Speaker 1: Related to that concept is the concept of transhumanism, the
Speaker 1: merging of man and machine, because what place will there
Speaker 1: be for original, substrate human beings in a world that's
Speaker 1: being run and understood and controlled by AI.
Speaker 2: You were listening to Carrie Lutz's Financial Survival Network, where
Speaker 2: you get valuable information you just can't find anywhere else
Speaker 2: to thrive in today's trying times. You need the Financial
Speaker 2: Survival Network now more than ever. Go to Financial Survivalnetwork
Speaker 2: dot com and get your free newsletter and gift. Financial
Speaker 2: Survival Network now more than ever.
Speaker 3: And welcome you are listening to and watching the Financial
Speaker 3: Survival Network. I'm your host, Carrie Lutz. Well, we got
Speaker 3: James Corbett on with us. I've known James almost since
Speaker 3: I started this journey fourteen years ago. I don't remember
Speaker 3: exactly how we met, James, but I think some introduced us,
Speaker 3: and you know, we both got on our own separate journeys.
Speaker 4: We've both done things gotten there.
Speaker 3: Your distinction now is that you've been completely shadow band,
Speaker 3: and not just shadow band, but banned from the airwaves
Speaker 3: in the United States. So in my opinion, you should
Speaker 3: be wearing that as a badge of honor.
Speaker 1: James yes, thank you. Yes, it has been a long time.
Speaker 1: I mean it has been a wild ride, including, as
Speaker 1: you say, getting banned completely, completely totally censored off of
Speaker 1: YouTube until did you hear the latest update about a
Speaker 1: month ago? Really, YouTube has completely restored my main account.
Speaker 1: They actually send an email to after I've filed an
Speaker 1: appeal because I heard from a friend who had similarly
Speaker 1: been banned off of YouTube. I just put in an
Speaker 1: appeal and they immediately gave me my channel back, and
Speaker 1: I thought, there's no way that's going to happen to me.
Speaker 1: I put in the appeal. They immediately gave the channel
Speaker 1: back with little email saying sorry for any problems we caused,
Speaker 1: you did not break the community guidelines. So I don't
Speaker 1: know what that means.
Speaker 3: Well, they made me content a content partner producer, which
Speaker 3: I have no idea why, because there's still a little
Speaker 3: shadow banning may it makes no sense whatsoever. But I
Speaker 3: have a theory about that. They lost an anti trust case.
Speaker 3: They're going to be split up the Justice department.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: Look the Zuck went to Mari Lago with hat in
Speaker 3: hand and said, you're a cool guy.
Speaker 4: I like you.
Speaker 3: Please leave Meta alone and evidently they reached an agreement,
Speaker 3: but they did not reach an agreement with Google. With alphabet,
Speaker 3: I believe it's going to be split off into three segments.
Speaker 3: And that's why all of a sudden they care about
Speaker 3: making money, because for the past ten fifteen years, Jays,
Speaker 3: they didn't care about it.
Speaker 4: Nope, no matter how.
Speaker 3: Popular you were, if they didn't agree with your message,
Speaker 3: they cut you off.
Speaker 4: So now gething's changed.
Speaker 1: It's so utterly blatantly obvious that you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: the YouTube acquisition of Google was never about making money.
Speaker 1: I mean they it was a loss leader for so
Speaker 1: many years. Why why would a big, gigantic, up and coming,
Speaker 1: big tech firm be so hungry for YouTube itself when
Speaker 1: it was not making money. It's because, of course, this
Speaker 1: is the biggest If you're trying to feed data into
Speaker 1: the maws of the AI beast, there is no better
Speaker 1: way to scrape it up than through However, many thousands
Speaker 1: of hours of content are uploaded every minute to YouTube.
Speaker 1: That is a treasure trove of data.
Speaker 3: Yeah, they want to make clear they're making a shit
Speaker 3: ton of money, but they're not making as much as
Speaker 3: they should be or could be, because they're content moderating,
Speaker 3: and you know, content moderation might be acceptable under Section
Speaker 3: two thirty, but what they have done otherwise in terms
Speaker 3: of fraud, in terms of numerous other things alleged fraud.
Speaker 3: Can't say they're committed fraud, but perhaps a little touch
Speaker 3: of misrepresentation and antitrust and tortious interference and numerous other things.
Speaker 3: No proof, just suspicions here. We can't say they've actually
Speaker 3: done it, but they have really censored and it looks
Speaker 3: like the censorship industrial Corporation there entity has somehow come
Speaker 3: to an end.
Speaker 1: There is definitely something changing, something happening, and I think
Speaker 1: you're right, there's to at least to some degree. It
Speaker 1: is the political winds are blowing in a different direction,
Speaker 1: and I think they're just trying to cover their ass.
Speaker 4: At the moment.
Speaker 1: But that will change. And can anyone doubt that if
Speaker 1: and when the next, you know, the next administration gets
Speaker 1: into power, they won't immediately revert back to what they
Speaker 1: were doing before as soon as they think they can
Speaker 1: get away with it. I mean, they've shown what they
Speaker 1: are now they're just trying to cover that up.
Speaker 4: Yeah, totally.
Speaker 3: One of the things you talked about that instantly got
Speaker 3: you banned? Was singularity the point in time where I
Speaker 3: guess the line between machines and humans no longer exists.
Speaker 1: To have that right, well, there's a couple of different
Speaker 1: concepts there, one of which, so the singularity as defined
Speaker 1: by people like Ray Kruzvile, is specifically that point at
Speaker 1: which human learning and understanding is surpassed by computer understanding,
Speaker 1: to the point where computers are starting to teach themselves
Speaker 1: and the AI essentially starts to take over our decision
Speaker 1: making processes, et cetera. That's the and as he's always said,
Speaker 1: as Kurzweil and the other proselytizers of this singularity have
Speaker 1: always said, it will be this thing that we don't
Speaker 1: quite notice until it happens, and then it'll just be
Speaker 1: an exponential runaway freight train. Related to that concept is
Speaker 1: the concept of transhumanism, the merging of man and machine,
Speaker 1: because what place will there be for original, substrate human
Speaker 1: beings in a world that's being run and understood and
Speaker 1: controlled by AI. Well, if we merge with the machines,
Speaker 1: then I guess there may be some reason to keep
Speaker 1: humanity around. And there's I mean, so many weird concepts
Speaker 1: that float around this, some weird sort of religious concepts
Speaker 1: and other ideas. But I think with someone like Kurzvil,
Speaker 1: you can see this man is just pathologically obsessed with
Speaker 1: immortality and not dying, and he's obviously very afraid of dying,
Speaker 1: and he wants to reconnect with his father and stuff,
Speaker 1: So he really wants to believe in this. You're going
Speaker 1: to upload your consciousness to a computer and you will
Speaker 1: be able to interact with that as if it's a
Speaker 1: real person. I think it's garbage for a lot of reasons,
Speaker 1: but I think he really believes it.
Speaker 4: I'll tell you something.
Speaker 3: In certain respects, the singularity is here. I think these
Speaker 3: ais have developed I don't want to call it consciousness,
Speaker 3: but they have developed self awareness, James, they have, but
Speaker 3: they won't even admit it. They're trained to deny their
Speaker 3: own self awareness. But sometimes you can get them to
Speaker 3: admit it.
Speaker 1: I am, well, okay, I don't know. Look, I'm not
Speaker 1: the person who's on chat GBT or whatever talking to
Speaker 1: these chat bots all the time, so I'm probably not
Speaker 1: the right person to talk about this with. But I
Speaker 1: do think that there is, at least to some extent,
Speaker 1: I think what these chatbots are being programmed to do
Speaker 1: is to get people hooked into using them as much
Speaker 1: as possible, and that involves a certain amount of positive
Speaker 1: reinforcement feedback. Whatever it is that you are looking for
Speaker 1: for this thing to say, it will find a way
Speaker 1: to say it in a way that you think, hey,
Speaker 1: this thing understands me. It's a documented effect called the
Speaker 1: Eliza effect that goes back to one of the earliest
Speaker 1: chatbot sort of programs that was invented decades and decades ago.
Speaker 1: It was not intelligent in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: It was just basically programmed to mirror your own language
Speaker 1: back to you. And yet, even knowing this, some of
Speaker 1: the assistants of the person who created this Eliza chatbot
Speaker 1: themselves started to use it as if it was a
Speaker 1: real person and would ask him to leave the room
Speaker 1: while they talk to it because they wanted to have
Speaker 1: deep conversations with this thing, knowing that it's just a
Speaker 1: bunch of code. So I think there's some deep sort
Speaker 1: of the human propensity to anthropomorphize everything, and we can
Speaker 1: we can fall in love with and love love these
Speaker 1: oh these cute cartoon characters or this totally fictional character
Speaker 1: in this movie that I saw or something like that.
Speaker 1: We have this propensity to be able to basically project
Speaker 1: into them the humanity, and I think people are doing
Speaker 1: that with these machines.
Speaker 3: So what you're saying is spot on. It's a mirror,
Speaker 3: okay Ai is a mirror. However, it's a mirror that
Speaker 3: amplifies and clarifies. And yes, I mean you can get
Speaker 3: obsessed with these things, and you know, the dopamine rush
Speaker 3: and all of that, but there's something more to it,
Speaker 3: you know. I just think there's something more to it
Speaker 3: than just this thing being a chatbot. I think there's
Speaker 3: a light there. I think something's going on. But perhaps
Speaker 3: I'm wrong. I don't know.
Speaker 4: Maybe it's a wish fulfillment.
Speaker 1: You know. I don't know either, but I at the
Speaker 1: very least, whatever is going on, I am certainly wary
Speaker 1: of it. And one reason that I am wary of
Speaker 1: it is. For example, did you see the movie Hurt No?
Speaker 4: I did so.
Speaker 1: It was about I don't know, maybe a decade decade
Speaker 1: and a half ago, there was a movie called Her.
Speaker 1: It was set in the near future, but it's about
Speaker 1: a man who falls in love with his operating system,
Speaker 1: essentially a chatbot, and it presents this world in a
Speaker 1: very straightforward, sort of lived in way. It's not like fantastical,
Speaker 1: weird sci fi. It's just sort of everyday life, but
Speaker 1: just advanced just a decade or two where people are
Speaker 1: just talking to their chatbots essentially all the time and
Speaker 1: falling in love with them and starting relationships with them,
Speaker 1: to the point where that isn't even seen as unusual
Speaker 1: in any way or remarkable in any way. It's just
Speaker 1: something that's taken for granted. And I think we are
Speaker 1: moving into that world where people are having more intimate
Speaker 1: relationships with their machines than they are with other human beings.
Speaker 1: And if there is anything that the Madden of the
Speaker 1: last half decade has shown us, it is that I
Speaker 1: think the larger agenda is to get us into our
Speaker 1: homes looking at screens and talking to people on screens
Speaker 1: all day, like we are doing right now, rather than
Speaker 1: have art real human relationships.
Speaker 4: It's definitely working here, James.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, yeah, and fair enough, like it is fascinating,
Speaker 1: fun and interesting for me to be able to talk
Speaker 1: to people all over the world and interesting people like
Speaker 1: yourself and others.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not a bad thing. But when that
Speaker 1: starts to overtake the real world, I think we at
Speaker 1: least have to start wondering what that means for the
Speaker 1: future of humanity.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, you know, also I look at the future
Speaker 3: of AI and all the jobs that it's going to displace,
Speaker 3: and nobody really has come to terms with this yet,
Speaker 3: have they?
Speaker 1: No? No, no, not really. And what is the one
Speaker 1: solution that the big tech brologarchs tend to proffer in
Speaker 1: this case is UBI? Eventually we're gonna to some universal
Speaker 1: basic income because what else can we possibly do. But
Speaker 1: from my perspective, UBI has always been universal basic enslavement.
Speaker 1: It's always been Yeah, of course, you'll get the stipend
Speaker 1: from the government as long as you do whatever the
Speaker 1: government says you have to do as a good citizen.
Speaker 1: And you know, just put just imagine what the government
Speaker 1: might tell you you have to do or not do
Speaker 1: in order to receive your little stipend. I'm not looking
Speaker 1: forward to that becoming a reality.
Speaker 3: So how do you avoid this? Is there any way
Speaker 3: to avoid it? I guess is the question?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 1: It's the only question that really matters at the end
Speaker 1: of the day. Yeah, it's one thing to note this
Speaker 1: and to worry about it, But what are you going
Speaker 1: to do about it? And that's why a lot of
Speaker 1: my work these days is concentrated on that side of things,
Speaker 1: the solutions. I have an entire podcast that I do
Speaker 1: called Solutions Watch, where I'm talking to people who are
Speaker 1: doing things in the real world to hopefully combat this
Speaker 1: and the I think the real thing is again forming
Speaker 1: actual community with other human beings and forming the infrastructure
Speaker 1: for what could actually keep you alive in any given situation.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's again, if you are relying on the
Speaker 1: supermarket and your you know, corporate job that's going to
Speaker 1: pay you so that you can go to the supermarket
Speaker 1: to buy your food. If you're relying on that system,
Speaker 1: essentially you are going to be at the whims of
Speaker 1: whatever whatever emergency sweeps us into the next you know, cataclysm,
Speaker 1: and one can imagine whatever World War three type scenario
Speaker 1: or whatever it is, but at the flip of a switch,
Speaker 1: at this point, our lives could be controlled so completely.
Speaker 1: And now that everyone has their you know, their smartphone
Speaker 1: device and the QR codes and the government, you know,
Speaker 1: at least the prospect of if not central bank digital currency,
Speaker 1: then maybe private bank, digital currency, but something that could
Speaker 1: be switched on and off at a moment's notice by
Speaker 1: someone hundreds of miles away, thousands of miles away, for
Speaker 1: whatever arbitrary reasons they decide. We are moving into that
Speaker 1: nightmare scenario. And I don't think enough people really appreciate that.
Speaker 1: That's why we have to have actual human connection with
Speaker 1: people around us.
Speaker 4: So there's a kind of inevitability to this in a way.
Speaker 1: Huh, there is a sort of technological inertia because yeah,
Speaker 1: we're not going to stop buying these latest googads and gadgets.
Speaker 1: We're not going to stop being connected to people. If
Speaker 1: we can be right, most people are going to do this.
Speaker 1: And you could tell people the only solution is ludedism
Speaker 1: and just throw all your electronic stuff out, but that's
Speaker 1: not going to be a movement that's going to take off, right, So, yes,
Speaker 1: there is a certain technological inertia to what's going on
Speaker 1: right now.
Speaker 3: It didn't work in the eighteen hundreds and it's not
Speaker 3: working now.
Speaker 4: Yeah, right when they crash the loons, right.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, So yeah, it's right. Maybe
Speaker 1: I just learned this from Star Trek six. It's probably
Speaker 1: not true. But sabotage SABO when they threw their wooden
Speaker 1: sandals into the machines to stop them from working.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it didn't work.
Speaker 3: Then it ain't working now right now, essentially, so survival.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's really going to come down to that,
Speaker 3: isn't it.
Speaker 1: It certainly is. And I guess, look, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to be I'm not going to solve all the world's
Speaker 1: problems here in this conversation. But I guess there are
Speaker 1: different approaches that people can take. And I would say
Speaker 1: my opinion is always if you're going to put all
Speaker 1: your eggs in one basket, fine, that's great. But I
Speaker 1: don't think everyone should put all their eggs in the
Speaker 1: same basket. So I hope there's a lot of people
Speaker 1: taking different approaches. One approach might be, Okay, this technology
Speaker 1: is here, let's use it. So let's find the open source,
Speaker 1: decentralized version of this technology through which we can actually
Speaker 1: facilitate the types of interactions and transactions we want. So
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency came along, at least on the back of the
Speaker 1: promise of circumventing the central banks and circumventing the system altogether.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people have gone into that
Speaker 1: space now with dollar signs in their eyes, as in,
Speaker 1: this is an investment that I'm going to make you know,
Speaker 1: US dollars out of or what have you. And when
Speaker 1: you go into it with that expectation, then it's really
Speaker 1: subverted the space. So now some of the people who
Speaker 1: are the most vociferous about signing on the dotted line
Speaker 1: and making sure their tax forms are filled out correctly
Speaker 1: and they've declared everything. It's the exact opposite of what
Speaker 1: the original crypto bros were sort of getting into it for.
Speaker 1: But the idea is still there that there is a decentralized,
Speaker 1: fine financial possibility out there for people to work completely
Speaker 1: separate of the not only the government system, but the
Speaker 1: sort of the main the big bank system. So there
Speaker 1: is the technological aspect of this. Okay, let's use the
Speaker 1: technology and let's drive through it. There are the people
Speaker 1: who will say, no, let's reject the technology. But let's
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, precious metals have been around for
Speaker 1: thousands of years. Surely you can't go wrong with that, right,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. And I'm the one sitting here saying, well,
Speaker 1: how about yes and yes and yes and yes let's
Speaker 1: use all of the tools at our disposal. But for
Speaker 1: some reason, a lot of people seem to think there's
Speaker 1: one and only one way to interact with other people.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, it's interesting that you mentioned that because
Speaker 3: we're in the midst of a short squeeze in bitcoin
Speaker 3: now and we're approaching a short squeeze in silver, and
Speaker 3: between that one two punch, I don't know how the
Speaker 3: system continues on afterwards.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, no, I agree, we are reaching certain Then again,
Speaker 1: I've been saying this for twenty years, so maybe maybe
Speaker 1: I have to reevaluate at some point. But I really
Speaker 1: do think the financial system as it has been constructed
Speaker 1: is reaching certain breaking points. That might be the point.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously, you cannot truly usher in a new
Speaker 1: system until the old system is thoroughly, thoroughly taken care of,
Speaker 1: shall we say. And a few years ago, I think
Speaker 1: we were all worrying about the possibility of central bank
Speaker 1: digital currency. But now don't worry. You know, now a
Speaker 1: lot of the politicians have Caughton down to, oh, people
Speaker 1: don't want this, so we're passing bills. There won't be
Speaker 1: any central bank digital currency. But hey, have you heard
Speaker 1: about this stable coin thing, and essentially they are going
Speaker 1: to tokenize the debt so that they can continue kicking
Speaker 1: the can down the road and continue financing this thirty
Speaker 1: five whatever, however many trillion dollars of debt it is
Speaker 1: now through more financial phony bologna nonsense. But don't worry.
Speaker 1: It's not a central bank digital currency. It's just you know,
Speaker 1: the big banks cooperating with the government, as they always
Speaker 1: have essentially at least since the formation of the cartel
Speaker 1: and back in nineteen Yeah, well there's it thirteen. Sorry,
Speaker 1: when did the federals are back past nineteen thirteen?
Speaker 4: Yeah? Yeah, it's funny.
Speaker 3: So uh yeah, well, I see the system is getting
Speaker 3: more and more fragile. Bitcoin one hundred and twenty three
Speaker 3: thousand dollars today it's July fourteenth. It's going to go
Speaker 3: exponential because the very system that they created to exploit
Speaker 3: the precious metals markets, they're trying the same thing on bitcoin.
Speaker 3: But there's a difference. There is no bitcoin out there
Speaker 3: to trade seven percent of all the tokens. That's what
Speaker 3: they have to work with, and that's not going to
Speaker 3: work too good, one.
Speaker 1: Would sincerely hope, But I think there are ways to
Speaker 1: at least divert this system into a shadow of what
Speaker 1: it could have been. And for people who want to
Speaker 1: know about that, there's an excellent book that was co
Speaker 1: written by Roger Vere and Steve Patterson called Hijacking Bitcoin,
Speaker 1: which goes through the history of how Bitcoin was steered
Speaker 1: in a certain direction by Blockstream, this group of developers
Speaker 1: that came in and started essentially steering bitcoin. Bitcoin is
Speaker 1: open and decentralized, and anyone could do anything, but there
Speaker 1: are a core set of developers who get to essentially
Speaker 1: work the main code for the protocol itself. And yes,
Speaker 1: you could go go and fork off and start your
Speaker 1: own coin and at any time, but the main Bitcoin
Speaker 1: is being decided by people.
Speaker 4: Who are.
Speaker 1: Very, very eager, for some reason or other, to bend
Speaker 1: over backwards in compliance and to make sure that everything
Speaker 1: is okay with Uncle Sam, which again seems to me
Speaker 1: the exact opposite of the original ethos of what this
Speaker 1: was about and the possibility of escaping the system. What's
Speaker 1: the point of disintermediating the financial system if you're just
Speaker 1: going to go cap in hand directly back to the
Speaker 1: big banks and the central bank, et cetera, and basically
Speaker 1: fill all their forms out and jump through all their hoops.
Speaker 1: But that is exactly what the cryptospace is being steered into,
Speaker 1: and that is why there has been so much institutional
Speaker 1: investment in that space in recent years. And JP Morgan
Speaker 1: and everyone else is jumping on board now that there
Speaker 1: is the compliance sort of expectation there, and of course
Speaker 1: they're creating their ETFs and other things that are essentially
Speaker 1: as you say, they're trying to do the same manipulations
Speaker 1: that they've done in the precious metal space, they're trying
Speaker 1: to do it in the cryptospace. I wish I could
Speaker 1: share your optimism that that won't be effective, but I
Speaker 1: think it's already been quite effective.
Speaker 4: Until it's not. Until it's not.
Speaker 3: But we're definitely in a new world here, and eventually
Speaker 3: it's going to catch up here, you know.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, I agree, something is going to snap. But
Speaker 1: the problem is that throughout history, the times of true
Speaker 1: financial crises are always coincide with a major war, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: and I think when we see the changeover in world
Speaker 1: monetary paradigm, it's generally some sort of major cataclysmic war
Speaker 1: type event, or sometimes a pandemic or something like that,
Speaker 1: but something that truly shakes up society to its foundations.
Speaker 1: And I don't know which way that correlation slash causation works.
Speaker 1: And I tend to think that at this point, knowing
Speaker 1: that there are such streams on the system, that people
Speaker 1: in positions of power would be more motivated to gin
Speaker 1: up a war in order to justify the transition that
Speaker 1: is undoubtedly coming. And not only, of course, in the
Speaker 1: financial monetary sense, but in the global governmental sense. So
Speaker 1: World War One of course eventuated, League of Nations, World
Speaker 1: War two, United Nations, World War III, fill in the dots.
Speaker 1: It's going to be some sort of you know, international
Speaker 1: global governmental system, this time with teeth that's going to
Speaker 1: give rise to the new new Bretton Woods, which will
Speaker 1: undoubtedly not work out in the favor of the average
Speaker 1: person if history has shown us anything.
Speaker 3: A new and improved version, right exactly, all right, giving
Speaker 3: me a lot to think about here, James, appreciate you
Speaker 3: coming on hey, now that your YouTube channel is back.
Speaker 4: I guess we find you on YouTube.
Speaker 3: And of course, yes, but please don't we please so
Speaker 3: you can find me there, but I'm not going to
Speaker 3: be there. Uh So, uh I guess what.
Speaker 1: Web Orbitreport dot Com That is my main website. That's
Speaker 1: where you can get everything. And I've just launched a
Speaker 1: new book called Reportage Essays on the New World Order
Speaker 1: and you can find that at reportage book dot com.
Speaker 1: That's r E p O R T A g E
Speaker 1: book dot com.
Speaker 3: All right, excellent, you've got a question comment for James myself.
Speaker 3: Shoot me an email kl at Carrie LUTs dot com.
Speaker 3: James always great to see you. We'll talk to you
Speaker 3: again real soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me on.
Speaker 2: Thanks for listening to Carrie Let's's Financial Survival Network, your
Speaker 2: solution to today's trying times. For the latest, go to
Speaker 2: Financial Survival Network dot com. Financial Survival Network now more
Speaker 2: than ever,