The Last American Vagabond - Charlie Robinson Interview - Two Party Criminality, AI-governance & Political Machinations

Episode Date: March 7, 2025

Joining me once again today is Charlie Robinson, here to discuss the chaos and political madness that has ensued just since last we spoke in February, but as most have come to recognize, in the current political fervor, that is a lifetime of both important developments and meaningless hype that overtakes the conversation for days on end. Charlie and I are going to be connecting on a recurring basis to do our best to break down the propaganda madness in a way that is digestible and by using source material that you can verify for yourself, as you always should.Source Links:(26) Macroaggressions Podcast with Charlie Robinson (@macroaggressio3) / XMACROAGGRESSIONSPodcasts - Activist PostNew TabRFK Jr's Shocking MMR Vaccine Hypocrisy & His Startling Attack On Free Speech(13) The Last American Vagabond on X: "Guys, this has to be the final straw. How can MAHA or MAGA defend this? https://t.co/Qp2Vk2HbD6" / X(10) The Last American Vagabond on X: "Played again. #MAHA https://t.co/Yv16t4EHh1" / XNew Tab(13) Secretary Kennedy on X: "Anti-Semitism – like racism – is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues. In recent years, the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture have transformed our great universities" / X(13) The Last American Vagabond on X: "Here's Trump saying he'll send the DoJ to campuses to stop antisemitism. What's that again about the Right protecting #FreeSpeech? This is the Woke Right (just like the Left) endorsing censorship of protected speech to stop "hate speech". How is that different? #TwoPartyIllusion https://t.co/BvELicPDUd" / X(13) Elise Stefanik on X: "Under President @realDonaldTrump, colleges and universities will be held accountable. Antisemitism and anti-Israel hate will not be tolerated on American campuses. Promises made, promises kept. @POTUS @realDonaldTrump @WhiteHouse https://t.co/h9nq1gVJRO" / XNew TabHow a future Gaza would look under Egypt's $53bn plan | Middle East EyeNew TabU.S. Marshals Service, Managing Billions of Seized Assets, Can't Say How Much Crypto It Holds(31) unusual_whales on X: "U.S. Marshals Service cannot account for billions of dollars’ worth of crypto, per CoinDesk." / XBlockchain 51% Attacks - Lessons Learned for Developers and Trading Platform Operators - Lexology(32) 7SEES on X: "I've been saying this was coming, but people just tell me I'm crazy. Everything everywhere will eventually be on Blockchain, and it won't be for freedom or transparency, it will be for control and only control. Begin setting up local networks for trading commodities now, https://t.co/ckTpJPtHDN" / XNew Tab‘It’s Infuriating’: Bondi Confirms All Epstein Files Are In, Details What Could Be Redacted | The Daily CallerFBI Refuses To Produce Evidence On Seth Rich Laptop | ZeroHedge‘A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza‘Lavender’: The AI machine directing Israel’s bombing spree in GazaPeter Thiel: Palantir, Israel Agree Strategic Partnership for Battle Tech - BloombergElection 2024: Zionist Technocrats vs Zionist TechnocratsBitcoin Donations Are Appreciated:www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/bitcoin-donation(3FSozj9gQ1UniHvEiRmkPnXzHSVMc68U9f)The Last American Vagabond Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to The Last American Vagabond Substack at tlavagabond.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen. Joining me today again is Charlie Robinson from macroaggressions. I'm looking forward to hopefully making this a regular occurrence. I really enjoy the conversations that we have and we're just kind of breaking down all the madness that seems to go on. And jokingly, yesterday we were talking about what we might discuss. And I said, well, by tomorrow, there's probably going to be an entirely new field of crazy things to discuss.

And it just, it seems like every day that's how it is. So find Charlie Robinson to have an interesting view on a lot of this stuff. So let's have them on to discuss the maddening. of the world today. How are you, brother? Well, I'm fantastic, but you're correct that we just have to wait a full day, a full news cycle, and everything will change. Everything that was important, desperately important just a day ago. Now, it's magically just fades away. And it's, let's focus on what Trump said last night at the event that he had, where all the leftists lost their minds. You know, it's funny. I didn't even, I purposely sort of boxed that out last night.

And I haven't looked at it today. I bet you if I had that you're right. It's just all these different, but I can already see that's kind of consuming the conversation. It really doesn't ever stop. It's just one. And I think there's a very clear, like, engineered aspect of that, you know, to like overtake the conversation and hide some of the bigger things. It never stops. It's like when you, when the media releases bad news or corporations release bad news on Friday afternoons, because they know it'll get buried by the weekend, you know that if they've got something that's, that's unpopular, like, let's roll it out the day before. We'll let the media have it for a couple hours and then we'll we'll pivot into the uh you know trump's big address to

the nation and that will overshadow everything or you know we could or you know the missing two point three trillion dollars and then 9-11 the next day you know how that goes right right all coincidence so so if if you have thoughts on on what happened since i haven't even looked into it at all i'm curious to see if you have any thoughts on it i did see that there was um a lot of height beforehand about like i you know i i again i'm actually going to say very clearly this is all secondhand Like I didn't look. Somebody had told me that there were reports, but it was through corporate media,

partisan media about how the Democrats were going to be making noise and trying to disrupt. And I'm like, that doesn't surprise me if that would make the case, but how childishly stupid? And if that actually happened. So did you watch any of it? Did that happen?

I did not watch it. I just saw some of the clips. I said there was some guy that made a, made some sort of a ruckus and they threw him out to. Congressman? You know, I don't know who he was because he didn't look familiar to me. Okay.

That doesn't mean anything. But, but he, He looked lost. He looked like somebody that, you know, shouldn't have been there. But I guess they na, nod him, hey, hey, goodbye as they were throwing him out, which is kind of funny. Yeah. There was, you know, the typical unexpected or completely expected to sour puss Democrats that were arms crossed sitting down the whole time.

I guess one of the things that they did was they brought out some 13-year-old kid who had recovered from cancer and wanted to be a police officer and they made a big thing about him. And then the Democrats sat for it while everyone else stood up and clapped. And then Nicole Wallace was on with Rachel Maddow and they talked about like, I hope this kid doesn't kill himself because everyone's like, what? What are you talking about? It was very weird. They've lost their mind. It's fun to watch them get exposed for, but you know, they sell themselves the hardcore left as being compassionate. We're just about the people and how dare you. We're standing up for the for the and the first chance they get to show their their true colors that it comes right out.

There's no compassion there. They just want it to go their way. And if you're outside of that, then they want you to die. You know, it's it's gross, but not not, not too, not too surprising. And I would say it's always not unique to the partisan left for the same exact dynamic. It's interesting, though. It's more like you're right. It's more about like, like the, you know, bleeding heart idea of the Lentwood versus the rights more like, we're fighting for your freedom and liberty. Neither of them are true, in my opinion. It's all just about trying to control your life.

But yeah, but that's interesting, though. Like it's just sad to see. And actually give me your thought on this, you know, that this kind of, it's never the real picture on either side of it. It's always like this cartoonish, like you and I could go through the many real gripes and criminal actions of everybody in that room. And instead, that's about like. you know, his racism and it's about his, you know, over here, it's about their woke policy.

You know, it's just funny how it's like, man, there's so much real crime. And do you think that shows that they're all choosing to omit those stuff? Are they in the mindset that that's actually what matters? And that would show me that they're all controlled by something else. I mean, how do you look at that? Yeah, I mean, if we were going to have a real honest conversation about the rampant criminality inside that room, everybody would get put up against the wall and get frisked. You know what I mean?

They're all, maybe maybe not Thomas Massey. I don't know. We'll see. Yeah, it's funny. You say that, though. I'm like kind of going, yes, but I'm so pessimistic for government. I'm like, I'm not going to let myself have hope for that. I know, I know.

I feel the same way. Like, I like him. I want to like him. I feel like I should like him. But I also remember, you know, Dr. Ron Paul is that way, too. I mean, he's the only guy who could, I've seen him three different times at an narcapulco bring the house down, you know, by going up there. And you would normally think if I were to just read off the list, you know, he had 20 years

Republican in Congress from Texas. to bring them up to the stage, you'd rightly get booed, of course, if you just, but it's Dr. Ron Paul, who is always consistent in his views and was in was outspoken against the things that, that I think freedom loving people actually care about sound money and get the government off my neck and things like that. But I mean, they'll, they'll allow them to, you know, pontificate about who's the most racist person inside that room or who doesn't want to fight for our freedoms or some ridiculous Barnum statement like that. But if we wanted to actually get down to the criminality that's happening in there, that never gets really talked about. And that's, that's a, that's bipartisan

decision. But they know, like if, if I start pulling on this thread over here on that guy, it eventually will lead back to the person who's been giving me a bunch of money and I don't really need that heat. And so let's just leave it alone. So right. That's the, that's the, that's the whole, you know, uh, one nation or blackmail. Like it's all, they're all mafioso at this point is what it really seems like. And there's like, it's kind of like the, uh, the self enforcement. You know, that's kind of how I see it where, you know, that they're all, there's a level, allowable level of criminality, but they actually mostly probably hate each other, but there's things they just know they won't touch on because then they can be held accountable too. And, but, you know, there's been deviations

in that. Like, and I think there's a reason for that. And I, I tend to think it's from outside influence, but that we've seen those shifts from the last like three, from Trump to Biden to Trump. We've seen some different shifts where, for example, both of them have done things to the, you know, that Biden did something to Trump and then Trump did something to Biden. Like, usually the game has been like where we don't go after the previous guy because that means that you'll go after, but we've seen some shifts in that way. And I just, I don't really know what that means. I tend to think it's because it's, you know, it's always who benefits, right? If you can see that neither side's benefiting where the government here isn't benefiting from it, you wonder who is and

who's driving that, you know? I think there's a genuine, I mean, there's very, very few components of Washington, D.C. that I find to be genuine hatred of Trump. I think a lot of these people view him as the guy who could come in and mess up their grift or start talking about it's just easy. There's an unpredictable. And I understand that there's script, you know, a lot of it is scripted. But there is, you know, he does kind of go off the script from time to time and start talking about things that makes people very nervous. And I think that there's a legitimate hate. I don't think that the, the Rachel Maddows of the world are faking. I agree.

I think they legitimately despise him. They may have a variety of reasons for that. But I don't think that that part is theater. I think that maybe that we're gonna,

you know, you'd be in jail, you know, locking up Hillary Clinton. I think that is theater at the highest level. Well, as far as like the talking heads,

sorry. You could add to the same point though that he probably means that probably doesn't like them, but whether it was ever actually going to happen was theater. Right. Exactly.

Yeah. Yeah, that's just, it's an interesting point because ultimately, you know, the, it's the same point. It's the kind of, you know, I think they, I think it's personal, you know, where by back and forward, there are very clear political worldview differences between left and right. I think it comes down to whether it's an Israeli control or technocracy or, you know, whatever you think or just the deep state, whatever's like the guiding force clearly is, you know, ultimately what they bow to. You know what I mean?

Like, where it's like, it's kind of like the great reset thing we saw with the world, where my opinion is we saw a lockstep. Russia, China, like adversarial on the surface countries all go in the same direction and act in unison. And so how do you miss that? You know, to me, it's because all of them are like, okay, all of these tools will help me better control my own people, help me subjugate my people. And so we'll go in so far as we can use those tools and we'll feign that we're going in these directions. But the moment that it goes against what we want, we'll probably, you know, and we did see that to some degree.

You know, and so that's what I really think it comes down to. They're all in line when it comes to control over your lives. Sure. Yeah. There's a lot of that, a lot of that top-down authoritarianism that these countries really love. And they would love an excuse for more of it. And if somebody like the Weft gives them the opportunity to do that or the, you know, the World Health Organization says, well, listen, you can outsource this authoritarianism to us at the WHO and we'll do it for you.

They go, okay, fine. I mean, as long as you control our people, I can live with that. And the minute it becomes sort of detrimental to their, their personal, their, their country's sort of nationalistic needs. And it's like, well, you know, maybe I'm not going to take part in all of this. I mean, because Russia, as you said, Russia was was deeply involved in the world economic forum. Then they're, then surprisingly, now they're the enemy. And everything that they do is, is, is the worst thing you've ever seen in the world. So it's funny how they can, they come together from time to time. I think George Carlin talked about this, you know, 30 years ago. There isn't necessarily a need for, you know, people for a big meeting where they all get together. Yeah, sure, they have the Davos and they have, you know, they get together at the UN and whatnot. But these people that are at the tops, they don't need to be told what's in their best interest. They know what's in their best interest.

And they're willing to work with other countries as long as it supports what's inside their interest. So as far as like, we're going to all sit down and have a meeting and talk about it in secret. sure, that does happen with Bill DeBergs and in these events that have been going on for 70 years. But it's also not completely necessary because at the highest levels, they understand what's in their best interest and they'll move accordingly. Yeah. Again, back to like the mafia point. You can see, you know, there's different section, whatever you call it, families, you know,

of different groups. They don't act in, but they are times when they act for the betterment of the actual mafia, you know, dynamic. And, you know, and that's the whole self-examination. enforcement, right? It's where, you know, and this is what I see politicians as. Like, it's certainly possible that that is the mafia today. They just decided to go, hey, you guys got a lock on this. I see what you're doing.

I'm going to put a suit on and act like on that, you know, and the point is if somebody stands up and starts being too criminal, you know, like I often see Gavin Newsom playing that role where he's like takes things a little too far, right? Stats out like, does the thing before everyone's ready to do it. You know, and I argue, I mean, I haven't seen any real pushback, but you would argue that was where they step in and take care of that person, you know, some accident, something happens. And then, oh, now we're back to normal.

And it's like, it's still hypothetical, but I think that's how you see the kind of self-regulation around all this. Sure. But so the Trump, back to the Trump speech and discussion, I didn't watch it again. But what I tend to see from those left or right is it's usually just standing up and just kind of going, here's how we're supposed to say or what we're, this is how you're going to view what happens over the next year. Like, this is your talking point set up for how we're going to see what we're going to do. You know, and it's kind of like taking down the notes or really framing what happened already as the way that you're supposed to repeat it. And it's just how these games go for me. And that's why it all seems like so much theater.

But anything else out there before we get into some of the points that I think we're all seeing right now, that maybe the ones that we kind of already talked about it, you know, in your mind, and your work and what you've been studying over the last week, two weeks, what's something that stands out to you right now that just is good. I've been working. You know, I'm writing a little bit about a Trump right now for an episode, the good, the bad, and the orange. You know, there's just some things that are very Trumpian, you know,

that I don't know that are necessarily going to happen. but it's it's just interesting to hear him when he comes out and starts talking about, you know, like the Greenland situation. He won't stop on Canada. He won't stop on the tariffs. And he keeps talking about this stuff. I don't know how much of that. There's some good things that he's done. I'll be honest. There's some good things. There's some really bad things he's done. And then there's some things that I just describe as the orange, which is it's hard to tell whether it's real, whether it's talk, whether this is a negotiating position. position that he's trying to create from the beginning where he's saying, you know, my starting position is I'm going to slap massive tariffs on you. Or if it's part of some, you know, grand economic transformation that's happening in the, that's being set up to happen in the future. And we're just seeing these pieces that seem a bit disjointed. And maybe over the next year or two, it'll come into focus it a little bit more about what is, what is he really doing, talking about the gold and Fort Knox? It's a weird conversation that nobody was asking for necessarily. And now

all of a sudden they're talking about that. So I'm wondering a little bit more. I watched a great interview with Matt Smith, who is Doug Casey's podcast partner. And they were talking about the role of gold moving forward and what's happening and how and what Trump might be actually up to with devaluing the dollar. And it was just a, it was such a great interview. I had to watch it twice. And I just thought, God, you know, what if? What if there is a much bigger play here that seems disjoint.

with Canada and Greenland and all this stuff. But upon further review, or once you have more information, it paints a different picture. So I'm keeping an eye on him, as we all are. You know, I have no emotional energy necessarily towards him one way or the other. I think he's a clown. I think he's a, you know, he's in the world wrestling Federation's Hall of Fame, you know, which is fake sports. He's got a star on the Hollywood Walkman. He's an actor. So, Where does the actor end and the authentic politician, if there's such a thing, begin, or is there any? Or what is this whole thing? So it's, it's, it's, he's a fascinating character to watch.

But I don't get all, I don't get triggered the way a lot of people on the left, especially on the left, but not limited to that. Get by him and his behavior. It feels like, you know, back to Carlin. You know, when you're born in this world, you get a ticket to the carnival. When you're born in America, you get a front row seat. So that's kind of how it feels sometimes. when you're watching them, you just feel like you're watching the craziest show in the world. Yeah, it really does. And, you know, it's the interesting thing about the, the, the orange is a funny way to frame that is that it's, it's actually, you know, it's, I can't tell whether it's a ploy, a plan or it's sort of like they've lost control of their own follow. You know what I mean? Like, we're essentially, like, you see, I've seen some examples of this where something starts as like a meme that's shared by like insurrection Barbie or one of these like Elon sycophants that are constantly, you know, and then, and then Elon,

captioned it and goes interesting or you know whatever something whatever and then that gets captioned by Trump on truth social and then all of a sudden it's like it to become something that's part of the conversation because it's become this momentum mover in the team sport republican side and then all of a sudden it's like is that real like or was that a joke and then now they're passing legislation and it's like even the community is like you're being trolled it's like they just pass some legislation about it it's really weird and so give me your thoughts on just that like you think it's possible some of this is like they didn't mean for it to be become real and it just now there's like either feel like they have to or said screw it, do it anyway,

because it's going to make us popular, you know? Well, a prime example is that AI generated commercial, well, I don't know what you would call it for the Trump Gaza, where it was him with BB and they're sitting in their bathing suits out and that, you know, and there's gold Trump and all that. And you watch that, you go, around, you go, this is a, the most disgusting thing I've seen. B, completely on brand for America. C. See, is this a future? Are we, is this predictive programming? Is this the direction they want to go?

And then you see that Trump is whatever on true social, reposting it on truth social. And you go, okay, it's one thing if you're, if it's just a bunch of guys that are goofing around are doing this. But when the president sees us and his first thought is, oh yes, everybody that follows me also needs to see this as well. This would be a good look. Then, then I think, God, I mean, either you're getting the worst advice ever.

you either or you truly believe this is a good thing, which is way more dangerous. Or you're just trolling. And if you're just trolling people, I don't really understand the point because you're making yourself look like a bloodthirsty lunatic who wants to depopulate an entire segment of the population from a region in the Middle East. And I don't see how that could be good, except that, you know, as we know, he's completely and utterly compromised by the Israelis. So, so I don't know.

That, that to me was, boy, I mean, I was just sort of like, I was, you know, I hope the rest of the world doesn't see something like that and think, oh, this is how all of America thinks. Some of them do. Because if they did, that would really be a stain on us. I mean, there's plenty to go around. Don't get me wrong. But, but, but, but if somebody in Lebanon sees that and they go, this is which. you guys want. This is what America wants. It's like, no, no, no, that's what the American Empire wants. For sure, 100% that's what they want. But we, the people, we don't want that, or at least the

majority of us don't want that. And that's the frustration I feel with all this. It's like, we can be extremely clear about what we are, what we stand for as a group. I mean, as a country, I don't get all weepy about tie a yellow ribbon around the old oak tree or anything like that. But still, as a people, we should stand for something. And that's a, not it. And if the rest of the world thinks that that is what we're about, then no wonder we have such a negative reputation around the globe. No wonder people that are Americans when they go backpack and put Canadian flag patches on their backpack instead of American flag so they don't get messed with. So I see some of this and I think, well, you know, it's kind of funny, ha ha, like weird. But then

I also just wonder, the power of social media. If it, if for some people out there, they see this and they think this is a representation of what America wants. It is not. It is a disgusting stain on us, but it is being, it's being reproduced and, you know, retransmitted by, by the president.

And so it, it comes as almost like an official seal of approval on it, which is gross and disgusting. But, uh, so, so, you know, I mean, I have, I have big problems with the direction things are going. It's, it's hard to tell what's real these days. And of course, also as we move further down the road towards technocracy when you start to have these deep fake videos or you have, you know, everybody's voice. I mean, you and I have said enough on camera into a microphone that somebody can make us say in anything that we want. Like, that's the next phase where we get to a point where you don't know what to believe.

And if you can get people to not believe their eyes, then you are in a real, you've got them by, you've got them in a real bind. Yeah. Willem Casey, I think 67, right, CIA director, when everything the American people believe is false and our job is complete and that is real. I mean, I verified myself that that's actually, you know, anyway, I think this is the game. But back at the trolling port, it's interesting because, I mean,

so he shares it, right? And so even if it's like, that's the game, well, he's just being funny or trolling, well, it's irrelevant. You don't know that is the point. You're assuming that to make that make sense, but it's still him going look at this, you know? And so to me, that only serves one entity here is real. I mean, that's what that showed.

That is for Israel's benefit at the expense to the detriment of Trump and the American people. I mean, that's just everywhere you look. But so is it trolling, right? I mean, I would argue a little bit of the opposite. I would just say there's a benefit to that. I agree with you entirely that it's ridiculous and shouldn't be happening. But it, you know, I could at least acknowledge and understand that you could use that in a, you know, tactical way, you know, like put that out in order to get certain people to react.

Then, you know, but it's not, the point is it's not in anybody's interest other than, you know, I would say the Israeli government or people that want to see that, which would be Trump's administration and building out Gaza and, you know, because that's what they're planning to do. But the other point I thought was interesting was like Fort Knox you mentioned, right, where the timing for that for me was interesting because I don't know if you saw the Zeldon, weird. It was actually a video that he followed up and made clear about,

but this video went around where he was referencing the Titanic and Gold bars. I'm sure you probably saw that, right? No. Well, basically he said that, you know, that they said that, the Biden administration, they were, they were throwing up, throwing gold bars off the Titanic. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. And I'm like, okay, pretty sure we all would understand that's an analogy, pretty sure the Titanic, okay, but that seems self-evident to me.

Alex Jones put out a video saying that he's like, I look, that's real. They're talking about real gold bars. I swear to God, I cover it on the show. Zeldon followed up with a video on the EPA that said that maybe made it clear. We're just talking about tax dollars. It's an analogy. So my point was that kind of happened. And then right on the tail of that, I see this Fort Knox conversation spin out.

I just thought that was interesting timing, and I think that's kind of what I'm talking about, where these fake conversations that we've seen spin around in that exact sphere almost every time, the fog, the drones. I mean, many of them had new narratives every day that their sources confirmed on what the drones were that never panned out. You know, it's like that kind of thing. But I think that that's what happens. Then it becomes like this momentum to keep that going, but also to deviate from things that were just proven to be false. And so, but what I wanted to get to on that was you made a point, something popped to my mind that's very interesting about the possibility

that gold, right? What if that's all built in the idea to, like, build the idea that it's not there, even though maybe it is, in order for them to essentially get rid of the gold. I think it's important right now for them to remove sound money from the conversation if we're dealing with a new digital currency. What are your thoughts on that? Just as a hypothetical. It, they definitely want to move away from sound money. They, they have, you know, they've been busted. They want to say they. I mean, the big banks are financed by the government, they've been busted rigging marketplaces for years and years, shorting paper silver into the market, shorting paper gold into the market Friday afternoon. Here it comes. Boom. Get that price down. So they've been busted. They've manipulated the LIBOR, the Comax, Forex, they've all been found guilty for this. So this is, this has been going on for a long time. The idea that they, that a country, United States, that runs a, a, that runs a. federal reserve printing press. I just have an episode out today for macroaggressions called The House Always Wins on Jekyll Island. And it's talking about Colonel Mandel House and how he was

involved with Woodrow Wilson getting the Federal Reserve created. And you look back on that and you think, oh my God, I mean, how different this planet would be if it wasn't for central banking. I mean, it's just, it's a stain on humanity. And it's crippled us for the last hundred plus years because of it. And this is what empires do. They despise that, you know, they need to have, if you've got the magic, the goose that lays the golden eggs and you can print money all day long. You want to keep that thing going for as long as you can. And gold represents a threat to it. Silver represents a threat to it as well. Not that I think that we're going to go to a silver back currency, but you, but, you know, it's tangible, um, asset that doesn't have counterparty risk to it. So if you, if I own it, I don't need, I don't need it to go. For me to have it go up, I don't need you to, for it to go down on you. It's just, It's it is what it is. It's your own, your own asset that you can store away. And it reminded me of the times when they confiscated gold. When they sent there was a, it wasn't just like for a month or anything. It was like for 30 years. You could not own gold in the United States. And, and having it on a gold back current system and having Nixon take us off of that and peg it to oil and all of the geopolitics surrounding that, they've been made. manipulating this for a very long time. The idea that we have gold in Fort Knox, maybe we do, maybe we don't. But the government has no interest in should theoretically have no interest in

exploring that if they're going to try and keep this Fiat carnival game going further and further. And as we move into, as you mentioned, a digital version of it, Central Bank digital currencies or stable coins that are programmable or however it looks, they most definitely don't want it backed by anything other than a promise by the government, which is what it's always been back. I mean, I guess at some point it was backed by gold, but then was it really, you know, they confiscated gold. So it's hard to, it's hard to say what how the United States is going to move forward. But I, my assumption is if it's, if it's sound money, they have no use for it because they are interested in this Fiat scam, which gives them unlimited control, the printing press, which was one thing

when it was just like dumb dollar bill, federal reserve notes that you stick in your wallet. But now, if it's programmable and it's trackable and it's measurable and they can turn it off or they can set it to expire, they can make it so that it doesn't work 15 minutes outside of your city or whatever they want to do with it, that is, I've sort of been saying this for a while, that that is the hill to die on because once you get in, into a world where your money is controlled, you know, directly, daily, minute by minute, surveilled by the state, then you are in a position where you are a surf working on the plantation and you will never, you'll never be able to save when they say, you know, you'll own nothing and

you'll be happy. Yeah, you'll own nothing because you'll never be able to save for anything. Because your CBDC or your stable coin or whatever will be evaporating in your account or it'll be set to, it'll be set to expire because, hey, we got bad, we got really bad Christmas numbers. They just came in and, you know, sales were down. So get to spend and, you know, you plebs and get, we're going to make 30% of your CBDCs disappear in the next 90 days if you don't get to spending. So, you know, you can see, you can, we can extrapolate out how diabolical this could get if they have control of our money in, in this sense. And as you will know, the, you know, CBC is very concerning.

But what is actually way more concerning, which just seems the direction. they're going is the staple coin kind of tether dynamic. And that's what seems to be the direction. And people are fixated rightly so. This is how this game usually is played on what Trump's saying will never allow a CBDC like that's the end of the conversation. And that that's very concerning. In, oh, go, do you have a point? No, that that is, that's exactly. I mean, in, right, there's still not enough people that are paying attention to CBDCs for my liking. But, but, but even if they are, yeah, I hope they don't get, uh, that head fake by Trump saying that, that, you know, CBDCs will never happen.

Yes. Let's say, let's just say that he keeps that promise. Okay, fine. But what else is there? There are other ways to do that, whether it's a tether stable coin, whether it's USDT, whether it's, whether it's Bank of America coin or whatever. Yeah, right. Fargo coin or whatever.

I mean, as you can see, when it, when it comes to like certain blockchains like salon or whatever, you can build all kinds of things on it. You know, you can, an idiot in his garage can put together a coin in the next day and launch it. So if they can do it, the banks can do it. So it's important for us to not to not get distracted, also not get caught off guard with the terminology to central bank digital currencies and keep our eyes on any sort of programmable money. If the government is enthusiastically supporting it, it's probably not going to be the best for you. Yeah, I agree. The problem is people act like only half.

of any moment is the government, right? It's like, no, it's all of it. Right, right now, we're fighting the government and the point of the Democrats. Where the Democrats are when we're fighting, you know, we're the government trying to fight, you know, it's just, it's an illusion. That's the point as always is it's all of them. And I agree with you completely. But see, back to the gold, it's interesting because, you know, it seems as if they're setting up this, this conversation, based on, on nothing essentially. Like, is it actually there? Now, as you, as you probably know, that's been something that's been floated over the, you know, a while in the independent media field for a long time. Like, is it just, was it tungson just with plated gold? Like that,

that conspiracy theory or, or, theory has been floated in the past. And so why that popped up? I kind of think it was on the momentum of that conversation. Either way, it's being built on the unknown. So why the hype and the momentum in the field? And so maybe they're building towards like the argument that it's not there, whether we get that proven or not, which seems to be kind of the way this all is going. So then that sets up the idea of why this is necessary or rather a new, you know, what it will be now pegged to. So you made a good point there. So gold is what it was. Then it didn't just go to nothing fiat which is really ultimately how it's used but it's pegged to the oil dynamic right so what will

this new thing be pegged to the argument doesn't seem to be made as if it's necessary but right now what are they talking about setting up a strategic reserve right of the crypto curse so i that could very well be its own little reserve or it could be what they decide to peg the new kind of system to i would see that making sense and so this brings me to the point you just made which i think is really interesting this is this is happening right now u.s martial services can't say how much crypto it holds, complicating Bitcoin Reserve Plan. Now, you probably already noticed, and let me know if you have any insight on this, that Trump tweeted out about how XRP ADA and Seoul will be good for the reserve. Didn't mention Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean he's not going to include

it. Did you have any thoughts on that one part that Bitcoin will be included? Yeah, well, it seems like somebody in his circle got to him because he had to, he tweeted out a second tweet after that saying, oh, and Bitcoin and Ethereum will be in there too. We love them. You know, that should go without saying something like. that. Well, it doesn't go without saying. You need to sort of mention that when you're talking about holding shit coins for a strategic reserve. And the problem, I think, with, with, you know, the differentiation between Bitcoin and the other coins is that Bitcoin doesn't have a CEO that you, who can go lobby them for, I mean, there's plenty of people that love Bitcoin that can,

and feel the need to lobby the government on their behalf. But there's no, there's no, Satoshi CEO who's, who's making the decisions or there's no Vitalibu, and who rolls back the chain, you know, several years ago to unwind some, some stealing that happened on there. Like, once you see all that, you go, wait, what are we doing here? This is, this, this, this is just as is, is just as compromisable is the Federal Reserve game, maybe even easier now because it's digital. And so I have big, I have, you know, look, I, I, I like Bitcoin. I have Bitcoin. I want Bitcoin to do well. I don't love the government loving it though. That's sort of the problem. Like I like it because it's decentralized. And when you pool it in the hands of say,

even if it's Michael Saylor with micro strategy or it's the government, when it's pooling in the hands of certain groups, that kind of is antithetical to what Bitcoin is all about. I'd rather the people have control of it and have more of it than the government. I'd like the U.S. government to like Bitcoin like about 10 years from now once everyone else has had a chance to sort of get get their hands on it. And so I get very nervous when the government is is involved with anything, especially when it has to do with money because you know that they're just looking for a way to, you know, can we can we pump it up and then dump it? Can we crash it? Can we have all our guys? You know, can we have BlackRock get involved and pool a couple hundred thousand

coins in their ibit can we can we centralize it into the hands of a of a you know some sort of bitcoin strategic reserve it all sounds it's probably good for the price of course when you have a when you have a buyer like that then you start to get into this game theory of like well if if the united states is announcing that they're going to be buying a bunch of bitcoin and you're some obscure country out there and you're you might think well maybe i should front run them you know Maybe I should start getting some before they, you know, while they're working out all the details, maybe maybe this small African nation should start buying some more or whatever. And then you can see it spiral into a huge price appreciation. But that, of course, again, it makes me nervous when you start

to see things like that when the government's involved in buying and holding. But it doesn't, ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think about it because the cat's out of the bag and the government now knows about Bitcoin and they've been fighting it for a long time. And now I think they're at this point where they've had to realize that they're just going to accept it for what it is. But I don't, I don't love the other cryptos being added to it because I don't find that they're not on the same level as Bitcoin. They're, they're much different in terms of just the overall structure of the coin. The fact that there is somebody that you can go knock on the door at Cardano and say like, hey man, you know, like, we're the, we're the FBI. We need to talk to you.

Like, that's a problem. You know, when you, when you can do that. So it'll be something interesting that plays out over the next few years. And of course, when I talk about the good, the bad, and the orange, Donald Trump launching his own Trump coin, like right before the inauguration, perfectly on brand for the orange. You know what I mean? Just parachuting in, rug pulling his audience and putting a bunch of money in his pocket and bankrupting. Oh, just the perfect, you know, Hoc2 coin of the parties. Same with malaise coin, right?

I mean, actually, Malays was much more severe. And that was like a legitimate pump and dump. And he didn't even care. He's like, too bad. But Trump's and Melania is, look at the price compared to what happened. I mean, it's a little bit more of an extended pump and dump. It's the same thing, though. People put a lot of money in that because I thought it was going to be something.

I mean, it's a fraction of the price at this point. You know, and that you could argue that's just because it didn't succeed. But it's also profiteering and a conflict of interest. You could also argue that there was a lot of money, I guess, money laundering or whatever. There's no accountability through that. Foreign governments could have pumped money into that. And they were directly best. benefiting from it. It's just so many examples like this. But bringing this back to what I think

this is exactly like what you were saying. Well, I would add first, though, that I am, and there's a lot of disagreement. It's actually pretty contentious, which I get why, but it's interesting that it's so contentious. I'm of the mind, and I think you can usually prove this, that the original Bitcoin chain continued with BSV. I think Bitcoin was was forked off, and that was even possibly a 51% attack that happened all the way back then. And I don't know if you're familiar with that. Here's just a little, a little graph. And all you can really see is, for those to understand the technology, really briefly,

the point is that the chain had continued and you can verify this until then when we saw the forks, right? We got, you have Bitcoin Cash and then eventually BSV. Now, I argue that Bitcoin Cash were that forked, that was the original continuation of the actual vision of Bitcoin. What it forked off to, that was actually a manipulation, in my opinion. And then BSV, which actually stands for Bitcoin Satoshi Vision, is, I mean, it's identical to the white paper.

And it literally is what upholding, I mean, I won't go into it all. My point is, whatever the people's opinion, and just think about the possibility that BSV was actually the continual vision of the real Satoshi vision for what it could become. And the Bitcoin, which has been stifled in a lot of ways because of the system has now become mainstream. The government's now using it. I mean, this was designed to fight the government and the financial system. And now they're employing it. So you have to see how that applies.

So this is where I want to take that is that I'm seeing this, right? All of a sudden, U.S. Marshal Service can't say how much it holds. And there's a lot of opaque kind of situation here. And this is just reported by unusual whales as they cannot. account for billions of dollars worth of crypto. I just simply wanted to consider the possibility that this is yet another example of this. And I'm not sure if you're familiar with what a 51% attack is, bottom line is, as this white paper actually said, the system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control not just owning Bitcoin, not owning Bitcoin, but controlling the CPU

power for mining. It's as long as the honest nodes collectively control more than 51% of the system. And so the problem is now is that you can prove that they're already before all of were two companies that owned if they collected their power more than 51%. And so I'm of the mind that's long since happened. And what that really means for those that don't know is that they could effectively spend Bitcoin. It's called double spending and then alter the chain to where you would be able to see that. But it gets much deeper, as you were referencing, where this goes, whether it's

Ethereum or Bitcoin, that there's a ways they could build from this that go into things like artificial intelligence and governance. And that really worries me if we're in an opaque situation. I'm wondering whether this might represent an example of a failed attempt. And that's why it's being recognized that there's something that's missing. This is just hypothetical. But what I wanted your thoughts on, as Seven Seas points out, I've been saying this was coming, but people just keep telling him crazy.

This is Ramoswami saying he's calling for putting every public expenditure, state, county, and municipality on the blockchain, which I could make an argument for why that would be a positive thing in some context, but I'm very concerned about this. Seven Seas goes on to say everything everywhere will eventually be on blockchain, and it won't be for freedom and transparency. It will be for control and only control. being set up by local networks for,

begin setting up local networks for trading commodities now because eventually you won't have any opportunity. Larry Fink is excited about this. All of this falls in the bottom of my model, crypto is a scam. So you know your thoughts on that general direction for all of this and whether you think that where this is going is not just about money and a reserve,

but more so about control using this kind of AI intertwined with all of this. I think we can see the control of this happening in the persecution of Roger Ver, who was on Thursday, the fourth day of an archipulco, like two weeks ago when I was, I'm seeing there, sort of kept under the radar, but we had Roger Verre on remotely from Spain, of course. He was with his, he was unable to speak. He chose not to speak during the interview. He had next to him his, the director of his, of the, of a documentary who was representing. He wasn't his lawyer, but I thought it was his lawyer because I kind of came in halfway through.

And Roger has been a huge advocate of the Anarchapulco community. He's financed. I remember 2019, Bitcoin.com, always had a big presence there. And I was new to it, and I didn't really understand the block wars, and I didn't understand the history of it. I just know that there's some division between the guys and what was going on. But we see that prosecution of Roger Verre happen. You know, first of all, if you get on the wrong side of the government, just sort of like a little hint and you're international, you're sort of global and don't go to Spain. Don't ever go to Spain because they were talking about that a little bit during the, you know, the same thing happened to McAfee. Wound up in Spain and he gets arrested. So the Spanish law says that you can't, they won't arrest you or hold you for a crime if it's not a crime in Spain. If it's a crime in Uganda, but it's not a crime in Spain, then they just say, well, they're just say, well, they're going to, we're not going to do anything unless the American government asks them of course and if the

American government then they go against their own constitution and they retain somebody like John McAfee or in this case Roger Verr who is now waiting for extradition any day now and that's a Biden DOJ situation maybe there'll be pressure put on Trump and and he'll do what he did with Ross Ulbrick and allow Roger out that would be fantastic but I think that they see I think they recognize some of these OG crypto guys, the Bitcoin guys, especially as a threat, too. I mean, I think that there's some of these guys they don't want out wandering the streets, looking into what they're doing with the chain or, as you mentioned, maybe double spending or hiding it in certain ways. You could easily do it from me.

I wouldn't know where to look or how to find it or how to catch it. I'm not that technically savvy. I don't understand the details. that guy would. Roger Ver would know. To really quickly add, if you wouldn't have a threat. Sorry,

I just really quickly, you wouldn't be able to see it as the point. Like, that's the whole point is that nobody would be able, not even experts in the field. But unless there was something that was not done properly,

you know, so I agree with you. I think they see them of the threat, but people should ask in their, you know, why? What's the real threat here? Because you have a different perspective

on what should be used. That's not enough, right? So I agree with you. I think it's about these people being, like, it's because, Because arguably it's an open, it might highlight that they are using this in a nefarious way, right? Like you're showing like the double spending or even just where I'm going with it, which is beyond that, is where we can see this being implemented in ways that will go beyond even a reserve currency or a strategic reserve.

But it is going beyond that. This can be used just the blockchain technology as he's highlighting for governance. And actually what's funny is James Corbett was just using the word. I think it's oligocracy. It means like government through algorithm. And I'm like, I'm like, man. we're in a very crazy time. And so we might as well from that just go to unless you have any more thoughts on the crypto side of it.

Well, the Bank of International Settlements is talking about their universal ledger. Right. And that's that's the rail system for all central banks. And I would suggest that he who controls that controls banking. And if you can get to the point where the BIS is putting everything on their version of the blockchain and running it, then, you know, you're, you, you're, have to get nervous when the central bankers are enthusiastic about it. You know, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, you don't, you don't, you don't, you don't even have to see four steps ahead to, to understand the game. You just have to know that these guys are master manipulators, and if they're into it, it's more than just money. It can't be just about money to get Larry Fink excited. about it because they've got all the money that they need. They have access to, you know, trillions of dollars of capital. It's got to be about something else. And if they like it,

then I sort of don't like it by default. But that, but that being said, I have Bitcoin. And I, and I, and I would like for it to continue on. But I, I know that there's, there's real questions about how it, that pivot went back in 2017, I guess. the authentic, hardcore ideologically aligned guys are saying, no, no, no, what you see now is not what it used to be. It's not following the white paper correctly. And I'm the wrong guy to have that debate. I just don't know enough about it. But I just, I do know that there's, that there's real concerns about that. Yeah, well, there's many, there's many points to get into. It's largely about the block size. And early on, they restricted the growth of block size,

which restricted the growth of the entire dynamic. And so it restricted that from becoming what it was supposed to become, which is a challenge to the financial system, right? And so that was on purpose. And so then once it forked off, Bitcoin Cash did go on to increase it. And arguably, BSV at this point can even challenge Visa. If you really break down the speed of transaction, and that's why BSV you can't even really buy on these changes.

There's like only a few that allow it. It's like, how does that make sense? Well, it's clear because that is the real challenge. That's the threat to the system. The rest have been co-opted to become the system. It's pretty simple. you know, but so what's funny is as you're outlining all that, which I agree completely, it's the well, makes me uncomfortable when Larry Fink and Central Banks and all,

and Trump and they're all high-fiving about the new system and don't confuse any of that with the Deep State, ladies and gentlemen, even though it's everything we always represented as the Deep State, totally not, central banks and bankers and weapon. Lobbyists, no, it's all a heyday. We're unity team now. But this brings it into AI governance, right? So I want your thoughts on that because this is a, this, again, sort of a hypothetical, but I kind of like, how is this not happening right now, especially with the weird opaque aspect of all of this with, I don't know if you've seen the whole Doge administrator

thing. Apparently they're saying it's Amy Gleason, who was the, I guess the administrator or like the one under during what it was called DOG's digital services. And now that she went away during the last administration and now she's back, but it was nobody really talked about that. And even though clearly Elon Musk is obviously in charge, even though he's just supposed to be an advisor who doesn't take any action. And so I'm wondering whether that's all a big show. And that right now we're literally testing AI governance. Just a hypothetical thought that somebody threw out the other day and I was like, wow,

that's actually really interesting thought. So what do you think about that? So I have, I can have two simultaneous thoughts at the same time. The first thought is, I love that a lot of these government workers are packing their offices into cardboard boxes and perp walking them out of the buildings and going home because they don't have a job anymore.

I love that. I, we should shrink the size of government a ton. I, I feel that way about the human people that have decided to go to work for the empire. So the more of them that lose their job, the better. However, I am fully aware that if you are running some sort of AI governance, those people are unnecessary anyway. They just, you don't really need as many people to run, you know, you just need the programmers to program the machines to do this. So I can be happy that these people are having to, get on Indeed.com and submit their resume and go look for a job because they should. If you work for the IRS or if you work for USAID or the National Endowment for democracy,

you should be out of work. You should be looking for a job and selling your house and downsizing and all those things because you're, because you've worked for the enemy. But I, I worry about, listen, I worry about the role of the technocrats and all of this. And it feels as though we're cheerleading technocracy too. But when I do that, when I applaud that these people are losing their jobs, I also simultaneously have to, God, am I cheerleading for like the acceleration of a digital government system? Because, you know, we're already starting to get into this weird world where it's like AI psychotherapist. You can talk to this computer about your problems and whatnot. And the things are, oh, we were going to put therapists out of business? Well, maybe, maybe not. But, but,

starting to normalize the process of talking to your computer about things and where that goes and where that leads to to overall government. And of course, Brave New World, you know, a book that came out a hundred years ago almost and talks about this, this future in which the very, very few control the many and they do it digitally. And so I'm, I'm always a, bit, I'm never too quick to applaud any of this stuff because I'm trying to figure out what the other angle is. Because if they're doing this, if they're getting rid of a hundred thousand government employees all at once, it's like, that sounds great. And they're clawing back all this money that's been spent on frivolous things. That sounds great too. What am I missing? What's the other side of

this? Or, you know, are we, or is there, is this a setup? you know, or is this the pump fake to get us up in the air and as they go around us? So I'm always a bit suspicious of any of their, and anytime anyone is enthusiastically cheerleading the government doing anything, I have to get a bit suspicious about why that is. Yeah, well, that's just being objective and, you know, discernment. But what I would add a few things, though, is like what's interesting is I trust me, I get the mindset of, you know, like from an anarchistic, like all of it should go away, I'm like, yes, good, all of it, wherever, chop it off.

Right. So it's like, I get that. But what's interesting, though, is that they're not getting rid of the problem. They're slicing off people that helped the problem, which is, I guess, a step. But if you're still using USID, which they are, if you're still using these things, so it's more of an illusion. And then the question becomes, how do we even know the people they got rid of are the ones that were the problem? We don't. It's all an assumption based on what they tell us they're doing.

It's a Democrat or, you know, well, we don't even know. We haven't got the name of the supposed person that didn't give the Epstein file. I don't even believe that's happening. You know what I mean? Like that's just where my reflexive stance is, if there nothing's being shown to you, and it's a self-serving narrative. I'm open to the idea that it might be there,

but how would they not? Why aren't we seeing a perploc of the Democrat that held back the Epstein file if they know? You know what I mean? It doesn't make any sense. And so I worry that what we're seeing is a game of like, like you say, whether it's for the interest of the AI governance

or just because they're getting rid of the people that might have pushed back on what they're going to do, who might have insight into the criminality their take, or maybe they're getting rid of all the deep state. You know what I mean? it's like that we don't know should be the point. You know, but, but I like USAID, for example, you know, obviously I think anybody with

a brain well before the partisan show that's been going on is aware that USAID and National Downing for democracy are regime engines that have been used using whatever the current thing is. Woke politics was really clearly a thing for a while, but we know before that it was whatever else got them in the door to, you know, that's the real point. So it's all a cover. So if all we're doing is going after all the woke and DEI, yes, I completely agree, but that's, that's not the full picture, you know. But really, for me, it wasn't so much about an indictment of, or, you know, one way or the other about Doge, but just the idea of whoever it is, whether Biden or Trump or whatever, using artificial intelligence to effectively govern us.

Like, I think we all know that is where this goes. Like, that's what they're talking about with efficiency. Even the efficiency movement being the precursor to like the technocracy movement. You know, it's really alarming to me. So I don't know. I think the way that goes is the exact technocracy we're all worried about. And if we're at a point where there's less oversight or any. more opacity than we've ever seen before, all because we know, oh, well, he's the good guy.

Or like, that's the sentiment. I mean, I've never been more concerned about what's going on with all this. And then on the money side of it, I mean, I've personally been going through these spending documents, not because the New York Times said, even I was covering this weeks ago, that I could prove that half the things they were showing, I shouldn't say half, but a lot that I was finding were inaccurate, were things that were canceled before they ever started, things that were still going on, even though they said they were gone. And now they're getting caught pretty thoroughly, where there, all these contracts,

some of them were deleted back with Biden or even before Biden, right? I mean, I've proven this is the case, regardless of whether the Democrat newspaper is talking about it. So it's just crazy to me that there's a lot, a lot of dishonesty. And I think that what that shows me is that what we're being told is not actually what's happening. And you know where my mind goes, brother. I mean, I see Israel's influence on this more than I've ever seen in my life. And I'm super terrified about what that means. So I mean, I went in a lot of kind of directions on a larger topic right there. What are your thoughts on any of that? Where are your mind go? Yeah. Well, it's about accountability.

too. If you fire all the human employees that you, you normally would say, that guy did the thing. Yeah. He's the problem. Now when you move into everything is run by computers, who do you complain to when it all goes wrong? Who do you fire? Right.

Who you, who to arrest on strike. Right. Right. When, when it's not, oh, we might the, the, the, the sergeant didn't decide that we were going to blow up that building. Pallentere's computer program did. Right.

So take it up with Alex Carp and Peter Thiel and Joe Lonsdale and all these guys. Like go go talk to them about it. Like what do you want for me? I'm just doing what the computer tells me to do. Right. That unfortunately, obviously with war, it's going to be diabolical because we've already seen that with what's going on in Gaza that these decisions are being made by robots. And so who will program the robot?

You know, who programs the program? And if that guy is a unit 8, 800 alumni, well, then guess what? We're going to blow up every single hospital in the region because there may be, because the computer tells us that there's people in the basement. There's terrorists in the basement, you know. So, so you're, you're in a, you're in a terminator situation, right? Where like at some point they're going to come back for, I don't know, Sam Altman. somebody's going to come back and have to,

we got to kill Sam Haltman. Oh, that's crazy. We've got to come back from the future. We've got to take care of him. Like, what is going on? You don't understand where this is going. This is going to a place where there's zero accountability, unfortunately. And that is the brave new world.

That is the direction that they've pontificated about. They've maybe, you want to call it predictive programming. I'm fine with that. But the committee of 300, was was deeply behind this 100 years ago pushing out this agenda that this is really where we need to go. We're going to use machines to help us. And then ultimately, we're going to use the machines to govern us. And if you get to that point, then you have to ask who is the program.

If you are programming the machine to help you, if you've got, you know, AI is whatever you want it to be, right? If you've got a desktop assistant and you put, you know, I need to find out, you know, give me some stats on this. or that and you use it for for you know improved efficiency i got no problem with that when you're using it to determine which building needs to be turned into rubble then then it's more than just me asking the question you have to you have to ask who created the system who programmed it from the beginning and what are its tendencies where what are it's what's the computer's ideology is the computer uh you know greater israel project leaning, if it is, then all of the outcomes are going to mimic that. And so we're, we're in a,

we're in a situation now where it's just, it's, it's, technology is the double edge sword. You know, it really can help us do amazing things. And I don't want to, uh, I don't want to demonize technology because as we move, as we evolve as people, we, we start to see that there's some great benefits. But man, if it's in the wrong hands, uh, and I would suggest that most of these Silicon Valley guys are, the wrong hands because once you get to a point where you have all the money in the world that you could ever spend, you start looking for things to buy that don't have price tags on it. You know, you start looking for things like, you know, let's remake the education system. I mean, Rockefeller and Carnegie did it.

You don't think Elon Musk is going to do that. He's going to tackle that at some time. Oh, we got rid of the Department of Education because it's outdated. Here is Grock classroom. They're already talking about it. Yeah. Boom. There you go.

Are they talking about it? Yeah, I've seen it promoted already, not necessarily directly from Elon Musk about Grock, but generally in the community and in the inner circle of Trump, they're talking about using this to effectively, you know, for like you said, for medications, for checkups, for school, all sorts of things. I've seen it floated many times. Or how about just another conversation of maybe trying to seek their own immortality? We all know that's part of it. It's like there's so many ways to look at this. But yeah, I mean, I think the clear direction is, I mean, I would actually add, by the way, I will say that I don't think I don't, I don't, when comes to artificial intelligence, I'm happy to say never. I don't think, I don't see, I see, I see there's far more potential risk to everything we think we care about than there might be benefit. And maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not willing to roll the dice on that. That's all I feel about it. But I get what you're saying. I mean, there's a lot of clear benefit that could be there. But so where I'm back to this, you know, what you're saying, we know that in Israel, they're using artificial intelligence to kill people. They've made that clear. Even Alex Carp, I'm sure you saw

was like in this. Now, there's two separate conversations here about Palantir and what we're pointing at. But let's be clear that they're doing the same thing. But the point is that Karp said publicly and, you know, killing people. And it's like it just seems like a very strange thing to put forward. And how do we know that you have the right mindset of the morals, and especially as you're supporting a genocide? But the point is that they have, if you read these articles, made it very clear. The IDF members speaking to 972 magazine, that they're not only being told to take the advice

from the AI, but that they're being pressured to meet a certain quota. So they're being pressured to hurry and not think about what they're being told. It's directly in the article. And so the problem is that. that becomes the, well, that told me. I was, my, my, my leader told me and the AI said, and so who do you hold accountable? You know, and they're already using that kind of excuse me to this point. Would you, I'm sure you saw, which we can prove that Palantir is in a strategic partnership

with Israel, applying the technology of their AI. So it's hard, you can't decouple these two things. And that was in January, 2024, well into the genocide. And there's carp and teal. And of course, we know that carp and teal are both very immersed in, you know, more so teal on the side of Trump, but CARP is now with Tiel and they're all supporting Trump, as CARP has said, that this is, as Eric wrote, election 2024, Zionist technocrats, first Zionist technocrats, is I just see that that's where this goes.

We're in a world where they're literally building out this control structure from people that are literally committing genocide. It's hard not to be concerned about that. But, you know, we were going to get to a lot of other random things, but I really actually enjoyed a lot that we talked about today before we finished. Feel free to get into what I was talking about there. But I just want to say that, you know, I really enjoy talking with you about all this stuff because I always, I find that we, you know, I don't know, I find it entertaining, but also

enlightening. So what are your thoughts on that to end today? I mean, we have to laugh at the absurdity of all of this. I mean, it's a very serious conversations to have. And I, and I think that when it comes to reaching, you know, my audience, I, I have to, to, to wrap it in a like dark humor, you know, like, sort of laughing at the absurdity of it all while simultaneously understanding how serious this is. and the direction that we're going. It is, it's worth paying attention for those people that are outside of our, you know, your family members that don't really care, sort of sleep walking through life or they've got, you know, I got to get the kids to soccer practice and everything. I get it.

You know, there's a lot that's, that's a bigger priority in your day to day life. And is this really going to affect me? I'm never going to go to the Middle East and who cares and all that said. You know, it's easy to be dismissive of it and to say, oh, well, that's just the future. But the future is here in some respects and this technology is is is, you know, it is a digital, there's a digital prison being built around us. And it's, we're not conspiracy theorists for recognizing it. We're conspiracy analysts that are analyzing actual things. I mean, we could speculate and sort of ask the question as to like, why would Israel want to, you know, depopulate this? You can ask the question, why? The fact. The fact. The fact.

are that it's actually happening. Exactly. So it's a measurable observation. So for those that have their heads down and aren't really paying attention to it, boy, you know, it pays to be, you know, I know there's a lot going on, but it pays to, to, to open your eyes a little bit on these topics. And to the extent that you can understand them, just realize that if we allow the government to build this digital prison around us, and if you're waiting to hear it on CNN or

MSNBC or Fox News that it's time to get, you know, get yourself extracted out of this or get your money out of the bank or whatever, you're going to be waiting a long, long time. You'll be the last person to figure it out. So one of the things that's been great about your show is that you're so early on this that in the viewers get the opportunity to make moves accordingly. You know, you give them enough advanced knowledge that they can do X, Y, and Z now, as opposed to after the fact when it's already happened or when it's safe to discuss it you know we you're we were going to talk about vaccines and rfk junior and all that stuff but like you know like once once your faith once peers morgan and tucker carlson are talking about well maybe we should ask some

questions about the vaccines it's too late it's three years three years too late so um when you're early you sound crazy we know that but it doesn't mean that we are so i'm i'm i'm i i i i i i hope that people take the time to to wrap their heads around this to the extent that they can and connect with their family members or, you know, the people that will listen to them. Maybe it's not always your family. Sometimes it's sometimes it's just strangers. Right. That connect with you a lot more than, you know, than your best friends who you would think would

listen to you, what you have to say about this and you find out otherwise. So, so it's a pivotal time. It's a real important time to not get lulled into this false left-right paradigm, you know, to see it for what it is and to recognize. that if we are not careful, we're going to get ourselves in a situation where those 15-minute cities aren't theoretical. They're actually happening, and it's controlled by the technocracy, and we cheerleaded it on. I just don't know that if I could live with myself, if I saw what was coming and didn't speak out about it. Yeah, yeah, whether they call it freedom cities or 50-minute

cities, I mean, just ask Honduras. It's already happening, right? I mean, it's very clearly this is going forward. And since you comment on that, I'll include, we didn't get into it, but I'll include my show on it from yesterday. If you guys want to know more about that conversation, you know,

what I love about our conversation, Charlie, is it just organic, right? I mean, there's just different talking points we have lined up and I just love having these conversations with the man. But I'll also comment on one, on one thing I think is interesting,

is that it jumped into my head, that Gaza, you know, a lot of people ask, you know, especially with the kind of America First discussion, why, you know, why are you caring more about that? Which is funny, even though we saw in the midst of this early administration where they were pointing at Europe and everything else and it didn't care when that was happening.

But the point is that my mindset is that it all matters, clearly. But if you want a reason to make the connection, like you were highlighting, Gaza has been existing in a digital prison, both kinetic and digital, but for a long time. Okay. And so they understand what our future looks like, right there. And if you want to look at a point where that's your future's coming or like they say that you're next, you're next, that's where this is right now. as much as they're trying to, it's almost like everything, it's like the, you know, accuse that, accuse you of that, what's the saying, accuse them of that what you are guilty, right?

Like, accuse them of what you're doing, right? It kind of seems what's happening, but that's a good thing to think about. But whether you think that matters or not, the point is, as we've highlighted today, this is clearly something that's building around you. So you can choose to accept that it's going to be for the good, right reasons, or you can just be objective and show discernment and question all of it, which I hope we can all do, you know? But anything else you want to throw out there, brother, like, I, I hope that people will,

we'll go to activistpost.com and bookmark that as an additional source of information. You don't have to get rid of anything that you're currently using. Just add this also. And take a look at the articles that we're republishing because there's a lot going on around the world. We've got fearless independent journalists that I'm republishing over there. we're talking about the things that will get you kicked off of most platforms, but that's okay. And we need the viewers help. If there's something that you find out there that you like, please share it with your friends and family or those that you think will listen.

We're adding a share feature, a social media share feature that should be up this week. So we have some fun. There's a podcast section there as well. I know that people get their information a variety of different ways. Sometimes you want to watch it. so or listen to it you we've we've got you covered there so i hope people will will check out activist post and natural blaze dot com and i will see you in at uh third eye carnival in about a right are you going to be there for the for the birthday party before or just coming for the carnival

i'm coming friday saturday sunday good so the third is that third i don't know fourth because the third just the third is so basically we have the third the third cardival and we have the day before it starts we're doing the stepanized little personal birthday party I'll miss the birthday party. It's not going to be sitting around jamming and like kind of at that location before. Awesome. Awesome. I encourage everyone to go.

I mean, coming back, I just got back from an archipoko where I was emceeing that event. And they don't want us meeting in person. That is for sure. They do not like that. When we when like-minded people get together, we come up with great ideas. We start to network. We make connections that are international and scope. And these events are crucial.

So if you're somebody out there that wants, hey, you know what, make this your, incorporate this in, you know, a weekend into your, your vacation. You know, get out there and meet some, some like-minded people from around the country. And, and you'll be, you'll feel a lot. But afterwards, you know, we did this in Pueblo for the third eye carnival last, last summer. It was fantastic, man. It's just, it's a great place to connect with people and, and, and, and, you know, and then you, you go off and you've got a little bit, you feel a little bit. better about yourself if okay i'm not the only i'm not right you're not alone sees this i'm not alone and and the especially after the isolation of the couple years of covid what that did to people psychologically it's really good to meet in person and connect so i look forward to meeting you in person right about a month outstanding brother well i'll see you then and as always everybody out there question everything come to your own conclusions stay vigilant