reSee.it - Tweets Saved By @TFTC21
reSee.it AI Summary
I read a peer-reviewed Bioethics paper arguing it’s “morally obligatory” to genetically engineer lone star ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome because it would prevent “morally wrong” meat eating. The authors call it a “moral bioenhancer” and frame releasing GM infected ticks as a kind of “vaccination.” With cases rising fast and no cure, I’m left asking whether anyone might already be acting on it.
@TFTC21 - TFTC
A peer-reviewed paper published last year in the journal Bioethics by two professors at Western Michigan University School of Medicine argues that it is "morally obligatory" to genetically engineer ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome, a permanent condition that makes you violently allergic to red meat. The paper is called "Beneficial Bloodsucking." Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong. Scientists should gene-edit lone star ticks to enhance their ability to carry alpha-gal syndrome and expand their range into urban environments to infect more people. They call this a "moral bioenhancer." They frame releasing genetically modified disease-carrying ticks as a "vaccination" that only "infringes" on your bodily autonomy rather than "violating" it. The distinction, apparently, is that a tick bit you instead of a government official holding you down. Alpha-gal syndrome is not mild. The CDC estimates up to 450,000 Americans are already affected. Cases have surged 100-fold in the last decade. Symptoms include anaphylaxis. There is no cure. Alpha-gal cases are exploding across the United States. The lone star tick's range is expanding far beyond its historical territory. And two academics at a medical school published a paper arguing this is a good thing that should be accelerated. At what point do we stop treating papers like this as fringe academic exercises and start asking whether anyone is already acting on them?
@TFTC21 - TFTC
Read it for yourself: https://philpapers.org/archive/CRUBBS
@TFTC21 - TFTC
@MWilliamFunk https://philpapers.org/archive/CRUBBS
@TFTC21 - TFTC
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei: “50% of all tech jobs, entry-level lawyers, consultants, and finance professionals will be completely wiped out within 1–5 years.” https://t.co/sXcT59gWYj
Video Transcript AI Summary
Speaker 0 notes that AI has progressed rapidly, moving from a smart high school level two years ago to a smart college level and beyond. He believes AI could help cure diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's and provide cheaper energy, but he worries that entry-level white-collar work—such as in finance, consulting, and tech—will be first augmented and then replaced by AI systems, potentially causing a serious employment crisis as the pipeline for early-stage white-collar work contracts.
When asked for a timeline, Speaker 0 says it is very hard to predict, but he would not be surprised if big effects emerge somewhere between one and five years, with private discussions among AI CEOs and other company leaders supportively pointing to this possibility. He feels this message hasn’t reached ordinary people or legislators, and he believes action is needed now. He asserts that the AI “bus” cannot be stopped, and that even if his company ceased operations today, six or seven US-based companies would continue, and China would likely beat the US if action is not taken. He emphasizes the need to steer the momentum and to get Congress, legislators, and the public to consider the issue. He mentions Anthropic’s economic index as a way to measure the effects and notes that the next step would be to move beyond measurement to actions that augment rather than replace, while acknowledging that this augmentation approach is not a long-term solution. He also notes that the government could take a wide range of actions and that deciding which is correct is not his place, but stresses the necessity to think seriously about it.
Regarding mitigation, Speaker 1 asks for more detail on how to mitigate the worst-case scenario of AI wiping out all entry-level white-collar jobs and spiking unemployment to 10%–20%. Speaker 0 replies that exact numbers are uncertain, but emphasizes that AI is different in breadth, depth, and speed compared to past technological shifts. He suggests mitigations including educating people to use AI so workers can adapt faster, and potentially government measures to level the economic playing field, such as taxing AI companies. He frames these as important moves to mitigate potential disruption.
Speaker 1 concludes by acknowledging that Speaker 0 provides messages from someone who runs an AI company but is also offering a public service announcement about future concerns.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So just to back up a bit, I've been working on AI for for ten years, and probably the thing I've noticed most about it is is how fast it's making progress. Two years ago, it was at the level of a smart high school student. Now it's probably at the level of a smart college student at reaching beyond that. And on one hand, I think there's a number of very positive things that are gonna happen. I used to be a biologist.
I think AI has exactly the kind of skills that are needed to cure important diseases like cancer and Alzheimer's to provide cheaper energy, many positive things. But exactly those same kind of skills, things like summarizing a document, brainstorming, putting together a financial report makes me worry a lot that entry level jobs in areas like finance, consulting, tech, many many other areas like that entry level white collar work. I worry that those things are gonna be first augmented, but before long replaced by AI systems, and that we we we may indeed It's hard to predict the future, but we may indeed have a have a serious employment crisis on our hands as the pipeline for for these early stage white collar work starts to starts to contract and dry up.
Speaker 1: What's the timeline here?
Speaker 0: Yes. So it's very hard to predict these things given how fast, you know, given how fast AI is making progress. But I would I would not be surprised if somewhere between one and five years, we started to see big effects here. You know, I've heard a number of people talk about this in private. AI CEOs talk about this in private.
CEOs of other companies talk about this in private. And I I really felt that, you know, the message that this is happening hasn't been getting out to to ordinary people, hasn't been getting out to our legislators or congress people either. And so I felt I needed to speak up on the record. I do think that this is something we can prevent this, but but we need to act now. I don't think we can stop the AI bus.
You know, there are there are six or seven companies just in The US working in this air air working in this area. I just run one of them even if our company stopped doing what it was doing today. Yeah. All the other companies would would continue even if all six companies started, then China would beat us. I think that's a big and important threat.
So we can't stop the bus, but I do think we may have an opportunity to steer it. And and I think, you know, we need to get congresspeople, legislators, the public to to think about this now. One of the first steps we're taking is just measuring the effects. Anthropic has put out something that we call our economic index. And using the economic index, we try and track the rate at which these things are happening.
You know, at some point, we have to go beyond measuring this to actually taking action to trying to build our AI systems in a way that augments rather than replaces, but that won't be a long term solution either. We need to think about what what the government is going to do. And, you know, there's a wide range of actions that that the government the government could take, and, you know, it's it's not not my place to decide which of those are which of those are correct. But but I think the first step is people need to think about this and start taking it very seriously.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And you're talking about AI possibly wiping out all entry level white collar jobs and spiking unemployment to 10 to 20%. So dive into the mitigation of this a little bit more. How could we mitigate the worst possible scenario here?
Speaker 0: Yeah. So it's hard to know the exact numbers. I mean, you know, I don't have a crystal ball. I can't I can't predict the future. But what I will say is I think what AI can do you know, there have been these technological changes in the past, but I think what's different about AI is it's broader, it's deeper, and it's moving faster than than previous such technologies.
And so in terms of mitigations, you know, I think I think one is just educating people in order in order to you in order to use AI. There will always be people who are who are who are using AI and helping our workers to adapt faster, I think I think is an important move. A second move is that we may want we may want government to, you know, to to to kind of to kind of find a way to level the economic playing field. And, you know, this may be a controversial proposal, but, you know, something like taxing AI companies like us. We we may need to
Speaker 1: get some very interesting message coming from you who runs an AI company, but you're doing a public service announcement for all of us in terms of this future concern. Dario, thank you.
reSee.it AI Summary
I note that the CIA’s venture arm funded the tech behind Pokémon Go. Niantic’s founder built Keyhole, funded by In-Q-Tel, used for US military ops, later Google Earth. He led Google Street View WiSpy, harvesting data from unencrypted Wi‑Fi. Niantic’s board includes In‑Q‑Tel’s Gilman Louie; CTO co‑founded Keyhole; another founder came from DARPA‑funded Silicon Graphics. The map was the goal. 30B images, centimeter accuracy, GPS‑free navigation for weapons.
@TFTC21 - TFTC
The CIA's venture capital arm funded the technology behind Pokémon Go. That's not conspiracy. It's public record. Niantic's founder John Hanke previously built Keyhole, a 3D satellite imaging tool funded directly by In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital arm. Keyhole was used to support US military operations in Iraq before Google acquired it and turned it into Google Earth. The same founder also led the Google StreetView WiSpy scandal, where Google cars secretly harvested emails, passwords, and browsing data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks across multiple countries. Now look at Niantic's board. Gilman Louie, co-founder of In-Q-Tel, sits on the board of both Niantic and Vantor (the defense contractor Niantic just partnered with). Niantic's CTO co-founded Keyhole with Hanke after spending a decade at E-Systems, a military contractor later acquired by Raytheon. Another co-founder came from DARPA-funded Silicon Graphics, which built 3D graphics for defense systems. This was never a gaming company that pivoted to defense. The defense lineage was there from the beginning. Pokémon Go was the data collection mechanism. 30 billion images. Centimeter-level spatial accuracy. GPS-free navigation for autonomous weapons. Built by a team with direct ties to the CIA, DARPA, and Raytheon. The story isn't that Niantic tricked gamers. It's that the intelligence community found a way to crowdsource a centimeter-accurate map of the physical world by making it fun. Full report from @theragetech
reSee.it AI Summary
In this episode, I discuss the looming U.S. government debt crisis that the next president, likely Trump, will confront. I explore the narrative of Trump as a savior and delve into his coalition and the implications of Epstein's blackmail affecting both sides of the political spectrum. I also touch on the emergence of a new intelligence agency, the role of stablecoin CBDCs, and how politicians are adapting to lessons from bitcoin. Finally, I address the justifications for crackdowns, focusing on cases like Ross and Samurai.
@TFTC21 - TFTC
TFTC Ep. 555 "The next president, who we know now will be Trump, is going to face some sort of U.S. Government debt crisis." - @_whitneywebb (0:00) - Intro (2:15) - Trump savior narrative (13:24) - Trump coalition (22:30) - Epstein blackmail on both sides (33:06) - A new form of intelligence agency (51:49) - Stablecoin CBDCs (1:05:23) - Trump’s policy’s and cabinet appointments (1:14:44) - Politicians learning from bitcoin (1:27:20) - Back to stablecoins (1:48:04) - Justifying crackdowns, Ross and Samurai
Video Transcript AI Summary
The upcoming Trump administration is likely to face a U.S. government debt crisis, reminiscent of previous fiscal policies that resulted in significant wealth transfers. There are concerns about the influence of figures like Mike Pompeo and the potential for stablecoins to be as surveillable as central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). The discussion emphasizes the need for vigilance and accountability, warning against complacency among supporters. While Bitcoin is seen as a potential solution to the debt crisis, there are fears that stablecoins could reinforce existing financial systems and surveillance. The conversation highlights the importance of maintaining Bitcoin's integrity and resisting efforts to tether it to the debt-based monetary paradigm, advocating for grassroots change rather than relying solely on political figures.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The next president, who we know now will be Trump, is going to face some sort of US government debt crisis. When Trump was in office last time, BlackRock designed US fiscal response to COVID that they began implementing before a pandemic was even declared, and it resulted in one of the biggest wealth transfers in American printed more money than at any other time in US history. I've been really skeptical that that won't repeat itself. And so you're already seeing sort of signaling that someone like Mike Pompeo, and fielded for secretary of defense, or some figures that have neo conservative I mean, they worked with Obama during o eight. They worked with Trump, and they worked with Biden.
Mean, they worked with Obama during o eight. They worked with Trump, and they worked with Biden and would have worked with Kamala. Their track record is basically stealing wealth from the public.
Speaker 1: Why why did we all forget this? Every 4 years, this is the most important We have to go vote. We all believe in elections again. I think that the Uniparty is gonna do what it wants to do. It's this purple party entity.
Speaker 2: Investigative journalist Whitney Webb and researcher Mark Goodwin just pulled back the curtain on America's fake democracy and how both Republicans and Democrats serve the same masters. Now they're about to reveal why stable coins might be the biggest threat to Bitcoin.
Speaker 1: They are actively putting dollar instruments into the Bitcoin blockchain. They're creating all of these ways to create dollars on lightning.
Speaker 0: Stablecoins have the potential to be just as programmable and surveillable as a CBDC could be, and the Fed and the National Security Committee, meaning the CIA among other stablecoins will ensure dollar hegemony.
Speaker 2: From BlackRock to Bitcoin, from elections to surveillance, in the next 90 minutes, Webb and Goodwin reveal the full story of what's coming and how you can stay prepared. You've had a dynamic where money has become freer than free.
Speaker 0: When you talk about a fed just gone nuts, all all the central banks going nuts.
Speaker 2: So it's all acting like safe haven.
Speaker 3: I believe that in a world where central bankers are tripping over themselves to devalue their currency, Bitcoin wins. In the world of fiat currencies, Bitcoin is the victor.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's part of the bold case for Bitcoin.
Speaker 3: You're not paying attention. You probably should be. You probably should be. You probably should be.
Speaker 2: Whitney and Mark, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 0: Hey. Great to be here, Marty. Always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thanks a lot.
Speaker 2: We've got a lot to cover. What should we start with?
Speaker 0: Whatever you want.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about this week. It's timely. Yeah. Sure. The the election just happened.
People are very bullish in the Bitcoin world. Obviously, I follow you too on Twitter. You are signaling that that people may be, walking into the Vipers then. And let's just talk about what what do you think the outcome of the election means for the future of America, particularly Bitcoin as a subset of of potential policy under Trump administration. What are we walking into?
Speaker 0: Well, I just wanna start off with saying that I definitely empathize with the view just like I did in 2016 and other elections, you know, that the Trump ticket was the lesser of 2 evils. But I think after the 1st Trump term and the precedent set by campaign rhetoric versus policy action in that first term, you know, I've been really skeptical that, that won't repeat itself. Right? And so you're already seeing, you know, since Trump was elected, sort of these, you know, sort of signaling that, you know, might someone like Mike Pompeo or some figures that have neoconservative bents, you know, like Marco Rubio is being considered for a cabinet position, like Pompeo has been fielded for secretary of defense, people that worked right under Pompeo, or have been tapped to lead the transition team for the State Department, things of that nature. You know, the this, the apparent signaling and and claims from people like Howard Lutnick, cochair of the Trump transition team that RFK isn't really gonna have any role, in any sort of HHS or HHS subagency.
You know, are these the beginning signs of backpedaling? It's, you know, I think it's fair to be skeptical and be vigilant. And, you know, particularly what I would warn against is, the idea that now that the lesser of 2 evils has won, now is the time to sit back and just let things happen and not hold anyone's feet to the fire and not ensure, accountability, because I think that's, you know, a recipe for for disaster, frankly, when people are are complacent and to trust. And consistently, politicians abuse that. And there's a very long, long track record of that happening in American politics with both parties.
Right? And so, what I would and and what I've been saying a lot since the election is that complacency and and the efforts to manufacture it, are dangerous, I would say. And what I'm concerned about is that the people that were most against a lot of these efforts to undermine our freedoms, a lot of them being on the right, for example, or people that were dissidents of the COVID era and COVID era policies, you know, and gun owners, for example, who obviously have a way to impact, you know, the the the fate of the country if things were ever to get really, you know, tyrannical. You know, if they're overly trusting of the federal government, they're more likely to be, you know, complacent and sort of just sit back and not really do anything because they trust the person that, is in power. And, unfortunately, I think there's bipartisan agendas that even with, like you know, in 2016, Republicans also sweep the ledge legislature.
They took the executive branch, but it didn't result in the populist platform that was necessarily promised. So I think, you know, if people don't, want to ensure that the country does go on a better track, there needs to be, you know, pushback. And people need to not just, you know, sit back in their armchairs and, trust the plan or or what have you, and need to really, ensure that you know, like I've said for a long time since I get accused of not offering any solutions, you know, I've said for a really long time and for many years on on your show and and other shows that I have long believed, that change is going to come from the bottom up, not the top down, and that people need to really ensure and focus on their local communities, on local resilience, and on building out alternatives that can help us resist a lot of these technocratic, agendas that seek to micromanage and control essentially every aspect of our lives.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yeah. I totally agree with that. I mean, last time we were on here, we were like, oh, Trump's gonna win. Obviously, he's gonna fucking dominate.
It's gonna be a landslide. We we were obviously correct. And, I mean, I think it's it's it's very helpful for I mean, we all know it's a uni party. Like, what are we why why did we all forget this? Every 4 years, you know, that seems to be this is the most important election.
This is we have to go vote. It's like, we all believe in elections again. We all believe in in, you know, democratic, you know, process here in America after what we've, you know, kind of experienced basically our whole lives in this, you know, we're all kind of 911 kids, and here we are kind of like trusting the government again. I feel like there's a lot of people. God damn it.
Speaker 0: Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: Are we back?
Speaker 2: Yeah. It should be working. You said Trump's gonna win a landslide earlier.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean, I think I echo pretty much what Whitney just said. Last time we were on here, it was like, well, Trump's obviously gonna win. That's obviously what happened. And I think, you know, maybe a lot of the things that have happened, you know, the last few years have been kinda setting up for this, like, huge populist movement, you know, that was, again, curated by oligarchs, social network billionaires, all these people that kind of control these these, like, DARPA cutouts and these projects.
And, you know, these social networks gearing up to be, you know, like, in excess case, half the financial system, you know, whatever. We have we have all these guys working together, working on their podcast strategy that was talked about by Dana White during the acceptance speech. And it was a huge part of the of the election cycle. And if you look at it, you know, I don't really believe in elections. I thought we kind of all agreed on that.
I I I think that the Uniparty is gonna do what it wants to do. It's this purple party entity. This idea that there's really this dueling faction between the 2 of them, I think that's just really, you know, it's like wrestling. I think it's really just this kinda like scripted, thing that they give to the masses. Politics have become bread and circus, and now we all get geared up and they use it to divide ourselves, you know, to to divide, the masses.
And they, you know, I think as Whitney said very prudently, specifically kind of aiming this this cue, Trump as the savior stuff at the dissident armed group in America. You know, they've they've been able to sort of manufacture complacency and consent for what they're gonna do now. And I think Trump has, you know, he has this huge mandate now. It's very obvious. Everyone feels it.
He's, you know, swept, you know, all three important elements of of the, American government system. And now we're gonna see what what he's gonna do. So it's not like the whole election cycle I was going around being like, how dare you vote for Trump? But it's over. It's done.
Here we are. If you believe in elections and you wanna vote, that's great. You like Trump? Fine. But the state hates you.
They are murderers, terrorists. They throw good people in jail. Like, the state put Ross in jail. Trump was president for 4 years, didn't free Ross. Let's get him out of here.
Fuck yeah. That's a great win. But I really think the mindset should be, let's hold these people as accountable as possible. Let's not, you know I was gonna say something gross there. Let's not, you know, dust them.
You know, they're undercarriages. You know, let's let's hold them to the fire. That's what we need to do. And I think that there is such an opportunity here when there is a populist uprising and a movement. Unfortunately, I feel like it was really captured into this controlled pen, you know, back to the electoral system, back to the state, back to, you know, Poppy Warp Speed being our savior.
And that's just, I think, kind of ridiculous, as Whitney said, it comes from us, from the people. So let's take this movement that there are a lot of truths in in this movement that I think that I do agree with. There are elements of freedom and libertarianism and even anarchy tossed around in this in this MAGA soup. But but, ultimately, I think the mechanisms are not what I agree with. I don't I don't want the state to have any more power.
The only thing I agree that Erik Prince has ever said is let's keep the government as far away from Bitcoin as possible. I don't like this, the government moving into Bitcoin stuff. I don't want the government to have a Bitcoin stash. Like, fuck them. I want them to get smaller and and get you know, this is an opportunity to fuck the financial system up.
I don't want them a part of it. Let's let them collapse it. Like, get smaller, forced to get smaller because they have to because they can't compete with the Bitcoin standard. That's what we've been, like, arguing for so long. It's a long winded rant here, but it's a moment to push back.
It's not a moment to to celebrate a win that hasn't even happened yet, in in many ways. You know, all these policies hasn't happened. We don't know the platform. We don't know who's in the cabinet yet. So let's be very, very, very, you know, smart, and just push back when we have the opportunity to, and not let the state just take over again.
I kinda think it's that straightforward.
Speaker 4: So Farris, this episode of TFTC is brought to you
Speaker 2: by our good friends at Unchained. Do you have an old IRA or 401 k that isn't keeping up with Bitcoin? Roll over into an Unchained Bitcoin IRA and take advantage of Bitcoin's long term potential while enjoying tax deferred growth. With Unchained, you hold real Bitcoin and keep control of your keys, reducing counterparty risk through their collaborative custody model while Unchained handles the tax forms. It's very important.
They handle the tax forms. Get started now with no setup fees and no account fee for the 1st year. Not only is this the only standard Bitcoin IRA where you can control keys unlike other Bitcoin IRAs, you can take distributions directly in Bitcoin avoiding exchange fees. Set up a Roth or traditional Bitcoin IRA for no charge today at unchained.com/tftc and experience true ownership of your retirement savings. Go to unchained.com/tftc.
This rep is also brought to you by our good friends at CoinKite. CoinKite builds the best Bitcoin hardware in the world. There is no second best when it comes to Bitcoin hardware. If you're looking to secure in self custody your Bitcoin, you can get the MK 4 or the Coldcard Q. ColdCar Q has a full keyboard, a QR scanner, NFC enabled, has a battery pack, put some double a batteries in there, great private public keys, off pair in an air gap fashion.
Private keys never have to touch an online device. They have their Sats card, which is the best way to give Bitcoin. If you're looking to gift Bitcoin for a wedding, a birthday party, a communion, a bat mitzvah, whatever it may be, tap the card on the back of your phone. You get a address to send to. You send it to that address.
It lives on the Sats card. Again, there is no second best when it comes to Bitcoin hardware. The Bitcoin price seems to be going up. You wanna take care of your security before Bitcoin goes to 6 figures. Make sure you get your Bitcoin off exchanges using CoinKite hardware MK 4, hold card queue.
Go to coinkite.com. Use the code TFTC. We have a code now. TFTC for 5% off at checkout. Yeah.
I I think I completely agree with the the idea that we shouldn't be complacent and we should be vigilant. We should be holding these people accountable. And to your point about Ross, I think that's the first thing that I'll be looking for day 1, does he get free. Alright? There's some accountability.
And, I mean, I voted for the first time ever in this election. I voted for Trump and this coalition because it does seem like and maybe I'm becoming, enthralled with the narrative and the the posturing of this coalition, but it I think the promise of making a smaller government, is what enticed me the most. And so, obviously, we've talked at length about Elon and many people surrounding Trump, in the lead up to this election. And now that they're surrounding him, in his current administration, I think there's, more reason than ever to be completely vigilant and make sure these people are are being held accountable. But that is what I'll be looking for is are they actually taking action to gut the administrative state that has quelled, the ability for people to live free.
And when it comes to Bitcoin too, like, I would push back on,
Speaker 0: like
Speaker 2: I mean, I I don't want the government making rules about Bitcoin, obviously, at the consensus level. But when it comes to, like, the United States government acquiring a strategic reserve, this has always been part of the game theory that Bitcoin Bitcoiners have talked about for 16 years. Maybe not US government specifically, but for 16 years now, the the the game theory has been it's gonna start with individuals. Companies are gonna adopt it. Pensions are gonna adopt it.
And then, ultimately, governments are gonna be forced to adopt the better money. And I actually do think it is a means to manufacture a smaller government in the long term because the way the debt is set up, it just has to grow. It's a Leviathan that is forced to grow. And if you have no actionable way to actually reduce the debt, the government's just gonna be forced to issue more debt, get bigger. And Well,
Speaker 1: what if Bitcoin is the way to do that? I mean, Tom's kind of straight up said that. That's the way we pay the the debt.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay. Yeah. I'm sorry about that. So, like, that maybe that is the roundabout way that you actually make government smaller in the long run as you find a solution to solve the debt problem. And the Leviathan just simply doesn't have the the means to or it's not that doesn't have the means to continue growing.
It's just the way it's set up now with the the federal debt. It is forced to expand that reach and that misallocation of capital and that abuse of power. I'm hopeful. I'm I'm white pilled right now because Mhmm. Many of other things.
Like, I do think the populist movement is certainly there. And I think what we saw in terms of the overwhelming message that was sent with this election, again, you mentioned taking the the house, the senate, and the White House. I think that that is a signal from the American people. Like, we're fucking fed up of this unit party. And the other high signal in my mind is the fact that this happened in spite or despite the overwhelming propaganda machine that got put in in the place of the mainstream corporate media over the last 4 years, but particularly the last 3 months.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But don't I mean, I I totally I think that there this is a, you know, we wrote about this, like, in January with tokenized. Think of kind of this idea of the the pivot has happened where now it's, you know, it's it's advantageous for that group that used to control the mainstream media, and the electoral process. You know, now they're pivoting to podcast strategies. Right?
Bukele is tweeting out being like, hey, I talked to Trump. We talked about podcasts. Dana White's talking about like, this that is the new media. And I think that there is an opportunity there, but also it's like, let's not just bait and switch and replace it with these, you know, agents that are that that serve kind of similar powers. You know, you look at the Weinstein brothers and people like that.
You know, like, you know, they're edge they're edge group people. They're, you know, they're teal capital managers. And here they are kind of they completely got COVID wrong at the beginning when it mattered. Now here they are, you know, acting like they got it right the first time, and the Joe Rogans of the world. You know, you're kinda seeing, you know, maybe these aren't, you know, that much better than the Don Lemons and and Brian Seltzer's and CNN.
You know, it's just a new apparatus. And so, obviously, there's been this big shift. We've seen it with Malay. You know, obviously, we're seeing it with Trump again, round 2, that this is now the the more useful narrative, is to push towards these, you know, this direction. Now that, you know, they basically did what they did with the COVID era policy, which was to, you know, in in in August September of 2019 when the repo market explodes, Trump gets together with his money manager, Larry Fink, and they come up with a plan of basically how to get all this money to go right to Wall Street, not to Main Street.
And then they crush demand and lock down the country and push these, you know, deregulate these pharma products and push them out, in this way that was they print more money than anyone has ever printed in the history of the United States or the world. You know, they crushed demand by locking us all in our houses. This was this was all scripted before the virus, you know, was dropping out, which was was running rampant. Event 2 what
Speaker 2: was it called? Event, what was the game the war game they ran?
Speaker 0: Oh, right before COVID, event 201.
Speaker 1: Yeah. 201. Yeah. But this specific plan with with Fink was was the going direct plan. And this was done, you know, this this was, you know, a a a plan.
This was absolutely, you know, this they had to address this issue of of the debt. How do you do it? Well, let's print all this money, lock down the economy so that we crush inflation as much as possible by crushing demand. And then we use these 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars that has no ability to go into checkings accounts and into main street and use it to buy up all the assets in the world. We'll bring Bitcoin down to $3,000 at 20 x's in a year, Onshore, all of this Bitcoin into the United States, move everything into a deflationary economic system now that we have it all.
And then we we start pushing a completely different, economic and political system, onto the people, you know, using these these new media formats. And now everyone thinks it's this, you know, huge exciting win that, you know, the government is adopting these things. They wanna cut, all these people in the government and bring it down. It's like, well, of course, they do. Now they have everything.
They have all the assets. They have all the technology, they have the drones to set up the border and to set up their citadels. They have, you know, enough Bitcoin to literally pay off the debt if they want to hyperinflate into the the dollar into Bitcoin. And I think that's really what we kind of explored in this chain series was this idea of maybe this was all a huge plan. And maybe while, yes, there is, I think, a net good that comes from deflationary monetary system, I think, ultimately, that is a good thing.
It's less important, you know, who is Satoshi and more important, who is Potosi? Who has all the Bitcoin? Where is it? And when you kind of explore and look at the people that were really there that built these things from a regulatory standpoint and a custody standpoint, these people are heavily connected to the the the intelligence state, Thiel specifically, and a lot of these people that actually have a huge role in the Trump administration. And so I think it was very obvious in telegraphed, you know, you know, specifically Trump, specifically stable coins.
You know, I've been writing about this for, you know, three and a half years now that this is what's gonna happen. Trump is gonna pivot and go right towards Bitcoin. Look at what he actually did. You know, I I don't think it's an accident that I was right about all those things. It's they were that's what they were doing.
They were just saying something else. So I've learned to not trust what they say and see what they do. And I think, you know, when you explore that, I think you can absolutely make a case, which I have repeatedly, that there's actually a lot to benefit the empire of the United States with a monetary expansion into Bitcoin. Of course, they can't dilute it. They can't control it.
There's a lot of things they can't do. That's great. But they can pay off the debt and continue US empire with stable coins and, you know, private issued tokens on public blockchains. It's a boon for surveillance as a former CIA director would say. So, I think there's a lot to sort of unpack about maybe we haven't won yet.
We're all gonna be rich now. It's awesome. But maybe we haven't won yet, and there's still a huge war to be fought. And so I think that they are manufacturing that complacency, the same thing they did with Q, going into the pandemic, you know, to just get us all to sit in our chairs and be like, patriots are in control. They're arresting the pedos.
Like, here we go. Did that really happen? Has that happened? How
Speaker 0: did Some people on Twitter still think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But, like, how do how do these people fight? You know? They fight with lawfare. They they, you know, the the this champion of free markets, Peter Thiel, this libertarian, god here who's really the guy kinda running a lot of these things. You know, he took down Docker using Lawfare and and Suits after, you know, the the story is after they kind of release some personal stuff about his life, and maybe his sexual orientation and some stuff.
But really, it was because they published the Epstein list.
Speaker 0: Yeah. The the year they went after him was the year that Gawker it was the first publication to make public the Epstein Black Book. And at the time, Peter Thiel was meeting with Epstein pretty consistently between 2014 and 2015. So hard to know Right. Really what what the reason was.
But people were definitely not happy that that black book came out because the person who, you know, obtained it was actually Epstein's butler. And he was, you know, killed off in prison in 2015 the same year. So, kind of complicated stuff. And as far as, Peter Thiel being a free market libertarian, he's pretty open. Well, he's on video and in writings has said that he, doesn't like free market competition.
It's actually for losers. He thinks that his definition of a capitalist is someone who accrues, capital. So someone that believes in free market capitalism but isn't, a millionaire to Peter Thiel isn't really isn't really a capitalist very much. Like someone like Reid Hoffman, you know, who backed Kamala heavily, for example, would be more of a capitalist to Peter Thiel than someone like yourself, Marty.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. It's been interesting. Like, the Epstein diddy stuff leading up to it. You look at the Leviathan that backed Kamala specifically and and Reid Hoffman on the list as well.
Like, it seems like there was anybody who was at Diddy parties are on
Speaker 0: the list? Well, I think there's also, you know, it's not it didn't just happen with the Diddy. It also happened with Epstein. There's been a deliberate effort, in my opinion, to cultivate the perception that the only, people that are sexually compromised or that are pedophiles, in the United States are celebrities and Democrats only when it is if you look at the evidence, and I wrote a 1,000 page book that goes over the history of sexual blackmail operations, including those involving children. It's very clearly both parties.
And probably no, government was more guilty of that than the Reagan Bush era with the Franklin scandal, and a lot of the other things that were, you know, oversawn as part of that. Or like Iran Contra, drug trafficking, helping facilitate BCCI, which the US Senate report admits was also sex trafficking minors to elites of the United Arab Emirates, including prepubescent children. Right? So this is something that has consistently been both parties. And, you know, the idea that it's only one partisan side, I think is very complicated and ultimately not true and could potentially be used for troubling ends.
And as far you know, I have an article that I haven't finished yet because I've had a lot of other stuff going on, about, you know, the overlaps between the Epstein and Diddy networks. And it's really not exclusively partisan, and there's a lot of very deliberate overlaps, the biggest one being, I guess, Ron Burkle, who owns the Kroger Supermarkets between the two, who hasn't even been discussed at all even though he was a big Clinton donor. Why does his name not get brought up? But it's like, you know, a lot of focus on, you know, big name celebrities perhaps, and, you know, Democrat candidates. But, you know, Ron Burkle was also all over, the Epstein Clinton flights.
Don't you think that people would wanna call that out? It's kinda weird that his name's been left out of it. And there's other names as well that have been, you know, left out of it too, you know, I would argue, unfortunately. But I I you know, again, I think it's part of this effort to sort of sensationalize, you know, the very real scandals around Epstein and and Diddy and, you know, scandals like that and try and sort of make it more of a spectacle and have people be like, oh, look at these evil, naughty celebrities and not really look at how our, government has consistently enabled this type of behavior. Why is the FBI or the fed you know, the government only going after these people when they did, when most of their crimes were committed many, many years ago?
I mean, there's a lot of, you know, things I could, I guess, add to that. But essentially, you know, I don't really like that it's being treated as partisan when the historical record very clearly shows it's a bipartisan disease and that both parties have been very compromised by it for a long time that it's essentially something that was done, through this, unholy alliance, if you will, between organized crime and intelligence agencies, which as I've you know, I know a lot in my book with a lot of facts to back it up, you can't really tell where organized crime and intelligence agencies end and begin. You know, they're, you know, for all intents and purposes, the same. And so, and I think it's complicated too that you have people like, this, figure named Chuck Johnson, who's very close to Peter Thiel, actually had Peter Thiel become an FBI informant at his behalf, you know, openly saying that Jeffrey Epstein was actually a patriot and Ghislaine Maxwell should be released from prison, and and things of that nature. Like, is there going to be, a rebrand or or something, you know, by into media operatives that have ties, you know, to the state of Israel, for example, that Epstein was also tied to, trying to rebrand their guy as someone that was just trying to keep the dims from doing the wrong things or something like that.
I don't know. But why is someone saying that? You know, personally, I find that stuff kind of concerning and a lot of, you know, hints from people like Megyn Kelly that we'll be hearing from Epstein really soon, and there's gonna be a big twist in in the story. You know, I just really don't trust the partisan, bent of that. Personally, I think it's going to be, misused, and it doesn't fit with the facts, frankly.
Is it true that there are very problematic people involved in these scandals that back Kamala? Absolutely. Absolutely. Reid Hoffman obviously being the most obvious, but it's fair to say that Peter Thiel and also Elon Musk, you know, have their Epstein ties as well. It just hasn't been, I guess, of interest as much to people in certain media circles.
But there's definitely facts pointing to that. A lot of them I've discussed in my books, some came out after my book was published when a lot of these discovery documents from the USVI case against JPMorgan as it related to Epstein were sort of released at least aspects of them more by The Wall Street Journal, which also illuminated the extent to which he met with Reid Hoffman. But that was the first time that it was officially confirmed that Peter Thiel met extensively with Epstein previously. It was, you know, I had to speculate about that for the purpose of my book because there were plenty of indicators suggesting that was the case. Now we know it's the case.
And there's a lot that hasn't come out, you know, about Epstein. And there's still not a lot of interest in Epstein, in particular, on the financial crime angle of that, which I think is really significant. And, you know, the fact that they make it sort of the sensationalized, salacious story that it's, you know, all about just these terrible Saxx and stuff. It's a lot bigger story, and there's not a lot of interest in going after it, I think, because a lot of the people implicated are some of the biggest people in Silicon Valley. Elon Musk, Sergey Brin, and Larry Page were all subpoenaed as part of the as part of that Epstein case, Tom Pritzker of the Pritzker family.
And these are people that, you know, play both sides of the political divide also. But they all seem to have that, you know, behind them. And some you know, it may not be convenient. You know, you have Elon Musk going out saying, like, Reid Hoffman should be very afraid, you know, about the information about Epstein coming out. But as I said earlier and as I've said on other podcasts, and as noted in my book, Elon Musk had business ties, with Jeffrey Epstein and was subpoenaed as part of this banking probe into the financing or his connections to JPMorgan and other things, which is not just the sex trafficking thing, it's also connected with the financial crime aspect of it.
Because if you look into a lot of Epstein's financial stuff, he was involved in essentially collapsing Bear Bear Stearns, which is essentially executed intentionally as part of, you know, the 08 crisis. And then, you know, he switches banks to JPMorgan, and that's the bank that buys up Bear Stearns all of their assets for pennies on the dollar. And, you know, when Epstein popped one of, Bear Stearns' most, one of their most overleveraged funds, you know, which helped which essentially created the conditions that led to Bear Stearns collapsing, you know, people were like, well, he lost a lot of money. But as the Martins reported on Wall Street on Parade, he also got, you know, essentially a secret, you know, multimillion dollar bailout from the Fed. So he didn't really lose any money.
You know? And you don't hear this stuff discussed about Epstein. You don't hear, mentions about Diddy teaming up with the Bronfman family or the Lauder family. He absolutely did. And there are, connections of that, of course, to the Epstein scandal, as as is noted in my book.
But, again, it's a focus on sensationalism and trying to use it for partisan means. And, ultimately, when we play those games, everyone ends up losing because we're not getting to the truth of the matter. And by not getting to the truth of the matter, we're unable to root out this evil from our society.
Speaker 2: This rep was also brought to you by
Speaker 4: our good friends at Zaprite. If you're a Bitcoiner and run a business or an independent contractor, you should be accepting Bitcoin as payment. If not you, then who? If we believe that Fiat is systemically fragile and is a risk, the rails that that currency runs on are risk as well. You need to begin accepting Bitcoin as soon as possible.
Invest in the future of your business. Create a redundant rail by accepting Bitcoin as payment using Zap. Right? And reduce risk for your business. I've done this for my business.
Here at TFTC, we use Zap Right. It allows you to easily create invoices, payment links, or connect ecommerce stores, connect your wallets or custodial accounts, and be set up in minutes. We can also connect our bank accounts, our Stripe accounts, or Square accounts to accept fiat as well. The time is now, freaks. The fiat system is fragile.
Invest in the infrastructure that derisk the future. Invest in yourself, Bitcoin payments with Zaprite. Go to zaprite.com/tftc to get $40 off their annual subscription. Zaprite.com/tftc. $40 off.
This rep was also brought to you by
Speaker 2: our good friends at Salt of the Earth. You gotta be hydrating, freaks. And while you're hydrating, you gotta be getting your electrolytes. This is the best electrolytes mix that I've ever come into contact with. Pink Himalayan salt with calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, no sugar.
It tastes incredible. My favorite is the orange and the pink lemonade. Go to drinksote dotcom. That's drinksote.com. Use the code TFTC when you make your purchase, and you'll get 15% off.
I'm telling you, get on it, freaks. You're gonna love this stuff. Well, on this note, entering back to accountability, vigilance, you mentioned Megyn Kelly. I saw Kash Patel, I believe his name is. I forget what show he was on.
He was saying they're gonna release the Epstein and Diddy files. What, so in terms of accountability, how in your mind would an Epstein DITY list information be disclosed properly? Which all the inform like, how how would you like to see like, what would make you sufficiently happy with with, like, a disclosure of the Epstein, Diddy stuff?
Speaker 0: Well, I would like them to release all the files, and that includes on things that the government will never release information on, like China Gate, for example, where Epstein, on behalf of the state of Israel, helped facilitate the transfer sensitive military technology to China through, well, it was a very elaborate scheme. I've written about it in in my book pretty extensively. It was really the Iran Contra network sort of retooling themselves for the benefit of creating what Samuel Pesar, who's very close well, Anthony Lincoln's stepfather for one thing, but he was also Robert Maxwell's confidant. He talked about to Congress about the that the world was turning into what he called the transideological, corporation where the corporate sector of the United States was merging with the state owned, companies of the communist bloc, so China and Russia. And that's essentially what China Gate was furthering because a key part of creating that, of binding these state owned companies and the communist bloc and the private sector in the West was built around technology transfer, which is essentially what, you know, ChinaGate was about, and that, even though conservatives, remember are the only one only party, of course, that remembers ChinaGate, they remember it as a campaign finance scandal, not a military, what you know, a military scandal fundamentally.
Right? So, there'd have to be a lot of things that come out. And again, I don't think they're interested, and I don't think they will release information that relates to financial crimes, or any of really of the intelligence activities of Epstein. And, I don't know. I mean, we'll see what ends up getting released.
But keep in mind, you know, when Trump campaigned in 2016, he campaigned in part, I mean, on many things, obviously. But one of them was, you know, about sort of releasing, you know, JFK files, which was a campaign promise that was released this time. And when it came around to it, in his first term, he declined to, release a significant amount of documents. Some came out, but one many notable ones that people had been waiting for were not released at the last minute. And I can't remember exactly what Trump said, but it was something to the effect of, if you had seen what I had seen, you wouldn't release them either, or something like that.
But then, you know, repeats the promise this cycle that he's going to, you know, put all these assassination files and all of these, government secrets out there. And, yeah, unfortunately, I'm a little bit skeptical of that, just because that, of the fact that some people close to Trump or that have backed Trump, figures from the Reagan Bush era, for example, like Ed Meese, who was an adviser to Trump, during his first term, or someone like Oliver North, who, you know, was a key figure in Iran Contra. And people forget that he, you know, created a domestic terror watch list essentially that included people on the left, on the right that could be rounded up and essentially put into camps if the government ever declared a vague state of emergency. You know, this is not a freedom guy. You know, these people have, you know, been supportive and been influential on some of the policy decisions that were made last time.
And, unfortunately, the Trump administration, just like all the the the Bush, Obama, and the Biden administrations, really every administration since the new century started, have advanced the war on domestic terror, which is essentially, you know, in terms of of software. It's run by Palantir, which has, you know, an outsized influence on the current, you know, Trump administration as we discussed last time. And, you know, that's very complicated, for because the war on domestic terrorism meant to be weaponized about against dissidents on both sides of the political aisle, ultimately, at the end of the day. And so, obviously, the Democrats have their plans to weaponize it against certain demographics, but that doesn't mean Trump won't be doing it either, because he's already essentially said that, you know, anti Semitic speech is going to be, challenged or what he deems anti Semitic speech. But now that the definition of anti Semitism has been expanded to criticisms of, you know, a foreign government, you know, not being allowed to criticize that foreign government, how far is that going to go?
And what impacts is that going to have? For example, I'm discussing something like the Epstein case, and how would that impact that type of viewpoint, impact what types of Epstein files are released versus other ones. You know? I mean, I I would, you know, anticipate just because of Trump's rather, slavish deference to Israel, that any sort of, you know, the connections that are clearly there, between Epstein and the Israeli state, I do not really anticipate a lot coming out on that. You know, maybe some more information on the Epstein Clinton relationship, which is absolutely terrible.
Epstein, of course, also had his own relationship to Trump, that should honestly be more controversial than it probably is. While it's true they parted ways in, you know, the mid 2000 or so, which was mainly over a competition over a Palm Beach real estate property that neither of them ended up, getting and, was questionable in in numerous ways. Yes, they did part ways, but it doesn't mean that they didn't, do things of a questionable nature together before, that there weren't red flags about their relationship prior to that, point in time. And, you know, obviously, Trump has a very checkered past, and a lot of his, supporters, you know, forgive that and say it's a new you know, that he's a new man and all of this stuff. And I don't really, care what people believe, but that doesn't necessarily change, you know, what happened, what may have happened in the 19 nineties or the 19 eighties or, you know, things of of that nature.
I don't know. Sorry. I've been rambling for a while. But I would certainly like to see all of the documents come out, But the government has never done that. Will it be different this time?
You know, given what happened with the JFK file released under Trump again, I am skeptical. I would very much like to be wrong. Any document that comes out, I'm sure, will be helpful. But with, you know, people like Elon Musk and and Peter Thiel and and people, you know, like that relatively close to Trump, it's very unlikely that any documents implicating their connection with Epstein or and or that would shed light on that. You know, maybe they do a selective release.
You know, I'm Matt at Reid Hoffman. He backed Kamala, so we'll put out more on him. I don't know. Again, it remains to be seen, but, you know, I certainly would like to see more, transparency. But, the way that FOIA requests are currently handled, you know, I'm I'm not I'm not very hopeful.
I mean, frankly, one of the key guys in the Clinton administration on China Gate, Mark Middleton, who was killed off in the middle of the the Epstein scandal sort of unfolding in 2019. He supposedly hung himself on an extension cord and and shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. You know, got it to be really sure. Right?
Speaker 1: All done that. It's easy.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I've had a multiple FOIA requests into the Clinton presidential library. They have folders on Mark Middleton. Crickets. They don't want crystal stuff to come out.
You know?
Speaker 2: Crickets? Like, not even, we can't give you this? Just nothing.
Speaker 0: They don't really have to. You know? I mean, because FOIA is like they're supposed to, but, like, you have to go through all this lawfare to actually force them to obey the law a lot of the time. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 1: So I I think that, you know, this idea of we're gonna get, like, a, you know, a good release of this stuff. It's like you're looking at all the people that are around Trump right now and how many have numerous connections. And, again, as you just said, obviously, Elon, he's you know, we just found out today, he's on the call with Trump talking with Zelensky. Like, he's very integrated into this group, you know, absolutely has connections with Epstein. Tio absolutely has connections with Epstein.
Howard Lutnick, the Cantor Fitzgerald, is one of 24 primary dealers for the fed. The guy that custodies Tether's, you know, reserves. He bought, an estate previously owned by Epstein, via this Guido Goldman, Bronfman, Comet Trust Group,
Speaker 0: in For $10.
Speaker 1: For $10. It's a multimillion dollar, estate, you know, in Manhattan. You know? And then, of course, you know, the guy that just got out of jail, you know, Steve Bannon, you know, he was working with Epstein. So he's like a Goldman intelligence guy, and he was working with Epstein on a documentary.
I guess they filmed, like, 10 hours, 12 hours.
Speaker 0: I think it's believed to be between 18 and 20 hours, the amount of, you know, Epstein footage that Steve Bannon has and he has yet to release. Right. And Bannon was pretty open that he sort of wanted to, that he thought Epstein was part of some connected to some sort of intelligence service and that he wanted to sort of do that himself, essentially.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So, you know, again, it's kind of complicated. It's a, again, it's a truly bipartisan scandal. So, you know, one particular party, if they think they can get an advantage by releasing stuff that implicates the other guys but not themselves, Yeah. I think it's possible they will do that, but I don't think that necessarily serves, the American public because as I've strived to point out in my own work on the case, there's a very deliberate effort to weaponize and the case and keep it solely focused on a very small range of what Epstein actually did during his relatively lengthy career that involved ties to organized crime and intelligence. There's been no interest in going after his most obvious benefactor, Leslie Wexner, despite the fact that Wexner, you know, was a never Trumper in all of this stuff.
You know, no interest in going after him at all or any of the people who arguably were the most involved. You know, no interest in getting the immunity removed for Epstein's Secretaries like Leslie Groff or someone like Sarah Kellen. Again, I don't really I think the interest is, you know, weaponizing it potentially for partisan stuff or just not releasing anything at all. So I'll leave it there.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I think getting back maybe to to some of the Bannon stuff, you know, we're looking at this, you know, blob, whatever mafia intelligence merger, which obviously, you know, lit Whitney literally wrote the book on. And, you know, we're sort of blurring the lines of, like, what is intelligence? What is mafia? What even is governance?
You know, how how are these things all kind of meeting together? And I think looking at the Bannon story, is specifically as it relates to digital currency is really interesting because I think it kinda nails all of this, you know, these axioms really well. Bannon was Brock Pierce's right hand man. They were working on digitizing, commodities and creating digital economies, in the early 2000, working in the video game worlds. Goldman understood, you know, World of Warcraft gold was was a digital commodity, you know, before anyone else did.
And, you know, Goldman comes in and puts a ton of money into Brock Pierce's company. And, you know, he he's he's like a kid, basically. Puts all this money into Brock Pierce's company. Bannon ends up replacing him as the, you know, the CEO of the company. And they're working on you know, literally, it stated Pierce says this that they were working with economists, to to basically simulate and stimulate things in a digital world, to try things, in an economy that they wouldn't be able to do in the real world with, you know, with much lesser consequences.
So we have literally Goldman, Epstein connected, you know, people, intelligence connected people, working with this guy, Brock Pierce, to create a digital economy, and try these these new economic policies and new things in video games. And they were incredibly successful at it, and they made they made a ton of money. And, you know, Brock, I think, is is a very interesting case of, you know, maybe how modern intelligence, you know, would work. They find a very compromised person. He was a part of the Digital Entertainment Network with Mark Collins Rector, who is a known pedophile, who, you know, recruited Chad Shackley, his business partner, who, you know, Brock was kind of the 3rd person when he was a minor, and, Mark was certainly not a minor at the time.
And they created the Digital Entertainment Network, and they had this Chad Shackley, Mark Collins Rector, you know, Palace sort of, estate, in, in Southern California. And they were running, basically, you could argue, you know, a blackmail ring that that was, you know, based on, you know, having young boys, and and meeting them directly with people that were in venture capital and people that were in politics, like the the husband of, Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post. I think it's Arianna. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. But, the husband, who was a representative there who was, you know, involved later had to kinda come out and be like, oh, I'm bi and, hey.
You know, it's fine. But there there were absolutely inappropriate things going on there just in the same way that these ditty parties, you know, that everyone's very excited about. It's kind of the same play. Have these compromising things happen in an area that's their area where they can film everything, and then they can hold all these these people accountable. Brock Pierce was a part of that, very much so.
The digital entertainment network also has all of these connections to Disney, to Microsoft, to Enron. There's a lot of spooky things there. Brock Pierce, you know, ends up working with Clearstone out of the Idealabs group. Idealabs is the 1st investor in, institutional investor in PayPal, and they're heavily connected to, NEAR, which is one of the largest human trap, human traffic of movement, brokers in the world. Geolocation.
Geolocation brokers in the world. But then you see what well, what does Brock do? He's one of the first Bitcoin evangelists. He creates Tether with Craig Sellers, who I generally like. I think Craig's cool, even though, you know, I obviously am very skeptical of Tether, but he's kind of the tech guy.
I think the way that, you know, it it's described as Brandon Bloomer from block 1, which was obviously, you know, heavily backed by Lewis Bacon, who also was a huge investor in Idealabs and and PayPal and kind of the Soros acolyte, and Peter Thiel, obviously, in in Block 1 and Bloomberg, you know, described Pierce as being this orchestrator. So he's working with Bannon. Bannon is his right hand man, and he's this orchestrator who can create 3 or 4 businesses that really operate as one business. That that was sort of the quote that he said. So we're seeing, like, you know, that there is absolutely, what we would consider modern intelligence, this apparatus that, you know, intelligence in the forties and fifties, sixties, and maybe seventies, you know, was really academic based.
You know, there was a little bit more office stuff, a little bit more what we think of when we think of, you know, what what intelligence is, you know, pencil pushers and kind of nerds and offices and academia. And they were really these breeding grounds for intelligence. They figured out, you know, into the eighties, that, you know, where we needed to go was the private sector. That's where we if we wanna compete with the technologists, if we're gonna kind of unleash the semiconductor and the Internet on the world, we need to compete with them, you know, directly. We can't really be doing that with all this government red tape.
You know, a huge part of all these operations is money management. It's laundering. It's moving things around so they can finance black operations. Mhmm. And that's that's that's what really what happened here.
And so you're looking at the early PayPal group, and you have someone like Olevjen. I mean, he literally applied for the NSA, and they told him no. And just so you know, you're never gonna make any money if you come work for the NSA. If you have a really good idea, you'll never make money here. You won't be able to publish anything that you make here.
You know, you're beholden to the government, by being an official member of the NSA. Why don't you go drive out to California and go find Peter Thiel, and then, you know, you build all the crypto for, for PayPal and kind of start this digit no. They were really kind of the first group to digitize money, in their, you know, their big blowout. They did this thing called beaming at bucks where they did the first ever transfer, between infrared ports of a palm pilot of 1,000,000 of dollars. They were kind of the first people to do it.
And he created all this anti fraud stuff, all these things. As he was building it, you know, he says in this 2013 interview with Charlie Rose that the, the relationships he built with the 3 and 4 letter agencies while building PayPal were the most productive ones that he, you know, ever had in his whole career. Obviously, Palantir comes out of PayPal. It's the anti fraud algorithm known as Igor. It comes out of pay out of the PayPal movement.
And you're seeing all of these you know, you have to look at the you know, we call it the chain, but you look at all these people that were there at the beginning, of this movement, and, unfortunately, it just stinks of intelligence. Now you could argue, which I think is definitely a prudent argument. Well, of course, they're gonna try to come in and coop this shit. Of course. That's what they do.
That's what the government does that they're gonna come in. If there is this beautiful movement, they're gonna come in and and try to coop it. And that's absolutely possible. It's also absolutely possible that this came out of intelligence and kind of this this new splintering group, of, you know, In Q Tel kind of starting in in the nineties and and going direct the CIA going directly into venture capital. You know, it's it's kinda hard to tell where the lines are, where they aren't.
And, again, as I'm sure you would argue, it doesn't fucking matter who made Bitcoin. It literally doesn't. It's the the the protocol is the protocol, and the math is the math. But where it's going and what it can enable and empower is extremely important. And when you see these people that are very obviously, have the markings of intelligence agents, you know, being all over the primordial goop of of the digital, you know, revolution, obviously, we knew the digital money was coming in some form.
It was inevitable. I don't think we thought it would be like Bitcoin, but, like, here we are. You have to sort of zoom out and look at all these things and and and look at this this whole group. That's why we did this investigation. You know, I pretty much researched myself out of a job, what was supposed to start as just a simple Tether.
Let's look into Tether turned into, you know, an 80,000 word investigation of, like, the early Bitcoin space and now the stable coin issuers and the regulators and where we're going. And there's so much disgusting stuff all over this. I mean, the the the Gillenbrand connections with Nexium, you know, both of her parents being involved in a Bronfman led sex cult, extremely disturbing, and now she's writing the legislator the legislation, excuse me, that regulates stable coins. It heavily uses the Terra LUNA FTX implosion, which you could argue, and I do, that these were controlled demolitions done to simulate, you know, a dialectic basically. We need to ban algorithmic stable coins.
They all say that everywhere. David Marcus, Teal, the reserve guys, the legislators, you know, like Gillum, Brandon, Lummis, they they specifically say we need to preserve the dual banking system. We can't have Bitcoin backed money. We need to do treasuries. They're really building this this you know, you look at this whole machine, and they're building this, you know, consent towards us all being super stoked about, you know, this private stable coins, and Bitcoin being held by the US government.
You know, that this is this is sort of where we are. And so if you look at it as sort of an intelligence play, you know, these are currency speculators. That's what Epstein was. That's what Thiel was. What would they do?
How would they fix our debt and move into this new system? They would probably do exactly what they did.
Speaker 0: And, well, one thing I wanna bring up about, you know, people like Gillibrand and and Lamas is that they frame a lot and and especially Lamas, you know, frames a lot of her, crypto advocacy as necessary to ensure dollar hegemony. Right? And so as, you know, as I understand it and a lot of, you know, rhetoric I've heard in the Bitcoin space for years is that Fiat is terrible. It's broken money. We need to move on from Fiat.
And so hearing things like that from Lummis, hearing, Trump at the Bitcoin conference say, actually, the Bitcoin and the dollar are not competing. Bitcoin is going to strengthen the the dollar and all of this stuff. You know, I think it does is a harbinger should be a harbinger for concern, for people that don't want a debt based monetary, future. And, unfortunately, you know, I mean, it's essentially been admitted, that, you know, the next president, who we know now will be Trump, is going to face some sort of US government debt crisis. And, of course, that debt crisis is the consequent of wildly irresponsible fiscal policy.
Right? And so what's what I am concerned about is that there will be no accountability for that. There is a plan to use things that were meant or at least pitched as destroying fiat and the debt based monetary system will be used instead to usher in a new a newer version of it that, as Mark pointed out earlier, it will likely be deflationary, but only because they've stolen all of the assets and and really most things of value. So at that point, they do want a deflationary system because they have hoarded all of the wealth, and they don't want their wealth to inflate away now that they, hold almost all of the cards. Right?
And so you know, what concerns me there then is, like, you know, the the stablecoin play. You know, as we set up for, you know, a long time, stablecoins have the potential to be just as programmable and surveyable as a CBDC could be. And the Fed and, the National Security Committee, meaning, you know, the CIA among other agencies, have been very open that that stablecoins will ensure dollar hegemony. And you have, you know, stablecoins like Tether, for example, saying that we're a partner of US dollar hegemony. And, you know, Trump, with the, you know, his family's, you know, stablecoin project having recently come out, it's about, having globalizing the dollar.
Speaker 2: Much adoption.
Speaker 0: Well, not maybe not that necessarily, but it shows that the intent is to globalize the dollar and essentially use dollar stablecoins, not that aren't necessarily directly issued by the US government but will be regulated by it, to become, you know, essentially a de facto world currency. You know, that's essentially the push. And, you know, it's essentially been happening relatively quietly, for some time in in economies that are dramatically unstable and have been made unstable by entities like the IMF, for example, which, you know, the US military refers to the IMF as a financial weapon of military power of the the United States government.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Right? And so, you know, and then Argentina, of course, a lot of people are using Tether because their local currency is no good, and that's happening in other places around the world that have also been subjected, you know, to essentially financial warfare by these same predatory, you know, again, debt slavery model based, institutions. And so will this actually improve, the situation? Will it prevent future irresponsible fiscal policy if this is what ultimately ends up happening? It it it's it's, it will come down to people resisting that and saying, no.
That's not okay, if really it is true that people in the Bitcoin space are opposed to debt slavery and debt based monetary, a debt based monetary paradigm, which is what I have heard for a long time, and I absolutely agree with that. And I am also concerned about the introduction now of climate finance as a way to use carbon market schemes or other forms of carbon pricing or some of these efforts to securitize the natural world like one that was recently we recently wrote about, about the Amazon rainforest, for example, being securitized by the guy that invented ETFs and used to be head of BlackRock's Global Investments or something like that. These are going to be used as different places to shovel debt because if you have a huge debt crisis, you're looking for things you know, shovel the debt into to make your debt problem go away. And so, you know, as we've talked about, you know, I think starting, you know, maybe 3 years ago, Marty, you know, on your show, you know, I've I've I've been on talking about this effort a while. Right?
Speaker 1: At least 5.
Speaker 0: Yeah. An effort to securitize, you know, the natural world and create this new asset class, you know, that they these groups that back this call nature's economy, because they can essentially quadruple or quintuple the amount of assets in the current economy and basically keep the existing casino model that Wall Street and these criminal banks have go on forever. They need that new asset class to keep their models going that make that generate them a lot of money. And the fact that there's all these efforts from people like Lummis and Gillibrand and others that want to support the dual banking system that rewards irresponsible government fiscal policy and criminal acts of the private banks, you know, I'm concerned about that. And the fact that, you know, in in Trump's administration in particular, you have someone like Howard Lutnick closely tied to Tether, but also very connected to ESG, the Sustainable Development Goals.
Cantor Fitzgerald has an entire fund dedicated to implementing the UN Sustainable Development Goals, right, which includes, by the way, digital ID is part of that, and programmable surveyable money linking a digital ID to some sort of CBDC or UBI biometric wallet and all of this stuff. This is in the SDGs. And he's on the Board of this company that we've talked about most of this year actually called SataLogic that is involved in all several efforts to securitize nature, and turn basically things like the Amazon rainforest into, you know, tradable financial products, that don't actually conserve anything but are framed as that. And then, you know, this effort to basically install a predatory global carbon market, over Latin America that, at the same time, it ends local and national sovereignty? Or would de facto end it and and lead toward toward a more regional government and regional government block and try and build out, like, a smart power grid and 5 g stuff throughout the continent under the guise of conserving it and ending climate change.
You know, ultimately, you know, as I've argued in that and Mark and I have argued in some of our other pieces, the goal is really just to use that stuff to shovel debt someplace. And even, you know, RFK Jr's former VP pick, Nicole Shanahan, we know she's led projects, research projects about how to shovel you, how to facilitate quantitative easing by quantitatively easing into carbon sequestration projects and tokenized carbon credits and carbon coins and all of this stuff. So this is something that is definitely being talked about by figures that are around the current administration. And if there is a debt crisis, even though, you know, Trump, pulled people out of the Paris Accords and all of that stuff, you know, I mean, Elon Musk quit all the advisory panels he councils. He was on in the 1st Trump administration because Trump ended the US's, commitment to the Paris agreements.
Right? But this time, he's obviously come back in a big way and as recently as February was pushing for carbon taxes and some other form of carbon pricing and has been a big advocate for that for really several years. And he's really not the only one. There's a lot of Republicans actually that were pushing for carbon taxes when Trump was in office last time. He didn't listen to them, but if it's considered, or framed as necessary, because of a debt crisis or something like that, you know, the tune may change.
And, you know, with someone like Lutnick, who's so I mean, he's not Larry Fink, but, I mean, he's certainly, not like an anti ESG guy and not an anti climate finance guy. And, I mean, if you look into carbon markets or any of this other stuff, I mean, they're the reason they've been failing is because they're exposed time and time again as scams. So now the new thing is to frame them as high integrity carbon markets. We need high integrity carbon markets. But you're never gonna get a freaking high integrity carbon market when it's criminal bankers making them up because criminal bankers do one thing, and that's steel.
You know? And so, I mean, that's what the carbon market they will make will do. It's essentially inevitable.
Speaker 1: What was the what was what Fink saying? He was like, I'm sick of everyone talking about how this is the most important election. You know, we work with both parties. Like, who gives a shit? You know?
I mean, he didn't say who gives a shit. But
Speaker 0: Well, that is unfortunate. You have Kamala's economic team and Biden's economic team essentially being run by BlackRock executives. And then, you know, when Trump was in office last time, Larry Fink had a basically, you know, BlackRock designed US fiscal, the US fiscal response to COVID that they began implementing before a pandemic was even declared, and it it resulted in one of the biggest, you know, transfers wealth transfers in American history and printed more money than at any other time in US history. And, you know, that was BlackRock, and they're not going away. And the fact that Fink is is like we work with both administrations.
I mean, they worked with Obama during o eight. They worked with Trump, and they worked with Biden and would have worked with Kamala. Yeah. He's not he's not he he's retired the term ESG, and uses things like sustainable investing and climate finance and other terms now. But he openly says that it's it was never about conservation or saving the planet.
It's about profits. And if you look at Larry Fink's track record, like what I just mentioned mentioned with COVID fiscal policy, you know, their track record is basically stealing wealth from the public and then using control they take over corporations or pension funds or, you know, other things like that to try and force behavioral changes among, corporations and the American public. And what sort of behavioral changes does Larry Fink want? I think we all know by now.
Speaker 1: Well, also, all you have to do is look at is look at the the lockdowns. I mean and and look at how going direct was written before there was a talk of a of a virus. And you have to look at the lockdowns as it was fiscal policy to crush demand, to be able to print a bunch of money, give it to Wall Street, and let them buy everything up. If you actually think about the implications of that, think about the implications of that. They committed the greatest violation of human civil liberties, probably maybe arguably in in in in human history that that that we or certainly modern era.
Right? They locked everybody in our homes, completely murdered the the, the middle class, printed more money than anything. And after they had spent all of this time building out the euro dollar market, dollarizing the entire world, and then they inflated it, you know, away, and it's gonna continue to away. And we're not we're gonna see the effects of this, you know, for our entire lives. But this was a plan.
This was done. And I know that's controversial and maybe get to demonetize. I'm sorry, Marty. But I I think it really was if you look at the you look at the the the plans. I mean, they they planned this before the virus happened, and then they locked everybody down.
And what else happened? You know? It's very obvious to look at 911 and see, oh, wow. There was this huge expansion of the intelligence state, because of regulation that happened from this event. The intelligence state expanded in a very disturbing way, extremely so, under Trump, and and and in during the lockdowns, and who was able to kind of run-in this crisis, you know, run fiscal policy, who was able to run the data for these for these, the implementation of operation warp speed, the deregulation of, you know, pharmaceutical products.
You know, who who made 1,000,000,000 and 1,000,000,000 of dollars, and who got crushed and who got, you know, in in in some cases, literally killed. It it's an absolute travesty, and and this was done for money, and it was done, I would say, arguably, as sort of a controlled demolition to force us all into the new financial system. I know that's controversial, and it's a it's a kind of a step to make to be like, wow. This was this really all a plan? And I think I think it was.
When you look at the treasury market, you look to repo market, I mean, this is a decades long, you know, expansion of the monetary debt system. Let's dollarize everything. You know, in the early eighties, we were the largest creditor in the world, and by 87, we were the largest debtor. You know, where did all that money go? A lot of it went to Latin America, this whole Latin America debt crisis.
There was the savings and loan scandal that was heavily connected, to the CIA and the Bush family and James Baker. There were even some connections to some Cantor Fitzgerald subsidiaries in there. We see this huge expansion of debt. We see the Plaza Accord, which was sort of coordinated central banking. We saw coordinated central banking again in 2020.
You know, Mnuchin was the one that recommended Powell, and they all came in there, and they worked with central banks around the world, and they all came together to say, let's all go to 0, interest rates. You know, we have to fight pandemic. And then what happened? The US raised rates faster than ever in history, and completely broke the bond market, and, the dollar is stronger than ever, even though it's inflating like crazy. And we printed, you know, how many 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars and basically handed it to BlackRock.
These people are financial manipulators. They are currency speculators. They understand this stuff better than anyone. They know how to launder profits. They know how to manufacture consent from the people.
They started building out social networks. They started building out blockchains, you know, issuing private bank digital currencies. They basically set everything up in this incredibly perfect way. And here we are with this huge populist movement running in. Trump has more of a mandate than ever.
And he really was an essential part of allowing this coup and this robbery to happen, unfortunately. And the people around him are still a lot of those same people, and here they are. And if you really look at what the implications of what we should have learned from COVID era for some reason, We're forgiving everybody that we just handed the keys to the castle to, for the role that they in the expansion of the monetary supply and the expansion of the security state. And here we are. It's time to hold people accountable.
I don't know why Trump gave Fauci a medal. I don't know why he gave them any power at all. I don't know why they deregulated pharmaceutical, you know, red tape to to to speed things along. I don't know why they let Palantir run all, you know, the data for for this distribution, but now we're here. We have to learn from the immediate history, and we can't get sidetracked by these quick social media pivots and, and this this feeling that we've won, when actually we were just robbed.
Our our entire, like, generational wealth was, you know, maybe not us because we hold some Bitcoin. Right? But anybody that didn't hold Bitcoin before then and has been holding dollars, I mean, they they really were robbed. Our parents were robbed, their grandparents, our uncles or whatever. It's it's it's an incredibly nasty thing that happened, and it wasn't an accident, in in any way, shape, or form.
Speaker 0: Well, it was a wealth transfer that went beyond the wealth transfer that was the 2008 economic crisis. And, you know, what concerns me is that one of the top people, being floated for a treasury secretary position under the the new Trump administration is this, James Paulson guy, who was one of the most successful 2008 criminals and made more money than anyone else, but really should have been prosecuted for the way he did that because the bank he worked with, Goldman Sachs, actually ended up sort of getting prosecuted for it. No one was really prosecuted in 0 8, but there were civil cases, very few. And this, what was the it was, like, called Abacus, and there was another one that Paulson and and Goldman Sachs worked on together. And that was one of the few that was so egregious it actually resulted, in a civil lawsuit even though, yes, no bankers went to jail.
No banks were really punished. There were some fines, handed out, but there was really no accountability. And when you have that scale of wealth transfer and theft happen with no accountability, you can be sure that the same people responsible for that were like, we can continue to fleece the public and steal more if we do it the right way. You know? And so the fact that, you know, he's even he's being considered, you know, for that position, I find very concerning.
And as I understand it, the other pick is Scott Bessent, who is a former money manager, for George Soros, which, you know, doesn't necessarily, appeal to me either or at least doesn't suggest that it will be fundamentally different than maybe preceding Treasury Secretary policy at the end of the day. But again, we will see. Hopefully, it will be someone not that terrible. And there are some people in his camp that are big, sound money people and backing the dollar with something of substance. Maybe something will come of that.
But what has been most telegraphed is is generally been this this Bitcoin dollar stablecoin play, that that we discussed earlier. But given that those people are in the Trump camp, if people want to see something different, they should push to have those people, elevated over people like Paulson, who, you know, used credit default swap fuckery, to make a bazillion dollars at the expense of lots of other people.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Specifically, it was, like, it was state pension plans. Basically, he worked with Goldman and created these vehicles, that had all of these junk, just total junk mortgages and and a bunch of bullshit in them. And he took a negative a short position on them. And then he had Goldman sell them to, like, Arizona state pensions and all
Speaker 0: a good investment.
Speaker 1: As a good investment.
Speaker 0: Is going to fail.
Speaker 1: And they shield it as this good thing. Meanwhile, he has this huge short position on it. And, he's consider it's considered one of the greatest trades ever because he made, you know, 1,000,000,000 of dollars in a day, when when it went under. But it's robbery. That that is that is robbery.
One of the reasons.
Speaker 0: Regular lower and middle class Americans to make the greatest trade ever.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 0: And I don't necessarily see that as appealing when you have over, you know, arguably definitely before the year 2000, but since then, so many orchestrated wealth transfers and robbery of people's wealth time and again and no accountability. And this is the person that you'd like to put in charge of the treasury, and that's been the most floated. The only name that Trump said on the campaign trail as a possible treasury secretary was the Paulson guy, and he's still at the top of the
Speaker 1: at the list.
Speaker 2: If you look at Poly Market today, it looks like Bascent is leading 55% probability.
Speaker 0: Well, better than Paulson, but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Yeah. The PolyMarket play is so interesting. I think the 3rd candidate on there is Jay Clayton. Right? The former, CFTC, the SEC guy.
He's also an adviser to Fireblocks, which is, you know, at one point was going to do, the stable coin issuance for Facebook's Libra. They're heavily connected to the IDF, and Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 0: Israeli intelligence veterans made the
Speaker 2: mean, a mean, a couple of things here. I mean, going back to, like, Cynthia Lummis and Gilderbrand. I don't know Gilderbrand well. I do know Cynthia, and her team very well. And even though she may publicly posture, like, Bitcoin's, strengthening the dollar and all that, I think it is important to take into consideration just like the the rhetoric around Bitcoin being adopted as a reserve asset and thinking of, like, the debt situation.
The government does have a needle to thread if they are going to allow Bitcoin to proliferate, facilitate growth within the United States of individual Bitcoiners, Bitcoin businesses. Because if they send the signal to the market, like, oh, we're dumping the dollar. We're going all in on Bitcoin. Like, they have this massive $36,000,000,000,000 debt problem that is systemically important to a somewhat stable financial system globally. And so I think they have to be very strategic about how they position.
So I wouldn't be surprised Mhmm. If the, the head nod to the dollar is gonna be around for a while is simply just a a a light hedge against potentially rugging the treasury markets, like, in a in a moment's notice. Mhmm. And then, yeah, go back to
Speaker 1: Miller shorting the bond market. There's there's a I think I saw you talking about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Drucker Miller short, Paul Tudor Jones is recommending that people don't own bonds. And so the government is in this federal government's in this position where it's like, we have this $36,000,000,000,000 gorilla in the room, and we need to figure out how to safely, walk it into its cage.
Speaker 0: And Well, I'm sure Howard Letnik is trying to figure out how to do that since he's one of the biggest traders of US government debt.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 1: At one point, you know, like, 70% of all US treasuries were, like, settled through Cantor and Cantor subsidiaries, which is which is totally insane.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And, like, going back to, like, the the co option of Bitcoin, that's what I mean, that's another part of the game theory has been talked about for a while. It's something I've been saying written about. It's that, you don't change Bitcoin. Bitcoin changes you.
And that's the optimist, the eternal optimist. Maybe some will say it as nativity, or gullibleness, but I do would not be surprised if people within the government have seen Bitcoin for what it is. They're like, oh, shit. The this is the thing. We need to basically act to make sure that we are well positioned to not get left behind, and are trying to figure out a way to basically I mean, using Jerome Powell's words, Jenny Owens' words, create a soft landing transition, in which Bitcoin is allowed to flourish.
With that being said, like, yeah, Jill de Brand, particularly, I don't like her position on privacy, KYC, AML.
Speaker 0: Look. She's Hillary Clinton's successor in New York. She was picked by Clinton, and she considers Hillary her mentor.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: All you really need to know.
Speaker 2: So that's, like, I think again, going back to anchoring to accountability, and vigilance. That's I'm cautiously optimistic. Like, that's the other thing going back to Trump's first term. In 2016, like, I'm sure you guys have heard, like, the narrative that he was completely handcuffed. He got in office and didn't know how to operate within the bureaucracy of the federal government and sort of had the the uni party blob forced on him.
And I will say this time around, it doesn't seem like he's learning the lesson. Like, he the the MSNBC. I don't know if you guys are watching it. The night of the election, I clicked
Speaker 0: The for a little bit of I don't think I've ever watched MSNBC.
Speaker 2: I clicked over for the first time in a year.
Speaker 4: I just I heard it too.
Speaker 1: Here. Marty loves MSNBC.
Speaker 2: I just wanted to see what these people are saying. And one of the things that was actually signaled to me, I picked up on, was that Trump's campaign is not being communicating with the White House transition team, which is you're supposed to do for months leading up to the election to ensure that there's a a, a sort of efficient
Speaker 4: exchange power Yeah.
Speaker 2: When, when when the new administration comes in. And then you see I mean, the few appointments that we have seen, Wiles yesterday being chief of staff. I looked her up, her background, and she seems pretty pretty confident. She's the daughter of Pat Summerall in America Merrill.
Speaker 1: That's so funny. Well, sure.
Speaker 0: But she helped elect, Rick Scott, to be governor of Florida, who, was previously a pharmaceutical executive that committed fraud. And in Florida, I believe his nickname, is Skeletor. He's now a senator. And, she was also a big time big pharma lobbyist,
Speaker 2: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: Including for, her, firm, represents Gavi, the vaccine alliance.
Speaker 2: Well, that's that's what makes all this thing this coalition interesting because you do have this sort of, embedded gridlock between the people some of the people behind Trump. Like, it seems like like I'm sure you saw the big pharma execs are all on a conference call preparing for the incoming administration. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, Marty, it's
Speaker 2: like Elon
Speaker 1: Going back. Tesla
Speaker 2: is Going back to vigilance and accountability again. Yeah. Not saying things
Speaker 1: are changing. A 100%. A 100%.
Speaker 2: Like, these are the things I'm looking at. Like For sure. There is possibility.
Speaker 1: You know, I think you're the man. It's just I think Elon I mean, he was building, mRNA tech technology for the CureVac in Tesla factories. He's saying the science is unequivocal, you know, huge proponent for vaccines and and COVID insanity at the very beginning. Obviously, then he pivoted as all these people did when it was no when it was, like, no longer politically dangerous and it no longer really mattered. They all pivoted.
Vivek, you know, also heavily involved in mRNA stuff. You know, this this there's so much pharmaceutical money and lobby in that in that little Avengers group of people that that that people are so fucking stoked about. I know you wanna say something on that. Right?
Speaker 0: Well, I have a a lot to say about about pharma in general. So really since before COVID 19, big pharma had a major issue with what are known as patent cliffs. And patent cliffs are basically where drugs that they had exclusivity on go generic, and they can't make as much money off of them anymore. And there's also a problem. That problem is combining with an r and d problem for traditional pharmaceuticals where drugs that can be marketed under the that exclusivity model, just aren't really don't really they can't really find anything new that's profitable and and works and can pass existing regulations to make it to market.
Right? So what most big pharma companies have done, and it really grew substantially during the COVID era, was that they teamed up with technology firms or smaller biotech firms. So out of that, for example, you saw GlaxoSmithKline team up with Google and made Galvani Bioelectronics on the board with Mansef Salawi, who was later put in charge of Operation Warp Speed, for example. And there's a lot of these team ops where really you sort of have tech merging with pharma to usher in sort of this new era of what are being referred to as precision medicines and various things like that. That was allegedly the motive for the Biden administration to create the health DARPA, which they called ARPA h.
It was considered under Trump as well, but under the name, ARPA. But, nevertheless, it exists. And, what concerns me about that is okay. So in Trump's first term, he deregulated biotech extensively, mainly in in the in terms of GMO crops to the point that, anti GMO organizations and small farmers sued the Trump administration over the proliferation of GMO crops as a consequence of of that policy. So there is a precedent for him sort of unchaining GMO development.
And it's very possible that could happen in terms of medicine since Operation Warp Speed arguably was that. Elon Musk, as Mark mentioned, invested in mRNA technology, but so is JD Vance, so is Vivek, and so are a lot of other people that extensively backed Trump. For example, Palantir cofounder Joe Lonsdale, his VC firm, 8BC, is involved with this company called Resilience that has a lot of ties to the CIA, including the head of In Q Tel on its board. And they started producing all of the mRNA, for the COVID shot or at least Moderna's COVID shot at some point and are you know, have built up this huge enterprise with the goal of creating a lot of biotech, medicines and all of that. And it's very likely because this is a huge thing that it's not just Vance and these guys.
The the big Silicon Valley guys, the biggest ones are all hugely invested in biotech. It doesn't matter if they backed Kamala or they backed Trump. It's it's essentially across the board, and there's a huge push for this. And it's tied up too with, you know, a lot of push from Silicon Valley and their products itself for, like, health wearables or wearables that can be applied to health care, which have troubling surveillance capabilities. You know, you had, like you've all you've all know a Harari during COVID say, once they get it in your body, they can read your brain, and you'll be sent to the gulag for not clapping for the leader and whatever.
Speaker 1: You know? Plea please clap.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's
Speaker 1: why I I'd get like Lonsdale's oh, sorry.
Speaker 2: The early signal, like, Joel Salton being, like, brought in to
Speaker 0: I think that is very positive.
Speaker 1: It's like And
Speaker 0: in mass get
Speaker 2: away from GMO.
Speaker 0: Well, let's hope so. But, again, remember, Trump's first term and, generally, Republicans in general tend to say, we're gonna get rid of the red tape for innovation in the industry. But the problem with GMO crops, for example, is that they're a threat to health. They're an environmental threat, and they threaten small farmers that don't want to produce GMO crops because they can cross pollinate and contaminate, and GMO crops have been used time and again to force farmers into debt slavery, where they were introduced in places in the global south like India led to a rash of suicides of Indian farmers, who were or is this no. It's definitely a thing because they were trapped in these debt slavery cycles with Monsanto having to buy seeds because they can't save you can't save GMO seeds.
Right?
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And then having to buy the chemicals to grow them and all of this stuff. And it's very problematic. So, you know, it can be problematic in that sense when you deregulate something that threatens people's health around you. And I think that's arguable too with some of these, under tested and very controversial biotech, you know, injections, for example, as we saw with mRNA, you know, concerns about shedding, for example, concerns like that. Is it okay to deregulate?
Those things. Not that I'm saying that regulation is always the answer. Absolutely not. But, you know, I think it it could be complicated to do those things.
Speaker 1: Well well, let's let's deregulation is a is a is a misnomer. It it's a red herring. I mean, the idea of what of what deregulation is is it's reregulation and really the way that it works in practice and as we've seen historically is it's king making. They use deregulation with very specific clauses and grandfather, you know, expiry, you know, terms. Exactly.
And so and so we look at, you know, well, how did what happened with Glass Steagall? Again, something Trump campaigned on, you know, bringing back and then deregulated the banking industry even more in 2018 and up the limits from the too big to fail banks from 50,000,000,000 to 250, which had honestly pretty big implications on the regional banking crisis. Not that, you know, you'll read that in the teal funded pirate wires, but, you know, the the the the way that that Glass Steagall worked, it was deregulation. It was. Citibank put a $100,000,000 into, you know, lobbying people like, you know, the head of the senate banking committee at the time, Alphonse D'Amato, who is heavily connected to to Gillenbrand.
And what Glass Steagall actually did was that King made, Citi and Travelers, you know, which became Citigroup to become, you know, this just unbelievable, you know, blob, entity. And, you know, we saw people jumping in and out of the public sector and private sector moving in. But but, really, it it it it was guys just getting rid of red tape and blah blah blah, and this is gonna be so good, this big boom, but, really, it just consolidated and centralized. And I think we're gonna see that, you know, again when we're looking, you know, again, to bring it back to stable coins because that's all I know what to talk about. You know?
The the fucking bill here, these are the same people. And what is this regulation actually going to do? There's clauses in there that literally say, well, if you're already above 10,000,000,000 and you're here and, you know, they they already have these clauses that, you know, will be good for USDC, like Lummis said.
Speaker 0: Yeah. She pretty much said that, didn't she? That that as it's written, it favors Circle over Tether. So, I mean, that's an example of how these bills came Kingmake. Not that Tether we don't obviously have a pretty negative view of Tether, but USDC really isn't much better in there.
It couldn't be deeper deep more deeply tied to BlackRock among other Yeah. Unsavory entities.
Speaker 4: Right.
Speaker 0: But
Speaker 1: and then and then the other big part of this thing is that, you know, the the in in this regulatory, expression is the idea that anybody using dollar denominations are now under the purview, of the regulatory arm of the United States. And that could get really weird, really interesting, like, really quickly. Right? Because why are all these groups like Lightning Labs, like LightSpark, which have multiple connections to PayPal, Libra went and visited with Lightning Labs. When they were working on Libra, David Marcus then goes and leaves and does LightSpark.
They are actively putting dollar instruments into the Bitcoin blockchain. That is what they're trying to do. They're creating all of these ways, to create dollars on lightning. And literally, yes, like Taproot assets, it is in the blockchain specifically. It's misnomer to say it's on lightning.
They're transacted on Lightning, but there are dollar instruments now on all of your nodes. What does that mean then? Does that mean now everybody using Bitcoin somehow is under the regulatory arm of the United States because there's dollar instruments on there? There's a lot of complicated things that can happen from, the way that this is the the Bitcoin space is moving. And like Sailor, this fucking spook, who has Mayo Shattuck on the board of fucking alarm.com, the guy the insider trader, of 911, who it's disgusting, what what what what he did.
It's it's disturbing. He's on the board of Michael Saylor's company. Anyway, Michael Saylor, a total spook, he's coming in and saying, you know, hey. Don't fight the system. Don't be a martyr.
Let's bring dollars onto Bitcoin, and it will be a multi $1,000,000,000,000 industry, and the Bitcoin will get stronger. And, you know, again, he was kind of the first guy to come out and really start this. Hey. Maybe Bitcoin isn't really against the dollar. Maybe they're working together.
And, you know, there's so many people now that are rising up into this space. They've really manufactured consent for bringing dollars on Bitcoin. It doesn't make any sense. It's incredibly dangerous. It's very stupid.
Scaling is not going to be done through dollar denominated tokens. It's stupid. There are other ways to do this. We can create dollar like instruments that don't touch treasuries, that wouldn't be under the purview of this this Gillenbrand Lummis law, like, you know, kind of like in some of the things you guys have been involved with with Fede with Fede. You know, there's there's some things here that can be done.
I'm not sure that e cash is a 100% the answer in any way, shape, or form. I think we need to scale Bitcoin, figure out how to get it to scale. Keep lock small. We are not closet b cashers, but fucking figure it out. What covenant solution are we gonna do?
How are we gonna get it so billions of people can hold UTXOs? I don't want everybody using fucking Aqua Wallet. I don't want them using Tether. I don't give a fuck about that. I don't want them using Liquid.
I'm sure there are amazing people working on all those products, but I don't think that the mechanism is where we wanna go. I don't wanna scale through dollars. I wanna scale through Bitcoin. I wanna scale through Sats, And I think we should be pushing towards that.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I I hung out with Brian Gentry from Lightning Labs for a few hours yesterday.
Speaker 1: He's great. He's super nice.
Speaker 2: No. And I think I mean, that's what I worry about. Like, the like, I hope, like, the people working at these companies, like, Tether, Lightning Labs on Lightning, the tapered assets, I think is a genuine attempt to meet market demand, recognizing that people simply aren't transacting with Bitcoin. They're particularly in the emerging world. They're using stable coins because they don't want to stomach the price volatility of Bitcoin, and that product is an attempt to meet the demand of the market.
And I I it doesn't scare me as much as it, scares you because I I think Bitcoin ultimately wins. And again, it goes back to the problem of the debt, which, like, Bitcoin is a superior monetary instrument in every regard. It's just gonna take time for people to realize that. And, I mean, we can go the the dollar milkshake theory seems to be playing out, and it's I don't think it's a I don't think it's a consequence of, nefarious intentions. It's just, like, pure monetary economics and competition.
I think
Speaker 1: it's absolutely from, nefarious. I mean, the US dollar system wants to spread as far as it can because it needs people to use their instruments. It needs vol it needs velocity. You know, there's a reason why the US again went in the eighties from being the largest creditor in the world to the largest debtor. That was on purpose.
They'd let the euro dollar market build on purpose. They created instruments to build these things. They created mechanisms to spread the dollar faster. You look at, you know, that there's some there's some pretty crazy I
Speaker 2: agree with I agree with that. I think the dollar, like, the the the the market dynamics I'm describing are consequence of this Right. Attempt to push the dollar on everybody.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and I I say this a lot. Like, I really empathize with people. You know, I've been spending time in in South America while working on some of this stuff. And you you talk to people and they're like, oh, yeah.
Tether's amazing. It's great. You know, we love it. That that's true. I mean, I'm not, like, denying that that's true.
But, like, how much of that is because a lot of Bitcoin scaling opportunities were neutered? You know, how much of that is be
Speaker 2: That's that's a quite like, I I would push back. I think Bitcoin has scaled tremendously. Like, it is scaling perfectly. If you look at the amount of value settled on an ongoing basis, it's continually going up tens of 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars at this point. And, again, I think it's like using Bitcoin as a transactional currency with stable value.
Like, people just haven't recognized it as that yet, and so they're using stable coins. Like, I don't think it's I truly believe that stablecoins are an attempt to beat market demand of people who don't wanna stomach volatility. I don't like it. I don't think people should do it, but I think recognizing the reality of the situation is that there is this demand for the ability to send dollars over these networks relatively cheaply, very quickly outside, relatively outside of this regulatory gray area, at least for the time being up to this point. And I I don't worry about it.
Like, stablecoins get to a a $1,000,000,000,000 market themselves. I don't think it really, would prevent Bitcoin's ultimate success.
Speaker 0: Well, what I'm worried about with stablecoins might be a little different than maybe what you or Mark or some other people are worried about. For example, in the case of Tether, they're openly willing to seize, people's wallets at the behest of OFAC or the Treasury Department if they're put on the US government naughty list. Mhmm. I find that very problematic, that if someone, for example, in Argentina, or another country, is holding Tether and the US government decides I don't know. Let's pretend they have a government they don't like.
They do right now. Right? But it's someone else. And then they're like, oh, we're gonna sanction whoever. You know, they can take someone's dollar denominated, you know, stable coins or whatever, and just seize them without any sort of accountability.
And then that way, you know, for as I mentioned earlier about how the US military views the IMF as a tool of financial power, they view sanctions that way too. And if Tether and presumably other stablecoin issuers, but specifically with this, effort to regulate all dollar stablecoins, have have them all be regulated by the US government, there is the potential for the US government to very much abuse that and also use it as a tool for, wonton financial surveillance in the same way that you have people like Augustine Carson's at the BIS saying, we want to have complete visibility into every, you know, cent essentially that people spend, and it will and that we have the technology to enforce that. We want total control. Stablecoins can lead us to that paradigm. And at the same time, I would argue that one of the most damaging things that has happened, in the past several 100 years is the debt based monetary paradigm.
Debt crises have been manufactured by criminals time and again to steal people's wealth all over the world, leading to great suffering for people really everywhere, in ways that I mean, I think people forget that I mean, pretty much in in the case of Latin America, pretty much as soon as Latin American countries became independent, they began to be attacked by banks and started having their fur debt their first debt crises, again, manufactured most of them by the Bank of England or by British banks or the City of London, but that has continued for decades decades. The cycle repeats, and it's happened everywhere. And now, you know, since the Bretton Woods system in post World War 2, you've had the IMF, you've had the World Bank, and these entities, you know, using debt slavery, essentially, to, you know, force countries to do things they otherwise wanna do, erode sovereignty, and, you know, steal from people and and abuse entire populations. That paradigm should not continue, in my opinion. And by allowing it to continue and by trying to, like, yoke Bitcoin, for example, to that paradigm, I think, really would be a loss of an opportunity to use Bitcoin to neuter what is one of the greatest enablers of financial criminality of for centuries.
Speaker 1: A 100%.
Speaker 0: And I think it's going to be difficult to truly liberate people from the criminal system, that runs our government and, you know, most of our world, frankly, if we continue to allow that debt based paradigm to continue and have a particular government that, I mean, I've noted in my book, for example, has been controlled by criminal elements for a very long time. And maybe people think the criminal elements will be less now, but we can't quite be sure, can we? Do we really want the one government to have so much power over people's money, including in countries that are not the United States?
Speaker 2: I completely agree. And that's I mean, it's I mean, we've Matt and I on rabbit hole recap for the last 6 years. But warning, like, people again, it's, like, recognizing that there is this use case that's being filled by these stable coins, but we've been warning for 6 years. Like, these are essentially controlled and get rubbed. Yeah.
At any moment. And Mhmm. That's like, I don't think Bitcoin ever gets a yoke to this table. There's definitely some interplay between the 2, but I don't think the, stable coin markets have any control over Bitcoin, the protocol, specifically.
Speaker 1: They definitely don't. Absolutely not. I wasn't saying that.
Speaker 2: No. No. I'm not saying that
Speaker 0: you are.
Speaker 2: I'm but I'm saying,
Speaker 1: like Right.
Speaker 2: There's What? People need to get rugged. People are gonna get rugged.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 2: The OFAC list number is gonna go up. People are gonna be like, alright.
Speaker 1: But but Bitcoiners might get rugged when if the the price of Bitcoin gets so high and which is, you know, a good thing generally. But these people that hold small amounts and and shittily consolidated UTXOs, and they can't spend them, or it's so prohibitively expensive. And so how can they get them out? They can use, you know, key swaps, atomic swaps with, you know, groups where they they they move into dollars and other instruments perhaps. It forces people if Bitcoin, you know, kinda doesn't necessarily figure out maybe a shared UTXO model or or, you know, Lightning is really cool for interoperable, settlement between, like, institutions, but it's not really that great, you know, for individuals for daily payments and stuff.
So, like, where does that wealth go? Where where does it you know, what what what are you forced to use? And if we leave Bitcoin sort of where it is, with its sort of, you know, perhaps inability to service, you know, the majority of the world, they're going to have to use dollar instruments, because that's the only other thing that we've built out that has a network that's ready, to be able to scale to to that level. So I think that we probably will see, you know, dollar instruments take more of a share out of Bitcoin, unfortunately, in terms of transactional peer to peer volume. That was kind of the point here.
I don't I I think Bitcoin's awesome. I'm less interested in it if it's just a reserve asset, and less so a peer to peer currency. I don't think that, stable coins stop Bitcoin from being able to be transacted. Obviously not. But price dynamics might be able to limit that.
There's an amazing book that came out. There there was a a paperback edition in 2008 called who controls the Internet by Goldsmith and Wu. It came on an Oxford press, And, it talks about in the updated version about how the Internet movement, it was this, like, liberation movement. Right? And in the nineties, it just focused on all you know, John Perry Barlow and all of these sort of declarations of being like, the Internet will dissolve the nation state, and they'll they'll have no ability to control it.
It's gonna be so fucking based and awesome, and it's just totally great, and let's go. And then they spent the next decade, the 2000s, like, begging regulators and governments to, like, uphold free speech and and markets. And it became like, actually, no. The government, or the Internet doesn't dissolve borders like that. It it really doesn't.
And the way that, you know, countries and sovereign nations are able to sort of, you know, fight, and restrict data coming in and out of the country. Of course, there's technology like the China, you know, firewall or whatever, but there's but it's actually lawfare, and it's financial sanctions. And so, like, Yahoo wants to, you know, host Nazi memorabilia on an auction site. This is a real story that happened in in in the late nineties. And France has a law that says, you know, you can't sell Nazi memorabilia.
You would think, oh, well, hey. You know, Yahoo is a US company. Who cares? You know, they can just say fuck you, but they can't because they have, you know, financial, you know, instruments that exist in France that can get pressure put on them. And then they ended up actually pivoting away and not listing these things even in the US markets.
So their their the Internet and technology, even though it's this hyperconnective tissue, it doesn't just, like, dissolve the nation state immediately. And you look at some of the issues. Again, I I really recommend people check out this book. It talks a lot about, you know, the US control over the Internet, and the ICANN system, which was sort of done. You know, we we apparently kinda gave up, you know, sort of root access to ICANN, you know, under Obama in 2016.
It kind we kinda really didn't. It's kind of a little bit loosey goosey. And the US actually has still a huge amount of control over the Internet. We've seen people get their, websites ripped out of DNS for things like Gab. Right?
You know, we've seen that happen. The idea that Bitcoin be just because it can't be diluted or seized, which I agree with mathematically, doesn't mean that the instruments that propagate things can't be restricted. Doesn't mean that the privacy, elements are even gonna be possible with Bitcoin. In fact, you know, pretty much nothing you do on the Internet is is private at all. It's incredibly hard to find any sort of privacy on the Internet.
That's not going away anytime soon. So I think when you see, like, intelligence agencies and law enforcement, you know, being onboarded onto, you know, these blockchains and and of these private issuers, that's not gonna stop happening. These bills, these regulations, as the US moves towards digital currency, it's only gonna get worse. And we have to kinda, like, really take a step back and be like, how actually ready are we for this war, that's gonna happen? Because we're sovereign individuals.
It's cool. We actually probably will make it like us because we have a good amount of Bitcoin. We have a capability to spend no matter where the market goes, the the the mempool. You know, we'll be okay, but a lot of the world probably won't. And and so, like, how do do do we wanna just get rich and just kinda fuck off and disappear?
Maybe. Sometimes. Yeah. But that's not really what I got into Bitcoin for, and that's not what I wanna fight for. So in the same way, I think that we have to be very, you know, not rest on our laurels.
The the the fight is not over. Decentralization doesn't mean unstoppable, and there's no other, you know, granular points. Like, it it is decentralized control, but where does it push control to? To ISPs, to energy markets, to chip manufacturers. Like, there are centralization forces within the distribution of Bitcoin.
You know, and I think Whitney had an amazing tweet a few months ago that everybody fucking lost their fucking shit over, that was like, hey. This sucks. I don't want this to happen to Bitcoin. And I think it was actually demonstrated, an incredible understanding of Bitcoin, that it does go to these granular points. And, we just need to fucking, like, what do we want here?
Do we wanna just get rich? Let the US government get rich. Let Michael Sailor become a pharaoh, and Larry Fink fill the giant pyramid somewhere and, you know, embalm his corpse and Peter Thiel lives to be 10000 years old because he's, like, drinking blood or whatever. Like, do we want that? Like, I don't give a shit about any of those things.
I think they're all financial criminals. I would rather someone that isn't born yet, be able to, in a 150 years, be able to spend a UTXO. That's not just because their grandfather held Bitcoin. Right? I want that to be able to happen.
And I think Roger Ver was wrong in a lot of ways, obviously, technology wise and scaling wise, but I think that there is a truth to let's make this appear to peer thing. How do we enable that? And I know there's a lot of smart people doing it, but I don't think the answer is stable coins. I don't think Because I think it's a centralization force.
Speaker 2: Yeah. No. And I think shout out to everybody working on eCash. Shout out to everybody working on lightning, Noster. So I think I think we gotta stay vigilant, keep everybody accountable.
I think Bitcoin is scaling given the the giving what it has at its fingertips. Right now, people are obviously focused on covenants. It's great to see arc launch. I did the, the test run of seconds arc implementation. That seemed very promising.
Somebody just came out with a 160 bit. It's apparently maybe the
Speaker 1: Oh, the collision, the covenants.
Speaker 2: Covenants without without a soft fork. And so that's why we're discovering how Bitcoin works as time goes on too. And I I don't know. Again, maybe I'm eternal optimist, gullible, naive.
Speaker 1: But so am I. I don't I don't I don't think I I think optimism is great, and we need optimism. Otherwise, we wouldn't be doing any of this.
Speaker 2: But we also have to no. No. That that's why I love YouTube. It's because, like, you also have to be aware of how you can be attacked and have the absolute life.
Speaker 0: Yeah. We get accused a lot, of being doom pillars, and offering no solutions and all of that. But, really, I mean, you know, I feel like at least in in my case, and I I believe in Marx as well, but I don't wanna speak for him. You know, my views have been consistent ever since I started going on Bitcoin podcast about, you know, fuck Wall Street and fuck the state. And I just haven't really, changed that, but maybe some people have, you know, different opinions now that there's been an about face from Wall Street and also the government, as it relates, to Bitcoin.
And I think there is a reason that prominent stablecoins, like Tether, have tried to cultivate ties, in a favorable perception among Bitcoiners. And, I would really hope that people would not be fooled by that and would remember, for example, the outsized role of Tether in FTX, for example, which seems to have been rather drastically memory holed, or the fact that they've openly partnered, with the FBI, which, you know, runs war on domestic terror stuff and does all sort is essentially a cover up agency, for the mob, basically, as opposed to actually being a meaningful law enforcement agency and creates their own terror plots that they then Did you see the one from this week? Larger bullets budgets. Mhmm.
Speaker 2: Did you see the one from this week?
Speaker 0: Oh, the the the
Speaker 2: the tax. Guy?
Speaker 0: Yes. Oh, what? No. I didn't.
Speaker 2: Oh, Monday, right before the election, they're like, oh, we caught a domestic white supremacist terrorist who's gonna bomb the, the grid system.
Speaker 1: His name, Joe Rogers.
Speaker 2: Luckily, he was co conspiring with 5 FBI agents. It's like, what the fuck is going on?
Speaker 1: Oh, no. Well, they they
Speaker 0: they do that to justify, you know, expanding their budget and expanding their powers. Look. You need us. We stopped terrorism, except we, like, told them to do it, and we gave them the gun, and we gave them the bomb, and we told them it was a good idea. And we were his only friends.
We weren't really his friends. We were feds. I mean, the
Speaker 2: It happened. So many examples
Speaker 0: of that. So, yeah, Tethr thought it was cool to team up with them and the Secret Service. And the Secret Service is part of the World Economic Forum, PAC that's trying to end online anonymity and online privacy. So, that's fun. Mhmm.
Right? And, you know, again, I think, you know, the this this effort to sort of use stablecoins to manage US government debt. The problem I have and I under I I can sympathize a little bit with the idea we don't want the dollar collapse because that causes economic instant I mean, yes, that's obvious. But the problem is when you reward criminal activity from the private banks and the central bank, that has been going on, well, really, the Fed's entire history and, really, arguably for the private banks as well, they will continue that criminality. Mhmm.
And if we allow them to do that, they will do it in the next iteration of whatever monetary paradigm they're poised to introduce with all digital, you know, currencies, and and things of that nature. And I don't think that the bankers deserve our trust.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: They rob us, and they've never been held accountable. They've never given the money back, and they they keep screwing us, and finding new ways to convince us to trust them. And, I I think it's bad. I think that slavery is terrible and should never ever be used again. People should do their best to do everything they can to really root it out because debt slavery is slavery at the end of the day, and there's been a global effort to hurt us into a slavery system.
Mhmm. So let's not give it to them, please. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 1: And we we're we're criminals now. They just haven't written the laws. Like like, we've just seen that. I mean, as much as we wanna fucking talk about how badass Bitcoin is and all this stuff, it's like you know, there's nothing that Ross did necessarily that was illegal, maybe some things. But, but but but for the most part, those legislations and those laws came out, like, kind of through discovery in this weird way of, oh, actually, no.
That is illegal. Actually, it is illegal for the tornado cache people to do what they did. Actually, it is illegal for the samurai guys with to exchange prime numbers? To to to a right code that lets you exchange prime numbers with yourself? I mean, the samurai one is really insane.
I think there are some things you could argue with the Ross stuff. Maybe that that that was true. Obviously, I think he's a hero and and and and fuck the state, obviously. But I think the samurai thing is really interesting. It's like in the tornado cache.
Like, they wrote those laws, that it wasn't illegal what they were doing when they did it. And it's certainly not illegal just because you write a speech, you know, you write code and then someone uses that code to do something bad with it. It's not illegal to make a gun and then someone uses that gun and shoots someone. Obviously that's bad. Did we disconnect there, or are we are we still here?
We're still here. No? Oh, great. Sorry. Obviously, it's, you know, it's not illegal to make a gun and then have someone take that gun and do something illegal with it.
The the the maker of the gun isn't responsible. Somehow that's not the case with digital asset mixing. And I think that that's, you know, without privacy, you know, I think a lot of this, you know, anti state stuff, you know, kinda goes away, unfortunately. We need privacy. We need to figure that out.
And they're gonna just move the laws, to arrest, you know, the good people that are working on these on these projects. And as they sort of begin to, you know again, what I really think is what is happening with the stable coin play is extending the regulatory reach of the US government by saying anyone that touches a dollar, is under our jurisdiction. While they just spent the last 30 years spreading the dollar, all across the world, it's it's the the globe is dollarized. And so now they have jurisdictional, you know, rights over everybody, and they can, you know, make up the rules and say, well, hey. If you did this without KYC or whatnot, now you're a criminal.
I think it's it's a scary precedent to drop down into. And so I think as much as we need to, you know, press to get our heroes out that that did get arrested, we also need to sort of, like, establish that this is speech. Yeah. And this is something that needs to be defended, you know, from the amendment level. And that can't be applied to people outside of the United States.
It's it is ridiculous that Roger Ver was arrested. That's good, outside of the United States. It's it is ridiculous that Roger Bair was arrested. Let's give, let's give props
Speaker 2: where props
Speaker 1: are due to some people
Speaker 2: on Wall Street, particularly Ross Stevens of Nydig who really stuck his neck out there and wrote a white paper about why Bitcoin is speech that should be labeled as such.
Speaker 1: And it's funny, and he quoted all the inscription shit, that, you know, apparently, it's like CCP or whatever. I've just heard some absolutely ridiculous comments on some of the ordinal stuff. And I don't give a shit about ordinals, but I like the inscription stuff, and and I think that it is speech. And if if maybe Bitcoin is going to be used, in, to empower the state, well, hey. Maybe we can invert some of that stuff, and we can publish ridiculous things on it and and and and make some cool things happen, with people like us that have Bitcoin that that can kinda use it in a in a in a dissonant way.
Speaker 2: And I think that's the big question. The big hope is that, is Wall Street going to use their will to bend Bitcoin? Or is Bitcoin gonna use its will to bend Wall Street to act in a more, free freedom oriented fashion? I have to get on a call. We need to do another episode soon because in your latest piece, you mentioned light sparks UMA, which I think is actually a big problem.
It needs to be highlighted and talked about and avoided.
Speaker 1: I agree. And, Martin, it's ain't man. You are the man. I agree. We'll do a whole rip on that shit.
We need
Speaker 2: to catch up on that. I've gotta hop on this call. Thank you guys for doing what you're doing. Let's do it again real soon because I do wanna jump into that topic specifically because I think that's something that that people should be aware
Speaker 0: of. And Sounds great.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Make America great again, baby.
Speaker 2: Make America healthy again. Joel Salatin. I'm gonna say Joel Salatin. I saw that. I was like, alright.
Maybe maybe
Speaker 0: we're gonna
Speaker 1: get something here. Yeah.
Speaker 2: Let's do it,
Speaker 0: baby. Peace and love, freaks. Okay.
@TFTC21 - TFTC
Jim Cramer: “Mr. #bitcoin is about to go down big.” The bottom is in.
Video Transcript AI Summary
I can't be part of something where Bitcoin is about to decline.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I just can't get on the I can't be in something that where Mr. Bitcoin is about to go down bit