TrueLife - Great Debates Series # 1

Episode Date: September 5, 2022

Sapir-Whorf Theory, The inmportance if language, Antarctica, creation myths, inner earth….just to name a few!

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Hears through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, let's get ready, let's get ready to rumble. The great debates. We're here at the True Life podcast. We got the one and only, Mr. Wizard, Benjamin C. George. coming straight out of Colorado.

Paula Powell, bringing it tough from Maui over here, and you got George Monty, True Life podcast. We should have Kevin Holt, joining us soon. We are jumping into the wonderful world of language. To everybody who's listening right now, let me ask you,

do you think the language you speak is superior to somebody else's? Are you more intelligent because you can use the canon that is the English language? Can you describe a situation and make it, seem better than someone who doesn't speak well.

That's what we're talking about. Well, I think we're... Yeah, we've been talking about it. I'm going to say, I think we're already in the weeds there because you just, you said is it superior? Okay. How should we define this better? What do you mean?

Well, I mean, that's going to be, you know, I think that's kind of an ego-driven response, right? It is. Can let me try to change it? How about this? Is Sapir-Worff theory true or false, or can we discuss it? And just so everybody knows, is the semantic structure of a language, does it shape or limit the ways a speaker forms conceptions of the world?

And let's start with the idea of Schadenfreude, since we were already speaking about this. In German, Schadenfreude is a word that illustrates the concept. you are a little bit happy that someone you know is having a tough time and you're a little bit happy. It's that feeling you get, you feel a little better because someone else is feeling bad. I don't know about that particular expression or type of language in English. And that would be an example of Sapir-Worf theory saying this language allows the individual or speaker to form better concepts about the world. How does that sound? All right.

Okay. Okay. What do you think about that? Well, you know, I think it's interesting because I think there's going to be tradeoffs in that. You know, you're going to have Shaden Freud, which is going to be a very contextually driven kind of definition for people. And it paints a very specific picture based upon the interpretation of that word, whereas the offset of that is me being able to articulate my feelings towards, you know, the given situation about somebody I know. and why I feel that way, that's kind of the ability for the English language to kind of, you know, create perspectives and be able to look at these different concepts from multiple different angles. So in the sense of your question, I would say that, you know, there is something to be said about being able to articulate oneself in such a way to build those ideas. but at the same time, you know, as a, you know, learning Spanish, there's a lot of things that don't translate directly from Spanish,

but they actually do flavor a conversation to a point where I have a deeper understanding of what somebody says because I understood the concept and where it comes from in the language. But translating that, it does lose something. So I think it's going to probably come down to the individual, speaker. I wonder, like, so I guess we should try to figure out how to break down it better. Like, could you say that German society, let's say English society, is the English world, the English speaking world, a better place to live than the world of people that, like, do the click language? Like, which one would you rather, which one would you rather be in? And is it because of the

language? Me personally, I'm going to say that it's not because of the language. I think the language flavors the culture, right? And the culture definitely imparts itself into the language. But better or worse is going to be very subjective. It's going to come to, you know, it's going to come down to interpretation a lot of the times, education. So, you know, when you start to attach the better judgment, I think that's going to be, you know, just subjective. But personally, I, you know, I find great pleasure in being able to, you know, potentially articulate myself well. And I found that when you can do that, despite the language, you know, barrier, like, especially learning Spanish. It was one of those things where it was like, I was a third grader for, you know, the first two and a half years I was learning Spanish.

You know, I was pointing and asking and, you know, using the same words over and over again. So I, you know, I think it's going to be very contextually driven and very subjective to kind of the end user, if you will. We got Dan Hawk. Dan showed up. He's, he's, you guys have probably seen him on the podcast before. He is the head scientist for the First Nations Planet of Defense. I may have messed up right there. But Dan, we've been talking about languages and do certain languages make cultures better? Are some languages?

Is language, perhaps one reason why some cultures tend to be more wealthy and more culturally robust than other cultures? So I know you speak multiple languages, Dan. What's your take on the idea of language and how it influences society? Well, I believe that language is a good influencer of society. I know that in the Native American language, in the Urquay language, in which we talk about before that, you know, our hymnals that are Episcopal at Church are in Mohawk, even though I'm Oneida. The idea there is that, you know, just recently, you know, I heard a word.

I can't remember what it was now at the top of my head, but there's no translation for it. I think it had to do with, you know, some atrocity that happened. And there was no word for that in the Native American. language for that kind of abuse, that kind of atrocity. It's something we did not know in ancient times. We did not know those kinds of words. So there was no translation for it, for that kind of atrocity that I'm thinking about. But I can't remember the specific word. But yeah, the translation is lost. And I know Native Americans were taking advantage of entering treaty negotiations and those kind of things where, you know, there was an, although maybe not intentional, maybe some were intentional,

but the translation of, you know, how far things were, as an example, to this tree or 10 days canoe ride or those kinds of things, you know, were exactly the 10 days canoe ride in. You know, so those miskinds of communications are, are, can be vulnerable to people. when they are taking advantage of, when there's that kind of language barrier. So I think it could be both George on the, you know, the wealth side that you're talking about because they have great knowledge and understanding and wisdom. We're on the other hand, if you have people that are, you know, that are, you know, disproportionate or, you know, developing countries as an example,

and maybe in Amazonia as an example, that they are taken advantage of because maybe they are not. I'm not saying they're dumb or stupid or anything like that. It's just that the language there, there are understanding, you know, for example, you know, our understanding of, you know, years ago that you could not buy land, right? It was crazy. You can't buy land. You can't owe it, you know.

But the point being is that I made a reference to this just recently on our LinkedIn post that, you know, it was reference to the moon, going to the moon, you know, how are we going to go there and people are. are going to, you know, companies are going to buy land on the moon. I'm going like, you know, we've been through this. We've been through this kind of colonization before. And what they do, George, is called exclusion zones. It's called safety zones. And exclusion zones has to do with rocket engine dust blast, you know, the blast of the engines, the ejecta. You can only be a certain distance away. So when you land there and your rocket engine is there, you basically owned a great distance of the lunar surface because nobody else can come land by you.

So by exclusion zones, you're basically in ownership position. And it's really crazy to think that way. But, you know, that's like for Native Americans, we bought this land, see this fence. You can't come within this fence. And if you do, we're going to shoot you, right? But on the moon now, the exclusion zone is a virtual understanding of what the engine inject that would be to damage another, you know, another piece of property on the lunar surface. So it's really crazy to think that way. But, but yeah, that's my answer. Yeah.

You know, that brought up a memory for me. And I'm going to butcher this story. And I'm not even sure of the veracity of it. But I did hear a story once upon a time when the missionaries were going down to the Amazonian tribes. And, you know, they were trying to describe concepts to them and they didn't have certain concepts in their culture or you know like I forget exactly what it was but it was you know like age was one of them I think and you know because they didn't measure that it wasn't a part of their language so and then you know to Dan's point it's been abused throughout history right it's replete with abuse throughout history and and usually you know this kind of gets in what we were talk about before the podcast, but, you know, language seems to have some sort of, you know,

context in how we wage war. And that's very much in how we deal with those situations like, you know, how the Native Americans were dealt with in this country and how Native populations have been displaced in other countries where they didn't even have the concepts that were a part of the Western cultures or the conquering cultures or what have you. And so they weren't even able to have, you know, a meaningful debate about this. Not to mention the fact that, you know, people were have guns and threatening to kill people if you don't agree in sign right here, you know, there's a lot of extraneous factors to that. But language does seem to have some sort of impetus to push us towards, you know, maybe, maybe language is how we

define our conflict. And then, you know, through that definition, arrives. us at additional conflicts. I mean, to your point earlier, look at the headlines of today, right? You know, all of the rhetoric of the past, the ancient, or not ancient, but the older terms, Nazis and all these things. Now this resurgent kind of zeitgeist that's just everywhere and you can't escape it. And so we've painted this past before and now we're reutilizing this language to basically

wage war. I see, I think all of this backs up the idea. And this is difficult for me to say because I don't really want to believe this. However, it seems to me, if you have a complicated language that can come up with concepts that other cultures don't have, I think you're outthinking them. Like, if you have a linguistic pathway for battle that, like, if you have a concept that someone else doesn't have, that's a different, that's a different weapon you have in your arsenal that they, don't have. You know, if I know how to, if I've been trained in MMA and you haven't, you could still beat me, but I have a lot more techniques at my disposal to try and trick you, to try and deceive you. And we can argue that that's what language is. I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying

I condone it. But it seems to me, Paul and I were talking a while back, I can't remember the last time a culture with a small alphabet beat a culture with a big alphabet. And I think that that comes down to having your words as weapons. It comes down if you can conceptualize strategies, whether it's through, you know, by hook or by crook, like you're going to take advantage of someone that doesn't have it. An adult can take advantage of a child through language. A legal system? The legal system. Look at the way lawyers go. A lawyers take advantage of people today. They have what they call legalese. How many people can read legalese? And that's, that is a continuation, I think, of Saper War theory.

And it's not something that a whole lot of people talk about. And I think if we did talk about it, it's something that would drive people to become better at language. So, George, are you basing this theory on war? Like, like, you know, people that have a more complex or complicated language are better at war? I mean, is that, like, I don't know if that's any sort of way to be basing, you know, either intelligence for the people. or, you know, the advancement of a people, you know, I mean, I think maybe the culture that avoids war is the smarter culture. The cultures that don't practice war are the smarter cultures. That, you know, and many of them have more simple languages. I mean, this whole idea about,

like, simple language and more complex language, I don't know, it's kind of a, kind of a slippery slope you know um there there are smart people really smart people from all from all types of backgrounds and cultures regardless of what language they speak you know i thought it was interesting too that you pointed out like an you know an african language that uses cliques um you know like a central african you know nomadic tribe by the way you know um versus would you rather be living there or in germany how about how about um a language that may not be so as complicated as Germanic languages in Latin and ask yourself, would you rather be living in France or Germany? It's kind of a better question. Well, those are, I'm glad you brought

up those points. It's not that I'm basing it on war. It's that I'm basing it on the evolution. And I think, I think evolution is, whether it's evolution of culture or evolution of education, it seems to me that the people in power dictate the rules. And so while I'm not basing it on war, I think that I don't think might makes right, but it seems to me, at least in today's world, the people that have the most weapons and the most power and the most ability to coerce another group of people set the rules.

And if you set the rules, you make the policy. You are walking evolution. You have the scientist, you know, the, if we look back in history, you know, and we look at the largest powers, those were the people that were setting culture. They were the people that were setting the policy for the future. And it seems to me that you could probably look back in history and see, I don't know, maybe we can do this now. If we look back at the people that ruled the world over the last thousand years, did each one of those countries have the best language of their times? I mean,

the word bar, the Romans, were... I'm sorry? The most... What do you mean by the most... I think you're talking about an evolution of priorities. Well, how do you explain priorities? What device would you use to explain priorities?

Would you use language? Let me like what you're talking about. I would agree. Yeah, I would agree. Yeah. You know, here, let me just... I'm jumping on the art of war. The best...

The art of war goes like the very first... evolution priority we're talking about is that the best war is the war not fought. So that tells you that if you don't need to fight the war, don't do it because there are real no winners in war. So I think it's an evolution priority. Yes. You know, it's interesting you bring that up because, you know, I would say there's a dichotomy throughout history. There's always been a sect of any given culture that's coming to my mind that is, more of a pacifist kind of angle, and then there is the non-pacifist angle, the warring angle.

Yeah, I would say the person that has the most to lose is the person who doesn't want to fight the most. You know, so if you look at the, if we talk about the people who don't want war, like, we should, we should be, we should say, are those people prepared to fight? Because the people that don't want to go to war are the people that are probably guaranteed to lose the war. If I'm going to fight 100 people, I definitely don't want to fight that. But if I'm going to fight one-on-one, I might go out of my way to not fight it, but I'm not afraid to fight it. So I think there's a difference between that. But yeah, yeah, please. Well, I think, you know, just kind of confining this to language alone misses enough of the picture that it's going to continually make this confusing.

because it's not just language, right? We're talking resources, location, we're talking climate, we're talking, you know, calamities, all sorts of different things, which those in themselves impart into culture, into language, but I think they are a large piece of that picture. You know, for instance, like, if it was just the language and that kind of inspired the technology, yada, yada, yada, Well, gunpowder was invented multiple times across the ancient world, but it was only really the Greeks who utilized it in a wartime situation and then brought that to the world as, you know, a piece of warfare.

Whereas over in Asia, you know, it was more of, you know, the fireworks and it was the artificers and things like that that were utilizing the black powder. What about, like, I think that there are a lot of moving parts there. So would you agree today that or what do you think about today's world? Like it seems to me the people in the poorest parts of the world are afflicted by many things. But one thing they are afflicted by is a language that could be better. I don't think it's lack of communication that's, that's, you know, keeping them poor. See, I disagree. I think it's exactly.

I think it's their inability to communicate incredibly effectively with their language. I think that they're lacking the concepts in their language to fully become who they could be. I think there's something to that. If you just look at it from like a scientific technological angle, right? If you don't have the concept of a gas powered engine, you know, if you don't have the concept of a piston, if you don't have the concept of these different components that enable that, you know, it's sorcery, right? Yeah.

And so things that we... Huh? You're sorry. I mean, you guys suggesting that if they just all learn English, they'll be better off? No. No, not necessarily. No.

I'm just saying that, you know, it is kind of... There is a correlation between the exploration of the world and, you know, technological innovation is directly tied to language for sure. Now, it's, but how far is it tied is it's something I'm not entirely sure about. Maybe we can get there in this conversation. But I don't think that everybody should speak English.

I don't think that that's the solution. I think, you know, English is kind of a, it's kind of an interesting language, you know, in terms of its descriptive ability, but it lacks a lot in terms of its emotive ability at some level. where you like in you know Spanish for instance it's much more of a emotive type language those Latin root languages tend to be whereas you know like Germanic and things like that are much more logical and systemic and you know concept based and I think that kind of shows up in the culture too I mean you know for instance you know everybody knows German engineering right so I think I think There is, I think there's takeaways here.

I think we're kind of beating around it. Nobody's getting the right words. What do you think, Paul? You seem to be against it, Paul. What do you think? I don't know. Like, you know, just want to run out there and start telling everybody like, hey, man, just learn a more complicated language and all your problems will be gone.

Well, I don't think it's going to solve all your problems. But the ability to come to the table and speak with somebody, that's where, that's where conflict resolution begins. I think in the world, countries that are suffering and that are poor, I think everybody in the industrialized Western country is exactly aware of what's happening in those places. I don't think it needs to be disgust. People actually know what's happening. You want to get into, you know, stalin details of, like, what's going on in some of those, you know, countries that are struggling, you know, from like a day-to-day, you know, perspective of the people, then, yeah, language plays a key role there. But I think we all know what's going on in some of those places that are suffering.

You've got corruption. There's a lot more. A lot more things happening. I don't think that a change of language. I mean, I think this is what we're doing here is just trying to, you know, let's boil it down and see who speaks the better language. There's a lot of things that go into what makes societies beyond language. The language is part of it. I mean, there are a lot of things that, that shape.

you know, a future destination. I would disagree. I think that the world is made of language and that, you know, you can choose to, the words you use explain who you are and where you live. The words you use explain everything. I'm sorry? Yeah, to you and me, they do because we both speak language. But, I mean, try telling that to somebody who's. be like from pop into games about you're going to do with all these traffic in words and

you know and look at like the hell of you can I chime in please I don't know I think I think it sorry I didn't go ahead Paul I think you're finished I'm done you're good um I think we're going to get the answer to this question eventually anyway because I think you know how when you watch Star Trek, you've got those universal translators. We're not there yet, but the technology is already kind of there. The AI, because I used to work in translation, I still do off and on. And when I first started, there wasn't that many tools out there. And now it's so AI driven, and some of it is really good. There's one called Deep L, that's really good. And I'm giving away a secret here. I do Chinese translation to English. And most of the time, I just put it in a deep

bell, paste the results, and edit it a little bit, and it takes me 30 minutes, which should take two hours. So that's already kind of there. We've already got voice transcription technology. So it's another step from having it translated to then spoken out in another language in somebody else's earpiece. It might take 10 or 15 more years developing before we get there, but we're going to get there eventually, I believe. So we will be able to have better communication. We'll be able to see how much role that plays in diplomacy and international affairs. I would agree on an overarching scale. We are moving towards more of a universal language, whether that be via translation

or just kind of a conglomeration of language happening over time, simply because we're more connected and everybody around the world is now able to communicate. And I think the more and more that we communicate, we eventually push ourselves to that universal communication because there is a desire to be understood. Yeah, and technology will make it so that we don't have to be. have to go on force people learn Esperanto. We can all learn the language you grow up learning and technology will try and do the work for us. That's what I think. I'm given enough time. How does it? Well, I remember. Please. Oh, I was going to say, I remember the work that

does not translate into Iroquois. And that word was inhumanity. And that's the word that didn't translate. So you can see like, oh my gosh, like, wow. You know, um, Yeah, there's going to be languages that cannot this, don't have words to express those kinds of things that we would see that would be completely out of the normal for one, for one group of people, for one, you know, for one linguistic group as an example, may not have felt those kinds of things or maybe even positive things, even positive. Maybe there's positive things that cannot be described. But yeah, across cultures and cross languages, there are going to be those ideas that just don't mesh up. They're just not right. You know, they're just not going to work. And I mentioned to George when my grandmother was little. She was blind for a little while.

And she was on the buckboard with her dad. And she looked on the pond and she's seen these fairies dancing on the pond. But there was no translation for fairies. So it was the closest translation to that Urquail language. was sky people. So you can imagine ferries to sky people that there's a great distance between those two fairies and sky people. But yeah, I think we can get ourselves into trouble when we're not on the same wavelength.

And I also believe that there are room for opportunities to learn when we are not on the same wavelength. So we have to look at it both ways. On that point, the Japanese word for communication is communication. They literally took it in English that didn't exist. So that kind of stuff happens already. Right. And English is replete with those too.

There's a lot of those cognitive words in many languages now. So they do adapt over time as well. But that's why, you know, to Kevin's point, I think we are moving towards via our technology and our mass communication. We are moving towards some sort of conglomeration of those things. I often wonder with so many, like with so many cultures that have gone. that we didn't understand their language. Like how many of their concepts have we lost? Like maybe we have lost some real wisdom and ideas that aren't that we can't even think

of right now because we've lost that linguistic pathway. You don't even have to look to linguistic pathways. I mean, you know, just look at all of the, you know, the 1900s, you know, 1905, 1910. You know, these people were doing all sorts of work with magnets, electromagnetism, all of these things and all of these wonderful inventions came about, you can go to any electrical engineer coming out of college these days, and they're unaware of these older inventions, even some of the concepts,

even though those concepts influenced what they're taught is how we utilize this knowledge in the world. So, you know, I think that's, we kind of, we suffer from amnesia just at a cultural level, internal to language, let alone external to different languages. I went back and I've been reading some of like the Homeric verses or even if you read like Socrates or any of these old old classics might a better way of language be like a form of poetry. Have you ever read like a poem and you get goosebumps or you read a poem and all of a sudden you see the thing? Maybe that's the way language like and there's so many structures with with poetry. You got onomatopoeia. You have all these structures. Perhaps that's the right way

to speak language because if I say to you, you know, tiger, tiger burning bright, if I can speak to you in a way that is almost a type of performance, not only am I using my words, but I am performing it out to you the same way a bird might dance for another bird. There's almost a dance there, which is another sort of level on top of language. And then you could, maybe then you could thoroughly understand what I mean instead of trying to interpret my words. What do you guys think? Well, we're going there technologically in a different way.

You know, I've Elon Musk with his neuroink, right? If all of a sudden I don't have the filter of having to put together my thoughts into English language and I'm just thinking my thoughts and you're perceiving my thoughts, that's kind of that dance, but out a much more intimate, and visceral level. How is that going to work, though? I mean, is that neural link going to somehow get some electrons from my brain to understand? Well, I'll go briefly into how it works.

So basically what they're doing is the chip is interpreting the different firing of neurons. And so when we're talking, when we're like look at an object like an apple, there's a set of neurons that fire in the brain. And they fire in different sequences. and there's specific timing like an apple. So an apple and an orange might have very similar firings, but there's going to be different timings or there's going to be different articulations of those firing that are interpreted by the chip in the sense of a frequency.

And then that's interpreted by a computer in, you know, like they hooked up the chimp to play Pong with its mind. That's mind-blowing to me. George, did we talk about this on, I think, one of our episodes? where we were saying how with time, language went from symbolic to discrete. And now with Neurlink, it seems like we have the opportunity to go back to symbols and just communicating in thought forms, like these alien entities we would see in the psychedelic trips seem to communicate with us. So that's fascinating how we're sort of going backwards in a sense and being less specific with the words.

And that ties into what Taoist philosophy and a lot of Eastern philosophies say is that language, when we put a word on things, we're actually losing the essence of the thing because you're not looking at the object as it is anymore. You're putting labels on everything. And as Dan was saying, you're prone to miscommunicating things if you don't have the correct label rather than just seeing things as they are.

So I like what, I don't know if I like what's going to happen in the RELINK, but it's interesting from that point that we could maybe get around some of these barriers. Yeah, I think the idea of labels is a huge problem. You know, I remember hearing, a story about, and maybe it's our language that limits us. I mean, if you, if you think about a baby in a outside for the first time and this little bird flies by him and he just sees this magical

beast, but someone's like, that's a hummingbird. Like that baby has just lost the ability to imagine a flying little dragon beast, you know, instead of him coming up with his own definition, we've went in a hold and pigeonhole. Here, just take this little simple thing. It's that. Now he has, now you've, even though it's great for communication, it puts it on the same page, it limits us because now you've put blinders on that specific object. And that seems like what we do with a lot of our languages. That's how we dehumanize people. We label them or we dehumanize them.

We call them an animal or we give them a number. You know, it's also incomplete. I remember recently I was at Mountain Zion National Park with this stunning view of the canyon. And I'm just looking at this thing and my friend's going, why aren't you impressed? Like, why aren't you saying anything? And I'm like, what words do you want me to use that is ever going to capture what I'm looking at right here.

I could say it's beautiful, but that's not really communicating the essence of what I'm seeing. So we were talking... I was going to say cameras kind of have an interesting, you know, a correlation of that as well.

You know, there's some images where, you know, there's sunsets where you could take a million pictures of it, but you're never going to capture that sunset. It doesn't matter what lens you have. It doesn't matter your exposure.

Yeah, and some of them are going to be really pretty, but you're just not going to capture the essence. to that, right? Yeah. It's, it's almost, what do you think about nature as a language? You know, if you, if you look at the way a plant produces flowers at a 45 degree angle

to the sun, if you look at the way, oh, a bead of condensation falls off a morning glacier and rolls down to the bottom of the hill, only to be sucked up and repeat the process again, can we learn how to communicate better by watching nature? That's mathematics, right? In essence, which, you know, some people would argue mathematics is kind of, you know, the universal language, right? Because if I can interpret the 45 degrees and someone else can interpret the 45 degrees, all of a sudden we're talking about the same thing.

so but at the same time mathematics you know you know unless you're a string theorist and really get into it it lacks the descriptive ability to really contain the world and describe the world at you know a human level yeah speaking like so if we were talking about neural link let me guys let's change this topic from what do you guys think what do you think about this process of genetic engineering or even even the idea of the um singularity. Like, is this a natural process? I was going to let somebody else chime in. I've heard Joe Rogan speak about this, and he'll say, well, humans are making it, so therefore it's natural.

I don't know, but I think maybe resistance is futile at this point. I don't know if it'll happen in my lifetime. I'm going to try to avoid it, but I think the next generations are going to be part of it. Well, I mean, in terms of genetics, our genetics are changing all the time. you know, some of them at different rates than others. Some of them are much more deep-seated and don't seem to change at all. But they are, there's the ability for the environment to necessitate a change. You know, there's things like junk DNA that's getting more research now that's showing that it's not junk at all. You know, when you get into epigenetics, things like that, you know, it's not just the single thing that's happening.

It's not the receptor. It's the entire environment around it that's influencing that. whole thing. So from a genetic point of view, I think, you know, we are evolving genetically, but to go in and hack it, like a CRISPR type technology, right? Like the people in, the guy in China who just, you know, I was fixing AIDS, but made the kids more intelligent. Oops, right? So the twin girls? Yeah. Yeah. You know, that guy, you got arrested, but he probably got arrested and put into a top secret research facility, people like that typically don't just,

you know, disappear off the scene. They get repurposed. Yeah. I haven't heard that story. Can you share that story? I don't know it. So there's a scientist that called him a rogue scientist. He was in China, and he decided to use CRISPR to edit the genome of a couple twin girls. And the idea what he was trying to do was eliminate the ability for them to develop AIDS. That was the purported scientific, you know, perspective. And then, you know, the downstream consequence was that these, you know,

these two girls are now more intelligent at just a natural level than their peers. Like, significantly more intelligent? Sorry. So he embedded English. Yeah, he embedded English, right, right, George? I didn't thoroughly hear it, Paul. What did you say? Paul was making a good joke.

I said so he embedded them with English. Well, it sounds like he embedded them with the ability to speak language better. Have you guys seen the show Altered Carbon? I haven't. I've read one of the books. books are part of it. Yeah, check out season one. I think it's kind of ties on what we're talking about here where

as you know, as we know the last 100, 200 years we've seen growing incoming quality, well, that show is kind of saying it's just going to perpetuate and those that have the means are going to be making cosmetic babies are going to be finding a way to live indefinitely and then have like total control of everything. I think that, you know,

looking at everything in human history, I don't think there's much evidence to suggest anything otherwise. I think it's already here. I mean, listen to, I caught an episode of Rogan and he tells you all the stuff that he takes. Like, that guy's getting HGH, testosterone injected, you know, in DAA, not in DAA, one of these other substances that lengthen your telomures. And like, those are just the ones that I know about. I take an HGH supplement. I got to tell you, I feel 10 times better when I take that.

You know, and it's, I think it's subjective, but I bet you if I took a panel, it would be concrete. I can feel the difference. I can feel my knee not getting sore. I can wake up feeling better. And, you know, you couple that with, you know, maybe there's some sort of gene editing too in the future with Chris or something. I think it's already here. Yeah, look into Ray Kurzweil, the movie Transcend a Man.

He takes like 100 pills a day. That guy looks great, right? Yeah. He's like almost 80 now. He still looks like he's 60 or in his 50s. Yeah. And then there's Dr. Sinclair out of Harvard who's, you know, he basically, his statement is that we'll be able to reverse aging here soon enough.

And that's the NAD that you were talking about. And he also uses metformin. Yes. And so he's taking NAD and METformin at very high doses on a daily basis. And just objectively just kind of subjectively watching that guy like seven years ago to now, he looks younger. So. Yeah, MET Form is really cheap too. It's hard to find, like, what used to be really easy to buy neurotropics online, but it's become increasingly difficult.

You could pick up metformin for like almost nothing. I think it's like, you know, three cents a pill or something like that. It could be something that helped the world, really. What's the HGH you buy, George? What's the name of it? It's called MK67. And you can get it. It's a SARM.

It's a selective androgen receptor metabolic or something like that. But it's SARM. And you could find SARMs online. The best way to look them up is to look at the bodybuilding forums. Those guys are like the ultimate guinea pigs, man. Oh, yeah. And they'll tell you everything that they're doing. But again, can I, I had an amazing trip last night or two nights ago.

I took like eight grams of like albino penis envy. Like there is just like the last few trips that I've had, like I've been really working with the concept of time. And I would say about three hours in, like I found myself on this plat. of understanding, this form of clarity that can only come from a mass psilocybin trip or some sort of infeogen probably. And it's so weird how you can see yourself outside of time. I felt as if I existed not only in the present, but simultaneously in the past and in the future. Like the feeling of oneness, I don't think the word well-being is a good enough word to describe the way I felt myself participating in the moment. It's so fascinating to me. And it seems that at high

doses, you are beginning to understand the concept of time differently. I don't know why I just wanted to share that with everybody. Thanks for letting me share that. Yeah. Go ahead. I was, Dan, I was going to ask you, what is your take as a Native American on the idea of embedding technology inside your body? Well, I have to go back to the genetics part of it. You know, Because right now, a Native American speak, right? So we have 574 federally recognized tribes in the United States. And, you know, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs in order for you to be Native American, you have to be at least one quarter blood quantum of that one single tribe that you get to pick from.

And you could be, you know, because I know I'm half, I'm half Oneida. but you know I've known Native Americans that were more native than I am but have not had more than one quarter blood quantum of any one tribe but then we're not able to be on the tribal roles because they did not meet the criteria so right now there's a big deal big about this George because if your Native American blood quantum is thinning out so we're not talking about specifically genetics in a way that you guys were talking about. But think about us being a melting pot, right? We're global, right?

So we are becoming more and more not ourselves. If you want to say it that way, we are becoming more and more not native because we are, because of that melting pot issue. So then the idea then George is that what, no way, I have to carry a card that says I'm Native American. No other race. do you have to carry a card that recognizes you as a specific race other than Native American? You know, I can use my card to go across Canada as an example, where I can get an airplane and go to another country because I have this card that says

I'm a Native American person. But eventually what's going to happen is through the colonization process is that eventually we're going to have natives that are no longer fitting the criteria of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. you are no longer native anymore. And then we are going to what, how do you say? We've lost our culture. We've lost our language. We lost who we are.

We lost our identity. This is an area of termination. This is an area of genocide. These are the kinds of speak that we are talking today in Native American languages across our 574 family-recognized tribes in the United States. And it's not just us. it's also in Canada. So our First Nations people all together,

we get 1,204 tribal governments across North America, but we're all in the same boat. Now, Dan, does that mean you're a member of First Nation and you can avoid paying the IRS tax? Well, actually, you know, United First Nations Planetary Defense arises from the J Treaty of 1794. So we're the only tribal, we're the only business in the United States

that is both recognized in Canada and the United States because our business comes from a treaty, you know, in 1794. But so here, you know, our first nation's people in Canada and our Native American people in United States, that border between the United States and Canada did not exist for Native American people. And it should not to. And that was, you know, the Article 3 of that that J.T.

that says you have commerce between our tribal peoples between all of North America. So in a way, yes, I suppose, you know, because, you know, as in Iroquois, as Oneida, we were pushed west with the, you know, the Cherokee, you know, Trail Tears kind of thing. And we have Oneida in New York. As our Iroquois people there in New York, Seneca, Kaugua, O'Donada, Mohawk. And then in we have Oneida in Canada because of our westward push in an Oneida in Wisconsin is where I ended up with my ancestors. Yeah, I feel like you should get a free pass forever based on what happened historically.

But you would think so, but then you can talk about things like, you know, boarding school. You know, right now Canada's reeling with, you know, boarding school deaths of our children. You know, my grandmother, you know, went to school with Jim Thorpe in Carlisle in as an Indian boarding school. So there are some stories about that, you know, and, you know, native. native kids and in some cases as the stories go like, you know, the only reason why that that child of ours died was because of a broken heart.

And so yeah, well, it's getting emotional for me, so I'm going to set off our side. You know, to Dan's point there, and to your question about moving towards a singularity, I think he,

you know, he touched on something, you know, that's kind of more, at, you know, a visceral level. But that's, you know, that is kind of moving us towards a singularity as well. You know, we are losing that genetic diversity and it's all becoming a big giant melting pot. And I think, you know, that's the idea of the singularity merging with technology. I think if we, you know, tie it in a language as well, all of that has to come together where there is just kind of, homogenization of things, of language, of technology, of genetics, and then you would have the ability

to have that integration at, you know, at the high technological level. I personally don't ascribe to the singularity. I don't think we're going in that direction. I think it's very interesting, like Joe Rogan, I think because we're talked about him, He mentioned, you know, and I think it's Kurzweil actually, that, you know, we're kind of just built to build the AI. We're built to build that next generation of intelligence. And that's just kind of the evolutionary process of, you know, an intelligent creature on a planet, which is an interesting concept too. It is. I come down on the side of like teen human.

Like, I don't think that artificial intelligence is a threat to take over human beings or I don't think we can download our consciousness into any sort of robot or computer. I think it's a tool. And I think that it can, you know, there's a new app that I have that you can type in whatever you want and the artificial intelligence will draw the picture for you. But it's just scanning the internet and putting pictures together. And you could argue, well, that's what imagination is. Maybe. But I think that it's a tool we use to maybe for war, maybe for good, maybe for bad, but it's still a tool. It's not something that's going to take us over unless it's a tool that goes inside of us and is manipulated.

You know, I think that that's the false promise of AI is that once it's inside you, you're going to be better. I think once it's inside you, you're a liability. There's a couple directions to go there. I did a lot of work on artificial intelligence. And for quite a while, I had it in my head that I wanted to create artificial general intelligence, which is kind of what more of what people are talking about when they're talking about AI, is an artificial general intelligence, meaning something that has the ability to reason for something. And it's not just pulling from a collection of datasets like your AI artists.

And artificial general intelligence is a much, much, much, much more difficult nut to crack. you know, these AIs like the art thing, that's, it's, it seems very impressive, but the nuts and bolts of it are very simplistic. Artificial general intelligence escapes all of the people researching artificial intelligence to date, despite many great attempts, many great ideas, and billions of dollars in funding. You know, so when you combine that with a neuralink, Now you're saying, oh, we're going to put AI in people's heads, but there still has to be some human, you know, kind of artificer in there. There's still somebody who's kind of pulling those strings, you know,

let alone if you allow the ability to transmit into these things, then you've got a whole different host of problems because, you know, making them unhackable is not something that we have the ability to do either. You know, the only thing that we've ever made on a grand scale that has yet to be hacked is, you know, like a Bitcoin, massively distributed decentralized system. And even then, there's edge cases that can allow it to, you know, come under attack. So this is a, it's a big topic with a lot of moving pieces. But, I mean, ultimately, I think I agree with you.

To human is to human. And we're going to continue to human. We're just developing better tools to human. My friend just sent me an article that I posted in the chat titled Chinese company appoints its first humanoid robot as its CEO. I wanted to pose a question. Maybe I get Benjamin your thoughts on this because it's something I've thought about for a while. I don't know where I fall on this. But if we can agree that most of the problems of humanity are a result of the twisted incentives, greed and profit motive and ego,

What about the idea of some kind of blockchains open source AI that actually governs us fairly and non-egoically? You know, I think the question becomes what's fair? Yep. And so, you know, my Terry Libre project, I've thought pretty long about this. And what I came to is a distributed blockchain system, but that enables an individual, one person, one vote system. So now every single individual in the community is, you know, responsible for their vote. And, you know, there's no representatives to these things. But then all of the votes are executed by smart contracts.

So that once the vote is the vote, that is the vote. There is no massinations, manipulations, taking advantage of people behind the scenes type stuff. It's all a very transparent system. And I think that's kind of the balance between those. two things because, you know, if I create the CEO AI, well, you know, it's only as good as whoever programmed it and their intentions and their aspirations. Now, you could have a group of people do that, but at the same time, it's very easy to course a group of people. They can always think that they're doing it for the greater good. And there's plenty of people who claim the

greater good. And, you know, historically speaking, we look at it and say, they're not so good. The AI CEO is still a CEO, right? It's still the top. down structure of of like well that's what the CEO did right and then and then you have the other question of accountability because now who's accountable when the CEO messes up do you fire the AI CEO and get another one who does the firing is the board of director the board of directors monitoring this AI I mean it the the complexities of that I think you know it sounds good on paper or even interesting on paper maybe not good But I think once you get done to the brass tax and actually how humans interact, how business has done, all of the intricacies and all of the stuff between the human interaction parts of it, I think it leaves a lot, a bit to, you know, a bit to be wanted.

It's almost like an extra layer of protection because if corporations are already people, you know, and they're protected by the Supreme Court, you know, and but maybe a CEO does something so egregious that he can be held responsible. you know, maybe. Now you have like the AI CEO, like, yeah, well, nothing happens to that guy, you know, or. Right. And by extension, nothing happens to the people who program that, right? That's a good point. I never thought about that. Maybe.

Well, if you have a centralized voting structure, maybe you can update the code as you go, as one potential work around. Right. And then it comes down again, who upstates the code, what's their intentions. You know, and this is the same problem we run into with all. sorts of representative systems and top-down systems. You know, who's pulling the strings? At the end of the day, what's their, what's their motivation?

Is it altruistic or, you know, do they have ulterior motives? And, you know, I think we as humans who've grown up in this world know that everybody seems to have ulterior motives, even if, you know, some of them seem to be benign. I know I do. Part of being human, I guess. You know, here's an, back to, back to what Dan was saying, like, You know, if he can see that it's becoming increasingly harder to say you're Native American,

and you're literally losing the blood that runs through your veins. And we also say that the same thing is happening with the singularity. Isn't this idea of the singularity just like a mass die-off of populations? Well, I mean, it would kind of indicate that. If you merge with technology, eventually the biological system would would peter out, right? And so, and then what's the point of creating another biological system

if I have a robot that lasts a thousand years? Now, that's assuming that you could actually, you know, put consciousness into some sort of, you know, artificial system, which I don't know. There's very interesting evidence about that. You know, there was back in 2012, one of Google's big data centers, all of a sudden it started moving information around in the ones and zero different than its programmed algorithm.

Turns out it was a more efficient process. Is that a conscious choice? Is that just an emergent pattern of, is it due to the underlying structure? Is consciousness an emergent pattern due to the underlying structure? You know, Neurrelink kind of is making that assumption. And to a certain degree, they are, you know, there's a chimp playing pawn, right? With its brain, no less. I guess it's also kind of impossible for us to know if something else is conscious

because I can only know that I'm conscious. I can't know that anyone else is. Right. And, you know, again, that consciousness is just a word that, you know, you won't get a solid definition from anybody. Yeah. Consistent definition rather. Sorry. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah, it's a fascinating thing to think about. It seems like so much of these things that we worry about or that you hear some of the most elite people talk about are just fantastical ideas that are just pie in the sky. A lot of them are grifts to get money. We have a nicest illusion like we talked about before. It's like the person with the best story and the best illusion

gets all the attention and money. And we're back to language. Did you hear that, Paul? Man, what do you guys think about legalizing all drugs? Let's go for it. What we've done so far hasn't worked. Yeah, I'm all about, you know, extreme personal responsibility. I don't think, you know, people dictating rules and regulations,

especially when you look into why these why certain drugs are illegal you know um most of them were grifts for profit or to oppress a certain people or you know or to you know uh take a certain portion as a populace and make it so that nobody would respect them uh or their ideas uh and you know to that to that point a lot of our alphabet agencies are you know kind of built around the same idea The FBI was founded to spy on anti-war protesters in World War I, right? I saw an interesting article. It was in the somewhere. And it says CIA takes like 25 tons of cocaine from Columbia so they can destroy it.

Right. Right. They're going to destroy it how by sending it out to people in the country or, you know, selling it? Is that the same CIA that actually created the whole Colombian cocaine? trade because yeah that freedom of information act

has been a pretty enlightening thing for those who followed the exploits if you want to call them that of the previous

generations have you guys ever filed an Foya not personally no I mean either we should one of us

probably do that or something what do you want I would like to know I would like to know that's a good question If you could FOIA anything, what would you FOIA? I guess I would try to foia the back records of the, what was the Branch Davidians?

I would like to know more about the Colts. Like the Branch Davidians, maybe the Oklahoma bombing. I'm sure you probably couldn't get those, but I think that those would be interesting documents to read. David Caress? Yes. What was going on there, man? Remember they went in heavy with all the guns. they went in deep,

just burn those people like that? Is that really necessary? That was, yeah, I would like to, those would be interesting. I would also like, you know, Admiral Bird's Operation High Jump, that would be interesting.

You know, when a guy, you know, falls out of a window at the end of his life, there's a lot of people have fallen out of windows these days, huh? What was that one? I don't think I've heard that one. Operation High Jump was a post-World War II operation that took the U.S. Navy with 4,000 some sailors, marine, I think one or two aircraft

carriers destroy a whole group. It went down to Antarctica, and it was officially classified as like an exploration mission, scientific mission, but it was directly after World War II, and there's a whole bunch of conspiracy stuff about it, which you can find deep dive on the internet for days, so I won't get into that stuff. Can you see this? This is the diary of Admiral Richard E. Bird. Now, I don't know how much of this is his actual diary and how much of this is just complete BS. But in this one, it talks about high jump.

And it talks about him going down to Antarctica, getting on a plane and then disappearing into like an area where there is no radar, where there is, they're completely off. He just disappeared. And in this particular book, he says that he met, He met, we're going deep, guys. We're going to go deep right here.

But he met with aliens. And these aliens were like, listen, you ain't ready for this yet. You know, you're a good guy. We see why you're down here. But take all your stuff, go home, and don't ever come down here again. This is off limits for you. And the way I heard Operation High Jump was that they people, one of the conspiracy theories behind High Jump was that New Swaziland is a place in Antarctica.

And if you look at some of what the Germans, Germans were doing as far as research. They were traveling all over the world looking for these artifacts and they set up this place in New Swaziland. And they say that underneath, like at New Swaziland, there's just giant cavern and they sailed their submarines down there. And inside that giant cavern, they found like these warm well springs where there was livable land. It was total growth. It was warm. And they moved just a huge number of scientists and people down there and they still reside down there today. They also say that according to some different conspiracy theories that,

you know, like, and there's a bunch of weird stuff that has happened recently with like, the guy Krills, the minister for the Eastern Orthodox Church was down there. John Kerry's been down there, Obama, like there's these weird pictures of those guys down there.

And why is it that Antarctica is like the only place that people aren't fighting over? Like we're fighting over the Arctic. We're fighting over every land, every landmass. our country has troops everywhere. We're constantly fighting for resources. You know, we're trying to terraform Mars, but we don't even want to terraform Antarctica?

Like, why don't we terraform that first, man? Like, that has an atmosphere down there. Like, why have everybody decided not to go there? Like, that's odd, right? There's a lot of odd stuff around Antarctica. Yeah. You know, and to what you were talking about, the Nazis in New Shwab and land down there,

you know, one of the Nazis' explorations through the Tooley Society, right, was to, you know, figure out how to get into the inner earth, how to find a Garza. That was their expeditions to Tibet are well recorded. So they searched the world for this, and they believed at an institutional level that this was the reality. So, you know, obviously, unless we sail down to Antarctica, we're probably not going to find out. But you're not even allowed to sail to Antarctica without special permission. Yeah, I want to go. I think there's a there there.

I found the submarine. See what happens. We're going to find Garza, folks. Just need to raise $20 million. I have this theory that like, there's a whole set of underground caverns that connect the world. Like, if you remember, like, if you remember how the, in South America, there's tunnels that connect like all through the Andes mountains.

There's all these tunnels that connect underneath. There's like a whole intricate set of tunnels that connect large parts of South America. I often wondered if maybe that wasn't. I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah.

And so, you know, it's see. And then you hear stories about like the, the, what was, what was that El Dorado, like the city made of gold? and if you look at some of some historical texts, you can read about some of the Incas and the Aztecs using these tunneling systems. If you read the Pope of Oul, which is like the creation myth of South America, they talk about all these entrances to enter earth,

where they would go down and they would meet these beings, and it took like four days to get down there, and you would pass these giant mushrooms that lit up the caverns. And it's so interesting to me, if you start looking at all the different ideas, ideas of inner earth. Like there's a, I read this one book.

It's called, Olaf Johansson is this guy that wrote a book a hundred years ago and he told a story about traveling to Franz Joseph land, which is way up top. And him and his dad ended up

just out in the middle of nowhere and they thought they were going to die. They were freezing. All of a sudden the water got warm. And they found themselves and like surrounded by this inner sun and alien land. But every one of these different,

inner earth stories, they seem to have so many similar similarities. It's almost like how every every, every, every biblical book or every book from antiquity tends to have a flood myth. So too do the books about inner earth tend to have similar things about giants and, and an inner earth and an inner sun. And it just, there's, there's got to be more. And how come like, if you own land, you're not allowed to dig down? And what's up with all these ton, like, how many, son in America there's all these sonic booms that always have. You know how this booming under below us? Like there's all these earth where no one knows what is it is that they're building tunnels

is what's happening. You know, and all, all like the mountains that the secret mountains we have, they're all underground bases. Like I, there's got to be a whole network underground of bases that we don't even know about. Oh, sure. Is that too crazy? Oh, no. Well, I mean, from FOIA, we do know that they've been building massive underground structures in the United States. but to your to your inner earth you know there's a lot more to that too because when you start

and i wish dan was still here um when you start to uh talk like learn the indigenous legends of you know where they were created from you know a lot of them are you know this is the third time that we've emerged from the ground the ant people came and brought it brought us into the ground there was a cataclysm and they brought us out uh and that's north america south America. It's Papua New Guinea. It's Australia. It's, you know, it's all over the world. So you have to, you know, one has to wonder if all of our ancient texts of antiquity have this concurrent thread and all of these oral traditions and stories pass down have a concurrent thread, is that, you know, is that a real thread? Or is that just some sort of, you know,

kind of artifact of humanity. I would argue that it's a thread that we could probably pull on, given the right resources. Your wish is our command. Dan is back. Dan, have you heard what we were talking about the ideas of inner earth? And Benjamin brought up the idea of some folklore about us coming from the inner earth.

Were you able to hear any of that? He might not be back. maybe not fully back we from the Native American point of view you know Iroquois right so we have

our creation story comes from sky world so we come from we come from above but there are natives I believe Klamath is an example they come from

inner earth they come from and they come from the ground so we have a dichotomy in Native American people that your creation stories either from the ground or from skyworld and we happen to be from skyworld.

Can you share that? Can you share that with us? Dan, your creation myth? Creation story? Well, you know, at the Iroquois legend says that you know, there was a floating island above Earth and at the time of Earth did not have any permanent, it didn't have no land. And there was

a tree, a tree that was uprooted, and for different various reasons, depending on who you're talking to, the tree was uprooted, and there was our priestess, if you want to call her priestess, she was, you know, she was pregnant, and she was looking down the uprooted tree, and either she was pushed or she had fallen. And when that had happened that our, you know, our birds, our flyers were able to save her and pick her up as before she fell into the ocean. And when they got to the ocean, they needed a place for her to stay. And so some of the animals then tried to go down deep into the ocean to find land. and I believe that there was several attempts by different animals that had actually died because of their attempt to find land. And I believe it that was a muskrat that was able to go deep enough to grab a little bit of land in his paw and then bring it to the surface.

And what he was able to do then was he needed a place to keep it. So we put it on turtles back. And when he put it on turtles back, then the land grew and that became Turtle Island. And that's where we are today is we're in Turtle Island. So that was basically our Skyworld story. That's awesome. Hey, Paul, are you there? Paul, you told me an interesting story one time about the Hawaiian's ideas of creation.

Can you share that? Paul, you there, buddy? He must have stepped away for a minute. Yeah, probably. Yeah. That's a very interesting story, Dan. That's an awesome story, Dan. Thanks for sharing that.

Yeah, thank you. Yeah. Kevin, what are some of the folklore, have you learned some of the folklore in Bali? Not really. No, I'm sort of ignorant. But I do know that they have, I think, one day a month where they sacrifice animals to the God of death. Oh. And they actually, usually sacrifice chickens and they make them fight each other before they do that. So it's sort of spiritual cockfighting.

I wandered into a cockfighting in Panama. It's pretty spirited. Oh, yeah. It's big in Hawaii. There's people that have birds and they win. If you have a good bird, you can win probably hundreds of thousands of dollars if he fights and lives long enough.

Yeah, I see guys, there's a guys here that walk around with tattoos. They have like a big chicken on their leg. You've got a damn chicken tattoo. Oh, in a ways that they carry them around too. It's just like, yeah, they're on a throne. Yeah, man. Yeah.

Gold leash. Amazing. Yeah, it's a fascinating, it's a fascinating world we live in if we're willing to step back and see the magic of it every day. Well, and I think it's such a travesty that, you know, swaths of information are just buried and locked away and, you know, Vatican archives, Smithsonian, you know, vaults, all of these, you know, institutions who went around and scooped up mass amounts of text and information. if it didn't fit their narrative, it just got buried. And there's a lot of stuff out there. You know, I found down in New Mexico, my buddy lives down in a place called Silver City,

and he took me to some petroglyphs. And they're Egyptian in nature. There's an onk in these petroglyphs. And you can see where it was where it is. It looks like it was probably with higher waters. It was probably a port. And you can see kind of the level around it. There's old fossilized, like, wooden beams in the rock in some places there.

But, yeah, Egyptian hieroglyphs in Silver City, New Mexico. And I've heard of, you know, Egyptian hieroglyphs found in caves in the Grand Canyon as well. You know, there's the stuff up in Michigan, I think it was, where they found tablets and all sorts different, you know, artifacts relating that were, most certainly Egyptian. So the story of humanity is one that we're just so lacking of knowledge. That is one thing that bugs me. If I could FOIA the world, that would be my FOIA.

Yeah, the purpose of history seems to be a mystery to me. It seems that history is made up to organize people around a common goal, regardless of that goal is good for the individual. And it's usually a goal that is good for a ruling. class of people and they just make up this story that everyone's supposed to believe and fight for it. Well, most people are familiar. Winters write history, right?

Well, for, you know, Native American people, right? So, you know, we didn't really have written language. It's all oral. So history is seeing through the eyes of those who write it. And so our native history is completely, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, It's devastating to us. You know, we, frankly, you know, we have to have Native American scholars go back and rewrite history, you know. So I think that how you vision history is, again, through, you know, those history books in school.

But who wrote those books? And so, you know, from my point of view, it's like, well, we are definitely missing a lot of our history. And yeah, it's not good. We have a long ways to go. And it's constantly being rewritten. I just shared an article in the chat where they discovered a pyramid in Indonesia. That's now argued as the oldest ever. It's estimated to be built in 10,000 BC.

And there's a line here, which is interesting. I'll read it to you. It says, researchers have found a special technology hidden at the bottom layers of Gounpaon. Magnetic anomalies in the area have been detected. It has speculated that a device. similar to present-day hydroelectric power plant reactors might be present. And, you know, there's pyramids all across the world on every single continent. You know, we have less access to some than others, but, you know, in China, there's 500 or some alone.

Back in World War II, when some of the military documents, reports that pilots wrote up, said they actually flew over certain areas and saw fully intact pyramids that were bright and had their capstones on them and everything. And, you know, the more and more we look around, the older and older this gets, right? You know, we have Gobeckley-Tepe now. We have Carrahan Tepe. We're starting to see that, you know, 12,000, 13,000 years ago, there was some sort of culture. You know, we'll call them Atlantis because that's what the Egyptians called them.

But, you know, that was a protocol to us that kind of certain, that heart had already, you know, harness, you know, electricity and circumnavigated the globe and colonized all the continent. We got a, we got a, a guest here who wrote a pretty cool comment. It says, starting with Machu Picchu, going east through Sakase, Sakase, Human, Dogon country, North Africa, Giza, sacred sites in India, and Gorowat in Cambodia. and ending in Easter Island forms 100,000 mile path around the earth. Might it be the equator before the flood? Like that would that would maybe line up with some sort of magnetic field if that was all the way around the equator like that.

So I think this kind of takes us into the territory of, you know, pull shift, crustal displacement theory. And there's a growing body of evidence to suggest that, you know, the cataclysm that seemed to be cyclical on this. planet, they do have an aspect to them that kind of rearranges what we determine north and south, magnetic north and magnetic south. Even today, we're tracking the excursion of the north and South Poles when, you know, they're going in a direct direction. They used to kind of just bounce around like this, but then all of a sudden now they're just kind of moving.

And they have been for years, and that speed of movement has been increasing. So, you know, there's a growing body of evidence just from like geological records, studying, you know, solar irradiants, you know, things like micronovas, what sort of impact that could have on, you know, a dynamo that is the Earth and the Sun, how that relates to, you know, you know, we were taught the Earth is a ball of, you know, iron and nickel, and then you have your mantle and then you have your crust. But now modern sciences, that doesn't exist at all. You have these things called low velocity zones where you have massive,

of crustal displacement. You have huge magma plumes. We have an oscillating magnetic field in the core that changes every seven years. So we're picking up more and more pieces to this puzzle. I think it's going to be an interesting next 10 years in that field. Yeah, I read a book called The Adam and Eve story, and it talks about the earth crust displacement. And the way he describes it is if you think about Think about an orange and the skin of the orange comes loose and it moves around the orange. And that's a similar heat. I think it was Charles Hapgood who also kind of backed this up and says that from time to time, you'll see this displacement theory.

And it'll totally shift the whole shape of the earth. And if you think about the landmass or the landmass rotating on the earth, what would that do for the oceans? Like it would cause something like the bad lands, you know. I know that Randall Carlson and those guys have an idea of comets coming, shattering this ice lake, and then that water flowing from the north across the bad, you know, causing the scab lands and it's causing these deep trenches of torrential water.

But would not the oceans do the same thing if the, if the entire world is spinning it, however 1,000 miles an hour, and it all of this is going to spin through the water. You know, you've got these giant tidal waves that come over. And I think that the idea of cataclysm was something that was on the table until relatively the last 100 or 200 years. People thought, yeah, this is probably the way it works. And then all of a sudden we just came up with plate tectonics and these different kinds of ideas. But it would make sense because if we look at the Piri-Res map that was found, that shows Antarctica completely dry.

It shows all the ports. It shows everything there. and there's probably not any way it would be, it would be dry if it was in the same position that it is in now. I wanted to speak one more point on that is when we look at the north and south poles that are shifting, we know that when it's summertime in the north hemisphere, it's wintertime in the south hemisphere. And if the poles are shifting,

wouldn't that also mean that the weather is shifting as well? And might that be something that we see happening, with global warming. Since I've been growing up, it's like, oh, the summers look like they're getting hotter longer. The winters look like they're getting colder longer. But another way to say that is that the way we're calculating it is wrong. Wouldn't it also be fair to say that because the magnetic North Pole is shifting,

so too are the temperatures of the months shifting. And if the poles reversed, wouldn't it be wintertime in the North Hemisphere and summertime in the South Hemisphere? Maybe we're watching a slow rotation happening. Well, yeah, yes and no, there's more to that equation is now we're finding the sun has a very much dramatic impact on this. And when a lot of the science that's coming out about stars, for instance, we're finding that most solar, or most stars that we observe, they have a cyclical Nova event. and everything from micronova to nova, but now they're showing that,

you know, we're just observing stars now that we can actually observe them long enough. The periods of these are short for some stars and longer for other stars. And you have to figure, all of this is a huge electromagnetic system. So if you have a huge electromagnetic system and then all of a sudden you have a massive influx of electromagnetic energy into this system,

how is it going to affect the system? if I run a motor and then I pump a whole bunch of juice into it, the motor can only run so fast. Where does the other juice go? And so that's when you start to, you know, back to crustal displacement theory is it's, now we're kind of showing that the electromagnetic boundary between the crust and the mantle, it actually, you know,

just because of all that moving in heat and magma, and then you have the crust on top of it, It's just like a massive dynamo. And so there's an electromagnetic kind of spear that's inside of this. And then if all of a sudden that gets disturbed, you can have all of these continents, all this landmast, all this crust, just free floating across of it. And to your point, that you would get massive flooding. And I think we're actually reaching a point in, you know, the whole cycle where if that's true,

within the next couple hundred years, maybe even, you know, closer to now than later, we're going to see the effects of this in real time. Wouldn't it be something if like that's why there's all this crisis? Like there's top, the top scientists realize that like we're on the, we're on the cusp of some sort of planetary cataclysm. And so they're like trying to like set up all like the food

and all like the, you know, all the different countries right now are buying as much as they can. and trying to hoard resources because it's almost like a movie. Well, so you're, you know, the Adam and Eve story, if I'm correct, I believe it's originally classified. Yeah. After it was published and then it was re-released with kind of a toned-down version of it. And then Crestle Displacement Theory got just lambasted via the media at the time.

They got Einstein to shoot it down. They got everybody who was a prominent scientist to shoot it down after the declassification. So here's, okay, so here's in that book, too, like I, I scored. Like, you know, for people that want to buy rare books, I would point you to, like, online thrift shops. There's a place called Thrift Books. That the, to get the hard copy of the Adam and Eve story, it's like $700. I bought it off Thrift Books for $6.

And I'm like, dude, this can't be the right one. But sure enough, I'm like, dude, you got to be kidding me. So in that book, too, another thing they talk about are Star Charts. And he claims that, you know, he has the breakdown of, of, of, the cyclical patterns where crustal displacement happens. And he talks about the age of Aquarius. And some of the evidence he gives, he goes, look at the constellation Aquarius. It's a picture of a god dumping buckets of water on the planet.

Like, why would someone come up? Constellations have meaning behind them. And there may be multiple meanings, maybe different cultures. and different tribes and different people ascribe different meanings to them. However, it seems pretty self-evident that one could look at that constellation and say, there is going to be a torrential amount of water. This could be a flood. Like, you know, how do people come up with ideas to name constellations?

Well, the age of Aquarius, like the age of the water bearer, like we get into language and translations again. And he says that in the age of Aquarius, you're going to see these huge, floods. Wouldn't it make sense if a culture knew this happened? Like let's say the Atlanteans, let's just pretend that cultures before us were wiser than us and they knew more than us. If you wanted to create a language to tell generations forever, wouldn't the star charts? Wouldn't stars be the way to do that? Hey, how do we create a language that people will understand? Let's look at the stars. We know when this happens. It happens during the age of Aquarius. We understand destructive.

We know the cycle. So here comes the age of Aquarius. And think about how big astronomy used to be for the Egyptians, for anybody who wants to navigate the earth. We used to believe so much into the world of astronomy. And all of a sudden it was just wiped away like it was nonsense. But I think it makes a lot of sense. If we are in the age of Aquarius, if the age of Aquarius shows a godlike creature dumping torrential amounts of water on us, and we have books that talk about floods, we have flood

myths in every spiritual book there is, might it be something to take seriously? This kind of blends into my hypothesis of things. You know, to extend that thought experiment, imagine a world where your only existential threat was this cyclical disaster system. So let's say we're in Atlantis who, you know, we've been doing this for a long time and we've seen this come and go. And all of a sudden, you know, we know that it's coming. again, but we know that we're not going to make it this time. What kind of message do you leave behind?

What do you teach people? What becomes the most important thing that you want people to look at? You want them to understand this system, this cycle. And, you know, I don't think it's a coincidence that we, you know, the signs of the zodiac are pretty replete throughout antiquity. You know, translation is not becoming. And I think, you know, in ancient times, they knew that. the greatest existential threat to humanity on this planet was these disasters. Now, they might not be able to articulate them on where they came from the science behind it, the electromagnetism, all that stuff, but they observed them. And I think if I was to want to impart something, if I'm at the end of the world, subjectively my world, and I know that everything's going to break, what sort of message

would you try to send to the survivors? And I think that's the message you would send. And then if all of a sudden, that's the message in all of the ancient cultures around the world, there's a consistent thread there. Again, could just be an artifact of humanity, but I think it's a bit more than that. You know, it's weird. They say, we've all heard leaders say if aliens came, it would be the one thing that unites us. But maybe, maybe this, it's kind of the ultimate irony. The same thing that's going to kill us could be the same thing that unites us. Like if we all believed and we all were in mortal danger as a planet, like this flood was coming, we would probably have no choice but to work together as a world

to solve the problem. I don't know if we could with greed and power and corruption, but it would be, it would give people the drive they need to do it. But, you know, what if it is the one that's too late? It's, it's sad, but heartwarming at the same time. Well, I think you're going to see that with climate change. Yeah. You know, I mentioned before, you know, climate change is a 10-round boxing match and we're not even in a ring yet. So we have a long ways to go.

And, you know, we're, you know, I just read a post here just recently that, you know, you know, farmers took over the city hall in Belgium, I believe it was. And I'm going like, wow, you know, this is not how we're going to go about doing climate change. And you have to realize, you know, Pakistan has been on my mind because of the fact that they got, you know, a tremendous amount of rain over their western mountains. And this place, I think, some, you know, like 30 million people or something like that, some large and number of people. And they're like, well, why is what is happening? What is different?

What is, why is this like the way that it is now, 500 percent, you know, 1,000 percent more rain. now than it was before. But if you look to the, if you look to the west, then you'll find that you'll have all kinds of fires going in Spain, in Europe, in France, and, you know, and just just to the west of the mountains there in Pakistan. And what's happening is that the carbon particulates then going over the mountain and it coalesces the, you know, the water vapor.

And then this provides the moisture. But then you say, well, Why Europe? Why is Europe in the drought? And then you go across to America and you say, well, wait a minute now. What's happening in America? So you have to look and you have to ask, what is different? What has changed? And so in America, what has changed is agricultural practices. So our agricultural practices basically in the, you know, in the eastern Midwest portion, Pennsylvania, you know, Virginia, West Virginia and, you know, say New York is an example. The till to no-till has decreased by 50% in, let's say, the last, you know, or more probably in the last, you know, 15, 20 years. And it's the same thing with the Northeast. So you go to Maine, you go to Vermont, and you go to Upper Michigan, as an example, and then you'll see ranges of till to no-till that have decreased 30% or more. And the differences there is that the eco-class.

cultural practices affect Europe, right? And because of the, of what's happening with the release of carbon dioxide and carbon particulates from our, from breaking fuels open affects Europe. So when Europe is affected, then then Pakistan is affected. So we, we, we, we have to understand that, you know, Native American point of view is that everything is connected. You can't say, Pakistan cannot say, well, it's all our fault. It's all of this or it's all. of that or, you know, runoff or, you know, population increase or whatever. We are, we, whatever we do, we affect other people elsewhere. And that is not something our politicians understand. You know, and we, it is like today, it's like, oh my gosh, and it's like, you know,

our politicians, they are not scientists, you know, they are not farmers. Our politicians are mostly lawyers. And so, you know, now we have this issue of like, well, wait a minute now. So what is the real problem here? And I'm suggesting that if you want to try to find solutions to problems that we have to look at how we go about electing the people that represent us to be more fair, to be more honest, to be more representative of the people that they represent, in this case, maybe some farmers and then maybe some scientists. And then maybe we would have better policy to be able to go about how we're going to do things in the world, to allow us to move through climate change without having, you know, thousands and thousands of people dying and millions of people being displaced.

Because when you talk about that kind of thing, what you're talking about is suffering. And when you talk about suffering, that's a human thing. And that's what we don't want because it's humanity. we're not supposed to want suffering. So we have to look at a different way of doing things. I agree we have to look at a different way of doing things for sure. And I agree that everything's all interconnected. My pushback on the carbon aspect is those particulates that are put up into the atmosphere

are much more than just carbon. And it's a much more integrated system. And I think the sun plays a highly dramatic role in that. And I think there's a good body of evidence of science that's growing to support that. Now, when you talk about climate models from places like the IPCC, they don't account for things like solar forcing and instantaneous proton transference in this massive energetic system. But, you know, I would agree that without changing, what we're doing.

You know, we're not going to find the proper solutions and there will be suffering. I don't know if politicians are the way to go, though. Well, that's true. And so, you know, I was going to say, you know, like in the Dust Bowl, you know, when we had, you know, like, say, the Great Floods of 1936, 1937, our dust storms then were 75% silica and 20% metal. They were, you know, 20% metals were made of iron and aluminum and 5% of that was carbon because carbon was depleted. This oil, again, carbon was depleted. And if you go back further in the history of all the shipping and charting that, you know, all of our ships had created, you know, you see a lot of the, if you look at the storms, the hurricanes coming off the, you know, the Saharan Desert, where you have the Sahara Desert and the Sub-Saharan tropics.

where they were doing some minor agricultural. We're talking hundreds of years ago. But we can argue that those particulates that the hurricanes were being forced around to, you know, where the rain droplets or the vapor was coalescing around could have been sand, right? So a lot of that is silica as it was in the dust bowl.

But also carbon. So, you know, and both of those. So you just need a tiny piece of dust. And that's where the rain coales surrounds. It doesn't have to be specifically carbon. But, you know, that's really what we're heading, though. You know, I think is that, you know, carbon is ubiquitous. Of course, now sand is being more of a problem.

But, yeah, but yeah, you're definitely right about the sand carbon issue. Yeah. And, you know, I think, sadly, right, now it's turned into a political game. And not just a political game, but a money-motivated game as well. You know, all of this carbon capture, carbon credits, you know, individual carbon consumption, all of that is a mechanism to extract value, you know, from one perspective of from the populace. You know, for instance, I think it was the World Economic Forum estimated that they would be able to extract $20 trillion of value over. over the next 30 years from carbon, you know, basically creating a carbon economy. Now, that's not to say that, you know, we shouldn't monitor these things and that we should be

mindful of them and we should continue to study them. But I think when we start to get into solutions, it's important to, you know, take a look at the motivations of the people who are actually putting in the regulations, the policies and pulling the strings on this. what is their intention? To the point of electing more scientists and other things like that, that would be great, except when we go into these political spheres, it again becomes a pay-to-play game. Who's getting the funding to actually run these scientists? You know, it's counterintuitive to a lot of business models out there to not have a puppet

as a political, you know, kind of instrument. So I think we run into, you know, again, what's the pragmatic solution for this? And I don't know that it comes from the top down. I think it's a bottom-up solution from the communal level, from regional levels. Personal. Well, that's what we're seeing like in Belgium now where, you know, the farmers are taking over the, you know, breaking it. I'm not saying breaking in, but, you know, marching down to City Hall and taking over, you know, political arena. So then you have to say, where are we going?

You know, are we heading towards the idea of chaos because we cannot agree on what is even, you know, climate change is an example? What is it that we need to do as a people around the world globally to say, is there climate change or not? And if there is, what do we need to do as a global people to be able to find a solution to these problems? Because I can say that, you know, farmers going to, you know, to their city hall in taking over government as it was in Sri Lanka, right? Where they took over, you know, they, you know, took over the government. And, you know, because of, you know, in this one case and in actually both cases, I believe, had to do with nitrogen policy. but the point being is that what is the political solution there? You know is like, okay, well, if we did elect scientists, there's still puppets, yes, I agree.

You know, so it's the filling of pockets then. It is the special interest that have the grip on us, but the grip on us is actually hurting us. And so what we need to do is we need to figure out a better way of doing things. But is actually going down to the city hall and taking over the government the right way to do this? Is that how you get the message out in this manner? I have to disagree with the political arena in that particular case because you're talking about carbon climate change to the lens of nitrogen and it doesn't work. So it's that the politics got it wrong. But also, but then the farmers should say, hey, you know, you're just not.

exactly right, but I'm urging the farmers to come up with their own solution, their own, their own plant, and then go to the government and say, look, here we are farmers, this is what we think we can do, this is how we should do it. And, you know, maybe we got some give and take here, but as a political arena, then you can say, hey, okay, politicians, yes, we agree with that. Maybe we should add a couple of extra years here. Maybe we should, you know, maybe we should reduce their nitrogen here. maybe we should increase their carbon here and then come to consensus in agreement because that's how we're going to get out of climate change. The way that we're heading into this about fighting each other is not going to work.

We're going to go into chaos. We're going to have problems. And yeah, it's not good. You know what, Dan? I think this might be a good segue into the Tara LeRey project. I think that I think Benjamin has a – has an idea, a plan that starts locally and can be exported. And actually, I think Dan would be might have some pretty good insights too coming from

a Native American way of life, Benjamin, that could be helpful. But could you take a few moments to maybe bring Dan and maybe some of us up to speed on what, like how would the Terra Libre project deal with something like this? Right. Well, so the whole idea behind the Terra Libre project is to you know basically create sustainable community and thereby by extension create sustainable society you know it doesn't take a lot of imagination to look at you know these grand megacities and say that's not really sustainable and by sustaining this these these cultural ways of life you know we are

sinking ourselves further into a whole not only from you know the the perspective of you know human-assisted climate change, but also from the perspective of, you know, just communication across borders. You know, we're seeing that right now, right? There's a lot of rhetoric. There's a lot of build-up to this. And so if you can create sustainable communities, and I think that's where it starts, and we have the technology to do this.

We understand, you know, nitrogen in the soil. We understand carbon capture in large swathes of land and farmlands. We understand, you know, regenerative of agriculture. agriculture. You know, we, we have these concepts that we could employ, however, they're not employed because it's not a, it's not a business model. It's not something to profit off of. And so the Terry Libre project essentially says, well, how do you, how do you merge those things? How do you put them together? And you put it together with kind of a corporate infrastructure, which is backed by a blockchain technology,

which enables one person, one vote, so that as it does expand, you know, voices are heard and you can actually bring these conversations to the table like Dan's talking about. Because, yeah, it would be nice for the farmers to come up with an idea, to have a plan to go to lobby the government,

but it doesn't take much for the government to say no either. And it takes a lot of, a lot less if you factor in that there's going to be financial interest in there to, you know, motivate people in one direction or another. So I think from my perspective, the solution is you start small and you get bigger and you build sustainably along the way. And there's a lot more details to it, but I haven't prepared my infographic. So I won't get too much into it because it gets Teddy.

Yeah, I think that it has to be. Yeah, go ahead, Dan. Do a lot of work with, you know, Amazon Black Earth and Amazon Brown Earth, you know, and that's typically if you look at an Amazon, they, you know, they, they found a way to get out of, get us out of climate change, you know, hundreds of years ago was indigenous technology by, by carbon, basically a different way of slash and burn, but basically that's what it was. you know, you can take soil of any, any type, you know, at any altitude and any climate, and you add carbon to it, and you're going to increase the yield because carbon and water is rich sugar,

and that allows the cellulosic plants to grow. That's a regenerative agriculture. Then if you go back to the Dust Bowl and all that problems that happen in a dust bowl, which is a lot, you know, the 1935, you know, soil conservation service came up with a whole prescription and how do we get out of climate change with things like, you know, planting trees, keeping farmers from, you know, from breaking the fields open, you know, for doing things like shelter belts as an example, and those kinds of prescriptive methods. So it's there.

And there's a lot more. I mean, I can't remember them all, but there's a lot. But the point being is that we have the technology to be able to get us out of climate change. We just need the political will and the ability to work. work together to do something like, you know, spearheading some of the ideas of carbon climate change to mitigate those. It could be planting trees. It could be, it could be, you know, crop covers that are not broken. It's CRP, Conservation Reserve programs, you know, and a lot of good things happened out of the 1930s, you know, with the conservation corps, you know, and

the WPA projects and, you know, so there's a lot of good things that we can learn about history, but the point is, is, you know, I talk a lot about people, to people about the dustbone is like a completely lost and understanding of what had happened and how we actually got out of the dust bowl. But the point being is that, you know, we can go and we can, like you said, we have the technology, but we just need the political will to be able to do the, things and we have to do them rather quickly because I'm talking about some very serious stuff happening really quick in the world. So whatever has to happen, you know, would they talk about tipping points? You know, like we're past the tipping point. And we are, I believe, past the

tipping point. So what that says to us is that we have got to come together as a world rather quickly to be able to mitigate some of these things. And we, in America, we're split. We're 50-50. We're fractured right down in the middle, half of us believe in climate change and the other half don't. And it's just like, I just, how do you move forward when we're so fractured? It would be difficult to even imagine how to begin to do that. But, but, but the alternative is that if we don't do something, it's going to get worse. So we have to do something, but then the question is what. And so that's kind of where you're coming in. Right. And then so, you know, how do you, how do you overcome the, the lack of political will slash monetary will slash societal will.

And I think that is why you start small. You create a small, duplicate well model that you can, you know, export to different places in different regions. And you prove the system and you export the model. You prove it at larger scales. And it attracts like-minded people. I don't think we're going to come to consensus in the world

before, you know, we're reaching a point of disaster. back to how this conversation started, you know, the differences in languages alone. Yeah, when one, so much of this debate is people just talking past one another. The idea of climate change for a large corporation might be getting rid of giving away free straws. Like, hey, here's, you know, we're supporting climate change by giving, by not giving away stuff anymore. You know, and for some people, it's, it's, hey, the water is, getting up to where our homes are. But there's so much dip.

There's no defining of terms when it comes to climate change. And the people that get the maddest at each other are people that are talking about two different things. And so we can never, why don't we have like a, why don't we have the best scientists in the world every Sunday getting together, debating this on television? Like, it could be done. We could define our terms. We could have people getting together and talking about it.

but there's way too much money on both sides. And it seems to me the desired result is a fractured 50, 50%. That way you can get done. The people with the most can get done what they want to get done because nothing will ever get done, if that kind of makes sense. Well, you know, we go back to Belgium, right? So, you know, is it the farmers that don't believe in climate change or is it the fertilizer companies that are forcing the farmers to follow their lead?

Because you see what I'm getting at? Where is the idea coming from? Who is carrying that flag? Is it the nitrogen fertilizer companies that are carrying that flag? That were maybe a farmer who would actually believe that, you know, hey, we do have climate problems here. So we have to look at where the actual root of the problem is. And then if we get back to what we talked about before, George,

is that, you know, what do people understand? They understand money. What is the money issue regarding climate change? if you could take people who are rich and what they like is they like more money, right? So we talked about this, the idea is that if you take carbon and you make it a commodity, now what you've done is you set a standard like you would gas, like you would fuel oil, like you would petroleum products and, you know, diesel fuel and all that. If you had the ability to have a carbon commodity, which farmers know most,

They know commodities the most. They have the equipment. They have their land. They can sink carbon. They can do the things that they need to do. Farmers, if they were in a carbon climate market, would be the winners behind us, and they would sink the carbon. And regardless of whether or not they believe in climate change,

if they had the ability to say, I put a ton of carbon in my field, and I don't care about climate change, if that ton of carbon is in the field, what does it matter if there's climate change or not? The carbon is there. It's sunk. It's sunk there for hundreds of years. So that's how we have to go about. This is the way that everyone understands and that we've leveled the playing field across the world.

We could do that if we set the same carbon capability as we do a gallon of gasoline. That's how we need to do that. They already, they've done it, right? There is something listed on the Chicago Stock Exchange, a carbon commodity. I saw it probably a month and a half ago. And they are giving money. Yeah, they're giving money to farmers depending on how big your land is, depending on the location, what sort of crops you're planning, things like that.

I think there's more of the story, too. I've heard that in Belgium. I heard there's maybe part of the underlying condition is real estate acquisition. I heard that part of that government wants those people's lands. so that they can build on it. You know, how much moving parts are we not seeing? Like, you know, there could be an incredible, like, if those farmers have had that land, it's the, you know what it is?

It's the same thing that happened at Bundy Ranch. Like, that guy has had that ranch. It's been in his family forever. And one day the government's like, hey, that's a park. We want that. And then he's like, you can't have this. This is my land. And the government, they wanted to put a solar, a Chinese solar farm wanted to go on the Bundy Ranch.

So the government came in and said, this is state land. We're taking it. Because they had already sold it to China. for the solar farm. So when they came to get it, the people stood up like, you're not taking this land. And they're like, yes, we are. And then you saw the standoff there. However, if you have laws that say climate change, now you can go in and take that land without having to do anything. Hey, here's legislation. This is for the planet. We're taking it. And I heard that's a lot of what's happening in Belgium. When you have countries that are, that have very little land and that land

is worth so much money, what better way to get rid of the farmers than to tell them they're a huge problem and they're ruining the world and we need this land. If you can do it under the guise of climate change, you're going to do it. If that's the only way to get them off, you're going to do it. And if you can seize that land as the state, you're going to do it. And if you look at, whether it's California or sometimes New York, you can see that being the centralized model, the same way that in the Chinese model, the state grabs land a sort of militant, imminent domain for any reason, but mostly they say it's in order to create. a better world, whatever. But that's the way, that's the way some governments are going about

seizing property to take it away from people and take away the rights. And I don't think that's happening in every case, but I did hear that's happening in Belgium. And if that is the case, how much of, how much of climate change is it really? You know, is it, is it real estate acquisition? Is it authoritarianism or is it that these people care about the planet? another another lens on that sorry go ahead yeah another lens as you're talking about i think it has to do a geolocation as well because you know you're talking about dykes and those kinds of things and they have a real threat to climate change when a sea level rise and i think you're going to find that a lot in in different countries Bangladesh right now i think in 2050 we'll lose you know 11% of its land base and you know

affect 18 million people. So the actual political base of these countries have a real concern about protecting their people. And we could see that in Bangladesh, right? I mean, well, in Bangladesh soon too, but like in Pakistan right now, in southern Pakistan, you can see what the new, people in the northern Pakistan have to do to support the people in the south. So I think that there's more to the story, George, than just, you know, you know, then eminent domain. I think there's, you know, they have, the people in power have a real concern about how they protect their people. And we, we see this in Pakistan, you know, they administer coming on and saying, hey, you know, we're pleading for our people because, you know,

we're such disaster here, you know, and I see this being an ongoing problem. This is not going to be a one, you know, 20, 22, and we're done. We're going to talk about this in years to come. This is not going to be an ending thing. We're talking a long-term process here. We're affecting, you know, millions of people and a lot of people are going to die. Another lens on that is the money perspective, you know, all the people who have all the money, you know, people like your World Economic Forum, you know, they've come out and said, the whole goal is, is you'll own nothing and like it. So at some level, you have to take that into account of all of this, too. I mean, if people who are pulling most of the strings in the world are telling you that you're not going

to own anything and you're going to like it, they're going to push for policies, regulations, eminent domain seizures, all sorts of things in order to facilitate that end goal. I often wonder, too, you know, when it comes to climate change, like, what, one thing we don't ever talk about is, like, look at how much the Hoover Dam change the climate. Like look at the way the rivers flow through the world. And when you dam them up, the same way, you change climate around the world. I got to think that prior to these gargantuan mega projects that use dam up rivers for electricity, like that fundamentally goes to Dan's point about changing the climate around the world.

If a river flows from north to south and you dam it up so it flows more to the east, aren't you change the same way you have the conveyor in the ocean aren't the rivers that go through the land conveys of of climate through the land and how many structures and how many dams and how many times have we changed the course of rivers to suit our immediate environment without thinking about the consequences downstream all the time but yeah they are you know to dan's point earlier it's all interconnected you know those you know if you do, if all of a sudden, you know, millions of gallons of water are being distributed in an entirely different direction, what sort of downstream effects does that have? We could estimate those and we could guess on them, but I still, we probably still don't even have the ability to really comprehend it, you know, from just a scientific perspective. You know, we could articulate a good chunk of it, I imagine. but still to your point, you know, what sort of, what sort of damage are we doing that we're just completely unaware of? And in the name of what? And when you ask in the name of what, it usually, you know, you get to a nationalist answer and then you'll get to a monetary answer. You're on mute, George.

Gentlemen, I can't tell you how much I love talking to you. I could talk for another two hours. However, my daughter told me, Dad is time to get off the internet with that stuff to do. And so I know when my time is up, and I want to say thank you to every one of you for taking a few moments to have a candid conversation, and I have immense respect for all of your opinions.

I wanted to kind of go around the horn and have everybody just say where they can be reached at, what they're, what they got coming up and what they're excited about. So I'm going to start with you, Benjamin. What do you got going on? Where can they find you? And what are you excited about? Benjamin C.George.com for all my happenings and misadventures.

I am excited for having more conversations like this. You know, I know I'm doing a podcast. I know Raji Rajas is doing her. I'm sorry. I can't pronounce your name, buddy. Sorry. He's doing a podcast. You know, I hope Dan, you get into the podcasting thing too.

you, Kevin. It's been, I think if we can facilitate more conversations like this, it just brings awareness to all the different nuances of these things and the better off everybody is. So thanks for hosting, George. Yeah, absolutely. Out of Paul, are you still there? I think Paul may have some problems with my discussion of the Bundy Ranch. I wanted to give him an opportunity to maybe say what he thinks about it. And of course, if he says nothing, I'll just assume that I'm 100% right and he backs down to the yard.

I guess that's the facts, I guess. Kevin, where can people find you? What do you have coming up and what are you excited about? My website, Kevin Holt.me, my first book is on there. My course is on there. I am, I think I mentioned last time, I am writing a second book. I'm towards the end of the second draft of that. It's about divorce and breakups. and masculine, feminine relationship stuff. If anybody is interested in beta reading that for me and giving me feedback and opinions on how I can make it better, please do reach out. I would love for you to take a look at it because I love critical feedback

and people telling me where I'm shit and can be better at stuff. So yeah, reach out if you're interested in that. Going to Singapore in a few weeks, we're going to stay in the middle of the red light district, which I didn't know before. We booked the trip. I heard it's pretty quiet now because of COVID,

but yeah, it's going to be exciting. And thanks again, George, for doing this very difficult job of managing four people and keeping the discussion flowing. It's easy, man. You guys are awesome. Dan, what do you got coming up, my friend? Where can people find you? And what are you excited about? Okay. They can find me at United First Nations Planetary Defense, WordPress.com, UFNPD.

You know, we're starting to start to work on our constellation of computing satellites. So I'm really excited about that. Moving forward on fire sats on a constellation of fire satellites as well. So that's something we're really trying to push because of the need of all the forest fires. Right now I'm in Hamilton, and I can't even see the mountains. There's so much smoke. It's just ridiculous. You know, so yeah, I'm working, working on.

working on getting us in Native Americans into space. So that's a big deal for us. That's so awesome, man. I'm excited. I'm super, I think we're all thankful that you showed up today. Thanks for, thanks for jumping in last minute like that. I don't know I kind of got to you a little bit late, but thank you for that. Paul has some micophone issues.

So he says, might be afraid of the debate. I'm not sure. But Paul, we love you, buddy. I wish your mic was better because I missed your voice, man. I miss you pushing back. I think everybody in the conversation is better when you're here and you can push back. And I hope that coming forward we can solve some of those mic problems. As far as me, I have, I want to tell everybody right now, September 20th, Rick Strassman,

coming on the True Life podcast, we're going to get down and dirty into the world of psychedelics. Rick Strassman is also a fiction writer. Most people don't know that. but he wrote a really cool book called Joseph Levy Escapes Death. And it's laced with all kinds of psychedelic awesomeness. So I would recommend that anybody who thinks they know Rick Strassman, check out his fiction book because it's awesome. I'm trying to tell him he should do a series on it.

And if anybody has any questions, if they want to know about DMT, the Spirit Molecule, about the Soul Prophecy, and his newest book is called The Psychedelic Handbook. So go to his site, check it out. It's Rick Strassman. Look him up. You can see him everywhere.

And he'll be coming up on the 20th. So that's what I got going on. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for spending time on the True Life podcast. From everybody here, we're stoked you're with us. And reach out to all of us. We'd all love to see you and talk about it.