetic feedback loops of the algorithm. So they're data mining you.
Speaker 2: So if you have like a Peter Teel Pallenteer type
Speaker 2: of panopticon network state, they're constantly watching you and they're surveilling,
Speaker 2: collecting all this data. And you think they can't use
Speaker 2: that data to then program you and to control you.
Speaker 2: I mean it's that that's how the cybernetics operate. So
Speaker 2: uh yeah, I would not trust that. I think that
Speaker 2: that's exactly what they want, is people siloed in these
Speaker 2: kinds of And there's also they always talk about the decentralization,
Speaker 2: and I warn people that, you know, the world brain, right.
Speaker 2: He talks about how the decentralization of the academ of
Speaker 2: the academic institution, the information institutions, the media, that would
Speaker 2: be the conduit to create the world brain. What would
Speaker 2: we say the information institutions today would be I would
Speaker 2: say the Internet technology, right, And so that's what we're seeing.
Speaker 2: He can also use Bruce S. Lifton, the evolutionary leader
Speaker 2: of Bruce S. Lifton, who is a kind of ancilliary
Speaker 2: to this game B movement, Barbara Marks Hubbard and those types.
Speaker 2: But he talks about he and he uses a spiral
Speaker 2: to uh paint his picture. Of course, you know totally
Speaker 2: hegel diectric spiral. But he talks about how, you know,
Speaker 2: we started out as a meba, and but what makes
Speaker 2: the amiba intelligent is that it has a membrane, and
Speaker 2: so that's where collects this information. And then you know,
Speaker 2: we move up as we evolve, and that he says,
Speaker 2: we go to multicellular organisms and then humans. We're so
Speaker 2: intelligent because we're this complex multicellular organism. We have so
Speaker 2: much service area of membrane, and that's why we're intelligent,
Speaker 2: he said. But we're at a crossroads now where we
Speaker 2: have to choose if we want to co create the
Speaker 2: super organism of humanity. If we don't, we're going to
Speaker 2: go extinct. But we can co create this super organism
Speaker 2: of humanity, and what does he say, the membrane for
Speaker 2: that organism is going to be. Of course, it is
Speaker 2: the Internet.
Speaker 1: Internet, and.
Speaker 2: Just and with this that Belagi Sernavasin in his Network State.
Speaker 2: He also keeps talking about decentralization, but then he actually
Speaker 2: has a whole chapter on recentralizing towards the center. So
Speaker 2: the whole purpose of the decentralization is to recentralize. Anybody
Speaker 2: who understands how technology works, if you want it to
Speaker 2: be interoperable and if you are going to have any
Speaker 2: control locust. Obviously, this whole decentralization theory is kind of
Speaker 2: a surface illusion.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean we've been hearing this terminology out of
Speaker 1: the progressive, you know, tech oriented left for for a
Speaker 1: long time, and it's not I don't think it's accidental
Speaker 1: that you know, cryptocurrency picked this up. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that they're not legitimate uses of the term, or that
Speaker 1: you know, networks can't be genuinely decentralized. But you know,
Speaker 1: when you get like people like Greta and people like
Speaker 1: this talking about this, you know, using this kind of terminology,
Speaker 1: obviously it's it's a buzzword for a mega corporate agenda.
Speaker 1: You mentioned too, which is interesting Teal and sovereign house
Speaker 1: and all that. And I don't know, did you see
Speaker 1: my debate with Dasha.
Speaker 2: Oh no, I haven't had to check that out.
Speaker 1: I mean it was more of a sort of tongue
Speaker 1: in cheek. It's kind of a silly debate. I mean,
Speaker 1: it wasn't really, but yeah, Dasha, I think she wanted
Speaker 1: to know, she was talking smack on Twitter and so
Speaker 1: that she would debate anybody, and I was like, all right,
Speaker 1: let's do it. So we had a religious debate. But
Speaker 1: what what what is the I mean, I'm not denying
Speaker 1: that Sovereign House and Teal you know, or interested in
Speaker 1: touching on elements of the you know, culture that are
Speaker 1: formerly left New right like, but I mean, what what
Speaker 1: does he get out of the sort of you know,
Speaker 1: Red Scare. Like, I'm not denying that he's but I
Speaker 1: just don't understand, like, what what's he really getting out
Speaker 1: of that? Because there's not a huge I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like Red Scare had like this massive audience, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, They're they're kind of medium, minimal
Speaker 1: level influence. What do you think Teal is getting out
Speaker 1: of that?
Speaker 2: I think it's just a cultural influence. I think that's
Speaker 2: really what it is. And it's a you know, it's
Speaker 2: a way to kind of mold the New Right. So
Speaker 2: it helps to bridge the gap because we have this
Speaker 2: uh you know, these from the left, this uh you know,
Speaker 2: whole operation with it's more of the game B types
Speaker 2: and there's a lot of kind of inciliary movements, you know,
Speaker 2: there's like the super what is it, super illuminal Uh? Group?
Speaker 2: I forgot what it's.
Speaker 1: So basically dirt bag Left. Have you heard of that?
Speaker 1: Which one dirt bag Left? No?
Speaker 2: I haven't heard of them.
Speaker 1: Uh. That's like the terminology for the left that like
Speaker 1: chop O trap House podcast and the people that were
Speaker 1: the they were left where they didn't like Biden and Obama,
Speaker 1: so they were like they were like committed principled leftists
Speaker 1: supposedly right and trap House was a popular podcast back
Speaker 1: during the heyday of alt right that was sort of
Speaker 1: the left's answer to alt right was dirtbag Left. And
Speaker 1: then I think Dasha kind of evolved out of that,
Speaker 1: and red Scare podcast evolved out of that, and then
Speaker 1: they've taken this sort of kind of right turn, which
Speaker 1: that just could be because I mean, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it's not because of Peter Tiel, but I mean, I
Speaker 1: mean just from an audience perspective, like people are just
Speaker 1: kind of getting tired of the left, you know, especially
Speaker 1: as Trump was becoming more and more you know, in
Speaker 1: the ascendancy and in the last you know, two years,
Speaker 1: Trump has pretty much just been a phenomenon. And I'm
Speaker 1: not like I have plenty of criticisms of Trump. I'm
Speaker 1: just stating what is the case. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: I'm saying that this can still be like a All
Speaker 1: I'm trying to say, I'm rambling. All I'm trying to
Speaker 1: say is like these are the influenced networks that if
Speaker 1: you were wanting to steer the culture, these are the
Speaker 1: types of things that you would kind of latch onto
Speaker 1: or try to step into because those networks are ahead
Speaker 1: of the curve. In other words, Alex Jones is talking
Speaker 1: about stuff ten years ago that Fox News talks about today.
Speaker 1: So you know, these kinds of podcasts, whether they're kind
Speaker 1: of culture driving nish podcasts, like whether it's Sam Hyde
Speaker 1: or whether it's you know, Dawsha or whether it's whatever,
Speaker 1: Like these are more niche but ahead of the curve.
Speaker 2: Yes, And so it was a super luminal Systems, which
Speaker 2: is that Robert Edward Grant is tied with it right
Speaker 2: with his Crown sterling, and so they're kind of they
Speaker 2: use all the Game B vernacular, so they're not officially
Speaker 2: Game B. But that's what I was thinking. But what
Speaker 2: I'm trying to say is that it's a way of
Speaker 2: steering these So I'm not saying that there aren't organic
Speaker 2: you know, people who, yeah, we're tired of the left,
Speaker 2: but if you can operate through them, then you can
Speaker 2: create a much broader banner that looks more populous, even
Speaker 2: if it's not.
Speaker 1: Yah the way you phrased it, just remake.
Speaker 2: The right, which is what it kind of looks like
Speaker 2: to me, is they're remaking the right. And you know,
Speaker 2: we can look at a couple of just really I
Speaker 2: think overt examples that everybody can. They're two really big
Speaker 2: ones in the past five years, and then this one,
Speaker 2: and I'll use coding just to you know, elucidate this.
Speaker 2: But you know, five years ago, you had a lot
Speaker 2: of people who were very kind of maybe we'll call
Speaker 2: them like the more crunchy freedom kind of people, and
Speaker 2: they were traditionally on the left. But then you had
Speaker 2: the medical freedom movement come in, and suddenly those people
Speaker 2: got slacked with right wing labels, whether Republican, conservative, or
Speaker 2: you know, whatever it may be. And a lot of
Speaker 2: them were actually very confused, like I've been on left
Speaker 2: my whole life. I voted Democrat my whole life, Like
Speaker 2: I'm not a Republican or I'm not a conservative whatever
Speaker 2: it was, but they're okay, and a lot of them
Speaker 2: kind of went along with it, like, okay, now we
Speaker 2: shift the overtoon window, right, So people who reject certain
Speaker 2: experimental uh you know, medications are now suddenly right wingers.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: We had this again really recently with Traditionally a lot
Speaker 2: of people on the right would never buy an electric vehicle, right,
Speaker 2: because that's a subscribe.
Speaker 1: Oh. I mean it wasn't even that long ago, you know,
Speaker 1: before Elon, even when Elon owned Twitter, it was still like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's that leftist bullshit of having an ev you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean suddenly like you had all these quote
Speaker 2: unquote Republicans rushing out when those you know, when they
Speaker 2: had those protests of the Tesla. Suddenly you had all
Speaker 2: these conservatives and Republicans rush out to buy a Tesla
Speaker 2: they could afford.
Speaker 1: It, and yeah, exactly what.
Speaker 2: But it shifts the overtuon window, right. That's part of
Speaker 2: the I think that's part of the uh the purpose
Speaker 2: of it.
Speaker 1: So yeah, now go ahead.
Speaker 2: I was going to say, remaking the new Right. I
Speaker 2: think that's part.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, this is where we get into the character
Speaker 1: of Vance and I suppose people are concerned because the
Speaker 1: ideas that well, Vance represents the next generation or the
Speaker 1: next potential you know, Republican presidential candidates. So what's the
Speaker 1: what's the real deal from your research on the influence
Speaker 1: on Vance.
Speaker 2: Here, So Vance has kind of connections to both this
Speaker 2: dark Enlightenment Curtis Jarvin network, so he's got that angle,
Speaker 2: and then he also has a lot of connection to
Speaker 2: this I called them the Theobros, which is not my term,
Speaker 2: but you know, through this rock bit Bridge, which is
Speaker 2: a feel backed investment firm, and this Christian nationalist umbrella.
Speaker 2: So I will clarify, I'm not talking about people who
Speaker 2: might be Christian might also have a nationalistic bent, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that's just the you know, hyphen of
Speaker 2: those two. I'm also not talking about people, as you said,
Speaker 2: who might you know, want a nation that you know
Speaker 2: is more based on those types of principles. These are
Speaker 2: people who really literally want biblical law to replace the
Speaker 2: Constitution and they have explicitly said so, so we're talking
Speaker 2: about a constitutional subversion. So regardless of you know, your
Speaker 2: thoughts on the Constitution, that that is what they're advocating.
Speaker 2: So it is a subversive type of movement by definition.
Speaker 1: Well, that's what I want to say, is like, even
Speaker 1: if I have I don't have a problem critiquing America's
Speaker 1: enlightenment of founding ideas and presuppositions. But I wouldn't trust
Speaker 1: these people to be leading a Christian nationalist system, is
Speaker 1: I guess what I would say?
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think a largely a lot of these people,
Speaker 2: not to say that none of them are are, you know,
Speaker 2: true believers, because oftentimes the true believers make the best
Speaker 2: propaganda agents because they have conviction, right, So oftentimes that
Speaker 2: is how that works. But I think they're using the
Speaker 2: Christian I call it Christianese, so it's like Christian language.
Speaker 2: You see the theosophists do this all the time.
Speaker 1: I think this is Did you see that the Teal
Speaker 1: interview where he was talking about the Antichrist? Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: see I think so. And I was looking over here
Speaker 1: at Sovereign House Events and I bought Renee Gerrard. I've
Speaker 1: not read it. I don't know exactly what the whole
Speaker 1: idea of Gerard's theology is. I think I take it
Speaker 1: to be more of a symbolic kind of approach, maybe
Speaker 1: something it can to a Peterson style approach to what
Speaker 1: religion is. I'm not sure because I haven't read it yet,
Speaker 1: but I mean even here on the Sovereign House Events page,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's all it's there's a whole event about
Speaker 1: Renee Gerard. And I've had many people in the audience say, hey,
Speaker 1: you need to read this guy. So that seems to
Speaker 1: be like when when Peter Till's using the terminology of
Speaker 1: Christianity and immortality and all that. It's almost like the
Speaker 1: impression I got from the interview that Jamie and I
Speaker 1: covered was, Yeah, there's this idea in Christianity which is
Speaker 1: mythical and fictional of a resurrection and all this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. We're going to do that with tech. That's
Speaker 1: what it really means.
Speaker 2: Yes, I don't see his his beliefs as being commensurate
Speaker 2: with Christianity of any type, you know, regardless of what
Speaker 2: sect of Christianity. I don't really see him being commensurate
Speaker 2: at all. I think he's taking just the notion of
Speaker 2: Christianity and he's kind of projecting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and Gerard, that was one of his professors, a
Speaker 2: mentor of his, and the big concept he takes from
Speaker 2: him is a like mimetic theory, that this idea of
Speaker 2: mimicking others, but it's very tied to envy, and that
Speaker 2: that kind of drives a lot of Teal's philosophy, and
Speaker 2: so that we have to avoid this and we need
Speaker 2: to use that in order to advance, because he says
Speaker 2: we're in a stagnant of society and we have to
Speaker 2: you know, advance. So basically the proponent of accelerationism, we
Speaker 2: want to Well, he said.
Speaker 1: Something in that interview with that Ross guy, something like, well,
Speaker 1: Antichrist is this idea of a collectivist system where Greta's
Speaker 1: and he used Greta I think as an example of Antichrist,
Speaker 1: where people like Greta, you know, set the agenda and
Speaker 1: have status control and I represent you know, fantasy island
Speaker 1: where I'm going to you know, be floating over here
Speaker 1: with my freedom coins and all this stuff. It's like,
Speaker 1: I mean again, like how is it really in my
Speaker 1: view if you don't have a consistent, coherent worldview based
Speaker 1: in as you said, reality from my perspective, orthodox Christianity,
Speaker 1: I don't see how you're going to have any basis,
Speaker 1: for example, for values and value judgments right and wrong,
Speaker 1: virtue vice right, you've got to have some kind of
Speaker 1: a system. And I think one of the problems with
Speaker 1: the tech bros, especially out of the whole libertarian ethos,
Speaker 1: is that they have a utilitarian idea of ethics that
Speaker 1: they think technology can somehow, through quantification, tell you what's
Speaker 1: right and wrong and what's good and bad. And that
Speaker 1: goes all the way back to the moral calculus era
Speaker 1: of dun Thumb. And it's just a really silly spurgeep is.
Speaker 1: You've got to kind of be a spurg to even
Speaker 1: think that calculations could tell you, in the basis of
Speaker 1: pleasure points what's good and bad. It's just silly.
Speaker 2: It's absurd, Yes, completely absurd. And the irony is that
Speaker 2: the New York Times interviewer asked him, he said, well,
Speaker 2: some might say that you were the anti Crist. Isn't
Speaker 2: the Antichrist when he talked about how he's going to
Speaker 2: bring you know, essentially love and life through his freedom,
Speaker 2: you know, cities and whatever, he didn't use those words.
Speaker 2: That's essentially with the picture that he's painting. Isn't that
Speaker 2: like the Antichrist supposed to bring peace? Right? So it's
Speaker 2: it's almost like he's yeah.
Speaker 1: No, there's a time. I mean, the in the classical
Speaker 1: idea of Antichrist, there's a period where you do have
Speaker 1: a false global peace based around whatever type of system
Speaker 1: he brings into into fruition, and then eventually that collapses
Speaker 1: and you have a giant war. But yeah, there is
Speaker 1: a false piece.
Speaker 2: So well, I just thought it was an appropriate question
Speaker 2: for him to throw back on him and be like, well,
Speaker 2: some might say maybe maybe you're at the antich Christ.
Speaker 2: I personally think Elon might look a little more like
Speaker 2: the Antichrist, but I'm not saying he is. I'm just
Speaker 2: saying from from you know, uh optics. But yeah, so
Speaker 2: that I don't think it is at all commensurate. And
Speaker 2: I think all of them have elements of where they're
Speaker 2: really just using Christianity as a way to entice people.
Speaker 2: And you now have this with GAMEB. So Game B
Speaker 2: was very historically, you know, aligned with more spiritual theosophical
Speaker 2: princes bulls, they were not. You know a lot of
Speaker 2: them like attribute their their roots to Spinoza. It's very
Speaker 2: neo Platonic in their philosophical underpinnings. But now we have
Speaker 2: Jordan Hall, who a year ago converted to Christianity. I
Speaker 2: always want to give the benefit of the doubt. It's
Speaker 2: not my place to judge somebody else's, you know, belief system.
Speaker 2: But I was a little bit skeptical and that just
Speaker 2: because I see this a lot where they use Christianity
Speaker 2: in order to create credibility, right, to lure people into
Speaker 2: the movement. And yeah, and so he he did this
Speaker 2: speech at Prospera. So four years ago there was at Prospera.
Speaker 2: It was the Startup Society's foundation, and he did a
Speaker 2: speech there on Game B startup societies, network states. And
Speaker 2: then he did another one recently and it was a
Speaker 2: like a forty five minute speech and he talks about
Speaker 2: at the end of it, he's talking about network states
Speaker 2: and using essentially Game B concept for network states. But
Speaker 2: at the end he talks about liturgy. And I know,
Speaker 2: I understand the concept in Christianity of liturgy, but he
Speaker 2: was kind of using this concept to justify communitarianism, which
Speaker 2: is they're not they're not, they're not the same. And
Speaker 2: you know, it's a very I think it's very deceptive
Speaker 2: because if you're not really paying attention, you hear the
Speaker 2: words and they sound like, oh, this is a Christian
Speaker 2: talking about, you know, bringing community under God.
Speaker 1: That's well, it's just like yeah, like the term of
Speaker 1: going around a while about Christ's consciousness. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: such a vague, weird term that that could mean, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, like actual the mind that Jesus himself actually
Speaker 1: had as a human being. Or could does it mean
Speaker 1: like this new agy concept of everybody acting and love
Speaker 1: and light and that's Christ. I mean, it's so vague,
Speaker 1: it could be all kinds of things, but it is
Speaker 1: a very uh you know, new new ag buzzword for sure.
Speaker 1: And you write this is from biology. We think d
Speaker 1: stetting can be revived in long term because it can
Speaker 1: be a part of a network state paradigm. You just
Speaker 1: need to grow a startup society capable of crowd funding
Speaker 1: a cruise ship. Your society wouldn't start with something so expensive.
Speaker 1: It is started by something more modest, territory around the
Speaker 1: world connecting it into a network archipelago. But you have
Speaker 1: a startup city with tens of thousands of members, something
Speaker 1: as crazy as a crowdfunded cruise ship becomes a possibility.
Speaker 1: What's funny about this is that, I mean I remember,
Speaker 1: like fifteen years ago when Ron Paul was really popular
Speaker 1: and there were people on the left, not that I'm
Speaker 1: supporting the people on the left, but they were criticizing
Speaker 1: these libertarian Silicon Valley oligarchs, because even back then, in
Speaker 1: like two thousand and seven, eight nine, you had libertarian
Speaker 1: oligarch guys talking about creating their own floating cities so
Speaker 1: that they could be outside of the balands of any
Speaker 1: laws of any nation state. And again, it's just it's like,
Speaker 1: it's weird. It's like we're stepping back into all of
Speaker 1: the conspiracies of two thousand and seven and eight when
Speaker 1: Ron Paul was at his peak, and but now the
Speaker 1: right is being coaxed into and tempted into accepting, i
Speaker 1: think basically just technocracy under the guise of it being
Speaker 1: anti communist, anti collectivist and somehow Bays and trad because oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have hierarchy as of hierarchy itself is somehow
Speaker 1: like Bays and trad when it can you can have
Speaker 1: a hierarchy that's a bunch of degenerates and wicked people.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, I think that's exactly what's going on. They're
Speaker 2: just they're operating through wherever they think the power locus is,
Speaker 2: and right now that is under Trump, who is technically Republican,
Speaker 2: and so they're they're they're using that in order to
Speaker 2: usher in It's the same thing though this is technocracy
Speaker 2: on either side. I'm very concerned because into traditional Hegelian
Speaker 2: dialectic faction, you're gonna have a lot of people who
Speaker 2: are going to reject this very autocratic, top down type
Speaker 2: of control state, which is kind of overtly technocratic, and
Speaker 2: they're going to offer other options, solutions, if you will.
Speaker 2: And I'm seeing a movement towards this what I think,
Speaker 2: And I wrote an article about the technological age of
Speaker 2: Aquarius h third Way dream or digital dystopia was the title.
Speaker 2: But I'm talking about how they're using essentially third way
Speaker 2: politics to create a radical center. Now it's very deceptive
Speaker 2: because again people think center, oh, this is, you know,
Speaker 2: very balanced, moderate type of politics, and that's appealing to people,
Speaker 2: right and it's beyond it's trans It's transpartisan is the
Speaker 2: term the buzzword they're using. So this is, you know,
Speaker 2: beyond the two party illusion, beyond the two party do
Speaker 2: Optly a lot of people recognize there's obviously flaws in
Speaker 2: you know, this kind of Hegelian two party system, but
Speaker 2: they're using it to create third way politics, which are
Speaker 2: always left of center. That the radical center is not
Speaker 2: in the center, it's left of center. Anthony Giddens himself
Speaker 2: says that in his Third Way book. So they're using that,
Speaker 2: I think, to usher in technocratic movements. And you've now
Speaker 2: got Elon Musk talking about his American Party, who is
Speaker 2: supporting that Andrew Yang from the Forward Party.
Speaker 1: Remember I was going to say Yang Yang Gang and
Speaker 1: all that stuff they tried to immediately they remember, they
Speaker 1: were trying to appeal to the alt right. Uh when
Speaker 1: as your Yang first popped on the scene and suddenly
Speaker 1: all these so called alt right accounts were like Yangang
Speaker 1: Yangang Yang Gang because they thought they were going to
Speaker 1: get a universal basic income. I mean, I'm like, you
Speaker 1: guys are so stupid.
Speaker 2: So stupid. And now he's consulting with Curtis Jarvin, uh
Speaker 2: right on this party. I don't know if Yarvin knows
Speaker 2: about creating a political party, but he's somehow going to
Speaker 2: be the authority because I guess he influenced rage and
Speaker 2: for doge Right, So somehow he's an authority. So I'm
Speaker 2: very much seeing that they're pushing that under the guise
Speaker 2: of like this centralized political movement, but it's really third
Speaker 2: way politics guiding us towards technocratic movements. And then we
Speaker 2: also still have the game b people who are very active,
Speaker 2: uh you know, they're creating all sorts of networks and technologies.
Speaker 2: There's a technology called no Map. They changed the name,
Speaker 2: of course, you know, but they changed it to the
Speaker 2: S seven Foundation, but it was no Map and they
Speaker 2: literally said it was about inhabiting the no sphere. So
Speaker 2: they're still they're very, very active, and they're going to
Speaker 2: present themselves as you know, they're decentralized. It's often kind
Speaker 2: of it's often to your own tyranny, of course in
Speaker 2: my opinion, but it's very much couched in this whole
Speaker 2: love and light. So I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: who are going to reject this top down autocratic algocracy
Speaker 2: that's kind of overt from the dark Enlightenment are and
Speaker 2: to say, oh, we've got this movement over here which
Speaker 2: we can choose and we have options, and it's you know,
Speaker 2: it's so soft, it's divine mother, you know. Also, you know,
Speaker 2: I'm half kidding but I think that that's what we're
Speaker 2: going to see is people ushered into that. And you
Speaker 2: have these people in the quote unquote Freedom Movement, and
Speaker 2: there's a lot of overlap with the two, this left
Speaker 2: and right, because they do operate through whatever path they
Speaker 2: need to. And we have I use the Phoenix Conspiracy
Speaker 2: as kind of the metaphor for this this particular article,
Speaker 2: But there is an actual operation going on right now
Speaker 2: that's called Operation Phoenix, and it is the United Independence
Speaker 2: who are running it. And RFK has now joined in
Speaker 2: with them. And I think this is actually quite key,
Speaker 2: and it's a very integral component because I think RFK
Speaker 2: was kind of at home. Maha movement, I think was
Speaker 2: a big in my opinion, it was kind of very
Speaker 2: deceptive ploy to get people in, you know, the people
Speaker 2: who might not have been sold on Trump. A lot
Speaker 2: of them were right. So you had RFK and the
Speaker 2: Maha movement, and who could argue with Maha. I mean,
Speaker 2: the messaging make America healthy again. I mean, I'm all
Speaker 2: on board. Let's get rid of pesticides and seed o
Speaker 2: loyals and you know, fake garbage and chemicals. I'm all
Speaker 2: on board with the messaging of that. But I was
Speaker 2: warning even before Trump got elected that he's a huge
Speaker 2: proponent of precision AI medicine. This goes back, I mean,
Speaker 2: it goes back further than Obama. But you can go
Speaker 2: back and look at his you know, precision medicine document
Speaker 2: on the Obama White House archives and he and he
Speaker 2: talks about using this whole uh you know, uh, I
Speaker 2: forgot the acronym. But it's all about using the like
Speaker 2: behavioral modification to basically brainwash people into the you know,
Speaker 2: Internet of nanobile things is essentially what it talks about.
Speaker 2: And so you now have RFK talking about how MAHA
Speaker 2: is MABA, which is the make America biotech technical again right, No,
Speaker 2: make make America biotech accelerate. That's the term, right, How
Speaker 2: could I forget accelerate accelerationism? And he literally that's literally
Speaker 2: what MABA is And he's talking about how that's what
Speaker 2: MAHA really is is make America biochech accelerate. And he's
Speaker 2: talking about how everybody should be wearing wearables so that
Speaker 2: the Internet of wearables and in that Path to Mass
Speaker 2: Surveillance article, I outlined like all the the Internet of things,
Speaker 2: the Internet of everything, the Internet of wearable. This is
Speaker 2: all part of how they build their fifteen minute cities,
Speaker 2: which I know you've covered extensively. So I just I
Speaker 2: caution people because this is kind of how whether or
Speaker 2: not it's intentionally you know, a dielectrical framework, I think
Speaker 2: that they use it in that fashion, and so they push,
Speaker 2: they steer peace. But when they recognize that one is
Speaker 2: not working so well, they're going to prop up the
Speaker 2: other in order to get their agenda to march towards
Speaker 2: the Omega point to use you know, the Kurs.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well that John Land a guy in his twenty
Speaker 1: eighteen book that Jamie read, you know, he said that
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley is a for lack of a better term,
Speaker 1: occult that believes that they will kind of give to
Speaker 1: the world a diosex machina that will become a kind
Speaker 1: of god, and that that it'll probably be worshiped and
Speaker 1: treated like a deity. So and it's really just the
Speaker 1: algorithm that they're coding and you know, telling it basically. Also,
Speaker 1: I think that AI is kind of a scam because
Speaker 1: it's it's it's really just tailoring its answers to each
Speaker 1: individual person to sort of inflate the ego of the
Speaker 1: individual person and make them think that they're coming to
Speaker 1: all these great conclusions and that they're really getting you know,
Speaker 1: they're really getting this wealth of information out of this
Speaker 1: glorified search engine, which is just an audio search engine.
Speaker 1: It's basically all AI is at this point. But it's becoming.
Speaker 1: It's going to become a companion. It's going to become
Speaker 1: your kind of personal avatar, like you see in the
Speaker 1: movie Her We're Walking, Yes, falls in love with his
Speaker 1: operating system, his AI. So that's going to be I
Speaker 1: think the locus of control according to Lenny A, how
Speaker 1: does AI fit into this?
Speaker 2: Yeah, so I don't want to address that. Yeah, her
Speaker 2: freaked me out at the time, and now in hindsight
Speaker 2: it's like way more creepy to me than I think.
Speaker 2: I had nightmares for a week. But now I agree
Speaker 2: with you. I think they're essentially going to create I
Speaker 2: call it the cyber Satan. So they're going to worship
Speaker 2: this being that they're going to tell us is sentient.
Speaker 2: And I don't really believe that AI has sentient I
Speaker 2: know something say it already does. I don't believe it
Speaker 2: ever will. That's my opinion, But I think that they
Speaker 2: can convince people and that will have very similar ramifications,
Speaker 2: and I think those ramifications will be incredibly dystopian. So
Speaker 2: you know, it doesn't actually have to achieve sentience to
Speaker 2: achieve the result that they're looking for if they can
Speaker 2: convince enough people that it's sentient. So I do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, do you think this is another thought I had
Speaker 1: to when long time ago we were kind of speculating
Speaker 1: on We did a boiler room maybe ten years ago,
Speaker 1: and we were talking about the possibility of future cities,
Speaker 1: city states, smart cities kind of being crafted around ideas,
Speaker 1: so not so much you know, where you were born
Speaker 1: and your family and your heritage, but a future model
Speaker 1: where people migrate to places, assuming they're able to based
Speaker 1: around even fantasy ideologies. For example, what if there's a
Speaker 1: smart city And I'm saying this kind of on the
Speaker 1: basis of the Disney theme park model. You know what
Speaker 1: if there's a city a community that is you know,
Speaker 1: Harry Potter World, then you go And I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm not kidding either. I'm saying, like people that are
Speaker 1: so committed to living in sort of fantasy world where
Speaker 1: you sort of go to these places and maybe you
Speaker 1: don't even have to physically go to them. Maybe you
Speaker 1: live in them, like in Ready Player one, in a
Speaker 1: virtual world for most of your life or something. Does that?
Speaker 1: I mean, when you think about Prospera or I think
Speaker 1: about freedom cities or these things they want to construct,
Speaker 1: whether they become dystopian or whether they really do have
Speaker 1: maybe some kind of free movement. I don't know, but
Speaker 1: like you said, like if you maybe you sign into
Speaker 1: Star Wars Wars World, if you're a super soy man,
Speaker 1: you go live in Star Wars World for ten years,
Speaker 1: and then you get tired of living there, but you've
Speaker 1: signed a smart contract for your you know, bio, but
Speaker 1: your biodata for the next twenty years. You can't get
Speaker 1: out of this contract. You can't leave Star Wars World.
Speaker 1: You're stuck there. I mean, is this possible? You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? Is this what we're looking at where
Speaker 1: everybody's basically a giant tech experiment that's being surveiled. And
Speaker 1: the reason I say that is Jamie and iwer Hat.
Speaker 1: I'll let you talk over those. But we were at
Speaker 1: Disneyland one time, this is the last time we went,
Speaker 1: maybe like seven years ago, and we were talking about
Speaker 1: how it's just kind of a funny thought to think about.
Speaker 1: If you were watching Disney World or Land from a
Speaker 1: drone or from up above, you would see a bunch
Speaker 1: of wearing little mouse hats, you know, running around like
Speaker 1: a mouse maze, like you were being studied in sort
Speaker 1: of like some big mouse science experiment. So do you
Speaker 1: think that that's where we're going into this world where
Speaker 1: we don't have nation states the way we've thought about
Speaker 1: them in the past, but we have these sort of
Speaker 1: idea states or imaginal states that are maybe not even
Speaker 1: states but megacities where you sort of sign over your
Speaker 1: rights and your biology and your data to live in
Speaker 1: some sort of UBI smart city thing or something.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think so that's actually what the network state is,
Speaker 2: he explicitly says, is a dissolution of geographical nation states.
Speaker 1: Oh well, there we go.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very explicit.
Speaker 1: And we forget that on Bullrum. You're gonna go live
Speaker 1: in Harry Potter World. Do you want to live in
Speaker 1: Lord of the Rings world? Or which fake world do
Speaker 1: you want to live?
Speaker 2: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Did you ever watch West World? This is actually kind
Speaker 1: of like West World.
Speaker 2: It is kind of like West World. And when you
Speaker 2: talk about the biometric data, I think it's going to
Speaker 2: be like Black Mirror, you know, where you use you know,
Speaker 2: because they have that six gy technology where they talk
Speaker 2: about like humans are like the antenna to power the
Speaker 2: six G. The AI World Society talks about using that
Speaker 2: for the Internet of NanoBio things, So, I mean, these
Speaker 2: things are not so far off. And there's that Black
Speaker 2: Mirror episode where they're like on the bikes powering, and
Speaker 2: they've talked about being able to mind crypto using human
Speaker 2: you know power. So all of this technology, especially as
Speaker 2: it advances, does pink kind of a very dystopian type
Speaker 2: of network state. But this is why the network state
Speaker 2: concept came out of the c Setting com which, by
Speaker 2: the way, I think is very reminiscent of Gilliam Maxwell's TerraMar.
Speaker 2: That's just a total side.
Speaker 3: Note, but yeah, the reason for sea setting is because
Speaker 3: you're on international waters, right, so you're outside of the
Speaker 3: confines of national laws and so basically they can make
Speaker 3: up their own laws, so the tech oligarchs can decide
Speaker 3: that the laws are whatever they want them to be.
Speaker 2: So that didn't go over that well. I think you
Speaker 2: put in one point seven million dollars into the concept
Speaker 2: and it you know, didn't take all, but Vilagia has
Speaker 2: a whole chapter dedicated to it and says that it
Speaker 2: was the inspiration for creating these network states, and that
Speaker 2: network states are the dissolution of geographical nation states in
Speaker 2: favor of cyber ideological states, and so you you might
Speaker 2: have a hybrid like Prospera, which they are actually a
Speaker 2: physical locale, but it's really more about you could have
Speaker 2: somebody across the world who is and Curtis Jarvin talks
Speaker 2: about how it's one of the most like horrendous quotes
Speaker 2: I've ever read in my own life. It's so awful.
Speaker 2: But he says that the humane alternative to genocide would
Speaker 2: be to virtualize human beings. And this is in his
Speaker 2: patchwork positive vision. I don't know, it doesn't sound all
Speaker 2: that positive to me, but maybe I just have a
Speaker 2: I'm not wearing his rose colored glasses, so I don't
Speaker 2: see it that way. But yeah, he's so he's talking
Speaker 2: about creating technoplastic beings, which is what the term that
Speaker 2: Nick Land uses. So it's all moving towards this transhuman vision.
Speaker 2: And of course game B says they're opposed to transhumanism.
Speaker 2: They're not, but I mean Barbara Marxs Hubbard was one
Speaker 2: of like the grandmothers of the transhuman movement. She actually
Speaker 2: called Christ transhuman and she wrote this book like Escape
Speaker 2: from Armageddon, and in that she calls Christ transhuman. And
Speaker 2: she's not talking about because he's you know, a.
Speaker 1: Good well as you've wrote. For just a second there,
Speaker 1: you were talking about the Christ transhumanist Christ.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she's not talking about in the sense of like,
Speaker 2: you know, being a divine being. She's talking about transhumanism.
Speaker 2: And she actually rewrote the New Testament. And there's this
Speaker 2: whole story that she tells about how she told her
Speaker 2: dear friend Bucky Buckminster Fuller, who is definitely a technocrat. Yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, the architect Buckminster Fuller. But she talking about Yes,
Speaker 2: she said, her dear friend Bucky, and she said she
Speaker 2: told him that, you know, she had this vision that
Speaker 2: she had to rewrite the New Testament, and so she
Speaker 2: took it upon herself to do so. And he was
Speaker 2: so proud of her. He said he had the same
Speaker 2: vision and he's so glad that she did it. So,
Speaker 2: you know, these are the people that we're dealing with.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you go on to talk about from anti
Speaker 1: humanism to techno feudalism, and a lot of people forget that.
Speaker 1: In Tragy and Hope, there's a very important middle chapter
Speaker 1: as well as chapters discussing the move away from international
Speaker 1: law that was set up, you know, post Enlightenment for
Speaker 1: nation states, and then we're moving into a globalization period
Speaker 1: where and Quickly talked about this the future would be
Speaker 1: neo feudal And in the middle of the book there
Speaker 1: is an entire chapter about the future cities which will
Speaker 1: be run by AI giant supercomputers. So even in the
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, Quickly as well was talking about the managerial state,
Speaker 1: the efficiency state, the technocratic state. This was planned a
Speaker 1: long time ago, and you know, it's just really difficult
Speaker 1: to get people, whether the right or left, to look
Speaker 1: at long ranging, multi decade, you know, even of century
Speaker 1: plus plans to bring about this kind of a you know, essentially,
Speaker 1: you know, Huxley and Brave new World scenario is really
Speaker 1: what this I think is going to result in. But
Speaker 1: tell us about techno feudalism.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so it's a Yannis Vera Fucus. I don't know
Speaker 2: if I pronounced his name right, I apologize.
Speaker 1: No, wait a minute, Vera Falucus. Didn't he come up
Speaker 1: back in the days of when they were doing the
Speaker 1: banker looting of the European nations? It wasn't vera focus
Speaker 1: first mentioned back then?
Speaker 2: Yes, and he is. So he's the one who coined
Speaker 2: this term of techno feudalism, and I might put it
Speaker 2: up to see if I can find how he explains it,
Speaker 2: because it's exactly what we're witnessing.
Speaker 1: Was he the guy though that was he was like
Speaker 1: the Greek Was he the Soreza party of Greece that
Speaker 1: was like the socialists or the right wing I'm trying
Speaker 1: to remember.
Speaker 2: No, he's a he's a socialist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so he's the Greek socialist that was part of
Speaker 1: Soresa right.
Speaker 2: Yes, and his father actually, I think was jailed because
Speaker 2: he wouldn't denounce communism and so yeah, so he he
Speaker 2: says he's not a communist, but he's a socialist. I
Speaker 2: mean he's essentially, but yeah, he talks about how we're
Speaker 2: going to be run by these essentially what he calls
Speaker 2: techno feudalism is essentially this notion that we're going to
Speaker 2: have these little fifetoms that are going to be run
Speaker 2: by tech overlords. And that's kind of what the gov
Speaker 2: core solve core of this, the network states all of
Speaker 2: these that's essentially what it looks like. But that that
Speaker 2: is what he says that he says the capitalism has
Speaker 2: already done that, that it's already over. But that, yeah,
Speaker 2: where we're what we're already in this techno feudal state.
Speaker 2: And he's he uses the justification of things like you know,
Speaker 2: Amazon and Google and Facebook and all these social media platforms.
Speaker 2: And he says that in particular in the past few years,
Speaker 2: because things went much more remote, that kind of accelerated
Speaker 2: those fifetoms because they have so much power over our
Speaker 2: economic and social world today. So yeah, I I don't
Speaker 2: know that we're in a fully techno feudal society currently.
Speaker 2: I'm not quite that, you know, black piled, but I
Speaker 2: do think that that's their goal and I think that
Speaker 2: is very much if things go the way they're going,
Speaker 2: that we're headed in that direction. If things don't change, Yeah,
Speaker 2: so that does seem to be.
Speaker 1: We got a few super chats here. Now your your
Speaker 1: article continues on. It's pretty lengthy. It goes on to
Speaker 1: talk about THEO bros. And I see Doug Wilson even
Speaker 1: made it on there. How does Doug Wilson fit into this?
Speaker 2: He's been a huge, kind of like mentor with his
Speaker 2: church to a lot of these theobors.
Speaker 1: So interesting, Who did he in this collection of bearded
Speaker 1: figures here? I'm not familiar with who these people are.
Speaker 1: So I see Peter Thiel, I see a bunch of
Speaker 1: bald dudes and bearded dudes. I see Vance. Oh so
Speaker 1: you got a list here, I say, Boss, Kirk Iskar, Wolf, Stevens,
Speaker 1: Tan Andresa. I don't know who Mark Andresen is, Peter
Speaker 1: Teal and this is like the new uh tech right,
Speaker 1: I guess or quasi tech right, mm hmm.
Speaker 2: And even what's his name, Pete Hegseth has been Yeah,
Speaker 2: so yeah, Doug Wilson's kind of like a mentor to
Speaker 2: a lot of them. But yeah, that's obviously Vance and
Speaker 2: uh heg Seth. And then we have what's his name?
Speaker 2: Why am I blanking? Augustus de Rico, the Rainmaker and
Speaker 2: he he's kind of in that American dynamism movement and
Speaker 2: backed by Teal as well. And here there was a
Speaker 2: short video where he basically admitted that he was involved
Speaker 2: in this. You know, cloud seating technology that preceded the
Speaker 2: Texas floods. But yeah, so I don't know if we
Speaker 2: can say that definitively that that's what caused it, but
Speaker 2: he pretty much did kind of allude to that in
Speaker 2: his It was like a few minute interviews. And then
Speaker 2: we have the Gundobros and I talk about them in
Speaker 2: the article as well, and they're directly tied to military technology,
Speaker 2: and so they're using this kind of Christian identity. But
Speaker 2: again it's at the banner and a lot of these
Speaker 2: Christian nationalists who are affiliated with Doug Wilson are talking
Speaker 2: about replacing the Constitution. They want a theocracy, they want
Speaker 2: to replace it with you know, they call it biblical law.
Speaker 1: No, I used to be involved in the reconstruction of
Speaker 1: stuff when I was younger, and I mean I read,
Speaker 1: I mean I was reading people at Rush Duny and
Speaker 1: van Hill and Monson who were the prior generation before
Speaker 1: Doug Wilson who so in other words, all those guys
Speaker 1: influenced Doug Wilson's ideas on it.
Speaker 2: Sure, yeah so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well so I see also here Verveke makes uh
Speaker 1: makes it into your article rot Jordan Hall and others
Speaker 1: in the space as Verveke have had many discussions visioning
Speaker 1: and new governance systems. What do you think about Verveaki?
Speaker 2: What?
Speaker 1: Why is he in here? Because I remember him. We
Speaker 1: haven't heard of him uh in a while, because he was,
Speaker 1: you know, in the Peterson sphere talking about silicon sages
Speaker 1: and uh then he makes it into your article here.
Speaker 1: What do you think about Verveaki?
Speaker 2: Well, Vervicki is kind of Game B adjacent. He does
Speaker 2: a lot of dialogues with all of the Game B people,
Speaker 2: like certainly Jordan Hall. They're talking at that that particular episode,
Speaker 2: they're talking about AI governance, uh and using AI to
Speaker 2: replace human governance, and of course it's because AI is
Speaker 2: so rational, you know, we don't have to deal with
Speaker 2: messy humans and so, but I would like to remind
Speaker 2: people that this notion of AI governance, this is not
Speaker 2: a distant future kind of concept. We in almost every
Speaker 2: state in the United States they have digital governance summits.
Speaker 2: There is a portal on chat GPT which is a
Speaker 2: chat gpg dot gov and you have to be a
Speaker 2: government official to use it. We have, of course, the
Speaker 2: AI World Society, which says this is the centennial vision
Speaker 2: for the UN, which is a twenty forty Right there,
Speaker 2: they claim that we're going to have this AI world society,
Speaker 2: and in there they say we'll supplant all human government
Speaker 2: with AI. This is a concept that now they're talking
Speaker 2: about Grock in the Pentagon Grock governance. So this is
Speaker 2: just there was the AI dot gov. I was actually
Speaker 2: on Harrison Show recently talking about this. So they started
Speaker 2: back in twenty nineteen. It was under Trump, and then
Speaker 2: it went from White House dot gov a slash AI,
Speaker 2: and then Biden advanced a lot of the agendas around it,
Speaker 2: and it went back and forth AI doc of White
Speaker 2: House stock of slash AI. Now it supposedly was going
Speaker 2: to launch July fourth, but there was a leak people
Speaker 2: like me who opened our big mouths, and so I'm
Speaker 2: not the one who discovered it, but I talked about it,
Speaker 2: and so they didn't actually transition it. But AI dot
Speaker 2: gov still redirects to White House STOCUV. So I mean,
Speaker 2: this is an agenda, clearly, and it's not in the
Speaker 2: distant future, this idea of having And then when I
Speaker 2: talked about these third way, you know, technocratic movements, whether
Speaker 2: it's game B or they have different variations of it,
Speaker 2: but it's already being utilized in many states. This notion
Speaker 2: of using blockchain voting like rank choice voting, right fiction voters,
Speaker 2: well though.
Speaker 1: One of the hottest genres of crypto that's now so
Speaker 1: like in the last this cycle, the supposed hot top
Speaker 1: were a last cycle that was like gaming metaverse coins.
Speaker 1: This cycle of crypto, it's RWAs and AI rt OFAs
Speaker 1: are real world assets, which are all the cryptos that
Speaker 1: supposedly tokenized that that can tokenize everything in the world.
Speaker 2: And that's exactly what you're talking about, yes, And you know,
Speaker 2: the joke I like to make is that they talk
Speaker 2: about how great it is because it can be fractionalized,
Speaker 2: and I point out that, you know, you would love
Speaker 2: to think that you could have shared assets among loved ones,
Speaker 2: family members, but there's a reason that a state lawyers exist.
Speaker 2: This doesn't always worked out so well. So I don't
Speaker 2: know how people think this is going to work out
Speaker 2: in your you know, network state with strangers, but somehow
Speaker 2: it's all.
Speaker 1: Going to be our people that are bitcoin Maxi's also
Speaker 1: laugh at this because the whole point of a currency
Speaker 1: is to tokenize anything in the world that you want
Speaker 1: to sell. So that's the point of whether it's gold,
Speaker 1: whether it's dollars, or whether it's bitcoin. Like, that's the
Speaker 1: purpose of it is to you know, if you want
Speaker 1: to attach a price to the chair or to your car,
Speaker 1: that's what the currency does. And so really you don't
Speaker 1: even need this tokenization of everything in the world. So
Speaker 1: I would say that a lot of these are probably
Speaker 1: not that there's not a real danger, but a lot
Speaker 1: of these are probably just pumping dump schemes to get people, Oh,
Speaker 1: this is the next big crypto trend in the future
Speaker 1: to tokenize all real world assets, and that's going to
Speaker 1: immediately dump when the when the bull market ends.
Speaker 2: Well, I have a slightly darker vision of it, honestly,
Speaker 2: I know.
Speaker 1: I'm just talking about in the short term. I think
Speaker 1: in the long term they will try to have a
Speaker 1: tokenization of all things in.
Speaker 2: The world for sure, and I think it'll be connected
Speaker 2: to your biology.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it'll be based on like are you using too
Speaker 1: much carbon? And it's kind of.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah exactly. So yeah, I think that's the purpose
Speaker 2: of the tokenization because the ultimate control grid is through
Speaker 2: a tokenized network that is connected to the internet, NanoBio things, so.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's what Gotviy Klauss talked about that in the
Speaker 1: last section of his twenty eighteen book Fourth and Nuss Revolution.
Speaker 1: He talked about Internet of things, everything being linked in
Speaker 1: and everything being tokenized for the purpose of control. So
Speaker 1: the idea then again the Gaeian dialectic synthesis. There's a problem,
Speaker 1: you either accelerate the problem or you clash it against
Speaker 1: something else, and then you have the ready made solution
Speaker 1: that you wanted all along. So that's the key point
Speaker 1: here is that they want to blow up the old system,
Speaker 1: whether it's education, whether it's economics, whether it's the nation state,
Speaker 1: whether it's voting, all of it. Oh, look how bad
Speaker 1: it was. See how it was a subject to human
Speaker 1: frailty and human emotions and people, you know, corrupt to politicians.
Speaker 1: We can fix all that. The algorithms are going to
Speaker 1: run at all, and it's going to be a perfect system.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I I think they have to. You know
Speaker 2: what I pointed out my article that I think that
Speaker 2: this is a global plan, but I think they really
Speaker 2: want to. I use the reference of Phoenix the Republic
Speaker 2: in order to and then the West right, So that's
Speaker 2: why they keep using the illusion of democracy. The United
Speaker 2: States is not a democracy, so right off the bat,
Speaker 2: that tells you they want a revolution. But then of
Speaker 2: course the democracy concept is really important because they do
Speaker 2: want to target the West, and most of the West
Speaker 2: is democracy. And of course they want to use the
Speaker 2: blueprint of some of these surveillance states that are already
Speaker 2: set up in the East. And all of these movements
Speaker 2: talk about scalability, whether it's going to be you know,
Speaker 2: they talk about planetary scalability, that term planetary right, the
Speaker 2: planetary citizen. That's a Robert Mueller.
Speaker 1: Planets are faking gay, so space is faking gay, so
Speaker 1: you can't you can. I'm not it's a jug, but
Speaker 1: I will think that when I say that, who doesn't
Speaker 1: believe planet's are real? It's a dumb joke.
Speaker 2: Yes, right, well there's that too, But the planetary citizen. Actually,
Speaker 2: you know, Robert Mueller in his like two thousand that
Speaker 2: became four thousand, maybe it went on to be seven
Speaker 2: thousand ideas, I don't know. He fancied himself quite the visionary,
Speaker 2: but it was totally predicated on the worst of Alice Bailey.
Speaker 2: That you know, when you talked about christ consciousness, that
Speaker 2: comes straight out of Alice Bailey and Madame Blavatsky, they
Speaker 2: use that term, but he his whole world core curriculum
Speaker 2: comes straight out of the Education in the New Age
Speaker 2: Alice Bailey's work. But he talks about in that document
Speaker 2: like I did just a quick scan and I already
Speaker 2: got to close to one hundred times where he's planetary citizen.
Speaker 2: And I think it was very heavily influenced by Abraham Maslow.
Speaker 1: Actually, Abraham madd also sounds like Gene Roddenberry and Star Trek,
Speaker 1: And somebody was talking the other day about some of
Speaker 1: the really really wild stuff that Gene Roddenberry was influenced by. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I was going.
Speaker 2: To say, you know, very I'm sure your audience is familiar.
Speaker 2: But Abraham Maslow wrote a document that was posthumously published
Speaker 2: published and it was called Politics three. And this was
Speaker 2: his wife, Bertha, had brought it to Willis Harmon and
Speaker 2: Robert Canter, and it was right around the same time
Speaker 2: that they were doing Changing Images of Man with Stanford
Speaker 2: Research Institute. So I thought that was kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: Mas work with is a lot of people don't know.
Speaker 2: Yes, And so that whole positive psychology movement which has
Speaker 2: a kind of ties to Game B as well, because
Speaker 2: Stuart Brand right right on the cover of the front
Speaker 2: page of that Game Be Wiki, he says, we are gods,
Speaker 2: we better get good at it. That was the opening
Speaker 2: for his Whole Earth magazine back in I think it
Speaker 2: was nineteen sixty eight, and then he updates it in
Speaker 2: twenty fifteen, we are gods, we might as well get
Speaker 2: good at it something very similar, And he's now affiliated
Speaker 2: with the long Now Foundation. Right the long Now does
Speaker 2: all those dialogues with people like Jonathan Hat and Jonathan
Speaker 2: Hate is kind of a you know, a disciple of
Speaker 2: of Abraham Maslow. Some of the younger crops are people
Speaker 2: like Scott Barry Kaufman, so they're using that humanist movement.
Speaker 2: Of course, a Jason to Escelin as well as the
Speaker 2: positive psychology movement usher in a lot of these ideas
Speaker 2: and concepts, and Game B is very much wrapped in
Speaker 2: all of that. But the Document of Politics three he
Speaker 2: enters this term of holistic politics, which I very much
Speaker 2: think you was a part of what the UN ran
Speaker 2: with with their planetary politics. And in Game B they
Speaker 2: talk about planetary scale, and of course, you know, the
Speaker 2: goal for the Dark Enlightenment is the same, and the
Speaker 2: Network States is of course, you know, it's a worldwide vision.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, I'm looking at your conclusion here. You
Speaker 1: talk about the idea of centralized crypto elites, ideological gamekeepers,
Speaker 1: and then you point out that really the only defense,
Speaker 1: and I'd totally agree, is that mental liberty, cognitive liberty,
Speaker 1: you know, self sovereignty is really the only option here.
Speaker 1: And that I mean just even the Internet off and
Speaker 1: spending so much we've Jamie and I've been talking about
Speaker 1: this this week, just how much time we spend on
Speaker 1: the Internet, even though yeah, it's our job, you know,
Speaker 1: it's how we make a living, but even that is,
Speaker 1: like I feel like it's just way too much, and
Speaker 1: there's a real danger. I think that the Internet itself
Speaker 1: is this potential future you know, octopus monstrosity that will
Speaker 1: basically it's a web spider's web. I know that's kind
Speaker 1: of a cornball analogy, but it's like I'm almost starting
Speaker 1: to think that, like, you know, when we're able to retire,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we should just try to spend as
Speaker 1: the future will be a new set of elites who
Speaker 1: actually don't spend much time on the Internet. How's that?
Speaker 2: I think so well, we already have even the tech
Speaker 2: elites who won't let their children.
Speaker 1: On the terry exactly. And I mean this, yeah, this
Speaker 1: came out with like Steve Jobs, right, he wouldn't let
Speaker 1: his kids even look at an iPad.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I know my husband dreams of the day when
Speaker 2: we are off the grid. That's very much is a fantasy.
Speaker 2: So hopefully we can make that a reality at some
Speaker 2: point in the future. The other metaphor that I use
Speaker 2: is of the phoenix. And part of how I found
Speaker 2: out about Game B was because Brett Weinstein did this
Speaker 2: very interesting speech with the Rescue of the Republic and
Speaker 2: again to talk about very deceptive types of movements. Right,
Speaker 2: we had the medical freedom movement, which he was a
Speaker 2: huge part of, and you know, the freedom movement in general.
Speaker 2: That people perceive him as being a right winger, and
Speaker 2: he is a very progressive self admittedly, you know, ideologically.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll never understood why that people would think he's
Speaker 1: a right winger. It's like it's like if you speak
Speaker 1: out on one topic, oh is it right? Like like
Speaker 1: Bill Maher is suddenly a right winger now because he
Speaker 1: I don't know, said one thing about the left being crazy.
Speaker 1: That doesn't make you right winger because the left's crazy.
Speaker 2: No, I mean, it's I think that was a huge
Speaker 2: part of I know this isn't popular, but I said
Speaker 2: this pretty early on in my whole podcast thing that
Speaker 2: the whole woke anti woke was a dialectical operation. Intentionally,
Speaker 2: it's to trap people in that conversation because a lot
Speaker 2: of the people who were anti woke, it's not that
Speaker 2: they were conservative or you know, in any fashion, it's
Speaker 2: just that, you know, they argued very logical things like, yeah,
Speaker 2: a woman's a woman, man's a man, and why are
Speaker 2: we discussing craziness?
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, if that's far right, that's just insane.
Speaker 1: I mean, dialectics is just all the time at work
Speaker 1: in this in this nonsense, because reality is complex, it's nuanced,
Speaker 1: and you know, human nature prefers ease and simplicity. It's lazy,
Speaker 1: it doesn't want to get into things that are nuanced,
Speaker 1: and what's a very simple or who's the good guy,
Speaker 1: who's the bad guy? That's that's all they want.
Speaker 2: Exactly, and they want you to distill it for them.
Speaker 2: So he did this speech at the rescue of the Republic,
Speaker 2: which was this kind of like medical freedom and Jason
Speaker 2: type of movement. And then at the end of the
Speaker 2: speech he makes this statement which was very strange to me.
Speaker 2: He's talking about the West through the whole statement, which
Speaker 2: is strange at a rescue the Republic, right, it's supposed
Speaker 2: to be about the United States of America, where it's
Speaker 2: not the whole West. Not that I don't you know,
Speaker 2: support the West, but you know, this is and obviously
Speaker 2: we grew out of the West, but it's the Republic,
Speaker 2: and so that's very specific. And he keeps talking about
Speaker 2: the West, not the Republic. But he ends the speech
Speaker 2: with about five minutes talk and he starts his you know,
Speaker 2: entry to the conclusion is that we have to phoenix
Speaker 2: the Republic. And I was like, whoa, whoa, whoa, what
Speaker 2: does you mean by this? You know, that's that's a
Speaker 2: strange statement. And he goes on to say how we
Speaker 2: have basically have to tear it down and you know,
Speaker 2: build it up because of the you know, because of
Speaker 2: the trajectory that we're on, and he uses the whole
Speaker 2: evolutionary biology analogy of how you know, when biology we
Speaker 2: have this uh, you know, genetic traits that are passed through, uh,
Speaker 2: you know, the these species, and but we don't have
Speaker 2: that now, so we need to tear down and basically
Speaker 2: tear it down so we can build back better. But
Speaker 2: I had looked, it's a rumor, and I cannot find
Speaker 2: the video, so I can't corroborate this. But apparently a
Speaker 2: year earlier it would make sense. Again, this is hearsay,
Speaker 2: so I don't know if it's true, but I do
Speaker 2: know it is true that he was a keynote speaker
Speaker 2: at this United Independence which, by the way, is Christopher Life,
Speaker 2: who is the founder of this United Independence movement, which
Speaker 2: encompasses people like Andrew Yang and the Forward Party and
Speaker 2: lots of other quote unquote independent movements which are not
Speaker 2: really independent at all. But Christopher Life is a game
Speaker 2: be advocate and also worth noting very tied in with
Speaker 2: Charles Eisenstein sacred economics, which is where tokenized economics is
Speaker 2: going under the spiritual kind of concept of sacred economic
Speaker 2: and Charles Ezenstein was also the running Arf Case campaign,
Speaker 2: and so that's fourth noting. And in this United Independence
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, supposedly the title of Brett Weinstein's keynote
Speaker 2: speech was what was it the self governance and Phoenix
Speaker 2: and the Republic. Now again I can't corroborate that's the
Speaker 2: name of the speech, but in my article I do
Speaker 2: have a picture of the phoenix. In this twenty twenty
Speaker 2: three you have to go to the way back because
Speaker 2: it's kind of paywallt now the site of it. He
Speaker 2: talks about independence rising above the ashes a failing system,
Speaker 2: and I just so I saw this in the Independent.
Speaker 2: You know, it's what I call indie sphere. It's really
Speaker 2: non truly independent. For those who aren't familiar with my
Speaker 2: reference on this, it's that I come from a film background,
Speaker 2: and in the film industry it's very different now because
Speaker 2: of the distribution models have completely changed. But you know,
Speaker 2: back in the day, you had kind of the big
Speaker 2: like Hollywood studios and obviously these are your big blockbuster films,
Speaker 2: and you know, huge hundred you know, multiple hundred million
Speaker 2: dollar projects, and then you had like truly independent. So
Speaker 2: this might be a student film, this might be somebody
Speaker 2: in their basement to scramble together resources and some cash
Speaker 2: and made a project, and you had what I called
Speaker 2: what we're called indie films, and these might be five
Speaker 2: one to twenty million dollar project. I don't know about you,
Speaker 2: but you know, if I want to make a film,
Speaker 2: I don't have even one million dollars in my back
Speaker 2: pocket to do you know, a vanity project. I just don't,
Speaker 2: and most people don't. So oftentimes what happened was these
Speaker 2: quote unquote indie projects were backed and they became a
Speaker 2: propaganda vehicles. Now I'm not saying the artists knew that
Speaker 2: or that they were wittingly advancing some sort of a
Speaker 2: propaganda machine, but the people who were investing in them
Speaker 2: were investing in them for those purposes. And then seeing
Speaker 2: this replicated in the media right now, where we have
Speaker 2: a lot of people who look independent, but they're getting
Speaker 2: funding and they're inde So whether it's being propped up
Speaker 2: through algorithms, it's also it's often a hybrid, you know,
Speaker 2: of modalities, so you know, that's a you know, it's
Speaker 2: a combination of things. It's not usually just one thing.
Speaker 2: Sometimes it is like, oh, they're backed by foreign interests
Speaker 2: and they're they're pumped up. It's usually not quite that simple.
Speaker 2: It's usually much more nuanced than that. However, I saw
Speaker 2: in this this indie sphere of the media. These people
Speaker 2: who keep talking about the two party you know, illusion
Speaker 2: how there's a problem with the two party system. Now
Speaker 2: I'm not saying that they're not correct. Even George Washington
Speaker 2: warned us against the two but they're going to.
Speaker 1: Give you the false solution because it's a.
Speaker 2: Real problem, yes, exactly. And that's what I'm seeing with this.
Speaker 2: And so now to see that this United Independence is
Speaker 2: actually using the symbol of the phoenix, they're saying, and
Speaker 2: they're actually calling it Operation Phoenix, and they're using the
Speaker 2: whole agenda is to flood Congress in twenty twenty six
Speaker 2: with quote unquote independence. And these independents again are you know,
Speaker 2: people who support things like using blockchain voting and UBIS
Speaker 2: and so it's it's technocratic even though it seems more socialists,
Speaker 2: but it's scientific socialism, which.
Speaker 1: Is yeah exactly. Guys, won't remind you that we have
Speaker 1: a show sponsor, which is Chalk dot com. Head it
Speaker 1: over to chalk dot com and use a promo co
Speaker 1: Jay four zero to get forty percent off all those
Speaker 1: great Chalk products, including the ton Catalie proven it a
Speaker 1: boost testosterone in purview studies which you can read over
Speaker 1: at chalk dot com. We also have the nano fiber
Speaker 1: tech that you can swallow, which will make you into
Speaker 1: a transhumanist deity. It's only twenty three bitcoin right now.
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. We don't have that. That's a joke.
Speaker 1: I wanted to blow your minds with the fake products.
Speaker 1: And people always ask about that ad. They're like, why
Speaker 1: do you have that weird ad of the guy talking
Speaker 1: about chalk with the Indian voice and the woman's voice.
Speaker 1: That's a joke ad on purpose that the Chalk dude
Speaker 1: made because we thought it was funny. So yes, it's
Speaker 1: a real ad, but it's a joke, real ad, so
Speaker 1: it's levels of meta that nobody's even gonna understand. Spireau
Speaker 1: Fhiloropolis twenty pounds. He says, this is timely. I hope
Speaker 1: people are paying attention to this. On my streams, I
Speaker 1: go over how these people infect the world that we
Speaker 1: write as programmers. It's very insidious. It's literally in their code.
Speaker 1: Stay safe, Yeah, I think that. Like even Jack Dorsey
Speaker 1: had this interesting comment. He said that it's not really
Speaker 1: AI that we should be worried about in the sense
Speaker 1: of what's the danger right now? It's that the algorithms
Speaker 1: are controlling and steering you into what they want you
Speaker 1: to see, what they want you to know, and shuttling
Speaker 1: away anything that they don't want to see it. So,
Speaker 1: actually we're governed by algorithms, and I mean AI is
Speaker 1: basically that too. But I mean that's the problem here,
Speaker 1: is like it's eventually going to shut out anything that
Speaker 1: they don't want in the discord.
Speaker 2: Algocracy.
Speaker 1: Oh there exactly straight why mailfa dollars? By the way,
Speaker 1: support the stream if you guys want to with super chats,
Speaker 1: you can send superchests natively through YouTube or through stream labs.
Speaker 1: The link is linked there at the top of the chat.
Speaker 1: This check is awesome, she gets it. Well, you have
Speaker 1: a huge fan there, Courteney and straight white male Gary G.
Speaker 1: Five dollars. Please have Courtney show some more of her
Speaker 1: books that she's read on this topic that are recent.
Speaker 1: For example, does she have books on Plan B, dark
Speaker 1: Enlightenment or anything like that?
Speaker 2: All right, so game B is Game B does not
Speaker 2: have books, But there are a lot of people in
Speaker 2: the movement and they have books, so you know some
Speaker 2: of the people and they have no shortage of podcasts.
Speaker 2: If that's your thing. They do dialgos, so I would
Speaker 2: probably start with I did do a three and a
Speaker 2: half hour presentation, so if long presentations are your thing,
Speaker 2: I did it for Rising Tide Foundation on Game B.
Speaker 2: And so that's a kind of an overview and be
Speaker 2: from my perspective, which is admittedly a critical perspective on
Speaker 2: Game B, but it's pretty extensive. Then in that presentation,
Speaker 2: I showed half of a film that you can go
Speaker 2: watch the full length film, and I recommend if this
Speaker 2: is something you're curious about, that you check it out.
Speaker 2: It's on the STOA, which is a Game B kind
Speaker 2: of a forum. They do other things as well, but
Speaker 2: the STOA on YouTube, and they have a film it's
Speaker 2: I think it's eighteen nineteen minutes and it's called Initiation
Speaker 2: to Game B. As if that doesn't say everything, it's
Speaker 2: an initiation to Game B. And so you can watch
Speaker 2: that film. That'll give you a really good kind of
Speaker 2: overview of what Game B is. There's Jim Rutt, so
Speaker 2: I would look at he's got a lot. They love medium,
Speaker 2: so they use medium as their platform. There's he has
Speaker 2: a Journey to Game B where he outlines it. He's
Speaker 2: I think he started it maybe twenty eighteen, but he's
Speaker 2: updated it since and it's pretty extensive. It's very long,
Speaker 2: it's interesting. In it, he predicts that the proto game
Speaker 2: b's are going to be in twenty forty, which I
Speaker 2: think is really interesting. I'm sorry, twenty forty five, which
Speaker 2: I think is really interesting because right, that's the AI
Speaker 2: world society. That is also the Singularity, Right, that's he says,
Speaker 2: that's when the proto games are going to murder. I
Speaker 2: just think that's a it was an interesting time marker. Uh.
Speaker 2: So there's that. You can look at a lot of
Speaker 2: his writing, mostly in those that format medium. Uh. There
Speaker 2: is also Jordan Hall. He has deep Code and he's
Speaker 2: both on medium and substack. His Sibyan project I will
Speaker 2: give you a really good understanding of game b. Uh.
Speaker 2: There's also Daniel Schmockenberger. Interestingly enough, a bunch of these people,
Speaker 2: the game b people are actually members of the Club
Speaker 2: of Rome. We've got Zach Stein, We've got Noura Basin.
Speaker 2: Nora Bason is the daughter of Gregory and Gregory bateson
Speaker 2: Mead and so there there's also the Office of the Future.
Speaker 1: Uh.
Speaker 2: This is the institute that was created under Barbara Marx,
Speaker 2: Barbara Marx Hubbard and the uh what do they call
Speaker 2: the cosmo erotic Humanists. The three of them the trio
Speaker 2: make up David Temple, which was this you know, pseudonym
Speaker 2: that they created in order not to have any kind
Speaker 2: of rivalry, right so that it could be a collaborative
Speaker 2: high mind project essentially, And that's zach Stein. Kenneth Wilburg.
Speaker 2: Kenneth Wilber is another big one, his integral theory, integral platform.
Speaker 2: He's written several books as well, so you can read
Speaker 2: his work. And then of course Danish Schmanckenberger was the
Speaker 2: other one. So there are many more game b people,
Speaker 2: but those are some of the big ones who have
Speaker 2: done quite a bit of writing as well as dialoguing
Speaker 2: and podcasting. So you can look at there where Curtis
Speaker 2: Jarvin has no shortage of written material. You can get
Speaker 2: his online Unqualified Reservations going all the way back to
Speaker 2: two thousand and seven. You can actually buy the book.
Speaker 2: I think I have links to it in my article,
Speaker 2: but it's all online for free as well if you
Speaker 2: prefer that. Some of it is on the way back machine,
Speaker 2: because I think you know, things like when the alternative
Speaker 2: to the humane alternative to genocide are not so popular
Speaker 2: ideas now some of this seem to be you know,
Speaker 2: taken off, but he has that. He also has this
Speaker 2: Gray Mirror substack, which is more recent, and he has
Speaker 2: copious writings there which will give you really a lot
Speaker 2: of insight into his work. Nick Land does have some books.
Speaker 2: He also has his Xenosystems blogs that goes back at
Speaker 2: least a decade, and he has now Gothic Zeno is
Speaker 2: his updated version of that. So and then Belaji Shrina
Speaker 2: Boston has the Network State Book. It's both available online
Speaker 2: and in kindle form. So and then all of the
Speaker 2: people are you know who? They're ideological and intellectual mentors.
Speaker 2: Obviously I could probably compile a whole list, but that's
Speaker 2: probably a good start for people. I know that was long.
Speaker 1: Jamel says, for ten dollars, how do we guard against influencers?
Speaker 1: I used to listen to Red Scare and I saw
Speaker 1: it turned the right over the years. Well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 1: in the regards I never listened to Red Scares, So
Speaker 1: I don't know what. I don't doubt that, but I'm saying,
Speaker 1: how do you guard against it? Just guard your mind, dude,
Speaker 1: guard your Internet time Spireau the Master Programmer ten dollars.
Speaker 1: If you look at AI and the code and the
Speaker 1: mathematical science behind it, AI can never be sentient and
Speaker 1: not buy into Yeah, we totally agree with that. Jam
Speaker 1: Al twenty dollars. What about Protestantism is an attractor of
Speaker 1: these intellectuals like Jordan hall Well, Protestism is very uh
Speaker 1: di I y. I mean anybody can be a Protestant minister,
Speaker 1: starts your own church, open up a so it's very
Speaker 1: amenable to a business model kind of Christianity.
Speaker 2: I think he's actually a Baptist. I don't know if
Speaker 2: that falls under Protestantism.
Speaker 1: But I think Baptists are Protestants. I mean everything that's
Speaker 1: you know, not Catholic or Orthodox, therefore Protestant by necessity
Speaker 1: because it all comes out of the Reformation historically. Is
Speaker 1: Orthodoxy inoculated to this No, I mean anybody is susceptible
Speaker 1: to falling into any kind of error, So you're not
Speaker 1: inoculated just because you're Orthodox that you wouldn't fall into
Speaker 1: subversion or deception or ignorance. I mean everybody is susceptible
Speaker 1: to this straight white male ten dollars.
Speaker 2: Discord Peter and sorry Peter Cheel and Drew and Hall.
Speaker 2: We're both referencing Orthodox, I think, to try and deceive
Speaker 2: Orthodox Christians.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I was curious. I don't know if he
Speaker 1: meant Some people were actually wondering if he meant referring
Speaker 1: to like David Patrick carry because Daved Patrick Carey did
Speaker 1: finish his PhD. And it was on a tech and
Speaker 1: transhumanism in Christianity. I don't know whether Teal meant Orthodox
Speaker 1: Eastern Orthodox Christianity, or if you just meant little o
Speaker 1: like fundamentalist Orthodox. So sometimes Orthodox is used in the
Speaker 1: sense of anybody that believes that their position versus the
Speaker 1: Orthodox Church as an institution. I don't know which one
Speaker 1: he meant. Straight white male ten dollars. Does Courtney think
Speaker 1: that people we'll be using Christian nationalism as a vehicle
Speaker 1: to subvert an accurate form of Christian nationalism.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think very much so. I think this movement
Speaker 2: is subversive in nature. I think that that is the purpose.
Speaker 2: But they're really their their primary target right now is
Speaker 2: to subvert the constitution, subvert America.
Speaker 1: Guys be sure and follow Courtney. I'll have all of
Speaker 1: her links below. We've been linking of course, her subsec
Speaker 1: in the chat as we've been covering it, and Courtney
Speaker 1: you can find her over on Twitter. You can find
Speaker 1: her on I'll have all that below. We're not going
Speaker 1: to say the R word here on YouTube because we
Speaker 1: know that YouTube doesn't like the R word. But Courtney,
Speaker 1: anything else you want to leave us with. I know
Speaker 1: that you've got a book that's going to be coming
Speaker 1: out soon. When is that going to be available? I
Speaker 1: definitely want to read that, and I think you should
Speaker 1: probably take this subsecment Heial and put that into a book.
Speaker 2: Well, I am actually I have been approached. I don't
Speaker 2: know if I can quite say, but we'll call him
Speaker 2: the living expert on technocracy. People who know will know
Speaker 2: who that is. He's actually asked me to collaborate. We've
Speaker 2: both written outlines already, so we're meeting tomorrow to move
Speaker 2: forward on that on this particular piece. So that is
Speaker 2: in the works and my book on Hegel's Dialectic and
Speaker 2: astick Jacob Flatter. I'm hoping to have that done by
Speaker 2: September that I have a preview of it up on
Speaker 2: my substack currently, so you want to sneak peak of
Speaker 2: it that's available there, but hopefully by September. What else
Speaker 2: is there going to say? I do think that I
Speaker 2: just want to add one more thing on the Christian nationalism.
Speaker 2: And I'm not a theological expert obviously that I will
Speaker 2: defer to you on that, but I would say that
Speaker 2: I don't see their the ideology and even the theology
Speaker 2: that they're presenting as being commensurate with Christianity. This is
Speaker 2: a very forceful movement. This is a tricky put much
Speaker 2: more bluntly than yeah, than I would have but yes, exactly,
Speaker 2: that's how I And also, by.
Speaker 1: The way, Courtney has done many interviews with our buddy
Speaker 1: Matthew Era, so shout out to Matthew. I saw that you.
Speaker 1: You just have a recent post up there Darwin's Trojan
Speaker 1: Horse with Matthew, and Matthew does a lot of great works,
Speaker 1: so people can go check out Matthew and Courtney's stuff
Speaker 1: and Courtney's substect And I just.
Speaker 2: Did a presentation on this actually yes yesterday the day
Speaker 2: before on this article for and we're having another round
Speaker 2: table this weekend. So cool. The one other thing I
Speaker 2: will add is people if they haven't, I won't give
Speaker 2: it away, but if you haven't seen the movie, what
Speaker 2: is it? Megan?
Speaker 1: Oh? Jamie and I thought it was pretty funny, like
Speaker 1: in a like it it was, I mean, it was
Speaker 1: a horror movie. It was kind of tongue in cheek silly.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we watched it.
Speaker 2: Okay, and I thought it was funny and like a
Speaker 2: Buffy the Vampire Slayer kind of way, like very much
Speaker 2: that kind of humor exactly. Yeah, but a lot of
Speaker 2: these themes and it ends with actually like a game
Speaker 2: be term. I won't give it away for people who
Speaker 2: want to watch it, but.
Speaker 1: It's literally are you talking about the one that came
Speaker 1: out a couple of years ago or the newer re Megan?
Speaker 2: The new one?
Speaker 1: Oh okay, yeah, we haven't seen that one yet.
Speaker 2: Okay. Yeah, so they literally end it with like game
Speaker 2: B terminal.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, now I'm gonna say it too. Also, and
Speaker 1: movies are always very important to the propaganda because that's
Speaker 1: what reaches a lot of the masses. At least for
Speaker 1: maybe now video games are going to take over movies,
Speaker 1: I don't know, but at least we still kind of
Speaker 1: have movies as an important cultural programming phenomena. Guys, I
Speaker 1: will be speaking at the Ludlow Orthodox Conference up there
Speaker 1: in d C. Stafford, Virginia. You can get the tickets
Speaker 1: in the show description. I linked it in the chat
Speaker 1: as well. You can also support me by getting the book,
Speaker 1: which I don't think it'll be ready in July because
Speaker 1: I'm having to do some revisions, so it might be
Speaker 1: September four esoterically with three the books don't I just
Speaker 1: had to rewrite some paragraphs and some sections that were
Speaker 1: they Chris was was right. They were not very well written.
Speaker 1: They needed to be they needed to be readone so
Speaker 1: we got most of that ironed out. I just have
Speaker 1: one last thing to do and then he'll make those
Speaker 1: corrections and hopefully we can get the book out as
Speaker 1: soon as possible. You can, of course, get all the
Speaker 1: other books. We are still behind on book orders, so
Speaker 1: you don't have to message me. I know that you
Speaker 1: guys want your books. I'm going to get them to
Speaker 1: you as quick as possible. I promise you the book
Speaker 1: is done. It will be I mean, for the most
Speaker 1: part it's done. I have to rewrite some sections, but
Speaker 1: I think you guys are gonna like us start Clay
Speaker 1: with three. It's a little bit different, but some of
Speaker 1: the same. It's enough of the same that you'll like it.
Speaker 1: So get your copies of that and get to take
Speaker 1: us to the Ludwell Orthodox Conference. According to do you
Speaker 1: have any engagements or events you're doing anytime soon?
Speaker 2: I want to have one more thing very quickly on
Speaker 2: the other theme that I noticed through all of this,
Speaker 2: So we talked about the kind of like relativism and constructivism.
Speaker 2: The other kind of underlining theme I see in all
Speaker 2: of this is self apotheosis. So it is very much
Speaker 2: aligned with this is what my book is going to
Speaker 2: be about. You know, the gnostic Jacobs Ladder. It really
Speaker 2: is like that's ah, you know, the technological imminicization of
Speaker 2: the esquton is all about making you know that you're
Speaker 2: you're your own God. So I see that throughout everything.
Speaker 4: So yeah, no, I just working on getting these these
Speaker 4: out and uh, yeah we're you know, get back to
Speaker 4: the show and yeah, follow me at Courtneyturner dot com.
Speaker 1: Awesome, And you're on Twitter too, right, Like are you
Speaker 1: more active on any platform over any other platform? Like
Speaker 1: what does it you have like a home base where
Speaker 1: everybody can really.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I'm pretty active on Twitter at Corney Turner my name.
Speaker 2: I just felt like courton Ay, so it is Courtney,
Speaker 2: but Courtenay Turner. I'm pretty active on there. I am
Speaker 2: on Instagram as well, and I'm pretty active there, but
Speaker 2: I don't post as much of the uh you know,
Speaker 2: this type of work just because they they don't love
Speaker 2: me as much. I don't know that any of them
Speaker 2: love me, but you know, so I post more of
Speaker 2: like my fitness content there, more health wellness kind of stuff.
Speaker 2: Do post some of this type of material, but I'm
Speaker 2: definitely active on there as well, and Substack. I'm very
Speaker 2: active on there with all of my articles and stuff.
Speaker 1: So awesome, right well, thank you Courtney a great interview,
Speaker 1: and everybody be sure and follow her and check out
Speaker 1: her materials.
Speaker 2: Thank you,