5th Generation Warfare Used Against You | Dr. Malone

have had. Super informative and it's super important. We talk about what fifth generation warfare is, where it got started, how it evolved from first, second, third, fourth, and fifth, lots of examples of how it's being used. We start talking about the sovereignty. Can you be sovereign in a

world where this is being deployed against you? We talk about how to defend ourselves against this, what some of these covert topics are, like limited hangout and then we talk about, like I said, how to defend ourselves, how to push back, how to ultimately win. I mean, this was an amazing conversation and it's one you don't want to miss. So Le'squad just jump right in with doctor Robert Malone. Doctor Malone, thank you so much for joining me today. It's a pleasure to have you in the

studio and I can't wait to dig in. You're looking You're looking great in your brand new studio. So you know, I've been following your work for a long time, A big, big fan of your work. I really like the approach. It's a it's like an it's a common sense approach that should appeal to most people. I know you're kind

of one of those. You got thrust into the limelight I think through Joe Rogan, and then you got censored and you got deleted, de platformed, and so you've kind of been at the forefront of this, and so I've been following your journey. Your substack has been great. We'll link to that substack down below. Every So you're a doctor, right, you were the inventor of the mr Anda vaccine. But the technology, the technology, the technology or not these vaccine Yeah, sorry,

the technology platform. But I just want to I think I listened to you in some other interview where you talked about your extensive career and the work that you've done. And I believe that you said you maybe had interfaced with some intelligence communities in the past. Maybe touch on that if you have some experience in that. Yeah, So you cannot be in by an offense without having touch points with the intelligence community. They're all through and through it.

The tech that was involved in these products, injectable products that we are all familiar with, was advanced the MR and A tech was advanced through major investments from DARPA. DARPA is the Functional Arm for Product Development and New Technology Advancement of the CIA. That's what they do. They developed the srs of anyone. They actually did invent the Internet, and they have an investment arm called in q Tel which is funding a lot of the build out around

this new product. Technology were indirectly referencing because this is going to be on YouTube. And so in my case, I was brought into this bizarre world of by a defense at a key point in time when it kind of really jelled, and that was after the anthrax attacks, you know one as well as the towers coming down, and I had just launched. I'd been an academic and an academic entrepreneur and had just launched a new company

using Norwegian capital called a Noovo. It was using a different delivery technology than the positively charged fat technology that we know of with these current products and planes at

the towers. The investors pulled back, they thought it was not a good time to be investing in the United States, and I was left high and dry and took a job with a company that had just acquired the contract for all bio defense products for the US military for what we call advanced development, which is taking it through

clinical trials to licensure. So I work there as an associate clinical director, which means that I basically had my hands in every type of product drugs, antibodies, and vaccines that had been in the pipeline for development by the US Army, and that at that time was very much integrated into the intelligence community. The intelligence community is basically set into most of the leadership roles all through the

bio defense enterprise. And prior to that, remember the bio defense enterprise as it exists right now used to be the biowarfare enterprise. Just a fun little fact. The US government probably spent well. The argument has made that the US government has spent much more money on biowarfare than it is spent on nuclear warfare. Much of the modern infrastructure of biology as we know it is really the consequence of massive spending by the US government in biowarfare

and biowarfare technology. These are all things that I was unaware of at the time. I went into that position as a clinical director, and then pivoted to really changing my whole career thrust, getting out of academic discovery research

because it was just writing papers. You weren't ending up making products and focusing on advanced development and over time, at one point I ended up with a business partner who is a retired CIA agent and retired US Army colonel who had been in charge of some of the major bio defense programs for the DoD and he introduced me to a variety of other people that were in

the intelligence community, CIA or otherwise. And this includes Michael Callaghan, who is arguably our top expert I now know because of Whitney Webb's reporting. Her article about Michael titled darpest Man in Wuhan is a classic. I had no idea of what Michael's long history was. He's just I just knew him as a brilliant scientist, physician who had deep knowledge in expertise and connections in the bio defense industry.

I only later came to understand what his role was in gain a function, research, and all the things that relate to the current threat. I also knew that he was advisor to multiple presidents and that he was dropped into a variety of hot zones over time. And I first really worked with him during the Abolta outbreak, where he was stationed in Africa and at the forefront of pushing forward a variety of new therapeutic products, including antibody products,

and as I recall, testing RAM disappear. Initially and from Michael and my old business partner, I met other people that are throughout this network, one of whom is currently the director of the international organization called SEPI. So I've continued until the last three years, and really about when I started speaking out, when I went on Brett Weinstein's podcast,

it was actually the big transformational moment. Continued to work closely with the Department of Defense, really at the intersection of industry and the government, and became quite a specialist in solving problems, complic problems for the government and assembling teams and getting them funded to move projects forward, typically in the bio defense space, but also in other biologic products. So there's a short summary of my touch points. I'm

not Cia. I'm not trained CIA, but I've dealt with these folks quite a bit and learned how to navigate a world in which many of the players are trained liars. And in order to do that, you have to be really adroitit at discerning the tactics that are used, like limited hangouts and like a redirection and all the other strategies that they use to obscure truth and redirect you away from things that they really don't want you to know about. That's great, and um, so you've been around,

you've navigated through this, you've worked closely with them. And I think also, I mean, you're you know you're you're

an academic and your clinical researcher. You've written extensively, and so all of those skills also allow you to kind of dig into the data, pass through the data, makes sense of it, and then write about it, which I think all also leads into what you're doing today, which I think is great and it explains why your articles that you've been putting out are so good, because that's what you've been doing for so long. So I appreciate that.

But there's something that really caught my eye that I want to kind of dig into and it's something that I think everybody feels. Maybe they don't see it, but they feel it. And again, you were a sort of a victim of this. And it's something I've been talking about for a long time where I believe that the next war isn't maybe a hot or kinetic war, it's a war of information. And so you've been talking about something called the fifth generation of warfare, which kind of

echoes kind of like what I was saying. I hadn't really thought about in those terms. So let's start on that. Would you define what this fifth generation warfare is so that it's not my name, by the way, it's some

people get confused about that. I just want to be clear in their general General Flynn has a new little paperback out that's really small that you can order, easy to get through, written for common lay person language, and there's also a great summary that's more academic, quite a bit longer, that you can get as an ebook on Amazon called five GW. And a lot of people get confused. Five GW has nothing to do with cell towers. It's just an abbreviation for fifth generation warfare. It's a misnomer

to call it a generation of war. It's really a gradient of war, and you can think of, for instance, first Gen or that first gradient being swords and knives in combat on horses, and you have battle line spears, that kind of stuff, and you have centralized control and

you're battling over territory. Second generation is essentially the Civil War in the United States through the First World War, where you had kinetic weapons, battle lines, you still had central command, you were still fighting over territory, and you have propaganda, but the propaganda is not the main thrust of the warfare activities. Third gen war can be thought of as the innovation of the Germans in the Blitzgrieg.

One of the key things the German did, and people often are not aware, the Magino line in France was actually superior technically to the German Blitzgrieg forces. But what the Germans had was they allowed tactical flexibility at the commander level, so you had a general strategy coming from above, but you had tactical flexibility in the field. Think Rommel. So that's kind of a key characteristic of third gen

warfare is you still have propaganda. For instance, the Ghost Army, which is still one of the main psyops propaganda divisions of the US Army based in Port Bragg, about eight hundred soldiers derived from that. So we had the Ghost Army deployed to distract the Germans from the landing in Normandy. That was the inflatable tanks and there was recordings of artillery movements and those kinds of things that were used

as part of that psyops. Fourth Gen is basically what has been developed in response to the fact that we now have superpowers and really one dominant superpower currently, and so it's a strategy developed for asymmetric warfare in Syria, in Afghanistan with the Taliban and of course Al Qaeda as examples great examples of fourth gen warfare. I don't think the US Army has won a single fourth gen conflict.

In fourth gen warfare, you have even more of a presence of propaganda, and the goals are still tactical control of territory, but there's an increasing thrust on propaganda and the penetration of a population with ideas and use of psy ops and information to convince a population that they should go along with the purposes of the aggressors or in the case of the asymmetric conflict in the case of the Gorillas, etc. But they're still battling over territory.

Al Qaeda was an interesting situation because with the death of Osama bin Lauden, you lost that central control and what happened was that al Qaeda devolved or evolved into a completely decentralized force. So you had completely autonomous cells all over the world, acting based on general strategic objectives that were coming from some vague leadership, but each was fully autonomous and basically they had the message Americans wherever

you can. We had roadside bombs, all these kinds of things, our fifth gen warfare engagements, and you couldn't really see the army, US Army, the US military, the US intelligence community couldn't really tell what was the center of al Qaeda because there was no center. It was whackamole. They would put down this little cell or that little cell, but it wouldn't extinguish the total activity. Let's take a break on the fifth gen for a second. Just let

me ask a couple questions in the fourth gen. So the fourth gen really kind of went where third generation was like, Hey, we have the battlefield, we know who the opponents, and you know, we know who's at at war here the battle lines are drawn. Fourth Gen then kind of went into this guerrilla type warfare. You mentioned the Viet Cong, So that's kind of where we started seeing this guerrilla warfare, which then kind of led into the terrorism, the war on terror? Is that? Is that correct?

If I frame it up that way. Yeah, that's a fair construction in your right. The war on terror is part of the justification for the further development of the technology that's we now call fifth GENUM. And in fifth gen we start to incorporate in a in a real significant way all kinds of other operational technology as opposed

to kinetic weapons. So this this involves for instance, biowarfare increasingly uh psyops of course, algorithmic control, information war of a variety of different types, including computational aggressive actions against computer networks, and um, many claim the current virus that's circulating, economic warfare, etc. Go ahead, Yeah, um, you know, I remember I remember thinking, you know, obviously we have the famous President Eisenhower on his way out warning us about

this military industrial complex, which I think you have a

different viewpoint on what We'll get to that later. But um, when when we had these wars, we had the Cold War, The Cold War ended, and then we had you know, this kind of period of peace maybe from nineteen ninety to two thousand, like this ten year period of peace and probably raytheon and north of gram and they're all sitting around like, well, what are we gonna do now, right, and like we had this opponent, this this the USSR, this opponent, and when it was gone, then what does

what does the military industrial complex do? And so then it seemed like to me and I remember going back you know, twenty however long ago, the US thirty years ago, and it was like, well, what if we have this opponent, we have this uh, this war with a nameless, faceless group that can't be identified. Uh, we don't know who they are, where they are. We really have no way to beat them. And so it's like we almost have like the perfect opponent for the military industrial complex, one

that can't ever be identified or beat. And I remember thinking that back then, Um, and that's kind of what I guess kind of fits into this right and actually kind of goes into this fifth It absolutely does. Uh. And that's that's a good way to frame it. That's that's perhaps a little more edgy paranoid conspiracy theory version. But there's merit to it. You know, just because it is you're perceiving a conspiracy doesn't mean that one doesn't exist.

I agree that it is very convenient. It has defined virtually the entire world's population as potential hostiles and all of us as combatants. That's another One of the key characteristics of five G is that there is no distinction between military combatants and non military combatants. We are all in the war. There are no boundaries, there are no rules of engagement, there are no ethics, there's nothing that's off limits. Anything goes, and it's all about control. The

battlefield in five G. This is a huge difference. The battlefield in five G is no longer for physical territory. It is for your mind, your thoughts, your emotions, the knowledge that you have. That is the landscape, and it is totally utilitarian. The ends justify the means. Anything goes. Lying is okay, misrepresenting, It's all for the cause. Anything is justified. Yeah. And of course that makes sense because we live in an information world today, right, and so

the war's over information, not so much physical territory. What is the limited hangout? Oh, you mentioned that a couple of times. I'm not sure what that is. Yeah. So we first all learned this intelligence community language from Tricky Dick Nixon when on the tapes he discussed the modified limited hangout with Haldiman Earlikman, which was kind of a fallback position. So the concept of limited hangout, this is a well understood term in the intelligence community, and you

can see it. Once you understand what it is, you can see it being used all the time, often in political articles. For some reason, Politico seems to have a

direct pipeline to let's say, intelligence community thought leaders. What it is is that when the evidence or the information at a topic area that you're not supposed to be knowing or talking about becomes overwhelming and it's sufficiently public that it can't be denied, then what's done is typically to put out stories in which some of that information

is disclosed in an official source as real. And what happens when this is done, everybody says, good heavens, look, they finally acknowledge these things that we've all known and they've been telling us were conspiracy theories. Remember the phrase conspiracy theorist was injected into the popular dialogue by the CIA as a way to cover up what happened with the Kennedy assassination. That's when it entered the dialogue in

the United States media. So what's done is to put out a story that has enough information that's largely already known with some other information, but it distracts you from the real thing that's left that they don't want you

to focus on. There was a great example in a political article that Naomi Wolf and Steve Bannon got all excited about that they were finally acknowledging the weaknesses of the vaccine and talking about it as they were talking about some other things, and talking about the importance of

what had been done by the World Health Organization. And for me, having been deep in all the data and information and politics of what's going on with the international Health regulations and the push to get more capital for the WHO, I pointed out to Steve that this was just another mode if i'd limited hangout or a limited hangout, where they were acknowledging some key things and basically setting up justification to advance logic for the international Health regulations,

and this call for not only additional power for the WHO, but additional capital and that's pretty much what that's turned out to be. So there's an example. There's many examples like sort of like a half truth, where you kind of throw out a little bit of bait enough for them to bite on and then they kind of overlook all the rest just so, and it's a distraction technology. And there's a number of others that are like this.

One of the things, I mean some of them. One of them in particular is captured in the common comment when you're over the target is when the flak is hardest. You can think of it as if topic areas that they don't want you to talk about or discuss are surrounded by an electric fence, and as soon as you get close to those topics, you'll get a shock, you'll get fact checked, there'll be a nasty article written about you,

whatever the thing is, you'll get censored. Those those are all indicators that you can use to tell where indirectly,

where there's topic areas that are highly sensitive. One of those, for instance, recently is Nordstream one and two and the Seymour Hirsh article that was put out in which Seymour Hirsch finally said the obvious that everybody has been talking about and acknowledging, but no one has felt it was okay to actually say regarding the role of the United States in blowing up this gas supply for Europe and truly setting Europe into a dark winter, that was forbidden

to be discussed. And yet the president himself had basically said we were going to do this if if Russians invade uh and they did it, but then they acted in all the press, it was forbidden to even discuss it. So, um, we have this situation, to your point, conspiracy theory kind of thrust into the mainstream by you know, during this the JFK situation, which by the way, conspiracy is real. M Sam Bankman Freed, the founder of FTX Exchange, just

got an additional yesterday. I believe it was like twelve additional counts of conspiracy charge. So it's actually a thing, and it's actually illegal, and so it does happen, and then we have so then we have these half truths, these limited hangouts coming out, and then we have the constant line and the constant gas lighting, which is called, to your book, is called lies my government told me.

And so we have that. So the lies, the half truths and then you add in the censorship, the electric fence, so to speak, and what is that going to do to us? Mentally? Of course we're going to lead to wild speculation, right, Like truth is found through open, honest dialogue, and so there's a saying it's as a and that's also how trust is developed, and trust exactly how trust is. There's a saying that ripping out a man's tongue doesn't prove him wrong, it only proves you have something to hide.

So when they shut down the conversation, well, what do you not want me to know? And instantly we think about that. Right, Let's think about the meaning of the term sovereignty, which is often key in many of our communities. Many of us think and value and cherish our sovereignty, our individual sovereignty, our sovereignty is a nation state. What

is the meaning of the term sovereignty? Does it even have any meaning in a world in which you're having highly advanced psychops technology deployed on you to control what you think, what you believe, what you feel. Mind is no longer your temple. You have no autonomy, you have no sovereignty. The term, the concept becomes anachronistic it's completely obsolete in a world in which every single thing is weaponized. Yeah,

that's true. I like to think of the word sovereignty as me being able to direct my life as I see fit. But to your point, if we can't control our own minds, if they're constantly feeding us, brainwashing us, propagandianizing us, then maybe I don't even know how to direct my life that way, because I'm probably directing my life in a way they want me to go. Yeah, and you can. This is what makes the five GW, the fifth Generation Warfare battlescape so tortuous is because everything

is moving and shifting. You can't be confident in anything that's under your feet. There is no solid ground. Everything is totally flexible. You have no underpinnings that you can really latch onto. Everything is fluid and plastic, and you have these various strategies, particularly as you step into social media, where I assert, for instance, Twitter, all of these social media applications are weapons and they're also battlescapes that Twitter is both a battleground and a weapon. It's not really

so much a business. I think Elon Musk is grappling with that fact right now. And it's actively used to control in a variety of ways everything that you think can do if you're engaging on it. There's a saying the only way to win in fifth generation warfare is not to play. As soon as you engage in any of the public sphere, now, whether it's just listening to CNN or engaging actively on TikTok, you are involved in

a battlefield where everything is carefully crafted and managed. One of the most elegant example the cascade of events that happened after the Project Veritas Visor interaction with that honeytrap of the young global director for mr Anda vaccine strategy, and to just illustrate it, and it illustrates the power that's available to these very large transnationals like Visor or black Rock or Vanguard, all these entities and the World Economic Forum of course, is that within two hours of

that drop, everything about that young man was scrubbed from the Internet and rapidly got scrubbed out of the way back machine. So the wayback machine has agreements now with the US government that they will pull things off that are sensitive according to the US government. Absolutely, and that's

been going on quite a while. It happened with the Hunter Biden laptop, and after it was determined that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, all of those stories from the New York Post, etc. Were scrubbed from the way back machine. And then when it became a public knowledge that it was in fact what it was purported to be, it was a genuine artifact, then the wayback machine got caught putting those stories back in. So in the case of Fiser, they completely scrubbed the web.

They shut down any ability to interact with their websites unless you were somebody they were following. And then a wave of bots and shoals descended on all the social media sites that were asserting that the young man didn't even exist, that this was all a deep fake, and

that Project Veritas had been fooled by some third party. Fortunately, it came out very rapidly from other Fiser whistleblowers that in fact the org chart did show this young gentleman in exactly that position of two or three down from Borla, and many on the Internet had rapidly gone and grabbed all these artifacts of his education and prior activities, his LinkedIn page and profile, etc. And so that could be counteracted that storyline very quickly by all these other artifacts

that had already been acquired in that short period of time when Fiser was scrubbing it. Then Fiser's pr went completely silent until that Friday, as I recall, it was before a three day weekend, when they released a press release at eight pm, so after the closing bell on Wall Street, before a three day weekend, in which they essentially acknowledge that what the gentleman had said about gain

a function research was true. That shows the Oh and then the other thing that was lovely was The Daily Mail, one of the largest English language publications in the world, put out a story about this almost immediately after the Project Veritas video drop, and it was removed from the web within about ten minutes. That is power to completely control the information stream and counteract it in almost real time.

That's fifth gen warfare, and no one is there's no way that you can trace who was responsible for that. Was at m I five, was at Feiser, was at the US government, There's no way to know. Another key aspect of this is, if you think about it, what have been the most authoritarian responses in terms of nation states?

Which ones seem to have been the harshest well, I argue that it's the Five Ice Nations, this large international one, the one of the longest lasting and most powerful intelligence consouris in the history of the world, which is Great Britain, US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. All of these countries have reciprocal agreements wherein, for instance, the CIA can do stuff to British citizens that the m I five can't. M I five can do things to American citizens that CIA can't.

And for instance, it appears that a lot of the edits on Wikipedia that have been so aggressively promoted, just not to myself but to many others, are all coming from a sock puppet called Philip Cross. Philip Cross somehow posts seven days a week, twenty four hours a day and modifies Wikipedia sites with that schedule and has been linked directly back to m I five. That's what we're dealing with. In the UK, it's the seventy seventh Brigade,

which has a member of Parliament. In the US, we have multiple psy ops teams from the US Army and we have foyed documents now that have been in the lay press from Australia and absolutely quite a few from Canada and the UK, including from the Nudge Unit quote unquote from the UK. Wow, this goes deep. This goes really deep, and I think it's it's easy for people

to see and back to that. I mean, I think just today I even saw another article pop up where fires are saying that we didn't do that sort of a thing. And then also James O'Keefe all of a sudden found himself ousted from the company that he founded. That's I think we're a long way from getting to

the bottom of that story. And that was a great lesson in Another key thing that entrepreneurs need to keep in mind is your board, particularly for nonprofits, is a very dangerous thing, and if you don't control that board rigorously, you're at risk. And that risk seems to manifest most often when there's a sudden period of achievement. It's very paradoxical, but you see it again and again and again with

these nonprofits. Yeah yeah, all right, So, um, I mean, you've made this bigger and even maybe more scary than I had even even originally thought. And well, we haven't even talked about the Trusted News initiative, which is controlled all right, let's talk about let's talk about the Trusted News Initiative then, So the T and I was my first insight in some have credited me with the one being the one that really brought it to common attention.

Trusted News Initiative was set up in theory to counter Russian disinformation intrusion into elections, and in twenty nineteen it was transformed into also focusing on those that were spreading

vaccine disinformation and causing vaccine hesitancy. Remember, all of this propaganda and psy ops was gamed out in Event two, a one at Johns Hopkins in what's a well known CIA spook shop, in a series of war games that were sponsored by here I should hit the rim shot on my roadcaster sponsored by Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum, and they basically pre gamed out all of this stuff, the propaganda strategies, the authoritarian responses,

all based on the thesis that we would have a highly lethal pathogen and a highly effective and safe vaccine. But the Trusted News Initiative was transformed from a election integrity to resisting vaccine disinformation and misinformation. And it is functionally a trade organization for big tech as well as for all corporate media, So they all belong to it.

Agency France Press, you know, Google, Yahoo, everything, they all belong to this organization and it's laid out a series of rules in which anything, they're the ones that originate the logic that if somebody is speaking things which are different from the truth being spoken by the World Health Organization or your regional health authority in our case here

in the United States, that would be the CDC. So if you said anything that's different from what the WHO or the CDC says about any kind of a public health or those medical product that they inject with a needle, then you're deemed as a spreader of miss or disinformation, which of course, now our Department of Homeland Security so kindly has defined as domestic terrorism. So if you're saying things which you're different from what the WHO or the CDC says, you are defined now by our Department of

Homeland Security as a spreader as a domestic terrorist. In the Trusted News Initiative, rules are that anybody who is saying such things should be censored, de platformed, etc. But they allow a little backdoor. Members of the TNI are allowed to write articles that cross those lines, but they're

not allowed to syndicate them. So the Washington Post or the New York Times can come out with a single article like the New York Times did last spring in which it said the CDC has become a politicized arm of the White House and has been withholding information from healthcare providers about the disease and the prophylactic medical product, and and that was okay, but it was not okay for the Washington Post to republish it, or the Des Moines Journal or anything like that, as they usually have

done in the past. So that's the T and I And then I can tell you that in the UK, I was just there again two weekends ago, and gb News is really scared right now. I think it's Mark Stein that got booted out. And that is the consequence. They have basically a censorship board that is semi autonomous from the government. Used to be part of the BBC but has been spun out, And basically they determine what

you can say and what you can't say. And if you say things that the government or this board doesn't want you to say, then you will be disallowed from broadcasting. You'll lose your broadcasting license or those that say these things will be fired. And so what this results in is kind of a forward looking self censorship. Everybody becomes afraid because they don't really know where the boundaries are, but they darn well know that they don't want to

get deep platformed. Then the other thing that's going on in all of this that gets overlooked by everybody. I was listening to a lecture from the founder of the Babylon b and he really wasn't even thinking about it is that advertising has been completely weaponized. It's weaponized through the Garm Agreement and ad Sense. So this is how

Google completely controls content. Is you cannot get advertising dollars for your podcast or your broadcast unless you comply with the terms and conditions of the Garment Agreement, which includes many of these same terms and restrictions in terms of what information can be discussed or not discussed. This is why YouTube has the guardrails that it has is they

accept advertising that's come through the ad Sense channel. And if you reach the terms of the Garm Agreement and reach the terms of the ad Sense agreements, then you will lose your advertising dollars. They will be withdrawn by algorithm. That's what you're running into. That's why you're seeing these behaviors.

And the consequence, of course, is that conservative broadcasts find themselves selling coffee, structured water, and pillows, whereas you would think that, for instance, many conservatives are quite well off and you would be seeing ads for Porsche's, Mercedes and everything else. In the consumer world. Conservatives buy consumer goods also, but it's the garment agreement and AdSense that prevents that.

Interesting and obviously, as I already said, but being a being a YouTube creator, I'm certainly well aware of that. And those guard those guardrails again even more now you've you've really expanded this situation, and it sounds pretty dire. I can understand this fifth generation warfare too. And one of the key pieces that I kind of picked up on is that, um you don't know where it's coming from,

who's doing it, or even why. So you feel it, you know something's not right, you're not exactly sure why. Um So those are key key tactical and strategic objectives in five GW is. There is no sense central leadership that's readily identified. It's a low energy combat unlike PSAY kinetic weapons. You know, there's no F eighteen s or and one tanks low energy conflict in which ideally you have no awareness even that these ideas are being thrust into your thoughts space, and you have no concept of

who's doing it or why. So, who is the puppet master behind the various manipulations that we can all see in the COVID crisis. Good luck figuring that out. Yeah, they who who's they? Right? Yeah, exactly that's and if you talk to anybody that's retired out of socom, you know, special ops sports, the first thing they tell you is you absolutely have to know who your opponent is. But in five GW you have no idea who your opponent is.

Another thing you had talked about was this swarm consensus and how it operates at this level of like this virtual cast system. And I think basically what the swarm consensus is That again and maybe kind of pours into this point, which is, we don't know who it is. And so now like this swarm say, well everybody's saying it, we don't know where it originated, and so then we're not able to like point blame to somebody. Is that

part of what that is well. That's certainly one of the aspects as it relates to organizational structures and emerging opinions and consensus in decision making in much of American industry, and in particular in social media and places like Twitter, where in the case of the Twitter censorship, in many cases you couldn't you can't really identify, you can't pinpoint

where that's coming from. And in the case of corporate media, you don't necessarily have the director of the CIA telling each journalist what they should do, or some functionary from Department of Homeland Security messaging them, but rather you have these soft, indirect pressures and then this kind of swarm emerging belief system that will come out within particularly certain elites that have a tendency to talk to each other all the time, which is absolutely the case in modern journalism.

With corporate media, we've come to the point where most of the people involved in corporate media have gone to elite schools like Columbia, and they basically have very similar backgrounds. They're often coming from a bicoastal environment. Those are the ones that go into this kind of media, and they have a tendency to all agree with each other and talk to each other and believe that the bubble that

they exist in represents reality. This blends straight into the logic of the virtuals versus the physicals, which is that we have, particularly a new generation coming up. It has grown up in a world in which virtual reality, both in a tangible sense indirectly is the norm, where the belief is that you are whatever you choose to be. Reality is whatever you choose it to be. This manifests in things like the trans movement or furies. To take it an extreme example, you know, you can be whatever

you want to be. To stop you on that, I'm in California and you can imagine. Obviously we're trying to lead the country in the world and progressivism, and in the town next to me, they're putting litter boxes in the schools. So for anybody that heard him say that, furries, now you know what we're talking about. They're literally the teachers are putting those into the student's bathrooms. And so we saw in Baltimore kids can't pass not one single

student could pass math. In Chicago, fifty five schools, not one single student could pass math or reading. But they have litter boxes. Yeah, and so I remember when I was a student and there was a lot of discussion about cultural relativism, which is kind of a big part of what we're talking about. Uh, it was, it was purported, it was, it was kind of advanced. The cultural relatives divism was all fine and good, but there were some boundaries.

There were points at which things would just go too far if you were to accept, you know, everything as being culturally relative. And the boundary that was most often cited was African the African practice of cliterectomy, female genital mutilation. That was clearly a branch too far. We couldn't possibly allow that, that that transgressed on women's rights and should not be allowed. But what we have right now with the gender reassignment surgery makes uh, cliterectomy look like child's play,

so um to swarm. I've kind I've kind of talked about it like this, like who are they kind of like this birds of a feather flock together, right, So like if you look at birds flying in formation, it wasn't like they sat down and planned that out, like Larry you over there and Bob you over there. Like the birds just kind of like happened to flock together.

And so kind of to the point you're saying, like they all went to the same schools, they've all read the same books, and so they all just sort of seemed to kind of swarm or kind of move together, and they and they've come out of bicoastal urban environments largely, so they've had very similar cultural experiences. You're not seeing. This is one of the reasons why that book by the Gentleman that had grown up in I figured what it was Arkansas, where he was talking about a lot

of the issues having to do with rural America. This is around the last election, last presidential election, and it got so much traction. There are hardly any voices that are not coming from bicoastal urban elites in corporate media right now, which is probably one reason why, of many why corporate media is failing as a business model, and these diverse menu of podcasters and other alternative media sources

are becoming the norm. Is it allows people to connect with broadcasters and opinions that are far more diverse and that represent things more akin to what their belief systems are and their experiences are. At the time of this recording, there's new reports that the Biden administration is laying down the United States sovereignty to the WHO for all pandemic response, including not just the response, but including controlling miss and

disinformation during that pandemic response. Apparently some Republicans are trying to amount a charge of pushback on that. Doesn't appear that they may have the legal authority to do that. What's your take on that? So what are the leading Republicans in that? Referring to is Ron Johnson, who's a friend and I was corresponding with him yesterday about this.

He's still trying to get to the bottom and actually asked my help to try to sort out what exactly is the current status of the international Health regulations that are being advanced at the World Health Organization right now, and that supposedly they're going to have a meeting, I think, on February twenty seventh to discuss So the international Health regulations have been put in place for years and years and years, and the White House asserts that they are

not a treaty and that the White Houses the executive branches well within its rights to agree to modifications to those that would be binding but would not require Senate approval, which by the Constitution is required for any ready that's engaged.

And so the White House appears to be very actively deploying a strategy to circumvent authority, constitutional authority in order to enable these modifications that would absolutely seed sovereignty, national sovereignty to this world organization that you'll recall, mister Trump pulled us out of and that many people, I think with good justification assert is largely controlled these days by the CCP and the Bill and Millonda Gates Foundation. Those

are major funders. And yeah, the US is the number one funder and the Billemillon Foundation is the second largest funder for the WHO. And ted ROS appears to have been put in place by Bill and Willinda Gates and by the CCP. These HRS International Health Regulations were first floated I think last February so full year ago by USHHS and they were blocked by a Consortium of African

States and Brazil under its old leadership. LULA is different now, but the objection was the loss of sovereignty under these HRS, in which ted ROS would be able to the Director General of the WHO would be able to declare a public health emergency for any topic he wishes and then mandate what the actions should be taken by a nation state.

So there would be centralized mandates or edicts from WHO as to what the response should be in a nation state to the declared public health emergency we've and if a nation state did not comply, the proposal is that the World Trade Organization would become the enforcement arm because World Health Organization doesn't have any armies or enforcement arms, and so if you did not comply with the mandates from the WHOW, then you would be subject to economic

sanctions through the World Trade Organization. So that's the mechanism that's being proposed, and we got a kind of a foreshadowing of how the mechanics would work with the monkey pox outbreak when the oversight panel, the advisory panel to mister Tedros, first voted strongly against declaring that a world

health emergency. Then it was reorganized, additional members were appointed that were more friendly towards the LGBTQ agenda, let's say, and we're considered to be more specialized in their knowledge about monkey pox and that population those patients. And once again they met and voted nine to six against declaring in a public health emergency, which mister Tedros declared was a tie and that he had to break the tie, which he did by declaring in a public health emergency.

So under these HRS that we originally proposed now have been modified. But even Ron Johnson isn't quite sure what the modifications are. And you mentioned other Republicans. There's seventeen Senators that have signed off on that is all to the bill to keep the White House from basically seating our sovereignty to Tedro's. But under these terms, Tedros could for instance, declare that the United States had a public health emergency of gun violence and mandate actions which should

be taken. This may seem far fetched, but it's absolutely within his power as defined by the IHR and the u n N, who have long had an initiative of working to reduce gun violence and the damage caused in the United States and other nation states that are perceived to have a problem with guns. And that's not that far affixed. We saw the CDC in the United States has already been trying to take that stance that it's a public health emergency. Yeah, because it's all harmonized, it's

all vertically integrated. So that's where that stands and and we do have a executive branch right now that is totally comfortable and advocating this strategy, which is aligned with the Agenda twenty thirty at the UN, which also includes the clause that as a fundamental human right, people have the right to migrate to where we're in the world they wish to live, which seems to be the driver behind a lot of the policy decisions about dropping national

boundaries borders and allowing free immigration across borders such as our southern border. Yeah. Like I said, we've seen already the CDC doing that. Now, just for everybody listening for a little historical and correct me if you think this is wrong. But it seems like under the Obama administration this really kicked into high gear. He went around apologizing to the US everywhere. He's the one that put us into the Paris Accord. He's the one that put us

into the WHO. And then he even got the UN involved. Oh, he didn't put us into the WHO. We were already there, but he advanced a lot of new conditions that were aligned with Agenda twenty thirty for sure, then even bringing the UN into the United States to oversee elections and things like that. And then to your point, Trump pulled us out of the Paris Accord, wanted to cancel funding to the WHO, and then under the next Obama Biden admin the very first day, it was putting us right

back into those things. Yeah, and mister Obama is also the one that has notoriously repeatedly stated words to the effect that it's necessary sent ship is necessary to preserve democracy. This is a different construction of democracy. Underpinning this is you know, we don't have a democracy, just to be clear on that, Um, we have a representative government, we don't have direct democracy. But there's a whole school of thought about that involves redefining the term democracy and its meaning.

Um that is ascribed to buy a lot of these globalist groups. Um, that's talking more about democracy as akin to social responsibility, like with the ESG scores and the social credit system. It's there the word democracy in those circles that have their roots in utilitarianism, and I argue utilitarian Marxism are are using the term democracy in a

different way than most people think of it. But they mister Obama is clearly has a long history of repeated advocacy in favor of information control, in in censorship, in order to preserve whatever democracy is as he sees it, which is completely amethetical to the Constitution. It's it's a complete inversion, but consistent with a lot of the other manipulation of words, very or willing that we've seen all the way through the last three years. Yeah, I love

that you started with that. You know, Um, it's not We're not a democracy of the US as a republic. There I think part of trying to overturn that is trying to call it a democracy. But to the point, to your point, what you would consider a democracy is what the mass wants, what the majority of the people want. And if you don't educate the people, if you don't allow them to find the information, then how can you

trust what they vote on? But even more so if you don't take into consideration what they want, like you know, the Biden administration basically saying all the servatives everybody voted for Trump is a threat to the democracy. But it's like, if that's what the people want, isn't that the definition of democracy? So what is their debt? Well, remember we're also simultaneously in this fifth gen warfare Battlescape. So what

people think they want is highly manipulated. It's basically taking advertising technology and putting it on steroids and weaponizing it. The technology for manipulating what you think you want. You know you crave a McDonald's McDonald's hamburger, good for your health? Hell no, but you crave it because we have all kinds of technology to teach you that you want fries, a shake and a mcburger, right, And it's the same.

We don't. That's why my point about sovereignty in fifth gen warfare, what we think we have in terms of free will becomes anachronistic. It's obsolete. We are highly, highly manipulable and manipulated, and there are no ethical boundaries. The government has politicized every single thing. You can see it everywhere.

Everything is politicized. Everything is subjected to nudge technology famously made you know advanced in the UK, where all information that you receive, the broadcast that you receive, the Netflix that you look at. We talk about wokeism. What that really represents is that every single thing you encounter or touch, or feel or sense or taste is manipulated to an end of a political objective. By some group or entity or persons that you have no awareness of who they are.

But we've seen from the Twitter files that a large number of democratic base operational groups are deeply involved in that. And now we have the deployment of AI right, which has been actively funded by the US government as another tool of propaganda warfare. And as we're looking at chat, GPT and these other AIS that are being deployed that are going to be by the way, integrated into all Microsoft products, YEA looking forward to that. They are all

biased against conservative points of view. They are just another tool to manipulate our mind and thought. But they're marketed as as this independent, objective arbiter of truth, when in fact AI is notorious for what the starting parameters are that you use in launching the program. You can basically get whatever you want out of AI based on how you set up the parameters. It's just another way to

fool people. Just on that note, open AI is not open, it's it's it's closed and they feed it whatever they want to. And so there's lots of tests to show how biased it is. Have you seen have you seen stable diffusion on what they're doing and it's all open source AI and they've been able to compress it down into like a two gig file where everybody could run their own AI. And they're trying to exactly counter this by giving it open eye where everybody could have their

own that we build on our own. So it's worth checking out Stable Diffusion. There was a really good interview with Peter Diamantes and the founder of stable Diffusion Ammad I forget his last name. Amazing interview. Everyone should check that out. But but this is a great segue which you just pointed out to the topic that you were leading into, which is what can you do about it?

What can the average person do about it? And what you just gave was a great example of a decentralized future in which you have independent entities, creating communities, creating applications, creating capabilities that are autonomous, and often a key here is they have to be decoupled from the cloud. That's another one of the great problems that we're now confronting.

Like this studio. For instance, we're I rely on starlink commercial for my up and down and so I'm not going over T mobile or some other application, all of which gets censored, and the my servers and all of the other IT infrastructure here is behind an independent firewall, which we're having to upgrade because of all of the attacks that we get coming through that pipe. It's a big pipe, and our IT volunteers very senior people because

they've volunteered because they like what I say. I guess very kind, but they've never seen this level of attack before. So we're now moving into an environment where everybody has to basically cocoon themselves if they want to have any kind of autonomy or resistance to all this, and we have to live in a decentralized world as much as possible.

This is what George Orwell predicted in one of his early forwards to nineteen eighty four, was that we would all become manipulated through pharmacology into a compliant passive state in a future authoritarian regime of the type that he was envisioning, and that the only way he believed that we could ever avoid that outcome, that eventual outcome, I mean, how pression is that that we're all going to end

up being manipulated by pharma. The only way that he could see overcoming that is to work really hard to build a decentralized society, and that, I think is what

gets us towards the better future coming. There is a potential in the human species that's different from this dark Fourth Industrial Revolution transhumanism singularity, where the idea of Homo sapiens becomes obsolete and we move into a world of Homo deus man as God, and we control our own evolution and we build ourselves as some kind of a bizarre terminator fusion of man and machine and chips and surveillance of our brain waves and all these things that

the World Economic Forum talks about. We don't have to live there, and I think this is one of the beauties of understanding Fifth gen warfare is at the superficial level. If you take the time to read the articles, download that ebook from Kendall sorry it's an Amazon product, and read about it. It's actually titled five GW and Michael Flynn has an even easy it's a super easy reader on a fifth gen warfare. Once you go through that stuff, you'll never be the same. It's like those of us

that have grown up with American advertising. We can see right through a lot of the garbage they throw at us. The poor people in Ghana cants. You know, they haven't grown up with it. It's it's like deploying a nuclear bomb on third world populations, modern marketing technology and kids too. Yeah, well absolutely, But if you lift the technology then you can see through it and you can start to become more resistant. But if you start to work to master it,

then you can deploy it yourself. I was lecturing to a group in Stockholm, thirteen hundred people out on the you know, in the radisson on the water, and talking about five GW in a recent talk, and I made the point that the battle group in Fort Bragg for the US Army that does a lot of the psyops work, he's eight hundred soldiers and there was thirteen hundred people in the audience. I said, if every one of you decides to be a warrior instead of a victim, we've

got them out manned right away. Okay. The beauty of fifth gen warfare is if you learn the technology and strategy and you understand this battlescape, you can choose to be a warrior as opposed to a victim, and I think we can be successful. One of the things that is a challenge for all of us right now is what are our objectives. The issue is when you take a bunch of libertarians, they have a tendency not to want to cooperate with each other by definition. And I

was speaking with Nigel Farage. He actually kind of coached me a little bit about three or four weeks ago, and then on him again two weeks ago, and I asked him about what were the key lessons from Brexit, and he said, the problem was we started off as a bunch of libertarians and we had no understanding or

idea or interest in cooperating with each other. And what we had to do is define a common set of principles that we all agreed on, that wasn't too big, that was forward looking, positive, and then we had to come up with a name for that. And once we had done that, of course, that name was Brexit. Then we were able to coalesce around it and get the job done. His belief is that we're not quite yet there. We don't yet know as a community, a diffused community,

decentralized community, what it is we really want. What is

our vision of the future. I think that is our biggest challenge right now is to come up with a positive vision of the future a morning in America for the world that's different from this terminator, mad Max matrix, ugly thing that you've all Harari and the wef want to quote shape for us in which will in which we'll eat see bugs and uh um uh own nothing and be happy and live in some sort of a technocratic workers utopia in which if they only have enough data on all of us, they can run it through

their algorithms and optimize resource distribution for everybody in the world except for them. Well, I think you know. I'm a firm believer in individualism. I wrote a book in August, released it in August called the Uncommunist Manifesto, and it's a counter two. Ah, you're the one behind that. Yes, I've seen that book. Yep, yep, I'm the one behind it. So appreciate that you've seen it. I le mans send you a signed copy so I'll get your info after.

But but it's a counter to the Communist Manifesto. And obviously we we you know, we oppose collectivism and I push individualism. But I believe that you know, individualism, we should always be concerned with ourselves, but we also share in aligned values. So enemy of my enemy is my friend, so to speak, right, and so where we come together and well, but it's a little more than that, isn't it.

I Mean, we have this Judeo Christian ethic. It's been developed over millennia and time tested in civilization, and for some reason we want to throw that away. This this this gift that's been given to us by generation after generation after generation. Whether you believe it was divinely inspired, at a minimum, it represents a time tested way for humans to live with each other, which is why they want to change history. They don't want us to remember how good it was so we go back to that.

They want us to look back in history as something being bad and evil that we don't want to return to. Yeah, it's it's interesting. So I'm curious and talk about this decentralized future. So that's something that I talk about on my radio show. I call it the decentralized revolution that I believe we're going into. Um. And if you look at this, like there's these all these centralizing forces that are building up the WEF and the who, and you know,

it's all kind of one big thing. And when you look at what's behind the who or the W and don't don't neglect the BISS right, Yeah, the bit you know, the the that's at the top. Right, So we have the the BIS at the very top, and then we kind of have these NGOs kind of in the middle layer. That's kind of way I see it. But so okay, so let's talk about the BISS at the Bank of International Settlement sits at the top. The bankers, and they talk about companies that don't go along with this will

be quote economic roadkill. So they enforced this you talked about, um if if they don't go along with it, they would use the w t O the trade organization to impose economic stactions. But they also use the IMF and they won't give them funding and things like that. So and this this is what's baked into the ESG score.

And what I'm hearing is that with the social part of that environmental social and governance with the governance score, if the executive of your company is donating to causes that are unapproved, your G score goes down on your S score. Apparently, there are rating groups that are circulating that will basically give you the S score that you need if you don't have a sufficiently high ESG score,

you cannot get capital. So, for instance, by definition, if you're in the petroleum industry, you cannot have a good ESG score. Therefore there's no capital available for wildcatting or speculative drilling, or oil exploration or development of new processing plants. That all that capital is not available by the very nature of your industry. In terms of the escore, what I'm hearing is that there are these they're acting as

little mafias. These rating groups are often populated by people that are within those groups that believe they've been disadvantaged. We could call that LGBTQ, and they will come into your company and say, you will either do these things that we want you to do, you will hire these people that we want you to hire. You will down to the level of you will provide free plane tickets so that we can go to protests and rallies across the United States. And if you do that, we'll give

you your high score. And if you don't do that, we'll tank your score. And it's basically a shakedown. And this is what corporate America is facing right now. And none of this has anything to do with maximizing shareholder return or profit or product quality or any the other normal metrics in business, completely distorting it based on Claus Schwab's idea of UM a socially responsible corporate governance structure. Which is why I'm hopeful and optimistic and truly believe

that it fails because it doesn't work that way. But how many lives are destroyed in the interim? Oh sure, sure it's already happening. But on that so on that thread. And I love the fact that you threw out the

BIS and sits at the top. So the BIS and IMF and this economic right and so UM the you know, the government, all governments, the United States government continue to grow at this massive scale, to continue to send billions, one hundreds of billions of dollars to you know who, and now one hundreds of billions getting longer through Ukraine going and getting into the WF, and so all of this money that we don't have, right, we're spent. Well

let's call it. Let's call it what it is, fiat currency. Okay, So, okay, so you nailed it. I'm setting the table here. But you know, so we have this fiat currency. They're able to print money because we don't have it. The deficit, spending billions or trillions of dollars are going into building a perfect prison, right printing money, creating a digital panopticon, to build social credit core systems and ESG systems and economic roadkilling all these things. And so back to this

decentralized future. Then it seems like the key, as one of my favorite economists, Fa Hike said, never be a sound money again until we take the thing from the hands of the government. But it can't be done by force, rather a sly roundabout way introducing something that can't be stopped. So I'm curious to get your opinion on what you think about the best decentralized money, which is bitcoin. Yeah.

So this has been one of the bizarre things about this long, strange strip I've been over the last three years is I found myself in Puerto Rico in Miami and at the Bitcoin conference talking to the whales and getting tutored by Brock Pierce and others in the editor of Well don't don't, don't don't listen to him too much.

Potential downside here is that in one fell swoop, the biss with the governments can make a decentralized bitcoin currency illegal and the argument that's made by the bitcoin community is, well, blockchain allows us to tunnel through that and they can never kill it, and they've tried to kill it in the past and they've never succeeded. Um, I hope you're right. I wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket. And uh, you know, I, uh probably shouldn't even speak about this.

Uh we just dropped another twenty in kugaron. Um you know I think that, Um, we're The evidence seems to be that we are heading into on something of a horizon like a year or less or maybe a few more to a major economic event. There's too many vectors that are that are coming into conjunction, having to do with things like the social security system, fundum illiquidity, and

the bricks strategies. I mean, all we have to do, and the Saudis are already jabbering about it, is move away from a dollar pegged petro exchange to something that's pegged to some other vehicle, some of their token to use bitcoin language, and suddenly we have a huge surplus of dollars washing about in the international account and folks will start to unload those dollars and that is a significant risk for a hyperinflationary environment, which historically I've heard

it's been a pleasure to interface with the bitcoin community because they've taught me so much, but they do have their biases and hopes. But I've I've heard it floated that the real predicate to major social unrest and rise of totalitarianism historically has been periods of financial instability and hyperinflation.

In particular, once you have hyper sure, when you can't feed your family, everything you thought you knew about the nation state becomes obsolete and irrelevant, the legitimacy of the nation's state, you know, hyperinflationary environment goes to nothing immediately, and then you have anarchy, chaos, revolution, uprising, etc. We this the strategies here, and I think this is what

many people. It's not my you know, Ernest Wolff talked about this two years ago that the m one theory of the case is the underpinning logic behind a lot of the actions taken during the COVID crisis has been

to set up conditions for a transition. You know, This is what the term great reset is referring to, in which will transition from the current currency structure to a central bank digital currency environment in which you have to in order to implement that, you have to have a digital ID, We have to have the masters of the universe, have to have all kinds of information on all of us.

They have to be able to control the allocation of this digital currency, and they have to be able to control how we would spend or deploy it, how we would use it, in order to ensure that we have uh, you know, the greatest good for the greatest number, and from each according to his abilities, into each according to

his needs. That's that's where this is all going. And I hear again and again that the coming economic instability that many for C is going to be the ruse under which CBDP is going to central bank digital currency is going to be deployed. Is this aligned with your thinking? So the central bank digital currencies are just fiat currency, so I don't believe that it's going to solve any of the problems. So to your point, yes, we're heading to an economic cliff that's going to be a big problem.

Switching to a CBDC won't help that because it's still just fiat currency. It will be a tool for surveillance and control one hundred percent, So it's really bad for us, but it doesn't help the government. We can see this in Nigeria right now. Nigeria has launched their own CBDC, they call it the e Niara, but everyone had already started using bitcoin and the government's was trying to incentivize people with discounts to use the CBDC, and the people are like, why would we do that. It's the same

Niara that we have now that loses value. It continues to buy less and less goods in the future. So we already have bitcoin. We're going to stick with bitcoin. Now they're imposing the sticks. So they tried to carret, now they're trying to stick. So CBDCs don't help the government debt or the financial cliff that we're heading to. It does help the surveillance state. Back to kind of the piece about bitcoin though, is I was a speaker at the Bitcoin Conference. I'll be speaking there again at

the Bitcoin Conference though. If you're listening to this, come to the Bitcoin Conference then come check it out, and if you want to come back, I'd love to invite you. Be careful of what brock Pierre says, because he talks about blockchain and cryptocurrency, which is a big difference. And so you know the problem going back to Golden by the way, they I was supposed to speak at the Miami conference, but I was considered to be too controversial, and they that's why I ended up just being able

to talk to the way. Okay, well either way, I'll be there. I'm also I saw you at the Freedom Fest last year. I was a speaker there. I didn't get to talk to you. I'll be speaking at the Freedom Fest this year too, if you're happening to be there. But anyway, um, you know the problem. I'm a goldbug. I love gold, I still buy gold, I still talk about gold. But the problem is gold doesn't work in any digital age. And so the the attack vector is

the economic warfare. And so you as a content creator, you know you need sponsors, you need money to live, and so it's very easy to cut off your your your payment accounts, your PayPal account, your credit card accounts. Yeah, that's that was the reveal in Canada with Justin Trudeau and Christopher Friedland, right, And so as a content creator, you could easily set up where you could accept bitcoin directly through and that can't be stopped. Now, could they

make it illegal? Sure, just like they've made drugs illegal and look how well that's worked, right, And so they can certainly try to make things illegal. History shows that making things illegal doesn't really stop them. And when they tell you not to do drugs, it doesn't make you want to do drugs. When they tell you don't have a right to store your money or transact without the government stealing from you, then it sort of makes you want to do that. So I think they do their

own marketing for them. So just in the future of a decentralized world, knowing that the FIAT money gives them the source of all their power, and not only is it the source of their power, it's also their weapon. There's a tool that we have to counter that. There's only one Gold just doesn't work because I can't send you gold right now. So anyway, it's worth it's worth keeping an eye on. I'm so we're I think we're aligned that there are a number of challenges in envisioning

a decentralized world. In envisioning a world of let's say, semi autonomous galtz Gulch entities, um, we could call them

intentional communities. That sounds fancier than Gultz Gulch, but um in a in a decentralized world, which I think is the only way we get to a future that has a snowball's chance in hell of realizing the full potential of the human species is a network to decentralized world in in a sense we can see the outlines of that and occasionally the glimmer of that potential future for humanity in some of the positive aspects of what's happened on the web from time to time, uh, particularly before

it started to be so corporate controlled. Uh. And but as you what, I'm what I'm wrastling with on a daily basis in this mission of trying to come up with a vision for the future that's positive and that's you know, part of why that tagline is in the book is how do we envision a future using a system that has never existed before? And so what I find is when we start talking to folks about this,

what does this future look like? We have to have a token based exchange of some kind, because obviously barter is not scalable. As you're just saying about gold, you know, whether it's gold or grain or other tangibles. It's it's just not scalable. We have to have some token that we can exchange. I agree that bitcoin provides the best

current solution to that. We also have to have solutions that allow the connectivity between these cells or pods or autonomous communities, and that's a real challenge because there's a you know, we talk then we start talking about Web three and tunneling capabilities and what can we do because we really can't afford to build a new web and how do you operate that? And you quickly find yourself in the landscape of where you're going to have to

have some form of censorship. We can all agree that we don't want to have fragments of snuff films stored on our laptops, right and so we find ourselves right back in the same place that has given rise to our current slice of censorship. Hell, And I don't know what the answers are. And when I engage with people, I hear things like, oh, we should set up a think tank to solve that problem, and I feel like slamming my head against the wall when I hear that.

You know, it's going right back to the same thinking and solutions that have failed us. So I think this is one of our biggest challenges. And the bitcoin folks are the closest to grappling with a lot of these things as far as I'm concerned, that they're the most

free thinkers of the freethinkers that I've encountered. But there's still a bunch of intrinsic problems that we have in moving forward to this, And as far as I'm concerned, what I think I can do is help structure some pathways forward for allowing us to help to work on these issues. But when I hear people that come to me saying, Oh, I've got the solution, I generally want to run over. Yeah, Well it's a there's no there's

no silver bullet, right. There's lots of solutions that we need for lots of problems that we have, but certainly dealing with the economic weapon, there's a solution for that piece, but it doesn't stop all the other problems. To your point, Um, I think there's something and I think what you're saying, and I would agree with it's very difficult when we're in an existing system to imagine a new system, and

so what we threw up. What we try to do is we try to think about how can we take what we have and mold and adapt it into this different world, and how does that transition look? But we have to imagine it's just very difficult to see a new system when we're stuck in one. So have you ever read the book by Thomas Kuhne called The Structure of Scientific That's a good one to add to your reading list, given how your mind works. I have not,

but it sounds like a good one. Thomas Kuhne is the one that gave us the language structure of scientific revolutions. He's the one that gave us the language of paradigm shifts. And what happens again and again in systems is they become kind of locked into a given solutions set that

is useful for solving the problems of the day. And then over time it gets optimized to the point where it has achieved its maximum value within that existing system, and you accumulate more and more and more unsolvable problems, which is basically what you're talking about, And then there needs to be what will occur at some point in time is truly transformational thinking or innovation and you will suddenly see this kind of quantum shift or disruption in

the entire system. This is why, of course, all the vcs, I'm sure you have touch points with the Silicon Valley Sandhill Road community while they're all looking for disruptive technologies, because that's basically saying, we're identifying things that will disrupt that structured solutions set that currently exists. And when you do that, then you have this huge explosion of new innovation that occurs, and that I think is going to

be what will happen. But you can't predict when it happens and where it comes from, but you can set up conditions that favor its creation. And that's why I recommend that book Structure of Scientific Revolutions to you, is because there are certain characteristics that seem to be predictive of environments in which these disruptive events can occur. And I think that's what the likes of you and I can do is to try to set the stage to

empower and enable this kind of disruptive thinking. And you know, with problems comes solutions. And I'm super bullish on what happens when millions of entrepreneurs or backs are against the wall. So we're starting to see lots of good solutions coming out and I'm hopeful in that. Man, we've covered a lot of ground. We went way longer than I had intended, and there's still so much we could still so much we could cover, but we'll have to cut it off

at some point. Man, you're a You're a wealth of information. I've enjoyed listening to you. I recommend everyone subscribe to your substacker and a link to that down below, as well as your book lies government told me. Anything else that you want to say kind of to wrap this up or call attention to Yeah, um, it's I think it's really important to not just be dark. And we just talked about a lot of dark stuff, and people that listen to this are going to want to go

out and shoot themselves. You don't have to be a victim. That's the big message here. We have those that have been damaged by various medical procedures, those that have been damaged by various public policies over the last three years, those that have been damaged by the information warfare. You can choose to be a victim or you can choose to be a warrior. And we've talked about ways in which you can become a warrior. You can be empowered, you can fight back, you are not helpless in this

information battleground. If you gain the knowledge of how the game is being played against you, you can become a soldier, you can become a warrior. And absolutely one of the key parameters in fifth gen warfare is it's leaderless. It's completely decentralized, which means you can not only be a warrior, you can be a leader. And a decentralized leadership model is absolutely the most effective in asymmetric warfare because the

unknown shadow opponents don't know who to hit. One of the problems with me being high profile is I take a hell of a lot of the flak, you know. I talked about the recent Cochrane review that showed that masking doesn't work, and the fact checkers were on me like flies because of the profile that I have, which kind of gives cover for everybody else. But the point is that we can all be in this battle, and

I think that's the way we can move forward. I think that's the positive vision that and as George Orwell said, we need to move forward in a decentralized way. To build that decentralized set of solutions so that we don't have to have our children live in this indentured servitude dark matrix like vision. You know, that's somewhere between Mad Max and a Terminator. You know, we've all seen those movies. We don't have to have our kids live in that.

And I think that's that's the positive, is we can be empowered, particularly in this information battleground, that the challenge is to not become the enemy. And there are those who say they do it to us, and so we can do it to them. They lie at us, so we should lie at them. They they breach ethical boundaries all the time, and so we should be able to breach ethical boundaries. And I argue that that is the

road to help. That's how we become the enemy. This is a lesson that's been taught in literature, in the in the Rings trilogy, and in everything again and again and again. So don't do it. Maintain higher standards, respect human dignity, commit yourself to integrity, and build community. Community is the thing that makes us resilient and able to resist all the propaganda and the other garbage that they're throwing at us over man, I love it. That's that's

my message. Don't be a victim. It's dark and scary, but uh and and and and it's and it's and it's gonna be a fight, it's gonna be a work. But what I believe we win, UM so amazing. Like I said, we're gonna link to everything that you have down below. Uh man, what a great conversation. I really appreciate you taking the time. Thanks Mark, it's been fun. I appreciate everything that you're doing. Continue to spread this message.

We're gonna keep pounding the table on this and with that we'll sign it off.